|
Number of references |
52 |
|
Number of fisheries related references |
14 |
|
Geographical spread |
West Africa 8, East Africa 9, Southern Africa 5, South Asia 4, SE Asia 3, Latin America 3, Africa/South Asia 2, Developed 1, Global 7, Theoretical 10 |
|
Number of references based on empirical research about the causes/impacts of poverty |
16 |
|
Number of references defining poverty |
7 |
|
Yearly spread |
1980-1990 0, 1991-2000 35 (of which oldest is 1997 and 18 from 2000), Post 2000 17 |
The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) concept first came about in the late 1980s. Early iterations of the asset based approach were first put into practice from the mid 1990s by SID and IISD, and introduced to UNDP in 1996 and DFID in 1997. A brief history of the SLA is outlined in SID (2000) and descriptions of the guiding principles and framework can be found in numerous publications as well as online (Scoones, 1998; Carney, 1999; FAO, 2000; Allison and Ellis, 2001, www.sflp.org; www.livelihoods.org).
The concepts of SLAs are not new, but build on best practices of researchers and agencies around the world. What is new, as pointed out by Carnagie and Goldman (2001), is the bringing together of the different elements into an approach which focuses on poverty alleviation (Baumann and Sinha, 2001).
The first programme to explicitly apply the SL approach throughout its project cycle is the DFID/FAO Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme for West Africa which began in 1999 (Allison and Ellis, 2001). Prior to this, SL was applied in analysis or ad hoc, but since then the number of SL influenced interventions has grown rapidly. DFID currently has 116 SL guided projects and programmes (DFID, 2002b). These address a range of issues at different scales across the globe promoting pro poor policies relating to (amongst others) natural resource use, rural, urban and peri-urban development and the impact of EU policies on developing countries. UNDP have SL programmes running in 10 countries (UNDP-SL, 1999).
Publications of SL experiences are all very recent. More than half of the references reviewed have been published since 2000, and all since 1997. An increasing amount of information is being made available on the Internet, where platforms for information dissemination and exchange have been established in a way which should facilitate wide public dissemination of new experiences and enable feedback as these interventions progress. A key point that emerges from the literature, is that because the SLA is a new concept in terms of its formal application, at the moment the majority of literature concentrates on lessons learned from design and implementation. Understanding the impact of SL initiatives on poverty alleviation is still very much a work in progress.
The lessons learned which are presented below aim to draw together experiences showing the value of SL approaches, and detail what can be drawn from these experiences to date. A vast number of lessons were presented in the literature reviewed, and these have been synthesised to present the main emerging themes. The Inter Agency Forum on Operationalizing the Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches, which was convened in 2000, has contributed greatly to bringing together the experiences of SL applied in programmes and analysis until 2000.
3.2.1 Aims and Uses of the SLA
There is general concordance of the main aims of using a SLA despite the large variation in application. The definition of aims below is an attempt to combine the key elements:
"The SLA provides a conceptual framework allowing (i) the main factors affecting people's livelihoods and (ii) the direct and indirect linkages between these factors, to be considered in the context of developing policies for poverty reduction. It is an approach that aims to be powered by the poor and help people achieve lasting improvements, assessing impacts using self defined indicators."
It is generally agreed that SL concepts are people focused, pro poor, policy orientated, attempt to encompass environmental and social stability, have the potential to explain the complexities and dynamics of livelihoods (in this instance of the rural poor), poverty and vulnerability. SL does not stand alone, but should tie together with other concepts and tools (quantitative and qualitative), striving for a more holistic approach to poverty. To try and achieve these aims SLAs are constantly changing and adaptable to different contexts.
Although in some regions, such as Latin America, there has been little explicit use of the analytical framework and no use of SL to direct participatory appraisals (Ditchburn et al, 1999), the application of SLAs have been diverse and include:
As an analytical framework for all stages of project and programme cycles (design, implementation, monitoring, review and assessment)
As a conceptual tool to think about the objectives, scope and priorities for development in the context of poverty reduction, identifying key constraints and opportunities
As a tool to help structure primary information collection and secondary information analysis and review
As a basis for policy-relevant empirical research to capture the cross-sectoral nature of rural livelihood strategies, informing policies to support the least sustainable livelihoods.
3.2.2 Practical lessons
SL approaches are adaptable and should be used as a flexible framework changing according to country and group contexts (Brock, 1998; Turton, 2000b). Once an objective is set, the framework acts as a conceptual guide to asking questions (Scoones, 1998). Such flexibility makes comparison of research sites difficult (Brock, 1999)
The approach is iterative and dynamic, learning from experience (DFID, 2000).
Translation of the terminology into other languages is difficult (Ditchburn et al., 1999).
The holistic, people centred nature of SL means that the process is complex, demanding higher inputs of time, information, and skill for the analysis (Scoones, 1998; Barr and Haylor, 2000; Ashley 2000), than conventional quantitative methods (Nicol, 2000). Cost effective methods that maintain the poor as the priority but also enable impact monitoring are required (Farrington et al., 1999).
Time is especially important for sharing SL concepts with partners and a diverse range of actors who are used to working independently (Farrington et al., 1999; Wanmali and Singh, 1999; DFID, 2002). Such investments are essential to ensure ownership of the process at all levels and require flexibility of donors.
SLAs require an effective team to undertake the participatory analysis. Communities usually have a very extensive understanding of how to maximise their livelihoods, shown by the diversity of strategies used. Help is needed for the more complex collective assessment of community priorities, dynamics and motivations, and how to accommodate them, (Ashley, 2000).
Participation can bring people into the development process and highlight the roles of stakeholders (Lewins, pers.comm. 2001). However participation alone is not sufficient because a) participation can improve understanding but better understanding does not make reality any easier to change" (Turton, 2000) and b) to ensure ownership, people need to have a role in decision making (Wanmali and Singh, 1999).
Developing community owned SL initiatives where the principles are adopted and applied, is a long process which needs considerable involvement of local people in the process and in the decision making, for example in Namibia where communities have been making decisions based on factors broader than cash alone (Ashley, 2000). There are ethical questions relating to the amount of time that participants are expected to give up to become involved in the process (Brock, 1998)
Fisher's livelihoods are readily described by the SL framework through its concentration on key assets, social interactions, rights of access, influence of adverse shocks and trends (Allison and Ellis, 2001).
3.2.3 Conceptual lessons from application of SL in rural development and small-scale fisheries
Diversity of strategies: Livelihood strategies are made up of many components, (Sporton, 1998) which may be sedentary and migratory (McDowell and Hann, 1997). Experience from Africa and South Asia shows that rural livelihoods are not composed of one activity (fishing, livestock or agriculture) to the exclusion of all other activities. Livelihood diversity is a more important determinant of poverty than the level of crop production (Hussein and Nelson, 1998; Ritchie et al. 2000). In Benin, people reliant on manual labour are considered poorest (Corcoran et al, working paper 2002). SLA recognises this diversity and facilitates its description as well as the complexities of constructing livelihoods (Townsley, 1998) necessary to address a holistic view of poverty. The needs and options identified using SLAs are usually multi-sectoral, which has practical institutional implications both across sectors and between decision making levels (Nicol, 2000). Improved targeting, advocacy, planning and the breaking down of cross-sectoral barriers are some of the benefits.
Macro-micro: SLAs create an enabling environment for synergies between development entry points at different levels, and stimulates dialogue between decision-making levels.
SL helps to explain how people operate livelihood strategies, and why different elements are selected - this can show how market and non-market factors in policies, legislation and culture contribute to the opportunities and barriers in people's lives (such as access to assets) (Caswell, 1997; Barr in DFIF-SEA, 2000; Allison and Ellis, 2001).
Differential impacts of interventions: SL allows a look at the direct and indirect impacts of interventions on different assets in different social and economic groups of people, allowing observation of the diversity that exists within a community (Ashley, 2000b). Compromise and trade-offs may be required where different priorities emerge for different actors (Scoones, 1998)
Poverty focus: Poverty is the assumed focus of the SL approach, although it is rarely explicit in the literature reviewed. It recognises social, economic and environmental dimensions within the holistic definition of poverty. Vulnerability, which refers to the resilience and sensitivity of a livelihood (Allison and Ellis, 2001) is a core dimension to poverty, the reduction of which, as previously discussed, should be a priority to achieve poverty alleviation (Carney, 1999). It is vital that SLA maintain a focus on poverty alleviation.
Monitoring: Monitoring is essential in achieving accountability, transparency, sustainability and learning. Monitoring livelihoods requires a pluralist approach that relies on both participative and quantitative methods. Neither type of measure is sufficient on its own to understand the holistic nature of poverty and livelihoods in enough detail to adequately inform policy (Orr and Mwale, 2001). At present there are still difficulties in finding the most appropriate monitoring indicators which encompass the dynamism and complexity of the process, but which are simple enough to be practical within given time and financial constraints. The identification of monitoring indicators and ways of quantifying aspects of SL, particularly for social capital remains on-going.
Knowledge and learning: Traditional and local knowledge has an important role in the SL processes (Ditchburn et al, 1999) as well as formal research, in efforts to increase the relevance and success of policies. Traditional knowledge has implications of sustainability (tradition is passed through generations). An FAO paper (2000) on the importance of traditional knowledge presents a model of the SLA in which knowledge is the core asset which allows the potential of other assets to be released. How knowledge is used itself also has big implications. Sharing of knowledge can be used to unite, and strengthen; withholding information on the other hand can exclude, limiting its use and further acquisition to the elite (FAO 2000; Nicol, 2000)
Sharing of experiences and learning at all levels, across sectors and between actors is noted to be a vital element of the SLA; a legitimate output that is as worthy of evaluation as technical results (FAO, 2000; Ritchie et al., 2000; SID, 2000). There is a constant need to improve lesson sharing; increasingly facilitated using the World Wide Web to improve accessibility. At present these resources include the electronic publication of full text information on line, development of web based discussion fora, e-conferences and research portals which focus on development, ("One Fish" is a fisheries-focused example). See Annex 3.
Power and politics: Ashley (2000), SID (2000), and Baumann and Sinah (2001) all agreed with Farrington et al. (1999) that power, and political aspects are not adequately dealt with in the SL framework, although political capital is implied in linking assets with PIPs. Different types of power and empowerment affect who can participate in what, who has access and rights. Power and politics have often been blamed for the failure of development in the past, and unless political capital is explicitly considered, this is unlikely to improve.
3.2.4 Shortfalls in the SLAs, noted from experience:
Underestimation of the role of cultural, political and institutional history of the communities, in explaining causes of poverty, current issues and possible routes out (Caswell, 1997; Ditchburn et al., 1999; Magnusson, 2001; Lenslink and Cacaud, 2002).
The use of the household as a unit of measurement, a unit which is often not cohesive and whose definition changes between regions and cultures.
Intra household dynamics are not visible. E.g. the ratio of dependants, those economically active, income distribution, work sharing, etc. are all essential in understanding who is poor - it is not necessarily the household head (Hussein and Nelson, 1998).
The lack of gender visibility is particularly important in the use of aquatic resources, where activities have a heavy gender bias (Townsley, 1998, Hussein and Nelson, 1998). E.g. West Africa, where men dominate fishing activities and post harvest is dominated by women (Townsley, 1998). Improvements in how SL analysis reflects these aspects from the unit of the household is very important.
Power, market forces and the role of immigration are not explicit in the framework (Failler, 2001 conf.), although all three of these factors have very significant impacts in small-scale fisheries throughout the world.
SL does not incorporate accountability and legitimacy, which are key elements of development failure over the last 40 years. Clarifying accountability provides an insight into democratic empowerment (Bingen, 2000).
Time is forgotten as an asset, and is expensive for experts and donors, but even more so for the participants and the target beneficiaries.
1. SL approaches aim to identify win-win policies (reduce poverty, promote economic growth and environmental sustainability) through understanding the livelihoods of the poor and identifying potential policy barriers (Barr, in DFIF-SEA, 2000). Fisheries do not exist and cannot be regulated in sectoral isolation (Sarch and Allison, 2000). The SLA helps us understand both fisheries production systems and adaptive strategies of fisheries communities. This can inform the formulation of cross-sectoral policies; so essential for the sustainability of livelihoods.
2. The diversity of livelihood strategies undertaken in small-scale fisheries and in other rural livelihoods include sectoral and geographical mobility which are influenced by seasonal fluctuations, inequality and other factors. Supporting SLs requires policies that support occupational pluralism (including strategies such as seasonal migration across national borders), which is more than diversification out of the sector. The challenge is to put the complexities and uncertainties realised during the SL analyses into policies in less flexible structures and institutions. Without linkages between action at the community level and policy, the development of community capacity is futile (Failler, 2001 conf.). The DFID funded LADDER project has been set up to address these issues and will be tracing relationships that exist between micro level outcomes and macro level policy processes in Eastern Africa (ODG, 2001)
3. SLAs can help provide evidence to policy makers which is not evident or available from statistical information, e.g. the importance of subsistence fishing and collection of aquatic resources in the livelihood strategies of poor rice farmers in S.E. Asia, activities which are do not appear in national statistics (DFIF-SEA, 2000).
4. Existing information and statistics have proven inadequate for decision-making in fisheries. As a result the sector is undervalued for its role in supporting the rural poor (DFIF-SEA, 2000). Béné et al (2000) attribute the failure of many fisheries programmes to a lack of understanding of complex livelihood strategies and the relationship between economics, social aspects and institutions that characterise small-scale fisheries communities. A SLA encourages the move away from conventional management, which correlate increased fishing effort with increased incomes and therefore livelihoods (Allison and Ellis, 2001).
5. SL requires an enabling political climate. Recommendations arising from analysis might be impossible to implement where top down politics dominate, such as in Nicaragua (Magnusson, 2001). In other countries where a lack of political democracy has followed colonialism, such as in Malawi, self reliance has been stifled leaving behind it fatalism, discouragement and disempowerment. SLA is helping people to look at things in a new light; to help people understand the responsibilities of their governments and stimulate empowerment for communities to increase their voice in decision-making (Helmore, 1998).
6. Donors and governments need to increase coordination of efforts.
7. The SLA clearly has a key policy role in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. This will be discussed in the next chapter.
1. Further research is needed to understand the subtleties of the components of the SL framework.
a. What are the relationships between assets? Are there knock on effects if the access to one asset is reduced? Is one group of assets more important than the others?
b. What are the links between assets, environmental factors and PIPs with respect to poverty alleviation? (Lewins, pers.com.. 2001)
c. What are the differing roles of institutions in SL of the rural poor? (Caswell, 1997)
2. How can the value of information (whether from traditional, local, technical or scientific knowledge) be increased to strengthen the SL process, in particular for monitoring and measurement of impacts? (FAO, 2000; International Oceans Institute, 2002)
3. An investigation of SL indicators (especially of intangible assets, such as social capital) is required to determine the degree to which the SLA has succeeded in improving livelihoods and alleviating poverty (International Oceans Institute, 2002). Understanding poverty through definitions, mapping and monitoring are on-going challenges requiring continued research (Wanmali and Singh, 1999).
4. Research is required to help improve cross-sectoral responses to the diverse livelihood issues raised in SL analysis of concern to target groups. For example:
a. How AIDS is affecting fisheries communities - a health/human capital issue raised through the SL analysis process. With the highly mobile nature of many fishing communities it is a question that needs addressing urgently (Townsley, 1998).
b. The questions surrounding livelihoods, migration and remittances (McDowell and Hann, 1997) are particularly relevant to many coastal and inland fishing communities of West Africa and South Asia.
5. Greater understanding is required into synergies between different rights-based approaches which in countries such as Cambodia are highly influential on the livelihoods of the poor (Turton, 2000a).
6. Research is necessary to ensure the removal of barriers to the SL process at the institutional level. This will be facilitated by:
a. increasing flexibility of donor project cycle management;
b. increasing multi-disciplinarity and cross-sectoral dialogue (Neiland, 2001);
c. addressing the gaps between action plans and policy (macro-micro links) (Wanmali and Singh, 1999). An example of such a study is described by the UNDP (2000) where their SL country programme is currently addressing the issue of bridging the gaps between macro policies and micro realities.
