Summary of main issues discussed in the
Web/E-Conference
SLA THEMES
The Sustainable Livelihoods Web/E-Conference on "Operationalizing Participatory Ways
of Applying Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches" was held throughout the month of
February 2000, with the participation of 338 professionals of different backgrounds and
from a vast variety of agencies and countries. It was organized around themes, with a
number of discussion threads for each theme and topic. These included a section on basic
questions aimed at stimulating thinking on some of the characteristics and underlying
principles of SL approaches.
The theme "SL approaches compared" featured a contribution by Diana Carney et al.
(reviewing the SL approaches of CARE, DFID, Oxfam and UNDP); the theme
"Operationalizing SLAs" featured a contribution by Tim Frankenberger et al. (illustrating
CARE's experience in implementing SL approaches in the field); the theme "SLA at the
policy level" featured a contribution by Anne Thomson (raising some salient points
regarding rural development policies); and, finally, the theme "institutions and
sustainable livelihoods" featured a contribution by Jim Bingen (pointing out some of the
main institutional issues that arise when SL approaches are adapted).
General observations
In general, the electronic conference has encouraged a wide range of contributions, in
addition to the resource papers, ranging from more philosophical and political
observations on paradigm shifts and the political economy of international relations to the
sharing of policy papers and a number of concrete "operationalization" tools. These place
community-based development and natural resource management more in the foreground
as "the ruling economic and social organization", making communities the central actors
in development.
Some cross-cutting topics were picked up under the "basic questions" thread, and
elsewhere, especially the crucial question regarding sustainable livelihood approaches
(SLAs) monitoring and evaluation and the development of indicators suitable for
capturing livelihood outcomes and the differentiated impact of SLAs. At this stage, no
concrete examples exist of sets of SL indicators developed within a programmatic
framework, but this complex work is under way, being pursued by a number of
professionals. This aspect is closely related to the current practice regarding the agencies'
project and programming cycles, and there were renewed calls for a thorough review of
these processes to ensure that they responded to accommodating higher levels of
participation along the way, through greater flexibility and less-determined
specifications. It was generally agreed that SL might provide a better chance of extending
development to the poorest as an understanding of livelihoods issues may render more
visible several small-scale activities that are important to the poor.
Comparing the SL approaches
There was general agreement that there were no substantial differences among the SL
approaches as they were currently employed by the different agencies. There was some
debate as to the difference between SLA-type projects and "traditional" ones, traditional
projects being perhaps cheaper, and the more costly and time-consuming SLAs being
seen as primarily benefiting the analytical capacities of development personnel. Many
argued, however, that SL approaches also benefited the analytical capacities of their
"beneficiaries", especially the poorer stakeholders, equipping them with the means to
analyse, plan, act and evaluate for themselves. Nevertheless, empirical evidence has not
been supplied that would indicate how new SLAs' analytical skills have helped solve
certain concrete problems or improved standards of living.
The latter are opportunities facilitated by SLAs' providing a coherent, flexible framework
for programming, and attempting to establish micro-macro linkages. "SLAs provide a
road map into some pretty complex issues, adaptable for use in practical ways, providing
guidance on how to use PLA, or other approaches, and on what information is needed,
and why, and how to go about getting and analysing it". SLAs may thus be seen as
comprehensive tools that will allow all the necessary parts to be added in an appropriate
"natural" time sequence, or possibly simultaneously. Social, environmental, institutional
and political analysis, etc. will be taken care of as the SLA framework sheds light on the
relative importance of these factors, in a quest for "optimal ignorance": the minimum
amount of data collected (as it is not necessary to know everything). Given their
intersectoral nature and broad objectives, SLA-type projects may be more prone than
"traditional projects" to create expectations that are not easy to meet.
Related to this is the fact that the project formats used by many agencies require
predetermined and quantified project inputs, outputs and budgets. This conflicts with the
principle that, when using participatory SL approaches, "the role of the project needs to
be shifted to creating and supporting an enabling framework for an iterative process of
community-based appraisal, planning and action". The role of a project may need to
change if it is to remain truly demand driven, regardless of its original entry and leverage
points, which raises a number of issues pertaining to the mandate of the implementing
agencies.
It was found that at the community level, (sometimes "fanciful") log frames may become
less important, and that a "community has no problems understanding the [SLA]
concept". However, SLA's focus on community strengths (as opposed to previous
approaches' focus on basic needs) poses a different set of potential problems in the
operationalization of SLA-type programmes, namely that these "community strengths"
may not necessarily include the most marginalized segments of local society. Finally, the
jury is still out regarding SLAs' ability to include the poorest, aside from the fact that a
more holistic analysis is likely to shed more light on their coping mechanisms.
Operationalization
Most of the "operationalization" discussion has focused on dealing with the need for
multisectoral, decentralized planning, and how difficult this is to institute. There was also
a brief discussion on poverty, and it was generally agreed that the poorest in society are
the most difficult to reach. Therefore, the implementing agencies and partner
organizations should concentrate their efforts on assisting those communitites that
provide their own traditional, informal support for the poorest (after first assessing the
local power structure and conditions of participation and social exclusion, since these
traditional mechanisms can also be important determinants of marginalization).
Healthy scepticism was voiced about the success of SLAs in adequately addressing actual
field-level problems or issues, but also some theoretical arguments were put forward in
support of the "holistic" nature of the SL approach to development. Unfortunately, no
examples of a successful holistic SL project/programme were cited. Participatory
approaches may "awaken a sleeping giant of possibilities and opportunities" through
people's involvement in their own development, and the question was posed as to
whether the SL approach could effect such a profound transformation of existing
institutions, or if it could be successfully implemented only through externally supported
programmes that reached limited target areas. This has profound implications for the
local and supra-local power structure, and may well become a political threat to present
powerholders. SLA implementers must be aware of these dangers.
Policy issues
The need had been expressed to consider the SL debate within the context of the
international development targets (IDTs), with a deadline of 2015, and to draw linkages
with the comprehensive development framework (World Bank) and poverty reduction
strategy processes. At the same time, it was agreed that more tools were required to
improve sequencing and assessment of trade-offs. Such tools could include economic,
environmental and social appraisals to implement, for example, DFID's three-pronged
approach of enabling, inclusive and focused actions. The finding that " ... the best
possibility for achieving a sustainable improvement in livelihoods policy is to focus on
increasing civil society and stakeholder participation in the policy process", was warmly
welcomed, shifting the centre of the macro-micro linkages policy debate from the
"content" of policy to the "processes" by which policy was determined - an area,
however, "where change will take time and where sudden reversals are common".
"One of the main contributions which the SL approach can make in the area of policy
issues is to provide an analytical framework and common language for understanding
poverty, and thus [the approach is] a potentially effective means of focusing the policy
process on the poor". In sum, by "supporting and enhancing capabilities, rather than
simply meeting needs", policy implementation with an SLA perspective can "change the
effective content of policy". However, this will require the development of "effective
channels of communication between poor households, particularly in rural areas, and
central policy networks", for which appropriate institutions at the local, intermediate and
national levels are essential. One entry point could be to start with local-local horizontal
relationships, asking "not how the state can be supportive of local livelihoods, but how
the state can facilitate the development and multiplication of horizontal relationships
which are themselves supportive of the SLA".
Institutions
This led to claims that from the point of view of institutions, with SLAs' micro-macro
intersectoral focus, there is, at least in theory, comparatively more potential for the
creation of wealth at the local level. The key to long-term institutional sustainability may
well lie with making institutions and institutional interfaces more SLA friendly, and by
building on their local-level legitimacy where this exists. It will be necessary to level the
playing field further by building negotiating capacities among local institutions, leading
to more political and economic clout, and to tap social capital, something that other, less
people-centred approaches to development have largely failed to do. At the local level, a
great number of customary and other local institutions are intersectoral, legitimate, and,
given their informal nature, capable of responding to change in flexible and adaptive
ways. "Typically the `problem' is that local institutions are ignored and/or misunderstood
by external institutions/initiatives ... "
"Working through local institutions does not automatically lead to more equitable
livelihood outcomes ... " It is important to continue to refine helpful stylized
categorizations, such as the five-class taxonomy of institutions and the distinction
between institutions and organizations proposed in the contribution by Jim Bingen, to
make such analytical tools more tractable and useful for SL analysis, to identify which do
or do not favour access to assets by the poor. Suggestions for refinement have included to
"distinguish among them in terms of level, function, effect, and motivation". The
categorization also points to the "incentive systems that condition or encourage different
forms of SL behaviour, and to the fact that rural people don't necessarily follow just one
set of norms and values, but follow several and may hop or skip from one to another
depending on the particular problem at-hand". Perhaps missing in this context is the role
of social capital as linked to individual initiative, and the role of charismatic, articulated
and innovative leadership in negotiating a larger space for local constituencies in national
arenas.
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL





DFID "Introduction to SLA" and SL Guidance Sheets 1-5.
Carney, D., et al. 2000. "Livelihoods approaches compared". Rome, FAO.
Frankenberger, Tim R., Drinkwater, Michael & Maxwell, Daniel. 2000.
"Operationalizing household livelihood security". Rome, FAO.
Thomson, Anne M. 2000. "Sustainable livelihoods approaches at the policy
level". Rome, FAO.
Bingen, Jim. 2000. "Institutions and sustainable livelihoods". Rome, FAO.
Other documents contributed



Periperi/DFID a.o., training guides on livelihoods and vulnerability analysis
(LAVA).
Constantinos Berhe, "Paradigmatic limits and sustainable livelihoods policy
analysis, formulation and management".
Marcus Robbins, mind-mapping version of livelihood diagram.