Do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve case studies

LSP Working Paper 16 Institutional Learning Sub-programme

Do Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches
Have a Positive Impact on the Rural Poor?

A look at twelve case studies

Constance Neely, Kirsten Sutherland, and Jan Johnson

October 2004

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Livelihood Support Programme (LSP)
An inter-departmental programme for improving support for enhancing
livelihoods of the rural poor.

LSP Working Paper 16 Institutional Learning Sub-programme




October 2004

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

iii

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

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

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

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

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

Email: lsp@fao.org

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

iv jj28


CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1 Poverty Reduction, Enhanced Resilience, and Long-Term Sustainability ................................. 8
2.1.1 Poverty Reduction..................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Resilience and Reduction in Vulnerability ............................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Long-term sustainability.......................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Linking use of Sustainable Livelihoods Principles with Evidence of Positive Change ............. 12
2.2.1 Analyzing the vulnerability context ......................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Building Assets ....................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.3 Livelihoods Focus ................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.4 Good Governance ................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.5 Social Inclusivity and Empowerment....................................................................................... 21
2.2.6 Participation............................................................................................................................ 24
2.2.7 Partnerships & Multi-level, Macro-Micro Linkages ................................................................. 25

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

2.4 Project-related Constraints ....................................................................................................... 25
2.4.1 Participation, social inclusivity, and enhancing the livelihood strategies of the poor.................. 25
2.4.2 Issues surrounding the disaggregation of project interventions.................................................. 26
2.4.3 Issues surrounding empowerment ............................................................................................ 26
2.4.4 Issues concerning holistic interventions, increased resilience and ability to withstand shock ..... 27
2.4.5 Issues surrounding engaging dynamism and flexibility............................................................. 27
2.4.6 Issues surrounding good governance and institutions, and macro-micro linkages ...................... 27

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

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

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

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

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

v


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vi



1 Why are we doing this?

1.1 Context

Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches (SLA) emerged as a means for more effective and more
relevant poverty reduction through understanding poverty from the perspective of the poor.
Originally conceived of in the 1980’s in the context of Farming Systems Research and Education,
the approach was developed through the 1990’s and crystallized as SLA in the late 1990’s by the
Department for International Development (DFID) (Carney, 1998; 1999). A number of
organizations have employed the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Framework. The
framework has been used as a programming framework (UNDP); for programming analysis, design,
monitoring and evaluation (CARE Household Livelihood Security); and for integrating
environmental sustainability (The SL Approach to Poverty Reduction, SIDA; Carney, 1999). The
Department for International Development (DFID) has sought to advance poverty reduction results
through mainstreaming good development principles associated with the SLA (people centred,
responsive, multi-level, conducted in partnerships, sustainable, dynamic) and by applying a holistic
perspective in programming support activities to ensure relevance to improving peoples’
livelihoods. Although there has been an evolution in the principles that can be included in the SLA
and framework and an acceptance of how these reflect good development practice, the question
remains, “is poverty being reduced?”

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

1.2 Purpose and Objectives

This paper examines case studies of projects that employed a sustainable livelihoods approach or
sustainable livelihoods principles and in which there were measurable effects of poverty reduction.
The paper is not a comparative study between livelihoods and non-livelihoods approaches and as
such “traditional” development cases were not considered.
Although not part of the specific request from COAG, the paper also attempts to identify the
operational and institutional elements that were consistent among cases of successful impact on the
rural poor.

1.3 Methodology

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

1


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

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

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

1.4 Case Studies Reviewed

Implementing Project Time
Country Name Entry Point
Organization Frame
Strengthening Household Access to Bari
Bangladesh Garden Extension Services (SHABGE) CARE Agriculture 1999-2004

Integrated
Inter-regional Project for Participatory Government of 1992-2000
Bolivia Watershed
Upland Conservation and Development Italy/FAO (three phases)
Management

FAO/ Community
Participatory Natural Resource Management 1995-2004
Cambodia Government of Fisheries and
in the Tonle Sap Region (ongoing)
Cambodia Forestry

The Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural
Ethiopia Oxfam Agriculture 1995-2002
Development Programme

The Lowlands Agricultural Development
Gambia IFAD Agriculture 1996-2004
Programme (LADEP)
Rural Development in Lempira Sur Project
Honduras FAO Agriculture 1994-2002
(PROLESUR)
DELIVERI – Decentralized Livestock
Indonesia DFID Livestock Services 1996-2001
Services in Eastern Indonesia
Food security;
Environmentally Sustainable Food Security FAO/ Forest
Natural resource
and Micro-Income Opportunities in Critical Department of
Myanmar rehabilitation; 1999-2002
Watersheds the Government
Income-generating
of Myanmar
opportunities
Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and
Irrigation, Health,
Nepal Water Resource Management for Improved FAO 1999-2003
Nutrition
Food Security, Nutrition and Health (WIN)
FAO/ Integrated
Inter-regional Project for Participatory
Pakistan Government of Watershed 1992-1999
Upland Conservation and Development
Pakistan Management
Community-Based Regional Development
Community
Yemen Programme (CBRDP) FAO 1998-2003
Enterprises
Improving Household Food Security and
Nutrition through Community Empowerment
Zambia FAO Agriculture 1996-2001
in the Luapula Valley

2


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

The first stage involved establishing whether the projects to be used incorporated an adequate
number of SL principles for it to be considered sufficiently ‘sustainable livelihoods-related’. For
this purpose, key criteria defining the SLA were identified and categorised according to their
centrality to the approach (Figure 1). These criteria were used to determine which projects to
include in the study. Few cases of those selected were designed or initiated specifically to
implement a sustainable livelihoods approach, but all those retained had addressed the majority of
sustainable livelihoods principles.

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

Subsequently, stage three was designed to address the value added by the SL approach in reducing
poverty. This was done by using the findings from previous stages along with a set of hypotheses
addressing SL specific principles which had been developed by the extended study team
participants (Box 2).

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

3


1.5 Criteria defining the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach1

Sustainable poverty reduction

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

Addresses vulnerability

specific to
Principles

the SLA
context; increases Builds assets Focuses on livelihoods
capacity to withstand (a diversified portfolio of (ways to earn a living)
shocks; increases assets that reduce
resilience vulnerability)

EMBODIES ALL PRINCIPLES

People- Enhances

Principles essential, but not
Dynamic;
Builds on flexible; long- centred good
strengths term governance &

specific to the SLA
institutional
linkages (at
Responsive; the micro,
Not strictly participatory Empowering meso & macro
sectoral levels)

Multi-level, Ensures
macro-micro Conducted Socially long-term
linkages in partnership inclusive sustainability
Critical principles (as a means

Disaggregated analysis Supports livelihoods Process oriented
and intervention strategies of the poor (to (feedback loops from
(poverty, gender, age, get themselves out of outcomes to action
ethnicity) poverty) replanning)
to an end)

Implementation is
Holistic diagnosis & consistent with design
interventions (if design
is pro-poor)

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

4


1.6 Hypotheses relating to SL-specific principles

Principle Corresponding Hypothesis/es
Addresses vulnerability - Projects that address the vulnerability context, by reducing vulnerability while
and increases resilience strengthening individual and collective capacity to withstand shocks, are more
effective in enabling the poor to overcome their poverty than approaches that
ignore the vulnerability context

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

- To reduce poverty on a sustainable basis, it is not enough to raise household
income above a national poverty line; it is equally important for households to
acquire a capacity to prevent themselves from falling back into poverty when
exposed to shocks

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

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

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

Preference was given to projects that had been in place long enough for results to have been
achieved and, in the best scenario, those that had undergone an evaluative process. In general, the
outcomes of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and participatory monitoring and evaluation
(PM&E) strategies within the cases yielded mixed results. The highly variable quality and type of
evaluation and reporting processes meant that in many cases “normative” and poverty reduction-
related data were inconsistent or even unavailable 2 . The fact that the soundness of reported
outcomes and impacts for many of these projects should be considered as indicative rather than as
firmly proven clearly places limits on the analyses given here. Thus although we have attempted
to make the best use of the material available to us our conclusions are deliberately provisional, not
definitive.

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

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

5


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

Box 3. Definitions of livelihood and poverty

Definition – Livelihood: a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and
social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can
cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities or assets while not
undermining the natural resource base (DFID, 1999).

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

6


Box 4

1.8 Looking for Evidence of Positive Impact on the Rural Poor3

General Indicators of Poverty Reduction
o Improved income levels of poor and non-poor
o Changes in household food security
o Improved basic needs (shelter, health, nutrition)
o Changes in income distribution and decreases in inequities
o Diversification of income sources
o Changes in income security
o Improved human rights
o Increased access to public goods and services
o Increased yields
o Changes in consumption and diet
o Improved quality of life

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

Indicators of Long Term Sustainability
o Increase in environmental sustainability
o Reduction in conflict or increase in peace/resolution
o Changes reflecting livelihood sustainability
o Sustained Post Project Activities
o Sustained Post Project Institutional Changes
o Sustained Post-Project poverty reduction
o Sustained or permanent removal of groups from social exclusion
o Addressed inequities faced by disadvantaged groups

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

7


2 Evidence of impact

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

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

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

8


Table 1. General evidence of impact on selected poverty indicators

Access to
Country Income Income Access to 5
4 Income productive Yields HH FS
Case Diversification Distribution Needs/ Services
resources
Financial services,
Education Land
Honduras Y Housing Seedlings
Significant positive impact on rural poor

Sanitation
Irrigation
Nutrition Water, Trees
Nepal Y Sanitation Seeds
Education
Financial services,
Yemen Y Literacy, Health
IGA materials N/A N/A

Extension
Indonesia Y Livestock
Sanitation
Nutrition
Seeds, Water
Ethiopia Y Health, Credit
Land, Bee hives
Employment
Land, Water
Employment Seeds, Trees/
Myanmar Y Irrigation Tree products
Extension Fertiliser
Livestock
Land, Trees/
Financial services,
Some positive impact on rural

6 Tree products
Cambodia Y Roads
Fish ponds
Education
Seedlings
Health Trees
Bangladesh Y Credit Multi-storey
poor

Sanitation trellises,
Credit, Water Livestock
Extension Bee hives
Bolivia Y
Education Trees, Seeds
Irrigation Fish ponds
Nutrition
Gambia N Health, Credit
Land, Water

Extension, Credit Trees, Poultry,
rural poor
impact on

Pakistan Y
positive

Irrigation Livestock, Water
Little

Credit, Nurseries Seeds, Trees,
Zambia Y Extension, Health Inputs

= Evidence of an increase = Evidence of positive changes

4
Country cases with the three categories are not necessarily arranged in any particular order.
5
HH FS = household food security
6
The case of Cambodia has been provisionally included in this category as it is an ongoing project and
outcomes and impacts have yet to be fully evaluated.

9


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

a. Increases in existing production system yields through inputs and intensification
(Gambia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Honduras, Nepal). In Gambia, the expansion and
intensification of rice production transformed the situation in target villages from a rice
deficit to a rice surplus. As a direct result of this, the incomes of 11,500 households
increased by between 50-500%.
b. Diversification through additions of crop and livestock or other on-farm enterprises
to the existing farming strategy (Ethiopia, Nepal, Bangladesh). The IRDP in Ethiopia
introduced a beekeeping programme targeted at small landholders, landless men and
women and the elderly, as beekeeping requires minimum labour inputs and does not take
up valuable land in that hives can be placed in trees, on wasted land or even on flat
rooftops.
c. Value addition to existing production (Nepal, Yemen), non-agricultural enterprises
or off-farm employment. In Myanmar, the extensive labour required for physical soil
conservation activities generated employment opportunities for 15,000 resource poor
households over the dry season, when they would otherwise have migrated in search of
work.

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

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

a. In Honduras, large-scale improvements were made in housing conditions through the
installation of piped water and latrines, as well as the adoption of improved stoves. In
addition, 67 community banks were established along with two cooperatives.
b. In Nepal, 15,000 women, men and children experienced improvements in health and
nutrition through greater access to nutritious foods, improved domestic habits and the
use of boiled water. Positive impacts were made on birthing practices, with women no
longer giving birth in cowsheds at some sites and there was also a rise in the number
of children attending school and receiving healthcare.
c. In Bangladesh, savings groups formed by Farmer Field School participants helped
households buy and install the concrete slabs needed to improve latrines to counter the
high incidence of diarrhoeal diseases in the area.

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

10


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

2.1.2 Resilience and Reduction in Vulnerability

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

In Ethiopia, the IRDP faced not only a serious drought two out of the three years in which it was
implemented, but it was also confronted with outbreaks of violence and looting as the result of
continuing border tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The return of tens of thousands of
internally displaced peoples heightened the already urgent situation in project target areas. Food
for work activities linked to the rehabilitation of natural resources, road construction and other
training provided a short-term solution to the immediate need for food whilst revitalising rural
livelihoods in the long-term through improving the natural resource and communication bases.
Soil and water conservation, reforestation and area enclosure measures introduced under the project
were identified by farmers as having been critical in reducing the impact of drought on their
livelihoods. Despite overall declines in terms of nutritional status and the amount of food available,
project activities were successful, if not in improving the livelihoods of target community members,
then in at least ensuring that the majority of target households were able to maintain their status
quo against the severity of the drought (Oxfam Canada/REST, 2003).

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

The Lempira Sur region of Honduras was able to withstand the ravages of El Niño and Hurricane
Mitch as a direct result of project interventions. Communal natural resource recovery measures
that rendered the landscape highly resistant to natural shock coupled with the subsequent
introduction of new/improved production, preservation and storage technologies allowed
communities in the region to maintain a grain surplus throughout the El Niño and Hurricane Mitch
disasters.

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

11


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

a. People’s empowerment - confidence, negotiating capacity, conflict resolution skills,
grant-writing ability, capacity to discern useful projects based on values, education
programs etc.

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

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

d. Partnerships and multi-level macro-micro linkages - cohesive, multi-disciplinary
teams with a strong sense of ownership and the ability to reach an expanded
geographical area and multiple sectors, linkages from the community, to district, to
national level meaning that successful strategies are more likely to be translated into
policy.

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

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

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

12


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

Country Vulnerability Livelihoods focus Builds assets

Finan Physi
Human Social Natur
cial cal
al

Capacity to store grain, Increased yield, storage,
Honduras
Significant positive impact on

support other provinces agro-industrial crops,
Increased food security,
Nepal Farm-related IGA’s
nutrition, irrigation
Increased income,
Yemen Training in various IGA’s
rural poor

increased opportunities
Increased access to
Indonesia Integration of livestock
services – animal health
NR recovery, drought Improved sustainable
Ethiopia
mitigation measures farming practices, IGA’s

NR recovery, increased IGA’s, livestock,
Myanmar
food security, irrigation on-farm employment,

Livelihoods diversification
Sustainable management
Some positive impact

Cambodia (livestock, aquaculture,
of forests/fishing grounds
horticulture)
on rural poor

Increased food security,
Bangladesh Homestead gardening
nutrition & income
Diversification, eco-
Improved land & water friendly IGA’s, training in
Bolivia
management improved farming
practices
Increased incomes from Focus on rice production
Gambia
higher rice yields only
Rangeland rehabilitation, Training in new livelihood
positive

on rural

Pakistan
impact
Little

watershed management strategies
poor

Increased production of Improved agricultural
Zambia
more nutritious crops practices; IGA’s

2.2.1 Analyzing the vulnerability context

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

13


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

The implementation of the first phase of the
Lempira Sur project was undertaken in the context
of accelerating impoverishment. Ever more
extensive slash-and-burn agriculture and cattle
ranching was leading to a rapid loss of soil fertility,
which in turn, had prevented the regeneration of
trees, destroyed local flora and fauna and dried out
water sources, leading to heavy erosion and
landslides.

Project interventions were designed to support the
communal recovery of natural assets by mimicking
natural ecosystems (address vulnerability context,
long-term sustainability), and promoting new production and land management technologies
(e.g. the use of mulch, the spacing of seeds, live barriers) (building natural and human capital,
focus on enhancing livelihoods). The adoption of agro-forestry and silvo-pastoral systems led
to the reforestation of 10 000 hectares of land, while the large-scale implementation of soil
conservation techniques (e.g. zero burning, zero tillage, hedges, cover crops) contributed to the
regeneration of natural resources and to increased water retention (building natural, physical
and human capital).

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

To establish an enabling environment
for people centred development and
link households to departmental
government, the Lempira Sur project
supported the strengthening or creation
of local governance institutions
including Community Development
Councils (CODECOs), the Municipal
Development Council (CODEMS) and
the mancomunidades (associations of
more than one municipality). This
resulted in enhanced capacity for
informing decision-making from the
bottom up – through CODECOs to the
mancommunidades (good local
governance and institutional linkages, multi-level).

The project’s success, stemming from improved production systems and environmental
sustainability whilst remaining a neutral/honest broker, also built the capacity of community
members to organize themselves and reflect their priorities in policy decisions (building social
capital, empowering).

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

14


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

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

As such, a three-pronged approach was adopted to
target the short, medium and long-term effects of
drought at both the household and the community
levels (addresses vulnerability context). A food-for-
work programme associated with long-term
environmental rehabilitation measures to reduce soil
erosion and land degradation addressed both the
immediate need for food and contributed to the
prevention/mitigation of further drought (long-term
sustainability, building natural and physical capital,
increased resilience and ability to withstand
shocks). It also helped to protect household assets,
primarily livestock, from distress sales (Gotts,
1998). Local groups were formed to manage these activities and other communal resources such as
water installations, in order to encourage local ownership of interventions and to ensure their
sustainability beyond project completion (building social capital, enhances good governance and
institutions, long-term sustainability). Training was provided in improved agricultural production
techniques and in a range of income-generating activities, and a community credit fund was
established (building human and financial capital, enhancing and diversifying livelihood strategies).

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

2.2.2 Building Assets

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

• Human asset development took the form of technical, vocational and organizational
capacity-building provided to individuals, vulnerable/disadvantaged groups (poor, landless,
women, female household heads, elderly, destitute), producer groups, community
development associations, and local and national NGO’s and governmental institutions.
• Social assets were built through the formation, training, cohesion and capacity-building of
community groups, committees, farmer groups, and local leaders. While some projects

8
Photo taken from Noble, R. 2003. Collaborative Learning to Achieve Sustainable Livelihoods. A Final
Evaluation Report of the Ruba Lomine Integrated Rural Development Programme.
[http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/docs/Oxfam_Eval.pdf].

15


worked deliberately with pre-existing groups in the interest of cohesion and solidarity
(Nepal, Gambia), others created new associations in the interest of social inclusivity
(Yemen)9.
• Financial assets were enhanced through income generation and savings as well as access to
community development funds, community banks, or other credit schemes.
• Physical assets were built through infrastructural support related to sanitation, water supply,
roads, and shelter and storage facilities, and/or the provision of farming tools and other
equipment (treadle pumps, multi-storey trellises, bee hives).
• Natural assets or stocks were addressed in a variety of ways, including:

a. The incorporation of productive resources, such as the planting of mulberry and apple
trees in Pakistan.
b. Providing access to, or the reclamation of land for, agricultural production. In Gambia,
backswamps and tidal swamps were reclaimed through the construction of causeways
and bridges.
c. Addressing upstream-downstream relationships through integrated watershed
management, as in Bolivia.
d. Managing lands to mimic natural ecosystems, as in Honduras.
e. Promoting improved farming and land use practices, such as in Cambodia, Myanmar
and Pakistan.

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

9
The dominance of elites, traditional leaders and other powerful groups in some parts of Yemeni society
posed a challenge to the formation of Community Based Organisations under the CBRDP. In the interest of
representing the needs of the wider community whilst also maintaining some element of existing power
structures, CBO’s were formed by a mixture of traditional community leaders, ‘the poor’, women and other
marginalised groups.

16


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

The building of human, social and financial capital formed the core of the FAO/UNDP Community-
Based Regional Development Programme (CBRDP) being implemented in five districts of Yemen, on
the basis that these communities’ lack of specific
skills was one of the factors preventing them from
becoming active participants in the development
process (people-centred).

Under the project, 53 Community Development
Organisations (CDO’s) were formed, each
consisting of an Executive Body (EB), a General
Assembly and various Technical Committees.
These CDO’s were created to identify, implement
and monitor poverty alleviation interventions,
manage a newly-established community credit
fund, and create effective linkages with institutions
at different levels (enhancing good governance and institutions, multi-level linkages, building social
and human capital). Ensuring the representation of the poor and women in all the functions of the
CDO’s was key (socially inclusive). By 2003, the poor constituted 65% of all CDO members, while
women formed 36% of all CDO members and 21% of EB members. Clear changes in the perception
of the community towards women’s participation were noted, with initial refusal to allow women
representatives in the EB’s giving way to a situation whereby a female chairperson was elected
chairperson of the Gozr Al-Behar CDO.

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

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

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

10
Photo by Stephan Bass, CBRDP.

17


2.2.3 Livelihoods Focus
All cases incorporated some form of livelihoods focus. Several good examples are demonstrated in
Honduras, Yemen and Ethiopia (earlier Boxes 6, 7 and 8). What was difficult to clarify from the
existing documentation was the degree to which livelihood strategies were intentionally developed
based on pre-existing livelihood strategies and assets analysis of the ‘beneficiary’ communities, or
based on over-riding intentions of the project donor organization. Examples from Ethiopia,
Pakistan, Yemen and Gambia demonstrate the divergent approaches to incorporating a livelihoods
focus (Box 9).

Box 9. A livelihoods focus in practice

In Ethiopia, the IDRP sought to render existing livelihood strategies more sustainable by coupling
natural resource recovery measures with training in improved agricultural practices. Further training
was provided in non-traditional farming activities such as bee-keeping, which takes up minimal or no
land space and is thus a feasible strategy for small landowners as well as landless persons.

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

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

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

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

a. Strengthening customary village institutions (Gambia, Bolivia), or creating new
village-level institutions (Myanmar, Yemen).
b. Building community representation in local government (Zambia, Honduras).
c. Building the capacity for participatory, multidisciplinary or collaborative approaches
(Nepal, Pakistan, Honduras).

18


d. Enhanced responsiveness of local government to local priorities (Indonesia, Ethiopia).
e. Building the service provision capacity of government agencies (Indonesia, Nepal).
f. Influencing policy reform (Indonesia, Honduras, Bolivia, Nepal).

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

Box 10. Governance Principles linked to Outcomes in Indonesia11

The DELIVERI project in Indonesia was designed to
address weaknesses in the delivery of livestock services
to resource poor farmers, in recognition that existing
service provision was rigid, under-responsive, and
incapable of accommodating the varied needs of poor
farmers. Through the introduction of more client-
focused quality services approaches to livestock service
provision within the Department of Livestock Services
in four districts in Sulawesi, it was hoped that the
programme would contribute to sustainable increases in
wealth and enhance the self-reliance of small-scale and
resource-poor farmers through increased livestock
production.

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

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

19


Box 11. Governance Principles linked to Outcomes in Honduras12

While the Lempira Sur Project in Honduras
started out with, and maintained a focus on food
security, it also invested heavily in governance. In
1999, it put in place a Governance Project (FAO,
2004) to support the reinforcement or creation of
local governance institutions to develop planning
efforts to link households to municipal
government. The institutions included Community
Development Councils (CODECOs), the
Municipal Development Council (CODEMS) and
the mancomunidades (associations of more than
one municipality). The Lempira Sur project
engaged government and local authorities in the
planning process. Central government was appreciative of the positive on-the-ground changes that the
project had made and this led to its collaboration with the project. As a result, the Municipal law was
amended to legitimize the mancomunidades. Additionally, the efforts of the project were coherent with
three national policies related to decentralization including the Master Plan for National Reconstruction
and Transformation (1999), the Poverty Reduction Strategy (2001) and the Local Development and
Decentralization Programme (2002).

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

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

20


2.2.5 Social Inclusivity and Empowerment

The degree to which projects were socially inclusive and empowering varied greatly across projects.
In some instances, projects specifically engaged multiple socio-economic groups including the poor
and very poor (Honduras, Ethiopia, Myanmar), untouchables (Nepal, Box 11), and other
marginalised groups (Yemen). In other cases, social inclusivity was expressed as including or
working only/predominantly with women (Pakistan, Gambia and Bangladesh).

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

a. Significant changes in women’s position within the household, and access to and
control of household income (Bangladesh, Box 12).
b. Significant changes in the status of other marginalised/disadvantaged groups within
the community (Myanmar).
c. Enhanced problem solving by women (Nepal).
d. Promoting the rights of communities to access natural resources (Cambodia).
e. Empowering farmers to engage in extension planning (and criticism) and
entrepreneurial activities promoted by women (Indonesia, Pakistan).
f. Enhanced ability to initiate and be proactive in development (Yemen).
g. Associations allowing small-scale farmers’ voices to be heard in policy debates
(Gambia).
h. Reduction in dependence on or use of an intermediary patron in times of trouble
(Honduras).
i. Bringing together local government and communities during project design (Ethiopia).

21


Box 11. Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and Water Resources Management for
Household Security, Nutrition and Health (WIN)

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

Project interventions included the diversification of crop production; home gardening; animal raising;
community vegetable seedling nurseries; treadle pumps and spring water tapping; water storage
devices; training in group organisation and strengthening, business skills, literacy/numeracy and
technical issues ; . As many as 2555 households in four districts benefited and the project worked with
6128 women and 1031 men. The project had successful experience of recapitalising food insecure
households, especially resource poor Kamayas (impact on most poor, socially inclusive). Overall, the
project reported influencing as many as 15,000 women, men and children. Nutrition and health has
improved through nutritious food, cleaner domestic habits, the use of boiled water, and changes in
birthing practices. There was evidence of income generation from farm sales (financial capital), time
savings for women and children, improved food security (reduced food insecure months from 9 to 0-2
months), improvement in social factors (children in school and getting health care).

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

The most vulnerable and food insecure groups
(landless, freed Kamayas, Dalits and others) were
identified during participatory appraisals. The project
was encouraged to work the existing On-Farm Water
Management (OFWM) project, it was noted that these
groups would not have been assisted. The Nepal team
worked with more well-off participants through the
OFWM yet found a way to work with the most
vulnerable through collaborative arrangements with
GTZ (socially inclusive, working in partnership).

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

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

22


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

SHABGE was implemented by CARE, in partnership with 23 local
NGOs in five districts of Bangladesh. The project aimed to improve the
household food security, consumption and nutrition of poor and
marginalised women and men farmers (people-centred). Because
women constituted the greatest number of disadvantaged groups
however, 99% of project participants were female (disaggregated
interventions). Participants were all poor, but to differing extents. Some
were landless, while others had access to between 2-25 decimals of
land14. SHABGE also worked with elderly women and widows, who are
often neglected or subjected to violence because they are seen as a
burden to the household (Bartlett, 2002) (socially inclusive).

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

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

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

13
The picture in this text box shows Rokeya Begum, a landless entrepreneur and FFS participant. It is taken
from Bartlett: 2002.
14
0.02-0.25 acres (100 decimals = 1 acre), or 81-1012 m2.

23


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

a. Ethiopia: High levels of community participation in the problem identification,
planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation phases of the IRDP. Actions
undertaken to ensure community participation in programme activities included the
creation and support of local committees, interventions specifically targeting women,
the landless and female-headed households, and the training of local Community
Development Cadres.
b. Honduras: The completion of participatory diagnoses with groups, communities and
villages within the project target area. These diagnoses were reviewed by project
teams and the capacity of the project to respond was analysed. On this basis, teams
negotiated a plan of work with the participating communities. At the end of the first
year of implementation, and each year after that, the project carried out a process of
participatory evaluation and diagnosis, the results of which were in turn reviewed by
senior management and project priorities and activities altered accordingly.
c. Indonesia: The provision of training to farmers groups and Dinas Peternakan
(Department of Livestock) staff to use more participatory approaches to project
planning and implementation, as part of the strategy to provide more client-oriented
livestock services to farmers. The Community Livestock Action Planning (CLAP)
was developed as a participatory project appraisal and planning approach targeted at
farmers and farmer groups in DELIVERI project villages. CLAP substantially
increased DP staff understanding of livestock production issues within their districts,
provided valuable background information about constraints and opportunities for
livestock development, and strengthened the capacity of farmers groups to develop
their own activities.
d. Myanmar: Ensuring the participation of community members through a range of
community-based organisations established under the project, including Farmers
Income Generating Groups, Livestock Income Generating Groups, Affinity Groups
(self-help groups) and Village Forestry Groups.
e. Nepal: The formation of multi-sectoral district and national teams who were trained in
participatory and gender responsive methodologies, and who carried out participatory
assessments and gender action planning in local sites. Target groups included women,
marginalised indigenous groups and food insecure households. These groups were
trained by district staff in specialized topics, and were then supported in implementing
their own plans and activities.
f. Yemen: The formation of Community Development Associations that took account of
traditional power structures (by promoting the participation of local tribal leaders)
whilst also ensuring the participation of poorer and marginalised community members
and women. Based on a sample of 33% of all CDO members, 74% were found to be
poor, representing 65% of total CDO membership. Women’s participation was
somewhat lower at 37%.

24


2.2.7 Partnerships & Multi-level, Macro-Micro Linkages
Establishing strong partnerships proved to be a critical factor both in ensuring widespread
participation and geographical coverage, and in contributing towards the longer-term sustainability
of project achievements. Through some of its many partners, WIN Nepal was able to work with
the non-poor (through the World Bank) and the most vulnerable groups (through GTZ). It was also
able to continue working with isolated communities in areas of insurgency through its district
teams. Linkages spanning the community, district and national levels were also key in facilitating
the adoption of successful project strategies at the institutional level. In Gambia, 12 District Level
Lowland Farmer Associations created under LADEP were linked to the National Farmers Platform
and to the National Women’s Farmers Associations, facilitating the representation of local needs at
the national level. As a result, attitudes towards rural development were influenced within the
government, whose capacity to adopt self-help-based and demand-driven approaches was built and
where the importance of combining social development with engineering works was recognised.
Participatory training provided by LADEP also increased the capacity of government extension
staff and transformed their way of working with rural communities.

2.3 Aspects that Challenged the Achievement of Positive Change

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

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

Cases that had some positive impacts on the rural Cases that had limited positive impacts on the
poor rural poor
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Bolivia
Zambia
Gambia

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

2.4 Project-related Constraints

2.4.1 Participation, social inclusivity, and enhancing the livelihood strategies of
the poor
All projects made some attempt to mainstream participation throughout the various stages of the
project cycle and to address the needs and enhance the livelihood strategies of the most vulnerable
groups. A number of projects however experienced difficulties in this due to design weaknesses.

Local stakeholders were not consulted prior to the design of CARE’s SHABGE project in
Bangladesh for example, and difficulties were experienced in encouraging women’s participation
due to strict socio-religious codes limiting women’s mobility and presence in the public sphere. In
one district, it took facilitators four months to satisfy the minimum participation requirement of 20
women and only after extensive negotiation with husbands, elites and local politicians to explain
the project’s goal and strategy. Women’s lack of involvement in project design also had

25

Do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve case studies

Do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve case studies

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve case studies

Similaire à Do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve case studies (20)

Plus de Boni

Plus de Boni (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact of the rural poor a look at twelve case studies