lecture 26 reading---Carney,1999

lecture 26 reading---Carney,1999 - Livelihoods approaches...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Livelihoods approaches compared A brief comparison of the livelihoods approaches of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), CARE, Oxfam and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP ) November 1999 Diana Carney with Koos Neefjes (Oxfam) Samir Wanmali & Naresh Singh (UNDP)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
1. Introduction and purpose The UK Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) 1999 Natural Resources Advisers’ Conference discussed early experience with implementing sustainable livelihoods approaches to poverty elimination. Various agencies (CARE, Oxfam, UNDP) presented highlights of their own livelihoods work and drew out preliminary lessons about applying livelihoods approaches in practice. It was clear that the approaches of the different agencies have much in common, but that there is also some variation and difference in emphasis. The aim of this brief review is to clarify understanding of the fundamental principles behind the livelihoods approaches of the different agencies. It is hoped that this will facilitate discussion and learning, as well as promoting in-country partnerships on livelihoods work. The fact that there is some variation in emphasis does not mean that different agencies cannot work together; similarities far outweigh differences overall. Nevertheless, it is useful to be aware of where differences occur so they can be accommodated. This should also help us learn about application of livelihoods approaches and the directions in which these might move in the future. This is important since livelihoods approaches are evolving in all the agencies that currently employ them. The review covers the approaches of DFID, Oxfam, CARE and UNDP. It is hoped that this list of agencies can be expanded over time as there are several other organisations (donors, domestic government agencies and civil society organisations) that espouse some or all of the principles that underlie SL approaches (whether or not they use the SL language). It is also hoped that the review itself can be updated as the four agencies covered move forward and gain more operational experience with implementing livelihoods approaches. The structure of the review is as follows: In section 2 we provide an outline of each agency’s approach. In section 3 we comment briefly on the differences in approach between the agencies. Section 4 consists of two summary tables. 1
Background image of page 2
2. A brief outline of the approaches of the different agencies In this section we provide a very brief overview of the main features of the livelihoods approaches of the different agencies. The common thread that unites all the agencies is that they link their ideas back to the work of Chambers and Conway in the early 1990s and most adopt the Chambers and Conway definition of livelihoods (or some slight variant on this). This definition holds that: ‘a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/03/2011 for the course EEP 153 taught by Professor Marsh during the Spring '11 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 20

lecture 26 reading---Carney,1999 - Livelihoods approaches...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online