How useful is livelihoods analysis for improving sustainability? Critically assess using at least one case study.

Assignment Brief

AI5202 Assessment questions 2019-20

How useful is livelihoods analysis for improving sustainability? Critically assess using at least one case study.

Sample Answer

The Usefulness of Livelihoods Analysis for Improving Sustainability: A Critical Assessment Using a Case Study from Rural Ethiopia

Introduction

Sustainability is one of the most pressing concerns in today’s development agenda, particularly in the context of poverty reduction and environmental management. Livelihoods analysis, particularly the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) developed by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), offers a tool to understand and improve the way people make a living within their local environmental, economic, and political contexts. This essay critically evaluates how useful livelihoods analysis is for improving sustainability. It explores the components of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and analyses its application through a rural Ethiopian case study. The analysis will discuss the strengths and limitations of the framework, especially in addressing environmental sustainability, empowerment, and policy planning.

Understanding Livelihoods Analysis and Sustainability

The concept of livelihood refers to the means by which people secure the necessities of life such as food, water, shelter, and income. A sustainable livelihood is defined by Chambers and Conway (1992) as a livelihood that “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.”

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) consists of several key components:

• Livelihood assets (capital) – human, social, natural, physical, and financial capital.

• Vulnerability context – shocks, trends, and seasonality.

• Transforming structures and processes – institutions, policies, and organisations.

• Livelihood strategies – choices people make to achieve livelihood goals.

• Livelihood outcomes – such as income, well-being, reduced vulnerability, and sustainable resource use.

Sustainability, in the SLF, is multi-dimensional: it includes environmental, social, economic, and institutional dimensions. Livelihoods analysis aims to support interventions that balance short-term survival with long-term sustainability, by considering how different factors interact to influence people’s lives.

The Case Study: Rural Ethiopia – Tigray Region

In the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia, decades of environmental degradation, poverty, and political conflict have threatened the sustainability of rural livelihoods. This region became the focus of many NGO-led sustainable development projects applying the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, particularly those funded by DFID and World Vision.

One project in the area, known as the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Project, aimed to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers through better land use, water conservation, and diversification of income. The project used the SLF to assess the constraints and opportunities people faced and to guide its activities.

How Livelihoods Analysis Contributed to Sustainability

1. Holistic Understanding of People’s Lives

One of the biggest strengths of livelihoods analysis is that it takes a people-centred and holistic view. In the Tigray case, analysis revealed that while soil erosion and drought were key environmental challenges, the lack of access to markets, gender inequality, and limited education were equally important barriers to sustainability.

For example, by examining human and social capital, the analysis highlighted how illiteracy and weak farmer cooperatives reduced the community`s ability to adopt improved farming techniques. This led the project to include adult education and capacity-building components.

2. Integration of Environmental and Social Concerns

The SLF also allowed planners to understand how environmental degradation (natural capital loss) was interconnected with poverty (financial capital). In Tigray, many farmers were trapped in a cycle where poor soil and deforestation led to low crop yields, which led to hunger and further exploitation of land.

Using the SLF, interventions were designed to protect natural capital while ensuring food security. For example:

• Terracing and tree planting helped reduce soil erosion.

• Diversification into beekeeping and poultry farming gave families alternative income sources.
  This approach promoted ecological sustainability while meeting immediate human needs.

3. Improved Participation and Local Ownership

The SLF promotes participation and local ownership, which are vital for long-term sustainability. In Tigray, communities were involved in decision-making from the start, identifying their own priorities and contributing local knowledge. This strengthened the sense of responsibility and ensured that interventions were relevant and culturally appropriate.

4. Guiding Policy and Institutional Change

By identifying the role of transforming structures and processes, livelihoods analysis helped highlight the importance of supportive policies. In the case study, weak land tenure security discouraged farmers from investing in land improvement. This insight led the project to advocate for clearer land rights and more farmer-friendly policies.

Limitations and Challenges

Despite its usefulness, livelihoods analysis has several limitations:

1. Too Broad and Complex

Some critics argue that the SLF is too broad, making it difficult to implement in practice. In the Tigray project, collecting data on all five forms of capital required time and resources, which many NGOs lacked. This led to uneven application and sometimes superficial analysis.

2. Underemphasis on Power and Politics

The SLF tends to treat institutions and policies as neutral, without fully considering power dynamics, corruption, or elite capture. In the Tigray project, although local authorities supported environmental projects, there were complaints that benefits were distributed unfairly or used for political gains. The SLF lacks strong tools for analysing such political realities.

Continued...