Category Archives: Okategoriserade

Is there a definite value of water?

This blog post is written by Jennie Barron, Professor at the Department of Soil and Environment; Agricultural water management, SLU

Photo: Jennie Barron, SLU

Water is a multifaceted resource from simply being served our daily glass of water, to the complex flow through the landscapes to produce food, recreation and other ecosystem services. Because of the multiple uses and benefits of water, there are many challenges of valuing and weighting benefits and impacts for the different uses and users.

This becomes evident in times of shocks and in crises. For example such as when the landscape  or society runs out of water, as in the extreme drought of 2018 in Sweden, or when 2 billion of people lack health and sanitation facilities to simply wash hands to cope with COVID-19. The past years global and local crises of COVID-19 has left no one untouched. And the crisis of COVID-19, has really reoriented the issue of conversation of water, and the value of water. 

The projections of water related crises is on the rise, as food security, sustainable development and climate change takes place. The need to find metrics, process and practise to weight the benefit and impacts of water scarcity will therefore be the key. This year’s World Water Development Report is thus a first step to summarise and synthesise the current perspectives on valuing water. It builds on the recent developments such as the High Level Panel of Water  Statement (2018)  “Every drop counts” and  assessments on water security for food and nutrition by FAO (2020)  “ Overcoming water challenges in agriculture“.

 Going from high level statements to reality and practise

 Agriculture is such sector that is an intense water appropriator globally, both in using rainfall, and extracting water for irrigation. In addition, agriculture can have a negative impact on water quality, as a source of agro chemical pollution both from crop and livestock production. Valuing water for irrigation is a particular challenge, as the fresh water from surface and groundwater sources is contested for many users, including the environment, aquatic benefits and food. However, in regions where many people are affected water scarcity and hunger, the value water might bring into agriculture can make significant livelihood improvements. For example in the work assessing benefits for smallholder farmers in the dry area of Bundelkhand , India led by Garg et al (2020), evidence-based soil and water innovations introduced, improved landscape water use and the farmer incomes by up to 170%. At the same time downstream water availability reduced with 40% in a normal rainfall year. Here a dialogue on upstream benefits and values, may need to be negotiated with downstream users.  In a case of livestock systems intensification in Tanzania (Noetenbart et al 2020), choosing the most resource saving option of intensification can have negligible impacts on water use. For example a comparison of livestock production accounting for water appropriation into the fodder, showed that extensive dryland grazing could only marginally increased total water appropriation, whilst improving water productivity with 20-50%, when combining animal health, breeding and feed options.  Here the most water demanding livestock scenario was the system with import of high protein (and more water demanding) fodder crops.

Photo: Jennie Barron, SLU

 Investing to secure water for agriculture is an enabler of development. 

Globally, about 40% of food comes from irrigation-dependent crop production systems, helping to support nutritious and all year food supply. Whereas regions and countries are running out of water, we have other regions that could better support irrigation development to adapt to weather extremes and bring both steady supply of food and nutrition and income. In Sub-Saharan Africa, less than 3% of the crop area is under formal irrigation. Yet smallholder farmers are evolving and investing themselves in so-called farmer led irrigation, despite a number of technical , social and financial challenges (Lefore et al 2019).

It is becoming evident that water is a critical enabler in development and Agenda 2030 for human health, incomes, food and nutrition as well as ecosystem services. Water needs to be bothsafeguarded for multiple benefits, as well as negotiated and explored in some cases, for additional uses in anthropogenic landscapes. By opening for reflecting multiple values, we can develop data, tools and weight benefits and trade-offs more just and equal among uses and users. In 2022, it is the +30 years of the Rio Declaration (UN Earth Summit 1992), including the statement of Integrated water resource development (IWRM) Let’s hope that water is back on the agenda for enabling development as, carefully negotiated for its multiple use and value.


What’s cooking at CGIAR?

Photo credit: UN Sustainable Development Goals

SLU has a long tradition of partnerships with the CGIAR, both at the institutional and individual scientist-level. The CGIAR is the world’s largest agricultural research and innovation network with 8 000 staff globally, focused on agriculture in low and middle income countries.

The CGIAR is currently reorganizing and has launched a new research and innovation strategy with the aim to transform food, land and water systems in a climate crisis. The One CGIAR vision for 2030 is a world with sustainable and resilient food, land and water systems that deliver diverse, healthy, safe, sufficient and affordable diets, and ensure improved livelihoods and greater social equality, within planetary and regional environmental boundaries. Climate change and the climate crisis is at the forefront of the new strategy that describes the food systems challenges in the contexts of six major regions across Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia and Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

The strategy targets multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and strives to achieve measurable benefits across five Impact Areas: (1) Nutrition, health and food security, (2) Poverty reduction, livelihoods and jobs, (3) Gender equality, youth and social inclusion, (4) Climate adaptation and mitigation, and (5) Environmental health and biodiversity. Three-year investment plans are set up for 2022-2024 and a number of CGIAR Initiatives (research programs) are under development. These initiatives will replace the previous Research Programs (CRPs).

The CGIAR will work with regional and national partners including universities and research institutes, business actors, and international partners. Scientists at SLU together with partners in low- and middle income countries from collaborations in research and capacity development are well positioned to contribute to this work. SLU’s global policy for Agenda 2030 points to several opportunities for cooperation between SLU and the CGIAR to contribute to the SDGs. To facilitate and support the dialogue between scientist at SLU and the CGIAR, a one page capacity statement based on SLU’s policy and the CGIAR strategy is made available here.

For more information, please contact the authors:
Ingrid Öborn, Professor at the Department of Crop Production Ecology, ingrid.oborn@slu.se
Ulf Magnusson, Professor at the Department of Clinical Sciences’, ulf.magnusson@slu.se
Sara Gräslund, Head of SLU Global, sara.graslund@slu.se

How Theory of Change can be a pathway to impact: three takeaways

This blog post is written by Anneli Sundin, Communications Lead in the AgriFoSe2030 programme. This post was first published by SEI.

ToC workshop group photo with project teams back in October 2019 at SLU Uppsala, Sweden. Credit: AgriFoSe2030

Theory of Change (ToC) is a systematic approach focusing on pathways to change. This approach can be a key ingredient for a well-functioning project design, blended with stakeholder participation and strategies for communication. Here, three takeaways from a recent paper exploring the use of ToC are outlined.

We still see food and nutrition insecurity in many parts of the world and, in recent years, the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of Zero Hunger (SDG2) seems to have become more difficult to reach. To combat this challenge, smallholder farms need to further increase their productivity.

We in the Agriculture for Food Security (AgriFoSe2030) programme believe that we need to connect and synthesise best available scientific research with policymaking processes, as well as with practices on the ground. We focus on sustainable intensification of smallholder farming systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South and Southeast Asia for improved food and nutrition security and are interested in bringing change that directly benefits smallholder farmers. But we need tools that can guide us. As such, we turned to Theory of Change.

In the recently published paper in the journal Global Food Security, we showcase how we applied Theory of Change in three projects. It is an approach for evaluation, widely used today within development practice, and, stated in the paper as “a systematic way of clarifying the underlying theories and cause-effect pathways that underpin initiatives working to promote social and economic change, particularly in complex interventions”, such as those interventions that take place in agricultural research for development.

All of the three projects were part of the wider AgriFoSe2030 programme, and aimed to translate research into policy and practice. The paper explores the benefits of having used ToC in the projects, as well as some of the challenges it involved.

The projects

All three projects are related to different types of livestock production in low-income countries. One of them looked at how to develop the sector for edible insects as a way to combat food insecurity in Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Another one, based in Uganda, further north in SSA, focused on sustainable dairy production and artificial insemination. The third project was about improved goat keeping for smallholder farmers in a number of different regions in Laos, Southeast Asia.

Field visit to small commercial dairy farm, Uganda. Credit: Anneli Sundin
Goats in their pen, Laos. Credit: Anneli Sundin
Newly built market structure for selling of edible insects. Credit: Robert Musundire

Here, three takeaways from our paper are outlined, exploring how to enable a successful ToC process. At the bottom of this page, you can read more about the ToC stepwise method.

Takeaway 1: Stakeholder engagement as you begin your ToC

Many research studies have shown the importance of stakeholder engagement for a successful research or development project. Throughout each project period, the teams focused on activities that involved reaching out to stakeholders and finding inventive ways to engage with people. For instance, the groups involved stakeholders outside academia from the onset of the projects. The paper states that “drawing on all stakeholders’ perspectives, experience and skills to construct the ToC map strengthened the shared vision, identified the key target groups and developed a realistic ‘pathway’ to guide planning and implementation”.

Through this genuine and early stakeholder engagement, the projects gained wide support early on, which manifested in tangible outcomes in the longer term. For example, in the edible insect project, representatives from the municipality of Chinhoyi in Zimbabwe were part of the project team, and understood through their participation the value and importance of boosting the edible insect sector. As a result, they decided to devote a piece of land to the construction of an insect market facility.

In the example of Laos and goat management, a strong feeling of ownership of the project and its goals was created among the agricultural extension officers (the intermediaries between farmers and researchers), thanks to robust collaboration between the researchers and extension agencies. This also resulted in the project reaching farmers more easily.

Takeaway 2: Allow for flexibility

When we made sure that there was good internal communication within projects, and also between projects and both the AgriFoSe2030 management and the communication and engagement team, everyone had a better understanding of the contexts in which the projects were operating. Hence, it was easier to redirect funding and resources in ways that helped achieve the projects’ desired outcomes. This allowed the project teams to adjust their ToC plans. Previous research points to this as very important for success; in order for them to succeed, projects need to have some degree of flexibility in budgeting and resources, and there is a need for “complexity-aware” approaches.

Takeaway 3: Combine your ToC with communication strategies

In each case, we gave the project teams training and guidance in how to communicate with relevant stakeholders. This covered, for example, how to explore windows of opportunity, and how to tailor speeches, presentations and written texts so that audiences would not just understand, but also listen to them and become interested and involved. The projects used planning matrixes for their communications, in which they mapped specific stakeholder groups, the change they were targeting for that particular group, what messages would work well and through which channels they could communicate them. The projects also made sure these matrixes were aligning well with their ToC plans.

It’s not all rosy – but the benefits outweigh the challenges

The projects did also experience some challenges. It can be difficult to learn the ToC approach if you’re completely new to the concept. It was important to de-mystify it and have a facilitated process with a ToC expert, from start until the end.

The two projects on the African continent aimed at going beyond improving practices to also influence policy. They realised that policy development on governmental level is often a slow and fluid process. Sometimes you rather need bottom-up approaches that can demonstrate clear results. They decided, therefore, to get closer to local policy processes. When a policymaker can clearly see that an activity or initiative is successful on local level, it can open up opportunities for policy changes on regional or national levels.

Early in the process of developing their respective ToCs, the project teams understood that creating associations with their target groups (e.g. the farmers, traders or extension services) would help in consolidating the projects, as well as spreading knowledge and experience to a wider group. However, all three projects struggled with launching these farmers’ or traders’ associations due to the short project periods and contextual challenges linked to “e.g. demographics, the institutional landscape in which the associations operate, the environmental context, as well as underlying economic structure or local economic base”.

However, thanks to the early involvement of stakeholders and the fact that some of these associations could create demonstration farms, spin-off effects could be seen. In the case of dairy farming in Uganda, both an association of AI technicians was formed, as well as a number of farmers’ associations. These activities led to the renewal of the animal fertility and breeding centre at the Makerere University, and AI skills training is now included in the university’s educational programs.

We are yet to see the long-term impact of these AgriFoSe2030 projects, but we understand that ToC has helped them to more effectively integrate science-based knowledge in agricultural practice and policy. When we engage with stakeholders and develop refined communication strategies as part of our ToC planning, we will increase the likelihood of getting on the right path to impact.

What are the steps in a ToC process?

These projects walked through an eight-step process, guided by a ToC facilitator. This process begins with understanding the purpose of using ToC methods and describing the desired change, as well as the current situation. It then continues with the identification of what, where and by whom change needs to be made, and with the mapping of change pathways. Thereafter, strategies are developed for the interventions needed to make that change happen. Last but not least, it is important to look at monitoring and evaluation of the project and reflect on the full process. See the figure below to get an overview of this stepwise approach.

The ToC stepwise approach. Diagram modified from van Es et al. (2015)

Read more about the AgriFoSe programme here
AgriFoSe2030, Agriculture for Food Security, contributes to sustainable intensification of agriculture for increased food production on existing agricultural land; the aim is to do so by transforming practices toward more efficient use of human, financial and natural resources.

Pandemic adapted Swedish-Ugandan training on livestock raising with low use of antibiotics

Written by Kristina Osbjer and Ulf Magnusson at the Department of Clinical Sciences, SLU

Photo: Justine Alinaitwe

The coronavirus pandemic is changing how we work and is providing us with an opportunity to rethink the way we conduct education, sustain research and maintain collaborations. A recent field-training experience in Uganda, combining video recordings, zoom lectures and discussions with local facilitation, has paved the way forward for us within the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock to conduct interactive training in responsible antibiotic use in Ugandan livestock farming communities amidst travel restrictions.

Antimicrobial resistance – the silent pandemic

While the world is preoccupied with fighting COVID-19, antimicrobial resistance is continuing to spread, with serious consequences for health and economies (World Bank, 2017). Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), the ability of microbes to persist and grow in the presence of drugs designed to inhibit or kill them, is accelerated by the excessive and inappropriate use of antimicrobials in humans, animals and crops (FAO, 2020). Low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are predicted to account for most of the increase in antimicrobial use and to carry the largest burden of AMR, but the action and research agenda on AMR has so far been largely driven by the OECD countries (O’Neill J, 2016).

More attention to the conditions of antimicrobial use and resistance in LMICs will be required and was also the focus in a recent webinar arranged by the Livestock Antimicrobial Partnership (LAMP), hosted by SLU Global, where the divergent challenges in curbing AMR in high-income countries as compared to LMICs were discussed (LAMP webinar, 2020).

Sweden as a model to curb Antimicrobial Resistance
Sweden has a long-term experience in producing healthy and productive animals with low antibiotic use. Our unique expertise and lessons learned are internationally recognised and disseminated through online courses (Future learn, 2020) and guidelines (FAO/SLU, 2019 and FAO/SLU, 2020).

A bottom-up approach to influence antimicrobial stewardship in livestock within the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock

SLU is leading the Animal Health Flagship within the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock (CGIAR, 2020). The programme focuses on supporting the development of small-scale livestock farming with the goal ‘more meat, milk and eggs by and for the poor’ primarily targeting Uganda, Ethiopia, Vietnam and Tanzania. SLU contributes to the programme with expertise in herd health and matters related to antibiotic resistance. Such expertise was used also in the training on productive livestock with low use of antibiotics in Uganda. The first round of training was carried out 25-27 November 2020 in Masaka district in collaboration between SLU and colleagues from Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries, Makerere University, and local authorities in Masaka. The SLU moderators participated online, whereas the Ugandan facilitators and training participants gathered in Uganda, following the COVID-19 safety measures imposed by the Uganda Government. A mix of veterinarians from the government and the private sector as well as para-veterinarians and some farmers participated in the training that aimed for a two-way learning process to identify feasible measures to reduce the need for antibiotics and use it only when needed in a medically rational way. The local context was emphasised by taking stock of knowledge and current practices in maintaining healthy animals, the role of animal health professionals and farmers in securing animal health and the prevailing application of good animal husbandry, biosecurity and antimicrobial use. This was followed by pre-recorded and online presentations and discussion on the Swedish model and how alternative practices may be adopted in Uganda.  

Sharing ideas helped us learn from each other

The training participants praised the participatory training approach and the opportunity to learn from each other, realising that among themselves they already had much of the knowledge required to become antibiotic-smart. The combined online and onsite training format was successful, yet, required a venue with stable internet connection. Participating farmers and veterinarians concluded that they were equally responsible to limit the prevailing irresponsible use of antibiotics and proposed more sensitisation campaigns, using highly influential people and practical real-life examples to raise the general awareness of AMR. They also asked for follow-up trainings to enable sustainable change of practices. As facilitators, we gained new insights on how antimicrobials are used and accessed in Uganda and tips on how to improve future hybrid and follow-up trainings. We hope that our experience can inspire others to design and implement pandemic-adapted training.

Wild food as a safety net: Food and nutrition security during the Covid-19 pandemic.

This blogpost is written by Divya Gupta, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, India; Suchita Shrestha, Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies, Kathmandu, Nepal and Harry Fischer, SLU. This article was first published by SIANI.

Andheri Village in Himachal Pradesh, India. Source: Divya Gupta

Edible wild foods have been an important part of the diet for rural populations around the world, primarily in developing countries. They are also an important safety net and contribute to resilience by enabling people to cope with food insecurity in times of rural distress. This has become particularly apparent in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We have conducted research on food security during the COVID-19 pandemic in the mid-Himalayan region of rural India and Nepal, where nationwide lockdowns were imposed starting last the week of March and continued for several months. The lockdown led to movement of all kinds being sharply constrained, which disrupted the food supply chain and created uncertainty in accessibility, availability and affordability of food. Working with local research assistants, we have been able to continue our data collection and conduct interviews (while following strict government guidelines) thereby providing an in-depth understanding of how the effects of the lockdown unfolded in the areas.

Wild mushrooms harvested by a household in Himachal Pradesh, India. Source: Subodh Kumar (Research Assistant)

Over the past few decades, a large proportion of the populations in our study sites have transitioned to cultivating cash crops. While these trends may have increased household incomes overall, they have led to reduced production of food for household’s own consumption and increased dependence on markets for both food and income. The lockdown constrained farmers’ ability to sell their harvest due to transport restrictions to the market, leaving many of them to face huge financial losses. This compromised the purchasing power of the people and increased their reliance on wild foods such as leaves, seeds, nuts, honey, fruits, mushrooms that they can collect from their communal resources, including forests, grasslands, and water bodies.

Rasnalu Village in Ramechhap, Nepal. Source: Divya Gupta

Edible wild foods have been an important coping strategy for households to deal with food shortages following the lockdown, especially for landless households and wageworkers who depend on off-farm employment. The lockdown has had a profound effect on the employment and income of such households. There were families that could not afford adequate food and reported consuming less food than before.

Rasnalu Village in Ramechhap, Nepal. Source: Divya Gupta

A woman from a landless household with eight family members in a remote village in Nepal told us, “my husband is a construction worker, and he lost his job immediately after the lockdown was imposed. This constrained our ability to buy food to adequately feed our family. I was constantly stressed out about this and often resorted to foraging edible wild foods that I was able to find in our forests”. Another smallholder farmer in India shared, “we did not have enough food left in our reserve when the lockdown was imposed, unfortunately it was also a bad season for our crops as we lost most of our harvest to pest infestation. The wild foods that we were able to gather from our forest was a huge respite and we were extremely grateful for that”.  In addition, wild foods were also a convenient option as some households preferred foraging as opposed to spending money buying vegetables from the market, as an interviewee from a small-landholding household from our site in Rasnalu Village in Nepal shared.

“We occasionally collect vegetables growing in the wild. However, during the lockdown owing to the shortage in supply of fresh vegetables and a consequent rise in their price, we relied more on foraging”.

Wild foods in our sites were also perceived to be safe from contamination. Although not based on scientific fact, many households feared consuming produce bought from the market. “We were scared to buy vegetables from the market because we feared they might carry the infection, so we substituted vegetables with wild foods that we would find in our forests”, said a farmer in our study site in India. He further added:

“Once when I had got vegetables from the market, my mother panicked and immediately threw them away. Market bought vegetables were strictly banned in our household”.

In addition, cooking wild foods was also perceived as a way of continuing traditional recipes. For example, in our sites in Nepal, households procured greens such as stinging nettle, fiddlehead fern, and others that are used as an alternate to market-bought/ cultivated vegetables. “These foods are a part of our traditional recipes that we have been cooking for generations”, shared a female respondent.

Fiddlehead ferns. Source: Rakshya Timalsina (Research Assistant)

It is important to note that under normal circumstances, a lot of the households in our study areas use diverse food sources to fulfill the dietary needs of their family, including farms/kitchen gardens, markets, and communal land and water resources. We observed that at the time of the lockdown, wild foods were particularly important for households that lacked adequate income and/or did not have the option of a kitchen garden. Thus, wild foods have been an important component of the food basket for our sample population during the pandemic

Observation from our research highlights the importance of wild foods as carriers of important cultural values and also their roles in helping households cope with food insecurity in the context of shocks and uncertainty, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Often overlooked as a resilience strategy, wild foods are a vital resource that demands more attention in ensuring mechanisms for managing and safeguarding habitats for their long-term sustenance.

This research was supported by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) research project 2018-05875 and a FORMAS Urgent grant 2020-02781.

Antibiotics – a tragedy of the commons

This article was written by Susanna Sternberg Lewerin, Professor in Epizootiology & Disease Control at the Department do Biomedical Sciences & Veterinary public Health, SLU.

Antibiotics kill susceptible bacteria while those who have acquired traits to destroy the drug or protect themselves from it survive and multiply. Resistant bacteria can share their resistance genes with others. Illustration: SLU

Today is the Antibiotic Awareness Day. It is a day to be grateful for these important medicines, and to consider how to best preserve them for the future.

Antibiotics, drugs to combat bacteria, are useful tools in both veterinary and human medicine. They allow us to treat bacterial infections in animals and people, common diseases as well as those that occur due to immunosuppressive treatments such as cancer therapy or following transplant surgery. The problem is that all use of antibiotics kills the susceptible bacteria and leave the field open for those who have  become resistant to the antibiotic. In a successful treatment course, the few remaining (resistant) bacteria can be killed by the host’s immune system and the host, animal or person, is cured. On the other hand, if the majority of the disease-causing bacteria are resistant, the treatment will be ineffective.

To preserve antibiotics as medical tools, we must use them as little as possible, only when needed, in the correct dose so that enough of the drug reaches the body site where the bacteria are causing the disease, and only for the time needed, until the immune system has eliminated the disease-causing bacteria. This is not as easy as it sounds, it takes insight into what diseases cause problems in animals and people in different settings, how to prevent them and how to treat them effectively, with or without antibiotics.

In Sweden, disease prevention is a key feature of veterinary medicine. Good animal husbandry, good biosecurity, vaccination and other strategies to control and prevent disease has been and continues to be a major research focus. We also collaborate in EU projects where different practices, attitudes and societal systems present new challenges that can be addressed by learning from the Swedish experiences (successes as well as failures) and by new ideas and innovations.

In low-income countries, antibiotics are not restricted to prescription from a veterinarian or a doctor but can be bought over-the-counter in drug stores where the products can be of poor quality and the information about how to use them may be lacking or misleading.

Poor farmers sometimes use the volume intended for treatment of one animal to treat several animals (i.e. with a lower dose), rendering the treatment ineffective and paving the way for resistant bacteria without curing the disease. If no veterinarian is involved in determining the cause of the disease, antibiotics may be used to treat diseases that are not caused by bacteria, so that the treatment is a waste of money and, again, promotes the resistant bacteria.

We collaborate with researchers in low-income countries on how to prevent and control animal diseases. We also work on developing systems for monitoring of diseases and antibiotic use, to provide information about what diseases are common and which antibiotics are used effectively. This project also addresses ways to increase the interaction between veterinarians and farmers by video consultations, to facilitate farmers’ access to veterinary advice on disease treatments while improving profitability for both groups. 

It is important to recognise the need for different strategies in different settings, disease prevention and control rely on knowledge of the local situation and its context-specific challenges and opportunities. Still, the worries and hopes of farmers are similar in countries all over the world and serve as incentives for improvement of animal health and production. The long-term goals of our research focus on animal health and welfare, for a sustainable animal production with a sustainable use of antibiotics. We must all contribute to preserving antibiotics for the future. Don’t let it be nobody’s responsibility, it lies with everyone.

Why do we collaborate?

The next chapter of SLU – Vietnam collaborations

Photo: Agnes Bondesson, SLU

Looking back

More than 35 years ago, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences’ (SLU) initiated contact with Vietnamese universities with support from Sida/SAREC. The early research capacity development programmes aimed to strengthen individual and institutional research capacity in Vietnamese priority areas. The programmes have been part of the development agenda to reduce poverty and contribute to the socio-economic development of Vietnam. Several departments and faculties at SLU have over the years been involved in the collaborations. Some of these projects have also involved Swedish MSc and PhD students who have been able to conduct fieldwork in Vietnam. Many programmes have been large long-term projects involving several universities and research institutes in Vietnam and resulting in a large number of Vietnamese MSc and PhD graduates.

SLU Global conducted a detailed evaluation report to increase learning from experiences and to feed into our present and future international collaborations. Focus of the evaluation was on initiatives within the sectors relevant to agriculture, rural development, and forestry. The time scope for the study was 1977-2018. Collaborations result in both long-listed research projects and education. Both key activities provided capacity development at institutional level/national level as well as individuals, and Vietnamese society.

Looking forward into future

1 October 2020, SLU global opened up a new chapter of collaborations by inviting SLU and Vietnamese researchers to an online workshop aiming to be a discussion forum for researchers, teachers and others to explore opportunities and interest in future collaborations based on past experiences between SLU and Vietnam. The purpose with this workshop was to create new possible networks and exchange knowledge between researchers, teachers and others at SLU and in Vietnam. More than 55 researchers were participating in small group discussions to potential future collaborations and what tools we need to make the collaborations possible. Tools, as we recognised from our experiences were not only required research competent, but also administrative supports from the universities. SLU and Uppsala University has joint representative office in Hanoi, providing supportive services connecting researchers and students, including alumni, between the two countries. Moreover, the workshop also made visible financial opportunities from Vietnam, Sweden and the EU.

A small but important step to the future is to allow researchers/teachers between the two countries to discuss their common interests as well as challenges. During the workshop, researchers were divided into 8 groups according to research interests. Common topics discussed during this workshop are varies including, land transformation, climate change, transformation from rice to horticulture, small scale forestry, pest control, agri-business, remote sensing in forest research, payment for forest environmental forestry scheme (PES), animal health, agroforestry etc. Moreover, the workshop group discussions continued to discuss the Joint teacher student exchanges and the access to new online courses. One concrete example is the course on bioinformatics, which is being developed to be given fully digitally by SLU. Voicing from the discussion, researchers from both countries would like to see the expansion of the collaboration beyond Sweden-Vietnam, but South East Asia as target region.

One of the main challenges to continue the engagement is the limitation of funding, considering Vietnam is no longer a priority for international development. Researchers can overcome this challenge by searching new financial opportunities, such as EU and the private sector, as well as focusing on early career development for researchers from low and low-middle income countries. Decreasing of financial support does not stop the ‘Will to Collaborate’. With Covid-19 in the background, online communication channels and platforms will continue to increase, which benefits a long term conversation between researchers and teachers between the two countries.

This blog post was written by Alin Kadfak, Communications Coordinator, SIANI

International collaborations – the key to tackle climate change?

Vietnam seminar
Moderator Annika Åhnberg and evaluator Solveig Freudenthal. Photo: Emelie Olsson

“The reason we evaluate, is to learn.” With these words, SLU’s Vice-Chancellor Maria Knutson Wedel opened up the seminar about SLU’s long collaborations with Vietnam. The importance of international partnerships to tackle the current global challenges was highlighted and there was a joint emphasis from many researchers that it is time to look at the future.

Collaborations between SLU and universities in Vietnam were initiated more than 35 years ago and have had several positive outcomes. During these years, many programmes funded by Sida/SAREC took place, aimed to strengthen individual and institutional research capacity in Vietnamese priority areas. This summer, the report, which evaluates the collaborations between SLU and Vietnam, was completed. The evaluation was in focus at the seminar Tuesday 22 September. The seminar, hosted by SLU, was moderated by Annika Åhnberg, Honorary Doctor at SLU and former Swedish Minister of Agriculture.

SLU’s Vice-Chancellor Maria Knutson Wedel at the seminar. Photo: Emelie Olsson

SLU’s Vice-Chancellor Maria Knutson Wedel opened the seminar by thanking everyone involved and highlighted the importance of long collaborations. State Secretary to the minister for rural affairs, Per Callenberg, sent his greeting to the seminar participants via a recorded video and Vietnam’s ambassador to Sweden, H.E. Phan Dang Duong, welcomed everyone. This was followed by a presentation of the evaluation by Dr. Solveig Freudenthal, the independent consultant that performed the evaluation. 

The main findings of the report were very positive, according to Dr. Freudenthal. Much of the research results generated from the collaborations have been used practically in rural areas in Vietnam and benefitted agriculture, forest production and rural development. All 54 Vietnamese interviewed for the report live and work in Vietnam today. Many came back to Vietnam after their studies and are still at the same university where they started their careers. Numerous have attained senior positions at their faculties. The collaborations between SLU and the Vietnamese universities have also enabled many MSc and PhD students from Sweden to do fieldwork in Vietnam and Vietnamese students to do parts of their degrees at SLU.

All panelists were participating in Zoom. Photo: Emelie Olsson

After Dr. Freudenthal’s presentation, a panel consisting of Sweden’s ambassador to Vietnam H.E. Ann Måwe, Vice-Rector of Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry, Le Dinh Phung, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hoang Huong Giang, Associate Professor at SLU, Sofia Boqvist, and Head of Research Cooperation Unit at Sida, Anna-Maria Oltorp, discussed the importance of agricultural and environmental sciences and international collaborations in tackling the current global challenges.

“There is so much we have in common”, one of them mentioned, connecting it to climate change, and calling future collaborations “necessary”. Another statement made was that research is important in society, but research that is being implemented in society is even better. This is necessary to face the global challenges and work towards Agenda 2030.

One of the effects of supporting several universities and institutions in Vietnam is the strong research and social networks that have been developed between these institutions. The long-term personalised networks of the Swedish and Vietnamese participants have also resulted in strong research relations, according to Dr. Freudenthal, which could continue (given that funding is available), not as capacity development programmes but as joint research projects between equal partners.

An open discussion with all participants, where important and valuable comments and reflections came up, ended the seminar. A key lesson from Dr. Freudenthal’s evaluation is that exposure to international research and networks is crucial to develop conducive research environments. This also became evident during the seminar. Several participants showed an interest in future research collaborations between Sweden and Vietnam, which left much to discuss at the more in-depth workshop 1 October.  

Why are people still dying of rabies?

This article was written by Johanna Lindahl, researcher at the Department of Clinical Sciences; Division of Reproduction, SLUThe findings and conclusions in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of SLU.

Stray dogs. Photo: Javad Esmaeili, pixabay

Imagine that you have two children. Both children are bitten by a dog that seems to have rabies, but you cannot know and now the dog has been killed. If the dog really had rabies, then the children will get it. If the children get a vaccination in time, they will not die. But the hospital is far away, the vaccine costs money and you can only afford to do this for one child, and maybe you will not make it on time. That money you would need for food for the family, and the rest of the family will suffer if you travel with one child. Maybe the dog did not really have rabies. Maybe the child that you chose to save will anyway not make it in time. What shall you do?

Rabies is a disease with 100% case fatality, but it is also a fully vaccine-preventable disease. So why are people still dying?

Globally, canine rabies is still one of the zoonotic diseases (diseases spreading to humans from animals) responsible for most human deaths (1). The vast majority of the 59 000 human deaths worldwide (2) are the result of bites from rabid dogs, with most deaths occurring in Asia (3–5). Children are most affected, probably because they are more easily bitten by dogs. In many countries, the number of cases is probably underestimated since there is no official rabies monitoring system. Since dogs are the main reservoir and source of infection for humans, vaccination of dogs is recognised as the most cost-effective and permanent solution to rabies prevention (6,7).

Numerous recent programmes have facilitated rabies control in low-resource settings, however these costly programmes have not yet achieved sufficient and sustainable vaccination coverage of 70%, which is required to eliminate canine rabies (8–10). Expansion of rabies elimination programmes in low-resource countries has been constrained by many factors:

  1. It is difficult to buy and transport the vaccines for injections, since they have to be kept cold all the time. Many countries have difficulties maintaining a cold chain, or reaching remote populations with vehicles.
  2. Many dogs are free roaming or aggressive and therefore difficult to catch and vaccinate.
  3. The dogs are often not living for very long, and therefore it is necessary to vaccinate all dogs in an area regularly to make sure that at least 70% of them are protected.
  4. Even when vaccinated, some dogs are in too poor condition for them to create enough antibodies to be protected. This can be because of malnutrition, or because of other infections, for example with parasites.

Even though vaccination of dogs is relatively expensive, the costs of human post-exposure vaccination, meaning vaccination that occurs after a person is bitten but before disease has started, is even larger. If given in good time, post-exposure vaccination will stop the disease from developing, but in many countries, there are not so many places where the vaccines are administered, and the victim has to pay for it themselves. As an example, in Cambodia people bitten by dogs can get the vaccine for free, but there are only three places in the whole country that provides this. Thus, most people that are potentially exposed to this horrible disease never gets vaccinated and may die undiagnosed in their home. Once a person develops the disease, there is nothing a hospital can do except to try to ease the symptoms. In many low and middle-income countries there is no provision for this, and the victim would be sent home to die.

Even if the reality is grim in many parts of the world, dog-transmitted rabies could be eradicated if enough dogs would be vaccinated, either by injections or by vaccine-baited food. So why has it not happened? The answer to this may lay in the lack of collaboration between human and veterinary sectors. This can be illustrated in this example from Europe: A person is bitten by a cat, imported from another country and not vaccinated. The veterinary authority agrees that it may be rabies, and the cat has to be autopsied to make the diagnosis. However, they judge it not urgent enough to pay for express transport and do the autopsy the same day, instead the animal will be autopsied the next Monday, after the weekend. However, the health sector, who has gotten the bitten patient, judge that they cannot take the chance, and initiate the post-exposure treatment, which not only has a high cost, but also some suffering for the patient. The savings done by the veterinary authority was minimal compared to the costs incurred by the hospital, resulting in higher costs for the government, which in the end funds both.

Vaccination costs for eradication of rabies in the dog population would be carried by the veterinary sector, and the savings would benefit the human health sector. This points to the need of a One Health approach with increasing collaboration between both sectors, for improved health for all. We can stop rabies, but we need to think outside our siloes and boxes and work together.

In our new project “Man’s best friend: A crossborder transdisciplinary One Health approach to rabies control in dogs in Southeast Asia”, led by the Zoonosis Science Centre at Uppsala University, we look at both dog population dynamics, antibody coverage, as well as the knowledge of people choosing to vaccinate their dogs to understand how we can improve the situation. This is done together with institutes in Vietnam, Cambodia and Lao. We aim to apply for more funds to also investigate alternatives with oral vaccination in the future, which hopefully can save more lives.

References

1.             Fooks AR, Banyard AC, Horton DL, Johnson N, McElhinney LM, Jackson AC. Current status of rabies and prospects for elimination. Lancet [Internet]. 2014 Oct 11 [cited 2018 Apr 3];384(9951):1389–99. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673613627075

2.             OIE. Report of the meeting of the OIE biological standards commission [Internet]. Paris; 2017. Available from: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/BSC/A_BSC_Sept2017.pdf

3.             Taylor L, Nel L. Global epidemiology of canine rabies: past, present, and future prospects. Vet Med Res Reports [Internet]. 2015 Nov [cited 2017 Mar 7];Volume 6:361. Available from: https://www.dovepress.com/global-epidemiology-of-canine-rabies-past-present-and-future-prospects-peer-reviewed-article-VMRR

4.             Shwiff S, Hampson K, Anderson A. Potential economic benefits of eliminating canine rabies. Antiviral Res [Internet]. 2013 May 1 [cited 2017 Mar 24];98(2):352–6. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0166354213000582

5.             Cleaveland S, Lankester F, Townsend S. Rabies control and elimination: a test case for One Health. Veterinary [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 Mar 25]; Available from: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/175/8/188.short

6.             Wallace RM, Undurraga EA, Blanton JD, Cleaton J, Franka R. Elimination of Dog-Mediated Human Rabies Deaths by 2030: Needs Assessment and Alternatives for Progress Based on Dog Vaccination. Front Vet Sci [Internet]. 2017 Feb 10 [cited 2018 Apr 3];4:9. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fvets.2017.00009/full

7.             Zinsstag J, Lechenne M, Laager M, Mindekem R, Naïssengar S, Oussiguéré A, et al. Vaccination of dogs in an African city interrupts rabies transmission and reduces human exposure. Sci Transl Med [Internet]. 2017 Dec 20 [cited 2018 Apr 7];9(421):eaaf6984. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29263230

8.             Elser JL, Hatch BG, Taylor LH, Nel LH, Shwiff SA. Towards canine rabies elimination: Economic comparisons of three project sites. Transbound Emerg Dis [Internet]. 2018 Feb 1 [cited 2018 Apr 3];65(1):135–45. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/tbed.12637

9.             Kayali U, Mindekem R, Yémadji N, Vounatsou P, Kaninga Y, Ndoutamia AG, et al. Coverage of pilot parenteral vaccination campaign against canine rabies in N’Djaména, Chad. Bull World Health Organ [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2018 Apr 3];81:739–44. Available from: https://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862003001000009&script=sci_arttext&tlng=

10.          Anyiam F, Lechenne M, Mindekem R, Oussigéré A, Naissengar S, Alfaroukh IO, et al. Cost-estimate and proposal for a development impact bond for canine rabies elimination by mass vaccination in Chad. Acta Trop [Internet]. 2017 Nov 1 [cited 2018 Apr 3];175:112–20. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001706X16305101

Deagrarianisation: From South Africa to Europe

This blog post was originally posted on SIANI:s website by researcher Klara Fisher, SLU.

Photo: Klara Fischer, SLU

In recent years, rural people have increasingly abandoned agriculture. This trend, often referred to as deagrarianisation in academic debate, occurs in both smallholder contexts and industrial farming. However, the abandonment of farming has the clearest negative effects on rural food security and livelihoods in the smallholder farms of the Global South.

On May 5, 2020 SIANI and the South Africa Sweden University Forum (SASUF) co-hosted a webinar about deagrarianisation where experienced researchers from Europe and South Africa presented, discussed and compared agricultural trends in South Africa with those of Sweden, Hungary and Ukraine. The webinar attracted an audience of 100 people and generated lively discussions between participants and presenters.

Today, farmers across the world experience increased competition, high costs of inputs and low price at farm gates. In the face of the increasing pressure on agriculture, farmers react differently. Large commercial farmers often see upscaling as the only viable option for remaining competitive.

As a result, South Africa’s large commercial farms as well as European farms are becoming fewer and larger, when more competitive farms purchase or lease the land of less competitive neighbours.

Cecilia Waldenström describes here how this general trend has played out in three regions in Sweden. In the south of the country with the best agricultural lands there was a clear trend of upscaling and increased mechanisation. In more marginal areas with lower quality agricultural land and longer distances to markets farmers employed strategies of low input -low output production, similar to what is seen in many smallholder contexts in the Global South. Cecilia also pointed out the lack of availability of agricultural education and advisory services in marginal regions, a trend seen equally in the Global South.

Brian Kuns and Ildikó Aztalos Morell presented research from two post-communist contexts in Eastern Europe. Under the soviet authoritarian regime, land was commonly allocated in large field areas outside of the villages, while most households also had a plot in the village for subsistence. There are clear similarities between this land allocation and the top-down instituted reorganisation of fields into communal areas outside villages and the homelands during apartheid in South Africa.

In Hungary and Ukraine the landscape creates by the soviet authoritarian regime has facilitated elite capture and large-scale investments. In the Ukraine smallholders today lease out their plots for small sums of money to food processing oligarchs and foreign investors and this has led Ukraine to host some of the largest commercial farming operations in the world.

In South Africa such investments are rare, and instead, there is widespread abandonment of fields in communal areas as described in some detail during the webinar by ProfessorSheona Shackleton.

Most of smallholders in South Africa as well as in Ukraine, testify that it is difficult to work on the communal fields individually. These areas are far away from their house and it takes time to get there, so it is difficult to tend to the field. Lack of capital is also a major barrier for investing in machinery, fencing and inputs.

While Ukrainian farmers make a profit from their farms by leasing the land to a large landowner, it is important to remember that today’s industrial farms employ very few people, which has been contributing to joblessness and rural poverty.

David Neves and Flora Hajdu described the increasing importance of the South African welfare system, with child grants and pensions, for reducing vulnerability and food insecurity in the face of deagrarianisation and increasing joblessness.

Several of the presenters pointed out how the general trend of deagrarianisation does not mean that farming is no longer important for rural people. Also, there are countertendencies to the general trend. In Sweden and across Europe, contestations of the industrialisation and upscaling of farming are emerging in slow food movements, local farmers’ markets and efforts to preserve traditional crop varieties, where farmers capitalise on other values than quantity and price.

Paul Hebinck provided examples where South African smallholders had decided to continue to farm their fields, or re-open them, and how they take pride in maintaining their agricultural lifestyles, local varieties of seed and livestock.

The presenters also noted that both in South Africa and Ukraine many people have homegardens, growing their food, even when they abandon field farming. Thus, abandonment of distant fields isn’t the same as the abandonment of farming.

Flora Hajdu also described how the small money from welfare payments could be important for being able to reinvest in intensifying household gardening and the local sale of vegetables.

Despite the general trend of deagrarianisation, the seminar showed that it does not equal to abandoning of agriculture – farming will remain an important livelihood strategy for those living in rural areas and with access to land, although it will not always be managed in the same way as in the past.


This post is written by Klara Fischer, researcher at SLU. Her research concerns how smallholders’ adopt and adapt new technologies and practices, the relationship between smallholders’ practices and agricultural policy and advice and broader societal discourses on agriculture development and natural resource management.