Skip to main content

Livelihood strategies in endemic livestock production systems in sub-humid zone of West Africa: trends, trade-offs and implications

Abstract

Rural livelihoods in West Africa depend largely on livestock. The sub-humid and humid zones of the region, however, are highly affected by the tsetse flies, vector of trypanosomosis, by severely limiting livestock production and livelihood options. Endemic ruminant livestock breeds are trypanotolerant, but perceived as inferior compared to other breeds in terms of productivity. The paper shows trends of relative decline in endemic population as a result of increased crossbreeding, largely with zebu cattle and Sahelian sheep and goats, and considerable decline in habitat quality due to forest conversion, logging activities and bushfires. The trade-offs between livelihoods and income strategies and endemic ruminant and habitat conservation are captured by an understanding of the socio-economic conditions and potential drivers of breed choices and forest use within households and communities. The paper shows that livelihood analysis is an important step in understanding impacts and therefore responses to development projects and to ensure that the poorest categories are not excluded from development interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    Livestock production contributes about 20–25% of the agricultural GDP in West Africa (Agyemang 2005).

  2. 2.

    According to Thévenor and Belemsaga (2005), the proportion of N’dama has declined from 13.10% in 1985 to only 10.5% in 1998; and that of West African Shorthorn from 5.3 to 4.2%.

  3. 3.

    Miskeno (very poor); Fuwaro (poor); Temakundako (moderately rich) and Fankamaa (rich).

  4. 4.

    We applied Non parametric Kruskal–Wallis test to questions “do farmers perceive the contribution of different livestock and general activities to have different impact?” The Kruskal–Wallis tests show insignificant differences between communities/villages.

  5. 5.

    In local language, Miskeno is the one who is unable to gain his basic needs (may afford one meal per day) and rely on community support. A very poor household does not have assets (or minimal assets) but has the ability to make his living (can afford two meals per day). The very poor cannot meet the educational expenditure of their children, who always drop out at the lower level, whereas the poor can educate children up to upper basic.

  6. 6.

    This section was added based on one reviewer comment. The last sentence is quoted from the reviewer.

  7. 7.

    Animals can graze, fodder can be collected, or purchased.

  8. 8.

    During NRM workshop, organized to validate these results, community forest was reported as well as national forest which is not far away from Chameh. This arises questions regarding the access to these resources.

  9. 9.

    Results indicate (though not prove) that in two of our Gambia sites change in breeds is due to habitat degradation (less tsetse). We, however, acknowledge that there may be other influencing factors not captured in our study.

  10. 10.

    Horse and donkey were ranked second and third because they are for many families the only means of transportation to purchase or sell their products on local markets. Horses and donkey are also preferred as draught power for field work because they work faster than cattle.

  11. 11.

    The ethnic bias in keeping cattle is also important but not captured during the PRA; ethnic groups with pastoral tradition (Pula) tend to have more cattle than the other ethnic groups.

References

  1. Abeyasekera, S. (2001). Analysis approaches in participatory work involving ranks or score. UK: Statistical Services Center, The University of Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adato, R., & Meinzen Dick, R. (2007). Integrating social and economic analyses to study impacts on livelihoods and poverty: Conceptual frameworks and research methods. In R. Adato (Ed.), Agricultural research, livelihoods and poverty (pp. 20–55). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Agyemang, K. (2005). Trypanotolerant cattle in the context of trypanosomosis intervention strategies. PAAT technical and Scientific Series 7. Rome: FAO. (67 p.).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Agyemang, K., Dwinger, R. H., Grieve, A. S., & Bah, M. L. (1991). Milk production characteristics and productivity of N’Dama cattle kept under village management in the Gambia. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 1599–1608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bennison, J. J., Barton, D., & Jaitner, J. (1997). The production objectives and feeding strategies of ruminant livestock owners in The Gambia: implications for policy makers. Agricultural Systems, 55, 425–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bourn, D., Reid, R., Rogers, D., Snow, B., & Wint, W. (2001). Environmental change and the autonomos control of tsetse and trypanosomosis in Sub-Saharan Africa, case histories from Etiopia, The Gambia, Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe (pp. 25–55). Oxford: Rural Livelihoods Department, UK Department for International Development.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 10(22), 1437–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleaver, K. M., & Schreiber, G. A. (1994). Reversing the spiral: The population, agriculture and environment nexus in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clifford, D. J. (1993). Multiplication of trypanotolerant livestock. In G. J. Rowlands & A. J. Teale (Eds.), Towards increased use of trypanotolerance: current research and future directions. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRAD, 26–29 April 1993.

  10. Collinson, M. P. (2000). A history of farming systems research. In M. P. Collinson (Ed.), A history of farming systems research. Wallingford: CAB International and Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. DLS/ITC. (1993). Livestock census 1993. Banjul, The Gambia: Department of Livestock Services, Abuko and International Trypapanotolerance Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gambia Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Gambia population and housing census 2003. The Gambia: Government of the Gambia.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gjertsen, H. (2005). Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human well-being? Evidence from marine protected areas in the Philippines. World Development, 2(33), 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grace, D. (2005). Epidemiology and control of cattle trypanosomosis in villages under risk of trypanocide resistance in West Africa. PhD Thesis, Free Universitat Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

  15. ILRI. (2007). Improving the management of trypanocide resistance in the cotton zone of West Africa: A coordinated regional study. Final project report. ILRI.

  16. Kamuanga, M. (2003). Socio-economic and cultural factors in the research and control of trypanosomosis. PAAT Technical and Scientific Series 4 (p. 67). Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kristajanson, P. M., Swallow, B. M., Rowlands, G. J., Kruska, R. L., & Leeuw, P. N. D. (1999). Measuring the costs of African animal trypanosomosis, the potential benefits of control and returns to research. Agricultural Systems, 59, 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ouma, E. A., Abdullai, A., & Drucker, A. (2007). Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(4), 1005–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Riley, J., & Fielding, W. J. (2001). An illustrated review of some farmer participatory research techniques. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 1(6), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Roessler, R., Drucker, A., Scarpa, R., Markemann, A., Lemke, U., Thuy, L. T., et al. (2008). Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers’ preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North–West Vietnam. Ecological Economics, 66, 184–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scarpa, R., Ruto, E. R. K., Kristjanson, P., Radeny, M., Drucker, A. G., & Rege, J. E. O. (2003). Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: An empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecological Economics, 45, 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Simianer, H. (2005). Decision making in livestock conservation. Ecological Economics, 53, 559–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sy, H. A., Faminow, M. D., Johnson, G. V., & Crow, G. (1997). Estimating the values of cattle characteristics using an ordered probit model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(2), 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tano, K., Kamuanga, M., Faminow, M. D., & Swallow, B. (2003). Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer’s preferences for cattle traits in West Africa. Ecological Economics, 45, 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thévenor, S., & Belemsaga, D. (2005). State of the conservation of trypanotolerant cattle genetic resources in West Africa. In International workshop “Options and strategies for the conservation of FAnGR”. AGROPOLIS, Montpellier, France, November 7–10.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is an output of a regional project (PROGEBE) funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) and implemented by ILRI and partners in four West African countries (Mali, Senegal, Guinea and The Gambia). The authors would like to thank the reviewer of this journal for very useful comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Zaibet.

Additional information

Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zaibet, L., Traore, S., Ayantunde, A. et al. Livelihood strategies in endemic livestock production systems in sub-humid zone of West Africa: trends, trade-offs and implications. Environ Dev Sustain 13, 87–105 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-010-9250-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Endemic ruminants
  • Habitat
  • Livelihoods
  • Trade-offs
  • West Africa