This paper investigates the factors associated with private sector smallholder livestock and the associated income of the poor in the Indian States of Andhra Pradesh. The data used are drawn from the Livelihood Options Study led by the Overseas Development Institute, London, specifically the Census Survey 2001/2 and Panel Survey of early 2005. Poorer households depend disproportionally on livestock. Important changes were noted; the average size of any single species declined considerably in the five year period beginning from 1996/7, the number of farms keeping the species rose in the 1996/7 to 2001/2 period but dropped in the recent 2001/2 to 2003/4 period. The poorer households kept fewer small ruminants and poultry in the latter period but richer households kept more. This might suggest that the technology is shifting towards what the better off can afford like the intensive poultry keeping, and that they have better access to certain resources such as crop residues. On the other hand, policies such as the ban on grazing by goats will also have affected the poor more since they rely on open-grazing methods. Farmers identified shock/stress variables and natural environment as important for the decrease in livestock population. Livestock act as a very real means of smoothing income by allowing debts to be repaid, farm inputs and medical treatment to be purchased, and dowry to be paid. More than 22% of the farmers mentioned disease problems as a cause of the decline in livestock population. This problem needs to be addressed, possibly through public-private partnership arrangements as are being tried in other countries.

The objective of this study was to understand the perception of agricultural producers in Colombia who currently do not own livestock about the role of cattle in alleviating poverty in their farms. Data came from direct survey interviews in 2002 with 143 farmers who did not own cattle in the five most important regions of animal production in Colombia to elicit their perception about the role of livestock as a pathway out of poverty. Selected regions were: Piedmont, Caribbean, the Coffee-growing region, the highlands of Antioquia, and the Cundiboyacense altiplanicie. Most smallholders interviewed in the Piedmont had cattle in the past (85%), followed by producers in Antioquia (60%) and least in the Coffee-growing region (39%). The most important reason for selling their cattle in all regions was due to financial crisis and needed cash (ie., from 27% of smallholders interviewed in the Caribbean and the Cundiboyacense altiplanicie to almost 50% in the Piedmont). Most smallholders surveyed used the money from the sale of animals to pay health bills of family members, to pay off debts, and/or to use the cash to survive due to crop failure from extreme weather conditions (ie., drought or frost damage). The most striking result is that 76% of farmers in Antioquia to 97% of smallholders in the Cundiboyacense altiplanicie would like to own cattle if they had the opportunity. The most important reason for owning cattle in all regions was as a mechanism for savings and building capital. The second most important reason in all regions was to obtain milk and beef for family consumption, except in Antioquia where this issue was irrelevant. Other reasons for owning cattle were to reduce and diversify risk due to crop failure and to utilize manure as fertilizer. The preferred animal category to own in all regions was by far the milking cow, ranging from 52% of smallholders in Antioquia to 96% in the Cundiboyacense altiplanicie. Results from this study show that cattle are perceived by small-holder farmers as a contribution to the improvement in the quality of life. The challenge is to develop novel mechanisms to provide smallholders with livestock, either through credit loans or thru the Fondos Ganaderos of Colombia, whose objective is to help small farmers who have production capacity but lack the resources to buy cattle.

The article addresses the problem of social dimension measurement of for regional development. Authors’ discus approaches of definition of social dimension. There is some discord how social dimension could be understood in more broader or narrowed sense and how it is characterized in international and national social policy documents. Authors focus attention on contiguity of social dimension and social security. The measurement of social dimension demands multidimensional approach. The authors use theoretical analysis and document analysis, as well as analysis of statistical data on key elements of social dimension of regional development (differences of employment rate; GINI coefficient, and the number of people at risk-of-poverty threshold). The main conclusions are that social dimension is more or less covered in development planning documents, but the progress indicators are inadequate. Especially disparities in social dimension of regional development are formally addressed and closer analysis of key indicators shows necessity to elaborate both – policy instruments as well as policy progress measurement.

The purpose of this report is to provide national- and state-level policymakers, private-sector investors, civil society, and donors with an analysis of the rural economy of Mon State and pathways to improved prosperity for its population. The analysis is based on a representative survey of rural households, which make up 73 percent of Mon State’s 2 million residents, and extensive interviews with farmers, traders, processors, local leaders, and government officials. Whereas some parts of the Mon State economy are quite dynamic, such as construction, others are stagnant and far from reaching their full potential. Furthermore, the dynamic sectors are heavily dependent on remittances from migrants to neighboring countries. The current pattern of donor investment is heavily focused on necessary infrastructure and energy investments, but with only very limited support to productive sectors, especially agriculture and fisheries. Major investments in education, both formal and vocational training, are also necessary to support the growth of a modern economy. The analysis in this report identifies options for more balanced growth, leading to a vibrant economy in which returning migrants can invest and find employment.

The study examined livelihoods and wealth distribution among farm households in western Kenya. Stratified random sampling was used to select 252 households from eight districts. Focus group discussions were used to collect complementary community-level data. Results indicate that average household size was seven persons. The cropping system was over 70% mixed. Agriculture was the main source of livelihoods. Labour was mainly allocated to crop enterprises, with household heads allocating > 50% of their labour to it. Maize (Zea mays) and common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) were the most important staple/traded food crops. Poultry, followed by cattle dominated livestock enterprises. Few households diversified into small businesses, employment and artisan to enhance livelihoods. Despite this, 5 – 95% of people remained food insecure. Lack of cash and limited land access were the most important factors constraining agricultural development. Although, most households preferred selling produce in markets where prices were better, many not only sold produce but purchased inputs from nearest towns due to high costs of accessing better price markets. Wealth inequality among households was very high, with household wealth Gini-coefficient of 0.52 and per capita wealth Gini-coefficient of 0.55, calling for better interventions targeting to reach most vulnerable/marginal groups and create all-inclusive opportunities.

Agricultural research in marginal dry areas can contribute to reducing poverty through the development of technological, institutional and policy options for poor farmers. Such research should address diversified opportunities and development pathways. This article analyses the diversity of livelihood strategies of rural people living in the Khanasser Valley in northwestern Syria, an area that is typical of marginal drylands. It proposes an operational classification of households based on their different livelihood strategies, applying an integrated methodology within a Sustainable Livelihoods framework. Households are classified into three clusters: agriculturists, labourers and pastoralists. The article examines the diversity of livelihoods involved, and considers where and how research should be directed to have greatest impact on poverty. Given that rural households are not homogeneous but dynamic entities, with diverse assets, capabilities and opportunities, the definition of household typologies can help to target development research. The article concludes that while agriculturists benefit most, poor labourers with enough land can also gain from pro-poor agricultural research. The poorest households with little land, and pastoralists, benefit little or only indirectly.