2 0 0 9 2009 · community-based management of farm animal genetic resources in practice: framework...

442009

2 0 0 944

ISBN 978-92-5-006269-3 ISSN 1014-2339

TC/M/I0831Tri/1/5.09/2300

9 7 8 9 2 5 0 0 6 2 6 9 3

Editors - Editeurs - Editores:S. Galal & I. Hoffmann

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,00153 Rome, Italy

Animal Genetic Resources Information ispublished under the auspices of the Foodand Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO). It is edited in theAnimal Genetic Resources Group of theAnimal Production and Health Divisionof FAO. It is available direct from FAO orthrough FAO sales agents.

ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCESINFORMATION will be sent free of chargeto those concerned with the sustainabledevelopment and conservation ofdomestic livestock. Anyone wishing toreceive it regularly should send their nameand address to the Editor, at the addressshown above.AGRI can also be found in the “Library”of DAD-IS at www.fao.org/dad-is.

Le Bulletin d’information sur les ressourcesgénétiques animales est publié sous lesauspices de l’Organisation des NationsUnies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture(FAO). Cette publication est éditée par leGroupe des ressources génétiques de laDivision de la production et de la santéanimales de la FAO. On peut se le procurerdirectement au siège de la FAO ou auprèsdes dépositaires et agents de vente despublications de l’Organisation.

LE BULLETIN D’INFORMATION SURLES RESSOURCES GÉNÉTIQUESANIMALES sera envoyé gratuitement auxpersonnes intéressées par ledéveloppement durable et la conservationdu cheptel national. Les personnessouhaitant recevoir cette publicationrégulièrement voudront bien faire parvenirleurs nom et adresse à l’éditeur, àl’adresse susmentionnée.AGRI peut être consulté également dansla “Bibliothèque” de DAD: www.fao.org/dad-is.

El Boletín de información sobre recursosgenéticos animales se publica bajo losauspicios de la Organización de lasNaciones Unidas para la Agricultura y laAlimentación (FAO). Se edita en el Grupode Recursos Zoogenéticos de la Direcciónde Producción y Sanidad Animal de laFAO. Se puede obtener directamente de laFAO o a través de sus agentes de venta.

EL BOLETÍN DE INFORMACIÓN SOBRERECURSOS GENÉTICOS ANIMALES seráenviado gratuitamente a quienes esténinteresados en el desarrollo sostenible yla conservación del ganado doméstico. Sise desea recibirlo regularmente, se ruegacomunicar nombre, apellido y direcciónal editor a la dirección arriba indicada.AGRI puede consultarse también en la“Biblioteca” de DAD-IS en:www.fao.org/dad-is.

ANIMAL GENETIC

RESOURCES INFORMATION

BULLETIN

D’INFORMATION

SUR LES RESSOURCES

GÉNÉTIQUES ANIMALES

BOLETÍN DE

INFORMACIÓN SOBRE RECURSOS

GENÉTICOS ANIMALES

CONTENTS Page

442009

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L’ALIMENTATION ET L’AGRICULTURE

ORGANIZACIÓN DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS PARA LA AGRICULTURA Y LA ALIMENTACIÓN

Basic demographic data – a prerequisite for effectivemanagement of animal genetic resources ........................................................... 1

B. Scherf & D. Pilling

Production environment recording .......................................................................... 7B. Scherf & M. Tixier-Boichard

Community-based management of farm animal genetic resourcesin practice: framework for focal goats in two ruralcommunities in Southern Benin ........................................................................ 11

L.H. Dossa, C. Wollny, M. Gauly & I. Gbégo

South African developed meat type goats: A forgottenanimal genetic resource? .................................................................................. 33

A. Pieters, E. van Marle-Köster, C. Visser, & A. Kotze

Genetic diversity and zebu genes introgression in cattle populationalong the coastal region of the Bight of Benin ................................................. 45

O.D. Koudandé, G. Dossou-Gbété, F. Mujibi, H. Kibogo, D. Mburu,G.A. Mensah, O. Hanotte & J.A.M. van Arendonk

Evaluación de la variabilidad y potencial genético de poblacionesde bovinos criollos colombianos...................................................................... 57

R. Martínez, J. Gallego, G. Onofre, J. Pérez & R. Vasquez

Molecular characterization of two common Chadian cattle breeds ........................ 67C. Flury, B.N.R. Ngandolo, B. Müller, J. Zinsstag & H.N. Kadarmideen

Characterization of Banni buffalo of Western India ............................................... 77B. P. Mishra, K.P. Singh, D.B. Chavan, D.K. Sadana,R.S. Kataria, P. Kathiravan & S.P.S. Ahlawat

Establishing a conservation flock for “Vorwerkhuhn” chickenbreed – a case study of in-situ conservation of localchicken breeds in Germany............................................................................... 87

S. Weigend, K. Stricker & F.-G. Röhrßen

Recent Publications ............................................................................................... 89

Editorial policies and procedures ........................................................................... 93

Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) of Animal Genetic Information (AGRI)

• Editor-in-Chief: I. Hoffmann, Chief Animal Production Service, FAO• Editor: S. Galal• Technical Editor: C. Mosconi• Editorial Board: L. Alderson

J. S. BarkerJ. BoyazogluJ.V. Delgado BermejoJ.F. GarciaH. JianlinJ. MuellerO. MwaiC. NimbkarD. NotterL. OllivierE. vanMarle-Koster

The following is the address for each of the members of the Editorial Advisory Board.

• Irene Hoffmann, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome, [email protected]

• Salah Galal, Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ain Shams, PO Box 68,Hadaeq Shubra 11241, Cairo, [email protected]

• Lawrence Alderson, Countrywide Livestock Ltd, 6 Harnage, SY5 6EJ Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK,[email protected]

• Stuart Barker, Emeritus Professor University of New England; Honorary Professor University of Queensland,114 Cooke Road, Witta, Maleny, Qld 4552, [email protected]

• Jean Boyazoglu, 51 Porte de France, 06500, Menton (PACA), [email protected]

• Juan Vicente Delgado Bermejo, Departamento de Genética, Universidad de Córdoba, Campus de RabanalesEdificio C-5 (Gregor Mendel), 14071 Córdoba, [email protected]

• Jose Fernando Garcia, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Apoio, Produção e Saúde Animal,Laboratório de Bioquímica e Biologia Molecular Animal, Rua Clóvis Pestana, Aracatuba, [email protected]

• Han Jianlin, Institute of Animal Science (IAS), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 2, Yuan MingYuan Xi Lu, Haidian District, Beijing 1000193, P.R. [email protected]

• Joaquin Mueller, National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA), CC 277, Valle Verde, San Carlos deBariloche, 8400 Rio Negro, [email protected]

• Okeyo Mwai, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi 00100, Kenya,[email protected]

• Chanda Nimbkar, Animal Husbandry Division, Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 23,Phaltan, Maharashtra, [email protected]

• David Notter, Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg, VA 24061, [email protected]

• Louis Ollivier, 8 Impasse Calmette, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, [email protected]

• Este vanMarle-Koster, Department of Animal & Wildlife Sciences, Faculty of Natural & AgriculturalSciences,University of Pretoria, 0002 Pretoria, South [email protected]

• Cesare Mosconi, European Association for Animal Production (EAAP), Via G. Tomassetti 3, 00161 Rome, [email protected]

I

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Editorial – The 5th session of the Intergovernmental TechnicalWorking Group on Animal Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture. Recommendations and advices

The Fifth Session of the IntergovernmentalTechnical Working Group on Animal GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture took place inRome in January 2009. This first meeting of theWorking Group following the Interlaken Conferencerepresented an important opportunity to fostermomentum in the implementation of the Global Planof Action for Animal Genetic Resources. The positiveoutcomes of the meeting, and the spirit ofcollaboration that characterized the discussions,were therefore very much to be welcomed. TheReport of the Session1 contains clearrecommendations and advice to the Commission onGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, inparticular on the design and elements of a FundingStrategy for the Global Plan of Action and on aprocess for evaluating progress in implementation.

A key objective for the immediate future is totranslate the Strategic Priorities of the Global Planinto effective plans for action at country level. TheWorking Group recommended that the Commissionwelcome the Draft guidelines to assist the preparationof national strategies and action plans for animal geneticresources for food and agriculture presented to themeeting by the FAO Secretariat, and that it requestFAO to finalize and publish these guidelines.Preparation of a National Strategy and Action Planwill help countries to decide on how to achievemore effective utilization of their animal geneticresources, taking national circumstances andpriorities, including the availability of human andfinancial resources, fully into account. It willprovide a means to better engage diverse interestswithin the livestock sector and to enhanceunderstanding among policy-makers and thegeneral public of the importance of animal geneticresources, the multiple roles and values of livestock,and the need to maintain the genetic diversity thatwill enable adaptation to changing conditions.

The Working Group also recommended that theCommission reaffirm the relevance of theestablishment of country-based early warning andresponse systems for animal genetic resources aspart of broader national strategies for the

management of these resources, taking into accountnational circumstances and the relevant StrategicPriorities and Actions of the Global Plan of Action.The Working Group stressed the importance ofnational back-up storage systems for animal geneticresources and recommended that the Commissionencourage countries to establish such systems, ifthey have not done so already.

The Working Group recommended that theCommission acknowledge the importantcontributions of small-scale livestock keepers,particularly in developing countries, as custodiansof much of the world’s animal genetic resources. Itstressed the importance of capacity-building tosupport the improvement of local and multi-functional breeds in low- and medium-inputproduction systems, and institutional support toaddress the particular needs of such systems, whileensuring respect for the knowledge, innovationsand practices of indigenous and local communities,and the application of relevant national legislationand international agreements. It also recommendedthat the Commission note the need for countries totake into account the contributions of small-scalelivestock keepers and promote their full andeffective participation in the implementation of theGlobal Plan of Action; in the preparation andimplementation of National Strategies and ActionPlans for Animal Genetic Resources; and asappropriate, food security, poverty alleviation andlivelihood security policies and programmes.

A two-pronged approach to reporting onprogress in the implementation of the Global Plan ofAction was discussed a) Reporting by countries,regions, FAO and other organizations on theprocess of implementation of the Global Plan ofAction; and b) Reporting by countries on the statusand trends of animal genetic resources which willalso help to assess the actual impact of theimplementation of the Global Plan of Action. For thefirst type of report, the Working Grouprecommended that the Commission adopt a

1All ITWG 5 documents are available at:http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/angrvent-5th-docs.html

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

II

progress reporting interval of four years. Withregard to status and trends reports on animalgenetic resources, the Working Grouprecommended that the Commission request FAO toprepare synthesis reports based on data andinformation provided by countries through DAD-IS,and make these reports available to the Commissionat each of its regular sessions. In this regard, theWorking Group stressed the need for regular

updating of national data and information onanimal genetic resources, and the importance ofproviding financial and technical support fordeveloping countries to assist them in updatingtheir data and information.

The Editors

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

III

La Cinquième session du Groupe de travailtechnique intergouvernemental sur les ressourceszoogénétiques pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture aeu lieu à Rome en janvier 2009. Après la Conférenced’Interlaken, cette première réunion du Groupe detravail a représenté une importante occasion pourpromouvoir la réalisation du Plan d’action mondialsur les ressources zoogénétiques. Les résultats positifsde la réunion, ainsi que l’esprit de collaboration quia caractérisé les discussions, ont été hautementappréciés. Le rapport de la réunion1 contient desrecommandations et conseils précis pour laCommission sur les ressources génétiques pourl’alimentation et l’agriculture, et en particulier sur leconcept et les éléments pour une Stratégie definancement de la mise en oeuvre du Plan d’actionmondial et sur le processus d’évaluation des progrèsobtenus dans la mise en oeuvre.

L’objectif principal pour le futur immédiat est laconversion des Priorités stratégiques du PlanMondial en plans effectifs d’action au niveaunational. Le Groupe de travail a recommandé que laCommission adopte l’ébauche des Directives pour lapréparation des stratégies nationales et des plans d’actionsur les ressources zoogénétiques pour l’alimentation etl’agriculture présentée lors de la réunion par leSecrétariat de la FAO, et que l’on sollicite de la FAOla finalisation et publication de ces directives. Lapréparation d’une Stratégie nationale et un Pland’action aideront les pays à décider commentobtenir une utilisation plus effective de leursressources zoogénétiques tout en tenant comptepleinement des circonstances et des priorités auniveau national, y compris la disponibilité deressources humaines et financières. De cette façonon mettra à disposition un outil pour faciliter unmeilleur accord entre les différentes parties quiexistent dans le domaine de l’élevage et unemeilleure compréhension parmi les législateurs et lepublic sur l’importance des ressourceszoogénétiques, les différents rôles et valeurs del’élevage, ainsi que la nécessité de conserver ladiversité génétique pour permettre son adaptationaux conditions changeantes.

Le Groupe de travail a aussi recommandé que laCommission reconfirme l’importance d’établir auniveau national des systèmes d’alerte etd’intervention rapide pour les ressourceszoogénétiques à l’intérieur d’autres stratégiesnationales plus larges pour la gestion de cesressources, tout en considérant les circonstancesnationales et l’importance des Priorités et desactions stratégiques du Plan d’action mondial. LeGroupe de travail a souligné l’importance dessystèmes nationaux de sauvegarde pour lesressources zoogénétiques et a recommandé à laCommission d’encourager les pays pour qu’ilsétablissent ce type de systèmes s’ils ne l’ont pasencore fait.

Le Groupe de travail a recommandé que laCommission reconnaisse l’importance de lacontribution des petits éleveurs, en particulier dansles pays en voie de développement, en tant quegardiens de la plus grande partie des ressourceszoogénétiques existante dans le monde. On asouligné l’importance du renforcement descapacités de réalisation pour soutenirl’amélioration des races locales et multifonctionnelles dans des systèmes de moyen et faibleapport, ainsi que le soutien des institutions pourrésoudre les besoins spécifiques de ces systèmes,tout en respectant les connaissances, lesinnovations et les pratiques des communautésindigènes et locales et l’application de la législationnationale appropriée et des accords internationaux.Il a également recommandé que la Commission notele besoin des pays à prendre en considération lescontributions des petits propriétaires et à favoriserleur pleine et effective participation dans laréalisation du Plan d’action mondial; dans lapréparation et réalisation des Plans nationaux de

Cinquième session du Groupe de travail techniqueintergouvernemental sur les ressources zoogénétiques pourl’alimentation et l’agriculture

1Tous les documents ITWG 5 sont disponibles sur:http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/angrvent-5th-docs.html

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

IV

stratégie et d’action pour les ressourceszoogénétiques; et, si nécessaire, dans lesprogrammes et les politiques de sécuritéalimentaire, atténuation de la pauvreté et sécuritédes moyens d’existence.

On a discuté d’une double approche pourinformer sur l’état de réalisation du Plan d’actionmondial: a) rapports par pays, régions, de la FAO etdes autres organisations sur l’état de la réalisationdu Plan d’action mondial; et b) rapports par pays surla situation et tendance des ressourceszoogénétiques qui aideront à évaluer l’impact actuelde la réalisation du Plan mondial d’action. Pour lepremier type de rapport le Groupe de travail arecommandé que la Commission adopte laprésentation des rapports sur l’avancement du

travail avec un intervalle de quatre ans. En ce quiconcerne les rapports sur la situation et tendancedes ressources zoogénétiques, le Groupe de travail arecommandé que la Commission sollicite de la FAOla préparation de rapports synthétiques basés surles données et l’information fournis par les pays àtravers DAD-IS et que ces rapports soientaccessibles à la Commission lors de chacune de sesréunions ordinaires. A ce sujet, le Groupe de travaila souligné le besoin d’une mise à jour régulière desdonnées et des informations nationales sur lesressources zoogénétiques, ainsi que l’importance defournir une aide financière et technique aux pays envoie de développement pour les aider dans la mise àjour de leurs données et informations.

Les Editeurs

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

V

La Quinta reunión del Grupo de Trabajo TécnicoIntergubernamental sobre los RecursosZoogenéticos para la Alimentación y la Agriculturatuvo lugar en Roma en enero del 2009. Tras laConferencia de Interlaken, esta primera reunión delGrupo de Trabajo ha representado una ocasiónimportante para fomentar la realización del Plan deAcción Mundial sobre los Recursos Zoogenéticos. Losresultados positivos de la reunión1, así como elespíritu de colaboración que caracterizaron lasdiscusiones, fueron muy apreciados. El informe dela reunión contiene claras recomendaciones yconsejos para la Comisión sobre Recursos Genéticospara la Alimentación y la Agricultura, en particular,sobre el diseño y los elementos para una Estrategiade financiación para el Plan de Acción Mundial, ysobre el proceso de evaluación de los progresosobtenidos en su realización.

El objetivo principal para el futuro inmediato esla conversión de las Prioridades Estratégicas delPlan de Acción Mundial en planes efectivos de accióna nivel nacional. El Grupo de Trabajo recomendóque la Comisión adoptara el borrador de las Líneasguía para la preparación de estrategias nacionales yplanes de acción sobre los recursos zoogenéticos para laalimentación y la agricultura presentado a la reuniónpor la Secretaría de la FAO, y que se solicitara a laFAO que finalicen y publiquen estas líneas guía. Lapreparación de una Estrategia Nacional y un Plande Acción ayudará a los países a decidir cómoconseguir una utilización más efectiva de susrecursos zoogenéticos, teniendo en cuentaplenamente las circunstancias y prioridadesnacionales, incluida la disponibilidad de recursoshumanos y financieros. De esta forma, seproporcionara un medio para alcanzar un mejorcompromiso entre los distintos intereses dentro delsector ganadero y un mayor entendimiento entre loslegisladores y el público sobre la importancia de losrecursos zoogenéticos, las múltiples líneas deconducta y valores de la ganadería, así como lanecesidad de mantener la diversidad genética quepermitirá la adaptación a las condicionescambiantes.

El Grupo de Trabajo también recomendó que laComisión reafirmara la importancia delestablecimiento a nivel nacional de sistemas dealerta y respuesta rápidas para los recursoszoogenéticos como parte de las más ampliasestrategias nacionales para la gestión de estosrecursos, teniendo en cuenta las circunstanciasnacionales y la importancia de las Prioridades yAcciones Estratégicas del Plan de Acción Mundial. ElGrupo de Trabajo subrayó la importancia de lossistemas nacionales de salvaguardia de los datossobre recursos zoogenéticos y recomendó a laComisión alentar a los países para que establezcaneste tipo de sistemas en caso de que no lo hayanhecho todavía.

El Grupo de Trabajo recomendó que la Comisiónreconociera la importante contribución de lospequeños agricultores, en particular de los paísesen vía de desarrollo, en cuanto guardianes de lamayor parte de los recursos zoogenéticos existentesen el mundo. Se subrayó la importancia de reforzarlas capacidades para apoyar la mejora de las razaslocales y multi funcionales en sistemas de baja ymedia producción, y el apoyo institucional pararesolver las necesidades particulares de esossistemas, manteniendo el respeto por losconocimientos, innovaciones y prácticas de lascomunidades indígenas y locales, y el uso de lalegislación nacional relevante y de los acuerdosinternacionales. También recomendó que laComisión tomara nota de la necesidad de los paísesde tener en cuenta las contribuciones de lospequeños propietarios ganaderos y promoviera suplena y efectiva participación en la realización delPlan de Acción Mundial; en la preparación yrealización de los Planes Nacionales de Estrategia yAcción para los Recursos Zoogenéticos; y, cuandosea necesario, en los programas y políticas de

Quinta reunión del Grupo de Trabajo Técnico Intergubernamentalsobre los Recursos Zoogenéticos para la Alimentación y laAgricultura

1Todos los documentos de ITWG 5 están disponibles en:http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/angrvent-5th-docs.html

VI

seguridad alimentaria, alivio de la pobreza yseguridad de sustento.

Se discutió sobre un doble enfoque parainformar acerca del estado de realización del Plan deAcción Mundial: a) Informes por países, regiones, dela FAO y otras organizaciones sobre el estado derealización del Plan de Acción Mundial, y b) Informespor países sobre la situación y tendencia de losrecursos zoogenéticos que ayudará a evaluar elimpacto actual de la realización del Plan de AcciónMundial. Para el primer tipo de informe, el Grupo deTrabajo recomendó que la Comisión adoptara lapresentación de informes sobre el avance del trabajoa intervalos de cuatro años. En cuanto a los

informes sobre la situación y tendencia de losrecursos zoogenéticos, el Grupo de Trabajorecomendó que la Comisión solicitara a la FAO lapreparación de informes sintéticos basados en losdatos y la información proporcionada por lospaíses a través de DAD-IS y que estos informesfueran accesibles a la Comisión durante cada unade sus reuniones ordinarias. A este respecto, elGrupo de Trabajo subrayó la necesidad de unaactualización continúa de los datos e informacionesnacionales sobre recursos zoogenéticos, así como laimportancia de proveer ayuda financiera y técnica alos países en vía de desarrollo para apoyarles en laactualización de sus datos e informaciones.

Los Editores

1

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2009, 44: 1-6

Summary

Demographic data describe the size, structure anddistribution of livestock populations and how thesechange over time. They are fundamental todetermining the risk status of breed populationsboth on a national and a global scale. Currently, nopopulation data are available for 36 percent of thebreeds recorded in the Domestic Animal DiversityInformation System (DAD-IS), and for many otherbreeds data are updated so infrequently thatmonitoring trends in risk status is difficult orimpossible. Data on the geographical distribution ofbreeds are also generally inadequate. A baselinesurvey of the breed population needs to be followedby periodic monitoring. The required frequency ofthe monitoring activities will depend on thegeneration interval of the species in question. Datamay be collected via breed-level censuses orsurveys, or estimated based on species level data. Itis important that national decision-making takesaccount of the global demographics of the breed; aclassification system distinguishing breeds presentonly in one country from those present in severalcountries has been developed. Much remains to bedone to improve the availability of demographicdata. Moreover, methods need to be developed thataccount for the risks of genetic erosion associatedwith indiscriminate cross-breeding. A further keyrequirement is the development of methods forrepresentative sampling of national animalpopulations to allow estimates of their totalpopulation size and other demographic data to beobtained in a cost-effective manner.

Résumé

Les données démographiques indiquent la taille, lastructure et la distribution des populationsdomestiques et comment elles changent dans letemps. Ces données sont fondamentales pourdéterminer la situation de risque des races auniveau national et mondial. Actuellement il n'existe

Basic demographic data – a prerequisite for effective managementof animal genetic resources

B. Scherf & D. Pilling

FAO, Animal Production and Health Division, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

aucune donnée de population pour 36% des racesenregistrées dans le Système d'Information sur laDiversité des Animaux Domestiques (DAD-IS), etdans la plupart des autres cas les données sontmise à jour avec si peu de fréquence qu'il est difficileet même impossible de suivre la situation de risqueet la tendance. Très souvent aussi les données sur ladistribution géographique des races ne sont pasappropriée. Une enquête de base sur lespopulations a besoin d'un suivi continu. Lafréquence nécessaire pour faire le suivi des activitésdépendra de l'intervalle entre générations desespèces à l'étude. Les données doivent être saisies àtravers les recensements par races ou les enquêtes,ou aussi à travers les estimations basées sur lesdonnées au niveau des espèces. Il est important queles législateurs au niveau national tiennent comptede la démographie mondiale de la race. Un systèmede classement a été mis au point qui détermine lesraces présentes seulement dans un pays de cellesqui se trouvent dans différents pays. Il reste encorebeaucoup à faire pour améliorer la disponibilité desdonnées démographiques. Cependant, il estnécessaire de développer des méthodes quivalorisent les risques de l'érosion génétique associésaux croisements sans contrôle. Il est aussi importantde développer des méthodes représentativesd'échantillonnage des populations animales auniveau national afin de permettre l'évaluation de lataille totale des populations et des autres donnéesdémographiques qui peuvent s'obtenir en forme decoût effectif.

Resumen

Los datos demográficos describen el tamaño,estructura y distribución de las poblacionesganaderas y cómo éstas cambian en el tiempo. Estosdatos son fundamentales para determinar lasituación de riesgo de las razas tanto a nivelnacional como a escala mundial. Actualmente noexisten datos sobre población para el 36% de lasrazas registradas en el Sistema de Información

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2Basic demographic data for management of AnGR

sobre Diversidad de Animales Domésticos(DAD-IS), y para muchas otras razas los datos seactualizan con tan poca frecuencia que resultadifícil e incluso imposible monitorear la situaciónde riesgo y tendencia. También los datos sobre ladistribución geográfica de las razas resultan amenudo inadecuados. Una encuesta de base sobrelas poblaciones necesita un seguimiento ymonitoreo periódico. La frecuencia requerida paramonitorear las actividades dependerá del intervaloentre generaciones de las especies en cuestión. Losdatos deben recogerse a través de los censos porrazas o de las encuestas, o también porestimaciones basadas sobre datos a nivel deespecies. Es importante que los legisladoresnacionales tengan en cuenta la demografía mundialde la raza; se ha puesto a punto un sistema declasificación que distingue las razas presentes soloen un país de las que se encuentran en diversospaíses. Todavía queda mucho por hacer paramejorar la disponibilidad de los datosdemográficos. Sin embargo, es necesario desarrollarmétodos que valoren los riesgos de la erosióngenética asociada a los cruces indiscriminados.Otra necesidad importante es el desarrollo demétodos representativos de muestreo de laspoblaciones animales a nivel nacional para permitirlas estimaciones del tamaño total de las poblacionesy otros datos demográficos que puedan serobtenidos en forma de costo efectivo.

Key words: National strategies, Effective populationsize, Population trends, Geographical distribution, Riskstatus, Management.

Introduction

Demographic data describe the size, structure anddistribution of livestock populations and how thesechange over time. They are fundamental to effectivedecision-making in animal genetic resources(AnGR) management, for example to address thequestion of whether a breed should be targeted forconservation or whether breeding strategies need tobe adapted in order to avoid the loss of within-breedgenetic diversity. The Global Plan of Action for AnimalGenetic Resources, adopted by 109 countries at thefirst International Technical Conference on AnimalGenetic Resources, held in Interlaken, Switzerlandin 2007, and endorsed by the FAO Conference,highlights “characterization, inventory and monitoringof trends and associated risks” as one of its fourStrategic Priority Areas (FAO 2007a).

The main focus of this paper is on the use ofdemographic data to inform strategic planning ofthe management of breed populations at nationallevel, and in particular the basic decision as towhether a breed should be included in aconservation programme (Figure 1). However, theyare also important for decision-making atsupra-national level and for planning of breedconservation and development on a more localscale.

Use of Demographic Data forPlanning National Strategies forthe Management of AnGR

In the context of national planning, one of the mainfactors to be considered is the risk status of thebreeds under consideration – essentially anindication of the likelihood that the breeds willbecome extinct if no remedial action is taken.Clearly, risk status is linked to the size of thepopulation – small populations are at greater risk ofbeing wiped out by a disastrous event and will bemore rapidly threatened by a downward trend. Thepreferred measure for the determination of riskstatus is the effective population size (Ne) (FAO,1992; Gandini et al., 2004). This allows the rate ofinbreeding, and hence the loss of genetic diversitywithin the population, to be inferred. CalculatingNe requires that data on the size of both the femaleand the male breeding populations are available.

In addition to the effective size of the population,risk status depends on population trends.Predicting future population trends andfluctuations, and hence the size of the population ata given point in the future, is difficult given thenumber of factors involved. Nonetheless, currenttrends in the size of the population need to bemonitored. A downward trend, particularly a rapiddownward trend, should serve as a warning, and(unless the potential loss of the breed is accepted) asa call to action.

A further important consideration fordetermining risk status is the geographicaldistribution of the population. Of particularimportance is the extent to which a breedpopulation is restricted to a limited geographicalarea. The more concentrated the population is inspatial terms, the greater the risk that all theanimals, or a large proportion of them, will beaffected by a localized disaster such as a diseaseepidemic. Data on breeds’ geographical distributionare important for a number of reasons in addition to

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3

Animal Genetic Resources Information, No. 44, 2009

Scherf & Pilling

assessing risk. They facilitate further, more in depth,studies; they allow more effective planning for, andresponse to, emergencies that threaten geneticdiversity; and, particularly if georeferenced, theyallow breed data to be related to environmental andsocio-economic datasets and hence more elaborateand comprehensive analysis (FAO/WAAP, 2008).

Finally, national-level assessment of risk status,and consequent decisions regarding conservationmeasures, need to be considered in the context of thedemography of the breed on an international scale.A breed that has unthreatened populations in othercountries is likely to be a lower priority forconservation efforts.

Determining risk status is, of course, only oneaspect of the decision as to whether a conservationprogramme should be undertaken for a particularbreed – genetic distinctiveness, adaptive traits,relative utility for food and agriculture, andhistorical or cultural factors need to be considered(Figure 1). Nonetheless, without basic demographicdata, decision-makers will be at a loss.

Collecting Demographic Data

The above discussion has illustrated the importanceof obtaining basic demographic data and the need

to document changes and trends. This requires abaseline survey followed by periodic monitoring.Monitoring should be conducted at least once pergeneration of the species, particularly for breedsclassified as at risk or potentially at risk. Thisrequires (monitoring) surveys at intervals of abouteight years for horses and donkeys, five years forcattle, buffalo, sheep and goats, three years for pigs,and two years for poultry species. Monitoring maybe required more frequently depending on thereproductive technology employed for each speciesand breed. Thus the reproductive technologygenerally employed in the respective breedpopulations should be recorded. Monitoring shouldserve as the basis for national early warning.

Various methods may be employed to determinethe total populations size, and these need to bedocumented (see Box 1). Analysis of data enteredinto the Domestic Animal Diversity InformationSystem (DAD-IS) 1 by countries’ NationalCoordinators2 revealed that 87 percent of entries arebased on a census or survey at breed level, while

1http://www.fao.org/dad-is2National Coordinators for the Management of AnimalGenetic Resources are officially appointed by therelevant authorities in each country.

Figure 1. Information required to design management strategies. Source: (FAO, 2007b).

Status of the breed: population size and structure

geographical distribution within the country populations of same breed in other countries

“Value” of the breed: genetic distinctiveness adaptive traitsrelative utility value for food and agriculture

historical or cultural use

No conservationprogramme

Conservationprogramme

Geneticimprovementprogramme

No planned geneticchanges

Pure/straightbreeding

Cross-breeding

Breeds not at risk

Breed population within a country

High riskof extinction

Breeds potentially at risk

Potential for improvement: target traits (genetic diversity within

population) preference of market and society

I n v i t r oconservation

I n v i v o conservation

Breeds at risk

Riskstatus

Elements of action plansCriteria

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


11 percent are estimates based on a census atspecies level (e.g. a national agricultural census).However, for 36 percent of all breeds reported toDAD-IS, National Coordinators were unable toestimate the total population size. Moreover,population data for many of the breed populationhave been only reported for a single year or have notbeen updated regularly, making it difficult orimpossible to monitor trends.

Agricultural censuses are conducted regularlyby most countries (FAO, 2005). Some countries alsocarry out more specific national livestock censuses.At present, however, most national censuses do notcontain breed-level data. Incorporating breed-levelquestions within such censuses is potentially animportant means to improve the availability ofbreed demographic data. The 2006 NationalLivestock Census of Pakistan is an example of acensus that collected breed-level data (for cattle,buffaloes, sheep and goats; data for horses, mulesand asses were collected only at the species level)(Government of Pakistan, 2006). In the absence ofbreed-level data, a species-level census cannonetheless be the basis for a rough estimate ofbreed population size (see Box 1).

The smaller the breed population, the easier itwill usually be to provide an accurate estimate of itstotal size. These are the populations for whichhigher accuracy is more important, as they may beat risk of extinction. For these populations moredetailed surveys might be required.

Characterization at the molecular genetic levelmay be undertaken to explore genetic diversity

within and between populations, and to determinegenetic relationships among them. In the absence ofcomprehensive breed characterization data anddocumentation of the origin of breedingpopulations, molecular marker information mayprovide the most easily obtainable estimates ofgenetic diversity within and between a given set ofpopulations.

The International Dimension

As noted above, conservation decisions need to beconsidered in the light of the status of the breed onan international scale rather than merely based onnational level data. A basic requirement is todistinguish breeds that are present in more than onecountry from those present in only one country. Aclassification based on this distinction wasdeveloped during the preparation of The State of theWorld’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (see Box 2). Identifying transboundarybreed populations enables coordination betweencountries planning conservation programmes.Regional transboundary breeds are found insubstantial numbers in most regions of the world;conservation measures for these breeds should beplanned at regional or subregional level.

Census at species level: census was conducted by species and not by breed; knowledge(or an estimate) of the proportion of the total population of a species that is made up of aparticular breed can be used to estimate the population size of that breed.

Census at breed level: population figures were obtained by breed in a regular census.Censuses usually cover the whole country or include representative samples of farms.

Survey at breed level: survey was carried out in a certain area only to estimate thepopulation size of the breed in its distribution area.

Survey at species level: survey carried out at species level from which breed populationsizes were obtained. In general surveys include more detail in the type of data collectedbut are usually not country-wide. Data extrapolation is needed.

Estimate: the population size is not really known but can be figured out on the basis ofexperience or last census.

Box 1. Methods to determine total population size (FAO 1998).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5


Scherf & Pilling

Conclusions

Despite the importance of demographic data todecision-making in AnGR management, muchremains to be done to fill the gaps and to addressthe priorities identified in the Global Plan of Action.For many breeds, no population data are available.For many others, trends in risk status cannot beadequately monitored because data are updated soinfrequently. Within-country geographicaldistribution of breed populations – important forplanning many aspects of AnGR management – ispoorly recorded. Once collected, demographic dataneed to be made available to those who need them –hence the importance of information systems forAnGR. Improved demographic data need to becomplemented by improved data on the phenotypicand molecular characteristics of the breeds’ inquestion and on their uses and roles in theproduction systems where they are kept. These dataalso need to be made widely available to therelevant stakeholders.

At the international level, linking national breedpopulations with a common gene pool acrosscountries has helped to provide a more realisticassessment of breeds’ risk status. However, regionaland global cooperation in the conservation andsustainable utilization of AnGR would benefitgreatly if more comprehensive demographic datawere available and used in the planning ofmanagement strategies.

In addition to addressing the problem of missingpopulation data, other weaknesses of currentsystems for monitoring genetic erosion need to beovercome. A major problem is the lack of measuresthat capture genetic dilution caused byindiscriminate crossbreeding – a problem that isconsidered by many experts to be a major threat toAnGR diversity. At the same time, there are many

nondescript local populations for which it isunclear whether they form (relatively) homogenousgroups that can be distinguished fromneighbouring populations. Molecularcharacterization studies help to unravel suchrelationships, but need to be better coordinated andthe results better combined.

A final point to emphasize is the need for thedevelopment of methods for representativesampling of national animal populations toestimate their total population size and otherdemographic data in a cost-effective manner.

List of References

FAO. 1992. The management of globalanimal genetic resources. Proceedings of an ExpertConsultation, Rome, Italy, April 1992. J. Hodges(Ed.). Animal Production and Health Paper no.104.Rome.

FAO 1998. DAD-IS 2.0 User’s manual fornational co-ordinators for farm animal geneticresources. (available at: http://lprdad.fao.org/cgi-bin/getblob.cgi?sid=-1,50005853).

FAO. 2005. A system of integratedagricultural censuses and surveys. Volume 1. WorldProgramme for the Census of Agriculture 2010.Rome

Local breeds: breeds that occur only in one country.

Transboundary breeds: breeds that occur in more than one country. Theseare further differentiated into:

– Regional transboundary breeds:transboundary breeds that occur only in one of the sevenSoW-AnGR regions3.

– International transboundary breeds:transboundary breeds that occur in more than one region.

Box 2. Local versus transboundary breeds.

3Regions defined for the purpose of the SoW-AnGRreport: Africa, Asia, Europe and the Caucasus, LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East,North America and the Southwest Pacific.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


FAO. 2007a Global Plan of Action for AnimalGenetic Resources and the Interlaken Declaration.Rome. (available at www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1404e/a1404e00.htm).

FAO. 2007b. The State of the World’s AnimalGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,B. Rischkowsky & D. Pilling (Eds), Rome, Italy.

FAO/WAAP. 2008. Production environmentdescriptors for animal genetic resources. Report ofthe FAO/WAAP Expert Meeting, held in Caprarola,Italy, 6–8 May 2008, D. Pilling, B. Rischkowsky &B. Scherf (Eds), Rome, Italy.

Government of Pakistan. 2006. PakistanLivestock Census 2006. Lahore, Pakistan,Agricultural Census Organization.

Gandini, G.C., Ollivier, L., Danell, B., Distl,O., Georgoudis, A., Groeneveld, E., Martyniuk, E.,van Arendonk, J.A.M. & Woolliams, J.A. 2004.Criteria to assess the degree of endangerment oflivestock breeds in Europe. Livestock ProductionScience, 91(1-2): 173–182.

7

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2009, 44: 7-10

Summary

Improved understanding of the adaptation oflivestock breeds to their production environments isimportant for many decisions in the field of AnGRmanagement, ranging from genetic improvement toconservation. However, adaptation is complex anddifficult to measure. One approach to this problemis to characterize adaptation indirectly bydescribing the production environments in which abreed has been kept over time, and to which it hasprobably become adapted. Comprehensive andcomparable descriptions of the productionenvironments in which animals are kept are alsoneeded to make meaningful evaluations ofperformance data and to enable comparativeanalysis of the performance of different breeds. Toaddress these requirements and in accordance withthe Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources,it has been proposed that a recognized set of“production environment descriptors” should beestablished and used throughout the world as acommon framework for describing breeds’production environments. An important aspect ofthe process will be the georeferencing of breeddistributions, which will allow them to be linked toa range of existing georeferenced data sets(e.g. climatic data). The link between a breed and aspecific production environment may offer a basisfor the development of a niche market; examples ininclude the Bresse chicken of France and theAbondance and Tarentaise cattle breeds of thenorthern Alps. Such niche markets representimportant opportunities for keeping traditionalbreeds in use.

Résumé

Améliorer nos connaissances sur l’adaptation desraces domestiques à leur milieu de production estimportant pour de nombreuses raisons dans ledomaine de la gestion des AnGR, qui va de

l’amélioration génétique à la conservation.Cependant, l’adaptation est complexe et difficile àmesurer. Une approche à ce problème est lacaractérisation de l’adaptation indirectement, àtravers la description des milieux de productiondans lesquels une race se trouve et auxquels elle adû probablement s’adapter. Il est aussi nécessaired’avoir des descriptions compréhensibles etcomparables des milieux de production danslesquels les animaux se sont trouvés pour réaliserune évaluation des données de performance etpermettre l’analyse de comparaison desperformances des différentes races. Pour atteindreces objectifs, et en accord avec le Plan Mondiald’Action pour les Ressources Zoogénétiques, il a étéproposé qu’un ensemble reconnu de « descripteursdes milieux de production » soit établi et utilisé dansle monde comme cadre commun de travail pour ladescription des milieux de production des races. Unaspect important du processus sera la saisie desréférences géographiques de la distribution de larace, ce qui permettra de la mettre en relation avecun ensemble de données déjà existantes etréférencées (p.e. données climatiques). La relationentre une race et un milieu spécifique de productionpeut offrir une base pour le développement d’unmarché de niche, comme c’est le cas du pouletBresse français et les races bovines Abondance etTarentaise du Nord des Alpes. Ces marchés deniche représentent des occasions importantes quipermettent de conserver les races traditionnelles.

Resumen

Mejorar los conocimientos sobre la adaptación delas razas domésticas a sus medios de producción esimportante por muchas razones en el campo de lagestión de los AnGR, que va desde la mejoragenética a la conservación. Sin embargo, laadaptación es compleja y difícil de medir. Unenfoque a este problema es la caracterización de laadaptación indirectamente a través de la

Production environment recording

B. Scherf1 & M. Tixier-Boichard2

1FAO, Animal Production and Health Division, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy2Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Jouy-en-Josas, France

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

8Production environment recording

descripción de los medios de producción en los queuna raza se ha encontrado y a los queprobablemente se ha tenido que adaptar. Tambiénson necesarias las descripciones comprensibles ycomparables de los medios de producción en losque los animales han estado para realizarevaluaciones de los datos de rendimiento y permitirlos análisis de comparación de los rendimientos delas distintas razas. Para alcanzar estos requisitos yde acuerdo con el Plan Mundial de Acción para losRecursos Zoogenéticos, se ha propuesto que unconjunto reconocido de « descriptores de medios deproducción » sea establecido e utilizado en todo elmundo como marco común de trabajo para ladescripción de los medios de producción de lasrazas. Un aspecto importante del proceso seráreferenciar geográficamente la distribución de laraza, lo que permitirá relacionarla con un conjuntode datos ya existentes y georeferenciados(por ej. datos climáticos). La relación entre una razay un medio específico de producción puede ofreceruna base para el desarrollo de un nicho de mercado,como los ejemplos que incluyen el pollo Bressefrancés y las razas de vacuno Abondance yTarentaise del norte de los Alpes. Estos nichos demercado representan oportunidades muyimportantes que permiten mantener a las razastradicionales.

Key words: Adaptation, Production EnvironmentDescriptors (PEDs), Georeferencing, Surveys.

Introduction

Livestock animal genetic resources (AnGR) havebeen domesticated throughout the world to meetlocal or regional needs. Animals have been selectedby farmers for their particular characteristics orcultural value whilst they were also adaptinggenetically to local conditions, diseases, availablefeeds, climate, predators and many other persistentvariables imposed by the local environment.Improved understanding of the adaptation oflivestock breeds to their production environments isimportant for many decisions in the field of AnGRmanagement ranging from genetic improvement toconservation. However, adaptation is complex anddifficult to measure. One approach to this problemis to characterize adaptation indirectly bydescribing the production environments in which abreed has been kept over time, and to which it hasprobably become adapted. Comprehensive andcomparable descriptions of the productionenvironments in which animals are kept are also

vital to make meaningful evaluations ofperformance data and to enable comparativeanalysis of the performance of different breeds.

Data Requirements

To address these requirements and in accordancewith the Global Plan of Action for Animal GeneticResources (FAO, 2007a), it has been proposed that arecognized set of “production environmentdescriptors” (PEDs) should be established and usedthroughout the world as a common framework fordescribing breeds’ production environments. It isintended that such a framework be used as the basisfor the inclusion of more detailed productionenvironment data within FAO’s Domestic AnimalDiversity Information System (DAD-IS at:http://www.fao.org/dad-is/). A meeting held inArmidale, Australia in 1998 made a first attempt todevise a PEDS framework, and developed aworksheet or questionnaire for the purposes ofcollecting PEDs data (FAO, 1998). At a follow-upmeeting held in Caprarola, Italy in 2008 theprevious work was reviewed and further developed(FAO, 2008). According to the framework devised atthe latter meeting, a breed’s productionenvironment is divided into two main domains, themanagement environment and the naturalenvironment. These domains are further brokendown into a hierarchy of criteria (see Figure 1).Measures were defined to describe each criterion.

Many developing countries have very littlecapacity to collect and analyse productionenvironment variables. However, most of themeasures required for the natural environmentdomain are now available on global high resolutionmaps with the exception of the distribution ofdiseases and parasites. If breed distributions weregeoreferenced it would be possible to overlay themwith these mapped data sets, which could allow farmore comprehensive description and analysis of thebreeds’ production environments. Georeferencing ofbreed distributions should therefore be given highpriority.

Data Collection

Surveys will be organized differently depending onthe institutional background. In developedcountries, where commercial and conservationfarms keep registers of individual animals and theirpedigrees, structured surveys can be used to collect

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

9


Scherf & Tixier-Boichard

information on production systems and theenvironment. The procedure should take advantageof current data collection systems and additionalcosts should be quite limited.

In countries where such data are not regularlyrecorded, specific surveys need to be set up. Fortraditional communities in pastoral and farmingproduction systems, participatory surveys andstructured interviews can be used to generate dataon breeding objectives, breed and trait preferencesand production system constraints. In the context oftraditional breeds, these descriptions give insightsinto the multitude of functions and services thatbreeds provide for their keepers. Statisticalsampling procedures can be applied to studylocalities, farms and individual animals once thesampling framework is defined.

In situations where limited documentedinformation on breed identification andcharacteristics is available, extensive exploratorysurveys may be necessary. However, exploratory

surveys have limitations; the facts generated arehighly subject to the biases of questionnairerespondents. Thus, steps need to be taken toground-truth and cross-check findings usingcomplementary procedures such as key-informantinterviews, focus-group discussions andreporting-back sessions with respondentcommunities. Consequently, these surveys becomedemanding in terms of time, skilled personnel andfinancial resources. This has been observed, forexample, in livestock breed surveys in Zimbabweand Ethiopia. (FAO, 2007b).

Use of Production EnvironmentDescriptions for AnGRManagement - an Example

Due to their adaptation to specific environments,local breeds may have considerable value for niche

Figure 1. Production environment descriptors for characterization of animal genetic resources.

Production Environment Descriptors

Management environment Natural environment

Disease, parasite & disease complexes

Socio-economic characteristics

Management intervention Climate Terrain features

Livestock production

system type

Level of confinement

Climate modifiers

Disease & parasite control

Reproduction strategies

Feed & water availability

Market orientation

Market targeted

Main uses and roles

Gender aspects

Diseases

Ecto- parasites

Endo- parasites

Other known threats

including: feed + water

toxins, predators and other harmful

animals

Temperature

Relative humidity

Precipitation

Wind conditions

Radiation

Day length

Elevation

Slope

Soil pH

Surface conditions

Tree cover

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

10Production environment recording

production. Verrier et al. (2005) provide twoexamples where nice markets have beensuccessfully established by connecting naturalconstraints with specific features of local breeds.The creation of niche markets is supported inFrance by a certificate, the Appellation d’OrigineContrôlée (AOC = controlled term of origin). TheBresse AOC chicken is raised only in the Bressegeographical area as defined by law to promoteproduct quality throughout the production process.For the AOC, a geographical district has to bedefined and characterized by specific features of thenatural conditions and production system, whichcannot be found in another geographical area.Another example provided is AOC cheeseproduction from Abondance and Tarentaise cattlebreeds on high-altitude pastures of the northernAlps. These two breeds show some adaptation andfunctional traits of interest for the mountain farmingsystem and the use of high-altitude pastures.

The efficiency of these systems and theirdynamics do not depend only on the traits of thebreeds but also on the organization of farmers andproducers. A clear genetic strategy is needed,including on-farm performance recording and anemphasis on adaptation and functional traits in theselection goal. In harsh environments, such asmountain regions, particular attention should begiven to adaptation to the local environment. Theability of local breeds to produce in such conditions,due to their rusticity and their productivity inrelation to the environment, should be fullyevaluated.

Niche products are appealing because they maycombine, at a local level, dynamic breedconservation and economic profitability. Nicheproducts are generally more expensive thanstandard products, and their success will dependon the buying power of consumers. Thus, nicheproducts appear to present a very good opportunityto preserve local breeds in a favourable economiccontext such as may be found in developed

countries. Niche products may not be so easy todevelop in developing countries. Cultural practicesare also key factors in the successful development ofniche products.

List of References

FAO/WAAP. 2008. Production EnvironmentDescriptors for Animal Genetic Resources, Report ofthe FAO/WAAP Expert Meeting, held in Caprarola,Italy, 6–8 May 2008. Pilling, D., Rischkowsky, B.,Scherf, B. (Eds), Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2007a Global Plan of Action for AnimalGenetic Resources and the Interlaken Declaration.Rome. (available at www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1404e/a1404e00.htm).

FAO 2007b Report of the Scientific Forum onAnimal Genetic Resources held during theInternational Technical Conference on AnimalGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,Interlaken, Switzerland, 3 September 2007(available at www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/documents/Interlaken/ScienceForum_report.pdf).

Verrier, E., Tixier-Boichard, M., Bernigaud,R. & Naves, M. 2005. Conservation and value oflocal livestock breeds: usefulness of niche productsand/or adaptation to specific environments.Animal Genetic Resources Information Bulletin, 36,21–32 (available at http://lprdad.fao.org/cgi-bin/getblob.cgi?sid=-1,50006076)

FAO. 1998 Production EnvironmentDescriptors for Farm Animal Genetic Resources.Report of a Working Group, held in Armidale,Australia, 19–21 January 1998. Rome. (Available at:http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/getblob.cgi?sid=-1,50006251).

11

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2009, 44: 11-31

Summary

This paper describes and analyses the process ofimplementing participatory community-basedmanagement (CBM) towards sustainablemanagement of goat genetic resources in two ruralcommunities in Southern Benin from November2005 to February 2007. The process started with theselection of the communities. This was followed bya participatory situation analysis, identification ofproblems and of possible solutions, and theprovision of relevant information and training tointerested farmers. It was facilitated by amultidisciplinary research team composed of aspecialist in livestock production systems, asocio-economist and an agronomist. The interactionbetween the research team and the farmers aimed todevelop and implement community led strategiestowards better management and conservation of thelocal resources of goat. The approach adopted tofacilitate the creation of representative, accountableand legal local institutions and the efforts made inensuring their empowerment are described. It hasbeen shown that once local people recognise thebenefits of such community-based activities and areoffered the relevant information and technicalsupport, they can organize themselves effectivelyand take appropriate actions to better manage andconserve their local resources. The interactivenature of this approach allows its rapid adjustmentto different local conditions and thus its replicationelsewhere.

Résumé

Cette étude décrit et analyse le processusd’élaboration et de mise en œuvre de mécanismes

Community-based management of farm animal geneticresources in practice: framework for focal goats in two

rural communities in Southern Benin

L.H. Dossa1, C. Wollny2, M. Gauly1 & I. Gbégo3

1Georg-August University of Goettingen, Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics,Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075 Goettingen, Germany

2University of Applied Sciences Bingen, Faculty of Life Sciences and Engineering,Berlinstrasse 109, 55411 Bingen, Germany

3Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin, INRAB, CRAS Niaouli,01 BP: 884, Cotonou, République du Bénin

pour une gestion à base communautaire desressources génétiques caprines dans deuxcommunautés rurales au sud du Bénin. La premièreétape de cette recherche-action initiée en Novembre2005 par une équipe pluridisciplinaire composéed’un spécialiste des systèmes de productionsanimales, d’un socio-économiste et d’un agronomeest la sélection des communautés. Elle a été suiviepar un diagnostic participatif des conditionsactuelles d’utilisation des ressources caprineslocales, par l’identification des contraintes et dessolutions possibles, par des échangesd’informations pertinentes entre communautésrurales et chercheurs et par l’organisation deséances de sensibilisation et de formation àl’intention des éleveurs. Les résultats ont montréque lorsque les communautés locales sont informéesdu danger que représente la perte de la diversitégénétique animale pour leur bien-être social,culturel et économique, et qu’elles bénéficient d’unappui technique adéquat, elles peuvent s’organiserde manière efficace et développer des stratégiesappropriées pour mieux gérer et conserver leursressources zoogénétiques locales.

Resumen

Este estudio describe y analiza el proceso deelaboración y puesta en marcha de mecanismospara una gestión con base comunitaria de losrecursos zoogenéticos caprinos en doscomunidades rurales en el sur de Benín. La primeraetapa de esta acción-investigación inició ennoviembre 2005 con la selección de lascomunidades por parte de un equipopluridisciplinario compuesto pour un especialistaen sistemas de producción animal, un

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

12Community-based management of local goats in Benin

socioeconómico y un agrónomo. A esta etapa siguióun diagnóstico participativo sobre las condicionesactuales de utilización de los recursos locales encaprinos, una identificación de las limitaciones y delas posibles soluciones utilizando los intercambiosde informaciones pertinentes entre las comunidadesrurales y los investigadores y la formación deganaderos. Los resultandos han mostrado quecuando las comunidades locales están informadasdel peligro que representa la pérdida de diversidadgenética animal para el bienestar social, cultural yeconómico, y si se les proporciona apoyo técnicoadecuado, pueden organizarse de forma eficaz ydesarrollar estrategias apropiadas para una mejorgestión y conservación de sus recursos zoogenéticoslocales.

Key words: Community-based management, Goat,Improvement program, Participatory research,Open-nucleus breeding scheme.

Introduction

The increasing recognition that conservation ofnatural resources is unlikely to be sustainable overthe long term unless the local communities whoselives depend upon these resources are activelyinvolved and their needs considered (Campbell andVainio-Mattila, 2003; Mascia et al., 2003; Chan et al.,2007) has resulted in the development of a newconservation paradigm of ‘community-basednatural resource management’ (CBNRM). CBNRMasserts the principle of management of naturalresources by, for, and with local communities(Western and Wright, 1994) and recognizes thatlocal people have sophisticated knowledge of localecological and social conditions that can beeffectively used to manage natural resources (Berkeset al., 2000).

The concept of community-based management offarm animal genetic resources (CBMFAnGR) buildson principles of CBNRM. It refers to a system ofFAnGR and ecosystem management in which thelivestock keepers organize themselves and play acentral role in identifying their FAnGR and inimplementing all activities related its conservationand sustainable use (Rege, 2001). Effectiveparticipation of the communities and theirempowerment are determinants for the success of aCBNRM program (Little, 1994; Ghimire andPimbert, 1997; Berkes, 2004) and appropriate legaland self-reliant local institutions are necessary forits sustainability (Ostrom, 1990; Brett, 2003). The

same is true of any livestock genetic improvementprogram (Kahi et al., 2005; Kosgey et al., 2006). It isalso argued that ‘Open Nucleus BreedingSchemes’ (ONBS) could be an appropriate strategyfor genetic improvement and conservation of animalgenetic resources under smallholder productionsystems (Kiwuwa, 1992; Mueller et al., 2002; Olivieret al., 2002). The thrusts of the action researchdescribed in this paper are to:• Empower, organize and enhance the capacity of

local communities to sustainably use andmanage their small ruminants.

• Create a legal and financial framework thatsupports community-based initiatives.

Materials and Methods

The methodology applied in this study is aniterative approach adapted from Sultana andThompson (2003). It includes 4 major steps(Figure 1) and a lot of small steps within each majorstep.

Selection of communities

For the purpose of this study, the definition ofcommunity has been restricted to that of a village.Two communes, Come and Toffo (Figure 2) wereselected because of the relatively high proportion ofpoverty in their populations. According to WFP(1998), about 24% of the population in Come and26% in Toffo live below the poverty threshold. Comeis located in the fishery area about 60 kilometerswest of Cotonou, the economic capital of Benin,whereas Toffo is located about 80 kilometers northwest of Cotonou. An initial assessment was carriedout in November 2005 to select in each commune, arepresentative village out of four pre-selected.Village leaders were first contacted by arepresentative of the local agricultural extensionservice in Come and by a research and developmentagent of the National Agricultural ResearchInstitute in Toffo.

Following an initial expression of interest by thevillage leaders, a meeting with local resourcepersons was arranged in each village. Theseresource persons were identified and informedtogether by the research team and the localauthorities. The following topics were discussedduring the meeting: the species of livestock kept inthe community, their importance, priority species

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

13


Dossa et al.

for eventual research action and the existence of anyprevious community based initiatives.Subsequently, the village of Ouedeme-Pedah inCome and the village of Gbede in Toffo wereselected based on following criteria:• Relative importance of small ruminants.• Accessibility in all seasons.• Pristineness: locations where no previous

long-term research projects had been conductedand that were not connected to national researchinstitutions.

• Interest of village leaders in participation.The field work team consisted of a specialist in

livestock production systems, a socio-economistand an agronomist. This team was reinforced ineach research location by a livestock technician and

a private veterinarian. In Gbede, the technician wasa research assistant from the National AgriculturalResearch Institute, whereas the technician inOuedeme-Pedah was a livestock extension officer.Together with the veterinarians, they provided theinstitutional support and acted as facilitators.

Initial village meeting andsocio-economic studies

In each village selected, local leaders were asked toarrange for a village meeting where the researchteam provided the participants with all informationrelated to the project, its objectives and benefits. The

Selection of Communities

Initial Contact and Prior Informant Consent

Situation Analysis

Stakeholder Analysis & Household Census

Accessing Relevant Data & Local Knowledge

Participatory Action Planning

Community Dialogue, Knowledge Sharing

Problems Census & Prioritization &

Possible Solutions

Development of Management Plans,

Institutions and Indicators for Monitoring

Review, Implementation & Revision of

Management Plans

Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation of

Outcomes

Figure 1. Methodological approach.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Figure 2. Research locations in southern Benin.

‘Prior Informed Consent’ (PIC) was obtained from thecommunities and was followed by the situationanalysis which encompassed severalsocio-economic studies. It started with aparticipatory village social and resource mappingand seasonal calendar. Transect walks were donewith community members to consider thegeographical boundaries of the communities, theirnatural resources and related issues. One of themain concerns of the research project was to ensurethat in each village, the socio-economic conditionsand the concerns of the most vulnerable peoplekeeping livestock were understood and taken intoaccount during the development of the CBMframework. Therefore, three key informants wereidentified in each village based on their level ofparticipation during the resource mapping and ontheir knowledge of the village for a participatorywealth rank exercise. A list of household headsliving in the village was obtained from the chief ofthe village and was updated together with the keyinformants. Each key informant was interviewedseparately. He was first asked about his own

perception of wealth and poverty. Then he wasasked to sort cards containing the name of the headof households into pile representing the wealthstatus of each household according to the methoddescribed by Grandin (1988). More detailed surveysof a random sample households stratified by wealthclasses was done to find out more about theirsources of income and the contribution of differentlivestock species to their livelihoods. Focus groupdiscussions and in depth interviews in randomlyselected households were carried out to understandthe ownership patterns of small ruminants, torecord owners’ local technical knowledge, theirperceptions of constraints and their traitspreferences.

Participatory planning

Following the socio-economic studies, feedbackmeetings were held in each village in December2005 to share information, to discuss and validate

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15


Dossa et al.

the findings of the socio-economic studies and tomobilize communities towards CBM actionplanning. An interim planning team was electedand was responsible for the timing andorganization of the next planning meetings. Duringsubsequent village meetings and workshops,participants discussed, ranked and decided on keyproblems, determined causes and effects andproposed possible solutions. In each village, theinterim planning team was assisted by a trainedcommunity development facilitator who wascharged with the responsibilities of facilitating andsupporting group development processes to reachthe maturity and performance stages. This wasachieved initially through supporting thefacilitation of meetings and group dynamics,training and support in leadership skills, recordkeeping, and training in other areas of groupdevelopment as well as providing specific technicalsupport and linking groups with service providers.Various participatory tools such as brainstorming,ranking, problem and solution games, processdiagrams, matrices and visualization techniques(for a review see Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994;Catley, 1999) were used.

Review, implementation and revision ofmanagement plan

This phase was overlapping with the participatoryplanning phase and involved regular facilitatedfeedback meetings and interactive learningsessions. In an iterative way (Figure 3),implemented actions were discussed, revised andthe overall management plan readjustedaccordingly.

Results and Discussion

Community mobilization and exchangeof knowledge

Initial investigations during baseline surveysindicated that the communities in Gbede andOuedeme-Pedah were suspicious about outsiders,government and NGO led development initiatives.This implies that a few local leaders would prevailin most community decisions. Therefore, at the firstvillage meeting, the research team was successful inavoiding the risk of raising financial expectationsby discussing short-term and long term benefits ofthe research project. It has been observed that somecommunity members, mainly local ‘elites’ lostinterest in participating in the research activitieswhen the communities were told they would not begetting any handout of money but only facilitationand training.

Through the different steps of the mobilizationphase, the research team was successful ingradually convincing the participants that theresearch project was for their own benefit. Thedifferent participatory rural appraisal techniquesused in this process were helpful in entering thecommunities, in getting to know the people and thenatural resources (including farm animalresources), in establishing relationships with thecommunities, in collecting and sharing information,in building mutual trust and in improving theunderstanding of the different sources of livelihood.First and foremost the participatory village resourcemapping exercises (Figures 4 and 5) revealed thatpeople have a valuable knowledge of the naturalresources, including domestic animal resources andforage plants available in their environment.

Figure 3. Management plan implementation loop.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Figure 4. Sketch map village of Ouedeme-Pedah as drawn by community members.

Figure 5. Sketch map village of Gbede as drawn by community members.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

17


Dossa et al.

Table 1. Indicators of wealth in village Ouedeme-Pedah.

Wealth classes Criteria Rich Medium Poor House and type of roof

Large houses with concrete walls; sheet-metal or tile-roofing; cemented floor

Houses in banco/clay walls; sheet-metal or tile-roofing; cemented or mud floor

Houses in banco/clay walls; straw roofing and mud floor

Number of fishing gears owned

4 and more 2-3 1

Transport means 4 and more dugout canoes; motorcycle and bicycle

2 dugout canoes, motorcycle or bicycle

1 dugout canoe

Agricultural land holdings

5 ha and more 1-3 ha < 1ha; landless; sharecropping

Livestock owned Large number of pig, goats, chicken, grass cutter

Pig, goats and chicken Few goats and chicken

Labour employment Employ labour Employ labour but at lesser extent than the better-offs

Household members are casual workers and husband migrates during raining season to find non-fishing work

Education of children

Children attend school regularly

Children attend school irregularly

Interruption schooling of children

Financial status Can borrow to other households

Can take a loan Cannot take a loan

Other Receive high social and political consideration

Use rarely basic medical services

Face food shortages; do not use basic medical services

Rare natural vegetation encountered inOuedeme-Pedah are baobab trees (Adansoniadigitata), iroko trees (Chlorophora excelsa) and bushesof mangroves (Avicennia germinans L.) in the mosthumid areas whereas planted vegetation includedneem trees (Azadirachta indica), eucalyptus(Eucalyptus camaldulensis), acacia (Cacia africana) andcoconut trees (Cocos nucifera). In Gbede, planted teaktrees (Oldfieldia africana) and oil palms (Elaeisguineensis) predominate. The Pedah people are thedominant ethnic group in Ouedeme-Pedah and theylive primarily on small-scale fishing andsubsistence agriculture. The Aizo people dominatein Gbede. Agriculture is their major economicactivity. The main food crops grown in both villagesare maize, cassava and beans. Similar beliefs andreligious practices were observed among bothcommunities.

Key informants in both villages dividedhouseholds in three wealth classes: rich, medium

and poor households. Out of a total of47 households ranked in Ouedeme-Pedah, 45%were ranked poor, 34% medium and 21% rich.Similar figures (46%, 35% and 19% respectively)were obtained in Gbede for a total of 66 households.Table 1 shows the characteristics of each wealthgroup as described by informants inOuedeme-Pedah. Irrespective of the village andirrespective of the wealth group, chickens followedby goats and sheep were the most kept importantlivestock species. In Ouedeme-Pedah, pigs were alsokept by some households. However, despite thepredominance of chickens over goats, the latterspecies was selected in the two communities aspriority species for the purpose of the intendedCBM research action.

The village goat surveys generated interestinginformation about breed perception, traitpreferences and production constraints (Dossa et al.,2007). Apart from the introduced goat types from

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Tab

le 2

. Out

com

es o

f the

con

solid

ated

ana

lysi

s of

goa

t pro

duct

ion

prob

lem

s in

Gbe

de a

nd O

uede

me-

Ped

ah.

Con

stra

int

Cau

se

Eff

ect

Solu

tion

L

evel

of

app

licat

ion

Lac

k of

ap

pro

pria

te

hou

sing

•L

ack

of k

now

led

ge o

n im

prov

ed h

ousi

ng

•H

igh

loss

es a

nd m

orta

lity

rate

s d

ue

to:

-L

ack

of p

rote

ctio

n of

ani

mal

s ag

ains

t bad

w

eath

er c

ondi

tion

s an

d c

onta

giou

s d

isea

ses

-M

issi

ng to

iden

tify

and

to tr

eat s

ick

anim

als

-C

onsu

mpt

ion

of p

oiso

nou

s p

lant

s an

d

dir

ty w

ater

by

wan

der

ing

anim

als

- R

oad

acc

iden

t -

The

ft

- D

estr

ucti

on o

f cro

ps

•Te

ther

ing

dur

ing

crop

ping

sea

sons

lead

ing

to m

alnu

trit

ion

•Fa

rmer

trai

ning

in im

prov

ed g

oat h

ousi

ng

•C

onst

ruct

ion

of im

pro

ved

goa

t hou

ses

Bot

h in

div

idua

l an

dco

mm

unit

y

Dis

ease

ou

tbre

aks

•H

igh

cost

s of

vet

erin

ary

serv

ices

on

ind

ivid

ual

bas

is

•D

iffi

cult

y to

sto

ck u

p on

ve

teri

nary

dru

gs fo

r ro

utin

e tr

eatm

ents

•

Lac

k of

reg

ular

vac

cina

tion

ag

ains

t epi

dem

ic d

isea

ses

•

Lac

k of

reg

ular

con

trol

of

inte

rnal

and

ext

erna

l pa

rasi

tes

•L

ack

of a

ppro

pri

ate

hou

sing

=>c

lose

con

tact

w

ith

infe

cted

free

roa

min

g go

ats

•

Poor

hyg

iene

•

Poor

nu

trit

ion

•H

igh

mor

talit

y ra

tes

•Sm

all h

erd

siz

es w

ith

born

-in

herd

bu

cks,

ve

ry fe

w v

illag

e bu

cks

•

Hig

h ri

sk o

f inb

reed

ing

and

del

ays

in

conc

epti

on

•K

ids

grow

slo

wly

•

Ver

y fe

w g

oats

to s

ell y

ear-

roun

d

•R

educ

ed p

rofi

tabi

lity

•Fa

rmer

’s tr

aini

ng in

imp

rove

d m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es

•A

dopt

ion

of im

prov

ed h

ousi

ng fo

r an

imal

s •

Ado

ptio

n of

Imp

rove

d h

ealt

h th

roug

h

-T

rain

ing

on b

asic

ani

mal

hea

lthca

re a

nd h

ygie

ne

-E

stab

lishm

ent o

f a D

rug-

box

at v

illag

e le

vel

-O

rgan

izat

ion

by th

e vi

llage

com

mit

tee

of r

egu

lar

and

col

lect

ive

vacc

inat

ion

agai

nst P

PR

, -

Org

aniz

atio

n by

the

villa

ge c

omm

itte

e of

reg

ula

r an

d c

olle

ctiv

e co

ntro

l of i

nter

nal p

aras

ites

-

Stri

ct r

egu

lati

on o

f the

intr

oduc

tion

of i

mpo

rted

an

imal

s in

to th

e vi

llage

•

Cas

trat

ion

of u

nwan

ted

and

poo

r qu

alit

y m

ale

goat

s •

Ado

ptio

n of

impr

oved

nut

ritio

n

•1 P

urc

hase

and

rot

atio

n of

a v

illag

e bu

ck a

mon

g pa

rtic

ipat

ing

herd

s •

1 Pu

rcha

se b

y th

e vi

llage

com

mit

tee

and

use

of

Bur

dizz

o ca

stra

tor

to c

astr

ate

unw

ante

d o

r/an

d p

oor

qual

ity

mal

e go

ats

Bot

h in

div

idua

l an

dco

mm

unit

y

Feed

sh

orta

ge

•Se

ason

al fl

uct

uati

on in

feed

av

aila

bilit

y

•L

ack

know

led

ge o

n ra

tion

al

uses

of a

vaila

ble

feed

re

sour

ces

•Po

or o

r u

nbal

ance

d n

utri

tion

•

Wea

k an

imal

s op

en to

infe

ctio

ns fr

om

bact

eria

or/

and

par

asit

es

• S

low

kid

gro

wth

and

bad

bod

y co

ndit

ion

•Fa

rmer

trai

ning

in

-Im

pro

ved

nut

riti

on

-Im

pro

ved

cut a

nd c

arri

ed fe

edin

g sy

stem

-

Rat

iona

l use

of c

rop

resi

due

s an

d ag

ro-b

y-pr

oduc

ts

Com

mu

nity

1 Men

tion

ed in

Gbe

de

only

.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

19


Dossa et al.

Tabl

e 3.

Out

com

es o

f the

con

solid

ated

sol

utio

n an

alys

is in

Gbe

de a

nd O

uede

me-

Peda

h.

Vill

age

Solu

tion

/Act

ion

Purp

ose

Alt

erna

tive

Polit

ical

/ so

cial

impa

ct

Tec

hnic

al/

econ

omic

asp

ect

Ad

opti

on o

f im

pro

ved

hou

sing

•

Ena

ble

bett

er m

anag

emen

t of i

ndiv

idua

l he

rd•

Red

uce

mor

talit

ies

due

to c

onta

giou

s ag

ents

and

to n

on d

isea

ses

rela

ted

fa

ctor

s •

Red

uce

mor

bid

ity r

ates

due

to s

arco

ptic

m

ange

•

Red

uce

conf

licts

bet

wee

n fa

rmer

s in

here

nt to

the

free

-roa

min

g sy

stem

Non

e In

div

idu

al p

artic

ipan

t fa

rmer

s as

wel

l as

com

mun

ity w

ill b

enef

it

Nee

d tr

aini

ng

and

d

emon

stra

tion

from

res

ourc

e pe

rson

s

Stra

tegi

c u

se o

f ant

helm

inti

cs a

nd

wilt

ing

of c

ut a

nd c

arri

ed fo

rage

bef

ore

feed

ing

•E

limin

atio

n of

the

inte

rnal

par

asite

s bu

rden

•

Incr

ease

feed

con

vers

ion

by th

e an

imal

s

Non

e In

div

idu

al p

artic

ipan

t fa

rmer

s as

wel

l as

com

mun

ity w

ill b

enef

it

Nee

d te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce fr

om

spec

ializ

ed s

taff

Org

aniz

atio

n of

ann

ual c

olle

ctiv

e va

ccin

atio

n pr

ogra

m a

gain

st P

PR

•

Red

uce

mor

talit

ies

due

to P

PR

Ind

ivid

ual

acti

on

agai

nst

PPR

Ind

ivid

ual p

arti

cipa

nt a

s w

ell a

s co

mm

unity

will

be

nefi

t: in

crea

se a

bilit

y of

pa

rtic

ipan

ts to

wor

k to

geth

er a

nd e

nhan

ce

soci

al c

ohes

ion

Nee

d te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce fr

om

spec

ializ

ed s

taff

Ad

opti

on o

f im

pro

ved

feed

ing

•R

educ

e m

alnu

trit

ion,

abo

rtio

n an

d pr

e-w

eani

ng m

orta

litie

s ra

tes

Non

e

Ind

ivid

ual

par

ticip

ant

will

ben

efit

Nee

d tr

aini

ng

and

d

emon

stra

tion

from

res

ourc

e pe

rson

s St

rict

reg

ula

tion

of i

ntro

du

ctio

n of

im

port

ed a

nim

als

into

the

villa

ge

•C

onse

rvat

ion

of lo

cal g

oat t

hrou

gh

avoi

dan

ce o

f ind

iscr

imin

ate

cros

sbre

edin

g •

Red

ucti

on o

f ris

ks o

f int

rod

ucti

on o

f im

port

ed d

isea

ses

and

infe

ctio

us a

gent

s

Non

e In

div

idua

l par

tici

pant

as

wel

l as

com

mun

ity w

ill

bene

fit:

incr

ease

abi

lity

of

farm

ers

to w

ork

toge

ther

an

d e

nhan

ce s

ocia

l co

hesi

on

Nee

d a

dvi

ces

from

res

ourc

e pe

rson

s

Both

G

bed

e an

d

Ou

edem

e-Pe

dah

Cas

trat

ion

of u

nwan

ted

/ po

or q

ual

ity

mal

e •

Red

uce

risk

of i

nbre

edin

g an

d m

ake

bett

er u

se o

f the

bes

t per

form

ing

villa

ge

buck

s

Ind

ivid

ual

cont

rol

of m

atin

g

Ind

ivid

ual p

arti

cipa

nt a

s w

ell a

s co

mm

unity

will

be

nefi

t

Nee

d te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce a

nd

trai

ning

from

sp

ecia

lized

sta

ff

(To

be c

onti

nued

…..)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


(... c

ontin

ued)

.

Vill

age

Solu

tion

/Act

ion

Purp

ose

Alte

rnat

ive

Polit

ical

/ so

cial

impa

ct

Tec

hnic

al/

econ

omic

asp

ect

•T

rain

ing

of tw

o (0

2) fa

rmer

s ap

poin

ted

by

the

com

mun

ity

as lo

cal c

astr

ator

in th

e us

e of

th

e B

urd

izzo

cas

trat

or

•C

omm

itm

ent o

f par

tici

pant

s to

sha

re th

e ex

pend

iture

for

the

purc

hase

of a

Bur

dizz

o ca

stra

tor

and

two

(2)

com

mun

al b

ucks

of l

ocal

br

eed

for

bree

ding

pur

pose

s •

Rot

atio

n of

the

com

mun

al

buck

s am

ong

part

icip

atin

g he

rds.

Aft

er a

yea

r of

ser

vice

, th

e co

mm

una

l buc

ks w

ill b

e so

ld a

nd r

enew

ed

•R

educ

e ri

sk o

f in

bree

ding

and

mak

e be

tter

use

of t

he b

est

perf

orm

ing

villa

ge b

ucks

•In

div

idua

l con

trol

of

rep

rodu

ctio

n •

Surg

ical

rem

oval

of

test

icle

s (t

rad

ition

ally

us

ed c

astr

atio

n m

etho

d)

•In

div

idua

l pa

rtic

ipan

t as

wel

l as

com

mun

ity

will

be

nefi

t

•N

eed

tech

nica

l as

sist

ance

and

tr

aini

ng fr

om

spec

ializ

ed s

taff

Gbe

de

•T

rain

ing

of tw

o (0

2) fa

rmer

s ap

poin

ted

by

the

com

mun

ity

as V

illag

e A

nim

al H

ealt

h W

orke

rs a

nd e

stab

lishm

ent

of a

vill

age

base

d d

rug

box

•T

rain

ed fa

rmer

s pr

ovid

e ge

nera

l ad

vice

on

heal

th

and

hus

band

ry a

nd b

asic

an

imal

hea

lth

serv

ices

to

othe

r fa

rmer

s in

the

sam

e vi

llage

•In

div

idua

l con

tact

w

ith th

e Pr

ivat

e ve

t whi

ch a

re fa

r aw

ay fr

om th

e vi

llage

and

not

ea

sily

rea

chab

le

•In

div

idua

l pa

rtic

ipan

t as

wel

l as

com

mun

ity

will

be

nefi

t: in

crea

se

abili

ty o

f far

mer

s to

wor

k to

geth

er

and

enh

ance

so

cial

coh

esio

n

•N

eed

tech

nica

l as

sist

ance

from

sp

ecia

lized

and

re

sour

ce

pers

ons/

Nee

d fi

nanc

ial

supp

ort f

rom

m

icro

-cre

dit

inst

ituti

ons

or

NG

Os

Oue

dem

e-Pe

dah

•

Est

ablis

hmen

t of a

vill

age

base

d dr

ug a

nd fe

edst

uff

stor

e su

pplie

d by

a p

riva

te

vete

rina

rian

but

col

lect

ivel

y m

anag

ed b

y th

e co

mm

uni

ty

•C

lose

and

per

man

ent

cont

act w

ith

the

vete

rina

ry s

ervi

ces

•R

educ

tion

of t

rans

port

co

sts

•In

div

idua

l con

tact

w

ith th

e Pr

ivat

e ve

teri

nary

se

rvic

es w

hich

are

lo

cate

d at

abo

ut

20 k

m fa

r aw

ay

from

the

villa

ge

and

not

eas

ily

reac

habl

e

•In

div

idua

l pa

rtic

ipan

t as

wel

l as

com

mun

ity

will

be

nefi

t: in

crea

se

abili

ty o

f far

mer

s to

wor

k to

geth

er

and

enh

ance

so

cial

coh

esio

n

•N

eed

cont

inu

ous

mon

itor

ing

of

the

priv

ate

vete

rina

rian

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

21


Dossa et al.

Table 4. Indicators and participatory monitoring arrangements agreed through CBM workshops in Gbede and Ouedeme-Pedah.

Village Indicator/output Type of monitoring Responsibility Both • Adoption by participants of

improved management practices including regular vaccination against PPR and anthelmintic treatment

• Decrease in disease incidence and mortality rate in participating herds

• Increase growth rate of animals in participating herds

• Decrease rate of abortion in participating herds

• Increase in number of marketable animals in participating herds

• Increase in overall herd productivity in participating herds

• Adoption by participants in the Community-based management program of a participatory recording system

• Adoption of the Burdizzo castrator

• Castration of undesired/low performing males intervene 3-4 months of age

• Regular meeting and training sessions on different aspects of small ruminant husbandry practices and on recording system throughout a year: Application of the “Farmer Field School” approach

• Village committees with the assistance of the specialized staff and resource persons

Gbede only

• Effective rotation of the communal purchased bucks among participant herds

• Only farmers who confine their animals and adopt improved management practices can receive the buck. The buck can stay in a herd for a maximum of 30 days and should then pass to another herd. No specific performance recording was planned.

• The village committee should ensure the effectiveness of the rotation system. After a year of service, the communal bucks will be sold and new one bought

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


northern Benin and from neighboring Saheliancountries, owners of goats in both villages clearlydistinguished two varieties of goat native tosouthern Benin: the markedly dwarf and the shortlegged but non-dwarf. Although farmers perceivedthe markedly dwarf goat as more prolific and moreresistant to disease than the short legged butnon-dwarf, they considered that its growth isslower and it fetched relative lower prices on themarket. Group discussions with elders in bothvillages revealed that the markedly dwarf goat wasthe most common goat variety encountered somedecades ago. However, it has been progressivelyreplaced by the non-dwarf goat and currentlyrepresented less than 2% of the breeding femalegoats counted in both villages. Communities alsohave a good knowledge of the seasonal occurrenceof the major goat health problems and somevaluable ethno-veterinary medicine practices. Anumber of locally available fodder resources areconsidered by farmers to have anthelminticproperties. The most promising plants includeFagara zanthoxyloidès, Morinda lucida, Moringaoleifera, Newbouldia leavis and Spondias mombin.

Planning with communities

During consecutive village meetings andworkshops, the key problems, their causes andeffects, the possible solutions and remedial actionsand sets of criteria for assessing these actions weredeveloped by each community. The results werevery similar in the two villages (Tables 2, 3 and 4).In each village, the interim planning team workedout the timing, resources needed and the persons orinstitution(s) which would be responsible forensuring implementation of each action. Theinterim planning team presented the first draft ofthe management plan to the wider communitythrough village meetings. During this process theplan was discussed, additional issues were raisedand the revisions took place. In the two villages,alongside CBM development activities, short terminitiatives to improve productivity such asconstruction of improved goat housing, vaccinationagainst Pests of Small Ruminants (PPR) and theadoption of other animal health control measureswere taken up. These collective activities were donewith the technical support of the research team andwere aimed at motivating people to implementlong-term and rational initiatives for bettermanagement of the goat resources.

Creation of local institutionstowards CBM

Structure and legal framework

The intensive and long-term facilitation processwas extremely helpful in preventing some local orvillage elites to dominate the decision-making andin giving voices to marginalised members of thecommunities, especially women. In each village, aCBM committee was elected to replace the interimplanning team. In most cases, members of theinterim planning team were appointed to the CBMcommittee which were made up of sevendemocratically-elected members in Gbede and oftwelve in Ouedeme-Pedah, including a Chair,Vice-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Vice Treasurer.They are responsible for the planning, theimplementing, the co-ordination and monitoring ofthe collective activities which have been agreed bythe community at general meetings. The electedcommittees must maintain bank accounts andfinancial records, report on performance to thecommunity, organize and manage communitymeetings.

Once the management plan was formally agreed,the research project team maintained regularcontacts with the elected CBM committees andprovided the technical support agreed to under theplan. By then in each village, the CBM committeehad started to draft self-imposed rules andregulations. The final self-imposed rules and codesof conduct were validated during a villageworkshop. As an important rule in bothcommunities, the introduction of animals of anynon-local genotype for breeding purposes isbanned. In addition, the introduction of anybreeding animal in the village must be subject toauthorisation by the CBM executive committee. Thisauthorization will be granted only when the animalis declared by the local veterinary officer to be clearof any infectious disease. Mechanisms were laiddown for the enforcement of these rules.Membership was open to any villager who wascommitted to the objectives of the CBM group andits rules and regulations.

Institutional formalization

Institutionalization of a community-basedorganization (CBO) towards management and/orconservation of natural resources includes itscreation, but also its legalization with reference both

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

23


Dossa et al.

to the local and national level (World Bank, 1999).In Benin, to be legally recognized, a CBO must gothrough a process to involve relevant agencieswhich are under legislation charged to administerthe management of local communities. These are theMinistry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries(MAEP) and the Ministry of Decentralisation andLocal Communities (MDCL). Upon reachingagreement with the community on the rules andregulations, the formalization process was begun bysending the CBM documents to the municipalitiesof Come and Toffo, which are decentralizedinstitutions representative of the MDCL at locallevel. The two CBM groups soon receivednotification of their legalisation.

Financial framework

During the participatory phase, the research teamconsistently emphasized local initiatives and self-reliance. In response, the communities mobilizedtheir own funding through cost-sharing toimplement the first developed communitymanagement improvement initiatives such as theinstallation of a small animal feed store inOuedeme-Pedah, and the purchase of a Burdizzocastrator and of two bucks for breeding purposes inGbede. In addition, in both villages the CBM groupshave established initial registration fees andmonthly subscriptions that all members can afford.Each CBM group has opened an account at a localcredit and saving institution.

Experiences have shown that the dependence ofCBOs on external donor funding has often led tolack of sustainability (Platteau and Abraham, 2002)while for its long term viability, a CBO needs tohave a secure and sustainable funding base fromthe beginning. It has also been argued that in poorcommunities, local contributions are usually notsufficient (Swantz, 1997; Kleemeier, 2000). Tocomplement the membership fees, the need togenerate monetary resources within bothcommunities through income generating activitiesthat will add value to the communities’ coreactivities has been acknowledged. It has beenrecognized that the process in whichcommunity-based organizations engage tostimulate or maintain business activity is generallya cost-effective and community-empoweringprocess which can yield tangible benefits forparticipating communities (Binns and Nel, 1999).However, it has been argued that somecommunities, for instance the poor, often do not

have the financial resources to initiate thesesactivities and that any newly developed localinstitution concerned with the conservation ofnatural resources requires some external financialinputs at least in the short term to gain internallegitimacy and acceptance at both village andregional levels (World Bank, 1999). In addition, it iswidely agreed that time is required for newlydeveloped institutions to be tested, reviewed andadapted by their members before internal legitimacycan be achieved. Therefore, although incomeaccruing from better management of goat constitutesan undeniable incentive to maintain participationin the CBM groups, each CBM group also receivedfrom the research project acommunity-empowerment fund of 200 000 FCFA(1 euro = 655.957 FCFA).

Participation of women and poorer people

The participatory approach used was also verysuccessful in involving women in the whole processfrom the outset and in ensuring gender equity.Women have actively attended all the meetings andhave participated in all planning anddecision-making forums. The confidence andcompetence they have gained through their activeparticipation in the planning and decision-makingprocess have empowered these women to take agreater role within their community. They were wellrepresented in both CBM groups as a whole, and inthe CBM executive committees as shown in figure 6.

In Gbede, it is worth noting that in the electedCBM executive committee, the Treasurer, ViceTreasurer and auditors were women. In orderwords, they were responsible for the management ofthe community financial resources. Thecommunities’ decision to elect women to thesepositions was probably based upon their belief thatthe women would be more transparent, prudent,reliable and honest in handling the communitymoney. Research has found that femalerepresentation and effective participation in apeasant committee enhances the committee’sperformance (Molians, 1998).

The participation of poorer people was alsoeffective in both CBM groups as illustrated infigure 7, and has proved successful in impeding thebetter-off community members from dominating thedecision-making process.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Figure 6. Representation of female people in CBM groups and in executive committees.

Figure 7. Participation of different wealth classes in CBM groups.

Training and capacity building

Two general training and demonstration sessionswere initiated and organized in each communityclose to the beginning of the CBM process. Theobjective was to improve goat farmers’ managementskills as identified by farmers themselves at theearly stages of the participatory planning process.

Each training session lasted a full day. Althoughthese sessions covered all general aspects of goatkeeping, emphasis was put on improved housing,feeding and disease control. The training sessionswere facilitated by the research team, but the leadtrainer was a successful farmer identified bycommunity members themselves. The number of

participants ranged from 17 to 25 in Gbede andfrom 23 to 37 in Ouedeme-Pedah. This‘farmer-expert’ training approach was inspired bythe well-known Livestock Farmer Field School(Minjauw, 2001). Although there has been yet noformal survey to measure the adoption byparticipants of the improved managementtechniques discussed during these sessions, agrowing interest has been observed amongcommunity members. For example, actions weretaken and 19 participant herds of goats in Gbedeand 40 in Ouedeme-Pedah were successfullyvaccinated against PPR and treated against internaland external parasites. For both disease preventivemeasures, a nil coverage rate was reported for the

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

25


Dossa et al.

Table 5. Chronology of events in planning and implementing CBM actions.

Date Event 07 – 09 November 2005 First formal contact with selected communities and PIC Situation analysis

� Wealth ranking with key informant � Household census (socio-economic studies) � Participatory village resource and social mapping

10 – 28 November 2005

� Focus group discussions Participatory planning for CBM actions

� Village meetings to validate PRA results and to agree on the major goat problems

December 2005

� Election of the interim planning committee � Elaboration of the by-laws rules and regulations by

the interim planning committee � Meetings to validate village by-laws rules and

regulations

January – September 2006

� Election of village CBM committee � CBM committee members received training in team-

building, goal setting, program planning, community problem-solving, conflict resolution and finance

November 2006

� Finalization and validation by community members of CBM code of conduct document

December 2006 – February 2007 � Communities discussed with research team the feasibility, concepts, aims, benefits, legal and genetic aspects of a potential community-based genetic improvement program

January 2007 � Village CBM documents finalized and sent to the decentralized representation of Ministry of decentralization and local communities

Implementation of plans and monitoring December 2005 � Facilitated “Farmer’s expert” training workshops in

improved goat housing and in improved goat nutrition

March 2006 � Vaccination against Pest of small ruminant and treatment against internal parasites and mange

� Purchase of a Burdizzo castrator and castration training of two community members in Gbede

� Purchase of two (02) communal bucks in Gbede

April 2006

� In commitment with a private veterinarian a small shop of veterinary products and animal feed was established in Ouedeme-Pedah

From May 2006 – ongoing � Individual follow-up of CBM participant herds and recording of performance in each village

� Two representatives of each community received training in community animal health services

January 2007

� Each CBM group received a development fund of 200.000 FCFA

February 2007 � Vaccination against Pest of small ruminant and treatment against internal parasites and mange

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


previous year by the veterinarians in bothcommunities. Likewise, increased adoption ofimproved housing and use of a Burdizzo castratorhas been observed in both communities. Theassumption is that continuous increased adoptioncould be achieved through further Livestock FarmerField School sessions. In Gbede, two communitymembers were designed by the community to assistthe veterinarian during operations of castration inorder to learn and to be able to perform the sameoperations later within the community.Furthermore, in response to the need to reinforce thecommunity leadership skills and to promoteinterdependent leadership practices, supplementaladvisory services and training in meeting-relatedactivities such as team building, goal setting,program planning and community problem solvingin conflict resolution and finance were provided toeach CBM committee. The five day training programwas designed by instructors from a local NGO whohave expertise in leadership development, groupdynamics, conflict management, problem solving,communication, managing change and communitydevelopment. In addition, two people (a womanand a man) were appointed in each community bymembers to receive further training in animalhealth. The six day training in community animalhealth services was provided in both communitiesby a training team composed of a chief veterinarianand a technician, and will be repeated every threemonths.

Monitoring of implementation of plannedactivities

Table 5 shows the chronology of events in planningand implementing CBM actions. Implementationwas facilitated through regular meetings ofcommunity members and planned interactivelearning sessions. During the planning phase,community members identified some indicators formonitoring the outcomes of the CBM process.However, because of the lack of a well-establishedrecording system in both communities, no formalmonitoring of herd could take place. Therefore, atthe outset of May 2006, a one-year participatoryfollow-up of individual herds of participants in theCBM program was implemented in bothcommunities. Its main objective was to facilitate theestablishment of a participatory recording system.For this purpose an enumerator was recruited andtrained for each community. Animals in each herdwere identified using a collar. Collars werepreviously used by farmers just to define

ownership. For recording purposes, each animalwas given an identification number which wasprinted on a piece of wood with hot iron. The pieceof wood was then added to the collar and attachedto the neck of the animal. Wood is a locallyavailable material and does not create any cost tothe farmer.

Therefore, it is expected that this method ofidentification will be easily adopted by farmers andwill facilitate the establishment of a suitablerecording system. Each community was providedwith two scales. The pursued objective was tofamiliarize individual farmers with some basicrecording tasks such as weighing a new born kidand animals before sale. In addition, an enumeratorwas recruited in each community and trained inrecording. He is based in the village and visits eachherd every two-week. He records from each CBMparticipant, the events that have occurred in theherd since his last visit and weights the animals. Healso provides farmers with advice on managementissues.

Towards a community-based geneticimprovement program

In both communities, various factors have beenidentified that constrain the development ofeffective genetic improvement programs. Thesefactors include the small sizes of the herd and thelack of proper management practices (recording,feeding, housing and disease control). During theplanning process, farmers in both communitieshave developed initiatives to overcome theseconstraints and to achieve increases in productivityin the short term while creating favorableconditions for genetic improvement. One of theseconditions is the increased number of participatingherds. As stressed by Olivier et al. (2002), when afarmer has one or two animals as occurs now inboth communities, knowing the performance of anindividual animal becomes relevant only whenrelated to the performance of all other animals in thevillage. Similarly, Van der Werf (2000) argues thatin larger populations, consisting of a larger group offarmers, there is more opportunity to exploit theexisting variation among animals, thus creatingmore potential for genetic improvement.

Further participatory planning meetings wereheld with both communities. During these meetings,the concepts, aims and benefits and the legal andgenetic aspects of each genetic improvement schemeas well as their feasibility were discussed withparticipants. In both communities, the principles of

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

27


Dossa et al.

Figure 8. Short-legged but not dwarf goat, Southern Benin.

Figure 9. Dwarf goat, Southern Benin.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


open nucleus breeding system (ONBS) has receivedwide acceptance. Each participant farmer hasagreed to contribute the top performing females ofhis herd to the initial breeding herd.

The one-year screening of individualparticipants’ herds has started in both communitiesaims to identify the best 50 females and 2-4 males.Height at withers, dam’s litter size at birth,individual weight at birth and at six months of agewere identified as initial selection criteria. However,these potential donors will not be housed in acentral station but will be maintained in theirrespective herds of origin and a temporary contractwill be signed between the CBM program and theindividual farmer. The selected top 50 females willbe mated with the top 2 males and the bestperforming offspring purchased by the CBMprogram to create the village nucleus. This nucleuswill be located on land provided by the communityand will be managed by the CBM executivecommittee with the support of a livestock technicianacting as a nucleus manager. He will be responsiblefor performance recording and will be paid with thecommunity funds. As agreed by participants in bothcommunities, only male animals born in the villagenucleus should be used in the participating herdswhereas transfer of females will occur in bothdirections between the nucleus and theparticipating herds. This two-way gene transfer willallow genetic improvements made in the mainpopulation to be incorporated into the nucleus andvice-versa. Research by Mueller and James (1983)suggests that when 25 to 50% of the nucleus parentsare selected in the base population (participatingherds), the rate of increase of inbreeding in thenucleus is minimized and longer-term gains aremaximized. In Gbede, farmers suggested replacingthe bucks and the poorly performing females in thenucleus herd annually. Mating of relatives will beminimized by avoiding son-dam, daughter-sire andfull-sib mating.

Generally, morphological traits including heightat withers have higher heritability rate than fitnesstraits (Falconer and Mackay, 1996). Odubote (1996)obtained heritability estimates of 0.35 and 0.32 forlitter size in West African Dwarf goats (Figure 8and 9) from sire and sire-dam groups respectively.Since West African goats are already prolific(Wilson, 1991), selection for litter size would likelylead to higher incidence of multiple births.Likewise, Bosso et al. (2007) reported heritabilityestimates of 0.5, 0.32 for weight at birth and atweaning respectively. Starting from the results ofthese previous studies, a great response to selectionbased on these community-suggested traits can be

expected if farmers adopt appropriate managementtechniques (i.e. improved feeding, disease control,etc.).

Broek van den and Gbégo (1994) recorded afertility rate of 1.3 and a prolificacy rate of 1.8 invillage goats herds kept in balanced nutritionalconditions in Southern Benin. However theyreported a relatively high yearling kid mortality rateof 27% due to unidentified epidemic disease. Withimproved disease control, a yearling survival rate of85% can be an achievable objective in the villagenucleus herd and would allow each doe to produce2 kids per year (1.3* 1.8 *0.85). Annually, there willbe a total of 100 yearling animals in the nucleusherd (50 males and 50 females). The top 2 males(4%) should be retained in the nucleus, the next10 - 15 (20 to 30%) best males made available asbreeding males in participant herds and theremaining 66-74% culled. The best 25% of thefemale animals could be retained annually in thenucleus for breeding purposes, and the 75%remaining culled.

The importance of the adoption of improvedmanagement practices by farmers for the success ofthe program can not be overemphasized. Furtherselection criteria could be identified and integratedlater into the improvement program. The financialimplications of such program have been discussedwith farmers. The need for technical and financialassistance to create and operate the nucleus at leastat the implementation phase of the program hasbeen stressed by the farmers. However, the financialsustainability of the program will depend on thereadiness of farmers to pay for the improved bucksthey will receive from the breed improvementprogram.

Further relevant institutional, management andfinancial issues need to be discussed with thecommunities and a full proposal developed beforethe establishment of the outlined program.

Conclusion

The process outlined in this paper was effective inmobilizing in a short duration of time, collectiveinterest and resources towards better managementof local goat resources in both research villages.Central to the success of the ongoingCommunity-based management process are:• The communities have recognized that their goat

resources which contribute to diversification oftheir sources of income and sustain theirlivelihoods are vulnerable to mismanagement.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

29


Dossa et al.

• The communities have perceived the tangibleand immediate benefits from the ongoingresearch activities.

• The participatory research methodology used inthis study has proved successful in turning theprocess into local capacity building andempowerment exercises: by giving thecommunity a forum for the exchange ofknowledge and experiences, and for analyzingtheir problems and finding solutions. Byproviding them with relevant information andtraining and by helping them in framing rulesand regulations, the research program hasenabled local people to discover and enhancetheir own potential in developing strategies andinstitutions towards better management of theirgoat resources.In both communities, there have been

preliminary discussions about possibilities forimplementation of a community-based geneticimprovement program. Farmers have shown stronginterest in establishing an open nucleus breedingprogram with a central nucleus which wouldprovide participant herds with local bucks of highgenetic potential. However, to ensure the success ofthe implementation of such a genetic program,further discussions and institutional innovationsare required. Also, with the adoption by farmers ofimproved general management practices being ofparamount importance, further investigations areplanned to scientifically validate the localknowledge of farmers on fodder resources and onethno-veterinary practices through systematicon-farm experiments and to plan for participatorycost-effective technologies (improved feeding andcontrol of diseases).

After more than twelve months of intensiveinteraction with the two communities, it can beargued that given some time for consolidation, andcontinued institutional and technical support, thetwo newly created CBM groups are highly likely tobecome self-reliant, socially and economicallyviable and to generate widely replicable results.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the farmers inGbede and Ouedeme-Pedah who contributed theirvaluable time to attend the groups’ discussionswithout which this work would not have beenpossible. Thanks to the German Catholic AcademicExchange Service (KAAD) and the InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI) through theRegional Project untitled ”Improving the

Livelihoods of Poor Livestock Keepers in Africathrough Community-Based Management of Animalgenetic Resources” for supporting the workfinancially.

List of Acronyms

• CBM FAnGR: Community-Based Management ofFarm Animal Genetic Resources.

• CBM: Community-Based Management.• CBNRM: Community-Based of Natural

Resources Management.• CBO: Community-Based Organization.• FAnGR: Farm Animal Genetic Resources.• FCFA: Francs de la Communauté Financière

Africaine.• MAEP: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et

de la Pêche.• MDLC: Ministère de la Décentralisation et des

Communautés Locales.• NGO: Non Governmental Organization.• ONBS: Open Nucleus Breeding Scheme.• PIC: Prior Informed Consent.• PPR: Pest of Small Ruminants.

List of References

Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinkingcommunity-based conservation. ConservationBiology 18, 621-630.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, & C. Folke. 2000.Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge asadaptive management. Ecological Applications 10,1251–1262.

Binns, T. & E. Nel. 1999. Beyond thedevelopment impasse: the role of local economicdevelopment and community self-reliance in ruralSouth Africa. Journal of Modern African Studies 37,289-408.

Bosso, N.A., M.F. Cisse,E.H. Waaj van der, A. Fall & J.A.M. Arendonk van.2007. Genetic and phenotypic parameters of bodyweight in West African Dwarf goat and Djallonkésheep. Small Ruminant Research 67, 271–278.

Brett, E.A. 2003. Participation andaccountability in development management. TheJournal of Development Studies, 40, 1-29.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Broek van den, A. & T.I. Gbégo. 1994.Sustainability of small ruminant production on theAdja Plateau (South Benin). Netherland Journal ofAgricultural Science 42, 69-76.

Campbell, L.M. & A.Vainio-Mattila. 2003.Participatory development and community-basedconservation: Opportunities missed for lessonslearned? Human Ecology 3, 417-437.

Catley, A.1999. Methods on the move: areview of veterinary uses of participatoryapproaches and methods focusing on experiencesin dryland Africa. International Institute forEnvironment and Development (IIED), London.

Chan, K.M.A., R. Pringle, J. Ranganathan,C.L. Boggs, Y.L. Chan, P.R. Ehrlich, P.K. Haff,N.E. Heller, K. Al-Khafaji & D.P. Macmynowski.2007. When agendas collide: human welfare andbiological conservation. Conservation Biology 21,59-68.

Dossa, L.H., C. Wollny & M. Gauly. 2007.Smallholders’ perceptions of goat farming insouthern Benin and opportunities for improvement.Tropical Animal Health and Production 39, 49-57.

Falconer, D.S. & T.F.C. Mackay. 1996.Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition.Longman Group Ltd, New York.

Ghimire, K.B. & M.P. Pimbert (Eds). 1997.Social Change and Conservation. Earthscan,London.

Grandin, B.E. 1988. Wealth ranking insmallholder communities: a field manual.Intermediate Technology Publications, London,England.

Kahi, A.K., T.O. Rewe & I.S. Kosgey. 2005.Sustainable community-based organizations for thegenetic improvement of livestock in developingcountries. Outlook on Agriculture 34, 261-270.

Kiwuwa, G.H. 1992. Breeding strategies forsmall ruminant productivity in Africa. In: Rey, B.,S.H.B.Lebbie & L.Reynolds (Eds), Small ruminantresearch and development in Africa. Proceedings ofthe first biennial conference of the African smallruminant research network, Nairobi, Kenya,10-14 December 1990.

Kleemeier, E. 2000. The Impact ofparticipation on sustainability: an analysis of theMalawi rural piped scheme program. WorldDevelopment 28, 929-944.

Kosgey, I.S., R.L. Baker, H.M. J. Udo &J.A.M Arendonk van. 2006. Successes and failuresof small ruminant breeding programmes in thetropics: a review. Small Ruminant Research, 61,13-28

Little, P. 1994. The link between localparticipation and improved conservation: a reviewof issues and experiences. In: Western, D. &M.A. Wright (Eds). Natural connections:perspectives in community-based conservation,Island Press, Washington DC, 347-372.

Mascia, M.B., J.P. Brosius, T.A Dobson,B.C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M.A. McKean &N.J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the socialsciences. Conservation Biology 17, 649-650.

Minjauw, B. 2001. Training of trainersmanual for livestock farmer field schools. Based ona participatory workshop held on the 17-29September 2001, Mabanga Ftc, Bungoma, Kenya,FAO –DFID-ILRI.

Molians, J.R. 1998. The impact of inequality,gender, external assistance and social capital onlocal level collective action. World Development 26,413-431.

Mueller, J.P. & J.W.James. 1983. Effects ofreduced variance due to selection in open nucleusbreeding systems. Aust. J. Agric. Res.34, 53-62.

Mueller, J.P., E.R. Flores & G.A. Gutierrez.2002. Experiences with a large scale sheep geneticimprovement project in the Peruvian Highlands.Paper presented at the 7th World Congress inApplied Genetics to Livestock Production,Montpellier, France, 19-23 August 2002.

Odubote, K. 1996. Genetic parameters forlitter size at birth and kidding interval in the WestAfrican Dwarf goats. Small Ruminant Research 20,261-265.

Olivier, J.J., S. Moyo, H.H. Montaldo,W. Thorpe, A. Valle Zarate &, K.R. Trivedi. 2002.Integrating genetic improvement into livestockdevelopment in medium- to low-input productionsystems. Paper presented at the 7th World Congresson Genetics Applied to Livestock Production,Montpellier, France, 19-23 August 2002.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons:the evolution of institutions for collective action.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

31


Dossa et al.

Plateau, J-P. & A. Abraham. 2002.Participatory development in the presence ofendogenous community imperfections. The Journalof Development Studies 39, 104-136.

Rege, J.E.O. 2001. Defining livestock breedsin the context of community-based management offarm animal genetic resources. In: FAO (Ed.),Proceedings of a workshop on community-basedmanagement of animal genetic resources: a tool forrural development and food security. Mbabane,Swaziland, 7–11 May 2001.

Sultana, P. & P. Thompson. 2003. Methods ofconsensus building for community based fisheriesmanagement in Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta.Working Paper no. 30, Collective Action andProperty Rights (CAPRi).

Swantz, M.L. 1997. Community andvillage-based provision of key social services: a casestudy of Tanzania, </www.wider.unu.edu/publications/publications.htm>. Cited 11 Nov 2006.

Waters-Bayer, A. & W. Bayer. 1994.Planning with pastoralists: PRA and more - areview of methods focused on Africa. DeutscheGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)Division 422 Working Paper, Goettingen, Germany.

Werf van der, J. 2000. Livestockstraight-breeding system structures for thesustainable intensification of extensive grazingsystems. In: Galal S., Boyazoglu J., Hammond K.(Eds), Proceedings of a workshop on DevelopingBreeding Strategies for Low Input AnimalProduction Environments, Bella, Italy,22-25 September 1999. ICAR Technical Series no. 3,105-177.

Western, D. & M.A. Wright. 1994. Thebackground to community-based conservation.In: Western, D. & M.A. Wright. (Eds) Naturalconnections: perspectives in community-basedconservation. Island Press, Washington DC, 1-12.

Wilson, R.T. 1991. Small ruminantproduction and the small ruminant genetic resourcein Tropical Africa. FAO Animal Production andHealth Paper 88, Rome, Italy.

World Bank. 1999. Report from InternationalWorkshop on Community-Based Natural ResourceManagement (CBNRM), Washington D.C., UnitedStates, 10-14 May 1998. <www.worldbank.org/wbi/conatrem/>. Cited 06 November 2006.

WFP. 1998. Country strategy outline-Benin.<www.wfp.org/eb/docs/1998/wfp000199~1.pdf>. Cited02 Nov 2005.

2 0 0 9 2009 · community-based management of farm animal genetic resources in practice: framework...

Documents