Irish AidInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentEuropean Unio

Dione, Michel M.

Kakinda, M.J.

Kawuma, Brian

Nyapendi, R.

Ouma, Emily A.

CGSpace

ILRI Research Brief—March 2017 1Enhancing the Uganda pig value chain through capacity building and multi-stakeholder platformsEmily Ouma, Michel Dione, Brian Kawuma, Robinah Nyapendi and Mary Jo KakindaIO.LRI RESEARCH BRIEF  NDate  year        ILRI RESEARCH BRIEF 75 March 2017In Uganda, the smallholder pig value chain was identified by the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish as a sector where research investment was most likely to make a major difference to the livelihoods of poor people. Approximately 90% of all pork is supplied by smallholder pig farmers as pig keeping offers an attractive alternative to ruminants. Pig farming comes with smaller investment costs, does not compete for pasture land and can be used for transforming kitchen waste into food. Moreover, the short reproductive cycle of pigs allows for a quick financial turnover. Despite this, the pig sector is highly marginalized and has not been given due priority in the country’s national agricultural sector policy framework—the Development Strategy and Investment Plan.Pig productivity is very low and characterized by: poor pig health management practices with high disease burdens such as African Swine fever (ASF), helminthiasis and external parasites; poor feeding practices and feed quality; poor husbandry practices; and an absence of appropriate breeding strategies. ASF is the most devastating disease feared by farmers in Uganda. Low productivity—coupled with poor access to veterinary, extension, financial and market information services, and the absence of sustainable farmer organizational institutions—have all adversely affected the development of the value chain in Uganda. In addition, regulations on biosecurity measures and waste management are poorly implemented, causing negative environmental impacts and the spread of disease.Between 2012 and 2016, in collaboration with research and development partners, ILRI undertook specific action research and capacity development interventions to address identified challenges and generate evidence for wider applicability along the pig value chain. The work was funded by three major bilateral donors, the European Commission/International Fund for Agricultural Development (EC/IFAD) and Irish Aid. Some of the interventions that were pilot-tested include capacity development support to farmers on improved husbandry and biosecurity practices for the control of ASF; capacity development support to butchers on appropriate pig slaughter and pork handling practices in the control of ASF; and the establishment of pig multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) for information sharing, improved stakeholder interaction and increased visibility of the pig sector. Subsequently, the evaluation assessed changes in butcher and farmer knowledge, attitudes and practices as a result of the targeted interventions. The evaluation also reviewed performance of the MSPs in the value chain.MethodologyParticipatory training approaches were developed and tested with farmers using randomized control trials. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected before and after the interventions. Cross-sectional research design was used to collect quantitative information from pig farmers and pork butchers, while qualitative information ILRI Research Brief—March 20172was obtained through focus group discussions (FGDs). For the MSPs, in addition to qualitative information gathered through FGDs, key informative interviews were conducted with selected value chain actors. The analysis involved three value chain domains and three target groups—farmers, butchers and the multi-stakeholder actors—which represent the intersection of (potentially) all value chain interests. The outcome is a complex matrix of the results of the project, residual issues and recommended solutions outlined below by target group.FarmersThe training of pig farmers in controlling ASF was effective in achieving the desired result of reducing disease outbreaks. Not only did farmers learn how to diagnose the disease, but also how to prevent and control it. Although they differed considerably in the application of recommended biosecurity measures, most implemented the practices and got good results. More importantly, the training mitigated crucial perceptions towards ASF control. They became aware that the disease had no cure and its spread could only be prevented/controlled through application of biosecurity measures. Due to the positive change in perception, more people were willing to implement the interventions to control ASF.Identified remaining gaps• Not all pig farmers have been trained, which presents challenges in controlling ASF• Some farmers cannot afford to implement biosecurity practices such as disinfectants• By-laws to control ASF are not being followed• There is a lack of good quality breeds• Boar maintenance is costlyRecommendations• Identify and support model pig farmers to reach out to others at village level.• Explore cheaper alternatives to overcome the current cost barriers, e.g. proven local/homemade disinfectants and low cost housing.• Support pig farmer groups/associations to work with local governments to implement existing laws directed at the control of ASF.• Support artificial insemination provisions through collaboration with a specialized agency.ButchersGains were made in developing the capacities of butchers in appropriate pig slaughter and pork handling practices to control ASF outbreaks. The butchers who were trained are now aware of good hygiene and sanitation practices at slaughter slabs and pork joints, including personal hygiene. They also know how to identify sick pigs and know what to do when they get infected pigs or abnormal pork. However, on an individual level, their application of biosecurity practices varied, partly due to lax meat inspections and a lack or limited enforcement of hygiene regulations.Identified remaining gaps• The use of disinfectants and other good practices such as protective wear have not been fully adopted by all, partly due to associated costs and negligence.• The butchers believe people will still buy unprotected pork on display and refrigerated pork is not liked by customers.• Meat is not being inspected (at all times) even though it is critical for public food safety.• A lack of common slaughter places discourages most butchers from calling the meat inspector.• Changing attitudes requires time for people to appreciate the benefits of good practices.ILRI Research Brief—March 2017 3Recommendations• Work with the local government authorities to pass a by-law making it mandatory for butchers to use protective wear and disinfectants, both for their own and public safety—the same way it was done with motorcycle (boda-boda) riders’ use of helmets.• To increase the adoption of good practices, explicitly address the attitudes and misconceptions about clients’ preferences over pork safety through evidence-based demonstrations in future training.• Since meat inspection is primarily the responsibility of government, incorporate a lobbying and advocacy component in future projects to promote the implementation of hygiene regulations and safe meat consumption.• Ensure the lobbying component also targets the development of communal infrastructure for pig slaughter and processing so as to enhance meat inspection.• Broadened hygiene and sanitation training and public awareness on these issues through the use of drama and radio talk shows so as to include consumers. Aware communities would increase pressure on butchers to improve their practices.• Produce posters as a post-training reference because this has been proven to be effective in increasing knowledge, changing attitudes and altering behaviours.Multi-stakeholder platformsThrough the MSPs, stakeholders along the pig value chain have been able to come together in dialogue and discuss strategies for addressing barriers to the growth of the sector in their respective regions.  The Central and Greater Masaka MSPs were the most successful in collaborating and strengthening business linkages between actors in the value chain. However, the MSPs have only been operational for a short period of time and are yet to fully benefit members.Identified remaining gaps• The MSPs are still neither financially nor technically self-sufficient.• The MSPs cover very large areas (regions), which makes it difficult to mobilize the different value chain actors.• There are no guidelines to govern MSPs. The platforms are still loosely governed by interim committees.• With the exception of the Masaka MSP and Eastern MSPs which are supported by their district local governments, others have yet to receive similar support.• The MSPs have not yet been successful in attracting funding from central government or donor agencies.• The potential of MSPs to improve pig markets and prices particularly for farmers has not yet been fully exploited.• Farmer participation in the MSPs was found to favour men over women. Training opportunities for instance benefited more men than women.Recommendations• Provide additional support to guide the operations of the platforms to help them become operationally sustainable.• Establish local MSPs at district level with sub-regional level forum meetings (of district representatives).• Provide guidance and support to platform leaders and members to come up with binding rules and regulations governing the functioning of MSPs, including with regard to cost sharing.• Develop the capacity of all pig value chain stakeholder leaders in advocacy and lobbying, enabling them to engage with their respective local governments in support of MSP interventions.• Address the diverse needs of the value chain actors through the establishment of partnership with funding agencies or other ongoing relevant programs.• Establish and publicize market opportunities and develop the capacities of pig farmers to meet quality standards required by big meat processors, such as Fresh Cuts.• Ensure interventions in MSPs include equal opportunity strategies for the participation of both men and women.Photo credits:   Page 1 (left): ILRI/Brian Kawuma  Page 1 (right): ILRI/Kristina Rosel Page 2 (left): ILRI/Eliza Smith Page 2 (right): ILRI/ lisabeth Kilian Page 4: ILRI/Brian KawumaContactEmily OumaILRI, Ugandae.ouma@cgiar.orgBen LukuyuILRI, Ugandab.lukuyu@cgiar.orgEmily Ouma, Michel Dione and Brian Kawuma work for the International Livestock Research Institute. Both Robinah Nyapendi and Mary Jo Kakinda work as independent consultants.This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.          March 2017ILRI thanks all donors that globally support its work through their contributions to the CGIAR systemPatron: Professor Peter C Doherty AC, FAA, FRS Animal scientist, Nobel Prize Laureate for Physiology or Medicine–1996Box 30709, Nairobi 00100 Kenya Phone  +254 20 422 3000 Fax      +254 20 422 3001 Email ilri-kenya@cgiar.orgilri.org better lives through livestock  ILRI is a CGIAR research centreBox 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Phone +251 11 617 2000 Fax +251 11 667 6923 Email ilri-ethiopia@cgiar.org ILRI has offices in East Africa • South Asia • Southeast and East Asia • Southern Africa • West Africa

Enhancing the Uganda pig value chain through capacity building and multi-stakeholder platforms

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/80380/ResearchBrief_75.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Enhancing the Uganda pig value chain through capacity building and multi-stakeholder platforms

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace