Sustainable Livlihoods ToolboxContents:Policy, Institutions and ProcessesPower Tools for Policies and InstitutionsProgramme Identification and DesignGender AnalysisPlanning New ProjectsReviewing Existing ActivitiesMonitoring and EvaluationWays of WorkingSharing the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Kristjanson, P. F. Placeb, S. Franzel and P.K. Thornton. 2002. Assessing research impact on poverty: the importance of farmers' perspectives. Agricultural Systems. 72(1):73-92.In this paper we provide evidence to show that farmers' perspectives on poverty processes and outcomes are critical in the early stages of evaluating impact of agricultural research on poverty. We summarize lessons learned from farmer impact assessment workshops held in five African locations, covering three agro-ecological zones and five different agroforestry and livestock technologies arising from collaborative national–international agricultural research. Poverty alleviation is a process that needs to be understood before impact can be measured. Workshops such as those we describe can help researchers to identify farmers' different ways of managing and using a technology and likely effects, unanticipated impacts, major impacts to pursue in more quantitative studies, the primary links between agricultural technology and poverty, and key conditioning factors affecting adoption and impact that can be used to stratify samples in more formal analyses. Farmer workshops inform other qualitative and quantitative impact assessment methods. We discuss the linkage of farmer-derived information with GIS-based approaches that allow more complete specification of recommendation domains and broader-scale measurement of impact.

Matsaert, H., Z. Ahmed, N.Islam and F.Hussain. 2004. Actor oriented tools for analysis of innovation systems: Some guidelines from experience of analysing natural resource based innovation systems in Bangladesh. DRAFT.These guidelines are based on our experiences of using actor oriented tools to analyse chilli and livestock innovations systems and identify pro poor interventions in the char lands of Bangladesh, and in sharing and discussing these tools with other development partners. These tools are drawn from a wide range of sources. These include social anthropological and social network research techniques (see Long and Long 1992, Lewis 1998), stakeholder analysis (see Grimble and Wellard 1997), agricultural information knowledge systems (see Roling and Jiggins 1997) and process monitoring and documentation (see Mosse et al 1998). However, the tools are not commonly found in the analysis and planning of interventions in natural resource based innovation systems. Actor oriented tools complement other planning, monitoring and evaluation tools by focusing on the structure of social relationships between the key actors involved in a development scenario. We have found them useful for:- Analysis of a given institution (e.g organisation or enterprise, project or sector) in terms of strong and weak linkages between its actors; planning: visual presentation of critical links which should be supported or developed to meet the overall development goals e.g poverty reduction, inclusion of marginal groups and in monitoring and evaluation for visualising how interventions have impacted on critical linkages over time.

 The importance of social capital in 50 small or medium-sized rural agroenterprises in Colombia was studied by CIAT, CCI (Corporación Colombiana Internacional), and CEGA (Centro de Estudios Ganaderos y Agrícolas), with funds from CGIAR’s CAPRi (Collective Action and Property Rights) Program. Social capital—that is, networks, trust, and capacity for collective action—helps firms reduce transactions costs and establish and maintain solid relationships in their communities and along the supply chain. Social capital is an important determinant of a firm’s organizational structure and its productivity. Support organizations can help rural agro-enterprises by recognizing the importance of social capital, by providing information on how to select appropriate organizational structures, and by exploring alternatives for making those services currently provided by social capital more widely accessible and less costly.

Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place, and B. Swallow (Eds.) 2002. Innovation in Natural Resource Management The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in Developing Countries. John Hopkins. University Press.International agricultural research is expanding beyond the development of annual crop technologies for individual farms to the development of longer-term natural resource management techniques for entire landscapes. But technologies or practices with a long lag time between investment and returns are unlikely to be adopted by farmers unless they have secure rights to the underlying resources (property rights). Similarly, technologies that span multiple farms are unlikely to be adopted unless neighbors and groups work together (collective action). But little is known about the way property rights and collective action in developing countries mediate the adoption of technologies by farmers and groups. To address this information gap, this volume brings together international experts in economics, sociology, and natural resource management to examine the links among property rights, collective action, and technological change for a variety of technologies across a range of community contexts in the developing world. Authors focus on the reciprocal relationships between community institutions and technologies, the role of property rights in conflicts between crop and livestock production systems, and the way that collective action differs across landscapes. A conceptual framework, methodological approaches, and "best bet" practices are presented to help guide future research.Researchers, policy analysts, and students interested in the links between environmental sustainability, economic growth, equity and poverty alleviation, and technology adoption will benefit from this volume.

Almekinders, C.J.M. (comp.), 2002. Incentive measures for sustainable use and conservation of agrobiodiversity. Experiences and lessons from Southern Africa. Proceedings of a workshop, Lusaka, Zambia, 11-14 September 2001.These proceedings share the results of a Workshop that was the first of its kind in the SADC region dealing with identification of incentive measures to enhance the sustainable use and conservation of agrobiodiversity. The subject ‘incentive measures’ was chosen because of its high political importance. Article 11 of the Convention of Biological Diversity stipulates that “Each contracting party shall as far as possible and as appropriate, adopt economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity”. This implies that contracting parties need to implement incentive measures. Other articles of the CBD are of importance, e.g. Art.13 (provision of information), art.15 (benefit sharing), and Art. 16 (technology transfer). Despite a growing global awareness of the importance of agrobiodiversity little attention has been paid to the need for incentive measures to manage agricultural genetic resources such that they can play a role in poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Next to incentives for farmers, this workshop wanted to specifically include the need for incentives that indirectly support farmers’ use of agrobiodiversity, such as in marketing, policy, education and public awareness. The introductory part of the proceedings contains an introduction to the workshop by the organizing group, the workshop statement by the participants, and the opening addresses. The following part of the proceedings contains the papers underlying keynote and case presentations in the workshop.

deGrassi, A. 2003. Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa; an assessment of current evidence. Third World Network-AfricaThis paper recasts the debate over biotechnology by moving past overly general hyperbole and instead empirically evaluating current experiences with genetically modified crops in Africa. The debate is moved from hypothetical risks to actual results. The 'appropriateness' of GM cotton, sweet potatoes and maize is evaluated using six criteria widely accepted in crop breeding: [whether the crop is] demand-led, site-specific, poverty-focused, cost-effective and institutionally and environmentally sustainable. I conclude by examining potential reasons for considerable attention to these three crops despite their generally inappropriate nature for poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa.

Hambly Odame, H., N. Hafkin, G. Wesseler, and I. Boto. 2002. Gender and Agriculture in the Information Society. ISSN 1021-2310. 8 pp. ISNAR Briefing Paper.While in most developing countries women constitute the majority of the population working in agriculture, they are still being marginalized with respect to access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) for economic and social empowerment. ISNAR and the Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation (CTA) have formed a partnership to study the theme of gender and ICTs in agriculture and rural development and to increase the awareness of policymakers, donors, researchers, nongovernmental organizations, and farmers’ organizations, of the need for dialogue and action on issues of ICT and gender in the context of food security, poverty reduction, and sustainable development. This Briefing Paper is one of the collaborative activities through which ISNAR and CTA endeavor to prepare inputs to future international deliberations.

Garrity, D.P., V.B. Amoroso, S. Koffa, D. Catacutan, G. Buenavista, P. Fay and W. Dar. 2002. Landcare on the Poverty-Protection Interface in an Asian Watershed. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 6(1). Other articles in the Special Issue on INRMSerious methodological and policy hurdles constrain effective natural resource management that alleviates poverty while protecting environmental services in tropical watersheds. We review the development of an approach that integrates biodiversity conservation with agroforestry development through the active involvement of communities and their local governments near the Kitanglad Range Natural Park in the Manupali watershed, central Mindanao, the Philippines. Agroforestry innovations were developed to suit the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions of the buffer zone. These included practices for tree farming and conservation farming for annual cropping on slopes. Institutional innovations improved resource management, resulting in an effective social contract to protect the natural biodiversity of the park. The production of fruit and timber trees dramatically increased, re-establishing tree cover in the buffer zone. Natural vegetative contour strips were installed on several hundred sloping farms. Soil erosion and runoff declined, and the buffer strips increased maize yields by an average of 0.5 t/ha on hill-slope farms. The scientific knowledge base guided the development and implementation of a natural resource management plan for the municipality of Lantapan. A dynamic grass-roots movement of farmer-led Landcare groups evolved in the villages near the park boundary, which had a significant impact on conservation in both the natural and managed ecosystems. Encroachment in the natural park was reduced by 95% in 3 yr. The local Landcare groups also restored stream-corridor vegetation. This integrated approach has been recognized as a national model for the local management of natural resources and watersheds in the Philippines. Currently, the collaborating institutions are evolving a negotiation support system to resolve the interactions between the three management domains: the park, the ancestral domain claim, and the municipalities. This integrated systems approach operated effectively with highly constrained funding, suggesting that commitment and impact may best be stimulated by a "drip-feed" approach rather than by large, externally funded efforts.