Heifer‐in‐trust, Social Protection and Graduation: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Questions

Abstract

Citation: Sumberg, J. and G. D. Lankoandé. (2013). Heifer-in-trust, social protection and graduation: conceptual issues and empirical questions. Development Policy Review 31(3): 255-271Official URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12006/abstract More details/abstract: This paper contributes to current debates about social protection with a particular focus on the notion of graduation. We use the example of heifer-in-trust projects to explore the implications of using livestock to enable asset-based graduation. We conclude that in principle the heifer-in-trust approach has considerable potential as a promotive social protection measure and that in principle the 'asset-ness' of livestock may allow them to make a unique contribution to a dynamic of livelihood transformation, thus allowing beneficiaries to graduate from a position of requiring social protection. However, these conclusions are heavily qualified, as actual outcomes are dependent on a wide array of considerations ranging from beneficiary selection criteria, through the livestock species and breeds distributed, to local environmental and market conditions. AbstractThis paper contributes to current debates about social protection with a particular focus on the notion of graduation. We use the example of heifer-in-trust projects to explore the implications of using livestock to enable asset-based graduation. We conclude that in principle the heifer-in-trust approach has considerable potential as a promotive social protection measure and that in principle the 'asset-ness' of livestock may allow them to make a unique contribution to a dynamic of livelihood transformation, thus allowing beneficiaries to graduate from a position of requiring social protection. However, these conclusions are heavily qualified, as actual outcomes are dependent on a wide array of considerations ranging from beneficiary selection criteria, through the livestock species and breeds distributed, to local environmental and market conditions.

Development of livestock production in the tropics: farm and farmers’ perspectives

“…Aklilu, 2007). However, many projects introducing other types of technologies failed in the short or long term (Poole et al, 2013;Sumberg and Lankoandé, 2013). Mortality rates among imported full-bred animals were high (de Jong, 1996), and improved housing systems and improved Oosting, Udo and Viets feeding practices were not widely adopted (Schiere, 1995;Bosman et al, 1996;Mekoya et al, 2008).…”

“…Many contextual reasons make livestock production in the tropics different from that in the West. This was noticed when simple livestock technologies and organisational infrastructure, which were successful in high-production regions, proved unsuccessful when introduced in the tropics (Udo et al, 2011;Amankwah, 2013;Sumberg and Lankoandé, 2013). Climate, resource availability, input and supply market functioning, social and cultural factors -individually and in complex interactions -create specific local opportunities and constraints for livestock production (Poole et al, 2013).…”

“…Apparently, benefits perceived by others were insufficient in the farmers' perspective to intensify their production and commercialise their marketing, or, in other words, the aforementioned discourses are not clearly connected to the reality of livestock farmers. We may assume that the reality of smallholders is complex and what may be a benefit or cost in their complex reality is insufficiently understood by scientists, policy makers and development practitioners (Sumberg, 2002;Bernard and Spielman, 2009;Jayne et al, 2010;Amankwah, 2013;Sumberg and Lankoandé, 2013). The present paper aims to highlight the possible and real discourses at the farmers' level -that is, to identify reasons why farmers in the tropics perceive intensification of livestock production on their farms not simply as a benefit but also as a pathway towards increased costs, such as dependency on inputs and reduced resilience.…”

Gender equality, resilience to climate change, and the design of livestock projects for rural livelihoods

“…Projects focusing on cattle have been challenged (in the specific context of heifer-in-trust projects) as the intrinsic risks of keeping these expensive animals may be difficult to cover (Sumberg and Lankoande 2014). Livestock systems which depend on increased inputs may actually harm women in terms of workload and control over assets, since their perspectives on innovations are not sought and they may not benefit fully from projects, while their labour and support may be assumed.…”

An Investigation into the Development of a Customised Model for Successful Smallholder Dairy Farming in Gauteng

“…Graduation from subsistence to commercial smallholder farmer can only occur when the right policies and strategies are adopted [24]. Sumberg and Landoandé [30] maintain sustainable graduation is possible when the intervention is aligned with the vulnerability of the beneficiaries; when there is monitoring, training and access to credit in management intensive and market-linked interventions and when the intervention ensures meaningful benefits and remunerations. Successful interventions are jeopardised if the intervention requires financial demands in terms of training and monitoring and risks in terms of micro-credit and insurance for the smallholder farmer.…”