Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T04:45:57.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GENDERED LIVELIHOOD IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF LIVESTOCK WATER PRODUCTIVITY IN ZIMBABWE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

TRINITY S. SENDA ,
DON PEDEN ,
SABINE HOMANN-KEE TUI ,
GIVIOUS SISITO ,
ANDRÉ F. VAN ROOYEN  and
JOSEPH L. N. SIKOSANA
TRINITY S. SENDA
Affiliation:
Matopos Research Station, P. Bag K 5137, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
DON PEDEN
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
SABINE HOMANN-KEE TUI*
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics, PO Box 776, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
GIVIOUS SISITO
Affiliation:
Matopos Research Station, P. Bag K 5137, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
ANDRÉ F. VAN ROOYEN
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics, PO Box 776, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
JOSEPH L. N. SIKOSANA
Affiliation:
Matopos Research Station, P. Bag K 5137, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
*
Corresponding author: shomann@icrisatzw.cgiar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Scarcity, lack of access, and ineffective and inefficient use of water in Nkayi District, Zimbabwe, threaten agricultural production. The purpose of this study is to augment understanding of opportunities to increase livestock water productivity (LWP) in Nkayi District by taking into account key differences in the capacities, opportunities, and needs of women and men. There are two important types of female-headed households, de facto and de jure. The results from this study showed that male-headed and de facto and de jure female-headed households share much in common. They all had similar areas of cropland and access to education, finances, veterinary and extension services, and transportation and markets. Households of all types had similar herd sizes. All were desperately poor with incomes much less than a dollar a day. To rise out of poverty, the knowledge, skills and effort of all household heads will be needed. In spite of severe poverty, household heads of all types are literate and have sufficient education that can help enable adoption of intervention options that can lead to increased agricultural production and improved livelihoods. The results also showed that major differences exist in terms of the roles of men and women in ownership, management and decision making related to livestock keeping and animal production. Men clearly dominate in both ownership and decision making even though women play a major role in animal management. Only in de jure female-headed households were women more likely than men to own cattle and goats. They were also more likely to be involved in farming as a primary livelihood activity. Surprisingly, men were more likely to be involved in animal management in these de jure female-headed households. Women were also excluded from water users' and livestock producers' associations although a minority of men was members. By not involving the already-developed capacity of women, the community loses out on a significant opportunity to increase LWP and animal production more widely. Greater inclusion of women in decision making will be an important part of future efforts to improve livelihoods through livestock development.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 47 , Issue S1: Improving Water Productivity of Crop-Livestock Systems in Drought-prone Regions , January 2011 , pp. 169 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adato, M. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. FCND Discussion Paper 128. APTD Discussion Paper 89. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington.Google Scholar
Amede, T., Geheb, K. and Douthwaite, B. (2009). Enabling the uptake of livestock water productivity interventions in the crop-livestock systems of sub Saharan Africa. The Rangeland Journal 31:223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amuguni, H. M. (2000). Assessing the gender impact of the community based livestock health programs in south Sudan: a gender assessment study in Mading area. Latjor State, Upper Nile. Veterinaire Sans Frontiers-BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Bruinsma, J. (2003). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. A FAO Perspective. FAO, Rome and Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
Cleaver, F. (1998). Choice, complexity and change: Gendered livelihoods and the management of water. Agriculture and Human Values 15:293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, F., Haileslassie, A., Ishaq, S., Blümmel, M., Murty, M. V. R., Samad, M., Dey Hiamangshu, D., and Khan, M. A., (2010). Enhancing water productivity for poverty alleviation. Roles of capital and institutions in the Ganga basin. Experimental Agriculture 46 Suppl. 00–00.Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2008). Agriculture co-ordination working group. ACWG Journal. September 2008. Year 3. Issue IX Number 31Google Scholar
Homann, S. Van Rooyen, A., Moyo, T. and Nengomasha, Z. (2007). Goat Production and Marketing: Baseline information for semi-arid Zimbabwe. Bulawayo. Zimbabwe. ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Malmberg, B. and Tegenu, T. (2007). Population pressure and dynamics of household livelihoods in an Ethiopian village: an elaboration of the Boserup-Chayanovian framework. Population and Environment 29:39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinzen-Dick, R.Brown, L. R.Feldstein, H. S. and Quisumbing, A. R. (1997) Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development 25:1303–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peden, D., Tadesse, G. and Misra, A. K. (2007). Water and livestock for human development. In Water for Food, Water for Life. A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 485–514. (Ed. Molden, D). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Rohrbach, D. and Alumira, J. (2002). Targeting Agricultural Research for Development in the Semi-arid Tropics of sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of a workshop, 1–3 July 2002, Nairobi, Kenya. ICRISAT, Nairobi, 3–27.Google Scholar
Sandford, S. (2006). Too many people, too few livestock: the crisis affecting pastoralists in the greater Horn of Africa. www.future-agricultures.org/En/e-debates/Pastoralism/pastoralism_debate.html [Accessed 20 October 2010].Google Scholar
Tangka, F. K., Jabbar, M. A. and Shapiro, B. I. (2000). Gender roles and child nutrition in livestock production systems in developing countries: A critical review. Socio-economic and Policy Research Working Paper 27. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. K. and Gerber, P. J. (2009). Climate change and the growth of the livestock sector in developing countries. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 15:169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hoeve, E. and Van Koppen, B. (2006). Beyond fetching water for livestock: A gendered sustainable livelihood framework to assess livestock water productivity. ILRI Working paper No 1. International Livestock Research Institute. Nairobi.Google Scholar
Waters-Bayer, A. and Bayer, W. (2009). Enhancing local innovation to improve water productivity in crop-livestock systems. The Rangeland Journal, 31: 231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar