BULE HORA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

MODULE ON: Farming Systems and Livelihoods Analysis

BY

Chimdessa Boja

Permission is granted under a Creative Commons Attribution license to replicate, copy,

distribute, transmit or adapt this work freely, provided that attribution is provided as illustrated in
the citation below. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommon.org/licenses/by/3.0

Table of Contents

General Introduction to the Module........................................................................................................2

PART 1: Understanding System Thinking and Origin of Farming System Research.........................8
Learning Unit 1: Understanding Basics of System Thinking.............................................................9
Learning Unit 2: Evolution of system thinking in agriculture.........................................................18
Learning Unit 3: Birth of Farming system Research Approach......................................................24
Part 2: Reviewing Evolution of FSR and Birth of Sustainable Livelihood Approach.......................28
Learning Unit 1: Early FSR constraints and Drivers for Evolution................................................29
 Learning Unit 2: Understanding concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihoods...................................36
Learning Unit 3: Implications of SRL Framework for Development analysis and policy practices
...............................................................................................................................................................55
Part 3: Main Farming Systems in SSA, suggested SRL pathways out of poverty and future drivers
of FS..........................................................................................................................................................64
Learning Unit 1: Current meaning of Farming system in SSA context..........................................64
Learning Unit 2: Farming system classification in SSA...................................................................70
Learning Unit 3: African Farming systems and Livelihoods strategies to facilitate pathways out
of poverty.............................................................................................................................................77
Marrying concept of Farming system and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods.........................................82
Learning Unit 4: Take-home message: Farming systems and challenges ahead............................84

General Introduction to the Module

Background to the OER Module

A Scientific agricultural research and Development (ARD) has generated knowledge and
technologies that increased physical productivity of crops and animals in western world in the
20th century. The successes have enabled western farmers and firms to produce much food that
eliminate hunger in the western society. The western farmers also could supply surplus
agricultural products to domestic and international markets as means of income generation for
farmers and firms or as a means of contribution of agriculture for economic growth of a given
nation. This is to say that success in agricultural productivity growth has contributed for
transition of the western world from agrarian society to industrialized society or modernization.

The success in western world convinced the development scholars and politicians that increasing
agricultural productivity is a shortcut path to hunger and poverty eradication and hence
transformation to industrialized society. Thus in the 1950s and 60s transferring of technologies
(ToT) of agricultural from western world to developing worlds, where hunger and poverty is
rampant, has been realized as best policy of eliminating hunger and poverty and bringing societal
transformation. The program was also called Green Revolution (GR), which had contributed for
high productivity of agriculture in various parts of Asia and Latin America and had fewer
impacts on small scale agriculture of Sub Saharan Africa (SSA).

In the 1970s it has been recognized that simple ToT of agriculture to developing worlds like SSA
is irrelevant with small farmers’ context. Because, African farmers make their living in very
diverse and risk prone biophysical and socio-economic contexts in which different family farms
encounter context specific constraints and opportunities across space and time. Thus in 1970s
and 80s Natural and Social science scholars, who were working in developing world in rural
development project, have called on ARD to shift from ToT approach to Systems approach
known as Farming System Research (FSR). Principles of FSR have called on partnerships
between farmers and technical and social scientists to involve farmers in the identification,
development, and evaluation of relevant improved technologies on small farmers’ farm field
rather than research station. By using FSR principles ARD had adapted different crops and
animal technologies to small farmers’ context to improve productivity.

In the 1990s it has been acknowledged that unless there is social equity in sharing food and
income within household and community, increasing productivity of crops and animals cannot
solve hunger and poverty of rural small farmers. Further, it has become clear that means of living
of poor small farmers does not depend only on agriculture, rather multiple livelihood strategies
and activities. Thus since mid of 1990s FSR has evolved to Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL)
approach. SRL approach perceives that means of living of people is affected by multiple micro
and macro factors and people have their own reasons why they do what they do. Hence, rural
development policy should carefully understand people livelihoods before and during
intervention. These are what this module will look at in detail to familiarize you with changes in
thinking about agricultural development journey in developing world in general and Sub Saharan
African in particular.

Essence of the Module to the AICM program

Having broadly introduced you how and why concepts of “Farming systems” and “Sustainable
Rural Livelihoods” have been evolved in ARD, what is main essence of this module to you as
prospective graduate student of AICM? Or simply what you expect from this module or what
you should keep in mind while studying the subsequent parts of the module? To be sure, as you
study the module from a means to an end, if you could thoroughly answer the following
comprehensive questions, we hope that you would have grasped core messages of the course.

 Before reading the units of module what is agricultural development mean? What is
source of agricultural knowledge? Do you think that agriculture is the only means of
living of rural smallholders?
 What kind of philosophical assumptions, scientific methods, and policy models had been
used by national and international ARD in generating and diffusing agricultural
knowledge and technologies to users (farmers/firms) early 1950s and 60s?
 Why FSR has called on for modification of these assumptions, methods and policy
models, especially when they are applied to developing world context like SSA?
 What are the messages of FSR to agricultural researchers and extension experts? Or
simply from FSR perspective, what is agricultural knowledge and why farmers’
participation becomes very important in agricultural technologies generation and
diffusion?
 Do you think that Ethiopian and other African countries’ ARD, i.e. research institutions
and universities have adopted FSR approaches or still following approaches of early 1950
s and 60s?
 Does FSR approach useful to understand what constraints and opportunities SSA small
farmers encounter at different place and time? And how that may help us to design
evidence based development interventions based on different context and to what extent
ICT is useful in so doing?
  What is the core message of SRL approach to understand livelihoods of rural
smallholders and to make positive interventions?
 What is linkage between sustainable Development and SRL approach? Does SRL
approach helpful to bring sustainable development?
 To what extent concepts of FSR and SRL are useful to help you identify what gaps
AICM graduates may fill to bring positive change in livelihoods of rural communities?
 Are students of AICM and RDAE at Haramaya University following positivism and
constructivism MSc thesis? This has very important implication for contemporary
sustainable agricultural development. Read the objectives and methodologies of Previous
MSc thesis and whether students adopt positivism or constructivism or both.

Motivation Behind the development of the Module

Haramaya University has been offering MSc programs in Rural Development and Agricultural
Extension since 2005. More recently it has launched a new regional MSc Program in
Agricultural Information and Communication Management (AICM). The development of the
module is supported by the AgShare project phase II. The objective of the sub-project is to create
a comprehensive set of course modules for selected course currently being offered by Haramaya
University within its AICM Master’s Degree program. The overall goal of the postgraduate
programme is to enhance the competence of agricultural information professionals, agricultural
researchers and other development workers in AICM while strengthening the capacity of
universities to provide higher-level education and research services in this field. To this end, the
module ‘ Farming System and Rural Livelihoods’ will contribute towards enhancing
postgraduate teaching learning and thus enable learners to obtain knowledge and skill that will
enable them in making concrete contributions in real life context.

Course Aims
The course Farming Systems and Rural Livelihoods aim to enable learners promote sustainable,
equitable, decentralised agro-food systems. Learners gain knowledge and analytical skills and
necessary for improving livelihoods and entitlements, poverty reduction, and short and long-term
ecological and economic sustainability among rural farming communities.

Learning Outcomes
By the completion of this course the learner should be able to:
a. Explain innovative actions that promote sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods.
 b. Prioritize the approaches of developing more effective and equitable agriculture and
natural resource management in line with the vision for national development
c. Analyze the impact of global and regional trends on food and agriculture production.
d. Plan strategies for achieving sustainable farming systems and rural livelihoods.

How you will be assessed

In order for you to successfully complete this module/course you need to have a minimum of
75% attendance at all classes. You will also be required to undertake five types of assessment
in the programme. The assessment types and their contribution to the final overall assessment
can be seen in the table below.

Table 1 : Type of assessment and contribution to overall assessment

Type of Contribution to overall final assessment as %
Assessments
Assignments 20

Field work 20

Reflection 10

Exam 50

As you can see from the above allocation of marks, you will be assessed on a continuous basis
and in a variety of ways. All four types of assessment are compulsory and contribute to your
final assessment mark. In order to successfully complete the course, you need to get at least 50%
for each one of the four types of assessment and also satisfy the 75% attendance requirement.

In your module there are also a number of learning tasks that you will need to complete in class
in order to gain a proper understanding of the various topics covered. Although not all these
activities carry marks, it is recommended that you complete them. The icons seen in the table
below are used to represent the different learning and assessment tasks you are expected to
complete.

Table 2: Icons and their descriptions

Icon Task to be Comments

completed
 Learning These tasks are designed to help you learn and understand the
activities different topics in the module. Some may require you to work on
your own and others will involve group work. Your instructor will
help facilitate completion of these tasks

Assignments There are assignments for this module. Note that assignments are
compulsory and contribute to your final assessment mark. Please
start working on your assignments well in advance of the due date
and submit them on time.

Field works Field work is an important component of your assessment and all
the associated tasks are compulsory and contribute to your final
assessment mark.

Case studies Case studies are important as they teach you to analyse persons,
events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, institutions, or other
systems that are studied holistically by one or more methods. These
tasks are compulsory and contribute to your final assessment mark.

Reflection As a agricultural information communication and management

professional reflection is an important component of your work
with people as this will enable you to reflect on your own practice
and improve it as you go along. These tasks are compulsory and
contribute to your final assessment mark.

Assessment You will be assessed end of each topic and it will be marked

Course/Module Evaluation
In order to improve delivery and content of this course/module you are required to make
evaluation at the end of each topic and at the end of the course/module. Detailed instructions on
how to complete the evaluation are found in the Module Assessment Document that can be
obtained by clicking this link

Course parts

PART 1: Understanding System Thinking and Origin of Farming System Research

Learning Units:

 Understanding Basics of System Thinking

 Appreciating Evolution of System Thinking In Agriculture
  Understanding Birth of Farming system Research Approach
Part 2: Reviewing Evolution of FSR and Birth of Sustainable Livelihood Approach
Learning Units:

 Early FSR constraints and Drivers for Evolution

 Understanding concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihoods
 Implications of SRL Framework for Development analysis and policy practices
Part 3: Main Farming Systems in SSA and suggested SRL pathways out of poverty

Learning Units:

 Current meaning of Farming system in SSA context

 Understanding Farming system classification in SSA
 African Farming systems and Livelihoods strategies to facilitate pathways out of
poverty
 Take-home message: Farming systems and challenges ahead

PART 1: Understanding System Thinking and Origin of Farming System Research

Introduction

In this first part of the module, you will learn the general concept of systems thinking, its main
key concepts as new inquiry of the world around us. Then you will understand how and why the
concepts of system thinking gradually applied in agricultural development journey. Finally, you
will see the sights for birth of FSR approach as the first and explicit method of inquiry in ARD
of developing nations.

Learning Objectives
By the end of this part you should be able:

 Understand basics concept of System thinking from and main components of systems
theory
 Understand how and why System Thinking Evolved in Agriculture
 Understand rationales of Birth of Farming system Research Approach

Learning outcomes:

By the end of this part you should be able to:

 explain the basics concept of System thinking from your academic background
perspectives and main components of systems theory
 explain how and why System Thinking Evolved in Agriculture
 explain the rationales of Birth of Farming system Research Approach

Learning Unit 1: Understanding Basics of System Thinking

The term "System" is derived from the Greek word “systema” to means “an organized
relationship among functioning units or components.” The units or components connected
together and give some purpose or outcomes as natural process or as manmade or as mental
perception. The system theory is contribution of many philosophies and disciplines (natural and
social sciences). It is also categorized into different typologies based different disciplines. For
purpose of this course and for your in-depth understanding about system thinking, let us divide
system into two and discuss accordingly: (1) system as observable matter and (2) system
asunobservable mind image.

(1) System as observable matter

To make you appreciate what is observable system, let us start from very simple examples,
which you are familiar with in our daily life.

Example 1: our body as a system

In high school biology subject, we learned that 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, issue, 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 issue 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 issue 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 disease or intensity of injure etc. happened on whole body could be
understood from cells, which sub-system of whole body. This means in the case of living
organisms (plants and animals), we take samples of the organism’s sub-system (i.e. cell) and
diagnosis what happened or will happen to the whole system of the body.

Example 2: functioning computer as a whole system

Let us apply principle of our body to the computer. But, you should know that computer is non-
living thing. The computer gives functions (e.g. writing, data processing, designing, etc.), if and
only if, all spare parts/sub-parts/sub-systems (CPU, keyboard, window, software etc.) are
connected together correctly. Then, in system expression, the computer is “whole” system when
it gives function and the function we gain only from the whole is called “emergent property” in
system theory.

Please, notice that concept of ‘emergent property’ is very important in system theory. We only
get emergent property from the whole computer. For example, if we don’t have keyboard, which
is one of sub-systems of the whole computer, we can’t get the function we get from the whole
computer. This means due to missed sub-systems (in this case keyboard), the left parts of the
computer do not give us the same function as before. So, we have to buy or borrow keyboard and
properly connect it to make computer the whole or to get emergent property. This means there
must be “synergies” or interconnectedness and interactions amongst sub-parts of the computer to
get emergent property.

However, if all spare parts/sub-systems of the same computer are available, but, not connected
together or let us say we disconnected sub-parts and put in carton, the computer does not give
function as before. Note that still all spare parts are already there. Then why the computer is not
giving function as before? That is because; the simple summation of sub-parts/sub-systems of
the computer cannot give function that we get from the whole (purposively connected together)
computer.

Nonetheless, you have to understand that either the computer’s sub-parts purposively connected
(whole) or put together without connecting (sum of the whole parts) in a carton, the weight of the
computer (on beam balance) is the same in both cases.

For computer professionals whether the computer is connected together or not, if all sub parts of
the computer is available, it is the same computer. Because, connecting together is the matter of
minutes. However, in the system theory, whole (holistic) and the sum of the whole parts
(summation) are not equal at all. The system theory says “whole is greater than the sum of its
parts.” Why?

Because: from the whole we get emergent property/functions/, from the sum of its parts we
can’t. From this concept system thinkers argue that sometimes one plus one (1+1) could be
equals to three (3).But, in the case of computer, notice that still computer experts can diagnose
the non-functional computer and identify which sub-part/sub-system is damaged or missed or
misconnected and the problem could be solved. For the case of our body medical doctors could
do the same.

What could be learned from the two examples?

From the two examples, all bolded terms are key concepts of system thinking or theory that we
will use throughout this module. Further, you can easily notice that our body and computer are
observable systems (real system) and hence, there is “boundary” between computer and
environment; 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 and computer). This is to mean both computer and our body are
“open systems” that get inputs from supra-system to give output. E.g. inputs for computer is
clicking the key, internet connection, etc. and inputs for our body is food, oxygen, water etc.
Both systems (computer and our body) must process (throughput) the inputs to convert into
outputs. You must also know that since both systems have no power to control supra-system
that comes from the environment as inputs, the inputs could be harmful for the system. E.g. virus
may inter into our computer as input from supra-system (websites, external disc etc.) and damage
the whole system or parts of system or we get unexpected output (unplanned function).
Airborne diseases like common cold, TB etc. could inter our body as input from surrounding
environment and harm or disturb our body system and/or weaken our body functions.

To conclude subjects of the two examples, we said that the computer and our body are
observable and “real” objects. This real system (living or non-living things) is called “hard
system”. And if we consider about the real objects as a system to understand or to gain some
kind of function or solve some kind of problem it is called “hard system thinking” or
“systematic” approach. The natural scientists follow hard systems (systematic)approaches
(real objects) to measure or manipulate this world by using mathematical models and theories.
E.g. you can imagine how ICT is playing the role in world we live now; you may be surprised
how plant and animal scientists had discovered high productivity crops and animals by following
hard system thinking through genetic engineering.

(2) System as unobservable mind image

Analogous to natural (hard) scientists above, social science scholars have been considering social
issues like community, laws, politics, organization, society etc. as a systemto understand the
sub-systems and manipulate like hard systems (e.g. computer and our body). E.g. we say
political system, legal system etc. However, we cannot observe these systems like real (hard)
systems mentioned above. Here, the reality is in the mind of an observer and the observer should
negotiate the meaning of that mind reality with other observers to reach on some kind of
agreement to try to get purposeful emergent property. Again, the emergent property cannot be
engineered by professionals like computer and body. E.g. ensuring justice in the world is the
“emergent property” of legal systems of the world or a given country. In system terms, Social
system is also called “human activity system” or “soft system” thinking E.g. What we exactly
know is that social system is something human beings collectively and purposefully creates in
mind to make use of natural resources (e.g. agriculture, mineral, etc.) and manmade resources
(e.g. computer, car, etc.). Let us take example;

Example: Haramaya University Management as a system

We can take Haramaya University (HU) Management as a system, which is mind image. We are
not talking about observable physicalmaterials of the university, we are saying how to manage
university’s observable resource (e.g. building, money, farm, vehicles, human knowledge and
skills, books, etc.) by creating system like property in the minds of the people, who are working
and/or studying at HU. Unlike real systems like computer and our body; HU organizational
system has no observable boundary, rather the boundary is negotiable (e.g. what is responsibly of
each and every one, what are dos and don’ts for workers and students as rules etc. are negotiable
and always changing). The inputs for management system could be suggestions of individuals,
labor force, positive and/or negative attitudes of workers, leadership etc. multiple inputs cannot
be predefined like computer and body parts. This means the inputs for soft systems are not
measurable in standard methods, quite qualitative and very subjective. We can assume sub-
systems as finance office, departments, colleges, transportation unit, etc. and supra-system as
national law, ministry of education, ministry of finance, market etc.

Here the outcome or emergent property of university management system is also multiple and
not as clear as computer and body’s system. E.g. some emergent properties are better financial
system, quality education, quality student accommodation, better research, better community
service etc. Further, since there are a lot of people with different roles, experiences, education
background, interest etc. at HU; each individual assesses emergent property of HU from their
perspectives and evaluating it in objective way is also very difficult. E.g. if you ask each
instructor in Department of RDAE about performance (emergent property) of HU, you never get
uniform answer from all instructors. Each emergent property is very subjective and negotiable
and all emergent properties are not exactly known beforehand. The only thing we can do is to
facilitate interactions and interdependency of human minds in different sub-systems to get
better emergent property.

Further, to diagnosis or solve the problem of the HU management system, you cannot take the
sample of sub-systems like and understand or solve the problem. This means,reductionist
concept that works in hard systems never give meaning. E.g. by taking sample of our blood cell
(reductionism) a medical doctor can understand problem of our body system. But, in case of HU
management system it is impossible. E.g. assume you select college of Agriculture and
environmental sciences, which is sub-system of HU management system, as a sample and
analyze its weakness and strength. From results of this study, you cannot understand or
generalize the weakness or strength of the whole HU management system. In the case of soft
system, you cannot understand the property of whole by studying sub-system.

All in all, social/soft system thinking enable us to develop approaches for gaining the grasp of
and improving complex and ill-defined situation when we cannot know what the problems are,
how many they are and how they relate each other. E.g. reducing climate change impacts at local
level, reducing land degradation, bringing sustainable agriculture, producing organic food etc.
are complex natural environment and human relations that need soft system thinking approach to
socially negotiate and contextually understand the problems and respective solutions. Because,
there is no best formula we follow to solve these kinds of challenges like hard systems. The hard
as well as the soft systems thinking cannot solve problems alone, it needs complementarity of
both. See the following exemplar case to differentiate what is hard and soft systems in real
practices.

Box 1: Difference between hard and soft systems thinking by simple example
Assume that HU has 1000 desktop computers, from which 600 are functional and 400 of them
are not giving appropriate functions due to some minor damages of sub-systems. The
professionals, who can amend all 400 computers, are already present in the university. From hard
system thinking, HU is very rich in terms of number of computers and number of professionals,
who maintain functionality of the computers.
However, from soft system thinking perspective that will never be true unless the HU has
maintenance budget, administrators are willing, damaged sub-systems in computers are brought
on time, professionals are willing and be paid, and the workers whose computers are
dysfunctional are concerned as property loss etc. what does this mean? Only the physical
availability of computers (hard system) in HU does not guarantee that HU is rich in computers,
rather continuous functionality of computers needs human interactions (soft/human system).
Here both hard and soft systems are equally important to make HU the best higher education
institution that uses its property in efficient way.

What we are lacking most in Africa is soft system (human interaction) that enables us to utilize
available resources. This is mainly because; soft system is unobservable thing, which is less
suitable to be studied and measured in traditional (positivist) scientific methods. Practically, why
we must focus on soft system is that people do what they believe true and controlling their
unobservable behavior is hardly possible. Thus better thing could be done is interacting with
people to negotiate and to create learning environment even to make use of product of hard
systems.

In order to appreciate the concepts of hard and soft systems in real world, please complete
Activity 1.1. Please, work with classmates as a team and share your views from different
disciplines.

Activity 1.1: Take one of these problems: forest clearing or waste dumping off or food
insecurity or adoption failures in a given location and discuss the causes of a problem and
possible solutions

a. From hard system perspective

b. From soft system perspective
c. Which perspective is often neglected in research and funding and why? Is it possible to
model soft system problem by computer?
d. Report the summary of your discussion to your instructor
 Assignment: Using the knowledge from Learning Unit 1, critically review the
following three articles listed below.
 Altieri, M.A. 1989. Agroecology: A New Research and Development Paradigm for
World Agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27: 37-46.
 Bellamy, J. A., D. H. Walker, G/ T. McDonald, and G. J. Syme. 2001. A systems
approach to the evaluation of natural resource management initiatives. Journal of
Environmental Management 63: 407-123.
 Janssen, W. and P. Glodworthy. 1996. Multidisciplinary Research for Natural Resource
Management: Conceptual and Practical Implications. Agricultural Systems 51: 259-279.

Why do it? (Motivation for doing the assignment)

The review will enable you to develop critical thinking on soft and hard system thinking.
How to do it? You are expected to do the assignment individually and submit written report of
maximum of 10 pages .

Reference and further reading clicking the following links;

Agricultural Systems: Agroecology and Rural Innovation for Development Editors: Sieglinde
Snapp and Barry Pound; Elsevier Press, 2008 ISBN 978-0-12-372517-2

Packham et al (n.d.) A Farming System Research (FSR) as a Platform for RD & E Agriculture
and NRMhttp://www.apen.org.au/images/PDF%20documents/APEN%20Forum07%20papers/
Packham_Petheram__Prior___A_Farming_Systems_Research_%28FSR
%29_As_a_Platform_for_RDE_in_Agriculture_and_NRM.pdf

Schiere et al (2004) System thinking in agriculture: an overview

http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/fileadmin/Books/2004_Schiere.pdf
Learning Unit 2: Evolution of system thinking in agriculture

In the preceding unit, we hope that you understood the two categories of systems thinking and
their properties with examples. In this unit, we will thoroughly look at how each category of
system thinking has been applied to bring agricultural development and/or to solve agricultural
problems. Let us discuss one by one!

1. Hard system thinking in agricultural development

In preceding unit, we have said that hard system or systematic thinkers study observable things
or “matters”. The concept was coined from positivist philosophies that first defined what the
science is and what is not. For positivist philosophers to be a scientific means studying a real
world out there; whose characteristics can be observed, measured and generalized in a way that
come close to truth. It is believed that anybody can observe reality almost equally if he/she
follows scientific procedure.

This positivist scientific method is called Hard System Methodology(HSM). Here, the
observer and the object are separate. E.g. if an agronomist (researcher or observer) studies maize
(researched), the subjective interest of observer cannot affect outcome of the research result due
to scientific procedure s/he follows (i.e. research method). In this case scientific knowledge is
objective and universal (it’s true everywhere).

To easily understanding the concept, (hard) sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics,
which we learnt in high school, exactly follows positivist philosophy. The hard scientists
measure and manipulate real objects by using mathematical models and probability theory. You
may remember the laboratory of these subjects in high school, which is small world that we
observe simplified realities (e.g. cell, molecule, elements, reactions etc.) by following the stated
scientific procedures. You may remember also that we measured and quantified that reality by
using mathematical formulas and models. Because of this systematic simplification of complex
things into simple explanation, positivists are sometimes called reductionist philosophers. This
means positivists perceive that by systematically taking or observing smallest part of the system
(any matter) we can understand the whole system and engineer it. It is the fact that positivism is
the dominant philosophy of science that contributed for advancement of technologies and
innovations in the globe. E.g. advancement of ICT, modern medicine, transportation etc. is
almost due to positivist directed scientific inquiry. However, this does not mean that positivists
have solution for every problem we face today.

For positivist scientists, agriculture is “real matter” that needs to be engineered by applying
HSM. Especially, since famous economist, Thomas Malthus, speculated that planet earth cannot
feed rapidly growing human population beyond 20th century, finding mechanism of increasing
agricultural productivity per unit area was the key impetus for agricultural scientists. Positivist
economists also call for agricultural product marketability to generate incomes. Thus, the
publicly funded scientific Agricultural Research and Development (ARD) in the western world
(USA and Europe) had discovered new agricultural technologies such as new crop varieties of
maize, wheat, rice, fertilizer, in 1940s and 50s and increased agricultural productivity.

The scientists use scientific procedural experimentation in the lab and research station. E.g. for
maize scientists, maize is the system and plot of land is environment. The scientists simply
study, if what amount of inputs (e.g. amount fertilizer) is used, the system (maize plant) give
maximum output (e.g. quintal per hectare). For e.g. see the following figure as example of
reductionist system view about a cow. In this example, animal scientists try to discovery how to
achieve maximum outputs (dependent variables-y-axis) from the cow by using different inputs
(independent variable-x-axis) and agricultural economists analyze costs (of inputs)- benefit (of
outputs) and predict profits. For problems like diseases, pests and weeds; the scientists had
discovered many agro-chemicals such pesticides and herbicides. Further, due to advancement of
genetic engineering, crops and animals scientists could easy identify crops and animals that
efficiently convert inputs into outputs, and tolerant to drought, disease, and pest.

inputs
outputs
e.g. meat, a e.g. feed,
milk, draught water, pen
etc.
.

Figure 1: example of reductionist system view: a cow is clearly observable system that has
fixed boundary and interdependent parts with well-defined functions, which transform inputs to
outputs
By support of extension services improved crop and animal technologies had been spontaneously
adopted by farming communities of western world and agricultural production and productivity
highly increased. As result, western farmers could produce ample foods for both their
consumption and market supply. That achievement had even contributed for transition of western
world from agrarian society to industrial society.

It was against this background that positivist scientists, policy makers and politicians in western
and developing nations (Africa, Asia, and Latin America) were convinced to transfer the western
born agricultural technologies to hungry developing nations in the 1950s. To do so, initiative of
transferring the technology known as Green Revolution (GR) was launched throughout
developing nations through support of western nations in the same decade. It is also called
Transfer of Technology (ToT) model. The ToT model operates based on the principle that
scientists (especially, crop scientists) develop a new technology on research station and then
extension workers, in turn, would transfer it to farmers. It is linear model that straightly link
researcher-extension-farmers. It is top-down approach that considers farmers as passive
recipients of what scientists recommend.

For example, as you learned in module “Perspective of Agricultural Extension (RDAE 511)”
Haramaya University (the then Haile Selassie-I college of Agriculture) was established in 1954
through US government “land grant system” to promote ToT model in Ethiopia. The World
Bank had also implemented ToT model of Training and Visit (T & V) program as global support
in the whole Africa in 1970s.

The fact that ToT program had increased production and productivity of targeted crops (such as
maize, wheat, rice) in developing nations, especially in Latin America and Asia. However, the
GR/ToT program did not work in context of many small farmers of Africa and in some parts of
Asia and Latin America.The empirical studies even shows that where GR worked, environmental
degradation and social inequality were exacerbated and the poor small farmers, who are majority
and live in the marginal and unfavorable ecosystem, were less targeted by GR programs. The
extension services biased towards large or model farmers.

The failure of ToT model in developing Nations was the reason for origin of soft system thinking
in agriculture, the first one is known as Farming system Research (FSR) in 1970s and 80s. We
will discuss FSR approach in detail in the next sub-unit.
However, this does not mean that policy of ToT that considers only agricultural productivity at
expense of socio-economic equity and environmental sustainability is replaced by better model.
Since agricultural ToT policy has fast positive impacts on national economic growth, it is still
dominant agricultural policy in African countries. This is mainly because; ToT policy is
politically attractive since increasing agricultural productivity displayed as mechanism of
reducing hunger and poverty and ensuring economic growth of a nation.

Despite the fact, theToT, which considers only agricultural productivity, has been facing a lot of
pressures from the world communities in developing and developed nations. To mention some
challenges brought by ToT policy:

 Loss of crops biodiversity due to mono-cropping recommended by scientists. Local

varieties of different crops that adapted the local context for thousand years are lost and
farmers are buying seeds from supermarkets every planting season.

 Risks of agro-chemicals such as fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides on human and

environmental health; empirical studies indicate these chemicals already killed numerous
useful living things (small animals and plants), creating water pollution, and foods
produced by agro-chemicals are no as healthy as natural one.

 The current Land grabbing in Ethiopia and in other Africa countries is ToTmodelto
expand input intensive agriculture for short term GDP growth without carefully
considering social and environmental impacts of the intervention.

Nonetheless, especially highly educated people are becoming skeptical about positivist scientists
recommendation for agriculture. Currently traditional agricultural practices like home garden and
small scale farming, which are free from agrochemicals, are seen as best option for many
scholars. It is this steady rise of these uncertainties and challenges throughout the world that
have become a reason for evolutions of alternative philosophy known as constructivism that has
been coined soft system Methodology (SSM) in agriculture and in related fields. In the next
sub-section, we will discuss soft system thinking in agriculture as alternative to hard system
thinking. However, before proceeding to the next sub-section, please, do the following activity
1.2!
 Activity 2.1

Currently, Ethiopia is implementing five year Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP). Please,
review GTP related articles and reports and discuss to what extent the GTP has focused on ToT
policy and considered its negative impacts on societal and ecological systems. Discuss with your
colleagues and submit the summary to your instructor.

Tips for further learning: consider addressing political ecology to further explain this topic.
References for Political Ecology: Blaikie,, P. 1989. Environment and Access to Resources in
Africa. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 59: 18-40.

2. Soft System Thinking In Agriculture

In preceding unit one, we have said that soft system thinking is human activity system that
focuses on human “mind” as a reality. This thinking was originated from constructivist
philosophies that perceive reality as socially constructed in the mind of an observer, in contrast
to positivist. According to constructivist, human beings generate knowledge and meaning
(reality) from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas, which is context specific
based on location and time. Here, there is no objectivity and universality of reality. Reality is
relative, and context specific and no standardized measurement.

For example, you may assume establishment of Farmers Agricultural inputs cooperative
(FAIC) in HaramayaWoreda as a Soft system Methodology (SSM). The FAIC exists; if and
only if, people believe that its existence is useful, agree on its goals, its boundaries (dos and
don’ts), membership criteria, etc. so that people should agree on current situation of problem
definition and create the future vision as mental “ideal” model. The main assumption is that
system goals or expected outcome are not given like hard system, but they are contestable and
negotiated by people. It is because; people have diverse interests and views about importance of
coop. This is to claim that simplistic causal-effect (x-axis and y-axis model of maths)
relationships in HSM are seemed pretending and denying complexity of realities of the system.
It needs gathering of multiple views of people and renegotiation with them to redefine why coop
is needed and how it helps them for near future.
When we view agriculture through the lens of constructivist philosophies, agriculture is
different thing for different people. This is to say for ARD agriculture is mostly crops and
animals, needs plant and animal scientists to increase productivity. This isreductionist view i.e.
it reduced agriculture to only animals and plants, while wider social, economic, political, and
environmental factors are already parts and parcels of agricultural system.

E.g. for environmental sciences and geographers agriculture is about managing natural
landscape; for social scientists (sociology and anthropology) agriculture is about cultural
heritage; for medical scientists’ agriculture is food and medicines etc.

For ordinary citizens such as farmers and pastoralists, agriculture is much more complex thing.
E.g. for pastoralists and farmers agriculture not only about producing food and generating
income, but also about identity, cultural pride, risk reduction, about territorial claim etc. These
farmers and pastoralists perceive agriculture from different angles (social, economic,
environmental, and political) and act accordingly in their day-to-day lives. Reductionist scientists
perceive agriculture as food and if more, as income generation. Therefore, recommendations of
reductionist scientists hardly compatible with context (angles) of pastoralists and farmers and
hence, many farmers and pastoralists fail to adopt their recommendation. That is how countless
development interventions had failed in a very disappointing ways for the last a half century.

Tips for further learning

If you use constructivist philosophical/soft system/ assumption for your MSc thesis, you need not
worry about random sampling, use purposive. Just you choose people or events that are relevant
to your study objective at local arena. You should not also worry about generalization to the
whole population, rather you deeply focus on the case you selected and display rich pictures of
the case to the readers. If you need generalization, you can make theoretical generalization. That
is through critically reviewing relevant studies in different contexts and by displaying similarity
of patterns. This kind of research is very important to sensitize policy makers and reductionist
scientists to diagnose local contexts and peoples’ behaviors before rushing to blanket
recommendation.
Learning Unit 3: Birth of Farming system Research Approach

In the preceding unit, we hope that you have understood how hard system and soft thinkers
perceive agriculture differently and how difference in perception also influenced agricultural
practices in the world. In this unit, we will specifically discuss origin of Farming system
Research (FSR), its early meaning, and principles

1. Origin of Farming System Research

The FSR was developed in 1970s and 80s in response to the failure of ToT model in developing
nations especially in Africa. It was developed by collective efforts of scholars from different
disciplines (natural and social sciences), who were working in developing nations. It was
developed as alternative research method or form of inquiry, which use systemic thinking to
challenge the reductionist scientists to consider local context and farmers’ realities. Because;
during that time farmers, who failed to adopt technologies, were seen as backward and
traditional.

However, FSR scholars have empirically shown that ToT model is irrelevant for small farmers’
contexts. They claimed most agricultural researches are conducted on research stations mostly by
plant and moderately by animal scientists. These scientists use biological principles to study
physical productivity of crops and/or animals. These type of researches benefitted farmers, who
cultivate single crop (mono-cropping) on suitable farmland (fertile soil, enough rainfall or
irrigation, large size farm etc.), and who have access to inputs (cheap fertilizer, credit, extension
advices etc.) and who have output markets.

However, small farmers make their living in very diverse and risk prone biophysical and socio-
economic contexts in which different family farms encounter context specific constraints and
opportunities over time.

Example: if you observe farmers around Haramaya Campus, they cultivate crops and keep
animals on small size and unsuitable farmland (less soil fertility, erratic rainfall, pests and
disease etc.), limited access to inputs (expensive fertilizer, no credit service etc.) and have
limited access to efficient markets. Thus, small farmers cannot adopt the technical
recommendations derived from reductionist researchers. Perhaps because it is unfit for the
priorities and conditions of small farmers. Please, refer to the following box for further
understanding of why FSR was coined in developing nations in the 1970s and 80s.
Box 2: Reasons for initiation of FSR in Developing World in 1970s and 80s
 It was realized that models of discipline-oriented research (i.e. Where department conducts
research separately) from the industrialized countries were inappropriate as the basis for
agricultural improvement in most developing worlds. Because, developing world’s
agriculture is complex farming systems were little understood by researchers
 Few agricultural technologies proposed by reductionist researchers were being adopted by
small farmers
 In developing world, unlike developed world, the vast majority of farmers lack influences in
shaping research and development strategies. E.g. no subsidies, strong farmer organization
etc. in developing nations
 Many agricultural programs have led to benefits for larger farmers at the expense of poorer
families; like extension bias toward model farmers
 Most experimentation has been conducted on research stations, which are largely
unrepresentative of conditions on the majority of small farms;
 The FSR approach is consistent with current political notions of equity and sustainable
production;
 Research focused on components or commodities and/or productivity alone has sometimes
led to land degradation.
Source: Adopted from Petheram and Clark (1998)

Today FSR approach is not limited to developing world, it is global approach. As it is stated on
website of International Farming Systems Association

“Whether implemented in the North [western] or in the South [developing nations], The core
objective of farming systems approaches is to (1) address the complexity of real-world
phenomena (instead of using reductionist and disciplinary simplifications) and (2) to work
on problems that are relevant to farmers (instead of focusing on issues that are primarily of
academic interest)”http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/index.php?id=40

2. Meaning of Farming Systems Approach

From preceding sub-section, we hope that you understood why FSR was originated. In this sub-
section, we will introduce you FSR Approach.

First of all, you may wonder the meaning of ‘approach’. The dictionary meaning of approach is
“a way of dealing with a situation or problem”. In this module context, a situation or problem is
about agriculture and allied issues like biodiversity, community culture, sustainability etc. This
means FS approach could be seen as research approach or model of inquire. When we say ‘A
farming systems Research Approach (FSA)’ it is ‘school of thought’ that subsumes different
theories and methods from multitudes of discipline to respond to complex problem of agriculture
and allied issues.

The FSRA entails a broad view that concentrates on interactions among components and on
emergent properties of farming system that are relevant to problematic situations we intended to
study or solve. What you should know is that the boundary is negotiable here, not like living
organisms or computer modeling. We can exclude the elements from the system based on
objective of the system or based on problem to be solved. For example, if you (as a team of
researchers) want to study or understand farming system of Eastern Ethiopia, it is up to the team
to discuss where and what to be focused or included and why.

Let say you may exclude HaramayaWoreda perceiving that is better of area or exclude remote
area due to inaccessibility of means of transport. You may focus only on crops or on livestock
based on farmers’ priority. However, this does not mean that you totally neglect the excluded
parts; rather the excluded parts on study could be seen still as connected sub-part or the
environment of the system. As Dillon (1976) has put it ‘System performance must…be judged
not simply in terms of how each part works separately, but in terms of how the parts fit together
and relate to each other, and in terms of how the system relates to its environment and to other
systems in that environment’.

For the above example, although your focus is crops, you must not neglect interaction between
crops and livestock and even if you excluded some Woredas from focus you must consider
interaction between Woredas focused and neighboring woredas excluded from study. This is
entirely different from reductionist/hard system approach. E.g. when traditional economists
study something they measure almost everything in terms of money, but, farmers or human
beings as a whole do not measure everything terms of money. For instance, we assess things in
terms of security (we prefer less risky), culture or religion (e.g. most people in Ethiopia don’t eat
pork) etc. FSRA consider all these elements, i.e. is holistic approach. The scholars describe the
three common elements of FSR Approach (Darnhofer et al, 2012)

1. Interdisciplinary: FSA combines one or more academic discipline (natural and social
sciences) in an activity. For example, combining agronomy, ecology, plant breeding,
 livestock sciences, economics, anthropology, rural sociology working in collaboration in
project design and implementation
2. System thinking: Understand the farm and household as one system. This implies that
much attention is given to interactions, e.g. between technical and social components,
resource allocation decisions, biotechnical and ecological processes.
3. Have a dynamic and participatory approach: with on-going changes in public
policies, society's expectations, market prices or local opportunities, research focuses on
the ability of Farming households.
4. Multidisciplinary. "A multidisciplinary approach involves drawing appropriately
from multiple disciplines to redefine problems outside of normal boundaries and reach
solutions based on a new understanding of complex situations" (Wikipedia, 2015).

Youtube video on cassava farming system research example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_DVVOb0QTI

3.1 Activity

AICM students are from different education background, i.e. you are multidiscipline classmates.
Please, refer the difference between multidisciplinary research and interdisciplinary research and
which one is better for solving current problems of agriculture in Africa? (For example, many of
the farming systems in Africa are far from their productive potential while accelerated economic
growth in Africa now offers demand-side opportunities for agriculture)

Assignment
Read the following article showing examples on how TOT approach has failed in rural
development and how a systems approach has been beneficial. Prepare your own reflection in the
articles for 10 minutes presentation to class.

Gebre, G.G. and Zegeye, D. M. 2014.Challenges of farmers’ innovativeness in central zone,

Tigray, Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research 2:215-223.

Giller, K. E, E. Witter, M. Corbeels, and P. Tittonell 2009. Conservation agriculture and

smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114:23-34.
Abate, T., B. Shiferaw, S. Gebeyehu, B. Amsalu, K. Negash, K. Assefa, M. Eshete, S. Aliye and
J. Hagmann. 2011. Outlook on AGRICULTURE 40(3):213-220.

Fujisaka, A. 1989. The need to build upon farmer practice and knowledge: reminders from
selected upland conservation projects and policies. Agroforestry Systems 9:141-153.

Further reading

Please, click this link http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/index.php?id=40 for further exploration about

historical roots and current undertaking about the FSR approach.

Petheram and Clark (1998) Modified from paper in Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture (1998) 38, 101-115. http://ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au/~johneth/Papers/Fsraus8.pdf

Darnhofer et al (2012) F a r mi n g Systems Research: An approach to inquiry1

http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/fileadmin/Books/FSR_Inquiry.pdf

Part 2: Reviewing Evolution of FSR and Birth of Sustainable Livelihood Approach

Introduction
In the preceding first part of the module, we hope you understood basics concepts of system
thinking, application hard and soft systems and birth of FSR from soft system thinking. In this
second part of the module, you will be familiar with challenges faced FSR practices and drivers
for its evolution. Finally, you will look at birth of Sustainable Rural Livelihood (SRL) Approach
as complementary of FSR.

Learning objectives

By the end of this part you should be able to:

 understand main Drivers for Evolution of FSR approach as the early FSR faced
challenges

 understand the in depth concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

 understand the implications of SRL Framework for Development analysis and policy
practices

Learning outcomes

By the end of this part, you should be able to:

 explain main drivers for evolution of FSR approach

 explain the in depth concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

 explain the implications of SRL Framework for Development analysis and policy
practices

Learning Unit 1: Early FSR constraints and Drivers for Evolution

The experience shows that earlier FSR approach had not gone further beyond analyzing
agricultural production and productivity like reductionist approach. The only difference is that
FSR considered small farmers context to produce relevant agricultural technologies for better
adoption. However, afterwards in 1990s it has been realized that FSR approach itself has
problem and it needs further thinking about how to practice sustainable agriculture in the whole
world. Such thinking from different disciplines has reinforced evolution of FSR approach to
become more holistic in analysis to broaden understanding of farming systems. In this unit, we
will discuss main drivers of that evolution and as result birth of Sustainable Livelihood
Approach.

1. Universally dominant development model and growing dissatisfaction

Globally, the way of thinking and practicing of agriculture has been influenced by economic
development thinking. However, since some of you do not have knowledge about development
theories and models, let us discuss very simple meaning of dominant development model and
how it becomes threat to sustainability of our planet earth.

The early 1950s definition of development was “economic growth”. The definition was
originated based on how developed nations brought development prematurely. This means early
economists used to recommend a given country should follow footstep of developed nations.
That is simply modernization theory. All countries of the world have been following western
worlds as a model. The model of developed nations is based on increasing Gross Domestic
Products (GDPs) or economic growth or accumulation of wealth through exploiting available
resources such as human resources (labor and skills) and natural resources (renewable and
nonrenewable resources on the land).

You surely guess that all human beings in the world cannot equally work and accumulate wealth.
Thus few members of the society become richer and richer and majority becomes poor and
pooper. This is still main challenge even in developed nations, although they have mechanism of
fulfilling basic needs of their citizens. This challenge has raised question of social justice or
fairness in development in the 1980s. It is about how to reduce social inequality and bring social
inclusive development. Then definition of development polished as “evenly distributed economic
growth”.

Further, since the 1987 report of Brundtland Commission to United

Nationshasarticulatedimperative of sustainable development concept, it is globally accredited
that economic development is more than economic growth. This is because capitalist model of
increasing a national GDP through input intensive agriculture has endangered natural ecosystem
and instigated socio-economic inequality among people in the world (Hawkins, 2009). This is
especially, the worst in SSA. Thus, to address challenges of sustainability and equity, creating
multifunctional agriculture that generate“a multi-outputactivity producing not only
commodities (food, feed, fibers, agrofuels, medicinal products&ornamentals), but also non-
commodity outputs such as environmental sciences,landscapeamenities and cultural heritages”
has been recommended worldwide by International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) in 2002 (Hawkins, 2009).

What happened to SSA agriculture during these changes?

In Sub Saharan Africa, in the past and up until now, agriculture is main livelihoods of majority
of population and engine of economic growth. Despite of changes in definitions of development,
politicians and policy makers of developing nations like Africa are still preoccupied by
modernization model of sole GDP growth as short term objective of gaining public votes for
subsequent elections.

For example, since there has been improvement in agricultural productivity in many African
countries in the last ten years, GDP has been up for the last decade. However, the improvement
in agricultural production could not reduce hunger, food and nutrition security in Africa relative
to GDP growth. Further, production increment was not per unit area, rather area expansion,
which is very dangerous for environmental sustainability and climate change impacts.

To conclude, Scholars argue that if agriculture is exploited for short term in name of GDP
growth and food security, the natural resource depletion will become very worse and since GDP
oriented development gives less attention to social equity the hunger and poverty will persist for
indefinite future in Africa.

2. Wackiness in conventional way of measuring human welfare

Activity 1.1

Please, remember different academic and policy papers of agricultural and rural development of
Ethiopia/ any African country, which you read, and academic seminars and policy workshops
you attended! Discuss to what to extent the papers you read and seminars and workshops
attended were dominated by about analyzing and lecturing the following three dominant thinking
in achieving agricultural and rural development. Submit the summary to your instructor!

1. Increasing agricultural Production

2. Employment creation
3. Reducing number of rural people below poverty line
Most social scientists and professionals have been measuring the above three thinking in
standard units to analyze the level of the wellbeing of rural people due to development policy
intervention. The thinking is highly dominant in social science academics and policy arena up
until today.

However, the evidences have been overwhelming that the three mode of thinking has high values
to show reality of rural people in western nations and less valuable to show the reality of rural
people of developing nations.

(1) Increasing agricultural Production: We all believe that the only way of reducing famine,
food and nutrition insecurity etc. is increasing agricultural production and productivity.
However, after the well-known seminal work of (AmartyaSen, 1981), it is understood that
food being produced is already sufficient to feed world population; rather the main problem
is entitlements. The concept of entitlement is very broad, cannot be explained here. For
purpose of this module, it means that what make somebody hungry or starved is not that
much about absence of food, but it is about relation between food and individual human
beings.

For example, if you are hungry at Haramaya University in main Campus as graduate student
it does not necessarily mean that food is not available in the Campus. Food is available at
Student cafeteria, staff lounge, and supermarket and at Bate shops and cafes. Accessing the
food from student cafeteria is possible if you or your sponsor paid for meal card, you access
other foods through buying. Access is defined as “the ability of an individual to use a
particular resource”. Here resource is money. This means if you don’t have money or meal
card (which you buy by money) you cannot access food in or around the Campus. Still you
can claim for or appeal to your friends or university body to get food. E.g. of claims are
borrowing money, that is only possible if people trust you and you have capacity to repay.
 You may have right to appeal to Student dean/service, which is only possible if there is law
or rule or regulation of the country or University that allows it.

What does this example tell us about increasing agricultural production? It tells us that an
increase in agricultural production is not necessarily meant that food is available for all rural
people or for all citizens in a given country. For example, assume the average increment of
Ethiopian agricultural production in 2014 is 40%. That increment could be made by small
number of rural farmers, who have access to means of production and due to favorable
ecosystem in specific area of the country. The rest of the farmers may not produce the food
due to absence of means of production (absence of land, labor etc.) and/or unfavorable
ecosystem (drought, disease, pest etc.) conditions. Thus the farmers access the food either
through buying or through claim; otherwise they will be starved to death. Buying is only
possible only if the farmers have other resources to sell or exchange such as livestock, labor
services, handcrafts etc. Farmers can claim for food only if there is such opportunities in
local social practices like from relatives, kinship etc. or if there is legal procedure or policy
that supports it. We wonder why starved people sometimes forced to migrate, simply they
find where they can access (e.g. daily laborer) or can claim food (e.g. food aid, begging).

This means as an academician, research, student and policy maker we should not only worry
about simplistic analyzing and presenting about average agricultural production change, but
also about complex issues of entitlements such as issue of ownership, access, claim, control
of different resources by individuals, or household or community.

(2) Employment creation: many scholars and policy makers perceive problem of rural people
as lack of employment or underemployment. Thus they suggest the solution for rural people
is to create job for everyone. However, in reality rural people are already toiling on multiple
activities day in and day out. Even in urban area we say somebody has job if he/she is
employed in formal sectors in public or private. However, in practice, most people are
already working different activities such selling in parents shop, taking children to school, in
barber, in family farm etc. in the other words, social scientists often consider formal
employment when analyzing employment status of individuals. However, scholars who have
contributed for origin of SRL approach, argue that any activity individuals do should be
 recognized for them. Because, when somebody does some activity, we should not measure
the achievement in terms of income, the achievement could be knowledge or skills, could be
creating access and claim to other non-monitory and social resources. E.g. if you support
your relatives, you are building social network that enables you to claim. Further, although
somebody earns money from some job, it could be short term, not continuous (sustainable) or
it may harm other resource of that person. E.g. some job may damage health (resource) of a
person while s/he is earning money and that money may not replace his/her health.

(3) Poverty-Line: poverty-line is about measurement of deprivation or dispossession of

individuals in terms of income (such as salary, wage, and consumption) mostly measured as
individual earning in number of US Dollar per day. In national policy, for example, if
Ethiopian poverty-line is one Dollar per day, the objective of the Government of Ethiopia
(GoV) is to raise incomes of majority of citizens above the line. However, poverty or
deprivation is often relative in rural society or even in any society. All people in the world
never measure poverty in terms of daily income of a person. When we say somebody is poor
or deprived of something we do not necessarily talk or indicate amount of money a person
earn.

We can indicate deprivation of a person in many attributes such as absence of relatives, less
respect from community, lack of clothing, house, food, income etc. e.g. the meaning or
criteria of poverty in Somali pastoralist around Jigjiga Town and Farmers around Haramaya
University is not the same. If it is absolute deprivation like famine, severe malnutrition that
kills people it is obvious, no need of measuring or comparing, it needs urgent action.

You may remember what happened in Ethiopia due to famine during Haile Selassie and
Dergi Regimes. That is real absolute deprivation people did not have means of production
and favorable natural conditions and had not any chance to access and claim food. Locally,
all people were deprived and nationally there was no policy and institution that facilitate
claim or there was no political will to do so. Thus many people were starved to death while
the world community had ample food to safe lives of those people. This is to say when it is
absolute poverty; it is already clear no need of analyzing further. When it comes to relative
 deprivation each community has its own criteria of how to measure poor or deprived person
and multidimensional, not single criterion of income. We must use community’s criteria to
get more realistic data and design relevant policy interventions in agricultural and rural
development.

To conclude, the three mode of thinking are common way of analyzing human welfare in
academics as well as in policy arena. However, they are very simplistic and straightforward that
easily fit into econometrics models. In fact, they satisfy academic criteria of publication and
promotion and policy makers can easily persuade the public that there is success in development
intervention. However, the three modes of thinking do not have capacity to explain the complex
reality of rural peoples’ means of living. Sustainable Rural Livelihood Approach has been
developed as alternative to the three mode of thinking. Let us Discussion the core meaning of
SRL in next unit. Before proceeding to next unit do the following activity 1.2.

Activity 1.2

Currently the running Ethiopian Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) is example of expanding
poor entitlement to food. But, who is entitled for it, what criteria is used to select deprived
beneficiaries? What kind of entitlement the beneficiaries gained through the program?
Learning Unit 2: Understanding concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

Sustainable Rural Livelihood concept was conceived by Chambers and Conway in 1992 to
challenge linear thinking (like three mode of thinking discussed in preceding unit) about
agricultural and rural development measurement in the developing nations. They have defined it
as follows
Livelihoods of small farmers in Africa (video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gICtxgfxMRA

'A livelihood comprises the capabilities,assets (including both material and social resources)
and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainablewhen it can cope with
and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both
now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base' (Chambers and Conway,
1992).

To easily capture the conceptual and practical meaning of SL Approach let us define each
concept by practical examples and we will finally link all concepts together to build full SRL
framework in use. Let us begin from Livelihood concept of capabilities.

1. Concept of Capabilities in SLA

The concept of capabilities is defined by AmartyaSen, who is economist and political

philosopher. He was also Nobel memorial prize winner in economics in 1998. He is one of the
influential thinkers in 20th and early 21st centuries about how to challenge global inequality in
development. Sen defines the concept of capabilities as

“A person’s ability to do valuable acts or reach valuable states of being; [that] represents the
alternative combinations of things a person is able to do or be” (Sen 1993).

From this definition capabilities are kinds of opportunities or freedoms that an individual has
reasons to value and able to achieve. We discussed already weakness in three modes of thinking
about how development outcome or human welfare or deprivation is measured. In the same vein,
Sen is the main challenger of the three mode of thinking. He defines capabilities approach
against poverty-line/income earning or evaluation in terms of income or commodity.

The most common mechanism that economists use to measure wellbeing or poverty level of an
individual is wealth (incomes or material gain analysis) and the subjective individual mental
reaction about his satisfaction (utility) with wealth (welfare analysis).

Sen argues that both methods of income and welfare analyses do not directly evaluate how well
someone’s life is going. They are rather indirect and each has limitations. Why? He says it is
because; all people do not have equal ability to convert income (money) to valuable activities or
in his term “functionings”. In terms of utility measurement, people may say we are okay while
they are suffering. The reason is that some people may adapt suffering and take the suffering as
“adaptive preference”. For example, small farmers around Haramaya campus may say “we have
good quality water”, but the water may not be pure and it is harming their health. However, since
they adapted it they say it is okay. Or they may shy to say the water is bad due to power
unbalance between the people and the experts or politicians.

What can be learnt from this concept?

Thus Sen’s capabilities approach (CA) is alternative measurement of human wellbeing. The main
argument is that when we evaluate wellbeing of a person, we should not see a person as means of
gaining income or economic growth. Why?

For example, if you work as shoe shiner, worker you may earn 200 Ethiopian Birr per day in
Ethiopia. In terms of income that is best and economists measure your wellbeing (quality of life)
in terms of that income. However, from capabilities approach’s view, what matters is not the
money you earn per day or per month. The CA evaluates whether the shoeshine work you are
involved is what you freely chosen and have reason to value or you are enforced to work as
shoeshine due to lack of freedom to choose other activities you value most than shoeshine? The
example is not to devalue shoeshine work, but, you have to consider how different society in
which we live perceives shoeshine person social status. E.g. what kind of social status
community gives to shoeshine person and how that person perceives him/herself due to the social
pressure. Do the community members let shoeshine person to marry their daughter, do they lend
money to shoeshine person, or all in all do they respect him as other social person.

This is to say that an individual in different communities/regions/countries has a kind of life s/he
values and want to be. So, CA focuses on a person, not on material gain. Thus CA argues that
when a development policy is designed it must consider diversity in what human beings value
and prevailing complicated social relations. E.g. Ethiopia has more 80 ethnic groups, which have
diverse values and hence, development policy must understand and appreciate that values.
Appreciation does not mean we should support harmful cultural practices of a community; rather
it is to say that we have to understand ‘why people do what they do from their point of view’ and
solve the problems accordingly without hurting their other values. For example, read the
hypothetical example in the box below and imagine what could happen if diversity of values is
not respected in a certain context.
Assume two households from different social groups in rural areas joined
agricultural project interventions, provided improved seeds, achieved equal
annual yield (20 quintals of cereals) as an outcome. One household is from
a 'respected' social group and the other is from 'disrespected' group. In the
process of project intervention, the one from respected group freely
interacted and different people seeking for any kind of support the
household may need. The one from disrespected group was feeling
humiliated, had less interaction with people and never sought for help from
others like the respected ones. Rather, the household was feeling socially
ashamed, but, struggled and achieved equal yield with respected one.

Lesson from this example: the two households achieved equal outcome or
“functioning”. If we only evaluate this outcome or functioning, we may
conclude that the two people are equal and that is all about equality.
However, if we evaluate the story behind the outcome of two households,
they have difference in terms of real freedom they had to choose and to do
what they values. The one from respected group had real freedom and did
what s/he valued. The one from disrespected group had not freedom to
choose and do what s/he values most. If he had equal capabilities with
respected one he may achieve more what s/he achieved.
To understand core tenet of CA, let us distinguish between capabilities and functionings.
Functioningsis defined as what a person is able to do (activities) or be as a result (status).
(‘Beings and doings’). For example, if you are able to eat balanced food (doing or activity), you
will enjoy the functioning of being well nourished (being or status). Some commonly
valuedfunctionings by human being are: Being able to live long [indicator in UN Human
Development Index(HDI)], being well-nourished, being healthy, being literate (indicator in
HDI), being well-clothed, being mobile, being able to take part in the life of the community,
being not to feel ashamed in community, being happy etc.
For almost all of human beings gaining combinations of the above functionings is better or
valued achievements in life. Thus capabilities approach then inform us that to analyze quality of
wellbeing of a person (1) freedom of the person to enjoy the combinations of the functionings
and his/her ability to choose what s/he has a reason to values.

The above example of the two households from different social groups explains the difference
between the capabilities and functionings. The functioning is the achievement or outcome
(yield). The capability is the freedom in choosing and doing that functioning or outcome. Thus if
we analyze capabilities rather than functiongs we can easily identify inequality, marginalization
and disadvantaged groups from agricultural and rural development interventions and take
corrective action for future.

Let us take another practical example to show real difference between capabilities and
functionings again:
Assume two persons (Person A and person B) did not eat enough food for 24 hours and thus they
are losing functioning of being well nourished. The person A is a victim of drought in pastoral
area of Ethiopia, while the person B is in Washington D.C. protesting against land grabbing in
Africa through 24 hours hunger strike in front of white House.
What we can learn from the above example is that although both persons lack the functioning of
being well nourished equally, the freedom and the ability they had to avoid being hungry is
central point. The person B has (freedom of choice plus ability) to avoid hunger, while the person
A cannot. This means for person B has done what he valued and hence it is noted as capability
for him/her. For person A, hunger was not his/her valued choice and thus it is noted as
incapability or capability failure that needs appropriate intervention.

What capability concept implies in SRL Approach?

The most important thing in human livelihood improvement is not material gain, but is freedom
people have to choose what they are actually able to be and do. Thus as (Chamber and Conway,
1991) have put it “the quality of life is seen in terms of valued activities and the ability to choose
and perform those activities”. Therefore, development is here defined as expansion of
capabilities such as education service; health service, democracy, gender and ethnic equality etc.

In the SRL capability is more about how poor rural people have freedom to choose and pursue
means of living, which they value. And their ability to recover from different challenges such as
shocks and stresses(see 3rd sub-section vulnerability context below) and continues to live the
daily life they have reason to prefer.

Activity 2.1

The work of Sen is to challenge the global word to evaluate human wellbeing or development
outcome from the lens of capabilities approach. His work has already become impetus for origin
of Human Development Index (HDI) and influenced 8 Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). Please, read meanings of HDI and MDGs reflect on to what extent Sen’s Capabilities
Approach is noticeable. Submit summary to your instructor!

2. Livelihood Assets or Capitals

The second concept in definition of SRL is Livelihood Assets or capitals. The following figure
depicts the pentagon surrounded by five livelihood assets (see example of each asset). The
pentagon can be taken as spider diagram. Assume that the rural poor people stand in the center of
the pentagon and making their living. And the distance between each angle of pentagon and the
poor people shows the amount of an asset available and accessible to poor to be utilized. As you
may see the irregular pentagon drawn by broken line inside the big pentagon it shows how the
assets shirk toward the poor. This means for example, broken line is almost flat to the side of
physical capitals or assets. That indicates the poor of that particular area have less physical assets
or less access to physical assets such as roads, telecom, agricultural technologies etc. if physical
assets are improved or accessed the pentagon expand outward to show how the poor got better
access to physical assets.
 Human Capital
Health, Nutrition, Education, Knowledge and
skills Capacity to work & Capacity to adapt etc.

Social Capital
Networks & connections
Patronage Natural Capital
Neighbourhoods kinship Land and produce
Relations of trust and mutual Water & aquatic resources
support Trees and forest products
Formal and informal roups Wildlife
Common rules and sanctions Life of the Poor
Wild foods & fibres
Collective representation
Mechanisms for participation in Biodiversity
decision-making Environmental services
Leadership etc.

Financial Capital
Physical Capital Ssavings Credit/debt
Infrastructure - transport - roads, vehicles, etc.
Secure shelter & buildings water supply & sanitation formal, informal, NGOs
Energy, communications Remittances, Pensions, Wages etc.
Tools and techology - tools and equipment for production seed,
fertiliser, pesticides traditional technology etc.

Figure 2: five Livelihood assets with examples

For example, the following two figures show example of shrinkage and expansion of livelihood
assets among small farmers due to difference in access to irrigation. It means that small farmers
who have access to irrigation facilities cultivate their land appropriately, sell surplus harvest to
earn finance asset, rent in additional plot of land (natural capital expanded), can hire extra labor
(human capital expanded), can develop good social relation like marriage (social capital
expanded) with neighbors and can buy house (physical capital expanded). Small farmers, who do
not have access to irrigation facilities, will face the inverse result (i.e. shrinkage of assets).

Small farmers who haven’t irrigation facilities Small farmers who have irrigation facilities

Figure 3: shrink and expansion of Livelihood Assets

What we can understand from concept of Livelihood Assets?

What are the other assets you must understand besides these 5 tangible material assets? Access
and claims are the most important intangible assets that are hidden in local social assets and in
external policies, institutions and processes (discussed below under sub-section 4).
As you may guess although all assets may be available in a given community or region, all
people may not have equal access and control over these assets. We already defined meaning of
access in preceding section. In social science, control means beyond access, it is when somebody
has full power over assets to decide on and to manage the way s/he wants.
Example: Small farmers in Ethiopia have right to access (i.e. use right) to land, but, they cannot
sell it. This means farmers do not have full control over assets. Especially, with growing
expansions/urbanization, farmers around urban areas fear that their land may be appropriated
soon. This indicates farmers have limited access to land or have no control over the land. This
makes farmers much more insecure and disincentive them to invest in the land for long term
vision. This access and control over assets may differ based on gender, ethnicity, age, etc. of
individuals in community or region or in country that must be considered during livelihood
analysis.

Here the farmers may be compensated huge about of money or other land as substitute. If you
evaluate land snatching from farmers and compensation through the lens of capabilities
approach (CA), the CA evaluates whether the snatching is what farmers value and whether
farmers have capabilities to use what they are compensated. This means for small farmers
cultivating is what they value and able to do. If they are given money, do they have capabilities
(do valuable acts or reach valuable states of being) with the money? This could mean although
farmers may wish to become businessmen, they do not have ability to do that. So, government
should not only give money to farmers, whom the land is appropriated, but also must develop
their capabilities to enable them to freely choose and do the other livelihoods they value other
than farming.

The meaning of claim is when you have chance of appealing for resources (such as food, land,
animal, moral etc.) you lost due to different reasons such as disaster, war, etc. collectively which
is called vulnerability context of assets (see next section). E.g. if a Boranapastoralist lost his
cattle herd (shock), he appeals to his relatives and get some number of cattle. That is possible
only if he is socially respected and has equal social status with other members of community. He
may also appeal to government food security department and NGOs, which depends on available
rights, powers, obligations, moral consents etc. in country policies, institutions and processes.
However, these possibilities differ again based on gender, age, ethnicity, religion etc. which is
also under changes, albeit the pace of change differ in different context. For instance, the above
cited example of Borana case we may realize that it is changing due to long term trends and
changesinsideand outsideBorana community.
From this you may understand that the livelihoods of the poor people is affected by
1. Diversity of assets: having only some assets without having the other assets will
negatively affect the livelihood.
2. Amount of assets: the more livelihood assets the better the livelihoods of the poor
3. Balance among the assets: for sustainability there should be balance among assets and
within each asset. E.g. if there is farm land and no water, it is challenging to cultivate
land. If there is huge financial (cash) asset and less natural asset (no land even to rent in),
where to invest the money could be challenging unless a person invest in non-farm
activities.
4. Access, control and claims are very important intangible assets needs to be considered to
analyze whether members of society have equal chance to use available resources.

All in all, A key tenet of SRLA about the assets is that these assets are not mutually exclusive, it
resultant interaction of these assets that determine people to choose what activities they can do
and what livelihood strategies they choose.

3. Vulnerability Contexts of the assets and indirecly life of the poor rural people

Vulnerability is very wide concept, which used in diffrent disciplines. For purspe of this course,
vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a an individual, or household or region is likely to
experience harm due to livelihood assets exposure to a hazard (shocks, seasonability, trends and
changes). Vulnerability meausres about what happened to poor peoples’ life at a given context or
condition. E.g. assume if flooding disater happens at Haramaya University, vulnerability is not
only about assessing level of hazard or damage occured. Rather vulnerability is much more about
undertanding people conditions or it is concerned about capabilities of people. This means
although people have equal amount of assets, they do not have equal capabilities. E.g. although
methrologiest broadcasted the probability of flooding at HU on Radio, all people do not listen to
radio or do not know language in which the information was braodcated.
What is condition for this example? It is about analysing level of preparedness of diffrent group
of people such as stduents (male, feamle), academicians, administrative staff, local farmers
(male/female/children) etc. Level of capcity to recover? Who is less likely to recover and hence
need external assistance? This depneds on avaiability and access to assets to an individuals.
Please, see the following figure and subsquent explanation of terms.

Vulnerability Context S

 6KRFNV Life of the Poor

 6HDVRQDOLW
\
 7UHQGV &KDQJ HV

Figure 4: velnurability contexts of livelhood assets

SHOCKS: there are a lot ofshocks in poor livelihood due to multitude of factor and actors. Such
as illness, disaster, economic, conflict, crop / livestock pests &diseases, Floods, droughts,
cyclones, Family deaths in, Violence or civil unrest etc.

SEASONALITY- when assets are affected due toseasonal variations. E.g. good rain means
better harvest. Then food supply is better. Small farmer could be food insecure when rain comes
late. Mostly Rainfall, climate,prices, production, health, employment depend of season.
TRENDS AND CHANGES- therre arelong term trends and changes that narrow livelihood
assets availability and access and even degrade its potential to be functional: best example are
population growth may deplete (quantity loss) and degrade (quality loss) natural resource base.
E.g. change in land size and soil fertility; forest depletion and degradation etc. some common
factors contributing long term trends and changes areclimate change, inflation, currency
devaluation, structural unemployment, poor governance, Environmental change,Technology,
Markets and trade, Globalisation.

According to Robert Chambers, vulnerability has been understood from two sides as explained
below.

 From an external side of shocks and stress: This means whether there are policies and
institutions that protect and help recover people from vulnerability. If someone is sick
(human capital loss) and has health insurance (strong formal institution), s/he easily go to
hospital for treatment by ambulance. Here, if physical capitals (hospital, ambulance, road,
and telecom) are not available, the person could not access the service.
 From an internal side of an individual or household defenselessness due to lack of means to
cope with hazards. E.g. if somebody is sick (human capital loss) and does have not money
(no financial asset) and has no relatives (social capital) to whom s/he may appeal, s/he cannot
to go to available hospital. Thus, s/he may easily die from simple illness.

Further Reading
Best reference for further understanding of social vulnerability concept in SRLA.

Cannon et al. (2004) social vulnerability, sustainable livelihoods and disasters:

http://www.nirapad.org/admin/soft_archive/1308222298_Social%20Vulnerability-
%20Sustainable%20Livelihoods%20and%20Disasters.pdf
Adams, W.M. 2009. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing
World, 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.
4. Policies, Institutions & Processes

In the second sub-section of this learning unity, we have discussed the five Livelihood Assets.
Hope you understood that it is resultant interaction and transformation of these assets that
determine the way poor rural people live. We also touched that although these assets are
available at local levels, all people may not have equal access to and control over these assets.
For E.g. you may discuss land use policy known as “land tenure system” of Ethiopia. Generally,
any country in the world has its own policies, formal institutions and processes that enable or
disable rural people or any citizen’s access to and control over available assets. Especially,
natural asset/resources (e.g. land, water, mines, and oils) and financial asset (e.g. credit system)
are the key assets in making or transforming living of people, if they are fairly accessible to all
citizens.

Likewise, if you observe local communal cultural practices on the available assets, each
community has its own informal institutions and local processes on how to regulate community’s
member’s accesses to and controls over local assets. The local communities practice the rules
and regulations irrespective of national policies, formal institutions and processes. However,
there is always either divergence or convergence between the national policy practice and
community practices.

Example: If you go to BabileWoreda and observe some Kebeles, the communities are settled
based on tribe and share the land accordingly. This means for instance even if Tribe-A has
abundant farmland, the member of Tribe-B may not access it. However, this is against Ethiopian
land tenure policy since it says all citizens have equal right on accessing the land.

From this you may also realize that even the members of a household (husband, wife, sons,
daughters, and grandmother/father) of a given rural household may not get equal access to
household’s resources/assets. E.g. wife may have access to and control over animal products like
milk, egg, while husband has control over the animals. In terms of human asset development,
culturally sons may be sent to school while daughters may not be.
 From the above discussion, you may learn that when you study about problem of rural
community you must thinking beyond availability of the assets. Because; the simple availability
of assets does not guarantee that all members of community or all citizens of nation use the
assets without difficulty. Thus, when you analyze rural livelihood, you must critically consider
impacts of local cultural practices and policies and institutional processes on arranging access
and control mechanisms on available assets and how that mechanisms enable or disable each
member of rural communities to use the assets. Since some of you do know not meaning of
policy, institution and process, see the following definitions.

Policy: In social science, policy has no clear meaning, which you may learn in other module. For
the purpose of this module, policy is statements that inform civil servants, politicians and
ordinary citizens what course of action should be taken to achieve some development objective
or to solve some problem. The policy statements are prepared by either few people, who are
responsible at top level or through participation of many actors from bottom to top. Policy is
approved by institutions. For example, there is policy for education, land, road, mining, health
etc. For your easy understanding, for e.g. Ethiopia has education policy statements prepared by
experienced experts and approved by parliament (institution). Before approval the paper was
called policy draft, after approved is called official education policy. The role of leading the
education policy implementation is given to Ministry of Education (MoE). However, the
direction of implementation goes from MoE to each Regional Bureaus- then to -Zonal Education
Office- then to –Woreda Education Office- finally to – schools in Kebeles/Towns. For
Universities, the command is directly from MoE to Universities. Here process of command goes
in the organizational structure or bureaucratic structure. Those who work in the structure are
called public workers or bureaucrats or civil servants. The education policy gives mandatory
responsibility of implementation to the bureaucrats, but, the policy experts, student parents and
NGOs play the key roles. All in all, you see many policies of government at different tiers of
governances (e.g. in Ethiopia Federal-Regional-Zonal-Woreda), of NGOs from different
countries, of international agencies like United Nations, World Bank, IMF etc. that descent from
top to bottom through unfolded organizational structures to implement what policy of a given
issue says at local arena.
Institution: again there is no universally agreed definition of institution.Institution can be
defined as a group of organizations. E.g. we often say ‘higher education institutions’ to mean
‘group of universities’. Or we mostly use organization and institution interchangeably. Here
institution is “rules of the game” formal laws, rules, regulations and agreements that are formally
endorsed by different official bodies or informal rules, regulations and agreements made by
communites to ease uncertainity in human interactions when every individuals run to making
living through different activites and strategies. Scoones (1999) defines instituion as follows;

“institutions are the social cement which link stakeholders to access to capital of different kinds
to the means of exercising power and so define the gateways through which they pass on the
route to positive or negative [livelihood] adaptation”

Please, remeber core meaning of soft system thinking and meaning of institution has similarity
with it. E.g. HU has Legislation, which is approved by HU senate memebers. When needed it
can be amended based on change in contexts (soft system). For instance, to make it very clear
to you, there is forest policy that states how we can conseve, manage and sustain forests as well
as there is law that states nature of punishments for whose who violate policy statement (what
policy says). E.g what is punishment for who cut trees.

Processes: This is about how organizational structures (hard ware) and institutions (soft ware)
interact to give intended functions at different levels. The process is concerned about whether the
best policy statement and the best law written on the papers are put into practices. This depneds
on how orgnaizational structures are designed to outreach the citizens of a county and how
institutions are enforced (acted upon). E.g. Ethiopia has been conducting many structural reforms
like governance decentralization, budget decentralization, Business Process Reegineering (BPR)
etc. to improve efficiencies of public sevice deliveries. Here, the process is very complex and
coflicting where different people from experts, politicians and local people come together to
perform overlaping activities.
For example HU has been implementing BPR to improve bureacratic performance of the
university. Especially, there have been lots of structural reforms on reshufling adminstartive
wokers and changing modes of teaching and learning deliveries. If that structural reform to bring
differences, there should be institutional changes such as workers attitudes, norms and values etc.

5. Livelihood Strategies

A livelihood strategy is about “what do rural people do?” by combining (a) assets accessible
to them plus (b) vulnerability context plus (c) policies, institutions and processes.
Based that Scholars divide Livelihoods strategies into four categories defined as follows.
A. Agricultural intensification: increasing productivity per unit area through investment
(improved varieties, fertilizer, etc.) Or increases in labour inputs (e.g. mechanization).
Farmers use this if they have access to financial capital (own money of credit), human
capital (skills & knowledge) and have access to physical capital like road and transport to
market.
B. Agricultural extensification: is expanding farmland size. This mostly happens in more
traditional farming areas where land is abundant, but other assets like improved farm inputs
and human capitals are not efficient.
C. Diversification: is combination of different farm and non-farm activities. E.g. some people
may have plot of farmland, work as daily laborer, involve in petty trade etc. based on
season. Diversification concept is very wide; please refer to (Garrity et al, 2012 accessible
online see references of part 3 of the module).
D. Migration: people can be pushed (push factors) from where they are; e.g. migrate due to
vulnerability e.g. conflict, drought, earth quick etc. Or people may be pulled (pull factors)
by the place they are migrating to. E.g. many Africans migrate to Europe by being pulled by
better life they hear in Europe. Rural urban migration is also mostly pull factors.
Pastoralists’ mobility is both push and pull factors.

6. Livelihoods outcomes

Finally, what people want to achieve (end result) through pursuing different strategies? In fact
this depends on contexts and hence, rural people may choose one of the above strategies or
combination of strategies. However, if the context is better and people are successful, they want
to gain the following outcomes;
More income; more sustainable use of the Natural Resource base; increased well-being;
protected rights; Recover dignity; Reduced vulnerability; Improved food security etc.
Moreover, what people achieve could be self-esteem, security, happiness etc. based on the views
(Scoones, 1999). Please, the following figure 5 for full SRL Framework drawn from SRL
definition.

However, when rural people have limited access to assets; vulnerable to different shocks (e.g.
drought, famine,) and no supportive policies, institutions and processes the livelihood outcomes
are miseries such malnutrition, hunger, death, natural resource base depletion etc.
Figure 5: Sustainable Rural Livelihood Framework when definition is in displayed as framework
Learning Unit 3: Implications of SRL Framework for Development analysis and policy
practices

Introduction
In the preceding unit, you have acquainted with core concept of SRL. We hope you understood
that livelihoods strategies rural people choose depend on accessible livelihood assets,
vulnerability contexts and policies, institutions and processes of a given geographiclocation at
time. Then what SRL approach/framework tells us about how to change our thinking in
agricultural and rural development planning and interventions and in analysis of livelihoods
outcomes from therein? The general goal of this learning unit is to answer these broad questions.
Learning objectives
After completion of this learning unit, you will be able to understand SRL Approach/ Framework
as tool for
 analyzing livelihoods outcomes or development outcomes
 development planning
 development interventions

Learning outcomes
After completion of this learning unit, you will be able to use SRL Approach/ Framework as tool
for
 analyzing livelihoods outcomes or development outcomes
 development planning
 development interventions

1. Fundamentals of SRL: Capability, equity and sustainability

The forefathers of SRL concept, Chambers and Conway (1991), argue that the three concepts of
capability, equity and sustainability are fundamentals of SRL approach. They states
“capability, equity and sustainability combine in the concept of sustainable livelihoods”. The
three concepts are defined in SRL approach as follows;
 (a) Capabilities: the concept has already been discussed in detail in the last learning unit. As
a reminder livelihoods capabilities is about ability and available of opportunities to
individuals/households/regions use available livelihood assets; ability to cope with
shocks and stresses without losing basic functionings.

(b) Equity: is about justice in distribution of available livelihoods assets, capabilities, and
opportunities irrespective of social differences of people such as sex, age, gender,
ethnicity, caste etc. By and large, it is about abolishing discriminations against humanity
based on social differences.

(c) Sustainability: concept of sustainability has different theoretical and practical meanings
for different people based on the respective discipline, which we already touched. From
SRL perspective; environmental and social sustainability are very important.
Environmental sustainability is about human beings livelihoods strategies e.g. intensive
agriculture, mining, may lessen degradation of renewable natural resources (e.g. water,
air, soil pollutions and forest losses) and wisely use non-renewable resources (e.g.
minerals, oils) for long term visions. Social sustainability is “ability to maintain and
improve livelihoods while maintaining or enhancing local and global assets and
capabilities that livelihoods depend.”(Chambers and Conway, 1991).

Analytically and/or practically, the three concepts can be grasped as “means or input” to achieve
some end (livelihood outcome) and can be grasped as “end or outcome” that livelihoods try to
achieve by using other means. E.g. livelihoods strategies that someone follows may enhance him
to develop his capabilities (end, e.g. gaining skills). The capabilities (as a means, gained skills)
may enhance a person to achieve decent livelihoods outcome. In terms of equity, safeguarded
minimum equity in household or community enhance for better livelihoods for all (end), equity
in livelihoods assets access is precondition (a means) to enhance superior livelihoods for all as
well.

To be rigorous in development practices, the above three concepts should be mutually supportive
of each other. This means any of the three concepts should not be comprised to achieve one of
them; rather all the three should be achieved in balanced way. E.g. if all members of given
communities have equal access to natural resources that is equity, but that resources may not be
sustainable unless there is institution (informal and/or formal) that manages the sources to be
used wisely for long term.

Further, although all people have equal chance to use resources, all people may not have equal
capability to use. Thus, all three concepts should be well considered in development planning
and interventions to forge the mechanism of enhancing mutually supportive context…to achieve
sustainable Livelihoods. The analysis should also be cognizant of the imperative of mutuality of
the three concepts, while even analyzing one of the three concepts.

3.1. SRL framework for analyzing livelihoods outcomes or development outcomes

SRL approach or Framework is commonly used for analytical purpose in agricultural and rural
livelihoods of developing nations. According to scholars, the SRL is holistic framework that
comprises of context specific multiple elements from different disciplines and hence, it is very
challenging to forward universal methods of livelihoods assets, strategies, and outcomes analysis
under the dynamics policies and institutional contexts. However, when one wants to use SRL
framework for analysis of sustainable livelihoods, the first principal question must be come in
the mind of investigator, as Scoones (1999) has stated, is
Given a particular context (of policy setting, politics, history, agro-ecology and socio-
economic conditions), what combination of livelihood resources (different types of
‘capital’) result in the ability to follow what combination of livelihood strategies
(agricultural intensification/extensification, livelihood diversification and migration)
with what outcomes? Of particular interest in this framework are the institutional
processes (embedded in a matrix of formal and informal institutions and rganizations)
which mediate the ability to carry out such strategies and achieve (or not) such
outcomes.
The above statement is too long. But, if you had understood the preceding learning unit, it will be
very easy to you to comprehend its message. However, is it possible for a researcher or
researchers to analyze all elements of framework (i.e. context, livelihood resources, strategies,
and outcomes and institutional processes) in-depth at once? The answer is not necessarily; rather
it depends on the objective of analysis. However, what is very critical is that we must be
cognizant of the situation of all elements, when we even deeply focus on a single element. For
example, you want to conduct MSc thesis research on “Nexus of rural household food security
and livelihood strategies in Haramayaworeda”. You must measure sampled households’ food
security status and identify livelihoods strategies and describe the results quantitatively and/or
qualitatively. However, to analyze you study or to link your result with wider locale, you should
understand context, livelihood resources, and institutional processes of study area. Why so?
 Because, you should know the past and present “context” of study area. Thus, you must
review the “context” as background of studies and you can link it with your result to
indicate the trend
 Since households’ livelihood strategies choice depends on livelihood assets/resource
access and availability, you must know available and access assets to households. If there
is weakness in livelihood strategies choices, you may argue in your analysis it could be
because of resource availability and/or access challenges.
 Since existing institutional processes may enable or disable the rural households to
pursue livelihood strategies and outcomes (i.e. food security for our case) they value,
understanding institutional environment will help you link your study result with
institutional context.
Notice that at assessing livelihoods strategies and food security the unit of analysis even could be
individuals or household or community, or region. It depends on nature of research to choose
what is relevant. From this remember about systemic thinking approach and read the following
statement from (Hawkins, 2009).
In development thinking, livelihood refers to the way people make a living, and analyzing
livelihood systems is the analysis of the factors involved in the way in which people make
a living. We speak of “livelihood systems”, because the livelihood provided for is an
emergent property of a coherent and interrelated set of activities that are implemented
within a broader environment.

Activity 3.1
Observe the following Pictures A, B, C and D. What kind of livelihoods strategies you observe?
To what extent the observable livelihoods strategies help you speculate what kinds of livelihoods
assets are available or accessible and what kind of livelihood outcomes are possible? Describe
possible vulnerability context of each livelihood strategy.

Pictures of different Livelihoods Strategies in Ethiopia

 A B

C
D

© Alemu Sokora

For further understanding about SRL framework, please, refer the following figure and read the
provided references at the end of this learning unit.
Figure 6: Sustabale Rural Livelihoods: A framework for Analysis (Scoones, 1999)
3.2. SRL framework for development planning and interventions

In the past (from 1950s to 1980s), rural development interventions in developing nations used to
focus on agricultural development through transfer of new and improved technologies to small
farmers. This means agriculture was seen as the only means of livelihoods and all rural people
were seen as farmers. However, according to SRL framework, before any intervention we should
go beyond the simplistic categories and understand individuals or households or communities
various livelihoods assets, strategies and outcomes based on vulnerability contexts and policies
and intuitional processes dynamics. Based on different contexts, the framework suggests
multiple intervention points are possible. However, this is not straightforward since what is
sustainable livelihood means is different for different stakeholders. Thus, during problem
analysis and planning, there should be active participation of stakeholders to debate on what
sustainable livelihood is and what should be prioritized. Please, see the following box for
principles of SRL.

Box 3: Principles of SRL

1. People-centered: beginning by understanding peoples’ priorities and livelihood
strategies.
2. Responsive and participatory: responding to the expressed priorities of poor people.
3. Multi-level: ensuring micro-level realities inform macro-level institutions and processes.
4. Conducted in partnership: working with public, private and civil society actors.
5. Sustainable: environmentally, economically, institutionally, and socially.
6. Dynamic: ensuring support is flexible and process-oriented, responding to changing
livelihoods.
7. Holistic: reflecting the integrated nature of people’s lives and diverse strategies.
8. Building on strengths: while addressing vulnerabilities.
For Example, for a given community we must consider expanding capabilities, embedding equity
and enhancing sustainability in livelihoods at different scales like at individual or household or at
community or regional level. Because, we already discussed that irrespective of availability of
livelihoods resources there could be inequalities within single household such as discrimination
against women, girls and children or disabled individuals etc.
 Expanding livelihoods assets such as soil and water management, reforestation, health
services, education and skills training, constructing infrastructures, financial services
(loans, credits), cooperatives etc. in equitable and sustainable manners
  Livelihoods assets may be available, the problems could be access. Then the intervention
should focus on how to change organizational structures and institutional arrangements at
top and/or bottom. E.g. flexibility in public and private services in efficiency,
effectiveness, less corruption, etc. This is biggest challenge of Africa. We have resources,
but, we could not use it due to institutional failures to delivery services.
 Considering Non-agricultural livelihoods strategies like migration, pretty trade, laborer
etc. that could be better than agriculture in terms of improving livelihoods outcomes.
By and large, using SRL in Planning and intervention is not simple. However, SRL encourages
development actors to analyze problems in integrative and participatory tools that help display
rich pictures of different views, conflicting interests and possible solutions.

References and further reading to understand concept of SRL

Chamber and Conway (1991) Sustainable Rural Livelihood: Practical concept for 21 century
(most cited 2704 times until Dec. 13. 2014) https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Dp296.pdf

Scoones (1999) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods a Framework for Analysis (cited 2329 until Dec.
12, 2014)
http://mobile.opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3390/Wp72.pdf?
sequence=1
Part 3: Main Farming Systems in SSA, suggested SRL pathways out of poverty and future
drivers of FS

In the preceding part of the module, you are already familiar with the rationales for origin of FS
and evolution of SRL Approaches. You already understood implication of SRL framework for
livelihoods analysis, planning and interventions. In this part, we will look at the current
applicability of FS and SRL concepts in SSA small farmers’ context.

After completion of this last part of module, you will be able to;

 Understand current meaning of farming systems in SSA context

 Identify the main SSA farming systems based on specified criteria and propose relevant
livelihood strategies as pathways out of poverty for each farming systems

 analyze context specific farming systems by the aid of ICT tools like GPS and plan
relevant development interventions

Learning Unit 1: Current meaning of Farming system in SSA context

While FS has been defined differently by different scholars for the last four decades, the current
definition of farming system(Garrity et al, 2012) is;

Population of farm households, often a mix of small and larger farms, that as a group
have broadly similar patterns of livelihood and consumption patterns, and constraints
and opportunities, and for which similar development strategies and interventions would
be appropriate. Often, such systems share similar agro-ecological and market access
conditions

As you may understand from definition the concepts of system thinking and Sustainable
Livelihoods are already combined and display complexity of African farmers’ means of living.
From the definition you may understand that individual household farm system has its own
unique features due to context specificity of local institutions and policies processes and
differences in livelihood assets/resource accesses and availabilities. The following figure
7depicts diagramed illustration of Farming System, which is determined by many internal and
external factors that in turn dictate the household to decide on what livelihood strategies and
outcomes are possible or impossible.

Figure 7: Graphic representation of Farming system (source: Dixon et al, 2001)

The figure displays farm household decision-making practices on resources, production,

consumption and investment in cognizance of internal and external factors. We hope that this
figure is not new for you. The external factors of FS that are shown on the left side of the figure
are almost what are presented as policies, institutions and process on SRL framework.

Concerning with internal factors of FS, we have already discussed that those resources are
livelihood assets that mostly determine livelihood strategies choice of a household. Here, crops,
trees, animals, fish, household, processing and off-farm works are livelihood activities, which are
already subsumed under livelihoods strategies in SRL framework. E.g. cropping is livelihood
activity, but, livelihood strategy is about how to produce more harvest, how to generate income
from harvest, how to reduce risk (vulnerability) of harvest to drought etc. That is when
household choose intensification/extensification or diversification or migration or combinations
of these strategies it is based on both internal and external factors. E.g. external factors like
access to technology and market outlet and information of market prices influence the household
whether to intensify or diversify crops or diversify toward animal farming or diversify to non-
farm livelihood strategies or combinations of them etc.

The contemporary developments in the field of natural resource management also encourage us
to look into ecosystem services. The ecosystem service concept (see definition in the box below)
also show us how the socio-economic and biophysical factors described above determine the
ecosystem service obtain which is also associated with a particular farming system. For example,
communities' interactions with forest area is mediated by prevailing institutional arrangement
affecting tangible (e.g. timber) and intangible (regulation of micro-climate) from the forest.

Currently, the demand for ecosystem services has become a trade-offs among services have
become the rule. For example, a country can increase food supply by converting a forest to
agriculture, but in so doing it decreases the supply of services that may be of equal or greater
importance, such as clean water, timber, ecotourism destinations, or flood regulation and drought
control.
 Box: Brief definition of ecosystem and ecosystem services

Ecosystem - "An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and

microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as
a functional unit. Humans are an integral part of ecosystems. Ecosystems
vary enormously in size; a temporary pond in a tree hollow and an ocean
basin can both be ecosystems".

Ecosystem services - "Ecosystem services are the benefits people

obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food
and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods, drought, land
degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soil formation and
nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual,
religious and other nonmaterial benefits".
Source: World Resource Institute (2013)

From the above description it is apparent that ecosystem has service or de-service to farming
system/ agriculture. This is, generally, presented in figure below
Fig. – Ecosystem services and dis-services to and from agriculture. Solid arrows indicate
services, whereas dashed arrows indicate dis-services. Source: Wei et al. (2007)
To conclude, the scholars, who have analysed farming system for many years, agree that these
internal and external factors have been and will be determinants of characteristics, performance
and future evolution farming systems in developing nations like SSA. Again, the scholars
category these factors into two: biophysical and socio-economics factors.

Biophysical factors: biological (factors that affect the health and vitality of plants and animals
and the quality of harvested products such as diseases, pests, weeds etc.) and physical
(conditions of climate, water, and land).

Socio-economics factors: social (norms and customs related to livelihood asset ownership and
use, labor division by sex and age, religious practices etc. that influence social dos and don’ts in
day-to-day life). Economics (factors are market and market infrastructures, new technologies,
wages rate, extension service etc. that influence commercialization of farming system).

According to scholars, the biophysical factors more likely define possible farming systems in a
given geographic location of developing nations, while socio-economics factors are real
determinant of actual farming systems in practice at particular time. What does this mean? E.g.
swine and potato farming could be possible enterprises in Haramaya Woreda in terms of
biophysical suitability. However, community never practices swine farming due to social
factor (religion) and potato production may not be economical due to cheap market price
(economic factor). So that, socio-economics factors intensely impact what community really
practices.

Activity 1.1

Read the following articles and submit a summary of maximum of 10 pages to your instructor

Swinton, S.M., F. Lupi, G. P. Robertson and S. K. Hamilton 2007. Ecosystem services and
agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64:245-252.

Power, A. G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal British Society 365:2959-2971.

Bennett, E. M., G.D. Peterson and L. J. Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among
multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394-1404.
Learning Unit 2: Farming system classification in SSA

The SSA farming systems classification has been made by Dixon et al (2001) in order to pinpoint
best fit agricultural and rural development strategies and interventions in accordance with
incumbent farming system of given location. To do so, Dixon et al have used the following
criteria to classify and Garrity et al, (2012) have capitalized on the former and added some
details.

1. available natural resource base, including water, land, grazing areas and forest;
climate, of which altitude is one important determinant; landscape, including
slope; farm size, tenure and organization; and

2. dominant pattern of farm activities and household livelihoods, including field crops,
livestock, trees, aquaculture, hunting and gathering, processing and off-farm activities;
and taking into account the main technologies used, which determine the intensity of
production and integration of crops, livestock and other activities.
Accordingly, thirteen (13) major farming systems in Africa have been briefly described in the following box. Please, also refer to the
subsequent map-1 of African Farming systems.

1. Maize Mixed Farming Systems. In sub-humid and humid areas, dominated by maize with legumes. Located in East, Central and
Southern Africa. Livelihood derived principally from maize, tobacco, cotton, legumes, cassava, cattle, goats, poultry and off-farm
work.
2. Agro-Pastoral Farming Systems. In semi-arid areas, dominated by sorghum, millet and livestock. Located in West, East and
Southern Africa. Livelihoods derived from sorghum, some maize, pearl millet, pulses, sesame, cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, off-
farm work.
3. Cereal-Root Crop Mixed Farming Systems. In sub-humid areas, distinguished by two starchy staples alongside roots and tubers.
Located in West and Central Africa. Livelihoods derived principally from sorghum, maize, millet, cassava, yams, legumes and
cattle.
4. Root and Tuber Crop Farming Systems. In lowland areas where systems are dominated by roots and tubers without a major tree
crop. Located in West and Central Africa. Livelihoods are derived principally from yams, cassava, legumes and off-farm work.
5. Highland Perennial Farming Systems. In moist highland areas with good market access above 1400m asl, with a dominant
perennial crop, either food or commercial. Located in East Africa. Livelihoods are derived from diverse activities including tea,
coffee, banana (or enset in Ethiopia), maize, beans, sweet potato, cassava, livestock (including dairy) and off-farm work.
6. Highland Mixed Farming Systems. In cool highland areas above 1600 m.a.s.l. with temperate cereals and livestock. Located in
East and Southern Africa. Livelihoods are derived from wheat barley, teff, peas, lentils, broad beans, rape, potatoes, sheep, goats,
livestock, poultry and off-farm work
7. Humid Lowland Tree Crop Farming Systems. In humid lowland areas where commercial tree crops have replaced forest and
provide more than one quarter of household cash income. Located in West and Central Africa, Livelihoods are derived from
coffee, cocoa, rubber and oil palm, as well as yams, cassava and maize, and off-farm work.
8. Pastoral Farming Systems. In arid areas, dominated by livestock. Located in West, East and Southern Africa. Livelihoods
derived from cattle, camels, sheep, goats, some cereal crops and off-farm work
9. Fish-based Farming Systems. Proximity to major water bodies and fish a major source of livelihoods. Located in all parts of
Africa, predominantly along the coast and around major lakes. Livelihoods derived from fish, coconuts, cashew, banana, yams,
fruit, goats, poultry and off-farm work
10. Forest-Based Farming Systems. In humid lowland heavily forested areas. Located in Central Africa. Livelihoods are largely
derived from subsistence food crops including cassava, maize, beans, cocoyam and taro, and off-farm work.
11. Irrigated Farming Systems. Large scale contiguous irrigation schemes, with virtual absence of rain fed agriculture. (Small scale
schemes are visualized as part of the above systems). Predominantly located in low rainfall areas. Livelihoods are largely derived
from commercial crops notably rice, cotton and vegetables, as well as cattle and small ruminants.
12. Sparse Arid Pastoralism and Oases Farming Systems. Arid areas with average length of growing period less than 30 days.
Located in West, North-east and Southern Africa. Livelihoods derived from date palms, cattle, small ruminants and off-farm work,
with some scattered irrigated crops and vegetables,
13. Urban and Peri-Urban Farming Systems. In the center or the fringes of cities. Located in all parts of Africa. Livelihoods are
derived from diverse activities including vegetable and dairy production
Source (adapted from Garrity et al, 2012)
 Source: Garrity et al,
2012
Activity 2.1

Please, read Garrity et al and Dixon et al and to what extent ICT helpedcategorization of FS? Do
you think it is possible to use ICT tools to classify the FSs for near future? Discuss and submit
the summary to your instructor!

The above classification is not exhaustive; there could be hundreds of farming systems in Africa.
However, the micro-analysis is up to development planners and policy makers of each country
and region in Africa to add and/or deduct other criteria of classification and further classify the
farming systems based on context. Thus, this classification is basics guideline for further
advancement of farming systems classification so as to forge best fit agricultural and rural
development intervention accordingly. For example, within crop livestock mixed farming
specific locality can be categorized as groundnut livelihood zone (for instance Babile Gursum
livelihood zone as a case in Eastern Ethiopia). In this example, it is relatively precise showing
the importance of groundnut (relative to other crops) in the farming system of Babile and
Gursum districts.

In general, the above described classification, mainly based on biophysical factors, which less
precise to inform development intervention. For example, it does not precisely inform potential
and challenges embedded in a particular farming system associated with socio-economic and
institutional determining human interaction with natural resources (biophysical environment). In
other words, we need to understand that biophysical-based classification farming system is a
necessary step (or part of a required information component) and should not be considered as a
final means to inform development intervention. Among alternative approach to overcome such
weakness is ecosystem approach. We hope that from your reading from previous unit's reading
activity (activity 1.1), by now you have deep understanding of ecosystem concept as it applies to
farming system analysis. From this reading, for example, you know that the goal of Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the
contribution of ecosystems to human well-being without undermining their long-term
productivity. Remember that the framework of MA also enable us to generate rich information
that enable to understand potential in particular setting as well as required intervention for
development a particular farming system with minimum negative impact.

As you could see from the above discussion criteria of classification and names of farming
systems, the main distinctive mechanism of identifying one farming system from the other is
biophysical factors or availability of natural assets. That is because; biophysical factors reflect a
given farming system (i) potential for poverty reduction; (ii) potential for agricultural growth.
This better explained from the perspective ecosystem approach. For example, using the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework (see Box 1) the biophysical factors could
be classified in terms of ecosystem services embedded in a specific context and thus accordingly
potential opportunities and challenges can be assessed to inform intervention aiming at poverty
reduction through agricultural growth. This can be seen taking simple example (see Box 2) from
the framework indicated below showing how agricultural land management to maximize
provisioning service (food, fiber and fuel) depends on support and regulating service of the
ecosystem to achieve human well being. Using such framework we may assess areas that need
intervention to improve agricultural productivity.

Box 1: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Conceptual Framework

(Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003)

Changes in factors that indirectly affect ecosystems, such as population,

technology, and lifestyle (upper right corner of figure), can lead to changes in
factors directly affecting ecosystems, such as the catch of fisheries or the
application of fertilizers to increase food production (lower right corner). The
resulting changes in the ecosystem (lower left corner) cause the ecosystem
services to change and thereby affect human well-being. These interactions can
take place at more than one scale and can cross scales. For example, a global
market may lead to regional loss of forest cover, which increases flood
magnitude along a local stretch of a river. Similarly, the interactions can take
place across different time scales. Actions can be taken either to respond to
negative changes or to enhance positive changes at almost all points in this
framework (black cross bars).
Fig. Classification of ecosystem services from the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment

The study premise is that Agricultural lands typically are managed to

maximize provisioning services, but demand many supporting and regulating
services to do so. Dark arrows indicate the flow of these services that are the
primary topic of this paper.
Source: Wei et al, 2007
Learning Unit 3: African Farming systems and Livelihoods strategies to facilitate pathways
out of poverty

As you may imagine aforesaid 13 and more farming systems of different geographic locations
have difference in policies and institutional contexts as well as availability and accessibility of
livelihood assets. Thus, farming systems of a given location has unique constraints and
opportunities, which determine a household or an individual to choose different livelihood
activities and strategies at different space and time.

For E.g. assume in Haramaya Woreda households who used to cultivate only sorghum five years
ago, may now cultivate maize or khat or diverse crops due to change in biophysical factors or
livelihood assets and/or policies and institutional dynamics. This means you must know that
there have been a lot of change in woreda such as market access, extension service delivery,
rainfall pattern, family size, land size etc. that influence the households or individuals to change
their livelihood activities and strategies.

Based on these constraints and opportunities in farming systems categorized above, the scholars
have identified the following five main household livelihoods strategies to improve pathways out
of poverty and hunger (Dixon et al, 200; Garrity et al, 2012).

1. Intensification of existing production patterns;

2. Diversification of production and processing;

3. Expanded farm or herd size [extensification];

4. Increased off-farm income, both agricultural and non-agricultural; and

5. A complete exit from agricultural production within a particular farming system

As we discussed the livelihood strategies in preceding part of module, we hope that the above
livelihood strategies are not unfamiliar to you. Thus, we are not discussing their meanings here.
However, since the meaning of the strategies is very wide and multidimensional, please, refer to
(Garrityet al, 2012 page 10-11 or Dixon et al., 2011 page 13-14) as you could be from non-
agricultural education background. Notice that these strategies are not mutually exclusive and
farmers’ household may practices combinations of strategies within a given farming system at
specific space and time. With that in mind, we would like to further dwell on intensification
using a model that suggests how to make it sustainable.

Intensification
Intensification along with its different forms is not new as a livelihood strategy, but the emerging
concern is how to shift from conventional intensification, with profound negative impact on the
environmental and social resources, to sustainable intensification with minimal or 'no' impact on
the environmental and social resource on which it relies. In this regard, the Montpellier Panel,
2013, has suggested Sustainable Intensification: A Anew Paradigm for African Agriculture.
This paradigm, Sustainable Intensification, envisages using pathway that strives to utilize the
existing land to produce greater yields, better nutrition and higher net incomes while reducing
over reliance on pesticides and fertilizers and lowering emissions of harmful greenhouse gases. It
also has to do this in a way that is both efficient and resilient and contributes to the stock of
natural environmental capital.
As the authors indicate none of the components of this paradigm are new. They comprise
techniques of ecological and genetic intensification, within enabling environments created by
processes of socio-economic intensification. However, it is new in the way in which the
components are combined as a framework to find appropriate solutions to Africa’s food and
nutrition crisis. The following figures 8 & 9 show the theoretical model and practical approach to
Sustainable Intensification
Figure 8: Theoretical model of sustainable intensification (Source: Montpellier Panel, 2013 page
11)

Socioeconomic Ecological intensification Genetical intesification

intensification intercropping higher yields
integrated pest managment improving nutrition
creating enabling environment
conservation farming resilience to disease and pest
market
organic farming resilience to climate change
building social capital
creating sustainable livelihoods
building human capital
creating sustainable livlihoods
Figure: Practical approach to sustainable intensification (Source: Montpellier Panel, 2013 page
14)

Further, please, watch video on Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Systems for

Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (Published online on Oct 24, 2014, CIMMYT) by
clicking the following link;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlszRU2rVig

Assignment

After watching the video, read a report by The Montpellier Panel, 2013, Sustainable
Intensification: A New Paradigm for African Agriculture, London Agriculture for Impact 15
Princes Gardens South Kensington Campus Imperial College London SW7 1N.
http://ag4impact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Montpellier-Panel-Report-2013-Sustainable-
Intensification-A-New-Paradigm-for-African-Agriculture-1.pdf

Write a criticque of maximum of 10 pages on the model whether it can be used as a frmework to
tackle the current problem faced farming system of Africa and for decades to come.
 Getting the central message of this unit or this module in practice

Objective of the field work

Why do it? (Motivation for doing the field work)

As you are prospective agricultural development communication professional the key message of
this unit or the whole module is that to challenge you (1) understand features of farming systems
in a given location at given time and (2) to identify dominant household livelihood strategies and
(3) analyze potential livelihood strategies (based on 1 and 2) for sustainable livelihood
improvement and (4) to convey the message to agricultural and rural development actors such as
policy makers, politicians, NGOs, local communities etc.

What (to do)

Make a group of three and conduct field assessment and submit a small project document with
background assessment of dominant farming system in a locality as well as strategies for
intervention

Hint (to do the field work)

For example, according to the classification we learned in this unit, most part of Western and
Eastern Haraghe Zones are categorized as maize mixed Farming systems. This means there are
some used criteria that make the Zones common in farming systems. If you are employed as
expert in this area what you should do may include the following (please note that steps are not
exhaustive list but just a hint)

1st step is describing farming systems in very detailed way. Notice you mostly focus on
biophysical (disease, pests, climate, water, land etc. information) factors or in SRL term “natural
assets” and socio-economics factors (socio-cultural, market, human labor, infrastructures,
financial service, gender etc. information) or in SRL term “the left 4 assets” and policies and
institution (organization structures and the processes herein) contexts.

2nd step is identifying livelihood strategies being practiced by households and/or individuals in a
given area.

3rd step is analyzing constraints and opportunities in practicing different livelihoods. E.g. which
strategy or combinations of livelihood strategies are better for Households around HU main
campus to improve their livelihoods in a given assets and context (from step 1)? E.g. some
household members could be exiting farming system and forced to migrate to Towns like
Haramaya, Awaday, and Cities such Harar and Dire Dawa as livelihood strategy. However, this
livelihood strategy could be unsustainable and make individuals (especially, women and
children) vulnerable to deep rooted hunger and poverty since they may not get better job in
Town/City due to their incapability like in skills and under age children. Some livelihood
strategies could have high potential to improve livelihoods of the households, but, face some
constraints like absence of telecom or road or irrigation etc.

4th is critically conveying the constraints and opportunities of livelihoods strategies in given
location at given time and suggesting possible solutions. E.g. for migrating household members
in the above example you may recommend alternative livelihood strategies the people value
most. To do so, you may design project and submit to NGOs or Government or you may seek
change in policy intervention at woreda or regional levels or institutional change etc.

Marrying concept of Farming system and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

Please, note that concept of Farming system helps you think about relevant agricultural
technologies for production and productivity of small farming and hence, to reduce hunger and
generate incomes. Or simply it is about economics issues. The SRL framework helps you think
about social and environmental sustainability.

You hear when people talk about sustainability of economy, environment, and society. However,
sustainability is vague concept, which is conceptualized by different interest groups differently.
E.g. in Ethiopia, companies that are getting profit from gold mining never want to hear about
harmfulness of mining on environment and human health. DDT users’ large farmers may not
worry much about toxicity of DDT to soil and underground water and on human health etc.
Hence, it is very challenging to influence human beings to consider issues of environment and
society in economic development practices, especially where there are no institutions that
enforce laws and regulations. Because; people never have time to think for even near future,
short term productivity or income increment is main goal. Currently, people are worrying to their
daily life; how to feed children, educate at better school, etc. thinking the far future is perceived
as luxury, while people are worrying about their daily lives.

Thus concept of SRL is people centered approach, that challenge people to understand
imperative of environment and societal sustainability in their daily life livelihood activities and
outcomes. E.g. if you discuss with rural people about 5 livelihood assets in a very participatory
way, they become conscious about imperatives of these assets for their own life survival.

That clearly indicates us why we must go beyond issues of productivity in both analysis and
development intervention. E.g. declining soil fertility and water availability is both Natural
phenomena (needs hard system rethinking), Social practices linked with culture (needs answers
through soft system thinking). For example issues of communal water management system,
family planning, closing some areas etc. need peoples’ shared vision to improve livelihood.

Therefore, you must understand productivity as one of agricultural and (rural) development
goals. As the last, but not the least, we try to ensure sustainable (economically, socially, and
environmentally) agricultural development to tackle hunger and poverty. However, all three
dimension of Sustainability cannot be measured in standard unit and is challenging to be
achieved. Why?

(1) There is no best solution for sustainable agricultural development, rather tradeoffs among
various objectives is obvious e.g. when economic growth achieved, environmental issues could
be neglected.

(2) It is hardly possible to identify all parameters and variable in sustainable agricultural
development and what can be identified are still subjective and subject to specification at
different space and time
 (3) In addressing sustainability issue, there is always conflicting interests in different group
members of community and there will be both winners and losers,

(4) Any given solution as an attempt of containing a given problem, could instigate another
problem,

(5) Thus no evidently correct ‘solution’ for current agricultural and rural development problem,
then the opportunity we have is to use complex concepts of FS and SRL and understand the real
world complexity from different worldviews of stockholders and facilitate iterative
‘improvements’ through communicative action.

Learning Unit 4: Take-home message: Farming systems and challenges ahead

In the preceding three learning units, we have discussed the current meaning of FS, FS
classification and possible livelihood strategies as pathways out of poverty. In this unit, we will
discuss that the current classification does not guarantee us that we can use the same
classification for future. This is because; everything is changing except the word “change” itself.

In the preceding three learning units, we have discussed the current meaning of FS, FS
classification and possible livelihood strategies as pathways out of poverty. In this unit, we will
discuss that the current classification does not guarantee us that we can use the same
classification for future. This is because; everything is changing except the word “change” itself.
Learning objectives
After completion of this learning unit, you should be able to:
 Identify main drivers of farming systems changes in Africa and beyond
 Appreciate intractability of the drivers for change in the farming system (i.e. with what
we already discussed in the module from a means to an end)
 understand how to analyze the drivers based on local context and put forward possible
development intervention(S)
Learning outcomes
At the end of this learning unit you should be able to explain the dynamic nature of key drivers
of change in farming system
Introduction

The starting point of this learning unit is that as human being we are continuously confronted
with changes that are either initiated by nature or by ourselves. Not to repeat what we already
discussed, for instance, on graphic representation of farming systems, external factors such as
market, information, technologies, policies, institutions etc. are highly dynamics. E.g. human
food preference is changing from more meat to fruits and vegetables, price fluctuates, and
supermarkets areemerging, etc. affect marketing and value chain systems of the globe.

Here, our small farmers should struggle to penetrate international market to get benefit. Changes
in resources (five livelihood assets) are obvious. E.g. natural assets like farmland and water are
becoming scarce and it influence farmers in what to produce and what to produce. Climate
change could be severe and then farmers should adapt animals and crops that are more tolerant to
climate change or exit farming.

By and large, there are lots of factors that have huge impact on what kind of farming systems
small farmers may adapt next years. As a result a great flexibility is needed for both farmers
and development actors to co-exist with changing circumstances. In the other words, we are
saying that what this module discusses is not perfect information that someone should refer to
forever. Rather it is just written as steppingstone that enables you to appreciate the past and the
current concept of FS and SRL and understand what the near future FS and SRL look likes. In
this unit, we try to understand possible drivers of change in FS and SRL by giving you activities
such as review in literatures and group discussion.

Main Drivers of Farming systems and Rural Livelihoods Strategies changes

Scholars have classified the main drivers of changes in farming systems and rural livelihoods
strategies into five categories as follows;
1. Population explosion: food security, poverty and land
2. Markets and trade
 3. Natural resources and climate
4. Technology and science
5. Human capital/knowledge sharing/gender
6. Institutions and policies

Although our focus is on the broad issues of drivers of farming system, it is important to briefly
look into the drivers for agrifood system in Africa. Because farming system is part of the
agrifood system. In this regard, Reardon, et al. (2013) indicates the rapid transformation of
Africa's food system as part five interlinked transformations: 1) urbanization; 2) diet change; 3)
agrifood system transformation (in wholesale, processing, and retail systems); 4) rural factor
market transformation; and 5) intensification of farm technology. This paper describes
transformations that are linked in mutually causal ways with the potential for the overall
transformation to be rapid and complicated. For better understanding, you may Read 7 page full
paper T. Reardon et al.The Emerging ‘Quiet Revolution’ in African Agrifood Systems. The
paper is accessed at the following link;
http://www.merid.org/Africanagricultureandfoodsystems/~/media/Files/Projects/Africa%20Ag
%20and%20Food%20Systems/Thomas%20Reardon%20Paper%20Quiet%20Revolution
%20African%20Agrifood%20systems.pdf

1. Population explosion: food security, poverty and land (see Garrity et al, 2013 pp 33-37)
Under this driver you will understand how the rapid population growth in Africa for the last
50 years has exacerbated huger and food insecurity and limited farmland acquisition. E.g.
African farmers used to increase their production through farmland expansion
(extensification strategy) when population density was less. Currently, expansion of farmland
is hardly practical. The best example of extreme population density in Ethiopia is maize
mixed farming systems of Western and Eastern Hararghe, where large number of households
forced to migrate to other Zones of Oromia Regional State in the last decade. The reason for
migration was that the densest population instigated land scarcity, under nutrition, hunger
and poverty.
 Activity 4.1
Please, read Garrity et al 2012 (page 33-37) and answer the following questions?
What is possible solution for population growth challenges in Africa?
Do you think that population growth will have impact on almost all farming systems in
Africa? If yes, how? From what you are observing in daily life in Africa and from what you
read, do you think that population pressure has any advantage on choosing better livelihood
strategies for small farmers? Submit to your instructor individually!

2. Natural resources and climate

In fact the livelihoods of smallholders’ farmers heavily depend on Natural resource bases.
Mainly loss of soil fertility, depletion of trees and forests and water scarcity, which are
collectively called land resource degradation (quality loss) and depletion (quantity loss), are
the main challenges of African farmers to choose better livelihood strategies. Climate
change is also expected to be severely impacting small holders’ farmers due to their internal
defenseless and intermittence of external institutional supports. The following diagram
shows at glance how climate change in Africa is related to three major components of food
security. Read from the source for detail at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-6.html#9-6-1
 Source IPPC (as accessed on December 9, 2014)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-9-6.html

Climate change is also a challenge for contemporary concern of the problem of under nutrition.
You may read, for better understanding, a study in Ethiopia by Hagos et al., 2014. Climate
change, crop production and child under nutrition in Ethiopia; a longitudinal panel study. Could
be accessed at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/884. or PDF version at
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-884.pdf
 Activity
Carefully read Garrity et al, 2012 (page 37-42) and Hawkins et al, 2009 (page 73-77) and discuss
how Land degradation, and soil conservation; Biodiversity, Energy use; Pollution and
sustainability are very important in past and future farming systems. Report the summary of the
discussion to your instructor by answering the following questions

 What are suggested solutions for each problem? Do you think these solutions are
straightforward?
 What could be the role of ICT tools and communication methods to solve problems of
natural resource management challenges?
 Garrity et al conclude that the best solution for water management is expanding
irrigation outreach for small farmers. Do you think it will be practical sooner or later
in Africa?

Activity
Read the conclusion section of Farming Change, growing more food with a changing
resource base, IICA, 2012 (page 45-50)and discuss in group and present whether the
Caribbean experience suggested as alternative options to cope with changing resource base
could be adopted to context of Africa. You may take specific locality known to you.

3. Markets and trade

Trade and market issues are broad to exhaustively cover under such topic. However, for the
purpose of our interest we will look into major issues in relation to trade and market as drivers
for change in farming system with specific focus on the context of developing countries. In
brief, we might be interested to look into how trade and market in agriculture is changing which
potentially impact on farming system of smallholder farmers? In this regard, if we remember
what we know from system thinking that would better enable us to understand how these
particular factors affect the farming system in developing courtiers. To this end, the
development in agriculture (or farming system) and food system is highly interrelated. This
could easily be seen from what food system entails. "The food systems encompass all the
people, institutions and processes by which agricultural products are produced, processed and
brought to consumers. They also include the public officials, civil society organizations,
researchers and development practitioners who design the policies, regulations, programs and
projects that shape food and agriculture" ( FAO, 2013). As a system, the food system is not a
single designed entity, but rather a partially self-organized collection of interacting parts which is
also under constant change. The development or change affecting any one of the parts of food
system has impact on agricultural development as well as the development of the food system in
different time and space. For instance, the rapid technological advancement that cut across the
agricultural production and transformation of the food system has connected the global
agricultural food system from farm to plate, implying change in the system affected globally.
The brief description and figure in the box below shows food system transformation along the
transformation from subsistent farming to commercial agriculture.

As the food system transforms, centralized food-processing facilities develop along with large-scale
wholesale and logistics companies, supermarkets emerge in the retail sector and fast-food restaurants
become widespread. The transformation thus affects the whole system, changing the ways food is
produced, harvested, stored, traded, processed, distributed, sold and consumed

In subsistence farming, the food system is basically “closed“ –producers essentially consume what they
produce. With economic development, subsistence farming gives way to commercial agriculture in
which producers and consumers are increasingly separated in space and time and their interactions are
mediated via markets. In the later stages of the food system transformation, very little overlap exists
between producers and consumers and the system “opens up”, reaching beyond the local economy to
tie together producers and consumers, who may even live in different countries. The introduction of
new actors may lead to consolidation of certain stages (for example, when wholesalers affiliated with
supermarket chains buy directly from the producers and bypass the previous multiplicity of rural
traders), but with additional processing the actual number of actors in the system may increase.
Source FAO (2013)
Coming back to issues of trade and market , how does market and trade affect farming system
change. This could be better analyzed from a system perspective when farm is considered as
agribusiness which is part of supra-system, the food supply chain. This is because of the fact that
farming systems of smallholder farmers are operating under the influence of the pressure from
each elements of the supra-system such as consumers and policy change. In this regard, in the
analysis impact of trade and market we need to look into the changing trends of food market ,
that is from mass market (commodity chain, example, mango trade) to market that specifically
target particular consumer (value chains, example fresh cut mango, fresh juice mango); the
opportunities of trade liberalization that open up cross country trade; consumers concern of
safety and standard; opportunities of technologies providing information on markets information
such as ICT. Such analysis will enable to look into how to make smallholder farmers responsive
to growing market opportunities.

Initiatives to integrate smallholder farmers to market

There are a number of initiative by development intervention to enable smallholder farmers

benefit from market opportunities. Contract farming is one of the initiative promoted by different
development agencies.

Assignment

Read on article by Nicholas Minot. Contract Farming in sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities and
Challenges. http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/aamp/Kigali%20Conference/Minot_Contract_farming_
%28AAMP%20Kigali%29.pdf.

Write a five page summary of (1) conditions under which the contract farming works to enable
market integration of smallholder farmers, and (2) Why contract farming may not necessarily be
considered as a broad development strategy to integrate smallholder farmers to market.

Activity
There is a growing concern that smallholder farmers may be marginalized in the process of
globalization and trade liberalization. Read article FAO 2005 The State of Food and Agriculture.
Agricultural Trade and Poverty: Can trade work for the poor. Answer the following questions:

What are the potential challenges and opportunities of trade liberalization for the growth of
smallholders

4. Technology and science

We have already discussed that agricultural technologies adoption by small farmers in Africa
has been very limited and thus productivity has been lower compared to world standard. We
discussed that the philosophical and methodological approaches had flaws and FS was originated
due to that reason. SRL also the evolution of FS concept to issues of social equity and
environmental sustainability.

African governments are still vowing to advance agricultural sciences and technologies in the
continent thinking that increase in agricultural productivity reduces hunger, poverty and brings
economic development as western nations. To what extent the governments may learn from the
past and change the approach from reductionism to adaptive holistic approaches that enable more
participation of multiple actors, including small farmers, and interdisciplinary team that integrate
biophysical and socio-economics factors to find context specific solutions for farming systems.
Especially, from socio-economics sides developing capacity of stakeholders through using ICT,
stakeholder network, and cooperatives to share market information, disease challenges, skill
advices etc. are what you are expected to design. This because, the main challenge in Africa is
failure of soft systems to work than hard systems.

In spite of persistence of reductionist thinking inclined towards the use of science and technology
as a panacea to solve Africa's problem of agriculture, there is progressive move towards system
approach. In this regard, the science agenda for agriculture in Africa (see the box below) presents
a balanced framework as defined by Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA, 2014).
[If you are not aware of FARA (http://faraafrica.org/), it isthe lead agency in the implementation
of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) Pillar 4]. The fourth
pillar of CAAPD (CAADP is discussed below) focuses on agricultural research, technology
generation and adoption.

Box: Definition of Africa's science Agenda

The Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (S3A) refers to the science,
technology, extension, innovations, policy and social learning Africa
needs to apply in order to meet its evolvingagricultural development
goals.

It identifies the key strategic issues that will impact on scienceand

agriculture and presents a suite of high-level actions/options for
increasing and deepeningthecontributions of science to the
development of agriculture at the local, national, regionaland
continental levels in Africa.The Agenda’s perspective encompasses the
breadth of science, the meaningful engagements between
disciplines and the effective transfer to end users, theoutcomes of
science that is necessary to unlock the potential of agriculture in Africa.

The Science Agenda recognizes that advances in agricultural sciences

alone are notsufficientin resolving all the challenges faced by the
agricultural sector in Africa.Therefore, it is essentialthat a wide array
of scientific disciplines be utilized to address the challenges that
hinderagricultural transformation in Africa. This is why the present
document is a Science Agenda forAgriculture and not just an
Agricultural Science Agenda.

The Science Agenda is a long-term strategic framework that consists

mainly of the range ofscience and technology opportunities available to
bring about agriculturaltransformation inAfrica. The Agenda also
embraces the policy, financial, organizational and related
institutionalcapacity strengthening measures that need to be put in
place to realize a science-rootedagricultural transformation on the
continent. These are undergirded by a vision aimed atenhancing the
wealth creation potential of agriculture on the continent and
strengtheningAfrica’s capacity to feed itself and the rest of the world
through embarking on world-classresearch and technology generation.
 Activity

Read the science agenda themes (page 38-58) inFARA, 2014. Science agenda for agriculture in
Africa (S3A): “Connecting Science” to transform agriculture in Africa. Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa (FARA), Accra, Ghana

Why do it? (Motivation for doing the reading)

There is a need to have understanding of the continental initiative that aimed towards agricultural
transformation
How to do it?
Form a group of three in round table and read for about 30 minutes and discuss key points you
understood for about 30 minutes.

5. Human capital, knowledge sharing and gender

This about progress in education of African farmers and their capability to use the modern
information technologies like mobile phone, internet, and mobile banking etc. if successful this is
expected to tackle information gaps on accessing agricultural technologies and market
information, banking services, etc. than before. Further, it is envisaged this reduces gender gaps
in information access. However, how emerging technologies equalize gender still needs further
research.

6. Policy and institutions

Policy and institutions are broad to cover here and thus we limit ourselves to key issues.

The influence of policy and institutions cut across the entire farming system and or agri-food
system. They influence the process of production through processing and marketing and
consumption. Policy in relation to production may include input and output pricing policy
(example, policy that subsidies input and consumer price, seed sector regulation, payment for
environmental services, agricultural investment policy); in relation to processing (investment in
infrastructure); in relation to marketing (E.g., trade liberalization, food price subsidizing policy,
food safety); in relation to consumption (policy that sanction advertisement of certain food such
high fat food)

The influence of institutions could also be seen in relation to institutions affecting access to key
resources and those that affect function of product markets, including value chains. Institution
affecting access to key resource (such as land, finance/credit) may affect the pace with which the
smallholders join the competitive agribusiness that operate within supra system.

Let us take simple example, on the need for agricultural marketing institutions and value
chain. In order for smallholder farmers to make use of the opportunities of the growing food
marketing, there should be institutional setup that offers opportunities for smallholder farmers
by broadening their choice of input suppliers and of outlets for produce, as well as increasing
their access to finance/credit and skill development they may need such as training on value
additions and producing under required safety standard. However, access to both input and
output markets has proved problematic for many smallholders, who remain at the margins of the
new agricultural economy. This implies the need for favorable policy and institutional
environment that enable smallholder farmers to join the competitive agribusiness market.

For example, how smallholders fit into a specific agricultural value chain depends largely on the
underlying cost structures of the chain and of their farm production processes. The primary cost
advantage of smallholders is their ability to supply low-cost labor for labor-intensive crops.
When smallholders have no apparent comparative advantage, agribusinesses may seek
alternative structures for organizing production, such as vertical integration or buying directly
from large holders. In those cases, the challenge is to create comparative advantages for
smallholders or to reduce the transaction costs associated with purchasing from large numbers of
farmers producing small quantities. To forge links to high-value markets, small farmers need to
be organized in institutions that reduce transaction costs, and given access to information on
market requirement. In connection to how the condition of policy environment that encourage
farmers organization would enable the pace with which the farmers respond to changing market
standards (such as meeting safety standard, time of delivery of product on the market at required
size or volume). It is in light of such challenges the policy change towards public and private
partnership engagement has been encouraged in the development policy framework in the
context of Africa. For example, small farmer access to markets can be improved through better
organization and greater cooperation, which may involve not only farmers but also a larger
number of stakeholders, including agricultural support service providers, NGOs, researchers,
universities, local government and international donors ( FAO, 2011).

Activity: Read Chapter 7: Policies and institutions (page 77-94) in FAO (2011). Save
and Grow: A policy maker's guide to the sustainable intensification smallholder farmers crop
production. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2215e/i2215e.pdf

Regional level initiative to transform policy and institutions

Let us see the broader Africa home grown initiative to bring policy and institutional reform: the
Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development program (CAADP). Since Maputo declaration
in 2003, CAADP was established under the impulse of the African Union (AU) and new
partnership for agricultural development (NEPAD). CAADP is a continental framework to bring
about the required institutional and policy reform that will respond to the Africa's critical need
for positive and sustainable growth in agriculture, food security, and rural development in Africa.
This is the first regional plan in history of Africa to drive agricultural development in the
continent. The thrust in CAADP is that the African countries to draw corresponding policy and
strategies based on the broader guiding principles and guidelines of CAADP.

CAADP’s goals are to in-crease public investment in agriculture to at least 10% of national
budgets and to raise agricultural productivity by at least 6% by 2015. It seeks to accelerate
progress by actions in four focus areas, or pillars:
i) sustainable land and water management;
ii) improved market access for farmers and businesses through improved trade and
infrastructure;
iii) improved food supply and hunger reduction;
iv) agricultural research to facilitate technology adoption.
The following figure shows the result framework of CAADP envisaged during the 10th
anniversary of CAADP in November, 2013 for the next decade, 2014-2024
Source: presentation of Boaz Keizire-Blackie of the African Union Commission (November,
2013) http://merid.org/~/media/Files/Projects/Africa%20Ag%20and%20Food%20Systems/
Presentation%20-%20Boaz%20AUC%2026%20Nov.pdf

Activity read detail on CAADP and try to answer the following questions
 Critically assess how strong are the CAADP frameworks in bringing the urgency need to
improve production, and bring food and nutritional security. These are: (1) CAADP
Framework for African Food Security (FAFS); and (2)the Framework for African
Agricultural Productivity (FAAP)

References for Further reading

Dixon et al, (2001) Farming SystemsandPoverty:IMPROVING FARMERS’ LIVELIHOODSIN
A CHANGING WORLDftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/y1860e/y1860e.pdf
FARA, 2014. Science agenda for agriculture in Africa (S3A): “Connecting Science” to
transform agriculture in Africa. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), Accra,
Ghana.

Garrity, D., Dixon, J., Boffa, J. (2012). Understanding African Farming Systems: Science and
Policy Implications prepared for Food Security in Africa, Bringing research into Practice,
Sydney 29-30 November 2012

http://aciar.gov.au/aifsc/sites/default/files/images/
understanding_african_farming_systems_report_for_aifsc_conference.pdf

Hawkins et al (2009). Agricultural Research for Development (ARD)A Resource Book

http://www.icra-edu.org/objects/public_eng/SA_Resource_Book2009_fin2.pdf

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. 2014–2015 Global Food Policy Report.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/gfpr20142015.pdf

Innovation Gaps and Smallholder Farmers: Opportunities for Action. A Report on Interviews
with Global Thought Leaders and Practitioners. A paper for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Meridian Institute. May 2013
https://docs.merid.org/SITECORE_DOCS/Innovation_and_Smallholders-Final.pdf

Inter Academy Council (IAC) (2014) Realizing the promise and potential of African agriculture
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=27090

Flora, C. 2001.Interactions between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities.Advances in

Agroecology. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.

Reijntjes, C., B. Haverkort, and A. Waters-Bayer. 1992. Farming for the Future: An Introduction
to Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. McMillan Press Limited: London.