384 Enabling Policies and Institutions for Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems
The way different social groups gain access to these different forms of ‘capital’ is
dependent on a complex interaction of institutions and organizations operating at
different levels. The institutional process which mediates access to such assets is
therefore a critical component of any livelihoods analysis. For example, in Ethio-
pia, depending on social status, religious affiliation and the ability to pay in kind
for labour, different people may gain access to labour for soil management and
other agricultural activities through a variety of different local institutional forms.
Such local institutions may interact with more formal organizational structures of
the state or development agencies in various ways. Thus, for example, local, largely
informal credit or savings organizations operating among networks of kin, friends
or church members may be usefully enhanced by externally supported credit
arrangements to improve the ability of members to increase financial capital. It is
this interlocking, multilayered nature of informal and formal organizational
arrangements which is central to an understanding of how livelihoods are con-
structed by different people in different settings. Insights into the changing nature
of institutional configurations across levels, then, can assist with the sensitive
design of appropriate interventions which enhance people’s own capacities to man-
age resources.
Combining different approaches
Much of the current international debate on agriculture in Africa pays particular
attention to direct interventions aimed at increasing soil nutrients, through supple-
menting natural capital by, for example, increasing use of inorganic fertilizer. How-
ever, there may be more effective means of achieving the objective of improving
livelihood sustainability. Box 19.1 suggests other avenues which should also be con-
sidered in identifying a broader spread of options for tailoring to local conditions.
In any particular setting, it is unlikely that a single intervention, by itself, will
make a big difference to soil-fertility management and improved livelihoods. For
example, in agricultural systems where soil organic matter is in short supply, sub-
stantial inputs of N may be needed initially to generate sufficient biomass to con-
tribute to the longer-term objective of improving soil structure and building
organic matter content. At the same time, work could be initiated through farmer
field schools and experimentation aimed at increasing human and social capital
through raising skills, knowledge of more effective biomass management and
strengthening partnerships between farmers and extension systems. At the macro-
level, debate could be initiated on reforms to research and extension systems, ways
of improving access to markets and credit, and strengthening of tenure security.
From the case study sites, a range of combined actions can be identified aimed
at improving soil management and livelihood sustainability, which address the
particular characteristics of location and farm household, as shown in Box 19.2
below.
From these examples based on the field research, a varied choice of interven-
tions can be identified to support more effective soil-fertility management. Some