Livestock Services and the Poor: A global initiative - IFAD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

58 Supply public support through organizations of poor people LIVESTOCK SERVICES AND THE POOR Prices are a limiting factor User payments depend on the benefits Kenya, Ahuja et al. (2000) and Heffernan and Misturelli (2000) found that prices for services are not a major concern for poor livestock keepers. Their major concerns are access and good quality services. For services that are likely to require user payments in the long term and for which the poor may face particular problems in paying, the public sector should support development in such a way that the capacity of livestock keepers to articulate their needs and demand quality services is built up. One possibility might be to channel public financing through producer organizations or community institutions, which would either provide services to their members, or contract them out to private providers. A return to free or subsidized public services cannot be expected for services that are clearly private goods. Moreover, informal payments are frequently the rule, even if services are formally provided free of charge. The few services that are provided free do not benefit poor livestock keepers, but rather wealthier and more influential livestock keepers (Ahuja et al., 2000). The development of a payment system for ‘private good’ services, such as clinical veterinary treatments and artificial insemination, that are affordable to the poor, but also financially attractive for the service providers is a challenge. The studies mentioned above also reveal that the expenditure of poor livestock keepers on veterinary services is actually low, so the prices do matter, though they may not be the main factor. In the study on India, livestock keepers in the lowest wealth category were about 30% less willing to pay for services relative to livestock keepers in the wealthiest category in the same areas. In the Kenyan case, only 13% of the livestock keepers mentioned price as a major constraint, although a comparison revealed that livestock keepers spent about 50% less than an ‘ideal’ calculated expenditure. The difference is probably the result of a lack of access combined with an inability to afford the services. The practical experience in community-based systems seems to confirm these results. Moreover, the ease with which user
CHAPTER 2: DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK SERVICES payments are implemented depends mainly on the immediate benefits. The willingness to pay for curative veterinary services is high, especially when the animals have a significant production value. It is also high for preventive health care if a lower mortality rate has an immediate commercial value, but the livestock keeper will naturally hesitate to pay for such services if the lower mortality does not lead to higher cash income. Box 2.6 describes lessons learned through a livestock project in India. It is clearly difficult to convince livestock keepers to pay for services that have previously been free, especially if better quality is not assured. A study of small-scale cattle farmers in Zambia found that the farmers were reluctant to pay for government veterinary services that had earlier been free. The farmers who did pay for the services did not take full advantage of them and complained about poor quality (Chilonda and Huylenbroeck, 2001). For other services, such as advisory services, where the benefits are mainly seen over a longer term, immediate and full user payments may be problematic. Because poverty reduction is viewed as a public good, continued public support for the financing of these services is justified when the services are directed to Box 2.6: Learning lessons about poultry vaccinations in the Bastar ILDP, India “There is a puzzle concerning the target group’s attitude regarding the benefits of poultry vaccinations: when we ask the village members about the benefits of the project, they often fail to mention any. However, when asked specifically about the benefits of the poultry vaccinations, they say that, yes, of course, they now have more chickens surviving for a longer time but this has not yet materialized in higher income for the family. This finding is confirmed and consistent with findings from similar projects in adjacent tribal areas, where farmers show little interest in continuing the vaccinations after the project withdraws and they have to pay cash for the services. In the Indian tribal culture, poultry play a strong social and ceremonial role of gift giving and sacrifice but not a commercial role. If chickens get sick, they are consumed anyhow, so the question is mostly when they are consumed, and since the commercial role is missing, a higher age and weight of a bird at the time of consumption does often not materialize as a direct cash benefit. Real adoption of the vaccinations in these communities would therefore demand a move towards a more productive and commercial role of poultry.” Author observations on the Bastar ILDP. 59
Page 1 and 2:
Nearly one billion livestock are ke
Page 3 and 4:
© 2004 International Fund for Agri
Page 5 and 6:
iv Figures Figure 1.1 The poverty c
Page 8 and 9:
Foreword About 900 million of the w
Page 10 and 11:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report, prepa
Page 12 and 13:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The world communi
Page 14 and 15:
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY HIV/AIDS AIDS-af
Page 16 and 17:
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY delivery of serv
Page 18 and 19:
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY access to credit
Page 21 and 22:
INTRODUCTION The fight against pove
Page 23 and 24:
INTRODUCTION identity. Livestock is
Page 25:
INTRODUCTION adequate for livestock
Page 28 and 29: 8 LIVESTOCK SERVICES AND THE POOR P
Page 30 and 31: 600 million poor livestock Keepers
Page 32 and 33: 12 LIVESTOCK SERVICES AND THE POOR
Page 36 and 37: Livestock can help cement social ne
Page 48 and 49: 28 Enhancing gender equity may redu
Page 52 and 53: The poor should define their own ne
Page 60 and 61: 40 Inappropriate livestock producti
Page 66 and 67: The public sector must provide an e
Page 68 and 69: Decentralization brings decision-ma
Page 70 and 71: 50 The interests of NGOs are not th
Page 72 and 73: Alternative models linking local pa
Page 74 and 75: Dominated by government and NGOs Th
Page 76 and 77: Producer organizations can also aim
Page 82: 62 LIVESTOCK SERVICES AND THE POOR
Page 85 and 86: CHAPTER 3 POVERTY FOCUS OF LIVESTOC
Page 87 and 88: CHAPTER 3: POVERTY FOCUS OF LIVESTO
Page 91 and 92: Box 3.2 shows five biases of livest
Page 95 and 96: Box 3.4: Livestock component in Cam
Page 99 and 100: limited, and the dependency on purc
Page 101 and 102: Box 3.6: A rabbit project in Togo C
Page 117 and 118: Table 3.1: Primary features of two
Page 121 and 122: Box 3.14: Self-help groups in the I
Page 125 and 126: Box 3.16: Loans for women dairy soc
Page 129 and 130:
CHAPTER 3: POVERTY FOCUS OF LIVESTO
Page 131 and 132:
CHAPTER 3: POVERTY FOCUS OF LIVESTO
Page 135 and 136:
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The overall con
Page 137 and 138:
Focus on Key Issues CHAPTER 4: RECO
Page 139 and 140:
Recommendations CHAPTER 4: RECOMMEN
Page 141 and 142:
The following are required for more
Page 143:
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Init
Page 146 and 147:
126 LIVESTOCK SERVICES AND THE POOR
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152:
show all

Livestock Services and the Poor: A global initiative - IFAD

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?