Bernd Steimann
Karin Astrid Siegmann
karin@sdpi.org
The NWFP is Pakistan’s only province with significant forest cover. Pakistan Research Group of the National Centre of Competence in Research North-South (NCCR)1, focusing on the NWFP, previously concentrated its research on issues related to forestry2. As it was not clear whether the assumption was correct that livelihoods in the NWFP depend largely on forestry, the group decided to carry out a broader livelihoods survey.
It was conducted in selected highland and lowland locations throughout the NWFP to help better understanding the importance of particular livelihood assets – forest resources as well as others – for rural people’s livelihoods. It was asked how the availability and accessibility of livelihood assets differ between the highland- and the lowland-context, both on the household and the individual levels. One study village each was selected in the highlands, the foothills, and the lowlands of the NWFP and 236 structured interviews were conducted with randomly selected individuals. Information gathered with the help of qualitative techniques complemented the data.
The Sustainable Livelihoods Survey was carried out during the 2004 summer. It generated a broad data basis on rural livelihoods in the NWFP. Preliminary analysis concentrated on describing the availability and accessibility of the five livelihood assets, i.e. human, natural, financial, social, and physical assets. This was done both on the household and the individual levels. Based on that, a typology of households’ livelihood strategies was developed, which can serve as a useful framework for further data analysis.
The typology of livelihood strategies asks for the spatial contexts, in which rural households generate their cash and subsistence-related incomes. The spatial context of income generation was divided into four levels:
This way every household can be connected with one particular livelihood strategy. Analysis showed that both in the highland and the foothill village, the same strategy types prevail, which concentrate on a combination of subsistence production and remittances or the local context for cash income generation. In the lowland village, a majority of households does not rely on remittances but operates in the regional context for cash income generation.
Access to paid employment is highly gendered across villages. Hardly any woman in the study area has access to a paid job. Although their overall workload is much higher than that of males, their work is concentrated around the homestead, such as domestic work and animal care.
In addition, the variety of livelihood strategies turned out to be much higher in the lowland context than in the foothills and the highland. Further analysis of the different households’ use of particular livelihood assets (e.g. natural resources or financial assets) revealed the reasons for these differences:
Natural assets, such as land and forest resources, are important for subsistence production and non-cash income generation in the highland, and the foothills for cash income generation, though natural assets do hardly ever play a crucial role (with the exception of illegal fuel wood and timber trade).
Land holdings, which can serve as financial stocks, are crucial for subsistence production. However, their influence on the choice of a particular livelihood strategy is rather weak. Consequently, other assets, such as the form of the workforce available, become more important for the choice of a particular strategy.
In the foothill village, larger households tend to send more male members for labor migration, securing a more regular flow of remittances. Besides, the adults’ literacy rate in the highland village is particularly high. This might reflect differences in culture and infrastructure between the three study locations. Yet it also shows that such human assets can be crucial for certain livelihood strategies: The chances for cash income generation are better for those with good education.
In the lowland village, livelihood strategies are more diverse. Little more than half of all households are farming. Yet, the lowland context offers more opportunities to make a living. The three most often recorded livelihood strategies in the lowland village build upon the regional context, irrespective of their involvement in subsistence farming, while remittances do not play any role. It is because of the agriculture’s character in the lowland. Due to good conditions, farming is both more productive and diversified than in the mountains. Combined with better accessible agricultural markets, farming not only serves for subsistence, but also for generating cash income. The importance of regional markets is underlined by the fact that the third most often observed strategy type, focusing on the regional context only, is completely dependent thereupon.
Gender gaps in education are particularly pronounced in lowland households. Whereas with 71 percent male adult literacy rates and boys’ enrolment rates (84 percent) are highest compared to the other study villages, just 6 percent of women know how to read and write, and less than a third of girls in school-going age is enrolled. Pukhtun3 gender norms applied in the lowland village, which are comparatively restrictive regarding female mobility, mediate these results. The relatively high education for male household members is positively associated with their involvement in paid employment.
It can, therefore, be concluded that where the natural and physical environment allow to generate cash income through farming, it is above all access to land which determines a household’s livelihood strategy. In turn, the chosen strategy can influence to what extent a household invests into education or prefers a small or large household size. Where farming can serve but for subsistence production, both education and the workforce available for the harvest can become a determining factor for the choice and the sustainability of a particular livelihood strategy.
Particularly, the results from the gendered analysis of livelihoods emphasized the need to take the prevailing gender norms into account for interventions to improve women’s health, education and access to cash income. It basically means the provision of health and schooling facilities close to women and girls’ home. Income generating activities that do not conflict with the restrictions on women’s mobility should be explored.
Both on household and on individual levels, the preliminary analysis has shown the need for further qualitative research.
Some of the open questions are: Whether market-based income actually is a source of livelihood security or rather represents new risks for households, and how labor migration influences the daily life of those staying at home, in particular the gender-specific workload, or power relations within a household.
PDF Format
