Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 27–39 | Cite as

Gender, livestock assets, resource management, and food security: Lessons from the SR-CRSP

  • Corinne Valdivia
Article

Abstract

North Sumatra and West Java in Indonesia, the Andes of Bolivia and Peru, Western Province, the Coast and Machakos in Kenya, were Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program (SR-CRSP) sites in which the role of small ruminants was studied and where technological interventions were designed. In all cases the target groups were poor rural households that could maintain sheep, goats, or South American camelids. The objective was to increase the welfare of families through the use of small ruminant technologies. Access to and control of resources, and intrahousehold dynamics were analyzed to understand if, how, and when, technological interventions help achieve this objective. The way in which the studied villages integrate into the market, the specific role that livestock and other productive enterprises play in the household economy, the risks faced by families in rural areas condition the role of livestock and other resource management technologies. As an asset, small and large stock are gendered, but this is qualified by the alternatives that household members have. Small ruminants under the domain of women, either through production or marketing, are shown to contribute to in-kind consumption or, as liquid assets, to household welfare purchases, in the case of Andean agropastoral households and households in Kenya. Women are also managers of the grazing areas, which are often fallow fields. The research experiences show the relationship between gender, resource management, and the ability to build livestock assets and security, in different houehold production systems.

Food security Gender Goats Household peasant production systems Livestock assets Small ruminants Sheep 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agarwal, B. (1994). “Gender and command over property: A critical gap in economic analysis and policy in South Asia.” World Development 22(10): 1455-1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberti, G. and E. Mayer (1984). Reciprocidad e intercambio en los Andes Peruanos. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
  3. Blumberg, R. L. (1995). “Introduction: Engendering wealth and well-being in an era of economic transformation,” in R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, and M. Monteón (eds.), EnGENDERing Wealth and Well-Being. Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 1-14). San Francisco: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blumberg, R. L., C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, and M. Monteón (eds.) (1995). EnGENDERing Wealth and Well-Being. Empowerment for Global Change. San Francisco: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boserup, E. (1974). “Food supply and population in developing countries,” in Economic Development and Demographic Trends, 1990. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boserup, E. (1990). “Food supply and population in developing countries,” in Economic and Demographic Relationships in Development/Ester Boserup: Essays Selected and Introduced by T. Paul Schultz (pp. 114-124). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cala, E. (1994). El Sistema de Tenencia de Tierras en la Comunidad San José Llanga, Provincia Aroma del Departamento de La Paz, Bolivia. Unpublished BA thesis. UMSA.Google Scholar
  8. Cala, E. and C. Jetté (1994). “Posesión y control de tierras en una comunidad del altiplano central.” IBTA 138/Boletín Técnico 07/SR-CRSP.Google Scholar
  9. Caro, D. (1992). “The socioeconomic and cultural context of Andean pastoralism,” in C. Valdivia, (ed.), Sustainable Crop-Livestock Systems for the Bolivian Highlands. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri.Google Scholar
  10. Céspedes, J. (1993). Income Impacts of Cash-Crop Introduction into Subsistence System in the Bolivian Altiplano. Unpublished MS thesis, Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
  11. Conelly, W. T. and M. S. Chaiken (1993). “Inequality and gender in the control of resources in agropastoral systems: The Luo and Luhya of Western Kenya.” Paper Presented to the Association for Women in Development, Sixth International Forum. October 20–24, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Coppock, D. L. and C. Valdivia (forthcoming). Sustaining Agropastoralism on the Bolivian Altiplano: The Case of San José Llanga. Nairobi: Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program and International Livestock Research Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Curry, J., R. Huss-Ashmore, B. Perry, and A. Mukhebi (1996) “A framework for the analysis of gender, intrahousehold dynamics, and livestock disease control with examples from Uasin Gishu District, Kenya.” Human Ecology 24(2): 161-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Haan, N., C. Valdivia, G. Njeru, and D. Sheikh (1996). “Of goats, groups, and gender.” Research Report on the Sociological Impacts of the Kenya Dual Purpose Goat. Kenya SR-CRSP Technical Report Series, TR-MU 96-1. Columbia, Missouri.Google Scholar
  15. Deere, C. D. (1983). “The allocation of familial labor and the formation of peasant household income in the Peruvian Sierra,” in M. Lycetto and W. P. McGreevy (eds.), Women and Poverty in the Third World (pp. 104-129). Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, E., J. Céspedes, and C. Valdivia (1994). “Impacts of cash crop expansion on income components in an agropastoral community of the Bolivian Altiplano.” Latin American Studies Association, 18th International Congress, Atlanta, Georgia, March.Google Scholar
  17. Dunn, E., N. Kalaitzandonakes, and C. Valdivia (1996). “Risk and the impacts of micro-enterprise services.” Assessing the Impacts of Microenterprise Services (AIMS). Washington, DC: MSI.Google Scholar
  18. Espejo, R. (1994). Prácticas socioeconómicas de tenencia y adquisición de ganado, estudio de caso: comunidad San José Llanga. BA Thesis, Sociology, UMSA, La Paz.Google Scholar
  19. Fafchamps, M., C. Udry, and K. Czukas (1996). “Drought and saving in West Africa: are livestock a buffer stock?” Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Meetings, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  20. Feldstein, H. and S. Poats (1989). “Conceptual framework for gender analysis in farming systems research and extension,” in H. Feldstein and S. Poats (eds.), Working Together Gender Analysis in Agriculture, Chapter 1 (pp. 7-26). West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fender, K. (1997). Empowerment within the Household: A Study of Income Allocation in Bolivia. Unpublished MS Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
  22. Ferguson, A. E. (1994). “Differences among women farmers: Implications for African agricultural research programs.” CRSP Meetings.Google Scholar
  23. Fernández, M. (1992). “The social organization of production in community-based agropastoralism in the Andes,” in C. M. McCorkle (ed.), Plants, Animals, and People. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fernández, M. E. (ed.) (1986). La investigación-acción participativa y el enfoque de sistemas de producción con los campesinos alto-andinos, Serie Comunidades Reporte Técnico N. 61. Lima: Lluvia Editores.Google Scholar
  25. Fernández, M. E. (1989). “La organización de la producción en comunidades campesinas altoandians,” in M. Fernandez (ed.), Consideraciones para la Investigatión Participativa en Comunidades Campesians Alto-andinas (pp. 12-27). Huancayo: Serie Comunidades No. 98. SR-CRSP and Grupo Yanapai.Google Scholar
  26. Friedman, H. (1980). “Household production and the national economy: concepts for the analysis of agrarian transformation.” Journal of Peasant Studies 18(1980): 219-229.Google Scholar
  27. Gregory, C., M. Fernadez, and N. Canales (1989). “Compartiendo la pérdida con productores alto-andinos,” in M. Fernandez (ed.), Consideraciones para la investigación participativa en comunidades campesinas alto-andians (pp. 29-45). Huancayo: Serie Comunidades No. 98. SR-CRSP and Grupo Yanapai.Google Scholar
  28. Guillet, D. W. (1992). “The impact of alfalfa introduction on common field agropastoral regimes: Quechua villagers in southwstern Peru,” in C. M. McCorkle (ed.), Plants, Animals and People (pp. 111-123). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  29. Handayani, S. W., R. B. Brown, and C. Valdivia (1993). “Bio-social roles in peasant small ruminant production: The importance of children and women in secondary economic activities.” Tech. Report Series #109. University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
  30. Hoddinott, J. (1992). “Household economics and economics of households.” Understanding How Resources Are Allocated within Household, IFPRI Policy Briefs 8. Washington, DC, November.Google Scholar
  31. Huss-Ashmore, R. (1996). “Livestock, nutrition, and intrahousehold resource control in Uasin Gishu District, Kenya.” Human Ecology 24(2): 191-213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jamtgaard, K. (1989). “Targeting production systems in the small ruminant CRPS: A typology using cluster analysis,” in C. M. McCorkle (ed.), The Social Sciences in International Agricultural Research: Lessons from the CRSPs (pp. 195-212). Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Kusterer, K. (1989). “Small farmer attitudes and aspirations.” USAID Program Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 26. USAID, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Martínez, D. and M. Barrera (1989). “Uso del trabajo familiar en comunidades campesinas agropastoriles andinas,” in M. Fernandez (ed.), El trabajo familiar y el rol de la mujer and comunidades alto-andinas de producción mixta, Serie Comunidades, Reporte Técnico N. 101. Lima: Lluvia Editores.Google Scholar
  35. Markowitz, L. (1995). “Gender and resource management in an Andean agropastoral system,” in D. Shenk (ed.), Race, Gender and Political Activism: The Legacy of Silvia Forman (pp. 145-160). Washington, DC: American Association for Feminist Anthropology.Google Scholar
  36. Markowitz, L. (1995). “Gender and resource management in an Andean agropastoral system,” in D. Shenk (ed.), Gender and Race through Education and Political Activism: The Legacy of Sylvia Helen Forman. Published by the American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  37. Markowitz, L. and C. Jetté. (1994). “Estrategias sociales hacia la sostenibilidad andina: un estudio de caso del altiplano central.” IBTA 139/Boletín Técnico 08/SR-CRSP. La Paz.Google Scholar
  38. Markowitz, L. and C. Valdivia (forthcoming). “Patterns of technology adoption at San José Llanga: Lessons in agricultural change,” in L. Coppock and C. Valdivia (eds.), Sustaining Agropastoralism on the Bolivian Altiplano: The Case of San José Llanga, Chapter 7. Davis, California: International Livestock Research Institute and the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program.Google Scholar
  39. McCorkle, C. M. (1992). “The agropastoral dialectic and the organization of labor in a Quechua community,” in C. M. McCorkle (ed.), Plants Animals and People. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  40. McCorkle, C. M. (1993). “Biosocial groups in ag and NRM development: A framework for Gender and sociocconomic analysis.” Paper Presented to the Association for Women in Development, Sixth International Forum, October 20–24. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. McCorkle, C. M. (1994). “A framework for analysis of gender and other socioeconoimc variables in Ag and NRM.” Working Paper #241. East Lansing: Women in International Development Working Papers, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  42. Mullins, G., L. Wahome, P. Tsangari, and L. Maarse (1996). “Impact of intensive dairy production on smallholder farm women in Coastal Kenya.” Human Ecology 2(24): 231-253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murillo, C. and L. Markowitz (1995). Food and Nutrition in San José Llanga, an Agropastoral Community in the Central Altiplano of Bolivia. IBTA/SR-CRSP (Instituto Boliviano de Tecnologia Agropecuaria/Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program). IBTA Boletín Técnico 41/SR-CRSP 39, La Paz, Bolivia, 37 pp.Google Scholar
  44. Njeru, G., C. Valdivia, N. de Haan, and D. Sheikh (1997). “The role of women in agricultural production in developing countries: A case study of farmers with the Kenya dual purpose goat.” Technical Report Series, Kenya SR-CRSP. TR-MU 97-01. University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
  45. Noble, A. (1992). “Women, men, goats, and bureaucrats: The Samia women's dairy goat project,” in C. M. McCorkle (ed.), Plants, Animals, and People. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ospina, E. (1991). “Dual purpose goat. Economic analysis of small ruminant production and marketing systems,” in Small Ruminant CRSP Annual Report 1990–1991 (pp. 25-37). Davis: University of California Davis.Google Scholar
  47. Primov, G. (1992). “The role of goats in agropastoral production systems of the Brazilian Sertao,” in C. M. McCorkle (ed.), Plants, Animals, and People. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Priyanti, A. and P. Bilinsky (1989). “Woman's involvement in the improvement of small ruminant production in OPP villages: Time and motivation.” Working Paper 99, March. Winrock International and University of Missouri.Google Scholar
  49. Quisumbing, A. (1999). “Women, livestock and family food security,” in Heifer Project International Symposium on Human Nutrition and Livestock in the Developing World (compiled by Beth Miller) (pp. 121-136). Little Rock, Arkansas: Heifer Project International, May 1999.Google Scholar
  50. Reardon, T., C. Delgado, and P. Matlon (1992). “Determinants and effects of income diversification amongst farm households in Burkina Faso.” The Journal of Development Studies 28(2): 264-296.Google Scholar
  51. Roberts, B. D. (1996). “Livestock production, age, and gender among the Keiko of Kenya.” Human Ecology 24(2): 215-230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SR-CRSP (1991). Annual Report Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program. Davis, California: University of California Davis.Google Scholar
  53. SR-CRSP (1994). In Susan Johnson (ed.), Annual Report Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program. Davis: University of California Davis.Google Scholar
  54. SR-CRSP (1996). Annual Report Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program. Davis: University of California Davis, 222 pp.Google Scholar
  55. Sheikh, D. (1992). A Study of the Adoption of Dual Purpose Technology by Small-Scale Farmers: A Case Study of Western Kenya. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Clemson University. Clemson, South Carolina, May.Google Scholar
  56. Sheikh, D. and Valdivia C. 1993. “Gender differences in the adoption of the dual purpose goat technologies,” in M. Keane (ed.), Proceedings Small Ruminant Workshop (pp. 209-220). Davis: Published by the University of California Davis.Google Scholar
  57. Sherbourne, J. E. Dunn, C. Vladivia, and M. Nolan (1995). Agropastoral Production Systems, Intra-household Resource Allocation and Household Members Domains: Five Case Studies from the Community of San José Llanga. IBTA/SR-CRSP (Instituto Boliviano de Tecnologia Agropecuaria/Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program). Boletin Tecnico 39/SR-CRSP 37, La Paz, Bolivia.Google Scholar
  58. Smith Oboler, R. (1996). “Whose cows are they, anyway?: Ideology and behavior in Nandi cattle ‘ownership’ and control.” Human Ecology 2(24): 255-272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sykuta, M., C. Valdivia, and N. Ng'ang'a. (1999). “Organizational and institutional constraints on the introduction of agricultural technologies in developing economies.” Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the International Society of New Institutional Economics. Washington, DC, September 17–18.Google Scholar
  60. Townsend, R. (1995). “Consumption insurance: An evaluation of risk-bearing systems in low income countries.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(3): 83-102.Google Scholar
  61. Valdivia, C. and C. Jetté (1996). “Peasant households in semi-arid San José: Confronting risk through diversification strategies.” IBTA 181/Tech. RPT. 49/SR-CRSP 47. La Paz, Bolivia.Google Scholar
  62. Valdivia, C. and C. Jetté (1998). La diversificación en los Andes: estrategia de riesgo o crecimiento económico en el altiplano central Boliviano. Memorias tercer simposio latinoamericano sobre investigación y extensión en sistemas agropecuarios. Nuevos Enfoques Para la Superacion de la Pobreza Rural y Para el Desarrollo de las Capacidades Locales. Lima, Peru: Agosto.Google Scholar
  63. Valdivia, C., E. Dunn, J. Sherbourne, J. Cespedes, and L. Markowitz (1993). “The economics of gender and livestock: dairy expansion and agropastoral systems in the Bolivian Altiplano.” Paper Presented to the Association for Women in Development, Sixth International Forum, October 20–24. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  64. Valdivia, C., E. Dunn, and J. Sherbourne (1995). Cash Crops and Food Production: Dairy and Sheep Household Diversification Strategies in the Crop-Livestock Systems of San Jose Llanga, Bolivia. IBTA/SRCRSP (Instituto Boliviano de Tecnologia Agropecuaria/Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program). IBTA Boletín Técnico 165/31, La Paz, Bolivia.Google Scholar
  65. Valdivia, C., E. Dunn, and C. Jetté (1996a). “Diversification, a risk management strategy in an Andean agropastoral community.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (December) 78(5): 1329-1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Valdivia, C., E. Dunn, and J. Sherbourne (1996b). “Gender, livestock and household peasant production: Dairy and diversification in crop-livestock systems of an Andean community.” IBTA 165/Technical Report 33/SR-CRSP 31 (English). January, Columbia.Google Scholar
  67. Wahyuni, S., P. Ludgate, and K. Sudarisastra (1990). “Group dynamics study with outreach pilot project farmers.” Working Papers No. 100 University of Missouri and Winrock International, Bogor.Google Scholar
  68. Webb, P. (1992). “Coping with drought and food insecurity in Ethiopia.” Mimeograph. Washington, DC: International Food Research Institute.Google Scholar
  69. Webb, S. E., N. San, J. Siriat, A. Misniwaty, S. Karokaro, and A. Muljadi (1995). “The contribution of women to rural household income: Case study of the Sosa transmigration unit in North Sumatra.” Working Paper 163. WI and SR-CRSP Sungai Putih.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corinne Valdivia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics, Social Sciences UnitUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations