Livelihood Program 1

7/29/2019 Livelihood Program 1

1/58

LSP Working Paper 16 Institutional Learning Sub-programme

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Livelihood Support Programme(LSP) An inter-departmental programme for improving support for enhancing

livelihoods of the rural poor.

Do Sustainable Livelihoods ApproachesHave a Positive Impact on the Rural Poor?

A look at twelve case studies

Constance Neely, Kirsten Sutherland, and Jan Johnson

October 2004


2/58

LSP Working Paper 16 Institutional Learning Sub-programme

iii




October 2004

This paper was prepared under contract with the Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the United Nations (FAO). The positions and opinions presentedare those of the authors alone, and are not intended to represent the views of FAO.


3/58

SL project impact on the rural poor lessons from twelve case studies

jj28iv

In 2003, during its 17th Session, the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG) discussed therole of SL approaches in FAO programmes and projects. As an outcome, the Committeerequested FAO to identify and document specific examples where applications of therural livelihoods approach had led to success in reducing rural poverty. In an initial effortto respond to this request, the Livelihoods Support Programme has supported the deskstudy reported on in this document.

The Livelihood Support Programme

The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) evolved from the belief that FAO couldhave a greater impact on reducing poverty and food insecurity, if its wealth oftalent and experience were integrated into a more flexible and demand-responsiveteam approach.

The LSP works through teams of FAO staff members, who are attracted to specificthemes being worked on in a sustainable livelihoods context. These cross-departmental and cross-disciplinary teams act to integrate sustainable livelihoodsprinciples in FAOs work, at headquarters and in the field. These approaches buildon experiences within FAO and other development agencies.

The programme is functioning as a testing ground for both team approaches andsustainable livelihoods principles.

Email: [email protected]

Cover photo by Ian Cherrett, Rural Development in Lempira Sur Project


4/58


v

CONTENTS

1 WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? ........................................................................ 1

1.1 Context......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.4 Case Studies Reviewed................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Criteria defining the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach............................................................ 4

1.6 Hypotheses relating to SL-specific principles..............................................................................5

1.7 General Indicators of Poverty Reduction.................................................................................... 6

1.8 Looking for Evidence of Positive Impact on the Rural Poor ...................................................... 7

2 EVIDENCE OF IMPACT ................................................................................. 8

2.1 Poverty Reduction, Enhanced Resilience, and Long-Term Sustainability ................................. 82.1.1 Poverty Reduction ..................................................................................................................... 82.1.2 Resilience and Reduction in Vulnerability ............................................................................... 112.1.3 Long-term sustainability.......................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Linking use of Sustainable Livelihoods Principles with Evidence of Positive Change ............. 12

2.2.1 Analyzing the vulnerability context ......................................................................................... 132.2.2 Building Assets.................................................................................................................... ... 152.2.3 Livelihoods Focus ................................................................................................................... 182.2.4 Good Governance ................................................................................................................... 182.2.5 Social Inclusivity and Empowerment....................................................................................... 212.2.6 Participation............................................................................................................................ 242.2.7 Partnerships & Multi-level, Macro-Micro Linkages ................................................................. 25

2.3 Aspects that Challenged the Achievement of Positive Change.................................................. 25

2.4 Project-related Constraints ....................................................................................................... 252.4.1 Participation, social inclusivity, and enhancing the livelihood strategies of the poor.................. 252.4.2 Issues surrounding the disaggregation of project interventions.................................................. 26

2.4.3 Issues surrounding empowerment............................................................................................ 262.4.4 Issues concerning holistic interventions, increased resilience and ability to withstand shock ..... 272.4.5 Issues surrounding engaging dynamism and flexibility............................................................. 272.4.6 Issues surrounding good governance and institutions, and macro-micro linkages ...................... 27

2.5 Wider Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 282.5.1 Issues surrounding partnerships............................................................................................... 28

3 OPERATIONALISING THE PRINCIPLES.................................................... 29

3.1 Linking SL Principles to SL-supporting Actions ...................................................................... 29

3.2 Linking the employment of SL principles to activities and outcomes: The case of WIN Nepal31

3.3 Getting it right : when to do things, and who to do it with...................................................... 32


5/58


vi

3.4 When were specific principles most in evidence? ......................................................................32

3.5 A similar operational/ institutional pattern shared by several successful projects................... 35

4 WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................. 38

4.1 What do we think we know? ......................................................................................................38

4.2 What do we not know?...............................................................................................................43

5 INSTEAD OF A CONCLUSION....... ............................................................. 44

5.1 Findings......................................................................................................................................44

5.2 Emerging Issues and Insights.....................................................................................................45

5.3 The Way Forward......................................................................................................................45

6 SOURCES OF INFORMATION..................................................................... 46

6.1 References and Documents Reviewed........................................................................................46

6.2 Contacts and Interviews.............................................................................................................49

6.3 ACRONYMS..............................................................................................................................51


6/58


1




1 Why are we doing this?

1.1 Context

Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches (SLA) emerged as a means for more effective and morerelevant poverty reduction through understanding poverty from the perspective of the poor.Originally conceived of in the 1980s in the context of Farming Systems Research and Education,the approach was developed through the 1990s and crystallized as SLA in the late 1990s by theDepartment for International Development (DFID) (Carney, 1998; 1999). A number of

organizations have employed the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Framework. Theframework has been used as a programming framework (UNDP); for programming analysis, design,monitoring and evaluation (CARE Household Livelihood Security); and for integratingenvironmental sustainability (The SL Approach to Poverty Reduction, SIDA; Carney, 1999). TheDepartment for International Development (DFID) has sought to advance poverty reduction resultsthrough mainstreaming good development principles associated with the SLA (people centred,responsive, multi-level, conducted in partnerships, sustainable, dynamic) and by applying a holisticperspective in programming support activities to ensure relevance to improving peopleslivelihoods. Although there has been an evolution in the principles that can be included in the SLAand framework and an acceptance of how these reflect good development practice, the questionremains, is poverty being reduced?

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has built upon the SLA to find waysand means to improve the sustainable livelihoods of rural dwellers. In 2003, during its 17th Session,the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG) discussed the role of SL approaches in FAOprogrammes and projects. As an outcome, the Committee requested FAO to identify anddocument specific examples where applications of the rural livelihoods approach had led to successin reducing rural poverty. In an initial effort to respond to this request, the Livelihoods SupportProgramme is supporting the desk study reported on in this document.

1.2 Purpose and Objectives

This paper examines case studies of projects that employed a sustainable livelihoods approach orsustainable livelihoods principles and in which there were measurable effects of poverty reduction.The paper is not a comparative study between livelihoods and non-livelihoods approaches and assuch traditional development cases were not considered.

Although not part of the specific request from COAG, the paper also attempts to identify theoperational and institutional elements that were consistent among cases of successful impact on therural poor.

1.3 Methodology

This paper is based on a desk study undertaken at FAO Headquarters in Rome. The studyconsisted primarily of a review of existing project case study documents with input from membersof an extended study team and from participants of an update meeting held at FAO in April 2004.


7/58


2

Case studies representing different regions, sectoral entry points and scales of influence weresought from within and outside of FAO. Those retained as having enough data to support usefulevaluations are listed in Box 1.

Further contributions were sought through interviews and e-mail exchanges with resource personsof the cases under review (section 6.2). An extended summary of each of the cases reviewed aswell as other resources are available in the Supplemental Materials, being published separately inorder to keep this present document down to a reasonable size.

The Livelihoods Support Programme of FAO and the co-sponsors of the People CentredDevelopment Day have been engaged in the study through a preliminary review of findings and aworkshop to enhance the analysis of the outcomes. The study has been termed a desk study withfollow-up and is considered a basis for the design of additional related activities.

1.4 Case Studies Reviewed

Country NameImplementingOrganization

Entry PointProject Time

Frame

Bangladesh

Strengthening Household Access to BariGarden Extension Services (SHABGE) CARE Agriculture 1999-2004

BoliviaInter-regional Project for ParticipatoryUpland Conservation and Development

Government ofItaly/FAO

IntegratedWatershed

Management

1992-2000(three phases)

CambodiaParticipatory Natural Resource Managementin the Tonle Sap Region

FAO/Government of

Cambodia

CommunityFisheries and

Forestry

1995-2004(ongoing)

EthiopiaThe Ruba Lomine Integrated RuralDevelopment Programme

Oxfam Agriculture 1995-2002

GambiaThe Lowlands Agricultural DevelopmentProgramme (LADEP)

IFAD Agriculture 1996-2004

HondurasRural Development in Lempira Sur Project(PROLESUR)

FAO Agriculture 1994-2002

IndonesiaDELIVERI Decentralized LivestockServices in Eastern Indonesia

DFID Livestock Services 1996-2001

Myanmar

Environmentally Sustainable Food Securityand Micro-Income Opportunities in Critical

Watersheds

FAO/ ForestDepartment of

the Governmentof Myanmar

Food security;Natural resource

rehabilitation;Income-generatingopportunities

1999-2002

Nepal

Empowerment of Women in Irrigation andWater Resource Management for ImprovedFood Security, Nutrition and Health (WIN)

FAOIrrigation, Health,

Nutrition1999-2003

PakistanInter-regional Project for ParticipatoryUpland Conservation and Development

FAO/Government of

Pakistan

IntegratedWatershed

Management1992-1999

Yemen

Community-Based Regional DevelopmentProgramme (CBRDP) FAO

CommunityEnterprises

1998-2003

Zambia

Improving Household Food Security and

Nutrition through Community Empowermentin the Luapula Valley FAO Agriculture 1996-2001


8/58


3

The analysis of case studies was carried out in three stages related to meeting SL criteria, assessingof impact on the rural poor, and determining the added value of the SL approach on impact.

The first stage involved establishing whether the projects to be used incorporated an adequatenumber of SL principles for it to be considered sufficiently sustainable livelihoods-related. Forthis purpose, key criteria defining the SLA were identified and categorised according to theircentrality to the approach (Figure 1). These criteria were used to determine which projects toinclude in the study. Few cases of those selected were designed or initiated specifically toimplement a sustainable livelihoods approach, but all those retained had addressed the majority ofsustainable livelihoods principles.

The second stage of the analysis involved evaluating the impacts each project had had on the ruralpoor, the results of which evaluation form the core of this paper.

Subsequently, stage three was designed to address the value added by the SL approach in reducingpoverty. This was done by using the findings from previous stages along with a set of hypotheses

addressing SL specific principles which had been developed by the extended study teamparticipants (Box 2).

Ultimately however, the extent to which the paper speaks to each of these hypotheses is limited bythe fact that it is not a comparative analysis with non-SL approaches to development, and by thelack of detailed evaluative material available on the majority of projects. These hypotheses arediscussed further in the lessons learned in Section 3.0. A full set of principles, hypotheses, andindicators can be found in Annex 6.2.


9/58


4

1.5 Criteria defining the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach1

1Output of an LSP brainstorming session held on February 2nd, 2004.


10/58


11

Very few cases contained documented evidence of changes or shifts in wealth classes, or directimpacts on the most poor. LADEP in Gambia was one of these, where greater rice yields also ledto shifts in income distribution, with 15-78% of very poor project participants moving into thecategories of poor and non-poor. Early and late wealth ranking exercises carried out by theDELIVERI project also showed that many farmers had moved from the poor or middle poor torich categories over the life of the project.

2.1.2 Resilience and Reduction in Vulnerability

Three cases indicated increased resilience and the capacity to cope with natural or political shocks,which took the form of drought (Ethiopia,) conflict (Nepal) and climatic shock (Honduras).

In Ethiopia, the IRDP faced not only a serious drought two out of the three years in which it wasimplemented, but it was also confronted with outbreaks of violence and looting as the result of

continuing border tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The return of tens of thousands ofinternally displaced peoples heightened the already urgent situation in project target areas. Foodfor work activities linked to the rehabilitation of natural resources, road construction and othertraining provided a short-term solution to the immediate need for food whilst revitalising rurallivelihoods in the long-term through improving the natural resource and communication bases.Soil and water conservation, reforestation and area enclosure measures introduced under the projectwere identified by farmers as having been critical in reducing the impact of drought on theirlivelihoods. Despite overall declines in terms of nutritional status and the amount of food available,project activities were successful, if not in improving the livelihoods of target community members,then in at least ensuring that the majority of target households were able to maintain their statusquo against the severity of the drought (Oxfam Canada/REST, 2003).

The WIN project in certain sites in Nepal was affected by internal conflict between governmentforces and Maoist rebels. One village that consisted of untouchable families for example, washighly vulnerable and insecure during the insurgency. A solution was sought based on a visit by aselected group of women from the village to a village in which drip irrigation and water tanks hadbeen installed. The women were enthusiastic and thus guaranteed the safety of project staff, whostayed in the village for the month of work. The WIN project was seen to have helped householdsin other insecure areas to cope with conflict by promoting self sufficiency, strengthening groups,and community bases nurseries. Additionally, the training and team building of the WIN staffadded to their willingness to continue work despite the threat this posed to their personal safety.

The Lempira Sur region of Honduras was able to withstand the ravages of El Nio and HurricaneMitch as a direct result of project interventions. Communal natural resource recovery measures

that rendered the landscape highly resistant to natural shock coupled with the subsequentintroduction of new/improved production, preservation and storage technologies allowedcommunities in the region to maintain a grain surplus throughout the El Nio and Hurricane Mitchdisasters.

2.1.3 Long-term sustainability

Franks et al. (2004) in a study of ten cases in Southern Africa, Tanzania and Uganda noted thatsustainability must be considered in all of its aspects (economic, social, environmental, andinstitutional) in order to impact on peoples livelihoods. In their study, they added that economicand institutional sustainability are important for the short term while longer term consequences

affecting the environment and social components must be considered.


11/58


12

Long-term sustainability is perhaps the most difficult to address from the case studies reviewed.This may be primarily due to the level of maturity of the various project activities rendering itimpossible to comment on sustained post-project activities, institutional change, poverty reduction,or removal of exclusion or inequities among social groups within communities. However there areperhaps elements of the framework which if successfully employed can reflect a greater possibilityof long-term social and institutional sustainability such as:

a. Peoples empowerment - confidence, negotiating capacity, conflict resolution skills,grant-writing ability, capacity to discern useful projects based on values, educationprograms etc.

b. Institutional change - representation in government bodies, enhanced serviceprovision that goes beyond an ephemeral change.

c. Enabling policies - the Bolivian water law for example.

d. Partnerships and multi-level macro-micro linkages - cohesive, multi-disciplinary

teams with a strong sense of ownership and the ability to reach an expandedgeographical area and multiple sectors, linkages from the community, to district, tonational level meaning that successful strategies are more likely to be translated intopolicy.

Information that might reflect long-term sustainability in the form of environmental (mimickingecosystems in Honduras; natural resource recovery measures in Myanmar), livelihoods (Yemen,Cambodia), institutional and community (Indonesia, Nepal, Honduras, and Yemen) sustainabilitywas found in a limited number of cases. Financial sustainability was indicated by high rates ofrepayment on the loans made by community development organisations to fund income-generatingand community benefit activities (Yemen, Myanmar).

2.2 Linking use of Sustainable Livelihoods Principles with Evidence ofPositive Change

As shown in the previous section, evidence of positive impact on the rural poor was found in thecases under review. This section examines the degree to which selected principles, both specificand non-specific to the SLA were incorporated by the projects and attempts to draw linkagesbetween these principles and evidence of poverty outcomes and impacts. Table 2 presents a broadoverview of the nature in which the three SL-specific principles were employed by the 12 projects.


12/58


13

Table 2. An overview of the incorporation of SL-specific principles

Builds assetsCountry Vulnerability Livelihoods focus

Human Social Financial

Physical

Natural

HondurasCapacity to store grain,support other provinces

Increased yield, storage,agro-industrial crops,

NepalIncreased food security,nutrition, irrigation

Farm-related IGAs

YemenIncreased income,increased opportunities

Training in various IGAs

IndonesiaIncreased access toservices animal health

Integration of livestock

EthiopiaNR recovery, droughtmitigation measures

Improved sustainablefarming practices, IGAs

Significantpositiveimpacton

ruralpoor

Myanmar NR recovery, increasedfood security, irrigation IGAs, livestock,on-farm employment,

CambodiaSustainable managementof forests/fishing grounds

Livelihoods diversification(livestock, aquaculture,horticulture)

BangladeshIncreased food security,nutrition & income

Homestead gardening

BoliviaImproved land & watermanagement

Diversification, eco-friendly IGAs, training inimproved farmingpractices

Somepositiveimpact

onruralpoor

GambiaIncreased incomes fromhigher rice yields

Focus on rice productiononly

PakistanRangeland rehabilitation,

watershed management

Training in new livelihood

strategies

Little

positive

impact

onrur

al

poor

ZambiaIncreased production ofmore nutritious crops

Improved agriculturalpractices; IGAs

2.2.1 Analyzing the vulnerability context

All cases engaged the three SL-specific principles, but to differing extents and with differing levelsof success. The vulnerability context was generally characterised by food insecurity andmalnutrition, a lack of disposable income, a limited asset base, the exploitation of natural resourcesand vulnerability to natural shocks. Efforts to address these issues mainly took the form ofincreasing the production of nutritious crops; promoting the sale of surplus crops to generate extraincome; building human (training), social (group formation), financial (credit services), natural(planting of trees, seed and plant nurseries), and physical (treadle pumps, multi-storey trellises)capital; and the recovery of natural resource in order to decrease vulnerability to natural shocks.Boxes 6 and 7 illustrate further how these, and other principles were put into practice and how,using the cases of Honduras and Ethiopia respectively.


13/58


14

Box 6. SL principles linked to key project impacts: Lempira Sur, Honduras7

The implementation of the first phase of theLempira Sur project was undertaken in the contextof accelerating impoverishment. Ever more

extensive slash-and-burn agriculture and cattleranching was leading to a rapid loss of soil fertility,which in turn, had prevented the regeneration oftrees, destroyed local flora and fauna and dried outwater sources, leading to heavy erosion andlandslides.

Project interventions were designed to support thecommunal recovery of natural assets by mimickingnatural ecosystems (address vulnerability context,long-term sustainability), and promoting new production and land management technologies(e.g. the use of mulch, the spacing of seeds, live barriers) (building natural and human capital,

focus on enhancing livelihoods). The adoption of agro-forestry and silvo-pastoral systems led

to the reforestation of 10 000 hectares of land, while the large-scale implementation of soilconservation techniques (e.g. zero burning, zero tillage, hedges, cover crops) contributed to theregeneration of natural resources and to increased water retention (building natural, physicaland human capital).

Together, these achievements allowed participating households and communities to withstandthe ravages of El Nio in 1997 and to maintain a grain surplus throughout ( increased resilienceand ability to withstand shock). The technologies promoted by the project proved resistant todrought and participating households experienced successful harvests (20% loss) as a result(building financial capital), whilst non-participating households suffered massive losses (80%)(Cherrett, 2000: 29). In addition, the region escaped the worst of Hurricane Mitch in 1998 dueto the widespread adoption of project technologies which rendered the landscape highlyresistant to the effects of the hurricane (increased resilience and ability to withstand shock).Lempira Sur continued to experience grain surpluses in the aftermath of Mitch due to the use ofnew locally built silos introduced by the project (building physical capital), and was able tomobilise famine relief aid to other parts of the country.

To establish an enabling environmentfor people centred development andlink households to departmentalgovernment, the Lempira Sur projectsupported the strengthening or creationof local governance institutionsincluding Community DevelopmentCouncils (CODECOs), the MunicipalDevelopment Council (CODEMS) andthe mancomunidades (associations ofmore than one municipality). Thisresulted in enhanced capacity forinforming decision-making from thebottom up through CODECOs to themancommunidades (good local

governance and institutional linkages, multi-level).

The projects success, stemming from improved production systems and environmentalsustainability whilst remaining a neutral/honest broker, also built the capacity of communitymembers to organize themselves and reflect their priorities in policy decisions (building socialcapital, empowering).

7 Photos by Ian Cherrett, Rural Development in Lempira Sur Project.


14/58


15/58


16/58


17/58


18/58


19/58


20/58


15

2.2.2 Building Assets

All cases reviewed demonstrated evidence of increases in some/all five forms of assets:

Human asset development took the form of technical, vocational and organizationalcapacity-building provided to individuals, vulnerable/disadvantaged groups (poor, landless,women, female household heads, elderly, destitute), producer groups, communitydevelopment associations, and local and national NGOs and governmental institutions.

Social assets were built through the formation, training, cohesion and capacity-building ofcommunity groups, committees, farmer groups, and local leaders. While some projects

8 Photo taken from Noble, R. 2003. Collaborative Learning to Achieve Sustainable Livelihoods. A Final

Evaluation Report of the Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme.[http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/docs/Oxfam_Eval.pdf ].

Box 7. SL Principles Linked to Key Project Impacts: Ethiopia8

The Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme (IDRP), undertaken by Oxfam Canadaand the Relief Society of Tigray in Ethiopia (partnerships), took account of a range of factors shapingthe vulnerability context in the region. Issues around food security and nutrition, agriculturalproduction, health and environmental sustainability were considered against the backdrop of acontinuing drought, the key factor determining the vulnerability of households to poverty and foodinsecurity (holistic diagnosis).

As such, a three-pronged approach was adopted totarget the short, medium and long-term effects ofdrought at both the household and the communitylevels (addresses vulnerability context). A food-for-work programme associated with long-termenvironmental rehabilitation measures to reduce soil

erosion and land degradation addressed both theimmediate need for food and contributed to theprevention/mitigation of further drought (long-termsustainability, building natural and physical capital,

increased resilience and ability to withstand

shocks). It also helped to protect household assets,primarily livestock, from distress sales (Gotts,1998). Local groups were formed to manage these activities and other communal resources such aswater installations, in order to encourage local ownership of interventions and to ensure theirsustainability beyond project completion (building social capital, enhances good governance andinstitutions, long-term sustainability). Training was provided in improved agricultural productiontechniques and in a range of income-generating activities, and a community credit fund wasestablished (building human and financial capital, enhancing and diversifying livelihood strategies ).

These activities allowed farmers to continue production despite poor rains, and to diversify livelihoodsaway from a full dependence on agriculture. Households were also able to use the income gainedfrom these other activities to purchase additional food to supplement subsistence production. Thus,while the area continued to be plagued by drought, the IRDP contributed to households ability towithstand related shocks in both the immediate and distant future by addressing not just thesymptoms, but the root causes of food insecurity and poverty.


21/58


16

worked deliberately with pre-existing groups in the interest of cohesion and solidarity(Nepal, Gambia), others created new associations in the interest of social inclusivity(Yemen)9.

Financial assets were enhanced through income generation and savings as well as access tocommunity development funds, community banks, or other credit schemes.

Physical assets were built through infrastructural support related to sanitation, water supply,roads, and shelter and storage facilities, and/or the provision of farming tools and otherequipment (treadle pumps, multi-storey trellises, bee hives).

Natural assets or stocks were addressed in a variety of ways, including:

a. The incorporation of productive resources, such as the planting of mulberry and appletrees in Pakistan.

b. Providing access to, or the reclamation of land for, agricultural production. In Gambia,backswamps and tidal swamps were reclaimed through the construction of causewaysand bridges.

c. Addressing upstream-downstream relationships through integrated watershedmanagement, as in Bolivia.

d. Managing lands to mimic natural ecosystems, as in Honduras.

e. Promoting improved farming and land use practices, such as in Cambodia, Myanmarand Pakistan.

Box 8 presents the case of Yemen, where the building of assets through community organization,enterprise skills facilitation and access to credit and savings facilities was adopted as a key strategyin addressing rural poverty.

9 The dominance of elites, traditional leaders and other powerful groups in some parts of Yemeni societyposed a challenge to the formation of Community Based Organisations under the CBRDP. In the interest of

representing the needs of the wider community whilst also maintaining some element of existing powerstructures, CBOs were formed by a mixture of traditional community leaders, the poor, women and othermarginalised groups.


22/58


17

10 Photo by Stephan Bass, CBRDP.

Box 8. SL principles linked to key project impacts: CBRDP, Yemen10

The building of human, social and financial capital formed the core of the FAO/UNDP Community-

Based Regional Development Programme (CBRDP) being implemented in five districts of Yemen, onthe basis that these communities lack of specificskills was one of the factors preventing them frombecoming active participants in the developmentprocess (people-centred).

Under the project, 53 Community DevelopmentOrganisations (CDOs) were formed, eachconsisting of an Executive Body (EB), a GeneralAssembly and various Technical Committees.These CDOs were created to identify, implementand monitor poverty alleviation interventions,manage a newly-established community creditfund, and create effective linkages with institutionsat different levels (enhancing good governance and institutions, multi-level linkages, building socialand human capital). Ensuring the representation of the poor and women in all the functions of theCDOs was key (socially inclusive). By 2003, the poor constituted 65% of all CDO members, whilewomen formed 36% of all CDO members and 21% of EB members. Clear changes in the perceptionof the community towards womens participation were noted, with initial refusal to allow womenrepresentatives in the EBs giving way to a situation whereby a female chairperson was electedchairperson of the Gozr Al-Behar CDO.

Through these CDOs, communities have gone from passive recipients to active initiators ofdevelopment interventions (empowering). Training in project design and proposal writing skills hasallowed CDOs to attract an additional $697 945 to fund local development activities through thecommunity revolving credit fund (building financial capital). In coordination with CDOs,government departments have also expanded and upgraded their coverage of services in project areas.

Alongside measures designed to strengthen CDOs, human capacity-building and training activitiesalso took place. Development training was provided to improve technical, organisational, managerial,administrative and financial skills, and vocational training was given in 14 fields ranging fromcarpentry and plumbing, to perfume and ceramics production (focus on enhancing livelihoods,building human and social capital, not strictly sectoral). Gender was again a critical factor here, withwomen being exempted from certain training eligibility criteria in order to encourage theirparticipation. Women made up 35% of all trainees, many of whom highlighted the significant,positive impact training had had on their feelings of self-confidence and self-worth (empowering).

Vocational training and the availability of credit through the community revolving fund has led to thecreation of numerous small businesses, which have helped diversify household income sources(reducing vulnerability to economic shock). There is evidence to suggest that, as a result of suchbusinesses, the average household income has gone from YR 17 033 to YR 22 490, a rise of 26%(building financial capital). This income was allocated to higher-quality food (22.6%), healthcare(15.7%), childrens education (12.8%), Gat (12.2%), savings (10.3%), household assets (9.1%),expansion of existing business (6.5%), the creation of a new business (4.5%), the repayment of debts(3.5%), and others (2.8%), with women being more likely to allocate their incomes towards householdwellbeing (food, health and education).


23/58


18

2.2.3 Livelihoods Focus

All cases incorporated some form of livelihoods focus. Several good examples are demonstrated inHonduras, Yemen and Ethiopia (earlier Boxes 6, 7 and 8). What was difficult to clarify from theexisting documentation was the degree to which livelihood strategies were intentionally developed

based on pre-existing livelihood strategies and assets analysis of the beneficiary communities, orbased on over-riding intentions of the project donor organization. Examples from Ethiopia,Pakistan, Yemen and Gambia demonstrate the divergent approaches to incorporating a livelihoodsfocus (Box 9).

Box 9. A livelihoods focus in practice

In Ethiopia, the IDRP sought to render existing livelihood strategies more sustainable by couplingnatural resource recovery measures with training in improved agricultural practices. Further trainingwas provided in non-traditional farming activities such as bee-keeping, which takes up minimal or noland space and is thus a feasible strategy for small landowners as well as landless persons.

In Pakistan, the PUCD programme sought to empower women by developing livelihood strategiesadapted to the practice of purdah in the area. Whereas previous initiatives focused on traditionalactivities such as embroidery, the PUCD piloted projects in household poultry-raising, sheep rearing,tailoring, latrine construction and homestead fruit and vegetable production.

In Yemen, the livelihoods focus principle was operationalised through the provision of developmentand vocational training, and through the creation of a community credit fund. Together, these allowedthe expansion of existing livelihoods strategies and the identification and realisation of new, viableincome-generating activities, helping to diversify household income sources and to increase householdincome levels.

In Gambia, LADEP focused exclusively on increasing yields of monoculture rice in order to boostfood security and income levels. It did so at the expense of other livelihoods strategies however.Human and financial capital were diverted away from upland crops (groundnuts) to lowland riceproduction, with potentially negative implications for nutritional levels and increased vulnerability tonatural and economic shocks affecting rice.

2.2.4 Good Governance

Governance refers to the form or strength of governing systems structure, power, effectiveness,efficiency, rights and representation and addresses inter alia exercising political power; efficiencyand accessibility of service providers; honesty, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability andaccessibility; human rights; property rights; and decentralization. Although not true for all casesreviewed, there were some cases in which the principles of governance and/or multi-level linkageswere well illustrated, and were articulated as:

a. Strengthening customary village institutions (Gambia, Bolivia), or creating newvillage-level institutions (Myanmar, Yemen).

b. Building community representation in local government (Zambia, Honduras).

c. Building the capacity for participatory, multidisciplinary or collaborative approaches(Nepal, Pakistan, Honduras).


24/58


19

d. Enhanced responsiveness of local government to local priorities (Indonesia, Ethiopia).

e. Building the service provision capacity of government agencies (Indonesia, Nepal).

f. Influencing policy reform (Indonesia, Honduras, Bolivia, Nepal).

In most cases, there was a link from household to local government and in some cases, a link tonational government. Projects that stressed aspects of governance, multi-level linkages andinstitutions from the outset seemed better positioned to report an enhanced responsiveness tocommunity and farmer priorities while impacting national efforts. A brief description of thegovernance and multilevel aspects of the Indonesia and Honduras cases are provided in Boxes 10and 11 respectively.

Box 10. Governance Principles linked to Outcomes in Indonesia11

The DELIVERI project in Indonesia was designed to

address weaknesses in the delivery of livestock servicesto resource poor farmers, in recognition that existingservice provision was rigid, under-responsive, andincapable of accommodating the varied needs of poorfarmers. Through the introduction of more client-focused quality services approaches to livestock serviceprovision within the Department of Livestock Servicesin four districts in Sulawesi, it was hoped that theprogramme would contribute to sustainable increases inwealth and enhance the self-reliance of small-scale andresource-poor farmers through increased livestockproduction.

An extensive capacity-building programme was operated at all levels, from senior officials in theMinistry of Agriculture, to provincial and district level government staff, to national and local NGOstaff, to private service providers. The project was able to influence two laws for planning andimplementing livestock services and has influenced both farmer and government services capacityparticularly in the development of a participatory and responsive extension service as well as behaviourchanges related to time and quality management. DELIVERI participants were seen to be in a positionto impact the World Bank Extension Reform Project and contribute to Ministry of Agriculture-widethinking on participatory planning.

11 Photo taken from Delivering Quality Services: Improving Community Services in Indonesia CD-ROMprovided by Peter Bazely of the IDL Group.


25/58


20

Box 11. Governance Principles linked to Outcomes in Honduras12

While the Lempira Sur Project in Hondurasstarted out with, and maintained a focus on food

security, it also invested heavily in governance. In1999, it put in place a Governance Project (FAO,2004) to support the reinforcement or creation oflocal governance institutions to develop planningefforts to link households to municipalgovernment. The institutions included CommunityDevelopment Councils (CODECOs), theMunicipal Development Council (CODEMS) andthe mancomunidades (associations of more thanone municipality). The Lempira Sur projectengaged government and local authorities in the

planning process. Central government was appreciative of the positive on-the-ground changes that theproject had made and this led to its collaboration with the project. As a result, the Municipal law was

amended to legitimize the mancomunidades. Additionally, the efforts of the project were coherent withthree national policies related to decentralization including the Master Plan for National Reconstructionand Transformation (1999), the Poverty Reduction Strategy (2001) and the Local Development andDecentralization Programme (2002).

Maintaining a neutral ground, the project was able to create independence for small farmers, build thecapacity for local government organization and self-management, and ensure that policy decisionsbetter reflected the needs and priorities of the poor and vulnerable through political sensitization andtraining in open dialogue with mayors and candidates. The mayors have their own organization fornegotiating with central institutions. Additionally, a two-way dynamic has been put in motion. Theorganizations and municipalities are negotiating for better services, while at the national level, someministries are appreciating the fact that more of their services are available in the project area thanbefore.

12 Photo by Ian Cherrett, Rural Development in Lempira Sur Project.


26/58


21

2.2.5 Social Inclusivity and Empowerment

The degree to which projects were socially inclusive and empowering varied greatly across projects.In some instances, projects specifically engaged multiple socio-economic groups including the poorand very poor (Honduras, Ethiopia, Myanmar), untouchables (Nepal, Box 11), and other

marginalised groups (Yemen). In other cases, social inclusivity was expressed as including orworking only/predominantly with women (Pakistan, Gambia and Bangladesh).

Projects that made a concerted effort to ensure social inclusivity were often able to facilitate theempowerment of vulnerable/marginalised groups. This was articulated as:

a. Significant changes in womens position within the household, and access to andcontrol of household income (Bangladesh, Box 12).

b. Significant changes in the status of other marginalised/disadvantaged groups withinthe community (Myanmar).

c. Enhanced problem solving by women (Nepal).

d. Promoting the rights of communities to access natural resources (Cambodia).

e. Empowering farmers to engage in extension planning (and criticism) andentrepreneurial activities promoted by women (Indonesia, Pakistan).

f. Enhanced ability to initiate and be proactive in development (Yemen).

g. Associations allowing small-scale farmers voices to be heard in policy debates(Gambia).

h. Reduction in dependence on or use of an intermediary patron in times of trouble(Honduras).

i. Bringing together local government and communities during project design (Ethiopia).


27/58


22

Box 11. Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and Water Resources Management for

Household Security, Nutrition and Health (WIN)

The WIN project set out to empower women in irrigation management and provide access toproductive resources while addressing food security, nutrition and health concerns (multi-sectoral).An underlying objective was to strengthen local and national capacity to effectively assist in theincorporation of gender, household food security, nutrition and health into irrigation and watermanagement projects in the country.

Project interventions included the diversification of crop production; home gardening; animal raising;community vegetable seedling nurseries; treadle pumps and spring water tapping; water storagedevices; training in group organisation and strengthening, business skills, literacy/numeracy andtechnical issues ; . As many as 2555 households in four districts benefited and the project worked with6128 women and 1031 men. The project had successful experience of recapitalising food insecurehouseholds, especially resource poor Kamayas (impact on most poor, socially inclusive). Overall, theproject reported influencing as many as 15,000 women, men and children. Nutrition and health has

improved through nutritious food, cleaner domestic habits, the use of boiled water, and changes inbirthing practices. There was evidence of income generation from farm sales (financial capital), timesavings for women and children, improved food security (reduced food insecure months from 9 to 0-2months), improvement in social factors (children in school and getting health care).

Women have been empowered through group formation efforts including water users committees,participation in water management and group savings; training in literacy, leadership, gender,womens rights; and access to women friendly technologies, Equitable sharing of work loads,reduction in domestic violence and women making claims for services from government line agencieshave also been reported. Women were noted as being better able to solve their own problems (humanand social assets). Local women were also trained as social mobilizers. Additionally there werechanges in attitudes and practices of extension staff that evolved from sectoral to multi-sectoral teamsto interact with communities and farmers (empowering, good governance, responsiveness).

The most vulnerable and food insecure groups(landless, freed Kamayas, Dalits and others) wereidentified during participatory appraisals. The projectwas encouraged to work the existing On-Farm WaterManagement (OFWM) project, it was noted that thesegroups would not have been assisted. The Nepal teamworked with more well-off participants through theOFWM yet found a way to work with the mostvulnerable through collaborative arrangements withGTZ (socially inclusive, working in partnership).

The WIN approach was noted as having a potential

role in mitigating severe food insecurity in conflict and recovery situations. While WIN can assistconventional irrigation and water resources projects to integrate health, nutrition, and gender aspects,the approach has been shown to play a constructive role through peace/conflict mitigation and thepromotion of peace and reconciliation. Team building as a part of the process allowed for successfulwork. The project managed to succeed during assassination and insurgencies at project sites and theteam continued their work at considerable personal risk.

WIN staff included part time government officers assigned to line ministries and 2-3 long-term,experienced national consultants, and through sensitization and participatory process training, the projectbuilt cohesive, multi-disciplinary multi-district teams. They were able to respond to local needs andconsidered to be highly effective with regard to technical expertise, gender awareness, conflictmanagement and project reporting. While the WIN project has helped the Nepal government (governance)focus on gender mainstreaming, participatory poverty assessments, and demand-driven responses to local

needs, the Nepal government has recognized the WIN approach as being cost effective


28/58


23

13

The picture in this text box shows Rokeya Begum, a landless entrepreneur and FFS participant. It is takenfrom Bartlett: 2002.14 0.02-0.25 acres (100 decimals = 1 acre), or 81-1012 m2.

Box 12. Strengthening Household Access to Bari Garden Extension Services (SHABGE)13

SHABGE was implemented by CARE, in partnership with 23 localNGOs in five districts of Bangladesh. The project aimed to improve thehousehold food security, consumption and nutrition of poor andmarginalised women and men farmers (people-centred). Becausewomen constituted the greatest number of disadvantaged groupshowever, 99% of project participants were female (disaggregatedinterventions). Participants were all poor, but to differing extents. Somewere landless, while others had access to between 2-25 decimals ofland14. SHABGE also worked with elderly women and widows, who areoften neglected or subjected to violence because they are seen as aburden to the household (Bartlett, 2002) (socially inclusive).

Through a programme of Farmer Field School training (building humanand social capital; livelihoods focus), these women experienced smallincreases in yields of fruit and vegetables (building natural capital).This in turn had generally led to increased household consumption andimproved health (fewer skin complaints and eye problems were specifically cited), as well as increases inhousehold incomes through the sale of surplus produce (increasing resilience to health-related shocks;building financial capital).

Whilst women were highly appreciative of these outcomes, they particularly valued the impact theproject had had on their status within the household and community. Participation in SHABGE hadstrengthened womens decision-making ability, their access, control and use material resources, and theiraccess to knowledge and technology (Wilson & Hussain, 2002).

Women noted that their husbands and families had begun to treat them with more respect, that they werenow participating in household decision-making and that their control over household income hadincreased. In addition, participants were now considered locally as experts in homestead gardening(Bartlett, 2002a) and were consulted by other community members on new farming practices andtechnologies (empowering).


29/58


24

2.2.6 Participation

Social inclusivity and empowerment were often closely associated with the nature and quality ofparticipatory processes put in place by a particular project. One of the aspects which contributed tostrengthening the impact of the five more successful projects was precisely the strength of theparticipatory processes that they set in motion. Aspects of participation included:

a. Ethiopia: High levels of community participation in the problem identification,planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation phases of the IRDP. Actionsundertaken to ensure community participation in programme activities included thecreation and support of local committees, interventions specifically targeting women,the landless and female-headed households, and the training of local CommunityDevelopment Cadres.

b. Honduras: The completion of participatory diagnoses with groups, communities andvillages within the project target area. These diagnoses were reviewed by projectteams and the capacity of the project to respond was analysed. On this basis, teamsnegotiated a plan of work with the participating communities. At the end of the first

year of implementation, and each year after that, the project carried out a process ofparticipatory evaluation and diagnosis, the results of which were in turn reviewed bysenior management and project priorities and activities altered accordingly.

c. Indonesia: The provision of training to farmers groups and Dinas Peternakan(Department of Livestock) staff to use more participatory approaches to projectplanning and implementation, as part of the strategy to provide more client-orientedlivestock services to farmers. The Community Livestock Action Planning (CLAP)was developed as a participatory project appraisal and planning approach targeted atfarmers and farmer groups in DELIVERI project villages. CLAP substantiallyincreased DP staff understanding of livestock production issues within their districts,provided valuable background information about constraints and opportunities forlivestock development, and strengthened the capacity of farmers groups to developtheir own activities.

d. Myanmar: Ensuring the participation of community members through a range ofcommunity-based organisations established under the project, including FarmersIncome Generating Groups, Livestock Income Generating Groups, Affinity Groups(self-help groups) and Village Forestry Groups.

e. Nepal: The formation of multi-sectoral district and national teams who were trained inparticipatory and gender responsive methodologies, and who carried out participatoryassessments and gender action planning in local sites. Target groups included women,marginalised indigenous groups and food insecure households. These groups weretrained by district staff in specialized topics, and were then supported in implementing

their own plans and activities.f. Yemen: The formation of Community Development Associations that took account of

traditional power structures (by promoting the participation of local tribal leaders)whilst also ensuring the participation of poorer and marginalised community membersand women. Based on a sample of 33% of all CDO members, 74% were found to bepoor, representing 65% of total CDO membership. Womens participation wassomewhat lower at 37%.


30/58


25

2.2.7 Partnerships & Multi-level, Macro-Micro Linkages

Establishing strong partnerships proved to be a critical factor both in ensuring widespreadparticipation and geographical coverage, and in contributing towards the longer-term sustainabilityof project achievements. Through some of its many partners, WIN Nepal was able to work withthe non-poor (through the World Bank) and the most vulnerable groups (through GTZ). It was also

able to continue working with isolated communities in areas of insurgency through its districtteams. Linkages spanning the community, district and national levels were also key in facilitatingthe adoption of successful project strategies at the institutional level. In Gambia, 12 District LevelLowland Farmer Associations created under LADEP were linked to the National Farmers Platformand to the National Womens Farmers Associations, facilitating the representation of local needs atthe national level. As a result, attitudes towards rural development were influenced within thegovernment, whose capacity to adopt self-help-based and demand-driven approaches was built andwhere the importance of combining social development with engineering works was recognised.Participatory training provided by LADEP also increased the capacity of government extensionstaff and transformed their way of working with rural communities.

2.3 Aspects that Challenged the Achievement of Positive Change

While there was significant evidence of the positive impacts many of the 12 projects had had onrural poverty reduction, project performance was not always favourable. Five of the projects inparticular faced some/major constraints in effecting positive impacts on the rural poor (Table 3).

Table 3. Projects that faced challenges in achieving successful poverty reduction

Cases that had some positive impacts on the rural

poor

Cases that had limited positive impacts on the

rural poor

BangladeshBoliviaGambia

PakistanZambia

These challenges centred around both project-related constraints (those within the power of theproject to control) and wider constraints (those beyond the direct control of the project). Thepattern that emerged from these challenges, discussed in more detail below, was one wherebyproject-related constraints appeared to be linked to the inconsistent application of some of SL-specific and non-SL-specific principles.

2.4 Project-related Constraints

2.4.1 Participation, social inclusivity, and enhancing the livelihood strategies ofthe poor

All projects made some attempt to mainstream participation throughout the various stages of theproject cycle and to address the needs and enhance the livelihood strategies of the most vulnerablegroups. A number of projects however experienced difficulties in this due to design weaknesses.

Local stakeholders were not consulted prior to the design of CAREs SHABGE project inBangladesh for example, and difficulties were experienced in encouraging womens participationdue to strict socio-religious codes limiting womens mobility and presence in the public sphere. Inone district, it took facilitators four months to satisfy the minimum participation requirement of 20women and only after extensive negotiation with husbands, elites and local politicians to explainthe projects goal and strategy. Womens lack of involvement in project design also had


31/58


26

implications for the relevance of these activities to their needs. As one PNGO leader put it, onlyabout 60-70% of women members are now participating in FFS sessions. The others have stopped

participating because they dont see the project as a way of reducing their poverty (cited inWilson & Hussain, 2002: 19).

The Participatory Upland Conservation Development programme in Bolivia experienced similarproblems. While the PUCD programme made a number of advances related to raising awareness,enhancing income of some groups, good governance and impacting national policies, somedifficulty was experienced in enhancing the living conditions of the poor and landless, includingwomen. The PUCD found that participatory processes were not sufficient on their own to ensurethe equitable participation of socially marginalized groups. By 1997, only 14% of the 202households participating in technical training hard project activities 15 belonged to landlesshouseholds, or to those owning less that 3 ha of land. Similarly, by 1999, women constituted just15% of all project participants, with the highest percentage concentrated in soft activities16.

The reasons for these weaknesses were twofold. Firstly, greater attention could have been paid tothe nature of the livelihoods strategies of poor and marginalised groups, and the fact that the

limited range of assets open to them often prevented them from qualifying for project assistance.Secondly, greater attention by project implementers could have been addressed to meeting thedemands women had expressed during participatory planning sessions. This was reflected inwomens poor participation.

2.4.2 Issues surrounding the disaggregation of project interventions

Related to the lack of consistency in targeting the most vulnerable groups was the tendency tocategorise the poor as a homogenous category. The SHABGE project illustrates this well. Whileit was aimed at poor and marginalised men and women farmers, a lack of systematic selectioncriteria meant that project participants were selected somewhat arbitrarily by Field Trainers (FTs).Access to land was used as a key indicator of poverty, and while some FTs were satisfied if two-thirds of the households in their FFS had less than 25 decimals (1013m2), others selected only thosewith 10 decimals (405m2) or less. Other staff, having been instructed to focus on the poorest ofthe poor had selected landless families (Bartlett, 2002).

Because of these differences in levels of land ownership/access amongst FFS participants, benefitsgained from homestead gardening interventions also differed. Those with greater access to landgained greater benefits from homestead gardening activities. Conversely, those with limited accessto land reported that their homestead spaces were so small that little or no income was generatedfrom selling vegetables. Such participants were also unable to afford inputs such as seeds,seedlings, fencing or irrigation equipment in order to make the limited land they had available more

productive.

2.4.3 Issues surrounding empowerment

Measures to build human and social capital had generally contributed to the empowerment ofbeneficiary communities, as in the case of Yemen. With some projects however, the nature andexecution of project interventions limited the extent to which beneficiaries could be empowered.In Bangladesh for example, FFS participants complained that they were unable to contribute toprocesses designed to keep track of and illustrate changes that were occurring on study plotsbecause they were illiterate. Calls were made for basic literary training to be held prior to the

15

For example, farming systems improvement, income diversification and community infrastructure.16 Participatory research exercises, evaluation and re-planning workshops at the community level, andcapacity-building events, for example.


32/58


27

implementation of such components. Instead, the learning process was simplified in order to makeit more user-friendly, although this was done to such an extent as to render it almost meaningless(Bartlett, 2002).

Concerns were also raised as to the quality of training women received from the FFS. A trade-offmade between the depth and the breath of this training meant that participants had becomeadopters of, and not experts in new varieties, practices and technologies (Bartlett, 2002), able torecognize, but not to understand the benefits arising from them. A tendency by FTs to view theFFS concept as prescriptive rather than flexible may help to explain this. Field staff were hesitantto adapt FFS topics. They also tended to be unclear as to the study plot objectives and were oftenthe ones to decide the nature of FFS activities, giving participants little ownership of the learningprocess.

2.4.4 Issues concerning holistic interventions, increased resilience and ability towithstand shock

Most projects were not based on holistic diagnoses. The LADEP Gambia project, in attempting to

the increase levels of food security and raise the incomes of impoverished household through thepromotion of monoculture rice production in lowland areas, may have increased these householdsvulnerability to other, different shocks. An increase in the number of rice farmers by up to 200% insome areas has resulted in human and financial resources being concentrated into rice production atthe expense of other (upland) crops.

Some villages witnessed a reduction in (1) the production of crops such as groundnuts, where men(traditionally upland farmers) had chosen to switch from groundnuts to rice because of higherreturns, and (2) vegetable production on homestead gardens, where labour requirements for dikeconstruction reduced the amount of time women were able to spend on homestead gardening andwhere they considered rice more profitable anyway.

These changes have potentially negative implications in terms of both nutritional levels (lack ofdiversity in the diet)17 and increased vulnerability to natural shock (pests, drought). In addition, anincrease in the amount of standing water behind dikes for longer times than previously hadanecdotally contributed to an increased incidence of malaria in the 11 project sites, increasinghouseholds vulnerability to health-related shocks18.

2.4.5 Issues surrounding engaging dynamism and flexibility

In Indonesia, the DELIVERI project worked in collaboration with government agencies in order todevelop responsive and quality service delivery related to livestock. Peter Bazely (1999,http://www.livelihoods.org/static/pbazeley_nn119.html ) noted that difficulties arose when theproject parties could not easily conceptualize a project that was more non-physical in nature, and

were not as willing to engage in this. Additionally, contractors found it difficult to work with sucha flexible effort that focused on transforming structures versus delivering tangible products.

2.4.6 Issues surrounding good governance and institutions, and macro-microlinkages

Despite weaknesses in its approach, SHABGE made important contributions to the empowermentof women. Participants reported tangible improvements to their status within the household and

17 It is impossible to comment on the actual effects of the exclusive production of rice had on nutritionallevels as no data was gathered on this issue.18 Phase II of the project has noted these weaknesses and plans to devote more attention to upland, as well as

lowland farming, the diversification of production away from a sole focus on rice to include homesteadgardening activities, and to partnerships with the health sector to address the issue of malaria and othervector-borne diseases, and HIV/AIDS.


33/58


28

community in the form of increased incomes, a greater role in household decision-making andgreater mobility, and intangible impacts such as a greater sense of self-confidence and self-worth.Although SHABGE had great potential to support these women to realise changes in their status, itdid not engage district and national government representatives, undermining theinstitutionalisation of these achievements.

2.5 Wider Constraints

2.5.1 Issues surrounding partnerships

Examples such as WIN illustrate well the idea that working in partnership is an effective means ofaddressing the multi-dimensional nature of rural poverty. While the IHFSAN project in Zambia(Box 14) attempted to work in a similar manner in order to address multi-sectoral concerns,institutional and policy changes underway when the project was initiated were key in explainingthe weakness of partnerships established under the project, and the subsequent lack of significantachievements made despite the numerous development initiatives that were undertaken (FAO,2004).

Box 14 Improving Household Food Security and Nutrition Through Community Empowerment,

Zambia

IHFSAN aimed to ensure long-term food security and nutrition in the Luapula Valley by improving theyear-round access of vulnerable households to a balanced diet. This was to be achieved throughincreasing access to a variety of nutritious foods and income, nutrition and health education, communityempowerment and institutional capacity-building. Partnerships with the Ministries of Health, Education,and Community Development and Social Welfare were created to address multi-sectoral concerns, whilstresponsibility for overall implementation lay with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

(MAFF).

Reorganisation and decentralisation within these institutions however, forced remaining staff to dividetheir time between ministry tasks and project work limiting the time they could spend on project activities,and created uncertainty as to the roles and responsibilities in nutrition-related activities.

In addition, a bias emerged towards achieving technical, agricultural outputs as project implementationwas overseen by MAFF. Funds earmarked for activities in h ealth, water, nutrition and social/humancapacity-building were often re-channelled into agricultural activities, and remaining resources were toosmall to cope with the enormous demand for these services. Food production activities absorbed adisproportionate amount of human and financial resources and yet communities were given littleopportunity to analyse how this strategy was designed to meet their nutritional needs. Thus, althoughimproving the nutritional status of vulnerable groups had been identified as a fundamental project

objective, this problem was only partially addressed.

The case studies reviewed have demonstrated principles and aspects that have worked well andthose that have worked less well. Cases that have been successful in improving the lives of therural poor were rarely without constraints that required attention. A number of projects for whichconstraints were evident chose to embrace the learning and have indicated that they were addressedor would be addressed in the upcoming phases (Gambia).


34/58


29

3 Operationalising the Principles

3.1 Linking SL Principles to SL-supporting Actions

The key difficulty making an SL approach work has been how to move from a livelihoodsanalysis of a situation to determining the action-oriented specifics of actually doing something:

what to do,

where to do it,

when to do it,

how to do it, and very importantly,

who to do it with.

SL principles provide criteria against which actions can be measured, but dont say which actionsto take. The question of how a combination of livelihoods analysis and livelihoods principles caninform intelligent and effective action is posed graphically below:

How can livelihoods analysis, combined with SL principles, help you figure outwhat to actually DO? The answer is not always self-evident.

Principl

es:

Parti

cipato

ry

Micro-macr

o

Susta

inable

etc

risk

s

risk

s

Assets

Assets

PIP

PIP

Livelihoodstrategies

Analy

tical

frame

work

????

The question:

What procedures willjoin together analysisand principles to getresults?

If this question cant be easily answered a priori on the basis of deduction from the principles, itmay be useful to look at patterns in the actions of successful projects and see how they approached

the operationalisation problem.


35/58


30

One key question is whether all of the SL principles have to be applied all the time in order to haveimpact. Toner et al for example write that attention to all SL principles is required for anintervention to have the potential to create sustainable impact (2004: 3).

The reality however seems to be that very few cases can or do activate each and every SL principle,and that positive impacts can be achieved without doing so. This prompts the question of whichprinciples are the truly necessary ones, and how and when in the project cycle do they need to be attheir most influential?

The bare essentials toolkit for effective analysis, planning, and ultimate success appear to include:

a minimal essential set of principles

a minimal essential understanding of the livelihoods situation

a minimal essential set of institutions in the broader sense (farmers groups, trainingresources, etc)

a sequence of sound entry points (only some of which will be evident from the beginning);examples of such entry points include

o easily assimilated technical improvements to hillside farming techniques whichwill reduce vulnerability

o support to existing local credit institutions,

o partnerships for the improvement of roads, improvements to local educational andhealth situations.

an openness to synergy, partnership, and reverberating energy.

The following diagram looks at some aspects of how SL principles (alongside the usual and stillquite valid non-SL-specific principles) were operationalised in the case Nepal (WIN Project,Diagram 1).


36/58


31

3.2 Linking the employment of SL principles to activities and outcomes:The case of WIN Nepal

WIN project (Nepal) addresses vulnerability related to food insecurity, lack of humanand social capital, and conflict

Multi-disciplinary teams able totrain; effective in conflict

management; able to source socialmobilisers

Multi-disciplinary teamsable to train; effective inconflict management; ableto source social mobilisers

Community seedling groups;model womens groups;preventative measures

Project Strategy 1:

Strengthen local &national capacity toassist in gender,household foodsecurity, nutrition, &health with watermanagement

Technical and

literacytraining forwomen

Project Strategy 2:

Assist poorhouseholds toincrease &diversifyagricultureproduction

1HSDO:,1

Goodgovernance &

institutionallinkages

Empowering

Addressinghealth,

nutrition andwater

management

People-centred

Sociallyinclusive;

Partnership

Buildingassets

Livelihoodsfocus; Building

assets

Sociallyinclusive

Empowering

Multi-sectoral

Sustainability

WIN

Women,most foodinsecure,marginalisedethnic

rou s

Formation ofwomens, sales

and savingsgroups andwatercommittees;irrigationtraining

Buildingassets

Training ofeffective teams

in technicalmatters, genderawareness and

conflictmanagement

Multi-disciplinary

district teams;nationalsteering

committee;gender

mainstreaming

Teamsworked in

partnership totarget women

and most

food insecure

Buildinghuman &social capitalto empowerwomen inwatermana ement


37/58


32

3.3 Getting it right : when to do things, and who to do it withIs there a right or most effective sequence in the application of SL principles? For each part ofthe project cycle (preliminary identification, planning, implementation, evaluation, revision, etc) ,are there certain SL principles which are absolutely essential, while in other parts of the projectcycle adhering to these same principles might not be so absolutely essential? Or is the key not insome sequence of strong application of various principles, but in patterns of implementationactions or even partnership linkages, different actions and different linkages each having its ownassociated constellation of actively implemented SL principles?

The data in our case studies is not sufficient to give a definite answer to these questions, but it hasprovided some interesting and potentially useful indications through our attempts to visualiseapproaches to these questions in various graphical ways.

The first of these visualisation tools looks at timing, at when during the project cycle differentprinciples were very strongly or less strongly in evidence. The second of these tools looks atpatterns of institutional relationships and partnering.

3.4 When were specific principles most in evidence?

When looked at closely not many of our case studies turned out to have enough time sequence datato construct the kind of detailed timelines we were looking for. The WIN (Nepal) and the Shagbe(Bangladesh) cases however were among the better ones in this regard it seemed worth a try. Wetried to look at:

o the timing of when different principles were most strongly in evidence (or theirabsence was most conspicuous!), and see if this correlated with any important aspectsof projects processes and outcomes.

o Whether there was any evident and common pattern in two projects with respect to thistiming

Please note: The timelines shown on the next two pages are given as examples of the tools. Thedetails of these timelines may not make a lot of sense to readers who are not familiar with thedetails of these specific projects. Those readers who DO want to understand the individual entriesare warmly invited to consult the extensive summaries of the case studies in the SupplementalMaterials (being made available separately because it has so many pages, more than this presentdocument)


38/58

SLprojectimpactontheruralpoorlessonsfromtwelvecasestudie

s

33

Figure

2.WIN(Nepal)timevariationin

thestrengthwithwhichvariou

sSLprincipleswereapplied

Principles

2000

2001

2002

2003

Holisticdiagnosis

Disaggregatedanalysis&

interventions

Trainingand

workwithfoodinsecurewomen

Dynamic,flexible,long-term

Nationalteamworkedwith

intheconfinesandbuiltownership

Projectbecamemorefle

xible

Notstrictlysectoral

Water,Health,Nutritionfro

mthebeginning

Process-oriented

Capacitybuilding

inprocessforteams

tocarryoutobjectives

Level1Somemeanstoimplementation

Implementationconsiste

nt

withdesign

Ambitiousdesign,callforredesignbut

notacceptedbybudgetho

lder

Re-planofprogram;PM&Eonlocalindicators,centralevaluation

recommendations

nottakenonbyproject

Buildsonstrengths

Agriculturalprodu

ction;Womens

capabilities

Addressrisk/vulnerability

issues

Focusonfoodsecurityneedsofwomen

Supportslivelihoods

strategiesofthepoor

Income-generatingopportunitiesforwomen,untouchable

women,freed

Kamayas

LLiivveelliihhooooddss--

oorriieenntteedd

Livelihoodsfocus

Incomegeneratingopportunities-vegetables,livestock,trees

Multi-levellinkages

Local,districtandnational,butdidnotaddresstheprovinciallevel

Partnerships

NGO,IGO,GO

WhenOFWMjoinedwithGTZRICWproject

Sociallyinclusive

OFW

Mworkedwithbetter-offfarmers,

GTZRICW

helpedworkwithmostpoor

Empowering

Unassociatedindividualscametogether-jointdecisionmaking

LLeevveell22MMeeaannssttooaacchhiieevveeoouuttccoommeess

PPeeooppllee--oorriieenntteedd

People-centred,respons

ive&

participatory

Theprojectwasbuiltaroundwomenspriorities

Enhancesgoodgoverna

nce

andinstitutions

WINSteeringCom

mittee

comprisedofdive

rse

stakeholders;wor

kedwith

districtteams

Committeenevermet;

Noconsistencya

tprovincial

levelduetosecu

rity

buildsassets

Human,social,fin

ancial,physical,naturalintermsofproductive

resources

Addressesvulnerability

and

increasesresilience

Throughirrigation.Didnotworkwithvulnera

blewhowere

notinprojectirrigationareas

Level3-Outcomestoachieveimpacts

Ensures

long-termsustainability

Projectdesignwasrigid,butnationalteam

workedflexiblywithintheconfinesandbuiltlocalo

wnership

Partneringallowedthe

projectto

workwiththemostpo

orand

marginalized


39/58

SLprojectimpactontheruralpoorlessonsfromtwelvecasestudie

s

34

Figure3.Timesequenceinap

plicationofSLprinciples:SHA

BGE,Bangladesh(refertoSupplementalMaterialsfordetails)

Principle

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Holisticdiagnosis

Disaggregatedanalysis

Projectwasdesignedtofocusonpoor,landlessandelderlywomen,andwidows

Disaggregatedinterventions

FFS

participantsincludepoor,landles

sandelderlywomen,andwidows

Dynamic,

flexible,

long-term

ProjectattemptedtoadaptFieldDocumentationSys

tem

toilliterate

womensneeds,butdidnotaddressissueofilliteracy

itself

Notstrictlysectoral

FFS

trainingtoucheduponissuessurroundinghealthanddomesticviole

nce

Process-oriented

Level1Somemeansto

implementation

Implementationconsiste

ntwith

design

Implementationwasto

oconsistentwithdesign,andthuslackedflexibility,particularlyintermsoftheFFS

curriculum

Buildsonstrengths

Addressrisk/vulnerabilityissues

Homesteadgardeningactivitiesdesignedtoimprovefoodsecurityandn

utritionlevels,

aswellasraiseincomes

Supportslivelihoodsstra

tegies

ofthepoor

Thr

oughFFStraining

Livelihoods-oriented

Livelihoodsfocus

Projectsetouttoimprovelivelihoodstrategiesofpooran

dmarginalisedmenandwomenfarmers

Multi-levellinkages

ThroughPNGOs

Partnerships

FirstPNGOsundertakeFFStrainingin2001

Sociallyinclusive

Projectengageddiffere

ntcategoriesofpoorwomen,who

firstbeganFFStraininginJanuary

2000.

Empowering

OutcomesofFFStrainingbegintotakeeffect?

Level2-Meanstoachieveoutcomes

People-oriented

People-centred,respons

ive&

participatory

FFS

participantsonlyengaged

whe

n

FFS

training

begins,notinid

entificationand

des

ignofprojectinterventions

Enhancesgoodgoverna

nceand

institutions

Thr

oughtraininginparticipatorymeth

odsandtheFFSmodelgiventoPN

GOs

BuildsAssets

Thr

ough

FFS

training:human/socialcapitalbuilt;naturalcapitalbuiltthroughtree-

planting;physicalcapitalbuiltthroughconstructionofmulti-storeytrellises

Level3-Outcomesto

achieveimpacts

Addressesvulnerabilityand

increasesresilience

Those

who

participated

in

first

FFS

begin

to

experiencesmallincreasesinfruitandvegetable

production,andinincome

PPaarrttiicciippaannttss

eenngg

aaggeeddoonnllyy

wwhhee

nnttrraaiinniinngg

bbeeggiinnss

FFiieellddsstt

aaffff

rreelluuccttaannttttoo

aaddaapptt

FFFFSSccuurrrriiccuu

lluumm

ttoo

llooccaallnneeeeddss


40/58


35

While no standard pattern emerges from these timelines, they do help to visualise the strengths andgaps that were important in influencing project performance.

The implementation of the WIN project for example, was initially constrained by the reluctance ofFAO Headquarters to allow field staff to adapt the project document to the situation facing them onthe ground. The national team found a way to work flexibly within these confines however, andsucceeded in building local ownership. Equally, the strong emphasis placed on working inpartnership from the outset proved critical to project performance. In collaboration with NGOs,IGOs and GOs, the WIN project was able to work with the most poor and marginalised, as well aswith isolated communities situated in conflict zones.

In turn, the case of SHABGE highlighted the need for certain SL principles in this case,flexibility and participation - to be in place throughout the entire lifespan of the project in order toachieve effective and sustainab