1

But first…let’s take a step back

What is a livelihood?

What is a Sustainable Livelihood?

What is a Sustainable Livelihood Framework?

But before even that: let’s talk about poverty…

2

Environment-Poverty Lexus

Clearly, sustainability involves more than environment; and wise environmental management needs to be holistic What else?

UNDP 2003 report (pages 53-70)

What is needed for sustainability?

Political

Social

Economic

Environmental

Interaction of policies and outcomes

1996: MDG; Goal: 2015

Human poverty is at the centre

“If the world can halve extreme poverty, adequately feed people, ensure universal access to safe water, reduce child mortality and maternal mortality by two-thirds and three-fourths respectively, can enroll all its children in school, can reverse environmental degradation and the spread of HIV/AIDS, it will ensure sustainable development.”

Obstacles

Problematic trends

High inequality

Gender disparity

Social exclusion

- conflict –

Poverty - environment ?

Two-way relationship Environment -> poverty

Providing sources of livelihoods to poor people Affecting their health Influencing their vulnerability

Poverty -> environment Forcing poor people to degrade the environment Encouraging countries to promote ‘economic growth’ Inducing societies to downgrade environmental concerns

IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN THE

DEVELOPING WORLD Water-related diseases, such as diarrhoea and cholera, kill an estimated 3 million people in developing countries, the majority of whom are children under the age of five.

Vector-borne diseases such as malaria account for 2.5 million deaths a year, and are linked to a wide range of environmental conditions or factors related to water contamination and inadequate sanitation.

One billion people are adversely affected by indoor pollution.

Nearly 3 million people die every year from air pollution; more than 2 million of them from indoor pollution. More than 80% of these deaths are those of women and girls.

Nearly 15 million children in Latin America are affected by lead poisoning.

As many as 25 million agricultural workers – 11 million of them in Africa – may be poisoned each year from fertilisers

More than one billion people are affected by soil erosion and land degradation. Some 250 million people are at risk from slash crop yields.

Desertification already costs the world $42 billion a year in lost income.

Over the last decade,154 million hectares of tropical forests, covering almost three times the land area of France, have been lost.

About 650 million poor people in the developing world live on marginal and ecologically fragile lands.

Source : UNDP (2002, 2000 and 1998)

Deconstructing some environment-poverty

myths

“Poor people are the principal creators of environmental damage.”

“Population growth leads to environmental degradation.”

“The poverty-environment nexus basically stems from low incomes.”

Revisiting conventional wisdom in the environment-

poverty nexus

Downward spiral hypothesis

Environmental Kuznets Curve

Beckerman Hypothesis

Porter Hypothesis

11

The local agenda 21 mandate

“Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. Local authorities construct, operate, and maintain economic, social, and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national and sub-national environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing, and responding to the public to promote sustainable development.” (chapter 28)

What is a livelihood?

The capabilities, assets (both material and social) and activities required for a means of living

Sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining their natural resource base

Basic Definitions

2. Sustainable Livelihood

The Brundtland Commission in 1987:Intrdoduced SL in terms of resources ownership, access to basic needs and livelihood security

The IISD: “SL concerned with people's capacities to generate & maintain their means of living, enhance their well- being, and that of future generations.

The definition used by the UK's (DFID): A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets & activities required for a means of living .

14

1.Livelihoods are the ways people make a living, including how they distribute their productive resources and the types of activities in which they are engaged

Basic definitions (Cont.):

Resilience – The capacity of a population to adapt to environmental change such as extreme climatic events and climate variability.

Adaptation: is the ability to respond and adjust to actual or potential impacts of changing climate conditions in ways that moderates harm or takes advantage of positive opportunities

Coping Strategies – The short-term responses to periodic stress, such as the use of famine foods in drought.

Adaptive Strategies –Strategies that require people to reorganize their livelihood systems in response to long-term changes and challenges.

Security: The state of a community that can provide safeguards for itself against social, economic and environmental change

15

Livelihood assessment:Livelihood assessment is a way of looking at how an individual, a household or a community behaves under specific frame conditions.

How to understand livelihood systems?

Through analysis of the impacts of coping and adaptive strategies pursued by individuals and communities as a response to external shocks and stresses such as drought, civil strife and policy failures

16

What are livelihoods assets?

Livelihood assets serve as the basis for people’s livelihoods. There are five types of asset that together enable people to pursue sustainable livelihoods:

human - knowledge, skills, ability to labour and good health

social - the resources people can draw upon in pursuit of their livelihood objectives, including social networks and relationships of trust and reciprocity

natural - the natural resources available

physical - basic infrastructure and producer goods available

financial - the financial resources people have available

17

Livelihood Outcomes

Livelihood outcomes are the achievements of livelihood strategies. Individuals and households will usually try to achieve multiple outcomes, which may include:

more income

increased well-being

reduced vulnerability

improved food security

more sustainable use of natural resources

18

Vulnerability Context

This describes the environment in which people live.

People’s livelihoods and the wider availability of assets are fundamentally affected by critical trends as well as by shocks and seasonality - over which they have limited or no control.

Shocks can be the result of human health, natural events, economic uncertainty, conflict and crop/livestock health.

Transforming structures and processes influence the vulnerability context. The vulnerability context in turn affects a household’s assets.

19

Core concepts/principles

1. People-centered

2. Holistic

3. Dynamic

4. Building on strengths (rather than needs)

5. Macro-Micro links

6. Sustainability

How does SLF differ from other

approaches?

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.

It builds upon people's strengths rather than their needs.

It brings together all relevant aspects of people's lives and livelihoods into development planning, implementation and evaluation.

It unifies different sectors behind a common framework.

It takes into account how development decisions affect distinct groups of people, such as women compared to men, differently.

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.

It responds quickly to changing circumstances.21

Connection to Adaptation-How?

The SL approach helps researchers to:

Focus on most vulnerable people

Assess their vulnerabilities and strengths

Tap existing knowledge & ongoing efforts to determine what works

Enable community-driven strategies and actions; ensure buy-in and longevity

Ultimately… fortify against future climate-related shocks

22

So what is the Sustainable

Livelihoods Framework? Putting people at the center of

development; A different way of thinking about development

Useful also in assessing the effectiveness of existing efforts to reduce poverty

Useful to stimulate debate and reflection

When to use it?

When it has been established through a prior process that the improvement of people’s means of living is a priority;

At the development programme and project level,

At the early stages of the development programme and project cycle (identification, design and appraisal), and integrated into ongoing monitoring and evaluation as well;

In the context of rural or urban development.

24

Start here

25

What types of measures are we

considering?

SL/Environmental Management Measures (SL/EM): like rangelands management, micro-catchments restoration, soil management, etc., each of which involves an array of specific measures (e.g., water harvesting, intercropping, livestock diversification, windbreak construction, reforestation]

26

Sudan’s Project: Sudan AIACC Project “Environmental Strategies for

Increasing Human Resilience in Sudan: Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation in North and East African”

Goal:

to prove that certain SL/EM measures increase the resilience of communities to climate related shocks

establish that these measures are effective and should be considered as climate change adaptation options that could be included in the planning of national adaptation strategies.

to explore what enables them to be effective – i.e., what factors (participatory implementation, local governance, macro-economic policies, etc.) made it possible for the measures to be successful

27

How??

Case Studies were employed to explore example where local knowledge (e.g. traditional, indigenous autonomous and informal) and/ or external knowledge (formal, technical, directed) has been applied within a target community in the form of SL/NRM strategy to enable the community to cope with or adapt to climate–related stress. Each Case study will also provide an assessment of the local and national policies and conditions that support or inhibit the measures

28

Sources of information:

community groups,

local, regional and international NGOs;

government agencies;

university departments and;

bilateral and multilateral development agencies,

29

Pilot Case study:

To demonstrate the use of sustainable livelihood framework for measuring the adaptive capacity of local communities to climate change impacts the following pilot case study was being conducted under the umbrella of Sudan - AIACC –AF14 project

Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity.

30

Objectives:

Twofold:

a) to sequester carbon through the implementation of a sustainable, local-level natural resources management system that prevents degradation, rehabilitates or improves rangelands; and

b) to reduce the risks of production failure in a drought-prone area by providing alternatives for sustainable production, so that out-migration will decrease and population will stabilize”

31

Pilot CS Cont.

Context: Villages in the drought-prone area of Western Sudan

Approach: Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation

Key Actors: Villages within Gireigikh rural council, pilot project

Funding: UNDP/GEF

32

What happened? A group of villages undertook a package

of SL measures, designed to regenerate and conserve the degraded rangelands upon which their community depends.

Community Organization

Alternative Livestock and Livestock Management

Rural Energy Management

Replanting

Stabilization of sand dunes

Creation of windbreaks

Micro-lending for supplemental

income generation

33

What is the outcome of the pilot project (results from

evaluation report) Community institutional structure created land-use master plans; oversight and mobilization structures

Rangeland rehabilitation measures implemented 5 km of sand dunes re-vegetated 195 km of windbreaks sheltering 130 farms Approximately 700 ha improved Livestock restocking

Community development underway 2 revolving funds 5 pastoral women’s groups focused on livestock

value-adding activities 5 new irrigated gardens and wells Grain storage and seed credit program

34

Primary Assessment tool

The primary tool employed in this assessment is the sustainable livelihood impact assessment methods for assessing project impacts on target communities.

Objective: To measure the impact of the project intervention on the community coping/adaptive capacity through the employment of a range of data collection methods, a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators.

Community’s coping and adaptive capacities in the face of climatic variability and extremes is used as proxy for its level of coping and adaptive capacity for future climate change

35

Use of DFID SL model and notion of the five

capitals (natural, physical, human, social and financial:

Within the SL framework the project employed the Livelihood Assets Tracking (LAST) system to measure changes in coping and adaptive capacity.

Use of word pictures by household to assess their own vulnerability ,coping and adaptive capacity to a climate-related impact.

Consultation with communities to develop indicators of community resilience and construct word pictures.

Use of stratified sampling methods to ensure representation of a range of individuals and household circumstances

36

Methods used

Sustainable livelihoods capital Sustainable livelihoods capital

assetsassets

Natural capital

Financial capital

Physical capital

Human capital

Social capital

37

Word pictures:

are descriptions of HH circumstances developed in a participatory manner with the community in question.

-Best case”

“worse case” snapshot.

38

Development of indicatorsTwo types of indicators were identified:

1- Short-term indicators include:

- economic - e.g., crop productivity, livestock productivity, local grain reserves;

- ecological - e.g., biomass, soil water balance; and

- Social - e.g., household wealth and dislocation.

2- Longer-term resilience indicators which are more qualitative, aimed at capturing intangibles such as the level of economic, ecological and social stability within a system or community 39

Preliminary list of generic

indicators includes: Land degradation (slowed or reversed);

Condition of the vegetation cover (stabilized or improved);

Soil and/or crop productivity (stabilized or increased);

Water supply (stabilized or increased);

Average income levels (stabilized or increased);

Food stores (stabilized or increased);

Out-migration (slowed, stabilized, or reversed);

40

Outline of qualitative & quantitative

indicators for the SL

Natural Assets Rangeland productivity Rangeland carrying capacity Plant species composition Water sources, quality and use Access to Natural resources by marginal

community groups ( women, minority tribes, poor)

41

Productivity of Natural Assets

Average production per unit area of rangeland

No. of animals per unit area of rangeland Yield from main crops

Production of vegetables and fruits from women gardens

42

Physical assets

Management of water wells Maintenance of water pumps

Grain stores (capacity and accessibility)

Grain mills (capacity and accessibility)

Energy conservation techniques (improved stoves)

Effectiveness of management systems applied to pasture, water, livestock etc…Availability of spare parts

43

Financial Assets

Income generating activities

Income levels and stability

Revolving funds /amount of credit granted to individuals

Savings

Accessibility of vulnerable groups to credit (women, poor and Kawahla

44

Human (household) Assets

Ownership of assets

Skilled labors

Housing type

Access of marginal groups to education, training and extension services

45

Social Assets indicators

Organizational set-up (local village committees)

Role of village committees in the decision making process.

Membership to organizations Sharing of responsibility

46

Access to services

47

Extension Health Education Training Veterinary

services

Policies and Institutions

Government institutions and polices in relation to:

Taxes

Market prices

Incentives

Land tenure

Local level institutions

NGOs

48

Risks

Changing government policies

Out-migration by skilled people

Encroachment by other tribes into the project area

Pressures on rangelands by intruding nomads

49

Development of criteria and

indicators around the capital

assets Development of criteria and indicators around the capital assets: Around each capital asset a set of criteria and indicators are developed as tabulated below:

Capital assets

Dimension Criteria Indicators

Productivity 1.Rangeland productivity 2.Carrying capacity 3.Forage production

Area of improved / rehabilitated rangeland -Animal units per average ha -Average ton of dry matter /ha per year

- Equity Access of marginal groups

to grazing allotments % of minorities (Kawahla) tribes with access to grazing allotments

Sustainability -Rangeland management -Sustainability of range land -Rangeland quality

-Effectiveness of management practices -% of agric. land been transferred into rangeland, Abundance of desirable plant species

Natural capital

Risks -Pressures on rangeland Frequency of nomads from other areas encroachment into the project RL.

50

Collecting data with WPsCollecting data with WPs

51

Approach to survey/interviews:Approach to survey/interviews:

Use household circumstances during signal event as basis of

comparison; compare with circumstances during recent or

hypothetical event

Use assessment sheets (one for each capital) as basis of

interview questions. For example:“During the signal event (e.g., 1984 drought), what level of food stores did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not, how great was the deficit (in months)?During the recent drought (post-SL activity) , what level of food stores did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not, how great was the deficit (in months)?

On assessment sheet, record number associated with

interviewee responses to questions

From these responses, assemble word pictures for each

interview

Resulting Word PicturesResulting Word PicturesResulting Word PicturesResulting Word Pictures

Pre-SL Activity Post-SL Activity

• Little or no land; one or two month's food available from own land; quality of land is poor, having red soil with low fertility; land is located on a slope in such a position that rain water washes away the seed sown and the top soil and hence reduces its fertility; use of traditional seeds; some have given away land as collateral; no source of irrigation; no land for growing fodder for livestock; owns one or two livestock; no milk produced; low access to forest produce;

More of black fertile soil; more land; grows one's own fodder on one's own land; fertile land with more moisture retention power; more produce from land; grows and sells cash crops; grows vegetables; grows high yielding variety seeds; lends seeds to others; irrigation facilities available round the year; land is near the forest; access to forest produce; some have government permit to grow opium; has many fruit trees; availability of home grown food throughout the year; many livestock, high returns from livestock;

52

Adapted from Bond and Mukherjee (2002)

A word picture of household’s access to natural resources A word picture of household’s access to natural resources (natural capital)(natural capital)

Preparation of a livelihood assets status

framework matrix:

CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT SHEET: Natural Capital

53

Criteria Indicators Worst case Moderate Best case

Productivity: Rangelands

productivity

) Area of improved/ rehabilitated

rangelands

90% Degraded

Excellent >90%

rehabilitated

Carrying capacity

AU/ha/year 5-10 AU/ha/year

10 to 15 AU/ha/year

15 to 20 AU/ha/yea

r

>20

AU/ha/year

Productivity:

Natural capital:

54

Sample of the results in graph form :

0

20

40

60

80

100

rehabilitatedland

carryingcapacity

forageproduction

Indicators

Sit

ua

tio

n o

f ea

ch i

nd

ica

tor

(%

)

Before After

Financial Capital

55

0

20

40

60

80

100

amount ofcredit grantedto individuals

incomesources

incomestability

incomesufficiency

Indicators

Sit

ua

tio

n

of

each

in

dic

ato

r (%

)

Before After

Human Capital

56

0

20

40

60

80

100

no. oftrainedCAHW

capacityof vet.

services

state ofeducation

state ofhealth

state oftraining

state ofextension

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

In

dic

ator

(%

)

Before After

Physical Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

no. ofestablishedgrain mills

no. ofestablishedgrain stores

no. of waterpumps

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

ind

icat

or

(%)

Before After

57

Social Capital

58

0

20

40

60

80

100

effects of WIGon availability of

veg. Fruits &agri. goods

effect ofcommittees

area of WIG

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

in

dic

ator

(%

)

Before After

Sustainability: Natural Capital

59

0

20

40

60

80

100

transition fromagri. land tograzing land

application ofsustainable

grazing system

quality ofanimal

production

range landquality

Indicators

Situ

atio

n of

eac

h y

indi

cato

r (%

)

Before After

60

Financial Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

availabilityof

information

suitability oflocal

institutions

effectivenessof credit

repayment

support ofcredit

systems

support ofgovernment

policy

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

ind

icat

or (

%)

BeforeAfter

Human Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

rate ofutilization of

improvedcharcoal stoves

% of farmerswho completely

abandonedcrop production

rate ofadoption of

building mudwalled houses

availability ofdrugs (human,

animals)

Indicators

Situ

atio

n of

eac

h in

dica

tor

(%)

Before After

61

Physical Capital

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

effectivemanagement

system applied towater wells

no. of peopletrained on

maintenance forwater pumps

availability of sparparts

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

ind

icat

or

(%)

Before After

Social Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

use of mudwalledpublic

building

governmentsupport to

localinstitutions

relationbetween

committees& local

governmentinstitutions

capacity ofcommitteesto perform

its task

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

ind

icat

or

(%)BeforeAfter

63

Equity

Chances of marginalized groups (women, poor, kawahla tribe) increased significantly particularly with regard to:

access to grazing land access to credit access to social services access to training participation in decision-making

64

Overall change in the resilience of the

five capitals

65

Policies and institutions

The micro-policies in the project area were influenced by the following bodies:

(a) Committees- Sustainability of activities

(b) NGOs (SECS &CARE International)-Awareness

(C) Traditional leaders: The Traditional administration played major role in natural resources management for very long period in different parts of Sudan particularly in traditional areas (Social security , Nafir etc..)

66

Conclusions Tapping the SL Approach: What can it do for

adaptation?

Using this as a tool in adaptation assessment can help to:

Enable national planning processes to effectively consider the most vulnerable groups; articulate unique local vulnerabilities

Identify locally-relevant resilience-building options

Build understanding of micro- and macro-level enabling conditions for adaptation

Build local adaptation awareness and engage local NGOs (potential adaptation project implementers67