Contract Number:
Contractor Name:
USAID Technical Office:
Date of Report:
Document Title:
Author’s Name:
SOW Title and Work Plan Action:
Contract Number ?
Chemonics International, Inc.
Office of Economic Opportunities
USAID Pakistan
September
Ian Auldist
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Livestock Policy Framework
USAID Pakistan FIRMS Project
Provincial Livestock Policy Framework
Work Plan Level 33550 Action #6435, SOW #1901
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States
Agency for International Development, the United States Government or Chemonics
International Inc.

Data Page
Name of Component: Business Enabling Environment (BEE)
Author’s Name: Ian H. Auldist
Key words: Animal welfare, breed improvement, dairy, disease surveillance, extension, livestock, markets, meat processing, quality assurance, policy,

Current livestock policies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are analyzed, and impacts and distortions identified. Based on survey data and stakeholder analysis specific policy impacts are assessed, and effects on livestock markets and meat processing identified. A policy framework is presented using principles drawn from international best practice, which provides a basis for public sector institutional reform, and increased participation and efficiency of the private sector.

ACIAR
ADB
ADHIS
AI
AMPC
APVMA
AQIS
ASEAN
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
Asian Development Bank
Australian Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme
Artificial insemination
Australian Meat Processor Corporation
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
Association of South East Asian Nations
CCPP
DAGRIS
EU
FAO
FMD
GDP
Ha
Halal
Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia
Domestic Animals Genetic Resources Information System
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organisation
Foot and Mouth Disease
Gross domestic product
Hectare
Islamic Law permissible food designation
JAKIM Department of Islamic Development Malaysia
KPK Khyber Pakhtunkhua
L&DD Dept Livestock and Dairy Development Department
LOG
Mandi
MLA
MTDF
Local Government Ordinance
Marketplace
Meat and Livestock Australia
Mid Term Development Framework
NAREEAB National Agricultural Research and Extension Advisory Board
NGO Non Government Organisation
NVD
NWFP
National Vendor Declaration
North West Frontier Province
PPR Peste des Petits Ruminants
PROGEBE Regional Project on Sustainable Management of Endemic Ruminant Livestock
Rs
RSPCA
Rupees
Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
TMA
UNDP
USAID
UVAS
Tehsil Municipal Administration
United Nations Development Programme
United States Agency for International Development
University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences

SectionI. Introduction
Section II Methodologyfor KPK Policy Development
2
Section III KPK policy background
1. Livestock industry context
2. Provincial government livestock functions
3. Policy reflected in budget priorities
4.Current livestock industry policies
5. Genetic improvement and indigenous breed conservation
6. Disease surveillance and treatment
7. Extension and capacity building
8. Research and development
9. Animal welfare
10. Livestock feed
12.Existing policy reviews
11. Rangeland management and pastoralism
Section IV International livestock policy models
1. Disease surveillance and prevention
2. Disease treatment
3. Vaccine production
5. Extension services
4. Feed production and monitoring
6. Breed conservation and improvement
7. Research and development
8. Livestock marketing
9. Meat processing and marketing
10.Government farms
11. Animal welfare
12. Rangeland management
Section V Policy principles based on international practice
Section VI. Proposed policy reforms for key areas of livestock sector
Section VII. Policy framework
References
Appendices list
10
12
30
30
31
31
29
29
29
30
32
33
33
34
35
16
23
24
25
13
13
14
16
25
25
26
26
28
37
39
44
60
61

Livestock industry potential in KPK is constrained by distortions and imbalances in the policy and regulatory framework which have created inefficiencies in the planning, management and development of livestock infrastructure, facilities and services. The private sector is also affected by restrictions from entering areas of business dominated by government, such as livestock market management, and slaughter and processing for domestic consumption, limiting incentive to develop markets, create demand, and increase economic activity. Although there is potential for increased growth, demonstrated by the increase in dairy and meat price indices over the last ten years, the current policy environment has helped to reduce economic performance to a level which is unacceptable under the current conditions of demand. In this context the extension service also fails to meet the needs of producers, who supply markets where demand is limited by current policies and lack of quality assurance.
In response to this situation a range ofinternational policy models weredraw on to establish principles on which to base a new policy framework. These principles are as follows:

Elimination of market distortions through restriction on competition

Creation of a demand-driven approach to markets

Recognition that there is a cost for goods and services

Elimination of resource allocation distortions through public ownership of business entities

Representation for stakeholders in industry decisions

Industry self-regulation

Independence of regulatory bodies

Sustainable use of resources

Independent policy for social and economic disadvantage

Recognition of cultural attitudes
Using these principles policy recommendations were made for a number of key areas of livestock policy. These recommendations are listed as follows:
1. Disease surveillance and prevention

Surveillance and epidemiological analysis to be a core responsibility of government.

Institutional surveillance data collection to include mainstream industry sources such aslivestock markets and slaughterhouses.

Facilitation of private sector producers to provide routine information to government regarding disease incidence.

A specific agency at provincial level to address disease prevention issues

Interim need for a mechanism to provide prevention and control services to specific disadvantaged areas of the industry including subsistence producers.
2. Disease treatment

The public sector to maintain the responsibility for disease epidemic control

An independent body to undertake livestock medicine registration and labelling, to ensure that users including producers and private veterinarians comply with safe use, dosage rates, and with-holding periods, and provincial government to regulate through incentives and penalties to ensure compliance with labelling protocols.

A regulatory framework to include dispute resolution and accountability of veterinarians.

KPK government to maintain support for subsistence producers in disease treatment and control by providing training, availability of quality medicines, and a sustainable mechanism for delivering community livestock health services.

3. Vaccine production

Review of vaccine needs, identifying demand and assessing ability of industry sectors to pay

Facilitation of private sector entry through licensing, where commercially viable, vaccines to be imported or produced by the private sector while essential non-commercial vaccine production to be supported by the public sector.

An independent body and regulatory framework responsible for vaccine registration, standards and enforcement.

KPK Government vaccine production to be limited to essential non-profitable production.
4. Feed production and monitoring

Facilitation of trade in non-manufactured feeds/forage

An independent feed test laboratory to provide objective quality analysis, and use it as a basis for developing improved livestock nutrition

KPK Government to develop the capacity to establish a quality assurance process with vendor declaration procedures for non-manufactured feeds.
5. Extension services

Legislate mechanisms to enable funding of extension from industry contributions.

KPK Government to develop livestock production extension services, improving delivery through out-sourcing, and facilitating capacity development of private extension providers.

KPK Government to develop mechanisms to deliver extension services to subsistence production sector.
6. Breed improvement

Review cost-benefits to industry of current public breed improvement programs.

Regulate and develop standards for private semen production and imported and traded semen, and provide technical support for commercial breed development organisations.

Develop protocols for preservation of indigenous breeds.

KPK Government to support growth of a viable private sector breeding industry with appropriate breed standards.
7. Research and development

Research to be managed by an independent body which assesses and prioritizes projects, and links funding donors with stakeholders.

The independent coordinating body to have representation from government, funding agencies and industry end-users

Research agencies to compete for funding.
8. Livestock marketing

Legislate to enable competition from the private sector to hold livestock markets, with redefinition of the roles of various operators, and coordination by an independent regulatory entity, representing the major stake holders.

KPK government to establish market practices and standards, market information collection and distribution, and collection of levies from market participants to fund market development, infrastructure and facilities.

The private sector to operate markets within the KPK regulatory framework; markets to be economically sustainable based on fee for services.
9. Meat processing

Legislate to enable competition from the private sector to undertake domestic meat processing.


Repeal meat price regulation, and legislation which prohibits slaughter of useful animals and institutes meatless days.

Establish an independent body to provide accreditation for slaughter and processing facilities and ensure compliance with developed standards in all licensed processing plants.
10 Government and private farm management

Review all government participation in commercial livestock production, in terms of current function, and activities for the public good, determining criteria and standards for operation

Develop guidelines for future involvement in public/private partnerships and joint ventures.

Facilitate industry representation mechanisms to enable effective consultation and industry advice to government.
11. Animal welfare

Involve the community in assembling a code of practice for animal welfare in markets, slaughter, transport, research, and commercial production, including nutrition and management of farm animals

KPK government to facilitate and coordinate compliance with the code of practice by a selected animal welfare body.

Enlist animal welfare organizations to monitor and report neglect and cruelty.
12. Environmental protection

Set standards and regulate to ensure no negative effects on the environment as a result of livestock management, transport, marketing or processing, or disposal of waste associated with activities such as feedlots and intensive livestock industries.

Develop the capacity of the KPK Environment Department to undertake regulation and compliance activities.
13. Rangeland management

Support traditional grazing practices and management of rangelands by traditional grazing communities.

Establish management entities or Rangeland Development Advisory Bodies which include the widest range of stakeholders, including grazing community representatives, and
Forestry and Livestock Departments.

Establish practical and cost-effective ecological monitoring systems, including all nonforest wastelands and public grazing areas in monitoring and management planning.

Support livelihood interventions for traditional grazing communities, for example in the preparation and marketing of wool and hair products.

Where possible charge users with management costs.

Livestock are important toPakistan’seconomy, with the sector’s total assets estimated to be worth more than US $19 billion. Contributing approximately 12% to the GDP 1 and more than 50% of value-added in agriculture 2 , livestock products (valued at Rs 165 billion) are assuming an increasing share of agricultural output, rising from 25% in 1996 to 52% in 2011-12.The estimated annual growth in the livestock sector of 3.7% 3 is mainly attributed to increasing value of livestock products. Dairy products contribute 75% to the total value of the sector, and a world dairy indicator price rise of 125% which occurred during the decade is background to the continued strong domestic demand for dairy products. Growthhas also been associated with developing markets.
Although world meat price rises of 86% over the past ten years have flattened since 2011, 4 meat exports from Pakistan are increasing. Export value ofmeat of US$123 millionin 2111-2012was up
14%on the previous year 5 , followed by a further 41% rise in the first seven months of 2012-
2103 6 .This trend follows India’s dominance of export beef markets since 2011 with mainly buffalo product.
7
Culturally KPKProvince is strongly associated with livestock production, as meat and milk are staple food items, andmore than 70% of families own ruminant livestock.
Rangelandoccupying46% of total land area dominates as the basis for production. Landless producers and traditional subsistence systems with informal marketing arrangements contribute to the status of KPK as the province with the highest poverty rating (39.2% rated poor compared to nationally 34.0%).As production becomes less dependent on rangeland grazing, and more on integrated crop-livestock systems, satisfying local and international demand will require increased efficiency, and transfer of resources from existing agricultural enterprises.So far modern largerscale systems have had limited impact on production, for example only 9% of buffaloes are managed on a commercial scale. Due to the high level of informal marketing and processing the contribution of livestock tothe KPK economy is difficult to measure, with one estimate 8 suggestingapproximately Rs 75 billion worth of livestock products per year, which is 30% by value 9 of the total KPK agriculture GDP.
With enterprise margins regarded as below potential in much of the industry, livestock is still treated as a sub-sector of agriculture. This potential is constrained by distortions and imbalances in the policy and regulatory framework which have created inefficiencies in the planning, management and development of livestock infrastructure, facilities and services. The private sector is also affected by restrictions from entering areas of business dominated by government, such as livestock market management, and slaughter and processing for domestic consumption, limiting incentive to develop markets, create demand, and increase economic activity. Although there is potential for increased growth, demonstrated by the increase in dairy and meat price indices over the last ten years, the current policy environment has helped to reduce economic performance to a level which is unacceptable under these conditions of demand. The extension service also fails to meet the needs of producers, who supply markets where demand is limited by current policies and lack of quality assurance.
1 ADB Report: National Agriculture Sector Strategy 2008
2
Pakistan Economic Survey 2011-12
3
Govt of Pakistan Planning Commission Report: Framework for Economic Growth 2011
4
FAO Meat Price Index
5
Business Recorder 6/6/2012
6
“The Nation” 25/5/2013
7
FAO Dairy Price Index
8
Prof M. Subhan Qureshi, Pakissan 29/4/2013
9
KPK Comprehensive Development Strategy 2010-2017

In this context the industry demands a framework which will redefine the role of government, and that of private sector stakeholders. This will allow stakeholders currently lacking the capacity to optimize the productivity and profitability of livestock to take advantage of existing demand, generate more economic activity, and use resources more rationally.
A policy reviewto create such a framework is important in the setting ofadditional responsibilities for provincial government as a result of the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment in June 2011, which devolved most of the subjects in the Concurrent List, transferring the power to legislate on these subjects to the provinces. With the Provincial Legislature able to adopt, amend or repeal federal laws on these subjects, the fate of some existing laws, for example involving prevention of transfer of livestock diseases between Provinces, has become uncertain. The amendment also gave
To meet these challenges, the Government of KPK in 2013 asked FIRMS Project of USAID for assistance with policy development. This followed reviews in 2011 of livestock policies for the governments of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan and development ofpolicy frameworks based on international best-practice. Frameworks with long and short-term policy optionswere accepted by
Punjab, wheretwonew draft laws are currently being reviewed. Sindh and Balochistan have also accepted the policy principles developed with FIRMS Project, and are proceeding in the policy reviewprocess.

The FIRMS Project,with a background in policy development, hasanalytical capacity and valuable networks in each province. Added to experience working with governments, FIRMS Project is strategically positioned to understand provincial issues, and to use that experienceto achieve constructive outcomes.To take advantage of this intra-provincial learning FIRMS Project has deployed the same procedurewith KPK as that usedfor policy reviews in the other provinces. The same FIRMS team was mobilized, and as in the other provinces it was regarded as essential to have a thorough understanding of industry functionto enable identification of crucial factors limitingpolicy effectiveness.
The team included an Australian livestock policy specialist with experience in a number of countries as well as Pakistan, a legal specialist, Dr Dil Mohammad, to reviewthe general legal framework and legal instruments, and local expertise with capacity to survey and report on key areas.Background data relating to existing policy was assembled, and research initiated into important policy constraints for the industry. Trading and processing of the animals which form the main industry asset were seen as key areas where data was needed to understand policy breakdown. The experienced research team used to investigate the Punjab and Sindh livestock markets was deployed in KPK, with the object of analyzing market function and its relation to policy. In addition the team addressed the functioning and limitations of the slaughtering and processing sector.
Research was also undertaken to achieve an appreciation of the roles and responsibilities of sector participants, including those of provincial government leaders from KPK. Stakeholders interviewed included government officers at a range of levels, technical specialists, producers and producer organization representatives, female livestock professionals, environmental interest groups, and development program managers.
10 Data from these sources was complemented by specific L&DD Department policy and strategy statements, provincial economic reviews, and specialist evaluations of relevant issues.
Specific tasks in the consultant’s Scope of Work are listed as an appendix: 11
10Appendix 2 Record of Meetings and Interviews
11Appendix 1 FIRMS Project Consultancy Scope of Work

1.Livestock industry context
The industry is based on livestock populations which are poorly documented because of informal slaughter practices, unrecorded movements across international and provincial borders, a high degree of mobility associated with nomadic or transhumant grazing practices, and absence of data collection associated with industry facilities such as markets and slaughterhouses.As a result there is poor knowledge and documentation of parameters such as reproductive efficiency, turnoff, and mortality, which are essential for developing policy which addresses industry constraints and advances performance.
Table 1 KPK livestock population trends
1960
1972 12
1976
1986
1996
2006 13
2012 14
1960-2012% increase
1996-2006 % increase/year
2006-2012 % increase/year
Cattle
Buffaloes Sheep Goats Total
3.20 million 0.65 million 2.43 million 5.03 million 11.31million
2.96
3.00
3.28
4.24
5.97
7.43
132%
4.08%
3.28%
0.79
0.76
1.27
1.39
1.93
2.29
252%
3.82%
2.63%
2.45
3.67
1.60
2.82
3.36
3.60
48%
1.92%
1.1%
3.74
4.69
2.90
6.76
9.60
11.24
123%
4.19%
2.43
9.94
12.12
9.05
15.21
20.86
24.56
117%
3.71%
2.96%
2006-2012 increase/year
243,000 60,000 40,000 273,000 616,000
There is also limited data regarding animal flows in and out of KPK. The analysis by Shahid and
Arqum 15 in 2010 estimated that 682,550 buffaloes, 485,450 cattle, 57,670 sheep, and 37,960 goats enter KPK from Punjab per year. Dry buffaloes and young cattle predominate, followed by pregnant buffaloes destined for dairy production. Their estimate of animals which are legally exported live from KPKwas 25,000 per year 16 . In comparison an industryassessment of total animals illegally exported from Pakistan is 2.5 million 17 , with a large proportion assumed to leave from KPK. However most of the animals illegally exported from KPK to Afghanistan are understood to originate from Punjab 18 . Formal slaughter activities account for possibly 800,000 animals,but due to lack of data regarding the flow of KPK sheep and goats supplying Punjab markets,and lack of informal slaughter and illegal live export numbers,an accurate model of industry dynamics is difficult to construct.
12
TRTA II “Enhancing Livestock Sector Competitiveness”
13
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
14
KPK L&DD Dept pers. Com. 2013
15
Shahid and Arqum (2010)
16
Shahid and Arqum (2010)
17
PAMCO quoted Shahram Haq Express Tribune 28 th A
18
KPK L&DD Dept, pers.com 2013

To construct a balance sheet, estimates of natural increase are difficult. Using the Census data in
Table 2, and assuming that there is a significant slaughter of cattle and buffaloes between birth and three years of age,it can be estimated that the total annual natural increase from breeding lies somewhere between 5.04 and 9.05 million animals. The turnoff, or number of animals slaughtered or exported from KPK, taking into account mortality, inflows and population increase would also approach this figure.
Table 2: KPK livestock breeding performance
Total number at census
Cattle 5.96
Buffaloes 1.93
Sheep 3.36
Goats 9.60
Total 20.85
2006
(millions)
Breeding
Females
Natural increase if reproduction rate is 80%
3.04 >3 years 2.43
1.09 >3 years 0.87
1.64 >1 year 1.31
5.55 >1 year 4.44
11.32 9.05
Total male and female animals below breeding age
3.07<1 years
6.85
Approx. actual natural increase(and est. reproduction rate)
1.97 <3 years 0.65 (21%)
0.74 <3 years 0.25 (22%)
1.07 <1years 1.07 (65%)
3.07 (55%)
5.04
The above discussion highlights the lack of reliable data for planning. One definite conclusion is that livestock numbers have more than doubled over the past twenty years, and animal populations continue to increase, although the rate of increase has fallen slightly. Thesustained cattle increases of more than 240,000 per year, and sheep and goats of more than 310,000 per year obviously have impacts on resources, particularly the environment, onlivestock disease, marketing and valueadding industries, and on government service needs.
2.Provincial government livestock functions
The Livestock and Dairy Development Directorate, which is part of the Agriculture Department, lists its functions on its website as follows:
 Provision of animal health facilities and services to livestock farmers through curative and prophylactic measures; establishment and maintenance of veterinary hospitals, dispensaries and centers in functional order.

Improvement of local breeds of cattle and buffalo through the provision of artificial insemination service to the livestock farmers; establishment and maintenance of artificial insemination centers and sub-centers.

Provision of livestock production extension services to the livestock farmers (and female farmers in selected cluster areas) through a network of veterinary institutions.

Provision of periodical in-service training to the departmental staff in animal husbandry, extension and animal health disciplines; practical pre-service training to Veterinary
Assistant students of Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), Peshawar; training to field staff, male and female livestock farmers for various NGOs and projects in livestock management and related subjects.

Establishment of livestock breeding farms for propagation of improved breeds of different livestock species, wherever feasible.

Improvement of poultry production through the establishment of demonstration- cum-egg
 production farms.
Provision of services to Local Government Department in the meat inspection by
 conducting ante-mortem and post-mortem examination of animals.
Undertaking livestock development related activities in collaboration with donor assisted area development projects and NGOs

The animal health and extension services are the same, delivered through 218 centres. The livestock breeding farms consist of Harichand farm for cattle, D.I.Khan for buffalo, and Jaba
Livestock Research Station for sheep. There is one government poultry farm at Peshawar. Meat inspection services are provided at 13 local government slaughterhouses. There is currently one
NGO assisted, the Sarhad Rural Support Program.
The Veterinary Research Institute lists its duties as:


Control of Poultry and Livestock diseases of economic and zoonotic importance.
Enhancement of Livestock Productivity per unit targeted at poverty alleviation, women development and improvement in human diet.

Assistance to the Universities in Academic Research.

Human Resource Development for generating self-employment and capacity building for establishing commercial enterprises.

Cooperation with Wildlife, Health and other Departments in areas of common interest
The L&DD Department has also responsibility for implementing specific projects including:
1. Preservation of indigenous breeds (Achai cow project).
2. Pastoralism unit.
3. Pastoral development projects: Burawei-Haripur and Mahodand-Khadokhei .
4. Disaster (flood) recovery.
Apart from flood recovery, these are recently-funded projects, initiated in response to government policy direction.

3.Policy assumptionsfrom budget indicators
Livestock policy prioritization is reflected in the delegation of funds towards particular activities.
This is summarized in Table 2 which lists the available figures for delegation of provincial funds towards Livestock Department activities.
Table 3: Livestock share of Annual Development Program budget
2008-9 ADP 2011-12
ADP
2012-13 ADP
Agriculture allocation (Rs million)
Agric. share of total ADP
715
1.7%
1355
1.6%
1470
1.5%
Livestock allocation (Rs million) 217 670 380
Livestock share of Agriculture ADP 30% 45% 26%
19
Taking into account the lack of a Development Program in 2009-10, there has been a downward trend in livestock’s share of the budget, despite the livestock industry’s strong potential for growth.
Funding detail has reflected policy attention to specific areas. In the 2011-12 ProgramLivestock extension received Rs 240million for ongoing and new schemes,which included the Achai cattle conservation and development project which started in 2009 with a requirement for Rs 222 million and was allocated in 2011 Rs 42 million. It also included a livelihood program for gender-based interventions intended to provide female livestock owners with training, animals and better communication,which was allocated Rs25 million.Small ruminants were a focus, through a goat and sheep research centre in Swat with Rs 70 million allocated to improving local goat species through crossing with high-quality foreign species, a project for preservation and development of local sheep in Hazara and Malakand costing Rs 25 million, and establishment of Barani research institutes for goat and sheep.
In the allocations for 2012-13 the most significant new itemout of the Rs 380 million was the allocation of Rs 150 million towards establishment of a Pastoralism Unit, with the aim of conservation and support for traditional transhumant livestock production systems. The other significant allocation indicated attention to ways of supporting small the transition of farmers into business entities, through theMeat and Dairy Development withMarket Linkages project which was allocated Rs30 million.
4.Current livestockindustry policies
4.1 Meat industry
4.1.1 Livestock markets
FIRMS commissioned in 2013 a Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal to provide a detailed study of
KPK slaughter houses and markets, and their operation.
20 KPK livestock markets cater for a series of live animal flows which service industry trade and slaughter needs. There are no large terminal markets (see Table 3) as in Punjab, there are only primary collection and secondary distribution markets. For example these enable traders to purchase sheep and goats to transport from KPK to
Punjab to meet demand for mutton. Old buffaloes transported from Punjab are also available in
19
KPK Planning and Development Department Annual Development programs
20
Appendix 1: Shahzad Saftar, KPK Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal

secondary markets in KPK to meet demand for low-priced beef and the illegal live trade to
Afghanistan. Younger cattle also flow in to meet demand for slaughter and export of beef to
Afghanistan..
Table 4 Livestock Market Characteristics 21
Type of Market Main Sellers Main Buyers Purpose of Purchase
Primary markets collection
Secondary distribution markets
Producers/traders
Producers/traders
Other producers For stock replacement or fattening
Local butchers
Traders
Slaughtering for retail selling of meat
For resale in larger markets
Other producers/ farmers For stock replacement or fattening
Local butchers Slaughter
Terminal markets Traders
Traders/buying agents
Local houses/butchers slaughter
Traders/exporters
Dairy farmers
For resale in terminal markets/supply to processors, dairy farmers and exporters
Slaughter for local supply as well as for export
For supply to different buyers/export
For dairy farms
KPK livestock markets have been controlled exclusively by Local Government, under West
Pakistan Municipal Committees (Cattle Market) Rules 1969.The subject was so exclusively vested in the Local Government, under Local Government Ordinance 2001, that the Provincial
Government had no role; and its authority did not extend to cattle markets. This defect has been removed, with the 2001 ordinance replaced by the KPK Local Government Act, 2012, which allows the Provincial Government to frame rules in all matters and empowers it to control the making of by-laws by the local government. 22
Table 5: Livestock markets administered by Local Government in KPK
S # District Number of Livestock Location/ Schedule
Markets
1.
Abbotabad
2.
Bannu
3.
Buner
1
2
3
Havalian (Wednesday)
Bannu (Friday), Kakki(Wednesday)
Swari (Saturday), Nagri (Tuesda)y, Budhal (Wednesday)
4.
Charsadda
5.
D.I.Khan
3
6
6.
Haripur
7.
Karak
8.
Kohat
9.
Lakki
10.
Malakand
11.
Mansehra
12.
Mardan
13.
Nowshera
14.
Peshawar
15.
Swabi
16.
Swat
1
5
3
4
1
3
2
1
7
4
2
Utmanzai (Tuesday), Charsadda (Wednesday), Shabqadar (Friday)
Ramak (Friday), Browa (Wednesday), D.I.Khan (Friday), Paharpur (Sunday),
Daraban Kalan (Friday), Kulachi (Monday)
Near District Council, Haripur (Thursday)
Takhtte Nasratti (Saturday), Ahmad Abad (Friday), Mayanki Banda
(Monday), Karak City (Sunday), Latambar (Wednesday)
Near Kohat Stand (Sunday), Lacchi (Friday), Bili Tang (Sunday)
Khudad Khel (Sunday), Sarai Naurang (Thursday), Fezu (Tuesday), Tajori
(Tuesday)
Dargai Bazaar (Sunday)
Mansehra (Monday), Shinkiari (Saturday), Garri Habibullah (Sunday)
Mardan (Saturday), Shabaz Gari (Sunday)
Main Road near Kabul River (Wednesday)
Sarband (Thursday), Nasir Pur (Saturday, Monday), Badabher (Saturday),
Palosai (Friday), Warsak Road (Tuesday), Ringroad (Saturday, Wednesday),
Naguman (Monday)
Swabi (Thursday), Karnal Sher kalli (Saturday), Tordher (Tuesday), Topi
(Wednesday)
Aman Kot (Thursday), Matta (Wednesday)
21
Appendix : Shahzad Saftar, KPK Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal
22
Preliminary KPK Legal Report: Dr Dil Mohammad

Source:- Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Peshawar, KPK.
This control has in the past enabled Local Governments to generate considerable revenue, by selling the rights to market management to private contractors, who have the right to charge market users. Although under LGO 2001 there is allowance for private livestock markets, in practice
Local Government has a monopoly, and as a result there is no competition from private entities to lower costs or provide better services.
Table 6: KPK livestock market charges 23
Sr. # Livestock Market
1. Bakra Mandi, Main
Road Near Kabul
River, Nowshera
(Public market)
2.
3.
Nasir Pur, Peshawar
(Private Market)
Havelian,
Abbottabad
(Public market)
Type of animals
Traded
Sheep and Goat
Large animals -
Buffalo and cattle
Large and small animals
Charges on Entry
(Rs.)
From producer
Rs. 20/animal.
From trader
Rs. 15/animal
From producers or trader carrying one or two animals
Rs. 100/animal
From other Traders
Rs. 500/load of 10 animals
Rs. 10/animal from every one for each type of animal
Charges on Transaction (Rs.)
From producers
7-10% of value
From Traders
Rs. 100-700/animal
From seller
Rs. 200/animal
From Trader buyer
Rs. 500-700/load of 8 animals and from buyer buying 1 or 2 animals Rs. 200-300/animal
Producer buyer 7% for all types of animals.
Traders/butchers pay Rs. 250-300/animal for sheep & goat and 7% for all types of large animals
4. Mardan
(Public market)
Large and small animals
Rs. 10/animal from every one for each type of animal
5. Aman
Mingora, Swat
Kot,
(Public market)
Large and small animals
Rs. 20/animal from every one for each type of animal
Producer buyers pay 7-10% per animal
Trader buyers pay Rs. 150-250/small and Rs.
600-700/large animal.
Producers buyers pay 10% of value while traders/butchers pay Rs. 150-170/small and
Rs. 600-650/large animal
The Terms and Conditions of the market contract include details the value of contract, payment schedule and schedule of charges which the contractor may charge.The survey of KPK markets provides some idea of the potential to generate income from a market. As detailed in Table 4 there are two types of market charges: entry and transaction. Entry charges may be Rs 10-20 per small animal, and Rs 100-200 for large. Transaction charges are variable, rarely publicly listed, and in some markets range between 5% and 7% of transaction value, in others a flat rate of Rs 300-700.
Traders are charged a discounted rate.
In return for these charges, Local Governments offers little in the way of facilities, as there are no guidelines or standards for housing, feeding, shade and water availability, truck loading ramps, or disease prevention through quarantine facilities. There are no standards for regulating and operating markets to meet the needs of vendors in the market, and a number of barriers inhibit the transparency and free flow of information necessary to remove market distortions. For example there are no facilities to allow weighing of animals, and there are no standard rules for transactions, which are conducted in secret and encourage collusive practices. Provincial veterinary officers do not provide any services, any certification of disease-free status to buyers, or collect information relating to diseases. No other record of any type is collected regarding number and type of animals traded, sources of supply, or destination, all valuable data for planning and industry development.
There is little coordination or organization between producers and vendors, other than sharing transport costs to reduce the cost of market participation. If livestock producers and vendors instead use informal markets to avoid conditions and charges they are operating illegally. Producers are handicapped by ignorance of prices and livestock weights and values, whereas traders and brokers have well-organized networks, knowledge of prices, and receive discounted market charges.
23
Appendix 1: Shahzad Saftar, KPK Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal

4.1.2 Domestic slaughterand meat marketing
The domestic slaughtering of animals is regulated by the Slaughter Control Act 1963, which prohibits the slaughter of livestock termed as useful animals (female animals within specified age or those which are pregnant or fit for breeding), slaughter outside municipal slaughterhouses, or slaughter on the meatless days of Tuesday and Wednesday. The operation of municipal slaughterhouseshas historically been controlled by bye-laws of the respective local governments under Local Government Ordinance 2001, providing the regulation for issues such as standards and revenue collection. The KPK Provincial government however has recently acquired the power to control the making of bye-laws by local government, under the Local Government Act
2012.
24 The scale of legal domestic slaughter is indicated in Table 5, based on the most recent available government data.
Table7: Animals slaughtered in Local Government Slaughterhouses in KPK 25
Cattle
Buffaloes
Sheep
Goats
2005-6
199 thousand
181
161
175
2006-7
219 thousand
201
180
195
2007-8
228 thousand
211
194
204
Total 716 796 835
Based on this data legal slaughter would provide only approximately 8 kg of meat per head of population per year, suggesting that the meat industry isalso supplied by a high level of informal slaughter occurring outside Municipal slaughterhouses. Survey results from the FIRMScommissioned Rapid Livestock Market Survey showed that Municipal slaughterhouses are mainly located to provide facilities for domestic slaughter in urban areas (Table 6). In rural and remote areas there is generally informal slaughter,a feature associated with subsistence livestock production, and as only eleven out of twenty-five KPK districts have municipal slaughterhouses 26 it is assumed that in the other fourteen districts informal slaughter is the normal practice.
A useful estimate of informal slaughter is difficult to obtain due to live animal movement in and out of KPK. A possible turnoff figure for KPK of 1.2 million can beestimatedon the basis of 24 million total KPK animals, one third adult females, and a turnoff rate of 15%,(typical for low reproductive rates and mature age of slaughter animals).
Table 8: Slaughterhouses in KPK
S# District Location of legal Slaughter Houses Public or Private
1.
Abbotabad
2.
Bannu
3.
Charsadda
4.
,,
5.
D.I.Khan
6.
Haripur
7.
Kohat
8.
Mansehra
9.
Mardan
10.
,,
11.
Peshawar
12.
,,
Abbotabad City
Bannu City
Shabqadar, Tangi
Tangi
Mufti Mehmood Eye Hospital
Near Sabzi Mandi, Haripur
Peshawar Chowk, Kohat City
Mansehra City main Chowk
Mardan,
Takht Bhai
TMA
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
Haji Asghar Slaughter House, Ring Rd Private
Munir Meat Co Ring Rd
,,
,,
,,
24
Appendix: Dil Mohammad report
25
KPK Bureau of Statistics website 2011quoting L&DD data
26
Appendix 1: Shahzad Saftar, KPK Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal

13.
,,
14.
,,
15.
,,
16.
Swat
Hamza Halal Foods, Najoi Buduli Rd ,,
Euro Foods, Industrial Estate ,,
Charsadda Road
Saidu Sharif near Grassy Ground
17.
Swabi Near Badri Pull Swabi
Source:- Livestock and Dairy Development Department, KPK.
TMA
,,
,,
The Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal detailed the operation and policy implications of representative slaughterhouses in KPK. Obviously the frequency of informal slaughter indicates that the legal requirement to conform to slaughter in a Municipal facility is not widely enforced, and penalties are nominal. Legal slaughter may provide butchers with pre-slaughter inspection by a qualified inspector, andstamping of the carcase. This service is supplied by arrangement with
L&DD Department, but the conditions are not transparent, and field survey indicated little inspection being undertaken. Normally L&DD Department charges Local Government for this service,which is a part-time duty of veterinary staff.
Local government revenue collection to provide legal slaughtertypically consists of Rs 25 for small and Rs 50 for large animals slaughtered by independent butchers, or Rs 50 for small and Rs 150 for large animals slaughtered by a permanent team of slaughterers. Most of throughput consists of sheep and goats of all ages, and aged buffaloes are 90% of large animals, consistent with the law forbidding slaughter of useful animals. Fees are collected by Municipal Corporation staff or a contractor, and also other fees where possible such as for parking.
Atypical Municipal slaughterhouse has minimal facilities, consisting of little more than a roof, and water when electricity is available. There are with no cooling pens for animals, and rarely large animal restraining facilities to enable Halal slaughter, or large animal hanging equipment for removal of viscera or movement of carcases. There is no refrigeration, by-products utilization, or waste management systems.There are no hygiene standards in place, and limited inspections by qualified veterinarians with uncertain protocols and standards, and limited disease surveillance or condemnation of sick animals. Each TMA has its own priorities, so there are no consistent standards. The Local Governments collects substantial slaughter fees, with few costs, and without opportunity for any legal competition from the private sector. This discourages any opportunity for investment in the industry, which might bring more efficient systems, producing meat of higher quality. In addition the butchers in the meat processing industry are not equipped with the proper knowledge to maintain purpose-built slaughterhouses or ensure hygiene and quality control in slaughtering and inspection of meat.
27
Retail meat quality and price isregulated by Local Government, on behalf of the KPK Food
Department 28 . Under the 1977 Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act
District Price Review Committees regularly review and set meat prices, in a process unrelated to costs of production, meat quality or consumer demand, and without consistency between
Districts.Although meat prices are reported to have risen by 40% between 2010 and 2012 29 , as meat supply is increasing at a rate of 1.8%, while demand is increasing at 5-6%, effects of price control are slaughter of diseased animals to achieve profit margins.Inconsistent enforcement may allow some high-quality meat to be available at higher prices.
The KPK Health Department is also involved in the function of retail meat inspection and assurance.All departments involved view the current policy as unwieldy, as it 30 creates distortions
27
Trade-Related Technical Assistance Program. (2012) “Enhancing Livestock Sector Export Competitiveness”
28
KPK Food Department website 2013
29
Trade-Related Technical Assistance Program. (2012) “Enhancing Livestock Sector Export Competitiveness”
30
KPK Food Department website 2013

and inefficiencies in the market. The policy affects competition in the supply chain, limiting price rewards for quality, and ensuring that butchers use low-quality product to cut costs.
4.1.3 Export slaughter and marketing
Export slaughter and meat processing is a major component of the meat industry in KPK, which falls under Federal Government regulation. Slaughterhouses in KPK must be registered with the
Animal Quarantine Department of the Livestock Wing of the Ministry of National Food Security and Research.
31 Three private processors in KPK produce meat under these conditions for export to Afghanistan 32 . Slaughter facilities are basic with covered killing areas and blast chillers, and cold stores which are dependent on electricity supply. Most of this meat is processed from younger cattle of 160-200 kg liveweight, and fills an essential food supply role for Afghanistan. The business process varies from direct export by the owner of the slaughterhouse to contract slaughter for others. Typical costs for this are Rs 70 for entry by the animal owner, and Rs 27-30 per kg by the Afghan buyer of the meat. The actual meat sale price may be approximately Rs 275 per kg.
Transport to Afghanistan is byrefrigerated intermodal containers (known as “reefers”) with 16 tons capacity, owned by the slaughterhouses, at a cost of about Rs 50,000 per trip.
No apparent measures are taken to check for livestock diseases at the private slaughterhouses.
Although no food safety assurance systems were observed during the rapid survey, the quality certification process occurson demand of the meat buyers, and is believed to be undertaken by private sector veterinarians engaged by the Quarantine Department.Export of meat to Afghanistan is also facilitated in other ways by the Department, such as smoothing financial transactions with
Afghan purchasing entities.
33 Although private meat exporters are on record claiming export is constrained by taxes, interference from provincial departments, and lack of a clear policy 34 this was not observed.
4.1.4.Export of live animals
Illegal transport of live animalsfrom KPK over borders into Afghanistan in response tohigh prices is a livestock policy issue. This is in the context of traditional movement of flocks and herds across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and unfilled demand for meat within Afghanistan. Media analyses have condemned smuggling as the reason for rising meat prices 35 in KPK. With the total illegal flow out of Pakistan estimated at 2.5 million animals per year, 36 debate over the impact of cattle exports on domestic pricesincludes suggestions that policies associated with food security limiting legal export may encouragesmuggling.
Current policy is to prevent, through the use of roadblocks, live animals being transported over the national border without permits. Under the Constitution the Federal Government is responsible, and since the 18 th Amendment, the Ministry of Food Security and Research has created a
“Livestock Wing” with a redefined mandate which includes accountability for regulation of import and export of livestock and livestock products. Federal permits are issued for legal export, but these permits then are traded, possibly a number of times, after which transporters with permits illegally export more than permitted. Provincial implementation of policy in KPK has been transferred between L&DD Department, Food Department 37 , and Home and Tribal Affairs
Department, as movement of animals over Federal Agency boundaries is part of the issue. As freedom of cattle movement into Afghanistan reduces profits from illegal smuggling, managing
31
Ministry of National Food Security and Research websit 2011
32
Appendix 1: Shahzad Saftar, KPK Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal
3333
Regulatory Procedures for Export of Livestock and Livestock Products from Pakistan 2009 SMEDA
34
CEO Anis Associates quoted “The Express Tribune” 28/4/13
35
“Nation” 22/10/2012 High court orders KP Government to stop smuggling
36
Punjab Agriculture and Meat Company (2013)
37
KPK Food Department website

and restricting movement of cattle is now current policy, and responsibility has returned to L&DD
Department.
4.2. Dairy Industry
A livestock industry policy assumption has been that cattle and buffaloes are kept primarily for milk production, with beef as a secondary enterprise consideration. This is changing as meat demand and prices rise in relation to milk prices, although slaughter of buffalo calves at a young age continues to be a common practice. Cattle numbers continue to rise faster than buffalo numbers, reflecting some change in dairy production systems, partly associated with introduction of exotic dairy cattle genetics.
In a dairy industry dominated by small-holders the public or private sector has not made any significant investment in milk collection or preservation systems, chilling tanks, or milk processing plants. 38 This is because demand is for fresh milk, and not for the higher-priced less desirable
UHT milk, which is available from Punjab in the marketplace. Value-chain development for milk involving pasteurization is not policy for public or private entities, although it is regarded as the preferred compromise between scale of operation, treatment effectiveness, and consumer satisfaction.
Small-holders are dependent ontraditional supply chains to service consumers, sometimes organized into producer groups based around chilling centres. An example of programs designed to make them more productive elements of the industry is the L&DD Department supported (from
2005) innovative initiative “Milk Packaging in Central and Southern Districts of NWFP”, which adopted a bottom-up approach to develop the province’s dairy industry through cooperation between the public and private sectors. The project created groups of small-holders and marketing channels, with activities including technical and management support services, training particularly of women, and milk collection units. However policy associated with dairy valuechain development depends on projects financing units, and is let down by constraints such as transport and electricity.
Commercial dairy production enterprises in KPK are stated to be a victim of the cost-price squeeze 39 caused by rising input prices and fixed product prices. Fertilizer prices are claimed to have risen by 150% over five years to 2012 40 at the same time as food inflation has seenmilk price rises of little more than 20%.As with meat Local Government is empowered to set prices for milk, on behalf of the Food and Health Departments, andDistrict Price Review Committees impose milk prices in the retail market without reference to cost of production or demand in the retail market.The price is fixed as the maximum retail price, but in fact it serves as the minimum retail price,because consumers, although aware of official prices, are understood to pay a higher price to buy good quality milk 41 .
Regulation of quality of dairy products is the responsibility of Local Government, but as the Pure
Food Ordinance 1960 does not apply to these food items, implementation at grassroots level is extremely limited.
42
4.3 Fibre Industry
38
Umm E. Zia Pakistan: A dairy sector at a crossroads FAO 2009
39
Hafizur Rehman, Sarhad Dairy Farmers Association, (2004) Pakistan Press Association Service
40
M. Akbar 2012 Global Food Security website
41
Appendix 1: Shahzad Saftar, KPK Livestock Rapid Market Appraisal
42
Umm E. Zia Pakistan: A dairy sector at a crossroads FAO 2009

Wool and hair marketing is regulated under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marketing) Act
1937.Wool which enters the marketing chain may be graded according to the standards established under the Wool Grading and Marketing Rules (1953), at the major wool market centres which are in Punjab and Sindh. Termed Pakmark grades these differentiate between Pak Super, which applies to KPK breeds such as Kaghani, Hashtnagri and Michni (fibre diameters less than 40 microns),
Pak Medium, and Pak Coarse typified by the Bulkhi breed (fibre diameters greater than 45 microns). Indigenous goat breeds such as Damani and Kaghani also produce significant quantities of marketable hair.
Grading may be undertaken locally by traders who deal in wool and hair produced as a universal product of livestock in small-holder and transhumant/nomadic pastoral systems. As a product of traditional cultural importance and value, wool has the potential to become a greater contributor to pastoral incomes. However with the main processing capacity in Multan and Karachi this industry is unlikely to provide livelihood opportunities for pastoralists without further assistance in preparation and marketing coordination. Better shearing techniques, and washing and grading of wool from local breeds by producers does not appear to have been considered, as successfully introduced across the border in Balochistan.
43
Historically KPK government and donor agencies have invested substantially in the industry, for example through FAO and other agency investment in the Jaba Sheep Farm at Mansehra responsible for development and distribution of breeding stock with higher quality wool from the imported Rambouillet breed. However the availability of cheap high quality Australian and New
Zealand wool in the nineties limited industry development, with the result that only three wool processing units are currently listed in KPK.
5.Genetic improvement and indigenous breed conservation
Genetic improvement of livestock breeds is a clearly-statedobjective of government policy, as set out in the L&DD Department Rules of Business. Dairy breed improvement is through a network of 310 AI centres, and semen is producedfrom Harichand centre for cattle and buffalo. In a typical year 268,000 cows were inseminated at a cost of Rs 30 per year per cow. This is a supply-driven program, with annual targets set for each District. Although a major government budget item there is no evidence of any cost-benefit reviews, existing guidelines or standards for semen or breeding animals distributed, or any progeny-testing of sires used for semen production.Private enterprise also imports and distributes dairy genetics in KPK; in 2012 318,768 semen doses were imported into Pakistan, also 4300 embryos and 9500 live animals 44 , all focused on dairy production. The federal Ministry of National Food Security and Research Livestock Wing is responsible for quality standards for this imported genetic material.
Recently there has also been pressure for KPK government to establish a policy regarding the rapidly-eroding numbers and loss of genetic purity of indigenous breeds. These are regarded as future genetic resources, not only for Pakistan but for the wider livestock industry. In low-input situations,where there is disease incidence, harsh climate or poor nutrition they may have production and survival advantages over exotic crossbreeds. Breeds which have been recommended for conservation includeAchai cattle, Azikhali buffalo, Gabrali cattle from Swat and
Kohistan, Bishgali cattle and Kari sheep from Chitral, and Ajari goats. Conservation policies are consequently regarded as urgent to preserve the genetic diversity. There are a number of requirements if conservation is to be effective including phenotypic and genotypic characterization, zone-wise breeding strategies, establishment of conservation centres at appropriate sites, and promotional activities. KPK L&DD Department has undertaken to implement a conservation program for Achai cattle. Action has included registration of Achai cattle
43
USAID/FAO ABBA Project
44
Ministry of Food Security and Research 2012

herds, distribution of breeding bulls, and establishment of an Achai breeding farm for breed improvement.
Sheep and goats also are the subject of both breeding and conservation programs. Local geneticshave beenthreatened due to indiscriminate breeding and lack of any policy, as the
Provincial government has until now not undertaken any program for appraisal, improvement or selective breeding of these breeds.
45 For example there are concernsregardingdilution of the genetics of vulnerable breeds such as Kari sheep which have characteristics such as high fertility, short gestation periods 46 and disease resistance, all traits which are vital for reducing risk in pastoral production systems. RecentLD&D Department policy initiatives supporting such conservation programs are shown bycommencement in 2012 of a project aimed at preservation and development of local sheep in Hazara and Malakand.
Policies for sheep genetic improvement, on the other hand, have been focussed on a program to breed and distribute exotic Rambouillet sheep. Thishas continued since the 1980s from the FAOsupported Jaba sheep farm at Mansehra, resulting in extensive cross-breed development in areas such as Swat. There is also a current program to establish a goat/sheep research centre in Swat, with an allocation of Rs 70 million, for improving local goat species through crossing with exotic breeds.
6. Disease surveillance, prevention and treatment
Livestock disease policy is the subject of NWFP Animal Contagious Diseases Act 1948 as well as old federal laws. It is also an item in L&DD Department Rules of Business, with a mandate described as “provision of animal health facilities and services to livestock farmers through curative and prophylactic measures”.
47 Qualified staff and veterinary assistants at 98 veterinary hospitals, 218 veterinary centres and 363 veterinary dispensaries are involved in surveillance, assisted by 7 diagnostic laboratories. A Rapid Response Team also exists to act in the event of disease outbreaks. The KPK Veterinary Research Institute is mandated to “control livestock diseases of economic and zoonotic importance”, mainly through vaccine production. Although
L&DD staff are legally required to undertake a range of control measures, officers in the field regard quarantine is a federal responsibility.
The L&DD Department stated it does not charge for animal disease treatment provided from district dispensaries, although maintains that producers are willing to pay. The future plan is to convert Veterinary Centres into Farmer Community Centres, which will provide a range of programs. Private treatment services are either not available, or do not have the capacity to offer an alternative.
Disease prevention through vaccination is undertaken by the L&DD Department as a supplydriven service organised to meet annual targets.Vaccination programs are charged for at a rate of cost of vaccine plus Rs2 per animal, and delivered according to a seasonal calendar, with specific weeks for particular disease programs. Previous surveys have indicated 48 low coverage of landless producers. Stated constraints to more effective coverage include lack of awareness and willingness of farmers, the capacity of staff, and the cost of vaccines. L&DD staff claimtreatment rates would be higher if specialist vaccination teams were engaged, on good salaries. At the current low level of coverage vaccine production is not a constraint, except for FMD which is produced under an
FAO/USAID program, and can be expensive depending on vaccine source.Field staff reported failure of available vaccines to protect against new disease strainsassociated with migrating
45
M Afzal and AN Naqvi (2004) Livestock Resources of Pakistan. Science Vision 9
46
S. Ahmad and M. Sajjad Khan (2008) Nature
47
KPK Livestock and Dairy Development Department website
48
ADB Livestock Development Project Report Small Ruminant Unit1993

flocks.This is in the context of the most recent study of Pakistan government vaccine production facilities 49 which noted significant inadequacies in production systems and quality control.
Monitoring and quality control of livestock medicines and vaccines is a responsibility of the federal
Health Department, with the Drugs Act 1976 covering production, registration and saleHowever the current legal basis for this since the 18 th Amendment, and the assumption of Provincial responsibilities have to be clarified. L&DD Department maintains it has the capability to do this, and should be given the responsibility.
50
7.Extension and capacity building
L&DD Department extension policy is reflected in the stated mandate: “provision of livestock production extension services to the livestock farmers through a network of veterinary institutions.” 51 . In fact the extension services lack any measure of performance other than animals treated or serviced with AI. Transfer of technical knowledge such as“livestock production extension”, promoted bythe Asian Development Bank-funded Livestock Development
Project,stopped when Project funding ceased before 2000. 52 At present there is a stated objective of recreating such a focus, although last year the application to fund a unit for this purpose under a Director of Production Extension was rejected.
There has been an active tradition of capacity-building for livestock personnel in the KPK L&DD
Department. This has been based around the previously Dutch-assisted Animal Husbandry Inservice Training Institute. Stated mandates of the Institute include training of extension workers for L&DD Dept, changing attitudes from curative to preventative, creation of male and female activists as livestock extension workers, and developing extension messages.
Extension programs targeting specific industry needs such as dairy production have been supported by agencies such as the University of Agriculture Faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
Science which has sponsored the development of groups such as the Sarhad Dairy Farmers
Association, and the Faculty aims to take a leading role in promoting dairy business development.
Government action has supported social welfarelivelihood initiatives for gender-based interventions intended to provide female livestock owners with training. Recently the Australian government’s Pak-Australia Dairy Extension Project wasco-opted toundertake dairy extension training forKPK officers in Punjab.
53
8. Research and development
Although there are two KPK universities, a Veterinary Research Institute, and a number of
“research” projects managed by the L&DD Department, there is no means of coordinating livestock research direction, of funding research using industry contributions, or of ensuring accountability from research bodies.
9. Animal Welfare
Prevention of cruelty to animals is a mandated function of KPK L&DD Department, but the policy basis for this, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1890, is outdated in the light of changing attitudes of urban society, and changing methods of managing and treating production livestock.
There is no comprehensive regulatory requirements ensuring humane treatment of animals, and
49Bevan RE & HO Pakistan Veterinary Vaccine Review 2007
50
Dr Sher, Director L%DD, pers. Com.
51
KPK Livestock and Dairy Development Department website
52
ADB Pakistan Livestock Development Project Audit report 2004
53
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research ASLP Program (2012)

there is no regard for the welfare of animals during transportation, sale and purchase in marketplaces, slaughter, or other management processes.
10. Livestock feed
For an industry which is based completely on feed production and utilisation there is no forage policy which supports forage seed development, stimulates appropriate research and supports development of feed as a commodity. In regard to processed feed there is no law regulating the animal feed quality in KPK, or penalty for selling unhealthy or injurious animal feed.
11.Rangeland management and pastoralism
Management of rangeland has been traditionally a Forest Department responsibility.The Forest
Sector Master Plan defines 48% of the area under Forest Department management as rangeland which is 4.893 million ha. The policy instrument is the Provincial Forest Ordinance 2002 which supports the Department’s guiding principles 54 of integrated resource management of land-use types and resource types, as part of the ecosystem. The Department’s policy regarding stakeholders is to encourage participation in natural resource management activities.Although funded to manage rangelands, 55 a with a sum of Rs 960 million over six years provided for rehabilitation and development of range and pasture lands, the Forestry Department focus is on forestry issues.
Broad delineation of rangeland in KPK is difficultas estimates range from 27.5% to 46.5% of total land area, depending on criteria for mapping distinction of wasteland and degraded forest. The area of rangeland in KPK was regarded by Government of Pakistan in 1973 as 5.68 million hectares 56 .
Much of this area is regarded as degraded. For example quoted in the World Bank Strategic
Country Environmental Assessment,in 1995 57 the area of degraded rangeland was mapped as
4,106,000 ha. This rangeland is estimated to carry at least 60% of the livestock of the province.Livestock numbers have increased by at least 3.5% per year over that period, and it is assumed thattheincreased grazing pressure has resulted in further degradation. Livestock production based on rangeland is becoming less stable as animal numbers increase, the fodder resource depletes, and climate change potentially tightens the knot.
It is significant that the biggest increase in livestock numbers has been with the goat component of herds. For pastoralists and subsistence herders indigenous goat breeds provide milk, hair and mutton as well as possessing high reproductive rates. That goats are also damaging to the environment through their destructive browsing behavior was recognized in the passing of the
West Pakistan Goat (Restriction) Ordinance, 1959, and adopted by the Province through Adoption of Law Order 1975, which prohibits keeping and grazing of goats, except in animal sheds. There is now no effort to ensure compliance with this law, although goats are associated with accelerated loss of tree cover, estimated at over 2% annually by the World Bank.
58
The landless nomadic and transhumant communities which traditionally graze these rangelands are marginalised due to forestry and cropping development, degradation of grazing areas, exploitation by health and marketing service providers and land tenure conflicts over customary and statutory rights of use. Their traditional response to insecurity is not to stock more conservatively but to increase numbers as a “safety net”. However with progressive loss of rangeland forage resources a degree of self-limitation might be expected with these production
54
KPK Forestry Department website
55
KPK Comprehensive Development Strategy of 2010-17 (2010)
56
PARC (1993) “Sheep production in Pakistan”
57
World Bank Strategic Country Environmental Assessment (1995)
58
World Bank Strategic Country Environmental Assessment (1995)

systems. There is some evidence for this in the flattening off of livestock increases, for example in the Chitral data reported by Nasser. 59
Table 9: Chitral livestock trends
1986 census
1996 census
% Change 2006 census
% Change
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Total
100,083
113,627
221,070
434,780
173,262
188,822
335,780
697,864
+ 42%
+ 66%
+ 51%
+ 60%
174,842
181,146
347,977
703,965
+
1%
- 4%
+4%
+4%
60
Data from Khan and Ahmad (2000) relating to nomadic graziers in Swat and Malakand districts support this with suggested figures of more than 50 % reduction in the size of Ajar sheep/goat flocks, and similar substantial reductions in Gujar cattle herds. Reasons advanced included squeezing of grazing resources by afforestation projects,closureof trekking routes, herders moving from grazing to employment, and lost access to privatized hillsides.
With the aim of addressing the current policy gap a newrangeland policy has beendrafted by The
Pakistan Forest Institute for the KPK Forest Department. This proposed policyis clearly aimed at environmental protection and identification of biodiversity threats, and will depend on extensive rangeland data collection and interpretation, to enable formulation of proposed range management plans. Conservation outcomes will mainly depend on natural regeneration of rangeland. Elements of the policy relating to rangeland include regulations to specify livestock movement routes, fixed periods of stay in grazing areas, and grazing fees to be set which are related to the productivity of the pasture.Policies will also involveawareness-raising regarding over-grazing, and capacitybuilding for grazing communities. This will be part of a “social range concept” and the forming of graziers associations, based partly on the Forest Department’s village land-use planning techniques.
Institutional changes will notreduce the Forest Department’s continued responsibility for rangelands, but a new Rangeland Development Advisory body proposed, with representation from a range of agencies including L & DD Department.AProvincial Range Development Fund is also proposed.Future rangeland management will require cooperation and coordination of overlapping initiatives, for example livestock health (eg vaccination campaigns) and herder livelihood initiatives specified in the draft policy.
L&DD Department has not indicated if it supports the concepts involved in the draft Policy.
However the Department has responded to increasing threats to pastoralist communities by establishing a Pastoralism Unit.
61 This will perform functions including compiling a comprehensive database, preparing development programs which address some of the constraints for the pastoralists, improving health and marketing services, and generally enhancing the capacity of the pastoralists to manage their traditional pursuits. The unit was allocated Rs150 million in
2012, and initially funded Rs35 million.In addition the Department has committed to support two pilot pastoral systems: the Burwahai-Haripur system (east of Indus River in Himalayan region), and the Mahodand-Khadokhei system (west of the Indus in the Hindu-Kush region). Rs 150 million have been allocated over three years to strengthen social capacity, enhance winter fodder supplies, establish transit facilities and services along movement routes, introduce financial support mechanisms, and monitor socio-economic and ecological impacts.
59
M.Nasser et al “Pastoral Practices in High Asia” ed Kreutzman
60
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
61
Landless Mobile Pastoralists Workshop Proceedings, Islamabad 2012

12.CurrentKPK policy reviews
12.1 Provincial Reform Program
The KPK Provincial Reform Program 62 in 2011 encouraged policy review by government and industry, advocating multi-stakeholder “think tanks” to provide independent advice and feedback.
The outcome was a “Policy Action Plan for Implementation of Comprehensive Development
Strategy on Livestock Sector” 63 in consultation with Professor Muhammad Subhan Qureshi, Dean of the Faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science at University of Agriculture. Reorganization of the L and DD Department is included in the strategy, based on wide consultation with provincial stakeholders. The financial requirement for implementation of this plan was estimated at Rs 200 million, with a need for outside investors. An autonomous Board and Services
Network has been proposed to promote commercialization and link stakeholder inputs to service.
12.2 FAO Agricultural Policy for KPK
A comprehensive policy review of agricultural and livestock policy was carried out by FAO in
2012 64 following a request for assistance by KPK government. This review details a number of strategies for agriculture, and includes recommendations for enhancing productivity and competitiveness associated with dairy, meat and wool value chains through removing price controls. The report also recommends limiting livestock movement out of the province for processing, improving livestock market systems, increasingmarket transparency and increasing quality control through improved food safety measures and Halal certification.
Otherrecommendations resulting from the FAO study which are relevant to livestock policy include the importance of the private sector in taking the lead in market development. It suggests the need for NGOs and community-based organizations to agree to protocols for transparency and accountability and tointerface with the government and private sector in a multi-stakeholder approach
KPK rangeland policy is covered by the study, with recommendations including the need for regulations for protection, and for proper mapping, capacity assessment, planning, and monitoring,
Also recommended is protection of the livelihoods of dependent pastoral communities, and promotion of facilities for transhumant communities.Community organizations and NGOs are instructed to resolve conflicts and develop ownership for common rangelands.
12.3 Previous policy reviews
The pace of policy development can be assessed in the light of previous opportunities to examine policies and introduce reform. The Asian Development Bank Livestock Development Project twenty years ago promoted some of the same concepts now discussed. These included encouraging private sector involvement, removing price controls, improving certification of medicine quality, and improved quality assurance for products such as milk. The author of this report, after field surveys in KPK in 1993, at that time recommended reform of inefficient and corrupt livestock markets, review of breed development policies particularly the rationale for distribution of exotic breeding stock of doubtful genetic value, and a review of disease prevention programs particularly regarding the effectiveness of vaccination and de-worming programs for landless and mobile pastoralists.Attention may have been paid to some of these issues, but in general the impression is one of no change after twenty years.
62
Report (2011) “Towards Citizen-Centric Governance”
63
Reported Prof M S Qureshi, Pakissan 29/4/13
64
FAO (2012) KPK Agriculture Policy – A Ten Year Perspective.

As models for policy recommendations a number of jurisdictions have been selected for their particular application to the KPK situation, using the following criteria. They all represent governance systems based on both federal and provincial (state) levels. They are chosen from countries where livestock industries have a major role. Some have been selected to represent supposed “best practice”, where technology is advanced, regulation is effective, the private sector is active, and investment is encouraged. Other models represent jurisdictions where the full transition from subsistence to commercial production has not yet occurred.
For each major subject area, livestock policy approaches are described for three jurisdictions.
1. Disease surveillance and prevention
In Australia national coordination is undertaken by Animal Health Australia, which is an independent not-for-profit company funded by governments and industry (including a producer livestock transaction levy). It manages disease surveillance, emergency preparedness, animal health and welfare standards, veterinary accreditation,policy development, and coordinates state regulatory activity.
At the state level surveillance is undertaken by state Departments with activities including monitoring of all markets and slaughter and meat processing for disease. There are policies to regulate some state to state livestock movement for disease control purposes. Movement of livestock between NSW, Victoria and South Australia is regulated based on ownership (with registered Property Identification Codes), declarations of disease status (using National Vendor
Declarations), and compliance with identification requirements under the National Livestock
Identification Scheme (mandatory tagging of all animals).
Australia’s island situation and relative disease freedom is the economic basis for these extreme policies and investment in quarantine and surveillance. Action to preventroutine diseases is the responsibility of the private sector, (except for strategic programs for epidemics), using advice from state department extension officers, and vaccines/medicines from private suppliers.
In USA national identification schemes for disease monitoring have long been proposed and rejected by livestock producer representative organizations. The latest attempt to introduce a program was in 2013, and the policy adopted requires only regulation for livestock which cross state borders. There are also a number of exemption options which have reduced the potential effectiveness of the policy.
The Indian approach to surveillance and control is a strong national government policy supporting programs aimed at “trans-boundary diseases”. These programs include the National Animal
Disease Reporting System, the National Animal Disease Referral Expert System, and the
Assistance to States for Control of Animal Disease program. These initiatives against diseases such as FMD support India’s current status as a major beef exporter.
2. Disease treatment
In Australia producers normally carry out treatment of livestock with registered medicines except for specific drugs such as antibiotics. Treatment with registered medicines is regulated through a labelling process which specifies dose rates, conditions, and with-holding periods. It specifies correct use of medicines, preventing harm to treated animals, or harm to humans as a result of consumption of treated animals.Specific livestock medicines such as antibiotics must be administered by private vets, who must be accredited by Animal Health Australia.
Medicines are registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority which sets standards of use, and requires these standards on the label. Compliance with labelling standards is the responsibility of the particular State Department of Primary Industries. All medicines are available through private sector distribution. Treatment can be by private vets for specified medicines, or by producers and contractors for all other medicines. Private suppliers and retailers of vaccines and medicines also advise producers re treatment methods.

The Malaysia policy for registration of veterinary products comes under the National
Pharmaceutical Control Bureau,which is with the Ministry of Health. This process also allows access to the ASEAN Drug Harmonization program, so that registration is automatically accepted by the ASEAN countries including Indonesia and nine others.
3. Vaccine production
In Australia vaccines must meet defined standards of quality regulated by an independent body,the
Agricultural Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority(APVMA) and also meet the
Australian Code of Good Manufacturing Practice. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection
Service controlsthe importing of vaccines, which must also meet the standards required by the
APVMA. Private sector multi-national vaccine manufacturers and smaller private producers provide for mass market and specific vaccine requirements, except in the rare instance of an essential vaccine not being a commercially viable production item.
In India private vaccine manufacturers have operated since the 1970s. Typically private manufacturing has been based initially on public/private collaboration, as with FMD vaccine in
1982. In 2010 there were 26 vaccine production units, of which 7 were private. The other 19 public sector vaccine units are required to produce specific vaccines where the high investment necessary and inadequate demand does not encourage private production. National supervision of quality comes under the Central Veterinary Standards Laboratory established in 1992.
For USA, Japan and the European Union the Veterinary International Harmonization Committee brings together the veterinary regulatory authorities of these countries, together with representatives from the animal health industry, to achieve scientific consensus regarding regulatory requirements for the three regions.
4. Feed production and monitoring
In Australia statelaws regulates analysis and identification of feed ingredients, and labelling of manufactured animal feeds. For non-manufactured feeds such as grain or hay, informal and formal markets exist. For formal markets suppliers are required to produce a vendor declaration which enables responsibility for ensuring freedom from contamination by chemical residues and fungal toxins. This policy regulates the trade of fodder as a commodity in large-scale export and domestic volumes.Traceback systems have been developed by private sector fodder exporters as a basis for industry development. The private sector provides feed nutritional quality (“Feedtest”) services to producers and traders which were initially developed by Government agencies andnow licensed to private sector.
In USAwhere the fodder industry exports 3 million tonnes of product to NE Asia, and the market is expanding in the Middle East, product integrity is an issue. Regulation of feed quality is implemented by the Division of Animal Feeds in the US Food and Drug Administration.
In Canada, where the second largest crop grown is hay for animal feed, this issue is taken very seriously, and a review was initiated in 2012 of the regulatory framework for livestock feed, under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to upgrade and modernize current regulation under the
Feeds Act 1985.
65
5. Extension services
In Australia agriculture and livestock issues are not included in the Federal Constitution, and are delegated to the states. State government policy has traditionally provided farmer support and education, delivering extension services through a mix of methods including fee for service, and out-sourcing to private sector providers frequently funded through industrylevies.
65
Canadian Food Inspection agency website

The shift by governments to the principle of “user-pays”varies from state to state in
Australia.Shifting extension towards commercial delivery, and emphasising efficiencies over welfare may be a threat to the ability of governments to deliver extension outcomes in important areas of public good. Although out-sourcing of government-funded research and extension programs by public sector agencies is quickly taken up by private consultants and agribusiness, privatisation may result in loss of control, and reduced ability to meet key government objectives.
In China over the last two decades the commercialism of extension units based on the former topdown government control of farmer activities resulted in disappearance of functional support for livestock producers. In its place there has been a move towards market-oriented operations, appearance of vertically-integrated production and marketing entities, and rationalization of subsistence-scale producers. Typically companies (termed “dragon-head”) have developed relationships with groups of small farmers, providing technical support in exchange for contracted supply of products. Farmer group development has also been an important trend, where industry associations have allowed more effective consultation and planning between government and farmers.
While USA maintains a system of farmer support based on technical specialists from land-grant universities, international agencies such as FAO have moved towards “farmer-centred” and participatory concepts using experiential learning such as the “farmer field” approach. Note that these still depend on finding agencies and inputs from technical specialists.
6. Breed conservation and improvement
In Australia development and improvement of livestock breeds is limited to the private sector since government or university-sponsored activities ceased more than forty years ago. There are no restrictions on investment and free competition by private producers and suppliers of breeding stock, semen and embryos. Semen production and sale is regulated by State Departments of
Primary Industry, and semen and embryo importation is regulated at national level bythe Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service.
Breed societies exist for most breeds, which have objectives of maintaining breed standards and commercial promotion. For dairy cattle genetic progress is monitored through the Australian Dairy
Herd Improvement Scheme (ADHIS), a private company which receives government funding and technical support.
USA is committed to free enterprise activity to breed and select for production traits in farm animals. For example sixty two beef cattle breeds are represented by societies which promote and regulate standards. The Holstein Association has 45,000 members, coordinating production records for breeders who have selection programs conducted under very high levels of nutrition and health, tradingtheir genetics across the world.
The view of the International Livestock Research Institute is that if breeds such as Holstein-
Friesian and White Leghorn continue to spread in less-developed countries there is danger from the consequences of a narrowed genetic base. Indigenous breed preservation is gaining momentum to support low input, low risk pastoral production systems, and maintain pools of indigenous breeds against increasing risk of extinction, or dilution of specific genetic traits. Programs implemented include theDomestic Animals Genetic Resources Information System (DAGRIS), and the
Regional Project on Sustainable Management of Endemic Ruminant Livestock (PROGEBE).
7. Research and development
In Australia the policy principle is that rural end-user industries must help pay for research through levies, and research organisations compete for these funds. Research needs are prioritized by an independent body, the Rural Research and Development Council, and research funding at Federal and State level is managed by a series of R&D Corporations which are jointly funded by producers

and government 66 . Cooperative Research Centres compete for the same funds to create partnerships between private and public sector. Private agencies or farmer groups can also compete for funding and contract to undertake research. The principle is that researchers are accountable to funding bodies, and continued funding depends on monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment by endusers.
USA policy underpins strong public support for agricultural R&D, which has been matched in dollars by private investment.
67 The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and
Economics Advisory Board (NAREEAB) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on policies and priorities for research. Federal-state partnership and coordination involves concepts such as Land
Grant University programs.
The Canadian model for agricultural and livestock research is based on centralized bodies, the
National Research Council, and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of
Canada.
68 These bodies report to government, and do not have the mechanisms for linking funding sources to research outcomes as in Australia.
8. Livestock marketing
The aim of Australian livestock market policy is to ensure free competition through transparency and fair business practice. Livestock markets are normally privately owned and managed, with a range of entities conducting markets including local governments and registered businesses.
Standardizationof market services, for example weighing protocols for cattle, and standards of open auction business practice are ensured through self-regulated industry Codes of Practice administered by Associations of Agents. Standards of service and infrastructure are the basis for competition between markets when aiming to attract buyers and sellers.
All formal livestock transactions at markets involve a levy administered by Meat and Livestock
Australia (MLA) a body which provides market information and development, and ensures product integrity. Market reporting is also funded by the producer levy uses standardized descriptions and mass media/internet to accurately and efficiently inform livestock sellers.
Livestock quality assurance, identification and traceability are regulated by the federal Primary
Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991, and Australian Meat and Livestock Industry
Act 1997.
A significant market pathway is sale direct from producer to processor, with payment after processing on the basis of carcase weight and grade, termed “over the hooks”. The price of the skin, determined by tender is added in the case of sheep processing. Producers may choose to use an agent for this pathway as an insurance against payment failure by the processor.
Note that policy is informed by accurate data. All sheep producers are surveyed annually to determine trends in breed type, reproductive capacity and probable turnoff, allowing processors and government service providers to plan and prepare.
69
Livestock markets in USA are regulated in part by the Packers and Stockyards Act 1921, which is enforced by US Department of Agriculture. The continued operation of a livestock markets is associated with the industry groups including the US Livestock Marketers Association which aims to support and protect auction market standards, and the National Cattleman’s Beef Association with the mission of market free competition and protection from government intrusion into domestic supply, cost or price.
66
National Strategic Rural Research and Development Investment Plan (2011).
67
Alston JM (2011) Agriculture Knowledge Systems OECD Conf. Proc.
68
NSERC website
69
Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics annual survey.

Canadian livestock markets privately managed, with support from industry organizations such as the not-for-profit Livestock Markets Association of Canada. Market organization is currently impacted by government pressure to introduce traceability tagging systems for livestock. This program under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has been delayed by stakeholders and is under consultation, even though individual provinces have introduced legislation, as in Alberta where the Livestock Identification and Commerce Act of 2006 requires mandatory tagging of animals.
9. Meat processing and marketing
In Australia livestock slaughter and processing is undertaken entirely by the private sector.
Processors and abattoirs are given accreditation by an independent national body, to develop domestic standards and ensure compliance. Ausmeat Ltd is the private company which ensures industry compliance with meat processing standards. It is a joint venture of Meat and Livestock
Australia Ltd, which is producer-owned, and the Australian Meat Processing Corporation which is an entity composed of processor representatives. While all producers and processors have a stake in product quality assurance MLA is funded by statutory-based levies from producers, but AMPC is currently funded by non-statutory collection of industry funds.
For processors producing export product AQIS ensures compliance with export standards at cost to exporters (in addition to accreditation of abattoirs by specific destination countries.) All such processors have in place procedures which ensure product is Halal certified by an accredited
Islamic organisation.
Meat processing is also impacted by policies associated with issues such as workplace health and safety, and environmental implications. State environmental laws regulate activities which are the subject of compliance by the Environmental Protection Authority. Worksafe Victoria, for example, implements the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act (2004).
In China meat quality has been related to a largely informal meat industry, and inefficient and outdated larger-scale municipal processing facilities, which may have been taken over by commercial entities. Due to extreme income disparity, to some extent between urban and rural consumers, the informal sector continues to exist providing lower quality product at a lower price.
Improvement in food quality regulation has in recent years become a government priority with even more attention as a result of contamination of milk in 2008. At present consumers seeking confidence in product quality have to depend on defacto accreditation through reliance on the credibility and reputation of high-priced particular company branding. Chinese policy is to ultimately regulate the informal sector in the future, which still exists to cater for the disadvantaged consumer.Muslim minorities traditionally associated with meat processing normally ensure Halal status in the informal market. To cater for higher-value (supermarket) product Islamic Association accreditation has developed protocols.
In Malaysia the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (JAKIM) provides a standardized process for Halal product assurance, for Malaysian or non-Malaysian institutions or other entities.
10.Government and private farm management
Australian governments are unwilling to own farming land or engage in commercial production activities unless for research purposes. Public grazing lands now leased to producers are currently being sold or converted to freehold title to allow private ownership. Policy is to support establishment of strong farmer organisations which are able to provide clear recommendations to government from the private sector. Farmer organizations at State level are represented at Federal level in commodity councils, for example the Cattle Council. However effectiveness of advice is constrained by conflict between organisations and states reflecting differing financial bases.
Individual producers may receive special assistance compared to other industries, such as taxation benefits, for example income averaging. Landholders may also benefit from government measures enacted for drought, flood and natural disaster, to ensure social resilience as well as production

stability, and food security. These measures are administered through state and federally-funded
Rural Assistance Authorities.
A series of other state policies regulate the normal functioning of livestock producers. These include Environment policies relating to impacts such as feedlot air, soil and water impacts, and
Workplace Safety policies relating to the conditions under which employees operate.
Policies in place in United States reflect a stronger political base for farmers than in Australia.
With a strong economic base provided by domestic consumption, a range of support policies are in place to make subsidies available to farmers,described as “farm income stabilization”.This support may significantly affect livestock industry investment, for example incommodities such as feedgrains.
China has demonstrated commitment to facilitation of private sector agricultural development, including privatization of former state-owned enterprises, and facilitation of land tenure regulations to enable large-scale livestock enterprises to function effectively. Policy also encourages foreign direct investment in situations where an industry does not have appropriate management and technical expertise to develop local production standards. Agricultural and livestock enterprises account for approximately 2.8% of the total contracted value of over US $600 billion of investment.
70
11. Animal welfare
In Australia there are no national laws, but states regulate in their own jurisdictions. In NSW the
RSPCA has powers to enforce regulations which cover a number of issues including starvation of grazing livestock. A national Code of Practice sets out standards including husbandry, saleyard practice and transport. Responding to evolving cultural attitudes, a well-organised animal welfare lobby, and political pressure,the government is currently undertaking public consultation as a precursor to replacing these codes with mandatory Animal Welfare Standards for all states. The animal welfare lobby also aims to outlaw live animal export, and the government has introduced the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System to regulate treatment of Australian animals in importing countries. The federal government also closed all cattle export for a period following ill-treatment of animals by Indonesian slaughterhouses.
In USA the Animal Welfare Act (2010) is the only Federal law that regulates treatment of animals and sets minimum acceptable standards. Farm animals are regulated by this act only when used in biomedical research, testing, teaching and exhibition. The Act is enforced by US Dept of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, and Animal Care agency.
In China a new Animal Protection Law has been drafted in 2009. It not only covers farm animals, but also takes a stance on difficult social issues. For example it outlaws practice such as consumption of dogs for food, which as a normal practice for some cultural minorities,may create conflict.
12. Environmental protection
Intensive livestock industries are closely regulated in Australia, 71 with State environmental legislation requiring any development such as a feedlot, livestock market or slaughterhouse to be licensed by the state Environmental Protection Authority, as well as meeting requirements of the local government Local Environmental Plan. Issues where it must be demonstrated that no adverse effects will result include water management, soil and native vegetation effects, waste management, noise and odour control, chemical management, fire management, and cultural heritage impacts.
70OECD Working Paper 2000/4
71
Guidelines for establishment and operation of feedlots PIRSA 2006

In USA surface and groundwater pollution by cattle feedlots is one of the fastest-growing threats as a result of nutrient loading from manure waste. The Environmental Protection Authority has authority to regulate all animal feeding operations in USA. This authority is delegated to individual states in some cases. Any concentrated animal feeding operations are regulated under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
In China water pollution from operations such as feedlots, wool scouring, tanning and other processing is rarely regulated, although the China Environmental Protection Law is in existence, and standards were amended in 2013.
13. Rangeland management
In Australia rangeland management is not a federal responsibility, although the federal government provides guidelines for management and monitoring. The federal government also affects management associated with tenure by legislating land ownership by indigenous groups through
Native Title Legislation.
State jurisdictions have primary responsibility for natural resource management, with considerable variation between states. South Australia with the greatest economic dependence on rangeland may have the best policy framework, through two policy instruments administered by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. The National Resource Management Act of 2004 is the basis for regional Natural Resource Management Boards which are managed by local stakeholders. These influence private natural resource management through monitoring, education and incentive programs. Under this act reserves are administered on 20% of the state for biodiversity conservation purposes.
For rangeland areas which are government-owned and leased to private pastoral businesses policy is provided by the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. This regulates management on 41% of the state, leasing the land to private grazing businesses, but undertaking comprehensive programs of resource inventory and range condition assessment. Regular inspection uses standardised rangeland monitoring protocols as a basis for further lease extensions.Unfortunately while states have science-based policies which depend on measurement of ecological indicators and identification of management targets, the cost of scientific rangeland assessment procedures may limit their actual application. Environmental agencies are now moving to adopt market based instruments as a means of facilitating payments to rangeland owners for ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation. In NSW “enterprise-based conservation” involves payment for de-stocking and meeting ground-cover requirements.
Legislation in NSW and Queensland also makes state government-owned land available for travelling livestock to graze, under the Queensland Land Act (1994). Owners are provided facilities such as water and holding yards and charged according to herd size, with daily travel conditions.
Disaster (drought or flood) mitigation policies for pastoralists are a federal government responsibility. Incentives to store income from good seasons in “Farm Management Deposits” are provided as tax relief when deposits are cashed in bad times.
72
The principles in the Grassland Law enacted by China provide an example of strong policy regarding the use of public rangelands. Objectives of this policy are protection, rational use and sustainable development of these public lands, assisted by monitoring and the power to set stocking rates and close off these lands to exclude humans and livestock. (Chinese Grassland Law amended
2002). Note however that this authoritarian approach is accompanied by policy impacts which support social change such as sedentarisation, encouragement of alternative livelihood scenarios, and access to education and health facilities. These changes however may cause disintegration of traditional grazing management.
73
72
Australian Govt Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website
73
Kreutzmann H, (2013) Pastoralism Research, Policy and Practice 3

Modern world views of policy approaches to conservation management of common rangeland assert that the social control mechanisms of decentralized community governance deliver better outcomes than external government direction, or individual property rights. 74 This view is in contradiction with “tragedy of the commons” theory, but is associated with current assessment of privatization policy lack of success in halting rangeland degradation, and the cost and ineffectiveness ofregulation based on monitoring of ecological indicators.
As a good example of these models Bhutan Land Law (2007) has ensured that communities have the right to control and continue traditional grazing practices and management of livestock, as the optimal approach to sustainable management of rangelands and forests.
74
Ostrom, E (2012) Inst. Of Economic Affairs, Hayek Memorial Lecture

1. Elimination of market distortions associated with restriction on competition
Provision of livestock market services and slaughterhouses is a legal function of local government.
The present regime of auctioning of collection rights, particularly for livestock markets, provides opportunity for rent-seeking, and prevents competition from the private sector. Introduction of policy which opens this area to competition from other entities would not only allow delivery of better and more cost-effective markets, but would reduce supply restrictions, and provide the stimulus for transparent sale and purchase systems and objective market information services, which are needed to remove current distortions in the pathway between producer and consumer.
2. Creation of a demand-driven approach to markets
In developing markets for livestock products there is an increasing need to recognize the association between consumer demand and product integrity, and to develop a demand-driven approach to delivery of livestock-related infrastructure, facilities and services. Policy to ensure product integrity involves creation of genuine processes which enable identification of disease or contamination (for example with chemicals, medicines or hormones) in the source animals.
Ultimately this can consist of systems for vendor identification, vendor declaration, and livestock identification. At the processing stage product integrity demands genuine food safety assurance, as well as internationally recognized Halal accreditation.
3. Recognition that there is a cost for goods and services
The reality of a competitive free-enterprise economy is that services have a cost. Currently provincial livestock policy ensures a range of government services are provided without regard for their true cost (for example vaccinations, artificial insemination), based on the genuine aim of industry development or support for poorer producers. Ultimately policies need to separate between stimulatory or social welfare functions, and normal livestock services, to allow policies which permit the private sector to become involved and develop competitively.
Under this principle, livestock producers demanding effective product integrity systems contribute to their cost, through mechanisms such as market levies. For example, livestock producers utilizing resources such as public land would also pay for access to grazing rights.
4. Elimination of resource allocation distortions associated with public ownership of business entities
Allocation of provincial resources to government ownership and operation of livestock production businesses such as farms and research is seen as irrational and inefficient use of staff and funding better deployed in effective regulatory activities. In particular this applies to farms and businesses which can be operated more efficiently by a well-regulated competitive private sector.
5. Representation for stakeholders in industry decisions
Policy developed without stakeholder support is unlikely to successfully meet objectives.
Stakeholder support assumes genuine stakeholder input, which requires commitment to formal processes. Development of organizations or networks to represent industry cannot happen easily in a livestock context with extreme disparity in cultures, production systems, and scales of operation. It is likely to require considerable investment and facilitation to enable the establishment of effective livestock producer organizations.
6. Industry self-regulation
Implementation of policy depends on successful and cost-effective regulation. By involving industry in developing codes of practice based on policy, compliance can be effective based on establishment of ownership of the regulations. Although this is feasible in well-managed industrial operations such as meat-processing, allowing minimal auditing, but is more difficult with areas such as marketing and transport where there are not yet well-developed industry associations. As

a policy option, the self-regulation has functioned in sectors such as poultry, providing a model for the livestock sector.
7. Independence of regulatory bodies
The effectiveness of autonomous and independent regulatory bodies has been established.
Currently provincial government functions as both regulator and service provider, breaching an established principle of law. It is necessary to have representation from all stakeholders (in the case of meat processing both producers and processors), to ensure that integrity of operation cannot be compromised by any players in the industry.
8. Sustainable use of resources
Government policy is obligated to adopt long-term approaches to natural resource management, and to reflect concepts of public responsibility for vegetation, soil and water resources, as well as application of the precautionary principle in relation to uncertain consequences of present actions.
These principles indicate policy should include mechanisms for protection of both privately-owned and publicly-owned rangelands and wetlands. Obviously grazing livestock are implicated in degradation of these resources, and protection policies may interact with livelihood considerations.
Particular requirements for policy should include flexibility and incentives for owners to easily adjust down inventories through markets (or across borders), for grazing communities to continue to use sustainable traditional systems, and for regulators to respond to changes in measured indicators.
9. Independent policy for socially and economically disadvantaged communities
Provincial livestock departments have traditionally been regarded as instruments for delivery of social welfare policies, for example through special gender capacity building programs, disaster relief, or poverty alleviation. Rational policy development for livestock should acknowledge and separate these from mainstream livestock issues, developing targeted measures (such as subsidies) which maintain social welfare functions do not distort the whole market.
10. Recognition of cultural sensitivities
Cultural diversity is an important context for policy considerations, for example in creating livestock policy which is responsive to the needs of communities such as mobile landless pastoralists with special traditions, constraints and vulnerability. Other more contemporary cultural sensitivities relate to animal welfare policy. For example, due to evolving cultural attitudes sections of society now consider some aspects of industrial farming management systems to involve cruelty.

1. Disease surveillanceand prevention
This is a high priority area for the KPK Government, which is without adequate policy or regulatory procedures. District Veterinary Officers who now focus on curative measures rather than prevention need standard operating procedures and protocols for surveillance, including monitoring and reporting from all key areas such as livestock markets and slaughterhouses. They also need standard procedures for prevention through appropriate vaccination programs and strains of vaccine. This is particularly true for trans-boundary diseases such as FMD, where there is not at present the institutional capacity to ensure control measures, or undertake quarantine where necessary.
The developing private sector which is currently undertaking disease control on farms must also have a role, through establishment of appropriate protocols and regulations for surveillance and prevention.This should include training of private community animal health professionals. In the interim the Governmentneeds to develop specialized capacity to undertake disease prevention programs, particularly in relation to mobile pastoralists with particular needs and logistic challenges.
2. Disease Treatment
Policy in this area is inadequate, resulting in lack of regulation ofquality of livestock medicines in the marketplace. For veterinary professionals, community livestock health workers, or private livestock owners, regulation is essentialto identify fake products, and ensure registered and labelled medicines are available for purchase and use.Labelling will ensure that users are aware of conditions of safe use for humans, targeted animals, and the environment. Labelling will also specify how the medicine is to be administered, stored and disposed, and with-holding periods after treatment before consumption of treated animals is allowable. As medicine quality assurance is an area devolved to the Province as a result of the 18 th Amendment, an appropriate body to carry out these functions should be given the capacity once legal responsibility is clarified.
3. Vaccine production
Subsidised production of vaccines by the public sector has the effect of stifling the development of commercial supplies by the private sector. The issue of price, demand and availability of vaccines requires review. If the cost of vaccine produced by the private sector is limiting use by the livestock production industry, this is an issue for direct assistance from rural development and poverty alleviation sources. Vaccine which is priced in relation to the true cost of production would allow private sector vaccine production to develop, provided with technical support from government vaccine specialists. With policy to enable appropriate standards and protocols to be developed, registration of private sector vaccine production in Pakistan or importation of vaccines should then be undertaken by the same body which registers veterinary medicines. This should be followed by harmonization with other provincial registration bodies to reduce registration costs.
4. Feed production and monitoring
For an industry which is based completely on feed consumption, where it is known thatanimal production is directly related to feed intake, there is little government attention to forage policy.
Appropriate research is negligible, along with support for fodder seed production,development of feed as a commodity with appropriate basic feed testing facilities, or provision of systems for quality assurance for feeds.
With the current industry technical level government needs to have a policy for developing specialized capacity to adapt existing research, undertaking local research, harnessing and

regulating private enterprise for forage seed production, and developing feed quality standards and protocols.
5. Extension services
Extension includes public and private sector activities relating to technology transfer, attitude change, human resource development, and collection and dissemination of information. It does not include current government activities such as disease control and artificial insemination which aretermed extension by the government. There is a need for policy which sets standards of performance, inclusivity, and effectiveness to ensure extension services meet the needs of all levels of the industry.
If Government institutions do not have the capacity to deliver such programsit is necessary to develop mechanisms for managing and regulating private sector extension delivery. This would involve entities including consultants/agribusiness to be registered and facilitated to provide extension services where appropriate. For government extension managers, tertiary training in appropriate disciplines would be necessary.Policyshould enable contributions to funding of extension from industry, associated with accountability regarding extension needs.It would also require social development and poverty alleviation activities to be defined, and managed independently of L&DD Departments.
An extension coordination bodywould allow consultation and coordination between research, government institutions, NGOs and industry.
6. Breed improvement
Breed improvement services are currently provided below cost partly as an industry and social service, where production and supply of semen can be regarded as a public good, in the context of an industry which is dominated by landless and subsistence-level livestock owners. However the value to the industry of spreading exotic genes of unknown quality to producers who may not have production systems appropriate to exotic breeds is doubtful without systematic evaluation.
A review of the subject would determine:

Actual cost to government of production of semen and cost of insemination services

Assessment of genetic status of government semen (eg through progeny tests)

Actual costs to semen users including informal charges by government staff

Level of subsidy by government

Availability and cost of commercial insemination services

Survey of user characteristics and production systems

Analysis of ability of users to pay commercial rates

Analysis of constraints to public AI services including semen quality and quantity, availability and training of human resources, geographical limits to service, and awareness/adoption issues for users.
Results of this review would provide the information needed to understand if government AI programs are competing with commercial services, the importance of government services for livelihood development, and the costs to government of maintaining or increasing the scale of these actions.At the same time policy objectives should include facilitation and regulation of a viable breeding industry, with trading in genetics, private semen production and insemination, ensuring standards of business practice, and fair treatment for consumers in regard to standards of semen quality and insemination, including disease transmission.
7. Research and Development
Currently KPK tertiary institutions undertake research as well as the government Veterinary
Research Institute. Some L&DD Department projects are also classified as research to enable funding. There is no apparent coordination of these activities, priorities assigned, performance

evaluation, or input from stakeholders and end-users. Policy objectives should include prioritization of research based on formal engagement with each livestock industry end-users, funding contributions by end-user industries, accountability by researchers to funding bodies, evaluation and impact assessment by end-users, and measurement of adoption rates of research results. This would require governance by an independent body which assesses completed projects, and prioritizes and manages funding of future projects, and has representation from government, funding agencies and industry end-users. Outcomes should include competition between research bodies for grants, and linkagesbetween research bodies and extension entities.
8. Livestock Marketing
Recommended policy is that livestock marketsarenot limited to the public sector, with commercial entities competing to offer market services.Market management entities should be regulatedto ensure compliance with standards of market infrastructure and conduct, collection of data and collection of levies to fund market development.
Policy should require theKPK government to be responsible for licensing of market management entities, and developing standardized market rules (open auctions), levy collection, and market data collection. Provincial government will also regulate market livestock disease monitoring and quarantine, and movement restriction when required.
Recommended policy involves formation ofentities representing all functionaries involved in conducting markets, which can consult withKPK provincial governmentregarding market rules of conduct, and ultimately manage self-regulation processes. It also involves formation of livestock producer representative bodies which can consult with market management and government regarding market services and needs.It will facilitate an independent and autonomous regulatory organization funded from market transaction levies, representing government, producers, processors, agents and all other stakeholders.This organizationwill be responsible for advising market management entities regarding rules of market conduct, and developing capacity of industry associations to comply with regulatory framework, and establishing a market information and reporting service which employs specialists to develop standardized livestock descriptions, record prices, summarize data, assess trends, and coordinate information transfer to the media.
Policy should ensure that this organization has the capacity to manage the transition to a private sector led market system.
9. Meat slaughter, processing and marketing
The policy objective is a licensing process to enable private business entities to undertake domestic processing, with an accreditation and certification regime to ensure compliance with standards of infrastructure, operational hygiene and environment responsibility.
Policy will provide for the creation of an independent and autonomous regulatory body which is responsible for processor licensing, enforcing standards, and ensuring compliance with these standards in all licensed processing facilities. This body should be given the ability to manage the transition to private sector led processing through a program of capacity-building and awarenessraising. It should be able to be contracted out to provide similar services to exporters.
Policy should also ensure increased economic activity and standardization by removal of restrictions on the sale of meat on meatless days, and removal of price controls on the sale of meat in domestic markets.
10. Government farms and commercial enterprises
Government farms are limited in KPK to three which are ostensibly for producing and distributing genetic desirable material to industry, and a poultry farm for demonstration. While these farms

have a specific rationale which is not commercial, policy should be to retain them. Recommended policy should include development of guidelines for future involvement in public/private partnerships such as a joint venture Meat Development Company.
11 Animal welfare
The policy objective is a code of practice for animal welfare in markets, slaughter, transport, research, and commercial production including nutrition and management, which reflects good commercial livestock practice as well as current attitudes of society.
This would requireL&DD Department to take the lead in developing the code by consulting with livestock producers, and academic and citizen groups.Animal Welfare units would be established representing private animal societies, government and industry,to investigate cases of noncompliance, and to include animal welfare codes of practice in awareness programs.
12 Environment
Policy objectives are regulation of negative effects on the environment as a result of livestock management, transport or processing, or disposal of waste associated with these activities, giving particular attention to processors, feedlots and intensive livestock industries.Government will be required to develop the capacity of the KPK Environment Department toset standards and regulate livestock industry downstream effects impacting on the environment.Processors, feedlotters, intensive livestock managers will be required to comply with regulations associated with waste disposal.
13. Rangeland Management and pastoralism
In managing resources such as rangelands the role of technological interventions is very limited, and most of the issues, even seemingly technical issues, can only be addressed through policies.
Good policies should encourage a holistic approach which integrates ecological, economic and social aspects of use. They should involve multi-level governance that gives incentives and space for community participation in decision-making and adaptive co-management, and provide equitable and sustainable use of resources.Application of these principles, as pressure on KPK rangeland resources continues to increase, indicates the best environmental and livelihood outcomes will result from traditional communities being given the space and support to manage rangelands in customary and flexible ways.
Current policies were designed in the colonial era for forest resources. Recommended policies shouldaimto repair the socio-ecological setting that was the basis for traditional grazing systems.There are some policy initiatives available 75 whichinvolve strengthening of the capacity of transhumant communities to secure and manage traditional grazing routes, supported by community financial mechanisms to meet recurring costs of securing access to these routes.
A second policy area for repairing traditional settings involves re-establishing the winter and spring feedingsystems which through their attrition has forced earlier and damaging migration to summer pastures each year. Approaches include enhancement of winter lowland feed availability, partly through restriction of across-border flocks, administrative support to ensure migration routes remain open to grazing rather than forced trucking, and establishment of transit facilities on these routes to ensure grazing and health services are available.
As climate change and other uncertainties increase,a furtherbasisfor policywhich supports traditional users is reduction of risk for rangeland communities. This can be done by a range of means apart from adopting more conservative grazing practices which meet assessed stocking capacity. Risk mitigation is associated with the use of indigenous well-adapted breeds, with the adaptability that is gained from a spread of breeds, ages, types in an enterprise, and with ensuringflexibility of grazing regimes and management to meet environmental and economic
75
Landless Mobile Pastoralists Workshop Proceedings, Islamabad 2012

uncertainty.
76 Policy which supports customary management must also provide incentives for livestock owners to become less dependent on flock numbers as a risk management strategy or safety net. It must facilitate marketing channels and opportunities to realize economic returns from livestock when desired, building capacity for communities to manage issues such as livestock health. It must clarify land tenure where necessary to allow communities freedom to manage flexibly. It must also support opportunities for these rangelands to generate income for communities by alternative environment-based means, such as from ecosystem services in areas such as carbon sequestration, soil and water conservation, or biodiversity. Above all it must acknowledge that these communities have a huge incentive for sustaining the current environment if they are allowed the freedom to do so.
77 .
As well as support for socio-economic systems, policy must support the maintenance of the ecological resource. Science-based policies and regulatory systems have become ineffective for a number of reasons, particularly due to costs and the need for well-established tenure. However policy for these rangelands must include some biophysical assessment of livestock impacts. This should involve monitoring ecological condition using soil, water and vegetation parameters on grazed publicly-owned rangeland. By determining trends, measuringimpacts on endangered ecosystems, identifying causal factors, and setting benchmarks or trigger points there will be greater chance of predicting and managing ecological change.
The above policies should complement and support policies proposed in the Pakistan Forest
Institute draft Rangeland Policy. Where appropriate policiesshould include establishing principles for charging users with the costs of managing public rangelands, consulting with stakeholders to develop management strategies for improving the condition of public rangelands, and establishing education, awareness and incentive programsaimed at rangeland users. A Rangeland Advisory
Body to be constituted at provincial level with representatives from Departments of L&DD,
Forestry, Wildlife and other stakeholders will be essential to coordinate policy.
76
Holochek (2012) Proc Aust Rangeland Soc Conf.
77
IUCN Report: Supporting Sustainable Pastoral Practices (2012)

1. DISEASE SURVEILLANCE AND PREVENTION
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects Private facilitation sector
Current KPK NWFP Animal Contagious policy Diseases Act 1948 the basis for disease surveillance activities, but has deficiencies and lacks stakeholder involvement.
Veterinary Inspectors and
District Livestock Officers, who deal with disease control, have limited capacity and resources.
No formal role assigned to Private sector. Some
LDD vaccine programs.
Most commercial farms undertake their own disease surveillance and control.
Policy
Australia
Policy in
USA in Surveillance and control is by a not-for-profit company representing and funded by federal and state governments, and livestock industry stakeholders, (under the
Livestock Industries Funding Act
1996.)
It coordinates disease surveillance, emergency preparedness, animal health and welfare standards, accreditation, and vet. policy development.
At the local level surveillance and control is the responsibility of an
Authority funded by producer levies and government.
(NSW Stock Diseases Act 1923 and NSW Sock Disease
Regulation 2009)
Surveillance is limited by lack of national livestock ID programs.
Animal Health Australia
Ltd is the public company established by the Federal
Govt.
The Livestock Health and
Pest Authority is the NSW entity which monitors disease occurrence and advises re control at state level.
Regulations only apply to movement birders. across state
Private suppliers of vaccines and medicines may have formal training and advise farmer-clients regarding occurrence and control.
The private sector is unwilling to bear surveillance costs.
Policy in India
Recommended policy
Programs target trans-boundary disease
Surveillance, government. epidemiological analysis, and epidemic control to be core responsibilities of
Policy objectives to depend on technical feasibility of achieving disease-free status, or controlled status.
National Animal Disease
Reporting System, the
National Animal Disease
Referral Expert System, and the Assistance to States for
Control of Animal Disease program.
An agency at provincial level be identified to address disease control and surveillance issues
Where technically feasible existing institutional arrangements need strengthening to enable surveillance functions such
Facilitation of the private sector to provide information to government regarding disease incidence.
Interim need for a mechanism to provide control services to

as data collection at markets/slaughterhouses. specific areas of industry.
2. DISEASE TREATMENT
Policy legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects Private facilitation sector
Current KPK policy
Livestock and human medicine registration regimes are the same. The federal Drugs Act
1976, provides registration of drugs, while the sale of these drugs is regulated by the
Provincial Government.
Registration of vets is undertaken by the Pakistan
Veterinary Medical Council, which is a federal body
Government L&DD Dept.
Veterinary Services provides some level of free treatment; established under the Pakistan
Veterinary Medical Council
Act, 1996
There is limited producer confidence in the effectiveness of medicines available in the open market.
Policy
Australia in All medicines must be registered for use according to labels. Labelling directs correct use of medicines including specified conditions and dose rates, harm to treated animals, or with-holding periods.
Specific livestock medicines such as antibiotics must be administered by vets who must be accredited by Animal Health
Australia.
The Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines
Authority sets the standards of use (and requires these standards on the label)
Compliance with labelling standards is the responsibility of the State govt. Dept. of
Primary Industries.
Medicines are available private through sector distribution, to be used by private vets, producers and contractors.
Private suppliers and retailers of vaccines and medicines may advise producers re treatment methods.

Policy
Malaysia
Recommended policy in Regulation of veterinary medicines is on a national basis.
Livestock medicine registration and labelling to be carried out by an existing body, to ensure that users are aware of safe use, dosage rates, etc.
Regulatory framework along with dispute resolution and accountability of veterinarians, may be introduced through
Provincial legislation.
Managed by the National
Pharmaceutical Control
Bureau, which is with the
Ministry of Health
Also have access to ASEAN
Drug Harmonisation Programs
LD&D Dept. to provide incentives and penalties to ensure compliance with labelling protocols
Department to support subsistence farmers in disease treatment and control by providing training, raising awareness and ensuring availability of quality medicines
The public sector to maintain the responsibility for disease epidemic control.
Disease treatment by private sector vets or producers using labelled medicines.
Subsistence producers provided with a sustainable mechanism for delivering community health livestock treatment.
3. VACCINE PRODUCTION
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects Private facilitation sector
Current KPK policy
The KPK govt. produces vaccines necessary for the livestock industry in the
Veterinary Research Institute.
There private is involvement sector vaccine production no of in
Policy in
Australia
Vaccines must meet defined standards of quality regulated by an independent body.
Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service regulates importation of vaccines.
Australia production and imported vaccines must meet
Australian Pesticides and Vet.
Medicines Authority approval, and Australian Code of Good
Manufacturing Practice standards.
Essential vaccines not available commercially are produced by government entities. .
A range of multinational and smaller private producers meet mass market and specific requirements. vaccine
Policy in India Public-private collaboration commenced in 1982. Quality is monitored by the Central
Veterinary
Laboratory
Standards
Presently there are still 19 public vaccine producers.
There are 7 private vaccine producers
Recommended policy
KPK govt. to be responsible for assessing vaccine needs.
Where commercially viable, vaccines to be imported or produced by the private sector
KPK Government VRI production to be limited to essential non-commercially viable production.
Govt. facilitation of the private sector entry outsourcing through or licensing, identifying

while commercial essential nonvaccine production continuing to be supported by the public sector.
Legal framework be provided for regulation through registration, standards and enforcement.
4. FEED PRODUCTION AND MONITORING
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects
Current policy
KPK No laws regulating animal feed. demand and assessing ability of industry sectors to pay.
Private facilitation sector
Policy in
Australia
Policy in USA
State policy requires analysis and identification of feed ingredients, and labelling of manufactured animal feeds,
(under the NSW Stock Foods
Act, 1940 and Stock Food
Regulation 2010.)
For non-manufactured feeds such as grain or hay, policy requirement is vendor declaration covering chemical residues and fungal toxins.
(Australian Meat and
Livestock Industry Act
1997).
A national policy as a basis for export and domestic trade in non-manufactured feeds is not in place.
Policy in Canada Currently upgrading and modernizing regulation under the Feeds Act 1985
Meat and Livestock Australia
Ltd is the industry-funded company compliance. which oversees
Regulation of manufactured feeds is by the Division of
Animal Feeds in the US Food and Drug Administration.
The Canadian Food Inspection
Agency is the federal regulatory body.
Analysis by private laboratories. nutritional quality
“Feedtest” services are licensed to private sector (previously developed by state agencies).
Feed
Regulation costs are resisted by the private sector
This industry is based on strict product standards.
Recommended policy
KPK Government to develop the capacity to administer feed quality testing and establish Vendor declaration procedures for nonmanufactured feeds.
Govt. to establish an independent feed test laboratory, and use it as a basis for developing improved livestock nutrition.
Develop trade in nonmanufactured feeds/forage as a commodity, supported objective by quality analysis, underpinned by quality assurance process.
5. EXTENSION SERVICES

Current policy
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects Private facilitation sector
KPK There is no comprehensive policy regarding access, quality and effectiveness of various services.
LDD Directorate of extension services provides these through
District Livestock officers.
Health and AI services are regarded as Extension, limited in accessibility, quality and a production focus.
Little private sector involvement in extension services except limited activity of dealers in animal feed and medicines
Policy in
Australia
Agriculture and livestock issues are not included in the
Federal Constitution and are delegated to the states.
State government policy is to provide limited farmer support and education.
State governments deliver extension through a mix of methods including fee for service, and out-sourcing to private sector providers.
Private extension sector and training providers compete to offer specific products.
Policy in China There has been a move away from extension support and delivery by top-down public agencies.
Remaining extension agencies are required to generate their own funding.
Policy in USA Farmer technical support is still based on traditional rural university land grant system.
Verticallyintegrated production and marketing entities now provide technical support for producers
Strong sector influence private political
Recommended policy
Legislate mechanisms to enable funding of extension from industry contributions.
Improve management of production extension delivery through outsourcing.
Ensure government has management capacity to deliver subsistence extension to production sector,
6. BREED IMPROVEMENT
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
LDD to again develop production extension capacity, and areas such as market chain support.
Institutional aspects
Facilitate training and capacity of private extension providers.
Private facilitation sector

Current policy
KPK No regulation or standards regarding semen production and use.
Federal regulations control the import of semen or live animals
LDD operates breeding farms for production of breeding stock, and semen for use in AI centres.
Support for publicprivate partnerships importing genetics.
Policy in
Australia
USA policy
State policy regulates semen production and use.
Semen and embryo importation is regulated at notional level.
Breed improvement policy is implemented through the
Australian Dairy Herd
Improvement Scheme
(ADHIS) which has evolved from a government extension service into a private company interests of representing livestock breeders. ADHIS charges for services, but also receives government funding and technical support.
Limited regulation currently existing.
Regulation by State
Department of Primary
Industry and Federal
Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service.
Measurement of genetic values through ADHIS.
Genetic development supported by producerfunded organisations.
No restrictions on investment and free competition by private producers and suppliers of breeding stock, semen and embryos. Breed standards maintained by private breed societies.
Breed promote and regulate livestock standards societies genetic
International policy
Recommended policy
International agency develop protocols and support for indigenous conservation. genetics
Review cost-benefits to industry of current public breed programs. improvement
Regulate to ensure standards of imported and traded semen.
Domestic Animals Genetic
Resources Information
System (DAGRIS), and the
Regional Project on
Sustainable Management of
Endemic Ruminant
Livestock (PROGEBE).
LDD to regulate standards of private semen production, and provide technical support for commercial breed organisations. development
LDD to develop protocols for preservation of indigenous breeds, and supply of semen to livestock owners.
.
Indigenous breed conservation is at odds with private sector breed marketing activities.
No restrictions on private investment and trading in livestock genetics.
LDD to support growth of a viable private breeding with breed standards. sector industry appropriate
7. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Current policy
Policy – legal regulatory basis and Institutional aspects
KPK Partly covered by the NWFP
Agricultural Universities
Ordinance 1981 and WP
Milk Boards Ordinance 1963.
Limited undertaken research by is
LDD
Veterinary Research Institute and two universities
Private facilitation sector
Policy in Australia Livestock industries help pay for research through levies, and research organisations compete for these funds.
(Federal Science and Industry
Research Act 1949, and Rural
Industries Research Act
1985.)
.
Research priorities set by the
Rural Research and
Development Council.
Research funding at Federal and State level is managed by a series of R&D Corporations which are jointly funded by producers and government.
Cooperative
Research Centre programs aim to create partnerships between private and public sector.
Private agencies or farmer groups may also contract to undertake research.
Policy in USA Strong federal government support for state Land Grant university research programs
Policy in Canada Centralised federal management of research
. The National Agricultural
Research, Extension,
Education and Economics
Advisory Board
(NAREEAB) advises the
Secretary of Agriculture on priorities.
Coordinating bodies are the
National Research Council, and the Natural Science and
Engineering Research
Council of Canada.
Public sector funds are matched by private dollars.
Recommended policy
Research to be managed by an independent body which assesses current and completed projects, and links funding donors with stakeholders.
8. LIVESTOCK MARKETING
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Research Coordinating body has representation from government, funding agencies and industry end-users.
Institutional aspects
Research bodies to compete for funding.
Private facilitation sector

Current policy KPK livestock markets have been controlled exclusively by Local Government, under
West Pakistan Municipal
Committees (Cattle Market)
Rules 1969
There are restrictions on establishing cattle markets and undertaking sale and purchase of animals in the
Local Government
Ordinance, 2001, Punjab
Agricultural Produce Markets
Ordinance 1978.
Policy in Australia The objective of livestock market policy is to ensure free competition with transparency of information and fair business practice (in the state of NSW under NSW
Stock, Property and Business
Agents Act 2002, NSW Stock and Business
Regulation 2003.)
Agents
Livestock quality assurance, identification and traceability are regulated by the federal
Primary Industries Levies and
Charges Collection Act 1991, and Australian Meat and
Livestock Industry Act 1997.
Policy in USA Regulation under the Packers and Stockyards Act 1921 limits intrusion government in markets. of
Local government auctions the rights to manage livestock markets and to collect revenue, without establishing standards of service or infrastructure.
Implementation of market policy is through Codes of
Practice administered by
Associations of Agents.
All formal livestock transactions involve a levy which funds Meat and
Livestock Australia (MLA) a body which provides market information, animal identification and traceback, product QA, and market development.
Regulations are enforced by
US Department of
Agriculture.
Private conduct of markets is illegal.
Livestock may be markets privately owned and managed.
Policy in Canada Regulation and free trade of livestock in markets is not widely supported, with principles of free trade important.
National monitoring programs under Canadian
Food Inspection Agency are being resisted by private sector.
Free market practice is guided by US
Livestock Marketers and the National
Cattleman’s Beef
Association which aims to support and protect auction market standards,
Private market management is supported by the notfor-profit Livestock
Markets Association of Canada.

Recommended policy
Competition from private sector to hold livestock markets, with KPK govt. regulation of market practices and standards, and collection of levies from market participants to fund market development.
Legislation is needed to reform the markets and redefine the roles of various operators, with coordination by an independent regulatory entity, representing the major stake holders.
The KPK government to establish market standards, and market information collection and distribution.
The private sector to operate these markets within the KPK regulatory framework. Markets to be economically sustainable based on fee for services.
Private entities should be encouraged to establish markets which offer more services, better infrastructure, and facilities.
9. MEAT PROCESSING
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects
Current policy
Private facilitation sector
KPK Local Government has a monopoly over slaughter houses and slaughter control under LGO 2001.
Meat processing hygiene and quality standards are absent as product safety is regulated by the Food Safety and
Standards law which does not apply to raw meat.
Prices of meat, and legal slaughtering days are controlled by the KPK government, with outmoded laws preventing slaughter of so-called useful animals
(Slaughter Control Act
1963).
Local Government collects revenue from Municipal
Slaughterhouses but provides minimal facilities for efficient or hygienic operation.
Inspection and certification by provincial officers is also corrupt and ineffective.
The private sector operates export meat processing units with quality and hygiene standards set by the export customers.

Policy in
Australia
Policy in China
An independent national body represents producers and processors to develop domestic standards and ensure compliance. This body is responsible for processor accreditation.
The federal Meat Industry
Act 1993 is the basis for
Australian standards. The
NSW Meat Industry Act
1978 and Food Act 2003 regulate food safety compliance.
Poor regulation and informal sector domination ensure low income consumers have access to low quality meat.
Policy in Malaysia Regulated and standardised
Halal product assurance
An independent body Aus-
Meat Ltd is funded by producer levies and processor donations standards. to ensure
AQIS ensures compliance with export standards at cost to exporters.
All producers and processors have a stake in product quality assurance.
De facto accreditation for State-owned high-priced meat is available through reliance on the credibility and reputation of particular company branding. processing facilities had low standards; now largely taken over by private processors.
Department of Islamic
Development
(JAKIM)
Malaysia
Recommended policy
Competition from the private sector to undertake domestic meat processing.
Accreditation of processing facilities and compliance with standards to be undertaken by independent body. an
Repeal of legislation which requires slaughter in a
Municipal facility, prohibits slaughter of useful animals and instates meatless days.
Retail meat price regulation and controls on sale to be removed.
Establish an independent institution to be responsible for processor accreditation, and to develop standards and ensure compliance in all licensed processing plants.
10. GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE FARM MANAGEMENT
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects
The private sector should have freedom to establish and operate
Private facilitation meat production facilities within the regulatory framework or guidelines established by the government. sector

Current KPK policy No regulation of farming in the public or private sector.
LDD Dept. owns farms used for research and breed maintenance purposes.
Policy in Australia
Policy in USA
There is no government ownership of assets unless for the public good, and no participation in commercial production activities. There is no government ownership of farms except for research purposes, or for careful management of arid rangeland.
Farm policy supports establishment of strong farmer organisations to enable clear recommendations to government from the private sector.
Minimal regulation of farmers reflects strong political base.
Rangeland leased to farmers is administered by State agencies under strong environmental criteria.
Private farmer organizations at State level are represented at Federal level in peak commodity councils.
Private sector is free to engage in commercial livestock production but receives inadequate support from the public sector.
Special assistance for private farmers includes taxation benefits, low interest loans environmental for expenditure, and disaster assistance.
Private sector industry supports subsidy policy termed “farm income stabilization”.
Policy in China There was recent extensive privatization of former state-owned enterprises.
All land allocated to farmers is owned by the state.
Recommendation Review all government participation in commercial livestock production, in terms of current function, and activities for the public good, developing criteria and standards for operating these farms.
.
11. ANIMAL WELFARE
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Develop guidelines for future involvement in public/private partnerships such as a joint venture Meat
Development Company.
Institutional
There government for has agricultural investment. been support corporate
Facilitate industry representation mechanisms to enable effective consultation and industry advice to government.
Private facilitation sector

Current KPK policy The Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act 1890 covers the subject, but does not deal with current farm animal management or neglect and cruelty adequately, and penalties need review.
Policy in Australia Reflects strong community attitudes to industrial farming concepts, with emphasis on standards for routine management, housing, transport, and slaughter.
(NSW Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act 1979. NSW
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Regulation 2006.
NSW Animal Research Act
1985).
Policy in USA Regulated under Animal Welfare
Act (2010), but with farm animal policy moderated by farm political status.
Policy in China A new Animal Protection Law was drafted in 2009 with broad objectives and possible social impacts.
Enforcement capacity is absent
There is no regular private sector involvement in the protection of animals.
Policy inspection research. involves and prosecution by RSPCA for a range of issues including starvation of grazing animals, and use of animals in
The Act is enforced by
US Dept. of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services, and Animal Care agency.
Industry response is typified in Agents’
Saleyard Code of
Practice,
Livestock and
Transporters Code of
Practice.
Limited impact on private farm animal production.
Implementation of regulations in private farming sector likely to be minimal.
Recommended policy
12. ENVIRONMENT
Involve the community in assembling a code of practice for animal welfare in markets, slaughter, transport, research, and commercial production, including management. nutrition and
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
LDD to be responsible for enforcement by a selected animal welfare body. coordinating
Institutional
Establishment of grassroots oriented animal organizations welfare to monitor and report neglect and cruelty.
Private facilitation sector
Current KPK policy Before 18th Amendment regulated by Pakistan
Environment Protection Act,
1997. Now a provincial issue

Policy in Australia State environmental legislation requiring any development such as a feedlot, livestock market or slaughterhouse to be licensed by the state Environmental
Protection Authority and local government
Environmental Plan.
Local
Policy in USA
Policy in China
The Environmental Protection
Authority has authority to regulate all animal feeding operations in USA. This authority is delegated to individual states in some cases
China Environmental Protection
Law is in existence and amended in 2013
A license requires no adverse effects on water management, soil and native effects, vegetation waste management, noise and odour control, chemical management, fire management, cultural impacts. and heritage
Concentrated animal feeding operations are regulated under the
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).
Environmental
Protection Authorities have weak compliance
Private sector compliance costs are a large component of feedlot establishment costs.
A rapidly increasing private sector issue.
Private sector industries may bribe regulators.
Recommended policy
Regulation of negative effects on the environment as a result of livestock management, transport or processing, or disposal of waste associated with these activities, giving particular attention to processors, feedlots and intensive livestock industries
Develop the capacity of the KPK Environment
Department to set standards and regulate livestock industry downstream effects impacting on the environment.
Processors, feedlotters, intensive livestock managers will be required to comply with regulations associated with waste disposal.
13. RANGELAND MANAGEMENT
Policy – legal and regulatory basis
Institutional aspects Private facilitation sector
Current KPK policy Current forest management is influenced by KPK Forest
Ordinance 2002.
Draft policy exists to regulate rangelands grazing management and environmental protection, but there is no LDD policy on rangeland management and no involvement
Department of LDD
Responsibility for public rangelands is placed with the Forest Department which has no coordination or linkages with the
Department
LDD
Private rangelands are not subject to any regulation.

Policy in Australia For public lands which are grazed there is State government regulation of grazing management, and for private land there are management incentives.
(NSW Protection of the
Environment Operations Act
1997 and General
Regulations 2009)
Policy in China
Policy in Bhutan
Recommended policy
China Grassland
(amended 2002) was promulgated for protection, rational use and sustainable development of public grazing lands.
Bhutan Land Law (2007) resulted from a period of consultation which included local communities and international agencies.
Law
.
Support traditional grazing practices and management of rangelands by traditional users, who have the most to lose from environmental degradation.
Establish practical and costeffective ecological monitoring systems.
Where possible charge users with management costs.
The State Department of
Environment and Water regulates impacts partly through locally-managed
Catchment Management
Authorities.
Private lessees lease
Government-owned rangeland under management terms and conditions.
Private owners of rangeland are educated regarding sustainable grazing management
Local government in consultation with provincial government is responsible for monitoring and has the power to close and exclude livestock from rangeland.
Communities have the right to continue traditional grazing practices in forest and rangeland areas.
Establish management entities or Rangeland
Advisory Bodies which include the widest range of stakeholders, including Forestry and
Livestock Departments.
Law aims to control private activities grazing on rangeland allocated to families.
Private livestock owners conform to community attitudes.
Include all non-forest wastelands and public grazing areas in monitoring and management planning.

Asian Development Bank (2008) Report: National Agriculture Sector Strategy
FAO (2013) “KPK Agricultural Policy: A Ten Year Perspective”
IUCN (2012) Report: “Supporting Sustainable Pastoral Practices”
KPK Planning Commission (2010) Comprehensive Development Strategy 2010-17
Kreutzman H (2013): “Pastoralism, Research, Policy and Practice”
Planning Commission GOP Report: (2011) “Framework for Economic Growth”
Trade-related Technical Assistance Project II (2012) “Enhancing Livestock Sector
Competitiveness”
World Bank (2002) Report: Pakistan Poverty Assessment,
World Bank (1999) Pakistan Strategic Country Environmental Assessment”
Zia U.E. (2009) “Pakistan: A Dairy Sector at Crossroads” (FAO)

I. Scope of Work
Specific Challenges to Be Addressed by this Consultancy. Agriculture has a pivotal role in
Pakistan’s economy, accounting for about one-fourth of the GDP and employing almost half the population. Livestock is an important sub-sector of agriculture. The dairy and livestock sector plays a vital role in the economy of Punjab because of its contribution to rural incomes and its employment capacity. In 2009, value-added in livestock was about 50 percent of total agricultural value-added in Punjab, and approximately 30 to 40 percent of incomes in rural areas was derived from livestock-related activities. Major products of livestock include milk, mutton, beef, hides and skins, poultry, wool/hair, and farmyard manure.
Despite its importance to Pakistan’s agrarian economy, the dairy and livestock subsector faces a number of significant problems. To begin, there is no clearly-enunciated policy framework; what exists is a patchwork of rules and regulations that overemphasize the domain of the public sector and generally restrict the role of the private sector. Moreover, the existing policy framework has resulted in an inefficient sector beset by a host of problems, including rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, lack of standards, unreliable quality of inputs, and severe imbalances in market power that leave the small producers — who represent the majority of producers of meat and milk — vulnerable to exploitation. Owing to these difficulties, the sector has been growing at a dismally low rate of around 4.5 to 5 percent annually in recent years, which is significantly below its potential. It has also has not been able to contribute to exports.
A modern policy framework would address the proper role of state actors and private entities in matters such as setting of standards, research, breeding and extension services. To improve cattle markets, which are presently poorly managed and are devoid of demand driven market practices, an efficient policy framework would introduce, inter alia, the proper application of weights and measures; sale methods; provision of quarantine facility; disposal of carcasses; an application of rental and stall-allocation policies; time-sensitive and equitable means for dispute resolution; enforcement of environmental, public health, and food safety requirements; and mechanisms for meeting recurrent and periodic maintenance requirements.
The challenge of this consultancy is to draft a policy framework with improved institutional arrangements for the governance of livestock markets that is consistent with international best practice.
A. Objective of this Consultancy. The objective of this consultancy is to draft and recommend an international best practice livestock policy framework that promotes efficiency and eliminates rent seeking behavior and market distortions.
B. Specific Tasks of the Consultant(s). Under this Scope of Work, the Consultant(s) shall perform, but not be limited to, the specific tasks specified under the following categories.
1. Background Reading Related to Understanding the Work and Its Context. The
Consultant(s) shall read, but are not limited to, the following materials related to fully understanding the work specified under this Consultancy:
TECH.FT.030, Rev.011, 09/20/12

a. Livestock policies of at least three jurisdictions recognized internationally as being the most progressive in this regard. b. USAID Firms Project Policy and Legal Reviews for Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan c. Economic Reports of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province d. Relevant federal reports, census or surveys carried out to document productivity in the
Livestock Sector of KPK e. Public Sector Budgetary Documents such as the Annual Development Program f. Draft KPK Livestock Policy recommendations of the Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012 g. Existing laws applicable in Pakistan including: i. West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963 ii. West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control (amendment) Ordinance, 1965 iii. West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control (amendment) Ordinance, 1970 iv. Punjab Animals Compound Feeding Stuff Act, 1974 v. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 vi. West Pakistan Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, 1961 h. Relevant reports prepared by the Federal Bureau of Statistics and the KPK Bureau of Statistics i. Schinzel, H. U. (1982), Demand, supply and marketing of livestock products: A case study of a selected area in Punjab. Report No. 9.Lahore: Pak.-German Technical Cooperation, Livestock
Production, Extension and Artificial Insemination Service. j. Livestock Action Plan (2003), Action Plan for Livestock Marketing Systems in Pakistan . Social
Sciences Institute, National Agriculture Research Centre, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. k. An Assessment of Livestock Production Potential in Pakistan: Implications for Livestock
Sector Policy, The Pakistan Development Review Part II (Winter 1999) pp. 615–628
2. Background Interviews Related to Understanding the Work and Its Context. The
Consultant(s) shall interview relevant individuals or groups of individuals in order to fully understand the work specified under this Consultancy. These shall include: a. Firms Project COP, Mr. Donald R. Hart b. Mr. Suleman Ghani, Firms Project Senior Policy Advisor c. Mr. Farrukh Mehboob Khan, Component Lead Value Chain Development d. Mr. Hassaan Ghazalli, Firms Project BEE Specialist e. Relevant short term technical experts associated with the Firms project f. Secretary Agriculture Department, KPK or his designee g. Secretary Forest Department, KPK or his designee h. Representatives of the Ministry of Food Security and Research, Islamabad i. Representatives of relevant firms, trade associations, international development organizations and non-government organizations working in the livestock sector of KPK j. Relevant members of the KPK Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Note that interviews a. through e. may be scheduled for the consultant in one session at the
Firms Project offices.
3. Value –added Tasks Related to Accomplishing the Scope of Work’s Objectives.
The Consultant(s) shall use his/her education, experience, knowledge of international best practices, and additional understanding gleaned from the tasks specified in A. and B. above to accomplish the following:
TECH.FT.030, Rev.011, 09/20/12

a. Review the livestock policies currently in place or under consideration in the KPK Province and evaluate their alignment with international best practices along with their ability to improve performance of the livestock sector b. To compare and contrast the domestic policy framework to policies in jurisdictions recognized as having international best practices c. Identify and detail the deficiencies and distortions in the policy framework and estimate the economic impact and losses caused by such deficiencies/distortions d. Impact analysis related to improved regulations and business processes e. Draft an international best practice livestock policy in a format consistent with that used by the
Government of the KPK, including recommended regulatory framework, business processes and institutional set-ups consistent with fair, efficient, growth-oriented livestock markets. f. Identify the constraints in the provincial agriculture department and other relevant institutions and carry out a needs assessment of public and private sector institutions responsible for livestock market operations g. Identify down-stream Firms Project Actions (using the format in Annex B hereto) that will strengthen/support the livestock markets system of the province h. To perform the above tasks in coordination with Firms Project consultant(s) engaged to carry out a Rapid Market Appraisal i. To perform the above tasks win coordination with Firms Project consultant engaged to carry out a legal review and draft livestock sector legislation j. To provide a consultation and exit meeting with COR and other USAID staff as determined by
COR.
4. Deliverables. The substance of, findings on, and recommendations with respect to the above mentioned tasks shall be delivered by Consultant(s) in a written deliverable in the format described in sections IV., V., and VI. of Annex A – Standard Information that Applies to All
FIRMS Project Scopes of Work.
II. Period and Place of Performance
This assignment is planned to take place between April 20, 2013 and June 8, 2013 with 35 days in country and 9 days in Australia, the consultant’s home of record. By approving this SOW and
Personnel, the COR approves performance outside of the contract’s Place of Performance,
Pakistan, according to section F.4 of the Firms contract.
III. Budget LOE
The total labor for this Consultancy is 44 days LOE, including 3 travel days, as per Annex C hereto.
IV. Qualifications of the Consultant(s)
Consultant must have a Master’s degree, preferably a terminal degree in veterinary sciences, agronomy, natural resource management, livestock economics or related subjects, with at least ten years working experience in the field of livestock management or any other relevant field; measuring and monitoring changes in the efficiency of livestock markets; advising government institutions on the livestock policies; and creating and using various modeling techniques to improve the fair, efficient growth of livestock markets

2. Record of meetings conducted during consultancy
3. Preliminary KPK Legal Report Dr Dil Mohammad
4. Preliminary Rapid Market Appraisal Mr Shahzad Safdar