|
1. What
are the core principles that underlie SL approaches?
|
|
SL
approaches must be underpinned by a commitment to poverty
eradication. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
2. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
3. What's 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
4. What
difference does SL make?
|
|
SL
is a substitute for other work practices and methods. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
5. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
6. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
7. How
do SL approaches relate to sector programmes?
|
|
Sector-wide
approaches and SL approaches need not conflict.
SL approaches can be effective at both grassroots 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
8. 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. |
|
Back
|
|
9.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. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
10. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
11. 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).
|
|
Back
|
|
12. How
does SL helps 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
judgments
about feasibility, existing strengths and partners' areas
of expertise. Project
activities are eventually chosen through dialogue with local
people and development partners.
|
|
Back
|
|
13. 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'.
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.
|
|
Back
|
|
14. You
say that SL approaches stress 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.
|
|
Back
|
15. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
16. Does
the focus on assets mean that richer people are favoured?
|
|
No - at least
this is certainly not the intention.
The reason for emphasizing 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
17. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
18. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
19. Poor
people are focused on survival and income concerns.
Do we really need all this fancy (and costly) analysis
to toll 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
20. How
can the complexity of SL be handled?
|
|
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 pre-conceptions.
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 team-work during SL analysis),
but just as important not to lose the bigger picture in the
quest for detail.
|
|
Back
|
|
21. What
are Transforming Structures and Processes? Are they things that
need to be transformed, 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
22. What
is the unit of analysis for livelihoods?
|
|
The
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.).
|
|
Back
|
|
23. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
24. Poverty
is complex, multi-dimensional 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 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).
|
|
Back
|
|
25. Poverty
is complex, multi-dimensional and the causes are variable.
How then can we work out priorities at a national, let
alone a regional or strategic level?
|
|
This
is a difficult question, but experience has shown that priorities
do emerge through aggregation.
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.
|
|
Back
|
|
26. What
indicators do we use to measure success?
|
|
This is a
difficult area in which more work is required. 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.
|
|
Back
|
|
27. 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. |
|
Back
|
|
28. Does
an SL approach have anything to offer besides 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 macro- economic and sectoral overviews; they might
also include: reviews of the performance of democratically
decentralised bodies (e.g. 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". |
|
Back
|
|
29. 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 take-over 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 micro-watershed
rehabilitation); enhanced capacity to undertake savings,
credit and micro-enterprise 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. |
|
Back
|
|
30. Is
SL of any value to field workers?
|
|
SL
may be of value to different levels of field worker in different
ways: For instance, field workers engaged in service delivery
(e.g. 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, field workers might
better select from those available the types of service most
relevant to particular categories of resource user.
At a higher level, those field workers 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 channeled to the poor in
ways which neither threaten the better off nor invite "capture"
by them. Field
workers 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.
|
