Provision of Livestock Services to the Rural Poor - a complex issue

Developing countries exhibit a tremendous diversity of livestock production systems which have evolved from a unique combination of geographical, cultural and economic conditions. In these countries up to 70% of people living in rural areas can be defined as poor, that is they are economically and socially vulnerable. Not all the rural poor are livestock owners and not all livestock owners can be classed as poor but for many landless people, livestock are often their only asset and the mainstay of their survival.

As populations rise (and the rural poor make up 60% of global population) so the demand for livestock services increases in an attempt to improve production and sustainability. However, a lack of funds in the last few decades in the public sector has led to a decline in the standard of livestock services provided in many developing countries. As governments have struggled to provide policies and services for the benefit of all, they have often failed in defining the problems of the rural poor. Meanwhile, the private sector has usually been more concerned with those people who can give the greatest return. Small-scale farmers are known to be resilient and adaptable to changing conditions and yet the complex issue of providing effective livestock services and promoting self-sustainability in an attempt to alleviate rural poverty remains. It is with these issues in mind that a wide variety of participants from the donor, NGO and academic communities met at a one day conference on 'The provision of livestock services to the rural poor' in June this year in order to gain a better understanding of current policy and practice in the delivery of livestock services.

Understanding farmers needs

Although no definitive answers can be provided, it was generally agreed that the formulation of appropriate livestock policies requires a better understanding of livestock owners and their needs. If services are to be effective, they should be demand driven i.e. governments should know what the situation is at grassroot level before they adjust the situation at a national level. By asking a series of simple questions: what do farmers want, why and when do they want it, and how do they pay for it, the answers can be obtained to tailor a more effective service that is small-holder orientated and one which will help to raise domestic incomes and contribute to the alleviation of poverty.

To make progress, there is an urgent need for governments and donor communities to acknowledge mistakes made in the past and to recognise that rural development is a sector in distress. Agriculture should be at the heart of rural growth for all developing countries but the commercial aspects of agriculture are too often neglected as urban development takes precedence. And yet, just as dispersed rural populations should not be neglected, neither should the increasing needs of the growing peri-urban populations, also dependent on livestock, be ignored. Moreover, livestock, however vital, are just one part of the whole farming economy of the household and livestock service provision should therefore not be taken in isolation. Instead, a more holistic and sustainable approach to subsistence farming should be promoted by providing farmers with opportunities to improve their livelihoods (through self-help schemes and added value) rather than simply continuing to allow them to hover on and below the borders of poverty.

By taking a more holistic approach to rural development and the effective delivery of livestock services, it is important to consider a number of essential factors such as the value attributed to livestock. This obviously includes monetary value (the capital investment in the animal as well as the value of products and labour it provides) but equally important is the non-monetary value (e.g. social status that is gained by owning livestock), which is particularly important in poor communities. Once the reasons for keeping livestock have been determined, then it is possible to look at what livestock services are needed, who, if anybody, is delivering them and whether the current service is in need of improvement. Animal health may be considered the most important criteria in the provision of livestock services for improving livestock production but for many smallholders security is equally important: livestock theft is rife in many regions and the loss of an animal is more detrimental than poor production levels due to disease.

Avoiding conflicts of interest

With decreasing resources, government veterinarians are unable to provide farmers with all the livestock services they need. But some veterinarians are practising privately and there are an increasing range of individuals and private organizations able to provide livestock services (see Liberalisation and re-structuring of livestock services). However, it is important to establish which services are really justified and who exactly should deliver the services to avoid detrimental competition and a conflict of interests between the public and private service providers. One of the most important issues is that, whoever is providing the service, the farmers are satisfied with the outcome and they know that the service can be relied on. Government or private sector provision is not adequate if it is unreliable or only a short term option.

Another important issue for service providers and livestock owners is the cost of the service. For many service providers, it is extremely difficult to provide services in dispersed rural areas at reasonable cost. In these circumstances, it may be more beneficial for farmers to have animal health services (such as provision of drugs) provided by local NGOs, farmer co-operatives and community animal health workers. But even in the most marginal areas, it is important that national disease control is still provided and subsidized by the public sector. It may be more cost-effective to delegate certain control services to private individuals (as has been the case in rinderpest and foot and mouth disease vaccination) but in general, it can be agreed that the individual who makes the decision about animal health should pay for it. So, if it is a government decision that a disease needs to be controlled or production needs to be increased, then the services that enable these actions to be brought about should be paid or subsidized by the public sector. In some cases the cost may be paid by the consumer (through taxes and higher product prices) but if the decision is down to individual farmers to improve their own livestock production, then if they see the benefit it is up to them to pay for the services they require.

Overall, an effective service is one that makes the best use of resources whilst strengthening the individual - the livestock owner. It may be necessary to re-allocate dwindling public support services to those that need them most but much can be achieved through better co-ordination between private service providers such as NGOs and veterinarians. Self-help schemes should also be advocated: farmers are very resourceful and this should be built upon by encouraging community support and the formation of farmer groups or co-operatives which make added value processing of products more viable.

Future livestock policies should also enable the private sector to develop with the public sector maintaining a co-ordinating role. In the past, governments have often lacked confidence in the private sector and have been unsure of transferring responsibility to other individuals. But, if livestock service provision is to be effective in the future, governments and donors should re-orient the contribution of these individuals to effective community outreach, training and transfer of technology which, unlike some past national and regional policies, filter down to grassroot level and benefit the people that are the rock of future agricultural and rural development - the farmers themselves.

Papers and presentations used for background information:

Conference organised by the Livestock Development Studies Group in association with VEERU (Veterinary Epidemiology & Economics Research Unit), University of Reading

For further information regarding issues raised at the conference contact: veeru@reading.ac.uk

Back to Menu