The RLS Mandala provides merely a lens through which the people's livelihoods of Kanakanala Watershed were assessed, after three weeks in the field. The other approaches were used to assess home-shopping and MUNJAVU's other interventions. Of course, one month is too short for a newcomer in the field of social sciences to provide a full livelihood assessment. The authors' understanding of livelihood research changed drastically once the world of the villagers was entered. On one hand it started to make immense sense to work where SAMUHA works, while on the other hand it was realized how difficult it is to plan and implement a livelihood intervention. In villages without proper infrastructure like toilets, water, roads and houses and even without food security, a livelihood intervention asks for basic livelihood security first. Where was that security? The boundary between (immediate) relief and (long-term) development blurred.
If any findings of this report stimulate a debate, then the aims are met. However, the study objectives are repeated here, with answers, remarks and more open questions. If these conclusions sound very critical, they are not meant to discredit MUNJAVU/SAMUHA's efforts. This organisation does admirable efforts, and they are open enough to listen to criticism. Opinions on relation & dimension of poverty reduction (individual, household, village, watershed, state, country…) may vary, but SAMUHA definitely improves the lives of many people in Kanakanala watershed. These efforts and achievements are acknowledged here! The organisation is an important bridge between the people of the area and the larger structures and policies surrounding and influencing them (Government, environment, economy, rich urban society).

Which forces and factors shape a livelihood household strategy in the Kanakanala watershed?
The assumption that the overriding concern of farmers or rural inhabitants is assuring sustainable livelihood, and not necessarily sustainable use of resources, may be correct. But still, often farmers are left with no other options than applying strategies which are short-term oriented in order to meet their household needs. And this often results in unsustainable approaches. The farmers will be the first to change that for the better, if there is any possibility to do so. Intra- or inter-village conflicts or a conflicting attitude between farmers and development organisation are on the increase. The groundwater issue is a classical example of a "tragedy of the commons" where an "open-access regime" brings short-term benefit to few and disaster for all in the long term. Only information dissemination and a regime involving all stakeholders can bring relief.

In any case, there is no way to deliver answers in such a quick assessment. But hopefully some cases, stories, portraits and issues were brought out, which help the field staff to focus on what we don't know. It is considered an absolute necessity to keep searching for answers to this fundamental question. Unfortunately the field teams find very little space and time to work on that process driven, learning oriented line. Mostly, the NGO's are forced to work target-driven: SDC/IC and PSMU put quite some pressure on monitoring issues: Meet deadlines, produce reports (action plans, progress reports, meeting minutes), hold meetings (JPR etc.). The good intentions not to be target driven can be undermined by a too demanding monitoring and compliance system, which does not promote self-reflection, self-evaluation and debates enough. If space and time for more exchange of views and debates were allowed, inside the partners and between the partners, there could be more room for learnings, and thus room to take steps backwards, if it is felt the course of action is not going in a satisfactory way. In CARE's livelihood paper the aim to become a true learning organization is pointed out:

How can the project partners improve the livelihood intervention in order to achieve more sustainable livelihood systems?
The SWOT analysis in the previous chapter gives some recommendations on home-shopping. The participants of home-shopping are benefiting, there is no doubt. And the field observations confirmed that the women involved increase not only their income, but also their knowledge and skills, their self-awareness and self-consciousness. Thus one of the aims of home-shopping is met, but looking carefully who these women are, reveals that these outspoken, dynamic women would probably manage to move upwards on a social and economic scale without MUNJAVU's support. There are other women who are in more desperate need of support. These have to be identified first of all!

Assessing the interventions / livelihood approaches from an angle of poverty reduction: How can the marginalized groups be identified and encouraged to participate in such livelihood interventions?
Once the author sat in the most remote hamlets, talking to the most marginalized women it became clear how difficult it is to organize such women. Even more difficult it is to design an intervention where they could take part. Generally the inner realities of these people were as troubled as their economic situation. Some will not speak at all. The poorer they were, the more social and physical problems were met with (domestic violence, alcohol etc.). The author has no answer to "how they could be involved". Home-shopping embedded in SAMUHA's strategy as a whole seems an interesting intervention after all, and the next phases of the intervention will show whether the attempts to include more local women in the scheme proves profitable even for marginalized women. At the same time, identifying the vulnerable groups and quantifying them in defined categories would be a helpful exercise for any future or ongoing livelihood intervention. This challenge is considered most important to have real impacts on poverty reduction as the author understands it, and a debate on this issue should be started on all fronts in ISPWDK. [KAWAD has documented their experiences in this regard in various publications, see reference list]

Which reason / logic prevents women / men from becoming SHG members?
The obvious reasons stated by all interviewed were economical ("how can we save, we do not even find labour!") and migration-related ("how can we attend meetings?") or a lack of awareness ("we don't know what they do. How should we know?"). In order to dig deeper into these reasons, some more research would be necessary. In group interviews it was not possible to look into household and family dynamics of non SHG women. MUNJAVU could keep the issue in mind and maybe there will be an opportunity to focus more on this important matter. This report hopefully outlines the tools, how such assessments could be attempted. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercises were done in the past too and have not delivered any solid answers either, as it seems. Besides, would a more important aim than including more women in SHG not be to involve the existing SHG's more in village development? As to what prevents men, some claimed they were simply never asked, and it seems MUNJAVU does not consider men SHG's an option.

Which reasons prevents women / men from participating in the livelihood activities?
First of all, the dynamics of exclusion are not properly assessed in this study, thus answers here would be in the wrong place. But some issues arose nevertheless: Are there even enough opportunities to promote a diversity of activities? How many women can actually be included in an intervention? There is a limit of every activity, per small village there can only be one tailor, one carpenter, one blacksmith, one tea stall etc. The remotest villages find it difficult to sustain any activity at all. Thus is micro-enterprise promotion a viable strategy to include the most marginalized in these areas under given circumstances? What would have to change in order to become that? In this regard, the context of people's livelihoods, as explained best in DFID's or CARE's livelihood models, (policies, structures, institutions, infrastructure etc) probably has to change. There are simply limits of small enterprise development.

Other than that, all the participating women were found to be very active and dynamic. After talking to various women taking up other livelihood activities on their own (tea stall, Kirani shop, bangles business, laundry etc.) a simple truth became obvious: Shy, quiet women with low degree of freedom in their houses and with low decision-making power never venture into any new activities which might be risky or demanding and require support from their families. Thus not only a lack of money, but also a lack of support, power and self-confidence is crucial in who comes forward and who stays back. This may sound simple, and most claim of knowing this already, but curiously the answer did not come from NGO staff or village women. To derive a direct strategy or livelihood intervention from this is impossible, but indirectly women's education, empowerment and capacity building in any regard changes this situation slowly but surely.

ISPWDK does not implement a livelihood approach as such, only a livelihood intervention with the aim to generate income. The differences between these two are outlined in the previous Chapter 7. The BASIX mandate covers support for this intervention. They assist SAMUHA in setting up the best possible design and give support on technical and financial issues. The BASIX livelihoods definition does mention sustainable livelihoods as their aim. But in the current intervention this outcome is assumed: how that happens is not defined in their work with ISPWDK. BASIX does not present itself as an organisation using a livelihood approach with all the social aspects. They assume the NGO's and agencies they work with have this "social" competence themselves. Thus BASIX fulfills their mandate, their inputs are solid and professional. However, ISPWDK can not expect that these interventions reach the marginalized. Such an approach should be defined and planned on a project level, and capacity of staff should be built before any intervention. The experience of other agencies shows that a successful intervention only grows once the staff is fully aware of the livelihoods approach. Poverty, marginalization, livelihoods, livelihoods strategies etc. are terms which have to be defined and understood thoroughly. "Watershed Development" and "Livelihood Approach" are two different pairs of shoes. It was ambitious to reconcile the aims of the two in one project. Nevertheless it was worth the effort. Any future activity will definitely take the issues raised during phase II of ISPWDK into consideration. The debates are in full swing at the moment, thus it was an exciting project stage to be involved in!

Next>>