1998).The reviewlookedbackover 35 years andanalyseddocumentsfrom more than 800 livestock projects funded bymajor donors, including the Department forInternationalDevelopment (UK), theWorldBank,theUSAgency for InternationalDevelopment, theEuropeanCommission,DANIDA, theNetherlandsDevelopment Cooperation and the SwissDevelopment Cooperation. The majority of theseprojects werebasedona technical transfer paradigmin whichconstraints facingpoor livestockkeeperswere to be addressed by the development anduptakeof technologies,includingnew methods tocontrolanimaldiseases,improvelivestockbreedsor raiseproduction througha variety ofother means.However, thelackof sustainedimpact on thepoorwas dramatic. In many cases, technologies weredeveloped which livestock keepers either did notwant or could not access due to weak deliverysystems. In other cases, the benefits of newtechnologies werecapturedby wealthier producers.Partly in response to theseproblems,a secondbroadcategory oflivestockprojects evolved whichaimedto strengthen the capacity of organisations todevelopanddeliver novel technologies and servicesto thepoor.Theseprojects focusedongovernmentorganisations (veterinary and extension services,researchcentres)andaimed topromotemoreclient-focusedanddecentralisedapproaches.Akey projectactivity was training middle-level managers,researchers andfield-level technicians.Again, thesustainedbenefit of these“organisationalprojects”was limited. New skills did not change the wayorganisations behaved, as the overridinginstitutionalframeworks rarely providedincentivesfor addressing the specificneeds of thepoor.Despite this rather gloomy pictureafew projectsdiddemonstrate substantialimpact.Theseincludednew approaches toprimary animalhealthcare usingprivatisedcommunity-basedanimalhealth workers(CAHWs).Workinginmarginalisedaridand semi-aridareas ofEast Africa,localproblemanalysis withcommunities led to the selection and training ofCAHWs in areas where few veterinarians werewilling to work.However,even theseprojects facedproblems at a policy and institutional level –veterinary policies andlegislationdidnot supportCAHWs and wereoften vagueor not implemented.This articledescribes how workers at theAfricanUnion/InterAfrican Bureau for Animal Resources(AU/IBAR)addressedpolicy constraints toCAHWservices in theHornandEast Africa.TheAU/IBARteam developed and applied a range of lobbying,advocacy,networkingandlearningmethods withinan overall strategy which recognised the overtlypolitical nature of the policy process. Over time,the teamalso targetedglobalanimalhealth standard-settingbodies andbegan toapply their experienceof policy process to a broader range of livestockpolicies (seeWolmer andScoones 2005).
Read full abstract7-days of FREE Audio papers, translation & more with Prime
7-days of FREE Prime access