Introduction to Livelihood Framework

Right Livelihood Award Winners from India 2008 Krishnammal Jagannathan and Sankaralingam Jagannathan LAFTI 2006 Ruth Manorama 2004 Swami Agnivesh / Asghar Ali Engineer 1996 People's Science Movement of Kerala (Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad 1993 1993 1991 Narmada Bachao Andolan 1986 International Society for Ecology and Culture / Helena Norberg-Hodge 1985 Lokayan / Rajni Kothari 1984 Self-Employed Women's Association / Ela Bhatt

Smt. Krishnammal Jeganathan Right Livelihood Award Winner from Tamilnadu

It has become widely known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’ and there are now 133 Laureates from 57 countries. Presented annually in Stockholm at a ceremony in the Swedish Parliament, the Right Livelihood Award is usually shared by four Recipients. One of them may receive an Honorary Award, given to a person or group whose work the Jury wishes to recognize but who is not primarily in need of monetary support. The others share the prize money of 2,000,000 Swedish kronor (approx 223,000 EUR / 310,000 USD / 1,43,60,000 INR). The prize money is for ongoing successful work, never for personal use.

S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences

The definition used by Department of Foreign and International Development (DFID) incorporates these sentiments. 'A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base' (Chambers, R. and G. Conway, 1992). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) differentiates between a job and a livelihood, which are often used interchangeably. Jobs "A job connotes one particular activity or trade that is performed in exchange for payment. It is also a formal agreement, as manifested by a contract, between an employer and employee...... . A job can, however, comprise part of an overall livelihood, but does so only to complement other aspects of a livelihood portfolio. Livelihoods "A livelihood, on the other hand, is engagement in a number of activities which, at times, neither require a formal agreement nor are limited to a particular trade. Livelihoods may or may not involve money. Jobs invariably do. Livelihoods are self-directing. .... . Livelihoods are based on income derived from "jobs", but also on incomes derived from assets and entitlements. " "a means of living or of supporting life and meeting individual and community needs"

Introduction to Livelihood Promotion

What is a livelihood? The definition of ‘livelihood’ has been extensively discussed among academics and development practitioners (Ellis, 1998, Batterbury, 2001; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Carney, 1998; Bernstein, 1992; Francis, 2000, 2002; Radoki, 2002).

There is a consensus that livelihood is about the ways and means of ‘making a living’. The most widely accepted definition of livelihood stems from the work of Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway: ‘a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living’ (Carney, 1998:4). Ellis (2000) suggests a definition of livelihood as ‘the activities, the assets, and the access that jointly determine the living gained by an individual or household’. Wallman (1984) who did research on livelihoods in London in the early 1980s approached livelihoods as always more than just a matter of finding or making shelter, transacting money, and preparing food to put on the table or exchange in the market place. It is equally a matter of the ownership and circulation of information, the management of social relationships, the affirmation of personal significance and group identity, and the inter relation of each of these tasks to the other. All these productive tasks together constitute a livelihood. For an anthropologist such as

Refer: http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/?s=A1-Livelihood http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9371e/x9371e00.htm#TopOfPage

The livelihood of a household or individual can be interpreted as their ‘means of living’. Their means of living is based on their capabilities, assets (financial, physical, human, natural resource and social) and activities. Livelihoods consist of both generation of income as well as the ownership of assets that reduces the vulnerability of marginalized communities. A livelihood is sustainable when it: • Can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, and • Can maintain or build on available capabilities and assets, and • Does not undermine the natural resource base.

http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/index.php?id=24

http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/?s=A1-Livelihood

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9371e/x9371e00.htm#TopOfPage


Why Livelihood? A livelihoods perspective encourages a broader understanding and examination of factors, institutions and processes that can explain the differing success with which rural households make a living. Consequently, permits a bringing together of more sectoral approaches which tend to focus on a single aspect of rural livelihood systems, to create a more holistic understanding of the options and trade-offs facing different groups in the face of climate change.

Why Promote Livelihoods? In the current decade, according to estimates of the Planning Commission for the Tenth Five Year Plan, more than 10 million people in India will be seeking work every year. Thus, to ensure full employment within a decade, more than 10 million new livelihoods will have to be generated every year. Given the magnitude of the problem, and the dearth of resources for livelihood promotion, the task of promoting livelihoods for the poor becomes all the more urgent. It calls for organizations to use their resources optimally to achieve maximum scale.

The primary reason to promote livelihoods is the belief in the essential right of all human beings to equal opportunity. Poor people do not have life choices nor do they have opportunities. Ensuring that a poor household has a stable livelihood will substantially increase its income, and over a period of time, asset ownership, self-esteem and social participation.

The second reason for livelihood promotion is to promote economic growth. The ‘bottom of the pyramid’ comprising nearly 4 billion out of the 6 billion people in the world, who do not have the purchasing power to buy even the bare necessities of life – food, clothing and shelter. But as they get steadier incomes through livelihood promotion, they become customers of many goods and services, which then promote growth. The third reason for promoting livelihoods is to ensure social and political stability. When people are hungry, they tend to take to violence, crime.

Thus, we see that there are idealistic, utilitarian and plain self-interest based arguments for livelihood promotion. But whatever be the reason, we need to worry about – how to promote livelihoods?

Wallman livelihood is an umbrella concept, which suggests that social life is layered and that these layers overlap (both in the way people talk about them and the way they should be analyzed). This is an important analytical feature of the notion of livelihoods. One feature that these definitions and interpretations share in common is that they eloquently underline the generally accepted idea that ‘livelihood’ deals with people, their resources and what they do with these. Livelihoods essentially revolve around resources (such as land, crops, seed, labour, knowledge, cattle, money, social relationships, and so on), but these resources cannot be disconnected from the issues and problems of access and changing political, economic and socio-cultural circumstances. Livelihoods are also about creating and embracing new opportunities. While gaining a livelihood, or attempting to do so, people may, at the same time, have to cope with risks and uncertainties, such as erratic rainfall, diminishing resources, pressure on the land, changing life cycles and kinship networks, epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, chaotic markets, increasing food prices, inflation, and national and international competition. These uncertainties, together with new emerging opportunities, influence how material and social resources are managed and used, and on the choices people make.

Why Livelihoods? The study of livelihoods is relevant for understanding poverty and poverty alleviation. It is well realized that livelihood framework in general provides insights in the many dimensions,



dynamics and persistence of poverty. For many decades poverty has been central to many development agencies’ agendas (e.g. World Bank, national governments, etc.). Despite this, well over a billion people – about a fifth of the world’s population – live in absolute poverty and poverty remains widespread in both urban and rural areas. Given the nature and extent of poverty, systematic investigation of poverty and analysis of why some people live in poverty and others not, is an urgent priority. Current international development targets (the Millennium Development Goals) include – the aim of halving acute poverty globally by 2015. To achieve this it is necessary to have a set of analytical tools that engage with local people and policy makers. The livelihoods perspective is perceived as a playing a useful role in this process. What is new in Sustainable Livelihood (SL)? In many respects, Sustainable Livelihood approaches are not new at all. They build upon decades of thinking about the best ways to approach development problems, and incorporate many of the tools and methods with which we are all familiar. What makes Sustainable Livelihood 'new' is that it brings all these issues together at the same time and combines them with a core emphasis on poverty elimination, on people (rather than on resources or project outputs, such as numbers of hospitals built or numbers of teachers trained) and on the importance of working simultaneously at local and higher levels and with both the public and the private sector. Sustainable Livelihood approaches recognize the importance of seeing livelihood systems holistically and that concentrating on specific parts of systems only will not deliver poverty elimination. The Sustainable Livelihood framework provides a structure and focus for thinking about systemic change. How does Sustainable Livelihood differ from Integrated Rural Development? Sustainable Livelihood approaches build upon the positive aspects of Integrated Rural Development (IRD), in particular IRD's recognition of the interlocking nature of needs and the

Frequently asked questions about SLA SL ...the Basics: What is a sustainable livelihood? What are the core principles that underlie SL approaches? What are we trying to achieve by adopting an SL approach? What is new? What difference does SL make? Who are the partners for SL? What happens if partners do not follow an SL approach? Does SL raise too many expectations and demands? Relationship of SL to Other Approaches: How do SL approaches relate to the International Development targets? How does SL differ from Integrated Rural Development? How does SL differ from community-based development? Program How do SL approaches relate to sector programmes? How do SL approaches relate to rights? What does SL have to say about working with the private sector? What are Transforming Structures and Processes? Are they things that we need to transform, or things that transform others ? About Complexity: What does it mean to be holistic? SL claims to be `holistic'. Does this mean we have to do everything? How can I handle the complexity of SL? How does SL help to select project activities? Is SL applicable only for projects and area-based activity? You say that the SL approach stresses multiple levels of operation and macro-micro links? Where does this show up in the SL framework? SL may help in arriving at an holistic appreciation of the factors influencing livelihoods of the poor, but does it offer anything new in suggesting how they may be addressed? SL and Poverty: Is SLA pro-poor? Does the focus on assets mean that richer people are favored? Does SL target the poorest? For a field project we've selected a poor community in a poor district. But there is differentiation in the community. Who should we be working with? Poor people are focused on survival and income concerns. Do we really need all this fancy (and costly) analysis to tell us what we should be doing? Poverty is complex, multi-dimensional and the causes are variable. Does this mean that we all have to become generalists? Poverty is complex, multidimensional and the causes are variable. How then can we work out priorities at a national, let alone a Regional/ or strategic level? Is SL of any value to fieldworkers? Analysis with SL: What is the unit of analysis for livelihoods? Is it necessary to conduct livelihoods analysis for every group and situation?


Livelihood is: § A set of economic activities, involving self-employment and/or wage-employment

§ by using one’s endowments (human and material) § to generate adequate resources (cash and non-cash) § for meeting the requirements of self and the household, § usually carried out repeatedly and as such become a way of life.

Ideally, § a livelihood should keep a person meaningfully occupied, § in a sustainable manner, § with dignity Livelihoods, therefore, go far beyond generating income. A livelihood is much more than employment.

complementarity’s between various types of development activity. However, Sustainable Livelihood is more people-focused and participatory than IRDP. It does not attempt to create integrated 'solutions' or projects and it explicitly addresses issues within the wider policy and economic environment How does Sustainable Livelihood differ from community-based development programs? Sustainable Livelihood builds on many of the strengths of community-based development programs. It is participatory and works with local people to understand their strengths and determine their priorities (and therefore enables people to take action). It tries to avoid sectoral preconceptions. However, a core difference is that it looks beyond the local environment. It is neither bottom-up, nor top-down, but stresses that all levels should work together. A primary objective of SL analysis is to understand how wider policies, institutions and processes affect local livelihoods. This includes thinking about issues of vulnerability, local power and influence. SL-informed programs then aim to engage at various levels and to help change this wider environment so that it facilitates sustainable livelihoods. In some cases SL-guided programs operate primarily at a policy level. Where this is the case a key objective is to ensure that the policy-making process is adequately informed about local-level outcomes How do Sustainable Livelihood approaches relate to sector programs? Sector-wide approaches and Sustainable Livelihood approaches need not conflict. Sustainable Livelihood approaches can be effective at both grass roots and policy levels. Sustainable Livelihood should encourage sector programs to broaden stakeholder participation, to consider local outcomes when thinking about policy and to establish cross-sectoral links. Where analysis suggests that activities should be focused in a particular sector, and where that sector is substantially government-led, a Sustainable Livelihood -guided sector program might be the most appropriate form of development activity. Like sector programs, Sustainable Livelihood approaches also aims to build on 'best practice' in public expenditure and management issues

How do Sustainable Livelihood approaches relate to rights? In many respects, Sustainable Livelihood approaches encourage users to adopt a rights perspective. This is because they encourage them to put people, their access to resources, and their degree of voice and power in the wider political and social context, at the centre of development. Conversely, rights practitioners can use Sustainable Livelihood approaches to promote rights-based projects in cases where calling them 'rights based projects' is not feasible. There is thus a mutually beneficial relationship and mutual feedback between an Sustainable Livelihood and a rights perspective


The Sustainable Livelihood Framework helps us think holistically about: • The things that poor rural households might be very vulnerable to

• The assets and resources that help them thrive and survive

• The policies and institutions that impact on their livelihoods

• How they respond to threats of climate change • What sort of adaptation strategies is open to them?

What does Sustainable Livelihood have to say about working with the private sector? Sustainable Livelihood approaches are very much rooted in current thinking about public/private partnerships and the need to mobilize all resources in order to combat entrenched poverty. The need to work in partnership with both the public and the private sector is stressed as one of the six principles that underlie Sustainable Livelihood approaches. And the Sustainable Livelihood framework in its more detailed form explicitly mentions the private sector (within the Policies, Institutions and Processes area). Furthermore, when we think open-mindedly about the various livelihood strategies that people adopt, we will inevitably come to consider and support the private sector.

What does it mean to be holistic? In the Sustainable Livelihood context the word 'holistic' denotes a broad, system-wide

approach to thinking about poverty. Sustainable Livelihood analysis is holistic in the sense that it tries to include all factors that affect livelihoods (whether or not these are explicitly noted in the Sustainable Livelihood framework). Nothing is excluded at the outset (though things may be eliminated due to judged lack of importance as analysis proceeds) and effort is made to understand both the links between different factors and the

dynamism of the whole

Sustainable Livelihood claims to be 'holistic'. Does this mean we have to do everything? No. The Sustainable Livelihood approach is holistic in the sense that it tries to take into account all the major influences on livelihoods. It does not start from a sectoral perspective but tries to understand in conjunction with local people how livelihoods are 'constructed'. This does not, however, mean that Sustainable Livelihood -guided programs and projects must try to do everything. Holistic analysis ideally leads to a more accurate assessment of where and how to intervene within a strategic program of targeted activities. A useful analogy is that of the acupuncturist whose diagnosis is holistic but who uses very specific needles in his/her treatment (rather than covering the body like a pin-cushion).

The origins of the livelihood perspective The livelihood perspective on rural change and development framework can be viewed as a critical response to the conceptualization of development as a process that can be managed from above and one that hinges on intervention and the transfer of exogenous resources. The dominant development paradigm, often referred to as modernization, takes, as its cornerstone, the assumption of the process of unilinearity, that there is only one ideal pathway of development, requiring support and design by an expert system. Many foreign aid programs and policies have been based on this modernization perspective. Until recently, the dominant view was that rural residence necessarily implies reliance on farming as a means of income. Rural areas were seen as primarily the production site for agriculture and rural development was perceived as derivative of agricultural development. Policies for the development of rural areas, when recognized as a relevant policy domain, focused solely on farming, and neglected other rural economic activities. Policy perceptions




and visions about farming and the development of the agricultural sector have been long dominated by the paradigm of agricultural modernization, which advocates improving farm production through the use of more and improved technologies and more financial investments. This approach is exemplified in the Green Revolution approach. While farming is certainly an important factor in rural economies, rural areas contain a wide range of economic activities. It is only in recent years that a new paradigm of rural development emerged: one that takes a broader view on the rural economy, incorporating economic activities other than farming, while highlighting the broad diversity of rural development processes. Generally this is referred to the diversification of the rural economy. The modernization paradigm has gradually come under increasing criticism for its top-down, ‘blueprint’ model of development, as well as its reliance on a system of expert knowledge that largely ignores local people’s knowledge and experiences. Reliance on the use of exogenous resources is one of the key features of The Green Revolution. The livelihoods approach is not just a response to modernization perspectives. It also critically engages with the lively debate on development theory and perspectives that has been ongoing since the early 1980s. Prevailing development theories (e.g. modernization, Marxism) were challenged and criticized of being structuralist and functionalist in nature. These theories and approaches were seen as overly prescriptive and strongly influenced by ideological discourses based either around the free-market model or that of state control and central planning. These theoretical schools also failed to satisfactorily explain unexpected development trajectories. For example: both Marxist (although not widely supported) and modernization perspectives predicted that small scale and peasant farming would gradually disappear (albeit for different reasons) and would be replaced by large scale, intensive

capitalist farming and that petty forms of commodity production would dissolve in the process of development, giving way to capitalist production. Contemporary agriculture, both in the South and the North, is still characterized by a co-existence of small- and large-scale production and peasant and entrepreneurial forms of organization. In other words heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity, is the dominant feature of development. There is not one, but many, patterns of development. It was also felt that local people’s capacities should not be ignored and their voices needed to be heard more in research and development planning. The 1980s saw the rise of so-called participatory approaches in (rural) development projects. This meant that the people for whom these projects where meant, from now on were (or should be) actively involved in planning and

implementation of policies and interventions. In a sense, one could also refer to this as a ‘democratization’ of rural development practice. Moreover, a gradual shift in thinking about social change has led to a greater emphasis on people’s agency, i.e. their capacities to change their lives (through individual and collective action) and the structures of society. Following this line of thinking increasing emphasis was given to people’s own activities whereas

Principles of SL Approach • People-centered: beginning by understanding peoples’ priorities and livelihood strategies.

● Responsive and participatory: responding to the expressed priorities of poor people. ● Multi-level: ensuring micro-level realities inform macro-level institutions and processes. ● Conducted in partnership: working with public, private and civil society actors. ● Sustainable: environmentally, economically, institutionally, and socially. ● Dynamic: ensuring support is flexible and process-oriented, responding to changing livelihoods. ● Holistic: reflecting the integrated nature of people’s lives and diverse strategies. Ï Ï Ï Ï Building on strengths: while addressing vulnerabilities.


previously the focus of development studies was mostly on macro economic structures and government policies.

Towards a Livelihood framework Sustainable Livelihood framework will improve our understanding of the diverse nature, and the complexity, of social change in rural as well as in urban areas, where there is a wide range of processes and factors that affect livelihoods. Some operate at the global level, others at the regional or local level. Climatic change, environmental degradation, global trade, HIV/AIDS, economic policies such as structural adjustment, the World Trade Organization (WTO), conflicts about land and labor and so on all influence the way people that are able to construct and sustain a living. Sustainable Livelihood framework thus needs to accommodate such processes of social change and how they affect the configuration of available key resources and what individuals and households can do with such resources. Sustainable Livelihood framework intends to deepen our understanding of social differentiation and vulnerability. It aims to be dynamic, by taking into account the capacities of people themselves, the changes that take place over time and how this affects the variety of ways by which individuals and households try to adapt and/or cope with the changes in their institutional and physical environment.

SLA Framework

Livelihoods can only be understood if we take account of, and examine, the locally specific contexts in which they occur. So we need, for instance, to examine the interrelations between the processes, which operate at various scale or levels that impinge on livelihoods.

SLA Framework



The figure above -adapted from DFID – schematically presents the various components of an analytical framework to analyze livelihoods (Carney, 1998; Scoones, 1999; and Ellis, 2000). Usually, livelihood analysis begins with the taking stock and specifying the key resources people have at their disposal. Resources are a key component of livelihoods. They may be tangible resources (such as land or cattle) but many are non-tangible. For examples, one could think about policies or law as resources around which peoples’ livelihoods revolve. It is essential to identify these resources in a non-rigid way, particularly as they can have multiple meanings. In summary: an analysis of livelihoods needs to take into account the ways in which people use and organize access to resources, deal and negotiate with institutions, and live and work in a particular socio-cultural-economic and historical context, which itself is the product of a particular configuration of global and local processes.

DFID’s Framework


Sustainable Livelihood - Framework & Principles

What is a Livelihood Approach? The two key components of the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA are: • a framework that helps in understanding the complexities of poverty • a set of principles to guide action to address and overcome poverty There is no single sustainable livelihoods approach, and flexibility in method is a distinctive feature of sustainable livelihoods. But in most models the main elements are similar and analysis will address all of these to some degree: Framework • Context. The external environment in which poor people live their lives and which is responsible for

many of their hardships/vulnerabilities. • Assets and capabilities (or ‘capital’). The resources poor people possess or have access to and use to

gain a livelihood. • Policies, institutions and processes (sometimes called transforming structures and processes). The

institutions, organizations, policies and legislation that determine access to assets and choice of livelihood strategies.

• Livelihood strategies. The ways in which poor people deploy their assets and capabilities to improve their livelihoods (i.e., consumption, production, processing, exchange and income-generating activities).

• Outcomes. Successful livelihood strategies should lead to more income and more economically sustainable livelihoods, increased well-being, reduced vulnerability and more sustainable use of the natural resource base.

• Livelihoods, increased well-being, reduced vulnerability and more sustainable use of the natural resource base

Sustainable livelihoods approach represents a positive evolution in thinking around poverty elimination, and differs from previous approaches to development in that: Principles • People Centered: Focus on perspectives, priorities and strengths of people - especially poor and

vulnerable women/girls and men/boys. It puts people at the centre of development. People - rather than the resources they use or the governments that serve them - are the priority concern.

• Holistic: Recognize that different factors and processes influence the livelihood opportunities and choices of people and that people have multiple livelihood strategies in pursuit of multiple livelihood outcomes. It unifies different sectors behind a common framework

• Dynamic: Recognize that poor people’s livelihood strategies can change rapidly. It responds quickly to changing circumstances. It takes into account how development decisions affect distinct groups of people, such as women compared to men, differently. It brings together all relevant aspects of people's lives and livelihoods into development planning, implementation and evaluation.

• Building on Strengths: Start with an analysis of strengths rather than needs. It builds upon people's strengths rather than their needs

• Macro-Micro Linkages: Consider the linkages between the two levels to inform more supportive policies and institutions. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the links between policy decisions and household level activities. It draws in relevant partners whether State, civil or private, local, national, regional or international.

• Sustainability: Include analysis of environmental, social, economic and institutional sustainability. It responds quickly to changing circumstances


CARE Livelihood Model-1

CARE Livelihood Model

Khanya & IFAD Framework




IFAD Approach

IFAD Approach • Poor not central enough – easily “lost” from vision • Key “processes” – gender, age, ethnic group, class/caste – not explicitly highlighted • “Tradeability” of livelihood assets not indicated • Linkages between different elements not sufficiently highlighted • Too sequential – left-to-right • Aspirations and opportunities missing • Little assistance in dealing practically with “PIP box” Placing the poor firnly at the “centre” Identifying key “processes” that define who “ the poor” are and how they relate to everything else in the framework. This emphasises the importance of thorough stakeholder analysis as a starting point for SL analysis. Key processes include gender, age, class or caste, ethnic group, and ability (the poorest are often found among the physically or mentally less able, or among those suffering from chronic illnesses) Unpacking the “Policies, Institutions and Processes (PIP) box” into “practical” elements –

• “enabling agencies” – macro, policy, national/state level • “service delivery agencies” – meso, implementation, state/district/local level

• Incorporates the idea of “governance” – a political concept, involving setting the rules for the exercise of power and resolving conflicts over those rules

• This “hub”model encourages to ask questions about the relationships between the key actors: • How do enabling agencies (policy makers) interact with service providers – is the relationship

a contract , what measurement and supervision is there, what are the interests involved, what are the incentives governing this relationship enabling agencies, how do resources flow and who makes decisions about them

• How do service providers relate to their “clients” or users, including the poor – is there any contract involved, what mechanisms are there for accountability, do clients have access to legal redress, how much do users participate in determining the types of services that are made available to them

• How do enabling agencies and clients or users interact – is there representation, is there accountability and transparency, does knowledge and information about the poor and the conditions they face get to policy makers, how does the policy process reflect the interests of users, how decentralised are decision and policy-making processes

• Emphasising “enabling” (or “hindering”) role of policy Key processes and power relations (gender, age, caste/class, ethnic group) already highlighted • Introducing other key “processes” and more “normative”, less “tangible” institutions • “Mediators” of relations between enabling agencies, service providers and users (and the poor

as users) • Highlighting importance of markets – most service providers are usually provate sector. How is

the private sector articulated, what rules govern it, who sets the rules, how are they enforced • Specifically recognising “politics” – representation, power relations, rights, and political

processes that influence strongly the relations between enabling agencies, service providers and users.

• Culture is liable to play a critical role in defining the “rules of the game” – attitudes to legal process, money, property, the distribution of power, the roles of gender/age/class/ethnic group/ability in affecting people’s access to services and to the policy process and the social “norms” or customs that are common throughout society or for particular groups within society

• Rights – what rights are recognised, to what extent are “universal human rights” recognised or underwritten, who checks on these.


Fig 6. IMM Sustainable Livelihood Enhancement and Diversification Model

IMM - SLED Model


Livelihood Assets

Human Assets • Health • Nutrition • Education • Knowledge and skills (including traditional or indigenous knowledge)

• Capacity to work

Physical Assets Infrastructure • transport - roads, vehicles, etc. • secure shelter & buildings • water supply & sanitation • energy • communications Tools and techology

tools and equipment for production • seed, fertiliser, pesticides traditional technology

Natural Assets • Land and produce • Water & aquatic

resources • Trees and forest products • Wildlife • Wild foods & fibres • Biodiversity • Environmental services • Access to all of these

Financial Assets • Savings • Credit/debt - formal, informal, NGOs

• Remittances • Pensions • Wages

“Personal” assets • People’s perceptions of themselves • Motivations • Self-esteem • Self-confidence • Emotional well-being • Spritiual dimensions (several workshop participants felt that livelihood assets should include “spiritual” or “religious” assets)

• People’s capacity, and will, to assert themselves and claim their rights (linking with social assets, in the form of mechanisms of representation and political action).

The Asset Mix Different households with different access to livelihood “assets” Livelihoods affected by: o diversity of assets o amount of assets o balance between assets Livelihood assets are “tradeable” & exchangeable – natural assets can be converted into financial assets, social assets can help to support personal assets, strong human assets can contribute to stronger social assets, etc.


Livelihood Assets - What is Capital?

What is Capital? In traditional economic systems, capital, or wealth, is based on human-produced assets, goods and services that can be assigned monetary value and some of which can be consumed. Historically, economic development has attempted to maximize monetary capital, but has tended to ignore non-monetary assets, such as human health and well-being, social networks, clean air and water, and biological diversity. As a result, economic development has often occurred to the detriment of both human and natural resources. These are clearly valuable to human society, but are usually not included in economic accounting systems. Livestock, and thus livestock development, have an obvious and strong relationship to natural capital. In order to achieve sustainability, the traditional definition of capital needs be expanded to include natural and social, as well as economic resources. Five types of capital have been identified: Natural Capital

This produces nature's goods and services, and comprises food (both farmed and harvested or caught from the wild), wood and fibre; water supply and regulation; treatment, assimilation and decomposition of wastes; nutrient cycling and fixation; soil formation; biological control of pests; climate regulation; wildlife habitats; storm protection and flood control; carbon sequestration; pollination; and recreation and leisure.

Social Capital

Social capital yields a flow of mutually beneficial collective action, contributing to the cohesiveness of people in their societies. The social assets comprising social capital include norms, values and attitudes that predispose people to cooperate; relations of trust, reciprocity and obligations; and common rules and sanctions mutually-agreed or handed-down. These are connected and structured in networks and groups.

Human Capital

Human capital is the total capability residing in individuals, based on their stock of knowledge skills, health and nutrition. It is enhanced by their access to services that provide these, such as schools, medical services, and adult training. People's productivity is increased by their capacity to interact with productive technologies and with other people. Leadership and organizational skills are particularly important in making other resources more valuable.

Physical Capital

Physical capital is the store of human-made material resources, and comprises buildings (e.g. houses, factories), market infrastructure, irrigation facilities, roads and bridges, manual and mechanized tools, communications, as well as energy production and transportation systems, that make labour more productive.

Financial Capital

Financial capital is defined as the financial resources that are available to people and which provide them with different livelihood options. These include savings, credit, insurance and pensions, remittances, welfare payments, grants and subsidies.


Differences between CARE-DFID-Oxfam- UNDP Approaches

Origins and use of SL approaches Agency CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP

Ori

gin

s o

f S

L a

pp

roa

ch CARE Long-range

Strategic Plan as program thrust

White Paper commitment to supporting policies & actions that promote SL Overall aim of poverty elimination

Need to link environmental change with poverty issues Strategic planning exercise looking for unifying concepts

Part of overall sustainable human development agenda

When introduced

1994 1998 1993 1995

Ch

an

ge

fr

om

w

ha

t... Primarily a sectoral

focus Resource-focused activity (within former natural resource division) sectoral focus

Primary environmental care

Partly a reaction against economic- and employment-focused initiatives

Sta

tus

of

SL

wit

hin

th

e a

ge

ncy

Primary organization wide framework for programming

Support from the top but still associated with rural side One approach for achieving poverty eradication

One of five strategic change objectives

One of five corporate mandates An approach for achieving sustainable human development

Cu

rren

t u

ses

Relief through development Urban & rural

Started rural, now more interest from urban side Various uses through development project cycle

Across development emergency & advocacy Mostly rural Used for strategic planning purposes, seldom at field level

Rural and urban Country program planning Small and micro enterprise activity

Typ

es o

f a

ctiv

ity

Livelihood protection Livelihood promotion Livelihood provisioning

Various to meet international development targets (including poverty elimination) Link to rights and sector approach

Strategic planning activities

Conceptual and programming framework

Str

en

gth

s e

mp

has

ize

d Comprehensive yet

flexible Improves sectoral coordination Increases multiplier effects

Builds upon existing experience and lessons Offers a practical way forward in a complex environment

Participatory analysis Enables links to social and human rights approaches

Links micro-macro Integrates poverty, environment & governance issues Gets the most out of communities and donors

Co

re i

de

as/

o

rga

niz

ing

p

rin

cip

les

Household livelihood security People-centered

People-centered Multilevel partnership Various types of sustainability Dynamic Poverty-focused

People-centered Multilevel partnership Various types of sustainability Dynamic

Adaptive strategies Conditioning factors (shocks and stresses that affect asset use)


Operational issues Agency CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP

Sta

rtin

g

po

int

Possession of human capabilities

Access to tangible & intangible assets

Existence of economic activities

Basic needs addressed: income/employment food security,water supply basic education.basic health & family planning community participation

An

al

ysis

p

roc

ed

ur

es

Identify potential geographic area

Identify vulnerable groups and livelihood constraints

Collect baseline data and identify indicators

Select communities (taking into account similarity and absorptive capacity)

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of

sust

ain

ab

ilit

y

Partnerships, institution/ capacity-building

Environmental Social/gender equity Emphasis on secure rather than sustainable

Ass

et

cate

go

ries

Human Social Economic

Human Social Natural Physical Financial

Human Social Natural Physical Financial

Human Social Natural Physical Economic Sometimes political

Dis

tin

gu

ish

ing

fe

atu

res

of

ag

en

cy's

a

pp

roa

ch

Distinguishes between private natural assets & common property assets

Stress on household level

Personal and social empowerment emphasized

Stress on underlying principles and a variety of SL approaches


What is a Livelihood Intervention? Livelihood interventions are conscious efforts by an agency or an organization to promote and support livelihood opportunities for a large number of people (other than those directly or indirectly employed by them). Government of India has been one of the largest agency involved in such livelihood promotion efforts. However, the cooperative sector, the corporate sector as also the NGO sector has also contributed to promoting livelihoods. Examples include: • Government program for development of irrigation. India has added over 40 million hectares of irrigation since independence; largest in human history. This has generated or stabilized the livelihoods of millions of people.

• In agriculture, the predominant livelihood interventions covered irrigation through large dams and canal systems till the 1960s, followed by the introduction of the high yielding varieties package during the Green Revolution, impacting the livelihoods of over 40 million farmers and a similar number of landless laborers.

• Government programs such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee program to guarantee wage-employment to the poor in the lean season through public works such as road building. Part of the wages are paid in kind as food grains, which is a carryover from the erstwhile “food for work” program

• Government programs such as the erstwhile Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP), refashioned as the Swarna Jayanti Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), to promote self-employment among the poor through acquisition of an income generating asset with the help of a bank loan and a government subsidy

• Special government programs, run in specific states, to promote both wage employment, and to promote self-employment through highly subsidized asset acquisition, such as the World Bank sponsored District Poverty Initiatives Program (DPIP) in AP, MP and Rajasthan.

• Programs run by sectoral institutions such as the National Dairy Development Board, the Central Silk Board, the Coir Board, the National Horticultural Board, and the Development Commissioners for Handloom and Handicrafts

• Programs run by non-governmental agencies, for promoting livelihoods in different regions and sectors, such as by SEWA, BAIF, MYRADA, AKRSP, PRADAN, RGVN and BASIX.

• The Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) works with over 750,000 self-employed women of low-income households

• Bharatiya Agro-Industries Foundation’s (BAIF) program supporting one million livelihoods, comprising cattle cross-breeding, pasture development, horticulture, etc.

• Venkateswara Hatcheries intervention to develop the poultry sector, culminating in the National Egg Coordination Council, which serves over 200,000 poultry producers.

• Various micro-finance interventions by banks and NGOs have influenced the livelihoods of more than twelve million people.

Efforts of agri-business companies or co-operatives to sell inputs such as the Indian Framers’ Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) selling though the network of primary agricultural cooperative societies; and Tata Chemicals’ Kisan Kendras to sell fertilizers and offer extension services


have also influenced the livelihoods of large numbers, though they can not be strictly called a livelihood intervention. Other companies work to strengthen their supply chain such as the ITC Agri Business Division, which runs the e-choupal network for procurement of commodities such as soybean, prawns and coffee; Hindustan Lever’s erstwhile milk procurement and processing business at Etah; and that of Nestle at Verka in Punjab; and the Rallis India projects for contract farming of wheat and rice, and by Pepsi for tomatoes also have had impact on the livelihoods of the rural people.

Evolution of Livelihood Promotion Efforts in India

Early Efforts – Human and Institutional Development Thinking on livelihood promotion evolved a great deal since the early days, with contributions from people like Rabindranath Tagore, conceiver of the Sriniketan Experiment, Spencer Hatch, of YMCA, Martandam, Fr. Brayane of the Gurgaon Project and Albert Meyer of the Etah project, all initiated livelihood promotion in their own ways. Mahatma Gandhi, one of the early livelihood thinkers of 20th century, had a holistic vision of livelihoods, with a deep concern for both, the poor and for sustainability. Gandhiji suggested developing local economies by promoting inter-dependant activities, as a member of a mutually supportive community, eventually leading to “gram swaraj”. During this period, the emphasis was on building human capital and imparting knowledge. It was thought that people were not getting good remuneration because they lacked the know-how to do better. To address this gap, efforts to impart knowledge were made. Even in the years after independence, government policies and strategies were based on similar principles. Many educational institutes and research organizations were started during the first five-year plan. The Community Development Program of the Government of India was also designed on these lines. The Second Five Year Plan attempted to institutionalize this through the concept of Panchayat Raj, to ensure that local decentralized institutions were built for development. However, the limitation of this approach became apparent by late 1940’s when they realized that just the know-how was not enough, a variety of services to enhance livelihoods were also necessary. Therefore, an alternative strategy was evolved, which tried to integrate various services like building market linkages, technology transfer and building physical and social infrastructure, all in one fold, built around a sector, such as wheat, paddy, milk or soybean.

Integrated Sectoral Strategies The first two decades after independence rightly focused on development and stabilization of agriculture through irrigation. The large number of irrigation development projects set up by various state governments – such as the Western Yamuna Canal system in western Uttar Pradesh; the Bhakra Nangal dam and canal system in Punjab; the Indira Gandhi Canal and the Chambal dams in Rajasthan; the Nagrajuna Sagar and Sriram Sagar in Andhra Pradesh and the Tungabhadra and Krishna dams in Karnataka, stabilized and enhanced incomes and generated wage employment for the landless farmers.


Some examples of livelihood intervention based on integrated sectoral strategies, covering the entire value chain, endeavors like, KVIC, NDDB and the Green Revolution started emerging during the ‘50s–60s. Khadi and Village Industries Commission is the largest livelihood promotion efforts based on Gandhian thinking. Setup in the 1950s, KVIC is an example of integrated sectoral livelihood intervention. It can also be called the first government intervention in the non- agriculture sector. The KVIC selected nearly 20 activities, from gur (jaggery) making to khadi (hand spun, hand woven cloth), and promoted a network of training centers, production units, common processing facilities and marketing outlets. For, the rural producers to really benefit, they not only need training, but working capital and access to market, as well. Similarly, the Green Revolution was another example of integrated sectoral livelihood promotion. Though Green Revolution started with introduction of high yielding variety seeds, infrastructure support was provided in the form of irrigation facilities, roads, warehouses market yards etc. This was supplemented with development of agricultural credit delivery system, support to fertilizer and other agri-input companies, and investments in agricultural universities for research and training. The Green Revolution was essentially confined to wheat and later paddy, and much later soybean. National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) set up in 1969 to replicate the Anand model of co-operative milk marketing in the entire country. It created systems of milk procurement, processing and marketing across the country under Operation Flood programs. Further, NDDB made infrastructure investments in chilling centres, feeder-balancing dairy plants, cattle-feed plants, veterinary medicine and vaccine plants, among others. It also invested in research and development projects related to dairy science and processing of milk products.

Strategies for the Vulnerable Segments of the Population Though all the above interventions based on the principle of integrated sectoral support could influence the livelihoods of millions of people, they needed heavy investments, and still left out the poor, the landless, the marginal farmers, women, tribals and people living in remote areas. By the ‘70s, despite this kind of livelihood development approach, the gap between the rich and the poor was growing. Deep dissatisfaction with the prevailing inequities saw the rise of Leftist, especially the Naxalite Movement in the country. While the Naxalites chose the path of armed struggle, others who were also dissatisfied with the state of affairs decided to join the voluntary sector. The leading figure in the voluntary development movement in India was JP (Jaya Prakash Narayan). Many voluntary agencies later became larger and professional Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and became an integral part of development scenario. The efforts concentrated on those who were left out of the benefits of mainstream development. Some took this even further to work with the poorest or what was called the ‘sarvahara varga’. However, this idea got politicized into the slogan of “garibi hatao” and bureaucratized through the launch of the nationwide program for poverty alleviation – the IRDP.


Minimalist Credit However, all these efforts were based on an integrated approach where the intervention would all services necessary for supporting livelihoods of the poor. They required perpetual ongoing subsidies and still did not generate sustainable livelihoods. All this gave rise to a new thinking, which said, the poor know how to manage their livelihoods, all they need is access to capital. Ela Bhatt had started the SEWA Bank in India as a cooperative bank of self-employed poor women, in 1974. Prof. Mohammad Yunus began the experiment of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1976. In Latin America, large number of NGOs began micro-credit programs through solidarity groups. These efforts quickly multiplied and their unique feature, in contrast to the IRDP type of loans was the high repayment rates, often over 95 percent. The 1990s saw millions of households being covered by micro-credit programs, all over the world. In Bangladesh alone, the Grameen bank, BRAC, ASA and Proshika reached out to over 2 to 3 million borrowers each. The debate between minimalist credit and integrated sectoral promotion approaches began to converge in the 1990s. A number of the integrated programs dropped many of their offerings and became more focused on credit. On the other hand, a number of the minimalist credit programs, started providing a lot of other inputs. An example of the synthesis is The Self Employed Women’s Association, SEWA, Ahmedabad. While the SEWA Bank can be seen as providing only savings and credit, it was embedded in a larger system. SEWA itself was a trade union, which provided the organizational base, the credit reference checks and the extension network of the Bank. The Mahila SEWA Trust provided a range of training and support services to members and staff. Another arm provided healthcare and health insurance services. Over 80 occupational cooperatives provided inputs, production facilities and market linkages.

Contingency Approach to Livelihood Promotion In 1989, Vijay Mahajan and Thomas Dichter, proposed an alternate livelihood promotion strategy through a paper: ‘A Contingency Approach to Enterprise Promotion’. They argued that promoting enterprises was complex and a better approach was to identify the bottleneck and work on that. In many cases, credit could be the only constraint. In such cases, minimalist credit was right and does work well. In other cases, credit is needed but is not the main constraint, what is needed could be skills, inputs or markets. Their argument was, though a large variety of services are required, all of them are not required at the same time and in every case. Thus the offering should be contingent upon what is needed in the situation. They also asserted that only a specialised type of organisation could do it. And as it is difficult to build competencies to address all these factors in-house, collaboration become necessary. This approach can be graphically explained. A barrel is made of planks of different heights. The planks of different heights represent different factor conditions. Maximum livelihoods that can be supported are determined by the weakest factor (credit in the figure 1 here). The livelihood intervention agency needs to identify the bottleneck and provide services to overcome them. At any point in time, one deficient factor is addressed, till, in comparison, another factor become deficient and needs attention. Thus, various inputs become critical at various times and need to be addressed.


Understanding Vulnerability The meaning of vulnerability and risks in the context of livelihood systems What does living in a state of vulnerability mean? To a farming family in coastal Tamilnadu, it could mean being unable to cope with tidal floods. To a slum dweller in Mumbai, it could mean being helplessly exposed to violence and corruption. Vulnerability stands for a crucial dimension of livelihoods in poverty, and, therefore, the term needs to be clarified for an application for poverty reduction measures.

Towards a clarifications of terms and definitions The dictionary meaning of vulnerability is "the capacity to be physically or emotionally wounded or hurt." Vulnerability is thus susceptibility to physical or emotional harm or injury. In other words, vulnerability emerges when human beings, as individuals or as a social unit, have to face a harmful threat or shock with an inadequate capacity to respond effectively. This understanding is reflected in the two examples above, namely exposure to tidal floods Vulnerability without access to a flood shelter in coastal Tamilnadu or exposure to violence and corruption in Mumbai slum without recourse to effective protection by the rule of law. Obviously, mere threat or risk alone is not a sufficient cause for vulnerability - not even if the threat has a high probability of occurrence. It is, ultimately, the combination of risk and inadequate capabilities to respond that leads to a state of vulnerability.

Vulnerability derives from the Latin word vulnerare (to be wounded) and describes the potential to be harmed physically and/or psychologically. Vulnerability is often understood as the counterpart of resilience. Vulnerability is a condition of being laid open to something undesirable or injurious Vulnerability is the susceptibility to physical or emotional injury or attack. It also means to have one's guard down, open to censure or criticism; assailable. Vulnerability refers to a person's state of being liable to succumb, as to persuasion or temptation. Social vulnerability refers to the inability of people, organizations, and societies to withstand adverse impacts from multiple stressors to which they are exposed. These impacts are due in part to characteristics inherent in social interactions, institutions, and systems of cultural values. Social vulnerability is a pre-existing condition that affects a society’s ability to prepare for and recover from a disruptive event. Social vulnerability is created through the interaction of social forces and multiple stressors, and resolved through social (as opposed to individual) means. While individuals within a socially vulnerable context may break through the “vicious cycle,” social vulnerability itself can persist because of structural—i.e. social and political—influences that reinforce vulnerability. Resilience is the positive capacity of people to cope with stress and catastrophe. It is also used to indicate a characteristic of resistance to future negative events. In this sense "resilience" corresponds to cumulative "protective factors" and is used in opposition to cumulative "risk factors". Commonly used terms, which are essentially synonymous are "resilience","psychological resilience", "emotional resilience", "hardiness", and "resourcefulness".


Vulnerability Framework

The above understanding is captured and refined in the definition of vulnerability - "Risk is

defined as the likelihood of occurrence of (external) shocks and stresses plus their potential severity, whereas vulnerability is the degree of exposure to risk (hazard, shock) and uncertainty, and the capacity of households or individuals to prevent, mitigate or cope with risk." This differentiation of the term "vulnerability" is of crucial relevance for assessing causes of poverty and for conceiving poverty reduction measures.

Capturing vulnerability and poverty in the context of livelihood systems A livelihood system is perceived as vulnerable if it lacks the capacity and the capability to cope with forces and factors threatening its sustainable existence. Poverty thus reflects lack or loss of sustainable livelihood. Indeed, the generally accepted definition of sustainable livelihood precisely reflects this understanding: "A livelihood system is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both in present and future, without undermining the natural resource base" (DFID Glossary, Sustainable Livelihoods). The definition also refers to the fact that livelihood as such becomes vulnerable when unsuitable strategies undermine the natural resource base. Effective livelihood approaches must, therefore, prove their capacity to analyze the nature and extent of vulnerability in order to conceive effective poverty reduction measures. This task encompasses the analysis of risks (frequency, magnitude, probability) in the context of livelihoods and the exploration of crucial dimensions of coping capacities in the core of livelihoods. As far as vulnerability and risks are concerned, livelihood approaches should provide answers to questions such as: Should poverty reduction focus on preventing or mitigating the risks to which a livelihood is exposed? Is it more effective to increase the coping capacity of the livelihood concerned? Or, at the end, is a combination of all required? Risks can be categorized along four main dimensions: • Harmful trends, such as increasing soil erosion, frequent droughts, increasing incidence of HIV/AIDS, unfavorable development of commodity or input prices, etc.


• Shocks, such as earthquakes, floods, disease, loss of jobs, violent conflicts, destruction of physical infrastructure (such as roads, bridges), etc.

• Harmful seasonal fluctuations, such as price fluctuations in crop and livestock markets, fluctuations in food availability due to seasonal climatic changes, etc.

• Unfavorable socio-political environments, characterized by absence of rule of law, deprivation of rights, gender related discrimination, etc.

Types of Vulnerability n adequate assessment of response capacities of livelihood systems to risks requires more than just a stocktaking of assets. People's reactions to risks are guided by their worldviews and experience and are informed by gender related decision-making as well as modes of cooperation in a given social system. When conceiving poverty reduction measures, it might be also appropriate to distinguish between interventions that favor coping or promote adaptation. Coping strategies are generally understood as shorter-term and direct reactions to a specific shock such as drought or flood. On the other hand, adaptive strategies entail a longer-term change in behavior patterns as a response to a shock or stress.


Analyzing Core and Context of Livelihoods


Approaching livelihoods with a threefold focus Focus I is on the four key elements in the context of a livelihood system. Focus II and III concentrate on the core of a livelihood system. Focus II is on the asset portfolio, Focus III concentrates on the decision making space in which people develop and/or adapt their livelihood strategies and strive for outcomes with their own perception of inner and outer realities of their livelihoods. External support becomes meaningful, if they succeed in improving their livelihood strategies towards more sustainability. .

Livelihood strategies Livelihoods are diverse and change over time. Livelihood strategies comprise the range and combination of activities and choices that people undertake and make in order to achieve their livelihood outcomes and objectives. Livelihood outcomes Livelihood outcomes are the achievements of livelihood strategies. DFID's SL framework lists five 'categories' of livelihood outcomes: (1) more income, (2) increased well-being, (3) reduced vulnerability, (4) improved food security, (5) more sustainable use of the natural resource base. Yet, above all, through livelihood strategies people strive to give meaning to their lives, both individually and within the social unit to which individuals may belong. Livelihood ceases to be sustainable when it loses meaning. Meaning has its vital roots in the inner realities of a livelihood system, in personal experience and orientations, in emotions and people's perceptions of themselves. These elements of inner


Focus I: Analyzing the context of a livelihood system

Risks and Vulnerability: What renders people's livelihoods vulnerable? Risks and shocks, adverse trends and seasonality have a bearing on people's livelihood. Yet, a livelihood becomes truly vulnerable when it lacks adequate coping or adapting capacities on the micro-level of livelihood. The level of these capacities is explored with Focus II (asset portfolio) and Focus III (livelihood strategies). These two focuses help to clarify the following question: "Should the poverty reduction measures tackle an observed risk and reduce an assessed vulnerability in the context of poor people's livelihood, or should they target the core of livelihood and aim to increase people's coping capacity?"

Opportunities: What opportunities offer potential for improving livelihood? Opportunities are as much part of the context of a livelihood as risks and threats. They may take the form of markets, credit facilities, education, social networks, etc. The task here, however, is to identify constraining reasons explaining why these opportunities are outside the reach of poor people's livelihood strategies.


Policies: How do policies support or constrain people's livelihood? Exploration of the policy context and the way policies are implemented is crucial and highly livelihood specific. Do we address the problems of marginal farmers, or urban slum dwellers, or dalits? Are we inquiring into the effects of an overarching policy, such as pro poor growth, or of measures targeting poverty more directly, e.g., services like ration schemes? It can be beneficial to review both supporting and constraining policies.

Institutions: How do institutions favor or constrain livelihood? In livelihood frameworks "institutions" embrace two important elements: on one hand, the rules and normative frame conditions that govern social interactions; on the other hand, the way that organizations operate in both the public and private sector, on the background of explicit and implicit values. Political participation, market systems, concepts of social orders (such as castes, clans, etc.) belong to this field of investigation

Asset Base of Defaulters

Analyze the diagram after understanding Focus II


Focus II: Analyzing the assets of a livelihood system

Tribal peoples living in a remote forest area may have strong ties of kinship and mutual exchange (social capital), ample access to rich forest resources (natural capital) and an intimate knowledge of their local environment (human capital), but practically no financial or physical capital and limited access to formal education. The livelihood strategies they adopt will reflect this. They will use their knowledge to exploit a wide range of different natural resources in different ways, ensuring a supply of food, clothing, fuel and shelter through the year. Their ties of kinships and mutual exchange within their community will ensure that they are usually able to overcome episodes of vulnerability, such as sickness or the deaths in the family, without reliance on help from “outside”. But the physical capital available to them may be very specialized and appropriate to their local circumstances only. As a result they may have difficulty in adapting to any changes, such a those brought about by destruction of their forest environment or intrusion by outside influences. Similarly, their complete unfamiliarity with financial capital may leave them at a disadvantage if they find themselves involved in market transactions, even if they have products of potentially high market value.

Poor people in rural areas may have only their labor capacity (human capital) and the financial capital they can generate through their labor, but very limited direct access to natural capital, low levels of education and knowledge, and a very low social status that weakens their social capital base. The poorest households may have extremely reduced “livelihood pentagons” with extremely limited livelihood assets of any kind at their disposal.


Framework for assessing core and context of livelihood systems


Nine Square RLS Mandala

Focus III: Analyzing strategy development and decision-making in a livelihood Livelihood strategies reflect the range and combinations of activities and choices that people make in order to achieve livelihood outcomes and goals. Livelihood strategies evolve from implicit and/or explicit decision-making, which is informed by inner and outer realities of livelihood. Livelihood strategies are diverse and in a constant process of change and adaptation.

RLS Mandala To capture the holistic understanding of sustainability, the RLS researchers used a combination of a (rural) house as a metaphor for livelihoods and the ninesquared mandala as a symbol of wholeness and a centred universe (Figure 1). The mandala describes both material and non-material realities and symbolizes connections between the micro and the macro cosmos. The house in the centre of the nine-squared mandala represents the household or family itself. The mandala is composed of a foundation – representing the material and non-material resource base of a livelihood. The walls separate the three ‘spaces’ – inner human space, family space and socioeconomic space. Finally, the roof represents three orientations of a livelihood, which is composed of the individual orientation, the family orientation and the collective orientation. The RLS offers a heuristic tool or a framework not only for exploring and understanding the material aspects of livelihood strategies, but also to draw our attention to immaterial aspects, such as worldviews, spiritual orientations and other reasoning that guides people in developing livelihood strategies to achieve livelihood outcomes. It draws specific attention to the decision making process where strategies evolve.


The RLS-Mandala in the context of Nomadic Tribes The RLS-Mandala in the context of Nomadic Tribes

9. Individual Orientation 8. Family Orientation - Lambanis have their roots in West India's nomadic tribes. They have always been migrating.

7. Collective Orientation - migration is organized in groups from one village - the migration groups decide on a "Banta" (leader) - no food security without migration

6. Inner Human Space - responsibility is taken at young age, also by the children who stay back

5. Family Space - family decides who goes for migration - men and women both migrate

4. Socio-Economic Space - this watershed does not provide enough work & income for all

3. Emotional Base - they are brave women who will speak out when mistreated - they are high energy women, ready to take risks

2. Knowledge and Activity Base - know where which labor is available - migration is their way of life, they know all about it

1. Physical base - degraded common land - 3rd drought season


The RLS-Mandala in the context of cotton farms The RLS-Mandala in the context of cotton farms

9. Individual Orientation -Visions, Aspirations -Fears, Hopes -Self image/respect -‘Gurus’, models -Reasons / obstacles for conversion -Satisfaction from work -Personal beliefs, ethics

8. Family Orientation -Caste, social status -Aspirations to wealth, education, social mobility -Subsistence vs. cash income -Reasons / obstacles for conversion -Aspirations for future of children -Utilisation of income

7. Collective Orientation Influence on / from: -Traditions, religion -Attitude to innovations -Agricultural policies -Market liberalisation -Reaction on droughts -Food security -Water use rights

6. Inner Human Space -Integrity, identity -Awareness -Selfishness, compassion -Responsibility -Affection -Curiosity, courage -Leisure preference

5. Family Space -Gender relations -Work distribution -Health -Food quantity and quality -Family planning -Solidarity -Conflicts

4. Socio-economic Space -Community organisations -Govt. institutions -Relation with buyers -Land / labour markets -Image in the village -Input supply chains -Product markets

3. Emotional Base -Memories -Attachments -Relations to soil, animals, environment etc. -Feelings -Anxieties -Boredom

2. Knowledge and Activity Base -Technology base -Agricultural patterns -Experiences, skills -Traditional knowledge -Labour, crafts, services -Training, education -Work load -Risks

1. Physical Base -Natural resources and environment -Land, livestock, equipment -Water availability -Income, production costs -Fertility, yields -Accumulated wealth -Indebtedness


Choosing options for poverty reduction The livelihood framework as platform for choosing options for poverty reduction The illustration above demonstrates how a livelihood framework provides a platform for a clearer distinction between five alternative options or entry points for interventions for poverty relevant development measures. On an abstract level these options are: 1. Promoting and implementing poverty oriented policies (pro-poor growth, favorable labor markets, etc.).

2. Initiating pro-poor institutional change (e.g., increased organizational efficiency and effectiveness of public and private service providers, political participation, etc.).

3. Improving coping capacities of poor people, enhancing their capabilities for pursuing more sustainable livelihood strategies (e.g., negotiations skills, education, crop insurance, etc.).

4. Facilitating access to existing opportunities for people constrained in their access to such opportunities (e.g., access to credit systems, markets, new technologies, etc).

5. Reducing exposure to risks by tackling them directly and thus reducing poor people's vulnerabilities (e.g., vulnerabilities resulting from natural hazards such as floods, or caused by seasonal price fluctuations).

In actual development practice, an engagement in one of the five options may call for complementary support in one or several fields of the other four options. For example, access to micro-credit (option 4) might first require establishing adequate lending rules on the side of the banks (2), supplemented by empowering small farmers to handle credits (3) and, on top of that, changing re-financing policies of the national bank of the country (1).

Introduction to Livelihood Framework

Documents

livelihood promotionwhat

right livelihood award

means of living carney

assets financial

ownership of assets

social resources

available capabilities

natural resource base