Alary, Corniaux, Gautier - 2011 - Livestock’s Contribution to Poverty Alleviation How to Measure It
Livestock’s Contribution to Poverty Alleviation:How to Measure It?
VE
′RONIQUE ALARY CIRAD,Montpellier,France CHRISTIAN CORNIAUX CIRAD,Bamako,Mali
and
DENIS GAUTIER *
CIRAD,France
Summary.—The di?culty of valuation of livestock outputs has strong political and economic implications for farmers because policies require metrics.Based on a case study in Mali,this paper gives di?erent estimations of the contribution of livestock to reducing poverty using di?erent methods,from the most common measure-based approaches,that is,a ?nancial approach,to an asset-based approach.The results show that the asset-based approach re?ects the roles of livestock in terms of security (money cash)and vulnerability.But only a dynamic approach to indicators can account for the complex role of livestock in reducing poverty.ó2011Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
Key words —livestock,vulnerability,net income,capital asset,Africa,Mali
1.INTRODUCTION
Around 987million poor people in the world depend on livestock for their livelihoods (Ashley,Holden,&Bazeley,1999)or about 70%of the world’s 1.4billon “extreme poor ”(FAO,2009).In 2003,based on the map of global livestock production systems drawn by Kruska,Reid,Thornton,Henninger,and Kristjanson (2003)using the clas-si?cation of Sere
′and Steinfeld (1996)and the assignment of di?erential proportions of poor livestock keepers based on the “Livestock in development ”report (Ashley et al.,1999),Thornton et al.(2003)estimated the number of “poor livestock keepers ”to be around 397million,of whom 162million live in Sub-Saharan Africa.A key feature of live-stock is the range of products and services that support the livelihood strategies of the poor in di?erent ways.Live-stock in general is a major contributor to food and income security thanks to a steady stream of products,manure,and draft power that increase farm productivity.Livestock is also one of the only livelihood options for landless or very small-scale farmers (Upton,2004),and for women,who rep-resent 70%of the world’s poor (DFID,2000).The livestock sector is currently undergoing rapid growth,which is likely to continue well into the future due to population growth,urbanization,and most importantly,increasing income in developing countries (Delgado,Rosegrant,Steinfeld,Ehui,&Courbois,1999).
Nevertheless,the livestock sector is often neglected or even forgotten in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)that determine national policies aimed at reducing poverty.In Mali,the livestock sector is often mentioned in o?cial dis-course as being important but no detailed livestock-oriented policies have been proposed for poverty reduction (Blench,Chapman,&Slaymaker,2003).More generally,Blench et al.(2003)showed that there is no connection between the importance of livestock in a given economy and the sig-ni?cance attributed to it in PRSPs.Only four African coun-tries (Guinea,Mauritania,Mozambique,and Rwanda)have proposed a detailed discussion with appropriate strategies for the livestock sector (Blench et al.,2003).Some countries,such as Kenya,Sudan,Uganda and Burkina Faso,have a livestock development strategy (Pica-Ciamarra,2005).And others,such as Ethiopia and Mali,emphasize livestock in na-tional planning documents (Pica-Ciamarra,2005).But while most analyses of household incomes in Africa today tirelessly refer to the importance of cereal crops,livestock‘s contribu-tion to livelihood is often minimized or ignored.The analyses usually do not take into account the fact that livestock pro-vides milk and meat for the household,as well as fertilizer and labor for the sustainability of the farming system.They also play down the fact that livestock provides regular cash to cover immediate social needs,to purchase agricultural equipment or inputs,or to improve household living condi-tions.The term “food crops ”has no equivalent in the live-stock ?eld,although subsistence agriculture itself,oriented toward the needs of the family rather than producing for the market,is well represented in mixed crop-livestock farm-ing systems.
The di?culty in coming to terms with the contribution of livestock to household economies has led to considerable sci-enti?c debate about the nature of livestock products,the va-lue of the asset,and the use of the monetary unit.From this
*The authors wish to thank CIRAD and the NGO Acting for life for funding the research.The household survey was undertaken by sta?of NGO ALPHALOG and a student intern,Maud Cloarec,whom we thank for managing the ?eld research project.Special thanks are extended to the households at the study sites.We thank also the members of ALive platform who provided many occasions to discuss how to tackle the contribution of livestock to reducing poverty.Final revision accepted:January 17,2011.
World Development Vol.39,No.9,pp.1638–1648,2011
ó2011Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved
0305-750X/$-see front matter
https://www.360docs.net/doc/479912989.html,/locate/worlddev
doi:
10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.02.008
1638
point of view,economists are sometimes blamed for losing sight of the implications of their calculations,and of creating false information or even nonsense(Vatin,2009).More gen-erally,using income or expenditure?ows as a proxy for wel-fare is highly contested in the social sciences(Barrett,2005), which explains the development of multidimensional poverty measures(Addison,Hulme,&Kandur,2009;Bourguignon& Chakravarty,2003).It also explains the success of the liveli-hood approach,which is mainly based on Sen’s approach re-lated to capabilities(Sen,2000)and assets(stores,resources, claims,and access)and activities required for a means of liv-ing(Chambers&Conway,1992;Scoones,1998).This quali-tative and quantitative approach avoids estimating the monetary value of all the outputs of assets.But not estimat-ing the value of all the livestock outputs has strong political and economic implications for farmers because policies re-quire metrics.From a political and economic standpoint,a roughly estimated low contribution of livestock income at the farm level or livestock sector at the national level is en-ough to justify the low budget allocated by government pol-icies to the livestock sector.It is also enough to justify the lack of interest in policies to resolve the institutional and so-cial problems of livestock producers,such as the various kinds of insecurity farmers face,or the limited governance of pastoral activities.This explains the gap between interna-tional declarations on the contribution of livestock to liveli-hood and its approximate measurement,which directly impacts the inclusion of sector-wide national policies.
The key methodological issue is thus how to assess the weight of livestock in the household or national economy in terms of poverty reduction and economic growth,in or-der to supply data for policies that can change the way they are designed and implemented.In collaboration with the World Bank and FAO,CIRAD has been involved in a re-search and development project to produce simple tools to assess the contribution of livestock to the household and na-tional economy within the ALive initiative implemented by AU-IBAR.ALive is a regional partnership based on a mul-ti-stakeholder platform to reposition the livestock sector in development,poverty alleviation,and sustainable growth in Africa(ALive,2009).These tools are gathered together in the“Livestock and poverty”guide and provide a range of indicators on the multiple facets of vulnerability including income-based indicators,food security indicators,and the capital asset approach.Some of the tools have already been used in the analysis of the places and roles of livestock in the household economy of the O?ce du Niger area in Mali.
The aim of this paper is to compare the estimated contri-bution of livestock to reducing poverty using di?erent meth-ods starting with the most common measure-based approaches or?nancial approaches.The income-based ap-proach,which is described in the ALive methodological guide,is discussed both in relation to the results obtained (measurement value)and to the observed realities(measuring value).The income-based approach is then compared to the asset-based approach to discuss the advantages and limits of each approach in capturing the contribution of livestock to the reduction of poverty at household level.Our analysis was conducted on a sample of households in the O?ce du Niger area using empirical data concerning the decisions made for the sale and consumption of products.Finally we discuss the methodological issue of how to measure the con-tribution of livestock not only in relation with poverty issues but also with the ongoing scienti?c debate.
2.SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK:CONCEPTS OF
POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY AND THEIR
MEASUREMENT
Assessing the contribution of livestock to reducing poverty requires a measure of poverty.The most common measure of poverty is based on monetary indicators.For example, the$1.25a day poverty line and the share of median income are widely used in the literature on developing and developed countries,respectively.These indicators have the advantage of being simple and provide a basis for comparison or at least a common yardstick(Ravaillon,2008).However,they are not easy to calculate,especially in developing countries where rev-enues,either in cash or in kind,come from many di?erent sources;secondly,they are far from re?ecting all the dimen-sions of poverty such as no access to basic needs(food,health, and education),budget constraints,mental or psychological vulnerability,and social marginalization.Finally,these indica-tors inevitably lead to a categorical approach to“moving in and out of poverty”and are thus an obstacle to the sociolog-ical understanding of the functioning of society and conse-quently to the analysis of the processes of exclusion and impoverishment(Messu,2003).This quantitative approach to poverty relies heavily on the lifestyles of the so-called cap-italist societies regardless of the cultural values of the society concerned,on standards of collective welfare,and on the prin-ciple of social cohesion(Rahnema,2003).This re?ects the con-cerns of many researchers about the places and roles of livestock within the diversity of farming systems and its contri-bution to poverty reduction(Barrett,2005;de Haan et al., 2001;Duteurtre&Faye,2009;Blench et al.,2003).And there is no real consensus on how we should de?ne and measure poverty in partly non-monetary societies.First,its de?nition depends on the individual and collective perception(mainly culturally constructed)of what“basic needs,”including social needs,are(Rahnema,2003).Secondly,it depends on the mechanisms of accumulation of wealth in each society,which help distinguish the social categories of poor versus rich.This explains the success of the poverty dynamics approach based on asset-based approaches compared to the income-based ap-proach(Carter&Barrett,2006;Kristjanson et al.,2010). Barrett et al.(2006)showed that household welfare was highly contrasted depending on the measure used:income-based measure versus asset-based welfare measure.Asset-based ap-proaches are more appropriate for linking the causes of pov-erty to vulnerability.
The term vulnerability has its origin in the analysis of ex-treme events,such as famine,hazards,and entitlements;the term vulnerability is used when evaluating the multiple im-pacts of one event,and the entitlements and livelihood ap-proaches based on a social constructivist framework are used to characterize the causes of single outcomes(Leach, Mearns,&Scoones,1997;Ribot,1995,2010).The theoretical literature on vulnerability is still at a rather early stage of re-search with many de?nitions and measures being used and no apparent consensus on how to conceptualize vulnerability (Gu¨nther&Harttgen,2009).According to Chambers(2006), vulnerability is exposure to contingencies and stress and di?-culty coping.For Agder,2006),“The factors that shape a sys-tem’s likelihood to incur damages are its sensitivity and adaptive capacity.Sensitivity describes the degree to which a system is changed following a perturbation or stress”(Agder,2006,p. 270).Adaptive capacity is the ability to adjust in ways that re-duce sensitivity,increase resilience,or avoid damage—also called the ability to cope.Turner et al.(2003)distinguish
LIVESTOCK’S CONTRIBUTION TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION1639
the capacity to cope or respond from adaptive capacity,and consider both as components of the resilience of a system.In this framework,vulnerability describes human capacity/inca-pacity to withstand an external shock that is di?cult to predict even when it represents a permanent threat.Consequently, vulnerability is the product of exogenous and endogenous fac-tors:the risk of exposure to shocks on one hand,together with the risk of not having the resources to cope(capacity),and,on the other hand,the risk of su?ering negative consequences as a result of these crisis situations(potentialities).The concept of vulnerability is thus closely linked to the level of“capability”owned by households and the degree of risk exposure of these households(Sen,1992).The degree of vulnerability increases with increasing intensity or duration of risk or with reduced capabilities.
This approach to vulnerability requires the integration and then the evaluation of many assets:(i)?nancial capital,(ii) productive physical assets,such as land,agricultural equip-ment,livestock,household assets(family jewelry,housing, means of transport,etc.)that represent“stores of value”, that is,savings that can be used in the event of external shocks;(iii)human capital,that is,personal resources such as education,training,health,nutrition,housing;and(iv)so-cial capital,that is,social resources.Social vulnerability raises many theoretical issues,particularly in conjunction with the approach to social capital,which is particularly important when trying to assess the role of livestock in the alleviation of poverty and of the vulnerability of pastoralists. The role of livestock is a?ected by mechanisms of social rela-tions and by wealth accumulation processes and/or prestige processes,by multiple inheritances,fostering or exchange. It is also di?cult to grasp the biological asset:the indicator products.Even animal waste products have their uses as fer-tilizer and as fuel for cooking and heating.
How to capture all direct and indirect,tradable or non-trad-able goods?The monetary valuation of goods and services in the livestock system to assess its contribution to reducing pov-erty and vulnerability raises many questions concerning both the choice of the measure-including the monetary measure-and the choice of values.Animal products are very rarely esti-mated in the same way as crop products.The question is thus what makes livestock raising a di?erent activity in the accumu-lation process—and thus in reducing poverty—from crops? Why would prices be less pertinent than in a cropping system? The concept of income is fairly comprehensive,including in-come received in kind as well as in cash,why is it not suitable for livestock?This debate is not new in the scienti?c literature. It has often led to lively—and sometimes con?ictual—discus-sions among economists searching for a monetary equivalent, and among sociologists,ethnologists,and anthropologists, and geographers,who often see a drift.This income-based ap-proach is considered not only as a theoretical dominance of neoclassical theory that reduces many agents’decisions to eco-nomic rationality but also as a cultural bias because it imposes a form of universal rationality.This debate has surfaced once again in economic sociology,despite the fact it is very old,as the arguments are fully re?ected in Marx’s thought—related to the value embedded in the social reality—or in Mauss’thought (Mauss,1950)—related to gifts and non-monetary incentive exchanges.
3.MATERIALS AND METHODS
O?ce du Niger area(Mali)and location of the four study sites representing the four livelihood 1640WORLD DEVELOPMENT
than500mm of rain per year.The success of farming systems in the irrigated areas depends mainly on their relationships with the rainfed and pastoral zones used for livestock transhu-mance,wood and labor supply,or trade in food products including rice,millet,milk,and livestock(Brondeau,1999). The?eld study was conducted in the framework of a CIR-AD research project in partnership with an international NGO,Acting for life,and a local NGO,ALPHALOG;it fo-cused on the impact of market opening on the sustainable development of regions concerned by livestock raising.The ?elds and villages included in the survey were selected on the basis of two criteria:the representativeness of rural livelihood patterns and prevailing agro-ecological conditions.This selec-tion process de?ned livelihood zones in which the majority of people share the same livelihood patterns,that is,they grow the same crops,raise the same types of livestock or engage in similar activities,such as dairy farming or fattening(Arid Lands Resource Management Project(ALRMP),2006cited by Kristjanson,Mango,Krishna,Radeny,&Johnson,2010; Ellis and Mdoe,2003).The locations of the study sites are shown in Figure1.Two villages were selected in four distinct locations that correspond to di?erent rural livelihood patterns based on the availability of irrigation and to their situation and socio-economic links with the irrigated zone.
The?rst location is representative of farming systems based on irrigated rice along the Niger.The reliability of rice produc-tion enables farmers to invest in livestock assets.The second location represents mixed irrigated/rainfed systems(i.e.,rice/ millet),located between the irrigated farming system and the rainfed systems in the south.The herd comprises as many draft animals as other ruminants although the rainfed system in the south is mainly dominated by draft animals and tradi-tional cropping systems based on millet.This third system is the most vulnerable to climatic risk due to the absence of irri-gation and livestock assets aside from draft animals.The pas-toral system in the north is the only one that is mainly based on livestock activities(owned or rented).
Ten farms per zone were randomly selected for the survey. Field work was directly inspired by a survey conducted by the World Bank on a sample of600farmers including150irri-gated farms in the O?ce du Niger area(Samake′et al.,2008). The objective was to assess the range of livestock assets used by households to ensure their subsistence and economic and social development.The data collected concern household demographic composition,equipment and live assets,agricul-tural and livestock production,o?-farm activities,services and social links in and outside the village for the agricultural year 2007–08.Certain questions were designed to grasp the place and role of livestock in the farmer’s planning strategies for the?ve next years.
(b)Method
Our objective was to assess the contribution of livestock to reducing household poverty.Pro?ting from the survey con-ducted in2008by the RuralStruc World Bank project(Sa-make′et al.,2008),just two months before our own survey, we decided to use an income-based approach to analyze the relative contribution of each activity to family income.In the RuralStruc approach,the monetary income from livestock activities was calculated on the basis of sales of animal prod-ucts(animals and milk)from which expenses(keep,feed,vet-erinary products,and animal purchases)were subtracted. Family consumption,supply of manure and draft animals, and natural growth were not taken into account.The cash in-come from livestock was calculated on the basis of the value of products collected and sold at the market(using the selling price).In addition,the authors considered the economic value of consumed and marketed products of cropping systems.The charges included inputs(seeds,fertilizers,and pesticides),agri-cultural labor,the costs of keeping oxen,and the purchase and maintenance of farm equipment.Other sources of income such as o?-farm activities or migration were added to total agricul-tural income.In the RuralStruc study,a farmer was consid-ered as vulnerable if the total calculated income was below the poverty line de?ned by national statistics in Mali. However,this approach is unbalanced in the way it com-pares the contribution of each activity to poverty alleviation. The self-consumption of livestock products such as milk or meat is not recovered;the contribution of livestock to the crop gain thanks to organic fertilizer and draft power is not taken into account.Social ties due to the exchange of animals (through di?erent social contracts)within and between house-holds,which may guarantee loans or provide insurance in case of di?culties,are not taken into account.
In the income-based approach used in the ALive tool devel-oped by CIRAD,we estimated the direct and indirect income from all livestock activities;the indirect sources of income mainly draft power,use of manure,and self-consumption of animal products.Concerning social capital,borrowing and lending was estimated based on herd size.The underlying assumption was that loans re?ect a degree of mutual trust that can be linked to the livestock asset.
For money transactions concerning animals,given the high variability of prices recorded on the sample of40farms sur-veyed,the average selling and purchasing prices used were the prices collected during the RuralStruc survey of the150farms in the O?ce du Niger area.We estimated the consumption of animal products(milk,eggs,and meat)at the market selling prices in the knowledge that livestock producers buy few or no animal products.We estimated the price of organic manure produced by animals according to the type of livestock,urea content,collection period on the farm,average manure produc-tion,and the purchasing price of urea fertilizer on the market. We estimated the income from draft animals as the cost of leas-ing an ox on the market.Self-consumption was estimated in two ways:based on the farmer’s declaration and based on regional consumption surveys.Manure and draft power used on the farm were considered as inputs in the cropping system.Animal donations between households were taken into account as part of self-consumption.All animal production was calculated on the basis of the farmers’declarations.This may have led to some bias due to over-or underestimation,mainly for daily produc-tion and consumption of products such as milk;but also for live animals due to separate ownership of animals within a house-hold between men,women,and dependants.
Finally the income based approach was compared to the as-set based approach.In the asset based approach,we compared di?erent wealth categories(according to the household income tercile)to the composition of assets(Ellis&Mdoe,2003), focusing on livestock ownership compared to other assets.This allowed us to make a within-sample comparison of livelihoods across di?erent socio-economic groups in order to discuss the complexity of dealing with livestock impacts at the farm level.
4.RESULTS
(a)Livestock:cash,income or capital
In the study area,the average family is large with2.6house-holds per farm and14.6individuals present on the farm,versus
LIVESTOCK’S CONTRIBUTION TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION1641
a national average of1.7households and11.1individuals pres-ent on the farm(Corniaux,Alary,&Cloarec,2009;RGA, 2007).Polygamy is more common in mixed,irrigated and pas-toral systems,involving more than20%of households(with 35%in the mixed zone)in our study area.
Large cattle herds are more common in the pastoral system but also in the irrigated system in which farmers entrust their livestock to pastoralists(Table1).In rainfed and mixed sys-tems,the draft animals(oxen or donkeys)represent,respec-tively,75%and52%of the total animal stock(value expressed in Tropical Livestock Units,TLU).Consequently, we?rst distinguished two livestock oriented systems:a grazing system in the irrigated and pastoral system,where livestock is raised independently of the cropping system,and an integrated livestock/crop system in the rainfed and mixed system,where livestock is mainly considered as“equipment”for the cropping systems.
In their original?nancial approach to farm income based on the RuralStruc approach,Corniaux et al.(2009)revealed that the contribution of livestock to farm income was negligible in all systems except the pastoral system,as if there are more ex-changes of animals.In the irrigated area,income from live-stock was negative because of the cost of its keep(40%of these holdings entrusted their cattle to pastoralists)and the costs of complementary feed for draft oxen and for animal fat-tening.Conversely,in pastoral systems,the contribution of livestock activity(excluding the sale of animals not reared on the farm)represented one-third of total farm income. According to Samake′et al.(2008),this is consistent with the prevailing context in Mali.The losses due to purchase of in-puts were not o?set by sales of livestock or livestock products. The purchase of inputs,particularly feed,was most often re-lated to animal traction.This livestock oriented activity did not contribute to livestock productivity in the agro-pastoral systems.
People who travel in the O?ce du Niger area are impressed by the vitality of livestock raising activities,whether in vil-lages,along roads or in?elds after harvest.Animals are every-where and involve a multitude of actors:children,men and women.By using the income-based approach in the ALive tool,we included all animal products(milk,manure,draft power,and animal transactions including self-consumption) in order to obtain a di?erent assessment of the contribution of livestock to poverty alleviation in this region.Operating ex-penses primarily include keep,feed,animal purchase,veteri-nary fees,and the production cost of crop residues.With the exception of the irrigated area,the contribution of livestock to reaching the poverty line was signi?cant in all systems,con-tributing from9%in mixed systems to over33%in pastoral systems(Table2).In irrigated systems,because keep repre-sents over one-third of operating expenses,the activity has low pro?tability compared to the investment required. Although compared to crops,livestock make only a modest contribution to household income to reach the poverty line, livestock capital represents more than45%of the total com-bined income for rainfed and mixed systems,70%for irrigated systems and more than200%in pastoral systems(Table2). Table3shows some similarities in borrowing and lending capacity relative to capital for all livestock systems except mixed livestock/cropping systems.The mixed systems di?er in the sense that the majority of savings and loans are intended for agricultural activity.And this group has access to o?cial credit guaranteed by the O?ce du Niger,which means that livestock contributes slightly to agricultural investment and is primarily a form of social security.
Livestock capital appears to adequately ful?ll the function of savings in all types of farms in the region.The indicator of economic development of livestock capital(ratio between income from livestock and livestock capital)con?rmed the important economic and productive role of livestock in rainfed and mixed systems compared to the savings function,which dominated in the irrigated systems(in which the surplus from the cropping system is invested).Livestock has a dual func-tion—an integrated economic and asset function in the
Table1.Average number of people and average number of animals per farm and per system on a sample of40farms in the O?ce du Niger area,Mali Systems Rainfed Mixed Irrigated Pastoral Total population per farm(individuals)16.2(7.4)20.5(10.2)14.2(12.1)15.0(6.3) Households per farm 3.6(1.6) 3.7(2.7) 2.3(1.7) 2.3(1.4) Active adults(15–64years old)per farm9.7(4.5)12.3(6.1)7.2(5.9)9.6(3.3) Head of cattle 5.2(3.4)8.2(6.0)19.7(18.0)34.9(26.8) Head of sheep 4.8(4.7) 4.9(7.1)0.7(1.4) 4.9(4.5) Head of goats 1.8(2.0) 3.2(6.6) 3.0(4.0)8.9(11.7) Source:Survey conducted in eight villages and40farms in August2008(authors).
Table2.Importance of livestock income and capital in terms of their contribution to total family income and poverty reduction in a sample of40farms in the
O?ce du Niger area,Mali(in US$a)
Rainfed Mixed Irrigated Pastoral Average total income in US$3,4425,8056,8853,333 Average agriculture income in thousand FCFA2,4344,4395,797697 Average livestock income in thousand FCFA6756125101,698 Livestock capital(aggregated value owned)in thousand FCFA1,8672,5884,7888,674 Proportion of livestock income in livestock capital(in%)b36.1523.6510.6519.58 Proportion of livestock capital in total income(in%)54.2544.5769.54260.23 Proportion of livestock income in poverty line(in%)12.178.7210.4833.06 Source:From data collected in8villages and40farms in August2008(authors).
a Rate of exchange:100FCFA=0.2378US$,August2008.
b Poverty line=144022FCFA per capita(Source:ODHD,2006).
1642WORLD DEVELOPMENT
pastoral system,and where livestock investment represents both savings and a risk management strategy to face climatic or social risks.
When we compared the share of sales of the products of each activity and the rate of return(income/expenses),we found signi?cant similarities between the mixed and irrigated systems and between the rainfed and pastoral systems,re?ect-ing the di?erent roles of each activity in the subsistence strat-egies of each system(Table3).The rates of return were the highest in the low input systems,for example,the rainfed and pastoral systems,and the lowest in the semi-intensive sys-tems,that is,the irrigated and mixed systems that use a lot of purchased inputs.The rate of return did not re?ect the di?er-ential role of livestock between the mixed system and the irri-gated system:diversi?cation of income in the mixed system (with the expansion of dairy farming and fattening)and investment in the pastoral systems,as shown above.The de-gree of commercialization between agricultural and livestock activities con?rmed the subsistence strategies of the rainfed and pastoral systems.The main di?erence was the higher pro-portion of sales of livestock products in the pastoral system to cover basic needs.
Figure2shows the relative contribution of each source of income in each system.The?gure shows how important o?-farm income is,even for livestock pastoralists.
(b)Livestock:poverty or vulnerability
Two-thirds of the systems were below the poverty line,rep-resenting between55%and70%of the poverty line for the rainfed and pastoral systems and up to122%and151%for the mixed and irrigated systems.These data are consistent with national statistics in Mali.According to ODHD(2006), 75%of Malian households live below the poverty line(esti-mated at144022FCFA/capita/year).The pastoral systems are the closest to the extreme threshold of poverty(estimated at108017FCFA/capita/year)while average income in the rainfed system was more than25%below the extreme thresh-old of poverty.This con?rms the results of many studies show-ing that livestock ownership is concentrated in the wealthiest households in rural zones(Ellis&Mdoe,2003).This also con-tributes to the debate on the wealth status of pastoralists (Duteurtre&Faye,2009).But these results are very sensitive to the data on consumption and sales,which are very often underestimated for many reasons:di?culty in estimating daily milk consumption over the year,di?erent ways of accounting for the consumption and sale of animals in the household depending on who owns the animals,the problem of memory, which is common to all surveys based on statements made by interviewees,but also the interviewees’decision to conceal some of their sales or consumption.Moreover the poverty line
income contribution to the di?erent agro-ecological systems,whole sample,O?ce du Niger area,Mali.Source: conducted in eight villages July–August2008(source:authors).
de?ned according to basic needs may not be the correct way to describe the vital needs of the society concerned here.
Using available data from the OECD/IFAD(Prade`re,2007) and SNV(Bella&Traore′,2006),we estimated self-consump-tion.In the low hypothesis based on SNV data,consumption per person amounted to11.4kg of meat per year,versus 16.3kg in the highest hypothesis based on OECD and IFAD data.All systems had a better position relative to the poverty line,at110%of the poverty line in the low hypothesis and 118%in the high hypothesis.The number of households below the poverty line decreased from65%to around58%.The con-tribution of livestock became signi?cant in all systems,repre-senting55%of total income in the pastoral system,more than 25%in the rainfed and mixed systems and nearly12%in the irrigated system.
The majority of farmers in all the systems said they wished to increase the size of their herd in the next10years.This rep-resented a100%increase in the rainfed and pastoral systems, 90%in the irrigated system and70%in the mixed system. The main reason was capitalization but also the need to in-crease the number of births.Only in the mixed systems was this increase also a strategy of diversi?cation of activities with fattening or the sale of milk.In the case of no-change in the modes of livestock management,what would the livestock size threshold have to be to reach the poverty line?Table4shows that the pastoral system could improve farmers’livelihood through a stage of accumulation over10years in the absence of climatic problems such as drought.But with an average an-nual growth rate of over10%,this seems improbable for the other systems,or even impossible,given the probability of one drought every10years.
Presumably the share of livestock could have more weight in relation to the dynamics of demand and selling prices on the markets.A sensitivity analysis of livestock income to selling prices revealed very contrasting situations with greater sensi-tivity of irrigated and pastoral systems to market prices, re?ecting the importance of sales of live animals in these sys-tems.But throughout the area,analyses of price sensitivity suggest that the increased contribution of livestock income de-pends on both investment modes and patterns of economic development in the markets.
These results underline the limits of the income-based ap-proach to capture all the logics of investment in animals in both the short and long term.Although this method allowed us to distinguish the logic of diversi?cation away from live-stock activities,it underestimated the role of livestock in the subsistence strategy and in the reduction of vulnerability or poverty.Following the approach of Ellis and Mdoe(2003) in analyzing the relationship of asset holding to the relative poverty level,in Figure3,we show the comparative level of ?ve assets for household income terciles across the whole sam-ple,in the form of a radial graph.The?ve key assets chosen in accordance with the livelihood approach were land and live-stock,own labor(active adults in the household),their educa-tion level(measured here in years of education summed across all the family members present on the farm)and the ownership
Figure3.Selected asset levels according to the income tercile,whole sample,O?ce du Niger area, Mali.Source:sample survey conducted in eight villages July–August2008(source:authors). 1644WORLD DEVELOPMENT
of equipment(measured as the aggregate value owned includ-
housing,generator,solar energy,motor vehicle or mo-
bicycle,TV and radio,and cell phone).The?gure
upper income tercile is characterized by mean
that are nearly four times larger than those of income tercile.More generally,the poorest third was distinguished by lack of land and education
the other terciles.But it is notable that the main
lowest income tercile were livestock and active
shows livestock species as a function of the house-
tercile.The upper income tercile is characterized
many small ruminants as those of the middle and terciles.The lowest income tercile invested more
Figure5shows the comparative level of sources of income and land and livestock assets for the per capita
sumption tercile.It is notable that income from
a signi?cant role in satisfying the need for cereal
The relationship between cereal consumption
activity is closest in the middle cereal consumption
is also notable that cereal consumption per capita
pendent of crop income and of the extent of cropped
5.DISCUSSION
These results illustrate the multiple and complex livestock in mitigating vulnerability in the O?ce
Figure4.Asset levels of di?erent species of livestock according to the income tercile,whole sample,O?ce du Niger area,Mali.
Figure5.Selected asset levels and sources of income according to per capita cereal consumption tercile,whole sample, O?ce du Niger area,Mali.Source:sample survey conducted in eight villages in July–August2008(source:authors).
are in the upper income ranges of the sample,it is not livestock itself that is the major contributor to these higher incomes.In the O?ce du Niger area,capital in the form of irrigated land remains the main factor in?uencing wealth.But paradoxically the income composition of the upper income tercile is domi-nated by o?-farm income from self-employment.As demon-strated by Ellis and Mdoe(2003),livestock can be sold in order to invest in land or in a small business or o?-farm in-come can be saved in the form of a herd.But it is di?cult to identify common trajectories of wealth accumulation that de-pend more on personal and market opportunities than on past experience related to harsh conditions.
Our results show that the contribution of livestock is not di-rect but in?uences interactions with other activities or place-ments.Livestock is both a tool for seasonal work and security at any time in the majority of mixed and integrated livestock cropping systems and,in pastoral systems,appears to represent mainly short and medium-term insurance. Although the contribution of livestock to farm income to reach the threshold of poverty appears to be modest,its con-tribution is nevertheless essential in reducing vulnerability and is vital for people:60%of households rely on the sale of ani-mals to cope with food shortages or an urgent health problem. This con?rms the relation observed between livestock activity and cereal consumption.
In addition,livestock allows the response to be adjusted to the need.For small-scale domestic needs,the farmer can sell small ruminants whose sale does not endanger the structural balance of the herd thanks to their high reproductive rate. For more expensive events,the choice is often between income diversi?cation through migration or the sale of an appropriate large ruminant.We observed that the upper income tercile has the most diversi?ed livestock system between small and large ruminants which enables them to be more?exible in their re-sponse to the risk they face.The relatively small number of small ruminants in the lower and middle income categories can be explained by the permanent use of the small ruminant stock to ful?ll the basic needs of the family—cattle are the last stock to be mobilized.Nearly88%of farmers had sold animals to cover health costs in the past?ve years:19%had saved money thanks to annual sales of animals(anticipation);69% had sold animals in an emergency.And55%of respondents had resorted to selling animals to cover the food needs of the family in the past?ve years:40%had anticipated the event, and60%had sold animals when the grain stores were empty. So livestock remains a source of cash to survive di?cult peri-ods,and sales are not always anticipated.Livestock thus rep-resents social capital to reduce the vulnerability of households in the case of risk,mainly health problems or food shortages. More generally,although the livestock activity reduces food insecurity and human vulnerability,it contributes little to improving living conditions due to the fairly regular use of this capital and to the low rates of biological turnover.In pastoral areas,the proportion of income from livestock in the total family income was the highest but remains limited by the low rate of herd growth(less than3%increase in the number of cattle following the phase of capitalization at the end of the 1990s)(Corniaux,2007).In these systems,sales of animals are not limited by the rate of o?take,but rather by the rate of reproduction(Ba,Lesno?,Poccard-Chapuis,Moulin,&Corn-iaux,2009).More generally,in the Sahelian context,the calv-ing rate does not exceed50%and the exploitable potential cannot exceed10–15%.Moreover these indicators failed to grasp the social role of livestock as prestige goods that can cre-ate trust in a lending relationship or provide relief or recogni-tion in their neighborhood or village as well as help prevent social isolation in di?cult situations.Quanti?cation is of course di?cult.However,the data show that capital is not insurance for agricultural investment,at least in mixed sys-tems.
The income based approach also questions the mode of aggregation of the di?erent sources of capital(livestock,land, etc.).In our approach,we aggregated technological capital (draft power),social and human capital(social exchange of animals,self-consumption,and market exchange)and natural capital(economic value of manure).But these di?erent types of capital are involved in poverty reduction at di?erent levels. This raises an epistemological problem by questioning the principles,basic concepts,theories and results of di?erent sci-ences vis-a`-vis the issue of monetization of non-traded goods or services.It is clear that the major paradigm in which sus-tainability and vulnerability are included is becoming more inclusive,systemic,thus rendering the problem even more complex.
Given the situation of farmers in the O?ce du Niger area, not taking the indirect monetary products of livestock into consideration(as proposed in the cash?ow approach)results in an arti?cial reduction in the contribution of livestock to poverty reduction.The main dramatic consequence is the lack of consideration of the livestock sector in the development of policy options.As mentioned in Section1,in2008,the Malian PRSP did not refer to the livestock sector as a lever for reduc-ing poverty even though livestock is the third most dynamic sector after gold and cotton.Therefore,the?nancial approach is not su?cient to obtain an objective view of the contribution of each activity to reducing poverty or vulnerability.Consider-ing biological needs or social preferences to achieve food secu-rity and satisfy social ceremonies,animal products such as meat and milk are as important as cereals.
This approach also raises the issue of reducing the poverty threshold to a monetary equivalent.Indeed,the question is why de?ning a poverty threshold based on a monetary unit when the viability of these households is mainly based on self-consumption,family support(labor and donated)and in-kind capital?Sales did not exceed one-third of the produc-tion in the best cases and represented less than3%in the rain-fed systems.Beyond imposing a normative and cultural framework,the income based approach leads to a purely the-oretical volatility of vulnerability based on exchange rates, ignoring the capacities of the capital itself due to its kind and social value in the society.Finally the results we obtained on the percentage of coverage of the poverty line do not re?ect the dynamism observed in the study area in the last15years in terms of diversi?cation and in the improvement of living con-ditions.Consequently with the income based approach,it is di?cult to account for the asset accumulation pathways that are critical to face external risks.
However,the integration of the direct and indirect products of livestock in the income based approach enabled us to understand not only why the farmers maintain the size of their herds or try to increase them,but also to identify the determin-ing role of livestock as a bu?er against social crises,including anticipated or unanticipated food,health,and social events. Because of their life cycle,animals play a role in anticipated or emergency decision-making processes to satisfy basic needs in an uncertain environment,which is the situation in the Sa-hel.But we are still far from grasping the full social and eco-nomic dimensions of livestock.
The asset based approach developed in the present study showed that lower and middle income categories are generally characterized by low human and technological capital and land tenure;thus one important way to reduce poverty is to
1646WORLD DEVELOPMENT
qualitatively and quantitatively increase livestock and active labor assets,these being their two main assets.The economic development of the labor asset is accomplished through o?-farm activities or migration;the economic development of livestock is accomplished through the introduction of technol-ogy or institutional options.
However,without mentioning the problem of data collec-tion,it is not easy to call into question a method that allows the contribution of livestock to reduce poverty to be taken into account.Our results show that the contribution of livestock is very sensitive to the collected data,including total sales and purchases and consumption,which are di?cult to estimate without regular monitoring of the household.In one way, the survey made it di?cult to assess animal outputs compared to the cropping system.Crop products are seasonal whereas animal products are spread out over the year,with varying de-grees of production depending not only on the animals’bio-logical rhythms,but also on social needs,which?uctuate daily.Animals are the subject of many intra-and inter-house-hold contracts that increase the number of agents involved in the management of the livestock.Livestock also represents a biological and social capital that can be easily exchanged. Livestock also depend on the cropping system both for feed and for the economic value of their products,such as traction, manure,or the selling price of animals on the market depend-ing on the sales/purchase price of crops.Finally,the main problem is probably to try to divide the production system into livestock,crops,and other activities as it is commonly done for the units of production in Westernized countries. Decisions concerning consumption need to be understood in relation to the overall production system and culinary prefer-ences,not only in terms of calories and protein intake.House-hold viability is not the sum of the contributions of each activity but rather of the multiplier e?ects associated with interactions between activities.Finally,the question of mea-surement has little impact compared to the question of how to approach the systems.Figure3shows some strong links be-tween the di?erent assets and the income categories that justify the di?erent methods used in the analysis of poverty.
6.CONCLUSION
Our study demonstrates that ignoring the direct and indirect products of livestock minimizes the assessment one can make of the contribution of livestock to poverty alleviation in the Sahel and fails to account for its function as social capital in mitigating vulnerability.On the other hand,including the dif-ferent livestock products in the farmer’s livelihood raises many questions about the link between the monetary value based on equivalent products and the social added value,which is embedded in the local society.This economic valorization of products always seems to underestimate the contribution of livestock.Sometimes,this approach distorts the perception of the farmers’attitude to livestock activities.The asset based approach demonstrates that the main factors of survival of the lower income category are livestock and active labor.But this approach is static and cannot account for the roles of animals in covering urgent needs(food and health)throughout the year.Actually,only a dynamic mixed income and asset based approach could enable us to understand the contribution of livestock,as already suggested by Addison et al.(2009).The social and biological capitals embedded in the di?erent animal species are the most challenging forms of capital in the https://www.360docs.net/doc/479912989.html,bined sociological and zoo-technical monitoring over the years will provide useful information about the social and biological values of this asset.Finally the multiplier e?ects between livestock and other agricultural and non-agricultural activities within the farm and the complex nature of the live-stock asset including savings,draft power,and pro?t require the development of dynamic and systemic approaches to pov-erty.
REFERENCES
Addison,T.,Hulme, D.,&Kandur,R.(2009).Poverty dynamics: Interdisciplinary perspectives.London:Oxford University Press. Agder,W.N.(2006).Vunerability.Global Environmental Change,16(3), 268–281.
ALive.(2009).Appui analytique&assistance ope′rationnelle:Guide Me′thodologique DRSP-e′levage.
Ashley,S.,Holden,S.,&Bazeley,P.(1999).Livestock in poverty-focused development.Crewkerne:Livestock in development.
Ba,A.,Lesno?,M.,Poccard-Chapuis,R.,Moulin,C.-H.,&Corniaux,C.
(2009).Evaluation du potentiel exploitable du cheptel de bovins en zone cotonnie`re du Mali-Sud.16th day of Rencontres Recherche Ruminants.
Paris,France,December2–3.
Barrett, C. B.(2005).Rural poverty dynamics:Development policy implications.Agricultural Economics,31,45–60.
Barrett,C.B.,Marenya,P.P.,McPeak,J.G.,Minten,B.,Murithi,F.
M.,Oluoch-Kosura,W.,et al.(2006).Welfare dynamics in rural Kenya and Madagascar.Journal of Development Studies,42(2), 248–277.
Bella,A.A.,&Traore′,D.B.(2006).Etude des?lie`res be′tail/productions animales(Viande-lait-peaux et cuirs)dans la re′gion de Gao.Unpub-lished report to the SNV(Netherland Organization cooperation).
SNV,Gao,Mali.
Blench,R.,Chapman,R.,&Slaymaker,T.(2003).A study of the role of livestock in poverty reduction strategy papers.PPLPI Working Paper No.1.Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative(PPLPI),FAO,Rome, Italy.Bourguignon, F.,&Chakravarty,S.R.(2003).The measurement of multidimensional poverty.Journal of Economic Inequality,1,25–49. Brondeau,F.(1999).A propos de la gestion du be′tail dans le Macina (O?ce du Niger,Mali).Se′cheresse,10(3),199–211.
Carter,M.,&Barrett,C.(2006).The economics of poverty traps and persistent poverty:An asset-based approach.Journal of Development Studies,42(2),178–199.
Chambers,R.(2006).Vulnerability,coping and policy.IDS Bulletin, 37(4).Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, Brighton.
Chambers,R.,&Conway,R.(1992).Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the21st Century.IDS Discussion Paper No.
296.Institute of Development Studies,Brighton,UK.
Corniaux C.,&Sangare′Y.(2007).Incidences agro-pastorales du de′veloppement des cultures irrigue′es de contre-saison en zone“O?ce du Niger”(Mali).14th day of Rencontres Recherche Ruminants.
Paris,France,December5–6.Paris,France.http://www.inst-ele-vage.asso.fr/html28/texte.php3?id_article=2007.
Corniaux,C.,Alary,V.,&Cloarec,M.(2009).Poids de l’e′levage dans l’e′conomie mone′taire des me′nages et vulne′rabilite′des agro-e′leveurs en zone“O?ce du Niger”(Mali).16th day of Rencontres Recherche Ruminants.Paris,France,December2–3.
de Haan,C.,van Veen,T.S.,Brandenburg,B.,Gauthier,J.,Le Gall,F., Mearns,R.,et al.(2001).Livestock development implications for rural poverty,the environment,and global food security,direction in develop-ment.Washington,DC:World Bank.
Delgado, C.,Rosegrant,M.,Steinfeld,H.,Ehui,S.,&Courbois,C.
(1999).Livestock to2020:The Next Food Revolution2020[Text?le].
LIVESTOCK’S CONTRIBUTION TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION1647
DFID.(2000).Halving world poverty by2015,economic growth,equity and security:Strategies for achieving the international development targets.
http://www.d?https://www.360docs.net/doc/479912989.html,/Pubs/?les/tsp_economic.pdf.
Duteurtre,G.,&Faye, B.(2009).L’e′levage,richesse des pauvres.
Montpellier,France:Quae.
Ellis,F.,&Mdoe,N.(2003).Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Tanzania.World Development,31(8),1367–1384.
FAO.(2009).The state of food and agriculture-livestock in the balance.
Roma,Italy.
Gu¨nther,I.,&Harttgen,K.(2009).Estimating households vulnerability to idiosyncratic and covariate shocks:A novel method applied in Madagascar.World Development,37(7),1222–1234.
ODHD.(2006).Tendances et de′terminants de la pauvrete′au Mali(2001–2006).Report of the Observatoire du de′veloppement humain durable et de la lutte contre la pauvrete′au Mali,Bamako,Mali. Kristjanson,P.,Mango,N.,Krishna,A.,Radeny,M.,&Johnson,N.
(2010).Understanding poverty dynamics in Kenya.Journal of Inter-national Development,22,978–996.
Kruska,R.L.,Reid,R.S.,Thornton,P.K.,Henninger,N.,& Kristjanson,P.M.(2003).Mapping a livestock-orientated agricultural production system classi?cation for the developing regions of the world.Agricultural Systems,77,39–63.
Leach,M.,Mearns,R.,&Scoones,I.(1997).Environmental entitlements:
A framework for understanding the institutional dynamics of envi-
ronmental change.Discussion Paper359,Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex,Brighton,UK.
Mauss,M.(1950).Essai sur le don.Formes et raisons de l’e′change dans les socie′te′s archa?¨ques.Paris,France:Presses Universitaires de France. Messu,M.(2003).La pauvrete′cache′e:Une analyse bachelardienne du concept de pauvrete′.Paris,France:Editions de l’Aube.
Pica-Ciamarra,U.(2005).Livestock policies for poverty alleviation:Theory and practical evidence from Africa,Asia and Latin America.PPLPI Working paper No27,FAO,Roma.
Prade`re,J.-P.(2007).Performances et contraintes de l’e′levage au Mali.
Unpublished report of the Projet d’appui a`l’agriculture africaine.Mali: OECD/IFAD/French Ambassy.
Arid Lands Resource Management Project(ALRMP).(2006).Kenya Livelihood Mapping GIS:Database,2003–2005.Nairobi,Kenya: ALRMP,United Nations World Food Programme/Vulnerability
Analysis and Mapping(WFP/VAM),Famine Early Warning Systems Network(FEWSNET),and Ministry of Agriculture(MOA). Rahnema,M.(2003).Quand la mise`re chasse la pauvrete′.Paris,France: Fayard&Actes Sud.
Ravaillon,M.(2008).Which poverty line?A Response to Reddy.
International Poverty Centre,UNDP.
Ribot,J.C.(1995).The causal structure of vulnerability:Its application to climate impact analysis.GeoJournal,35(2),119–122.
Ribot,J.C.(2010).Vulnerability does not just come from the sky:Toward multi-scale,pro-poor climate policy.In R.Mearns,& A.Norton (Eds.),Social dimensions of climate change:Equity and vulnerability in a warming world(pp.47–74).Washington,DC:The World Bank. Samake′,A.,Be′lie`res,J.-F.,Corniaux,C.,Dembele,N.,Kelly,V.,Marzin, J.,Sanogo,O.,et al.(2008).Dimensions structurelles de la libe′ralisation pour l’agriculture et le de′veloppement rural:Phase II–MALI RuralStruc Program.Unpublished report of the Consortium IER,MSU,CIRAD, World Banque,Coope′ration Franc?aise,Fida,Bamako,Mali. Scoones,I.(1998).Sustainable rural livelihoods:A framework for analysis.
IDS Working Paper72,Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex,Brighton,UK.
Sen,A.(1992).Inequality reexamined.London,UK:Oxford University Press.
Sen,A.(2000).Repenser l’ine′galite′.Paris,France:Seuil.
Sere′, C.,&Steinfeld,H.(1996).World livestock production systems: Current status,issues and trends.FAO Animal Production and Health Paper127,Roma,Italy.
Thornton,P.K.,Kruska,R.L.,Henninger,N.,Kristjanson,P.M.,Reid, R.S.,&Robinson,T.P.(2003).Locating poor livestock keepers at the global level for research and development https://www.360docs.net/doc/479912989.html,nd Use Policy, 20,311–322.
Turner,B.L.,II,Kasperson,R.E.,Matson,P.A.,McCarthy,J.J.,Corell, R.W.,Christensen,L.,et al.(2003).A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,100(14),8074–8079. Upton,M.(2004).The role of livestock in economic development and poverty reduction.PPLPI Working paper No.10.FAO,Roma,Italy.
10.html>. Vatin,F.(2009).Evaluer et valoriser:une sociologie e′conomique de la mesure.Toulouse,France:Presses Universitaires du Mirail. 1648WORLD DEVELOPMENT