The background of this study was to explore the perceived role of the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) on the livelihood activities of residents of Danko/Wasagu LGA and draw conclusions about the state of vulnerability. The CSDP aimed to reduce poverty through a strategic improvement of resources available for livelihoods. The livelihoods framework (Figure 3.3) emphasizes the role of institutions and processes as key to the available resource and influence on livelihood vulnerability (DFID, 2000). While, previous studies of rural livelihood strategies have examined household income derived from different activities (Alemu, 2012) and on the basis of assets and labour distribution (Brown et al., 2006). This study focused on diversity of household assets (tangible resources such as physical, natural and financial capital and intangible ones social and human capital) as well as the social institutions that influences how or whether ones have access to assets (Scoones, 1998; Leo & Annelies, 2005). Therefore, livelihoods studies cannot be equated with monetary resources alone, but are multidimensional and are related to socio- economic activities in which people depend (DFID, 2001).
44
Figure 3.3 Conceptual Framework of Sustainable livelihood of rural people (Modified from DFID, 2001)
3.6.1 Rural development intervention
Community and Social Development Project was devoted to sustaining people’s lives. The project aimed to improve the general welfare of the rural dwellers by facilitating their access to social, economic and natural resources infrastructure and services such as education, potable water, health care and environment rehabilitation (see explanation in, Figure 2.4). Rural poor people could take the advantage of rural development interventions for poverty reduction (Allison & Horemans, 2006) if the intervention facilitated the efforts of low-income households to build their livelihood assets (DFID, 1999). The CSDP intervention intended support and services in the form of education, health, water, transport, environmental protection training, economic awareness, and savings Programmes and support for small business development. They also included addressing the vulnerability context such as social and economic change at the community level through community building, alliance and organising. Therefore, if the poor were able to access the livelihood assets they require and are adequately supported by service providers such as rural
development intervention and if they are able to make markets, politics, rules and norms work to their advantage, then they are likely to cope with those elements of vulnerability context which they can do little to change.
3.6.2 Livelihood strategy of households
Livelihood strategies are activities practised by rural people to achieved livelihood outcomes (DFID, 2001). Natural and socio-economic factors such as resource endowment, educational level and market fluctuations influences households to engage into a range of livelihood activities such as subsistence production, production for market, engaging in labour market and self-employment (Wang et al., 2012). Although the preference of a livelihood strategies depends on the household, also institutions and policy provide more options in terms of proximity, affordability, availability and eligibility for people to grab these options. These options provide opportunities like employment, entrepreneurship and supply of good and services (Ellis, 1998).
3.6.3 Building livelihood resources
Generally, livelihood assets have some relationship with livelihood diversification strategies of the people. Assets owned by the people can support and contribute to overall production and income, allowing exchange to take place in period when there is no income as well as facilitate the creation of livelihood capitals for sustainability in lives (Ellis, 2000). While, no single asset is enough to achieve livelihood goals, it is equally important to understand that a single asset can generate multiple benefits or outcomes. For example, land (a natural asset) can be used as a financial capital to secure loan apart from productive purposes.
3.6.4 Livelihood outcomes
The indicators for a sustainable livelihood outcome are increased income, food security, improved well-being, reduction in vulnerability and sustainable use of natural resources (Alinovi et al., 2010). Assessing vulnerability relies on investigating the livelihood outcomes which can be explained as follows:
Improved income security
CSDP creates opportunity for income generating activities through the training on skill acquisition activities. For instance, knowledge on tailoring, computer operation and carpentry are helping to
46
boost business activities. Also, support on rural electricity may extend business hours, improved business activities and provide opportunity for employment (Komatsu et al., 2011).
Improved food security
The term food security refers to access and availability food, food value and nutritional adequacy.
Food security can be achieved when people are educated. One of the objectives of CSDP was to provide support and services to education. Education brings about awareness in farming methods such as seed selection, method of applying fertilizer and soil testing techniques.
Increased well-being
Support and services in education, health and environment can have improved the living statues of the people. For example, health centres provided by the CSDP in the study communities are helping awareness building and care of health-related problems. Also, provision of clean drinking water to rural population through the CSDP helps to keep away people from water borne diseases.
Sustainability
A livelihood is sustainable when it is able to reduce or overcome vulnerability and can ensure the sustainable use of natural resources.
Reduction of vulnerabilities
Vulnerabilities are livelihoods constraints experienced by people as a result of natural, economic and religious perspectives. People assets along with institutions and diversified livelihood strategy could be an important interventionist for compensating people from vulnerabilities (Cannon et al.
2004).
Sustainable use of natural resources
These are nature dependent resources that requires management for the upcoming generations.
CSDP through Programmes on shelter-belt establishment, planting of trees and environmental protection would definitely instigate the sustainable use of natural resources and sustainable development at large.
48
The researcher was assisted by the CSDP facilitators who had experience in participatory rural appraisal method. They helped considerably on how to pursue a sustainable livelihood analysis.
The researcher and team explored the practice, benefits and tools used in sustainable livelihood analysis before the commencement of field work. An outline of this original plan is shown in Appendix 2. This use of participatory interaction with the help of focus group discussion had two primary objectives for a post intervention perspective:
1. To develop understanding of the livelihood strategies of participants from an emic perspective which will be fundamental for any strategic planning in the communities and,
2. To identify CSDP influences on livelihood vulnerability in the area under study