However, should a livelihood development project be defined merely on an aspect of income generation–of the demand and supply side–which is still often done so in today’s development organizations, and leaving out “the holistic aspect of engaging host-country members” off the equation, investments in refugee capacity development would likely sink in vain. In this instance, the shelf-life of program sustainability could last so long as the utilization of a program budget is still current. The reality is that the annual budget will run out. Furthermore, funding for refugee livelihood will get even more scarce in the present political climate. Therefore, instead of translating livelihood development merely as income-generation, what could have been done differently in implementing the program, which is still very much invisible by program design, is to cultivate “human capital,” allowing innovation and change at the grass-root level to have a potent effect in fostering and self-sustaining its livelihood. The latter would also require “soft approach” in addition to “hard programmatic management” to anchor ‘change’ for the betterment of sustainable outcomes.