376
the natural resource base (DFID 1999). Further, sustainability here is defined as a
requirement that the use of resources today does not reduce real incomes in the
future. To this end, little research has been done on livelihood sustainability amongst
fish processors (FPs) in Nkhotakota (Allison and Mvula 2002). The study therefore
tries to understand how the introduction of innovative processing methods affects
the livelihoods of FPs, that is, both tangible and intangible assets and resources.
The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) is founded upon the notion that
intervention must be based upon an understanding of what underpins livelihoods
and on what is known as intentional development (Morse and McNamara 2013).
Cowen and Shenton (1998) categorise development into two basic forms: immanent
and intentional development. Immanent development denotes a broad process of
advancement of human societies that is driven by factors that include advances in
science, medicine, the arts, communication, etc. Immanent development is thus a
long-term and continuous process for governments with investments in infrastructure, health and education. However, immanent and intentional development take
place simultaneously, with the former providing the basis for areas where intentional development is needed.
Morse and McNamara (2013) argue that intentional development has not been
successful. There are several reasons for this argument. First, intentional development is based on a construct of what is and what is not developed and thus also what
development means. Secondly, due to the construct of what is developed, a topdown approach to development is applied, with rich countries setting the development agenda and determining how it should be implemented. This is in turn viewed
as a reconfiguration of colonialism, which has also made the beneficiaries of the
interventions dependent on aid and thereby creating a lack of agency to become
self-sufficient (Moyo 2010). It is therefore necessary to examine the working of the
technologies that are on offer in order to determine whether the intervention process
will result in sustainable livelihoods for the poor.
Poverty has been defined as multidimensional, because of the inability of one
dimension alone, income, for instance, to reflect the living situation of an individual. Other measures, such as access to basic needs, education, health facilities as
well as assets like housing and livestock, are included to determine if one is poor or
not (Alkire et al. 2015). The poor need to survive every day as well as accumulate
assets to become resilient to shocks and long-term stresses. The framework model
is therefore divided into people, basic needs, resources, assets, shocks and trends,
access and control.
Vulnerability context, thus shocks and trends, is not always negative and may
include the introduction of innovative technologies, giving an opportunity to assess
whether the technologies are being utilised by the targeted group and their impact
on the socio-economic status of the FPs. The study assesses the FPs’ sources of
income, to determine what other shocks may affect their flow of income. The vulnerability context thus draws attention to the complexity of factors that contribute
directly or indirectly towards the overall vulnerability of the poor. Given this complexity, the poor may not always be able to change or manipulate their situation,
because of lack of assets or structures and procedures to adapt to their situation.
F. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.
the natural resource base (DFID 1999). Further, sustainability here is defined as a
requirement that the use of resources today does not reduce real incomes in the
future. To this end, little research has been done on livelihood sustainability amongst
fish processors (FPs) in Nkhotakota (Allison and Mvula 2002). The study therefore
tries to understand how the introduction of innovative processing methods affects
the livelihoods of FPs, that is, both tangible and intangible assets and resources.
The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) is founded upon the notion that
intervention must be based upon an understanding of what underpins livelihoods
and on what is known as intentional development (Morse and McNamara 2013).
Cowen and Shenton (1998) categorise development into two basic forms: immanent
and intentional development. Immanent development denotes a broad process of
advancement of human societies that is driven by factors that include advances in
science, medicine, the arts, communication, etc. Immanent development is thus a
long-term and continuous process for governments with investments in infrastructure, health and education. However, immanent and intentional development take
place simultaneously, with the former providing the basis for areas where intentional development is needed.
Morse and McNamara (2013) argue that intentional development has not been
successful. There are several reasons for this argument. First, intentional development is based on a construct of what is and what is not developed and thus also what
development means. Secondly, due to the construct of what is developed, a topdown approach to development is applied, with rich countries setting the development agenda and determining how it should be implemented. This is in turn viewed
as a reconfiguration of colonialism, which has also made the beneficiaries of the
interventions dependent on aid and thereby creating a lack of agency to become
self-sufficient (Moyo 2010). It is therefore necessary to examine the working of the
technologies that are on offer in order to determine whether the intervention process
will result in sustainable livelihoods for the poor.
Poverty has been defined as multidimensional, because of the inability of one
dimension alone, income, for instance, to reflect the living situation of an individual. Other measures, such as access to basic needs, education, health facilities as
well as assets like housing and livestock, are included to determine if one is poor or
not (Alkire et al. 2015). The poor need to survive every day as well as accumulate
assets to become resilient to shocks and long-term stresses. The framework model
is therefore divided into people, basic needs, resources, assets, shocks and trends,
access and control.
Vulnerability context, thus shocks and trends, is not always negative and may
include the introduction of innovative technologies, giving an opportunity to assess
whether the technologies are being utilised by the targeted group and their impact
on the socio-economic status of the FPs. The study assesses the FPs’ sources of
income, to determine what other shocks may affect their flow of income. The vulnerability context thus draws attention to the complexity of factors that contribute
directly or indirectly towards the overall vulnerability of the poor. Given this complexity, the poor may not always be able to change or manipulate their situation,
because of lack of assets or structures and procedures to adapt to their situation.
F. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.