Developing methodologies for livelihood impact assessment: experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa

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. [author]