|
CONTENTS livelihoods at risk new project director new nutritionist
November 2001
Livelihoods at risk
The situation which we experience in Trincomalee imposes a severe risk on the lives of people. How do people cope with the conditions of conflict in their daily survival? Answers to this question are given by a team of young scientists and professionals from Germany and Sri Lanka. They conducted a research study commissioned by IFSP and carried out in collaboration with the Centre for Advanced Training in Agricultural Development (CATAD) from the Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. The objective was to enhance the understanding of coping mechanisms of conflict-affected communities in Trincomalee district in their day-to-day lives and their strategies towards land use. IFSP and partner institutions expected assistance to improve their policies for participatory village development and community mobilisation.
The livelihood systems approach is a way of looking at the village society as a complex system. First, we look at the frame conditions (vulnerability context): what are the natural, economic and political factors that affect the life of people beyond their own influence? Such factors include: climate, national politics, economic conditions such as price fluctuation of agricultural goods, and the armed conflict.
In a second step we analyse the resources people use (capital assets). We distinguish six forms of capital assets: natural (land, water, soils), physical (infrastructure and production equipment), human (knowledge, skills and physical health), financial (cash, credit, savings), social (family and neighbourhood support) and political (access to politicians and other power holders).
Families live together with other people within a community. To utilise their capital assets families need the support of institutions and have to follow certain rules and regulations. Structures are institutions in a village, e.g. the Grama Sevaka and the Samurdhi Development Officer, but also laws and regulations, which govern for example land titles. Institutions act and apply laws and regulations in a certain manner. How they do this could differ from what is actually written down. Therefore, as a third step, we distinguish structures (what institutions and laws are in place) and processes (how are these institutions acting).
The key question is: How does a family combine its different household resources and how does it make use of structures and processes to carry out certain activities, e.g. agricultural cultivation? This is what we call coping strategies as the fourth step of our analysis. The chart on livelihood systems shows how the different elements belong together.
The intercultural research team undertook studies at five locations in Trincomalee district: Kalyanapura, Gomarankadawela DS Division; Kumpurupitty, Kuchchaveli DS Division; Vaddam and Ithikulam Muthur DS Division (uncleared area). Furthermore, a special study on land use was conducted in the neighbouring villages of Dehiwaththa, Seruvila DS Division and Menkamam, Muthur DS Division. The research teams worked in closest cooperation with the field staff of IFSP.
Preliminary results: households employ various coping strategies in their daily economic and personal survival. The research team identified three main categories: managing personal risk of life, managing household economics and accessing external support. The first category looks into how people deal with the personal risk of life in the conflict situation. The second category analyses how families adjust the use of their household resources and family labour (capital assets) to changing conditions. Households also mobilise support from government and non-government organisations, politicians and other power holders for their daily living.
It is important that IFSP and partners support coping strategies of village communities. Project activities can only be successful when they follow a double strategy: (1) strengthening potentials of households (capital assets) and (2) removing institutional constraints (structures and processes). A family can only make better use of its own resources when institutions support them for a more efficient resources utilisation (input supply, extension, marketing of products ). IFSP encourages partner institutions to be accountable and transparent to people, i.e. community-based organisations as well as the service providers. People will only trust in institutions if they understand.
The results of the IFSP-CATAD project 2001 are available as Working Papers 39-45 in pdf.
New Project Director
 top
Mr S. Arumugarajah took over from Mr N. Pugendran as PD-IFSP with effect from 1 October 2001. An experienced development worker, Mr Arumugarajah has served for many years at the Ministry of Plan Implementation. His main tasks would be to support the integration of food and nutrition security within partner institutions of IFSP and to expedite the Sri Lankan budget contributions. Mr Pugendran who in fact, was the 'father of IFSP' and whose enormous efforts to promote IFSP in the district since 1998 was a great achievement, will now concentrate on his duties as DD Planning and PD Rehabilitation.
New nutritionist
Ms Gabriele Götz is the new IFSP nutrition and health adviser. She is the successor of Dr Ines Reinhard. Ms Gaby Götz and Dr Ines visited Trincomalee in October for introduction and familiarisation. Ms Götz will finally join IFSP in January 2002.
|
