Introduction: The purpose of this paper is to reveal the broader picture of livelihoods of Burmese refugees in Thailand as well as to launch new ideas on vocational training and access to work. A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation (Chambers and Conway, 1991: 6). The assets mentioned in the definition comprise not only financial resources, but also natural, physical, social and human capital. While the focus of this definition is on economic livelihood sustainability, it also touches upon ecological sustainability. The natural resource base should be used in everyone?s long term interest, including that of the next generation. Livelihoods should thus not be seen in a vacuum. Instead, it needs to be realised that what is beneficial for a certain household might be harmful for other members of the community. This touches upon a third form of sustainability: social sustainability. This form is achieved when ‘social exclusion is minimised and social equity maximised? (DFID, 1999: Section 1.4). A final crucial element of the ability to achieve ‘sustainable livelihoods? is increased well-being. Indeed, apart from being able to cope with economic shocks, people attach value to nonmaterial resources as well, such as a sense of control and inclusion, self-esteem, health status, political influence, maintenance of cultural heritage etc. These can all be factors that influence the subjective feeling of well-being (DFID, 1999: Section 2.6). In this paper, the emphasis is on the economic aspect: improving access to work and the role of human capital in that process. Human capital is essential as it is the basis for the use of all other types of assets and for achieving a positive livelihood outcome. Human capital is the generic term to mean not only life experience, but also education and skills. In response to the question of whether she was active in the community, a refugee responded: ?No, I cannot, I am illiterate. But my children are learning how to read and write, so their future will be better” (interview with Karen refugee, Mae La camp, 27/12/2006). Burmese refugees are aware of the potential of training, as on average, 65% of people surveyed by ZOA Refugee Care wanted to attend a vocational training course, 58% a language course and 47% an awareness raising course (Oh et al., 2006: 141). Livelihoods are, however, thoroughly influenced by the context refugees live in, which implies that many conditions have to be fulfilled before these activities to develop human resources will really lead to a sustainable livelihood with improved resilience to shocks. This paper will therefore start with an analysis of the context, moving on to practical suggestions for vocational training and related income generation programmes to achieve the goal of improved refugee self-reliance. It touches briefly on the subject of a viable alternative to encampment: the creation of a ‘Designated Zone of Residence?. As the focus of this issue paper is on human capital, other vital elements in understanding the livelihoods of the Burmese refugees, such as the importance of social capital in negotiating access to assets, the problematic access to justice or the psychological consequences of protracted encampment for both individuals and communities, will be outside the scope of this paper.