Women Livestock Managers in the Third World: a focus on technical

Women's role in livestock production

Despite their considerable involvement and contribution, women’s role in livestock production has often been underestimated or, worse, ignored. Gender-blindness is partly the result of a paternalistic bias, but also of the attitudes of women themselves, who may have been conditioned by their culture and society to undervalue the worth of the work they do. As a result, it is very difficult to obtain information on the role of women in livestock production from existing research and project reports. In addition, women’s work is rarely reflected in national statistics. For example, in Bolivia, women are responsible for livestock, and men for crops, but the latter is not differentiated from domestic work in surveys and censuses, and women’s work is rarely considered "economically important" for the nation (de Schulze & Sostres 1991). In Latin American and Caribbean societies, women’s productive labour is not differentiated from their reproductive work; their contribution is undervalued, thus losing the value of ‘work’ and becoming merely an ‘activity’ (IFAD 1990). It is instructive to note that women in the Developing World work longer hours and for more years than men. For example, the participation of Ilparakuyu women in the labour force lasts until age fails them: Ilparakuyu men enter ‘elderhood’ at the age of about 38, while women become elders at the age of 60 (Ndagala 1991).

Livestock production systems all over the world can be divided into four categories: transhumant, agropastoralist, intensive crops and livestock, and peri-urban intensive systems. In addition, there are a few not-so-obvious livestock systems.

‘Pure’ nomads or transhumants do not have a fixed settlement but move between established territories and pastures. They are more common in Africa’s arid and semi-arid regions than anywhere else. In Asia they can be found in India's Rajasthan province, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and in the countries of the Arabian Gulf. In most countries, their population is relatively small in number, but they are well integrated into the local economy. For example, they make up only 2.2% of the population of Iran but supply a major portion of meat, wool and dairy products to the country (International Conference on Nomadism and Development 1992). In Latin America they are restricted mainly to the high-altitude zones of the Andes. For example, about three quarters of the alpacas and half of the sheep raised by Peruvian peasants in the southern part of the country are owned by transhumants who live in the higher altitudes, above 4 000 m above sea level asl) (McCorckle et al. 1987).

In all three continents, the majority of livestock raisers are agropastoralists, deriving incomes from both livestock and crop production. Agropastoral systems refer to a wide range of production systems, from the semi-mobile (e.g., part of the herd is split off and sent on transhumance) to the settled. The latter differs from the next category of ‘intensive crop and livestock’ by the fact that herds are larger and often rely on some kind of communal pasture or rangeland. Agropastoral societies in Africa in general have more total numbers of livestock than transhumant ones, but per capita livestock ownership is higher among transhumants because they have fewer members per household (Brandstrom, Hultin & Lindstrom 1979). In addition, agropastoralists generally keep fewer large stock than do transhumants, but more sheep and goats (Wilson 1986). However, there are many exceptions to this rule, such as the Wasukuma of Tanzania, who have very large cattle herds, often larger than those of the Maasai.

Intensive crop and livestock systems are becoming more and more popular as land shortages force agropastoralists to intensify their production. Such systems have fewer animals per household than do other categories, and often rely on fodder production or crop residues and by-products. In Far East Asia, where land shortages are severe, there are very few transhumant and agropastoral systems. The typical livestock production system there is a smallholder integrated intensive crop-livestock farm (‘backyard’ system). In the Philippines, for example, 99.67% of swamp buffalo, 99.0% of goats, 88.0% of cattle and of ducks, 83% of hogs and 72% of chickens are in such systems. Peri-urban systems are usually owned by urban residents, who consider it a major secondary income.

The livestock production systems can be broadly divided into four categories of increasing responsibility based on gender and age:

no involvement by women;
women responsible only for processing products;
women responsible for managing and processing small stock and other animals kept at the homestead; and
women responsible for managing and herding large stock and other animals, and for the processing of livestock produce.

Traditional role of women in livestock production systems

Examples of women’s involvement are provided from the different agro-ecological zones in each of these categories. It is important to make a distinction among the types of responsibility that women have over livestock: ownership, control over decision-making, use rights and provision of labour. In most systems, women provide labour for the various tasks related to livestock but may or may not control the process of decision-making, particularly over the disposal of animals and animal products. Similarly, women may be involved in production, but may or may not own the means of production: livestock, land, water, etc.

Husbands and wives both usually have a say over the use of resources, although there may be "unequal, often conflicting claims on resources for the satisfaction of basic needs" (Shumaker 1991). Men’s de jure ownership rights over animals are guaranteed by a near universal set of inheritance rules that are gender biased and rooted in religion and patriarchal kinship systems (Dahl 1987). Women in general have less access to the means of production in comparison with the extent of their labour contribution. There are, however, important regional variations.

In general, in Latin America, where the GNP is high, as is the rate of urbanization among Developing World countries, there is a marked sexual division of labour and a strict normative gender role system within the patriarchal, nuclear household. Women in the Caribbean have much greater social and economic autonomy. The role and status of Caribbean women also depends on their ethnicity: women of African origin are more independent than their Indian counterparts.

In the Middle East and North Africa, where Islam is a determining factor, women are segregated and have lower status, and are controlled and dominated by men. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa show a wide variation depending on ethnicity, religion, etc., but in general, African Muslim women have greater autonomy and fewer gender-based constraints than in other parts of the Developing World. In southern and South East Asia, the three dominant religions (Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) all confer inferior status on women.

However, the division of labour as dictated by tradition in a given society is not necessarily always followed, and women often perform tasks reserved for men because of labour shortages or other socio-political factors.

Transhumant systems

Transhumant societies only rarely assign women major herding and management responsibilities for large stock. Some exceptions in Africa are the Touareg in Algeria, Niger and Mali, where women may both own and herd camels and small ruminants (Gallais 1975a; Worley 1991). Women with privileged social status frequently own more animals than men of a lower social class (Oxby 1987), and may even be wealthier than their husbands (Worley 1988). Although Kababish women in the Sudan are not required to herd, they are praised if they choose to do so (Asad 1970). Somali women are responsible for managing cattle, sheep and goats, while Somali men take care of camels (Elmi 1989).

Women are major livestock managers in the Andes of Latin America and own a major portion of the animals (Deere & Leon de Laal 1982). They carry out all the tasks of herding: directing animals to appropriate pastures, watching against straying and predation, returning animals to corrals at night, etc. (Orlove n.d.). A rare exception is that of the Guajiro of Colombia and Venezuela, who are cattle-raising transhumants. They have the unusual characteristic of being matrilineal. Women are not involved in animal husbandry, but they can and do own livestock. Both men and women are actively involved in all forms of livestock transactions (sales, gifts, inheritance, etc.). Adult women can also make certain claims on men’s resources. The family’s herd is allowed to graze on land belonging to both the wife’s and the husband’s matrilineal ancestors (Watson-Franke 1987).

Among the transhumants of Asia, there are fewer instances of women’s taking charge of large animals. One example is that of Tajiki women, who participate in herding. The Tajik believe that bad luck will come to the animals if men appear on the pasture during the first few days in summer (Dienes 1975). In Afghanistan, all cattle and 20% of sheep and goats are kept at the homestead (Sanford 1977b) and managed by women.

Looking beyond the aspects of cattle and camel management toward the management of other stock, the control and distribution of products, the provision of support services and the meeting of subsistence needs by the domestic unit, the role of women in pastoral societies becomes highly significant and vital to the local economy (Beaman 1983). The most typical pattern of division of labour is one where women have complete responsibility for animals kept at the homestead, e.g., smallstock, calves, poultry or sick animals. In some ways, managing these animals is more difficult than managing camels and cattle, because they have to remain near the homestead, where good pastures are difficult to find. Women spend considerable amounts of time in collecting and storing fodder, and in watering animals. They are also responsible for caring for and counting the grazing animals as they come home for the night, and for signalling any problems (sickness, birthing, poor health, missing animals, etc.) to the head of the household. Examples of such a system can be found in many parts of Africa and Asia, such as the Rendille of northern Kenya (Beaman 1983; Fratkin 1986), the northern Somali (Lewis 1961), the Beja of the Red Sea Coast of the Sudan (Morton 1990), the Ilparakuyu of eastern Tanzania (Ndagala 1991), the Maasai of Kenya (Homewood & Rodgers 1991), the Fulani of Burkina Faso (Delgado 1979), and the Kurds of Turkey (Fitzherbert 1985).

In a few transhumant societies, women are responsible for herding, watering and milking of goats and for caring for animals kept at the homestead. One example is that of the Wahiba Bedouin of Oman (Webster 1991).

The third major pattern is where women and girls are responsible only for procuring, processing and marketing livestock products, particularly milk and hides. Examples of this in Africa are the Karimojong (Dyson-Hudson 1966) and Jie (Lamphear 1976) of Uganda. In most Muslim societies, social codes restricting contact between the sexes prevent women from moving far from the homestead. As a result, women never herd or market animals but are involved primarily in processing animal products (Glatzer & Casimir 1983). One example is the Rgaybat transhumants of the north-western Sahara (Caratini 1989). By contrast, in some African Muslim societies, e.g., the Fulani (Waters-Bayer 1988), the Somali (Herren 1990), and the Beja of the Sudan (Morton 1990), women are faced with fewer restrictions and have complete control over milk processing and marketing (Waters-Bayer 1985).

In most societies, women are responsible for milking all animals, but there are a few exceptions, notably the Beja of the Sudan, whose women are not allowed to milk camels (Hjort af Ornas 1989; Morton 1990), or in the high mountains of northern Pakistan, where women milk cows but only men can milk yaks and goats (Hewitt 1989).

Apart from milking animals, other processing tasks, such as slaughtering or hide processing, are assigned exclusively to one or the other sex.. For example, in most East African societies, men are responsible for slaughtering animals and extracting blood. But among the Maasai, although men and women deny it, women do slaughter cattle and small ruminants (Talle 1988).

The processing and use of hides in Asia has always been men’s work, in contrast with some African societies, such as the Maasai and Barabaig of Tanzania, where women have sole responsibility for this task.. Animal health is the domain of both sexes, but if modern medicines are used, then it is usually the man who procures and administers them.

Almost all women in transhumant societies own poultry, guinea fowl and other smallstock. But there are cultural differences even among large tribes. For example, the Fulani of Benin allow women to raise and sell hens and guinea fowl (Bierschenk & Forster 1987), but the Fulani of Niger do not allow women to raise guinea fowl (Henderson 1980).

Finally, there are cases where women are prohibited completely from dealing with livestock. In some societies in the great lakes regions of Central Africa, roles are very much fixed: women hold very inferior social positions and are excluded from dealing directly with livestock (Bonte 1991).

Apart from these tradition norms, women are often called upon to perform the same duties as men and boys as a result of labour shortages. For example, the Tuva women of Siberia herd animals while the men are away on hunting trips (Vainshtein 1980). However, the extent to which persons of the opposite sex will assume the responsibilities of the other depend not only on labour shortages but also on the nature of the task, and the intensity with which people adhere to role ideals. For example, Tamang men in Tibet will carry out all activities normally associated with women with the exception of pounding grain (Panter-Brick 1986). Examples of such role reversals abound, even among the Muslim Bedouin of Yemen (Adra 1983), and Muslim Pashtun of western Afghanistan (Glatzer & Casimir 1983).

Agropastoral systems

As with the transhumants, agropastoral women’s involvement in livestock production in varies from no involvement to a very high level of responsibility. In many societies, women manage and control large ruminants as well as other animals. In the Altiplano of Latin America, sheep and goat production is more important than cattle production, and women own sheep, goats and cattle. Feeding, herding, vetting, collecting and processing secondary products of livestock are clearly women’s work (Deere & Leon de Laal 1982; Hecht 1983; Finney 1988). Examples have been recorded elsewhere in Latin America, such as in Ecuador (Steole 1983), Bolivia (de Schulze & Sostres 1990) and Chile (Trivelli Frenzolini 1983).

In those areas of Latin America where women are not acting as shepherds, they will assume almost sole responsibility for growing crops; processing milk and fruit; and raising smallstock, such as poultry, rabbits and guinea pigs, while larger animals are the responsibility of men (Finney 1988). On minifundia farms in Peru, women spend on average 38 hours per week caring for cattle, except for the sale of animals, which is done by men. But as poverty increases and men seek alternative employment, women may in fact begin assuming the responsibility for animal sales(Buvinic 1981).

In many agropastoral societies of the Middle East and Asia, women control, own and manage livestock. They engage in cattle production and sheep fattening. They also become shepherds, particularly during the peak agricultural seasons or during the fasting period of Ramadhan. Throughout the year, women collect hay and may even cultivate alfalfa. Examples of this can be found in the Dhamar Montane Plains of Yemen (Maarse & Idriss 1988a; Maarse 1989), where women spend up to five hours a day on livestock production (Maarse 1981); in Tunisia (Ferchiou 1981); in Egypt (Loza 1992); and among the Tamang of Tibet (Panter-Brick 1986). In Sri Lanka, women are responsible for goats, which are herded by girls or women. Men and boys help in collecting hay, since this is done at night when the women are engaged in cooking (Schmitt 1990).

There are examples of shepherdesses also in Africa. One example is in the highlands of Ethiopia, where women shepherd while the men farm. However, men are also responsible for feeding draught oxen and for veterinary care (Whalen 1984).

The most common agropastoral pattern is where women own cattle and smallstock, but manage and control only the animals that stay around the homestead. They also process and market all livestock products. The livestock at the homestead are sometimes numerous, especially in cases where the herd is split in two: the ‘milk’ herd kept at the homestead, and the dry females and males (main herd) that are taken on transhumance by men and boys. Examples of this can be found among the Kikuyu of Mount Kenya (Middleton & Kershaw 1972); the non-Arabic families of south Darfur in the Sudan (Viadyanathan 1983); in most of West Africa (Josserand & Ariza-Nino 1983); in southwestern Nigeria (Okali & Sumberg 1986); in most Nilotic societies, for example, the Dinka (Niamir 1982), Nuer and Larim of the Sudan (Langton 1984); and the Karimojong of Uganda (Dyson-Hudson 1966; Gubert 1988).

Among the Wodaabe Fulani of Niger, this division of labour translates into a total workload of 2 900 hours per year for women and 2 800 hours per year for men, which is higher than the average farmer’s workload in arid or semi-arid areas (Maliki et al. 1984). And married Borana women spend 18.5% of their active time on livestock kept at the homestead (Coppock 1992).

In most traditional Asian agropastoral societies, apart from performing about two thirds of the duties for crop cultivation, women also manage, water and feed the small ruminants and other micro-livestock kept at the homestead, while men herd the other animals (Finney 1988). For example, in Bangladesh, women own and manage small ruminants, although men herd both cattle and small ruminants jointly (Feldman et al. 1986).

Another example is from the Tihama region of Yemen, where women and girls are responsible exclusively for feeding, watering, milking and providing shelter for sheep, goats, cows and chickens kept at the homestead. By contrast, camel husbandry is a man’s job (Hamada 1986). A similar situation was reported in Pakistan, where women spent 6.5 hours per day caring for animals and processing produce (Stephens 1990).

One of the main products valued in Asia is manure. Manure collected at the homestead is used for fertilizer, fuel and building houses. It is so valuable that old animals are kept even when they no longer produce milk or are strong enough to pull a plough. In addition, there is a widespread market in manure, often used to pay for services and labour and exchanged as a gift among relatives and friends. In all these operations, it is the women who are responsible for procuring and processing the manure (McCorckle et al. 1987).

In societies where women manage only the livestock kept at the homestead, they may or may not have control of the overall management strategies, such as the animals’disposal, marketing, etc. These women may be responsible primarily for the tasks but not for the decision-making. For example, in Melanesia, although women are responsible for producing the feed and caring for cattle and pigs, the animals are owned by the men, and the women’s returns are limited to a reflected glory in the enhanced status of their husbands (Stephens 1990). In most cases, women have control over the milking, processing and marketing of milk but cannot influence other decisions, such as breeding, feeding, etc. Examples of this come from the Peul of Mali (Echbal 1981), the Toucouleur of Senegal (Josserand et al. 1985), the Gujji of southern Ethiopia (Mariam 1980), the Burundi (Schorry-Klinger 1990), Masvingo Province of Zimbabwe (Card 1989) and most Caribbean countries (Chase 1988). In such systems, problems may occur in respect to the price-responsiveness of milk production in the system.

Among the agropastoral Fulani of Nigeria and Niger, women control milk processing and marketing but do not milk the animals or have control over such decisions as the selection of grazing sites, the length of the grazing day, the supplementation of cattle diets, when to begin milking after birth, how much milk to leave for calves or breeding or veterinary care – all of which influence milk production. Women are entitled to receive milk from the herd but have little influence on the quantity given, unless the animals are owned by the women or their children. Once the milk is received, a woman is free to decide how to allocate it (Waters-Bayer 1985).

Like transhumant women, agropastoral women almost everywhere are involved in dairy production, and in raising poultry and other smallstock. In Kenya, women are traditionally restricted to poultry-raising, although this is slowly changing as women have requested the dual-purpose goats being developed under the SR-CRSP programme (McCorckle et al. 1987). Other examples of this come from the semi-humid zone of Togo, where women own and manage pigs and poultry (Cheaka et al. 1989)’ from Botswana (Peters 1986) and from the Barabaig of Tanzania (Niamir et al. 1993). Women’s control over resources increases with age and widowhood.

In Africa, a woman typically has a flock of fewer than ten chickens of tough meat and low productivity (producing 30-50 eggs per year, compared with commercially reared birds in developed countries that lay more than 260 eggs per year). Poultry are more important than rabbits in backyard production because rabbits, especially young ones, need greater care, feeding and management. Chicken-keeping requires relatively little labour, since the birds can scavenge around the village quite successfully. In Latin America, women are involved in large-scale poultry and pig farming operations, such as in Honduras (de Martinez 1983).

In a few rare cases, women are not allowed any contact with or responsibility for livestock, even smallstock. One example can be found among the Kalah agropastoralists of Pakistan, where men alone are involved in animal husbandry, including milking, and women are supposed to avoid contact with animals when they are menstruating or following childbirth, when they are considered impure (Loude 1980). Among the settled Fulani of the Atakora in Benin (Bierschenk & Forster 1987), or in Nigeria (Waters-Bayer 1988), men do the milking, unlike the transhumant Fulani, or in West Africa, for example (Oxby 1983; Dahl 1987) where women do the milking. Among the upper caste of the Ankole in Uganda, women are barred from milking animals (Dahl 1987).

Just as among the transhumants, the division of labour among agropastoralists often differs significantly from what is considered ideal or the norm. The Wasukuma of Tanzania have a very flexible division of labour, and a lot of variation among households, that depends on family size, settlement pattern, possibility of cooperation between neighbours, etc. (Brandstrom, Hultin & Lindstrom 1979). Among the Barabaig of Tanzania the ideal is a strict division of labour among men and women: men are responsible for all animals, except chickens, and women are responsible for the animals’ produce. Men herd, slaughter, provide veterinary care and water the animals, and women do the milking and prepare the hide (Lane 1991). But in reality, the actual division of labour is more flexible, and depends upon labour shortages, the development phase of the family, the number and type of livestock, etc. Although it is common for women to perform men’s tasks, very rarely will men do women’s work (Niamir et al. 1993).

Intensive crop and livestock systems

In Far East Asia women generally have more control over livestock ownership than elsewhere and have total responsibility for the care and use of small animals, poultry and donkeys. Women also take care of large animals (buffalo, cattle and horses) and their produce, but men have overall responsibility for their husbandry and marketing (Kandiyoti 1985). In the countries of northern Asia, where temperatures are lower, e.g., Nepal, northern China, Mongolia and Korea, animals’hair or wool is an important additional product, which is entirely in the hands of women (Stephens 1990). This system is typical of West Java, Indonesia (Petheram & Basuno 1986; McCorckle et al. 1987), of Santa Barbara in the Philippines (Paris 1987), and of China, where women also raise silkworms (Croll 1979).

In India, the majority of smallholders are marginal or landless farmers with small herds of cattle and buffalo whose size and productivity are restricted by the availability of fodder. Jobs performed mostly by women are the milking, feeding and cleaning of animals. Jobs generally shared by men and women are the caring for sick animals, calving and fodder and hay collection. Jobs carried out mostly by men are fodder production, the purchase of feed and medicines, etc., attending difficult births, taking the animals for breeding and the care and handling of male animals. In terms of decision-making, the handling and marketing of milk is mostly done by women; Men make decisions about male animals.Decisions on the sale of female animals are generally taken by both men and women (Rangnekar 1991).

In Asia, often the major objective of most intensive systems is commercial dairy production. In northern India, women look after lactating buffalo, milking them and taking the milk to collection centres run by private traders or dairy cooperatives (Somjee & Somjee 1976). In Turkey, the raising of dairy cows is the sole responsibility of women, but men will help in the cowshed if there is an expensive, high-yielding breed or if the shed has comparatively modern technology (Kromka & Kreul 1990). Women are not involved in fodder production, but they do use kitchen wastes to feed animals. In the Dhamar Montane Plains of Yemen, women have complete control over fattening the stall-fed sheep that are kept near the kitchen and fed alfalfa and kitchen waste (DHV 1989).

In most parts of Egypt (Zimmerman 1982; Khafagy & Sholkami 1987; Loza 1992) women are heavily involved in livestock production: cleaning out animal sheds, keeping hens, milking animals and preparing manure and butter. Girls and boys collect fodder. Men are responsible for breeding and curing cattle. Men and women are equally responsible for collecting fodder and feeding cattle. Livestock production takes up 98% of the women’s non-domestic labour, and crop production the remainder (Badr 1992).

In the Caribbean, small landless farmers own most of the estimated 492 000 goats. Women tether their goats on roadsides orwastelands or feed them on cut grass and crop residues (Osuji et al. 1983). Unlike the Andean transhumant communities, the intensive livestock production systems in Latin America are controlled by men (Monson & Kalb 1985), although women provide much of the labour. Another common system in Latin America, the large-scale, capital-intensive ranches, depend primarily on male wage labour, and are controlled by corporate or elite groups.

Intensive livestock systems are only now being promoted in Africa. But the slow rate of adoption is the result of lack of capital, labour shortages and relatively abundant extensive rangelands. Recent trends towards even more rangeland shortages may make intensification an attractive alternative for agropastoralists.

Peri-urban systems

In peri-urban systems, urban residents engage in livestock production to supplement their incomes (Baker & Pederson 1993).Very little is known about these systems, but they appear to be a growing phenomenon, at least in Africa and the Middle East. For example, it is estimated that1 million livestock exist in Cairo, not counting the pigeons that are raised on countless rooftops.

There are many women running poultry farms of 1 000-5 000 birds in and around Abidjan and Lome. They receive technical training in this endeavour from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in cooperation with other technical ministries. In addition, frequently women, either alone or in groups, own sheep and goats, and run pig farms. According to one evaluation, women’s peri-urban farms are generally much better run than those of men (FAO 1983).

In Iran, the peri-urban livestock sector is controlled by a commercial elite rather than by the middle class or urban poor; the sector is mostly in the form of private feedlots and fattening operations around major towns, owned by people who are also livestock traders, butchers or owners of large breeding herds (Sanford 1977a).

By contrast, the pastoralists around Omdurman and Khartoum, formerly from displaced families, now raise goats and cattle. Women are responsible for watering, caring for and milking the animals, while men purchase or search for feed and veterinary drugs. Although women still sell processed dairy products, the sale of fresh milk has now been taken over by men (since, in towns, it is socially unacceptable for women to enter the marketplace). But the income from the sales has also been taken over by men, a fact that women resent. Women retain control only over poultry production and sale. In those households where the men also have off-farm work (in construction, as water or vegetable sellers or as middlemen), women have to perform the men’s as well as their own of raising animals. In these peri-urban communities of displaced people, women can no longer rely on kinship and social-reciprocal networks (Salih 1985).

Another example is that of older women among the Samburu, who are no longer able to invoke kinship relations to borrow livestock for herd reconstruction. They have no option but to migrate to the town of Isiolo in search of employment. A few have become successful traders and acquired animals (Hjort af Ornas 1989).

Not-so-obvious livestock systems

In addition to the more common livestock species discussed above, there are other not-so-obvious species in the Developing World, in whose care women take part. For example, women are primarily responsible for crocodile farming in Papua New Guinea. Apiculture (beekeeping) is practised worldwide, both by men and by women (Proceedings 1985). Sericulture (silk production), which involves live worms, is an important income-generating activity in Asia, and women are responsible for 90% of its production (Stephens 1990).

Changing role of women in livestock production

Many recent changes in the economic and socio-political conditions affecting pastoral peoples have contributed to an erosion of women’s rights in and control over livestock management and marketing. "The deleterious impact on women of continuing processes, such as increasing monetization of the rural economy, privatization of land, and commercialization of agriculture has been well documented" among agricultural communities, and is leading to their difficulties in providing food and basic needs for the household. But similar studies among pastoral communities are relatively few (Joekes & Pointing 1991).

Land degradation, resulting from land shortages and expropriation for cultivation and other uses, drought, settlement, etc, has increased women’s workload in terms of water, fuel wood and feed/forage collection. Like men, rural women can be responsible for environmental degradation when there are no alternatives to overexploiting existing resources. Poor women have been particularly affected as they rely almost solely on common lands.

The trend toward large-scale ranching in Latin America and Africa, has resulted in unemployment, impoverishment and, because the ranches absorb very little labour, and the workers they do employ tend to be men rather than women (Hecht 1983), the migration of countless people into boom towns and shanties around urban areas.

In all three continents, displacement and settlement of pastoralists is a common response to land shortages and degradation. Although groups of pastoralists have traditionally made long-distance migrations, in recent years displacement is mostly by individual households in an unplanned fashion, and has often been accompanied by settlement. Settlement has meant less rotation of animals on the range; increasing concentrations around water points; degradation of land: a breakdown of traditional systems of wealth distribution, mutual aid, reciprocity, etc.; and increasing wealth differentiation leading to the emergence of a rich elite minority and a marginalized poor majority among pastoralists.

Traditional biases against transhumants have made several countries implement policies of forced sedenterization. These campaigns have threatened the very basis of the extensive pastoral economy, and have been openly resisted by many pastoralists. Wherever successful, they have resulted in environmental degradation.

No matter the cause, sedenterization of formerly mobile peoples has adverse effects on women’s role and status. Families experience labour shortages as the number of household members is reduced; women lose access to mutual aid networks, to ownership rights, to the control of decision-making and to control over revenues, while their status and position as a whole are diminished. Although their workloads may be reduced, especially where water-carrying is concerned, they still have to pay for these and other services, and have to work more in the preparation of grain-based foods compared with milk-based ones.

Another emerging trend is the privatization of common land. Women and pastoral systems as a whole rely heavily on common lands. Land privatization, either by outsiders or even wealthy insiders, results in land shortages, which has an adverse impact on women. In some countries, women have responded to landlessness by grouping together or relying on alternative non-land-based, resources.

In most countries, Western-style land tenure systems have replaced the traditional communal-based systems. As a result, women’s traditional access to private and communal land is curtailed and replaced by title-deed systems that give ownership only to men.

At some point in their growth, individual households, whether transhumant or agropastoral, face labour shortages or surpluses. Traditional rural societies have developed different reciprocal rules and labour exchange systems that help alleviate labour shortages. In recent years, there have been major changes in the socio-economic structure of pastoral systems, which have increased poverty, reduced the viability of households and broken the exchange systems. As a result, there has been a major reorientation of labour allocation strategies towards off-farm employment, education for the young, wage employment, etc., all of which have increased women’s workloads in various ways. Even the switch to improved, intensive livestock systems has often resulted in an increase in women’s workloads.

The migration of men to undertake off-farm employment has resulted in a tremendous increase in women-headed households. It is thought that about one quarter to one half of all rural households around the world are headed by a woman. In most cases, female-headed households are poorer than male ones, because often the woman is barred from access to land, livestock and other property and inputs. In addition, women are often not allowed to participate in projects or communal activities, such as dams, irrigation, etc.

The effect of male migration on women’s control over property and decision-making varies from society to society. Women’s status and power increase in cases where the traditional system already accords relatively high status and economic independence to women. Otherwise women can be severely hampered by the absence of a spouse, especially in the disposal of livestock and in obtaining credit and other inputs. Ultimately, this leads to the marginalization of female-headed households and lower levels of health and nutrition in the family.

In pastoral systems, where the household is able to pool its animals with another’s herd, or to hire herders, women’s workloads do not appear to increase substantially. But there are relatively few instances of this. More commonly women are called upon to take on all tasks related to livestock and crop production. Sometimes the remittances received from the men who work away from the household are not enough to compensate for this increased workload, since women have to forego other activities and opportunities to supplement the household income in order to fulfil tasks normally carried out by men.

Another common, but by no means always applicable, result of increased women’s workloads is that women may be constrained to take short-cuts in animal and range management strategies, even though they know what normally should be done to prevent or diminish environmental problems. Anything that requires a lot of labour, such as taking animals to distant pastures or splitting herds, will be cut back.

In many instances, women have dealt with these problems by relying on their traditional control over milk and other livestock produce, on social networks or reciprocity, on newly formed women’s groups and cooperatives or on wage employment.

Poverty and marginalization, even of male-headed households, has an added adverse effect on women. In the case of recently marginalized pastoralists, many of the traditional systems of wealth redistribution have broken down, and social networks are not as dependable as they once were. Families must rely on employment opportunities and other impersonal forms of help – often finding it difficult to break away from the poverty cycle. Poor transhumants very commonly turn to agropastoralism. In addition to increasing poverty, men pay less attention to women’s rights when disposing of livestock.

A shift from the subsistence barter economy to commercial production has affected women adversely, diminishing both their revenue from animal products and their status and decision-making authority. It may also have an adverse impact on household nutrition levels. The only case where the shift benefits women is where the transactions are small and made in local markets or in peri-urban areas where women have traditionally dominated the trade in smallstock.

In particular, the establishment of milk collection centres and livestock cooperatives has often resulted in men’s taking control of these operations. The change from a milk-based to a beef-based strategy has had a similar effect. When the income of an activity is greater than a certain culturally defined amount, then men generally take control of its management and disposal.

Traditional rural markets are not only places to shop or sell but also places to exchange information. Women’s involvement in rural markets is little understood and inadequately researched, particularly in terms of the facilities that women use, their price responsiveness and their dependence on barter or cash. There are signs that women’s role in the marketing of livestock produce may be eroding, particularly in Latin America and the Middle East, as commercialization increases. Women are less familiar with modern markets and feel powerless to influence them. They are hampered by cultural norms, and the lack of access to information on new technology, prices, demand, etc. Unlike their husbands, they are rarely given training in modern small-business management. Also they are hampered by factors common to all: lack of adequate transport and communications services, inadequate equipment and facilities in marketplaces (e.g., cold storage, stalls) and the presence of exploitative middlemen.

Analysis

The roles of women in livestock production in the Developing World are as diverse as the women’s ethnicity. Although generalities are provided here, it is important to keep in mind the site-specificity and diversity of livestock production systems.

Among both transhumants and settled agropastoralists, the dominant pattern is one in which women are responsible for livestock kept at the homestead, for raising small animals (poultry, pigs, etc.) and for the processing and marketing of milk and other livestock products. However, several exceptions to the rule can be cited. Marketing of any products in Muslim societies is the role of men, although in fact this depends on just how rigidly Islamic tenets are enforced. Furthermore, in parts of the Middle East, most of the Andes in Latin America, and in Ethiopia, women’s role as shepherdesses, rather than as farmers, is valued, with the result being that they have primary control and responsibility for the animals.

In intensive livestock systems, more than three quarters of livestock-related tasks are the responsibility of women, except in Latin America, where men dominate the large capital-intensive operations. Small-scale peri-urban systems are generally owned and managed by women, except in strict Islamic societies. Large-scale peri-urban operations are controlled by men.

Women in Africa and the Middle East in general have fewer rights of ownership over livestock and its means of production than their labour contribution would warrant. By contrast, in Latin America and Far East Asia, women have more control over animals.

Changing conditions produce different effects on gender property rights. In most cases, stress and constraints lead to an erosion of women’s rights.¹ Women’s ownership of livestock is often considered a ‘secondary right’. Evidence from around the world shows that pastoral women’s rights to property and assets are being increasingly eroded, undermining their status in relation to both the household and the wider society. Not only is their burden of work becoming heavier but their labour is increasingly being controlled by men (Joekes & Pointing 1991). These changes are due to the effects of external forces, such as commercialization, sedenterization, labour migration and the internal breakdown of socio-political systems (see Appendix 2).

Many fully transhumant systems are gradually and spontaneously being transformed into semi-transhumant systems: settling part of the family (individuals and livestock) at strategic points – permanent water holes – while taking the remainder of the livestock on transhumance. Evidence of this is seen among the Tuareg of Niger (Winter 1984; Curry & Starr 1984), the Barabaig of Tanzania (Niamir et al. 1993) and various other groups of the Sahel (Niamir 1990). There is also a suggestion that a woman’s labour in livestock production increases as she becomes more settled, although her ownership of and control over management of the animals may not necessarily increase.

To date, an understanding of women’s role in livestock production in developing countries has been limited by cultural biases that underestimate women’s contribution. Scientists and development workers have tended to concentrate on male-oriented activities (beef production, large-scale enterprises, etc.), thus neglecting those activities that women are generally engaged in, notably, milk production, the raising of smallstock and poultry, meat and hide processing, etc.

1/ In a few cases this is not so. For example, among the Bedouin of Saudi Arabia, new patterns of resource use, such as trucks to transport animals to water and feed, have also meant new forms of labour use. Although women are theoretically not allowed to spend days alone with herds, or drive pick-up trucks, in practice they have been seen to do so (Fabietti 1991).

Table of contents