The Livestock and Environment Study concluded that rising demand for livestock products, and increasing population pressure, were having a profound effect on the nature of livestock production systems. The Study argues that these two driving forces are leading to greater intensification and specialisation of livestock systems. Grazing systems are likely to remain at more or less constant levels, with little scope for innovation or increased expansion. Mixed farming systems are anticipated to intensify and be an important source of growth within the livestock industry. However, as population pressure builds up, new forms of specialised industrial production systems are likely to emerge, and the largest growth within the livestock sector is anticipated to come from industrial systems (Figure 3).
Figure Livestock systems development pathways (Steinfeld, de Haan & Blackburn, 1997)
In this section we consider how the systems of the poor might respond to - or be shaped by - the two driving forces. We do this by exploring changes to three major PROCESSES that we believe will occur in response to a rise in demand for livestock products and population increases leading to an expansion in cropping. These processes are: (1) diminishing common property resources, (2) a reduction in mobility for grazing animals, and (3) decreasing farm sizes. Each of these processes will have implications for the type of livestock production systems that the poor are able to operate, and their relationship with the environment, creating new environmental and livelihood hotspots. These are summarised in Figure 4.
Figure Livestock systems development pathways of the poor
3.1.1 The processes of change
Taking each process in turn (refer to Figure 4):
Smaller and fewer common property resources
Common-property resources (CPRs) are diminishing through an expansion of cropping in semi arid and sub-humid areas resulting in a loss of grazing. However, the loss of CPR to cropping is likely to level out as future rises in crop production are anticipated to come from higher productivity per ha rather than an expansion of arable land (Alexandratos (1995).
We hypothesise that rising demand for livestock will also have a severe impact on the availability of common property resources to the poor. This is because rising prices for livestock will make CPRs a more valuable resource for livestock production. It is likely that wealthier people will seek to exploit emerging markets for livestock by either investing in livestock reared on common land[7] (Little, 1985; Toulmin, 1992)- where there are no limits to the number of animals an individual can rear -, or by the wealthy (and more powerful) appropriating common land for private use (Behnke, 1987; Keijsper, 1993). Such changes to common property resources are already occurring in countries where livestock have become more profitable (See for example Behnke, 1987; Keijsper, 19993, Thomas-Slayter & Bhatt, 1994; Agrawal, 1994; Cleaver & Schreiber, 1994; Zanen, 1999).
Greater competition for common property resources, or the loss of CPRs, will lower the productivity of individual animals. This is likely to seriously threaten the livelihood security of poorer livestock keeper who rear small herds of animals, and rely to a greater degree on CPRs for their livestock. We hypothesise that the poor will respond to these pressures on CPR in the following ways:
Poorer pastoralists may be forced to migrate to ecologically more marginal areas in search of grazing or, more likely, to peri-urban[8] and urban areas where there are more opportunities to diversify income sources. A concentration of poor pastoralists in peri-urban areas may in turn give rise to new environmental threats;
If they can lay claim to some land, then poorer herders will diversify into cropping as a means of supplementing income from small and unproductive herds (e.g. become agro-pastoralists), but retain elements of transhumance by allowing animals to move to exploit more favourable CPRs (Coppock, 1994),
If they already have land, then they will increasingly integrate livestock with their cropping activities by feeding crop residues to their animals but still depending largely on CP grazing around villages (sedentary, mixed farms grazing CP forage). This integration may require changes to village norms governing access to crop residues. When competition for CP range resources is relatively low, then crop residues from all households (rich and poor) are usually treated as a CPR to be left in-situ for post-harvest grazing by village herds and flocks (Subrahmanyan & Rao, 1995). This situation benefits the richer owners who own most animals (Tanner et al, 1993). However, as livestock numbers increase, farmers may start to exert ownership over their crop residues by harvesting and storing them for subsequent feeding to their own animals, or for sale to others. The conversion of crop residues from a public to private good usually very much favours poorer farmers, who due to their small livestock numbers, have a much higher ratio of crop residues to livestock units compared to wealthier farmers.
If poor livestock keepers have no land, they will either adopt a transhumant lifestyle but operate within a lanscape dominated by cropping (transhumant landless grazing CP feed in arable land). They can do this by exchanging products (manure, meat traction and milk) for grain with arable farmers; or
They will become sedentary and graze their animals off CP resources, including crop residues (sedentary landless grazing CP feed in arable land); or
They will exploit niche CPR (forests, roadside grasses etc) where animals cannot be grazed, but forage or other feeds can be harvested or gleaned using family labour. Such cut-and-carry feeding will form the basis of sedentary landless rearing systems for confined animals, or
They will drop out of livestock keeping altogether
|
Loss of common property grazing "Rajasthan's predominant land-use strategy until India's independence (1949) was sheep, camel and cattle pastoralism that relied on communally owned property resources, combined with opportunistic rain-fed cultivation of sorghum and pulses. In the 1950's a more equitable redistribution of the resources was carried out. In the course of these land reforms some previous pasture land was allotted for cultivation. Other developments have also cut the land available for grazing. Thus, between 1956 and 1987 common property resources decreased by 32% while the net sown area increased from 28.6% in 1951 to 47% in 1981. Rajasthan's pastoralists have found a solution to the lack of grazing in their home state by making seasonal moves into adjoining states - notably Madhya Pradesh, where uncultivated land is available, and Haryana, where the post-harvest stubble of irrigated fields can be exploited." (Köhler-Rollefson, 1995) |
A reduction in mobility for grazing animals
The ability to move animals across CPRs gives producers flexibility to search for more favourable grazing conditions across relatively large areas of arid or semi-arid land. Mobility also allows producers to seasonally engage with markets. Land enclosure and grazing land fragmentation (driven both by an expansion of cropping, but also, as described later, by the privatisation of CPR for livestock production) will reduce the mobility of pastoral herds and flocks. Market forces may also encourage less mobility, as distance from markets will be a disadvantage for those seeking to trade livestock products.
We predict that:
many poorer pastoral and agro-pastoral families will attempt to relocate and settle closer to trading centres (See Box 1) so that they can exploit regular markets for perishable goods (i.e. they will become sedentary landless grazing CP feed in arable land or sedentary mixed farmers grazing CPRs).
There will also be an increase in the number of livestock keepers engaged in sedentary production (either as landless or mixed farmers grazing CPRs). A reduction in mobility will limit access to CPRs, and it is likely that the loss of feeds will need to be compensated through a closer integration of livestock with cropping, either through feeding on-farm crop residues produced on-farm, or - if landless - through exchange of manure for crop residue grazing.
|
The commercialisation of pastoral dairying in Africa Sikana, Kerven and Behnke (1993) reviewed how pastoral dairying has changed as a consequence of commercialisation. Poorer households relied on the sale or exchange of milk to obtain greater quantities (in dietary energy terms) of grain. Settling near centres increased milk trade opportunities for poorer households but reduced herd productivity due to poorer grazing. Nonetheless, the lower productivity was more than compensated for in terms of the benefits of trading relatively expensive milk for cheap grain. Poorer herders with insufficient stock to maintain their families on rangelands often turned to peri-urban dairying as a means of survival. |
Smaller farm sizes
As populations continue to rise, particularly in high potential agricultural areas, but also in other zones, farm sizes will inevitably get smaller and intensity of cropping will rise. There will be fewer opportunities for livestock to graze CPRs and crop residues as the risk of crop damage from straying will become too great. However, at the same time demand for manure will rise to support more intensive cropping systems. We contend that systems will seek to adapt to ensure they can retain livestock to support their plant soil nutrient requirements, accelerate nutrient turnover and to supply draft power. They will do this by:
Confining animals to avoid crop damage, and by cut-and-carrying to the farmstead crop residues, grasses and other forages that have been harvested from CPRs (including arable land where cut residues constitute a common property), or, increasingly, purchased forage that has been imported from other areas[9] (sedentary mixed farms rearing confined animals). Manure (mainly faeces but less so, urine) can be readily collected from the permanently housed animals and returned to the fields.
Poor landless producers may continue to engage in confined livestock keeping by operating labour intensive cut-and-carry feeding systems (sedentary landless rearing confined or scavenging animals) that generate specialist manure products for cropping in addition to more conventional livestock products for consumption.
We suggest in certain intensively cultivated areas, despite extra costs associated with confinement of animals, livestock numbers may actually rise to meet the corresponding increase in demand for manure to support the increased intensification of cropping (Palte, 1989). This rise is most likely to occur in areas where soils benefit from organic nutrient enhancement and where either crop residues are appropriate for livestock feeding or there are sufficient CPRs to support housed animals.
|
Cut-and-carry feeding in Java Although Java is only 7% of the total land area of Indonesia it supports around 2/3s of nearly 200 million people. Cropping is continuous on farms of only 0.5 ha. Ninety percent of Indonesia's sheep population is located on Java and, along with the majority proportions of the other ruminant species. With no room for grazing, livestock are kept in backyards and stall-fed forage cut from common property such as roadsides. Supplying forage is labour intensive but surprisingly farmers cut more forage than their animals can consume. The rationale for this apparently wasteful strategy lies in the fact that the rejected forage is combined with excreta to produce large quantities of manure-compost. This "excess feeding" is an indigenous strategy aimed at optimising outputs of not only meat and milk but manure also. Tanner, Holden, Winugroho, Owen & Gill, 1995. |
3.1.2 Overall trends
The effect of these three processes on the livestock systems of the poor are summarised in Figure 4. In this diagram we hypothesise that the production systems of the poor will undergo the following STAGES OF CHANGE in response to the driving forces of increased growing and high demand for livestock products:
In arid, semi-arid and mountainous areas transhumant livestock keepers will increasingly be grazing CPRs that are interspersed with arable land (ENCROACHMENT OF CROPPING). Expansion of arable land not only reduces the amount of grazing available but the highly dispersed patchwork distribution of grazing within arable land may also hinder the mobility of flocks and herds;
The shift from transhumance to SEDENTARISATION, in the form of settled mixed farming or sedentary herders grazing CPR, will accelerate among the poor as they will be forced to compensate for a loss of CPR by either diversifying into cropping, or entering into closer trading relationships with urban dwellers for milk, and arable farmers for manure.
As population pressure continues to mount in sub-humid and humid areas, we anticipate a substantial reduction in CPRs such that livestock will be supported almost solely off on-farm resources in the form of crop residues and pasture on fallow land (INTEGRATED LIVESTOCK CROP SYSTEMS). Poorer farmers with land should be better able to support their limited numbers of animals from their existing farm resources than wealthier farmers, and may even be able to increase the number of animals they rear. In contrast we anticipate a fall in animal numbers on wealthier farms as farmers adjust their livestock numbers to match available farm resources (UNDP, 1989; Ahsan, 1982; Subrahmanyam & Rao, 1995).
At extreme population pressure, which will be felt first in high potential areas, shrinking farm sizes and more intensive land use will lead to a rise in PERMANENTLY CONFINED livestock production systems which supply nutrients to support more intensive agriculture. Many of the poor in these areas will not have land, and will operate specialised landless confined systems where feed is 'imported' from limited CPRs eg. roadsides, and manure becomes a valuable product to be sold to neighbouring farms.
Next we consider the environmental implications of these evolutionary changes.
It is important to recognise that the evolutionary pathways outlined in the previous discussion do not operate unidirectionally or in incremental steps. Livelihood strategies of the poor may involve adopting several of the systems described above within a short period of time. For simplicity the environmental implications of shift in production systems described below assume that there is a global trend towards intensification of production systems and so discuss the changes in Figure 4 moving from left to right. Section 2 above hypothesised how the poor may be contributing to the environmental hotspots outlined in the Livestock and Environment Study. The following section now examines how the STAGES OF CHANGE occurring in the production systems of the poor will exacerbate these or create their own hotspots. These are summarised in Figure 5.
Environmental implications of poor pastoralists engaging in cropping or grazing within crop areas (ENCROACHMENT OF CROPPING)
The production of grain by poor agropastoralists is unlikely to have an impact upon the environment directly from cultivation practices per se due to the small scale and low intensity of production methods. Diversification into cropping will however enable poorer pastoral households to continue to survive in rangeland areas and so increase the number of families (and their animals) on the rangeland who might otherwise have abandoned a pastoral way of life. Inevitably this will lead to increased grazing pressure, but this effect needs to be balanced against the more significant impact of an increase in animals owned by wealthier producers responding to more favourable markets for livestock products.
Nutrient exchanges between pastoralists and arable farmers will become increasingly important. Herders grazing their animals near arable land can be contracted to tether flocks and herds on arable land over-night so as to in-situ manure cropland. In this way nutrients are transferred from rangeland to cropland where residual impacts on soil fertility can be long lasting (Cincotta and Panagare, 1994; Powell, Fernandez-Rivera, Williams and Renard, 1995). However, the nutrient mining of common land through livestock will have implications for rangeland ecosystems' health. These losses, as yet unquantified, need to be balanced against the gains in quality of arable soils.
Livestock kept in closer association with cropping can influence the weed, crop pest and disease status in an area. In Bali, for example, ducks are herded on the aftermath of rice fields to consume snails, insects and volunteer rice plants. Pastoral cattle in Somalia graze sorghum and millet stovers and so consume diseased foliage that would otherwise remain on the fields to re-infect the subsequent crop (Dr M. Jama, Crop Protection Unit, University of Reading, UK, pers. comm, 1999). Such pest management through the use of ruminant livestock could reduce the need to use agrochemicals and so confer positive environmental benefits.
Environmental implications associated with SEDENTARISATION of livestock keepers grazing common property land
The re-location of poorer pastoralists and agro-pastoralists to areas around local trading centres will increase grazing pressure on common land adjacent to settlements. This will have a negative impact upon plant biodiversity (Hiernaux, 1995) and cause localised land degradation, unless communities are able to enforce management codes to sustain a yearlong livestock carrying capacity of the range or forests. Examples of the development and enforcement of such rules have for example been observed to maintain communal fodder trees in West Africa (Shepherd, 1992).
For households owning arable land but grazing livestock on common property by day and tethering at the homestead or on cropland by night (sedentary mixed farms grazing CPRs), a system for nutrient transfer from rangeland to arable land exists (this is discussed above). Soils with a higher organic matter status support more diverse populations of soil macro and micro fauna, and so manuring is considered to confer positive environmental benefits. Where manuring is not dependent upon transhumant herds but upon herds in permanent residence around villages, longer term manuring strategies can be planned to include, for example, the rotation of kraaling areas so that more land is manured, or the manuring of areas of low fertility. Where livestock and arable land are under the control of a single community and manuring patterns are agreed by the consensus it may be possible through strategic use of a limited resource to have a broad impact upon soil quality without risking localised excesses of nutrients leading to pollution.
Sedentary livestock keepers involved in or with cropping create an increased demand for fodder from arable land. Adoption of dual-purpose crops providing both food and fodder will add to the diversity of crops grown.
Environmental implications associated with loss of common property resources to poor livestock keepers (INTEGRATED CROP/LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS)
Livestock-mediated nutrient transfers from common property land to arable land will cease and the efficiency of nutrient cycling within farm units becomes more critical to maintain soil quality. It is anticipated that increased cropping intensity which will reduce the length of the fallow coupled with more concentrated and prolonged grazing by livestock on fallow land may actually accelerate nutrient depletion, soil compaction and erosion (McIntyre, Bourzat & Pingali, 1992). Loss of livestock at this point would be detrimental to the sustainability of the farm (Shepherd & Soule, 1998) requiring adoption of technologies to reduce the impact of intensification of on soil nutrient depletion but also increasing fodder supply, for example growing a dual purpose legume such as cowpea or groundnuts.
As discussed, poorer farmers with access to land are likely to have favourable ratios of fodder to livestock and should therefore be able to maintain their livestock populations in the absence of CPRs. Such farms have the option of using some of their crop residues as mulch, organic amendment or trashlines. These practices improve the physical structure of the soil and make it less prone to wind and water erosion. Alternatively, if a market exists for fodder, surpluses may be sold to the detriment of the soil organic matter status.
Wealthier farms may have to reduce the number of animals they own to better match their farm resources. A loss of animals from these farms may raise environmental questions over the sustainability of their agricultural practices such as an increased dependence upon purchased inputs eg fertilisers.
Loss of access to common property feed resources may cause landless producers to abandon livestock keeping. This will reduce livestock biodiversity, and also crop biodiversity, since poor farmers operating mixed systems prefer to use a range of traditional crop varieties that yield fodder as well as grain.
Environmental implications associated with confinement systems employed by poor livestock keepers
Concern that high densities of livestock kept by the poor present an environmental threat may be misplaced. Backyard systems of production permit the effective collection of excreta which poor livestock keepers can market as fuel, fertiliser and feed. Where manure markets exist, value may be added to excreta before sale through for example composting. Backyard systems from which all excreta can be collected is considered the key to sustaining soil quality in densely populated areas.
Where livestock are fed on fodder from common property land and the excreta used on arable land rapid nutrient depletion and degradation can occur on common property. The long term sustainability of this uni-directional pathway of nutrient transfer is questionable
Where demand exists for fodder and manure the poor service these markets and thereby create a linkage between two spatially distinct production systems: backyard livestock rearing and (eg) peri-urban horticulture. The separation of livestock from arable farming may occur physically but as long as efficient markets are allowed to operate products can flow between both. Thus the risks of localised pollution problems are greatly reduced.
Where markets for livestock are favourable this may create a demand for higher quality feeds (especially for non-ruminant production). If physical access to livestock units is also limited this may have implications for the bulkiness of the feeds used. In this sense backyard systems will make more use of concentrated feeds. However, the cost of compounded concentrates may preclude their use by poorer farmers who may prefer to use cheaper milling/food processing by-products instead. These can be produced locally so have very little additional cost (financially and environmentally) associated with their transport and processing into animal feed.
Increasing densities of livestock in urban and periurban areas may lead to greater zoonotic disease incidence. The disease risk from a proliferation of undercapitalised, under-resourced, over-stocked and badly-managed intensive units is real, increasing and beyond the capacity of any animal health service in developing countries.
|
Intensive smallscale dairying in the Central Higlands of Kenya Around 80% of households in Central Kenya own dairy cows and average farm sizes range from 0.45 ha (small) to 2.82 ha (large). Cattle are permanently housed and maintained from a mixture of forages produced on farm (maize fodder and napier grass) and purchased forages/concentrates. Manure is equally ranked alongside milk as a product from cattle. Large farms with 5.4 large cattle, 1.2 small cattle and 4.6 small ruminants produce 2.2 tonnes of manure dry matter/ha/year compared with small farms with 3.1 large cattle, 1.5 small cattle and 1.5 small ruminants producing 8.2 tonnes of manure DM/ha/year. Manure was estimated to have the value of Kenya shillings 5.3 / kg dry matter. Small farms thus have greater potential to maintain soil fertility through the use of manure and can also sell manure in addition to sales of milk and offspring. Lekasi, Tanner, Kimani & Harris, 1998. |
Rising incomes and urbanisation is creating new demand - and higher prices - for livestock products. A rise in cropping will also raise demand for livestock inputs (in particular manure) to support more nutrient demanding crops and cropping systems. These expanding markets for livestock products offer opportunity to all livestock producers, including the poor, who tend to trade their livestock products rather than use or consume them (Swallow, 1994), and have been shown to be responsive to market prices (Upton, 1986; Herren, 1990; Kohler-Rollefson, 1994).
The poor have certain advantages over wealthier producers in the supply of livestock products to these expanding markets. They are able to use their relatively cheap labour to convert common-property resources into feed inputs for livestock enterprises, and to add value to livestock products by processing and marketing small quantities of milk and manure-based products. The viability of poor livestock enterprises in the future will however depend on whether the poor are able to retain their comparative advantage in livestock production.
Several factors might serve to undermine the relative comparative advantage of the systems of the poor. These include:
Fragile access to CPR. Rules and agreements for using common property resources on a seasonal or spatial basis are of particular importance to the poor, and are likely to become even more important if - as we predict - pressure for CPR use increases. Many such rules are informal and prone to manipulation for the benefit of a small elite (Zanen, 1999; Ho, 1996; Agrawal, 1994). Appropriation of CPR by wealthier producers might increase as markets for livestock continue to develop, and so severely jeopardise the capacity of the poor to engage in livestock production.
Subsidies to other livestock sub-sectors, especially grain-based industrial systems, but also to agriculture in the form of fertiliser and pesticide subsidies will lower the value of markets for livestock products produced by the poor. Manure and crop health services provided by livestock may not be able to compete with subsidised fertiliser and pesticide inputs. Likewise, the poor may not be able to compete with producers who use large quantities of subsidised grain inputs to produce livestock products.[10]
Biased services. Animal health and production services are likely to focus on the needs of wealthier farmers who are able to pay for higher levels of inputs. There is already a tendency for private veterinarians for example to concentrate in and around urban areas to service industrial livestock systems (LID, 1996). Research organisations (both public and private) often have a strong production orientation and so tend to focus on the needs of wealthier or industrial based livestock systems which make the largest contribution to world supplies in livestock products (Carney, 1998). These biases in service delivery serve to discriminate against poorer producers, whose information and technology needs may be overlooked.
Economies of scale. Despite the relatively cheap methods of production by poorer livestock producers, their production is still on a very small scale. Large-scale industrial units are not only more favourably located with respect to markets, but also benefit from considerable economies of scale. It questionable whether production by the poor can compete with these industrial units (particularly when their production is subsidised) and there is a danger they will be crowded out of the market place by cheaper, high volume and uniform production from industrial units.
Processing. Poorer producers typically rely on informal markets to supply urban demand (Francis, 1990; Holltzman, 1986; Diwater, 1990). Industrial production however usually invests in large scale processing units which help ensure higher food safety standards (Mbogoh, 1994). There is a danger that the products of the poor will not be able to compete in terms of food hygiene with those of the industrial units.
Changing roles for women. With increasing commercialisation there is a tendency for women to lose control over benefits of livestock production (Curry, 1993; Sikana et al. 1993; Thomas-Slater and Bhat, 1994;). Although findings are mixed, there is a risk that higher value markets for livestock products will shift the balance of decision making within households. Women may still be expected to provide the labour for increasingly labour intensive livestock activities (through for example cut-and carrying feed for housed animals), but may lose control over the revenue from livestock products.
Policy recommendations that could safeguard the livelihoods of poor livestock keepers, whilst minimising environmental impacts, are likely to include:
Strengthen institutions to support the poor's access to CPRs and "waste" land. This should include legal recognition of customary grazing grounds and security of tenure, whilst avoiding privatisation. Support may be in many forms including increased literacy, increased legal representation or land tenure reform and should ensure representation by the poor and women.
Protect rights to wildlife management;
Promote alternative investment opportunities for the wealthy as way of discouraging over investment in livestock on communal lands. Policies that improve banking and financial systems may for example provide incentives for significant destocking by wealthy pastoralists and urban investors in livestock reared on common land;
Remove subsidies on agrochemicals and feed (or tax to true market levels) to increase markets for manure and livestock products produced from non-grain diets. This would not only enhance the livelihoods of poor livestock herders, but also prevent the use substances that can have prolonged negative environmental impact through mis-use.
Ensure a pro-poor focus among public services, including the development of technology. Extension and other services provided should include women, who particularly where animals are kept near to the house are likely to be heavily involved. A pro-poor focus is likely to differ from a production orientated viewpoint, and would need to take a broader view of livelihoods. Plant breeding for example might favour the development of varieties with a high crop residue value, rather than varieties that maximise grain yields. Systems are likely to remain small-scale, low external input systems and technology developments should reflect this
Encourage collective marketing of products by facilitating the emergence of co-operative milk processing and marketing initiatives (Alderman et al, 1987) and support initiatives that add value to the natural resource base through small-scale processing of livestock products;
|
[7] In South Africa some 50% of
animals grazing common land in some areas are owned by urban businessmen
(Cousins, 1998) [8] In this context peri-urban and urban are likely to be local or regional trading centres with relatively small urban populations. [9] In such areas we anticipate a rise in fodder markets. These will largely be serviced by the poor, particularly women, who will use their labour to gather crop residues and grasses from other less intensively cultivated areas. [10] If all subsidies were removed from grain, then livestock feed prices are anticipated to rise by 30%. |
