Conceptual framework

This section provides an overview of the conceptual framework and the fieldwork methods used in the study, by way of introduction to the case studies of the principal farm-power systems that follow.

Livelihoods analysis

Since the late 1980s, the sustainable livelihoods approach has become a well-established methodology for examining the dynamics of household resources, livelihood strategies and outcomes, and their vulnerabilities to shocks and changes (Carney, 1998). It is used widely by multilateral and bilateral development agencies, international NGOs, and research and academic institutions (Solesbury, 2003).

Livelihoods framework

The livelihoods framework encompasses household assets (human, natural, physical, financial and social) and their use in farming, non-farm activities and other strategies used by a household to make a living (DFID, 1998). Livelihood strategies may be tempered by the influence of both external factors (in particular, changes in the policy and institutional environment, market prices, and natural calamities) and internal factors (such as the death of family members or the loss of assets). Households respond by adopting short-term coping strategies and longer-term adaptive strategies. The net effect is reflected in a range of livelihood outcomes in terms of food security, income or other indicators of well-being and quality of life. The relationship is dynamic, and outcomes in one season have an impact on the asset base and strategies adopted in the following seasons. The livelihood outlook provides an overall statement as to whether a household’s livelihood is generally improving, remaining stable or deteriorating. An overview of the livelihoods framework is presented in Figure 1, with key terminology defined in Box 1.

Farm-power groups

During the fieldwork, households were classified by their main source of farm power for primary tillage. This distinction provided the basis for analysis. The household groupings were:

• households only using hand power and implements (using family labour and possibly participating in reciprocal labour groups);
• households supplementing family labour with hired labour;
• households supplementing family labour with hired DAP;
• households owning draught animals;
• households hiring tractors;

• households owning tractors.

Many of these household types (with the exception of those relying solely on family labour) hire labour for subsequent operations, particularly weeding.

Methodology for valuing household asset base

A qualitative scoring system was used to value a household’s asset base in order to facilitate comparison between the asset bases of different farm-power groups, both within a community and between communities. For each of the five assets (human, natural, physical, financial and social) a maximum of five points was allocated per asset group, giving a maximum possible score of 25 points for a household’s asset base. At each field site, the assets of the different farm-power groups were scored separately. The scoring was undertaken at the findings workshop by the country consultants in order to ensure a broadly common basis, albeit subjective, for valuing the assets across the 14 field sites.

Table 1 presents an example of the scoring system. While some values are common across the sites (such as education and skills level, financial assets, and social assets), others were location specific. Hence, the scores allocated to area (under rainfed cultivation, irrigation and fallow) varied between sites as they are partly determined by farming system and the availability of land. Similarly, the scoring varied between sites for physical assets (such as the quality of housing, range of tools, and use of purchased farm inputs) as this reflects the general wealth within a community. Detailed examples of the asset profiles of different farm-power groups are presented in the case studies.

The individual asset scores can be aggregated to give an overall score for each farm-power group (out of a maximum of 25 points). This can be taken to represent the asset-based wealth of a particular group within a community.

TABLE 1
Example of valuing household asset base

It is possible to extend the analysis from household to community level by calculating an approximate indication of the relative asset-based wealth for a community. The asset scores for each farm-power group are multiplied by the proportion of households in each group and aggregated across all farm-power groups in the community. However, these community figures need to be interpreted with caution as the scoring method is subjective and, to some extent, site specific. Moreover, equal weight is attached to the value of different assets. For example, a high score for physical assets (such as ownership of draught animals and implements) is given the same weight as a high score for social assets (membership and leadership of groups). It is also highly sensitive to the accuracy of estimating the proportion of households in the different farm-power groups.

Fieldwork methodology

The fieldwork for conducting the country studies was developed during the methodology workshop held in October 2001 attended by two national consultants from each country and staff from FAO (see Annex 1).

TABLE 2
Number of participants in fieldwork activities

Site selection criteria

In each country, the fieldwork was conducted at two sites. The sites were selected to represent:

• some of the main farming systems within the country (to ensure the findings are of wide interest);

• diversity in the use of different sources of farm power;

• dynamism with regards to changes in the use of farm power over time (covering deteriorating as well as improving conditions);

• opportunities for either poverty reduction or economic growth.

Data collection

Background information about the role of agriculture in the national economy and field-site characteristics were gathered from secondary data.

Prior to conducting the fieldwork, meetings were held with local government officials, agricultural staff and leaders of the community to explain the purpose of the study. On average, four days were spent in each community. The first day was spent with representatives of the whole community; the second and third days were spent with smaller farm-power groups; and the final day was spent conducting interviews with individual households. A total of 1 251 people participated in the fieldwork activities, of whom one-third were women (Table 2).

Community level

On the first day of fieldwork, information was gathered from a cross-section of the whole community using various rapid appraisal methods, including:

• historical timeline: to discuss the farm-power technological changes (milestones) experienced in the community in the last 15 - 20 years; and to identify the reasons for those changes and their impacts;

• organization/group profiles: to identify the different organizations and groups in the community associated with the use of farm power and implements; to review their origins and current status; to determine the socio-economic and gender composition of their membership and leadership; and to establish their relative importance in providing access to farm-power inputs;

• household classification by farm-power source: to understand the main farm-power categories in the community and their characteristics; to review the distribution of households between the categories; and to identify any factors associated with movement between categories (transformation).

TABLE 3
Attendance at community meetings

TABLE 4
Attendance at farm power subgroup meetings

Notes:

* Msingisi, United Republic of Tanzania: hired labour subgroup also includes farmers who hire DAP and tractors.

F = female; M = male.

At the end of the day, the main findings were summarized with the community, in order to provide feedback and an opportunity for self-analysis and empowerment.

More than 500 people participated in the community meetings across all the field sites (Table 3). Women accounted for one-third of the total participants.

Farm-power groups

During the community meeting on the first day of the fieldwork, households were classified according to their main source of farm-power for primary tillage (see above). Not all farm-power subgroups were represented at each site (Table 4). Typically, a community would have three groups represented, although in some communities as many as six distinct groups were identified by the community. More than 500 people participated in the subgroup meetings, of whom 31 percent were women. Similar techniques were used with each group:

• seasonal calendar: to explore seasonal variations in the patterns of agricultural production and off-farm activities throughout the year, and the division of tasks between family members; and to identify time constraints;

• sources and use of money: to identify the main sources and uses of money, and to determine the relative significance of expenditure on farm tools and equipment;

• acquisition, use and ownership of farm-power inputs: to identify the main sources of their farm-power inputs, and to explore how their purchase, use and ownership differs between men and women;

• analysis of strengths and problems: to explore the main strengths in the farm-power subgroup, the main problems they face, the significance of farm power-related issues among other problems, their causes and effects, and how they may be overcome.

Individual household interviews

The final day was spent conducting individual household interviews. Households were selected to represent a cross-section of the different farm-power subgroups in proportion, as far as was possible, to their overall distribution within the community. Efforts were also made to include female-headed as well as male-headed households, and to interview households whose position was either improving, remaining stable or deteriorating. The distribution of households by sex of the household head and field site is presented in Table 5.

The interviews, guided by a checklist, focused on livelihoods analysis. Key components included: household composition, household asset base, livelihood strategies, shocks and changes, coping/adaptive mechanisms, livelihood outcomes and outlook. A separate section explored the household inventory of tools and equipment, power constraints, adoption of new technologies, and use of alternative power sources.

TABLE 5
Individual household interviews by sex of household head

Evaluation of fieldwork methods

Sample selection

The study teams made special efforts to ensure that women were represented in all stages of the fieldwork. These were broadly successful, with women accounting for at least 30 percent of the attendees at each level of survey (community, subgroups and households). However, it was noted in one or two communities that, even though women attended the meetings, their presence did not guarantee that their voices were heard. Hence, on some occasions, it was necessary to arrange separate meetings with women. At some sites, the classification of households into distinct farm-power groups was challenging, particularly where households used multiple sources of power for the same operation.

Fieldwork tools

The strength of rapid rural appraisal lies in its ability to gather information reasonably quickly in order to gain a subjective view of the broad picture. Triangulation (whereby similar information is collected from different sources or from the same source but using different collection methods) enables the validity of data to be confirmed from various perspectives.

The majority of the tools worked well. Although there was some repetition of the information collected at the various levels of the study, this provided a means of validating data from alternative sources through triangulation. Two techniques (organizational profiles and the seasonal calendar) were considered to be time-consuming in comparison with the amount of information generated that was directly relevant to this study. The least useful exercise looked at access, use and ownership of farm-power implements.