10
means of living, so that ‘a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets
both now and in the future’ for both households and communities (DFID 1999,
p. 1). The SLF was conceived as a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and
priorities for development (Carney 2003, pp. 14–15; Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones 2002).
In 1998, the British Government’s Department for International Development
(DFID) adopted the SLF as an approach to assessing and evaluating developmental
projects funded by it. Since then several other international organisations, like the
United Nations Development Programme and the NGO and CARE, have also
adopted the SLF to undertake their projects (Carney 2003). Its potency as a framework lies in the fact that it ‘recognizes that people have many capabilities, have various assets and engage in many activities to earn their living’ as well as recognising
that ‘institutions and processes should be clearly understood’ (Mazibuko 2013,
p. 175). The focus on assets is critical (Mitlin 2003). The framework also resonates
with Sen’s (1979) approach to strengthening communities’ capabilities, for which
they need rights and opportunities.
However, despite its widespread use, it has a number of weaknesses. One is that it
neither provides an adequate role for the private sector nor provides for broader ideas
about governance dynamics (Carney 2003). The study reported in this chapter created
a modified version of the SLF that incorporated and expanded these two elements:
how private corporations take part in creating sustainable livelihoods, and a broader
understanding of governance arrangements. Researchers such as Stead (2015) have
linked governance capacity (as broadly defined) to a multinational understanding of
urban prosperity, but in this research, governance was explored within the tighter
framework of one of the elements of the SLF, namely, human capital.
This modified version of the SLF (see Fig. 2.2) structured the research reported
here. The revised framework still follows the key components proposed by Rakodi
and Lloyd-Jones (2002, p. 9), namely, the external environment; vulnerability context; policies, institutions and processes; livelihood assets; livelihood strategies; and
livelihood outcomes. These key components are linked as shown in Figs. 2.1 and
2.2, but the modifications identified in Fig. 2.2 create a framework that is more
suited to understanding the Colombian mining case and the research focus specifically on human capital as an intangible asset. Such modifications to suit the relevant
context have been used by other researchers. For example, Shen, Hughey and
Simmons (2003, p. 20), in their review of the use of the sustainable livelihoods
approach in the tourism industry, referring to Cahn’s (2006) application of it to her
Samoan case studies, noted that ‘a “one size fits all” SLF approach is neither possible nor appropriate – context is important’.
The modified framework shown in Fig. 2.2 identifies the trends, cycles and shocks
that affect mining and human settlements in Colombia. Governance processes constitute the core component of the policies, institutions and processes box, but in the
context of mining in Colombia, these processes incorporate the activities of multinational and domestic private sector mining and exploration companies, as well as
informal mining actors. Human capital and its development are examined as the prinI. B. Franco and J. Minnery
means of living, so that ‘a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets
both now and in the future’ for both households and communities (DFID 1999,
p. 1). The SLF was conceived as a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and
priorities for development (Carney 2003, pp. 14–15; Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones 2002).
In 1998, the British Government’s Department for International Development
(DFID) adopted the SLF as an approach to assessing and evaluating developmental
projects funded by it. Since then several other international organisations, like the
United Nations Development Programme and the NGO and CARE, have also
adopted the SLF to undertake their projects (Carney 2003). Its potency as a framework lies in the fact that it ‘recognizes that people have many capabilities, have various assets and engage in many activities to earn their living’ as well as recognising
that ‘institutions and processes should be clearly understood’ (Mazibuko 2013,
p. 175). The focus on assets is critical (Mitlin 2003). The framework also resonates
with Sen’s (1979) approach to strengthening communities’ capabilities, for which
they need rights and opportunities.
However, despite its widespread use, it has a number of weaknesses. One is that it
neither provides an adequate role for the private sector nor provides for broader ideas
about governance dynamics (Carney 2003). The study reported in this chapter created
a modified version of the SLF that incorporated and expanded these two elements:
how private corporations take part in creating sustainable livelihoods, and a broader
understanding of governance arrangements. Researchers such as Stead (2015) have
linked governance capacity (as broadly defined) to a multinational understanding of
urban prosperity, but in this research, governance was explored within the tighter
framework of one of the elements of the SLF, namely, human capital.
This modified version of the SLF (see Fig. 2.2) structured the research reported
here. The revised framework still follows the key components proposed by Rakodi
and Lloyd-Jones (2002, p. 9), namely, the external environment; vulnerability context; policies, institutions and processes; livelihood assets; livelihood strategies; and
livelihood outcomes. These key components are linked as shown in Figs. 2.1 and
2.2, but the modifications identified in Fig. 2.2 create a framework that is more
suited to understanding the Colombian mining case and the research focus specifically on human capital as an intangible asset. Such modifications to suit the relevant
context have been used by other researchers. For example, Shen, Hughey and
Simmons (2003, p. 20), in their review of the use of the sustainable livelihoods
approach in the tourism industry, referring to Cahn’s (2006) application of it to her
Samoan case studies, noted that ‘a “one size fits all” SLF approach is neither possible nor appropriate – context is important’.
The modified framework shown in Fig. 2.2 identifies the trends, cycles and shocks
that affect mining and human settlements in Colombia. Governance processes constitute the core component of the policies, institutions and processes box, but in the
context of mining in Colombia, these processes incorporate the activities of multinational and domestic private sector mining and exploration companies, as well as
informal mining actors. Human capital and its development are examined as the prinI. B. Franco and J. Minnery