Browsing by Author "Luckert, Marty"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Chance, change and choice in Africa's drylands: A new perspective on policy priorities?
    Anderson, J.; Bryceson, Deborah Fahy; Campbell, B.; Chitundu, D.; Clarke, J.; Drinkwater, M.; Fakir, S.; Frost, P.; Gambiza, J.; Grundy, I.; Hagmann, J.; Jones, B.; Jones, G. W.; Kowero, G.; Luckert, Marty; Mortimore, M.; Phiri, A. D. K.; Potgieter, P.; Shackleton, S.; Williams, Timothy O. (Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR, 2004)
    This paper focuses on policy dimensions in improving the livelihoods of the inhabitants of Africa's drylands, who account for an estimated 40 percent of the continent's population. It draws attention to the fact that past policies have failed because they focused on the presumed limitations of the natural resource base rather than on the dryland people themselves, their knowledge, skills and capacity. The paper details the contribution of dryland people to the local and national economies, stating that their activities are characterized by innovation and experimentation, both in the use of natural resources and in exploiting livelihood opportunities elsewhere. The author advocates a shift away from policies that view the drylands as unproductive or low potential wastelands, to recognize their contribution and supporting opportunities for sustaining livelihoods.
  • Household Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Regions: Options and Constraints
    Campbell, B. M.; Jeffrey, S.; Kozanayi, W.; Luckert, Marty; Mukamba, Mwangala; Zindi, C. (Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research, 2002)
    The overall aim of this study was to explore what the development community can do, or facilitate, to significantly improve livelihoods in semi-arid systems. We based our analysis on two case-study sites in the communal lands of southern Zimbabwe, areas fairly typical of a vast domain of granite/gneissic landscapes in semi-arid areas of numerous developing countries on three continents. Our main tool was a detailed livelihood questionnaire, supplemented by participatory appraisal and observation, action research, biophysical analysis and systems modeling. Human, financial, physical and natural assets are severely constrained for most households. An analysis of rules, leadership and committee operations indicates a system dominated by informal arrangements, and the ineffectiveness of a number of institutions. Most households rely on cash and subsistence income from a number of sources - dryland crop production, gardening, livestock production, woodland activities, wage or home industries and remittances/gifts. Marked wealth differentiation occurs, with local people recognising the different wealth groupings largely on the basis of various capital assets. One factor driving differentiation is whether a household has access to remittance income. The wealthiest quartile is the only one in which households derive more than a third of their gross cash income from crops, but their main cash income is remittances. Elements of change can be identified in numerous aspects of the capital assets and the livelihood strategies. We suggest that there are some key drivers of change, namely: (a) rainfall, (b) macro-economic changes, (c) changing institutional arrangements and social processes, and (d) demographic processes and HIV/AIDS. The study suggests that households have a rich and varied livelihood portfolio, with displays of infinite resourcefulness to make ends meet. We found little evidence of a downward spiral triggered by rapid population growth, but we do not see the poverty status of rural households improving in semi-arid regions, as part of intensification processes. Most households fall below various internationally recognised poverty lines. Rural poverty is the result of a suite of interacting social, economic and environmental factors and processes operating at a range of scales. The multi-faceted nature of poverty indicates that there is no silver bullet to rural development, and that an integrated, multi-sectoral approach to development is critical, with different, but complementary, activities pursued at different levels. We recognise that there are very low incentives to actively manage natural resources in the commons, and there are almost no technical or institutional interventions that could be used to change this situation. Removing ineffective national- and district-level regulations related to woodlands and grazing areas, and empowering local leaders, will be a step in the right direction. In pursuing poverty reduction, of paramount importance is the development of an enabling policy environment to allow farmers to experiment and capture opportunities. Our overall conclusion is that there are very few options for significantly improving livelihoods in semi-arid regions and that the poverty alleviation targets set by the international community are overly ambitious. Our analyses suggest that rainfall variation and the state of the macro-economy are likely to have a greater impact on livelihood status than local rural development interventions. (CAB Abstract)
  • Unpacking decentralization
    Andersson, Krister P.; Bauer, Jacqui; Jagger, Pamela; Luckert, Marty; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S.; Mwangi, Esther; Ostrom, Elinor (2008)
    This presentation provides an analytical breakdown of the implications of government decentralization policies in the management of forest resources. Though first presenting the negative aspects of centralization policies, the presentation shows how decentralization has widely evolved as better equipped to prevent a tragedy of the commons in forest resource depletion. Nevertheless, results of decentralization in forest management varied widely in application across the various sites.
  • Unpacking decentralization
    Andersson, Krister P.; Bauer, Jacqui; Jagger, Pamela; Luckert, Marty; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S.; Mwangi, Esther; Ostrom, Elinor (SANREM CRSP, 2008)
    The term "decentralization" is applied to a wide diversity of governance arrangements around the world and has achieved positive, negative, and no results in its application to natural resource management. Part of the reason that the results have been so mixed is that the term decentralization is used as the name of widely diverse policies including: (1) deconcentration of national administrative authority to regional or local offices, (2) shifting authority from national agencies to local agencies with varying degrees of autonomy, and (3) privatization of the ownership and/or management of natural resource system. Thus, the resulting formal governance arrangements may vary substantially from one decentralization effort to another dependant both on the policies that are adopted and on many other factors including the broader economy of a country and the region where decentralization is occurring, the set of legal rights that had been in existence prior to the new policy, and multiple economic processes. Consequently, the behavior or resource users, private firms, government officials at multiple levels will differ substantially. Thus, livelihood and sustainability outcomes will tend to differ substantially from one location to another.
  • Thumbnail Image
    What should we really be asking? Aggregated vs. disaggregated responses to household livelihood questionnaires
    Jagger, Pamela; Luckert, Marty; Banana, Abwoli Y.; Bahati, Joseph (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University and Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR, 2008)
    Presentation comparing the Poverty & Environment method of collecting household-level data with the International Forest Resources & Institutions method, which was developed for the purposes of this project and which involves a one-time visit to a household. Focuses on surveys completed in Uganda.