Livelihood Diversification
Livelihood diversification can improve resilience if efforts to increase income streams and assets diversify potential risks.
Livelihood diversification has long been recognized as a risk management strategy and source of resilience. However, it is complex; its association with positive or negative changes is not always clear. Diversification of activities may be less important than diversification of risk. Context is important in shaping the risk environment and range of livelihood opportunities open to people.
Approach
Diversifying livelihood risks can be achieved through several approaches. Stepping up within, stepping partially out, or moving entirely out of agriculture/livestock are possible strategies. Each of these methods diversify livelihood risks in different ways.
By stepping up within agriculture/livestock, agricultural diversification buffers risk. It increases agricultural trade and income — improving ability to build savings and/or buy insurance. By stepping partially out of agriculture/livestock, engaging in livelihoods with different risk profiles becomes possible. This complements agriculture-based livelihoods through activities related to agriculture/livestock or migration to urban labor markets. Finally, by moving out of agriculture/livestock entirely, movement into livelihoods with different risk profiles can be achieved.
Evidence
In Kenya’s Northern drylands, pastoralists gained greater control over natural resources by commercializing their activities. They were able to “step up” by amassing larger herds. This allowed them to privatize key rangeland resources and capitalize on growing demands for meat. As a result, they became better suited to withstand and recover from drought and shocks.
“Stepping up” or “moving out” may not be an effective strategy for all farmers though. Poorer individuals with smaller herds are less able to capture private land and market opportunities. Consequently, they often struggle to withstand recurrent shocks.
Evidence on "stepping partially out" through migration suggests removing capital constraints to migration can positively impact seasonal hunger and well-being. An experimental study in Bangladesh found that households given cash or credit travel subsidies were more likely to migrate. The migrants saved and carried back about half of what they earned. Their families consumed more calories per person per day, raised per capita expenditures, increased protein consumption, and spent more on child education. The same amount of food in the form of food aid would cost five times as much. However, changes in the demand for migrant labor and the long-term social costs of splitting up families for extended periods will influence the ultimate effect of migration on resilience.
More About Livelihood Diversification
Resilience Evidence Forum 2023 Synthesis Report
19 Sep 2023 - USAID , Global Resilience Partnership
Explore key discussions held at the June 2023 Resilience Evidence Forum in this comprehensive guide to resilience-building methodologies and evidence.
USAID/Ethiopia Resilience Learning Activity (RLA) Fact Sheet
13 Sep 2023 - USAID
Learn how RLA is building a common understanding and direct investments in resilience-building strategies and interventions.
Strengthening Resilience Capacities: Learning Journey Insights from Somalia, Niger, and Burkina Faso
30 Aug 2023, GMT -4 - ResilienceLinks , Mercy Corps
Explore how USAID and Center for Resilience-funded activities are putting resilience learning into action.
Assessing Communities’ Coping Strategies during the Current Drought in Somalia
02 Aug 2023 - USAID , ACDI/VOCA , Mercy Corps
While all Somalians struggled with drought, outlier households provide insight into less common, but highly effective, coping strategies.