Livestock-keeping by the disadvantaged

The disadvantaged are the rural poor who live in marginal and fragile areas typically characterized by low rainfall, rough terrain, high altitudes, poor soils and poor access to roads, markets and services. The disadvantaged are the pastoralists who have lost their herds and moved to the urban slums, or who have been forced to work as hired herders. They are the transhumant and small crop-livestock farmers, the indigenous communities, the artisanal fishermen who lose their boats, fishing gear, housing and capital assets after floods, cyclones and hurricanes, and they are the victims of civil strife, the displaced and returnees who need to reconstitute lost animals and their security of resource use. The poor livestock keepers do not own enough livestock for the offtake necessary to meet their basic subsistence needs. For example, a poor pastoralist may have 30 small stock and be unable to meet household food requirements. Conversely, a poor farmer may have four goats, and this may be sufficient for subsistence needs because of income derived from other sources. Whereas one or two pigs make a difference for the small farmer in Asia, one buffalo is a lifetime asset for a poor rural family in Egypt.

Mauritania - Cattle pass by a pool of rainwater after a day of heavy rain in the Assaba region. IFAD Photo by Sarah Nimeh

Livestock contributes to the livelihood security of poor households in many ways: as an important and reliable source of food, farm power, manure, income generation and savings for rural poor families. Small stock (small ruminants, pigs, poultry and rabbits) represent particularly important household possessions for the elderly, women and children. Livestock are also an important source of high-quality nutrition, especially for pregnant women and for the cognitive development of the young. Furthermore, livestock are reliable assets in poor countries suffering from the short-term impact of economic reform policies, and they are an effective mechanism for offsetting the currency devaluation and inflation, which deplete the cash reserve of poor families.

How IFAD addresses the problems facing disadvantaged populations

IFAD plays a leading catalytic role in globalizing the quest for rural poverty eradication. It supports the rural poor at the household level by addressing poverty problems from the perspective of rural communities. The overall strategy is to mainstream the interest and the needs of the poor into the national economy. IFAD's projects are developed through either of the following two approaches:

  • a multisectoral approach based on supporting social, economic and cross-cutting interventions;
  • a sectoral approach aimed at alleviating the constraints to a specific subsector; for example, the livestock and fisheries subsector.

Considering the micro-level nature of IFAD projects, the first approach is the more dominant. Components involving activities related to livestock development through the transfer of technology, training, or credit dedicated to restocking, the delivery of veterinary services, feed and breed improvement and other initiatives exist in the majority of IFAD projects. The budgetary allocations for such activities vary from 1% to 70% of the total cost. Only 5% of IFAD projects are fully dedicated to livestock development.

Both approaches have been implemented with varying degrees of success or failure. Whereas the multi-component projects and programmes impose management and implementation problems, the sectoral projects may solicit government support (for example, rangeland projects in Mauritania or The Sudan) or government neglect (for example, national livestock projects in Kenya). Some projects lack the strong support of national authorities (for instance, projects targeting artisanal fisheries in Angola and Nigeria). Other major obstacles are the lack of decentralization policies or the infringement of government on project resources (for instance, the National Livestock Project in the Central African Republic).

The participatory project-identification and design process

Disadvantaged rural communities have been progressively marginalized and are often ignored by policy-makers and decision-makers. They have lost control over the use of natural resources, as well as their traditional coping strategies to mitigate the effect of uncertainties and disasters (for example, traditional restocking practices such as shareholding) and indigenous knowledge. For example, the Fulani used to vaccinate their cattle against rinderpest and contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia by injecting the juice from the lungs of infected animals into incisions in the snouts of healthy animals. Now, most poor smallholders cannot access animal health services very easily. Most poor livestock-keeping communities become economically, socially and politically disadvantaged as they lose the social and economic environment that was previously the basis of their solidarity and traditional means of problem-solving. Previous attempts by development agencies to assist these communities in coping with the deteriorating situation failed because of the lack of suitable means of assessing the needs and the priorities of the beneficiaries.

With time and experience, it has become possible for IFAD and others to establish and use consultative and proactive approaches for pre-project design and post-appraisal surveys and studies such as the Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and the Socio-Economic and Production Systems Surveys. The approaches have provided IFAD project designers with the ability to:

  • ascertain the needs of communities,
  • solicit the direct involvement of communities in problem identification and problem solving, and
  • use the results to develop sustainable projects.

The PRA methodology is now a common tool in the design of all of IFAD's new projects. It is used to select the beneficiaries (for instance, in Mongolia) and to assist the designer in understanding gender issues. For example, the potential project management officers who played a primary role in the formulation of the Qinling Mountain Area Poverty-Alleviation Project in China received training in PRA and in vulnerability analysis mapping.

There are also ongoing attempts to strengthen the linkages and the responsibility-sharing between the beneficiaries and the project management staff. For example, the community livestock workers and the women extension volunteers in the Livestock Technology Generation Project in Ghana complement and supplement the project staff in extending technologies and interventions to the beneficiaries. Village implementation groups are being established in IFAD projects in China. Each village implementation group is composed of a village leader and a number of villagers responsible for accounting, women representation and technical matters such as livestock technicians and village vaccinators. These people play a primary role in preparing the village development plans. The participatory approach in IFAD projects involves the beneficiaries and local professionals.

The inclusion of beneficiary representatives in project coordination committees is considered a major vehicle for beneficiary participation in implementation (for example, in Uganda). However, application has been irregular. The lack of mechanisms to select the representatives and the small likelihood of the effective representation of tens of thousands of beneficiaries spread over a wide range of geographic area are among other weaknesses of this approach.

IFAD's approach for supporting the rural poor through livestock development

IFAD projects are micro-level, site specific and mostly production-oriented. Most of the projects support the delivery of inputs, services and credit, as well as training and institution-building. The aim is to improve existing animal production systems (pastoral, mixed crop-livestock systems and free grazing and scavenging/backyard systems) through improved health, feed and breed, the provision of rural financing and credit, and sustainable access to services, markets and inputs. The predominant approach is to design user-based systems for resource management, such as herders' associations (for example, the Central African Republic), pastoral and rangeland users' associations (for instance, Morocco and the Sahel countries) and livestock water management systems (for example, Namibia and The Sudan).

Livestock improvement and development activities contribute to a fair share of IFAD's investment portfolio. During the last 20 years, IFAD has provided support to 251 million rural poor grouped in 47 million households, although the proportion of those who have benefited from livestock and fisheries is relatively modest (8% and 2%, respectively). However, the monetary value (USD 476 million and USD 115 million, respectively) and the number of beneficiaries directly benefiting from the investment (13 million households, or 73 million persons) remain among the largest reached by the donor community. The majority of IFAD loans for projects with livestock components are for Africa (55%), followed by Asia (29%) and Near East-North Africa (12%); see Tables 1, 2.

Table 1. Investment in Livestock Activities in Loans Financed by IFAD (USD million) and Number of Benefiting Households and Persons, 1978-99

Region

USD (millions)

%

Households (millions)

Persons (millions)

Western and Central Africa (PA)

42

4

0.76

06.4

Eastern and Southern Africa (PF)

77

7

6.40

34.7

Asia (PI)

198

9

4.40

21.4

Latin America and the Caribbean (PL)

10

1

0.10

00.7

Near East and North Africa (PN)

149

14

1.70

10.0

Total

476

10

13.10

73.2


Table 2. Investment in Fisheries in Loans Financed by IFAD (USD million)
and Number of Benefiting Households and Persons (millions), 1978-99


Region

USD (millions)

%

Households (millions)

Persons (millions)

Western and Central Africa (PA)

29

3

0.07

0.39

Eastern and Southern Africa (PF)

15

1

0.01

0.05

Asia (PI)

40

2

0.02

0.01

Latin America and the Caribbean (PL)

02

0

0.002

0.01

Near East and North Africa (PN)

29

3

0.01

0.04

Total

115

2

0.10

0.60

Areas of IFAD support to poor communities through livestock development

The support provided by IFAD has reflected this need and varies according to the biophysical characteristics of the locations and the socio-economic circumstances of the beneficiaries. The major areas include:

  • post-crisis assistance
  • post-drought relief and development
  • restocking as a farm-development tool (for draught power)
  • restocking/destocking as a natural resource management tool
  • support and empowerment of pastoral and settled mixed crop-livestock farming communities
  • delivery of animal health services
  • credit and rural financing
  • development of the indigenous people
  • small stock (poultry, pigs) for landless women and mixed crop-livestock communities and
  • support to artisanal fisheries.

Of importance and challenge to IFAD are its programmes that aim at post-crisis assistance. This is mainly because IFAD is not a relief agency, but supports mid-term solutions in order to secure the ground for sustainable long-term development. In this context, livestock is seen as a bridge linking post-disaster relief and rehabilitation with sustainable development. Lessons learned by IFAD indicate that such effort must be based on community participation and should be sustainable and environmentally friendly. The experience of IFAD has been positive and encouraging. For example, the successful attempt to restore the nomadic economy of the Kidal region in Mali in order to encourage the return of the Tuareg pastoralists from Algeria was credited to IFAD's innovative approach of engaging the lower government echelon and traditional village institutions in delivering the new management practices and approaches needed to combat soil degradation and water conservation.

More recent programmes include the support provided to thousands of smallholders to reconstitute the cattle lost during the civil strife in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the ongoing project (1997-2000) aiming at the rehabilitation of the Rwanda returnees. The lessons learned from the first phase showed the need for a critical targeting criteria which consider the demands of those who were overlooked without justification during the early days of post-crisis and which consider the double nature of the demand for livestock; for example, for microenterprise development and for subsistence (particularly suitable for woman-headed households and for families with displaced persons). Also, careful consideration must be given to the participation of the beneficiaries in:

  • stock selection and distribution
  • project monitoring
  • training in animal husbandry and the use of equipment and
  • the development of service organizations, in collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and project management. Rapid diagnostic surveys should be conducted in order to identify targetable returnees who have come back following project design.

The programme for post-crisis assistance and rehabilitation in Rwanda aims to accelerate the reintegration of the returnees in sustainable production activities. Members of the local communities, assisted by the Rwandan Ministry of Gender, Family and Social Affairs, identified and listed the most needy persons. On approval of the lists, the agricultural inputs (bean seeds, maize seed, potato seed, pea seed, fertilizer and hoes) were procured and transported. The livestock distribution is continuing and should soon be finalized. Within two years, 1 823 goats and ewes (20% of the targeted total), 10 562 laying hens (72%) and 11 364 rabbits (76%) had already been distributed. Although the programme is continuing and the impact is far from being assessed, it is possible to conclude that the programme has proved to be a successful example of the participatory distribution of technically sustainable relief packages.

IFAD's support is directed towards enhancing existing animal production systems (pastoral, mixed crop-livestock systems and free grazing and scavenging/backyard systems) through improved health, feed and breed, the provision of rural financing and credit, and sustainable access to services, markets and inputs.

The sustainable delivery of veterinary services to the poor: Increasingly, the public sector is becoming less effective in providing health, water and feed inputs to rural livestock-producing communities. The deficiencies of the public systems have a more negative impact on the poorest and the landless. Therefore, IFAD designs projects capable of enabling and empowering local communities to manage resources and services. One approach is the privatization of veterinary services. This is achieved through several instruments, including the training of village vaccinators and auxiliaries, improving livestock-keepers' awareness of the benefits and hazards of drug treatment, the creation of revolving funds administered by herders' associations, the training of village extension workers in the treatment and provision of basic health services, and empowering local communities by giving them the right to manage drug purchases and distribution. Also, IFAD supports adaptive research to enhance the control of epidemic and endemic diseases through the technical assistance grant programme for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, for example, trpanosomiasis control technologies, testing the efficacy and economics of the East Coast Fever vaccine and integrated internal-parasite control in south-east Asia.

Matching feed resources and the requirements for sustainable productive livestock. IFAD projects include substantial natural resource management activities, as well as technical and financial inputs, with the objective of improving and conserving local feed resources and enhancing their use. In a situation in which the objective is to help communities regain lost herds and flocks after droughts or other calamities, particular importance is given to small stock and zero grazing. In communal areas, the approach involves support measures for conflict resolution and easy access to feed resources.

Breed improvement. IFAD projects help provide communities with improved breeds for crossing with the indigenous ones. The interventions are supported by training on improved husbandry and credit (cash or in-kind).

Policy and institutional reform. IFAD supports livestock for the poor by enhancing government uptake of favourable policies such as: strengthening farmgate pricing and discouraging import of subsidized feed, meat and dairy products.
The above activities are not restrictive and are normally supported by other, complementary activities, depending on the special circumstances of the livestock producers in each project. The complementary activities include revenue-enhancing measures (for example, marketing, the development of feeder roads), drought contingency plans and gender-specific packages, etc.

Concluding remarks

Experience and the responses from pre-design surveys and needs assessment underscore the important role of livestock as a source of food and as an instrument for ensuring the safety and survival of communities living under marginal and precarious conditions. Conversely, the record indicates a tendency among many project designers to overlook or scale down activities aimed at improving livestock production because of the misconception that livestock production could take on momentum once the farmers' needs in crop production are satisfied. IFAD and other donors must, however, be aware that the unavoidably sharp increase in livestock populations (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 Vision, May 1999) may lead to severe competition between livestock and people in grain consumption, unless the problem is addressed properly through appropriate feed and breed technologies.

The review of past projects attributes success in livestock projects to approaches whereby the projects are designed with the full participation of the beneficiaries (both men and women) and national professionals and authorities. Also, experience has shown that the beneficiaries do appreciate improved technologies and adopt them insofar as the technologies do not burden limited household labour resources. There is evidence that success in implementing livestock projects depends on the availability of favourable policies (for instance, farmgate pricing policies) and sustainable services to communities empowered through access to training, markets and rural financing. Furthermore, there is evidence that collaboration among donors in supporting each other (for example IFAD and the German Agency for Technical Cooperation, in Namibia) or the cofinancing of complementary activities is essential to the success of projects.

 

Box 1: Areas of IFAD support to poor communities through livestock development

Post-crisis assistance: Bosnia, Burundi, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda

Post-drought relief and development: Special Programme for Sub-Saharan African Countries Affected by Drought and Desertification: northern Kenya, Mali (Kidal)

Restocking as a farm-development tool (for draught power): Zambia; Benin, Ghana, Botswana, Nepal, China, Indonesia

Restocking/destocking as a poverty alleviation and natural resource management tool: Mongolia, Swaziland

Support and empowerment of pastoral and settled mixed crop-livestock farming communities: Examples from North Africa (for example, Morocco), West Africa (for instance, the Central African Republic), Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan), East Africa

Delivery of animal health services: Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Kenya, The Sudan, Ghana, Swaziland, China, Mongolia

Credit and rural financing: Lesotho, United Republic of Tanzania, Indonesia, Laos, Viet Nam, China, Ghana

Indigenous peoples: Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, India, China

Small stock (poultry, pigs) for landless women and mixed crop-livestock communities: Bangladesh

Support to artisanal fisheries: Angola, Mozambique, Yemen, Côte d'Ivoire, Papua New Guinea, Sao Tome

 

 

Box 2: Restocking livestock producers in post-war Bosnia

The strategy: rapid action to replace some of the lost animals with the same or comparable breeds and to rely on farmers' skills, technical knowledge and practices.

Phase 1: The plan was to deliver, on repayable in-kind loan terms, from 2 000 to 5 000 female cows and between 8 000 and 12 000 head of sheep to small farmers who have good sheds or shelters with capacity to accept more animals, grazing areas, milking equipment, etc. The suggested terms of repayment for each delivered female are one or two females within two or three years. The project distributed 3 862 pregnant heifers and 1 351 goats to 4 100 families in eight months (against the two years anticipated). The need for the subsequent year (1997) was expressed by the Government as 60 000 heifers, 100 000 sheep and 20 000 goats.

Results: Cattle distribution was successful, and the farmers were satisfied with the breeds and the low-input hay and concentrate feeding system. Goat distribution and the performance of the animals distributed (imported Saanen goats) were poor (characterized by high mortality and abortion rates). Due to time constraints, the participation of farmers in the selection of animals has been almost entirely absent. Also, the rush led to the delivery of poor information to the farmers regarding the details of the credit scheme. The financial management system, as well as the monitoring and evaluation system, was not satisfactorily designed.

The lessons learned from the previous phase were used in the design of Phase II, which started in 1997 with a plan to deliver 9 000 heifers, 5 700 sheep, 350 goats and 300 pigs in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. A critical targeting criterion which considers meeting the demands of those who were overlooked without justification during the first phase and takes account of the dual nature of the demand for heifers - for microenterprise development and for subsistence (particularly suitable for woman-headed households and families with displaced persons - is being followed. Also, careful consideration has been given to the participation of the beneficiaries in stock selection and distribution, project monitoring, training in animal husbandry and the use of equipment, and the development of service organizations, in collaboration with NGOs and project management. Rapid diagnostic surveys are being conducted in order to identify targetable returnees who have come back following project design.

 

 

Box 3: Post-crisis assistance: Rwanda Returnees Rehabilitation Programme

Designed to assist poor communities that have become destitute as a result of the civil unrest which besieged Rwanda in 1994, the aim is to assist poor families to accelerate their reintegration in sustainable production activities by supporting the following components:

  • distribution of agricultural inputs, tools and livestock to approximately 45 000 families
  • rehabilitation of health centres to cater for about 800 000 rural people
  • institutional capacity-building and promotion of community organizations.

Members of local communities, assisted by the Rwandan Ministry of Gender, Family and Social Affairs, identified and listed the most needy persons. After the lists had been approved, agricultural inputs (bean seeds, maize seed, potato seed, pea seed, fertilizer and hoes) were procured and transported. Livestock distribution is continuing and should soon be finalized. To date, 1 823 goats and ewes (20% of the targeted total), 10 562 laying-hens (72%) and 11 364 rabbits (76%) have been distributed.

In line with IFAD's promotion of beneficiary participation, this programme has managed to mobilize and stimulate the interest of communities. Although the programme is continuing and the impact has not yet been assessed, it is possible to conclude that the programme has been a successful example of the participatory distribution of technically sustainable relief packages in collaboration with other United Nations agencies.

 

 


Authored by Ahmed E. Sidahmed (IFAD).

An introductory keynote paper presented at the Workshop group "Contributions of livestock and fisheries to social security". Eschborner Fachtage /GTZ 25th Anniversary meeting, Eschborn, Germany, June 1999.

Valid CSS! Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional