Farming System and Livelihood Analysis

Chapter 1: System perspectives and the concept of farming systems

Chapter objectives
After the completion of this chapter the students will be able to:
 define system and system approaches
 explain the basic concepts of system approaches
 list out the major system premises
 identify system classifications

1.2. Evolution of a system thinking and approach

Prior to the mid-1960, active research collaboration between technical agricultural

scientists was limited. By the mid-1960s, the Green Revolution was beginning to have a
major impact on crop production in parts of Asia and Latin America. However such
conditions did not exist in most of Sub-Saharan Africa and in certain parts of Latin
America and Asia, and as a result, these areas were bypassed.

The reductionist approach failed in terms of developing technologies for resource-poor

farmers in less favorable heterogeneous production environments or agricultural areas.
This led to the incorporation of a systems perspective in the identification, development,
and evaluation of relevant improved technologies. Hence in the mid to late 1970s, the
farming systems research (FSR) approach evolved, a basic principle of which was the
need to create new types of partnerships between farmers and technical and social
scientists. Work done with farmers in various countries in the 1960's and early 1970's
revealed that these limited-resource farmers [Norman, 1993]:

 Are rational (i.e., sensible) in the methods they use. For example, in Africa, there
was little support for station-based research on mixed cropping until the early
1970's
 Are natural experimenters [Biggs and Clay 1981]. Obviously, the methods
farmers naturally use will be those that appeal to them and are informal in nature
 Understand the environment in which they operate rather complex farming
systems, consisting of crops, livestock, and off-farm enterprises [Norman et al,
1981].

Due to the limitation of reductionist approach in addressing complex problems of poor

people in sub Saharan Africa, a new way of solving problem; system thinking was
evolved. Therefore, the fundamental principle was that farmers could help in identifying the
appropriate path to agricultural development. It is now recognized that limited resource farmers
can be involved productively in all stages of the FSR approach. Farmers' participation at all stages
relates in one way or the other to the selection, design, testing, and adoption of appropriate
technologies.
System approach Vs reductionist / science approch
It is important to see the distinction between the reductionists and holistic thinkers in
terms of their approach to problem-solving.

1
System thinking analysis reductionist analysis
 emphasis the interconnections  breaking a problem into a set of
between parts of an organization simpler sub problems and solving
and external environment each of these individually
 system thinking emphasis circular  cause effect relationships are focused
feedback rather than linear cause
effect (see fig 2)

Too often, today‟s problems are solved by utilizing easy and comfortable approaches to obtain
Exercise 2. Discuss on the difference between System approach and reductionist
simple solutions. In reality
approach as manysolving?
to problem discover simplicity and common approaches are far from
effective in dealing with complex, dynamic and diverse problems. Despite the initial apparent ease
and comfort, focus tends to be on the elements of the problem, rather than the “bigger picture”;
and typically there is no consideration of interactions, and the belief that there is one best solution.
As more and more program failures escalate there is an increasing need to improve and create
better results through systems thinking. Systems‟ thinking is a discipline of seeing the “whole”,
recognizing patterns and interrelationships, and learning how to structure more effective, efficient
and creative system solution(s).

1.2. Definition and basic concepts of a system approaches

1.2.1. Definition

What is a system?

The term "systems" is derived from the Greek word "synistanai," which means "to bring
together or combine." The term has been used for centuries (Whitehead 1925, von
Bertalanffy 1968). It had meant "total", "crowd" or "union" in even more ancient times, as
it derives from uniting, putting together. System (from Latin systēma,) is a set of
interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole.

The concept of an 'integrated whole' can also be stated in terms of a system embodying a
set of relationships which are differentiated from relationships of the set to other elements,
and from relationships between an element of the set and elements not a part of the
relational regime.

2
Ackoff`s definition
A system is asset of two or more elements that satisfies the following conditions
 the behavior of each element has an effect on the behavior of the hole
 the behavior of the elements and their effect on the whole are interdependent
 however subgroups of elements are formed, each has an effect on the behavior of
the whole and none has an independent effect on it

Weinber`s definition
A system is a way of looking at the world
 system don‘t really exist
 just a convenient way of describing things

Definition: A system is a set of parts that behave in a way that an observer has
chosen to view as coordinated to accomplish one or more goals. The concern here
is an observer‘s choice of parts to study. It is best not to think that systems are real.

The heart of systems thinking is the principal of interconnectedness. Systems thinking

enable individuals or an organization to study and understand interaction between
elements/ components of the system such as individuals, climate, variety, socioeconomic
situations and policy issues. These elements, in turn, produce behaviors that feed back
into the overall output and processes of the organization. Systems ideas also provide a
way of thinking about numerous problems; hence systems‘ thinking is not generally a
discipline in itself. It is, however, utilized by a number of scientists of various disciplines.

What is system thinking?

 system thinking is a way of understanding reality that emphasizes the relationships

among system parts, rather than the parts themselves
 system thinking is ability to see the world as a complex system, that everything is
connected to everything else
 it is a new way of thinking based on ``whole`` and ``relationships``

 It allows for an information professional's work to be effective and innovative, not

isolated. System thinking facilitates a newfound awareness of the environment in
which we function.

 Systems thinking can help situate the information professional's efforts as

proactive not reactive because it orients thought and behavior to seeing the
continuum of the world in which we work.
 A systems approach can help an individual seek the root causes of persistent
problems, rather than focusing on surface issues such as the fault of a colleague or
staff person.

3
  It is an important tenet of systems thinking to continually learn from your
experience: both negative and positive.

Exercise 3. Do you think that system approach works in conditions of poor nation? why
and why not? If it works what is the importance of system approach?

Importance of system approach

 to be effective and innovative
 to be proactive not reactive
 to understand the root causes of problems
 to continually learn from your experience
 Gives you a more accurate picture of reality
 Think of problems and solutions with holistic view

The system has various inputs, which go through certain processes to produce certain
outputs, which together, accomplish the overall desired goal for the system. So a system is
usually made up of many smaller systems, or subsystems. For example, an organization is
made up of many administrative and management functions, products, services, groups
and individuals. If one part of the system is changed, the nature of the overall system is
often changed, as well -- by definition then, the system is systemic, meaning relating to, or
affecting, the entire system.

A high-functioning system continually exchanges feedback among its various parts to

ensure that they remain closely aligned and focused on achieving the goal of the system. If
any of the parts or activities in the system seems weakened or misaligned, the system
makes necessary adjustments to more effectively achieve its goals.

Von Bertalanffy noted that all systems studied by physicists are closed: they do not
interact with the outside world. However, as a biologist he knew that such an assumption
is simply impossible for most practical phenomena. The peculiarity of open systems is that
they interact with other systems outside of themselves. This interaction has two
components: input, that what enters the system from the outside, and output, that what
leaves the system for the environment. In order to speak about the inside and the outside of
a system, we need to be able to distinguish between the system itself and its environment.
For example, the food, drink and oxygen we take in, leave our body as urine, excrements
and carbon dioxide. The transformation of input into output by the system is usually called
throughput. This has given us all the basic components of a system as it is understood in
systems theory (see Fig. 1 )

Separate a living organism from its surroundings and it will die shortly because of lack of
oxygen, water and food. Organisms are open systems: they cannot survive without
continuously exchanging matter and energy with their environment. The peculiarity of
open systems is that they interact with other systems outside of themselves. This
interaction has two components: input, that what enters the system from the outside, and

4
 output, that what leaves the system for the environment. In order to speak about the inside
and the outside of a system, we need to be able to distinguish between the system itself
and its environment. System and environment are in general separated by a boundary. For
example, for living systems the skin plays the role of the boundary. The output of a system
is in general a direct or indirect result from the input. What comes out, needs to have
gotten in first. However, the output is in general quite different from the input: the system
is not just a passive tube, but an active processor. For example, the food, drink and oxygen
we take in, leave our body as urine, excrements and carbon dioxide. The transformation of
input into output by the system is usually called throughput. This has given us all the basic
components of a system as it is understood in systems theory (see Fig. )

Fig. 1. a system in interaction with its environment

Exercise 4: what did you learn from Fig 1? Does it represent facts of both open and closed systems? How?
Exercise 5: List down five things that you learned from system concepts?

Systems classification

(a) Natural systems - those that exist in Nature - consist of all the materials (both physical
and biological) and interrelated processes occurring to these materials which constitute the
world and, inter alia, provide the physical basis for life. They exist independent of
mankind. Our role in relation to natural systems is to try to understand them and, as need
be, make use of them.

(b) Social systems are more difficult to define. Essentially they consist of the entities
forming animate populations, the institutions or social mechanisms created by such
entities, and the interrelationships among/between individuals, groups, communities,
expressed directly or through the medium of institutions. Broadly to include institutions
and relationships of an economic, social, religious or political nature.

(c) Artificial systems do not exist in Nature. They are of human creation to serve human
purposes.

5
E.g. set of mathematical equations, computer programs, Interesting property: system and its
description is the same thing

1.2.2. Major System Premises

The systems thinking approach incorporates several tenets:

 Interdependence
• independent elements can never constitute a system
• Interlinking means that the elements of a system are not isolated from each
other, but related to each other
 Holism
• It shows that the world can be viewed as consisting of structured wholes, or
systems
• the whole is greater than sum of its parts
 Transformation inputs to outputs
• This shows that systems transform themselves continuously.
• This is because of a degree of openness of a system that allows flow of
energy/information for self-regulation.
 Goal seeking :systemic interaction must result in some goal or final state
 Control mechanism
• how the behavior of the system is regulated to allow it to endure
• feedback is necessary for the system to operate predictably
 Communication
• a system‘s ability to communicate information in order to control what
happens within and without
 Hierarchy
• One way of reducing the complexity of the real world is to construct nested
or hierarchical systems
• Emergent property of system uniquely pertains to particular hierarchical
levels.
 Differentiation
• specialized units perform specialized functions
• Variation of elements
• Every system consists of a number of distinguishable and functionally
different elements
 Boundary
• Border of the system by definition of an observer
• It defines the limits in which system components and their interactions are
studied.
• separates a system from its environment

6
 The following are the basic characteristics of any system:

 Systems consist of interrelated components (a relationship exists between

parts and the whole).
 Systems are arranged in a hierarchy (subsystems and suprasystems).
 Synergies among system components create a whole that is more than the sum
of its parts.
 System boundaries are artificial: systems are components of another larger
system. Systems can be open (influenced by their environment) or closed (not
influenced by their environment).
 Systems have inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback loops.
 The process of homeostasis acts to bring a system back to equilibrium when it
is disturbed by external forces.
 Unless energy is continually focused on this activity, the process of entropy
causes energy within a system to dissipate and become random.

1.3. The concept of Farming systems

Topic objectives

At the completion of this chapter the students will be able to

 define farming system

 explain the basic concepts of farming systems
 Discuss why is it useful to think of farms as systems
 identify the structural elements of the farm-household system

1.3.1 The concept of farming system

Definition

a) Farming system is a complex inter-related matrix of soils, plants, animals,

implements, labour and capital, inter-dependent farming enterprises.

7
 b) It implies a resource management strategy involving integrated management of
crops, trees, and animals, along with labor and capital to optimize the use of land
resources
c) A farming system is a farming pattern or combination of farming activities
practiced on a farm. It is a production system that provides an opportunity for
farmers to exploit the full productive potential of their farm through the optimal
use of ecological and economic resources over a longer time frame
d) The farm consists of a production system and a management system. The different
enterprises in the production system can be further divided into subsystem, typical
organised in a hierarchy system. The production system can be modeled either as a
farm system or as part of the farm. The production is controlled by a management
system, meaning that the farm also can be seen as a human activity system, in line
with the soft system approach (Bawden, 1991).

• The farm is viewed in a holistic manner (multi-disciplinary approach)

• Focuses on the interdependencies between the components under the
control of members of the farm household

Mixed farming system

Crops Livestock

Off farm

Farms are systems because several activities are closely related to each other by the
common use of the farm labour, land and capital, by risk distribution and by the joint use
of the farmer’s management capacity. The analysis of farms is quite important to the
subject of development. Relevance of the farming systems approach: Choosing policies
for agricultural development requires the use of information about the existing farming
situation.

1.3. 2. Rationale and philosophy of Farming systems

8
Why it is useful to think of farms as systems?

The farming systems approach to development (FSD) has two inter-related thrusts. One is
to develop an understanding of the farm-household, the environment in which it operates,
and the constraints it faces, together with identifying and testing potential solutions to
those constraints, the second thrust involves the dissemination of the most promising
solutions to other farm households facing similar problems.

The purpose of understanding a particular farming system is to allow the advisor to better
tailor any advice to a particular situation. This includes developing the advisor-farmer
relationship to understand the farmer‘s specific decision-making process and decision
outcomes. Decision-making is choosing between alternative courses of action (Paine
1997). Specifically,

a. It gives us better understanding of the reality of farming.

b. Research into techniques for improving farm production activity is likely to be more
relevant and effective, if carried out in terms of a whole farm, farm systems approach.
c. Change in agriculture can be more effectively promoted if an integrated whole farm
approach to extension and development is taken.

1.3.3 Characteristics of a Farm System

Each individual farm has its own specific characteristics, which arise from variations in
resource endowments and family circumstances. The household, its resources, and the
resource flows and interactions at this individual farm level are together referred to as a
farm system.

The household plays two roles: first, it provides purpose and management to its associated
farm system and, second, it is the major beneficiary of its associated farm system. Its both
the owner & manager of the farm. His or her role is to attempt to optimize the farm
component of the system in terms of whatever mix of socio-cultural, religious, traditional
and material goals is relevant to the household. He or she might also evaluate and convey
the material consequences of alternative choices and management strategies within the
farm component.
a) Goal orientation: A farm is taken to be an organized decision-making unit in
which crop and/or livestock production is carried out with the purpose of satisfying
the farmers goals
b) Boundaries: the boundaries of the farm-household system set it apart from other
systems and from the world at large. These boundaries are provided partly by the
structural characteristics of the particular type of farm and partly by the purpose of
analysis. In analyzing any farm-household system or any other agricultural system,
an obvious first step is to define the scope of such a system, i.e., its boundary as
relevant to the purpose of analysis (FAO 1990). Every system has a ‗boundary‘,
which separates it from its ‗environment‘. E.g. farm system and its‘ economic
environment. When characterizing a farm system you must take into account the
linkages and influences across and between the various systems.
a) Activities and their relationships: Several kinds of activities in the farm system:
activity which produce crops, activities which turn grazing or crops into livestock
products, processing activities, procurement, investment, and maintenance and
marketing activities

9
 b) External (exogenous) relations: The environment influences the farm system
through the following external relations:
• Natural condition (soil, water, light)
• State of knowledge and information about agricultural techniques
• Institutional environments (credit, land tenure, extension services, marketing
facilities)
• Price of inputs and products
• The social, cultural, and political setting will influence the level of household
demand for food, fuel and other needs, and will affect the way in which the farm is
organized.
• Time dimension: Unlike mechanical systems which stamp out buttons or TV sets,
agricultural systems rest on biological processes which occur over considerable
periods of time. Agricultural systems are thus inherently stochastic: being
dependent on the passage of time, ex ante, their outcomes are uncertain. Moreover,
because agriculture is also a set of economic activities, the old adage applies: time
is money. Other things being equal, a system which yields its product or ties up
resources over a short time is better than one which yields its output or occupies
resources over a long time.

E Diversification within a Farm system

It is often rational for farm systems to diversify.

• Can make best use of given natural r resources
• Different crops and livestock activities differ in the time and nature of their
requirements for labour, equipment, etc.
• Diversified farming reduces risks.

F Change in a Farm system

Farm and farm household systems are never unchanging.

- influenced by changes in their environment
- influenced by changes in their subsystems
-Farm and farm household systems are dynamic.

Extension agents will be much more effective if they are able to identify and understand
the dynamics of change in the systems they are trying to influence.

1.3.4. Major categories of farming system

The classification of the farming systems, as specified herein, has been based on a number
of key factors, including: (i) the available natural resource base; (ii) the dominant pattern
of farm activities and household livelihoods, including relationship to markets; and (iii)
the intensity of production activities. These criteria were applied to each of the six main
regions of the developing world. Based on these criteria, eight broad categories of farming
system have been distinguished:

 Irrigated farming systems, embracing a broad range of food and cash crop
production;

10
  Wetland rice based farming systems, dependent upon seasonal rains supplemented
by irrigation;
 Rainfed farming systems in humid areas, characterized by specific dominant crops
or mixed crop-livestock systems;
 Rainfed farming systems in steep and highland areas, which are often mixed crop-
livestock systems;
 Rainfed farming systems in dry or cold low potential areas, with mixed crop-
livestock and pastoral systems merging into systems with very low current
productivity or potential because of extreme aridity or cold;
 Dualistic (mixed large commercial and small holders) farming systems, across a
variety of ecologies and with diverse production patterns;
 Coastal artisanal fishing systems, which often incorporate mixed farming elements;
and
 Urban based farming systems, typically focused on horticultural and livestock
production.

1.3.5 Gender mainstreaming and HIV/AIDS in farming systems

HIV/AIDS and farming systems

Since the mid-1980s, rural communities in East and Central Africa have been increasingly
affected by HIV/AIDS. At the national level, where the economies of the countries
concerned are substantially or largely dependent on labour intensive agriculture for
subsistence and cash crop production, this effect is becoming progressively more
pronounced.

African subsistence agriculture is labour intensive and, in most cases, is heavily dependent
upon women's work. Farms are small and use limited quantities of inputs such as mineral
fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and mechanisation. While population growth was long
seen as the problem in Africa, in some rural communities HIV/AIDS is now resulting in
labour shortages for both farm and domestic work. Seasonal labour constraints are not
new. There are many reasons why this is so: farm incomes are low and adults have often
spent part of the year away from the farm in search of cash incomes; in some regions
rainfall distribution means that labour has to be mobilised intensively in brief periods; and
daily life requires substantial amounts of labour for non-farm work associated with
maintaining the household. Water and fuel collection may occupy as much as eight hours a
day - tasks usually done by women and young girls.

Who is vulnerable?

Within a systems' hierarchy, AIDS is first seen at the farm household level, because it is
affecting human beings . The effects of AIDS are spreading to the subordinate level, the
crop/livestock system as well as on superior levels up to the national system. At the
farming systems level, Variables include location and climate of the system, types of crop
and or livestock produced, presence of sufficient labour, etc. A system with plentiful and
well distributed rainfall, fertile soil and a wide range of crops will be less sensitive to
labour loss than one having limited rainfall, poor soils and a small range of crops.

11
Despite the appearance of excess population, subsistence agriculture often operates on the
margin-labour may be in short supply at certain times and for specific tasks. This margin
is rapidly disturbed when communities are affected by HIV/AIDS. The precise effect of
the epidemic depends upon the particular combination of climate, soils, crops, and
involvement in labour migration. Thus it is possible to describe different farming systems
and their associated communities as more or less sensitive to the loss of labour.

The loss of labour, the loss of household members to care for the very young and the
elderly, increased numbers of dependent children, restriction of the range of crops grown,
continue the downward spiral in living standards. In the households' efforts to cope,
children may eat less well, receive less care, be withdrawn from school particularly in the
case of young women who can fetch water and firewood, care for the younger children or
the sick as well as work on the farm.

In broad terms, for individual farming systems, the following basic types of activities are
required:

- improving returns to labour;

- extending the planting period (minimum tillage, early maturing varieties, crops and
methods for later planting);
- crop diversification and reducing external input requirements;
- improved livestock management techniques;
- small credit schemes.

Gender and farming systems

Despite the fundamental role of rural women in agricultural and livestock production, their
contributions to achieving food security and sustainable development have been
systematically ignored and undervalued. In recent years, however, there has been a
growing interest in the incorporation of alternative models that take account of a gender
dimension in development policies and guidelines.

When applied to agriculture, systems analysis focuses on boosting productivity and

production by studying the socio-economic and agro-ecological context, as well as
reviewing farming systems. Gender analysis, on the other hand, examines the roles,
activities, responsibilities, opportunities and constraints of each member of the community
under review, and attempts to achieve greater equality between women and men within
their spheres of interaction.

The importance of gender as an analytical category

Farming systems to a large extent depend on complex inter-relationships between men's

and women's labour. At the center of these inter-relationships, however, lies an
asymmetry of male and female interests, duties, obligations and contributions within the
farm-household. More specifically, the extent to which activities, rights and decision-
making are undertaken jointly or separately is relevant to almost all aspects of family life,
including property ownership and management, production and management of produce,
domestic tasks, etc. Farming systems cannot be understood without taking into account the
evolving and complex family roles and relationships which underpin them and the

12
competing demands made upon women's time and energy resulting from their productive
and reproductive roles

Working with accurate labour/production profiles at the farm- household level and
understanding intra-household dynamics is critical to identifying and addressing male and
female roles and constraints as well as to assessing intra-household dynamics. This, in
turn, is critical for effective policy-making and programme planning.

Gender analysis conducted within a specific social group is an instrument forstudying

relations between women and men by examining the activities, responsibilities,
opportunities and constraints regarding resources, decisions and the execution of personal
activities in the group under review.

Gender analysis when applied to agriculture examines the roles played by individuals
(women and men) in relation to the spheres of production (agricultural and non-
agricultural), the sphere of reproduction, and the social or community life of a specific
group.

It first looks at the division of labour by sex. Secondly, it analyses the access to and
control over resources, including tangible resources (means of production, such as land
and water) and intangible resources (such as knowledge).

Chapter 2: Farming systems research and development

(FSR/D)

Chapter objectives:
After completing this chapter; the trainees should be able to
 Discuss the concepts of FSD
 State the characteristics of FSD
 Distinguish the difference between FSD & station based research
 List the steps involved in FSD and
 Identify the key challenges of FSD

2.1. Concepts of farming system research (FSR)

The farming systems research (FSR) approach is aimed at designing agricultural

improvements for specific ecological zones and types of farmers. Teams of
technical and social scientists analyze major farming systems, identify production
constraints, design ways to alleviate them, test the innovations under farmers'
conditions and recommend the extension of successful innovations (Harwood 1979).

To meet the multiple objectives of poverty reduction, food security, competitiveness and
sustainability, several researchers have recommended the farming systems approach to

13
research and development. A farming system is the result of complex interactions among a
number of inter-dependent components, where an individual farmer allocates certain quantities
and qualities of four factors of production, namely land, labour, capital and management to
which he has access (Mahapatra, 1994).

2.2. Characteristics of FSR

FSR can be summarized as being farmer-based, problem solving, comprehensive,

interdisciplinary, complementary, interactive, dynamic, and responsible to society. The
approach is:

Farmer based because teams pay attention to farmers‘ conditions & integrate farmers in
the research & development process.

Problem solving in that FSR teams seek researchable problems and opportunities to guide
research & to identify ways for making local services and national policies more attuned
to the farmers needs.

Comprehensive because FSR team considers the whole farming activity (consumption as
well as production) to learn how to improve the farmers output and welfare, to identify the
flexibility for change in the environment & to evaluate the results in terms of both farmers
& society‘s interests.

Interdisciplinary in that researchers & extension staff with different disciplinary back
grounds work with farmers in identifying problems & opportunities searching for solutions
implementing the results.

Complementary: because it offers a means for using the outputs of other research and
development organizations and for giving direction to others‘ work.
Interactive in that FSR teams use the results from research to improve their understanding
of the system & to design subsequent research and implementation approaches.

Dynamic in that often team introduce relatively modest changes in the farmers‘ condition
first & the favorable results encourage more significant changes latter.

Responsible to the society in that FSR team keep the long-run interests of the general
public - both present & future in mind as well as those of the farming groups immediately
affected.

Purposes of FSR

The main purpose of FSR approach is to generate more appropriate technologies for
farmers and where possible to improve policies & support services for farm production, to
raise farm families welfare and to enhance society‘s goals. Specifically FSR aims at
increasing the productivity of farming systems by generating technologies for particular
groups of farmers & by developing insight into which technologies fit where and why.

14
2.3. FSR activities
The basic FSR activities are target and research area selection, problem identification and
development of research base, planning on-farm research, on-farm research analysis and
extension of results.
a) Target and Research area selection
Using national & regional objectives, FSR team selects one or more target areas, then the
team divides the target area into sub areas with relatively uniform characteristics & selects
a research area representative of the selected areas. The team continues by choosing the
target group farmers who have common environments & common production patterns &
farming practices.
b) Problem identification & development of research base
The team identifies and ranks problems & opportunities according to such criteria as short-
run & long-run significance to farmers & society, availability of suitable technologies &
ease of implementation. Besides, the team commonly identifies problems & opportunities
through quick reconnaissance surveys of the area.
In the process of identifying problems & opportunities the team gains considerable
knowledge about the area. This knowledge & the collected data from the initial research
base for developing improved technologies.
c) Planning On-farm Research
For most part the team takes resource availability, support services, and government
policy about as they are.
On farm research emphasizes alternative cropping & livestock patterns, management
practices, and other activities of the farm household. The team incorporates the farmers‘
condition into the design procedure by working closely with them.
d) On-farm research and analysis
Three types of biological production experiments are common:
i) Research managed trials to experiment under farmers conditions where control of
the experiment is important.
ii) Farmer - managed tests: to test how farmers respond to suggested improvements
iii) Superimposed trial to apply relatively simple researcher managed experiments
across a range of farmer - managed condition.
The researchers initiate experiments, studies and other activities, and gather data. Then,
they analyze the results in terms of statistical meaning of biological performance, actual
resource requirements, economic feasibility, and socio-cultural acceptability. Researchers
study the acceptability of the experiments to farmers through observations of farmer‘s
action talking with farmers, and other ways. Finally, the researchers examine the
opportunities for improving support services and government policies.

e) Extension of results
Input from extension should occur at all levels to FSR from initially identifying areas to
broad implementation results. Extending the results involves multi-locational testing an
activity that spreads the improved technologies more broadly than the previous on farm
trials and tests. In this process they learn the details of the technologies and how to apply
them.

2.4 Steps for Implementing FSR/D

a) The descriptive, diagnostic stage

15
An interdisciplinary team of expert (agronomists, sociologist, economist, ethnologists)
identifies as quickly as possible the voiced needs of the farming families, the limits and
constraints to which the families are subject and the level of flexibility which the existing
farming system permit.
b) The design or planning stage
A group of experts identifies a set of strategies for solving the identified problems. The
proposed solutions can come from knowledge obtained at experiment stations; they can
also be developed from the results of field trials or from the farmer‘s own knowledge and
experience.
c) The testing stage
The most promising strategies are chosen by discussing with the farming families and then
tested under conditions comparable to those existing on the local farms. On farm research
in its different forms may also be part of this stage:
1. The research worker carries out trials on the farmer‘s land.
2. The research worker supervises trials on the farmer‘s land.
3. The farmer independently tests a proposed innovation.

d) The recommendation and dissemination stage

This stage also contains a research element. The innovations under trial observed and
analyzed by the farmer and the researcher.

2.5. Challenges of FSR/D

A number of challenges face FSD if it is to continue playing a significant role in

facilitating the process of agricultural development. Some of these are:

 Better Incorporation of Farmers, Incorporating farmers into the research process

was one of the most important principles underlying the evolution of the farming
systems approach. The basic justification for this was that farmers could improve
the efficiency of the research process. Unfortunately, farming systems workers
often have not sufficiently recognized this positive and interactive contribution of
farmers.
 Continued Evolution of FSD. FSD is relatively new- the methodology is still
evolving.
 Greater Incorporation of the Policy/Support System Perspective. As has been
stressed already' the farming systems approaches implemented to date have
focused mainly on the technology dimension (i.e., FSR). However, a basic
principle of the FSD approach is that the farming systems perspective is critically
important in formulating and adapting policy/support systems in ways that will
facilitate and accelerate the agricultural development process.
 Incorporating Equity Issues -- Intra and lnter-Generational. FSD tries to help the
farmer with the problems he or she has identified. Of course, the reason for this is
the necessity to introduce an intervention in which they are interested; it‘s likely
that these 'felt, problems of farmers are likely to have a short-run focus. But; future
needs should be focused as well.
 Assessing Agricultural Research Impact. Related to the research resource issue is
the importance of devoting some effort to assessing the impact of the research
process - something that often has been done inadequately. More attention needs to
be paid to adoption/diffusion studies.

16
  Improving Credibility of FSD. Establishing credibility for FSD-related activities is
a major challenge and is necessary to ensure that some of the limited research
resources always will be allocated to them.

2.6. Development of farming systems and reduction of hunger and poverty

In broad terms, five main household strategies were defined that could contribute to
improved farm household livelihoods and escape from poverty. These strategic options are
not mutually exclusive, even at the individual household level; any particular household
will often pursue a mixed set of strategies. The options can be summarized as:

 intensification of existing production patterns;

 diversification of agricultural activities;
 expanded operated farm or herd size;
 increased off-farm income, both agricultural and non-agricultural; and
 Complete exit from the agricultural sector within a particular farming system.

Intensification is defined as increased physical or financial productivity of existing

patterns of production; including food and cash crops, livestock and other productive
activities.

Diversification is defined as changes to existing farm enterprise patterns in order to

increase farm income, or to reduce income variability. Diversification will often take the
form of completely new enterprises, but may also simply involve the expansion of
existing, high value, enterprises, and will be driven by market opportunities.

Expansion of enterprises refers not only to production, but also to on-farm processing
and other farm-based, income generating activity.

Some households escape poverty by expanding farm size - in this context size refers to
managed rather than to owned resources. Beneficiaries of land reform are the most
obvious examples of this source of poverty reduction. Increased farm size may also arise
through incursion into previously non-agricultural areas, such as forest - often termed
expansion of the agricultural frontier. Although this option is not available within many
systems, it is of particular relevance in parts of Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.
Increasingly, however, such `new' lands are marginal for agricultural purposes, and may
not offer sustainable pathways to poverty reduction.

Off-farm income represents an important source of livelihood for many poor farmers.
Seasonal migration has been one traditional household strategy for escaping poverty and
remittances are often invested in land or livestock purchases. In locations where there is a
vigorous non-farm economy, many poor households augment their incomes with part-time
or full-time off-farm employment by some household members. Where few opportunities
exist for improved rural livelihoods, farm households may abandon their land altogether,
and move to other farming systems, or into non-farming occupations in rural or urban
locations. This means of escaping agricultural poverty is referred to in the following
chapters as exit from agriculture.

2.7. Determinants of Farming Systems

17
The key categories of determinants influencing farming system are as follows:
(i) Natural Resources and Climate: The interaction of natural resources, climate and
population determines the physical basis for farming systems. The increased variability of
climate, and thus agricultural productivity, substantially increases the risk faced by farmers,
with the concomitant reduction in investment and input use.

(ii) Science and Technology: Investment in agricultural science and technology has expanded
rapidly during the last four decades. During this period, major technical and institutional
reforms occurred, which shaped the pattern of technology development and dissemination.

(iii) Trade Liberalization and Market Development: Markets have a critical role to play in
agricultural development as they form the linkages between farm, rural and urban economics
upon which the development processes depend. As a result of the reduction of impediments to
international trade and investment, the process of trade liberalization is already generating
changes in the structure of production at all levels-including small holder-farming systems in
many developing countries.
(iv) Policies, Institutions and Public goods: The development of dynamic farming systems
requires a conducive policy environment. Moreover, the establishment of the farm-rural-
urban linkages requires effective demand. Policy makers have increasingly shifted their
attention to the potential to increase the efficiency of service delivery through the
restructuring of institutions. The production incentives have dramatic effect on farming
systems. Policies on land ownership, water management and taxation reform etc have a great
bearing on types of farming system in a region or area.

(v) Information and Human Capital: The need for better information and enhanced human
capital has also increased, as production systems have become more integrated with regional,
national and international market systems. Lack of education, information and training is
frequently a key limiting factor to smallholder development. Many observers anticipated an
information revolution i.e. bridge gap of knowledge between scientists and farmers will be
very key factor for agricultural growth of these small farmers.

(vi) Indigenous Technological Knowledge: Indigenous technical knowledge is the

knowledge that people in a given community has developed over times, and continues to
develop. It is based on experience, often tested over long period of use, adapted to local
culture and environment, dynamic and changing, and lays emphasis on minimizing risks rather
than maximizing profits. The ITK covers a wide spectrum – soil water and nutrient
management; pasture and fodder management; crop cultivation; plant protection; farm
equipment, farm power, post-harvest preservation and management; agro-forestry; bio-
diversity conservation and also exploitation; animal rearing and health care; animal products
preservation and management; fisheries and fish preservation; and ethnic foods and homestead
management. Thus, the ITK of a farmer has a great influence in managing the farm and
farming system

Chapter 3: Classification of farming systems in Ethiopia

Chapter objectives
By the end of this chapter students are expected to:
 Describe the main characteristics of the country

18
  Identify the major farming systems in the country
 Identify those farming systems found in Ethiopia

3.1. Characteristics of the country

Ethiopia, with a population of about 82 million, is the second-most populous country in
Sub-Saharan Africa. One of the world‘s oldest civilizations, Ethiopia is also one of the
world‘s poorest countries. Agriculture is the main stay of the economy. In recent years, it
has been one of the fastest growing economies in Africa. Nevertheless, its robust growth
performance and considerable development gains came under threat during with the
emergence of twin macroeconomic challenges of high inflation and a difficult balance of
payments situation. The problem was exacerbated by the high fuel and food prices in the
global market. Ethiopia has also been exposed to weather induced challenges. Climate
change is a key emerging factor with adverse effects on the ecological, social and
economic fabric of society.

3.2. Major farming systems in the country

The main characteristics of the major farming systems, including the land area and
agricultural population as a proportion of regional totals are shown.

1. Irrigated Farming System

Ethiopia has an important opportunity in water-led development. This farming system

comprises large and scale irrigation schemes such in the country. Some the large scales
include the awash, Tenaha irrigation schemes. Whereas, many small scale irrigations in
the rift valley and numerous traditionally managed schemes are examples. The country has
12 river basins and numerous small scale irrigation potentials. The importance of
intervening irrigated agriculture in the economy of developing countries results from the
fact that rain fed agricultural system is not capable of supplying the desired amount of
production to feed the increasing population.

The main household strategies to escape poverty in this system are intensification of
existing patterns of production, diversification to higher value products and expanded farm
size. An important consideration is to reduce risks of drought-induced crop failure by
promoting, where feasible and environmentally compatible, extension of the irrigated or
water harvesting area through low-cost techniques - such as flood recession and run of
river - that build on indigenous technical knowledge.

2. Enset Crop Farming System

These systems are based to a greater or lesser degree on the production of enset from
suckers taken from an old corm, which has been planted specially for the purpose. The

19
suckers are separated from the corm at 1 to 3 years, depending on the altitude. After
separation, the suckers are transplanted and left for 1 to 2 years. They are then transplanted
a second time 2 to 3 meters apart into a permanent field, where maturation requires three
to five years depending on altitude. Manure is regularly applied throughout the year.

It is mainly located in south, south western parts of Ethiopia. These systems are found in
parts of Jimma Zone, East and West Shewa, Guragie Zone, some parts of Wolayta, in the
highlands of Borena Zone. The topography generally comprises hills and rolling plateaus,
with deep reddish clay loams (Nitosols) of good fertility. Livestock densities are very
high. Cattle are important for draught, milk and manure Tree planting is becoming
important. Eucalyptus is being planted around homesteads and on field boundaries for
building poles and for sale. Many scattered trees remain in the fields and remnant forest or
woodland on hillsides. Coffee may be planted under large trees (e.g. Ficus) for shade.

3. Forest Based Farming System

This farming system is found in the humid forest zone of the south west Ethiopia.
Farmer‘s practice shifting cultivation; clearing a new field from the forest every year,
cropping it for 2 to 5 years (first cereals or groundnuts, then cassava) and then abandoning
it to bush fallow for 7 to 20 years. Cassava is the main staple, complemented by maize,
sorghum, beans and cocoyams. Cattle and small ruminant populations are low, as is
human population density. Forest products and wild game are the main source of cash,
which is in very short supply because few households have cash crops and market outlets
are distant.

4. Highland Perennial Farming System

This farming system, found mostly in the sub humid and humid agro-ecological zones of
the country. This system supports the highest rural population density (more than one
person per ha of land) in the region. Land use is intense and holdings are very small. The
farming system is based on perennial crops such as banana, plantain, enset and coffee,
complemented by cassava, sweet potato, beans and cereals. Cattle are also kept, for milk,
manure, savings and social security. The main trends are diminishing farm size, declining
soil fertility, and increasing poverty and hunger. People cope by working the land more
intensively, but returns to labour are low.

5. Highland Temperate Mixed Farming System

This farming system is located at altitudes between 1800 and 3000 metres in the highlands
and mountains of Ethiopia, generally in sub-humid or humid agro-ecological zones.
Average population density is high and average farm size is small. Cattle are numerous
and are kept for ploughing, milk, manure, savings and emergency sale. Small grains such
as wheat and barley are the main staples, complemented by peas, lentils, broad beans,
rape, teff (in Ethiopia) and Irish potatoes. The main sources of cash are from the sale of
sheep and goats, wool, local barley beer, Irish potatoes, pulses and oilseeds.

6. Cereal-Root Crop Mixed Farming System

The main distinguishing feature of the cereal systems is that nearly all crops are produced
from seed. The crops are mainly cereals, pulses and oil crops, with root crops generally

20
being of minor importance. Livestock play many roles in such systems: a store of wealth,
draught power, dung fuel, manure, food and transport. Perennial crops, such as coffee,
chat and gesho are important in some systems. This farming systems is located in Arsi –
Bale high lands, Gojam,

There is potential for poverty reduction through - in order of importance - the following
household strategies: (i) intensification of production; (ii) expansion of farm size; and (iii)
diversification to high value products and processing. Some improvement in livelihoods
will also be derived from off-farm income.

7. Pastoral/ Agro-Pastoral Millet/Sorghum Farming System

Ethiopia is home for more than 12-15 million pastoralists who reside in 61% of the
nation's landmass. Pastoralists in Ethiopia are mainly found in four lowland regions, Afar,
Oromiya, Somali and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People‘s (SNNP) regional
states. They are also found in Gambella and Benishangul areas. The main livelihood
systems include pastoralism, Agro-pastoralism and ex-pastoralism. Pastoral groups
typically inhabit areas where scarce resources and extreme climatic conditions limit
options for alternative land use and livelihood systems. Its capacity to adapt to change is
facing many challenges, including those posed by climate change. The pastoral areas are
estimated to comprise 42% of the national total livestock population. Livestock and
livestock products provide about 12-17% of Ethiopia‘s foreign exchange earnings, out of
which hides and skins contribute about 90%. It contributes about 33% to the agricultural
GDP and 16% to the national GDP. It makes a significant contribution to the national
economies both in terms of supporting their own households and export earnings.
Moreover, the pastoral areas are rich in biodiversities, mineral and water resources as well
as energy resources, and untapped tourist attractions.

Livestock are kept for subsistence (milk and milk products), offspring, transportation
(camels, donkeys), land preparation (oxen, camels), sale or exchange, savings, bride-
wealth and insurance against crop failure. The population generally lives permanently in
villages, although part of their herds may continue to migrate seasonally in the care of
herd-boys.

8. Mixed crop–livestock systems

These systems are based on cropping associated with livestock husbandry. This system is
generally found in areas where the altitude ranges between 1500 and 3000 m.a.s.l. The
area has adequate rainfall and moderate temperature and is thus suitable for grain
production. The integration of crops and livestock is high in most areas. The integration is
lower in the perennial crop–livestock system (coffee growing areas) in southern Ethiopia
where animals are of minor importance.

Livestock in general and small ruminants in particular play an important role in food
security and food selfsufficiency in this production system. In the grain-based mixed
production system, livestock are the main cash source for the purchase of agricultural
inputs. Livestock are used as a savings and insurance mechanism. Cattle are the dominant

21
livestock species and are kept mainly for draft power. Sheep and goats are kept to meet
small and immediate cash needs.

Chapter 4. Sustainable Livelihood Approaches

Chapter objectives
After the completion of this chapter the students will be able to be expected to
 explain the core concepts of sustainable livelihoods
 Describe the main components of sustainable livelihood framework
 define livelihoods and sustainable livelihoods
 Discuss the major principles of sustainable livelihoods
 identify the main determinants of livelihoods
 Understand the nature of human livelihoods

4.1 Concepts of sustainable livelihoods Approaches

The sustainable livelihoods idea was first introduced by the Brundtland Commission on
Environment and Development, and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development expanded the concept, advocating for the achievement of sustainable
livelihoods as a broad goal for poverty eradication.

There are three insights into poverty which underpin this new approach. The first is the
realization that while economic growth may be essential for poverty reduction, there is not
an automatic relationship between the two since it all depends on the capabilities of the
poor to take advantage of expanding economic opportunities. Secondly, there is the
realization that poverty — as conceived by the poor themselves — is not just a question of
low income, but also includes other dimensions such as bad health, illiteracy, lack of
social services, etc., as well as a state of vulnerability and feelings of powerlessness in
general. Finally, it is now recognized that the poor themselves often know their situation
and needs best and must therefore be involved in the design of policies and project
intended to better their lot.

Thus, the livelihoods approach is a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and
priorities for development, particularly poverty elimination. A specific livelihoods
framework and objectives have been developed to assist with implementation. In essence
it is a way of putting people at the centre of development, thereby increasing the
effectiveness of development assistance. It is now recognized that more attention must be
paid to the various factors and processes which either constrain or enhance poor people‘s
ability to make a living in an economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable manner

Why a livelihood perspectives?

 Poverty is complex and multi faceted and so requires a holistic approach
 Livelihood approaches seek to address poverty issues through a participatory process with all
stakeholders, especially the poor themselves.
 SL approaches focus on peoples‘ inherent strengths rather than their weaknesses and needs,
such as experience
 Peoples‘ livelihoods and the factors that shape them are dynamic: constantly changing over
time The Livelihood approach seeks to understand this dynamism

22
Definition of livelihood

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources)
and activities required for a means of living (Chambers and Conway, 1992)

A livelihood is sustainable when it can:

Cope with, and recover from stress and shocks (drought, flood, war, etc.),
Maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural
resource base‖.

Five key elements of the definition can be recognized. The first three focus on livelihoods,
linking concerns over work and employment with poverty reduction with broader issues of
adequacy, security, well-being and capability. The last two elements add the sustainability
dimension, looking, in turn, at the resilience of livelihoods and the natural resource base on
which, in part, they depend.

i) Creation of working days – This relates to the ability of a particular combination of

livelihood strategies to create gainful employment for a certain portion of the year. This may
be on or off-farm, part of a wage labour system or subsistence production. Sen (1975) notes
three aspects of employment – income (a wage for the employed), production (employment
providing a consumable output) and recognition (where employment provides recognition for
being engaged in something worthwhile). In terms of the income/production aspects, various
target levels have been suggested, but 200 days a year appears to be widely used as a
minimum level to create a livelihood (Lipton 1991; 1993).

ii) Poverty reduction – The poverty level is a key criterion in the assessment of livelihoods.

iii) Well-being and capabilities –Capabilities as ‗what people can do or be with their
entitlements‘, a concept which encompasses far more than the material concerns of food intake
or income. Such ideas represent more than the human capital which allows people to do
things, but also the intrinsically valued elements of ‗capability‘ or ‗well-being‘.

iv) Livelihood adaptation, vulnerability and resilience – The ability of a livelihood to be

able to cope with and recover from stresses and shocks is central to the definition of
sustainable livelihoods. Such resilience in the face of stresses and shocks is key to both
livelihood adaptation and coping (Davies 1996).

v) Natural resource base sustainability – Most rural livelihoods are reliant on the natural
resource base at least to some extent. Following Conway (1985), Holling (1993) and others,
natural resource base sustainability refers to the ability of a system to maintain productivity
when subject to disturbing forces, whether a ‗stress‘ (a small, regular, predictable disturbance
with a cumulative effect) or a ‗shock‘ (a large infrequent, unpredictable disturbance with
immediate impact). This implies avoiding depleting stocks of natural resources to a level
which results in an effectively permanent decline in the rate at which the natural resource base
yields useful products or services for livelihoods.

23
4.2. Sustainable livelihoods objectives

The sustainable livelihoods approach is broad and encompassing. It can, however, be

distilled to six core objectives. It aims to increase the sustainability of poor people‘s
livelihoods through promoting:
• Improved access to high-quality education, information, technologies and training and
better nutrition and health;
• A more supportive and cohesive social environment;
• More secure access to, and better management of, natural resources;
• Better access to basic and facilitating infrastructure;
• More secure access to financial resources; and
• A policy and institutional environment that supports multiple livelihood strategies and
promotes equitable access to competitive markets for all.

4.3 Core principles of sustainable livelihoods

This part outlines these principles and explains why they make such an important
contribution to the overall value of the approach.

1. People-centered

The livelihoods approach puts people at the centre of development. At a practical level,
this means that the approach
• Starts with an analysis of people‘s livelihoods and how these have been changing over
time
• Fully involves people and respects their views; assume homogeneity in social group
•Focuses on the impact of different policy and institutional arrangements upon people
• stresses the importance of influencing these policies and institutional arrangements so
the relevant social divisions may promote the agenda of the poor
• Works to support people to achieve their own livelihood goals People – rather than the
resources they use or the governments that serve them – are the priority concern.

2. Holistic

The livelihoods approach attempts to identify the most pressing constraints faced by, and
promising opportunities open to, people regardless of where (i.e. in which sector,
geographical space or level, from the local through to the international) these occur. The
word ‗multiple‘ is used that is manageable and that helps improve development
effectiveness. Here because it helps
• It is non-sectoral and applicable across geographical areas and social groups.
• It recognises multiple influences on people, and their joint impact upon livelihoods.
• It recognises multiple actors (from the private sector to national level ministries
• It acknowledges the multiple livelihood strategies that people adopt to secure their
livelihoods.
• It seeks to achieve multiple livelihood outcomes, to be determined and negotiated by
people range of different activities and themselves
3. Dynamic

24
Just as people‘s livelihoods and the institutions that shape them are highly dynamic, so is
this approach. It seeks to understand and learn from change so that it can support positive
patterns of change and help mitigate negative patterns.

4. Building on strengths

An important principle of this approach is that it starts with an analysis of strengths,

rather than needs. This does not mean that it places undue focus on the better endowed
members of the community. Rather, it implies recognition of everyone‘s inherent
potential, whether this derives from their strong social networks, their access to physical
resources and infrastructure, their ability to influence core institutions or any other factor
that has poverty-reducing potential.

4. Macro-micro links

Development activity tends to focus at either the macro or the micro level. The
livelihoods approach attempts to bridge this gap, emphasizing the importance of macro
level policy and institutions to the livelihood options of communities and individuals. It
also stresses the need for higher level policy development and planning to be informed by
lessons learnt and insights gained at the local level. This will simultaneously give local
people a stake in policy and increase overall effectiveness.

5. Sustainability

The concept of ‗sustainable rural livelihoods‘ is increasingly central to the debate about rural
development, poverty reduction and environmental management (scones, 1998). Livelihoods
are sustainable when they:
• are resilient in the face of external shocks and stresses;
• are not dependent upon external support (or if they are, this support itself should be
economically
and institutionally sustainable);
• maintain the long-term productivity of natural resources; and.
• do not undermine the livelihoods of, or compromise the livelihood options open to,
others.

Another way of conceptualizing the many dimensions of sustainability is to distinguish

between environmental, economic, social and institutional aspects of sustainable systems

Environmental sustainability is achieved when the productivity of life-supporting

natural resources is conserved or enhanced for use by future generations.

Economic sustainability is achieved when a given level of expenditure can be

maintained over time. In the context of the livelihoods of the poor, economic
sustainability is achieved if a baseline level of economic welfare can be achieved and
sustained. (The economic baseline is likely to be situation-specific, though it can be
thought of in terms of the `dollar-a-day‘ of the International Development Targets.)

Social sustainability is achieved when social exclusion is minimized and social equity
maximized.

25
Institutional sustainability is achieved when prevailing structures and processes have
the capacity to be achieved it is important to continue to perform their functions over the
long term have in place: well-defined Very few livelihoods qualify as sustainable across
all these dimensions. Nevertheless sustainability is a key goal and its pursuit should
influence all support activities. Progress towards sustainability can then be assessed, even
if ‗full‘ sustainability is never achieved.

Why is sustainability important?

Sustainability is an important concern of livelihoods because it implies that progress in
poverty reduction is lasting, rather than fleeting. This does not mean that any given
resource or institution must survive in exactly the same form. Rather it implies
accumulation in the broad capital base that provides the basis for improved livelihoods,
especially for poor people.

4.4 Determinants of livelihoods

There are numerous initial determinants of livelihood strategy. Many livelihoods

are largely predetermined by accident of birth. Livelihoods of this sort may be
ascriptive: for instance, children may be born into a caste with an assigned role as
potters, shepherds, or washer people. Gender as socially defined is also a pervasive
ascriptive determinant of livelihood activities. Many livelihoods are also less
singular or predetermined. Some people improvise livelihoods with degrees of
desperation, what they do being largely determined by the social, economic and
ecological environment in which they find themselves.

The nature of human livelihoods

For the sake of clarity, we will here use the household as the unit of analysis.

Stores and resources: These are tangible assets commanded by a household. Stores
include food stocks, stores of value such as gold, jewellery and woven textiles, and
cash savings in banks of thrift and credit schemes.

26
Figure 2.1 Components and Flows in a Livelihood

Resources include land, water, trees, and livestock; and farm equipment, tools, and
domestic utensils. Assets are often both stores and resources, as with livestock,
trees and savings.

Claims and access: These are intangible assets of a household. Claims are
demands and appeals which can be made for material, moral or other practical
support or access. The support may take many forms, such as food, implements,
loans, gifts, or work. Claims are often made at times of stress or shock, or when
other contingencies arise. Claims may be made on individuals or agencies, on
relatives, neighbours, patrons, chiefs, social groups or communities, or on NGOs,
government or the international community, including programmes for drought
relief, or poverty alleviation. They are based on combinations of right, precedent,
social convention, moral obligation and power. Access is the opportunity in practice
to use a resource, store or service or to obtain information, material, technology,
employment, food or income.

Out of these tangible and intangible assets people construct and contrive a living,
using physical labour, skills, knowledge, and creativity. Skills and knowledge may
be acquired within the household, passed on from generation to generation as
indigenous technical knowledge, or through apprenticeship, or more formally
through education or extension services, or through experiment and innovation (see
capabilities in the next part).

4.6. Sustainable Livelihoods fundamentals: capability, equity and

sustainability

In the 1970s and 1980s, priorities and prescriptions for development changed
rapidly. In some fields, such as neo-classical economics, theory itself generated
change. In others, theory and concepts lagged behind practice and experience. Gaps
appeared most marked where linkages were weak between objectives and methods,
or between different disciplines. But disciplinary reductionism - the limiting of
values, concepts and methods to the narrow concerns of a single academic and

27
professional discipline - has been increasingly challenged. Gaps and cross-linkages
between ecology, economics and other social sciences offer scope and need for
practical concepts. The question is whether concepts can be found which are useful
both analytically, to generate insight and hypotheses for research, and practically, as
a focus and tool for decision-making.

From the flux and debate of the past few years, we have taken three concepts
variously found in or evolved in the social and biological sciences, and which have
increasingly commanded consensus. (In an earlier draft, we included diversity, but
this is more controversial, and the mutual reinforcement with the other three is less
strong and more ambiguous than between the three themselves.) Each concept is
represented by a single word. Each has two sides, normative and descriptive. Used
normatively, each states a desirable goal or criterion for evaluation; and used
descriptively, each can be empirically observed or in principle measured. The three
concepts are capability, equity, and sustainability.

In proposing these three concepts, we, like others, are trapped in implicit
paternalism. Faced with diversity and change in human conditions, values and
aspirations, no search for universal concepts can fully escape top-down
generalisation and prescription. So capability, equity, and sustainability are 'our'
concepts, not 'theirs'. They are justified only as a stage in a constant struggle of
questioning, doubt, dialogue and self-criticism, in which we try to see what is right
and practicable, and what fits 'their' conditions and priorities, and those of
humankind as a whole. In these, and other concepts, there can and should be nothing
[mal.
The three concepts of capability, equity and sustainability are linked. Each is also
both end and means: that is to say, each is seen as good in itself, as an end; and each
is also seen as a means to good ends, to the extent that it can support the others.
Linked together, capability, equity and sustainability present a framework or
paradigm for development thinking which is both normative and practical. However,
like other concepts of what is good, they are not always or necessarily mutually
supporting (for example equity in access to a resource by no means assures
sustainable resource use without appropriate and effective institutions for resource
management and exploitation). The search has to be for ways in which these three
concepts, as objectives, can be combined so that in practice conflict is low and
mutual support high.

4.6.1 Capability

The word capability has been used by Amartya Sen (Sen 1984, 1987; Dreze and Sen
1989) to refer to being able to perform certain basic functionings, to what a person is
capable of doing and being. It includes, for example, to be adequately nourished, to
be comfortably clothed, to avoid escapable morbidity and preventable mortality, to
lead a life without shame, to be able to visit and entertain one's friends, to keep track
of what is going on and what others are talking about (Sen 1987:18; Dreze and Sen
1990: 11). Quality of life is seen in terms of valued activities and the ability to
choose and perform those activities. The word capability has, thus a wide span, and
being democratically defined, has diverse specific meanings for different people in
different places, including the many criteria of wellbeing of poor people themselves

28
(for examples of which see J odha 1988).

Within the generality of Sen's use of capability, there is a subset of livelihood

capabilities that include being able to cope with stress and shocks, and being able to
find and make use of livelihood opportunities. Such capabilities are not just reactive,
being able to respond to adverse changes in conditions; they are also proactive and
dynamically adaptable. They include gaining access to and using services and
information, exercising foresight, experimenting and innovating, competing and
collaborating with others, and exploiting new conditions and resources.

4.6.2 Equity
In conventional terms, equity can be measured in terms of relative income
distribution. But we use the word more broadly, to imply a less unequal distribution
of assets, capabilities and opportunities and especially enhancement of those of the
most deprived. It includes an end to discrimination against women, against
minorities, and against all who are weak, and an end to urban and rural poverty and
deprivation.

4.6.3 Sustainability

In development prose, 'sustainable' has replaced 'integrated' as a versatile synonym

for 'good'. Few, if any, dissent from the view that development should now be
sustainable. There are, though, many meanings and interpretations of the term (Lele
1991). Environmentally, sustainability refers to the new global concerns with
pollution, global warming, deforestation, the overexploitation of non-renewable
resources and physical degradation. It has become orthodox, verbally if not in
behaviour, to take a long-term view, to have a sense of the global village with finite
resources threatened by wasteful and polluting consumption on the one hand, and by
rapid growth of population on the other. In common parlance, sustainability
connotes self-sufficiency and an implicit ideology of long-term self-restraint and
self-reliance. It is used to refer to life styles which touch the earth lightly; to organic
agriculture with low external inputs; to institutions which can raise their own
revenue; to processes which are self-supporting without subsidy. Socially, in the
livelihood context, we will use sustainability in a more focused manner to mean the
ability to maintain and improve livelihoods while maintaining or enhancing the local
and global assets and capabilities on which livelihoods depend.

29
Chapter 5. Livelihood Zoning
Chapter objectives
After completing this chapter, you will be able to

 Define livelihood zone map

 Identify what defines a livelihood zone map
 Explain why livelihood zoning is necessary
 state the outcomes of livelihood zoning and,
 Aware about the use and application of livelihood zoning

5.1. What is a Livelihood Zone Map?

A livelihood is the sum of ways in which households obtain the things necessary for life,
both in good years and in bad. Most obviously, these necessities include food, water,
shelter, clothing and health care, with education often included too.

Livelihood Zone Map – divides the country into homogenous zones within which people
share broadly the same pattern of livelihood. It provides geographical orientation of
livelihood systems and a sampling frame for future livelihood zone profiling and
livelihood baseline development.

A livelihood zone is an area within which people share broadly the same pattern of livelihood,
including options for obtaining food, income and market opportunities. A livelihood zoning is
essential for the following reasons:
1. It provides geographic orientation of livelihood systems to inform food security analysis and
assistance targeting
2. It provides the basis for identifying geographically relevant food security monitoring indicators
3. It provides a sampling frame for on the ground assessments and assistance targeting

Patterns of livelihood clearly vary from one area to another, which is why the preparation
of a 1livelihood zone map can be a useful first step for many types of livelihoods-based
analysis. Local factors such as climate, soil, access to markets etc. all influence livelihood
patterns. For example, people living in a fertile highland area have very different options
from those living in a semi-arid lowland area. In highland areas, people generally pursue
an agricultural pattern of livelihood, whereas in the lowlands they grow few crops and are
either pastoralists or agro-pastoralists. Those living in a coastal or lakeside zone may
follow a livelihood based upon fishing or combining fishing with other activities, and so
on.

Agro-ecology is one aspect of geography which determines patterns of livelihoods.

Another factor is market access. Market access affects the ability of people to sell their
production (crops or livestock or other items) and the price they obtain for these goods.
Since patterns of livelihood depend so much upon geography, it makes sense to divide a
country or a region into a number of livelihood zones. These we can define as areas within

1
Livelihood zone An area within which people share broadly the same pattern of livelihood
(i.e. broadly the same production system – agriculture or pastoralism for example – as well
as broadly the same patterns of trade/exchange).

30
which people share broadly the same pattern of livelihood (i.e. broadly the same
production system -agriculture or pastoralism for example - as well as broadly the same
patterns of trade/exchange).

Livelihood zoning involves more than just the drawing of maps. A livelihood zone map is
of little use unless it is accompanied by a basic description of the patterns of livelihood in
each zone, and ideally by an analysis of the underlying reasons for differences between
zones. This means analysing in some detail the production and trade/exchange options in
each of the zones and the influence that the underlying geography has on each of these.

We can think of these three factors as linked to consumption as follows: Geography

affects both the options for production (climate, soil, etc.) and for marketing/trade (roads,
proximity to urban centres, etc.), which in turn affect consumption by the household.
Household production (of food and other items) may either be directly consumed or may
be traded/exchanged for other items in the market. Consumption is also critically
determined by what is available in these markets, and how people obtain the means to
purchase these commodities.

However, geography is not the only thing that determines the pattern of livelihood.
Geography tends to define the different livelihood options, but the extent to which people
exploit these options depends upon a number of factors, of which wealth is generally the
most important. In an agricultural zone, for example, different people will own different
amounts of land, and may obtain different yields, often because they can afford improved
seeds, fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides, while others cannot. Similarly, in a pastoral
zone, not everybody owns or has access to the same number of animals, and not
everybody can afford veterinary or other services. These are examples of how household
wealth affects the pattern of livelihood within a zone, and any analysis of food security or
livelihood must take these differences in wealth into account. Often, therefore, a wealth
breakdown is the next step in the analysis, following the livelihood zoning exercise.

5.2. Why is a Livelihood zoning necessary?

While administrative boundaries are important as political lines of demarcation, they do
not necessarily contain within them homogenous areas of livelihood activity. Livelihood
zoning provides this important extra layer, defining areas within which people share
broadly the same options for meeting their basic needs. Livelihood zones, in conjunction
with administrative boundaries, provide a logical basis for the geographical targeting of
policies, development planning, service distribution, and humanitarian assistance. The
zones can also provide a livelihood-specific sampling frame, and the reference point for
customized early warning monitoring. There is increasing interest in using livelihoods
analysis as the ‗lens‘ through which to view a number of problems ranging from
emergency response to disaster mitigation to longerterm development. This interest rests
upon two basic observations:

1) That information about a given area or community can only be properly interpreted if it
is put into context with how people live.

31
2) That interventions can only be designed and managed in ways appropriate to local
circumstances if the planner knows about local livelihoods and whether or not a proposed
intervention will build upon or undermine existing strategies.

5.3. What Defines a Livelihood Zone?

5.3.1. Geography, production and markets

Most livelihoods are complex, and are shaped by a wide range of factors. In order to
simplify the process of defining livelihood zones, it is suggested that the analyst focus on
three primary factors. These are set out in the Livelihoods Triangle featured above, and
are:

• Geography: There are two classes of geographical factors: natural and man-made
(corresponding to natural and physical capital in the DIFD framework). The most
important natural factors are topography (i.e. the physical features of an area, including
mountains, coasts, rivers, plains), altitude, soil, climate (i.e. temperature and rainfall) and
vegetation. The most important man-made factors are those related to infrastructure
(roads, railways, telecommunications).

 Production: There are several types of rural production system, with the most basic
division being between agricultural, agro-pastoral and pastoral systems. The system
of production is determined by a range of factors, of which geography is clearly the
most important.
 Marketing system (e.g. demand for one product as compared to another, the
experience and capital resources of traders), the financial and banking system (e.g.
availability and affordability of credit) and government policy (e.g. development
policy, pricing policy, policy on the provision of production inputs, etc.). It is quite
possible for two livelihood zones to be similar geographically, but one to be based, for
example, upon food and livestock production, while another is given over to the
production of sugarcane because agro-ecological conditions are favourable, farmers in
the zone are encouraged to grow the crop, there is a processing factory nearby and
there are good roads/railways to transport the final product to market.

32
The market system determines the ability to sell primary production, to trade goods and
services and to find employment (whether in the formal or the informal sector), all of
which have a profound influence on the pattern of livelihood.

Taken together, these three factors by and large determine the economic operations of
households within a particular livelihood zone. They also determine their vulnerability to
particular hazards such as drought, conflict or market dislocation, since vulnerability is a
function of a) the normal activities of households and b) the activities they turn to in
response to a hazard. These, like the normal activities, are determined by the same three
factors of geography, production and markets/trade.

5.3.2. Factors Not Taken Into Account When Defining Livelihood Zones

Two types of factors are not taken into account when defining livelihood zones. These are:
1) The hazards to which different areas may be exposed. Many rural areas are exposed to
a range of hazards which may either be natural (e.g. drought or flood) or man-made
(e.g. conflict or market dislocation). Hazard exposure is clearly a factor that affects
patterns of livelihood, since people will tend to adopt certain strategies either to
mitigate the effects of a particular hazard (e.g. cultivation along a river margin to
mitigate the effects of drought), or to increase their resilience or ability to recover from
a hazard (e.g. the accumulation of livestock that can be sold in a crisis). By and large
these types of response will be captured by the analysis of the production system, and
it is not therefore necessary to include hazard exposure as a fourth factor defining
livelihood zone boundaries (although it is, of course, important to include information
on hazards as part of the description of the livelihood zone).

2) The level of service provision within a particular zone. It is not, for example, usual to
divide a livelihood zone into two because one part has better health or education services
than another. Why not, when, as has already been stated, a livelihood may be defined as
the sum of ways in which households obtain the things necessary for life, including health
care and education?
To explain this it is necessary to go back to the reason for preparing a livelihood zone
map, which is to assist with emergency and development decision-making. In these cases
we may be trying to answer questions such as; how will people in different areas be
affected by a hazard (e.g. drought), and what might be their need for food and/or economic
assistance? Or how best can we design development interventions that will support rather
than undermine existing livelihood strategies? These are questions that are best answered
through an understanding of the economic operations of individual households, not in
relation to existing levels of local service provision.

This is not to say that mapping levels of service provision would not be a useful activity in
its own right. However, rather than incorporating this into the definition of individual
livelihood zones, the most useful procedure might be to overlay maps of service provision
onto the final livelihood zone map. This would help to identify which parts of which zones
are poorly served, perhaps highlighting priority areas for intervention in the health and
education sectors.

33
5.4. Livelihood Zones and Administrative Boundaries

Ideally, livelihood zone boundaries would coincide with administrative boundaries, but
this is not always possible because homogenous ecological and economic zones often
cross political boundaries. As a result, within one administrative unit, it may be possible to
find pastoralists living alongside agriculturalists, or agro-pastoralists alongside fishing
communities. However, because resource allocation and service provision decisions are
made on the basis of administrative units, not livelihood zones, it is important that
livelihood zones correspond in some way to the lowest level of administrative unit. Ideally
livelihood zone. Boundaries will broadly overlap with the lowest level of administrative
unit, but this is not always the case, and sometimes even these very smallest administrative
units have to be sub-divided. E.g. Ethiopia-Federal-regional-zonal-woreda-kebele

5.5. Naming Livelihood Zones

Livelihood zones should have unique names that are useful descriptors and that do not
cause confusion. Names should be short, but informative. The easiest way to make them
informative is to capture two key characteristics from the following: location in the
country, topography, vegetation, or dominant economic activity.
• Location in the country – e.g. northern, southern, or a specific region
• Topography – e.g. mountains, highlands, lowlands, hills, plains, valley, coastal, riverine,
lakeshore, roadside, oasis
• Vegetation – e.g. forest, savannah, marshland, desert
• Dominant economic activity – e.g. mining, tea, coffee, sugarcane, coffee, cotton
Names that are based upon crops grown or livestock raised may cause confusion unless
the crop or type of livestock is unique to the zone. For example, the name ―The Cattle
Zone‖ implies that cattle are not kept in other parts of the country, whereas the reality may
be that cattle are more important in ―The Cattle Zone‖ but are also kept in smaller
numbers elsewhere in the country. Equally, a crop should only be listed as a ‗dominant
economic activity‘ where the crop is very distinctive for that zone (i.e. not maize where
maize is grown very widely in the country).

5.6. Outputs from a Livelihood Zoning

The output from a livelihood zoning exercise is not just a map; it is also a way of
describing and dividing the population. The following outputs are expected:
• Map with livelihood zone boundaries and districts
• Table listing lowest level administrative units by livelihood zone
• Cross-tabulation of the population by livelihood zone and district
• Basic description of each zone, including:
o Geography (topography, climate, soils, etc)
o Production system (agricultural, pastoral, etc)
o Markets/trade (trade flows, including employment)
o Hazards affecting the zone (drought, flood, etc.)
• An optional output for presenting trade information: a map of major trade flows (with
description) as an overlay to the livelihood zone map.

34
LIVELIHOOD ZONING EXAMPLE
Shire Highlands
Description: Landholdings are small in this most densely populated Zone in the country.
The zone produces roughly enough to feed itself in most years. However, income
generating opportunities are limited and many households sell quite a high proportion of
their production postharvest to obtain cash, becoming heavily dependent on the market
later in the year. Crop production is relatively undiversified, with quite heavy dependence
upon maize supplemented to a limited extent by cassava.
Food Crops Maize, Cassava
Income Sources Food crops, other
Livestock Goats

Middle Shire Valley

Description: This is a relatively dry mid-lowland area with winter cropping and fishing
along the Shire River. It is similar to a number of other southern zones in that total
production at zonal level is enough to achieve rough self-sufficiency in staple food. Quite
a high proportion of production is sold post-harvest by most households however, and this
has to be replaced by purchases later in the year. A range of crops are grown, including
cotton, but low prices limit the income from this important cash crop.
Food Crops Maize, Pulses, Rice
Income Sources Food crops, Other, Cotton
Livestock Cattle (few), Goats

Lower Shire Valley

Descriptions: This hot dry lowland zone is nonetheless relatively productive by the
standards of southern Malawi. A variety of crops are grown during both the main and
winter seasons, with winter crops cultivated in wetlands beside the Shire River. Cotton is
the zone‘s major cash crop. Cattle holdings are significant in the zone. The zone benefits
from good access to neighboring Mozambique, a source of relatively cheap maize in both
good and bad years.
Food Crops Maize, Rice, Sorghum, Millet
Income Sources Food crops, Cotton, Livestock sales
Livestock Cattle, Goats

5.7. Steps in livelihood zoning

This section provides a guide to the steps required to produce a livelihood zone map. The
process relies heavily on key informants. We have already indicated that conducting a
livelihood zoning is not about manipulating secondary data in a computer or using one
single existing type of map. Instead, livelihood zoning is an iterative process, gathering
information from key informants, verifying data with the field, then cross-checking with
secondary sources. The process involves a clear structure as elaborated below.

Livelihood zoning begins with a workshop to obtain a preliminary map and zone
descriptions. This initial workshop will be held either at national or regional level.
Questions that arise at this level can then be followed up at a second level during
consultations with key informants and possibly some village visits. After this, it is wise to
return to the first level to agree any changes with partners and to get a consensus on the

35
‗final‘ map. It is important to emphasize at all stages, however, that there can always be
further changes to the map as a result of future more detailed fieldwork.

Preparing for a Livelihood Zoning Workshop

Pre-workshop activities for facilitators

• Select and organise a venue
• Invite participants
• Purchase workshop materials
• Compile secondary materials
• Review secondary materials
• Meet with selected key informants to discuss livelihood zones

Who should be invited?

Participants in a livelihood zoning workshop should include technical staff from relevant
line ministries (e.g. agriculture, livestock, meteorology, natural resources, fishing), NGOs
and international organisations. Participants need to have a broad knowledge of the
country or region. When selecting them, it is useful to include people who grew up, or
have been based for part of their working life, in one or other parts of the country. It is also
useful to include some participants from Local Adminstraion in workshop. The maximum
number of participants in the workshop should be 20 people, plus 1-2 facilitators to lead
the exercise. Any more than this number becomes unmanageable and the quality of output
suffers.

36
Information and materials required
The following secondary source information should be obtained before the workshop.
1. List of administrative units and population
2. Maps:
• Regional maps showing administrative divisions down to level
• Agro ecological/land use maps
• Soil maps
• Vegetation maps
• Population density map
3. Rainfall data for major weather stations, by month, long term average (last 20-30 years)
4. List of crops actually grown in order of importance by district and seasonal crop
calendars
5. List of livestock types in order of importance by district
6. Any other general descriptions of the geography and economy of the country or
region.5
WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
Introduction
Listing productive systems
A plenary session to list the broad productive systems that can be found in the country or
region is a useful starting point (e.g. agricultural, agro-pastoral, pastoral, labor-based,
hunter gatherer).
Mapping productive systems
The next step is to draw the productive systems that you have listed on a large map that
just shows the basic administrative boundaries

Introducing market access

One way to introduce the topic of market access and trade is to overlay towns, roads, and
railways on the production system map that you have just drawn. Consider the main
sources of household income for each zone and markets for products sold (including labor)
and products purchased. Outline key trade routes (where people sell things and the
subsequent flow of goods, and where they buy things and their original source) and
employment markets.

Develop descriptions of the livelihood zones

Describe the main characteristics of each livelihood zone. The format includes sections to
describe the main category of livelihood, the main characteristics of the production
system, topography, vegetation, other natural resources, climate, market access, hazards
(and their frequency) and household level response strategies.

Refine livelihood zone boundaries

Using a map of the lowest available administrative level and the most recent census of
population by administrative level, assign each administrative unit to a livelihood zone.

37
 Appendix 1
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTION SYSTEM

MAIN Main characteristics Additional notes

CATEGORIES
OF
PRODUCTION
SYSTEM
Agriculture Main types of Agricultural In this type of zone, the main activity
Livelihood Zones: is
• Rainfed and/or Irrigated crop production, typically
• Food crop and/or Cash crop supplemented
• Crop surplus or crop deficit by livestock keeping but on a small
zone scale
• Hand and/or (e.g. 1 or 2 dairy cattle and poultry
animal/mechanical traction for most
• Short or long rains dependent households)
• Lowland – highland – mid- Rank the main crops consumed and
highland the main crops sold.
• High potential – low potential
• Fertile or infertile soils
• Sparse or densely populated
Pastoral Indicate: Pastoral livelihoods are those where
• Agro-ecological zone the core or main activity is the raising
of livestock.
Rank the main types of livestock
based on their importance to
household food and income.
Agro-Pastoral Indicate: Agro-pastoralists both herd livestock
• Whether crops are more/less and
important grow crops
than livestock
• Any of the agricultural or
pastoral
characteristics
Fishing Indicate: In this type of zone, fishing typically
• Plantation / Ranch / Urban provides both a source of food and a
• Local work / seasonal source of income.
migration /
long-term migration
• Type of plantation (tea etc.)
Labor Based Indicate: In this type of zone the majority of
• Plantation / Ranch / Urban people derive their income from
• Local work / seasonal labor and purchase most of their
migration / food. This will apply to many
long-term migration workers employed full time on large
• Type of plantation (tea etc.) commercial ranches and plantations
(e.g. tea or coffee estates).
Hunter- Indicate: Hunter-Gathers derive a substantial
Gatherer • Hunting of animals more/less proportion of their food from hunting

38
 important and
than gathering of wild plants gathering (not just income, as in the
case
of pastoralists who may collect and
sell charcoal, for example.)
Other (e.g. Indicate: Include any other types of livelihood
Mining, • Main characteristics pattern not listed above.
Trading

Appendix 2. Livelihood zoning format

place date

Names and positions of people completing form

Name Position

DESCRIPTION OF LIVELIHOOD ZONE

This form provides space for only one livelihood zone. If more than one is to be covered, a
second copy of the form will be required.

Main category of livelihood

e.g. Agriculture, Pastoral, Agro-Pastoral,
Fishing,
Labor Based, Hunter-Gatherer, Mining,
Trading
Topography
e.g. mountainous, hilly, plains, riverine,
akeshore.
Vegetation
e.g. forest, bush scrub, grassland
Other natural resources
e.g. minerals, timber, fish, game, gum arabic
Population density & land-holding size
Give a range: e.g. arable land
is a typical land holding in this zone
Production conditions: Soils
e.g. fertile, infertile, sandy, clay, laterite
Rainfall (mm per year)*
e.g. 500–700 mm
Seasons
e.g. dry season Oct-March,
wet season April-Sept
Temperature*
e.g. max 30–35oC March,
min 15–20oC July

39
Main characteristics of the production
system
Agriculture: Rainfed/irrigated,
surplus/deficit, hand/animal traction;
Pastoral: Type of water source;
Agro-Pastoral: Relative importance
of crops/livestock;
Fishing: sea/lake/river/pond,
offshore/inshore, nets/lines;
Labor-Based: plantation/ranch/urban,
local/distant, seasonal/year-round.
Main crops consumed 1.
Rank in order of importance 2.
for home consumption 3.
Main crops sold (food or cash crops)
Rank in order of importance
for home income
Other important economic activities
e.g. mining, wild food gathering, fishing
Main food sources for better-off
households
Rank in order of importance
Main food sources for poor households
Rank in order of importance
Main cash income sources for better off
households
Rank in order of importance
Main cash income sources for poor
households
Rank in order of importance

MARKETS
Identify the main markets for each product. The aim is to describe the trade route, hence
name the market where the good
is first sold to, then any important intermediate markets, and then the destination market
where the good finally ends up
(e.g. local markets -> Dessie -> Addis Ababa).

Main crops sold Trade route

1
2
3
Main livestock sold Trade route
1
2
3
Main grains bought when Trade route
own stocks run out
1

40
2
Is market access good or bad
in this zone?
Why?
e.g. good/bad roads,
close to/far from an urban center

LABOR

How much of the total casual labor performed by people from the zone is undertaken in
different locations (e.g. 70% local rural area, 20% local towns, 10% outside of zone)

Local rural area Local towns Outside zone Total

100%
If outside zone,
where do people go
(and in which
months)?

HAZARDS

This section is for the hazards that affect household access to food and income.

Hazard (ranked) Frequency

e.g. drought (see checklist below) e.g. 1 year in 3, every year, but severe 1
year in 5, etc.
1.
2
3

Checklist of hazards
Drought Wind Livestock
Frost/Hail Crop Crop Pests disease Cash crop marketing*
diseases Wild Conflict/Raiding HIV/AIDS
Animals

Frequencies
Every year Every other 1 year in 3 1 year in 5 1 year in 10
year

RESPONSE STRATEGIES

What are the main strategies used by households to cope with the above hazards (e.g. sale
of livestock, migration in search of labor, increase in remittances, collection of wild foods,
self-employment etc.
Poor households Better-off households
1
2

41
3
Frequency and type of food distribution (or other outside interventions

Chapter 6. Sustainable Livelihood Framework

Chapter objectives

After the end of this chapter the trainees should be able to

 understand the application of livelihood framework in livelihood analysis
 Describe the components of Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
 State the influence of policies and institutions on livelihoods of the poor
 have related the elements of the SLA to their own experiences and knowledge of
the context

6.1. Why need for framework2

It helps understand and analyze the livelihoods of the poor. It is also useful in assessing
the effectiveness of existing efforts to reduce poverty. Like all frameworks, it is a
simplification; the full diversity and richness of livelihoods can be understood only by
qualitative and participatory analysis at a local level. Structure and analyze the
development situation, how policies and services are affecting it; provide a holistic
overview of how different elements in development are being addressed.
 its one way of organizing the complex issues surrounding poverty
 it gives a step by steps procedure for livelihood analysis
 a conceptual/analytical tool for understanding complex rural livelihoods
 Provides a comprehensive and practice orientated framework to understand
complex local realities. Can be used in evaluating the status quo or in planning.
 Presents the main factors that affect people‘s livelihoods and the relationships
between these.
 In the research context it is most useful as an organizing framework to help us thin
systematically, holistically and reflectively about rural livelihoods
 It gives a checklist of important issues to consider; can assist in identifying
obstacles, constraints, opportunities that influence the role that forest products
play.

The framework can be applied at a range of different scales – from individual, to

household, to household cluster, to extended kin grouping, to village, region or even
nation, with sustainable livelihood outcomes assessed at different levels. The specification
of the scale of analysis is therefore critical, as is an analysis of the interactions between
levels in terms of net livelihood effects, both positive and negative

2
The framework is a tool used to: analyze peoples livelihoods and identify the factors that keep
them in poverty identify the constraints to that prevent them from achieving a sustainable livelihood
identify appropriate entry points that are likely to impact on the greatest number of people

42
6.2. Components of the SL framework

6.2.1. Vulnerability context

What is vulnerability?

The Vulnerability Context refers to the seasonality, trends, and shocks that affect
people‘s livelihoods. The key attribute of these factors is that they are not susceptible to
control by local people themselves, at least in the short and medium term. It is therefore
important to identify indirect means by which the negative effects of the Vulnerability
Context can be minimised – including building greater resilience and improving overall
livelihood security. This is of particular importance for the poor, since a common response
to adverse seasonality and shocks is to dispose of assets. Yet the poor often have no
saleable assets. Their lack of assets also means that they are often less able than their
richer counterparts to respond to positive trends.

Vulnerability is characterized as insecurity in the well-being of individuals, households,

and communities in the face of changes in their external environment

Vulnerability has two facets: an

 External side of shocks, seassonalities, and critical trends; and
 An internal side of defenselessness caused by lack of ability and means to cope with
these.

The vulnerability context includes:

i) Trends: increasing/decreasing population, soil erosion, severity and frequency of
droughts, technology, prices of commodities such as tea and coffee, oil prices, stock
markets, increasing incidence of HIV/AIDS.

Livelihoods can be made more or less vulnerable by long-term trends. When investigating
trends, it is important to distinguish factors that may be susceptible to change (in direction
or intensity), from those that appear likely to continue on their current trajectory, making
livelihood adaptation inevitable. For example, many economic trends – such as the long-
term decline in the real prices of many tropical agricultural commodities – are relatively
fixed and predictable. It is also important to recognise the difference between ‗local‘
trends and national or more global trends.

43
 ii) Shocks: earthquake, flood, drought, disease, crash of the stock market, loss of job, war,
death of a family member.

When considering the risk of shocks, the community‘s (or groups within the community)
own sense of past events and how often they occur can be a good guide to frequency and
severity. For those types of shocks that cannot be predicted at all, even with the most
sophisticated methods, community discussion may help think through ways of reducing
negative impacts, especially on the most vulnerable groups

It is supposedly a way of conceptualizing what may happen to an identifiable population

under conditions of particular risks and hazards.

iii) Seasonality: crop and livestock prices fluctuate between harvests, crop production,
diseases/health, availability of casual work, availability of food. Seasonal fluctuations in
the price of certain crops may make this a less viable livelihood strategy because of the
uncertainty of income. Prices fluctuations may also make growing certain crops attractive
livelihood strategy

Poor people are less able to cope with shocks, trends and seasonality. The
vulnerability context has a direct bearing on the hardships that poor people face. The
fragility of poor peoples livelihoods leaves them less able to cope with trends and shocks.

Vulnerability” Context
Shocks: Floods, droughts, cyclones, war, Deaths in the family, Violence or civil unrest and loss of job
Seasonality: seasonal fluctuations access to food between harvests, crop and livestock, diseases/health
risks linked to season and availability of casual work, seasonality of prices
Trends and changes: Population, Environmental change, Technology, Markets and trade, Globalisation

How vulnerability factors are best identified?

There are two core considerations when thinking about the Vulnerability Context. These
are:
• The extent to which different groups are exposed to particular trends/shocks/seasonality;
and
• The sensitivity of their livelihoods to these factors (this relates directly to resilience).

2.2.2. Livelihood assets3

Human Natural Social Capital Physical Capital Financial

Capital Capital Capital

3
Assets are resources (tangible or intangible) that people have and upon which they
construct their livelihood strategies: what they use in making their living. The ownership
or the access to assets is normally not equally distributed within a society: Gender, Class;
Ethnicity, Political power, etc. influence the difference in assets. Having only few assets is
one aspect of poverty.

44
Health Land Water Networks and Infrastructure Savings
& aquatic connections • Transport -
Nutrition resources, o patronage roads, vehicles, Credit/debt -
Trees and o neighbourhood etc.
Education forests s • secure shelter & Remittances
Wildlife o kinship buildings
Knowledge Wild foods & Pensions
Relations of trust and • water supply &
and skills fibres mutual support sanitation
Biodiversity Wages
Capacity to Environmenta
Formal and informal • energy
work l services
groups • communications
Common rules and
• Tools and
sanctions
Capacity to techology
Collective
adapt representation • tools and
Mechanisms for equipment for
participation in production
decision-making • seed, fertiliser,
Leadership pesticides
• traditional
technology

The ability to pursue different livelihood strategies is dependent on the basic material and
social, tangible and intangible assets that people have in their possession

i) Natural capital (N) – the natural resource stocks (soil, water, air, genetic
resources etc.) and environmental services (hydrological cycle, pollution sinks
etc) from which resource flows and services useful for livelihoods are derived
ii) Economic or financial capital (F) – the capital base (cash, credit/debt,
savings, and other economic assets, including basic infrastructure and
production equipment and technologies) which are essential for the pursuit of
any livelihood strategy.
iii) Human capital (H) – the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health
and physical capability important for the successful pursuit of different
livelihood strategies.
iv) Physical capital (P) the basic infrastructure and producer goods:, affordable
transport; secure shelter and buildings; adequate water supply and sanitation;
clean, affordable energy; and access to information (communications)
v) Social capital (S)– the social resources (networks, social claims, social
relations, affiliations, associations) upon which people draw when pursuing
different livelihood strategies requiring coordinated actions.
v) Political capital (P)4: is defined broadly as the ability to use power in support
of political or economic positions and so enhance livelihoods;

4
Political capital is the power and capacity to influence political decision-making through
formal and informal participation and/or access to political processes. It includes the
ability to represent oneself or others, the freedom and capacity to become collectively
organised to claim rights and to negotiate access to resources and services

45
  It refers to both the legitimate distribution of rights and power as well as the
illicit operation of powers which generally frustrates efforts by the poor to
access and defend entitlements and uses them to build up capital assets.‘
(Baumann, 2000).
 The ability to influence political processes which determine decision-
making
 Voice capacity to formulate and express oneself
 Access to vote
Following on from an analysis of livelihood resources, a checklist of key questions arises:
Sequencing – What is the starting point for successfully establishing a particular
livelihood strategy? Is one type of livelihood resource an essential precursor for gaining
access to others?

Substitution – Can one type of capital be substituted for others? Or are different capitals
needed in combination for the pursuit of particular livelihood strategies?

Clustering – If you have access to one type of capital, do you usually have access to
others? Or is there a clustering of particular combinations of livelihood resources
associated with particular groups of people or particular livelihood strategies?

Access – Different people clearly have different access to different livelihood resources.
This is dependent on institutional arrangements, organisational issues, power and politics
(see below).

Trade-offs – In pursuing a particular portfolio of livelihood strategies, what is the trade-

offs faced by different people with different access to different types of livelihood
resource?

Trends – What are the trends in terms of availability of different types of livelihood
resource? How are different capital assets being depleted and accumulated, and by whom?
What are the trends in terms of access? What new livelihood resources are being created
through environmental, economic and social change?

6. 2.3. Policies, Institutions & Processes

Livelihood strategies and outcomes are not just dependent on access to capital assets or
constrained by the vulnerability context; they are also transformed by the environment of
structures and processes.
Policies, institutions and processes are man-made external factors that shape the options
that people have in achieving their livelihood goals.

Policies, institutions and processes determine, amongst other things:

• Poor people‘s access to various assets (such as land or labour);
• The benefits poor people are able to derive from different types of capital (through
markets);
• The environment for private sector investment;
• The extent to which poor people are able to engage in decision-making processes; and
• Individual and civil society rights

Policies

46
 • Policy is defined as a „course of action designed to achieve particular goals or
targets‟
• is made by government to achieve particular national outcomes
• Public policies are implemented through organisations and institutions
Organizations
• If institutions are the rules of the game, then organisations are defined as the
‗players of the game‘ E.g foot ball
• Institutions shape organisations and their behaviour

Structures are the public and private sector organizations that set and implement policy
and legislation; deliver services; and purchase, trade, and perform all manner of other
functions that affect livelihoods.

Processes
Processes, in the context of SL, refer to processes of change in policies, institutions and
organisations
Processes determine the way institutions and people operate and interact. They can
include: hanges in the economy, employment patterns, markets, culture, and long-term
processes of social, economic and political marginalization. Processes embrace the laws,
regulations, policies, operational arrangements, agreements, societal norms, and practices
that, in turn, determine the way in which structures operate

Why focus on policies, institutions and processes?

• Effective policies, institutions and processes (PIP) are recognised as essential in
sustaining livelihoods.
• Together, they shape poor people‘s livelihood options
• In many developing countries, policies and institutions discriminate against those
with few assets and disadvantage poor people
• Such discriminatory policies and institutions undermine development efforts to
eradicate poverty.
• It is now accepted that significant and sustainable gains in poverty reduction
cannot be achieved unless accompanied by pro-poor reforms to domestic and
international policies and institutions

Policies, Institutions & Processes

Policies • of government (land, economic policies)

• of different LEVELS of government
• of NGOs
• of interational bodies

Institutions • political, legislative & representative bodies

• executive agencies
• judicial bodies
• civil society & membership organisations
• NGOs
• law, money
• political parties

47
 • commercial enterprises & corporations

Processes • Decision making process for collective action

• the ―rules of the game‖
• decision-making processes
• social norms & customs
• gender, caste, class
• language

6.2.4 Livelihood strategies: portfolios and pathways

Livelihood strategies are: the range and combination of activities and choices that people
make or undertake in stable times to achieve their livelihood goals

The choice of strategies is a dynamic process in which people combine activities to meet
their changing needs. For example, in farming households, activities are not necessarily
confined to agriculture but often include non-farm activities in order to diversify income
and meet household needs. Migration, whether seasonal or permanent, is one common
livelihood strategy. Livelihoods are diverse and change over time. Livelihood strategies
can be divided into
i) Natural resource-based activities (e.g. cultivation, livestock-keeping, weaving,
collection and gathering)
ii) Non-natural resource-based activities
(e.g. trade, services, remittances).

Within the sustainable livelihoods framework, livelihood strategies can also be classified
according to different criteria. Scoones (1998) divided rural livelihood strategies into three
broad types according to the nature of activities undertaken three broad clusters of
livelihood strategies are identified. These are: agricultural intensification/extensification,
livelihood diversification and migration.

Broadly, these are seen to cover the range of options open to rural people. Either you gain
more of your livelihood from agriculture (including livestock rearing, aquaculture, forestry
etc.) through processes of intensification (more output per unit area through capital
investment or increases in labour inputs) or extensification (more land under cultivation),
or you diversify to a range of off-farm income earning activities, or you move away and
seek a livelihood, either temporarily or permanently, elsewhere. Or, more commonly, you
pursue a combination of strategies together or in sequence.

Identifying what livelihood resources (or combinations of ‗capitals‘) are required for
different livelihood strategy combinations is a key step in the process of analysis. For
example, successful agricultural intensification may combine, in some circumstances,
access to natural capital (e.g. land, water etc.) with economic capital (e.g. technology,
credit etc.), while in other situations, social capital (e.g. social networks associated with
drought or labour sharing arrangements) may be more significant. Understanding, in a
dynamic and historical context, how different livelihood resources are sequenced and
combined in the pursuit of different livelihood strategies is therefore critical.

48
Unraveling the connections between such complex and dynamic processes and the
outcomes of different strategy combinations is therefore a key part of any investigation of
sustainable livelihoods. One step in any such analysis requires an unpacking of each of the
three core livelihood strategies to distinguish different dynamics and outcomes.

 Agricultural intensification/extensification – between capital-led (supported often

by external inputs and policy-led) and labour-led (based on own labour and social
resources and a more autonomous process) intensification12.
 Livelihood diversification – between an active choice to invest in diversification for
accumulation and reinvestment, and diversification aimed at coping with temporary
adversity or more permanent adaptation of livelihood activities, when other options are
failing to provide a livelihood..
 Migration – between different migration causes (e.g. voluntary and involuntary
movement), effects (e.g. reinvestment in agriculture, enterprise or consumption at the
home or migration site) and movement patterns (e.g. to or from different places).

A major influence on people‘s choice of livelihood strategies is their access to assets and
the policies, institutions and processes that affect their ability to use these assets to achieve
positive livelihood outcomes.. A key issue in the analysis of livelihood strategies is the
scale at which an assessment takes place. Livelihood strategies, for example, can be
described at an individual, household and village level, as well as at regional or even
national levels.

The combination of activities that are pursued can be seen as a ‗livelihood portfolio‘.
Some such portfolios may be highly specialised with a concentration on one or a limited
range of activities; others may be quite diverse.

Different ‗livelihood pathways‘ may be pursued over seasons and between years as well as
over longer periods, such as between generations, and will depend on variations in
options, the stage at which the household is in its domestic cycle, or on more fundamental
changes in local and external conditions. An historical approach is thus central to the
analysis. The degree of specialisation or diversification may relate to the resource
endowments available and the level of risk associated with alternative options.

Whether such livelihood pathways and portfolio combinations result in positive or

negative change in relation to the range of sustainable livelihood outcome indicators is a
critical issue. Thus investigating the multiplier effects (both positive and negative) of
particular options is an important issue in assessing sustainable livelihood outcomes.

6.2.5. Livelihoods outcomes

Livelihood outcomes are the achievements of livelihood strategies, such as more income
(e.g. cash), increased well-being (e.g. non material goods, like self-esteem, health status,
access to services, sense of inclusion), reduced vulnerability (e.g. better resilience through
increase in asset status), improved food security (e.g. increase in financial capital in order
to buy food) and a more sustainable use of natural resources (e.g. appropriate property
rights). Outcomes help us to understand the 'output' of the current configuration of factors
within the livelihood framework; they demonstrate what motivates stakeholders to act as
they do and what their priorities are. They might give us an idea of how people are likely
to respond to new opportunities and which performance indicators should be used to

49
assess support activity. Livelihood Outcomes directly influence the assets and change
dynamically their level - the form of the pentagon -, offering a new starting point for other
strategies and outcomes (DFID, 1999: 2000).

Taking account of the livelihood assets at their disposal, the vulnerability context in which
they operate, and the policies, institutions and processes around them, households tend to
develop the most appropriate livelihood strategy possible. These strategies may lead to
more or less satisfactory livelihood outcomes – poverty is the result of "unsatisfactory"
livelihood strategies, because the strategies are based on insufficient livelihood assets, they
are vulnerable to shocks and changes, and/or the policies, institutions and processes they
are subject to do not support them effectively (Messer and Townsley, 2003).

Poverty - a ―poor‖ livelihood outcome:

• based on a fragile or unbalanced set of livelihood assets
• unable to sustain to shocks, changes or trends
• not supported, or actively obstructed by policies, institutions and processes that do
not allow assets to be used as they might
• livelihood options combined in a ―bad‖ or unsustainable strategy

Methods for investigating livelihood

1) Participatory methods (PRA): Social maps, Timelines, Matrix/preference ranking,

Venn diagrams Transect walks, mapping ranking and key informant interview (including
external experts), Focus group discussion, Timelines Seasonal diagrams,, Preference
ranking
2) Sample survey
3) Secondary sources on meteorological-(price, economic- demographic- resource stocks-
health)

This example provides information about: vulnerability, assets, and

policies/processes/institutions
Example: Pastoralists in southern Somalia
• Pastoralists in southern Somalia derive the majority of their food needs from the
purchase of cereals, sugar and oil.
• Milk and milk products from cattle comprise a significant additional food source.
• Income is mainly obtained from sale of livestock and livestock products
• Poorer wealth groups with their smaller herd sizes obtain a significant amount of
food/income from activities such as petty trade, bush product collection and casual
labour.
• Intra-community gifts to the poor, such as lactating livestock, food and cash, are
also common.
• Agro-pastoralists in southern Somalia derive the majority of their food from their
own crop production, livestock milk production and some purchase.
• Income comes from the sale of livestock and livestock products, the sale of crops
and, for poorer groups, a variety of petty trade, casual labour and collection of bush
products.

50
 2.2.6. SL approaches compared: UNDP, CARE, and DFID

UNDP For UNDP the SL approach serves primarily as a programming framework to

devise a set of integrated support activities to improve the sustainability of livelihoods
among poor and vulnerable groups by strengthening the resilience of their coping and
adaptive strategies. Although this is in principle an open-ended process, certain emphasis
is given to the introduction of improved technologies as well as social and economic
investments. Policy and governance issues as they impinge on people‘s livelihoods are
addressed. The various support activities are organized as specific SL programmes,
usually implemented at a district level with ramifications at the community and household
level.

CARE’s organizational mandate as an international NGO is to focus its programmes on

helping the poorest and most vulnerable, either through regular development programmes
or through relief work. Since 1994 CARE has used Household Livelihood Security (HLS)
as a framework for programme analysis, design, monitoring, and evaluation. The concept
of HLS derives from the classic definition of livelihoods developed by Chambers and
Conway (1992), which embodies three fundamental attributes: the possession of human
capabilities (such as education, skills, health, psychological orientation); access to tangible
and intangible assets; and the existence of economic activities. The interaction between
these three attributes defines what livelihood strategy a household will pursue. CARE puts
particular emphasis on strengthening the capability of poor people to enable them to take
initiatives to secure their own livelihoods. It therefore stresses empowerment as a
fundamental dimension of its approach.

DFID’s SL approach aims to increase the agency‘s effectiveness in poverty reduction in

two main ways: the first is by mainstreaming a set of core principles which determine that
poverty-focused development activity should be people-centred, responsive and
participatory, multi-level, conducted in partnership, sustainable, and dynamic. The second
is by applying a holistic perspective in the programming of support activities, to ensure
that these correspond to issues or areas of direct relevance for improving poor people‘s
livelihoods. A central element of DFID‘s approach is the SL Framework, an analytical
structure to facilitate a broad and systematic understanding of the various factors that
constrain or enhance livelihood opportunities, and to show how they relate to each other.

Comparing agencies
All three agencies use the SL approach as a strategy towards poverty alleviation. They also
use similar definitions of what constitutes sustainable livelihoods. However UNDP and
CARE use it to facilitate the planning of concrete projects and programmes, while for
DFID the SL approach is more of a basic framework for analysis than a procedure for
programming.

Review questions

1. Discuss the difference between Sustainable livelihood approaches and other rural
development approaches
2. What indicators are required to analyze livelihood outcomes?

51
 3. What tools do you use in the analysis of livelihood assets?
4. Do you think that there is criticism on Sustainable livelihoods framework?
5. What should be the key attitudes and skills for field staff in order to fully apply a
livelihood approach?

Annex 1: Key Questions for Sustainable Livelihoods

Analysis
Vulnerability context
 Which groups are engaged in which livelihood activities?
 How important is each livelihood activity to the groups that engage in it?
 Is the revenue from a given livelihood activity used for a particular purpose e.g. if it
is controlled by women, is it particularly important to child health or nutrition?
 What proportion of output is marketed?
 How do prices for different products vary throughout the year?
 How predictable is seasonal price variation?
 Are the price cycles of different products all correlated?
 What proportion of household food needs is met by own consumption and what
proportion is purchased?
 At what time of the year is cash income most important? Does this coincide with the
time at which most cash is available?
 Do people have access to appropriate financial services to enable them to save for the
future? Does access vary by social group?
 To what degree are groups vulnerable to extreme climatic events and how are their
livelihoods affected by such events?
 How do income-earning opportunities vary throughout the year? Are they agricultural
or non-farm?
 How does remittance income vary throughout the year?

Livelihood assets
Human capital
 How complex is the local environment (the more complex, the greater importance
of knowledge?)
 From where (what sources, networks) do people access information that they feel is
valuable to their livelihoods?
 Which groups, if any, are excluded from accessing these sources?
 Does this ‗exclusion‘ affect the nature of information available?
 Are knowledge ‗managers‘ (e.g. teachers or core members of knowledge networks)
from a particular social background that affects the type of knowledge that exists in
the community?
 Is there a tradition of local innovation? Are technologies in use from internal or
external sources?
 Do people feel that they are particularly lacking in certain types of information?
 How aware are people of their rights and of the policies, legislation and regulation
that impact on their livelihoods? If they consider themselves to be aware, how
accurate is their understanding?

Social capital

52
 What social networks and more formalised groups (vertical and horizontal) exist?
 To what extent do such networks and formalised groups build trust, facilitate
cooperation and expand access to wider institutions?
 How does such trust, cooperation and access influence livelihood opportunities?

Natural capital
 Which groups have access to which types of natural resources?
 What is the nature of access rights (e.g. private, common?). How secure are they? Can
they be defended against encroachment?
 Is there evidence of significant conflict over resources?
 How productive is the resource (e.g. soil fertility)? Has this been changing over time
(e.g. variation in yields)?
 Is there existing knowledge that can help increase the productivity of resources?
 Is there much spatial variability in the quality of the resource?
 How is the resource affected by externalities (e.g. cross-boundary impacts of other
users)?
 How versatile is the resource? Can it be used for multiple purposes (this can be
important in cushioning users against particular shocks)

Physical capital
 What is the state of transport infrastructure and services, ICT and energy supplies?
 How do they directly or indirectly support livelihoods?
 What access do people have to them?
 Do people have adequate shelter, water supply and sanitation?

Financial capital
o In what form do people currently keep their savings (livestock, jewellery,
cash, bank deposits etc.)?
o What are the risks of these different options? How liquid are they?
o Which types of financial service organisations exist (both formal and
informal)?
o What services do they provide, under what conditions (interest rates,
collateral requirements etc.)?
o Who - which groups or types of people - has access? What prevents others
from gaining access?
o What are the current levels of savings and loans?
o How many households (and what type) have family members living away
who remit money?
o How is remittance income transmitted and how much is transmitted?
o How reliable are remittances? Do they vary by season?
o Who controls remittance income when it arrives? How is it used?
Transforming structures and processes
 What policies and legislation influence people‘s livelihoods, and how?
 What institutions and organizations influence people‘s livelihoods assets, strategies
and outcomes, and how do they influence these?
 What are the roles and responsibilities of these different institutions and organisations,
and how are they established and enforced?
 What are the interrelationships between these different institutions and organisations?
 What access do poor people have to these institutions and organisations?

53
 How aware are people of their basic human and political rights? How are rights
enforced/safeguarded?
 Are there organisations and processes that are owned by poor communities and groups,
and that engage in self help and advocacy initiatives?
Livelihood strategies

 What does the livelihood ‗portfolio‘ of different social groups look like (percentage of
income from different sources, amount of time and resources devoted to each activity
by different household members, etc.)?
 How and why is this changing over time? (Changes may be, for example: long-term, in
response to external environmental change; medium-term as part of the domestic
cycle; or short-term in response to new opportunities or threats.)
 How long-term is people‘s outlook? Are they investing in assets for the future
(saving)? If so, which types of assets are a priority?
 How ‗positive‘ are the choices that people are making? (e.g. Would people migrate
seasonally if there were income earning opportunities closer to home or if they were
not saddled with unpayable debt? Are they ‗bonded‘ in any way? Are women able to
make their own choices or are they constrained by family pressure/local custom?)
 Which combination of activities appear to be ‗working best‘? Is there any discernible
pattern of activities adopted by those who have managed to escape from poverty?
 Which livelihood objectives are not achievable through current livelihood strategies?

Livelihood outcomes

 What are the kinds of livelihood goals that people aspire to achieve and what is the
relative emphasis that they place on different livelihood outcomes? (e.g. more income,
increased well-being, reduced vulnerability, improved food security, more sustainable
use of the natural resource base).
 What trade-offs or conflicts are there between these different livelihood outcomes?
 To what extent do people actually achieve their livelihood goals, and what is
preventing people from fully achieving them?

54