Livelihoods principles and the livelihoods

framework
The livelihoods principles and framework form the basis of all livelihoods programming. The
fundamental principles of livelihoods programming are that it is people-centred, multilevel,
dynamic, and ultimately aims to achieve sustainable livelihoods4.

People-centred
Livelihoods programming fully involves the people whose livelihoods are affected. A
livelihoods approach identifies programmes based on the priorities and goals defined by
people themselves and supports their own livelihoods strategies. It builds on people's
strengths, and in emergencies, people are assisted in becoming less vulnerable and more
resilient to the impact of disasters.

Multi-level and holistic

Livelihoods programming recognises multiple influences on people at different levels, and
seeks to understand the relationships between these influences and their joint impact upon
livelihoods. This includes influences at the macro level (national and international) and at
the micro-level (community and household). It also recognises the multiple actors (from the
private sector to national level ministries) influencing livelihoods. It acknowledges the
multiple livelihood strategies that people adopt to protect and secure their livelihoods and
multiple livelihood outcomes.

Dynamic
Livelihoods change over time. A livelihoods approach aims to understand and learn from
change so that it can support positive patterns of change and help mitigate negative
patterns. It explicitly recognises the effects on livelihoods of external shocks and the longer-
term processes that may erode livelihoods, such as climate change, HIV/AIDS and
economic decline. It also recognises the potential for competing livelihood strategies.
People compete for jobs, land, etc, and this makes it difficult for everyone to achieve
simultaneous improvements in their livelihoods. This is particularly important in emergency
situations where competition for access to resources may increase.
Sustainable
Livelihoods are sustainable when:
they are resilient in the face of external shocks and stresses
they are not dependent upon external support (or if they are, this support itself is
economically and institutionally sustainable)
they maintain the long-term productivity of natural resources, and
they do not undermine the livelihoods of, or compromise the livelihood options open to,
others.

In emergencies, the focus is more likely to be on reducing vulnerability and improving

resilience, than promoting sustainability. The likelihood and appropriateness of achieving
sustainability will depend on the conditions in which people live, including political stability
and basic respect for human rights.

The sustainable livelihoods framework is shown in figure 1. This captures the main
elements which comprise and influence people's livelihoods. This framework was devised
for development programming, and a number of changes have been suggested for
emergencies (see figure 2). The description of the different elements below includes an
interpretation of the framework for emergencies.
Vulnerability context
This refers to the structural and underlying causes of people's vulnerability to food and
livelihood insecurity. According to DfID (1999) it frames the external environment in which
people exist, and is the element of the framework that is most beyond people's control. It
includes shocks (e.g. natural, economic, conflict), trends (e.g. population, economic,
governance), and seasonality. Together with policies, institutions and processes, the
vulnerability context determines the options that people have in achieving their livelihood
goals. Adapted emergency frameworks either show the vulnerability context as having a
direct relationship with each element of the livelihoods framework (Collinson, 2003,
February) or eliminate the external box on the vulnerability context (Lautze and Raven-
Roberts, 2003, September). Rather than being external, vulnerability needs to be
considered as endogenous and inherent to livelihoods systems.

Livelihood assets
This encompasses what people have, i.e. physical, financial, human, social and natural
assets or capital5.
Human assets represent the skills, knowledge, education, ability to labour and good
health that enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their
livelihood objectives.
Social assets refer to status in society, as well as access to an extended family and
other social networks, such as membership of more formalised groups. It also includes
relationships of trust and reciprocity that facilitate cooperation, reduce transaction
costs and can provide the basis for informal safety nets amongst poor people.
Natural assets comprise natural resource stocks, which people can access and use to
build their livelihoods (such as agricultural land, forests, water resources etc.).
Physical assets include livestock, land, shelter, tools and equipment, but may also be
community owned, e.g. road infrastructure, communication networks, etc.
Financial assets include income, but also access to credit and investments. It may
include available stocks, which can be held in several forms, e.g. cash, bank deposits,
livestock and jewellery. It may also comprise regular inflows of money, including
earned income, pensions, other transfers from the state, and remittances.

Emergency livelihood frameworks have added a sixth asset - political assets or capital. This
can be most easily interpreted as proximity to power, which in many emergency and
nonemergency contexts can be the main determinant of vulnerability to food and income
insecurity. In many internal conflicts, people's vulnerability is linked to their political status,
and traditional minority or marginalised groups (often particular ethnic groups) are exploited
by state or non-state actors.

The resilience of people's livelihoods is largely determined by the resources or assets

available to them and how these have been affected by disaster. In natural disasters,
people with a greater asset base are often less vulnerable, and able to recover more
quickly. Emergencies have varying impacts on assets, which may be lost, destroyed or sold.

Vulnerability is however, not necessarily associated with poverty, as assets can be

transformed into life-threatening liabilities in complex emergencies (Lautze and Raven-
Roberts, 2003, Spetember). The emergency model shown in Figure 2 expands the asset
pentagon to include liabilities as, in violent conflict, assets can expose households or
population groups to greater risks. For example, for numerous populations who live in
resource rich areas (e.g. oil and diamonds in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia,
Angola), this asset has turned into a liability. Similarly, Dinka livestock wealth in South
Sudan was turned into a liability in the context of violent raiding (Keen, 1988).
Policies, institutions and processes

Oxfam food security officer in an Oxfam supported vegetable garden

Policies can be taken to include any government, donor, United Nations (UN) and non-
governmental organisations' (NGO) policies, and private sector policy and behaviour, which
shape people's livelihoods, at local, national and international level. For example, a
country's agricultural, land tenure or land use policies can be instrumental in increasing or
reducing vulnerability to disasters. Land rights and access to land are often key issues in
emergencies. Policies or strategies of warring parties are frequently deliberately aimed at
undermining the livelihoods of some groups. At international level, structural adjustment
programmes often hamper the ability of countries to deal with disasters by removing some
of the state support mechanisms by, for example, removal of food and agricultural
subsidies, and reducing the role of marketing boards (de Armas and Clay, 2002). The
agricultural subsidies of western countries (such as the European Union (EU) and the
United States (US) and international trade rules, undermine the production and export of
agricultural products from developing countries.

Institutions include civic, political and economic institutions (formal and informal
governance), or any other customs, rules or common law that is an important feature of
society. Examples include judicial systems, public services, but also credit systems and
markets. People's protection and welfare depends on accountable political systems, rule of
law, functioning judicial systems, and the provision of public services (Cliffe and Luckam,
2000; Jaspars and Shoham, 2002, December). The vulnerability of some groups is
frequently determined by the absence or failure of these institutions. The role of informal
governance often becomes more important where formal governance is weak or collapsed.
Local institutions can play a positive role in maintaining public order, for example, in
Somalia through customary law and sharia courts (UNDP, 2001). In Darfur, a study found
good examples of localised conflict resolution initiatives and good local governance (Young
et al, 2005, June).

Processes determine the way institutions and people operate and interact. They can include
changes in the economy (e.g. inflation, exchange rates), changes in employment patterns,
markets, and long term processes of social, economic and political marginalisation. Access
to, and participation in, markets is crucial for all livelihoods in cash economies. HIV/AIDS,
urbanisation, and climate change and long term processes of social, economic and political
marginalisation all have fundamental impacts on the viability of livelihoods.

Livelihood strategies
Livelihood strategies are generally understood as the strategies that people normally use in
stable and peaceful times to meet basic needs and to contribute to future well-being.
Coping strategies, in contrast, are temporary responses to food insecurity, although in many
protracted emergencies, the coping strategies that used to be adopted in periods of acute
crisis, have now become the de facto livelihood strategies.

In emergencies, certain livelihood strategies may no longer be possible, whilst others will
need to be increased to compensate. New strategies are adopted in response to food
insecurity. The initial strategies adopted are generally those that are not damaging to
livelihoods, such as migration for work, collection of wild foods, etc. As more people adopt
the same strategies, however, or options become more limited (e.g. as a result of war),
strategies become more damaging to both livelihoods and dignity. In political or conflict
related emergencies, options may include engaging in violent, illegal, unsafe or degrading
activities (Jaspars and Shoham, 2002, December). In many internal conflicts, the conflict
itself provides economic benefits for some groups or individuals. This has led to the most
extreme forms of abuse and exploitation of historically marginalised groups (Keen, 1998).
The longer a conflict continues, the more likely it is that people will find a way to profit from it
which in turn perpetuates the conflict.

Livelihood outcomes
Livelihood outcomes go beyond food and income security, to also include quality of life. The
right to life with dignity is one of the fundamental principles in the Humanitarian Charter
(Sphere, 2004), but in the rush to respond to emergencies, people's dignity is often
forgotten. In fact, there is no commonly held definition of dignity, and as such it remains
unidentifiable and unregulated in humanitarian response (Martone, forthcoming). Whilst
there is no standard definition of dignity in most societies, it will include an element of
choice, a sense of self-worth and control over one's future.
Objectives of providing livelihood support

A blacksmith in Sudan (above) and a potter in India (below), both examples of livelihood
strategies

The focus on livelihoods in emergency programming originates from the late 1980's,
following the African famines in the middle of that decade. At that time, emergency
response started when people were destitute, malnourished and had migrated to famine
camps. The actors involved in the emergency response realised that if the response had
started earlier, it would have been possible to prevent large-scale loss of livelihood assets
and migration to camps. In other words, that lives could be saved in the longer term by
saving livelihoods. The late 80's and early 90's was also associated with the development of
famine early warning systems (FEWS), whose primary objective was to detect deterioration
in food security early on and to trigger responses that would prevent destitution and famine
associated with large scale loss of life. Studies on people's responses to food insecurity and
famine, also contributed to a focus on livelihoods in emergency response (e.g. Corbett,
1988 and de Waal, 1989). These studies showed that a key priority for people threatened
by famine was to preserve essential livelihood assets and to prevent destitution, rather than
maintaining levels of food intake.

Table 1 Objectives of livelihoods programming

Stage of
Objective of livelihoods programming
crisis
Early Livelihood protection/mitigation (prevent erosion or destruction of assets).
Acute Save lives and livelihood protection.
Livelihood recovery/rehabilitation (process of protecting and promoting
Post crisis livelihood of people recovering from emergencies, restoring productive
assets).
Development Livelihood promotion (improving resilience of household livelihoods,
 diversification of livelihood strategies, improving access to markets).

Source: Adapted from Maxwell (1999a).

One of the main objectives of livelihood support in emergencies is, therefore, to protect the
assets that are essential to people's livelihoods, and to support people's own priorities and
strategies. The core principle of humanitarian action, that of humanity, implies the need to
protect livelihood. Humanity is generally defined as: "to prevent and alleviate human
suffering wherever it might be found. To protect life and health and ensure respect for the
human being". Livelihood 'protection' can also be taken to have a broader meaning relating
to upholding people's rights. A protection activity, in this sense, is any activity which aims to
prevent or put a stop to a specific pattern of abuse and/or alleviates its immediate effects; to
restore people's dignity and ensure adequate living conditions, and to foster an environment
conducive to respect for the rights of individuals in accordance with the relevant bodies of
law (Caverzasio, 2001).

The objectives of livelihood support may vary according to the stage and severity of an
emergency. This is illustrated in table 1 which demonstrates that different types of livelihood
support can be implemented at different stages of an emergency, and can be carried out at
the same time as life saving interventions.
In development contexts, capacity building and working in partnership are also key
objectives of livelihood support, which can include building the capacity of local institutions
such as local NGOs, other forms of civil society, or government institutions. The
appropriateness of this in emergency contexts depends on the nature of the emergency, as
such objectives may compromise humanitarian principles in situations of internal conflict.
Livelihood support may also include interventions to address the policies, institutions and
processes that are part of the livelihoods framework. For example, advocacy to change
national and international policies of states, donors and UN organisations.

A bike repair shop in Trinco (above) and a laundry shop in Kilnochchi (below), Sri Lanka,
both supported by cash grants as part of an Oxfam livelihood activity rehabilitation project

Figure 3 illustrates how programme objectives and the sustainability of livelihoods are linked
to stability of the context. Stability essentially means situations in which there is peace,
basic respect for human rights, and that food security, malnutrition and mortality are at
acceptable levels. In the most unstable situations, the main aim of emergency interventions
is to save lives and if possible, livelihood protection. As stability increases, programmes
may be able to build or recover assets as well as protect existing ones. Livelihoods will only
become truly sustainable, however, if people have power in local, national and in
international markets. An example where all objectives were combined simultaneously is
Aceh (see Box 1).

2.3 An overview of livelihoods interventions in emergencies

Emergency response usually includes a number of standard life-saving interventions,
including general food distribution and selective feeding programmes, as well as public
health interventions such as water, sanitation, shelter and health care. The most common
intervention to support livelihoods has been the distribution of seeds and tools, which has
almost become a routine recovery intervention. However, using the livelihoods framework
as the basis for interventions, and given the variety of livelihood systems that can be found
in any context, there should be a far wider range of livelihood support interventions.

Table 2 provides a description and objectives that have been used in the past for different
types of livelihood interventions. The interventions are grouped according to the Sphere
minimum standards for food security: income and employment support, market support and
production support. In reality, the grouping is not as clear cut as represented here and so
multiple Sphere standards will apply to the same intervention (box 2). For example, the
standard on access to markets will apply to most food security or livelihoods interventions.

Searching for bodies immediately post-tsunami was supported through Oxfam CFW
programming in Aceh, Indonesia

The range of potential interventions in any particular emergency context is much wider than
table 2 indicates, as each intervention must be designed to suit the local context, both in
terms of the nature and severity of the emergency and the types of livelihoods affected.
Arange of programming options should be considered based on an analysis of expressed
needs by the affected population. Interventions that do not take account of local priorities
rarely work (Sphere, 2004).

Livelihood interventions to address the failings of policies, institutions and processes are not
included in the table, as these will be particular to the emergency context. Support for
assets and strategies is often more effective if combined with policy and advocacy work to
address the policies, institutions and processes that limit people's livelihood options. For
example, agricultural support will often need to be accompanied by policy work on
increasing access to land and land rights issues. Working in conflict may require advocacy
on respect for International Humanitarian Law to stop warring parties destroying or
undermining livelihood strategies and assets.
Box 1 Supporting livelihoods while saving lives in Aceh
In the first two weeks following the tsunami, many displaced families in Aceh wanted to
return home. The proportion of internally displaced people (IDPs) who wanted to go home
varied by location. Assistance was requested first for burying bodies, then for water and
food. People then wanted to be able to rebuild houses and recover farmland, followed by
livelihood recovery. At the same time, the vast majority of IDPs had lost everything and
were depending on emergency relief to meet their immediate food and non-food needs

While implementing emergency water, sanitation, health and food distribution programmes,
international agencies started CFW programmes almost immediately. The CFW
programmes aimed to provide cash to meet immediate needs (such as food and kitchen
utensils), stimulate markets, and ensure essential work activities. Work started with clearing
roads and solid waste disposal. This allowed some people to return home immediately as
they had road access. Once back in their home areas, further work was carried out on
clearing waste, burying bodies, and later on, building houses. Subsequently, CFW was
used to rehabilitate farms and rebuild fishing boats. Cash grants were provided to people
who wanted to re-establish businesses and to purchase assets essential to their livelihoods.
As well as emergency livelihoods programmes, work was initiated in the first month on land
rights issues, and promoting sustainable access to markets for small scale timber
producers.

Source: S. Jaspars.

Box 2 Minimum standards for food security in emergencies

Standard 1 - General food security
People have access to adequate and appropriate food and nonfood items in a manner that
ensures their survival, prevents erosion of assets, and upholds their dignity
Standard 2 - Primary production
Primary production mechanisms are protected and supported
Standard 3 - Income and employment
Where income generation and employment are feasible livelihood strategies, people have
access to appropriate income earning opportunities, which generate fair remuneration and
contribute towards food security without jeopardizing the resources upon which livelihoods
are based.
Standard 4 - Access to markets
People's safe access to market goods and services as producers, consumers and traders is
protected and promoted

Source: The Sphere Project (2004).

Table 2 Description and objectives of different livelihood support interventions

Intervention Description Objectives
Food aid
To meet immediate food needs
Free distribution of a combination of
of populations cut off from their
food commodities to the affected
normal sources of food.
population as a whole. If the population
To protect or recover livelihoods
General is cut off from their food supply or
by preventing the sale of assets,
distribution suffers abnormally high rates of
or allowing households to spend
malnutrition, food rations should meet
time on productive activities that
nutritional needs. Income and
will restore livelihoods. Income
employment
and employment
Income and
employment
Public works programmes where To provide food aid as income
workers are paid in food aid. The food support for the poor or
Food for work ration is often calculated to be less unemployed.
(FFW) than the daily wage rate for an area. To rehabilitate infrastructure,
The rationale for this is that the poorest e.g. roads, schools, irrigation
self-select. systems etc.
Beneficiaries are paid in cash to work
To provide income to meet basic
on public works or community
food and non-food needs and
Cash for work schemes. Commonly these are to
provide income support.
(CFW) improve roads and water sources. The
To rebuild community assets.
programme targets the poorest or most
To stimulate the local economy.
food insecure.
To meet basic food and non-
The provision of money to targeted
food needs.
households or communities, either as
To recover livelihoods through
emergency relief to meet their basic
Cash grants the purchase of essential assets
needs for food and non-food items, or
or re-establish business.
as a grant to buy assets essential for
To cancel credit debts.
the recovery of their livelihoods.
To stimulate the local economy.
The provision of financial services to To restart local economies
vulnerable but economically active through enterprise and
Micro-finance
individuals and households. This can employment creation.
be loans, remittance services, loan To increase economic self-
 rescheduling, insurance, etc. sufficiency.
Market support
Vouchers distributed to emergency- To provide income support and
affected populations which can be meet basic needs.
Commodity exchanged for fixed quantity of named To provide production support;
vouchers commodities from certified traders in case of seed vouchers.
either at distribution outlets, markets or To support traders/retailers and
special relief shops. stimulate markets.
Cash vouchers have a fixed cash value
To provide income support.
and can be exchanged for a range of
Cash vouchers To recover livelihoods.
items up to this value, from special
To stimulate markets and trade.
shops or traders.
To improve access to staple
foods for consumers.
Monetisation Putting large quantities of food aid
To ensure that prices are kept
and subsidised grain on to the market or subsidised
within normal boundaries.
sales sale through specified outlets.
To improve traders' access to
commodities.
For example, transport and feeder
Market roads. Some of this may be done To improve physical access to
infrastructure through cash or food for work markets for producers.
programmes.
Purchase of livestock when there is
pressure on water and pasture and To protect income and terms of
prices are falling, at above prevailing trade for pastoralists.
De-stocking
market prices. Animals can be To prevent collapse in livestock
slaughtered and meat distributed as market.
part of the relief effort.
Production
support
Agricultural support programmes
usually involve some form of seed
Agricultural To help re-establish crop
distribution in conjunction with inputs to
support production.
help plant and harvest crops e.g. tools,
pesticide spray.
This can take a variety of forms. Early
in a food crisis, interventions include
provision of water, fodder, veterinary To prevent loss of livestock
Livestock
care, livestock offtake/de-stocking through sales or death.
support
(when animals are at increased risk of To assist in herd recovery.
dying). After the acute stage of crisis,
interventions may include restocking.
Fishing Distribution of fishing tools to improve To increase ability of people to
support catch (nets, boats, cages). fish as a source of food and
income.