AIACC Semi-Annual Progress Report

AIACC-AF-14 Sudan Project January 2003

AIACC Semi-Annual Progress Report Project AF-14: Environmental Strategies for Increasing Human

Resilience to Climate Change in Sudan

A) A brief summary of activities during reporting period:

Between July 2002 and January 2003 the AIACC AF-14 project team – the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR) and the Stockholm Environmental Institute –Boston (SEI-B) carried out a number of activities outlined in our July 2002 workplan, including:

• final selection of national and regional Task Force (TF) members and finalization of the MOU with the TF members,

• execution of internal scoping reports for the identification of case studies and case study researchers,

• finalized selection of case study researchers (CSRs) and assembly of CSR teams, based on established criteria,

• intensive literature review for research methodology development, potential case studies and historical climate records (draft bibliography attached),

• preparation of a background paper on climate data for the Sahelian Region of Africa, with a focus on Sudan (attached),

• development of a detailed methodological framework document (attached),

• development of detailed case study methods, included as part of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for case study researchers (attached),

• first meeting of national TF members and case study researchers held in which concepts, methods and operational issues were discussed,

• assessment of case study options and preparation of case study summaries (attached),

• preparation and submission of stakeholder participation proposal (attached),

• coordination of CSRs, preparation for the second CSRs meeting (to be held February 8, 2003) and preparation for pilot case study launch,

• development of AIACC input, including the AIACC information survey

B) Description of tasks performed and outputs produced:

Final national and regional TF member composition (July –September 2002): Two local TF and one regional (Ethiopian) were selected based on the criteria specified on the internal scoping report. Memoranda of

1


Understandings (MOUs) were finalized and signed by TF members and HCENR (AI).

Project TF Members are :

Dr. Saleemul Huq: IIED

Dr. Tom Downing: SEI-Oxford

Dr. Hussein Adam: University of Gezira

Dr. Yagoub Abdalla: HCENR

Dr. Taye Bekele : Biodiversity Unit, Ethiopia

2. Final selection of case study researchers (October 2002): Based on the criteria specified on the internal scoping report, 6 case study researchers were identified and selected. Their selection considered the need for building capacity and involving relevant institutions, as well as balanced expertise. Our approach involved:

i. Combining teams with different types and levels of expertise: senior and junior staff, two researchers per case study.

ii. Formation of multi -disciplinary teams representing relevant institution.

3. Literature review (July – November 2002): An extensive literature review, covering national, regional and international sources was made to assist in the methodology development, in the identification of case studies and in the provision of historical records on climate data.

4. Project document preparation (July - December 2002): During the last half year, a series of project documents have been prepared. Most notably, the project’s methodological framework and detailed Terms of Reference are now developed to the point where they can effectively guide the case study process toward useful and informative outputs.

• Final Internal Scoping report for selection of CSs researchers.

• Final Internal scoping report for case studies selection

• Background paper on climate data on Sudan

• Series of nine case studies summaries

• Terms of Reference for case study researchers

• Methodological framework for case study research

• Draft project bibliography

• Stakeholder participation proposal

• Various AIACC input (information survey, linkages with the NC process)

5. Methodological framework development (July – December 2002; continuous process): A methodological framework and TOR containing detailed case study guidance have been developed, based on the initial framework presented at the Trieste workshop. The framework and case study guidance have been reviewed by TF members and case study researchers, and their comments have been reflected. (They have also been

2


reviewed by the IISD-IUCN-SEI Task Force on climate change and vulnerable communities, and adopted as their methodology for a pilot case study.) The documents will be presented for final discussion during the second CSR meeting on February 8, 2003. These were circulated (at the beginning of January) to the CSRs and TF members for revision and comments.

6. 1st meeting of local TF and CSR (November 2002): In late November, 2002, HCENR convened local TF members and the group of six CSRs for a first project meeting, focused on introducing the project and the methodology. The agenda included an introduction to climate change and sustainable livelihoods concepts, for those unfamiliar, as well as an introduction to the project’s goals and approach, and an overview of its case study methodology. The meeting was held at the HCENR with the participation of the CSRs, national TF members, national Principal Investigators (PIs), national Project Advisor (Ismail El Gizouli), and the Secretary General of HCENR (Dr. Nadir Awad).

Material distributed in advance and discussed in the meeting included: (a) Background material (SPMs of IPCC TAR 2001, contribution of WGI and WGII), Key project concepts document, methodological framework, Terms of Reference, as well as key documents on sustainable livelihood concept and methods. During the meeting the following topics were discussed:

• background on climate change vulnerability and adaptation issues

• the AIACC Global Initiative

• AF-14 project (goals, approach, conceptual framework, sustainable livelihoods)) (attached)

• introduction to AF-14 case studies methodology

• case study Terms of Reference

7. Participation in Geneva meeting of IISD-IUCN-SEI TF on climate change and vulnerable communities (December 2002): International project team member (Spanger-Siegfried) attended this meeting on behalf of the project, in which the AF-14 case study methodology was discussed by the TF and adopted as its approach to case studies planned for 2003. The TF also agreed to provide input to the Sudan pilot project and to include the findings of the pilot among the experiences it will showcase in upcoming adaptation activities.

8. Preparation for the second meeting (December 2002 – present): The meeting is scheduled to be held at the HCENR in Feb. 2003. Participants will include CSRs, a national TF member in addition to the national and international project advisors. The main objectives of the meeting are to discuss and finalize the case study methodology, decide on a pilot case study and set time lines for the fieldwork. A preliminary meeting agenda includes:

• Finalization of case study methodology

• Pilot case study selection

• Final case study selection

• Preparation of the workplan for case studies research

3


Documents under preparation for this meeting:

• Final version of case study methodology

• Detailed guidance for field survey and data collection

• Summaries of nine potential case studies

C. Description of difficulties encountered and lessons learned. In July, 2002, we characterized our key challenges as (a) bringing case study researchers on board and quickly raising their understanding of the our approach, research protocol and key research interests, and (b) carefully managing two or three linked, but distinct, TF input processes (the international, regional and local) due to our inability to convene a single meeting of all the Task Force members. Thus far, both of these challenges have been effectively managed (though TF engagement poses ongoing challenges). Instead, our persistent recent challenges are these:

• The project continues to encounter difficulty in achieving milestones on schedule, and is currently 2 to 4 months behind schedule on various activities.

• Project partners encountered difficulty identifying and selecting a second appropriate regional TF member; this highlights the need for the networking and outreach phase, called for toward the close of the project.

• The project has only been able to identify a dozen projects with significant potential as case studies. Though these cases are entirely suitable and adequate, this relatively small number highlights both the fragmented nature of information on potential cases and the need for greater outreach and networking on the part of project partners.

D. Connections with National Communications under UNFCCC

The numerous connections that exist between the AF-14 project and the Sudan NC process are outlined below.

• The Higher Council for Environment & Natural Resources (HCENR) and the Administrative Institute (AI) for the AIACC Project constitutes the implementing agency for the Climate Change Enabling Project. HCENR is focal point of the UNFCCC. The Secretary General of the HCENR was the Government Project Coordinator of the Climate Change Project and he was responsible for the national communication.

• Stockholm Environment Institute-Boston Centre (SEI-B)-- the partner of HCENR in AIACC AF-14 project-- provided the technical backstopping to HCENR in the preparation of Sudan’s First National Communication and now is assisting HCENR in the preparation of the NAPA.

• The two national PIs of the AIACC AF-14 project were the Assistant Coordinators to climate Change Enabling Project and had played a key role in the preparation of the Sudan’s First National Communication.

4


• The project’s two PIs and its National Advisor were the core staff of the current climate Change Unit at the HCENR.

• The National Project Advisor was the Coordinator of the Climate Change Enabling Project.

• The International Project Advisor and the international PI of AIACC AF14 (from SEI-B) provided the technical backstopping for the Climate Change project and significantly contributed to the development of Sudan’s First National Communication.

• A member of the climate change project Vulnerability & Adaptation team participated in the training program on climate scenarios organized by AIACC in Norwich; this member is responsible for the development of the climate scenarios used in Sudan’s first (and second) NC.

• Most, if not all of the project members will participate in the second national communication (NC)

• As indicated above some of the people involved with AIACC AF14 will certainly participate in the preparation of the second NC with more experience and knowledge on V&A assessment related issues. The head of HCENR the AI for is AIACC AF14 is continuously being contacted in the preparation and implementation of AIACC AF14.

• Since HCENR is responsible for all the activities related to climate change, such as the 2nd. National Communication, National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA) etc., it is expected that AIACC AF-14 Project will have direct connection with all these projects and processes. The national team on V&A, the technical committee for climate change and the NAPA processes are all targeted through the stakeholder involvement and consultation processes of AIACC AF14 (awaiting funding approval).

• As mentioned earlier, the head of HCENR and all the persons responsible for the coordination of national communications are now members of AIACC_AF14 project; they participated in its formulation, setting the objectives, methods and plans.

• The Secretary General of the HCENR provides input to the project through consultation and periodic meetings. The V&A team and National Technical committee will be involved in the project’s stakeholder consultation process

• HCENR is fully committed to using the information generated by AIACC_AF14 Project in the preparation of the NAPA as well as the second National Communications, and to disseminate this information to any related national development planning process – such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

E. Description of tasks to be performed in the next eight-month period:

Please refer to the attached workplan table.

5


6

F. Anticipated difficulties in the next eight-month period:

Key difficulties in the coming period are likely to include:

• Effectively conveying details of fieldwork methods to CSRs

• Ensuring consistent use of and adherence to case study methods on the part of the CSRs

• Maintaining case study schedules

• Avoiding inconsistency in case study outputs

• Synthesizing useful lessons from the case study process

G. Attachments

a) Eight month work plan for the project activities

b) Draft methodological framework of AF-14 project

c) Background paper on Climate data of the Africa Sahel

d) Draft Terms of Reference for CSRs

e) Draft project bibliography

f) New methodology presentation

g) AIACC Global Initiative and AIACC AF_14 project presentation

h) Case study summaries

i) Case study researcher table

AIACC-AF-14/Sudan Project

Attachment A: 8-Month Work plan (January- August 2003) AF-14 Environmental Strategies for Increasing Human Resilience to Climate Change in Sudan

Activity January February March April May June July August

1. Preparation and convening of the second TF, CSRs and PI meeting

2. Execution of pilot case study

3. Participation in the Regional AIACC Workshop for Africa

4.Third TF, CSRs and project partners meeting

5. Execution of additional case study research (between 2 to 3 cases)

6. First Draft of Case Study Reports

7. Review of First Draft by TF and project partners

8. Final Draft of Case Study Reports

9. Case study analysis and synthesis

10. Semi –annual report

SEI-Boston and HCENR

Attachment B: Methodological Framework An internal scoping report of the project Strategies for Increasing Human Resilience in Sudan: Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation in North and East Africa Prepared by Erika Spanger-Siegfried and Bill Dougherty of the Stockholm Environment Institute - Boston Center; Nagmeldin Goutbi and Balgis Osman of the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources.

This report has been developed to serve as an internal “blueprint” for the research component of the joint HCENR/SEI-B project. Here, we scope out the terms of our project methodology, to be revisited and revised as internal understanding of the work grows.

1. Background ..........................................................................................................................................3

2. Research Goals....................................................................................................................................3

3. Research Scope...................................................................................................................................4

4. Methodological Approach.....................................................................................................................6

4.1 Climate variability and extremes as a proxy for climate change: ................................................6

4.2 Sustainable livelihoods approach, framework and assessment tools: ........................................6

4.3 “Successful” resilience-building experiences:..............................................................................8

4.4 Targeted Participation:.................................................................................................................9

4.5 Resilience indicators:...................................................................................................................9

4.6 Micro-Macro Linkages: ..............................................................................................................10

4.7 Nested Assessment:..................................................................................................................10

4.8 Validation: ..................................................................................................................................11

5. Case Study Protocol...........................................................................................................................11

5.1 Background and Preparation.....................................................................................................11

5.2 Fieldwork....................................................................................................................................16

5.3 Policy Process Analysis.............................................................................................................22

5.4 Progress reporting .....................................................................................................................23

5.5 Synthesis ...................................................................................................................................24

BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................................................25

Annex 1: Glossary.......................................................................................................................................29

Annex 2: Case Study Report Outline ..........................................................................................................31

Annex 3: Overview of LAST System...........................................................................................................33

Annex 4: Overview of Policy Process Analysis...........................................................................................36

Annex 5 : Overview of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach ...................................................................36

1


2


1. Background

This project is motivated by the observation that existing resilience-building strategies – whether directed toward household, community, sectoral, even ecosystem resilience – can be effective at increasing the capacity to cope with and adapt to climate-related impacts, and that these strategies could be built upon for climate change adaptation. More specifically, the project is based on the following premises:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

increasing the coping capacity of the most vulnerable groups to today’s climate-related impacts must be a pre-eminent goal of adaptation,

developing countries are especially in need of adaptation strategies that are consistent with national sustainable development goals,

methods have been developed in separate fields of practice – sustainable livelihoods, environmental management, disaster mitigation – which can meet both of these needs,

if the needs of the most vulnerable people are prioritized in national decision-making, then small-scale, community-level strategies will be needed to supplement the large-scale, technical/structural approach that is likely to dominate adaptation planning. However, there is a need to provide decision-makers with information on these small-scale strategies;

and lastly, these sorts of strategies – i.e., that increase the adaptive capacity of the most vulnerable people while mitigating near-term environmental impacts (e.g., slowing desertification) – can diversify and strengthen national adaptation plans of developing countries.

It is these types of strategies that we intend to identify, explore and discuss, making them accessible, understandable and useable to the policy-making process. Case studies, including a policy analysis component, will serve as the primary research tool for this purpose.

2. Research Goals

In essence, the project hypothesis is that sustainable livelihoods can fill the practical and conceptual gap that exists between local vulnerability to climate change and national/intergovernmental policy processes. More specifically, just as the term ‘sustainable livelihoods’ is used to describe both an approach to human development and a framework for analysis, the project’s hypothesis consists of two similar elements: first, that the sustainable livelihoods approach can respond, on the ground, to climate change adaptation needs of the most vulnerable groups, and second, that the sustainable livelihoods framework can facilitate the process of adaptation assessment, policy making and implementation. The project aims to respond to this hypothesis by employing the framework to assess the impact of the approach on community resilience and, by using policy process analysis, to define the linkages of the approach to the larger policy process.

3

Vikrom Mathur

We need to find a better reference…


With this in mind, the purpose of the case studies – the central research element of the AIACC Sudan project – is to enable the project to show that certain sustainable livelihoods (SL) measures operate as climate change adaptation options and that such measures can (and should, given the numerous co-benefits) be integrated into the planning of national adaptation strategies. So that the project can make this claim, the goal of the case studies is to clarify and establish the following:

(a)

(b)

that certain sustainable livelihoods (and natural resource management) measures increase a community’s resilience to today’s climate-related shocks. To show this, case studies will involve collection and analysis of ‘resilience indicator’ data – data on the protection and promotion of livelihoods.

and on a methodological level, that it is possible to determine how such measures can be effectively implemented, supported and up-scaled, for lasting impact. To show this, each case study will provide an assessment of the local and national policies and conditions, as well as the implementation strategies that support or inhibit successful measures.

Within these overarching project goals, the case studies themselves have the following specific objectives:

(a) Identify vulnerable communities (i.e., vulnerable to drought, other climate impacts) where successful SL measures have been put in place and using community consultation, confirm the success of the measure.

(b) Generate informative background material on each community’s unique context, vulnerabilities, assets, coping strategies, etc.

(c) Within each community, employ a suite of quantitative and qualitative methods to measure community resilience to climate-related impacts, with and without SL intervention.

(d) Employ policy and cross-scale analysis techniques to explore the relationship between community resilience-building activities and micro-, meso- and macro-scale policies, institutions and processes.

(e) From the above, draw lessons for increasing community resilience with SL strategies – while achieving multiple additional benefits – that can be applied to adaptation and related processes.

3. Research Scope

Drawing from existing research platforms, the project research consists of three interlinked processes – the empirical, in which background information is gathered and organized, the analytical, in which case studies are carried out, and the participatory, in which community input, validation and guidance is sought.1 Within the analytical process, the project will use the sustainable livelihoods framework to enable

1 See, e.g., the Strategic Environmental Framework for the Greater Mekong Subregion (SEI and ADB, 2002)

4


researchers to measure resilience at the local level to climate-related impacts. With this approach, the following research scope is proposed:

a) The project will undertake four separate case studies in Sudan. Case studies will be concerned with current and recent historical experience, and are likely to focus on the experience of the 1980s through to the present.2

b) To ensure adequate coverage of Sudan’s rural circumstances, and adequate representation of the Sahel, as well as North and East African circumstances, each case study will focus on a distinct ecosystem sub-type (such as rangelands, forested lands (e.g., the gum arabic belt), semi-arid plains) or agricultural system type (such as gum arabic production, rain-fed shorgum production, animal husbandry) along the agricultural-pastoral continuum.3

c) Each case study will focus on a single community or group of communities within an ecological/agricultural system as its unit of research.

d) Each case study will explore examples where “local” knowledge (e.g., traditional, indigenous, autonomous, informal) and/or “external” knowledge (e.g., formal, technical, directed) has been applied within a target community, in the form of an SL strategy, to enable the community to cope with or adapt to climate-related stress.

e) Case studies will compare a community’s vulnerability to climate extremes, pre- and post-SL intervention. In cases where collection of historic information is not possible, “signal” events (i.e., major historic climatic events) and role-playing will be relied upon.

f) Case studies will be conducted by commissioned researchers, through desk-based and field research, over a four-month period.

g) Finally, it is important to note that the project will select case studies based in part on advance knowledge that the case represents a successful example of SL measures reducing community vulnerability to drought. The project will accept, based on the output of an initial scoping exercise and direct community consultation (discussed below), that a set of measures is effective, and will focus instead on (1) the extent to which these measures increased resilience, and (2) why? (i.e., because of what local, national, regional policies and conditions?)

Each of these points is discussed below in some detail.

2 This wide time horizon has been chosen to capture the infamous drought of 1983-1984 (persistent regional drought) that severely impacted Sahelian Africa. 3 The project is likely to favor the use of agricultural systems, as these tend to be most representative of other locations at the national and regional levels. Data on agricultural systems is more readily available and tends to be more reliable. Moreover, much of the traditional knowledge developed by communities for drought-proofing is oriented around crop and food production systems.

5


4. Methodological Approach

The following major elements comprise the project’s methodological approach. Specific steps involved in the case studies are outlined in section five.

4.1 Climate variability and extremes as a proxy for climate change:

Despite tremendous progress in the science surrounding climate change scenarios, it is not currently possible to rely upon existing scenarios for Sudan (see e.g. the First National Communications (HCENR, 2001)) or for many countries to confidently assess the impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities. Instead, vulnerability to current climate variability is increasingly being used as a reliable proxy for vulnerability to climate change. This approach does not equate present climate extremes with future climatic conditions; rather, a number of sources have suggested that the degree to which a sector, community, or system is adapted to today’s climate extremes and variability can serve as an indicator of how vulnerable or resilient that system is likely to be to future climate change conditions. According to the IPCC WG II (Summary for Policy Makers, 2001), for example, “Experience with adaptation to climate variability and extremes can be drawn upon to develop appropriate strategies for adapting to anticipated climate change”. In other words, for vulnerable communities and agricultural systems, the most logical first step in adapting to climate change is to assess and, where necessary, increase their level of adaptation to current climate-related stressors.

For each case study, a discrete climate-related event - past or ongoing - will be identified, around which the case study will be constructed. Where possible, the impact on a community of two separate events will be assessed – one pre-intervention, one post-intervention. In cases where more recent interventions are being examined, a historic climate stressor may be used as a “signal” event, which the community can project onto its current circumstances through role-playing, for the purposes of considering its current resilience to similar, hypothetical impacts.

4.2 Sustainable livelihoods approach, framework and assessment tools:

The sustainable livelihoods approach sees poverty as vulnerability to shocks, and seeks to reduce vulnerability by building on the livelihood assets of households, increasing their access to a blend of assets and gradually building household resilience. Basically, the approach seeks to enhance existing coping and adaptive strategies in the manner most suited to the community’s needs. The present project seeks to clarify the potential role of the SL approach for increasing people’s resilience to climate change, thus enabling them to adapt.

Over the past decade, the sustainable livelihoods approach has gained prominence in development work and has begun to be used in a great number of settings. Several major development agencies (e.g., DFID, CARE, UNDP) have developed their own unique frameworks for describing and applying the approach (i.e., for presenting the primary influences on people’s livelihoods, and the typical interactions

6


between these), though each adheres to a core set of ideas (as outlined in Annex 5). The AIACC Sudan project is not wedded to a single framework and is instead using its own variant (outlined in section 5), drawing methods from those used by major development agencies (DFID, CARE and UNDP) and from a variety of past assessment experiences. Some of the benefits of using an SL framework are that it “provides a checklist of important issues and sketches out the way these link to each other; draws attention to core influences and processes; and emphasizes the multiple interactions between the various factors which affect livelihoods” (see DFID Guidance sheets). But as DFID suggests, SL frameworks should be used flexibly and adapted to suit specific contexts. The AIACC Sudan project will use the DFID model outlined below, and the notion of the five capitals (natural, physical, human, social and financial), albeit loosely, in order to capture perceptions of resilience in the data collection process. See section 5 for more detail.

DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework:

Source: http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf

As use of the SL approach has expanded, organizations have developed and applied assessment tools – impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation, etc. – in order to measure the effectiveness of projects in actually lowering people’s vulnerability. From the range of assessments undertaken, a general approach has taken shape which draws heavily from a number of existing methods.

Sustainable livelihood assessment is intended to generate an understanding of the role and impact of a project on enhancing and securing local people’s livelihoods. As such, it relies on a range of data collection methods, a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators and, to varying degrees, application of a sustainable livelihoods model or framework. Though differences exist, most assessment strategies apply some form of an asset-based approach; most encourage examination of micro-macro linkages; most employ some degree of participatory research methods. By and large, the way that these assessment methods frame the problem and respond to the question of livelihood impact make them highly suitable to the goals of the current project.

The image below uses an adapted version of the UNDP approach to sustainable livelihoods to outline the way in which the project is conceptualizing the SL

7


assessment process and its linkage to the larger process of adaptation. The UNDP approach to sustainable livelihoods may be the most compatible with the project’s overall research goals, while the DFID framework provides a useful tool for use

within the case study process itself.

Adaptation Process

Input to the Adaptation Process

Policy Process Analysis

SL assessment

“Successful” resilience-building experience

Adaptation Drivers

Adaptation Entry Point

Adaptation Outcome

SL drivers: Policy (macro-micro)

Institutions (e.g., governance) Processes (e.g., investment,

technology transfer)

SL entry points: Adaptive strategies (assets,

knowledge technology)

SL Outcomes: Community resilience

Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Adaptation Assessment Process

(SL Case Study)

4.3 “Successful” resilience-building experiences:

The AIACC SUDAN project is motivated in part by an understanding that successful examples exist (notably, in the linked fields of sustainable livelihoods and natural resource management) of efforts to increase the resilience of communities to climate-related shocks. Numerous reports exist, documenting project impacts and assessing success. It is therefore not the goal of the present project to establish whether selected SL strategies have been successful, but rather to clarify (a) the nature of that success, and (b) its enabling factors behind that success.

Success, however, is a subjective term, requiring judicious use. The AIACC Sudan project will therefore study only those experiences that the communities themselves deem to be successful – according to community-defined terms such as ownership, impact on asset base, sustainability, institutional linkages, etc. If necessary, multi-criteria assessment may be used to generate a comprehensive picture of the “success” of a given activity in increasing a community’s resilience. The criteria

8


used in this process can also serve as the basis for developing resilience indicators (at a later stage) on the part of the community.

Thus, the project is entirely bypassing the process of vulnerability assessment. This is in part because climate vulnerability in much of Sudan is extremely homogeneous – i.e., communities are by and large vulnerable to the impacts of low rainfall and drought.

4.4 Targeted Participation:

Stakeholder participation is seen as a key component of research that seeks to directly address human needs. Though the current project is one step removed from direct community-level development activity, the reliance of the case studies on a locally-driven assessment of resilience makes it essential that community participation be a mainstay of the work. The challenge to the AIACC Sudan project arises from the limited funds and short time-span available to the case study process: there is neither budget nor time for extended direct observation and multiple community consultations. As a compromise, the project will make use of a range of the most appropriate participatory tools, including participatory rural appraisal (e.g., ‘word picture’ development), household surveys, intra-household interviews, role-playing and community-wide validation workshops.4

4.5 Resilience indicators:

Borrowing from C.S. Holling and colleagues, we refer to resilience here as the capacity of a system (social and/or ecological) to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state. Resilient communities, therefore, can withstand shocks and rebuild themselves if necessary.5 With this thinking, we can see vulnerable (often poor) communities as those incapable of withstanding and recovering from climate impacts, and conversely, resilient communities as those that are capable of coping with and recovering. Bearing in mind the sustainable livelihoods literature, which equates poverty with vulnerability and prescribes the fostering of sustainable livelihoods as a mechanism for enhancing coping and adaptive capacity, the role of sustainable livelihoods in increasing resilience to climate impacts becomes clear. But how to measure this role? The AIACC Sudan project is relying on several existing tools, developed for monitoring and assessing the impact of sustainable livelihoods on communities; with the guidance provided therein, the project has adopted a fairly simple approach to developing and using resilience indicators, as outlined in section 5.2.

The use of indicators – to measure sustainable development, poverty reduction, ecosystem resilience, etc. – is a notoriously challenging task, tending to lean too far toward either the quantitative or qualitative extremes. However, consensus is emerging in the sustainable livelihoods field that application of an appropriately

4 See, e.g., Bond and Mukherjee (2002); Turton (2001). 5 See The Resilience Alliance: http://www.resalliance.org/whatisresilience.html.

9

http://www.resalliance.org/whatisresilience.html


balanced blend of both types of indicators can offer up realistic and informative assessments of changes in livelihood security and community resilience.6 Both types will be combined for use with the LAST (livelihood asset status tracking) system (Bond and Mukherjee, 2002), outlined in section 5.2. This tool is essentially a quality of life index, combined with the SL framework’s use of assets. In developing indicators of community resilience, the AIACC Sudan project is planning to use community consultation, word picture construction, and local informant validation, as outlined below.

4.6 Micro-Macro Linkages:

A primary goal of the AIACC Sudan project is to draw lessons from the micro scale that are relevant to the macro scale, and vice versa. By developing this understanding, project partners hope, ultimately, to inform a process of scaling up (or scaling out) of relevant SL activities for climate change adaptation. At the macro scale, the project seeks to influence key policy processes – particularly, national adaptation planning and relevant national decision-making in e.g., poverty reduction, disaster mitigation, biodiversity conservation, water resources, forest management, etc. To do so requires an understanding of the interplay between local livelihood conditions and the “range of policies, institutions and processes which support or hinder them” (Goldman, 2000). This connection is of central interest in the sustainable livelihoods approach, however, there is no seminal guidance on how such lessons can be gleaned.

To develop this understanding, AIACC SUDAN case studies will involve a distinct step of policy process analysis. This analysis will be based on the approach developed by the project “Improving Policy-Livelihood Relationships in South Asia”.7 It should be noted that while the South Asia process is designed in part to understand how policies take shape and can be influenced, our focus is more narrowly focused on understanding the ways in which existing policy supports or inhibits sustainable livelihoods activity. Ultimately we hope that this can enable supportive policies to be encouraged through the adaptation process, and inhibiting policies to be corrected.

4.7 Nested Assessment:

To facilitate the generation of case study lessons, particularly for the policy process, case studies will use a nested assessment approach. With this approach, researchers will focus analysis first on the household, next on the community and next, through the policy analysis process, on the micro-region, the sub-national context, and finally, the national or regional context.

6 See, e.g., Turton (2001), Marshland et al. (2001), Hussein (2000), Rennie and Singh (1996). 7 See http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/prp/

10


4.8 Validation:

Given the subjective nature – and even sensitivity – of the data to be collected (e.g., measures of household income, assets and self-sufficiency), a validation or quality-check will be conducted at three levels. First, the community at large will be used as a sounding board for the general themes emerging from the data. At the community level, informal triangulation will be used to cross-check and confirm patterns and findings. Second, the local informant will provide a critical review of data. Third, task force members will conduct a careful examination of the data, seeking to identify and distinguish misleading information from that which it considers valid.8 Questions from the task force review will be referred back to the case study researcher for clarification and validation.

5. Case Study Protocol

The project involves four separate case studies – each involving travel, fieldwork, data collection, analysis and writing. Commissioned experts will conduct the research and writing with the support and close collaboration of the project partners. It is expected that case study reports will be prepared in such a way that their results can be compared and synthesized into a set of project findings. Given this, it is clearly critical that each case study researcher closely follows a carefully designed research protocol, as outlined below.

It is anticipated that each case study will require modest adaptations of the project’s data collection methods outlined below, in order to suite the unique community context. The goal in developing and using this instrument is to identify the richness of a community’s experience and avoid reductionism, while at the same time, gathering comparable information. Nevertheless, it is expected that the main components of our approach will be applied. Case study research is divided into four main stages, as outlined below: • Background/preparation • Fieldwork • Policy analysis • Progress reporting • Synthesis

5.1 Background and Preparation

5.1.1 Case study selection criteria: Case studies will be selected by project partners and the project Task Force based on the following criteria:

8 Though not a strictly independent reviewer, the TF is relied upon for its role as an objective participant in the project and is expected to be able to carry out this task in an unbiased manner.

11


• Representative climate-related events: Case studies will involve past or ongoing climate-related events that are representative of projected future climate change, as outlined most recently in the IPCC TAR, as well as the Sudan First National Communications (e.g., prolonged drought). Past or ongoing climate-related events will be used as proxies for future climate extremes. Scientific records will be relied upon to establish the magnitude of the event.

• Representative systems: Case studies will involve circumstances that are representative of a particular productive system. Each case study will focus on an agricultural system or ecosystem and dependent communities therein that have been exposed to a climate stressor. The term “agricultural system” is used here to capture a localized system of agricultural production that is at least partly responsible for sustaining the local population. Examples of such systems might include rainfed sorghum production, gum arabic production, or rangelands-based animal husbandry.

• SL applications: Case studies will explore specific examples of community-level SL applications (e.g., collaborative management, soil conservation, water harvesting) that have been applied in Sudan, and could be applied in other countries. 9 The list below represents examples of the types of SL measures which could be studied within the above context.10 Note that these are generally applied as packages of measures, referred to here as SL ‘strategies’11:

• Soil Management - This approach to increasing the stability and productivity of soil is a general term which involves a range of specific techniques such as fallow cycling, forest buffering, selective planting, managed grazing, etc. Soil management is recognized as central to combating desertification.

• Water harvesting - Around the world, this approach has many variants - from the construction of johads (earthen dams) in Northwest India to rooftop collection in the Caribbean, to the forest zai in West Africa - and many champions. Water harvesting techniques have been used as a drought-proofing tool to increase water available for households, irrigation, as well as baseline water flow for watershed restoration. (In Western Sudan, for instance, the trunk of the Adansonia digtata tree is used for water harvesting, purification and storage.)

• Windbreak Construction - As wind erosion contributes significantly to the process of desertification, a number of natural resource management methods have been applied, both through formal desertification projects and autonomous activities of farmers, to reduce its effect. Replanting of

9 As this is considered the key criteria that will be used to distinguish one case from another, the project may select the same target system twice if different measures are applied in different settings within. 10 The identification of the natural resource management approach to be studied would occur in tandem with the identification of agricultural/ecological systems (described above). 11 For this reason, we do not propose to disaggregate and quantify the specific impact of individual measures, but rather (a) whether or not packages of measures increase community security and (b) what factors enable this.

12


indigenous trees and shrubs for windbreaks, as well as ridging, mulching and rock bunds, are but a few methods.12

• Intercropping - The technique of planting selected food crops within stands of trees (e.g., in the case of Sudan, gum arabic stands) is suggested to provide local communities with added food security and income through livelihood diversification, while at the same time reducing deforestation and desertification.

The many additional approaches that might be considered include collaborative management, microcatchment management, selective biomass regeneration, rangelands management, livestock diversification, gully control, and organic matter management (to name but a few).

• Successful examples: Case studies will explore examples of community-level SL applications that are considered successful by government and/or civil society groups, and are confirmed as successful by the communities themselves.13 As described above, selected systems will be those in which an SL approach has been previously applied - i.e., an SL technique has been used in the system by individuals or organizations seeking to increase system resilience and/or productivity. To select such systems, project partners will survey a country for sustainable livelihood/ natural resource management experiences that are considered successful by communities, NGOs, government agencies, etc. and select these as our case studies (in the case of Sudan, this will involve those sets of measures that have effectively responded to community drought-proofing needs). Our researchers will then carry out field research to determine the nature of this success, and to determine how the SL strategy was implemented, what helped it succeed, what challenges it faced, etc.

5.1.2 Climate data collection: Local project coordinators will compile information on recent (last 20 years) extreme climatic events, including geographic extent, intensity, duration, etc., from e.g., WMO and FAO datasets. (Note: It may be that only major extreme (e.g., persistent regional drought) will be identified and put forth to the task force for consideration.)

5.1.3 Case study scoping: Local project coordinators will investigate a number of sources for information on SL strategies that have been recently applied in response to drought vulnerability and/or impacts associated with one of the above climatic events. The information collected could include: a) the category of practice (e.g., agriculture, conservation, water supply, etc.), b) the type of action (e.g., autonomous, directed), c) the specific action (e.g., intercropping, windbreak construction, rangelands

management, water harvesting),

12 See, e.g., IPCC Working Group II (2001) “Africa”. Chapter 20 in the Third Assessment Report. IPCC. 13 “Success” will be confirmed through site visits and assessment of community ownership of the intervention in question, as discussed below.

13


d) the implementing group (e.g., government agencies, NGOs, community groups, individual farmers, etc.),

e) the intended beneficiaries (e.g., communities, nomadic groups, individual farmers),

f) the location and duration of use.

Sources of this information may include community groups, local, regional and international NGOs, government agencies, university departments, bilateral and multilateral development agencies, etc.

5.1.4 Case study selection: Having met the basic criteria, case studies will then be chosen through the following basic selection process:

• Based on information gathering outlined above, project partners will cull from a master list, a preliminary set of the most promising SL “success stories” (e.g., 10 to 12).

• Project partners will conduct a rapid assessment of case study feasibility, based on data needs, available documentation, location and local context, etc., and rate each candidate case study accordingly.

• Project partners will conduct a rapid assessment of the potential issue coverage of each candidate case study and its potential contribution to major project goals – i.e., regionally applicability, ease of use in adaptation planning, representation of vulnerable communities, etc. – and rate each candidate case study accordingly.

• Based on these rankings, the top eight cases will be selected and prioritized.

• This list, along with a justification of selection, will be submitted to the Task Force members, each of which will independently select and justify its top four choices, and will prioritize and justify its four back-up choices. Task Force members will be asked to validate, as a group, the “success” of case studies based on the material provided, and to outline (as needed) specific information that should be gathered in the initial site visit in order to confirm this success.

• Based on the TF member input, the final four case studies will be selected, and four back-ups will be prioritized.

• Initial site visits will be conducted by the case study researchers, to each of the four selected sites, in order to ascertain the community’s perception of the effectiveness of the SL measures. Effectiveness or “success” will be determined based on community feedback regarding changes in vulnerability, and on an assessment of the level of community ownership of the measures/project. Cases that are considered successful will then be expanded into full case studies. Back-ups will be selected (and verified) for cases that are shown to be unsuccessful.

14


5.1.5 Workplan development: The project team expects that each case study researcher will prepare a case study workplan in advance, outlining: (a) desk-based research on data availability, the climatic event, agricultural

system, natural resource management measure, and potential resilience indicators,

(b) preliminary selection and justification of target systems, (c) Groups and individuals to be interviewed/ researched, (d) Data collection and sampling methods to be used (government record review,

questionnaires, etc.) (e) Travel plans, and (f) Budget.

Box 1: Quantitative versus qualitative indicatorsThe use of indicators – to measure sustainable development, poverty reduction, ecosystem resilience, etc. – is a notoriously challenging task, tending to lean too far toward either the quantitative or qualitative extremes. However, consensus is emerging in the sustainable livelihoods field that application of an appropriately balanced blend of both types of indicators can offer up realistic and informative assessments of changes in livelihood security and community resilience.1 Both types will be combined for use with the LAST (livelihood asset status tracking) system (Bond and Mukherjee, 2002), outlined in section 5.2. This tool is essentially a quality of life index, combined wSL framework’s use of assets

ith the .

5.1.6 Generic indicator development: (See Annex I for an outline of the project approach to indicators.) The AIACC Sudan project will attempt to develop and apply indicators of community “resilience” to explore the way in which SL projects lower a community’s vulnerability to climate-related shocks. To do so, the project is relying on several existing tools, developed for monitoring and assessing the impact of sustainable livelihoods on communities. With the guidance provided therein, the project has adopted a fairly simple approach to developing and using resilience indicators. In developing indicators of community resilience, the project is planning to use community consultation, word picture construction, and local informant validation, as outlined below.

(a) The first step in developing resilience indicators will be for the project team to assemble lists of generic quantitative and qualitative indicators – i.e., those that are relevant to rural, drought-prone settings in Sudan. The project team will attempt to construct sample indicators around the five capital assets in the sustainable livelihoods framework: human, financial, natural, physical and social capital. The team will also strive for indicators that represent balance between productivity, equity and sustainability. In this way, a core set of ten to fifteen generic quantitative, ‘expert-derived’ indicators will be developed by the project team and task force, as well as a core set of qualitative indicators.

(b) These indicators will be revised and refined for each case study by the researchers and communities in question, in order to better reflect their specific circumstances. Thus, the second step in developing indicators is for the case study researchers to review the generic indicators in a community forum and to guide the community members through a

15


process of reflection and revision, resulting in a set of locally-derived indicators. In the initial site visit, communities will be consulted to consider the sample qualitative indicators and to develop their own sets (for simplicity, quantitative indicators will be revised during the second site visit and word picture construction, outlined below). As part of this process, historic events and their effect will be considered.14 Communities will be asked to use these indicators to define the net impact of the SL activity on their level of resilience to climate extremes. (In the second site visit, these indicators will be used as the basis for comparison between community vulnerability prior to the SL activity, and following the activity.) These steps are outlined further below.

5.2 Fieldwork

Case study fieldwork will be conducted through at least two, and preferably three site visits. The duration of these visits will most likely be between 2 days (in the case of the initial site visit) and 5 or 6 days (in the case of the second site visit). In all, fieldwork is expected to be conducted and concluded within a 2-month period.

Major goals of the fieldwork are the following:

• Gain community trust, commitment and participation in the case study

• Confirm success of SL project

• Finalize resilience indicators

• Finalize and carry out data collection strategy

• Fill data gaps and validate findings

• Initiate policy process analysis

The anticipated fieldwork process is outlined below.

5.2.1 Initial site visit: The purpose of the initial site visit is four-fold: (1) to garner community trust, interest in, and support of the project and the approach, (2) to confirm the success of the SL activities from the community’s perspective (and thus, justify the case study), (3) to scope and schedule subsequent fieldwork (including participatory framework), and (4) to identify and contract a local informant. Given the skill of commissioned researchers, tasks (1), (3) and (4) will likely be straightforward, though special attention will need to be paid to creating a plan for community participation that is sensitive to relevant social barriers (gender, class, ethnicity, etc.). However, the second activity will require a well-considered approach. Project partners recommend the following:

14 For example, impacts of the 1983-1984 drought, such as livestock loss, dry wells, unemployment, will be examined to tease out useful indicators of resilience.

16


• CSRs should undertake the initial site visit prepared to share and discuss (a) a particular climate extreme(s), to which the community has been exposed, in order to establish the project context and objectives, (b) a set of generic, expert derived qualitative indicators (discussed below) that can help to describe aspects of people’s livelihoods that can be impacted by climate events, (c) a process, including selection criteria, through which the community can consider and revise these indicators to better describe their context.

• For its part, the community will be asked to (a) develop criteria for indicator selection, based on a brainstorming exercise (see Annex 3 for more information), (b) refine and expand the set of indicators based on these criteria, and (c) informally assess the impact of the SL activities on those indicators. (At this stage, the indicators are intended to be qualitative, to allow for rapid revision and appraisal on the part of the community.) Examples of criteria relevant to a local setting are outlined in the table below.

[REVISE]

The five capital assets

Cells contain locally relevant criteria

reflecting the productivity, equity and sustainability

dimensions of each of the five capital assets Natural Physical Financial Human Social

Productivity Soil fertility Irrigation infrastructure

Income Employment Education and training

Equity Access to crop land

Access to irrigation system

Access to credit

Individual/household rights

Access to decision-making

Sustainability Land management

Water management

Savings and investment

Health Local institutions

• These critical steps are intended to determine whether the community views the SL activity as successful in increasing their livelihood security, and thus their resilience to climate impacts. It is important that the community clearly, if informally, (a) assesses itself as better prepared to cope with and recover from climate impacts, following the SL activity, and (b) attributes causality of resilience to the SL activity. The connection need not be absolute, but the researcher must be convinced that the SL activity has played the most significant role in recent improvements in community resilience.

17


CSRs will prepare a short report for project partners and task force members, following the initial site visit, which outlines their findings and conclusions about the appropriateness of the particular community experience for continued case study research.

5

CSR action items for first site visit:

1. Identify and contract local informant (prior to field visit if possible).

First meeting: 2. Organize introductory meeting to familiarize community with the project and with the SL concepts (SL

approach, 5 capitals, etc.), answer questions, consider indicators, etc. 3. Within community meeting, discuss key climate extreme to which community has been exposed in order to

frame project and establish objectives. 4. Guide community through process of outlining criteria for indicator selection, based on the 5 “capitals”. 5. Using criteria, guide community through process of revising generic qualitative indicators to better represent

circumstances. Result should be revised lists of qualitative indicators for each of the 5 capitals. (See Box 2 for an example of natural capital indicators.)

6. Guide community through process of choosing qualitative indicators that best describe circumstances pre- and post SL-activity, in order to confirm project success.

7. Schedule subsequent fieldwork – community meetings, data collection process, etc. 8. Following meeting, assess community feedback and results. 9. Prepare report outlining (a) consultation process, (b) indicator criteria, (c) revised indicator set, and (d)

suitability of case to further study.

.2.2 Second site visit: The case study researcher will have some degree of flexibility in the data collection process, since both the indicators and collection methods are to be adapted to suit each case study context. However, we anticipate that case study researchers will (a) collect datasets of a certain minimum size for an agreed set of resilience indicators, (b) document data collection, (c) perform basic data analysis, (d) summarize findings and (e) document any limitations and biases in carrying out the protocol.

Beyond these parameters, the project approach to defining resilience indicators and collecting data is as follows:

• Building on the initial site visit (in which communities were asked to select and revise generic qualitative indicators and use these to assess project success), the second site visit will focus on finalizing and using indicators to describe household circumstances, pre- and post-SL intervention, in order to define the net impact of the SL activity on their resilience to climate extremes.

18

Box 2: Sample indicators of natural capital (quant. and qual.)

Indicator Land ownership/access (# ha) Food stores (# seasons) Fertility of land (soil quality) Location of land (degree of slope) Subsistence and cash crops (amounts of each; ratio) Fodder production (amount) Surplus seeds (ability to trade) Access to irrigation water (type and degree of access) Livestock holdings (# heads) Supplemental agricultural income (type; amount) Household food production (dairy? fruit?) Access to forest produce (type and
degree of access)


• Indicators: During the initial site visit, OR at the start of the second site visit, full sets of qualitative and quantitative indicators will be identified and selected, based on the established criteria. Examples of both types of indicators are provided in the adjacent box. The indicators developed will be reviewed by the community and by the local informant under the direction of the case study researcher and adapted as needed to accurately reflect local circumstances and experience.

• Word pictures: At the outset of the second site visit, community indicator sets will be assembled into composites of both quantitative and qualitative indicators known as ‘word pictures’ (see Bond and Mukherjee, 2002). ‘Word pictures’ are descriptions of household circumstances. The main tool of the Livelihood Asset Status Tracking system, developed by Bond and Mukherjee (2002), word pictures are essentially quality of life indices, constructed around the SL framework concepts of assets. (See Annex 3 for more information.)

• Sets of word pictures will be developed for each of the five capitals – natural, physical, financial, human and social. For each, one word picture will outline a best-case snapshot of household circumstances; another will outline a worst-case snapshot; roughly three word pictures will be developed to describe household circumstances in between. An example of word pictures describing household access to/ownership of natural capital is provided in the table below.

• Embedded in these word pictures are both quantitative indicators (such as cash income, crop productivity, livestock populations, year-round wells, local grain reserves, employment rates, and savings) and qualitative indicators (such as access to forest produce, rangelands, and fertile soil, or access to credit, seeds, and markets).

• An example of a list of indicators and resulting word pictures developed by a community is presented in the table below.

Word pictures of household access/ownership of natural resources Worst case 2 3 4 Best case Indicator 0 5 10 15 20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80 85 90 95 100 Land ownership/access

little or no land X hectares land

Food stores one or two month's food available from own land

Fertility of land red soil with low fertility more of black fertile soil Location of land land is located on slope; rain water

washes away seeds and top soil fertile land with moisture retention

capacity Subsistence and cash crops

use of traditional seeds grows and sells cash crops; grows vegetables; availability of home grown food throughout year; grows high yielding variety seeds

Fodder production no land for growing fodder Surplus seeds lends seeds to others Access to irrigation water

no source of irrigation irrigation facilities available round the year

Number of owns one or two livestock many livestock,

19


livestock Supplemental agricultural income

high returns from livestock;

Supplemental food production

no milk produced many fruit trees

Access to forest produce

low access to forest produce access to forest produce

• Tables such as this (one for each ‘capital’) will be used by households to assess their own resilience to climate impacts. To do so, households will assemble their own word pictures (one for each capital), drawing from the gradient of cases agreed upon by the community, to describe their circumstances pre- and post-SL activity.

• One of the requirements of this exercise is that all community members agree on a ‘signal’ event – a climatic event that had significant negative impacts and is firmly captured in community memory. Household assessments of their circumstances during the signal event will be compared to (a) circumstances during a more recent event, or (b) where no recent event exists, circumstances during a hypothetical event.

• In the case of (a), the impact of the SL activities will actually have been tested by a climate event. In these cases, the SL measures will have taken effect prior to the onset of a recent climate event, and the community will be able to assess the change in their ability to cope with the climate event, and thus assess the impact of the measures on their level of resilience. In these cases, individuals and households will be asked, through surveys and interviews, to develop one word picture that best describes household circumstances during the signal event, and one that best describes circumstances during the recent event.

• In cases where the SL measures have just recently been implemented, there may be no recent climate event to use for comparison. Instead, individuals, households and the community will be led through role-playing exercises. In these exercises, people will be asked to project the historic (‘signal’) event onto the current context and to develop a word picture that best describes the household circumstances they would expect to experience if the event were to occur today.

• A hypothetical example (from Bond and Mukherjee, 2002) of worst case and best case word pictures assembled by a household during the survey process is outlined in the box below. Based on the scores established by the community in the table above, both word pictures would have an associated

20

Word picture of household’s access to natural resources (natural capital)

Worst Picture Best Picture

Little or no land; one or two month's food available from own land; quality of land is poor, having red soil with low fertility; land is located on a slope in such a position that rain water washes away the seed sown and the top soil and hence reduces its fertility; use of traditional seeds; some have given away land as collateral; no source of irrigation; no land for growing fodder for livestock; owns one or two livestock; no milk produced; low access to forest produce;

More of black fertile soil; more land; grows one's own fodder on one's own land; fertile land with more moisture retention power; more produce from land; grows and sells cash crops; grows vegetables; grows high yielding variety seeds; lends seeds to others; irrigation facilities available round the year; land is near the forest; access to forest produce; some have government permit to grow opium; has many fruit trees; availability of home grown food throughout the year; many livestock, high returns from livestock;

Source: Bond and Mukherjee (2002)


score, which would be used in the analysis process. • Word pictures, and by extension, the role of the SL activity, will be examined

in community forums, household surveys and targeted interviews, and are expected to enable the project to systematically organize community perceptions of resilience.

Though not a component of the livelihood assessment itself, the policy process analysis (see section 5.3) will begin during the second site visit. During community consultations, household surveys and targeted interviews, CSRs will collect information to help determine what policies, institutions and processes (e.g., land tenure policy, local governance arrangements, market access) have enabled the SL activity – and which have inhibited.

CSRs will prepare a short report for project partners and task force members, following the second site visit, which outlines the experience, initial findings and validation needs for the next/final site visit.

5

CSR action items for second site visit: 1. Organize second meeting with aim of revisiting/finalizing indicators and developing ‘word pictures’. Second meeting: 2. Guide community through process of revising generic set of quantitative indicators, using established criteria.3. Using revised indicators, guide community through process of developing ‘word pictures’. 4. To the extent possible, develop separate sets of ‘word pictures’ to describe each of the five “capitals”: Data collection: 5. Finalize survey content (questionnaire, interview questions) based on ‘word picture’ construction. 6. Using stratified sampling methods and local informant advice, finalize data collection strategy. 7. Distribute questionnaires and conduct surveys and targeted interviews (households, individuals, key groups)

in which respondent develops ‘word picture’ that best describes household circumstances in times of drought – both prior to and following the SL intervention.

8. Prepare report outlining (a) word pictures exercise, (b) data collection process, and (c) early observations.

.2.3 Third site visit (or extended second visit)

Findings generated through data collection and analysis will require validation by the community as a whole, prior to finalization of the case study. Through simple dialogue, or using participatory methods such as role playing, preliminary findings regarding the role of SL/NRM measures in building local resilience to climate impacts will reviewed, discussed and as appropriate, adjusted. This will be a key opportunity to discuss causality and to explore caveats and biases of the inquiry.

The third visit will also provide an opportunity for CSRs to follow up on specific questions or concerns posed by the project team and task force regarding the preliminary findings.

21


Lastly, the third site visit will provide an additional opportunity for CSRs to conduct interviews and consultations with key local stakeholders to gather additional perspectives for inclusion in the policy process analysis (see below).

CSR action items for third site visit (or extended second visit): 1. Organize third meeting with aim of clarifying and validating preliminary findings.

Third meeting: 2. Using participatory methods, guide community through process of reviewing and discussing output of data

collection process. 3. Facilitate discussion on key questions raised by project team, TF or CSR. 4. Facilitate discussion on causality and enabling factors – i.e., (a) the extent to which the SL activities in question

are responsible for increased resilience and (b) the policies, institutions, etc. that supported or challenged the activity within the community.

Targeted interviews: 5. Conduct targeted interviews to explore questions of causality and enabling factors.

5.3 Policy Process Analysis

Analysis of the policy process will begin during the fieldwork stage and continue following conclusion of the fieldwork. This stage of case study development will conclude within one month of the final site visit. The purpose of the analysis is to essentially back-cast from successful sustainable livelihoods outcomes, to try to determine what factors – primarily policy and institutional factors – enabled that success.

This phase of the research will involve of a modified version of the steps presented in the "Livelihood - Policy Relationships in South Asia" Working Paper Series,15 as outlined here. In “A Methodology for Policy Process Analysis”, Springate-Baginski and Soussan (2001) outlined a series of six steps (see Annex X for complete overview). Drawing heavily upon these, but reversing their order, the AIACC Sudan project will pursue the following:

• Determining outcomes and impacts for livelihoods: this step is essentially the livelihood assessment process undertaken through the fieldwork described above. With an assessment of impacts on local livelihoods, the researchers will assemble a series of policy and institutional linkages through the subsequent steps. (see above)

• Identifying key policy and institutional issues and defining their relationship to the sustainable livelihoods project: this step will involve identification of policies and institutions (at the macro, meso and micro-scales) that are seen as important to the development, implementation and success of the SL project and carefully exploring the relationship. At the macro-scale, land tenure reform, for instance, may play a critical role in certain projects, just as lack of reform may have

22

15 http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/prp/downdocs.htm


challenged project implementation. At the micro or meso-scale, a sound framework for participation in local governance may pave the way for robust project participation and lasting project ownership.

This step will rely largely on interviews with key stakeholders (from government, civil society, etc.), household surveys, and community consultation.

• Exploring the policy development process: once key enabling factors have been identified, the challenge is to explore how and why these came to be. In the present step, researchers will examine how the policies and institutions of interest were developed, seeking insights into the process such as key actors and common strategies.

This step will involve primarily interviews with key stakeholders and desk-based research.

• Establishing a picture of the policy, institutional and process contexts: this step is intended to clarify why enabling factors came to be. This series of nested pictures will describe first the micro, focused on the village or village council scale, next the meso, focused on the district or sub-national scale, and finally the macro, focused on the national or regional scale. By developing these pictures of the SL project context, the AIACC Sudan project will be able to better understand the sort of groundwork that needs to be in place in order for certain SL activities to take root.

For the micro and meso-scales, this step will involve interviews with key stakeholders, community consultation, and desk-based research. For the meso and macro scales, it will rely on interviews with key stakeholders and desk-based research.

• Creating a history of key policy milestones: lastly, it will be instructive to anchor the analysis emerging from the above steps to a policy and institutional heritage. By piecing together the preceding information, it will likely become apparent that certain instances of landmark legislation, reform, etc. play a direct role in enabling SL activity today. It may be valuable for climate change adaptation activity to build off of or link to these policies and processes.

This step will rely on interviews with key stakeholders and desk-based research.

The information assembled above will be developed into a policy process analysis document, which will serve as a major component in the final case study report.

5.4 Progress reporting

Researchers will provide project partners with two interim reports. The first report (5-10 pages) will follow the initial site visit. This report is intended to confirm the suitability of the community for case study, to outline the key community assets,

23


describe the selection of a local informant, outline a provisional set of indicators adapted to the community context, and indicate any adjustments to the workplan.

The second report (5-10 pages) will be prepared subsequent to the primary community consultation and household interviews and will provide preliminary analysis of the findings. This report is intended to serve two purposes: to provide project partners with an indication of the kind of findings that the case study is yielding (to which they can provide comment, request additional information, suggest follow-up action, etc.) and to provide researchers with the basis of the draft case study report.

5.5 Synthesis

The synthesis phase of the case study work involves preparation of the full case study report, and will involve close collaboration of the CSRs, the project team, and the project task force. See Annex 2 for report outline. The process will proceed as follows:

• Draft case study report: The first draft of the case study report will be prepared by case study researchers within 2 weeks of the policy process analysis completion (1.5 months after the conclusion of fieldwork)

• Internal review: The first draft will then be reviewed by the project team and task force. Comments will be provided within 2 weeks of receipt.

• Second draft case study report: Based on this feedback, CSRs may need to conduct follow up research, verification and additional site visits in order to prepare a second draft. CSRs will submit the next draft one month after receiving feedback.

• Final draft case study report: Project partners will coordinate preparation of the final draft reports, soliciting and incorporating task force member input, and circulating for peer review.

Following the completion of all case studies, project partners, with task force member guidance, will develop a series of synthesis documents for publication. These will undergo several rounds of revision and extensive peer review.

24


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abeyasekera, S., U. Kleih, N. Marsland, and I. Wilson. A Methodological Framework for Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Survey Methods. University of Greenwich: Natural Resources Institute, Social and Economic Development Department. The University of Reading: Statistical Services Centre.

Adato, Michelle, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick, 2002. Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research on Poverty using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. FCND Discussion Paper 128 and EPTD Discussion Paper 89, Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Ashley, Caroline, 2000. Applying Livelihood Approaches to Natural Resource Management Initiatives: Experiences in Namibia and Kenya. ODI Working Paper 134, UK: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Ashley, Caroline, and Karim Hussein, 2000. Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. ODI Working Paper 129, UK: ODI.

Blaikie, Piers, and John Soussan. Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Understanding Policy Processes. Working Paper 8 prepared for DFID, UK: Department for International Development (DFID).

Blaikie, Piers, Matthew Chadwick, John Soussan, and Oliver Springate-Baginski. Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Understanding Livelihood Processes and Dynamics. Working Paper 7 prepared for DFID, UK: DFID.

Blaikie, Piers, Om Prakash Dev, Nagendra Prakash Yadav, John Soussan, and Oliver Springate-Baginski. Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Community Forestry in Nepal. Working Paper 3 prepared for DFID, UK: DFID.

Brinn, Peter, Andrew Dorward, Thea Hilhorst, James Keely, Ian Scoones, Alistair Sutherland, and Camilla Toumin, 1999. Soil Fertility Management and Sustainable Livelihoods: New Approaches to the Policy Process. UK: Natural Resources Institute, Wye College, International Institute for the Environment and Development, and the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.

Brock, Karen, 1999. Implementing a Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for Policy-Directed Research: Reflections from Practice in Mali. IDS Working Paper 90, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

Burton, Ian, and John Soussan, 2002. Adapt and Thrive Now: Combining Adaptation to Climate Change, Disaster Mitigation, and Natural Resources Management in a New Approach to the Reduction of Vulnerability and Poverty. The World Conservation Union (IUCN)—International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)—Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Concept Paper.

25


Carnegie, James, Ian Goldman, Elaine Kela, Moscow Marumo, David Munyoro, Ed Mwale, and Somi Ntonga, 2000. Institutional Support for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Southern Africa: Framework and Methodology. UK: ODI.

Carney, Diana, 1999. Approaches to Sustainable Livelihoods for the Rural Poor. UK: ODI.

Carney, Diana, 1999. Livelihoods Approaches Compared. UK: DFID.

Chadwick, Matthew. Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Bangladesh. UK: DFID.

Chadwick, Matthew, and Anjan Datta. Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Water Resource Management in Bangladesh. UK: DFID.

Department for International Development. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. UK: DFID.

Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, 2002. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Sweden: The Environmental Advisory Council.

Farrington, John, and Crispino Lobo, 1997. Scaling up Participatory Watershed Development in India: Lessons from the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme. UK: ODI.

Farrow, Andrew, Lisa Segnestam, and Manuel Winograd, 2000. Developing Indicators: Lessons Learned from Central America. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and The World Bank.

Galeb, S., M. Gopinath Reddy, V. Ratna Reddy, and O. Springate-Baginski, 2001. Watershed Development and Livelihood Security: An Assessment of Linkages and Impact in Andhra Pradesh, India. Working Draft prepared for DFID. Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad and School of Geography, University of Leeds, UK. Funded by DFID.

Girot, Pascal O., 2002. Scaling up: Resilience to Hazards and the Importance of Cross-Scale Linkages. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Goldman, Ian, 2000. Micro to Macro: Policies and Institutions for Empowering the Rural Poor. UK: DFID.

Hobley, Mary, 2001. Unpacking the PIP Box. Somerset UK: Hobley Shields Associates.

Huq, Saleemul. Environmental Shocks as Policy Drivers: A Case Study of Floods and Coastal Cyclones in Bangladesh. UK: DFID.

Hussein, Karim, 2000. Monitoring and Evaluating Impact on Livelihoods: Lessons from Experience. UK: DFID, ODI, and the Rural Policy and Environment Group.

Keeley, James, 2001. Influencing Policy Processes for Sustainable Livelihods: Strategies for Change. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

26


Kulemeka, Peter (compiled by), 1999. Towards Operationalisation of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach in Kenya. Draft Discussion Paper prepared for UNDP, Nairobi: UNDP.

Macoun, Phil, and Guillermo A. Mendoza. Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2002. People and Ecosystems: A Framework for Assessment and Action. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Foundations, UNEP, and UNDP.

Munasinghe, Mohan. Sustainable Livelihoods and their Linkages with Macro-Policies. UK: DFID.

Oates, Peter, 2000. Strengthening Productive Capacity and Environmental Conservation through Applied Understanding of Poor People’s Livelihood Systems. University of Bath: Centre for Development Studies, and DFID’s SD SCOPE: Social Development Systems for Coordinated Poverty Eradication.

ODI. A Watershed in Natural Resource Policy? Rehabilitating Rain-fed Wastelands in India. UK: ODI.

Pasteur, Kath, 2001. Tools for Sustainable Livelihoods: Policy Analysis. Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

Pasteur, Kath. Changing Organisations for Sustainable Livelihoods.

Rennie, J. Keith, and Naresh C. Singh, 1996. Participatory Research for Sustainable Livelihoods: A Guidebook for Field Projects. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Soussan, John, and Oliver Springate-Baginski. Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: A Methodology for Policy Process Analysis. Working Paper 9 prepared for DFID, UK: DFID.

Thomson, Anne M., 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods: Approaches at the Policy Level. UK: DFID.

Turton, Cate, 2001. Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation: Improving the Impact and Relevance of Development Interventions. UK: ODI.

United Nations Development Programme: Sustainable Livelihoods Unit, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods: Concepts, Principles, and Approaches to Indicator Development. UNDP.

United Nations Development Programme: Sustainable Livelihoods Unit, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods in Malawi: A Case Study. UNDP.

27


United Nations Development Programme: Sustainable Livelihoods Unit, 1999. Operationalizing the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: The Civil Society Alternative. UNDP.

Varughese, George. Learning from the Grassroots: Lessons from Community Action for Policy Change. UK: DFID.

World Neighbors, 2000. Learning to Confront Disasters like Hurricane Mitch: A Research Methodology Guide. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors (WN).

28


Annex 1: Glossary Adaptation

Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. (Source: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability)

Assets

[REVISE] Valuable resources.

Coping Capacity

The variation in climatic stimuli that a system can absorb without producing significant impacts.

Criteria

“Criteria are the intermediate points to which the information provided by indicators can be integrated and where an interpretable assessment crystallizes” (Prabhu et al. 1999).

Cross-Scale Issues

“A key benefit of examining these cross-scale interactions…identifying, analyzing and understanding the linkages across scales…is for the validation and contextualization of results; this can only be achieved with a complete understanding of these interactions.” Problems occur when translating small-scale assessments to the global realm and vice versa. If temporal and spatial factors are not taken into account, data is inaccurate. The most accurate conclusions are drawn from a set of nested assessments. (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Methods, 2001)

Disaster

“A disaster occurs when a significant number of vulnerable people experience a hazard and suffer severe damage and/or disruption of their livelihood system in such a way that recovery is unlikely without external aid.” (Source: At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters)

Impact

Consequences of climate change on natural and human systems. (Source: Climate Change 2001) In the context of climate change, an impact might decreased crop production, due to lower rainfall.

Indicator

Any variable or component of the ecosystem or the management system used to infer attributes of the sustainability of the resources. (Landres 1992; Prabhu et al. 1996)

Livelihood

A livelihood is a combination of the resources used and the activities undertaken in order to live. (Source: DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheet, Glossary)

Multi-Criteria Analysis

“A decision-making tool developed for complex multi-criteria problems that might include qualitative and quantitative aspects of the problem in the decision-making process.” (Source: Guillermo, A. Mendoza, and Phil Macoun. Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators, Glossary)

Natural Resource Management

29


Management and supervision of natural resources including land, water, forest products, and other productive assets. (Source: At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters)

Nested Assessment

A set of integrated assessments undertaken at various levels including all or a sub-set of the following: global, national, regional, community, household and individual. From the perspective of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, this would imply the following: “As full assessments in and of themselves, each of these components should examine the condition of ecosystem services, develop scenarios and responses, and engage with users, at their respective levels…[which] will directly address user needs and contribute to decision-making at those levels” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Methods).

Resilience

Amount of change a system can undergo without changing state. (Source: Climate Change 2001)

“Ecosystem resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes. A resilient ecosystem can withstand shocks and rebuild itself when necessary. Resilience in social systems has the added capacity of humans to anticipate and plan for the future” (Source: Resilience Alliance Website, What is Resilience?).

Sustainable Livelihoods

A livelihood is sustainable when it is capable of continuously maintaining or enhancing the current standard of living without undermining the natural resource base. It should be able to overcome and recover from stresses and shocks. (Source: DFID Glossary)

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

The sustainable livelihoods framework is a visualization tool that has been developed to help understand livelihoods. It aims to stimulate debate and reflection, which should result in more effective poverty reduction. The framework does not attempt to provide an exact representation of reality. It is a simplification and it should be adapted for use in any given circumstance. (Source: DFID Glossary)

Sustainable Livelihoods Strategy

A strategy of development in which people’s livelihoods are the focus of attention. (Source: DFID Glossary)

Vulnerability

“The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.” (Source: Climate Change 2001)

30


Annex 2: Case Study Report Outline Each case study is intended to serve as a stand-alone report, as well as feed into the project synthesis documents.16 In order to ensure comparable case study outputs, it is important that they be presented in a uniform manner. We therefore propose that each case study researcher follow the same basic outline, presented here:

1. Purpose – An overview of the case study purpose and goals.

2. Background – A detailed and informative background section, including the following sub-sections:

2.1 The Community: This section will tell the “story” of the case study community – Where is it located? How does it function? What resources does it rely on? What are its assets? What does it produce? In what ways has it been vulnerable to climate impacts? What are its key challenges? What are its most relevant local trends?

This sub-section will also describe what households in the community are like – how they operate, what assets they have, what their major needs are, etc.

2.2 The Policies, Institutions and Processes: this section is intended to embed the discussion of the community in the larger socioeconomic context by sketching the micro-, meso- and macro-scale policies, institutions and processes that are of greatest relevance to and have the greatest impact on the community in question. For example, this section might discuss local systems of governance, regional market access, and national land tenure and land management policies.

2.3 The Climate Context: This section will place the community in the climate context, providing an overview of local historic climate patterns, highlighting major climatic events, and discussing key instances of serious climate impacts. This section should outline, in particular, any climatic events that will be used in the assessment of community resilience.

2.4 The SL activity: In this detailed section, the researchers will introduce the sustainable livelihoods intervention (i.e., the resilience-building measures implemented within the community) to be examined through the case study. Relevant information will include:

• key actors (NGOs, community groups, local institutions of governance); • a discussion of each of the specific measures involved (e.g., dune stabilization, composting,

water harvesting, revolving credit schemes, etc.); • the process by which the measures were implemented (e.g., community consultation,

collaborative planning, self-monitoring, etc.); • a preliminary assessment of success (i.e., an overview of the community assessment

process through which criteria were used to determine the success of the measures/strategy in question, as well as a summary of the assessment results).

3. Methodology – This section will provide a complete overview of the methods used for the case study, including an in-depth discussion of any variation from the standard project methods. The section will include sub-sections on

3.1 research methods used,

3.2 the community consultation, survey and interview processes,

3.3 indicators developed (including word pictures),

16 Project partners intend to compile the individual case study reports into a single volume, which would include a description of the overarching study goals, approach, methodology and results. Case studies would also be used as the basis of the project synthesis documents, which are intended to provide relevant material to a range of potential audiences.

31


3.4 the validation process,

3.5 as well as any limitations, caveats or biases encountered.

4. Community Resilience Profile – This section will:

4.1 outline the data collected on changes in household and community resilience,

4.2 summarize the changes in resilience to climate impacts following the SL intervention,

4.3 discuss the validation of the findings within the community.

5. Analysis – In this section, researchers will provide discussion of the factors (e.g., local governance conditions, local NGOs, national economic policies) that enabled the SL activity to take effect and have a positive impact on the communities. Specifically, researchers will provide an analysis of:

5.1 the role of the SL intervention in building community resilience (including the implementation strategy, the groups involved, the specific measures employed, etc.),

5.2 the role of the micro-scale policies, institutions and processes (from policy process analysis),

5.3 the role of the meso-scale policies, institutions and processes (from policy process analysis),

5.4 the role of the macro-scale policies, institutions and processes (from policy process analysis),

6. Lessons learned – As the name implies, concise lessons that can be gleaned from the analysis above will be summarized in this section.

7. Conclusions – This section, to be drafted with input from project partners, will outline the implications of these findings for the various relevant policy processes – and in particular, the adaptation policy process.

32


Annex 3: Overview of LAST System The following text has been excerpted from Bond and Mukherjee (2002): Livelihood Asset Status Tracking (LAST): A Case From Rajasthan

1. The Project

The project is that part of the DfID supported Western India Rainfed Farming Project (WIRFP) Phase 2 managed by the Indian Farm Forestry Development Cooperative Ltd (IFFDC) in Pratapgarh in the Chittorgarh District of Rajasthan. The area is remote, hilly and drought prone with an annual rainfall of some 800mm and has experienced considerable land degradation.

The £2.3m DfID support to the IFFDC component of this £28m project started in May 1999 for a period of seven years and operates initially in 25 core villages. There are plans to expand to 75 core villages and through a further 150 dissemination villages to a population of some 150,000 poor people. It aims to enhance the livelihoods of the predominantly tribal population through farmer groups, participatory village planning, improved farming systems, group savings and income generating activity. The project operates as a participatory process from an autonomous PMU and works with village specialists (Jankars). Some experience from the use of this method in research in Uganda and South Africa under DfID project R7076CA is incorporated (Howlett et. al. 2000).

2. The Issue Addressed

[…] Impact attributable to particular interventions is notoriously difficult to establish, and as such requires very thorough and careful assessment. This is not the usual function of monitoring, which is concerned with timely detection of changes within the area of management responsibility. A solution to this dilemma, illustrated below, may be to combine these monitoring and evaluative functions in a cost-effective way. This would require monitoring for any changes in livelihoods within the areas of intervention and selectively investigating interesting changes with ad hoc learning exercises (ALEX) in order to understand causes and effects of the changes. A variety of both formal and participatory methods exist for the ALEX part, the remaining problem is to find a suitable method for rapid identification of change in livelihoods over wide areas which is logistically feasible and managerially relevant. Such a system was developed between April and September 2000 by IFFDC.

Qualitative ALEX carried out where monitored change is of managerial interest.

LAST quantitative monitoring and analysis over a wide area

Project area of many dispersed locations with diverse interventions

3. Sources and Ideas Used

This section briefly introduces the various ideas and sources used in the LAST method.

3.1 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) Framework

This positive framework approaches poverty from the perception of the poor considering the assets to which they have access and the strategies they employ for survival (DfID 2000). These assets are considered to be the five ‘capitals’ of natural, physical, human, financial and social. Livelihood strategies are usually associated with production but the framework also considers access to the capitals (equity), and trends and shocks (sustainability).

3.2 Quality of Life Indexes

Over the last decade some NGOs17 have assessed quality of life using combined indexes based on locally derived perceptions of selected indicators ranged in locally recognisable stages from ‘worst to best’. These generally take the form;

33

17 Used for example by microfinance NGOs ‘The Bridge Foundation’ in Bangalore and Maha Bhoga Marga in Bali, Indonesia (Bond & Hulme 1992).


Cells contain ‘word pictures’ of each stage for each criteria described in local terms.

Scored stages from worst to best situation known locally (left to right) usually to set number of stages (often ten).

Criteria for assessing quality of life e.g. Housing, Education, Health, Income. One per row.

The advantages of this method include; 1. Rapid assessment of households by observation and questioning. 2. Conversion of qualitative assessment directly to quantitative score. 3. Locally meaningful assessment. 4. Consistent method for assessments within area and over time. 5. Disadvantages include; 6. Lack of theoretical framework as basis for criteria used. 7. Fixed number of stages is artificial.

The combination of this method with the SRL framework forms the basis of LAST. […]

3.3 Process Approaches

A process approach to a project is commonly associated with participatory approaches but is more than that (Bond & Hulme 1999). The concept also includes high levels of managerial flexibility and longer intervention periods (Rondinelli 1993); it includes involvement and capacity building of local institutions, local autonomy of action and the fostering of innovation within organisational cultures of ‘new professionalism’ (Chambers 1993). Finally, and above all for our purposes, a process approach depends on a capacity for ongoing learning so that problems can be effectively solved and efficiently dealt with on an expanding scale of operation (Korten 1980). The LAST method has been developed as part of an integrated Process Evaluation Management Information System (PREMIS) to support the ongoing learning of IFFDC’s project.

3.4 Optimal Ignorance & Appropriate Imprecision

These are actually principles of PRA (Chambers 1993) but are emphasised here to explain the deliberate avoidance of collecting certain types of information that do not contribute to useful management learning and also the use of approximate data when that yields adequate information. These principles are employed to save time and to focus attention on what is important.

3.5 Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology

Different professional groups aligning themselves with one or other approach make much of this dichotomy. However, most quantitative information is qualitative at source (Moris & Copestake 1993) and in the LAST method both qualitative and quantitative methods are combined to achieve a balance of analytical and managerial requirements.

4. The Livelihood Asset Status Tracking (LAST) System

4.1 Definition

“A rapid impact monitoring system designed along with primary stakeholders and based on the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods conceptual framework. It is intended to track the ongoing dynamics of five capital assets essential to household livelihoods as a proxy for impact”.

4.2 Overview

Within the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods framework, the starting point is the assets to which rural people have access in order to devise their livelihood strategies. This is also the end point of the model as those strategies impact not only on their livelihoods in terms of outcomes (a more traditional source of indicators) but also back on the assets themselves. The changing asset base, measured in the five capitals to which a household has access can be a useful proxy for impact on livelihoods. If indicators are derived in a participatory way, they will be locally relevant within relatively homogeneous areas (in terms of ethnicity and agro-climatic criteria). Also, if the system is to be used over many households with a reasonable frequency the method needs to be quick and simple enough for rapid enumeration with reasonable accuracy. For managerial purposes in a process project, the tracking of asset status will give useful measures of change towards project purpose and will contribute to longer-term evaluations.

4.3 Methodology

Participatory workshops conducted with the project team and beneficiaries are the main vehicle for evolving LAST. The process involves small group discussions, brain-storming and clustering of criteria, field testing and validation. The main objective is to evolve ‘word pictures’ for LAST. The ‘word picture’ is a method for constructing verbal descriptions of asset status. Such word pictures can depict ‘worst off’ and ‘better off’ households and also intermediate positions.

34


To measure asset status for each of the five capitals available to a household a locally meaningful scale of stages is described from the worst known situation to the best, the number of stages is not important (typically 3-6) but their reality and recognisability is. The descriptions will have to maintain a balance between aspects related to production, equity and sustainability to avoid distortion of the development perspective used in the matrix. For example, a high score under natural capital for fertile farmland (productivity) would be misleading if that land is on a steep slope and will soon erode (sustainability).

A hypothetical illustration, which was used during the initial workshop held at IFFDC project is given below. The illustration covers two word pictures of ‘worst’ off and better off households. Word Picture of Household' s Access/ownership of Natural Resources




NB: Only two ‘word pictures’ have been described here.

When such word pictures are based on the worldview of local communities, they are practical and realistic and also help in community ownership of the method. Word pictures evolved separately by women and men groups’ help in focusing on gender issues.

In use the assessment sheet is compared to the reality of the particular household and a rapid assessment is made of which description or collection of indicators fits closest. Individual questions do not have to be asked for every indicator, rather judgement is used on the relevant part of the scale combining direct observation and semi-structured questioning till the enumerator is confident to identify the closest ‘stage’ for that household. This can be scored proportionally against a centile scale, scores for centres of boxes being used as well as scores for edges of boxes where a household is judged to fall between two stages. Scores for the five capitals are made separately but the five can be combined (straight or weighted) to give a LAST index for the household.

The enumeration will typically take around 20 minutes for all five capitals. The LAST sheet is used only as a checklist and for marking the closest situation to the household and so need not be intrusive on the interview. Enumeration is done on a ‘repeat panel’ sample which can be initially selected randomly and stratified by wealth ranking or similar rapid assessment exercise to ensure a good spread of livelihoods. Detectable changes are unlikely to occur in the short-term but a reasonably frequent period of assessment is needed to inform management. The ideal assessment frequency is likely to be between 3 months (IFFDC) and a year.

Precision tests can be conducted on the scoring with a newly developed LAST sheet using three enumerators present simultaneously during assessment but not collaborating, with one asking the questions. Scores can then be compared to gauge reliability of the method in terms of precision.

4.4 Process

At least two workshops are required to be held for LAST –one for developing the system and field testing and the other for refining or fine tuning it. Both workshops are based on active participation of project team and beneficiaries where group-work, field work and shared-learning are encouraged.

The first workshop starts with introduction of the SRL conceptual framework and its different components to key informants at local level and the project team. The five capitals for livelihood are explained with the processes, structures, strategies, outcome and vulnerability aspects. Once the livelihood systems are explained and discussed the local words and descriptions are brainstormed by small groups and presented back to the plenary. This results in a checklist in which, people’s livelihood activities and criteria are mapped and resources associated with such activities are identified.

Subsequently, the three aspects of the capital on which livelihoods are based, (productivity, equity and sustainability) are introduced and indigenised with the help of local words. This is followed by small group brainstorming on generation of criteria related to the five types of resources for livelihood and clustering them on the basis of three categories –‘productivity’, ‘equity’ and ‘sustainability’. This serves not only as a ‘warm-up’ to the concepts employed but also provides a balanced range of criteria from which to consider practical local indicators which may be incorporated in the ‘word pictures’ constructed for the stages of the LAST assessment sheet.

35


Cells contain locally relevant criteria reflecting the productivity, equity and sustainability dimensions of each of the five capital assets


Productivity

Equity

Sustainability

The criteria which appear to be locally assessable in practical and meaningful ways are then combined into a sequence of balanced word pictures representing a number of realistic stages from worst known situation to best within the area. These may be concise descriptions or a collection of indicators typical of each stage.

Based on the criteria for each capital in the matrix above, a range of ‘word pictures’ are constructed for the Livelihood Asset Status Matrix. The worst situation, best situation and intermediary situations are compiled for each capital. Once the LAS matrix is constructed it is tested under field conditions by enumerators working in groups of three. This is followed by the results of the LAS matrix being reflected upon by the enumerators and also reviewed by peer group/s.

4.5 Some Technical Points

Scale Range; the avoidance of absolute values by scaling from 0% worst to 100% best is an already established technique in, for example, the UNDP Human Development Index (UNDP 1990). The issue of permanence of those parameters is valid, especially in a project that assumes improvements in livelihoods. However, it is unlikely that the top end will need adjustment in poverty alleviation projects particularly in areas of existing inequality. A successful project of this kind would probably only shift the proportion of households with low scores to higher scores without requiring extension of the top categories.

Scoring; this is partly an issue of matching score intervals to the precision of judgement possible with this method, but is also an issue of preference of the enumerators. Solutions seem to be;

Marking the nearest column (steps of about 10-15%, probably too coarse).

Marking the nearest column or edge between columns (steps of about 5-7% a good fit with precision tests).

Marking the best judgement against a centile scale along the top of the matrix (steps about 5%, good fit with precision test and not tied to central / edge values of cells).

Range of ‘word picture’; The word pictures need not be discrete and can be over-lapping to some extent. This is because they are qualitative, composite pictures graded in degrees.

5. Results

The LAST system was developed during 4 days of workshops and field testing for precision. There followed a more substantial field trial at a later date and a further one day workshop to reflect and refine the method. Project staff are comfortable and confident with the method and consider that project Jankars will be able to carry out future periodic assessments after the experience of working jointly with project Community Organisers. The project is now (December 2000) ready to conduct the first project-wide assessment. There follows an edited translation from one of the five capitals used in the IFFDC Pratapgarh LAST matrix:

Financial Capital 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100Wages labour / migration

Does labour work round the year / bonded labour; gets employment for only 5-10 days / month

Does labour work for 8-10 months / gets employment for 15 days / month

Does labour work 5-6 months/ gets employment for 20 days / month

Does labour work 2-3 months/ gets employment for 25 days / month

May do labour work for 1-2 months in a year; get it when they require it.

No need for them to do wage labour, rather they hire others

Debt/ Loan No one gives them loan

Have to necessarily mortagage land for loan

Gets loan with great difficulty; witness of 5-10 persons; at 60% interest p.a.

Gets loan with some difficulty; witness of 2-4 persons; at 60-36% interest p.a.

Gets loan easily; at 36% interest p.a.

No need for loan or debt for them rather give loan to others

Bank/ Financial institution

No linkage; not even a bank account



No bank account; Can get small loan

Can get large loan; take advantage of bank schemes

Easy loans / bank account; takes good advantage of bank schemes

Agriculture Produce

Food grains not sufficient even

Food grains sufficient for 2-3



Food grains sufficient for 8-

Food grains sufficient for 12

36


for one month month / sells food grain in the village.

month/ sells food grain in village or local fair

month/ sells food grain at Suhagpura

10 month/ sells food grain at Suhagpura

month/ sells food grain at Pratapgarh Mandi

Allied sources of income

No knowledge Only agriculture & wage labour

Agriculture, wage labour & some livestock based income generating activities

Agriculture, wage labour & more livestock based IGAs

Good agriculture, good livestock and vegetable & fruit cultivation

Hires out tractor/ thresher, loans seeds & takes double in return; share water cropping; Owns flour mill / shop; sells milk / ghee

Saving No knowledge No knowledge Knowledge but do not practice

Saves some money

Saves Money More savings

Jewellery No jewellery No jewellery Some silver jewellery

More silver jewellery (medium sized Kade & Hasli)

Plenty silver jewellery (Heavy sized Kade & Hasli)

Owns Jewellery of both Silver & Gold

NB one score would be given for each capital, guided by the column closest to their situation or the central value of a scatter of indicators.

6. Key Points for Best Practice (a) Ensure the project is of the kind where impact is likely to emerge during the period of implementation; has objectives focused

on livelihood improvement; is of a process nature where management can respond to unexpected changes; has a learning oriented culture; has a capacity to carry out ALEX; and is able to elicit the participation of beneficiaries in LAST development. Otherwise this is the wrong method.

(b) LAST systems need to be developed separately for ‘areas’ of reasonable homogeneity in terms of cultural, economic and agro-ecological practice.

(c) The SRL framework should be thoroughly understood by all staff and participating beneficiaries before the LAST is developed. (d) A LAST system development workshop should include a balance of beneficiaries, field-level staff and technical specialists with

good gender balance. Special efforts are required to hear the voices of beneficiaries and women. (e) .Bringing local words into the conceptual framework of sustainable rural livelihoods helps in localising LAST. (f) Field test a newly developed LAST sheet with precision test and discuss the results. (g) Conduct enumerations in either neutral seasons or both seasons of plenty and scarcity to eliminate any possible seasonal

variation. (h) Have clearly established norms for enumeration backed by training and periodic ‘calibration’ tests. (i) Validate a sample of the panel surveyed at inception and perhaps during mid-term and ex-post evaluations of the project with

an in-depth household poverty assessment. (j) Plot the results over time as graphs at different levels of aggregation and dis-aggregated by capitals for effective analysis.

37


Annex 4: Overview of Policy Process Analysis

The following text has been excerpted from ………...

38


Annex 5 : Overview of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach The following text has been excerpted from Goldman et al. (2000): Institutional Support for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Southern Africa : Framework and Methodology. Natural Resource Perspectives: Number 49.

Understanding the SL framework

Sustainable livelihood approaches are being used as an ‘optic’ through which poverty can be better understood, and development options prioritised. The version used by the Department for International Development (DFID) is outlined in Carney (ed) (1998). A livelihood is defined as ‘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 (ed), 1998:4).

Using the concept of assets and vulnerabilities Rural people not only have needs but also resources or assets. Recognising this provides a respectful and positive framework for interacting with them. The five types of assets in this model are natural, social capital, human, physical and financial. Rural people are vulnerable to a range of challenges and reducing vulnerability may be a higher priority than say, increasing production, or the quantity of their assets.

Livelihood outcomes Rural people have their own aspirations. It is important that government or programmes do not impose outcomes, but negotiate with communities to find out what their aspirations are, and what may be achievable outcomes, combining people’s assets and access to resources with the external resources that government and other agencies may be able to provide. Participatory appraisals can provide tools for finding out what their desired outcomes are, in terms of increased assets, or reduced vulnerability, or such higher order concerns such as self-esteem or ‘voice’.

Institutional structures and processes A variety of organisations provide services and support to rural people, and operate within a set of laws, policies and procedures. These define the options that are available. Depending on this institutional environment, the outcomes desired and the context of vulnerability, people then select livelihood strategies.

Livelihood strategies The key strategies in rural areas can be categorised as NR-based, non-NR-based or migration. Development initiatives can empower people by broadening the range of strategy options. One critical area is that of diversifying livelihood choices, which also reduces vulnerability.

Implications Some of the features of the approach are that:

• It starts with (poor) people as the focus, and so puts clients at the centre. This means that client-focused, participatory, and responsive approaches are needed.

• It recognises the holistic nature of people’s lives, their use of multiple livelihood strategies, and so the need for responses which are not limited by sectoral boundaries.

• It builds on positives – a respectful approach to rural people is, strengths and opportunities and not just needs.

39


40

• It recognises the differences within rural communities, and implies the need for a range of responses.

• It recognises the importance of institutional structures and processes which determine access to assets and their value and so the attractiveness of different livelihood strategies.

• It implies the need for bottom-up participatory work as well as top-down strategic work.

• It implies a partnership approach among state, community and private sector – with the role of the state as facilitator, animator, or provider.

• It recognises the need to listen to those with whom we are working and learn about their objectives, but that there needs to be a dialogue about short versus long-term objectives, e.g. on the environment, where people may sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term gain.

• It recognises that rural and urban areas are intimately connected, and that policy and service linkages need to be examined, rather than seen in isolation.


Attachment C: Background Paper on Climate data for Africa Sahelian region

Focus on SUDAN

Climate Challenges to Sudan:

The Sahel region seems to have undergone a general decline of rainfall since the late 1960s. Between 1961 and 1998, episodes of drought have inflicted Sudan with varying severity. This period witnessed two widespread droughts during 1967-1973 and 1980-1984 - the latter being the more severe. The same period witnessed a series of localized droughts during 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1993, mainly in western Sudan (Kordofan and Darfur) and parts of central Sudan. The drought of 1980-1984 highlighted the basic problems that have been too long ignored. Family and tribal structures and their autonomous traditional practices of resource management and land tenure had been broken down, consequently sections of the country were almost emptied from inhabitants as thousands of people migrated from their village to refugee camps around towns and cities..

Semi-arid ecosystems degradation has been linked to migrations that may have displaced 3% of the population of Africa since the 1960s (Westing, 1994)

1. Climate in Sudan

1.1 Overview

Drought is one of the most important natural phenomena that Sudan faces. Recurring series of dry years become normal phenomenon in the Sudano-Sahel region. There are two types of droughts: the first is widespread drought, which is caused by below normal rainfall across the country; the second is localized drought, which affects only some parts of the country.

A key example of localized drought is that which affected western Sudan (Geneina and Nyala) in 1996. This region reported below normal rainfall while central and eastern Sudan were above normal.

The most vulnerable are the farmers in the traditional rain-fed sector of western, central and eastern Sudan, where severity of drought depends on the variability of rainfall both in amount, distribution and frequency. The most heavily affected are the northern Kordofan and Darfur states.

Drought is threatening the existing cultivation of about 12 million hectare of rain-fed mechanized farming and 6.6 million hectare of traditional rain-fed lands. Pastoral and nomadic groups in the semi-arid areas of Sudan are also affected.

Despite the prevalence of drought hazards, floods also affect Sudan. As with drought, two types of floods affect the country: localized floods, caused by exceptionally

1


2

heavy rainfall and runoff (flash flood) and widespread floods caused by overflow of the River Nile and its tributaries.

Floods in both forms are highly unpredictable due to the nature of rainfall variability in time and space. The Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources can monitor the Blue Nile, which is the main cause of the floods, once it enters Sudan territory. However, localized flash floods, which occur during the months of August and September, are associated with above normal rainfall and are more difficult to monitor. In the last 38 years, floods caused by localized heavy rainfall affected parts of central, eastern and western Sudan during the years 1962-1965, 1978-1979, 1988, 1994 and 1998. Even in northern Sudan there were cases where heavy rain caused localized floods (e.g., October 1999). The most vulnerable groups to both forms of flooding are people who live in low lands and along the river banks.

Of the most severe floods recorded for the River Nile (1878, 1946, 1988, 1994 and 1998), three were in just the past fifteen years.

1.2 Drought In Sudano–Sahelian Countries

Box 1. Features Affecting Sudan’s Climate

The climate of Sudan and the division of seasons arecontrolled by the distribution of the atmosphericpressure systems over and around Africa, includingthe Northern and Southern Hemisphere .

Critical factors affecting climate in the NorthernHemisphere are:

• The subtropical high pressure over the Saharadesert and the Azores. High pressure over northWest Africa.

• The extension of Siberians from Central Asia tothe Arabian Peninsula.

• The Oscillation of inter-topical ConvergenceZone (I.T.C.Z), which is the zone of lowpressure where the trade wind from oppositehemispheres converge.

In the Southern hemisphere the most importantfeatures are the two subtropical high pressures. TheSouth Atlantic Ocean acts as a source region of themoist air that penetrates into the Southernhemisphere.

The word Sahel in Arabic means a plain , a coast or a boarder . Used geographically, the term refers to a band of territory approximately 200-400 km wide, centered on latitude 15o N, lying just south of the Sahara and stretching across most of the width of Africa. The Sahel covers well over 2 million km2 and constitutes significant portions of Senegal, Gambia Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, and the Sudan. By some definitions, the Sahel covers a wider latitudinal belt that extends roughly between 10 o and 20 o N into parts of the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Benin, Togo Nigeria, Cameroon and Ethiopia. The mean annual temperature ranges from 15 to 30 o C , while rainfall varies from about 100 mm in the north to about 1000 mm in the south. The rainy season, lasting 3 to 5 months, alternates with an extended, unrelieved dry season. The periodic occurrence of drought is an inherent feature of this harsh climate and successive years of drought may be followed by years with torrential rains. In the history of the Sahel there were dry periods in the 1660s, 1740s, 1750s, 1820s, 1830s, and 1910s [Nicholson 1989]. Walsh et al. suggested that dry periods might have been more typical than wet periods [Walsh et al. 1988].

In the Sudano-Sahel, there have been two distinct droughts since 1960. The first drought was in 1970. It was sharper and deeper in the western Sahel than in Sudan. The second drought, whose climax was in 1984, was more severe. than elsewhere. Since 1984 there has seen a steady recovery in rainfalls in Mali, Chad and southern Sudan. In the late 1980s there appeared to have been a slackening off of


recovery in some areas. Some pessimistic commentators suggested that the Sudano-Sahel is enduring the start of a secular decline in rainfall [Lamb 1982; Motha 1980].

In the Horn of Africa and East Africa, rainfall patterns are very much individual to the region. In Ethiopia, the trend has fluctuated much more closely around the mean than in Sudan and the Sahel. There was a moderate drought in the late 1970s and a slow decline in the 1980s. A sharper drought in 1984 might have appeared had the records for only the northern part of the country been analysed. Djibouti has experienced regular fluctuations in rainfall with no recent droughts. Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania experienced an abrupt drought in the early 1970s. Somalia and Tanzania were favoured by a return to fair rains in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but once again are experiencing a decline. Kenya felt another drought in the early 1980s, but has returned to good rains since. Uganda encountered a long, moderate drought in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a short period of good rains in the mid-1970s, and a period of decline since then. The widespread existence of the 1969-73 and 1984 droughts in the Sahel and Sudan is not doubted, as seen in almost all of the sources [Hare 1987; Charbonnel and Hubert 1989; Rochette 1989 and Nicholson 1989].

2. Climate Information for Sudan

2.1 Historical Background on Climate Data

Continuous and regular instrumental measurements of climate have been available for Sudan since the turn of the twentieth century, albeit of limited spatial coverage over the first two decades . Being a generally semi-arid country, rainfall has inevitably been the climatic resource most intensively measured and documented in Sudan. The longest continuous record of monthly rainfall commenced in 1893 at Suakin on the Red Sea Coast, with the second site being established outside Khartoum Hospital in July,1899. This latter event followed Kitchner’s repossession of Khartoum. Meteorological stations were designated throughout Sudan during the subsequent 20 years as the British Administration was established. Temperature, evaporation, wind, solar radiation, and atmospheric dust concentration are also essential components of the total climate resource. Regular daily temperature measurements were instigated along with rainfall at the turn of the century. Pan evaporation measurements commenced shortly afterwards at a small number of sites mainly to enable effective water management of the Nile waters and subsequent irrigation schemes (Keeling,1909). Accurate and continuous measurements of solar radiation were established later and daily radiation series exist only from the 1960s (Khogali,1983).

2.2 Sources of Climatic Data

For the Sudano-Sahelian countries, AGRHYMET in Niamey, founded in 1974 as a "centre of excellence", is a major regional source. One of AGRHYMET’s agro-meteorological functions is deriving the NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, a measure of the activity of vegetation) from satellite data (NOAA AVHRR).

The integrated results, in ten-day periods, are issued in map form, to give an indication of the advance of the rainy season. A different method uses temperature information derived from meteorological satellite (Meteosat) data, and combines it with ground-station data to produce a second kind of indication of the progress of the

3


rains. The IGADD area is served by the eastern African regional drought monitoring centre in Nairobi (DMC_N).

All of the 22 countries in Africa have national meteorological (or equivalent) services, many issuing rapid and frequent bulletins. Examples are the National Meteorological Service in Ethiopia, the Meteorological Service in Niger (serving the Comité National du Système d'Alerte Précoce, CN/SAP), and the Sudan Early-Warning System (in the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission in Khartoum). These use much the same kind of data and have much the same output as the regional centres. The Centre de Suivi Ecologique (CSE) in Senegal provides data for ecological monitoring and environmental information systems.Several more international services use the same kind of data and some also issue frequent bulletins. FEWS (Famine Early-Warning System) is a system operating in the United States that issues frequent bulletins about Africa. ARTEMIS is a system within the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, Rome) which hopes to soon develop a service transmitting its results by satellite to African countries. UNEP/GRID Nairobi also uses these kinds of data. Other international organizations are not as free with their results, but are also researching drought on national scales (ICRISAT and ACMAD - the African Early Warning System, both, along with AGRHYMET, located in Niamey; ILCA in Addis Abeba). IGADD also has a programme for an early warning system. Some donor countries (for example at the NRI in Britain, at IEMVT in France and the University of Lund in Sweden) also have early-warning capability, which they use to support regional and national facilities in the Sudano- Sahelian countries. Seasonal forecasting: This forecast is based on statistical relationships between wet season rainfall in the Sahel and the worldwide pattern of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the pre-wet season months (Folland et al ,1986; Owen and Ward,1989) .

2.3 Use of Forecast Systems Information:

Among the purposes of these systems is the:

- Provision to regional and national authorities, international agencies, donors, relief agencies, and charities of predictions stating where and when food crises are likely to arise.

- For this purpose, rainfall predictions and observations are combined with a range of other data to forecast crops and livestock performance. These include:

o Statistical surveys of production and yield of specific crops.

o Market surveys and surveys of crop, animal diseases and pests, among others.

- Rainfall prediction in the Sudano-Sahelian region is being used for early-warning famine systems.

- The accumulated data year-to-year also provide a record of desiccation, positive or negative.

- The international and national authorities need early-warning drought data, which may also be useful at the level of the land-user [Konaté and Traoré 1987].

- Many of the systems were in place for the 1984 catastrophe in Ethiopia and the Sudan, yet little help was organized for these areas until it was far too late

4


[Eldredge and Rydjeski 1988; Dawit Wolde Giorgis 1989]. The same happened in the Sudanese famine of 1990 [Davies et al.].

3. Sudan’s Changing Climate:

An examination of Sudan’s ecological zones indicates that the majority of its land is quite vulnerable to changes in temperature and precipitation . Of its diverse ecological zones more than half the country can be classified as desert or semi-desert, with another quarter, arid savannah. Changes in temperature and rainfall are likely to lead to desertification in some regions, while in the South, the spread of vector-borne diseases is likely. The country’s inherent vulnerability may best be captured by the fact that food security in Sudan is mainly determined by rainfall, particularly in rural areas, where 70% of the total population lives. Changes in temperature and precipitation could cause shifts in the precarious distribution of these ecological zones, in the productive capacity of rainfed agriculture, and thus, in the security of the nation’s food supply (NC-2001)

3.1 Rainfall Sensitivity to Climate Change

Sensitivity of Sudan rainfall to global warming is not yet known since the regional detail of precipitation changes resulting from the temperature increase are sill poorly modelled by GCMs (Schlesinger and Mitchell,1987).

The table below shows the range of scenarios for future rainfall change in Sudan over the next 40 years. Scenarios depend on the cause of recent droughts and the sensitivity of rainfall to global warming.

Cause of recent rainfall depletion Drier Sahel Rainfall change by 2030 AD due to

GHG effect – no change Sahel Wetter Sahel

Natural cyclicity Stronger+ - +- Weaker +-

Natural climatic change - 0 +

Regional anthropogenic climatic change *

- - - 0

Global anthropogenic climatic change

- N/a N/a

Notes: Much drier - -

Drier -

No change 0

Wetter +

Alternative wet/dry phases + -

* Assumes no reversal of land degradation

(1980s taken as base rainfall level)

In this table four main causes of the recent rainfall depletion are suggested:

• an irregular cyclical pattern which would naturally see a return to wetter conditions

5


• a climatic discontinuity due to some (unknown) natural cause, in which a new stable drier regime is now the norm

• a climatic change resulting from regional changes in land surface characteristics, namely land degradation and deforestation

• a climatic change which has been induced by global scale modification of atmospheric composition through the emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHG.

The net outcome from the table is a range of scenarios heavily weighted towards either maintenance of the reduced rainfall yields of recent decades or else a further decline. Only one of the ten scenarios leads to regenerated rainfall . In view of this output and until our understanding of current drought mechanisms and modelling of the effects of global warming improves, it would seem prudent for Sudan to assume a continuation of the current depleted rainfall resource into the twenty-first century (Mike Hulme, 1989).

3.2 Observed Rainfall Trends

The changing nature of rainfall supply in Sudan during the twentieth century is examined using historical, annual, monthly and daily data recorded since1900. Rainfall depletion has been most severe in semi-arid central Sudan. Between 1921-50 and 1956-85 annual rainfall has declined by 15 percent, the length of the wet season has contracted by three weeks, and rainfall zones have migrated southwards by 50-100km. Such migration represents approximately 25% of the fluctuation in rainfall resources that are estimated to have occurred during the last 20,000 years. This depletion has been due to a reduction in the frequency of rain events rather than to a reduced rainfall yield per rain event (Mike Hume, 1989. The Changing Rainfall Resources of Sudan).

It is clear that the rainfall of Sudan has altered more noticeably in recent decades compared to the decades of the early to mid century. The declining yield of annual rainfall is strongest in semi-arid central region and in southern Sudan. The decline is less evident along the Red Sea coast and in the northern region which experienced a short wet episode in the late 1970s (Mike Hulme, 1989).

Generally the rainfall distribution has an ascent from the north to the south. The level ranges from approximately zero ml. in the extreme north of the country, arising to 500 ml. in central Sudan, to more than 1500 ml. in the extreme southwest.

In the last 30 years, the rainfall had showed a very high variability north of latitude 14 degrees and lower variability to the south. Comparing annual rainfall with the normal (1960-1990), it was observed that the period 1961-1967 was characterized by above normal rainfall followed by a period of below normal to normal. The rainfall during the 1980s was unique, in the sense that during this period the annual rainfall was below normal with a period of extreme dry conditions (1983-84), while in 1988 a very high rainfall was recorded in most of the country causing heavy floods and extreme devastation.

The highest amount of rainfall reached 200.5 ml. recorded in Khartoum in August 1988. Rainfall performance improved during the 1999s with normal to above normal

6


records except in some parts of western and eastern Sudan. There is no regular cycles performance regarding year-to-year rainfall.

3.3 Observed Temperature Trends

The Sudan is one of the tropical countries with mean annual temperatures varying between 26o and 32 o except for the elevated points such as the high land of Imatong Mountain in the extreme southern parts of the country where temperature is 18.1oC , and Jebel Mara in the west (22.6 o C). The hottest areas based on mean annual temperatures of 32 oC lie within the northern parts of central Sudan (Triangle Atbara – Kassala – Khartoum) decreasing in all directions outside this triangle, particularly towards the north west.

The hottest and coldest months vary according to latitude. The hottest month in the extreme south of Sudan is March, and at latitude 10 o N is April, at 14 o N is May, and at 20 o N is August. The coldest month in extreme southern Sudan is August, at 10 o N is July, and at 12 o N is January. The highest temperature on record was 49.1 o C measured at Dongola – Northern Sudan in June 1978, and the lowest was –1 oC measured at Zalingei (Jebel Marra) in December 1961 and January 1962 .

3.4 Climate Change Scenarios for Sudan:

A study of the impacts to climate change conducted in western region of Sudan (Kordofan State), indicated great variability in rainfall and increasing temp projected from a climate change scenario over a base line one. This is illustrated by in the two graphs below using observations derived from five meteorological stations

Rainfall 2060:

7


-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

EL OBEID EN NAHUD

RASHAD KADUGLI

BABANUSA

∆P (m

m/m

o)

Temperature 2060:

8


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

EL OBEID EN NAHUD

RASHAD KADUGLI

BABANUSA

∆T (d

egre

es C

)

(Source: Climate Scenario /Sudan 1st. National Communication 2001)

4. Conclusions

The above rainfall and temperature charts illustrate the large variations that exist in the country, which provided an indication of the vulnerability of Sudan to future climate change.

10. References:

- Warren,A. & Khogali,M (1993) Assessment of Desertification and Drought in the Sudano-Sahelian Region , 1985-1991.

- Hulme, M. (1989)The Changing Rainfall Resources of Sudan.

- Kafi ,A. (2000) Climate Data of Sudan

- Sudan Meteorological Authority (2000) Climatological normal 1960-1990.

- DMC-N (2001) Seasonal Rainfall Forecasts (Annual Report). - Sudan's First National Communications under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, 2001.

- Westing, A.H.(1994) Population, desertification, and migration .Environ.Conserv21,109-114

9


10

11. Annex:

Table (1) Climatic requirement of main crops in Sudan:

Crop Temp. limits Moisture limits Growing season length/period

Summer crops

1. Sorghum Around 30-42 o C-Optimum 33 o C

400-800 mm/year

Under irrigation needs 6-8 watering /year

July/Aug-Dec/Jan-

Growing season is normally about 3-4 month.

2 Millet 30 oC-42 o C

Opt. 32

350-600 mm per year June/July-Oct./Nov

3 Maize 25-42 o C

Opt. 30 o C

400-600 mm/year

Under irrigation needs 6-7 watering

May/July-Oct/Nov

4 Ground nut Range 30-42 o C

Opt. 32C

350-600 mm

Under irrigation 6-8 watering

June-Oct/Nov

5. Sesame Range:30-42 o C

Opt. 32 o C

350-500mm June/July-Oct./Nov.

6 Sunflower Range :30-42 o C

Opt. 32 o C

400-700 mm July-Nov/Dec

7 Cotton Range 30-42 o C

Opt.32 o C

450–700 under irrigation need 8-14 watering

July/Aug-Dec/Mar.

Winter crops

1 Wheat Range: 20-42 o C

Opt.22 o C

Under irrigation 8 watering

Nov/Dec-Feb-March

2 Pulses Range:20-42 o C

Opt. 22 o C

Under irrigation: 8 watering

Oct/Nov-Feb/March


Attachment D: Terms of Reference for Case Study Researcher

Consultancy to assist the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources and the Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center by carrying out case studies on the relationship between sustainable livelihoods and climate change adaptation.

1. Background ..........................................................................................................................................1

2. Case Study Purpose and Goals ...........................................................................................................2

3. Case Study Research Scope ...............................................................................................................2

4. Case Study Methodology .....................................................................................................................3

5. Case Study Protocol.............................................................................................................................4

5.1 Background and Preparation ...........................................................................................................4

5.2 Fieldwork..........................................................................................................................................7

5.3 Policy Process Analysis .................................................................................................................12

5.4 Progress reporting..........................................................................................................................13

5.5 Synthesis........................................................................................................................................14

6. Required Skills....................................................................................................................................14

Annex 1: Methodological Approach ............................................................................................................16

Annex 2: Case Study Report Outline ..........................................................................................................20

1. Background

This project is motivated by the observation that existing resilience-building strategies – whether directed toward household, community, sectoral, even ecosystem resilience – can be effective at increasing the capacity to cope with and adapt to climate-related impacts, and that these strategies could be built upon for climate change adaptation. More specifically, the project is based on the following premises:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

increasing the coping capacity of the most vulnerable groups to today’s climate-related impacts must be a pre-eminent goal of adaptation,

developing countries are especially in need of adaptation strategies that are consistent with national sustainable development goals,

methods have been developed in separate fields of practice – sustainable livelihoods, environmental management, disaster mitigation – which can meet both of these needs,

if the needs of the most vulnerable people are prioritized in national decision-making, then small-scale, community-level strategies will be needed to supplement the large-scale, technical/structural approach that is likely to dominate adaptation planning. However, there is a need to provide decision-makers with information on these small-scale strategies;

and lastly, these sorts of strategies – i.e., that increase the adaptive capacity of the most vulnerable people while mitigating near-term environmental impacts (e.g., slowing desertification) – can diversify and strengthen national adaptation plans of developing countries.

1

Vikrom Mathur

We need to find a better reference…


It is these types of strategies that we intend to identify, explore and discuss, making them accessible, understandable and useable to the policy-making process. Case studies, including a policy analysis component, will serve as the primary research tool for this purpose.

In essence, the project hypothesis is that sustainable livelihoods can fill the practical and conceptual gap that exists between local vulnerability to climate change and national/intergovernmental policy processes. More specifically, just as the term ‘sustainable livelihoods’ is used to describe both an approach to human development and a framework for analysis, the project’s hypothesis consists of two similar elements: first, that the sustainable livelihoods approach can respond, on the ground, to climate change adaptation needs of the most vulnerable groups, and second, that the sustainable livelihoods framework can facilitate the process of adaptation assessment, policy making and implementation. The project aims to respond to this hypothesis by employing the framework to assess both the impact of the approach on community resilience and, by using policy process analysis, to define the linkages of the approach to the larger policy process.

2. Case Study Purpose and Goals

The purpose of the case studies – the central research element of the AIACC Sudan project – is to enable the project to show that certain sustainable livelihoods (SL) measures operate as climate change adaptation options and that such measures can (and should, given the numerous co-benefits) be integrated into the planning of national adaptation strategies. So that the project can make this claim, the goal of the case studies is to clarify and establish the following:

(a)

(b)

that certain sustainable livelihoods (and natural resource management) measures increase a community’s resilience to today’s climate-related shocks. To show this, case studies will involve collection and analysis of ‘resilience indicator’ data – data on the protection and promotion of livelihoods.

and on a methodological level, that it is possible to determine how such measures can be effectively implemented, supported and up-scaled, for lasting impact. To show this, each case study will provide an assessment of the local and national policies and conditions, as well as the implementation strategies that support or inhibit successful measures.

Within these overarching project goals, the case studies themselves have the following specific objectives:

(a) Identify vulnerable communities (i.e., vulnerable to drought, other climate impacts) where successful SL measures have been put in place and using community consultation, confirm the success of the measure.

(b) Generate informative background material on each community’s unique context, vulnerabilities, assets, coping strategies, etc.

(c) Within each community, employ a suite of quantitative and qualitative methods to measure community resilience to climate-related impacts, with and without SL intervention.

(d) Employ policy and cross-scale analysis techniques to explore the relationship between community resilience-building activities and micro-, meso- and macro-scale policies, institutions and processes.

(e) From the above, draw lessons for increasing community resilience with SL strategies – while achieving multiple additional benefits – that can be applied to adaptation and related processes.

3. Case Study Research Scope

Drawing from existing research platforms, the project research consists of three interlinked processes – the empirical, in which background information is gathered and organized, the analytical, in which case studies are carried out, and the participatory, in which community input, validation and guidance is

2


sought.1 Within the analytical process, the project will use the sustainable livelihoods framework to enable researchers to measure resilience at the local level to climate-related impacts. With this approach, the following research scope is proposed:

a) The project will undertake four separate case studies in Sudan. Case studies will be concerned with current and recent historical experience, and are likely to focus on the experience of the 1980s through to the present.2

b) To ensure adequate coverage of Sudan’s rural circumstances, and adequate representation of the Sahel, as well as North and East African circumstances, each case study will focus on a distinct ecosystem sub-type (such as rangelands, forested lands (e.g., the gum arabic belt), semi-arid plains) or agricultural system type (such as gum arabic production, rain-fed shorgum production, animal husbandry) along the agricultural-pastoral continuum.3

c) Each case study will focus on a single community or group of communities within an ecological/agricultural system as its unit of research.

d) Each case study will explore examples where “local” knowledge (e.g., traditional, indigenous, autonomous, informal) and/or “external” knowledge (e.g., formal, technical, directed) has been applied within a target community, in the form of an SL strategy, to enable the community to cope with or adapt to climate-related stress.

e) Case studies will compare a community’s vulnerability to climate extremes, pre- and post-SL intervention. In cases where collection of historic information is not possible, “signal” events (i.e., major historic climatic events) and role-playing will be relied upon.

f) Case studies will be conducted by commissioned researchers, through desk-based and field research, over a four-month period.

g) Finally, it is important to note that the project will select case studies based in part on advance knowledge that the case represents a successful example of SL measures reducing community vulnerability to drought. The project will accept, based on the output of an initial scoping exercise and direct community consultation (discussed below), that a set of measures is effective, and will focus instead on (1) the extent to which these measures increased resilience, and (2) why? (i.e., because of what local, national, regional policies and conditions?) Each of these points is discussed below in some detail.

4. Case Study Methodology

The case study methodology is constructed around the concepts of sustainable livelihoods, and employs a number of sustainable livelihoods assessment tools. Annex 1 provides detail on the major elements of the methodology. These include the following: • Use of climate variability and extremes as a proxy for climate change • Use of a sustainable livelihoods assessment framework • Focus on “successful” resilience-building experiences • Community participation • Development of resilience indicators • Focus on micro-meso-macro linkages

1 See, e.g., the Strategic Environmental Framework for the Greater Mekong Subregion (SEI and ADB, 2002) 2 This wide time horizon has been chosen to capture the infamous drought of 1983-1984 (persistent regional drought) that severely impacted Sahelian Africa. 3 The project is likely to favor the use of agricultural systems, as these tend to be most representative of other locations at the national and regional levels. Data on agricultural systems is more readily available and tends to be more reliable. Moreover, much of the traditional knowledge developed by communities for drought-proofing is oriented around crop and food production systems.

3


• Use of nested assessment • Use of explicit validation process

These elements provide the groundwork for the case study protocol, outlined below.

5. Case Study Protocol

The project involves four separate case studies – each involving travel, fieldwork, data collection, analysis and writing. Commissioned experts will conduct the research and writing with the support and close collaboration of the project partners. It is expected that case study reports will be prepared in such a way that their results can be compared and synthesized into a set of project findings. Given this, it is clearly critical that each case study researcher closely follows a carefully designed research protocol, as outlined below.

It is anticipated that each case study will require modest adaptations of the project’s data collection methods outlined below, in order to suite the unique community context. The goal in developing and using this instrument is to identify the richness of a community’s experience and avoid reductionism, while at the same time, gathering comparable information. Nevertheless, it is expected that the main components of our approach will be applied. Case study research is divided into four main stages, as outlined below: • Background/preparation • Fieldwork • Policy analysis • Progress reporting • Synthesis

5.1 Background and Preparation

5.1.1 Case study selection criteria: Case studies will be selected by project partners and the project Task Force based on the following criteria:

• Representative climate-related events: Case studies will involve past or ongoing climate-related events that are representative of projected future climate change, as outlined most recently in the IPCC TAR, as well as the Sudan First National Communications (e.g., prolonged drought). Past or ongoing climate-related events will be used as proxies for future climate extremes. Scientific records will be relied upon to establish the magnitude of the event.

• Representative systems: Case studies will involve circumstances that are representative of a particular productive system. Each case study will focus on an agricultural system or ecosystem and dependent communities therein that have been exposed to a climate stressor. The term “agricultural system” is used here to capture a localized system of agricultural production that is at least partly responsible for sustaining the local population. Examples of such systems might include rainfed sorghum production, gum arabic production, or rangelands-based animal husbandry.

• SL applications: Case studies will explore specific examples of community-level SL applications (e.g., collaborative management, soil conservation, water harvesting) that have been applied in Sudan, and could be applied in other countries. 4 The list below represents examples of the types of SL measures which could be studied within the above context.5 Note that these are generally applied as packages of measures, referred to here as SL ‘strategies’6:

4 As this is considered the key criteria that will be used to distinguish one case from another, the project may select the same target system twice if different measures are applied in different settings within. 5 The identification of the natural resource management approach to be studied would occur in tandem with the identification of agricultural/ecological systems (described above). 6 For this reason, we do not propose to disaggregate and quantify the specific impact of individual measures, but rather (a) whether or not packages of measures increase community security and (b) what factors enable this.

4


• Soil Management - This approach to increasing the stability and productivity of soil is a general term which involves a range of specific techniques such as fallow cycling, forest buffering, selective planting, managed grazing, etc. Soil management is recognized as central to combating desertification.

• Water harvesting - Around the world, this approach has many variants - from the construction of johads (earthen dams) in Northwest India to rooftop collection in the Caribbean, to the forest zai in West Africa - and many champions. Water harvesting techniques have been used as a drought-proofing tool to increase water available for households, irrigation, as well as baseline water flow for watershed restoration. (In Western Sudan, for instance, the trunk of the Adansonia digtata tree is used for water harvesting, purification and storage.)

• Windbreak Construction - As wind erosion contributes significantly to the process of desertification, a number of natural resource management methods have been applied, both through formal desertification projects and autonomous activities of farmers, to reduce its effect. Replanting of indigenous trees and shrubs for windbreaks, as well as ridging, mulching and rock bunds, are but a few methods.7

• Intercropping - The technique of planting selected food crops within stands of trees (e.g., in the case of Sudan, gum arabic stands) is suggested to provide local communities with added food security and income through livelihood diversification, while at the same time reducing deforestation and desertification.

The many additional approaches that might be considered include collaborative management, microcatchment management, selective biomass regeneration, rangelands management, livestock diversification, gully control, and organic matter management (to name but a few).

• Successful examples: Case studies will explore examples of community-level SL applications that are considered successful by government and/or civil society groups, and are confirmed as successful by the communities themselves.8 As described above, selected systems will be those in which an SL approach has been previously applied - i.e., an SL technique has been used in the system by individuals or organizations seeking to increase system resilience and/or productivity. To select such systems, project partners will survey a country for sustainable livelihood/ natural resource management experiences that are considered successful by communities, NGOs, government agencies, etc. and select these as our case studies (in the case of Sudan, this will involve those sets of measures that have effectively responded to community drought-proofing needs). Our researchers will then carry out field research to determine the nature of this success, and to determine how the SL strategy was implemented, what helped it succeed, what challenges it faced, etc.

5.1.2 Climate data collection: Local project coordinators will compile information on recent (last 20 years) extreme climatic events, including geographic extent, intensity, duration, etc., from e.g., WMO and FAO datasets. (Note: It may be that only major extreme (e.g., persistent regional drought) will be identified and put forth to the task force for consideration.)

5.1.3 Case study scoping: Local project coordinators will investigate a number of sources for information on SL strategies that have been recently applied in response to drought vulnerability and/or impacts associated with one of the above climatic events. The information collected could include:

a) the category of practice (e.g., agriculture, conservation, water supply, etc.),

b) the type of action (e.g., autonomous, directed),

7 See, e.g., IPCC Working Group II (2001) “Africa”. Chapter 20 in the Third Assessment Report. IPCC. 8 “Success” will be confirmed through site visits and assessment of community ownership of the intervention in question, as discussed below.

5


c) the specific action (e.g., intercropping, windbreak construction, rangelands management, water harvesting),

d) the implementing group (e.g., government agencies, NGOs, community groups, individual farmers, etc.),

e) the intended beneficiaries (e.g., communities, nomadic groups, individual farmers),

f) the location and duration of use.

Sources of this information may include community groups, local, regional and international NGOs, government agencies, university departments, bilateral and multilateral development agencies, etc.

5.1.4 Case study selection: Having met the basic criteria, case studies will then be chosen through the following basic selection process:

• Based on information gathering outlined above, project partners will cull from a master list, a preliminary set of the most promising SL “success stories” (e.g., 10 to 12).

• Project partners will conduct a rapid assessment of case study feasibility, based on data needs, available documentation, location and local context, etc., and rate each candidate case study accordingly.

• Project partners will conduct a rapid assessment of the potential issue coverage of each candidate case study and its potential contribution to major project goals – i.e., regionally applicability, ease of use in adaptation planning, representation of vulnerable communities, etc. – and rate each candidate case study accordingly.

• Based on these rankings, the top eight cases will be selected and prioritized.

• This list, along with a justification of selection, will be submitted to the Task Force members, each of which will independently select and justify its top four choices, and will prioritize and justify its four back-up choices. Task Force members will be asked to validate, as a group, the “success” of case studies based on the material provided, and to outline (as needed) specific information that should be gathered in the initial site visit in order to confirm this success.

• Based on the TF member input, the final four case studies will be selected, and four back-ups will be prioritized.

• Initial site visits will be conducted by the case study researchers, to each of the four selected sites, in order to ascertain the community’s perception of the effectiveness of the SL measures. Effectiveness or “success” will be determined based on community feedback regarding changes in vulnerability, and on an assessment of the level of community ownership of the measures/project. Cases that are considered successful will then be expanded into full case studies. Back-ups will be selected (and verified) for cases that are shown to be unsuccessful.

5.1.5 Workplan development: The project team expects that each case study researcher will prepare a case study workplan in advance, outlining:

(a) desk-based research on data availability, the climatic event, agricultural system, natural resource management measure, and potential resilience indicators,

(b) preliminary selection and justification of target systems,

(c) Groups and individuals to be interviewed/ researched,

(d) Data collection and sampling methods to be used (government record review, questionnaires, etc.)

6


(e) Travel plans, and

(f) Budget.

Box 1: Quantitative versus qualitative indicators The use of indicators – to measure sustainable development, poverty reduction, ecosystem resilience, etc. – is a notoriously challenging task, tending to lean too far toward either the quantitative or qualitative extremes. However, consensus is emerging in the sustainable livelihoods field that application of an appropriately balanced blend of both types of indicators can offer up realistic and informative assessments of changes in livelihood security and community resilience.1Both types will be combined for use with the LAST (livelihood asset status tracking) system (Bond and Mukherjee, 2002), outlined in section 5.2. This tool is essentially a quality of life index, combined with the SL framework’s use of assets.

5.1.6 Generic indicator development: (See Annex I for an outline of the project approach to indicators.) The AIACC Sudan project will attempt to develop and apply indicators of community “resilience” to explore the way in which SL projects lower a community’s vulnerability to climate-related shocks. To do so, the project is relying on several existing tools, developed for monitoring and assessing the impact of sustainable livelihoods on communities. With the guidance provided therein, the project has adopted a fairly simple approach to developing and using resilience indicators. In developing indicators of community resilience, the project is planning to use community consultation, word picture construction, and local informant validation, as outlined below.

(a) The first step in developing resilience indicators will be for the project team to assemble lists of generic quantitative and qualitative indicators – i.e., those that are relevant to rural, drought-prone settings in Sudan. The project team will attempt to construct sample indicators around the five capital assets in the sustainable livelihoods framework: human, financial, natural, physical and social capital. The team will also strive for indicators that represent balance between productivity, equity and sustainability. In this way, a core set of ten to fifteen generic quantitative, ‘expert-derived’ indicators will be developed by the project team and task force, as well as a core set of qualitative indicators.

(b) These indicators will be revised and refined for each case study by the researchers and communities in question, in order to better reflect their specific circumstances. Thus, the second step in developing indicators is for the case study researchers to review the generic indicators in a community forum and to guide the community members through a process of reflection and revision, resulting in a set of locally-derived indicators. In the initial site visit, communities will be consulted to consider the sample qualitative indicators and to develop their own sets (for simplicity, quantitative indicators will be revised during the second site visit and word picture construction, outlined below). As part of this process, historic events and their effect will be considered.9 Communities will be asked to use these indicators to define the net impact of the SL activity on their level of resilience to climate extremes. (In the second site visit, these indicators will be used as the basis for comparison between community vulnerability prior to the SL activity, and following the activity.) These steps are outlined further below.

5.2 Fieldwork

Case study fieldwork will be conducted through at least two, and preferably three site visits. The duration of these visits will most likely be between 2 days (in the case of the initial site visit) and 5 or 6 days (in the case of the second site visit). In all, fieldwork is expected to be conducted and concluded within a 2-month period.

7

9 For example, impacts of the 1983-1984 drought, such as livestock loss, dry wells, unemployment, will be examined to tease out useful indicators of resilience.


Major goals of the fieldwork are the following:

• Gain community trust, commitment and participation in the case study

• Confirm success of SL project

• Finalize resilience indicators

• Finalize and carry out data collection strategy

• Fill data gaps and validate findings

• Initiate policy process analysis

The anticipated fieldwork process is outlined below.

5.2.1 Initial site visit: The purpose of the initial site visit is four-fold: (1) to garner community trust, interest in, and support of the project and the approach, (2) to confirm the success of the SL activities from the community’s perspective (and thus, justify the case study), (3) to scope and schedule subsequent fieldwork (including participatory framework), and (4) to identify and contract a local informant. Given the skill of commissioned researchers, tasks (1), (3) and (4) will likely be straightforward, though special attention will need to be paid to creating a plan for community participation that is sensitive to relevant social barriers (gender, class, ethnicity, etc.). However, the second activity will require a well-considered approach. Project partners recommend the following:

• CSRs should undertake the initial site visit prepared to share and discuss (a) a particular climate extreme(s), to which the community has been exposed, in order to establish the project context and objectives, (b) a set of generic, expert derived qualitative indicators (discussed below) that can help to describe aspects of people’s livelihoods that can be impacted by climate events, (c) a process, including selection criteria, through which the community can consider and revise these indicators to better describe their context.

• For its part, the community will be asked to (a) develop criteria for indicator selection, based on a brainstorming exercise (see Annex 3 for more information), (b) refine and expand the set of indicators based on these criteria, and (c) informally assess the impact of the SL activities on those indicators. (At this stage, the indicators are intended to be qualitative, to allow for rapid revision and appraisal on the part of the community.) Examples of criteria relevant to a local setting are outlined in the table below.

[REVISE]


Cells contain locally relevant criteria

reflecting the productivity, equity and sustainability

dimensions of each of the five capital assets Natural Physical Financial Human Social

Productivity Soil fertility Irrigation infrastructure

Income Employment Education and training

Equity Access to crop land

Access to irrigation system

Access to credit

Individual/household rights

Access to decision-making

Sustainability Land management

Water management

Savings and investment

Health Local institutions

8


• These critical steps are intended to determine whether the community views the SL activity as successful in increasing their livelihood security, and thus their resilience to climate impacts. It is important that the community clearly, if informally, (a) assesses itself as better prepared to cope with and recover from climate impacts, following the SL activity, and (b) attributes causality of resilience to the SL activity. The connection need not be absolute, but the researcher must be convinced that the SL activity has played the most significant role in recent improvements in community resilience.

CSRs will prepare a short report for project partners and task force members, following the initial site visit, which outlines their findings and conclusions about the appropriateness of the particular community experience for continued case study research.

5

CSR action items for first site visit:

1. Identify and contract local informant (prior to field visit if possible).

First meeting:

2. Organize introductory meeting to familiarize community with the project and with the SL concepts (SL approach, 5 capitals, etc.), answer questions, consider indicators, etc.

3. Within community meeting, discuss key climate extreme to which community has been exposed in order to frame project and establish objectives.

4. Guide community through process of outlining criteria for indicator selection, based on the 5 “capitals”.

5. Using criteria, guide community through process of revising generic qualitative indicators to better represent circumstances. Result should be revised lists of qualitative indicators for each of the 5 capitals. (See Box 2 for an example of natural capital indicators.)

6. Guide community through process of choosing qualitative indicators that best describe circumstances pre- and post SL-activity, in order to confirm project success.

7. Schedule subsequent fieldwork – community meetings, data collection process, etc.

8. Following meeting, assess community feedback and results.

9. Prepare report outlining (a) consultation process, (b) indicator criteria, (c) revised indicator set, and (d) suitability of case to further study.

.2.2 Second site visit: The case study researcher will have some degree of flexibility in the data collection process, since both the indicators and collection methods are to be adapted to suit each case study context. However, we anticipate that case study researchers will (a) collect datasets of a certain minimum size for an agreed set of resilienccollection, (c) perform basic data analysis, (d) summarize findings and (e) document any limitations and biases in carrying out the protocol.

Beyond these parameters, the project approach to defining resilience indicators and collecting data is as follows:

• Building on the initial site visit (in which communities were asked to select and revise generic qualitative indicators and use these to assess project success), the second site visit will focus on finalizing and using indicators to describe household circumstances, pre- and post-SL intervention, in order to define the net impact of the SL activity on their resilience to climate extremes.

9

Box 2: Sample indicators of natural capital (quant. and qual.)

Indicator Land ownership/access (# ha) Food stores (# seasons) Fertility of land (soil quality) Location of land (degree of slope) Subsistence and cash crops (amounts of each; ratio) Fodder production (amount) Surplus seeds (ability to trade) Access to irrigation water (type and degree of access) Livestock holdings (# heads) Supplemental agricultural income (type; amount) Household food production (dairy? fruit?) Access to forest produce (type and

e indicators, (b) document data

degree of access)


• Indicators: During the initial site visit, OR at the start of the second site visit, full sets of qualitative and quantitative indicators will be identified and selected, based on the established criteria. Examples of both types of indicators are provided in the adjacent box. The indicators developed will be reviewed by the community and by the local informant under the direction of the case study researcher and adapted as needed to accurately reflect local circumstances and experience.

• Word pictures: At the outset of the second site visit, community indicator sets will be assembled into composites of both quantitative and qualitative indicators known as ‘word pictures’ (see Bond and Mukherjee, 2002). ‘Word pictures’ are descriptions of household circumstances. The main tool of the Livelihood Asset Status Tracking system, developed by Bond and Mukherjee (2002), word pictures are essentially quality of life indices, constructed around the SL framework concepts of assets. (See Annex 3 for more information.)

• Sets of word pictures will be developed for each of the five capitals – natural, physical, financial, human and social. For each, one word picture will outline a best-case snapshot of household circumstances; another will outline a worst-case snapshot; roughly three word pictures will be developed to describe household circumstances in between. An example of word pictures describing household access to/ownership of natural capital is provided in the table below.

• Embedded in these word pictures are both quantitative indicators (such as cash income, crop productivity, livestock populations, year-round wells, local grain reserves, employment rates, and savings) and qualitative indicators (such as access to forest produce, rangelands, and fertile soil, or access to credit, seeds, and markets).

• An example of a list of indicators and resulting word pictures developed by a community is presented in the table below.

Word pictures of household access/ownership of natural resources Worst case 2 3 4 Best case Indicator 0 5 10 15 20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80 85 90 95 100 Land ownership/access

little or no land X hectares land

Food stores one or two month's food available from own land

Fertility of land red soil with low fertility more of black fertile soil Location of land land is located on slope; rain water

washes away seeds and top soil fertile land with moisture retention

capacity Subsistence and cash crops

use of traditional seeds grows and sells cash crops; grows vegetables; availability of home grown food throughout year; grows high yielding variety seeds

Fodder production no land for growing fodder Surplus seeds lends seeds to others Access to irrigation water

no source of irrigation irrigation facilities available round the year

Number of livestock

owns one or two livestock many livestock,

Supplemental agricultural income

high returns from livestock;

Supplemental food production

no milk produced many fruit trees

Access to forest produce

low access to forest produce access to forest produce

10


• Tables such as this (one for each ‘capital’) will be used by households to assess their own resilience to climate impacts. To do so, households will assemble their own word pictures (one for each capital), drawing from the gradient of cases agreed upon by the community, to describe their circumstances pre- and post-SL activity.

• One of the requirements of this exercise is that all community members agree on a ‘signal’ event – a climatic event that had significant negative impacts and is firmly captured in community memory. Household assessments of their circumstances during the signal event will be compared to (a) circumstances during a more recent event, or (b) where no recent event exists, circumstances during a hypothetical event.

• In the case of (a), the impact of the SL activities will actually have been tested by a climate event. In these cases, the SL measures will have taken effect prior to the onset of a recent climate event, and the community will be able to assess the change in their ability to cope with the climate event, and thus assess the impact of the measures on their level of resilience. In these cases, individuals and households will be asked, through surveys and interviews, to develop one word picture that best describes household circumstances during the signal event, and one that best describes circumstances during the recent event.

• In cases where the SL measures have just recently been implemented, there may be no recent climate event to use for comparison. Instead, individuals, households and the community will be led through role-playing exercises. In these exercises, people will be asked to project the historic (‘signal’) event onto the current context and to develop a word picture that best describes the household circumstances they would expect to experience if the event were to occur today.

• A hypothetical example (from Bond and Mukherjee, 2002) of worst case and best case word pictures assembled by a household during the survey process is outlined in the box below. Based on the scores established by the community in the table above, both word pictures would have an associated score, which would be used in the analysis process.

Word picture of household’s access to natural resources (natural capital)





• Word pictures, and by extension, the role of the SL activity, will be examined in community

forums, household surveys and targeted interviews, and are expected to enable the project to systematically organize community perceptions of resilience.

Though not a component of the livelihood assessment itself, the policy process analysis (see section 5.3) will begin during the second site visit. During community consultations, household surveys and targeted interviews, CSRs will collect information to help determine what policies, institutions and processes (e.g., land tenure policy, local governance arrangements, market access) have enabled the SL activity – and which have inhibited.

11


CSRs will prepare a short report for project partners and task force members, following the second site visit, which outlines the experience, initial findings and validation needs for the next/final site visit.

5

5

CSR action items for second site visit: 1. Organize second meeting with aim of revisiting/finalizing indicators and developing ‘word pictures’. Second meeting: 2. Guide community through process of revising generic set of quantitative indicators, using established criteria.3. Using revised indicators, guide community through process of developing ‘word pictures’. 4. To the extent possible, develop separate sets of ‘word pictures’ to describe each of the five “capitals”: Data collection: 5. Finalize survey content (questionnaire, interview questions) based on ‘word picture’ construction. 6. Using stratified sampling methods and local informant advice, finalize data collection strategy. 7. Distribute questionnaires and conduct surveys and targeted interviews (households, individuals, key groups)

in which respondent develops ‘word picture’ that best describes household circumstances in times of drought – both prior to and following the SL intervention.

8. Prepare report outlining (a) word pictures exercise, (b) data collection process, and (c) early observations.

.2.3 Third site visit (or extended second visit)

Findings generated through data collection and analysis will require validation by the community as a whole, prior to finalization of the case study. Through simple dialogue, or using participatory methods such as role playing, preliminary findings regarding the role of SL/NRM measures in building local resilience to climate impacts will reviewed, discussed and as appropriate, adjusted. This will be a key opportunity to discuss causality and to explore caveats and biases of the inquiry.

The third visit will also provide an opportunity for CSRs to follow up on specific questions or concerns posed by the project team and task force regarding the preliminary findings.

Lastly, the third site visit will provide an additional opportunity for CSRs to conduct interviews and consultations with key local stakeholders to gather additional perspectives for inclusion in the policy process analysis (see below).

CSR action items for third site visit (or extended second visit): 1. Organize third meeting with aim of clarifying and validating preliminary findings.

Third meeting: 2. Using participatory methods, guide community through process of reviewing and discussing output of data collection process. 3. Facilitate discussion on key questions raised by project team, TF or CSR. 4. Facilitate discussion on causality and enabling factors – i.e., (a) the extent to which the SL activities in question are responsible for increased resilience and (b) the policies, institutions, etc. that supported or challenged the activity within the community. Targeted interviews: 5. Conduct targeted interviews to explore questions of causality and enabling factors.

.3 Policy Process Analysis

Analysis of the policy process will begin during the fieldwork stage and continue following conclusion of the fieldwork. This stage of case study development will conclude within one month of the final site visit. The purpose of the analysis is to essentially back-cast from successful sustainable livelihoods outcomes, to try to determine what factors – primarily policy and institutional factors – enabled that success.

12


This phase of the research will involve of a modified version of the steps presented in the "Livelihood - Policy Relationships in South Asia" Working Paper Series,10 as outlined here. In “A Methodology for Policy Process Analysis”, Springate-Baginski and Soussan (2001) outlined a series of six steps. Drawing heavily upon these, but reversing their order, the AIACC Sudan project will pursue the following: • Determining outcomes and impacts for livelihoods: this step is essentially the livelihood

assessment process undertaken through the fieldwork described above. With an assessment of impacts on local livelihoods, the researchers will assemble a series of policy and institutional linkages through the subsequent steps. (see above)

• Identifying key policy and institutional issues and defining their relationship to the sustainable livelihoods project: this step will involve identification of policies and institutions (at the macro, meso and micro-scales) that are seen as important to the development, implementation and success of the SL project and carefully exploring the relationship. At the macro-scale, land tenure reform, for instance, may play a critical role in certain projects, just as lack of reform may have challenged project implementation. At the micro or meso-scale, a sound framework for participation in local governance may pave the way for robust project participation and lasting project ownership. This step will rely largely on interviews with key stakeholders (from government, civil society, etc.), household surveys, and community consultation.

• Exploring the policy development process: once key enabling factors have been identified, the challenge is to explore how and why these came to be. In the present step, researchers will examine how the policies and institutions of interest were developed, seeking insights into the process such as key actors and common strategies. This step will involve primarily interviews with key stakeholders and desk-based research.

• Establishing a picture of the policy, institutional and process contexts: this step is intended to clarify why enabling factors came to be. This series of nested pictures will describe first the micro, focused on the village or village council scale, next the meso, focused on the district or sub-national scale, and finally the macro, focused on the national or regional scale. By developing these pictures of the SL project context, the AIACC Sudan project will be able to better understand the sort of groundwork that needs to be in place in order for certain SL activities to take root. For the micro and meso-scales, this step will involve interviews with key stakeholders, community consultation, and desk-based research. For the meso and macro scales, it will rely on interviews with key stakeholders and desk-based research.

• Creating a history of key policy milestones: lastly, it will be instructive to anchor the analysis emerging from the above steps to a policy and institutional heritage. By piecing together the preceding information, it will likely become apparent that certain instances of landmark legislation, reform, etc. play a direct role in enabling SL activity today. It may be valuable for climate change adaptation activity to build off of or link to these policies and processes. This step will rely on interviews with key stakeholders and desk-based research.

The information assembled above will be developed into a policy process analysis document, which will serve as a major component in the final case study report.

5.4 Progress reporting

Researchers will provide project partners with two interim reports. The first report (5-10 pages) will follow the initial site visit. This report is intended to confirm the suitability of the community for case study, to outline the key community assets, describe the selection of a local informant, outline a

10 http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/prp/downdocs.htm

13


provisional set of indicators adapted to the community context, and indicate any adjustments to the workplan.

The second report (5-10 pages) will be prepared subsequent to the primary community consultation and household interviews and will provide preliminary analysis of the findings. This report is intended to serve two purposes: to provide project partners with an indication of the kind of findings that the case study is yielding (to which they can provide comment, request additional information, suggest follow-up action, etc.) and to provide researchers with the basis of the draft case study report.

5.5 Synthesis

The synthesis phase of the case study work involves preparation of the full case study report, and will involve close collaboration of the CSRs, the project team, and the project task force. See Annex 2 for report outline. The process will proceed as follows:

• Draft case study report: The first draft of the case study report will be prepared by case study researchers within 2 weeks of the policy process analysis completion (1.5 months after the conclusion of fieldwork)

• Internal review: The first draft will then be reviewed by the project team and task force. Comments will be provided within 2 weeks of receipt.

• Second draft case study report: Based on this feedback, CSRs may need to conduct follow up research, verification and additional site visits in order to prepare a second draft. CSRs will submit the next draft one month after receiving feedback.

• Final draft case study report: Project partners will coordinate preparation of the final draft reports, soliciting and incorporating task force member input, and circulating for peer review.

Following the completion of all case studies, project partners, with task force member guidance, will develop a series of synthesis documents for publication. These will undergo several rounds of revision and extensive peer review.

6. Required Skills

The work program outlined above requires a range of skills on the part of the case study researchers. The following list outlines the skills and experience expected of commissioned expert teams. No single researcher needs to possess all of these skills, but the two person teams must be created in order to cover all of the requirements below. Knowledge gaps such as lack of familiarity with certain concepts (e.g., SL or climate change) can be overcome through exposure to selected literature during the preparatory stage.

• Familiarity with concepts: Researchers must be versed in the following concepts: climate change, climate change vulnerability, climate change adaptation, sustainable livelihoods, sustainable livelihoods approach, sustainable livelihoods framework.

• Fieldwork experience: Researchers should have ample fieldwork experience, including experience with a range of survey techniques and with designing and implementing strategies for community participation in research.

• Project management experience: Researchers should have a work history that includes management and coordination of work efforts, similar to the AIACC Sudan project case studies.

• Policy and institutional analysis experience: Researchers should have experience in the assessment of micro-macro linkages – that is, the linkages between the local livelihood context and meso- and macro-scale policies, institutions and processes.

14


15


Annex 1: Methodological Approach

The following major elements comprise the project’s methodological approach. Specific steps involved in the case studies are outlined in section five.

1. Climate variability and extremes as a proxy for climate change:

Despite tremendous progress in the science surrounding climate change scenarios, it is not currently possible to rely upon existing scenarios for Sudan (see e.g. the First National Communications (HCENR, 2001)) or for many countries to confidently assess the impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities. Instead, vulnerability to current climate variability is increasingly being used as a reliable proxy for vulnerability to climate change. This approach does not equate present climate extremes with future climatic conditions; rather, a number of sources have suggested that the degree to which a sector, community, or system is adapted to today’s climate extremes and variability can serve as an indicator of how vulnerable or resilient that system is likely to be to future climate change conditions. According to the IPCC WG II (Summary for Policy Makers, 2001), for example, “Experience with adaptation to climate variability and extremes can be drawn upon to develop appropriate strategies for adapting to anticipated climate change”. In other words, for vulnerable communities and agricultural systems, the most logical first step in adapting to climate change is to assess and, where necessary, increase their level of adaptation to current climate-related stressors.

For each case study, a discrete climate-related event - past or ongoing - will be identified, around which the case study will be constructed. Where possible, the impact on a community of two separate events will be assessed – one pre-intervention, one post-intervention. In cases where more recent interventions are being examined, a historic climate stressor may be used as a “signal” event, which the community can project onto its current circumstances through role-playing, for the purposes of considering its current resilience to similar, hypothetical impacts.

2. Sustainable livelihoods assessment:

The sustainable livelihoods approach sees poverty as vulnerability to shocks, and seeks to reduce vulnerability by building on the livelihood assets of households, increasing their access to a blend of assets and gradually building household resilience. Over the past decade, the sustainable livelihoods approach has gained prominence in development work and has begun to be used in broader settings. As a result, it has become necessary to develop and apply assessment tools – impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation, etc. – in order to measure the effectiveness of projects in actually lowering people’s vulnerability. From the range of assessments undertaken, a general approach has taken shape which draws heavily from a number of existing methods.

Sustainable livelihood assessment is intended to generate an understanding of the role and impact of a project on enhancing and securing local people’s livelihoods. As such, it relies on a range of data collection methods, a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators and, to varying degrees, application of a sustainable livelihoods model or framework. Though differences exist, most assessment strategies apply some form of an asset-based approach; most encourage examination of micro-macro linkages; most employ some degree of participatory research methods.

By and large, the way that these assessment methods frame the problem and respond to the question of livelihood impact make them highly suitable to the goals of the current project. The AIACC Sudan project is not wedded to a single approach and is instead using its own variant (outlined in section 5), drawing methods from those used by major development agencies (DFID, CARE and UNDP) and from a variety of past assessment experiences. The image below uses an adapted version of the UNDP approach to outline the way in which the project is conceptualizing the SL assessment process and its linkage to the larger process of adaptation. The UNDP approach to livelihood assessment may be the most compatible with the project’s goals, however, the DFID model and the notion of the five capitals (natural, physical, human, social and financial) will also be used – albeit loosely – to capture perceptions of resilience in the data collection process. See section 5 for more detail.

16


3. “Successful” resilience-building measures:

Input to the Adaptation Process

Policy Process Analysis

SL assessment

“Successful” resilience-building experience

Adaptation Drivers

Adaptation Entry Point

Adaptation Outcome

SL drivers: Policy (macro-micro)

Institutions (e.g., governance) Processes (e.g., investment,

technology transfer)

SL entry points: Adaptive strategies (assets,

knowledge, technology)

SL Outcomes: Community resilience

Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Adaptation Assessment

Process (SL Case

Adaptation Process

The AIACC SUDAN project is motivated in part by an understanding that successful examples exist (notably, in the linked fields of sustainable livelihoods and natural resource management) of efforts to increase the resilience of communities to climate-related shocks. Numerous reports exist, documenting project impacts and assessing success. It is therefore not the goal of the present project to establish whether selected SL strategies have been successful, but rather to clarify (a) the nature of that success, and (b) its enabling factors behind that success.

Success, however, is a subjective term, requiring judicious use. The AIACC Sudan project will therefore study only those experiences that the communities themselves deem to be successful – according to community-defined terms such as ownership, impact on asset base, sustainability, institutional linkages, etc. If necessary, multi-criteria assessment may be used to generate a comprehensive picture of the “success” of a given activity in increasing a community’s resilience. The criteria used in this process can also serve as the basis for developing resilience indicators (at a later stage) on the part of the community.

4. Participation:

Stakeholder participation is seen as a key component of research that seeks to directly address human needs. Though the current project is one step removed from direct community-level development activity, the reliance of the case studies on a locally-driven assessment of resilience makes it essential that community participation be a mainstay of the work. The challenge to the AIACC Sudan project arises from the limited funds and short time-span available to the case study process: there is neither budget nor time for extended direct observation and multiple community consultations. As a compromise, the project will make use of a range of the most appropriate

17


participatory tools, including participatory rural appraisal (e.g., ‘word picture’ development), household surveys, intra-household interviews, role-playing and community-wide validation workshops.11

5. Resilience indicators:

Borrowing from C.S. Holling and colleagues, we refer to resilience here as the capacity of a system (social and/or ecological) to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state. Resilient communities, therefore, can withstand shocks and rebuild themselves if necessary.12 With this thinking, we can see vulnerable (often poor) communities as those incapable of withstanding and recovering from climate impacts, and conversely, resilient communities as those that are capable of coping with and recovering. Bearing in mind the sustainable livelihoods literature, which equates poverty with vulnerability and prescribes the fostering of sustainable livelihoods as a mechanism for enhancing coping and adaptive capacity, the role of sustainable livelihoods in increasing resilience to climate impacts becomes clear. But how to measure this role? The AIACC Sudan project is relying on several existing tools, developed for monitoring and assessing the impact of sustainable livelihoods on communities; with the guidance provided therein, the project has adopted a fairly simple approach to developing and using resilience indicators, as outlined in section 5.2.

The use of indicators – to measure sustainable development, poverty reduction, ecosystem resilience, etc. – is a notoriously challenging task, tending to lean too far toward either the quantitative or qualitative extremes. However, consensus is emerging in the sustainable livelihoods field that application of an appropriately balanced blend of both types of indicators can offer up realistic and informative assessments of changes in livelihood security and community resilience.13 Both types will be combined for use with the LAST (livelihood asset status tracking) system (Bond and Mukherjee, 2002), outlined in section 5.2. This tool is essentially a quality of life index, combined with the SL framework’s use of assets. In developing indicators of community resilience, the AIACC Sudan project is planning to use community consultation, word picture construction, and local informant validation, as outlined below.

6. Micro-Macro Linkages:

A primary goal of the AIACC Sudan project is to draw lessons from the micro scale that are relevant to the macro scale, and vice versa. By developing this understanding, project partners hope, ultimately, to inform a process of scaling up (or scaling out) of relevant SL activities for climate change adaptation. At the macro scale, the project seeks to influence key policy processes – particularly, national adaptation planning and relevant national decision-making in e.g., poverty reduction, disaster mitigation, biodiversity conservation, water resources, forest management, etc. To do so requires an understanding of the interplay between local livelihood conditions and the “range of policies, institutions and processes which support or hinder them” (Goldman, 2000). This connection is of central interest in the sustainable livelihoods approach, however, there is no seminal guidance on how such lessons can be gleaned.

To develop this understanding, AIACC SUDAN case studies will involve a distinct step of policy process analysis. This analysis will be based on the approach developed by the project “Improving Policy-Livelihood Relationships in South Asia”.14 It should be noted that while the South Asia process is designed in part to understand how policies take shape and can be influenced, our focus is more narrowly focused on understanding the ways in which existing policy supports or inhibits sustainable livelihoods activity. Ultimately we hope that this can enable supportive policies to be encouraged through the adaptation process, and inhibiting policies to be corrected.

7. Nested Assessment:

11 See, e.g., Bond and Mukherjee (2002); Turton (2001). 12 See The Resilience Alliance: http://www.resalliance.org/whatisresilience.html. 13 See, e.g., Turton (2001), Marshland et al. (2001), Hussein (2000), Rennie and Singh (1996). 14 See http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/prp/

18

http://www.resalliance.org/whatisresilience.html


To facilitate the generation of case study lessons, particularly for the policy process, case studies will use a nested assessment approach. With this approach, researchers will focus analysis first on the household, next on the community and next, through the policy analysis process, on the micro-region, the sub-national context, and finally, the national or regional context.

8. Validation:

Given the subjective nature – and even sensitivity – of the data to be collected (e.g., measures of household income, assets and self-sufficiency), a validation or quality-check will be conducted at three levels. First, the community at large will be used as a sounding board for the general themes emerging from the data. At the community level, informal triangulation will be used to cross-check and confirm patterns and findings. Second, the local informant will provide a critical review of data. Third, task force members will conduct a careful examination of the data, seeking to identify and distinguish misleading information from that which it considers valid.15 Questions from the task force review will be referred back to the case study researcher for clarification and validation.

15 Though not a strictly independent reviewer, the TF is relied upon for its role as an objective participant in the project and is expected to be able to carry out this task in an unbiased manner.

19


Annex 2: Case Study Report Outline

Each case study is intended to serve as a stand-alone report, as well as feed into the project synthesis documents.16 In order to ensure comparable case study outputs, it is important that they be presented in a uniform manner. We therefore propose that each case study researcher follow the same basic outline, presented here:

1. Purpose – An overview of the case study purpose and goals.

2. Background – A detailed and informative background section, including the following sub-sections:

2.1 The Community: This section will tell the “story” of the case study community – Where is it located? How does it function? What resources does it rely on? What are its assets? What does it produce? In what ways has it been vulnerable to climate impacts? What are its key challenges? What are its most relevant local trends?

This sub-section will also describe what households in the community are like – how they operate, what assets they have, what their major needs are, etc.

2.2 The Policies, Institutions and Processes: this section is intended to embed the discussion of the community in the larger socioeconomic context by sketching the micro-, meso- and macro-scale policies, institutions and processes that are of greatest relevance to and have the greatest impact on the community in question. For example, this section might discuss local systems of governance, regional market access, and national land tenure and land management policies.

2.3 The Climate Context: This section will place the community in the climate context, providing an overview of local historic climate patterns, highlighting major climatic events, and discussing key instances of serious climate impacts. This section should outline, in particular, any climatic events that will be used in the assessment of community resilience.

2.4 The SL activity: In this detailed section, the researchers will introduce the sustainable livelihoods intervention (i.e., the resilience-building measures implemented within the community) to be examined through the case study. Relevant information will include:

• key actors (NGOs, community groups, local institutions of governance);

• a discussion of each of the specific measures involved (e.g., dune stabilization, composting, water harvesting, revolving credit schemes, etc.);

• the process by which the measures were implemented (e.g., community consultation, collaborative planning, self-monitoring, etc.);

• a preliminary assessment of success (i.e., an overview of the community assessment process through which criteria were used to determine the success of the measures/strategy in question, as well as a summary of the assessment results).

3. Methodology – This section will provide a complete overview of the methods used for the case study, including an in-depth discussion of any variation from the standard project methods. The section will include sub-sections on 3.1 research methods used,

3.2 the community consultation, survey and interview processes,

3.3 indicators developed (including word pictures),

3.4 the validation process,

16 Project partners intend to compile the individual case study reports into a single volume, which would include a description of the overarching study goals, approach, methodology and results. Case studies would also be used as the basis of the project synthesis documents, which are intended to provide relevant material to a range of potential audiences.

20


3.5 as well as any limitations, caveats or biases encountered. 4. Community Resilience Profile – This section will:

4.1 outline the data collected on changes in household and community resilience, 4.2 summarize the changes in resilience to climate impacts following the SL intervention, 4.3 discuss the validation of the findings within the community.

5. Analysis – In this section, researchers will provide discussion of the factors (e.g., local governance conditions, local NGOs, national economic policies) that enabled the SL activity to take effect and have a positive impact on the communities. Specifically, researchers will provide an analysis of: 5.1 the role of the SL intervention in building community resilience (including the implementation

strategy, the groups involved, the specific measures employed, etc.),

5.2 the role of the micro-scale policies, institutions and processes (from policy process analysis),

5.3 the role of the meso-scale policies, institutions and processes (from policy process analysis),

5.4 the role of the macro-scale policies, institutions and processes (from policy process analysis),

6. Lessons learned – As the name implies, concise lessons that can be gleaned from the analysis above will be summarized in this section.

7. Conclusions – This section, to be drafted with input from project partners, will outline the implications of these findings for the various relevant policy processes – and in particular, the adaptation policy process.

21


Annex 3: Overview of LAST System

The following text has been excerpted from Bond and Mukherjee (2002): Livelihood Asset Status Tracking (LAST): A Case From Rajasthan

1. The Project

The project is that part of the DfID supported Western India Rainfed Farming Project (WIRFP) Phase 2 managed by the Indian Farm Forestry Development Cooperative Ltd (IFFDC) in Pratapgarh in the Chittorgarh District of Rajasthan. The area is remote, hilly and drought prone with an annual rainfall of some 800mm and has experienced considerable land degradation.

The £2.3m DfID support to the IFFDC component of this £28m project started in May 1999 for a period of seven years and operates initially in 25 core villages. There are plans to expand to 75 core villages and through a further 150 dissemination villages to a population of some 150,000 poor people. It aims to enhance the livelihoods of the predominantly tribal population through farmer groups, participatory village planning, improved farming systems, group savings and income generating activity. The project operates as a participatory process from an autonomous PMU and works with village specialists (Jankars). Some experience from the use of this method in research in Uganda and South Africa under DfID project R7076CA is incorporated (Howlett et. al. 2000).

2. The Issue Addressed

[…] Impact attributable to particular interventions is notoriously difficult to establish, and as such requires very thorough and careful assessment. This is not the usual function of monitoring, which is concerned with timely detection of changes within the area of management responsibility. A solution to this dilemma, illustrated below, may be to combine these monitoring and evaluative functions in a cost-effective way. This would require monitoring for any changes in livelihoods within the areas of intervention and selectively investigating interesting changes with ad hoc learning exercises (ALEX) in order to understand causes and effects of the changes. A variety of both formal and participatory methods exist for the ALEX part, the remaining problem is to find a suitable method for rapid identification of change in livelihoods over wide areas which is logistically feasible and managerially relevant. Such a system was developed between April and September 2000 by IFFDC.

Qualitative ALEX carried out where monitored change is of managerial interest.

LAST quantitative monitoring and analysis over a wide area

Project area of many dispersed locations with diverse interventions

3. Sources and Ideas Used

This section briefly introduces the various ideas and sources used in the LAST method.

3.1 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) Framework

This positive framework approaches poverty from the perception of the poor considering the assets to which they have access and the strategies they employ for survival (DfID 2000). These assets are considered to be the five ‘capitals’ of natural, physical, human, financial and social. Livelihood strategies are usually associated with production but the framework also considers access to the capitals (equity), and trends and shocks (sustainability).

3.2 Quality of Life Indexes

Over the last decade some NGOs17 have assessed quality of life using combined indexes based on locally derived perceptions of selected indicators ranged in locally recognisable stages from ‘worst to best’. These generally take the form;

22

17 Used for example by microfinance NGOs ‘The Bridge Foundation’ in Bangalore and Maha Bhoga Marga in Bali, Indonesia (Bond & Hulme 1992).


Cells contain ‘word pictures’ of each stage for each criteria described in local terms.

Scored stages from worst to best situation known locally (left to right) usually to set number of stages (often ten).

Criteria for assessing quality of life One per row.

The advantages of this method include; 1. Rapid assessment of households by observation and questioning. 2. Conversion of qualitative assessment directly to quantitative score. 3. Locally meaningful assessment. 4. Consistent method for assessments within area and over time. 5. Disadvantages include; 6. Lack of theoretical framework as basis for criteria used. 7. Fixed number of stages is artificial.

The combination of this method with the SRL framework forms the basis of LAST. […]

3.3 Process Approaches

A process approach to a project is commonly associated with participatory approaches but is more than that (Bond & Hulme 1999). The concept also includes high levels of managerial flexibility and longer intervention periods (Rondinelli 1993); it includes involvement and capacity building of local institutions, local autonomy of action and the fostering of innovation within organisational cultures of ‘new professionalism’ (Chambers 1993). Finally, and above all for our purposes, a process approach depends on a capacity for ongoing learning so that problems can be effectively solved and efficiently dealt with on an expanding scale of operation (Korten 1980). The LAST method has been developed as part of an integrated Process Evaluation Management Information System (PREMIS) to support the ongoing learning of IFFDC’s project.

3.4 Optimal Ignorance & Appropriate Imprecision

These are actually principles of PRA (Chambers 1993) but are emphasised here to explain the deliberate avoidance of collecting certain types of information that do not contribute to useful management learning and also the use of approximate data when that yields adequate information. These principles are employed to save time and to focus attention on what is important.

3.5 Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology

Different professional groups aligning themselves with one or other approach make much of this dichotomy. However, most quantitative information is qualitative at source (Moris & Copestake 1993) and in the LAST method both qualitative and quantitative methods are combined to achieve a balance of analytical and managerial requirements.

4. The Livelihood Asset Status Tracking (LAST) System

4.1 Definition

“A rapid impact monitoring system designed along with primary stakeholders and based on the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods conceptual framework. It is intended to track the ongoing dynamics of five capital assets essential to household livelihoods as a proxy for impact”.

4.2 Overview

Within the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods framework, the starting point is the assets to which rural people have access in order to devise their livelihood strategies. This is also the end point of the model as those strategies impact not only on their livelihoods in terms of outcomes (a more traditional source of indicators) but also back on the assets themselves. The changing asset base, measured in the five capitals to which a household has access can be a useful proxy for impact on livelihoods. If indicators are derived in a participatory way, they will be locally relevant within relatively homogeneous areas (in terms of ethnicity and agro-climatic criteria). Also, if the system is to be used over many households with a reasonable frequency the method needs to be quick and simple enough for rapid enumeration with reasonable accuracy. For managerial purposes in a process project, the tracking of asset status will give useful measures of change towards project purpose and will contribute to longer-term evaluations.

4.3 Methodology

Participatory workshops conducted with the project team and beneficiaries are the main vehicle for evolving LAST. The process involves small group discussions, brain-storming and clustering of criteria, field testing and validation. The main objective is to evolve ‘word pictures’ for LAST. The ‘word picture’ is a method for constructing verbal descriptions of asset status. Such word pictures can depict ‘worst off’ and ‘better off’ households and also intermediate positions.

23


To measure asset status for each of the five capitals available to a household a locally meaningful scale of stages is described from the worst known situation to the best, the number of stages is not important (typically 3-6) but their reality and recognisability is. The descriptions will have to maintain a balance between aspects related to production, equity and sustainability to avoid distortion of the development perspective used in the matrix. For example, a high score under natural capital for fertile farmland (productivity) would be misleading if that land is on a steep slope and will soon erode (sustainability).

A hypothetical illustration, which was used during the initial workshop held at IFFDC project is given below. The illustration covers two word pictures of ‘worst’ off and better off households. Word Picture of Household' s Access/ownership of Natural Resources




NB: Only two ‘word pictures’ have been described here.

When such word pictures are based on the worldview of local communities, they are practical and realistic and also help in community ownership of the method. Word pictures evolved separately by women and men groups’ help in focusing on gender issues.

In use the assessment sheet is compared to the reality of the particular household and a rapid assessment is made of which description or collection of indicators fits closest. Individual questions do not have to be asked for every indicator, rather judgement is used on the relevant part of the scale combining direct observation and semi-structured questioning till the enumerator is confident to identify the closest ‘stage’ for that household. This can be scored proportionally against a centile scale, scores for centres of boxes being used as well as scores for edges of boxes where a household is judged to fall between two stages. Scores for the five capitals are made separately but the five can be combined (straight or weighted) to give a LAST index for the household.

The enumeration will typically take around 20 minutes for all five capitals. The LAST sheet is used only as a checklist and for marking the closest situation to the household and so need not be intrusive on the interview. Enumeration is done on a ‘repeat panel’ sample which can be initially selected randomly and stratified by wealth ranking or similar rapid assessment exercise to ensure a good spread of livelihoods. Detectable changes are unlikely to occur in the short-term but a reasonably frequent period of assessment is needed to inform management. The ideal assessment frequency is likely to be between 3 months (IFFDC) and a year.

Precision tests can be conducted on the scoring with a newly developed LAST sheet using three enumerators present simultaneously during assessment but not collaborating, with one asking the questions. Scores can then be compared to gauge reliability of the method in terms of precision.

4.4 Process

At least two workshops are required to be held for LAST –one for developing the system and field testing and the other for refining or fine tuning it. Both workshops are based on active participation of project team and beneficiaries where group-work, field work and shared-learning are encouraged.

The first workshop starts with introduction of the SRL conceptual framework and its different components to key informants at local level and the project team. The five capitals for livelihood are explained with the processes, structures, strategies, outcome and vulnerability aspects. Once the livelihood systems are explained and discussed the local words and descriptions are brainstormed by small groups and presented back to the plenary. This results in a checklist in which, people’s livelihood activities and criteria are mapped and resources associated with such activities are identified.

Subsequently, the three aspects of the capital on which livelihoods are based, (productivity, equity and sustainability) are introduced and indigenised with the help of local words. This is followed by small group brainstorming on generation of criteria related to the five types of resources for livelihood and clustering them on the basis of three categories –‘productivity’, ‘equity’ and ‘sustainability’. This serves not only as a ‘warm-up’ to the concepts employed but also provides a balanced range of criteria from which to consider practical local indicators which may be incorporated in the ‘word pictures’ constructed for the stages of the LAST assessment sheet.

24


Cells contain locally relevant criteria reflecting the productivity, equity and sustainability dimensions of each of the five capital assets


Productivity

Equity

Sustainability

The criteria which appear to be locally assessable in practical and meaningful ways are then combined into a sequence of balanced word pictures representing a number of realistic stages from worst known situation to best within the area. These may be concise descriptions or a collection of indicators typical of each stage.

Based on the criteria for each capital in the matrix above, a range of ‘word pictures’ are constructed for the Livelihood Asset Status Matrix.

• The criteria which appear to be locally assessable in practical and meaningful ways are combined into a sequence of balanced word pictures representing a number of realistic stages from worst known situation to best within the area. These may be concise descriptions or a collection of indicators typical of each stage.

• To measure asset status for each of the five capitals available to a household a locally meaningful scale of stages is described from the worst known situation to the best, the number of stages is not important (typically 3-6) but their reality and recognisability is.

• The descriptions will have to maintain a balance between aspects related to production, equity and sustainability to avoid distortion of the development perspective used in the matrix. For example, a high score under natural capital for fertile farmland (productivity) would be misleading if that land is on a steep slope and will soon erode (sustainability).

The worst situation, best situation and intermediary situations are compiled for each capital. Once the LAST matrix is constructed it is tested under field conditions by enumerators working in groups of three. This is followed by the results of the LAST matrix being reflected upon by the enumerators and also reviewed by peer group/s.

4.5 Some Technical Points

Scale Range; the avoidance of absolute values by scaling from 0% worst to 100% best is an already established technique in, for example, the UNDP Human Development Index (UNDP 1990). The issue of permanence of those parameters is valid, especially in a project that assumes improvements in livelihoods. However, it is unlikely that the top end will need adjustment in poverty alleviation projects particularly in areas of existing inequality. A successful project of this kind would probably only shift the proportion of households with low scores to higher scores without requiring extension of the top categories.

Scoring; this is partly an issue of matching score intervals to the precision of judgement possible with this method, but is also an issue of preference of the enumerators. Solutions seem to be;

Marking the nearest column (steps of about 10-15%, probably too coarse).

Marking the nearest column or edge between columns (steps of about 5-7% a good fit with precision tests).

Marking the best judgement against a centile scale along the top of the matrix (steps about 5%, good fit with precision test and not tied to central / edge values of cells).

Range of ‘word picture’; The word pictures need not be discrete and can be over-lapping to some extent. This is because they are qualitative, composite pictures graded in degrees.

5. Results

The LAST system was developed during 4 days of workshops and field testing for precision. There followed a more substantial field trial at a later date and a further one day workshop to reflect and refine the method. Project staff are comfortable and confident with the method and consider that project Jankars will be able to carry out future periodic assessments after the experience of working jointly with project Community Organisers. The project is now (December 2000) ready to conduct the first project-wide assessment. There follows an edited translation from one of the five capitals used in the IFFDC Pratapgarh LAST matrix:

Financial Capital Indicator 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100Wages labour / migration

Does labour work round the year / bonded labour; gets

Does labour work for 8-10 months / gets employment for

Does labour work 5-6 months/ gets employment for

Does labour work 2-3 months/ gets employment for

May do labour work for 1-2 months in a year; get it when

No need for them to do wage labour, rather they hire others

25


employment for only 5-10 days / month

15 days / month 20 days / month 25 days / month they require it.

Debt/ Loan No one gives them loan

Have to necessarily mortagage land for loan

Gets loan with great difficulty; witness of 5-10 persons; at 60% interest p.a.

Gets loan with some difficulty; witness of 2-4 persons; at 60-36% interest p.a.

Gets loan easily; at 36% interest p.a.

No need for loan or debt for them rather give loan to others

Bank/ Financial institution




No bank account; Can get small loan

Can get large loan; take advantage of bank schemes

Easy loans / bank account; takes good advantage of bank schemes

Agriculture Produce

Food grains not sufficient even for one month

Food grains sufficient for 2-3 month / sells food grain in the village.

Food grains sufficient for 4-5 month/ sells food grain in village or local fair

Food grains sufficient for 6-8 month/ sells food grain at Suhagpura

Food grains sufficient for 8-10 month/ sells food grain at Suhagpura

Food grains sufficient for 12 month/ sells food grain at Pratapgarh Mandi

Allied sources of income

No knowledge Only agriculture & wage labour

Agriculture, wage labour & some livestock based income generating activities

Agriculture, wage labour & more livestock based IGAs

Good agriculture, good livestock and vegetable & fruit cultivation

Hires out tractor/ thresher, loans seeds & takes double in return; share water cropping; Owns flour mill / shop; sells milk / ghee

Saving No knowledge No knowledge Knowledge but do not practice

Saves some money

Saves Money More savings

NB one score would be given for each capital, guided by the column closest to their situation or the central value of a scatter of indicators.

6. Key Points for Best Practice (a) Ensure the project is of the kind where impact is likely to emerge during the period of implementation; has objectives focused

on livelihood improvement; is of a process nature where management can respond to unexpected changes; has a learning oriented culture; has a capacity to carry out ALEX; and is able to elicit the participation of beneficiaries in LAST development. Otherwise this is the wrong method.

(b) LAST systems need to be developed separately for ‘areas’ of reasonable homogeneity in terms of cultural, economic and agro-ecological practice.

(c) The SRL framework should be thoroughly understood by all staff and participating beneficiaries before the LAST is developed. (d) A LAST system development workshop should include a balance of beneficiaries, field-level staff and technical specialists with

good gender balance. Special efforts are required to hear the voices of beneficiaries and women. (e) .Bringing local words into the conceptual framework of sustainable rural livelihoods helps in localising LAST. (f) Field test a newly developed LAST sheet with precision test and discuss the results. (g) Conduct enumerations in either neutral seasons or both seasons of plenty and scarcity to eliminate any possible seasonal

variation. (h) Have clearly established norms for enumeration backed by training and periodic ‘calibration’ tests. (i) Validate a sample of the panel surveyed at inception and perhaps during mid-term and ex-post evaluations of the project with

an in-depth household poverty assessment. (j) Plot the results over time as graphs at different levels of aggregation and dis-aggregated by capitals for effective analysis.

26


27


Annex 4: Timetable

Action item Month 1

Month 2

Month 3

Month 4

Month 5

Preparation: Background reading and preparation X

Prep

Workplan development X First site visit: Identify and contract local informant (prior to field visit if possible). X Meeting 1: Organize introductory meeting to familiarize community with the project and

with the SL concepts (SL approach, 5 capitals, etc.), answer questions, consider indicators, etc.

X

Within community meeting, discuss key climate extreme to which community has been exposed in order to frame project and establish objectives.

X

Guide community through process of outlining criteria for indicator selection, based on the 5 “capitals”.

X

Using criteria, guide community through process of revising generic qualitative indicators to better represent circumstances. Result should be revised lists of qualitative indicators for each of the 5 capitals.

X

Using criteria and community memory, guide community through process of choosing qualitative indicators that best describe circumstances post SL-activity, in order to confirm project success.

7. X

Schedule subsequent fieldwork – community meetings, data collection process, etc. X First progress report: Following meeting, assess community feedback and results; prepare report outlining (a) indicator criteria, (b) revised indicator set, and (c) suitability of case to further study.

X

Second site visit: Organize second meeting with aim of revisiting/finalizing indicators and developing ‘word pictures’.

X

Second meeting: Guide community through process of revising generic set of quantitative indicators, using established criteria.

X

Using revised indicators, guide community through process of developing ‘word pictures’.

X

Fiel

dwor

k

To the greatest extent possible, develop a set of ‘word pictures’ to describe each of the five “capitals”:

X

28


29

Data collection: Finalize survey content (questionnaire, interview questions) based on ‘word picture’ construction.

X

Using stratified sampling methods and local informant advice, finalize data collection strategy.

X

Distribute questionnaires and conduct surveys and targeted interviews (households, individuals, key groups) in which respondent selects ‘word picture’ that best describes household circumstances in times of drought – both prior to and following the SL intervention.

X

Second progress report: Prepare report outlining (a) word pictures exercise, (b) data collection process, and (c) early observations.

X

Third site visit: Organize third meeting with aim of clarifying and validating preliminary findings. X X Third meeting: Using participatory methods, guide community through process of

reviewing and discussing output of data collection process. X X

Facilitate discussion on key questions raised by project team, TF or CSR. X X Facilitate discussion on causality and enabling factors – i.e., (a) the extent to which the SL activities in question are responsible for increased resilience and (b) the policies, institutions, etc. that supported or challenged the activity within the community.

X X

Fiel

dwor

k

Targeted interviews: Conduct targeted interviews with key stakeholders to explore questions of causality and enabling factors.

X X

Policy Process Analysis: Using targeted stakeholder interviews (3rd site visit) identify key policy and institutional issues and define their relationship to the sustainable livelihoods project

X X

Using targeted stakeholder interviews (3rd site visit) and desk based research, explore and define the relevant policy development processes

X X

Using targeted stakeholder interviews (3rd site visit) for the micro and meso-scales, and desk based research for the meso and macro-scales, develop a picture of the policy and institutional context of the community and SL activity.

X X

Fiel

dwor

k/D

esk-

ba

sed

rese

arch

Using targeted stakeholder interviews (3rd site visit) and desk based research, outline the history of key policy milestones relevant to the community and SL activity.

X X

Synthesis Draft case study report X

Second draft case study report X

Attachment E: Draft Bibliography Banuri et al. (2001) “Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development”. Chapter One in Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. IPCC WG III Contribution to the Third Assessment Report. IPCC.

Benioff et al. (1996) Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments: and International Handbook. J Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Blaikie, et al. (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge.

Burton, et al. (1998) “Adaptation to Climate Change: Theory and Assessment”. In Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. UNEP.

Feenstra et al. (1998) Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. UNEP.

Gitay et al. (2001) “Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services”. Chapter 5 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

IPCC Working Group I (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

IPCC Working Group II (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [McCarthy, J., O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken, K. White (eds.)] IPCC.

IPCC (1998) The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. [Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.)] IPCC.

Kates (2000) “Cautionary Tales: Adaptation and the Global Poor”. Climatic Change.

Kelly, P. and W.N. Adger (1999) Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation. Working Paper GEC. University of East Anglia.

Klein, et al. (1997) Adaptation to Climate Change: Options and Technologies. UNFCCC.

Lal et al. (2001) “Asia”. Chapter 11 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart (eds.) (2000) Climate Change and Its Linkages with Development Equity and Sustainability: Proceedings of the IPCC Expert Meeting held in Colombo, Sri lanka 27-29 April 1999. IPCC.

Rayner, S. and E.L. Malone (eds.) (1998) Human Choice and Climate Change Volume 3: The Tools for Policy Analysis. Batelle Press.

Schneider et al. (2001) “Overview of Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability to Climate Change”. Chapter 1 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

Scoones, Ian. (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 71. Institute for Development Studies.

Scoones, Ian. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods: Challenges for Governance and the Policy Process. Prepared for Rockefeller Foundation Seminar/Bellagio Forum.

Singh, Naresh C. (1999) From Poverty to Sustainable Livelihoods. Prepared for Rockefeller Foundation Seminar/Bellagio Forum.

Smit et al. (2001) “Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity”. Chapter 18 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

UNDP Bureau for Policy & Programme Support (1997) Productive Employment and Poverty Eradication: How Can Livelihoods Be More Sustainable? UNDP

Desanker et al. (2001) “Africa”. Chapter 10 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

Downing, T.E. (1996) Climate Change and World Food Security. Springer-Verlag.

Gitay et al. (2001) “Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services”. Chapter 5 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

Government of Sudan (Forthcoming 2002) First National Communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

IPCC Working Group I (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

IPCC Working Group II (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [McCarthy, J., O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken, K. White (eds.)] IPCC.

IPCC (1998) The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. [Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.)] IPCC.

Jepma, C. and M. Munasinghe (1998) Climate Change Policy: Facts, Issues and Analyses. Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, P. and W.N. Adger (1999) Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation. Working Paper GEC. University of East Anglia.

Klein, et al. (1997) Adaptation to Climate Change: Options and Technologies. UNFCCC.

Munasinghe, M. (2000) “Development, Equity and Sustainability (DES) in the Context of Climate Change”. In Climate Change and Its Linkages with Development Equity and Sustainability: Proceedings of the IPCC Expert Meeting held in Colombo, Sri lanka 27-29 April 1999. Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart (eds.) IPCC.

Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart (eds.) (2000) Climate Change and Its Linkages with Development Equity and Sustainability: Proceedings of the IPCC Expert Meeting held in Colombo, Sri lanka 27-29 April 1999. IPCC.

Rayner, S. and E.L. Malone (eds.) (1998) Human Choice and Climate Change Volume 3: The Tools for Policy Analysis. Batelle Press.

Robinson, J. and D. Herbert (2000) “ Integrating Climate Change and Sustainable Development” In Climate Change and Its Linkages with Development Equity and Sustainability: Proceedings of the IPCC Expert Meeting held in Colombo, Sri lanka 27-29 April 1999. Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart (eds.) IPCC.

Smit et al. (2001) “Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity”. Chapter 18 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

Smith et al. (1999) Compendium of Decision Tools to Evaluate Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Change. UNFCC.

Schneider et al. (2001) “Overview of Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability to Climate Change”. Chapter 1 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

World Bank (1998) Assessing Aid—What Works, What Doesn't, and Why. World Bank.

SEIA potential pilot case study: Sudan

Context: Villages in the drought-prone BaraProvince, Western SudanApproach: Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation Two main development objectives:

Create locally sustainable NRM system to rehabilitate overexploited lands for the purpose of carbon sequestrationReduce the risk of production failure by increasing the number of livelihood alternatives… leading to greater local stability

Key Actors: Villages within Gireigikh rural council, pilot project staff, UNDP/GEF

SEISudan: What happened?A group of villages undertook a package of SL measures.

These included:Institution BuildingTrainingRangeland Rehabilitation

ReplantingStabilization of sand dunesCreation of windbreaks Livestock restocking and management

Community DevelopmentWater developmentRural energy managementIntroduction of revolving creditDrought contingency planning

(Image source: The Near East Foundation, http://www.neareast.org/main/nefnotes)

SEISudan: How did it happen?Project approach:

Community-based participation an essential approach to improving rangeland managementActivities not directly related to carbon sequestration needed

Mgmt. plan arises from community assets/needsAddress long-term ecological goals with short-term socio-economic (survival) measures

SEISudan: What was the result?

Community institutional structure enabledland-use master plans; oversight and mobilization structures

Rangeland rehabilitation measures implemented5 km of sand dunes re-vegetated195 km of windbreaks sheltering 130 farmsApproximately 700 ha improvedLivestock restocking

Community development underway2 revolving funds5 pastoral women’s groups focused on livestock value-adding activities5 new irrigated gardens and wells Grain storage and seed credit program

SEISudan: What was the result?

High impact - Several major objectives exceeded original targets project due to perceived benefits Positive leakage - additional villages implementing project strategiesStrategies slated for expansion and replication in Province

Effectively combined participatory planning, capacity building and access to creditDiversified productionsystem and established drought contingency measures

Image source: The Near East Foundation (http://www.neareast.org/main/nefnotes)

SEI

Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Change Adaptation and Sustainable Livelihoods:Sustainable Livelihoods:

A Methodology for Micro-Scale Adaptation Assessment

Stockholm Environment Institute –Boston Center and The Sudan Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources SEI

SEIOverviewOverview

Project BackgroundResearch Goals and ScopeMethodological ApproachCase Study Methods

SEIPremise and MotivationPremise and Motivation

Urgent adaptation needs of most vulnerable groups Increase current coping capacity through adaptationDCs in need of SD-consistent adaptation strategiesExistence of local coping/adaptive strategies and lessons from other disciplines (e.g., sustainable livelihoods, disaster mitigation, natural resource management); potential for integrationMany no-regrets options and co-benefitsBut, disconnect between community needs and policy process; dominance of technical/structural response

SEIProject GoalProject GoalTo support the process of climate change adaptation to effectively respond to the needs of vulnerable communities by documenting cases of effective community resilience-building and sharing lessons on why these cases were effective and how to support similar activity.

SEIProject Hypothesis

SL can fill operationaloperational and analyticalanalytical gap between local vulnerability and national/intergovernmental adaptation policy processes. 2 parts:– Primary: SL approach approach can provide operational

framework for local-level adaptation– Secondary: SL framework framework can provide an

analytical tool for adaptation assessment

SEIResearch ScopeResearch Scope

3 or 4 case studies of successful SL projects in drought-prone communitiesProject impact assessment:

Has the project succeeded in building community resilience? In what ways? To what effect? (Primary)What can SL framework tell us about a project’s impact on community resilience? Is this what the adaptation process needs to know? (Secondary)

Policy process analysis: What enabling factors account for project success? What policies, conditions, etc. (micro, meso, macro-scale) are behind successful experiences? How can these be built upon/encouraged? (Primary)

SEIResearch Goals

Measure/describe impact of successful SL projects (change in community resilience pre- and post-project)Identify policies, institutions and processes that support or inhibit SL activities (enabling factors at micro, meso, macro scales)In order to:Generate lessons for pro-poor adaptation policy, planning and implementation Generate guidance for using the SL framework as an adaptation assessment tool

SEIMethodological Approach

Climate variability and extremes as climate change proxy Sustainable livelihoods framework and assessment tools“Successful” resilience-building experiencesTargeted participationResilience indicatorsPolicy process analysis of micro-macro linkages Nested assessment

SEICase Study Methods:Case Study Methods:

1. Background/Preparation2. Project Impact Assessment (fieldwork)

Initial site visit (scoping)Second site visit (data collection)Third site visit (validation)

3. Policy Process Analysis 4. Progress Reporting 5. Synthesis

SEIKey ConsiderationsIs this the right approach?

Consistent with project goals?Appropriate level of effort/resources?Applicable to other case study contexts?

If so, how best to use?What level of uniformity is needed between case studies?How detailed TORs?What level of involvement of project team?

If not, what do we want?Desk-based review of existing project impact assessments? Series of synthesis reports?

SEI

SEI1. Background/Preparation: 1. Background/Preparation:

Case study selection criteriaRepresentative climate-related eventsRepresentative systemsSL applicationsSuccessful examples

Climate data collectionCase study scopingCase study selectionWorkplan development

SEI2. Livelihood Assessment (fieldwork)2. Livelihood Assessment (fieldwork)

Initial site visit (scoping)(1) garner community trust, interest in, and support of the

project and the approach(2) identify and contract a local informant(3) scope and schedule fieldwork, including participatory

framework(4) initiate participatory framework to revise sample indicators(5) using sample indicators, confirm the success of the SL

activities from the community’s perspective (to justify the case study)

(6) prepare progress report


Second site visit (data collection)(1) refine resilience indicators (2) develop word pictures using resilience indicators(3) carry out consultations, surveys and interviews

using word pictures(4) initiate inquiries as part of policy process

analysis (5) prepare progress report

SEIData collection processData collection processDevelop sample indicators - TF, PT, CSRs - prep stage

Refine indicators - Community with CSRs – 1st and 2nd site visit

Develop word pictures - Community with CSRs – 2nd site visit

Validate word pictures - Local informant w/ CSRs – 2nd site visit

Carry out targeted group meetings by gender, age, income –

CSRs – 2nd site visit

Carry out household surveys - CSRs – 2nd site visit

Carry out targeted interviews using stratified sampling –

CSRs – 2nd site visit

SEIWord PicturesWord PicturesDefinition: Word pictures outline best-case and worst-case snapshots of household circumstances, and 3 or 4 intermediate states.Application: Selection by individuals/households of a word picture that best describes household circumstances during a historic drought event (pre-SL project) and during a recent drought event (post-SL project).

Word picture of householdWord picture of household’’s access to natural resources (natural capital)s access to natural resources (natural capital)Worst Case Picture Best Case Picture


More of black fertile soil; more land; grows one's own fodder on one's own land; fertile land with more moisture retention power; more produce from land; grows and sells cash crops; grows vegetables; grows high yielding variety seeds; lends seeds to others; irrigation facilities available round theyear; land is near the forest; access to forest produce; some have government permit to grow opium; has many fruit trees; availability of home grown food throughout the year; many livestock, high returns from livestock;



Third site visit (validation)(1) validate preliminary findings(2) follow up on TF and Project Team concerns(3) conduct policy process inquiries (4) carry out consultations, surveys and interviews

using word pictures(5) finalize inquiries for policy process analysis

SEI3. Policy Process Analysis3. Policy Process Analysis

Determine outcomes and impacts for livelihoods (livelihood impact assmt. above)Identify key policy and institutional issues and define their relationship to the SL project Explore the policy development processEstablish a picture of the policy, institutional and process contextsCreate a history of key policy milestones

SEI4. Progress Reporting

First report – confirm suitability of case studySecond report – preliminary analysis of findings

5. SynthesisDraft case study reportInternal reviewSecond draft case study report Final draft case study report

SEIDefinitionsDefinitions

Vulnerability:Vulnerability: The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacityResilience:Resilience: the capacity of a system (social and/or ecological) to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state. Resilient communities possess a high degree of coping andadaptive capacity, and can withstand shocks and rebuild themselves if necessary.Adaptation:Adaptation: Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.

Attachment H: Draft Summaries of Potential Case Studies 1. Case Study Scoping Report: Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity Location: Gireigikh rural council of Bara Province of North Kordofan State. Coordinator: Community of Gireigikh Rural Council, the Range and Pasture Administration office of North Kordofan State, and the Federal Range and Pasture Administration. Time Frame: 1996-2000 Status: Completed. Source: United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility

1. Project focus: “The project’s main development objective was twofold: a) to sequester carbon through the implementation of a sustainable, local-level natural resources management system that prevents degradation, rehabilitates or improves rangelands; and b) to reduce the risks of production failure in a drought-prone area by providing alternatives for sustainable production, so that out-migration will decrease and population will stabilize” (Summary Report).

2. Local context:

a. Climatic: Semi-arid and desert scrub areas. b. Geographic: Western Sudan. c. Socio-economic: A mix of agropastoralists and transhumant. Extremely

vulnerable to drought. d. Key ongoing pressures: Degraded rangelands, and atmospheric dust in

the region. e. Current Vulnerabilities: Most vulnerable to global warming effects.

Degraded soil and failing livestock and crop production. f. Intended beneficiaries: 30% of villages in Gireigikh rural council, but

also, because this project is a model for all semi-arid areas, long-term beneficiaries will be all highly vulnerable semi-arid areas.

3. Project response:

a. Agriculture: Small scale irrigated vegetable gardens, pest management. b. Water Supply: Construction and Management of water wells. c. Watershed Management: Water management sub-committee created in

every village.

d. Forestry/Rangelands: Wind-break planting, sand dune stabilization, tree and shrub planting

4. Project approach:

a. Institution-building: Implementation Committees and Coordination Committees created in village communities.

b. Capacity-building/training: 45 training events to enhance community development and improve natural resource management. Topics included soup production, macaroni production, range management, and pest management. These activities encouraged representation by women.

c. Participation: Voluntary participation from community, especially women.

5. Reported achievements:

• 700 hectares of improved rangeland with proper management. 600 of these hectares were voluntarily improved by members of the community.

• Several neighboring villages implemented project strategies due to the positive response in project villages.

• 5 kilometers of sand dunes revegetated. • 130 farms provided with windbreaks.

6. Summary assessment:

Evaluated as a highly successful project. The Near East Foundation is seeking funds to implement this project in many more communities. Overall there was an enhanced capacity of the community to withstand drought.

2. Case Study Scoping Report: Water Harvesting in Central Darfur, Sudan

Location: Central Darfur Coordinator: Range and Pasture Administration (Govt. of Sudan)

Source: Community driven

Time frame: Developed in 1964 and utilized over the drought years of 1983-1985

Status: on-going

1. Project focus: To improve harvesting of run-off water by constructing low earth bonds called trus (tera, singular). The successful management of these local natural resources would make communities and individuals less vulnerable to drought.

2. Local context:

a. Climatic: Central Darfur is situated on the northern transitional margin of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone. Consequently, most of the area is deficient

in water even in the wettest months of July to September, when generally over 80 percent of annual rainfall is accumulated. During June, the hottest month, temperatures regularly reach over 45°C and in January, the coldest month, temperatures drop to 18°C.

b. Geographic: Central Darfur is one of the most drought-affected regions of the Sudan. The drought years of 1983-85 greatly affected the demographic and socio-economic conditions of the area. Large numbers of people left their homes owing to famine and the environmental effects of desertification and drought. This was accompanied by tribal conflicts, the growth of shantytowns and changes in the pattern of livestock raising and agricultural production. During this time, most people lost over half of their cattle, as well as large numbers of sheep, goats and camels.

c. Socio-economic: In order to minimize the risk of farming, most farmers practiced shifting cultivation on both sandy soils and clay alluvial deposits. The sands were used to grow millet, sesame and groundnut. The clay soils were cultivated using water harvesting techniques to grow sorghum, vegetables and the cash crop tobacco in some cases.

d. Key ongoing pressures: water shortage, desertification, land degradation, poverty, and food insecurity

e. Current vulnerabilities: household and agricultural water supply, soil fertility, productive cropland, and grazing lands

3. Identified beneficiaries: Small subsistence farmers, women involved in

subsistence cultivation, small commercial trus cultivators, merchants and urban farmers, and co-operative societies.

4. Traditional Conservation Methods: The traditional water conservation method of Central Darfur involves harvesting run-off water by constructing low earth bonds called trus (tera, singular). The technique probably has its origins in the home garden or jubraka, a backyard farm operated by women growing quick maturing crops and some vegetables like okra, pumpkins and cucumbers. When villages grew in size and more livestock were kept at home, women began to extend jubraka activity areas away from home; hence, they started to grow the same crops under trus in small areas. 5. Project response: In recent years, farming on the sandy soils has become increasingly risky due to decreasing and erratic nature of rainfall. Often this farming is unable to produce enough food for the family. Staple crop production has had to take another dimension, using other sources of water to increase soil moisture. The indigenous trus cultivation provided the answer. The bond traps run-off water that is generated after rainstorms on catchments usually two or three times the size of the cultivated land. In 1964 the first local attempt to construct a large trus embankment across the Wadi El Ku succeeded: the farmers harvested a good crop of sorghum. This proved to the villagers that the only water source

that could be used with some degree of certainty in this arid area was harvesting surface run-off. For these reasons, many farmers began to shift to clay soils to practice trus cultivation.

6. Reported achievements: • The large number of people who have taken up trus cultivation reflects the

potential of this water harvesting technique to solve the problems of food insecurity in Central Darfur.

• This technique is less susceptible to low and poorly distributed rainfall. • Trus cultivation also results in higher yields per acre than rainfed agriculture, with

an average acre producing five to seven sacks of sorghum, far more than the two to three sacks of millet obtained in sandy soils in normal years.

7. Overall assessment: The case of trus cultivation in Central Darfur demonstrates both the potential for the success of indigenous water harvesting techniques and also some of the pitfalls that such success can bring. The increasingly commercial aspect of trus cultivation potentially clashes with the local cultural context, in particular customary land tenure. If it is to continue to expand and solve local problems of food security, these issues will need to be addressed.

3. Case Study Scoping Report: Women’s Forestry Project Location: Ed Dammer and Shendi areas in the Nile River State. Coordinator: SOS Sahel International (UK) Time Frame: Phase I 1985-1989 Phase II Oct. 1989-1993 Phase III 1993-1996 Status: Completed. Source: SOS Sahel UK

1. Project focus: Giving women the tools necessary to prevent desertification in their environment and to protect their infrastructure and agricultural land.

2. Local context:

a. Climatic: Semi-arid and desert scrub areas. b. Geographic: Adjunct to Nile River. c. Socio-economic: Subsistent farmers suffering from sand encroachment

over the narrow fertile Nile banks resulting in the diminishment of an economic base.

d. Key ongoing pressures: Desertification, poverty, land degradation. e. Current vulnerabilities: Infrastructure and agricultural land exposed to

sand movement. f. Intended beneficiaries: Selected villages in the Ed Dammer and Shendi

areas that are extremely prone to drought. In particular, aiming to aid women in the villages, who in turn will be able to protect their environment without the help of the project.


a. Agriculture: The project encouraged home vegetable gardens. b. Forestry: Local women and children participate in seedling production.

3. Project approach: a. Institution-building: Development of women’s organizations. b. Capacity-building/training: Numerous training activities targeted

women. c. Financing: Credit and income generation initiative.

4. Reported achievements: -Women gained an influential part in communal decision-making -Environmental awareness has increased community participation in the project strategies

• Improved food security • Improved environmental conditions: less sand storms and burying of fertile soil • Energy conservation and improved supply of fuel wood • Wood and charcoal stoves improved 5. Summary assessment: The project is rated as highly successful in achieving the objectives of environmental conservation, women empowerment, and improved food security.

4. Case Study Scoping Report: SOS Sahel Community Forestry Project Location: Ed Debba, Sudan, juxtaposed to the Nile River Coordinator: Forest National Corporation (FNC) and SOS Sahel. Time Frame: Covered two phases between 1988 and 1995

a) 1988-1991 b) 1992-1995

Status: Complete

Source: SOS Sahel International 1. Project focus: To protect inhabited and cultivated land from desertification, and to revive the lands already buried by sand. 2. Local context:

a. Climatic: An arid zone in which evapotranspiration exceeds average annual rainfall. There is a brief winter, but in general the temperature remains around 43 degrees Centrigrade.

b. Geographic: Flat, fertile land along the Nile River with a village on both sides, immediately surrounded by desert.

c. Socio-economic: Subsistent farmers facing severe environmental problems such as the burial of their tiny flood plains by means of encroaching sand dunes. Encroachment at a rate of 25 meters per year, thus leading to the shrinking of the economic base, in addition to the impact of frequently blowing sand storms which damage crops.

d. Key ongoing pressures: Desertification, floods, lack of productive land. e. Current vulnerabilities: Desert encroachment upon crops and infrastructure. f. Intended beneficiaries: 52,000 people living in 27 villages along the Nile

River. 3. Project response:

Land management: Establishment of shelter belts of mesquite tree species and internal shelter belts for protecting agricultural land close to the Nile River. Sand dune fixation where settlements or agricultural land are being threatened by an active sand dune movement.


a. Institution-building: Empowerment of the community to deal with the desert problem through formation of village committees under the Village Afforestation Committee introduced by the project.

b. Capacity-building/Awareness building: Entertainment brought by the extension activities educated and improved locals’ awareness of the dangers of desert encroachment.

c. Financing: Income generating opportunities for women through seedling production.


-Successful in demonstrating to the community that they can protect their environment from desert encroachment. -1,556 acres of land were saved from being buried with sand because of intervention programs established by this project. -Relationships have been developed between the Government of Sudan and SOS Sahel so as to enable the sharing of different management techniques.


The project is an example of a successful scheme, which is trying to solve an environmental disaster through sustainable biophysical means, at the same time it follows a participatory approach to ensure people’s self-reliance in locally based natural resources management.

5. Case Study Scoping Report: El Ain Natural Forest Management Project

Location: El Obeid rural and Kazgil in Sheikan province and Er Rahad north in the province of Um Ruwaba, North Kordofan State.

Coordinator: The project is operated and organized by SOS Sahel International (U.K.).

Time Frame: Phase I of the project covered the period between1989-1993, while phase II covered the period between 1994-2000. Status: Completed.

Source: SOS Sahel – UK, Analysis of Conflict Resolution Experience.

1. Project focus: To formulate an effective sustainable management plan for both the forest reserve and the buffer zone surrounding the forest, by undertaking research and trials in full collaboration with FNC and local people in and around El Ain forest reserve.

2. Local context: a. Climatic: Rainfall is highest between July and September. The total annual rainfall ranges between 200 and 250 mm. However the occasional droughts such as the droughts of early seventies and early eighties and the illegal cutting of trees besides fire breakouts have all contributed to the deterioration of the vegetation cover.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Geographic: El Obeid rural and Kazgil in Sheikan province and Er Rahad north in the province of Um Ruwaba, North Kordofan State. The project area is about 2000 square kilometer.

Socio-economic: Livelihood systems include rain-fed agriculture, cultivation of subsistence crops (e.g. millet) and cash crops (e.g. sesame), and nomadic and semi-nomadic herding activities consisting of cattle, sheep, goats, and camels.

Key ongoing pressures: desertification, land degradation, poverty, and food insecurity.

Current vulnerabilities: household and agricultural water supply, soil fertility, productive cropland, and grazing lands.

Intended beneficiaries: The sedentary farmers in the villages within the project area, as well as a minority of semi-nomads and nomads who either

pass by the area and stay for sometime or permanently reside on the project area.

3. Project response

a. Agriculture: Gubraka (vegetable gardening)

b. Forestry: Seedlings production, tree planting program, and fire and inspection lines.

c. Water Supply: Hafirs (water reservoirs)

d. Watershed Management: Digging and planting of microcatchments.


a. Institution-building: For each project activity a sub-committee was formed; later these committees were combined to form village committees, each consisting of 5 members. Consideration was given to gender and ethnic group distribution in these village committees. Necessary training and capacity building were provided.

b. Capacity-building/training: Provide extension services, project staff training, and community training.

c. Participation: Group workshops, strengthening of women’s groups, and involvement of local people in natural resource management.

d. Awareness Building: Raising awareness of environmental degradation in surrounding habitat, causing a change of attitude that is nearing that of pastoralist communities.


- Major achievements centred around the strengthening of women’s groups, and the encouragement of social peace due to an increased awareness of various groups and their land use.

- Conflict resolution received positive responses from locals: “The agreement has defined the rights of each party, it gives the pastoralists their rights, it provides a peaceful solution to the conflicts with the farmers [and], it considered the rights and obligations of each group” (SOS Sahel UK, Natural Forests Management Project, ELAIN: Analysis of Conflict Resolution Experience, 12-13).

6. Summary assessment: According to the SOS Sahel UK, the conflict resolution project in El Ain was highly successful, and its successes in their entirety have paved the way for future sustainable management of natural resources by the local communities.

6. Case Study Scoping Report: Integrated Resource Management for Desertification Control

Location: El Odaya Province, Western Kordofan State

Coordinator: Range and Pasture Administration (Govt. of Sudan). Funded by UNDP-UNSO/ Govt. of Sudan

Time Frame: 1992 to 1997

Status: Complete.

Project focus: To increase the security of individuals and communities, historically vulnerable to drought, through successful management of local natural resources.

1. Local context:

a. Climatic: The project area is located in the semi-arid zone of Kordofan region with rainfall average of 450 mm per year.

b. Geographic: El Odaya Rural Council in En Nahud Province of Western Kordofan State. The project area, about 3000 km3, included about 66 villages comprising eleven village councils.

c. Socio-economic: There are three major land uses in the project area (1) settled and transhumant cultivators who practice cultivation during the rainy season while moving their animals northward; (2) the Baggara1 cattle herders who move north-south with their animals following the rainy season; (3) The Abaals2 – camel herders who move from northern Kordofan to spend the dry season herding their animals in the area.

d. Key ongoing pressures: Desertification, land degradation, poverty, and food insecurity.

e. Current vulnerabilities: Household and agricultural water supply, soil fertility, productive cropland, and grazing lands.

f. Intended beneficiaries: Beneficiaries are roughly about 30,000 people – both villagers and nomadic groups – residing in the eleven village councils.


Range rehabilitation, and agroforestry pilot plots through demonstration. Soil conservation methods, water harvesting techniques, including constructions of 15 water reservoirs, and improvement of Rehads (rural water depression) and haffirs.

1 Baggar are nomadic Arabs who used to raise cattle 2 Abaala are nomadic Arabs camels herders


• Institution-building: Consolidation of Village Council Development Committees (VCDC) and nomadic committees. Creation of a Council for Area Resources Management (CARM); Establishment of specialized sub-committees on range, water, finance and village nurseries.

• Capacity-building/training: Provide extension services and on-the-job training for villagers during participation in the project activities; general awareness building strategies.

• Participation: Participatory development of land and range management plans.

• Financing: Creation of a revolving fund to be provided by the project for each VCDC and NDC income generating activity.


- Major achievements centred around the integration of women in the community activities (e.g agroforestry trials and water conservation methods). Consolidation of these achievements may lead to the objective of building a self-reliant community for the management of natural resources.

- The project succeeded in excavating 10 haffirs and Rahads.

- Established 22 VCDCs among settled and nomadic people.

- Provided revolving funds used for restocking and income generating activities.

- Provided substantial training in various activities, especially for women.


According to the SOS In-depth Evaluation Report (Oct.1997), the project was highly successful, and its successes in their entirety have paved the way for future sustainable management of natural resources by the local communities.

7. Case Study Scoping Report: The Khor Arbaat Integrated Rural Development Programme (KARP) Location: Khor Abaat is located about 20 km North of Port Sudan town. Coordinator: The Ministry of Agriculture and KARP.

Time Frame: 1994-2000 Status: Complete Source: SOS Sahel International – UK, Khor Arba’at Rehabilitation Project (KARP).

1. Project focus: Improvement of livelihood conditions of the Arbaat people. 2. Local context:

a. Climatic: The number of floods varies each year from 4 to 29. The annual water discharge ranges between 6 million m2 to 78 million m2.

b. Geographic: Khor Arbaat is located about 20 km North of Port Sudan town in Red Sea State.

c. Socio-economic: Subsistence Agriculture dominated by Okra and cucumber. Depends on floodwaters that descend from the Red Sea hills during the summer months.

d. Key ongoing pressures: Drought, flooding, soil erosion, food insecurity, poverty.

e. Current vulnerabilities: Household and agricultural water supply, soil fertility, productive cropland.

f. Intended beneficiaries: The farmers in the villages within the project area.

3. Project Response: a. Agriculture: Diversify crop production and increase area of

cultivation. b. Forestry: Local production of seedlings. c. Water Management: Improve control of excess irrigation water,

equally distribute floodwater, and minimize damage to embankments. 4. Project Approach:

a. Capacity-building/training: Women’s workshops for skills and organizational capacity building, farmers committees created for training and discussion of alternative agricultural practices.

b. Participation: Demonstration farms enabled farmers to become aware of the possibilities with a diversification of crops.

5. Reported achievements: - Introduction of different seeds resulted in higher yields. - Social change has been initiated. - Education: people know their rights and have new aspirations. - Developed a management plan that regulates the use of forest products in

a sustainable manner. - Due to water management, vulnerability to drought has decreased. - Income from agriculture has increased therefore improving the economic

status of the project area. 6. Summary Assessment: According to the SOS Sahel International (UK), inhabitants of Arba’at reported improved livelihood conditions. This rehabilitation project was successful in educating, training, and improving the quality of life of these local farmers.

8. Case Study Scoping Report: Kordofan Food Security Project Location: “Covers 14 Rural Councils in Sheikan Province of North Kordofan State and En Nahud and Gubeish Provinces of West Kordofan State” Coordinator: CARE – USA International and the State Government. Time Frame: Phase I 1995-1998 Phase II 1999-2001 Phase III April 2002-March 2003 Status: Ongoing.

1. Project focus: To assure food security and enhance coping capacity towards drought and desertification conditions.

2. Local context:

a. Climatic: Semi-arid and desert scrub areas. b. Geographic: Arid zone characterized by hot summer and erratic rainfall

resulting in frequent dry seasons. c. Socio-economic: Subsistent farmers and pastoralists face frequent crop

failures resulting in food security problems. d. Key ongoing pressures: Poverty, hunger, desertification. e. Current vulnerabilities: Infrastructure and agricultural land exposed to

sand movement. f. Intended beneficiaries: 129,890 households in Rural Councils, mostly

farmers.

3. Project response: a. Agriculture: Seed dissemination and food allocation. b. Water Supply: Water harvesting, which is a conservation technique that

facilitates seed propagation, and Haffir production for the provision of clean water.


a. Capacity-building/training: Extension Methodology aims to provide farmers with appropriate agricultural extension messages.

b. Participation: Participatory development of land and management plans.

5. Reported achievements: -Improved food security situation -Improved water supply (quantity) -Improved quality of drinking water -Improve environmental conditions, soil fertility and sand stabilization


The project is assessed as a successful project that contributed and supported national efforts aiming at competing desertification and poverty alleviation through community participation.

9. Case Study Scoping Report: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) North Kordofan Rural Development Project Location: Bara and Umrwaba, two provinces of North Kordofan State in the western parts of central Sudan. Coordinator: IFAD, the Ministry of Agriculture and the State Government. Collaborating participation: Central Government, line departments, state ministries, provincial administrations and local council staff (as well as NGO’s, beneficiary communities and individual stakeholders) have been involved throughout the project activities. Time Frame: 1999-2005 Status: Ongoing Source: IFAD 1. Project focus: Assisting communities in Bara and Um Ruwaba to enhance their resilience to drought, assurance of food security, and expansion of their income-generating opportunities. 2. Local context:

a. Climatic: Arid zone, characterized by hot summer season and erratic rainfall and frequent dry spells.

b. Geographic: Drought-prone area of Sudan. c. Socio-economic: Rural communities dominated by small-scale farming, farm

labor, and livestock herding. d. Key ongoing pressures: Desertification, poverty, hunger. e. Intended beneficiaries: 118,000 households including nomadic pastoralists,

small-scale farmers, livestock herders and farm labourers. 3. Project response:

a. Agriculture: Focus on improving agricultural production through crop diversification and intensification

b. Forestry: Mainly Acacia Senegal trees for improving soil fertility and provision of cash

c. Water Supply: Improve the water quality and supply


a. Institution building: Establish, at the rural council and province level, the institutional capability to assist communities in the development process, while at the same time, emphasizing cost-effectiveness.

b. Capacity-building/training: Provide village communities with the capability to plan, execute and manage development schemes through training and on-the-job experience and by providing the technical or professional assistance initially required.

c. Participation: Foster communal natural resource management to support increased but sustainable levels of production through changes in policy and agreements implemented at the rural council and village levels.

d. Financing: Provision of financial services through the sanduq system, a traditional participatory savings and credit fund. The principal advantages of such a fund are the low cost of servicing, repayment pressure internalized in the social system, and the possibility of its use by illiterate villagers.

5. Reported achievements: • Improved food security situation • Improved water supply • Improved environmental conditions • Improved participation capacities

6. Summary assessment: The project succeeded in building local capacities through involving the local communities in the different project activities. It also contributed to poverty alleviation and desertification control.