Livelihoods approaches compared

A BRIEF COMPARISON OF THE LIVELIHOODS APPROACHES OF THE UNITED

KINGDOM FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DFID), CARE, OXFAM AND
THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP)

Diana Carney with Michael Drinkwater and Tamara Rusinow (CARE),

Koos Neefjes (Oxfam) and Samir Wanmali and Naresh Singh (UNDP)

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

The aim of this brief review is to clarify understanding of the fundamental principles behind the livelihoods
approaches of four different agencies: the United Kingdom Department for International Development
(DFID), Cooperative for Assistance and Relief (CARE), Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (Oxfam) and
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is hoped that this will facilitate discussion and
learning as well as promote in-country partnerships on livelihoods work. The fact that there is some
variation in emphasis among the agencies does not mean they cannot work together; overall, their
similarities far outweigh their differences. Nevertheless, it is useful to be aware of where differences occur
so they can be accommodated. This review should elucidate the application of various livelihoods
approaches and the direction in which these might move in the future. This is important since livelihoods
approaches are evolving in all the agencies that currently employ them.

The review covers the approaches only of CARE, DFID, Oxfam and UNDP, but it is hoped that this list of
agencies will be expanded, as there are several other organizations (donors, domestic government
agencies and civil-society organizations) that espouse some or all of the principles underlying sustainable
development (SL) approaches (whether or not they use the SL language). It is also hoped that this review
can be updated as the four agencies covered gain more operational experience with implementing
livelihoods approaches.

The common thread uniting all the agencies is that all four link their ideas back to the early 1990s work of
Chambers & Conway, and most adopt Chambers & Conway's definition of livelihoods (or a slight variant).
This definition holds that:

"a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities
required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from
stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable
livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other
livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the long and short term."

(R. Chambers & G. Conway, 1992, Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st
century. IDS Discussion Paper No. 296. Brighton, IDS, p. 7 -8)

Although all four agencies had their own reasons for beginning to explore new ways of operating (see the
individual sections below), it should be noted that the early 1990s was a period of intense questioning of
the nature and value of overseas development assistance. Recognition of the limited achievements of
four decades of development aid was coupled with new thinking about the role of the State in
development and the meaning and nature of poverty. Socio-economic issues began to figure much more
prominently in people's understanding both of the nature of poverty and of the processes of poverty
reduction.

CARE'S LIVELIHOODS APPROACH

CARE's organizational mandate is to focus its programmes on helping the poorest and most vulnerable.
The livelihoods approach (N.B. not explicitly a sustainable livelihoods approach) is its primary
programming framework, in use in its relief and development work. CARE sees this framework as an
effective way of improving intersectoral coordination and thus increasing the impact of its work. The
approach is deemed sufficiently comprehensive for facing the challenge of large-scale poverty and yet
sufficiently flexible for addressing context-specific constraints.

CARE adopted the livelihoods approach in 1994. Much of the impetus for this shift came from the food
security side of the organization, informed by Amartya Sen's work on entitlements. CARE began to move
from a concern for regional and national food security to a consideration of household and individual food
security issues. At the household level the concern shifted from "food first" or food production to a wider
focus on the ability of households to secure the food that they required. This then led to a widening of the
scope and recognition that food was just one of the range of factors that determined poor people's
decisions. Thus the evolution of the concepts and issues related to household food and nutritional
security led to the development of the concept of household livelihood security and then, more broadly, to
livelihoods.

Core emphasis and definitions

CARE uses the Chambers & Conway definition of livelihoods. From this it identifies three fundamental
attributes of livelihoods:

 the possession of human capabilities (such as education, skills, health and psychological
orientation);
 access to tangible and intangible assets;
 the existence of economic activities.

The interaction among these attributes defines what livelihood strategy a household will pursue.

CARE's emphasis is on household livelihood security linked to basic needs. Its view is that a livelihoods
approach can effectively incorporate a basic needs and a rights-based approach. The emphasis on rights
provides an additional analytical lens, as do stakeholder and policy analysis, for example. When holistic
analysis is conducted, needs and rights both can be incorporated as subjects for analysis. This focus on
the household does not mean that the household is the only unit of analysis, nor does it mean that all
CARE's interventions must take place at the household level. The various perspectives brought to
livelihoods analysis contribute to the generation of a range of strategic choices that are reviewed more
fully during detailed project design.

Types of activity

CARE has used its livelihoods approach both in rural and in urban contexts. It identifies three not mutually
exclusive categories of livelihood activity appropriate at different points in the relief-development
spectrum. These are:

Livelihood promotion (improving the resilience of households). These include programmes that focus
on savings and credit, crop diversification and marketing, reproductive health, institutional development,
personal empowerment and community involvement in service delivery activities). Most livelihood
promotion activities are longer -term development projects that increasingly involve participatory
methodologies and an empowerment philosophy.

Livelihood protection (helping prevent a decline in household livelihood security). These include
programmes that focus on early warning systems, cash or food for work, seeds and tools, health
education and flood prevention.
Livelihood provisioning. This includes directly providing food, water, shelter and other essentials, most
often in emergency situations.

These activity categories are non-exclusive. A good livelihood promotion strategy is one that has a
"protection" element, which deals with existing areas of vulnerability and helps ensure that any
improvements in livelihood security are protected from re-erosion. The aim is that elements of "protection"
and "promotion" be built in as early as possible to "traditional relief" (provisioning) activities. For instance,
institutions established to help with relief activities are set up in a participatory way. Over time, capacity-
building training is provided so that the same structures can be used to plan and initiate livelihood
promotion activities.

Cutting across these categories of livelihood support activity are CARE's three focus areas of activity:

 personal empowerment: interventions that focus on expanding human capacity and hence the
overall resource (asset) and income base of the poor;
 social empowerment: interventions such as education, community mobilization and political
advocacy;
 service delivery: expanding access to basic services for the poor.

The transition from livelihood protection to livelihood promotion and CARE's cross -cutting focus areas
are illustrated in Box 1.

BOX 1

Transition from livelihood protection to livelihood

promotion in a CARE project

Designed in 1992 as a typical livelihood protection project, the Lusaka-

based Project Urban Self-Help (PUSH) provided food-for-work (FFW)
opportunities to vulnerable women who had been affected by the recent
drought in southern Africa. The FFW activities focused on road
rehabilitation, proper drainage and rubbish clearance, thus contributing to
basic service delivery for the poor, and cholera control, which was a
concern at the time. The second phase of PUSH continued to use FFW for
community initiatives but combined it with a strong emphasis on personal
empowerment (including livelihoods/empowerment training and
encouragement of the use of part of the food ration to initiate savings and
credit services) and social empowerment (the formation and strengthening
of representative area-based organizations with an emphasis on the
involvement of women). In addition to the FFW activities, the area-based
organizations also addressed other service delivery needs identified by the
communities (including water supply, solid waste management and police
services). PUSH II included a strong element of livelihood protection, but
also promotion. The follow-up project that has since been initiated,
PROSPECT, no longer includes FFW but has greatly expanded the social
and personal empowerment elements, thus promoting livelihood
strategies.

Compared with DFID, CARE places less emphasis in its framework and approach on structures,
processes and macro-micro links. This is not to say that it ignores institutional/organizational factors, but
as an NGO it is less involved in the micro-macro issues that are a key feature of agencies such as DFID
and UNDP. In the organizational realm, CARE's work has been largely limited to local matters (e.g.
community mobilization). Increasingly, though, it is seeing local institutional development within a broader
democracy and governance agenda. Where this is the case, CARE works with local authorities and
relevant national government agencies to legitimize and gain support for democratic local structures. It is
also increasingly involved with advocacy, helping higher-level authorities develop appropriate strategies
for working with community groups, etc. This is particularly the case in urban livelihood projects, as urban
areas tend to be highly politicized and projects must work closely at the outset with municipal and
sometimes national governments.

Operationalizing the approach

CARE makes use of various graphics to assist it in its application of the livelihoods approach. Its core
programming principles are shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1:

CARE's programming principles for livelihood project

This graphic stresses the dynamic and iterative nature of the programming process and the importance of
learning so that the household livelihood security focus ensures better overall programme quality.

A phased approach is adopted that includes the following steps:

 identify potential geographic areas using secondary data to locate poverty concentrations;
 identify vulnerable groups and the livelihoods constraints they face;
 collect analytical data (holistic analysis guided by CARE's overall livelihood model, Figure 2),
taking note of trends over time and identifying the indicators to be monitored;
 select the set of communities for programme interventions (these should be similar to other
communities to maximize the multiplier effects).

FIGURE 2:

CARE's livelihood model

CARE has developed some specific tools for the livelihoods approach (e.g. a livelihood monitoring survey,
participatory learning and training in action needs assessment and personal empowerment) but makes
flexible use of a variety of existing tools, including rapid participatory assessments of livelihoods and
baseline surveys. Its aim in using various tools is to gain a multidimensional view of livelihoods that helps
identify the most vulnerable households and place people's own priorities and aspirations at the centre of
the analytic and planning process. It stresses the importance of working with partners and taking into
account cross-sectoral linkages even when working within a single sector.

Value added by the approach

CARE perceives the livelihoods approach to have generated the following benefits:

 improving the agency's ability to target truly poor and vulnerable households in its programmes
yet building on those households' existing abilities and activities rather than on their resource
needs;
 ensuring that needs addressed in project activities are those that centrally address households'
livelihood security concerns;
 providing a useful link among CARE's emergency relief and development programmes (all
households encounter shocks and stresses; how they are able to deal with them determines their
level of security);
 being equally applicable in urban and rural settings;
 helping country offices achieve complementary relationships among projects with the same
geographical coverage (including projects and programmes of other partners and the
government);
 generating coherence in country office information systems;
 providing a clear conceptual focus for building partnerships that address poverty alleviation
(including those with community institutions);
 improving the livelihoods in poor households and communities.

Lessons learned so far

Over the period that it has been working with the livelihoods approach, CARE has learned various
lessons. These include:

 Collect as much secondary data as possible and use it in an iterative process involving
stakeholders. This reduces the need to collect primary data (and thus reduces the cost).
 Focus on skills development among existing staff (particularly around participatory approaches)
before attempting to introduce new livelihood terms and frameworks.
 Ensure that the introduction of a livelihoods approach is not viewed as merely a headquarters-
driven initiative. The benefits of the new approach need to be clear.
 Use a "light" conceptual framework that is seen to be inclusive of other approaches and that
focuses on core programming principles.
 As lessons are learned, allow any framework to be adapted so that multiple actors contribute to
its evolution.
 Extend the approach by building on successes, using case study projects and encouraging those
involved in them to promote wider organizational understanding.

Key publications

Drinkwater, M. & Rusinow, T. 1999. "Application of CARE's livelihoods approach". Paper

presented at Natural Resource Adviser's Conference 1999. (Available at [Link]).

Frankenberger, T. & Drinkwater, M. 1999. "Household livelihood security: A holistic approach

for addressing poverty and vulnerability". Atlanta, Georgia, CARE.

Contacts

Michael Drinkwater: drinkwater@[Link]

Tamara Rusinow: rusinow@[Link]

DFID'S SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH

DFID's adoption of sustainable livelihoods approaches stems directly from its 1997 White Paper on
International Development. In this publication it was affirmed that DFID's aim was the elimination of
poverty in poorer countries.1 One of three specific objectives designed to achieve this aim is DFID's
commitment to "policies and actions which promote sustainable livelihoods". For DFID, sustainable
livelihoods is thus an approach to achieving poverty elimination rather than a goal in its own right.

Over the past two years, DFID has been gradually expanding and adopting sustainable livelihoods
approaches. The initiative came from the rural side of the organization, with efforts to include urban
livelihoods and mainstream the approach within the organization as a whole gathering strength in 1999.
DFID is currently in the process of extending the discussion of SL ideas and assessing how they fit with
existing procedures (e.g. country programming systems) and approaches (sector-wide approaches,
rights-based approaches). It has also established a Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office to coordinate
its learning process and several teams tasked with the investigation of particularly difficult issues (such as
monitoring and evaluation and understanding policies and institutions in the SL context).

Core emphasis and definitions

Like the three other agencies, DFID adopts a version of the Chambers & Conway's definition of
livelihoods: A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A
livelihood is 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 the natural resource
base.
DFID's definition of a livelihood reduces the strength of the sustainability requirement from the Chambers
& Conway definition (i.e. there is no requirement to produce net benefits for others). DFID considered this
to be an unrealistic demand.

DFID stresses that there are many ways (rather than a single way) of applying livelihoods approaches,
but that there are six underlying principles to all these approaches. According to DFID, 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 require processes that enable them to listen and
respond to the poor.
 Multi-level: Poverty elimination is an enormous challenge that will be overcome only by
participants' 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
help people build on their own strengths.
 Conducted in partnership: The public and the private sector should be involved.
 Sustainable: There are four key dimensions to sustainability - economic, institutional, social and
environmental sustainability. All are important; a balance must be found among them.
 Dynamic: External support must recognize the dynamic nature of livelihood strategies, be flexible
to changes in people's situations and develop longer-term commitments.

Poverty-focused development activity should also be informed by an underlying commitment to poverty

elimination, which is the thread running through all DFID's work.

DFID stresses the importance to livelihoods of capital assets and distinguishes five categories of such
assets: natural, social, physical, human and financial.

It also stresses the need to maintain an "outcome focus", thinking about how development activity affects
people's livelihoods and not only about immediate project outputs. This is one of the most significant
changes associated with the SL approach. It means that projects will be planned and evaluated according
to the contribution they make toward achieving beneficial livelihood outcomes for their target
beneficiaries. These desired outcomes can be fully known only if there has been a participatory dialogue
with project beneficiaries or their representatives. It is not enough to assume what people want to achieve
in their lives. (There is a strong link here with participatory poverty assessments.)

If a project produces a given set of outputs (for example, if it is responsible for developing certain new
technologies) but those outputs make no contribution to livelihood outcomes (e.g. if the uptake of those
technologies is limited), then it will not be judged a success, regardless of the apparent or intrinsic value
of those outputs. This outcome focus also encourages different projects or sectors to work together
toward achieving shared goals (beneficial outcomes), rather than for each to define its own area of activity
and fail to look beyond this. This can provide the basis for non-sectoral entry points. (For example, the
entry point may be to reduce people's vulnerability to shocks. This may translate into activities that span
the sectors, such as financial services activities, group empowerment activities, the development of new
risk-reducing technologies and preventive health care.)

Types of activity

DFID is operationalizing livelihoods approaches in many different contexts. Broadly speaking, it aims to
promote sustainable livelihoods through:
  direct support to assets (providing poor people with better access to the assets that act as a
foundation for their livelihoods);
 support to the more effective functioning of the structures and processes (e.g. policies, public-
and private-sector organizations, markets and social relations) that influence not only access to
assets but also which livelihood strategies are open to poor people.

The idea that links these two ideas is one of empowerment. Generally speaking, if people have better
access to assets, they will have more ability to influence structures and processes so that these become
more responsive to their needs.

At a higher organizational level, DFID has identified three types of actions that can contribute to poverty
elimination:

 Enabling actions are those that support the policies and context for poverty reduction and
elimination.
 Inclusive actions are broad based and improve opportunities and services generally. They also
address issues of equity and barriers to the participation of poor people.

Focused actions are targeted directly at the needs of poor people.

SL approaches can contribute in all these areas. Work at the level of "transforming structures and
processes"2 is clearly linked to enabling actions. Support to the accumulation of different types of assets
might be either inclusive (e.g. education programmes) or focused (e.g. supporting microfinance
organizations for poor women).

Operationalizing the approach

DFID has begun to make use of livelihoods approaches in project and programme planning and in
monitoring and review of existing activities. It has used the approaches to a lesser extent in policy
dialogue.

A first step is to understand livelihoods (to conduct livelihoods analysis) as a basis for planning,
prioritization and eventual monitoring. There is no designated sequence for livelihoods analysis, nor has
DFID developed particular tools for such an analysis. The stress is on using and building on the best of
existing tools for the circumstances in hand (e.g. social analysis, gender analysis, stakeholder analysis,
macroeconomic analysis, institutional appraisal, environmental checklists, strategic environmental
assessment, strategic conflict assessment, governance analysis, market analysis and participatory
methods).3 There is, however a distinct DFID SL framework (Figure 3) that provides an organizing
structure for analysis.

FIGURE 3:

DFID's SL framework
 * "Transforming structures and processes" is now known as "policy, institutions and
processes".

Through use of the framework and a variety of tools, SL analysis asks a broad range of questions about
poverty and its causes. It is not bounded by sectors or existing notions of what is important. The analysis
is initially broad and relatively shallow, covering most or all aspects of the SL framework and employing
various perspectives. As the main dimensions of livelihoods are uncovered and the meaning and causes
of poverty become better understood, the analysis becomes iteratively narrower and deeper. Participation
is critical throughout, though external experts do also have a role to play.

In Figure 3:

H represents human capital, the skills,

knowledge, ability to labour and good health
important for the pursuit of different livelihood
strategies.

P represents physical capital, the basic

infrastructure (transport, shelter, water, energy
and communications), production equipment and
means that enable people to pursue livelihoods.

S represents social capital, the social resources

(networks, group membership, relationships of
trust, access to wider institutions of society) upon
which people draw in pursuit of livelihoods.

F represents financial capital, the financial

resources (whether savings, supplies of credit,
regular remittances or pensions) available to
people and that provide them with different
livelihood options.

N represents natural capital, the natural resource

stocks from which resource flows that are useful
for livelihoods are derived (e.g. land, water,
 wildlife, biodiversity, environmental resources).

DFID stresses the need for livelihoods approaches to be underpinned by a pro-poor bias and to be
informed by prior social analysis to ensure that vulnerable households and groups are not neglected.

Value added by the approach

DFID perceives the livelihoods approach to have generated the following benefits:

 a clear and practical perspective on how to reduce poverty;

 a much greater appreciation of the links among different livelihood components and sectors (e.g.
health, education);
 if used effectively, a good way of integrating the four pillars of development (economic, social,
institutional and environmental) in a non-sectoral way;
 assurance that development efforts are people focused.

Lessons learned so far

DFID has begun to learn early lessons about operationalizing SL approaches, including:

 Ensure methodological diversity for capturing the many diverse elements of livelihoods.
 Build on strengths and do not abandon a sectoral anchor.
 Identify manageable entry points and be opportunistic. It is not necessary to establish labelled SL
projects or programmes.
 Do not be overambitious in the use of SL approaches; a gradualist approach is likely to be more
effective.
 When introducing SL approaches to partners, it may be unwise to start with the framework, which
can be complex and off-putting.
 Stress important concepts (e.g. power relations, gender concerns) that seem to be
underemphasized in the SL framework and are not made explicit in the underlying principles. Use
other tools (e.g. strategic conflict assessment, social analysis) to ensure that these "missing
ideas" are reflected in practice.
 Sustainability issues can easily be "left out" in SL analysis. Ensure that the four aspects of
sustainability that DFID is pursuing (social, economic, environmental and institutional) remain
prominent throughout.
 Implement internal change in agencies that wish to implement SL approaches. (This can be
difficult to achieve, particularly in organizations that are structured in a narrowly sectoral way.)

Key publications

Ashley, C. and Carney, D. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early experience.
London: DFID. (Available at [Link]).

Carney, D. ed. 1998. "Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make?" Papers
presented at DFID's Natural Resources Advisers' Conference, July. London, DFID.

Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London, DFID. Sections 1-4 of 8. (Available at

[Link]).

Contacts
 Jane Clarke { Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office, DFID): livelihoods@[Link].

OXFAM GREAT BRITAIN'S SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH

Oxfam Great Britain adopted a sustainable livelihoods approach in the early 1990s. It felt a need for a
broad framework that could accommodate issues of environmental change together with concerns about
globalizing markets, deteriorating economic rights, gender and wider social inequality and the need to
strengthen deprived people's participation in the development process. The analytical work on
sustainable livelihoods that had recently been conducted by Chambers & Conway seemed to offer a
positive approach that could integrate all these issues, without falling into the trap of simply "adding the
environment" to Oxfam's core aim of alleviating poverty.

Oxfam uses the SL approach in planning and assessment (of projects and wider programmes) and
incorporates it as part of its overall strategic aim. Oxfam is a decentralized organization with more than 1
000 partners in more than 50 countries. The organization has always been aware of the need for the SL
language to be compatible with the ideas and languages throughout its structure. Rather than promoting
SL as the sole way of going about things, Oxfam has created an environment in which the approach can
be more or less prominent in different parts of its programme.

Core emphasis and definitions

Oxfam takes its definition of sustainable livelihoods from Chambers & Conway (1992). It stresses that
sustainability needs to be looked at from several perspectives:

 economic (e.g. the functioning of markets, credit supply);

 social (networks, gender equity);
 institutional (capacity-building, access to services and technology, political freedom);
 ecological (quality and availability of environmental resources).
(N.B. DFID built on this work when developing its own ideas about sustainability.)

One of Oxfam's five current corporate aims is to help secure "the right to a sustainable livelihood". This
aim, together with the aim related to saving lives during humanitarian crises is by far the most important in
financial terms. Under the sustainable livelihoods aim, two "strategic change objectives" have been
formulated. These stress outcomes similar to those included in the DFID framework (however, DFID's
outcomes are seen as categories of things that people might want to achieve, but there is no assumption
that they should be achieved).

Oxfam's desired outcomes are that people living in poverty will:

 achieve food and income security;

 have access to secure paid employment, labour rights and improved working conditions.

Other corporate aims and change objectives articulate rights to social services, "the right to life and
security" and various forms of social equity. In any given programme, Oxfam endeavours to address at
least three of its corporate aims, with "saving lives" being a common thread in all its programmes and a
way to link humanitarian support during crisis situations with longer-term development.

Types of activity

Since 1993, Oxfam Great Britain has employed the SL approach both in formulating overall aims and in
improving project strategies. In the former area, the approach has helped articulate the need for assisting
deprived people in gaining better access to and more control over productive resources, strengthening
their position in markets, and ensuring that these improvements are structural rather than temporary. In
the latter area the approach has been used to formulate inclusive and participatory projects and to assess
their impact on livelihoods, the environment and social relations.

Like CARE, Oxfam is becoming increasingly involved in issues relating to macro-micro links, policy and
advocacy. It expects this type of work to expand in the future.

Operationalizing the approach

Oxfam has used elements of Chambers & Conway's original sustainable livelihoods framework as a kind
of checklist in project appraisal, planning and review. It makes use, at least semi-formally (there are no
"established rules"), of a framework similar to the DFID framework (Figure 4). This similarity partly reflects
the cooperation between the two agencies in developing operational ideas about SL approaches.

FIGURE 4:
Oxfam's SL framework

Since 1993, Oxfam has trained staff and partner staff from about 12 country programmes in workshops
on what "sustainable livelihoods" can mean (strongly based on Chambers & Conway), the use of
checklists borrowed from environmental screening (i.e. an early stage of environmental impact
assessment) and participatory approaches to appraisal and project review. These workshops have
demonstrated that in order to operationalize the SL approach it is necessary to combine some conceptual
analysis with a range of existing project management and analytical tools, including participatory rural
appraisal (PRA). The workshop reports were communicated and distributed widely and influenced training
in other countries. As a result, new initiatives have been adopted and analysis has improved within
projects and programmes. However, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the effect this might
have on livelihoods.

Oxfam has also launched the platform Exchanging Livelihoods (1994 onwards) for learning about
approaches to livelihood improvement and environmental management. This inexpensive, non-glossy
internal series of documents brings together collections of experiences, ideas and achievements of
country programmes in the livelihoods area. It is written by staff (or edited from their materials) and widely
distributed to staff and partners, in three languages.

Lessons learned so far

Current learning by Oxfam includes:

 Frameworks, such as the sustainable livelihoods framework, have remained too abstract for field-
level staff. However, the approach has been appreciated and used at higher levels in Oxfam and
is therefore strongly reflected in overall organizational strategies.
  The "language" of the livelihoods framework and approach is compatible with many other
languages (for example of deprived people, of local and international development organizations
that stress a rights approach and of environmental and conservation organizations). It is not
always necessary to make use of the SL framework explicit.
 Because the framework is so broad, use of the sustainable livelihoods "lens" has not been
effective in strengthening understanding of the links between environmental change and poverty
(even though this was a major reason for introducing the approach within Oxfam).
 Lessons about participatory approaches, which were in part introduced in conjunction with the
sustainable livelihoods framework, have proved more powerful than the framework or
environmental checklists among field-level staff.

Key publications

Eade, D. & Williams, S. eds. 1995. Oxfam handbook for development and relief. Oxford, Oxfam.

Oxfam GB. 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999. "Exchanging livelihoods" (pilot edition, urban edition, food
security edition, natural resources edition). Unpublished collection of case studies. Policy
Department. Oxford, Oxfam.

Contact

Koos Neefjes (Policy Adviser, Environment and Development): rep@[Link].

UNDP'S SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH

Within UNDP the sustainable livelihoods agenda is part of the overall sustainable human development
(SHD) mandate that the organization adopted in 1995. This includes poverty eradication, employment and
sustainable livelihoods, gender, protection, regeneration of the environment and governance. In this
context, the SL approach is one way of achieving poverty reduction, though there are other strategies
being pursued within the organization (e.g. macroeconomic growth, community development, community-
based natural resource management).

A major contributing factor in the adoption by UNDP of the SL approach was the ongoing debate within
the international development community on the ineffectiveness of traditional development strategies,
especially with regard to poverty reduction. This ineffectiveness appeared to be partially because of an
incomplete understanding of the competing demands placed on poor men and women on a daily basis.
Also, the importance of the environment was coming to the fore in the early 1980s, and the links between
poverty and the environment were being examined in a new light, one that attempted to go beyond the
conventional wisdom of the "downward spiral" to focus on how poor men and women could protect the
environment while alleviating their poverty. The onset of structural adjustment programmes and their
subsequent fallout - weak safety-net mechanisms, increased vulnerability of the poor, etc. also prompted
the need to look at how policies and institutions could be reoriented to serve the poor better. All these
strands came together at the World Conference on Environment and Development (Brundtland
Commission) in 1987.

Subsequent publications by Robert Chambers, Susanna Davies, Ian Scoones and Chambers & Conway
elaborated the concept of sustainable livelihoods and provided initial research findings. For UNDP, an
opportunity for putting these concepts and research findings into practice was offered in a joint
programme with Canada's International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Adaptive and
Coping Strategies in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands. This effort paved the way for SL to be included as one of
the UNDP's five sustainable human development components.

Core emphasis and definitions

As one of UNDP's five corporate mandates, sustainable livelihoods offers a conceptual and programming
framework for poverty reduction in a sustainable manner. Conceptually, livelihoods denotes the means,
activities, entitlements and assets by which people make a living. Assets are defined as natural/biological
(i.e. land, water, common-property resources, flora, fauna), social (i.e. community, family, social
networks), political (i.e. participation, empowerment - sometimes included in the social category), human
(i.e. education, labour, health, nutrition), physical (i.e. roads, clinics, markets, schools, bridges) and
economic (i.e., jobs, savings, credit). The sustainability of livelihoods becomes a function of how men and
women use asset portfolios on both a short- and long-term basis. Sustainable livelihoods are those that
are:

 able to cope with and recover from shocks and stresses (such as drought, civil war, policy failure)
through adaptive and coping strategies;
 economically effective;
 ecologically sound, ensuring that livelihood activities do not irreversibly degrade natural resources
within a given ecosystem;
 socially equitable, which suggests that promotion of livelihood opportunities for one group should
not foreclose options for another, either now or in the future.
 Within UNDP, SL brings together the issues of poverty, governance and environment. UNDP
employs an asset-based approach and stresses the need to understand adaptive and coping
strategies in order to analyse the use of different types of assets. Other key emphases of UNDP
are that:
 the focus should be on strengths as opposed to needs;
 macro-micro links should be taken into consideration and actively supported;
 sustainability (as defined above) should be constantly assessed and supported.

Unlike the other agencies covered in this review, UNDP explicitly focuses on the importance of
technology as a means to help people rise out of poverty. One of the five stages in its five-stage
livelihoods approach (see below) is to conduct a participatory assessment of technological options that
could help improve the productivity of assets. (Where such assessment showed that indigenous
technologies were extremely effective, UNDP's goal would be to ensure that these were adequately
understood and promoted by governmental or non-governmental agencies that worked with local people.)

Types of activity

UNDP has employed the SL approach largely within its agriculture and natural resources work (though its
place in urban work is gaining in importance). Its goal, within its overall SHD mandate, is to promote
access to and sustainable use of the assets on which men and women rely. In order to do this, and to
understand how assets are utilized, it takes as its entry point the adaptive/coping strategies that people
employ in their livelihoods. Both assets and adaptive strategies are intersectoral in nature. Focusing on
these issues highlights the multidimensionality of poverty and the range of actions that can/could be taken
to reduce different forms of poverty. In practice, though, UNDP has found that programme design is
facilitated by its clustering sectors (i.e. agriculture, environment, infrastructure, enterprise).

This represents a slight difference from DFID. DFID aims to understand livelihood strategies as part of its
overall framework but in principle focuses its actual development activity on either assets themselves or
on structures and processes (the idea being that this will maximize people's opportunities over the long
term). Again, though, these initial entry points can translate into programmes that have a clear sectoral
identity (though with goals that reflect not so much sectoral achievement as livelihood outcomes).

UNDP works most often at the national level, with specific programmes and activities at district and village
levels. Analysis takes place at both a household and a community level.

Figure 5:
 UNPD's SL approach to promoting sustainable livelihoods

Operationalizing the approach

UNDP tends to use its programming cycle as the initial entry point for promoting SL. When applying the
SL approach, it adopts a five-stage approach:

 participatory assessment of risks, assets, the indigenous knowledge base and the coping and
adaptive strategies of communities and individuals;
 analysis of micro, macro and sectoral policies that influence people's livelihood strategies;
 assessment of how modern science and technology can help people improve their livelihoods
(complementing indigenous technologies);
 assessment of social and economic investment mechanisms that help or hinder people's
livelihoods;
 ensuring that the first four stages are integrated in real time, so that they are part of overall
programme development rather than isolated events in time.

Figure 5 shows UNDP's approach to promoting sustainable livelihoods. (UNDP does not have a specific
livelihood framework.)

In stage 1, UNDP proposes starting with a strengths assessment, examining:

 categories of assets available;

 how they are used (adaptive strategies);
 specific categories of assets in use;
 conditioning factors (shocks and stresses).

In stage 2, policy analysis (this would be akin to a subsection of DFID's analysis of overall policy,
institutions and processes), UNDP uses a variety of approaches, including a "narrative methodology"
(whereby it collects as many views as possible about how policy is interpreted and implemented), cost-
benefit analysis, critical theory and analysis of local justice systems. This allows for triangulation and the
identification of potential entry points for policy change/advocacy. (N.B. See Roe, E. M. 1998. Policy
analysis and formulation for SL. New York, UNDP. Available on the UNDP website at: [Link]/sl/).
In its assessment of investment mechanisms (stage 4) UNDP moves from the common response of
simply offering credit to local people, attempting to gain a proper understanding of whether such
investment is really required and, if so, what form it should take. (This is a participatory exercise).
Investment is not limited to personal financial resources. Within this step, UNDP also looks at more macro
issues, such as the investments required in, for example, health and education and, more generally, at
issues to do with the mobilization of national financial resources in favour of the poor or small-scale
entrepreneurs. Its aim is to uncover people's overall investment priorities and ensure that these are
addressed in a meaningful way that makes an impact on livelihoods.

The fifth stage is not a discrete step but rather a reminder that the other stages be applied interactively
rather than sequentially. Information gathered in one area should be relevant to other areas. The aim is to
establish a holistic and highly participatory process of analysis with effective triangulation of information
and an overall sense of coordination and progress.

UNDP uses a variety of participatory tools to conduct its analysis. The main adaptation it makes is to
ensure that, while using these tools, there is a focus on strengths (i.e. existing assets) and not on needs.
Thus the participatory analysis aims to discover why people are doing well in certain areas or aspects
rather than what it is they lack. UNDP acknowledges that new tools must be developed/tested, especially
for the area of linking micro concerns to national poverty action plans, etc.

Value added by the approach

UNDP perceives the main benefit of the livelihoods approach to be that it approaches poverty reduction in
a sustainable manner. In particular, it attempts to bridge the gap between macro policies and micro
realities (and vice versa). Neither poverty reduction programmes nor participatory development initiatives
have been able to do this. Anti-poverty endeavours have usually been conceived and implemented at the
national level, using per capita income or consumption measures and a manipulation of sectoral policies
as points of departure. Little, if any, attention has been paid to the manner in which (or where) people live,
the resources (assets) used for pursuing livelihoods or the human and financial costs associated with the
implementation of national programmes through a centralized bureaucracy.

Participatory development, on the other hand, has usually managed to understand how men and women
prioritize needs, exploit resources and offer solutions to their pressing problems, but it has failed to
examine how macro and sectoral policies affect the livelihood options available to a particular community
or individual. This means that participatory development initiatives remain isolated from broader economic
processes.

The SL approach has the additional advantage of integrating environmental, social and economic issues
into a holistic framework for analysis and programming. This results in sustainability being kept in the fore
and viewed simultaneously through environmental and socioeconomic lenses.

Other advantages include:

 SL programme development beginning not with community needs assessment but with
community strengths and assets assessment (which helps build self-esteem and self-reliance and
break the donor-recipient syndrome);
 the SL approach stimulating learning among all concerned, as it is more a process than a strict
methodology.

Lessons learned so far

UNDP has learned the following lessons:
  Ownership of SL approaches and programmes has a profound effect upon their success. The
tendency to use external experts for conducting livelihoods analysis rather than developing the
skills of local people should be avoided. Long-term partnerships that are supported with iterative
team-building exercises can be effective.
 When partners come from various ministries, departments and civil-society organizations, as is
often the case for UNDP, ensuring smooth collaboration and coordination in the multistage
process outlined above can be difficult. It is important to remain flexible in order to accommodate
changes and differences. Sometimes policy conflicts can be resolved by agencies' working with
"higher-level" partners, though it may also be necessary to find "lower-level" partners for
implementation purposes.
 It takes a long time (from six months to a year) to design SL programmes. If stakeholders are to
understand fully the new concepts and take part in their application, this time is necessary.
Capacity-building for SL is a huge task, especially within government organizations. It will not be
achieved through one-time-only workshops.
 It is not feasible to conduct linked micro-macro analyses of all policies (stage 2 of the multistage
process). For the sake of practicality, it is usually necessary to select key macro or sectoral
policies that directly affect the lives of men and women (e.g. agriculture, health, education,
transport).
 Early on, gender analysis, and intrahousehold issues more generally, appeared to be somewhat
neglected in UNDP's SL work. This was partly because of the focus on the household and partly
because of a lack of skills among those implementing the analysis. UNDP is now addressing this
problem and is in the process of finalizing a note on gender analysis. (This will be made available
on the UNDP website.)
 It is essential to involve all stakeholders in the SL process and to articulate rights and
responsibilities up front. The question of whether the process results in empowerment for local
people is hard to resolve. Empowerment may well be more likely to result from efforts to change
the culture and composition of local government structures (to make them more participatory, to
include more women) than from the promotion of village action plans that may well be neglected.
In the final analysis, local empowerment efforts are likely to achieve little without complementary
changes in administrative and governance structures that help strengthen the advances made at
the community level.
 It is critical to be flexible so that different countries/groups can use the core SL ideas in ways that
best suit their needs and purposes.

Key publications

The UNDP SL website ([Link]/sl/) includes various papers and guides in full text. Notable
guides are those for asset analysis, policy analysis, governance, investment and technology
analysis.

Contacts

Naresh Singh: [Link]@[Link]

Samir Wanmali: [Link]@[Link]

DIFFERENCES AMONG THE AGENCIES: HOW MUCH DO THEY MATTER?

Given that all four agencies covered in this review have only recently begun to implement sustainable
livelihoods approaches, it is probably too early to draw firm conclusions about differences. This review
has shown that the four agencies have much in common, notably their focus on assets and micro-macro
links and their common roots in the work of Chambers & Conway. All four also stress flexibility in
application.
The more interesting question, which can be answered only over the longer term, is how the different
agencies vary in their actual operationalization of the approaches. It is likely that that variation is both
internal (i.e. different parts of a single organization operate in somewhat different ways) and among the
four agencies. There is scepticism that for all the new and good intentions, the agencies are in danger of
reverting to familiar, needs-based income-generation programmes (unless they remain highly vigilant and
seek to learn as they go).4

In the short term and at a conceptual level, commonality certainly exceeds variation:

 All agencies adopt an asset-based approach. Differences in the number of assets considered by
particular agencies are not likely to be important. Some agencies stress capabilities as well as
assets and activities, others less so. However, this seems to be more a case of simplifying
vocabulary than of abandoning the core ideas that lie behind the notion of capabilities.
 There is a somewhat different understanding of sustainability among the agencies. CARE, in
particular, stresses household livelihood security. If this difference were carried into practice, it
could be significant (for example the relative emphasis placed on the environment would differ).
However, gaining an understanding of sustainability and incorporating its different elements into
action programmes is perhaps one of the more challenging aspects of SL approaches.
 All agencies stress a need to understand and facilitate effective micro-macro links. The various
agencies also seem to have quite strong opinions on the extent to which they are doing this
themselves and the extent to which other agencies are doing it. A good deal of the difference
probably comes down to the agencies' different mandates and scale of operation. UNDP and, to a
lesser extent, DFID tend to have higher-level entry points than the NGOs. Yet both NGOs see a
need to work more on macro issues in the modern development context. There is clear scope for
complementary activity here, with different agencies building on their existing strengths.
 Different agencies place a different level of stress on empowerment. Again, this may well have to
do with comparative advantage issues rather than with an actual difference of opinion as to what
is important.
 UNDP is the only organization that explicitly stresses technology in its framework. It is not yet
clear whether this has a specific impact on development activity. DFID certainly supports many
technology programmes, despite the fact that it chooses not to single out technology (viewing it
instead as one key means of contributing to human capital).
 All agencies recognize that the livelihoods approach is not a "magic bullet" but instead an
approach with a good deal of potential that must draw in and build on the best of existing
development practice if it is to fulfil that potential. Core areas in which it must do this include
stakeholder, gender and social analysis (including analysis of power relations), environmental
assessment, economic analysis and conflict analysis. The various SL frameworks that are in use
provide a means of structuring thinking during the conducting of analyses of trade-offs among
different groups and different development outcomes. It may also help agencies think through
cause-and-effect relations. However, the livelihoods approach in and of itself does not make
these extremely difficult issues any easier to address. There is no substitute for the political and
social processes that lie behind change.

We hope to update this assessment as time moves on, incorporating the views of those actually engaged
in interagency partnerships at the country level.

1
The White Paper was prepared at a time when donors were increasingly coming under fire for their mixed objectives and
their limited achievements in reducing world poverty.

2
What was previously referred to in the DFID SL framework and literature as "transforming structures and processes" is
now known as "policy, institutions and processes". The change was made to emphasize core issues and increase
understanding of this aspect of the SL framework.
 3
DFID is currently working on developing an inventory of tools for use within SL approaches. Some adaptation of existing
tools may be required. DFID is stressing the need for reflection and learning as it adopts the new approaches. This is a
core purpose of its Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office and the web-based learning platform it has established.

4
This is not meant to suggest that SL approaches reject income-generation programmes. The difference is in the way in
which a programme is defined and the options that are considered. Importantly, the SL approach aims to build on
strengths (rather than immediately focusing on needs) as a means of achieving local participation in programmes and
helping to ensure longer-term sustainability. SL programmes also take a wider view of the options. They may just as well
support non-income-based livelihood priorities (e.g. reducing vulnerability or conflict, increasing political voice) as income-
generation activities. The choice will depend on factors such as demand drive, strengths of partners in different areas and
feasibility. There is certainly no bias against income generation, and most applications of an SL approach explicitly
recognize the importance of the private sector, the market and market transactions.

TABLE 1

Origins and use of SL approaches

Agency CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP
Origins  CARE  Whit  Need  Part
of SL Long- e to link of
approach range Pap enviro overal
Strategi er nmen l
c Plan com tal sustai
as mitm chang nable
 progra ent e with huma
mme to pover n
thrust supp ty devel
ortin issue opme
g s nt
polic  Strate agend
ies gic a
& planni
actio ng
ns exerci
that se
pro lookin
mot g for
e SL unifyi
 Over ng
all conce
aim pts
of
pove
rty
elimi
natio
n

When 1994 1998 1993 1995

introduce
d
Change  Primaril  Res  Prima  Partly
from ya ourc ry a
what... sectoral e- enviro reacti
focus focu nmen on
sed tal again
activ st
ity econo
 (with care mic-
in and
form emplo
er yment
natu -
ral focus
reso ed
urce initiati
divis ves
ion)
 Sect
oral
focu
s

Status of  Primary  Sup  One  One

SL within organiz port of five of five
the ationwi from strate corpo
agency de the gic rate
framew top chang mand
ork for but e ates
 progra still object  An
mming asso ives appro
ciate ach
d for
with achie
rural ving
side sustai
 One nable
appr huma
oach n
for devel
achi opme
evin nt
g
pove
rty
erad
icati
on

Current  Relief  Start  Acros  Rural

uses through ed s and
 develop rural devel urban
ment , opme  Count
 Urban now nt ry
& rural mor emer progr
e gency amme
inter & planni
est advoc ng
from acy  Small
urba  Mostl and
n y micro
side rural enter
 Vari  Used prise
ous for activit
uses strate y
thro gic
ugh planni
deve ng
 lopm purpo
ent ses,
proj seldo
ect m at
cycl field
e level

Types of  Liveliho  Vari  Strate  Conc

activity od ous gic eptual
protecti to planni and
on mee ng progr
 Liveliho t activit ammi
od inter ies ng
promoti natio frame
on nal work
 Liveliho deve
od lopm
provisio ent
ning targ
ets
(incl
udin
g
pove
rty
elimi
natio
n)
 Link
to
right
s
and
sect
or
appr
oach

Strengths  Compre  Buil  Partic  Links

emphasiz hensive ds ipator micro-
ed yet upo y macro
flexible n analy  Integr
 Improv exist sis ates
es ing  Enabl povert
sectoral expe es y,
 coordin rienc links enviro
ation e to nment
 Increas and social &
es less and gover
multipli ons huma nance
er  Offe n issue
effects rs a rights s
prac appro  Gets
tical aches the
way most
forw out of
ard comm
in a unitie
com s and
plex donor
 envir s
onm
ent

Core  Househ  Peo  Peopl  Adapt

ideas/org old ple- e- ive
anizing liveliho cent centr strate
principle od red ed gies
s  security  Multi  Multil  Condi
 People- level evel tionin
centred part  partn g
ners ership factor
hip  Vario s
 Vari us (shoc
ous types ks
type of and
s of sustai stress
sust nabilit es
aina y that
bility  Dyna affect
 Dyn mic asset
amic use)
 Pov
erty-
focu
sed

TABLE 2

Operational issues
Agenc CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP
y
Starting  Posse  Acces  Enhan  Progr
point ssion s to cing ammi
of assets people ng
huma  Transf 's strate
n ormin capabi gy
capabi g lities  Analy
lities structu  Worki sis of
 Acces res ng streng
s to and toward ths
tangibl proces s  Analy
e& ses equity sis of
intangi  Worki asset
ble ng s and
assets toward copin
 Existe s g/ada
nce of sustai ptive
econo nabilit strate
mic y (four gies
activiti aspect
es s)
 Basic  Ensuri
needs ng
addre links
ssed: betwe
- en
 incom policy
e/empl chang
oymen es and
t livelih
- food ood
securit improv
y ement
-
water
supply
- basic
educat
ion
- basic
health
&
family
planni
ng
-
comm
unity
partici
pation

Analysi  Identif  Social/  Stress  Partici

s y povert on patory
procedu potenti y impact asses
res al analys monito sment
geogr is ring of
aphic  Livelih and risks,
area oods asses asset
 Identif analys sment s,
y is  Partici indige
vulner (devel pation nous
able op an of knowl
group under variou edge
s and standi s and
livelih ng of stakeh copin
ood livelih olders g/ada
constr oods with ptive
aints structu positiv strate
 Collec red e bias gies
t using toward  Asses
baseli the SL s sment
ne frame exclud of
data work, ed micro,
and start group macro
identif broad, s and
y use a sector
indicat multitu al
ors de of policie
 Select tools s
comm &  Asses
unities becom sment
(taking e of
into narro potent
accou wer) ial
nt  Partne contri
similar rship bution
ity and analys of
 absor is moder
ptive (decisi n
capaci ons scienc
ty) about e
action  Asses
are sment
inform of
ed by existin
an g
under invest
standi ment
ng of opport
streng unitie
ths of s
existin  Ensuri
g ng
partne that
rships the
and first
areas four
of steps
experti are
se of integr
partne ated
rs) in real
time

Underst  Partne  Social  Social  Ability

anding rships,  Econo  Econo to
of institut mic mic cope
sustaina ion/  Enviro  Enviro with
bility capaci nment nment stress
ty- al al es
buildin  Institut  Institut and
g ional ional shock
 Enviro s
nment  Econo
al mic
 Social/ efficie
gende ncy
r  Ecolo
equity gical
 Emph integri
asis ty
on  Social
secure equity
rather
than
sustai
nable

Asset  Huma  Huma  Huma  Huma

categori n n n n
es  Social  Social  Social  Social
 Econo  Natura  Natura  Natur
mic l l al
 Physic  Physic  Physi
al al cal
 Financ  Financ  Econo
mic
 ial ial  Some
times
politic
al

Distingu  Distin  Stress  Relati  Starts

ishing guishe on vely with a
features s underl loosel streng
of betwe ying y ths
agency' en princip applie (rathe
s private les d idea r than
approac natura and a across needs
h l variety a )
assets of SL decent asses
& appro ralized sment
comm aches organi  Emph
on  Analys zation asis
proper is of on
ty streng techn
assets ths ology
 Stress  Micro-  Emph
on macro asis
house links on
hold micro-
level macro
 Perso links
nal  Adapti
and ve
social strate
empo gies
werme as the
nt entry
emph point
asized

Operationalizing household
livelihood security
A HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR ADDRESSING POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY

Timothy R. Frankenberger, Michael Drinkwater, Daniel Maxwell

CARE officially adopted household livelihood security (HLS) as a programming framework in 1994. Over
the past five years, CARE has been working to institutionalize the approach in its programming
worldwide. This has been neither a smooth nor an easy process. Significant progress has been made in
improving concepts, strengthening their application and understanding their implications on programme
design and evaluation.
This paper describes how HLS has been operationalized in CARE. Drawing on lessons learned from a
number of countries, the paper shows how livelihood concepts and tools have been taken into account in
strategic planning, diagnosis, design, implementation, monitoring, reformulation and evaluation.

Household livelihood security continues to be the cornerstone framework that CARE uses to carry out its
programming efforts. It allows CARE to have a more holistic view of the world to inform its programming
decisions, enabling the organization to understand better the root causes of poverty. In addition, it helps
clearly identify opportunities and leverage points for positive change. Application of the livelihood
framework should not be considered a linear process but rather a flexible, dynamic and iterative process
over time.

Taking a holistic view does not always mean that one must undertake multiple interventions. Application
of the HLS framework can be done using various entry points.

Over the past several years, CARE has identified several analytical lenses that have been incorporated
into an HLS holistic analysis to understand better the root causes of poverty. These analytical lenses
include basic needs, a human rights perspective, civil participation and action, gender and the policy
environment. These various lenses are significantly influencing the future directions of CARE
programming.

In the end, the HLS framework is helping CARE make strategic choices about where to concentrate its
limited resources and how to leverage its comparative advantages to achieve the most positive and
lasting change. It is through these efforts that CARE will contribute to the global effort to end poverty.

CONTENTS

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION

A brief history of the inception of household livelihood security

Definition of livelihood security and the underlying principles
Putting theory into practice - dissemination and decentralization

SECTION II. OPERATIONALIZING THE HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD SECURITY FRAMEWORK

Creating livelihood security profiles

Working with partners
Strengthening civil society
Long-range strategic planning
Diagnosis leading to design.
The project design framework
Developing focused project and programme strategies
Using a livelihoods framework to redesign existing projects
Reflective practice: achieving greater gender equity

SECTION III. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

APPENDIX 1. IMPLEMENTING HLS ACROSS THE RELIEF-TO-DEVELOPMENT CONTINUUM

Livelihood promotion (sustainable development)

Livelihood protection (mitigation)
Livelihood provisioning (emergengy response)
Livelihood recovery (rehabilitation)
APPENDIX 2. USING A LIVELIHOOD FRAMEWORK TO INFORM POLICY

APPENDIX 3. DIAGNOSTIC SEQUENCING AND METHODS

Sequencing
Methods

APPENDIX 4. DEVELOPING FOCUSED PROJECT STRATEGIES: THE MALAWI CASE STUDY

Malawi's central regional programme

APPENDIX 5. REFLECTIVE PRACTICE: THE ZAMBIA CASE STUDY

The Livingstone food security project

REFERENCES

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION

Household livelihood security (HLS) has become CARE's basic framework for programme analysis,
design, monitoring and evaluation. HLS grows out of a food-security perspective but is based on the
observation that food is only one important basic need among several, and adequate food consumption
may be sacrificed for other important needs. Given that the causes of poverty are complex, HLS provides
a framework for analysing and understanding the web of poverty and people's mechanisms for dealing
with it.

CARE officially adopted household livelihood security as a programming framework in 1994. Over the
past five years, the agency has been working to institutionalize a livelihood approach in its programming
worldwide. This has been neither a smooth nor an easy process. CARE has put a lot of effort into
mainstreaming HLS by developing tools and methods, training staff, encouraging reflections and learning
how to improve the framework. Significant progress has been made in improving the concepts,
strengthening their application and understanding their implications on programme design and evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how the household livelihood security framework has been
operationalized in CARE. Drawing on lessons learned in a number of countries, the paper attempts to
show how livelihood concepts and tools have been taken into account in diagnosis, design,
implementation, monitoring, reformulation and evaluation. Examples will be provided on how the
livelihood framework operates in different contexts, such as in emergency, mitigation, recovery and
development settings. Emphasis will be placed on how participatory approaches have been integral to
this process. In addition to the use of the livelihood framework in new programme designs, the paper will
document experiences dealing with retrofitting existing projects/programmes that originally did not use a
livelihood framework. Lessons learned from this paper will provide future guidance.

A brief history of the inception of household livelihood security

During the past several years, much conceptual progress has been made in an understanding of the
processes that lead to household food insecurity (Frankenberger 1992). In the 1970s, food security was
linked mostly to national and global food supplies. The food crisis in Africa in the early 1970s stimulated a
major concern on the part of the international donor community regarding supply shortfalls created by
production failures due to drought and desert encroachment (Davies et al. 1991). This focus on food
supplies as the primary cause of food insecurity was given credence at the 1974 World Food Conference.

A focus on household food security with an emphasis on food access (1980s). The limitations of the
food supply focus came to light during the food crisis that plagued Africa in the mid-1980s. It became
clear that adequate food availability at the national level did not automatically translate into food security
at the individual and household levels. Researchers and development practitioners realized that food
insecurity occurred in situations where food was available but not accessible because of an erosion in
people's entitlement to that food (Borton and Shoham 1991). Sen's (1981) theory on food entitlement had
a considerable influence on this change in thinking, representing a paradigm shift in the way that famines
were conceptualized. Food entitlements of households derive from their own production, income,
gathering of wild foods, community support (claims), assets, migration, etc. Thus a number of socio-
economic variables have an influence on a household's access to food. In addition, growing food
insecurity was viewed as an evolving process where the victims were not passive to its effects. Social
anthropologists observed that vulnerable populations exhibited a sequence of responses to economic
stress, giving recognition to the importance of behavioural responses and coping mechanisms in food
crises (Frankenberger 1992). By the late 1980s, donor organizations, local governments and NGOs
began to incorporate socio-economic information in their diagnoses of food insecurity.

The household food security approach that evolved in the late 1980s emphasized both availability and
stable access to food. Thus, food availability at the national and regional level and stable and sustainable
access at the local level were both considered essential to household food security. Interest was centred
on understanding food systems, production systems, and other factors that influenced the composition of
food supply and a household's access to that supply over time. What was not clear was how nutritional
outcomes were factored into food-security deliberations.

A focus on nutritional security with an emphasis on food, health and mother and child care (early
1990s). Work on the causes of malnutrition demonstrated that food was only one factor in the malnutrition
equation, and that in addition to dietary intake and diversity, health and disease, and maternal and child
care were also important determinants (UNICEF 1990). Household food security is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for nutritional security. Researchers found that there were two main processes that
had a bearing on nutritional security. The first determined access to resources of food for different
households. This was the path from production or income to food. The second process involved the
extent to which the food obtained was subsequently translated into satisfactory nutritional levels (World
Bank 1989). A host of health, environmental, and cultural/behavioural factors determine the nutritional
benefits of the food consumed; this is the path from food to nutrition (IFAD 1993).

This work on nutritional security demonstrated that growth faltering could not necessarily be directly
related to a failure in household food security. It shifted the emphasis away from simple assumptions
concerned with household access to food, resource base and food systems by demonstrating the
influence of health and disease, "caring" capacity, environmental sanitation and the quality and
composition of dietary intake on nutritional outcomes.

A focus on household livelihood security (1990s). Research carried out in the late 1980s and early
1990s indicated that the focus on food and nutritional security as they were currently conceived needed to
be broadened. It was found that food security was but one subset of objectives for poor households, and
only one of a whole range of factors that determined how the poor made decisions and spread risk and
how they finely balanced competing interests in order to subsist in the short and longer term (Maxwell &
Smith 1992). People may choose to go hungry to preserve their assets and future livelihoods. Therefore,
it is misleading to treat food security as a fundamental need, independent of wider livelihood
considerations.

Thus, the evolution of the concepts and issues related to household food and nutritional security led to the
development of the concept of household livelihood security. The HLS model adopted by CARE allows for
a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the relationships among the political economy of
poverty, malnutrition, and the dynamic and complex strategies that the poor use to negotiate survival. The
model places particular emphasis on household actions, perceptions and choices, with food understood
to be only one of the many priorities. People are constantly being required to balance food procurement
against the satisfaction of other basic material and non-material needs (Maxwell & Frankenberger 1992).

To summarize, there were three strategic shifts in development thinking that led CARE to the adoption of
a livelihood approach:

 a shift from a concern for regional and national food security to a concern for the food security
and nutritional status of households and individuals;
 a shift from a food-first perspective to a livelihood perspective, which focuses not only on the
production of food but also on the ability of households and individuals to procure the additional
food they require for an adequate diet;
 a shift from a materialist perspective on food production to a social perspective, which focuses on
the enhancement of people's capacities to secure their own livelihoods (adapted from Maxwell
1996).

Definition of livelihood security and the underlying principles

Many of the definitions of livelihood security currently in use derive from the work of Chambers & Conway
(1992). A livelihood "comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims, and access) and
activities required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from
stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood
opportunities for the next generation" (Chambers & Conway 1992).

Household livelihood security has been defined as adequate and sustainable access to income and
resources to meet basic needs (including adequate access to food, potable water, health facilities,
educational opportunities, housing and time for community participation and social integration)
(Frankenberger 1996). An attempt is now being made in CARE's work to shift to more rights-based
approaches, which place more emphasis on access issues and the policy environment and which treat
people more as active beings1 (see Figure 1). Livelihoods can be made up of a range of on-farm and off-
farm activities that together provide a variety of procurement strategies for food and cash. Thus, each
household can have several possible sources of entitlement, which constitute its livelihood. These
entitlements are based on the endowments that a household has and its position in the legal, political and
social fabric of society (Drinkwater & McEwan 1992). The risk of livelihood failure determines the level of
vulnerability of a household to income, food, health and nutritional insecurity. The greater the share of
resources devoted to food and health service acquisition, the higher the vulnerability of a household to
food and nutritional insecurity. Therefore, livelihoods are secure when households have secure ownership
of or access to resources (both tangible and intangible) and income-earning activities, including reserves
and assets, to offset risks, ease shocks and meet contingencies (Chambers 1988). Households have
secure livelihoods when they are able to acquire, protect, develop, utilize, exchange and benefit from
assets and resources (Ghanim 2000).

FIGURE 1:
CARE's livelihood security model
 Source: After Swift, 1989; Drinkwater, 1994; Carney, 1998; Frankenberger and Drinkwater, 199

The idea of household livelihood security as defined above embodies three fundamental attributes: (1) the
possession of human capabilities (e.g. education, skills, health, psychological orientation); (2) access to
other tangible and intangible assets (social, natural, and economic capital); and (3) the existence of
economic activities (Drinkwater & Rusinow 1999). The interaction among these attributes defines what
livelihood strategy a household pursues and is thus central to CARE's household livelihood security
model.

CARE fully recognizes that its partners (donors, host government counterparts and local civil-society- and
community-based groups) may be using or adhering to different development approaches (models or
frameworks). While its language and content may differ to varying degrees, CARE believes that the HLS
framework is compatible with other development approaches because of the principles that underscore it
(Beckwith 2000). These include:

 conducting a holistic analysis to inform decisions;

 engaging the active participation of target populations throughout the project cycle;
 targeting impact change at the household level;
 employing focused programming interventions to build complementarity, synergy and leveraging;
 establishing coherent information systems;
 undertaking ongoing reflective practice;
 facilitating flexibility in terms of project entry points and aligning interventions with root causes
over time.

In its simplest form, livelihood security is the ability of a household to meet its basic needs (or realize its
basic rights). These needs include adequate food, health, shelter, minimal levels of income, basic
education and community participation. If any of these basic needs is not met, CARE considers that
household to be living in absolute poverty (Frankenberger 1996). However, simply satisfying people's
basic needs is not adequate to ensure that those people can rise above and stay above absolute poverty
(Beckwith 2000).

For CARE, sustaining livelihood security depends on a number of enabling conditions being in place.
These include human rights recognition, civil participation/action, risk management, an enabling policy
environment, gender equity and environmental stewardship. By contributing to the establishment of this
enabling environment, CARE hopes to assist people in meeting their basic needs on a sustained basis.
CARE believes that these elements are the underpinnings of its vision, " ... a world of hope, tolerance and
social justice, where poverty has been overcome and people live in dignity and security".

Putting theory into practice - dissemination and decentralization

CARE has faced a number of challenges in trying to institutionalize a livelihood approach. This transition
has resulted in enormous debate and feedback from the field as country offices have tried to
operationalize the concept.

The household livelihood security concept was first introduced in 1994 by the Food Security Unit at
CARE's headquarters. Using design opportunities presented by the development of new United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) Title II-funded programmes and other donor resources, an
attempt was made to use a holistic diagnostic approach in the designing of livelihood security
programmes. Since then, multisectoral teams have conducted rapid or participatory livelihood security
assessments in countries as many and as diverse as Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,
Benin, Bolivia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania,
Togo, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

After the first wave of assessments was carried out in 1995-1996, many country offices became
interested in the approach, although the assessment methodology at that stage was viewed as being too
expensive and extractive. Tensions were also created when some country offices felt that the framework
was being imposed on them from headquarters. Confusion existed as to the objectives of these
assessments, and whether the HLS approach was simply an assessment methodology or a whole project
process framework.

Numerous reflective discussions and workshops were held in each of the regions that focused on the
lessons learned from the application of HLS diagnostic tools. This enabled each region and country office
to adopt its own context-relevant approach for implementing a livelihood security framework. Many
countries opted for smaller assessments that were more participatory and less quantitative. The challenge
has been to allow for this flexibility and creativity and at the same time ensure that country offices are
adhering to bottom-line principles (these are discussed later).

Similarly, at headquarters many of the sector specialists also felt that the livelihood framework was being
imposed on them by senior management. This created some resistance to its adoption. Much of this
resistance could have been avoided through a more inclusive process in the beginning.

In some countries, the donors were not very receptive to holistic design processes, particularly if they had
had a sector bias in funding. For example, CARE India and CARE Bolivia had some difficulty convincing
their major donor that holistic assessments and multisectoral designs were appropriate. Changes in staff
and programming direction within the donor organization allowed for the more holistic programming to be
brought in later. In Nepal, holistic programming was achieved by having different donors fund different
sectoral activities targeted to the same remote areas. There is still some concern among some donors as
to the compatibility of sector-wide approaches and livelihood approaches.

Sector biases of government ministries with whom CARE is aligned also can present difficulties in cross-
sectoral programming. For example, in India, CARE works with the ministry that oversees the Integrated
Child Development Services (ICDS) safety net programme. This ministry does not deal with agricultural
development. If CARE wants to expand its activities into improving agricultural productivity of the poor, it
will have to align itself with a different part of the Indian Government. Such agreements are not always
easy to establish.
In the beginning, many of the interventions that were implemented were along traditional lines. More
recently, CARE country offices have tried to take into consideration other cross-cutting social and political
issues that have been hindering the poor from achieving livelihood security. Policy advocacy and rights-
based approaches are now starting to be integrated into programming activities. Such programming
changes demonstrate CARE's recognition that poverty is not only a matter of inadequate access to
income, food and services, but fundamentally a social and political issue too.

One key question that continues to be asked by some CARE staff is: What are we really gaining through
the application of a livelihood security approach? The responses that have come back from the field with
regard to the value added by this approach include that HLS:

 improves CARE's ability to truly target the poor and vulnerable households in programmes yet
builds on households' existing abilities and activities rather than their resource needs;
 is dynamic and ensures that needs and opportunities addressed in project activities are those that
centrally address prioritized household livelihood security concerns;
 provides a useful link between CARE's emergency relief and development programmes (all
households encounter shocks and stresses);
 is equally applicable in urban and rural settings;
 assists country offices in achieving complementary relationships between projects with the same
geographical coverage (including projects and programmes of other partners and governments);
 generates coherency in country office information systems;
 provides a clear conceptual focus for building partnerships to address poverty alleviation
(including community institutions);
 results in poor households and communities' being able to show definable improvements in their
livelihoods (Drinkwater & Rusinow 1999).

SECTION II. OPERATIONALIZING THE HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD SECURITY

FRAMEWORK

At all levels of programmatic decision-making, the HLS framework is CARE's point of departure (see
Figure 2). The various lenses embedded within the livelihood framework assist CARE in its analysis of a
given situation or geographical area, whether it is working at the strategic, regional, programme, project or
sector level.

FIGURE 2:
Household livelihood security: a framework for analysis
 Source: Modified from Scoones, 1998

Creating livelihood security profiles

Livelihood profiles are derived for a country or region through analytical lenses that are clustered under
the following categories: contexts, conditions and trends; livelihood resources (economic, natural, human
and social capital); institutional processes and organizational structures (government, civil society and
private sector); livelihood strategies (productive and exchange activities); and livelihood outcomes (e.g.
nutritional security, food security, health security, habitat security, education security, income security,
social network security, safety and environmental security).

Context, conditions and trends. A holistic analysis of livelihood security begins with understanding the
context for any given population. To understand the macro-level factors that influence the range of
possibilities for livelihood systems, we must consider the social, economic, political, environmental,
demographic, historical, and infrastructural information. It is this information that sets the parameters
within which livelihood strategies operate. To reduce costs, this information is primarily derived from
secondary data.

Livelihood resources. Households have access both to tangible and to intangible assets that allow them
to meet their needs. Natural capital consists of natural resource stocks from which resource flows that are
useful for livelihoods (e.g. land, water, wildlife, biodiversity and environmental resources) are
derived. Social capital is the quantity and quality of social resources (e.g. networks, membership in
groups, social relations and access to wider institutions in society) upon which people draw in their pursuit
of livelihoods and as safety net mechanisms for meeting shortfalls in consumption needs. The quality of
the networks is determined by the level of trust and shared norms that exist among network members.
People use these networks to reduce risks, access services, protect themselves from deprivation and
acquire information to lower transaction costs. Human capital consists of skills, knowledge, good health
and the ability to labour, which are important for the pursuit of livelihood strategies. Economic capital is
the productive resources and stores (e.g. savings, credit, remittances, pensions), basic infrastructure (e.g.
transport, shelter, energy, communications and water systems), production equipment and other means
that enable people to pursue their livelihoods.
In an analysis of these resources, it is important to take into account the combinations necessary for
sustainable livelihoods, the trade-offs that exist between resources, the sequences that may exist
between them (i.e. which resources are prerequisite for others) and the long-term trends in their use
(adapted from Scoones 1998).

Institutional process and organizational structures. A number of institutions operate in the community
milieu that influence livelihood outcomes. The State not only provides services but also offers safety nets,
changes policies and limits freedoms that can have positive or adverse effects on livelihood systems.
Similarly, formal civil-society organizations (NGOs, CBOs, parastatals, cooperatives, churches) can
provide enabling conditions or constrain opportunities for households. Informal civil society (e.g. informal
community networks) consists of the web of networks to which individuals and households belong. These
networks can have positive or negative influences on the livelihood strategies that people pursue. The
private sector can also create or limit households' opportunities. In the formulation of any sustainable
interventions it is important to take these various institutions into account.

Livelihood security strategies. Households combine their livelihood resources within the limits of their
context and use their institutional connections to pursue a number of different livelihood strategies. Such
strategies can include various types of production and income-generating activities (e.g. agricultural
production, off-farm employment, formal sector employment) or a combination of the two. An HLS
analysis should determine the livelihood strategy portfolios that different households pursue and the
historical pathways they have taken.

Livelihood security outcomes. To determine whether or not households are successful in pursuing their
livelihood strategies, it is important to look at a number of outcome measures that capture need or well-
being satisfaction. Nutritional status is often considered one of the best outcome indicators for overall
livelihood security since it captures multiple dimensions, such as access to food, health care and
education. Other livelihood outcomes that should be measured include sustained access to food,
education, health, habitat, social network participation, physical safety, environmental protection and life
skills capacities. Analysis of these outcomes should determine not only what needs are currently not
being met but also what trade-offs there are between needs. In addition, such an analysis should help
determine the synergistic relationships among these outcome measures.

In addition to these standardized measures, attempts are made to derive from the community the criteria
they use for determining livelihood improvement. These measures are often location specific. Every effort
is made to establish community-based monitoring systems to enable the community to track
improvements themselves.

CARE is currently trying to establish these livelihood profiles during the long-range strategic planning
process for each region in which it operates (e.g. Bolivia) or in analytical work conducted as part of a
programme design exercise. This ensures that a more holistic perspective is taken in any project design
for that region, even if a short time horizon is provided for the development of a particular proposal for a
donor. This will allow CARE to take a more holistic perspective in any project design for a given region,
even if it is given an extremely short time horizon to develop a proposal for a donor. These profiles would
be periodically updated as new information comes in from projects. The framework provides a way to
organize that information.

Working with partners

A further area of increased exploration within the context of CARE's work in recent years is the generation
of a growing range and intensity of operational relationships with other organizations. Gone are the days
when CARE saw itself primarily as an organization responsible for the direct delivery of goods and
services to those affected by emergencies, and to the poor and vulnerable in general. There are multiple
reasons for this, but some of the pre-eminent ones are:
  CARE increasingly sees its role in programming as one of experimenting with innovative
approaches, developing new models from these, and then seeking their wider replication.
 The replication, scale-up and spread of programmes, in order to achieve a more widespread
impact, all require the influence and cooperation of a wide range of other agencies.
 The achievement of real and lasting benefits to livelihoods is not something that can be easily
achieved by one agency operating alone. It requires the building of new and innovative
partnerships, which include government, civil society, the private sector and donor agencies.

These factors in particular have caused CARE to see its international responsibility increasingly in terms
of seeking to influence and, in return, learn from and collaborate with a growing number of agencies of
different types and hues. This role is being played out at all the levels at which CARE operates:
internationally, regionally, nationally and more locally within country contexts. New programme
approaches with an increased emphasis on partnership and multi-agency collaboration are being
generated, with CARE's role often being to facilitate the creation of linkages between community-based
and other CSO actors, government and private-sector agencies who have not worked together previously.

From CARE's perspective, partnerships are defined as "mutually beneficial alliances of diverse types
between organizations where roles, responsibilities and accountabilities are clearly defined. Partnerships
facilitate continuous two-way learning and are based on trust, shared vision and commitment to common
objects. Partnership is a means to achieve improved quality of life for more beneficiaries through
sustainable service delivery, better responsiveness to local development needs, and increased scale and
scope of programmes".

In terms of vision, "CARE will strive to be a reliable and trusted partner with an enhanced reputation and
ability to improve the livelihood security of poor households through a diverse dynamic network of
partners. In every intervention, CARE will explore linkages that reach greater numbers of people, alleviate
poverty and save more lives" (Beckwith 2000).

The major objectives for CARE's partnering are to:

 ensure sustainable service delivery capacity;

 expand the scope and scale of programming;
 increase impact.

The major partnership principles advocated by CARE are to:

 weave a fabric of sustainability;

 acknowledge interdependence;
 build trust;
 find shared vision, goals, values and interests;
 honour the range of resources;
 generate a culture of mutual support;
 find opportunities for creative synergy;
 address relationship difficulties as they occur;
 see partnering as a continuous learning process.

One example of such partnership relationships is the Strengthening Capacities for Transforming
Relationships and Exercising Rights (SCAPE) project in South Africa. South Africa is a country of multiple
institutions that often have limited capacity and limited scope to their activities. This applies to many parts
of the country's complex and cumbersome three-tiered government structure, as well as to civil society.
Both are struggling to adapt to the changes wrought by the coming of a democratic government and
society in 1994, which has resulted in a process whereby the country's non-white population has gained
rights it previously lacked, but where old attitudes and practices hinder the evolution of more empowering
development approaches. This has created a situation that does not enable people to gain the confidence
and understanding of how to exercise their new rights so as to benefit their livelihoods. This applies
equally to local communities, to civil-society organizations working with them and to local government, all
of which retain an expectation that resources and solutions will be provided centrally. Accordingly, over
the space of two years, the CARE South Africa office has been developing and piloting a programme in
which it works with multiple partners in transforming the horizontal and vertical relationships that affect the
nature and effectiveness of local development policies.

More commonly in CARE now, many country offices are working in partnership with municipal
governments. For example, in Latin America, both CARE Bolivia and CARE Honduras have been working
with municipal governments in their project areas, focusing on strengthening planning and service
delivery. A recent evaluation of the programme in Bolivia found that municipal partners were extremely
effective institutions for promoting HLS programming. This is because these institutions are holistic in
their service delivery. Similarly, in southern Africa, urban livelihood programmes have established
successful partnerships with municipal authorities in Angola, Madagascar, Mozambique and Zambia.

Strengthening civil society

Much of CARE's partnership efforts involve working with civil-society groups. This is illustrated by the
agency's work with local NGOs in Somalia and South Africa and with community-based organizations in
Mali and Zambia. In its most tangible form, civil society is defined by CARE as the range of institutions
and organizations that represent individual citizens or that provide people the means by which to connect
themselves collectively to government or the private sector. Civic action is the dynamic and collaborative
relationship among citizens, government and the private sector that contributes to the well-being of
individual citizens. For CARE, a strong civil society means the ensuring of a dynamic and beneficial
relationship between the institutions and organizations that represent government, the private sector and
civic groups. CARE's civil society strengthening efforts include: (1) building organizational capacity and
strengthening institutions; (2) supporting mechanisms for dialogue and advocacy among the three sectors
of society; (3) increasing the effectiveness and synergy among these institutions for the benefit of
individual citizens; and (4) promoting the inclusion of the poor, disenfranchised and marginalized citizens
in the enjoyment of benefits derived from civic action (Beckwith 2000).

Strengthening civic action to promote household livelihood security involves strengthening government,
the private sector and civic groups in order to help the poor reduce risk, improve access to services and
lower transaction costs. Institutional analyses carried out in programme design should help determine the
weak institutions that need to be strengthened. To be effective, each sector must be able to manage risk
as well as perform the complementary functions it is supposed to perform during non-crisis years. Risk
management is one aspect that has not been taken into account in most CARE institutional assessments.

Long-range strategic planning

Long-range strategic planning (LRSP) exercises have been carried out for every country in which CARE
works. These exercises are normally developed for a five-year period, unless a given country is under
emergency conditions, which entails shorter planning horizons (often of two years). The HLS framework
has been used in this planning process for organizing data on vulnerable groups in different geographical
areas; causal explanations regarding shocks, trends and processes; macro-micro linkages that are key to
understanding the programming areas; and institutions with which CARE will create alliances within
programme implementations. The trend over the last couple of years has been to move from descriptive
and impressionistic summaries to analytical processes and syntheses of priorities. The LRSP helps the
country office align its programming where the need is great, where the potential for partnering with local
institutions is high and where CARE has a comparative advantage. Secondary data are primarily used in
this planning process.

Within the Latin America region, CARE Guatemala used the HLS framework in crafting its 1998-2002
Long Range Strategic Plan. Similarly, Haiti, Honduras and El Salvador modified their information-
gathering and analysis using an HLS framework. As part of these planning processes, it was perceived by
each of the country offices that certain structural adjustments would be required to implement HLS
programming. Such structural changes included the creation of regional decentralized structures that
would allow for multisectoral programming within a given geographical area.

After reviewing the lessons learned from these structural changes, country offices in Latin America are
now realizing that structural changes do not necessarily lead to better HLS programming. HLS
programming does not always favour one type of structure over another. Centralized sector-based
structures and regional structures both can promote coherent HLS programming. What is important is to
use the HLS framework to target CARE's interventions more effectively in order to achieve leverage,
synergy and cost efficiencies. A variety of team management styles can be put together to achieve these
objectives. One of the key bottlenecks facing most country offices in implementing HLS programming is
their having sufficient technical expertise both to service specific geographical area demands and to
establish a significant level of consistency across geographical areas regarding programming approaches
and methodologies (Beckwith 1999).

Another area of concern expressed by country offices is that they are tending to grow in geographical
scope and complexity vis-à-vis multisectoral programming wherever they operate. Application of the HLS
framework should help them clarify their rationale for working in specific geographical areas and, hence,
consolidate their portfolio and promote more focused targeting of interventions (Beckwith 1999). When
programmatic decisions are not focused through the use of the framework, a less strategic growth of
programmes can put considerable strain on staff and management.

Diagnosis leading to design

The need for holistic analysis as a basis for a livelihood approach often engenders nervousness in
programme staff, who fear that it implies a lengthy, in-depth and complex process (Drinkwater & Rusinow
1999). Alternatively, the livelihood analysis might take on a life of its own; indeed it may become an end in
itself. Both of these dangers can and should be avoided, as it is critical to minimize gaps between the
analysis and design stage as well as avoid unnecessary data collection and maintain an interactive
relationship with stakeholders (Drinkwater & Rusinow 1999).

A wide range of tools can be used - from a quick situational analysis to an in-depth or geographical-wide
analysis of livelihoods - to determine the causes of vulnerability and the extent of poverty. The key is to
ensure that emphasis is placed on gaining a multidimensional view of livelihoods that allows for the
identification of the most vulnerable households, and on placing people's priorities and aspirations for
improving their livelihoods firmly at the centre of the analytical and planning process (Drinkwater &
Rusinow 1999).

Over the past five years, rapid or participatory livelihood security assessments (RLSAs or PLSAs) have
become major tools for the collection and analysis of this type of information and, therefore, a major
means of operationalizing an HLS approach. The main purpose of these participatory assessments is to
understand the nature of livelihood strategies of different categories of households (social differentiation),
their levels of livelihood security and the principal constraints and opportunities to address through
programming. This information is also disaggregated by gender and generation. Therefore, a good holistic
analysis would develop an understanding of livelihoods that was contextual, differentiated and
disaggregated. The methods used often focus on visualizing information, with community members
involved as much as possible in documenting information. Outputs from such assessments at a minimum
include the identification of the risk factors facing households, the key location-specific criteria for
differentiating wealth categories of households and the key leverage points and opportunities to pursue in
future programming.

In terms of the distinction between methodologies, with a maximum of two days spent per site or area,
rapid assessments usually achieve a broader scan over a wider area where little secondary data exists
and where a major shock or rapid change has occurred. Participatory assessments offer a more in-depth
analysis of fewer communities and are usually undertaken where some of decisions about the likely
geographical location of any ensuing programme activities have already been made.

Objectives and information requirements. The most common objective of livelihood security
assessments (LSAs) is to acquire information for the design of programmes. However, most LSAs have
multiple objectives. One objective may be global learning to gain institutional credibility in an area where
there is little or no previous experience, or to get information for strategic planning to improve the
allocation of scarce programme resources over multiple, competing demands. Building the analytical
capacity of staff and partner organizations is often an objective, though rarely a primary one. Building
partnership relationships is also a common secondary objective (Figure 3). An important consideration in
setting objectives is whether programmes based on information gathered will be scaled up within the
planning time horizon. How much primary information must be collected depends on the availability and
quality of existing information. In general, the principle is to collect only as much primary information as is
required that cannot be gathered from secondary sources (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3:
Diagnosis decision tree

The analytical framework generally defines the types of information required and includes qualitative
descriptive information, quantitative descriptive information and analytical (or causal) information (see
Table 1). The use of this framework has recently been applied in rural assessments in Malawi and
Zimbabwe, and in urban assessments in Mozambique and Peru.

Qualitative descriptive information: At the household level, the information primarily required includes the
assets held by the household and how these are used to earn adequate income, how resources are
allocated and the levels of critical outcomes achieved in terms of food security, nutrition and health status
and access to other basic needs such as water, shelter and education. Assets include not only productive
assets, such as land and livestock, or financial assets, such as savings or cash, but also the more
intangible assets of labour, skills, capacity and the social relations that underpin livelihood activities.
Important among these is the ability of some households to cope better than others with risk and crisis,
what these abilities are, and how coping strategies work. At the intrahousehold level, it is important to
consider gender and generationally differentiated roles and responsibilities, power relations and
differential access to resources and opportunities. Livelihood systems must be understood at the
community as well as the household level. Household-level outcomes have to be put in a community or
broader social and political context, so general information on the social, political, and institutional
environment is also a major requirement.

Quantitative descriptive information: For geographic targeting, and for identifying vulnerable groups,
quantitative indicators of household basic needs outcomes are required. These will include nutritional
status information as well as information on health status, access to services, literacy levels, access to
potable water, etc. Much of this information is obtained from secondary sources.

Analytical (causal) information: For effective programme design, it is important to understand not only the
current status of target groups but also the sources of vulnerability and the causal factors that lead to
vulnerability.

TABLE 1

Household livelihood security analytical framework for programme design, implementation and evaluation

Descriptive Analytical Design & Impact

information information implementation measurement
Contextual Understanding Design Programme
information vulnerability risk outcomes
factors  Identific
 Physical (seasonal/long- ation of  Formal
and term) key impact
environ problem - M&E
mental - s and system
informati Ecological opportu  Impact
on - Economic nities measu
- Social  Priorities red by
 Key - Political establis goal
features hed indicat
and  Coping/ (leverag ors
trends adaptive e points) based
- Social strategies  Identific on
-  Trends in ation of norms
Economi livelihood strategie against
c strategies s and baselin
-  Internal linkages e
Ecologic household  Validatio  Annual
al dynamics n with trends
 Key commun monito
external ity ring
 Institutio  Finalize and
relations
 that affect design use for
nal HLS manag
informati outcomes Implementation ement
on - Role of purpos
social es
networks  Finalize
Community level - Role of program
me Unanti
institutions cipate
 Social - design
with d
differenti Intra/interc outco
ation ommunity commun
ity mes
 Socio- dynamics
political  Conduct
info baseline  Positiv
Analysing  Establis e- and
 Institutio vulnerability
nal info h negativ
 Spatial monitori e-
info
 Individual ng genera
 Sources vulnerabilit system ted
y to progra
of
livelihoo
 Household capture mme,
vulnerabilit empowe measu
d
y rment red by
 Communit changes commu
Household level y , nity
vulnerabilit livelihoo monito
 Househo y d and ring
ld contextu system
characte Opportunity al
ristics analysis changes
 Norms  Program
 Current me
status of
 Positive adjustm
responses ents
livelihoo
of made on
d
household the
security
s basis of
outcome
s
 CBO/ monitori
 Assets NGOs with ng
effective informati
 Resourc
programm on
es
es
 Economi
 Governme
c
nt
activities
initiatives
 Policy
Intrahousehold environme
nt
 Gender  Collaborati
 Generati ve
onal organizatio
ns

To understand vulnerability, it is important to take into account the shocks or risks to which households
are exposed, their ability to cope with those shocks and their resilience to future shocks. To determine
this vulnerability, risk factors can be grouped into those that are:

 environmentally based (e.g. floods, droughts);

 economically based (e.g. macroeconomic decline);
  socially based (e.g. breakdown of community management structures);
 politically based (e.g. government policies that adversely affect prices, tenure, service provision);
 conflict derived (e.g. ethnic rivalries, religious insurgency; see Table 2).

TABLE 2

Sources of risk to household livelihood security

Sources Environme Social risk Economic Conflict

of ntal risk risk
livelihoo
d
State Commun
ity
Human
capital
Labour Disease Declining Breakdow Privatization Conflict
power, epidemics public n in of social destroys
education, (malaria, health community services, social
health cholera, expenditure support of reduction in infrastructu
dysentery) s, user social labour re, mobility
due to poor charges, services opportunitie restrictions
sanitary declining s
conditions, education
AIDS expenditure
s
Financial
and
natural
capital
Productiv Drought, Land Appropriati Price Conflict
e flooding, land confiscation on and shocks, leads to
resources degradation, , insecure loss of rapid loss of
(land, pests, animal tenure common inflation, land,
machinery disease rights, property food assets,
, tools, taxes, resources, shortages and theft
animals, employmen increased
housing, t policies theft
trees,
wells,
etc.),
liquid
capital
resources
(jewellery,
granaries,
small
animals,
savings)
Social
capital
Claims, Recurring Reduction Breakdow Shift to Communiti
kinship environmenta in safety n of labour institutional es
networks, l shocks net support reciprocity, forms of displaced
safety breakdown (school breakdown trust, stricter by war;
nets, ability to feeding, of sharing loan theft leads
common reciprocate; supplement mechanis collateral to
 property morbidity and ary feeding, ms, stricter requirement breakdown
mortality FFW, etc.) loan s, migration in trust
affect social requireme for
capital nts, lack of employment
social
cohesion
Sources
of
income
Productiv Seasonal Employmen Unemploym Marketing
e climatic t policies, ent, falling channels
activities, fluctuations declining real wages, disrupted
process affecting subsidies price shocks by war
and employment or inputs,
exchange opportunities, poor
activities, drought, investment
other flooding, in
sources of pests, animal infrastructur
employme disease, e, taxes
nt, morbidity and
seasonal mortality of
migration income
earners

Once the risks have been taken into account, it is important to understand how households cope with or
adapt to these shocks. On the basis of this analysis, it is possible to determine trends, livelihood
strategies and changes that occur in internal household dynamics. It is important to determine also the
role of social networks and institutions in adapting to and coping with these changes and to analyse the
intra- and intercommunity dynamics.

On this basis, we can determine vulnerability at the community, household and individual level. This
analysis delineates the target populations that need to be focused on in future interventions.

 Opportunity analysis: In addition to analysing the problems, it is also important to take into
account the opportunities that are available to communities, households and individuals within the
programme setting. For example, many households devise positive responses to the constraints
they face that could form the basis for intervention designs. This "positive defiance approach"
derives from the health sector but is equally applicable in other sectors. Visioning exercises and
appreciative inquiry approaches have also been used with communities to build on community
strengths (South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe).
Opportunities may be derived also from the efforts of community-based organizations and local
NGOs. Such groups may be operating effective programmes that address the constraints that
future projects can build upon. In support of these opportunities, enabling conditions at the policy
level may exist through changes promoted by the government. Finally, a coalition of organizations
can collaborate in a complementary way to solve multiple problems simultaneously.
 Design: Taking this holistic diagnosis into account and the problems and opportunities identified,
an analysis takes place that establishes the key leverage points that will bring about the greatest
impact. Once these leverage points have been identified, they are submitted to a series of
screens to determine the feasibility of designing a project around them. These screens can
include community validation, a review of CARE's comparative advantage, donor priorities and
government priorities. The leverage points that pass through the screens will be the intervention
themes around which the finalization of the design will be derived. This design process goes into
much more depth of analysis around the specific themes chosen.
 Implementation: The project design and any subsequent adjustments have to be further refined
with the community before beginning implementation. Participatory design processes are usually
carried out at this stage. Once finalized, a baseline is conducted on the outcome indicators that
will be measured for project impact. Monitoring systems will also be established to capture project
 outputs, livelihood and contextual changes and community perceptions of project success. In
some countries, CARE country offices have established longitudinal cohort studies to monitor
livelihood changes brought about by the project (Mali, Zambia). Programme adjustments should
be made on the basis of this monitoring information.
 Capturing programme outcomes through monitoring and evaluation systems: Formal impact M&E
systems are designed as part of the project to measure changes that have occurred over the life
of the project since the baseline. The M&E system will measure impact by objectively verifiable
indicators based on norms against the baseline. A menu of indicator options has been devised to
be used for different sector interventions (CARE 1999). To capture the synergistic effects of any
intervention, this list of options can be used for selecting possible indicators. The problem
analysis should indicate what the true cross-sector links are likely to be to determine the minimum
number of indicators to measure.
Impact indicators can be derived from normative standards or relative standards based on
community criteria. These may not be mutually exclusive. Normative indicators allow for the
comparison of one village or region with another with regard to a set of measures of poverty or
well-being. This type of information is important for targeting, resource allocation and exit
strategies. Relative measures or community-derived criteria can be context or location specific.
These types of indicators are critical for measuring impact from the perspective of individual
communities but they may not be suitable for cross-project or cross-regional comparisons. Both
types of indicators are critical for impact evaluation and should be used in an M&E system.
 Understanding impact on social change: It is impossible to determine beforehand all of the
positive and negative outcomes that may be generated by a project and the impact that it has on
people's lives. To ensure that the nature of this impact and the lessons learned from it are
captured from project implementation, steps should be taken in the M&E design to monitor
outside the framework of the log frame. Some of this information will be identified through
community monitoring systems, particularly for instance the differential benefits accruing to or the
effects on men, women, children, youth and the elderl, and should be used for making
appropriate programme adjustments.

In addition to capturing unintended effects after the fact through participatory monitoring and evaluation,
CARE has begun to put much more emphasis on predicting - and mitigating - unintended effects through
better programme design. Growing out of the desire, particularly in emergencies, to "do no harm", CARE
has developed over the past year a set of tools intended to enable it to conduct a benefits/harms analysis
prior to beginning an intervention.2 Similarly, the organization is also improving its gender analysis
methodologies.

The HLS approach permits CARE to plan for and build on positive cross-sectoral impacts. The
benefits/harms tools are intended to predict, minimize and mitigate cross-sectoral negative impacts.
Under an emergency circumstance, for example, a food project may create dependency and undermine
self-reliance, or it may make people targets for raiding. The benefits/harms analysis permits consideration
of the overall impact of interventions - both within the sector of focus and beyond.

The framework organizes cross-sectoral impacts into five categories, and analyzes the different reasons
for cross-sectoral impacts. The five categories include:

 social/cultural: the clientele of a programme, where they are from, what they think of themselves,
and how they relate to one another;
 political: how people participate politically and what their relationship is to the controlling
authorities;
 personal security and freedom: how interventions either weaken or strengthen the possibility of
violence or physical oppression by one individual or group against another;
 institutional capacity: how an intervention supports the goal of helping the local community help
themselves;
  basic needs (HLS impacts): the negative impacts that an intervention in one of the key household
livelihood security areas has in another area or sector. (Does the intervention permit people to
live with dignity even with respect to the areas in which positive impacts are expected?).

CARE's Benefits-harms handbook, developed in East Africa, offers three different types of tools:

 Profile tools aim to help users refine their understanding of the contexts in which CARE works or
plans to work.
 Impact tools aim to help users consider the cross-sectoral benefits and harms of projects.
 Decision tools aim to help users evaluate the information from the profile and impact tools and
choose a course of action.

Lessons learned from livelihood security assessments (LSAs)

Over the past five years, about 30 major LSAs, as well as a number of more limited exercises (where, for
example, a secondary review and limited field information collection sufficed to fulfil the objectives of the
exercise), have been carried out by CARE worldwide. A few of the salient lessons learned include:

 Because the HLS approach was originally operationalized through building LSAs into the
beginning of programme design, many country offices and staff got the message that if the
programme were not preceded by an assessment, it would be impossible to take an "HLS"
approach. Therefore relatively less experience has been gained organization-wide over the past
five years with "retrofitting" an HLS approach. A rapid or participatory livelihood security
assessment diagnosis is an extremely useful tool for programme design or the other potential
objectives mentioned above, but it is not a prerequisite for utilizing the HLS framework.
 It is critical first to assess existing information. Much investment has gone into re-collecting
information that already existed in one form or another. Investment of quality staff time in
conducting secondary reviews pays off heavily in terms of saving staff time and financial
resources during fieldwork and helps to make fieldwork much more focused.
 Working with communities in a participatory manner is critical. The information generated by an
assessment is only as good as the process of generating it. Poor community participation can
almost guarantee poor programme design.
 While developed primarily under rural conditions, LSA methodology is equally applicable in urban
areas, but there are some significant differences in approach.3
 LSAs are a tool, not an end in and of themselves.

The project design framework

Perhaps the largest challenge CARE has faced institutionally in operationalizing a livelihood security
approach is developing a framework that is at once inclusive enough to facilitate natural variation in its
application, depending on both the context and the programming instincts of those involved, and at the
same time provides definite guidance on what are perceived as bottom-line principles.

CARE has evolved a key set of elements or principles of programme quality. These principles are
illustrated in Figure 4. Several variations of this diagram have been produced over the last year, although
the key elements are similar. That is, within CARE's design framework, a programme should contain a
holistic analysis, a synthesis, a focused strategy, a coherent information system and reflective practice.

FIGURE 4:
CARE's design framework for livelihood projects
There are three important points to be noted about this design framework. The first is that it is a
framework intended to improve the quality of CARE's programmes. Thus for instance, within the southern
and West African regions, this diagram provides the central conceptual focus of current efforts across the
region to improve programming. The variation of the diagram illustrated here was produced as the
organizing focus of a regional design workshop held in January 2000, and is also being used as an
organizing focus for the programme sections of the region's annual operating plan (AOP). This means
that there is an increasing focus on programme development work in country offices in the region being
organized around this framework.

The second point to be noted about this design framework is that although CARE is operationalizing it
through the use of a livelihood security framework, this is not an inherent requirement of the framework.
The importance of this is that other conceptual approaches can accordingly also be deployed in the
practical use of the framework. This is partly shown by the reference to "participation", "partnerships" and
"personal and social empowerment" in the second circle of the diagram. Emphases on all these aspects
are features of most programmes in the region using a livelihoods framework, but these also bring their
own conceptual and methodological tools into the design process, which often provide the "vehicle" within
which the livelihood framework is deployed. Similarly, at an advocacy workshop organized in Sussex in
October 1999, others in CARE showed how different analytical lenses - livelihoods, human rights,
stakeholder, policy analysis - could all be used in the context of the framework. For the livelihoods
framework to be seen as inclusive in this way, enabling a variety of approaches to be evolved and
utilized, it is critical to promoting a broad institutional practice of the framework.

This situation allows for the development of healthy organizational debate over the nature of the
methodologies being used and what constitutes good practice in terms of conducting holistic analysis and
synthesis, developing a focused strategy and coherent information system and being reflective in
practice. The points noted under each element of the framework illustrate the developing practice. For
example, it has already been stated that if an understanding of livelihoods is to be developed during a
holistic analysis, there must be an analysis of context (how the household and community relate to the
wider world), of the differentiated nature of livelihoods (livelihood categories) and of the disaggregated
situations of different individuals within the household (gender and generational roles and issues). In
addition, other analytical lenses are also commonly deployed: an understanding of different stakeholder
perspectives is developed, an institutional assessment conducted and human rights issues explored
either in conjunction with or separately from an examination of basic needs, and so on.
The third point to note about the framework is that it is both iterative and non-linear. There is a "to-ing"
and "fro-ing" between the different elements of the framework, both before and after the project is formally
approved. For instance, a participatory livelihoods assessment exercise may be carried out, as part of the
analysis stage, but may conclude with methods that lead into synthesis and strategy design. Similarly,
some methods may also provide provisional ideas on livelihood indicators, which are then developed
more fully during the strategy design and when the information system is being developed more fully
during implementation.

An attempt to illustrate this is contained in Figure 5. The diagram also aims to show that the point at which
the project is formally funded may fall at different times in the process, depending on the status of the
factors in the "variables" list. Thus, for example, Mahavita, an urban livelihoods project in Antananarivo,
Madagascar, was funded for five years after a relatively brief secondary review and participatory
livelihood assessment exercise. As a result, a great deal more detailed analytical work was also
conducted during the project's start-up phase. In contrast, other projects may require much more
protracted negotiation work, and the process to proceed as far as the piloting of activities, before there is
any guarantee of more secure funding.

Developing focused project and programme strategies

One of the key distinctions between a livelihoods approach and, for example, the integrated rural
development programmes of a decade ago, is that in the livelihoods approach the holistic analysis should
give rise to a focused strategy rather than to a broad range of inadequately linked activities. The synthesis
stage of the analytical activities should be used to build hypotheses on what are likely to be the three or
four major project components of "lines of action" that will have the greatest leverage or beneficial impact
on improving livelihoods. Koos Neefjies of Oxfam labelled this the acupuncture approach, because "a
good acupuncturist uses a holistic diagnosis of the patient followed by very specific treatment at key
points. Holistic diagnosis does not mean needles everywhere!" (Ashley & Carney 1999, 17).

FIGURE 5:
Sequencing of project events

The types of projects developed at CARE using a livelihoods framework are diverse. Some are of a more
multisectoral, or disciplinary, nature, but applying a livelihoods approach does not preclude projects being
largely of a sectoral nature. What is important is that a holistic perspective is used in the design to ensure
that cross-sectoral linkages are taken into account, and that the needs addressed in project activities are
those that deal with the priority concerns of households and that build upon the experience and coping
mechanisms they have evolved (Drinkwater & Rusinow 1999). Increasingly among some donors there is
also expected an acceptable cost-benefit ratio of resource use, which again emphasizes the issue of key
leverage points being identified, which can be expected to lead to the greatest beneficial impact on
livelihoods, whatever the type of programme.

Using a livelihoods framework to redesign existing projects

CARE also has substantial experience in using a livelihoods framework to redesign or reorient existing
project activities. There are several examples of this in the southern and West African regions. In all
cases, the reorientation process requires a return to the analytical basis for the project or programme and
reworking this using the livelihoods framework. In practice this usually means conducting some form of
livelihood assessment, coupled with a reconsideration of secondary information and the contextual
analysis. One example is the Training for Agricultural and Environmental Management (TEAM) project in
Lesotho. Following a two-year pilot, which had not used an HLS approach, a redesign of the programme
was carried out that was based largely on a series of village-level participatory livelihood assessments. All
told, 46 of these were conducted, of which 3 contributed directly towards the redesign. The remainder
were conducted after the funding of the new phase, in part with the intention that they form baseline
exercises in the village. In addition, the new two-year phase had an action research component that
provided a more in-depth understanding of livelihoods in three distinct village areas, and that also
contributed to the design of the project information system. This action research component aided
considerably the further modification of the programme at the conclusion of the second two-year pilot.

A second and more thorough illustration of the use of a livelihoods framework in redesign comes from
Zimbabwe. In a process that is still ongoing, detailed participatory livelihood assessments were conducted
in November 1999 at four sites in the Midlands and Masvingo Provinces. Three of these were areas in
which CARE Zimbabwe was already operating, therefore the assessment methodology included visioning
activities at both the community and the team level. At the community level, the aim was to generate
ideas on what people saw as the main opportunities and priorities for improving their livelihood security.
The team members were then able to use this information, together with their knowledge of the nature of
the programme in each province, to produce ideas on how the programme might be more effective in its
impact on livelihood security. The process produced consensus at the community and team level on a
clear set of ideas, and the issues that would be inherent in their realization, for progress.

The assessment information is now being incorporated within a strategic follow-up process that seeks to
improve the nature and effectiveness of existing project activities, develop synergies across these, build
adherence to a common set of programming principles, provide a coherent basis for the development of
further activities and, from the programme restructuring, lead to a complementary administrative
restructuring of the sub-offices.

Reflective practice: achieving greater gender equity

One area that CARE has been seeking to incorporate more successfully into its livelihood framework is
that of gender. Experience from some of CARE's projects in Zambia, which have been using a livelihoods
framework since 1995, has shown that working towards achieving greater gender equity in the benefits of
programmes is an especially difficult challenge. Dealing with the issue at all requires a project to have
both a well-developed information system and the ability to engage in internal reflection and learning. In
fact, the "reflective practice" element of the programme design framework was added during a workshop
in which CARE Zambia staff discussed their experiences using HLS and gender frameworks, examining
what the major programming issues were with regard to both, and how they could move forward more
effectively with a better integrated "HLS + gender" approach.

Gender equity in CARE programming entails the condition of fairness in relations between men and
women, leading to a situation in which each has equal status, rights, levels of responsibility and access to
power and resources. Gender is considered different from sex, which describes the universal biological
characteristics of men and women. Gender refers to the socialization process that assigns certain
attitudes, roles and responsibilities to men and women, and results in different opportunities and
behaviour for each. It is dynamic, varying within and among societies, and over time, and is influenced by
cultural, economic, political and environmental factors. CARE seeks to ensure that change brought about
by programmes responds to mutually agreeable standards of fairness of both women and men in their
given contexts (Beckwith 2000).

Different from sameness, equity is based on the concept of what is just, and the premise that women and
men, by virtue of their common humanity, deserve equal opportunities to define their paths in life. It does
not prescribe a division of roles, nor does it ignore the fact that success will ultimately rest with the
inspiration and efforts of each individual. CARE's focus on equity is a recognition that in much of the
world, opportunities are not equal and the playing field is not level (Beckwith 2000).

SECTION III. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Household livelihood security continues to be the cornerstone framework that CARE uses to carry out its
programming efforts. It is considered an organizing framework that is used systematically to inform
decisions and as a desired end state or goal for CARE's programmes. The HLS framework enables a
more holistic view of the world to inform CARE's programming decisions. The root causes of poverty can
be understood more clearly, as can the opportunities and leverage points for positive change. Application
of the livelihood framework should not be considered a linear process, but rather a flexible, dynamic and
iterative process over time.

While HLS is predicated on taking a holistic view of a given situation, different entry points can be used
for its application. In addition, taking a holistic view does not always mean undertaking multiple
interventions. Ongoing sector-focused interventions may be modified or interrelated to incorporate a
livelihood security perspective. Alternatively, a single-sector intervention may provide the key leverage
activity in a given situation.

Over the past two years, CARE has identified several analytical lenses that have been incorporated into
an HLS holistic analysis in order for the agency to understand better the root causes of poverty. These
analytical lenses include basic needs, a human rights perspective, civil participation and action, gender
and the policy environment. Numerous staff within CARE are now working on the tools and methods that
will allow the country offices to incorporate these analyses in programme decision-making.

The broader and more in-depth understanding brought about by the application of these analytical lenses
will expand CARE's programming choices regarding what is done, how it is done, who it is done with and
who benefits. These analytical tools will contribute significantly to the future directions of CARE
programming

In the end, the HLS framework is helping CARE make strategically focused choices about where to
concentrate its limited resources and its comparative advantages in order to leverage the most positive
and lasting change. It is through these efforts that CARE will continue to contribute to the global effort to
end poverty.

1
See for example Clare Ferguson, 1999, "Global social policy principles: human rights and social justice", on the
active/passive difference between rights-based and needs-based approaches. Personal communication. CARE Bolivia.

2
P. O'Brien. 1999. Benefits-harms handbook, Nairobi. CARE East Africa.
3
D. Maxwell, 1999, "Livelihoods and vulnerability: how different is the urban case?" Presented to 1999 Meeting of the
Society for Applied Anthropology. Tucson, Ariz.