Search

The poor integration of pastoral households into milk markets has been attributed to several aspects, including the mobile nature of pastoralists and seasonal fluctuations in milk volumes. Pastoralists also keep their cattle as a store of wealth, meaning they are keener to increase livestock numbers than their productivity. These aspects make it risky for traders to source milk from pastoral households because of the high transaction costs and the uncertainty of milk prices and volumes. This study evaluates the practice of sourcing milk and the innovative strategies used by several traders to ensure that pastoral households are integrated into milk markets. Methodologically, we use the practice approach, where practices are meaning-making and order-producing activities that result in an institutionalised way of doing. The results indicate that previous market engagement for pastoralists took place in a rigid, predetermined context that failed to account for pastoralists' varying production practices. Our analysis shows how the skilful performance of traders and motorbike milk aggregators has aligned with the logic and interests of pastoralists. However, this alignment capacity can only be realised under specific conditions, which involve aligning with local production systems, coordinating with intermediaries, and having a flexible approach to marketing prices and buyers across seasons. This study highlights that economic organisation emerges from everyday action and problem-solving and is not only an outcome of an intentional system design. In doing so, this study contributes to more realistic needs-driven business intervention strategies that are beneficial in achieving inclusive rural development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Smallholder livestock production systems are targeted for climate change mitigation via Low-Emission Development Strategies (LEDS). LEDS promote the adoption of so-called best agricultural practices for mitigation gains, while also expecting to contribute to socio-economic development. However, the assumed alignment between LEDS and varied realities of smallholder farmers is not self-evident. This study argues for a shift away from problematizing the adoption of ideal-type and uniform LED-practices (or a "fix") to fitting LEDS to diverse smallholder priorities and capabilities embedded in specific regional histories and conditions. To make this shift, we assess the plausibility of fit of LED-practices into diverse smallholder realities in Kenya's dairy sector. A mixed-methods approach exposes variation in the use of LED-practices in diverse dairy practices at household and regional levels. We characterize smallholder heterogeneity by distinguishing six clusters through a multivariate analysis of data from 1009 households in three regions of Kenya, and present patterns in uptake and intensity of the use of LED-practices for each household type. Next, the combination of quantitative and qualitative data shows variation in uptake of LED-practices at the level of the three counties, which suggests the importance of regional conditions in shaping the uptake of LED-practices and places the adoption focus beyond household-level decision-making. Subsequently, we identify starting points for LEDS design attuned to variation in smallholder dairy realities at multiple levels, where we consider scale at the start, and shift attention from the adoption of fixes to the creation of spaces conducive to "fitting" LED-practices into diverse realities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rapid economic development in East Africa is matched by extremely dynamic smallholder livelihoods. To quantify the changes in poverty of smallholder farmers, to evaluate the potential of farm and off-farm activities to alleviate poverty, and to evaluate the potential barriers to poverty alleviation. The analyses were based on a panel survey of 600 households undertaken in 2012 and re-visited approximately four years later in four sites in East Africa. The sites represented contrasting smallholder farming systems, linked to urban centres undergoing rapid economic and social change (Nairobi, Kampala, Kisumu, and Dar-es-Salaam). The surveys assessed farm management, farm productivity, livelihoods, and various measures of household welfare. Almost two thirds of households rose above or fell below meaningful poverty thresholds – more than previously measured in this context – but overall poverty rates remained constant. Enhanced farm value production and off-farm income proved to be important mechanisms to rise out of poverty for households that were already resource-endowed. However, households in the poorest stratum in both panels appeared to be stuck in a poverty trap. They owned significantly fewer productive assets in the first panel compared to other groups (land and livestock), and these baseline assets were found to be positively correlated with farm income in the second panel survey. Equally these households were also found to be among the least educated, while education was found to be an important enabling factor for the generation of high value off-farm income. Rural development that aims to stimulate increases in farm produce value as a means to alleviate poverty are only viable for already resource-endowed households, as they have the capacity to enhance farm value production. Conversely, the alleviation of extreme poverty should focus on different means, perhaps cash transfers, or the development of more sophisticated social safety nets. Furthermore, while off-farm income presents another important mechanism for poverty alleviation in rural areas, these opportunities are restricted to those households that have had access to education. As more households turn to off-farm activities to supplement or replace their livelihoods, farming approaches will also change affecting the management of natural resources. These dynamics ought to be better understood to better manage land-use transitions. [Display omitted] • A panel survey of 600 households was undertaken around four years apart in four sites in East Africa • Enhanced farm value production as a pathway out of poverty was only open to resource-endowed households • The participation in high-value off-farm income as a pathway out of poverty was only open to educated households • Households participating in low-value off-farm activities were trapped in a vicious cycle of diminishing resources • Intensification efforts may support medium-poverty households, alleviation of extreme poverty should be by different means [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]