|
|
 |
|
 |
| Here you will find answers to Frequently Asked Questions on
the sustainable livelihoods approach, as well as the responses
to some past enquiries in the Enquiry Desk General Archive |
 |
Frequently
Asked Questions |
|
|
|
|
|
What is sustainable livelihoods |
'Sustainable livelihoods' is a way of thinking about the objectives,
scope and priorities for development. There is no set 'recipe' for
a sustainable livelihoods (SL) approach, though there are some core
principles that underlie SL thinking. These include maintaining a
focus on people and their strengths (rather than more technical project
outputs), taking a wide view of the options for assistance and making
links between local issues and wider concerns about policies, institutions
and processes (see 2.4 and 4.1). A number of agencies have put these
principles into their development practice and recognise that, taken
together, they represent a new way of working. In recognition of this,
it is common now to write and speak of SL approaches, rather than
of a single SL approach.
The overall objective of SL approaches is poverty elimination. SL
draws on many other strands of development thinking and makes use
of a variety of existing methods of analysis.'' The SL framework is
a tool to assist those using an SL approach. It helps to show how
the main factors that influence livelihoods relate to each other.
|
|
|
|
What
are the core principles that underlie SL approaches
|
The
core principles underlying SL approaches are that poverty-focused
development activity should be:
- People-centred - sustainable poverty elimination will be achieved
only if external support focuses on what matters to people, understands
the differences between groups of people and works with them in
a way that is congruent with their current livelihood strategies,
social environment and ability to adapt
- Responsive
and participatory - poor people themselves must be key actors
in identifying and addressing livelihood priorities. Outsiders
need processes to listen and respond to the poor
- Multi-level - poverty elimination is an enormous challenge that
can be overcome only by working at multiple levels, ensuring that
micro-level activity informs the development of policy and an
effective enabling environment and that macro-level structures
and processes support people to build upon their own strengths
- Conducted
in partnership - with both the public and the private sector
-
Sustainable - there are four key dimensions to sustainability
- economic, institutional, social and environmental sustainability.
All are important - a balance must be found between them
- Dynamic
- external support must recognise the dynamic nature of livelihood
strategies, respond flexibly to changes in people's situation,
and develop longer-term commitments
SL approaches
must be underpinned by a commitment to poverty eradication.
Although they can, in theory, be applied to work with any stakeholder
group, an implicit principle for DFID is that activities should be
designed to maximise livelihood benefits for the poor.
|
|
|
|
What are we trying to achieve by adopting an SL approach |
The objective of SL approaches is to ensure that poverty elimination
efforts are more effective and sustainable. SL is therefore a means
of achieving poverty elimination and ensuring that the International
Development Targets are met.
|
|
|
|
What is new |
In many respects, SL approaches are not new at all. They build upon
decades of thinking about the best ways to approach development problems,
and incorporate many of the tools and methods with which we are all
familiar. What makes SL 'new' is that it brings all these issues together
at the same time and combines them with a core emphasis on poverty
elimination, on people (rather than on resources or project outputs,
such as numbers of hospitals built or numbers of teachers trained)
and on the importance of working simultaneously at local and higher
levels and with both the public and the private sector. SL approaches
recognise the importance of seeing livelihood systems holistically
and that concentrating on specific parts of systems only will not
deliver poverty elimination. The SL framework provides a structure
and focus for thinking about systemic change.
|
|
|
|
What difference does SL make |
SL is not a 'magic bullet'. Nor is it a substitute for other work
practices and methods, all of which have their place. Rather it is
way of capturing and bringing together best practice from many different
areas of development in order to address the long-standing challenge
of poverty elimination. SL will achieve results only if it is operationalised
in a thoughtful way by people who are skilled in understanding both
local priorities and the higher-level factors (policies, governance
structures, etc.) that affect livelihoods. It does hold out the prospect
of better team working, the development of a broader and more intuitive
understanding of local priorities and thus more effective poverty
elimination. This is of particular importance given the increased
marginalisation and vulnerability of the poor in the modern economic
environment (see also Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early
experience).
|
|
|
|
Who are the partners for SL |
There is no specific type of partner that is more or less suited to
adopting the SL perspective. Different partners have different advantages
(e.g. close relations with and knowledge of particular communities,
influence at higher levels of government, access to human and financial
resources, an established relationship with a donor, etc.). It is
not necessary to identify a non-sectoral partner in order to adopt
an SL approach. And it is important not to impose SL on partners.
SL is not an approach that you can easily 'sell' if partners are not
already curious. However, if partners are looking for new ways of
solving old problems, and for lasting solutions rather than 'quick-fix,
project-led spending' they may find SL very attractive. A starting
point should be a shared commitment to poverty elimination. From this
commitment can be built a joint programme of action that incorporates
many of the principles of SL approaches, even if it is not explicitly
labelled 'SL'.
|
|
|
|
What happens if partners do not follow an SL approach |
The key to working with partners is flexibility. There is invariably
a degree of compromise between fitting with partners' own objectives
and methods and following an SL approach. However, if partners cannot
accept the core principles that underlie SL approaches, even when
they are provided with support to understand and adapt these, there
may be cause to seek alternative alliances.
|
|
|
|
Does SL raise too many expectations and demands |
Raising expectations is a danger for all externally-financed development
activity. In some respects projects that are framed by an SL approach
are less at risk here. This is because they have the flexibility to
develop in a variety of different directions (though over-complexity
should be avoided). By contrast, when projects operate within a given
sector they may uncover issues that they can never address. For example,
participatory exercises conducted for agricultural research projects
frequently end up discussing issues to do with trading practices,
adverse policies or water supply. But the projects themselves may
not have the freedom to address these or even to form alliances with
others who can. On the other hand, the fact that SL investigations
cover such a wide agenda may unduly raise expectations. It is important
to be aware of this danger throughout and to make an active effort
to manage expectations. Partners and those involved with SL analysis
need to be aware that SL does not lead to integrated projects, but
rather to targeted projects with links to others who are supporting
development. Prioritisation is therefore key.
|
|
|
|
How do SL approaches relate to the International Development
Targets |
It is hoped and expected that adoption of SL approaches will prove
to be an effective way of achieving poverty elimination. That is,
using SL approaches will help directly to reach the IDT of reducing
by half the number of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. SL
approaches also stress the importance of education, health, empowerment
and sustainable development, meaning that they should be able to contribute
across the board to the IDTs. However, there is no claim that SL approaches
are the only way of tackling poverty nor, at this early stage, is
there much hard evidence as to their success. Gathering evidence on
performance, and modifying the approaches if they are not found to
be effective for poverty reduction, is an immediate priority.
|
|
|
|
How does SL differ from Integrated Rural Development |
SL approaches build upon the positive aspects of Integrated Rural
Development (IRD), in particular IRD's recognition of the interlocking
nature of needs and the complementarity between various types of development
activity. However, SL 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. (For a more detailed comparison see Section 1.5).
|
|
|
|
How does SL differ from community-based development programmes
|
SL builds on many of the strengths of community-based development
programmes. It is participatory and works with local people to understand
their strengths and determine their priorities (and therefore enables
people to take action). It tries to avoid sectoral preconceptions.
However, a core difference is that it looks beyond the local environment.
It is neither bottom-up, nor top-down, but stresses that all levels
should work together. A primary objective of SL analysis is to understand
how wider policies, institutions and processes affect local livelihoods.
This includes thinking about issues of vulnerability, local power
and influence. SL-informed programmes 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 programmes 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 SL approaches relate to sector programmes |
Sector-wide approaches and SL approaches need not conflict. SL approaches
can be effective at both grass-roots and policy levels. SL should
encourage sector programmes 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 SL-guided sector programme might be the most appropriate
form of development activity. Like sector programmes, SL approaches
also aims to build on 'best practice' in public expenditure and management
issues (see also Section 3.2).
|
|
|
|
How do SL approaches relate to rights |
In many respects, SL 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 SL 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 SL and a rights perspective.
|
|
|
|
What does SL have to say about working with the private sector
|
SL approaches are very much rooted in current thinking about public/private
partnerships and the need to mobilise 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 SL approaches. And the SL 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 are Transforming Structures and Processes? Are they things
that we need to transform, or things that transform others |
Transforming Structures and Processes was the term originally
used for the large category within the framework that is now known
as Policies, Institutions and Processes. This is a critical area that
can have a profound effect upon livelihoods - hence the original idea
to include the word 'transforming' in the title. The aim was to stress
that these factors have the power to 'transform' livelihoods (rather
than that we should necessarily transform them - though this is often
a priority). However this has caused some confusion, hence the new
name (see Sections 2.4, 4.11).
|
|
|
|
What does it mean to be holistic |
In the SL context the word 'holistic' denotes a broad, system-wide
approach to thinking about poverty. SL analysis is holistic in the
sense that it tries to include all factors that affect livelihoods
(whether or not these are explicitly noted in the SL framework). Nothing
is excluded at the outset (though things may be eliminated due to
judged lack of importance as analysis proceeds) and effort is made
to understand both the links between different factors and the dynamism
of the whole (see also Section 1.3).
|
|
|
|
SL claims to be `holistic'. Does this mean we have to do everything
|
No. The SL 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 SL-guided programmes 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 programme 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).
|
|
|
|
How can I handle the complexity of SL |
The SL framework is a tool that aims to provide a 'road map' through
the potential complexity of an SL approach. The framework itself may
appear complex, but in many respects it is just a reminder to think
logically and open-mindedly about the issues and factors that drive
development. There is no need to work with the complex-looking DFID
SL framework if this does not suit your needs: feel free to break
the framework into pieces and redraw it in a way that is more logical
for you and your partners. Equally there is no need to go into exhaustive
detail when thinking about different aspects of the framework. The
starting point is to ask broad questions, avoiding existing preconceptions.
Use of some kind of checklist can help prevent important aspects being
missed out. The next step is to follow up on those areas that seem
to pose particular problems or be a notable source of strength. It
is always important to look for links between different issues (hence
the importance of teamwork during SL analysis), but just as important
not to lose the bigger picture in the quest for detail.
|
|
|
|
How does SL help to select project activities |
SL approaches are not prescriptive about the nature of project activity.
SL analysis helps highlight key strengths and also major constraints
to livelihoods. It should therefore suggest a range of possible project
activities. These can be narrowed down using existing appraisal tools
(for example, cost-benefit analysis) and by making judgements about
feasibility, existing strengths and partners' areas of expertise.
Project activities are eventually chosen through dialogue with local
people and development partners.
|
|
|
|
Is SL applicable only for projects and area-based activity
|
No. An SL approach can be used to guide action at a variety of levels.
They are not prescriptive about whether community-based activities
or policy-based activities are 'best' (see 3.1). Obviously both the
type of analysis that is conducted and the nature of resulting activity
will vary depending upon the scale of operation. For policy-orientated
projects, initial SL analysis is likely to be more broad-brush. Because
SL approaches stress the need to address both local and wider issues,
it is likely that the distinction between area-based and policy-orientated
activity will become blurred over time.
|
|
|
|
You say that the SL approach stresses multiple levels of operation
and macro-micro links? Where does this show up in the SL framework
|
Unfortunately
the SL framework only exists in two dimensions, otherwise this would
come across more clearly. The area which requires most three-dimensional
imagination is Policies, Institutions and Processes (PIP, formerly
termed Transforming Structures and Processes). An ideal framework
would show many overlapping levels of PIP from the household (intra-household
social institutions) to international concerns (e.g. international
trading agreements). The challenge is to understand these many levels,
how they link to each other, how they affect livelihoods, and how
they might be made more conducive to the livelihoods of the poor.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
SL may help in arriving at an holistic appreciation of the
factors influencing livelihoods of the poor, but does it offer
anything new in suggesting how they may be addressed? |
A major strength of the SL approach is its practical orientation:
from the breadth of analysis, it allows not only priorities and entry
points to be identified, but also the most appropriate sequences of
activities. In this way, for instance, it has been possible to identify
activities which not only address the needs and opportunities of the
poor, but also are unlikely to be prone to takeover by elites. Sequencing
is particularly important where, for instance, the capacity of lower
income groups needs to be built up in order for them to have a stronger
say in their livelihood futures. Depending on the context, this may
involve enhanced capacity for joint action in managing common pool
resources; enhanced ability to negotiate development plans with the
better off (such as defending their interests in the planning of microwatershed
rehabilitation); enhanced capacity to undertake savings, credit and
microenterprise activities in which there may have been little earlier
experience; enhanced capacity to make their voices heard in newly-strengthened
local democratic institutions, and so on. Many development contexts
are characterised by latent or actual conflict between better-off
and poorer groups. Many of these are deeply rooted in ethnic, social
or cultural differences, and the SL approach has no greater prospect
than any other developmental approach of making an impact on these.
However, to summarise the above arguments, one of its strengths lies
in identifying options for the poor which have some prospect of bypassing
long-standing conflicts, and of strengthening their capacity for negotiating
and managing their own livelihoods for the longer term.
|
|
|
|
Is SLA pro-poor |
The SL approach, as supported by DFID is very much pro-poor; it has
been adopted as a means to eliminate poverty. If commitment to poverty
elimination informs all their work, development practitioners will
find that the approach and framework can help them to focus on the
livelihood options of the poor and develop pro-poor strategies. However,
the SL framework is not inherently pro-poor.
|
|
|
|
Does the focus on assets mean that richer people are favoured
|
No - at least this is certainly not the intention. The reason for
emphasising assets rather than needs and weaknesses is to help to
ensure that poverty-reduction programmes have a firm foundation and
are sustainable. It is also important to recognise that everyone has
strengths, even if these are not immediately apparent. Those with
fewest material assets must often apply the greatest strength to survive.
SL analysis should help reveal the different strengths of different
social groups within a community or target group. This should help
to ensure that development activity is tailored to local circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Does SL target the poorest |
The SL framework says nothing explicit about relative poverty. SL
analysis can be equally applied to richer and poorer groups. However,
DFID's adoption of SL is as a means to achieve poverty elimination.
Hence, for DFID, one of the underlying principles of SL approaches
is a focus on poorer groups.
|
|
|
|
For a field project we've selected a poor community in a poor
district. But there is differentiation in the community. Whom
should we be working with |
SL analysis helps to reveal the important divisions in the community
and existing positive directions of change. However, final decisions
about whom to work with are based on a combination of factors, including:
partners' views and experience, relative poverty and vulnerability
and where you think you can make the greatest difference.
|
|
|
|
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 |
Yes and no. SL opens up a wide agenda. It is important not to over-invest
in information gathering at the expense of analysis and action. However,
there are plenty of examples of misguided activity that occur because
as outsiders we assume we know what people are trying to achieve or
what their primary livelihood strategies are. Open-ended SL analysis
tries to guard against repeating such mistakes. And participatory
poverty analyses (the results of which should be a key information
source for SL analysis) have shown us that people's concerns stretch
well beyond income. The SL framework provides something of a checklist
for those conducting analysis so that they can be sure that they have
not 'missed out' any vital issues. However, not all areas of the framework
require equal investigation. The actual schedule of analysis must
be decided on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
|
|
Poverty is complex, multidimensional and the causes are variable.
Does this mean that we all have to become generalists |
No. We should not waste resources and expertise by trying to turn
every subject specialist into a generalist. It is important to recognise
the relative contribution that different types of people can make.
When working with specialists or in defined areas (e.g. technical
research) it is important to bring in people with a broad understanding
of poverty who can help make links between disciplines. Discussions
should, though, be inclusive so that subject experts begin to develop
a better appreciation of where they fit in to the wider picture. It
is equally important to recognise the contribution that subject specialists
can make. For example, if livelihoods analysis is conducted by experienced
generalists, it is often appropriate to call in subject experts to
flesh out thinking in areas which seem particularly problematic or
promising (and to plan actual development activity).
|
|
|
|
Poverty is complex, multidimensional and the causes are variable.
How then can we work out priorities at a national, let alone
a regional or strategic |
This is a difficult question, but experience has shown that priorities
do emerge through aggregation (see section 3.2). It remains important
not to try to over-specify activity at a national or strategic level.
Enough flexibility should remain within programmes so that activities
can be adapted to fit local circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Is SL of any value to fieldworkers? |
SL may be of value to different levels of fieldworker in different
ways. For instance, fieldworkers engaged in service delivery (eg agricultural
extension; veterinary services) would be helped by SL perspectives
to understand the vulnerability that the rural poor face, and the
ways they might reach a balance between opportunities for increased
income and those for greater security. SL perspectives can also help
in understanding the importance of access to assets as a basis for
sustainable gains in productivity. Armed with this understanding,
fieldworkers might better select from those available the types of
service most relevant to particular categories of resource user.
At a higher level, those fieldworkers concerned with the implementation
of poverty focused interventions will, by using SL perspectives, be
in a strong position to monitor the uptake of interventions by different
groups, making course corrections as necessary in order to change
priorities and sequences so that benefits can be channelled to the
poor in ways which neither threaten the better off nor invite "capture"
by them. Fieldworkers will gain insights into SL approaches by hands-on
applications in their day-to-day work. However, for SL training to
be fully effective, it needs to be mainstreamed into both initial
and in-service training courses.
|
|
|
|
What is the unit of analysis for livelihoods |
The DFID SL framework and approach can be used at different levels.
It can help promote understanding of the distinct livelihoods of individuals
within a household. It can also be used to create a broad-brush characterisation
of 'community livelihoods' within a larger area (though subsequent
effort will be needed to understand patterns of differentiation within
those communities). Many start their analysis by thinking about households.
If this is the case, it is critical to ensure that intra-household
issues (including gender and age differentiation) are understood and
addressed and that the 'picture' of the household is rooted in an
understanding of the wider environment (how different households relate
to local authority structures, the impact on them of wider policy
and legislation, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Is it necessary to conduct livelihoods analysis for every
group and situation |
No. It is clearly not feasible to conduct such exhaustive analysis.
It is, however, important to understand the main social, political
and economic axes that divide groups of people and to gain a sense
of how these affect their livelihoods. SL approaches provide no blueprint
formulae for how to go about planning and executing development activity.
Strong leadership and analytical skills are at a premium, and these
must be employed from the beginning to decide where to 'stop' in the
data gathering and analysis process.
|
|
|
|
What indicators do we use to measure success |
This is a difficult area in which more work is required (see also
Sections 3.4, 3.5). A key concern is the extent to which livelihood
outcomes are being achieved, pre- and post-project (although relating
these to more 'objective' measures of poverty can be difficult). Monitoring
and evaluation of SL-guided projects is invariably participatory,
although there may also be a need for external evaluation.
|
|
|
|
Is it necessary formally to train in-country programme officers
in SL? |
Country programme officers engaged by donors are in a pivotal position
as far as the preparation of country strategies and of projects and
programmes is concerned. They need to be conversant enough with the
SL approach to engage national or international consultants to prepare
strategies, projects or programmes and get the best from them. Typically,
for instance, they might initially brief a team of consultants embodying
diverse skills in the SL approach, making them aware that the analysis
of sectors for which they are responsible will need to be dovetailed
with that of other sectors, that although a comprehensive analysis
is needed, only a small number of priority entry points will be chosen,
and that insights in how to sequence these will be all-important.
It is unlikely for the short term that the leaders of consultancy
teams will be familiar enough with the approach to take on this kind
of coordinating function. Nor are they likely to have easy access
to the kinds of on-going information collection within the donor community
that may have a strong bearing on SL, such as participatory poverty
analyses. For all of these reasons, it is important that adequate
training be provided to country programme officers, not only in the
SL approach itself, but also in groupworking and team management techniques
that would allow them to manage teams of consultants effectively.
|
|
|
|
Does an SL approach have anything to offer outside of evaluating
a programme or project? |
In addition to project or programme design, the SL approach has
been used in country-based scoping missions - a precursor to focusing
down on specific programmes or projects. Ideally, several areas
of information would already be available on which the SL approach
could draw: these would include macroeconomic and sectoral overviews;
they might also include: reviews of the performance of democratically
decentralised bodies (eg in local government) and of public sector
service delivery; reviews of relations among different ethnic or
social groups, and participatory poverty assessments.
Recent suggestions have also been made concerning the potential
for the SL framework to include elements of political analysis.
The argument here is that in many countries the allocation of resources
for development, the performance of the public administration and
the functioning of democratic bodies, whether participatory (for
instance, resource user-groups) or representative (for instance,
local government), are all influenced by the structure of political
systems and their performance. Instead of treating these as exogenous
to the SL framework, it would be preferable, the argument goes,
explicitly to recognise the fact that "political capital"
exists, and to seek to understand the relation between this and
other "capitals".
|
Enquiry
Desk General Archive |
| The
following are past responses to queries sent to the Enquiry
Desk. Some queries have been combined to create these more general
resonses. They are not updated. For more recent additions to
Livelihoods Connect please search the whole site using the Search
function. |
|
What are some of the methods and experiences relating to macro-micro
linking? (Jan 2004) |
| |
 |
|
|
Value
of macro-micro linking |
 |
Micro
to Macro: Policies and Institutions for Empowering the
Rural Poor (Ian Goldman / Khanya) (HTML) |
|
SL Guidance Sheets (HTML) |
|
Institutional
Support For Sustainable Rural Livelihoods In Southern
Africa Final Report (PDF) |
| |
Linking
macro and micro in analysis, policy, planning and M&E |
|
Khanya
newsletter -social capital and sustainable livelihoods
(HTML) |
|
FAO
provides series of diagrams -aid to better understanding
of the macro-meso-micro linkages between policies and
livelihoods (HTML)
|
|
Improving
Policy-Livelihood Relationships in South Asia- Project
(HTML) |
|
Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation: Improving
the impact and relevance of development interventions
(DOC)
|
| |
Success
Stories |
|
Lessons
from the DELIVERI -programme in Indonesia (HTML) |
|
Community
Energy Lessons -a South Wales wind farm project (HTML) |
|
Khanya's
Community Based Planning project -linking community
plans to local government to national policy (HTML) |
|
ODI
paper -highlightsthe importance of working at many
levels to facilitate change in a forestry service delivery
agency in India (PDF) |
| |
Methods
and frameworks |
|
Trade
Liberalisation, Poverty and Livelihoods: Understanding
the Linkages (Nazneen Kanji; Stephanie Barrientos
/2002) (HTML) |
|
Analysing
Policy for Sustainable Livelihoods (Alex Shankland/
IDS / 2000) (Available to purchase) |
|
Guidelines
for Undertaking a Regional/National Sustainable Rural
Livelihoods Study (Khanya) (PDF) |
|
|
How
a livelihoods approach can be used in the context of HIV-AIDS?
(Jan 2004) |
| |
