The first pillar develops a global socio-economic analysis of the AMs decision-systems in different livestock production systems to identify the main AMU drivers and the technical, social, economic, and institutional lock-ins to be tackled in the transition towards prudent AMU. WP1 is led by UNIBO and EV-ILVO and studies stakeholders’ behaviours and strategies towards AMU. It assesses AMs consumption in different sectors and countries and analyses how the structure of the food and drug supply chains and the regulatory frameworks influence AMU. WP2 is led by HUT and CU and studies current practices, knowledge and motivations of animal health professionals regarding AMU and animal health management at the farm level.
The second pillar develops integrative strategies to reduce AMU through improved health management, by relying on Pillar 1 results and on action-research programs developed in “Living Labs”. WP3 is led by AU and INRA and uses participatory approaches to develop levers and incentives for more resource-efficient animal health management practices, more inclusive and practice-oriented advisory and veterinary services, and collective action in farmer communities and between animal health professionals for lasting changes. WP4 is led by FiBL and ZLTO and relies on these incentives and on existing technologies, knowledge and strategies to co-design and develop solutions which will combine socio-economic and technical innovations to foster prudent AMU.
The third pillar validates and synthesizes the different strategies which have been studied or implemented to foster prudent AMU. WP5 is led by ULIV and INRAE and extracts key learning from the case-studies, across animal species, national and regional differences, and measure the effectiveness of the implemented strategies. WP6 is led by CIRAD and AU and brings together the diverse learning from the assessed strategies, identify transition pathways and build scenarios recommendations for efficient transition towards prudent use of AMs in diverse contexts.
The fourth pillar ensures effective outreach of the project towards a large community of stakeholders and end-users, and facilitates the exchange of information and knowledge. WP7 is led by EFFAB and FEUGA and manages the communication and dissemination strategy of the project. It uses conventional and innovative tools including digital media channels, audio-visual materials, workshops, publications, practice abstracts and trainings to efficiently reach out to each target audience group.
The fifth pillar ensures the scientific coordination of the project and maximizes interactions between partners and disciplines. WP8 is led by INRA and IT and includes strategic steering, project monitoring and consortium coordination.
ROADMAP is organized in case studies that are taking place in 10 different countries (Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, UK, France, Switzerland, Italy, Vietnam, Mozambique) and 4 production sectors (pig, poultry, dairy and beef). The objective is to study a variety of contexts and production systems as we strongly believe that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution or “one-way” transition to foster prudent AMU. On the contrary, we want to develop tailored strategies that are efficient and acceptable in given situations, and we want to learn and draw inspiration from each experience to encourage global change that is pushing everyone towards the same direction, i.e. better agriculture and food systems for a better planet! Our case-studies are categorized in three clusters that help us to develop critical reflections on the current strategies aimed at reducing AMU.
This first CSC aims at studying strategies to reduce AMU developed in intensive and conventional livestock production systems. It is hypothesised that in such systems AMU drivers and levers for change are quite specific, due to particular animal health management practices, contractual arrangements with downstream and upstream industries, and professional relationships with veterinary and technical advisors.
This second CSC aims at studying strategies to reduce AMU developed in alternative livestock production systems, either they are part of sustainable standards such as organic labels or still rely on intensive farming but that takes part and develops AM-free standards. Comparing fieldworks from CSC1 and CSC2 will help to better understand systems’ differences and similarities, and how farmers and stakeholders deal with the coexistence of several systems and their respective opportunities (for ex., when farmers distribute their production between different type of standards).
This third CSC aims at studying strategies to reduce AMU developed in marginal livestock production systems. By marginal we mean several things. First of all, it could be farms in marginalized rural areas that don’t have easy access to veterinary or technical advisory services. Second, it could be marginalized animals (young animals, secondary production…) and/or workers (migrants, women, youth…) which are not considered as a priority in the farm management. Third, it could be countries where the AM regulatory framework is very peculiar and/or hardly enforced. It is hypothesised that the features of marginal systems create unique AMU drivers and levers for change. It is therefore important to recognize the sociotechnical and socioeconomic specificities of such farming systems to be able to find adequate strategies to reduce AMU in every kind of context.