Causes and Consequences of Poverty

Understanding Poverty in Livestock-Related Livelihoods

Poverty is diverse and comes in many forms. However, there are many common factors, and these mostly tend to be related to limited access to to land, assets, and services. In general the poor have: No voice in policies or in the delivery of livestock services Limited access to education, resulting in reduced literacy rates Limited access to health services Limited access to land and water, or insecure rights of access to these resources Poor access to credit facilities, extension services and agricultural services Limited or difficult access to markets and Low household incomes, related to generally high levels of unemployment or under-employment.

Root Causes of Poverty The Poverty Cycle Poverty Reduction The Role of Smallstock in Development and Poverty Reduction References and Further Reading

There are many different underlying causes of poverty amongst livestock-related households. These vary according to local conditions and production systems. Livelihoods are deteriorating in many production systems as a consequence of declining or degraded land or water resources. This is often due to shrinking farm sizes, deforestation and erosion, declining soil fertility and, in heavily populated areas, the degradation of water and land.

As populations grow, many livestock-based systems are coming under pressure. For example, the global study World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 (FAO 2002) estimates that, in the next 30 years, developing countries will need an additional 120 million hectares of land for crop production. The scramble for arable land in the East African highlands is leaving millions of households with too little land to survive, and sedentary farmers on arable land are rapidly marginalizing pastoral populations throughout Africa and Central Asia. Millions of poor livestock keepers are being left landless in South Asia because of the increasing privatization of common lands. Natural resource conservation programmes have displaced additional communities, or reduced their access to resources. However, without the protection offered by conservation programmes, some of these resources may well disappear altogether.

While the globalization and liberalization of markets has tended to promote overall growth (when viewed at global or regional scales) the related changes can have negative impacts on the poor if they are not accompanied by adequate safeguards. Smallholders and other producers in developing countries face serious constraints in gaining access to world markets as long as developed countries subsidize their own livestock products (e.g. agricultural subsidies in the EU and USA). Current policies, accompanied import regimes that are favourable to large-scale industrial production systems, are also biased towards large units and as a result poor livestock keepers who rely on small-scale production units are unable to access these markets.

Beneath these apparent root causes often lies the more deeply rooted political and organizational marginalization of the groups and individuals that are suffering from poverty.

The poverty cycle is an attempt to describe the condition of poverty and illustrate the various linkages. The poverty cycle is a problem that affects many people in society. It is a continuous cycle in which the poor do not improve their condition and status. The problem is not new, but has perhaps been in existence for many centuries. Although the process is now understood, many of the causes identified, and solutions proposed, the these cycles continue.

The diagram illustrates some of the complex relationships between causes, the condition or "state" of poverty, and some of the requirements and opportunities necessary to enable the poor to escape poverty. Fundamental causes are situated within a disabling environment that tends to surround poor livestock keepers.

Positive interventions need to target specific causes of poverty, i.e. the pressures that maintain the state of poverty.

Resources available to poor livestock keepers may be inadequate for sustainable livestock production. As long as needs are unfulfilled and capabilities and resources are not enhanced, the poor will remain caught up within the cycle of poverty.

Improved livestock services, and most importantly the delivery of these services, can supply some of these needs, can enhance or facilitate access to the required resources, and as a result strengthen the capabilities of the poor. The provision and dissemination of information is an important component of the necessary livestock services.

At the same time, more general household needs must also be secured. This means that, for poor livestock keepers to emerge from the poverty cycle and realize the benefits of livestock production, attention must not only be paid to better livestock services, but also to better services that satisfy the broad spectrum of household needs, including:

• Good health
• Housing
• Food security
• Education, and
• Political stability

In many cases there is a strong relationship between livestock ownership and food security

UNDP (1997) identified three main ways in which poverty may be reduced:

• By increasing food consumption or reducing expenditure on food through increased production of staple foods
• By stimulating demand for the labour or services of the poor through growth in the economy
• By promoting sustainable improvements to the livelihoods of the poor

In an analysis of the role of livestock in poverty-focused development Livestock In Development (1999) conclude that a livelihoods-based approach is likely to have the greatest impact on rural poverty. Many of the poor rear livestock of one type or another. Many of them face a range of constraints, and if these can be resolved, the contributions that livestock make to their livelihoods will increase. These authors suggested that livestock development targeted towards supporting the livelihoods of the poor offers significant potential as a tool for reducing rural poverty.

Livestock are perceived by small-holder farmers as making a contribution to an improved quality of life. Some of the poorest members of many rural communities are those without any livestock, or with very few livestock. For instance, a study in Tanzania (R7050) found that illegal hunting of wildlife in the Serengeti National Park was closely linked to income related poverty in adjacent communities. Wildlife were primarily hunted for economic reasons – to generate cash through the sale of dried meat – rather than in response to a direct need for meat. Livestock owning households were less likely to be involved in illegal hunting, and those with more than a few livestock (about 5) were very unlikely to hunt.

Other studies have also shown a strong relationship between perceptions of poverty and the ownership of livestock. Loss of livestock, for example as a result of disease or stock theft, is quoted as a contributory factor to poverty. Similarly, livestock may be sold to cover medical and funeral expenses (for example see in Mango et al.). Studies refer, in particular, to the importance of losses of livestock in explaining a household's decline into poverty (see in Barrett et al., and in Kristjanson et al.).

Two otherwise identical neighbours may have radically different experiences as one starts off with sufficient land, livestock and human capital to generate regular surpluses, save and invest, while the other lacks the minimum initial stocks necessary to accumulate wealth over time, or as one falls ill, loses livestock to disease or theft, or suffers some other shock that their otherwise-identical neighbour avoids.

The challenge is to develop novel mechanisms to provide smallholders with livestock, especially those smallholders that either have very few livestock, or do not have any livestock, and to develop support mechanisms that enable smallholders to overcome problems that result in loss of livestock.

Barrett, C.B., Marenya, P.P., McPeak, J., Minten, B., Murithi, F., Oluoch-Kosura, W., Place, F., Randrianarisoa, J.C., Rasambainarivo, J. and Wangila, J. ( 2004). Welfare Dynamics in Rural Kenya and Madagascar. SAGA Working Paper. September 2004. Cornell and Clark Atlanta Universities.