1. Farm typologies and resilience:Household diversity seen asalternative system statesPablo Tittonell1,21Centre de coopration Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le DveloppementMontpellier, France2Tropical Resource Ecology Program, University of Zimbabwe, HarareFarming Systems Design September 27, 2011Brisbane, Australia

2. IntroductionFarm typologies(i) Aim at categorising diversity in livelihood strategies and/or levels ofhousehold resource endowment;(ii) Used in a diversity of applications (research, policy, monitoring and evaluation, econometrics, etc.);(iii) Should respond to the objectives of the study/ intervention;(iv) Often used as the basis for scaling-up/ scaling out-approaches;(v) Different methods are used to categorise household diversity: statisticalclustering, participatory rankings, expert knowledge, etc.StructuralBased on resources and asset levels Functional Livelihood strategies and household dynamics 3. Structural typologiesSmallholder households in NE ZimbabweFarm type Farm size # Livestock# Scotch Maize yield (ha)carts (t ha-1)Poor 20 < 0.7 0 None 0.2 1.0 Clustering (e.g. multi-dimensional scaling)Medium0.7 1.22411.0 1.2 40Rich> 1.2 4 - 2222.0 3.5 50% similarityWithin-group similarity (%) 60 80100 Farm samples 4. Functional typologies Resource endowment (allocation pattern) Production orientation (subsistence, markets) Livelihood strategy (e.g., access to non-/ off-farm income) Household structure (position on farm development cycle) Household dynamics (where do they come from/ go?)Dependence on off-farm income Hypothesis: -+ + + Different household types may be Type 2 as alternate states of theRich seen farms same system (in this case, the smallholder rural livelihood system) + Type 1 +Resource endowmentResource endowmentfarms Market orientation This may allow: Food s elfType 3 su Medium Understanding the nature and resilience of poverty trapsyffic ien cfarms Analysing possible shifts (or not) between household types in response to Type 4 farms - e.g. poverty alleviation measures, market or climatic scenarios, etc. - Type 5Poor farms - - 5. Underlying assumptions about household diversityFarm productivitySmallholder farming systemsA) No alternate regimesarmsB) Two alternate regimesB B fState of capital stock (fast variable)tock State of capital stock (fast variable)- L ives Syst em stateI- Hysteresis ThresholdA A+Destocking+I Stockingte ISyst em sta Underlying (controlling) variable Underlying (controlling) variable Assumptions: Assumptions: Policies and developmentMoving form A to B may not be so interventions may impact on thefarms easy; these are two alternative right driving variables to move -lives tock system regimes; interventions need gradually from A to BNonto provoke a jump (hysteresis) A threshold may be thereDiscontinuity, irreversibilityResources 6. Livelihoods aspirations and strategies of the poor Dorward (2009) People aspire to maintain their current welfare and to advance it Expanding their existing activities and/or moving into new activities Hanging In: assets are held and activities engaged in to maintain livelihoodlevels (adverse socio-economic circumstances) Stepping Up current activities engaged in, with investments in assets to expand these activities, to increase production and income to improve livelihoods Stepping Out activities engaged in to accumulate assets which in time can provide a launch pad for moving into different activities e.g. accumulation of livestock as savings to finance childrens education 7. Western Kenya1000 inhabitants per Km2 8. Heterogeneity and landscape dynamicsFarm developmental cycle (Forbes, 1949)ResourcesMaturityh De wtocli gr ne ndanta d Maintaining &endismreproducing sosh resources; blilut taion productionEs Expanding Formerlyfamily & household that has been subdivided as the children married a single may exceedSub-dividingconsumptionland resources Time (life cycle) Tittonell et al., Ag Sys 2007 9. A functional typology for East African highland systemsType 1 Type 3MKT LVSTKFOODMKT CSHCNSHOME OFF-FA RM OEWealthier householdsMid-class to poor householdsCSHWOODLVSTKType 2ResourceHOMECSHallocationCNSWOODstrategiesMKT LVSTK Type 4MKT LVSTKCNSCNSFOODHOME FOODHOMEOFF-FARM WOOD WOOD Type 5 Cash MKT FOOD Labour CNS HOME OFF-FARM Nutrients WOODCSHTittonell et al., AGEE 2005a,b 10. Functional farm types and system statesPerformance (well-being)T2 T1 Stepping out PStepping up T3 PT4 Hanging in T5R RResources (natural, social, human) 11. 100 40Total housIncomeIndicators of resources and performance Total household income (kSh yr )-1120 300Household type 1 Income per capita (kSh yr )5020 -1Household type 2250 100Household type 3Household type 420080 Household type 5 0 0 300120 01 2 3 4 50.0 0.4Total household income (kSh yr )15060System state II -1Income per capita (kSh yr )-16250 1.0100 2 t ha-140 Food production per capita (t dm)100Stepping outFood production (t dm farm-1)1 us$ day-1 50 520 200 0.880 0 1 t ha-100 4 1 23450.0 0.4 0.81.2 150 0.6606-12 t ha120 1.0Food production per capita (t dm)3Household type 1 Food production (t dm farm-1) 100 40 come per capita (kSh yr )5 -10.8Household type 2100-10.4 1 t haHousehold type 34 2500.620 Household type 43800.2 Household type 510.40 02 System state 10 I602 3450.000.00.2101 2 Cropping land (ha) 3 450.0 0.4 Self-sufficiency 6-11.0 Cropping landt (ha)40 2 ha (t dm)0 0.0 Landrm-1) 01 23 4 50.0 0.4 0.81.2 5Cropping land (ha) Land:labour ratio1 us$ day-1 0.8 20 12. Testing across a wider range of systems(Market orientation) % % area allocated to cash crops(Market orientation) area allocated to cash cropsMeru S. Meru S.ViableMbalef ar Mbalemsiz e sDesirable effectof intensificationAgroecological potentialPopulation (People per Km2) MiMbeere 0-2nim Mbeere 3 - 10 umfar 11 - 20 Vihiga mMbalesizTororo 21 - 50 Vihigaes 51 - 100Siaya Tororo 101 - 200 Siaya Meru S. 201 - 500 501 - 1000 Vihiga >1000 % area under fallow% area under fallow(Traditional management)Siaya(Traditional management)TororoMbeere Markopport etunitiesion lat y pu t Po ensi Tittonell et al., AgSys 2010d TSBF, 2007 13. Concluding remarks There is ample potential to bring down to earth the attractive concepts around resilience thinking for use in the context of farming systems research A promising entry point: Farm typologies seen as alternative states of a given rural livelihood system This challenges a few assumptions: the existence of thresholds, continuity, reversibility, and the use of classical socio-economic indicators to cluster similar groups out of large household surveys Poverty traps become evident: improving livelihoods (i.e. facilitating a shift upwards) does not necessarily imply more resources (e.g. agricultural inputs, livestock or more efficient technologies) Will this always work? Where not, why? More research is neededPablo.tittonell@cirad.frThanks for your attention