Sustainable Livelihoods, Poverty Elimination and Water What is sustainable livelihoods?

Many government and non-governmental development agencies now believe that the sustainable livelihoods approach provides a powerful and practical way of thinking about, planning and implementing development. So what are the key elements of this approach, and is it new? Sustainable livelihoods is a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development, with the ultimate aim of reducing poverty. There is no blueprint approach, and the basic building blocks are not new at all. What is new is the way in which the elements of good development practice, drawing on wide experience, have been put together with a core emphasis on poverty elimination and people. A key premise is that the effectiveness of development activities in water and other sectors can be improved through: A broad-based analysis of livelihoods and the factors that influence them, including the wider vulnerability context in which people live (e.g. vulnerability to floods, drought, and seasonal changes), and the role resources such as water play, in combination with other assets, in supporting economic and human development. Making more informed choices about the types of development activity that will do most to reduce poverty, based on the analysis above. Poverty-related indicators (rather than water supply coverage, for example) therefore become the benchmark against which impacts and outcomes are measured. Putting people at the centre of analysis and objective setting. For instance, people, rather than the water resources they use, are the priority concern.

The livelihoods approach is built on a set of core principles that emphasise people-centred, responsive and multi-level approaches to development. These are backed up with a set of tools to help the user put theory into practice. Many of these will be familiar to water and development practitioners. They include participatory poverty assessment methods, institutional and governance appraisal, gender and stakeholder analysis, and environmental checklists. Sustainable livelihoods and water: key messages, practical applications Putting people at the centre A livelihoods approach puts people, rather than the water resources they use, at centre stage. This has not always been the case: in the past a concern with water resources themselves has tended to detract attention from the more important issue of how water is accessed and used, in combination with other assets, to sustain livelihoods. Developing an understanding of the role water plays in supporting livelihoods through health, economic (production and income) and environmental effects and linkages makes it much easier to predict the effects on different groups of water interventions. This, in turn, can indicate which types of water activities can do the most to reduce poverty. In Box 1, it is argued that a preoccupation with the epidemiological impacts of water supply projects has distorted water supply interventions over many years. A focus on wider water supply-livelihood linkages, e.g. through impacts on household labour and income generation, would lead to changes in the way water supply activities are conceived and implemented.

Box 1: Water, sanitationand livelihoods? Challenging conventional wisdom A key consequence of broadening out the sectoral contribution to poverty elimination is the need to base water supply activities on an analysis of water-livelihoods linkages. This demands better quality socio-economic data on time expenditure, relative costs of time for other activities, patterns of labour demand within households, intra-household decision making on the division of labour (who benefits, who loses), what the increasing availability of water at a household level means in terms of priority usage, and how this translates into income, health, education and other benefits. A livelihoods approach involves, therefore, a broader approach than simply seeking epidemiological improvements. It challenges the automatic integration of water supply, sanitation and hygiene education on two grounds: firstly, on the basis that this is not always necessary given that wider impacts are being sought; and secondly, that self-financing of sanitation and hygiene components will prove far harder to achieve than provision of a resource with clearer livelihoods linkages. The decision as to where and when to combine water supply with sanitation and hygiene education should be based on an assessment of the relative costs and benefits in particular contexts of undertaking one or all of the interventions. In some environments where, say, populations are more dispersed, water supply alone may have a greater net impact on household poverty than a combined effort, particularly if combining the three components means reducing the number of water supply activities. The second major departure is the greater integration of water supply activities with other aspects of sustainable livelihoods, such as education provision, livestock production and small-scale household cultivation and income-generation. The aim is twofold: (a) to understand financial sustainability issues in greater detail, relating specifically to the relative expenditure benefits of improved supplies for those households least able to contribute to community financing; and (b) to ensure that interventions enhance specific livelihood activities of poorer households within the community, for instance in enabling greater small stock reproduction, cash cropping for supplementary income, and other forms of local income generation. This entails smaller, more targeted approaches, a greater attention to matching technological needs to livelihood realities, and an understanding of the economic returns to greater water provision and use. Assessments as to the most appropriate types of technology need to weigh up the uses to which water is to be put by different households, how demands for water vary by household type and at different times of the day and season, and how water interventions could address these sequences of need. By implication, the indicators of impact and achievement in water activities also need to be widened so they become poverty oriented rather than specifically health oriented. This means a greater awareness of how the linkages outlined above contribute to both the causes of and continuance of poverty at a local level, but also of how the policy environment and changes in the political and legal structures surrounding service delivery can affect these linkages. Greater attention will need to be paid to understanding how the opportunity costs of water collection can be reduced, how broad income and health benefits can be enhanced, and how the long-term structural sustainability of livelihoods can be improved. Household economic and social impact will be the long-term framework on which success or failure will be judged. Through this focus, questions of financing sustainability will be better incorporated in new programme designs and the fit between types of technology and livelihoods better ensured.

Holistic analysis, focused interventions A livelihoods approach emphasises the importance of seeing livelihoods systems holistically, rather than sectorally. This does not mean, however, that holistic analysis must necessarily lead to large, cross-sectoral projects in which water supply is one of many components. What is important is that a holistic perspective is used in the design to ensure that specific water interventions are linked to the wider concern of livelihood improvement. For example, the adoption of a livelihoods approach on the drought and water security project described in Box 2 changed the definition of the problem: instead of looking only at the water resource

impacts of drought, the team began investigating links between water and food security in the wider context of livelihood vulnerability. This, in turn, influenced the range of policy and drought management options considered, some of which remained anchored in the water sector, and some of which called for collaboration across sectors.

Box 2: Drought and water security a livelihoods approach in Ethiopia Since 1994 the British Geological Survey (BGS) has worked with partners across Africa on drought planning and water resources management. The initial impetus for the work was the 1991-92 drought that affected much of southern Africa, and which left many rural communities without access to food or water. Yet drought planning then - and now - focuses almost exclusively on the issue of food security; other aspects of vulnerability, including impacts on water security and waterfood links, receive much less attention. Arguably, this reflects the organisation and remit of government and donor bureaucracies, rather than livelihood realities. In 1998 BGS began work on a new drought project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), aimed at (a) developing guidelines for identifying water insecure areas; and (b) identifying vulnerable communities and households which could be targeted for support within these areas. Working with the UKs Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and partners in the Amhara Region, the project evolved a broader, more holistic approach to the study of drought impact and mitigation under the umbrella of livelihoods. The result was a problem-led, rather than disciplineled, project, drawing attention to: The different factors affecting water security - in particular relationships between water resource availability, access and demands - and how these relationships vary between households, and between areas. Community surveys along a highland-lowland transect revealed how access to and use of water is influenced by access to a range of household assets, including labour and animals for collecting water, money for water purchase, and the social networks needed to access non-communal water sources. The availability of groundwater often the only source available during drought is also key. Resource mapping tools developed by the project helped identify areas where reliable sources of groundwater could be developed to help drought-proof communities. The wider livelihood impacts of water insecurity. For example, income generation as well as direct consumption may suffer if the watering of livestock and small-scale irrigation are affected. Similarly, time spent finding and collecting water can have a high cost in terms of lost production, income, and food gathering through reduced labour time, as well as missed education for children.

A key policy recommendation was that a broader approach to drought planning is needed, using a wider range of livelihood indicators and interventions to warn of drought-related problems and to trigger timely and appropriate responses. Existing food security assessments could be combined with the resource mapping/questionnaire tools developed by the project to gain a clearer picture of livelihood security and the interventions needed to support it. For example, in protecting the assets of households in the early stages of drought, or rebuilding them in the aftermath of a bad year, the key variable may be access to water, both in increasing labour availability and in protecting and increasing livestock production. This may indicate the need for targeted water supply interventions, coordinated and carefully sequenced with food security/asset rebuilding efforts, rather than just food or water interventions. For further information, visit the livelihoods connect website (http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/case_studies/lesson-Water1.html)

Exploring macro-micro links Efforts to reduce poverty are likely to be much more effective if higher-level policy is influenced by lessons learned at a local level. Similarly, many local issues can only be

resolved when a change in wider policy occurs. In Ethiopia, for example (Box 2), a livelihoods approach clearly demonstrated the need for policy and institutional change within the government and donor community. Here, as in many other countries, the management of drought has focused almost entirely on the question of food; other aspects of vulnerability have received much less attention. This kind of cross-fertilisation between levels is needed in other areas. For example, demand-responsive approaches to water supply provision and community financing are key policies in the water sector. Yet many would argue they have not been informed sufficiently by an analysis of water-livelihood links, and the structure of water demand, at individual, household and community levels. Being aware of change External support for water sector activities must recognise the dynamic nature of livelihood strategies and respond flexibly, and at different levels. For example, work at national level on the reform of water policy needs to recognise that water is an element in the changing economy, society and environment of a country, and that economic development and diversification have a major influence on urban and rural livelihoods, and on patterns of water use. For this reason, policies need to evolve to reflect these changes, emphasising again the need to develop macro-micro links (see above). Clearly a strong economy has options that a poorer economy, substantially dependent on agriculture, does not, including the ability to control sectoral allocations through different instruments (e.g. water prices) and mediate between competing claims. Taking a broad view of sustainability Sustainability is multi-dimensional. DFID identifies four key elements of sustainability: economic, institutional, social and environmental. In a water context, it is worth highlighting two key points. First, the notion of sustainability does not imply that physical resources such as water bodies must be maintained in a particular state. Rather, it implies that the broad base upon which livelihoods are built remains firm, or improves. Second, and related to this, is the idea that all four elements are related, that trade-offs between elements will occur (particularly over time); and that none should be considered in isolation. For example, evidence suggests that it is possible to give priority to water policies promoting economic efficiency and environmental sustainability once the economy has diversified. In the short term, strongly held beliefs that water is a social resource, and patterns of water use which reflect long standing customary practice, may frustrate reform. In the short term then, meeting the livelihood expectations of poorer farmers by over-using water resources may be necessary, and politically imperative, before jobs and livelihoods have been created in other sectors.

Roger Calow, British Geological Survey Alan Nicol, Overseas Development Institute