Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, United Kingdom.
Disasters. 2010 Apr;34 Suppl 2:S165-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01152.x. Epub 2010 Feb 2.
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.
本文从受冲突影响人口的角度以及从机构分析和行动的角度呈现了生计保护联系方面的研究结果。该研究旨在了解在人道主义保护和生计办法之间实现更大互补性如何可能减少受冲突影响人口面临的风险。研究结果表明，生计和保护面临风险的原因往往是相同的，社区应对措施密切相关，这为联系业务办法提供了很好的理由。可以通过以下四种主要方式来实现这一点。第一，针对面临最大风险的人。第二，通过宣传和能力建设解决风险的原因。第三，实施生计干预措施，尽量减少需要采取不安全生计战略的必要性，并处理人道主义后果。第四，确保生计方案规划不会带来额外风险。
