|
Sustainability
of Livelihoods
ISPWDK
claims the pilot livelihood interventions (in SAMUHA's case
home-shopping) will lead to more sustainable livelihoods.
After UNDP's sustainable livelihoods definition (Ch. 4.2.1),
the main focus of the intervention is on the "economic
effectiveness". That matches BASIX' mandate very well.
Savings of SHG are used to invest in an enterprise, increasing
incomes of some people, while lowering the consumer prices
for rural communities. The ecological point needs not
to be considered here, this is dealt with in the watershed
chapter. The other indicators of sustainability though, the
ability to cope with shocks such as drought and social
equity, are only indirectly being touched. In the case
of social equity, the effects even have to be monitored in
the near future, in order to ensure
1. no negative
effect, where socio economic inequalities are increased
due to few people in the village getting wealthier, excluding
others and
2. that other
small SHG-member shopkeepers are not suffering too much
from the new competition.
Emphasis of
MUNJAVU's approach:
Are the key emphases
of UNDP's approach met?
·
that the focus should be on strengths, as opposed to needs?
Home-shopping might build on the strengths of the volunteers,
while the strengths of local credit and barter systems are
not sufficiently taken into account. The needs of the villages
are targeted also, but that does not speak against the intervention
in this case.
·
that macro-micro links should be taken into consideration
and actively supported?
HLL certainly links micro- with macro-levels on an economic
basis. But whether the micro-levels, the rural villagers,
benefit equally as the macro-level (the urban multinational
corporation) remains to be seen.
·
that sustainability (as defined in 4.2.1) is
constantly assessed and supported?
This point is described above. MUNJAVU and SAMUHA as a whole
can definitely improve, mainly on the assessment level.
Next>>
|
