Working Paper 129 Results of research presented in preliminary form for

discussion and critical comment Overseas Development Institute SUSTAINABLE

LIVELIHOODS Caroline Ashley Karim Hussein Developing Methodologies for
Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in
East Africa Working Paper 129 Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact
Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa Caroline
Ashley and Karim Hussein February 2000 Overseas Development Institute
Portland House Stag Place London SW1E 5DP UK Printed by Chameleon Press,
London SW18 4SG ISBN 0 85003 462 0 © Overseas Development Institute 2000
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publishers The Sustainable Livelihoods Working Paper Series
This working paper is one of a series that cover practical applications of
Sustainable Livelihood (SL) approaches within natural resources management.
The papers provide substantial case study material of varied practical
experiences, combined with reflection on the emerging findings concerning uses
of SL. Some focus on specific types of application of SL approaches (e.g. project
design, impact assessment) and some on their application to specific sectors (e.g.
water, tourism). The full series so far is: 127: Sustainable Livelihoods and Project
Design in India, Cathryn Turton. 128: The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods:
Namibia’s Experience, Caroline Ashley. 129: Developing Methodologies for
Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in
East Africa, Caroline Ashley and Karim Hussein. 130: The Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach and Programme Development in Cambodia, Cathryn Turton. 131:
Watersheds and Rural Livelihoods in India, Cathryn Turton. 132: The Reality of
Trying to Transform Structures and Processes: Forestry and Rural Livelihoods,
Mary Hobley and Dermot Shields. 133: Adopting a Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach to Water Projects: Policy and Practical Implications, Alan Nicol. 134:
Applying Livelihood Approaches to Natural Resource Management Initiatives:
Experiences in Namibia and Kenya, Caroline Ashley. In addition: Tourism, the
Poor, and Other Stakeholders: Asian Experience, Kishore Shah and Vasanti Gupta,
ODI-Fair Trade in Tourism Paper. These are all being printed in February and
March 2000. Copies can be ordered by contacting publications@odi.org.uk. The
full papers and their summaries are also being placed on the ODI livelihoods
website (www.oneworld.org/odi/rpeg/srls.html). Summaries of lessons learnt on
uses of SL approaches are being placed on DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Learning
Platform (www.livelihoods.org). Several Natural Resource Perspectives on aspects
of sustainable livelihoods are also available from ODI. This set of Working Papers
on livelihoods is co-ordinated by Caroline Ashley (ODI) and funded by the
Department for International Development’s Rural Livelihoods Department.
Comments or enquiries should be sent to Caroline Ashley (c.ashley@odi.org.uk)
or Kate Burke (k.burke@odi.org.uk). Acknowledgements This paper has drawn on
the work of many people from the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and its
partners in Kenya. In particular, thanks are due to the community members and
project staff at Il Ngwesi Lodge and Arabuko Sokoke Forest Butterfly Project, and
to AWF staff George Sikoyo, Peter Lembuya and Joanna Elliott who participated in
developing the methodology. The AWF work described here was funded by the
EU, with supplementary inputs of time from ODI. Joanna Elliot is also thanked for
commenting on the draft of this working paper. Additional thanks go to ODI
colleagues Diana Carney for editing the paper, John Farrington for reviewing it,
and Kate Burke for formatting it. The views expressed in this paper are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Overseas Development
Institute, Africa Wildlife Foundation, the Department for International
Development, or any of the individuals cited herein. This series of Working Papers
is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) whose
financial support and interest is gratefully acknowledged. Contents Summary 7
Part A: Background and rationale for the approach 1. Introduction 11 2.
Background 12 2.1 The African Wildlife Foundation project 12 2.2 The need to
develop impact assessment methods 13 2.3 Conventional, participatory, and SL
approaches to impact assessment 13 2.4 What does livelihoods assessment
achieve 15 Part B: The methodology and its application in Kenya 3. The AWF
impact assessment methodology 19 3.1 The overall approach 19 3.2 Analysing
livelihood impact 19 3.3 Resource implications 28 4. Data collection methods 30
4.1 A broad range of methods 30 4.2 The PALI tool 33 4.3 Methodological
adaptation 36 5. Analysis, results and dissemination 39 5.1 Analysis of data 39 5.2
Quantification of results 42 5.3 Results and dissemination 44 Part C: Reflection
and implications 6. Lessons learnt 51 6.1 Application of the approach 51 6.2
Strengths of an approach focusing on sustainable livelihoods 52 6.3 Weaknesses
of an SL approach 53 Conclusions 57 Appendix 1 Summary description of the
fieldwork at both case study sites 58 References 60 Boxes Box 1 A simplified
sustainable livelihoods framework 21 Box 2 Stakeholder categories and livelihood
impacts at Il Ngwesi and Arabuko Sokoke 27 Box 3 Resource demands of SL
analysis in Mali 29 Box 4 Preparing for fieldwork 30 Box 5 Combining qualitative
and quantitative methods: experience elsewhere 33 Box 6 Lessons learned in an
ActionAid project on participatory impact assessment 36 Box 7 The importance of
estimating – and interpreting – local financial flows 43 Box 8 Conclusions on
livelihood impacts of Arabuko Sokoke butterfly farming project 45 Box 9
Preliminary conclusions of the WELD overview of wildlife enterprises 46 Box 10
New insights for project staff from the SL approach 53 Box 11 Lessons from the
application of the SL framework in Mali 54 Box 12 Advantages and disadvantages
of an SL-approach to rural research in Mali 56 Figures Figure 1 How the
methodology fits into broader AWF project objectives 12 Figure 2 Summary of the
process of livelihood impact analysis 23 Tables Table 1 The eight questions of the
overall review 20 Table 2 SL components and key research issues 24 Table 3 Using
different sources of information to address key livelihood themes 32 Table 4
Topics and PRA-type tools for livelihood impact assessment within PALI 34 Table 5
Desired characteristics of income sources at Arabuko Sokoke 35 Table 6 What
worked and did not at Il Ngwesi and Arabuko Sokoke 37 Table 7 Advantages and
disadvantages of butterfly farming 40 Table 8 Impact of butterfly farming on
livelihood components of farmers and Group Representatives 40 Table 9 Key
strengths and weaknesses of livelihood impact assessment 55 7 Summary This
Working Paper describes how key concepts of the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL)
approach were incorporated into methods for assessing the impact of wildlife
projects in East Africa. It shows that the SL approach can be applied not only to
planning new projects, but also to the review of existing ones – even where these
were not planned with SL concepts in mind. The working paper explains the
rationale for developing an impact assessment methodology incorporating
livelihood analysis, summarises the methodology and its application, and
identifies several lessons learnt for application of SL approaches. A methodology
for assessing livelihood impacts of projects was developed and has been applied
in the first two case studies in Kenya. The assessment used a wide range of data
collection techniques and a simplified SL framework to guide analysis and
interpretation. The findings provided recommendations to project staff on how to
enhance impacts and participation among key target groups, while also feeding
into an overview of the effectiveness of development and conservation projects.
Several lessons can be drawn concerning the usefulness and challenges of the SL
approach. One of the greatest benefits of the methodology is that, at a very
general level, it highlighted the importance of focusing on livelihood priorities
within development and conservation projects. More specific advantages of its
application can be summarised as: a shift away from narrow project evaluation
criteria; a rich contextual and project level analysis; an ability to identify and
analyse key assets and activities critical to livelihoods; an analysis that can
determine whether a project intervention demonstrates a true or close fit with
livelihoods; a basis for practical recommendations to enhance livelihood impacts
on and participation of key groups. However, a number of challenges and
methodological issues have emerged: the difficulty in obtaining data that is
comparable across contexts; the lack of quantitative results for aggregation to the
regional or national level; the need for highly analytical and skilled study teams
and difficulties in replicating the methodology. The methodology seems to be
more successful in identifying the broad ‘fit’ of project interventions with
livelihoods in a particular context than measurable changes in livelihood security
and sustainability. The data generated may therefore be more useful at project
level than at more macro levels; perhaps a different approach is needed for
drawing out broader lessons for national level policy. These difficulties suggest
more work is needed to develop ways to apply SL concepts to impact assessment,
and to compare and share findings across different initiatives. 8 9 PART A:
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE APPROACH 10 11 1. Introduction This
Working Paper describes how key concepts of the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL)
approach were incorporated into methods for assessing the impact of wildlife
enterprise projects in East Africa. It shows that the SL approach can be applied
not only to planning new projects, but also to the review of existing ones – even
where these were not planned with SL concepts in mind. The paper serves three
slightly different purposes: firstly, at the most general level, it demonstrates the
relevance of the SL approach to impact assessment. Secondly, it provides a
description of the approach and methods used, which may be useful to those
developing their own practical methods. Thirdly, it reflects on lessons learnt
about how to apply the approach, its strengths and its weaknesses, which have
relevance to the wider debate about how to develop practical applications of the
SL approach. Different readers may therefore wish to focus on different parts, as
outlined by the structure below. Part A of the working paper seeks to explain the
background to the work, and the rationale for developing an impact assessment
methodology incorporating livelihood analysis. It explores the contrast between
livelihood impact assessment, participatory approaches to monitoring and
evaluation and conventional approaches to impact evaluation. Part B describes
the methodology and how it was applied in Kenya. Section 3 briefly summarises
the overall approach, key questions asked, analytical approach and resources
used. Section 4 provides more detail on methods employed – not in order to
provide a ‘model’, but rather to demonstrate the diversity of methods used as
well as to share insights into what worked and what did not in this context. Those
less interested in the methodological detail will probably wish to skim this section.
Section 5 summarises the findings that emerged, showing how they were
analysed and disseminated. Part C reflects on the usefulness of the overall
approach, some of the challenges involved in assessing how projects affect
livelihoods, and the strengths and weaknesses of the process that was used for
developing and sharing the methodology. It identifies lessons that may be
relevant to others using the SL approach for similar purposes. 12 2. Background
2.1 The African Wildlife Foundation project Across East Africa, and indeed in many
other regions, the last decade has seen a mushrooming of ‘development and
conservation projects’. These initiatives seek to promote the sustainable use and
conservation of resources by contributing to local development and creating
economic incentives for conservation by local people. Wildlife enterprises
represent a particular sub-set of development and conservation projects. They
aim to generate local income from the sustainable use of a wild resource. In 1997,
the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) established the Wildlife Enterprise and
Local Development Project (WELD), with European Union support. One objective
of WELD is to review the effectiveness of wildlife enterprises as a conservation
and development tool, through assessment and comparison of the local impact of
several case study enterprises in East Africa. In order to do this, a common
methodology was developed (in 1988). The way in which the methodology fits
into the wider project is summarised in Figure 1. Figure 1 How the methodology
fits into broader AWF project objectives Intended process Also generates
Integration of sustainable development and local development Guidance to
enhance wildlife enterprises Overview of effectiveness of wildlife enterprises
Highlights key issues, including ‘fit with livelihoods’ Case studies of impacts
Recommendation to projects to enhance impacts Demonstration of SL approach
and importance of livelihood impact analysis A handbook on the methodology for
others to use Focus of this WP Methodology for assessing economic and
livelihood impacts of wildlife enterprises 13 Assessment of local development
impact often focuses excessively or exclusively on how much cash, how much
increased production, or how many jobs are generated, rather than on a broad
range of livelihood issues. The first two case studies − for which fieldwork was
conducted in late 1998 − were both in Kenya: • Il Ngwesi lodge is a tourism lodge
run by a Group Ranch1 in Laikipia District, near Mount Kenya • Kipepeo Project is
a butterfly-farming enterprise located within the Arabuko Sokoke Forest
Conservation project, near the Kenyan coast Fieldwork has now been completed
for two further case studies in Tanzania and will be conducted for a case study in
Uganda during early 2000. The methodology itself was further developed during
the initial case studies, and was written up in 1999 (Ashley et al., 1999b). 2.2 The
need to develop impact assessment methods Despite much existing work on
various aspects of impact assessment, it was deemed necessary to develop a new
approach, with a somewhat different focus, for the assessment of wildlife
enterprises. There were three main reasons for this. • Assessment of local
development impact often focuses excessively or exclusively on how much cash,
how much increased production, or how many jobs are generated, rather than on
a broad range of livelihood issues. This is particularly true in conservation and
development projects, which have only recently come to embrace wider social
issues. • Project impact assessment tends to be oriented towards internal
management issues, focusing on the achievement of existing project objectives,
through planned activities. To gain a picture of the broader development and
poverty reduction impact of projects, assessments must take a longer-term view,
looking at both the intended and unintended consequences of projects across a
variety of livelihood concerns. They should also look beyond target beneficiaries
to consider all stakeholders. • Commercial viability is critical if wildlife enterprises
are to survive long-term. Commercial aspects must therefore be carefully
scrutinised. This is quite different from looking at economic indicators of impact,
such as local income streams. The AWF methodology was designed to answer
these concerns. It entails three core strands of analysis: (i) commercial viability;
(ii) local financial impact; and (iii) livelihood impact. Stakeholder analysis
underpins the whole. This working paper focuses on the livelihood analysis
component, within the context of the broader project. Details of the commercial
viability and local financial impact analysis can be found in the methodology
handbook. 2.3 Conventional, participatory, and SL approaches to impact
assessment 2.3.1 Conventional approaches Conventional project evaluation
usually focuses on assessing whether a project has met its stated (logframe)
objectives and contributed to the achievement of the overall project goal. It uses
criteria of project relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability
and looks at both intended and unintended impact. Analysis takes place at set
points during the project cycle: during project 1 A registered group (in this case,
comprising around 500 pastoral households) with collective tenure rights over
their land. 14 implementation (mid-term review); at project completion; and
several years after completion (ex-post evaluation). Impact assessment is usually
conducted by outside experts. The team tends to work with the indicators that
were defined at the start of the project, seeking to collect quantitative data to
ensure ‘scientific objectivity’, comparability and statistically valid samples (though
qualitative data collection techniques and checklists are also used). Conventional
methods therefore tend to create a degree of distance between those assessing
impact and project participants/beneficiaries. Impact indicators used in
conventional conservation impact assessment tend focus on cash/economic
issues – because these are considered key to creating incentives for conservation
– combined with biophysical indicators (e.g. changes in vegetation, wildlife
populations). 2.3.2 Participatory approaches Participatory monitoring and
evaluation (PM&E) is emerging as an alternative to conventional approaches.
PM&E makes use of a range of techniques, tools and approaches to assess the
impact of development activity (Estrella and Gaventa, 1998). It involves ‘local
people, development agencies, and policy makers deciding together how progress
should be measured and results acted upon’ (IDS 1998), allowing intended
beneficiaries to contribute to the definition of project ‘success’. Indicators are
developed through a consultative process with all actors and all are involved in
data collection and analysis. Indicators may be both qualitative and quantitative,
but PM&E relies to a great extent on qualitative judgements made by local people
and project staff rather than on the interpretation of quantitative data by outside
experts. Some feel this does not impart enough neutrality to the analysis as
villagers selectively share knowledge and speak for their own purposes and
objectives. 2.3.3 The livelihoods approach The livelihoods approach differs from
conventional evaluations in its central focus on people’s lives rather than on
resources or defined project outputs. As we have gained an improved
understanding of poverty in recent years, three key facts have been highlighted.
First, well-being is not only about increased income. Other dimensions of poverty
that must be addressed include food insecurity, social inferiority, exclusion, lack
of physical assets, and vulnerability. Second, household poverty is determined by
many factors, particularly access to assets and the influence of policies and
institutions. Third, livelihood priorities vary; outsiders cannot assume knowledge
of the objectives of a given household or group. Project impact assessment must
therefore be based upon a prior understanding of people’s objectives as well as
on an informed view of how their livelihoods are constructed and which factors
are the essential causes and manifestations of their poverty. The sustainable
livelihoods (SL) approach to development and poverty reduction tries to take all
these concerns into account. It aims to promote development that is sustainable
not just ecologically, but also institutionally, socially and economically and to
produce genuinely positive livelihood outcomes (rather than concerning
themselves with narrow project outcomes, with resources or with output) (Ashley
and Carney, 1999). ‘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 and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the
future, while not undermining the natural resource base’ (Carney, 1998). When it
comes to impact assessment, this means that changes in measurables (e.g. cash,
yield) must be assessed not in their own right, but in terms of the contribution
they make to livelihoods. That 15 Changes in the way people live their lives may
be just as important as more obvious changes in what they achieve. contribution
may be direct (e.g. adding to income, health, food etc.) or indirect (affecting their
assets, activities and options, and ability to cope with shocks). Changes in the way
people live their lives may be just as important as more obvious changes in what
they achieve. Both are considered within livelihoods assessments. Other key
features of such assessments are the emphasis on cross-checking multiple types
of data (qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective) and on assessing
both local-level and higher-level (regional, national, international) influences on
livelihoods. The livelihoods approach draws on aspects of both conventional
evaluation and PM&E. As in conventional evaluation, it employs a variety of
methods and data types. As in PM&E, it is peoplecentred and attempts to assess
impact based on people’s own perspectives. This means that it must use
participatory appraisal techniques to work with all stakeholder groups. However,
unlike PM&E, the aim of the type of livelihoods assessment described here is for
outsiders to learn from participants to yield a relatively objective set of
information, rather than to enable participants to learn and assess for
themselves. The overall framework used to structure data collection and analysis
comes from outside, although indicators of impact are developed ‘internally’. The
approach is therefore not radically participatory; it does not place empowerment
at the centre of the agenda for assessing project impact and participatory tools
are used as a means rather than an end.2 . 2.4 What does livelihoods assessment
achieve? There is no set way for conducting a livelihoods assessment, though it is
usually important to gain an understanding of three key themes: • Current
livelihood strategies, achievements and priorities • How livelihood strategies and
achievements are influenced by the project, and what are the key internal and
external influencing factors; and • Differences between stakeholder groups
Analysis of this type is not likely to conclude that a specific wildlife enterprise has
changed x livelihoods by y percentage in z ways. Many livelihood improvements
are not amenable to quantification. Furthermore, small projects (such as single
wildlife enterprise) may not on their own substantially change overall livelihood
security or sustainability (except for a few individuals). Nevertheless, analysis can
highlight the incremental effect of a project on livelihoods and the aspects of
change that are of greatest importance to different groups. Such an
understanding can provide: • An indication of positive and negative livelihood
impacts that is more realistic, comprehensive and people-centred than many
other approaches (for example cost-benefit analysis); • An explanation of why
and how particular stakeholders participate (or fail to); and • A guide as to how
projects might be re-shaped to enhance positive impacts, reduce negative
impacts and encourage the participation of specific groups. 2 Livelihood analysis
can be combined with more participatory engagement with communities, but this
involves a different approach. See Namibian example in Ashley (2000) ‘Applying
Livelihood Approaches to Natural Resource Management Initiatives: Experiences
in Namibia and Kenya’, ODI Working Paper 134. A single project may not
substantially change livelihood security in quantifiable terms. Nervertheless
livelihood impact assessment can highlight how it ‘fits’ with livelihoods, any
incremental changes, and how impacts can be enhanced. 16 17 PART B: THE
METHODOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATION IN KENYA 18 19 3. The AWF impact
assessment methodology 3.1 The overall approach This section begins by
describing the overall AWF methodology for impact assessment. It follows with
discussion of the specific components focused on livelihood impacts. The impact
assessment was conducted in distinct stages: Step 1: getting started and planning
the process Step 2: information gathering Step 3: analysis and interpretation Step
4: presentation and dissemination of the findings 8 key questions were identified
to define the scope of the review, as listed in Table 1. The first 6 questions –
covering stakeholder differences, commercial viability, local income streams and
livelihood impacts – are intended to provide the basis for answering the last 2, on
the overall development and conservation impact of the enterprise. 3.2 Assessing
livelihood impact The aim of a livelihoods assessment is to gain an understanding
of the significance of the project to the livelihoods of project participants and
other local residents. Such an assessment is based on the premise that the project
and project participants shared a core aim: the enhancement of local people’s
livelihoods. The livelihood impact assessment is one part, but a major part, of the
overall review. Of the 8 questions listed, questions 4 and 5 – livelihood impacts on
participants and non-participants – explicitly focus on livelihoods. But the
livelihood impact assessment also draws on two other questions – who are the
stakeholders and what are the financial impacts (Q 1 and 3). The analysis of
livelihood impacts is the main way of drawing conclusions about the development
impact (Q 7) of the project.# Within the livelihoods assessment, there are three
key themes to explore: (i) An overview of livelihood strategies and priorities (ii)
The various impacts of the project on livelihoods (iii) Differences between
stakeholders in livelihood impacts 20 Table 1 The eight questions of the overall
review QUESTIONS NOTES 1. Who are the stakeholders in the project? The
distribution of costs and benefits (e.g. between rich and poor, men and women) is
an important consideration when judging developmental impact. • Identify main
groups of people involved in and affected by the enterprise. • Classify those with
common interests into stakeholder groups. For example, direct participants (e.g.
owners, workers, customers), non-participants affected by the enterprise (e.g.
local residents), and those who may influence the project (e.g. government). • If
necessary, further divide stakeholder groups, depending on factors such as scale
and types of benefits achieved. 2. Is the enterprise commercially viable? This issue
is essential to the AWF methodology due to the exclusive focus on wildlife
enterprises. • Assess past and potential commercial performance. If the
enterprise is not flourishing, why? If it is receiving indirect subsidies, would it be
viable without these? 3. What is the financial impact of the enterprise on local
people? This is a key concern when assessing developmental impact of a project.
Financial analysis should consider the benefits to different stakeholder groups
and how significant these are to their overall livelihoods. Estimate: (i) Wages
earned by workers; (ii) Casual earnings from sales of project-related goods,
informal sector activity and casual labour (iii) Collective community income
earned from lease fees (which may be distributed as a household dividend); (iv)
Profits accruing to enterprise owners (private or the community). 4. What is the
livelihood impact for local participants? The following types of impact should be
assessed: • Tangible (e.g. income) and intangible (e.g. empowerment) • Direct
(e.g. new services) and indirect (e.g. impact on other activities) • Positive and
negative • Intended and unintended 5. What is the impact on non-participating
local residents? The effect of the project on non-participants might be significant
in the overall calculation of development and conservation impact. Explore: •
Positive impact (e.g. multiplier effects of participants’ earnings, increased
recognition of the area by decision-makers, improved access to market or
infrastructure); and • Negative impact (lost access to natural resources used by
the enterprise, diversion of resources, increased conflict). 6. What is the impact of
– and on – government bodies, NGOs, private sector, & other external
stakeholders? It is essential to consider the role of other stakeholders who can
either obstruct or support the enterprise. • How do external stakeholders benefit
or lose from the project and how does this shape their contribution? • How do
they affect the nature and scale of project impact on local people? 7. What is the
overall developmental impact? Can the enterprise be said to be contributing to
development? In what way? • Drawing on the responses to the previous
questions: identify the main positive and negative impacts, their distribution
between stakeholder groups, key factors affecting impact, and the significance of
those impacts in the development context. 8. What is the likely contribution of
the enterprise to conservation? Is the enterprise contributing – or likely to
contribute – to conservation of natural resources in the area? • What is the
‘conservation logic’ of the enterprise? • What are the trade-offs or
complementarities between development, conservation, and financial
sustainability objectives? 21 Box 1 A simplified sustainable livelihoods framework
External influences: policies, institutions and vulnerability context used for
reinvested in people with priorities and preference OUTCOMES well-being,
income empowerment, health, vulnerability STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES ASSETS
natural, financial, physical, human and social capital generate Source: C. Ashley,
adapted from DFID (1999) Guidance Sheets and Carney (1998) The key framework
components are: Assets or capital endowments (physical capital; financial assets;
natural capital; social capital, human capital). These are the basic livelihood
building blocks. Poverty analyses have shown that people’s ability to escape from
poverty is critically dependent on their access to assets (Booth et al., 1998). Both
quality and quantity of assets matter, along with the options to convert assets
into productive activities. Livelihood activities: what people do. Poor people
usually pursue a diverse portfolio of activities, including on-farm activities, off-
farm activities and migration. Outcomes: components of improved livelihoods or
well-being3 (e.g. good health, more income, reduced vulnerability,
empowerment, food security, more sustainable use of the natural resource base).
These are what people are trying to achieve through their activities. External
influences. Institutions, organisations and policies that affect the assets and
opportunities that are available, and their productivity: e.g. government policy,
formal organisations (farmers’ groups, local authority) and informal institutions,
which include societal rules and norms (market networks, credit systems,
discrimination)4 and access to markets. Context: the context is the external
environment in which people operate. The natural, demographic and economic
context shapes people’s access to assets, and shocks and trends tend to increase
their vulnerability. People’s strategies, priorities and preferences. People’s own
priorities help shape their livelihoods. ‘Strategies’ may never be articulated, but
they nevertheless influence people’s choice of which activities to combine, which
outcomes to pursue, and which assets to invest in. For example, reducing
vulnerability and coping with drought may be priority strategies for some,
investing in family education a priority for others. The various components of
livelihoods are closely inter-related; change in one often leads to change in
others. Understanding such dynamic effects are a key challenge of the SL
approach that is not adequately reflected in the two-dimensional framework.
___________________________ 3 It is difficult to summarise in one phrase the
overall goal to which outcomes contribute. ‘Livelihood security’ is perhaps the
best shorthand for goals of poor people, and is used here for brevity. But this
emphasises the tangible issues and risks under-emphasising empowerment aims.
The livelihoods framework developed for DFID focuses on ‘sustainable livelihoods’
in response to DFID interests, but it points out that ‘outcomes’ are not the same
as objectives’ precisely because local people and DFID have different objectives
(DFID, 1999). Perhaps the strength of the livelihoods framework is that it does not
assume one overall goal, but recognises different outcomes, and suggests that the
desired change is to enhance all the different elements and their links, not just
one box or summary phrase. 4 Terms and definitions vary in the literature.
Scoones (1998) uses ‘organisations and institutions’ which roughly correlates with
Carney’s (1998) ‘transforming structuress and processes’. These are now being
renamed by DFID as ‘policies, institutions and processes’. The key point is that
external influences are not just formal bodies (e.g. councils), nor just the policy
framework which is set largely by government, but includes the way things are
done locally, markets, cultural norms etc. 22 The framework provides an
analytical structure, highlighting key components of livelihoods against which
project impact can be assessed. The approach taken by the AWF made use of a
sustainable livelihoods framework (Box 1) − based on a fuller version of such a
framework used by the UK Department for International Development (DFID,
1999). The framework provides an analytical structure, highlighting key
components of livelihoods against which project impact can be assessed, and
making the complexity of livelihoods more manageable. The assumption is that
people pursue a range of livelihood outcomes (for example better health,
increased income, and reduced vulnerability) by drawing on a range of assets to
undertake a variety of activities. The activities they adopt and the way in which
they reinvest in assets is driven in part by their own preferences and priorities.
However, it is also strongly influenced by the context (e.g. climate, population and
the effects of changes in these) and by external policies and institutions. These
policies and institutions have a critical influence on people’s access to assets and
livelihood opportunities. The livelihoods framework yields up a common set of
questions such as: • What are people’s livelihood priorities, and which of these is
the project meeting? • What are the diverse, positive and negative, short-term
and long-term ways in which the project activities affect the livelihoods of target
groups? • How are activities affecting – and affected by – the transforming
structures and processes that shape people’s livelihood options? • How do the
livelihood strategies of different groups affect the way they participate in, or are
affected by, the project? • How can activities be adapted in order to enhance
livelihood impacts on target groups while remaining consistent with other
objectives? The components of livelihood impact assessment are summarised in
Figure 2 and described in the following sections, in terms of: • The three themes
to explore – these are discussed next • The various methods of collecting data –
discussed in Section 4 • Analysis of results through a livelihoods lens,
interpretation of findings and conclusions – discussed in Section 5 3.2.1
Background understanding of local livelihoods. The first step in answering these
questions was to gain an adequate understanding of local livelihoods: • What
outcomes do people achieve? What activities do they pursue and in what ways do
these contribute to livelihoods? What assets do they have? What are the
underlying priorities and preferences that influence household livelihood
strategies? • How do external forces shape people’s options, and can people
themselves influence the external forces? • How and why are livelihoods
changing? Which changes are due to shocks or externally driven trends? Which
changes are short-term ‘coping’ strategies, and which are long-term ‘adaptive’
strategies (adapting to either new opportunities or constraints)? (Scoones, 1998).
• Which improvements (in assets, outcomes or activities) do people value most?
What changes in the external environment would help? What criteria do people
use when judging options? When developing such an understanding it was found
to be important to limit general analysis (which can otherwise become
interminable and very expensive). After gaining an adequate understanding of 23
Figure 2 Summary of the process of livelihood impact analysis 1. Stakeholder
differences 2. Commercial viability 3. Local financial impacts 6. Impacts on & of
external influences Using SL Framework to assess changes in: • Assets • Activities,
strategies • Outcomes • Links to external institutions & policy Interpretation 8
Key Questions of the Review 3 Key Themes to explore on Livelihoods Data
Collection Analysis Livelihood Strategies Livelihood changes due to project
Differences between stakeholders 7. Development impact & 8. Conservation
impact Existing literature Project documents & data Participatory analysis of
livelihood impacts & issues (PALI) Key informants Incl. outsiders Household survey
Market visits Financial records & rummaging Policy discussion Observation Fit
with livelihoods & Impact on livelihoods & Reasons why Data Synthesis 4.
Livelihood impacts on participants 5. Livelihood impacts on non-participants 24
core livelihood components, effort should be made to focus on how livelihoods
were changed or influenced by the project. Sometimes this change can be
quantified, but more often it is the direction and type of change that are
important. There may seem to be little scope for the ‘optimal ignorance’ called for
by Chambers (1995) in understanding complex livelihoods, but in fact the
principle – of ignoring what you do not absolutely need to know – remains
important. 3.2.2 Identifying changes in livelihoods The next step is to consider
project impact on livelihoods. This begins with an assessment of the widest
possible range of impacts and who might be affected. The different types of
impact can be linked to the various elements of the livelihoods framework such as
impact on assets, impact on other activities etc. Table 2 gives the more detailed
questions that need to be addressed in this process and which guided the
planning and analysis of the case studies. Table 2 SL components and key research
issues Key components of SL framework Issues to explore Assets and capital
endowments - Human capital - Physical capital - Financial assets - Social capital -
Natural capital Impact on assets: • Does the enterprise affect access to assets, or
change their quality or productivity? • If natural resources are used, are they used
sustainably? • Does it strengthen or undermine community co-operation and
institutions, particularly institutions for common property resource management?
• Does it change access to social networks of households or the broader
community? • Does it change the community’s relations with the outside world,
in terms of influence, co-operation or conflict? • Are cash earnings invested in
human capital (education, health) or other reserves (financial, physical assets)?
Are skills acquired that enhance human capital? • Are assets used up in the
enterprise activity? • How significant are these impacts on assets compared to
other sources of change/investment? Multiple livelihood activities - On farm - Off
farm - Migration - Etc. Conflicts and complementarities with other activities5 : • Is
time spent on this enterprise taken away from other activities? • Do enterprise
activities conflict with or complement the seasonal timetable of other existing
activities? • Is there competition for inputs (e.g. land, resources) between the
wildlife enterprise and other activities (i.e. what is the opportunity cost)? • Does
the enterprise develop complementary skills, assets, markets that can enhance
other activities? • Does it damage other activities (e.g. wildlife damage to
agriculture)? Outcomes (or components of improved livelihoods) - Improved
well–being (health, education…) - Increased income - Less vulnerability Direct
contribution to outcomes: • How does the enterprise contribute directly to
improved livelihood outcomes e.g. cash, food, physical security, empowerment,
sustainability? • How significant is the contribution compared to other sources
e.g. how do cash earnings compare with other sources of cash? What is the value
in terms of what can be bought? Is the timing of earnings of any significance? 5
Some of this may already be covered under impacts on assets – e.g. on labour
availability, land – but it is still necessary to consider how this affects other
activities. 25 - Empowerment - More sustainable use of natural resources People’s
strategies, priorities and preferences ‘Fit’ with livelihood strategies and priorities:
• Does the enterprise match the strategies that people use when selecting and
combining activities e.g. minimising risk, coping with drought, diversifying,
keeping assets liquid, maintaining flexibility? Context - Natural, economic and
demographic context Relevance to the context: • Does the enterprise change
people’s ability to cope with shocks or capitalise on positive trends? • Does it help
people ‘cope’ with temporary change, or ‘adapt’ to a permanent change? • How
does it relate to long-term trends – does it counter or amplify them? External
influences: organisations, institutions, policies Impacts on and of external
influences: • Does the enterprise affect any of the external forces – organisations,
institutions, policies markets, and social norms – that influence local livelihoods?
• Does it change policies or behaviour of others towards local residents? • Does it
change local people’s access to institutions and their influence over them? • How
does the policy, institutional and political environment influence the project and
its impacts? (e.g. what is the role of political culture, power differences,
institutional structures?) • How does the policy and institutional environment
affect the sustainability of project impacts? Sustainability - Resilience in the face
of external shocks - Not dependent on external support - Not compromising the
livelihoods of others or the NR base Impact on sustainability: • Does the
enterprise affect the sustainability of the natural resource base? • Is the activity
financially sustainable? • Are people more or less dependent on outsiders? • If
dependent, is the outsiders’ role sustainable in the long-term? Links between the
components, dynamic change Does the enterprise affect how households invest
their incomes into assets, or how external institutions influence household
opportunities? Does it change the underlying household priorities that shape the
livelihoods framework? How does it affect livelihood trends and processes of
change? In addition to addressing the questions posed in Table 2, it was also
found to be important to: • Distinguish between short-term and long-term
impact: which changes are immediate, which occur only over time, which are
hoped for but not yet evident? Which changes are temporary and which
permanent? • Assess differences between stakeholders: who is affected, in what
ways, and why? Overall impact for different stakeholder groups can be analysed
separately. • Identify key factors that influence the type and scale of impacts:
how the project is structured can influence impact, as can the policy environment
(e.g. tenure or credit policies), institutional issues (e.g. the power balance
between local institutions) and natural conditions (e.g. climate and seasonality). It
can be useful to distinguish between factors that cannot readily be changed (e.g.
poor women’s lack of time to participate, the external/policy environment) and
those that are more amenable to change (e.g. factors directly relating to project
implementation). • Assess the overall significance of different types of impact:
this entails addressing issues of: (i) scale of impact with respect to the inputs
invested (money, time, labour); (ii) relative contribution 26 It is important not to
be restricted by the use of an SL framework. Some critical issues, such as
empowerment, appear only obliquely in the framework yet they must be
addressed head-on. Stakeholder analysis must underpin the livelihood impact
assessment. of the impact to livelihood sustainability and security (in comparison
with other options); and (iii) the value different people attribute to the impact. •
Pay attention to relevance: not all the questions will be relevant in each situation;
a key role of the researcher is to identify the less relevant issues and the more
important but less obvious ones. For some questions the fact that there is
minimal impact can itself be significant. For example, butterfly farming involves
little time input – what labour is required is done in short bursts by family
members. This means that there are few trade-offs with other activities – an
advantage that other income-generating opportunities do not offer. An
underlying issue − common to all impact assessments − is how to attribute
causality with any certainty? Which outcomes can be directly attributed to project
activity and which are the result of a range of other factors? This will be based on
the subjective views of both participants and the evaluation team. Certainly,
many livelihood impacts become evident only over time. An assessment done at
the end of the project, or some time afterwards, will be more robust and
comprehensive. But the methodology can also be applied during project
implementation, so that emerging trends and pressure points can be identified.
3.2.3 Assessing empowerment Empowerment6 can be defined in various ways,
but it is essentially people taking control of the development process. In the AWF
methodology, empowerment issues were considered at three overlapping levels7
: 1) Empowerment of individuals, particularly people marginalised within their
communities (e.g. women, the poorest; 2) Strengthening of community
organisations and their capacity to work together for common objectives (e.g. for
common property resource management); and 3) Strengthening of a community
in its relations with outsiders and the wider society (including political authorities
and central government). 3.2.4 Assessing differences between stakeholders The
complexity of livelihoods makes it unlikely that there will be a generalised
‘solution’ to meet everyone’s needs. (This conclusion was echoed in an
assessment of livelihoods in differentiated communities in rural Mali (Brock,
1999)). The AWF methodology therefore places a strong emphasis on integrating
stakeholder analysis with livelihood assessment. In both the Kenyan case studies,
key stakeholder groups were defined at the start, with the analysis being refined
as more information was gathered. Similar issues were discussed with different
types of 6 Empowerment and livelihood security – both key components of the
development process – can be viewed as two, mutuallyreinforcing sides of the
same coin. The SL approach encompasses both, but use of the SL framework can
tend to place greater emphasis on the more tangible issues of security. 7 These
relate to two types of social capital identified in a recent study World Bank study,
which found that household income correlated with a household’s own social
capital, and also with the social capital of the community (irrespective of their
own) (Narayan and Pritchett, 1997). The middle level proposed here (community
organisation) falls between these two, in that it strengthens key networks to
which local households belong, and also provides the basis on which the
community can strengthen its external links. 27 stakeholders for purposes of
comparison, and survey data was disaggregated between groups. In addition,
differences between stakeholders were discussed directly with participants. The
methodology distinguishes between local and ‘external’ stakeholders and within
each, between participants and non-participants. The main stakeholder group −
local participants – was further disaggregated. Criteria for disaggregation can vary
(as shown in Box 2), but in addition to usual socioeconomic and gender
distinctives, it was important to define stakeholder groups by degree and type of
involvement in the enterprise, as the examples in Box 2 show. It is also important
to distinguish between groups with different livelihood needs/strategies. In
almost every case, residents will have different stakes according to gender, socio-
economic status (rich/secure, poor/insecure) and location. While groups
distinguished by these factors may do similar things in an enterprise or receive
similar benefits, it is highly likely that they will attribute different significance to
these activities/benefits, because of their differing priorities and livelihood
strategies. For example, at Arabuko Sokoke, the fact that butterfly farming is done
at home is an advantage for all farmers, but it is particularly significant for women
who generally have to combine income-earning with domestic duties. Likewise, all
farmers suffer from the fact that earnings from butterflies are unreliable, but this
is a particular cost and barrier to the poor, who can least afford to take risks. Box
2 Stakeholder categories and livelihood impacts at Il Ngwesi and Arabuko Sokoke
The Arabuko Sokoke case study assessed livelihood impacts on butterfly farmers.
• A key division which permeated all the analysis, was between large producers
and small/medium producers, as their investment in the enterprise and gains
from it were markedly different. • For some issues, but only where relevant,
differences in perspective were also noted between men and women, adults and
children, rich and poor, and between the registered family member and other
family members who farm butterflies. The Il Ngwesi Lodge case study defined
stakeholder groups both by function/involvement and geography. • Those closely
involved were distinguished from the majority of Group Ranch members. Direct
participants experience quite different livelihood impacts (particularly cash
incomes) to other members who are affected mainly by changes in Group Ranch
assets. • Direct participants were then sub-divided by function: full-time workers,
casual workers, decisionmakers, local entrepreneurs. Within these, the
involvement of women was specifically assessed. • Group Ranch members as a
whole were categorised mainly by neighbourhood, as location strongly
determines type of involvement in and impact of the lodge. Different approaches
to wealth ranking were adopted in the two cases; neither proved particularly
insightful. At Il Ngwesi it was intuitively evident, rather than proven, that the
better off households gained jobs and positions of influence. At Arabuko Sokoke
possible correlations between wealth and participation were inconclusive.
Nevertheless, the significance of costs and benefits was interpreted differently for
richer and poorer households. It was also important to set participants in the
context of the wider communities to which they belong. At Il Ngwesi, the
beneficiaries were, broadly speaking, ‘the community’ – i.e. all members of the
group ranch. At Arabuko Sokoke, participants were a sub-section of the wider
community, representing a minority from several different villages. It was
important to assess the links with the community to understand overall
conservation impact. 28 Applying the methodology required team skills in a
variety of field methods, ability to adapt them, synthesis of different types of
data, and strong analytical skills. Extra time was needed for building familiarity
with SL approaches and doing the analysis. 3.3 Resource implications This
methodology was developed and the case studies conducted largely by and for
NGOs. The projects examined tended to be relatively small in scale. And although
the AWF is large by NGO standards, and therefore able to invest a reasonable
amount in the assessments, its resources and skills are still limited compared with
those of DFID or other major donors. For each of the first two case studies, the
core research team comprised three AWF staff (AWF’s Ugandan WELD Project
Officer, AWF’s Kenyan (Maasai) Community Conservation Officer, and the AWF
expatriate Conservation, Economics and Commerce (CEC) Programme Director),
plus an overseas consultant (ODI Fellow and main author of this Working Paper),
and an AWF Canadian Intern. The team combined skills from different disciplines,
including: commercial analysis, economics, social development, participatory
techniques, quantitative data analysis, local language skills, management,
synthesis, writing and editing. It was particularly important for team members to
have the ability to apply the methodology flexibly (not as a blueprint) using both
quantitative and qualitative data. It was also important that they had strong
analytical skills and an ability to triangulate information to arrive at a coherent
analysis of complex situations. The time inputs for the first two case studies were
particularly high because of the learning process and necessary investment in
methodology and skills development. Two to three field visits were made to each
site. The main visit lasted for 7–10 days and involved three of the core team
members. The case study material was analysed and written up largely by the
AWF Ugandan graduate together with the overseas consultant. Assistance with
management and editing was provided by the AWF CEC Director. The use of an SL
approach clearly has resource implications, in terms of time, staff numbers, staff
skills and training etc. (see Box 3). The approach requires additional resources to
be invested in: • Developing the team’s familiarity with the SL approach • Using a
wide range of qualitative and quantitative techniques; and • Analysing results to
make best use of a wide range of material But SL analysis was just one component
of the AWF methodology. The integration of livelihood analysis with financial and
commercial analysis required additional expertise and technical input. In
assessing the cost of implementing the methodology, it is important to recognise
not only costs to the agency but also those incurred by local people and
institutions (for similar issues relating to PRA, see Goyder et al., 1998; Abbott and
Guijt, 1997). In both case studies, the fieldwork included several days of PRA-type
work with different groups. At Il Ngwesi a local leader attended all meetings, and
at Arabuko Sokoke, one to three local project staff joined the team each day
(partly as a learning exercise for themselves). Ensuring the cost effectiveness of
applying the methodology has two elements – minimising costs, but also
maximising effectiveness, i.e. if you’re going to do it, do it well enough to be
useful. This means learning from mistakes and weaknesses, and investing
sufficient time in analysis and dissemination – a point to which we shall return
below. 29 4. Data collection methods Box 3 Resource demands of SL analysis in
Mali Brock notes that in her use of the SL framework in Mali it was necessary to
limit the analysis and themes covered by the study due to time limitations. For
example, she states that even in a field study lasting the best part of a year there
was not enough time to gather important and relevant agricultural and land use
change data (Brock 1999:6). Key problems raised by her use of an SL approach
included: • That a large quantity of detailed and complex data were generated,
despite determined attempts to stick to the principle of optimum ignorance; •
That the combination of methods led to the collection of different kinds of data,
requiring different kinds of analysis, which were hard to co-ordinate; • That post
fieldwork analysis was lengthy and outputs were not timely. She concludes that
‘for research to be policy-relevant, the length of time needed and methods used
for analysis needs to be considered in the context of resource constraints’ (Brock
1999: 13). 30 4. Data collection methods 4.1 A broad range of methods This
section reviews the methods and tools used in the field to carry out the
livelihoods impact assessment. Some general guidance that applies to all
evaluations (whether SL-focused or not) is included, where this was found to be
particularly important in applying the methodology. Despite the focus here on
presenting a range of data collection methods and tools, it should be noted that
good planning in advance (see Box 4), and the quality of data analysis and
interpretation after fieldwork are the key ingredients of a successful assessment.
There are many different sources of information, each of which can shed light on
the three key themes that were being explored: livelihood strategies and
priorities; impacts of the project on livelihoods; and differences between
stakeholders. • Existing literature: This should be collected and reviewed before
the fieldwork starts (while seizing opportunities to gather more material during
fieldwork visits). Reports written to inform other sectors can provide invaluable
background information on livelihoods. • Interviews with individuals: Semi-
structured interviews with individuals can provide the type of important detail
that often gets lost in a group meeting (for example, who does what in the
household, time input to activities, income/expenditure items). During the case
studies it proved particularly useful to conduct one-toone interviews around the
fringe of group meetings to follow-up on key issues as they emerged. Key
informants should include non-participants as well as participants, and others
chosen specifically for their knowledge of the policy, institutional or bio-physical
influences on the project. • Group meetings, participatory workshops, PALI: The
AWF methodology developed a set of workshop activities called ‘participatory
assessment of livelihood issues and impacts’ (PALI). This entails a range of PRA-
type activities to explore livelihoods and project impacts (see Section 4.2).
Participatory meetings are a good way to reach many people rapidly, gain a lot of
information, and explore consensus and where it is lacking. They can be useful for
highlighting and comparing different views, though differences on sensitive issues
may not be revealed. However, the type of information that emerges is
qualitative, can be highly affected by the context, and the sample is self-selecting.
Group meetings were also held with non-participants, but in general the views of
non-participants were often easier to elicit through briefer one-to-one
discussions. • Household survey: The need for a survey depends on what
information already exists, what is required, and whether resources are available
to undertake one properly (to do one badly is a waste of time). Surveys can be the
only way to gain comparable data to allow for quantification, and to reach a
representative sample. But they need a tight focus, good design, field-testing, and
expertise in analysing results (Rennie and Singh, 1995). At Arabuko Sokoke, an
existing 1997 survey of Box 4 Preparing for fieldwork Before the fieldwork, good
planning must address: • Team composition and roles • Collaboration with
partners/hosts • Timetable • Budget • Objective setting • Logistics • The need to
obtain and read existing reports 31 Several different data collection methods
need to be judiciously combined. butterfly farmers and some non-participants
provided useful quantitative information on group membership, activities and
household earnings. At Il Ngwesi, no such information was available so a survey
was conducted after the initial fieldwork to: (i) cross-check emerging findings with
a wider and more representative sample (e.g. advantages and disadvantages of
the lodge were given (based on PALI results), and the respondent asked to say
whether they were of high or low significance); and (ii) ask questions on issues
not previously addressed − this was mainly quantitative data (employment, cash
sources, harambee contributions) and issues best assessed person by person
rather than in group discussions (involvement in decision-making, wildlife
damage). • Financial records and ‘rummaging’: Financial data must be gathered
while in the field. It is unlikely that data on all financial flows will be available, so a
fair degree of ‘rummaging’ is necessary (going through project records, enterprise
records, receipt books, accounts and discussing incomes or uses of income with
household members). Plenty of time must be allowed for tracking down financial
records, rummaging through them, and processing data while in the field. It is also
useful to visit shops or markets to collect local price information (e.g. price of
staple foods). Exploration of what local people buy and sell, when and for how
much, can add insights to the livelihood analysis. • Recall, records and memories:
Sometimes earlier records are available for use as baseline data. If this is not the
case, the present will have to be compared to the past through personal recall.
Assessment of institutional change, in particular, requires going back to earlier
years to search for indicators of how institutions used to operate. It is difficult to
define in advance what to look for and this may require rummaging in old
documents or open-ended conversations with people to identify changes and
continuity over time. • Observation: Observing people going about their daily
activities can be the best way to make sense of a mass of oral and written
information on livelihoods, and can provide much that words do not describe. As
Table 3 illustrates, each of these information sources can contribute to livelihood
impact analysis. The approach should be structured according to what is practical
and most likely to generate the right combination of findings. It would be wrong
to think that livelihoods analysis is done only in participatory group meetings and
that impacts on stakeholders are learned only from meetings with those
stakeholders. It is important to combine both qualitative and quantitative data
(see Box 5) and also to avoid getting too immersed in local detail, at the expense
of the bigger picture. For example, to gain a reliable perspective on the policy
context within which a project operates, it is be necessary to meet with diverse
groups − outsiders (government officials, NGO staff…), local authorities (chiefs,
headmen, representatives of the local administration…) − in addition to local
residents. The livelihoods framework can then act as the key analytical tool to
interpret and cross-check the data. 32 Table 3 Using different sources of
information to address key livelihood themes Activity Theme explored
Information source Livelihood strategies Impact of project on livelihoods
Differences between stakeholders Secondary info. • Particularly look at
information produced in other sectors (e.g. agriculture, credit) • General
information on other trends/causes of change – needed to ascribe causality to the
enterprise. • Possibly specific information related to the enterprise and its
impacts. • Check whether reports are specific to a stakeholder group (e.g. men,
cattle-owners, one area etc.) for comparison. • Or if they include a stakeholder
analysis. Project documents, enterprise records • General background. • Use
early project reports for baseline data, particularly on institutional/ organisational
behaviour. • Draw comparisons between periods/groups and places if data is
comparable. • Follow up with authors if necessary to understand raw data or
method. • Disaggregate records by stakeholder group Key informants • General
discussion of changes, problems etc. • Explanation of detailed issues (e.g. labour
allocation, marketing) • Personal histories to give historical perspective. • E.g.
with workers in the enterprise. Discuss use of income, time, trade-offs etc. • E.g.:
discuss changes in social organisation and capacity with representatives of
institutions. • Conduct stakeholder analysis & wealth ranking with local
representatives. • Ask informants about differences between groups. Assess their
replies in context of their own stakeholder group. PALI • E.g. comparison and
ranking of livelihood activities. Time-line and discussion of coping and adaptive
strategies. • E.g. pros and cons of the wildlife enterprise – discussion and ranking.
• How income is spent. • Ask about differences between stakeholder groups. •
Divide into stakeholder groups and compare results. HH survey • Mainly
quantitative data: e.g. number of members in employment. • Difficult. Need
focused but unbiased questions so identify key issues first. • Record key info to
categorise respondents into SH group. • Compare results between groups.
Discussions with nonparticipants/out siders • General discussion of livelihoods,
resources, changes, problems etc. E.g. chief, teacher, hawkers, women at well •
Impacts on them. Their opinions of impact on participants, or if unrelated, may
provide useful comparison (‘control group’ principle). • Compare their interest
and perspective with those of participants. Market visits, financial information •
Who is selling and buying what, for how much, why, when? • Opinions of traders
(if enterprise affects supply or demand) Observation • Observe what people have
and don’t have, and who does what. • Look for physical evidence of enterprise
activities and impacts as described (e.g. is equipment used? • Observe differences
in what people do or have, where, when and how. PALI = participatory
assessment of livelihood issues and impacts; SH = stakeholder(s) 33 4.2 The PALI
tool The Participatory Assessment of Livelihood Issues and Impacts (PALI)
(designed by the AWF team) formed a cornerstone of the overall approach to
livelihood impact assessment in the AWF case studies and for this reason is
discussed in greater detail. PALI essentially consists of group meetings in which
participatory appraisal techniques are used to explore livelihood issues and,
within these, people’s assessment of the pros and cons of a project. This is not a
radical participatory development tool, because it is used more to extract
information for outsiders than to empower. But the participatory element is
essential because it aims to place people, their perceptions and their complex,
diverse livelihoods at the centre of analysis. Table 4 runs through many of the
possible topics to discuss ranging from a general description of livelihoods to
specific issues relating to the project. It illustrates different PRA-type tools that
can be used for each, and what can be learned from them. The exact mix cannot
be prescribed in advance. As with any use of PRA tools, the value does not lie in
completing a matrix or time line, but lies in the Box 5 Combining qualitative and
quantitative methods: experience elsewhere Multiple methods in SL-guided
research in Mali Brock (1999) assesses her experiences in using the SL framework
for planning and implementing a research project in rural Mali and analysing the
information generated. The objective and time span of fieldwork were quite
different but, as with the approach taken here, Brock notes the need for a variety
of research combining methods to capture the complexity and diversity of
people’s livelihoods. The key elements of her approach to data collection and
analysis were: • Seeking historical data sets so that the dynamics of change in
livelihoods can be established; • Cross–checking historical data, agroecosystem
survey data, population census data, and available statistics with current survey
data. Collecting a core set of basic quantitative data covering well–being, income,
expenditure and livelihoods at village level to ensure thematic comparability
between the different villages studied; • Use of semi–structured interviews, PRA
visualisation and diagramming techniques (e.g. of causes and effects to establish
which livelihood strategies are sustainable), and ranking (of wealth, well–being
and sustainability), to assess the livelihood resources available to different actors
in a community and to establish which local institutions operate to mediate
access to these resources; • Individual migration histories and income
expenditure assessments to establish the range and combination of livelihood
strategies pursued (and by whom). It should be noted that this research project
benefited from the presence of resident researchers in villages for lengthy periods
(one year), as its purpose was research to understand livelihoods and their
context. So not all elements of the approach are necessarily suited to the
(normally) briefer process of impact evaluation. Source: Brock (1999) Failure to
integrate data An NRI/University of Reading paper in 1998 argued that ‘the
trustworthiness of information will be greater if quantitative and qualitative
approaches to data collection and analysis are combined rather than being used
separately’ (cited in Brock 1999). However, failure to integrate is a common
weakness. For example, an Action Aid study to assist staff in several countries to
develop participatory indicators of impact found that qualitative and quantitative
data were rarely integrated (Goyder et al., 1998). 34 analysis of what is said or
drawn or ranked, exploring reasons why, differences in perception, and
implications. Table 4 Topics and PRA-type tools for livelihood impact assessment
within PALI Topics Activities What can be learned List pros and cons Livelihood
strategies. Criteria for judging Rank according to: - Contribution to income -
Preference - Importance to HH. Discuss. Key activities and assets. Ball park figures
for income from different activities. Values other than cash income. Criteria can
then be discussed/expanded/ranked Generate criteria for scoring activities and
construct matrix As above but more complex. Focuses on locallygenerated criteria
(which can then be ranked). Scoring against criteria is easier to visualise for
consensusbuilding and comparing across SH groups. Incorporate the wildlife
enterprise in the above How wildlife enterprise fits into strategies, how it meets
livelihood criteria. Construct matrix of activities and needs What needs are, which
activities are pursued and why. Which activities have multiple functions.
Construct matrix of positive and negative impacts of WE on other activities
Impacts of project on other livelihood activities Current livelihood activities Carry
out any of the above in stakeholder groups Differences between SHs in terms of
activities, strategies, and impacts. Seasonality Construct matrix or discussion of
seasonality of income, work, food availability. Livelihood strategies. Main needs.
Human capital availability. Carry out wealth ranking of participants and
explanation of criteria Stakeholder identification Local criteria for livelihood
security Wealth ranking Compare with previous wealth ranking How people move
in and out of poverty and why Scenariobuilding (positive and negative) Paint
picture (verbally or literally) of positive and negative future – in general or
resulting from this enterprise Long-term trends. Long-term impacts of project
Useful if going on to joint planning. Current assets and resources Discuss: what
are the assets and resources you currently rely on to support the family (building
blocks)? How? Should identify livelihood assets, and relative importance.
Constraints Discuss: what are the constraints that prevent livelihood
improvement? Encourages focus on external influences Lists pros and cons Direct
and indirect impacts of project Rank pros and cons Priority concerns, significance
of impacts Pros and cons of WE Identify who bears costs and receives benefits
Distribution of impacts between stakeholders Discuss who does and does not
participate, why? Participation Stakeholder roles. Impacts as perceived by each. in
the project Discuss how participants are selected? Barriers to participation
(external or internal) Expenditure of earnings Rank/matrix of items of expenditure
Who decides? Impact of earnings (e.g. on needs, HH assets) Who benefits Time-
line and trends Construct time line. Discussion of key events and gradual trends.
How people coped or adapted? How are they preparing for the next change?
Household action, community action. Adaptive livelihood strategies and coping
strategies. Influence of external policies and organisations. Dynamic processes.
Role of internal organisation. Changes and causes Construct matrix of recent
major changes and their causes, then rank the most influential causes of each
Changes in livelihoods over time. Role of external influences. Significance or not
of the project as a major influence. SH = stakeholder(s) HH = household(s) 35
Discussions often start at a general level, to reveal broad livelihood strategies, and
then move to project-specific concerns, helping to reveal the fit between the
project and existing livelihoods. To ensure an adequate understanding of the
criteria by which people judge different activities, initial discussions should go
well beyond the project-related activity. An example from Arabuko Sokoke
illustrates the process. Participants were asked to list the main household
activities, and in small-groups they listed the advantages and disadvantages of
each. Butterfly farming was just a minor element of this wide-ranging discussion.
Synthesis of these results generated a list of key issues or criteria for selecting
livelihood activities (shown in the first column of Table 5). The research team
could then identify which of these were applicable to butterfly farming, and
whether in a positive or a negative way. Similar results might have been achieved
through conventional matrix ranking of activities and criteria, but a first attempt
to do this did not work well. In the second approach the generation of criteria was
less forced, though relied more on interpretation by outsiders. This information
was combined with other data gathered when participants were asked to list the
advantages and disadvantages of butterfly farming and then rank and discuss the
results. In addition, different sources of income were ranked by different
stakeholder groups according to their scale in recent years. This revealed that
butterfly income was generally in the top three sources of income for most
farmers, but the largest source of income only for the large-scale farmers. Table 5
Desired characteristics of income sources, Arabuko Sokoke1 Positive examples2
Negative examples Income is sure, low risk Casual work Agriculture Butterflies
Income is immediate Casual work Cassava Butterflies Requires little time/effort
Butterflies3 Casual work Work can be done at home Butterflies Business from a
kiosk Employment Work can be shared among household members Butterflies
Agriculture Employment Marketing can be done at any time. Product stores.
Dried fish Butterflies Possible throughout the year Tobacco/snuff4 (Butterflies)
Crops (Butterflies) Market is predictable and stable Tobacco/snuff Butterflies Low
barriers to entry (Butterflies) Business (Butterflies) Not dependent on others
Coconut selling Butterflies 1 Source: assessment of pros and cons of different
income-sources at PALI meetings. The criteria and table were derived by the
evaluation team based on the discussion. 2 The positive examples are income-
sources that have the desired characteristic. The negative examples are income-
sources for which the opposite characteristic was mentioned as a disadvantage. 3
Butterfly farming has been added to each row, to indicate whether it shares the
positive characteristic or the negative one. 4 This was translated as ‘tobacco’
during discussions, but as there is little tobacco in the area, project staff later
suggested it meant snuff. 36 Use discussion of constraints/ hope/ trends/
activities to explore people’s own livelihood priorities and then explore how
project activities relate to these. This example of comparing different activities
highlights a principle that should run through virtually all of the PALI activities: use
discussion of constraints/hopes/trends/activities…to explore people’s own
livelihood priorities and then explore how project activities relate to these. 4.3
Methodological adaptation The choice of methods to use depends on the local
situation: what is logistically and culturally feasible, how much information is
already available, how stakeholder groups are divided and can be addressed
during fieldwork, etc. The Il Ngwesi and Arabuko Sokoke case studies provide
examples of how the overall approach was adapted to fit different contexts. At Il
Ngwesi, the logistical constraints of travel in the area combined with the
importance of examining differences defined by geographical area, meant that
five PALI meetings were held in different neighbourhoods. At Arabuko Sokoke,
the days were divided differently, with two large meetings drawing butterfly
farmers from three villages at each, and two other days devoted to meeting non-
participants in the same area. At Il Ngwesi a return visit was made to draw on the
wealth of financial information at the neighbouring private ranch (that maintains
the accounts for the group ranch lodge), while at Arabuko Sokoke financial
analysis and ‘rummaging’ was focused in the project office. Appendix 1 provides a
summary description of the fieldwork at both case study sites. Broadly similar
approaches were used in the PALI at both sites, but adapted to fit with the
different skills of participants and stakeholder divisions. At Il Ngwesi, livelihood
activities were compared by filling in an activity/needs matrix (activities were
ranked according to whether they fulfilled particular needs). The PALI tools at
Arabuko Sokoke have been discussed above. At Il Ngwesi there was more
discussion of stakeholder issues within the meeting (wealth ranking and
discussion of the distribution of costs and benefits). At Arabuko Sokoke, there was
less direct discussion of differences, but participants at the meeting were sub-
divided into stakeholder groups (according to gender and scale of production) for
comparison of perspectives. Box 6 Lessons learned in an ActionAid project on
participatory impact assessment A synthesis of Action Aid experience with
participatory indicator setting revealed the following challenges. Information-
gathering and fieldwork • excessive dominance of PRA • lack of learning from
other organisations • inadequate use of pre-existing data sets • different sources
of data were not integrated well –– facilitators preferred to see methods as
bound and separate packages. • gender issues were assessed separately, e.g.
issues relevant to women were assessed, but women and men’s views on
common issues were not incorporated; • participatory identification of indicators
was found by some to be too time-consuming • indicators chosen varied between
people, places and over time, i.e. they changed their minds! • questionnaires
were of limited use due to poor design, and lack of experience in interviewing and
analysis. • villagers collected data but the opportunity to learn from their analysis
of it was missed; Analysis and interpretation • lack of guidance on analysis of
qualitative information • analysis was poorly documented • aggregation of results
led to loss of differentiation (e.g. by gender) • a reluctance to reject and prioritise
during analysis. Source: Davies and Williamson (1997) Goyder et al. (1998). 37
Table 6 What worked and did not at Il Ngwesi and Arabuko Sokoke Good things,
things that worked well Problems, things that did not work well Il Ngwesi PALI •
Facilitated discussion made it possible to cover many topics; • Held separate
women’s meeting (because women did not attend main meetings); • Managed to
avoid time-consuming Maasai monologues through effective (local Maasai) chair;
• Repetition of PALI at different sites led to improvement; •
Facilitators/translators understood the overall aim so could guide the meeting
with little intervention; • Good introduction by local leaders encouraged people
to speak out; • Facilitators were involved in the evening reviews because all based
away from home. GENERAL • Audited accounts for 1997/8 came out in time to be
used in the commercial analysis; • Good records of lodge wages and visitor
numbers for some periods were available at Lewa Downs. PALI • Some people did
not participate well at meetings; • Women did not come to meetings; • Difficult
terrain and transport meant it required much more planning and allowed less
flexibility; • Difficulties in ranking activities; • Discussion may have been
influenced by presence of members of the Board of Directors and Group Ranch
Management Committee and particularly presence of the Chief. GENERAL •
Discussions with some stakeholder groups (women, cultural boma employees)
were left late or prevented by circumstance; • No time before the PALI fieldwork
for team training; • Not enough time after the fieldwork to review and write-up
field notes. Analysis was left too late. • Fieldwork was squeezed due to cutting
time in the field. Arabuko Sokoke PALI • Break-away conversations with 1–2
individuals for detailed information, simultaneously with group discussion; •
Despite presence of Group Representatives, problem of GRs came out; • Dividing
participants into small, medium and largeproducer groups (self-definition) to
discuss income and perceptions; • Analysis of current activities gave many
insights into local criteria; GENERAL • Initial consultation with stakeholders; •
Flexibility – adapted daily to the situation; • 1997 survey provided background
information that would have been very time-consuming to gather; • Meetings
with non-participants – good to get their views; • Meeting private sector operator
– useful perspective; • Getting financial data and doing Excel analysis while still at
the enterprise, discussing results/gaps on the spot; • Cooperation from Kipepeo
team – open not secretive; • Feedback meeting to share initial findings. PALI •
Could not draw up criteria for ranking activities; • Some working groups too big,
dominated by one/few; • Group Representatives influenced discussion; • Group
Representatives and others encouraged exaggeration of butterfly earnings; • Did
not do wealth ranking of group members to identify wealth status of Group
Representatives and big producers. GENERAL • Too rushed; • A lot of pressure on
junior staff to join the fieldwork and continue their own work; • Needed more
exploration of livelihood changes for the minority of big-producers; • Bias created
as all meetings were set-up by and run with Kipepeo staff. Source: Ashley (1999)
GR = Group Representative 38 Box 6 describes more general difficulties in
developing participatory approaches to impact assessment, that were identified
in an ActionAid project. These lessons were found instructive for this
methodology. Table 6 summarises the positive and negative aspects of different
tools in the two case studies and some similar problems emerged. In particular,
the difficulty of incorporating PRA data with other sources of information, and the
weaknesses in analysis of data. 39 The analysis of data gathered using the
livelihood assessment methodology is a complex and lengthy process. 5. Analysis,
results and dissemination 5.1 Analysis of data The value of an impact assessment
depends on how well information is analysed. While ‘lack of data’ is a common
complaint of evaluators, weakness in analysis is usually a much more fundamental
problem (Casley and Lury, 1981; Booth et al., 1998). The analysis of data gathered
using the livelihood assessment methodology is a complex and lengthy process
involving quantitative analysis, interpretation, cross-checking and synthesis. In
order for this process to result in an effective representation of livelihoods, the
analysts must pay close attention to detail, while taking care not to overlook
wider, macro-level issues and the policy context. Analysis should aim to
synthesise and structure all the information generated into a form that indicates
the overall direction (positive or negative) and significance of livelihood changes,
and the key explanatory factors. Though analysis is an iterative process, that
should be fed by and feed into the work from the start, it can be useful to think of
5 stages. (i) Synthesise and structure the field data. Building tables to summarise
across issues, groups or time periods can be a useful way to structure
information. It will also quickly reveal gaps or inconsistencies. In particular, the
reported advantages and disadvantages of the project from different sources will
need to be compared, and probably put into a summary table. Differences
between stakeholder groups can be noted within the table or by constructing
several tables. Any ranking of the pros and cons should be summarised, using
scoring if appropriate. Again, results from different groups should be compared
either to produce an average (if they are similar) or to highlight differences. Such
data analysis can be painstaking and time-consuming but is essential to bring
structure to a mass of information, and to build the bigger picture. However,
there is a considerable risk of losing different perspectives in the process.
Therefore it is essential to highlight differences between sources of data and
opinions, rather than try to push findings into one consensus view. For example,
in synthesising the pros and cons of butterfly farming at Arabuko Sokoke, many
issues were common to a majority of farmers, but a sub-set of issues was relevant
only to Group Representatives. These are presented separately in the summary
table below (Table 8). (ii) Interpret the field results to address the livelihood
questions (see Section 3.2). This is where the SL framework adds value to the
analysis. For example, pros and cons can be converted into an analysis of impacts
on assets, activities and outcomes. Tables 7 and 8 show how this conversion was
done for Arabuko Sokoke. Data from PALI and the survey at Arabuko Sokoke was
first summarised, as in Table 7. 40 Table 7 Advantages and disadvantages of
butterfly farming Advantages Disadvantages Takes little time Risky: • losses due
to disease and pests • rejects (pupae not sold) Can be done at home
Unpredictable: Availability of caterpillars, survival rates, and size of market vary,
and are not understood Work can be shared among family members, including
children Payments delayed: gap between investing time and earning income Short
harvest time compared to crops Marketing has to be done immediately (within 2
days) Low investment in equipment Dependent on group representative for
supply of caterpillars and sale of pupae Group funds used for loans Generates
conflicts within groups, and between groups and non-participants Increases
access to KWS, and other institutions/sources of funding Concentrates power in a
few hands (group representatives) Recognition from outsiders Source: PALI
meetings at Arabuko Sokoke This data, combined with other information
gathered during the fieldwork, was then interpreted according to the SL
framework. Table 8 summarises the findings concerning impacts on livelihood
components and differences between stakeholders. Table 8 Impact of butterfly
farming on livelihood components of farmers and Group Representatives For
most participants Effects specific to Group Reps and/or big producers Impact on:
Positive effects Negative effects (or limitations) Positive effects Negative effects
ASSETS Human Capital Income used for school fees Physical Assets Income used
to buy food stocks Financial Assets Increases chance of being able to borrow via
group funds (Income is insufficient to eliminate the need for loans) Income used
to repay debts, build savings Natural Capital Contributes to protection of forest?
Encourages/enables households to leave some family members in the area, rather
than migrate Gain access to forest for collecting butterflies/eggs Social capital
Development of new groups of producers. Income used for bride price, enabling
marriage. Conflicts within community. Power lies with a few, others are
dependent Gain power within community and access to external agencies Group
Representatives are not valued.’ 41 ACTIVITIES & STRATEGIES Farming, schooling
& other activities Little impact due to low time input. Work can be shared within
household, further reducing tradeoff with other work Reduction in other
activities, (e.g. business) i.e.: opportunity cost of time spent on BF Strategies for
selecting activities: - Diversify - Minimise risk - Maintain liquidity Contributes to
diversification Additional income High risk. Unpredictable return. Earnings
delayed Less risky: total income variable but minimum income fairly secure
WELLBEING Cash Earnings useful Can be significant Limited and unpredictable
Earnings significant Food security Health Earnings spent on food and health
Sustainability of resources Butterfly farming is sustainable. Contribution to
sustainability of forest? Empowerment Increased communication with external
bodies Disempowered by Group Representatives Lack of capacity building of
groups Gain power and status Some earn distrust Reduced vulnerability Cannot
rely on unpredictable earnings More secure income boost EXTERNAL POLICIES
AND INSTITUTIONS Market access Gain access to international butterfly market
Market access depends on NGO and Group Representatives Control access of
members to project market Attitude of outsiders to forest conservation See that
forest is producing financial returns Attitude of outsiders to the communities Gain
status from national and international recognition Access to external
decisionmakers Improved communication with KWS, Forest Dept, and donors
Greatest access to project and other staff (e.g.: via meetings, workshops)
CONTEXT No change. Seasonality, climatic vulnerability, market-variability, land-
pressure continue, and also influence BF. BF = butterfly farming One common
mistake is to try to interpret findings without doing the necessary data analysis,
i.e. to identify implications from impressions from fieldwork and scraps of data.
The other common mistake is to do the data analysis, but leave it at that, with no
interpretation. If the data is not robust and interpretation tenuous, it is better to
acknowledge that than to simply present findings as data with no interpretation,
or as statements of apparent fact with no caveats. 42 Adaptive strategies
represent a permanent change in livelihoods, whereas coping strategies represent
a temporary change to cope with shocks or seasonality (Rennie and Singh, 1995).
(iii) Draw conclusions about impact The livelihood questions provide structure,
but still generate a diverse array of issues to consider. Answers need to be
synthesised further to draw conclusions about the direction, scale and
significance of impacts on different groups. This synthesis requires an
understanding of the priority livelihood issues in the area. There is no simple
formula for doing this, but key questions include: • Are impacts overall positive or
negative? • For whom? • What are the most important impacts? • According to
whom? • How significant are they? In what way? • Do changes alter livelihood
strategies and security, or do they just add one element (a coping strategy) within
existing approaches? Can impacts be summarised in terms of changes in
livelihood security or robustness? 8 Interpretation of the significance of cash
earnings to local livelihoods is described in Box 8 below. Interpreting the
significance of other changes, such as in access to assets, can be more difficult
and tentative, probably drawing on some projections about long-term changes
and trends. In prioritising impacts it is important to build on participants’ own
ranking of priorities and explanation of them. (iv)Identify key factors influencing
livelihood impact. Assessing and describing the main livelihood impacts is still not
enough. The next question is why are these the impacts? What are the key factors
shaping them? What is it about the project, policy or institutional context, or the
livelihood situation that shapes the impacts? This step is essential for identifying
what can be done to enhance the scale or change the distribution of project
impact. (v) Summarise overall findings and conclusions. Integrate the results of
the livelihood assessment with other components of the analysis. Draw
conclusions (in the AWF cases, concerning both development and conservation
impact) and identify recommendations. Drawing conclusions requires an
understanding of the context, and not just the details of the enterprise. Making
recommendations depends on understanding why the impacts happen, which key
influencing factors could be changed, and who are the different target audiences
for recommendations. 5.2 Quantification of results To what extent can livelihood
impacts be quantified, and to what extent do they need to be? Community
members generally do not need all the pros and cons of an intervention to be
reduced to numerical or monetary values because they can make decisions by
prioritising (identifying relative not absolute value). However, for reporting
livelihood impacts to outsiders, making comparisons with other interventions,
and identifying implications for policy-makers, further quantification is needed
(though not if this is so arbitrary and artificial that results provoke more questions
than answers). 8 Livelihood security can be defined as ability to make a living and
withstand shocks; robustness can be defined as: rising out of poverty, ability to
influence policies and institutions, ability to influence access to assets (Carney,
1998). 43 It proved very important to spend considerable effort to estimate
different kinds of financial flows, so that their significance to livelihoods could be
assessed. In both case studies it proved very important to spend considerable
effort to estimate different kinds of financial flows, so that their significance to
livelihoods could be assessed (see Box 7). Some non-marketed physical
costs/benefits can be valued by applying the prices of market equivalents, near-
substitutes or replacements (e.g. value of forest products, opportunity cost of
time, possibly even the savings function of livestock). However, the dependence
of the results on assumptions about what is an equivalent and which market price
to use will need to be highlighted. Quantified costs and benefits can be used for
financial cost-benefit analysis, by adding the estimated values to the estimates of
financial flows. Box 7 The importance of estimating – and interpreting – local
financial flows At Il Ngwesi and Arabuko Sokoke, and in other livelihood impact
assessments in Namibia9 , it proved important to integrate detailed analysis of
local financial flows into the livelihoods analysis. To make best use of the data,
two issues were critical: • Separate analysis was needed of the scale and
distribution of different types of cash income • For each type, the significance to
livelihoods needs to be interpreted Local financial impact includes all types of
cash injection to the local economy. Firstly, different types of income need to be
distinguished and estimated, such as: (i) Regular wages earned by permanent
employees (ii) Casual earnings from sales of products, informal sector activity and
causal labour (iii) Collective community income earned from lease fees (which
may be distributed as a household dividend) (iv) Profits accruing to enterprise
owners (private or the community) Earnings in each category should be calculated
separately because they are earned by different people and are likely to have
quite different livelihood significance. For each category of financial income,
estimates are needed of: • Who is earning: number of people, percent of relevant
population, type of person • How much: typical amount per person (noting
minimum and maximum or seasonality if there is wide variation) Secondly, the
significance of each type of earning to the earned needs to be assessed, in terms
of what it can buy, how they report spending it, or how it affects total level and
variability of household income. For example, at Il Ngwesi, approximately 25 men
are employed at the lodge, earning a substantial income that clearly impacts
livelihood status (e.g. on an average of 4,000 Ksh per month, they are able to buy
land, get married, or cover most food expenses for a whole household). Another
25 men and women are earning smaller, variable, but fairly reliable incomes from
an associated enterprise which is a cultural boma. These earnings enhance
livelihood security because of their reliability, but with less dramatic impact on
how people live. A large but unknown number of people have increased their
casual labour earnings – during construction this amounted to a massive 1.8
million Kenyan shillings. Finally, the Group Ranch as a whole is earning collective
income from lodge profits and other fees. This income, about 1 million Ksh per
year, is very substantial compared to any other source of revenue available to the
Group Ranch Management Committee and is facilitating investment in schools
and bursaries, though if divided between all households it amounts to about
2,000 Ksh – approximately the price of large male goat. At Arabuko Sokoke, the
categories were different, but the need to avoid one ‘average income ‘ figure for
assessing livelihood significance was the same. A dozen or so large producers are
earning substantial and fairly regular incomes which can amount to almost as
much as a primary school teacher’s salary. For the majority of producers, income
is highly seasonal, regarded as a ‘useful bonus’ which gives a substantial short
term boost to spending on food and education, but not a long-term shift in
security. For the many occasional producers, it is simply a way to earn a few
shillings. 9 See Ashley (2000) ‘Applying Livelihood Approaches to Natural
Resource Management Initiatives: Experiences in Namibia and Kenya’, ODI
Working Paper 134. 44 Although this will be an incomplete reflection of livelihood
impact, it can be a useful component, and can also help highlight some of the
differences between stakeholder groups. It is, though, important to ensure that
money-metric approaches, based on outsiders’ assumptions, do not mask relative
values to households of different impacts. Incorporating these values into the
analysis poses a greater challenge. Some intangible benefits and costs are very
difficult to quantify. They quickly become unrealistic and meaningless if efforts
are made to do so. For example, it is almost impossible to allocate a meaningful
value to human fear and insecurity due to elephants, or pride at participating in
new community institutions. But if the elephant threat is ranked by participants
as the most important concern (as occurred during participatory livelihood
analysis in Namibia) this is instructive. Qualitative indicators, such as farmers’
ranking and prioritisation of benefits/costs, can be compared with quantitative
data on tangible inputs. This can give an idea of at least the minimum cash value
of the intangibles. Some impacts are better quantified in terms of equivalent
actions, not monetary values. For example, the additional income gained might
alleviate the need to sell off one cow in times of drought, or the extra time
needed for a new activity may be approximately as much as is typically invested in
a cropping season by one person. This can reveal more about livelihood
significance than dollar calculations. 5.3 Results and dissemination Findings of
different types were useful at different levels and for different people: some for
the specific project reviewed, some for the AWF overview of wildlife enterprises,
and some more generally for those interested in applying the SL approach to
impact assessment (the latter are covered in Section 6 rather than here). At the
project level, the livelihood assessment provided • An overview of the livelihood
impacts of the project; • Indication of how livelihood strategies affected people’s
participation in the project; • Recommendations to enhance impact and
participation; • An indication of complementarity and/or tensions between the
livelihood/development objectives of the project, the conservation objectives,
and the commercial goals. The findings at Arabuko Sokoke are summarised in Box
8. 45 • The importance of fit with other activities and livelihood strategies Box 8
Conclusions on livelihood impacts of Arabuko Sokoke butterfly farming project
Livelihood impacts and contribution to development The main impacts of the
project are on the 100 or so active butterfly farmers. Butterfly farming is an
adaptive strategy for a few people (less than 10) who have given up other work
(such as selling buns) to be large producers and Group Representatives. For the
majority, it is a minor coping strategy, an additional source of income to
supplement other activities and spread risk. It does not substantially alter their
livelihood situation. Nevertheless, it has strengths as a development strategy. • It
helps households diversify their income sources; this is important as sources of
income in the areas are generally unreliable; • It represents a fairly significant
source of income for many participants; • Despite the unreliability of butterfly
earnings, butterfly farming fits well with livelihood strategies by providing work
that can be done at home, with little reallocation of resources (human, financial
or natural). These advantages are particularly important to women and poor
families. The earnings enable families to spend more on food, school fees and
health than they otherwise would. A combination of measures could reduce risk
for farmers, through technical support and pricing changes, particularly to reduce
reject rates. Although most of the positive impacts have limitations there are few
negative impacts. This is a strength, given that many projects and new economic
activities bring costs as well as benefits. The main negative impact for participants
relates to the role of Group Representatives, which creates conflict, dependence
and exacerbates unreliability of earnings. It is very difficult to assess the
significance of these costs. Measures to reduce the power of Group
Representatives would involve substantial restructuring of enterprise functions
and need prior feasibility assessment. For non-participants, the problem is lack of
involvement rather than imposition of costs – except for the squatters for whom
the butterfly enterprise could be seen as a further obstacle to their land claims to
the forest area. The development impact of the project suffers from two
fundamental limitations: • The total number of beneficiaries is small in the
context of poverty in the area • Benefits are disproportionately gained by a few
Ways of enhancing livelihood impact include: • Decrease risk and unreliability of
earnings through: technical measures to reduce losses, more information flow
about species demand, and improved distribution of payments. • Restructuring
enterprise functions to liberalise them and reduce power of Group
Representatives • Enhance access to loans through butterfly farming groups •
Review registration process to identify and involve actual participants not names
of household heads, so making direct contact with women farmers • Spread
opportunities to others with interest and access to food plants. ‘Fit’ between
development, conservation and commercial goals The fact that the project
contributes to livelihoods of butterfly farmers is creating a positive conservation
impact. But this is mainly by influencing attitudes to degazettement in the area,
through a practical and wellknown demonstration of local people deriving
benefits from forest use. This attitude change is more important than any
behavioural change of the 100 or so butterfly farmers in forest-product use due to
a change in their own cost-benefit of forest degradation i.e. the conservation
impact is therefore not necessarily proportionate to the number of people
benefiting or scale of benefits but more related to wider issues of perceptions
within the political arena. The development and conservation objectives of the
project generate additional costs compared to a purely commercial butterfly
farming enterprise. For example, working with over 100 scattered producers,
instead of a well-trained few, and using project management time to participate
in conservation discussions, increase costs but not revenues. Though there may
also be some commercial inefficiences to reduce, these development and
conservation goals are the main reason the project is working just below rather
than just above break-even. This indicates that donor subsidy to cover these
additional costs may be both needed and justified. 46 Comparing the findings
from the case studies within the wider context of wildlife enterprises more
generally, as in the AWF WELD project, four key conclusions emerged about the
livelihood impacts of such projects: • How a profit ‘fits’ with other activities and
livelihood strategies can be as important as direct outputs or costs. For example,
returns to butterfly farming are generally low, but it is a useful activity because it
does not conflict (in terms of time, location, or resources used) with other
livelihood activities, including home-based responsibilities. • Impacts on assets is
also critical. For example, at Il Ngwesi, the project’s impact on natural, physical
and human capital was found to be more important to most Group Ranch
members than the 50 or so new jobs that had been created. The
wildlife/wilderness area around the lodge supports local people’s strategy to hold
this area in reserve for emergency drought grazing. The lodge’s physical presence,
radio, and vehicle help deter neighbouring tribal groups from using the land. The
radio and vehicle also provide emergency access to hospital, which was previously
lacking. The collective income earned is funding pre-schools within the Group
Ranch. • Earnings are concentrated among a few; non-cash impacts are more
widely spread. For example, at Il Ngwesi, the Lodge has changed the livelihood
status of the waged employees. For others, it has not changed their livelihood
status, but boosts livelihood security and sustainability through the improvements
in collective assets (grazing, security, infrastructure, education and possibly in the
long-term management capacity). • Some livelihood impacts can be enhanced
through changes in project implementation. It is important to be creative and
opportunistic in maximising the range of benefits to different groups, rather than
focused on a single impact (e.g. jobs). Allowing emergency access to the
enterprise assets (vehicle, radio), encouraging casual labour opportunities (using
men not machines), fostering spin-off businesses, or adapting the timing or
location of flexible activities or payments, can all enhance benefits or reduce
livelihood trade-offs. These findings were incorporated into the overall WELD
analysis, the preliminary results of which are shown in Box 9. Box 9 Preliminary
conclusions and implications of the WELD overview of wildlife enterprises 1.
Livelihood impact is key to understanding the real development impact of wildlife
enterprises. The indirect and non-cash benefits are at least as significant as cash
flows in terms of impact on most beneficiaries. 2. Creativity and opportunism are
needed to ensure leveraging of enterprise impact through the creation of varied
and different types of benefits to reach more people. 3. Equity rather than
equality is key to effective distribution of benefits. While we cannot and should
not aim for an equal distribution of benefits between stakeholders, we can aim
for equitable access to opportunities and ability to influence decisions, and
equitable returns to effort. 4. The commercial performance of wildlife enterprises
must be strong enough to ensure sustainability. There is often a trade-off
between profit-motivation and other goals of local development and conservation
efforts. However, many enterprises could be performing better commercially
while achieving their complex goals. 5. The enterprise conservation logic must be
clear and monitorable. Links between project impacts, conservation
threats/priorities, and intended changes should be explicit. 6. There is a clear role
for governments and donors to play in stimulating beneficial enterprise
‘externalities’ from enterprises (positive development and conservation impact).
This should be done in a way that minimizes the trade-off with commercial
viability. Options include supporting service delivery systems and encouraging
policy and legislative reform. 47 The methodology demonstrated a different way
of thinking about project impacts, and the usefulness of focusing on livelihoods.
The results of the case studies were also useful to AWF for assessing tensions and
complementarities between the development, conservation and commercial
objectives of wildlife enterprises, because the livelihood analysis helps to clarify
what is needed to maximise development impact. The application of the
methodology served another purpose at a more general level: it demonstrated a
different way of thinking about project impacts, and the usefulness of focusing on
livelihoods. This is not only relevant to impact assessment, but other aspects of
project management. 5.4.1 Dissemination of findings If the findings of the impact
assessment are to be useful, dissemination matters enormously. It requires
identification of target audiences and the content and type of format that is most
appropriate to each. The production of several tailored outputs presents a
particular challenge and can be very timeconsuming. One clear target audience
for the case study findings was project staff. This involved 2-way communication
not a one-off event. The process of feedback from the review team began with a
report-back on the last day of the fieldwork. Project staff were then given drafts
to comment on, which both improved the analysis and reduced their waiting time
for written results. To disseminate findings to the wider development and
conservation community written reports are the main output. Given the
complexity and multiple layers of analysis involved it was particularly important to
try to make the reports user friendly. The reader needs clear signposts to the
structure and the conclusions. The 8 key questions used in this methodology
provided the structure of the report, many details were summarised in boxes
tables and appendices, links shown in figures or diagrams and substantial time
was invested in editing. Nevertheless, the resulting reports of 40–50 pages are
more suitable for those with a strong interest in the specific project than in broad
conclusions. Therefore several other dissemination formats are being used or
considered. In particular, a short 6-page ‘overview’ of findings from the case
studies is to be included with the printed case studies and used in other formats
and forum. The range of dissemination outputs currently underway includes: •
Full reports on each case study, available on the web; • An overview of lessons
emerging on Wildlife Enterprises, available on the web; • Publication of country
volumes (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) containing the overview, a countryspecific
introduction and the relevant case studies; • A ‘handbook’ describing the
methodology – in paper and on the web – also described through this Working
Paper, and possibly in a summary form, and; • Integration of findings into the
many other outlets in which the AWF and ODI are involved (e.g. other reports and
publications, workshops, evaluations etc.). 48 49 PART C: REFLECTION AND
IMPLICATIONS 50 51 6. Lessons learnt The case studies discussed in this paper
generated a number of lessons for assessing the livelihoods impact of
development interventions. They also yield a number of reflections on how the
methodology could be further applied in practice. 6.1 Application of the approach
6.1.1 Need for a combination of field methods The livelihoods approach requires
the use of various methods − both qualitative and quantitative − and considerable
triangulation of data. This generally requires adaptation of existing tools rather
than the invention of new ones. Stakeholder analysis is a critical starting point to
enable an understanding of the diverse actors affected by a project. PRA methods
are essential in order to find out people’s own priorities and perceptions of
livelihoods, livelihood constraints and possible solutions and to give participants a
greater voice and role in the studies. Since each activity or source of information
can shed light on several issues, it is important to keep the 3 core themes (current
situation, nature of change, and key stakeholders) in mind. This helps maximise
the value of data collection and analysis. The main conclusions drawn from the
case studies about the use of different methods were: • In the field the most
important point is to know what you aim to capture, then use ingenuity to do so;
• Flexibility, time and strong fieldwork skills are needed; • Getting information is
only half the story – analysis is as important and as time-consuming. 6.1.2 Skills
and resources An SL impact assessment can be done on NGO resources, and does
not necessarily require massive donor-funded studies or long-term research. On
the other hand, the methodology stretches NGO resources and capacity. It
requires inter-disciplinary collaboration, strong analytical skills, good local
facilitation and, in the two case studies described here, expatriate input. Data
analysis was a particular challenge. Such skills are often weak in evaluation teams
and they may be difficult to strengthen. Though this can be done through a
judicious mix of training in key evaluation methodologies (PRA; interviewing
techniques; recording and structuring the data etc.) as well as continual learning
by doing, it is difficult to combine this with additional training in the SL
approaches. Within the AWF, the methodology continues to be used by the WELD
team, and parts of it adopted and adapted for other purposes. But it is proving
difficult for NGO staff to replicate in its entirety, given the time and resources
required. 6.1.3 Sharing the approach with others The overall approach of focusing
on livelihoods has been generally welcomed. The SL framework and livelihoods
impact assessment methodology has been shown to provide a powerful tool to
establish the wide–ranging impacts of different types of projects. There is
therefore considerable rationale for sharing it with others. However, this is not
necessarily easy. 52 The importance of understanding and responding to
livelihood priorities has clearly emerged. First, for people to be able to adopt and
adapt the methodology they need to have prior skills in and exposure to PRA,
stakeholder analysis, and social science analysis. The focus should be on helping
people to adapt existing skills to an SL focus, not develop new ones. Second, while
it may help, a methodology handbook is not on its own sufficient to share ideas.
As with PRA, there is a need to learn by doing and through practice in
multidisciplinary research teams. Third, it is important not to give the impression
of pushing the SL approach as a mission; this is likely to stimulate resistance. It
must be emphasised that the ideas are promoted as an effective and flexible tool
for understanding complex realities. Furthermore, any tool can be used badly, and
to use the approaches outlined here effectively, an understanding of and
sympathy with the key principles – not the jargon – is essential. A further question
relates to the validity of measuring impact against objectives (SL considerations)
that were not explicitly defined at the beginning of the project. As the sustainable
livelihoods framework is a relatively recent development, few projects that are
currently in the process of evaluation have explicit livelihoods goals. 6.2 Strengths
of an approach focusing on sustainable livelihoods ‘Livelihoods approaches’ were
used and proved useful at two different levels: • At a fundamental level: putting
livelihoods as the focus, and enhancing livelihood impacts as a central aim in
making recommendations (SL as an ‘approach’); • In the detail of analysis:
exploring livelihood priorities of local people and how they are affected by the
projects (SL as an analytical tool). For AWF, the first use was perhaps the most
successful. The importance of understanding and responding to livelihood
priorities has clearly emerged and is influencing AWF work in other ways.
Although the methodology itself is unlikely to be replicated in full as it stands, as
understanding of livelihoods approaches broadens, elements will be used as
appropriate. In the detailed analysis, the livelihoods framework and range of
methods were helpful for understanding complex types of impact. They
represented a useful contrast with existing approaches to reviewing conservation
and development projects. The analysis also revealed new insights and project
staff found it helpful for identifying possible changes in implementation (see Box
10). The results of the analysis were probably more useful to project staff than to
the AWF in providing generalisations or aggregation regarding the broader
impacts of wildlife enterprises in the region. One problem lies in the diverse and
unquantified nature of the results, another in the difficulties of implementing the
methodology in replicable ways by NGO staff. Nevertheless, using any
methodology drawing on conventional or participatory evaluation approaches, it
would have been difficult to find the balance between compatibility of objective
data and capturing the realistic complexity of development impact. The use of an
SL framework at least provides a common structure for comparing unquantifiable
impacts, and demonstrates an approach that seeks to get close to ‘development
impact’ according to local perceptions. 53 6.3 Weaknesses of an SL approach 6.3.1
Complexity Any tool will have weaknesses. The SL framework attempts to manage
complexity by creating particular ‘categories’ within livelihoods. This led to the
analysis of impacts on each component: impact on assets, impact on existing
activities etc. However, this poses the risk of simply adding another level of
analysis with artificial distinctions and too much complexity for use by policy-
makers and project staff/partners.10 The ‘solution’ is likely to lie in using the SL
framework flexibly according to circumstances and in seeking ways to simplify the
methodology, render it more practical and make the results generalisable and
comparable. In the field, the most important thing is to keep in mind what is
needed, and to remain flexible about how to get there. In the analysis, the key is
to probe for significance to peoples’ lives and make best use of the information
gathered. 6.3.2 Gaps A more immediate problem is that there are certain ‘gaps’ in
the framework: things that do not fall easily into one category or another. For
example, power, politics and empowerment issues are not explicitly addressed in
the framework, though they are critical in defining the livelihood options available
to people. Though these themes are not totally absent, given their importance, it
may be necessary to bring them to the fore to ensure that they are not
overlooked. This represents a particular challenge in the case of non-quantifiable
issues such as empowerment, gender relations, esteem. • Empowerment. The
various components of empowerment can be easily placed within the livelihoods
framework. For example, increased skills and confidence represent an increase in
human capital. Stronger community organisation and cohesion is an expansion of
social capital. The ability to influence external forces is a strengthening of the
feedback link from people’s activities to the external structures, organisations and
processes. Empowerment itself can be included in the desired livelihood
outcomes. However, these issues risk getting lost within the framework and
within this methodology, because they are not clearly flagged, and because so far
10 But at least this avoids an alternative problem: that insufficient effort is
devoted to data analysis, leaving a mass of unstructured information. Box 10 New
insights for project staff from the SL approach At Arabuko Sokoke, two of the
clearest benefits of using the SL approach provided were: • It provided a more
finely-textured analysis of impact. The main source of documented information
on project impact previously came from a 1997 household survey, commissioned
by the project. The survey of participants and some non-participants focused
mainly on incomes earned from butterfly farming. It concluded that butterfly
income was equivalent to 87% of agricultural income for participating households
(Maundu 1997). This was welcomed as very positive impact. The 1998/9 SL
analysis produced more detail, focusing on differences between butterfly farmers
in their income, and on a wider range of both positive and negative impacts for
farmers (high risk, low impact on other activities, increased access to external
institutions). This is more difficult to summarise in publicity material, but is useful
for project staff and participants. • It helped explain why some participate more
than others. The review identified that the risk involved in butterfly production
was a particular problem for poor farmers, and was probably affecting their
participation. Project staff identified this as a useful insight (I Gordon pers comm).
54 the livelihoods framework has been used to broaden out the focus from
tangible cash benefits. Measurement of social impact is, in any case, a complex
issue. • Politics. Closely related to the issue of empowerment is that of the impact
of politics on livelihoods. Political ideologies, allegiance to political parties and
political decisions made by the authorities can be key determinants of livelihood
choices and impacts. Yet the place of politics is unclear in the SL framework used
by the AWF (as well as in the original DFID framework). One option would be to
consider political influence as a sixth form of capital; but at the same time
political systems are also transforming structures and processes that mediate
access to resources. More thought should be given to this issue, recognising the
complexity of power whilst also accepting its essential nature: power to act;
power over structures and processes and so on. • Transforming structures and
processes (referred to as external policy and institutions in the AWF
methodology). Transforming structures and processes appear explicitly in the
framework, but they failed to emerge strongly in the methodology as applied at
Abrabuko Sokoke and Il Ngwesi. Two issues require investigation: the impact of a
project on the structures and processes that influence livelihoods and the
influence of the structures and processes on the project itself. 6.3.3 Indicators
One problem that immediately arises in assessing impacts on livelihoods is ‘what
to measure?’ What are relevant indicators of improved livelihoods or sustainable
livelihoods? An initial attempt at participatory indicator setting during the case
studies generated results that were too vague to be useful. But ideally such
indicators should be agreed at the start of a project and monitored throughout.
As this was not going to be feasible, the attempt was not pursued further.
Furthermore, for most participants the issue was how the project ‘fitted’ with
their livelihoods – enhancing or constraining them – rather than demonstrably
changed them. Indicators were therefore less relevant. For a minority,
participation in the project had changed their level of livelihood security. To
assess this, the research team used indicators that had been given as criteria for
distinguishing poor and not-so-poor in wealth ranking, such as eating 3 meals a
day, ability to purchase land, and afford a bride price to get married. A second
concern, with respect to indicators, is to establish causality. This is always an issue
in assessment and, in fact, participatory methods are at something of an
advantage here. If used appropriately, flow diagrams and similar tools can help
establish which impacts are linked to particular project interventions. A third
concern is that projects may produce impact over both the short and the long
term. It is extremely difficult to make reliable projections of future impact and a
danger may be that we attribute Box 11 Lessons from the application of the SL
framework in Mali The main lessons Brock draws from her experience in terms of
use of the SL framework are: • It is vital to highlight issues of livelihood diversity
and complexity; • The SL framework is perhaps more useful for action and
development projects than for research, and is an appropriate tool for analysing /
monitoring interventions so as to assess their impact on livelihoods; • The SL
framework can be used at all stages of the project cycle – from project design,
through to monitoring, indicator development and evaluation; • There is more
hope of making the process participatory if the use of the framework is linked to
action rather than to research – the design and implementation of a specific
project. Hence its application in impact assessments is likely to be appropriate.
Source: Brock (1990) 55 value to possible future impacts that never occur. More
work needs to be done to understand how long is required before livelihood
impacts can really be assessed. 6.3.4 Subjectivity and lack of comparability
People’s ‘sense of well-being’ is a critical factor in assessing the sustainability of
livelihoods. This is necessarily a subjective judgement. Although various
participatory methods can help to define wellbeing, a problem arises in that
perceptions can change rapidly for any number of reasons. This means that
results can vary day by day, week by week, and therefore may only be valid over
the short-term. In addition, since perceptions vary from place to place, person to
person, it will not be possible to make comparisons across areas/enterprise in the
absence of some common indicators. As noted in the case studies (and confirmed
by Brock, 1999: 13), even ranking does not make possible the aggregation of
results and comparison across projects. Drawing on the points in Sections 6.2. and
6.3 above, Table 9 summarises the strengths and weaknesses of the livelihoods
impact assessment approach. Table 9 Key strengths and weaknesses of livelihoods
impact assessment STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES • Focus on livelihood outcomes
rather than achievement of project objectives • Focus on a range of impacts
important to people’s lives, not just on cash or physical outputs • Forces
implementers to learn from participants which types of impacts matter to them.
Uses a range of participatory techniques to establish people’s priorities • A tool
for exploring complex impacts at the local level while also identifying macro
influences and macro-micro links • Encourages cross–checking of different types
of data (qualitative/quantitative; subjective/objective), improving relevance and
reliability of results • Understanding of livelihoods is likely to help explain why
different groups do or do not participate • Likely to identify ways in which a
project intervention can be adapted to enhance impacts and/or participation •
Helps ensure field results are analysed and interpreted for their significance, not
just aggregated and summarised • Unlikely to provide clear quantifiable
conclusions. Can result in a mass of grey ‘pros and cons’. • Results unlikely to be
comparable and replicable due to heavy reliance of participatory techniques and
qualitative data. • Difficult to generate generalised, sector–wide, and national
level policies as required by national government and donor policy makers •
Focus on local complexities can mean insufficient attention to external
policy/institutional factors • Analysis of a mass of data is difficult, and can be
useless if done badly • Risk of over-reliance of SL framework, and hence failure to
overtly address issues of politics, empowerment, gender relations, esteem,
participation, rights etc. • Requires multi-disciplinary skills, and considerable skills
and resources for analysis NB: it is hard to distinguish between weaknesses in the
methodology per se and weaknesses in how it was specifically applied due to the
approach of those using it. These can be compared with similar concerns raised
by Brock in her livelihoods work in Mali (see Box 12 below). 56 Box 12 Advantages
and disadvantages of an SL-approach to rural research in Mali Brock found that
the SL framework could be usefully applied to different situations and groups of
people in order to describe and understand the complexity of livelihoods.
However, despite the broad validity of the information generated, the framework
and approach also had disadvantages and weaknesses. Some were highly specific.
Others, more general, reflect some similar concerns to the AWF experience,
despite the differences in the use and objectives of an SL approach in Brock’s
research. Comparability: Comparability of themes and research frameworks does
not ensure comparability of analysis and results. It was very difficult to achieve
comparability, both across the two sites in Mali, and with the sites of the related
studies in Bangladesh and Ethiopia. This difficulty was exacerbated by the fact
that different teams tended to emphasise different aspects of livelihoods. This
issue should have been given far greater consideration at the pre-fieldwork
planning stage. Data management: So much detailed and complex data was
generated that analysis was slow and complicated, and results were delayed.
Ethics: There is an ethical question about local people giving up large quantities of
their valuable time without any remuneration, either direct or downstream (this
was purely a research project). Limitations of extractive research: The research
findings represent a consultation with local people, during which they shared
certain aspects of their livelihoods. However, the analysis of this shared
information was not shared, neither was the planning of any action resulting from
the research process. The use of the Sustainability Ranking provided a case in
point: the method was adapted from a tool often associated with participatory
methodology, but the tool itself was not used in a participatory way (ranking of
local households was not undertaken by local people). If the tool had been used
in a participatory way, local people and researchers would have engaged in a
different process of sharing information, almost certainly resulting in a different
understanding of the dynamics of sustainable livelihoods. Use of findings: The
general, analytic findings of the research – such as the importance of institutions
in mediating access to resources, and the importance of linkages and trade-offs
between different strategies in constructing livelihoods – are broadly applicable
to many contexts. Specific findings, such as the exact institutional configurations
surrounding access to water in Dalonguebougou, or the benefits of living in a
complex, multigenerational household, or changes in millet yield, should only be
transposed on to other contexts with extreme caution. In terms of policy
implications, this suggests that the work could be most usefully used either to
inform a direct intervention in the village itself, or to inform a broad approach to
project design and community appraisal, but not as a contribution to describing
livelihoods at an aggregate (regional or national) level. This implies a difficulty in
making the link between micro and macro, between local realities and broader
policy issues. Source: Brock (1999) 57 7. Conclusions Although the methodology
described in this paper is still evolving, the results of the two case studies clearly
demonstrate its strong potential. The SL approach can certainly be applied to
project impact assessment. The wildlife enterprise methodology developed here
shows ways in which this can be done, provides case studies of how it was
implemented in practice, and indicates that it was found new and useful – but
also in some ways difficult. A number of lessons can be identified (Section 6)
concerning how to apply the approach and its strengths and weaknesses. One of
the greatest benefits of the methodology is that, at a very general level, it
highlighted the importance of focusing on livelihood priorities within
development and conservation projects. More specific advantages of its
application can be summarised as: a shift away from narrow project evaluation
criteria; a rich contextual and project level analysis; an ability to identify and
analyse key assets and activities critical to livelihoods; an analysis that can
determine whether a project intervention demonstrates a true or close fit with
livelihoods; a basis for practical recommendations to enhance livelihood impacts
on and participation of key groups. However, a number of challenges and
methodological issues have emerged for consideration: the difficulty in obtaining
data that is comparable across contexts; the lack of quantitative results for
aggregation to the regional or national level; and the need for highly analytical
and skilled study teams; difficulties in replicating the methodology. The
methodology seems to be more successful in identifying the broad ‘fit’ of project
interventions with livelihoods in a particular context than measurable changes in
livelihood security and sustainability. The data generated may therefore be more
useful at project level than at more macro levels; perhaps a different approach is
needed for drawing out broader lessons for national level policy. These difficulties
suggest more work is needed to develop ways to apply SL concepts to impact
assessment, and to compare and share findings across different initiatives. Finally,
it remains useful to share the approach with others, so long as it is recognised
that it has its weaknesses in relation to classic methodologies and that there is
always a need to adapt its application to specific contexts. While sharing the
specific methods is difficult, sharing the overall approach of prioritising livelihoods
has proved more successful and is probably more useful. 58 Appendix 1 Summary
description of the fieldwork at both case study sites Fieldwork at Il Ngwesi 1)
Introductory visit – discussions with key informants and representatives of
stakeholder groups. Gain background information on the area and enterprise.
Meetings with local participants: • Workers at the lodge and lodge manager –
discussed functioning of lodge, use of external expertise, and how income is
spent; • Workers at the cultural boma: met elders, women, and young men
separately – discussed functioning of the boma, how they got their jobs, how
income is spent; • Leaders within Group Ranch (members of the Board of
Directors and Group Ranch Management Committee) – discussed functioning of
the Group Ranch, decision-making and distribution of benefits of the lodge.
Meetings with external participants: • Conservation officials (Kenya Wildlife
Service (KWS)) – discussed background on project, KWS objectives, input and
perspective on impacts; • Laikipia Wildlife Forum representative – discussed LWF
objectives and how Il Ngwesi fits in; • Lewa Wildlife Conservancy – discussed type
and amount of support provided to the Il Ngwesi enterprise, Lewa objectives and
perspective on impacts. Collection of some financial data. 2) Second visit – to
collect financial information and to set up third visit for participatory livelihood
assessment and stakeholder analysis. 3) Third visit – main fieldwork. PALI group
meetings for participatory livelihood assessment and review of lodge impacts.
Five separate meetings doing similar activities at 5 neighbourhoods: • Wealth
ranking of households within the neighbourhood • Listed current livelihoods
activities • Listed household needs. Constructed matrix showing which activities
meet which needs • Discussed pros and cons of the lodge • Identified distribution
of costs and benefits across stakeholder groups. Discussed why Plus •
Observation (e.g. of whether schools that received lodge funds were
built/operating); • Meetings with other stakeholder groups, including women,
lodge workers and members of Group Ranch Management Committee; • Meeting
with Cultural Boma Committee was disrupted by security problems elsewhere in
the Group Ranch. 4) Household survey of: • Employment, income sources,
expenditure • Awareness of lodge, ranking of impacts, employment in lodge •
Involvement in decision-making for the lodge or group ranch • Contributions to
harambee (collective fund-raising) • Wildlife and conservation. Experience of
wildlife damage Key secondary information used before and after the fieldwork
included: • Financial and economic analysis of wildlife in Laikipia (AWF) • PRA
done by Kenya Wildlife Service • Socio-economic strategies of pastoral
households in Mukogodo (Herren) 59 Appendix 1 continued Fieldwork at Arabuko
Sokoke 1) Initial visit to make contact, gather background information and set up
second visit. 2) Main visit: Meetings with external stakeholders Project
management, Kenya Wildlife Service, Forestry, Birdlife – to discuss project history,
institutional objectives and perspective. Meeting with Group Representatives
(leaders of farmers) Introductions including good and bad events – context
setting. Pros and cons of butterfly farming (in 2 groups, with report back and
discussion). Ranking of expenditure of butterfly income on different items (using
leaves and symbols on the ground). Discussion of changes over time in work and
income. PALI meetings with butterfly farmers two meetings held, with members
from 2–4 butterfly farming groups at each: • Historical time line, discussion of
change • Discussion of coping strategies during drought (linked to time line) •
Listing sources of income, comparison (pros and cons), ranking as source of
income last year (in male and female groups with report back). • Working groups
according to scale of production (small, medium, large) to discuss butterfly
production, income, expenditure, and pros and cons. • Break-away discussions
with individuals e.g. on wealth ranking, time input, production losses. Meeting
with private butterfly producer Discussed structure of the business. Key factors
affecting profitability. Meeting with Location Chief Livelihood strategies, wealth
categories, forest conservation, price information. Meeting with non-participants
Two meetings were held in 2 locations [correlating with the meetings with
members], with some difference in structure and content. Individual discussions
were also held at nearby homesteads) Main issues included: • Livelihood activities
• Perception of butterfly farming • Attitude to forest conservation Collection of
financial data At project office in collaboration with project staff. Follow-up
discussions with butterfly farmers To fill gaps, e.g. whether/how choose species
to farm, whether know about money in group account, attitude to forest. Feed-
back meeting to project staff Summarise main impacts – financial, livelihood,
development, conservation. Discussion of key issues. Key secondary sources used
before and after the fieldwork: 1993 and 1997 surveys for the Kipepeo Project
PRA reports done by the project at 2 locations Livelihood-PRA tools from Rennie
and Singh 1995 60 References Abbott, J. and Guijt, I. (1997) ‘Changing views on
change: a working paper on participatory monitoring of the environment’.
London: IIED. Ashley, C. (1999) Financial and livelihood impacts of butterfly
farming at Arabuko Sokoke forest. Kenya: AWF. Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999)
Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. London: DFID. Ashley, C.,
Elliott, J., Sikoyo, G. and Hanlon, K. (1999) Handbook for Assessing the Economic
and Livelihood Impacts of Wildlife Enterprises. Kenya: AWF. Ashley, C. (2000)
‘Applying Livelihood Approaches to Natural Resource Management Initiatives:
Experiences in Namibia and Kenya’, ODI Working Paper 134. London: ODI. Booth,
D., Holland, J., Hentschel, J., Lanjouw, P. and Herbert, A. (1998) ‘Participation and
combined methods in African poverty assessment: renewing the agenda’. Social
Development Division Africa Division, February. London: DFID. Brock, K. (1999)
‘Implementing a sustainable livelihoods framework for policy-directed research:
reflections from practice in Mali’. Brighton: IDS. Carney, D. (ed.) (1998)
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What contribution can we make?. London: DFID.
Casley, D. and Lury, D. (1981) Data collection in developing countries. Oxford:
Clarendon Press. Chambers, R. (1995) ‘Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality
counts?’, Discussion Paper 347. Brighton: IDS. DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods
Guidance Sheets. London: DFID. Estrella, M. and Gaventa, J. (1998) ‘Who Counts
Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review’, Working
Paper 70. Brighton: IDS. Goyder, H., Davies, R. and Williamson, W. (1998)
Participatory impact assessment. UK: Action Aid. IDS (1998) ‘Participatory
monitoring and evaluation: learning from change’, IDS Policy Briefing 12. Narayan,
D. and Pritchett, L. (1997) Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social
Capital in Rural Tanzania. Washington, D. C.: World Bank. Rennie, J. K. and Singh,
N. C. (1995) Participatory research for sustainable livelihoods: a guidebook for
field projects. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Scoones, I. (1990) ‘Investigating the difference: applications of wealth ranking and
household survey approaches among farming households in Zimbabwe’,
Development and Change. Scoones, I. (1998) ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A
Framework for Analysis’. Working Paper 72. Brighton: IDS.

Assessing the Livelihood Benefits to Local Communities from the Profafor Carbon
Sequestration Project, Ecuador M Milne and P Arroyo Developing Mechanisms for
Rewarding the Upland Poor in Asia for Environmental Services They Provide
Published in 2003 The Program for Developing Mechanisms for Rewarding the
Upland Poor in Asia for Environmental Services They Provide (RUPES) is supported
by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Published by:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Office PO Box 161,
Bogor 16001, Indonesia Tel: +62 251 625415, 625417; fax: +62 251 625416, email:
icraf-indonesia@cgiar.org ICRAF SEA webstite:
http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea Layout by: Kusuma Wijaya Cover
design by: Dwiati Novita Rini INTRODUCTION The Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, is one of three ‘flexibility
mechanisms’ available to industrialised countries (Annex 1 countries) to meet
their emission reduction targets and also contribute to sustainable development
of non-Annex 1 countries. A pilot phase called ‘Activities Implemented Jointly’
(AIJ) was initiated to explore ways of implementing CDM-like projects and
institutionalising, in the future, the provision for working jointly to achieve
emissions reductions objectives. Drawing on experiences from the AIJ pilot phase,
it is possible to begin assessing whether or not land use, landuse change and
forestry (LULUCF) projects have the potential to protect carbon and biodiversity,
and simultaneously contribute to long-term sustainable rural development. This
study assesses the actual and potential livelihood impacts of PROFAFOR, a carbon
sequestration project in Ecuador, in the knowledge that the AIJ phase projects did
not have a sustainable development requirement, but that this was an
opportunity to explore the livelihood opportunities and risks of LULUCF projects.
For PROFAFOR, addressing the livelihood needs of contracted communities will
help to increase the duration of the carbon sequestered. METHODS A modified
sustainable livelihoods approach and financial budget analysis were adopted to
examine the local livelihood implications for communities involved in the projects.
The ‘before project’ status of community activities, income sources and capital
endowments (financial, environmental, human, social and physical) were
evaluated to provide a ‘business as usual’ scenario. The short-term and long-term
livelihood impacts of the projects were then assessed, in terms of actual and
potential changes in activities, income sources and assets. Long-term financial
profitability and expected revenues of community enterprises were calculated,
considering best case and worst case scenarios. Primary data were obtained from
7 community workshops and four interviews on-site with individual landholders.
The information was verified through interviews with the project teams, non-
government organisations, government officials, research institutes and timber
buyers. Financial data were collected from the project managers and independent
sources. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the study were: (1) To assess the potential
of forest carbon projects to contribute to improving the livelihoods of rural
communities in developing countries in the short term and long term. (2) To
identify a number of constraints and opportunities both internal and external to
the project that may affect the level of livelihood and financial benefits to local
communities. (3) From the analysis, identify conditions and processes that could
improve the probability of improving sustainable rural livelihoods through forest
carbon projects. STATUS OF COMMUNITIES The communities working with
PROFAFOR in the Andes of Ecuador are both Indian and mestizo (mixed Indian
and Spanish). Many of their lands are former haciendas, which have been over-
cultivated and over-grazed by the previous landowners. Reduced livestock and
agricultural income in the communities is increasing the number of youths
migrating to the cities for employment. In terms of forest plantation activities,
plantations of exotic species are already well-established in the Andes. Of the
surveyed communities, five out of seven already had plantations. PROFAFOR
CONTRACTS The communities who have made contracts with PROFAFOR have
leased their communal land to establish plantations of both native and exotic
species. Many communities have selected areas with low opportunity cost,
planting on steep slopes and degraded sites. Others have planted on former
grazing land. Most of the community contracts are for 15 to 20 years, but new
contracts with PROFAFOR are now only made for 99 years. The project provides
establishment and maintenance subsidies and technical assistance for the first
three years of the project, and in return the beneficiaries are obligated to
maintain the plantations under a selective cutting regime. The project
beneficiaries are entitled to all the revenues from firewood, pulpwood and timber
and non-timber products from the plantation but they will not earn revenues
from the trading of carbon offsets. The foreign investors will receive 100% of the
certified emission reductions (CERs). 2 RUPES Regional Inception/Planning
Workshop SHORT-TERM IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY ASSETS In the short term, the
financial contribution, technical assistance and provision of planting material by
PROFAFOR have, to differing degrees, increased the financial, environmental,
human, social, and physical capital of project participants. In most cases, the
subsidy had been used for paying local wages and food for the community
members in establishing the plantation and the surplus funds had either been
used for community or individual needs. Since the project prohibits the grazing of
livestock and agricultural activities in the plantations, there were some reported
community conflicts over the use of the land under plantation. SHORT-TERM
LIVELIHOOD IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND INCOME The project has
provided the communities with the opportunity to either expand their existing
exotic plantation area or diversify on-farm activities. Many of the surveyed
community members were experiencing reduced income from livestock and
agricultural activities and hence the project subsidy to establish the plantation
had provided local employment and additional income. LONG-TERM LIVELIHOOD
IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES All communities expected that the plantation would
generate increased income for community members in the future. Community
projections of the importance of forestry activities, particularly in terms of
contribution to income, were varied. In a few cases, if existing constraints to
livestock and agricultural activities continued, forestry activities were likely to
replace agricultural activities. Some communities were establishing plantations to
diversify their income base whilst others were expecting timber revenues to
become the major income source for the community. Given decreasing returns
from other on-farm activities, the project contracts for 15 to 20 years represent a
potentially profitable investment for the surveyed communities, particularly to
those with plantations of exotic species. Fire, harsh climatic conditions, pests and
diseases, and access to markets were noted as the major risks to the profitability
of the plantations. However, under the new 99-year contracts, only communities
interested in both financial and environmental benefits are likely to gain. As a
purely financial investment the 99-year contracts are likely to be unprofitable,
especially if the opportunity cost of the land increases in the future. Community
members would be better off establishing plantations under other schemes,
where contract conditions are more flexible. PROJECT CONSTRAINTS Although
only one community had signed a 99-year contract at the time of the study, the
livelihood impact of such contracts on rural Andean communities is likely to be
negative. In these communities, populations are increasing, hence the demand for
individual grazing and agricultural land is also on the rise. If the communities
decide to convert the plantations to other land uses they are under contract to
give 30% of the timber revenues to the project. On-farm activities are currently
constrained by the lack of irrigation and access to credit but if these conditions
change, other land uses may become more profitable, increasing the opportunity
cost of land under plantations. At this stage, PROFAFOR has not provided
community incentives to ensure the plantations are kept for the duration of the
contract. Instead, PROFAFOR has adopted a ‘disincentive’ approach to try and
prevent communities converting their plantations to other land uses. Penalties
have been established whereby contracted communities lose about 30% of their
timber revenues if contracts are broken. It is as yet unknown how enforceable
these penalties are and whether they will act as a sufficient deterrent to the clear
cutting of plantations, especially if community income sources are limited. 3
Puncak, 6-8 February 2002 RECOMMENDATIONS Forest carbon projects have
multi-stakeholders and multi-objectives. To ensure that all objectives are met and
that no stakeholder is made worse off, it is important to identify potential trade-
offs and conflicts of interest at the start of the project. In the two case studies,
the community members were not expected to receive benefits directly from the
carbon offsets, but instead earn income from project related activities. At the
outset, projects managers should implement socio-economic assessments in
communities that are interested in participating in the projects or are expected to
be impacted on by project activities, in order to identify initial risks and
opportunities to project goals. In particular, the opportunity cost of land under
the project needs to be assessed in detail before projects are implemented. Once
projects are implemented, monitoring of socioeconomic conditions should
continue, thereby capturing changes at the community level that may impact on
the goals of the project. Since forest carbon projects have a longer time frame
than most development projects, project designers need to provide adequate
incentives to stakeholders to ensure their long-term commitment and enter into
collaborative and flexible partnerships with communities. For poorer communities
with limited land, inflexible long-term contracts are likely to have adverse
livelihood impacts, and may also be counter productive to achieving the carbon
sequestration goals. Most forest carbon projects have invested in longterm
benefits to communities, either through supporting community plantation
activities or supporting local enterprises. In doing so, project managers will need
to ensure that the community members receive adequate training and
information on both the production and the marketing side, to develop profitable
and sustainable enterprises. If community ventures do not generate adequate
funds for the community, the project risks negative leakage and early emission of
carbon.
LIST OF LIVELIHOOD PROJECTS (STATUS) BOTTOM-UP BUDGETING (BUB) FY 2013
NO NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA
PROJECT STATUS 1 DOLE/Support to Livelihood & Employment LAPU-LAPU CITY
(OPON) 600,000.00 2 Support to Livelihood and Employment LAPU-LAPU CITY
(OPON) 1,250,000.00 completed 3 Livelihood and Emergency Employment
Program for displaced workers MADRIDEJOS 300,000.00 completed 4 DOLE,
Supplemental Liivelihood and Investment CITY OF GUIHULNGAN 1,027,820.00
completed 5 Livelihood and Employment Program LA LIBERTAD 2,050,000.00
completed 6 Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program for displaced
workers MABINAY 5,000,000.00 completed 7 Livelihood and Emergency
Employment Program for displaced workers MANJUYOD 1,200,000.00 completed
8 Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program for displaced workers
TAYASAN 51,000.00 9 Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program for
displaced workers ZAMBOANGUITA 150,000.00 completed 10 Livelihood and
Emergency Employment Program for displaced workers LAZI 1,600,000.00
completed TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA BALILIHAN 2,000,000.00 1
Enhancement Of Farm Production Through Provision Of Subsidy For Registered &
Certified Palay Seeds To Farmers 750,000.00 on-going 2 Enhancement Of Farm
Production Through Provision Of Farm Inputs 1,000,000.00 on-going 3
Enhancement Of Farm Production Throughprovision Of Subsidy For Registered &
Certified Corn Seeds 250,000.00 on-going BIEN UNIDO 1,000,000.00 4 Provision
Of Agricultural Inputs To Farmers 1,000,000.00 on-going BILAR 100,000.00 5
Fertilizer Micro Financing 100,000.00 completed BUENAVISTA 399,000.00 6
Livestock Program (Cattle Dispersal) 399,000.00 completed CALAPE 2,800,000.00
7 Purchase Certified & Hybrid Rice And Vegetable Seeds For Livelihood
1,000,000.00 on-going NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE
PROJECT LIST OF LIVELIHOOD PROJECTS (STATUS) BOTTOM-UP BUDGETING (BUB)
FY 2014 REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION Page 1 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME
OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY
OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 8 Purchase Of Fertilizer For
Livelihood 1,500,000.00 on-going 9 Breeder'S Assistance (Carabao Dispersal For
Livelihood) 300,000.00 on-going CANDIJAY 1,125,750.00 10 Cattle Dispersal
598,500.00 on-going 11 Hog Raising 237,500.00 on-going 12 Poultry Raising
289,750.00 on-going CARMEN 850,000.00 13 Rice Seeds Subsidy/High Value
Commercial Crops 850,000.00 on-going CATIGBIAN 200,000.00 14 Capital For
Livelihood: Poultry And Goat Raising 200,000.00 completed DAGOHOY
1,810,000.00 15 Womens Skills Training-Hog Dispersal 90,000.00 on-going 16
Certified Seeds (Subsidy 60/40) 960,000.00 on-going 17 Seed Subsidy Of Corn
20,000.00 on-going 18 Duck Raising, Training And Financial Assistance 500,000.00
on-going 19 Cattle Fattening, Training And Financial Assistance 240,000.00 on-
going DAUIS 250,000.00 20 Sustainable Livelihood Program (Goat Production)
250,000.00 completed Page 2 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO.
NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE
DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION DIMIAO 190,000.00
21 Hybrid Rice And Corn Subsidy 190,000.00 completed DUERO 4,002,000.00 22
Farm Inputs Subsidy On Seed (Palay&Vegetables) And Fertilizers 1,900,000.00
completed 23 Provision Of Livelihood Assistance For: A. Fish TradingCapital
(Fisherfolks); B. Native Chicken Production (Pwd); C. Dressmaking Livelihood For
Women; D. Skills Training For Meat Processing; E. Provision Of Fish Aggregating
Device (Payaw), Pumpboats 2,007,000.00 completed 24 Employment Facilitation
Activity 95,000.00 completed Page 3 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA
NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR
THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION GARCIA
HERNANDEZ 1,425,000.00 25 Acquisition Of Certified/Hybrid Seeds (Rice And
Corn) 475,000.00 completed 26 Acquisition Of Fertilizer 950,000.00 completed
JAGNA 5,480,000.00 27 Fish Aggregating Device-Payao 212,500.00 on-going 28
Establishment Of Tilapia Holding Pond & Hatchery 595,000.00 on-going 29
Sustainable Agricultural Production (Community Seed Banking; Cacao, Coconut;
Glutinous Rice; Banana; Ube) 1,700,000.00 on-going 30 Carabao/Cattle Dispersal
850,000.00 on-going 31 Livelihood Projects (Development Of 10 Existing
MicroEnterprises) 1,700,000.00 on-going 32 Capacity Development Of Pos
422,500.00 on-going LILA 1,500,000.00 33 Livelihood Program (Vegetable
Production, Tilapia Production, Backyard Gardening, Native Chicken Raising,
Maguey Rehabilitation,Provision Of Fishing Paraphernalias) 1,500,000.00
completed Page 4 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF
PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION LOBOC 2,000,000.00 34 Swine
Breeding And Fattening And Providing Technical & Marketing Support
2,000,000.00 completed LOON 1,500,000.00 35 Establishment Of Fishpens/Cages
And Fish Traps 500,000.00 on-going 36 Provision Of Fishing Paraphernalia;Seeding
Of Marine Fry Of Fish, Crabs, Sea Cucumber, Abalone And Tilapia; Capability
Building Activities,Etc. 400,000.00 on-going 37 Livestock Dispersal 400,000.00 on-
going 38 Poultry Dispersal 200,000.00 on-going MABINI 1,000,000.00 39 Provision
Of Livelihood Projects (Capitalization) 1,000,000.00 on-going Page 5 of 22 TOTAL
AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR
THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION MARIBOJOC 2,261,000.00 40 Purchase Of Fishing Boat &
Equipment/Gears 1,900,000.00 on-going 41 Purchase Of Livelihood Equipment
(Sewing Machines And Baliw Hammers) 361,000.00 on-going PANGLAO
2,700,000.00 42 Artificial Fish Shelter (Payao) 300,000.00 completed 43 Fishing
Supply Outlet 300,000.00 completed Page 6 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO
NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON
FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 44 Bbceu
Catering Services 300,000.00 completed 45 Goat Dispersal 440,000.00 completed
46 Native Chicken Production 1,000,000.00 on-going 47 Hog Dispersal 360,000.00
completed PRES. CARLOS P. GARCIA 2,850,000.00 48 Sustainable Livelihood
Program 2,850,000.00 on-going SAGBAYAN 4,332,000.00 49 Vegetable Seeds And
Farm Inputs 475,000.00 completed 50 Livelihood Program (Livestock Dispersal
Cattle Fattening) 684,000.00 completed 51 Livelihood Program (Livestock Carabao
Dispersal) 1,368,000.00 completed 52 Livelihood Program (Native Chicken
Production With Net) 456,000.00 completed 53 Livelihood Program (Goat
Dispersal) 47,500.00 completed 54 Livelihood Program (Swine Dispersal)
232,750.00 completed 55 Livelihood Program (Food Processing Utensils For
Catering) 475,000.00 on-going Page 7 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA
NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR
THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 56 Livelihood
Program ( Tools & Machineries Of Woodcrafts Projects) 285,000.00 on-going 57
Livelihood Program ( Rice Production / Purchase Seeds) 308,750.00 on-going SAN
ISIDRO 5,600,000.00 58 National Rice Program (Rice Seeds) 2,500,000.00 on-going
59 National Rice Program ( Fertilizer) 2,500,000.00 on-going 60 Cattle Raising
Dispersal 600,000.00 on-going SAN MIGUEL 900,000.00 61 Poultry Raising
300,000.00 completed 62 Goat Dispersal Program 600,000.00 completed SIERRA
BULLONES 425,000.00 63 National Rice, Corn And High Value Crops Program
425,000.00 competed TAGBILARAN CITY 6,400,000.00 64 Tagbilaran Intensified
Organic Livestock For Agricultural (Tinola) Development Project 6,400,000.00 on-
going Page 8 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT
NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION TALIBON 2,250,000.00 65 Rice
Program (Training & Rice/Fertilizer Subsidy) 750,000.00 competed 66 Corn
Program (Training & Corn/Fertilizer Subsidy) 375,000.00 competed 67 Fisheries
Program (A. Floating Fish Coral Installation Project; B. Abalone Production Project;
C. Aquasilviculture Project; D. Tilapia Production In Floating Cage; E. Bluecrab Re-
Seeding Project; F. Fishing Nets (Panglambay) ) 1,125,000.00 competed TRINIDAD
1,300,000.00 68 Sustainable Livelihood Project (Carabao Dispersal) 1,000,000.00
competed 69 Sustainable Livelihood Project (Acquisition Of Assorted Handicraft
Equipments And Facilities) 300,000.00 on-going UBAY 7,650,000.00 70 Projects
Under The Menu Of Programs 4,250,000.00 competed 71 Purchase Of Farm
Inputs 2,550,000.00 competed Page 9 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA
NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR
THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 72 Livelihood
Program (Distribution Of Livestock) 850,000.00 competed VALENCIA 1,950,000.00
73 Financial Assistance For Livelihood Projects Of 10 Duly Registered Cooperatives
In The Municipality 350,000.00 competed 74 Provision Of Subsidy For Hybrid Rice
Seeds 1,000,000.00 competed 75 Provision Of Subsidy For Corn Seeds 500,000.00
competed 76 Goat Dispersal 100,000.00 on-going ALCANTARA 3,250,000.00 1
Cattle Dispersal 750,000.00 2 Goat Dispersal 300,000.00 3 Fish Cages / Fish Pens
2,200,000.00 ARGAO 3,873,000.00 4 Support Services To Corn, Rice And High
Valued Crops Development Program (Hvcdp) 1,974,000.00 5 Livestock Program
532,000.00 on-going Rebidding Page 10 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO
NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON
FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 6 Fisherfolks
Livelihood Projects 300,000.00 7 Training And Orientation Of Barangay Forest
Warden 20,000.00 8 Deputation Of 2 Barangay Forest Warden Every 100 Has
Been Identified Rich In Biodiversity Resources 384,000.00 9 Tools/Equipment For
Forest Warden 40,000.00 10 Establishment Of Nursery 250,000.00 11 Planting Of
25,000 Seedlings 250,000.00 12 Crop And Livestock Insurance At Philippine Crop
Insurance Corporation (PCIC) 123,000.00 ASTURIAS 306,000.00 13 Purchase Of
Opv White Corn Seeds For Corn Production & Seed Banking Through Plant Now
Pay Later Scheme 119,000.00 14 Purchase Of Registered Rice Seeds For Rice
Production & Seed Banking Program Through Plant Now Pay Later Scheme
102,000.00 15 Purchase Of Hybrid Vegetables Seeds 85,000.00 BANTAYAN
1,275,000.00 16 Fish Culture/Sea Cucumber 425,000.00 17 Vegetables Seed/Corn
850,000.00 BOLJOON 1,235,000.00 18 Fishing Equipmment 1,140,000.00 19
Inland Fishery Development (Fingerlings Dispersal) 95,000.00 BORBON
3,500,000.00 20 National Fisheries Program 1,000,000.00 on-going For bidding
on-going on-going no documents submitted on-going Page 11 of 22 TOTAL
AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR
THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION 21 National High Valure Crops Program 2,500,000.00 CATMON
3,900,000.00 22 Native Chicken Production 1,000,000.00 23 Purchase Of Engines
For Pumpboat 1,500,000.00 24 20 Pcs Payaw 200,000.00 25 20 Fish Ponds
1,200,000.00 CITY OF BOGO 2,400,000.00 26 National Fisheries Program
2,400,000.00 pipeline passed through RPMT CITY OF CARCAR 2,400,000.00 27
Livelihood Assistance To Different Farmers' Association For Corn-Based
Production 1,200,000.00 28 Livelihood Assistance To Different Farmers'
Association Through High Valued-Commercial Crops Production 400,000.00 29
Establishment Of Fish Cages (High Value And Low Value Fishes) 640,000.00 30
Procurement Of Fishing Paraphernalia 160,000.00 CITY OF NAGA 3,800,000.00 31
Natural Juice Production (Coop Based) 1,000,000.00 32 Conduct Of Capability
Programs For Coops (Inclusive Of Capital Build Up) 2,800,000.00 CITY OF TALISAY
800,000.00 33 National Livestock Program 800,000.00 pipeline for release
COMPOSTELA 2,210,000.00 pipeline for release on-going on-going on-going Page
12 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF
LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 34 National Rice Program In Brgy. Mulao For 50%
Of Farmers 255,000.00 35 National Rice Program In Brgy. Cabadiangan For 50% Of
Farmers 255,000.00 36 National Corn Program In All Brgys For 70% Of Farmers
425,000.00 37 National High Value Crops Program For All Brgys For 70% Of
Farmers 425,000.00 38 Livestock Production (Dairy) 850,000.00 DAANBANTAYAN
1,925,000.00 39 Goat Production In 5 Brgys. For 125 Families 1,775,000.00 40
Training Component For Rag Making In 5 Brgys. To Showcase Sample Products
150,000.00 DALAGUETE 2,900,000.00 41 Focused Program On Rice Production For
Bulak And Salug For Farm Inputs To Be Paid In Kind During/After Harvest
200,000.00 42 Native Chicken Production And Goat Raising Among Beneficiaries
Sitio Ilaya To Suwa, Mantalongon 100,000.00 43 Native Chicken Dispersal In 2
Pilot Brgys (Midland) 100,000.00 44 Goat Raising In 2 Pilot Brgys. (Midland)
200,000.00 45 Milk And Dairy Processing In Dugyan 1,000,000.00 on-going on-
going on-going Page 13 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF
PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 46 Peso Programs (Municipal-
Wide) Strengthening Of Employment Facility 1,300,000.00 DANAO CITY
1,000,000.00 47 Corn Program 500,000.00 48 High Value Crops Program
500,000.00 DUMANJUG 2,400,000.00 49 Sustainable Livelihhod Program In 37
Brgys 1,800,000.00 50 National Corn Program In 35 Brgys 300,000.00 51 National
High Value Crops Program 300,000.00 GINATILAN 950,000.00 52 National Corn
Program/Integrated Farming Dev Program In 14 Brgys 950,000.00 ON-GOING
MADRIDEJOS 380,000.00 53 Sustainable Livelihood Program (Carabao Dispersal;
Marine Rehab/Sanctuary) In 14 Brgys 380,000.00 NO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
MEDELLIN 1,800,000.00 54 Capitalization Of High Value Crop Program In
Canhabagat, Dvg, Caputatan Norte & Sur 500,000.00 55 Swine Breeding For 19
Brgys To 40 Farmers 300,000.00 56 Corn Production In 15 Rbgys For 20 Farmers
800,000.00 57 Goat Raising In 10 Brgys For 70 Farmers 200,000.00 MINGLANILLA
2,300,000.00 ON-GOING BY ADMINISTRATION NO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
PIPELINE Page 14 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF
PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 58 National Rice Program For
24 Farmers In Calajoan, Linao And Tungkil 1,000,000.00 59 National Corn Program
In 15 Brgys. For 100 Farmers 1,000,000.00 60 Livestock Dispersal (Breeder
Assistance) For 100 Farmers In 19 Brgys. 300,000.00 MOALBOAL 475,000.00 61
Breeder Assistance In 15 Brgys. 475,000.00 ON-GOING OSLOB 2,700,000.00 62
Livelihood Program Livestock Production (Goat, Poulty, Ogs, Etc.) In All Brgys
2,700,000.00 ON-GOING PILAR 573,572.00 63 Expansion Of Honeybee Colony To
Increase Honeybee Production In 4 Brgys. 4 Units Of Honeybee Colony
Established 95,000.00 64 Goat Raising For Food And Profit In 9 Brgys. (26 Heasds
Of Goats Raised By Selected Farmers In 9 Barangays) 83,372.00 65 Breeder
Assistance In Moabog And Montserrat: 12 Heads10 Females & 2 Males
395,200.00 PORO 3,800,000.00 66 National Corn Program 1,900,000.00 67
National Fisheries Program 1,900,000.00 SANTA FE 1,425,000.00 FOR BIDDING
ON-GOING ON-GOING Page 15 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO.
NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE
DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 68 Provision Of
Financial Assistance To Coops/Farmers 1,425,000.00 PIPELINE FOR RELEASE
SOGOD 1,090,000.00 69 Livestock Raising 730,000.00 70 Carabao With Plow
360,000.00 TABOGON 1,020,000.00 71 Cattle Fattening/Farm Inputs - Brgy.
Caduawan 255,000.00 72 Cattle Fattening/Farm Inputs - Brgy. Ilihan 255,000.00
73 Farm Inputs/Implements 85,000.00 74 Hog Raising 255,000.00 75 Bigasang
Bayan 170,000.00 TABUELAN 1,425,000.00 76 National High Value Crops To
Increase Agricultural Production 77 Trainings And Implementation Of Integrated
Farming System Like Procurement Of Variety Seeds 475,000.00 78 Livestock
Productions 950,000.00 TOLEDO CITY 4,240,000.00 79 Carabao Dispersal Project
1,200,000.00 80 Farm Inputs Assistance Project 3,040,000.00 NO DOCUMENTS
SUBMITTED PROPOSAL ON-GOING Page 16 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO
NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON
FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION TUBURAN
500,000.00 81 Livestock Dispersal 500,000.00 ON-GOING AMLAN 500,000.00 1
National Fisheries Program 500,000.00 AYUNGON 1,632,000.00 2 National
Fisheries Program 425,000.00 completed 3 National Livestock Program
357,000.00 completed 4 National Rice And Corn Program 425,000.00 completed 5
National Livestock Program 425,000.00 completed BASAY 2,214,300.00 6
Purchase Of Carabaos For The Ips 50,000.00 on-going 7 Purchase Of Coolers And
Bamers 500,000.00 Proposed Lack of requirements 8 Carabao Dispersal
650,000.00 Proposed Lack of requirements 9 Poultry Raising -Fsc 750,000.00
Proposed Lack of requirements 10 Duck And Swine Raising And Balot Production
264,300.00 Proposed Lack of requirements CANLAON CITY 2,460,000.00 11 900
Farmers Of Rice, Corn And Vegetable And Livestock Raisers 2,140,000.00 on-going
12 Draft And Breeder Animal Dispersed To Farmers 320,000.00 on-going CITY OF
BAYAWAN 9,200,000.00 13 Rice Production - All Farmers Engaged In Rice
Production 800,000.00 on-going Lack of requirements Page 17 of 22 TOTAL
AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR
THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION 14 Livelihood Assistance For Women, Pwd, Farmers,
Fisherfolk, Transport Sector, Bhw Such As Catering/Kalipi, Soap Making, Sewing
6,800,000.00 on-going Lack of requirements 15 Livestock For Women, Ips, Senior
Citizens, Ric 800,000.00 on-going Lack of requirements 16 Working Animals -
Carabao - Farmers 800,000.00 Lack of requirements CITY OF TANJAY 240,000.00
17 Carabao And Plow Dispersal 240,000.00 Stale check DAUIN 2,500,000.00 18
Purchase Of Cattle 1,000,000.00 19 Purchase Of Carabao 500,000.00 20 Purchase
Of Goats 500,000.00 21 Purchase Of High Valued Commercial Crops 500,000.00
CITY OF DUMAGUETE 3,100,000.00 22 Livelihood (Animal Raising - Hogs, Goats
And Poultry And Production Of Organic Feeds - Own Formulation Support
1,000,000.00 not yet started Lack of Requirements 23 Purchase Of Goats (110
Goats) Carabaos (22 Pcs.) And Plows (11 Pcs.) 430,000.00 not yet started 24
Purchase Of 3 Units Shredder Machine For Production Of Organic Fertilizers
625,000.00 not yet started 25 Purchase Of High Valued Vegetables Seeds
(Including Rice And Corn) 70,000.00 not yet started Lack of Requirements 26
Rehabilitation Of Communal Irrigation System 375,000.00 not yet started on-
going on-going LGU requested for rebidding Page 18 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT
PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE
PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION 27 Livelihood For The Families Of Tricycle Drivers (Animal
Raising And Meat Processing) 600,000.00 on-going For release LA LIBERTAD
500,000.00 28 High Valued Crops 500,000.00 not yet started no submission of
proposal MABINAY 1,700,000.00 29 Capital Assistance To Small Entrepreneurs In
Urban Poor - Municipality Wide 850,000.00 30 Swine Diaspersal - Municipality
Wide 850,000.00 PAMPLONA 2,200,000.00 31 Sustainable Livelihood Program -
Tricycle Repair Shop And Service Center 800,000.00 on-going 32 Sustainable
Livelihood Program - Electronic Spareparts & Service Center 300,000.00 on-going
33 Skills Training On Coconut Products & By-Products Utilization 600,000.00 on-
going 34 Training On Banana Glaced Processing 500,000.00 completed SAN JOSE
200,000.00 35 Sustainable Livelihood Program (Fiber Glass Boat Making) - 14
Brgys. 200,000.00 completed SANTA CATALINA 4,105,389.50 36 Rice Production -
500 Has. - 17 Rice Areas 510,000.00 completed 37 Corn Production - 500 Has. - 22
Brgys. 425,000.00 completed 38 Carabao Dispersal - 45 Heads - 22 Brgys.
765,000.00 completed 39 Promotion And Development Of Organic Production
492,889.50 completed 40 High Valued Crops - 22 Brgys. 425,000.00 completed
on-going Page 19 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF
PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 41 Alternative Livelihood
Project - Brgys. Nagbalaye, Fatima, Manalongon, Mabuhay, San Francisco
807,500.00 completed 42 Livelihood Project For Habalhabal Members; Poultry,
Piggery, Goat, Tilapia Raising 425,000.00 completed 43 Expansion Of Stocks And
Equipments - Brgy. Obat 255,000.00 completed SIATON 7,100,000.00 44 Corn
Production - 2,461 Has. Of Agricultural Land - Barangays Poblacion Ii, Poblacion Iii,
Poblacion Iv, Albiga, Apoloy, Bonawon, Bonbonon, Cabangahan, Canaway,
Casalaan, Caticugan, Datag, Giligaon, Inalad, Malabuhan, Maloh, Mantiquil,
Mantuyop, Napacao, 2,500,000.00 45 Rice Production - 1,724 Of Existing And
Potential Riceland - Barangays Poblacion Ii, Poblacion Iii, Poblacion Iv, Albiga,
Apoloy, Bonawon, Canaway, Casalaan, Caticugan, Datag, Giligaon, Inalad,
Malabuhan, Napacao, San Jose, Sandulot, And Sumaliring. 1,500,000.00 46
Installation Of Talarok (Fish Aggregating Device) - Fad Materials And Equipments
To Fisherfolks - Barangays Poblacion Iii, Albiga, Bonawon, Bonbonon,
Cabangahan, Giligaon, Inalad, Malabuhan, Maloh, Mantuyop, San Jose, Salag, Siit
And Sumaliring. 1,100,000.00 on-going Page 20 of 22 TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED
TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT
REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 47
Swine And Livestock Dispersal - 660 Heads Of Swine And Other Livestock -
Barangays Poblacion I, Poblacion Ii, Poblacion Iii, Poblacion Iv, Albiga, Apoloy,
Bonawon, Bonbonon, Cabangahan, Canaway, Casalaan, Caticugan, Datag,
Giligaon, Inalad, Malabuhan, Mal 2,000,000.00 TAYASAN 2,746,000.00 48
National Rice Program 1,348,000.00 49 National Corn Program 171,000.00 50
National High Value Crops Program 102,000.00 51 National Livestock Program
317,000.00 52 Cattle Raising Program 510,000.00 53 Goat Dispersal Program
298,000.00 VALENCIA 3,000,000.00 54 Sustainable Livelihood Program (Cattle
Fattening) - Brgys. Jawa, Bongbong, Calayugan, West Balabag, Balayagmanok, East
Balabag, Liptong, Lunga, Mampas, Palinpinon 2,000,000.00 not yet started 55
Swine Breeding - Brgy. Apolong, Balayagmanuk, Balili, Balugo, Bong-Ao,
Bongbong, Calayugan, Caidiocan, Cambucad, Dobdob, East Balabag, Jawa,
Liptong, Lunga, Malabo, Malaunay, Mampas, Palinpinon, Puhagan, Pulangbato,
Sagbang, West Balabag 1,000,000.00 not yet started VALLEHERMOSO
3,825,000.00 56 Carabao Dispersal Program 510,000.00 Completed Page 21 of 22
TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED TO NGA NO. NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU
BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT REASON FOR THE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 57 Cattle Fattening Program 2,465,000.00 58
Dispersal Of Chicken & Piglets & Organic Feeds 850,000.00 LAZI 413,250.00 1 3
Units Bancas With Fish Nets 342,000.00 2 3 Units Engine Honda 71,250.00 MARIA
2,632,687.00 3 Organic Swine Production/Livestock Production 476,187.00 4
Production Of Organic Fertilizers Towards The Development Of Organic Farm
(Rice, Corn, Vegetables) 475,000.00 5 National Livestock Program (Goat Raising)
798,000.00 6 National High Value Crops Program 190,000.00 7 National Livestock
Program (Swine Raising) 190,000.00 8 National Livestock Program (Cattle Raising)
418,000.00 9 National Fisheries Program (Provision/Acquisition Of Motor
85,500.00 SAN JUAN 1,664,400.00 10 A. Native Chicken 106,875.00 on-going 11 B.
Goat 213,750.00 on-going 12 C. Swine 534,375.00 on-going 13 F.2 Procurement
Of Seeds 334,400.00 on-going 14 Additional Dairy Cows For Dairy Farmers
475,000.00 on-going TOTAL 178,035,348.50 on-going on-going on-going NEGROS
ORIENTAL FIELD OFFICE Page 22 of 22 LIST OF LIVELIHOOD PROJECTS BOTTOM-UP
BUDGETING (BUB) FY 2015 BALILIHAN 1 OFWs Reintegration Program Piggery and
Selling of Pigs Boctol Women's Association Proposed BILAR 2 DOLE Integrated
Livelihood Programs (DLIP): Workers Income Augmentation Program (WIN AP)
Food Production, Egg Production and Duck Raising LGU - Bilar, Bohol Completed
Duck Raising Project Yanaya-Bilar Irrigators' Association, Inc. Egg Production
Bugang Sur Farmers Association Duck Raising Project Roxbil Irrigators'
Association, Inc. Food Processing of Buko-based Products Campagao Women's
Association Egg Production Cambigsi Farmers Association Egg Production and
Marketing Rizal Farmers Association Rice Production and Rice Selling Camanahid-
Duwagon Irrigators Association Rice Production and Rice Selling Cansumbol
Farmers Association Egg Production and Marketing Zamora Farmers Association
Meat Processing and Marketing Dagohoy Womens Association CATIGBIAN 3
Expansion of "TUPAD" (Tulong pangkabuhayan para sa ating disadvantage)
Workers Pipeline DAUIS 4 Production and marketing enhancement of the jewelry
making livelihood of Dauis Pipeline DUERO 5 ESTABLISHMENT COOPERATIVE
STORE Proposed LOON 6 LIVELIHOOD ASSISTANCE: a) Mat and Basket Weaving
Basket and Mat Weaving & Marketing Cansubayon Women's Association
Proposed MABINI PROJECT STATUS NO NAME OF PROJECT NAME OF LGU ACTUAL
PROJECT NAME OF BENEFICIARIES/ ORGANIZATION REASON FOR THE DELAY OF
IMPLEMENTATION Page 1 of 4 7 DOLE Integrated Livelihood Programs (DLIP):
TUlong Panghanapbuhay para sa Ating mga Disadvantaged Workers (TUPAD)
Bigasan ng Bayan Rice Trading Concepcion Women's Association Proposed
Bigasan ng Bayan Rice Trading Marcelo Women Association PANGLAO 8 Tubeless
Tire Vulcanizing Shop Pneumatic Vulcanizing Shop and Marketing Panglao Island
Multipurpose Coop Proposed BADIAN 1 Integrated Livelihood Program
Preliminary preparation CARCAR CITY 2 DOLE Integrated Livelihood Programs
(DILP) Preliminary preparation CEBU CITY 1 Integrated youth development
program (sports, culture and arts, farming skills training, advocacy work) Will
convene with the LGU 2 Agro-industrial livelihood project for Cebu City's Urban
Poor Homeowner's Association Will convene with the LGU CONSOLACION 3
Livelihood Project Preliminary preparation DUMANJUG 4 DOLE Integrated
Livelihood Programs (DLIP): Workers Income Augmentation Program (WIN AP
Preliminary preparation LAPULAPU CITY 1 Sustainable Livelihood Program: 3.
Livelihood Training and Development Program for Vulnerable Sectors in Lapulapu
City Will convene with the LGU 2 Sustainable Livelihood Program: 4.b. Lapulapu
City Women Livelihood Center (LLC-WCL) Will convene with the LGU MANDAUE
CITY 1 Enterpreneurial Enhancement - Business and Product Enhancement Will
convene with the LGU MEDELLIN Page 2 of 4 5 Livelihood Programs Preliminary
preparation SAN FRANCISCO 6 Sewing Business for Out of School Youth, Young
Mothers and Single Parents Preliminary preparation SAN REMIGIO 7 DOLE
Integrated Livelihood Program Preliminary preparation TABOGON 8 Swine
Fattening TALISAY CITY 9 Tulong Pangkabuhayan para sa disadvantage workers
Completed BASAY 1 Acquisition of Raw Materials -Coco shell craft production and
No submission of proposal 2 Acquisition of Raw Materials -Udyong soft broom
production No submission of proposal BAYAWAN CITY 3 MACHINERY FOR
COCONUT BYPRODUCTS PROCESSING (DECORTICATOR, WEAVER, ETC.)
PRODUCTION Coco Fiber Processing and Marketing Bayawan City Coconut
Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative (BACCFAMCO) Proposed Lack of requirements
4 WORKING ANIMALS Farm Level Rubber Sheet Production Responsive and
United Bayawan Believers for Economic Recovery Cooperative (RUBBERCO)
Proposed Lack of requirements 5 LIVELIHOOD ASSISTANCE Proposed Lack of
requirements DAUIN 6 DOLE Integrated Livelihood Programs (DLIP): Tulong
Pangkabuhayan para sa Ating mga Disadvantaged Workers (TUPAD) - Backyard
Cattle Fattening Project No submission of proposal DUMAGUETE CITY 7 Tulong
Panghanapbuhay para sa Ating mga Disadvantaged Workers (TUPAD) No
submission of proposal 8 OFWs Reintegration Program No submission of proposal
MANJUYOD 9 Special Recruitment Activity No submission of proposal Page 3 of 4
ZAMBOANGUITA 10 Integrated Livelihood Program for Disadvantaged Workers
Acquisition of Coffee Processing Equipment Latad Farmers Association Pipeline
Purchase of Iron Plow & Support Services Federation of Daruhan sa Matag Mag-
uuma Program Acquisition of Farm Equipments and Livestock Dispersal Program
NABAMIA Acquisition of working animals and dispersal Baka sa Matag Panimalay
Program sa Purok IV - Brgy. Maluay Assn Emergency Employment Program for
Zamboanguita LGU - Zambuanguita TOTAL Page 4 of 4

DETAILED PROJECT PROPOSAL

I.
PROGRAM TITLE
: DOLE Kabuhayan Starter Kit (DKSK) Project1.1 Accredited Co-
Partner : Municipal Government of Bato, Catanduanes1.2 Project Locati
on : Bato, Catanduanes1.3 Project Beneficiaries : 30 long-
term unemployed skilled workersconsisting of 10 carpenters/masons, 5
welders, 5cooks/ bakers, 5 dressmakers, and 5
manicurists/beauticians1.4 Total Project Cost : P 220,500.001.5

Source of Funds :Requested from DOLE (2014 BuB) -

P 210,000.00LGU-Bato Equity - P 10,500.00
II.

BACKGROUND / RATIONALE
In furtherance of its goal of strengthening the capabilities of its labor
force, the MunicipalGovernment of Bato, Catanduanes through its
Municipal Poverty Reduction Action Team (MPRAT)has identified DOLE
Kabuhayan Starter Kit (DKSK) Project as one of its priority projects
for fundingunder the 2014 Bottom-Up Budget (BuB) of the National
Government. The implementation of theproject is expected to enhance
the economic well-being of the identified beneficiaries, hence
contributes to the attainment of the Philippine Development Plan’s goal
of
inclusive growth andpoverty reduction.
III.

OBJECTIVES
In general, it has the objective of improving the socio-economic well-
being of identified workersin the informal economy. Specifically, it is
aimed at enabling beneficiaries to plan, set-up, start andoperate a
livelihood undertaking by providing them with self-employment package
of servicesconsisting of short-gestation training, start-up kits,
business counseling and technical and marketingassistance services.
IV.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is aimed at providing livelihood opportunities through the
distribution of starter kitsto thirty (30) long term unemployed skilled
workers in the municipality consisting of 10carpenters/masons, 5
welders, 5 cooks/bakers, 5 dressmakers, and 5
manicurists/beauticians. TheMunicipal Government of Bato shall
facilitate provision of trainings for capability building ofbeneficiaries.
V.

MECHANICS AND IMPLEMENTATION

The selection of would-be beneficiaries shall be done by the PESO
Manager Designate under theassistance of the Office of the Mayor
and the Municipal Poverty Reduction Action Team (MPRAT).The
beneficiaries shall be given orientation on the DOLE Kabuhayan
Starter Kit Program by the PESOManager Designate through the
technical assistance of concerned DOLE Provincial Field Officer
Staffprior to the release of the starter kits. The PESO Manager
Designate shall conduct monitoring visitsin coordination with the DOLE
Provincial Field Office.Linkage with other government and non-
government agencies shall be sought for by the LGU tosource out other
forms of assistance that can be provided to the identified
beneficiaries to enhancetheir knowledge and further develop
their livelihood undertakings.

VI.

EXPECTED OUTPUT
30 long-term unemployed skilled workers consisting of 10
carpenters/masons, 5 welders, 5cooks/bakers, 5 dressmakers, and 5
manicurists/beauticians were provided with starter kits.
VII.

WORK PLAN OF ACTIVITIES

Activities Time Frame Expected Output Concerned AgencyIdentificati
on ofbeneficiaries1
st
week of February,2014Long-term unemployedskilled workers in
theinformal sector in BatoidentifiedPESO-
BatoProfiling of beneficiaries 2
nd
week ofFebruary, 2014Identified beneficiariesprovided with and
filled-up Starter Kit BeneficiaryProfile formPESO-BatoConduct of
orientation /workshop4
th
week of February,2014

Oriented identifiedbeneficiaries on Starter KitProgram and

BusinessPlan preparationPESO-BatoDOLE-PFORetrieval / Evaluation
ofBusiness Plans1
st
week of March ,2014Business Plans retrievedand evaluatedPESO-
BatoPreparation/Finalizationof Project Proposal andother
supportingdocuments1
st
week of March,2014Canvassed prices ofidentifiedequipments/tools
andsummarized BusinessPlans, and finalizedProject ProposalPESO-
BatoDOLE-PFOPresentation of theproposal and draft MOAto the
SangguniangBayan and crafting ofresolution authorizingthe LCE to
enter into aMOA with the DOLE1
st
 week ofMarch, 2014Project Proposal and draftMOA presented to
theSangguniang BayanSangguniang BayanPESO-BatoApproval of a
resolutionauthorizing the LCE toenter into a MOA withthe DOLE2
nd
week ofMarch, 2014A resolution authorizingthe LCE to enter into
MOAwith the DOLE wasapproved by theSangguniang BayanSangguniang
BayanSubmission of ProjectProposal and othersupporting documents3
rd
week of March,2014Project Proposal andsupporting
documentssubmitted to DOLE-RO VDOLE-PFODOLE-RO VEvaluation
and approvalof Project Proposal andMOA SigningApril, 2014 DOLE-
RO V evaluated andapproved the ProjectProposal; MOA signed;Fund
transferredDOLE-RO VDOLE-PFOPESO-BatoConduct of
capabilitybuilding trainingMay, 2014 Entrepreneurship andbusiness
managementtraining to beneficiariesPESO-BatoDOLE-PFO

conductedTransfer of first trancheof fund (50%); Issuanceof the

Notice to Proceedby the DOLE;Preparation of financialdocuments
andprocurement ofrequested
itemsJune, 2014 First tranche fundtransferred to the LGU;NTP issued
by the DOLE;Financial documentsprepared and requesteditems/kits
procuredDOLE-RO VDOLE-PFOPESO-BatoAwarding / Release offirst
tranche of starterkitsJuly, 2014 Turn-over of first tranchekits to
individualbeneficiaryDOLE-PFOPESO-BatoLiquidation of firsttranche
Project fundsJuly, 2014 First tranche fundliquidatedDOLE-PFOPESO-
BatoTransfer of secondtranche of fund (50%);Issuance of the Notice
toProceed by the DOLE;Preparation of financialdocuments
andprocurement ofrequested
itemsJune, 2014 Second tranche fundtransferred to the LGU;NTP
issued by the DOLE;Financial documentsprepared and
requesteditems/kits procuredDOLE-RO VDOLE-PFOPESO-
BatoAwarding / Release ofsecond tranche ofstarter
kitsJuly, 2014 Turn-over of secondtranche kits to
individualbeneficiaryDOLE-PFOPESO-BatoLiquidation of firsttranche
Project fundsJuly, 2014 Second tranche fundliquidatedDOLE-
PFOPESO-BatoMonitoring
andEvaluationJuly, 2014 onwards Project implementationmonitored and
evaluatedDOLE-PFOPESO-Bato
VIII.

BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS:
No. of project beneficiaries : 30Total Fund Requested from
DOLEunder its 2014 BuB Fund : P 210,000.00LGU-Bato Counterpart-
Capability building (training) : 10,500.00----------------
TOTAL PROJECT COST : P220, 500.00
IX.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The DOLE Kabuhayan Starter Kit project shall be monitored by the
LGU through its PublicEmployment Service Office and by the DOLE
through its Provincial Field Office. Regular monthlymonitoring visit
shall be conducted during the 1
st
year implementation and once every quarter on its2
nd
and 3
rd
year.
Livelihoods perspectives and rural
development