Ans-No.

About ALC India, what I know it’s a growing management consulting firm with team of
dedicated professionals, As I am working in development sector from past 8 year, what
I think about me is that I am good in implementation part somehow I thought I am not
good in planning part. It didn’t mean that I don’t have capability, it’s because of I
didn’t get opportunity to enhance it.
I visited ALC India website and came to know about that there is lot of opportunity to
grow. As a nascent organization ALC invested in many products and workshops which
I feel is innovative ideas in development sector which not many big organizations are
doing.
So I think this is the suitable place for me to grow and learn while serving the society.

Ans.No.2:-

A livelihood is the set of capabilities, assets, and activities that furnish the means for
people to meet their basic needs and support their well-being. The building of
livelihoods reflects and seeks to fulfil both material and experiential needs. Livelihoods
are not simply a localized phenomenon, but connected by environmental, economic,
political and cultural processes to wider national, regional and global arenas. The
sustainability of a livelihood is ascertained by its sensitivity, hardiness and resiliency in
the face of short- and long-term challenges.
“A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with, and recover from, shocks and
stresses and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and into the
future, while not undermining the natural resource base” The question of a livelihood’s
capacity for sustainability involves evaluating current circumstances and assessing
future trends, as well as past conditions and patterns.
People are pursuing their livelihoods in a context of vulnerability, including shocks
(sudden onset of natural disasters, conflicts, economic traumas, health problems and
crop or livestock distress), trends (in population, resources, health problems, the
economy or governance) and seasonality (cyclic fluctuations in prices, production,
health and employment). This complex array of influences has direct and indirect
impacts on people’s livelihoods, including the options available to them.
Takes into account the range of tangible and intangible assets necessary to build a
livelihood,

There are five types of ‘capital’ or core assets.

Human capital denotes skills, knowledge, good health and ability to work. Knowledge
about the properties, use or location of trees, for example, would fall under this
category.
Social capital refers to formal and informal social relationships, including their degree
of trust, reliability and adaptability.
Natural capital consists of natural resources, including their flows and services.
Physical capital refers to producer goods and physical infrastructure.
Financial capital includes financial resources.

As might be expected, those with larger asset portfolios have more livelihood options, as
well less vulnerability, than those with fewer assets. The distribution of livelihood assets
in any population – rural or urban – is always uneven. Gradations of poverty exist even
in the poorest communities. Gender, age and other social differences may significantly
affect access to livelihood assets within the household and other groups. For example,
while a tree may be regarded as a household’s assets, women’s rights to it may not be
the same as men’s. People’s control over core assets is also dynamic. The “stocks” of
both tangible and intangible assets fluctuate seasonally and through time in response to
the contingencies of life. Policies, institutions and related processes give meaning and
value to livelihood assets.

Approach to sustainable livelihood analysis calls them transforming structures and

processes.
Structures refer to the key roles of all levels of government and the private sector in
shaping livelihoods. Processes determine the way in which structures – and individuals
– operate and interact. Policies, laws, institutions and culture furnish the everyday
framework, rules and relations for human interaction. Together, structures and
processes effectively determine access to public and private resources and the terms of
trade between different types of livelihood assets. They also influence the returns
(economic or otherwise) to livelihood strategies – the ways people combine and use
assets to meet their objectives.
Livelihood outcomes are the results or ‘outcomes’ of the livelihood strategies.
In an ideal world, livelihood incomes would generate more income, increased well-
being, reduced vulnerability, improved food security, and sustained use of natural
resources. In the real world, the outcomes are highly differentiated from the global to
the intra-household levels.

As per as my perception and experience there is following key strategies to enhance

Creation of working days – This relates to the ability of a particular combination of

livelihood strategies to create gainful employment for a certain portion of the year4 This
may be on or off-farm, part of a wage labour system or subsistence production. There is
three aspects of employment – income (a wage for the employed), production
(employment providing a consumable output) and recognition (where employment
provides recognition for being engaged in something worthwhile). In terms of the
income/production aspects, various target levels have been suggested, but 200 days a
year appears to be widely used as a minimum level to create a livelihood.
Overall, the number of livelihoods created will be dependent on the proportion of the
population available for work.
ii) Poverty reduction – The poverty level is a key criterion in the assessment of
livelihoods.

Various measures can be used to develop an absolute ‘poverty line’ measure based on
income or consumption levels). Alternatively, relative poverty and inequality can be
assessed using Gini coefficient measures. There are a range of pros and cons for each
measure, as well as some major measurement challenges However, such quantitative
assessments of poverty can be used in combination with more qualitative indicators of
livelihoods.
iii) Well-being and capabilities – The notions of ‘well-being’ and ‘capability’ provide a
wider definitional scope for the livelihoods concept. “What people can do or be with
their entitlements’, a concept which encompasses far more than the material concerns
of food intake or income. Such ideas represent more than the human capital which
allows people to do things, but also the intrinsically valued elements of ‘capability’ or
‘well-being’. Argues that such a well-being approach to poverty and livelihood analysis
may allow people themselves to define the criteria which are important. This may result
in a range of sustainable livelihood outcome criteria, including diverse factors such as
self-esteem, security, happiness, stress, vulnerability, power, exclusion, as well as more
conventionally measured material concerns).
iv) Livelihood adaptation, vulnerability and resilience – 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. Such resilience in the face of stresses and shocks is key to both
livelihood adaptation and coping .Those who are unable to cope (temporary
adjustments in the face of change) or adapt (longer term shifts in livelihood strategies)
are inevitably vulnerable and unlikely to achieve sustainable livelihoods. Assessing
resilience and the ability to positively adapt or successfully cope requires an analysis of
a range of factors, including an evaluation of historical experiences of responses to
various shocks and stresses. Different types of shock or stress, in turn, may result in
different responses, including avoidance, repartitioning, and resistance or tolerance
mechanisms.
v) Natural resource base sustainability – Most rural livelihoods are reliant on the
natural resource base at least to some extent. Natural resource base sustainability refers
to the ability of a system to maintain productivity when subject to disturbing forces,
whether a ‘stress’ (a small, regular, predictable disturbance with a cumulative effect) or
a ‘shock’ (a large infrequent, unpredictable disturbance with immediate impact). This
implies avoiding depleting stocks of natural resources to a level which results in an
effectively permanent decline in the rate at which the natural resource base yields useful
products or services for livelihoods5. Measuring natural resource sustainability is
notoriously difficult, as it is critical to link indicators of resource depletion or
accumulation (e.g. soil fertility levels, vegetation cover etc.)to both the temporal
dynamics of system resilience (i.e. the ability to recover from disturbance) and
livelihood needs (i.e. an assessment of whether natural resource change results in
‘effectively permanent declines in useful products or services’).