Livestock Fisheries SC meeting minutes, 23rd Aug 2012.pdf

Food Security and Livelihood Cluster (FSLC)
Livestock & Fisheries sub‐cluster (FAS) meeting
Note for the Record
State: Juba Date of Meeting: 23 rd August 2012
Venue
Chair:
FAO Conference Hall
Wilson Makuwaza – SC Chair
Participants Listed in annex 1
Agenda:
1) Review of last meeting minutes
2) Updates from partners
1) Experience with the Zootechnical survey in Kenya
2) Animal health for livestock in refugee camps
3) Second CHF funding
4) Technical & standard procedures for interventions
5) A.O.B
Action Points
Action Point
1. Committee to deliberate on livestock needs in refugee
settlements and prioritize way forward
2. Meeting with MARF to discuss vaccines and drug
importation and policy direction and provide feedback
3. committee of volunteers to discuss and agree on prioritization
criteria for CHF 2 livestock and fisheries interventions
4. Inputs for CAP 2013 technical standards formulation, and
compiling of draft checklist for discussion in next SC meeting
Responsible Agency/Person
ACTED, FAO, SC, VSF‐G, and
WFP
Massimo
VSF‐B, CARE, VSF‐G and VSF‐S
All partners & cluster
secretariat
Discussion Points
Agenda Item 1: Introduction and adoption of previous meeting minutes
• The chair thanked the participants for attending the meeting and called for quick self
introductions. He introduced the agenda of the meeting and called for comments on the
minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes were adopted without changes. However, the
chair indicated that the response from FAO on the issue of vaccines and drugs was not yet
finalised
Agenda Item 2: Updates from Partners
• There were no major updates from partners during the month

Agenda Item 3: Experience with the Zootechnical survey in Kenya
• During the June meeting VSF Belgium made a presentation on a Zootechnical tool that was
developed in West Africa for monitoring livestock productivity, performance, and collecting
baseline information. The presentation in June aimed at gathering views from partners before
the tool is applied in east Africa and to assess its potential in South Sudan.
• During the August meeting Khang Chol presented the preliminary results of the tool’s
application in a survey conducted in arid and semi‐arid lands of northern Kenya in Samburu,
Turkana, Pokot, Marsabit, Garissa, Wajir and Mandera counties. The survey was conducted
through a consortium of agencies comprising Oxfam GB as the lead NGO, ACTED, VSF‐B, VSF‐
CH, VSF‐Germany, and Project ECHO Lanina II.
• Khang reported that the survey methodology comprised the following steps:
1) Sites selection under the guidance of the host organization at local level while target
areas within each County were selected based on high number of goats and
households that benefitted from the ECHO Lanina II project
2) Sample size calculation based on the number of beneficiaries per location
3) Identification of respondents by the host organization taking into consideration the
modalities generated by the consultants.
4) Communities mobilization by the host organization with the involvement of
community leadership; taking into consideration gender aspects for fair
representation; and informing livestock keepers (LKs) of the requirements to
participate in the survey i.e. not having more than 30 goats, and with a good
knowledge of the livestock history over the last 1 year.
• Khang noted that at the start of the survey it was challenging. This resulted from the fact that
the tool was being used for the first time in East Africa and was therefore new to both the
host organizations and the communities. The 1 year recall period was also long for some
households to effectively remember the history of the flock; and there were variation in
number of seasons between semi‐arid and arid. While the survey was planned taking into
consideration 4 seasons, some semi‐arid zones had up to 5 identified seasons. The implication
of this being that since the survey team used pictorial evidence of the four seasons to collect
information from respondents they lacked evidence for the additional season reported in
some semi‐arid areas.
• Despite the challenges encountered Khang was positive that the tool generated some
promising results and it has the potential for application in South Sudan to estimate mortality
among goats. He however reiterated that it would require adjustments for application in
collecting data about other livestock categories.
• He indicated that the preliminary/draft report is not yet ready but will be shared once
finalized.

Agenda 4: Livestock health in refugee camps
• The influx of refugees from Sudan into Maban County in Upper Nile state together with their
possessions has led to livestock concentration around camps.
• In August 2012 CESVI conducted an assessment of livestock situation in Yousif Batil refugee
camp (for refugees from Blue Nile state) based on random sampling from 88 refugee and 20
host households. The findings were presented to the meeting by Fabrizio Vitale, a Project
Coordinator at CESVI for discussions and the way forward.
• The assessment identified there are more than 104000 heads of livestock in the camp most of
them (92%) owned by refugee households as opposed to 8% by host community.
• The assessment identified a number of concerns that include the imbalance between
livestock owned by refugees and host community and the consequent competition over
resources that would trigger conflicts; high generation of waste that is not properly managed
in the camp with possible impacts on water and hygiene conditions; and high livestock
mortalities whose carcases are not properly disposed. The assessment estimated that 31,052
heads of livestock died in the last 3 months and there are possibilities of livestock‐human
disease transmission since disease control interventions are minimal.
• The survey further identified high selling of livestock among host community households
compared to those of refugees which may partly signal declining coping strategies. In
response, Massimo cautioned against such conclusions especially if not well supported by
evidence. He clarified that selling of livestock can only be considered a deteriorating coping
strategy if sales are happening against declining prices or deteriorating terms of trade.
Otherwise, sales may be driven by favourable market conditions elsewhere.
• CESVI further reported that the number of partners undertaking livestock interventions is not
adequate considering the livestock population in Maban County. There is urgent need to
scale up.
• Similar findings had been identified through an assessment by Save the Children in February
2012. More so the February assessment identified high malnutrition rates among children
despite high livestock ownership, which pinpoints the need to re‐think of appropriate
measures to alleviate the situation.
• Massimo informed that while the assessments are raising issues of concern and urgency
especially livestock mortalities in camps there is need to ensure the results are well informed
by evidence. Before prioritising any response action the technical capacity of the intervening
organisation need to be assessed. This is because livestock health is a serious matter that can
only be entrusted to qualified veterinarians. Non‐veterinarian organisations should focus
more on livestock based livelihood activities, awareness creation, digging of pits to dispose
carcasses, and creating awareness on hygienic issues such as meat and milk sourcing and
preparation.
• In order to respond appropriately the meeting agreed to constitute a committee of expert
persons to deliberate on the issues identified by the two assessments (CESVI & SC) and come
up with detailed programmatic response actions.
• The constituted committee comprising of ACTED, FAO, SC, VSF‐G, and WFP decided to meet
on 28 th August to deliberate on response actions and resource needs.

Agenda Item 5: CHF second round of funding
• The cluster coordinator informed the meeting that the call for the second round of CHF
funding is in process. This is being undertaken alongside the CAP 2013. He provided the
timeline of events that cluster partners need to be thoroughly informed so that they prepare
adequately.
• The amount available for the second round of funding is about US$30 million catering for all
clusters. This implies that the allocation to each cluster will be low and hence the need to
prioritise what the cluster will undertake.
• He further informed that during the first round of funding needs assessment was undertaken
by the cluster. However, during the second round the cluster has decided that partners
should generate the criteria for identifying needs and prioritising issues to be considered
during the allocation process
• He presented the broad issues that the cluster secretariat feels should direct needs
assessment and prioritisation process by the sub‐clusters. Such include the mostly likely
scenarios in the next 6 months; priority interventions and areas, priority supplies for
interventions and key pre‐positioning areas, operational arrangements and key issues,
priority operational costs, and partnerships between core pipeline and partners. This is to
ensure the cluster own the process and decide on issues that will guide the proposal
development process. This will further minimise the feeling amongst some partners that
supply of inputs was not well prioritised and led to experienced delays in responses.
• Wilson elaborated that although the issue of inputs delivery through the core pipeline remain
contentions and has been criticised, there is need to understand that MARF is likely to tighten
controls on importation of inputs (vaccines and drugs). He highlighted that in light of this
there could be the need for centralisation of inputs delivery which FAO could still be best
suited to undertake owing to its mandate. He emphasised that part of the problem
experience resulted from delays in funding and what need to be considered now is having an
effective importation plan that should take into consideration the vaccination calendar of
MARF.
• Massimo indicated that he will be holding talks with MARF over the course of next week
(week of 27 th to 31 st August) over the issue of vaccines as it relates to policy and promised to
keep partners informed about the outcome.
• Through a concern that the timeline is tight and may be inappropriate for some partners to
respond effectively, the meeting was informed that this is being done as per the guidelines
provided by OCHA.
• The meeting attempted to deliberate on the needs assessment criteria but on basis of time it
was suggested that a committee of volunteers (VSF‐B, CARE, VSF‐G and VSF‐S) meet
separately, discuss and compile the criteria taking into consideration suggestions that would
be provided by other partners. The committee requested the cluster secretariat to send the
electronic copy of the tool together with the criteria generated for the first round of CHF
funding to the chair to enable the team undertake the task. The committee agreed to meet at
CARE offices the same day at 4pm for the exercise.
• It was agreed that once the criteria is generated it will be sent to all partners to guide the

process of proposals development. The importance of this is that partners will have
benchmarks for preparing their proposals.
• Through a concern over the inclusion of refugees’ interventions and food assistance, the
cluster coordinator clarified that food assistance core pipeline is not being funded under the
second round of allocation. He further indicated during first round of funding interventions
for refugees were being funded through the multi‐cluster budget under UNHCR. However, it
emerged some proposed interventions were not directly under UNHCR mandate and were
not funded under that budget. To avoid a similar situation the HCT has been tasked to come
up with the way forward and appropriate communication will be made to partners if
interventions for refugees can be considered in the cluster response actions.
Agenda 4: Technical standards & Procedures
• The cluster coordinator informed that CAP 2013 is underway and the first stakeholders’
workshop would be held on 27 th August. The three main issues under CAP 2013 will be
humanitarian situation and likely scenarios, cluster strategy and objectives and a
component of selected projects that support the overall humanitarian response. Each
cluster will generate the potential projects for inclusion in the CAP.
• Previously, the projects to be included in CAP are prioritised and raked as high, medium
and low based on criteria that considers geographical location, methodology proposed by
partner, caseload targeted etc. Many partners have questioned the ranking system and in
a bid to make it more open and understandable the cluster is proposing to have a set of
agreed criteria (checklist) that will form the basis for evaluating the proposals. Among the
issues the cluster secretariat would wish included in the checklist are capacity (staff, field
presence and experience) of the proposing organisation to implement the project; and
technical competency.
• ADESO noted that while capacity and technical competence are important, the form
provided by OCHA is normally too brief. She proposed that for partners to provide
information that will demonstrate technical competence there is need for OCHA to revise
the form.
• Partners were requested to provide suggestions on the technical standards they would
like considered in CAP 2013. This will allow the secretariat compile and present during
the next sub‐cluster meeting for discussion and ratification.
Agenda 5: A.O.B
• There were no A.O.Bs

Annex 1: Participants List
Name Position Organisation Email Phone
Isha wright Programme Officer/FFA WFP isha.wright@wfp.org 956433091
Khang Khol Project Manager VSF‐B Kchol@vsfb.or.ke 955151080
Fabrizio Vitale Project Coordinator CESVI fabriziovitale@cesvioverseas.org 956833249
Abraham Hadoto FSL Advisor WVI Abraham_Hadoto@wvi.org 927390780
Dennis Gbambor ER/DRR Advisor Cordaid denojames@yahoo.com 956451347
Andrew Odero FSL Co‐Coordinator WFP andrew.odero@wfp.org 922465535
Mogga Simon Kenyi
Field Monitor
Plan
International Simon.Mogga@plan‐inter.org 955069182
Emmanuel Philip
Lasuba Vet. Officer VSF‐B Emmaous98@yahoo.com 956993727
David Martin Project Officer VSF‐CH Mabe.fita@gmail.com 927900308
Wilson Makuwaza Country Director VSF‐B wmakuwaza@vsfb.or.ke 955166031
David Wani Project Manager VSF‐B dwani@vsfb.or.ke 955405333
Michael Otto Country Representative VSF‐B motto@vsfg.org 955664899
Alemu M. Gebre Programme Officer WFP alemu.gebre@wfp.org 922465256
James Emmanuel Vet. Officer VSF‐B jambo.james@yahoo.com 911309569
Ellen Harvey
Denis Poggo
Project Development
Officer ACTED ellen.harvey@acted.org 956406186
FSL Advisor
Save the
Children Dpoggo@savethechildren.org.sd 955232259
Nyabengi Tito Tipo Country Director ADESO ntipo@adesoafrica.org 957151033
Mtendere Mphatso FSL coordinator FAO mtendere.mphatso@fao.org 955581713
Jacqueline George
Massimo Castiello
Assistant Country
Director CARE jgeorge@ss.care.org 955381474
Senior Livestock
Coordinator FAO Massimo.Castiello@fao.org
Zacchaeus Ndirima Information Manager FAO Zacchaeus.Ndirima@fao.org 956751662