# Family coordination and adaptation to crises: the new role of digital technology in the resilience of pastoral livestock systems in Senegal

Margot Moniot, Nathalie Hostiou, Serena Ferrari, Mouhamadou Lamine

Ndiaye, Baba Ba, Jean-Daniel Cesaro

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Margot Moniot, Nathalie Hostiou, Serena Ferrari, Mouhamadou Lamine Ndiaye, Baba Ba, et al. Family coordination and adaptation to crises: the new role of digital technology in the resilience of pastoral livestock systems in Senegal. Revue d'Elevage et de Médecine Vétérinaire des Pays Tropicaux, 2025, 78, pp.1-11. 10.19182/remvt.37892. hal-05493267

HAL Id: hal-05493267

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05493267v1

Submitted on 4 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Family coordination and adaptation to crises: the new role of digital technology in the resilience of pastoral livestock systems in Senegal

Margot Moniot<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" />* Nathalie Hostiou<fnref n="2" />

Serena Ferrari<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="4" /> Mouhamadou Lamine Ndiaye<fnref n="5" />

Baba Ba<fnref n="6" /> Jean-Daniel Cesaro<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" />

## Keywords

pastoralism, information systems, information and communication technologies, livestock management, Senegal

OPEN ACCESS

© M. Moniot et al., 2025 published by Cirad

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).

Type: Research article

Submitted: 23 June 2025

Accepted: 06 October 2025

Online: 11 December 2025

DOI: 10.19182/remvt.37892

## Summary

**Background:** Multiple crises are threatening Sahelian pastoral systems. Adopting digital tools could help improve the resilience of pastoralists. However, little is known about the role of digital tools in family-based herd management in times of crisis. **Aim:** This study examines the impact of digital tools on family coordination and adaptive crisis responses. **Methods:** The study combines quantitative analyses of a database on digital equipment, covering 1,260 household leaders and members, and around 50 qualitative interviews exploring their phone usage during day-to-day tasks and when dealing with crises in Senegal. **Results:** Findings reveal a high rate of mobile phone ownership among household leaders, who typically make herd-related decisions. We observed an increase in use among women and sons involved in production – particularly in systems where market access depends on digital technology ownership. On a daily basis, mobile phones facilitate coordination among family members. They are used to transfer information and money within a spatially dispersed family group. Although intra-family negotiations occur, decision-making remains centralized. During crises, response strategies can be implemented rapidly, by mobilizing information networks and improving access to markets for herd destocking. **Conclusions:** The study highlights the collective organization of pastoral livestock systems, and underlines the importance of internal dynamics when it comes to resilience and adaptation strategies.

■ How to cite this article: Moniot, M., Hostiou, N., Ferrari, S., Ndiaye, M. L., Ba, B., & Cesaro, J.-D. (2025). Family coordination and adaptation to crises: the new role of digital technology in the resilience of pastoral livestock systems in Senegal. *Revue d'élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux, 78, 37892*. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.37892

## INTRODUCTION

Digital tools are generating growing interest worldwide for their potential to transform production systems, including the agricultural sector (Klerkx et al., 2019). In Africa, however, the development of digital innovations faces major structural challenges, including fragile electrical infrastructure, poor telecommunications networks, low literacy levels and limited financial resources (Fuchs & Horak, 2008).

In rural areas in the Sahel region, pastoral systems produce almost a third of the agricultural gross domestic product that includes both livestock and crop production (Hellendorff, 2012). Mobile technologies began to spread in the 2000s, as prices dropped (Ninot & Peyroux, 2018). They are particularly well suited to herders because of their mobility, and the challenges linked to remote livestock markets. Most studies suggest that the majority of pastoralists now own mobile phones and use them in their daily lives (Djohy et al., 2017).

Despite advances in mobile technologies worldwide, herders still tend to use 2G mobile phones with *Global System for Mobile Communications* (GSM) technology. GSM works well in areas with limited access to electricity and poor network quality (Salat et al., 2021). However, it only allows basic voice calls (Ferrari et al., 2024). This limitation raises questions about the genuine transformative potential of GSM technology in pastoral systems (Steinke et al., 2024).

Yet, mobile technologies are often described as “vital” for pastoral communities (Parlasca, 2021). They provide a range of information

<footnote n="1">1. CIRAD, UMR SELMET, Saint-Louis, Sénégal</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. UMR 1273 Territoires, Université Clermont Auvergne, AgroParisTech, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, Clermont-Ferrand, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. CIRAD, UMR SELMET, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. SELMET, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5. ISRA-CRA, Saint-Louis, Sénégal</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6. ILRI, Dakar, Sénégal</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author
Phone: +221 786583791; E-mail: margot.moniot@cirad.fr</footnote>
about pasture and borehole conditions to facilitate herd mobility (Butt, 2015), market prices (Baird & Hartter, 2017), and veterinary assistance (Debsu et al., 2016). Phones are also used for mobile payment services. Money can be transferred simply using a phone number, and no bank account is required (Rutten & Mwangi, 2012). This function is especially useful for livestock trading (Sow et al., 2024).

The use of phones and associated digital services is often linked to herd management strategies. It is rarely examined in terms of crisis response. Yet, with the constant climatic, health, and economic shocks facing Sahelian pastoralists (Wane et al., 2020), households have to implement diverse response strategies (Wane et al., 2024). Sahelian pastoralism is based on family livestock management (Ancey et al., 2007), which is rarely considered in studies on digital technology use.

For example, women play a central role in managing production units, but often have limited access to connectivity. They are financially and socially dependent on their husbands' decisions (Porter et al., 2020). Children are also interested in smartphones. Sending photos and videos via WhatsApp helps herders track stolen animals or sell livestock (Nilsson & Salazar, 2017).

The aim of this article is to identify how digital tools influence family coordination and adaptive responses to crises. We studied pastoral families using an adapted version of the livestock farming system framework (Dedieu et al., 2008). It considers that household leaders make decisions within the decision-making sphere, while wives and children carry out production tasks within the production sphere, in both day-to-day and crisis conditions (Wane et al., 2020).

Quantitative analyses were conducted using a database on the digital access of 1,260 household leaders and members. Qualitative surveys on phone use were carried out in relation to family herd management in northern Senegal. Data were analyzed according to four livestock systems: pastoral and agropastoral, with a distinction between herders who supply milk to a dairy that uses digital technology to manage milk collection and the purchase of livestock feed (Cesaro et al., 2021).

## MATERIAL AND METHODS

# Adapting the Livestock Farming System Approach to Sahelian Pastoralism

The livestock system approach was chosen to focus on individuals, as managers of their livestock production activities (Dedieu et al., 2008). In zootechnical systems, this framework represents the livestock production unit as two interacting spheres (see Figure 1 opposite) for decision-making and production. These are influenced by a series of factors, including objectives, norms, resources, and markets that were not considered in this study.

Decision-making and production are affected by information received from the outside. Therefore, we included mobile phones as tools which are used to receive and share information (including photos, and videos), and to transfer money between the two spheres. The choice of equipment and its use may vary depending on the individual (Ferrari et al., 2024).

In Sahelian households, fathers typically make technical decisions regarding herd management (Ancey et al., 2007). Their sons are responsible for looking after the animals – the eldest are in charge of the cattle and the youngest take care of the small ruminants (Ancey et al., 2009). Women usually collect and sell the milk (Corniaux et al., 2006). In other words, the livestock system is hierarchical. The household leader makes the decisions, and the sons and women are responsible for production (Figure 1).

Sahelian pastoral systems are exposed to various risks and shocks (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Wane et al. (2020) identified five major

shocks that impact Sahelian pastoral environments: drought, animal disease, conflict, cattle rustling, and rising food prices. When shocks occur, they disrupt pastoral systems, triggering the implementation of response strategies (Nori, 2019; Scoones et al., 2023). In the event of a shock, herders may have recourse to mobile phones. This factor was built into our analytical framework.

## Study area

The study area was located in northern Senegal. The climate is characterized by low annual rainfall, below 300 mm, and a seasonal cycle with a rainy season from July to September and a dry season from October to June. Pastoral livestock systems are widespread (Magrin et al., 2011), and varied, due to the diversity of agroecological and socio-economic conditions (Gaye et al., 2020). We have taken this diversity into account (Table I).

In the southern part of the study area, within the sylvo-pastoral reserve known as *Les Six Forages*, transhumant pastoral systems are common. Herds of cattle exist alongside flocks of small ruminants. The number of head often exceeds 100. Small ruminants provide an important source of income, while cattle are kept primarily as a risk-management strategy (Ancey et al., 2009). Both cattle and small ruminants migrate southward or eastward during the dry season (Table I).

In the northern region along the Senegal River, hydro-agricultural developments have encouraged diversification, with a shift from livestock to crop production (Bourgoin et al., 2022). Crop production provides an important source of income. The small ruminant flocks tend to be small. Agropastoral households generally supplement their animals' diets with crop residues and move their herds over short distances, depending on harvesting periods (Table I).

Since 2006, the industrial dairy, the *Laiterie du Berger*, has been operating in Richard-Toll. It collects milk from pastoralists and agropastoralists. The company provides different services. For example, it has set up partnerships to facilitate access to supplies of concentrated feed and forage to support milk production. Herders are encouraged

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1:** The livestock system framework, combining the decision-making and production spheres adapted to the Sahelian pastoral system /// Cadre d'analyse du système d'élevage comme articulation d'un sous-système décisionnel et d'un sous-système de production adapté au système pastoral sahélien. (source: Dedieu et al., 2008)</figcaption></figure>
to keep part of their dairy herds in one place all year round. However, cow productivity remains low, averaging around 3 liters per day during the rainy season and 1 liter in the dry season (Table I).

## Quantitative Analysis of the Fracture Numérique project Database

We drew on a database from the *Fracture Numérique* project (Ferrari et al., 2024). In 2022, prior to this study, a quantitative survey was conducted among 1,260 livestock producers. The aim of the survey was to characterize the digital divide (Van Dijk, 2019). It comprised a structured questionnaire including variables corresponding to the four dimensions of the digital divide (physical access to equipment, digital practices, technical skills, and individual motivations), as well as socio-technical individual characteristics.

The aim of our quantitative analyses was to examine digital equipment in the decision-making sphere, represented by household leaders, and in the production sphere, represented by women and sons. The use of mobile money was considered as an indicator of advanced management skills. In general, financial management is controlled by the household leader. The diversity of pastoral systems was taken into account to identify any differences and similarities in terms of digital access and capacities.

Overall, the variables used in the *Fracture Numérique* database for our quantitative analyses included household leader status (yes/no), type of phone used (basic phone/smartphone/no phone), agricultural activity (yes/no), milk collection (yes/no), and use of mobile money (yes/no). The latter highlights changing management skills, since mobile money use is relatively new to pastoralists.

## Qualitative Surveys Based on Family Immersion

Immersion lasting from one to three days was also organized between December 2023 and June 2025 in nine villages or pastoral/agropastoral camps. The aim of the qualitative data collection was to complement the quantitative data, by analyzing how different household members use digital tools in their daily lives and in response to shocks, across the different pastoral systems.

The sites were selected to represent the four livestock systems found in the study area (Table I). During the immersion, 58 interviews were conducted with individuals selected using a snowball sampling method to capture the diversity of household members. Among them, 26 were household leaders, 11 were herders, and 21 were women. Of the total, 11 pastoralists and 6 agropastoralists did not collect their milk for the industrial dairy, while 21 pastoralists and 20 agropastoralists did collect their milk for the dairy (Table II).

<table><caption>**Table I:** Characteristics of the four livestock production systems included in the study /// Caractéristiques des quatre systèmes de production animale inclus dans l'étude</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Milk not collected</th><th colspan="2">Milk collected</th></tr><tr><th>Pastoral</th><th>Agropastoral</th><th>Pastoral</th><th>Agropastoral</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Location</th><td>Sylvo-pastoral reserve</td><td>Senegal River</td><td>Sylvo-pastoral reserve, along a collection route</td><td>Senegal River, along a collection route</td></tr><tr><th>Agriculture</th><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><th>Small ruminants</th><td>Highly developed</td><td>Limited</td><td>Highly developed</td><td>Limited</td></tr><tr><th>Herd size</th><td>Large (+100)</td><td>Medium (20-80)</td><td>Large (+100)</td><td>Medium (20-80)</td></tr><tr><th>Supplementary feed</th><td>None</td><td>Crop residues</td><td>Bought-in forage and concentrate feed</td><td>Crop residues and concentrate feed</td></tr><tr><th>Transhumance</th><td>Towards east and south of the country</td><td>Intra-regional, depending on harvests</td><td>Towards east and south of the country, with sedentarization of the dairy animals</td><td>Intra-regional, depending on harvests and collection routes</td></tr><tr><th>Milk use</th><td>Household consumption and informal market sales</td><td>Household consumption and informal market sales</td><td>Household consumption and formal market sales</td><td>Household consumption and formal market sales</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table II:** Numbers of individuals surveyed during the *Fracture Numérique* project (Ferrari et al., 2024), and by the authors during periods of immersion /// Nombre de personnes interrogées dans le cadre du projet Fracture Numérique (Ferrari et al., 2024) et par les auteurs lors des immersions</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Milk not collected</th><th colspan="2">Milk collected</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>Pastoralists</th><th>Agropastoralists</th><th>Pastoralists</th><th>Agropastoralists</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Number of individuals surveyed</td><td rowspan="3">During the Fracture Numérique Project (Ferrari et al. 2024)</td><td>Household leaders</td><td>86</td><td>107</td><td>27</td><td>88</td><td>308</td></tr><tr><td>Other members</td><td>438</td><td>225</td><td>151</td><td>138</td><td>952</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>524</td><td>332</td><td>178</td><td>226</td><td>1260</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">By the authors</td><td>Household leaders</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Shepherds</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>11</td><td>6</td><td>21</td><td>20</td><td>58</td></tr></tbody></table>
The interviews explored phone use during daily tasks (grazing, watering, animal care, and marketing), and in response to shocks (drought, livestock theft, animal diseases, rising feed prices, and conflicts). They were complemented by direct observations, recorded in a notebook during field visits to accompany the individuals surveyed while they carried out their various pastoral activities.

All interviews and observations were recorded, transcribed, and coded using the software Taguette. Codes were assigned to each type of daily task or shock. The results were then analyzed code by code, first within the same categories of workers and livestock systems, in order to detect any differences in digital tool use among individuals with the same profile.

They were then compared across livestock systems for the same worker categories. This allowed us to identify differences in digital tool use between systems, and among individuals with the same roles in a given livestock system. The results are presented according to the livestock systems.

## ■ RESULTS

### Digital Technologies in the Decision-making and Production Spheres

#### Digital Equipment

According to the database analysis, 95% of the household leaders interviewed own a mobile phone. The survey revealed that almost all household leaders are involved in selling livestock, which requires a mobile phone. Owning a phone is thus useful for production-related activities, which are managed by the decision-maker.

Phone ownership among household leaders is relatively consistent across the different livestock systems. In contrast, ownership rates in the productive sphere average 66%, with some system-based variation: around 60-68% of pastoral and agropastoral households, who do not collect their milk for the dairy; and slightly higher rates of 72-74% among the pastoral and agropastoral households who do sell milk to the dairy.

We found that milk collection significantly increases the phone ownership rate among other household members. This is due to the Laiterie du Berger's marketing system, whereby a phone number is linked to a milk can number (which serves as supplier ID). Milk collection is primarily carried out by women and herders. The dairy company encourages them to have their own digital identities.

In this context, the qualitative surveys reveal the practices adopted by household leaders: either they associate their own phone number with the can number; or they equip other household members with a phone, which gives the latter a degree of autonomy. The following quote illustrates the second strategy: "I told my wife that she should register her own can number. She needed a phone number for that, so I bought her one. She manages it. I trust her." (Head of an agropastoral household, interviewed in Médina, in May 2025).

We found that 18% of household leaders and 18% of other household members own a smartphone. This suggests that smartphones may not be essential tools for decision-making, although differences emerge across livestock systems. In agropastoral systems, household leaders are slightly better equipped with smartphones than other household members. In contrast, in pastoral systems, other household members are better equipped (Table III).

Interviews reveal that young people are interested in smartphones for accessing social media (TikTok, Instagram, etc.). In pastoral systems, young people may acquire smartphones when they are staying in urban areas. Some young people use money earned from managing

small ruminants. In contrast, many household leaders do not consider that smartphones are worth the investment.

In agropastoral households, buying a smartphone is more socially accepted because of the stronger urban influence. Some household leaders give their children a smartphone, for example, by selling a calf. One household leader interviewed in May 2025 explains: "Why do my daughters have smartphones and not me? They're students. If they need something, I give them priority."

This illustrates that household leaders sometimes use the family livestock capital to meet material needs. In pastoral systems, household leaders tend to use simple, low-cost digital tools rather than investing in expensive smartphones. They give priority to building up their family livestock capital, and ensuring household security and the transmission of livestock, as inheritance to their children.

#### Upgrading Skills with Digital Uses

Household leaders use mobile money applications more frequently than other members of the household (57% versus 50%, respectively, among phone owners). This reflects the distribution of roles and activities within the farming system. Indeed, household leaders are generally responsible for managing financial and economic activities (agriculture, trade and wage earning), which involve receiving money.

Among pastoralists equipped with a phone, the rate of mobile money use by other members exceeds that of household leaders: 37% versus 29%, respectively, for pastoralists who do not collect milk for the dairy; and 61% versus 44% for pastoralists who do collect milk (Table IV).

Young people are interested in mobile phones for social reasons. In addition, many young people, especially younger sons, also manage small ruminants, which involves financial management. Older household leaders who are unfamiliar with digital tools may ask their children to help them, in return for cash.

<table><caption>**Table III:** Smartphone ownership rates by type of farming system and stakeholder category /// Taux d'équipement en smartphones par type de système agricole et catégorie d'acteurs concernés</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Milk not collected</th><th colspan="2">Milk collected</th></tr><tr><th>Pastoralists</th><th>Agropastoralists</th><th>Pastoralists</th><th>Agropastoralists</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Household leaders</th><td>8%</td><td>20%</td><td>15%</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><th>Other members</th><td>15%</td><td>18%</td><td>21%</td><td>25%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table IV:** Mobile money usage by type of farming system and stakeholder category, among individuals equipped with a phone /// Taux d'utilisation de l'argent mobile par type de système agricole et catégorie d'acteurs, parmi les personnes équipées d'un téléphone</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Milk not collected</th><th colspan="2">Milk collected</th></tr><tr><th>Pastoralists</th><th>Agropastoralists</th><th>Pastoralists</th><th>Agropastoralists</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Household leaders</th><td>29%</td><td>61%</td><td>44%</td><td>81%</td></tr><tr><th>Other members</th><td>37%</td><td>59%</td><td>61%</td><td>72%</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table IV shows that agropastoralists use mobile money technology more frequently than pastoralists, across the different household categories. Their use is linked to transactions relating to their agricultural activities.

Milk collection significantly increases mobile money use among other household members. The *Laiterie du Berger* requires a phone number to process monthly milk payments using mobile money applications. It encourages women and young herders to have their own accounts to receive payments. This allows them to develop their financial management skills.

"I opened a mobile money account in 2021 at the same time as opening a collection can. I needed it to receive my money." (A woman from an agropastoral household who collects milk for the dairy, interviewed in Belel Massoce, in May 2025).

Similarly, milk collection appears to increase the use of mobile money among household leaders, particularly in agropastoral systems. In fact, some leaders want to be the official holders of the can number to continue receiving milk payments. Milk productivity is higher in agropastoral systems, which may explain why they want to control the financial transactions.

Our analysis highlights that mobile phones are crucial for decision-makers. It also reveals that other household members tend to be better equipped, have more experience and greater skills. This phenomenon is widespread in systems where there is a division of roles with regard to market access. This organization affects mobile phone ownership and the use of mobile money. The distribution of smartphones does not strictly follow traditional hierarchical role divisions. Indeed, decision-makers are not always the best equipped. This suggests that smartphones are not just a decision-making tool associated with livestock production.

## The Use of Digital Tools for Daily Activities

### Grazing

Grazing follows seasonal patterns and the annual agricultural calendar (e.g. accessibility of rice crop residues in the Senegal River valley). According to the surveys, herders have a degree of autonomy

when it comes to managing their animals during the day. Generally, they lead their herd to grazing areas in the morning and redirect or guide their animals as needed throughout the day.

While out herding, the herder can phone the household leader to request assistance. For example, they can arrange for a replacement to come, without having to leave the herd temporarily to return to camp. This form of coordination helps ensure security in a context of widespread livestock theft. It also improves the herder's working conditions, which are often described in interviews as particularly difficult (long days of walking, social isolation, etc.).

"Last time, a snake bit a shepherd. He couldn't walk. He called for help. We took him home." (A herder from a pastoral household that collects milk, interviewed in Mbelon Touffam, in June 2024).

In this type of risky environment, some household leaders call their herders several times a day to check on the herd and grazing conditions. The calls are not necessarily intended to modify herding decisions, but to reassure the livestock owner. This is important given that the family's entire capital is entrusted to a single person—the herder (Figure 2). From the household leader's perspective, the phone is an indispensable tool for the herder and for herding.

"He (my father) calls me during the day. He asks me, 'Where are you?', 'Is there any pasture?' and 'Aren't you in a forbidden place?' It reassures him." (A herder from a pastoral household that collects milk, interviewed in Niary, in June 2025).

This practice is less common with small ruminant flocks, as shepherds typically own the animals they manage. In the case of cattle herds, most animals belong to the household leader, and other family members own the rest. Therefore, family members also call the cattle herder frequently to stay informed about their animals' welfare. This shows that phone use largely depends on livestock ownership.

Lastly, in transhumant pastoral systems, women also play an important role, by informing the household leader and giving him herd updates. Indeed, women may be asked to accompany herders on transhumance to take care of domestic tasks, such as preparing meals and managing the camp. As a result, household leaders often provide women with phones.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2:** A household leader (left) with his herder son (right), talking on the phone while grazing the herd /// *Un chef de famille (à gauche) et son fils berger (à droite) discutant au téléphone pendant qu'ils font paître leurs animaux*</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
## Searching for Water and Feed for the Herd

In pastoral systems, fetching water for the animals is one of the main daily activities during the dry season. It is usually carried out by the daughters, who have to travel several kilometers by cart to reach the nearest borehole and fill up a water barrel. The task, which is dangerous because of the barrel's weight, is essential to camp life. The phone allows them to communicate with the household leader in the event of problems, such as breakdowns or accidents on the road or at the borehole.

In agropastoral systems near the Senegal River Valley, access to semi-natural watering points (ponds and canals) is more widespread. During the dry season, surveys show that women spend time collecting wild grasses and straw to supplement the herd's daily ration. Phones are used to coordinate with household leaders or other family members in order to transport the cut forage back to camp, for example, by requesting a cart.

"I don't have a mobile phone. When I go out collecting weeds and need to call a family member to help me bring back what I've found, I borrow someone's phone." (A woman from a pastoral household that collects milk, interviewed in Medina, in June 2025).

Herders that collect milk have access to livestock feed markets where goods can be purchased on credit and paid back with money from milk sales. Many of the household leaders surveyed entrust their wives with the task of calling to check credit eligibility and going to the store to pick up the feed bags. However, it is the household leader who decides how to distribute the feed to the animals. This illustrates how productive members of the household are empowered when they are involved in milk collection.

## Animal Care

In most cases, the household leader is responsible for managing animal health. They control household spending, and decide whether to buy medication or call a veterinarian. The phone is important for communicating information and coordinating between the decision-maker and herder. Being in daily contact with the animals means that the herder is the best placed to observe animal health—especially when the herd does not return to camp in the evening because grazing areas are too far away.

"If an animal is sick and the herd is away from camp, my herder calls me. I go to see it and call the vet, if necessary." (The household leader that collects milk, interviewed in Niary, in June 2024).

To complement the report of a sick or injured animal, photos or videos can be sent with WhatsApp using a smartphone. The household leader can then forward them to a veterinarian. When the head of household is unfamiliar with digital technology, they can borrow one of their children's devices or ask them for help. This highlights how smartphones can help intra-family coordination, and improve the herd manager's decision-making.

## Livestock and Milk Marketing

Household leaders are usually responsible for selling animals. They often contact an intermediary (Tefanke in Fulani), who comes to the camp to collect the animal and transport it to the market for sale. They are paid a commission. Household leaders may also have direct contact with buyers from urban areas, who are looking for animals, for religious holidays (Tabaski).

Having a smartphone to send photos or videos of the animal for sale via instant messaging groups genuinely facilitates transactions. As with animal health management, household leaders without a smartphone often borrow one from a family member. In this way, they can

talk to potential buyers, post a status update about the animal for sale, or share an announcement in herders' discussion groups.

"I don't have a smartphone. But I've already borrowed my nephew's to sell an animal." (The leader of an agropastoral household that does not collect milk, interviewed in Belel Massoce, in May 2025).

According to the surveys, the use of mobile money by household leaders for commercial transactions is not widespread. However, they may deposit cash from sales into their accounts to redistribute funds to distant productive members of the household. For instance, transshumant herders often need money to pay for water for the animals or for their personal needs. The household leader can send it simply using a phone number.

Different family members (in the productive sphere), use the mobile phone on a daily basis to inform the household leader (decision-making sphere) about various activities. Although smartphones are not essential for decision-making, they are useful for coordination. Mobile money applications facilitate the circulation of financial resources between the different family members, who generate income or manage spending. In other words, the phone can help decentralize activities without actually undermining centralized decision-making and management.

## The Use of Digital Tools in Times of Crisis

### Drought

Herd mobility is a key strategy for coping with drought. Although herders have a degree of autonomy regarding where animals graze, it is generally the household leader who decides when it is time for the transhumance. Their decision is based on regular phone calls with the herder, who provides updates about grazing conditions.

Phone calls have largely replaced the traditional practice of sending scouts—usually a son—to assess pasture conditions. The scouts would report back to the household leader before a decision was made to move the herd. Most of the surveyed households have practiced transhumance in the same area for decades. Their long-term experience means they can rely on trusted local contacts to provide accurate information.

"Our cows go on transhumance to Mpal. We've been going there for several years now when the grass runs out here. It's easy because we're welcomed by relatives. Before I leave, I call them to find out if the situation is favorable." (The leader of a pastoral household that does not collect milk, interviewed in Gandiaye Peul, in July 2024).

During transhumance, herders are sometimes accompanied by their wives. When they pass other camps, they glean information about pasture and water availability over the next 10 kilometers. In this way, they can evaluate and adjust their route, if necessary. Informal discussions are also useful for sharing important local updates, such as bushfires or livestock thefts.

If the household leader does not accompany the herd during transhumance, they are generally informed of route changes. They can also check information at a distance, using their network of contacts. This may include members of borehole committees, pastoral units, and other numbers that they have kept from previous transhumance trips. In this way, the mobile phone can help strengthen anticipatory strategies at a distance.

### Livestock Theft

When a herder reports a theft, household leaders mobilize their local network—mainly neighbors—to gather and share information about the missing animal. Subsequently, a wider circle may be contacted by telephone, including the police, veterinary services, herders' groups,
and livestock market officials. The denser the household leader's social network, the more effective the response to this type of incident.

The local livestock market officials are contacted because they have developed several mechanisms to combat cattle theft. For example, sales transactions are carried out at physically marked sales points. Market managers have a record of the phone numbers of every buyer and seller to ensure traceability. Therefore, they can track the chain of transactions linked to a suspected theft.

Skin marking is the main method for identifying livestock. Surveys have shown that, in the event of theft, photos or videos of the animal are important to help identify the animal. They can also be used to file a complaint. Above all, they can be shared widely on WhatsApp groups. Some groups are even dedicated to tracking stolen livestock.

The use of smartphones has become part of an effective strategy to respond to cattle theft. This is demonstrated by a leader of a pastoral household that collects milk: “*Of course the phone matters. Last time, there was a guy on the (WhatsApp) group who'd had his cow stolen. He sent photos. They found it in the Saint-Louis area.*” (Interviewed in Dagana, in January 2024).

## Spread of Animal Diseases

In all farming systems, mobile phones are used to call a veterinarian when there is a disease outbreak. However, some of the leaders surveyed consider that veterinary services are too expensive, and prefer to avoid what they consider to be “avoidable” costs. As a result, many resort to traditional practices or do not alert a specialist until the disease is well established. Mobile phone use, therefore, does not necessarily improve responsiveness during disease outbreaks, particularly when the response strategy costs money.

Individuals who are skilled but not state-certified are sometimes called on to treat animals. Although this practice is illegal, it is much cheaper, and reflects the lack of official veterinarians. As one household leader from a milk collecting pastoral household stated “*Call an official vet? What for? You call and call and they don't even come.*” (interviewed in Gaye, in June 2026).

Our survey revealed that to cut costs, some household leaders ask herders with smartphones to photograph empty medication boxes after veterinary treatments. In this way, household leaders can show the pictures when they go to the veterinary pharmacy, and buy the medication without consulting a veterinarian the next time the disease occurs. This use of smartphones reflects the emergence of new response strategies. Nonetheless, this practice can put the herd at risk.

## Rising Feed Prices

In milk collecting systems that rely heavily on supplementary feed for dairy cows, transhumance remains the main adaptive strategy to counter rising feed prices. Households who can no longer afford to buy feed also practice transhumance. During the dry season, when herders leave the base camp and move livestock to distant pasture, they temporarily exit the *Laiterie du Berger*'s informal digital management system. Milk collection and feed purchases from local shops are suspended.

In pastoral systems with small ruminants, animals are sold to offset rising feed prices. A household leader may sell the small ruminants in one of his sons' flocks to cover the higher feed costs of the family's cattle. This strategy shows how families work together, drawing on their livestock assets to cope with the shock of price hikes.

In this context, the telephone facilitates rapid market access. The head of households can contact a buyer or an intermediary. They often have the numbers of several *Tefanke*, who they can contact if they have urgent financial needs. In general, they have to negotiate if they want

to be paid immediately. In fact, most *Tefanke* only pay once the animal has been sold at the market. Household leaders also use their sons' smartphones to advertise an animal for sale, using WhatsApp groups or status updates on social media.

In the agropastoral systems in the Senegal River Valley, there are fewer small ruminants, and cattle herds tend to be smaller than in the pastoral systems of the Ferlo. This reflects a gradual shift toward adaptive strategies in response to changing production conditions. As one household leader explains: “*Mentalities are changing here. You can no longer afford to have a herd of 200–300 animals. It's too expensive.*” (from an agropastoralist household, interviewed in Niary, in January 2025).

The use of smartphones is widespread in the region, particularly for sending audio messages. In their view, pastoral livestock farming is no longer sustainable, given the physical and financial conditions of access to grazing. As a result, they are urging other pastoralists to “modernize” their practices, by reducing herd size and intensifying production. In some situations, individuals are prioritizing access to digital technology, rather than herd accumulation. This illustrates a paradigm shift, which is associated with the use of digital technology.

“*Here, soon, we won't be doing these things of going to the pasture all day. We will have modern livestock farms.*” (A herder from a milk collecting agropastoralist household, interviewed in Diadoum, December 2025).

## Conflicts over resource use

In a context of growing livelihood diversification and increasing competition for resources, numerous conflicts have emerged between farmers or agribusiness actors and herders. The Senegal River Valley is a case in point. In cultivated areas, agropastoral herders move their livestock collectively. They use mobile phones to coordinate in order to prevent conflicts, and minimize the risk of animals straying into cultivated fields.

When an incident occurs, herders in the field can phone an influential person to help resolve the conflict. For example, they can call the household leader or village chief when an animal strays into a farmer's field. In some cases, a mediator with a more formal or external role may be contacted. This was the case for one herder from an agropastoral household with no milk collection: “*When my cart is confiscated in the CSS straw fields, I call the village chief of Bardial 2. He is the mediator between the population and the CSS.*” (Interviewed in Niary, in December 2024).

Conflicts between herders and farmers sometimes escalate into violence, particularly toward the end of the dry season when resources are scarce. Herders record violent incidents with their smartphones. Recordings can be used as evidence to support a formal complaint to the police. Videos showing acts of aggression also circulate on instant messaging groups. Although smartphones are emerging as a new tool for self-defense among herders, their use can exacerbate rather than alleviate tensions between communities.

“*Look, you can see in the video that this farmer beat my goat. I recorded it so I can file a complaint.*” (A woman from a pastoral household that does not collect milk, interviewed in Gandiaye Peul, in February 2024).

In times of crisis, if household leaders are immediately informed by phone, they can initiate response strategies rapidly. Phones are used to mobilize information networks in response to drought, livestock theft, and conflicts. Similarly, digital access to livestock markets is used in response to rising feed prices. This use of smartphones is associated with new coping strategies. By accelerating response strategies, digital technology can improve the effectiveness of coping mechanisms.
## DISCUSSION

### Methodological limitations

Quantitative analyses based on the *Fracture Numérique* project database did not consider the gender variable (men/women) in the productive sphere, although access to digital tools may vary according to gender (Summers et al., 2020; Ferrari et al., 2024). Therefore, results regarding equipment in the productive sphere may conceal significant differences between the different household members.

In the Sahelian context, the basic residential unit is the camp (Manoli et al., 2014), which includes one or several houses, corresponding to one or more households. A house is usually associated with a herd of cattle and one or more flocks of small ruminants. Therefore, the house leader (as opposed to the household leader) is regarded as the farm manager (Corniaux et al., 2006). We assimilated household leaders to farm managers in order to facilitate the use of the database.

The survey questionnaire used in the *Fracture Numérique* project identified whether respondents were household leaders, without indicating if they were also house leaders. This introduced a methodological limitation in our study. Indeed, while all house leaders are also household leaders, not all household leaders hold authority at the house level. However, many of our respondents were probably house leaders, given that survey participation typically involves individuals of higher social standing.

Lastly, the survey was conducted in 2022, just after the implementation of the digital milk payment system introduced by the *Laiterie du Berger*. The use of smartphones and associated modern technology only started spreading in around 2020. With the rapid spread of innovations, as theorized by Rogers (2003), repeating the quantitative survey would have allowed us to track changes in equipment ownership within the productive sphere, or shifts in management responsibilities linked to mobile money use.

### Framework selection

The livestock system framework used here to represent Sahelian pastoral farms (developed by Dedieu et al., 2008), tends to oversimplify family structures, despite its apparent collective dimension (Corniaux et al., 2006). It concentrates decision-making authority in the hands of the household leader, while women and younger family members are primarily considered as task executors.

For example, Ancey et al. (2007) highlighted the diversity of role distribution within the family, especially in collective management systems where brothers or eldest sons may have decision-making autonomy. Our study provides several examples of family members negotiating as part of the decision-making process. This gives women and sons the opportunity to participate in herd management.

Taking this diversity into account would have allowed a more detailed assessment of the role of digital technology in family working groups. Gotti (2023) conceptualized the decision-making sphere as including all human resources, and the productive sphere as including all non-human resources on the farm. This concept highlights the role of each member of the working group regarding herd management decisions.

This approach would have enriched our analysis, by allowing us to include family members who do not live in the household. Baird and Hartter (2017) highlight the fact that children who move to the city may play a role in the resilience of pastoral households. For example, they may contribute to the family economy, by transferring money using mobile money applications. This demonstrates that resilience does not only depend on “productive” or “decision-making” members, a phenomenon that is often overlooked.

### GSM phones vs smartphones for coordination

GSM phones are currently more widespread in pastoral settings. Their popularity is linked to their different features. They are affordable, easy to use, have a long-lasting battery, and provide reliable access to basic telecommunications networks. As shown in earlier research, they facilitate coordination, both within a household and with external stakeholders, such as veterinarians or livestock buyers (Rasmussen et al., 2014). Despite some issues of jealousy, household leaders recognize that it is important for their wives to have a phone, given the division of labor in the household.

In recent years, smartphones have grown in popularity. As shown by Nilsson and Salazar (2017), some young pastoralists take and send photos to inform about pastures, even if their role in decision-making is limited. Intra-family coordination is important. As already mentioned, household leaders can borrow their son's smartphone, which can be useful for livestock management. On a daily basis, smartphones are often simply a source of entertainment for young people, who frequently use apps like Facebook and TikTok.

Yu and Farrell (2016) warned that social media use can generate tensions within families. Indeed, older generations may fear that social media platforms encourage behaviors that are incompatible with their pastoral values. Moreover, Rangé (2020) suggests that young herders' pursuit of financial independence—which may involve the acquisition of a smartphone—can drive rural exodus, thereby eroding family labor.

This raises questions about whether smartphones enhance cohesion and coordination or, conversely, destabilize family structures in vulnerable pastoral systems. Youth disengagement and reliance on hired labor are on the rise (Wane et al., 2010; Diao Camara & Ancey, 2017). Young people are increasingly skilled at using new technologies, which raises the question: does pastoralism still have an appeal? A study investigating the effects of Internet access and “opening up to the world” on young pastoralists would be particularly valuable.

### GSM phones vs smartphones for resilience

In a crisis, phone use can accelerate the implementation of response strategies, and help with prediction. However, they do not fundamentally change practices, regarding transhumance routes, as shown by Asaka and Smucker (2016). The selection of “good pastures” is generally based on herders’ habits and pre-existing social networks (Ancey & Camara, 2004; Scoones, 2023). Many pastoralists are still wary of information shared by phone because of the spread of false or misleading information (Butt, 2015).

Smartphones support certain response strategies in the event of a shock. However, they do not necessarily improve resilience, a point not previously demonstrated in the literature. For example, their relatively high cost (equipment, mobile packages, and electricity), represents a financial burden at a time when climatic and economic hazards are undermining the profitability of pastoral activities.

Expenditure on digital tools remains limited. Prices start at 10,000 FCFA for a basic GSM phone and 3,000 FCFA per month for a mobile plan (Ferrari et al., 2024). However, this expenditure is likely to rise with the growing popularity of digital devices. For example, a Samsung smartphone is sold from 50,000 FCFA, roughly the price of a sheep. According to Santoir (1994), these added expenses may undermine traditional household security strategies, particularly as daily costs of living are rising (health care, fuel, feed).

Purchasing a smartphone can be seen as an economic trade-off for herders: investing in a device to reduce livestock losses due to shocks; or avoiding the expense, but risking herd losses. The outcome of this trade-off is uncertain. Nonetheless, it should be considered in future
studies on the resilience of Sahelian pastoral systems, especially as
more sophisticated technologies, like smartphones, are being adopted.

Smartphones are associated with a decline in the use of traditional communication tools, such as the radio, especially among young people. Yet older technology is still essential for broadcasting live-stock-related information, such as vaccination campaigns or weather alerts. Smartphone use may exacerbate community tensions or introduce new risks, for example bringing changes to animal health management. These issues raise questions about the appropriateness of promoting smartphones as tools for resilience in pastoral areas.

■ CONCLUSION

This study shows that digital technologies, such as mobile phones, are becoming an integral part of Sahelian pastoral and agropastoral farming systems. Decision-makers use mobile phones, and family members in the productive sphere are increasingly adopting them, particularly in integrated systems, for example when milk collection and payment involves the use of digital technology.

On a day-to-day basis, the telephone facilitates the flow of informa-
tion and money between family members, despite their frequent spa-
tial dispersion, and centralized decision-making. In times of crisis,
phones help accelerate the implementation of response strategies,
such as mobilizing information networks or accessing livestock mar-
kets to sell animals.

This study sheds light on the resilience mechanisms of pastoral sys-
tems, suggesting that digital technology is a tool that could improve
the security of pastoral livestock production. Phone use is generally
associated with the household leader, who liaises with external actors.
To date, the use of phones in terms of household integration in pas-
toral value chains has been overlooked. Exploring this aspect would
improve our understanding of family coordination and livestock
management in pastoral and agropastoral systems, which could make
a valuable contribution to enhancing the resilience of pastoralists.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their thanks to the Convergence Institute for
Digital Agriculture (#DigitAg) for supporting and funding the
research activities related to this article. They would also like to thank
the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Europe for supporting
and funding the *Fracture Numérique* project.

Funding

This research was funded by the Convergence Institute #DigitAg.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Authors' contributions

MM designed and planned the study, and collected and analyzed the
data. NH, SF, MLD, BB, and JDC reviewed the manuscript.

Ethics approval

The study followed the ethical principles and good practices proposed by Van Campenhoudt et al. (2022). Respondents were informed about the study's objectives and the guarantee of anonymity, and they explicitly consented to participate.

Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the
authors upon request.

Declaration of Generative AI in the writing process

The authors declare that Generative AI tools were used to assist in the writing of the manuscript. The authors retain full responsibility for the content and accuracy of the text.

REFERENCES

Ancey, V., & Camara, A. D. (2004, 25-30 juillet). L'information sur les ressources naturelles en milieu pastoral : Le secret des « modji jofde », les bons endroits. World Congress of Rural Sociology. Trondheim, Norvège. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/579811/

Ancey, V., Ickowicz, A., Manoli, C., & Magnani, S. (2007, Décembre). Liens entre troupeaux et familles chez les Peuls du Ferlo : Indicateurs socio-économiques des mutations de l'élevage pastoral. 3R : Rencontres autour des recherches sur les ruminants. France. https://journees3r.fr/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2007_04_pastoralisme_09_Ancey-b84.pdf

Ancey, V., Ickowicz, A., Corniaux, C., Manoli, C., & Magnani, S. D. (2009). Stratégies pastorales de sécurisation chez les Peuls du Ferlo (Sénégal). *Journal des Africanistes*. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/563622/

Asaka, J. O., & Smucker, T. A. (2016). Assessing the role of mobile phone communication in drought-related mobility patterns of Samburu pastoralists. *Journal of Arid Environments, 128*, 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.12.001

Baird, T. O., & Hartter, J. (2017). Livelihood diversification, mobile phones and information diversity in Northern Tanzania. *Land Use Policy*, *67*, 460-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.031

Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2011). *Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty*. Public Affairs.

Bourgoin, J., Diop, D., Touré, L., Grislain, Q., Interdonato, R., Dieye, M., Corniaux, C., et al. (2022). Beyond controversy, putting a livestock footprint on the map of the Senegal River delta. *Land Use Policy, 120*, 106232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106232

Butt, B. (2015). Herding by Mobile Phone: Technology, Social Networks and the “Transformation” of Pastoral Herding in East Africa. *Human Ecology, 43*(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9710-4

Cesaro, J.-D., & Sow, A.-P. (2021). Des outils numériques pour gérer un bassin laitière d'agropasteurs en Afrique de l'Ouest. *Crain de sel, 81*, 20-21.

Corniaux, C., Vatin, F., & Faye, B. (2006). Gestion du troupeau et droit sur le lait : prise de décision et production laitière au sein des concessions sahéliennes. *Cahiers Agricultures* 15(6). https://revues.cirad.fr/index.php/cahiers-agricultures/article/view/30611

Debsu, D. N., Little, P. D., Tiki, W., Guagliardo, S. A. J., & Kitron, U. (2016). Mobile phones for mobile people: The role of information and communication technology (ICT) among livestock traders and Borana pastoralists of southern Ethiopia. *Nomadic Peoples, 20*, 35-61. https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2016.200104

Dedieu, B., Faverdin, P., Dourmad, J. Y., & Gibon, A. (2008). Système d'élevage, un concept pour raisonner les transformations de l'élevage. *INRAE Productions Animales, 21*(1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2008.21.1.3374

Djohy, G., Edja, H., & Schareika, N. (2017). Mobile phones and socio-economic transformation among Fulani pastoralists in northern Benin. *Nomadic Peoples, 21*(1), 111-135. https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2017.210106

Diao Camara, A., & Ancey, V. (2017). Les rapports des jeunes à la mobilité : Contraincte sociale ou force d'individuation (Sahel). In *Mobilité pastorale et développement au Sahel. L'Harmattan*. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/587681/

Ferrari, S., Moniot, M., Ba, B., Asseloka, A., Ndiaye, M. L., Paget, N., Bonnet, P., & Cesaro, J.-D. (2024). Pastoralisme et frugalité numérique : Évaluation des usages chez les ménages pastoraux au Sénégal. *Revue d'élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux, 77*, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.37200

Fuchs, C., & Horak, E. (2008). Africa and the digital divide. *Telematics and Informatics, 25*(2), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2006.06.004

Gaye, P., Traore, E., Mamadou, C., Ciss, A., Dieng, A., Cesaro, J.-D., & Sall, C. (2020). Typologie des systèmes bovins du bassin de collecte de la Laiterie Du Berger (LDB). *Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 44*, 7577-7590.

Gotti, V. (2023). La gestion intégrée de la santé animale étudiée via le prisme du travail : Cas des élevages laitiers du Grand Ouest français. [Thèse de doctorat, AgroParisTech]. Thèses.fr. https://theses.fr/2023AGPT0002

Hellendorff, B. (2012). *Changement climatique et conflits agro-pastoraux au Sahel*. Note d'analyse du Grip. http://www.grip.org/fr/node/546
Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. *NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences*, 90-91, 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315

Magrin, G., Ninot, O., & Cesaro, J.-D. (2011). L'élevage pastoral au Sénégal: entre pression spatiale et mutation commerciale. *M@ppemonde*, 103, 1-17. http://mappemonde.mgm.fr/num31/articles/art11304.html

Manoli, C., Ancey, V., Corniaux, C., Ickowicz, A., Dedieu, F., & Moulin, C.-H. (2014). How do pastoral families combine livestock herds with other livelihood security means to survive? The case of the Ferlo area in Senegal. *Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice*, 4(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-4-3

Ninot, O., & Peyroux, É. (2018). Révolution numérique et développement en Afrique: une trajectoire singulière. *Questions internationales*, 90(2), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.3917/quin.090.0044

Nilsson, J., & Salazar, N. B. (2017). Embedded and re-purposed technologies: Human mobility practices in Maasailand. *Mobilities*, 12, 445-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2015.1099831

Nori, M., & Scoones, I. (2019). Pastoralism, uncertainty and resilience: Global lessons from the margins. *Pastoralism*, 9(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-019-0146-8

Parlasca, M. C. (2021). A vital technology: Review of the literature on mobile phone use among pastoralists. *Journal of International Development*, 33(4), 780-799. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3540

Porter, G., Hampshire, K., Abane, A., Munthali, A., Robson, E., de Lannoy, A., Tanle, A., & Owusu, S. (2020). Mobile phones, gender, and female empowerment in sub-Saharan Africa: Studies with African youth. *Information Technology for Development*, 26(1), 180-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1622500

Rasmussen, L. V., Mertz, O., Rasmussen, K., Nieto, H., Ali, A., & Maiga, I. (2014). Weather, climate, and resource information should meet the needs of Sahelian pastoralists. *Weather, Climate, and Society*, 6(4), 482-494. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00010.1

Rangé, C. (2020). *Jeunes pasteurs en ville – Réseaux et trajectoires migratoires des jeunes d'origine pastorale. Tchad, Burkina Faso*. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca7213fr

Rogers, E. M. (2003). *Diffusion of innovations* (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rutten, M., & Mwangi, M. (2012). Mobile cash for nomadic livestock keepers: The impact of the mobile phone innovation (M-Pesa) on Maasai pastoralists in Kenya. In *Pastoralism and Development in Africa* (pp. 79-101). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004245440_006

Salat, H., Schläpfer, M., Smoreda, Z., & Rubrichi, S. (2021). Analysing the impact of electrification on rural attractiveness in Senegal with mobile phone data. *Royal Society Open Science*, 8(10), 201898. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201898

Santoir, C. (1994). Décadence et résistance du pastoralisme. Les Peuls de la vallée du fleuve Sénégal. *Cahiers d'études africaines*, 34(133-135), 231-263. https://doi.org/10.3406/cea.1994.2049

Scoones, I. (2023). *Livestock, climate and the politics of resources: A primer. Transnational Institute*. https://www.tni.org/en/publication/livestock-climate-and-the-politics-of-resources

Sow, A.-P., Ba, B., Ferrari, S., & Cesaro, J.-D. (2024). Influence du numérique sur la coordination entre acteurs dans les filières pastorales au Sénégal. *Économie rurale*, 388, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.4000/11s0z

Steinke, J., Ortiz Crespo, B., Bunn, C., van Etten, J., Jimenez, D., Le, T. T., Manners, R., et al. (2024). Error 404, farmer not found: Why agricultural information services must consider how smallholders use their phones. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/155122.

Summers, K. H., Baird, T. D., Woodhouse, E., Christie, M. E., McCabe, J. T., Terta, F., & Peter, N. (2020). Mobile phones and women's empowerment in Maasai communities: How men shape women's social relations and access to phones. *Journal of Rural Studies*, 77, 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.013

Van Campenhoudt, L., Marquet, J., & Quivy, R. (2022). Manuel de recherche en sciences sociales (6ᵉ éd.). Armand Colin.

Van Dijk, J. (2019). *The digital divide*. John Wiley & Sons.

Wane, A., Ancey, V., & Touré, I. (2010). Pastoralisme et recours aux marchés : Cas du Sahel sénégalais (Ferlo). *Cahiers Agricultures*, 19(1), 14-20.

Wane, A., Cesaro, J.-D., Duteurtre, G., Touré, I., Ndiaye, A., Alary, V., Juanès, X., et al. (2020). *The economics of pastoralism in Argentina, Chad and Mongolia. Market participation and multiple livelihood strategies in a shock-prone environment*. Animal Production and Health Paper No. 182. FAO & CIRAD. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1271en

Wane, A., Touré, I., Mballo Aliou, D., Ndiaye, A., Souli, Z., Ramde, P., Ba Diao, M., & Yaro Botoni, E. (2024). Analyse des évolutions des revenus et des réactions des ménages agro-pastoraux sahéliens face aux chocs dans la zone d'intervention du PRAPS (14 p.). CIRAD-ILRI.

Yu, L., & Farrell, K. N. (2016). The Chinese perspective on pastoral resource economics: A vision of the future in a context of socio-ecological vulnerability. *Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics)*, 35, 523-531. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.35.2.2539
Résumé

Moniot M., Hostiou N., Ferrari S., Ndiaye M.L., Ba B.,
Cesaro J.-D. Coordination familiale et adaptation face aux crises :
le nouveau rôle du numérique dans la résilience des systèmes
d'élevage pastoraux au Sénégal

Contexte : Dans un contexte de multiplicité des crises qui fragilisent les systèmes d'élevage pastoraux sahéliens, les outils numériques sont de plus en plus considérés comme des moyens potentiels pour renforcer leur résilience. Leur rôle dans la gestion familiale des troupeaux en période de crise reste encore peu étudié. Objectif : Cette étude examine comment les outils numériques influencent la coordination familiale et les réponses des ménages face aux crises. Méthodes : L'étude combine des analyses quantitatives d'une base de données sur les équipements numériques de 1 260 chefs de ménage et autres membres de la famille, avec environ 50 entretiens qualitatifs explorant leur utilisation du téléphone portable au quotidien et en période de crise au Sénégal. Résultats : Les résultats révèlent un taux élevé de possession de téléphones chez les chefs de ménage, qui prennent généralement les décisions liées au troupeau. Une adoption croissante parmi les femmes et les fils qui exécutent la production est observée, en particulier dans les systèmes où l'accès au marché est conditionné par l'accès aux technologies numériques. Au quotidien, les téléphones facilitent la coordination entre les membres de la famille grâce au transfert d'informations et d'argent au sein d'un collectif de travail spatialement dispersé, où la prise de décision reste centralisée, même si des négociations intra-familiales peuvent avoir lieu. En période de crise, cette coordination soutient la mise en œuvre rapide de stratégies de réponse, notamment par la mobilisation des réseaux d'information ou l'accès aux marchés pour le déstockage des troupeaux. Conclusions : L'étude met en évidence le caractère collectif de l'élevage pastoral, dont la dynamique interne doit être prise en compte dans l'analyse de la résilience et des stratégies d'adaptation.

Mots-clés : pastoralisme, système d'information, technologies de l'information et de la communication, conduite d'élevage, Sénégal

Resumen

Moniot M., Hostiou N., Ferrari S., Ndiaye M. L., Ba B.,
Cesaro J.-D. Coordinación familiar y adaptación ante las crisis:
el nuevo papel de la tecnología digital en la resiliencia de los
sistemas ganaderos pastorales en el Senegal

Contexto: En un contexto con múltiples crisis que debilitan los sistemas de ganadería pastoral sahelianos, cada vez más se consideran las herramientas digitales como medios potenciales para reforzar la resiliencia. Su papel en la gestión familiar de los rebaños en período de crisis está todavía poco estudiado.

**Objetivo:** Este estudio examina cómo las herramientas digitales influyen en la coordinación familiar y las respuestas de los hogares ante las crisis.

**Métodos:** El estudio combina análisis cuantitativos de una base de datos sobre los equipamientos digitales de 1 260 cabezas de familia y otros miembros del hogar, con aproximadamente 50 entrevistas cualitativas que exploran su utilización cotidiana del teléfono móvil y en período de crisis en el Senegal.

**Resultados:** Los resultados mostraron una elevada tasa de posesión de teléfonos en los cabezas de familia, que son quienes toman generalmente las decisiones relacionadas con el rebaño. Se observó también una adopción creciente entre las esposas y los hijos que se encargan de la producción, en particular en los sistemas donde el acceso al mercado está condicionado por el uso de tecnología digital. Cotidianamente, los teléfonos facilitan la coordinación entre los miembros de la familia gracias a la transferencia de información y de dinero en el seno de un colectivo de trabajadores espacialmente disperso donde la toma de decisiones continúa centralizada, aunque pueden tener lugar negociaciones intrafamiliares. En período de crisis, esta coordinación favorece la aplicación rápida de estrategias de respuesta, especialmente con la movilización de las redes de información o el acceso a los mercados para reducir la cabaña ganadera.

**Conclusiones:** El estudio pone en evidencia el carácter colectivo de la ganadería pastoral, donde debe tenerse en cuenta la dinámica interna para el análisis de la resiliencia y de las estrategias de adaptación.

Palabras clave: pastoralismo, sistema de información, tecnologías para la información y la comunicación, manejo del ganado, Senegal
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>