A dairy cow on a smallholder farm in Ol Kalou, near Nairobi, Kenya (photo credit: ILRI/Paul Karaimu).

Should farm animals share our cityscapes with us? While policies are often based on the prejudice that urban livestock keeping is unsafe, scientific evidence shows that poor people continue to benefit more than be harmed by raising livestock in cities. Still, the whole story is complex, and while urban livestock keepers would help themselves, and their customers, by adopting a few basic safety precautions, the benefits to very poor people of keeping livestock even in crowded slums often appear to outweigh the harms, such as the diseases such ‘city cows’ can transmit to people.

. . . Farming has been increasing in many African cities . . . . Dairy cattle are not the most obvious domestic animals to share small and crowded city compounds, but the rewards—including improved food security, nutrition and health—are considerable.

‘In Nairobi, dairying is recognised as a widespread activity, which has led to concerns about livestock being a source of pollution and disease. Hazards undoubtedly exist: a study by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) found that zoonoses (diseases transmitted between animals and humans) make up 26 per cent of the infectious disease burden in low-income countries, but only 0.7 per cent in high-income countries. But in the absence of evidence, policies are often based on the prejudice that urban livestock keeping is unsafe, and it is often banned outright.

‘In 2005, a study was initiated by the University of Nairobi and ILRI to understand the risks and benefits of urban dairying, in order to contribute to pro-poor policy and help create good practice guidelines for risk reduction. The study focused on a diarrhoeal disease, cryptosporidiosis, because of its prevalence in cattle and its status as an emerging disease that was of concern to decision-makers. As a parasite that is harboured in cattle but can affect people, especially the immune-suppressed, Cryptosporidium may be found in raw milk, manure, soil and water, and on vegetables and other foods, as well as other contaminated surfaces.

‘In Dagoretti, which lies 12 kilometres from Nairobi’s city centre, 1 in 80 households were found to keep cattle, with an average of three cattle per household. However, the study found that there was no difference between cattle-keeping and non-cattle keeping households in Cryptosporidium prevalence, no association between infection in cattle and in people in the same households, and that the prevalence of the parasite in people living with HIV was no higher than in the general community.

‘The disease risk posed by raising, processing and consuming livestock products in urban areas was revealed to be less than many people think. For example, most people, including food safety officials, thought that livestock-derived foods such as meat and milk carried the greatest risk of passing on diseases which are harboured by animals.

But although dairy cattle are the reservoir of Cryptosporidium, consumption of raw vegetables was found to be more risky than consuming milk. This could be because untreated cattle manure is used as a fertiliser. . . .

The relationship between livestock-keeping and health is complex, says ILRI’s Delia Grace, the principal investigator in the study. . . . [E]ven when cattle harbour diseases, the health of households that keep cattle may on the whole be better than those that don’t.

Recommendations from the Dagoretti community and scientists, such as—’separate the area where cattle stay from the rest of the homestead, to reduce the contact children have with cattle and cattle faeces; train children to wash their hands with soap and water after toileting and before eating; boil milk; wear protective clothing; only eat raw vegetables that have been properly washed; and keep calf pens clean—were disseminated through workshops, printed materials, community campaigners and an episode of Makutano Junction, a popular “edutainment” soap broadcast on Kenyan TV.’

. . . Grace says, “The risks of food-borne diseases . . . need to be weighed against the economic benefits and nutrition abundantly supplied by animal products”.’

Read the whole article in New Agriculturist: Livestock in the city: Separating fact from fiction, May 2013.

Filed under: Agri-Health, CRP4, Dairying, East Africa, Emerging Diseases, Epidemiology, Health (human), ILRI, Kenya, MarketOpps, PA, Project, Zoonotic Diseases Tagged: Cryptosporidium, Dagoretti, Delia Grace, New Agriculturist, University of Nairobi

Charging Bull (sometimes called the Wall Street Bull), a 3,200 kg bronze sculpture by Arturo Di Modica, near Wall Street in New York City (photo on Flickr by Randy Lemoine).

‘Africa still suffers from a lack of good quality data on livestock that could be used to measure and improve progress as well as inform policymaking processes, scientists have said.

‘Good data are crucial for identifying effective public and private sector investment opportunities, and in helping to improve the livelihoods of smallholder livestock producers in Africa, according to ‘Livestock Data Innovation in Africa‘ initiative.

‘The initiative is jointly run by UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Livestock Research Institute, the African Union (AU) and the World Bank with the support from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

‘At a media briefing on the progress of the initiative, earlier this month (3 May), Ibrahim Gashash Ahmed, manager at the AU’s Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, told the media there is a large amount of data on livestock but the quality is still poor in Africa. . . .

‘And according to Ugo Pica-Ciamarra, an FAO livestock economist, improving the quantity and quality of livestock data for decision-makers, better policies and investments, will not only ensure livestock sector development and bring benefits to many livestock keepers in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also make the sector economically and environmentally sustainable. . . .

“Data doesn’t only measure progress but also improves it,” he tells SciDev.Net. . . .

‘The project is being piloted in Tanzania, Uganda and Niger.

‘It was launched in January 2010 and the pilot stage is due to end in December 2013, but will be extended to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa up to 2020.’

Visit the project’s website and a one-page brief in English or French.

Read the whole article by Gilbert Nakweya at AllAfrica.com/SciDevNet: African countries must improve livestock data, 21 May 2013.

Filed under: CRP2, East Africa, Geodata, ILRI, MarketOpps, Niger, PA, Pro-Poor Livestock, Project, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa Tagged: AllAfrica, AU-IBAR, BMGF, FAO, Livestock Data Innovation in Africa project, SciDevNet, World Bank

Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS-ECA) is working on a web based information system for food and input prices of selected ASARECA member countries namely Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Ethiopia.

The portal provides information in food and input prices at national level and 5 selected market prices.  The food and input price information is standardized and archived into a regional data portal and is easily accessible for use by regional research institutions, individual researchers etc. Currently, the portal contains prices of the following staples and inputs from the five countries: Maize, Beans, Rice, Wheat, Teff, Bovine meat, Fresh milk, Fuel – diesel, fertilizer- DAP.

The food and input price trends supports

1. Analysis and informed policy-making geared towards reducing the high food and input prices.
2.  News about trends of food and input prices from the region.
3.  Provides a regional outlook of the food and input prices

This information is available online http://www.eafpdp.org/ – Eastern Africa Food Prices Data Portal

This data portal is an initiative of the following institutions:

• Ethiopia Development Research Institute (EDRI)
• University of Nairobi (UoN)
• National University of Rwanda (NUR)
• Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC)
• Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF)
• Eastern Africa Grain Council (EAGC)
• Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS-ECA) hosted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

For more information contact:

Joseph Karugia, j.karugia@cgiar.org or Julliet Wanjiku, j.m.wanjiku@cgiar.org

Filed under: Agriculture, East Africa, MarketOpps, Markets Tagged: ReSAKSS

Goat in Nairobi slum (photo on Flickr by The Advocacy Project).

‘. . . [L]et’s consider what it means to raise urban livestock in the developing world, where people are poorer and hungrier, and cities are much more densely populated. It’s a starkly different picture of people and animals living together, and the question of how it’s done has major implications for improving food security and preventing public health disasters.

‘While humans have been raising food animals in their homes for thousands of years, what’s different now is that they’re doing it with so many other humans crammed next to them.

And they’re not just feeding their families: They’re feeding their neighbors, too. Worldwide, 34 percent of meat and nearly 70 percent of eggs are produced in urban areas, according to a 2008 report by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization. In Maputo, Mozambique, for example, a city with about 1.2 million people, 37 percent of households produce food and 29 percent raise livestock.

“Those moving from rural areas to the cities are bringing their livestock with them, often keeping them in close confinement inside the slums,” Delia Grace, a veterinary epidemiologist and food safety specialist, tells The Salt. “People keep livestock like chicken, ducks, goats and even cows because there’s huge demand for them, and they’re profitable.”

Grace, of the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, is studying these huge new city ecosystems. In a series of papers she’s published in the past several months in various scientific journals, she has looked at the risks and benefits of urban livestock in the developing world.

‘When it comes to risks, Grace says she’s most worried about what happens to the animal waste—especially in places where human waste isn’t even managed well. And she’s worried that sick animals that go untreated lead to zoonoses—diseases that spread from animals to humans. One of her recent studies, published in the journal Tropical Animal Health and Production, found that zoonoses and diseases recently emerged from animals make up 26 percent of the infectious disease cases in low-income countries.

“We’re talking about the everyday events of disease spreading from animals to humans, and the rare but more serious event of the emergence of a new disease,” she says. “Slums could be a good test tube for growing new pathogens, because people are poor and malnourished, and there’s generally just more disease.”

Goat in Nairobi slum (photo on Flickr by Poland Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

‘Meat and eggs produced in slums also pose a food safety risk, she says. “There’s often no refrigeration or cold chain for these products,” she says.

‘But even with the risks, Grace argues there’s a net benefit from people keeping urban livestock, and cities should be trying to help producers learn how to safely care for their animals and the food they produce.

‘According to her research, urban livestock generate income and improve the nutrition and health of communities they’re in, because the animals are a source of fresh food for local consumers. When cities try to ban urban livestock, it backfires, she says. “We found that the more people were harassed by the police about their animals, the fewer precautions they took,” she says. . . .’

Read the whole article by Eliza Barclay on the website of the US National Public Radio (‘The Salt’ program): African cities test the limits of living with livestock, 21 May 2013.

Filed under: Agri-Health, CRP4, Disease Control, East Africa, Emerging Diseases, Food security, Health (human), ILRI, Kenya, MarketOpps, Nutrition (human), PA, Southern Africa, Zoonotic Diseases Tagged: Delia Grace, NPR

Kenyan children weed a maize plot (photo on Flickr by Care of Creation).

‘A senior Kenyan government official has dismissed last year’s ban on the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the country—calling it ill-advised and lacking the backing of law.

‘Romano Kiome, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, says the ban cannot be enforced because it was imposed by the cabinet, which has no authority in law to do so.

‘Although a “political stand” could hold sway for a time it is no substitute for a considered professional judgement, Kiome told a journalist roundtable at the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi on 1 May.

‘The ban came into effect in November 2012 after a cabinet meeting, chaired by Kenya’s former president, Mwai Kibaki, directed the then public health minister, Beth Mugo, to ban GM food imports until the country is able to certify that they have no negative impact on people’s health.

‘But three years before the ban, Kenya had set up the National Biosafety Authority, tasked with supervising the transfer, handling and use of GMOs. The agency was established by the Biosafety Act, which was passed in the Kenyan parliament and became law by Kibaki’s assent in February 2009. It includes the aim of establishing “a transparent, science-based and predictable process” for reviewing the use of GMOs.

Kiome tells SciDev.Net that the biosafety authority is the only body legally mandated to manage GMOs and could not be bypassed by the cabinet.

He adds that the ban is not only unlawful but could also affect biotechnology research to boost food production in the country as there have been fears among Kenyan scientists that it could hold back progress research and development (R&D) on biotechnology in the country.

‘According to David Wafula, Kenya coordinator at the Program for Biosafety Systems—a partnership between USAID and the Kenya government supporting development and use of biosafety systems in agricultural innovation in Kenya—the ban has not been published in the Kenya Gazette, an official government publication containing new legislation and notices required to be published by law or policy.

‘”The ban was not informed by any evidence from competent authorities, including the National Council of Science and Technology, which is mandated to advise the government on research and policy issues,” he tells SciDev.Net.’

Read the article by George Achia at SciDevNet and AllAfrica: Kenya’s GMO ban has no legal basis, official says, 16 May 2013.

Filed under: Biotech, East Africa, Food security, ILRI, Kenya, PA, Policy Tagged: AllAfrica, GMOs, Kenya Biosafety Act, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya National Biosafety Authority, Kenya Program for Biosafety Systems, Kenya Public Health Minister Beth Mugo, NCST, Romano Kiome, SciDevNet, USAID

Fulani boy in Niger herds his family’s animals (photo credit: ILRI/Stevie Mann).

Mobility to unlock scattered food, feed, water and other scarce and scattered essential resources is a human strategy as old as humankind itself—and one that remains key for pastoral livestock herders the world over. As the world warms and its natural resources become ever scarcer, it would profit all of us to take a long hard look at how livestock herders track those resources over time and space, and how their movement and that of their animal herds helps them stay resilient in the face of some of the earth’s most unforgiving, and now increasingly unpredictable and extreme, climates.

It appears the rest of us are going to need to adopt strategies for resilience sooner rather than later. Last Thursday, reports Polly Ericksen, scientist at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), was a red letter day. On that day, 9 May 2013, the level of emissions of carbon dioxide reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million, a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.

Red Letter Day
The new measurement came from analyzers atop Mauna Loa, the volcano on the big island of Hawaii that has long been ground zero for monitoring the worldwide trend on carbon dioxide, or CO2. . . . Carbon dioxide above 400 parts per million was first seen in the Arctic last year, and had also spiked above that level in hourly readings at Mauna Loa. But the average reading for an entire day surpassed that level at Mauna Loa for the first time in the 24 hours that ended at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday.’ — Heat-trapping gas passes milestone, raising fears, New York Times, 10 May 2013

Carbon dioxide, of course, is the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. So what do we know about what will happen as the world’s average temperatures rise with the increasing amounts of carbon trapped in our atmosphere? Well, not much, as even our most sophisticated and integrated models are unable to forecast likely changes after a certain threshold has been passed. But what we can surmise is grim, as the following plausible scenarios illustrate.

One degree, two degrees, three degrees, four . . .
With a global average rise of 2ºC, ‘Greenland’s glaciers and some of the lower lying islands would start to disappear. At 3ºC higher the Arctic would be ice-free all summer, the Amazon rainforest would begin to dry out and extreme weather patterns would become the norm. An increase of 4ºC would see the oceans rise drastically. Then comes the twilight zone of climate change, if the global temperature rises again by another degree. Part of once temperate regions could become uninhabitable, while humans fight each other for the world’s remaining resources. The sixth degree is what is called the doomsday scenario as oceans become marine wastelands, deserts expand and catastrophic events become more common.’ — Six degrees could change the world, National Geographic, 2012

Studies written by scientists at 14 of the 15 CGIAR centres and compiled and published last year by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) (Impacts of climate change on the agricultural and aquatic systems and natural resources within the CGIAR’s mandate, 2012) provide a snapshot of how climate change is likely to affect key food crops and livestock farming and natural resources in poor countries, where these staple foods and resources remain the backbone not only of food security but also of national economies.

While nothing is certain, a few things are probable, writes Philip Thornton, scientist at CCAFS and ILRI and leader of the research study. First and foremost is that old-fashioned foods and food production strategies are likely to make some major comebacks.

Crops and animals till now neglected by major research initiatives, and now considered ‘old-fashioned’ by many, are likely to play an increasingly important role on global food production once again. Drought-resistant camels and goats, ‘famine foods’ such as heat-tolerant cassava and millet, and dual-purpose crops such as protein-rich cowpea (aka black-eyed peas) and groundnut that feed people and animals alike are all likely to come back to the fore in regions with drying or more unpredictable climates. In some drying regions, smallholders will be forced to switch from crop growing to livestock raising, and/or from raising dairy cows to raising dairy or other goats. — As the cooking pot turns: Staple crop and animal foods are being ‘recalibrated’ for a warmer world, ILRI News Blog, 1 Nov 2012

So herding livestock, the so-called ‘pastoral’ food production system, is likely to become much more important as we warm the globe. But as Mike Shanahan, press officer for the International Institute for Environment and Development (UK), reports this week, if we’re going to increasingly rely on livestock herding across the world’s current vast drylands, and across the lands now drying up, to help feed our increasingly crowded planet and support the lives and livelihoods of its poorest people, we’d better start rethinking the ways we perceive, talk about and approach pastoralism, now a neglected sector in many fast-modernizing countries, which tend to view it as ‘backward’.

Shanahan recently investigated how media reports on pastoralism in India, China and Kenya. ‘These policy narratives overlook both the dynamics of dryland ecosystems and how dryland communities have long learnt how to live with and harness variability to support sustainable and productive economies, societies and ecosystems.

The narratives ignore the ways that mobile herding can increase people’s resilience in a changing climate. They also ignore the three E’s—the economic value of pastoralism, the environmental benefits that herding brings to rangelands and the equity that should be at heart of good policymaking.

‘Once upon a time, not so long ago,’ says Shanahan, ‘we were all mobile. Movement was what enabled our ancestors to track resources that were here today, gone tomorrow. In parts of the world where water, pasture or good hunting are not constantly available, mobility is still the key that unlocks scattered resources. It is the key to resilience. And as the climate changes, this ancient strategy could become more important.

‘Yet in many countries, governments marginalise mobile pastoralists and would prefer them to settle instead of roaming the land. Dominant policy narratives cast pastoralism as a backwards, unproductive activity that takes place in marginal fragile areas, where unpredictable rainfall leads people to overgraze and damage the land.

Media stories both contribute to and reflect the dominant policy narrative around pastoralism.

‘In Kenya, pastoralists feature mostly in ‘bad news’ stories of conflict and drought. They appear vulnerable and lacking in agency. Stories make almost no mention of the benefits that pastoralists bring.

‘In China, the media presented pastoralists as the cause of environmental degradation and as (generally happy) beneficiaries of government investment and settlement projects.

‘In India, newspapers tended to portray pastoralists with more pity, as people whose rights to grazing land had been taken away and whose livelihoods were at risk as pastures dwindle and locally resilient livestock breeds disappear. . . .

Yet opportunities to reframe pastoralism abound. In Kenya, for instance, an alternative narrative could show how the new constitution could work best for the drylands and their communities. In India, an alternative narrative could show how herding is part of the wider dryland agriculture system that can increase food security in the context of climate change. In China, an alternative narrative can relate how support for pastoralism can increase food security and better manage rangelands for economic benefits. . . .’

Read the whole article by Mike Shanahan on the Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems: Pastoralists in the media: Three E’s please, 13 May 2013.

See Mike Shanahan’s full research paper or a four-page summary.

Filed under: Asia, China, Climate Change, Drylands, East Africa, Environment, Food security, ILRI, India, Kenya, LivestockFutures, PA, Pastoralism, Policy, Report, South Asia Tagged: CCAFS, CGIAR, IIED, Mike Shanahan, National Geographic, New York Times, Polly Ericksen

Camels cover dozens of kilometres in search of water; average distances to watering points in the outskirts of Marsabit and Moyale, in the upper east corner of Kenya, run into dozens of kilometres (photo by Ann Weru/IRIN www.irinnews.org).

‘Camels are known for their ability to travel long distances across the desert without water.

‘But they’re also becoming an increasingly important source of milk for people in drought-prone regions. That includes East African countries like Kenya, where camel numbers have skyrocketed over the past few decades.

‘But introducing camels—or any species—to a new region, could mean bringing in new diseases.

‘The St. Louis Zoo has been studying camel diseases in Kenya to help assess their risks.’

A couple of years ago, Margaret Kinnaird, the executive director of the Mpala Research Centre in central Kenya ‘began a project on camel health with wildlife veterinarian Sharon Deem, who directs the Institute for Conservation Medicine at the Saint Louis Zoo.

Camels may have some diseases that, as the human population reaches for camel milk, these diseases could be passed to them,” Deem says.

Deem says a growing number of Kenyans are drinking camel milk—most of it unpasteurized. “These are estimates, but we really believe that up to 10 percent of Kenya’s 40 million people—so we’re talking four million people—probably drink unpasteurized camel milk,” Deem says.

Camels aren’t native to Kenya. But Margaret Kinnaird estimates that over the past 30 years, their number has grown to something on the order of three million animals. . . .

‘Amos Omore of the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi says unlike cattle and goats, camels can keep producing substantial quantities of milk under drought conditions—which climate scientists predict will become more severe and frequent in Kenya the future.

So I would imagine that given climate change, the role of camels is bound to be even more important than it has been before for those who live in these areas,” Omore says.

‘Sharon Deem says with camels becoming more common in Kenya—and significant as a source of nutrition—it’s critical to find out what diseases they might be spreading. . . .

‘Deem says the testing didn’t turn up much brucellosis or trypanosomiasis. But almost a third of the camels—and more than half the ticks—tested positive for Q fever, a bacterial disease that can be fatal in humans. “So we really feel that Q fever in camels could be very important in this region,” Deem says.

‘Deem says the next step will be to take a closer look at Q fever and how it’s affecting livestock, people, and wildlife. She also wants to keep working with Kenyan ranchers on what she calls “camel 101”—what they can do to keep their camels healthy.’

Read the whole article, and listen to the podcast, at St Louis Public Radio: Why is the Saint Louis Zoo tackling camel diseases in Kenya?, 10 May 2013.

Filed under: Animal Diseases, Camels, Dairying, Disease Control, East Africa, Health (human), ILRI, Interview, Kenya, MarketOpps, Pastoralism, Zoonotic Diseases Tagged: Amos Omore, Q fever, St Louis Public Radio

Cynthia Onzere, a staff member in the animal biotechnology laboratories of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), in Nairobi, Kenya (photo credit: ILRI/Evelyn Katingi).

‘A newly elected government provides a country with a rare opportunity for a fresh start—and President Uhuru Kenyatta’s nomination this week of Felix Kiptarus Kosgey to become Kenya’s next Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries offers my nation a remarkable opening to make a hard push for real food security.

‘Success, however, will require President Kenyatta, his deputy Ruto, Agriculture Secretary nominee Kosgey, and the rest of our new government to set aside the bad mistakes of the recent past and embrace the bright future of biotechnology.

‘There’s every reason to hope that they will. At the launch of the Jubilee Coalition manifesto in February, Kenyatta and Ruto promised to “put food and water on every Kenyan’s table.” At his inauguration on April 9, Kenyatta reaffirmed his government will implement the manifesto in total.

‘This is both a tall order and a worthy goal—and one of the surest ways to achieve it is by accepting the latest advances in agricultural biotechnology, recognizing that they have become conventional practices in many countries and should become so here as well.

‘Everywhere farmers have had the chance, they have adopted genetically modified crops. Last year, more than 17 million farmers around the world planted more than 170 million hectares of GM crops, according to a new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

‘This is an all-time high. Moreover, farmers in poor countries made it possible:

For the first time, developing nations accounted for more than half of the world’s GM crop plantings.

‘Unfortunately, as much as Kenyan farmers have hailed the Green Revolution of the 20th century, they have not yet participated in this Gene Revolution of the 21st century.

‘Our scientists have made strides toward developing biotech crops that would flourish in our soil and climate, but a toxic mix of scientific illiteracy and political pressure has prevented the commercialization of these promising plants. To make matters even worse, the previous government banned the importation of GM foods into Kenya and ordered the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation to remove all GM foods from the shelves of grocery stores. . . .

‘Kenyatta’s cabinet, guided by Agriculture Secretary nominee Kosgey cannot move swiftly enough to overturn the previous government’s misbegotten ban on GM food. It may be the single most significant step they can take to improve our nation’s food security.

‘They should accept what respected organizations ranging from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Britain’s Royal Society have said for a long time: GM food is safe to grow and eat. We have nothing to fear from it—and so much to gain. . . .

Last year, Sudan became only the fourth African country to permit the planting of GM crops, following the leads of Burkina Faso, Egypt, and South Africa. . . . It would be great to see Kenya join the global biotech movement. Even better, though, would be to watch a truly forward-looking Kenya not merely join, but lead.

Read the whole guest commentary in Truth about Trade and Technology: A forward-looking Kenya can lead the global biotech movement, 2 May 2013, by Gilbert Arap Bor, who  grows corn (maize), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus.

Filed under: Biotechnology, East Africa, Food security, Intensification, Kenya, Opinion piece, PA, Policy Tagged: GMOs, Truth about Trade and Technology

Herding cattle in Kenya (photo on Flickr by davida3 [Davida De La Harpe]).

‘The [Kenya] government has unveiled a plan to improve trade in livestock by vaccinating 61 million livestock in the next financial year.

‘According to budget estimates released on Thursday, the animals will be vaccinated against foot and mouth disease and other trade-sensitive diseases.

‘Measures will also be put in place to strengthen disease surveillance and introduce an advanced reporting system using Digital Pen Technology.

‘Kenya has in recent years been trading in live animals, which are exported mostly to the Middle-East.

‘It has also been striving to create disease-free zones to improve on the marketability of its meat and meat products in Europe which has a stringent regime for products that are allowed into that market.

‘So far, parts of Coast region have been classified as disease-free zones and are used as holding grounds for cattle. . . .

The government has planned to reach 5.1 million pastoralists through field days, shows, farm visits and exhibitions, and rehabilitate 7,500 denuded rangelands.

In the year, 21 abattoirs will be constructed and commissioned and 260 farmers’ groups supported with value addition facilities in centres along the milk corridors. Stakeholders in leather industry totalling 440 will be trained on value addition.

. . . [A]griculture officials say Kenya could make as much as Sh1.6 billion annually if trypanosomiasis was eradicated in the country.

Dr Steve Kemp, leader of the animal Biosciences Program at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), headquartered at Kabete, Nairobi, observed that ‘in tsetse infested areas, trypanosomiasis reduces the output of meat and milk by a half and was a threat to livestock production.

‘“Use of the right dosage is crucial in treating the disease. Unscrupulous traders who interfere with the drugs to [sell] more and earn more are not helping to contain the disease but are contributing to resistance to drugs,” Dr Kemp said.

The scientists spoke during a meeting with journalists at the Institute’s headquarters during a briefing on breakthroughs in research on diseases of livestock and people in developing countries.

They cited shortage of enough data to inform policy on best ways to control and treat diseases [as] the main challenge facing efforts to reduce human and animal infection rates.

Agriculture Permanent Secretary, Dr Romano Kiome admitted that trypanosomiasis still posed serious challenges to livestock production hence the need to build local capacity of Kenyan scientists to update relevant data that can help fight off the disease.

The PS who is also ILRI’s board member said the country cannot accumulate data without scientists coming to carry out research aimed at addressing challenges bedevilling this country.

“It is absolutely necessary we build data. Let’s support our scientists. The government has extended retirement age for scientists to 65 years besides other benefits as part of a deliberate strategy to give them ample time to do research,” said Dr Kiome.

He said Kenya was among the few countries with a fully-fledged trypanosomiasis research institute.

“We welcome research as we make great strides to combat this disease and improve livestock production. The global partners are important in helping Kenya achieve its development goals,” said the PS.

Read the whole article at Daily Nation (Kenya): State to vaccinate 61 million livestock to boost production, by Mwaniki Wahome and Dennis Odunga, 5 May 2013.

Filed under: Animal Health, Biotech, Cattle, Diagnostics, Disease Control, East Africa, ILRI, Kenya, Markets, PA, Pastoralism, Vulnerability Tagged: Daily Nation (Kenya), Romano Kiome, Steve Kemp, Trypanosomiasis

To harness genetic diversity to improve goat productivity in Africa, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is testing the open data kit (ODK) in Ethiopia as a tool to collect baseline data on production systems and phenotypic characterization of goats. It will also be tested in Cameroon.

The project is led by the Biosciences eastern and central Africa – International Livestock Research Institute Hub and financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

“ODK has the potential to transform the way we deliver our research, through smarter data management and use” – Tadelle Dessie, project coordinator

‘ODK Collect‘ is an open source program to collect questionnaire information. It immediately digitizes data for analysis, allows for remote monitoring of the collection progress, and facilitates the gathering of data, eliminating the need for paper surveys and therefore significantly reducing survey times. In this test-employment, the ODK Collect program was installed on Samsung Galaxy SII smartphones and the questionnaires were written in xml format which are subsequently saved to the phone’s device memory.

The system allows users to ask questions with a predetermined ‘if‐then’ logic system, relying on answers to previous questions. The program also supports the incorporation of GPS points, photos, videos, bar codes, and sound bites as attachments to surveys or as the basis of the questionnaire responses.

The results recorded on the phones are sent to ILRI servers in Addis Ababa and Nairobi where the ODK ‘Aggregate‘ tool is used for analysis.

More on the goat project

This week the G-8 International Conference on Open Data for Agriculture takes place in the USA.

Filed under: Animal Breeding, BecA, Biodiversity, Biotech, CRP37, East Africa, Ethiopia, Goats Tagged: data, ODK, openagdata, opendata

A Kenyan dairy farmer feeds her cow (photo on Flickr by eadairy).

‘A chilling tale of cows in Kenya shows how market access is key to impact investing. . . .

‘It started with a mid-term report I was handed called Milking for Profit. The report details a project that works to uplift subsistence dairy farmers in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda run by a consortium of dairy experts called East Africa Dairy Development.

‘In 2008 the consortium started its first project in Kenya. The collapse of the state-owned processor in 1999 had opened the country’s dairy market to competition, which suited large-scale producers and further isolated the small farmer.

‘These folk typically produced and sold an average of three to five litres of milk a day, generating insufficient income to invest in stock and good feed to boost yields. Compounding their problems was the lack of facilities to chill milk, low standards in stock and poor animal care.

This is a common scenario: households that own a goat, a cow and a few chickens dot rural landscapes across the continent. . . .

East Africa Dairy Development ignored the traditionalists and took a business approach to the problem. Instead of providing funding and support to their beneficiaries, they connected their participants to markets.

Milk reception at Nyala Dairy in Kenya (photo on Flickr by eadairy).

‘They did this firstly by building chilling plants—22 to date—so that the quality of milk could be maintained. They signed up 90 000 farmers and ran extensive programmes to improve the quality of care for animals. They made the chilling plants accessible to farmers so that they could easily bring their milk to fill up the 10 000 litre tanks.

‘Within two years, those signed up were earning an average wage of $4 500 a year from the sale of milk and heifers—that is $12 a day, six times more than the previous income standard of $2 a day.

‘The chilling plants reported an average monthly profit of $1 300, giving investors a return on their investment within one year (though they are keen to point out that this is not the primary reason for the investment).

‘It is a remarkable story and a strong model, which East Africa Dairy Development is replicating in Uganda and Rwanda. . . .’

The chilling plant at Ol Kalou, Kenya (photo on Flickr by eadairy).

The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is one of the partner organizations supporting this project, which is led by Heifer International. Other partners in the East Africa Dairy Development project are TechnoServe, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and the African Breeders Service Total Cattle Management. The project is being implemented in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. The goal of this project is to help one million people—179,000 families living on small 1–5 acre farms—lift themselves out of poverty through more profitable production and marketing of milk. Following the completion of the first phase of the project in 2012, the second phase is planned for 2013 to 2017 and will include Ethiopia and Tanzania. The project is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For more information, visit the project’s page on the  ILRI website.

Read the whole article at the Mail & Guardian (South Africa): Milking profits, 26 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Cattle, Dairying, East Africa, ILRI, Kenya, MarketOpps, Markets, PA, Rwanda, Uganda Tagged: African Breeders Service Total Cattle Management, Chilling plant, EADD, Heifer International, ICRAF, Mail & Guardian (South Africa), TechnoServe

Calestous Juma, a Kenyan agricultural and biotechnology expert and professor at Harvard University, gave the keynote presentation at the 2011 launch of Bio-Innovate, at ILRI’s Nairobi campus (photo credit: ILRI).

Biotechnology and genetic engineering have the potential to do for agriculture what mobile technology has done for the communications sector in Africa, a renowned Harvard University scholar, Prof. Calestous Juma, has said.

‘Prof. Juma, who was in the country for a meeting with President Yoweri Museveni, advocated for the adoption of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) saying they would boost food and income security.

‘He however, cautioned that it would be detrimental to adopt GMOs without clear flexible and supportive biotechnology regulations, asking Parliament to pass the Biotechnology Bill. . . .

‘At [a] public lecture he emphasised the role of technology in transforming livelihoods, insisting that if Africa didn’t embrace GMOs in agriculture, the problems like climate change, pests and diseases that have dogged the sector over the years would devour production to shocking levels.

‘He cited the [b]anana bacterial wilt which has devastated banana growers in Uganda, saying the problem would be deterred i[f] farmers planted GMO banana varieties that are resistant to the wilt.

‘He decried the phenomenon of resisting new technologies, saying it won’t help Africa to develop.

On the safety of GMOs, he likened the current debate to the rumours that were circulated during the early days of mobile technology that the phones would cause brain cancer. . . .

“Biotechnology and in particular GMOs are not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding,” he asserted.

‘Prof. Zerubabel Nyiira, state minister for agriculture, said while science and technology were the tickets to economic development, genetic engineering would spur food and nutritional security.

‘Dr. Andrew Kiggundu of the National Agricultural Organisation (NARO), said they had begun using biotechnology to produce drought, pests and disease resistant crop varieties. . . .

Read the whole article by Francis Kagolo in New Vision (Uganda): GMOs good for Africa’s development, says Harvard don, 21 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Agriculture, Biotechnology, East Africa, Event, Food security, PA, Research, Uganda Tagged: Calestous Juma, GMOs, New Vision (Uganda)

Butcher shop in a slum in Kawangare, Nairobi, Kenya (picture on Flickr by Brad Ruggles).

It’s not only people who are rapidly urbanizing in Africa: people migrating from rural areas are bringing their livelihoods with them, which in Africa largely means their cattle, goats, sheep, chickens and pigs. A scientific report from researchers based in Nairobi, Kenya, investigating the benefits and harms of livestock keeping in two of Africa’s most crowded and sprawling cities —Nairobi and Ibadan — recommends that people ’keep on keeping cows’ but keep them more carefully so as to reduce the risk of diseases being transmitted from livestock to people.

Importantly, the study also finds that  peer pressure — not health codes — is the answer to more careful management of the growing livestock enterprises in Africa’s slums and urban centres.

The Atlantic, one of North America’s most popular and distinguished cultural and political magazines, explores this unusual aspect of Africa’s rapid urbanization. Some excerpts below.

‘One of the stranger aspects of Africa’s rapid urbanization is the influx of livestock in new, unplanned towns — and the diseases they bring with them. . . .

‘Today, about 40 percent of the African population lives in urban areas, a rapid migration that’s expected to triple in size over the next four decades.

But the people who are moving to cities aren’t entirely leaving their rural lives behind. Instead, they are bringing their livestock with them, often keeping them right in their backyards, even in densely populated areas.

‘As a result, low-income countries have started to see a dramatic spike in a class of disease known as zoonoses, which pass from animals to humans. These can cause everything from tapeworms to fatal diarrhea, and they’re concentrated near major cities in Africa and India.

A recent study by the International Livestock Research Institute found that zoonoses make up 26 percent of the infectious disease burden in low-income countries, but just 0.7 percent in high-income countries. Now, researchers are beginning to trace these ailments to the livestock that sleep just over the windowsill from the residents of the developing world’s newest cities.

‘In Dagoretti {in Nairobi, Kenya], one in 80 people keep cattle, and 60 percent of households have poultry. A typical house there might have a shed full of rabbits or chickens under the bed. A cow kept in the yard may graze by the roadside or munch potato peels from a local eatery.

‘But animals and cities don’t always mix well. Throughout history, as cities modernized and developed, any lingering livestock were soon banished to the countryside.

‘That’s not an option for people in places like Dagoretti, where there are still very few grocery stores, and low incomes mean many residents rely on raising and selling their own food. For the town’s infants and children, the nutritional benefits of ready access to milk outweighs some of the cow-related drawbacks.

“In cultures where you don’t do fridges or freezers, there’s a huge demand for milk and meat and it needs to be close to where it’s eaten,” said Delia Grace, a Nairobi-based researcher for the International Livestock Research Institute. . . .

‘For these and other reasons, Dagorettians won’t — and probably shouldn’t — get rid of their cows and other animals. . . .

‘Grace and her colleagues determined that the best way to stop the spread of [livestock diseases to people] was not to discourage the keeping of animals, but to get residents to do it more carefully. And the best way to accomplish that, they found, was peer pressure.

“Much of the conventional communication — ’don’t do this, it’ll make you sick’ — we know that’s not very effective. There’s a new approach that’s trying to change peoples’ behavior based on social norms,” Grace explained. “People are more concerned with how they appear in the community than following health codes.”. . .

Read the whole article by Olgo Khazanapr in The Atlantic: Rural Kenyans are bringing their cows with them to cities. What could go wrong?, 7 Apr 2013.

Delia Grace leads ILRI research on food safety and zoonoses. She also leads a component of the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health on Prevention and control of agriculture-associated diseases.

See a Factsheet on Urban Agriculture and Zoonoses in Nairobi, which provides key facts about urbanization, urban livestock keeping and the study in Dagoretti, where most residents are poor and many raise livestock inside city limits.

Read a previous ILRI blog on this study: Livestock in the city: New study of ‘farm animals’ raised in African cities yields surprising results, 15 Oct 2012.

Read a special supplement of the August 2012 issue of the journal Tropical Animal Health and Production on assessing and managing urban zoonoses and food-borne disease in Nairobi and Ibadan.

Filed under: Agri-Health, Article, CRP4, Disease Control, East Africa, Emerging Diseases, Food Safety, Health (human), ILRI, Interview, Kenya, MarketOpps, Nutrition (human), PA, Policy, Report, Zoonotic Diseases Tagged: Delia Grace, The Atlantic

Serengeti tree (photo credit: Jeff Haskins).

‘In the great plains of northern Tanzania, close to the world-famous Serengeti National Park, a bitter row has broken out over an attempt to designate 1,500sqkm of Loliondo District as a game-controlled area.

‘The Maasai herdsmen in the area say their cattle cannot survive without access to traditional dry-season grazing in the area. The government says the land is needed as a wildlife corridor between the Serengeti and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Besides, the Minister for Natural Resources told the press, 2,500sqkm had already been, as he put it, “released to the local population”; the rest would be used for conservation purposes for the benefit of the nation.

‘Typical of recent land-grab controversies, this row involves the use of rangelands rather than farmlands. While farmers can show quite clearly that their lands are being used, semi-arid grasslands in areas like Loliondo cannot support animals year-round, so surveys often show the areas lying apparently empty.

‘Such tracts of land are often attractive for commercial agriculture — in Ethiopia, for instance, a number of controversial large-scale agricultural concessions have been granted along the Awash River. But the Loliondo dispute is not about commercial agriculture; it’s a so-called “green grab”, where access to land is lost for conservation purposes. . . .

‘Here, one widely accepted good — the right of people to continue using their traditional lands — has collided with another — the need to conserve nature and biodiversity. . . .

‘Kenya’s new constitution, adopted in 2010 . . . offers what is to be called “community land” to any group formed on the basis of ethnicity, culture or shared interest.

Stephen Moiko, of the International Livestock Research Institute, told IRIN that a key difference this time is that the initiative will come from the group. “It’s possible for communities to come up together and, through a legal process, obtain ownership of key resources which they depend on for their livelihoods, and it has legal mechanisms to protect that land from alienation. I think the nice thing about this new provision is that it recognizes the role of communities as owners and protectors and users of local resources.”. . .’

Read the whole article at IRIN: Balancing conservation and people’s access to land, 4 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Biodiversity, Drylands, East Africa, Environment, Ethiopia, ILRI, Kenya, PA, Pastoralism, PLE, Tanzania, Vulnerability, Wildlife Tagged: IRIN, Maasai, Serengeti, Stephen Moiko

Seyoum Leta, Bio-Innovate Program Manager. The first Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia  25-27  February 2013 (photo credit: ILRI/Apollo Habtamu). View more conference pictures.

SciDev.Net reports on a ‘Bio-Innovate’ conference held 25-27 Feb 2013 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to discus ways of improving Africa’s agricultural production.

The ‘1st Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Research Conference’ was organized by a regional fund known as the Bio-resources Innovations Network for Eastern Africa Development (or Bio-Innovate). The initiative, which was established in 2010, provides grants to bioscientists working to improve food production and environmental management in Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.

According to the article, ‘Bioscience projects, including ones that turn tannery waste into manure, can improve crop productivity and food security and boost agricultural resilience to climate change in East Africa.

‘[U]sing bioscience in  East Africa could bring about socioeconomic transformation,’ the article goes on to say.

‘For instance, in Uganda, tannery and slaughter wastes are being turned into manure for crop production and clean water. Other innovations include the production of drought-resistant seed varieties that are suitable to specific agriecological areas.’

Jimmy Smith, director general of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), who attended the conference, said that ‘the development and application of bio-science innovations could enhance agricultural productivity and boost food security.’

Bio-innovate funds projects in ‘climate change adaptability; food and nutrition security; energy production from industrial waste; and securing freshwater resources.’

Read the whole article on SciDev.Net 26 Mar 2013: Bioscience should underpin African agriculture, meeting hears.

Filed under: Agriculture, BioInnovate, East Africa, Ethiopia, Event, Food security, PA Tagged: Bio-Innovate, Biosciences, Jimmy Smith, SciDevNet, Seyoum Leta

Ethel Makila writes in New Agriculturalist about an African fund that is leading to breakthroughs and opening new frontiers in the continent’s biosciences research (photo: ILRI/David White).

This month (Mar 2013), New Agriculturalist features an article on the Africa Biosciences Challenge Fund. This is a fund that is managed by a state-of-the-art biosciences initiative located in Nairobi, Kenya that is supporting African scientists in addressing key agricultural needs in the continent. This initiative is the Biosciences eastern and central Africa-International Livestock Research Institute Hub, better known as the BecA-ILRI Hub.

‘… [O]n average, only 0.3 per cent of GDP in African countries is dedicated to research and development, seven times less than the investment made in industrialized countries. . . . [S]ub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) contributes only 0.6 per cent of the world’s researchers, a dismal representation from nearly 11 per cent of the global population.

‘Through this program, early career African scientists receive support for their research fellowships, pilot project grants and training developed in areas such as such as genomics, bioinformatics, diagnostics, molecular marker development and applications, DNA sequencing and genotyping, and technical and scientific writing.

‘Charles Masembe, from Makerere University in Uganda, is . . . one example of the enormous potential that is being exploited through this new approach . . .. Masembe has recently published breakthrough findings on the discovery of a potential zoonotic disease. As part of his research at the BecA-ILRI Hub, Masembe – working in collaboration with colleagues from the icipe, ILRI, BecA-ILRI Hub and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences – demonstrated that domestic pigs are a potential reservoir for Ndumu virus. Previous studies have shown that the virus is transmitted by mosquitoes, but otherwise very little information is available on the virus. Masembe was able to explore new frontiers in microbial science in the world-class research facility only 500 kilometres from his home through support from [the fund].’

To date, the article goes on to say, ‘45 African scientists (14 female, 31 male) from 14 eastern and central African countries have benefited from this program.’

Read the whole article by Ethel Makila, Communication Officer at the BecA-ILRI Hub: Leading the Agricultural Revolution from Within Africa, New Agriculturalist, March 2013.

For more information, visit the Africa Biosciences Challenge Fund and the BecA-ILRI Hub websites.

Filed under: Agriculture, Article, BecA, Central Africa, Crop-Livestock, East Africa, Kenya, Research Tagged: ABCF, BecA, Ethel Makila, New Agriculturalist, New Agriculturalist (online magazine)

Ethiopian rangeland (photo credit: ILRI/Dave Elsworth).

‘Cotton, sugar, palm oil… you name it. Most governments in the developing world believe such plantation cash crops must be a better use of land, and must deliver greater economic returns, than cattle pastures. That’s what most of the current land grabs in Africa are about. That’s why the World Bank calls the continent’s millions of square kilometres of unfenced savanna “the world’s last large reserve of underused land”.

‘But are the great grasslands really “underused”? . . .

There have been remarkably few analyses of what economists term the “opportunity costs” of big irrigation schemes. Of how they stack up against the pastoral alternative? So the findings of a new investigation from Ethiopia could, and certainly should, reverberate across Africa.

‘Ethiopia’s government has high ambitions for economic development, but sometimes appears to have less regard for herders. . . .

‘Is this long-standing land grab worth it? Does it bring development? A new economic analysis of the valley from Roy Behnke and Carol Kerven of Imperial College London, for the International Institute for Environment and Development, called Counting the Costs, says not. . . .

‘[T]he authors find that, in the Awash valley, revenues per hectare are higher on areas still devoted to livestock than they are for either sugar or cotton plantations. Sugar cane farming, the more profitable of the two, only matches the returns from livestock one year in four.

‘Behnke and Kerven conclude that, here at least, “pastoralism is consistently more profitable than either cotton or sugar… while avoiding many of the environmental costs associated with large-scale irrigation projects.”

‘Not only do the giant irrigation schemes, behind their high fences, fail to deliver cash, they also damage soils, undermining the future productivity of the land. . . .

The lessons here matter for the whole of the continent. As Behnke and Kerven put it: “The Awash valley illustrates what lies in store for pastoral areas, if African governments pursue a policy of modernised agriculture by displacing mobile livestock production.”

Read the whole article by Fred Pearce in the (excellent) Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog: Choosing crops over cattle: Are African governments taking pastoralism seriously?, 19 Mar 2013.

Read the paper by Roy Behnke and Carol Kerven published by the International Institute for Environment and Development: Counting the cost: Replacing pastoralism with irrigated agriculture in the Awash valley, north-eastern Ethiopia, Climate Change Working Paper No 4, Mar 2013.

Filed under: Article, Drylands, East Africa, Environment, Ethiopia, PA, Pastoralism, Policy, Vulnerability Tagged: Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog, Fred Pearce, IIED, Roy Behnke

The Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers project is coming to an end.

IPMS aimed to transform agricultural productivity and rural development in Ethiopia through market-oriented agricultural development. Project staff worked with the Ethiopian Government to try new and innovative approaches and technologies. The team worked to achieve this objective through four main routes: participatory commodity development in a value chain setting; knowledge management for and by the actors; improved capacity to innovate, learn and link; and development of policies, strategies and approaches for scaling out successful interventions.

When the project was designed, ‘action-oriented research’ based on ‘value chain’ development interventions was relatively new to the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), which led the project, and the CGIAR system – hence, the project appeared to be a rather strange duckling in the research pond. Results of the project were shared during several events, including a major conference and value chain exhibition at the ILRI campus in 2011, which coincided with the end of activities in the project’s pilot learning districts in Ethiopia. A subsequent no-cost extension period for the project, which focused on scaling out and promoting the project’s successful interventions, gave us time to reflect on the project’s approaches, modus operandi and lessons learned. These may benefit other projects now starting up, such as the ‘Livestock and Irrigation Value chains for Ethiopian Smallholders’ (LIVES) and other R4D livestock value chain projects.

The lessons will be shared in ILRI’s next ‘livestock live talk’, to be held on 27 March 2013. Because this seminar will be held in the middle of a LIVES research planning workshop, it promises to attract over 70 participants and others beyond.

In this ‘livestock live talk’, the IPMS team invites everyone to reflect on:

• The IPMS commodity development approach in an agricultural research for development (AR4D) framework
• How IPMS implemented the AR4D approach in a research setting
• Achievements and lessons

The talk will be held at ILRI’s campus in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 1500–1600 hours.

Join the live presentation of this seminar online: http://www.ilri.org/livestream.

______________________________________________________________________________

‘Livestock live talks’ is a seminar series at ILRI that aims to address livestock-related issues, mobilize external as well as in-house expertise and audiences and engage the livestock community around interdisciplinary conversations that ask hard questions and seek to refine current research concepts and practices.

All ILRI staff, partners and donors, and interested outsiders are invited. Those non-staff who want to come, please contact Abeba Asmelash at a.asmelash[at]cgiar.org.

Filed under: Agriculture, Animal Production, Capacity Strengthening, Crop-Livestock, CRP12, CRP37, East Africa, Ethiopia, Event, Extension, Innovation Systems, Intensification, IPMS, Livestock, Markets, Research, Value Chains Tagged: Azage Tegegne, Berhanu Gebremedhin, Dirk Hoekstra, IPMS, LIVES, livestock live talks, livetalks

Irish Minister of State for Trade and Development, Joe Costello, signs the guest book at the MoreMikIT office launch in Morogoro, Tanzania, 12 Mar 2013; witnessing the event are ILRI’s Amos Omore and Stuart Worsley (second and third from left) (photo credit: ILRI/Amos Omore).

‘Ireland’s minister of state for Development and Trade Joe Costello earlier this week launched the second phase of a joint research project designed to increase access of poor farmers and dairy producers to services and markets in Tanzania at the cost of €1.4 million (Sh2.8 billion).

‘The “More Milk Dairy Market Hub” research project, jointly implemented by International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and Sokoine University of Agriculture, will run for four years and will focus on growing and improving the systems that farmers are currently using to sell their dairy products, according to the press statement issued by the Irish Embassy in Dar es Salaam.

‘“It is anticipated that by 2016 approximately 40,000 people in 6,400 households will benefit from the project. Irish Aid provided funding for the inception phase of the project, 2011–2012 and will provide €1.4 million in funding over the course of the four-year project,” reads part of the statement.

‘Speaking at the launch, the minister said: “I am pleased that Irish Aid will be associated with this project for developing dairy market hubs that will allow marginalised groups to access services. This will ensure that farmers can participate in the dairy value chain and ultimately, of course, it is about putting more money in farmers’ pockets.”

‘“This partnership is a very solid example of how Ireland can link institutions such as Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) to farmers’ needs with the support of international and Irish Institutions.

“I hope this project will succeed in facilitating collaboration and exchange of international experience and best practices on dairy science, productivity and marketing of milk produce. This will benefit scientists, students and livestock keepers in Tanzania,” said the minister. . . .’

Read the whole article in The Citizen (Tanzania): Irish State minister launches Sh2.8bn milk project, 13 Mar 2013.

Filed under: CRP37, Dairying, East Africa, ILRI, Launch, MarketOpps, Markets, PA, Project, Tanzania, Value Chains Tagged: Irish Aid, MoreMilkIT Project, Sokoine University of Agriculture, The Citizen (Tanzania)

Spaces for incubation actors to cooperate – the added value of Bio-Innovate (photo credit: ILRI/Apollo Habtamu)

The first Bio Innovate regional scientific conference (25-27 February 2013) ended last week with a focus on next steps and ‘big actions’ to come.

On the last day, participants worked on three different strands:

1. Crop productivity improvement and climate change adaptation
2. Environmental management technologies
3. Innovation incubation and value addition.

The groups pondered bottlenecks in the enabling (or disabling) environment, specific priority actions that Bio-Innovate should undertake and who should be involved in these. Coming together, they drew the skeleton of an action plan for the months to come.

The six big actions that emerged from the group work were:

• Business incubation
• Increased involvement in our meetings of business and policy drivers
• Platforms
  • Advocacy e.g. for tax & other incentives to develop environmental technologies; standards that promote environmental innovations
  • Linkages and stakeholder engagement
  • Influencing harmonization of seed systems, bio pesticides, standards and protocols etc.
• Start up funding mechanisms and brokerage
• Procurement and tax issues
• Communication & awareness raising e.g. fairs, open days

The true keywords of this next phase however are innovation incubation and communication.

Innovation incubation

Even though capacity in bio-sciences remains a critical gap in Africa and the project contributes to filling this gap, Bio-Innovate is not about research in training. It is about generating innovation. In this sense, the project has to play a central role in leading the incubation of  biotechnology innovation following various mechanisms: technology fairs (where scientists and businesses get together), supporting industrial parks, organizing open technology days, getting student research sponsored by the private sector etc.

Another proposal suggested Bio-Innovate make available small grants – or an innovation fund – to encourage ongoing technological innovations. In this process, the questions of intellectual property management and of taxation appear crucial to develop a strong enabling environment. Bio-Innovate has a limited mandate to address that environment but cannot afford to ignore its properties, regulation mechanisms and incentives either.

Communication

Dr Allan Liavoga – Deputy Program Manager – reminded everyone in his closing address: what will make or break this project is “communication, communication and communication”. In his own words, communication has been one of the weak points of this program and the program management team knows it. This is why it is one of the six ‘big actions’ of the program, but it is also implied as a key function in other big actions such as involvement in meetings of business and policy drivers, platforms of engagement and funding brokerage.

In particular, lobbying policy makers has been mentioned across the working groups as a critical area of engagement and communication. But communication also entails internal communication, dissemination of findings and – notably – engagement with a range of actors. All working groups emphasized the importance of connecting with various interest groups: businesses of course, but also local communities, policy-makers, youths etc. Bio-Innovate could take the steering role in convening spaces of engagement for these key stakeholders to work together. This would respond to the project’s intent to not follow ‘business as usual’.

This first regional scientific conference received very good reviews from the participants. Although the hard work starts now that the conference is over, the latter has managed to combine the two major objectives of innovation incubation and communication.

More news and updates from Bio-Innovate

Read the three issues of the ‘Daily Tail’ (event newsletter):

• 25 February
• 26 February
• 27 February

See pictures of the event

Discover some presentations from the conference

Read reports and publications from Bio-Innovate

Filed under: Agriculture, BioInnovate, Biotechnology, East Africa, Event, ILRI, Innovation Systems, Research Tagged: bioinnovate