Enabling the uptake of livestock–water productivity interventions in the crop–livestock systems of sub-Saharan Africa
Tilahun Amede A , Kim Geheb B D and Boru Douthwaite CA International Water Management Institute/International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
B Challenge Program on Water and Food/International Water Management Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
C International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia.
D Corresponding author. Email: k.geheb@cgiar.org
The Rangeland Journal 31(2) 223-230 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ09008
Submitted: 15 January 2009 Accepted: 23 March 2009 Published: 19 June 2009
Abstract
Livestock–water productivity (LWP) refers to a set of innovations that could contribute towards reducing the amount of water needed per unit of output generated. But what does it take to get these ideas adopted by livestock keepers in crop–livestock systems? In this paper, we treat LWP as an innovation, and consider in what ways it may be introduced and/or developed among the crop–livestock agricultural systems by drawing on successful examples of change. In the first part of this paper, we introduce relevant tenets of the innovation systems literature, and introduce a three-component conceptual framework for the adoption of LWP technologies. In the second part, we describe three successful cases of resources use change. In the final section, we identify what we consider to be necessary components in successful change, and relate these to LWP. We argue that, in the under-regulated crop–livestock systems of eastern Africa, key areas for focus include social institutions, political systems, gender and leadership.
Additional keywords: conceptual framework, innovation systems, institutions, leadership.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments of Drs Shirley Tarawali, Don Peden and two anonymous reviewers. The project is supported by Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), Germany.
Allan C. J.,
Mason W. K.,
Reeve I. J., Hooper S.
(2003) Evaluation of the impact of SGS on livestock producers and their practices. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 1031–1040.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[verified 2 May 2009].
Gillingham M. E.
(1999) Gaining access to water: formal and working rules of indigenous irrigation management on Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Natural Resources Journal 39, 419–441.
Johnston P. H.
(1946) Some notes on land tenure on Kilimanjaro and the kihamba of the Wachagga. Tanzania Notes and Records 21, 1–20.
Leach M.,
Mearns R., Scoones I.
(1997) Challenges to community-based sustainable development: dynamics, entitlements, institutions. IDS Bulletin 28, 4–14.
| Crossref |
Peden D.,
Taddesse G., Haileslassie A.
(2009) Livestock water productivity: implications for sub-Saharan Africa. The Rangeland Journal 31, 187–193.
Perrin B.
(2002) How to – and how not to – evaluate innovation. Evaluation 8, 13–28.
| Crossref |
Rowntree K.,
Duma M.,
Kakembo V., Thornes J.
(2004) Debunking the myth of overgrazing and soil erosion. Land Degradation and Development 15, 203–214.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Springer-Heinze A.,
Hartwich F.,
Henderson J. S.,
Horton D., Minde I.
(2003) Impact pathway analysis: an approach to strengthening the impact orientation of agricultural research. Agricultural Systems 78, 267–285.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sullivan S.
(1999) The impacts of people and livestock on topographically diverse open wood- and shrub-lands in arid north-east Namibia. Global Ecology and Biogeography 8, 257–277.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson J. A.
(1982) The economical management of multispecies fisheries. Land Economics 58, 417–434.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |