MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

FARMING SYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS (AGEC 352)

First Draft

Prepared By
Redi S.
Dibaba

1
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this course, students will be able to:
1. Understand the concepts of farming system and sustainable livelihoods; types and
components of farming systems
2. Understand farming systems‟ determinants and their interactions;
3. Apply systems approach to research and development;
4. Assess and evaluate existing practices and design of specific appropriate farming systems
for sustainable livelihoods;
5. Acquire skills in the conduct of farmer-researcher collaboration in identifying critical
production constraints, and in designing and critically analyzing alternative solutions to
identified problem
6. Apply sustainable livelihood framework in farming system research and extension activities

2
Course Content
Chapter One: The Concepts of Agriculture and Agrarian System
Agriculture and the society
Hierarchy and Classification of agricultural systems
Systems approach to production, research and extension
Chapter Two: Farming System and Its Determinants
Components of Farming Systems
Types of Farming Systems
Household, livestock, crop and market subsystems
Sustainable Livelihoods and farming systems
Determinants of Farming Systems and Sustainable Livelihoods
Chapter Three: Farming Systems Approach
Farming systems approach in general
Classifying, Characterizing and Reviewing Farming Systems
Smallholder Resource-Poor Family Farms
Socio-economic characteristics of smallholder
Relationships among household, crops, livestock and subsystems
Topic Four: Farming System Research and Methodologies
The Purpose and Features of FSR
Characteristics of Farming Systems Approach
Activities: Procedures and Methodologies of FSR
System Analysis & Performance Criteria
Participatory research tools and techniques
Topic Five: Sustainable Livelihood
Concepts of sustainable livelihoods
Sustainable Livelihoods as Integrated Concept
What is Sustainable Livelihood?
Principles of Sustainable Livelihood
Topic Six: Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis
Methods of livelihood analysis
Analytical framework of sustainable livelihoods

3
Comparison of Livelihood Frameworks
Components of Sustainable Livelihood Framework

4
 CHAPTERONE
THE CONCEPTS OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMING SYSTEM
Objectives of the chapter:
At the end of this chapter, students will be able to:
1. Understand the relationship of agriculture and the society
2. Can Classify agricultural systems
3. Describe the hierarchy of agricultural systems
4. Understand types of Farming Systems
5. Identify the Components of Farming Systems

Conceptsof System
The term "System" is derived from the Greek word “systema” to means “an organized relationship
among functioning units or components. A system is simply “a group ofinteracting, interrelated and
interdependent components that form a complex and unifiedwhole”.
Example of system (our body as a system)
Our body is built from small functioning units of millions of cells. The group of cells becomes
tissue; the group of tissues becomes organ; the group of organs becomes organism. This means we
are organism of full body and our body is whole system. The cell, tissue, and organ are sub-systems
of the whole-body system. However, we can even take single cell as a system. Because; there are
already many sub-systems in single cell and if understand single cell of somebody, we can infer the
property of the whole-body system of the person. Or we can take tissues or organs as standalone
system. From this, we can say our body system has many levels of hierarchies of systems. This
means if someone wants to study human body, s/he can focus on cell or tissue or organ or to
understand about the whole body.
We see our body as an open system, which needs inputs like oxygen, water, food etc. from
environment and provides outputs like carbon dioxide, urine, excrete wastes etc. to survive or give
functions as human being. The disturbance or damage of our body sub-systems (e.g. some cell or
tissue or organ) will disturb or fully stop the functions of the whole body. This shows that body
system works due to interdependence and interaction of all sub-systems. In the case of disturbance
or damage (due to disease, or injury), medical scientists take sample of our blood (the cells, which
is sub-system of the whole body) and check what happened to the whole body. E.g. what types of

5
disease or intensity of injure etc. happened on whole body could be understood from cells, which
sub-system of whole body.
What could be learned from the example?
From the examples, all bolded terms are key concepts of system thinking or theory that we will use
throughout this course. Further, you can easily notice that our body is observable system (real
system) and hence, there is “boundary” between our body and environment. According to system
theory, that environment is called “supra-system.” We take that environment as natural or man-
made, but we know that it is out of control of the systems (our body). This is to mean our body is
“open system” that gets inputs from supra-system to give output. E.g., inputs for our body are
food, oxygen, water etc. Our body must process the inputs to convert into outputs.

The Concept of Farming System

Farm: it is an area of land and its buildings which is used for growing crops and rearing animals. It
is also an organized decision-making unit in which crop and/or livestock production is carried out
for the purpose of satisfying the farmer's goals.Therefore, a farm is a system in which it has
INPUTS, PROCESSES and OUTPUTS.

System: A system is a set of inter-related, interacting and interdependent elements acting together
for a common purpose and capable of reacting as a whole to external stimuli.

Inputs are the factors that a farm needs to work.It can be divided into two groups (Physical and
human).
a) Physical inputs are naturally occurring things such as water, raw materials and land.
b) Human or cultural inputs are like labor and skills.
Processes: are the actions within the farm that allow the inputs to turn into outputs. Processes
could include things such as harvesting, plowing and spraying.

Outputs:can be negative or positive. Negative outputs include waste products and soil erosion. The
positive outputs are the finished products such as wheat, seeds, meat and egg, and money gained
from the sale of those products.

6
Feedback:is what is put back into the system. The main two example of this are money, from the
sale of the outputs, and knowledge, gained from the whole manufacturing process. This knowledge
could then be used to make the production better or improve the efficiency of the processes.

Farming:is a process of harnessing solar energy in the form of economic plant and animal
products.A farming system is not simplya collection of crops and animals to which one can apply
this input or that and expect immediate results. Rather, it is a complicatedinterwoven mesh of soils,
plants, animals, implements, workers, otherinputs and environmental influences with the strands
held and manipulatedby a person called the farmer who, given his preferences and
aspirations,attempts to produce output from the inputs and technology available tohim. It is the
farmer's unique understanding of his immediateenvironment, both natural and socioeconomic, that
results in his farmingsystem.

A system canbe defined in many ways, but all systems involve an arrangement ofparts (components
or subsystems) that interact according to someprocess (transform inputs into outputs).
In all systems fiveelements are distinguished: these are:
1. Components
2. Interactions between components,
3. Boundaries
4. Inputs and
5. Outputs.
The way in which inputsare processed into outputs determines the function of a system. Within the
boundaries all relevant interactions and feedbacks areincluded, so that all those components that are
capable of reactingas a whole to external stimuli form a system.

A farm system may also be specified in terms of subsystems in various ways.A useful approach, for
example, is to view it as involving the following subsystems:social (labor, family), biological (soils,
plants, and animals), technical (tools,machines, inputs) and managerial (knowledge, decision
making). The farm system mayalso be viewed as a hierarchy of subsystems: soil organisms are a
subsystem ofthe soil system which in turn is a subsystem of the cropping system which is againa
subsystem of the farm system.

7
1.1. Agriculture and the society
Agriculture in general can be described as the human activity that transforms solar energy at the
earth's surface into useful (edible) chemical energy by means of plants and animals. It involves
variables and parameters with very diverse characteristics and complicated interactions. An
agricultural society is one that is centered on and revolves around farming. It is, also known as
an agrarian society, is a society that constructs social order around reliance upon farming. More
than half of the people living in that society make their living by farming.
Societies can be broadly divided into tribal societies, agrarian society and industrial society.
Agrarian society can be defined as a society where a majority of its population derives its income
from agriculture and related activities. 2/3 to 3/4 of the world constitutes of agrarian societies. Over
the history of human settlements on the planet earth, agriculture has transformed in alter with the
growing population and itschallenging needs. Food and fiber productivity secured up due to
adoption of new technologies viz, HYV, from mechanization, increasedfertilizer & pesticide use,
specialized farming practices, water resource development & improved irrigation practices and
government policies that favored maximizing production.
Modern agriculture begins on the research station, where researchershave access to all i.e.,
necessary inputs of fertilizers, pesticides andlabor at all the appropriate times. But when the
package is extended to farmers, even the best performing farms cannot match the yields the
researchers get. For high productivity per hectare, farmers, need access to the whole package like
modern seeds, water, labor, capital or credit,fertilizers and pesticides. Many poorer farming
households simplycannot adopt the whole package. If one element is missing(the seeddelivery
system fails or the fertilizer arrives late, or there is insufficientirrigation water), yields may not be
much better than those fortraditional varieties.

Majority of the people of world live in rural areas, and most of them depend directly on their
smallholdings for a living. Even though, many people are moving to the cities, hoping for a better
standard of living there, many of them still try to cultivate small plots in the cities to obtain some of
their food. Thus, it is clear that farming is by far the largest economic enterpriseand it is vital for the
well-being of most people.

Although no two farms are exactly alike, it is obvious to anyone who has traveled in the countryside
anywhere in the world that most farms in a particular area usually have many common features.

8
 Depending on the environment in that area, most of them grow the same crops, keep the same
animals, and go about their farming in roughly similar ways. Therefore, they can be said to practice
similar farming systems.

1.2. Classification of agricultural systems

Farms are systems because several activities are closely related to each other by the commonuse of
the farm labor, land and capital, by risk distribution and by the joint use of the farmer’smanagement
capacity. There are some ways to classify the farming system of agriculture. We can classify based
on the basis of output, input, process, farm size, water supply, location and so on.
Classification of farming system based on output
1. Commercial farming - this is farming for a profit. It usually involves farming on a large scale,
using few workers but lots of machinery and technology. Commercial farms usually produce one
crop, so they are a monoculture. The crops are often called cash crops, eg coffee or flowers. The
majority of produce is sold to the market.
2. Subsistence farming: in this farming, produce is consumed by the farmer; any surplus is
usually sold to buy other goods. Producing crops and rearing animals just for use by the farmer.
Little is left over to sell. It is often small scale and generally involves a mixture of crops and
animals. Many subsistence farmers aim to be self-sufficient. The farm has little technology or
machinery but may be labour intensive, involving lots of manpower.
Features of subsistence farming
 The whole family works on the farm
 Most of the work is done manually
 The farms are small
 Traditional methods of farming are followed
 Yield are not very high
 Most of the yield is consumed by the family with very little surplus for family
Classification of farming system based on input:
1. Intensive farming refers to higher level of input producing a high yield per hectare. It is
farming with high level of inputs (capital and labour) and high yield. It is usually found in
regions of dense population and high land values.

9
 2. Extensive farming refers to by using low level of input producing a low yield per hectare. It is
farming with low inputs of capital and labour, generally with low yield per hectare. It is associated
with regions of cheap available land where high revenues are unimportant.
Classification of farming based on location:
1. Sedentary farming is when a farm is based in the same location all the time.
2. Nomadic farming is farming practice of raising livestock where the farmer has no home base
but rather moves around with the herd to different grazing areas as suits the farmer. This practice
is found most often in underdeveloped countries where land ownership is not well defined, or is
defined on a cultural rather than personal level.
Classification of farming by processes:
1. Arable farming: refers to growing and harvesting of crops, eg wheat and barley.Farmers have to
select the type of farming which best suits the local physical environment. They must also consider
which types of produce will make the most money because there is no point producing things they
cannot sell.
It is important for arable farmers to rotate their crops in order to maintain soil fertility.
Arable crops need:
 flat or gently sloping land
 deep, fertile soils
 not too dry and not too wet
 warm climate
 land suitable for machinery
 fairly sheltered land
2. Pastoral farming:is specialized in rearing of animals, eg cows and sheep
Why are some areas more suited to pastoral farming rather than arable farming? Because of,
 Steep slopes - too dangerous for machinery but suitable for sheep.
 Poor soils - only providing enough nutrition for grasses.
 Cold and wet climate - makes growing crops difficult.
 Stronger winds - would flatten some crops.
3. Mixed farming is both arable and pastoral. Some farms are both arable and pastoral. This
reduces the risk because if prices fall for one crop or there are unfavourable weather conditions,
there may be another product that can provide food and make money. Animals can also provide
manure for the fields and help to maintain soil fertility.

10
Classification of Farming System according to Water Supply
1. Rain Fed Farming: Agriculture mainly depends on the rainfall in most part of the country.
80% of the total cultivated arable land is rain fed. Rain fed farming is very risky system of
farming where the success of the crop depends on the cycle of the rainy season. Timely
rainfall is the pre-requisite of this farming. The uneven rainfall is quite detrimental to crop
production.
2. Irrigated Farming: The crop can be grown throughout the year; moisture is not a limited
factor. More than one round cropping per a year becomes possible. Production can be
increased by proper utilization of productive resources. Crop rotation can be executed
properly due to adequate irrigation facility. The field experiment is possible, because of
timely irrigation facility.

Classification of Farming Systems- According to cultivating

1. Collective Farming:
It includes the direct collection of plant products from non-arable lands. It may include
either regular or irregular harvesting of uncultivated plants; honeying and fishing usually go
hand in hand with collection. Actual cultivation is not needed. The natural products like
honey, gum, flower etc are collected. Such plant product may be collected from forestry
area.
2. Cultivation Farming:
In this system, farming community cultivates the land for growing crops for obtaining
maximum production per unit area.

Classification of Farming Systems- According to size of farm

a. Small Scale Farming: In this type, the farming is done on small size of holding and
other factors of production are small in quantity and scale of production is also small.
b. Large scale farming: when farming is done on large size holding with large amount of
capital, large labor force, large organization and large risk are called large- scale
farming.

1.3. Hierarchy of agricultural systems

11
Systems theory (it is the interdisciplinary study of systems) is increasingly applied to agriculture.
The best way todo this is to describe agriculture as a hierarchy. At the lowestlevels, one finds the
cell and the plant organs, followed by the plantitself. Plants combine into crops, and crops into
fields that maycarry crop populations of various species and variety, weeds andpathogens. The farm
is situated at the next higher level. Groups offarms combine into villages or land use units. These in
turn combineinto regions, which may cover a part of a country, an entire countryor even a group of
countries.

In the figure above only a simple graphical representation is given of the hierarchy of systems (from
crop/livestock to regional system). The dotted lines indicate how systems at each level are made up
of components that become systems with their own components/subsystems at the next lower level.
Only a single system is shown at each level, but in reality, of course, many systems exist at each
level. Moving upwards from the plant system to the regional system, the number of units decreases.

12
In other words, there are many plants in a crop population, several crops in a field, only one or two
fields in a cropping system and perhaps only two cropping systems in each farming system.
The same applies to the higher levels in the hierarchy. In one single region, there may be a few sub
regions (or villages or watersheds), but each of these consists of a multitude of farms.

The lowest level that is usually considered in FSA is the crop system,with crops, i.e. the plant
subsystems and their interactions, asthe main component. The crop system may involve plant
populations ofvarying species and variety. The next higher system level is the cropping system,
with the fieldas the corresponding unit of observation. The cropping system is aland use unit that
transforms plant material and soil nutrients intouseful biomass. Cropping system components are
the crop system(crops, weeds, pathogens, and insects) and land.
Labor and management are inputs provided by the next higher level inthe hierarchy, of the farming
system. The cropping system may involvecomplex spatial and time arrangements of various crop
species andvarieties according to micro-variations in the soil. Trees found inthe field or around the
homestead are included in the cropping systeminsofar as they interact with crops. The output of
thecropping system is useful biomass that can be used as food,feed, fiber.
The livestock system comprises the grazing lands and other feedsources (hedge rows, crop residue)
as well as the animals involved. Ahierarchy of animal production would involve animals, herds
andlivestock systems as levels. The next higher level in the hierarchyis the farm. If the farm is
studied as a system, it is usually calledfarming or farm system. The farming system is a decision-
making andland use unit comprising the farm household, cropping and livestocksystems that
transforms land, capital (and external inputs), labor(including genetic resources and knowledge)
into useful products thatcan be consumed or sold. The farming system comprises the
croppingsystem(s), the livestock system(s) and the farm household. Each ofthese constitutes a
complex subsystem by itself. In the tropics,nearly all farms have more than one cropping and/or
livestock system,e.g. upland crops as well as irrigated paddy fields as well as homegardens, in
addition to farm yard animals or herds of small ruminants.
Cropping and livestock systems frequently interact, e.g. ifcrop residue is fed to animals or manure
and animal traction areapplied to crops. The role of perennials and trees is also analyzedat this
level.The farm household consists of a group of people, often related, who,individually or jointly,
provide the management, labor, capital, landand other inputs for the production of crops and

13
 livestock, and whoconsume at least part of the farm produce. The farm household is thusthe Centre
of consumption, resource allocation, management and labor,and can consist of more or less
autonomous subsystems. Management,of course, is one of the crucial variables here.
Managementimplies decisions on objectives (e.g. cash or food crops), on the waythese are to be
reached (e.g. cassava or other crops), and on howdeviations from standards have to be corrected
during implementation(e.g. replacing plants after pest attacks). Off-farm activities canbe an
important separate element in the farm household system. Astudy of farming systems must also
involve money and information exchanges.
Farming systems are components of higher level systems that forsimplicity sake are called land-use
systems here and may be a village,a watershed, a valley or another landscape or geographicalunit.
These systems in turn are part of a regional system. The regionalsystem is a complex large scale
land utilization unit whichproduces and transforms primary products and involves a large
servicesector, including urban centers. The regional system can be analyzedfrom an ecological or
socio-economic perspective. Ecologically speaking,it consists of climate, land and vegetation and
human resources.
In the economic sense, regional systems comprise a primaryproduction sector, a secondary sector
(processing of agriculturalproducts) and a tertiary sector (services, marketing and urban).
Theprimary production (agricultural) sector comprises all the farms inthe region.
1.4. Agricultural systems versus farming systems
An agricultural system is an assemblage of components which are united by some form of interaction
and interdependence and which operate within a prescribed boundary to achieve a specified agricultural
objective on behalf of the beneficiaries of the system.
From a practical production, administration and management point of view, as shown in Figure below,
'all agriculture' can be regarded as consisting of sets of systems at 16 Order Levels or levels of
generality. In this case the farm level is indicated atsystems of Order Levels 1 to 12 in Figure.

14
1.5. Types of Farming Systems

15
1.7. Components of Farming Systems
A farming system (or farm system or whole-farm system) is not simply a collection of crops and animals
to which one can apply this input andthat expect immediate results. Rather, it is a complicated
interwoven mesh of soils, plants, animals, implements, workers, other inputs and environmental
influences with the components held and manipulated by a person called the farmer who, given his
preferences and aspirations, attempts to produce output from the inputs and technology available to him.
It is the farmer's unique understanding of his immediate environment, both natural and socioeconomic,
that results in his farming system.Different components of farming systems have been categorized as
cropping systems, the farm household system, livestock system and the interaction between these
components and the environment.
A system is an entity with components that interact with each other. Farming systems likewise is
comprised of different components.
Fresco (1986) categorizes the different components as 'Cropping systems (or sub-system), the farm
household system, livestock system; and the interaction between these components and the
environment (social, biological, physical). The interaction among components and between
components and the environment can be conveniently recognized as socio-economic and
environmental component.
Land use pattern is an important consideration in farming systems analysis as it describes the
behavior of resource management and allocationof farm activities. Among land use pattern
interpretations include cropping (or crop) systems and cropping cycles, cultivation systems or land
preparation techniques and aspects of allocation of land to different farm activities. Livestock
system is an integral part of land use pattern and when proper interactions are operating
betweenlivestock system, cropping system, the household system and the social and physical
environmentsystems a farming system exists as a single operational entity.

CHAPTER TWO:
FARMING SYSTEM AND ITS DETERMINANTS

16
Objectives of the chapter: At the end of this chapter students will able to
1. Describe sustainable livelihoods and farming systems
2. Explain household, livestock, crop and market subsystems
3. Understand the concept of modern agricultural technology and their relevance
4. Identify the determinants of Farming Systems and understand sustainable livelihoods

2.1. Sustainable Livelihoods and farming systems

The concept of sustainable livelihoods
The concept of sustainable livelihoods is a reference point for a wide range of people involved in
different aspects of development policy formulationand planning. As analysts point out, there are two
broad approaches todefining livelihoods. One has a narrower economic focus on
production,employment and household income. The other:takes a more holistic view which unites
concepts of economicdevelopment, reduced vulnerability and environmentalsustainability while
building on the strengths of the rural poor. The livelihoods concepts and methodological approaches in
this handout are rooted in this more holistic view. The livelihoods framework is not restricted
toanalyzing rural livelihoods. It has important applications in understanding urbanlivelihoods and
vulnerability and the linkages between rural and urban areas.
.
Many earlier development approaches assumed that rural society washomogenous (in other words, that
there was no differentiation betweenhouseholds in rural areas) and that households had single-purpose
economies(in other words, that they only had one way of making a living). As aresult, development
agencies tended to focus on narrow, sectorial, production-orientated strategies that often bypassed those
most at risk and failed torecognize that poor households have multiple economic strategies. One ofthe
key findings that flowed from participatory research and appraisal was amuch more understated
understanding of livelihoods and the different elements that they combine.

The work of Chambers and Conway in the early 1990s built on participatoryresearch practices and ideas
put forward by the World Commission onEnvironment and Development. They developed a definition
of livelihoodsand the factors that make them sustainable which underpins all of thelivelihoods
frameworks currently being used:

17
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources,claims and access) and activities
required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable whenit can cope with and recoverfrom stress
and shocks, maintain and enhance its capabilitiesand assets, and provide sustainable livelihood
opportunities for thenext generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoodsat the local
and global levels in the long and short term.
The Chambers and Conway definition was modified by DFID in 1999, adefinition that is widely used:
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including bothmaterial and social resources) and
activities required for ameans of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can copewith and recover
from shocks and stresses and maintain andenhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the
future,whilst not undermining the natural resource base.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the term livelihood involves the capacities,
goods such as capital and social, and the activities needed to live. The livelihoods are sustainable when
they can cope with and recover from adverse trends and sudden shocks, and when they allow the
maintenance and enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining
the natural resource base (FAO, 2009).
Other livelihoods definitions make people more central and are less concernedwith precise terminology
for different kinds of assets. They highlightissues of ownership, access and decision making. One of
these definitionsof livelihoods states:
It is people’s capacity to generate and maintain their means ofliving, enhance their well-being and that
of future generations.
These capacities are dependent upon the availability and accessibilityof options which are ecological,
economic and politicaland which are predicated on equity, ownership of resources andparticipatory
decision making.
Despite differences in emphasis by different practitioners, the livelihoodsframework helps us to:
o identify (and value) what people are already doing to cope with risk anduncertainty
o make the connections between factors that constrain or enhance theirlivelihoods on the
one hand, and policies and institutions in the widerenvironment
o identify measures that can strengthen assets, enhance capabilities and reduce
vulnerability
The terminology sustainable livelihoods does not discriminate between social classes; however, since its
origin it is mainly concerned with understanding the differential capability of rural families to cope with

18
crises such as droughts, floods, food insecurity, orplant and animal pests and diseases (Allison and Ellis,
2001). For example, the Development Alternatives (DA) organization considers sustainable livelihoods
to be all those existing approaches of development that economically try to support
marginalized/disadvantaged groups, so that they survive acceptably in their local environment, and they
have dignified and environmentally sustainable lives (DA, 1999).

2.2. Modern agricultural technology and their relevance

Technological change has been the major driving force for increasing agricultural productivity and
promoting agriculture development in all countries.

During the past fifty years, development in the agriculture sector and policies has been changed
successfully at emphasizing external inputs to increase food production. This has led to growth in global
inorganic fertilizer, consumption of pesticides, animal feedstuffs and tractors and other machinery.
These external inputs have substituted for natural resources and processes, rendering them less powerful.
Pesticides have replaced biological, cultural and mechanical methods for controlling pests, weeds and
diseases. Inorganic fertilizers have substituted for livestock manures, composts and nitrogen fixing
crops. The basic challenge of sustainable agriculture is to make better usage of these internal resources.
These resources can be done by minimizing the external inputs used, by regenerating internal resources
more effectively.Evidence is now emerging that regenerative and resource conserving technologies and
practices can bring both environmental and economic benefits for farmers, communities and nations.
The new or modern technology in agricultural sector can substantially improve the agricultural
production and sustainability. For instance, best management practices which can reduce the incidence
of pests and diseases. Insect-specific chemicals and biological insect controls are now being utilized,
instead of broad-spectrum pesticides, which actually reduce the number of sprays needed and therefore
its capitals. GIS, Crop models and remote sensing can provides information to farmers forrealizing
precision agriculture, which is done by matching inputs based on actual yields of different portions on
the field. These tools play an important role and also allow agriculture to manage land for both
agriculture and wildlife.

2.3. Determinants of Farming Systems and Sustainable Livelihoods

2.3.1. Determinants of Farming System
The determinants of farming system can be grouped intotwo: thenatural and the socio-economicfactors.
19
A. The natural factors: are comprised of the physical and the biological factors
I. Physical factors; -These include all external conditions and influences affecting the life and
development of an organism.
a) Climate
 Solar radiation
 Rainfall
 Temperature
 Relative humidity
 Wind
b) Soils
 Soil aeration and soil structure
 Soil reaction
 Soil fertility
 Supply of mineral nutrients
 Absence of growth-restricting substances
c) Topography:-Position of farm on the top sequence
d) Physical structures
II. Biological factors
 Crops
 Livestock
 Weed
 Pests
 Diseases
B. Socio-economic Factors
System output is limited by exogenous factors as well as by endogenous factors.
I. Endogenous factors
 Family composition
 Health and nutrition
 Education
 Food preferences

20
  Risk aversion
 Attitude/goals
 Gender relations
Endogenous factors are set by subsystems within the system or by lower level systems. Farming
system outputs, for example, are limited by labor inputs provided by the farm household (a
subsystem) as well as by the genetic potential of crop varieties (crop system).
II. Exogenous factors
 Population
 Tenure
 Off-farm opportunities
 Social infrastructure
 Credit
 Markets
 Prices
 Technology
 Input supply
 Extension
 Savings opportunities
Farming system output is limited by exogenous and endogenous factors. Exogenous factors are
those occurring at levels higherthan that of the system involved. For example,the cropping system,
i.e. thecombination of crops, land, management, weeds and so on, sets limitson crop system outputs.
Higher level constraints will affect all lower level systems; because the hierarchy is
comprehensive(each system is included in the next higher level). Climate, prices and infrastructure
are examples of factors at the regional system that may be constraining the outputs of all lower level
systems.However, higher level constraints may be subject to changes atlower levels, The limitations
imposed by rainfall, a constraint in the regional system, may be modified at lower levels such as in
the cropping systems by soils and farmer management. Consequently, even if one is only interested
in lower level systems, as inthe case of crop physiologists and geneticists, who mainly work atplant
and crop systems, constraints at higher levels must be acknowledged, such as soil nutrient

21
limitations (cropping system level) and constraints imposed by labor peaks (farming system level)
or consumer preferences (regional system).
2.3.2.Determinants of sustainable livelihoods
Sustainable livelihood is affected by many factors. The main factors are described below;
a) Public Policy: Sustainable livelihoods are supported by political, economic and social policies that
enable mutually beneficial relationships to develop among people and the whole community of life.
Policy formulation should begin with visioning processes that involve all sectors of community, as
decisions made by all stakeholders better ensure equity, human rights and effective implementation.
b) Economic Priorities: To promote sustainable livelihoods, power must be rooted in the localized
economies. Economic policy should be based on full cost accounting which incorporates social and
environmental costs and benefits. Trade agreements and tax policies should favor local needs over
export marketing, encourage sustainable production and consumption, and support renewable
resource technologies. Such policies will support worker rights, debt relief, and local control over
resources within a framework of broader responsibility to share and protect resources.
c) Socio-Cultural Aspects:Socio-cultural policies should support principles of sustainable livelihoods
in education, health and the media, drawing on the wealth of cultural diversity and encouraging
exchange of indigenous and modern knowledge, wisdom and skills.
d) Management:Different people have various information about the environment, the options and the
resources and then these lead to different decisions in similar situation. The information required
covers a range of disciplines including crops and livestock management. Livelihood Sustainability
is supported by good management.
e) Livelihoods strategies
It helps the people to recover from the shocks and stresses. Based on the level of risks,livelihoods
strategies can be divided in to four. These are:
i. Accumulation strategy:is a strategy that seeks to increase income flows and stock of assets.
ii. Adaptive strategy: is a strategy that seeks to spread risks through livelihood adjustments or
income diversifications.
iii. Coping strategies: refers to strategies that minimize the impact of livelihood shocks.
iv. Survival strategies: is a strategy that seeks to prevent hardship and death.

CHAPTER THREE: FARMING SYSTEMS APPROACH

22
Objectives of the chapter:At the end of this chapter students will able to
1) Explain farming systems approach in general
2) Can classify, characterize and review farming systems
3) Understand smallholder, Resource-poor family farms
4) Explain the relationships among household, crops, livestock and subsystems
5) Understand the socio-economic characteristics of smallholder, resource-poor family farms
and their implications on technology design and extension
6) Describe the farming systems improvement
7) Understand systems approach to production, research and extension

3.1. Farming systems approach (FSA) in general

FSA creates anopportunity for developing diversified models for different type of farmers and
differentcategory of farmers. New farming system approach models could be developed bymeans of
on farm research and extension. It causes consequential a complex changewhich demands for
Government interventions for farming systems development

Biggs (1985) explained the concept of FSA as follows: it is a problem solving approachfor the
farmer. Farming system approach is an inter-disciplinary approach andit is a participatory and
bottom upplanning. It requires on farm trials. It depends on the concept learning by doing
andfarming system approach needs socially desirable technologies.
Thus the concept of Farming System Approach can be summarized as it is a holisticapproach,
complex in nature, interrelated of components, matrix of soils, plants,animals, power, implements,
labor, capital and other inputs, influenced by political,economic, institutional and social forces.

Need for Farming System Approach

The need for Farming Systems Approach in the present scenario is mainly due to high cost of farm
inputs, fluctuation in the market price of farm produce, risk in crop harvest due to climatic changes
and biotic factors. Environmental degradation, depletion in soil fertility & productivity, unstable
income of the farmer, fragmentation of holdings and low standard of living add to the intensity of
the problem.

23
What Farming System Approach is and what it does?
It is an approach for developing farm-household systems, built on the principles of productivity,
profitability, stability and sustainability. All the components are complimentary and supplementary
to each other. And the development process involves the participation of rural communities. The
farming system approach emphasizes understanding of farm household, community inter linkages,
reviewsconstraints and assesses potentials. And it combines improvements desired frombetter
technology. It needs efficient support services and requires better policies. It iscontinuous, dynamic
and interactive learning process based on analysis, planning,testing, monitoring and evaluation.
Therefore, Farming Systems Approach is important:
 To develop farm – house hold systems and rural communities on a sustainable basis
 To improve efficiency in farm production
 To raise farm and family income
 To increase welfare of farm families and satisfy basic needs.
An intensive integrated farming system addresses two issues, reduction in risk with the monoculture
activities and promoting enterprise diversification, value addition and development of alternative
income sources with efficient utilization of farm resources.
And it brings about enterprise diversification for sustainability and additional benefits, better
management of important farm resources like land, labor and capital etc.
Farming systems approach provides an opportunity for effective recycling of the product and by-
products, helps to generate flow of cash to the farmers round the year by way of disposal of milk,
fruits, fuel, manure etc.
3.2. Characterizing and reviewing farming systems
3.2.1. Characteristics of farming system
1. Farmer oriented & holistic approach
2. Effective farmer’s participation
3. Unique problem solving system
4. Dynamic system
5. Gender sensitive
6. Responsible to society
7. Environmental sustainability
8. Diversified farming enterprises to avoid risks due to environmental constraints

24
 A. Understanding and Classification of Farming Systems

The natural, economic, and socio-institutional conditions of agriculturalproduction vary widely from
place to place and over periods of time. In the process of adapting cropping patterns and farming
practices to the conditions of each location and the aims of the farmers,more or less distinct types of
farm organization have developed.Infact,no farm is organized exactly like any other.For the purpose of
agriculturaldevelopment, however, in order to devise meaningful measures in agricultural policy, it is
necessary to classify farms according to their farm-management characteristics.

Farming systems can be described in many ways. In a constant struggle to survive, farm communities
have developed innumerable ways of obtaining food and fibre from plants and animals. Over the years,
researchers and farmers alike have used a variety of terms, such as farming system, cropping system,
organic, ecological, to identify agricultural systems based on particular characteristics or definitions. In
addition to these terms, which focus on unique sets of practices, management techniques, and sometimes
philosophies, otherdefinitions (e.g., a corn–soybean system, a vegetable or hog production system) focus
on the commodity being produced.

A wide range of different farming systems have evolved, each adapted to the local ecological con ditions
and inextricably entwined with the local culture. A closer look at these 'traditional' farming systems
reveals that they are not static: they have changed over the generations - and particularly quickly over
the last few decades - primarily as a result of the research and development activities of the local people.
These activities have not only been in response to external pressures; they are also an expression of local
creativity.

B. Factors Determining Farming Systems

The determinants of farming system can be grouped into the natural and the socio-economic factors. The
natural factors are comprised of the physical and the biological factors

1. Physical factors - These include all external conditions and influences affecting the life and
development of an organism
i. Climate
a) Solar radiation

25
Solar radiation is essential for photosynthesis, when crops utilizes visible light to produce drymatter
from water and Carbon dioxide. Solar radiation is an essential determinant of the final yield of some
crops in areas of adequate water supply e.g. sugar-cane and lowland rice.Therefore, dry matter
production depends on incoming solar radiation and the type of plant that is exploiting it under normal
conditions.
b) Rainfall
The amount, incidence, variation and reliability of rainfall determine differences in cropping pattern in
various ecological zones. Rainfall is the most important climatic variable its roles in agricultural
production include the following:
1. Main source of moisture supply to the soil for the activation of plant growth,
2. Replenishment of water in rivers to allow irrigation operation,
3. Build-up of underground water reserves which are later tapped by wells in dry area throughseepage
and percolation, and
4. Influences soil/water/plant relationships

c) Temperature
Temperature affects evapo-transpiration, photosynthesis and soil warming. The effects of high
temperature include:Rapid soil organic matter (SOM) decomposition due to high microbial
activities andincreased rates of biochemical reactions,Rendering built-in fallows ineffective,Enhance
the incidence of pests and pathogens, Enhances high respiratory rates and exhaustion of plant
assimilates in the night, resulting in low net assimilate accumulation and crop yield,Affects seed
germination, pollination, flowering, fruiting, ion uptake, leaf growth and cell enlargement.

d) Relative humidity

This is the ratio between the amount of water vapour actually held in the air and the maximum possible
amount that can be held at a particular temperature. It is a measure of thedampness of the atmosphere.

iii. Biological factors

Included are crop and livestock species, pests, diseases and weeds Socio-economic Factors These are
factors within the control of the rural household they are as follows:
a Family composition

26
b. Health and nutrition
c. Education
d. Food preferences
e. Risk aversion
f. Attitude/goals
g. Gender relations
Exogenous factors
These are factors that are not within the influence of the rural household. They are as follows:
a. Population
b. Tenure
c. Off-farm opportunities
d. Social infrastructure
e. Credit
f, Markets
g. Prices
h. Technology
i. Input supply
j, Extension
k. Savings opportunities

Farming systems types are determined by a variety of factors, which allow analysts and development
workers an opportunity to broadly categories areas and prescribe a loose set of possible projects, while
acknowledging the heterogeneity that exists within these categories. The following sub-section will be a
short review of the factors that determine a farming system.

2. Natural Resources and Climate

The interaction of natural resources, climate and population provides the physical basis for farming
systems. A rapidly growing population in many developing countries, coupled with a strong emphasis
on increased production by development agencies in the 1970s and 80s, has led to a tendency to
intensify farming. This has placed an overwhelming pressure on woodlands and natural eco-systems,

27
which has in turn threatened the biodiversity of many development regions. As a result, there has been a
growing tension between the goals of development and conservation.

Yes, it is true that those areas which were abundant with streams and rivers, and producing fruits and
vegetables once up on a time are now craving after drops of water at least once in a year since those
water bodies are already gone. We have a situation whereby the changes in the global climate are
leading to greater food insecurity, substantially increasing the risks to household livelihoods, which has
tended to lead to greater intensification of agricultural production and thus placed a greater burden on
the environment.

3. Science and Technology

There has been, in recent decades, a rapid expansion in investment in agricultural science and
technology. Poorer smallholder farmers in marginal areas have not, however, had much opportunity to
benefit from such investment. There has been little research into integrated technology for diversifying
the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and increasing the sustainability of land use. The focus instead
tends to be on the intensification of farming. Recent years have, however, seen a gradual shift in the
global research agenda, as the importance of the smallholder farmer in rural development has become
clearer. This is likely to be of importance to people-centred approaches to rural development, including
the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) as it attempts to build human capital and improve farm
livelihoods in rural areas.

4. Trade Liberalization and Market Development

The 1980s saw International Money Fund and World Bank inspired structural adjustment programs in
many developing economies. The short-term result of this has tended to be shortfalls in ensuring
adequate services for more marginal smallholder farms as public goods have become speedily privatized
and government intervention pulled back. The external market forces are likely to continue to have an
enormous impact on the livelihoods of the rural poor. The Farming Systems approach and the SLA all
make some attempts to ensure the sustainability of the livelihoods of farmers, such that they will be able
to fit in to larger changes in market conditions and government policy, and as such will not be heavily
affected by changes in international agricultural trade policies.

28
 5. Policies, Institutions, and Public Goods
There has recently been, on the international and national stages, a movement towards greater
participation through decentralization of government and the privatization of services. However, there
continues to be further marginalization of smallholders and female-headed households, as government
services are not adequately replaced by the private sector and civil society has tended to be unable to
cope with replacing the shortfall of services. Policy shifts have a dramatic effect on production
incentives in farming systems.

This resonates with the criticisms of Sustainable Livelihoods that there needs to be a greater emphasis
on the role of politics and public policy making, while the Farming Systems approach also recognizes
the role of policies, institutions and public goods. Generally, it becomes clear that farming systems will
change with the availability of policy, institutional and public goods support systems.

6. Information and Human Capital

The need for better information and enhanced human capital has been increasingly recognized and
attempts have been made to deal with it through literacy programs and wider access to primary
education in countries like ours, for instance during the Dergue reign. People may shift towards
commodity specialized and mechanized farming systems as they get the capacity to deal with
technological inputs. In this regard, women often tend to fall on the disadvantaged side. A gender
sensitive information and capacity building revolution is, therefore, of paramount importance.

C. Types of Farming Systems

Farming systems can be classified based the composition of enterprises carried out on the farm, and
interest of farmers’, and technological inputs employed. Let’s see these different types of farming
systems.
1. Diversified Farming System

A farm on which no single product or source of income equals as much as 50% of the total receipt is
called a diversified or general farm. On such a farm, the farmer depends on several sources of income.
Possible Sources of Income in Diversified Farming System

29
 OTHERS
SHEEP & GOAT
POULTRY
FARMING
DAIRY
CASH GRAIN

A system becomes custom in certain community in due process of recognizing its multiple advantages.
Diversified farming system has also its own disadvantages. Below are put both advantages and
disadvantages of diversification.

The advantages include;

1. Better use of land, labour and capital: Better use of land through adoption of crop rotations,
steady employment of farm and family labour and more profitable use of equipment are obtained
in diversified farming;
2. Business risk is reduced due to a crop failure or unfavourable market prices; and
1. Regular and quicker returns are obtained from various enterprises throughout the year etc.
Some of the disadvantages are;
2. Marketing is insufficient unless the producers arrange for the sale of their produce on co-
operative basis;
3. Because of various jobs in diversified farming a farmer can effectively supervise only limited
number of workers;
4. Better equipping of the farm is not possible because it is not economical to have expensive
implements and machinery for each enterprise and;
5. There are chances when some of the leaks in farm business may remain undetected due to
diversity of operations etc.

2. Specialized Farming System

Under specialized farming, 50% or more income is derived from one single source. See the following
figure.
Figure2 - Composition of Income Sources in Specialized Farming System

30
 We may best consider specialization as the production
of majorly one commodity for market, so that the
farmer depends largely on a single source of income.
This trend is evident when economic conditions are
fairly uniform for a long period.

According to the definition, a farm on which 50% or more of the income are from sugarcane would be
classified as sugarcane farming system, and the one yielding 50% or more of its income from vegetables
would be called a vegetable farm. In Ethiopia, we may find evidences of such specializations.
The advantages of specialized farming system are:
1. Better use of land:
It is more profitable to grow a crop on a land best suited to it. For example, rice cultivation on a swampy
land;
2. Better marketing:
Specialization allows better assembling, grading, processing, storing, transporting and financing of the
produce;
3. Better management:
The fewer enterprise on a farm are liable to be less neglected and sources of wastage can easily be
detected;
4. Less equipment and labour are needed:
A coffee farmer needs only special machinery and comparatively less labour for raising coffee than
mixing many and;
5. Efficiency and skill are increased:
Specialization allows a man to be more efficient and expert at doing a few things. etc.
The disadvantages are:
1. There is a greater risk of failure of crop and market and may ruin farmers;
2. Productive resources like land, labour and capital are not fully utilized;
3. Fertility of soil cannot be maintained properly for lack of suitable rotation;
4. By products of the farm cannot be fully utilized;
5. Farm returns in cash are not generally received more than once a year and;
6. General knowledge of farm enterprises becomes limited etc.

31
 3. Mixed Farming System

Mixed farming is a combination of crop production with a sufficient amount of livestock production. It
refers to that type of diversified agriculture in which a farmer invariably devotes to livestock production
as a complementary enterprise. To differentiate mixed farming from diversified farming, there should be
a substantial size of herds being kept by the farmers contributing to income and consumption of the
household.
The advantages of mixed farming system include;
It helps in maintaining soil fertility;
It tends to give balanced labour load throughout the year for the farmer and his family;
7. It permits the proper use of farm by-products;
8. It provides for greater chances of intensive cultivation and;
9. It often gets higher returns on farm business etc.
Ranching Farming System
The word ranching does not come under the specification provided for the farm, i.e. it is not in the
control of any owner nor is it enclosed by any boundary. Ranching means practice of grazing animals
specially sheep and goat, and is always on public land. Sometimes, such land is utilized for raising dairy
stock. It is then known as dairy ranch. Ranching is very common in Australia and Tibet. In Ethiopia,
there are still pocket areas where ranching is common (e.g. Somali region and most of the agro-pastoral
areas). Ranching is gradually disappearing because of the increasing pressure on agricultural land.

4. Dry-land Farming System

Dry land farming generally refers to an area which receives less than 50 mm of annual rainfall. Areas
where rainfall is up to 75 mm but is in coincidence with high temperature and greater wind velocity,
resulting into a heavy loss of water may also be considered under this category. The major farm
management problem in these tracts, where crops are entirely dependent upon rainfall, is the
conservation of soil moisture. Farmers all over the world, where dry land farming is practiced help
plants to save enough of water to mature the crop. By good tillage they increase the infiltration of such
rain as received by the fields. They remove weeds to prevent the transpiration of moisture through their
leaves.

5. Mechanized Farming System

32
The mechanical operation on a farm is called farm mechanization. It includes the use of manual
implement, and modern machines used in various farm operations like tractor ploughing, tube-well
irrigation, harvesting and threshing by combine harvesters and threshers, spraying by sprays and the
like. In post-harvest operations, mechanization includes processing of products such as wheat milling,
cold storage, oil expelling, cane crushing and so on. Dear learners; mechanized farming systems are
common in, for instance, Arsi and Bale zones where large areas are cultivated by state and investors.

6. Marginal Farming System

The marginal farmer does not always consider economic criterion in evaluating crop performance,
because his or her first concern is food for the farm family. As such, he or she has nothing to market
except on occasions when things force them to get some cash. Marginal farming is characterized by the
following factors:
1. The farms or holding are tiny with greater pressure of population on the land;
2. The resource structure is hopelessly poor with the result that the farmer cannot give a proper
direction to the allocation and utilization of resources;
3. The products are consumed directly by the household and not exchanged in market;
4. There is a complementary relationship between enterprises as some of them will have to be
raised for by-products for cattle maintenance without consideration for loss or profit and;
5. Product price fluctuations have marginal effect on the production of crops, etc.
N.B: There could be many more criteria to classify farming systems into different types. In most of
developing regions, for instance, we can identify between rain fed and irrigated farming systems based
the water base available for production.

3.3. Smallholder, Resource-poor family farms

The exact definition of what a smallholder farmer means varies widely worldwide depending on location
and intensification of farming systems. Generally, a smallholder farmer is viewed as a person who
involved in farming of a small piece of land, cultivating food crops, sometimes with small varieties of
cash crops. In many localities, smallholder farmers practice mixed crop-livestock farming, whereby the
number of large ruminants kept is around 3-5. Operations in such farms are at large managed by family
labor, since the primary intentions for farming are dedicated to support internal family needs.
Smallholder farmers (owning less than 2 ha of land) constitute the largest proportion of the (570 million)

33
 farms worldwide. In Africa, they dominate the agricultural sector and contribute about 75% of
agriculture production and 50% of the livestock products.
A more rounded definition of a smallholder touches upon the concepts of:
o Ownership
Smallholder farms are owned by individuals/families rather than businesses.
o Labor
Smallholder farms rely on familial labor rather than paid workers. This reduces operational costs and
also creates a more flexible approach where on-farm income can be complemented by off-farm work.
o Asset/capital ownership
Going beyond land, smallholder farms have a low level of multiple classes of assets/capital. For
example, a major advantage of large farms is the collateral which allows them to preferentially access
financial products. Smallholders lack these opportunities and therefore tend to have low investment in
technology/usage, making up the gap with increased labor inputs
o Agro-ecological zones
As you would expect, farms tend to be larger in drier agro-ecological zones, while wetter zones
supporting multiple annual crop cycles can support smaller farm sizes. Defining a small farm should
therefore take the zone into account. It is worth noting that this trend is not always the case. In Ethiopia
there are smaller farms in the drier highlands because of previous settlement histories
o Livelihoods
Smallholder farmers have low profit margins which limit the owners’ ability to sustain a high quality
livelihood. Smallholder farmers make up the largest demographic of people living on under $2 a day.
Smallholder farms also tend to have a blend of commercial and subsistence crops compared to larger,
more commercially focused farms. These properties taken together and result in a particular
pattern/model of agriculture which is unique and distinct from that of larger farms. Based on these
insights we can expand our previous definition to a more complete.

34
 Source Climate Edge, 2021

According FAO 2015 report, about two-thirds of the developing world’s rural people live in about 475
million small farm households, working on land plots smaller than 2 hectares. Many are poor and food
insecure and have limited access to markets and services. Their choices are constrained, but they farm
their land and produce food for a substantial proportion of the world’s population. Besides farming, they
have multiple economic activities (off-farm), often in the informal economy, to contribute towards their
small incomes.

These small farms depend predominantly on family labor. In India about 80 percent of farmers are
small. In Ethiopia, farms smaller than 2 hectares constitute nearly 90 percent of the total number of
farms. The differences in smallholder farms between countries can be significant, and often reflect
differences in the stages of development across countries. This is because the evolution of the small
farm is intrinsically related to the process of economic development. But across all stages of
development, smallholders operate their farms like entrepreneurs operate their firms, or at least they try.
They raise capital from multiple sources and invest in productive assets. They make decisions and take
both risks and profits. And agriculture involves many decisions: What to plant, which inputs to use and
how, when to plow, to seed, to harvest; how much to keep for consumption in the household and how
much to sell to raise cash, or how much to store. Smallholders often make these decisions in an
economic environment in which markets do not function well, if at all, and which is also subject to many
risks, such as adverse weather and price surges. And this has significant implications for their choices
and their livelihoods. It also affects their choices on investing on themselves and their children (on how
to attain social and human capital objectives, such as education and health).

35
 In Ethiopia, about 74% of farmers live on small farms, and most of them are living below the national
poverty line.
Therefore, helping smallholder, resource poor farmers by applying the farming system approach help to
improve level of welfareof society as a whole by increasing their productivity.

3.4. The socio-economic characteristics of smallholder, resource-poor family farms and their
implications on technology design and extension

The characteristicsand opinions of smallholder farmers are one of the key considerations that should be
taken intoaccount in extension service provision delivery and in designing technology, as it is important
to understand their experiences and views inorder to provide services which are both relevant and
practical.

Rational behavior is behavior that is consistent with one's ends orgoals. It is therefore critically
important to identify those ends orgoals in order to be able to assess whether farmers are acting in
amanner that is rational. In large-scale agriculture, which issynonymous with commercial agriculture,
the goal is usuallyassumed to be profit maximization. However, for small-scale farmersin developing
countries, the ends or goals are likely to be different.Therefore, different evaluation criteria are
necessary. Small-scalefarmers are likely to adopt technologies/strategies aiming at the goal of a
substantial degree of food self-sufficiency while minimizing risk.This is because of the
characteristics/nature of small-scale farming in developingcountries.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR: FARMING SYSTEM RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGIES

Objectives of the Chapter: - at the end students will able to;

1. Explain Farming System Research (FSR)
2. Understand FSR Activities: Procedures and Methodologies
3. Describe System Analysis & Performance Criteria
4. Understand the Purpose and Features of FSR
5. Explain Performance Criteria for System’s Property
6. Identify challenges of FSR/D
7. Understand participatory research tools and techniques
8. Understand Problem diagnosis and opportunities identification

4.1. Farming System Research (FSR)

What is FSR?
FSR as research (including training) which is:
1. conducted with a recognition of and focus towards the interdependencies and interrelationships
that exist among elements of the farm system, and between these elements and the farm
environment; and
2. aimed at enhancing the efficacy of farming systems through thebetter focusing of agricultural
research so as to facilitate thegeneration and testing of improved technology.
In the above definition of FSR, efficacy implies to research "benefitting the majority of farmersin low-
income countries and on commodities representing important sources of food for the developing
countries."

Systems Terminology and Concepts

Systems analysis or the systems approach refers to the holistic approachof studying the system as an
entity made up of al1 its components and their interrelationships,together with relationships between the
system and its environment.
The systems approach to research can be contrasted with and seen as animprovement to the more
traditional research approach involving a sequence of:

37
(a) Observation; (b) hypothesis development: (c) deductive prediction; and
(d) Hypothesis testing. This traditional approach is generally disciplinary focused and emphasizes a
positive stand of "understanding what is" so as to solve problems. In contrast, the systems approach
involves specifying a target and assessing alternative ways ofreaching it. This implies both an expansion
of knowledge (how to reach the target) and problem solving.

The term farming systems research is a generic term used to refer toany type of research which views
the farm in a holistic manner. Thus it encompassesany research which might more specifically fall under
the headings ofresearch on crop systems, cropping systems, livestock systems or whole-farm systems.
During the past decades, considerable attention has been focused on the difficulty/danger of the
rural poor in the developing countries. One aspect of this emphasis has been to direct agricultural
research specifically to the needs and aspirations of farmers with limited resources. Historically,
farmers with limited resources have not adequately benefited from agricultural research, because the
research was not specific enough for their needs. Instead, research in the less developed countries
has typically been undertaken for farmers who have more resources and who often produced for
export. Generally, technologies offered to the small farmers have come from a top-down approach.
By that, we mean the research would be largely initiated and conducted on experiment stations and
then offered to small farmers to accept or reject. As a result, farmers rejected many of the proposed
changes, because the suggested improvements wereunprofitable or too risky, or the farmers lacked
adequate inputs or suitable markets. In short, the technologies were not suitable because the
researchers did not know or consider the conditions of small farmers. Therefore, research,
extension, and other programs are needed to correct these deficiencies, if small farmers in
developing countries are to be helped. One approach that considers farmers' conditions specifically
is called Farming Systems Research and Development [FSR&D), or simply farming systems
research (FSR).

4.2. FSR activities: Procedures and Methodologies

4.2.1. An Ideal FSR Program/ activities of FSR
In general, any FSR program should aim to meet the following interrelated objectives/activities:
1. To understand the land (including climatic) resources and socioeconomic environment
within which agricultural production takes place. It would seem fundamental to the
success of an IFSR program that accurate and reliable data on the land resources and

38
 particularly on factors of soil and climate, are made available and well understood. It is
especially important in the selection of benchmark sites to have sufficient data to ensure
that the benchmark site is truly representative of the larger area under study.
2. To evaluate existing farming systems in specific physical and socioeconomic
environments, in particular the practice and performance of these systems; and to
improve our understanding of the farmer, his skills, preferences and aspirations.
3. To improve problem identification (target areas, bottlenecks, etc.) in existing farming
systems and thereby to assist in focusing better the research activities and programmes of
integrated rural development on specific key problems which limit production or farm
income.
4. To enhance the capacity of research organizations to conduct research on priority farming
systems' problems so that they are better able to design new and/or improved production
systems.
5. To conduct research on new or improved practices, principles, system components or
subsystems within an FSR context, and to evaluate these for possible testing on farms.
6. To evaluate new or improved practices, or systems components, on farms in major
production areas.
7. To assess the benefits of improved technology on farms where baseline studies have
been conducted, in order to obtain information on the impact of technology, especially on
small farms.

It should be pointed out that while the above seven objectives imply afull range of FSR activities, not all
these objectives would be likely toreceive full or equal attention in a given FSR progranune. Too, all
seven objectivesare interrelated and their attainment would automatically involve feedbackand feed
forward effects between them.

4.2.2. Farming Systems Research Methodology

4.2.2.1. Methodological steps

The methodological steps followed in FSR include:
a) Review past research;

39
 b) Selection of areas,
c) Informal survey;
d) Screening interventions;
e) Formal surveys;
f) FSR meetings.

The summary of the procedures employed in each activity are explained as follows:
a) Review of past research
This review covered a series of specific topics: national development policies and priorities, the role
and ownership patterns of crops, livestock, communal grazing practices and schemes, nutrition and
supplementation, as well as health conditions and management, genetic potential of local breeds and
crosses, and livestock marketing and markets.
b) Area Selection and Description The major sets of area selection criteria would be identified and
used in this step based on: the ecological and physical conditions of farming system in the locality.
For example the biological and economic potential for crop and livestock production systems and
the managerial or logistic conditions for setting up a research base are will be considered.
c) Informal Survey An informal survey will be conducted in this step for the farming system. Crop
and livestock research and extension specialists familiarized themselves with the areas and
interviewed and discussed with a wide diversity of farmers to obtain a broad view of the existing
farming systems. The specialists worked intensively in small inter-disciplinary teams and rotated on
a daily basis to provide ample opportunity to discuss and analyze critical problems faced by the
farmers from different personal (within discipline and disciplinary (across disciplines)
perspectives). Their findings resulted in a tentative list of research proposals defining potential
technological interventions within all the major components of the farming systems.

d) Screening/selection of Technological Interventions To evaluate the technical and economic

feasibility of specific interventions resulting from step 3 above, the FSR would be attempting to
overcome and the target group of farmers likely to benefit from such interventions. Within and
across class, they will be organized into a cause and effect hierarchy. The previous exercise sets the
stage for identifying the opportunities to intervene in the system, which constitutes the fundamental
objective of this exercise.

40
e) Formal Surveysanother survey will be conducted to consult farmers on more appropriate
technological interventions and important assumptions made for the analysis in step 4, and to
determine to what extent their reactions are conditioned by selected farmer characteristics, available
resources and productive activities. Farmers will be selected following a statistical method
(extension worker areas, village within area, and households within village) from every unit which
by considering appropriate for drawing a representative sample from the entire geographical area.

f) FSR meetings A meeting with team of researchers, extension workers and other stakeholders will
be held a meeting. The purpose of the meeting could be to set out the on-farm research proposals,
and to analyze them in detail to obtain feedback from the participants. Specific suggestions for
improving proposed designs, the identification of other on-farm and on-station research, and
relevant information from past research and/or other projects will being sought. During the
deliberations the need to consider at all times farmer's priorities and conditions will be emphasized.

4.4. The Purpose and Features of FSR

 As with other national approaches to agricultural/rural research and extension, the purpose
of FSR and D is
 to generate more appropriate technologies for farmers and,
 to improve policies and support services for farm production activities,
 to raise farm families’ welfare and to enhance private/society’s goals –
productivity and farm income, family livelihoods, sustainability, environment
etc.
 But more specifically, FSR and D aims at increasing the productivity of the farming system
in the context of the entire range of private and societal goals, given the constraints and
potentials of the existing farming system – i.e. by generating technologies for particular
groups of farmers and by developing greater insight in to which technologies fit where and
why.
 FSR and D concentrate on increasing crop and livestock yields and overall farm output.
 And it includes family welfare because improved welfare is the ultimate goal of individual
families

41
  The goal of FSR was always for a shift from a top down (research scientist led) approach to a
more bottom-up (farmers driven) approach, which fully involved farmers in the planning and
evaluation of interventions for development.
 FSR was also a response to the perception that ‘research station based’ research was not as
relevant to local contexts, as well needed to ensure the generation and uptake of improved
practices among most small-scale farmers.

4.5. Characteristics of Farming Systems Research Approach

Many of the core activities of FSR can be operationalized in different ways. The approach is open
to multiple interpretations. In spite of the variations in their perceptions about FSR among the
practitioners, the approach has certain distinctive core characters. These are:
 It is problem solving: As an applied problem solving approach, it emphasizes ondeveloping and
transferring appropriate technologies to overcome production constraintsthrough diagnosis of
biophysical, socio-economic and institutional constraints that influencetechnological solutions;
 It is holistic: The whole farm is viewed as a system encompassing interacting sub-systems,and no
potential enterprise is considered in isolation;
 It acknowledges the location specificity of technological solutions: Recognizing thelocation
specific nature of agricultural production problems, it emphasizes on testing andadaptation of
technological solutions based on agro-ecological and socio-economicspecificities;
 It defines specific client groups: Emphasis is made on the identification of specific andrelatively
homogeneous groups of farmers with similar problems and circumstances forwhom technology is to
be developed as the specific client groups;
 It is farmer participatory: It revolves round the basic principle that successful agriculturalresearch
and development efforts should start and end with the farmers. Farmers’participation is ensured at
different stages of technology generation and transfer processes such as system description, problem
diagnosis, design and implementation of on- farm trials, and providing feedback;
 It gives weight to ITK system: The Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK), which is timetested at
the farmer's level for sustainability through a dynamic process of integrating newinnovations into

42
 the system as they arise, has to be properly understood by the scientists andutilized in their research
activities;
 It is concerned with ‘Bottom-up’ research strategy: It begins with an understanding ofexisting
farming system and the identification of key production constraints;
 It is interdisciplinary: It lays greater emphasis on interdisciplinary cooperation among thescientists
from different areas of specialization to solve agricultural problems that are ofconcern to farmers;
 It emphasizes extensive on-farm activities: It involves problem analysis throughdiagnostic
surveys, on-farm testing of the developed technologies, and providing feedbackthrough evaluation
to influence the research agenda of the experiment stations;
 It is gender sensitive: While explicitly acknowledging the gender-differentiated roles offarm
family in agriculture, it emphasizes the critical review of farming systems in terms ofactivities
analysis, access and control over resources and benefits and implication's indeveloping relevant
research agenda;
 It is dynamic: It involves recurrent analysis of the farming systems, permitting continuouslearning
and adaptations;
 It focuses on sustainability: It seeks to harness the strengths of the existing farmingpractices, and
to ensure that productivity gains are environmentally acceptable;
 It complements experiment station research: It only complements but does not substituteon
station research. It has to draw upon the scientific knowledge and technologies generatedat research
stations.
A variety of research and development activities falls under the definition of farming systems
research. In addition some research programs (e.g., commodity research programs) are not
described as FSR programs, but they exhibit most or all of the characteristics listed in ourdefinition.
The focus of this paper is on research which includes the four characteristics in our definition of
farming systems research.
4.7. Challenges of FSR/D
Identifying constraints/challenges is a continuous process of discovering opportunities or potential
for change at the region/community, family, farm or subsystem level that could improve the
performance of the farming system. As knowledge of the structural properties of the system
improves through the implementation of the various phases of farming systems research, constraints
are progressively refined and redefined. Although constraint identification is one of the main

43
objectives of the characterization phase, it is very much a function of who does it. Is it the farmer or
the researcher? If it is the researcher or a research team, then care must be taken to avoid
disciplinary biases. Even when interdisciplinary teams are used, differences occur because of:
a) The criteria of evaluation applied: Researchers generally use physical or economic
productivity criteria within the short-term context, whereas farmers may consider these as
means rather than ends for achieving family objectives, or as of secondary importance
within a broader set of criteria and a longer term context;
b) The scope of analysis: Researchers focus on enterprises or, at best, on sub-systems and
perceive their range of decision variables as being confined to the biological and
technological aspects of the production systems. Farmers assess opportunities in terms of
how they fit in with on-farm and off-farm conditions. Their perceptions of decisions or Mani
pliable variables may differ substantially from the researchers.
c) The analytical methods used: The researchers may use simple descriptive statistics,
regression functions, analysis of variance, optimization and simulation models, and basically
quantitative approaches. The farmers use their experience, common sense and awareness,
basically qualitative approaches. What assumptions concerning risk and uncertainty are
made and how they can he considered in these two general approaches are certainly a major
issue. Farmers tend to act conservatively because they are faced with unpredictable factors
such as fluctuating weather conditions, disease and parasitic attacks, uncertain input
availability and costs, and unstable product outlets and prices. Farmers do not assume
favorable conditions as researchers do.
Thus the basic question to be addressed is what present conditions, when changed, would have the
largest net effect in the quickest time on the relevant performance criteria. Answering this question
requires interdependent interaction among social and natural scientists and direct and continuous
discussion with farmers.

44
4.8. Problem diagnosis and opportunities identification
Although FSR brings considerable benefit as indicated above, thereare a number of difficulties and
problems with FSR:
a) FSR is relatively new and its methodologies are still beingdeveloped.
b) FSR generally requires research teams involving a wide rangeof disciplines which may be
difficult to coordinate and manage.
c) It may not be easy to find research workers who are able andinclined to work in multidisciplinary
teams.
d) The collection, integration and interpretation of very diversesets of data and information poses a
number of problems.
e) FSR requires long-term commitments of resources to comprehensiveprograms, the results and
impact of which are difficult toevaluate.

45
 f) In particular, care must be taken (i) to avoid the pitfall ofattempting to investigate too many
systems at once and (ii) toensure that available effort is concentrated on only the mostimportant
systems and locations.

Thus it is essential for FSR programs to establish clear prioritiesand objectives and to focus their
activities accordingly.

Where Does FSR Fit?

There have been questions as to when and where FSR should be conducted.Some persons see FSR as a
"downstream" link in the research chain, takinginformation gained from the experimental program and
finding a place for it inthe production system, i.e. at the farm level. Others see an "upstream" rolefor
FSR. Within this concept, FSR is seen as a major asset in constraintdetermination, problem
identification and subsequent analysis, which in turncan both assist research institutions to focus more
clearly on key problemscurrently facing, or likely to face, producers and assist policy makers in
theformulation of agricultural development policies.
However, FSR is important in both an upstream and a downstream sense. It lays stress on the
importance of FSR in the recognitionof constraints and in problem identification and analysis, and
recommends that
FSR programs can be linked closely with crop improvement programs.This could be done by ensuring
that scientists in commodity or crop improvementprograms who work at the crop system (or
subsystems) level (e.g., agronomists,economists, pest management specialists) cooperate closely with
FSR staffs whowork at the cropping system or farming system level. Such collaboration, withits two-
way information flow, should ensure that component research for FSRcould begin early and be
strengthened by commodity specialists. In turn, thesecommodity specialists would be stimulated to
follow the component researchactivity in the FSR program leading to adaption of the component for
wider use orintegration with other crop or farm systems. These collaborative effortscould be very
important, for example, in providing required plant types forearly adoption on the farm, or in integrating
specific crop or commoditymanagement requirements into a cropping system or farming system context.

46
 CHAPTER FIVE: SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD
5.1 Concepts of sustainable livelihoods
What is Livelihood?
Livelihood is:
 A set of economic activities, involving self-employment and/or wage-employment
 by using one’s endowments (human and material)
 to generate adequate resources (cash and non-cash)
 for meeting the requirements of self and the household,
 usually carried out repeatedly and as such become a way of life
47
Ideally, a livelihood should keep a person meaningfully occupied, in a sustainable manner, with dignity

Livelihoods, therefore, go far beyond generating income. A livelihood is much more than employment.

In simple words, livelihoods are means of making a living‘, the various activities and resources
that allow people to live. Different people have different lifestyles and ways of meeting their
needs.A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources)
and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not
undermining the natural resource base.
A livelihood comprises of people, their capabilities and their means of living, including food, income
and assets. It has the objective to enhance capabilities, improve equity and increase social sustainability
(Chambers & Conway, 1991).

DFID proposed a livelihood framework; it is a tool to improve our understanding of livelihoods,

particularly the livelihoods of the poor.

Fig1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Table-1: Elements of Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Livelihood Assets Vulnerability Transforming Structure/ Livelihood
Context Processes Outcome
Human Capital Shocks Levels of Laws More income
Government
Natural Capital Trends Private Sector Policies Stronger Voice
Financing Capital Seasonality Culture Reduced
Vulnerability
Social Capital Institutions Improved

48
 Food Security
Physical Capital More
Sustainable
use of natural
resource base

5.2 Principles of sustainable livelihoods

Sustainable livelihood has the following principles.
 People-centered: 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: 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.
 Multi-level: poverty elimination is an enormous challenge that will only be overcome by
working at multiple levels, ensuring that micro-level activity informs the development of
policy and an effective enabling environment, and that macro-level structures and processes
support people to build upon their own strengths.
 Conducted in partnership: with both the public and the private sector.
 Holistic:SL approaches recognize that people do not live in discretely defined sectors (as
‘fishermen’ or ‘farmers’) or isolated communities. It is important to identify livelihood-
related constraints and opportunities regardless of the sector, level or area in which they
occur. This means applying livelihoods analysis across sectors, areas, and social groups;
recognizing and understanding multiple influences on people; recognizing multiple actors
(from private sector to national ministries, from community based organizations to
international bodies); and acknowledging the multiple strategies that people adopt to secure
their livelihoods, and the multiple outcomes that they pursue.
 Building on strengths:SL analysis starts with people’s strengths not needs. This implies
recognition of everyone’s potential, and calls for efforts to remove constraints to the
realization of this potential.
 Sustainability is important if progress in poverty reduction is to be lasting not short-lived.
Sustainability of livelihoods rests on several dimensions, including environmental,
49
 economic, social and institutional. 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 should itself 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.
Sustainability should be sought on four levels:
 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.

5.3 What is Sustainable Livelihood?

The livelihoods are sustainable when they can cope with and recover from adverse trends and sudden
shocks, and when they allow the maintenance and enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the
future, while not undermining the natural resource base (FAO, 2009).
The terminology sustainable livelihoods does not discriminate between social classes; however, since its
origin it is mainly concerned with understanding the differential capability of rural families to cope with
crises such as droughts, floods, food insecurity, orplant and animal pests and diseases (Allison and Ellis,
2001). For example, the Development Alternatives (DA) organization considers sustainable livelihoods
to be all those existing approaches of development that economically try to support
marginalized/disadvantaged groups, so that they subsist acceptably in their local environment, and they
have dignified and environmentally sustainable lives (DA, 1999). This approach is comparable to that of
FAO (2009), where sustainable livelihoods should provide assistance, goods and services to people
living in poverty. On the other hand, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) considers that a

50
sustainable livelihoods approach must be developed to understand and to alleviate poverty from a more
integrated perspective (Farrington et al., 1999).
Within the terminology of SL, there are different approaches, but they should focus on a common goal:
sustainable social development. However, the concepts and strategies used in each approach might
differ, as well as the results. Thus, the main objective here is to analyze and compare the different
approaches of SL used by the international community. The approaches analyzed are those from the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as a pioneer in using this methodology; the Department
for International Development (DFID) from the United Kingdom which has had a large impact on other
organizations such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) which approach is
also assessed; the program for Cooperative

5.4. Sustainable Livelihoods as Integrated Concept

The concept of sustainable livelihoods (SL) has its origin by the Brundtland Commission on
Environment and Development (Krantz, 2001). This theoretical and methodological foundation spread
to other countries after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, with a wide focus on poverty reduction, that not only assess the
economic status and consumption patterns, but also the livelihoods strategies (SACOAST, 2009; Krantz,
2001; Rakodi, 1999). This approach emerged, as a part of the agreements during UNCED regarding the
goals among sustainable practices for environmental improvement and the pursuit of economic
development, that sustainable livelihoods serve as an integrating factor between the politics of resource
management and poverty reduction.

CHAPTER SIX: SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS ANALYSIS

51
6.1 Analytical framework of sustainable livelihoods
In order to better understand the ways in which people develop and maintain their livelihoods, it is
important to understand the idea of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF). It is an analytical
framework used to understand the various factors which can affect choices around subsistence, and to
examine how these factors interact amongst themselves.

Influence
� SHOCKS
� TRENDS & access
� SEASONALITY  More income
 Increased wellbeing
 Reduced vulnerability
Key
 Improved food security
H = Human Capital
N = Natural Capital
 More sustainable
F = Financial Capital use of natural resource base
S = Social Capital
P = Physical Capital

Figure 1 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Figure 1 shows a visual diagram SLF, including interrelations affected by context, behaviors,capitals,
institutional influences, and dynamic subsistence strategies, which will respond to these. It is highly
likelythat there is a strong interdependence between:
a) Structures and processes for transformation and the level ofvulnerability in a given context; and
b) Achievements in livelihoods and assets which influence livelihoods.
The arrows represent a series of highly dynamic relationships. No arrow represents a direct causal link,
but all ofthem indicate a certain level of influence. The diagram summarizes the main components of the
livelihoodsecosystem, along with key influential factors. It does not offer a detailed checklist of all the
factors which shouldbe taken into consideration, and should be adapted to suit individual project needs.
6.2. Core Features of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

52
The application of the SLF involves the consideration of the following aspects:
 An understanding of vulnerability in a given context.
 A strategy to protect livelihoods.
 An analysis of different types of capital

Table-1: Elements of Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Vulnerability
Livelihood Assets Context Transforming Structure/ Processes Livelihood Outcome
Human Capital Shocks Levels of Government Laws More income
Natural Capital Trends Private Sector Policies Stronger Voice
Financing Capital Seasonality Culture Reduced Vulnerability
Social Capital Institutions Improved Food Security
More Sustainable use of
Physical Capital natural resource base

The Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SL, see Figure 1) is used by programs and projects that aimed
to reduce poverty in poor communities. The SL is useful because it is centered on people and their
livelihoods, stresses their inherent capabilities and knowledge, and is based on community level actions
(Chambers, 1986). With its aim of ensuring livelihood security, it recognizes that people’s livelihood
can only be secured when external support focuses on what matters to them, with the resources that they
control, and work with them in a way that will not compromise their current livelihood strategies and
their ability to adapt (Chambers, 1988; Ashley and Carney, 1999). In this case, development should
begin with what people have (assets and capabilities) within their local environment and then develop to
higher levels (Mazibuko, 2012).
The framework explains how the socio-cultural and political environment affects households’ or
communities’ assets and their livelihood strategies. The capital assets owned or controlled by
households are categorized into five:these are;
 Natural capital includes land, water, and biological diversity. Lack of access to productive land
for example may greatly compromise the livelihoods of families, particularly farming
households. Therefore, the relationship between natural capital and the vulnerability context is
very close, especially in communities that derive their entire livelihood from natural resource-
based activities such as farming and gathering products in forests.

53
  Human capital consists of education, knowledge (including knowledge gained from experience
and traditional knowledge passed on from elders), interpersonal skills, good health, labour and
leadership capacity, which together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies.
Changes in human capital may consequently affect the other types of assets. For example, poor
education and ill-health can have tremendous effect on individuals, families, communities and
the nation at large.
 Financial capital is probably the most versatile form of capital. It consists of incomes, access to
credit and any other financial means. Financial capital can be a means to some other forms of
capital. For example, having a good financial base implies a household can afford to do many
other things such as sending children to school, paying medical bills, accessing potable water and
buying enough food to feed the family. A household with good financial capital is therefore
better placed to achieve its well-being than one without.
 Physical capital forms the basic infrastructure and means needed to support livelihoods. It
includes affordable transport, secure shelter and housing, adequate water supply and sanitation,
clean affordable energy, agricultural implements and equipment, and means of communication.
Without adequate access to potable water, human health deteriorates and people, particularly
women spend most of their productive time collecting water. Similarly, without proper roads,
people struggle to reach markets or access health care services especially in rural communities.
 Social capital refers to resources upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood. It
includes their ability to socialise with people, access to information, social support from friends
and family members, associations, kinship and peer-group networks that people can rely on in
times of difficulties.

Inferring from the framework, these capital assets do not exist in isolation, but are dependent or
influenced by certain factors referred to as vulnerability context. Shocks, trends and cultural practices
influence livelihoods. Trends refer to prevailing technologies, national and international politics and
rapid increases in food and fuel prices. Shocks in this context couldmean job losses, crop failure and ill-
health, loss of farm lands. Cultural trends refer to the effect culture has on how people manage and
chose their livelihoods (Carney, 1998).
Households’ access and control of these capital assets is enabled or restricted by policies, institutions,
legislations and power relations. Informal restrictions on land ownerships, local conventions on land

54
allocation or entitlement are of course associated with any resettlement program. They operate at all
levels and have a direct impact on peoples’ ability to achieve a feeling of inclusion or well-being (DFID,
1999).
Capital assets influence households’ choice of livelihood strategies. Though livelihood strategies have
varied requirements, households who are endowed with assets are likely to make better livelihood
choices (DFID, 1999). Finally, the framework shows livelihoods outcomes. At this strand of the
framework, a livelihood is said to be sustainable if people are able to reduce their vulnerability to
external shocks, stabilize or better their living standards (improved income and wellbeing, more income,
improved food security) whilst maintaining the natural resource base (Adger et al., 2004; Bebbington,
1999; Chambers and Conway, 1992).
Assets / capitals
In general, these assets are interconnected and interact to give a meaningful livelihood for the
household. For instance, education might facilitate learning about new technologies, and given the
physical intensity of most agricultural labor, health and nutrition can affect agricultural productivity.
The natural condition of soil (quality and quantity) for agriculture has direct influence on productivity
and the wellbeing of people, particularly poorer people who depend directly on agriculture. The
existence of, and degree of access to, livelihood assets is therefore important in influencing the
livelihood options that people may, or may not, have. As a result, any single asset cannot holistically
provide sustainable livelihood. Households have to seek ways of nurturing and combining what assets
they have in innovative ways to ensure survival (Ashley, & Carney, 1999). This complex system has
been explicitly explained in the asset pentagon; which lies at the core of the livelihood framework. The
asset pentagon replicates the interconnectedness of the components of the livelihood assets and brings to
clarify the connectivity among the different components of human, natural, physical, and social assets.
The human capital entails the knowledge, skill, health, and labor of people. People’s creativity and
ingenuity brings in extra income to supplement household needs. Both men and women alike engage in
diverse industrial and manufacturing activities to make extra income for the household.
The availability of credit, savings and remittances from family and friends elsewhere constitute the
financial capital. In rural areas, In addition, remittances from family, relatives and friends are other
sources to support family back home.
6.2. Components of Sustainable Livelihood Framework
Table-2: Components of livelihood assets

55
 Livelihoods Assets Components
Human Capital Skills, knowledge, ability to labor, good health, physical capability
Natural Capital land, soil, water, air forests fisheries, trees etc.
Financing Capital savings, credit, and income from employment, trade and
remittances
Social Capital Networks, social claims, socialrelations, affiliations, associations
Physical Capital Infrastructure, such as roads, water & sanitation, schools, ICT;
bicycle, livestock, equipment

The main components of the SLF can be summarized as follows:

The framework depicts stakeholders as operating in a context of vulnerability, within which they have
access to certain assets. Assets gain weight and value through the prevailing social, institutional and
organizational environment (policies, institutions and processes). This context decisively shapes the
livelihood strategies that are open to people in pursuit of their self-defined beneficial
livelihoodoutcomes.” (Kollmair et al., 2002)

6.3. Comparison of Livelihood Frameworks

From the documentation analyzed on the diverse approaches of SL, it can be seen that in general they all
have in common that they manage and direct their strategies toward groups afflicted by poverty. They
also share a holistic vision on the resources that should be considered in their programs, such as physical
(nature, materials, and infrastructures), economic, political and social (social networks) and the
application of participatory appraisals to better understand the groups that wish to support. Nevertheless,
the study of the relations between poverty and environmental degradation, a key aspect in any
sustainable livelihood approach (Rakodi, 1999), is not mentioned in any of the approaches analyzed
here, so it can be inferred that they all give greater priority to social resources over the natural resources.
The difference in the approach of each SL lies in the identification of the values and key capitals of their
strategies and implementation approaches. The UNDP has an overly simplified framework of reference,
with few details on the elements that make up a SL (see Figure 1).TheUNDPprojects initially start with
greater emphasis on links at the macro-level, within regions or districts, and later they can extend to
micro-levels. This situation might cause resources to arrive later, or minimized, to groups in poverty
seeking to support. The approach of DFID, however, is not supported by a programming framework, but
in the search and identification of values that determine livelihoods in terms of capitals that influence its

56
structures and processes (Farrington et al., 1999). This detailed analysis on the tangible and intangible
values affecting livelihoods shows an improvement regarding to the UNDP model, which is more
simplistic. Likewise, based on its method of analysis, DFID is initially located at micro-level, but
maintains later macro-links to provide for contributions from national and international levels (Ashley
and Carney, 1999). Given this strategy, this model attempts to achieve greater support for poverty
groups intended to help.
In the case of IFAD, it puts more emphasis on people rather than on resources (IFAD, 2007). Therefore,
sustainability is not completely defined when it is apparently placed at a secondary level. Nevertheless,
its schematic representation is based in great part on the representation of DFID as its source, and
probably the application of its strategies are similar to those of DFID. CARE includes some DFID
initiatives in its strategies, but considers activities for home maintenance only as means to arrive at an
end result and not the end in and of itself. As such, it seeks a greater focus on capacities of the people at
the micro-level, personal empowerment and commonality among groups (Krantz, 2001; Lindenberg,
2002). This greater focus on the personal level is perhaps the most individualistic of all the strategies
and is probably more appropriate for application to small groups in poverty situations.
DA does not show any plan or proposal of its concept of SL, but highlights greater endorsement to the
search for sustainable new alternatives that allow conservation of natural resources and the support of
domestic technologies involving smaller environmental impact and better use of regional resources (DA,
1999). Something that the other approaches not include at the same degree, suggesting that this approach
is more oriented to sustainability.

DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and its Framework

The concept of ‘Sustainable Livelihoods’ constitute the basis of different ‘Sustainable Livelihood
Approaches’ (SLA) and has been adapted by different development agencies such as the British
Department for International Development (DFID). The DFID has developed a ‘Sustainable Livelihood
Framework’ (SLF) which is one of the most widely used livelihoods frameworks in development
practice.
The SLF was integrated in its program for development cooperation in 1997.DFID adapts a version of
Chambers Conway’s definition of livelihoods:
“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A
livelihood issustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or

57
enhance itscapabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource
base.”(DFID, 2000)
DFID’s biggest aim is the elimination of poverty in poorer countries. DFID, however, stresses that there
aremany ways of applying livelihoods approaches. Although the application of the livelihoods approach
isflexible and adaptable to specific local settings and to objectives defined in participatory manner,
itunderlies a couple of core principles.
People-cantered: People rather than the resources they use are the priority concern in the
livelihoodsapproach, since problems associated to development often root in adverse institutional
structures impossible to be overcome through simple asset creation.
Holistic: A holistic view is aspired in understanding the stakeholders’ livelihoods as a whole, with all its
facets, by a manageable model that helps to identify the most pressing constraints people have to face.
Dynamic: Just as people's livelihoods and the institutions that shape their life are highly dynamic, so is
the approach in order to learn from changes and help mitigating negative impacts, whilst supporting
positive effects.
Building on strengths: A central issue of the approach is the recognition of everyone's inherent
potential for his/her removal of constraints and realization of potentials. Identifying these strengths
rather than the needs and problems is the starting point of this approach, in order to contribute to the
stakeholders’ robustness and ability to achieve their own objectives.
Macro-micro links: Development activity tends to focus at either the macro or the micro level, whereas
the SLA tries to bridge this gap in stressing the links between the two levels. As people are often
affected from decisions at the macro policy level and vice-versa, this relation needs to be considered in
order to achieve sustainable development.
Sustainability: A livelihood can be classified as sustainable, if it is resilient in the face of external
shocks and stresses, if it is independent from external support, if it is able to maintain the long-term
productivity of natural resources and if it does not undermine the livelihood options of others.
(Kollmair et al., 2002)

DFID has begun to make use of livelihoods approaches in project and programs planning and
inmonitoring and review of existing activities.
A first step is to understand the livelihoods of the poor, namely conducting livelihood analysis. The
livelihood analysis will be the basis for planning, prioritizing and eventual monitoring. There is no

58
designed sequence for livelihood analysis, nor has DFID developed particular tools for such analysis.
The stress ison using the best of existing tools for the given circumstances. There is, however, a distinct
DFID SL framework (see below) that provides an organizing structure for analysis. The SLF is the core
of theSustainable Livelihoods Approach.
The Framework used can be understood as a tool or checklist to understand poverty in responding to
poor people’s views and their own understanding of poverty.
The DFID framework sets out to conceptualize:
 how people operate within a vulnerability context that is shaped by different factors –
shiftingseasonal constraints (and opportunities), economic shocks and longer-term trends
 how they draw on different types of livelihood assets or capitals in different combinations
whichare influenced by:
 the vulnerability context
 a range of institutions and processes
 how they use their asset base to develop a range of livelihoods strategies toachieve desired
livelihood outcomes (de Stagé et al., 2002)
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

59
The CARE framework
CARE is an international NGO that uses the livelihoods approach as its primaryplanning framework.
CARE uses the Chambers and Conway livelihoodsdefinition. It identifies three fundamental attributes of
livelihoods:
• the possession of human capabilities
• access to tangible and intangible assets
• the existence of economic activities.
CARE’s approach is similar to DFID in that it emphasizes the dynamicinterrelationships between
different aspects of the framework. However,rather than looking at using the ‘five capitals’ approach to
assets, it distinguishesbetween assets, capabilities and activities. The CARE frameworkdoes not
explicitly identify ‘transforming structures and processes’ andplaces less emphasis on macro-micro links
within the framework, althoughthese are important in many aspects of its work.

60
CARE emphasizes using a ‘light’ conceptual framework and tries to includeother approaches. It also
aims to allow any framework to be adapted aslessons are learnt so that multiple actors contribute to the
evolution of thelivelihoods framework.

Oxfam’s framework
Oxfam uses a livelihoods framework ‘semi-officially’ that has a lot in commonwith the DFID
framework. However, Oxfam emphasizes that there areno ‘established rules’. Oxfam says existing
frameworks are still too abstractfor field-level staff to understand, although they are valuable at
programmingand policy levels.
Oxfam also draws on Chambers and Conway for its definition of sustainablelivelihoods and emphasizes
that sustainability has different dimensions:
o economic (for example, the functioning of markets and credit supply)
o social (networks of reciprocity, gender equity) • institutional (capacity building, access to
services and technology, political freedom)
o ecological (quality and availability of environmental resources)
This approach is rights-based – according to Oxfam, everyone has the rightto a sustainable livelihood.
The UNDP framework
The United Nations Development Programme understands livelihoods as the means, activities,
entitlements and assets by which people make a living. Sustainable livelihoods are defined as those that
are:
o able to cope with and recover from shocks and stresses such as drought, civil war and
policy failure through coping and adaptive strategies
o economically effective
o ecologically sound
o socially equitable
Like DFID, UNDP focuses on people’s strengths rather than their needs and emphasizes the importance of
making micro-macro links.
Main principles of the livelihoods approach
There are different principles guiding the livelihoods approach. Among these;
1. The approach is people-centered and participatory. Livelihoods are about people, so livelihoods
analysis is based on understanding how people maketheir living. It uses participatory methods, and

61
serves as a framework todecide which participatory livelihoods assessment (PLA) methods to use atthe
appropriate time, and how to frame key questions.
2. The approach assumes differentiation. The livelihoods approach recognizes that there are important
differences among households in a givencommunity, and among individuals who make up the
household. Differentiationmay involve relative well-being or it may focus on issues such asgender, age
or ethnicity. The approach enables outsiders to better appreciatethese differences, and to design
processes that can cope with complexityand diversity. Differentiation also enables us to improve our
ability todesign sensible interventions with our target groups. It can also help us tounderstand where
resistance may develop, if for example activities threatencertain groups within the community.
3. Holistic analysis leads to targeted interventions. The approach encouragesholistic analysis, with
attention to identifying factors inside and outsidehouseholds that have beneficial or negative impacts on
livelihoods. However,it does not assume that one must address all issues simultaneously.
Rather, based on an analysis of the most important influences on livelihoods,one can select specific,
focused interventions while understandinghow these relate to other issues that are not being addressed.
The livelihoodsframework can be useful to organizations that focus on specificsectors like health or
natural resource management, and it also createsopportunities for organizations that have different
sectoral focuses to worktogether in co-operation or partnership. This helps to increase the impact
ofdevelopment interventions. Holistic diagnosis allows us to identify the moststrategic interventions into
a situation to achieve the best result.
4. Targeted interventions should result in maximum leverage. Successfulpoverty reduction strategies
must address a whole range of issues. There aremany possible interventions, but resources are limited.
Therefore, it iscrucial to select and target interventions in ways that will have the greatestimpact and
reduce poverty and vulnerability for the most people.
5. Reflective practice improves the quality of analysis and intervention.
The livelihoods framework recognizes that households and livelihoods areconstantly changing in
response to shocks, stresses and seasonality (theimpact of the seasons). This highlights the need for
ongoing learning andstructured reflections on practice. Reflective practice must apply both to
the‘implementing agent’ and the community/households involved. Engagingthe community in an
ongoing discussion and analysis of changes in theirlivelihoods over time helps make people at all levels
more aware ofpotentials and linkages. Livelihoods analysis can provide a useful frameworkfor
monitoring the impacts of development initiatives and can pinpointunintended consequences.

62
6.4. Methods of livelihood analysis
Methodologies can be used in SLAinclude UNDP, DFID, IFAD, CARE and DA approaches. These
approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses.
A sustainable livelihood approach is a set of policies, technologies and strategies used in decision-
making that aim to contribute to the livelihoods through the construction of adaptive strategies for
improvement (SACOAST, 2009). The approaches of SL have the objective of constructing a
framework that allows for the identification of main capitals and the interactions among them.
These approaches usually have a theoretical and methodological proposal for deployment, relying
largely on participatory methods (Twigg, 2007).
There is not a unified approach on SL; it depends on the institution or organization responsible for
its management; therefore it can be used as an analytical framework or as a tool for programming
actions, or as a program itself (Twigg, 2007).
.
The UNDP Approach
The promotion of the SL is part of the mandate on the Sustainable Human Development Program of the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), implemented in 1995. The mandate includes poverty
eradication, employment, sustainable livelihoods, gender equitability, environmental protection, and
governance. It also considers the SL to be applied as one strategy to alleviate poverty, as there are other
strategies proposed by the Organization that try to promote economic and community development, and
natural resource management (Krantz, 2001).
According to the mandate of UNDP, the SLA should provide a conceptual and programmable
framework to reduce poverty in a sustainable manner. The SL exposes the economic means, activities,
properties, and goods that people have and use to support their lives. Assets are defined as natural (land,
water, vegetation, wildlife), social (community, family, social networks), political (participation), human
(education, labor, health), physical (roads, health care clinics, schools), and economic (jobs, savings,
credit opportunities). The SL must be able to recover from sudden changes and stresses through adaptive
strategies, they should be economically effective, ecologically and socially equitable so that one group
does not exceed options, either at present or in the future.

63
The UNDP approach uses an approximation based on values, emphasizes that people have access to
a(from community to national politics). Putting this method into practice can be summarized as:
Begin by analyzing the people livelihoods and how these have changed over time. Getting involved with
the people and supporting them in accomplishing their goals. Focusing on the impact that policies and
institutional regulations have on livelihoods. Seek to modify such regulations to include the agenda of
the poor.

Holism: Opportunities and limitations relevant to the livelihoods are identified wherever they occur
through the following guide:
Do not focus on a particular sector, but to all social groups.
Recognize the influence of multiple people on others and try to understand the relationships among
those influences.
Recognize multiple actors (from private to public sector).
Recognize the multiple strategies that people adopt as a livelihood.
Search various results of different livelihoods achieved by people themselves.

Links macro-micro and multilevel: requires the participation at the level of the same people involved
(micro- oriented), but also considers the macro-level factors affecting livelihoods, such as national and
international policies, affecting the region. This implies the involvement of both the public and private
sectors to achieve sustainability by seeking equilibrium among environmental, social, institutional, and
economic aspects (Ashley and Carney, 1999).
In summary, the focus of DFID on SL is not just a framework of programming, but also a way of
thinking about poverty. The framework focuses on livelihoods of the poor to identify issues or problems
that must be met for poverty reduction. The most important areas of contribution are: direct support to
the fundamental capitals of livelihoods (H, N, P, F, S) and the support towards the improvement of
structures and processes (public, private, markets, social relations) that affect livelihood strategies.
The IFAD approach
The approach of the Foundation for International Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2007) on SL states
that people are the center of attention, more than the resources that they use or their Governments. The
foundation places particular emphasis on the factors that affect poor people and their livelihoods, as well

64
as the relationships among these factors. The SLA can be used for planning new activities of
development and to evaluate the contribution of current activities of sustainable livelihoods.
The key components of the SLs are:
1. A network that supports the understanding of the complexity of poverty.
2. A set of principles to guide actions to reduce poverty.

According to IFAD (2007), the support network places poor people and those of rural origin at the
center of the influences that affect the development of their livelihood and living. Around they are the
resources that they have access and therefore use. These resources include those that are technological,
natural, capabilities, knowledge, capacities, health, education, sources of credit, and social support
networks. Access to these resources is strongly influenced by their context of vulnerability, which
depends on the political, institutional, and social trends that prevail. Therefore, these characteristics
participate in the strategic development of ways of life for each person (IFAD, 2009).

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the DFID approach for SL (from: Farrington et al., 1999).
flexible and adaptable to local conditions. These principles are:
People centred. Starts analyzing the livelihoods of the people and how these change with time, and
people actively participate in this project.
Holistic. It is accepted that people adopt many strategies to assure their livelihoods, and that there are
many actors involved.

65
It is a dynamic process as it seeks to understand the dynamic nature of the different livelihoods and the
factors that influence them.
It promotes micro- and macro-links to examine the influence of politics and institutions on the options
for livelihoods and emphasizes the need that policies internalize local priorities of the poor. In this sense,
broad alliances between the private and public sectors are sought under the assumption that
sustainability is important for poverty reduction.
Figure 3 shows a simplified schematic view for SL that IFAD applies. The schema is likely based on the
DFID approach, and the same approximations are managed here. The components of the strategy
provide a way of thinking of the poor people livelihoods and to stimulate reflection about the factors that
affect their livelihoods, their interactions and their importance within their particular conditions (IFAD,
2007). Through this way tries to identify effective forms of managing different livelihoods and to reduce
poverty.

The CARE approach

The non-governmental humanitarian organization CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief
Everywhere) handle a framework known as HLS (Household Livelihood Security) as its analysis
program, design, monitoring and evaluation of livelihoods. This concept is based on three attributes: the
possession of skills (such as education, abilities, health); access to tangible and intangible values and
economic activities. The interaction among these three attributes defines the strategy of livelihood that a
household seeks to achieve. CARE places particular emphasis on strengthening the capacities of the
poor themselves to take the initiatives to ensure their livelihood (Krantz, 2001). Therefore, the main
focus lies in achieving empowerment of the people (Lindenberg, 2002).
Krantz (2001) states that CARE considers people as active human beings who can build their own
livelihoods, rather than be passive beings that just receive external aid. This approach has grown
following major changes:
1. A change of concern of the food security from the national or regional level to the household level.
2. A change of perspective from, "food in first place" toward the perspective of a livelihood; that focuses
not only on food production, but also in the skills of families to produce additional food, enabling them
to improve their diet.
3. A change in the materialistic perspective focusing on food production, towards the social perspective
focused on improving the capabilities of people to ensure their own livelihoods.

66
Figure 4 shows the parameters of the CARE approach. The main strategy is centered in the maintenance
of the household. The box for capitals includes, in addition to human, social and economic values, the
capacities and access to available resources. Moreover, production, processing and consumption
activities are seen as means to achieve an end, and not as the ultimate objective. Natural resources and
infrastructure belonging to the community are seen as external contexts and not as a capital. The outputs
of this strategy are better levels of security and community participation, but these results feedback
directly to the contexts where natural resources and infrastructure occur.

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the IFAD approach on SL (modified from: IFAD, 2007).
This approach tries to operationalize the SL through interactive dynamic processes that involve the
following steps:
1. Identify the potential geographical areas where poverty is concentrated.
2. Identify vulnerable groups and the obstacles they face in their livelihood.
3. Collect analytical data (guided by the model of CARE) on temporal trends and identifying the
indicators that will be monitored.
4. Select communities for intervention programs.

The CARE approach utilizes methods of participatory research to obtain and analyze information in
order to understand the livelihoods strategies and categorize them. It tries to identify the opportunities
and obstacles that should be handled during the development program. As mentioned previously, CARE
places much emphasis on empowerment of people and describes two levels:

67
Personal empowerment: Refers to capacities and personal abilities, including the social and economic
capital that people have; gender equality within families and communities also are considered as
important parts of the strategy.
Social empowerment: Refers to the establishment or strengthening of organizations based in the
community, so that members of the same community have the same capacity to plan and implement
their own activities for development. As such, democratic participation is promoted, represented and
governed.
The DA approach
For the organization Development Alternatives (DA, 1999), the development of an approach for SL
incorporates the inter-generational concept of sustainable development. This concept is based on the
idea of creating self-sustainable villages whose economies are handled by factors of biomass. This
alternative has also the mandate for the creation of sustainable livelihoods, especially for women with
low-income, by using:
1. The design and dissemination of appropriate technologies to generate alternative income.
2. The promotion of sustainable use and regeneration of natural resources through appropriate
administration techniques and technologies.

Appropriate technologies involve dwellings (with appropriate materials and concrete floors), textiles
(manual looms), water (small dams and hand pumps), paper (artisan production units), soil
(vermicompost) and energy (bio-gas and smoke-free stoves). Where regeneration and sustainable use of
natural resources involves clean drinking water, development of irrigation techniques, reforestation and
conservation of wetlands, and soil fertility.
The approach on SLs is not uniform because it varies by project and by region. It is dynamic
because it evolves in agreement with the lives of the local people, thus improving their
understanding of what constitutes a sustainable livelihood for themselves.

68
 Figure 4. Action model for CARE regarding sustainable livelihoods (from: Krantz, 2001).

6.5 Model of Livelihoods Promotion

1.2 Why Promote Livelihoods?

The primary reason to promote livelihoods is the belief in the essential right of all human beings to equal
opportunity. Poor people do not have life choices nor do they have opportunities. Ensuring that a poor
household has a stable livelihood will substantially increase its income, and over a period of time, asset
ownership, self-esteem and social participation.
The second reason for livelihood promotion is to promote economic growth. The ‘bottom of the
pyramid’ of the population comprising majority of the people in the world, who do not have the
purchasing power to buy even the bare necessities of life – food, clothing and shelter. But as they get
steadier incomes through livelihood promotion, they become customers of many goods and services,

69
 which then promote growth. The third reason for promoting livelihoods is to ensure social and political
stability. When people are hungry, they tend to take to violence, crime.

Livelihood Promotion at the Household Level

Livelihoods at the household level may be supported and enhanced by
o enhancing income in main activity
o reducing risk within an activity
o increasing income in a number of the diversified portfolio of subsistence livelihood activities
o reducing avoidable expenditure
However, all these tasks are complex for any single organization to engage in. Thus it requires a number
of livelihood promotion organizations (LPOs) to collaborate.
3.1 Enhancing Income from the Main Livelihood Activity
This can be achieved:
3.1.1 by Increasing Volume of Production
Production can be increased either by increasing the scale (such as area under cultivation, number of
animals, number of handlooms, or shop space). Another way to do this is by increasing productivity,
which means additional output per unit input. Another way is by diversifying from one to more
activities. This can be done through various productivity enhancement efforts: adoption of better
technology, improved package of practices, better training, supply of better seed, fertilizer and other
inputs.
3.1.2 By Increasing Price Realized:-The price realization can be increased either through exploring
alternate markets, market channels or by value addition at the local level. Alternately, instead of
selling their products to the trader, they could sell it directly to the processing company
Improvement in the quality of the produce is another way to get a better price. For example, Dastkaar,
an NGO and Fab India, a private company, have both worked for decades to improve the designs and
quality of crafts and textiles produced by artisans and weavers. This has resulted in their getting a higher
price for their products.
3.1.3 by Reducing Costs
Reducing the cost of production can also be a way of increasing effective income.
3.1.4 Reducing Risks in the Main Livelihood Activity

70
Reducing risks in various economic activities is another way to improve incomes. There are two broad
methods of risk mitigation – the physical methods and the financial methods.
Physical methods: For example, in crop cultivation, deep plugging in summer, timely sowing, protective
irrigation during gaps in the monsoon, undertaking pest control, etc. are all physical methods of reducing
the risk of losing part or the entire crop. In animal husbandry, vaccinating animals is a form of risk
mitigation.

REFERENCES
1. Beets, W.C. 1990. Raising the Productivity of Smallholder Farming Systems in the Tropics.
2. Beyan Ahmed and Hiwot mokonen.2014. Farming Systems and Livelihoods analysis. Course
ModuelHaramaya university Ethiopia
3. Hildebrand, P.E. 1986. Perspectives in Farming Systems Research. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Publishers. Cambridge.
4. Jemal yusouf and Alemu sokora.2014. Farming Systems and Rural Livelihoods. Course modueharamaya
university Ethiopia
5. Norman, D.W., J.D. Siebert, E. Modiakgotla, and F.D. Worman 1995. The Farming Systems Approach to
Development and Appropriate Technology Generation. Rome: Food and 145
6. Agricultural Organization (FAO). Ruthenberg, H. 1980. Farming Systems in The tropics (3rd edition).
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

71