advisory and review assignment report

8/13/2019 Advisory and Review Assignment Report

1/59

LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT &PROMOTION OF

SMALL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (LACI-P)(by the GOP and PPAF, co-financed by the Federal Republic of Germany through KfW)

Charsadda 03.08.2012

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1HELVETAS SWISS INTERCOOPERATION

September 12, 2012


2/59


3/59

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives and Scope of the Advisory and Review Assignment...................................... 1

2 CURRENT PROJECT STATUS ............................................................................................... 2

3 COMMUNITY ORGANISATION ............................................................................................... 4

3.1 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions .......................................................... 4

3.1.1 Process of Community Mobilisation .......................................................................... 4

3.1.2 Identification of Ultra Poor (PSC methodology) ........................................................ 5

3.1.3 Role of Partner Organizations ................................................................................... 5

3.1.4 Role of PPAF............................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Analysis and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 8

3.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 9

4 PLANNING AND MONITORING ............................................................................................ 10

4.1 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions ........................................................ 10

4.1.1 Recommended Approach to Planning and Monitoring ........................................... 10

4.1.2 Field observations ................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 12

4.2.1 Planning Method and Process ................................................................................ 12

4.2.2 Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 13

4.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 135 LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION ............................................................ 15


5.1.1 Objectives and recommended approach ................................................................ 15

5.1.2 Observations at the Level of Partner and Community Organisations .................... 15

5.1.3 Assessing markets for opportunities ....................................................................... 16

5.1.4 Assessing the feasibility of the proposed enterprise / trade ................................... 16

5.1.5 Support services for enterprises ............................................................................. 17

5.1.6 The role of PPAF ..................................................................................................... 17


5.2.1 Situation analysis .................................................................................................... 17

5.2.2 Livelihood Investment Plan ..................................................................................... 17

5.2.3 Identification of Market Opportunities ..................................................................... 18

5.2.4 Understanding barriers of entry .............................................................................. 18

5.2.5 Business planning ................................................................................................... 19

5.2.6 Analysis of sustainability of the livelihood / enterprise............................................ 19

5.2.7 Resources / Time Available for Preparation, Follow up ......................................... 20

5.2.8 Combining Sustainable Livelihood Development with Value Chain Development 20


4/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 ii

5.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 21

6 COMMUNITY PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES ............................................... 23


6.1.1 PPAF and CPI Manuals .......................................................................................... 236.1.2 Impression about Partner Organizations ................................................................ 24

6.1.3 Field Observations .................................................................................................. 24



7 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MANAGEMENT ........................................................... 28


7.1.1 PPAF ....................................................................................................................... 28

7.1.2 Communities (COs) ................................................................................................. 28

7.1.3 Partner Organizations ............................................................................................. 28


7.2.1 PPAF ....................................................................................................................... 29

7.2.2 Partner Organisations ............................................................................................. 29


8 FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................................... 30

LIST OF ANNEXESAnnex 1 TORs of ART Assignment A- 1

Annex 2 ART Assignment Schedule A- 6

Annex 3 Minutes of Introductory Workshop (prepared by LACI-P PMU) A- 7

Annex 4 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, DFID A-15

Annex 5a Typical Format of a Design Sheet for an Irrigation Channel A-16

Annex 5b O & M Technical Requirements, Hand Pumps & Sanitation Schemes A-17

Annex 6 Proposed Activities DPM (from the Inception Report) A-18


5/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSACO Assistant Coordination Officer

ADB Asian Development Bank

AKRSP Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (PO Funding Phase one)

ARR Advisory Review ReportART Assignment Review Team

BMZ (German) Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

BoD Board of Directors

CBO Community Based Organization

CC Climate Change

CCB Citizen Community Board

CIG Common Interest Group

CLF Community Livelihood Fund

CO Community Organisation

CPI Community Physical Infrastructure

CS Conflict Sensitivity

CSO Civil Society Organization

CSPM Conflict Sensitive Programme Management

CUP Community Uplift Program (PO Funding Phase two)CV Curriculum Vitae

DDP District Development Plan

DNH Do No Harm

DPM Disaster Preparedness Mitigation

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DRU District Response Unit

EAD Economic Affairs Division (Federal Government)

EIDM Energy, Infrastructure & Disaster ManagementESMF Environment & Social Management Framework

EU European Union

GBI Grant-Based Intervention

GoP Government of Pakistan

HADAF Hazara Development and Advocacy Foundation (PO Funding Phase two)HDI Human Development Index

HED Health Education & People with Special Needs

HQ Headquarter

HSI HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation

IP Implementation Plan

IR Inception Report

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureIWEI Integrated Water Efficient Infrastructure

KfW Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank)

KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (previously NWFP)

LACI-P Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

LEP Livelihood Enhancement & Protection

LFM Logical Framework Matrix

LIP Livelihood Investment Plan

LSO Local Support Organization

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MER Monitoring, Evaluation & Research

MGPO Mountain and Glacier Protection Organisation (PO Funding Phase two)


6/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 iv

MIED Mountain Institute for Educational Development (PO Funding Phase two)

MIS Management Information System

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MTDF Mid-Term Development Framework

NDMA National Disaster Management AuthorityNGO Non Governmental Organization

NOC No Objection Certificate

NRSP National Rural Support Programme (PO Funding Phase one)

NWFP North West Frontier Province (officially renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PCR Project Completion Report

PMU Project Management Unit

PO Partner Organization (of PPAF)

PMD Pakistan Meteorological Department

PPAF Pakistan Poverty Alleviation FundPRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

QPR Quarterly Progress Report

RDP Rural Development Project (PO Funding Phase one)

RSP Rural Support Programme

SABAWON Social Action Bureau for Assistance In Welfare and Organizational Networking(PO Funding Phase two)

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SDF Salik Development Foundation (PO Funding Phase two)

SERVE Sustainable Development, Education, Rural Infrastructure, Veterinary Care andEnvironment (PO Funding Phase one)

SIE Senior International ExpertSMR Short Monthly Progress Report

SNE Senior National Expert

SO Social Organisers

SRSP Sarhad Rural Support Programme (PO Funding Phase one)

STEP Short-Term Expert Pool

SWO Social Welfare Officer

SWWS Support With Working Solution (PO Funding Phase one)

TL Team Leader

TOP Terms of Partnership

TOR Terms of Reference

TOT Training of Trainers

UC Union Council

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

VDP Village Development Plan

VO Village Organization

VSWA Voluntary Social Welfare Agency Ordinance

WB World Bank

W&E Water & Energy

WO Woman Organisation


7/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The first ART assignment was carried out from July 30th until August 14

th, 2012. The team

comprised six experts covering aspects of community mobilization, planning, livelihoods,community infrastructure and disaster management and preparedness. An orientation workshopwas organized with all POs and subsequently meetings were organized with 11 out of 12 POsfrom the Funding Phases One and Two. Only two out of five Districts could be visited due tosecurity restrictions and interactions took place with three Community Organizations.

Despite some delays in project mobilization, the ART acknowledges that PPAF has quicklyengaged already registered POs with a proven track record and with whom PPAF has pastworking experience to develop and submit project proposals. Two funding phases have alreadybeen approved and the POs of funding phase one have already initiated some interventions.POs of funding phase two are currently in the process of starting mobilization and detailedplanning.

While POs in general are found to be experienced and familiar with project implementation andthe PPAF approach, the ART makes the following recommendations with regard to the different

sectors:

Community Mobilisation

Male and female CO formation is currently focused around LACI-P and requires qualitativeimprovements, which can be brought by ensuring that its members are trained to do planningand activities that are more than just needs identification.

Female Social Organizers capacities need strengthening and their role as facilitators needs to beenhanced. This is essential for improved participation of women community members at the VDOand LSO levels.

Partner organizations need to review their implementation plans to ensure the VDO and LSOformation is completed latest by the end of the second year and first quarter of the third year.

This would help to assess the results of the project.

Sharing of experiences, best practices and lessons learned on community mobilisation are veryfew, only for the RSPs. POs who are just entering the LACI-P project could gain considerableknowledge and improve the quality of their community mobilisation efforts if they had anopportunity to learn from POs who are in the earlier funding phases of this project.

The PPAF Operational Policies Manual needs to be complemented with updated andcomprehensive implementation guidelines on Community Mobilisation More detail is especiallyneeded on what processes can help facilitate women COs representation in the VDO in aqualitative manner. Also, further clarity guidance is needed on the planning cycle and on howmale/female COs and VDOs can develop Multi Sector Plans, which go beyond the LACI-P andincorporate self-help or self initiated activities.

Planning and Monitoring

Communities require time for joint reflections, discussions and analysis, particularly the very poorhouseholds. Planning should be seen as an opportunity for the community to engage in socialinteraction and for a broader analysis of their problems. The planning process should enhancethe capacity of the community to address needs/interests of the community, especially those ofthe excluded and the marginalized members.

At present there is a considerable pressure on POs and the COs to produce results within a shortperiod. This compromises on the quality of situation analysis. Sound planning must be based ona comprehensive situation analysis and a framework of analysis could be the DFID Framework ofSustainable Livelihoods.


8/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 vi

A multi sector planning approach seems meaningful. The tools recommended for theestablishment of an MSP should be reviewed and further refined so that they can actually yieldthe expected results. The POs need to integrate multi sector planning actively into theiroperations and systems. The planning should include livelihoods as a thematic area and the

community should assess potentials and provide suggestions how their assets can be used forimproved livelihoods. The MSP may also consider incorporating livelihood protection aspects(DPM) based on risk mapping as an integral part of the plan. Detailed implementation guidelinesshould be prepared for the multi sector planning process.

POs need to develop detailed monitoring plans which are compatible with the requirements ofLACI-P and which support POs in effective project management. A monitoring plan should alsoinclude the indicators for the outputs and the outcomes, the methods used for data collection, thefrequency of data collection, details on who collects data and a corresponding reporting formatfor the LACI-P.

Livelihoods

Only a small number of different livelihood activities are proposed such as shops, small animals,tailoring, embroidery or different trades through skills training. The market is assessed on thebasis of proposed ideas, no pro active checking of market demand/opportunities is carried outand no structured market appraisals are conducted by the POs.

The existing overall approach to livelihood development needs to consider the market orientationof livelihood interventions by combining Sustainable Livelihood with Value Chain Development.The SLA is household-oriented, while VC focuses on markets and linkages. The two approachesare complementary and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the structure ofmarkets.

In general, more time needs to be allocated for planning and preparing of livelihood activities, inparticular for the situation analysis, LIP preparation and doing market assessments. The focusmust be on the sustainability of the enterprise and the development of a business plan.

The LIPs are usually limited to a rather small number of different activities such as shops, smallanimals, tailoring, embroidery or different trades through skills training. The market is assessedon the basis of proposed ideas, no pro active checking of market demand/opportunities is carriedout and no structured market appraisals are conducted by the POs.

A focus has to be on building up local support services considering who in the market is able toprovide such support services beyond the project duration (e.g. market linkages, businessdevelopment services) rather than PO staff providing these services. There is a need to developan implementation manual for livelihood/enterprise development and train trainers on using themanual.

Community Physical Infrastructure

The discussions with PPAF and POs revealed that there are no standard project planning andimplementation format recommendations for the implementation of CPIs. Almost all POs followtheir own formats which are all different and these should be checked for consistency andconformity with the PPAF Operational Policies Manual. There is also a need to technicallyupdate the existing Community Physical Infrastructure Project Manual and also to incorporate thenew approach of the Operational Policies Manual.

Of particular importance are guidelines for Operation and Maintenance detailing how therespective costs are being recovered. A separate exit and O&M strategy should thus be devisedand integrated into every CPI project and integrated into the project proposal.

Each CPI intervention needs to be protected against disasters through mainstreaming riskreduction measures and special structures that can prevent or reduce damage to structures in


9/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 vii

case of disasters. This needs to be integrated in the design process for CPIs and coordinatedwith general Disaster Management and Preparedness measures in a community.

There is a dire need of capacity enhancement of the POs and PPAFs CPI staffespecially onnew technologies such as flow measuring techniques, open channels design including parabolic

canals, gravity flow pipe irrigation systems, sprinkler/drip irrigation systems, DWSS, spurs andflood protection structures (with stability analysis), as well as in the use of modern designsoftware.

Disaster Preparedness and Management

Disaster Preparedness Management (DPM) is part of the policy framework at PPAF and there isan independent DPM Unit. Partner Organizations acknowledge the importance of DPM and thecommunities are fully aware of disaster risks in their surroundings, as the LACI-P implementationarea is highly disaster-prone.

However, DPM is often viewed by POs as a post disaster activity such as relief andreconstruction. There is thus a need for accelerated efforts to integrate preventive DPM

measures and it is suggested to implement the activities suggested in the Inception Report (ref.Annex 6).

The development of a DPM mainstreaming framework, checklists and formats have top priorityfor the integration of preparedness and risk reduction measures at the planning stage of projectproposals for the different sectors. There is also a need to reconsider the implementation plansof the Funding Phase One and Two and to incorporate DPM activities into them and makeDisaster Management Plans an integral part of the Multi Sector Plans of PPAF.

In conclusion, the main recommendations outlined above are considered to be linked to thefollowing three issues:

1. Operationalization of the new Operational Policies Manual

Implementation Manuals/Guidelines need to be developed and POs need familiarisation with

the new approach.2. Time Pressure

Meaningful and participatory planning takes time and mostly new PO staff needfamiliarisation, training and coaching.

3. Management Capacities of the PMU

The issue is acknowledged by PPAF, and the PMU will get six new permanent staff.Planning, monitoring and reporting need strengthening and streamlining.

Finally, the nature of the ART assignments was questioned during the debriefing. PPAF and KfWpointed out a certain conflict of interest, as the Leader of the HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation

Consultant team is in the uncomfortable double role of advising PPAF in the implementation ofthe LACI-P on the one hand and reviewing it on the other hand.


10/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 viii


11/59


Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BackgroundThe PPAF (Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund) started the Livelihood Support & Promotion ofSmall Community Infrastructure Project with financial support of KfW in five Districts of KhyberPakhtunkhwa Province in February 2012. The overall objective of the Project is to contribute tothe improvement of the general living conditions and quality of life of the poor population in thefive selected project districts of KP

1. The Project has a special focus on the poorest families and

it is targeting approximately 600,000 people in those districts.

The implementation of the project is supported by an international consultant, HELVETAS SwissIntercooperation, who has a permanent team stationed at the PPAF office in Islamabad and isintegrated in the Project Management Unit. In addition, short term assignments by internationaland national consultants are scheduled in particular to carry out bi-annual review and advisory

assignments. These assignments are to be carried out by a team of six experts, twointernationals and four nationals and they are lead by the International Team Leader (ChrisMorger). The main purpose of the assignments is to provide a general overview of the state ofthe Project in relation to achieving its overall goal and to point out possible needs to readjust,refocus or improve Project activities.

1.2 Objectives and Scope of the Advisory and Review Assignment

The main objective of this first review assignment was to conduct a review of the planningprocess currently being undertaken by the Partner Organizations and Community Organizations.It focused on participation and inclusion of the communities in the process as outlined in thePPAF Operational Policies Manual for Grant Based Interventions, reviewed recent rounds ofcommunity planning and the needs for capacity building at CO as well as at PO level. The ART

thus comprised experts in community mobilisation, multi sector planning, as well as LEP, CPIand DPM specialists.

The assignment was carried out between July 30thand August 14

th2012 and the methodology

comprised a desk study of available documents, a briefing with PPAF and KfW followed by anorientation workshop with PPAF and all POs in Islamabad. ART members held bilateraldiscussions and interactions with the concerned PPAF Units and POs and COs were visited bythe team, wherever possible in the field or alternatively in Islamabad. Field visits wereunfortunately restricted to areas where NOCs could be obtained, namely the districts ofCharsadda and Swabi. It was not possible to obtain NOCs for the other three Districts Chitral,Buner and D.I.Khan. Therefore, only three COs could be visited and the selection is thusconsidered rather incidental and neither comprehensive nor representative.

The TORs of the ART Assignment and the schedule are attached as Annex 1 and 2.

1The target districts for the project are Chitral, Buner, Charsadda, Swab, and D.I. Khan.


12/59



2 CURRENT PROJECT STATUSThe LACI-P and the consulting services have started on February 1

st2012. Despite some delays

in project mobilization, the ART acknowledges that PPAF has quickly engaged already registeredPOs with a proven track record and with whom PPAF has past working experience to developand submit project proposals. Two funding phases have already been approved and POs offunding phase one have already initiated some interventions while those of funding phase twohave started mobilization and detailed planning.

Funding Phase One

A first funding phase (4/20129/2014) was approved in April 2012 with six POs2working in 19

Union Councils. These POs have all started social mobilization, CO establishment and planningand first activities are being implemented in the fields of CPI and LEP.

After only four months into project implementation it is still too early to assess whetherimplementation is on track but no evidence suggests that it is behind schedule either. However,many POs have mentioned that they feel a certain time pressure because targets are high,activities relatively small and numerous and participatory planning and implementation is a timeconsuming process. Just as an example, SWWS has more than 290 COs to either revitalise orestablish new during the project period of 30 months. Progress in the first months was at anaverage of 7 COs so it is quite obvious that CO establishment has to speed up in the comingmonthsand it certainly willin order to achieve the target within the given time frame.

Other issues mentioned by these POs were related to the Implementation Plans which are part ofthe financing agreements. They are often considered unrealistic and over ambitious, againmostly in relation to the schedule and the time allocated for some activities. Chapter 5 onLivelihood Enhancement and Protection will go into more details on this.

Funding Phase Two

Funding Phase Two (7/2012 12/2014) was approved in July 2012 and the contracts with sixPOs

3have just been signed but no disbursements were made yet. POs are mainly in the process

of mobilising their own teams and hiring the necessary staff. Some of the POs are going into newDistricts where they do not have a presence yet and we were told that they also do need NOCsto travel to these Districts which can create problems (e.g. HADAF, which starts in Buner). This isvery likely to complicate supervision from their main offices as well as training, coaching andmonitoring of the new local staff.

Among the six new POs of Funding Phase Two are twoMGPO and MIED - which specialise onHealth and Education respectively. This is considered a good strategy since supportingcommunity health posts and schools requires specialised partners which are experienced to workwith the respective government line agencies and are familiar with the requirements and

procedures.

Project Management

During the recent months it became evident that project management faced a serious lack ofcapacities to manage the project effectively and efficiently. This resulted in several delays, e.g.the detailed Costed Work Plans for sub-projects requested by KfW and urgently needed forproject monitoring could not be finalised in time and were still not available at the time of the ART

2AKRSP; NRSP; RDP; SERVE; SRSP; SWWS

3CUP; HADAF; MIED; MGPO; SABAWON; SALIK


13/59



assignment. Similarly, the QPR for the second quarter 2012 was also not finalised yet, however,PPAF hired two consultants to collect the necessary information from the POs for the report.

PPAF has recognised this lack of capacity and is taking measures to improve the situation. It isplanned to constitute a PMU in the coming weeks and interviews with potential staff had been

carried out at the beginning of August. The PMU will get six permanent staff members and it wasconfirmed that four would be existing and experienced PPAF staff, while two will be new to theorganisation.


14/59



3 COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONSustainable poverty focused development requires the presence of cohesive, active and broadbased community organizations. These COs/WOs and their VDOs are the foundation andessential elements through which the LACI-P project has been designed to provide support toultra poor households by livelihood enhancement inputs, resources for building essentialcommunity physical infrastructure, disaster risk reduction measures and health and educationinitiatives. The quality of processes applied for the formation and consequently the functioningand the institutional development of the COs/WOs and the VDOs will directly affect theeffectiveness and efficiency with which these groups will use the internal and external resourcesand produce sustainable results. Hence, regular review and learning of the social mobilisationfrom community to village level are essential to ensure that timely support and interventions canincrementally improve the processes applied.

3.1 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions

3.1.1 Process of Community Mobilisation

The steps for the formation of men and women COs as laid out in the PPAF Operational PoliciesManual are being applied by the POs in the field, albeit in some places more in a mechanicalway. The requirement of 70 percent

4coverage of a village and at least 40 percent participation of

women in the community, e.g. at least one from each household, is a challenge for some of thesmaller POs. Many POs thus had to employ new female staff and train them so that they canperform the role of Social Organizers (SOs) to mobilize woman and form women COs.

There are separate men and women COs. Communication between the men and women COs iseither through the respective SOs or through female or male relatives who are members of therespective COs in the same neighbourhood or hamlet. The coverage is nearly all the householdsin the neighbourhood. Male domination in the process of women CO formation and a certaindependence on men COs was observed, e.g. consent and cooperation of influential men in the

village is necessary before the women CO formation process can begin. Although women COsidentify needs, they expect the men CO to do the village planning with the PO.

The process of men and women COs collectively forming a VDO is given in the OperationalPolicies Manual. However, most of the SOs from POs are not clear how women participation andinvolvement will be ensured in a VDO beyond the point of need identification. The OperationalPolicies Manual also does not actually specify which processes may be applied to ensure properintegration of representation of men COs and women COs at the VDO level. A truly participatoryVDO does not appear to be possible at this stage. Similarly, an LSO may also have limitationswith respect to the involvement of women members in decision making and participation in itsmanagement and programs.

Office holders of especially the woman COs are nominated and elected on the basis ofexpediency as there usually are not many educated women in a community. Hence, normally the

secretary of the CO is a younger educated girl, while the president is a mature woman who hasrespect and mobility within the community and often her husband is the local activist or officeholder in the men CO. There is no position of a treasurer at the CO level, fund collection is forsavings in a bank account for which records are maintained by the Secretary and overseen bythe SOs of the PO.

The democratic process of nomination and election of office holders in COs and VDOs isprimarily through a show of hands and not by a secret ballot. In the village Asota in Swabi, wherea women VDO has been established, the need for secret ballot was not perceived as necessary

4 Of the 70% coverage of households, 60 % membership in the village organization has to be from poor

households


15/59



as the President and Secretary had unanimous support. This is being termed as the culture ofKPK, where everyone in the community knows each others strengths and all are united when itcomes to decisions.

Minutes of COs meetings are written in Urdu and normally deal with the election of office holders,

resolutions passed by the CO concerning specific project inputs, e.g. identification of communityneeds and their priority, or inclusion of poor and needy men and women in the membership ofthe CO. Although many issues may be discussed at the CO meetings, not everything may berecorded. The significance of recording minutes of meetings is not understood by the community,especially the poor. For the Secretary and President these are primarily to show the SO that theessential monthly meeting was held. Most of the members of the CO, especially the poor andwomen members are Pushto speaking and do not understand Urdu. Therefore, if and when theminutes are read out to confirm if they are correct and accurate there is very little or even anabsence of participation unless a special effort is made to translate them by a bilingual memberof the CO into Pushto. Records of contributions by members for savings are maintained in aregister and individual account books.

The realisation and the significance of participation of the ultra poor in the COs is at a nascent

stage among the COs. The use of the PSC is a recent measure to ensure identification of ultrapoor. However, processes to meaningfully engage the poor in the affairs of the CO are weak orabsent. Male or female poor are often not aware of their role or reason for participation in theCO. Special sensitisation and efforts will have to be made as well as actual roles within the COwill need to be defined for them so that they are encouraged to participate in the actualprocesses of CO formation and consolidation into VDOs. During the womens meeting in whichultra poor had been selected the ultra poor members were not present and in the male group theultra poor were not aware of their role or the reason for their inclusion in the CO apart from beingidentified for livelihood support.

3.1.2 Identification of Ultra Poor (PSC methodology)

The methodology of administering the PSC through POs is effective. Local community activists

usually assist the SOs in identifying the ultra poor. In addition, verification through the CO is alsouseful in ensuring that there is consensus and no mistake in the selection of such households.The PSC process also permits the PO to identify the poor communities within a village as well asto ensure that the process of CO formation takes place in those neighbourhoods as well.

However, SOs or enumerators of POs, who administer PSCs may require more clarity withrespect to the definition of each variable in the PSC, e.g. whether a one room abode is to becounted or only additional rooms are to be counted. PPAF may need to audit at regular andfrequent intervals the administering of PSCs at the early stages when it is being administered bythe POs so as to ensure correct selection of poor communities and ultra poor households and toavoid manipulation of entries. Currently, PSC data scores come at a later stage, while theprocess of CO formation has already started in a number of neighbourhoods of a village.

Some POs (e.g. NRSP) have tried using the BISP (Benazir Income Support Programme) data foridentification of ultra poor households, but this has not been useful. First of all, the available datais two years old so circumstances of ultra and very poor may have changed, and secondly, thereis the risk of manipulation of data in some cases where well off households are shown as ultrapoor.

3.1.3 Role of Partner Organizations

POs in their proposals and implementation plans have already committed to the number of COsand women COs they are going to form, to the number of assets to be transferred, as well as theCPI schemes. These have been explained as estimates and actual figures will be finalised whenthey enter and work in the community. Similarly, for Health and Education developmentprograms, it is explained that proposals were based on preliminary investigations anddiscussions.


16/59



Changes in the implementation plan can be made to incorporate the field realities, even though ithas been finalised with PPAF. In the Funding Phase One IPs, the process of CO formation ismainly to be completed in the first two years of the project. However, in the case of VDOs asignificant number are planned to be formed only in the last six months of the project. Similarly,

LSOs are in most cases planned to be formed in the last 6 months of the project only.

Information from PO Implementat ion Plans on

Formation of Num ber of COs, VDOs and LSOs in th e three year project

PO UCs COs to berevived

New COs VDOs LSOs

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr1 Yr2 Yr3

AKRSP 6 10 140 140 0 0 9 12 0 0 2

SERVE 1 80 60 60 0 0 7 12 0 0 0

NRSP 3 280 70 70 0 0 14 12 0 0 3

SRSP 4 44 10 40 15 0 11 8 0 0 2

RDP 1 0 104 104 0 0 7 7 0 0 1

SWWS 2 20 140 140 0 0 9 12 0 0 2

For example, in the IP for AKRSP it is mentioned that 12 out of 21 VDOs will be formed in thelast 6 months of the project; similarly the 2 LSOs will also be formed in the last 3 or 6 months ofthe project. Same is the case with NRSPs IP, which shows 12 out of 26 VDO formations will becompleted in the last six months of the project and the 3 LSOs will also be formed in the last 6months.

All the POs are following the steps laid out in Annex 8 of the PPAF Operational Policies Manualfor Community Mobilisation. This document provides useful guideline for the smaller POs who donot have an institutionalised and well documented process for community mobilisation andorganization. Larger POs like NRSP have developed comprehensive manuals and guidelines fortheir field operations and especially for social mobilisation. However, in some instances POs aregoing into new Districts and UCs where they have not worked before. They had to set up fieldoffices, recruit new staff for social mobilisation and train them. In many instances the new SOs,although from the target area, do not have the requisite experience. It will take some time forthem to understand the process of participatory development and community mobilisation in thetrue sense. More time will be required for the SOs to gain experience or confidence to engagethe needy sections of the community in a manner that makes a meaningful CO. Closesupervision and guidance of senior HID staff of the PO will be necessary at the initial stages ofCO and VDO formation. Among the smaller POs no senior level women SO were evident norwere there female Community Mobilisation specialist. There appeared to be dependence on onesenior male HID staff for the whole team.

Another weakness noticed among female SOs especially of the smaller POs was the absence ofknowledge of planning processes and of facilitation skills for the purpose of assisting communitywomen to undertake village or community level planning. They felt their role as SO was theformation of women COs, training the office holders in community management skills,encouraging savings among women members and the identification and prioritisation of needs,training or sensitisation of women members on issues around marriage contracts, divorce,inheritance, identity cards and motivating them to become members of the VDO and LSO, etc.

Among approaches to engage community members towards social organization formation, somePOs use tools while others depend on verbal communication to interact with communitymembers and especially with illiterates in village planning. Some POs were using tools like PRAto do resource mapping and village level planning. Many SOs or HID staff in POs feel


17/59



disadvantaged to engage and communicate with the illiterate ultra poor to get any response fromthem. Assistance of CO members or a village activist is considered essential for this purpose.

Except for the RSPs (through the RSPN network and resource persons) other POs do not haveany forum to discuss and share lessons or learn about developments related to Community

Mobilisation. These POs are basically following the guidance provided by PPAF or throughtrainings that are funded by PPAF and the orientation meetings organized with each Unit ofPPAF at the time their LACI-P project is approved. A recent initiative of the PPAF HID Unit hasbeen to organize exposure visits of PO staff and CO members to other POs and COs. The HIDUnit has also just started experience sharing forums.

3.1.4 Role of PPAF

Research, training and all aspects of Community Mobilisation are housed in the HID Unit ofPPAF. The HID Unit staff undertakes field visits to the POs after a project has been approved byPPAF for capacity building of PO staff. Through a checklist, they also assess the extent oftransference of values of governance, transparency and women inclusion in COs. Lessonslearned of the HID Unit are shared on a monthly basis with other Units of PPAF and fortnightly

reports are sent to the CEO on the status of community mobilisation among POs. The HID Unitalso hosts 2 to 3 days annual workshops with POs on sharing lessons related to communitymobilisation on what worked and what did not.

The exposure visits mentioned in the earlier section and the experience sharing forums areimportant and key to enhancing the capacity of POs and COs as well as of PPAF internal staff.POs are usually being supported by other agencies as well and can draw upon other resources.Similarly, these POs facilitate COs to harness resources at a wider level and not exclusivelythrough PPAF support. However, PPAF has introduced certain key elements or standards tocommunity mobilisation which were or are not present in the current working modalities of mostof the POs, e.g. ensuring a 70 percent representation of the community and at least a 40 percentrepresentation of women in the Community Organizations. This requires change in the approachtowards community mobilisation as well as staffing in the POs as discussed above. For example,

NRSP has decided as a policy that it will focus on establishing VDOs primarily of women COsand focus on village development through these VDOs. Close monitoring and lessons learnedfrom such changes in the approach - both institutionally and at the village level - will help thePPAF HID Unit to provide feedback to the other POs who may be struggling on how to managethis challenge.

The HID Unit also supervises an internship program where interns from remote and lessdeveloped areas are given class room training on Social Mobilisation and then are sent to workfor six months in POs field programs. The involvement of these interns in PO operations andinteractions with the staff has helped to further facilitate inculcation of the three key values ofgovernance, transparency and womens participation.


18/59



3.2 Analysis and Conclusions

1. The process of community mobilisation appears to be weak, male dominated and mechanicalin most cases. The focus seems to be in meeting the targets specified in the IPs (number ofCommunity Organizations established and LIPs or CPI schemes prepared per quarter). The

SOs do not have an overall picture of the purpose of the CO formation in a village. Theirunderstanding is to prepare COs for LACI-P project interventions and there does not appearto be any scope of collective work beyond this project. We did not find evidence of any COundertaking any collective self initiated work during its formative phase which couldcontribute towards a COs sustainability and giving it a purpose beyond LACI-P.

2. In almost all POs, especially the smaller ones, the HID and social mobilisation is being led bymen and in most cases there are no senior female SOs on their staff. More time will berequired to consolidate the process of CO formation, especially those for women, as thefemale SOs require greater exposure and experience.

3. Some POs are going into new geographical areas on the suggestion of PPAF, e.g. Districtsand UCs where they do not have a presence yet. Some areas have security concerns and

movement of staff from head office to field office may be restricted or difficult5

. Therefore,close supervision of new Social Mobilisation staff, support and guidance from the PO headoffice may be affected if free and unhindered access is not there.

4. The Implementation Plans are suggesting that a number of VDOs and almost all the LSOswill be formed in the last six months of the project. This would mean that these VDOs andLSOs may not be sufficiently consolidated and may not be able to complete their planning orproject implementation work before the project ends. This may affect the expected results ofthe project which anticipates at least 30 per cent Village Organizations to be functioningactively.

5. PPAF has tried to bring together the best practices related to Social Mobilisation in astructured manner in its Operational Policies Manual. These serve as principles and

guidelines for its staff to determine and measure the POs performance. However, the Manualhas not dealt in detail with issues of quality of participation. One example is the quality ofintegration of woman CO membership into the VDO. Similarly, the importance of secret ballotin setting up the governance structure and in what circumstances it can be flexible is notaddressed in sufficient detail.

6. During the formation of COs and VDOs there is (1) a visioning exercise undertaken withmembers facilitated by the SOs either in first or second dialogue phase. (2) During thesecond dialogue a needs identification is carried out followed by (3) the third dialogue andLACI-P project inputs. There is no intermediary planning in this whole process which is otherthan for LACI-P. This intermediary planning would be an exercise in planning either atcommunity level or at village level in which the community takes on own initiatives or selfhelp work to consolidate the CO or VDO formation process and works on initiatives beyond

LACI-P.7. This intermediary phase of self initiatives can be brought about if the CO or VDO has the

skills for planning. However, there are neither specific guidelines for planning provided by thePPAF Operational Policies Manual nor support for training in planning or multi sectorplanning. The approach is more to see whether the CO is able to prioritise needs andsupervise and monitor development programs.

5particularly Chitral, D.I.Khan and Buner where travel NOCs have to be obtained from the 11th Army Corps


19/59



3.3 Recommendations

Community Organization:

1. In the short to medium term ensure that the process of CO formation includes training of its

members in planning, especially on needs and activities that are self initiatives (e.g. selfhelp).

Partner Organizations:

1. In the short term review training of SOs, especially of female SOs to ensure they areequipped to facilitate and train COs in planning initiatives for LACI-P as well as self-helpbased activities.

2. In the short to medium term review the Implementation Plans so as to determine that,realistically, VDO formation is completed latest by end of two years and LSO formation withinthe first quarter of the third year. This would enable project results to be measured.

PPAF:

1. In the short term facilitate quarterly forums for sharing best practises, experiences andlessons learned on Community Mobilisation between POs. This especially for those POsalready into the LACI-P program, but also those joining in the later Funding Phases. This withspecial attention to:

- factors that help build sustainable and truly participatory COs and VDOs;

- integration of women CO representation and participation at VDO and LSO level; and

- role and participation of poor and ultra poor in COs, VDOs and LSOs.

2. In the short term conduct audit of the PSC application to determine if the correct entries arebeing made by PO field enumerators.

3. In the short to medium term complement the Social Mobilisation section of the OperationalPolicies Manual with specific guidelines for best practices and Multi Sector Planningapproaches by COs and VDOs as well as processes that facilitate integration of women COrepresentation and participation at VDO and LSO levels.


20/59



4 PLANNING AND MONITORING


4.1.1 Recommended Approach to Planning and Monitoring

Planning

A first plan is prepared for the proposal of the PO to PPAF after an initial situation analysis. Theproposal in expected to include initial figures on social mobilization and a range of interventionsthat will be delivered in priority UCs. Targets are provided by PPAF, related for instance tohousehold coverage by social mobilisation in a community or the time line for social mobilisation(to be done within the first six months), etc.

PPAF also recommends a project cycle (OPs Manual, Annex 8) that should be followed by POs.That includes:

Phase 0: Start-up and/or phase-in; preparation for field work

Phase 1: Social Mobilization and CO ElectionsPhase 2: MSP Preparation and Subproject Identification

Phase 3: Subproject Proposal Preparation and Disbursement

Phase 4: Subproject Implementation

Phase 5: Subproject Closure, Reporting and Audits

Phase 6: Post-Project Sustainability

The PPAF Operational Policies Manual outlines the steps for multi-sector planning (MSP),though it does not provide details on the method of MSP.

In Phase 2:

- Community members to indicate priorities for PPAF financing as well as linkages withgovernment departments and private sector

- CO and PO to work on MSP preparation

- Finalize MSP, showing priorities under each programme, and obtain community approval

- CO to nominate any sub-committees that are required for subproject proposalpreparation.

In Phase 3:

- PO works with CO on subproject proposal(s) preparation

- Potential social and environment assessments carried out in accordance with the ESMFand impacts of the selected subprojects to be explained, a mitigation plan to be agreedand follow-up actions and responsibilities decided

- CO to elect higher-level/sector-specific institutions required for delivering MSPs.

The Operational Policies Manual of PPAF is clear with regard to the scope of planning, limiting itto the requirements of the project. PPAF expects MSPs to enhance synergies between differentinterventions. Livelihood development and infrastructure are closely connected as much asinfrastructure and health is. Interventions in one area will contribute to potential outcomes andimpacts of interventions in other areas. The planning exercise should thus identify potential


21/59



synergies among interventions. This will help to prioritize and sequence interventions in such away that synergies can be created and capitalized on.

During a recent training workshop for POs on multi-sector planning (May 9, 2012), PPAF hasprovided a relatively simple format to support multi-sector planning at community / village / UC

level. This format does not limit COs / POs in the kind of interventions which are necessary tomitigate / solve a particular problem; POs and COs are actually encouraged to go beyond thescope of what PPAF can fund.

At the same time, PPAF underlined the importance of linking community organizations with localGovernment and development initiatives to ensure access to additional funds and programmes.Drawing in additional funds for interventions that cannot be covered by PPAF will enablecommunities to maximize potential synergies among different interventions.

The given format, however, does not provide the space for visualizing linkages and potentialsynergies among different sectors (e.g. health and infrastructure, livelihood and particularinterventions related to infrastructure).

A common framework of situation analysis is not provided by PPAF. Planning is based on the

situation analysis. The vulnerability context of a community / village is not considered in thesituation analysis. Therefore the risks of natural disasters and their nature are not assessed, andsubsequently disaster risk reduction is not covered by planning.

Monitoring

The PAFF Operational Policies Manual requires POs to monitor and report on expenditure,outputs and outcomes on a quarterly basis. Financial and output reports have to correspond tothe format prescribed by LACI-P or rather KfW. Indicators have been defined by LACI-P andcommunicated to the POs.

4.1.2 Field observationsPlanning

In our interactions with POs the essential steps recommended by the PPAF Operational PoliciesManual are followed in the planning process. We have not seen the multi sector planning methodas prescribed being practiced, highlighting synergies between sectors.

Most POs sit with COs to plan for a particular sector that is community physical infrastructure(CPI), in few cases also health and education (HED). Livelihood development is never discussedin planning at CO / VO level; this is always considered at the household level only.

Other POs facilitate the development of village development plans. They will introduce COs /VOs to the method and facilitate planning, which is often done in two groups, men and women.The planning exercise may have two events, lasting one day each. Through the village level

development plan COs / VOs articulate the needs of the community / village.In some cases, planning is done at CO level, which is then compiled at VO and UC level. In othercases planning is done mainly at the level of VOs and then compiled at the level of UCs.

POs stated that they essentially continue the same approach to planning which they havepracticed earlier and which they do for other projects.

Monitoring

It appears that POs at present do not have a monitoring plan that is compatible with therequirements of LACI-P. POs were provided by LACI-P with a set of indictors, which they willneed to monitor. POs are aware of the indicators that need to be monitored; however, theyappear to be unclear about reporting formats.


22/59



Perspectives and Roles of PPAF in Regard to Planning

Within PPAF the Human & Institutional Development (HID) Unit is responsible for planning. The

role of the HID Unit is to monitor social mobilisation, knowledge sharing and research andtraining. HID considers the current planning practices of POs as insufficient. They lack inclusion,the poor are not sufficiently supported to articulate their issues, and they lack integration. Theplanning process must become more meaningful, more participative, and more inclusive.

They should make use of local facilitators (women and men). Traditional birth attendants couldtake this role as well as women health assistants and teachers.

The HID Unit proposes a three tier planning process.

First tier: PRA mapping of settlements, services, resources, identification of power relations

Second tier: Preparation of multi-sector plans by POs

Third tier: PO implementation plan for PPAF.

This proposal follows the logic of PPAFs Operational Policies Manual, except that it specifies themethod that should be used by POs for first tier planning. The HID Unit is aware of the conflictPOs are in: balancing between wanting to achieve participation on the one side and having toachieve set goals and targets on the other side.

The HID Unit confirmed that many of the POs currently plan sector-wise, and then simplycompile the CO level plans at UC level. They also underlined the importance to support COs todevelop democratic structures and procedures.


4.2.1 Planning Method and Process

PPAF introduced POs to the need for a strong multi-sector planning in a workshop. POs,however, continue to apply the method of planning which they have used in the past and areusing currently for other projects. More follow-up and support is obviously needed tooperationalize this planning method among POs and integrate the MSP into their operationalstructures.

PPAF / LACI-P expect from the MSPs that they can identify synergies among differentinterventions. The planning tool provided in the workshop, however, does not really highlightpotential synergies. Therefore, the tool should be further developed to enable COs and POs toclarify and visualize potential areas of synergies.

The planning tool recommended by PPAF / LACI-P for the preparation of MSPs asks the user toidentify the issues (problems) and then propose solutions. There is no step in which COs reflectand understand the problems and identify the causes of it. Only when they have developed agood understanding of the causes of a problem should they propose solutions.

Numerous POs facilitate a process at CO or VO level to develop village development plans(VDP). These plans focus on needs. The risk is that they evolve as a wish list, crea ting anattitude of expectation and relying on outside institutions to provide the help and resources forresolving their problems. This would be unfortunate. Rather, communities should be encouragedto look first at their assets, what interventions are required to improve their assets (e.g. physicalinfrastructure), and how they will use the assets for the benefits of the community.

At present village development plans and other planning efforts at the level of COs and VOs donot include livelihood options. This thematic area is discussed only with individual households.Livelihood options should be considered on the basis of assets of the household but also assetsof the community. Identification of potential synergies for instance between livelihoods and

infrastructure will otherwise not be possible.


23/59



We were not able to observe planning sessions in a community. We are thus not able tocomment on actual inclusion and participation of ultra poor households and women in situationanalysis and planning. POs mentioned that they provide training to the community in planning.

Important factors that facilitate inclusion of those who are traditionally excluded are preparing

these households for the community planning session in separate sessions and skilled facilitationof the discussions to ensure that ultra poor households do and can participate.

4.2.2 Monitoring

POs should have a monitoring plan that fits with the requirements of LACI-P and therequirements of project management by the POs. Monitoring plans have not been prepared. Amonitoring plan should include the outputs, outcomes and corresponding indicators, the methodused for collecting information / data, the frequency of collection, the place of collection and thepersons responsible. This should be done against the Baseline Survey data.

Furthermore, if POs use monitoring as a management tool for steering project implementationthey will need to include more indicators in their monitoring plan than just the ones prescribed byLACI-P.

It appears that POs at present do not have a monitoring plan that is compatible with therequirements of LACI-P.

4.3 Recommendations

Provide more time for situation analysis and planning

1. POs are under considerable pressure to produce results within a short period. This willcompromise on the quality of situation analysis planning.

2. Communities require time in the planning process for joint reflections and discussions, butalso to build confidence in the method and the process. Furthermore, planning shouldprovide an opportunity to people for doing some analysis of their situation, not jumping fromproblem identification to solutions. POs need time to provide special support and attention tothe excluded and the very poor households so that they can participate in the process in ameaningful way. This should include preparatory coaching sessions, as well good facilitationof discussions.

3. The planning process should enhance the capacity of the community to address needs andinterests of the community, especially those of excluded and marginalized sections, andincrease the level of coordination with different stakeholders at local level to generateresources. This will be consistent with the objectives of multi sector planning.

4. POs should train local planning facilitators to support their communities in undertakinganalysis and planning at regular intervals. The role of LSOs should be explored.

Review methods recommended for situation analysis and planning1. Sound planning is based on a comprehensive situation analysis. A framework of analysis

(e.g. the DFID Framework of Sustainable Livelihoods) should be provided to POs and COsas a base for the situation analysis. COs need to participate in the situation analysis. Theframework should be simple and clear to understand, yet it needs to be comprehensive toinclude also aspects such as risks of natural disasters.

2. A multi sector planning approach seems meaningful, as this also reflects the life and situationof people which cannot be compartmentalized by sector planning. The tools recommendedfor preparing MSPs should be reviewed and further refined, so that they can actually yield theresults expected by the community, the PO and PPAF. The planning process should includesituation analysis, problem analysis and planning. The communities need to be enabled toprioritize and sequence interventions according to their needs (including the needs of

excluded households) and the potentials for creating synergies.


24/59



3. POs need to integrate actively multi sector planning into their operations and systems.

4. The planning exercise should not exclude livelihoods as a thematic area as it is currentlydone; rather, the community should assess potentials and provide suggestions how theirassets can be used for improved livelihoods. This will feed into the work with individual

households for the preparation of livelihood investment plans.5. Detailed guidelines need be prepared for the multi sector planning process by POs and COs.

Monitoring

1. POs need to develop detailed monitoring plans which are compatible with the requirementsof LACI-P and which support POs in effective project management.

2. In addition to the indicators provided by PPAF, POs should identify more indicators that willsupport their own project management. A monitoring plan should include the indicators foroutputs and outcomes, the methods used for data collection, the frequency of data collection,who collects data and a reporting format for LACI-P.


25/59



5 LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION


5.1.1 Objectives and recommended approach

The objective of Livelihood Enhancement and Protection of PPAF is to develop the capacity,opportunities, assets and productivity of community members to reduce their vulnerability toshocks, improve their livelihoods and strengthen their business operations.

Key activities of the programme are (ref. PPAF Operational Policies Manual):

(a) Establishment of community groups around productive or entrepreneurial activities;

(b) Finance interventions to community institutions in the form of Livelihood Grants for:

- asset transfers, which are for productive assets, targeted (through the PSC) at theultra-poor and poor;

- the Community Livelihood Fund (CLF) to promote on-lending within COs of their own

savings;(c) Building linkages with other livelihoods and safety nets programmes of government and

other actors;

(d) Asset building to increase productivity;

(e) Vocational, skills and technical training;

(f) Micro enterprise development training, support innovative micro-enterprises and valuechain development that will result in improved livelihoods;

(g) For all the interventions mentioned above women should form at least 45% of therecipients.

Key steps have been outlined by PPAF that should be taken by the POs from entry into an area

to following up on livelihood projects. They include an initial situation analysis, formation ofCommunity Organisations, methods for the categorization of the poor (PSC), the development oflivelihood investment plans (LIPs) for those categorized as ultra-poor, training and asset transfer,and monitoring of the livelihood activity.

5.1.2 Observations at the Level of Partner and Community Organisations

The target group for livelihood enhancement and protection are households that are categorizedby the Poverty Score Card method as ultra-poor. The approach that partner organisations followfor livelihood enhancement is always household-centred. The formation of common interestgroups was not mentioned by the POs as an option.

All partner organisations we have talked to essentially follow the steps outlined above. Thedifference is the intensity and depths applied by the POs to individual steps.

The first step recommended is thesituation analysis of the selected Union Council. POs seemto have different formats; some do just a walk through, others have structured checklists andquestions. A common framework for the situation analysis does not seem to exist at this moment.

The PO will then initiate the formation of community organisations (COs) and conduct a povertysurvey using the poverty score card method. Those households which are classified as ultra-poorare eligible for livelihood support.

Livelihood Investment Plans (LIP) are developed by sitting with husband and wife (eithertogether or separately) of the ultra poor household, reviewing the assets they have, anddeveloping ideas and plans for improving their livelihoods. The only livelihood outcome definedby the project is increased income.


26/59



In some cases, PO staff develop the LIP with the respective household in only one meeting(taking around one hour), in other cases, several meetings are scheduled to help people reflectand finally come to a decision which new livelihood option they want to take up. Staff (mostlyteams of two) had to prepare up to 100 livelihood investment plans during the first quarter. This

leaves very little time for facilitating the preparation of an individual livelihood investment planand for the beneficiaries to reflect and decide on their options.

Based on the LIP, capacity building related to the proposed livelihood activity is planned andconducted. This may include for instance enterprise development training, a basic introduction tolivestock management and livestock rearing, etc. The assets are then transferred tobeneficiaries; they can include tools for skill-trained people, the first stock of a newly openedshop, or animals. Once beneficiaries take up their new livelihood activity, the main role of the POis monitoring, regular counselling as well as linking beneficiaries with market actors.

The main types of new livelihood activities that were mentioned by PO staff are:

- Various types of shops, mainly grocery, but also tailoring- Small livestock (goats, chicken)- Training in various trades, such as plumbing, welding, electric wiring

PPAF staff also mentioned that the provision of rikshaws is common.

Specifically for women

- Tailoring and embroidery- Small livestock

PO staff reported that it is an important factor for success when a livelihood intervention is builton existing skills and expertise and expanded further.

5.1.3 Assessing markets for opportunities

Some of the POs conduct an assessment of rural (village) markets for skills, services and

products, recognising the importance of understanding market demand. Others just limit thisexercise to a walk through the market and talking with entrepreneurs. The current efforts inunderstanding markets focuses more on assessing what demands there are for proposedlivelihood activities in rural markets, and less on pro-actively checking out for marketopportunities and feeding that back to beneficiaries.

We did not come across a structured approach to market assessments, e.g. using a rapid marketappraisal tool. We recognise that POs are under considerable pressure to prepare a largenumber of livelihood investment plans in a short time span and the time available for marketassessments is very limited.

Imparting new or additional vocational skills is of particular importance to people who own little orno land. Skills training will be short and concise, lasting normally around 3 months. It is importantto understand which skills are in demand in the market, and tailor the training, e.g. the curriculumaccordingly. Again, we did not see a structured approach to assessing the demand for skills inmarkets.

At present the services of government vocational training centres are used for skills training ofparticipants. We were not able to visit such centres; it is important to ensure that trainingproviders respond to the specific demands for skills in the market and provide tailor-madetraining courses to beneficiaries.

5.1.4 Assessing the feasibility of the proposed enterprise / trade

The terms Livelihood Investment Plan and Business Plans are often used interchangeable,though both are very different. A business plan should assess the feasibility of a business anddescribe how the business will be operated and conducted. However, we have not seen actual


27/59



business plans that were prepared for a livelihood activity. PO staff does not seem to beprepared for that.

5.1.5 Support services for enterprises

Small enterprises as well as agriculture require support services for their sustainable operations.They also need backward linkages in the value chain and forward linkages to processors andtraders. Support services may include para-veterinary services in case of livestock, businessdevelopment and financial services and market information for enterprises, etc. However, wehave observed that these support services are provided by the POs themselves rather than bylocal service providers in the market. This will compromise the sustainability of the interventions.

5.1.6 The role of PPAF

PPAF will screen and approve livelihood investment plans, approve them, and conductmonitoring visits. PPAF in the past has also called POs for thematic workshops with externalinputs and exchange of experience.


5.2.1 Situation analysis

A livelihood analysis should take into account an understanding of the assets (capital) peoplehave, the vulnerability context, which influences the way how people can make use of theirassets for a sustainable livelihood, and the way how people currently manage their livelihoods.

A large difference has been observed among partner organisations regarding the depth of thelivelihood analysis conducted. Some do only a quick scan; others conduct livelihood analyseswith some depths. Different questionnaires are used by POs for that purpose.

What seems missing (or what we have not seen) is a framework for livelihood analysis thatguides partner organisations in conducting the analysis and understanding the links between the

different factors in the framework (including the vulnerability context). An option would be therevised DFID framework for sustainable livelihood development (see Annex 4, see also Chapter4.3 Planning) which could be modified and adapted to make it applicable to the context in whichPPAF and the POs are working. A pragmatic balance has to be struck between gaining anunderstanding that is sufficient for designing sustainable and effective interventions and doingthe exercise within a reasonable time frame.

5.2.2 Livelihood Investment Plan

A key element in the process of supporting new livelihood options is the development of alivelihood investment plan (LIP). As outlined earlier, this is done by meeting with the individualultra-poor household, identifying and discussing existing assets and opportunities of thehousehold and finally identifying and deciding on the right livelihood options for the household

that will be supported by LACI-P.We had the impression that these steps are often taken hurriedly by PO staff. For providing thebase of a sustainable, new livelihood activity, PO staff need to understand well the context, theasset base and market opportunities; beneficiaries require time for reflection and analysis ofdifferent options. Some POs facilitate such a process; others essentially complete thepreparation of a LIP in one sitting, resulting in a very mechanistic approach and almost foregoneconclusions. We came across cases, where beneficiaries did not even know what was proposedin their LIP. Careful analysis and reflection, and finally ownership by the beneficiary are essentialfor successful livelihood interventions.

POs have placed teams of two (male / female) who are responsible for all activities related tolivelihood enhancement and protection. Already in the first three months they were tasked withpreparing up to 100 LIPs. This leaves very little time for assessing market opportunities, for


28/59



developing quality livelihood investment plans, the details of the proposed business and mappingout the kind of training support the person will need.

At present the IPs foresee to complete all LIPs during the first year. This places considerablestrain on staff and compromises quality over quantity. PO staff is academically well trained, but

have not been sufficiently exposed to the world of business. This makes it even more difficult forthem.

5.2.3 Identification of Market Opportunities

The aim of the livelihood interventions is to support ultra-poor households to get out of povertysustainably by gaining access to and acting in promising and profitable markets. Therefore, agood understanding of markets and market opportunities is essential. This includes in particularan understanding of what goods and services are in demand:

- In the village- In nearby markets- In towns and cities- In final consumer markets

- By businesses

The current assessment of opportunities seems rather superficial and unstructured in manycases. Most of the proposed livelihood activities are relatively narrow and include:

- Shops- Livestock- Skills training (plumbing, electric wiring, etc)- Tailoring, embroidery

Surely, there are many more market opportunities, which are currently missed out because POstaff do not have the time and capacities to identify them. Promoting only a limited number ofenterprises and trades has the high risk of market saturation and business failures, particularlybecause beneficiaries have little experience themselves in running an enterprise.

LACI-P is supporting livelihood activities only at the level of individual households. Individualhouseholds produce very small quantities and a lack of variety; therefore they are only of limitedinterest to wholesalers or businesses. Village traders may help to aggregate goods, or betterhorizontal coordination, e.g. the formation of CIGs for joint marketing, input supply, etc. couldprovide that function.

5.2.4 Understanding barriers of entry

It is important to understand barriers of market entry for newcomers and develop strategies tomitigate these barriers.

Barriers include for instance:

- Financial and social obstacles to potential newcomers in a market;

- Poor people in villages may want to buy on credit in grocery shops but ultra-poor familiesstarting with a grocery shop will not have the working capital to sell on credit andtherefore will not get the customers;

- Established firms are likely to have a cost advantages owing to market concentration andrealisation of economies of scale in production and distribution; they also have lowertransaction costs as they know all actors in value chains;

- There is often a strong buyer or consumer preferences for the output of established firms;

- Social barriers to entry which may be significant particularly for women.


29/59



5.2.5 Business planning

As outlined earlier, we have not seen business plans for new livelihood activities in the field or inPOs offices; the capacity for business plan development among PO staff seems to be limited.

An initial business plan should cover at least a financial plan, looking at revenues andexpenditures and a cash flow plan. Poor households very often struggle with their cash flow.

Another important element would be a marketing plan. This will help to assess feasibility of thebusiness at the start, and it will be a simple management tool for the entrepreneur.

5.2.6 Analysis of sustainability of the livelihood / enterprise

At present there is no systematic assessment of sustainability of the livelihood activity or theenterprise initiated. Sustainability in that context means that goods and services continue to beproduced and/or consumed by the target group beyond the period of the intervention and thesupport. A systematic assessment would include a simple business plan, assessing the viabilityof the proposed activity as well as a picture of how the enterprise is embedded in the market,specifically with regard to value chain (linkages) and support services from the market. A simple

tool for assessment could be the who doeswho pays table below.

Example of a sustainability plan for women tailoring enterprise

Project period Beyond project period

Function Who does? Who pays? Function Who does? Who pays?

Value chain

actorsInput supplies ? ? ? ? ?

Aggregators

Traders

Supportservices

Marketlinkage

PO Project Marketlinkage

? ?

Market

information

PO Project Market

information

? ?

Businessadvisoryservice

PO Project Businessadvisoryservice

? ?

etc

The POs need to develop a clear picture of the future market system, identifying potential serviceproviders and a strategy of how to bring them on board, train and support them and ensure that


30/59



there are incentives to provide support services to the poor. Alternatively, opportunities forembedded services within a value chain should be explored at a very early point.

5.2.7 Resources / Time Available for Preparation, Follow up

In Table 1, we listed the number of field staff responsible for preparing LIPs and following upinterventions and the number of LIPs to be prepared. Results show that on average they canspend half a person-day in total on preparation of LIPs and half a day on following up oflivelihood interventions. This figure confirms our observation, that LIPs are developed under aconsiderable time pressure and hurriedly.

POs mentioned that they visit ultra-poor households with livelihood interventions for monitoringand counselling one time a month. Based on the total resources available this translates into 25minutes per household per visit (not calculating the travel times).

POs No of Livelihoodsofficers

No of LIPsto be

prepared

No ofLIPs per

field staff

Time forpreparation

one LIP1

)(days)

Time forfollow up

1)

(days)Male Female Total

SERVE 2 - 2 260 130 1 1

SWWS 4 - 4 520 130 1 1

AKRSP 4 - 4 1560 390 0.33 0.33

SRSP 6 - 6 1040 173 0.75 0.75

RDP 1 - 2 260 130 1 1

NRSP 1 1 2 780 390 0.33 0.33

Total 19 4420 233 0.56 0.56

1) Assuming that livelihood officers spend 50% of their time (from the perspective of a whole year) on preparingLIPs and on following up of livelihood interventions in the field

Table 1: Resources (Human Resources & time) available for preparation & follow up for LIPs

5.2.8 Combining Sustainable Livelihood Development with Value Chain Development

Livelihood analysis tends to focus onpeople and prioritise the local context whereas value chainanalysis tends to focus on relationships and other linkages between firms or enterprises,prioritising vertical linkages beyond the immediate locality. Value chain analysis anddevelopment provides an essential picture of how small producers interact with the larger firmsand markets. Suitable governance systems (e.g. supply contracts) can provide opportunities for

embedded services, between buyers and producers, e.g. market information, technical advice,product specifications and finance, and thus contribute to the sustainability of enterprises.

Why combining the two approaches?: Livelihood and value chain development arecomplementary and combining the two approaches provides a more comprehensiveunderstanding of both the structure of markets and the way in which markets for particular goodsinteract with livelihood strategies.


31/59



5.3 Recommendations

1. Provide more time for planning and preparing of livelihood activities, e.g. for situationanalysis, LIP preparation and doing market assessments.

2. It has been discussed earlier that for new livelihood activities to be successful, a good

livelihood analysis is required as well as a good understanding of market opportunities forpoor households. Ultra-poor households need time to reflect and analyse which options forlivelihood improvements fit best their situation.

3. We recommend not conducting all LIPs during the first 12 months, but spreading theirpreparation over a period of two years. This will provide more time to the POs for livelihoodanalysis and assessi

advisory and review assignment report

Documents