A modified livelihood framework

This section presents a livelihood framework which depicts the multidimensional characteristics of the livelihood and livelihood strategy situation. Rakodi (2002) posits that a framework is an over-simplification of a complex reality and should be treated merely as a guide or lens through which to view the world. Therefore, although the modified livelihood framework cannot claim to be all embracing, it attempts to represent the vulnerability context and

89 institutional environment within which individuals and households operate. It also includes how these contexts thereof shape access to assets, as well as how coping/survival strategies adopted exacerbate child trafficking (see figure 2.3).

90 Causes of Poverty Livelihood Outcomes

(Functionings) Positive

Vulnerability Decreased vulnerability;

Context Assets & Institutional & Increased income;

Capabilities Policy Environment Increased good health;

Shocks Human Government institutions Increased well-being;

Trends Influence Natural Local Institutions Increased food security;

Seasonality of & Financial State Regulations Livelihood More access to assets.

Access to Social Traditional Regulations Strategies Negative

Increase vulnerability;

Political Relevant govt. policies

Decreased well-being;

Decreased income; Increased ill-health

Decreased food security;

Less access to assets

Figure 2: 3. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

Source: Ashley and Carney (1999) modified by the author

Coping/Survival Strategies leading to Child Trafficking

91 This study is particularly concerned with how institutional and vulnerability contexts as well as government policies influence access to assets, livelihood strategies and their implication for child trafficking as a survival strategy to cope with. Although the SLA framework provides a versatile approach to organise the main factors and influences people‘s livelihood, Krantz (2001) suggests that its modification is needed to suit different contexts. Hence, the modified framework builds on the integration of the rights-based and capability approaches to suit the context of this study. Moreover, from the perspectives of both sustainable livelihood and rights-based approaches, there is a conventional concentration upon a wider range of entitlements and a primary definition with regard to the role of the state in terms of respect, protection, promotion or fulfilling internationally defined rights (Conway et al., 2002). The modified framework thus provides the opportunity for integrating rights and capability perspectives into a mainstream analysis of development and the empowerment of poor fishing communities.

The framework has seven boxes depicting different aspects of livelihood and placing them according to their interactions, with the position of the arrows in such a way to show the linkages between vulnerability context, institutional and policy environment, assets, livelihood strategies, inasmuch as these interactions impact on child trafficking. The framework provides an opportunity to analyse these linkages from a more comprehensive dimension. It recognises that people live in a vulnerability context, with shocks, trends and seasonality influencing their livelihood. These contexts threaten the wider capital assets base they draw on.

The SL framework is originally built on an asset portfolio of five different categories of assets (see Carney et al., 1999; DFID/IDS, 2000; Allison and Ellis, 2001). However, Kleih et al. (2003) in their study in fishing communities in India observe that poor representation in power structure is one of the factors

92 that handicap the capabilities of the communities. Nonetheless, the vertical links between individuals and groups with varying levels of power and resources have been overlooked in the sustainable livelihood literature. This has drawn attention away from the potential of poorer people to claim support from the powerful (Shankland, 2000: 24).

Therefore, one type of assets, ‗political capital‘, has been added to the SL Framework taking into consideration issues like political participation and the right to associate which are prerequisite for contesting claims for assets (Moser and Norton, 2001: 6) necessary for individuals and households to achieve their functionings. The ‗political capital‘ in this context may be referred to as ―power structures that underlie norms of collective action in natural resource use‖

(Baumann, 2000: 6). Moreover, power is a crucial concept in fisheries management.

The framework also acknowledges the fact that there are changes in the vulnerability context producing constraints. These limit access to assets that may compel individuals and households to create new livelihood strategies, strategies which can result in either positive or negative outcomes. These outcomes again may have an effect on the vulnerability status and the assets base of individuals and households. Positive outcomes may improve their asset base and vulnerability status, whereas the negative outcomes may produce the opposite.

The above presented sketch of the framework clearly shows the general theme of the study namely that the coping/survival strategies lead to trafficking of children. Coping/survival strategies are part of a livelihood ‗cycle‘. Therefore, child trafficking as a coping or survival strategy will sometimes be explained as a livelihood strategy, sometimes as a result of vulnerability, and also as an

93 2.13 Research questions

Following the extensive discussion of the theoretical base of this study, the main research questions derived are: What are the root causes of poverty and vulnerability within fishing communities in the Ketu South District of Ghana?

How do survival/coping strategies as a way of managing risk precipitate trafficking in children? And how can the communities be empowered through human rights to improve on their livelihoods for a secured and dignified life?

Specific questions:

1. In what ways do the vulnerability context such as shocks, trends, seasonality and the institutional setting impact on access to assets and livelihood strategies of fishing communities?

2. In what ways do access to capital impact on the livelihood strategies and outcomes of households in the fishing communities?

3. How do the livelihood or coping/survival strategies adopted in fishing communities stimulate trafficking in children?

4. In what way/s can poor fishing communities in the region be empowered to claim their rights and entitlements in order to improve their socio-economic needs?

94 CHAPTER THREE