In South Asia, and throughout the developing world, the predominant official approach to livestock development has been improvement of production by means of upgrading local breeds via cross-breeding with exotic animals. This strategy has led to the replacement and dilution of locally adapted breeds with non-native ones. This has resulted in an alarming loss that has been estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to amount to one breed every two weeks. Based on selected case studies this paper argues that development strategies using locally adapted breeds and species are much more likely to benefit livestock keepers whilst also maintaining domestic animal diversity and bearing a smaller ecological footprint. It also analyses the rationale for "Livestock Keepers' Rights", a principle that grew out of the struggle of traditional livestock keepers to retain control over their production resources, such as grazing areas and breeding stock, in the face of unfavourable policy environments.

It has been argued that there exists no fundamental difference per se between indigenous and scientific knowledge (Agrawal 1995). Others have expounded on the potential for integration of the two types of knowledge and hailed 'technoblending' as the proper path for achieving sustainable and people-oriented development (McCorkle et al. 1999). This article draws attention to the very real divide that often exists between the protagonists of these two types of knowledge. With the help of three main examples we will show how different conceptual frameworks result in a communicatory impasse and how this failure to establish a dialogue across the boundaries of knowledge systems renders the interventions of the Rajasthan government in the livestock production sector largely ineffective. The urgent need for construction of an interface that negotiates and mediates between traditional and academic animal scientists will be demonstrated.

No abstract

The Indian forest management system introduced during colonial times has led to the progressive loss of the grazing rights of the country’s pastoralists, culminating in the abolishment of grazing fees and replacement with grazing fines in 2004. This scenario has had a negative knock-on effect on the conservation of many of the livestock breeds that pastoralists have developed in adaptation to local environments and that are the basis of the country’s food security. This paper illustrates the dilemma with the example of the Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) in Rajasthan that represents the traditional monsoon grazing area for local camel, sheep and goat pastoralists. Raika herders have engaged in a long-standing but losing legal battle with the state for their continued seasonal access to this area. This situation contributes to the rapid decline of the camel which is an iconic part of Rajasthan’s desert identity, a major attraction for tourists and was declared state animal in 2014. The aims of the forest department to conserve wild animals and those of pastoralists and camel conservationists could easily be integrated into a more equitable governance system as is endorsed by Aichi Target 11 of the CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020. However, deeply engrained concepts about nature being separate from (agri-)culture, as well as unequal power structures, stand in the way.

No abstract