See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/8621752

Livestock Services and the Poor

Article  in  Tropical Animal Health and Production · May 2004

DOI: 10.1023/B:TROP.0000016831.75454.2c · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

25 1,274

2 authors, including:

Vinod Ahuja
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
36 PUBLICATIONS   535 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dairy Asia and Climate Change View project

Livestock Service Delivery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vinod Ahuja on 22 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Livestock Services
and the Poor
A Global Initiative
Collecting, coordinating and disseminating experiences

Draft Report

An initiative sponsored by Danida, IFAD and The World Bank

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

DANIDA
Jorgen Henriksen
Chief Technical Adviser
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tel.: + 45 33 92 00 00
Fax: + 45 33 92 07 90
Email: Jorhen@um.dk

IFAD – INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Ahmed E. Sidahmed
Technical Advisor/ Focal Point
Livestock & Rangeland Systems Technical Advisory Division
Tel.: + 39 06 5459 2455 (assistant 2513)
Fax: + 39 06 5459 2018
Email: a.sidahmed@ifad.org

THE WORLD BANK

Cees de Haan
Agriculture and Rural Development Department
Room MC 5-721
Tel.: 1-202-473-0347
Fax: 1-202-522-3308
Email: Cdehaan@worldbank.org

CONTRACTED EXECUTING INSTITUTIONS

Sanne Chipeta
The Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre, DK
Tel.: + 45 118 931 8478
Fax: + 45 118 926 2431
Email: sac@lr.dk
http://www.globallivestock.org

Claire Heffernan
The University of Reading, UK
Livestock Development Group
School of Agriculture, Policy and Development
Email: clheffernan@hotmail.com
http://www.reading.ac.uk

CASE STUDY PARTNERS

Kenya Sam Chema and Leonard Oruko

India Vinod Ahuja, Pramodini Pradhan and P. Venkatramaiah
Bangladesh Hafezur Rahman and Nasrin Jahan
Bolivia Abel Rojas, Miguel Morales Sanchez and Ronald Bellot Alcazar
Denmark Flemming Just

The opinions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions participating in this Initiative.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................i

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... iv

Foreword .................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary................................................................................................................1

Introduction.............................................................................................................................7

Chapter 1 Poor Livestock Keepers.....................................................................................11

The number of poor livestock keepers ..................................................................12
The livestock production systems of the poor .......................................................13
The role of livestock for the poor...........................................................................15
Livestock are first and foremost financial capital ..........................................15
Livestock are also social capital...................................................................17
Livestock can maintain the natural capital....................................................18
Livestock can enhance human capital and reduce malnutrition ...................19
Livestock and particularly vulnerable groups.........................................................20
Women play important roles in livestock production ....................................20
Perceptions about livestock differ according to gender ................................20
Ownership and control of livestock ..............................................................22
Women contribute much labour in caring for livestock .................................22
Women can loose strategic roles.................................................................23
Livestock and AIDS .....................................................................................23
The service needs of livestock keepers ................................................................25
The problems related to livestock ................................................................26
Who defines the needs of the poor? ............................................................27
Need for poverty-focused livestock services ................................................28
The impact of livestock development on the poor .................................................31

Chapter 2 The Delivery of Livestock Services ...................................................................35

Service Providers..................................................................................................35
Public and private roles in service delivery ..................................................35
Centralised public services ..........................................................................37
Decentralised public services ......................................................................38
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) ..................................................39
Private services ...........................................................................................40
Combining the roles of actors in community-based delivery systems...........41
Producer organisations................................................................................42
Financing livestock services .................................................................................44
Developing financing systems for livestock services for the poor.................44
The financial viability of private veterinary services......................................47

Chapter 3 The Focus of Livestock Services ......................................................................49

The Poverty Focus of Livestock Services .............................................................49
Strengthen the capacity of the rural poor and their organisations..........................50

i
 Organisational support.................................................................................50
Livestock advisory services and skill development ......................................51
Improve equitable access to productive natural resources and technology...........55
Access to land and water resources ............................................................55
Appropriate pro-poor technologies...............................................................57
Pro-poor livestock technologies should:.......................................................57
Animal health services.................................................................................61
Animal breeding services.............................................................................64
Access to inputs ..........................................................................................66
Increase access to financial services and markets................................................67
Savings and credit schemes ........................................................................67
Access to markets .......................................................................................73
Market development and organisation .........................................................74
HIV/AIDS and livestock services...........................................................................76
HIV/AIDS affect livestock services ...............................................................76
Livestock services have a role in AIDS-affected areas.................................77

Chapter 4 Recommended Actions......................................................................................79

Searching for the highest returns ..........................................................................79
Enhancing inclusion..............................................................................................79
Focusing on key issues ........................................................................................80

References ............................................................................................................................85

Figures
Figure 1. The poverty cycle for poor livestock keepers..........................................................9
Figure 1-1. Rank of best investments.....................................................................................15
Figure 1-2. Rank of income sources ......................................................................................16
Figure 1-3. Most important livestock problems .......................................................................26
Figure 2-1. Multifaceted advantages of producer and community organisation ......................43
Figure 3-1. IFAD framework and strategic objectives .............................................................49

Boxes
Box 1-1. Livestock systems in Koraput district .......................................................................13
Box 1-2. Lucia, a widow in western Mexico ............................................................................16
Box 1-3. Introduction of zero-grazed dual-purpose goats to farms in Tanzania ......................18
Box 1-4. The Nandi people of Kenya .....................................................................................23
Box 1-5. Farmers perceptions of farming systems in Bolivia ..................................................27
Box 1-7. Dairy and poverty reduction for women, Ganjam District, Orissa .............................32
Box 2-1. The Danish case – increasing livestock productivity through advisory service .........37
Box 2-2. The Law of Popular Participation in Bolivia ..............................................................38
Box 2-3. Perceptions of participation......................................................................................39
Box 2-4. Transaction costs to deliver services to the poor......................................................40
Box 2-5. The poultry model in Bangladesh.............................................................................41
Box 2-6. Learning lesson about poultry vaccinations from Bastar ILDP, India ........................45
Box 3-1. Livestock extension service for women in Pakistan..................................................52
Box 3-2. Five biases in livestock extension in India................................................................52
ii
Box 3-3. Farmers’ Field Schools for development of IPM in Indonesia...................................55
Box 3-6. Rabbit project in Togo..............................................................................................58
Box 3-7. Experience from smallholder dairy projects in Zimbabwe.........................................59
Box 3-9. Introduction of Boer goats to small-scale farmers in Botswana ................................60
Box 3-10. Veterinary services provided by dairy cooperatives ...............................................62
Box 3-11. Two examples of community participation in animal health care ............................64
Box 3-12. The Sonali hen for poor landless women in Bangladesh........................................65
Box 3-13. Nucleus breeding...................................................................................................66
Box 3-14. SHGs in ILDP intervention area in Koraput, Orissa................................................70
Box 3-15. Success in the micro-credit scheme for poultry in Bangladesh...............................72
Box 3-16. Loans for women dairy societies in Orissa .............................................................73

Tables
Table 1-1. Number and location of poor livestock keepers (millions)......................................12
Table 1-2. Typology of poor livestock keepers .......................................................................14
Table 1-3. The place of livestock in the income of the rich and poor ......................................17
Table 1-4. Reasons for keeping livestock in Kenya, Bolivia, and India ...................................21
Table 1-5. Methods and related biases applied to define needs.............................................28
Table 1-6. Livestock services and the constraints of poverty..................................................30
Table 2-1. Characteristics of service providers.......................................................................36
Table 2-2. Prospects for user payment of livestock services ..................................................46
Table 3-1. Primary features of financial systems....................................................................68
Table 3-2. Milk marketing in the greater Nairobi milk shed, Kenya .........................................75
Table 4-1. Recommendations on cross-cutting Issues ...........................................................81
Table 4-2. development and implementation in different production systems.........................82

iii
Acknowledgements
This document is the result of a large combined effort of many partners. The study team from
Reading University and the Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre carried out a major study of
literature and conducted site visits and meetings with many stakeholders in Kenya, Orissa in
India, Bangladesh, and Bolivia. Local partners completed the case studies from their
respective countries. The case studies were presented at national workshops with local
stakeholders within the livestock sector in Orissa, Bangladesh, and Bolivia. Stakeholder
contributions were incorporated in the final case studies. This process would not have been
possible without the impressive involvement and cooperation of many people and
organisations. The study team is therefore happy to express their gratitude for the cooperation,
inspiring discussions, meetings, and workshops, as well as all other assistance rendered to the
team.

The technical backstopping team included:

• Frands Dolberg from University of Aarhus;

• Anders Permin, The Poultry Network; and Poul Henning Pedersen, Institute of
Livestock Sciences; both from The Royal Danish Veterinary and Agricultural University;
and
• Eyvind Kristensen from Danida.

All have all been extremely helpful in sharing their knowledge, information, and long-time
experience with the working team. This was valuable in the beginning phases while searching
relevant contacts and literature, as well as along the way, when lots of questions started to
appear.

During the preparation and implementation of the case studies, a number a people in the case
study countries rendered assistance and advice of extreme value. They were:

• Helge Brunse, Cornell Dash, and Sandya Dash, all Danida advisers in Orissa; and Jan
Morrenhof, adviser for Swiss Development Cooperation – NRMPO, also in Orissa

• Jørgen W. Hansen and Nazir Ahmed, both Danida advisers in Bangladesh

• Sven Nielson, Per Rasmussen, and Abel Rojas, Danida advisors in Bolivia

The staff working with these individuals have all been extremely dedicated in making the work
possible. Their roles were especially important in facilitating contacts by the team with relevant
stakeholders, as well as their assistance on practical arrangements. Their efforts are highly
appreciated.

The team has furthermore met with and drawn on the knowledge and experience of a long line
of organisations, professionals, livestock keepers, and communities in all case study countries.
These are all mentioned in the case study reports, but the team expresses great appreciation
for their contributions because the document for a great part rests on their views and
experience.

iv
Foreword
This report was prepared by Sanne Chipeta, Egil Hoydahl, and Johannes Krog from DAAC.
They used material prepared by Dr Claire Heffernan from the University of Reading and case
studies prepared by Drs Sam Chema and Leonard Oruko - Kenya; Drs Vinod Ahuja, Pramodini
Pradhan, and P. Venkatramaiah – Orissa, India; Drs Hafezur Rahman and Nasrin Jahan -
Bangladesh; Drs Miguel Morales Sanchez, Ronald Bellot Alcazar and Abel Rojas - Bolivia ;
and Flemming Just - Denmark.

Guidance throughout the preparation of the report was provided by the Steering Committee
members: Cees de Haan - the World Bank, who also contributed to the redaction of the final
document; Dr Jorgen Henriksen - The Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs ; and Dr.
Ahmed E Sidahmed - IFAD. Seth Beckerman provided editorial support. A panel of IFAD
reviewers for the initial draft included Drs Rodney Cooke, Annina Lubbock, David Kingsbury,
and Desiree Hagenaars. Technical and production support was provided by Antonio Rota -
IFAD Technical Advisory Division, and IFAD Publication Unit ( Maria Elisa Pinzon, Birgit
Plockinger).

v
Executive Summary
The global community has agreed to reduce global poverty by half by 2015
and improve the livestock-related livelihoods of the estimated 600 million
poor livestock keepers who can make an important contribution toward this
goal. The fast growing demand for livestock products in the developing world
opens opportunities for economic growth led poverty reduction, provided the
appropriate policies and institutions are in place. This document assesses
the possibilities for poor livestock keepers to benefit from these market
opportunities for livestock products. Access to good quality livestock services
will be one of the most critical avenues to exploit this market potential. This
document seeks to inform decision makers on the design and
implementation of more efficient pro-poor livestock services. First, it provides
a profile of poor livestock keepers, and then describes past experience with
different service providers and types of services to poor livestock keepers. It
concludes with a plan of action. The information and analysis in the
document are based on a study of the available literature and case studies
from Bangladesh, Bolivia, Denmark, India (the state of Orissa), and Kenya.

The analysis of Chapter One concludes that livestock can be indispensable

parts of the livelihood systems of many poor rural and urban populations in
developing countries, as well as play a crucial role in the farming system and
decrease vulnerability of households. However, present national and global
policies, as well as current livestock services, often favour large-scale
production. Enhancing livestock development alone will therefore not
necessarily contribute to poverty alleviation. To the contrary — without
proper targeting, livestock development might contribute to crowding out
poor livestock keepers. Fundamental root causes of poverty and wider needs
related to health, education, and housing in livestock-based communities
must be addressed if livestock interventions are to produce widespread and
substantial poverty reduction. Livestock services can contribute through
empowerment and increased income, as seen in poverty-focused projects in,
for example, India dairy and Bangladesh poultry. Livestock services,
however, will not be able to address all the issues connected to poverty.

It is therefore crucial that inclusive and effective poverty reduction

strategies be adopted at a policy level, which include enabling policies that
address the root causes of poverty, as well as enhance development of
pro-poor livestock services.

In addition, Chapter One analyses the role of livestock development for

particularly vulnerable groups such as women and HIV/AIDS-affected
households.

Gender focus is necessary

Women play important roles in livestock keeping and experience shows that
when providing livestock services and designing livestock development
programmes, a targeted approach improves overall poverty reduction impact.
Securing women’s access and control of productive and natural resources
such as land, livestock, and credit are strengthening women’s influence and
social empowerment.
1
AIDS affected households have specific needs for livestock services
Poverty and livestock production are severely affected in areas affected by
HIV/AIDS, which is particularly the case in Sub Saharan Africa. It is therefore
essential that livestock sector development programmes address the
consequences for services as well as specific needs of the affected
households. Many needs are in line with the general needs of poor
households, but orphaned households and communities particularly need to
train orphaned youth in livestock production and technologies, which have
high output for the labour invested.

Delivery systems must empower the users

Chapter Two discusses different delivery systems and strengths and
weaknesses of different types of service providers. Depending on the degree
of private good, poor users are willing and able to pay for services. Such
payments are critical to ensure user ownership of service delivery systems,
and hence their sustainability. The overall conclusion is::

Delivery systems that make service providers responsible to their users and
give users a free choice of providers enhance the negotiating power of
users, increase the quality of services, and enhance their sustainability.

Public and private sector roles must be clear

The division of responsibilities between public and private roles in service
delivery is moving towards an increased role for the private sector in direct
service delivery, whilst the public role changes towards overseeing quality, in
particular in services, where there are “public good” elements such as market
failure, moral hazards, or externalities. Chapter Two provides several
examples of how public sector involvement in direct delivery of services
hinders development of the private sector. On the other hand, poverty
reduction is a public good, and while the implementation of poverty reduction
might be entrusted to private operators, it remains a public sector
responsibility to ensure the enabling environment and funding targeted at
poverty reduction activities in infrastructure, education, and research.

Different actors can provide livestock services, but in order to provide

relevant and effective services to the poor, poor livestock keepers must be
the main decision makers on scope and content of services. A better
integration of poor livestock keepers in policy debates surrounding the
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers is essential if their voices are to be
heard. Participatory methodologies alone are not enough — they are often
biased towards the concepts and experience of the facilitator, thus the main
conclusion here is that:

Enhancing community institutions, small private enterprises, and producer

organisations are the most important tools in the poverty alleviation
process.

Enable the rural poor to take action

Chapter Three looks at the focus of livestock services and shows that
livestock services which can enable rural poor to reduce their poverty must
enable them to take action. The chapter uses IFAD’s Strategic Framework —

2
enabling the rural poor to overcome their poverty (IFAD, 2002). Livestock
services are thus analysed according to their ability to:

• Strengthen the capacity of the rural poor and their organisations

• Improve equitable access to productive natural resources and
technology
• Increase access to financial services and markets

The following summarises the conclusions from this chapter.

Organisations that include the poor should be strengthened

Small-scale producers can gain from organising and working together to
identify their needs, consolidate demands, and achieve economies of scale
in service delivery. Producer organisations that are truly owned and
controlled by producers have a potential to empower farmers and facilitate
delivery of services which respond to their needs and meet required quality
standards. However, the reality is that public sector involvement has often
led to top-down, undemocratic, and non-inclusive organisations and that poor
livestock keepers usually are not members or have only little influence. Many
problems and constraints are attached to the weak position that the poor
hold in terms of rights, education, knowledge, and political influence.

It is therefore essential to build capacity in organisations that include poor

livestock keepers and are genuinely established from the bottom up.

Development of livestock advisory services is urgently needed

Livestock advisory services such as information about fodder production,
low-cost technologies, and development of husbandry and management
skills are major needs of poor livestock keepers. These services have
received limited attention in the past. The concept of livestock advisory
services to the poor therefore needs to be built almost from scratch. Central
to the advisory services should be the focus on knowledge and learning
systems which strengthen the livestock keeper’s capacity to demand,
organise, or seek information, training, and advice from efficient sources.
The development of farmer-to-farmer systems and integrated crop-livestock
systems need to be tested. These can provide an opportunity to combine
development with recent new initiatives within the related agricultural
extension services.

Equitable access to scarce land and water resources must be ensured

Equitable access to land and water resources and secure land use systems
that are also appropriate to pastoral livestock systems are determining
factors for the future prospects of many poor livestock keepers. The
increasing scarcity of land and water has wide implications for prioritisation of
livestock production systems in different areas and among groups of poor
people. Developing production and farming systems that include fodder
production or use alternative sources and also consider the labour and land
constraints of poor farmers are important interventions.

3
Poor livestock keepers must be involved in technology generation
Improved technology for poor livestock keepers must first aim to stabilise
production systems, and therefore should focus on low-risk and low-input
technologies. More attention is needed on the animals they own (often small
livestock), the areas they occupy (often marginal and remote areas), and the
products they sell (milk, eggs, and cottage industry processing). One
essential way to ensure that generated technologies respond to the
prioritised needs of the poor is to involve the poor in prioritising and
monitoring research on livestock technology.

Access to animal health services is essential

The private sector can play an important role in providing animal health
services, and private service systems have the potential to also serve poor
livestock keepers. However, because conventional veterinary services are
not economically viable in marginal areas, it is necessary to further
strengthen low-cost systems. Community Animal Health Workers systems
are examples of such and are presently being implemented in many areas.
Preventive medicine and vaccine systems can be used in a community
setting for the poor livestock keepers.

Appropriate breeding strategies are needed

Many traits of local breeds, such as hardiness, disease resistance, and multi-
purpose are very important to poor livestock keepers. However, as the
production systems and markets change, there is scope to develop
alternative breeding strategies targeted at the needs of poor livestock
keepers. The concept must involve their participation when prioritising and
formulating strategies, as well as planning and implementing breeding
programmes. Community-level selection systems combined with nucleus
elite herds or flocks managed by associations of breeders offer interesting
opportunities.

Financial services are preconditions for increasing livestock

production
Appropriate savings and credit systems that embrace the particular needs
and constraints of the poor are a precondition to increase livestock
production. Poor people often lack access to financial services, but in the few
examples where access to credit was available, it was highly appreciated
and mostly well utilised. The vulnerability of the poor, however, is a particular
challenge for credit institutions.

Micro-credit schemes make capital available to poor households

The success of micro-credit schemes provided through NGOs in Bangladesh
is remarkable. Reasons for success of these programmes are probably
linked to a group approach and supply of the necessary support services.
However, despite the great success of reaching poor families with credits,
the fact still remains that the “ultra poor” — meaning the poorest 10-15% of
the population — cannot benefit from micro-credit schemes. The reasons for
this apparent exclusion should be identified and special tools must be
developed in order to reach these groups. Membership of well-established
producer organisations with solid assets might help to integrate the poorest
of the poor because the organisation can supply collateral for their members
to obtain loans from banks for livestock investments.
4
Access to markets is another precondition for livestock development
Economic growth of poor livestock keepers will depend on fair market access
for their livestock produce. National market liberalisation in a global market
that is distorted by production subsidies and export restitution from
developed countries has disastrous results for the poor. The distortions must
be removed in order for poor producers to expand their production. Producer
organisations are a necessary tool to advocate for and strengthen the
competitive position of the poor livestock keeper in a liberalised market.

Financing systems can empower the users

Financing mechanisms for livestock services can be a powerful tool to
promote empowerment of livestock keepers, their organisations, and
communities if they are designed in a proper way. When it is necessary to
co-finance or fully finance services with public funds, it is important to identify
financing models that channel funding through the livestock keepers or their
organisations. This will ensure that users can choose their favourite service
provider.

Recommendations for action

Chapter Four concludes that policies and practises of providing livestock
services appropriate to the poor need to be changed, and recommends
several actions to induce such change. First, develop a better understanding
of where livestock development can most efficiently contribute to reduce
poverty by applying limited resources as strategically as possible. Second,
lack of inclusion of the poor in development and political processes must be
remedied. New forms of organisation and participation in service delivery as
well as in the wider policy debate on public policies need to be identified,
tested, and scaled up.

Chapter Four further recommends a number of focus points for livestock

services according to the conclusions from Chapter Three. The needs for
particular focus within categories of production systems should be identified.

For further action towards more effective pro-poor livestock development, the
following is therefore required:

• Understanding of areas with the most potential groups, and

production systems for livestock development
• Information on the poverty reduction impact of livestock services
• Tools for coordinated and pro-poor impact monitoring
• Common framework for project design and implementation
• Collection and dissemination of lessons learned

Establish a global network

A global network of stakeholders within the livestock and other relevant
sectors should be established to strengthen efforts to re-direct policies and
practises to provide livestock services to the poor. The network would act as
a catalyst for advocacy, innovation, and a knowledge base for exchange of
experience by collecting lessons learned and testing novel approaches in the
field, both within existing programmes and through new pilot projects to be
established across different livestock production systems.

5
A fund should be established to implement this network. It should be
managed by a small secretariat under the supervision of a Steering
Committee. The Global Pro-Poor Fund will be the primary means to support
the proposed learning and knowledge management system and coordinate
information from a wide variety of livestock development agencies and
practitioners.

6
Introduction
The fight against poverty is a major global concern
The global community has agreed to cut global poverty in half by 2015. An
estimated 75% of the poor live in rural areas and 600 million keep livestock.
Attention to livestock-related livelihoods must therefore be a key part of any
effort to achieve this ambitious goal. Access to good quality livestock
services can be critical for livestock-based families to escape the poverty
trap. This document is meant to inform decision makers on the design and
implementation of more efficient pro-poor livestock services so that the
livestock sector can used as a more effective tool in the fight against global
poverty. It provides a profile of poor livestock keepers and also describes
past experience with different service providers and types of services.

Demand for livestock products is rapidly increasing

The global livestock sector is undergoing rapid transformation. Growing
urbanisation and rising incomes are causing a dramatic increase in the
demand for meat and milk in the developing world, Currently this leads to a
concentration of smallholder-based production into larger commercial units,
in particular pigs and poultry (Delgado et al., 1999). These trends are
reinforced by changing roles of livestock in several parts of the developing
world — from multipurpose to a single commodity livelihood. Thus, the
increasing demand and changing structure of the sector offer opportunities
for economic growth for smallholders, but at the same time presents a
significant danger of the poor being crowded out, the environment eroded,
and global food security and safety jeopardised (de Haan et al., 2001).

This increasing demand for livestock products poses not only challenges but
also opportunities to alleviate poverty among poor households with potential
for livestock production

Livestock development has thus been assigned a dual role of addressing the
rapidly rising demand of the expanding global population for meat and milk,
as well as helping to meet the Millennium Development Goals of poverty
reduction. However, the performance of livestock development projects in
poverty reduction has been mediocre at best. A recent review by LID (1999)
concluded that the majority of animal health projects were not having their
intended impact on the poor because project design and implementation
lacked a poverty focus.

Over the last five years, however, there have been significant improvements
in the design of pro-poor service delivery systems. This document seeks to
summarise this experience. It presents a selection of the extensive literature,
and uses field surveys and dialogue with poor livestock keepers, service
providers, and decision makers in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Kenya, and Orissa
State in India to demonstrate issues emerging from the literature.

The poor can decrease their vulnerability through livestock production

For the poor, livestock can be an important means to achieve their potential,
but it is not the only means. The sale and consumption of animal products
can decrease vulnerability of households to seasonal food and income
7
deprivation, fulfil wider food security needs, and enhance the nutritional
status of the most vulnerable — women, children, and the elderly.

Keeping livestock can also shield households from shocks such as drought
or other natural disasters. Animal ownership may increase the ability of
households and individuals to fulfil social obligations and enhance their
cultural identity. Livestock are also a key source of collateral for the poor and
enable many households to obtain access to capital and business loans.
Thus, livestock are an important capital asset that with careful tending can
propel households out of abject poverty and into market economies.

Root causes of poverty must be known

Any attempt to address poverty must be based on a solid understanding of
the causes and consequences of poverty. The underlying causes of poverty
in livestock-related livelihoods are many and differ according to local
conditions and production systems. However, livelihoods are deteriorating in
many production systems as a consequence of declining or degrading land
or water resources. This is caused by shrinking farm sizes, deforestation,
erosion, and declining soil fertility, or in heavily populated areas, by
increasingly nutrient loading of water and land.

As populations are growing, many livestock-based systems come under

pressure. For example, the recently published FAO global study World
Agriculture: towards 2015/2030 estimates that developing countries in the
next 30 years will need 120 million hectares more for crop production than
what is presently under cultivation! The scramble for arable land in the East
African Highlands leaves millions of households with too little land to survive,
and sedentary arable farmers are rapidly marginalizing pastoral populations
throughout Africa and Central Asia. Millions of poor livestock keepers are left
landless in South Asia because of increased privatisation of common
properties. Finally, natural resource conservation programmes, designed in
the paradigm of conflict between human and natural land-use, have
displaced communities.

While globalisation and liberalisation of markets promotes overall growth,

such changes can affect the poor negatively if not accompanied by adequate
safeguards. Smallholders from developing countries face serious constraints
in accessing world markets as long as developed countries heavily subsidise
their own livestock products or protect their own farmers with unfounded
sanitary standards. Moreover, by dumping their own excess production on
the global market, the developed countries compete with small-scale
producers on unfair terms, even in their home markets. Finally, current
policies with poor environmental enforcement and favourable import regimes
for large-scale industrial production systems favour large units and crowd out
poor livestock keepers with their small-scale production units.

Under these apparent root causes often lies the more deeply rooted political
and organisational marginalisation of groups and individuals that face
poverty.

8
The poverty cycle describes the state of poverty
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between root causes, the state of poverty,
and the needs and opportunities for the poor to be able to escape poverty.
The figure shows the root causes as a “dis-enabling” environment
surrounding poor livestock keepers. They may have resources and
capabilities — however limited — but they are not adequate for livestock
production. As long as needs are unfulfilled and capabilities and resources
not enhanced, the poor will remain inside the vicious circle of poverty.
Improved livestock services can, however, fulfil livestock-related needs,
enhance access to resources, and strengthen the capabilities of the poor.

General needs must obviously be secured along with addressing livestock-

related requirements. This means that in order for the poor livestock keeper
to emerge from the poverty cycle and realise the benefits of livestock
production, there must be attention to improved livestock services along with
general improvements in services addressing more general needs.

Figure 1. The poverty cycle for poor livestock keepers

Root causes of poverty

• Lack of political influence
Capabilities • Lack of access to land and water
• Aspirations • Distorted markets Wider needs
• Skills • Political instability • Good health
• Motivation • Housing
• Knowledge • Food security
• Education

Poor livestock keepers

Resources Livestock & related needs
• Natural resources • Markets
• Assets • Animal health services
• Income • Advisory services
• Capital Realizing benefits of
• Training
livestock production • Breeding Services
• Enhanced food security • Financial Services
• Increased income
Improved livestock services • Asset accumulation
• Empowerment of the poor • Increased knowledge and influence
• Appropriate technologies
• Equitable access to land and capital

Enhance capability of the poor and address root causes of poverty —

the way out of the poverty cycle
This document will analyse possibilities to intervene at the level of livestock
services that enhance the capability of the poor and thereby increase the
benefits of livestock production according to their aspirations. However,
unless the root causes of poverty are effectively addressed, the intervention
level of livestock services will not make a substantial impact.

Poverty reduction strategies necessitate enabling policies at a high level as

well as at the intervention level to eliminate root causes and therefore
enhance development of pro-poor livestock services.

9
Chapter 1
Poor Livestock Keepers
Poverty has many faces, but despite this diversity, there are commonalities
that are mostly characterised by limited access to a number of rights, assets,
and services:

The poor have:

• No “voice” in the formulation of policy and structure of services
• Limited access to education — a high frequency of illiteracy
• Health constraints and limited access to health services
• Limited access to land and water or insecure resource rights
• Limited access to assets
• Low household income
• Limited access to credit, extension, and other agricultural services
• Limited access to markets

Similarly, poor livestock keepers form an extremely diverse group. They

depend on a wide variety of livestock products and services, varying from
households where livestock comprise only a small portion of their activities to
those in which livestock are the only source of livelihood (Heffernan and
Misturelli, 2000). Attempts to categorise poor livestock keepers by either the
number of animals owned or the household dependency upon off-take or
products may therefore be misleading. For example, poor livestock keepers
include a rancher in Central America with 25 cattle, a small mixed farm in the
highlands of Ethiopia with only one ox, and a woman subsistence farmer in
Bangladesh who may own just a couple of chickens. In the same context, a
farmer with a small herd of work-oxen to cultivate his own farm and rent out
to his neighbours can be quite wealthy, while a Sahelian pastoralist with the
same number of animals would live in extreme poverty.

The degree of poverty for livestock keepers relates therefore not only to
numbers of stock and basic needs, but also to the wider social and economic
dimensions of access to resources and capital assets, the capacity to cope
with risk and vulnerability, and the degree of political marginalisation
(Heffernan and Sidahmed, 1998; World Bank, 2000). This report uses the
following definition:

Poor livestock keepers are those who are economically and/or socially at
risk, politically marginalized, and whose animals, at most, provide
subsistence and/or the minimum augmentation of daily nutritional
requirements (ibid.).

Thus, by definition, a poor livestock keeper does not benefit enough from his
livestock to meet basic subsistence needs in a sustainable manner, yet
depends to a considerable degree upon the benefits of his or her livestock.
10
There are two reasons that justify a special focus on livestock keepers rather A poor livestock
than a broader focus on the general population of rural and peri-urban poor. keeper does not
First, development interventions can yield greater impacts if the needs and obtain enough
requirements of livestock keepers are properly understood. Second, there is benefits from his
a greater chance of achieving poverty reduction goals by focusing attention livestock to meet
on specific outcomes, e.g., increased income from livestock keeping. subsistence
needs
On the other hand, there is the risk of missing other groups of poor people
(e.g., displaced or AIDS-afflicted households, poor subsistence arable
farmers or peri-urban poor), who may have lost their livestock, or never have
had access to livestock, but who could potentially benefit from livestock
production. Finally, there are also poor livestock keepers for whom livestock
are not an option to reduce poverty because they lack the necessary
resource base, motivation, or market. For these, exit strategies need to be
prepared.

The number of poor livestock keepers

To understand the potential role that livestock can play in poverty reduction,
it is important to estimate the number of poor who own livestock, and in
particular the number of poor for whom livestock can be a means to reduce
poverty. The approach most used is to focus on specific livestock production
systems, estimate their human inhabitants, and then define the number by
utilising poverty criteria to identify the poor. This method was first applied by
LID (1999) (Table 1-1).

Table 1-1. Number and location of poor livestock keepers (millions)

Category of poor livestock keepers
Agro-ecological Extensive Poor mixed Landless livestock
zone graziers farmers keepers
Arid or semiarid 63 213 156
Temperate (including 72 85
tropical highlands)
Humid, sub-humid, 89
and sub-tropical
Total 135 387 156
678
LID, 1999

Based on the earlier classification of the world’s livestock production systems

by Sere and Steinfeld (1996), and overlaying the total number of the poor on
production systems (Thornton, 2001), it appears that 556 million livestock
keepers live below the poverty line.

Based on Table 1-1, a total figure of about 600 million seems a reasonable 600 million poor
estimate and is used in this document. livestock
keepers
These figures should, however, be treated with caution. The estimates
assume that poverty is equally distributed between regions and production
systems. This means that some production systems might be left out, such

11
as urban livestock keepers and livestock traders, and the share of poor
livestock keepers might be over estimated in other systems. To improve There is need
knowledge and enhance the accuracy of the number and distribution of poor to improve
livestock keepers and other poor people who can potentially gain from knowledge and
livestock production, two actions are required. First, additional data should enhance
be obtained from on-going household surveys and the qualitative accuracy
assessments of poverty such as those derived from Participatory Poverty
Assessments. On a country-by-country basis, these qualitative and
quantitative data may help refine and further inform efforts to determine both
the nature and location of poor livestock keepers. Second, it should be
determined which of these production systems and/or regions with poor
livestock keepers has the potential to break out of the poverty trap through
livestock development, and which are living so far on the margin that they will
need another livelihood.

The livestock production systems of the poor

Poor livestock keepers often live with a minimum of available resources. As
defined above, they have too little livestock and resources to sustain
production. Table 1-2 describes a simple typology based upon three broad The poor differ
types of livestock producers — pastoralist, smallholder mixed farmer, and greatly from the
urban dweller — and some of the key characteristics of each production better off in
system. The intention of this table is not to strictly define each of the different access to
characterisations but rather to offer an initial framework that differentiates inputs and
some of the sub-groups. The table illustrates that poor livestock keepers resources
keep a wide variety of species and practice a number of different husbandry
methods. Where the poor differ greatly from better-off producers is in access
to inputs and resources for livestock production.

The poor may also be differentiated by their vulnerabilities. Each different

production system has a variety of factors that could affect well-off
producers negatively, but to the poor can be devastating. Drought will, for
example, lead a poor pastoralist to destitution much faster than those with
larger herds. Box 1-1 describes an example of how resources such as
irrigation facilities and land determine the livestock production system.

Box 1-1. Livestock systems in Koraput district

In Koraput district, the Orissa case study found that the resource base in the village had a
strong influence on people’s choice of keeping small or large ruminants. The choice to
keep large ruminants is positively influenced by factors such as availability of:
• Irrigation for intensive agriculture
• Land for cultivation
• Fodder/crop residues
The irrigated villages thus have a larger proportion of people with cattle and buffalo and
fewer people keeping small ruminants. On the other hand, the villages which have no
irrigation facilities have a higher proportion of people keeping small ruminants. In a village
where people have no resources such as land and depend completely on a daily wage for
their survival, fewer people keep small ruminants.
Orissa case study

12
Table 1-2. Typology of poor livestock keepers
Producer Main characteristic Location Livestock species Main production service Herding/husbandry patterns Vulnerabilities
Pastoralist More restricted access Rural Cattle, goats, Milk, fibre Migratory Drought, terms of trade,
to natural resources sheep, camelids, political instability, poor
such as grazing and yaks access to markets,
water. Lack of access to technologies and
markets. Non-viable innovations.
herd sizes and sub-
optimal age/sex ratio of Peri-urban Mainly goats, sheep Meat Absentee owners, herding Lack of access to
the herd/flock by relatives, hired labour productive resources of
animals, theft
Smallholder Smaller land sizes, land Rural Cattle, buffalo, goats, Power, fertiliser, meat, Tether, cut-and-carry, Drought, cost of
farmer in rental, lack of resources sheep, pigs, poultry eggs range inputs, access to
crop/livestock (labour and land) services,
(mixed) systems population
pressures
Peri-urban Dairy cattle, Milk, meat, eggs Stall fed, cut-and-carry, Cost of inputs
poultry, pigs roadside
Urban Landless, less Urban Poultry, goats, sheep, Meat, milk, eggs Roadside, rubbish Space for animals,
access to slums buffalo, cattle, pigs foraging, purchased legal framework
services fodder
Heffernan et al, 2002

13
The role of livestock for the poor
The development of the Sustainable Livelihoods approach has led to an
increased interest in the role and impact of livestock in the livelihoods of the
poor. In this approach, livestock are viewed as a form of financial, social,
and natural capital (McLeod and Wilsmore, 2001). Livestock can
furthermore enhance human capital and play a critical role in reducing
malnutrition. These forms and roles are detailed below.

Forms of Capital
• Financial capital is defined as the financial resources that are
available to people — savings, credits, insurance, and pensions, and
which provide them with different livelihood options (Carney, 1998).
• Social capital is defined as the “ . . . features of social organisation, Financial, social,
such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of and human capital
society by co-ordinated actions” (Putnam, 1993).
• Enhancement of human capital is here defined as enlarging people’s
choices (Martinussen, 1996) through increased knowledge, income,
and empowerment in terms of decision making.

Livestock are first and foremost financial capital

For many poor households, livestock are the primary form of savings. As an
investment, few other sources can match livestock as a means of capital For many poor
growth. Animal sales may allow poor households to quickly generate cash households,
during times of need. Moreover, livestock, including manure, are often a key livestock are the
source of income. In a comparative study of poor livestock keepers in primary form of
Kenya, Bolivia, and India, Heffernan et al. (2001) asked households to rank savings
the best form of investment (Fig. 1-1). Livestock outranked business and
housing as the best investment in all three countries.

Figure 1-1. Rank of best investments

60

50
% Response

40
Bolivia n=498
30 India n=1011
Kenya n=236
20

10

0
y
or Ho k

Fa ss

s
Bu ion

Bu Je g
Sa g
Ed ings

O l
el
in elr
oc

er
in
al sin

ne

W
at

rm

th
st

w
u

si
uc

a
ve

g
ng
Li

pi
ild
m

el
H
f
In
d
an
al
rm
Fo

Hefferman et al., 2002

14
Herders and farmers were asked to rank income sources most important to
the household. Despite the large number of different activities, livestock
were ranked first in importance to household income for the majority of
households in Kenya and India. Naturally, there were differences at the
country level. For example, in the mixed farming systems of Bolivia, crop
sales figured highly, which would probably not be the case in the Bolivian
highlands. The outcome might also be different in crop-based systems of
Kenya (Fig. 1-2).

Figure 1-2. Rank of income sources

45
40
35
% Response

30
Kenya (n=254)
25
India (n=1195)
20
Bolivia (n=585)
15
10
5
0
m ent

Fa g

g
Bu de

s
s

Be al
tty ur
lL k

ce
ou Em nes
u a oc

in

em min
nt
Pe bo

gg
ym

an
as est

Tr

Re
a

r
s

itt
se plo
v
Li

oo

R
/R
C

Hefferman et al., 2002

However, in addition to the benefits, livestock rearing is also risky for the Production risks are
poor. Because poor households have limited disposable income to purchase greater for poorer
inputs, production risks are greater for the poorer producers, especially producers
when they are unable to control mortality. Furthermore, some livestock-
related income has seasonal peaks which may negatively affect the poor.
Poorer households have year-round needs to generate income for food and
other basic requirements, and therefore they may not be able to benefit from
seasonal produce and price increases (Box 1-2).

Box 1-2. Lucia, a widow in western Mexico

“When my cow gives birth to a calf, I have to struggle to keep it at least for a year, so I can
obtain a bit more cash from its sale. If it can survive until the rainy season, the calf will have
fed on fresh grass and can weigh more. But often sickness or other emergencies come up,
and I have to resort to my calf. By the time I sell it, I am up to my neck in debts”.
Villareal, 2001

Livestock are also social capital

Livestock are important to support social relationships. Livestock loans and Livestock loans and
gifts contribute to both bonding, bridging, and linking social capital gifts contribute to
relationships, and livestock are one means by which family or household bonding, bridging,
social capital may be measured. and linking social
relationships

15
Table 1-3. The place of livestock in the income of the rich and poor
Percent of
household income
Country Wealth/poverty indicator Stratum from livestock
Ethiopia Household income Very poor 6
Poor 24
Egypt Landholdings Landless 63
Largest landholding 14
Kenya Household income from dairy Lowest 1/5 63
business
Highest 1/5 38
Pakistan Household income Lowest 1/5 25
Highest 1/5 9
Philippines Household income Lowest 1/5 23
Highest 1/5 10
Delgado et al., 1999

Livestock are also social capital

Livestock are important to support social relationships. Livestock loans and Livestock loans and
gifts contribute to both bonding, bridging, and linking social capital gifts contribute to
relationships, and livestock are one means by which family or household bonding, bridging,
social capital may be measured. and linking social
relationships

A study by Woodcock and Narayan (2000) classifies social capital into three
types — bonding, bridging, and linking. Bonding social capital is ties
between immediate family members, while bridging social capital refers to
weaker relations between persons of differing geographic, ethnicity, or
occupations. Linking social capital describes the relationships between poor
people and formal institutions such as NGOs or governments. For example,
in many poor households, livestock may be shared or loaned between
relatives and friends or reared for absentee owners (Beck, 1994; Heffernan
and Misturelli, 2000). These arrangements can vary widely from
straightforward rental agreements to more complex loan arrangements
whose duration of payback may be inter-generational. Animals may also be
given as gifts, and in this manner, livestock can help cement social networks
and community-level obligations for the involved households (Lesorogol,
2002).

However, not all livestock share arrangements are based purely on social
networks. For example, poor farmers in Bolivia often participate in Al- Livestock can help
Partido, a commercially based livestock share-rearing arrangement. Most of cement social
the livestock “credit-in-kind” programmes (de Haan et al, 2001) are based networks
on commercial principles of “passing on” one or more offspring to other
members of the community.

Among East African pastoralist societies, livestock loans are generally less
common than livestock gifts (Heffernan and Misturelli, 2001). Moreover,
both loans and gifts tend to be less commercially oriented and more
dependent upon access to social capital. As such, gifts and loans are made
16
under both formal and informal arrangements (Heffernan and Misturelli,
2000). For example, dowry and bride wealth in many societies are paid in
livestock, and livestock are often given in direct response to the emergency
needs of friends and neighbours. On the other hand, herders in West Africa
tend to spread their herds over several relatives to share risks of drought
and/or disease. In the Sahel, livestock can also be loaned for herding either
on a shared offspring basis or on a commercial cash basis.

For pastoralists in East Africa, traditional restocking mechanisms occur both

at the community and individual levels (ibid.). For instance, wealthier Traditional livestock
individuals among the Boran tribe are expected to donate livestock to the distribution systems
poorer on a yearly basis determined by sitting groups of elders, thereby can act as social
contributing to social security among community members. Likewise, land security
and water as well as livestock are traditionally part of complex common
property systems among Maasai pastoralists. These systems act to assure
access to important resources by all community members and thereby fulfil
important functions of social security and conflict resolution (Loft, 2002).

However, the use of livestock as social capital may become less frequent as The use of livestock
its role slowly changes towards a more productive and commercial one. In a as social capital
study in Kenya among pastoralists, for example, Heffernan and Misturelli may become less
(2000) found that the role of livestock in formal institutions, e.g., inheritance, frequent
bride wealth, and other ceremonies, is now much larger than the informal
giving of gifts.

Livestock can maintain the natural capital

Integration of livestock with crop production can enhance the sustainability Integrated livestock
of the farming system because it provides draught power and transport, and crop production
improves soil fertility, and increases the productivity and income possibilities can increase farm
for the poor household, along with the ability to purchase farming inputs. productivity

Recent studies report examples in which integration of livestock and crop

production have improved farm productivity and income by 50% to over
100% (Lekule and Sarwatt, 1996; Rangnekar, 1997; Ogle, 1996; Zerbini and
Larsen, 1996). Gryseels (1996) found a positive correlation to livestock
ownership and yield per hectare as a result of cash generated by livestock
sales being used to purchase crop inputs. Box 1-3 provides a specific
example where the integration of manure from goats has significantly
increased grain yield in farming systems.

Box 1-3. Introduction of zero-grazed dual-purpose goats to farms in Tanzania

Manure was collected and used for crop production. The use of goat manure significantly
increased overall soil pH and nutrients, which greatly changed crop production. Maize grain
yield increased from 450 to 1450 kg/acre, sorghum from 380 to 900 kg/acre, and millet from
370 to 780 kg/acre. Moreover, cash obtained from vegetable production increased by 206%
per year.
Mussa Shirima, 2001

However, because livestock can contribute to maintaining natural resources, Common lands for
a general reduction in the availability of common natural resources such as grazing are
common lands for grazing has negatively affected poor livestock keepers. shrinking

17
Many poor farmers rely on common lands to graze their livestock. These
resources, however, are continuously diminishing with increased pressure
on land accelerated by increased population and other development
interventions. For example, Jodha (1991) found common property resources
in different states of India declining between 31 and 55% over the period
1951-1981. Commercial developments sometimes accelerate this further.
Ashley et al. (1999) found several examples of commercial livestock
developments that benefited wealthier farmers who then privatised common
land and thereby excluded poor neighbouring farmers. Livestock
development without targeting poverty can crowd out poor livestock
keepers.

The role of livestock in environmental management is further discussed in

the publications of a global network — Livestock and Environment in
Agricultural Development (LEAD) (de Haan et al., 2000) — which describes
the global situation for livestock production and its environmental impact.

Livestock can enhance human capital and reduce

malnutrition
Livestock production can enhance human capital in several ways. The
Bangladesh and Orissa case studies provide examples of how poor people
have increased their knowledge and status both in the community and
families through livestock production and organisation in community and
producer groups.

In a study of the impact of a Smallholder Livestock Development Project in

Bangladesh, Nielsen (1996) found that all participating women had
increased their income. The income was used to buy more food, send Livestock
children to school, and increase assets such as land. The women also production can
increased their participation in decision making at the household level. empower
These findings were confirmed in a recent impact study of the Bangladesh vulnerable groups
Semi-scavenging Poultry Model. The women said that poultry production
increased their influence on financial issues in the families and social status
in society (Lund, 2002).

Livestock can also improve the nutritional status of poor families.

Malnutrition is often a combination of lack of access to food, lack of Livestock can
nutritional knowledge, and inequality of resource distribution within families. improve the
Improved regular income from livestock production therefore has the nutritional status of
potential to increase access to food in the family. At the same time, poor families
improved knowledge and status of women significantly reduced malnutrition
of the women and their children. Eklund (2002) describes how nutritional
development projects in Nepal demonstrate how malnutrition of children is
significantly reduced when mothers improve their education and status.

Consumption of even small amounts of animal foods can significantly

improve the diet of children in the developing world. Several studies show
that intake of animal products has positively affected physical and cognitive Animal source food
development of children, and the added value of even very small amounts of plays a particular
supplementary animal food to children of poor families is underestimated role in child
(Neumann and Harris, 1999). Poor families, however, often consume very nutrition
18
little animal food, but rather mostly cereal or roots even if they produce
animal food. Studies of the nutritional impact of poultry projects in
Bangladesh confirmed this — animal produce was mostly sold for cash to
purchase other food such as rice, fruits, and fish. But the impact of the
poultry project in terms of improving nutritional status of children and
mothers was still significant (Roos, 2002), which indicates the importance of
the livestock production in terms of nutrition, even if the livestock products
are not consumed directly by the families.

Livestock and particularly vulnerable groups

Women play important roles in livestock production

Women are a particularly vulnerable group of livestock keepers, but they
also play particularly important roles in livestock production. From a gender
perspective, it is evident that women are more often and to a higher degree
subject to more constraints than men when trying to raise livestock. At the
same time, women play important roles in livestock production in almost all
developing countries.

Women in African communities are largely responsible for agricultural work

and caring for livestock (Curry, 1996). Asian women in poor segments of
communities also care for livestock (Rangnekar, 1998; Ramdas and
Seethalakshmi, 1999). Because this role mainly applies to poor women, it
may remain unnoticed or at least not appreciated.

In recent decades, the relationship between gender and livestock production

has been investigated thoroughly. A variety of authors have attempted to Control over
adapt existing frameworks to help systematise the study of gender and livestock is often
livestock (Tangka et al., 2000; Asian Development Bank, 2000). The determined by the
majority of analyses focus division of labour, ownership, and control, and economic function
access to resources (Bravo-Baumann, 2000; Tangka et al., 2000; Asian within the
Development Bank, 2000). However, according to Curry (1996), frameworks household
that centre purely on male-female labour allocation and dominion over
livestock resources do not account for the role of other members of the
household, nor for the wider dynamics around the roles of men and women
in decision making about livestock. The traditional representation of gender
in livestock ownership suggests that men have control of large animals,
whereas women tend to own only small livestock and poultry (Bravo-
Baumann, 2000). However, control over livestock and their products is often
determined by the economic function that specific animals have within the
household. In areas where rearing small livestock, poultry, and pigs is an
important income source for the family, the management of herds/flocks is
often turned over to the male household head (ibid.). Therefore, any
framework exploring gender and livestock needs to consider the role of
livestock at both the production and household stages.

Perceptions about livestock differ according to gender

Attitudes and values about livestock often differ according to gender. For
example, Thomas-Slayter and Bhatt (1994) noted in a Nepalese village that
19
men regarded the acquisition of buffaloes as an investment, whereas
women were troubled about management issues such as the increased
workload. Heffernan et al. (2001) found gender differences in the perception
and role of livestock for poor households (Table 1-4).

Table 1-4. Reasons for keeping livestock in Kenya, Bolivia, and India
Kenya Bolivia India
Role of livestock Men Women Men Women Men Women
Number in sample 125 120 348 209 606 410
Food security 36% 60% 30% 30% 19% 17%
Income 8% 15% 45% 39% 59% 63%
Purchasing food 12%
School fees 16% 5%
Investments 16% 10% 11% 19%
Traditional life style 10% 4% 3% 6% 6%
Dowry 4%
Credit 4%
Ceremonies 2% 1%
Social status 1% 2%
Draught 4% 2% 4% 2%
Fuel/manure 2% 1%
Hobby 1% 2%
Other 4% 3% 4% 8% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heffernan et al., 2001

As the table illustrates, the majority of women in Kenya viewed livestock

primarily as a means to ensure food security for the family, whereas men
perceived livestock as a means to meet both present needs such as food
and school fees, and as a form of investment.

The responses did not show the same differences in Bolivia. Both men and
women consider livestock to be a source of income and a guarantee for
future food security. However, men valued livestock highly for performing
agricultural activities such as ploughing fields, which confirms the traditional
division of labour in Bolivia, where men hold the main responsibility for field
preparation and ploughing. In India, both men and women highlighted the
role of livestock in income generation and food security. Interestingly, few
men noted that livestock ownership confirmed a household’s social status.

Differing perceptions can introduce work-related conflicts within the

household. For example, in India, women often voiced resentment over the
additional workload that livestock ownership demanded. Similarly, a group
of women in a Mexican village complained about the labour demand of a
cattle herd belonging to their husbands. They see cattle as unproductive
assets that they have to spend time tending because their husbands
perceive cattle as the basis for status and authority in the local community.
In contrast, the Mexican women consider poultry as readily accessible
capital to meet daily consumption needs and pigs as a “sound” investment
to be easily capitalised in times of need (Villareal, 2001).

20
Ownership and control of livestock
The traditional view is that women may own but have little control over the
livestock in their care. For example, women in pastoralist and agro-
pastoralist societies in East Africa generally obtain livestock through Women may own,
culturally sanctioned ceremonial occasions and rarely via the marketplace. but have little
Livestock are given to woman in marriage, either through bride wealth or via control over the
allocation by the husband or male family members (Joekes and Pointing, livestock
1991; Watson, 1994; Smith Oboler, 1996). Women also inherit livestock;
however their share is usually less than their male relatives (Joekes and
Pointing, 1991; Talle, 1988). Talle (1988) notes that among the Maasi,
women own animals by “name”, but don’t have any real control over off-
take. The limitations count for both cattle and small livestock herds (ibid.).
Even in exceptional circumstances where the husband is not present,
women need to consult a male relative prior to selling stock. On the other
hand, Smith-Oboler (1996) found that Nandi women exerted a strong
influence on decisions about cattle, even when the animals formally
belonged to men. Different products are often allocated to different gender
groups, for example, Fulani women sell all the milk and can use the
revenue, whereas the men have the right to proceeds from sale of the
animals.

The concepts of ownership and control are often confounded partly because
the lines between the actual and de facto ownership of livestock are often
blurred. Agarwal (1998) points out that gender equality in legal rights to own
property does not guarantee gender equality in actual ownership, nor does
ownership guarantee control. Consequently, the study defines true
ownership as when the livestock keeper has a direct say over both the
animal and its products via sales and management decisions. Nevertheless,
strict conceptions of ownership as established in the Western world may be
misplaced among many of the livestock keepers of the developing world.
Smith-Oboler (1996) thus notes that in indigenous African property systems,
there is no single individual who has the rights in cattle that are implied
when a person from the Western world talks about “owning” something. In
the case of most cattle, the rights of control by any individual are
constrained by the rights on the same animal held by other individuals. Few
studies have accounted for these wider notions of ownership. The majority
of the literature has focused upon the degree of freedom of women to sell
individual animals or their products.

Finally, despite the earlier reservation about the roles of men and women
being closely connected to the economic role of the livestock, ownership of Women often have
poultry often presents an exception for women. The birds and their produce a particular role in
are widely accepted as the rightful possession of women who can manage relation to poultry
and control them as they wish.

Women contribute much labour in caring for livestock

Women contribute a considerable part of the labour involved in caring for
livestock in most production systems, although there is some variability in
the scope and level of specific gender-related responsibilities. In general,
21
women have the greatest role in mixed farming production systems and
carry out the majority of tasks related to livestock. Women in South Asia
contribute 70-80% of livestock-related labour (Rangnekar, 1998; Tulachan
and Karki, 2000).

In traditional pastoral societies, women spend less time on livestock-related

duties than on other activities. For example, Bekure et al. (1991) estimated
that women spend on average 2.5 hours per day caring for livestock,
compared to 6 hours performing domestic chores. However, tasks and
workloads are strongly divided according to gender. Women are traditionally
responsible in the domestic sphere, whereas men are actors in the public
arena (Talle, 1988). Women are responsible for milking and caring for the
young stock and any sick animals, while men are primarily managers and
supervisors. They are responsible for gathering information on range
conditions, water availability, and markets, and then making the subsequent
herding decisions (Bekure et al., 1991). Men often oversee watering and
supervise herding. Equally, male household members make the majority of
decisions about the sale and slaughter of animals (ibid.). From a very young
age, children are involved in herding — girls mostly herd the small stock and
boys and young men are responsible for cattle (Bekure et al., 1991; Laswai
et al., 1999). On the other hand, the Bolivia case study describes a different
system in the mixed farming systems of the Andean highlands, where
women and girls are mainly responsible for all livestock activities including
herding cattle and small livestock.

Women can loose strategic roles

When livestock production becomes more commercial, gender roles can
change and women can lose control of income generated by livestock that
they may have previously controlled. In the worst cases women are
transformed from producers to “labourers” in commodity production (Box 1-
4).

Box 1-4. The Nandi people of Kenya

Among the Nandi people, cattle are part of traditional household property. Traditionally men
inherited and controlled livestock. Women gained access to the livestock products by their
position as household managers and their obligation to provide food. When married, a
woman would have cattle assigned to her house to provide milk for her and her children.
Men could not dispose of these cattle. Men and boys would receive the morning milk and
women and girls the evening milk.
With increasing commercialisation of dairy production, the large herds of Zebu cattle are
being replaced by a smaller number of crossbred cattle. These are usually purchased with
the husband’s money, and are therefore considered his property. Women’s rights to milk
from specific cattle are gradually disappearing. Because morning milk is increasingly being
sold, the entire household consumption must be covered by evening milk.
Huss-Ashmore, 1996

Livestock and AIDS

The pandemic of HIV/AIDS has strong implications for livestock production HIV/AIDS increases
because it increases poverty and vulnerability among poor livestock poverty and
keepers, but livestock production is at the same time an opportunity for vulnerability of poor
affected households to deal with the crisis. It is therefore essential that households
22
development programmes within the livestock sector address the specific
needs of poor AIDS-afflicted households.

AIDS is a major threat and reality in sub-Saharan Africa where it causes

huge increases in poverty, and is becoming increasingly important in Asia
and Latin America (UNAIDS, 1996). Over time, HIV/AIDS changes,
amplifies, and deepens the way poverty manifests itself. At the same time,
almost all elements of the already defined poverty aggravate vulnerability to
infection as well as the impact of AIDS (Topouzis and du Guerny, 1999). In
rural areas affected by AIDS, households lose labour for agricultural
activities. In Ethiopia, labour losses thus reduced the time spent on
agriculture from 33.6 hours per week to between 11.6 and 16.4 for AIDS-
affected households (Loewenson and Whiteside, 2001). This leads to falling
agricultural production, shrinking incomes, and increasing food insecurity. At
the same time, households with sick members have increased costs to
meet, such as expenses for medical care, special food for the sick, and
finally significant costs for funeral and mourning ceremonies. These costs
are often met by selling livestock (ibid.).

As a family member contracts the disease and dies, the spouse is also likely Orphaned
to be infected and will leave the household as a group of orphans and households lose
perhaps elders who do not have the strength and skills to produce enough assets like land,
food or earn an income. Furthermore, traditional inheritance customs in capital, and
many areas cause widowed of orphaned households to lose assets such as livestock
housing, land, capital, and livestock. Cattle and maybe small livestock may
be confiscated by the remaining part of the family, blocking any attempt to
escape the poverty trap (Engh and Guerny, 2000; Barnett, 1994).

Ownership of livestock can reduce the vulnerability of the household to Ownership of

HIV/AIDS. Livestock can be used to generate a regular cash income or sold livestock can
to cover costs of medical care, funeral costs, etc. (Barnett, 1994). At the reduce the
same time, work oxen can reduce labour needs in the field and families with vulnerability of the
oxen have the possibility to exchange oxen with labour in times of need. household to
Small livestock play a particular role in households affected by HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS
and women have in many cases more established rights to keep small
livestock such as poultry in case of a husband’s death, sometimes even
goats and sheep. Moreover, it often seems easier for them to manage small
livestock in times of crisis when they lack land for grazing and labour for
herding (Haslwimmer, 2001).

Furthermore, vulnerability to AIDS has a strong connection to gender equity Enhancing gender
as pointed out by several authors, e.g., Loewenson and Whiteside (2001). It equity may reduce
seems valid, therefore, that strengthening a woman’s position in society and vulnerability
her family, as seen in some poverty-focused livestock programmes, has the
potential to reduce vulnerability to AIDS in poor communities.

While many issues cut across all groups of vulnerable and poor livestock Need for attention
keepers, there are some specific issues connected to the impact of to female- and
HIV/AIDS that need attention in order to enable these households to child-headed
participate in livestock development. First, the male bias of many services households
makes households that have lost a male adult member lose access to
services. For these households to gain a foothold in livestock production,
23
they need to be specifically targeted. This means that more attention must
be given to female- or child-headed households. These households have
the additional disadvantage of having lost part of the knowledge and skills of Specific training of
livestock husbandry, so they need specific training or organised transfer of orphaned youth
knowledge and skills from other members in the community.

The specific needs of AIDS-affected families are:

• Targeted delivery of livestock services to female or child headed
households
• Transfer of knowledge and skills between generations
• Secure legal and traditional rights of inheritance (often conflicting)
• Access to credit to avoid sale of livestock or to restock where
necessary
• Technologies with increased labour output
- Integration of livestock into crop farming system
- Focus on small livestock
- Access to draught animals

There is a need for inheritance laws that can secure access to land and Build community
livestock for widows and orphans. However, traditional and legal practises awareness of laws
are often conflicting, which means that a law alone doesn’t help. There is a of inheritance
need to build community awareness in order to change inexpedient
practises.

Access to small loans and credit facilities are very helpful for families in Credit facilities
times of crisis. If they have access to credit, affected families need not sell would be helpful
their productive assets such as livestock when they need cash.
Furthermore, small loans to purchase livestock can facilitate restocking in
situations where households have been forced to sell their animals or they
have died due to management problems.

Labour often becomes the major constraint in AIDS-affected households,

and there is a need to improve returns to labour. For example, it became
evident in a study in Tanzania (Barnet, 1994) that ox-owning households are
less vulnerable to AIDS than households that have no oxen. Access to work Labour saving
oxen reduces labour needs and secures proper planting and weeding time, technologies
which increases productivity. At the same time, families with oxen have the
possibility to exchange oxen with labour in times of need. It should be
remembered that women are especially vulnerable and have great
difficulties in prioritising their labour, since they carry most of the burden of
caring for the sick and also perform main roles in mourning ceremonies. A
number of cases are mentioned in the literature where widowed or orphaned
households have entered into small-scale production of livestock such as
poultry, pigs, and even beekeeping as a means of survival (ibid). The labour
required for the production of small livestock is limited and the investment
and risk are at a level which vulnerable groups can manage.

The service needs of livestock keepers

“Service needs” of poor livestock keepers should be defined in the broad
context of total service delivery and multiple service needs. Too often issues

24
are analysed as if economics, politics, technical services, and social
structures can be isolated from one another. The following section draws
lines from what is known about the wider and specific livestock-related
concepts of poverty among livestock keepers to how this constrains the poor
from taking advantage of opportunities that livestock production offers.

The problems related to livestock

The poor face a variety of constraints to sustainable livestock production.
LID (1999) classifies the problems of the poor in three basic categories:
• Herd and infrastructure acquisition,
• Herd/flock maintenance, and
• Marketing livestock products.
Herd and infrastructure acquisition require the ability of households to
access capital and credit facilities to purchase livestock. Herd maintenance
denotes the ability of households to obtain animal health, and production
services and marketing livestock products refers to the frequent inability of
the poor to access reliable markets for off-take.

These needs also emerge from Heffernan et al. (2002), who carried out an
open-ended ranking exercise with over 1700 households in Kenya, Bolivia,
and India. Figure 1-3 illustrates how the majority of households ranked lack Lack of access to
of access to fodder and water as their most serious problem with livestock. fodder and water is
Livestock diseases were the most significant problem for approximately 20% the most serious
of producers. However, after these major constraints, problems varied problem
widely both between countries and districts involved in the study. For
example, theft was considered a large problem among pastoralist
communities in Kenya. Urban producers in India were concerned about
access to sufficient space to keep livestock and low production levels,
whereas accidents — mainly cattle getting snared in barbed wire — ranked
quite highly in Bolivia. Additionally, a number of participants believed that
their knowledge regarding animal husbandry and health was insufficient.

Figure 1-3. Most important livestock problems

60%
50%
% Response

40% India (n=1024)

30% Bolivia (n=514)
20% Kenya (n=247)

10%
0%
ac cti r
Sp du id e

Sh y
ck w P ur

cid er
Fo Di s ke

c L r

Th t
/H ac r/W e

t
D nts
h
lt h of at e

ef
e/ vit
ne L dde e as

La o are abo

Ac elt

ug
to ck ffta

of Pro rov

e
ro
ss to O
ce es f or

ea k
Li e s
ic

L
Pr

v
w
Lo

Ac

ici
ed
M
of
ck
La

Hefferman et al., 2002

25
Two points are illustrated by this discussion of problems with livestock:
• The problems faced by the poor with their livestock were surprisingly
consistent despite regional and country variations. Across the three
countries, the lack of fodder and water and poor animal health were
considered the primary constraints to livestock-based livelihoods.
• In contrast to the LID (1999) study, problems with livestock
acquisition were not prominent. Equally, the lack of markets for off-
take was not considered an insurmountable problem.

Who defines the needs of the poor?

Most needs assessments have been made by outsiders rather than by the The poor defining
poor themselves defining their needs. Box 1-5 illustrates the lack of their own needs
connection between perceived needs by development agencies and
farmers, and how resources can be wrongly directed.

Outsiders and the poor see their problems from different perspectives. Outsiders and the
Moreover, needs assessments and prioritisation are strongly biased poor see their
according to the viewpoints and motives of the particular stakeholders and problems differently
the methodology used. The literature can roughly be divided into three parts
according to the methodology used to define the needs (Table 1-5).

It appears that all methodologies introduce an outsider bias. The

participatory method has the potential to come close to the perceptions of
the people themselves, but it is controlled by the facilitator and therefore the All methodologies
outcome depends on the approach of the facilitator. Moreover, when using introduce an
participatory methods, farmers also introduce biases themselves. They tend outsider bias
to adjust their statements to the expectations of possible future projects and
sometimes also to please facilitators. In an assessment from Afghanistan,
farmers in areas without veterinary services tended to exaggerate their
problems in the hope that they would receive the services earlier (Schreuder
et al., 1996).

Box 1-5. Farmers perceptions of farming systems in Bolivia

A productivity study from Bolivia examined farmer perceptions of the development of their
farming system during the last 10 years, including:
• 82% of farmers believe their crop yields are declining
• 79% of farmers believe productivity from livestock is declining
• 84% of farmers say they have reduced the number of animals
The cause — according to the farmers’ statements — is: “The soils are tired!”
Of the 265 NGOs that work with agricultural projects in the survey area:
• None of them work with soil fertility
• Only a few work with development of fodder production

Why do the NGOs not respond to the real needs of the farmers? Local farmers were not
involved nor consulted when the programmes were planned and designed.
Morales, 1999

26
Table 1-5. Methods and related biases applied to define needs
Methods Needs defined by Implied bias
Evaluating the productive Scientists Outsider point of view
performance of livestock and
assessing the objective constraints to Often the assessment is highly specialised and
higher productivity lacks a wider perspective of the constraints to
productivity and focus on yields rather than
sustainable production

Analysing on the basis of statistics
and knowledge of farmers,
production, and local conditions
Extensionists, Reflects the views of farmers and the practical
development reality
practitioners
Extensionists often have their main contacts with
wealthier and more progressive farmers and do
not assess the situation of the poor
The assessment may also be biased by the
aspirations of the technical staff and reflects their
relationship to technical perceptions and the
ruling policy.

Participatory methodologies – Scientists, extensionists, The assessment may be biased by selection of

Different methods used in the needs
assessments, but aims to facilitate
farmers’ own definitions of problems
and prioritisation of needs
development participants (wealthier, poorer, men, women, etc.)
practitioners
If participation by the community’s poorest is not
strongly upgraded, they will often be absent. This
is particularly true for pastoralists, because of
their migratory characteristic.
It is often extremely difficult to assess the bias
that facilitation imposes on the outcome of the
process. There are examples that show the
outcome to a considerable extent can be blurred
depending on the approach of the facilitator
(Chambers, 1997)

Policy makers — national and donor agencies — have a strong position

when defining and interpreting the needs of the poor because their
interpretation determines the policies that will finally direct the development
of livestock services. The interpretation of policy makers depends on their
particular paradigm concerning poverty, the system in which they operate,
and the eventual democratic mandate. Most policy makers belong to the
local or global elite, which influences their perceptions of poverty and the
needs of the poor. To respond appropriately to the real needs of the poor, it
is crucial that the poor can directly express their own prioritised service
needs and demands. As a consequence —

Projects and services must use delivery mechanisms that promote

definitions and prioritisation of needs expressed by poor livestock keepers
themselves.

Need for poverty-focused livestock services

The general constraints of poverty mentioned on page 3 have specific Needs of the poor
consequences for livestock keepers to benefit from livestock development for livestock
and services. Livestock services are traditionally considered narrowly as services are related
technical services. However, the above analysis of the connection between to overcoming the
poverty constraints and access to services shows that that the particular constraints
needs of the poor for livestock services are both related to overcoming the attached to poverty
constraints attached to poverty and to the particular livestock-related
problems. Table 1-6 presents a summarised picture of how the general
27
 constraints of poverty constrain livestock development and services, and
how these constraints particularly affect women.

However, the poor easily become invisible in the daily picture of service
providers because they do not demand their needs for services. There is a
need for a more focused approach or one that makes livestock keepers
visible and enables them to actively define and demand the services they
need. Poverty-focused approaches are therefore:

• Bottom-up
• Holistic
• Gender sensitive

A poverty-focused approach must also be gender sensitive

There is a need for much more attention to gender aspects of livestock
development. Because women often play a crucial role in livestock
production, there must be a stronger focus on their particular needs —
immediate as well as strategic — of female livestock keepers when
designing and providing livestock services.

Women are often perceived as effective instruments of development. Some

authors argue that women are more prone to early adoption of new
technologies than men, and therefore are better catalysts for technical
change. Perhaps agricultural productivity would rise faster if more resources Involving women,
were available to women than if the same resources were allocated to men realises significant
(Mullins et al., 1996). A number of studies from Africa and Asia (Dolberg, positive impacts on
2001; Mullins et al., 1996) confirm that women’s income is more likely to be the livelihood of
spent on household food and education of the children than other income. households
Small-scale commercial livestock activities involving women will significantly
impact the nutritional status and livelihood of smallholder households. This will
have a particularly significant impact on female-headed households. Many
studies also show a direct and positive effect on the performance of livestock
production when female extension workers receive specific training and are
employed to work with female livestock keepers (Dolberg, 2001; Rahman et
al., 1997; Curry, 1996; Panin and Brümmer, 2000; Farooq et al., 2000; Gueye,
2000; Rangnekar, 1998; Matthewman and Morton, 1997).

Many programmes lack an understanding of women as agents in their own Strengthen women’s
right to development. The case studies from Orissa and Bangladesh show basic needs for
examples of practises that focus on women’s role in livestock development. influence and social
Both studies show that in a targeted approach to involve poor women who empowerment
would otherwise be left out of development, many have been able to improve
living conditions of their households. But when the involvement of women
does not strengthen women’s basic needs for influence and social
empowerment, the impact will always be restrained by the low and weak
capacity that poor women often hold.

28
Table 1-6. Livestock services and the constraints of poverty
General constraint
No “voice” in policy formulation or in
the architecture of services
Limited access to education
High frequency of illiteracy
Health constraints and limited access
to health services reduces capacity for
productive activities
Limited access to land and water
and/or insecure rights
Limited access to assets (e.g.,
livestock)
Low household income
Limited access to credit
Limited access to extension and other
agricultural and/or livestock services
Limited access to markets
Specific constraints for
women
The lack of voice is particularly
consistent for women all over
the world.
Female disadvantage in
education has been clearly
shown to constrain women’s
productivity
Woman’s health constraints:
There may be a reduced
capacity for productive activities
due to intestinal diseases, poor
nutrition, tightly spaced
childbirths, and female genital
mutilation
Often the responsibility and
work burden of caring for sick
family members rests on
women
Limits on women’s right to own,
control, and inherit land are
widespread
Limits on women’s right to
inherit assets are widespread
Women often have the least
access to earning income
They may have an income but
no right to control the income
Women often have no access to Investment in new livestock and
credit., especially female- technology is difficult
headed households In times of crisis the family may sell out
livestock if they have no access to credit
Most services are only directed
towards men
Women are often less able to
reach the market because of
domestic responsibilities and/or
cultural hindrances
Consequences for effectiveness of
livestock services reaching the poor
Services might not have relevance to
farmer needs
Farmers have no ownership of the
services
Women are being neglected for most
services
More sophisticated technologies that
demand high levels of management
skills might not be feasible
Training in new technologies must be
simple and practical
Great need for supporting supervision
Many families are constrained by labour,
so that labour-demanding technologies
or services that require farmers to travel
distances are not feasible.
This is especially pronounced for female-
headed households
Extra labour demands placed on women
will often fail. This issue is often
neglected in the introduction of fodder
production programmes
Access to fodder and water resources
are scarce and/or insecure and limit
livestock production
May discourage women from investing in
land improvement, agricultural
equipment, and livestock
Poor farmers own proportionally fewer
livestock and small livestock are most
important
Investment in new livestock and
technologies is difficult
In times of crisis the family may sell out
livestock if it is their only assets
Family is too vulnerable to take up risky
new technology
A technology which demands expensive
inputs may not be feasible
Livestock services need to be low cost
Poor farmers and especially poor female
farmers cannot take advantage of new
technologies or market possibilities
Female-headed households are
particularly disadvantaged
Livestock keepers may not increase their
production beyond subsistence level
because they have no market for the
surplus
29
 Box 1-6. Women as community link workers in ILDP Koraput in Orissa
The core of ILDP’s approach to delivery of low-cost livestock services was to use
Community Link Workers (CLWs). One man and one woman were chosen in each village
by the community. One woman in each village was trained as a CLW so that village women
could participate in the programme. The training comprised simple first aid, poultry
vaccination, deworming of sheep and goats, and castration of bucks and rams. Moreover,
the CLWs were provided with the essential equipment such as thermo flasks, vaccines,
medicine kits, etc. Some of the women CLWs were provided with bicycles.

Women as CLWs in this case, however, has not added much value to the service delivery
system. Most of the women CLWs have little education and the role of the CLW is very
untraditional for women and therefore challenging. For them to function effectively, they
would need additional training and confidence building measures to prepare for new roles
that challenge traditional norms.
Case study of Orissa

This is further confirmed by Seeberg (2002) from the Participatory Livestock

Development Project in Bangladesh. The programme, which focused on
income generation among poor women, did have a potential to empower
women economically, but it did not challenge the existing power structure
and gender relations. The programme also has limited impact on the
economic empowerment of the women. For example, the women did not
have access to the market, but relied on male relatives to sell their produce.

The impact of livestock development on the poor

Past livestock programmes have, with some exceptions, had little impact on Past livestock
the poor, as shown by DFID’s comprehensive reviews of 800 livestock programmes have
projects and programmes (LID, 1998). The authors concluded that the had little impact on
majority of livestock projects and programmes had not had a significant the poor
impact on the poor for the following reasons:

• Technologies were developed but not delivered to the poor.

• Technologies that were delivered were inappropriate for the poor.
• In cases where appropriate technologies were successfully delivered,
wealthier farmers or herders tended to capture the benefits.

A subsequent report by the same authors, offers the following conclusion

(LID, 1999): “Our review of project documentation on technical and service-
related projects revealed little evidence of widespread sustainable impact on
the livelihoods of the poor. Although there are some islands of success, the
overall tenor of the literature, donor assessments and evaluation reports that
we reviewed, is that technical and service projects were not successful at
benefiting the poor on a sustainable basis”.

30
 Box 1-7. Dairy and poverty reduction for women, Ganjam District, Orissa
The credit scheme for dairy animals for women analysed in the Orissa case study was for
dairy buffaloes introduced to landless women. For many of these landless households,
feeding and grazing was a real problem. In some cases children dropped out of school to
herd the buffaloes, and the cost of feeding concentrate was too high to make milk
production profitable. Moreover, the advisory service required for feeding and management
was almost absent. Ninety percent of calves died because of poor nutrition and health
services. The scheme left a number of these household in debt.
Orissa case study

The example in Box 1.7 shows that there are cases when households are so
marginalised and have access to so few resources that promotion of Inappropriate
inappropriate livestock production can have a negative impact and increase livestock production
the vulnerability of poor households, especially when not adequately can have a negative
accompanied by necessary services such as skills development and impact
advisory services. Economic sustainability has not been properly considered
and this evidently imposes a great risk on the livestock keepers.

An analysis of World Bank projects corroborated this scenario (de Haan et

al., 2001). “The livestock portfolio analysis shows that our current World
Bank operations still lack a specific poverty and environmental focus. This
lack of focus is shown by the low level of investment in the poorest regions of
the world (Central Asia, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa), in pastoral
development and in small stock, and to some extent, in the low share of
investments to improve animal health and nutrition, which are critical
constraints faced by the poor”.

De Haan et al. (2001) further noted that since the 1970s there has been a
decline in support for livestock projects by the World Bank: Only six active
agricultural projects are for livestock only, and about 50 projects — of a total
agricultural portfolio of 270 projects — have livestock components. The
decrease in lending is partially a response to the poor performance of
projects during the 1970s and 1980s. It is apparent that there is a perception
at the donor level that past livestock projects and programmes have not
realized their intended impacts.

There are a number of reasons for the lack of poverty focus. First, services,
particularly in Africa, justifiably focused on high priority needs of that
moment, such as control of contagious diseases such as Rinderpest.
Second, projects launched during that period were mostly designed to
increase food production rather than directly address equity issues. They
were based on the "trickle down" theory, i.e., economic growth will, at some
time, also reach the poor. Third, the projects were typically designed and
implemented through public sector livestock services. Service providers were
brought up with the classic cattle and wealthier farmers bias, as were the
livestock specialists of the major donor and financial agencies. Finally, some
of specific technologies that could be useful for the poor such as thermo-
stabile vaccines, drought resistant fodder species, improved local and
resilient breeds, were not yet available. They now just begin to emerge.

31
Recent programmes with a poverty focus
Recently, however, a number of livestock development programmes have
appeared that contain a strong poverty focus. The case studies from Orissa, Recent pro-poor
Bangladesh, and Bolivia contain details of some experience of pro-poor livestock services
livestock services, some of which have considerable impact in terms of have considerable
poverty reduction among extremely poor groups of livestock keepers. For impact on poor
example, the combined micro-credit and poultry development programme in livestock keepers
Bangladesh reaches at least 8 million poor landless households and the
effects in the form of increased income and nutritional improvements are
quite impressive. Similarly, the Indian cooperative dairy development, which
now covers about 9 million poor households, is another example. Chapters 2
and 3 describe some of their strengths and weaknesses in more detail.

32
Chapter 2
The Delivery of Livestock Services

Service Providers
The most important factor determining the pro-poor focus of any service is
probably the nature and identity of its provider. How the service is delivered The key issue is:
and who delivers it can turn the poor into passive service receivers, or it can who drives the
empower and enable them to take action. Because the aim is the latter, the delivery system?
key issue is who drives the system — the livestock keeper or the service
provider. Two related questions are:

• Who are the service providers responsible to?

• Who pays the service provider?

Delivery systems that make service providers responsible to their users and Are service
give them a free choice of provider will enhance their power to negotiate and providers
demand quality services. This is also assumed to be the case for poor responsible to the
livestock keepers users?

Public and private roles in service delivery

The responsibility for a certain task depends on the nature of that task. Umali Poverty reduction is
et al. (1994) present an analysis and suggest a model for division of roles in the public interest
between the public and private sectors for veterinary services. The principle
is that the services, which are basically private goods because the individual
user captures all benefits, should be supplied by the private sector. Key
private goods in livestock service delivery include clinical veterinary services,
most vaccinations, sale of pharmaceuticals, artificial insemination and other
breeding services, feed and fodder inputs, and most financial services. For
services that benefit an entire community such as vaccinations against the
most contagious diseases, sanitary and quality control, advisory services,
and training, the public sector needs to intervene.

This document argues that poverty reduction is a public good and that the
public sector needs to intervene, in particular to provide an enabling
environment and by promoting regulations and monitoring so that services
reach the poor

The quality of services depends to a large extent on who the service provider
is responsible and accountable to, and how the income of the service
provider is related to results that the users achieve. Table 2-1 is an overview
of the main service providers, their oversight, and income sources.
Sometimes, however, responsibilities are confounded and users are “tied up”
in other types of dependency, as in the poultry model in Bangladesh, where
micro-credit and technical services are delivered as packages from the same
NGO.

33
Table 2-1. Characteristics of service providers
Delivery system Service provider Responsible to Income depending on
Centralised public Frontline staff in Central department Mostly national budget
services government
department
Decentralised Frontline staff in local Local government National budget and local
public services government priority
department
National NGO NGO frontline staff Central NGO office Donor policy and funding
services
Donor
(User?)
Local NGO NGO staff Donor Donor policy and funding
(User?)
Private services Individuals, staff, or Enterprise owner Economic capacity and
owners of private and user priority of the user
enterprises
Producer Staff of producer Board of producers Economic capacity and
organisations organisations priority of the user
Users
Private entrepreneurs

A changing environment
In most developing countries, government institutions are traditionally
“driving” livestock services, but this is now rapidly changing. Many countries
are undergoing major economic adjustments including reforms of public
services, which has a strong influence on the delivery pattern for livestock
services. In a survey of 13 African countries on the effects of structural
adjustment on veterinary services, Gauthier et al (1999) showed that the
number of public sector staff stagnated as a result of the adjustment and that
the number of private veterinarians and para-veterinarians increased. Public
services concentrated on “public good” tasks, although only partially — there
is still overlap and duplication of functions. Adjustment also meant that
livestock services were often integrated into general advisory services. Some
services, such as artificial insemination, declined in the absence of a viable
private sector.

Public sector responsibility — private sector implementation

Public sector responsibility, however, does not necessarily mean public
sector implementation. The public sector may take the responsibility for
supporting development of private service systems in areas where these
may not be immediately profitable, for example, in market development. The
public sector might also take a proactive role in areas where social concerns
make public intervention necessary for equitable access to services.

The public sector

Taking responsibility in this sense means providing the enabling environment must provide an
and sometimes funding through private organisations enabling
environment

A good example of an enabling action by a national government is the history

of Danish livestock development. Although the Danish government never
interfered with management and institution building, it was seen as public
interest to enhance livestock development. This created strong market-
34
oriented livestock production, which became the backbone of economic
growth in the Danish society. The government played an enabling role and
provided some financial support (Box 2-1).

Box 2-1. The Danish case – increasing livestock productivity through

advisory service
“The increase in productivity in Denmark was to a high extent knowledge based. The most
important way of spreading knowledge was by agricultural advisers. In 1871 a local
farmers’ union employed the first agricultural adviser. More followed suit, but local unions
could not afford to hire advisers. A revision of the Livestock Act in 1887 accelerated that
development. The new act meant that the government would pay half the wage of a
livestock adviser. Before World War I, this resulted in a ten-doubling in the number of
advisers (137 advisers).
th
“In general, there was only little contact between trades and government in the 19 century,
but the Livestock Act may be considered as one of the most important trades acts. It
animated to improvements in quality in breeding by giving awards at cattle shows. It also
promoted creation of farmers’ unions and their rank and file as local unions were delegated
the role of organising the shows, and as a non-member only a half award could be
obtained.
“It must be emphasised that the advisers were not employed by the Government but by the
local farmers’ or smallholders’ unions”.
Danish case study

Centralised public services

Providing services to livestock keepers through government line departments
has in most cases proven to be both inefficient as well as expensive.

Some services such as vaccination against contagious diseases, quarantine

measures, and food safety standards need to be centrally planned and Planned and
monitored to be effective. However, others such as advisory services and monitored outside
natural resource access are mostly planned at the national level outside the the influence of the
influence of the end users. In such cases, it is not possible for local users
managers to respond to particular local needs. Moreover, these services
often lack a poverty focus because the policies of central governments have
focused more on macro economic growth than on poverty reduction.

Feedback mechanisms on the quality of centralised public services depend

on the status and power of the particular user or user group. Wealthy
livestock keepers with political influence may have the opportunity to offer The poor cannot
feedback to the system. The poorer part of the community will not have the offer feedback
confidence, and if they do, their lack of political influence will reduce the
impact. These service providers, therefore, have no interest in serving the
needs of poor livestock keepers. It is not surprising that in field surveys poor
livestock keepers often complain about the rude and negligent attitude of the
field staff of public services (Heffernan and Misturelli, 2000).

The recently prepared Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)

generally avoid livestock issues. These strategies and the subsequent
investment plans are prepared by national governments in close consultation
with civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders, thus the
absence of livestock issues in those papers further indicates that livestock
producers and poor livestock keepers in particular lack political influence.
35
Decentralised public services
Decentralisation could be a way to increase the efficiency of public services Decentralisation
because it brings decision making closer to users. Many developing brings decision
countries are experiencing increasing democratisation and much effort has making closer to
been put into decentralising decision making, administration and technical users
services to local authorities. The decentralisation of technical services has
broad two models:

• Decentralising the administration of services by the same line

departments with some degree of monitoring passed to local
community boards
• Complete delegation of the responsibility for service delivery to the
local authority

Decentralisation alone does not change attitudes of service providers. It may

render the services more effective, but does not confront the core problem of Decentralisation of
centralised public services. Only to a limited extent does it change only administration
competence, but maintains the structure and responsibility upwards in line does not change
departments. attitudes

Decentralised public services may therefore only be more effective than

centralised if the responsibility is also decentralised to local authorities that in
turn are responsible to local stakeholders.

The weakness, however, is that the services easily become politicised and
under the influence of local power structures in which the poor have no part, The poor are often
as was shown by Berdegue (1997) in the agricultural advisory services in the excluded from
Municipal Technical Assistance Unit in Colombia. The poorest parts of the influence
communities are often excluded from influence, which is also seen in
connection with implementation of the Law of Popular Participation in Bolivia
(Box 2-2).

Box 2-2. The Law of Popular Participation in Bolivia

An example of decentralisation with a strong element of democratisation is the Law of
Popular Participation in local planning in Bolivia. The law seeks to enhance the involvement
of all local stakeholders in the planning and delivery of services in local areas. However,
several surveys showed that poor livestock keepers are still not satisfied with their role in
the decision making process. The poorest parts of the communities are not represented in
the process because the poor are rarely organised.
Anderson, 1999; Bojanic, 2001

The challenge therefore is to enhance the participation and organisation of

the poor parts of the communities.

36
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)
National and international NGOs can be effective service providers if:

• Poor livestock keepers participate in defining needs and designing

activities NGOs can be good
• A methodology is used that ensures the target group’s full service providers if
participation in the whole process; they involve the
• The success of the NGO is evaluated on the real impact and target group
empowerment of the users
• The NGO has adequately trained staff

Non-governmental organisations vary, and a great number are involved in

delivering livestock services to poor livestock keepers. Many donor
organisations regard NGOs as more effective providers of services to poor
populations than government institutions. Several international NGOs (e.g.,
Veterinaires sans Frontieres, Intermediate Technology Development Group,
Heifers International, and Farm Africa) have successfully launched animal
health and livestock advisory services among some of the poorest and most
marginal livestock keepers in East and West Africa. The Bangladesh case
study describes national NGOs working as a link between government and
poor livestock keepers with rather good results, although there are questions
about the quality of the technical services and how poverty-targeted their
activities are.

NGOs get their funds mostly from larger donors and are therefore mainly
responsible to that donor. Some NGOs operate on strong idealistic policies
and are dedicated to work with the poor. The main interest of many NGOs in The interest of
serving the poor, however, is to create a workspace for the organisations and NGOs is not the
the staff. The members, boards, and staff of the NGOs normally belong to same as the target
local elites and rarely have interests in common with the target group. group
Moreover, many NGOs do not respond to the needs of the poor because
they do not use proper participatory methods and do not involve the target
group in the design and execution of activities, which limits their effect. Box
1-5 (Morales, 1999) described one example and Box 2-3 provides another
anecdote.

Box 2-3. Perceptions of participation

A group of senior staff from 12 NGOs involved in the implementation of the Participatory
Livestock Development Programme in Bangladesh was unable to give a satisfactory
answer to the question: in which way is the programme participatory. They did not know the
real meaning of participation and the programme was designed and implemented as a
package without any involvement of beneficiaries in the decision making process. When
pressed on which approach was taken, the final answer was: “We are participating them”.
Authors’ observations in Bangladesh

37
Private services
Private livestock services have potential strength in that they are directly
responsible to users. Private enterprises may have a direct interest in
improving the financial outcome of livestock keeping for users because that
determines the economic viability of their businesses. There are thus Directly responsible
reasons to believe that privatisation of the “private good” services will make to the users
the services more attentive, demand-driven, and therefore sustainable.
Privatisation seems to be implemented well in areas where farmers are
wealthier, more well educated, and have the capacity to demand quality
services.

A critical element of success is the level of competition that can be

established. Transaction costs are high to effectively provide services in
remote and sparsely populated areas where most of poor livestock keepers
live (Box 2-4).

Box 2-4. Transaction costs to deliver services to the poor

Delivering services to the poor is expensive in staff resources and operating costs because:
• They are unable to access written information about available alternative
medications and in what places drugs may be obtained
• The costs to locate the poor in rural areas are high in terms of travel and time
compared to urban areas where the density of livestock posts and input selling
points is likely to be higher
• In a multi-ethnic environment where the poor are often minorities requires more
qualified staff
Farmers who belong to a farmer organisation or to the dominant ethnic group in an area
have a higher probability of effectively networking with other farmers and therefore access
more information than those more who are marginalized.
Ndungu, 2000

It is impossible to achieve “perfect competition” with sufficient numbers of

buyers and sellers, no barriers to entry, perfect and equal information to
everyone, and homogeneity of products and services if a conventional model Conventional
of professional veterinarians and extension advisers and for-profit agricultural models don’t work
banks is seen as desirable. With this model, livestock keepers have no
choice or power to negotiate price and quality because profitability only
allows a limited number of highly skilled service providers.

There is, however, increasing evidence that alternative models of private

sector or public-private partnerships can work effectively with poor livestock Alternative models
keepers. Alternative models to develop private sector delivery systems linking local partners
based on networks of local part-time agents are emerging in many countries with the professional
in Africa and Asia. Community Animal Health Workers (CAHW) or private sector
Community Link Workers (CLWs) systems, combined with a partnership with
the more professional private and public sectors, need to be developed.

38
Combining the roles of actors in community-based delivery
systems
The poultry model developed in Bangladesh (Box 2-5) is an example of the
development of privatised services within very poor communities and is also
an example of linking government institutions, NGOs, and the private sector
in an effort to reduce poverty through livestock development.

Box 2-5. The poultry model in Bangladesh

The poultry model operates with a model chain that secures a supply of needed services
within the community. In the model, key farmers who rear the poultry are the focus, and all
chain elements are small private enterprises.

GOB GOB
Parent Stock Day Old Chicks

26 6 40
Model Breeders Mini Hatcheries Chick Rearers

3900 Key Rearers

100 10 10
Poultry Workers Feed Sellers Egg Collectors

GOB and Community market

Private companies Eggs
Vaccines and medicines

• The key poultry farmers produce eggs for the market from five improved laying
hens in a semi-scavenging feeding system
• The poultry worker vaccinates the poultry and carries out some simple treatments
• The model breeder keeps the parent stock and provides eggs for the mini-
hatcheries
• The mini-hatcheries provide day-old chicks to the chick farmers
• The chick farmers provide pullets to the key farmers
• Feed sellers purchase raw materials from the market and supply mixed feed to all
the parts
• Egg collectors bring them to market for sale.
Modified from Fattah, 1999

Several studies and evaluations have shown the benefits of this model to
improve the livelihood of the poor (Nielsen, 1996; Pitt et al., 1999; Lund et
al., 2002). The concept of government helping to develop the private sector
through NGOs that mobilise community groups and develop small private NGOs mobilise
enterprises for community-level delivery of services seems an interesting and community groups
efficient model. The model has proved to be efficient in delivering micro- and develop small
credit to poor livestock keepers, but recent studies have revealed significant private enterprises
weaknesses in delivery of technical services (Lund et al., 2002). The
weakness seems to be connected to the way the formal institutions link to
the community-based system. There is presently no formal way in which
poor livestock keepers can respond to the services. The public sector
39
coordinates, funds, and supervises some NGOs that mobilise community Efficient in micro-
groups and deliver the micro-credits and technical services which are credit but weak in
needed from outside the community. However, the model is strongly driven technical services
and dominated by government institutions and NGOs. Poultry keepers are
not involved in design, planning, or decision making and they depend fully on Driven by
the NGO responsible for credits and technical services. The NGOs are government and
responsible to the Department and donors financing the programme. NGOs

Furthermore, linking delivery of micro-credit with delivery of technical

services by the same organisation poses two problems. First, when users The linking of micro-
have credit with the NGO, they depend on the same which does not credit and technical
empower them in relation to the service provider. Second, the NGO naturally services does not
concentrates on micro-credit because it is the profitable part, and tends to empower users
neglect technical services

In developing such partnerships, it should be acknowledged that public

sector funding for livestock services is unlikely to increase in most countries,
and that new priorities need to be established for the public sector.

Producer organisations
Producer organisations that are truly owned and controlled by the producers Producer
have the potential to empower the members and facilitate delivery of organisations can
services that respond to their needs and fulfil the required standards of empower the
quality. The history of livestock development in Denmark shows that small- members
scale producers can gain tremendously from organising and working
together to identify their needs and consolidate demands.

This study and others show that the poorest livestock keepers are not The poorest are not
members of producer organisations (Staal et al., 1998; Morton and Miheso, members of
2000; Staal et al., 2001). The reasons for this almost systematic exclusion producer
remain to a certain extent unclear. There are probably a number of factors organisations
involved where the low capacity of the poorest in terms of education, time,
and resources plays an important role. For poor livestock keepers to be able Need to enhance
to take part in the opportunities, there is need to find ways to develop organisations
organisations that include the poor. inclusive of the poor

Producer organisations formally belong to the private sector, but strongly

differ from other private service suppliers because they are owned and
controlled by producers, and vary in objectives and operations. Producers Producer
often access technical services through marketing associations or organisations can
cooperatives. Along with marketing, these organisations often provide other provide marketing
services, for example, many dairy cooperatives in India and Kenya not only and technical
collect and market milk, but provide technical services and distribute inputs. services

On the other hand, mixing marketing and service functions may lead to
undesirable confounding of public and private good functions, cross-
subsidies, and hence maintenance of unsustainable service systems. This
was seen in the cooperative movement in India, which in the early 1990s
obtained special protection from the commercial sector (World Bank, 1999).
Figure 2-1 shows the multifaceted advantages that producer organisations
and community institutions can offer members.
40
Figure 2-1. Multifaceted advantages of producer and community organisation

Policy advocacy
Market outlet
Credit facilitation

Farmers’ associations Price negotiation

Supply of AI
or breeding stock Marketing cooperatives
Community institutions
Village groups Information
Savings and credit associations dissemination
Supply of advisory
services Breeding associations

Political empowerment
Supply of animal health
services Exchange of
experience
Supply of inputs

Other producer organisations are of a more political nature and function Producer
mainly to negotiate the interests of farmers. This is common in developed organisations can
countries, and only recently started to emerge in developing countries, for also perceive
example in Bolivia, where farmers’ unions have quite a strong political political goals
influence. In India, the dairy cooperative movement likewise has taken a
strong advocacy role for its members.

A board of producer representatives is responsible for planning and

implementing services in the organisation. The board is elected from the Users can respond
members, and the board employs the management and technical staff. The directly to the quality
role of the board combined with the mandate they have from their fellow of services
producer members makes it possible for the users to respond to quality of
services, complain about inputs of bad quality, or negligent staff members.

Unfortunately, many cooperative marketing organisations have a history of

being governmentally controlled by laws and regulations, often under Government
cooperative ministries or departments. This often turned the cooperatives interference
into de-facto parastatal organisations and farmers in developing countries hampers benefits
often identify a cooperative as being owned and controlled by government. In
some cases, management cooperatives are still to a high degree
government controlled. This is the case in some of states in India, where the
public sector is heavily represented on the board of the state-wide union,
setting milk prices for the consumer, wages, etc. (Chandler and Kumar,
1998), thus affecting viability of the cooperatives.

When subsidies were phased out following structural adjustment, most

government controlled cooperatives went bankrupt and were closed or sold Liberalisation of
to private enterprises. Sometimes farmer associations maintained some cooperatives has
shares, as in the case of the PIL dairies in Bolivia, where the farmers’ promoted different
association FEDELPAS still owns 60% of the shares. Combining big private models
enterprises with producer organisations might in some cases enhance
economic sustainability, however, it needs strong producer organisations that
have the capacity to negotiate producer interests and make realistic
demands.
41
In Kenya, the dairy sector has been fully liberalised and the remaining dairy
cooperatives are actually in the hands of producers. Following the
liberalisation, formal cooperatives remained around the large towns and self-
help groups emerged in more remote areas. In a study of the perceptions of
livestock services among smallholder dairy producers in Kenya, Morton and
Miheso (2000) found that cooperative members accepted a lower milk price
than other enterprises paid because they favoured the additional services
that the cooperative provided. A similar situation occurs in India, where
cooperative members accept a lower price than the informal market offers
because of a more assured market and the additional service package.

Although the Kenyan dairy farmers felt that there were many organisation
and management problems with the cooperatives, they were still quite
enthusiastic about their ownership of the organisation and its assets, in
particular in the smaller cooperatives. Members of self-help groups had
similar feelings, but had a negative perception of cooperatives as being
bureaucratic, too influenced by government, not transparent, corrupt, poorly
managed, and making late payments to farmers.

Considering the potential benefits that producer organisations can render to

small-scale farmers, it is essential to enhance capacity building of
organisations that include the poor livestock keeper. This is discussed further
in Chapter 3.

Financing livestock services

Developing financing systems for livestock services for the

poor
User payments for services can be a powerful tool to promote empowerment
of livestock keepers, their organisations, and communities if designed in a The one who pays
proper way. Poor livestock keepers are in many cases willing to pay for commands . . . and
clinical health services. In studies of veterinary services in India and Kenya, the poor are willing
Ahuja et al. (2000) and Heffernan and Misturelli (2000) found that prices for to pay
services are not a major concern for poor livestock keepers. Their major
concerns are access and good quality services.

For services that have only prospects of developing user payments in the
long-term and for which the poor may have particular problems of paying, the Public support
public sector needs to support development in such a way that it builds the through
livestock keeper’s capacity to articulate needs and empower them to demand organisations of
quality services. One possibility is public financing channelled through poor people
producer organisations or community institutions to either provide services
for their members or contract them from private providers.

Return to free or subsidised public services can not be expected for services
that are clearly “private goods”. Moreover, informal payments are frequently
the rule, even if services are formally provided free of charge and the few
services that are provided free do not benefit poor livestock keepers but
rather wealthier and more influential livestock keepers (Ahuja et al., 2000).

42
However, it is a formidable challenge to develop a payment system for
“private good” services — such as clinical veterinary treatments and AI — Price is a limiting
that is affordable to the poor but also financially attractive to the service factor
provider. The above-mentioned studies also revealed that the actual
expenditure of poor livestock keepers on veterinary services is actually low, User payments
so price does matter, even if it is not the main factor. In the study from India, depend on the
the willingness by the lowest wealth category of livestock keepers to pay for benefit
services was about 30% less compared to the wealthiest category in the
same areas. In the Kenyan case, only 13% mentioned price as a major
constraint, but when the expenses of the study group were compared to an
“ideal” calculated expenditure, livestock keepers spent about 50 percent less
than this “ideal”. This difference is probably the combined result of lack of
access and a lack of ability to afford the services. The practical experience in
community-based systems seems to confirm these results. Moreover, the
ease with which user payments are implemented depends mainly on the
immediate benefits. The willingness to pay for curative veterinary services is
high, especially when the animal has a high production value. It is also high
for preventive healthcare if lowering the mortality rate has an immediate
commercial value, but the livestock keeper will naturally hesitate to pay for
such services if the lower mortality does not lead to higher cash income. Box
2-6 describes lesson learned from a livestock project in India.

Box 2-6. Learning lesson about poultry vaccinations from Bastar ILDP, India
“There is a puzzle concerning the target group’s attitude regarding the benefits of poultry
vaccinations – when we ask the village members about the benefits of the project, they
often fail to mention any. However, when asked specifically about the benefits of the poultry
vaccinations, they say that yes, of course, they now have more chickens surviving for a
longer time but this has not yet materialised in higher income for the family. This finding is
confirmed and consistent with findings from similar projects in adjacent tribal areas, where
farmers show little interest in continuing the vaccinations after the project withdraws and
they have to pay cash for the services.

“In the Indian tribal culture, poultry play a strong social and ceremonial role of gift giving
and sacrifice but not a commercial role. If chickens get sick, they are consumed anyhow, so
the question is mostly when they are consumed, and since the commercial role is missing,
a higher age and weight of a bird at the time of consumption does often not materialise as a
direct cash benefit.

“Real adoption of the vaccinations in these communities would therefore demand a move
towards a more productive and commercial role of poultry.”
Author observations from Bastar ILDP

It is clearly difficult to convince livestock keepers to pay for services that

have previously been free, especially if better quality is not assured. In a
study of small-scale cattle farmers in Zambia, they were reluctant to pay for
government veterinary services that they had earlier accessed for free.
Farmers who did pay for the services did not take full advantage, and
complained about poor quality (Chilonda and Huylenbroeck, 2001).

For other services such as advisors where benefits are mainly seen on a
longer term, immediate full user payment may be problematic. Because
poverty reduction is seen as a public good, continued public support for
financing these services is justified when they are directed to the poor, not
necessarily to the wealthier livestock keepers. Table 2-2 summarises the
assumed prospects of user payments for some different services.
43
Table 2-2. Prospects for user payment of livestock services
Immediate user payment Public good —
from poor livestock Long-term development of development of user
Type of service keepers possible user payment possible payment not possible
Curative animal Already in effect
healthcare
Preventive animal Possible for high-value
health care not animals or commercial
including externalities production
Preventive animal Partial payment to Remains a public good
healthcare, including compensate for externalities
externalities could be possible with strong
community organisation
Breeding services AI at full costs not difficult, Recording schemes to be Breed conservation and local
possible for high-value transferred to commercial breed selection programs
animals basis in the long run remain public good
Input supply Very possible Development of infrastructure
to enable access remains
public good
Financial services Very possible
Marketing Very possible Development of infrastructure
and market structure remains
public good
Market information Possible to develop for
products with high value
Market promotion Could be possible, but need In some cases may be in the
capacity building for strong public interest to act
organisations
Training livestock Possible in some cases for
keepers training with immediate
benefit
Advisory services Partial payment is possible
over time
Organisational support Partial payment is possible
over time
Training professionals Public responsibility
Training community- Could be possible over time In some cases may be in the
based service public interest to act
providers
Monitoring quality Could be possible over time, Mainly public responsibility
but need high capacity and
public back-up
Technology generation Could be possible over time, Mainly public responsibility
but need high capacity and
public back-up

44
The financial viability of private veterinary services
In addition to identifying a sustainable source of financing, commercial
attractiveness also needs to be ensured. In surveys of service providers of
more than 3 years in Kenya, Morocco, and West Bengal (one of the poorest
states in India), net income levels (all US$) were $10,000, $12,000, and
$3,500 respectively, compared with, for example, $40,000 in Canada (FAO,
2001; Sen and Chander, 2001). Sales of drugs are an important part of the
income, although the income from treatments was more important in all the
countries surveyed. Thus, while income is modest in developing countries, it
is generally at the level of public service salaries. The income for para-
veterinarians and Community Animal Health is more varied. Some surveys in
India showed attractive income levels for CAHW. These were sometimes
higher than those for the same level government employees (de Haan, pers.
com.), but they also showed that income is widely variable, often reaching
levels that are inadequate as the sole source of livelihood. Part-time
arrangements with mature persons (shop keepers or progressive livestock
keepers) are therefore increasingly recommended .

45
Chapter 3
The Focus of Livestock Services

The Poverty Focus of Livestock Services

It is a formidable challenge for most current service providers to deliver
livestock services with content that meets the requirements of poor livestock
keepers. They are accustomed to focusing on increasing production, rather
than enhancing equity. This chapter assesses the poverty focus of various
livestock services and identifies how they can be improved. The chapter
presents services beyond the technical bias of many current services, rather
than in terms of their ability to address the broader constraints attached to
poverty. IFAD’s Strategic Framework, Enabling the rural poor to overcome
their poverty is used as the organising framework for services because it is
appropriate to place livestock service delivery in this wider context (IFAD,
2002). Figure 3-1 shows the IFAD framework and strategic objectives.

Figure 3-1. IFAD framework and strategic objectives

Human and Social Assets Productive Assets and Technology

Strengthening the capacity Improving equitable access
of the rural poor to productive natural resources
and their organisations and technology

Enabling the rural poor to

overcome their poverty

Financial Assets and markets

Increasing access to financial
Services and markets

Livestock services are presented in this chapter according to three strategic

objectives:

• To strengthen the capacity of the rural poor and their organisations

• To improve equitable access to productive natural resources and
technology
• To increase access to financial services and markets.

Issues related to gender are cross cutting and are incorporated in all the
following discussions. The final section discusses the role that livestock
development and services can play in AIDS-affected areas based on the
needs of affected communities.

46
Strengthen the capacity of the rural poor and their
organisations
Enhancing community institutions, small private enterprises, and producer Enhance community
organisations are important for empowerment. This was emphasised in institutions, small
Chapter 2, but the reality is that poor livestock keepers often have weak or private enterprises,
no institutions at all, a result of their limited rights, education, knowledge, and and producer
political influence. Building capacity for poor livestock producers and their organisations
organisations and bridging conventional professional divisions into new
areas of cooperation must therefore be given high priority.

Organisational support
Empowerment of members to enhance democratic procedures, good Empower members
governance, and economic transparency demands strong support for to enhance
organisational capacity building. Producer cooperatives and farmer democratic
organisations in the developing world have mostly been established through procedures and
organisational support from governments or NGOs. This has led to top-down economic
autocratic directed groups, which in turn has led to un-democratic and transparency
obscured practices in communities that already lack democratic traditions.
This has been a fertile breeding ground for fraud and mismanagement.

There is no easy answer to these problems, and formal institutional channels

through which the poor are supposed to participate are not adequate
(Webster, 1999). This was confirmed by the research programme Local Exclusion of the
Organisation and Rural Poverty Alleviation (LORPA) at the Danish Centre for poor is a reality and
Development Research. This study looked at how democratisation, civil formal institutions
society, and promotion of local institutions can contribute to making are not enough
marginalised groups active participants in poverty reduction. The programme
found that in many contexts poverty is looked at as the fault and
responsibility of the poor (Webster, 1999; Heffernan and Misturelli, 2000;
Morton and Miheso, 2000). The exclusion of the poor from democratic
processes and institutions may therefore be so strong and systematic that
participation by the poor is not possible.

More practical experience is needed to find possible ways in which More practical
marginalised groups can become active participants in organisations and experience of
thus in the political processes that surround their production environment. inclusion for the
From Webster (1999) it appears that inclusion of the poor in organisational poor is needed
and political processes requires three preconditions to be in place:

• Inclusive institutional channels for participation Preconditions for

• Create awareness that poverty and poverty reduction are legitimate inclusion of the poor
issues
• Strengthen social and political practises among marginalised groups
that facilitate their participation in political processes

The last point emphasises recognition of established practises of informal

networks and community organisation. These are often neglected but could
have a potential role in facilitating participation by the poor in development
47
and implementation of livestock services. The suggestion, therefore, is to
work on a strategy, which:

• Enhances capacity building of organisations inclusive of poor

livestock keepers, and
• Recognises their own community organisations and informal
networks that are already established

This means that conceptually, organisations must be widened beyond the Widen the concept
conventional producer organisations, cooperatives, etc. to also include of organisations
traditional institutions, clubs, and informal groups of poor livestock keepers.

Livestock advisory services and skill development

Major needs of poor livestock keepers
Experience gathered during the case studies shows that introduction of new
technology to poor livestock keepers does not succeed without securing Introduction of new
access to support services such as training and advice. Chapter 1 identified technology to poor
problems such as lack of fodder and low-cost technologies as major livestock keepers
problems in almost all developing countries. Production systems that can succeeds only with
help current and potential livestock keepers improve often differ from access to support
traditional systems, and many poor — but potential — livestock keepers do services such as
not have a tradition of livestock production. The adoption of improved training and advice
technologies may only be possible if the poor livestock keeper’s capacity for
technologies such animal husbandry, fodder production, and management is
improved.

Appropriate livestock advisory services can have an impact

Livestock advisory services and skill development can have an important
impact on poor livestock keepers if they focus on technology and production
systems which the target group can easily access. A good example is
described in Box 3-1.

Until now – little attention

Very little attention has been paid to livestock advisory services!
Little attention has
Livestock production frequently has its own department separate from been paid to
agriculture, or sometimes its own ministry. However, within such livestock livestock advisory
ministries or departments, animal health is the major concern and the main services!
focus is on veterinary services, while advice on livestock production gets low
priority. For example, the National Department of Animal Husbandry in India
allocates less than 10% of its budget to information delivery (Matthewman
and Morton, 1997; Morton and Wilson, 2000). There have been cases
though, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa, where livestock production and
management advice has been integrated into extension departments of
agricultural ministries or departments with emphasis on agricultural
extension. However, staff of such departments often lack expertise in
livestock production, and again advice on livestock production receives a low Lack of poverty
priority and lacks a focus on the poor (de Haan et al., 2001). focus

48
Box 3-1. Livestock extension service for women in Pakistan
In a project in Pakistan, over a one-year period female extension workers delivered training and extension to female
farmers to improve their household poultry production. Apart from training and advice, the women received only
access to vaccines and some medicines.
The extension workers were trained to work for expansion of the traditional chicken system that the women already
used, and to consider the limited resources that these women had. Thus there was no significant increase in
operational costs. For example, women who had been buying broken rice from the market to feed newly hatched
chicks were advised to buy chicken starter feed in amounts equivalent to the price they used to pay for the broken
rice.
The intervention had a significant effect on productivity of their poultry flocks.
Comparison of results after one year of training
Parameter Before training After training
Flock size 18,7 30,8
Egg production per hen 57,4 97,6
Overall mortality (%) 41,8 17,8

The adoption rate was highest for the suggested practises of vaccination and part-time housing. Improved rearing
practises such as feeding, egg selection, hatching, care, and management of hens and chicks were not adopted as
much, but still at satisfactory rates.
Women practising the improved technologies (%)
Parameter Before training After training
Vaccinating chickens 25 100
Part-time housing 7 93
Improved rearing practises for chicks 15 64
Improved rearing practises for hens 20 70

Farmers probably did not have enough resources to adopt all the suggested practises. They gave priority to practises
that they perceived as most important.
Farooq et al., 2000

The picture is that there is an overall lack of competent institutions and

professionally trained people in this area. For example, a case study from
Burkina Faso found that farmers scored the quality and availability of Lack of competent
livestock advisory services provided by government extension services institution and
lower than those of any other sector, although they indicated that livestock appropriately
production advice was their highest need (Bindish at al., 1994). Where trained
livestock advisory services were provided, specialists had a tendency to professionals
choose their own target group, consisting mainly of “progressive” and
wealthier farmers with sufficient resources to adopt intensive livestock
production systems (Morton and Wilson, 2000).

Box 3-2 shows five biases of livestock extension in India that led to neglect
of the rural poor. The biases were identified in a study of goat production.

Box 3-2. Five biases in livestock extension in India

1. The extension system works according to a top-down transfer of technology and relies
on interactions with “progressive”, wealthier farmers.
2. The main focus is on large ruminants (cattle and buffalo).
3. The focus is on intensive systems, particularly milk production; other roles of livestock
are neglected.
4. The service concentrates on high potential areas.
5. The service is provided for men by men, neglecting the key role of women in livestock
keeping
Conroy and Rangnekar, 1999

49
The top-down extension approach is based on the assumption that
technology adopted by so-called progressive farmers will “trickle down” to The advice relevant
less progressive farmers. The problem with this approach is that progressive for progressive
farmers are generally wealthier, more able to mobilise resources, better farmers is often not
educated, and own more land. Advice for progressive farmers is often not relevant for the
relevant to the poor. poor

The system lacks:

• Participation by the poor;
• Low-cost systems for information dissemination;
• Appropriate technology generation and suggestions that respond to
needs of the poor
• Appropriately trained livestock professionals

Towards new systems – knowledge and learning Strengthen the

The strategy should be to rebuild the system and move towards knowledge livestock keeper’s
and learning systems that can strengthen the livestock keeper’s own capacity to demand
capacity to demand, organise, or seek information, training, and advice from
efficient sources.

Agricultural and livestock services can be integrated

Because most actual and potential poor livestock keepers raise some crops, Integration with
the challenge is to develop a system that integrates the public good aspects agricultural services
of animal health services and crop and livestock production advisory would address
services into one integrated advisory system. Integration would properly preventive health
address the problems of preventive health care, nutrition, and scarcity of care, nutrition, and
fodder resources in areas where mixed farming dominates — as long as scarcity of fodder
there are adequate advisors available who are competent in livestock
production,

Agricultural advisory services are, however, also in the initial stages of a

developing process. The widespread system of agricultural training-and-visit
extension services provided by government extension institutions has in Agricultural
most cases proved inefficient and not sustainable. A recent evaluation by extension services
IFAD (IFAD, 2001) found that the technology messages were not are under reform
appropriate for the poor farmers and that most of the extension institutions
neither targeted nor reached poor farmers. Agricultural extension services
are therefore currently undergoing extensive reforms in many developing
countries, and multiple approaches with a strong focus on communities and
farmers’ own demands and initiatives are emerging.

A group of international donor organisations involved in agricultural The Neuchatel

development and extension — The Neuchatel Initiative — is currently Initiative promotes
raising an interesting debate on the promotion and organisation of demand-driven
agricultural advisory systems as tools in rural development. The initiative advisory services
offers interesting opportunities for development of demand-driven advisory and a poverty focus
services and information systems. A recent study looked at these
possibilities with a greater focus on poverty (Christoplos et al., 2001). Even
if few of these developments have yet to provide enough information to
allow scaling-up to national levels, there are good prospects to combine the Opportunity for
initiative with efforts to develop livestock advisory services. combining efforts

50
Community-based systems can be applied Needs clear tasks,
Community-driven extension services are the core of new developments. performance
Systems that allow communities to competitively contract public or private criteria, and funding
providers are being tested in several countries. Voucher systems, which
allow producers to choose their own providers, are variants of the same
competition theme. Community-based systems, combining animal health
services with advisory services, have a mixed record and only work well if
clear tasks, performance criteria, and funding are included. Expecting the
community animal health worker to perform advisory services in addition to
his animal health duties without funding has generally failed. Farmer-to-
farmer advisory services are introduced under the Danida-funded Farmer Farmers can train
Managed Training and Extension Program in Uganda, in which the Uganda fellow farmers
National Farmers’ Association (UNFA) uses Extension Link Farmers to train
fellow farmers in particular agricultural disciplines (Kagwisaqye, 1997).

Latin America has had some very interesting developments and innovations
in provision of advisory services through farmer communities. Berdegué
(1997) describes the example of a project to support the Development of Farmers’
Technology Transfer to the Peasant Communities of the Highlands of Peru communities can
(FEAS). The project directly supported farmer communities to contract their contract their own
own advisers. These advisers have included a wide range of “experts” from services
agronomists and veterinarians to artisans and farmers known in the
communities as experts in different skills. Despite starter problems of
demands being induced by the advisers themselves rather than by farmers,
the project had good results — the farmers gradually developed specific and
relevant demands to the advisers and have benefited from the resulting
activities.

Learning processes are needed

A new concept should enhance learning both for livestock keepers and
professionals because livestock professionals usually lack experience in a
poverty-focused setting. The challenge is to develop the traditional Learning both for
extension agent into an adviser and key partner for the farmers in professionals and
development decisions for their farms and farming systems. The adviser in livestock keepers
this case is in a constant dialogue with the farmer, and the objectives are to
optimise the return for the farmer with the particular resources available and
at the same time increase the knowledge and management capacity of the
farmer. For poor livestock keepers with little access to resources, standard
extension packages are rarely applicable. A flexible technology and learning
process that enables them to apply general principles to their own situation
and modify solutions to their particular needs is required.

During the development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), the concept “Farmers’ Livestock
of Farmers’ Field Schools developed. Farmers’ Field Schools promote a Schools”
learning process in which the individual farmer learns by his or her own
observations and experiments and from farmer-to-farmer exchange. The
professional adviser functions as facilitator of the learning process.
However, concerns have been raised by Quizon et al. (2001) on the Learning with lower
financial viability and sustainability of the concept. Forms of learning with costs need to be
lower overhead, where a joint learning approach is maintained, need to be developed
developed.
51
 Box 3-3. Farmers’ Field Schools for development of IPM in Indonesia
Groups of up to 25 farmers meet once a week during the 12-week rice-growing season to
compare results of an IPM field and a conventional rice field by means of a participatory
“agro-ecosystem analysis”. This requires small groups of farmers to observe rice hills and
their environment, to catch and identify various insects and other organisms, and to draw
conclusions. During the meeting, various other subjects are discussed along with group
dynamic exercises. Farmers’ Field Schools have proven to generate farmer enthusiasm,
self confidence, and a considerable reduction in insecticide use.
Groot and Röling, 1997

The core learning concept could be further developed into a concept of

Farmers’ Livestock School in which technology for poor livestock keepers Observations,
could be developed through discovery learning, group discussions, sharing discovery learning,
experience and observations, looking at practical examples with group group discussions,
members, and learning to experiment and observe. Probably the same and sharing
approach would encourage and empower group members to formulate their experiences
demands to service providers.

Box 3-4. Livestock component in food security programme in Cambodia

In the Special Programme for Food Security in Cambodia, the main approach for all
activities is Farmers’ Field Schools. Livestock production (pig, poultry, and duck
development) is a component of the programme. The farmer groups establish Village
Livestock Associations which plan and organise the activities. So far, the experience has
been encouraging. Vaccination and improved poultry housing have reduced mortality of
chickens from 76% to 24%. It is claimed that the learning process develops the farmer’s
ability to think critically and to make decisions.
Khieu, 1999

Improve equitable access to productive natural

resources and technology
Poverty reduction depends on economic growth, which in livestock is heavily
dependent on access to natural resources. But in many parts of the world,
the productive natural resource base is under increasing pressure and the
poor are being crowded out. Policies and institutions to secure equitable
distribution of land and water resources are therefore urgently needed.
Technology development has for many years been biased towards the
development of high tech solutions to production problems. The poor have
not benefited from these because they cannot afford them. The following
section assesses access to land, water, and technology, and analyses
services that promote access to these for poor livestock keepers .

Access to land and water resources

Land and water are increasingly scarce resources
Access to feed resources is a major and increasing constraint for many poor
livestock keepers. The resource base narrows as access by poor people to The poor have
common land for grazing or arable land for fodder production is threatened. decreasing access
The recent FAO global study, World agriculture: towards 2015/2030 (FAO, to common land for
2002) estimates that developing countries over the next 30 years will need grazing and arable
an additional 120 million hectares for food crop production to feed growing land for fodder
populations, with the primary expansion necessary in sub-Saharan Africa
52
and Latin America. This additional land will most probably further reduce
access to common lands and a number of countries will face land scarcity.
In India, Jodha (1992) found that over the period 1950-1985, common
property areas declined by half, the number of watering points in those
areas was reduced by about two-thirds, and 20% of the area formerly used
by cattle, was now used by small ruminants.

Since then the situation has deteriorated even further. Many poor livestock Overgrazing
keepers in dry and/or hilly areas depend on common land for grazing. As causes land
many of these areas experience population growth and pressure on degradation
available land increases, overgrazing becomes a common cause of land
degradation. This leads to a downward spiral of pressure on the few
available resources, and increased vulnerability to climatic changes. Box 3-5
is an example of this from Botswana.

Box 3-5. Overstocking in Botswana

In a study of goat production in Botswana, the major constraints were:
“The large number of animals kept in the villages lead to overstocking and severe
overgrazing, especially, in the winter where natural pasture is reduced to zero. This results
not only in inadequate feed but also in poorer quality of pastures each year. Since
supplementary feeding is often too expensive, the result is starvation, which again result in
high losses”.
Mrema and Rannobe, 2001

Pastoral livestock systems are under severe pressure

Most pastoral livestock systems are under severe pressure from increased
land pressure, exacerbated by insecure land rights and periods of severe Crop farming
drought. Crop farming increasingly encroaches in areas of higher potential encroaches on
such as valley bottoms and other wetlands that are critical reserves for dry- reserves used for
season grazing in pastoral management systems. Conflicts appear, such as dry-season grazing
in Senegal/Mauritania (Horowitz and Salem-Murdock, 1993) and Nigeria by pastoralists
(Maina, 1997). Furthermore, access to grazing resources in arid lands is
defined by access to livestock watering points, and sedentary farmers or
wealthy pastoralists increasingly block access to those points (Pratt et al,
1998).

Good tools to predict drought and their dissemination in pastoral areas are
essential (Stuth, 2002). Early response systems are even more essential, Tools for predicting
but are more difficult and therefore slower to emerge, although recently a drought, early de-
number of interesting systems were tested in World Bank- and IFAD-funded stocking and re-
projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Mongolia. These include early de-stocking stocking, and
and re-stocking, stratification of livestock production between growing in establishment of
lower potential area and finishing in higher potential areas, establishing fodder reserves
fodder reserves, and even livestock insurance schemes (Skees, 2002).

Another pressure on pastoral communities comes from land and wildlife

conservation programmes that fail to address the human-nature
relationship. Examples are the great conservation areas in the Rift Valley in Livestock – wildlife
Eastern Africa — Mara, Serengeti, and Ngorongoro conservation areas, that integration needs to
are traditional pastoral areas of the Maasai tribes. Despite the fact that cattle be followed
have for centuries been a natural part of the ecology of the savannah and
that all anthropological studies confirm that the Maasai and the wildlife
53
population live in a mutual co-existence, most conservation programmes are
still based on conflict. Pilot livestock-wildlife integration projects that give the
pastoral community a greater share of the benefits of wildlife conservation in
return for more harmonious integration of different livestock and wild life
species are now emerging in East Africa (de Haan et al., 1997). These
projects also consider disease and grazing behaviour and need to be
closely followed for eventual scaling up.

Mixed farming systems have decreasing feed resources

The rapid growth in population leads to increasing intensification and
decreasing access to land in mixed farming systems that predominate in the
highlands and humid and irrigated areas. Feed is often limited to the extent
that livestock are undernourished and unable to work up to their potential
(Staal et al., 2001).

During the stakeholder workshop for the Bangladesh case study, the
concern was raised over the costs of milk production for poor, almost
landless farmers. The available space is extremely limited and a Analyse the
dependency on purchased feed leaves very few possibilities to reduce prospects of
costs. Moreover, Bebe (2003) shows that increased land pressure in the livestock production
Kenyan highlands leads to intensification, increased dependence on systems from the
purchased feed, and a herd composition that cannot supply its own perspective of
replacement animals anymore. In the long run, such systems are not available fodder
sustainable or capable of providing an adequate livelihood. In the future it resources
may be necessary to reduce the number of intensive ruminant-based
livestock farmers to ensure adequate feed supplies and herd dynamics for
the remaining farms. A viable non-farm economy would be needed to
ensure those developments.

Appropriate pro-poor technologies

Poor livestock keepers need improved technologies to increase the
productivity of their livestock. But these technologies must be appropriate to
their needs and should consider the constraints of the poor and their
vulnerability if they are to be successfully adopted. Furthermore, this
technology should be followed with adequate support services such as
training, advice, input supply, and markets, etc. The following section
discusses some general needs for development of pro-poor livestock
technologies and services.

Pro-poor livestock technologies should:

• Minimise risk
• Focus on the livestock to which poor households have access
• Build on traditional knowledge and skills
• Use appropriate equipment
• Require minimum capital
• Address the scarcity of feed resources
• Address the problems of diseases
• Provide appropriate genetic materials

54
Minimise risk
Traditional small-scale farming systems usually have a sound basis that The level of
promotes long-term food security for poor farmers. The level of vulnerability vulnerability
depends on external forces such as macro-economic policies, commodity determines the
prices, and climate changes. The vulnerability is also affected by internal ease with which
factors such as resource access, endowment, and level of poverty. Those households can
factors together determine the ease with which households can switch from switch from one
one activity to another, a key risk management strategy of the poor. activity to another

Any kind of risk can be hazardous to the fragile existence of the poorest
households. These households prefer to diversify their activities in order to
minimise risk. They aim to minimise variations in production, expenditures,
and income rather than maximise the productivity of one certain activity
(Zoomers, 1999). Thus, any suggestion for improvement must first of all aim
at stabilising the production system and will rely on existing low-risk and
low-input technologies. Other households are less vulnerable and have
access to a small reserve — labour, capital, or other resources — that may
increase productivity because they can withstand a level of risk.

An analysis of risk factors involved with introduced technologies combined The risk involved
with an assessment of whether the level of risk corresponds to must correspond
the actual level of vulnerability is therefore critical in any technology the level of
adoption assessment. Box 3-6 shows an example of inappropriate vulnerability
technology for small-scale farmers in Togo.

Box 3-6. Rabbit project in Togo

A community of small-scale farmers in Togo produced rabbits in a system integrated into
their own traditional farming systems. This was successful and beneficial to the farmers
until an extension agent introduced new technologies:
• Local forages were replaced by purchased concentrates
• Hutches were replaced with purchased wire cages
• Small operations turned into larger ones
The farmers were now subjected to high economic risks because the cost of the
production rose and the assumption that they would benefit by scaling-up proved untrue in
this case. The project collapsed and jeopardised the rabbit-farming livelihood of the
farmers.
Lukefahr and Preston, 1999

Technologies that build on existing practices among the poor livestock Technologies that
keepers and that introduce moderate changes at low cost are most likely to build on existing
succeed. On the other hand, in cases where livestock development involves practices are most
big investments such as purchase of dairy cattle or expensive sheds, there likely to succeed
is a need to include an insurance component as seen, for example, in the
Community Livestock and Dairy Development Project in Bangladesh. The
cost of insurance of the purchased animals is included in the micro-credit
component of this project.

Focus on the livestock to which poor households have access Poor households
Livestock development that focuses on livestock species which people have most frequent
already own reduces risk because they have considerable skills and access to small
knowledge to build on. Poor households have more frequent access to small livestock
livestock than to larger livestock. Poverty often correlates with “size” of
livestock species. The poorer the household, the more important are small
55
ruminants, poultry, or micro-livestock such as honeybees. This is even
stronger in the case of women because they are more likely to have access
to and control over small livestock. Women have a particular role with small
scale poultry because the birds and their produce are widely accepted as
possessions that they can manage and control as they wish.

However, as several authors (Chambers, 1997; de Haan, 2001) point out, Need for redirection
both past and present livestock development programmes have a strong to include small
bias towards cattle programmes and services (Box 3-7). A redirection of livestock
services to also include small livestock would increase their potential impact
on poor households in the community.

Box 3-7. Experience from smallholder dairy projects in Zimbabwe

By involving smallholder farmers in dairying, a major assumption was that this would result
in economic efficiency and a high degree of equity in the process. This was not achieved.
Only the larger-scale and wealthier farmers were able to take up dairy farming because
they could afford the risk of a new venture. The financial outlay required to initiate and
operate dairy farming goes beyond the financial capacity and credit-worthiness of poor
rural farmers, including female-headed households, who are not able to participate in
smallholder dairy farming, even at the most modest level.
Hanyani-Mlambo, 1998

Build on traditional knowledge and skills Fit into the

Considering the constraints that the poor livestock keeper faces in terms of traditional system
educational level and lack of access to knowledge and information, pro-poor and expand
technologies must build on existing knowledge and skills. Improved capacity
technologies that fit into traditional production systems and expand capacity
are more likely to be adopted than new production concepts. This principle
is demonstrated by the semi-scavenging poultry model for poor landless
women in Bangladesh (Box 3-8) (Fattah, 1999; Alam, 1997).

Box 3-8. The semi-scavenging poultry model

The model builds on the fact that most rural women in Bangladesh keep poultry around
their homes. These birds traditionally feed by scavenging around the houses, and
whatever little they produce belongs to the women and contributes to their livelihood.
The improved poultry model builds on the skills and knowledge that the women already
possess to care for poultry. The technology is improved in the sense that the model
combines a small number of crossbred layers with the traditional flock of local birds and
introduces a feeding model of semi-scavenging. The hens scavenge half the day and get a
supplement of purchased feed to encourage egg laying. Moreover, it addresses the health
constraint by training some women in vaccination against Newcastle disease and fowl pox.
Authors’ observations

Require minimum capital and use appropriate equipment

Capital, assets, and cash income always place constraints on poor livestock
keepers, so pro-poor technologies and services should promote
technologies that do not require high investment or expensive inputs.
Furthermore, support services promoting the technology must be accessible
and able to operate at a low cost. This also applies to the cost of
accompanying equipment. For example, artificial insemination in some
instances is an appropriate technology, but it is often out of reach of the
poor because of expensive equipment and costly inputs. However, the
interest from service providers for less costly technology such as room
56
temperature semen and bull camps is lacking. Another example of
inappropriate technology is described in Box 3-9.

Box 3-9. Introduction of Boer goats to small-scale farmers in Botswana

A programme in Botswana introduced Boer goat rams at a subsidised rate to small-scale
farmers in Botswana. A later study of goat production in Botswana subsequently revealed
that one of the major constraints was high mortality among the offspring of these rams due
to poor management and an inability to provide conditions required for such breeds
because they were too expensive.
Mrema and Rannobe, 2001

Address the scarcity of feed resources and water

Research has offered a number of technology options for fodder production
for small-scale farmers and better utilisation of crop residues as fodder. In
many societies there is, however, little indication that small-scale farmers Real constraints
adapt new technologies for fodder production. This is mostly because the are access to land
real constraints are access to land and labour. Where land is available, the and labour
determining factor is the economic return to labour from food crops or fodder
for livestock. The experience in Kenya clearly shows that if economic
incentives are adequate, farmers adopt cultivation of fodder crops such as
Napier grass on a large scale (Bebe, 2003). Similarly, farmers on the
Altiplano in Bolivia who had a reliable market outlet and a favourable price
for livestock products, widely adopted fodder production technologies in a
complex crop rotation of potatoes, Quinoa and onion with alfalfa and oats for
hay (Authors’ own observations).

When land is available and livestock keepers have a reliable market and
favourable prices for livestock products, they easily adopt fodder production
technologies.

Address disease problems

The poor generally see animal diseases as a major constraint. High Health pressure is
mortality caused by parasites and infectious diseases is a prevailing related to
problem in tropical countries. These problems are closely related to production systems
production systems, and the most intensive systems face the highest
pressure. For example, under the highly intensive Kenyan smallholder stall
fed systems, both adult and calf mortalities are much higher than under the
less intensive free grazing system. Most disease control technologies have
focused on cattle and rely on rather expensive technologies that require cold Robust preventive
storage facilities and often multiple applications per year. More robust and curative
preventive and curative technologies that can be stored at room technologies able
temperature and provide long-lasting effects need to be developed to serve to be stored at
the poor. Perry et al. (2001) sought to identify and prioritise the most room temperature
important diseases affecting the livestock of the poor and the most effective and provide long
approaches to address those diseases. While priority rankings were made lasting effects are
of those that made the poor more vulnerable, the overriding conclusion was needed by the poor
that the technology to control those diseases had to be seen in the context
of the overall farming system.

Provide appropriate genetic material

Poor livestock keepers need livestock of appropriate genetic background.
The literature provides several examples of livestock programmes that
57
introduced new animal breeds that were unable to adapt to the conditions
which poor farmers can offer. Box 3-9 briefly describes the result of an The poor mostly
inappropriate programme. While wealthy livestock farmers might be able to require local breeds
manage exotic breeds successfully, the poor mostly require local breeds or or low-level
low-level crossbred animals that are hardy under local conditions and crossbreds
require fewer external inputs. However, government breeding programmes
are often biased to these exotic breeds as the “magic bullet” for the desired
increase in production.

Animal health services

Animal health services have traditionally been given high priority. They have
traditionally been the responsibility of the public sector, but more recently
there has been a move towards more efficient distribution of tasks between
the public and private sectors in most countries. This has been induced by
the structural adjustments mentioned in Chapter 2.

How to address the needs

Livestock keepers need access to a number of animal health services in
order to keep their herd or flock healthy. Some critical requirements are:

• Access to preventive disease control measures such as

vaccinations, and internal and external parasite control
• A reliable supply of key veterinary pharmaceuticals, in particular for
small livestock
• Training in the administration and follow-up treatment with key
pharmaceuticals

While the emphasis of most government services is on large animals, the

case studies from Orissa and Bangladesh show good examples of delivery
systems for preventive healthcare to small livestock and poultry that have Most services focus
significant effects on the livelihood of poor livestock keepers. In Koraput in on large animals
Orissa, poultry and goat vaccinations along with de-worming had good
results and reduced the mortality of goats and poultry significantly. Poultry
vaccinations are likewise vital to the success of the model in Bangladesh. There are good
Generally, vaccination programmes have significant impact on livestock results for
production and livelihood because they reduce vulnerability and the need for preventive
costly curative treatments later. Vaccinations of the most contagious healthcare of small
diseases (List A of OIE) are centrally planned, and the poor are generally livestock
included in such a campaign. The services are much less reliable for the
less contagious (List B of OIE), and the poor often lack access to these.

The need for diagnostic services varies according to the background of the
livestock keeper. New livestock keepers often lack adequate knowledge
about animal health and management and are therefore very dependent on
diagnostic assistance when their animals fall sick. Traditional livestock
keepers to a large extent are self-reliant in this area.

Subsidised health services and privatisation

Over the last decade, there has been a move towards a more appropriate Subsidised services
division of labour between private and public sector animal health providers, hinder privatisation

58
but there is still substantial overlap and even unfair competition between
public and private veterinarians. For example, public veterinarians in South
Asia are allowed to charge for services they provide outside office hours,
thus there is little incentive for any veterinarian to start a private practice Privatisation starts
(Ahuja et al., 2000). In sub-Saharan Africa, privatisation has been more in high potential
pronounced, and it is estimated that there are now about 2000 private areas
veterinarians. Privatisation normally starts in high potential areas, but as
these become fully covered, there is a gradual penetration to the lower
potential areas, as shown by developments in Morocco and Kenya (Owango Low potential areas
et al., 1998). It is not likely, however, that a conventional private veterinary need low-cost
service will be economically viable in those areas (Oruko et al., 2000; Stem models of
and Sode, 1999; Ndungu, 2000). More appropriate models of private service privatisation
delivery with the use of para-vets and drugstores are currently providing
services in low potential areas.

Health services through marketing cooperatives

Policy changes towards privatisation have created an interesting workspace Cooperatives can
for dairy cooperatives in Kenya to broaden their activities and combine milk provide economies
marketing with other services. Some of the smaller cooperatives form of scale for poor
associations that hire veterinarians to provide services to the dairy farmers, producers
thus providing economies of scale for the users.

Box 3-10. Veterinary services provided by dairy cooperatives

Typically, a farmer sends a note with a request for a visit by a veterinarian technician
through the milk collector on the early morning route. The note is returned to the
cooperative office with the milk and the farmer is visited on the same day. Members of the
cooperatives are charged for services on a cost-recovery basis The charge is deducted
from the month-end payment for milk. Non-members can obtain services at an additional
fee and by paying cash.
Owango et al. 1998

Community-based service delivery

Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) are becoming an increasingly
vital part of the delivery of veterinary services, especially in marginal areas
where conventional private professional practice may not be economically Broaden the range
viable. Increasing the range of operation for the CAHWs and incorporating of operations for
more broad therapeutic skills has enhanced animal health care. This may Community Animal
serve two purposes: Health Workers

• The CAHW would be more flexible to address the wider needs of the
community and may therefore receive more support from the same
community
• It ensures better economic incentives for the CAHWs because they Quality concerns
can increase their income from the activities for community-
based services
Several stakeholders have raised concerns about the quality of CAHW
services, in particular, under-dosing that may lead to resistant pathogen
strains, and overdosing that can be dangerous to humans who consume
animal products. However, Holden (2001) shows in a survey of CAHWs in Community Animal
four countries that the CAHWs had a higher percentage of correct dosing of Health Workers can
acaricides and de-wormers than government technicians, although at 50% deliver quality
correct dosing levels, there is still room for improvement. Both CAHW and services

59
technicians did significantly better than farmers, who almost universally
under-dosed. Quality problems are normally due to lack of a proper
technical support system (Stem and Sode, 1999). This is particularly the
case in government systems (Catley, 1996).

Conditions for quality community-based services

A number of conditions are necessary to ensure high quality of community-
based services.

Community-based systems can ensure high quality services

provided they are based on:
• Community selection and support of the agent
• Mature agents who carry out community animal health tasks when Quality services
needed as part-time employment need a technical
• Sufficient and appropriate training and refresher courses support system
• Broad base of skills and services to enhance income
• Full user payment and commercial approach
• Reliable supply of drugs
• Professional supervision and quality control
• Responsiveness to dissatisfied clients

Developing a recognised training curriculum and supplying sufficient training

would be an enabling role for governments to develop high quality,
community-based services. Similarly, free drugs often provided as
emergency aid in times of drought or disease undermine the viability of any
private (veterinary or para-veterinary) service, and should be prevented, or
alternatively, managed through the available private networks even if this
costs more.

Catley and Leyland (2000) reviewed some trends in community participation

in animal health care. The review uses two community-based animal health
interventions to illustrate the different approaches (Box 3-11).

The first example shows that these poor communities can organise Poor communities
themselves to select CAHWs and sustain them for many years if they are can organise,
sufficiently involved and in agreement with problem identification and project select, and sustain
design from the beginning. The approach was broad-based because it CAHWs for many
incorporated Rinderpest vaccination into development of basic clinical years if they are
services rather than only focusing on control of one disease. There was full sufficiently involved
attention to sustainability from the beginning by giving proper attention to
cost recovery and linking networks of CAHWs to private veterinarians. The The label
long-term sustainability after withdrawal of the supporting NGO has, “community-based”
however, yet to be proved. The second example reflects a top-down cannot be
approach despite the label “community-based” and therefore community sustainable if the
involvement in the programme was not sustainable. approach is top-
down

Gender aspects of veterinary services

The question of male bias in veterinary services is only slightly touched in Gender balance
the references. They include very contradicting assumptions on the effect on needs a targeted
community-based services. Some claim that CAHWs are likely to be more approach
gender sensitive than the conventional veterinarians; others claim the
60
opposite. However, within traditional power structures of male dominance it
is highly unlikely that community-based services alone can secure equal
attention to men and women. For this to happen, there is need for a targeted
approach such as in the cases of the female Community Link Workers in
ILDP Koraput in Orissa, Women Poultry Workers in the poultry model in
Bangladesh, and women vaccinators for New Castle Disease in poultry in
Indonesia.

Box 3-11. Two examples of community participation in animal health care

Development of primary veterinary services in pastoralist areas of the Horn of Africa
The programme used CAHWs to address a limited range of animal health problems
identified by livestock keepers, including Rinderpest. The contact to the communities was
through indigenous institutions. Prioritisation of problems, identification of solutions, and
project design were carried out in cooperation with the communities using participatory
methods. CAHWs were trained by the project, but after that they worked on full cost
recovery from livestock keepers. They were solely responsible to the community and were
linked to private veterinarians for technical support.
The programme resulted in the eradication of Rinderpest from the Afar region in Ethiopia
and in dramatic reductions in outbreaks in southern Sudan. The social impact was
continued existence of self-sustaining CAHWs, and community decision making forums
reflect support at local level.
Community-based tsetse control using targets and traps (in settled farming
communities in Zambia, Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe)
The programme contacted the communities through the local government or professional
personnel. The communities were neither involved in the prioritisation of tsetse control nor
in project design. Professionals outside the communities even decided placement of the
traps. The communities were given veterinary drugs for free and workers who
manufactured the traps were paid a salary from the project.
The technical impact of the intervention was temporary reductions in fly populations.
Although there were area differences in success, the result was generally poor long-term
community management of targets and traps.
There was no record of continued existence of community-level resources, institutions, or
information.

Animal breeding services

Poor livestock keepers need access to appropriate breeding programmes
and breeding material that considers the special conditions under which Appropriate
they operate, as well as the multiple roles that livestock play in their breeding goals and
livelihood. They therefore need to participate in prioritising breeding strategies are
objectives, selecting criteria, and designing breeding programmes. needed

The genetic traits of local livestock breeds have developed over centuries. Poor livestock
As production is slowly changing from multipurpose to a narrower, more keepers should be
single production role, breeding goals and strategy need to be adapted. involved
Breeding strategies based on the import of exotic breeds from intensive and
industrial production systems that require access to high levels of inputs
have generally not been beneficial for the poor.

The focus should be on genetic improvement of local breeds that can adapt Local breeds carry
to local conditions such as drought, diseases, and high altitude, and carry traits of great
traits which are important to the poor. Many local breeds carry remarkable importance to the
genetic traits that are of crucial importance. Good examples are resistance poor
of African Zebu cattle to vector-borne diseases such as East Coast Fever,
61
the mostly West African Taurine, cattle and sheep breeds with tolerance to
African Trypanosomiosis, and a high capacity to digest local fibrous feed by
some pig breeds in Mexico and China (Geerlings et al.; 2002, Cunningham,
1995).

Prevailing traditional breeding strategies have focused on exterior-

phenotypic characteristics and have not been performance based because Modern breeding
breeders could not measure, test, and keep records of productive traits. technologies should
“Modern” breeding programmes have often failed to acknowledge the be used to
important traits of local breeds. Application of modern breeding technologies increase the
is now required to increase the performance of local breeds without losing performance of
their positive pro-poor characteristics. This can be based on crossbreeding local breeds
or the introduction of more efficient selection programmes for local breeds.

Cross breeding provides improvement in a short time

Crossbreeding provides animals with improved production capacity in a
short time. Crossbred animals can cope with local conditions and can help
reduce poverty if management, resources, and market conditions are
favourable. Crossbreeding has been used intensively throughout the world
to develop dairy production, including smallholder dairy in countries such as
Kenya, India, and in many Latin American countries. It has also been
successfully used in developing pro-poor poultry stock (Box 3.12).

Box 3-12. The Sonali hen for poor landless women in Bangladesh
The Sonali hen is a cross of the Egyptian Fayuomi hen and Rhode Island Red cock. The
Sonali hen is “tailor-made” for use in poor households in Bangladesh. Poor landless
women in Bangladesh were testing different crossbreds in order to find a combination that
had the highest egg production, lowest mortality, and highest profit per hen under the
semi-scavenging conditions and their management. The Rhode Island Red transmits the
trait of high egg production and the Fayuomi ensures that the trait for scavenging is also
transmitted. Moreover, the size and colour of the Sonali hen are traditionally much
appreciated so that both meat and eggs carry a premium price in markets.
Rahman et al., 1997

Crossbreeding depends on supply of breeding material

Small-scale dairy farmers normally have very few cows, perhaps only one or
two, thus artificial insemination is an option used in many areas, either
through government services, producer organisations or dairy cooperatives. Artificial
Artificial insemination needs to be supported by a good infrastructure, fast insemination needs
communication, and high-quality management. It is most suitable in to be supported by
intensive production areas with good infrastructure and a high level of good infrastructure
organisation and support services. Dairy cooperatives often provide
technical support for artificial insemination and supply semen from dairy
breeding bulls. Moreover, in Kenya international AI companies are getting
increasingly involved.

Many dairy farmers, however, have had mixed success with artificial
insemination, and a large proportion return to natural insemination because Many dairy farmers
of poor fertility or inappropriate genetic material. As a result, farmers are return to natural
willing to pay higher prices for natural breeding services, and there is still a insemination
continuous need to subsidise AI service even by the cooperatives in India
(World Bank, 1998). In Kenya, there was a dramatic drop in the number of
inseminations after privatisation and cost recovery were introduced (Bebe,
62
2003). In Bolivia, dairy farmers are very reluctant to utilise AI because
fertility has been poor and crossbred cattle have trouble adapting to the high
altitude Briskett’s disease.

Village bull centres might be an attractive alternative in areas where the Bull centres are an
delivery of AI is constrained by infrastructure or communications. The alternative in
centres have been established commercially in several countries, but carry remote areas
the risk of spreading diseases. Bull centres must therefore pay special
attention to health issues.

Poultry production with improved breeds needs a steady supply of stock

replacements. Any use of exotic hybrid breeds in the system introduces a Poultry production
critical element of dependency on a centralised supply of parent stock or with improved
day-old chicks. The reliability of this will depend on how well the distribution breeds needs a
system can function. This can work in densely populated areas with a good steady supply of
infrastructure, but will inevitably cause problems in less populated areas stock replacements
where poor infrastructure constrains the distribution system. For example,
transferring the Bangladesh poultry model to the more dispersed farming
communities in Malawi has met with such problems.

Appropriate breeding strategies for local breeds

Breeding strategies with exotic breeds have clear drawbacks. They can
dilute the special genetic resources of local breeds and can thus pose Crossbreeding can
problems for resource-poor farmers. Thus more community-based breeding dilute important
schemes working with selection within local breeds are needed. Geerlings et local genetic
al. (2002) provide five case studies that illustrate how breeding programmes resources
that sustain and develop local breeds can enhance the livelihood of poor
rural people. The emphasis is to involve livestock communities in the
management of local genetic resources. A promising model is the Open Community
Nucleus Breeding System (Box 3.13), which has provided excellent results involvement in
in Côte d’Ivoire with local sheep (FAO, 2002) and is now being introduced management of
by the World Bank in India with sheep and buffaloes, and in Ghana with local breeds
goats, sheep, and pigs. Results are still pending, but early experience
indicates that government breeding specialists give extraordinary attention
to the government farm and elite herd, and neglect supply herds at the
village level.

Box 3-13. Nucleus breeding

Genetically superior animals are brought together from supply herds to form a nucleus herd
of elite animals, often on an available government farm. An efficient recording and selection
programme is established, and the best males are kept for breeding in the nucleus herd,
while other males are distributed to the supply herds or used by local AI organisations. The
nucleus herd may remain open to the best females from the supply herds. Performance
testing is carried out on the entire population.
(Smith, 1988)

Access to inputs
Livestock development is often constrained by a lack of reliable inputs. The
required inputs vary according to production system, but there are generally
four groups:
63
 • Veterinary medicine and vaccines
• Feed supplements
• Breeding materials (semen for AI, parent stock, day-old chicks, etc.)
• Tools and equipment

The process of liberalisation has in many areas increased access to inputs

when private enterprises have started marketing them. However, they have
focused on the well-integrated areas, whereas livestock keepers in more
remote areas with poor infrastructure still have significant problems and high
costs of accessing inputs. Private-public partnerships — i.e., subcontracting
private suppliers and producer or community organisations — can be tools
for accessing inputs in rural areas and also for reducing the unit costs of
handling and transportation.

Another issue is affordability of inputs. Poor livestock keepers will normally

not be able to afford technology that demands expensive inputs. Integrated
services, which provide a reliable supply of inputs including micro-credit,
might open new possibilities for livestock keepers to utilise new
opportunities.

Increase access to financial services and markets

Access to financial services is a precondition for livestock
development Poor people have
Appropriate savings and credit facilities that cover the particular needs and almost no access to
constraints of the poor are important tools to increase production for poor savings and credit
livestock keepers. Nonetheless, secure saving facilities are often missing in services
rural areas, interest rates on deposits are often lower than livestock yields,
and poor people often have no access to loans through conventional banks.
Banks are oriented towards bigger loans and demand collateral which the
poor cannot offer. Livestock are normally not accepted as a collateral, and
women are often particularly disadvantaged.

People in rural areas often use livestock as a bank. Livestock are easily
tradable assets, they are an investment, provide insurance, and can be
used to cover bigger expenses such as purchase of agricultural inputs or for Rural people use
cash in times of crisis. For rural livestock keepers to use their livestock in livestock as a bank
more productive ways, they need alternatives to secure their profits and but the poor have
draw on for investments and other expenses. Moreover, the poor have fewer livestock to
fewer livestock to draw on in times of crisis. Without these productive draw on
assets, they are more vulnerable to changes and have no possibility to
invest in new activities. Increased productivity from livestock will always
demand a certain input of capital and access to credit, and is thus a
precondition for the poor to invest in livestock production.

Savings and credit schemes

Developing rural financial markets
Throughout developing countries, different models of enhancing agricultural
production through credit schemes have been tried. For two to three
decades, credit has been directed to agricultural production as loans for field
crops inputs. The directed credit systems have been supplied through
64
government banking systems — national commercial banks — or they have
at least been highly regulated and subsidised by governments.

This mode of financing rural production has been politicised and highly
unsustainable. Many loans have been made, but the largest sums reached
better off and powerful farmers. Over all, repayment rates have been
extremely low. Bangladesh’s national commercial banks reported a recovery
rate of around 20% in the period 1999 to 2000 (Mallorie, 2001). Interest Directed credit
rates have been subsidised below market rates, which made those loans systems for
attractive to the wealthy and powerful. Loan decisions were usually based agricultural
on political connections rather than financial criteria. The subsidies helped activities have been
make the system even more unsustainable and also hindered development unsustainable and
of commercial credit systems. During the 1990s, there was a consensus to mainly reached the
move away from directed credits to development of what is generally known better-off farmers
as “rural financial markets”. This involves policy reforms that remove
government regulations and control as well as subsidies.

Table 3-1 shows major differences between directed credits and rural
markets. The objective of a rural financial market is to provide rural Rural financial
communities with a range of sustainable financial services according to their markets need to be
demands — savings, insurance, and credits. Countries have moved at more sustainable
different speeds and degrees of willingness to develop financial markets

Table 3-1. Primary features of financial systems

Features Directed credits
Problem definition Create a better market
Role of financial Promote new technology
markets Stimulate production
Implement state plans
Help the poor (however, most
directed and subsidised credit
ended up with the rich)
View on users Borrowers as beneficiaries
selected by targeting
Subsidies Large subsidies through interest
rates and loan default
Create subsidy dependence
Source of funds Government and donors
Associated Designed for donors
information systems
Sustainability Largely ignored
Evaluation criteria Credit impact on beneficiaries
Mallorie, 2001
Rural market
Lower risks and transaction costs
Intermediate resources are more
efficient
Borrowers and depositors as
clients choosing products
Small subsidies for institution
building only
Create independent institutions
Mostly voluntary deposits
Designed for management
Major concern
Performance of financial
institutions

Credit and vulnerability

Access to credit is often highly appreciated and well utilised to improve the Access to credit is
livelihood of poor livestock keepers. However, the vulnerability of the poor is highly appreciated
a particular challenge for credit institutions — the poorest people will often by the poor
refrain from taking loan because they fear the risk of defaulting. This is
illustrated well in the example from Orissa in Box 3-14. The fear is very real There is high risk
because the poor have no resources to draw on as a buffer or for collateral. involved in credit
65
Credit, however appreciated it may be, may create the risk of dependency
and leading poor families into debt from which they are unable to recover. Fraud and
There are examples of credit systems that have had a negative effect on mismanagement
families. The risk is especially high in connection with investments in are hazardous for
livestock, where mortality is a constant risk. It is therefore essential that poor livelihoods
credits for poor people are manageable and responsive to the needs of a
particular household. At the same time, there must be risk-mitigating
mechanisms built in such as insurance on the animals and access to Transparency and
technical support. Many poor livestock keepers have experienced fraud and accountability are
mismanagement in credit institutions that has been hazardous to their important
already fragile livelihood (Mukherjee et al., 2002). They need to be secured
from such problems. Transparency and accountability are therefore equally
important characteristics of good financial systems for the poor. If financial
services are to benefit the poor, guidelines must be established.

A credit and saving system for poor livestock keepers should:

• Be easily accessible
• Be well understood
• Be accessible to women
• Provide a free choice of investments
• Be sustainable
♦ Charge interest rates that covers all costs
♦ Recover the loans
• Provide a range of financial services at an appropriate level
♦ Savings
♦ Loans
♦ Insurance
• Be transparent and accountable to users
• Link to appropriate technical support services

There are at the moment a number of different ways in which poor livestock
keepers can obtain financial services:
• Informal savings and credits
• Livestock loans-in-kind (exchange systems)
• Micro-credits — group saving and lending through NGOs
• Bank loans through membership in producer organisations

Informal credits are the major source of capital for poor people
Informal credits from neighbours, relatives, professional moneylenders,
input suppliers, traders, and informal savings and credit associations such
as Self Help Groups are the major source of credit for the majority of poor
people all over the world. In times of particular need or crisis, poor people
will borrow money from informal financial sources.

Borrowing money from neighbours and relatives may be the most important
source of capital in times of immediate need and is a community’s way of Borrowing money
coping with poverty and crisis. The value of these arrangements should not from neighbours
be underrated, but the system has its limits. First, it is mostly used for and relatives may
emergencies, rarely for production investments. Second, many rural be the most
communities are generally poor and there are limits to the capacity of such important source of
sources. capital

66
Professional moneylenders are mainly used in real emergency situations,
but also sometimes to repay loans from more formal institutions. Interest Professional money
rates are claimed to be very high, and in some instances they might well be, lenders
although there is increasing evidence that they are actually reasonable if
risks and transaction costs are considered. Input suppliers and traders can
also act as short-term credit sources, especially when they supply inputs.
This might well be one of the more efficient informal credit channels.

Informal savings and credit associations are mentioned in some references Informal savings
and might be more widespread and important to poor rural people than and credit
documented. They are normally based on communal savings and rotation of associations are
small loans from joint funds and charge interest that will secure a revolving probably important
fund for the association. The loans are normally quite small and often used for many poor
to invest in livestock. Sustainability may be a problem for informal credit people
associations because they often have too little capital to withstand a crisis
such as default or fraud. Moreover, the educational level of members is
sometimes so weak that they may not have the capacity to uncover fraud
and secure their funds. The Self Help Groups in Orissa could be such
examples (Box 3-14).

Box 3-14. SHGs in ILDP intervention area in Koraput, Orissa

In light of the critical role that credit plays in the lives of poor people in the project area, a
key area of intervention has been formation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) of women and a
few groups of men. The SHGs make credit available in the village through the members’
small weekly savings and a subsequent grant from ILDP. From the total amount, group
members can take loans at 24% per month. These loans are often used for livestock
investments. Members of the SHGs are very poor and the women have benefited from the
credit — better living standards and improved social status and self-confidence.
However, the poorest among these poor remain excluded from the system because they
fail to save money. Furthermore, there is an uneven use of the loans both in terms of
frequency and amounts. A few members borrow large amounts more often compared to
the rest. In several groups the Community Link Worker or some large landholders have
taken the largest loans.
The loan pattern in the study villages indicates that the higher one is above the threshold
of poverty, the better are the chances for further investments. However, although it seems
that the better off have benefited most from the available capital, they have not done it by
depriving the poorer ones. It is probably more that the poorest part of the group fears
investments.
However, the question remains as to how long this will continue in the absence of an
external supervising body and a system of collateral. There are no formal conditions
attached to the relationship between the amount saved by an individual and the size of
loan that is available. The system appears to be working because the grant from ILDP is a
large incentive for repayment. The system has not yet been tested against defaults, but
since no safeguarding mechanisms are in place, sustainability is questionable.
Orissa case study

Livestock loans-in-kind are responses to financial market failure

In-kind credit programmes are developed as a response to market failures
of rural financial services. As such they are considered as temporary
arrangements to solve immediate problems of poor farmers in situations
where there are no other alternatives, but not as an ideal solution for credits.

Some programmes provide livestock loans-in-kind by distributing breeding

stock to poor farmers on contract. The farmers normally repay the

67
programme with female offspring — the concept is sometimes referred to as
“passing on the gift” because the offspring are distributed to new farmers.
The model has especially been promoted by Heifer International and other “Passing on the
international NGOs, and is used under different circumstances — from gift”
introduction of dairy heifers to rabbits and chickens. For example, the
distribution of rabbits in Cameroon was quite successful. It started with a
few innovative farmers and careful technical and organisational support
services, and has spread to 2500 families (Lukefahr and Preston, 1999).
The most well known are loan schemes that distribute female dairy animals
— heifers to poor farmers in return for the first-born heifer calf. The heifer
calf is then given to a new farmer. Sustainability, however, has been difficult
for these programmes. The repayment of heifer calves is low in many of the Problems of
schemes. Participants face problems of low calving rates and mortality with sustainability due to
the cows and offspring. In the Tanga Smallholder Dairy Development lack of
Programme only 20% of farmers repaid their heifer after 7 years (Afifi-Affat, management skills
1999). Problems that affect sustainability include lack of management skills and market
among the participating farmers and a limited milk market in the most
isolated areas.

The system has the best performance in cases where markets and technical
back-up are assured, and distribution is organised through a cohesive group
structure where member recipients have an obligation to distribute the off-
spring to a new member.

Micro-credit schemes make capital available to poor households

Delivering micro-credit to poor people through NGOs has received major 8 million poor rural
attention in Bangladesh. This sector has been extremely successful in households use the
getting credit to the rural poor. It is estimated that a total of 8 million poor NGO micro-credit
rural households use the NGO micro-credit system in Bangladesh. A very system in
high proportion of the loans are directed specifically towards poor landless Bangladesh
women, and an estimated 20% of loans are invested in livestock (Mallorie,
2001). The financial sustainability of these schemes is very high — the Financial
repayment rate is often more than 90%. As in the case of in-kind schemes, sustainability is
loans are given to groups of lenders who are collectively responsible, and very high – more
the system is based on collective group pressure. Some NGOs concentrate than 90%
solely on micro-credit lending, others provide a package of micro-credit repayment
along with training and technical services. In the case of combined
packages, technical services are sometimes neglected because the NGO
tends to concentrate more on delivering credit and collecting repayments Combined
(Mukherjee et al., 2002; Lund et al., 2002). Dedicating part of the loan to packages of loans
contracting technical services by an agent selected by the loan beneficiary and technical
might be more appropriate because it might enhance quality and reduce the services
dependency on the micro-credit NGO.

Loans are rather small and short-term, with repayments every week or
second week. The NGOs charge variable interest rates, but a flat rate of
15% is common. Depending on the mode of distribution and repayment, the Many give priority
effective interest rate is 30–45% per year. Many of the schemes prioritise to women
loans to women because repayment is significantly higher than loans to
men. There are selection procedures involved in the schemes, especially in
those that include packages of training or services. This is mostly the case
for specialised livestock credits — the poor themselves have no influence on
68
the design of the packages and selection procedures.
Despite the great success of reaching poor families with credit, the “ultra
poor” — the poorest 10-15% of the population — cannot benefit from micro-
credit schemes. Many of these families fear the risk. Others may try, but
drop out because they fail to repay the loan. Some of the poorest complain The poorest cannot
of the rude attitude and harassment from NGO staff (Mukherjee et al., benefit from micro-
2002). The reasons for dropping out are not well established, and strategies credits
of how to reach the poorest group have yet to be thoroughly analysed.

Box 3-15. Success in the micro-credit scheme for poultry in Bangladesh

Amena Begum from the village Gagralasker in Jinaigati was divorced two years ago. She
was in distress with her two children and had no source of income. Her brothers gave her
shelter, but she did not like to live on the mercy of her brothers and was desperately
looking for a self-employment opportunity. Then the NGO Proshika approached her and
she joined the village credit group. She took a small loan to buy day-old chicks, construct a
house, and procure utensils. She retained the rest of the money for petty business and
monthly repayments.
By rearing chicks, Amena Begum saved some money to meet family needs. She is
confident that by rearing another nine batches within two years she will be able to repay
the loan, including interest. So she expects to become self-reliant by the end of third year.

Amena says that the benefit of chick rearing is that she is able to meet her livelihood
needs and pay educational expenses for her children. She has also used some savings to
purchase local poultry. She also constructed a small thatched house on the homestead
that she inherited from her father. Amena is confident that she will be successful at
rearing chicks and improving her socio-economic condition.
Bangladesh case study

Bank loans through membership in producer organisations

In some cases, membership in well-established producer organisations with
solid assets such as buildings and processing equipment can produce
collateral and help members obtain loans from banks for livestock
investments. Typical examples are dairy cooperatives, where small-scale
farmers who are members of the cooperatives can obtain loans to invest in
dairy cows or buffaloes.

This possibility emphasises the strength of producer organisations to secure

services for small-scale producers that would otherwise have been
inaccessible. But the success of this depends on the organisation — the
true ownership, a producer’s influence, and transparency of loan
programmes. Too often cooperatives are not in the hands of the producers
and the loan programmes resemble directed credit. One unsuccessful
example was in Orissa (Box 3-16), where a group of households under a
women dairy cooperative society received loans to purchase buffaloes for
milking.

The above example violates the principles mentioned in the beginning of

this section in a number of ways:
• People could only chose crossbred cows or buffaloes. They chose
buffaloes because they felt that it would be difficult to maintain
crossbred cows
• Group management was imposed on the members
• The women’s dairy cooperative society was just a formality. The
women were not involved in the management of the dairy unit
69
 • Labour for feeding and grazing the animals are real problems. In
some cases, children dropped out of school to graze the buffaloes
Advisory services required for management were almost absent — the fact
that 9 of 18 calves born from the first lot of buffaloes died speaks of poor
services

Box 3-16. Loans for women dairy societies in Orissa

Dhobapalli Milk Producers Cooperative Society (MPCS) and Dairy Development and
Poverty Reduction Scheme under SGSY
Thirteen families — all landless —received loans for dairy animals under SGSY. In the first
phase,11 families received loans (Jan 2001) under a group dairy scheme, and two families
received loans in 2002 under the individual dairy scheme. The beneficiaries are mostly
families of a scheduled caste. The loans were given in the name of the male members of the
households.
The MPCS was formed in the names of the wives of these male beneficiaries. A committee of
men including one non-beneficiary, who is the husband of the secretary, carries out the
actual management. The women have no information about business transactions of the
dairy unit. The only thing they know is that the group management is incurring a loss. For
about 10 months the entire profit from selling milk was spent on maintenance of the animals
and repaying the loans. There was no money for the individuals, and a few families took an
advance.
Twenty-two buffaloes were purchased collectively for the entire group — two head per
beneficiary. There was no individual ownership of the animals until the group was dismantled
around October 2001 and they divided all the buffaloes and calves in 11 units and distributed
them among the 11 members. In the second lot of loans, two more buffaloes were given to all
the families. Now the families are seriously considering selling one buffalo out of the four to
repay the loan because they are not able to repay it from the sale of milk.
What were the main problems? The answer was clear —- the system of group management!
Now that the group management system has been eliminated, the high cost of feed and lack
of green fodder are the main problems.
Bangladesh case study

Access to markets
Access to markets is a long-term need for the poor
A significant — although declining — number of poor rural households are
surviving on subsistence production. The most important issue for many Market access is
subsistence producers is to increase productivity to a level of food security needed to scale up
so they are not very concerned with market structure or information. production and
However, if they want to scale-up production and escape the poverty trap, escape the poverty
they need markets. Several development efforts have stagnated because trap
markets were either not accessible or absent.

Rural livestock keepers have difficulty in accessing markets

Poor livestock keepers often live in remote areas with poor infrastructure
and information systems, thus accessing markets is a problem. They do not
get information about market opportunities, and the cost of bringing the Women are more
product to the market is high because of long distances, bad roads, and disadvantaged than
harsh competition. Women are more disadvantaged than men because they men
are less mobile, have household and children responsibilities, and in many
regions there are strong cultural and religious hindrances for women to
move outside their homes and bring produce to the market.

70
Decreasing prices have strong negative effect on poor producers
A major result of market constraints is lower prices. Decreasing market
prices on livestock products have a negative effect on everyone. Large-
scale producers can adjust to decreasing prices by rationalising production
and reducing costs, and usually have the advantage of greater capacity to
find alternative solutions or even influence market prices. The negative
effects of market constraints and low prices are likely to be greater for poor
producers.

Market development and organisation

Development of the global market enhances large-scale production
The global livestock market is generally very difficult for producers in
developing countries to access because this market is characterised by The global livestock
trade barriers such as stringent health and sanitary control of livestock market is unfair to
products, and is greatly distorted by production and export subsidies from the poor producers
USA and EU. These subsidies depress world market prices just as they
often lead to “dumping” of low quality meat and milk products on markets in
developing countries. They “crowd out” the producer of livestock products in
these countries. The aim of the WTO agreements is to make world market
conditions for these products more fair and equal. The results, however, are
yet to be proven.

For most poor livestock keepers, export markets are still out of reach. There
are strong economies of scale in meeting the strict sanitary and other quality Export markets are
standards of the OECD countries, and the wealthier livestock keepers can out of reach of the
afford the investments needed to do so. Thus, large units will increasingly poor and home
focus on international markets and the smaller will serve the home markets are
consumption markets. The latter, however, are unfortunately also shrinking distorted
because the effects of globalisation make imports at lower world market
prices more dominant, even in home markets of developing countries.

Market liberalisation has a positive influence for the poor in well-

integrated areas
In many developing countries, the responsibility for market structures and
outlets have for many years been in the hands of governmental controlled
organisations such as parastatal milk and meat marketing companies. Privatisation has
Under this system there has been little encouragement to increase livestock created several
production, but access to markets was somehow secured. However, more channels for formal
recent privatisation of market structures has had positive effects on market and informal market
opportunities for livestock keepers in well-integrated areas, where the outlets
market is easily accessible to all. There are several examples of increased
decentralisation and diversified market outlets in these areas. Often,
privatisation has led to creation of several channels of formal and informal
market outlets:

• Private companies that process and market livestock products for

both export and home markets
• Producer cooperatives also process and market livestock products
for both export and home markets
• Informal marketing of fresh milk directly at the local market

71
Table 3-2 shows the milk market around Nairobi in Kenya after liberalisation
in the mid-1990s. Producers sell mainly to the informal sector, individuals,
and private traders.

Table 3-2. Milk marketing in the greater Nairobi

milk shed, Kenya
Marketing channel % producers use
Individual consumers 43
Hotels/shops 11
Traders 22
Cooperatives and self help groups 12
Processors 6
Kenya Cooperative Creameries 6
Staal et al., 2001

Staal et al. (2001) also surveyed regional differences. In areas where there
is a surplus of milk and a need to market outside the local area,
cooperatives, self-help groups, and private processors are the most
important marketing channels. In areas where milk is in deficit, the demand
is so high that producers sell directly to individuals or private traders in the
area. Producers in areas of deficit receive higher prices for their milk and do
not have an immediate need to organise marketing channels.

The formal market is often characterised by demanding certain quality

standards that might be difficult for poor livestock keepers to reach. The
informal market is generally more accessible to poor livestock keepers The informal
because there is little control of and few restrictions on quality, and market is more
payments are normally in the form of immediate cash. Informal milk markets accessible to poor
are based on raw milk, and the desirability of distributing unpasteurised livestock keepers
product has been questioned. However, milk in most tropical countries is
almost universally boiled and is therefore safe for consumption. It fetches
higher prices for the producer and costs less to the consumer.

Livestock keepers generally get higher prices in a diversified market. In the

Kenyan dairy market, it is well documented that privatisation has spawned Livestock keepers
more outlets and higher producer prices in well-integrated areas (Owango et get higher prices in
al., 1998). In India, prices are normally considerably higher in the informal a diversified market
market because the government controls pricing through cooperatives, and
prices are often decided more in the interest of consumers than producers.

Developing market access remains a challenge

In some countries where parastatal market organisations were liberalised
almost overnight, most closed and the situation in many rural areas has
pushed some farmers and livestock keepers into a subsistence lifestyle and Governments must
production. For this situation to change, there is a need for governments to take a responsibility
accept some public responsibility for market development and support in remote rural
mechanisms to enhance private sector development. One very important areas
tool is development of infrastructure such as communication systems and
roads.

72
Market development through producer cooperatives can strengthen
poor livestock keepers The Indian
Producer organisations may be a necessary tool to strengthen the experience
competitive position of poor livestock keepers in liberalised markets and “Operation Flood”
make markets more accessible. The Indian experience of dairy development had a significant
through “Operation Flood” shows how a commodity-based cooperative impact
system can significantly reduce poverty by securing a reliable market outlet
for small-scale producers. Operation Flood is an extensive operation
covering several Indian states, and also showed different strengths and
weaknesses across the country. A comprehensive impact study (Chandler
and Kumar, 1998) by the World Bank showed that the overall achievement Growth in milk
was quite impressive: production
• 6,3 million small-scale farmers delivering milk to 55.000 cooperative
societies brought a tremendous growth in milk production Higher income
• Cooperative members benefited from higher prices, production,
income, etc.
• Although the overall impact is not yet tested for equity, results are
expected to be positive because 60% of the members are landless Higher educational
poor, and some of the secondary indicators are quite favourable. levels
Membership in a cooperative society has had a strong impact on
education, especially among the girls in member households. Better prices
• Competition with the private and informal sectors has increased
prices

Although there was a variation in the success of the cooperatives and some
ended as virtual parastatals because of government interference, the case
is a clear indication of the advantages of market development through Small-scale farmers
producer organisations. Dairy cooperatives can enable small-scale farmers get included in a
to sell their produce together and increase their voice in negotiating. The process of
small-scale farmers participate in the empowerment process, which empowerment
otherwise would have been out of their reach.

HIV/AIDS and livestock services

Livestock services can play a crucial role in mitigating the effects of AIDS in
affected communities. Chapter One mentions the specific needs and
opportunities related to livestock development for affected families.
Livestock services have the potential to support these opportunities, but the
task is very challenging because the services are in turn seriously
constrained by effects from the epidemic.

HIV/AIDS affect livestock services

Livestock services that require intensive delivery of services from
professional staff directly to individual small-scale farmers are likely to break Intensive delivery of
down in HIV/AIDS affected areas — there is not enough money, providers services from
lack trained staff, and effectiveness is seriously hampered by the situation. professional staff to
Studies found that 10% of the working time of the agricultural extension staff individual farmers,
in hard hit areas is spent attending funerals (Mutangadura et al., 1999; Engh is likely to break
and du Guerny, 2000), staff members must spend time caring for sick down in HIV/AIDS
relatives, and a number of them fall sick themselves. Furthermore, it is affected areas

73
difficult for service personnel to meet farmers. Some communities can have
10 funerals every month. The service personnel thus often waste time by
planning for and travelling to meet farmers who then are occupied by
funerals and mourning ceremonies. A study from a seriously afflicted district
in Uganda revealed that the extension service lost between 20 and 50% of
working time due to the disease (Haslwimmer, 2001).

When analysing possible strategies to deliver livestock services, it is even Strengthen the role
more important to consider strategies that strengthen the role of the farming of the farming
community in the development and supply of services. community

Livestock services have a role in AIDS-affected areas

Livestock services can play an important role in supporting already existing
local initiatives and community-based organisations. The communities’ own
ability to cope and respond should not be underrated. Several African
communities have through their own efforts developed coping mechanisms Support
such as clubs for sharing draught power and labour. Savings and money communities’ own
lending clubs are also quite common. In a study of veterinary services in coping mechanisms
Uganda, the epidemic had at least a positive impact on farmers’ willingness
to organise and solve problems in collective ways (Mutangadura et al.,
1999; Haslwimmer, 2001).

Livestock services can play a role in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS

If they are well trained, livestock extension staff or community-based
livestock workers have good opportunities to deliver information about Promote
HIV/AIDS along with livestock-specific messages. Because they have community
frequent and close connections to communities, they have potential to awareness
promote community awareness and discussions that can change high-risk
behaviour and ceremonies.

Livestock services can also play a role in AIDS mitigation Target the AIDS
Livestock programmes and service providers in AIDS-affected areas must affected
consider poverty aspects connected to the epidemic. Considering the households and
particular needs of the AIDS-affected households, a targeted approach is orphans in
necessary to deal with this tremendous challenge. A strong focus on skill particular
development of orphans is probably the most important aspect. This could
be by facilitating the sharing of knowledge and traditional skills between old
people and young orphans, or through more formal training of young
livestock keepers.

Livestock services can play a role in AIDS mitigation through:

• Special targeting of vulnerable groups — orphan or female-headed
households
• Promotion of small livestock production
• Facilitation of credit schemes — small loans for households to avoid
sale of stock or to start new livestock production
• Promotion of draught animals
• Support for labour sharing or draught sharing community
organisations, saving and lending clubs, etc.

74
Chapter 4
Recommended Actions
The overall conclusion of this review is that livestock development is a
promising opportunity to reduce poverty in many developing countries, but
current livestock development programmes and services do not enable poor
livestock keepers to become active and take advantage of opportunities.
There is a need to change policies and practises for providing livestock
services appropriate to the poor. Several actions are necessary to induce
such change. These are described in this chapter.

Searching for the highest returns

As a first priority, a better understanding of where livestock development can
most efficiently help to reduce poverty is urgently needed. While there is a
general, although limited, understanding of the global spatial distribution of
poor livestock keepers, the geographical regions and production systems
with the largest potential for poverty reduction are unknown. With limited
resources at the national and international levels, it is critical that resources
are applied as strategically as possible — where they will have the biggest
impact. The first requirement is to further refine current poverty mapping,
incorporating more data from household surveys to improve the knowledge
base. The second need is to identify areas with the best potential for poverty
reduction. The latter will be a quite challenging task — various factors that
determine development potential such as physical attributes of regions,
natural resource base, infrastructure, market potential, enabling economic
environment, and government policies on rural empowerment need to be
superimposed over existing maps of spatial poverty distribution.

Enhancing inclusion
The overriding issue that emerges from this review and cuts across
production systems is exclusion of the poor. Participation and the resulting
empowerment of the end user in the whole process of programme planning
and implementation are essential for adequate sustainability and pro-poor
impact. Yet, as has been seen in even the most successful poverty reduction
livestock schemes such as Bangladesh poultry and micro-finance, the
poorest part of the population is rarely involved, or if involved, is treated with
arrogance by staff. This is particularly important in the critical initial phases of
design and planning because these phases are so critical for success.
Inclusion of the poor is also important during implementation and monitoring
so they have access to quality services and fair treatment from service
providers.

New forms of organisation need to be identified and tested to ensure more

inclusive forms of participation by the poor. Lack of participation by the poor
in discussions on pro-poor service delivery is to a considerable extent
caused by the almost complete absence of poor livestock keepers in the
wider policy debate on public sector policies. This is often demonstrated,

75
such as their near absence in preparation of public policy documents such as
the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and Programmes.

Focusing on key issues

Organisation and empowerment of the poor and encouraging their
involvement in policy debates on service delivery is one avenue proposed as
a follow-up to this review. Some of the issues emerging from this review that
need to be addressed are summarised in Table 4-1, but others could be
added. This policy agenda should be further developed, including
organisation of a stronger advocacy capability at country level in order to
open public discussions. One of the specific avenues would be to prepare
policy notes that better articulate the needs of the poor — from poor livestock
keepers upwards — and which would easily fit in the PRSP process or any
other policy debate.

Apart from cross cutting issues, every production system and community
faces issues proper to that system. Table 4-2 provides examples that are
most likely to be of concern to livestock keepers in different settings.
Enhancing the poor livestock keeper’s own organisations and prioritisation of
needs will ensure that these concerns are appropriately included.

This document describes a number of practices representing new trends in

poverty-focused livestock development. The impact in terms of poverty
reduction for many of these new approaches is still difficult to prove because
tools for impact assessment and monitoring are lacking. Most cases
described in the literature have not defined indicators of equity impact and do
not include enough baseline data and monitoring systems in the project
design. This makes learning from experience difficult. Guidelines on how to
establish poverty-focused monitoring indicators need to be further
developed, building, for example, on work already carried out in LID (1999).

There is a need to strongly expand learning from on-going successful and

unsuccessful practices. Lessons learned from livestock programmes are
generally not shared, but rather confined to the agencies involved and are
often lost with the closure of projects and programmes. Formal
communication pathways to disseminate project-related information and
experience between institutions are missing. Moreover, recommendations on
best practices are few and the preparation of a consistent framework to
guide practitioners in project design and delivery across the livestock sector
is difficult.

Requirements for more effective pro-poor livestock development:

• Develop criteria to identify highest potential areas, groups, and
production systems for livestock development
• Gather Information on the poverty reduction impact of livestock
services
• Develop tools for coordinated and pro-poor impact monitoring
• Construct common framework for project design and implementation
• Collect and disseminate lessons learned

76
Table 4-1. Recommendations on cross-cutting Issues
Issue Recommendations
Public and private sector roles Introduce policy debates on the vision for public and
private sector roles in service delivery for the poor and
Many service delivery systems in developing countries develop public/private partnerships, where the public
are characterised by public sectors involved in too many sector delegates decision making on the scope and
tasks. The public sector does not reach the poor and at content of delivery of public good services. This will
the same time hinders the emergence of more efficient include full or partial funding of the service by the sector,
private sector delivery because it competes and overlaps but preferably through subcontracting to private
with private sector operators operators, introduction of voucher systems or other
competitive grant systems for research and education,
etc.
Gender imbalances in livestock services Targeted involvement of women, both as producers
and service providers, which can enhance their capacity
Conventional livestock services are provided by men for and status in society
men, whereas livestock production often plays a crucial
role in the livelihood of poor women. Women should be
involved with livestock services, both as producers and
service providers, if poverty is to be reduced
HIV/AIDS focus of livestock services Increased advocacy by the international and national
livestock development communities to develop and
The review shows that communities affected by HIV/AIDS disseminate simple, low labour technologies in on-going
have specific requirements for technology and skills and new programs through community-based delivery
development, and that HIV/AIDS affects the possible systems. Targeting youth (orphans) for skills development
strategies to provide services is a major initial step
Inappropriate technologies in livestock services Involve poor livestock keepers in technology
generation and transfer in order to gain more
Appropriate technology is another area that needs experience in pro-poor livestock technologies. Building on
coordinated efforts. The typical areas of importance to the knowledge, skills, and resources that poor livestock
poor (small livestock, improvement of local breeds, keepers already have must be emphasised
thermo-neutral and long lasting immunity-producing
vaccines, low labour input systems for fodder production)
are neglected. Experience up to now indicates that people
adopt technologies when they have adequate resources,
labour, and skills, and if it is advantageous to their
livelihood.
Knowledge and learning systems missing within Develop knowledge and learning systems within
livestock services livestock services that strengthen the livestock keepers’
own capacity to demand or seek information, training, and
Livestock services have typically been based on advice. In order to develop the concept, there must be
conventional disciplinary knowledge, biased towards emphasis on building professional capacity for livestock
animal health and sometimes genetics, but did not include advisory services
opportunities for learning, nor a holistic approach to
smallholder livestock systems
Lack of access to financial services Financial services appropriate to the poor need more
study. The impact of credit and debt on the poorest
In most areas, poor livestock keepers lack access to livestock keepers and how the ultra poor can be involved
financial services. However, where such services are and benefit from micro-finance systems needs to be more
provided, there are still unanswered questions about the clearly understood.
impact that credit has on the poorest and the “ultra” poor.
They still have problems benefiting from the services

77
 Table 4-2. development and implementation in different production systems
Characterisation Location of Livestock
Producer of the poor poor producers species Particular concerns
Pastoralist Lack of access to Rural Cattle, goats, Development of risk management
natural resources sheep, (early warning and early response),
such as land, Camelids, yak community organisation
water, and
livestock Market development

Lack of labour Land rights appropriate for pastoral

livestock systems
Lack of access to
markets Integration of pastoral systems and
natural resource management
Non-viable herd
sizes. Peri-urban and Goats, sheep Environmental management,
urban development of integrated crop-
livestock farming systems
Strengthening producer organisations
Market development
Smallholder Small land sizes Rural Cattle, buffalo, Integration of livestock production in
farmer in goats, sheep, crop-based farming systems to
crop/livestock Land rental, lack pigs, poultry increase sustainability
systems of resources
(labour and land) Community organisation
Land rights
Landless Rural and peri- Cattle, poultry, Environmental management,
urban pigs community or producer organisations
Fodder technologies
Urban Landless Urban slums Poultry, goats, Resettlement
sheep, buffalo,
cattle, pigs
(Modified from Table 1-2)

New and innovative forms of pro-poor producer organisations and service

delivery are needed, along with development of the learning process. A
global network of stakeholders, policymakers, and practitioners within the
livestock sector and other relevant sectors should be established to
strengthen efforts to redirect policies and practises that provide livestock
services to the poor. The main objective should be to create a platform for
cooperation among stakeholders in livestock development in order to utilise
livestock programmes as a means of poverty reduction.

The specific objectives should be:

• To enhance the pro-poor focus of livestock services among policy
makers by promoting greater participation by poor livestock keepers
in policy development, testing new forms of service delivery, and
providing evidence that livestock development reduces poverty
• To strengthen communication links and improve the policy dialogue,
planning, and resource mobilisation of all actors involved in the
delivery of livestock services to the poor
• To create a platform for cooperation among stakeholders to learn
from experience, disseminate good practices, and scale them up
• To provide advice and eventually a common framework to
development agencies on the most effective ways to design and
implement livestock services appropriate for poor livestock keepers

78
Knowledge base for coordination
The global network would thus act as a catalyst for advocacy, innovation,
and a knowledge base to exchange experience by collecting lessons learned
and testing novel approaches in the field within existing programmes and
through new pilot projects to be established across different livestock
production systems.

Implementation of recommended approaches

A fund should be established to implement the global network. It should be
managed by a small secretariat under the supervision of a steering
committee. The Global Pro-Poor Fund will be the primary support of the
proposed learning and knowledge management system, and will coordinate
information from a wide variety of livestock development agencies and
practitioners. The secretariat will act as a repository of specialist knowledge
for livestock practitioners and the development community at large. Small or
resource-poor institutions, producer organisations, NGOs, and governments
will be able to access key information and avoid duplication of efforts. It will
prepare innovative pilot proposals for pro-poor service delivery, supervise
and monitor their impact, but work through other partner institutions for actual
implementation.

In this way, the secretariat will act as an innovative means to both generate
and disseminate new knowledge about livestock development and poverty.
The secretariat will inform policy makers, strengthen institutions, develop an
expert system for information management, and support innovative research
about livestock services and the poor.

The secretariat would be overseen by a steering committee composed of the

contributing agencies, a representative of a regional or global producer
organisation such as the International Federation of Agricultural Producers
(IFAP) or the Indian National Dairy Development Board, and a small number
of eminent scientists from the South who work in livestock service delivery.
Though independent, it should work closely with the Neuchatel Initiative, and
a representative of the Neuchatel Initiative will be invited to serve on the
Steering Committee.

The secretariat will have a small staff, including a network coordinator with
support from IT experts when needed. With the emphasis on producer
organisations and farmer empowerment, the responsibility for execution
should be entrusted to an international or national farmer organisation in the
country of one of the contributing donors.

79
References
Afifi-Affat; K. A. (1991). Heifer-in-Trust: A model for sustainable livestock development?
Downloaded from www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA
Agarwal, B. (1998). A Field of One’s Own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge
University Press, New Delhi
Ahuja, V., George, P.S., Ray, S., McConnell, K. E., Kurup, M. P. G., Gandhi, V., Umali-
Deininger, D., De Haan, C. (2000). Agricultural Services and the Poor, Case of Livestock
health and Breeding Services in India; Indian Institute of Management, The World Bank,
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
Alam, J. (1997). Impact of smallholder livestock development project in some selected areas of
rural Bangladesh. Livestock for Rural Development 9:3
Anderson, V. (1999) Popular Participation in Bolivia; Does the law “Partipación Popular”
secure participation of the rural Bolivian population?. CDR working paper 99.6
Asian Development Bank (2000). Gender Issues in Livestock. In http://www.adb.org
Barnett et al. (1995). The effects of HIV/AIDS on farming systems in eastern Africa; FAO
Barnett, T. (1994). The effects of HIV/AIDS on farming systems and rural livelihoods in
Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia. FAO Consultant report
Bebe, B. O. (2003). Herd Dynamics of Smallholder Dairy in the Kenya Highlands. Ph. D.
Thesis Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Bekure, S., de Leeuw, P.N., Grandin,B., and Neate, J.H. (1991). Maasai Herding: An analysis
of the livestock production system of Maasai pastoralists in Eastern Kajiado District, Kenya.
ILCA System Study No. 4, International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Abbeba
Berdegue, J. A. (1997) Organisation of Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services for Small
Farmers in Selected Latin American Countries. Proceeding of a Workshop: Maximising the
Influence of the User, Tune Landboskole, Denmark
Bindish, V., Evenson, R., Gbetibouo, M. (1993). Evaluation of T & V Based Extension in
Burkina Faso. World Bank Technical Paper 226, The World Bank Washington D. C.
Bojanic, A.J. (2001). Extension, Poverty and Vulnerability in Bolivia and Colombia: Country
Studies for the Neuchatel Initiative. Working Paper 153
Bravo-Baumann, H. (2000). Gender and Livestock: Capitalisation of experiences on livestock
projects and gender. Working Document. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation,
Bern
Carney, D. (Ed). (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What contribution can we make. DFID,
London.
Catley and Leyland (2001). Community participation and the delivery of veterinary services in
Africa. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 49
Catley, A. (1996). Pastoralists, Paravets and Privatisation: Experiences in the Sanaag region
of Somaliland. Overseas Development Institute, Network Paper 39d
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the First Last. Intermediate Technology
Publications
Chandler W., Kumar, N. (1998). India: The Dairy Revolution, The Impact of Dairy Development
in India and the World Bank’s Contribution; The World Bank
Chilonda, P., Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2001). Attitude towards and uptake of veterinary services
by small-scale cattle farmers in Eastern province, Zambia. Outlook on Agriculture 30:3
Cleves-Mosse, J. (1993). Half the World, Half a Chance: An introduction to gender and
development. Oxfam, Oxford

80
Conroy, C., Rangnekar, D. V. (1999). Livestock and the Poor in rural India, with particular
reference to goat keeping. Paper from the Development Studies Association Conference,
September 12-13, University of Bath, UK.
Cunningham, E. P. (1995). Global Impact Domain – Animal Genetic Resources. Livestock,
Environment and Development (LEAD), FAO
Curry, J. (1996). Gender and Livestock in African Production Systems: An introduction. Human
Ecology, 24, 2, p.149-160
De Haan, C., Schillhorn van Veen, T., Brandenburg, B., Gauthier, J., Le Gall, F., Mearns, R.,
Simeon, M. (2001). Livestock Development: Implications for rural poverty, the environment
and global food security. The World Bank, Washington
De Haan, C., Steinfeld, H., Blackburn, H. (1997). Livestock and the Environment: Finding the
Balance. European Commission Directorate for Development. Brussels
Dolberg, F. (2001). A Livestock Development Approach that contributes to Poverty Alleviation
and widespread Improvement of Nutrition among the Poor; Paper from IFAD Workshop:
Malnutrition in Developing Countries
Eklund, P. (2002). Programme design for accelerated reduction in chronic malnutrition –
applying new research findings; Oral presentation at the seminar: The World Food Security
Situation: Factors that Contribute and Factors that Impede, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Engh, I., du Guerny, J. (2000). HIV/AIDS in Namibia: The impact on the livestock sector.
SDdimensions. FAO
FAO (2002). Animal Genetic Resources on www.fao.org/dadis/index.htm
FAO (2002). World Agriculture: towards 2015/2030. Summary Report
Farooq et al.; 2000; Impact of female livestock extension workers on rural household chicken
production; Livestock Research for Rural Development 12:4.
Farrington, J., Christoplos, I., Kidd, A. D., Beckman, M. (2002). Extension, Poverty and
Vulnerability: The scope for policy reform. Final Report of a study for the Neuchatel
Initiative. Working paper 155
Fattah, K.A. (1999). Poultry as a Tool in Poverty Eradication and Promotion of Gender
Equality. Proceedings of a Workshop. In http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk.
Geerlings, E., Mathias, E., Köhler-Rollefson, I. (2002). Securing tomorrow’s food. Promoting
the sustainable use of farm animal genetic resources. Information for action. League for
Pastoral Peoples. Ober-Ramstadt, Germany
Groot, A, Röling, N. (1997). Participatory Action Research for Improving Knowledge Systems’
Performances in Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop: Maximising the Influence of the User,
Tune Landboskole, Denmark
Gross, J. G. (1994). Of cattle, farmers, veterinarians and the World Bank: The political
economy of veterinary services privatisation in Camaroon. Public Administration and
Development 14 p. 37 - 51
Gryseels, G., de Wit, C.T., McCalla, A., Monyo, J., Kassam, A., Crasswell, E. & Collinson, M.
(1992). Setting agricultural research priorities for the CGIAR. Agricultural Systems 49, 177-
216
Gryseels, G. (1996), The Role of Livestock on Mixed Smallholder Farms in the Ethiopian
Highlands. Ph D. Thesis Wageningen, the Netherlands
Gueye, E.F. (2000). The Role of Family Poultry in Poverty Alleviation, Food security and the
Promotion of Gender Equality in Rural Africa. In Outlook on Agriculture, 29:2, p.129-136
Hanyani-Mlambo, B. T., Sibanda, S., Oestergaard, V. (1998). Socio-economic aspects of
smallholder dairying in Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 10:2

81
Haslwimmer, M. (2001). Is HIV/AIDS a threat to livestock production? The example of Rakai,
Uganda; FaoInfo
Heffernan, C., Misturelli, F. (2000). The Delivery of Veterinary Services to the Poor: Findings
from Kenya. Report for the DFID Animal Health Programme, University of Edinburgh
Heffernan, C., Sidahmed, A. (1998). Issues in the Delivery of Veterinary Services to the Rural
Poor. Paper presented at the Conference on the Delivery of Veterinary Services to the
Poor, June, 1998, University of Reading.
Heffernan, C.; Nielsen, L., Misturelli, F. (2001). Restocking Pastoralists: A manual. Report for
the Livestock Production Programme, DFID, London.
Horowitz, M. M., Salem-Murdock M. (1993), Geo Journal 30:2 p. 179 - 184
Huss-Ashmore, R. (1996). Livestock, Nutrition, and Intrahousehold Resource Control in Uasin
Gishu District, Kenya. Human Ecology 24: 2, p.191-213
IFAD (2001). Agricultural Extension and Support for Farmer Innovation in Western and Central
Africa: Assessment and Outlook for IFAD; Executive summary of thematic evaluation
IFAD (2002). Enabling the rural poor to overcome their poverty. Strategic framework for IFAD
2002 - 2006
Jodha, N. S. (1992). Common Property Resources: A missing Dimension of Development
Strategies. World Bank Discussion Paper 169. Washington D. C.
Joekes, S., Pointing, J. (1991). Women in pastoral Societies in East and West Africa. Issues
Paper No. 28, International institute for Environment and Development, London.
Kabeer, N. (2000). Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the measurement of
women’s empowerment. Gendered Poverty and Well-Being. Razavi, S. (ED). Blackwell,
Oxford
Kagwisaqye, T. (1997). Farmer Managed Training and Extension Program in Uganda
Proceedings of a Workshop: Maximising the Influence of the user, Tune Landboskole,
Denmark
Khieu, B. (1999). Chicken Production, Food Security and Renovative Extension Methodology
in the SPFS Cambodia. Proceedings of a Workshop: Poultry as a Tool, Tune Landboskole,
Denmark
Laswai, G.H., Maeda-Machangu, A.D., Mutayoba, S.K., Lazaro, E., Mwaseba, D., Kimambo,
E.S. (1999). The Changing Face of Pastoralism: What is the dilemma of the pastoral
women. Proceedings from TSAP scientific conference 1999. In http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk.
Lesorogol, C. (2002). Building on Paran: Notions of reciprocity among the Samburu. In
Restocking: Current perspectives (Ed. C. Heffernan). Forthcoming
Livestock in Development (LID) (1999). Livestock in Poverty Focused Development. Livestock
in Development, Crewekerne, Somerset, UK
Loft, M. (2002). Where root causes of poverty are unspeakable. The choice of methodology for
setting destitution on the government agenda. Department of ethnography and social-
anthropology, University of Aarhus (un-published study report)
Lukefar, S. and Preston, T. (1999). Human Development Through Livestock Projects: Alternate
global approaches for the next millennium. World Animal Review 93 pp. 24-25
Lund, P. (2002). The Bangladesh Semi-scavenging Poultry Model. DARUDEC. Final report of
Study of the Impact of the Poultry Model in the Danida funded Agricultural Sector
Programme Support in Bangladesh
Maina, J. M. (1999). Management of Common Property Resources for Sustainable Livestock
Production in Nigeria. Paper presented at the DFID workshop on Land Tenure, Poverty
and Sustainable Development in SSA. UK
Mallorie, E. (2001). Bangladesh, Agricultural Credit. Concept Note; Draft.
82
Martinussen, J.D. (1996). Introduction to the concept of human development. Proceedings of a
Workshop: Integrated Farming in Human Development, Tune landboskole, Denmark
Matthewman, R., Morton, J. (1997). New Challenges for Livestock Extension: Information
Needs, Institutions and Opportunities. Proceedings of a Workshop: Maximising the
Influence of the User, Tune Landboskole, Denmark
McLeod, A. & Wilsmore, T. (2001). The delivery of livestock services to the poor: a review. In
B.D. Perry, J.J. McDermott, T.F. Randolph, K.D. Sones and P.K. Thornton. (Eds.). 2001
Investing in Animal Health Research to Alleviate Poverty. International Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. p. 304-339
Morales, M. (1999). Looking beyond the figures: Rural people’s views of structural change,
productivity and natural resources. Bolivia Rural Productivity Study, for The World Bank
Morton, J., Miheso, V. (2000). Perceptions of livestock service delivery among smallholder
dairy producers: case studies from Central Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural
Development 12:2
Morton J., Wilson, R. T. (2000). The institutional marginality of Livestock production extension:
the case of Burkina-Faso. Livestock Research for Rural Development 12:1
Mrema, M., Rannobe, S. (2001). Goat production in Botswana: Factors affecting production
and marketing among small-scale farmers. Downloaded from www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri.
Mukherjee, N., Jahan N., Akhter S. M. (2002). Second smallholder livestock development
project. Report from IFAD pre-formulation mission – sustainable livelihood analysis; Draft!
Mullins, G., Wahome, L., Tsangari, P., Maarse, L. (1996). Impact of Intensive Dairy Production
on Smallholder Farm Women in Coastal Kenya. Human Ecology 24:2
Mutangadura, G., Mukurazita, D., Jackson, H. (1999). A review of household and community
responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa. UNAIDS
Best Practise Collection
Ndungu, L. (2000). An economic assessment of current delivery pathways for the control of
tick borne diseases in Kenya; Draft report from ILRI, Nairobi
Neumann, C., Harris, D. M. (1999). Contribution of Animal Source Foods in Improving Diet
Quality for Children in the Developing World. Prepared for The World Bank
Nielsen, H., Roos, N., Thilsted, S.H. (2002). The impact of semi-scavenging poultry production
on intake of animal foods in women and girls in Bangladesh; Proceedings from conference
on Animal Source Foods and Nutrition in Developing Countries; Washington, United States
Nielsen, H. (1996). Socio-Economic Impact of Smallholder Livestock Development Project,
Bangladesh. Proceedings of the workshop: Integrated Farming in Human development;
Tune Landboskole, Denmark
Oruko, L. O., Upton, M., Mcleod, A. (2000). Restructuring of Animal Health Services in Kenya:
Constraints, Prospects and Options. Development Policy Review 18
Owango, M., Lukuyu, B., Staal, S. J., Kenyanjui, M., Njubi, D. Thorpe, W. (1998). Dairy co-
operatives and policy reform in Kenya: effects of livestock service and milk market
liberalisation. Food Policy 23:2.
Panin, A., Brümmer, B. (2000). Gender differentials in resources ownership and crop
productivity of smallholder farmers in Africa: A case study. Quarterly Journal of
International Agriculture 39:1
Perry, B.D., McDermott, J.J., Randolph, T.F., Sones, P.K., Thornton (Eds.) (2001). Investing in
Animal Health Research to Alleviate Poverty; International Livestock Research Institute
(ILRI) Nairobi, Kenya
Pitt, M.M., Khandker, R.S., Chowdhury, O.H., Millimet, D. (1999). Credit Programs for the Poor
and the Health Status of Children in Rural Bangladesh; Department of Economics, Brown
University
83
Poats, S.V., Schmink, M., Spring, A. (1988). Gender Issues in Farming Research and
Extension. Westview Press, London
Quizon, J., Feder, G., Murgai, R. (2001). Fiscal Sustainability of Agricultural Extension: The
Case of Farmer Field School Approach. Journal on International Agricultural and Extension
Education 8 p. 13 - 24
Rahman, M., Sorensen, P., Askov Jensen, S, Dolberg, F. (1997). Exotic hens under semi
scavenging conditions in Bangladesh. Livestock Research for Rural Development 9:3
Ramdas, S. R., Seethalakshmi, S. (1999). Between the green pastures and beyond. An
analytical study of gender issues in the livestock sector of Orissa. Indo-Swiss Natural
Resources Management Programme Orissa, Technical Report No. 21
Rangnekar, S. (1998). The Role of Women in Small-Holder Rainfed and Mixed Farming in
India.. Proceeding of a Workshop: Women in Agriculture and Modern Communication
Technology. http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk.
Schreuder, B. E. C., Noorman, N., Halimi, M., Wassink, G. (1996). Livestock mortality in
Afghanistan in districts with and without a veterinary programme. Tropical Animal Health
and Production 28
Sen, A., Chander, M. (2001). Socio-personal characteristics of Private Veterinary Practitioners
(PVPs) in developing countries: A study in West Bengal State of India. Livestock Research
for Rural Development 13:6
Skees, J. R. (2002) Examining the feasibility of Livestock Insurance in Mongolia. Policy
Research Paper 2886, World Bank Washington D. C.
Smith, C. (1988). Genetic improvement of livestock, using nucleus breeding units. World
Animal Review 64, 2-10
Smith Oboler, R. (1996). Whose Cows Are They, Anyway?: Ideology and behaviour in Nandi
cattle “ownership” and control. Human Ecology 24: 2, p.255-272
Staal, S. J., Chege, L., Kenyanjui, M., Kimari, A., Lukuyu, B., Njubi, M., Owango, M., Tanner,
J., Thorpe, W., Wambugu, M. (1998). Characterisation of Dairy Systems Supplying the
Nairobi Milk Market. KARI/ILRI Collaborative Research Project Report
Staal, S. J., Owango, M., Muriuki, H., Kenyanjui, M., Lukuyu, L., Njoroge, D. Njubi, D.
Baltenweck, l., Musembi, F., Bwana, O., Muriuki, K., Gichungu, G., Omore, A., Thorpe, W.
(2001). Dairy Systems Characterisation of the Greater Nairobi Milk Shed. SDP
Collaborative Report
Stem, C., Sode, I. O. (1999). Towards Sustainable Human and Animal Health-Care for the
Underserved Areas of Moyale, Marsabit, and Samburu Districts. A final report for FARM
Africa and GTZ
Stuth (2002) Livestock Early Warning Systems on: http:// cnrit.tamu.edu/lews/description.html
Talle, A. (1988). Women at Loss: Changes in Maasai pastoralism and their effects on gender
relations. Stockolm Studies in Social Anthropology, Stockolm, Sweden
Tangka,F.K., Jabbar, M.A., Shapiro, B.I. (2000). Gender Roles and Child Nutrition in Livestock
Production Systems in Developing Countries: A critical review. International Livestock
Research Institute, Nairobi
Thomas-Slayter, B., Bhatt, N. (1994). Land, Livestock, and Livelihoods: Changing dynamics of
gender, caste, and ethnicity in a Nepalese Village. Human Ecology 22: 4, p 467-494
Thornton, P. (2001). Mapping Poverty and Livestock. Report to DFID. International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya
Topouzis, D., du Guerny, J. (1999). Sustainable Agricultural/Rural Development and
Vulnerability to the AIDS Epidemic. FAO and UNAIDS Joint Publication, UNAIDS Best
Practice Collection

84
 Tulachan, M., Karki, S. (2000). Gender and Livestock Management in Mixed Farming
Systems. ICIMOD, Newsletter No. 37. http://www.icimod.org.
Villarreal, M., (2001). Bees, chickens, pigs, cows and husbands, The nature of “capital” in
women’s micro enterprises. Paper at the Seminar: People, animals and development,
economy – people’s strategies for development. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Watson, C. (1994). Kenya , Turkana, Women Coping. Rural Extension Bulletin, April
Webster; N., (1999). Local Organisation and Rural Poverty Alleviation. Centre for Development
Research (CDR), Denmark
World Bank (1999). India Livestock Sector Review, Enhancing Growth and Development.
South Asia Rural Development Series, Allied Publishers LTD, Mumbai, India
Zoomers, A. (1999). Linking livelihood strategies to development: Experiences from the
Bolivian Andes

85

View publication stats