Our Last News. COP more than ever, the priority is action Read More ». It is time to move up a gear! Read More ». Our Current investors. Sign up to receive our newsletter to stay up to date on Livelihoods! Accepter En savoir plus. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website.
Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary Necessary. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. In many internal conflicts, the conflict itself provides economic benefits for some groups or individuals. This has led to the most extreme forms of abuse and exploitation of historically marginalised groups Keen, The longer a conflict continues, the more likely it is that people will find a way to profit from it which in turn perpetuates the conflict.
Livelihood outcomes go beyond food and income security, to also include quality of life. The right to life with dignity is one of the fundamental principles in the Humanitarian Charter Sphere, , but in the rush to respond to emergencies, people's dignity is often forgotten.
In fact, there is no commonly held definition of dignity, and as such it remains unidentifiable and unregulated in humanitarian response Martone, forthcoming. Whilst there is no standard definition of dignity in most societies, it will include an element of choice, a sense of self-worth and control over one's future. A blacksmith in Sudan above and a potter in India below , both examples of livelihood strategies. The focus on livelihoods in emergency programming originates from the late 's, following the African famines in the middle of that decade.
At that time, emergency response started when people were destitute, malnourished and had migrated to famine camps. The actors involved in the emergency response realised that if the response had started earlier, it would have been possible to prevent large-scale loss of livelihood assets and migration to camps.
In other words, that lives could be saved in the longer term by saving livelihoods. The late 80's and early 90's was also associated with the development of famine early warning systems FEWS , whose primary objective was to detect deterioration in food security early on and to trigger responses that would prevent destitution and famine associated with large scale loss of life.
Studies on people's responses to food insecurity and famine, also contributed to a focus on livelihoods in emergency response e. Corbett, and de Waal, These studies showed that a key priority for people threatened by famine was to preserve essential livelihood assets and to prevent destitution, rather than maintaining levels of food intake. One of the main objectives of livelihood support in emergencies is, therefore, to protect the assets that are essential to people's livelihoods, and to support people's own priorities and strategies.
The core principle of humanitarian action, that of humanity, implies the need to protect livelihood. Humanity is generally defined as: "to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it might be found. To protect life and health and ensure respect for the human being".
Livelihood 'protection' can also be taken to have a broader meaning relating to upholding people's rights. The objectives of livelihood support may vary according to the stage and severity of an emergency.
This is illustrated in table 1 which demonstrates that different types of livelihood support can be implemented at different stages of an emergency, and can be carried out at the same time as life saving interventions.
In development contexts, capacity building and working in partnership are also key objectives of livelihood support, which can include building the capacity of local institutions such as local NGOs, other forms of civil society, or government institutions.
The appropriateness of this in emergency contexts depends on the nature of the emergency, as such objectives may compromise humanitarian principles in situations of internal conflict. Livelihood support may also include interventions to address the policies, institutions and processes that are part of the livelihoods framework.
For example, advocacy to change national and international policies of states, donors and UN organisations. A bike repair shop in Trinco above and a laundry shop in Kilnochchi below , Sri Lanka, both supported by cash grants as part of an Oxfam livelihood activity rehabilitation project.
Figure 3 illustrates how programme objectives and the sustainability of livelihoods are linked to stability of the context. Stability essentially means situations in which there is peace, basic respect for human rights, and that food security, malnutrition and mortality are at acceptable levels. In the most unstable situations, the main aim of emergency interventions is to save lives and if possible, livelihood protection.
As stability increases, programmes may be able to build or recover assets as well as protect existing ones. Livelihoods will only become truly sustainable, however, if people have power in local, national and in international markets. An example where all objectives were combined simultaneously is Aceh see Box 1.
Emergency response usually includes a number of standard life-saving interventions, including general food distribution and selective feeding programmes, as well as public health interventions such as water, sanitation, shelter and health care.
The most common intervention to support livelihoods has been the distribution of seeds and tools, which has almost become a routine recovery intervention. However, using the livelihoods framework as the basis for interventions, and given the variety of livelihood systems that can be found in any context, there should be a far wider range of livelihood support interventions.
Table 2 provides a description and objectives that have been used in the past for different types of livelihood interventions.
The interventions are grouped according to the Sphere minimum standards for food security: income and employment support, market support and production support. In reality, the grouping is not as clear cut as represented here and so multiple Sphere standards will apply to the same intervention box 2.
For example, the standard on access to markets will apply to most food security or livelihoods interventions. The range of potential interventions in any particular emergency context is much wider than table 2 indicates, as each intervention must be designed to suit the local context, both in terms of the nature and severity of the emergency and the types of livelihoods affected.
Arange of programming options should be considered based on an analysis of expressed needs by the affected population. Interventions that do not take account of local priorities rarely work Sphere, Livelihood interventions to address the failings of policies, institutions and processes are not included in the table, as these will be particular to the emergency context.
Support for assets and strategies is often more effective if combined with policy and advocacy work to address the policies, institutions and processes that limit people's livelihood options. For example, agricultural support will often need to be accompanied by policy work on increasing access to land and land rights issues.
Working in conflict may require advocacy on respect for International Humanitarian Law to stop warring parties destroying or undermining livelihood strategies and assets.
In the first two weeks following the tsunami, many displaced families in Aceh wanted to return home. The proportion of internally displaced people IDPs who wanted to go home varied by location.
Assistance was requested first for burying bodies, then for water and food. People then wanted to be able to rebuild houses and recover farmland, followed by livelihood recovery. At the same time, the vast majority of IDPs had lost everything and were depending on emergency relief to meet their immediate food and non-food needs.
While implementing emergency water, sanitation, health and food distribution programmes, international agencies started CFW programmes almost immediately.
The CFW programmes aimed to provide cash to meet immediate needs such as food and kitchen utensils , stimulate markets, and ensure essential work activities. Work started with clearing roads and solid waste disposal. This allowed some people to return home immediately as they had road access. Once back in their home areas, further work was carried out on clearing waste, burying bodies, and later on, building houses.
Subsequently, CFW was used to rehabilitate farms and rebuild fishing boats. Cash grants were provided to people who wanted to re-establish businesses and to purchase assets essential to their livelihoods.
As well as emergency livelihoods programmes, work was initiated in the first month on land rights issues, and promoting sustainable access to markets for small scale timber producers. Standard 1 - General food security People have access to adequate and appropriate food and nonfood items in a manner that ensures their survival, prevents erosion of assets, and upholds their dignity.
Standard 2 - Primary production Primary production mechanisms are protected and supported. Standard 3 - Income and employment Where income generation and employment are feasible livelihood strategies, people have access to appropriate income earning opportunities, which generate fair remuneration and contribute towards food security without jeopardizing the resources upon which livelihoods are based.
Standard 4 - Access to markets People's safe access to market goods and services as producers, consumers and traders is protected and promoted. Collinson , February. Power, livelihoods and conflict: case studies in political economy analysis for humanitarian action.
HPG report DfID Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Lautze and Raven-Roberts , September. The vulnerability context; is there something wrong with this picture? Embedding vulnerability in livelihoods models; a work in progress. Section 2. Most of these are within the Heloise Troc is a food security officer, working for ACF for over 3 years. Humana People to People Federation. Teacher Training.
Out of School Children. Girls Bridge Education. Adult Literacy. Action Against Child Labour. Homeless Resource and Service Centre. Skill Development. Community Health. Environmental Sustainability.
Water Recharge and Water Initiatives. Tree Plantation. Clean and Renewable energy. Our Results and Impact. Annual Reports. Stories from the field.
0コメント