do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve...

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

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.

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 Committee“requested 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 FAO’s 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


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 ............. 122.2.1 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.................................................. 262.4.3 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


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


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 1980’s in the context of Farming Systems Research and Education,the approach was developed through the 1990’s and crystallized as SLA in the late 1990’s by theDepartment for International Development (DFID) (Carney, 1998; 1999). A number oforganizations 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 peoples’livelihoods. 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.


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 Name ImplementingOrganization

Entry Point Project TimeFrame

BangladeshStrengthening 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 CriticalWatersheds

FAO/ ForestDepartment of

the Governmentof Myanmar

Food security;Natural resource

rehabilitation;Income-generating

opportunities

1999-2002

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

FAO Irrigation, Health,Nutrition

1999-2003

PakistanInter-regional Project for ParticipatoryUpland Conservation and Development

FAO/Government of

Pakistan

IntegratedWatershed

Management1992-1999

YemenCommunity-Based Regional DevelopmentProgramme (CBRDP) FAO

CommunityEnterprises

1998-2003

Zambia

Improving Household Food Security andNutrition through Community Empowermentin the Luapula Valley

FAO Agriculture 1996-2001


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 hypothesesaddressing 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.


4

1.5 Criteria defining the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach1

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

Disaggregated analysisand intervention

(poverty, gender, age,ethnicity)

Supports livelihoodsstrategies of the poor (to

get themselves out ofpoverty)

Process oriented(feedback loops fromoutcomes to action

replanning)

Implementation isconsistent with design

(if designis pro-poor)

Holistic diagnosis &interventions

Sustainable poverty reduction

Secure and sustainable livelihoods for all(poor and non-poor)

Addresses vulnerabilitycontext; increases

capacity to withstandshocks; increases

resilience

Builds assets(a diversified portfolio of

assets that reducevulnerability)

Focuses on livelihoods(ways to earn a living)

Multi-level,macro-micro

linkagesSociallyinclusive

EmpoweringNot strictlysectoral

Responsive;participatory

Dynamic;flexible; long-

term

Pri

nci

ple

ssp

ecif

icto

the

SL

A

Pri

nci

ple

ses

sent

ial,

but

not

spec

ific

toth

eS

LA

EMBODIES ALL PRINCIPLES

Cri

tica

lpri

nci

ples

(as

am

ean

sto

anen

d)

People-centred

Enhancesgood

governance &institutionallinkages (atthe micro,

meso & macrolevels)

Ove

rall

go

als

Ensureslong-term

sustainabilityConducted

in partnership

Builds onstrengths


5

1.6 Hypotheses relating to SL-specific principles

Principle Corresponding Hypothesis/esAddresses vulnerabilityand increases resilience

- Projects that address the vulnerability context, by reducing vulnerability whilestrengthening individual and collective capacity to withstand shocks, are moreeffective in enabling the poor to overcome their poverty than approaches thatignore the vulnerability context

Builds assets - Because asset ownership reduces vulnerability in the face of shocks, projectsthat build rural people’s assets are more effective in reducing poverty thanprojects that focus exclusively on raising income without regard for assetownership and balance

- To reduce poverty on a sustainable basis, it is not enough to raise householdincome above a national poverty line; it is equally important for households toacquire a capacity to prevent themselves from falling back into poverty whenexposed to shocks

- Projects that build rural people’s human and social capital in addition tobuilding their physical, financial and natural capital are more effective inreducing poverty than those that neglect human and social capital while buildingother types of capital

Livelihoods focus • Projects that focus on livelihoods are more effective in reducing poverty thanprojects that seek to reduce poverty through economic growth or improvedaccess to infrastructure and social services without regard for the ways thatpoor people make their living

The 12 case studies reviewed to date in preparation of this document were chosen to reflectdifferent initiating partners and geographical settings. It was hoped that the study would include abroad array of sectoral entry points. However, because the nature of reducing poverty in ruralpopulations is often strongly linked to food security, the majority tended to have an agriculturalfocus. Yet in a few cases, multiple entry points were addressed simultaneously.

Preference was given to projects that had been in place long enough for results to have beenachieved and, in the best scenario, those that had undergone an evaluative process. In general, theoutcomes of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and participatory monitoring and evaluation(PM&E) strategies within the cases yielded mixed results. The highly variable quality and type ofevaluation and reporting processes meant that in many cases “normative” and poverty reduction-related data were inconsistent or even unavailable2. The fact that the soundness of reportedoutcomes and impacts for many of these projects should be considered as indicative rather than asfirmly proven clearly places limits on the analyses given here. Thus although we have attemptedto make the best use of the material available to us our conclusions are deliberately provisional, notdefinitive.

In most of the cases, the studies did not specifically identify poverty reduction as a goal of theproject although it is anticipated that this is the driving premise given the nature of the projects. Itis important to note that the cases were not looked at to evaluate whether project implementers mettheir original targets and objectives but rather the cases were viewed through a superimposedpoverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods lens.

2 See Section entitled “What do we think we know?” and Annex 6.1 for a full account of PM&E processesadopted by each of the case studies.


6

1.7 General Indicators of Poverty ReductionGeneral measures of poverty reduction have historically included increases in income or foodsecurity, however, a broader definition of poverty reduction also captures elements of enhancedchoice, capability and power (Box 3). The SL approach, which builds on principles of buildingassets and a livelihoods focus, also incorporates principles of reduced vulnerability andsustainability as critical to achieving lasting poverty reduction. Subsequently for the purpose ofthis paper, poverty reduction will be reported along with evidence (or lack there of) of reducedvulnerability and long-term sustainability (see Box 4).

Box 3. Definitions of livelihood and poverty

Definition – Livelihood: a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material andsocial resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it cancope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities or assets while notundermining the natural resource base (DFID, 1999).

Definition – Poverty: "Poverty: a human condition characterized by the sustained or chronicdeprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of anadequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights." (UnitedNations Committee on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights, 2001).


7

Box 4

1.8 Looking for Evidence of Positive Impact on the Rural Poor3

General Indicators of Poverty Reductiono Improved income levels of poor and non-pooro Changes in household food securityo Improved basic needs (shelter, health, nutrition)o Changes in income distribution and decreases in inequitieso Diversification of income sourceso Changes in income securityo Improved human rightso Increased access to public goods and serviceso Increased yieldso Changes in consumption and dieto Improved quality of life

Indicators of Increased Resilience and Reduction in Vulnerability/Volatilityo A reduction in frequency/severity of shocks.o An increase in risk preparedness.o Increased capacity to cope with/prepare for/adapt to natural or economic shocks.o Increased capacity to cope with/prepare for/adapt to seasonality (IMM, 2004 )

Indicators of Long Term Sustainabilityo Increase in environmental sustainabilityo Reduction in conflict or increase in peace/resolutiono Changes reflecting livelihood sustainabilityo Sustained Post Project Activitieso Sustained Post Project Institutional Changeso Sustained Post-Project poverty reductiono Sustained or permanent removal of groups from social exclusiono Addressed inequities faced by disadvantaged groups�

3 Annex 6.2 presents a list of poverty indicators related to each principle and associated hypothesis/es.


8

2 Evidence of impact

2.1 Poverty Reduction, Enhanced Resilience, and Long-Term Sustainability

In this section a general overview of types of evidence of poverty reduction, enhanced resilience,and long-term sustainability found within the cases is provided. This is followed by a discussion ofthe degree to which cases that demonstrated a positive impact on the rural poor had applied orincorporated sustainable livelihoods principles. The majority of case studies are described brieflywithin the text boxes throughout Section 2.0 while additional information can be found in the casestudy summaries (available in the separately printed Appendices.)

2.1.1 Poverty Reduction

Table 1 provides a general overview of how cases demonstrated improvements in the lives of therural poor through increased income, diversification of income sources, changes in incomedistribution, improved basic needs and services, access to productive resources, increasedagricultural yield, and changes in household food security. The scale at which these improvementswere made differed greatly among cases and it was often difficult to derive numbers and types ofbeneficiaries from the information available. An expanded version of Table 1 can be found in theSupplemental Materials, being published separately.


9

Table 1. General evidence of impact on selected poverty indicators

CountryCase4 Income

IncomeDiversification

IncomeDistribution

Access toNeeds/ Services

Access toproductiveresources

Yields HH FS5

Honduras Y

Financial services,EducationHousing

SanitationIrrigation

LandSeedlings

Nepal YNutrition

SanitationEducation

Water, TreesSeeds

Yemen Y Financial services,Literacy, Health IGA materials N/A N/A

Indonesia Y ExtensionSanitation Livestock

Ethiopia YNutrition

Health, CreditEmployment

Seeds, WaterLand, Bee hives

Sig

nif

ican

tp

osi

tive

imp

act

on

rura

lpo

or

Myanmar YEmployment

IrrigationExtension

Land, WaterSeeds, Trees/Tree products

FertiliserLivestock

Cambodia6 YFinancial services,

RoadsEducation

Land, Trees/Tree products

Fish pondsSeedlings

Bangladesh YHealthCredit

Sanitation

TreesMulti-storey

trellises,

Bolivia Y

Credit, WaterExtensionEducationIrrigation

LivestockBee hives

Trees, SeedsFish ponds

So

me

po

siti

veim

pac

to

nru

ral

po

or

Gambia N NutritionHealth, Credit Land, Water

Pakistan Y Extension, CreditIrrigation

Trees, Poultry,Livestock, Water

Lit

tle

po

siti

veim

pac

to

nru

ralp

oo

r

Zambia Y Credit, NurseriesExtension, Health

Seeds, Trees,Inputs

= Evidence of an increase = Evidence of positive changes

4 Country cases with the three categories are not necessarily arranged in any particular order.5 HH FS = household food security6 The case of Cambodia has been provisionally included in this category as it is an ongoing project andoutcomes and impacts have yet to be fully evaluated.


10

The majority of cases reviewed demonstrated evidence of increased income associated withagricultural production while a few focused on wealth generation by initiating new non-agriculturalenterprises and skills. Increases in income were the result of:

a. Increases in existing production system yields through inputs and intensification(Gambia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Honduras, Nepal). In Gambia, the expansion andintensification of rice production transformed the situation in target villages from a ricedeficit to a rice surplus. As a direct result of this, the incomes of 11,500 householdsincreased by between 50-500%.

b. Diversification through additions of crop and livestock or other on-farm enterprisesto the existing farming strategy (Ethiopia, Nepal, Bangladesh). The IRDP in Ethiopiaintroduced a beekeeping programme targeted at small landholders, landless men andwomen and the elderly, as beekeeping requires minimum labour inputs and does not takeup valuable land in that hives can be placed in trees, on wasted land or even on flatrooftops.

c. Value addition to existing production (Nepal, Yemen), non-agricultural enterprisesor off-farm employment. In Myanmar, the extensive labour required for physical soilconservation activities generated employment opportunities for 15,000 resource poorhouseholds over the dry season, when they would otherwise have migrated in search ofwork.

In most cases, access to productive resources including land, water, seeds, livestock, and treescontributed to yield and income increases, which in turn, led to improved food security andnutrition levels. In the case of Nepal, greater yields contributed to increases in household foodsecurity, such that food insecure months were reduced dramatically or eliminated during the life ofthe project from 9 to 0-2. However, only in a few cases were there indications of either enhancedstability/security of yields or income. In Myanmar for instance, the results of an evaluation studyconducted on the sustainability of household and community livelihoods indicated that the projecthad made a significant contribution to enhancing the assets base of households; ensuring thesustainability of interventions and group management; and achieving a strong impact in attainingincome, employment and food security increases on a sustainable basis (FAO, 2002b).

There was also evidence of improved basic needs satisfaction through increases in living conditions,nutrition, sanitation and improved access to services such as sanitation, health, education, credit,and extension services.

a. In Honduras, large-scale improvements were made in housing conditions through theinstallation of piped water and latrines, as well as the adoption of improved stoves. Inaddition, 67 community banks were established along with two cooperatives.

b. In Nepal, 15,000 women, men and children experienced improvements in health andnutrition through greater access to nutritious foods, improved domestic habits and theuse of boiled water. Positive impacts were made on birthing practices, with women nolonger giving birth in cowsheds at some sites and there was also a rise in the numberof children attending school and receiving healthcare.

c. In Bangladesh, savings groups formed by Farmer Field School participants helpedhouseholds buy and install the concrete slabs needed to improve latrines to counter thehigh incidence of diarrhoeal diseases in the area.

This was also confirmed through the spending choices associated with increased income reportedin some cases (Yemen, Ethiopia, Nepal, Myanmar).


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 ofcontinuing 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 Niño and HurricaneMitch as a direct result of project interventions. Communal natural resource recovery measuresthat 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 Niño 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 consequencesaffecting the environment and social components must be considered.


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. People’s 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-disciplinaryteams 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.


13

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

Builds assetsCountry Vulnerability Livelihoods focus

Human Social Financial

Physical Natur

al

Honduras Capacity to store grain,support other provinces

Increased yield, storage,agro-industrial crops,

Nepal Increased food security,nutrition, irrigation Farm-related IGA’s

Yemen Increased income,increased opportunities Training in various IGA’s

Indonesia Increased access toservices – animal health Integration of livestock

Ethiopia NR recovery, droughtmitigation measures

Improved sustainablefarming practices, IGA’s

Sig

nif

ican

tpo

siti

veim

pac

to

nru

ralp

oo

r

MyanmarNR recovery, increasedfood security, irrigation

IGA’s, livestock,on-farm employment,

CambodiaSustainable managementof forests/fishing grounds

Livelihoods diversification(livestock, aquaculture,horticulture)

Bangladesh Increased food security,nutrition & income

Homestead gardening

Bolivia Improved land & watermanagement

Diversification, eco-friendly IGA’s, training inimproved farmingpractices

So

me

po

siti

veim

pac

to

nru

ralp

oo

r

Gambia Increased incomes fromhigher rice yields

Focus on rice productiononly

Pakistan Rangeland rehabilitation,watershed management

Training in new livelihoodstrategies

Lit

tle

po

siti

veim

pac

to

nru

ral

po

or

Zambia Increased production ofmore nutritious crops

Improved agriculturalpractices; IGA’s

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.


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 moreextensive 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 ledto 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 Niño 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 project’s 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.


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 NGO’s 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 FinalEvaluation 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 soilerosion 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 withstandshocks). 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.


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 ofrepresenting the needs of the wider community whilst also maintaining some element of existing powerstructures, CBO’s were formed by a mixture of traditional community leaders, ‘the poor’, women and othermarginalised groups.


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 (CDO’s) were formed, eachconsisting of an Executive Body (EB), a GeneralAssembly and various Technical Committees.These CDO’s 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 theCDO’s 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 women’s participation were noted, with initial refusal to allow womenrepresentatives in the EB’s giving way to a situation whereby a female chairperson was electedchairperson of the Gozr Al-Behar CDO.

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

Alongside measures designed to strengthen CDO’s, 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%), children’s 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).


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 developedbased 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 ‘traditional’activities 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).


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 toaddress 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.


20

Box 11. Governance Principles linked to Outcomes in Honduras12

While the Lempira Sur Project in Hondurasstarted out with, and maintained a focus on foodsecurity, 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 wasamended 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.


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 othermarginalised 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 women’s 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).


22

Box 11. Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and Water Resources Management forHousehold 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 hasimproved 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,women’s 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 potentialrole 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 localneeds, the Nepal government has recognized the WIN approach as being cost effective


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 women’s 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).


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 firstyear 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 implementingtheir own plans and activities.

f. Yemen: The formation of Community Development Associations that took account oftraditional 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. Women’s participation wassomewhat lower at 37%.


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 alsoable 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 Women’s 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 ruralpoor

Cases that had limited positive impacts on therural 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 CARE’s SHABGE project inBangladesh for example, and difficulties were experienced in encouraging women’s participationdue to strict socio-religious codes limiting women’s 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 project’s goal and strategy. Women’s lack of involvement in project design also had


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 stoppedparticipating because they don’t 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 thelimited 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 inwomen’s 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 moreproductive.

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.


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 become‘adopters’ 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 tothe 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 households’vulnerability 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, andwere 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 aslowland 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.


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 health, 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 projectobjective, 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).


29

3 Operationalising the Principles

3.1 Linking SL Principles to SL-supporting ActionsThe 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 don’t 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.

Principles:

Participato

ry

Micro-m

acro

Sustainable

etc

risks

risk

s

Ass

ets

Ass

ets

PIP

PIP

Livelihoodstrategies

Analytical

framework

????

The question:

What procedures willjoin together analysisand principles to getresults?

If this question can’t 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 approachedthe “operationalisation” problem.


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 (farmer’s 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).


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 women’s groups;preventative measures

Project Strategy 1:

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

Technical andliteracytraining forwomen

Project Strategy 2:

Assist poorhouseholds toincrease &diversifyagricultureproduction

��

Goodgovernance &institutional

linkages

Empowering

Addressinghealth,

nutrition andwater

management

People-centred

Sociallyinclusive;

Partnership

Buildingassets

Livelihoodsfocus; Building

assets

Sociallyinclusive

Empowering

Multi-sectoral

Sustainability© WIN

Women,most foodinsecure,marginalisedethnicgroups

Formation ofwomen’s, salesand 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 mostfood insecure

Buildinghuman &social capitalto empowerwomen inwatermanagement


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 project’s 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)

SL

pro

ject

imp

act

on

the

rura

lpo

or

–le

sso

ns

fro

mtw

elve

case

stu

die

s

33

Fig

ure

2.W

IN(N

epal

)ti

me

vari

atio

nin

the

stre

ng

thw

ith

wh

ich

vari

ou

sS

Lp

rin

cip

les

wer

eap

plie

d

Pri

nci

ple

s20

0020

0120

0220

03H

olis

tic

diag

no

sis

Dis

agg

reg

ated

anal

ysis

&in

terv

enti

ons

Tra

inin

gan

dw

ork

wit

hfo

od

inse

cure

wom

en

Dyn

amic

,fle

xibl

e,lo

ng

-ter

mN

atio

nalt

eam

wo

rked

wit

hin

the

conf

ines

and

bui

lto

wn

ersh

ipP

roje

ctb

ecam

em

ore

flex

ible

No

tst

rict

lyse

cto

ral

Wat

er,H

ealt

h,N

utr

itio

nfr

omth

eb

egin

nin

gP

roce

ss-o

rien

ted

Cap

acit

yb

uild

ing

inpr

oce

ssfo

rte

ams

toca

rry

out

obje

ctiv

es

Level1–Somemeanstoimplementation

Impl

emen

tati

on

con

sist

ent

wit

hd

esig

nA

mb

itio

us

desi

gn,

call

for

red

esig

nb

ut

no

tac

cep

ted

by

bu

dget

hol

der

Re-

pla

nof

pro

gra

m;

PM

&E

on

loca

lin

dica

tors

,cen

tral

eval

uat

ion

reco

mm

enda

tio

ns

no

tta

ken

on

by

pro

ject

Bu

ilds

on

stre

ng

ths

Ag

ricu

ltur

alpr

od

uct

ion;

Wom

en’s

cap

abili

ties

Ad

dre

ssri

sk/v

uln

erab

ility

issu

esF

ocu

so

nfo

od

secu

rity

nee

ds

ofw

omen

Su

pp

ort

sliv

elih

oo

ds

stra

tegi

eso

fth

ep

oor

Inco

me-

gen

erat

ing

op

port

un

itie

sfo

rw

omen

,unt

ou

chab

lew

omen

,fre

edK

amay

as

LLiivveelliihhooooddss--oorriieenntteedd

Liv

elih

ood

sfo

cus

Inco

me

gen

erat

ing

opp

ort

un

itie

s-

veg

etab

les,

lives

tock

,tre

esM

ulti

-lev

ellin

kag

esL

oca

l,di

stri

ctan

dn

atio

nal

,but

did

not

addr

ess

the

pro

vin

cial

leve

lP

artn

ersh

ips

NG

O,IG

O,G

OW

hen

OF

WM

join

edw

ith

GT

ZR

ICW

pro

ject

So

cial

lyin

clus

ive

OF

WM

wo

rked

wit

hb

ette

r-of

ffa

rmer

s,G

TZR

ICW

hel

ped

wo

rkw

ith

mo

stp

oo

rE

mp

ow

erin

gU

nas

soci

ated

ind

ivid

ual

sca

me

tog

eth

er-

join

tde

cisi

on

mak

ing

LLeevveell22––MMeeaannssttooaacchhiieevveeoouuttccoommeess

PPeeooppllee--oorriieenntteedd

Peo

ple

-cen

tred

,res

po

nsi

ve&

par

tici

pat

ory

Th

ep

roje

ctw

asb

uilt

aro

und

wom

en’s

prio

riti

es

En

han

ces

go

od

go

vern

ance

and

inst

itut

ion

s

WIN

Ste

erin

gC

omm

itte

eco

mp

rise

dof

dive

rse

stak

ehol

der

s;w

ork

edw

ith

dis

tric

tte

ams

Com

mit

tee

nev

erm

et;

No

con

sist

ency

atp

rovi

nci

alle

veld

ueto

secu

rity

bu

ilds

asse

tsH

uman

,so

cial

,fin

anci

al,p

hys

ical

,nat

ura

lin

term

so

fp

rod

uct

ive

reso

urc

esA

dd

ress

esvu

lner

abili

tyan

din

crea

ses

resi

lien

ceT

hro

ug

hir

rig

atio

n.D

idn

otw

ork

wit

hvu

lner

able

wh

ow

ere

no

tin

pro

ject

irri

gat

ion

area

s

Level3-Outcomestoachieveimpacts

En

sure

slo

ng

-ter

msu

stai

nab

ility

Pro

ject

des

ign

was

rigi

d,b

utn

atio

nal

team

wo

rked

flex

ibly

wit

hin

the

con

fin

esan

db

uilt

loca

low

ner

ship

Par

tner

ing

allo

wed

the

pro

ject

tow

ork

wit

hth

em

ost

po

oran

dm

argi

nal

ized

SL

pro

ject

imp

act

on

the

rura

lpo

or

–le

sso

ns

fro

mtw

elve

case

stu

die

s

34

Fig

ure

3.T

ime

seq

uen

cein

app

licat

ion

of

SL

pri

nci

ple

s:S

HA

BG

E,B

ang

lad

esh

(ref

erto

Supp

lem

enta

lMat

eria

lsfo

rde

tails

)

Pri

nci

ple

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Hol

istic

diag

nosi

s

Dis

aggr

egat

edan

alys

isP

roje

ctw

asd

esig

ned

tofo

cus

on

po

or,

land

less

and

eld

erly

wom

en,a

nd

wid

ow

sD

isag

greg

ated

inte

rven

tions

FF

Sp

arti

cip

ants

incl

ude

po

or,l

andl

ess

and

eld

erly

wom

en,a

nd

wid

ow

sD

ynam

ic,f

lexi

ble,

long

-ter

mP

roje

ctat

tem

pted

toad

apt

Fie

ldD

ocu

men

tati

on

Sys

tem

toill

iter

ate

wom

en’s

nee

ds,

but

did

no

tad

dres

sis

sue

ofill

iter

acy

itse

lfN

otst

rictly

sect

oral

FF

Str

ain

ing

tou

ched

up

on

issu

essu

rro

un

din

ghe

alth

and

dom

esti

cvi

olen

ceP

roce

ss-o

rient

ed

Level1–Somemeanstoimplementation

Impl

emen

tatio

nco

nsis

tent

with

desi

gnIm

plem

enta

tio

nw

asto

oco

nsi

sten

tw

ith

desi

gn,

and

thus

lack

edfl

exib

ility

,pa

rtic

ular

lyin

term

so

fth

eF

FS

curr

icu

lum

Bui

lds

onst

reng

ths

Add

ress

risk/

vuln

erab

ility

issu

esH

omes

tead

gar

den

ing

acti

viti

esd

esig

ned

toim

pro

vefo

odse

curi

tyan

dnu

trit

ion

leve

ls,

asw

ella

sra

ise

inco

mes

Sup

port

sliv

elih

oods

stra

tegi

esof

the

poor

Th

rou

gh

FF

Str

aini

ng

Livelihoods-oriented

Live

lihoo

dsfo

cus

Pro

ject

set

out

toim

pro

veliv

elih

oo

dst

rate

gie

sof

poo

ran

dm

argi

nal

ised

men

and

wom

enfa

rmer

sM

ulti-

leve

llin

kage

sT

hro

ug

hP

NG

O’s

Par

tner

ship

sF

irst

PN

GO

’su

nder

take

FF

Str

aini

ng

in20

01S

ocia

llyin

clus

ive

Pro

ject

eng

aged

diff

eren

tca

teg

ori

eso

fp

oo

rw

omen

,who

firs

tb

egan

FF

Str

aini

ng

inJa

nu

ary

2000

.E

mpo

wer

ing

Ou

tcom

esof

FF

Str

aini

ng

beg

into

take

effe

ct?

Level2-Meanstoachieveoutcomes

People-oriented

Peo

ple-

cent

red,

resp

onsi

ve&

part

icip

ator

yF

FS

par

tici

pan

tso

nly

eng

aged

wh

enF

FS

trai

nin

gb

egin

s,n

otin

iden

tifi

cati

on

and

des

ign

of

pro

ject

inte

rven

tio

ns

Enh

ance

sgo

odgo

vern

ance

and

inst

itutio

nsT

hro

ug

htr

aini

ng

inp

arti

cip

ator

ym

eth

od

san

dth

eF

FS

mo

del

giv

ento

PN

GO

’s

Bui

lds

Ass

ets

Th

rou

gh

FF

Str

aini

ng:

hum

an/s

oci

alca

pita

lb

uilt

;n

atu

ral

cap

ital

bui

ltth

rou

ghtr

ee-

pla

nti

ng;

phys

ical

capi

talb

uilt

thro

ugh

cons

tru

ctio

no

fmu

lti-

sto

rey

trel

lises

Level3-Outcomesto

achieveimpacts

Add

ress

esvu

lner

abili

tyan

din

crea

ses

resi

lienc

eT

ho

sew

ho

par

tici

pat

edin

firs

tF

FS

beg

into

exp

erie

nce

smal

lin

crea

ses

infr

uit

and

veg

etab

lep

rod

uct

ion,

and

inin

com

e

PPaarr tt

ii ccii pp

aann

tt sseenn

ggaagg

eedd

oonn

ll yyww

hheenn

tt rraaii nn

ii nngg

bbeegg

ii nnss

FFii ee

ll ddss tt

aaff ff

rr eell uu

cc ttaann

tttt oo

aadd

aapp

ttFF

FFSS

ccuu

rr rrii cc

uull uu

mmtt oo

ll ooccaa ll

nnee ee

ddss


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 NGO’s,IGO’s and GO’s, 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 sustainable poverty reduction.

3.5 A similar operational/ institutional pattern shared by several successfulprojects

Scoones (1998) points out that it is not sufficient to analyse specific elements within cases. Rather,it is more important to analyse common institutional and organisational patterns that link theseelements together. In addition to the time sequences (above), we’ve tried to look at this throughoperational/ institutional implementation maps which highlight key elements and linkages insuccessful cases (Figure 4).

Identifying a “minimum set” of good development principles necessary for success would be good,but still not sufficient. Principles make good measuring sticks, but are often not very useful ingiving concrete ideas and guidance on decisions regarding specific strategies tactics and actions.For this it can be instructive to look at what some successful projects actually did, keeping in mindthat this may be rather different from what they had originally said or planned.

The sequence of institutional and issues linkages in several of our case studies point to thepossibility that certain successful projects may have shared certain patterns of implementation, aswas the case in Honduras and Yemen. It is not clear if this structural similarity in implementationpatterns of some successful projects derives from an underlying context: nearly everybody in theregions where these projects had the most impact were very poor, even by national standards. It isalso possible that SL type projects may simply work best in areas where everyone, being very poor,share many of the same problems. (Rather a good attribute for SL approaches, if it turns out to bea valid idea.).

In the process of sketching out diagrammatically the sequences, processes, and linkages of severalof the more successful projects we noticed that in some ways they showed very similarimplementation patterns. The implementation pattern found in both the Yemen and the Hondurasprojects, originally developed as an animated PowerPoint presentation, is laid out on the followingpage.

The implementation map is more easily understood if one pays close attention to the sequence inwhich the various elements are presented, as indicated and described more fully in the list justunderneath the diagram. The interested reader is encouraged to consult the electronic version ofthis document for the animated sequence, which is much easier to follow.


36

�

��

NOTE: the numbers in the diagram above refer to the elements described more fully inthe list below, in roughly the sequence as used in the projects on which this diagram isbased.

19 In electronic (especially Word) versions of this document the Implementation Map is also present as anicon which opens an animated PowerPoint presentation, easier to follow and with more detail.

Training provided by local trainerscatalyzed by project

OrganisationalDevelopmentTraining

OrganisationalDevelopment

Support

OrganisationalDevelopment

Support

LocalGovernment

LocalGovernment

CommunityCommunityDevelopmentDevelopmentAssociationAssociation

CommunityCommunityDevelopmentDevelopmentAssociationAssociation

CommunityDevelopmentAssociation

Profitgeneration

Riskminimization

Vocational /TechnicalTraining

Loca

lpro

duce

rsLoca

lpro

duce

rs

LocalCredit/Savings

LocalCredit/Savings

HealthHealthHealth

EducationEducationEducation

Other programmesprojects &Ministries

OtherOther programmesprogrammesprojects &projects &MinistriesMinistries

Accessiblemarkets

Accessiblemarkets

Transport/Roads

Transport/Roads

Community BenefitActivities

Collaborative diagnosisPlanning, and Evaluation

Collaborative diagnosisPlanning, and Evaluation 1

2

3

4

6

6

8

510

11

9

12

12

12

Project catalyses

Partners carryforward

�


37

A comparison between two of the more successful cases, Honduras and Yemen, revealed commonpatterns both in terms of their operational processes and institutional linkages and in the sequencein which these processes and linkages were introduced20.�

1. Collaborative diagnosis, planning and evaluation. In other words, the continuousparticipation of beneficiaries and other stakeholders throughout each stage of theproject cycle. The project must be able to respond to/act upon factors such asstrengths/weaknesses in project performance, potential conflicts, and changing social,environmental, political and economic conditions.

2. Risk minimisation. Prior to, or whilst integrating new enterprises, issues such asfood insecurity and vulnerability to natural and other shocks must be addressed. Thiswas done in the case of Honduras through natural resource recovery measures, whichin turn led to increased agricultural production and improved food security levels.

3. Profit generation is promoted through enhancing and/or increasing on- and off-farmactivities.

4. Vocational and/or technical training is provided in order to support and improveupon profit generation strategies, and to build human capital.

5. Training provided by local trainers catalysed by the project constitutes part of thestrategy to build a human ‘critical mass’ which will continue to exist beyond projectcompletion, and which contributes to the longer-term sustainability and replication of(successful) project interventions through the continued presence of technical support.

6. Locally accessible financial services (credit and savings) are created or supportedand strengthened in order to support profit-generation activities.

7. A number of Community Development Associations (CDAs, or functionally similarorganisations) are established in order to accurately represent the real needs of therural poor, to facilitate the full participation of rural communities in the developmentprocess, and to negotiate with local and national authorities and other institutions.

8. Organisational development training is provided to these CDAs in order to equipthem with necessary technical, organisational and managerial skills.

9. Micro-macro linkages are established through local government, which engages withCDAs in order to better represent the needs of rural communities at the institutionallevel, and to translate these needs into policy at the national level.

10. Organisational development support units, which often take the form ofpartnerships with local and national NGOs, provide technical and financial support tothe implementation of project activities.

11. CDAs finance community benefit activities on a loan basis, and part of the profitsgenerated from these activities are then channelled back into the CDAs in order tofund future activities. CDAs are also responsible for the monitoring and evaluation ofthese activities.

12. Demand-driven, multi-sectoral interventions (health, education) are piloted by theCDAs with project support. Successful interventions in sectors outside the principlemandate of the supporting project (health and education, for example, in the context ofan FAO project) are from the beginning done in partnership with other relevantprojects, programmes, and line ministries, which then take on full responsibility after asuccessful piloting period.


38

4 What are the Implications and Lessons Learned?

In the previous sections, the opportunity was taken to report on how the cases incorporatedsustainable livelihoods principles (or not) and identify the impact these projects had on the ruralpoor. This section will provide a stock taking on what we think we know and what we still do notknow given the findings of this study.

4.1 What do we think we know?

� Do livelihoods approaches lead to poverty reduction?

While further study is necessary, our initial analysis would suggest that livelihoodsapproaches can contribute to real poverty reduction if applied effectively. As discussed, allcases under review contained elements of the SLA to greater or lesser extents yet theoutcomes differed significantly. Different levels of success appeared to be based on eitherthe number and type of SL principles applied or the quality of their application.

The more successful cases appeared to be those which had applied the greater number ofSLA principles e.g. the three principles specific to the SLA and a mixture of other essentialprinciples, in an effective manner. Projects that experienced lower levels of success wereaffected less by an absence of some SL principles per se, but rather weaknesses in projectdiagnosis, design, implementation and/or monitoring and evaluation. As Diana Carneypoints out, ‘the usefulness of the SL framework, as with any tool, is set by the user’ (2002:16), and so the question remains whether it is the user or the tool at fault21? Is it theapproach itself we should be looking at, or its execution in the field? Answering thisquestion requires analysis of a project that has been specifically designed and implementedusing the SLA.

� Which principles seem to positively influence poverty reduction outcomes?

We think that projects must address a minimum number of principles to set the stage forreducing poverty. These include those that are specific to sustainable livelihoods anddepending on the context perhaps, a mix of those that are not SL-specific, but consideredimportant principles of good development.

In their papers entitled “Goodbye to Projects”, the authors conclude that SL principlesprovide a useful cross-checking framework and that attention to all SL principles isrequired to create sustainable impact (Toner et al., 2004; Franks et al., 2004). In order forthis conclusion to be helpful in a practical sense however, we must be able to understandthe sequence in which these principles are introduced, and the mechanisms (organisationalelements and institutional linkages) associated with them. We have made a preliminaryattempt to do this through timelines and implementation maps, but there is a need for morein-depth analysis here.

Equally, while there must be a minimum number of principles put in place in order for aproject to achieve real poverty reduction, it is the way in which these principles areexecuted and not the number of principles per se, that is the key determinant of success. Inother words, the quality of project design, implementation and monitoring and evaluationremains a critical factor in shaping the effectiveness of project outcomes and impacts. The

21 A point raised by Eddie Allison in his notes on ‘The Future for the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach’meeting held in Bradford, 24-25 February 2004.


39

DELIVERI project, widely considered as a positive example of the SLA in practice, didnot address each and every SL principle22, illustrating that success can be achieved byaddressing a minimum combination of principles.

The DELIVERI case also benefited from timely policy changes, amongst other factors, thatput the project in a good position to succeed, suggesting that the immense value of havingthe right policies, practices or people in place to succeed, as reported in the Honduras andNepal cases, cannot be discounted. The character, attitude, vision, and will of agents ofchange, project coordinators, government agents, development practitioners, elected orinformal leaders associated with the project can move it to success or assist in itsbreakdown.

� What do we think we know about monitoring and evaluation in assessing the impact ofSL approaches?

In general, the outcomes of M&E and PM&E strategies within the cases yielded mixedresults. The constraints tended to cluster around issues of human resources and capacity(overworked or untrained facilitators) as well as communications and transportation issues.Tackling issues of social relevance continue to be difficult to grasp compared to data onmore technical matters. In many cases, the impact on yield was recorded, but data to showthe relationship with income, nutrition, household food security, or health was not. On amore positive note, where locally derived indicators served dual purposes (e.g. serving awider use in the community as a guide for decision making as well as providing requiredindicators to serve outsiders) as was the case in Honduras, there is reason to believe thatinternalizing monitoring and evaluation and lesson learning can be achieved.

The widespread lack of good M&E data raises the question of whether this gap could be aresult of inherent weaknesses of the SLA itself, of an incomplete application of theframework, or just the difficulties of carrying out effective (P)M&E. With an incompleteknowledge of how M&E processes were undertaken in each of the twelve cases, we cannotbe certain of the reason. Further analysis towards answering this question might include anexamination of the proportion of project budgets that have been allocated towards M&E incases that managed to produce apparently high quality M&E data (Myanmar, Ethiopia,Honduras), and those that did not (Zambia) in order to understand whether poor M&Eresults from a lack of human and financial resources (and if so, how much should we beallocating in order to achieve good M&E), a lack of time, lack of good methods, or a lackof commitment?

What do we think we know about reaching the poorest of the poor?

We are still not getting there. Most cases failed to address the needs of the most poor. Itseems that the livelihoods approach, while a means to diagnose who the poor are, does notnecessarily build in the ability to work with the most poor. In Zambia for example, thecharacteristics of nutritional vulnerability and food insecurity had been identified duringthe preparatory phase of the project, and yet it was slow in addressing the direct nutritionaland health needs household most at risk of food insecurity.

The main explanation for this would appear to be that many development interventions, bytheir very nature, exclude the poorest/most vulnerable groups, who do not possess the

22 Out of six core SL concepts (people centred; holistic; dynamic; building on strengths; macro-micro links;sustainability), the DELIVERI project was seen to best illustrate three (people centred; holistic, macro-microlinks). [http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/case_studies/lesson-live1.html].


40

necessary physical, natural and financial asset base (i.e. land, labour, livestock, seeds,farming implements, agricultural inputs, capital) to participate in production-related andincome-generating activities. In order to have positive impacts on the poorest and mostvulnerable individuals/households/groups, it is necessary to ‘recapitalise’ those that haveno disposable income or assets to invest in enterprise development. In other words, initialinvestments must be made to provide the very poor with a minimum asset base if they areto be brought back into the development process, investments that can be recovered, atleast in part, after an appropriate grace period.

This was done successfully in Myanmar, where 251 destitute individuals were targetedthrough the distribution of small-scale livestock (sows, does, ewes and scavenging poultry),an intervention that proved to be an effective way of generating a rapid change in incomefor low-risk landless persons/households, and where project inputs costs could berecovered relatively quickly.

� What do we think we know about building assets?

There were very few cases that addressed all five assets (human, social, financial, natural,physical), although all cases addressed human, social and financial assets. In terms ofbuilding human and social assets, we found that successful cases tend to be a result ofcombined technical and organizational skills. While building human, social and financialassets are important, vulnerability and long-term sustainability may not be addressed unlessthe natural resources upon which livelihoods depend are managed and sustained.

� What do we think we know about governance?

From the vantage point of enhancing good governance, the investment of time andresources seems to pay off. Many of the projects reviewed invested in various aspects ofgovernance, but those that simultaneously worked with local and national governmentseemed to enhance ownership, build awareness, increase responsiveness, and influencepolicy effectively. In cases where central government was brought in during the planningstages, there was greater ownership and readiness for support of changes. When broadspectrum awareness raising and organizational and leadership skills are built at the locallevel (including representation of community groups in government), there is less chancethat political shifts (mayoral elections) will paralyze implementation. This also putsgovernment in the position of negotiating with donors for additional or extended projects.Norton and Foster (2001) looked at the potential for SLA to be used in the development ofPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP).

� What do we think we know about long-term sustainability?

Not enough is being done about it. There were few cases that put in place measures thatwould indicate long term sustainability, particularly financial, food, and environmentalsustainability. Either little attention is being paid to this OR we do not yet know what toput in place or what to look for in terms of evidence. Although not included in this study,there are examples in which communities have built detailed visions of long termsustainability up front allowing for planning and decision making (relative to communityactivities or internal and external projects) to take into account whether the action will leadin this direction (Savory, 1999). Another question one could ask is, if the principle of longterm sustainability is fully employed, do exit strategies become obsolete?


41

� What do we think we know about livelihoods approaches?

There were cases in which the livelihoods were strengthened by incorporating a naturalresource component (making existing practices ecologically sustainable or building inincentives not to employ destructive practices). In the case of Yemen, existing livelihoodsstrategies were improved upon and new strategies were introduced through vocationaltraining aligned with credit and support of community organizations. A clear case is alsomade in Honduras for building on existing livelihoods that can reduce and/or eliminate risk(increase or stabilize beans and corn yields) before addressing income generation throughdifferent livelihoods strategies or the facilitation of new enterprises.

� What do we think we know about partnerships?

Projects that were successful tended to have a mix of partners and links to the local,national and international level. Two important aspects of partnerships are a) thecomplementarity for advancing progress in a cost effective way with each partner workingfrom their comparative advantage, and b) ownership by actors whose support is needed forsuccess.

The projects under review tended to have a mix of local grass roots organizations,internationally affiliated organizations, and governments at the local level an in some casesat the national level. Two cases revealed partnerships with business and industry, althoughthese relationships were abandoned at an early stage. A number of projects collaboratedwith other international or local organizations’ projects to advance their work.

� What do we think we know about multi-sectoral approaches and the engagement ofministries?

Multi-sectoral approaches are definitely being carried out. The cases that were mostsuccessful in addressing multiple sectors at once invested in building coherentmultidisciplinary teams with government agency individuals and raising awareness withlocal groups about relationships between the sectoral aspects of the project (for example,water and nutrition). They tended to engage multiple ministries in the form of nationalsteering committees or were attached to a level of bureaucracy that supersedes theministries. Where central government was involved in the planning processes, it waseasier to transcend from a single sector to additional sectors according to project needs(agriculture to education). A key element that must be ensured is keeping the higher levelsof government informed/engaged. The engagement of different ministries and/or partnerscan allow for multi-sectoral approaches to be carried out in a collaborative way even if theproject has a single focus or limited resources.

� What do we think we know about exit strategies?

While the SL approach lends itself to building community capacity so that “external”projects can exit at some point, there is a strong need to explicitly build in exit strategies tothe design process. (see the paragraph on sustainability above).

� What do we think we know about empowerment?

There were a number of cases in which dramatic changes were made in women’s capacitiesand confidence. These included women taking on entrepreneurial endeavours (replacing


42

middle-persons), becoming social mobilizers, forming or joining committees, anddemanding services, among others. Other aspects of empowerment centred primarilyaround rights to access natural resources (Cambodia, Gambia), and the improvedrepresentation of community groups at district and national levels (Yemen).Empowerment was strongly linked to both social inclusivity, and the nature and quality ofparticipation.

� What do we think we know about flexibility and embracing errors?

The iterative nature of projects is a plus for continued learning. Building in the flexibilityto change directions or activities based on new knowledge can both enhance the learning ofthe project participants and project managers. In the case of the Gambia, the strategy haschanged dramatically based on lessons from the earlier phases. In the case of Honduras,the iterative learning has empowered the local community and leadership. In the case ofNepal, there was some inflexibility among team members, possibly based in an overambitious design, which created tension among local implementers.

While there is a theoretical consensus on the importance of flexibility and/or embracingerrors, this is sometimes difficult to achieve in practice. There was a willingness toimprove projects along the way, and participatory monitoring and evaluation provided ameans for mid-course corrections, however, many of the projects had ineffective PM&E inplace due to lack of human or financial resources to carry them out. This often keptprojects from seeing areas of improvement until too late.

� What do we think we know about furthering the SL approach?

The SL approach is a logical evolutionary iteration in participatory development. Becausepurely SL cases are difficult to find, it seems that application of principles follows an“include and transcend” approach. Development approaches will continue to build onexperience and lessons learned with or without a specific terminology.


43

4.2 What do we not know?

63. We have already mentioned some of the things we know less about in previous sections. Herewe add a few more, principally at the “conceptual” level.

� We do not know how an additional set of cases would influence the findings in this study,but we are keen to find out. There are also additional cases that we wish to incorporate aswell as a number of cases that are in early stages of implementation, or are in need of anevaluation which we will keep on a “need to watch” list.

� We do not know if a truly SL “start to finish” effort that has evidence of reducing povertyactually exists. It seems more likely that the cases we reviewed were intended to beparticipatory efforts with a livelihood perspective and brought in the principles that seemedappropriate.

� While we find that these cases showed evidence of reduced poverty and incorporatedlivelihoods principles, we are unable to say, unequivocally that the SL approach is better atreducing poverty than other approaches.

� While we can easily speculate, we still do not have a recipe for which mixture of principleslead to more effective poverty reduction. As mentioned earlier, the Bradford study (Frankset al, 2004) noted that all principles were needed for positive impact.

� We cannot say if SL approaches are more cost effective, however in the case of Nepal, thegovernment reported that the approach used was effective given limited resources.

� We do not have enough evidence to draw a connection regarding scales of impact andprinciples applied. The cases covered a wide range of impacts, but there was not consistentdata on numbers and types of beneficiaries.

� We do not have data to indicate if, having positively influenced the poor, the principlesapplied will keep the poor from falling back into poverty when exposed to new shocks.

� While we know that community organization and the sense of solidarity were keycomponents of successful cases, we do not know which community organizations builtupon existing or endogenous networks and which were created anew through projectactivities. In Honduras, effectively “new” organizations were built out of existing ones,which process catalysed some significant evolution in previously very unequal powerstructures. Along those same lines, we did not have a case that is not project driven, so wedid not compare these cases with ones of endogenous community efforts and activities thatled to poverty reduction without external influences. It would be useful to carry out such astudy in the future.

� We do not know where they are now. Most projects were keen to have post project datacollected but it is rare that resources are made available. In several cases, the capacity totake stock of continued progress by community members is present but it was not clearwhether data collection would continue.

� We do not know how communities would respond to the common pattern outlined in theoperational map (see Section 2.4).


44

5 Instead of a conclusion.......

This report is an initial step in an action-research process that will hopefully take us forward withthe unanswered issues brought out in this paper. In many ways, we consider having asked what webelieve to be relevant questions as being good progress in a work that remains to be done. Thus,instead of concluding remarks, we would like to present below the summary and analyticalsynopsis which, based on this study, was prepared for the 2005 meeting of FAO’s Committee onAgriculture:

5.1 Findings

The SLAs embody good principles of development and specifically incorporate principlesassociated with

a) building assets (human, social, physical, financial and natural);

b) focusing upon livelihoods (comprising capabilities, assets and activities required as a means ofliving);

c) reducing vulnerability to stresses and shocks; and

d) enhancing sustainability.

The desk review suggests that SL approaches can contribute to real poverty reduction if appliedeffectively. The more successful cases appeared to be those that applied the greater number ofSLA-specific principles along with a mix of other important principles of development.

While all cases applied SL principles, few set out specifically to implement a sustainablelivelihoods approach per se.�All cases reviewed demonstrated, to some degree, enhanced assets,improved governance (with multi-level linkages), a focus on livelihoods strategies for the poor, aswell as being multi-sectoral, participatory, people-centred, process oriented with a degree offlexibility, and conducted in partnership.

In general the cases demonstrated improvements in the lives and resilience of the rural poorthrough some combination of increased income, diversification of income sources, improved basicneeds and services, better access to productive resources, increased agricultural production(through diversification, intensification, and value addition) and enhanced household food securityand nutrition.

There were several cases in which dramatic changes were made in women’s capacities andconfidence. One FAO project in Nepal (Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and WaterResources Management for Improved Food Security, Nutrition, and Health (WIN)) successfullyempowered women in irrigation management and provided access to resources for othermarginalized groups while addressing food security, nutrition and health concerns. Projectinterventions included diversification of production systems and farm-based enterprisedevelopment to impact over 2,555 households resulting in increased income and food security.Women gained capacity through group formation efforts including water users committees;participation in water management and group savings; training in literacy, leadership, gender, andwomen’s rights; and access to women friendly technologies.

Only a few cases focused on wealth generation through non-agricultural enterprises and skills. InYemen, the FAO Community-Based Regional Development Programme (CBRDP) providedtraining to improve technical, organizational and financial skills. Vocational training was given in14 fields ranging from carpentry to ceramics production. Training in project proposal development


45

enabled newly formed community organizations to attract US$698 000 to a revolving credit fundfor local development.

A number of case studies demonstrated reduced vulnerability. The Rural Development in LempiraSur Project (PROLESUR) implemented by FAO in Honduras supported the communal recovery ofnatural assets. The region was able to withstand the ravages of Hurricane Mitch by promotinglocally coordinated production and land management technologies that mimic natural ecosystems,such as soil conservation and reforestation interventions. These efforts combined with improvedpreservation and storage technologies allowed communities, formerly recipients of food aid, tomaintain a grain surplus throughout the disasters.

5.2 Emerging Issues and Insights

While positive results were reported in many cases, success in addressing social inclusivity andlong-term sustainability was evident in only a few cases. The most vulnerable groups withoutassets to build upon continued to be excluded. Long-term sustainability particularly related to theenvironment remained an issue. Evaluation of effective impact was hampered in several cases by alack of sufficient monitoring and evaluation data.

Several of the more successful projects, particularly in Honduras and Yemen, showed remarkablysimilar patterns of implementation with respect to institutional linkages and sequencing of actions:collaborative diagnosis, planning and evaluation; risk minimization; profit generation;vocational/technical training and training of local trainers; locally accessible financial services;establishment or enhancement of community development associations with organizationaldevelopment training; links and partnerships with local and national government and NGOs;community benefit activities; and multi-sectoral interventions.

5.3 The Way Forward

In summary, the evidence gathered from exploring successful examples suggests that effectiveincorporation of the good principles of development associated with the SLAs are required to setthe stage for reducing poverty. The analysis indicates that the SL principles addressing socialinclusivity and environmental sustainability need to be kept more to the forefront. Using alivelihoods perspective along with a good developmental tool kit and appropriate sequencing canenhance the quality of a wide range of approaches to improve the lives of the rural poor.


46

6 Sources of information

6.1 References and Documents Reviewed

Aaker, J. and J. Shumaker. 1994. Looking Back and Looking Forward: Participatory Monitoringand Evaluation. Little Rock, Arkansas: Heifer International,

Ashley, C, and D. Carney. 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. London:Department for International Development (DFID) Issues Series.

Bartlett A., Meyer, J., Kar K., Jay A., Alam Z. and Sarker A. 2004. First Output to PurposeReview Report. CARE Rural Livelihoods Programme. February 2004. Dhaka, Bangladesh:Rural Livelihoods Evaluation Partnership.

Bartlett, A. 2002. Food for Thought: Selected Outcomes of Rural Livelihoods Projects inBangladesh supported by DFID and CARE.

Bartlett, A. 2002a. Impact Study on FFS Activities within SHABGE-DFID Project [Draft]. Dhaka:CARE.

Bass, S. 2003. Project Document for the Community-Based Regional Development Programme,Phase II, 2004-08 (Draft). Rome: FAO.

Bass, S. 2003. Designing a pastoral risk management strategy in Mongolia: applying a sustainablelivelihoods perspective. IUAES XVth Congress, Florence, Italy. Commission on NomadicPeoples Session 7-8 July, 2003.

Baumann, P, M. Bruno, D. Cleary, O. Dubois, X. Flores. 2003. Applying People-CentredDevelopment Approaches within FAO: Some Practical Lessons. Rome: FAO.

Baumann, P. 2002. Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor. A CriticalAnalysis of Central Concepts and Emerging Trends from a Sustainable LivelihoodsPerspective. Rome: FAO.

Boudreau, T. & J. Holt. 2000. A Food Economy Report on the Ruba Lomine Project Area forOxfam Canada and REST: A Food Economy Baseline with an Analysis of ProgrammeImplications. The Food Economy Group.

Carney, D. (ed.) 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? London:DFID.

Carney, D. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and possibilities for a change. London:Department for International Development (DFID).

Cleary, D. 2003. People-Centred Approaches. A Brief Literature Review and Comparison ofTypes. Rome: FAO.

Cotula, L. 2002. Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor. The Experience ofFAO and Other Key Organisations from a Sustainable Livelihoods Perspective. Rome:FAO.

DFID. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets.http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html


47

DFID. 2001. Proceedings of the Inter-Agency Forum on Operationalising Participatory Ways ofApplying Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches, Pontignano (Sienna), 7-11 March 2000.(http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9371E/X9371E00.HTM)

Estrella, M. (Editor) Learning from Change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring andevaluation. 2000. With J. Blauert, D. Campilan, J. Gaventa, J. Gonsalves, I. Guijt, D.Johnson, and R. Ricafort. Intermediate Technology Publications, InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, London.

FAO, 2001. Asia-Pacific Conference on Early Warning Prevention Preparedness and Managementof Disasters in Food and Agriculture, Chiangmai, Thailand. 12-15 June, 2001.

FAO. 2000. The Participatory Upland Conservation and Development Project in Pakistan.GCP/INT/542/ITA, 1992-1999. Case study prepared for the Inter-Agency Forum onOperationalising Participatory Ways of Applying Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches,Pontignano (Sienna), 7-11 March 2000.

FAO. 2001. Terminal Report: Interregional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation andDevelopment, Pakistan (GCP/INT/542/ITA-PAK). Project Findings andRecommendations. FAO: Rome.

FAO. 2003a. International Summative-cum-Evaluation Workshop Report (31.12.03 Draft) Womenin Irrigation and Water Resources Management for Improved Household Food Security,Nutrition and Health. December 16-18, 2003, FAO, Rome

FAO. 2003b. Report of the Seventeenth Session of the Committee on Agriculture. Rome 23-28June, 2003.

FAO. 2004a. Livelihoods Support Program, Sub Programme 3.2: Participatory Policy Making(PPM). Summary Case Study. Lempira Sur Rural Development Projects, March 2004

FAO. 2002. Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and Water Resources Management forImproved Household Food Security, Nutrition and Health (WIN Project) GCP/INT/FIP.(19 December 2002 Draft for Discussion). WIN Reformulation Workshop Proceedings,December 10-12, 2002, FAO Rome

FAO. 2003c. SD: TCP/MON/0066 Technical Cooperation Programme. Pastoral Risk ManagementStrategy, Mongolia. Terminal statement prepared for the Government of Mongolia by theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2003

FAO. 2004b. FAO Progress Report, Trust Fund Programme.2003 Annual Report (KE Draft08.01.04) United Nations Foundation GCP/INT/750/FIP, Empowerment of Women inIrrigation and Water Resources Management for Improved Food Security, Nutrition, andHealth.

Frankenberger, T. 2000. What Indicators can be used for Impact Assessment? Inter-Agency Forumon Operationalising Participatory Ways of Applying Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches,Pontignano (Sienna), 7-11 March 2000.

Franks, T., A. Toner, I. Goldman, D. Howlett, F. Kamuzora, F. Muhumuza, T. Tamasane. 2004.Goodbye to Projects? The Institutional Impact of Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches onDevelopment Interventions. Department for International Development


48

Gotts, K. (ed). 1998. Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme. A JointEvaluation Report Prepared for Oxfam Canada and the Relief Society of Tigray (REST).March 1998.

Human Development Index. [http://www.unhchr.ch/development/poverty-02.html].

Hussain, K. 2002. Livelihoods Approaches Compared: A Multi-Agency Review of CurrentPractice. [http://www.livelihoods.org/info/docs/LAC.pdf].

IMM Ltd. 2004. Poverty Impact Assessment Guide. [http://www.ex.ac.uk/imm/].

Lama, K. A Model of Exemplary Collaboration in Khari Tole, Tikha VDC of Doti District. 2002.Process of project implementation of “Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and WaterResources Management for Improved Food Security, Nutrition and Health” supported byUNF/FAO (GCP/INT/750/FIP)

Noble, R. 2003. Collaborative Learning to Achieve Sustainable Livelihoods. A Final EvaluationReport of the Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme.[http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/docs/Oxfam_Eval.pdf].

Norton, A. and M. Foster. 2001. The potential for using sustainable livelihoods approaches inpoverty reduction strategy papers. Final Report. March 2001. London: ODI.

Oxfam Canada/REST. 1998. Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme. Phase IIProposal.

Oxfam Canada/REST. 2000. Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme.Programme Implementation Plan, December 1, 1999 to November, 2002.

Oxfam Canada/REST. 2001. Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme, Phase II.Annual Report, December 1, 1999 to March 31, 2001.

Oxfam Canada/REST. 2003. Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme, Phase II.Final Report, December 1999-March 2003.

Pandey, A. with K.K. Shrestha, N.D. Pandey, P. Bhattarai, T. Pradhan, K. Lama. Report of theWIN Nepal National Summative Self Assessment Workshop on the Empowerment ofWomen in Irrigation for Improved Household Food Security, Nutrition, and Health (WIN)Project of FAO.

Rathberger, E. 2003. Dry Taps: Gender and Poverty in Water Resource Management. FAO:Rome. [http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC855E/ac855e00.htm#Contents].

REST. 2002. Ruba Lomine Integrated Development Programme. Annual Report on Labour PoorFemale Headed Households, November 2001 to October 30, 2002.

Savory, A. with J. Butterfield. 1999. Holistic Management: A new framework for decisionmaking. New York: Island Press.

UNDP. 2003. Community-Based Regional Development Programme. Participatory ImpactTrends Assessment, Al-Makha. Sana’a: UNDP.

UNDP. 2003. Impact Assessment Report on the Community-Based Regional DevelopmentProgramme, Yemen (Draft). Sana’a: UNDP.

Wilson, P. & Z. Hussain. 2002. CARE SHABGE-DFID Partnership Review. Dhaka: CARE.

49

6.2 Contacts and Interviews

The following persons were engaged in various capacities at different stages of the paper.The core FAO study team were closely involved in selecting projects and in developingprinciples, hypothesis and indicators by which to analyse and evaluate them. Theextended FAO study team took part in brainstorming sessions in the initial stages of theproject designed to develop and categorise principles according to their importance to theSLA, and to elaborate a set of hypotheses to allow the consultants to analyse and evaluatecase studies. Workshop participants provided valuable input on the progress of the paperso far and suggested areas for further study. Interviewees were contacted in order to gainmore in-depth information on projects they had worked on, to review case studysummaries compiled by the consultants, and to seek other case studies of potentialrelevance to the study.

We wish to thank all those who took the time to speak or write to us, or to attendbrainstorming sessions and workshops, and for the important contributions they have madeto this paper.

Core FAO Study Team

Name ServiceMarta Bruno ConsultantAlice Carloni TCIPJan Johnson SDARConstance Neely ConsultantKirsten Sutherland Consultant

Extended FAO Study Team (in addition to core study team)

Name ServiceStephan Bass SDARStephan Dohrn SDAROlivier Dubois SDARAntonia Engel FONPSiobhan Kelly AGSFAndrew Murray SDARPaola Termine SDARHiroko Yashiki SDAR

Workshop Participants, 14th April 2004 (in addition to core study team)

Name ServiceBernd Bultemeier PBEEBill Seiders SDREBrian Thompson ESNPCharlotte Masiello-Riome GILFDavid Kahan AGSFDoyle Baker AGSFHiroko Yashiki SDARIlaria Sisto SDWWJennie Dey-De Pryck SDARJohn Dixon AGSFManuel Paveri FONPMarcelino Avila SDAOlivier Dubois SDARRaymon Van Anrooy FIPP

50

Interviews

Name Organisation ProjectKarel Callens FAO (ESNP) Luapula Valley, ZambiaFlorence Egal FAO (ESNP) WIN, NepalAbdoulaye Toure IFAD LADEP, GambiaPerin Saint’Ange IFAD SADEFP, MaliMicheline Dutroux IFAD SADEFP, MaliLuca Fe d’Ostiani FAO (SDAR) Upper Pirai, BoliviaIan Cherrett FAO (SDAR) Lempira Sur, HondurasFabio Pittaluga FAO (FIDP) SFLP, West AfricaBenoit Horemans FAO (FIDP) SFLP, West AfricaEddie Allison Overseas Development Group SFLP, West AfricaJulia Wolf FAO (SDAR) SHABGE/GO-INTERFISH,

BangladeshDaniel Renault FAO (AGLW) WIN, NepalRobin Marsh U.C. Berkeley Other possible casesIlya Rosenthal IFAD Multiple ProjectsKathy McCaston CARE GeneralKarlyn Eckman Freelance consultant WIN, NepalPeter Bazeley DFID DELIVERI, IndonesiaSabona Mtisi Zimbabwe

E-Mail Exchange

Name Organisation Project

Tim Frankenberger TANGO International GeneralMartin Hanratty USAID GeneralTim Mahoney USAID GeneralAstrid Agostini FAO (AFSCM) Bondo District & ARLMP,

KenyaKath Pasteur Institute of Development

StudiesGeneral

Loretta Payne CARE Bangladesh SHABGE/GO-INTERFISH,Bangladesh

Christine March DFID Bangladesh SHABGE/GO-INTERFISH,Bangladesh

Lucie Lalanne Oxfam Canada IRDP, EthiopiaPeter Reid DFID WORLP, IndiaOlga Ramaromanana Chemonics International LDI, MadagascarEllen Muehlhoff FAO (ESNP) Luapula Valley, Zambia

51

6.3 ACRONYMS

CBRDP Community Based Regional Development ProgrammeCDO Community Development OrganizationCOAG Committee on AgricultureCODECO Community Development CouncilsCODEMS Municipal Development CouncilDELIVERI Decentralized Livestock Services in Eastern IndonesiaDFID Department for International DevelopmentEB Executive BodyFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFFS Farmer Field SchoolFT Farmer TrainerGTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische ZusammenarbeitIDRP Integrated Rural Development ProgrammeIFAD International Fund for Agriculture DevelopmentIHFSAN Improving Household food Security and NutritionJPSPLADEP Lowlands Agricultural Development ProgrammeLSP Livelihoods Support ProgrammeM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

MELA Monitoring, Evaluation, and Lessons Learned ApproachOFWM On-Farm Water ManagementPCD People Centred DevelopmentPNGOPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

PUCD Participatory Upland Conservation DevelopmentSHABGE Strengthening Household Access to Bari Garden Extension

ServicesSIDA Swiss International Development Agency (?)SL Sustainable LivelihoodsSLA Sustainable Livelihoods ApproachUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeWIN Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and Water Resource

Management for Improved Food Security, Nutrition and Health(WIN)

52

Further information about the LSP

The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) works through the following sub-programmes:

Improving people’s access to natural resourcesAccess of the poor to natural assets is essential for sustainable poverty reduction. Thelivelihoods of rural people with limited or no access to natural resources are vulnerablebecause they have difficulty in obtaining food, accumulating assets, and recuperating aftershocks or misfortunes.

Participation, Policy and Local GovernanceLocal people, especially the poor, often have weak or indirect influence on policies thataffect their livelihoods. Policies developed at the central level are often not responsive tolocal needs and may not enable access of the rural poor to needed assets and services.

Livelihoods diversification and enterprise developmentDiversification can assist households to insulate themselves from environmental andeconomic shocks, trends and seasonality – in effect, to be less vulnerable. Livelihoodsdiversification is complex, and strategies can include enterprise development.

Natural resource conflict managementResource conflicts are often about access to and control over natural assets that arefundamental to the livelihoods of many poor people. Therefore, the shocks caused bythese conflicts can increase the vulnerability of the poor.

Institutional learningThe institutional learning sub-programme has been set up to ensure that lessons learnedfrom cross-departmental, cross-sectoral team work, and the application of sustainablelivelihoods approaches, are identified, analysed and evaluated for feedback into theprogramme.

Capacity buildingThe capacity building sub-programme functions as a service-provider to the overallprogramme, by building a training programme that responds to the emerging needs andpriorities identified through the work of the other sub-programmes.

People-centred approaches in different cultural contextsA critical review and comparison of different recent development approaches used indifferent development contexts is being conducted, drawing on experience at the strategicand field levels in different sectors and regions.

Mainstreaming sustainable livelihoods approaches in the fieldFAO designs resource management projects worth more than US$1.5 billion per year.Since smallholder agriculture continues to be the main livelihood source for most of theworld’s poor, if some of these projects could be improved, the potential impact could besubstantial.

Sustainable Livelihoods Referral and Response FacilityA Referral and Response Facility has been established to respond to the increasingnumber of requests from within FAO for assistance on integrating sustainable livelihoodand people-centred approaches into both new and existing programmes and activities.

For further information on the Livelihood Support Programme,contact the programme coordinator:

Email: [email protected]

53

LSP WORKING PAPERS to December 2004Baumann P., (July 2002) Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor: A critical

analysis of central concepts and emerging trends from a sustainable livelihoodsperspective. FAO, LSP WP 1, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Cotula L., (August 2002) Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor: Theexperience of FAO and of other key organisations from a sustainable livelihoodsperspective. FAO, LSP WP 2, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Karl M., (August 2002) Participatory Policy Reform from a Sustainable LivelihoodsPerspective: Review of concepts and practical experiences. FAO, LSP WP 3,Participation, Policy and Local Governance Sub-Programme. Also available in Spanish andFrench.

Warren P., (December 2002) Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development: Aninitial exploration of Concepts and Issues. FAO, LSP WP 4, Livelihoods Diversificationand Enterprise Development Sub-Programme.

Cleary D., with contributions from Pari Baumann, Marta Bruno, Ximena Flores and Patrizio Warren(September 2003) People-Centred Approaches: A brief literature review andcomparison of types. FAO, LSP WP 5, People-Centered Approaches in Different CulturalContexts Sub-Programme. Also available in Spanish and French.

Seshia S. with Scoones I., Environment Group, Institute of Development Studies, University ofSussex, UK (November 2003) Understanding Access to Seeds and Plant GeneticResources. What Can a Livelihoods Perspective Offer? FAO, LSP WP 6, Access toNatural Resources Sub-Programme.

Biggs S. D., and Messerschmidt D., (December 2003) The Culture of Access to MountainNatural Resources: Policy, Processes and Practices. FAO, LSP WP 7, Access toNatural Resources Sub-Programme.

Evrard O., (Janvier 2004) La mise en oeuvre de la réforme foncière au Laos : Impacts sociauxet effets sur les conditions de vie en milieu rural (with summary in English). FAO, LSPWP 8, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Ellis F., Allison E., Overseas Development Group, University of Anglia, UK ( January 2004)Livelihood Diversification and Natural Resource Access. FAO, LSP WP 9, Access toNatural Resources Sub-Programme, Livelihood Diversification and EnterpriseDevelopment Sub-Programme.

Hodgson S., (March 2004) Land and Water – the rights interface. FAO, LSP WP 10, Access toNatural Resources Sub-Programme.

Mitchell R. and Hanstad T., Rural Development Institute (RDI), USA, (March 2004) Smallhomegarden plots and sustainable livelihoods for the poor. FAO LSP WP 11, Accessto Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Hanstad T., Nielsen R., Brown J., Rural Development Institute (RDI), USA, (May 2004) Land andLivelihoods: Making land rights real for India’s rural poor. FAO LSP WP 12, Access toNatural Resources Sub-Programme.

Fisher R.J., Schmidt K., Steenhof B. and Akenshaev N., (May 2004) Poverty and forestry : Acase study of Kyrgyzstan with reference to other countries in West and CentralAsia. FAO LSP WP 13, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Cotula L., and Toulmin, C. with van Vlaenderen, H., Tall, S.M., Gaye, G., Saunders, J., Ahiadeke,C. and Anarfi, J.K, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK(July 2004) Till to tiller: Linkages between international remittances and access toland in West Africa. FAO LSP WP 14, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Baumann P., Bruno M., Cleary D., Dubois O. and Flores X., with contributions from Warren P.,Maffei T. and Johnson J. (March 2004) Applying people centred developmentapproaches within FAO: some practical lessons. FAO LSP WP 15, People CentredApproaches in Different Development Contexts Sub-Programme. Also available in Spanishand French.

Neely C., Sutherland K., and Johnson J. (October 2004) Do sustainable livelihoods approacheshave a positive impact on the rural poor? – A look at twelve case studies. FAO LSPWP 16, Institutional Learning Sub-Programme.

Norfolk S. (2004) Examining access to natural resources and linkages to sustainablelivelihoods: A case study of Mozambique. FAO LSP WP 17, Access to NaturalResources Sub-Programme.

Unruh J. (2004). Post-conflict land tenure: using a sustainable livelihoods approach. FAOLSP WP 18, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve...

Technology

livelihoods support

rural livelihoods approach

rural poverty

livelihoods focus

rural poor lessons

rural development

evidence of impact

sl project impact