Please refer to the attached file.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Building Resilience through Integrated Community-based and Humanitarian Systems Transformation and Leadership (BRIGHTLY) is a 4-year FCDO-funded consortium programme in Yemen, that combines lifesaving humanitarian assistance with livelihoods assistance and efforts to strengthen social protection systems to support households to transition towards greater economic self-reliance. This consortium commissioned this study to review evidence on livelihoods and transition programming in Yemen between 2020 to 2025 to help synthesize lessons and strategies relevant to BRIGHTLY’s programming approach, and identify evidence gaps where BRIGHTLY could contribute to critical learning during its final year.
Within BRIGHTLY, transition is defined as the movement of households from short-term humanitarian assistance toward either more sustainable livelihoods or longer-term social protection; however, this review focuses on transition toward more sustainable livelihoods. This report complements previous BRIGHTLY research on referral pathways and services mapping which found that such pathways were limited and not yet feasible as a reliable route into longer-term support.
Overall, the evidence on transition is strongest on short-term stabilisation, particularly improvements in household food security and reduced reliance on harmful coping through cash assistance, and on the added value of coherent multi-component support that links immediate assistance with livelihoods support. Emerging evidence also suggests that transfer frequency matters, with more frequent cash payments improving food security outcomes even where the overall transfer value remains unchanged.
Evidence is strongest where progress is assessed through practical household-level outcomes, particularly food consumption, income, and coping behaviour, and much weaker where assessments rely on indirect proxies, perception-based measures, or claims about longer-term sustainability.
The evidence remains insufficient to determine with confidence when a transition can be considered successful, or what threshold would indicate that households have moved beyond short-term stabilisation. Rather, it is better understood as a gradual and context-dependent process through which some households may reduce reliance on repeated emergency support through livelihood strengthening, while others may continue to require periodic humanitarian or social assistance.
The evidence also remains weak on the durability of livelihood gains once humanitarian assistance ends, the most effective duration and sequencing of support for different household profiles, and the conditions under which households can sustain improved food security and income through livelihoods support. Innovative livelihoods approaches remain limited, as external assistance tends to rely on familiar, well-established models. Comprehensive market and climate analyses are also uncommon, and persistent structural constraints, including frequent shocks, weak markets, high input costs, debt, climate pressures, and fragile service systems, consistently undermine potential gains. The study therefore finds a stronger evidence base on short-term stabilisation than on transition toward more sustainable livelihoods and highlights the need for differentiated learning to inform future programme design, adaptation, and policy engagement.