2. MAIN FEATURES OF THE SLA RELATED TO CURRENT THINKING ABOUT ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES^[1]

Sustainable livelihoods approaches are based upon evolving thinking about poverty reduction and how to change the record of decades of limited success in poverty alleviation policies. The SLA is 'a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development, in order to enhance progress in poverty elimination' (Ashley and Carney, 1999:1). It is a development objective and an approach to poverty eradication based on core principles of people-centered, participatory, sustainable activities. SL is also an analytical framework that provides a way of understanding the factors that influence the ability of people to achieve SL in a particular circumstance. This section will consider how the current thinking about access to natural resources as outlined in section 1 relates to the SLA.

Figure 1: DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Adapted from: Carney et al 1999

2.1 The role of ANR in the development of the SLA

The SLA has been adopted by donors mainly out of a practical concern about the effectiveness of development activity. There is a concern that despite state commitments to poverty reduction, the immediate focus of much donor activity was either on resources and facilities (water, land, clinics etc), or on structures that provide services (ministries, NGOs etc) rather than the people themselves. SLA in this context provides an approach as well as a set of tools with which to navigate such sectoral and organizational divides and move towards an integrated development policy. The need for such a perspective has been especially keenly felt and expressed in relation to ANR, as section1 outlines. Decades of experience in natural resource policy and research have made evident the integral importance of the institutional environment at all levels for determining livelihood outcomes.

These issues have been widely acknowledged across disciplines in the development community; however much of the initiative to institutionalise this thinking has come from the natural resources sector. Within DfID, the initiative to develop the SLA was spearheaded by the Natural Resources Policy and Advisory Department; the Natural Resources Advisor Conference in 1998 played a key role in galvanising interest and momentum. In fact, part of the challenge has been to convince other departments that the SLA is not an approach specific to ANR issues or rural environments but one that can be applied to any development circumstance.

2.2 The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

The livelihoods framework is first and foremost an approach to development based on a set of principles. The Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets make clear that whilst the livelihoods framework comprises a development objective, as well as a set of tools for analysis, it is the approach to development that is its distinguishing hallmark. The SL principles embody a commitment to poverty eradication based on accumulated best practice policies in development. SL is a people-centred approach that aims to identify means to meet local needs and opportunities to support local capacity that are not dominated by individual sectors or disciplines. In pursuing this objective the framework adopts a responsive and participatory approach that links local perspectives into higher level processes of policy design; builds on partnerships between sectors; and builds local capacity to maintain sustainable livelihoods. The following are the principles underlying the SLA.

• People-centred: 'focusing on what matters to people'.

• Holistic: 'identify constraints and opportunities regardless of the sector, geographical space or level at which they occur.

• Responsive and participatory: 'poor people themselves must be key actors'.

• Multi-level: 'the micro-level informs the development of policy' and 'macro-level structures and processes support people'.

• Conducted in partnership: 'with both the public and the private sector'.

• Sustainable: 'economic, institutional, social and environmental sustainability'.

• Dynamic: 'recognise dynamic nature of livelihood strategies, respond flexibly, and develop long-term commitments'.

Discussion: The SL approach and ANR

There are many linkages between current thinking on access to natural resources and the SL framework in its approach to development issues; indeed the two are difficult to separate. The principles of the SLA outlined above both draw from and inform current thinking on access to natural resources. The SL framework draws heavily on the participatory paradigm developed over the last two decades that have taken a subjective and complex view of poverty and livelihoods. The people-centered approach is partly due to the fact that the new poverty reduction agendas have made it necessary to justify and demonstrate development interventions directly in terms of their impact on people. Another reason for the people-centred approach is that the growing complexity of local livelihoods jeopardizes the relevance of any top-down attempt to design development interventions.

This concern is especially true for development strategies and projects that target natural resource management. Current thinking on ANR has established that the natural resources themselves often have meanings that are locally embedded and socially constructed. These associations, which can have significant implications for management strategies, will only be revealed by an approach that starts with people's livelihood strategies and their perceptions of natural resource management. Similarly, it is increasingly accepted that local knowledge of the environment is a critical management resource. Knowledge of the environment is however plural, partial and contested; based on understandings negotiated through local power relations. Again, it can only be accessed through a people-centered approach that considers development opportunities and constraints from what has for long been termed a 'bottom-up' perspective.

The SL approach and its core principles is essentially a change in emphasis rather than a new paradigm. The importance of being holistic and of working in partnerships alone is nothing new, for instance, but the combined principles do provide a new perspective. Similarly with ANR; debates still focus around the same core issues: the resources themselves, property rights and regimes; the community and local institutions; the legal framework and governance systems; and power relations. However, the focus has changed with an appreciation that the nexus of interactions between issues of livelihoods, institutions and governance in a globalised world poses some major challenges for understanding in the field of natural resource management.

The community, once considered a relatively secure starting point for discussions on ANR, is increasingly seen as diffuse, heterogenous, having multiple locations and multiple identities. The property rights themselves are no longer interpreted as a set of rules based on collective action outcomes. Rather property regimes are considered to be essentially practice not rule determined, with overlapping rights, responsibilities and strategies contributing towards ambiguity, inconsistency and flexibility in resource use. Similarly, power relations are still central to ANR concerns, but the focus has shifted from the activities of the elites to an appreciation that power is exercised through differentiated actors and is continuously renegotiated. The holistic approach taken in the SL framework, building on people's own definition of constraints and opportunities, is also a central starting point in current thinking in ANR.

Another link and similarity between developments in SL and ANR is a move beyond the participatory paradigm. The SL approach draws heavily on lessons from participatory development, and natural resource management issues were for long approached through a participatory perspective. The approach taken now has however moved on from the simple optimism of the 1980/90s about the capacity of local people to manage resources and the likelihood that the information that they contribute through 'participating' has a direct use-value. Rather it is appreciated in both SL and ANR that local livelihood strategies are constrained by macro-structures over which they have little control. Further, the information with which they participate is likely to be strategic and partial and needs to be considered as situated in their particular institutional context. The approach in both SL and ANR is dynamic; addressing macro constraints but also responding flexibly to people's situations and supporting positive patterns of change where possible.

Finally, the approach in the SL framework and emerging views on ANR are influenced by the practical energy of the current poverty agenda. The focus is on finding 'win-win' solutions, as a browse through official target strategies and documents will reveal, and building on local capabilities. Whether this practical focus has had a significant impact or can actually be implemented is another issue that will be considered further in section 4. But certainly the emphasis on working across sectors and through partnerships, and on results based rewards and evaluations, finds resonance and is drawn from current thinking on ANR and the SL approach. The table below summarises some of the current thinking related to ANR.

Table 1: Emerging Views on ANR Themes

Source: Mehta et al., (2000)

2.3 The SLA as a framework for analysis and discussion of links to ANR

The key objective of SL as an analytical framework is to provide a means for coming to grips with the complexity of local livelihoods. The SL framework is not intended to be a sophisticated model for theoretical analysis; rather, it is oriented towards a comprehensive, but practically focused understanding of ground realities that could directly or indirectly inform development interventions. The effectiveness of the SL framework for an understanding of issues related to natural resource access should therefore be judged by these standards. The following sections will describe the different components of the framework and then discuss their relevance and linkages to ANR issues.

A The vulnerability context

The vulnerability context describes the trends, shocks and seasonality over which people have limited or no control, but which nevertheless affect people's livelihoods and the wider availability of assets. These factors are important because they have a direct impact on people's asset status and the options that are open to them. The following are the three aspects of the vulnerability context identified in the SL framework:

• Shocks; such as natural shocks, economic shocks, and conflict;

• Trends; such as population, resource, economic and technological trends;

• Seasonality; such as in prices, employment opportunities and food availability.

Discussion of links to ANR issues

The vulnerability context draws attention to the complex of influences that are out of local control yet directly or indirectly responsible for many of the hardships faced by the poor. These forces are often mutually reinforcing in that the vulnerability of livelihood strategies means people are unable to cope with stresses when they occur, unable to manipulate their environment to reduce stress in the future, and unable to benefit from positive trends even when these do occur. As reviewed in section 1, contemporary global trends do appear to have increased the level of insecurity and risk affecting local livelihoods; hence the focus on reducing insecurity as a cornerstone of recent poverty alleviation strategies.

The forces that come into play as a consequence of the vulnerability context are essentially those usually described as forming a 'vicious circle'; particularly in relation to natural resource management. Poverty and environmental degradation has for long been considered as linked in a downward and mutually reinforcing cycle. The starting point attributed to this circle has varied depending on political focus (state interference in traditional systems versus demographic pressure for example); but many observers accepted that poverty causes environmental degradation, which in turn causes poverty. The livelihood strategies adopted by people are so constrained by shocks, trends and stresses that they are forced to maximise short-term returns and risk further vulnerability.

The vulnerability context in the SL framework, whilst giving due importance to external forces, provides a means for deconstructing this vicious circle. The separation of factors in the vulnerability context first of all draws attention to the fact that whilst some issues are totally outside of local control (such as a hurricane), others are slightly more predictable (economic trends). The links to the PIPs box leads to a consideration of the policies, institutions and processes that contribute to vulnerability (reduction of agricultural subsidies) and also those that, at least in the long-term, can work to protect people from vulnerability (access to insurance and emergency financial services, for instance). The links between the vulnerability context and people's capital assets and livelihood strategies enables a consideration of which assets are most affected by the vulnerability context and how people can be supported to build up their livelihood assets and become more resilient to shocks, stresses and trends.

B. The capital asset pentagon

The livelihood framework identifies five core capital assets (sometimes called livelihood building blocks) upon which livelihoods are built. These are natural, social, human, physical and financial capital. Increasing capital assets is a primary strategy for improving people's livelihood outcomes as people require a range of capitals to pursue their strategies and access to any particular category is likely to be limited for the poor. Core concepts for an understanding of local decision-making are the notions of asset substitution and trade-offs; which enables the framing of strategic questions for development planning such as: to what extent can one type of asset be substituted for another in a particular context? Could increased human capital substitute for a lack of financial capital in particular circumstances? And do those who escape from poverty start with a particular combination of capital assets? The framework posits these capital assets in the 'vulnerability context', thus acknowledging that assets are both destroyed and created as a result of trends, shocks and seasonality. Capital assets are also influenced by, and in turn influence, policies, institutions and processes - represented in the PIPs box of the framework.

Discussion of links to natural resource analysis

Many themes embodied in the asset pentagon are present in recent debates on access to resources (Blaikie, 1989; Bryant 1992), entitlements and capabilities (Sen, 1981; Leach et al.1998). One of these themes is the recognition that natural capital is just one asset amongst many and has to be seen in conjunction with other assets in order to understand its importance in an overall livelihood strategy. Related to this is an increasing realization of the rapid diversification of livelihood strategies, as discussed in section 1, and the value of using capital asset trade-off and combination as a means with which to come to grips with this complexity. The focus on how assets are combined under particular vulnerability contexts and in relation to specific policies is well suited for the analysis of diversification. For instance, at times a household may choose to forgo migration (financial capital) in order to protect long-term natural capital prospects (forest management). Most livelihood decisions involve over-consuming a particular capital asset at some point, for example social capital (by drawing on but not reciprocating social relationships based on kinship and trust) and natural capital (intensive agriculture leading to soil degradation). Livelihood strategies are continuous attempts to modify and adjust these asset combinations in the pursuit of better outcomes.

Another link between the capital asset framework and recent thinking in ANR is the appreciation that capitals are not only the resource that people use in building livelihoods; they are assets that give them the capability to engage with the world and the capability to change the world - this part being implied in the 'influence and access' arrows linking local livelihoods to wider policies, institutions and processes. The framework enables an understanding of issues surrounding access to natural resources in terms of the relationships of power that frame constraints and opportunities. It does so in a way that appreciates that these relationships are subject to re-negotiation depending on the capitals and capabilities that people have at their disposal. The emphasis is therefore on building on local choices and enabling and empowering people to make livelihood decisions. This emphasis is linked to the appreciation that, notwithstanding the primary importance of the material, poverty is also a state of ill-being and livelihood decisions often based on subjective experiences of poverty.

The asset pentagon also offers a practical way forward for a question that has for long been at the centre of the debate around access to natural resources: that of community based natural resource management. Research on this subject has been dominated by New Institutional Economics (NIE) and Common Property Resources (CPR) theories; both have had a strong influence on natural resource management policy. Both approaches have helped to advocate the importance of access to natural resources for the rural poor and lent support to the notion of local natural resource management. They have also made significant contributions in focusing attention on the importance of local institutions in natural resource management. However both have been critiqued for providing an inadequate analysis of how local institutions and communities operate. CPR theories take collection action as endogenous to, even inhering in, the community (Kothari et al, eds). CPR approaches have been largely negligent in explaining the factors, such as social power, that constitute and reproduce 'community' (Sinha et al 1997). NIE understands collective action as a series of self-interested trade-offs within given institutional settings (Ostrom 1990; Ostrom et al 1994). NIE has also not been able to account for the way in which external factors constitute, reproduce or change relations between resource users (Mosse, 1997). There is little analysis of the relations of power that constitute collective action and conflict and how these relate in different resource use systems (Mehta et al, 2000).

The SL framework marks an advance from those positions in that it views the 'community' as constituted as an outcome of relations based on capital assets which operate in dynamic relation to wider structures and processes. The framework is able to conceptually isolate one variable, such as social capital, and examine what influence the other capital assets (financial, physical, natural, human) have in constituting this, providing a dynamic and diverse view of causality. The SL framework allows for an analysis of the factors that contribute towards the development of natural capital through the same cross-examination of variables. This local interaction is considered in dynamic interrelation to wider structures and processes, enabling an analysis of how external pressures reproduce and constitute the community in their relation to natural resources. The SLA is therefore in line with much recent thinking in ANR debates that follow a more sociological and anthropological approach to the analysis of local institutions.

C. Policies, institutions and processes

One of the key objectives of the SL approach is to bridge the gap between the micro and the macro and to ensure that higher-level policy is informed by insights from the lower level and by the priorities of the poor. As an analytical framework SL appreciates that policies, institutions and processes operate at all levels - from the household to the international arena - and shape the available livelihood options. To illustrate how these operate in the natural resource management context, here is an example of how policies, institutions and processes may influence access to forests.

Discussion of policies, institutions and processes and how they relate to ANR

In the literature on ANR, as in SLA, institutions, processes and policies are considered to be key in determining sustainable livelihood outcomes. The definition of institutions used in recent thinking on natural resource management has moved progressively away from mainstream institutional theory that tends to view institutions as rules, regulations and conventions imposing constraints on human behaviour (North, 1990; Ostrom). Mehta et al., (2000) summarise much of the new thinking on institutions as follows 'rather than mere rules or regulations, institutions are seen to be what people "do" or how people "behave"; such approaches thus endow actors with a greater agentive role. And, at least in some perspectives, institutions are seen as inseparable from what people know or believe' (2000:13). With regard to ANR; the importance of norms, routines, conventions, beliefs, age, gender etc in determining livelihood outcomes has become evident after years of policy and research concentration in environmental management.

D. Livelihood strategies and outcomes

Livelihood strategies is the overarching term used to denote the range and combination of activities and choices that people make and undertake in order to achieve their livelihood outcomes. The single most important factor in determining the success of livelihood strategies is probably access to sufficient capital assets, although the vulnerability context and the constraints and opportunities posed by wider institutional processes also play a critical role.

Discussion of livelihood strategies and outcomes in relation to natural resource access

The focus on livelihood strategies and outcomes rather than objectives reflects the SLA perspective that livelihood strategies are complex, subjective and not necessarily related to short-term material gains. It is further recognised in both SLA and ANR that absolute sustainability is not a useful objective and further not necessarily relevant at individual or household levels. Serageldin and Steer (1994) for instance suggest that sustainable development can be thought of as accumulation and substitution of different types of capital. Whilst this type of macro-level capital asset accounting draws heavily on experiences in environmental accounting (Barbier 1994); the implications are also relevant to the more practical and subjective bend in the new poverty agenda as outlined in section 1. That is, an appreciation that development is about trade-offs and choices at all levels and that much of the debate around development is actually related to types of development strategies and the level of sustainability that should be the objective.

2.4 Summary and significance

The SLA has a close link to current thinking on ANR; a focus on people-centered policies and issues but a move beyond simple participatory paradigms. Support for the empowerment of the poor yet recognition that macro-structures in society, economy and polity constrain the livelihood strategies that can be locally developed. Central importance is given in ANR and SLA to assets and entitlements yet in both it is recognized that the ways in which these can be employed have to be seen in a wider context. In essence, both SLA and current thinking on ANR reveal a change in perspective rather than a new focus on issues. For this reason SLA is very well suited to the analysis of ANR issues; especially in providing a means by which to overcome the sectoral divides that inevitably shape both analysis and strategy. As Farrington points out 'part of the value of the SL approach therefore lies in providing an inclusive and non-threatening process by which the capacity of development specialists to think beyond conventional sectoral or disciplinary boundaries can be enhanced' (Farrington 2001:1).

The SLA is not a new paradigm but a collection of best practice principles. This point is worth repeating for two reasons. First it is important to give due recognition to other development approaches that have contributed to the development of these best practice principles. As Conway et al (2002:1) identify, the entitlements approach, the urban asset vulnerability framework and survival strategy frameworks can all be said to fall within the 'livelihoods' approach in that they share the same broad features. It is important therefore to bear these other approaches in mind and to consider that the SLA may need to further draw on these approaches in order to achieve both its analytical and practical objectives.

Secondly, the value of the SLA is precisely that it incorporates lessons from other approaches in a framework that combines analysis and practice. Although the ideas are not necessarily new the approach has 'come of age' in a receptive policy environment and has been championed through development organizations. The framework is more practically focused than previous livelihoods approaches and more cross-sectoral than approaches such as farming systems. There is therefore arguably more of a shared starting point and conceptual framework than there has ever been before for development planning. The relevance of the SLA will lie ultimately in how well it manages to achieve its objectives of understanding and then assisting to transform the livelihoods of the rural poor.