livestock marketing in kenya and ethiopia

8/14/2019 Livestock Marketing in Kenya and Ethiopia

1/42

Livestock Marketing in Kenya and Ethiopia:A Review of Policies and Practice

Yacob Aklilu

October 2008


2/42

Suggestedcitation:

Aklilu, Y. (2008). LivestockMarketing in Kenya and Ethiopia: A Review of Policies and

Practice.FeinsteinInternationalCenter,AddisAbaba.

This report is a product of the PastoralAreasCoordination,Analysis and Policy Support

(PACAPS)projectof theFeinstein InternationalCenter,TuftsUniversity,fundedbyUSAID

EastAfrica.


3/42

TableofContents

1. Introduction 1

2.

GeneralPolicy

Outlines

3

3. AnimalHealth 8

3.1 MarketingandAnimalHealthinKenya 8

3.2 MarketingandAnimalHealthinEthiopia 13

3.3InadequacyofResourceAllocations 17

4. Infrastructure 17

5.

Meat

Exports

19

5.1 IssuesinKenya 19

5.2 IssuesinEthiopia 22

6. LiveAnimalExports 23

7. MarketStratification 24

8. CommercialProductionandBreedingIssues 29

9. ProvisionofFinancialServicestoPastoralAreas 31

10. CrossBorderTrade 35

11. Conclusions 36

References 38


4/42

Acronyms

ADB AfricanDevelopmentBank

ADC AgriculturalDevelopmentCorporation

ALLPRO

ASALBased

Livestock

and

Rural

Livelihoods

Support

Project

ALRMP AridLandsResourceManagementProgramme(Kenya)

APHRD AnimalandPlantHealthRegulatoryDepartment(Ethiopia)

ASAL AridandSemiAridLands

CAADP ComprehensiveAfricaAgricultureDevelopmentProgramme

CAHW CommunitybasedAnimalHealthWorkers

CBO CommunityBasedOrganisation

COMESA CommonMarketforEasternandSouthernAfrica

DFZ DiseaseFreeZone

DVS

Department

of

Veterinary

Services

EU EuropeanUnion

FAO FoodandAgricultureOrganisation

FMD Footandmouthdisease

GDP GrossDomesticProduct

HACCP HazardAnalysisCriticalControlPoints

IBAR InterafricanBureauforAnimalResources

IGAD InterGovernmentalAuthorityforDevelopment

KLMC KenyaLivestockMarketingCouncil

KMC KenyaMeatCommission

LMA LivestockMarketingAuthority(Ethiopia)

MoARD MinistryofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment(Ethiopia)

MoFED MinistryofFinanceandEconomicDevelopment(Ethiopia)

MoLFD MinistryofLivestockandFisheriesDevelopment(Kenya)

MT MetricTonne

NAHDIC NationalAnimalHealthDiagnosticandInvestigationCenter

NGO NonGovernmentalOrganization

OIE Officeinternationaldesepizootics

PACAPS PastoralCoordination,AnalysisandPolicySupport(Project)

PLI

PastoralLivelihood

Initiative

(Ethiopia)

PPG PastoralProducerGroups

RELPA RegionalEnhancedLivelihoodforPastoralAreas

RVF RiftValleyfever

SAT SouthAfricanType

SPSLMM SanitaryandPhytoSanitaryLivestockandMeatMarketing(Project)

TAD TransboundaryAnimalDisease

USAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment

VOCA VoluntaryOrganizationofCooperativesinAmerica


5/42

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The last few yearshavewitnessed a renewed interest in the export of live

animalsandmeatfromKenyaandEthiopia.Inbothcases,theprivatesector

hastaken

the

lead

in

initiating

or

advocating

for

the

revival

of

the

export

business, prompting the respective governments to pay attention to the

potentialsoflivestocktrade.

InKenya, thismovewas enhancedby the formationof anewMinistry for

LivestockandFisheries.ThishasledtothereoperationalizationoftheKenya

MeatCommission (KMC),newplans tosetupsatelliteabattoirs instrategic

locations along the northern corridor, innovative approaches to improve

dilapidated market infrastructure and a continued interest in addressing

sanitary

requirements

related

to

livestock

and

meat

trade.

Kenya

has

also

incorporated a livestock marketing policy in the national livestock policy

document (still indraft). Prior to this, interestedgroupssuchas theKenya

Livestock Marketing Council (KLMC), initially supported by Arid Land

ResourceManagement Project (ALRMP), had set up various districtbased

livestockmarketinggroupsandplayedamajorroleinraisingawarenessand

establishinglinkagesbetweenproducersandpotentialimporters.

During the last ten years in Ethiopia, the private sector hasbeen active in

setting up export abattoirs and also in the exporting of live animals.

Government support to this sector was provided through the Livestock

MarketingAuthority (LMA)1, under theMinistry ofAgriculture andRural

Development (MoARD) at the time, forming exporters associations,

identifyingpotentialexportmarkets,facilitatingexportproceduresandsoon.

Bilateralprogramsspecificallydesignedtoaddresssanitaryissuesarealsoon

thefore.

An increasing number of donors (USAID and EU in particular), FAO and

NGOsarealsoengagedinsupportinglivestockmarketingfrompastoralareas

eitherthrough

national,

regional,

cross

border

or

area

based

programs.

Some

of these programs havebeen or arebeing implemented through regional

organizations such as the Africa Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal

Resources (AU/IBAR), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

(COMESA) and the IntergovernmentalAuthority forDevelopment (IGAD),

and some through national based institutions or as standalone projects.

Many of the NGOs operate at the local level with a few exceptions that

operateatthenationallevel.

1

The LMA was dissolved some three years ago. Livestock marketing issues are now handled by theState Minister for agricultural inputs and marketing. Livestock is now considered as one of the variousagricultural commodities which the Ministry handles.


6/42

2

Considering the size of the human population that depends on livestock

production in both countries, the development of domestic and export

marketsiscriticaltoalleviatingpoverty,raisingrevenuesandcontinuingthe

trend towardsmoremarketorientation. In realizationof thispotential,both

governmentsare

taking

some

encouraging

measures

towards

promoting

the

marketing of livestock, specifically from pastoral areas.However, livestock

andmeatmarketing,especiallyexports,isacomplexprocess.Thesubsistence

productionsystems inEthiopiaandKenyacannotcompetewithcommercial

producers inBrazilorAustralia. International tradebarriers (SPS, tariffand

nontariff) imposehuge limitationsonbothcountries.Exportmarketingand

promotionalstrategiesindestinationcountriesarealmostnonexistent.There

is no economy of scale to offset costs. In short, the livestock and meat

marketing systems are not as efficient nor as streamlined as those of their

competitors.

Yet, theseproblemsarenot insurmountable in the long term.Some require

substantial investments, for example, in animal health and SPS systems,

infrastructureandprocessingfacilities.Othersmayrequireacombinationof

investmentandattitudinalchangessuchasshiftingthemodeofproductionto

meet what the market demands. Competing in the international market

entails acquiring and practicing savvy marketing strategies along with

availing the right product on time.Obviously, a public and private sector

partnershipiscrucialtoachievinglongtermobjectives.Moreimportantly,an

appropriatepolicy framework is theprerequisite forprovidinganenabling

environment for all actors. This paper will look into some policy and

operationalissues.

Objective

Theobjectiveofthispaperistoprovideinsightsonlivestockmarketingpolicy

issues for theCOMESASecretariatunder thePACAPS/RELPAprogramme.

The paper constitutes part of the inhouse capacity building program on

pastoralpolicy

issues

for

the

Secretariat

in

conjunction

with

the

training

coursesprovidedbyPACAPS toCOMESA staff andCAADP country focal

points.It isanticipatedthattheoverallcapacitybuildingeffortwilltranslate

intotheproactiveengagementofthepastoralsectorintheCAADPprocess.

Structure

Thepaper reviews selected livestockmarketingpolicyand someoperational

issuesinbothKenyaandEthiopia.Itisstructuredtoprovidesomedetailson

ninepertinent

issues

that

are

critical

for

the

development

of

pastoral

livestock

marketsinorderthatCOMESAmayfocusonpriorityareas.Issuesdiscussed


7/42

3

will focus on general policy outlines, animal health services and

infrastructure;thestatusofmeatandliveanimalexports,marketstratification

andfeeds,commercialproductionandtheprovisionoffinancialservices.The

discussion on each topic incorporates analysis and suggestions for

improvement.

Methodology

Relevant documentswere reviewed inboth countries; these include policy

drafts/documents, sessional papers, commissioned or noncommissioned

specificstudies,projectappraisals,midtermorterminalevaluations,progress

reports andvarious articles injournals andnewspapers.The findings from

thesereviewswerefurtherrefinedthroughinterviewsheldwithvariouskey

informants

in

the

Department

of

Veterinary

Services

(DVS)

in

each

country,

other relevant government andprivate financial institutions,meat and live

animal exporters and specialized groups such as livestock marketing

cooperativesandtheKLMC.

2. GENERALPOLICYOUTLINES

Ethiopia ranks first in livestock resources in Africa with the potential to

export substantial numbers of live animals andmeat products. However,

various constraints continue tohinder international trade todestinations of

choice turning the country into amajor supplier of live cattle, camels and

shoats to its neighboring countries at a level unparalleled elsewhere in

Africa. Kenya, theoretically, is a meat deficit country, but its shortfall is

covered through crossborder imports fromTanzania,EthiopiaandSomalia

and, to some extent, from South Sudan.Kenyas exportpotential emanates

primarily from such crossborder live animal imports, although significant

livestockresourcesexist in itsNortheasternandNorthernprovincesaswell

asinsomeofthecommercialranches.

Bothcountries

are

keen

to

promote

the

export

of

live

animals

and

meat

with

a

growing interest invalueadditionbymaximizingexport revenues,creating

jobs and offsetting the limitations arising from SPS requirements for live

animalexports.Inrecentyears,therespectivegovernmentshavetakensome

encouraginginitiativestofacilitateandpromotelivestocktrade.Byandlarge,

these include establishing relevant government departments/ministries,

policy initiatives to promote agricultural development, poverty reduction,

accelerated economic growth policy frameworks and the setting up of

bilateralormultilateralprogramsfocusingspecificallyonlivestockorpastoral

development.Some

of

these

programs

incorporate

livestock

and

meat

marketingcomponents,albeitwithverymixedimpacts.


8/42

4

In Kenya, the importance of livestock marketing and value addition is

highlighted in theMoLFD ssessionalpaperon livestockpolicy (indraft,at

the timingofwriting thisreport).Thedraftpolicypaperacknowledges that

themarketing

of

livestock

and

livestock

products

should

be

amajor

economic

enterprise,handled largelyby theprivatesector, with thegovernmentonly

offering regulatory and facilitation services. It concedes that its access to

EuropeanandMiddleEastmarkets2hasbeenhamperedduetothecountrys

inability tomeetSPSstandardsand that thedistributionsystemof livestock

productshasbeenpoorlydevelopedinthecountry.

Future policy directions include the institutionalization of emergency

livestockofftake (frompastoral areas) as adroughtmitigationmeasureby

setting

up

a

robust

drought

early

warning

and

response

system;

rehabilitation

ofdilapidatedinfrastructure(roads,holdinggroundsandstockroutes)along

withprotectingholdinggroundsfromacquisitionbyprivatedevelopers.One

interestingdevelopment,inthisregard,istheideatoploughbacksomeofthe

cess revenue collected by local councils towards the development and

maintenanceofmarketinfrastructure.Dueimportanceisalsogiventosetting

up an efficient market information system to minimize distortions and

enhancechoicesforbothproducersandbuyers.Inrecognitionoftheadverse

impactsof insecurityon livestockmarketing (particularly inpastoralareas),

the policy paper aims to promote peace in collaborationwith the pastoral

communitieswhichmightthen,forexample,allowthetrekking(ratherthan

themoreexpensivetrucking)oftradeherds.

Emphasis is also placed on promoting the processing and consumption of

camel products, including camel milk3, in local and export markets, and

fosteringanenablingenvironmentforthemarketingofemerginglivestock

products(mainlyofwildliferesources)byharmonizingexistinglaws(e.g.the

WildlifeAct) thatotherwise contradict such initiatives.Furthermore,Kenya

aims to improve the standards ofmeat andmilk products to ensure the

competitivenessof

local

products

by

installing

the

necessary

mechanisms

that

are acceptable to regional and internationalmarkets; this policy includes

honeyproductsaswell.

Value addition is recommended formilk,meat, hides, skins,wool, honey,

bones,blood, feathers,hoovesandhornsbecauseof theircurrent lowvalue

chainthatresultsinlowearnings.ThepolicyenvisagesarolefortheMoLFD

indevelopingincentivesforvalueadditionenterprisesinvolvingcottageand

2 Although this is stated in the draft policy document, Kenya is now accessing the Middle East market.3 Packed camel milk is now available in Kenyan supermarkets through a private initiative


9/42

5

largescalevalueaddingindustries.Toovercomelimitationsoftechnological

advancement, skills development is incorporated as an integral part of the

value addition process. Tobuttress the value addition chain, theMinistry

plans to set up an inhouse agribusiness and value addition office to

coordinateactivities.

TheMoLFDacknowledgesthatoverthepastdecadethelivestocksectorhas

beenallocatedonlyasmallproportionof theannualnationalbudget.While

theMinistryenvisionsacorrespondingbudgetaryincreasetoexecuteitsnew

mandate,itisalsoadvocatingforincreasedcreditprovisionforsmallorlarge

scaleproducers,tradersandthelikeinthesector.

Inabidtorevampthelivestocksectordevelopment,MoLFDhasdevelopeda

number

of

policies

and

bills

incorporating

dairy,

livestock

feed,

animal

breeding,poultryandapiculture.Thesehavebeenapprovedbycabinetand

forwardedtoparliamentforapproval.

TheALRMPpolicydocumentforaridandsemiaridareasofKenyaisaimed

at fostering sustainable development for pastoral and agropastoral

communities in which livestockmarketing features as one of the priority

areas. Basically, the document canvasses a wide range of issues affecting

pastoral and agropastoral communities (land, water, education, health,

youth,governance,mining, alternative livelihoods, tourism etc.),but it also

acknowledgesthecriticalrole livestockmarketingcanplay inenhancingthe

livelihoods of pastoralists and agropastoralists. The existing bottlenecks

affecting livestockmarketing listed in theALRMPpolicydocumentand the

visions for the future are similar to those ofMoLFD. The 10year policy

document(20172016)envisagestheconstructionofroadnetworks,thesetting

upofmarketinformationsystems,theestablishmentofDFZsandabattoirsin

keystrategicsites,investmentinappropriatediseasecontrolandsurveillance,

thepromotionof camelproductionand the enhancementof themarket for

agriculturalproducts.Twokeycomponentsof thepolicydocument include

wideningand

deepening

financial

services

in

ASAL

areas

(for

small

scale

traders, cooperatives, associations, small producers, etc) and reducing

transaction costs for crossborder operations through infrastructure

development.

Despite having the largest livestock resources inAfrica and unlike Sudan,

KenyaorTanzania,Ethiopiadoesnothaveaseparatecentralministryforthe

livestocksector.TheMoARD,whichoversees livestockrelatedactivitiesand

policies, is itself divided into four State ministriesnatural resources,

agriculturalinputs

and

marketing,

crop

and

animal

husbandry,

and

the

early

warningandresponsesector.Thus,whileanimalproductionandtheDVSfall


10/42

6

underoneStateMinistry, livestockandmeatmarketingactivities fallunder

another, althoughboth stateministries report toMoARD.Furthermore, the

federalstructureofthegovernmentallowsasignificantlevelofautonomyto

regionalgovernmentsempoweringthelattertoformulateregionalpolicieson

issuesof

awide

ranging

nature

including

livestock

marketing,

taxation,

budgetaryallocationsetc.Thoseregionswithsignificantpastoralistandagro

pastoralist populations also have their own pastoral

departments/commissions4 and a pastoral unit in the Ministry of Federal

Affairs,at federal level,assumesa similar role to theALRMP inKenya. In

addition,aPastoralCoordinationUnitwasrecentlysetupwithintheDeputy

PrimeMinisters office in abid toprovide additional support to emerging

regionsmainlyconsistingofpastoralareas.

In

effect,

there

is

no

specific

livestock

marketing

policy

at

the

central

level

in

Ethiopia.This ispartlybecausemeatand liveanimal trade constitutesonly

oneofthemanyagriculturalproductsthespecificStateMinistryresponsible

forthemarketingofagriculturalproducesandinputshandles.Priorityisalso

given toproducts that currently generatemore substantial export revenues

than meat and live animals (coffee and horticultural crops, for example).

Even if the specific state ministry is intent on developing a livestock

marketingpolicy, thismaynotbecomprehensiveasveterinaryservicesand

animalproductionareeachhousedinadifferentstateministry. Asaresult,

policies related to livestockmarketing and animal health are scattered in

variouspolicydocuments suchas in the investmentpolicy, theMinistryof

Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) 2005/06 to 2009/10 PlanforAccelerated and Sustained Development Plan to End Poverty (PASDEP), tradepolicyandspecificprogramsrelatedtolivestockmarketing(suchastheSPS

LMMproject).Therelevanceofsuchpoliciestolivestockmarketingappliesin

thegeneralsensewhereastheycouldbespecificinthecaseofanimalhealth

services5andotherdesignatedprogrammes.

Forexample, thegeneral investmentpolicyallows investors in the livestock

sectorto

enjoy

the

following

privileges:

income tax holiday from two to six years and up to eight years for

specialcircumstances;

exemptionfromanyexporttaxandothertaxes leviedonexports;full

exemption from payment of import custom duties and other taxes

leviedonimportsfortheinvestment;

4 For example, Afar, Oromia, Somali and Southern Nations have set up pastoral departments orcommissions.5

In the absence of a comprehensive policy document, specific national, bilateral and multi-laterallivestock/pastoral related programs serve as proxy indicators of policies on livestock marketing, animalhealth and other related sectors.


11/42

7

guarantee to foreign investors to remit in convertible currency the

profitsanddividendsaccruingfromtheinvestmentaswellasprincipal

andinterestonexternalloans.

Additionalpolicy

incentives

since

June

2005

include

support

for

the

creation

ofindustryassociationstoprovideaconsultationforumbetweentheprivate

sector and the government. This has resulted in the formation of two

associations related to meat and livestock trade viz. the Ethiopian Meat

Exporters Association and Ethiopian Live Animal Exporters Association;

deregulation ofdomesticprices; liberalization of foreign trade; institutional

support for theexport sector;promulgationofa liberal investment lawand

issuanceofanewlaborlaw.

The

MoFED

five

year

all

sector

economic

development

plan

is

short

on

backgroundanalysishavingmadetheassumptionthattherelevantanalytical

components are already documentedwith the relevantministries. Policies

andstrategies for the livestocksubsector focusongenetic improvement for

sheep and cattle (local and exotic breeds) and improving animal feed

production (forage feed production/forage banks, natural pasture

improvement,maximizing cropresidue feed etc.). The livestock andmeat

marketingcomponentof thedocumentenvisage theconstructionofabouta

dozennewexportabattoirs, theestablishmentofnewand theupgradingof

existingcoldstorageandpacking facilities,and importationofThermoking

trucksfortransportation.IncontrasttoKenya,theMoFEDfiveyearplanand

policy document gives emphasis to identifying and penetrating export

markets(throughtrademissionsor indepthstudiesofforeignmarkets)and

marketablecommoditiestransferstudies.Promotionalactivitiesincludetrade

fairs, documentary films and the development of websites on profiles of

privateorganizationsandcooperativesforfacilitatingtheexportmarket.

OfthethreemajorpastoralregionsofEthiopia,theOromiaRegionhastaken

the lead in setting up a separate Livestock Resources Development and

marketingAgency

following

astudy

tour

to

Sudan

organized

by

the

PLI

programme. This move would enable the Agency to focus primarily on

livestockrelatedissuesincontrasttootherRegionswherepriorityisgivento

crops.There isalsohope that thisprecedencewouldprompt theother two

majorpastoralRegions,SomaliandAfar,tofollowsuit.


12/42

8

3. ANIMALHEALTH

Poor animal health services coupled with the sporadic outbreak of

economically important diseases (RVF, FMD etc.) remainmajor constraints

forthe

marketing

of

livestock

and

meat

from

the

Horn

in

general.

Over

the

last thirtyyears,availableevidence indicates that theallocationofresources

forthelivestocksubsector(andprincipallyfortheDVS)hasbeendecreasing

both inabsoluteandproportional terms (TambiandMaina,2002).Theneed

to strengthen veterinary services (through public and private goods) is

becomingmore apparent in light of the recurringbansbeing imposedby

importing countriesdespite initiatives to revive livestock andmeat exports

fromEthiopiaandKenya.Inreality,bothcountrieshavealongwaytogoto

bring the status of their veterinary services to internationally acceptable

standards

given

the

ever

increasing

stringent

rules

and

regulations

being

formulatedbyactorssuchastheOIEandEU.Atthisstage,bothcountriesare

formulatingpolicyinitiativestoaddresstheissueusingdifferentapproaches.

Interestingly, these policy initiatives are not buttressed by proportional

increasesinresourceallocationandinstead,relyonbilateralandmultilateral

funding6. Tambi and Maina (2002) suggest that some governments even

reduce allocated resources when donor funding becomes available. The

commitmentofbothgovernments to improvingveterinary services remains

an issue of concern until their intent can be proven through resource

allocation.

3.1 MarketingandAnimalHealthinKenya

VariouslegalstatutesempowertheDVSinKenyatocontrolanimaldiseases

andpests such as theAnimalDiseasesAct,CattleCleansingAct,Rabies

Control Act, Branding Act, the Crop and Livestock Production Act,

VeterinaryandSurgeonsAct,MeatControlAct,LivestockMovementAct,etc.

Theseactsarelegallybindingalthoughsomeofthemmaybeoutdated7and

theirenforcement isquestionable8. In recognitionof these facts, theKenyan

VeterinaryBoard

is

pushing

for

changes

and

is

currently

reviewing

some

of

theseacts includingthedraftingofnewonesinvolvingavianfluandDFZs.

Policyreview isalengthyprocessinKenyasinceithastopassfirstthrough

cabinetandthenthroughparliamentforapproval.Therefore,itmaytakeup

6 ADB in Kenya and USAID in Ethiopia7 For example, the provision governing the inspection of livestock for 100 days (for three CBPP tests)prior to exports could be unrealistic in todays highly competitive world market.8

The issuance of movement permits is the most widely practiced aspect of this Act and withoutwhich livestock are not permitted to travel from high-risk areas to the terminal markets. The applicationof other aspects of the Act is subject to the available means.


13/42

9

totwotothreeyearsforthereviewprocesstomaterialize.Nevertheless,the

initiativehasbeensetinmotion.

Meanwhile,despite the trainingof thousandsofCAHWs, thekey role they

playedin

eradicating/controlling

rinderpest

and

their

undisputed

position

as

themainprovidersofanimalhealthservices to thepastoralpopulation, the

DVSdoesnotofficially recognizeCAHWsexceptas thedevil theyhave to

workwith9. Whatever the casewas in thepast, the exclusion ofCAHWs

fromrecognitioninthereviewprocesswillbeanothermissedopportunityfor

the livestocksector inKenya.Infact,theexistingAnimalDiseasesAct(CAP

364)givestoomuchweightandpowertoveterinarians,andoneonlyhopes

thatthereviewprocesswillleadtomoreappropriatesupporttothefullrange

of veterinary paraprofessionals (diplomates, technicians andCAHWs). In

the

past,

the

contracting

out

of

some

public

services

to

the

private

sector

was

notendorsedingovernmentcircles,althoughOIErulesstipulatethatcertain

activities(sometypesofsurveillance,testing,manning,etc)canbeperformed

by the private sector. Reversing this concept, the draft policy document

proposesastrongerprivatesectorpartnershipbyfacilitatingandencouraging

selfemploymentanddeploymentofprofessionalsand technicallyqualified

personneltosustainablyservethesubsector.Thismovewillobviouslybring

inahostofadvantagesifthepolicygainsapproval.Itwilleasethefinancial

burden on the government, introduce payments for performancebased

services, improvequalitycontrol throughcompetitionandpave theway for

efficiencyandimagination.

Perhaps, the single most prominent but questionable measure under

consideration inKenya istheestablishmentofDFZsforincreasedexportsof

live animals and beef. In this connection, a Ministerial Committee has

proposed the following three areas for establishment ofDFZs:North Rift;

Laikipia/Timau/Kieni and the GalanaKilifiKwaleTaitaTaveta Ranches

(Coast region).Of these, some activities havebeen initiated throughADB

financing for the Coast region DFZ 10. Apparently, the DFZs have been

plannedto

serve

as

the

last

holding

points

for

cattle

that

have

been

vaccinated

andquarantinedenroute.TheDFZswillbeequippedwithdips,waterand

feeding facilitiesandwillbe fully fenced. Inaddition, financial supporthas

been provided through the ADB project for rehabilitating two quarantine

centersatMirtiniandBachuma.TheDFZsareintendedtoservecattlecoming

fromtheNorthandNorthEasternprovincesofKenya,SomaliaandEthiopia.

9 Personal communication (name withheld).10 DFZ is conspicuously not mentioned in the MoLFD draft policy document, although the MoLFD

implements the ADB funded project covering 22 ASAL districts. Apparently, the DVS has somereservations that others are getting the money in the name of activities that belong to the DVS. TheDVS advice in this regard is to focus on exporting meat rather than live animals.


14/42

10

Thereareanumberofissuesthatneedtobeconsideredwhendeterminingif

DFZs are the right solution to problems that are inherent in the system.

Historically, Southern African nations (Namibia, Botswana and South

Africa)11 have been exporting beef on the basis of zones free from FMD

withoutvaccination.

According

to

Dr.

Gavin

Thompson

12

of

SADC,

obtaining

recognitionofzones free fromFMD is logisticallydifficult,veryexpensive13

andsociallydisruptivewithdisplacementandexclusionoflocalpopulations

and livestock. The practicalities and technical constraints are frequently

underestimatedbySubSaharancountries. However,70to80percentofthe

national livestock populations owned by smallholders in Namibia and

Botswanaareexcluded from theDFZs in those countries,withnoaccess to

internationalmarkets for theexcluded farmers. Inotherwords, theDFZs in

both countries aremeant forwhiteowned ranches (with a fewblack elite

groups).

Dr.

Thomson

adds,

Although

freedom

from

FMD

with

vaccination

ispossible,thisapproachissofarnotusedinSubSaharanAfricabutapplied

inSouthAmerica.However,technicaldifficultiesrelatedtothepurityofSAT

strains in the region and the sensitivity of diagnostic tests for SAT type

virusesmaymake theeffortdifficult. Even intheabsenceofaDFZ,Kenya

hassimplydemonstratedthatitcanexporthealthyliveanimalstoMauritius.

What is required is to strengthen this system by setting up appropriate

quarantinefacilitieswithouttheneedtoinvestinaDFZthatmaynotevenbe

recognizedby international authorities.The recurrenceofRVFalsoposesa

specificchallengeasmosquitoescannotbecontrolledbyfencinganarea.14

The relatively new concept of compartmentalization as a complement or an

alternative to theDFZ concept isbased on integratedbiosecurity systems

which are likely to benefit vertically integrated (sophisticated) business

enterprisespreferentially.However,theOIEsScientificCommissiondecision

thatcompartmentalizationshouldnotbeapplicableinthecaseofFMDmakes

theeffortdaunting,atleastintheshortrun.

11 Zimbabwe is no longer in that category12 A world expert on FMD and former Chairman of the OIE FMD and Other Epizootics Commission13 For example, between 1992 and 2005 Namibia invested N$134 million for infrastructure andadditional N$2 million p.a. for cattle registration while Botswana invested P166 million between 2000-2004 for the introduction of LITS and an additional P15 million p.a for maintenance/upgrading tocomply with EU standards.14

In theory, a DFZ could be established in areas where RVF outbreaks may not likely occur. However,the fact that RVF outbreaks occur within the countrys borders by itself poses a serious challenge forinternational authorities to recognize the DFZ.


15/42

11

Country Y

Feedproduction

Feed-lots

Abattoir & meatprocessing plant

Compartmentalization

Animal supp.

Compartmentalized, i.e. bio-secure,beef production chain

Source:GavinThompson

IftheintentiontocreateDFZsinKenya15issolelyfortheexportofmorelive

animals (mainly cattle), one is tempted to ask if the market justifies the

investment. The volume of live animal export to Mauritius is not that

significant, and promisesmadeby Egypt canbe reversed at any time (as

happenedwith

Ethiopia).

As

agreed

by

those

in

the

industry,

Kenya

can

benefit more through value addition and by exporting meat products16.

However,attempts toexportmeat tohighendmarkets (suchasEurope)by

reviving theKenyanquota from thepreviousLomeConventionmaynotbe

possibleduetocomplicationsarisingfromthereplacementofthelatterbythe

EUEconomicPartnershipAgreement.ThisagreementmaynotincludeKenya

formeat commodities.Kenyawouldbewelladvised to focuson exporting

meatorliveanimalstoMauritius,Egypt,theMiddleEast,Malaysiaandother

less demanding destinationswhere amovement control system following

vaccinationand

quarantine

might

suffice.

IntermsofcommitmenttoDFZs,Kenyawillneedtoconsiderfactorssuchas:

socialexclusiondisplacementsandexclusionofthelocalpopulation

economicconflictsthetouristindustry,wildlifeandinparticularbuffalo

15In fact, at the time of writing this paper, it was announced that the GoK has allocated KSh. 3B(US$37,500,000) for the development of the first two DFZs. The first 2 will be Samburu/Laikipia/Isilo

Complex and the Coastal Complex (Galana and other organized commercial ranches).

16 Including, the MoLFD policy document which strongly argues for value addition.


16/42

12

epidemiologicalfactorsrelatedtowildlifeandtourisme.g.buffaloacting

asanaturalreservoirforFMD,

financialandlogisticaldifficultieswhicharevariousandinherentinthe

proposedDFZsystem

supplyissues

such

as

an

inconsistent

supply

of

livestock

and

dependenceonexternalsupplysources,whichcouldpotentiallydryupat

anytime17

ThiscombinationofcomplexfactorsindicatesthatthecreationofDFZsisnot

warrantedintheshorttomediumterm.Traceabilitycouldalsobeachallenge

for animals originating from neighboring countries. The alternative to this

wouldbe in upgrading and strengthening veterinary services and animal

diseasesurveillance,reportingandcontrol keyelements. Theseneedtobe

addressed

in

the

short

to

medium

term

with

a

view

to

perhaps

establishing

DFZs in the longrun18.ArecentstudybyGTZonDFZs (AielloGout,etal,

2007),commissionedbyAU/IBAR,alsoconcurswiththisconclusion.

AccordingtotheKenyaDVS,Effectivecontroloflivestockmovementisthe

key to finding diseasefree animals19. On the other hand, the ongoing

campaigns for aCommodityBasedCertification System and freedom from

FMD through compartmentalization are gatheringmomentum.Taking into

account shortages inmeat supply forecasts in theworldmarket (Delgado,

2000),itmaynotbetoolongbeforecountriesareabletoexportmeatproducts

througharobustveterinarysystemthatneednotnecessarilyincludeDFZs.

The ADBfunded ALLPRO project in Kenya supports various livestock

marketingrelatedactivities:

rehabilitationofquarantinestations;

installment of mobile laboratories including equipment and

consumables;

procurementofvaccines;

stakeholdersworkshopsondiseasecontrolanddiseasesurveillancein

districts;

trainingofmeatinspectorsandCAHWs;

rehabilitationofmeattraininginstitutes;

17 There is a commonly-accepted misperception in Kenya that it attracts livestock supplies fromEthiopia because of price differentials. The reality is meat prices are twice as high in Ethiopiacompared to Kenya. The domestic market in Ethiopia is supplied largely by highland cattle, due toproximity, to the exclusion of the pastoral areas - the main reason for the flow of trade herds frompastoral areas of Ethiopia to Kenya. However, this trend can change at any time, when and if Ethiopiastarts exporting beef, as was the case with shoats. Also note that there are more cattle in the highlandareas of Ethiopia than in the pastoral areas18

The mid-term review of the ADB-financed ALLPRO project states that, The creation of a coastalDFZ is a major challenge and well outside the budgetary scope of ALLPRO.19 Personal communication with Dr Peter Ithodenka, head of the DVS in Kenya, 25/02/2008


17/42

13

buildingthecapacityofdiagnosticstaff.

While these initiativesarecommendable, itshouldbenoted that thesystem

canonlywork in the long run through the commitmentof thegovernment

andall

stakeholders

in

the

post

project

phase.

For

example,

the

sustainability

of themobile labs is already indoubt.A strategyhas tobeput inplace to

sustainthesysteminthepostprojectphasethroughfullcostrecoveryand/or

costsharing.

OtherpertinentissuescontainedintheKenyaMoLFDdraftpolicydocument

includethefollowing:

establishingthenecessarymechanismstodealwithemergingdiseases

(e.g.avianflu)plusfires,floodsanddrought;

enlisting

the

private

sector

and

community

participation

in

disease

and

pestcontrolandsurveillance;

promotingandfacilitatingcommunityandprivatesectorparticipation

in environmentally safe vector and vectorborne disease control

programmes;

devising necessary strategies and initiating programmes to eradicate

tsetseflies;

measuring disease control measures for other livestock species in

additiontocattlebyharnessingpublicandprivateresources;

separatingthemanagementandcontrolofveterinarydrugsfromthat

of human drugs for control and regulation by MoLFD; enforcing

existing regulations to effectively control themovement of livestock

andlivestockproducts20;

upgradingtheinfrastructureoftheexistinglaboratories(twonational,

sixregionallabs)andenhancingtheircapacitybuildingtointernational

standards.

3.2 AnimalHealthandMarketinginEthiopia

InEthiopia,

anew

Animal

and

Plant

Health

Regulatory

Directorate

(APHRD)21,undertheMoARD,hasbeenmandatedtoregulate,monitorand

controlSPSstandardsforplants,animalsandtheirderivativesatthefederal

level.Thenew Directoratewillhavetwoseparatedivisions/departmentsto

handleanimalsandplants.TheorganizationalstructureoftheDirectorate is

currently under formation. Whether this structure will be replicated at

regionallevelsisnotknownyet.Regardless,owingtothefederalstructureof

the government, the regional veterinary departments remain autonomous,

20

On the other hand, the ALRMP policy document calls for a review of the livestock movementcontrol rather than reinforcing it.21 Modeled on the USA system.


18/42

14

withtheirownbudgetallocationsfromtherespectiveregionalgovernments.

The federalAPHRDmandate extends only toTADs, SPS certifications and

meat inspections aswellas coordinatingvaccination campaigns in timesof

disaster. The regional veterinary departments do not necessarily report on

theiractivities

to

APHRD

with

the

exception

of

disease

reporting

for

monitoringpurposesandonother issuesasandwhen requested.The loose

workingrelationshipbetweenthefederalandtheregionalstructurescouldbe

animpedimenttosettingupacredibleSPSstructure.However,thereishope

that APHRDwill come upwith new Acts and Regulations thatbind the

federal and regional veterinary systems to a common vertical structure

regardingSPSstandards,diseasesurveillance,monitoringandreportingand

diseasecontrolsystems.

Meanwhile,

the

MoFED

five

year

plan

on

policies,

strategies

and

programmes

envisagesanambitiousgoalregardingthedevelopmentofveterinaryservices

inthecountry.Theseinclude:

strengthening field veterinary services by doubling the number of

veterinaryclinicsto3,600alongwithmobileservicedeliveryunits;

improving the supply and quality of 16 types of vaccines through

significantexpansion;

controllingandpreventingfiveeconomicallyimportantTADS;

establishingalivestockearlywarningsystem;

Expandingbasicanimalhealthservice training from thecurrent level

of5%to50%;

producing significant doses for seven types of vaccines that are not

producedinthecountrycurrently;

investigatingandcontrollingnewlyemergingdiseases (suchasavian

flu);

establishingthreeDFZs;

investigatingandcontrollingthenewcameldisease.

Other planned interventions include strengthening the quarantine and

inspectionservice

with

plans

to

build

eight

new

quarantine

stations

and

increasingthenumberofdomesticabattoirsfromthecurrent140to321.There

isaplan tobuildonequalitycontrol laboratory foranimalproductsandan

additional five animal health posts to enforce control on animal product

standards. In addition, the plan envisages strengthening diagnostic and

surveillance capacity of laboratoriesby increasing the number of diseases

surveyed to sixwithasubstantial increase in thenumberof samples tested

perannum.Coverageofdiseasereportingrateistobeincreasedto80percent.

Regardinghuman

resource

development,

the

five

year

plan

foresees

increasing the number of animal health professionals as follows: animal


19/42

15

healthassistantsto6,000;meatinspectorsto684;assistantmeatinspectorsto

519;andgraduateveterinariansto50022.

Theplanprovideslimitedinformationonpublicprivatepartnershipsandor

thesustainability

of

all

these

activities

over

the

long

run.

There

are

also

doubts if adequate resources have been allocated (except for manpower

development) to undertake the tasks outlined in the fiveyear plan. It is

unrealistic to think that theproposedDFZswillbe implementedwithin the

plannedfiveyears,astherearenoinitiativestodateindicatingcommitment.

WhetherthereisaneedforDFZsand, ifso,theireventualmaterialization is

highly doubtful. A pragmatic approach involving a twophase quarantine

system(atpurchasesitesandfeedlots)proposedbytheUSAIDfundedSPS

LMMprogramappears tobemoreappropriate for thepresentstatusof the

country.

This

system

could

be

put

in

practice

once

the

cost

elements

are

knownthroughatestrun23.

Theplannedincreaseinvaccineproduction(forbothnewandoldtypes)can

onlybe achieved through substantial upgrading of the vaccine production

center at Debre Zeit. Joint venturing could be necessary for capital

investment, technology transfer and marketing purposes. Some initiatives

wereundertakenthroughtheUSAIDfundedSPSLMMprogramforpossible

joint venturing with foreign pharmaceutical companies. The results are

mixed,butnotyetfinalized.

There isonenationalreferral laboratoryandthirteenregional laboratories in

Ethiopia.Abaselinesurveycarriedoutonthestatusofthese laboratoriesby

SPSLMM found the labs to be reasonably equipped. However, their

operational capacity is constrainedby a lack of resources resulting in an

irregular supply of consumables, limited field activities and high staff

turnover.A lackof technical skillshas also rendered some equipment idle.

Certaintestsarenotbeingcarriedoutduetocapacityconstraints.Inaddition,

the assessment identified weak functional linkages between the regional

laboratoriesand

the

National

Animal

Health

Diagnostic

and

Investigation

Center.Through theSPSLMMprogram, supportwasprovided todecision

makerstoredirectthemandateofNAHDICtolead/assisttheregionallabsin

the provision of diagnostic services, the investigation of disease outbreaks

and the instigation of systematic surveillance in an effort to improve the

nationaldiagnosticcapacity levels.Essential labconsumablesweresupplied

toregionallabsthroughNAHDIC.Trainingwasprovidedtofederalstaffon

22 Six universities in the country run veterinary faculties and a number of colleges train animal health

assistants and meat inspectors.23 ILRIs cost-benefit analysis of this system suggests that the system may not be financially feasible(Rich, et al, 2007). But, a test-run is necessary to confirm/reject the findings.


20/42

16

Molecular Diagnostic Tests and on HACCP and SPS requirements for

MoARD meat inspectors and exporters. Support was also provided to

NAHDICstafffordevelopingaQualitySystemsManual.However,asystem

hastobeputinplacetosustaintheseactivitiesinthepostprojectphase.

The existing quarantine stations in Ethiopia are small in size andwithout

adequate facilities and some of these are inappropriately located for live

animalexportsexceptformeatprocessing.Thereisalsoaplantosetuptwo

new quarantine stations of international standard to bypass the Djibouti

facilitythatisincreasinglychargingexorbitantfeestoalevelthatmakeslive

animalexportsalmost impossible.Thecertificationofanimals inDjiboutiby

veterinarianshiredby theownerof thequarantine facilityalso contravenes

theinternationalnorm.

The Djibouti quarantine facility,builtwith USAID funding and originally

planned to be owned by the regional livestock traders association, now

belongs toaprivate companycalledAbuYaser International.The company

has lobbiedforallanimalsfromEthiopiatopassthroughthefacilitybut its

creation, to some extent, has put Ethiopian live animal exporters at a

disadvantageasitcoststhemanaverageof$50perheadtokeepcattleinthe

facility. Ethiopias determination tobuild its own international quarantine

center is, therefore, justifiable from a number of points. This move will

hopefullyresolvethepredicamentofliveanimalexporters.

Compared to Kenya, Ethiopias Animal Disease Control Proclamation No

267/2002 is limited to a few sections incorporating provisions (legal

terminologies), Prevention and Control of Animal Diseases,Movement of

Animals24, Animal Products and byProducts and Registration of Animal

Health Professionals andDelivery of Services. The proclamation does not

coverotherpertinentissuessuchasbreeding,abranding/cattleidentification

system, themovement of livestock to terminalmarkets etc.No amount of

effortwillcome to fruition in theabsenceofsuchcrucialActsandBillsand

moreimportantly

without

amechanism

to

enforce

the

Acts

and

Bills.

APHRD, therefore, should focus onworkingwith other stakeholders (with

Ethiopian Veterinary Association/ or the emerging Veterinary Board,

EthiopianSocietyofAnimalProduction,etc.)tooriginateActsthatarecrucial

forenhancingveterinaryservices,livestockandmeattrade25.

24

In times of disease outbreak only25 In realization of these short comings, guidelines and acts covering some of these pertinent issues, butnot all, have been drafted by MoARD and sent to parliament for approval.


21/42

17

3.3 InadequacyofResourceAllocations

InKenya, the livestock sector contributesabout10%of the entireGDPand

about 42% of the agriculturalGDP. It accounts for about 30% ofmarketed

agriculturalproducts.

Yet,

the

total

agricultural

sector

used

to

receive

10%

of

the totalgovernmentbudget in the1960s,wasreduced to7.5% in the1980s

andtoatrifling3%inthe1990s.In2002/03,livestockaccountedforonly1%of

the proportion (or 0.25% of the nationalGDP). In Ethiopia, the livestock

sector contributesabout20%of the totalGDP. It isnotpossible to tally the

total resourceallocation inEthiopiaas thesubsector resourceallocation for

theregionsisdeterminedbytherespectiveregionalgovernments.However,

circumstantial evidence indicates that the resource allocation may not be

better than in Kenya (Tambi and Maina, 2002). The failure of both

governments

in

allocating

proportionally

adequate

resources

for

such

a

vital

subsector remainspuzzling.What ismoreworrisome is thatbothEthiopia

and Kenya rely on external funding (loans or grants) for revamping or

upgradingtheirveterinaryservicesdespitetherespectivegovernmentswish

to exportmore live animals andmeat in order to collect export revenues.

While the need for external technical assistance is apparent, running the

veterinary service delivery systems through shortterm financial grants or

loans isaquestionableapproach.Dependenceonexternalfundingemanates

partly from theageoldadherence torunningeverything through thepublic

sectorand,atthesametime,fromthenoncommittalattitudeoftherespective

governmentsduetootherpriorities.Publicprivatepartnershipiscriticalnot

only to relieve the financialburden on governmentsbut also tobring in

efficiencyandqualityserviceintothesystem.Atthesametime,governments

shouldknowbetterthantotrytocollectlocaltaxesandexportrevenuesfrom

thesectorwithoutinvestinginit.

4. INFRASTRUCTURE

Inadequateinfrastructurehasbeencitedinmanypapersandpresentationsas

contributingto

the

inefficiency

of

livestock

marketing.

In

fact,

some

form

of

infrastructuredidexist inbothcountries in thepast (holdinggrounds,stock

routes,waterpoints,quarantinestationsetc.)mainlyduetoWorldBankand

ADB loans. But, most of the infrastructure is dilapidated or nonexistent

because no system was put in place to make them selffinancing for

maintenance or upgrading. In some cases, their demise was caused by

regionalinstability(theEthioSomaliwarof1977,forexample)orwasdueto

internalethnicconflictsorcommunitiesthatdidnotseeanybenefitincaring

forthem.


22/42

18

Onceagain,both theMoLFDandALRMPpolicypapers inKenya consider

the development of infrastructure (roads, stock routes, holding grounds,

communications)asoneofthepriorityareas.Obviously,surfacedroadscould

increase efficiency while decreasing transportation costs. Communication

facilitiescould

simplify

and

facilitate

transactions.

Livestock

market

yards

couldgrade stock,monitorvolumeof trade,price, etc.although they could

alsosimplifythingsforcounciltaxcollectors,bringinganunintendedburden

to pastoralists. Holding grounds and stock routes are critical for the

movementoflivestocktotheirfinaldestinationsandfortrackingpurposes.In

Kenya,theALLPROprojectinfrastructuralactivitiesincludetherehabilitation

of ten ruralmarkets and stock routes, renovation of the leather tannery at

Kabete, construction of four slaughterhouses, rehabilitation of quarantine

stations and theMeatTraining Institute.These activities areundervarious

stages

of

implementation

with

slight

changes

in

some

of

their

activities

following the midterm review. However useful these are for livestock

developmentandmarketingefficiency,asystemshouldbedevisedtooperate

them profitably or at least on a costrecoverybasis in order to sustain the

servicestheyprovide.Infact,theMoLFDpolicydocumentrecommendsthat

partofthecess26collectedby localcouncilsfromruralmarketsshouldbeset

aside formaintenance and upgrading purposes. This approach shouldbe

extended to quarantine stations, holding grounds,mobile laboratories and

otherserviceprovidinginfrastructurefacilities.

Infrastructure development in Ethiopia is planned and executed by the

relevant federal and regional authorities (roads, telecommunications,water

etc).Suchactivities takeplaceaspartof thenationaldevelopmentplanand

are not specifically tied to livestock development although the subsector

benefitsfromthewholedevelopmentprocess.TheMoFEDfiveyearplanon

infrastructure related activities for the livestock subsector envisages

increasingquarantinepostsfromthreetoeight27,checkpostsfromthreeto12

anddomesticabattoirsfrom140to321.Onehopesthatthisinfrastructurewill

operateprofitablyoratleastonacostrecoverybasis.

Another development that took place during the last three yearswas the

constructionof25marketyardsinpastoralareasthroughtheUSAIDfunded

PLI program. Although the market yards include some facilities such as

loadingrampsandwateringpoints,theylacksomecrucialattributessuchas

holdinggroundsforpurchasedanimals.Itseemspossiblethatbuildingfewer

market yardswith complete facilities in vibrant secondarymarketsmight

have been more effective than building to the same standard in less

26

Local council tax.27 In view of the decision taken to build two international quarantine centers, the original plan ofbuilding three to eight quarantine centers in different locations of the country could be put on hold.


23/42

19

important, and in some cases, nonfunctional markets.More importantly,

insufficientthoughtwentintoplanningthemanagementofthemarketyards.

This effectively placed them under the ownership of the local councils,

without provision to use some of the revenue for maintaining and/or

upgradingthe

yards.

This

casts

doubt

about

the

functionality

of

the

yards

over a long period of time unless this status is revisedby the concerned

stakeholders.

The privatelyowned Djibouti quarantine center remains a challenge to

EthiopiaandSomalia.OwnedbyAbuYaserInternational, itproclaims itself

to be a regional quarantine center covering such countries as Ethiopia,

Somaliaand evenKenya,and lobbiesactively topersuademajor importing

countries and international agencies that it is the onlyquarantine center of

acceptable

standard

in

the

region.

More

positively,

the

facility

may

have

triggered the setting up of similar quarantine facilitiesby two competing

Saudi companies in Bosaso and Berbera. Thismove has in turn prompted

Somalilivestockexporterstoputtheirownquarantinefacilitiesinbothports

to counteract the threat posedby the Saudi companies tomonopolize the

export trade.With Ethiopia planning tobuild two new quarantine centers

withinitsborders,theregionisheadingforafiercecompetitioninpersuading

importersthatoneestablishmentfulfillstherequirementsbetterthananother,

and that theprivateDjibouti facilitydoesnotrepresent theregion.Perhaps,

oneunintendedeffectoftheDjiboutiquarantinecenterhasbeentopersuade

Ethiopia, Somaliland and Puntland to set up their own quarantine centers

which shouldhavebeen inplacea long timeago.However, settingup the

quarantine center in Djibouti in the first place, against the wishes of the

principalstakeholdercountries (EthiopiaandSomalia),remains thecauseof

muchof thecontroversy that followed. Its likely impact, inviewof thenew

initiativesinEthiopia,PuntlandandSomaliland,remainstobeseen.

5. MEATEXPORTS

5.1

Issuesin

Kenya

There are three exportstandard abattoirs inKenya (KMC, FarmersChoice

and Hurlingham), and there are plans to build four more through the

ALLPROproject,ofwhichtwohavebeentenderedforGarissaandIsiolo.The

recently refurbishedKMC, theoldestand the largestabattoir inKenya,has

thecapacitytothroughput1,000headofcattleandsome2,000shoatsaday.

KMCssupplysourcesincludetheNortheasternandNorthernprovinces,the

same source areasbeing targetedby the planned abattoirs in Garisa and

Isiolo.


24/42

20

KMCfacesfourmajorproblemsinrunningitsoperation:

erraticor seasonallybound supplies (evenbefore theGarissa and Isiolo

abattoirsbecomeoperational),particularlybetweenAugustandDecember

whenthereisenoughpastureinpastoralareas;

thesupply

problem

is

exacerbated

by

security

problems,

including

recent

postelectionconflicts;

a pricing policy based on grades, putting KMC at a disadvantage

comparedtootherlocalabattoirs;

financial limitationsdue to excessive focuson rehabilitating theplantat

Athi and its subsidiary inMombasa,without providing for operational

costs.

At the timeof theauthorsvisit inMarch2008,KMCwasslaughteringonly

200

head

of

cattle

per

day

and

about

400

goats

every

two

days

i.e.

it

was

runningatonlyaround20%capacity.

KMCuses five typesofgrades for cattlewith a fixedprice ceiling for each

grade:

primegrade(15mmfat)andnotmorethan3yearsofageat165KSh/Kg

(USD$2.05)carcassweight;

choicegrade(20mmfat)at155KSh/Kg(USD$1.94)carcassweight

fairaveragequality,noagelimit,withgoodfatcoverat142.56KSh/carcass

weight(USD$1.78);

standardgradeat135Ksh/Kg (USD$1.68) carcassweight (mainly from

pastoralareas);

commercialgradeorcullcowsat95KSh/Kg(USD$1.19)carcassweight;

some25%ofthelivestockcomingfrompastoralareasofWajirandMoyale

fallintothisgroup.

KMC effects payments five days afterpurchase. Each trader is required to

bringaminimumoffiveanimals;individualsbringaminimumof22animals;

andfarmersorranchersaminimumof40head.Mostranchers(suchasthose

inLakipia)

do

not

sell

to

KMC

because

of

the

low

price.

Other

ranches

close

to

AthioccasionallysellcattletoKMCatapriceof7085KSh/Kg(USD$0.87

1.05)liveweight.

KMCs major competitors are privatelyowned abattoirs supplying the

supermarketsandthebighotels.Manyoftheseprivatelyownedabattoirspay

immediatelytotraderswhereasKMChastofollowaprocess.KMCstatesthat

thepricingpolicymustchangeandthattheGradeActneedstoberevisedas

it is not easy for ordinary Kenyans to attain the grade under the Act.

Unfortunately,the

Board

does

not

meet

to

make

timely

decisions

as

frequently as themarket dynamics change.Most animals coming from the


25/42

21

NortheastandMoyalealso suffer from thepoor conditionsof the roadand

arriveattheplantinbadshape.Tradersalsocomplainofhightransportcosts

and roadblocks en route to the Athi plant. The meat from such areas is

rejected insomecases.Nonetheless,KMCstatesthat it iscontributingtothe

welfareof

pastoralists.

KMCsmainmarket isNairobi. It has licensed four franchises inNairobi

although they dont stock the franchises on a regularbasis due to erratic

supplies.Thishasconstrainedthemfromopeningsimilarfranchisesinother

bigcities.KMCproducescornedbeef for theKenyanarmy ina300gmcan

(due toshortagesof thestandard340gmcan)atapriceof115KSh (USD$

1.43)percanandalsosupplies theUgandanArmywith190200gmcorned

beef.KMCplans toproduceburgers, sausages and ox tongue for the local

market.

KMCexportswholecarcassestoDubaiatapriceof165KSh/Kg(USD$2.0628.

TheyhavealsoexportedsomebeeftoSouthSudan.Negotiationshavestarted

withEgypt,andMalaysiahasagreedtoimportmeatbyair.KMCalsoplans

toexportgoatcarcassestoDubaialthoughthetypeofgoatcarcassesrequired

inDubai(smallones)arenotavailableinbulk.

Supplyproblemsandworldmeatmarketprices (unless theygoupsharply

duetotheglobalfoodshortage)willaffecttheperformanceofKMC.Thetwo

abattoirsatIsioloandGarissaarelikelytoaffectthesupplyofcattle(however

seasonal)toKMCfromMoyaleandtheNortheasternprovince leavingKMC

torelyonTaita,theTanzanianborder,andsomeranchesalongtheMombasa

road,usuallyrentedbySomalis.Coupledwiththis isthe littleornomargin

KMC is obtaining from its exports toDubai.An FOBprice ofKSh 165/Kg

(USD$2.06)toDubaiisequivalenttowhatKMCpaysforprimegradecattle

locally, and this iswithout adding the overhead costs at the plant. KMC

should look into the feasibility ofmaking a profitby exportingmeat cuts

rather than whole carcasses and should also investigate the possibility of

exportingmeat

to

Mauritius.

As

aparastatal

agency,

KMC

is

besieged

by

financialandmanagementproblems.

TheprivatecompanyFarmersChoice ismainly involved inporkprocessing

(a nonpastoral product) for the local market with limited exports to the

MiddleEast andMauritius.Themainmarket forHurlinghambutcheries is

alsothe localmarket.TherearerumorsthatFarmersChoiceandAlphaFine

Foods plan to build their own abattoirs (the latter is thinking instead of

28 This is less than the meat price in Nairobi.


26/42

22

renting the new abattoirs in Garissa and Isiolo)29.Whatever the case, the

companiesshouldtakestockofthesupplysituation,thelocalandworldmeat

market prices (unless they get premium prices for ranch animals around

Lakipia)beforeinvestinginanewabattoir.Obviously,rentingouttheGarissa

andIsiolo

abattoirs

would

be

the

better

option

rather

than

running

them

as

governmententities.

5.2 IssuesinEthiopia

There are somenineprivatelyowned export abattoirs inEthiopia30. Five of

thesehavebeenoperatingforthe lastsixorsevenyears,exportingaweekly

average of 150MT of goat and sheep carcasses to theMiddle East. These

abattoirsaresmallinsizewithadailythroughputcapacityofbetween1,500

and

2000

shoats.

One

or

two

of

them

also

have

some

capacity

for

slaughtering

cattle and occasionally they exportbeef to some African countriesby air.

Theseabattoirsalsofaceseasonalsupplyshortages.Hightransportcostsand

inaccessibility to some surplus areas in the country also contribute to

shortagesofsupplies.

There are three new abattoirs under construction (one is near completion)

withcapacitiestoslaughterbothcattleandshoats,andtheyincludefacilities

for vacuum packaging. One of these anticipates exporting beef to Dubai

shortly.Itwilltakeayearortwofortheothertwoabattoirstostartoperation.

Whethertheseabattoirswillbecompetitivetoexportbeefcarcassesremains

tobe seen given the everescalating price ofmeat in the localmarket. In

Addis,thepriceofmeatvariesbetween$4/kgand$6/kg,which isfarabove

the world market price and is likely to impact the performance of these

abattoirs.Whetherthispricehikeisduetosupplyshortagesoristheresultof

acarteltypecontrolneeds tobeassessed inviewof theabundant livestock

resources in thecountry.Meanwhile, theabattoirsmaybenefitbyswitching

to sea freight (for vacuum packed meat) given they meet the stringent

logisticalrequirements.

On

the

other

hand,

the

currently

operational

abattoirs

(plus the ones under construction) are capable of catering for the current

volumeoflivestocksuppliesexceptintheEasternpartsofthecountry,where

an abattoir inJigjiga could provide amarket for supplies from the Somali

region.

29

Personal communication with Alpha Fine Foods manager.30 Excluding the old government-owned four industrial abattoirs sold to the Midroc Group, which aremore or less obsolete.


27/42

23

CarcassesforexportfromoneoftheprivateabattoirsinEthiopia

6. LIVEANIMALEXPORTS

Kenya exported live animals to theMiddle East in the 1980s31. However,

beginninginthe1990s,itsliveanimalexportbusinessdeclinedsignificantly.

Aboutfiveorsixyearsago,somecamelswereexportedtoEgyptandrecent

trendsincludeanirregularexportofsmallnumbersofcattle(uncastrated)to

Mauritius32. Mauritius also imports beef and lamb carcasses from other

sources, and this provides an opportunity forKenya to diversify into that

meatmarket

as

well.

In relative terms, Ethiopia has been exporting large numbers of animals

(about150,000perannum)consistingofcamels,cattleandshoats toYemen,

Jordan, Egypt and other destinations through Djibouti. The official export

figure is insignificantcompared to thevolumeof informalexports that take

placethroughcrossbordertradetoSudan,Kenya,SomaliaandDjibouti.33

In any case, the potential to increase live animal exports from Ethiopia or

Kenyais

constrained

by

anumber

of

internal

weaknesses

varying

from

poor

infrastructure to SPS standards and the recurrent ban imposed by the

importing countriesof theMiddleEast. On theotherhand,both countries

need to realize that, for a number of reasons, their future potential lies in

expandingmeatexports.First,liveanimaltradeisbyandlargelimitedtoone

speciessheep(duringtheHajseason,whichistimebound),andthemarket

potential for other species (cattle, camel, goats) is limited. Second, the

31 Largely due to the effort of one exporter, Idrisii.32

About 8,000 head of cattle in 2006/7.33 The cross-border trade deprives Ethiopia from accessing export revenues the reason why Ethiopianauthorities are not keen on cross-border trade.


28/42

24

increasingly stringent SPS requirements for live animal exports go way

beyond theprevailing standards in Ethiopia andKenya to access lucrative

markets. Third, less stringentmeat export requirements canbemet easily

with theaddedbenefitsofvalueaddingandemploymentcreation.There is

alsoaremote

possibility

of

entering

into

lucrative

export

markets

as

and

when the commoditybased certification system is ratified by the OIE

sometime in the future.Thebottom line is that although the export of live

animalscanbecontinuedasthesituationpermits,thestrategicfocusshould

be on expanding meat exports, notwithstanding the prevailing logistical

difficultiesandSPSstandards,forbettereconomicandfinancialreturns.

Kenyan

bulls

in

afeedlotinMauritius,mainlyfedonbaggas

7. MARKETSTRATIFICATION

Kenyasmarketstratificationsystemislargelyranchbased.Accordingtothe

RangeManagementDivisionoftheMoARD,therewere454ranchesinKenya

asofDecember2000.Ofthese:

321weregroupranches;

84wereprivatecompanyranches;

27

were

district

agricultural

company

ranches;

17werecooperativeranches;

while three and two were Agricultural Development Corporation

(ADC)andPublicCompanyranchesrespectively.

Oftheabove,in2000:

77weredormant;

84wereoperational;

2werenewlyproposed;

106weresubdivided;

109weretobesubdivided;


29/42

25

76wereofunidentifiedstatus.

Mostof thesubdividedranchesbelong to thecategoryofgroupranches.A

good proportion of company and cooperative ranches are still functional

albeitwith

varying

degrees

of

success.

Many

of

the

company

and

some

of

the

cooperative ranches have diversified into ecotourism as well. Company

ranchesuse,ownorpurchasestocksfrompastoralareasforvalueaddingand

usuallysell theanimals tohighend localmarkets(highclassbutcheries,big

hotels etc.). Cooperative ranches usually rent out the ranches to livestock

traders(mainlySomalis)whomoveinimmaturemaleanimalsat120150kg

liveweightandfinishthematabout300to320Kgliveweightinaperiodof

some six months. These traders graze their animals on free range in the

rancheswhilecompany ranchesanddairy farmers relyonconcentratesand

other

feed

formulae.

Feedlot

operations

are

rare

in

Kenya.

By contrast,market stratification inEthiopia is largely feedlotbased.There

are some 200 feedlots scatteredwithin a radius of 250 km ofAddiswhich

managebetween100and500headofcattleatagiventime.Feedlotoperators

source cattlemainly frompastoral areas and feed themon concentrate and

roughage foraperiodof three to fourmonths,recordinganaverageweight

gainof1Kgormoreperday.Finishedanimalsaresoldlargelytoliveanimal

exportersandinsomecasestohighendlocalmarkets.Quiterecently,feedlot

operatorsbecameinvolvedincommercialdestockingintimesofdroughtin

pastoral areas, attractedby the high profitmargins that canbemade in a

relatively short time by feeding drought stricken animals. PLI played a

pivotal role in initiating this approach which is now endorsed by the

government (Abebe et al.,2008). UnlikeKenya,Ethiopiahas fewer ranchesthatremaindormant.Someofthesearesubdividedforotheruses.

Escalating feed costs, inview of rising fuel and grainprices, remainmajor

impediments tovalue adding for livestock. InEthiopia, the average costof

feed(fatteningration)hasrisenfromBirr8toBirr20/day(USD$0.932.08)

perhead

in

the

feedlots,

and

transport

costs

from

Central

Ethiopia

to

Moyale

haverecentlyexceededactualfeedcostsbysome45%. Astudyonlivestock

feed also shows that 80% of the traditional feed provided to cattle at the

smallholder level (in farming communities) is used forbodymaintenance

only (Tolera, 2007). InKenya, theMoARD estimates thatbetween60% and

80% of the costs associatedwith animal production go to the purchase of

feeds.

Mostof theprocessed feed types inKenyaandEthiopiadepend largelyon

foodcrop

grains

and

residues

that

are

primarily

produced

for

human

consumption,therebyresultinginincreasesinfeedpricesasfoodpricesrise.


30/42

26

The absence of largescale fodderproduction,despite the potential inboth

countries (through irrigation schemes, for example), has contributed to the

perpetualdependencyonfoodcropsforlivestockuse.Inaddition,theexport

ofoilcrops(particularlyfromEthiopia)andtheuseofcropresiduesforother

purposes(for

construction

of

huts,

fences

etc)

hinders

the

full

exploitation

of

available resources at hand. The problem is compoundedby shrinkage of

communalgrazingareas inmixed farmingsystemsand the lackof tradition

bysmallholderstogrowfodderalongsidefoodcrops.

Under the currentmode of production, livestock cannot easilybe fattened

pastoral areas, at least to a level required by some highend markets.

However,riverineareasalongtheTana,Dawa,Ganale,Shebelle,Awashand

OmoRiversarecapableofsupportingirrigatedfodderproductionnotonlyto

enhance

feed

availability

but

also

to

encourage

a

more

extensive

shift

towards

market orientation. Because supplementary or alternative types of feed

(except natural pasture) are not available in pastoral areas, NGOs have

increasinglybegun to transport feed (haybales, concentrates,pellets etc) to

pastoral areas to save core breeding herds in times of drought. Such

interventionshave,inadvertently,exposedpastoraliststoalternativetypesof

feedsotherthannaturalpastureandmanyhavebeennotedaswillingtobuy

such feeds at least in times of drought (Bekele and Tsehay, 2008). This

exposuremayultimatelyleadthemtoprovidingsupplementaryfeedstotheir

livestockeveninnormaltimescreatingthepossibilitythattheymay,intime,

switchtoamoremarketdrivenmodeofproduction.

Given the current status of feed availability,value addingmaynotbe that

feasible in pastoral areas in the shortterm. However, there is a great

opportunity for stratification wherein immatures or young steers from

pastoralareascouldbefinishedbysmallfarmersinhighpotentialareas.This

couldbedonethroughstallfeeding/zerograzingonlyorincombinationwith

natural grazing where the situation permits34. Small farmers in both the

highlandsofHarargheandWolaytainEthiopiaandintheCentralhighlands

ofKenya

are

used

to

this

practice.

Financial

constraints

limit

the

number

of

immatures and/or the amount of supplementary feed that they can buy.

Therefore, they operateunder limited capacity, inmost caseshandlingone

headofcattleatatime.Complementingtheincomeofsmallfarmersthrough

livestockvalueaddingwhileprovidingmarketopportunitiesforpastoralists

(through the purchase of steers) could contribute immensely to poverty

alleviationgoals.ManysmallfarmersinEthiopiawerebeneficiariesofsucha

scheme under the Third Livestock Development Project where steers

34 Potential feed sources in smallholder areas include grain stalks, cane tops, sweet potato and otherroot crop vines, vegetables, alfalfa and fodder beet (if cultivated) in addition to supplementary feed.


31/42

27

purchased from lowlandareasweredistributedon loantohighlandfarmers

forfinishing.Theloanandtheinterestwererepaidtotheprojectuponselling

the finished animals35.Unfortunately, theprogrammewasphased outwith

theprojectdespitethesuccessofthescheme.

FarmertakingstallfedbullstomarketinWesternEthiopia

Thesignificanceofdevelopingthefeedsindustrycannotbeoveremphasized

in light of the recent drive tomaximize returns from the livestock sector

throughexport

revenues

and/or

domestic

marketing.

Given

the

genetic

make

up of the livestock species found in both countries, noted for enduring

hardshipbutnotforproductivity,competingininternationalmarketswithout

adequatefeedandhealthprovisionsisnotlikelytopayoff.Notsurprisingly,

the authorities in both countries understand the limitations imposed on

livestockproductivityarisingfromfeedshortagesandrisingcosts.

TheKenyanpolicydocumentgoesintosomedetailinassessingthesituation

offeedquality,availabilityandaffordabilityinthecountry.Itstatesthatthe

greatestproportion

of

diet

for

ruminants

is

roughages

that

includes

grass

and

browsewithminimalsupplementationofconcentratesandmineralsinlow

rainfall areas, where extensive livestock keeping is practiced, whereas

concentratesmakeasignificantproportionofthelivestockdietinhighrainfall

areas. It acknowledges that feed quality and quantity is affectedby the

seasonalityof rawmaterial supplies (maize,wheat,barley,millet, legumes

etc.) coupledwith an inconsistent supply of imported ingredients such as

oilseedcakes,mealsandmineralsplussubstandardprocessing,handlingand

35

The stalker-feeder programme, as it was known then, provided steers on loan to thousands of smallfarmers in the then Sidamo, Bale and Hararghe provinces for finishing. Farmers were insured for cattledeaths occurring due to causes beyond their control, which had to be substantiated.


32/42

28

storageofmixedfeeds.Thehighcostof ingredients, lackofstandardization

andpoortrainingoffeedmanufacturersalsocontributestothelowqualityof

feed. It isreported that Napiergrass, the foddercropofchoice inhighand

medium potential areas, is threatened with Napier Smut and Napier

stunting.

TheMoLFDpolicydocumentaimsat improving feedquality,quantityand

availabilitythroughaseriesofmeasures.Theseinclude:

diversificationofthefeedbasethroughtheuseofalternativesourcesof

bothenergyandproteinrequirements;

encouragingcooperativesandsimilarsocietiestoestablishfeedmills;

taking the necessary measures to standardize feed ingredients and

feedsforallclassesoflivestock;

putting

in

place

the

necessary

institutional

framework

to

ensure

the

production andmarketing of quality feeds through a review of the

existingFertilizer andAnimalFoodstuffsAct toallow for a separate

AnimalFoodstuffsAct;

establishing an Animal Feed Inspectorate Service to ensure that

standardsaremet and to safeguard consumers fromhazardous/poor

qualityfeeds;

identifying awide range of forage types for various agroecological

zones;and,

fodder and pasture conservation in the rangelands including

promoting sound range management practices with ASAL

communities.

The Ethiopian fiveyear plan foresees increased forage production through

the distribution of seeds, forage plants and cuts, improvement of natural

pasture throughbush clearing, construction ofmolassesdepots in strategic

locations and the establishment of foragebanks. As a fiveyear plan, the

documentdoesnot give adetailed assessment of the current shortcomings

affectingfeedquality,availabilityandaffordability.Moreimportantly,itdoes

notaddress

issues

related

to

institutional

framework

as

regards

standardization, quality control and inspections, perhaps, this being the

mandateofMoARD.

However, a comprehensive assessmentwasmadeby the Texas SPSLMM

programregardingfeedquality,quantityandavailabilityinEthiopia(Tolera,

2007).The assessment findings are similar to those ofKenya such as the

seasonalityofsupplies,highcostofrawmaterials,theuseofnaturalpasture

in traditionalproduction systems andmore use of concentrates in feedlots

andhigh

potential

areas.

Specific

factors

contributing

to

feed

supply

shortagesinEthiopiaincludetheexportofoilcrops(withoutvalueadding


33/42

29

reducingahugepotentialtoproduceoilseedcakes)andlivestockfeed(which

has been recently banned). Meanwhile, the SPSLMM program has

formulated a costeffective ration system for feedlots. On the other hand,

Ethiopia needs to learn from Kenya when setting up the institutional

frameworkthat

promotes,

guides

and

regulates

the

feed

industry.

In

conclusion,bothcountriesneed toattractandsupportpotential investors in

feedproductionandprocessingwhileprovidingsupporttosmallholders to

producequalityfeed.

8. COMMERCIALPRODUCTIONANDBREEDINGISSUES

Bothcountriesrelylargelyonsurpluspastoralareasformeatandliveanimal

exports despite the inherent low productivity of livestockbreeds found in

such

areas.

For

example,

it

usually

takes

five

to

seven

years

to

reach

a

live

weightof300350kg(evenforthemuchcovetedBoranbull)iffedonnatural

pastureundernormal conditions. If itwerenot for thepastoralproduction

system that does not necessarily take into account the production costs of

labor,pastureandwater, thecompetitiveness (profitability)ofsuchanimals

(or their products) in international markets would become questionable.

Basically, both countries aim to compete in international markets against

sophisticatedcommercialproducers(ofBrazil,Argentinaandthe like)while

relyingon a subsistentproduction system and cattlebreeds that arenot so

productive. This is not to understate the specific merits of drought and

disease tolerance inherent in such breeds. It is rather to suggest the

possibilities of combining such merits with productivity. The improved

Boranbull,bred inKenyanranches, isnotcommon in thepastoralareasof

KenyaorEthiopiawhereasitiscommoninAustralianandTexasranches.The

BeefMaster breed introduced from Texas to Southern Africa close to a

hundred years ago is already indigenized and capable of reaching a live

weightof700800Kginaspaceoffouryearsonnaturalpasturealone36.This

breed performswell even under the harshest conditions in Botswana and

Namibiaandprovidesmostof themeat exported toEurope. If itperforms

wellin

arelatively

shorter

time

in

Botswana

and

Namibia

under

less

favourableconditions thanKenyaorEthiopia, then the introductionofsuch

breedsisworthconsidering.Forthatmatter,theBaggaracattleandSaharawi

sheep ofWestern Sudan aremuchmore productive, even under extreme

conditions,comparedtotheirequivalentsintheHorn.

Basically,theconcernforgeneticconservationisunderstandable,butitmakes

sense if the conservation process is aimed at keeping the desired

characteristics/traits of indigenous animals while increasing their

36 Interview with Botswana ranchers.


34/42

30

productivity.Geneticpreservationforthesakeofpreservationalonemaybe

important formaintainingbiodiversitybut does not necessarily guarantee

profitability.Regardless, thepreservationprocess canbemaintained in situwiththecollaborationofgovernmentandcommunities.However,thisshould

notpreclude

the

importation

of

improved

breeds

even

for

the

pastoral

production system if they are capable of performing under the prevailing

local situations. Suchbreeds canbemanaged in isolation topreserve local

geneticresources.Competingininternationalmarketsnecessitatesimproving

outputs perwhatever unit ofmeasurement for cost effectiveness. Lessons

shouldbedrawnfromBotswanaandNamibia.

Of note, export abattoirs are facing supply shortages (especially of shoats)

fromtimetotime.Thisisunderstandable,giventhecurrentpastoralmodeof

production

where

the

motive

for

selling

livestock

is

prompted

by

immediate

cash needs rather than profit, andwhere the flow of livestock to terminal

abattoirs isconstrainedby the lengthyprocessofpurchasing,collectingand

assembling livestock from individuals. Besidesmarket inefficiency and the

reluctanceofherders tosellmarketableanimals inonego,supply levelsare

affected by a high level of abortion and mortality rates in the pastoral

production system. Bekeles (2006) findings in the Dolo area (close to the

Manderaborderon theEthiopianside)establishesanabortionrateof12.5%

forcamels,8.5%forcattle,27%forgoatsand9%forsheep.Mortalityratesfor

thesameareawerefoundtobe12%forcamels,14.5%forcattle,10%forgoats

and 20% for sheep. Coupledwith supply anomalies causedby drought,

floods,RVF, FMD and the like under the existing production system, it is

perhaps time to considerwaysof increasingproductivityper livestockunit

through the importation of appropriate and adaptable breeds. However,

given the lower disease resistance of such breeds, there is the need for

simultaneousstrengtheningofpreventiveandclinicalservices.Afterall,this

hasbeenachieved, throughpublicandprivateveterinaryserviceproviders,

for thevibrantdairy industry inKenya, consisting of some 3milliondairy

animals. Extending similar services to pastoral areas should therefore be

possiblewith

alittle

extra

effort.

TheKenyanpolicydocumentputsemphasisonpreservinggeneticresources

whilerecognizingthefactthatvaluablegenescontainedinlocalbreedshave

neitherbeen identifiednorhave theircharacteristicsbeendocumented. The

document cites past efforts in which the focus has been on upgrading

indigenous animals towards exoticwesternbreeds resulting in the loss of

originalgeneticmaterial,particularly in thepoultry sector. Asa result, the

policy objective states that it is necessary to formulate superior breeding

programsfor

indigenous

animals.

The

MoLFD

believes

in

the

necessity

of

a

regulatory framework for a centrally managed and coordinated breeding


35/42

31

strategy.At themoment, decisions on what animals are to parent future

animalsaretakenbymanyactors(farmers,pastoralists,CBOs,NGOs,Breed

Associations and the government).This regulatory frameworkwill allow a

central organization to formulate appropriate policy and legal framework,

encourageothers

to

invest

in

breeding

services,

support

the

Kenya

livestock

breedersassociations,encouragefarmersinprogenytestingandserveasthe

national focalpoint to coordinate animalgenetic resources.However, this

stance on preserving domestic genetic resources understates the immense

benefits Kenya gained as amajor producer of surplusmilk in the region

throughthecrossbreedingofdairyherds.Abalancehastobekeptbetween

preserving genetic resources and making economic gains through the

introductionofproductivebreeds.Ethio

livestock marketing in kenya and ethiopia

Documents