Livelihood can be seen as a sequence of actions or transactions needed for a household to lead a healthy life with dignity and these actions and interactions depends on the economical, financial, social and political abilities of households (P. K. Singh, B.N. Hiremath, 2010). Understanding of livelihood systems of tribal population in North Eastern Region (NER) is vigorous to effective poverty reduction. Poverty and inequalities in this region in not one-track logic and be it in economic, financial, social, technical, cultural and political aspects. A livelihood can be made up of the competencies, assets (like resources, claims and access) and ability to recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide viable livelihood opportunities for the subsequent generation as well as which contributes net benefits to supplementary livelihoods at the local and global levels, and in the long and short run (Chambers and Conway, 1992).

On the other hand, the concept of sustainable livelihood security (SLS) has a comprehensive meaning, encompassing current concerns and policy requirements pertaining to sustainable development (SD). Swaminathan (1991a) has defined sustainable livelihood security as livelihood options that are ecologically secure, economically efficient, and socially equitable highlighting in all ecology, economics, and equity. While Chambers (1986) has defined sustainable livelihood as a ‘level of wealth and of stocks and flows of food and cash which provide for physical and social well-being and security against becoming poorer’. Chambers and Conway (1992) proposed the concept of Rural Livelihood Security (RLS) to focus on: capability, equity, and sustainability. Since the concept implies the protection or assurance of the means of livelihood for the masses not only at the present time but also in the future, it reflects equally the concern for both the inter-generational and the intra-generational equity.

Food Security (FS) is an important measure of well-being of the household. Access to sufficient food in calories and monthly per capita expenditure on food items were identified. Similarly, in Economic Security (ES), the components of household income and household assets were taken. While in Health Security (HS), the components of accessibility of primary health services, availability of sanitation and safe drinking water were taken, on the other hand, for Habitat Security (HBS): Type of dwelling, Availability of Electricity, cooking gas were identified and for social security, social network and community participation were taken as important components to measure sustainable livelihood index (SLI) among the households in order to lead a healthy and productive life. On a scale of 1 to 5, sustainable livelihood security index score for all selected districts was worked out and the results is shown in the Appendix Figure A.1.

Food Security: It is evident that in all selected villages, majority of respondents were stated that their livelihoods have improved after NSRLM scheme was implemented. Out of six components of livelihood security, economic security got the highest weightage (63.0%) followed by Food security (61.8%), education security (55.8%), social security (52.4%), habitat security (52.2%) and Health security (52%) respectively. Similarly, the distribution of respondents on each indicator of livelihood security in selected villages have been presented in tables 1 to 6. The data from table 1 shows that majority of the respondents 121(40.3%) were having high level food security followed by medium level 109 (36.3%) while 70 (23.3%) were under low level of food security. Among the villages, model village was predominant in high level food security while Diphupar was lowest under the Dimapur district. Thus, the study reveals that about 76 per cent of the respondents were having medium and high level of food security which indicates that low level of vulnerable conditions prevails with respect to food security in selected villages except in Changtonya and Diphupar villages respectively.

Economic Security: Similarly, table 2 presents economic security indices of respondents in the selected villages. The results indicate that majority 137(45.7%) of the respondents were having medium level of economic security followed by 95(31.7%) of high-level economic security. While 68 (22.6%) respondents were found under low level which emphasised the need for more economic opportunities. Among the villages, Kigwema and Model village predominates in high level of economic security while Changtonya was found to be low level. Thus, the study reveals that about 77 per cent of the households were having medium and high level of economic security and which indicates that most of household annual income and assets are in subsistence level except in Changtonya village in Mokokchung district which needs to strengthen economic opportunities through promoting agriculture and other income generating activities.

Education Security: The estimates worked out in table 3 provide extensive information about educational security of the households among the villages. It can be revealed that a large number 124 (41.3%) respondents were having medium level of educational security, followed by those having low 107(35.7%) and high level of educational security 69 (23.0%) respectively. Among the villages, Jakhama predominated in high level while model village prevails low in which 24 percent of respondents are illiterates. Thus, the study reveals that the level of educational security in the study villages were found to be good as more than 63 per cent of the respondents were having medium and high level of educational security. However, significant number of respondents have expressed that their educational security was in low level which emphasized on the urgency of upgrading of educational institutions for improving upon the educational security in the society.

Health Security: Table 4 presents health security of the families in selected villages indicates that a large number of respondents 142 (47.3%) were having medium level of health security followed by low level 114 (38%) and high level 44(14.7%). Among the villages, Kigwema predominates in health security while Akhoya and Changtonya villages in Mokokchung District have low level of HS. As per National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) in Nagaland state about 80 per cent were having improved source of drinking water which protect against outside contamination and about 98.3 per cent were having toilet facilities which prevent people from coming into contact with human waste and can reduce the transmission of cholera, typhoid, and other diseases. Interestingly in all selected villages none of the respondent stated that they are practicing open place/field for toilet and that their villages were under free open defecation. Though there was good sanitation facilities, majority of the respondents reported that rain harvest water and fetching water from source provided by the government supply and poor medical facilities indicative of vulnerable conditions in rural areas and hence it needs proper attention by the government and other health missions in the state.

Habitat Security: Regarding availability and accessibility of housing facility and household amenities as habitat security in selected villages is shown in table 5. It is evident from the data that majority 142 (47.3%) of respondents reported that they had medium level of habitat security, followed by, low level 97 (32.3%) and high level 61 (21.3%)². Among the villages, all the selected villages were under similar conditions in which medium level predominates, followed by low level and high level of habitat security. Thus, the study reveals that there is a need to improve the household amenities along with other infrastructural facilities like good road connectivity, communication, irrigation and institutional improvement for better habitat security in each and every corner of the State.

Social Security: Social Security (SS) works out broader range of community participation by women to look for ways to build civil society partnership and enable her to pursue viable livelihood by reducing risks, accessing services protecting themselves from deprivation and accessing information (CARE, 2002). The assessment of Social Security is shown in table 6. It was found that almost half 144 (48.0%) of the respondents were having low level of security, followed by medium level 94 (31.3%) and high level 62 (20.7%). Among the villages, both Model village and Diphupar under Dimapur district were having better than their counterpart villages. Though the participation in community organizations was in good condition, decision making and political participation women are in vulnerable conditions and women are not allowed equally with men limits their access to information and kept them in a state of dependence (Toshimenla Jamir 2012).

Sustainable Livelihood Index: Table 7 shows the distribution of respondents’ overall livelihood security into three categories viz. Low (unsustainable), medium (sustainable) high (high sustainable) levels. The overall score for livelihood security of the respondents in all selected villages was calculated by taking into account of the scores of all 6 different indicators of livelihood security and each indicator was multiplied with equal weightage to find out overall score for sustainable livelihood index. It is evident from the table that majority 251(83.7%) of respondents in the study villages had medium level of livelihood security whereas, 35(11.7%) and 14(4.7%) of respondents had low and high level of livelihood security respectively. Though the impact of NSRLM on sustainable livelihood index of all the selected villages have shown at moderate level, the participation in NSRLM programme bears a significant positive impact on poverty eradication, livelihood promotion and women empowerment among the respondents. If the government takes proper action plan for better implementation with effective mechanism, the outcome of the programme will be more beneficial for the entire state of Nagaland.