Livelihoods and protection in situations of protracted conflict

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3897397
AutoresSusanne Jaspar (0000-0001-6912-1327, Overseas Development Institute), Sorcha O''Callaghan (0009-0001-6815-6613), Sorcha O'Callaghan (Overseas Development Institute)
Año2010
Volumen34
Números2
PáginasS165-82
Fecha de publicación2010-04-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaDisasters (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0361-3666 • E-ISSN: 1467-7717
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01152.x
PMID20132269
OpenAlexW2060380209
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas5
Referencias citadas7

This paper presents the findings from research on livelihoods-protection linkages from the perspective of conflict-affected populations as well as agency analysis and action. The aim of the research is to understand how greater complementarity between humanitarian protection and livelihoods approaches might reduce the risks facing conflict-affected populations. The findings show that the causes of risks to livelihoods and protection are often the same, and that community responses are intimately connected, providing good rationale for linking operational approaches. There are four main ways in which this can be done. First, by targeting those confronting the greatest risks. Second, by addressing the causes of risks through advocacy and capacity-building. Third, by implementing livelihoods interventions that minimise the need to adopt unsafe livelihood strategies and that address humanitarian consequences. Fourth, by making sure that livelihoods programming does not pose additional risks

Agency (philosophy · Agriculture · Business · Complementarity (molecular biology · Environmental planning · Geography · Livelihood · Sociology · Cambodian History and Society · Peacebuilding and International Security · Transboundary Water Resource Management