Sustainable Livelihoods and Project Design in India
The design process in Orissa did not explicitly use SL tools such as the ‘framework’ throughout, but some SL principles and concepts were incorporated into the process, chiefly at a workshop and a series of team meetings towards the end of the design process. Above all, SL perspectives provided a neutral ground for understanding the relationships between the different findings and ensuring that team members were talking a ‘common language’. It broadened their outlook – forcing design team members to think about what the findings of the different disciplinary studies told them about why the poor struggle to secure a livelihood in western Orissa. Applied towards the end of project preparation, the SL framework – particularly the capital assets component – proved to be of particular help in integrating the insights into the nature of poverty emerging from the four studies and drawing out the implication of these for potential project approaches and activities.
The process of project development in Andhra Pradesh proceeded in a very different way. This was partly due to both the Government of Andhra Pradesh’s (GoAP) clear vision on what a partnership with DFID should be based around and its experience in implementing watershed development projects. The design focused much more on identifying the type of support needed to strengthen its ongoing programmes and was largely driven by the DRD – in close consultation with NGOs. The SL approach and framework were not explicitly adopted as an analytical or planning tool. The value of SL perspectives here lay largely in allowing DFID-India to clarify its own priorities and then screen the approaches adopted by potential partners to assess their consistency with DFID’s priorities.
Despite the different approaches and institutional contexts, the projects share some important similarities. Both projectsrecognise that although an improved natural resource can contribute to enhanced livelihoods it is not a panacea. They placea strong emphasis on broadening the scope of watershed development activities, empowering the poor to enable them to participate in the institutional processes and linking communities to a wider range of government programmes, and social andeconomic opportunities. They also recognise that there is little point in micro-planning activities: there is substantial flexibility for local communities to prioritise project interventions, and include viable non land-based activities. A lot of thought in thedesign of both projects went into identifying a number of trends and institutional changes that attempt to respond to the needs of the rural poor – a central pillar of the SL approach. Both projects recognise the importance of strengthening the impact of these trends.
There are also some important differences between the two projects. In Orissa, with its more limited experience of implementing watershed projects, the emphasis is on gaining experience first before scaling up. Given the nature and structure of inequities in the project districts, the project emphasises ‘participation’. ‘Livelihood support teams’ will be deployed to analyse the livelihood needs of the most vulnerable, initiate social organisation and capacity building and facilitate negotiation of resource rights for the poor. Substantial funds are available for ‘watershed plus’ activities in recognition of alienation of the poor from the resource base.
In Andhra Pradesh, the emphasis is more on capacity building and institutional strengthening to enable the watershed programme to be scaled up. Less money is allocated to project activities, rather the aim is to encourage the convergence of other rural development programmes at the watershed level. Lesson learning to inform policy change is central to the project.
The SL approach added value to the project design process. It encouraged a more holistic understanding of the needs and priorities of the poor and also drew attention to the importance of policy and institutional structures. This presents DFID with a new set of challenges. How do projects prioritise their activities? Both projects illustrate the importance of drawing on past experience, existing skills, established partnerships and opportunities to support positive directions of change. Much of the success of the project will depend on policy-led changes in the institutions and processes that provide the current framework of social and economic activity. However, the question arises as to what donors can achieve in this area? There is little evidence - especially in the Indian context - that donors can influence those underlying causes of poverty rooted in power structures.
Perhaps the biggest challenges relate to the implications of the SL approach for project implementation rather than to any conceptual questions. Learning processes are central to the SL approach. Changes over time in the opportunities and constraints influencing the livelihood options of the poor need to be mapped out and course corrections incorporated. Iterative approaches to project design and implementation can only work if funding agencies (DFID-India) and implementing partners (Orissa and Andhra Pradesh governments) can cope with the demands of greater flexibility.
Overall the experiences of the two projects emphasised the importance of achieving a balance between on the one hand responding to poor peoples’ livelihood needs and priorities, and on the other, supporting positive directions of change. Donors need to be realistic about the practicalities of developing effective and sustainable partnerships with national, State and district level government institutions. Rather than starting with a blank piece of paper the question was: ‘how to make an innovative rural development initiative (attracting significant government funding) ‘fit’ better with people’s livelihood strategies and make it better at responding to the constraints and opportunities affecting the rural poor’.
[From author]
