Introduction To Livelihood Framework

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.
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
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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).
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.
There is a consensus that livelihood is about the ways and means of ‘making a living’. The
most widely accepted
Refer:
definition of livelihood stems http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/?s=A1-Livelihood
from the work of Robert http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9371e/x9371e00.htm#TopOfPage
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

The definition used by Department of Foreign and International
definition of livelihood as
Development (DFID) incorporates these sentiments.
‘the activities, the assets, 'A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both
and the access that jointly material and social resources) and activities required for a
determine the living gained means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with
and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance
by an individual or
its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not
household’. undermining the natural resource base' (Chambers, R. and G.
Conway, 1992).
Wallman (1984) who did The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) differentiates
research on livelihoods in between a job and a livelihood, which are often used
interchangeably.
London in the early 1980s Jobs
approached livelihoods as "A job connotes one particular activity or trade that is performed
always more than just a in exchange for payment. It is also a formal agreement, as
matter of finding or manifested by a contract, between an employer and
employee...... . A job can, however, comprise part of an overall
making shelter, transacting livelihood, but does so only to complement other aspects of a
money, and preparing food livelihood portfolio.
to put on the table or Livelihoods
exchange in the market "A livelihood, on the other hand, is engagement in a number of
activities which, at times, neither require a formal agreement
place. It is equally a matter nor are limited to a particular trade. Livelihoods may or may not
of the ownership and involve money. Jobs invariably do. Livelihoods are self-directing.
circulation of information, .... . Livelihoods are based on income derived from "jobs", but
also on incomes derived from assets and entitlements. "
the management of social
"a means of living or of supporting life and meeting individual
relationships, the and community needs"
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
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 Why Livelihood?
cope with risks and uncertainties, A livelihoods perspective encourages a broader
such as erratic rainfall, diminishing understanding and examination of factors, institutions
resources, pressure on the land, and processes that can explain the differing success
with which rural households make a living.
changing life cycles and kinship Consequently, permits a bringing together of more
networks, epidemics such as sectoral approaches which tend to focus on a single
HIV/AIDS, chaotic markets, aspect of rural livelihood systems, to create a more
increasing food prices, inflation, and holistic understanding of the options and trade-offs
national and international facing different groups in the face of climate change.
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,
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?
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 Frequently asked questions about SLA

SL ...the Basics:
Livelihood (SL)? What is a sustainable livelihood?
In many respects, Sustainable What are the core principles that underlie SL approaches?
Livelihood approaches are not new at What are we trying to achieve by adopting an SL approach?
What is new?
all. They build upon decades of What difference does SL make?
thinking about the best ways to Who are the partners for SL?
What happens if partners do not follow an SL approach?
approach development problems, and Does SL raise too many expectations and demands?
incorporate many of the tools and Relationship of SL to Other Approaches:
methods with which we are all How do SL approaches relate to the International Development
targets?
familiar. What makes Sustainable How does SL differ from Integrated Rural Development?
Livelihood 'new' is that it brings all How does SL differ from community-based development?
Program
these issues together at the same time How do SL approaches relate to sector programmes?
and combines them with a core How do SL approaches relate to rights?
What does SL have to say about working with the private sector?
emphasis on poverty elimination, on What are Transforming Structures and Processes?
people (rather than on resources or Are they things that we need to transform, or things that transform
project outputs, such as numbers of others ?
About Complexity:
hospitals built or numbers of teachers What does it mean to be holistic?
trained) and on the importance of SL claims to be `holistic'. Does this mean we have to do everything?
How can I handle the complexity of SL?
working simultaneously at local and How does SL help to select project activities?
higher levels and with both the public Is SL applicable only for projects and area-based activity?
You say that the SL approach stresses multiple levels of
and the private sector. Sustainable operation and macro-micro links? Where does this show up in
Livelihood approaches recognize the the SL framework?
importance of seeing livelihood SL may help in arriving at an holistic appreciation of the factors
influencing livelihoods of the poor, but does it offer anything new
systems holistically and that in suggesting how they may be addressed?
concentrating on specific parts of SL and Poverty:
Is SLA pro-poor?
systems only will not deliver poverty Does the focus on assets mean that richer people are favored?
elimination. The Sustainable Does SL target the poorest?
For a field project we've selected a poor community in a poor district.
Livelihood framework provides a But there is differentiation in the community. Who should we be
structure and focus for thinking about working with?
systemic change. 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?
How does Sustainable Livelihood Poverty is complex, multi-dimensional and the causes are variable.
Does this mean that we all have to become generalists?
differ from Integrated Rural Poverty is complex, multidimensional and the causes are variable.
Development? How then can we work out priorities at a national, let alone a
Regional/
Sustainable Livelihood approaches or strategic level?
build upon the positive aspects of Is SL of any value to fieldworkers?
Integrated Rural Development (IRD), Analysis with SL:
What is the unit of analysis for livelihoods?
in particular IRD's recognition of the Is it necessary to conduct livelihoods analysis for every group
interlocking nature of needs and the and situation?
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
Livelihood is:
How does Sustainable
§ A set of economic activities, involving self-employment
Livelihood differ from and/or wage-employment
community-based § by using one’s endowments (human and material)
development programs? § to generate adequate resources (cash and non-cash)
Sustainable Livelihood builds § for meeting the requirements of self and the household,
on many of the strengths of § usually carried out repeatedly and as such become a way of
community-based life.
Ideally,
development programs. It is
§ a livelihood should keep a person meaningfully occupied,
participatory and works with § in a sustainable manner,
local people to understand § with dignity
their strengths and determine Livelihoods, therefore, go far beyond generating income. A
their priorities (and therefore livelihood is much more than employment.
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
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.
The Sustainable Livelihood Framework Sustainable Livelihood analysis is holistic
helps us think holistically about:
in the sense that it tries to include all
• The things that poor rural households might be
very vulnerable to factors that affect livelihoods (whether or
• The assets and resources that help them thrive not these are explicitly noted in the
and survive Sustainable Livelihood framework).
• The policies and institutions that impact on their Nothing is excluded at the outset (though
livelihoods things may be eliminated due to judged
• How they respond to threats of climate change lack of importance as analysis proceeds)
• What sort of adaptation strategies is open to
and effort is made to understand both the
them?
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
Principles of SL Approach production would dissolve in the process of development,
• People-centered: beginning by giving way to capitalist production.
understanding peoples’ priorities and
livelihood strategies.
● Responsive and participatory: Contemporary agriculture, both in the South and the
responding to the expressed priorities
of poor people. North, is still characterized by a co-existence of small-
● Multi-level: ensuring micro-level and large-scale production and peasant and
realities inform macro-level institutions
and processes.
entrepreneurial forms of organization. In other words
● Conducted in partnership: working heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity, is the dominant
with public, private and civil society feature of development. There is not one, but many,
actors.
● Sustainable: environmentally, patterns of development.
economically, institutionally, and
socially.
It was also felt that local people’s capacities should not be
● Dynamic: ensuring support is flexible
ignored and their voices needed to be heard more in
and process-oriented, responding to
changing livelihoods.
research and development planning. The 1980s saw the
● Holistic: reflecting the integrated
rise of so-called participatory approaches in (rural)
nature of people’s lives and diverse
strategies. development projects. This meant that the people for
➏ Building on strengths: while
addressing vulnerabilities.
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
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
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.
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.
IMM - SLED Model
Fig 6. IMM Sustainable Livelihood Enhancement and Diversification Model

Livelihood Assets
Human Assets Physical Assets Natural Assets

•Health Infrastructure • Land and produce
•Nutrition • transport - roads, vehicles, etc. • Water & aquatic
•Education • secure shelter & buildings resources
•Knowledge and • water supply & sanitation • Trees and forest products
skills (including • energy • Wildlife
traditional or • communications • Wild foods & fibres
indigenous Tools and techology • Biodiversity
knowledge) tools and equipment for production • Environmental services
•Capacity to work • seed, fertiliser, pesticides • Access to all of these
traditional technology
Financial Assets “Personal” assets The Asset Mix
• Savings • People’s perceptions of themselves Different households with
• Credit/debt - formal, • Motivations different access to
informal, NGOs • Self-esteem livelihood “assets”
• Remittances • Self-confidence Livelihoods affected by:
• Pensions • Emotional well-being o diversity of assets
• Wages • Spritiual dimensions (several o amount of assets
workshop participants felt that o balance between assets
livelihood assets should include Livelihood assets are
“spiritual” or “religious” assets) “tradeable” &
• People’s capacity, and will, to assert exchangeable – natural
themselves and claim their rights assets can be converted into
(linking with social assets, in the financial assets, social
form of mechanisms of assets can help to support
representation and political action). 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 This produces nature's goods and services, and comprises food (both farmed and
Capital 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 Social capital yields a flow of mutually beneficial collective action, contributing
Capital 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 Human capital is the total capability residing in individuals, based on their stock
Capital 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 Physical capital is the store of human-made material resources, and comprises
Capital 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 Financial capital is defined as the financial resources that are available to people
Capital 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
CARE Long-range White Paper Need to link Part of overall sustainable
Origins of
Strategic Plan as commitment to environmental change human development

approach
program thrust supporting policies & with poverty issues agenda

SL
actions that promote SL Strategic planning

Overall aim of poverty exercise looking for
elimination unifying concepts
When 1994 1998 1993 1995
introduced
Primarily a sectoral Resource-focused Primary environmental Partly a reaction against
Change
what...
focus activity (within former care economic- and

from
natural resource employment-focused

division) sectoral focus initiatives
Primary organization Support from the top One of five strategic One of five corporate
the agency
SL within
Status of
wide framework for but still associated with change objectives mandates
programming rural side An approach for achieving
One approach for sustainable human
achieving poverty development
eradication
Relief through Started rural, now more Across development Rural and urban
development interest from urban emergency & advocacy Country program planning
Current
uses
Urban & rural side Mostly rural Small and micro enterprise
Various uses through Used for strategic activity
development project planning purposes,
cycle seldom at field level
Livelihood protection Various to meet Strategic planning Conceptual and
Livelihood promotion international activities programming framework
Types of
activity
Livelihood provisioning development targets

(including poverty
elimination)
Link to rights and
sector approach
Comprehensive yet Builds upon existing Participatory analysis Links micro-macro
emphasized
flexible experience and lessons Enables links to social Integrates poverty,

Strengths
Improves sectoral Offers a practical way and human rights environment & governance
coordination forward in a complex approaches issues
Increases multiplier environment Gets the most out of
effects communities and donors
Household livelihood People-centered People-centered Adaptive strategies
Core ideas/
security Multilevel partnership Multilevel partnership Conditioning factors (shocks

organizing
principles
People-centered Various types of Various types of and stresses that affect

sustainability sustainability asset use)
Dynamic Dynamic
Poverty-focused
Operational issues
Agency CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP
Possession of human Access to tangible & Existence of economic Basic needs addressed:
capabilities intangible assets activities income/employment
Starting
food security,water supply

basic education.basic health
point
& family planning

community participation
Identify potential Identify vulnerable Collect baseline data Select communities (taking
edur
Anal
proc
ysis
geographic area groups and livelihood and identify indicators into account similarity and
es
constraints absorptive capacity)

Partnerships, Environmental Social/gender equity Emphasis on secure rather
sustainab
Understa
institution/ capacity- than sustainable

nding of
building
ility
Human Human Human Human

categories
Social Social Social Social

Economic Natural Natural Natural
Asset
Physical Physical Physical

Financial Financial Economic
Sometimes political
Distinguishes between Stress on household Personal and social Stress on underlying
Distinguish
features of
private natural assets level empowerment principles and a variety of

approach
agency's
& common property emphasized SL approaches

assets
ing
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 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
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".
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.
The above understanding is captured and refined in the definition of vulnerability - "Risk is
Vulnerability Framework
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

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 Nine Square RLS Mandala
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 7. Collective Orientation
- Lambanis have their roots in - migration is organized in
West India's nomadic tribes. groups from one village
They have always been - the migration groups decide
migrating. on a "Banta" (leader)
- no food security without
migration
6. Inner Human Space 5. Family Space 4. Socio-Economic Space
- responsibility is taken at - family decides who goes for - this watershed does not
young age, also by the children migration provide enough work & income
who stay back - men and women both migrate for all
3. Emotional Base 2. Knowledge and Activity 1. Physical base

- they are brave women who Base - degraded common land
will speak out when mistreated - know where which labor is - 3rd drought season
- they are high energy women, available
ready to take risks - migration is their way of life,
they know all about it
The RLS-Mandala in the context of cotton farms

The RLS-Mandala in the context of cotton farms
9. Individual Orientation 8. Family Orientation 7. Collective Orientation
-Visions, Aspirations -Caste, social status Influence on / from:
-Fears, Hopes -Aspirations to wealth, -Traditions, religion
-Self image/respect education, -Attitude to innovations
-‘Gurus’, models social mobility -Agricultural policies
-Reasons / obstacles for -Subsistence vs. cash income -Market liberalisation
conversion -Reasons / obstacles for -Reaction on droughts
-Satisfaction from work conversion -Food security
-Personal beliefs, ethics -Aspirations for future of -Water use rights
children
-Utilisation of income
6. Inner Human Space 5. Family Space 4. Socio-economic Space
-Integrity, identity -Gender relations -Community organisations
-Awareness -Work distribution -Govt. institutions
-Selfishness, compassion -Health -Relation with buyers
-Responsibility -Food quantity and quality -Land / labour markets
-Affection -Family planning -Image in the village
-Curiosity, courage -Solidarity -Input supply chains
-Leisure preference -Conflicts -Product markets
3. Emotional Base 2. Knowledge and Activity Base 1. Physical Base
-Memories -Technology base -Natural resources and
-Attachments -Agricultural patterns environment
-Relations to soil, animals, -Experiences, skills -Land, livestock, equipment
environment etc. -Traditional knowledge -Water availability
-Feelings -Labour, crafts, services -Income, production costs
-Anxieties -Training, education -Fertility, yields
-Boredom -Work load -Accumulated wealth
-Risks -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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Livelihood Framework

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smt.

Krishnammal Jeganathan Right Livelihood Award Winner from Tamilnadu

Right Livelihood Award Winners from India

Introduction to Livelihood Promotion

Ellis (2000) suggests a

Why Promote Livelihoods?

What is new in Sustainable Frequently asked questions about SLA

complementarity’s between various types of development activity. However, Sustainable

How do Sustainable Livelihood approaches relate to sector programs?

How do Sustainable Livelihood approaches relate to rights?

What does it mean to be holistic?

Sustainable Livelihood claims to be 'holistic'. Does this mean we have to do everything?

The origins of the livelihood perspective

The livelihoods approach is not just a response to modernization perspectives. It also

Towards a Livelihood framework

Sustainable Livelihood - Framework & Principles

What is a Livelihood Approach?

CARE Livelihood Model-1

CARE Livelihood Model

Khanya & IFAD Framework

IMM - SLED Model

Fig 6. IMM Sustainable Livelihood Enhancement and Diversification Model

Human Assets Physical Assets Natural Assets

Livelihood Assets - What is Capital?

In order to achieve sustainability, the traditional definition of capital needs be expanded to

Differences between CARE-DFID-Oxfam- UNDP Approaches

Origins and use of SL approaches

Strategic Plan as commitment to environmental change human development

program thrust supporting policies & with poverty issues agenda

actions that promote SL Strategic planning

focus activity (within former care economic- and

natural resource employment-focused

Livelihood provisioning development targets

flexible experience and lessons Enables links to social Integrates poverty,

security Multilevel partnership Multilevel partnership Conditioning factors (shocks

People-centered Various types of Various types of and stresses that affect

food security,water supply

& family planning

constraints absorptive capacity)

institution/ capacity- than sustainable

Human Human Human Human

Social Social Social Social

Physical Physical Physical

private natural assets level empowerment principles and a variety of

& common property emphasized SL approaches

What is a Livelihood Intervention?

Evolution of Livelihood Promotion Efforts in India

Integrated Sectoral Strategies

Some examples of livelihood intervention based on integrated sectoral strategies, covering

Strategies for the Vulnerable Segments of the Population

Contingency Approach to Livelihood Promotion

Towards a clarifications of terms and definitions

Vulnerability derives from the Latin word vulnerare (to be

Capturing vulnerability and poverty in the context of livelihood systems

Risks can be categorized along four main dimensions:

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 I: Analyzing the context of a livelihood system

Risks and Vulnerability: What renders people's livelihoods vulnerable?

Opportunities: What opportunities offer potential for improving livelihood?

Policies: How do policies support or constrain people's livelihood?

Asset Base of Defaulters