SLA Framework

8/18/2019 SLA Framework

1/4

KEY SHEETS FORSUSTAINABLELIVELIHOODS

Overview

The purpose of these

Key Sheets is to

provide decision

makers with an easy

and up-to-date point of

reference on issues

relating to the

provision of support for

sustainable livelihoods.

The sheets are

designed for those who

are managing change

and who are

concerned to make

well-informed

implementation

decisions. They aim to

distil theoretical debate

and field experience so

that it becomes easily

accessible and useful

across a range of

situations. Their

purpose is to assist in

the process of

decision-making rather

than to provide

definitive answers.

The sheets address

three broad sets of

issues:

• Service Delivery

• Resource

Management

• Policy Planning

and

Implementation

A list of contact details

for organisations is

provided for each

sub-series.

DFIDDepartment forInternationalDevelopment

KeySheetsforSustainableLivelihoods

Introduction

D FID is com m itted to poverty reduction. In order to be effective in achieving this aim it is necessary

to develop both a clear understanding of w hat constitutes poverty and a practical im plem entation

strategy for efforts to reduce it. This series of Key Sheets focuses on providing support to the

im plem entation process. Its aim is to help im prove the quality and perform ance of poverty-focused

developm ent activity by helping to ensure that those w ho are involved in decision-m aking, planning

and execution are w ell inform ed.

These Key Sheets do not represent a policy statem ent on the part of D FID , nor do they try to provide

conclusive answ ers to the m any questions that arise during im plem entation. Rather, they aspire to

im partial presentation of the issues that should be taken into consideration. Their aim is to stim ulate

users’thinking and to encourage decision-m akers to consider all relevant aspects of involvem ent in

any given area. It is hoped that this open and issue-oriented agenda w ill increase the quality of

developm ent dialogue and that it m ight go som e w ay tow ards im proving the overall co-ordination

of developm ent activity.

D ifferent users are expected to refer to the sheets in different w ays. Som e w ill use them as ‘checklists’

of the issues that should be addressed during planning. O thers m ight use them to help decide w hat

type of specialist expertise is required in a given area and w ho should be brought into the planning

and execution process. Though the Key Sheets w ere initially developed to serve the needs of donor

personnel, it is hoped that they w ill also be useful to others. N evertheless, w hile they alw ays aim to

achieve clarity and avoid unnecessary jargon, they do take as given a certain level of know ledge

about the underlying p rinciples and language of developm ent. They are therefore unlikely to m eet

the needs of ‘absolute beginners’.

The w ide range of different subjects addressed in the sheets reflects the diversity of factors that

im pact upon livelihoods and the variation that is evident in livelihood strategies. The sheets are

organised in three sub-series:

• Service D elivery

• Resource M anagem ent• Policy Planning and Im plem entation

The sub-series are colour-coded for ease of reference; each has its ow n num bering sequence. A

sub-set of the sheets are co-financed w ith N ED A, the N etherlands D evelopm ent Assistance. These

are clearly m arked w ith the N ED A logo on the front page.

Current sheet titles are predom inantly rural, due to the origins of the series in D FID’s N atural

Resources Policy and Advisory D epartm ent. It is expected that the scope of the sheets w ill be

expanded over tim e to reflect better the diversity of activities that constitute livelihoods. Individual

sheets w ill be added to the series w hile existing sheets w ill be updated as the need arises. (Suggestions

for new Key Sheet subjects or revisions of existing sheets should be subm itted to the D FID address

on the back page of this sheet.) This O verview sheet accom panies the third batch ofKey Sheets and

replaces the O verview sheet distributed w ith the first batch of sheets (dated N ovem ber 1997).

The sheets are designed w ith ease of use as a priority. Each sheet provides:• an overview of recent debate on the topic in question;

• an analytic synthesis of the key issues in decision-m aking;

• a short list of key literature for further reference;

• a list of institutions/individuals w ith particular expertise in the policy-related aspects of the

sheet topic; and

• a list of relevant D FID (and N ED A w here the sheets are co-financed) project and research

experience to facilitate horizontal inform ation flow s and shared learning.

For each sub-series a full list of contacts is provided, enabling users to follow up in m ore detail the

issues and questions raised in the sheets. A num ber of the contact people have provided very

useful com m ents on and inp ut into the Key Sheets . H ow ever, it should not be assum ed that contact

people and organisations are in full agreem ent w ith the text of the individual sheets. Final responsibility

for this rests w ith D FID /O D I (and N ED A w here co-financed).


2/4

Sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction

The prom otion of sustainable livelihoods –the them e that unites this series of Key Sheets –is one w ay of achieving poverty

reduction. Concepts of poverty have evolved over the decades.

• Before 1970 poverty w as largely defined in econom ic term s, as a lack of incom e or G ross N ational Product per capita.• In the 1970s the concept of basic needs evolved. Basic needs included access to certain consum er goods as w ell as to

collective goods (such as education and health services), and broader elem ents of w ell-being.

• In the 1980s the basic needs approach w as partially abandoned and m ore general interpretations of w ell-being gained ground.People’s ability to fulfil various functions and to develop and deploy their capabilities w ere considered to be critical dim ensions

of poverty. N ew thinking em erged on both ‘entitlem ents’to resources and the vulnerability of poor people to changes in theecological, econom ic and political environm ent. It w as recognised that poverty is a relative concep t that is intim ately connected

w ith political, m oral and cultural values in a given society and the condition of ‘social exclusion’relates to all these.

• In the 1990s poverty –and the processes that lead to poverty –are conceived as m ulti-dim ensional (econom ic, ecological,social, cultural, political) and highly context-specific. The poor are no longer considered to be a hom ogenous group. Poverty

Assessm ents have evolved, m oving beyond the characterisation of poverty and tow ards the analysis of the processes that cause

poverty at various levels.

The 1999 O EC D /D A C scoping study –Donor Poverty Reduction Policy and Practices –show s that governm ents and donors

conceptualise poverty in different w ays. H ow ever, it also stresses that there is com m on agreem ent as to the im portance of understanding

the root causes and context-specific processes (at the m acro, m eso and m icro level) that lead to poverty am ongst certain groups.

U nless these are understood, it w ill not be possible to design appropriate policies and strategies for poverty elim ination.

The sustainable livelihoods approach provides an analytical fram ew ork that prom otes system atic analysis of the underlying processes

and causes of poverty. It is not the only such fram ew ork, but its advantages are that it focuses attention on people’s ow n definitions

of poverty and it takes into account a w ide range of factors that cause or contribute to poverty. These are show n schem atically in

Figure 1, a fram ew ork that helps provide structure to debate and analysis, enabling m ultiple stakeholder perspectives to be taken

into account in the identification of practical priorities for action. It should be noted that the fram ew ork itself is distributionally

neutral and equally applicable to the rich and the poor. In order for it to act as a tool for poverty reduction, it is vital that those

em ploying it –and those using these Key Sheets –share:

• a com m itm ent to poverty elim ination that extends to developing a m eaningful dialogue w ith partners about how to address the

underlying political/econom ic factors w hich perpetuate poverty; and

• the ability to recognise deprivation in the field even w hen elites and others m ay w ant to disguise this and skew benefits tow ards

them selves (this w ill require skill and rigour in social analysis).

K ey characteristics of the livelihoods approach to poverty reduction are that:

• It focuses attention on people’s strengths, the various assets on w hich they can draw to achieve their objectives.• Itcrosses traditional divides betw een rural and urban areas and betw een various sectors (e.g. betw een productive activities

and the social sectors).• It isapplicable across geographical areas and social groups.• It recognises multiple influences on people, and seeks to understand the relationships betw een these influences and their

joint im pact upon livelihoods.

• It recognises multiple actors (from the private sector to national level m inistries, from com m unity based organisations to new lyem erging decentralised governm ent bodies).

Figure 1. Sustainable livelihoods framework

Influence& access

H

S

P F

N

VULNERABILITY

CONTEXT

TRANSFORMING

STRUCTURES AND

PROCESSES

LIVELIHOOD

OUTCOMESLIVELIHOOD

STRATEGIES

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS in

order

to

ac

hieve

KeyH = Human Capital S = Social Capital

N = Natural Capital P = Physical Capital

F = Financial Capital


3/4

• It acknow ledges the multiple – and changing – livelihood strategies that people adopt to secure their livelihoods.• It seeks to achieve multiple livelihood outcomes, to be determ ined and negotiated by people them selves. W here these conflict

(i.e. w here outcom es have m ixed positive–negative consequences or w here som e people gain and others lose) it w ill be

necessary to m ake trade-offs. The fram ew ork helps to m ake these explicit and open them up for discussion.

• It em phasises multiple dimensions of sustainability (environm ental, social, institutional and econom ic) and recognises thatthere w ill be difficult decisions about trade-offs betw een these.

It is a flexible approach that is expected to lead to the identification of m ajor constraints to, and opportunities for, poverty reduction.

These m ay lie either at local or at higher levels. They m ay relate, for exam ple, to skills, know ledge and abilities or to the structures

and p rocesses –including policy level factors –w hich im pact on livelihoods. H ow ever, the fact that the approach itself is broad-

based does not m ean that it w ill result in m ulti-sectoral, highly com plex activities of the type that have been the cause of so m any

problem s in the past. The aim is rather to identify a few discrete entry points but to understand that these:

• m ay span one or m ore traditional ‘sectors’or areas of activity (e.g. institutional reform ), and that they

• are likely to evolve over tim e as a result of changing circum stances and negotiation.

It therefore m akes m ore sense to think of longer term livelihoods program m es than of discrete livelihoods projects.

For further details on the sustainable livelihoods approach, please refer to D FID’s Sustai nable Livelihoods Gui dance Sheets (available

by contacting livelihoods@ dfid.gov.uk).

Using the approachThe sustainable livelihoods approach is versatile: it can be used in a variety of different circum stances from project through to

program m e and policy level. At a grass roots level it is very im portant that livelihoods analysis (that is analysis of the circum stances

that cause poverty and the dim ensions of poverty itself) is conducted in a fully participatory m ode, taking into account the m any

lessons already learnt about participatory m ethods and approaches. At present, such m ethods are better developed for com m unity

level analysis than for the analysis of policies and institutions –it is im portant that the latter are not neglected.

W hen the livelihoods app roach is em ployed at the level of program m e planning or policy analysis, there m ay be less original

research conducted, and m ore reliance on existing inform ation sources. H ow ever, in all cases it is im portant that the connections

betw een policy level factors and outcom es on the ground (w here poverty exists and poverty reduction actually takes place) are

adequately stressed. U nderstanding the im pact of different policy and institutional arrangem ents upon people/households and

upon the dim ensions of poverty they define is an essential dim ension of the sustainable livelihoods approach.

The approach itself, and all of the Key Sheets , highlight the im portance to livelihood sustainability of institutions and organisations.

(These are referred to in the fram ew ork as Transform ing Structures and Processes, to em phasise their key role.) Adverse policy

environm ents, inappropriate regulation, a lack of m arkets, and barely functioning service delivery or local governm ent organisations

can all have a profound, negative effect on livelihoods. A core m essage of the Key Sheets is that unless these institutional/

organisational problem s are addressed directly, it m ay not be w orth engaging in m ore traditional areas of support to productive

activities.

Livelihoods and sector-wide approachesLivelihoods and sector-w ide approaches are broadly com plem entary; each should gain from recognising the strengths of the other.

Livelihoods analysis lays a heavy em phasis on understanding the structures and processes that condition people’s access to assets

and their choice of livelihood strategies. W here the m ajor constraint is poor perform ance by governm ent agencies at a sectoral

level, then sector-w ide sup port program m es w ill be highly appropriate. This is especially the case for governm ent-dom inated areas

such as health and education.

It is not, though, the public sector agency per se that should be the focus for im provem ent; it is people’s livelihoods. Sector

program m es them selves w ill be enriched if they build on the inform ation gathered in livelihoods analysis. This w ill help those

involved to perceive the interactions betw een different sectors and the im portance of developing inter-sectoral links in order to

m axim ise im pact at a livelihood level (the benchm ark for perform ance). It w ill also encourage public sector institutions to recognise

the m any different players in the developm ent process, creating pressure w ithin the sector planning process to open up the

dialogue beyond governm ent, to innovate and to incorporate best practice from existing project level activities. Livelihoods approachesand the support activities w hich derive from them should also gain from the lessons learnt and the objectives pursued in sector

approaches. These include:

• the im portance of ensuring dom estic governm ent ow nership of the developm ent process;

• the need to base all support on best-practice public m anagem ent principles (i.e. not to extend the role of governm ent into

inappropriate activities and the im portance of developing cap acity in areas such as financial m anagem ent and budgeting); and

• the value of co-ordination betw een different donors (and the steps required to achieve this).

The sustainable livelihoods approach itself provides scop e for increasing the dialogue betw een and co-ordination of the efforts of

different donors. It is already espoused by U N D P and various leading develop m ent N G O s (e.g. CARE and O xfam ) and efforts to

m ove forw ard w ith im plem entation are providing opportunities for joint w ork at country level.

Policies and working principlesThe various Key Sheets are linked by their shared relationship to livelihoods and livelihood sustainability. This link m anifests itself

in the m any underlying issues and constraints that are com m on to different subject areas. These are noted in the individual Key

Sheets and sum m arised in the table overleaf. This table em phasises the im portance of developing appropriate w orking practices and

underlying policies in order to achieve poverty elim ination. Such practices and policies provide the cem ent w hich links the various

different areas of developm ent and m akes learning across areas so im portant.


4/4

Overview continued

Key Sheets are available on the Internet at: http://www.oneworld.org/odi/keysheets/or through the website of DFID

Department for International DevelopmentNatural Resources Policy and Advisory Department

Tel: +44 171 917 0022Fax: +44 171 917 0679

Email: [email protected]: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/

Series Editor: Diana CarneySeries Manager: Charlotte Boyd

OverseasDevelopmentInstitute

May 1999

Policy and institutional issues

• Policy consistency: Policy inconsistency w eakens overall strategic direction and can create large econom ic costs aspeople engage w ith successive layers of conflicting policies. The need to align policy w ithin a sector is a core argum ent

behind the developm ent of sector program m es, though the effects of policies extend w ell beyond their ‘hom e sector’.

• Finding the most appropriate institutional home: There m ay be trade-offs betw een exp erienced agencies w ith skillsand resources (but a reputation for closed-m inded or over-technical approaches) and new er bodies that are m ore flexible

(but lack resources, access and authority). N ew ly-created bodies generally display a poor success and sustainability rate.

• Supporting appropriate decentralisation: Capturing the benefits of decentralisation has been a key objective overrecent years. It is therefore im portant to ensure that sectoral and sub-sectoral support is consistent w ith and contributes to

any decentralisation objectives or program m es of the country as a w hole.

• Thinking through public and private roles: There has recently been a profound shift in thinking about appropriatepublic and private sector roles in developing countries. The econom ic principles underlying the debates are now quite

w idely know n, but there rem ains a considerable gap betw een know ledge and full understanding, let alone operationalisation.

• Encouraging positive participation by the private sector: Though there has recently been som e retreat from the ‘purem arket’philosophies of the early 1990s, the im portance of the private sector to developm ent is undisputed. The challenge

is to encourage the private sector to play a positive role in poverty reduction.

• Supporting appropriate regulation: A key step in harnessing the positive benefits of m arkets and m itigating the negativeeffects is to ensure that appropriate regulatory fram ew orks and m eans of enforcing them are in place. Fram ew orks are

seldom effective unless designed in a participatory w ay w ith users.

Working principles

• Understanding the existing development context: It is essential to avoid preconceptions about: w ho the poor are; therole of different activities in the livelihoods of the p oor; the type of organisations that are involved in any area/activity; and

the effects –actual as opposed to intended –of any given policy.

• Promoting human resource development, developing demand and fostering empowerment: For progress to besustainable, levels of skill, know ledge and ability m ust rise throughout. ‘N ew ’skills (e.g. in m anagem ent, participatory

m ethods or conflict resolution) are often im portant w hile ‘old’skills (e.g. in technical aspects of research or resource

m anagem ent) m ust not be neglected.

• Recognising and working to resolve conflicts:Conflicts exist in all areas: over resources, betw een im plem enting organisations,w ithin households, betw een different stakeholder groups, etc. It is m ore effective in the long term to recognise the existence

of conflict, to try to understand its roots and to aim to resolve it over tim e, than it is to operate as though it does not exist.

• Taking a realistic approach, being flexible and building public support: The Key Sheets point to practical w ays forw ardin difficult circum stances. They do, how ever, caution against over-am bition. They also stress the need for flexibility and the

adoption of a process approach.

• Looking for innovative solutions: There are no m agical solutions to the problem s of under-developm ent. H ow ever,progress has been m ade partly because of a w illingness to innovate. It is im portant that such innovation continues. D onor

funds are im portant in piloting new activities/w ays of w orking and m onitoring their effects on indicators of poverty.

• Focusing on outcomes: Process is im portant, but it is developm ent im pact at the hum an level that is the priority. If thiscannot be proven, there is little value in continued spending (though it is im portant not to expect too m uch too quickly).

• Developing partnerships and ensuring domestic ownership: M eaningful partnerships are characterised by relations oftrust; they have to be deliberately nurtured and inevitably take tim e to develop/m ature. O w nership is prom oted w hen

developm ent activities are designed w ith stakeholders in response to problem s or opportunities that they them selves define.

• Working in a participatory and demand-driven way: W hile the Key Sheets do not lay out any specific guidelines onparticipatory tools or m ethodologies, they consistently stress the need to w ork w ith people in a participatory m ode (thoughit is also im portant to be aw are that participation is not alw ays the best solution –m ethods m ust be context-specific).

• Identifying excluded groups: U nless this is done, developm ent aid m ay further m arginalise the poorest, by excluding themfrom decision-m aking bodies and m anagem ent arrangem ents and failing to target their specific livelihood needs.

• Promoting a culture of learning: Learning is costly and m ay dem and significant shifts in culture and incentives. If theseKey Sheets help to reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of learning they w ill have served an im portant purpose.

SLA Framework

Documents

Transcript of SLA Framework