6 - Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

The framework exists in order to aid analysis and understand the processes that create sustainable livelihoods. It exists as a tool that should be altered and shaped so that it can be effectively utilized for a purpose. However it is essential that the core principles are adhered to if it will work.

Things that effect peoples livelihoods and resource availability: Trends, E.G. Population, resource, national/international, governance (politics) and Technology. Particularly influences rate of return. Shocks, E.G. Human health (epidemics), Natural (hazards), Economic (2008), Conflict and crop shocks. Can force home abandonment and asset disposal. Seasonality, E.G. of prices, production, health and employment. Seasonal shifts can be catastrophic.

The framework uses a pentagon shape in order to illustrate the relationship between the assets contributing to livelihoods: Human Capital - skills, knowledge, ability to labour. Natural Capital- Land, Marine, water, air quality. Social Capital -  Networks & Connectedness, membership of groups (unions), relationships of trust. Physical capital -  Transport, water supply, affordable energy Financial capital - Regular stock, Inflow of money.

Transformative mechanisms include legislation, policy, institutions etc. they effect: access, terms of exchange and returns.Structures: public sector, private commercial and civil societyProcesses: policy, legislation, institutions and culture.

Helping people with their livelihoods: Access to assets: improving access to labour, ability to labour. Providing affordable loans, Protecting the natural assets (water safety etc). Processes and structures can help mobility within the system and efficiency of processes.

Information that helps assess livelihoods: Awareness of rights. Access too means of ensuring rights are met. How secure are people and their assets. What and how good is the information available to people. representation in the political/legal system. Access to core services: education, sanitation, health.

Synergy for local rulemaking, forest livelihoods and biodiversity conservation:Persha et al look at South Asian and East African and the relationship between creating sustainable livelihoods and forest decentralization. decentralization provides incentives to local communities through enhanced local knowledge, accountability and legitimacy of forest rules. Analysis of data has proved that sustaniability (tree species richness and subsistence livelihoods) is more likely when there is local participation. However it is worth noting that this study only examines South Asia and East Africa, and openly admit's that there is no universal set of rules.

Sustainability of socio-ecological systems Framework:Key components: Resource systems: Forests, parks, water sources etc. Resource units: Trees/shrubs planted inn the park, amount and flow of water. Governance systems: Government, whoever manages the system. Users: People who use the park or environment for leisure, research, work etc.

There are also links between the components such as the interactions between all the variable and the outcomes of those interactions. External interactions include the social/political/economic setting and any related ecosystems.

The framework exists to provide a basis for designing data collecting, analyzing and conducting fieldwork in a strategic way.

When will self organisation occur? Size of resource system - moderate sized system are most likely to self organise, due to large systems being difficult to define boundaries in and small systems not producing enough capital. Productivity of system: Only when a systems resources is scarce will users invest in self organization, as an oppose to an already exhausted or abundant system when SO is perceived to be unimportant. Predictability of system dynamics: The system needs to be predictable in order for self organisation to be possible. Resource unit mobility: Self organisation is easier with stationary systems, it is much harder with mobile systems such as migratory wildlife. Number of users: High amounts of users usually leads to higher strain on the system and higher costs in terms of facilitating user forums. Leadership: local entrepreneurs and people with prior leadership experience improves the chances of self organisation. Norms/social capital: Shared moral/ethical standards facilitates communication and trust between users. Knowledge of SES: perceived lower cost of organization. Importance of resource to users: High dependence tends to lend itself to effective self organisation. Collective-Choice rules: The ability for low level users to design their own rules/policies there are lower transaction costs.

Collaborative Forest Management: working partnership between key stakeholders in the management of a given forest. Three Elements: Recognition of the legitimacy of development and conservation. development and conservation aren't necessarily opposites. engaging locals in forest management. Usually the governing body of the forest and local users are collaborating.Stakeholders have claims of different integrity, for example: forestry commissions have obvious stakeholder rights, however contractors perhaps not.Examples of stakeholders: Users, Governments, Development agencies and Other private interests (people who depend on forest produce).

Why collaborate? Governments hope to gain from the policing ability and indigenous knowledge from users. As well as this some stakeholders have particular strengths (NGO'S often have prior experience, Private sector can provide investment etc.

Forms of collaboration: State owned land: Transfer of control from state to communities. Seen in the hill communities in Nepal, The system works by local communities forming management committees, the state still owns the land however ownership of the trees is with the local community. Furthermore all management responsibility lies with the user group. It is seen as a way of combating degradation of land and forests. Sharing forest management amongst multiple stakeholders:

DFID

Persha et al. 2011

Ostrom 2009

Carter & Gronow 2005