SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH:
Concept and Practice
Miranda Cahn
Massey University
Introduction
In recent years multi-lateral and bi-lateral
agencies have put reduction, elimination or
eradication of poverty as the prime focus of
their programmes (AusAID, 1997, DFID,
1999, UNDP, 1999, NZAID, 2002).
However, it has been recognised that a new
way of thinking about poverty reduction is
needed if the first International Development
Goal of reducing by one half the proportion
of people living in poverty by 2015 is to be
achieved. The dimensions of poverty are
wide and complex and the realities of
poverty vary between regions, countries,
communities and individuals. Invariably, the
basis of a life free from poverty is access
and entitlement to a range assets and
livelihood strategies that can sustain
households and individuals through the
stresses and shocks of life. During the
1990’s a new approach to poverty reduction,
the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) approach,
has emerged. The SL approach is a ‘way of
thinking’ that can be used as a tool for
planning interventions, reviewing and
evaluating projects, research, policy analysis
and development. This paper describes and
critiques the SL approach in the context of
rural development and considers the use of
the approach in the Pacific region.
Origin, Influences and Development of
SL Approach
The SL approach has been influenced by a
number of diverging themes. The concept of
‘sustainable livelihoods’ was first widely
acknowledged when it appeared in the
report of an advisory panel of the World
Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) in 1987 in the
Publication Food 2000 (WCED, 1987). The
report links SL security to basic human
needs, food security, sustainable agricultural
practices and poverty, and describes SL as
an integrating concept. Since the Food 2000
report, concurrent discourses on poverty,
sustainability, livelihood systems and
diversity, and a focus on participation and
the reality of the poor has lead to
formalisation of the SL approach. The SL
approach has been adopted by a number of
government, non-government and multi-
lateral organisations, such as the
Department for International Development
(UK) (DIFID), United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), OXFAM and CARE as
a basis for rural development research and
practice. The documentation and
frameworks developed by these
organisations to explain the SL approach
have many key features in common.
Key Features of the SL Approach
The most well known definition of a SL
comes from Chambers and Conway (1992)
and a modified version of this definition has
been generally adopted, with minor
differences between authors and
organisations:
a livelihood comprises the
capabilities, assets (including
both material and social
resources) and activities
required for a means of living: a
livelihood is sustainable which
can cope with and recover from
stress and shocks and maintain
or enhance its capabilities and
assets….
... both now and in the future
(Carney, 1998:4), or
... while not undermining the
natural base (Scoones, 1998:5),
or
 including both these last
statements (Farrington et al,
1999:1).
Ellis (2000) in his definition of a ‘livelihood’
has placed more emphasis on the access to
assets and activities that is influenced by
social relations (gender, class, kin, belief
systems) and institutions. He has excluded
any reference to capabilities or sustainability
Frameworks have been developed to set out
the factors in a SL system, and to represent
relationships between these factors. The
most well known SL framework has been
documented by The Department for
International Development (DFID) (Figure
1.) (Carney, 1998, Carney, 1999b, DFID,
1999). This framework draws heavily on
Institute of Development Studies (IDS) work
(Scoones 1998) although it has been
adapted to accommodate DFID’s concerns
and objectives (Carney, 1998). Other
published frameworks are the IDS
framework developed by Scoones (1998),
CARE (Drinkwater and Rusinow, 1999),
Oxfam (Carney, 1999b), and Ellis (2000).
UNDP has documented the SL approach but
has no formal framework (Carney, 1999b,
Singh & Gilman, 1999, UNDP, 1999).
Assets
The livelihoods approach is based on the
premise that the asset status of the poor is
fundamental to understanding the options
open to them, the strategies they adopt to
Figure 1. The DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
Source: Carney, 1999b
attain livelihoods, the outcomes they aspire
to and the vulnerability context under which
they operate (Ellis, 2000). DFID
distinguishes five categories of assets (or
capital) – natural, social, human, physical
and financial (Carney, 1998).
An analysis of assets is a review of what
people have (and recognition of what people
don’t have) rather than an analysis of needs
(Helmore, 1998). The asset analysis also
considers how access to assets has
changed over time, what changes are
predicted, what the causes of changes are
and how access and control of assets differs
between social groups (Carney, 1998).
Transforming Structures and Processes
It is important to understand the structures
or organisations, and the processes such as
laws, policies, societal norms, and
incentives. Access, control and use of
assets are influenced by the institutional
structures and processes. An understanding
of structures and processes provides the link
between the micro (individual, household
and community) and the macro (regional,
government, powerful private enterprise)
(Scoones, 1998, Carney, 1998, Ellis, 2000).
Such an understanding helps to identify
areas where restrictions, barriers or
constraints occur and explain social process
that could impact on livelihood sustainability
(Scoones, 1998).

Livelihood Outcomes
The reason that the word ‘outcomes’ is used
rather than ‘objective’ in the DIFID
framework is that ‘outcomes’ is considered a
neutral term that reflects the aims of both
DFID and its clients, whereas the term
‘objectives’ could imply top down objectives
(Carney, 1998). A focus on outcomes leads
to a focus on achievements, indicators and
progress. An understanding of livelihood
outcomes is intended to provide, through a
participatory enquiry, a range of outcomes
that will improve well-being and reduce
poverty in its broadest sense (DFID, 1999).
Livelihood Strategies
Depending on the assets people have, the
structures and processes that impact on
them, tradition, and the vulnerability context
under which they operate, people choose
livelihood strategies that will best provide
them with livelihood outcomes. ‘Livelihood
strategies are composed of activities that
generate the means of household survival’
(Ellis, 2000:40). Livelihood strategies
change as the external environment over
which people have little control changes.
Sometimes unsustainable and unproductive
livelihood strategies continue because of
tradition and habit (Perez Izadi & Cahn,
2000) at other times livelihood activities are
introduced as coping strategies in difficult
times.
Scoones (1998) identifies three types of
rural livelihood strategies: agricultural
intensification or extensification, livelihood
diversification including both paid
employment and rural enterprises, and
migration (including income generation and
remittances). Carney (1998) lists these
categories of livelihood strategies as natural
resource based, non natural resource based
and migration, while Ellis (2000), in his
framework, categorises livelihood strategies
as natural resource based activities or non-
natural resource based activities (including
remittances and other transfers).
Understanding the diverse and dynamic
livelihood strategies is important so that
interventions are appropriate. Clearly,
introducing new livelihood strategies is an
option in rural development but people often
favour tradition and security over higher but
more risky income (Perez Izadi & Cahn,
2000, Farrington et al, 1999).
Vulnerability Context
People’s livelihoods and their access and
control of resources can be affected by
events largely beyond their control. ‘The
vulnerability context firstly frames the
external environment in which people exist’
(DFID, 1999:13).
For example:
• trends in population growth, national and
international economics, natural
resources, politics, and technology,
• sudden shocks or events such as health
problems, earthquakes, floods,
droughts, conflict, agricultural problems
such as pests and disease, economic
shocks, and
• seasonal vulnerability of prices,
production, employment opportunities or
health can impact on livelihoods
(DFID, 1999, Chambers & Conway, 1992).
Culture (including gender) and household
dynamics can also cause risk and
vulnerability (Cahn, 2002).
The vulnerability context is secondly about
how people adapt to and cope with stresses
and shocks.
Key Strengths of the SL Approach
None of the elements in the SL approach
are new. However, what is new is that the
elements have been brought together to
represent a holistic and realistic view of
livelihood systems and to reflect poverty in
its broadest sense.
The SL approach is people centred,
designed to be participatory and has an
emphasis on sustainability. Furthermore the
approach is positive in that it first identifies
what people have rather than focussing on
what people do not have. The SL approach
recognises diverse livelihood strategies, it
can be multi – level, household, community,
regional or national, and can be dynamic.
The SL frameworks are useful analytical
structures that help practitioners and
theorists to understand the reality of the
poor and the complexity of rural life (Singh &
Gilman, 1999, Farrington et al, 1999).
Critique
The approach is still being developed and
further benefits and disadvantages will
emerge over time. However, there have
already been concerns raised over what
factors to include in the conceptual
frameworks. Equally important and just as
controversial is the way that the frameworks
portray the relationships between the
factors. One of the dangers of this type of
approach is that by representing the reality
and complexity of a livelihood system in a
simple and logical way, the relative
importance of some factors and the
relationships between the factors are lost. In
two of the frameworks (Ellis, 2000 and
Scoones, 1998) the framework is assumed
to be linear with no feed back or other
relationships. This is clearly unrealistic.
One of the major concerns is that the SL
approach is too complex. Furthermore it is
considered by some that ‘that the approach
is over ambitious and offers insufficient
practical guidance on the way forward’
(Carney, 1999a:5). However the complexity
is in the holistic understanding of complex
livelihood systems (Carney,1999). The SL
approach is not a blueprint for rural
development rather an analytical framework
which guides the thinking behind
development planning and intervention.
The SL approach is designed to work across
sectors. However, in reality, most
government institutions and organisations
are operated and funded on a sector basis
and thus cross sector development is
difficult (Carney, 1999a, Singh & Gilman,
1999).
Most of the research on and use of the
approach has been carried out in Asia and
Africa. The nature of poverty in the Pacific is
very different to Asia and Africa and the
influence of culture and the traditional sector
is much stronger. In the early DFID
framework, culture is considered as part of
the vulnerability context. Culture is regarded
in the later DFID framework as a process,
along with laws, policies and institutions.
Ellis (2000) identifies ‘rules, customs and
land tenure’ as institutional aspects that
could modify access to resources (Ellis
2000: 30). A SL framework has the potential
to incorporate cultural aspects. However, the
livelihood frameworks reviewed so far do not
provide researchers and practitioners with
clear guidance on the way in which tradition
and culture can be incorporated into the
livelihood system (Cahn, 2002). Furthermore
there is no mention of gender in the
published frameworks except for Ellis (2000)
who lists gender, class, age and ethnicity
under ‘social relations’.
Sustainable Livelihoods in the Pacific
Rural livelihoods in the Pacific Islands exist
within the context of culture and tradition.
Culture and tradition impact on livelihoods in
terms of:
• the risks and vulnerability context,
• influencing structures and processes
(such as societal norms, gender roles
and relations, organisations, and
traditional politics),
• access to and control of resources,
• choice and success of livelihood
strategies,
• priorities for livelihood outcomes, and
• the incentives that people respond to.
Paradoxically, livelihoods also impact on
culture, and culture changes with new ways
of living. Culture is a process, not a state
and evolves over time (Crocombe, 1972,
Latukefu, 1976).
Development projects in the Pacific have
largely failed to stimulate economic growth
or reduce poverty to the extent that was
predicted and expected. ADB has identified
institutional issues, along with socio-cultural
issues as the main causes of project failure
in the Pacific (Schoeffel, 1996).
Often ‘culture’ is cited as an impediment to
economic development. For example
obligations to community, collective rather
than individual motivation, antagonistic
feelings towards individual economic gain,
commitment to ceremonies and gift giving,
sharing and distribution of food and money,
the influence of the Church, power and
status of individuals, and gender issues
have all been cited as reasons why small
businesses fail in Pacific Islands.
However, this supposes that since the
realities of Pacific societies do not fit the
dominant model of economics, the societies
should be changed to suit the model. Some
of these so-called ‘impediments’ to
economic growth are in fact fundamental to
the traditional economic systems (Hooper
and James, 1994). Rather than culture being
regarded as an obstacle, it needs to be the
basis of a more sustainable, equitable form
of development (Discussion, 1997).
Hooper (1993) describes a model of Pacific
societies that includes three inter-linked
‘spheres’. These spheres (or domains) are
distinct ‘ways of life’, and each has a
separate but interrelated set of norms,
values and culture (Hooper, 1998). The
three spheres, or domains, are:
• government or public,
• private sector (business and the
professions), and
• traditional (including gender).
The way in which the domains relate and
inter connect are what gives each country its
distinct socio-economic profile (Hooper,
1998).
Clearly, a framework for SL in the Pacific
must incorporate these three domains as
influencing all aspects of the livelihood
system. In addition, culture and tradition
Figure 2. SL Framework for the Pacific
The differences between the SL definition and framework for the Pacific and the definitions and
frameworks described earlier in this paper are summarised in Figure 3.
need to be prominent in a SL framework that
truly reflects the realities of Pacific rural life.
The SL definition given earlier in this paper
therefore needs modification to fit the Pacific
model of sustainable livelihoods.
A Pacific livelihood comprises
the capabilities, assets and
activities that provide a means
of living: a sustainable livelihood
works within a traditional and
cultural context adapting to and
coping with vulnerability, while
maintaining and enhancing
assets and resources (Cahn,
2002, adapted from Chambers
& Conway, 1992).
A SL framework that incorporates the
features of a Pacific SL has been developed
(Cahn, 2002) (Figure 2.). This framework
seeks to overcome some of the criticisms of
the SL frameworks and incorporate culture
and tradition into the livelihood system.
Figure 3. Differences – Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for the Pacific

The Pacific Sustainable Livelihoods Definition and Framework

Definition
• Emphasises that the livelihood must work within the culture and traditions
• Includes sustainability as maintaining or enhancing all assets and resources
• Simplifies the wording

Framework
• Influencing structures and processes – includes the three domains,
traditional (including gender), public, private sector.
• Vulnerability context includes cultural and household aspects.
• Influencing structures and processes, and the vulnerability context are placed outside the
livelihood as they impact on ALL aspects of the livelihood assets, strategies and
outcomes.
• The linkages and flows between factors are clearly stated.
• Traditional assets are included as a separate asset.
• Well-being is included as the final goal

Source: Cahn, 2002

Carney, D. (1998) (ed) Sustainable rural

Conclusion livelihoods. What contribution can
The SL approach is not a panacea for we make? Papers presented at the
development, but rather a ‘way of thinking’ DFID Natural Resources Advisers’
that has considerable potential as an Conference, July 1998. DFID,
analytical framework to guide researchers London.
and practitioners in rural development and Carney, D. (1999a) Approaches to
poverty reduction. The SL approach is still sustainable livelihoods for the rural
evolving as strengths and weaknesses poor. ODI Poverty Briefing 2.
emerge and discussion continues. Clearly Carney, D. (1999b) Livelihood approaches
the approach is sensitive to context and compared. DFID, London.
situation. As with any other tool, success Chambers, R. and Conway, G.R. (1992)
depends both on how well the approach and Sustainable rural livelihoods:
associated frameworks reflect the realities of practical concepts for the 21st
life and on how sensitively, inclusively and century. IDS Discussion Paper No.
competently the approach is used in 296.: IDS, Brighton.
practice. Crocombe, R. (1972) Preserving which
culture? The future of Pacific
References cultures. Pacific Perspective 1 (1):
AusAID (1997) One clear objective poverty 1-15.
reduction through sustainable DFID (1999) Sustainable livelihood guidance
development. The Australian sheets. Available August 2001.
Overseas Aid Programe. Report of http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_g
the Committee of Review. AusAID, uidanceSheets.html
Canberra. Discussion (1997) Discussion about
Cahn, M. (2002) The business of living: rural Productivity: the problem of
micro-enterprise and sustainable incentives (comment by Atu
livelihoods. PhD thesis in progress. Emberson-Bain). In Asian
Massey University, Palmerston Development Bank Sociocultural
North. issues and economic development
in the pacific Islands. Volume II.
Round Table Proceedings Nov
 1996, Suva, Fiji. Asian Development Scoones, I. (1998) Sustainable rural
Bank, Manilla, pp. 108-114. livelihoods. A framework for
Drinkwater, M and Rusinow, T. (1999) analysis. IDS Working Paper No. 72.
Application of CARE’s livelihoods IDS, Brighton.
approach. Paper presented at Singh, N. and Gilman, J. (1999) Making
NRAC 1999. Available November livelihoods more sustainable.
2001: http://www.livelihoods.org International Social Science Journal
Ellis, F. (2000) Rural livelihoods and 162:539-545.
diversity in developing countries. UNDP (1999) Sustainable livelihoods
Oxford University Press, Oxford. documents: Introduction, Overview
Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. and and Sustainable Livelihoods:
Turton, C. (1999) Sustainable concepts, principles and approaches
livelihoods in practice: early to indicator development. Available
applications of concepts in rural November 2001:
areas. ODI Natural Resource http://www.undp.org/sl
Perspectives No. 42. WCED (1987) Food 2000: Global policies
Helmore, K. (1998) Local know-how the right for sustainable agriculture. A report
stuff. Choices 7 (3):6-14. of the advisory panel on food
Hooper, A. (1993) Socio-cultural aspects of security, agriculture, forestry and
development in the South pacific. In environment to the World
Cole, R., and Tambunlertchai, S. Commission on Environment and
(ed) The future of Asia-Pacific Development. Zed Books, London
economies. Pacific Islands at the and New Jersey.
cross roads? Asian and Pacific
Development Centre and National
Centre for Development Studies.
Pacific Policy Paper 10. Paragon
Printers, Australia, pp.314-342.
Hooper, A. (1998) Pacific Islands
stakeholder participation in
development: Samoa. Pacific
Islands discussion Paper Series,
World Bank. World Bank,
Washington.
Hooper, A. and James, K. (1994)
Sustainability and Pacific cultures.
East-West Center Working Papers,
Hawaii. Pacific Islands Development
Series No 1.
Latukefu, S. (1976) Tradition and
modernisation in the Pacific. Pacific
Perspective 5 (2):19- 29.
NZAID (2002) Policy statement. New
Zealand Agency for International
Development (NZAID).
Perez Izadi, N. and Cahn, M. (2000) Water
and livelihoods: a participatory
analysis of a Mexican rural
community. Research report 00/01
Division of Applied Management
and Computing. Lincoln University,
New Zealand.
Schoeffel, P. (1996) Sociocultural issues
and economic development in the
Pacific Islands. Pacific Studies
Series. ADB, Manilla.