 |
LSP Working Paper 16 |
Institutional Learning Sub-programme |
|
Do Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches Constance Neely, Kirsten Sutherland, and Jan Johnson October 2004 |
||
|
|
||
This paper was prepared under contract with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The positions and opinions presented are those of the author alone, and are not intended to represent the views of FAO.
In 2003, during its 17th Session, the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG) discussed the role of SL approaches in FAO programmes and projects. As an outcome, the Committee "requested FAO to identify and document specific examples where applications of the rural livelihoods approach had led to success in reducing rural poverty." In an initial effort to respond to this request, the Livelihoods Support Programme has supported the desk study reported on in this document.
The Livelihood Support Programme
The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) evolved from the belief that FAO could have a greater impact on reducing poverty and food insecurity, if its wealth of talent and experience were integrated into a more flexible and demand-responsive team approach.
The LSP works through teams of FAO staff members, who are attracted to specific themes being worked on in a sustainable livelihoods context. These cross-departmental and cross-disciplinary teams act to integrate sustainable livelihoods principles in FAO’s work, at headquarters and in the field. These approaches build on experiences within FAO and other development agencies.
The programme is functioning as a testing ground for both team approaches and sustainable livelihoods principles.
E-mail: [email protected]
Cover photo by Ian Cherrett, Rural Development in Lempira Sur Project
1.1 Context
1.2 Purpose and Objectives
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Case Studies Reviewed
1.5 Criteria defining the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
1.6 Hypotheses relating to SL-specific principles
1.7 General Indicators of Poverty Reduction
1.8 Looking for Evidence of Positive Impact on the Rural Poor
2.1 Poverty Reduction, Enhanced Resilience, and Long-Term Sustainability
2.1.1 Poverty Reduction
2.1.2 Resilience and Reduction in Vulnerability
2.1.3 Long-term sustainability2.2 Linking use of Sustainable Livelihoods Principles with Evidence of Positive Change
2.2.1 Analyzing the vulnerability context
2.2.2 Building Assets
2.2.3 Livelihoods Focus
2.2.4 Good Governance
2.2.5 Social Inclusivity and Empowerment
2.2.6 Participation
2.2.7 Partnerships & Multi-level, Macro-Micro Linkages2.3 Aspects that Challenged the Achievement of Positive Change
2.4 Project-related Constraints2.4.1 Participation, social inclusivity, and enhancing the livelihood strategies of the poor
2.4.2 Issues surrounding the disaggregation of project interventions
2.4.3 Issues surrounding empowerment
2.4.4 Issues concerning holistic interventions, increased resilience and ability to withstand shock
2.4.5 Issues surrounding engaging dynamism and flexibility
2.4.6 Issues surrounding good governance and institutions, and macro-micro linkages
3. Operationalising the Principles
3.1 Linking SL Principles to SL-supporting Actions
3.2 Linking the employment of SL principles to activities and outcomes: The case of WIN Nepal
3.3 Getting it right: when to do things, and who to do it with
3.4 When were specific principles most in evidence?
3.5 A similar operational/institutional pattern shared by several successful projects
4. What are the Implications and Lessons Learned?
5. Instead of a conclusion.......
5.1 Findings
5.2 Emerging Issues and Insights
5.3 The Way Forward
6.1 References and Documents Reviewed
6.2 Contacts and Interviews
6.3 ACRONYMS