Keeping Livestock in Africa

by Kerstin Schopp, Mizeck Chagunda, Juliet Kariuki, Maria Oguche, Thomas Potthast

14.11.2023 · “To achieve zero hunger by 2030, urgent coordinated action and policy solutions are imperative to address entrenched inequalities, transform food systems, invest in sustainable agricultural practices, and reduce and mitigate the impact of conflict and the pandemic on global nutrition and food security.” (United Nations 2023)

Not least to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 - Zero hunger -, there is much discussion and experimentation in the African context on the intensification of so called ‘neglected’ livestock species. In the following, we will examine the idea of intensification - raising more animals and producing more animal sourced foods - from a Sustainable Development (SD) and ethical perspective. 

Keeping livestock and the resulting human-animal relationships has changed globally over decades and centuries. Generally, intensification of common (‘conventional’) livestock species, such as cattle, chicken, goats, pigs, or sheep can be observed. This intensification has led to the transformation of historical herding and breeding systems into ‘large-scale production’[1] systems of livestock, and to serious environmental (e.g., biodiversity, greenhouse gases), socio-economic (e.g., large slaughterhouses), animal welfare (e.g., factory farming), and health (e.g., zoonosis) trade-offs. Technology and emotional distance have enabled this transformation (Ferreira et al. 2021). Technologies, such as the milking machine, lead to a physical and emotional distance between farmer and animal, and colorful packaging and highly processed products in the supermarkets increase the emotional distance between animals and consumers.

The concept of livestock intensification brings with it some ethical controversies. On the one hand, proponents of intensification argue that there is a global need and demand for more animal protein due to the increasing world population. Particularly in the African context, people are now exploring alternative sources of animal protein and target species such as grasscutters, rabbits, giant African snails, Guinea fowls, or Guinea pigs (Ibitoye et al. 2019). These species have a lower environmental impact, nutritional benefits, low production costs, are resilient to various climatic conditions, and therefore have high potential to meet the needs of poor populations. In the African context, where food security is a critical issue, proponents of livestock intensification pit human food security against animal ethics. Until now, the species mentioned have not been recognized for their potential and neglected at many levels, including policy and research. Therefore, they are referred to as ‘neglected’ livestock species (NLS). On the other hand, opponents of intensification argue that it has far-reaching implications for humans, animals, and the environment. The Covid-19 pandemic, for example, very likely is a disease of zoonotic origin that has spread globally paralyzing the world for more than two years. There are many unanswered questions and open areas for research and reflection, particularly with regard to animal welfare, ethics, health, and SD in general. For example, there is a need to understand local value systems, languages, practices, and knowledge systems of those people who manage and consume NLS in order to co-develop compatible and workable principles of animal welfare and ethics.

At first glance, livestock intensification and the shift towards NLS has great potential to contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In Africa, NLS play an important role for smallholder farmers and pastoralists, as they offer opportunities to cope with adaptations to drought or pandemics, adapt to climate uncertainties, and mitigate shocks. NLS are also an opportunity for female empowerment, as women are often responsible for their management and sale. They could thus help to reduce hunger and economic inequalities, contribute to good health and gender equality, and fight poverty (SDGs 2, 10, 3, 5, 1).

At second sight, however, there are many uncertainties and ethical questions. Compared to conventional livestock species, the zoonotic or resource use implications are poorly understood, and negative outcomes are rarely reported in the literature. There is a lack of policy guidelines and regulations for the management of NLS, and the dissemination of knowledge on these species is only beginning. Additionally, there is a knowledge gap between researchers and farmers of NLS resulting in a lack of knowledge on both sides. What are appropriate welfare criteria for these species? How can these species be managed to meet animal welfare criteria? What zoonoses do these species potentially carry? How can we ensure that these species are ‘produced’ for those who need them?  As such the discourse of livestock intensification of conventional livestock as well as NLS should be from different but intertwined perspectives.

From the perspective of the Ubuntu philosophy, however, the argument can be turned around. The core idea of Ubuntu is that human beings can only live and exist in mutual relationship and interdependence with others (Dolamo 2013). The Oromo people of East Africa take this principle one step further and include non-human life in their network of interdependent relationships. They believe that humans, animals, and their environment depend on each other (Kelbessa 2001). For this reason, issues of animal ethics are important to the wellbeing of humans and the environment, and neither humans nor the environment can thrive if animals are suffering.

The political-philosophical eco-feminist perspective also provides reasons against the antagonistic representation of food security and animal ethics. The general idea is that ideologies of domination need to be deconstructed. The oppression of marginalized groups, such as women, children, or the poor, are linked to the oppression of nature (land, air, animals, etc.). They are rooted in patriarchal ideas and values, often from the Global North, result in exploitation, colonization, and domination, and thus have a negative impact on societies, nature, and human-nature relations[2][KS1] . Moreover, there are eco-feminists who argue that eating meat is a demonstration of domination and power over other bodies until death (Gaard 2002). For this reason, questions of animal ethics are intertwined with questions of a good life, since all forms of oppressed life are interrelated and considered together.    

Finally, it is to state that the SDGs represent an anthropocentric perspective. They take little account of the quality of non-human life. When they do (e.g., SDGs 14 and 15), they mainly aim to improve human life and wellbeing, despite that the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in its preamble already 1992 explicitly has mentioned an intrinsic value of biodiversity (UN 1992). Using the SDGs selectively as a basis for arguments for the intensification of livestock ‘production’ is therefore one-dimensional. If an anthropocentric perspective on SD is adopted, we need to consider additional aspects of SD, such as sufficiency. Sufficiency is the question of what is enough to live a good life. This is a question which persons or communities will answer (slightly) differently. However, this question can and needs to be opened up and reflected upon. Individuals and communities could ask: What is enough for me and us and other living beings to live a good life? Which consequences do my and our actions have on (non-) human life when I take them?    

Therefore, before discussing issues of intensification of conventional livestock as well as NLS, we must first clarify and justify the perspective from which we are speaking and arguing. Are we considering the marginalized and the poorest adequately? Are we including non-human life and animal welfare in our understanding of justice? Do we think in terms of relationships and interdependent networks, or do we separate human from non-human life? Only if it is clear what arguments and perspectives we bring to the arena, we will be able to develop and justify positions adequately.    

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] We want to highlight the problematic connotations of the wording ‘production’ of animals. The idea that animal life can be ‘produced’ and ‘used’ as humans wish to is contested for good reasons, cf. particularly animal and environmental ethics.

[2] Mies, M.; Shiva, V., 2016. Ökofeminismus. Die Befreiung der Frauen, der Natur und unterdrückter Völker. Eine neue Welt wird geboren. 2nd edition. Neu-Ulm: AG SPAK Bücher.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further reading:

Alders, R.G., Campbell, A., Costa, R., Guèye, E.F., Ahasanul Hoque, M., Perezgrovas-Garza, R., Rota, A. and Wingett, K., 2021. Livestock across the world: diverse animal species with complex roles in human societies and ecosystem services. Animal Frontiers, 11(5), pp. 20-29.

AU-IBAR. 2018. Animal Welfare Strategy for Africa (AWSA): Executive Summary. AU-IBAR

Etieyibo, E., 2017. Ubuntu, cosmopolitanism, and distribution of natural resources. Philosophical Papers 46(1), pp. 139-162. doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2017.1295616.

FAO. 2018. World Livestock: Transforming the livestock sector through the Sustainable Development Goals.

Gianan, N. A., 2011. Delving into the ethical dimension of Ubuntu Philosophy. Cultura, International Journal of Philosophy and Axiology 8(1), pp. 63-82. doi.org/10.2478/v10193-011-0004-1.

Keeling, L., Tunón, H., Olmos Antillón, G., Berg, C., Jones, M., Stuardo, L., Swanson, J., Wallenbeck, A., Winckler, C. and Blokhuis, H., 2019. Animal welfare and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Frontiers in veterinary science, 6, p. 336.

Keeling, L.J., Marier, E.A., Antillon, G.O., Blokhuis, H.J., Larsson, B.S. and Stuardo, L., 2022. A global study to identify a potential basis for policy options when integrating animal welfare into the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Frontiers in Animal Science, 3, p. 974687.

The Montpellier Panel (2013) Sustainable intensification: a new paradigm for African agriculture, London.

Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., 2020. The 18th sustainable development goal. Earth System Governance, 3, p. 100047.

Zein, L. F.; Setiawan, A. R., 2017. General overview of ecofeminism. dx.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/fmjgk.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurz-Link zum Teilen des Beitrags: https://uni-tuebingen.de/de/256919

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Dr. Mizeck Chagunda, Universität Hohenheim, Leitung Fachgebiet für Tierhaltung und Tierzüchtung in den Tropen und Subtropen

Dr. Juliet Kariuki, Universität Hohenheim, Sozialer und institutioneller Wandel in der landwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung

Maria Oguche, wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin Universität Hohenheim, Institute for Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences in the Tropics and Subtropics