Building on Gender, Agrobiodiversity and Local Knowledge – A Training Manual (2024)

WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLELIVELIHOODS APPROACH?

This fact sheet will introduce you to thesustainable framework. The sustainable livelihoods framework1 canhelp to explore the linkages between agrobiodiversity, gender and localknowledge. Moreover, it will help us broaden our perspective and apply a more holistic view tothese issues. This Module is mostly theoretical, but in Module 3 and 4 you willfind more practicalexamples of issues developed here. Recent research, on traditional crops andlivestock species, suggests there is a significant gap between development and researchpriorities and farmers' needs (Blench, 1997). One way of explaining this gap is to reflect upon theunderlying viewpoints taken by these different actors. Two main perspectivescan be identified,which are compared in the table below.

What is the departure point of the livelihoodsperspective? The people themselves must be the main entry point for analysing the management ofa*grobiodiversity. If people are not the starting point, it will be difficult tocome up with researchand development priorities that are in line with the views of the local people.The merits of using a livelihoods perspective to understand the management ofa*grobiodiversity are described in more detail below:

PEOPLE-CENTRED

The entry point to agrobiodiversity management is people themselves. A livelihoods perspective facilitates a more thorough analysis of different socialgroups, including the distribution of benefits and access to resourcesfrom a gender perspective. Adoption of a livelihoods perspective will, therefore, facilitate identification of the multiple functions andpurposes agrobiodiversity plays. Be it for different social groups and different environments, it will place the food security of poor peopleat the centre of the discussion.

HOLISTIC

From a livelihoods perspective, agrobiodiversity management is not seen as a separateactivity that aims to conserve individual species, varieties or breeds. Rather, it is seen to be part of the day-to-daylivelihood strategies around the world. Farmers do not maintain agrobiodiversity for the mere purpose ofconservation. They apply a more integrated and holistic perspective to the use of species, varieties and breeds withintheir agricultural system. Agrobiodiversity is managed by farmers, for a wide range of reasons, and the success of conservation and improvement depends on the benefits people obtain.

DYNAMIC

The use and management of agrobiodiversity is dynamic. Different components ofa*grobiodiversity are used by different people at various times and places, thus contributing to the development of complex livelihood strategies. Understanding how this use differsaccording to wealth, gender, age andecological situation is essential to theunderstanding of agrobiodiversity's contribution to the livelihoods of different members in a community.

BUILDING ON STRENGTH AND ASSETS

If we take a livelihoods perspective it means we focus onlivelihoods'existing strengths and assets, rather than on weaknesses and needs. From a livelihoodsperspective, localknowledge and genetic resources are considered important assets. The knowledge held by farmers, for example, on theirlocal plant and livestock species is a crucialcomponent of species selection, conservation and improvement. Localplants and animals form part of a complexagro-ecosystem; farmers have built up a significant stock of knowledgeon how these have to be managed under specific conditions.

MACRO-MICRO LINKAGES

Research and development activities tend to focus on either the macro ormicro level. Applying a livelihoods perspective,it is important to link these levels for the successful management of agrobiodiversity. As we have seen in Module 1.1, many factors related to theloss of agrobiodiversity are linkedto the macro level. Factors contributingto the loss of agrobiodiversity include globalization of markets, funding strategies and the setting of priorities for researchand development and access rights to genetic resources. On the other hand, the micro level is relevant to theconsideration of agrobiodiversityas a valuable asset managed by a varietyof people.

SUSTAINABILITY

The livelihoods approach emphasizes the importanceof building onexisting strengths and capacities. Key aspectsare the empowerment of local people through informationsharing and capacity building. In addition, the negotiation of Farmers' Rights and the equitable sharing of these benefits will contribute tolivelihood sustainability (see Module4).

Overall, the livelihoods perspective is concerned firstand foremost withpeople. An accurate and realistic understandingis sought of people's strengths (assets or capitalendowments) and how they may convert these into positive livelihood outcomes. The approach is based on the belief that people require a range ofassets to achieve positivelivelihood outcomes. No single category of assets, on its own, issufficient to yield the many and variedlivelihood outcomes that people seek. This is particularly true for the poor whose access, to any given category of assets, tends to be very limited. Theyhave to seek ways of nurturing andcombining the assets they have ininnovative ways to ensure survival.

The example from Kenya shows thecomplexity behind a simple activity such as bean growing. Women farmers try to achieve a range of different livelihoodoutcomes, by using a diversity of bean varieties. In this case, their bean varietiesform a central asset in their livelihoods strategy. The land they use to plantthese crops is another important asset, andso is their labour, which they use to manage these crops. The livelihoodoutcomes they achieve include food security, health issues, pestmanagement strategies.

The livelihoods approachfurthermore emphasizes the relevance of the wider context in which people's livelihoods and their assets areembedded. This is very important to bear in mind, when agrobiodiversity and itspotentialcontribution to people's livelihoods are discussed, people's vulnerabilitycontext, existing policies, institutions and processes need to be considered aswell. We must consider the different livelihood strategies and outcomes thatstrongly determine how these assets can be used. The figure below is aschematic view of the sustainable livelihoods framework. The terms used in thisframework will now be explained and presented in more detail.

The sustainable livelihoodsframework presents the main factors affecting people's livelihoods, and typicalrelationships between these. The frameworkcan be used in both planning new development activities and assessing the contribution to livelihood sustainability madeby existing activities. In particular the framework:

• provides a checklist of important issues and sketches out the way these link to each other;
• draws attention to core influences and processes; and
• emphasizes the multiple interactions between the various factors affectinglivelihoods.

The framework does not work in alinear manner and does not try to present a model of reality. Its aim is tohelp stakeholders,with their different perspectives, engage in structured and coherent debate ofthe many factors affecting livelihoods, their relative importance and the way in which theyinteract. In our case, the framework should help exploring linkages between agrobiodiversity, gender and local knowledgeand to better understand their potential in contributingto improved livelihoods.

Livelihoods are shaped by amultitude of different forces and factors, which are themselves constantly changing. People-centred analysis is most likely tobegin with the simultaneous investigation of people's assets, their objectives(the livelihoods outcomes they seek) and the livelihood strategies theyadopt to achieve these objectives. Following, the terms used in the frameworkand their relevance will be explained.

ASSETS are what people use to gain aliving. They are the core aspects of a livelihood. Assets can be classifiedinto five types - human, social,natural, physical and financial. People will access assets in differentways, e.g. through private ownership or as customary rights for groups.

Human capital is the part of human resources that is determined by people's qualities, e.g. personalities, attitudes, aptitudes, skills, knowledge, also their physical, mental and spiritual health. Human capital is the most important, not only for its intrinsic value, but because other capital assets cannot be used without it. Like social capital, described below, it can be difficult to define and measure. For instance, the case study on bean farming in Kenya (see Box 1) shows that women's knowledge, concerning the different local bean varieties, is an important asset for household food security as well as for female health.

Social capital is that part of human resources determined by the relationships people have with others. These relationships may be between family members, friends, workers, communities and organizations. They can be defined by their purpose and qualities such as trust, closeness, strength, flexibility. Social capital is important because of its intrinsic value. This is because it increases well-being, facilitates the generation of other capital and serves to generate the framework of society in general; with its cultural, religious, political and other norms of behaviour. With agrobiodiversity, we could think of the linkages between generations that facilitate the flow of information and knowledge. Or, we could think of seed exchange strategies between households, as part of a safety-net, in case of crop losses, etc.

Natural capital is made up of the natural resources used by people: air, land, soil, minerals, water, plant and animal life. They provide goods and services, either without people's influence, (forest wildlife, soil stabilization) or with their active intervention (farm crops, tree plantations). Natural capital can be measured in terms of quantity and quality (acreage, head of cattle, diversity and fertility). Natural capital is important for its general environmental benefits, and because it is the essential basis of many rural economies, (in providing food, building material, fodder). This is probably the easiest asset to understand, because agrobiodiversity, as such, forms a natural capital.

Physical capital is derived from the resources created by people. These include buildings, roads, transport, drinking-water, electricity, communication systems and equipment and machinery that produce more capital. Physical capital is made up of producer goods and services and consumer goods that are available for people to use. Physical capital is important, because it directly meets the needs of people through provision of access to other capital via transport or infrastructure. A relevant example related to the management of agrobiodiversity is the availability of storage facilities to keep seeds from one cropping cycle to the next.

Financial capital is a specific and important part of created resources. It comprises the finance available to people in the form of wages, savings, supplies of credit, remittances or pensions. It is often, by definition, poor people's most limiting asset. Although it may be the most important, as it can be used to purchase other types of capital, and can have an influence, good and bad, over other people. With regard to agrobiodiversity, financial assets may be important in that they prevent people from having to eat, or sell all their crops and seeds, or slaughter all their livestock.

BALANCE

The relative amount of assets possessed, or available to an individual, will vary depending on gender, location and other factors. The pentagon diagram representing assets can be redrawn, as shown in the example, to visualize the relative amount of each capital that is available to be accessed by an individual or community. It is important to know how this access and availability varies over time.

THE VULNERABILITY CONTEXT

The extent, to which people's assets can be built up, balanced; and how they contribute towards their livelihoods, depends on a range of external factors that change people's abilities to gain a living. Some of these factors will be beyond their control and may exert a negative influence. This aspect of livelihoods can be called the vulnerability context. This context must be understood, as far as possible, so as to design ways to mitigate the effects. There are three main types of change:

• Trends: These are gradual and arerelatively predictable. Changes may relate to population, resources, economy, governance or technology. Theycan have a positive effect, although here we focus on negative effects.Examples are:

  • Gradual degradation of natural resourcequality. The processes of desertification can lead to the loss of valuable plant and animal species.

  • Excessive population increase because ofmigration, which can lead to increased pressure on local resources resulting in unsustainable use anddepletion.

  • Inappropriate developments intechnology may displace local crop or livestock species or varieties.

  • Undesired changes in political representation might lead to political systems that exploit local natural resources.

  • General economic stagnation may lead toincreased poverty, and result in the unsustainable management of local resources. This could, for instance, lead to the depletion of certain plant genetic resources.

• Shocks - Someexternal changes can be sudden and unpredictable. They may be related tohealth, nature, economy,or relations. Generally, they are far more problematic. Examples are:

  See Also

  Sustainable Inventory Management: Redefining Supply Chains for a Greener Future | ICRONWhat is sustainable finance and why is it important? | Infosys BPMExplainer: What is sustainable asset management?Insights

  • Climatic extremes (drought, flood,earthquake), which could wipe out existing plant or animal resources.

  • Civil disturbance (revolution) could affectsocial structures. May result in the interruption of knowledge transfers for the management of animal or plant geneticresources.

  • Outbreaks of disease, e.g. HIV/AIDS couldlead to changes in labour resources for agricultural activities. Certain crops might be abandoned along with the relatedknowledge of their management.

• Seasonality: Manychanges are determined by the seasonal effects of crop production, access andliving conditions.Although short-term, enduring for a season, they can be critical for poorpeople who have a subsistencelivelihood. Examples are changes in:

  • Prices - could make production of certainproducts, and their related plant resources, too expensive and therefore unattractive. In turn,this may lead to their abandonment.

  • Employmentopportunities - could change the availability of labor resources, foragricultural production in important seasons, leading to the loss of someagricultural practices and crops.

POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES (PIPs)

In addition to the factors that determine the vulnerability context, there is a range of policies, institutions and processes designed to influence people and the way they make a living. If designed well, these influences on society should be positive. However, depending on their original purpose, some people may be affected negatively.

Policies, institutions and processes, within the livelihoods framework, are the institutions, organizations, policies and legislation that shape livelihoods. Their importance cannot be over-emphasized.They operate at all levels, from the household to the international arena. Theyfunction in all spheres, from the most private to the most public. Theyeffectively determine:

• Access to various types of capital, tolivelihood strategies, and to decision-making bodies and sources of influence.

• Terms of exchange between different types of capital; and

• Returns, economic and otherwise, to any given livelihood strategy.

In addition, they directly impact people's feelings ofinclusion and wellbeing. Because culture is included in this area, PIPs account for other unexplained differences inthe way things are done in different societies.

Examples of PIPs include:

• Policies - onplant genetic resource use and biodiversity management.

• Legislation - on patenting of plant genetic resources, property rights.

• Taxes, incentives, etc. - incentives for growing cash crops or improvedvarieties that could replace local varieties.

• Institutions - extension or research institutions that promote external innovations, and represent the interest of prosperous farmers who depend less onagrobiodiversity.

• Cultures - concerning gender relationships,which may affect access and decision-making on crop and livestock selection and management.

LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES

To sum up the features of livelihoods: people use assets to make a living. They cope as best they can with factors beyond their control that make their livelihoods vulnerable. They are affected by existing policies, institutions and processes, which they can partly influence themselves. There are three main types of strategies, which can be combined in multiple ways:

• Natural resource based: The majority of rural dwellerswill plan on ways to make a living, based directly on the natural resources around them e.g.subsistence farmers, fishers, hunter/gatherers, plantation managers.

• Non-natural resource based: Some rural dwellers, and most urban-based people, will opt to make a living based on created resources ranging from begging, service jobs, drivers, government jobs to shop-keeping.

• Migration: If there are no appropriate opportunities for people to make a living, then a third option may be to migrate away from the area to a place where they can make a living. Examples vary from nomadic tribes to the expatriate academic.This migration can be seasonal or permanent.

Recent studies have drawnattention to the enormous diversity of livelihood strategies at every level -within geographicareas, across sectors, within households and over time. This is not a questionof people moving from one form ofemployment or “own-account” activity (farming, fishing), to another. Rather itis a dynamic process in which people combine their activities to meet theirvarious needs at different times. A common manifestation of this, at the household level, is “straddling”, whereby differentmembers of the household live and work in different places temporarily,e.g. seasonal migration, or permanently.

LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES

The aim of these livelihood strategies is to meet people's needs, as efficiently and effectively as possible. These needs can be expressed as desired livelihood outcomes of a chosen livelihood strategy. When considering “poor” people, there are five basic outcomes that will usually be most important to them. The priority given to each will depend on the individual's perception of his or her circ*mstances. They are as follows:

• Increased food security: A basic requirement for any livelihood is to achieve food security. It is not enough to have adequate food for part of the year and insufficient in another. There must be a secure supply all year round.

• Increased well-being: An increased feeling of physical, mental and spiritual well-being is an important and basic need. To a certain extent, it is dependanton other needs being met.

• Reduced vulnerability: As far as possible, a chosen livelihood should help reduce the effect of the various factors that make life more vulnerable, e.g.drought, conflict.

• Increased income: Clearly, most poor people willwant their income increased to an adequate level, and to have the maximum flexibility in meeting their needs.

• Sustainable natural resource use: Since many livelihoods of the ruralpoor depend on access to natural resources, it is important that their strategies lead to more sustainable use of these resources.

Key points

• The sustainable livelihoodsframework presents the main factors affecting people's livelihoods and the typical relationships thatexist between these features.

• The entry point to agrobiodiversity management is peoplethemselves.

• Agrobiodiversity managementis not a separate activity that aims to conserve individual species, varieties or breeds. Rather, it is seen aspart of the day-to-day livelihood strategies of people throughout the world.

• Taking a livelihoodsperspective means focusing on existing strengths and livelihoods assets, ratherthan on weaknessesand needs.

• It is important to link macro and micro levels for the successfulmanagement of agrobiodiversity.

• The use and management ofa*grobiodiversity is dynamic. Different components of agrobiodiversity are usedby different people at different times and in different places, contributing tothe development of complexlivelihood strategies.

  See Also

  Sustainable banking - What’s next? | Infosys BPM

• The livelihood approachemphasizes the relevance of the wider context in which people's livelihoods andtheir assets areembedded.

• The empowerment of localpeople, through information sharing and capacity building, are key aspects of alivelihoods approach.

NOTES FOR THE TRAINER - PROCESSSHEET

OBJECTIVE:Fact sheet 2.1 aims to introduce the livelihoods framework and to raiseparticipants' awareness of the differentassets poor people use to build their livelihoods. Furthermore, it emphasisesthe relevance of the vulnerabilitycontext and the linkages between the vulnerability context and the livelihoodsassets.

LEARNINGGOALS: The participants understand thecomplexity of people's livelihoods. They are able to use the livelihoods framework, as an analysis tool, toidentify people's strengths and assets. Participants should be able torecognize local knowledge and agrobiodiversity as key assets of poor people'slivelihoods.

PROCESS

1. Depending on the availabletime, and interest/background of the participants the trainer, together withthe participants,could either analyse the difference between the livelihoods and naturalresource management approach in more detail (Step 1), or go directly to Step 2.

1. Forming two groups, theparticipants should explore for themselves the meaning of a livelihoodsapproach, compared to a natural resourcemanagement approach. This exercise will encourage participants to reflectontheir own understanding of the concepts,prior to the introduction of the livelihoods framework.

2. The facilitator provides a shortintroduction of the livelihoods perspective and the livelihoods framework.Depending on the audience, s/he couldeither use a Power Point presentation for this purpose, or develop theframework on a large board in front of the participants. The second option isslower, and may be more suitablefor participants who do not know thelivelihoods framework at all. During this presentation, emphasis shouldbe given to the relevance of thelivelihoods framework for understanding the linkages betweenagrobiodiversity, gender and localknowledge. Afterwards a short feed-back session for clarifications shouldfollow.

3. After the conceptual presentation,the trainer could introduce the Mali case study (Module 5) to helpparticipants apply theframework to a real situation. Depending on the time, and the participants'mood, thecase study could either be read in smallgroups, or presented by the trainer. This would lead into an exercise,which is described below (see Exercise Sheet 2.1)

OUTCOME: Participants understand the main aspectsand foci of the livelihood framework and are able to apply it to the management of agrobiodiversity.

TIME ALLOCATION: Minimum 4 hours.

2.1 EXERCISESHEET

The participants are invited tobreak into small groups of 4–5 people.

GROUP WORK TASK:

Using the sustainable livelihoodsframework as a guide, “map” out:

1. Whatare the different assets described in the case study? What degree ofcontrol do different people in thevillage have over them?

2. Therefactors outside the immediate control of the village people, which could makethem vulnerable (e.g.trends, shocks, seasons)?

3. Whatpolicies, institutions and processes affect the current andfuture management of their assets?

4. Canyou identify different livelihoods strategies in the case study? What dopeople want to achieve with thesestrategies?

Afterthis exercise is completed, the groups are invited to present their findings,and to discuss differences and similarities between them.

WHAT ARE THE LINKAGES BETWEEN AGROBIODIVERSITY, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND GENDER FROM A LIVELIHOODS PERSPECTIVE?

In fact sheet 2.1, we learned that Agrobiodiversity can beconsidered an important natural capital, or asset, for poor people's livelihoods, having the potential ofcontributing to food security and income generation. Human capital -suchas local knowledge - is considered to be a livelihood asset that cancontribute to different livelihood strategies. Gender roles and relations formpart of the policies, institutions and processes influencing the probabilitythat people will use their assets to achievetheir desired livelihood outcomes.

The challenge, faced by us and the research anddevelopment community, is to understand the linkages and complexities betweenthese different livelihood components. Only then can we achieve the sustainablemanagement of agrobiodiversity and can wecontribute to the improvement of livelihoods, economic development as well asthe maintenance of genetic diversity and associated local knowledge.

There is sufficient evidence,from past and current experiences, that these linkages and the way theyfunction, result inpositive or negative livelihood outcomes.

In the following section, weexplore the potential relationships and linkages in more detail. This section illustrates the underlying concepts of these linkages.The applied considerations are presented in Module 3 and 4.

Relationships between assets

Assetscombine in a multitude of different ways to generate positive livelihoodoutcomes. Two types of relationships areparticularly important:

• Sequencing: Do those who escapepoverty start with a particular combination of assets? Is access to one type of asset, or a recognizable subset of assets, eithernecessary or sufficient to escape poverty?

This is an important question toconsider, in terms of the conservation efforts employed to maintain agrobiodiversity. Is it enough tohave access to a wide range of diversity? Or, do people need other types ofassets to make effective use of agrobiodiversity? The short case study fromCameroon and Uganda (see Box 2) shows that the availability of a marketstructure is crucial to the successful selling of products. Usually, thelivelihoods of poor people are quitecomplex and draw on very different resources for their survival. Therefore, itseems unlikely that only one type of assetwill be sufficient to make a living. Moreover, increasing evidence suggeststhat access to information, knowledge and market infrastructure areimportant factors governing the successful management of agrobiodiversity. InModule 4 we will discuss in more detail, the relevance of local knowledge tothe sustainable management of agrobiodiversity.

• Substitution: Can one type of capitalbe substituted for others? For example, can increased human capital compensate for a lack of financial capital in any givencirc*mstance?

Existing research and development results show that poor peopleespecially depend on natural capital. The possibilityof their replacing the loss of diversity with other types of assets isextremely limited. However, this question cannot be answered in general terms and depends very much on individualor case specific conditions. For example, if there are alternative employment possibilities outside the agriculturalsector, people having the relevant skills could move away fromagriculture to other sectors.

Relationships with other framework components

Relationshipswithin the livelihood framework are highly complex. Understanding them is amajor challenge, and a core step in the process of livelihoods analysis, leading to actions toeliminate poverty.

• Assets and thevulnerability context: assets are both destroyed and created, as a result of the trends, shocks and seasonality of the vulnerability context (see Figure 1). For example, the sudden disappearance of formal seed distribution systems in a given area could cause people to return to local crop varieties and seed systems, which would enhance diversity. Or a natural or human-induced disaster could lead to the loss of local seeds in a region.

• Assets and policies, institutions and processes (PIPs): Policies, institutions and processes have a profound influence on access to assets. They:

  • Create assets -government policy to invest in basic infrastructure, physical capital, ortechnology generation, yieldinghuman capital, or the existence of local institutions that reinforce socialcapital. For instance, these could be important for the maintenance of local seed systems orlivestock management practices.

  • Determine access -ownership rights, institutions regulating access to common resources. This isextremely relevantwith respect to agrobiodiversity for intellectual property rights, patents,etc.

  • Influence rates ofasset accumulation - policies affecting returns to different livelihoodstrategies, taxation, etc.With respect to agrobiodiversity management one could think about incentivestructures to enhance varioussystems.

However, this is not a simpleone-way relationship. Individuals and groups themselves influence policies, institutions and processes. Generally speaking, thegreater people's asset endowment, the more influence they can exert. Hence, oneway to achieve empowerment may be to support people in building up theirassets.

• Assets and livelihood strategies: Peoplewith more assets tend to have a greater range of options. They also have the ability to switch between multiple strategies to secure their livelihoods. When looking at available assetsand livelihood strategies, there is an important gender dimension. As men andwomen have different livelihood strategies, they manage agrobiodiversity in different ways.

• Assets and livelihood outcomes: Povertyanalyses have shown that people's ability to escape from poverty is criticallydependent upon their access to assets. Different assets are required to achievedifferent livelihood outcomes. For example,some people may consider a minimum level of social capital essential to the achievementof a sense of wellbeing. Or, in a remote rural area, people may feel theyrequire a certain level of access to natural capital to provide security.

The following short exampleillustrates most of the issues mentioned above. It shows how a natural asset (indigenous vegetables) is used tocontribute to various desired livelihood outcomes. It also illustrates that theexistence of certaininfrastructure (markets) is required to successfully carry out a particularlivelihood strategy (in this case the marketing of these vegetables). Furthermore, it shows thattrends, such as the increasing production of exotic vegetables, do not necessarily negatively affect thislivelihood strategy.

Linkages between policies, institutions andprocesses within the framework

The influence of PIPs extends throughout the framework:

• There is direct feedback to the vulnerabilitycontext. PIPs affect trends both directly, policies for agriculturalresearch and technology development/economic trends, and indirectly, healthpolicy/population trends. They can helpcushion the impact of external shocks, policy on drought relief, food aid, etc.Other types of PIPs are also important, for example, well-functioning marketscan help reduce the effects of seasonality by facilitating inter-area trade. In turn this could be anincentive for local farmers to maintain certain crop varieties, which wouldotherwise be replaced by marketable crops.

• PIPs can restrict people'schoice of livelihood strategies. Common examples are policies andregulations that affectthe attractiveness of particular livelihood choices through their impact uponexpected returns. For instance,establishment of quality norms of fruit and vegetables can cause the productionof local varieties to be less attractive,as these may be less uniform than improved varieties.

• There may also be a directimpact on livelihood outcomes. Responsive political structures thatimplement pro-poor policies, including theextension of social services into the areas in which the poor live, cansignificantly increase people's sense ofwell-being. They can promote awareness of rights and a sense of self-control.They can also help reducevulnerability, through the provision of social safety nets. Relationshipsbetween various policies and the sustainability of resource use arecomplex and sometimes significant.

Key points

• Assetscombine in a multitude of different ways to generate positive livelihoodoutcomes. Two types of relationship are particularly important: sequencing andsubstitution.

• Livelihoodassets are both destroyed and created as a result of the trends, shocks andseasonality of the vulnerabilitycontext.

• Policies, institutions and processes have a profound influence onaccess to assets.

• Those with more assets tend to have a greater range of options, and anability to switch between multiple strategies to secure their livelihoods.

• Men and women have different livelihood strategies, and therefore manageagrobiodiversity in different ways.

• Poverty analyses have shown that people's ability to escape from poverty is critically dependent upon their access to assets. Different assets are required to achieve different livelihood outcomes.

NOTES FOR THE TRAINER - PROCESSSHEET

OBJECTIVE: Fact sheet 2.2 aims to introduce thelinkages between different livelihood components. It shows the need to consideragrobiodiversity within a complex framework in order to understand the linkagesbetween agrobiodiversity, gender and localknowledge.

LEARNING GOALS: Participants are aware of therelevance of different types of linkages and are able to use the livelihoods framework as an analysis tool.

PROCESS

1. The starting point for this session could be a briefpresentation by the trainer. The content of the session istheoretical and mayrequire a guided introduction.

   1. Iftime is limited, the trainer could refer to the Mali case study to explore theissues presented in fact sheet 2.2.

   2. Ifsufficient time is available, the participants could form small groups anddevelop country scenarios ofsituations, in which people base their livelihoods on the management ofa*grobiodiversity. It is importantto include local knowledge and gender roles and relations as part of thesescenarios. These scenarioscould then be used todevelop the conceptual issues presented in fact sheet 2.2.

2. Exercise2.2 focuses on the impact of policies, institutions and processes on differentcomponents within thelivelihood framework.Depending on the time allocation, the participants could either work on theMali casestudy, or on theirown country scenarios to develop the exercise (see Exercise Sheet 2.2).

3. The results of theworking groups would be brought back to the plenary. They would then bepresented in theform of a podium discussion. It is important to suggest different presentationand feedback mechanisms. Thismakes the discussion more lively andinteresting.

OUTPUT: The participants have explored theutility of the livelihood framework. They now understand the complexity of agrobiodiversity management andthe linkages to other livelihood components.

TIME ALLOCATION: Minimum time allocation is 3 hours. If country scenarios are to bedeveloped and used for the exercise, thenthe minimum is 5 hours.

EXERCISESHEET

GROUP WORK TASK

1. Pleasetake some time, as a group, to read through the relevant parts of fact sheet2.1 and 2.2 on policies,institutions and processes.

2. Breakup into three groups. Identify examples of policies, institutions andprocesses, within the context ofa*grobiodiversitymanagement, that impact upon (Group 1) the vulnerability context, (Group 2)livelihoodassets and (Group 3)livelihood strategies and outcomes.

3. Usethe scenario, developed in this session, as a starting point for yourdiscussion. Please feel free to gobeyond this scenarioand draw on your own experiences within your work context.

KEY READINGS

• Blench, R. 1997. Neglectedspecies, livelihoods and biodiversity in difficult areas: How should the public sector respond? London, ODINatural Resource Perspective Paper 23.

• Ghotge, N. & Ramdas, S.2003. Livestock and livelihoods (Paper 24). In Conservation andsustainable use ofa*gricultural biodiversity. Published by CIP-UPWARD in partnership with GTZ,IDRC, IPGRI and SEARICE.

• Anderson, S. 2003.Sustaining livelihoods through animal genetic resources conservation. In Conservationand sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity. Published by CIP-UPWARD in partnership with GTZ, IDRC, IPGRIand SEARICE.

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. 2003. Sustaining livelihoods throughanimal genetic resources conservation. In Conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.Published by CIP-UPWARD in partnership with GTZ, IDRC, IPGRI and SEARICE.

Blench, R. 1997. Neglected Species, Livelihoods andBiodiversity in difficult areas: How should the public sector respond? London, ODI NaturalResource Perspective Paper 23.

Ghotge, N. & Ramdas, S. 2003. Livestock andlivelihoods (Paper 24). In Conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity,published by CIP-UPWARD in partnership with GTZ, IDRC, IPGRI and SEARICE.

IK Notes, No 23. August2000. Seeds of life: Women and agricultural biodiversity in Africa.

Livelihoodfact sheet, United Kingdom, Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University ofGreenwich.

Schippers,R. 1999. Indigenous vegetable becoming more popular in Central Africa, phAction News, No. 1, IITA.

Web sites
DFID Web site on SustainableLivelihoods: www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html

¹ This fact sheet is based on theSustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets from DFID, which can be accessed at www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceSheets.html.

² This diagram is based on the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) Livelihoods fact sheet