Tufts - Rapid Review of RAIN Project

8/2/2019 Tufts - Rapid Review of RAIN Project

1/22

FeinsteinInternational

Center,

Tufts

University

PLIPolicyProject,Ethiopia

RapidReviewoftheCashforWorkandNaturalResourceManagement

Components

of

the

RAIN

Project

July2010

AndyCatleyandAlisonNapier


2/22

Contents

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 3

Reviewprocess....................................................................................................................................... 3

Reviewworkshop

....................................................................................................................................

4

Rapidoverviewofcashforworkandnaturalresourcemanagementactivities................................4

AssettransfersinSomalipastoralistareaslessonsfromotherprojects.........................................6

Householdprofilesandsimpleeconomicmodelingtopredicttheimpactofassettransfers...........7

LinkingRAINtolongtermstrategicframeworksforpastoralistareas.............................................. 9

NRMactivitiesandimpact................................................................................................................ 10

RevisitingtheRAINobjectives.......................................................................................................... 11

Findingsandrecommendations............................................................................................................ 12

Annex1.

Mercy

Corps

participants

at

review

workshop,

Addis

Ababa,

28to

29

July

2010

.................

14

Annex2.Casestudiesofpreviouscashdistributionandrestockingprojects......................................15

Annex3.Trendsinhighexportpastoralistareas:linkingRAINstrategiestobroaderdevelopment

strategies............................................................................................................................................... 19


3/22

1

SUMMARY

TheprojectRevitalizing Agricultural/PastoralIncomesandNewMarkets(RAIN)isathreeyear

projectimplementedbyMercyCorpsandSavetheChildrenUK(SCUK)inpartsofSomaliand

OromiyaRegionsinEthiopia.Theprojectaimstoprotect,buildanddiversifyassetsinfoodinsecure

households.ThedonoristheOfficeforForeignDisasterAssistance(OFDA)andtheprojectbudgetis

US$17million.

InJuly2010,approximatelyatthemidpointofprojectimplementation,MercyCorps

workedwiththeFeinsteinInternationalCenterofTuftsUniversitytoreviewspecificelementsofthe

RAINprojectviz.cashforwork(CFW)andrelatednaturalresourcemanagement(NRM)activities,

andexploreopportunitiesforreshapingprojectstrategiesandactivitiestoachievegreaterimpact.

ThereviewprocessincludedthecollectionandreviewofcasestudiesfromSomalipastoralistareas,

focusingonassettransferapproachessuchascashdistributionsduringdrought,andrestockingafter

drought.Specificareasofinterestinthesepreviousapproacheswerethelevelsofassettransfer

relativetothelivelihoodsimpact,andthetimeperiodneededtoachieveimpact.

Complementarytothereviewofcasestudies,simpleeconomicmodelingwasusedto

predicthowdifferentlevelsofoneoffcashtransferswouldimpactondifferenttypesofdestitute

andpooragropastoralandpastoralhouseholds.Spreadsheetswiththemodelwereprovidedto

Mercy

Corps

for

further

adaptation

and

to

assist

revision

of

project

strategies.

TheoverallRAINprojectobjectiveswerereviewed,albeitbriefly,togetherwithoptionsfor

assessingtheimpactoftheNRMactivities.

Keyfindingsandrecommendations

Projectdesignandstrategies

Attheoveralllevelofprojectdesign,generalimplementation strategies,andM&Eneeds,MercyCorpsstaffhadalreadystartedtoreviewandreshapespecificRAINactivitiesandquestionthe

likelyimpactofCFWandNRMactivities.However,giventhecomplexityofRAINandtheproject

budget,aradicalreworkingandclarification ofprojectobjectivesisneeded.Thecurrentproject

designneedstobeclarifiedusingsubobjectivesandmadeSMARTviz.Specific,Measurable,

Achievable,

Realistic

and

Time

bound.

Revised

activities

should

fit

clearly

under,

and

directly

contributetothesubobjectives.AtpresenttheRAINprojectdocumentlacksaclearcausal

pathway,fromactivitiestoobjectivestoimpact,andseemsnottofullydifferentiatestrategies

oractivitiesaccordingtothecharacteristicsofdifferenthouseholds,indifferentareas.There

seemedtobecommonagreementintheworkshopwithMercyCorpsthatthesechangeswere

needed.

Initscurrentform,RAINprovidesoneoffcashtransferswhicharelikelytobeveryshortlivedintermsofimpact,asthecashisprobablyusedmainlytomeetimmediatefoodneeds.Therefore,

whileRAINmightbecontributingtoatypical(butunstated)humanitarian/foodsecurity

objective,impactonthemoredevelopmentorientatedobjectivesofassetprotection,asset

buildingandlivelihoodsdiversificationisunlikely.Intermsofassetprotection,thisobjectivehas

tobetailoredtothepreexistingassetsofhouseholdsanddoesnotapplyeasilytohouseholds

whichhavenoproductiveassetstoprotect.

AtthelevelofCFWactivities,thereviewshowedaneedtorevisetheseactivitiesifassetbuildingobjectivesaretobeachievedwithinthetimeframeoftheproject.RelativetoRAIN,

previousandreasonablysuccessfulassettransferapproachesinSomaliareashavechanneledfar

greaterresourcestofewerhouseholds,or,haveexpectedimpacttolastforonlytwomonthsor

less.SimpleeconomicmodelingshouldhelpMercyCorpstoreshapeCFWapproaches,andtailor

differentapproachestodifferenttypesofdestituteand/orpooragropastoralandpastoral

households.Theseapproachesneedtobeclearlydefinedandjustified.Therewaswidevariation


4/22

2

inthelevelofcashtransferswithinprojectareas. RAINiscurrentlyhasaverycomplexdesign,

whereasthedifficultoperationalcontextofSomaliRegioncallsforsimplicityandfocus.

FortheNRMrelatedactivities,approachessuchaspondandgullyrehabilitation,checkdamconstruction,terracingandsoilbundshavebeenusedinSomaliandpartsofOromiyaregionsfor

manyyears.Forexample,theseapproacheswerewidelyusedbytheSouthEastRangelands

ProjectinSomaliRegion.ForRAINNRMactivities,potentialimpactsarecurrentlyoutlinedat

communitylevel

and

are

not

specific

to

destitute

or

poor

households

i.e.

the

most

vulnerable

groups.Questionstolookatinclude:How,specifically,willdestituteorpoorhouseholdsbenefit

fromthesestructures?Giventherepeatedneedforrepairorrehabilitation,whatlocal

managementsystemscanbesupportedtoensurethelongtermmaintenanceofthestructures?

Whichstructuresaresusceptibletoprivateownershipwithpossibleexclusionofpoorerusers?Is

privateownershipnecessarilyabadthing?Similarquestionsapplytobushclearing(Prosopis

control),giventherapidreinvasionofclearedareas.Impactassessmentoftheseactivitiesis

likelytobehinderedbythegoodrainfallin2010andthelikelihoodthatRAINrelatedwater

pointsorgrazingareasmightnotbeusedifthereisamplegroundwateravailableorgood

grazingelsewhere.

ThereviewdidnotlookatissuessuchastheeffectivenessorrelevanceofCFWcomparedwith,forexample,directcashdistributions(withoutwork)orfooddistributions.Whiledifferent

approachesare

likely

to

result

in

different

impacts

and

acceptance

within

communities,

there

arealsoquestionsabouttheorganizationalcostsandefficienciesoftransfers,including

operationalandtransactioncosts.Forexample,inthecaseofRAINtheCFWapproachrequires

agenciestoplan,supportandmonitorthetiedNRMactivities,andatacost.Atsomepoint,an

evaluationofRAINshouldassessthedeliverycostsofdifferentassettransferapproaches.

Longterm,theadministrativeandoperationalcostsofinternationalNGOsarelikelytofar

exceedthoseofsomeotherserviceproviders.

RAINisbutoneprojectamongmany,anditsobjectivesandstrategiesshouldfitwithinabroader,longtermMercyCorpsframeworkfordevelopmentinpastoralistareas.Thereview

touchedonsomeoftheissues.Asahighlivestockexportarea,SomaliRegionandneighboring

Somaliareasaresubjecttolongtermbutgradualcommercialization.Thisisreflectedinthe

robustnatureoftheexporttradeandsimultaneously,risinglevelsofdestitution.As

commercialization

advances,

herds

are

likely

to

increase

and

poorer

herders

will

struggle

to

stay

inpastoralism. Ifcorrect,thesetrendshavemajorimplicationsforSomaliareasand

developmentpolicy,andthestrategicdirectionsofRAIN.

Implicationsofchange

MercyCorpsstaffexpressedconcernsoverdonorexpectations,andpressuretomaximizethenumberofprojectbeneficiariesinRAIN.Despitetheseconcerns,asahumanitariandonorOFDA

maywanttorevisittheconceptofachievingdevelopmentobjectivesviaassettransferswhich

arespreadwidelybutthinly,andwhichareoneofftransfers.ShouldOFDAsupportaradical

reshapingoftheCFWcomponentofRAIN,itmaybeacceptabletousedifferentapproachesin

similarlivelihoodszones,andcompareimpacts.ThismightinvolveacontinuationoftheCFWin

someareasasis,butpilotingmoreintensivetransferstofewerhouseholdsinotherareas.

By

using

a

CFW

approach

in

RAIN,

Mercy

Corps

has

become

engaged

in

debates

and

negotiationsinandaroundtheProductiveSafetyNetProgramme,especiallyonwagerates.In

itscurrentforminpastoralistareas,theCFWapproachisprobablycontributingtoashortterm

foodsecurityneedsforsomehouseholdsbuthavinglimitedimpactonassetgrowth.Thisinitself

mightbealessontofeedintothePSNPandwageratediscussions.Inthefaceofthenextshock

ordrought,householdsarestilllikelytodepleteassetsrapidlyandrequireassistance.The

economic modelingtooldevelopedaspartofthisreviewmightbefurtherdevelopedandused

withgovernmentpartnerstopredicttheimpactsofcashand/orfoodtransfers,andthelevels

anddurationoftransferneededtoachievemeaningfulassetbuildingobjectives.


5/22

3

Introduction

TheprojectRevitalizing Agricultural/PastoralIncomesandNewMarkets(RAIN)isathreeyear

projectimplementedbyMercyCorpsandSavetheChildrenUK(SCUK)inpartsofSomaliand

OromiyaRegionsinEthiopia.Theprojectaimstoprotect,buildanddiversifyassetsinfoodinsecure

households.ThedonoristheOfficeforForeignDisasterAssistance(OFDA)andtheprojectbudgetis

US$17million.

AtaroundthemidpointoftheimplementationofRAIN,inMay2010,MercyCorps

approachedtheFeinsteinInternationalCenter(Tufts)toseeksupportforanimpactassessmentof

specificRAINactivitiesviz.cashforwork(CFW)andrelatednaturalresourcemanagement(NRM)

activitiesoftheproject.Whendecidingifaninterventionshouldbeassessedandwhen,experience

fromthePastoralistLivelihoodsInitiative(PLI)inEthiopiafrom2005hasshownthatimpact

assessmentisnotalwaysappropriate.Forexample,adesktopreviewofprojectdesignand

implementationstrategiesmightindicatethatlimitedimpactwouldbeexpectedandifso,a

reshapingofprojectdesigncanbemoreusefulthanimpactassessment1.

Withthisexperienceinmind,TuftsreviewedtheRAINprojectproposaltoOFDAand

followingdiscussionwithMercyCorps,agreedtosupportatechnicalreviewoftheprojectaimsand

strategies,andwithafocusontheCFWandNRMcomponents.Inpartthisfocuswasalsoinfluenced

by

wider

debates

around

safety

net

programs

in

Ethiopia,

and

the

role

of

cash

and/or

food

transfers

asameanstoreducevulnerabilitytolivelihoodscrises.

Reviewprocess

Theoverallpurposeofthereviewwastoexaminewhatlevelofincome/assetsarerequiredto

enablehouseholdstomaintainorimprovetheirlivelihoods,especiallyinthefaceofpressuressuch

asdrought.

Activity Typeofinformationandanalysis

Deskreview(Tufts)

Workshop/seminar

withRAINstaff

ReviewlessonsfromotherassessmentsinSomaliRegionrelatedtotheProductiveSafetyNetProgramme(PSNP)and/orCFW(e.g.SavetheChildrenUS,WorldBank),othercashtransfer

programs

Reviewlessons

from

restocking

programmes

e.g.

the

herd

growth

rates

and

core

herd

sizes

requiredtomaintainorgrowherds

Reviewoftrendsinpastoralistlivestockholdings

ReviewofexistingCFWandwagerates(publicandprivatesectors)intargetareas

ReviewoffoodeconomybaselinedataforRAINareasBasedontheabove,developanumberofrealprofilesorcasestudies,ofdifferenthousehold

economies.Thiscouldincludeprofilesofapastoralisthouseholdinaruralarea,afemaleheaded

household,anagropastoralisthousehold,adestituteordropouthouseholdetc.andwillinclude

householdslikelytohavebeentargetedbyCFW/PSNPprograms.

Basedonthedifferenthouseholdprofiles,currentassetstatusandlessonslearned,withMercyCorpsstaffdevelopscenariostoillustrateandcomparethepotentiallivelihoodsimpact

ofdifferentdevelopmentoptionsovertime.

Variablescouldinclude:differenttypesandlevelsofinputs(CFWvs.restocking);livelihoodshocks(pricerises,drought);differenttimeframesetc.

Usingthescenarios,identifya)theinputs/supportneededtoprotectcurrentfinancialassetsandb)thedifferenteconomicoptions(includingthosetargetedbyRAIN)forimproving/

diversifyinglivelihoodsintheshorttomediumterm.

DiscussionontheextenttowhichRAINobjectivesandstrategiesfitwithhigherleveldonororMercyCorpsstrategiesinpastoralistareasofEthiopia.

1Forexample,areviewoftheMercyCorpsactivitiesinAfarRegionunderPLIwasconductedinlate2006inpreferenceto

animpactassessment.


6/22

4

Potentialnextsteps

ThiscouldleadintoadiscussionofthecurrentRAINcashforworkstrategiesandpossibleoptions

forstrengtheningtheapproach.

Basedonthediscussionsduringtheworkshopbutcouldincludefieldworktodevelopadditional

casestories(forexample,ofhouseholdsthathavesuccessfullyrecovered/diversified)and/or

identifyingkeyquestionsforexaminingthepotentialimpactofRAINsNRMwork,forexamplein

relationtodifferenthouseholdeconomies/scenarios.

Itwasexpectedthattheprocess,especiallytheworkshop,wouldincludeanelementof

capacitybuildingofMercyCorpsstaffintheuseofsimplescenarioanalysis.

TheworkshopwasheldattheMercyCorpsofficeinAddisAbaba28th

to29th

July2010,with

MercyCorpsstaff(Annex1).TherewerenoparticipantsfromSCUK.

SomeofthekeybackgrounddocumentswhichwerereviewedbyTuftsandusedduringthe

workshopwereasfollows:

Evaluationsofpreviousassettransfer/assetbuildingprojectsinSomaliareastheseweresummarizedandusedascasestudiesduringtheworkshop(seeAnnex2).

FoodeconomybaselinesfortheHarshinDegahburEastPastoralLivelihoodZoneandtheJijigaAgropastoralLivelihoodZone,publishedbySCUKandDisasterPreventionand

PreparednessAgency;thereferenceyearwas20045.ThereviewhadinitiallyintendedtoexaminePSNPreviewsinpastoralistareas,particularlythose

supportedbySCUSandtheWorldBank.However,thesedocumentswerenotavailableatthetime

oftheRAINreview.

Reviewworkshop

Rapidoverviewofcashforworkandnaturalresourcemanagementactivities

MercyCorpspresentedarapidoverviewofCFWandrelatedNRMactivitiesinthreeprojectareasviz

EastHararghe,JijigaandDegabur.

EastHarargheoffice

Beneficiaries theemergencyCFWtargeteddestitutehouseholds;theNRMCFWtargetedpoor

households.

Table1.CashtransfersinEastHararghe

TypeofCFW Totaltransfer(ETB) Numberofbeneficiaries Averagetotalcashtransfer(ETB)

perhousehold1

EmergencyCFW

NRMCFW

957,220

557,243

803 (607female,803male)

1010(284female,726male)

696(~US$26)

1372(~US$51)1Basedontwoworkersreceivingcashperhousehold;EB13.4=US$1.

Table2.NRMactivitiesinEastHararghe

Type Number Volume

Ponds(waterpans)

- Newconstruction- RehabilitationGullyrehabilitation,includingreshaping,checkdam

construction,plantationandcutoffdrains

2

9

4

1,600m3

2,5004,000m3

37,088m3

ExpectedoutcomesfromemergencyCFW:

- Cashnecessaryforbeneficiariestopurchasevitalfoodsupplies(i.e.noneedtosellassets)


7/22

5

- Populationstayedinarea- Ingood/favorablepositiontobenefitfromseedfailactivities- Improvedaccesstowater

ExpectedoutcomesfromNRMCFW

- Noneedtosellassetsforfood- Assetbuilding:purchaseoflivestock(smallruminants)

- Improved

access

to

water

- Improvedenvironmentalservices- Livelihooddiversificationthroughincomegeneratinggroups

Jijigaoffice

Table3.Cashforworkbyactivityinagropastoralareas

Locationandtypeofwork Women Men Totalamountpaid

(EB)

Averagetotalpayment

(EB)perperson

Gursum;wagerateEB20/day:

shallowwellconstruction

hillsideterracing(10km)

pondrehabilitation(1800m3)

Kebribayah;wage

rate

EB

25/day:

- hillsideterracing(33km)

stonecheckdam(4318m3)

soilbund(27km)

20

30

40

116

66

89

30

280

180

234

260

284

50,000

50,000

72,000

212,500

431,800

101,250

1,000

161

327

607

1,324

271

Notetargetedpooragropastoralhouseholdswithnocerealinstore.

Table4.Cashforworkbyactivityinpastoralareas

Locationandtypeofwork Women Men Totalamountpaid

(EB)

Averagetotalpayment

(EB)perperson

Aware wagerateEB30/day:

- stonecheckdams(500m3)

soilbund(36km)

Propsopis

clearing

(100ha)

Gashamo wagerateEB30/day:

stonecheckdam(2000m3)

waterdiversionchannel(40km)

soilbund(80km)

pondrehabilitation(91,200m3)

5

10

5

10

5

6

0

75

110

55

90

85

97

50

60,000

162,000

99,000

240,000

180,000

198,000

72,000

750

1,350

1,650

240

2,000

1,900

1,400

Notetargetedpoorpastoralhouseholdswith


8/22

6

- Theactivitiesaimedtodealwithwatershortages,particularlyinObale.- Preliminaryfindingsatfieldlevelwerethatcashwasusedtobuyfood;forexample,a

householdof7peoplemightbuy50kgwheat,lasting1weekandcostingEB100;withan

averageweeklyCFWwageofEB150,wheatcouldbepurchasedtolastabout1.5weeks.

AssettransfersinSomalipastoralistareaslessonsfromotherprojects

ThissessionwasbasedonMercyCorpsstaffreviewingaseriesofshortcasestudiesfromprevious

restockingprojectsandcashdistributionsinSomalipastoralistareas.Thefullcasestudiesareshown

inAnnex2.Animportantpartofthereviewwastoexaminethelevelsofassettransferrelativeto

thereportedimpactsandbenefitsintheseprojects(summarizedinTable6),andthencompareto

thelevelsofassettransferinpastoralistareasofRAIN(Table4).

Table6.Previousevaluationsandimpactassessments,Somaliareas2

SCIsiolo,Kenya SCFik,Ethiopia NORDA,Kenya HornRelief,Sool

Context Droughtrelated IDPrehabilitation Droughtrelated Droughtrelated

Typeoftransfer Cash Livestock,food,other Livestock Cash

Keyobjectives Longtermherd

reconstitution;

diversifiedlivelihoods

ReturnofIDPsto

pastoralistlivelihood

Resumptionof

pastoralism

Shortterm

emergency

assistance,for1.5to

2months

Valueofasset

transfer

US$490/hh US$321/hhplusfood

ration

~US$450 US$50/hh

Frequencyofasset

transfer

Oneoff Oneoff Oneoff Oneoff

Achievementof

objectives

Partialat7months

aftercashinput;upto

further2years

neededtobuildherds

75%hhsresumed

pastoralism2.5years

afterassettransfer

Mosthhsattained

minimumherdsize

1.5.yearsafter

restocking

Yes,butimpactof

assistancelastedonly

1month

Table4indicatesthattheaveragetotalcashtransferperhouseholdinpastoralistareasofRAIN

wasUS$122(EB1677).AcomparisonofthisfigurewithTable6indicatedthatthecashtransfers

provided

by

RAIN:

- wouldlastafamilyofaround7peopleabout2to3monthsifallcashwasconvertedtofood;

- wouldprobablyhaveminimalimpactonassetbuildingifthestrategywastoensurethatpastoralistsacquiredaminimumherd.TherestockingcasestudiesusedtransfersofUS$321

toUS$490perhousehold,withthelowerfiguresupplementedwithafoodration.

Thesefindingsindicatedaneedtoredesigntheassetbuildingapproachforpastoralist

householdsandspecifically,toprovideahigherlevelofcashtransfertoasmallernumberoftarget

2SourcesforTable6:

AcaciaConsultantsLtd.(2004).EvaluationofcashreliefprogrammeimplementedbyHornRelief,commissionedbyNOVIB/Oxfam

Netherlands.Acacia

Consultants,

Nairobi

Ali,D.,Toure,F.andKiewied,T.(2005).Cashreliefinacontestedarea:LessonsfromSomalia.HumanitarianPracticeNetworkPaper50,

OverseasDevelopmentInstitute,London

Croucher, M. et al. (2006). Initial Impact Assessment of the Livelihoods Programme in Merti and Sericho. Save the Children Canada,

Nairobi

ODonnell,M.(2007).CashbasedEmergencyLivelihoodRecoveryProgramme,IsioloDistrict,KenyaProjectEvaluationdraftreport,by

MichaelODonnell,SavetheChildren,Nairobi.

Lotira,R.(2004).Rebuildingherdsbyreenforcinggargar/irbamongtheSomalipastoralistsofKenya:evaluationofexperimental

restockingprograminWajirandManderaDistrictsofKenya.AfricanUnion/InterafricanBureauforAnimalResources,Nairobi

andFeinsteinInternationalCenter,TuftsUniversity,Nairobi

Wekesa,M.(2005).Terminalevaluationoftherestocking/rehabilitationprogrammefortheinternallydisplacedpersons(IDPs)inFikZone

oftheSomaliRegionofEthiopia.SavetheChildrenUK,AddisAbabaandAcaciaConsultants,Nairobi


9/22

7

households.Plus,giventheremainingtimeinRAINforimplementationitwasnoticeablethateven

withrelativelyhighassettransfersitwouldtakearoundtwotothreeyearstorebuildpastoralherds.

Householdprofilesandsimpleeconomicmodelingtopredicttheimpactofassettransfers

Anotherwaytoexaminethelikelyimpactsofcashtransferstopastoralistandagropastoralist

householdsis

to

develop

simple

economic

models

which

show

patterns

of

asset

growth

over

time,

andinthefaceofdifferentpressuresonlivelihoodssuchasdrought.Simplemodelingcanbeusedas

atooltoanswerquestionssuchas:

o Fordifferent levelsofassettransfer,how longwill ittakeadestitutepastoralisthouseholdtodevelopsufficientassetstoresumepastoralismasthemainmeansoflivelihood?

o Fordifferent levelsof asset transfer,how longwill it takeapoorpastoralisthousehold tomoveupwardsintoamediumwealthgroupcategory?

Afirststepinthemodelingprocesswastocharacterizedifferenttypesofagropastoraland

pastoralhouseholdbyassetownership,bearinginmindthattheobjectivesofRAINfocusedonasset

protection,assetbuildingandassetdiversification. TheprofilesinTable7weresuggestedbyMercy

CorpsstaffforRAINprojectareas.

Table7.HouseholdsassetsinRAINprojectareas

Evenbeforeusingtheseprofilesformodeling,theypointedtosomebasicquestionsintermsofthe

objectivesofRAIN.Forexample,

Fordifferenttypesofhousehold,whichtypeofassetsspecifically isRAINtryingtoprotect

andwhy?

Fordestitutionhouseholds,doestheobjectiveofassetprotectionapplyifthesehouseholds

havesofewassetstostartwith?

Forthepurposeofillustration,aninitialmodelwasdevelopedforaSomalihouseholdof7

people,being2adultsand5children.Themodelsusedlivestockherddynamicsdata,dataonhuman

nutritionalrequirementsandenergycontentoffoods,anddatafromhouseholdeconomysurveys

ontheproportionalcontributionofdifferentfoodstohouseholddiets.Themodelsfocusedonasset

growthandseparatemodelsweredevelopedfortwodifferenttypesofhouseholdviz:

Destituteagropastoral

household,EastHararghe

Pooragropastoral

household,EastHararghe

Pooragropastoral

household,Gursum

Poorpastoralhousehold

Nograinstores

Nolivestock

Basichouseholditemse.g.cookingutensils,

bedding

Clothes

Qatinfieldsbutcropnotsuitableforsale

Land

Exhaustedsocialsupport

Childrenprobablynotgoingtoschool

23sheeporgoats

Perhaps1oxen

Nocash

Smallseedreserve


bedding

Clothes

Qat

in

fields

but

crop

notsuitableforsale

Land

Betterabilitytolabor

Bettersocialsupportnetworks

About5sheeporgoats

About2cattle

Nocerealsstored

Nocash

Qatinfieldsbutcropnotsuitableforsale


bedding

Clothes

Lessthan50sheeporgoats

Cattleownershiprare

Basichouseholditems

e.g.cookingutensils,

bedding

Clothes


10/22

8

Destitutepastoralisthouseholds withstartingpreprojectlivestockassetsof6sheep/goats.

Poorpastoralisthouseholdswithstartingpreprojectlivestockassetsof40sheep/goats,3cattleand3camels.

Foreachmodel,twocommonassumptionsweremade:

Allscenariosassumedadroughteveryfouryearswhichdepletedlivestockassetsby30%.

Allscenariosassumedfoodaidreceiptsof50kgmaize/hh/year.

Fivescenarios

were

developed

as

follows:

Fordestitutepastoralisthouseholdsthreemodelsweredeveloped:o onemodelassumingnoexternalassettransfer;o onemodelassumingcashtransferofUS$75(EB1030);o onemodelassuminglivestocktransfervaluedatUS$350(EB4795).

Forpoorpastoralisthouseholdstwomodelsweredeveloped:o onemodelassumingnoexternalassettransfer;o onemodelassumingcashtransferofUS$75(EB1030).

TheinitialmodelingresultsareshowninTable8.

Table8.ResultsfromsimpleeconomicmodelingofSomalipastoralisthouseholds

Typeofhouseholdandinput Scenarioresult Notes

Destitutepastoralist,pre

projectlivestockof6

sheep/goats.

1.Noexternalassettransfer

2.Oneoffcashtransferof

US$75


US$350(orlivestock

equivalent)

Poorpastoralisthouseholds,

preprojectlivestockof40

sheep/goats,3cattleand3

camels

1.Noexternalassettransfer


US$75

After5yearsthishouseholdwillhave

livestockassetsof~25sheepandgoats

only,wellbelowtheminimumherdsizefor

pastoralism.

After5yearsthishouseholdwillhave

livestockassetsofonly~39sheepand

goats,stillbelowtheminimumherdsizefor

pastoralism.

After2yearslivestockassetsare~60

sheepandgoats,and2cattle;thisisabove

minimumherdsize.

After3years,livestockassetsreach

middlewealthgroupcategory

After3years,livestockassetsreach

middlewealthgroupcategory

Thesehouseholdswillrelyheavilyonsocial

transfersandexternalassistancee.g.food

aid.

Thesehouseholdswillrelyheavilyonsocial

transfersandexternalassistancee.g.food

aid.

Asabove,assumes50kgmaizeasfoodaid

peryear.Transferisequivalenttothat

usedinmoresuccessfulrestocking

programs.


peryear.Removingthisfoodaidhas

limited

impact

on

asset

growth.


peryear.Removingthisfoodaidhas

limitedimpactonassetgrowth.


11/22

9

Notethat:

Fordestitutepastoralisthouseholds,initialtransfersofvalueapproximatelyUS$350plusfoodarerequirediftheyaretoacquireaminimumherdsizewithinatypicalprogramtime

period.

Forpoorhouseholdswhichalreadyownaminimumherd,lowcashtransfersofaroundUS$75havelimitedimpactonassetgrowth.

Thiskindofinformationreflectsthelessonsandchallengesfromrestockingprogramsin

pastoralistareas,fromthe1970sviz.foragivenbudgetisitbettertochannelrelativelyhigh

livestock(orcash)transferstoarelativelysmallnumberofhouseholds,or,providesmalltransfersto

alargenumberofhouseholds?

ExcelspreadsheetswiththebasicmodelwereprovidedtoMercyCorpsstaff,whostartedto

adaptthemodelsforagropastoralhouseholdsandtesttheimpactofdifferentlevelsofasset

transfer.Togetherwiththecasestudies,simplemodelingseemstobeausefulapproachtohelp

staffthinkthroughprojectstrategiesandforgivenlevelsofassettransfer,likelyimpactsondifferent

typesofhouseholdwithintheprojecttimeframe.

LinkingRAINtolongtermstrategicframeworksforpastoralistareas

Foragenciessupportingvariousprojectsinpastoralistareas,therearecoordinationandstrategic

issuesaroundthewaysinwhichprojectoutputscombine(ornot)toachievelongtermstrategic

developmentobjectives.InPLI,therehasbeeninitialdiscussionaroundtheuseofthelivelihoods

frameworkasatoolfordevelopingstrategicplanswithNGOpartners,andrelatedcapacitybuilding

options.InApril2010,MercyCorpssupportedacombinedlivelihoodsconflictanalysisinShinile

ZoneofSomaliRegion,leadingtoaproposedstrategicframeworkforthatarea3.Recentresearchin

Somaliareasalsoshowsthetrendstowardscommercialized pastoralismandtheimplicationsfor

developmentpolicies.4Insummary,commercialization isassociatedwithagradualtransferof

livestockfrompoorertoricherhouseholds,makingitincreasinglydifficultforpoorerherderswith

feweranimals,tostayinthesystem.

Withtheseissuesinmind,areviewofRAINassetprotection/building/diversification

objectives

and

strategies

could

take

note

of

the

main

trends

which

affect

livelihoods

in

Somali

Region,andtheconceptofmovingupandmovingout.Thosepeoplemovingupareabletoacquire

andmaintainlargeherds,arecharacterizedasmiddlewealthorwealthy,andincreasinglyengagein

commercialexportmarkets.Thosepeoplemovingoutaregraduallysellingouttobiggerherd

owners.Forthesepeoplethelivelihoodsoptionswillincludesomepotentialforemploymentand

serviceprovisionaroundthelivestocksector.Formanyothers,theoptionsarelimitedinpastoralist

areas,andthispartlyexplainsincreasingdestitutionandincreasingmigration.Onelineofargument

isthatsafetynetsandsimilarapproaches,withrelativelylowlevelsofassettransfer,mayencourage

poorerpeopletoremaininpastoralistsareas,whenlongterm,nonlivestockbasedeconomic

opportunitiesarelimited.

Abriefpresentationwasmadeontheseissues(Annex3)followedbydiscussionwithMercy

Corpsstaff.IssuesincludedtheRAINfocusinproductiveassets,implyingeconomic/financialassets,

whereasaskeystrategyfordiversificationinpastoralistareasisimprovingeducationi.e.aformof

humancapital.

3Catley,A.andIyasu,A.(2010),MovingUporMovingOut?ArapidlivelihoodsandconflictanalysisinMieso

MuluWoreda,ShinileZone,SomaliRegion,Ethiopia.MercyCorpsandFeinsteinInternational Center,Addis

Ababa(inpress)4Aklilu,Y.andCatley,A.(2009).LivestockExportsfromtheHornofAfrica:Ananalysisofbenefitsby

pastoralistwealthgroupandpolicyimplications.FeinsteinInternationalCenter,TuftsUniversity,AddisAbaba

https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Livestock+Exports+from+the+Horn+of+Africa


12/22

10

NRMactivitiesandimpact

ThispartoftheworkshopusedaselectionofthreeRAINNRMactivities,withdiscussionon

proposedindicatorsforassessingtheimpactoftheseactivities.Theactivitiesandproposed

indicatorsfromMercyCropswereasfollows:

Pondrehabilitation

Gulley

rehabilitation

Bush

(Prosopis

clearing)

Increasedaccesstowater

- Distancetoclosestwaterpoint

- Lengthoftimeduringwhichwatercanbeaccessed

- Numberofanimalsusingwaterpoint

- Changeinexpenditureforwater

Improvedsanitationnumberof

peopleusingcleanwater

Cashtransfers

Reducedrateoflandloss

- Increasedarablelandforagricultureandgrazing

- Increasedpotentialinfoodselfsufficiencyorincome

generated

Reducedriskofflooddamage(if

overallwatermanagementconsidered

indesign)

Output/outcome:

Improvedrangelandcondition

Improvedaccesstograzing

Impact:

Improvedhouseholdfoodsecurity

(contributeto)

Couldbemeasuredby:

- Numberofhouseholdswhohavegotaccesstoimproved

grazing

- Bodyconditionofanimals

Somegeneralissuesarisingfromtheseindicatorswereasfollows:

Causalpathwaysanddefiningwhereimpactshouldhappen

Who,specifically,issupposedtobenefit?RAINobjectivesrefertofoodinsecurehouseholds,but

thiscouldbemoreclearlydefined.Foodeconomysurveysdefinepoor,andinsomecases,destitute

households,eachwithdifferentlevelsofassets.Isitthesehouseholdswhomightbenefitfromthe

NRMinputsandifso,how?Dothepotentialbenefitsvarydependingonwhetherahouseholdis

poorordestitute?Inotherwords,foreachtypeoftargethouseholdinagivenarea,whatisthe

causalpathwaybetweentherepairorcreationofastructure,andspecificlivelihoodsimpactsat

householdlevel?

Meaningfulindicators

Quantitativeindicatorsneedbothanumeratoranddenominator.Anindicatorsuchas1000people

accesscleanwaterispotentiallymisleadingifthenumberofpeoplewhoneedcleanwateris,forexample,20,000.Abetterindicatorwouldbe50%ofhouseholdswithin5kmofcleanwatersource.

Targets

Targetsareuseful.Ifanindicatorisintendedtomeasureachange,thedegreeofchangecanbe

specifiede.g.cleanwateravailabilityimprovedfrom8months/yearsto11months/year.Thetarget

hereis11monthsofavailability.

Language

Avoidtermsinindicatorswhicharedifficulttodefineormeasuree.g.whatdothefollowingterms

means:improvedgrazing,increasedpotential,reducedrisk?

Methods

ManyindicatorsforNRMactivitiescanbedefinedandmeasuredusingparticipatorymapping.

Wheremaphavealreadybeenproducede.g.forplanningpurposes,thesamemapsmaycontain

usefulbaselineinformation.

Managementandaccess

AnimportantaspectofNRMactivitiesisthelongtermmanagementofneworrepairedstructures.

Thisisreflectedintheapparentneedforexternalsupporttorepairorrehabilitatesomestructures.

Therearealsoissuesaroundwho,specifically,canaccesswater,improvedgrazingorlandfor


13/22

11

cultivation.Cantheseresourcesbeusedbypoorerhouseholdsandifnot,whynot?Whatarethe

risksofappropriationofresourcesbywealthierormoreinfluentialpeople?IffollowsthatNRM

activitiesshouldincludeasetofindicatorsaroundlocalmanagementcapacitiesandsystems.

Whatifitrains?

Ifstructuresareintendedtoimproveaccesstowaterorgrazingduringdryperiodsordrought,they

mightnot

be

used

ifyears

of

good

rainfall.

If

so,

it

becomes

more

difficult

to

assess

impact.

This

is

relevanttoRAINbecause2010inparticularislikelytobeayearofhighrainfallinmuchofSomali

Region.

Inpart,usefulindicatorscanflownaturallyfromwelldefinedprojectobjectivesand/orsub

objectives.Theprojectobjectivesarediscussedinthefollowingsection.

RevisitingtheRAINobjectives

Aprojectdocumentshoulddescribealogicalflowofactivitiestoobjectives.Toolssuchaslogframes

and/ortheuseofSMARTobjectives5helptoensurethatthetechnicalandprogramminglogicofa

projectisclear.Forprojectworkingindifferentareaswithdifferentsocioeconomiccharacteristics

(or

livelihoods

zones),

the

project

document

should

also

specify

how

activities

and

strategies

vary

by

area.Itisalsoimportanttodefinetargetgroups,andtodothisasspecificallyaspossible.

TheRAINprojectdocumenthastwoobjectives:

1. Foodinsecurehouseholdsprotecttheiragriculturalandpastoralproductiveassetbaseandpreparethemselvesforparticipationinmoreprofitablemarkets(budgetUS$5.1million).

2. Foodinsecurehouseholdsincreaseanddiversifytheirassetbaseviaimmediateeconomicopportunitiesandthedevelopmentofhighimpactagricultureandnonagriculturalmarkets

thatspurprivatesectorinvestmentandlocaleconomicgrowth(budgetUS$11.9million).

NeitheroftheseobjectivesareSMART.However,itseemsthatinOFDAproposalsobjectivesare

sometimesbroadlywrittenbecauseachangeofobjectivesrequiresOFDAapproval,whichtakes

time.ItfollowsthatoneapproachtoclarifyingRAINwouldtodevelopSMARTsubobjectives.

Optionsinclude:

- Replacethetermfoodinsecurewithamorespecificdescriptionoftargethouseholdsintermsofthewealthofthehouseholds(e.g.poor,destitute),thelivelihoodsystem(e.g.

agropastoral,pastoral),andthephysicallocation.Thisapproachimmediatelyhelpstofocus

attentiononspecifictypesofhouseholdinspecificareas;alsoseethehouseholdprofilesin

Table7.

- SubobjectivesunderObjective1,o Considerthemeaningsandmeasurementoftermslikeprepare,participationand

moreprofitable.What,specifically,dothesetermsmeanandhowmighttheybe

measured?Iftermsarevagueordifficulttomeasure,theyshouldbereplacedwith

termswhichareeasiertodefineandmeasure;o Becarefultorelateassetprotectiontohouseholdtype;destitutehouseholdsmay

havenoproductiveassetstoprotectandifso,doestheobjectiveapplytothese

households?

- SubobjectivesunderObjective2,o Increasesin,anddiversificationofassetsneedtobedefinedbytargetsand

quantifiedmeasures,again,byhouseholdtypeandarea;

5SMARTSpecific,Measurable,Achievable,Realistic,Timebound.


14/22

12

o IsthedevelopmentofhighimpactagricultureachievableduringthethreeyearsofRAINandifsowhere,specifically? itseemsnottoapplytopastoralistareas;

o Arenonagriculturalmarketsrelevanttopastoralistareas,giventhemajorroleoflivestockinpastoraleconomies?

o Whatisthemeaningofspurprivatesectorinvestmentandhowwillthisbemeasured?privatesectorinvestmentinwhat,specifically?

o Howis

local

economic

growth

defined

on

an

area

or

household

basis?

If

an

area

basisisused,itimpliesinclusionofallhouseholds,includingthewealthy.Ifso,a

projectwhichtargetsthewealthymayachievelocaleconomicgrowthwhilemaking

thepoorpoorer.

HavingreviewedtheRAINobjectivesagainstSMARTcriteria,thereseemedtobecommon

agreementthatRAINneedssubstantial,perhapsevencourageous,reshapingandfocusingifasset

protectionandassetbuildingobjectivesaretobereached.Eventhen,theseobjectivesarelikelyto

beachievedinfarfewerhouseholdsthandescribedintheprojectdocument.Sofar,RAINstaffhave

workedtoadjustsomeoftheactivities.However,higherlevelchangesattheObjective/Sub

objectivelevelareneededtorationalizetheproject.Revisedactivitiescanthenevolvefromthe

revisedobjectives.

Findingsandrecommendations

Projectdesignandstrategies

Attheoveralllevelofprojectdesign,generalimplementation strategies,andM&Eneeds,MercyCorpsstaffhadalreadystartedtoreviewandreshapespecificRAINactivitiesandquestionthe

likelyimpactofCFWandNRMactivities.However,giventhecomplexityofRAINandtheproject

budget,aradicalreworkingandclarification ofprojectobjectivesisneeded.Subobjectivesare

neededwhichareSMARTviz.Specific,Measurable,Achievable,RealisticandTimebound.

Revisedactivitiesshouldfitclearlyunder,anddirectlycontributetotheobjectives.Atpresent

theRAINprojectdocumentlacksaclearcausalpathway,fromactivitiestoobjectivestoimpact,

andseemsnottofullydifferentiatestrategiesoractivitiesaccordingtothecharacteristicsof

different

households,

in

different

areas.

There

seemed

to

be

common

agreement

in

the

workshopwithMercyCorpsthatthesechangeswereneeded.

Initscurrentform,RAINprovidesoneoffcashtransferswhicharelikelytobeveryshortlivedintermsofimpact,asthecashisprobablyusedmainlytomeetimmediatefoodneeds.Therefore,

whileRAINmightbecontributingtoatypical(butunstated)humanitarian/foodsecurity

objective,impactonthemoredevelopmentorientatedobjectivesofassetprotection,asset

buildingandlivelihoodsdiversificationisunlikely.Intermsofassetprotection,thisobjectivehas

tobetailoredtothepreexistingassetsofhouseholdsanddoesnotapplyeasilytohouseholds

whichhavenoproductiveassetstoprotect.

AtthelevelofCFWactivities,thereviewshowedaneedtorevisetheseactivitiesifassetbuildingobjectivesaretobeachievedwithinthetimeframeoftheproject.RelativetoRAIN,past

andreasonablysuccessfulassettransferapproachesinSomaliareashavechanneledfargreater

resources

to

fewer

households,

or,

have

expected

impact

to

last

for

only

two

months

or

less.

SimpleeconomicmodelingshouldhelpMercyCorpstoreshapeCFWapproaches,andtailor

differentapproachestodifferenttypesofdestituteand/orpooragropastoralandpastoral

households.Theseapproachesneedtobeclearlydefinedandjustified.Therewaswidevariation

inthelevelofcashtransferswithinprojectareas. RAINiscurrentlyhasaverycomplexdesign,

whereasthedifficultoperationalcontextofSomaliRegioncallsforsimplicityandfocus.

FortheNRMrelatedactivities,approachessuchaspondandgullyrehabilitation,checkdamconstruction,terracingandsoilbundshavebeenusedinSomaliandpartsofOromiyaregionsfor

manyyears.Forexample,theseapproacheswerewidelyusedbytheSouthEastRangelands


15/22

13

ProjectinSomaliRegion.ForRAINNRMactivities,potentialimpactsarecurrentlyoutlinedat

communitylevelandarenotspecifictodestituteorpoorhouseholdsi.e.themostvulnerable

groups.Questionstolookatinclude:How,specifically,willdestituteorpoorhouseholdsbenefit

fromthesestructures?Giventherepeatedneedforrepairorrehabilitation,whatlocal

managementsystemscanbesupportedtoensurethelongtermmaintenanceofthestructures?

Whichstructuresaresusceptibletoprivateownershipwithpossibleexclusionofpoorerusers?Is

privateownership

necessarily

abad

thing?

Similar

questions

apply

to

bush

clearing

(Prosopis

control),giventherapidreinvasionofclearedareas.Impactassessmentoftheseactivitiesis

likelytobehinderedbythegoodrainfallin2010andthelikelihoodthatRAINrelatedwater

pointsorgrazingareasmightnotbeusedifthereisamplegroundwateravailableorgood

grazingelsewhere.

ThereviewdidnotlookatissuessuchastheeffectivenessorrelevanceofCFWcomparedwith,forexample,directcashdistributions(withoutwork)orfooddistributions.Whiledifferent

approachesarelikelytoresultindifferentimpactsandacceptancewithincommunities,there

arealsoquestionsabouttheorganizationalcostsandefficienciesoftransfers,including

operationalandtransactioncosts.Forexample,inthecaseofRAINtheCFWapproachrequires

agenciestoplan,supportandmonitorthetiedNRMactivities,andatacost.Atsomepoint,an

evaluationofRAINshouldassessthedeliverycostsofdifferentassettransferapproaches.

Long

term,

the

administrative

and

operational

costs

of

international

NGOs

are

likely

to

far

exceedthoseofsomeotherserviceproviders.

RAINisbutoneprojectamongmany,anditsobjectivesandstrategiesshouldfitwithinabroader,longtermMercyCorpsframeworkfordevelopmentinpastoralistareas.Thereview

touchedonsomeoftheissues.Asahighlivestockexportarea,Somaliregionandneighboring

Somaliareasaresubjecttolongtermbutgradualcommercialization.Thisisreflectedinthe

robustnatureoftheexporttradeandsimultaneously,risinglevelsofdestitution.As

commercialization advances,herdsarelikelytoincreaseandpoorerherderswillstruggletostay

inpastoralism. Ifcorrect,thesetrendshavemajorimplicationsforSomaliareasand

developmentpolicy,andthestrategicdirectionsofRAIN.

Implicationsofchange

Mercy

Corps

staff

expressed

concerns

over

donor

expectations,

and

pressure

to

maximize

the

numberofprojectbeneficiariesinRAIN.Despitetheseconcerns,asahumanitariandonorOFDA

maywanttorevisittheconceptofachievingdevelopmentobjectivesviaassettransferswhich

arespreadwidelybutthinly,andwhichareoneofftransfers.ShouldOFDAsupportaradical

reshapingoftheCFWcomponentofRAIN,itmaybeacceptabletousedifferentapproachesin

similarlivelihoodszones,andcompareimpacts.ThismightinvolveacontinuationoftheCFWin

someareasasis,butpilotingmoreintensivetransferstofewerhouseholdsinotherareas.

ByusingaCFWapproachinRAIN,MercyCorpshasbecomeengagedindebatesandnegotiations

inandaroundtheProductiveSafetyNetProgramme,especiallyonwagerates.Initscurrent

forminpastoralistareas,theCFWapproachisprobablycontributingtoashorttermfood

securityneedsforsomehouseholdsbuthavinglimitedimpactonassetgrowth.Thisinitself

mightbe

alesson

to

feed

into

the

PSNP

and

wage

rate

discussions.

In

the

face

of

the

next

shock

ordrought,householdsarestilllikelytodepleteassetsrapidlyandrequireassistance.The

economic modelingtooldevelopedaspartofthisreviewmightbefurtherdevelopedandused

withgovernmentpartnerstopredicttheimpactsofcashand/orfoodtransfers,andthelevels

anddurationoftransferneededtoachievemeaningfulassetbuildingobjectives.


16/22

14

Annex1.MercyCorpsparticipantsatreviewworkshop,AddisAbaba,28

to29July2010

TalewDheresa

EmmaProud

JeffShannon

AbdinasirMohamed

AhmedOsman

TsegayeHagos

FasilDemeke

MarkDwyer

RettaAklilu

FacilitatorAndyCatley,TuftsUniversity


17/22

15

Annex2.Casestudiesofpreviouscashdistributionandrestockingprojects

Isiolo, Kenya Case Study for Review of the Mercy Corps RAIN ProjectJuly 2010

Read the case study below, from a pastoralist area of northern Kenya. Note the similarities between the objectives of the Kenya project and RAIN in terms

of building assets and alternative/diversified livelihoods. Note the level of cash transfer per pastoralist household, at ~US$490/hh; this is

equivalent to ~Eth birr 6713 using exchange rates in July 2010. Note the modest food security impacts after seven months. What questions might this raise in terms of the design of RAIN and options for

reshaping strategies and design?

Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standardshttp://www.livestock-emergency.net

Case Study 9.1: Herd reconstitution using cash transfers, Kenya

IsioloDistrict

in

Kenyas

Eastern

Province

suffered

from

asevere

drought

in

2005

that

resulted

in

high

livestock

deathsandelevatedacutemalnutrition ratesamonginfants.FollowingimprovedlongrainsinApril/May2006,

SavetheChildrenCanadaprovided750householdsin22communitieswithaoneoffcashtransferofKSh

30,000(approx.US$490;thisisequivalentto~Ethbirr6713usingexchangerateinJuly2010).Thecashwas

intendedtoassistfamiliestoreconstitutetheirherdswithanimalsoftheirchoiceortoinvestinalternative

productiveuses,andalsotohavesomecashtomeetpressingimmediateneeds.

Onaverage,livestockpricesatlocalmarketsdidnotchangesignificantly asaresultofthecash

distribution, althoughsellersdidattempttochargeexorbitantpricesbecauseofthesuddenincreasein

demand.Beneficiariesadoptedavarietyofmethodsfordealingwiththisattemptedinflation,including

purchasingasgroupswitharepresentative,travellingtomoredistantmarkets,anddelayingtheirpurchases.

Anevaluationwascarriedoutsevenmonthsafterthedistribution,whichfoundthatrecipients

appreciatedthecashbasedinterventionbecauseitgavethemthechoicetopurchasethespecificanimalsof

theirchoiceandexertmorequalitycontrolthanispossiblewithinkindrestocking.Italsoallowedrecipientsto

spendsome

of

the

cash

on

other

needs.

In

total,

85%

of

the

cash

was

spent

on

livestock

mainly

goats,

sheep

andcattle,withsomedonkeys.Theremaining15%wassplitbetweenitemssuchasshelterconstruction,

investinginbusiness/petty trade,debtrepayments,veterinarycare,healthcare,educationandfood.Childrens

attendanceatschool,especiallyforgirlsandatthesecondarylevel,hasincreasedfortherecipientscompared

tononrecipients.

Theprogrammetargetedonly11%ofallhouseholds,andhenceclearlydidnotreachallofthosein

need.However,thiswaslinkedtotheavailability offunding,anditwasagreedthatitwasbettertoprovide

largeramountsofcashtoasmallernumberofpeoplethantospreadtheavailablemoneymorethinlyacross

allthoseinneed.

Sevenmonthsafterthecashdistribution,theimpactonfoodsecurityhasbeenmodest.Recipients

haveimprovedthediversityoftheirdiet,especiallybecauseofincreasedaccesstomilk;howevertheirreliance

onfoodaidhasnotbeensignificantlyreduced.Basedonherdgrowthinthefirst57months(+3%forcattle,+

16%forgoatsand+25%forsheep),ithasbeenestimatedthatherdsshouldbelargeenoughtoensurefood

securitywithin2years,whichissubstantially fasterthaniftherehadbeennointervention. However,thefinal

impactoftheprogrammewillonlybeclearinthelongertermandinparticularduringthenextdroughtwhen

thebeneficiaryhouseholdsresiliencewillbeputtothetest.

Sources:CashbasedEmergencyLivelihoodRecoveryProgramme,IsioloDistrict,KenyaProjectEvaluation

draftreport,byMichaelODonnell,SavetheChildren,May2007

InitialImpactAssessmentoftheLivelihoodsProgrammeinMertiandSerichobyMatthewCroucher,Victor

Karanja, RukiaWako,AbdikadirDokataandJilloDima.SavetheChildren,2006


18/22

16

Fik Case Study for Review of the Mercy Corps RAIN ProjectJuly 2010

Read the case study below, from Fik in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. Note the similarities between the objectives of the Fik project and RAIN in terms of

building assets.

In the case study note the level of asset transfer per household. Note the recommendations of the evaluation in terms of increasing the value of the

initial asset transfer to 50-70 sheep and goats, while also providing food for at leastsix months.

What questions might this raise in terms of the design of RAIN and options forreshaping strategies and design?

_________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Restocking in Fik, Somali Region, Ethiopia

Aoneyearproject,implementedbetweenMarch2002andAugust2003.

Objectiveofreintegrating500vulnerableIDPsinFikZoneintotheirhomecommunitiesthroughimprovedcapacitytobuildassetsforapastorallife.

Theproject

was

funded

and

implemented

by

SCUK,

in

collaboration

with

other

stakeholders,

notably

governmentpartners,CRDAandUNICEF.

Thepackagecomprised30smallstock,1donkey,1plasticsheet,1blanket,250kgofmaizeandprovisionofanimalhealthservicesthroughthetrainingof10animalhealthworkers.Thecostofthe

projectwasEthbirr2.2million,or~Ethbirr4400(US$321)perhousehold.

Theprojectwasimplementedin11sitesinFikZone,basedonadetailedparticipatoryscopingstudyundertakeninearly2002.

Someresults:

Thecontribution oflivestocktofoodsourcesrosefrom2%beforerestockingto40%afterrestocking.Atthesametimefoodreliefdroppedfrom50%beforerestockingto7%afterrestocking.Thismeans

thatlivestockandbyproductshadeffectivelyreplacedfoodreliefasasourceoffood,signifying

increasedselfrelianceandimprovedhouseholdfoodsecurity.

Ofthose

beneficiaries

interviewed,

atotal

of

75%

(38

out

of

51)

of

restocked

IDP

households

claim

to

havemovedoutofIDPcampsandgonebacktoapastorallifestyle,oneandahalfyearsaftertheend

oftheproject(thatis2.5yearsaftertheprojectstarted).

Mostrestockedhouseholdspointedoutthatfoodaidisveryimportantbutitdoesnotreproducelikelivestock.Livestock isabetterfoodsourcebecause itbuildsupduringthegoodyearsandgives the

familysomedignityandrespectfromothercommunitymembers.

Lessons:

Fromthisproject,thelessonisthattherestockingpackagewasusefulbuttoosmallandshouldcompriseof

thefollowing:

Atleast5070sheepandgoatsinpreferredproportionsandrightageforimmediatebreeding

Anadequatefoodrationcomprisingofcereals,oil,sugarandtealeavesforaperiodofatleastsixmonths

Provisionof

adequate

veterinary

services

by

trained

CAHWs

and

basic

animal

health

knowledge

and

skillstobegiventobeneficiaryhouseholds.

Note that increasing the package to5070 sheepand goats/hh would increase the value of the initial asset

transferto~Ethbirr7500/hh(US$547).

Source

Wekesa,M.(2005).Terminalevaluationoftherestocking/rehabilitationprogrammefortheinternally

displacedpersons(IDPs)inFikZoneoftheSomaliRegionofEthiopia.SavetheChildrenUK,AddisAbabaand

AcaciaConsultants,Nairobi


19/22

17

Wajir-Mandera IrbCase Study for Review of the Mercy Corps RAIN ProjectJuly 2010

Read the case study below, from Somali areas of northern Kenya. In the case study note the level of asset transfer per household. What questions might this raise in terms of the design of RAIN and options for

reshaping strategies and design?_________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Using traditional Somali restocking to assist asset building in Kenya ImplementedbyNORDAafterdrought;aimedtobetweenMarch2002andAugust2003.

400poorpastoralisthouseholdstargeted.

Beneficiariesalreadyowned5to10sheepandgoats,and23cattleorcamels;theprojectprovidedanadditional15sheepandgoatsand1donkeyperhousehold;throughthetraditionalirbsystem,the

communityprovidedanadditional5sheepandgoatsperhouseholdi.e.thetotalassettransferwas

20shoatsand1donkeyperhousehold.

Someresults:

Anevaluationwasconducted1.5yearsafterhouseholdshadbeenrestocked.

Mostof

the

surveyed

beneficiary

families

had

attained

the

minimum

survival

flock/herd

size

of

40

shoats.

Diseaseswereamajorthreattoherdgrowth.CommondiseasesincludedFever(Qano/Tuya)andCCPP(Ferefekle/Riwein).

Therestockingsignificantlycontributedtoreductionindependenceonothersourcesoffoodfrom84.1%to57.9%andincreasedaccesstofoodthroughlivestockfrom15.9%to42.1%.

Dependenceonothersourcesofincomedroppedfrom91.3%to60.3%andthiswascompensatedbyincreasedrelianceonincomefromsaleoflivestockandlivestockproductsfrom8.7%to39.7%.

Thesurveyedbeneficiaryfamilieshadsubstantiallyreestablishedthemselvesaspastoralistsalbeitfromasmallrestockingpackage.

Thebeneficiaryfamilieswerenotonlyaffordedthechancetoreturntopastorallifestylebutalsotheopportunitytoreuniteandstrengthensocialtieswithfamilymemberstheyseparatedfromduring

drought.

The

willingness

of

the

community

to

contribute

for

and

support

beneficiary

families

was

widely

and

hugelyunreserved.

Sourcesoffood

beforeand

afterrestocking

Source

Lotira,R.(2004).Rebuildingherdsbyreenforcinggargar/irbamongtheSomalipastoralistsofKenya:

evaluationofexperimental restockingprograminWajirandManderaDistrictsofKenya.African

Union/Interafrican BureauforAnimalResources,NairobiandFeinsteinInternational Center,TuftsUniversity,

Nairobi

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Sellinglivestock

Meat Milk Relief Remittances Wild products,Casual

labour, $

business

Others

Sources of food

Population(%) Before

After


20/22

18

Sool Cash Relief Case Study for Review of the Mercy Corps RAIN ProjectJuly 2010

Read the case study below, from areas neighbouring Somali Region of Ethiopia. In the case study note the level of asset transfer per household and compare to the

average incomes received by beneficiary households under RAIN.

Note the duration of the impact/benefits provided by the Horn Relief programme. What questions might this raise in terms of the design of RAIN and options for

reshaping strategies and design?_________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Cash relief program in Sool and Sanaag regions, Somalia/land

ImplementedbyHornReliefduringdrought,December2003toMarch2004.

13,380pastoralisthouseholdstargeted;cashgrantofUS$50perhousehold.

Foodwasavailableinlocalmarkets,butlimitedpurchasingpowerofhouseholds.

TheobjectivewasIncreasethepurchasingpowerofvulnerablepopulationstomeetfoodandessentialnonfoodneedswiththeprovisionofaonetimegrantofUS$50. Thisgrantisequivalentto

Ethbirr685usingexchangeratesinJuly2010.

Theimpact

of

the

transfer

was

expected

to

be

time

limited,

to

about

1.5

to

2months.

Targetingwasbasedoncriteriaforexcludinghouseholds,beingthosewithmorethan60sheepandgoats,andownershipofassetssuchasberkadsorwatertanks.

Someevaluationresults:

97%ofbeneficiariesmetthetargetingcriteria.

Mainusesofthecashgrantweremeetingneedsinfoodandwater,healthanddebtrepayment.

Althoughthebenefitswereviewedassubstantialintermsoffoodsecurity,thesebenefitswereestimatedtohavelastedonly1monthalargercashgrantwouldhavebeenneededtoextendthe

benefits.

Impactsonlocalmarketsandbusinesseswerepositive,butagain,shortlived.

SourcesAcaciaConsultantsLtd.(2004).EvaluationofcashreliefprogrammeimplementedbyHornRelief,

commissionedbyNOVIB/OxfamNetherlands.AcaciaConsultants,Nairobi

Ali,D.,Toure,F.andKiewied,T.(2005).Cashreliefinacontestedarea:LessonsfromSomalia.Humanitarian

PracticeNetworkPaper50,OverseasDevelopmentInstitute,London.


21/22

19

Annex3.Trendsinhighexportpastoralistareas:linkingRAINstrategiestobroader

developmentstrategies


22/22

20

Documents

Tufts - Rapid Review of RAIN Project