Sustainable livelihoods approach

A livelihood as a concept is widely used in the recent literature linked to vulnerability, poverty and rural development. According to one of the earliest definitions of livelihood by Chambers and Conway (1992), “a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims

17

and access) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable which 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; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term”.

In this definition, capabilities are the options one possesses to pursue different activities to generate income required for survival and to realise its potential as a human being. Capabilities are determined based on the portfolio of assets one possesses, based upon which one makes decisions and construct the living. Five main categories of capital contribute to livelihood assets: natural, physical, human, financial and social capital (Scoones 1998).

While this economic asset-centred approach captures the essentials of what constitutes livelihoods, it has been criticised for the use of limited set of indicators (such as income and productivity) to define poverty. This led to development of more integrated approaches to assess livelihoods, with the focus on various factors and processes which either constrain or enhance poor people’s ability to make a living in an economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable manner (Krantz 2001). Based on the proposed sustainable livelihoods framework by Scoones (1998), which views a livelihood as not just a question of assets and activities, but also composed and accessed within the certain institutional processes and social structures, Ellis (2000) proposed the following definition of livelihood: “A livelihood comprises the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutions and social relations that together determine the living gained by the individual or household.”

The schematic representation of sustainable livelihoods framework developed by DFID (1999) (Figure 3) acknowledges the importance of assets and the activities engaged by individuals and households using the assets available for them, as it is defined in the original definition of livelihoods. The difference is that how the livelihoods are accessed and mediated by the ongoing institutional and social processes has the same importance and is viewed as a separate component. Such framework for livelihood analysis also has a vulnerability context, viewed in terms of shocks, seasonality and trends, which have a direct impact upon people’s assets and over which they have limited or no control (DFID 1999). Therefore, the ability of a livelihood to be able to cope with and recover from stresses and shocks is central to the definition of sustainable livelihoods (Scoones 1998). Furthermore, the range and combination of activities and choices that individuals and households undertake, depending on the range and the degree

18

of utilisation and diversification their available asset base in order to achieve their livelihood goals, results in different livelihood strategies. Livelihood strategies are composed of activities that generate the means of household survival (Ellis 2000). They are dynamic and respond to changing pressures and opportunities, resulting in adoption and adaptation over time.

Figure 3. Sustainable livelihoods framework. Source: DFID (1999)

In the context of rural livelihoods, households with access to agricultural means of production have the choice between both agriculture and non-agricultural economic activities. Different adaptation strategies within agriculture can be also considered, such as extensification versus intensification, as well as “exit options” such as off- and non-farm activities, migration and remittance strategies. Many households allocate their assets differently, invest less time, labour and funds in agriculture and focus on diversification of their non-agricultural incomes (Weltin et al. 2017). People are also more aware of the opportunities outside their location and abroad.

Information technologies, such as mobile phones, radio, television and internet, promise income opportunities and a different future, and reduced transport costs enable people to travel.

As a result, many people decide to migrate to urban areas or abroad. Therefore, most rural households depend on a diverse portfolio of activities and income sources, where agricultural production is featured alongside a range of different activities, which contribute together on survival and increased wellbeing (Ellis 2000). Livelihood diversification is pursued for a mixture of motivations, and these vary according to context: from a desire to accumulate or to invest, a need to spread risk or maintain incomes, to a requirement to adapt to survive in eroding circumstances, or some combination of these (Hussein & Nelson 1998).

19

The sustainable livelihoods approach was used in the thesis to better understand the dynamic nature of livelihoods and what influences different livelihood strategies carried out by rural households in BH. Poverty in BH is mostly a rural phenomenon, as close to 80 % of the total poor live in rural areas. By understanding the livelihoods of rural households in terms of assets, activities and outcomes, as well as the main factors and processes influencing rural livelihoods and household decision-making, we can gain a better insight on the underlying causes of poverty. Furthermore, we can assess the impacts of climate change on rural households and how they response to experienced climate shocks with the available assets and how these conditions can be reflected and built upon for successful adaptation strategies and reduction of vulnerability.

3.3Conservation tillage as an adaptation option for sustainable agriculture