CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 1
Z
Grant Completion Report Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC) Improving Financial Governance in Caprivi Conservancies Grant July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013
[Insert Date of report]
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by [Insert grantee] for Chemonics International for activities completed under Contract No. 674-C-00-10-00030-00.
CASE STUDY: Pakistan Entrepreneurs Livelihoods Model
Asia and the Middle East Economic Growth Best Practices (AMEG) Project Chemonics International, Inc. Task Order No. AID-OAA-M-12-00008
January 2016
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development by Chemonics International Inc.
2 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
RFP No. Contract No. AID-OAA-M-12-00008
Contract Implemented by:
Chemonics International Inc.
The author’s views in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 3
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 8
CASE STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 10
A. Context ............................................................................................................................ 11
B. Objectives, Beneficiaries, and Stakeholders ................................................................... 12
C. Approach ......................................................................................................................... 13
D. Impact ............................................................................................................................. 18
E. Key Findings and Lessons Learned ................................................................................. 19
F. Prerequisites for Replication ........................................................................................... 29
ANNEXES
ANNEX A - VC-specific Access and Integration of Women ............................................. 32
ANNEX B - LRP Selection Criteria .................................................................................... 35
ANNEX C - Post-project Status Report, Sustainability Centers ......................................... 36
ANNEX D - Lessons Learned One-pager ........................................................................... 46
ANNEX E - References ....................................................................................................... 47
ANNEX F - Interviewees .................................................................................................... 48
ANNEX G - KFP Beneficiaries by VC ............................................................................... 49
ANNEX H - Entrepreneurs One-pagers .............................................................................. 50
ANNEX I - Organizational Chart ........................................................................................ 59
4 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
ACRONYMS
AMEG Asia and Middle East Economic Growth BDS Business Development Services Center Term used to cover CFCs/MCBCs/HCCs collectively CFC Common Facility Center (HEF) CL Cluster Lead DFATD Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada ECDI Entrepreneurship and Community Development Institute EP Empowering Pakistan FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FGD Focus Group Discussion FLEW Female Extension Worker FSA Female Sales Associate FTE Full-time Employment FVMC Female Village Milk Collector HCC Honey Collection Center (honey) HDOD Human Development Organization Doaba HEF Hand embellished fabrics HUJRA Holistic Understanding for Justified Research and Action IDS Innovative Development Strategies ISH Input Supply Hub (dairy) KFP Key Facilitating Partner KPK Khyber Pakhtunkwa LRP Livelihoods Recovery Program MAPs Medicinal and Aromatic Plants MC Marketing Coordinator MCBC MAP Collection and Buying Center (MAPs) MEDA Mennonite Economic Development Associates MENA Middle East and North Africa MFI Micro-finance Institution MT Master Trainer NRSP National Rural Support Program PARRSA Provincial Restoration, Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority SCBS Senior Capacity Building Specialist TA Technical Assistance THAAP Trust for History, Art, and Architecture, Pakistan UC Union Council USAID United States Agency for International Development VC Value Chain VCA Value Chain Analysis VCO Value Chain Officer WESS Water, Environment, and Sanitation Society
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is at a critical juncture. The Arab Spring,
sparked in 2011 by frustration and impatience with limited economic opportunities, has yet to
deliver the jobs and improved livelihoods so many had hoped for. Addressing the jobs crisis in
MENA will require inclusive private-sector growth, driven by more strategic, efficient, and
competitive firms and producers. In response, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) Asia Middle East Economic Growth Best Practices program (AMEG) is
exploring three approaches to sustainable job creation and income generation in high-
unemployment countries and developing case studies exemplifying solutions. These three
approaches include: (i) enterprise competitiveness, (ii) vocational training and job-matching, and
(iii) sustainable livelihoods development.
Pakistan Entrepreneurs, implemented by Mennonite Economic Development Associates
(MEDA), was chosen as a case study for the sustainable livelihoods approach, based on specific
project elements of relevance to the MENA context:
Integration of home-bound women
A Livelihoods Recovery Program (LRP) that provided a transition from relief activities to
economic growth
A focus on post-project sustainability
By applying a value chain approach to frame sustainable livelihoods activities, the project
objective was a 50 percent increase in the incomes of 120,0001 micro-entrepreneurs and small
enterprise owners, the majority of whom were women (MEDA, web 2015). Entrepreneurs were
targeted in four value chains (VCs): dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and
medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs). Summary results are shown in the table below.
Entrepreneurs Project Results (MEDA, 2014 and IDS, 2014)
Beneficiaries 85,693
Female beneficiaries 88%
Cost/beneficiary 350 USD2
Income increase (VC Program only) 19%3
Net sales increase 93%
Sustainability 30 sustainability ‘Centers’ established
Contextually, Pakistan bears a strong similarity to many countries within MENA. The 2014
World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report captures the comparability: MENA ranks last on the
Economic Participation and Opportunity subindex and MENA countries dominate the bottom
tier of the combined ranking. On the same subindex, Pakistan ranks 141 out of 142 nations,
outperforming only Syria. Additionally, Pakistan faces political instability, echoing the recent
experiences of many MENA countries. A breakdown of confidence and trust between local
1 Target beneficiary numbers were decreased to 75,000 in 2011, based on a restructuring of the SOW to include a new relief component, the Livelihoods Recovery Program 2 Derived by dividing the project budget by the number of beneficiaries; loose baseline across all AMEG cases 3 Average contribution of project related income to toal household income, due to increase in net sales
6 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
communities and Government of Pakistan institutions has led to increased vulnerability to
violent extremism (USAID, updated 2015). U.S. military actions within the borders of the
country have also created a climate of acute sensitivity to U.S. government involvement,
increasing the complexity of U.S. project implementation in the field.
While overall Entrepreneurs project activities and approaches, as presented in the case study
below, are of interest to sustainable livelihoods programming, the three Entrepreneurs elements
of interest noted earlier provide valuable perspectives and actionable models for replication in
the MENA region.
INTEGRATION OF HOMEBOUND WOMEN
Entrepreneurs applied three methods to increase access to, and integration of, the female
population:
Key Facilitating Partners (KFPs) as community mobilizers and project representatives on
the ground
Sales Agents (SAs) to liaise between markets and producers
Cluster/group formation to support micro-level producers
Working in parallel, these approaches allowed the Entrepreneurs project to successfully access
and work with large numbers of women despite the geographical and cultural challenges in doing
so. KFPs were drawn from a pool of locally known, trusted NGOs with positive profiles within
the intervention communities – they were known entities. The SA model, by using more mobile
individuals to access those with less mobility, allowed the project access to a larger pool of
female producers. The cluster/group approach allowed producers to be grouped together, based
on location and willingness to work together, removing much of the assumed vulnerability of
individual women venturing outside the home. The manner in which each of these approaches
was implemented within the VCs, in terms of gendered roles, allowed Entrepreneurs to push
boundaries of acceptable male/female relationships and expand opportunities for women.
Key Findings
1. The SA and cluster/group models are a good fit for more conservative societies.
However, a basic level of access is still required: There must be accessible, willing, local
partner(s) that are trusted within the targeted community.
2. Trust is essential to integrating homebound women. Adequate time must be allowed to
identify and train appropriate partners to undertake effective community mobilization.
LIVELIHOODS RECOVERY PROGRAM
Entrepreneurs worked with local partners to provide livelihoods recovery assistance to
households whose source of revenue had been destroyed or disrupted by conflict and/or natural
disaster (MEDA, 2014b). Through KFP relationships, beneficiaries were identified and
prioritized and asset replacement grants were awarded to selected KFPs for procurement and
distribution of goods and services. Activities included rapid needs assessments, livestock
vaccination, procurement and distribution of toolkits, small-scale production tools, and other
assets to productivity.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 7
The recovery program was initially implemented for six-months in KPK, for populations being
resettled in Swat, post-conflict. As this program ended, the 2010 flooding hit the same area, as
well as substantial portions of the rest of the country. USAID requested that LRP activities be
implemented with the flood-affected populations in KPK and across the country, initiating a
second, six-month LRP. Key Findings
1. Smaller number of sectors allows for more sustainable progress. The shift from post-
conflict to post-flood allowed the project to build on experience and focus on fewer sectors.
A narrower focus enabled the project to introduce the private sector and market linkage
concepts into relief activities, harnessing market forces to help drive the recovery process.
2. Engage private sector partners as soon as possible and in a substantial way. Early
involvement can provide guidance and resource support to make direct seller-buyer
relationships stronger and more sustainable.
3. Providing physical assets as emergency relief, to stabilize a damaged production base,
provides a good transition to more development-focused VC activities incorporating
embedded business development activities.
SUSTAINABILITY
To address the issue of sustainability beyond the project timeline, in the final year of the project
Entrepreneurs created a series of 30 community-based business entities, hereafter referred to
collectively as “Centers” – 12 for Dairy, 15 For HEF, 1 for Honey, 2 for MAPs (Warman, 2014).
Centers were named differently for each of the VCs4, and the intended ownership, or control,
models varied by VC as well. Intended as physical sites where beneficiaries could gather for
business related activities, the overall objective was to have the Centers linked directly with
private sector firms working in that VC, either through direct investment/ownership or
continuous orders.
Key Findings
1. Incorporating a “Sustainability Center” concept into initial project design would increase
odds of success. Incorporating this concept in the last six to nine months of a project does not
allow enough time to develop relationships and mutual understanding of the potential
benefits of such an arrangement for both producers and private sector partners.
2. Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production (quality,
quantity, accessibility) available within the VC.
3. Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach, and relevance within the
development sector will increase the likelihood of sustainable market linkages within
development projects. Previous private sector experience is essential within program staff.
4 Dairy – Input Supply Hubs; HEF – Common Facility Centers (CFCs); Honey and MAPs – Collection and Buying Centers.
8 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
INTRODUCTION
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region remains at a critical juncture in the post-Arab
Spring period, with job creation and improved livelihoods still lagging. Less than one-half of
MENA’s working-age population is employed or in school. As a result of labor market
inefficiencies, the MENA region has the highest youth unemployment rate in the world (28
percent), and the share of women in the workforce is less than any other region. Demographic
trends compound labor market challenges: Since 2003, the region’s labor force has grown at a
rate faster than any other region. MENA’s developing countries experienced 1.2 percent gross
domestic product (GDP) growth in 2014, which is insufficient to significantly reduce
unemployment rates or inequality (World Bank, 2015).
Addressing the jobs crisis in MENA will require inclusive private-sector growth, driven by more
strategic, efficient, and competitive firms and producers. Yet many MENA businesses lack
formal business training and plans that identify and address the binding constraints preventing
them from increasing sales and, thus, jobs. Further, those that seek growth capital are often
unable to receive loans due to prohibitive collateral requirements. On the producer side, many
input producers are not linked to markets and lack even basic understanding of market needs.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Asia Middle East Economic
Growth Best Practices program (AMEG) supports USAID missions in developing effective and
efficient economic growth programs that address technical and strategic challenges that are
specific to countries in which USAID operates in Asia and the Middle East. Through AMEG,
USAID is able to conduct rapid and strategic economic growth assessments, pilot innovative
approaches in economic growth programming, and consolidate and disseminate best practices in
economic growth projects learned from USAID implementation throughout the world.
In this programmatic context USAID, and its Middle East Bureau in particular, is interested in
exploring three approaches to sustainable job creation and income generation in high-
unemployment countries and developing successful case studies exemplifying solutions. These
three approaches include: (i) enterprise competitiveness, (ii) vocational training and job-
matching, and (iii) sustainable livelihoods development. Using these case studies, the ME
Bureau seeks practical tools to integrate job creation and income generation best practices and
lessons learned into economic growth programming in the ME region.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 9
AMEG MEDA ENTREPRENEURS CASE STUDY
• Workforce Development Advisor Erika Hoffman-Kiess • AMEG Technical Program Manager Blerta Picari • Deputy Chief of Party Isaiah Oliver
ASSESSMENT TEAM AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The desk research and field assessment in Pakistan was
conducted by Erika Hoffman-Kiess of the JOBS
Group, with support from the AMEG technical
program manager, Blerta Picari and Deputy Chief of
Party, Isaiah Oliver.
The AMEG team would like to especially thank the
Adam Bramm and Helen Loftin of the MEDA staff who provided ongoing information during
the desk and field research phase. Additionally, former Entrepreneurs staff and project partner
representatives in Pakistan were invaluable, providing project detail, contact information, and
support to arrange additional meetings with beneficiaries and partners.
10 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
CASE STUDY
The USAID Empowering Pakistan Entrepreneurs (Entrepreneurs) project aimed to increase the
incomes, by at least 50 percent, of 75,000 micro-entrepreneurs and small enterprise owners,
primarily focusing on women. The project was a part of the Empowering Pakistan (EP) suite of
programs that included EP Jobs, EP Firms, EP Trade, and EP Energy Efficiency and Capacity.
Entrepreneurs was a five-year, $30 million cooperative agreement implemented by MEDA and
in operation from June 2009 through October 2014. In 2014, the project was granted a three-
month, no-cost extension.
Pakistan Entrepreneurs was chosen as a case study for the sustainable livelihoods approach based
on specific project elements of relevance to the MENA context:
Integration of home-bound women
Incorporation of a Livelihoods Recovery Program that provided a transition from relief
activities to economic growth
A focus on post-project sustainability
Applying a value chain structure to frame sustainable livelihoods activities, Entrepreneurs
increased overall sales and improved project-related household income levels across four value
chains: dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and medicinal and aromatic plants
(MAPs).
Interviews took place between August and November 2015, remotely and within Pakistan, and
included MEDA staff, former project staff, representatives from partner organizations, private
sector stakeholders, and beneficiaries. Entrepreneurs operated in all four provinces in Pakistan,
but due to time limitations and security conditions, physical site visits and meetings were limited
to the Islamabad Capital Territory and central and southern Punjab (Lahore and Bahawalpur).
Additional discussions regarding activities in KPK took place via telephone.
This case study provides a project overview including context, objectives, approach, and impact.
The report then provides further detail on specific elements of interest as noted above, presenting
key findings and lessons learned, followed by information on activity/approach replication,
considering contextual factors relating to the MENA operating environment. Lessons learned are
summarized in Annex D.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 11
PAKISTAN AT-A-GLANCE
Population 185 million1
GDP 246.9 billion
Growth rate 5.4 %
Poverty rate 22.3 %
Labor force participation 54 %
Labor force participation for women 25.6 %
A. CONTEXT
A1. NATIONAL
As noted above in the Introduction, MENA registers the lowest labor force participation rates in
the world, driven primarily by low levels of female participation. The 2014 World Economic
Forum Gender Gap Report captures the comparability of Pakistan to the MENA region in this
regard. MENA ranks last on the Economic Participation and Opportunity subindex and MENA
countries dominate the bottom tier of the combined ranking. On the same subindex, Pakistan
ranks 141 out of 142 nations, outperforming only Syria, and registers one of the highest negative
percentage changes since 2006. On the overall Gender Gap ranking, Pakistan once again comes
in at 141, outperforming only Yemen. In this, and by many other measures, the Pakistani context
bears a strong similarity to countries within the MENA region - similar growth rates, poverty
levels, and a prevalence of informal economic activity.
Poverty is extreme in Pakistan. More than half of
Pakistan’s population lives below the
international poverty line, living on less than $2
per day (World Bank, 2015). For women,
especially, it is a life of hardship. Most women in
rural Pakistan are marginalized – by poverty,
home confinement and geography. Their
economic contributions – to agriculture,
household duties, and cottage industry production
– are largely invisible (MEDA, n.d.).
Additionally, Pakistan faces political instability,
echoing the recent experiences of many MENA
countries.
“Pakistan faces significant hurdles to progress. It is home to some of the most
unsafe regions in the world. Militants destroy schools and intimidate students
from attending. Even where schools exist, instructional quality needs to be
improved. Diseases eradicated in many parts of the world threaten health and
lives and can become a danger elsewhere. Surging inflation and unreliable
access to electricity and clean water cripple growth and make daily life
difficult, undermining the country’s political stability.” (USAID, 2013)
A breakdown of confidence and trust between local communities and the Government of
Pakistan institutions has led to increased vulnerability to violent extremism (USAID,
updated 2015). U.S. military actions within the borders of the country have also created a
climate of acute sensitivity to U.S. government involvement of any kind, increasing the
complexity of U.S. project implementation in the field.
12 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
A2. MEDA
Entrepreneurs built on previous MEDA experience in Pakistan. From 2004 to 2007, USAID
funded the “Behind the Veil” project, supporting rural and urban women in increasing their
incomes by overcoming barriers to participation in the hand embellished garment value chain
(MEDA, 2014). The 2008-2012 DFATD (Canada)-funded “Pathways and Pursestrings” project
helped marginalized women increase their income, self-confidence, mobility, skills, and family
respect through improved commercial linkages.5
A3. USAID PAKISTAN
In 2010, two significant events altered the development landscape in Pakistan:
Nearly 3.6 million people from the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkwa Province (KPK)
who were previously displaced by armed conflict in their province from 2007 to 2009, started
to return home, many without assets or means of livelihood.
In July, devastating floods displaced thousands more across the country.
In response, USAID adjusted provincial development strategies to focus more effort and
resources on rehabilitation activities (MEDA, 2014). Entrepreneurs’ activities were directed
away from the originally proposed Value Chain Development program and instead focused on
recovery and relief in post-conflict and flood-affected areas.
B. OBJECTIVES, BENEFICIARIES, AND STAKEHOLDERS
B1. OBJECTIVES
Original: The objective of Entrepreneurs was a 50 percent increase in the incomes of 120,000
micro-entrepreneurs and small enterprise owners, the majority of whom were women, (MEDA,
web 2015). This would be achieved by improving the ability of selected micro and small
enterprises in the dairy, HEF, honey, and MAPs value chains, to manage their enterprises and
meet market demands through improved access to business development services (design,
technology, market information, capital) (MEDA, 2014).
Revised: In 2010, USAID requested that MEDA postpone value chain development work in
favor of the Livelihoods Recovery Program (LRP), with a target of meeting the urgent economic
recovery needs of 41,000 families through an asset replacement grants program. A new scope of
work was prepared in 2010 and signed in 2011. Budget allocations were restructured to fund the
new activity while the overall project budget remained unchanged (Bramm, August 2015).
Project beneficiary targets for the value chain activities were decreased from 120,000 to 75,000
to adjust for the foreshortened Value Chain Program timeline (MEDA, 2014).
5 http://www.meda.org/about-pathways-pursestrings
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 13
B2. BENEFICIARIES
A unique aspect of Entrepreneurs was that while both men and women were included as
beneficiaries, the project maintained a strong focus on integrating women throughout project
activities (MEDA, 2014). At project close, 88 percent of project beneficiaries were women (IDS,
2014). Micro and small enterprise owners were the nominal target population for project
activities, but much of the beneficiary population was among home-bound female producers –
individuals participating in income-generating activity as suppliers to the enterprises.
The LRP targeted households whose livelihoods had been disrupted by conflict and/or natural
disaster (MEDA, 2014), with preference given to female-headed households and women in need.
B3. STAKEHOLDERS
Entrepreneurs worked across Pakistan, with project activities in Baluchistan, KPK, Punjab, and
Sindh. Stakeholders included relevant academic/scientific institutions (for example, the
University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences in Dairy and Tibbia College in MAPs),
participating private sector businesses, and communities in each of the project locations. Project
stakeholders participated in a variety of ways – providing bureaucratic support for activities
(permissions, attendance at events, certification), market information, product development
expertise, and financing opportunities.
Government participation was minor but supportive in its absence. Some provincial level
authorities publicly supported the project but direct project contribution was limited;
Government-sponsored trade fairs did provide a platform for project beneficiaries to learn about
and access markets. Private sector stakeholders maintained strong, positive relationships with the
project (Loftin, October 2015).
Community support was essential to Entrepreneurs: Without it, project access to women
producers would not have been possible. Target communities were suspicious of the project –
U.S. government funding and a target population of women increased sensitivities (Loftin,
October 2015). Entrepreneurs used locally respected and influential Key Facilitating Partners to
implement mobilization activities, meeting with community leaders and elders, presenting the
objectives of the program, explaining the process, and requesting support in identification of
potential beneficiaries to establish local ownership. See Annex G, KFPs and Beneficiaries by VC
(Entrepreneurs, 2013).
C. APPROACH
C1. STRUCTURE
Entrepreneurs structured work within three broad programs:
1. Livelihoods Recovery Program (2010-2011) – A stand-alone, asset replacement grant
program to support revitalization of economic activity in conflict- and flood-affected
14 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
communities. Needs assessments, procurement and distribution of tool kits, small-scale
production equipment, and livestock vaccinations were elements of project support
activities.6
2. Institutional Capacity Building Program (2010 and 2012-2014) – Training in basic
financial literacy and consumer protection, export market research, exposure visits,
development of retail outlets.
3. Value Chain Development Program (2011-2014) – Inclusive economic growth activities
to improve production and product quality, and facilitate sustainable access to markets,
targeting micro and small enterprise owners within the four designated value chains. See
Annex H, Entrepreneurs One-pagers for more detail per value chain.
Activities within these program areas (items 2 and 3, as above) consisted of targeted training and
relationship building, providing enterprise owners/workers with tools to manage business
activities, develop productive professional relationships, and improve the market position of their
products and services through business linkages. The Entrepreneurs project provided additional
support with two cross-cutting programs:
1. Value Chain Micro-finance – A dedicated senior value chain financing specialist assessed
value chain financing within the target VCs and proposed potential financing solutions
for beneficiaries via linkages with MFIs, self-financing, and direct financing options.
2. Value Chain Marketing – Managed by subcontractor J.E. Austin Associates, a marketing
team worked to serve as a bridge between beneficiaries and key actors up and down the
value chain(s). Marketing activities were based on marketing frameworks designed in
coordination with each of the target VCs.
C2. TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION
6 The relationship between the LRP and Value Chain Development Program is further discussed below in E2, Livelihoods Recovery Program.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 15
Value Chain Selection: Entrepreneurs, applying the approach illustrated above, worked within
four value chains: dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and medicinal and aromatic
plants (MAPs). USAID Pakistan was interested in activity within proscribed geographical
locations – KPK in general, Swat in particular, rural areas of Sindh, and central/southern Punjab
province. Entrepreneurs limited consideration to sectors that were active in these areas.
At the outset, 20 sectors were assessed through a process of desk research, meetings with private
sector representatives, and interviews with national technical specialists, government bodies, and
NGOs to understand market opportunities. Results of these initial assessments were analyzed
against defined selection criteria, primarily the potential for female involvement. The project
sought sectors that allowed access to large numbers of women and provided the opportunity for
substantive increases in their incomes – increasing the amount of money women were making
for activities they were already doing. Secondary selection criteria included the degree of
existing competition from other actors within the VC, and the potential for meaningful and
productive private sector linkages. This process allowed Entrepreneurs to short-list nine potential
value chains, including HEF and dairy, building on previous work (discussed above at A2.
MEDA). Subsequently, eight in-depth VC assessments were done7 and honey and MAPs were
selected as project VCs.
Partner Selection: Entrepreneurs identified nine key facilitating partners (KFPs) to implement
project activities, applying a grant-making approach. KFPs were selected based on a combination
of the following:
7 HEF was based on previous VC assessments, but Dairy was included in this process for re-validation.
16 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
Ability to provide a regional and/or demographic focus
Ready access to target beneficiaries and additional stakeholders – demonstrated
effectiveness in community mobilization
Specialized technical expertise
Capacity to manage and administer programs or to grow into doing so
Potential to act as a path forward for post-project sustainability
Successful KFPs signed an MOU with the project and received support to prepare a grant
application for USAID funding implemented through the Entrepreneurs Grant Management
component. All project work was channeled through two types of grants to KFPs, small grants
and VC grants. Small grants were further classified as 1) capacity building, 2) post-conflict
recovery, or 3) post-flood recovery (MEDA, 2014).
KFP Training: Following selection, Entrepreneurs built KFP capacity by providing formal and
on-the-job training under the Institutional Capacity Building Program. This consisted of two
types of training: Compliance training, to meet USAID “requirements for financial management,
procurement, and human resources so that partners can receive and administer USAID funds,”
and, “technical training … to improve the quantity, quality and marketability of their products.”
(OIG, 2012) After the KFP had received training, they, in turn, “provide(d) instruction to
predominantly female microentrepreneurs [sic] in finance, product design, marketing, and
quality assurance in the four sectors.” (OIG, 2012)
Beneficiary Selection: Participating KFPs were responsible for community engagement and the
mobilization of potential beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were identified and selected through a
combination of community and stakeholder activities coordinated by the KFP. The degree of
community involvement and specific selection criteria varied per VC. For example, in dairy the
beneficiaries were identified by the community with preference given to those women who
provided most of the animal care and did the milking, while in MAPs the beneficiaries were
identified and vetted by the KFP. All beneficiaries were registered with the project.
Accessing Women: Working with project staff, KFPs implemented a sales agent (SA) 8 and
cluster/group model to access and empower participants. Under this model, local women with a
greater degree of mobility in the community, and/or men, were selected as SAs to then reach
producers, many of whom (depending on the VC) were home-bound women. For their part, the
producers were arranged into clusters or groups, based on geographical proximity. This process
allowed the project to address the challenge of mobility outside the home. Selected SAs were
trained on a variety of skills (basic accounting, quality assurance, negotiation skills, product
design, production techniques, etc.) and in turn trained producers. SAs acted as liaisons between
the market and the clusters of producers, providing market information, technical skills training,
and orders to the producers, collecting finished goods for delivery to buyers, and distributing
payment after orders were filled. While the specific titles, structures, and target beneficiaries
differed from one value chain to the next, the above model represents the basic approach
common across all four project value chains. Further discussion on accessing and integrating
female beneficiaries can be found below in section E1. Integrating Homebound Women.
8 Dairy – Female Livestock Extensions Workers and Female Village Milk Collectors; HEF – Female Sales Agents; Honey – Sales Agent (male) or Lead Entrepreneur (female); MAPs – Sales Agent or Lead Entrepreneur (interchangeable).
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 17
What is a “Center”? • A neutral place for the FSAs and MTs (trainers) to conduct business related activities including sample development, product development, order management, quality control, sales of products etc. • A place which is easily accessible to buyers for conducting buyer/seller meetings and helping assist the buyers in the purchase of embellished fabrics through the FSAs and the MTs • A space to enable availability of physical work locations and resource material collection and to display samples • A place to facilitate MFI meetings, disbursement, and collection of micro loans
(Entrepreneurs, 2013)
Market Linkage: While KFPs used the SA model to establish linkages down the value chain to
producers, Entrepreneurs worked up the value chain with the Value Chain Marketing component,
led by J.E. Austin Associates. Working with the KFPs and relevant private sector stakeholders
(in coordination with VC program staff), the marketing team opened new channels and
developed markets for the products and goods being produced, linking SAs directly with buyers
through exposure visits, trade expositions, and buyer/seller meetings.
Initially, the VC Marketing team would assess the level of production available within a given
VC. After this was established, the team then used a combination of criteria to assess potential
private sector partners against established criteria – attitude, market size, product line, reputation
in the market, and the outlets available. Based on the outcome of this assessment, potential
partners were approached to negotiate linkages. The Entrepreneurs project acted as a liaison
between the market and the KFPs and SAs, facilitating relationships and communicating relevant
information that would in turn enable increased and/or improved micro and small enterprise
market participation.
Sustainability: To address the issue of sustainability
beyond the project timeline, Entrepreneurs created 30
community-based business entities, hereafter referred to
collectively as “Centers” – 12 for dairy, 15 For HEF,
one for honey, two for MAPs (Warman, 2014). Centers
were named differently for each of the VCs9, and the
intended ownership, or control, models varied by VC as
well (see text box). The overall objective was to have
the Centers linked directly with private sector firms
working in that VC, either through direct
investment/ownership or continuous orders. Further
details are available in section E3. Sustainability and in
Annex C, Post-project Status Report, Sustainability
Centers.
C3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Human Resources: Senior program staff housed in the
Islamabad office provided expertise in strategic planning, enterprise development, training and
capacity building, and value chain financing. The role of the senior program staff was to manage
implementation of the KFP sub-grants, provide technical direction to staff and KFPs, and to
provide timely and accurate information up and down the management chain. Also housed in
Islamabad were three VC Directors – dairy, HEF, honey and MAPs, and staff responsible for
crosscutting functions (training, access to finance, strategic planning, etc.). This enabled closer
coordination across programs and VCs, and timelier reporting and information sharing. See
Annex I, Organizational Chart (Entrepreneurs, 2013).
9 Dairy – Input Supply Hubs; HEF – Common Facility Centers (CFCs); Honey and MAPs – Collection and Buying Centers.
18 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
MEDA recognized that Entrepreneurs would require a strong field presence to actively support
the KFPs and project beneficiaries located across the country. Entrepreneurs opened four field
offices, one each in Sukkur and Bahawalpur (Sindh), Swat (KPK) and Quetta (Baluchistan). In
all but Swat, Entrepreneurs field staff co-located with KFP offices. In Swat, in response to
concerns about staff security, Entrepreneurs offices were housed within the Serena Hotel in a
series of long-term rented rooms. These field offices supported a subsequent decentralization and
expansion of monitoring and evaluation staff, security personnel, and VC-specific support
positions, most of which had been housed in the main office under the previous project.
Cost-Share: A set percentage of organizational cost-share was dictated within the original
award agreement.10 MEDA was allowed to use a partial value of other project work in Pakistan
to meet the cost-share requirement. This amounted to $.5 million, a rate at which the cost-share
requirement was more than met (Loftin, October 2015).
Within project activities, grants were made on a cost-share basis, with the ratios dependent upon
the activity.
D. IMPACT
In 2014, Entrepreneurs engaged a local research organization to undertake a third-party
performance evaluation/impact assessment on project work to-date within the Value Chain
Program. Impact was captured in terms of “net sales, production/productivity, adoption of
improved/modern practices, and technical/social benefits of assistance provided …” (MEDA,
2014). The survey was conducted in January and February of 2014, and was based on a sample
of 1710 [775 drawn from beneficiary population and 935 non-beneficiaries drawn from the same
localities as, and with similar characteristics to, the beneficiary population (IDS, 2014)].
Additionally, 11 focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with beneficiaries to capture
more qualitative aspects of the project, things such as awareness, confidence and well-being –
impacts that are evident and visible but difficult to capture quantitatively.
D1. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
Entrepreneurs Project Results (MEDA, 2014 and IDS, 2014)
Beneficiaries 85,693
*Livelihoods Recovery Program 48,779
*Institutional Capacity Building Program 71,077
*Value Chain Development Program 85,693
Female participation 88% of beneficiaries
Cost/beneficiary 350 USD11
Income increase (VC Program only) 19%12
Net sales 93%13
Market linkage 613 buyer-seller meetings; 214 exposure visits
Sustainability 30 sustainability ‘Centers’ established
10 Exact percentage per the award agreement was not available. 11 This is not a MEDA calculation but one used by the AMEG team, derived by dividing the project budget by the number of beneficiaries and used as a loose baseline across all projects reviewed by AMEG. 12 Average contribution of project related income to total household income, due to increase in net sales, across all project VCs; based on self-reported results as there was no agreed project baseline. 13 Average increase in net sales across all project VCs.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 19
* Results as posted per program: Due to KFP segmentation by program it is impossible to tell how/where these independently reported program beneficiaries relate to the overall project total of 85,693. MEDA deferred to VC Development Program totals as project totals as these results were the most thoroughly vetted at a senior staff level (Bramm, October 2015). Further discussion of project M & E challenges and lessons learned can be found below in section E5. Monitoring and Evaluation
D2. QUALITATIVE RESULTS
“One of the chief social benefits of their (women’s) financial success has been the greater
respect they have gained from their families, husbands, and communities. There is no preaching
or sermonizing, no criticisms of their culture. We do nothing specifically directed at women’s
social empowerment. And yet it’s happening. They are treated better by their families; they
channel the funds back into the household through education, better nutrition, and medicines.
Their children – their daughters – are learning about a future that casts off the yoke of poverty
and suppression.” – Helen Loftin, MEDA (Kroeker, 2015)
Findings of the FGDs indicated an overall satisfaction with the services provided and the
relationships established within the project. Specific to affects on income, many participants
indicated that they were able to increase their income through raising the prices of their
goods/services, doing so based on knowledge gained in project activities promoting market
awareness. This improved socio-economic status for most beneficiaries resulted in increased
spending on children’s education and higher levels of confidence among females, many of whom
are now performing tasks previously performed by male family members. Overall, as confirmed
by both the quantitative survey analysis and the FGDs, the project focus on female integration
had a strong positive effect on perceptions of beneficiaries toward women’s empowerment, even
when responses were disaggregated by gender. Anecdotal information gathered during the field
visit indicates that many of these qualitative results have endured.
E. KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED
E1. INTEGRATING HOMEBOUND WOMEN
Eighty-eight percent of project participants were female, many of them homebound women.
Entrepreneurs used three methods to increase access to, and integration of, the female
population:
KFPs as community mobilizers and project representatives on the ground
Sales agents to liaise between market and producers
Cluster/group formation to support micro-level producers
Working in parallel, these approaches allowed Entrepreneurs to successfully access and work
with large numbers of women despite the geographical and cultural challenges in doing so. As
20 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
discussed above in B3. Stakeholders, KFPs were drawn from a pool of locally known, trusted
NGOs who already had positive profiles within the intervention communities – they were known
entities. The SA model, by using more mobile individuals to access those with less mobility,
allowed the project to engage a larger pool of female producers while the cluster/group approach
allowed producers to be grouped together, based on location and willingness to work together,
removing much of the assumed vulnerability of individual women venturing outside the home.
The manner in which each of these approaches was implemented within the VCs, in terms of
gendered roles, allowed Entrepreneurs to push boundaries of acceptable male/female
relationships and expand opportunities for women.
KFPs reached out to men in the villages, to convey that women were the target beneficiaries and
explain how the project would work. Meetings with community leaders, elders, and officials
established early buy-in before any further work commenced. This approach was very effective –
there were a few instances of women starting the program and men in their family subsequently
pulling them out, but generally it worked the other way. After men saw the benefits afforded
through female participation, they would bring other women in their family to take part. When
women outside the project saw the benefits to the women participating, more sought to take part
themselves, stating that the increased freedom of women within the group was appealing
(Bramm, October 2015).
To implement the SA model, project management first sought to identify individuals who might
be considered outliers within the communities – those people (male or female) that were more
mobile and visible, and not only interested in improving their own economic outlook, but willing
to help others. In this way the “entrepreneurs” aspect of the project was realized, identifying SAs
as those individuals that could develop into business leaders. Each of the VCs applied the SA
concept differently, depending on the gender profile within their VC, as well as cultural norms
governing the operational area. See Annex A, VC-specific Access and Integration of Women for
further detail per VC. In dairy and MAPs, the gender profile of the SAs was mixed, some male
SAs and some female, while in the remaining two VCs, HEF fielded all female SAs and honey
all male.
In the cluster/group element, producers were able to undertake income-generating activity
together, rather than as individuals, working under the leadership of the SAs. This approach was
a significant part of the project’s success in accessing homebound women, building trust among
the project, beneficiaries, and their families. Members of a cluster/group were available to help
each other with production challenges in terms of technical skills, access to raw materials,
quality assurance, marketing, negotiation, and other areas. Additionally, the cluster/group
approach addresses a common cultural concern for the security of women on their own, allowing
for a safety-in-numbers perspective and increasing women’s relative freedom and social capital.
In some cases the cluster/group became the organizing unit supporting a sustainability center
(Bramm, October 2015).
LESSONS LEARNED
Trust is essential to integrating homebound women. Adequate time must be allowed to identify
and train appropriate partners to undertake effective community mobilization.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 21
For a U.S. government program targeting female beneficiaries in conservative areas of Pakistan,
it was necessary to establish a high level of trust, a common situation across the MENA region.
At project initiation, the perception of the U.S. government in Pakistan was not positive; many of
the localities targeted by project interventions harbored a deep sense of mistrust toward the U.S.
Additionally, USAID rules and regulations are extensive, particularly in relation to livelihood
products and services. To meet the requirements, KFPs needed to be well established and, if
without policies and procedures in place initially, have the capacity to do so with training. All of
this takes time and should be adequately incorporated into project timelines and expectations
from the design phase through implementation.
E2. LIVELIHOODS RECOVERY PROGRAM (LRP)
Under the LRP, Entrepreneurs worked with local partners to provide livelihoods recovery
assistance to households whose source of revenue had been destroyed or disrupted by conflict
and/or natural disaster (MEDA, 2014). Through KFP relationships, beneficiaries were identified
and prioritized and asset replacement grants were awarded to selected KFPs for procurement and
distribution of goods and services. Activities included rapid needs assessments, livestock
vaccination, procurement and distribution of toolkits, small-scale production tools and other
assets to productivity.
The LRP was initially implemented as a six-month program in KPK, for populations being
resettled in Swat, post-conflict. As this program ended, the 2010 flooding hit the same area, as
well as substantial portions of the rest of the country. USAID requested that the LRP activities be
implemented with the flood-affected populations in KPK and across the country, initiating a
second, six-month LRP.
Ms. Shamim Akhtar, VC Director for honey and MAPs, was working with Entrepreneurs at this
stage and she has provided the following implementation detail.
Post-conflict LRP: In KPK, the first stage of the LRP targeted 7200 beneficiaries in the most
remote and inaccessible areas, in hopes of balancing assistance (more easily accessible areas
were receiving much more assistance). In this process Entrepreneurs worked with the Provincial
Restoration, Rehabilitation, and Settlement Authority (PaRRSA), a regional government entity.
PaRRSA had already done surveys to identify those most in need and provided union council-
level demographics to assist in further geographical targeting. Their offices provided local
support in Swat, and approved project activities, establishing government buy-in. Additional
coordination was carried out within a UN body wherein all entities working in the KPK space
were able to share experiences and challenges to leverage access and resources.
LRP Approach
To identify KFPs, Entrepreneurs circulated an Expression of Interest document, held a project
orientation, and then assisted interested NGOs in applying to participate in the project. Five
22 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
applied, using a pre-assessment form including programmatic and financial information.
Following an assessment to establish organizational capacity and validate information provided
in their application, three were accepted.14 Each KFP was linked to a specific geographical area
and had an equal share of the $1.8 million budget.
KFPs then reached out to the target communities to identify potential beneficiaries, prioritizing
women-headed households and women in need. These potential beneficiaries were then scored
on the basis of a series of selection criteria, found in Annex B. Those individuals with high
scores were then visited to verify the level of need and help prioritize those needs. Options as to
types of support were presented to allow beneficiaries some degree of personal choice.
Distribution of assistance was centralized due to the scattered locations of the beneficiaries and
the rough terrain. Pre-selected beneficiaries would come together in a centralized location,
present their national identity cards and receive goods per pre-determined requirements (seed,
sewing machines, barbering tools, livestock, hand construction equipment, etc.). Three
distribution cycles were completed over the six-month project. Some additional, seasonally
dependent products, such as seed, were distributed outside of this cycle, but it was a small
percentage. Roughly 16 different types of businesses were represented in the goods and services
provided under the post-conflict LRP.
Flood-affected LRP: During the last cycle of the post-conflict LRP, the 2010 floods struck the
country. Project activity in the flood-affected LRP expanded to include selected districts in
Baluchistan, Punjab, and Sindh provinces, in addition to KPK. Building on the experience of the
previous LRP, the second stage of the program followed the same basic model but chose to limit
activities to the four business sectors, or value chains, which the project had intended to target
(dairy, HEF, honey, and MAPs). Given the additional focus of VC specific activity (and per
USAID requirements) a second selection process was undertaken to establish a new group of
KFPs, with a single KFP identified to implement activities within each VC and within each
geographical area (MEDA, 2014b). Through the introduction of a smaller number of target
value chains, Entrepreneurs was able to add sample preparation, exposure visits, and linkage
meetings to the assistance package, piloting activities for potential incorporation into the
eventual VC Development Program (VCD Program).
Transition to VCD Program: In the shift from LRP to the VCD Program activity, Entrepreneurs
maintained a priority for female beneficiaries and reintroduced the focus on income growth,
targeting a 50 percent increase. Former Entrepreneurs staff estimate that approximately 50
percent of the LRP beneficiaries migrated to the VCD Program.
LESSONS LEARNED
Clarity of objective, agreed selection criteria, transparency in implementation, and close
coordination across partners were keys to success.
A smaller number of sectors allows for more sustainable progress.
14 Initially there had been two partners identified, but after the issues of accessibility were fully understood (very remote areas, insecure and unstable) a third partner was added to allow for better service to the beneficiaries.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 23
The shift from post-conflict to post-flood allowed the project to build on experience and focus on
the four VCs that had already been targeted. A narrower focus enabled the project to introduce
the private sector and market linkage concepts into relief activities, harnessing market forces to
help drive the recovery process.
Engage private sector partners earlier and in a more substantial way.
While the focus on a smaller number of business-types was beneficial, as noted above, MEDA
stated that the engagement should have happened even sooner. If the private sector partners had
been engaged more at the beneficiary identification/selection stages, perhaps their involvement
could have provided guidance and resource support to make direct seller-buyer relationships
stronger and more sustainable.
Providing physical assets as emergency relief, to stabilize a damaged production base, provides
a good transition to more development-focused VC activities.
The Entrepreneurs project’s LRP experience indicates that this type of program can be used as a
transition activity, relief programming that supports value chain development/redevelopment in
post-conflict or similarly unstable environments. One challenge to be considered is the asset-
provision aspect of the program. The move from LRP to the VCD Program introduced large
numbers of new beneficiaries to the established beneficiary pool. The newcomers were provided
with “soft” support only, no livelihoods assets were included as under the LRP. This created a
challenge early in the transition, in terms of beneficiary expectations, but with advanced
consideration, program design can alleviate this difficulty. The LRP has changed how MEDA
looks at sustainable livelihoods and micro-grant types of initiatives, considering them as “feeder”
activities for VC work in unstable areas. They have since integrated this type of initiative into
other VC program designs, specifically working with IDPs and refugee populations in Jordan.
E3. SUSTAINABILITY
In the final year of the project, Entrepreneurs engaged two consultants to develop a
comprehensive sustainability strategy, one that would build on project activity to date to support
impact over the longer term. While the consultancy was not a part of the work plan,
Entrepreneurs was looking for a way to extricate the KFPs without compromising project impact
on the VCs15 and beneficiaries (Bramm, October 2015). Entrepreneurs’ sustainability
consultancy was structured in two parts – Part 1: Setting the Framework, and Part 2:
Operationalizing Producer/Market Centers and Fostering Market/Private Sector Sustainability.
Dairy was more advanced in establishing sustainability, so the consultancy focused on the
remaining VCs (Warman, 2014).
Part 1 assessed the process of establishing the Centers and reviewed the status of private sector
interest, per specific VCs, in investing in the Centers longer term. While most of the findings
were applicable at the individual VC level, the following were ascertained across all VCs:
15 At the end of the project KFPs were blurring the line between market actor and market influencer.
24 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
A preferred form of registration and/or ownership was identified
There was a need for continuing technical assistance to the producers
Mentorship of individual Centers would be required
Provision of communications and marketing materials was necessary: sets of marketing
materials, communications strategies, and VC directories including producers and buyers
Encouragement for private sector linkages was essential – through investment and/or
continuous orders
Based on this research, Center design was modeled, potential locations identified, and private
sector expressions of interest documented, creating a foundation for the second phase of the
consultancy. Part 2 focused on three key priorities:
Support project staff in securing private sector partnerships with the Centers
Assess “Sustainability Gap” of each Center – where they are now and where they need to
be at the close of the project
Provide training and technical assistance recommendations to bridge the gaps as
identified above (Brunnell, 2014)
Specific Center implementation/ownership approaches varied across all four of the VCs. Where
private sector entities were functional investment partners (honey and MAPs), the Centers were
established under their ownership, based on a cost-share agreement with the project to fund
Center start-up, and functioned as early stage processing units (extraction, drying, etc.). MAPs
was able to sign an MOU with Herbion, a top-tier firm with more than $25 million in annual
sales, in Pakistan and abroad (Warman, 2013). In establishing the Centers, Herbion put up
70-80 percent of the investment, with the remainder coming from Entrepreneurs. In the cases
where private sector interest was in the form of continuous orders (HEF) the Centers were
established as small businesses, registered to individual FSAs/lead entrepreneurs supported by a
cluster/group and functioning as resource and sales centers. In the dairy VC, the small business
model was also followed, with the Centers owned by individual female extension workers
(FLEWs) and providing equipment and services to support livestock management and product
quality assurance.16
The Center model was most developed in the HEF value chain. To encourage private sector
support, Entrepreneurs signed MOUs with four private sector Sustainability Partners (Asasah,
Indus Heritage Trust, Texlynx, and The Indus Entrepreneurs network - TIE) to provide ongoing
support after project close. Asasah, Indus
Heritage Trust, and Texlynx were intended to
support specific Centers in making linkages work
for member beneficiaries, while TIE was to
provide business management mentoring support
across all HEF Centers. An additional 15
memoranda of cooperation were signed with
companies and organizations to help facilitate
sustainable linkages between beneficiaries, SAs,
and buyers (MEDA, 2014).
16 Milk sales channels were established with private sector partners, and they were able to provide assistance in developing the Centers to supply quality/quantity.
They (embroiderers) would not accept the market information – they did not believe that their products did not meet market demands. So we took them to market for them to see for themselves, then they understood.
– Tabinda Jaffery, Asasah
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 25
“Involve us (the sustainability partners) earlier than the last moment; that way we can better educate the FSAs on how to use post-project support. So far we have had a few requests for assistance, but they are asking for help to get more business, not for management support.”
- Zishan Shahid, The Indus Entrepreneurs (TIE)
At the time of this review, the functionality of three of the Centers was confirmed, all within the
HEF chain. None of the Centers established for honey and MAPs were functional, and no
information was available on the 12 dairy Centers. Interviews and site visits indicate that while
the model does not appear to have been successful in establishing sustainable linkages between
the Centers and the private sector, it was successful in mobilizing the clusters/groups and linking
them to the Centers. Anecdotal evidence identifies a lack of access to, and understanding of,
relevant market information at the producer level as a significant barrier to successful linkages
with the private sector.
Further detail is available in Annex C, Post-project Status Report – Sustainability Centers
LESSONS LEARNED
Private sector partners in general, and sustainability partners specifically, should be integrated
into the sustainability design and implementation process at the earliest possible point.
Implementing the sustainability process in the last six to nine months of the project did not allow
enough time to develop mutual understanding of the potential benefits of such an arrangement
for producers and private sector partners. Without exception, interviewees indicated that one of
the biggest challenges was the concept of markets and helping beneficiaries understand how
and why to link with the market successfully through product design, quality, timeliness,
quantity, pricing etc. With more time and exposure, producer groups with access to business
development services and possible financial support would more fully understand how to use the
services available.
In the dairy VC, Shakarganj Foods was approached
early in the VC development process and helped to
provide technical training and infrastructure. Early
involvement enabled the business to be fully integrated
into VC activities at the end of the project. The cost-
share arrangement mitigates investment risk for private
sector partners, allowing motivated businesses to
expand into less accessible geographical areas and to
develop customized product lines. Success of the
activity with Entrepreneurs has convinced Shakarganj
to expand further, into additional, more remote areas, under the Australian Aid Market
Development Facility. This type of market expansion was always of interest to the firm, but
without the additional funding to offset the investment risk, the company would not have
targeted such remote areas for market growth. After the groundwork has been laid with donor
assistance, the company can maintain operations at a level of risk with which they are
comfortable, and without threatening profitability.
Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production available
within the VC.
26 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
“Linking FSAs to buyers could have worked – there was a lot of private sector interest – but there was a mismatch between what the beneficiaries could produce and the amount and quality that were in demand.” – Derald Smart, Marketing Advisor
“A private sector mindset is needed at the program level.” – Tabinda Jaffery, Asasah
“There is a general lack of understanding about how important the private sector is to development – the role (of the private sector) is not appreciated.” – Salmaan Farooq, Entrepreneurs Director Dairy VC and HEF (Sindh)
“To ensure sustainability - balance economics with social objectives.” – Naguib Saigal, CFO Shakarganj Foods
In HEF, while private sector interest was high and connections with big name fashion houses
were forthcoming, a lack of understanding on the part of the KFPs and program staff made
successful linkages at this high level very difficult.
KFPs could not accurately assess production
capacity of the beneficiaries. While a first round of
top-level linkages were successfully completed,
subsequent Center-buyer relationships were not
sustained at this level. Issues of product quality and
consistency, and timeliness of delivery were cited.
Where those Centers are still functional, they are
operating at lower levels within the market – serving local or regional buyers. Honey and MAPs
Centers closed down due to a mismatch in levels of production.
Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach and relevance within the
development sector will increase the likelihood of positive, sustainable market linkages.
In discussions of the HEF value chain in general, there
was consensus among the former VC staff that work
in the HEF VC was too supply driven. The marketing
staff perspective was that the project needed to break
away from the ‘livelihoods’ concept that you train people, and they link up the VC. Rather, the
argument was that the motivation and direction has to come from the commercial channels and
work down, to drive product and training decisions so that linkages can function to the benefit of
both business and beneficiary. This was a point that was raised across HEF, honey, and MAPs.
Additionally, many development activities that target the
private sector for partnership follow a Corporate Social
Responsibility model. Entrepreneurs experience in this
regard is telling. In approaching potential private sector
partners, Entrepreneurs Marketing team found that many
companies had been overwhelmed by approaches for
CSR ‘opportunities’. While the companies attended to
Entrepreneurs proposals, there was not a lot of follow-
through … their CSR quota was already being filled. Sustainable market linkage activities cannot
be linked to CSR alone, they must be linked to concrete business strategy.
Management coordination within the VC program is essential.
Relationships with potential private sector buyers are based
on accurate production information to determine the most
appropriate market linkages. Where management
coordination is lacking, and inaccurate information results,
these relationships are damaged, negatively reflecting on
the project and undercutting attempts to create successful linkages.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 27
E4. VALUE CHAIN SELECTION
Lessons Learned
A demand-driven focus in sector selection will maximize potential for sustainable income
generation.
Of the four VCs included in the Entrepreneurs VC Development Program, three exhibited
sufficient potential for demand-driven growth to secure significant private sector investment by
project close. Dairy, honey, and MAPs were each “adopted” by private sector entities, as
discussed above in section E3. Sustainability Centers, while HEF struggled to match production
with market opportunities. Due to issues of competition, product quality, and lack of market
information (products were not ‘on-trend’) the project had difficulty establishing long-term
linkages with the private sector.
Adequate time, a degree of physical access, and appropriate technical expertise is required for
accurate VC assessments.
Project experience with the honey VC exemplifies the importance of pre-project VC assessments
and feasibility studies. An OIG Audit report in 2014 indicates that inadequate sector assessment
played a role in implementation delays. Discussions with early project leadership support this
conclusion: The most significant obstacle to success in the honey VC were programmatic
challenges stemming from inadequate preliminary research. MEDA was working in the Swat
area at the request of USAID and honey was chosen as the sector with the most potential in
Swat. Preliminary research was done under time pressure (activity start-up was expedited) and
the area targeted was very unstable and inaccessible, making it difficult to provide a thorough
pre-project VC analysis (Bramm, January 2016). Inappropriate technologies were adopted,
technical expertise sourced was not relevant to the KPK environment, and capacity of potential
project partners was not adequately considered (Loftin, October 2015). At project close,
Entrepreneurs met beneficiary targets within the honey VC, but only after projections for the VC
had been revised downward, from 3,000 beneficiaries to 1,500.
E5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Part of the innovative design of the original Empowering Pakistan (EP) suite of projects was a
centralized M&E component. Designed to be a clearinghouse for project performance data, it
fulfilled the M&E function for all EP projects, and different indicators were housed within
different projects’ performance plans. In 2010, when much of the EP suite was closed out the
centralized M&E component was also eliminated. There was no allowance made for this drastic
change in the M&E structure of the remaining projects, such as Entrepreneurs. New indicators
were eventually identified, but these did not accurately reflect project activities already in
progress.
Subsequently, USAID rolled out an entirely new M&E plan, for existing projects as well as new
work, but the integration into existing projects was challenging. Under this new mandate, large
scale evaluation projects were to incorporate an arm’s-length evaluative function, rather than
relying on project M&E staff. Entrepreneur’s M&E subsequently re-configured their delivery of
M&E, and contracted out components of evaluation to a consulting house. Entrepreneurs M&E
28 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
system was not strong. MEDA was aware of these challenges and introduced a variety of
solutions to address them, with varying levels of success:
1. The project developed a Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) that was subsequently
approved by USAID, and which provided a comprehensive list of relevant indicators and
sub indicators at various levels for monitoring the project activities.
2. A uniform data base structure was developed by Entrepreneurs, and provided to each
KFP. While the system was managed/validated by MEDA’s M&E staff, the data base
was populated and maintained by each of the KFPs. Periodic field monitoring visits were
carried out with a three pronged approach. First, M&E visits were conducted by the KFPs
staff; second, the project’s VCOs and M&E officers also conducted field visits; and third,
value chain staff also accompanied visitors from USAID, consultants and OIG officials
for field visits. Monthly progress reviews were conducted internally by the M&E
department in coordination with value chain teams.
3. Periodic surveys on income assessments were also carried out by the M&E and program
departments, besides the third party evaluations. The team also instituted a number of
rapid assessments, collecting data on certain programming elements to feed to program
management.
4. Facing the issue of collecting real time net sales in the dairy value Entrepreneurs M&E
piloted the use of SMS based technology in Punjab and Sind provinces. Sales agents in
these locales reported performance data (sales volume/% of milk fat/price sold for) on a
daily basis through an SMS application. The pilot was successful but was introduced late
in the project life cycle and was unable to provide a substantial amount of data.
Lessons Learned
Capacity to meet USG reporting requirements is an important selection criteria when identifying
project partners.
Increased income was one of the top two project objectives (focus on female beneficiaries was
the other) but all income-related data was gathered by the KFPs. Each KFP had their own system
for information collection, which did not integrate effectively into a project-wide system. Due to
these complexities, it was impossible to determine a clear baseline. A third-party income
baseline survey was done mid-way through the project but failed to provide a commonly
accepted baseline. The Baseline Survey was conducted among micro-entrepreneurs in selected
districts across the country where the project was operating or intended to start the project’s
activities. The sample size was crafted to be representative of the proportion of total beneficiaries
to be assisted distric wise. Post evaluation, the survey implementation contractor disagreed with
this approach, positing that the lowest (village) level sample was no longer a probability sample.
Thus the contractor was of the opinion that the findings of the survey could not be generalized
over the entire population. With disagreement over the baseline, measurement of project impact
on income was difficult.
Identification of specific indicators (per VC, per objective, or per geographical area) at project
outset, as well as assignment of roles and responsibilities and creation an information
management structure, allow for project impact reporting with a higher degree of
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 29
responsiveness and utility.
As project objectives evolved both KFPs and Entrepreneurs M&E staff were tracking numbers.
Numbers were also reported per program office and there was frequent crossover of beneficiaries
between programs, so totals per program did not match up with total overall beneficiary
numbers. MEDA project staff were never able to get the various sets of numbers to match and
thus they deferred to Entrepreneurs M&E staff figures as the most thoroughly checked and
vetted. Additionally, the two main project objectives were increased income and a focus on
women but the only indicator capturing impact on women was the number of female
beneficiaries. MEDA project staff recommended incorporation of more indicators capturing
impact on women specifically, such as measuring changes in their agency in governing their own
productivity (Bramm, October 2015).
Geography and security must be considered in creation of monitoring and evaluation plans,
identification of indicators, and in the reporting format.
When working in remote and insecure areas, where project staff are limited in their ability to
monitor progress, additional time and attention are required to create an effective M&E plan.
Roles and responsibilities must be clearly delineated per the plan. Additionally, indicators should
be tailored to the realities on the ground, and/or impact results reported relative to the local
context to capture incremental improvements under especially challenging circumstances.
F. PREREQUISITES FOR REPLICATION
F1. INTEGRATION OF HOMEBOUND WOMEN KFPs: The SA and cluster/group model
are a good fit for more conservative societies. However, a basic level of access is still required.
There must be an accessible, willing, local partner that is trusted within the targeted community
and who has the capability, or capacity to grow into the capability, to meet the funding
requirements of the donor. Depending on the context, this may be a government, or quasi-
government entity, or in more developed areas, an NGO or other civil society organization, or a
respected community group supported by local religious authorities. Identity of the KFP is not as
important as the local profile – they must be known, trusted and respected by those stakeholders
who have access to female populations. Also dependent on the context is the level of U.S.
government visibility versus that of the KFP. In some locations within MENA, a high level of
USG visibility in and of itself may translate to a lack of community support. Timeframe:
Depending on the presence and capacity of potential KFPs, time must be allowed for both
effective community mobilization and internal, institutional capacity building. A large part of the
capacity building should focus on the design and implementation of monitoring and evaluation
systems to ensure transparency of information and relevance to project objectives. The less stable
an environment, the more time is required in this regard.
30 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
F2. LIVELIHOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM
Local Economy: Entrepreneurs post-flood LRP is an excellent model for income generation
activity within areas affected by conflict or natural disaster. These situations destabilize the local
economy and the LRP, with its initial asset replacement grants as based on carefully identified
selection criteria, introduces the first stages of stability within selected VCs. Follow-on VC-
linked activities can support the transition from early stage relief efforts to more embedded
business development activities.
Flexibility: Post-conflict and natural disaster situations are fluid and a degree of flexibility is
required to allow for activities that are responsive to changing needs. Populations will first seek
relief, then start to look for recovery, and finally meet basic needs more sustainably to the degree
that business development efforts would have support. Over the course of this process, project
design must be flexible enough to support this transition – providing resources and structure to
frame interventions. Starting to look at market linkages when the capacity for income generation
at the local level is still destabilized will not build a sustainable local economic base. However,
the relationships established and assets distributed at the relief stage can form a very solid
foundation for further efforts in VC development if structured properly at the outset.
Additionally, VCs targeted early in the relief and recovery process may not be the same VCs that
are targeted as the activity moves to a development approach – project and donor staff must be in
close enough coordination, working from reliable reporting, that this mobility and transition of
objectives is possible.
Security Profile: The LRP model can be effective within volatile security environments and this
once again highlights the role of KFPs. Trusted local partners have entrée to areas that may or
may not be accessible to project staff, allowing for needs assessments and initial stages of relief
work to be established. While the security profile must be such that KFPs may move around,
local knowledge and relationships allow activities to commence much sooner and lend
legitimacy to overall efforts. Regular security assessments can provide input on the situation in
the field, informing the evolution and timing of transitional activities into more growth-related
VC interventions.
F3. SUSTAINABILITY
Incorporation Into Project Design: Incorporating a “Sustainability Center” concept into initial
project design may increase odds of maintaining Center operations post-project. Under
Entrepreneurs, the sustainability Center activities were designed in the last year of the project,
and implemented in the last six to nine months. This schedule did not allow enough time to
resolve challenges that were identified – mismatches between product quality and market
demands, for example – before the project ended. It is difficult to determine at this point what the
exact impact would have been had there been a sustainability component integrated from day
one. But evidence from the field indicates that a greater degree of success at the Center level may
have been possible if the concept had been a part of the project objectives from earlier on.
HR Requirements: Private sector experience is essential within the program staff, not just
within a marketing component. Sustainable VC development activity targeting livelihoods and
levels of production requires an understanding of the private sector – how it works, why it works,
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 31
and when and where it works. Project staff at all levels – management and field – must be able to
comprehend limitations to, and potential for, production capacity to appropriately link to the
private sector actors within a given VC. Entrepreneurs experience specifically in the HEF value
chain is an example of what happens when this understanding is lacking at the program level.
F4. VALUE CHAIN SELECTION
Viable VCs: VC selection will influence the degree and level of project impact. There must be
demand for the production - or the potential to develop a demand within the parameters of the
project - geographical accessibility, an accurate security profile, a reasonable timeframe, and
appropriate staff profiles (technical expertise versus private sector background). If political or
geographical imperatives are driving VC selection, as opposed to demand, then this must be
transparent and reflected in the projected impact.
F5. OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
National-level Government Support: Entrepreneurs experience with the GoP was cumbersome
(Loftin, January 2016). The GoP was not particularly interested in the project, perceiving it as a
women’s project working only in the informal sector. While not necessarily required from an
implementation perspective (this is very dependent on the form of government), from a logistics
perspective, national-level government support is absolutely essential. Experience within
Pakistan indicates what happens when national-level government support is not available. The
NGO law has made project management impossible in many cases, due to a failure to provide
visa access for expatriate management and technical experts. Maintianing national-level support
can help to overcome this type of challenges on a case-by-case basis.
Security Profile: In addition to the relevant points raised above in section F1. regarding the U.S.
government profile, MENA countries are increasingly falling under the new Partner Vetting
System which was piloted in Pakistan. Entrepreneurs experience indicates that the primary
impact of this system was to increase the amount of time required to hire local staff, at all levels
of authority. This has implications for start-up schedules and must be considered in
implementation scheduling. Entrepreneurs had some limited experience with potential staff
declining offers due to the perceived implications of the additional levels of information sought,
but project management did not feel that this negatively impacted project functionality beyond
additional time required to fill positions.
Donor Commitment: It is essential to have transparent and consistent donor objectives,
meaningful and stable indicators, and a partnership approach to the donor-implementer
relationship. Complex operational environments such as those found in Pakistan and in the
greater-MENA region make this all the more important. If political imperatives are driving
activity this must be transparent and reflected in the M&E indicators and projected impact.
32 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
ANNEX A - VC-SPECIFIC ACCESS AND INTEGRATION OF WOMEN
DAIRY
Challenge
Women are most involved in milk production, but they have limited mobility in the community
and limited access to vital resources and services because these are controlled by men. Women
earn very little relative to their labor input.
Solution
1. Identify appropriate private sector partner to link to VC activities. Partner provided technical
expertise, industry knowledge, and 50 percent of project funding for chillers to establish cold
chain.
2. General training for dairy producers at-large to provide training on modern livestock
management practices to enhance milk production and improve animal health.
3. Identify and train FLEWs (female livestock extension workers) to provide services vital to
dairy production; knowledge of animal husbandry, livestock management, animal health and
nutrition, livestock first aid and preventive medicine, vaccination, basic business management.
4. Identify and train FVMCs (female village milk collectors) to provide marketing services at the
village level, buy from producers, and supply buyers at processing companies. Encourage
competition among buyers, build linkages with alternative buyers, and build and maintain
connections with FLEWS for service delivery as required.
Beneficiary Contributions
Following the successful completion of a training session (general, FLEW, and FVMC)
participants were provided with tools to support their learning. General training participants
received water troughs and animal care charts. FLEWs and FVMCs were provided a tool kit, at a
20 percent cost share, to support the start-up of their own businesses.
Gender breakdown
Beneficiary population was mixed, but predominantly female. FLEWs and FVMCs were mixed,
but predominantly female.
HEF
Challenge
HEF is the main source of livelihoods for women, but isolation from the public has weakened
their bargaining power and product position in the market. They earn very little relative to their
labor inputs.
Solution
Provide direct access to markets, improve business management knowledge, and increase access
to market information and improved product development.
1. Identify female sales agents (FSAs) through KFPs, recognizing more mobile, visible women
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 33
in the community to promote the program with home-bound producers.
2. Train FSAs to provide lessons to producers on basic business management and marketing,
including costing, pricing, and negotiation, and technical training on product development,
design, marketing information, and product presentation.
3. Establish market linkages between producers and mid- to high-end markets through
collaborative training sessions and market exposure visits for FSAs, in conjunction with private
sector partners. FSAs are permitted a 10 percent commission on sales.17
Beneficiary Contributions
Following training sessions, FSAs and producers were provided sample banks on a cluster/group
basis and artisan tool kits on an individual basis. Sample banks were developed in partnership
with local design consultants to determine content, based on geographical area served. The kits
consisted of home reference guides to reinforce quality assurance at the home level through
pictorial ‘discussion’ of design concepts, common challenges, and time management and a color
chart. There does not appear to be a cost-share model for provision of sample banks or tool kits.
Gender breakdown
Beneficiary population and all FSAs were female.
HONEY
Challenge
Sector was hit particularly hard by the flood.
Solution
1. Select geographical area for intervention based on availability of honey and potential for
beneficiary participation.
2. Awareness campaign to introduce project in selected areas.
3. Beneficiaries were identified at the local level and organized into interest groups (IGs). Within
each IG, a lead entrepreneur and a SA were identified.
4. Technical training for all beneficiaries, presenting modern beekeeping practices, honey
testing, and honeybee care.
5. Training for lead entrepreneurs and SAs on advanced beekeeping and marketing skills.
Knowledge was passed down to all IG beneficiaries.
Beneficiary Contributions
Based on a feasibility study done at the beginning of the VC intervention, it was determined that
a new type of hive would increase efficiency of production due to increased mobility and
improved hygiene. Designed in conjunction with national agricultural agencies and academia,
2,250 alternative transitional hives were distributed to beneficiaries, but there does not appear to
have been a cost-share component in the distribution model.
17 10% was per project guidelines. The HEF VC Director shared that the commission levels were higher in practice, even during the project. Post-project CFC analysis indicated same.
34 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
Gender breakdown
IGs were gender segregated. Women’s IGs had female lead entrepreneurs and male SAs and
both were generally of the same household, in keeping with local cultural norms. Men’s IGs had
male lead entrepreneurs and SAs.
MAPs
Challenge
Collectors of plants are predominantly women but they do not have knowledge of market value,
sustainable harvesting techniques, or post-harvest handling.
Solution
1. Conduct focus groups in communities of target geographical area to identify specific
intervention localities.
2. Identify beneficiaries through KFPs and organize them into clusters of 35 to 40 beneficiaries.
Each cluster identified an SA/lead-entrepreneur and a cluster lead (CL).
3. Train SAs/lead entrepreneurs to impart training on basic business management and marketing
techniques, and CLs on proper MAPs collection, processing, and transportation approaches.
4. Site visits and market exposure to gain knowledge and create linkages between collectors and
private sector interests.
Beneficiary Contributions
To maximize the products value, feasibility studies indicated that solar dryers were required.
KFPs and linkage with a private sector partner enabled the procurement of two solar dryers for
use by beneficiaries. There does not appear to be a cost-share contribution from the beneficiaries.
Gender breakdown
SAs/lead entrepreneurs and CLs were both male and female, the majority were males.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 35
ANNEX B - LRP SELECTION CRITERIA
LRP Selection Criteria
Required
1. The beneficiaries should be a resident of Preferred UCs (Union Councils) by PaRRSA
2. The beneficiaries should have a NIC (national identification card) number or have a
family member with a NIC number who can vouch for her/him.
3. The beneficiaries should be victims of terror (lost capital assets or lost family members as
a result of the conflict). Note: The beneficiary must provide evidence of the loss.
4. The beneficiary should not be involved in any kind of terrorist activity (provide evidence
through screenshots of checks against the USAID required websites).
5. The beneficiaries should be willing to receive the in-kind grant of Entrepreneurs and
provide assurance in writing that the grant received from Entrepreneurs will be used for
the purpose which she/he claims in her/his registration form.
6. The key person (who may be the head of the village/union council or another person who
has been previously identified by other donors/programs) from the community
recommends her/him for grant.
Preferred criteria (for prioritization)
7. Woman-headed families in the Zakat list
8. Families who lost family member(s) due to the conflict
9. Families who lost most of their assets and have no or limited alternate sources of income
10. Families who did not receive any grant for livelihood recovery from other donors
Note: A family that scores 4/4 for preferred criteria will get top priority, then those who score 3/4
will get second priority, and so on.
36 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
ANNEX C - POST-PROJECT STATUS REPORT, SUSTAINABILITY CENTERS
Project: Empowering Pakistan Entrepreneurs (Entrepreneurs)
Duration: June 2009 - October 2014
Budget: $30 million USD; Cooperative Agreement
Implementer: MEDA (Mennonite Economic Development Associates)
Objective(s): To increase the incomes, by at least 50 percent, of 75,000 micro-entrepreneurs
and small enterprise owners, primarily focusing on women.
BACKGROUND
Using a value chain (VC) structure to frame sustainable livelihoods activities, Entrepreneurs
increased overall sales and improved project-related household income levels across four value
chains: dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and medicinal and aromatic plants
(MAPs). To address issues of sustainability of project impacts, Entrepreneurs designed and
implemented a series of 30 community-based business entities, hereafter referred to collectively
as “Centers” – 12 for dairy, 15 For HEF, one for honey, two for MAPs. Centers were identified
differently for each of the VCs and the intended ownership, or control, models varied by VC.
The intent was to have the Centers linked directly with private sector firms working in that VC.
Under the USAID-funded Asia Middle East
Economic Growth Best Practices program
(AMEG), Entrepreneurs was selected as a case
study for sustainable livelihoods development.
USAID Pakistan requested that, in the course of
preparing the case study, the team provide a
report as to the current status of the Centers as
identified above. Interviews took place between
August and November 2015, remotely and within
Pakistan, and included staff from MEDA (the
project implementing organization), former
project staff, representatives from partner
organizations, private sector stakeholders, and
beneficiaries. Entrepreneurs operated in all four provinces in Pakistan, but due to time limitations
and security conditions, physical site visits and meetings were limited to the Islamabad Capital
Territory and central and southern Punjab (Lahore and Bahawalpur). Additional discussions
regarding activities in KPK and Sindh took place via telephone.
PROJECT APPROACH
In the final year of the project, Entrepreneurs engaged two consultants to develop a
comprehensive sustainability strategy, one that would build on project activity to-date and
support impact over the longer term. While the consultancy was not a part of the work plan,
Entrepreneurs was looking for a way to extricate the KFPs without compromising project impact
What is a Center?
• A neutral place for SAs (sales agents) and trainers to conduct business related activities including sample development, product development, order management, quality control, sales • A place which is easily accessible to the buyers for conducting buyer/seller meetings • A ... physical work location (for) resource material collection, (to) display samples, and facilitate MFI meetings (for) disbursement / collection of micro loans
- Entrepreneurs, 2013
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 37
on the VCs18 and beneficiaries (Bramm, October 2015). Entrepreneurs sustainability consultancy
was structured in two parts – Part 1: Setting the Framework, and Part 2: Operationalizing
Producer/Market Centers and Fostering Market/Private Sector Sustainability. Dairy was more
advanced in establishing sustainability, so the consultancy focused on the remaining value
chains. (Warman, 2014)
Part 1 assessed the process of establishing the Centers and reviewed the status of private sector
interest, per specific VCs, in investing in the Centers longer term. While most of the findings
were applicable at the individual VC-level, the following were ascertained across all VCs:
A preferred form of registration and/or ownership was identified
There was a need for continuing technical assistance to the producers
Mentorship of individual Centers would be required
Provision of communications and marketing materials was necessary: Sets of marketing
materials, communications strategies, and VC directories including producers and buyers
Encouragement for private sector linkages was essential through investment and/or
continuous orders
Based on this research, Center design was modeled, potential locations identified, and private
sector expressions of interest documented, creating a foundation for the second phase of the
consultancy. Part 2 focused on three key priorities:
Support project staff in securing private sector partnerships with the Centers
Assess “Sustainability Gap” of each Center – where they are now and where they need to
be at the close of the project
Provide training and technical assistance recommendations to bridge the gaps as
identified above (Brunnell, 2014)
IMPLEMENTATION
Sustainability Centers
Sustainability approaches varied per each VC. Each is considered individually below.
18 At the end of the project KFPs were blurring the line between market actor and market influencer.
38 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
Sustainability Centers # Center Province Location Status*
Dairy – Input Supply Hubs
1-12 No data/information available
HEF – Common Facility Centers
1 Bahawalpur Punjab Dear Bakha, Hasilpur Road
2 Lodhran Punjab Ward 2, Hassanwala F
3 Multan Punjab Hs. 1429, St. 6, Umer Chowk, Amin Abad, Hazuri Bag Road or Al Rasheediya House, Model Town, Sher e Muneer, Kosar Road, ban bosan bypass
4 Pishin Baloch. Killi Sharan, Khanoozai
5 Quetta Baloch. Nawan Keli, UC, Kotwal or Zarghon Road
6 Pishin Baloch. Qasim Mohallah, Pishin
7 Kanju KPK Shahi Bazaar, Kanju, Swat F
8 Fatehpur KPK Chekrae, Fatehpur, Swat
9 Swat KPK Islampur F
10 Chakdara KPK Chakdara, Dir
11 Batkhela KPK Batkhela, Malakand
12 Wakro, Larkana Sindh Village Wakro, Tehsil Dhokri
13 Clifton, Karachi Sindh Shop 4, Ground Floor, Samwood, Block B
14 Badin Sindh Hs. 23, Block B, Bhawani Sugar Mills Colony, Talhar
15 Sangarh Sindh C/O Abida Baloch, House 138/21, Central Colony, Shansha Colony
Honey – Collection Center
1 Fatehpur KPK Main Road, across from Army check-point NF
MAPs – Collection and Buying Center
1 Swat KPK NF
2 Upper Dir KPK NF
* Status: F=Functional NF=Not Functional
Dairy: Private sector linkages in the milk collection side were well established and fully
functional, with significant cost share taken by the private sector partners – Engro Foods and
Shakaraganj Foods. Shakarganj Foods bought milk all year long in order to gain trust and
establish themselves as a reliable partner to suppliers. To this end, they also conducted training
sessions to impart knowledge on small-, low-, or no-cost approaches that could boost milk
production, showing beneficiaries that improving their income would ultimately serve the needs
of the company as well.
Having established private sector relationships on the production side, Entrepreneurs focused
sustainability efforts on developing Input Supply Hubs, organized as a small business wherein a
program-trained FLEW was the owner. These Hubs were linked directly to input suppliers (for
medicines, testing equipment, etc.). The project provided support in connecting the FLEW with
microfinance support, but the majority of the start-up costs were borne by the FLEW. Thereafter,
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 39
“For FSA(s)-owned CFCs, continued orders (rather than ad-hoc) are critical for sustainability of CFCs.”
– (Warman, 2014)
the Hub served as a supplier of tools, equipment, and services focused on livestock management
and product quality assurance.
HEF: Sustainability efforts in the HEF value chain focused on the common facility centers
(CFCs), a series of 15 centers intended to be legally registered, small businesses owned by a
group of FSAs/Lead Entrepreneurs and operated by a group of beneficiaries. There were two
models – market based (located within a commercial market) and home based (located within the
home of an FSA or Lead Entrepreneur). Each CFC was equipped with resource materials, sample
catalogues, sample books, training manuals, current fashion magazines, and other relevant
resources.
For private sector support, Entrepreneurs signed
MOUs with four private sector sustainability partners
(Asasah, Indus Heritage Trust, Texlynx, and The
Indus Entrepreneurs network - TIE) to provide
ongoing support after the project end. Asasah, Indus
Heritage Trust, and Texlynx were intended to support specific CFCs in making linkages work for
member beneficiaries, while TIE was to provide business management mentoring support across
all CFCs. An additional 15 memoranda of cooperation were signed with companies and
organizations to help facilitate sustainable linkages between beneficiaries, SAs, and buyers
(MEDA, 2014).
Honey: A Collection Center premises was established, owned and operated by Mr. Bee Honey19,
at which Mr. Bee bought the product directly from the beneficiaries at a fair market price. The
Center functioned as a bulk center (combining product from many beneficiaries) and semi-
processing unit where product was extracted, collected, labeled, and packaged (Warman, 2014).
Mr. Bee and Entrepreneurs shared the start-up costs of the Center 50/50 and procured and
installed honey extractors, with Mr. Bee providing running costs after project close. This Center
was to be linked to mini-collection centers established throughout the activity area, allowing for
greater accessibility to homebound women. It is unclear if these mini-centers were ever
established.
MAPs: Within the MAPs value chain, two Collection and Buying Centers were established. Two
solar dryers were procured, one for each of the Centers, allowing the beneficiaries to improve the
quality of the product by decreasing drying time and exposure, minimizing degradation by mold
and other contaminants (MEDA, 2014). Over the course of VC activities, multiple site visits and
exposure trips functioned to establish and strengthen linkages between the beneficiaries and the
private sector stakeholders. MAPs was able to sign an MOU with Herbion, a top-tier firm with
more than $25 million in annual sales, in Pakistan and abroad (Warman, 2013). In
establishing the Centers, Herbion put up 70 to 80 percent of the investment, with the
remainder coming from Entrepreneurs.
19 Appeared to be some internal project disagreement as to quality of Mr. Bees involvement as the private sector partner. Questions were raised as to the sincerity and ethics behind the company’s involvement in the honey VC.
40 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
“We used to have to call the doctor, and pay him. Now I am the doctor. People call even from other villages and I help them, and they pay me.”
– FLEW, Hashmira
“You have provided a platform for the poor to do something useful, not subversive. It has stopped the negativity in my community.”
– Fouzia Bibi, Goth Mehro
CURRENT STATUS (NOVEMBER 2015)
Due to the national nature of project activities, accessibility challenges in many project areas,
and imperfect information, reporting on the current status of the various sustainability centers is
based on the following limited evidence:
Discussion with dairy program and marketing staff and one of the two private sector
partners, Shakarganj Foods
Interaction with dairy and HEF beneficiaries in Goth Mehro and Hashmira, both in
Bahawalpur
Meetings and calls with HEF program and marketing staff, and three of the sustainability
partners for HEF – Asasah, Indus Heritage Trust, and TIE
One site visit to a HEF CFC in Lodhran
Meeting with the honey VC private sector partner, Mr. Bee Honey
Calls with MAPs program staff
Dairy: Anecdotal evidence indicates that project
interventions in the dairy VC have had lasting, positive
impact. Interactions while in the field in Bahawalpur
provided some evidence that the FLEW and female
village milk collector (FVMC) models have manifested
in more confident, empowered, and independent
beneficiaries. Both field visit meetings were conducted in conjunction with HEF participants
and, while smaller in number – approximately 20 percent of the total attendance – without
exception, the dairy beneficiaries present were more comfortable sharing ideas and had stronger
positive associations with the project and what it has done for them and their communities.
An assessment of the Input Supply Hubs specifically
was not possible as the locations of these facilities
could not be determined. Nor could it be determined
how the relationships between the private sector
partner and beneficiaries had played out since project
close, as identification of beneficiaries per company chiller site was not possible. However,
feedback from dairy beneficiaries encountered during the field visit indicated that they did not
use ‘company’ milk collection facilities as they were too far away, did not pay cash on delivery,
and did not pay on time for post-delivery arrangements. Whether or not the ‘company’ they
referenced was Shakarganj Foods was not clear.
Discussions with Shakarganj Foods established that partnership with Entrepreneurs allowed the
company to expand into remote markets that they otherwise would not have pursued. While
comfortable with a degree of risk, the cost-share component of the project enabled the company
to experiment with developing supply chains in higher-risk remote and inaccessible areas while
maintaining a comfortable internal risk profile. Experience to-date has provided the business
with enough evidence as to the viability of working in these areas that they have continued
working with many Entrepreneurs beneficiaries, and are now participating in a similar project
with a different geographical focus (with Australian Aid). They are also exploring further,
independent, forays into additional challenging markets.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 41
Challenges to HEF High-end Linkages
• Poor product quality • Insufficient quantity produced • Designs not trend-responsive • Lack of professionalism (on-time delivery, accurate order filling, cash-on-delivery demands) • Vulnerability of proprietary designs
Based on these limited findings, in terms of female empowerment the dairy VC intervention was
successful. Sustained private sector market linkages also appear to have been successful, but it
was not discernable to what degree this impacts Entrepreneurs beneficiaries specifically.
HEF: HEF was the most geographically dispersed of the VCs and was targeting the largest
proportion of beneficiaries. From a sustainability perspective, evidence from this review
indicates that it was also the most challenging VC in terms of ongoing market linkages. Of the 15
CFCs established under the project, three can be confirmed as operational in some fashion –
Lodhran (site visit), Islampur, and Kanju (met with sustainability partner). Operational status of
the remaining 12 CFCs was impossible to determine; CFC locations were too dispersed and in
variously insecure areas to allow for physical site visits in the time available.20
Having said this, based on discussions with former
project staff, current sustainability partners, the
Lodrhan CFC, and some of the beneficiaries it is
probable that many of the CFCs, while not functional
per the Entrepreneurs model, are functioning to some
minimal degree. High-end market linkages did not
survive for a second round – those that were
documented at project close were the only ones that
have occurred. The majority of the current business at
the CFCs appears to be local markets, private sales,
and one-off exhibitions and melas. Some limited success has been had in regional markets (90
percent of Bahawalpur clusters are selling into Multan market). At the beneficiary level,
participants state that they are now able to bear household expenses and pay for education and,
especially, health care.
Over the course of this review, three of the Sustainability Partners – Asasah, Indus Heritage
Trust, and The Indus Entrepreneurs network (TIE) – were consulted directly. In the case of
Texlynx (the fourth sustainability partner) direct consultation was not possible, but their
impressions were related via third party discussions with Entrepreneurs staff and Asasah, to
whom Texlynx is known.
Asasah continues to work with two CFCs in KPK. Earnings from these CFCs totaled just
over $350,000 in the July 2014 to July 2015 period. While the centers are still functional,
with beneficiary groups using the facilities and producing products, Asasah shared that
they are facing difficulty, as these products are not selling well. While Asasah has been
providing financial support and linkage opportunities, the lack of access to, and
appreciation of, market information was the main barrier. They have recently undertaken
a market assessment for shawls in Lahore, Multan, and Murree and found that CFC
production does not meet the quality needs of the market, and the lower-end markets are
taken by Indian production.
20 At the time of this review, the former HEF VC Director was reaching out to determine where the CFCs were currently located and if they were functional.
42 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
Recommendations for Honey VC Activity
• Apiculturist rather than entomologist for technical expertise • More research on appropriate bee strain for locality • Establish a model apiary to show beneficiaries • Incorporate more practical training, using the model apiary • Address broader issue of disappearing flora that is essential to honey production
Indus Heritage Trust has essentially (per experience during the field visit) absorbed some
of the CFCs in southern Punjab into a new, World Bank-funded project – Developing
Artisanal Livelihoods in Rural Pakistan (RANG). The current project manager for
RANG, in Bahawalpur, was the HEF KFP coordinator for the area under Entrepreneurs,
so it was difficult to ascertain Entrepreneurs beneficiaries from RANG beneficiaries. But
on all counts, the Indus Heritage Trust appears to be honoring the MOU.
TIE is also honoring the responsibilities under the MOU, making monthly contact with
CFCs and FSAs. TIE shared that very little has been asked of them in terms of business
development or mentoring support. They feel that the late incorporation of the
sustainability partners, especially their business services component, limited the
opportunity for beneficiaries to become fully aware of the services available to them
post-project.
Texlynx. Asasah and Entrepreneurs VC Director for HEF (Sindh), both of whom know
the Texlynx CEO, indicated that Texlynx has not successfully worked with their CFCs,
due to the mismatch between the level of production coming out of the beneficiaries and
the demand of the market within which they work. This has not been confirmed with
Texlynx directly.
Honey: Per the input of Mr. Bee Honey, the Collection Center is no longer functional due to lack
of product. Early challenges within the VC stemmed from the fact that activities targeted a
beneficiary population that were not beekeepers but, rather, farmers that happened to have bees.
Estimates provided indicate that about 10 percent of the beneficiaries were professional
beekeepers, while 90 percent were farmers. Alternative colonies of a high-producing bee
varieties were provided and promptly died due to lack of adequate care and improper hives.
The second phase, in which Mr. Bee was involved, was
based on increasing production of the native species of
bee through the design and introduction of alternative
transitional hives (ATH). Unfortunately, the second
phase happened late in the project timeline and had
limited impact due to a lack of time for education and
practical technical training. ATH required the moving
of bee colonies and the beneficiary population was not
convinced that this would increase production – they
were more fearful that the change would compromise
production at the established rates. An intermediary
step was introduced to transfer stray hives to ATH, but
the activity was never able to realize substantiated
increases in production. Even as the project ended,
production was low, quality was low, and beneficiaries were reverting to the use of traditional
barter and exchange systems with established, local traders rather than using the Collection
Center. These challenges have been compounded by environmental impacts due to changes in
weather patterns. Mr. Bee states that the past two years have not been honey years and even
established beekeepers are leaving the business.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 43
“Involve us (the sustainability partners) earlier than the last moment. That way we can better educate the FSAs on how to use post-project support. So far we have had a few requests for assistance, but they are asking for help to get more business, not for management support.”
– Zishan Shahid, The Indus Entrepreneurs (TIE)
In response to these issues, Mr. Bee Honey has closed the Collection Center though it seems the
equipment and fixtures remain in Swat and the company is anxious to re-start the activity based
on further donor support for a redesign.
MAPs: Neither of the MAPs Collection and Buying Centers (CBC) is operational. According to
the two KFPs working in this VC – HDOD (Upper Dir) and NRSP (Swat) – Herbion has closed
both centers and relocated all equipment and fixtures to premises elsewhere in the country
(Islamabad or Lahore were most frequently mentioned). This was not confirmed with Herbion
directly.
According to NRSP, one of the main reasons that the Swat CBC closed was its location. Swat
was far away from the main collection area and the small profit made by the beneficiaries was
taken away in transport costs. Producers opted to sell MAPs to local traders. The KFP
recommendation was to open a CBC in Madyan as it is in closer to the gathering area, but project
staff decided otherwise. Reasoning behind the selection of Swat over other options was unclear.
Anecdotal evidence from various former Entrepreneurs staff indicates that MAPs beneficiaries
are still gathering and selling, gaining higher rates for their product based on technical training as
provided by the project – just not through commercial channels as established with the CBCs.
LESSONS LEARNED
Private sector partners in general, and sustainability partners specifically, should be integrated
into the sustainability design and implementation process at the earliest possible point.
Implementing the sustainability process in the last six to nine months of the project did not allow
enough time to develop mutual understanding of the
potential benefits of such an arrangement for both
producers and private sector partners. Without
exception, interviewees indicated that one of the
biggest challenges was the concept of markets and
helping beneficiaries understand how and why to link
with the market successfully through product design,
quality, timeliness, quantity, pricing etc. With more
time and exposure, producer groups with access to
business development services and possible financial
support would more fully understand how to use the services available.
In the dairy VC, Shakarganj Foods was approached early in the VC development process and
helped to provide technical training and infrastructure. Early involvement enabled the business
to be fully integrated into VC activities at the end of the project. The cost-share arrangement
mitigates investment risk for private sector partners, allowing motivated businesses to expand
into less accessible geographical areas and to develop customized product lines. Success of the
activity with Entrepreneurs has convinced Shakarganj to expand further, into additional, more
remote areas, under the Australian Aid Market Development Facility. This type of market
expansion was always of interest to the firm, but without the additional funding to offset the
investment risk, the company would not have targeted such remote areas for market growth.
44 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
“Linking FSAs to buyers could have worked – there was a lot of private sector interest – but there was a mismatch between what the beneficiaries could produce and the amount and quality that were in demand.”
– Derald Smart, Marketing Advisor
“A private sector mindset is needed at the program level.”
– Tabinda Jaffery, Asasah
“There is a general lack of understanding about how important the private sector is to development – the role (of the private sector) is not appreciated.” – Salmaan Farooq, Entrepreneurs Director Dairy VC, and HEF (Sindh)
“To ensure sustainability - balance economics with social objectives.” – Naguib Saigal, CFO Shakarganj Foods
After the groundwork has been laid with donor assistance, the company can maintain operations
at a level of risk with which they are comfortable, and without threatening profitability.
Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production available
within the VC.
In HEF, while private sector interest was high and
connections with big name fashion houses were
forthcoming, a lack of understanding on the part of
the KFPs and program staff made successful linkages
at this high level very difficult. KFPs could not
accurately assess production capacity of the
beneficiaries. While a first round of top-level linkages
were successfully completed, subsequent Center-
buyer relationships were not sustained at this level. Issues of product quality and consistency,
and timeliness of delivery were cited. Where those Centers are still functional, they are operating
at lower levels within the market – serving local or regional buyers. Honey and MAPs Centers
closed down due to a mismatch in levels of production.
Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach, and relevance within the
development sector will increase the likelihood of positive, sustainable market linkages.
In discussions of the HEF value chain in general, there
was consensus among the former VC staff that work
in the HEF VC was too supply driven. The marketing
staff perspective was that the project needed to break
away from the ‘livelihoods’ concept that you train people and then they link up the VC. Rather,
the argument was that the motivation and direction has to come from the commercial channels
and work down, to drive product and training decisions so that linkages can function to the
benefit of both business and beneficiary. This was a point that was raised across VCs.
Additionally, many development activities that target
the private sector for partnership follow a corporate
social responsibility (CSR) model. Entrepreneurs
experience in this regard is telling. In approaching
potential private sector partners, Entrepreneurs
Marketing team found that many companies had been
overwhelmed by approaches for CSR ‘opportunities’.
While the companies attended to Entrepreneurs proposals, there was not a lot of follow-through.
Their CSR quota was already being filled. Sustainable market linkage activities cannot be linked
to CSR alone, they must be linked to concrete business strategy.
Management coordination within the VC program is
essential.
Relationships with potential private sector buyers are
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 45
based on accurate production information to determine the most appropriate market linkages, as
discussed above. Where management coordination is lacking and inaccurate information results,
these relationships are damaged, negatively reflecting on the project and undercutting attempts to
create successful linkages.
PREREQUISITES FOR REPLICATION
Incorporation into Project Design: Incorporating a “Sustainability Center” concept into initial
project design may increase odds of maintaining Center operations post-project. Under
Entrepreneurs, the sustainability ‘Center’ activities were designed in the last year of the project,
and implemented in the last six to nine months. This timeframe did not allow enough time to
resolve challenges that were identified – mismatch between product quality and market demands,
for example – before the project ended. It is difficult to determine at this point what the exact
impact would have been had there been a sustainability component integrated from day one, but
evidence from the field indicates that a greater degree of success at the Center level may have
been possible if the concept has been a part of the project objectives from earlier on.
HR Requirements: Private sector experience is essential within the program staff, not just
within a marketing component. Sustainable VC development activity targeting the livelihoods
levels of production requires an understanding of the private sector – how it works, why it works,
when and where it works. Project staff at all levels – management and field – must be able to
comprehend limitations to, and potential for, production capacity to appropriately link to the
private sector actors within a given VC. Entrepreneurs experience specifically within the HEF
value chain is an example of what happens when this understanding is lacking at program level.
46 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
ANNEX D - Pakistan Entrepreneurs Livelihoods Model Case Study: Lessons Learned Integrating Homebound Women
Trust is essential to integrating homebound women. Adequate time must be allowed to identify and train appropriate partners to undertake effective community mobilization.
Livelihoods Recovery Program (LRP)
Clarity of objective, agreed selection criteria, transparency in implementation, and close coordination across partners were keys to success.
A smaller number of sectors allows for more sustainable progress.
Engage private sector partners earlier and in a more substantial way.
Providing physical assets as emergency relief, to stabilize a damaged production base, provides a good transition to more development-focused VC activities.
Sustainability
Private sector partners in general, and sustainability partners specifically, should be integrated into the sustainability design and implementation process at the earliest possible point.
Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production available within the VC.
Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach and relevance within the development sector will increase the likelihood of positive, sustainable market linkages.
Management coordination within the VC program is essential. Value Chain (VC) Selection
A demand-driven focus in sector selection will maximize potential for sustainable income generation.
Adequate time, a degree of physical access, and appropriate technical expertise is required for accurate VC assessments.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Capacity to meet USG reporting requirements is an important selection criteria when identifying project partners.
Identification of specific indicators (per VC, per objective, or per geographical area) at project outset, as well as assignment of roles and responsibilities and creation an information management structure, allow for project impact reporting with a higher degree of responsiveness and utility.
Geography and security must be considered in creation of monitoring and evaluation plans, identification of indicators, and in the reporting format.
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 47
ANNEX E – References
Brunell, David. (2014). Pakistan Entrepreneurs Project Sustainability Consultancy Part 2:
Operationalizing Producer/Market Centers and Fostering Market/Private Sector Sustainability.
Provided by Adam Bramm, Senior Project Manager/Consultant, MEDA.
Entrepreneurs. (2013). CFC Presentation (2013). Provided by Dr. Shabbir, Entrepreneurs HEF
VC Director.
Innovative Development Strategies (IDS). (2014). Performance Evaluation/Impact Assessment:
USAID Entrepreneurs Project, May 2014. Retrieved from www.meda.org
(www.meda.org/impact-assessment-report/file)
Krantz, Lasse. (2001). The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Poverty Reduction: An
Introduction. Retrieved from www.sida.se
(http://www.sida.se/contentassets/bd474c210163447c9a7963d77c64148a/the-sustainable-
livelihood-approach-to-poverty-reduction_2656.pdf)
Kroeker, Wally. (2015). MEDA: Modelling Mission and Stewardship for the 21st Century.
Retrieved from www.meda.org (http://www.meda.org/intern-blogs-yc/entry/meda-modelling-
mission-and-stewardship-for-the-21st-century)
Mennonite Economic Development Associates (MEDA). (2014). USAID Pakistan:
Entrepreneurs End of Project Report. Provided by Adam Bramm, Senior Project
Manager/Consultant, MEDA.
Mennonite Economic Development Associates (MEDA). (n.d.) Pathways to Pursestrings.
Retrieved from www.meda.org (http://www.meda.org/about-pathways-pursestrings)
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (2012). Audit of the USAID/Pakistan’s Entrepreneurs
Project. Retrieved from oig.usaid.gov (oig.usaid.gov/node/281)
USAID. (2013). USAID in Pakistan: Strengthening Our Partnership, Continuing Our Progress.
Retrieved from www.usaid.gov (https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/usaid-in-pakistan-report)
USAID. (Last updated: July 08, 2015) USAID/OTI’s Role in Pakistan. Retrieved from www.
(https://www.usaid.gov/political-transition-initiatives/pakistan)
Warman, Art. (2014). USAID/Pakistan Entrepreneurs Project Sustainability Consultancy Part 1:
Setting the Framework. Provided by Adam Bramm, Senior Project Manager/Consultant, MEDA.
World Bank. (2015). World Development Indicators: 2015. World Bank Group. Retrieved from
data.worldbank.org (http://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi)
World Economic Forum. (2014). The Global Gender Gap Report 2014. Retrieved from
reports.weforum.org (http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/)
48 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL
ANNEX F - INTERVIEWEES
Meetings/Calls
Name Position Contact Details
1 Adam Bramm Entrepreneurs Project Manager at close and MEDA Senior Project Manager/Consultant
[email protected] 202-302-5492
2 Travis Guymon USAID/PK, Agriculture Development Officer and AOR for Entrepreneurs
3 Kevin McGlothlin Team Leader, Economic Growth and Environment, USAID
4 Sayyed Ahmad Masud
Managing Director Channel 7 Communications (Pvt) Ltd – Board Member, Indus Entrepreneurs, Sustainability partner, HEF
[email protected] M: 0334 513 7777
5 Helen Loftin Entrepreneurs opening CoP and MEDA - Vice President of Economic Opportunities for Youth and Women
6 Derald Smart Entrepreneurs Marketing Advisor 03008560765 [email protected]
7 Abid Marwat Entrepreneurs Marketing Team
8 Salmaan Farooq Entrepreneurs VC Director, Dairy and HEF (Sindh)
9 Shamim Akhtar Entrepreneurs LRP, and VC Director, MAPs
[email protected] +92 300 5923500 skype shamimah03 0300 592 3500
10 Zishan Shahid Indus Entrepreneurs – Sustainability partner, HEF
03215570447
11 Dr. Shabbir Entrepreneurs VC Director, HEF 0300 5391379 0518491300 [email protected]
12 Mr. Naguib CFO Shakarganj Foods – Private sector partner, Dairy
0301 8444418 [email protected]
13 Mr. Saleem Abbas KFP – THAAP, Indus Heritage Trust – Sustainability partner, HEF
03008681275
14 Elli Takagaki CEO Paper Miracles – Private sector partner, HEF
03035900909 [email protected]
15 Ms. Tabinda Alkans Jaffery
CEO Asasah – Sustainability partner, HEF
03008444968
16 Naveed Ahmed Qureshi
Mr. Bee Honey – Private sector partner, Honey
03009563374 [email protected] 1-j Murree Road, Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi
17 Dr. Ikram KFP – NRSP, MAPs and LRP 03468552213 ikramurrahman skype
18 Syed Tariq Khan KFP – HDOD, MAPs and LRP 03009002827 [email protected]
CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 49
ANNEX G - KFPs AND BENEFICIARIES BY VALUE CHAIN
Value Chain Location (District/Province) KFPs Beneficiaries
Hand Embellished
Fabrics
KPK (Swat, Lower Dir, Malakand) LASOONA 10,000
Sindh (Karachi, Thatta,
Hyderabad, Badin, Mirpur Khas,
Larkana and Sukkur)
ECDI 6, 000
South Punjab (Bhawalpur, Multan,
Lodhran & DG Khan)
THAAP 5, 000
Baluchistan (Pishin & Quetta) WESS 5, 000
Total (34%) 26,000
Dairy
Northern Sindh (Ghotki, Larkana,
Sukkur, Shikarpur, Dadu,
Khairpur, Naoshero Feroz, Punjab
(Layyah & Muzzafargarh)
ENGRO 19, 000
South Punjab (Bhawalpur) HASHOO 8, 000
Total (35%) 27,000
Medicinal and
Aromatic Plants
KPK (Upper Dir & Swat) HDOD 12, 000
KPK (Swat, Shangla) NRSP 9, 000
Total (27%) 21,000
Honey KPK (Swat) HUJRA (4%) 3,000
GRAND TOTAL OF BENEFICIARIES (Actual Deliverables 75,000) 77, 000