Dear Coordinators and participants

I am fully agreed with  Mr. Sujit Nayak’s views.

I am working more than one decade in the field of small holder livestock and poultry production for sustainable development of poor people .  I can shear my observation: Poor people start with poultry  ( one of the important livelihood option )  with the assistance of GO/NGOs . They do well and get return /benefit . But different disaster (Flood, Super cyclone, Tidal surge ) come and damage their livelihood option ( family  poultry and farm animal).

Therefore how we make sustainable family poultry program and how we can challenges this issue. We need to involve some important research about

·         Impact of climate change on family poultry production

·         Coping pattern of disaster management and risk reduction: special emphasis of  family poultry production

Government and Partner Organizations should keep their attention in this issue for sustainable livestock and poultry production. Some activities must be incorporated about disaster management in project design for Government and Partner Organizations.

Regards

Rajiur Rahman,

Associate poultry Adviser , INFPD/FAO

Bangladesh



--- On Fri, 6/8/12, Sujit Nayak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Sujit Nayak <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: sustainability factors/ models
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, June 8, 2012, 4:13 AM

 
Dear Coordinators and participants,
 
I would like to share a few more ideas and experiences on the following topics:
 

Which factors should be taken into account when designing good organizational models for sustainable family poultry development?

 

     ·         What are the experiences from successful projects? How can their interventions be replicated or become sustainable and what are the challenges of replication in other areas?

 

Following are some of the interesting models I have come across which actually focus on a specific segment (given in the parentheses) as per the regional requirements:

 

  Bangladesh(BRAC) /Asian model- (extended to Nepal, Philippines, Fiji- Self-Help Groups, Micro-financing)

  African/ Mozambique model (extended to Kenya, Morocco, Benin, Burkina Faso- New Castle Disease vaccine)

  Latin American / Cuban model (extended to Nicaragua, Haiti - epizootiological monitoring and surveillance program)

  DANIDA-Danish Development Agency-Integrated Livestock Programs (extension/ training/ farmers field school)

  Kegg Farms – a private company (supply chain)

  PRADAN(Kesla)s- a social non-govt. organization model (market access facilitation)

  ICAR model– Indian Council of Agricultural Research(Germplasm flow)

  NABARD (techno-economic considerations and credit flow)

 

Ideal Organizational models should be an amalgamation of various factors derived from the above experiences. The model may incorporate:

 

a)   Research model on improving birds suitable for FP, feed resource base etc.

b)   Inputs supply model and Service delivery models including Health services

c)   Training, skill upgradation, extension model

d)   Marketing model(where needed)  with credit flow and financing

 

 

I am sure we can extrapolate and replicate these mutatis mutandis.

    

·         Does working for specific target groups (e.g. women) improve the chances of success in working for FP?

 

     Though it is a well-known fact that besides income generation, FP provides nutrition supplementation in form of valuable animal protein and empowers women as generally the backyard activities are handled by the women in rural areas.

 

However, it is, at this stage felt better to stick to the objective of alleviating the extreme poverty condition using FP as a tool the landless and marginal farmers which of course include women (landless farmers  constitute 32% of the rural poor in India; but distribution of poultry is only to the extent of 6.5%).

 

The success should be reflected in reduction of extreme poverty – so may be the target group should be the most vulnerable group of society – as not the spread and production of poultry, but empowered resource-poor humans should define the success.

 

·         Ways of disseminating lessons learned (successes, but also failures) from family poultry development projects.

 

     This is really interesting and important. A demo alongwith success stories may be shown as a film in clusters where FP programs are implemented. Better even, if pictorial flyers/ posters can be distributed. The highlighting of ‘failures’ otr ‘What NOT to do’ is all the more important.

 

I often share a picture I had taken of a covered earthen grain storing vessels (called mokli in local language- I have attached a picture) which was used by some people to keep the birds resulting in mortality- this strikes the others who see it immediately that the birds do need ventilation in the shelter to breath. It may strike as common sense to us but is crucial for the farmer.

 

·         Which resources need to be mobilized to make projects sustainable?

 

     As a top down approach, the administrators in the Government must realize the factors for sustainability of the FP programs and the must be convinced- as they often look towards commercial/industrial poultry to be the major pillar of development.

 

     Resources need to be mobilized for research

a)   at input level for development of suitable germplasm

b)   at field level, participatory research for feedback from Family Poultry keepers

 

     The statistics of target group and FP- especially the production from FP, is another important aspect which is required to be recorded properly as all financial calculations to mobilize resources will depend on that.

 

    At the bottoms up approach, NGOs and other Organizations should mobilize the delivery, marketing and supply chain to enable decentralized management.

 

·        Which are the institutions that provide the best conditions for promoting a sustainable development and should be responsible for it?

 

     I believe that the Government and the NGOs will play an equally important role in policy planning and implementation at ground level.

 

·         How important are Markets and the economies of scale for the success of interventions?

In a cluster approach having surplus production, development of niche market is crucial and with substantial production the costs of logistics, cost of inputs and service delivery can be taken care of.

It would be interesting to work out the critical number of families involved and quantum of production to achieve the same.

 

·         What level of public funding is required to support and promote FP and for what type of interventions?

 

     This may vary from place to place but initial efforts to give fillip requires that this should be funded 100% by the Government. Possible tailor-made interventions are already mentioned.

 

·         What are promising new technologies to improve FP?

The Information Technology for widespread dissemination of basic information as well as for feedback could be explored alongwith charting of FP areas on a digital map (if not GPS) may help policy makers to focus on the areas of interventions as well as to enable surveillance.

 

 Regards,

 

Sujit Nayak

India



To unsubscribe from the PoultryDevelopment-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?TICKET=NzM0NjkyIHNtcmFqaXVycmFobWFuQFlBSE9PLkNPTSBQT1VMVFJZREVWRUxPUE1FTlQtTBskCtmrsH3r&c=SIGNOFF



To unsubscribe from the PoultryDevelopment-L list, click the following link:
&*TICKET_URL(PoultryDevelopment-L,SIGNOFF);