Agroecology and Sustainable Livelihoods: Towards an Integrated Approach to Rural Development

Abstract

Agroecology and SL studies are multi-disciplinary development schools that investigate the contexts and struggles of the rural poor in making a living under various adverse conditions. Both schools have made critical strides in rural development by promoting people-centered approaches. However, these two vital approaches to rural development have cut across each other based solely upon a loose combination of relevant elements derived from each of them. This paper argues that not only the shared spectrums but also the divergent interests between agroecology and SL studies signify the potential for beneficial cross-fertilization. With this conception, this paper tries to make conceptual and methodological syntheses between agroecology and SL studies as an integrated approach to rural development. The attempt results in a stylized model of modified SL framework with an eclectic set of new concepts. It is hoped that critical discussions on the possibility of integration between agroecology and SL studies would open up innovative arenas in the studies of sustainable agriculture and rural development.

Keywords:

• agroecology
• sustainable livelihoods
• sustainable agriculture
• integrated approach to rural development
• small-scale farmers

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Robert E. Mazur, Jan Flora, Mike Duffy, Gail Nonnecke and Teresa Downing-Matibag for reviewing an earlier version of this paper and providing valuable comments. Many thanks also go to two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions to improve the paper.

Notes

1 Governance often becomes part of the concept ‘good governance.’ The concept addresses the quality of governance of a polity in regard to public accountability, transparency of decision-making, and the even-handed application of the rule of law (Ellis, 2000).

2 However, governance could refer to a narrower range of a polity when it accounts for specific contexts of governance, such as corporate governance or local governance. It could also be used to a broader context than the nation-state, such as international governance (UN ESCAP, 2006).

3 In developing countries, levels of non-farm diversification and income share across household economic strata vary within heterogeneous contexts. A generalized regional portrayal is that in Africa where livestock and human capital comprise the major factor of economic differentiation, non-farm activity tends to be positively correlated with income and wealth, whereas in Asia and Latin America where landownership is the chief source of differentiation, non-farm activity tends to hold a negative relationship. In the latter case, the land poor is compelled to seek survival through diversifying their non-farm activity, while the land rich can obtain sufficient income from agriculture for making a good living (Reardon et al., 2000).

4 There are subjects such as education and health which are important part of rural development trajectories but are not explicitly included in the model. They are not included since they are not the occupational sources for household consumption as the SL approach assumes in the notion of ‘livelihood diversification.’