Pathways
into and out of Poverty
and the Role Played by Livestock
|
|
Scientists
from the Africa-based International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Duke
University (USA) and the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) of the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations are
collaborating in identifying pathways into and out of poverty. In a study
spanning twenty poor communities in two districts of western |
Introduction
A community-based research method developed by Anirudh
Krishna of Duke University was used to assess poverty dynamics in more than
1,700 households in 20 communities representing 2 ethnic groups in western
Kenya. Results of the assessments, which determined the proportions of
households that escaped or fell into poverty over the last 25 years, are
providing a better understanding of pathways into and out of poverty. Further
details on this approach and results can be found at: www.pubpol.duke.edu/krishna/householdpoverty
Key poverty pathways
Healthcare appears to be the single-most important pathway for stopping
households from descending into poverty in this region of western
Community definitions of ‘poverty’
A critical step for the scientists conducting this
study was to define with the participating communities a common understanding
of poverty. What, for example, does an extremely poor household do when a
little bit of money becomes available? Which expenses are usually the very
first to be incurred? As a little more money flows in, what does this household
do in the second stage? The third stage? And so on.
Discussions of these questions provoked lively debate among assembled villagers
followed by high levels of consensus as to the successive stages of household
progress from acute poverty to economic self-reliance. Most interesting was the
broad agreement across nearly all villages on the sequence of these stages. The
results show that households climb out of poverty by acquiring first food, then
(in the following order) clothes, shelter, school fees and small animals
including chickens, sheep and goats. In almost all the villages, purchasing
local cattle came in the first stage beyond the poverty threshold drawn by the
villagers. Households that reach the latter ‘livestock stage’ are no longer
considered poor.
A remarkably similar understanding of poverty exists within these different
villages and across the two main ethnic groups found in Vihiga
and Siaya Districts of western
Results highlights
The population growth rates in the two districts of
Using a community-derived definition of poverty, 29% of households in Siaya have fallen into poverty over the last 25 years and
8% have escaped poverty. More encouragingly, 25% of households in Vihiga escaped poverty and 11% became poor. Most households
(73%) in both districts that escaped poverty over the last 25 years did so
because they diversified their income sources when a household member obtained
a job in the formal sector or the urban informal sector. Over 80% of these jobs
(accounting for a total of 61% of successful escapes) were found within the
private sector.
Of the households that escaped poverty, 57% did so by diversifying on-farm
income through cash crop production. These households were able to produce and
consistently sell either surplus food crops (sorghum, maize, bananas) or cash
crops (tea, sugarcane, rice).
In 35% of the cases, households that had escaped poverty diversified their
incomes by establishing a small business near their village. The enterprises
mentioned include retail shops; butcheries; selling fish, livestock, fruits,
vegetables and cereal grains; trading in timber, firewood and charcoal; making
shoes and bricks; weaving baskets; brewing alcohol; and selling paraffin.
However, because so few poor people have sufficient connections and networks to
gain formal employment, improving farm returns remains critical to escaping
poverty in this region.
Poor health and health-related expenses were the reasons overwhelmingly cited
as responsible for households declining into poverty. Following these are heavy
funeral expenses, particularly the slaughter of a household’s livestock assets,
mentioned in 63% of the cases. Among other chief reasons cited for households
declining into poverty were livestock thefts and disease, losses of livestock
due to the ‘bride price’ custom, the sale or slaughter of animals to pay for
healthcare or to feed the sick, and tiny landholdings that provide insufficient
grazing lands and feed to support livestock. On the other hand, on-farm
diversification through livestock production was cited as critical for
households escaping from poverty.
The striking importance of health and health-related problems and expenses in
poverty status is also seen in
The findings of this study have implications in terms of what has been called ‘cargo
net’ versus ‘safety net’ interventions. Cargo nets help poor people climb out
of poverty; safety nets stop people from falling into poverty. Redistributive
programs to build up the assets of poor people (such as giving heifers to poor
households) may be effective in achieving long-term reductions in chronic
poverty when complemented by safety nets. Our results suggest that the most
important safety nets required by poor households in western
This study has highlighted the key role that livestock play in both pathways
into and out of poverty. On-farm diversification of income sources away from a
sole reliance on crops through investment in chickens, sheep, goats and/or
cattle helped many of the households in the study escape poverty. Given that
investment in large animal stock is typically beyond the means of the poorest
households, this finding suggests that projects that provide a heifer or a loan
to buy a sheep or goat, for example, could provide a one-time transfer
sufficiently substantial to help households lift themselves out of poverty.
Such livestock acquisitions, however, must be accompanied by policies and
interventions that reduce the risks associated with keeping farm animals alive
and productive in harsh environments.
To open up opportunities for poor households to benefit from livestock even
more than they do now, problems of poor roads and market infrastructure,
widespread insecurity and high and multiple animal disease risks will have to
be addressed. The potential for dairy enterprises in particular would be much
larger if some of these risks were lowered. These are areas where local,
regional and national authorities have an obvious role to play. Improving
access to appropriate information regarding livestock management and disease
strategies is an area where research organisations can help.
For more information, see: Kristjanson P,
INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Research in animal agriculture to reduce hunger, poverty and environmental
degradation in developing countries.