Livestock Services and the Poor
List of contents
List of contents............................................................................................
The authors
Pramodini Pradhan is a Subject Matter Specialist for Gender, Training and Extension at the
Indo-Swiss Natural ...
List of Abbreviations
AHD        Animal Husbandry Department
AI         Artificial insemination
BET        Block Extension...
The role livestock plays in sustaining and enhancing poor people’s livelihoods is being
increasingly recognis...
Section 1

Poverty and Delivery of Livestock Services in
the State of Orissa
The State of Orissa is situated on the east c...
Similar conclusions emerge when we examine non-monetary welfare indicators (Table 2).
Orissa has one of the lowest levels ...
Table 3 Livestock Population of Orissa: 2001
                     Type                                             Populat...
in the livestock sector of Orissa conducted by ISNRMPO and the Animal Husbandry
Department of the Government of Orissa. Ac...
Large ruminant bias
Another feature of livestock development in Orissa, as in the rest of India, has been the policy
Figure 2                                                                                                                  ...
various livestock species and not in proportion of small animal's share of total livestock
population. While this is a wel...
(OF) districts, but their scope is limited5. OMFED only procures about 15 -17 per cent of the
total production in the 14 o...
Table 5: Some Characteristics of the Districts as Classified by Livestock Sector Review
sector and it is the small and marginal farmers and poor household that bear the brunt of these
losses.8 Likewise livestoc...
3. Provide incentives to serve veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons to start their
   own private practice by ...
are listed below:

1. Strengthen the livestock extension system to create awareness of proper livestock health
   care and...
Section 2
Poverty profile and livestock production
systems in the Koraput district
Profile of the Poor
Koraput is one of t...
72 per cent of all land10 and about 30 per cent people are landless.11 However, the land
ownership pattern varies from vil...
•   Agricultural wage-earning employment (both within and outside the village)
•   Casual non-farm labour (brick making, r...
Livestock Production Systems
The livestock production systems of the area are equally diverse and complex. They range
among the adults of those tribes where beef eating is not a taboo. All communities generally
eat goat and sheep meat. Howe...
ownership of property nor control over income. Women predominantly carry out activities like
animal tending, feeding and c...
price, which is offered by the society is uneconomical and that the concentrate feed cost is too

It is interesting ...
presence is confined to supply of inputs like concentrate feed and certain medicines. Besides,
it is confined to the urban...
Section 3
Experiences of Poverty focussed livestock
As noted before, one of the objectives of this paper is to ex...
The ILDP experience
The ILDP has been operating in 100 villages, which are located in 4 Blocks of the Koraput
district of ...
equal/greater control of the income from poultry. Besides poultry, a sizeable number of people
keep goats, sheep and pigs ...
However, in the changed scenario of ILDP, which stopped the stipends, it is not clear whether
the system can sustain itsel...
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study


Published on

Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Livestock Services & The Poor In Orissa - A Case Study

  1. 1. Livestock Services and the Poor A Global Initiative Livestock Services and the Poor in Orissa A Case Study March 2003 Pramodini Pradhan Vinod Ahuja P. Venkatramaiah Edited by Sanne Chipeta Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre Phone: (+45) 87 40 51 02 • Fax: (+45) 87 40 50 86 An Initiative by Udkaersvej 15, Skejby E-Mail: sac@lr. dk Danida, IFAD and The World Bank DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark Homepage:
  2. 2. List of contents List of contents.................................................................................................................... 2 The authors ....................................................................................................................... 3 List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Section 1 Poverty and Delivery of Livestock Services in the State of Orissa ........... 6 Poverty Incidence ........................................................................................... 6 Livestock Production System .......................................................................... 7 Gender roles in Livestock Production.............................................................. 8 The Policy Framework .................................................................................... 9 Delivery of Livestock Services .......................................................................12 Section 2 Poverty profile and livestock production systems in the Koraput district ..........................................................................................................18 Profile of the Poor ..........................................................................................18 Livestock Production Systems .......................................................................21 Gender Roles in Livestock Keeping ...............................................................22 Service Needs of the Poor .............................................................................23 Service delivery system .................................................................................24 Section 3 Experiences of Poverty focussed livestock services................................26 Objectives......................................................................................................26 Methodology ..................................................................................................26 The ILDP experience .....................................................................................27 The Community Link Workers...............................................................27 The Self Help Groups ...........................................................................28 Improvement of agricultural practices ...................................................28 Village Development Committee...........................................................28 The delivery of livestock services..........................................................28 Has the service delivery system contributed to poverty reduction? .......35 The experiences of Women Dairy Co-operatives ...........................................35 Section 4 Conclusions .................................................................................................39 References ......................................................................................................................41 Annex 1 Schedule of user charges for livestock health and breeding services in .. Orissa ...........................................................................................................43 Annex 2 Budget Allocation for Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development in Orissa ...........................................................................................................45 Annex 3 Determinants of livestock density ..............................................................46 Annex 4 District wise availability of veterinary infrastructure in the State ............47 Annex 5 List of villages visited..................................................................................48 Annex 6 Classification of Livestock Services ..........................................................49 2
  3. 3. The authors Pramodini Pradhan is a Subject Matter Specialist for Gender, Training and Extension at the Indo-Swiss Natural Resource Management Programme, Orissa. Vinod Ahuja is a faculty member at the Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA). He is currently with FAO as the Coordinator of South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative. P. Venkatramaiah is a Senior Veterinary surgeon with the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 3
  4. 4. List of Abbreviations AHD Animal Husbandry Department AI Artificial insemination BET Block Extension Team CDVO Chief District Veterinary Officer CLW Community Link Worker DAHVS Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services DANIDA Danish Agency for International Development DRDA District Rural Development Agency FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FARD Fisheries and Animal Resources Department FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FP Fowl Pox GGGMU Greater Ganjam and Gajapati Milk Union IFPRI Indian Food Policy Research Institute ILDP Integrated Livestock Development Project ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IS-NRMPO Indo Swiss Natural Resource Management Programme in Orissa ITDA Integrated Tribal Development Agency LAC Livestock Assistance Centres LI Livestock Inspector LSR Livestock Sector Review MPCS Milk Producers Co-operative Societies NDDB National Dairy Development Board NGO Non-Government Organisations NSDP Net State Domestic Product OF Operation Flood OMFED Orissa Milk Federation OWDP Orissa Women Dairy Project RD Ranikhet (Newcatle) Disease SC Schedule Caste SGSY Swarna Jayanty Sworojgar Yojana SHG Self Help Group ST Schedule Tribe UN United Nations VDC Village Development Committee 4
  5. 5. Introduction The role livestock plays in sustaining and enhancing poor people’s livelihoods is being increasingly recognised in development circles (de Haan et al, 2001). It has also been argued that livestock development can contribute significantly to poverty reduction given the national and international trends as regards the demand for livestock products as well as the distribution of livestock across farmer categories1. In India, the livestock sector supports the livelihood of over 200 million rural poor - a large majority of them are small and marginal farmers and landless households. Overall, the distribution of livestock is much more equitable than that of land, which leads to a more equitable distribution of the gains from livestock production. Livestock are also one of the most important productive assets in the rural areas and function an insurance mechanism to cope with household related crisis (Ahuja et al. 2000; World Bank, 1999; LID, 1999). Access to cost-effective quality livestock services will be one of the critical factors in translating the growing urban demand for livestock products into an opportunity for poor livestock keepers. In this context, this study assesses the livestock service scenario in Orissa with respect to its potential for poverty reduction. It furthermore examines specific experiences in connection with poverty-focussed delivery of livestock services. This is done through a field study of the programme of Integrated Livestock Development Programme (ILDP) in the Koraput district and Women Dairy Co-operatives in Ganjam District. ILDP - a livestock development project supported by Danish Agency for International Development (DANIDA) - has been operating in 100 villages located in 4 Blocks in the Koraput district of Orissa and covers 5000 tribal families. The project, which was initiated in 1993, has adopted an integrated approach to livestock development which focuses on poverty reduction. The Orissa Women Dairy Project (OWDP) is a centrally assisted project implemented by the Orissa Milk Federation (OMFED) through the Greater Ganjam and Gajapati Milk Union (GGGMU), a constituent member of the Federation, which operates in Ganjam and Gajapati districts. The OWDP aims at women development through women dairy co-operatives. The District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) supports the women dairy co-operatives under its anti-poverty schemes by recommending the society members to a nationalised bank with the purpose of supplying subsidised loans. This report has been arranged in the following manner: Section 1 gives an overview of the poverty profile and livestock delivery landscape in the State of Orissa. Section 2 presents the specific setting of the livelihood systems and livestock production systems in the Koraput District, where the ILDP has been operating. In section 3 the specific experiences of ILDP and the Women Dairy Co-operatives have been examined and the conclusions are presented in section 4. 1 A recent study by Indian Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRII), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) examined the trends in livestock production and showed that, at global level, the consumption of livestock products is growing faster than the one of cereals. Milk consumption has grown by over 3 per cent per year since the early 1980s and is forecasted to grow even faster during 2020. Meat consumption has been growing about 5 per cent per year and is expected to grow a little less than 3 per cent per year during2020 (Delgado et al., 1999). Furthermore, due to faster population growth, increasing urbanisation, growing health concerns and overall rising incomes, the future growth in the demand for food of animal origin is primarily expected to come from the developing countries. 5
  6. 6. Section 1 Poverty and Delivery of Livestock Services in the State of Orissa The State of Orissa is situated on the east coast of India between 170.48'-220.34' North latitude and 810.24'-870.29' East longitude. It has a total geographical area of 155707 square kilometres. The state's population is 36.70 million. About 85 per cent of the population live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Agriculture is the mainstay of state's economy as it accounts for about 30 per cent to Net State Domestic Product (NSDP). About 65 per cent of the total workforce of the state is directly or indirectly employed in the agricultural sector. Next to the agricultural sector the livestock sector is a major source of supplementary income of rural households. Poverty Incidence Orissa is India's poorest state. As can be seen from Table 1 the state has the highest incidence of poverty. Over 40 per cent of the rural population in Orissa are classified as living below the poverty line. The incidence of poverty was highest among all the major Indian states. Orissa has also experienced one of the slowest rates of poverty reduction over the last few decades. For example Tamil Nadu, which had a comparable poverty incidence in 1987-88, managed to reduce its poverty incidence by over 23 percentage points compared to Orissa’s less than 10 percentage points. Even Bihar, which had a significantly higher poverty incidence than Orissa in 1987-88, managed to reduce its poverty incidence below that of Orissa by 1999- 2000. Table 1 Per cent of population below the poverty line 1987-88 to 1999-2000 Rural Urban 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 Andhra Pradesh 35.0 29.2 27.9 23.4 17.8 11.3 Assam 36.1 35.4 35.7 13.6 13.0 12.1 Bihar 54.6 48.6 39.3 38.1 26.7 23.5 Gujarat 39.4 32.5 20.4 16.4 14.7 6.6 Haryana 13.6 17.0 6.5 11.8 10.6 5.1 Himachal Pradesh 13.3 17.1 12.5 1.7 3.6 1.7 Karnataka 40.8 37.9 30.3 26.0 21.4 11.5 Kerala 23.8 19.5 11.6 21.0 13.9 10.5 Madhya Pradesh 43.7 36.7 31.2 20.7 18.5 14.1 Maharashtra 44.3 42.9 30.8 21.2 18.2 13.0 Orissa 50.4 43.5 41.3 20.8 15.2 15.6 Punjab 6.6 6.2 2.8 6.6 7.8 4.0 Rajasthan 35.3 23.0 16.2 19.8 18.3 10.6 Tamil Nadu 49.0 38.5 25.6 26.2 20.9 11.1 Uttar Pradesh 34.9 28.7 20.8 29.3 21.7 16.5 West Bengal 36.3 25.1 22.7 22.3 15.5 11.4 All India 39.0 32.9 25.3 22.8 18.1 12.5 Deaton (2001,b) 6
  7. 7. Similar conclusions emerge when we examine non-monetary welfare indicators (Table 2). Orissa has one of the lowest levels of literacy and highest infant mortality among all Indian states. Progress in these indicators has also been rather dismal vis-à-vis the rest of the country. Table 2: Social Indicators of selected large states of India Literacy/a Infant Mortality/b 1981 1991 1997 1981 1991 1997 Maharashtra 53.5 64.9 74.0 79 59 47 Punjab 46.4 58.5 67.0 81 56 51 Haryana 41.7 55.9 65.0 101 75 68 Gujarat 49.9 61.3 68.0 116 67 62 Tamil Nadu 52.6 62.3 70.0 91 58 53 West Bengal 46.3 57.7 72.0 91 65 55 Karnataka 43.9 56.0 58.0 69 73 53 Kerala 78.9 89.8 93.0 37 17 12 Rajasthan 28.4 38.6 55.0 108 90 85 Andhra Pradesh 34.1 44.1 54.0 86 71 63 Madhya Pradesh 32.2 44.2 56.0 142 104 94 Uttar Pradesh 31.4 41.6 56.0 150 98 85 Orissa 38.8 49.1 51.0 135 115 96 Bihar 30.3 38.5 49.0 118 73 71 a/ per cent of population of seven years and older b/ per thousand live births Reproduced from World Bank 2000. Data on poverty incidences in different areas of Orissa was not available. However, based on other indicators of agricultural and infrastructure development, it can be said that the incidence of poverty, both in terms of prevalence and severity, is significantly higher in the southern and interior districts than in the coastal and northern districts. Livestock Production System Livestock are an important source of livelihood for rural households in Orissa. The farming system in Orissa is predominantly characterised by a mixed crop-livestock system. The latter is the main source of draught power and manure, a means of supplementary income and an asset for food security. The state has a large livestock population. According to the latest livestock census the total livestock population of Orissa was over 23 million (Table 3). Cattle are the primary livestock assets, followed by goats, as they account for nearly 60 per cent of the total livestock population. The population density of livestock in Orissa is about the same as in the rest of the country although it varies significantly within the state. In particular, the population density of crossbred cattle is significantly higher in the northern coastal districts around the towns of Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, and Puri. These are also the districts/areas with relatively better access to markets. Overall, the population density of livestock declines as one moves towards the southern and interior districts with poor infrastructure and a large number of poverty incidences. 7
  8. 8. Table 3 Livestock Population of Orissa: 2001 Type Population Cattle 13.8 (59.1)* Buffalo 1.39 (6.0) Sheep 1.77 (7.6) Goat 5.77 (24.8) Pigs 0.60 (2.6) Total 23.31 (100) * Figures in parentheses to total Orissa Livestock Census 2001 The milk productivity of animals is extremely low in Orissa although it has grown at about the same rate as the productivity of India as a whole. For instance the average milk productivity of milk animals, both indigenous and crossbred cows, was lower in Orissa than in the other major states of the country2 (Table 4). Even at this level of productivity, however, average annual incomes accruing to animal-owning households have been estimated as follows - milk Rs 2022, sheep and goat Rs1030, pig Rs 300 and meat and eggs from backyard poultry Rs 550 (LSR, 1999). Given the growing demand for livestock products in Orissa and other neighbouring states, the sector has enormous investment and development potential. Table 4 Average Milk Yield per Animal in Milk per Day in Selected States (1996-97) State Cows Buffaloes Indigenous Crossbreds Orissa 0.483 3.931 1.835 Meghalaya 0.720 8.740 1.700 Madhya Pradesh 1.180 5.560 2.983 Andhra Pradesh 1.339 5.073 2.889 Maharashtra 1.496 6.786 3.557 Bihar 1.627 4.813 3.503 Himachal Pradesh 1.690 3.316 3.017 Karnataka 1.818 5.569 2.400 Uttar Pradesh 2.041 5.795 3.743 West Bengal 2.153 7.816 6.256 Kerala 2.216 5.630 4.826 Tamil Nadu 2.393 5.551 3.583 Rajasthan 2.786 5.308 4.010 Punjab 2.884 8.363 5.616 Haryana 4.111 6.519 5.638 India 1.840 6.160 5.638 Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 4891 dated, 11.5.2000 Gender roles in Livestock Production The role of women in livestock production needs special mention here. That women play a crucial role in the livestock production system is clearly indicated in a study on gender issues 2 In this context it should be pointed out that the role of livestock in Indian economy goes far beyond milk production. Especially in e.g. Orissa with its low level of farm mechanisation draft power is an important when rearing livestock. Indeed, the share of males within large ruminant in Orissa is much higher than in the rest of the country. Moreover, the rate of decline in male-female ratio has been much slower than the average national ratio(Ahuja and Sen, 2002). 8
  9. 9. in the livestock sector of Orissa conducted by ISNRMPO and the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Orissa. According to this study, all the day-to-day routine activities related to tending, feeding, cleaning of shed, etc. are predominantly performed by women. It was found that such activities are performed exclusively by women in about 60% of the households , by men in 30% and men and women share the activities in the remaining 10 % of the households. Moreover, it was found that 60% of 18 important routine activities related to livestock health and production are predominately carried out by women, 17% by men and men and women share the remaining 23%. Activities performed by women are generally labour intensive, repetitive, time-consuming and mostly performed within the confine of the household and immediate surroundings. These gender roles are defined at a very young age for both boys and girls. While boys in poor families take the cattle/sheep/goat to the field for grazing, girls help to clean the shed, bring water, collect green fodder, etc. It is a common phenomenon, particularly in the tribal populated districts, that boys and girls take the livestock to the field for grazing and carry out other activities, which has implications for their school attendance. As in the case of land and other resources women do not have the ownership of livestock. Similarly, men play the major role in connection with almost all marketing activities except from marketing of milk, where men and women seem to play the same role. Men mostly handle transactions of credits. The problems faced by women in relation to livestock keeping vary according to their caste and class category. For women who belong to the marginal farmer and landless category scarcity of water, grazing land and green fodder is seen as of utmost concern. For women who belong to large land owning families non-viability of dairying and lack of access to credit are regarded as the most important problems. For all women irrespective of caste and class category the time-consuming animal husbandry work is seen as a problem. The Policy Framework Animal Husbandry is a state subject in India although the central government also plays a role in framing and influencing sector policies and programs. The central government primarily works with the state governments in improving the supply of inputs and services and in building institutions. Public spending The state government is the primary source of public expenditure in this sector. The central government also contributes to the budget but its contribution is small. From 2001 to 2002 the budgetary contribution of the central government was less than 14 per cent. In addition to budgetary contributions the central government shares a part of the expenditure of the centrally sponsored schemes, but their share in the total budget is minuscule. The share of animal husbandry in the total state budget has been continuously declining for the last several years (Figure 1). The share declined from 1.3 per cent in 1995 to approximately 0.5 per cent in 2001-02. Indeed, during the last two years there was a decline in the total budget allocation even in nominal terms (Annex 2). Furthermore, over 95 per cent of the total budget allocated for animal husbandry and dairy development per cent was set apart for meeting the salary expenditure. The non-salary part was less than 5 per cent of which yet another part was also utilised for other overhead expenditures. That leaves very little funds for the development work in the sector. 9
  10. 10. Large ruminant bias Another feature of livestock development in Orissa, as in the rest of India, has been the policy focus on the development of bovines, which has almost excluded other species. The livelihood intensity and potential of the latter for the poor has never been considered. It is true that cattle are the most commonly kept species, but the remaining 35 per cent of the livestock population, which comprises sheep, goats and pigs are kept by a large number of smallholders from the bottom end of the poverty spectrum. For example a recent household survey in five districts of Orissa showed that not only the average number of livestock was larger among poor households, but more than half of the livestock kept consists of small ruminants, primarily goats (Figure 2). Furthermore, even within cattle development, the policy focus has been on AI and crossbreeding which tend to benefit relatively educated households with better endowments3. Figure 1: Share of Animal Husbandry and Dairying in Total State Budget for Orissa 1.4 1.2 1 Per 0.8 cen t 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Year 3 In order to understand the determinants of adopting crossbreeding we examined the connection between population density of crossbred animals in a district and literacy rate, density of village roads, and irrigation infrastructure. It was quite obvious from this analysis that the population density of crossbred animals was significantly affected by these variables. This means that the density of crossbred animals is higher in districts with high literacy rates, better irrigation infrastructure and higher number of village roads (Annex 3). In case of other types of livestock, however, no such relationship could be established. 10
  11. 11. Figure 2 Figure 3 Average size of land and livestock holding across wealth categories 9 7 8 Size of livestock holding (number) 6 Size of land holding (acres) 7 5 6 4 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Bottom 20% Middle 20% Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 20% Top 20% Bullocks Desi cows Crossbred cows Buffaloes Small ruminants Irrigated Unirrigated Note: The above figures are derived from a sample survey of 200 households in five districts of Orissa. The averages are therefore not necessarily representative of Orissa as a whole. Source: Ahuja and Sen, 2002. Credit Another feature of the government policy has been to make credit available to households to purchase livestock. However, this has often been administered in a very top-down manner leaving the households little chance of choosing between different investment alternatives. This has in many cases led to further indebtedness of the poor households. As demonstrated by the case studies presented in the next chapter even the recent approach of extending credit through ‘Self Help Groups’, which were conceived to overcome the top-down approach of formal credit institutions, has suffered similar weaknesses. New Livestock Policy Realising the poverty alleviation potential of the livestock sector and the weaknesses of some of the policy measures in place, the Government of Orissa has recently approved a new livestock sector policy. The new policy explicitly states the following four goals: 1. Use the livestock sector as an engine for social and economic development of the rural population which enables steady growth of the rural household income, increasing rural employment opportunities and improved quality of life irrespective of caste, class and gender 2. Enable the small producers to actively participate in the development process and equip them with information, skills and technologies to transform the growing challenges of the market place into comparative and competitive advantages through improved livestock quality and higher productivity 3. Ensure the ecological and environmental sustainability of the livestock sector growth and modernisation by constantly monitoring the environmental impact of the growth process and designing policies and programs to efficiently mitigate their adverse impact, and 4. Capacitate the marginalized sections, especially women, SCs and STs to supplementary inputs and services, so that they are able to have equal access to the opportunities offered under this new livestock development and management policy. For the first time the proposed policy framework explicitly recognises the importance of small animals and backyard poultry as important means of poverty alleviation and recommends reallocation of state and central plan outlays in proportion of the livelihood implication of 11
  12. 12. various livestock species and not in proportion of small animal's share of total livestock population. While this is a welcome feature of the new policy, it needs to be understood that the plan outlays are small - about 16 per cent of the total state and central outlays on animal husbandry and dairying - and declining. This may therefore have very limited effective impact on programmes and measures. Moreover, the policy document is relatively less clear with respect to specific policy measures pertaining to small ruminants and much more thinking would be required to make this shift in policy focus operational. However, as regards cattle and buffalo breeding the document is much more elaborate and explicit with respect to the action points and promotion measures. In view of these factors the danger exists that cattle and buffalo breeding may be overemphasised in the implementation of a new policy, thereby continuing the large ruminant bias. Another aspect of the livestock policy has been undue focus on productivity improvement by improving the genetic stock and provision of veterinary services. However, the policies concerning the facilitation of smallholders’ market access of have received much less attention. On the other hand, recent research has shown that the demand for quality inputs (such as genetic material, veterinary care, feed and fodder, etc.) is driven by steady access to output markets. For example Ahuja and Sen (2002) showed in their analysis of the determinants of the demand for veterinary services in Orissa that ‘market access’ was the most important variable in creating and sustaining the demand for these services. In the absence of easy access to markets, the productivity enhancing measures do not necessarily yield the desired results. Although the new livestock sector policy recognises this fact, it is necessary to focus on specific measures to facilitate market mechanisms. The policy document proposes (i) increase in the number of producer cooperatives besides strengthening the existing societies, (ii) renovation and expansion of processing and chilling capacities by expanding the existing major dairy processing plants at Bhubaneshwar and Rourkela and other smaller processing plants, (iii) construction of a new dairy plant at Cuttack, (iv) installation of bulk coolers covering 3 to 5 co-operative societies, (v) establishment of modern slaughter houses for beef animals in major cities of Orissa as a joint venture between government and private sector and (vi) creation of simple slaughter facilities in other district headquarters. However, the financing, ownership, and management aspects of this infrastructure are not clear. It seems that the policy proposal is to channel public resources into these facilities4 which seem to be based on the assumption that the private sector is not likely to find it profitable to invest in processing and marketing and the government must therefore use public resources for this purpose. But the basis of this assumption is not clear. Even if the assumption was valid, however, it could be a better alternative to providing specific incentives (such as tax breaks) to private entrepreneurs than channelling public resources into the processing infrastructure. The market access aspect of the new policy must therefore be elaborated further. Delivery of Livestock Services Access to a whole range of good quality services is crucial to enhance the productivity of livestock and to enable the poor to benefit from the potential offered by this sector. The outputs include marketing services such as supply of cold chains and market information. The input services include livestock health and breeding services, feed and fodder supply, provision of credit, livestock extension, etc. (See Annex 6 for a classification of livestock services). As pointed out in the previous section, output services are weak in Orissa. The Orissa Milk Producers Federation (OMFED) carries out milk procurement services in the Operation Flood 4 Except in case of slaughterhouses, which are proposed as public-private joint ventures. 12
  13. 13. (OF) districts, but their scope is limited5. OMFED only procures about 15 -17 per cent of the total production in the 14 operation flood districts. In the remaining 17 districts limited milk collection services are made available by the Animal Resources Department. They collect less than 4 per cent of the total milk production in these districts. Overall, less than 10 per cent of the total milk produced in Orissa is marketed through the formal channels. A large proportion (approximately 40 per cent) flows through informal marketing channels such as middlemen and village halwais, is sold to other households within the village, etc. and about 50 per cent is consumed within the producing household. Therefore access to output market, especially in the interior non-OF districts, is extremely poor. For other livestock products such as meat and eggs no such services are available. The proposed changes in the new policy have already been discussed in the previous section. In connection with the input services the emphasis is put on delivery of curative veterinary and AI services and there is a bias towards attending large ruminants. Livestock Assistance Centres (LACs) and AI centres operated by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (DAHVS) under the Fisheries and Animal Resources Department (FARD), Government of Orissa, are the primary source of these services in the state. In 1996 there were close to 3500 veterinary (about 550 veterinary hospitals and dispensaries and 3000 livestock aid centres) and 1750 AI centres in the state6. On average there was one veterinary centre per 45 square kilometres which attended to some 7500 animals and one AI centre per 90 square kilometres which attended to some 2500 breeding animals on average. The distribution of veterinary and AI centres within Orissa is, however, highly skewed. A large number of these centres are located in areas with a high livestock density population and relatively better access to urban markets. A recent review of the livestock sector in Orissa undertaken by the Fisheries and Animal Resources Department and Indo Swiss Natural Resource Management Programme in Orissa (ISNRMPO) classified the 30 districts of Orissa in three categories - A (High Potential), B (Average Potential), and C (Low Potential). This classification is shown in Annex 4. Table 5 presents some characteristics of these districts. As will appear from the table, the high potential districts have the highest density of veterinary and AI centres. The average area per veterinary centre of the ‘A’ category districts was about 25 square km compared to approximately 60 square km of the ‘B’ and ‘C’ category districts respectively. Indeed, about 45 per cent of veterinary and 60 per cent of AI centres are located in ‘A’ districts. We return to this point a little later7. 5 The coverage of OF and non OF districts is as follows: OF districts—Cuttack, Jajpur, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Puri, Khurda, Nayagarh, Dhenkanal, Angul, Keonjhar, Sambalpur, Bargarh, Jharsguda, and Deogarh. Non OF districts—Koraput, Rayagada, Malkangiri, Nawrangpur, Phulbani, Nuapada, Kalahandi, Boudh, Sonepur, Balasore, Bhadrak, Mayurbhanj, Phulbani, Sundergarh, Bolangir, Ganjam, and Gajapati. 6 Veterinary hospitals are the larger facilities with inpatient facilities, which are manned by two to three veterinary surgeons who is supported by some para-veterinary surgeon and other staff. These are usually located in district headquarters. Veterinary dispensaries are normally located in the Taluk/block headquarter and are manned by one veterinary surgeon who is supported by one para-veterinary surgeon and other staff. LACs are located at the Gram Panchayat level and are manned by the para-veterinary staff. In addition, the DAHVS also operates one Animal Disease Research Institute in Cuttack, two Biological Product Institutes, one Veterinary Officers’ Training Institute, three clinical investigation laboratories, one state veterinary laboratory, 24 Rinderpest check posts, and 178 Rinderpest centres (FARD, 1999). 7 While the government is the main provider of these services, several other models are being tested in specific locations. . . .. A synthesis of these experiences is likely to become available 13
  14. 14. Table 5: Some Characteristics of the Districts as Classified by Livestock Sector Review District category A B C 2 Geographical area (km ) 39000.0 74000.0 43300.0 Net sown area (‘000 hectares) 2106.0 2659.0 1357.0 Irrigated area (‘000 hectares) Gross 1196.2 687.1 439.9 Net 829.4 470.0 299.3 Irrigated area as per cent of net sown area (%) 56.8 17.7 22.1 Fertiliser consumption (Kg/hectare) 47.0 29.0 20.0 Net sown area (ha) per tractor or power tiller 310.0 762.0 983.0 Crossbred bovines (as % of total bovines) 9.8 4.1 2.5 2 Density of large ruminants (number/km ) 150.0 82.0 76.0 2 Density of small ruminants (number/km ) 63.0 47.0 36.0 Average milk yield (kg/animal/day) Indigenous cows 0.6 0.4 0.3 Crossbred cows 4.0 2.3 1.5 Buffaloes 2.2 1.5 1.1 2 Area per veterinary centre (km ) 25.9 58.0 62.4 2 Area per AI centre (km ) 43.3 127.6 160.0 AI performed (‘000) 420.0 158.0 44.0 2 Road network (Km per 100 Km of geographical area) National and state highways 5.0 3.1 3.5 District roads 10.5 5.1 3.1 Village roads 28.2 15.4 15.7 The services are delivered to the livestock owners with heavy subsidies. Until recently the government did not charge for these services. However, The it has recently introduced some charges (Annex 1) but these are very nominal and not necessarily based on an assessment of the service delivery cost. The provision of subsidised services by the government is founded on the concern that a vast majority of livestock farmers are 'poor' and would hence be deprived of the services if fees were charged or costs recovered. A recent study by Ahuja and Sen (2002), however, showed that a significant amount of this subsidy does not necessarily reach the poor. The household survey carried out for the study showed that close to 60 per cent of the veterinary cases were attended to at home and the farmers incurred expenditures of Rs.100-200 per home visit. Nearly all these visits were undertaken by government veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons in private capacity. Generally those who received services at the centres did not pay for the services but a very small proportion of them received any medicine from the veterinary centres. The study also estimated the willingness to pay for curative veterinary services and found that although the willingness to pay varied according to income, even the poorest households were willing to pay for the curative services. Furthermore, the demand analysis confirmed that it is not the subsidised service delivery but access to output markets and the general awareness level that determined the demand for these services. Finally, the elasticity of the demand for these services with respect to the price of milk and educational status of the household was quite high. While the supposedly subsidised curative services are actually not free since the farmers pay privately to the veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons, the state has little resources left for the preventive services as it spends a chunk of its scarce resources on clinical health care. According to some estimates, the production losses due to animal epidemics and diseases amount to almost 15 per cent of the total annual output value of the state livestock 14
  15. 15. sector and it is the small and marginal farmers and poor household that bear the brunt of these losses.8 Likewise livestock extension services, which have been shown to have a significant positive impact on livestock productivity, still remain neglected. The preceding discussion underlines the need to re-examine the government’s current strategy in connection with the livestock service delivery and the overall development of this sector. In absence of easy access to markets the demand for livestock services is likely to remain low which necessitates government presence in connection with service deliveries in many areas. The effect of this is that the resources required for providing this sector with highly needed public goods and a market access infrastructure are locked. It is therefore necessary to examine input and output services of the livestock production simultaneously. It appears that coastal districts such as Balassore, Khurda, Puri, Jagatsinghpur, which have relatively good access to markets, can profitably support the private veterinary sector. However, what is needed is a level playing field for private practitioners. The service deliveries subsidised by the government provides the government veterinary surgeons with an unfair advantage, which drives away private entrepreneurs from the market. Thus the first step towards creating a conducive environment will be to institute measures such as full cost recovery, gradual withdrawal of government support from high potential areas and to establish a regulatory framework for private veterinary practice. In the interior districts the government should have a more direct role. Even in these areas, however, the government need not and should not be the only, nor even the dominant, player. It is desirable to work with non-government organisations and other stakeholders in making the poor communities aware of the importance of creating demands for these services, training community- based health workers for minor treatments, providing drugs and supplies for payment in areas where the private distribution network is weak, providing extension advice related to animal husbandry including feeding practices and shelter innovations, etc. Given the current concentration of government veterinary and AI centres in relatively well-to-do districts, significant resources can be released, which can be used for focusing on the interior districts, reducing government presence in connection with curative service deliveries in these districts. Below some measures are presented which can help the different districts enhance the efficiency and outreach of the services. High potential or ‘A’ category districts The large ruminant population density of these districts is high, they have a concentration of crossbred animals, relatively progressive agriculture, lower poverty incidences, a better general infrastructure and easier access to markets due to their proximity to the main urban centres. Given these characteristics, these districts can support private delivery of curative veterinary and AI services. The government should therefore: 1. Introduce full cost recovery in connection with all curative veterinary and AI services delivered at the centre as well as at home 2. Allow veterinary centres operational and financial autonomy. This would mean that the units would be allowed to retain the recovered costs to finance drugs and supply expenditures and improve the facilities at the centres. The overseeing of these funds should be done by a committee consisting of veterinary staff, representatives from the villages that are serviced by the centres, and the representatives of credible Non- Government Organisations (NGOs), which are operating in the area 8 M.P.G. Kurup and R.S. Murli in 'Report of a Study into the Implications of the Implementation of the Orissa State Livestock Sector Policy', 2001 15
  16. 16. 3. Provide incentives to serve veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons to start their own private practice by offering voluntary retirement and start-up grants and loans. Those who choose this option should also be provided with positive discrimination by not establishing any new service delivery centres in their practice area and relocating existing centres in ‘C’ category districts. The government should not initiate new veterinary and AI centres nor recruit new veterinary surgeons for any of the districts 4. Create a level playing field by restraining the government veterinary surgeons, para- veterinary surgeons and inseminators from engaging in private practice 5. Foster commercial and effective AI service deliveries by ensuring genetic quality of semen and regular supply of liquid nitrogen 6. Establish and implement an effective regulatory framework to ensure service quality. This would require participation of governmental, professional veterinary bodies, non- government organisations, national level bodies such as National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), the Veterinary Council of India, etc.. The aim of the regulatory framework should be to protect the service users without imposing disproportionate costs on the service providers Average potential or ‘B’ category districts In addition to creating a conducive environment to allow private livestock services to emergence, the government strategy in these districts must be to focus on strengthening and creating access to urban markets. More specifically, the government should: 1. Focus on strengthening and creating access to urban markets both within and outside Orissa. This would require active participation from Orissa Milk Producers Federation (OMFED) and other milk unions in terms of professional management of cold supply chains, revitalisation of primary co-operative societies where they exist and establishment of these societies where they do not already exist. This will also include financial and operational autonomy and reduced government intervention as regards the running of these institutions 2. Strengthen livestock extension systems to create awareness of proper livestock health care and management, and to teach skills such as veterinary first aid, poultry vaccination, heat-detection and shelter innovations. Women and credible NGOs, which operate in the area, should be actively involved in implementing these initiatives 3. Introduce full cost recovery of curative veterinary and AI services and targeted subsidies if necessary 4. Allow veterinary centres operational and financial autonomy 5. Provide incentives to serve veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons to start their own private practice by offering voluntary retirement, start-up grants and loans, and assuring that no governmental veterinary centres will be operated in their area of practice. 6. Create a level playing field by restraining the governmental veterinary surgeons, para- veterinary surgeons and inseminators from engaging in private practice while continuing to receive salaries and benefits as government employees 7. Subcontract a part of the government jobs such as animal disease reporting, surveillance, education and training, and preventive vaccinations to private veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons Low potential or ‘C’ category districts These districts have a high number of poverty incidences, a low educational status, lack of access to markets, backward agriculture, and a low livestock population density. Full cost recovery and private delivery of veterinary and AI services may therefore not be feasible options. The government strategy must therefore be to combine awareness creation, improve market access, and gradually commercialise service delivery. Some specific recommendations 16
  17. 17. are listed below: 1. Strengthen the livestock extension system to create awareness of proper livestock health care and management. Women and local NGOs should participate actively in doing this 2. With the help of credible local NGOs, train community health workers who, besides providing veterinary first aid and minor treatments, will also serve as the link between the government and poor communities. The state level agencies working in the area can also provide significant support in this respect by acting as facilitators and the link between state government, local NGOs, and other national and international organisations 3. Relocate some veterinary and AI professionals from ‘A’ category districts to these districts, continue with subsidised livestock service delivery services as a temporary measure, and gradually withdraw the subsidy as the system becomes more commercialised 4. Subcontract public good tasks and preventive vaccination jobs to relocated veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons 5. Provide drugs and supplies for payment in areas where private distribution network is weak The measures suggested in the new livestock policy of Orissa appear to respond to some of the concerns and recommendations presented above. But a successful implementation of these policy measures would require a continuous learning process on the background of successful and failed experiences within and outside Orissa. In the light of this the next chapter examines the experiences from two cases of livestock service delivery in poor areas of Orissa. 17
  18. 18. Section 2 Poverty profile and livestock production systems in the Koraput district Profile of the Poor Koraput is one of the least developed districts of the state. The district population consists of 50.67 per cent tribal people belonging to a number of tribes. The poverty level among the tribal population is very high9. Reports of deaths due to starvation appear in the media from time to time. In the following section a picture of the general conditions of the poor and their livelihood systems is presented. Who are the poorest in the village? To identify the poorest people of the village we asked the villagers who they regard as the poorest and why. The villagers identified the very old people, who have nobody to look after them, and single women, who have no assets but must take care of their children, as the poorest people of their community (Box 1). Moreover, they pointed out families who have been displaced from other areas and have settled down in this village. These people do not even possess the homestead land legally. Box 1 The poorest villagers ''Those who have nobody'' and ‘‘those who have nothing'' were the responses of the women and men when they were asked who they regard as poorest in their village. An old man and his old sister, who live together in Sankaudi village, have nobody to look after them. They live on old age pension, of Rs 200/- ($ 4) (Rs 100 each) but depend on the support and help which are provided by their community. They were regarded as the poorest in this village. Seela Kamar, an old widow of about sixty years, who have a daughter, who is also a widow and mentally unstable, depends on her own labour and a pension of Rs 100/- per month for her own survival as well as for her daughter's. She has no land, no livestock, and no other asset whatsoever. This family was regarded as the poorest in Dharnahandi by the women of the village. We came across at least five/six families of this category in every village. Literacy Table 6: Literacy rates among the tribal population The literacy level of the Koraput district is 24.64 in the four Blocks of the ILDP Project per cent and among the tribal population it is Blocks Female Male Total 8.34 per cent. In connection with the literacy level there are also gender and location Jeypore 2.36 18.16 10.28 disparities. In the four Blocks where ILDP is Koraput 1.83 14.77 8.09 operating the level of literacy is appallingly low, Laxmipur 1.13 10.80 5.89 particularly among women, as will appear from Kundra 1.08 10.70 5.86 table 6. Source: Census Report 2001, Government of India Access to Land Which resources/assets do people value the most? The answer to this question is invariably land. People who do not possess any land of their own and depend completely on wage- earning employment are considered poor in the village. In total 38 per cent of the farmers own 9 We do not have concrete data on the severity and incidences of the poverty in Koraput. According to Brunse, the 2001 poverty headcount ratio in Koraput amounted to 85 per cent. 18
  19. 19. 72 per cent of all land10 and about 30 per cent people are landless.11 However, the land ownership pattern varies from village to village. One extreme situation is the case of Palliguda (located about three Km from Jeypore) where the entire land is owned by one extended family which consists of five non-tribal households. The remaining 35 families are landless. In contrast to the extreme situation of Pallinguda, only five families are landless in Dharnahandi. Another 4 families have about 0.5 acres of land each and all the remaining families (total amount of families in the village is 78) possess land ranging from 2 acres to 7/8 acres. Another example is Ranjitguda in the Laxmipur Block where 50 acres of land (out of a total of about 200 acres of cultivable land) are possessed by one businessman from Laxmipur town. He leases out this land to the villagers of a nearby village (Tikiri), which use the land for sharecropping. In fact, these sharecroppers live on the land, which belongs to the businessman. Livelihood systems People depend on a range of resources and activities for their livelihood. Moreover, the livelihood systems vary from village to village depending on the resource bases. Even in one single village one comes across a whole range of different activities (often interrelated) ranging from total dependence on wage-earning employment to a complex system in which agriculture and livestock are the main sources of livelihood. By and large, agriculture, directly as indirectly, is the major source of livelihood for the majority of people. Both settled agriculture and slash and burn cultivation in the hills are practised. In the plains a variety of crops are grown: Paddy in the lowland, and finger millets, black grams, pigeon peas, maize are grown in the upland. Vegetables like pumpkin, tomato, brinjals, bhindis, beans, etc. are also grown. Agricultural work in the plains is mainly carried out by means of animal draught power. The crop yield is very low and the non-irrigated areas are completely dependent on rainfall. The use of chemical fertilisers is low although it is growing rapidly. Dangar (slash and burn) cultivation is a predominant feature of the farming system in this area. Ragi (finger millets), which is the staple food of the tribal people, is grown in the hills and up land. A variety of pulses and grams are also grown in the dangar land and inter-cropping is often practised. Alsi (Niger) an oil seed is grown extensively in the upland. Generally, people do not possess a 'patta' (Record of Right) over the dangar land. Traditionally, the land used to be under the control and management of the community. Under this system every household would get a patch for cultivation. This is not the case any more. Now the dangar land has come under individual control and the ownership is more or less permanent. In some villages many people do not have access to this land. In the past people used to clear the dangar land once every three/four years. Now it has been reduced to every alternate year. Food Security For those who depend solely on dangar cultivation, the produce from it lasts for about three months. With the exception of Sankaudi and to some extent Dharnahandi, nearly all households of the village supplement the dangar produce with products from the market to meet the annual food requirement. Their own production usually suffices for about 3 months for those who depends on dangar cultivation only, 5 to 6 months for those who have 2/3 acres of land, and 8 to 9 months for those who have 4/5 acres of land. Accordingly, besides land people depend upon a variety of activities for their livelihood. These activities are listed below: 10 ILDP 'Plan of Operation' Document, 1992 11 Koraput District Profile 19
  20. 20. • Agricultural wage-earning employment (both within and outside the village) • Casual non-farm labour (brick making, road repairing, construction work, transportation of raw materials, stone crushing, etc.) • Firewood/charcoal/bamboo selling • Fishing (only in one village - Ranjitguda) • Kendu leave plucking (only in one village - Sargiguda) • Liquor brewing In Doliamba village the men who primarily depend on wage-earning employment and firewood selling showed their shoulders and told us ''our shoulders have become rough like those of the bullocks, so you can imagine what a hard life we live''. In the irrigated village of Sankaudi people spend a substantial part of their income on buying firewood whereas people of the non- irrigated villages sell firewood to make a living. The wage rate of agricultural and casual work is extremely low at Rs 20 to 25 per day. Only governmental work actually pays the minimum wage, which is fixed by the government itself. It was reported that men earn approximately Rs 30 and women Rs 20 by selling wood and they spend roughly two days of labour on this - one day for collection the wood from the forest and one day for carrying it to the market place and selling it. The role of livestock in people’s livelihood systems is a complex one. It varies from being the main source of energy for draught purposes in an agriculture-based livelihood system to being a means of meeting social obligations e.g. when relatives come on a visit and one needs to cook a chicken. It could also mean to be able to sacrifice a buck/ram during festivals or when somebody falls ill. We shall return to this point later. Credit scenario For people who live in food insecurity, borrowing money is an obvious way of meeting any crisis. People borrow money from the moneylenders as an 'advance' of the crop harvest yield, which is then used to repay the loan “in kind”. In Palliguda (a non-ILDP village) where people have no land at all the money borrowed is repaid in kind by working in the lender's field. Particularly landless people, who cannot borrow in 'advance', have no other option than being in bondage to the moneylender. One such example is the Ranjitguda case (Box 2). Box 2 Example of exploitation of the poor In Ranjitguda the whole village had promised to work for one moneylender for three years. The work included all agricultural operations i.e. ploughing, sowing, transplantation, weeding, and harvesting. The amount of money borrowed was Rs12000/- and the purpose was to purchase things for the village Dramatic group. In this area the prevailing interest rate charged by the moneylender amounts to 60% per year. The government has developed a programme to make credit available to the poor through the nationalised banks and special development agencies, e.g. Integrated Tribal Development Agencies (ITDA). However, the access to of these formal credit institutions is restricted to productive purposes of the schemes designed by the policy makers. People do not even have the possibility of choosing between the schemes. They are normally imposed on people. Moreover, most of the poor people, particularly women, do not have access to the formal credit institutions as they fail to provide security for the credit. Many people are also stamped as 'defaulter'. These are people who have failed to repay loans in the past. A 'defaulter' is not eligible for further loans until they have repaid their loans. 20
  21. 21. Livestock Production Systems The livestock production systems of the area are equally diverse and complex. They range from households which keep one/two hens only to households which have one pair or two pairs of bullocks/cows, one or two buffaloes, a few goats/sheep, a few pigs, etc. The most common species kept is poultry. The size of a backyard poultry unit varies from a minimum of one hen to 4/5 hens with the mode being around 2/3 adult birds. The size of the units varies according to the family’s need for cash or food and according to diseases. Thus if one family has one unit of two birds today it may loose the entire unit by tomorrow if the birds are infected with a disease. Similarly, the sheep/goat unit varies from one/two goats to 4/5 per household. The land-owning families are generally the ones who keep cattle. But it is not uncommon for landless families to keep cattle as well. The primary purpose of keeping cattle is to use them for draught purposes. Land-owning households use cattle to plough their own land, whereas landless households use them to earn wage by ploughing other people's land during the cultivation season. As will appear from table 7, the composition of the livestock population in the Koraput district is not different from the composition at state level. About 3.86 per cent of Orissa’s poultry population belong to the Koraput district. Keeping livestock involves different implications Table 7: Livestock Population of Koraput and serves different purposes for different groups District: 2001 of people. Apart from earning an income from Species Population sale, sheep/goats/pigs/poultry are also used in connection with religious rituals and social Bovine 603362 (65.86)* celebrations. For instance pig sacrifice is a must Sheep 125154 (13.66) during the 'jhankar puja' in the Laxmipur Block. In Goat 182521 (19.92) terms of eating habits, tribal people are Pigs 5035 (0.55) traditionally non-vegetarians and hence most of Rabbit 107 (0.01) them eat beef. Traditionally, tribal people do not Total 916179 regard milk as an important product, neither as Poultry 677221 regards consumption nor sale. However, people * Figures in parentheses are percentages of total sell milk in some cases - particularly the ones who Source: Orissa Livestock Census, 2001. have raised loans in order to buy Jersey cows or buffaloes. Unlike the practice in coastal Orissa, the tribal people use both cows and female buffaloes for ploughing. There are, however, different practices among different tribes. For instance the Bodo Paraja tribe does not eat beef, whereas Sano Paraja and Gadabas12 do. Some of the Bado Paraja people eat buffalo meat but not cow meat. Two types of tribes live in village Sankaudi - the Gadabas and the Halva. Halva's are of the opinion that the Gadabas are placed lower than them in social hierarchical system, because they believe that their forefathers used to eat beef at one time. However, the Gadabas do not eat beef any more but the hierarchy is still maintained although the two tribes in the same village. The Halvas would not eat food in a Gadaba house. In some areas the scheduled caste people eat beef. We noticed that changes in the beef eating habit takes place across all tribes. A trend of 'beef eating is bad' and 'civilised people do not eat beef' is slowly gaining ground among the younger generations. Particularly, when the youngsters go to boarding schools and live with non- beefeaters, the latter look down on the former and consider them as 'low-ranking people’. However, the habit of eating beef is still strong, particularly during social and religious festivals, 12 Bodo Paraja, Sano Paraja, Gadaba and Halwa are names of different tribes inhabiting in the project area. 21
  22. 22. among the adults of those tribes where beef eating is not a taboo. All communities generally eat goat and sheep meat. However, we came across examples of vegetarianism in Sanakaudi village where 9 families would neither keep nor eat poultry because some elderly members of these families have accepted the 'Alekh Dharma', which preaches vegetarianism. Five of these families would only eat fish. People regard sheep and goats as a source of livelihood and a security in case of emergency. The practice of sacrificing a goat or sheep during certain festivals and in case of a health problem in the family is common. If somebody falls ill in the family, people generally go to the 'Disari' or 'Gurumai for a cure. The Disari does not give medicine but performs a ritual to cure the patient. Moreover, the Disari may advise to sacrifice a hen, goat or sheep to please their God. Poultry I most commonly used for eat purposes when relatives or friends visit the family. This is a must for most of the families across all tribes. If they do not have one bird in the house, they will buy one. Feeding Practice The general practice of feeding varies from village to village depending on resource availability as well as cropping pattern and intensity. The villages in the Jeypore Block, which were selected for this study, had sufficient irrigation throughout the year. In both of these villages grazing was the predominant feeding practice. However, in Ranjitguda village of the Laxmipur Block, which is closer to forest cattle, sheep and goats were taken for grazing only for five months. During the remaining period, they were set free in the forest. While the sheep, goats and cows are normally taken back to the village in the evening, the buffalos stay in the forest. The owners attend to their animals once in a week or ten days to see if they are okay. People believe that the buffaloes are better fed and kept clean in the forest due to the availability of sufficient water. The buffalos stay in water for many hours at a time and the fishes and snails keep the buffaloes clean by eating away the lice/insects. To ensure the return of the mothers in the evening, the calves of milking buffaloes are not sent to the forest. In the three villages of the Koraput Block (2ILDP+1Non-ILDP) the herdsmen take cattle, sheep and goat for grazing for about nine months. During the summer months the animals are set free. In almost all the villages the herdsmen are generally paid in the form of food (either cooked or uncooked) twice a day. In addition, they are paid some paddy or ragi at the time of the harvest and clothes at the time of major festivals. The farmers themselves do also take the cattle for grazing on a rotational basis, if regular herdsmen are not available in the village. Among the crop residues paddy straw is the most commonly used feed for cattle. Besides paddy cattle and pigs are also fed husk and kitchen waste. Other crop residues, which are used for feeding the animals, are black grams, pigeon peas, etc13. Ragi straw is generally not collected from the field but is left there for open grazing. Chicken are fed broken rice but not on a regular basis. Feeding of concentrates is seen only in case of crossbred cows. The feed is supplemented by green grass depending on the availability. Despite several trials and attempts by ILDP, the growing of fodder crops is not yet common. Gender Roles in Livestock Keeping Both the tribal women who live in the area where ILDP operates and the scheduled caste women in the Ganjam district participate actively in the productive life of the household. Women participate in all livelihood-related activities except from ploughing of land, which is exclusively done by men. Like in other parts of India the women of the study area neither have 13 The use of these residues is limited to cattle. 22
  23. 23. ownership of property nor control over income. Women predominantly carry out activities like animal tending, feeding and cleaning. Both men and women, and in certain cases children, take animals for grazing. According to the study on Gender issues in Livestock Sector conducted by ISNRMPO and the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Orissa, , women typically carry out all the work which relates to livestock management, which are primarily within the confine of the 'home'- the private domain. Men typically carry out the work 'outside home'- within the public domain. A similar gender division also appears among children - the boys and girls. According to the study, which was referred to above, the needs and priorities of women vary according to the socio-economic groups they belong to and the natural and material resource bases they have access to, although women more or less share the same responsibilities in livestock-keeping households throughout the State. Generally, both men and women make decisions jointly in the family as regards the purchase and sale of animals. Women sometimes have independent decision-making power as regards the purchase and sale of poultry birds and eggs. Among the tribal groups women have access to the weekly market place where they purchase and sell their produce. As mentioned earlier, women's access to formal credit institutions is restricted because they do not own property/land. Even in connection with the informal channels women have limited access to credit since their participation in the public domain is restricted. Service Needs of the Poor There is no institutional mechanism through which people can express their needs and their demands for services. The Government AHD has always defined the services in a top-down approach. Veterinary surgeons generally regard a poor animal health as the main constraint on livestock development. Likewise, people always tend to regard limited credit and market access as main constraints on the dairy cow development as a means of poverty reduction. In reality, however, people need a range of services ranging from health care, preventive health (FMD and HSBQ for cattle, apthyma and PPR for goats and sheep, RD and FP for poultry, which people call morudi (implying that a mass mortality is the effect), swine fever for pigs) and breeding services, to provision of feed and fodder, information on management and feeding practices, credit, marketing, etc. People have a strong faith in the power of the traditional priests, the Disaris. In cases of FMD people generally go to the Disari and follow his instructions. Besides worshipping God, the common treatment involves mud treatment where the animal stands on mud, which is mixed with some herbs. Likewise, in cases of contagious apthyma of goats, nothing is done except from worship and animal sacrifice. ‘Those animals destined to die will die and those destined to survive will survive’ - this was the response of most of the respondents in every village. Water shortage in summer is regarded as a major constraint in many villages. This view is expressed particularly by women. Moreover, acute feed and fodder shortage both during the summer and rainy seasons when the rain continues for days is also perceived as a constraint. Thus shelter is another livestock need. As indicated earlier, people keep their small stock and poultry in the same dwellings as they live in. However, the shelter possibilities of cattle are so weak that they are wet during in the whole rainy season. People do not see the marketing situation of poultry and small stock as a problem, although there are no organised markets for these animals. Both purchase and sale of poultry take place at the local weekly market place. Those who have crossbred animals and sell milk to the co-operative societies feel that the 23
  24. 24. price, which is offered by the society is uneconomical and that the concentrate feed cost is too high. It is interesting to observe that though people regard credit as an important need, it is not considered a constraint on the livestock development. The need for credit is seen in the larger context of agriculture as well as other livelihood requirements, apart from emergencies like illness. People rarely invest in crossbred cows to obtain a direct income, except in the case of loans raised by the government. This observation confirms the findings a previous study done. In the study on gender issues in livestock development covering four districts of Orissa, which was carried out by DAH & VS and ISNRMPO, it was found that credit ranked number 3rd in the prioritisation of needs in the Koraput district.14 Some cases exist in which people have utilised loans from the SHGs for purchasing small ruminants, but there are no cases of loans which have be raised to purchase a crossbred cow . On the other hand, there are several cases of people, who have raised government loans to purchase crossbred cows. It certainly seems to be a supply-driven phenomenon although there are many other aspects to it. For example the higher risk involved with larger investments, absence of any insurance mechanisms, inaccessibility to health care services, declining rates of return, etc. seem to be important factors in determining whether to invest in large or small ruminants. We will return to this point in another section. There is also no demand of credit for poultry and hence the amount of capital required for such an investment is much less compared to the requirements of other species. However, it seems that people do not want to increase their poultry flock size. In all villages they say that if they increase the flock size, there will be more occurrences of diseases, which results in more mortality. This indicates that vaccination services do not fully demonstrate that mortality of birds can be arrested. Service delivery system As mentioned earlier, the service needs of poor livestock farmers are defined in a top-down approach by the policy makers. However, the government machinery is not equipped to address these needs adequately. In the Koraput district the average geographical area, which is covered by a veterinary centre is 65.69 km (Annex 4). The average distance to the LAC from a village is about 8 to 10 km. Many of the government centres are not adequately manned. For instance at the time of our visit to Kundra Block, four out of five LACs had no Livestock Inspectors. In the total district 44 out of 140 LI posts (located at Gram Panchayat level) were vacant (CDVO Koraput's report). Under such set up it is practically not convenient for the farmers to take the animals to the centre. If the service provider comes to the village people will have to pay money. Given the poor paying capacity of the poor, they only receive a visit from the LI in cases of emergency. In none of the studies village vaccination against FMD or HS has been reported since the last one and a half year ago. Poultry vaccinations are hardly carried out by the AHD. Given the set up of the AHD, it is not possible to go to the villages and vaccinate the birds or for the people to bring the birds to the centre. As regards output services, the AHD procures milk from the farmers in a limited area. Except for the services, which ILDP provide in its operational villages, no other service providing agencies operate in the area other than the government. The private sector’s 14 ‘An analytical study of gender issues in the livestock sector, Orissa’, by the Animal Husbandry Department of Orissa, 1999 24
  25. 25. presence is confined to supply of inputs like concentrate feed and certain medicines. Besides, it is confined to the urban centres only. 25
  26. 26. Section 3 Experiences of Poverty focussed livestock services As noted before, one of the objectives of this paper is to examine specific experiences of poverty-focussed livestock service delivery. This was done through a field study of Integrated Livestock Development Project (ILDP) in the Koraput District and Women Dairy Co-operatives in the Ganjam District. This section presents the objectives, methodology and results of the field studies. Objectives The specific objectives of the case studies were: 1. To examine the Koraput ILDP programme to find out: a) How the services and village institutions respond to the need of the poor livestock keepers, and b) Which impact the services and institutions have had on the production and livelihood of the poor livestock keepers 2. To make a brief study of the women dairy societies in the Ganjam District to examine the experiences concerning market and credit access of the poor through co-operative organisation, and the efficiency of the programme in terms of poverty reduction Methodology For first objective a total of 8 villages were selected in the Koraput district (five within the project area and three outside as control). The Five project villages consist of two villages from the Jeypore Block, two from the Koraput Block and one in the Laxmipur Block. The ILDP villages in Jeypore and Koraput represent plain and hilly areas respectively, whereas the village in Laxmipur is hilly with forest area. The three non-ILDP villages are from the Jeypore, Koraput and Kundra Block. For the second objective only two villages were studied under the Women Dairy Project and therefore generalised statements about the entire project should not be made on the basis of the findings of this study. A list of the study villages from both projects is available in Annex 5. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with livestock keepers, Community Link Workers (CLWs), village committee members and SHG members at community level. Village meetings and focus group discussions were conducted on different aspects of the study. Debates were also held with the Block Extension Teams and the government veterinary personnel at district level. In Ganjam the co-operative society members - farmers who have raised loans for dairy - and officials of the Milk Union, were interviewed. Besides these, the study has benefited from many other studies conducted earlier on various aspects of livestock service deliveries in relation to ILDP as well as independent of it. (Annex 5) 26
  27. 27. The ILDP experience The ILDP has been operating in 100 villages, which are located in 4 Blocks of the Koraput district of Orissa, since 1993, and it includes 5000 tribal families. The Project has adopted an integrated approach to livestock development with the purpose of reducing poverty. As such the project has the following major objectives: • To set up a livestock service delivery system through a system of CLWs who should be able to provide doorstep services to farmers • To make credit available and accessible in the village through the formation of female SHGs • To work on improving agricultural cropping practices to increase productivity (thereby to impact an increase in food availability) • To promote Village Development Committees, which can address the developmental issues of the village The Community Link Workers The Community Link Workers (CLWs) are the core of ILDP's approach to livestock service delivery. It was established in response to the government’s failure in reaching out to the poor farmers. The approach is to train a member of the community who then delivers the services on the farmers’ doorsteps . From each village one man and one woman were chosen by the community/village. It was considered essential to train at least one CLW woman in each village, so that the female livestock farmers would participate fully in the programme. The training comprised simple first aid, poultry vaccination, de-worming of sheep and goats as well as castration of bucks and rams. The CLW were provided with the essential equipments such as cold chain, medicine kit, etc. Moreover, some of the women CLWs have been provided with bicycles to enhance their mobility. Their task was to vaccinate the poultry birds, castrate rams and bucks, treat simple diseases and provide support to the breeding programme. The CLWs worked under direct supervision of a veterinary surgeon and a para-veterinary surgeon (LI) who were part of a multidisciplinary team called the Block Extension Team (BET). The BET operated at Block level. Vaccines and medicines were supplied by the BET. The CLWs were paid a monthly stipend of Rs200 each and the services provided to the farmers were free. Vaccines and medicines were supplied by the Project. Since December 2001 the stipend and vaccine supply has been stopped and service charges have been introduced. Until 2000 the CLWs were only providing services in their own village, but subsequently their area of operation was expanded to the neighbouring villages. Lately, ILDP has initiated the formation of SHGs of CLWs at a cluster level, which consists 10-12 CLWs each. The main areas of ILDP’s service delivery intervention have been: vaccination of poultry against RD and FP; deworming of sheep and goats; and upgrading of breeds of goats and sheep. The latter involved an introduction of new breeds as well as castration of local bucks and rams. Vaccination against PPR is also carried out in a research project, where the drugs are being tested. This vaccination is not carried out the AHD in the country, since the vaccine is not available. The reason for selecting these intervention areas is very clear. In most of the households of the project area, and for that matter in the entire tribal area of Koraput, backyard poultry are commonly kept at very low investment cost. By arresting the mortality of poultry through vaccination, the families can save a substantial amount of money and women have an 27
  28. 28. equal/greater control of the income from poultry. Besides poultry, a sizeable number of people keep goats, sheep and pigs as a supplementary means of livelihood. The Self Help Groups Considering the critical role of credit in the poor people’s livelihood system within the project area, a key area of intervention has been the formation of female Self Help Groups (SHGs) and a few male groups. In each village 2 to 3 SHGs have been formed with 15 to 20 members in each group. The SHGs make credit available in the village. In the beginning, the members start by depositing a small weekly amount on their group account and then ILDP gives a grant to the group. From this total amount of money, group members can obtain loans with a 24 per cent interest rate per year. The loans can be obtained for any purposes of which the group approves. In addition to the SHGs, which are formed by the ILDP, SHGs are formed by the government agencies in the same villages but they are operating under different principles. A co-ordination mechanism between the ILDP SHGs and government formed SHGs has been established at cluster level through a system, which is called apex-body where representatives of the individual SHGs meet. The centre of this meeting rotates among the constituent villages. The CDVO or its representative and a member of the BET attend this meeting. Earlier, BET members were supervising the accounts of each SHG at village level but this function was subsequently transferred to the apex body. The apex body also debates the participation of SHG members at the Panchayat meeting or any other problem faced by member SHG. Improvement of agricultural practices Within this area, several measures have been carried out to improve the productivity of various crops. One such measure is the introduction of high-yielding and tall finger millet varieties, which provide a higher yield of crop residues for fodder purposes. This has been well accepted by the farmers. Likewise, a number of practices like mixed cropping of millet, maize, sorghum and pigeon peas, etc. have been introduced, which have resulted in better yields with no extra cost. Village Development Committee In addition to the SHGs, Village Development Committees (VDCs) are formed at village level. Every household of the village is a member of these committees and a twenty member executive committee has the overall management responsibility. The main purpose of the VDC is to identify the developmental problems of the village and look for solutions to these problems. The committees have been provided with Rs 20000 by the project as a grant. The eligibility for getting this grant is to save an amount of Rs 10000 from the community's own contribution. Having given a brief account of the main components of the ILDP, we now turn to analyse the system. The delivery of livestock services The CLW delivery system has implemented the important change that all people of the villages now have access to livestock services. The CLWs have managed to reach farmers, who would have remained outside the reach of the AHD. In particular, the access of the farmers, to whom the survival of a hen can improve his/her livelihood, to services is an important contribution. 28
  29. 29. However, in the changed scenario of ILDP, which stopped the stipends, it is not clear whether the system can sustain itself. The CLWs find it difficult to charge farmers for their services and for even the cost of vaccines. Particularly in their own village and in connection with poultry vaccination, people seem to be reluctant to pay, even though the service charge is very low. In the neighbouring villages the demand for vaccination of poultry is rare. Some of the CLWs earn about Rs 50-120 per month in other villages, but mostly by castrating bucks and rams. Most of the female CLWs have stopped working except from one in Sankaudi. We have observed that after the introduction of fees, poultry vaccinations have not been carried out on a regular basis and not with a full coverage in any village. One important feature of this delivery system has been to reach out to women by means of the SHGs on one hand and by focussing on poultry on the other. As stated earlier, the tribal women have a greater control over the income derived from poultry than over any other income of the household. The training of female CLWs was intended to facilitate the female farmer service delivery female farmer further. Through the formation of SHG the women are able to access credit. This has enabled many women to invest in livestock. While the SHG concept has been instrumental in reaching out to the female farmers, the concept of woman CLWs does not seem to have added much value to the service delivery system. Firstly, most of the women CLWs, with a few exceptions, have an extremely low educational level. Secondly, the role of a CLW is very untraditional for women and therefore it has been challenge for them to take up this CLW system. For the CLWs to function efficiently they must be trained additionally and they must be provided with confidence-building measures, which the project failed to address. Besides this there are a range of other services, which are required by farmers but which the CLW system has failed to address. The services which focus on animal health and services, such as training in feeding and management practices, fodder production, etc. are not addressed by the CLWs. Moreover, the large animals remain outside the scope of this service delivery system. This service delivery system does not have a strong institutional character at village level. Till now it has been the CLW’s responsibility to report to the BET if any livestock related problem occurs. This role of CLW seems to be that of weaning, since the allowance from the project has stopped and the village committees do not seem to have much interest in keeping the CLW system working (see Box 3). These committees seem to be more into managing funds than livestock related problems. For instance during the time of our field visit poultry were dying in some villages and the CLWs had failed to vaccinate the birds but the villagers did not seem to be doing anything about it. Considering the fatalistic attitude, which is quite strong among the tribal people, it seems that the awareness creation component of the programme has been rather weak. Perhaps this explains why people are reluctant to pay for poultry vaccination, and the apathy of the village committees to intervene. It is a fact that both the male and female CLWs were from the village and by the village community. The villagers have thus participated in livestock development activities initiated by the CLWs, but in terms of sharing the responsibility, the role of the village as a community seems to end. Box 3 The Village Committee of Dharnahandi A traditional village institution is responsible for taking decisions on matters such as disputes between families, festival celebrations, etc. It is through this institution that the villagers protect a forest patch for their own use. They have appointed two old men from the village to guard the forest. The villagers collect money from all the families to pay the guards. 29