Traidcraft and livelihoods: how a sustainable livelihoods approach can

help Traidcraft meet its poverty reduction objectives

Pippa Bird (DFID) with

Paul Snedker (Traidcraft)

April 2002

1

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2 2. Traidcraft today, Traidcraft tomorrow 2 3. A sustainable livelihoods approach and market access 5 4. What can SLA bring to Traidcraft? 8 4.1 Gaining a broad brush understanding of context 8 4.2 Developing a typology of entry points 10 4.3 The PQR process 12

4.3.1 Power and Policy 4.3.2 Question and Qualify 4.3.3 Relationships and Returns

5. Conclusions 17 6. References 18 APPENDICES One: Tools for assessing power and policy 19 Two: Tools for assessing trade offs and testing assumptions 25 Three: Tools for negotiating roles and mapping capacity 27 FIGURES AND BOXES Box 1: Livelihood messages within a market access context 5 Box 2: Sustainable livelihoods – stories not theories 7 Figure 1: The approach to Traidcraft’s country strategies 3 Figure 2: Levels of analysis and the SL framework 9 Figure 3: The Traidcraft Exchange Structure 10 Figure 4: Using the SL framework to understand business contexts 11 Figure 5: Use of the SL framework to develop a typology of entry points 12 Figure 6: The SL framework and the PQR process 14 Figure 7: Combining livelihoods perspectives with value chain analysis 15 Acknowledgements This document was prepared by Pippa Bird with support from Paul Snedker however many others in Traidcraft contributed to the thinking behind the paper. To all of them, many thanks for their interest, ideas and hospitality.

2

1. INTRODUCTION DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office has facilitated an initiative to examine the nexus between sustainable livelihoods (SL), fair trade (FT) and ethical business. The aim of the initiative is to examine how a sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) can better respond to issues of market access, and how SLA can help fair and ethical trading organisations meet existing and emerging challenges. This report documents thinking on how SLA might be of use to Traidcraft, a UK-based organisation that seeks to fight poverty through the promotion of trade. It is a working document which aims to stimulate debate and ideas within Traidcraft and to inform the production of a briefing paper on SL and market access to be published by DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office. It begins by documenting some of the key characteristics emerging from Traidcraft’s strategic review and planning process before providing commentary on the key principles of SLA and how this approach has helped in other projects and programmes. It then moves on to consider where SLA might play a role in the development of more robust and more effective market access development interventions. 2. TRAIDCRAFT TODAY, TRAIDCRAFT TOMORROW Traidcraft is committed to fighting poverty through trade. It believes that by working for more equitable trading arrangements, improved working conditions and better access to markets, it can expand the opportunities available to the poor. Founded in 1979, its approach has focused primarily on linking southern producers to northern markets. Traidcraft plc, a trading company with a turnover of about £10 million, provides a route to market for marginalised producers (either cooperatives of poor people or businesses/NGOs that employ poor people) which offers them terms of trade that promote security and facilitate longer term planning. Traidcraft plc distributes fairly traded products to a highly aware customer base in the UK, with mainstream supermarkets occupying a fast growing niche in its distribution system. Traidcraft Exchange (TX) is a limited company with charitable status that developed from Traidcraft plc in the 1980s. TX has focused primarily on a methodology that concentrates on building the capacity of partner organisations to improve the marketing and business development services1 (BDS) they provide to marginalised producers, thus increasing their trading opportunities2. TX also supports a London-based Policy Unit which seeks to influence government and UK corporations to mainstream fairer trade through both more ethical business practices and the promotion of fair trade. By improving poor people’s resources, power and knowledge, TX aims to reduce their barriers to markets and through their advocacy work in particular, to address the power imbalances which prevent each part of a supply chain receiving a share proportionate to the value they add – a fair share. Today, Traidcraft is immersed in a comprehensive strategic review process which has encouraged them to revisit their founding principles, their assumptions and their methods of working. The thoughts expressed below are based on consultation with a wide range of staff within Traidcraft and on the background materials they provided. Some of the core issues relevant to the Traidcraft of tomorrow are documented below. • Fighting poverty through trade – Traidcraft’s strapline – is still valid and fair trade will remain

the core of the plc’s approach. TX will however adopt a broader view wherein fair trade will be just one area of competence and expertise and they will work to encourage ethical trade

1 Services that improve the performance of an enterprise, its access to markets, and its ability to compete; these services may be either strategic (issues for the medium to long term) or operational (services needed for day-to-day operations) (Committee of Donor Agencies for Small Enterprise Development, 2001). 2 At present, TX is operational in eight countries.

3

(ET) initiatives to be more pro-poor – primarily through constructive engagement with the corporate sector. In essence, Traidcraft is not looking to expands its operations but to expand its influence. It will seek to capitalise on its increasingly unique position of housing a commercial trading company and a charity under one roof in order to leverage others. Traidcraft recognises that changes will come with any shift from ‘doing’ towards ‘influencing’ and that it must retain the pragmatic nature that has contributed to its success so far.

• Moving from export markets to the right market: The export focused paradigm adopted to

date will be retained by the plc but the limitations of an export orientation have emerged at the forefront of Traidcraft’s strategy discussions. Supporting marginalised producers to access and sustain a footing in export markets is too limiting – although there are some real benefits further down the road, the risks are high. Instead, TX will look for the right market for each given context. By framing their thinking more broadly around market access, TX will assess which markets (local, national, regional or international) hold the greatest potential and have a high degree of inequality which Traidcraft and its partners can – at least in part – address. This shift to the right market, no matter at what level that market operates, is seen as a cornerstone of a more balanced model of sustainability. However, a good understanding of existing markets will be even more critical to the identification of the right entry points.

• A broader approach to facilitating access to markets: Traidcraft is adopting a broader

perspective on market access. While continuing to develop the capacity of the business support sector to assist SME’s, it will consider how the broader macro policy and institutional environment influences market access. It will develop a country strategy approach which combines macro-level analyses with practical trading operations and seeks to understand and influence the links between the different levels influencing poor people’s access to markets. The development of links between different levels of intervention with a focus on key sub-sectors where the poor are most active will provide a powerful mechanism for change. The framework for this country strategy approach is represented diagrammatically in Figure 1.

Figure One: The approach to Traidcraft’s country strategies

4

• Multiple partnerships targeting the poor: Historically, TX has established a partnership with a single autonomous organisation in each programme country. These partners are generally providers of BDS, often with an attached or semi-detached trading arm. Working through partners is seen as a means to ensure that the services provided are relevant to the local context and to this end TX has supported both capacity development and organisational development. The strategic review process has confirmed the value of this approach but it has also illuminated problems. These relate primarily to the dependency on a single organisation’s sustainability and ability to deliver quality services. It also raises monitoring challenges as it is difficult to attribute impact to TX as well as limiting the ability of TX to maximise its impact. However, the review has also shown that there is a role for TX in the facilitation of improved market access to those involved in trade which serves the poor (rather than just more sophisticated SMEs). To fulfill this role, TX will need to develop a broader range of partnerships so that it can operate more effectively on both the demand and supply-side of service delivery, and network to influence the broader policy environment.

• Traidcraft plc – sticking to its strengths: Traidcraft plc is considered a success by its

founders. It has certainly overcome many difficulties and proved that there is a viable market for fairly traded products in the UK. It has also played a key role in raising awareness of fair trade in the market place. A question open to more debate is whether it really serves as a viable model of an alternative trading company. While it has made a profit for 15 of its 21 years, the plc has only been in a position to pay a dividend twice to its shareholders. In many ways this is not something that its shareholders have really expected and thus the plc works for them, but shareholders in conventional companies are unlikely to be so magnanimous. Traidcraft plc is however looking at options which will enable its shares to be traded and is proposing a business plan that works towards a position where it does pay a dividend to its shareholders. The plc will continue to build on its strengths which lie in its ability to raise awareness of fair (or fairer) trade, in helping to get fairly traded products into the market place (and particularly onto supermarket shelves), helping producers to access export markets, and in supporting TX – with regard to both image and expertise. The Traidcraft of tomorrow will recognise the value of being both a trading company and a development organisation, but also the dangers of confusing its trade and development objectives. With plc continuing on its present course (albeit with a few minor adjustments) and TX broadening its scope to encompass a greater range within the spectrum from fair to conventional trade, it should become easier to maximise the benefits of the relationship between plc and TX while minimising the risks.

• Explicit exit strategies for all: The plc does (and should continue to) play a role supporting

producer groups to develop and ‘grow into’ export markets. But given the reiteration that Traidcraft is about poverty, it will be increasingly important that it agrees exit strategies with its producer groups such that, when they are able, they can go it alone. This will allow the plc to move on and assist new groups, although some mature groups may well stay in the mix to ensure the plc’s commercial viability and for their demonstration value. Exit strategies are equally important to TX. In the past, partners have assumed that TX is a constant and will always be there for them, this has limited their drive to become sustainable as well as contributing to a confusion of roles and relationships. As a BDS provider develops and becomes more self-sufficient, TX may have a greater impact by implementing an exit strategy for that relationship while developing new partnerships elsewhere. Designing, agreeing and adapting exit strategies will require greater clarity and understanding of the relationships between Traidcraft and its partners – be they BDS providers, producer groups or others (such as commercial and non-governmental entities).

5

3. A SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH AND MARKET ACCESS The main principle underpinning a livelihoods approach is that people must be at the centre of development. By framing the assessment of people’s strengths in terms of their access to assets3, and analysing how both exposure to risks and the policy and institutional environment shape their lives, a livelihoods approach helps to ensure that development responds to on-the-ground realities and opportunities (Bird, 2000). A central tenet of the approach is that while poverty is a complex phenomenon with many dimensions, complex strategies to alleviate poverty are not the answer – SLA advocates holistic analysis but not necessarily holistic interventions. It is simply a means to organise thinking about development planning and implementation and encourages users to consider all relevant aspects of people’s lives in order to develop realistic, viable interventions. A tangible value of a livelihoods approach is that it provides a mechanism to factor in the policy and institutional environment, to consider risk at many different levels, and to embrace multiplicity. Historically, many effective poverty reduction processes have been directly or indirectly dependent on equitable access to markets and this illustrates the importance of markets to the poor. Markets can provide an efficient mechanism for exchange, coordination and allocation of goods and services – but they often fail (Doward, 2001). There are a whole raft of complex questions surrounding markets: What’s their nature and what types of markets exist? What roles do they play in poor people’s livelihoods? What are viable characteristics of a pro-poor market? Providing answers to these questions is critical to improving our understanding of how the dynamic processes of demand and competition influence the poor. Yet, beyond a recognition of their importance, the use of SLA to date has made little explicit mention of markets. However, its principles are applicable to those working on market access – indeed they echo many of the challenges currently facing Traidcraft, namely the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, the difficulties of targeting the poor and of scaling up effective poverty reducing initiatives, the need to place the poor firmly in the centre of developmental thinking and interventions, and the need to mainstream sustainability4. Box 1 documents some of the current livelihood issues shaping the context of Traidcraft’s work. What it serves to show is that making markets work better for the poor is an urgent need and this means improved access to more secure markets at more equitable prices within a supportive national context. Consideration of the policy and institutional context is of particular relevance to Traidcraft. Policies and institutions condition people’s access to assets and their choice of livelihood strategies. They create assets, they determine access, and they influence the rates of asset accumulation and the returns of any livelihood strategy. Given the niche within which Traidcraft operates – in essence, improving market access – it is critical to understand how the context of the target group (or target product) influences who will benefit, how much they will benefit, and whether these benefits outweigh the potentials of other approaches to reduce poverty. A broader analysis will provide greater assurance that an intervention will meet its objectives and be secure (sustainable). Building a broader picture is a core characteristic of SLA, SLA aims to gain a more accurate picture of potential beneficiaries’ current livelihoods strategies and what they are trying to achieve. 3 Natural, physical, human, financial and social resources belonging or available to poor people – they are the resources to make a living and they provide the poor with the capability to challenge and change the world (adapted from Bebbington 1999). 4 The many connotations and problems that come with the use of the word sustainable cannot be covered in this discussion except where of absolute relevance. But one issue that is clearly emerging as a lesson of experience is that when looking at the most difficult cases (e.g. extremely remote rural areas, conflict and post-conflict zones or areas struck by natural disasters), an SL approach must in effect put the ‘S’ aside and look – at least in the short-term – for any viable form of livelihood.

6

People construct dynamic livelihood strategies to get by. They combine any available activities to meet their various needs at different times. What they need is more choice. If they have a deeper, broader pool of strengths and opportunities to draw on (ones that do not take them beyond a comfortable risk threshold), they will be able to construct better lives. By looking at ways to increase people’s asset base, and by considering the policy and institutional processes that ‘transform’ assets into livelihoods outcomes, the SL framework provides us with a means to understand the diversity of people’s lives (Bird, 2000). It will encourage Traidcraft to look at multiple solutions or to think how a single outcome – perhaps increased access to a product market – complements other parts of people’s livelihoods. But all the SL talk of holistic analyses, understanding enabling contexts, linking macro to micro and vice versa is somewhat overwhelming when there’s limited time and limited budget with which to design a project /programme, get it funded, facilitate its implementation and support programme monitoring. And for an organisation like Traidcraft which instinctively focuses on doing and whose staff come from a very wide range of backgrounds with diverse skills sets, SLA will really come into its own through its practical employment to solve the problems Traidcraft and its partners face in their day-to-day work5. What’s needed are practical tools and practical examples which shows how the potential synergies of SLA and market access work can be realised. Reference is often made – here and elsewhere – to an SL framework (see Figures Two and Six) but it is useful to remember that the framework works best as a structure within which different pieces of the puzzle can be housed – the results of many different analyses and initiatives can be brought together within a SL framework to build a better view of the livelihoods picture

The remainder of this report examines three main areas where SLA might be of further assistance to Traidcraft: gaining a broad brush understanding of context, developing a typology of entry points, and improving understanding of power and policy. A conceptual process is introduced which focuses on these three issues within a wider process of analysis, and tools for putting the concept into practice are suggested. There is not a detailed ‘how to’ of SLA, as inferred above learning can only come from putting SL thinking into practice – but, by way of encouragement, Box 2 sets out some of the small but important ways SLA has helped other projects and programmes. 5 This approach also recognises that experience has shown that livelihoods analyses demand the use of a range of analytical tools and methods, and as such, require time and experience on the part its users – although learning from others can go along way to getting started with SLA.

Box 1: Livelihood messages within a market access context o Understanding remains low on how the forces of globalisation, trade agreements and investments influence

poor people’s livelihoods. o The formal and informal institutional framework influencing market access can best be described as spaghetti

and is in a constant state of flux. o Urbanisation continues a pace bringing opportunities and challenges – the issue is how to identify and support

opportunities for the poor. o There is a rural-urban continuum rather than a rural urban divide with rural producers increasingly involved as

both consumers and producers in national and global commodity chains. o Livelihoods, particularly non-farm livelihoods, are diversifying fast, often in response to market forces. But the

level of change varies by place and actor with less diversification among the poor because many new options require financial resources which puts them beyond their reach.

o A new category of poor is emerging – those who have lost their traditional means of living (e.g. forest dwellers) and cannot substitute assets in order to develop new livelihood strategies which offer decent returns.

o Household structure is changing and multi-locational households are increasingly common. Broad household connections may mean that work in one village or town might have a much larger footprint than is immediately obvious.

o Market forces have an increasing influence over power relations. Adapted from DFID (2001)

7

Box 2: Sustainable livelihoods – stories not theories Information deliveri: An institutional reform project in Indonesia, DELIVERI1, found that if the gap between macro-level policy and real life was to be bridged, better two-way information flows were key. For poor people to help themselves they needed reliable information and institutions that could cater to their particular needs – yet the existing support was geared to large scale farming. SL ‘thinking’ was instrumental in identifying the gaping distance between extension agents and the people there were ostensibly to serve. This problem had the potential to make or break the project, without action to address it, the other interventions of the project could well have become a waste of money and effort. Kipepeo: SL was used to assess peoples’ livelihoods strategies and priorities, project impact and how these impacts varied across stakeholder groups in the Kipepeo butterfly-farming enterprise in Kenya. The SL analysis highlighted certain disadvantages of the project which were glossed over or remained unexpressed in earlier impact assessments, and SLAs provided a methodology with which the complexity of people’s livelihood strategies could be probed. Although time-consuming and with many problems associated with comparisons of the data emerging from livelihoods analyses, it did provide a more realistic, comprehensive picture of project impact as well as providing an insight of who participated and why they participated. Wind in Wales: SL thinking, notably the focus on people rather than outputs, led a process to develop a wind farm in South Wales into a journey towards a healthy community. Through the consideration of the residents’ asset base, the influence of institutions and processes, and their risk context, it became clear that by drawing excessively on assets, current livelihood strategies were jeopardising longer term sustainability and undermining future capacity to withstand shocks and stresses. In addition, SL thinking helped see people’s strengths and the micro-macro links hindering or supporting the use of these strengths. The final proposal was very different from the original, more narrowly focused idea of a wind farm; it stressed aspects of awareness raising, participation, education and training, employment, decision-making powers and ownership and reinvestment associated with the wind farm. The group looked at the fit between this initiative and the national renewable energy picture and found that they could play an important role in better planning for wind energy in Britain. This broader perspective gave a stronger footing for the project – not only did SL strengthen the thinking behind the project, it also strengthened its attractiveness to funders. Ends and means: A feeder road project in Mozambique has demonstrated how SL thinking helped to see how the project ‘end’ – building roads – could become a means to build up other assets, and to see potential negative effects that needed to be addressed. By putting people at the centre, it became clear that the removal of barriers to accessing the roads and overcoming land tenure insecurity were critical to the project’s success. It also showed that work was needed to mitigate potential problems such as the spread of HIV, environmental degradation and evictions. Such a change in the definition of the problem was also an outcome of the use of SL in a groundwater management project in Africa which shifted its attention from water resources to security of access to water and how that relates to food security. But all is not rosy: Experience has repeatedly shown that the impact of politics on livelihoods doesn’t readily emerge from analyses using the existing SL framework. It is argued that political capital needs to be distinguished from social capital, for while some people’s social capital may be high, their political capital is low – access to people in power and higher levels of decision making may not be dependent on social networks. As a result, aspects of empowerment related to influencing the decision making processes that affect livelihoods may be lost within SL analyses. Another element that some practitioners have found difficult to factor into an SL approach is time. Time to get at the right information and time to facilitate the right level of participation. In the case of the Awel Aman Tawe wind farm, a critical community asset was time yet the importance of this asset was not immediately seen within an SL analysis. Other challenges with using SL may include where and how a sectoral project draws a line and declines involvement in constraints beyond that particular sector. There isn’t a single, simple answer to this question. It depends on resources, institutional links and potential partnerships, the capacity of local service providers etc. and it may also be a matter of timing. A project might not be able to cope with cross sectoral issues in its early days, but further along in the process it may have the means or the links to address an outstanding constraint. The feeder roads project is one example of how a project can grow out of a sector, but remain sectorally based. Retaining a sectoral base has advantages as many partners separate out elements of a problem by sector.

Adapted from Livelihoods Connect (DFID)

8

4. WHAT CAN SLA BRING TO TRAIDCRAFT? 4.1 Gaining a broad brush understanding of context It is clear that an ongoing challenge to those working within the realm of market access is gaining a sufficient understanding of the context within which interventions occur without getting drowned in the complexity and uncertainty that surrounds any trading opportunity. The SL framework is one means to structure and frame analysis which ensures sufficient information is gathered while also providing a means to manage that information. Traidcraft can use an SL approach to consider what is happening at several different levels and/or across several sectors. At this stage, livelihoods analyses would provide Traidcraft with a broad brush understanding of context and three horizontal levels of analysis may be sufficient6 (see Figure Two): - the regional context (and its influence on the national context) - the national context (and it influence on the regional and local context) - the local context (and its influence on the national context). By applying a livelihoods perspective at multiple levels, it is possible to explore the local livelihood dimensions of macro level trends such as urbanisation rates, trading patterns, market conditions, poverty rates, sectoral growth and so on. In effect, Traidcraft would apply a livelihoods perspective at different levels of a hierarchy and filter the findings of each level through agreed sets of criteria specific to Traidcraft (see steps one to six below). Although the approach is being used to gain understanding of different levels of a vertical hierarchy, this does not imply that it is necessary to begin at the top. What’s important is that a livelihood approach allows users to see what’s happening in different sectors, it illuminates macro-micro links, and it ensures that the needs and aspirations of the poor remain at the centre of analysis.

6 This works on the assumption that TX already has a strong grip on international trade issues and how they influence different regions. Some countries such as India, Brazil and Indonesia will require a meso-level analysis.

LIVELIHOODS PERSPECTIVE

LIVELIHOODS PERSPECTIVE

LIVELIHOODS PERSPECTIVE Generic regional analysis

Priority country analysis

Selection of regions (through agreed criteria)

Filter findings through criteria for selecting countries

����������������������� �������������������

����������������������������������

����������������������������� ������

����������

������������������������ ��������������

����������������������������� ����������

������������������������������������

������� ������������������������

����������������� �������������

Filter findings through criteria for selecting product sectors

Priority sector analysis

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

Figure Two: Levels of analysis and the SL framework 4.1.1

H

F N

LOCAL

N

NATIONAL

REGIONAL

P

F

S

H

Country A o country specific

regional impacts o poverty status o relationship with

Traidcraft

Country B o country specific

regional impacts o poverty status o relationship with

Traidcraft

Country C o country specific

regional impacts o poverty status o relationship with

Traidcraft

Vulnerability factors

- climate - conflict - population - political systems - technology - disease - markets - resource stocks.

Assets e.g.

- road & rail system - banking system - forest - skills

- wealth

Policy, institutions,

processes (PIP) - policies - structures - power - rights - laws - incentives - markets - services

Vulnerability context

Changes in - climate - population - political systems - technology - disease - markets - resource stocks.

PIP context actual influence of: - national PIP

- local policies - local structures access to - power - rights - laws - incentives - markets - services

Assets of a

Individual Household

Community or

Business

Development outcomes

e.g. improved: - economic well being - gender equality - 1° education - healthcare access - environmental protection

Development

strategies

Livelihood strategies

Livelihood outcomes

e.g. for a tea producer group - more income - more secure market access - improved access to credit & savings - improved knowledge of crop production - improved health

International obligations & targets Regional obligations & targets Market conditions

P

S

MACRO MICRO LINKS

10

4.2 Developing a typology of entry points As discussed in Section 3, Traidcraft plc is likely to continue its work without significant changes however Traidcraft Exchange is at a turning point. Over the next three years TX will continue to build its expertise and impact within the realm of fair and ethical trade while broadening into wider market access work. In order to implement its new strategy and broader focus, TX is developing a new structure that has three main components, namely, country strategies and programmes, a market access centre, and non country specific programmes. The revised structure is represented in Figure Three below. Figure Three: The Traidcraft Exchange Structure

As pointed out by Pereira (2001), the challenge inherent to Traidcraft’s broader perspective is the delineation of clear boundaries and the design of strategic inputs which advantage the poor and marginalised sections of target communities. To this end, TX has developed a set of parameters to guide the ongoing development of existing initiatives and the design of new interventions. TX seeks to provide direct benefits to the economically active poor and marginalised groups but, given that markets are not a key determinant in the livelihoods of many of the very poor, it will also look to design initiatives with indirect benefits to the economically inactive poor and producers within the subsistence economy. It is envisaged that benefits will be derived through TX support to:

• strengthen enterprises that employ the poor and are themselves marginalised or

disadvantaged within existing trading relationships; • strengthen MA related facilitators and service providers; • improve national and international policy processes through lobbying those with power and

empowering stakeholders who lack influence; • develop relationships/partnerships with those parties (government, private sector and non-

governmental) with the power to remove barriers within targeted value chains.

(Adapted from Pereira 2001)

Market Access Centre: provides information & services to variety of client groups & stakeholders. Country programmes: based on local context & needs and will draw on services of MAC and other providers to intervene at macro and micro levels. Non-country specific programmes: focusing on specific service issues or product areas to develop approaches that maximise pro-poor impact.

11

But even with these parameters in place, the scope of potential work is huge and the context within which opportunities must be identified and pursued is highly complex. In the past, it seems Traidcraft has focused primarily on the specifics of a problem – how to get a business export ready, how to link that group to an international market, how to improve business development services. These are all important issues but ones that exist within a complex environment. Hence, in developing the new structure for TX, Traidcraft has adapted the SL framework to assist them in analysing the context of a particular business. Figure Four: Using the SL framework to understand business contexts

This adapted framework has been further developed to identify a typology of potential entry points for Traidcraft (an entry point being a problem or opportunity that is currently restricting livelihood enhancement through market access). These include: • Developing an enabling value chain • Reducing vulnerability • Managing vulnerability • Building business capacity and influencing policies and practice • Developing effective support institutions and service provision • Developing an enabling environment. This typology and their relation to the adapted SL framework are set out in Figure Five.

12

Figure Five: Use of the SL framework to develop a typology of entry points

4.3 The PQR process Reflection on the typology of entry points represented in Figure Five illustrates that ‘influencing’ is a cross-cutting theme for Traidcraft. For instance, to develop an enabling value chain, Traidcraft may seek to influence business policies and practices or to lobby for changes in domestic or international trade rules; to manage vulnerability, Traidcraft may work to influence trading partners to adjust the way that risk is currently borne; to build business capacity, Traidcraft will work to influence service providers’ policies and practices; and advocacy/influencing will play a key role in any work to develop a more enabling policy environment. Yet, the influencing agenda is a relatively new area for Traidcraft. In the past, it sought to change the lives of the poor by increasing their opportunities to engage in international trade. Having broadened its perspective of market access, Traidcraft may now engage with any aspect of the trading environment that does – or could – influence poor people’s lives. Traidcraft will now work to increase the opportunities available to the poor not only through creating (or strengthening) trading avenues, but also through influencing the balance of power. This new engagement with policy frameworks and underlying power structures is a significant shift in approach. The remainder of this paper therefore focuses on how an SL approach, and the many tools which support it, can help Traidcraft to get to grips with the complexity of issues

13

surrounding policy and power. The understanding gained from a broad brush analysis of context and the development of a typology of entry points can then form the basis for a process of inquiry to analyse power and policy in more detail. This will allow potential entry points to be honed down to a realistic set of possible interventions which are then screened to ensure trade offs are clear and assumptions explicit. Once viable entry points based on sound and explicit analysis have been agreed, Traidcraft will need the right relationships in order to realise its advocacy and influencing objectives. Given the challenges inherent to initiatives which aim to engage with power relations and policy processes, Traidcraft will have to move beyond relatively bland statements of partnership, to carefully negotiated relationships based on an agreed understanding of expected roles, responsibilities and returns. This iterative process is nicknamed the PQR process:

• Understanding power and policy to hone down potential entry points; • Qualify a viable set of entry points by agreeing trade offs and clarifying assumptions; • Build the right relationships to establish effective partnerships.

The process and its intended outcomes are illustrated diagrammatically in Figure Six 4.3.1 Power and policy While the vulnerability aspect of the SL framework covers the exogenous trends and events that can affect people’s lives, power and policy rest primarily within the PIP (policy, institutions, processes) box which describes the governance environment. It covers a range of issues associated with power, policies, institutions and organisations that are typically endogenous to the society. In this discussion, power is taken to be the ability to make decisions and put them into action – to have control (Mayers, 2001), while policy is what organisations do – not written statements of intent but what actually happens on the ground. By affecting the choices people can make, policies have a major impact on livelihoods and by engaging with policy – or more accurately policy processes – and advocating for policy change, Traidcraft is entering an inherently political arena. Hidden within the words ‘influence’ and ‘advocate’ is a high degree of complexity. What these words imply is that Traidcraft will – where appropriate – engage with policy processes (and the power relations that underpin these processes) to enhance the representation of poor people’s interests and to increase the space within which poor people can engage to influence these processes. Poor people (indeed anyone) can gain or lose power in many different ways – through the control of money, through the acquisition and control of knowledge, through the application of rules and regulations, and through gender, age and ethnicity. Increasing the voice of the poor in policy processes and increasing the space within which they can develop livelihood strategies is all about changing the balance of power – and within the context of market access this normally implies moving power down the value chain. But, to change the balance of power, it is first necessary to understand the processes and structures which underpin the status quo. A potentially powerful combination of approaches to unpack power and policy within the context of market access is that of using a livelihoods perspective in conjunction with value chain analysis. As previously discussed, people’s livelihoods exist within a context characterised by complexity and uncertainty, while businesses exist within a chain of trade from raw material to finished product and consumer. These value chains are often complex with many different branches feeding in and out of a business depending on the materials used, the sources of that material, the products produced and markets served. Analysing these vertical chains (and their associated branches) provides an insight into a whole range of issues – not least the power

14

Figure Six: The SL framework and the PQR process

Human

���������������������������� ���� ����� ����� ����� �����

��

�

��

��������������������

�����������

����������� ������

�������������������������

���������������������

���������������������������������

�������������������������� �������

�������

��������������������� �����������������

� �������������������������� ��

Livelihood Capital Assets

Natural

Social

Physical Financial

Processes: - policy - culture - institutions - laws Structure: - organisations

Policies, Institutions &

Processes

Vulnerability Context - shocks - trends - seasons

Livelihood Outcomes

- more sustainable NR base

- more income - more food

security - less vulnerability - more well being

Livelihood Strategies

15

relations between different parts of the chain and the circumstances contributing to the existing power balance. Undertaking a value chain analysis and then complementing it with ‘horizontal’ pictures of the livelihood strategies of the key players in that chain (see Figure Seven) offers a potentially powerful methodology to design and monitor Traidcraft’s market access interventions Figure Seven: Combining livelihoods perspectives with value chain analysis �

�

No matter the level of application of the livelihoods analysis – be it individual, business or product – the process will be remain the same although different questions may be asked. For instance, with a product analysis, factors such as contribution to local and national economy, contribution to local livelihoods, resource efficiency, dependence on natural and human resources, the product’s ecological and social footprint7 would need to be considered. If a poor person, household or community group were the focus, different emphases would be necessary. For instance, what are their livelihood priorities and what elements of national and local policy are relevant? Who is making policy and how much influence do these groups have? What institutions exist locally – both formal and informal? Tools which can assist in understanding the power and policy context of Traidcraft’s interventions are discussed in Appendix One. These include:

• Mapping policy influences • Quick and dirty power mapping • Participatory power mapping • Institutional mapping • New institutional economics • Key informant interviews • Market research • Focus groups • Community-based analysis • Gender analysis

7 Ecological footprints (Rees 1992) refers to the appropriation of carrying capacity of other areas e.g. amount of land area actually necessary to sustain a business. The same thinking can be applied to consider a social footprint. What costs are other individuals or communities bearing so that the enterprise can function. For example, the use of land for cash crops may deprive women of land for immediate household nutrition needs, or the loss of an adult to an enterprise may mean two children miss school to make up the person power on the farm etc. For more information on ecological footprints see Dalal-Clayton and Bass (forthcoming).

Product or commodity

value chain / sector

analysis

������������������� ��� ����������

������������������� �������������

������������������� �����������

��

������������������� ��������

��������������������������������

16

4.3.2 Question and Qualify We live in a world where nearly everything is possible but nothing is certain. High quality and transparent decision making and design processes are therefore crucial. And Traidcraft faces a veritable balancing act between achieving its poverty alleviation goals and ensuring it is promoting viable trade. Real life often dictates that trade-offs be made by precedent, opportunity or expediency (Mayers 2001) – and sometimes things might work out, but trading off options in this manner leaves an open door to unsustainable and inefficient methods of working. A range of entry points will have been identified through the processes described above, but each must then be examined to see if it can be tackled and what uncertainties surround it. Each entry point should be questioned to consider its feasibility, affordability and whether this is the right moment to tackle it. The trade offs between options must be analysed and the assumptions inherent to each tested. This process will allow Traidcraft to see which entry points qualify for its support. Using SLA in the initial assessment of entry points will ensure that the multiple dimensions of sustainability (i.e. environmental, economic, social and institutional) and of people’s livelihood are considered. A range of options and issues will emerge which demand that trade-offs must be determine. Where there’s diversity, choices must be made – between livelihood outcomes, between dimensions of sustainability, between guarding against vulnerability and maximising short-term production, and between the potential for impact and the feasibility and/or affordability of any proposed intervention. And within any assessment of trade-offs, assumptions will be made – for example, that a producer group can continue to supply sufficient quantities of the raw material or that prices of a particular product will not fall below a certain level. Every decision making process requires the use of assumptions, but what’s important is that the set of assumptions are complete, explicit and tested. To assume means literally, to take to be true. That’s all very well, but when people’s livelihoods depend on the outcome of an initiative, then the basis for assuming something to be true must be as robust as possible. Tools are required to put each entry point to the test. An SL approach can be used to ensure that the set of assumptions is complete (killer risks can be found a very long way away from an entry point) and that each assumption is spelt out and thought through. The real valued added of a livelihoods perspective is both as a checklist to remind Traidcraft of what questions it should be asking and also as a structure to allow the risks associated with an intervention (and hence the assumptions associated with that intervention) to be considered in context. Different perspectives on an issue must be considered, as well as different aspirations but most importantly risk areas must be identified and investigated. These may be risk areas for Traidcraft (e.g. in promoting a weak producer group to an established buyer) or to the target group. For instance, a household or business’ participation might require substitution of one asset to accumulate another (e.g. use financial capital to purchase physical assets) which may leave it overexposed to exogenous shocks or stresses. SLA can be used to frame an assessment of whether a decline in the quality or availability of one type of asset is sufficiently compensated for by an increase in other types of capital – is the trade off worth it? Many of the tools described in Appendix 1 will be equally useful to this task of questioning however the scale and level of application of the tools may vary. Additional tools to help with the task of questioning and qualification are set out in Appendix 2. It should be noted that subjective interpretation of these analyses will offer valuable clues. For instance, if an issue emerges at many different levels, the potential impact of ‘solving’ this problem should be considered. And subjective interpretations of findings need not necessarily undermine the

17

robust nature of decision-making processes (and thus lead to problems in justifying the course of action chosen). If the decision making process is explicit and easily articulated, there is no reason why quantitative, qualitative and subjective reasoning cannot be considered. 4.3 Relationships and Returns To realise the objectives of a chosen initiative, the right competences and capacities must be brought to bear and it is unlikely that these will be found in a single group which can simply forge ahead and succeed. Instead, attention must be paid to building the right relationships between stakeholders and between Traidcraft and its direct partners. It is helpful to separate those between whom a relationship exists (or should exist) and those between whom a partnership is required. There are four key aspects to a relationship: roles, rights, responsibilities and returns (Mayers 2001). Roles must be negotiated, rights must be adequate and clear, responsibilities must be achievable and agreed, and returns must be sufficient to instigate action. The potential returns of any relationship are particularly important to Traidcraft’s work – not just the obvious financial returns from an enterprise but also the more subtle returns arising from changes in power relations and changes in how players interact with each other. Returns on Traidcraft’s investment must be assessed but also each players must be able to see an incentive before they will change the way that they operate. The analysis described in 4.1 and 4.2 will have gone some way to illuminating existing relationships and power relations. What’s required now is agreement on the strategy to solve the problem or realise the opportunity and agreement on who should be involved and how. What relationships need to be influenced, where are partnerships required, what are the returns on people’s/organisations investments in these relationships, and what’s the end point? A negotiation of roles must include an assessment of returns and a clear agreement on the expected outcome. This will provide an insight into how different interests might be reconciled and ensure that Traidcraft negotiates the point at which it will withdraw and leave the other players to continue without external support (financial or otherwise). Developing a relationship into a partnership is particularly tricky. Power dynamics will play a very important role in developing and sustaining fruitful partnerships. Without work to understand the different sources and pathways of power, all tools and approaches can be distorted and mechanised. For instance, an ongoing check for all development organisations should be whether participatory methods are not being used simply to confirm an approach that’s already been decided. Initiating a partnership means that new power relationships will be developed, yet the exercising of power is often quite subtle – any rules or regulations that Traidcraft imposes on the use of its funds will be an expression of power within the partnership. Tools to assist Traidcraft to negotiate a more effective relationship with its partners are suggested in Appendix Three. 5. Conclusions The work that underpins this paper demonstrates both the benefits and the challenges of employing a sustainable livelihoods approach to strengthen trade-related development interventions. It is clear that a livelihoods perspective helps gain a better understanding of the context, of possible entry points for change, and can make thought and decision-making processes more explicit. But the process of working with Traidcraft further strengthens the argument that is made in this paper, and that is that the best way to learn about a sustainable livelihoods approach is to get out there and try it. While specialist, intensive support is certainly a help, the thinking that Traidcraft and others in this field have already done demonstrates that intelligent customers can adapt and strengthen an SL approach to their particular needs.

18

6. References Bebbington A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analysing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty in the Andes. Background paper for: Policies that work for sustainable agriculture and regenerating economies. IIED, London, UK. Bird P. 2000. A livelihoods approach: why bother? Some thoughts on national forest programmes and a livelihoods approach. Background paper for PROFOR (UNDP Programme on Forests) transition process. UNDP, New York, USA. Committee of Donor Agencies for Small Enterprise Development. 2001. Business development services for small enterprises: guiding principles for donor intervention. 2001 Edition. Secretariat, SME Dept., World Bank Group, Washington DC, USA. Dalal-Clayton B and Bass S. (forthcoming). Taking a systematic and strategic approach to sustainability: A resource book for strategies for sustainable development. OECD. DELIVERI. 2001. The Deliveri Programme. Livelihoods Connect Website. www.livelihoods.org Doward A. 2001. Pro poor livelihoods: addressing the market/private sector gap. Presentation for SL Seminar on Private Sector and Enterprise Development, 19 November 2001, Manchester, UK. DFID. 2001 (draft). Asia regional livelihoods workshop: conference report. 8-10 May 2001. Dhaka, Bangladesh. DFID. 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Livelihoods Connect. www.livelihoods.org Hobley, M. 2001 (draft). Unpacking the PIP box. Livelihoods connect. www.livelihoods.org Livelihoods Connect. 2001a. An SL approach to impact assessment: the Kipepeo project. www.livelihoods.org Keeley, J. 2001. Influencing policy processes for sustainable livelihoods: strategies for change. Lessons for Change in Policy and Organisations, No. 2. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies. Kydd, J. 2000. Sustainable livelihoods and new institutional economics. Resource Paper: PIP Sub-Group. Livelihoods Connect. www.livelihoods.org Livelihoods Connect. 2001b. Community energy: experiences from a South Wales wind farm project (Awel Aman Tawe). www.livelihoods.org Livelihoods Connect. 2001c. Feeder roads project, Mozambique. www.livelihoods.org Livelihoods Connect. 2001d. A sustainable livelihoods approach to drought and water security. www.livelihoods.org Mayers J. 2001. Power tools: Getting Started. www.iied.org/forestry/tools. IIED, London. Pereira M. 2001 (draft). Who are we trying to reach? How can we do it? Internal planning document. Traidcraft Exchange, Gateshead, UK.

19

Rees W. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriate carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanisation. Vol. 4, No.2. IIED, London. Traidcraft Exchange (TX). No date. An introduction to Traidcraft, its partners and fair trade enterprise and development. TX Gateshead, UK.

20

APPENDIX ONE: Tools for assessing power and policy8

Along with the more obvious ways of getting information e.g. reviewing documentation (policy statements, impact assessments etc.), digging out existing data and semi-structured interviews, there are a large number of technical and participatory tools that can help to analyse the context and find the right entry points. Some of these tools are discussed below. i. Mapping policy influences

Rarely if ever does a sector or a particular problem sit within the sphere of a single policy framework. More commonly, there are policy factors with an immediate effect but also more distant policies with less obvious links to the sector or problem. Mapping policy influences – as illustrated below (Adapted from Mayers, Ngalande, Bird and Sibale (2001)) – is one way of bringing influences that were previously not considered or ignored into an analysis. If done in a participatory manner, a mapping exercise can be a tool to stimulate discussion or to compare the perspectives of different stakeholders either at the same or different levels. Should an agricultural product such as tea, coffee, nuts or rice be selected as a priority product, this analysis could then be further elaborated to detail the specific influences on that product – this picture will become clearer as the different levels of livelihoods analyses are undertaken as each will further illuminate the influences of policy.

8 IIED’s power tools series (www.iied.org/forestry/tools) provides an excellent resource to guide the analysis of power.

Market Conditions

International Influences

WTO/Gatt rules Money Flows

Investment Rules Registration

Macro Economic Policies

Exchange Rates Taxation

Competition Transport

Policies influencing demand

Credit & Pricing Security

Extension Subsidies

Agriculture Sector Policies

Research & Info.

Land tenure Regulation

Policies influencing supply

Infrastructure Privatisation

Traidcraft CP seeking to

optimise these influences for

improved trade and livelihoods

Smallholders

21

ii. Quick & dirty power mapping A small, informed group can quickly put together a broad brush picture of various stakeholder’s power and potential. The example below was put together by a small group in the early stages of developing Malawi’s national forestry programme (see Mayers et al, 2001). The size of the circle denotes the numerical size of the stakeholder group while its position against the x axis denotes the level of power held by that group and its position against the y axis denotes how much potential they have to contribute to good forestry and livelihoods. This representation of power and potential immediately draws attention to both imbalances in power and which groups need support to increase their power so they can realise their potential.

iii. Participatory power mapping Individuals or groups can quickly put together a map illustrating who has power over their situation. The level of power can be visually demonstrated by the size of that stakeholder’s circle or by the size of the arrow indicating the direction of influence. These maps can be put together in different formats depending on need. Two examples are provided below: Figure Six shows a group of foresters’ perception of who has a positive or negative influence over

BDS providers PUSH & PULL

Power to contribute

to good trade and

livelihoods

Potential to contribute to good trade and livelihoods

Ministry of Trade

Smallholders

Community groups

Existing SMEs

NGOs

Estate owners

Plantation Co.s

High

Low

22

E n cro ach e rs(A re ca n u t F a rm e rs )

V F C

D a lap ath i

N T F PC o llec to rs

V illag e C o llie ,o n ly fo r L o g g in g

A g r i.D ep t.

K E B

B ig tim eS m u g g le rs

P o a c h e rs /H u n te rs

G o w liT rib e , G ra z ie rs

Q u a rryO w n e rs

H e a d lo a d e rs

F o re s te rs

P o lit ic ia n s

P o l ic eA n g a n w a d i

Y u v a k M a n d a l

Im p o rta n tL e a d e rs

A r tis a n s

ID S ,M Y R A D A ,N G O s

C o m m e rc ia l A g e n c ie s

G o v t .D e p ts .

C o n s u lta n ts , N G O

B e n e f ic ia r ie s / B e n e fic ia r y G ro u p s

S H A K E H O L D E R P E R C E P T IO N M A P P IN G O F F O R E S T E R S G R O U P

+ 4-5

- 1

- 1

- 3

- 5

- 4+ 2+ 2+ 2

+ 3

+ 1

+ 4

+ 1

+ 4

+ 4+ 2

+ 3

+ 2

- 2

G ra s s ro o t le v e l fu n c t io n a r ie s / In s t itu t io n s

D y s fu n c t io n a l G ro u p s

them, while Figure Seven A & B provide a simplified sketch of power and influence within a tea value chain where changes in power and influence are tracked through changes in the size of arrows and circles (increase in circle size denotes an increase in power while increase in size of arrow denotes greater influence of that group over the other). Given that Traidcraft seeks to move power down the value chain, this tool is a useful diagrammatic means to indicate impact.

Figure Seven:

Tracking power and influence within tea value chain analyses

Smallholder tea factory

Traidcraft seeks to

move power

down the value chain

Smallholders

Smallholder tea factory

Buyers

Auction/brokers

Estates

Buyers

Auction/brokers

Estates

Smallholders

A

B

23

iv. Institutional mapping This process employs the same tool as that shown in Figure Four but involves preparing these maps for a range of different stakeholders. Key stakeholder groups can be identified through consultation and review of documentation and then each group can prepare a map of those institutions (both formal and informal) which influence their lives. By comparing these maps, a schematic of the institutional architecture can be prepared (this tends to be more easily done at a local level as at a national level the scenario quickly becomes too complex to depict visually). v. New institutional economics New institutional economics (Kydd 2000) provides an analytical framework for examining the importance and effects of policy and institutional processes at different scales of analysis and action (from gender relations within a household to local and national institutions). The interactions between assets, activities and outcomes can be examined, along with the effects of power and incentives on institutional change. NIE can be used to evaluate the relative efficiency and effectiveness of different governance structures and assess the potential outcomes that can be achieved under particular institutional conditions. For further conceptual information on the use of NIE see Kydd, 2000. vi. Key informant interviews These are most useful when trying to gain insight on a particular issue or policy e.g. the social footprint of an enterprise. Although they don’t allow for group debate (and are therefore best used alongside information from participatory appraisals), they are effective in allowing those with less of a voice to speak their turn, or to facilitate access to those with whom a formal approach may cause problems (e.g. a local politician). vii. Market research Compiling information on market trends and conditions is likely to require a combination of approaches such as interviews, participatory appraisals, interviews etc and can be extremely costly. Where possible existing research should be found which can then be verified through a ground-truthing exercise. Should the situation justify it, more detailed market research is certainly helpful in understanding preferences, forecasting trends, assessing markets and identifying appropriate livelihood options. viii Focus groups As with the key informant interviews, this tool is best used to explore a particular issue. It has the advantage of allowing debate – this is particularly illuminating when a cross-sample of stakeholders are involved – but it is dependent on good facilitation and a ‘fair’ process to nominate participants.

24

ix. Community based analysis9 When trying to elucidate the issues of greatest concern to poor people and/or their desired livelihood outcomes, it is essential to move away from top-down information gathering exercises and to involve the people themselves. Community based analysis can help identify issues, set priorities and develop ideas for action. By combining the knowledge of (so-called) experts with those with a direct stake in actions and outcomes – using both technical and participatory tools, community based analysis:

• focuses on real needs and preferences; • informs people about technical aspects of any given problem; and, • promotes ownership among a more informed constituency.

A wide variety of tools may be employed including participatory appraisals, policy and power mapping, focus groups, preference ranking, social maps, wealth ranking, timelines, SWOT analysis10 and risk assessments. The key is that stakeholders are involved in all the tools, not just those that are traditionally participatory. This ensures that a) everybody has a better understanding of the issue, and b) that stakeholders themselves have a better understanding of the different elements of a problem. Some potential spin-off benefits include increased awareness of rights, self-identification of avenues to influence policy, empowerment, and knowledge of existing services that they could be drawing on. It is important to include participatory tools designed to seek out the voices of the poor. Ideally, all stakeholders should be involved in these exercises, so they too hear the needs and aspirations of the poor and marginalised. However, if broader participation limits the poor or marginalised speaking up, then separate participatory appraisal exercises and key informant interviews should supplement the analysis. x. Gender analysis This tool aids understanding of how ‘male’ and ‘female’ are defined in a given context, the division of labour and responsibility between the sexes and most importantly who has control. At a local and household level, power goes to those who have access to local networks, those who play a role in community management, and those who make decisions about the allocation of substitution of assets. These areas of power are often very closely linked to gender.

9 For further information see ICLEI. 1996. The local Agenda 21 planning guide: an introduction to sustainable development planning. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto, Canada. 10 SWOT – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats: a strategic tool that can help in understanding the current context and in formulating medium to long-term objectives.

25

APPENDIX TWO: Tools for assessing trade offs and testing assumptions The tools described below (and others) can be used to develop a list of constraints that Traidcraft itself could tackle, a list that current or new partners can tackle, and those over which it has little, if any, influence. The process of identifying key constraints and then assessing the trade offs inherent to different paths will automatically draw out the assumptions that are being made. All to often, assumptions are made in people’s heads and never articulated or documented. This can undermine the design of a process and make monitoring and impact assessment more difficult. By considering the broadest context, SLA draws in a range of issues and options that are often excluded from a decision-making process and yet are the issue that makes or breaks an initiative. The example of the feeder roads project in Mozambique (in Box One above) provides a good illustration of how SLA can test assumptions and, by looking beyond the box as it were, draw in issues that are not within the immediate vision of a market access initiative – for instance, will the development of a basket-making enterprise make a positive difference to women’s lives, or just provide them with a grim subsistence livelihood? i. Develop criteria for agreeing priorities A first step in making trade offs and assumptions more explicit is to set criteria by which priorities can be agreed. An ideal set of criteria can be drawn up and then checked against past decision making processes to make sure that they reflect reality and provide a basis for good practice (though not necessarily an unachievable ‘ideal’ practice). Traidcraft may develop a set of criteria which it uses with potential partners (thus promoting ownership) but there may also be an internal sub-set of criteria which assist Traidcraft in deciding whether a particular approach is a ‘best bet’ for their support. It is possible that a scenario is developed which makes sense to potential partners and has a good potential impact, but does not fit with Traidcraft’s strengths, resources and/or priorities. ii. Assessment and ranking of risk Risk benefit analysis permits consideration of all risks, benefits and costs set out in a framework suitable to the context. Although one means to assess benefits associated with an option in comparison to its risks, some weighting may be required as commensurate factors may not reflect reality. And decisions on weighting can be tricky, they are best done in a participatory and transparent manner so that limitations and assumptions of a decision are clear. Risk ranking assesses problems on the basis of type of risk e.g. social, human or ecological risks. The risks associated with each problem/option are then ranked in a common framework to facilitate comparison. Some methodologies (steps and formula) have been developed to assess risk types (see ICLEI 1996). When trying to understand trade-offs and make choices, it is helpful to compare risks with priorities – often priorities will not rank in the same way as risks. This will make more explicit any decision to take a higher risk in order to make a bigger gain. iii. Decision trees Decision or problem trees provide a structure to lay out alternative decisions and their implications for evaluation. The tool is more useful if degrees of uncertainty and priority

26

(desirability of option to target stakeholder group) are factored in e.g. through ranking at each level of arrows iv. Scenario development Forecasts provide patterns extrapolated from the past to the future, where as scenarios are alternative plausible paths (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, forthcoming). Scenarios consider likely future trends and the consequences of different options and are best used (i.e. more likely to be accurate) if they are limited to the short-term e.g. over the next five years. Scenario planning to commonly used in the private sector at various levels – those that consider global and regional trends, to look at new opportunities, to manage change processes and to tackle specific problems.

27

APPENDIX THREE: Tools for negotiating roles and mapping capacity Many of the tools described in 4.1 and 4.2 will be brought to bear once again in this final phase of the process. This section provides a preliminary introduction to the Four Rs framework as an overarching tool for the analysis of roles before touching on some specific tools that can help to develop agreement on future relationships and the expected returns. i. The Four Rs11 The four Rs provides a framework to help unpack and strengthen stakeholder roles. It looks at the rights, responsibilities and revenues inherent to a role, and the relationships between them. This tool can be applied at different levels but is most useful when used as a tool around which dialogue occurs – indeed, the first part of building a healthy partnership might be to use this tool in the analysis of power and policy (although an independent facilitator may be necessary as sensitive issues between potential partners may arise). The four Rs is simple to understand and is useful in that it opens up the issues of power between stakeholders quite carefully and can subtly turn a process of participation into a process of multi-stakeholder negotiations. The four Rs can also be helpful in highlighting deficiencies in a particular stakeholders’ capacity. ii. Analysing relationships If a relationship is not adequately understood from the activities described under section 4.1 and 4.2 a discrete exercise to analyse that relationship can be undertaken. This requires consideration of the quality of the relationships, its strength (frequency and intensity of the interaction), the level of formality, the balance of power (is one very dependent on the other) and the degree of flexibility in how the relationship plays out. The picture of a relationship can be rapidly but together through discussions with key informants and group exercises, although it is critical to get the full range of perspectives in order to get an accurate picture. iii. Capacity mapping This exercise involves each role player saying which expected outcomes it can achieve by itself and where it is dependent on others for support or service provision. As with the other mapping tools described above, the size of circles and links can denote strength or size.

11 See the IIED Power Tools Series No. 3 ‘The Four Rs’ for more information on this tool.