Section 2. What Social And Environmental
Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And
Implementation of REDD+
2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction
USAID LEAF
Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development
Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Name
Affiliation
Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Surin Onprom; Co-Lead
Name
Affiliation
Tran Thi Thu Ha
Vietnam Forestry University
Nguyen Dinh Hai
Vietnam Forestry University
Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead
RECOFTC
Thailand
Vo Mai Anh
Vietnam Forestry University
Claudia Radel; Co-Lead
Utah State University
Tran Tuan Viet
Vietnam Forestry University
Sarah Hines; Co-Lead
US Forest Service
Cao Tien Trung
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn
Chiang Mai University,
Thailand
Nguyen T. Trang Thanh
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
Nguyen Thu Ha
USAID Vietnam Forests &
Deltas
Mohd Rusli Yacob
University Putra Malaysia
Maeve Nightingale
IUCN MFF
Kaisone Phengspha
National University of Laos
Guada Lagrada
PACT MPE
Phansamai Phengspha
National University of Laos
Le Van Trung
DARD Lam Dong
Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy
National University of Laos
Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh
AIT Thailand
Freddie Alei
University of Papua New Guinea
David Ganz
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Chay Kongkruy
Royal University of Agriculture,
Cambodia
Kalpana Giri
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy
Royal University of Phnom Penh,
Cambodia
Chi Pham
Project Coordinator
USAID LEAF Bangkok
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Introduction to Climate Change
The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context
Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics
II. WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD
2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
2.1.1. Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV
2.2. Governance
2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights
2.3. Stakeholder Participation
2.3.1. FPIC
2.4. Social Co-benefits
2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment
2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools
2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment
2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction
2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG
2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing
2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability
III. STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER
3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs
3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards
3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards
At the end of this section, learners will be able to:

Explain the livelihood concept and the sustainable livelihoods
framework

Assess and apply the asset pentagon approach

Distinguish forest-dependent livelihoods from other types of
livelihoods

Consider how gender might be incorporated into the
sustainable livelihoods framework

Assess the link between REDD+, forest governance, and
forest-dependent livelihoods






What is a livelihood?
Asset pentagons
Forest - dependent livelihoods
The sustainable livelihoods
framework
Gender incorporated in
sustainable livelihood
framework
REDD+, forest governance and
forest dependent livelihoods

In-class presentation of conceptual material

Plenary discussion

Small group activity

To be followed by PNG April Salumei Case Study (see 2.7.1)
for further application
Students can be asked to read the following prior to attending
this session:
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for
analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies,
Brighton, UK.
“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including
both material and social resources) and activities required
for a means of living”
(Chambers & Conway, 1992)
1.
Social capital - The social resources (networks, membership,
relationships of trust, access to wider institutions of society)
upon which people draw in pursuit of livelihoods
Other related categories of capital that some scholars also use:

Cultural capital - The practices, traditions, and resources that
are central to a people's identity and the means and processes
to maintain these.

Political capital - The policies and legislations, political supports,
governance processes, and formalized institutions that facilitate
or hinder the transformation of the other capital assets
2.
Natural capital – The natural resource stocks from which
resource flows useful for livelihoods are derived (e.g. land,
water, wildlife, biodiversity, environmental resources)
3.
Physical capital - The basic infrastructure (transport,
shelter, water, energy, and communications) and the
production equipment and means that enable people to
pursue their livelihoods.
4.
Human capital - The skills, knowledge, ability to labor and
good health important to the ability to pursue different
livelihood strategies
Other related categories of capital that some scholars also use:

5.
Personal capital - The intangible inner resources of an
individual, such as self-perception, self-confidence, self-esteem,
commitment, motivation, hope, and emotional wellbeing
Financial capital - The financial resources which are
available to people (whether savings, supplies of credit or
regular remittances or pensions) and which provide them
with different livelihood options.
Asset status differences, based on poverty levels, from an FAO case
study in Mali:
Questions for Discussion:
What is a forest-dependent, or NR-dependent livelihood?
How might such a livelihood translate onto an asset pentagon?
Purpose: To apply the Livelihoods Capital/Assets Pentagon to a fictional (but realistic)
family and to apply the Pentagon to the student’s own family or individual context; to
consider the role of natural capital in natural-resource-dependent rural livelihoods.
Tasks:
1. Individually, each student should read through the provided scenario family profile.
2. In small groups (3-4 students per group suggested), draw an asset pentagon with
the radiating arm lengths proportional to the asset pools described in the scenario
family profile.
3. Convene as a full class to present and discuss each group’s drawn asset pentagon.
4. As individual students, now draw personal family (or individual) asset pentagons
based on students’ own situations.
5. Convene as a full class and ask for volunteers to share the personal pentagons. Ask
students to compare and contrast the different personal pentagons with each other
and with the natural-resource-dependent scenario family.
Capabilities
A
Living
Stores and
Resources
Claims and
Access
Social Context: e.g. Culture,
Political Economy, Gender

The term ‘sustainable livelihoods’ relates to a wide set of
issues which encompass much of the broader debate about
the relationships between poverty and environment.
(Scoones, 1998)

“A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover
from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural
resource base”
(Chambers and Conway, 1992)
Working days/employment increased
Livelihood
Poverty reduced/income generation
Wellbeing and capability improved
Adaptation, vulnerability reduced
Sustainability
Sustainable NR management
“A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover
from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base”
(Chambers & Conway, 1992)
Questions (referring to Scoones’ 1998 framework):
1. What could be other livelihood outcomes?
2. Are there any livelihood outcome groups other than
“Livelihood” and “Sustainability”?
3. Are any of these outcomes in conflict with each other?
The ability to pursue different livelihood strategies is
dependent on the basic material and social, tangible
and intangible assets that people have in their
possession.
For Discussion:

Sequencing – What is the starting point for successfully establishing a
particular livelihood strategy?

Substitution – Can one type of capital be substituted for others?

Clustering – If you have access to one type of capital, do you usually
have access to others?

Access – Are different people clearly having different access to
different livelihood resources?

Trade-offs – What are the trade-offs faced by different people with
different access to different types of livelihood resource?

Trends – What are the trends in terms of availability of different types
of livelihood resource?
Three clusters of livelihood strategies are identified:

Agricultural intensification/ extensification – capital-led
and/or labor-led intensification; or using more land/resources.

Livelihood diversification – choices to invest for accumulation
and reinvestment, and coping with temporary adversity;

Migration – different migration causes, effects and movement
patterns.
For Discussion:
Are there any other livelihood strategies?

So far we have been looking at selected elements of the
framework – the livelihood resources which combine to
allow various strategies to pursued and different outcomes
to be realized.

But the questions are:

How is this process bound together?

What structures and processes mediate the complex and highly
differentiated process of achieving a sustainable livelihood?

We must understand the social structures and processes
through which sustainable livelihoods are achieved, a
description of the relationships between variables and
outcomes.

“Institutions are the social cement which link stakeholders to
access to capital of different kinds to the means of exercising
power and so define the gateways through which they pass
on the route to positive or negative [livelihood] adaptation”
(Davies, 1997; in Scoones, 1998)
How gender can be integrated in the framework? One way is that we can
think of gender as a cultural institution:

A particular context of policy setting, politics, history, agroecology and socio-economic conditions…

Contextual analysis of conditions, trends and policy setting.
For Discussion:
Should REDD+ be assessed as a context or as an institution
within the sustainable livelihood framework?
Identify how a gender approach could be integrated into a
sustainable livelihoods framework, using the diagram below.
How does gender play a role in livelihoods?
Using a local case study example, discuss the following
question: How might livelihoods in the case study be reflected
in the sustainable livelihoods framework?
A cinnamon farmer, Hadari,
harvesting cinnamon in the forest
near Lubuk Beringin village, Bungo
district, Jambi province, Indonesia.
Tri Saputro/CIFOR photo

REDD+’s impacts on forest communities depend on two
factors:

the incentives offered to the different entities affecting
deforestation and forest communities’ livelihoods; and

the mix of benefits, rights and participation for forest
communities associated with different incentives and the
entities using them.
1.
Read: Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E., (eds.) 2010.
Chapter 3. Learning from experience: Forest community
approaches to improving livelihoods and reducing
deforestation. In REDD, forest governance and rural
livelihoods: The emerging agenda, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
2.
Write a 2-3 page essay in which you address the following
question:
How do REDD+ and forest governance affect forest-dependent
livelihoods?
Fill in the sustainable livelihood framework for each element in
case of REDD+ project implementation, to turn in.

Livelihoods include both what people have (their assets and their
capabilities) and what they do to make a living—both of which occur
within a larger social context.

The asset pentagon can facilitate assessment of what people have and
can facilitate comparisons.

The sustainable livelihoods framework places these assets, or capitals,
into a larger conceptual framework in order to understand the
livelihood outcomes.

A gender analysis can be incorporated into this understanding.

REDD’s impacts on forest communities depend on two factors: the
incentives offered to the different entities; and the mix of benefits,
rights and participation for forest communities.
1.
Bennetta, Nathan J. and P. Dearden. 2014. Why local people do not support
conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood
impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107–116.
2.
Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable Livelihoods. In Sustainable Livelihoods: What
contribution can we make? Edited by D. Carney, London, DFID.
3.
Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical
concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296.
4.
Ellis, Frank. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford
University Press.
5.
Harvey, D. “Introduction to Sustainable Livelihoods”, online resource.
(http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF806/Intro.html#Framework)
6.
Jagger, P., E. Sills, K. Lawlor, and W. Sunderlin. 2010. A Guide to Learning about
Livelihood Impacts of REDD+ Projects. CIFOR Occasional Paper 56.
7.
Radel, C. 2012. Gendered livelihoods and the politics of socio-environmental
identity: Women’s participation in conservation projects in Calakmul, Mexico.
Gender, Place, and Culture 19(1): 61–82.
8.
Radel, C. and L Coppock. 2013. The world’s gender gap in agriculture and natural
resources: Evidence and explanations. Rangelands. 35(6): 7-14.
9.
Rakodi, C. 1999. A capital assets framework for analyzing household livelihood
strategies: Implications for policy. Development Policy Review 17: 315–42.
10.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working
Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK
11.
Scoones, I. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of
Peasant Studies 36(1):171-196.
12.
Solebury, W. 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID
Policy. Working paper 217, Overseas Development Institutute, London, UK
13.
Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E., (eds.) 2010. REDD, forest governance and
rural livelihoods: The emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.