Module 2: Livelihood approaches in a nutshell

2.2: The RLS approach to livelihood in a nutshell

Origin and guiding assumptions of the RLS approach

Originally, the Rural Livelihood System (RLS) approach to livelihood was the outcome of a research effort (Swiss National Science Foundation, Module 7) for better understanding rural people's perceptions of what sustainable management of natural resources would mean in semi-arid areas of India. Over centuries, farmers and their communities have obviously developed culture and location-specific perceptions of sustainable management of natural resources. Yet, sustainable land use represents just one, however important, element of a much wider concern of farm communities for sustainable livelihood and the constant adaptation of their survival strategies towards this goal. It follows that rural households will participate in sustainable resource management projects only if the projects connect meaningfully with their concerns for sustainability at the level of their livelihoods. Therefore, the guiding assumption of the RLS research project was that effective strengthening of the self-help capacity of rural households calls for a shift from sustainability concerns about single natural resources, such as land, water, pastures, etc., to the meta-level of sustainable livelihoods.

Not very surprisingly, when interviewed on local meanings of sustainability, farmers in the Indian state of Gujarat captured their notion of sustainable rural livelihood with the expression "Ghar chalava", meaning, "to keep the house (-hold) going". "Keeping the house going" obviously implies more than just a narrow bundle of different income sources or assets; it points to the almost countless number of factors, forces and efforts on which the "sustained life of a given social unit" - in this case, the family - depends.

Main elements of the RLS framework and core principles of application

Inspired by interactions of above type with farm communities in India, the RLS project found a suitable answer in the interface of two powerful images useful for a holistic perception: the mandala as a cross-culturally accepted symbol for wholeness and a centred universe and the rural house as a metaphor for livelihood.

RLS Framework: Capturing Meanings of Livelihood

chart
Click to enlarge

The metaphor of a rural house suggests a three-tiered perception of livelihood: The foundation represents the material and non-material resource base, including the emotional resource base of livelihood. The walls shape, metaphorically, the room for three different notions of 'space', putting the family space of decision-making into the centre. The roof, finally, points to the three-fold orientation of a livelihood system, (1) collective orientations, (2) orientations held by the family and (3) orientations in the mind and heart of the individual.

The RLS approach to livelihood subscribes to the same core principles established by DFID (see Doc 1.4 and 2.1). In practical terms, the RLS framework, represented as a nine-square mandala, advocates looking first through a multi-focal looking glass in order to gain a holistic perspective. It is therefore a heuristic tool, a framework, for discovering the properties of a livelihood system. Any of the nine squares of the RLS mandala qualifies as an entry point. The purpose of the assessment, at times also the dynamic of the process, determines the usefulness of starting, for instance, with elements belonging to the "base" or to the "orientations" of a livelihood system.

Need for integrating further dimensions

The RLS framework lacks an explicit reference to important factors and forces in the wider context of livelihood. For this reason it does not explicitly invite investigation of processes and impacts resulting from an interaction with policies, institutions etc., as DFID does. The RLS framework addresses, however gender dimensions in the core of the nine-square mandala. Both approaches lack a clear reference to power relations, which very often are at the core of sustained poverty in rural and in urban contexts. Doc 2.3 and 2.4 offer a comparison of similarities, strength and weaknesses of the two approaches.

Reference