Support for primary production (Special Supplement 3)

7.1 Introduction

This section focuses on supporting agricultural production, in particular farming and livestock production, as livelihood strategies. Production support can also include the provision of productive assets for any livelihood group, for example the provision of tools and equipment for carpenters, blacksmiths, potters, etc., or indeed support for any livelihood strategies. There is considerable overlap between the sections on income support, market access and this chapter on production support. Even with the limited focus of this chapter, many of the income and market support interventions already described provide support for agriculture and livestock based strategies.

In any context, it needs to be determined whether production support is better provided through cash transfers or market support (i.e. if the items are available and easily supplied locally), or in-kind support for agriculture or livestock. Furthermore, some production support interventions are also forms of market support, for example, de-stocking and seed fairs (see section 7.3). The provision of inputs, such as seeds or livestock, needs to be accompanied by access to essential services, such as agricultural extension and animal health care, to be most effective. In many situations, people will need a combination of different kinds of support.

"Where possible, a range of inputs is provided in order to give producers more flexibility in managing production, processing and distribution, and minimizing risks"
The Sphere Project (2004). Indicator 3 under primary production minimum standard, p. 124

Agricultural support covers a wide range of interventions, ranging from the provision of inputs to supporting extension services, to policy change on access to land and land rights. Preventative measures (mitigation) include seed banks and extension services. Livestock interventions include livestock offtake, fodder distribution, veterinary care, reparation of boreholes and other water sources, all of which are often carried out at an early stage of drought related emergencies. These interventions are complementary, and often implemented together. Other interventions include subsidies for transport to market, or initiatives to improve access to pasture in neighbouring regions or countries. In general, when the provision of in kind goods is necessary, local purchase is the preferred option:

"Inputs and services are purchased locally whenever possible, unless this would adversely affect local producers, markets or consumers." "New technologies are introduced only where their implications for local production systems, cultural practices, and environment are understood and accepted by producers."
The Sphere Project (2004). Indicators under primary production minimum standard, p.124

Seed fairs are covered in detail in this chapter, as this has been one of the main innovations in agricultural programming over the past few years, and has been shown to be successful in promoting access to local seeds, increasing production and increasing livelihoods assets. This section starts with a brief overview on determining the appropriateness of seeds and tools as an emergency response. The section on livestock support programming focuses on fodder distribution, veterinary care, de-stocking and restocking through livestock fairs as the most common livestock interventions in emergencies. The section ends with case studies of a seed fair in Zimbabwe, fodder distribution in Darfur, and livestock interventions in Kenya.

7.2 Assessing the need for seeds and tools

Seeds and tools provision is the most common 'livelihood' intervention, regardless of context (Levine and Chastre, 2004, July). Seed needs are generally inferred from food needs, and are rarely based on an assessment of availability and access to seeds. Many agricultural support interventions therefore do not meet the minimum standard for primary production, as one of the key indicators states that:

"Interventions to support primary production are based on a demonstrated understanding of the viability of production systems, including access to, and availability of necessary inputs and services"
The Sphere Project (2004). Indicator 1 under primary production minimum standard, p. 124

An actor oriented analysis gives more insight as to why seeds and tools are such a common response (see box 16).

Assessments to determine the availability and access to seeds for an emergency affected population are rare. The assumption is often that food insecurity, associated with crop failure, will create seed unavailability during the next planting season. Another assumption is that seeds have to be distributed together with tools. Tools may be required in some emergencies, such as floods or displacement, but crop failure due to drought will not necessarily be associated with a loss of tools. Furthermore, in many emergencies, seed is actually available locally, or at least in-country, and can be effectively provided in seed fairs (see section 7.3).

Agricultural support programming needs to be based on a better analysis of the traditional ways farmers save, exchange and procure seeds. Five questions could be used to integrate local seed system profiles in a livelihoods assessment, to determine whether a group of farmers is seed insecure (Longley et al. 2002, December):

• What crops and crops varieties do farmers plant, and how are these used?
• What are the main feature of the cropping system, i.e. in what ecologies are the crops planted, what is the cropping calendar for the different crops, and crop types and who (i.e. men or women) is responsible for various agricultural tasks?
• For each crop, do farmers normally save the seed from the previous harvest?
• How is seed saved and what are the main constraints?
• If seed is not saved, how do farmers normally acquire the seed for the different crops (where, through what means, from whom)?

To assess availability and access to seeds following a disaster, the following questions must be answered:

• Have farmers lost or been forced to eat their seeds?
• Has the disaster disrupted marketing of local crops or exchange of seed between farmers?
• Has the disaster affected the quality of seed produced by farmers or the quality of seed available from markets?

Even where assessments do find a lack of seeds, it is often unclear whether this is the limiting factor to production. Assessments need to consider all constraints to production.

 

Source: Levine and Chastre (2004, July).

7.3 Seed fairs

"Seed fairs are markets organised to empower disaster affected households to access seed through exchange of vouchers. They are organised on a specific day and location where vulnerable households are provided with vouchers worth a specific cash value to exchange for seed from registered sellers" (Bramel and Remington, 2005). Fairs are also a meeting place, where buyers and sellers can exchange information about seed quality, price, and innovations in the market.

CRS developed the seed fair methodology and has produced guidelines on how to implement them. In the past few years, a number of other agencies have also tried out the seed fairs approach. Seed fairs have been implemented in a variety of emergency contexts, including conflict, drought, and floods. CRS has recently completed an evaluation of its seed fair programmes in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and Gambia (see case study 7.5.1). Oxfam has carried out evaluations of seed fairs in Zimbabwe and Haiti. The remainder of this section is mainly based on the CRS evaluation, complemented with some information from Oxfam evaluations (Creti, 2005, February).

In all areas where seed fairs were implemented, enough local seed was available in country to meet the needs of the beneficiaries. This was the case even when initial assessments had concluded that there was insufficient seed because of significant loss of crop production.

The process of conducting a seed fair consists of the following steps:

1. Establishing a seed fair committee (local leadership, government officials, extension staff)
2. Assessing the availability and quality of local seed
3. Identifying the locations for the fairs
4. Recruitment and education of seed vendors.
5. Identify beneficiaries
6. Preparing for the fair, i.e. identify location, decide on monetary value to be distributed, produce booklets of vouchers
7. Promoting the fair, i.e. inform the sellers, inform the community, publicity
8. Holding the fair
   1. Quality inspection
   2. Register quantities brought by each seller
   3. Agree on prices
   4. Distribute vouchers
   5. Exchange seed for vouchers and cash
   6. Redeem vouchers
9. Evaluation of process and impact

In the CRS evaluation, the vast majority of seed fair beneficiaries were satisfied with the choice of crops, the variety, and the quality. However, in the case of Oxfam in Haiti, partner agencies had sensitised beneficiaries and sellers to the items that should be exchanged, thus limiting choice. Being able to choose creates a much greater sense of ownership of the items bought which, in turn, increases their use and care.

In many cases, the seed sellers were farmers or part time grain/seed sellers. In the case of Haiti, seed sellers were mainly middlemen who had bought the seeds from neighbouring villages. This highlighted the need for better communication about a fair so that farmers themselves would have a chance to sell. In all cases, access to seed was provided in time for the planting season. Seed fairs had a positive impact on production, enhanced livelihood assets and re-enforced local seed systems (see table 10 below).

Table 10 The impact of seed vouchers and fairs on livelihood assets
Asset	Impact
Physical	Households obtain seeds in time for planting. Beneficiaries have a choice of crops, variety, quantity and quality of seed.
Financial	Financial transfer to those receiving vouchers. Increased profit for seed sellers due to seed fair premium. Knock on effects of cash infusion into the community.
Social	Communities participate in planning and implementation via seed fair committees. Open, transparent and public process increased confidence. Strengthened relationships between seed sellers and farmers.
Human	Enhanced knowledge of different seed systems, their strengths and opportunities for integration. Enhanced knowledge of crops, varietal preference and seed quality. Seed fair interventions can be exploited for divulging information, education, and communication in seed, agriculture and other issues such as HIV/AIDS.
Natural	Increased genetic diversity by providing farmers with crop and variety choice.

Source: Bramel and Remington (2005).

The successful experience of seed fairs increased confidence in, and knowledge of, local seed systems and seed security, both on the part of the agency and local institutions. They also strengthened the role that women play in seed systems and local markets. One weakness was that agency staff sometimes found it difficult to relinquish control over the distribution and take a more facilitatory role.

There are clear advantages of seed fairs over the direct seed distributions. These include (ICRISAT, 2002):

• Farmers can buy the variety and quality that they prefer, rather than receiving a single kit of seed which is the same for everyone.
• Seed is adapted to local agro-climatic conditions, which does not necessarily apply to imported seeds.
• Farmers exchange experiences, information and seed amongst themselves and with seed sellers.
• Emergency funds are invested in the local economy and in the affected area.
• There is a contribution to revitalising local seed production and trade
• Both local and certified seed is distributed.

The CRS evaluation also identified significant threats to this more demand driven approach. Influential institutions and actors, such as Ministries of Agriculture, commercial seed compan0ies, donors and some UN agencies tend to support the top down approach. Also, as the seed distributed in seed fairs is not certified, seed regulatory agencies may act to prohibit its sale at seed fairs.

Clearly, seed fairs are not applicable in all contexts. Care must be taken that interventions remain based on an assessment of need and determination of what is most appropriate to the context.

Some key lessons learnt

• Use all types of communication and advertising for the fairs, including radio, producing local leaflets.
• Ensure community involvement through an effective seed fair committee and recognise their contribution on the day of the fair.
• For seller recruitment, focus on local sellers from the community. Start early to facilitate this.
• Carefully consider seed pricing. Avoid price setting, but make sure beneficiaries have enough time for bargaining.
• Consider the fair site carefully.
• Make sure that both beneficiaries and sellers are involved in the planning process to consider date, place of fair, quality of products.
• Weigh seed before and after fairs to validate sales from vouchers.

7.4 Emergency livestock programmes

People keep livestock as a source of food and income, invest in livestock as a form of saving and use them for their power capacity (for example for riding, for transporting goods, ploughing or cart pulling), and as assets to be used for social obligations such as marriage and religious ceremonies.

Livestock systems can be sedentary or migratory. Migratory livestock keeping - pastoralism and agro-pastoralism - has evolved to enable man to inhabit and survive in the harsher and more inhospitable environments where sedentary farming is risky. Sedentary production involves systems where small ruminants survive on grazing stubble, range-lands, orchards, and some feed supplements, such as wheat or barley, during the summer season.

In sedentary livestock systems, rainfall, pasture and input supply, market access and production success are considered to be reliable and it is the number of animals that is the critical factor. If conditions are good, more animals can be kept, if conditions are bad, fewer animals are kept. Any response to a problem or opportunity involves simply increasing or decreasing the number of animals. In sedentary systems, livestock may provide an important contribution to the livelihood, but other alternatives such as agriculture, forestry and commerce are also often available.

In migratory systems, environmental factors such as rainfall, temperature and vegetation growth are very extreme and unreliable. The amount and distribution of rainfall, snow, or access to fodder are the critical factors. Owners expect to lose large numbers of animals every few years and therefore they keep as many animals as possible to ensure that some remain after a 'shock' or disaster. They also have insurance strategies such as splitting the herd, gifting and loaning animals, and having excess animals to rapidly liquidise into cash or to pay for herding and access to water and pasture in distant areas.

Globally, the most severe livestock emergencies tend to occur in migratory systems, as livestock in these areas contribute most to household food security and income. Such environments are commonly found in Sub-Saharan Africa and Mongolia. Many pastoral populations are not well represented politically, and are therefore marginalised in their countries development policies and lack access to basic services. This makes them more vulnerable to disasters. For example, in Sudan the following factors were identified which increased the vulnerability of pastoral livelihoods (Oxfam Sudan, 2001):

• Lack of effective representation of pastoralists' interests
• Reduced access to and control over natural grazing and water resources
• Poor access to and inappropriate models of basic service delivery
• Inappropriate and inadequate development of water supplies for livestock and humans
• Lack of basic infrastructure and communications in pastoral areas
• Inefficient livestock market
• Increased incidence of drought and reduced capacity of pastoralists to cope with its effects
• Widespread conflict in pastoral areas.

In migratory systems, there is a need for flexible responses to changes in the resource base, and for different responses during the various stages of a drought cycle. Responses need to make best use of the huge numbers of animals that may be lost, such as maintaining production and core breeding stock, encouraging diversification and ensuring that migration, mobility and access remains feasible. In many livestock areas, it is already impossible to survive on livestock production alone and the pastoral livelihood system has had to diversify in order to survive.

Livestock species are affected differently by different emergencies, both because of their varying vulnerability to specific types of disasters, and their respective recovery capacity. For example, in Ethiopia, it was estimated that cattle would take longest to recover, followed by camels, then sheep, then goats. This took into account mortality rates during the emergency and the number of years it takes a herd to recover (Sandford and Habtu, 2000). The most common problems for livestock in emergencies are reduced access to pasture and water, increased exposure to disease and limited access to health care. The impact on households may include:

• Lower livestock prices and thus reduced income from sale of animals
• Loss of livestock due to increased sales and deaths
• Loss of livestock products (milk, meat, fat and ghee)
• Reduced mobility due to death of transport animals
• Increased workload due to grazing areas being remote from water points
• Loss of employment from herding
• Loss of house making materials (hides and skins)
• Inability to access key livelihood resources (firewood, water, pasture etc.).

To determine whether a livestock intervention is necessary, and to identify the most appropriate type of intervention, the following questions could be asked in an assessment (Khogali et al, 2002):

• What types of livestock systems have been affected by the disaster? Who has been worst affected?
• What are the structural causes that contribute to the vulnerability of these livestock systems (policies, institutions, processes)?
• Following the disaster, what poses the greatest immediate risk to livestock, e.g. health, lack of fodder, water, etc?
• Which animals are most at risk and what is the significance of these animals to the household livelihood? Do households have other sources of food and income that could be increased to meet their needs?
• Who should be targeted by the intervention? Women and children are often responsible for looking after certain livestock.
• What is the existing capacity to support livestock programming? Include logistics, local purchase possibilities, local technical knowledge through Ministries of Agriculture and FAO, as well as the need for external assistance.

Figure 6 shows the types of livestock interventions (and other interventions) that are appropriate at different stages of crisis. These range from fodder collection and storage and water point rehabilitation at an early stage of crisis, to emergency veterinary care, destocking and fodder distribution at the acute stage, to restocking and livelihood diversification at the recovery stage. The figure also illustrates the complementarity of different emergency livestock interventions and other food security or livelihoods interventions, some of which are described in more detail below. Emergency water interventions are not covered in detail here but include the installation, repair, or rehabilitation of existing strategic key water points such as boreholes and shallow wells, delivery of water by truck, and the drilling of new boreholes. Note that some of the water interventions, such as the repair of shallow wells, can be implemented as a CFW intervention, thus increasing income for the most vulnerable and improving water supply for animals and humans at the same time.

Emergency livestock marketing support and destocking

This includes market transport subsidies (for animals still in reasonable condition early in the emergency) and purchase for slaughter. At the acute stage of an emergency, only a few entrepreneurial traders and some agropastoralists with access to cheap feed sources are likely to continue trading livestock, albeit on terms extremely favourable to the buyer.

Purchase for slaughter targets animals in good condition and can be started once market transport subsidy support has ceased. In contrast, destocking targets animals that would otherwise die. Destocking involves buying (or exchanging) livestock for immediate slaughter with the meat distributed dry or fresh (see case study 7.5.3). De-stocking may run alongside a veterinary or feed supplement programme, where the money from livestock sales can be used to buy veterinary drugs or fodder for the remaining stock. The advantages of de-stocking include:

• Provides cash which can be used to cover immediate needs.
• Livestock numbers are reduced, leaving more grazing for the other breeding animals.
• It creates employment amongst the very poor, for slaughtering, meat preparation, guarding etc.

Destocking interventions have been implemented by communities, women's groups, private sector trader or directly by local or international NGOs. Village destocking committees or women's' groups have successfully implemented programmes with only minimal NGO involvement. Before beginning de-stocking, the type and condition of animal, prices, number of animals to be purchased, frequency or schedule for slaughter, seller and beneficiary criteria all have to be agreed with the community. The beneficiaries of the meat can be identified whilst the animals are still alive, and can be made responsible for the slaughter and division / sharing of the meat.

 

Most emergency fodder distribution involve the transportation of fodder from areas less affected by disaster to areas worst affected. Past interventions have included:

• Transporting prickly pear and crop residues to livestock areas.
• Purchase and distribution of urea/straw feed blocks and mineral bricks to breeding stock and animals used for ploughing.
• Buying and transporting hay.
• Providing water in dry season reserves where vegetation exists but water is unavailable.

It is generally recommended that fodder distribution is only carried out for core breeding stock or pack animals and that it is accompanied by veterinary inputs. Most fodder or livestock feed supplementation interventions plan to feed animals for a period of 90 days. An example of a fodder distribution intervention for donkeys in an IDP camp is given in case study 7.5.2.

Emergency veterinary / animal health support

Emergency animal health and vaccination campaigns are important because of increased risk of exposure to disease in some emergencies. Most emergency veterinary interventions revolve around external and internal parasite control campaigns in disaster affected herds using local Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs), the private sector or NGO staff.

In countries with operational government veterinary services, emergency veterinary drugs and vaccines can be provided to government clinics or private sector vets. In all cases, however, it is important to link CAHWs to private sector, pharmacists and quality drug suppliers. CAHWs can play an important role in sensitising and educating livestock owners to the importance and impact of a quality veterinary drug and animal health service delivery system. Vaccination campaigns need to cover large numbers of animals in order to meet the minimum coverage levels required.

Restocking

Restocking is a method of asset building aimed at families who have recently lost most of their stock. There are many different methods. The most successful approach has been restocking with local animals, as these are used to the environment, there is no risk in bringing in new diseases, and this supports the local economy. Section 5.2 showed that cash transfers are sometimes used to purchase livestock, whether b the beneficiaries' own choice or through conditional cash grants. In considering re-stocking as an in-kind distribution, it is important to assess whether the same objective could not be better and more efficiently achieved through cash transfers.

A number of questions have to be answered before deciding on how or if to restock:

• Is the area already over-stocked or over-grazed?
• Are there other opportunities for getting food or income?
• Which one of the species has an added value for the vulnerable?
• Is it a suitable environment for the species?
• Do the beneficiaries have prior knowledge on management of the species?
• Is the species culturally and religiously acceptable to the beneficiaries?
• Is local knowledge on its husbandry and back-up available?
• Is there enough food, water and shelter to support it?
• Would potential beneficiaries buy livestock if provided with cash?

Oxfam has implemented re-stocking through voucher interventions in a number of contexts. Oxfam restocking projects in the arid pastoral areas of Africa have provided between 5-70 smallstock (sheep and goats) per family, usually comprising up to 68 breeding females and two breeding males. In Oxfam projects in Kenya, Samburu and Turkana, families received between 20-70 smallstock and a pack animal (donkey or camel). Most researchers and development officers agree that in pastoral systems, a minimum of 50 breeding female smallstock is required for subsistence, whilst others estimate 150 breeding animals to be minimal to ensure survival. In food insecure environments, beneficiaries may need to be supported with additional food or cash so that they do not have to sell their herds to meet basic needs.

 

Source: Ann Witteveen, Oxfam regional food security advisor, Southern Africa.

 

7.5 Case studies

 

 

---

²¹The information for this case study has been taken directly from a CRS document, Bramel and Remington (2005).

²²The material for this case study has been taken from: Akilu and Wekesa (2002, December).