Topic Four: Farming system Research and Methodologies

4.1. Farming System Research (FSR)

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

agricultural improvements for specific ecological zones and types of farmers
v The farming systems approach to development (FSD) has two inter-related
thrusts.
– The 1st thrusts- 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.
 Farming System Research (FSR) conted…
v The FSR was developed in 1970s and 80s by collective efforts of
scholars from different disciplines (natural and social sciences), who
were working in developing nations.

v It was developed as alternative research method or form of inquiry,

which use systemic thinking to challenge the reductionist scientists to
consider local context and farmers’ realities. Because; during that time
farmers, who failed to adopt technologies, were seen as backward and
traditional.

v Primary objective of FSD -is to improve the well-being of individual

farming families by increasing the overall productivity of the farming
system in the context of both the private and societal goals.
 Farming System Research (FSR) conted…
v The two major categories of activities of FSR/FSD (farming system
development), both of which involve intensive interaction with
farmers are:

1. Farming Systems Analysis. This involves studying together with the

farmers the natural and socio-economic environments in which farm
households operate. The aim of FSA is to identify the:-

ü constraints limiting farm productivity and production and hindering

improvement in the welfare of the farm households themselves.
ü Potential solutions to these problems, and the results of this analysis -
formulated as suggestions for further action by the relevant 'actors'.
These could include researchers, extension and support service staff ,
and/or policy makers.
 Cont.…
2. Farming Systems Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation.
v These involve testing, monitoring, and evaluating improvements on-
farm, with the direct involvement of farmers. Examples of such
activities include those regarding proposed technologica l
improvements, revisions in farm plans, and improvements in support
services and farm-level impact of proposed policy changes.
v Those improvements thought to be potentially useful then are
disseminated to other farmers via the extension service
v After dissemination, it is of primary importance to monitor and
evaluate the adoption rate of the proposed improvements by the
farming community.
 Cotd…
v It is based on the development principles of improving productivity,
increasing profitability, ensuring sustainability, and guaranteeing an
equitable distribution of the results of production,

v FSD consists of three basic subsystems, which are closely interlinked

and interactive: the household, the farm, and off-farm activities.
 4.2. FSR Activities: Procedures and Methodologies

v The activity areas of FSR are discussed by Plucknett et al as follows:

v Based data analysis (BDA) involves the collection and analysis of
data on the many factors characterising the environment and farming
system of a region.
v Research station studies (RSS) involve a focused research program
aimed at the development of components for the improvement of
existing systems or for the putting together of new systems.
v On-farm studies (OFS) involve studies of existing systems, on-farm
experimentation studies of technology adaptation, and assessment of
the impact of new technology.
 Contd…
v FSR should be kept to local conditions and institutions since there is
no single best research procedure to apply to all conditions.

v Collinson divides the FSR process into three main areas: Diagnosis,
Planning and Experimentation and Assessment.

v Each of these stages involves linking of five groups of actors:

farmers, FSR scientists, commodity and specialist scientists, extension
staff and policy planners.

v Diagnostic stage consists of identification of target groups, selection

of priority target groups, and problem diagnosis
 Contd…
FSR Methodology
ü The client participatory nature of FSR/E : enhances the capability
of research and extension organizations to incorporate farmers' goals,
resources, concerns with their own future, and their experience into
the technology generation and diffusion process.

ü FSR methodology has recognized Recommendation Domain: In

responding to the concerns for a more sustainable agriculture. more
emphasis must be placed on developing genetic materials and farming
practices that fit within the biophysical and socioeconomic
environments of different farming systems.
ü This will necessarily be based on a fuller understanding of these
environments and in on-farm research to evaluate technology by
environment interactions.

ü This in turn will depend on enhanced multidisciplinary, another of the

basic facets of FSR/E methodology.
 Contd…
v The major activities involved in FSR can be summarized as follows

ü The collection and analysis of base data;

ü The study of existing farming systems;

ü The design of new farming systems;

ü Farm systems experimentation; and

ü The evaluation and monitoring of new farming system

 Fundamental stages in the FSR/D approach.

v There are four fundamental stages in the FSD approach. These are:-

1. The Descriptive/Diagnostic Stage, in which the actual farming

system is examined in the context of the 'total environment, to identify

constraints farmers face and to determine the potential flexibility in the

farming system in terms of timing, unused resources.

v Sequence of activities is usually undertaken during this stage:

ü Identify location of the work,

ü start-up activities include reviewing secondary sources of information, making

the necessary contacts, assembling the professional team, and making logistical

arrangements,
 Contd…
2. The Design Stage: In this stage a range of strategies is identified that
are thought to be relevant.

v Sequence of activities is usually undertaken during this stage:

ü the constraints are ranked according to their severity, and potential

solutions are identified

ü Bring information for designing such strategies comes from

experiment station work, researcher managed and researcher
implemented type work on farmers' fields, and from other farmers.

ü An evaluation is made of the proposed solutions before putting them

into practice.
 Contd…
v Analytical techniques can be used to evaluate the potential technical
feasibility- economic viability, social acceptability, and ecological
sustainability of the proposed solutions before they are put into
practice.
 Contd…
3. The Testing and Implementation Stage -in which the identified
strategies are examined and evaluated under term conditions to
determine their suitability for producing desirable and acceptable
changes in the existing farming system.
v Sequence of activities is usually undertaken during this stage:
ü On-farm testing or evaluation with farmers determining how well the
potential improvements fit into the system, whether or not they are
acceptable to farming households, and what modification may be
needed to make them acceptable.
ü The tested technologies can be disseminated through the extension
service to other similar farming households
 Contd…
4. The Dissemination and Impact Evaluation Stage During this
stage: the strategies that were identified and screened during the design
and testing stages are extended to farmers

ü In terms of activities at this stage, impact/adoption studies can be very

important. These potentially can be very useful what adjustments are
required in the policy/support systems to ensure better rates of
adoption.

ü Thus, through monitoring and evaluating the impact and rate of

adoption of the changes that have been implemented and
proposed/tested earlier .
 4.3. System Analysis & Performance Criteria
What do we mean by Farming System Analysis?
q Farming system analysis (FSA) is defined as an approach to scientific
research that integrates both biophysical and socio-economic metrics
to gain an understanding of outcomes at the whole-farm level.

q FSA can be helpful to compare one set of farming practices against a

different set of farming practices. For example, the comparison of
organic versus conventional management, or conservation agriculture
practices versus traditional cultivation and land management.
q Importantly the metrics being compared include biophysical measures
(e.g. crop productivity and yield) as well as economic (e.g. input costs,
profit and labor costs) and social indicators of system state and
performance.
 4.4. Characteristics of FSR/D
1. Farmer Centre Stage: The farmer, as the consumer of the improved
technologies, is in the center of the stage.

-This provides an opportunity for researchers to learn from the farmer,

enables them to have an input into the research process, and ensures that
criteria relevant to used in evaluating proposed technologies.

2. Work with Representative Farmers: it is impossible for FSD teams

to work with all farmers. Therefore, a few are selected to be
representative of all farmers. -many types of farmers with differences in
the products they produce, the resources they possess, and the problems
they face.
3. Involves an interdisciplinary Approach: farmers have complex
farming systems. As a result, changes in one part of the farming system
may have a good or bad impact on another part of the farming system.
Therefore, to address the wide range of farming systems' issues, FSD
teams generally consist of representatives of a number of disciplines

-- usually agronomists, animal scientists, and agricultural economists

and sometimes sociologists.

- As a result, an interdisciplinary approach, that is a number of

disciplines working together on the same problem, has to be used to

solve the problems of farmers.
4. Dynamic and Iterative Approach: Because of the dynamic nature of
agriculture, research is a never-ending process.

-Farmers always face problems to varying degrees in their farming

operation, and many of these problems can be solved through research.

-Sometimes the solutions suggested as a result of research don't work

and need to be modified.

-Where the dotted lines indicate that such failures require moving back
to an earlier stage in the FSD process and repeating one or more of the
steps in the process.

-This makes FSD an iterative as well as a dynamic approach.

5. Complementary to Station-based Research. the role of FSD is
seen to be complementary to technical component research, most of
which is undertaken on experiment stations and is usually commodity-
based, With respect to such research, FSD has three roles:
ü To look at recognized farming systems and the stock of materials and
techniques accumulated from station-based research
ü To pass back unsolved technical problems, important to the system, to
the appropriate commodity research team on the experiment station,
ü To link with farmer clients and extension staff in local farm situations,
drawing both farmers and extension workers and other relevant
'actors' into the technology-generation process.
6. System Oriented
Ø The components of farming (cropping, livestock… etc) are to be seen
as part of a bigger farming system.
Ø Resources flow among the components or sub-systems makes them
inter-dependent.
Ø Therefore, changes in one affect the other, positively or negatively.
7. Problem solving- in order to improve the efficiency of the system, it
is important to understand the problems of the farming households for
fulfilling their objectives.

8. Participatory- FSR requires partnership b/n farmers and extensionists

– such partnership allows them to have insight in to the farming system
to obtain first hand information from farmers on performance of
technologies and farmers’ attitude technologies.
9. Complementary
• It packages knowledge generated by basic & applied research.
• Provides feedback to the experiment all solution & enables the
research staff to develop suitable technologies to address the farmers’
problems.
10. Links research with extension & other dev’t agencies.
§ For effective design, implementation and dissemination, it is vital
to establish the necessary forward and backward linkages with private
sectors, NGOs, and policy makers.
§ This helps in better focusing of research and in getting assistance in
implementation and evaluation, in receiving feed back and in
identifying input needs.
11. Enables better management of risk.

Small farmers have effective strategies to manage risk. Scientists also

gain a better understanding of the risk associated with farming and any
potential technological solution.

• This helps in designing technologies that fit within the farmers’ risk
management capacity.

12. Deals with suitability of resources and household economy.

Recognizes the need to preserve the natural resources for the future

generation.
13. Attempts to reconcile national & farmer priorities.

v There is a need to reconcile national priorities with that of the farmers

in order to achieve the national development goal. Matches
government’s development objectives with farmers’ objectives.

ü FSR brings research, extension & farmers together to solve farmers’

priority problems & create new opportunities for research.

ü It provides a systematic way of understanding the technical and socio-

economic environment of farmers, it helps to identify constraints & to
develop solutions to the problem that farmers face.
 4.5. Performance Criteria for Systems Property
Ø The eight properties of farm systems and activities which need to be
assessed when analyzing performance of systems are:

• (1) Productivity
(2) Profitability
(3) Stability
(4) Diversity
(5) Flexibility
(6) Time-dispersion
(7) Sustainability
(8) Complementarity and environmental compatibility.
• These system properties can be quantified (at least conceptually;).

• They are all 'desirable' or at least neutral in the sense that an

individual farm which ranks highly with respect to productivity,
profitability, stability etc. represents a superior system to a farm on
which productivity, profitability etc. are low.

• When applied to a specific farm only a few of these properties might

be thought relevant by the farm family or other decision maker. One
farm manager might have a purely profit objective and would wish his
or her performance to be evaluated in terms of profit. A second
manager on the same type of farm might seek some balance of
profitability-stability-sustainability so that criteria relating to these
three properties would then need to be applied.
 At social level
• Apart from farmers, society has a vital long-term interest in how rural
resources are used and how farm systems perform.

• When farm management operates in different fields (i.e., playing a

contributing role in planning new settlements, irrigation projects etc.,
and in government policy guidance), it must also be cognizant of the
several properties of farm systems.

• Some of these, particularly productivity, stability and sustainability,

might well be more important from a social than from a private-
household viewpoint.
 1. Productivity

• Productivity is primarily a measure of the relative suitability of a system or

activity in a particular agro-ecological environment.

• On commercial farms it is an indicator of relative efficiency of resource use

and management performance.

• Productivity is conventionally measured in terms of such units, e.g., as tons,

kilograms or liters of output respectively per acre, hectare or animal unit
employed over some relevant time unit (typically a year). Or, if desired, it
may be measured in financial terms over some relevant timespan as the ratio
of total revenue to total cost, i.e., the value of output per unit of cost.

• Productivity is an appropriate measure of system and activity performance

when applied to single-output enterprises or mono-product systems.
 3. Stability

• System stability refers to the absence or minimization of year-to-year

fluctuations in either production or value of output.
4. Diversity
• It refers to a strategy of increasing the number of activities in a system
and/or their separate products in order
– i to reduce overall system risk of income or family-sustenance failure
and/or
– ii to increase overall production/profit (averaged over time) through a
better use of available resources.

• A high diversity level is conducive to system stability (but diversity

might conceivably be achieved at the cost of a reduction in average
profit).
 5 Flexibility

• The property of flexibility of product use provides a second dimension

to diversification: it refers to the availability of alternative ways of
product disposal /use.

• There are a maximum of four ways: consume/use, sell/barter, store or

process. A product for which all of these possibilities exist is
intuitively preferable, other things equal, to one which can only be
eaten or must be immediately sold.
• Farms small dependent specialized family farms growing a cash crop
such as cotton, tobacco, commercial sugarcane etc. have least
flexibility in product use since they have no alternative other than sale.

• Small subsistence and semi-subsistence farms usually have the highest

overall system flexibility because of the type and number of items
produced.
 6. Time-dispersion

• Time-dispersion of production or income refers to the degree to which

a given production or income pattern is predictably dispersed (or,
conversely, concentrated) over time - over a season or, more usually,
the operating year.

• It is a measure of the uniformity of within-year production/income

flow.

• Time-dispersion is a basis for distinguishing systems from which the

product or income is received as a lump amount at one point in the
operating year (e.g., in a single harvest month) from systems which
yield a uniform flow over the operating period.
• The two extremes are
(a) a product/income which is perfectly dispersed (e.g.,
received as 12 equal monthly amounts over the
operating year) and
(b) (b) a product/income which is all received as a single
quantity in only one month of the year.
7. sustainability
• By sustainability is meant the capacity of a system to maintain its
productivity/profitability at a satisfactory level over a long or
indefinite time period regardless of year-to-year fluctuations (i.e., of
its short-term instability).
• In an agricultural production context, sustainability is relevant to
farming systems of whatever composition, but not necessarily to the
individual production phases of short-term crops.

• The concept involves the evaluation of farm activities and systems in

terms of their (interrelated) ecological, economic and socio-cultural
sustainability over long time periods of many years.
8. Complementarity and environmental compatibility

• When applied to activities, this last of the eight properties requires

that any crop or livestock component of a system be capable of
structural integration with all other components of the system and its
environment in terms of management practices, resources and
technologies used, and disposal of products/by-products.

• Such structural integration is especially important in relation to long-

term activities where bad decisions made regarding one activity and

their adverse effects on other activities might not be easily rectified.

 4.6. Challenges of FSR/D

A number of challenges face FSD. Some of these are:

1. 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.
-farmers could improve the efficiency of the research process.
-Consequently, this spawned the farmer participatory research
(FPR ) movement
- Techniques of FPR or PRA need to be incorporated into FSD.
2. Continued Evolution of FSD. FSD is relatively new.
Therefore, the methodology is still evolving and, as a result, universally
accepted 'standard texts' on the 'nuts and bolts, of how to do it are still to
emerge.
3. 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,
4. 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 its likely that these 'felt, problems of farmers are likely to have a short-run
focus (i.e., particularly when the farmer is operating very close to the
survival level).

• Also, it is possible that helping to solve the individual farmers' problems

creates others for the society as a whole.

• equity considerations within a particular generation also apply to what is

happening within farming families. it is wrong to assume that all farming
households or families operate in such a way that distribution of effort and
benefits is equitable.
• When designing a technology to help farmers increase their
productivity, consideration must be given to the possible long-term
effects (e.g., decreasing the amount of productive land available) of
that intervention.

• Therefore, if farming system (FS) workers are not careful, their work
can result in creating two types of inequalities, that is, helping some
farming households -- or even certain individuals within those
households -- at the expense of others and/or reducing the quantity
and quality of land that can be productively farmed by future
generations. Avoiding the development of such inequities constitutes a
major challenge to FSD teams.
 5. Assessing Agricultural Research Impact.
• More attention needs to be paid to adoption/diffusion studies. Such
studies, of course, are the best measure of the impact of the agricultural
development process.
• 6. 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,
FSD helps facilitate a process and does not result in a product by itself.
• FSD achieves credibility through its linkages and cooperative efforts
with other 'actors' in the agricultural development process. Findings need
to be documented and publicized to a greater extent than often has been
the case.
 4.7. Participatory research tools and techniques
• Participatory research and development can be seen as a continuous
process, starting with different stakeholders (researchers, extension
agents, formers, and commercial organizations) sharing experiences,
pulling their knowledge and resources and planning together.

• This requires commitment and agreement by each stakeholder to

follow up on what was agreed during discussions.
 Some basic principles involved with participatory processes.

Ø Learn from different stakeholders and involve them in all stages of

the process. Value their knowledge and skills.

Ø Do not waste peoples' time in obtaining an excess of detailed

information, which will waste time and hide important issues.

Ø Qualitative information is often more useful than elaborate statistics

obtained through time-consuming questionnaires. Ensure that the least
articulate people, often women, and marginalized members of the
community are able to contribute and to benefit.

Ø Cross check information by asking different people and use different

participatory tools to cover the same issue.
Ø link research with development action. local communities must make
as many as possible of the decisions involved.

Ø The process should be gender-sensitive. Women are often

disadvantaged and this imbalance needs to be recognized and
initiatives that reduce this inequality encouraged.

Ø The use of participatory tools should not be seen as "an end in itself"
but should always lead to concrete activities implemented in the
community. It should be seen as finding solutions together for the
community .

Ø Activities should be sustainable and continue after outside support

has ceased.
• A large number of participatory tools are available for assisting in
collecting and analyzing local information and situations.

• These should not be confused with the four stage of process.

• The tools allow facilitators and community group members to

communicate effectively during the process.

• Their appropriate use allows the community to better understand itself

and identify problems and potential solutions.
• The research and development process requires guiding and
facilitating through four key stages These are:

• Stage 1. Encouraging and mobilizing communities to undertake their

own situational analysis and start thinking about how they can deal
with their own problems.

• Stage 2. Action planning by the community, which helps in

motivating people and giving opportunity to disadvantaged groups to
express their views.

• Stage 3. Implementation and former experimentation

• Stage 4. Monitoring and evaluation through sharing experiences, self

valuation and planning for the next season.
 Some key participatory tools.

Livelihoods analysis,

Resource (or wealth ranking)

Institutional analysis

Seasonal calendars,

Gender analysis,

Flow diagrams, Ranking techniques (Preference ranking - Pairwise

ranking - Matrix ranking), Causal diagrams, Mapping, Participatory
budgeting etc
 4.8. Problem diagnosis and opportunities identification
• Two further methodological developments were reported in the early
1980s.

• First, the Rhoades and Booth farmer-back-to-farmer model developed

at the International Potato Center (CIP) and described in 1982,
stressed interdisciplinary rather than multidisciplinary work.

• It was characterized by interaction between farmers and researchers in

which the conventional project cycle of diagnosis, experimentation,
assessment and dissemination can be replaced, for instance, by
approaches which begin with an experiment and end with a survey.
● In diagnosis the problem is identified jointly by farmers and
researchers.

● Interdisciplinary team research develops potential solutions to the

problem.

● Solutions are adapted to farmers’ conditions in on-farm testing.

● Farmers play a key role in evaluation and further adaptation.

● A diagnostic procedure involving learning with farmers.

● Technology generation on-farm and with farmer.

● Using the level of farmer adoption as a criterion for evaluating

research.
 Topic Five: Sustainable Livelihood
5.1. Concepts of sustainable livelihoods
§ 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.

§ The sustainable livelihoods approach is a holistic approach that tries

to capture, and provide a means of understanding, the fundamental
causes and dimensions of poverty without collapsing the focus onto
just a few factors (e.g. economic issues, food security, etc.).
§ A livelihood comprises the people their capabilities, their assets
(stores, resources, claims and access) and their activities required for a
means of living.
 Core concepts of sustainable livelihood/principles
v A focus on people- A livelihoods approach puts people at the centre of development.
v This is equally important at macro levels (e.g. in relation to economic reform) as it
is at the micro or community level (where it may already be well embedded).
This means that practical applications of SL concepts:

ü start with an analysis of people’s livelihoods and how these have been
changing over time;
ü fully involve people and support them in achieving their own livelihood
goals;
ü focus on the impact of different policy and institutional arrangements on
people’s livelihoods; and,
ü seek to influence these arrangements so they promote the agenda of the
poor.
v Holism- SL concepts allow the identification of livelihood-related
opportunities and constraints regardless of where these occur:
ü it is non-sectoral and applicable across social groups;
ü it recognizes multiple influences on people, and seeks to
understand the relationships between these influences;
ü it recognizes multiple actors (from the private sector to national
ministries, from community-based organizations to newly
emerging decentralized government bodies);
ü it acknowledges the multiple livelihood strategies that people
adopt to secure their livelihoods;
ü it seeks to achieve multiple livelihood outcomes, to be determined
and negotiated by people themselves.
v Dynamic; Just as people’s livelihoods and the institutions that shape
them are highly dynamic, so is this approach.

v Sustainability: While it is common to hear and use the short-hand

‘livelihoods approach’ (i.e. omitting ‘sustainable’), the notion of
sustainability is key to this approach. It should not be ignored or
marginalized.

v Macro-micro links: Development activity tends to focus at either the

macro or the micro level
 Sustainable livelihoods objectives
§ According to DFID (Department for International Development), the broad
and encompassing sustainable livelihoods approach can be distilled to six
core objectives.

ü improved access to high-quality education, information, technologies and

training and better nutrition and health;

ü a more supportive and cohesive social environment;

ü more secure access to, and better management of, natural resources;

ü better access to basic and facilitating infrastructure;

ü more secure access to financial resources; and

ü a policy and institutional environment that supports multiple livelihood

strategies and promotes equitable access to competitive markets for all
5.2. Sustainable Livelihoods as Integrated Concept
 Pillars of sustanability
§ 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.
• Institutional sustainability is achieved when prevailing structures and
processes have the capacity to continue to perform their functions over the
long term.
• Very few livelihoods qualify as sustainable across all these dimensions.
• Nevertheless sustainability is a key goal and its pursuit should influence all
DFID’s (Department for International Development) support activities.
Progress towards sustainability can then be assessed, even if ‘full’
sustainability is never achieved.
 5.3. What is Sustainable Livelihood?
What is sustainability? the most familiar sustainability definition was
presented in the Brundtland World Commission report (1987). The term
was defined as “the development that meets the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs”.

- Sustainability has many dimensions, all of which are important to the

sustainable livelihoods approach.
• Most development agencies adopt the Chambers and Conway
(1992:7-8) definition of livelihoods (or some slight variation on this)
which holds that: A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets
(stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a
means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and
recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the
next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other
livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the long and short
term.
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
 Determinant of livelihoods

• There are numerous initial determinants of livelihoods, these are;

1. Livelihoods which are predetermined by accidents of birth

2. Gender as it is socially defined as determinates of livelihoods

3. A person also choose a livelihood through education and migration

4. Natural calamities can also determine the livelihoods

5. Economic growth can also determine the livelihoods of a person

6. Adaptable capability to exploit new opportunities can also determine

the livelihood of a person
 5.4. Principles of Sustainable Livelihood
1. People centered: sustainable poverty elimination will be achieved
only possible when the extern support focuses on what matters to the
people.
2. Responsive and participatory: Poor people themselves must be
key actors in identifying and addressing livelihood priorities.
Outsiders need process that enable them to listen and respond to the
poor.
3. Multi-level poverty elimination is an enormous challenges that will
be overcome only by working at several levels,
ensuring that micro-level activities inform the development of policy
an effective enabling environment, and
that macro level structure and posses support people to build upon
their own strenght.
4. Conducted in partnership. With both the public and private sector
5. Sustainable to be sustainable the livelihood should have fulfill four
dimensions. These are

ü it should be economical

ü institutionalized

ü socially viable

ü environmentally friendly.

6. Dynamic external supporters: should have to recognize the

dynamic nature of livelihood strategies and flexibly respond to change in
people’s situation and develop long term commitment
 6: Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis
6.1. Concept of livelihood analysis

q The history of livelihood analysis stems from the agro ecosystem

analysis developed by Conway (1985, 1986, and 1987) and
Gypmantasiri et al (1980) at the University of Chiang Mai.

q The livelihood analysis is concerned with stability, crises and

coping, relative income, expenditure, credit and debt.

q In reality, livelihood analysis analyses multiple activities (Chambers,

1992).
qLivelihood analysis refers to finding out the degree to which

the pattern of life differs from one social class to another

social class in terms of size of the family, type of house,
technology adoption pattern, size of land holding, annual
income, sources of income, food habits, expenditure pattern,
indebtedness, type of animals owned, migrants in the
household, seasonality of variation, crisis management pattern
etc.
 Methods of livelihood analysis
• Common participatory methods used in emergencies, include key
informant interviews, focus group interviews, wealth ranking,
proportional piling, seasonal calendars, and timelines. The
livelihoods framework in its entirety has rarely been used as the basis
for emergency assessments.
 Use of livelihood analysis:

ü Livelihood analysis is used for preparation of an efficient, practical

and feasible action plan for the up liftment of the various sections of
the rural society so as to make a socialistic pattern of rural society.

ü The livelihood analysis indicates the variation among the various

classes with regard to many day to day phenomena.

ü This can be taken into account in preparing the action plan. The action
plan process can easily be broken down into various activities in a
sequential way so as to achieve the ultimate objective of holistic
agricultural development.
ü This livelihood analysis indicates the various sources of income for
different classes.

ü This information can be used in selecting the beneficiaries for income

augmenting rural, agricultural and animal husbandry schemes so that
income level can be balances among different social classes of a
village
 Variables to be chosen for livelihood analysis:

1) Type of house: whether concrete, tiled or thatched.

2) Size of the family: Number of family members under different

categories like male, female, children, permanent labourers, members
away from the home for months together etc.

3) Land holding: Area under wet land, garden land and dry land etc.

4) Nature of farming: Diversified farming or not.

5) Livestock ownership: Number of animals under different livestock

species
6) Annual income: The yearly average income in cash.

7) Sources of income: The various sources of income like crop production,

livestock production ,fisheries, sericulture etc.

8) Expenditure pattern: percentage of money spent for various items like

cultivation, food, education, health, cloth, ceremonies, livestock management,
etc.

9) Seasonal variation: Month in which income is more or expenditure is more

for different expenditure items.

10) Savings: Nature of savings in cash or kind.

11) Debts: Loans taken from different financial institutions.

12) Crisis management: Major criteria and the waves and means of solving
crises like crop failure, sudden illness of a family member, marriage, theft etc
• 13) Food habits: Type of food, number of times food taken in a day.

• 14) Sources of food: From farm, from outside, purchased, gifts from
friends and relatives.

• 15) Material possession: car, scooter, TV, Fridge, phone.

• 16) Education of children: Convent going, private, government

school going etc.
6.2. Analytical framework of sustainable livelihoods

§ The livelihoods framework is a tool to improve our

understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of
the poor.

§ Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework also known as

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) or Sustainable
Livelihood Approach (SLA) as it is applied in different
settings.

§ It is the most commonly used framework in both research

and development.
• The arrows within the framework are used as shorthand to denote a
variety of different types of relationships, all of which are highly
dynamic.

• The sustainable livelihoods framework presents the main factors

that affect people’s livelihoods, and typical relationships between
these.

• It can be used in both planning new development activities and

assessing the contribution to livelihood sustainability made by
existing activities.

• The framework is centred on people and summarizes the main

components of and influences on livelihoods;
6.3. Components of sustainable Livelihood Framework
The following are Components of Sustainable Livelihood
Framework.

1. Vulnerability Context (trends and shocks)

2. Livelihood resources (assets)

3. Mediating processes (institutions, organizations and social relations)

4. Activities and livelihood strategies

5. Livelihood outcomes
 1. Vulnerability Context
v Vulnerability is characterized as insecurity in the well-being of
individuals, households, and communities in the face of changes in
their external environment.

v Vulnerability has two facets: an external side of shocks, seasonality,

and critical trends ; and an internal side of defenselessness caused by
lack of ability and means to cope with these.

v People’s livelihoods and the wider availability of assets are

fundamentally affected by critical trends as well as by shocks and
seasonality – over which they have limited or no control

v The box below provides examples (this is not a complete list):

 Examples of velnerability context
Trends
• Population trends
• Resource trends (including conflict)
• National/international economic trends
• Trends in governance (including politics)
• Technological trend
Shocks
v Understanding the factors that make up the Vulnerability Context are
important because they have a direct impact upon people’s asset status
and the options that are open to them in pursuit of beneficial
livelihood outcomes
Ø Shocks can destroy assets directly (in the case of floods, storms, civil
conflict, etc.). They can also force people to abandon their home areas
and dispose of assets (such as land) prematurely as part of coping
strategies. Recent events have highlighted the impact that
international economic shocks, including rapid changes in exchange
rates and terms of trade, can have on the very poor.

Ø Trends may (or may not) be more benign, though they are more
predictable. They have a particularly important influence on rates of
return (economic or otherwise) to chosen livelihood strategies.

Ø Seasonal shifts in prices, employment opportunities and food

availability are one of the greatest and most enduring sources of
hardship for poor people in developing countries.
§ Different components of the Vulnerability Context affect different
people in different ways.

§ Thus, natural shocks may have a more adverse effect on agricultural

activity than on urban employment.

§ Likewise, changes in international commodity prices will affect those

who grow, process or export such commodities but have little direct
effect on those who produce for, or trade in, the local market.

§ Understanding the nature of vulnerability is a key step in sustainable

livelihoods analysis
 2. Livelihood assets
§ It seeks to gain an accurate and realistic understanding of people’s
strengths (assets or capital endowments) and how they endeavor to
convert these into positive livelihood outcomes.

§ The approach is founded on a belief that people require a range of

assets to achieve positive livelihood outcomes; no single category of
assets on its own is sufficient to yield all the many and varied
livelihood outcomes that people seek.

§ This is particularly true for poor people whose access to any given
category of assets tends to be very limited.
• Their is the asset pentagon lies at the core of the livelihoods
framework, ‘within’ the vulnerability context.

• The pentagon was developed to enable information about people’s

assets to be presented visually, thereby see the inter-relation ships
between the various assets.

• Asset has five components

1. Human capital

2. Social capital

3. Physical capital

4. Financial capital

5. Natural capital
 1. Human capital
v Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and
good health that together enable people to pursue different livelihood
strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives.

v At a household level, human capital is a factor of the amount and

quality of labour available. This varies according to household size,
skill levels, leadership potential, health status, etc.

v Human capital is an intrinsic value (knowledge and labour or the

ability to command labour) is required in order to make use of any of
the four other types of assets. It is therefore necessary for the
achievement of positive livelihood outcomes.
 2. What is social capital?
• In the context of the sustainable livelihoods framework it is taken to mean
the social resources upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood
objectives. These are developed through:

ü Networks and connectedness, either vertical (patron/client) or

horizontal (between individuals with shared interests) that increase
people’s trust and ability to work together and expand their access to
wider institutions, such as political or civic bodies;
ü Membership of more formalized groups which often entails adherence to
mutually-agreed or commonly accepted rules, norms and sanctions; and
ü Relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchanges that facilitate co-
operation, reduce transaction costs and may provide the basis for
informal safety nets amongst the poor
• Social capital helps to reduce the 'free rider' problems associated with
public goods. This means that it can be effective in improving the
management of common resources (natural capital) and the
maintenance of shared infrastructure (physical capital).

• Social networks facilitate innovation, the development of knowledge

and sharing of that knowledge. There is, therefore, a close relationship
between social and human capital.

• Social capital, like other types of capital, can also be valued as a good
in itself. It can make a particularly important contribution to people's
sense of well-being (through identity, honour and belonging).
 3. What is natural capital?

• Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from
which resource flows and services (e.g. nutrient cycling, erosion
protection) useful for livelihoods are derived.

• There is a wide variation in the resources that make up natural capital,

from intangible public goods such as the atmosphere and biodiversity
to divisible assets used directly for production (trees, land, etc.).

• Many of the shocks that devastate the livelihoods of the poor are
themselves natural processes that destroy natural capital (e.g. fires that
destroy forests, floods and earthquakes that destroy agricultural land)
and seasonality is largely due to changes in the value or productivity
of natural capital over the year.
• Natural capital is very important to those who derive all or part of
their livelihoods from resource-based activities (farming, fishing,
gathering in forests, mineral extraction, etc.).

• Examples of natural capital and services deriving from it include;

land, forests marine/wild resources, water, air quality, erosion
protection, waste assimilation, storm protection, biodiversity degree
and rate of change.
 5. What is financial capital?
§ Financial capital denotes the financial resources that people use to
achieve their livelihood objectives. The definition used here is not
economically robust in that it includes flows as well as stocks and it
can contribute to consumption as well as production.

§ However, it has been adopted to try to capture an important livelihood

building block, namely the availability of cash or equivalent, that
enables people to adopt different livelihood strategies.
 4. What is physical capital?
§ Physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods
needed to support livelihoods.
§ Infrastructure consists of changes to the physical environment that
help people to meet their basic needs and to be more productive.
§ Producer goods are the tools and equipment that people use to
function more productively.
§ The following components of infrastructure are usually essential for
sustainable livelihoods:
§ affordable transport, secure shelter and buildings, adequate water
supply and sanitation, clean, affordable energy and access to
information (communications).
§ There are two main sources of financial capital.

ü Available stocks: Savings are the preferred type of financial capital

because they do not have liabilities attached and usually do not entail
reliance on others.

ü They can be held in several forms: cash, bank deposits or liquid assets
such as livestock and jewellery. Financial resources can also be
obtained through credit-providing institutions.

ü Regular inflows of money: Excluding earned income, the most

common types of inflows are pensions, or other transfers from the
state, and remittances.
 3. Policy Institutions And Processes,

v Under this component of livelihood analytical framework;

Ø Transforming Structures and Processes within the livelihoods

framework are the institutions, organizations, policies and legislation
that shape livelihoods.

Ø They operate at all levels, from the household to the international

arena, and

Ø in all spheres, from the most private to the most public.

Ø They effectively determine;

ü access to various types of capital, to livelihood strategies and to

decision-making bodies and sources of influence;

ü the terms of exchange between different types of capital; and

ü returns (economic and otherwise) to any given livelihood strategy.

v And Policies inform the development of new legislation and provide

a framework for the actions of public sector implementing agencies
and their sub-contractors
 4. Livelihood strategies
v The livelihoods approach seeks to promote choice, opportunity and
diversity.

v It is the range and combination of activities and choices that people

make/undertake in order to achieve their livelihood goals (including
productive activities, investment strategies, reproductive choices, etc.).

v livelihood strategies for rural communities could be agricultural

intensification, livelihood diversification and migration

v But strategies are intimately connected with people’s objectives;

v People select the beneficial Livelihood Outcomes that they seek.

 5. Livelihood Outcomes
v Livelihood Outcomes are the achievements or outputs of Livelihood
Strategies; Which includes;

Ø increased income,

Ø increased well-being,

Ø reduced vulnerability,

Ø improved food security and

Ø more sustainable use of the natural resource base

 6.4. Comparison of Livelihood Frameworks

v This section summarizes how three development agencies — the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the international
non governmental organization CARE, and DFID — use SL approach
in their work.

v These three agencies were chosen because they each use the approach
slightly differently
 CARE’s Livelihood Approach(Cooperative for Assistance
and Relief Everywhere)
• The international non-governmental organization CARE’s mandate is
to focus all its programmes on providing assistance to the
disadvantaged and most vulnerable communities through development
programmes or relief work.

• The unde r l y i ng f r a m e w or k t ha t C A R E us e s t o gu i de t he i r
development programme analysis, design, monitoring and evaluation
are; the Household Livelihood Security (HLS) Framework.

• The framework focuses on the possession of human capital, access to

tangible and intangible assets and the existence of economic activities.
• The collaboration among the three attributes defines what livelihood
strategy a household will try to achieve.

• The HLS can also be linked to a household’s basic needs. These can
include income/employment, food security, water supply, basic
education, community participation, basic health and/or family
planning.
• The diagram below depicts the CARE livelihood approach
 UNDP Livelihood Approach
• The Sustainable Livelihoods approach provides a framework for
poverty reduction.

• The UNDP has adopted the asset-based viewpoint that focuses on a

household’s access to and sustainable use of assets to improve their
livelihoods.

• UNDP’s SL Framework stresses that in order to rise a household out

of poverty, there is a need to first understand the coping strategies
(short-term responses to a shock) and adaptive strategies (long-term
changes in response to change) that are influenced by a household’s
assets.
• With this understanding, appropriate technological interventions may
be applied to a community to realise sustainable development.

• Another key areas that should be taken into consideration are people’s
strengths (as opposed to needs), sustainability, policy as well as
governance issues.

• The diagram below depicts the UNDP livelihood approach.

• The following table summarizes how DFID, UNDP and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) such as CARE and Oxfam.
retrofitted and applied the sustainable livelihood. ( tables are at the
end of chapter two)
The end