Chapter: one

System perspective
 Evolution of system thinking
 Farming systems (FSs), and ways of thinking about them, evolved
( developed) in space and time.
 Rapid evolution took place in the last two decades when crop and
livestock yields increased, together with concerns about their socio-
economic and biophysical tradeoffs( exchanging).
 The application of farming systems research (FSR) to agricultural
development was a response to problems arising from a
predominantly reductionist approach to research and a cornucopian(
sufficiency ) view of external inputs.
 Modern technologies were either not welcome or caused
unexpected negative trade-offs.( that means there is not modern
technologies during this year).
 Definitions and forms of FSR and the need for evolution
in thinking about agricultural development.
 Farming systems and thinking about farming change
continuously.

 These processes can be called the evolution of farming

systems and system philosophy, if change is called
evolution and if thinking about systems is called
philosophy( the way of studying knowledge, truth and
nature and meaning of life).
 The adoption of farming systems research(FSR)
methodologies and philosophies institutes a few decades
ago arose from an emerging awareness of the problems
associated with technical successes in terms of yield
increases.

 FSR was a typical product of an evolution in thinking,

i.e. an evolution of philosophy about agricultural
development, which consists of theoretical and more
practical approaches
 Concept of system thinking
 Systems Thinking is the art and science of making
reliable conclusion about behavior by increasing deep
understanding of structure.
 The term systems thinking is preferred
to holistic or whole systems, which have looser and more
intuitive(spontaneous) meanings, and emphasize
understanding the whole rather than the dynamic
structure of the system.
 Systems thinking is a way of thinking about, and a
language for describing and understanding, the forces
and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems.
 What is System?
 The term "System" is derived from the Greek word systema.
 It means an organized relationship among functioning units or
components.
 We can define a System as a combination of resources or functional
units working together to accomplish a given task.
 The term "working together" in system definition is very important
as all the components are interrelated and interdependent and it
cannot exist independently.
 As the definition says, these components interact with each other to
accomplish a given task, which is actually the objective of the
system.
 The following figure gives us all the basic components of a system
as it is understood in systems theory
From the above figure you can see five terms such as input, output,
throughput, boundary and environment.
Our system, as living organisms for example, is needs inputs like
oxygen, water, food etc from environment and provides outputs like
carbon dioxide, urine, excrete wastes etc to survive.
When we change inputs to outputs there is an intermediate process
or physiological process which is called throughput.
Our boundary is our skin that separates us from environment.
The concept of working together shows that our body is made up
from different systems such as circulatory, expiratory, digestion etc
systems.
 If one of our systems is affected, it will affect our overall
performance that is interdependency. Therefore, the whole (e.g. our
body) cannot be subdivided into independent subsystems.
 Systems’ common terms
 Interdependence-of objects and their attributes- independent
elements can never constitute a system
 Holism-emergent properties not possible to detect (cannot
dig out in to subsystem) analysis should be possible to define
by a holistic approach or by study whole.
 Goal seeking - systemic interaction must result in some goal
or final state.
 Inputs and Outputs-in a closed system, inputs are determined
once and constant; in an open system additional inputs are
admitted from the environment
 Transformation-of inputs into outputs-this is the process by
which the goals are obtained
 Entropy - the amount of disorder or randomness present in any
system( there is aimless and misless in system)
 Regulation-a method of feedback is necessary for the system to
operate predictably( for future its necessary to operating
feedback)
 Hierarchy - complex wholes (super systems) are made up of
smaller subsystems
 Differentiation-specialized units perform specialized
functions like our brain, CPU in computer, household in
farming system
 Equifinality-alternative ways of attaining the same objectives
(convergence) from different inputs, output is the same.
 Multifinality- attaining alternative objectives from the same
inputs (divergence)
 System’s Classification
There is no universally accepted classification. For simplicity of understanding,
system can be classified into three broad families;
1.Natural systems: Are those systems that exist in nature. They consist of all the
materials (both physical and biological) and interrelated processes occurring to
these materials.
2.Social systems: Are more difficult to define. Essentially, they consist of the
entities( i.e d/t bodies) forming animate populations, the institutions or social
mechanisms created by such entities, and the interrelationships among or between
individuals, groups, and communities, expressed directly or through the medium of
institutions.
 Social systems involve relationships between animate populations (individuals,
groups, communities), not between things.
 There is a certain degree of ambiguity in defining social systems.
 Social system is unclear because it is not observable like natural
system.
 Therefore, social system is deliberate mental construct that
people create through debate, negotiation and consensus to solve
problems.
3. Artificial systems: Do not exist in nature.
 They are human creation. Artificial systems include agricultural
systems.
 They are constructed from either or both of two kinds of elements
i.e. from natural and social systems.
 In this regard, dairy cooperative (cooperative is social and dairy
is agriculture or natural) can be taken as the other example
for artificial system.
 Other classifications
Systems can be further classified according to system 'type '
 Static or dynamic; depending on whether or not they change over
time in response to internal or external influences. Here, dynamic
systems or sensitive to changes in situations compared to static
systems.
 Open or closed; depending on whether or not they interact with their
environment.
 In the real world every system is open, mathematicians, physicists,
chemists etc. assume the system are closed but, they are open. E.g.
when we mix chemicals we only assume some of them and write
the formula for our understanding, but there are many reactions
that we ignore due to fear of complexity or to make close system.
 Abstract or concrete; depending on whether or not they are
conceptual or physical in nature. Abstract is invisible or conceptual
i.e. social systems. Concrete systems are observable.
 Chapter Two: The concept of farming systems

2.1. Basic concept of farming systems

Farmers typically view their farms, whether small subsistence units or large
corporations, as systems in their own right.
 A typical farming system may include a type of land, various water sources and
access to common property resources - including ponds, grazing areas and forest.
 Each individual farm in a specific farming system has its own unique
characteristics arising from variations in resource endowments and family
circumstances.
The household, its resources, and the resource flows and interactions at an
individual farm level are together referred to as a farm system.
 Definition of FS
A farming system, is defined as a population of individual
farm systems that have broadly similar resource bases,
enterprise patterns, household livelihoods and constraints,
and for which similar development strategies and
interventions would be appropriate.
Depending on the scale of the analysis, a farming system
can encompass( covering) a few dozen or many millions of
households.
The concept of farming systems has been defined
differently by different people.
 Some of the definitions of the term are:
(i)"a unique and reasonably stable arrangement of farming
enterprises that the household manages according to well-
defined practices in response to physical, biological and
socio-economic environments and in accordance with the
household's goals, preferences and resources. The farming
system is part of larger systems ." (Shaner et al., 1982).
(ii)"A specific farming system arises from the decisions taken
by a small farmer or farming family with respect to
allocating different quantities and qualities of land, labour,
capital, and management to crop, livestock, and off-farm
enterprises in a manner which, given the knowledge the
household possesses, will maximize the attainment of the
family goal(s)." (Norman, 1980).
(iii). The total of production and consumption decisions of
the farm-household including the choice of crop, livestock
and off-arm enterprises and food consumed," (Byerlee et
al., 1980).

(iv) The way farmers satisfy their needs and priorities with
the resources at their disposal (arrangement) in the
circumstances (natural and economic) in which they find
themselves" (Collinson, 1982).
(v) Anderson (1985) analyses the term by defining each
word separately. He defines a system as "a set of
components that work together for the overall objectives of
the whole system".
 Therefore, the farming systems approach is simply a
way of thinking about these total systems and their
components.

(vi) "A collection of distinct functional activities or

enterprises such as crops, livestock, processing, marketing
and investment.
 These enterprises interact in receiving resources and
delivering outputs to the prevailing environment.
 Rationale and Philosophy of FS
 In the mid 1960 there was little interaction between
technical scientists( who were mostly on experiment
station) and social scientists (who tend to be concentrated
in planning units)
 The Green Revolution was beginning to have a great deal
of success in Asia and Latin America, being on the good
climate. (i.e plenty water and soil, very homogeneous and
favorable production environment and adoption of
improved inputs also were readily available and there was
an accessible market for production.
 However in most sub Sahara Africa and certain parts of
Latin America and Asia there is no Green Revolution.
 This is because climatic condition are often not as favorable( i.e too
much or too little rainfall and limited amount of irrigation, soil are
generally poor, production environment are very heterogeneous and
poor input and output market are poor developed .
 There has been great difficulty in developing improved
technologies that are attractive to farmers in such areas.
 But in Green Revolution its opposite of the above statement.( i.e the
farmers were able to benefits from the improved technologies.
 However, lack of success in using a similar approach in poorer
agricultural areas( i.e with poor resource farmer), led to the
evolution of the FSR in which there is close cooperation between
technical and social scientists
 SO, the rationale of FS are:
1. There was little support for station based research on
mixed cropping until early 1970 in Africa. Although
earlier farm based research had revealed the rationality of
practice
2. There are natural experimenter. Obviously the method of
farmers naturally use will be those that appeal to them and
are informed in nature in the sense that they are not
usually amenable to formal statistical analysis.
3. Understanding environment in which the operate rather
complex farming system, consisting of crops, livestock
and off farm enterprise.
 In the fact that it could be asserted that such systems are
often more complex than the specialized farming system
found in many high income countries.
 Unlike that limited resource farmers in low income
countries can be broken or avoided through seeking
advice and taking advantage and receiving external help.
 Generally,
 FS involves because of an increased awareness the part
of researcher that such farmers:
a. The had right to be involved in technology development
process, because they stood to gain or lose most from
adoption of technology.
b. Could be productivity contribute to development of
appropriate improved technologies
 Major categories of farming system
The delineation of the major farming systems provides a useful
framework within which appropriate agricultural development
strategies and interventions can be determined.
Only the major farming systems have, therefore, been identified and
then mapped in order to estimate the magnitudes of their populations
and resource bases.
Each of these broad systems is characterized by a typical farm type
or household livelihood pattern, although significant sub-types are
described where appropriate.
The classification of the farming systems of developing regions, as
specified in this handout, has been based on the following criteria:
A. Available natural resource base, including water, land, grazing
areas and forest; climate, of which altitude is one important
determinant; landscape, including slope; farm size, tenure and
organization; and
B. Dominant pattern of farm activities and household livelihoods,
including field crops, livestock, trees, aquaculture, hunting and
gathering, processing and off-farm activities; and taking into
account the main technologies used, which determine the intensity
of production and integration of crops, livestock and other
activities.
Based on these criteria, farming system are classified in to eight (8)
1. Irrigated farming systems, embracing a broad range of food and
cash crop production;
2. Wetland rice based farming systems, dependent upon monsoon
rains supplemented by irrigation;
3. Rain fed farming systems in humid areas of high resource potential,
characterized by a crop activity (notably root crops, cereals, industrial
tree crops - both small scale and plantation - and commercial
horticulture) or mixed crop-livestock systems;
4. Rain fed farming systems in steep and highland areas, which are
often mixed crop-livestock systems;
5. Rain fed farming systems in dry or cold low potential areas, with
mixed crop-livestock and pastoral systems merging into sparse and
often dispersed systems with very low current productivity or
potential because of extreme aridity or cold;
6. Dualistic (mixed large commercial and small holder) farming
systems, across a variety of ecologies and with diverse production
patterns;
7. Coastal artisanal fishing, often mixed farming systems; and
8. Urban based farming systems, typically focused on horticultural
and livestock production.
Factors determining FS growth :
(i) suitable resource endowments, including underlying
agro-climatic and soil conditions, a relatively high ratio of
land and other resources (water, forest) to human
population, and a currently low intensity of exploitation;
(ii) favorable access to infrastructure and services, including
markets; and
(iii) the identification of broader development constraints
whose removal is considered to be feasible.
 Gender and HIV/AIDS in FS
 Relationships between Gender, HIV and AIDS and agriculture
 Gender inequality to cause women and girls to HIV infection.
 This is due to the limited decision making powers that women have.
 In the Agricultural sector, women and girls have limited access to
land, improved agricultural technologies.
 The major agricultural investment decisions are usually taken
without their consent.( i.e taken by other not by gender).
 This further limits their ability to make investment decisions, which
in turn reduces their capacity to attain food, income and nutrition
security.
 Hunger and poverty provide fertile ground for survival sex (sex for
food, or sex for money) among women and girls thereby increase
the risk of HIV infection.
 Hunger, poverty and malnutrition are some of the factors that cause
household vulnerability to AIDS impacts.
 Furthermore, death of active adults results in Child-Headed
Households (CHH) who are ill-equipped to take up farming
activities because of inadequate knowledge, skills and resources for
agricultural production.
 Women farmers are the primary custodians of knowledge, skills
and experience on agro-biodiversity, and their loss has had great
impact on agricultural development.
  Gender, HIV and AIDS issues
 Limited participation of women in agricultural
decision-making:
 Men make most of the decisions in agriculture which
disadvantages women in terms of productivity at
household, community, institutional and national levels.
 Income disparity:
 Women have limited access to income which limits their
investment in productive agriculture.
 The inequalities in income between men and women also
contribute to women’s susceptibility to HIV infection and
increase their vulnerability to the impacts of AIDS
compared to men.
 Majority of men with relatively higher socio-economic
status in the poor communities lure (attractive) women
into sex, thereby predisposing both of them to HIV
infection.
 Limited access to and control over assets and benefits:
 The inequalities in access to and control over resources
and benefits between men and women both in the
workplace and within farming communities increase
women’s vulnerability.
 Women have limited access to and control over
agricultural assets, resources and services such as land,
credit, extension and training.
 Unfriendly legal environment: The current legal frameworks on
land tenure, credit conditions, property and inheritance rights are
less responsive to the needs of women and the other vulnerable
gender categories.
 Limited women’s access to information and technology:
Relative to men, women face more serious constraints in access to
information and technologies for production and marketing of
their goods and services.
 Unfriendly marketing systems: There is inadequate marketing
infrastructure in the rural areas which forces male and female
farmers to market their goods and products in distant urban areas
for extended periods which in turn makes them susceptible to HIV
infection.
 Unequal division of labour: Women are overburdened because
they perform triple roles.
 The demand of these multiple roles on their time negatively
affects their involvement in high value income-generating
activities which puts them at an economic disadvantage when
compared with men who usually focus on productive and
community roles only
 Mobility and migration: There is more mobility and migration
by males than females in the agriculture sector which results in
loss of family labor, agricultural knowledge and skills.
 Seasonal and occasional migration of estate and casual workers,
presents risk of HIV infection both among the migrants and their
spouses.
 CLASS DISCUSION
1. List at least five type FS and discuss
characteristic of each of them?
2. Write the factor that determining of FS
growth?
3. What is FS?
4. Write criteria for classification of FS?
5. What is the rationality of FS?
 Chapter: three
 Farming systems research and development (FSR/D)
3.1 Concept of FSR/D
FSR may be defined as an approach designed to generate
relevant technologies for specific clients, most commonly,
the resource - limited farm households.
 It focuses on clients' priority needs and problems, applies
an inter-disciplinary systems perspective in diagnosing
problems and generating technological solutions, and
involves a series of operational activities carried out on
farm with farmers.
FSR recognizes the fact that an understanding of the
production process and decision behaviour in traditional
agriculture is crucial in determining the true relevance,
practicability and potential success of any innovation.

Emphasis is given to building-on indigenous farmer

knowledge and other information.

 The various components involved in the existing farming

systems and their linkage are represented in Figure
 Characteristics of FSR/D
Some of the major characteristics of FSD are as follows:
1 . Farmer Centre Stage.
 The farmer, as the consumer of the improved technologies, is in the
Centre of the stage.
 This provides an opportunity for researchers to learn from the
farmer, enables him or her to have an input into the research
process, and ensures that criteria relevant to him or her are used in
evaluating proposed technologies.
 For the farming family, evaluation criteria (i.e., for the adoption of
the improved technologies) can be divided into the following groups
1) Necessary conditions determine whether the farming family would
be able to adopt the improved practices.
 Such conditions include:
Technical feasibility,
Social acceptability, and
Compatibility with external institutions
(i.e that is, support systems).
2) Sufficient conditions determine whether the farmer
would be willing to adopt the improved practices.
 Sufficient conditions include:
a) The compatibility of the improved practices with the goal
(e.g food self-sufficiency, profit maximization, risk
minimization, etc.) of the farming family;
b) The resources they have access to and
c) The farming system they now practice
2. Work with Representative Farmers.
 Although the input of farmers is critically important in FSD it is impossible for
FSD teams to work with all farmers.
 Therefore, a few are selected that are thought to be representative of all
farmers.
 Because there are many types of farmers -- with differences in the products
they produce, the resources they possess, and the problems they face -- it is
necessary to put farmers with similar characteristics in the same group.
 A small sample of farmers in each of these groups then is selected to work with
the FSD team
3. Involves an interdisciplinary Approach.
 As indicated earlier the 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.
 For example, in some areas, it is not realistic, or indeed
desirable, to try and increase crop productivity without
considering livestock at all,'
 Also, attaining a successful solution to a technical problem that has been
identified will depend on whether the farming family has the labour and money
to adopt (i.e., an economic issue) and any sociological reasons preventing them
from adopting.
 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.
 This makes FSD an iterative as well as a dynamic
approach.
5. Complementary to Station-based Research
In the context of technology choice and development, the role of FSD
is seen to be complementary to technical component research (i.e
employs a reductionist approach), most of which is undertaken on
experiment stations and is usually commodity-based.
With respect to such research, FSD has three roles:
a) To look at recognized farming systems and the stock of materials and
techniques accumulated from station-based research, so as to be able to
choose technical solutions to problems that have been identified.
b) To pass back unsolved technical problems, important to
the system, to the appropriate commodity research team on
the experiment station.
c) 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.
 Steps Involved in FSR/D

 FSR has seven main steps/stages.

These include:
a.diagnosis,
b.planning,
c.experimentation,
d.evaluation/assessment,
e. re-planning,
f.recommendation and
g. wider dissemination(broadcasting for people).
1. Diagnosis
The major objectives at this stage are:-
i.To describe and understand the current production system,
ii.To identify and analyse the key farmer problems, and
iii.To identify possible interactions, if any, in order to
develop some preliminary ideas on how to solve these
problems.
 The research team must clearly understand what the
farmers are trying to achieve, how they will probably
achieve it, and what constrains them from overcoming the
problem more effectively.
 At this stage it is critical to identify the target group or
the potential users for whom the technology is to be/or
being developed.
 In the literature, it is also called Recommendation
Domain.
 Recommendation domain refers to a group of farmers
who will adopt the same recommendations given equal
access to information, or a group of farmers whose
circumstances are similar.
During this process the biological and social scientists
visit the target area(s),
observe farmers fields,
 make measurements
talk with the farmers or merchants, extension officers
and others about farmers practices and problems .

The discuss with the farmers, make notes, compare

notes, identify information gaps through follow-up visits
and interviews.
 The diagnosis is both an initial step in FSR and a
continuing activity throughout the process.
 The diagnostic information is used for:-
« To set research priorities.
« Propose improved technologies, and
« To design an experimental programme.
 2. Planning and design stage

Planning begins with the analysis of the priority problems

identified.
 All potential solutions are listed and through a process of
ex-ante evaluation themes are identified for both on-station
as well as on-farm experimentation.

The identified potential solutions are then screened for

technical feasibility, likely
profitability (economic viability),
 risk considerations,
compatibility with the current production system, and
 research time and cost.
Those options passing the screening test, and those
areas/factors requiring further investigation to better define
the priority problems, form the experimental variables from
which a set of experiments are designed.

Careful planning can minimize the chances of generating

inappropriate recommendations and can help avoid
wastage of time and funds on trials/experiments that are
irrelevant or only have marginal scope for improvement.
 3. Experimentation or testing stage
This deals with the actual implementation and
management of trials.
It is important to keep in mind that within an FSR context,
experiments can be carried out for various purposes.
 These are:
to define a priority problem,
to establish the causes of problem,
to generate quantified technical information for planners
and policy makers, and
to fine tune available technologies to make
recommendations.
 FSR activities can lead to both on-station and on-farm
experimentation depending on:-

 the stage of development of the technology,

 level of confidence on the technical performance of the
technology, and
 how far station conditions represent farmer conditions
 4. Evaluation
Experimental results are assessed using formal statistical,
agronomic and socio-economic criteria as well as being
reviewed to assure that the conclusions are compatible with
farmers concern and the characteristics of the FS.
The rigor with which statistical tests are applied depends
on the stage and objective of the trial.
Farmer evaluation is another critical aspect that has been
given considerable emphasis in the recent past.
 Based on farmers’ reactions, treatments/techniques
unacceptable to the farming community are modified.
 5.Re-planning:
 The objective of this stage are
 To confirm original hypothesis regarding target group,
problem statement and priorities.
 To adjust the treatments to reflect new information
generated.
 The activities done:
 Identify potential solutions
 Screening to identify feasible solutions
 Identify list of activities
 Work out the details of each activity (design, treatment
etc), including resource requirement.
 Develop annual work plan by matching activities with
available resources.
 6 . Recommendations
The ultimate objective of agricultural and natural
resources research is to develop suitable recommendations
for the target group of farmers.
On-farm testing can only reach a small number of farmers.

 If the tested/identified technology is found to be compatible

with the farmers’ situation as well as substantially more
profitable and/or stable than the traditional practice, it may
be extended to a wider area.

 The objective should be to provide the most useful

information to the farmers.
7. Dissemination
Wider dissemination of proven technologies should be
the responsibility of the extension staff, NGOs and other
private sector entities.

It is important to note that for the convenience of

describing the FSR process, it was divided into stages
although there are no boundaries between the various
stages/steps.

It may not always be necessary to follow this sequence

and at times several stages could be implemented
simultaneously.
 Challenges Facing FSD
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.
 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.
 The problem of not utilizing the farmer sufficiently in FSD
activities is not due to inherent deficiencies in FSD itself but rather
with the way in which it has been applied, 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.
 Related to the methodology issue is that time and cost-efficient
(i.e., money and people) methods for undertaking FSD still need
further development.
 This is important because of the limited resources available for
undertaking research, both on-station and on-farm.
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.
 Failure to incorporate this dimension in FSD activities is likely to
have an impact analogous to playing soccer on one leg.
 Nevertheless, because of the lack of much proven experience and
documented material on the farming system perspective with
respect to the policy/support system, this manual does not deal
with this dimension to the extent that would be desirable.
 Hopefully, this lack of experience will be rectified in the fairly
near future.
4. Incorporating Equity Issues -- Intra and lnter-
Generational.
 FSD tries to help the farmer with the problems he or she
has identified.
 To inter-household relationships, equity considerations
within a particular generation also apply to what is
happening within farming families.
 For a positive example of the benefits of understanding
intra household relationships.
 When designing a technology to help farmers increase
their productivity, consideration must be given to the
possible long-term effects of that intervention.
 Therefore, if farming system (FS) workers are not
careful, their work can result in creating inequalities.
 Once again, issues relating to equity matters, although
generally recognized as important, still need attention
in farming systems type activities.
5. 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. Such
studies, of course, are the best measure of the impact of the
agricultural development process.
 Also, such studies can and should be used for other purposes, such
as feeding back priorities for further research and providing
evidence for adjustments in the policy/support system.
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 staff
constitute only one set of the 'actors' in the agricultural
development process.
 FSD cannot claim sole credit for any technologies developed for,
or adopted by, farmers.
 However, it achieves credibility through its linkages and
cooperative efforts with other 'actors' in the agricultural
development process.
 Compare station based research and FSR/D
 The major difference are:
 On the experiment station, applied research is usually
undertaken, in which new technologies are created.

 FSD, on the other hand, concentrates mainly on adoptive

research, which involves helping to adjust technologies to
specific environmental conditions.
 FSD also helps feed back information about future
priorities for applied research to experiment station
Difference b/n conventional research and FSR
FSR looks at the interaction taking place within the whole
farm setting & measures the results in terms of farmers’ and
society’s goals.
However, conventional research separates and takes in to
progressively narrower subject areas to be studied move or
less independently & evaluates the results by standards
within the discipline.
 However, FSR places more importance on integrating
social sciences on research and development process.
 CHAPTER :4
• ASSIGNMENT
 Chapter: five
Sustainable Livelihood
Concept of Sustainable Livelihood
 Sustainable: is the process of people maintain change in a
balanced environment, in which the exploitation of
resource, the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development and institutional change are all
in harmony and enhance both current and future potential
to meet human needs and aspiration.
 Livelihoods: refer to their means of securing the basic
necessities food, water, shelter and clothing of life.
 Its also means the set of activities performed to live for a
give life span, involving securing water, food, fodder,
medicine, shelter, clothing and the capacity to acquire
above necessities working either individual or group by
using endowments (both human and material ) for
meeting the requirements of the self and his / her HHs on
sustainable basis with dignity.
 A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets
(stores, resources, claims and access) and
activities required for a means of living.

 This definition acknowledges that securing a

livelihood can be complex and may necessitate access
to health care, education, land and other natural
resources (especially for the rural poor), and even
services that secure one’s legal rights to employment
and wages or otherwise.
 The components are as follows (Chambers and Conway):
 Capabilities: what a person or household is capable of doing and
being.
 Livelihood capabilities comprise the ability to gain a livelihood,
including abilities to cope with stress and shocks, to be
dynamically adaptable, and to explore and exploit opportunities.”
 Assets: resources and stores (tangible assets), and claims and
access (intangible assets) which a person or household commands
and can use towards a livelihood.”
 Resources: include land, water, trees, and livestock; and farm
equipment, tools, and domestic utensils.
 Stores: include food stocks, stores of value such as gold,
jewellery and woven textiles, and cash savings in banks
of thrift and credit schemes.”
 Access: opportunity in practice to use a resource, store or
service, or to obtain information, material, technology,
employment, food or income.
 Claims: demands and appeals which can be made for
material, moral or other practical support or access.
 Claims are based on combinations of right, precedent,
social convention, moral obligation, and power.
 SL(Sustainable livelihoods)
 Sustainable livelihoods is a way of thinking about the
objectives, scope and priorities for development, in order
to enhance progress in poverty elimination.
 Sustainable livelihoods is a systemic and adaptive
approach that links issues of poverty reduction,
sustainability and empowerment processes.
 (e.g. participation, gender empowerment, and good
governance).
 Sustainable livelihoods are derived from people's capacity to
make a living by surviving shocks and stress and improve
their material condition without jeopardizing the livelihood
options of other people's, either now or in the future.
 Sustainable livelihoods mean things to many people, to
reduce the complexity and uncertainty that gives rise to
demands for sustainable livelihoods in the first place.
 SL aims to help poor people achieve lasting improvements
against the indicators of poverty that they define.
 A livelihood is sustainable if it can cope with, recover

from and adapt to stresses and shocks, maintain and

enhance its capabilities and assets, and enhance
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.
 The term ‘sustainable livelihoods’ is interpreted in a
variety of ways.
 For DFID SL is guidance Sheets. Some use it to describe
a tool
 ‘Sustainable livelihoods’ as an operational objective and
see their mission as improving the sustainability of
livelihoods.
 SL as a set of principles that can be applied in almost any
situation, but others view it as a call for specific SL
projects or SL programmes.
 Many view it as an approach to development, combining
various of the elements above.
 SLA:
 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.)
 In addition, it tries to sketch out the relationships
between the different aspects (causes, manifestations) of
poverty, allowing for more effective prioritization of
action at an operational level.
The SL approach can be used for:
 re-assessing existing interventions and activities

informing strategic thinking and discussion

research

 identifying, designing and assessing new

initiatives/interventions (projects and programmes)
 Principles of SL
 People- centred/ disaggregated:
 All case studies focused on poor people, and most
undertook some form of holistic livelihoods analysis to
understand the diversity of livelihoods and to inform the
design.
 Sustainable poverty elimination will be achieved only if
external support focuses on what matters to people,
understands the differences between groups of people and
works with them in a way that is congruent with their
current livelihood strategies, social environment and
ability to adapt.
 Responsive and participatory (for beneficiaries):
 The more successful initiatives seem to be those which
fully institutionalize participation.
 In general there is a lack of participation in monitoring
and evaluation and downward accountability which
needs to be addressed .
 Poor people themselves must be key actors in
identifying and addressing livelihood priorities.
 Outsiders need processes that enable them to listen and
respond to the poor.
 Strengths-based: This is an element unique to the
SLA. The focus is on what is there and what people
want, not on what is not there.
 Sustainable: There are four key dimensions to
sustainability – economic, institutional, social and
environmental sustainability.
 All are important – a balance must be found between
them.
 However financial/economic and institutional
sustainability were weak, notably reflecting weak links
at meso level (intermediaries such as local government)
 Multi-level and holistic (micro-macro links):

 This principle is also unique to the SLA. All interventions

attempted to link levels, but in general links seemed stronger at
national level (macro) than at district (meso) level – there appears
to be too often a “missing meso”.
 Conducted in partnership:

 with both the public and the private sector. All case studies
showed partnerships, but frequently these did not give real power
to the partners and control remained with the intervention.
 Where these partnerships were very strong, the sustainability of
the initiatives seemed much more likely.
 Long-term and flexible: the SLA also mainstreams
flexibility, learning-by-doing and process approaches.
 All initiatives showed some responsiveness and
learning, in some cases explicitly as part of the design.
 Value-added – consistent and explicit consideration of
all the SL principles would seem likely to improve the
quality of outcomes of interventions, as well as their
sustainability
 Dynamic: External support must recognize:
 the dynamic nature of livelihood strategies,
 respond flexibly to changes in people’s situation, and
 develop longer-term commitments
 Determinant of SL
1. Availability of key-assets

 Availability of key-assets (such as savings, land, labor,

education and/or access to market or employment

opportunities, access to common property natural

resources and other public goods) is a an evident

requisite in making rural households and individuals

more or less capable to diversify.

 Investment of a proper mix of the above endowments is the

starting move of any independent activity.

 Moreover, labor capability and education determine the capability

of finding a job and savings are often needed to migrate.

 Decreased availability of arable land, increased producer/consumer

ratio, credit delinquency, environmental deterioration can be

indeed important drives towards diversification.

 Economic and political shocks are often a major reason for

migrate.
2 Maximization of return per unit of labor

 Maximization of return per unit of labor is another important

element in livelihood diversification choices.

 This principle foresees that, in any given point in time, a rural

household will choose the most cost-effective opportunity to

ensure maintenance of its consumption level.

 For instance, availability of a surplus of household labor (or a high

producer/consumer ratio) may influence the household decision to

engage in wage labor.

 Similarly, food availability and food cost volatility

on the local market can affect the relative importance

attributed to self-consumption production, and

promote or prevent the undertaking of wage labor or

engagement in income generating enterprises.

 Seasonality may also lead to a cyclical shift in time

allocation from on farm to off-farm sources of

revenue.
3 Risk management

 Risk management is a further factor often invoked to

explain diversification behavior.
 Risk-averse farmers perceive the amount of income

given up by diversifying income sources as less

important than the reduction of the total failure hazard.
 In this perspective, risk management through
diversification complements and counterbalances the
above principle of maximization of return per unit of
labor
4. Strengthening the household asset basis
 Strengthening the household asset basis can be an
additional important factor in diversification choices.
 In particular, members of better-off household can
undertake innovative activities or engage in highly
remunerative wage labor (i.e. migrate abroad) with the
specific aim of accumulating savings needed to expand
the land holding, offer education opportunities to the
young generation, or insure themselves against illness
and aging.
5 Opportunities
 Site-specific opportunities such as local market contingencies,
development projects, infrastructure development (e.g. a new
road), personal contacts might play an important role in pulling
rural household towards livelihood diversification.
 Examples may include the opening of a market profitable for non
conventional agricultural commodities, the establishment of
tourist resorts, a relative or friend acting as a liaison between the
household and an employer in town or abroad, or the development
of a cooperative enterprise in the community.
6 Identity and vision of the future
 Individual and household identity and vision of the future
might also shape diversification decisions.
 For instance, new on-farm activities can be preferred to
migratory wage labor as livelihood diversification
strategies, because they are perceived more consistent
with maintaining a rural life style.
 On the opposite “city lights” attraction can be an
important factor in pushing youngsters to contribute to
household diversification by migrating in town or abroad.
 7 Gender relationships

 Gender relationships are also important in shaping diversification

process.

 Social organization and culture can significantly influence the

relative access of diverse gender to household’s capital assets or

constraint/promote their mobility.

 This might result in a different degree of involvement in

diversification activities and/or in an unequal distribution of their

benefits between genders.

 In some cultures, migratory wage labor or off-farm enterprises

are basically men business, that result in transferring to women

the whole responsibility for conventional subsistence and cash

cropping.

 However, in other cultures, women are often able to play an

autonomous role in livelihoods diversification by undertaking on

their own small-scale enterprises or migrating to town or abroad.

 Chapter 6. Livelihood zoning

Concept of Livelihood Zone?

 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.
 Other factors include:
 The 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 favorable,
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.
 Markets/Trade:
 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.

 Three factors are particularly important; these are

a) The demand for products, goods, services and labor,

b) An efficient system for marketing these, and

c) The existence of basic infrastructure to support market and trading

activities.
1. The existence of demand (a) is obviously a key factor.

 Proximity to a large urban centre, for example, often has a

profound influence on rural patterns of livelihood (e.g. because of

urban demand for rural produce such as fruit and vegetables or

urban demand for unskilled casual labour).

2. The efficiency of the marketing system (b) is also important.

 This is determined by a number of factors, including the

experience of traders, their access to capital, credit and equipment

(e.g. trucks, storage depots), and government policy and legislation

affecting trade (e.g. systems of licensing, taxation, duty, etc.).

3. Finally, the existence of basic infrastructure (c),
especially transport and communications, has an obvious

and important influence on the market system.

 Taken together, these three factors by and large
determine the economic operations of households within
a particular livelihood zone.
 These, like the normal activities, are determined by the
same three factors of geography, production and
markets/trade.
What is a livelihood zone?
 A livelihood zone is a geographical area within which
people share basically the same patterns of access to food
and income (that is, they grow the same crops, or keep the
same types of livestock), and have the same access to
markets.
 These we can define as areas 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).
 What is the purpose a Livelihood Zoning?
 There is increasing interest in using livelihoods analysis.
 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.
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
 Interpretation of information

 Food security assessment provides an example of the value of

livelihoods-based analysis.

 This is because it has been found that: an analysis of local

livelihoods is essential for a proper understanding of the impact–

at household level - of hazards such as drought or conflict or

market dislocation.

 Total crop failure may, for example, leave one group of

households destitute because the failed crop is their only source of

staple food.
 Another group, by contrast, may be able to cope because

they have alternative sources of food and cash income.

 These alternative sources - such as livestock to sell or

relatives elsewhere who can assist - can help make up

the production shortfall.

 Given that the impact of a hazard varies according to the

livelihood context, it follows that effective hazard impact

assessments must be based upon an analysis of

livelihoods
 Design and management of interventions
 There are several frameworks for livelihoods-based
project planning and management.
 In one example--the DFID Sustainable Livelihoods
Framework—a central concept is the five capitals
(natural, physical, human, social and financial), which,
in interaction with policies, institutions and processes,
determine the types of livelihood strategy that people are
able to pursue.
 The first two of these—natural and physical capital—
are clearly determined largely by geography, which
means that a livelihood zone map can be a useful
starting point for this type of livelihoods-based
analysis.
 Generally:
 A livelihood zoning is essential for the following
reasons:
 It provides geographic orientation of livelihood systems
to inform food security analysis and assistance targeting
 It provides the basis for identifying geographically
relevant food security monitoring indicators
 It provides a sampling frame for on the‐ground
assessments and assistance targeting.
 Determinant of livelihood Zoning

 The following describes the different elements of a

Livelihood Zone and its uses for early warning monitoring
and analysis.
A. Livelihood Zone Map:
 A Livelihood Zone Map is map which shows areas within
which people share broadly the same patterns of
livelihood
 The can be a useful first step for many types of
livelihoods-based analysis. Local factors such as climate,
B. Main Conclusions and Implications:
 Summarizes the main findings from the zone.
 This section also provides insights that will inform the
planning of various types of interventions, including:
i. emergency response,
ii. disaster mitigation and
iii. development programming.
C. Zone description:
 Offers a general description of local livelihood
patterns (crop production, livestock rearing, off‐farm
income generation etc.).
 They provide information for identifying monitoring
indicators by zone and a basic livelihood context for
interpreting monitoring information.
D. Markets: Contains basic information on the marketing
of local production, labor markets and on any importation
of staple food into the zone.
 It provides information that is useful in developing
monitoring systems.
E. Seasonal Calendar: visually presents the timing of
important key activities during the year, allowing
correlations to be made.
 This is useful in a variety of ways, for example:
 to judge the likely impact of a hazard according to its
timing during the year;
 to assess whether a particular activity is being undertaken
at the normal time in the current year;
 to help interpret trends in and analyze monitoring
information; and
 to develop seasonally appropriate interventions.
F. Wealth breakdown: describes the main wealth groups
(for example, ‘poor’, ‘middle’ and ‘better‐off’), explaining
the differences between these groups and how this affects
potential access to food and cash income2.
 Just as the same external shock will have a different
effect on two separate food economy zones, it will also
have a varied impact on households in different wealth
groups.
 Households with different levels of assets tend to do
different things to get food.
 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, fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, while others
cannot.
 Poor households with little land may work for richer
households to get money to buy food; rich households
may use profits from agriculture as capital to engage in
trade.
 In the event of a crisis, poor and rich households will be
affected differently and therefore warrant separate
examination.
G. Sources of Food and Sources of Cash:
 Examines patterns of food and cash income at each level
of wealth, relating these to the characteristics of each group.
 For example, a household that depends on purchase to
meet a large percentage of food needs will be impacted
by a rise in staple food prices.
 The information helps identify which indicators should
be monitored in different livelihood zones and for which
wealth groups.
H. Hazards: provides information on the different types of
hazard that affect the zone, differentiated by wealth group
where this is appropriate.
I. Response Strategies: describes the various strategies
available to different types of households in the zone,
together with a judgment of the likely effectiveness of
these. This information helps us analyze whether or not
households may be able to withstand a particular shock,
though it does not tell us absolutely whether these coping
strategies will be enough to avoid food insecurity.
J. Indicators of Crisis:
 Provides information on the key crisis indicators and
their likely timing by zone, based upon an understanding
of local livelihoods and local patterns of response to food
shortage.
 Early warning involves identifying and interpreting key
events that indicate that a severe food shortage or famine
may be developing.
 Procedure of livelihood zoning
(Reading assignment)???????
 Chapter 7. Sustainable livelihood analysis
 Analytical framework of sustainable livelihoods
 The DFID framework sets out to conceptualize:
 How people operate within a vulnerability context that is
shaped by different factors – shifting seasonal
constraints (and opportunities), economic shocks and
longer-term trends.
 How they draw on different types of livelihood assets or
capitals in different combinations which are influenced
by:
 The vulnerability context, a range of institutions and
processes, how they use their asset base to develop a
range of livelihoods strategies to achieve desired
livelihood outcomes.
 Livelihoods analysis is an important component within
regulatory reform.
 The SLF is able to handle the complexities of local
realities, livelihood strategies and poverty outcomes, and
the dynamic interrelations between them.
 Many of the researchers affirm that the SLF provides a
useful conceptual base for understanding urban poverty
and the situation of people living in poverty in urban
settlements, and is an effective tool for analyzing the
impact of regulations on their livelihoods.
 It can be used to analyze the coping and adaptive
strategies pursued by individuals and communities as a
response to external shocks and stresses such as
drought, civil strife and failed policies and anti-poor
regulatory frameworks.
 The Sustainable Livelihoods framework
 The SL framework is a tool for development work, by
highlighting how to understand, analyses and describe
the main factors that affect the livelihoods of the poor
people.
 The SL framework describes what development
dedicated to poverty reduction should focus on to create
sustainable livelihoods for the poor.
 The first basic principle is that development work has to focus
on people – which means that we have to focus on what
matters for the poor, how people and their cultures are
different, and how this affects the way they understand and
appreciate livelihoods.
 Another principle is that the poor themselves have to be key
actors in identifying the important aspects of their own
livelihoods.
 The poor know what matters to them, and outsiders have to
listen to their priorities instead of assuming that their own
values and ideas are as good as, or better.
 This means that participation and partnership become

two very essential factors in development work, and by

actively being part of the development work, the poor

will be empowered instead of being dependent on

outsiders to help them all the time.

 The framework also emphasizes the principle that there

has to be a strong link between macro and micro

politics, since these are interdependent.

 The macro politics are responsible for the main structures

and processes in an area and the poor have to adapt to

and try to enhance their livelihoods through these.

 The last basic principle is that development has to have a
long-term focus – it is important that the way we develop
an area now, will make it sustainable in the future.
 The sustainable framework has been illustrated with a
model that makes it easier to understand the different
components and their interrelatedness.
  Components of livelihood analytical framework

1).Vulnerability-
 The vulnerability context frames the external
environment in which people exist.
 Trends and shocks are the key elements in the
vulnerability context.
They can have either a positive or a negative effect on
livelihoods.
 Trend involves changes that take place over a longer
period of time.
 Shocks are usually sudden events that have a significant
impact - usually negative - on livelihoods.
 They are irregular and vary in intensity and include
events such as natural disasters, civil conflict, losing
one’s job, a collapse in crop prices for farmers etc.
2). Livelihood capital –
 Five assets (financial, physical, social, human and natural) are
discussed below on the basis of which livelihood strategy is built
up.
A. Financial capital- It is the financial resources that people use to
achieve their livelihood objectives.
B. Human Capital- It represents the skills, knowledge capacity to
work, and good health that together enable people to pursue
different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood
outcomes.
C. Natural Capital- It is the term used for the natural
resource stocks (e.g. trees, land, clean air, coastal resources)
upon which people rely.
D. Physical Capital- It comprises the basic infrastructure
and physical goods that support livelihoods.
 Key components of infrastructure include; affordable
transport systems, water supply dwelling unit and
sanitation (of adequate quantity and quality), energy (that
is both clean and affordable), good communications and
access to information.
E. Social Capital-
 It relates to the formal and informal social relationships
(or social resources) from which various opportunities
and benefits can be drawn by people in their pursuit of
livelihoods.
3).Policies, Institutions and Processes (PIPs)
 It comprises the social and institutional context within
which individuals and families construct and adapt their
livelihoods.
 As such it embraces quite a complex range of issues
associated with:
 Power, Authority,
 Governance, Laws,
 Policies, Public service delivery,
 Social relations Gender, caste,
 Ethnicity Institutions,
 Laws, Markets,
 land tenure arrangements and Organizations(NGOs,
government agencies, private sector.)
4) Livelihood Strategies-
 It include how people combine their income generating
activities; the way in which they use their assets; which
assets they chose to invest in; and how they manage to
preserve existing assets and income.
 Livelihood strategies comprise the range and
combination of activities and choices that people
make/undertake in order to achieve their livelihood
goals.
5. Livelihood Outcomes
 Livelihood outcomes are the achievements or outputs of
livelihood strategies, such as more income, increased
well-being, reduce vulnerability, improved food security
and a more sustainable use of natural resources.
 When thinking about livelihood outcomes, the aims of a
particular group as well as the extent to which these are
already being achieved has to be understood.
 Comparison of Livelihood frameworks

1. UNDP
 The promotion of sustainable livelihoods is part of UNDP’s
overall Sustainable Human Development (SHD) mandate,
adopted in 1995.
 The mandate includes: poverty eradication, employment and
sustainable livelihoods, gender, protection and regeneration of
the environment, and governance.
 As one of UNDP’s corporate mandates, sustainable livelihoods
offers both a conceptual and a programming framework for
poverty reduction in a sustainable manner
 Moreover, UNDP specifically focuses on the importance of
technological improvements as a means to help people rise out
of poverty.
 Other key emphases of the UNDP SL approach are that:

1. The focus should be on people’s strengths, as opposed to needs;

2. Policy (macro-micro links) and governance issues as they
impinge on people’s livelihoods should be taken into
consideration and addressed through specific actions; and
3. Sustainability (as defined in the four bullet points above) is
constantly assessed and supported.
2. CARE( cooperative for assistance and relief everywhere)
 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 what it refers to as

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:

a. The possession of human capabilities (such as

education, skills, health, psychological orientation);

b. Access to tangible and intangible assets; and

c. The existence of economic activities.

CARE’s definition of household livelihood security
emphasizes a capacity building approach to development,
and even relief activities, treating people more as active
beings in constructing their own livelihoods than as passive
recipients of external help.
 It has grown out of three major shifts in the internal
development of the organization:
1. A shift of concern from regional and national food
security to a concern with the food security and nutritional
status of the household and the individual.
2. A shift from a ‘food first’ perspective to a livelihood
perspective, which focuses not only on the production of
food, but also on the ability of households and individuals
to procure the additional food they require for an adequate
diet.
3. A shift from a materialist perspective focused on food
production to a social perspective which focuses on the
enhancement of people’s capabilities to secure their own
livelihoods.
3. DFID
 The adoption of a livelihood approach within DFID
resulted from the publication of the 1997 UK
Government White Paper on International Development,
where it was affirmed that the overriding aim of DFID is
the elimination of poverty in poorer countries.
 DFID’s definition of sustainable livelihood follows the
one developed by IDS and which in turn is a modified
version of the original definition elaborated by Chambers
and Conway:
 The objective of DFID’s SL approach is to increase the

agency’s effectives in poverty reduction by seeking to

mainstream a set of core principles and 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.

 The SL Framework is built around five principal

categories of livelihood assets, graphically depicted as a

pentagon to underline their interconnections and the fact

that livelihoods depend on a combination of assets of

various kinds and not just from one category.

 An important part of the analysis is thus to find out

people’s access to different types of assets (physical,

human, financial, natural, and social) and their ability to

put these to productive use.

 The framework offers a way of assessing how

organizations, policies, institutions, cultural norms shape

livelihoods, both by determining who gains access to

which type of asset, and defining what range of

livelihood strategies are open and attractive to people.

(Carney 1998).
 For DFID, the two most important areas for effective
contribution, are:
1. Direct support to assets (i.e providing poor people with
better access to the assets that act as a foundation for their
livelihoods); and
2. Support to the more effective functioning of the structures
and processes (policies, public and private sector
organizations, markets, social relations, etc.) that influence
not only access to assets but also which livelihood strategies
are open to people.
 Methods of livelihood analysis
(Reading Assignment)????????

THE END