Methodology Baseline

7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline

1/43

Methodologies for Conductin

a Livelihoods Baseline Study

Experiences from the Design and

Implementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

Livelihoods and

Forestry Programme, Nepal


2/43

The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme aims to contribute towards reducing the vulnerability

of poor rural people by improving their l ivelihoods. It enhances the assets of rural communit ies

by promoting more equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of forest resources.

Although LFP uses forestry as a vehicle to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor, we also seek

ways in which to help address broader issues such as health and education. We encourage linkages

between agencies and forest user groups and facilitate user groups to mobilise their own resources

to respond to the broader livelihood concerns of their members. This broader perspective is

especially important if we are to build the capability of the rural poor and socially excluded peopleto utilise the potential benefits offered by forestry.

This ten-year DFID programme started in April 2001 and operates in the following Hill, Terai,

and Inner Terai districts: Dhankuta, Terhathum, Sankhuwasabha, and Bhojpur in the eastern Koshi

hills; Baglung, Parbat, and Myagdi in the western Dhaulagiri zone; Nawalparasi, Kapilvastu, and

Rupandehi in the Terai Lumbini zone; and Rukum, Rolpa, Salyan, Pyuthan, and Dang in the

Mid-western Rapti zone.

At the district level, LFP encourages Community Forest User Groups to move from passive to

active management of their forest resources and assists poor, marginalised, and women CFUG

members to assert their rights and improve group equity.

In the Terai, LFP facilitates the development of District Forest Plans and focuses on increasing the

forest sectors contribution to poverty reduction within the districts. LFP aims to mainstream

equity issues into all programmes through social mobilisation and part icipation. Local people are

both the beneficiaries and the main implementers of the programmes.

LFP works to develop an environment that enables effective forest management whatever the type

of forest ownership. Although community forestry has brought many benefi ts to the poor, the

enormous potential of the state-owned forests in the Terai is still not being realised under the

current management systems. LFP is examining the potential of promoting lease-hold forestry

for marginalised groups and possibly collaborative forest management. Likewise, high altitudeforests have significant potential for valuable non-timber forest products and medicinal and aromatic

plants.

LFP promotes national and district enabling environments for more effective forestry. It encourages

the government and other stakeholders to move towards a sector-wide approach in which all

significant funding would support a common government policy, methodology, and funding

procedure. This is necessary to support improvements at the national policy level.

Improving the livelihoods of poor rural people by promoti ng equi table

and sustainable use of forest resources

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme


3/43

Methodologies for Conducting

a Livelihoods Baseline Study

Dinesh K. Uprety

Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4

Experiences from the Design and

Implementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

Livelihoods andForestry Programme, Nepal


4/43

i ii ii ii ii i


5/43

i i ii iii i ii iii i i

Acknowledgements

This report Methodologies for Conducting Livelihoods Baseline Studies is a synthesis

of experiences of the LFP staff while conducting livelihoods baseline study in seven hills

districts in 2003.

The report summarises the main steps and procedures that LFP carried out to conduct

the baseline study with its partners and stakeholders. It also summarises the key issues

and challenges encountered during its design and implementation.

We would like to thank everyone who actively took part in the baseline study and played

a role in accumulating the experiences, thus contributing to developing this document.

Special thanks to those who assisted in the formulation of this document by providing

suggestions and advise.

We hope that this document will serve as a useful resource for all those organisations that

plan to conduct livelihoods baseline studies in the future.


6/43

iviviviviv


7/43

vvvvv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iii

Table of Figures vii

Chapter I : Introduction to The Livelihoods Baseline Study of Lfp 1

1.1 Background of the Report 1

1.2 What is A Livelihoods Baseline? 6

1.3 Why Livelihoods Baseline for LFP? 5

Chapter II: The Initial Planning Stage of The Livelihoods Baseline 5

2.1. The Concept Development Stage 5

2.1.1 Bangladesh Visit 5

2.1.2 Baseline Planning in LFP 5

2.1.3 Review of Existing Literature on Baseline Studies Conducted

by Outside Agencies 6

2.2 The Initial Planning and Arrangement 6

2.2.1 H iring of International and National Consultancy Firms 6

2.2.2 Initial Planning to Design Sampling Framework 72.2.3 The First Qualitative Stakeholders' Training 7

Chapter III: Quantitative Study Design and Implementation 9

3.1 The Sampling Plan 9

3.1.1 The Multi-stage Probability Sampling Design 10

3.1.2 Sample Size 11

3.2 The Design of Household Survey Questionnaire 13

3.2.1 Participatory Approach 13

3.2.2 Two Regional Quantitative Workshops Oct/Nov 2002 1 4

3.2.3 Testing and Questionnaire Finalising 14

3.3 Implementation of The Household Survey 15

3.3.1 Survey Team Composition 15

3.3.2 Activity Planning for Data Collection 17

3.3.3 Experience Sharing Workshop between Eastern and Western Regions 17

3.3.4 Team Mobilisation 17

3.3.5 Supervision, Monitoring, and Quality Control 17


8/43

v iv iv iv iv i

3.3.6 Development of Data Mask for Entry in the Computer 1 8

3.3.7 Data Analysis 18

Chapter IV: Qualitative Study Design and Implementation 19

4.1 Background and The Need for A Qualitative Study 19

4.2 The Sampling Plan 20

4.3 The Design of Topical Outline (Checklist) 22

4.3.1 Participatory Approach 22

4.3.2 Two Regional Qualitative Training and Design Workshops

March/April 2003 23

4.3 .2 Participatory Livelihood Assessment Methods and Tools 24

4.4 Implementation and Information Analysis 24

4.4.1 Team Composition 24

4.4.2 Monitoring and Quality Control 25

4.4.3 Information Analysis 26

Chapter V: Conclusions 29

5.1 Key Issues and Lessons Learned 29

5.2 Key Learning and Future Impacts 32

References 35


9/43

v iiv i iv iiv i iv i i

List of Tables

Table 1: Objectives and outcomes 3

Table 2: Di fferences and similarities between conventional baseline

and livelihoods baseline 4

Table 3: Sampling Design Challenges 9

Table 4: The multi-stage sample plan 10

Table 5: Sample sizes for selected study strata 12

Table 6: Participants of the design process 14

Table 7: Pros and Cons of qualitative and quantitative studies 19

Table 8: Steps followed in Selecting Study Sites 20

Table 9: Indicators for VDC ranking 21

Table 10: Selection of VDCs 21

Table 11: Selection of communities within VDC 22

Table 12: Stakeholders who participated in the regional training

and field work. 22

Table 13: Tools used in the analysis of livelihoods profile 26


10/43

vii ivi i ivi i ivi i ivi i i

List of Figures

Figure 1: LFP Operational Area 9

Figure 2: Basis for LFP household survey questionnaire design 15

Figure 3: Quantitative Survey Team Structure 16

Figure 4: Basis to design topical outline - The Simplified Livelihood Framework 23


11/43

Introduction to the Livelihoods

Baseline Study of LFP

1

1.1 The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme

The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) is funded by DFID-Nepal as a bilateral

aid programme between His Majestys Government of Nepals Ministry of Forest and Soil

Conservation and the UKs Department of International Development. LFP was designed

based on lessons learnt from the Nepal-UK Community Forestry Project (NUKCFP). It

operates in fifteen districts of Nepalseven hill districts of the Eastern and Western

Regions, three districts in the Terai, and five districts in the Mid-western Region.

The goal of LFP is to reduce vulnerability and improve the livelihoods of the poor by

focusing on forestry for development. The purpose is to enhance the assets of rural

communities through more efficient, equitable, and sustainable use of forest resources.

LFP also seeks to strengthen policy at the district and national levels and the operational

environment for the forestry sector.

1.2 Report Background

In 2003, the Livelihoods and Forestry Programme conducted a livelihoods baseline study

in seven hill distri cts. The study took considerable time and effort to design and

implement.

The purpose of this report is to summarise the methods and stages of design and

implementation of the baseline study and to help other programmes or projects to learn

from LFPs experiences if they wish to undertake similar studies. This report, however,

does not describe the findings of the baseline studies, which are presented in quantitative

and qualitative reports available from the Resource Centre of the LFP Programme

Coordination Office in Baluwatar, Kathmandu.

The design process followed DFIDs sustainable livelihoods approach, principles, and

framework. The team designed both a questionnaire and a qualitative checklist to obtain

the types of information needed to understand respondents livelihoods. The design process

took into account LFPs current log frame and its information needs according to the

outputs and indicators.

C H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E R

11111


12/4322222

LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis.

Although the two methods applied different sampling strategies and processes to collect

the data, this report describes their similarities and linkages. It also presents the key lessons

learnt, highlights important issues, and offers suggestions for the design of similar studies.

1.3 Why Conduct a Livelihoods Baseline Study for LFP?

The design of LFP did not follow a livelihoods approach. However, the design team

seriously considered how it could focus not only on forests but also on people, their

livelihoods, and how forestry activities could improve the livelihoods of the rural poor.

The goal and purpose of LFP were designed

fol lowing l ivelihoods approaches. LFPs

predecessor was exclusively a forestry project,however any future project should be linked

closely to the livelihoods of the target groups.

Hence, LFPs goal and purpose suggest a

broader livelihoods reasoning.

However, information on the current livelihoods status of the target groups and its

relationship with forestry was not available to substantiate the design. Therefore the team

could not design outputs in relation to elements of livelihoods that would contribute to

their goal and purpose.

Three outputs focus on CFUGs, their institutions, forest conditions, and strengtheningthe distri ct level forestry sector. (Outputs 4 and 5 focused on the national enabling

environment and on an output for the Terai component). There is little mention of

livelihoods issues, although the three outputs are very important for LFP. As a practical

solution, LFP developed sub-outputs under each output and included some livelihoods

related activities.

Once implementing the programme, LFP realised the need for a more explicit

understanding of the target groups current livelihood status, priorities, and the extent to

which they depended on forests for their livelihoods. LFP therefore conducted the baseline

study with the following objectives and expected outcomes:

GoalGoalGoalGoalGoal

PurposePurposePurposePurposePurpose

Reduced vulnerability and improved

livelihoods for poor rural people

Assets of rural communities are

enhanced by m ore equitable,

efficient, and sustainable use of

forest resources

Output1 Internal management systems and social processes of CFUGs are

strengthened and more equitable and gender sensitive

Output2 Capacity of FUG members to manage forests is improved

Output 3 improved enabling environment for district forestry sector


13/4333333

LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

TABLE 1: Objectives and OutcomesObjectives and OutcomesObjectives and OutcomesObjectives and OutcomesObjectives and Outcomes

ObjectivesObjectivesObjectivesObjectivesObjectives 11111 Develop a clearer understanding of the livelihoods context in which the programme operates.

22222 Generate information to strengthen existing planning and measure changes in livelihoods.

OutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomes 11111 Identify and develop a broader understanding of livelihoods status and its linkage with the forest

use of Forestry User Groups.

22222 Characterise the livelihoods status of the FUG members; identify the poorest.

33333 Understand current trends in assets acquisition and depletion.

44444 Character ise vulnerabi li ty.

55555 Understand ins ti tu tional issues.

1.4 What is a Livelihoods Baseline Study?

A livelihoods baseline study aims to understand the initial status and changes occurring

in the livelihoods of poor rural people. It uses part icipatory methods to collect and analyse

information about the context in which the rural poor live, the status and changes of

their common (public) and household assets, and their livelihoods strategies and priorities.

The study also examines the vulnerabilities, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of the rural

poor.

The approach of a livelihoods baseline study is more comprehensive than conventional

baselines,1 which aim to understand the poverty status of people through their income,

productivity, or their household facilities. A livelihoods baseline study builds upon several

tools and techniques used in participatory research in the past.

Projects and programmes conduct livelihoods baseline studies to enhance their

understanding of rural target groups and to develop or modify activities according to the

context in which the target groups live. Such studies can be comprehensive or general,

depending on the nature of the programme and its information requirements. They might

also link the programme approachits goal, purpose, and outputswith broader

livelihoods principles. There is no set way of conducting a livelihoods baseline study but

this report can serve as a reference for similar studies.

A livelihoods baseline study can provide insights regarding a programmes target group:

current l ivelihoods context, strategies, and priorities;

policies and institutions that affect the lives of the rural poor;

current livelihoods status of poor people, their households, and situations that make

them vulnerable;

problems, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and risks related to their livelihoods.

1 By conventional baselin e, the author means studies conduc ted to understand the poverty issues in a broader sense, especially in Nepal. Baseline studies mig ht be conductedwith several purposes, which have their own signifi cance according to their objec tives. The authors opi nions presented here are not intended to cast doubt on such baselinestudies.


14/4344444


Main focusMain focusMain focusMain focusMain focus

FocusFocusFocusFocusFocus

DesignDesignDesignDesignDesign

TTTTTechniquesechniquesechniquesechniquesechniques

AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

TABLE 2: Differences and Similarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Sim ilarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Similarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Sim ilarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Similarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s Baselines

Livel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ine

People

Broader livelihoods

approaches, relationships, and

issues

Participation sought from all

concerned stakeholders

Both quantitative and qualitative

techniques in data collection

and analysis

Examines beyond the project

or programme's outputs

Conventional BaselineConventional BaselineConventional BaselineConventional BaselineConventional Baseline

Resources

Socio-economic status,

productivity, etc. Not

comprehensive enough to

understand well-being and

livelihoods issues.

Less participatory, design done

mainly by experts.

Either quantitative or qualitative

techniques, but rarely both.

Generally confined to project

interventions and outputs or

only some o f the issues.

Dif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t ies

LB examines resources in a

broader way by linking them

with their use and poor

people's access to them.

Issues partially examined in

conventional baseline are

comprehensively examined in

the livelihoods baseline.

Techniques are similar.

Livelihoods baseline looks into

outputs but within broader

livelihoods framework.

For programmes, a livelihoods baseline study can provide opportunities to:

analyse key areas which projects/programmes have not been focusing on and

determine whether they should redesign their current activities;

understand projects/programmes limitations and examine whether there is a need

to join efforts with other projects/programmes to address critical issues revealed

by the study;

develop monitoring systems informed by baseline values and indicators.

Although a livelihoods baseline study examines broader issues and relationships, this

approach has certain weaknesses that this report discusses in the relevant sections.


15/4355555


The Ini tial Planning Stage

of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

2

2.1 The Concept Development Stage

Government and non-government agencies in Nepal have had ample experience of

conducting socio-economic baseline studies and longitudinal surveys. However, only a

few agencies have conducted baseline studies following livelihoods principles and

approaches, most notably DFID and CARE Nepal. Since LFP did not have any experience

conducting a Livelihoods Baseline Survey, it had to rely on experiences gained elsewhere

by DFID or other agencies.

2.1.1 Bangladesh Visit 2

To understand how to design and implement a livelihoods baseline study, LFP staff visited

the Bangladesh Livelihoods Monitoring Project (LMP) of CARE Bangladesh in late 2001.

LMP was also funded by DFID and had conducted livelihoods baseline studies in two of

CAREs programme areas in 2000.

The visit helped LFP staff members to understand features of the design and

implementation of a livelihoods baseline study such as design systems, methods, tools,

team compositions, and sampling plans. Staff also became familiar with issues arising

from the baseline study. This visit helped them to develop a vision for the conceptual

design of the livelihoods baseline study for LFP.

2.1.2 Baseli ne Planning in LFP

The Bangladesh study had many features that LFP could replicate in Nepal. The livelihoods

approaches and principles were similar but LFP would have to consider the effects on thedesign and implementation of Nepals different topography and ongoing conflict.


55555

2 For details, please refer to Report on Bangladesh visit on Livelihoods Baseline Study and Impact Monitori ng System by LMP 2001 by Dinesh Uprety and Ramu Subedi(available from the LFP Resource Centre, Baluwatar, Kathmandu).


16/4366666


Discussions among LFP staff members, consultants, and the personnel of other relevant

projects determined several strategies appropriate to the Nepali situation:

identify highly sensitive areas and avoid sampling them;

use local organisations and facilitators to implement the study and give priority to

facilitators from the areas to be studied;

adopt a cluster approach rather than district-wide sampling, using random sampling

within each cluster to minimise time and cost, given Nepals difficult terrain;

use participatory assessment tools that do not require a gathering of people in the

village and thus do not attract the attention of outsiders;

train facilitators in appropriate fieldwork techniques and behaviour;

inform concerned authorities about the study and the people involved in it.

The LFP staff prepared a document outlining an action plan and all the relevant issues in

the design and implementation of the baseline study3 .

2.1.3 Review of Existi ng Literat ure on Baseline Studi esConducted by Outside Agencies4

Before the implementation of the baseline study, LFP conducted a review of the existing

literature on livelihoods baseline studies conducted by other government and non-

government agencies. The review provided information on designing methodologies and

sampling strategies and on the types of information available in existing sources.

The review confirmed the need to conduct a livelihoods baseline study for LFP for several

reasons. Most of the available studies were not conducted using a livelihoods approach,were not relevant to the LFP programme areas, or depended on unreliable secondary sources.

Where data was available, it was not disaggregated sufficiently to be of use.

2.2 Initial Planning and Arrangements

2.2.1 Hiring Int ernati onal and Nati onal Consult ancy Firms

LFP hired the international consultancy firm that assisted in the design of the Bangladesh

baseline study on a call-down basis, for its experience in designing livelihoods baseline

studies and monitoring systems for many projects funded by DFID and CARE. Therewas also a lack of expertise in Nepal in designing baseline studies using livelihoods principles

and approaches. A national firm, Development Vision Nepal (DVN), was hired to organise

and implement the study in the field starting in October 2002.

3 For details, please refer to Livelihoods Baseline Planning and Design-some key considerations Dinesh Uprety July 2002.4 For details, please refer to Review of Literatures Findings and Strategies for Baseline Study fo r LFP August 200 2, Ganapati Ojha at the LF.


17/4377777


2.2.2 Ini ti al Planning t o Design a Sampling Framework

Sampling strategies of other organisations used geographical areas as the primary basis for

sampling, with divisions for mountains, middle hills, and low hills. The analysis of existinginformation in the CFUG database, however, showed that a more rational way to categorise

CFUGs was on the basis of their forest condition and density. LFP decided to use this as

the main basis for designing the sampling strategy (details of the sampling plan are

discussed in the following section).

2.2.3 The First Qualitat ive Stak eholders Training

A training workshop on Qualitative Livelihoods Assessment and Analysis was conducted

for all central-level stakeholders and partners from the Ministry of Forest and Soil

Conservation, Department of Forests, LFP, and DVN. The workshop provided a forum

to start designing the livelihoods baseline study and to develop all concerned stakeholders

understanding. It had the following basic objectives:

understanding the basic approach of quali tative information collection;

understanding methods of analysing qualitative data;

learning how to develop a qualitative checklist based on livelihoods approaches and

the information needs of LFP.

This workshop helped to develop a generic understanding of the livelihoods baseline and

its approaches and, in particular, the use of quali tative techniques. The workshop produced

the following outputs:

draft outline of topicsa livelihoods assessment qualitative checklist draft sampling strategies for selecting qualitative study sites

The household questionnaire, outline of topics (qualitative checklist), and the training

schedule developed for the baseline study can be found in Hills Livelihoods Baseline

Study at the website www.livelihoods.com/lessons under the LFP page. Alternatively,

this information can also be obtained from the LFP resource centre at the Programme

Coordination Office in Baluwatar, Kathmandu. One can also enquire at the email address:

[email protected]


18/43

Quantitative Study Design

and Implementation

3

3.1 The Sampling Plan55555

The quantitative study was a population-based household survey conducted in the seven

districts of LFPs working area. The seven districts fall within two development regions:

Dhankuta, Terhathum, Bhojpur, and Sankhuwasabha in the Eastern, and Parbat, Myagdi,

and Baglung in the Western. The survey was designed such that each district could stand

alone in the analysis.


99999

5 Resource Centre for LFP was designed by Tango International, USA

The design of the sample plan for LFP

hill districts posed several challenges.

Considering these challenges, a multi-

stage sampling plan was developed,

which was considered practical and

possible to implement by LFP.

TABLE 3: Sampling Design ChallengesSampling Design ChallengesSampling Design ChallengesSampling Design ChallengesSampling Design Challenges

Remote study areas posed logistical challenges

High risk study areas due to political instability

Guidance and quality control of the field data collection

difficult due to remoteness and political instability

Survey implementation in local dialects in some cases

FIGURE 1: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas


19/431 01 01 01 01 0


1. Clustering of Village Development Committees

Clustering was done to avoid the logistical challenges of sampling across entire districts

which would bring with it high costs and reduced quality control. Each district was

divided into clusters of VDCs. High-risk areas were excluded. The total number of VDCs

per cluster was about the same within each district.

An initial discussion of sampling strategies laid the basis for the development of a multi-

stage sample plan. However, the afore-mentioned challenges prevented LFP from reaching

all the areas that would have been selected by ful l probability sampling. Probability

sampling was used, however only in defined areas within each district.

3.1.1 The Mult i- stage Probabilit y Sampling Design

The following stages were followed in the sample design.

TABLE 4: The Multi-stage Sam ple PlanThe Multi-stage Samp le PlanThe Multi-stage Sam ple PlanThe Multi-stage Samp le PlanThe Multi-stage Samp le Plan

The Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample Plan

Stage 1Stage 1Stage 1Stage 1Stage 1 Clustering of Village Development Committees (VDCs)

Stage 2Stage 2Stage 2Stage 2Stage 2 Strat if icat ion of fores t condi tion

Stage 3Stage 3Stage 3Stage 3Stage 3 Strat if ication of forest to household density

Stage 4Stage 4Stage 4Stage 4S tage 4 Selec ti on of hous eholds

6 LFPs CFUG database in maintains information about the CFUGs in its seven working districts.

Key features of the clustering process:

each district included three to five clusters based on the size and number of forest

user groups;

each cluster included a total of nine to 11 VDCs depending upon the total number

of VDCs in the district;

the total number of households in each cluster was calculated once clusters were identified.

2. Stratification of Forest Condition

Forest condition represents the forest quality as reported in the CFUG database.6 The

database categories are very good, good, degraded, and very degraded but for

sampling purposes these were reduced simply to good and degraded.3. Stratification of Density

Density is defined as the average number of hectares of forest resources per household

within a CFUG. There was a wide range of densities in different areas, from 0.01 ha to

over 11 ha per household. Two sub-groups were established, those with less than 0.4 ha

per household and those with more than 0.4 ha.


20/431 11 11 11 11 1


The resultant strata contained the following number of units, or CFUGs:

degraded forest/small area per household = 37

degraded forest/large area per household = 40

good forest/small area per household = 40

good forest/large area per household = 38

4. Selection of Household

The final stage involved a random selection of households. There was a computer related

problem in order to acquire the household l ist for random selection, therefore the field

team first developed a list of households in the survey field and manually selected random

households.

The sampling frame included all households belonging to selected CFUGs and no

substi tution was made in case of a non-response. About 18 to 21 households were selectedper vi llage based on a sampling frame of household membership in the CFUG. The sample

size was calculated using standard methods based on variance estimates of key continuous

variables of asset and income, from previous household surveys in Nepal. Calculations

were based on indicators expressed as means.

The following formula was used for calculating the sample size:

N = D[(Za + Zb)2 * (sd12

+ sd22

) / (X2

X1)2] where,

N = required minimum sample size per strata

D = design effect for mult i-stage sampling

Za = the z-score corresponding to the selected level of confidence desired to

detect that an observed change of magnitude (X2 X1) would not have

occurred by chance (statistical significance)

Zb = the z-score corresponding to the selected level of confidence desired to

detect an observed change of magnitude (X2 X1) if it indeed exists power

sdx = estimated standard deviations for current and future survey rounds of a

key variable

X1

= the estimated level of an indicator during the baseline survey

X2

= the expected standard deviation of the same indicator during a future

survey

3.1.2 Sample Size

The resultant sample size was 358 households per strata for each of the two study areas.

Out of 1,123 CFUGs in the seven districts, 155 CFUGs were selected. Approximately

18-20 households were selected from each of these CFUGs resulting in the selection of

2,871 households.


21/431 21 21 21 21 2


Table 5: Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.

StrataStrataStrataStrataStrata NNNNN CommentCommentCommentCommentComment

Total districts 7 Myagdi, Baglung, Parbat, Terhathum, Sankhuw asabha,Bhojpur and Dhankuta

Total sam pled CFUGs 155

General survey population (HH) 2,871 All households in the study.

Western region 1,436 Districts of Myagdi, Baglung, and Parbat.

Eastern region 1,435 Distric ts of Terhathum , Sankhuw asabha, Bhojpur, and

Dhankuta

Good condition, low density 723 Greater than 0.4 ha per household

Good condition, high density 684 Less than 0.4 ha per household

Poor condition, low density 730 Greater than 0.4 ha per household

Poor condition, high density 734 Less than 0.4 ha per household

STEP ONE:STEP ONE:STEP ONE:STEP ONE:STEP ONE:

Update the Lis t of Households:Update the Lis t of Households:Update the Lis t of Households:Update the Lis t of Households:Upda te the Li st o f Hou seho lds : The survey team will meet the CFUG com mittee/members and show the HH

list given by DVN for update. The update should:

delete from the list HHs that migrated

add at the end of the page HHs not included in the list

STEP TWO:STEP TWO:STEP TWO:STEP TWO:STEP TWO:

Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Upd ated L ist Sig ned b y the CFUG Comm ittee. Authenticate the HH list by having it signed by the

CFUG Comm ittee. (When there is no household list, the design team sho uld at least select the ward/tole in

advance for the survey and then get the HH list from the ward/tole during the survey.)

STEP THREE:STEP THREE:STEP THREE:STEP THREE:STEP THREE:

Identify the random interval number(s) by using the following form ula:

Total no. of HH in the sampled CFUG / No. of HH needed for sample(The no. of HH for sample is 18, in some cases only 20 or 21 )

For example, if the total number of HH is 42 in the CFUG, and we need 18 HH for survey, so:

42/18= 2.34 is the interval number

2.34 is a fraction and there are two interval numbers; one is 2 and the other is 3.

Find the frequency of these numbers to use as the interval .34+ .34+ .34= 1

The PThe PThe PThe PThe Pararararar ticipatorticipatorticipatorticipatorticipatory Household Ry Household Ry Household Ry Household Ry Household Random Sampling Tandom Sampling Tandom Sampling Tandom Sampling Tandom Sampling Technique Used in theechnique Used in theechnique Used in theechnique Used in theechnique Used in the LFPLFPLFPLFPLFP SurSurSurSurSurveyveyveyveyvey


22/431 31 31 31 31 3


This means that interval no. 2 has to be used a number of times until the decimal totals 1.

In this case, interval no. 2 should be counted 3 times and after that count interval no. 3 only one time and

repeat the process again.If it comes to, for example, 2.11 then use the same technique:

0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11= 1 ( In this case, use interva l no. 2 n ine t imes and

after that interval number 3 one time and repeat the same process again.

STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:

Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:

You can do this by using the lottery system. Write down the numbers from one to 18 (or as the sample HH

needed for that CFUG) on p ieces of paper and select one number randomly. (But it should be betw een the

number of HH needed)

For example, if you select 7, then start co unting from 7 .

A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:

If you select 8 as the starting number following

the lottery system, then start counting intervals

from 8 as shown below. The counting should

go down and when it comes to the end start

from the first SN again until it is nearer the

starting random num ber.

The marked SNs are the random HHs for the

survey. With villagers, this can be done by

requesting them to select the HH themselves.

Developed by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh Upretyyyyy

3.2 Household Survey Questionnair e Design

3.2.1 Partic ipat ory Approach

The design process followed a participatory approach where LFP and its main stakeholders

were involved. The stakeholders participation not only generated ideas for designing

questions but resulted in a sense of ownership. Being the ultimate users of the baseline

information, it was important that the survey be designed and implemented with the

stakeholders active participation. The table below lists the types of stakeholders whose

representatives participated in the design process.

List of Households

SN

1 (16)

2

3 (17)4

5 (15)

6

78 (Startcounting-1)

910 (2)

SN

11

12 (3)

1314

15 (4)

16

17 (5)18

19 (6)20

SN

21

22 (7)23

24 (8)

25

26 (9)

2728

29 (10)30

SN

31 (11)

3233 (12)

34

35

36 (13)

3738 (14)

3940 (15)

SN

41

42

Total HH 42/Sample HH needed 18=2.34


23/431 41 41 41 41 4


3.2.2 Two Regional Quanti ta ti ve Workshops, Oct /Nov 2002

Two regional workshops were conducted for the Eastern and Western districts involving

the above-mentioned participants, for designing the questionnaire. These workshops were

designed to deliver theoretical knowledge on the design of questions, livelihoods framework,interview techniques, and sampling plans to the participants and to develop livelihoods

questionnaires based on these.

The first workshop produced a draft

questionnaire, which was again reviewed in

the next workshop in the Western region.

The Western review provided important

feedback to help finalise the questionnaire and

incorporate specific questions relevant for the

Western region only.The designing of questions was not an easy

task and it was difficult to make decisions

regarding what questions to include.

LFP used the sustainable livelihoods framework as a basis to design questions and also

used LFPs existing logical framework and programme components. The following figure

shows the basis on which LFP designed the questions.

3.2.3 Testing and Finali sing Questi onnair es

The questionnaires developed through the workshop were pre-tested and simplified sothat they could to be used by local enumerators. One important lesson from the pre-test

was realising the difference between how the interviewers understood the questions and

how those who designed the questions understood them. Therefore, for orientation

workshops (for the field surveyors) and field practice, it was necessary to modify the

language of many questions. The development of an equal understanding between the

designer and the interviewer regarding the questions was very important before

implementation.

Table 6: PPPPPararararar ticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Processrocessrocessrocessrocess

Stakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/Partners RemarksRemarksRemarksRemarksRemarks

District Forest Office Implementing par tner of Forestry Programme

Distric t Developm ent Com mittee District planning and co-ordination body

Development Vision Nepal Baseline implementing agency

Tango International, USA Baseline Design Agency

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme Key LFP staff

Livelihoods overview

Review of LFP log frame

Sampling strategies

Interview techniques and quality control

Design of quest ionnaire

Survey p lanning

Brief Session Plans of the Worksho psBrief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksho psBrief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksho ps


24/431 51 51 51 51 5


FIGURE 2: Basis for L FP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis fo r LFP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis for L FP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis fo r LFP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis for L FP Household Survey Questionnaires Design

3.3 I mplementati on of the Household Survey

A national firm called Development Vision Nepal (DVN) was assigned the role to

implement the livelihoods baseline and to be fully responsible for organising, and managing

logistics and field teams. DVN was involved in the design process from the beginning

and assisted the international firm in data analysis.

3.3.1 Survey Team Compositi on

The recruitment and composition of the survey team was time consuming and conscientious

work given the huge size of the survey with samples distributed among seven hill districts,

155 CFUGs and 2,871 households in two regions. It was therefore necessary to develop

equal understanding in the survey team and to take extra care to prepare all the staff for

training and fieldwork.

SL Frame work Livelihoods questionnairesdesigned by other projects LFP Log frameindicators

Institutional relationship Household physical condition

Household asssets Agriculture Food security status Physical conditions Participation Income and expenditure Loans and sources of loans Shocks and vulnerability Coping strategies Health Women's decision making, roles Assets ownership

Awareness of forest institution Forest management

Demand, supply and copingstrategies for forest products Forest-based IGAs Forest-related gender and

participation issues Workload

Minor InfluenceMajor Information Sources


25/431 61 61 61 61 6


Cautions regarding identity of the survey teams, information to the authorities about the

survey, and pre-information to the communities were very important issues due to the

confl ict situation. This also entailed forming survey teams, which could work without

attracting the attention of any unintended visitors to the community. Considering these

issues, the survey team comprised of local people and outside professionals:

Regional survey co-ordinator(s) outside senior professional

For one field survey team:

Supervisor 1 (a few professional locals and outsiders)

Facil itator 2 (one man and one womanboth local, young people)

Total team members:

Regional coordinators 3

Deputy Regional coordinator 1Supervisors 17

Local facilitators 34

Total survey team 17

The full DVN organisational structure was as follows:

Team LeaderCentre

RegionRegional CoordinatorEastern Region (2)

Regional CoordinatorWestern Region (1)

Deputy RegionalCoordinator (1)

T - 6 T - 7 T - 8 T - 9

T - 3 T - 4 T - 5T - 1 T - 2

T - 3 T - 4 T - 5T - 1 T - 2

T - 6 T - 7 T - 8

Other Members of Team

- SPSS Expert- Professionals- Support Staffs

District/CFUGs:

T = TeamSource: DVN Report

FIGURE 3: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Survey Tvey Tvey Tvey Tvey Team Stream Stream Stream Stream Structureuctureuctureuctureucture


26/431 71 71 71 71 7


3.3.2 Activit y Planning f or Data Collecti on

All the field survey teams prepared and planned activities for the field survey. This

included discriptions of the place of CFUGs visits, households with the completion dates,and expected dates of submission of completed questionnaires at the Regional Office. This

action plan also served as a basis for monitoring progress and follow up from the centre.

Copies of planned activities were submitted to the concerned authorities in the district

to inform them about the field teams whereabouts during their fieldwork.

3.3.3 Experi ence- sharing Work shop Between Eastern and Wester n Regions

At the end of the surveyors training, a two-day experience-sharing workshop was organised

with the participation of all field teams and representatives from LFP central and district

offices. The purpose was to bring uniformity in the approach, understanding, and survey

methodology including sampling methods in both the regions. Besides, the workshop

also helped develop an equal understanding regarding the questions among the team

members of both regions. The team visited the field to validate household data before

implementing the actual work. It was found that some sampled field areas could not be

approached due to the security situation. Alternative samples were developed during the

workshop.

3.3.4 Team Mobil isati on

All 17 quantitative survey teams consisting of 17 supervisors and 34 enumerators, as shown

in the table above, were mobilised in seven districts of the Western and Eastern regions.Regional coordinators were responsible for organising team placements, coordinating with

the district level government agencies, and working as a bridge between the field teams

and the centre for disseminating information. They were also responsible for supervising

and monitoring the teams work and quality control of the survey.

3.3.5 Supervision, Monit oring, and Qualit y Control

Quality control was considered once the survey team was recruited. It was important to

ensure the involvement of a competent supervisor with the local surveyors. Although hiring

a supervisor was costly, it guaranteed quality of work and provided an important lesson

to LFP and others that conducting interviews and filling questionnaires should not be

left to the local surveyors alone, as was the case with many surveys in the past.

DVNs and LFPs senior management team supervised the survey implementation.

Regional coordinators were responsible for day-to-day supervision. Constructive comments

and suggestions provided by the supervision and monitoring teams were given due attention

while implementing surveys. Best practices were developed to ensure the quality of the

work and:


27/431 81 81 81 81 8


no compromise on the quality of survey work; inaccurate and unchecked information

would be unacceptable;

supervisors and enumerators are to complete the questionnaires at the respondents

homestead;

supervisors must check each and every questionnaire fi lled by the local surveyors

and re-interview if information is incomplete or inaccurate;

regional coordinators must visit each field site for supervision and monitoring,

including random checking of completed questionnaires;

supervisors must send checked and signed copies to regional coordinators;

regional coordinators must make final checks and send questionnaires to DVN

central office for data entry;

reliable means of delivering questionnaires from the field to the central office.

3.3.6 Development of Data M ask for Entry i n t he Computer

A statistical database software called SPSS version 11 was used to enter and analyse data.

A data mask was developed in Nepali for entering the completed questionnaire after it

was finalised through the pre-test.

3.3.7 Data Analysis

Data analysis was done using the SPPS software as mentioned above. The following tools

were used for extracting information:

tables

graphs and charts

frequencies, percentages, and averages

mean, mode, and standard deviations

minimum and maximum ranges.

Information was disaggregated where possible into the following categories:

gender

ethnicity

forest condit ionsas per sampling frame

asset categoriesasset very poor, poor, intermediate and wealthy

districts and regions.


28/431 91 91 91 91 9


Qualitative Study Design

and Implementation

4

4.1 Background and the Need for a Qualitat ive Study

A qualitative study is a comprehensive study of rural people using participatory assessment

tools. The questions and tools used in the study are open-ended to allow the collection

of descriptive and detail information from respondents on a part icular issue. The tools

are called participatory livelihoods assessment tools, and draw on the experiences of PRA

exercises.

However, the methods for designing the study are tailored to the sustainable livelihoods

framework, its principles, and approaches. The information collected from the study is also

tabulated according to the livelihoods framework and analysed using different analytical tools.

A qualitative study is needed for a detailed understanding of the issues and problems faced

by communities. A qualitative study is more open and uses interactive tools to collect

descriptive and detailed information from respondents or a group of respondents. In

essence, a qualitative study answers the question why, while quantitative studies mainly

answer what 7 . However, there are certain tasks that can only be done by either a


1 91 91 91 91 9

TABLE 7: Advantages and Disadvantages o f Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages o f Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages o f Qualitative and Quantitative Studies

ProsProsProsProsPros

ConsConsConsConsCons

QuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitative

Facilitates collection of household level

information

Easy to validate information statistically if a good

sampling approach is adopted

Best suited for a large sam ple size

Difficult to collect comm unity level information

Does not permit collection of information

beyond the parameters or variables defined

"Why" and "how" of the issues cannot be

collected beyond the defined parameters

QualitativeQualitativeQualitativeQualitativeQualitative

Facilitates collection of comm unity level information

Open and interactive process that allows collection of

detailed and descriptive information

Effective for a sm all sample

Reveals the "why" and "how " of the issues in question

Case studies of sp ecific households can b e collected

but it is difficult to generalise unless many case studies

are done through a systematic sampling process

Validity is always debatable and difficult to generalise

across the population under study

7 Quantitat ive studies also get some answers to why and how but within closed p arameters only.


29/432 02 02 02 02 0


qualitative study or a quant itative study. For example, broader communi ty level

information can be collected more easily through qualitative studies while quantitative

studies facilitate the collection of household level data.

In LFPs context, qualitative studies are conducted for an in depth understanding of

livelihoods issues through a more interactive process with the villagers. The main aim

was to supplement the quantitative study with details, which was not possible from

quantitative study findings of issues related to livelihoods and forests in a broader

community context.

4.2 The Sampling Plan

It is not a simple task to decide on a sampling strategy for qualitative study. The lack of

disaggregated information at village level makes it difficult to select sample sites based onthe indicators. At the start of a study, it may seem feasible to select many indicators or

criteria for sampling. However, when information, which conforms to the indicators, is

not available, the study team may have to reduce the number of indicators and choose

only those for which information is readily available.

A similar scenario occurred in the

case of LFP. After the

development of the initial draft of

the sampling criteria, the team

realised that it would not be

possible to collect information for

many villages according to those

criteria. In-depth discussions at many levels were then held to find practical options for

sampling. Ultimately, the following indicators and steps were agreed upon to select vi llages

within the districts and then the clusters within the VDCs for qualitative study.

ST EP I: Overview of Each DistrictSocio-economic Indicators

This process involved examining the secondary information available at the district level.

The overview helped the teams decide upon the indicators that required a more detailed

look, some of which were chosen because information for all the districts was complete.

It provided a broad picture of the district-wide trends and helped the teams raise questions

about inter-district differences. The socio-economic indicators includedpopulation, access

to roads and piped water, cultivated land area, population living below the national poverty

line, and dominant ethnic groups.

STEP II: Determination of VDC Ranking Indicators

Criteria were agreed upon and each VDC in each district was ranked in terms of socio-

economic levels (Table 3.2).

StepsStepsStepsStepsSteps ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivities

I Overview of each d ist ric tsocio-economic indicators

II VDC rankingwith agreed indicators for ranking villages

II I Select ion of representative VDCs based on their ranking

IV Selec t ion of communit ies w i th in the VDCs

TABLE 8: Steps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study Sites


30/432 12 12 12 12 1


A low ranking score would indicate a better quality of livelihood while a high score would

represent the opposite.

The teams then ranked all the VDCs from the quantitative sample cluster and its adjoining

VDCs. Other VDCs were also ranked even if the sample did not include all possible

geographical scenarios in the district.

STEP III: Selection of Sample VDCs

Sample VDCs were selected based on the scores calculated using the ranking methodology.

Four communities were sampled in each district, which was decided based on time and

human resources available and the predicted amount of time needed per community

(approximately four days each.) Table 10 il lustrates this further.

The scoring was based on available information and the knowledge and judgement of the

part icipants. Five part icipants for each district representing local NGOs, the Distri ct

Development Committee, LFP district staff, and the District Forest Office who knew the

districts situation ranked their districts VDCs relying mainly on their own field knowledge

and judgements. This might be an unreliable scoring method, however, it was found to

be a more practical and time-saving approach given the paucity and validity of secondary

information against the ranking indicators.

Four alternative VDCs were selected within the above categories to replace a VDC in case

access was denied, due to the security situation.

TABLE 9: Indicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC Ranking

Criter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/Indicators

Poverty incidence (Food security, natural disasters, famine, etc.)

Access to infrastructure (School, drinking w ater, health,

comm unication, etc.)

Access to road/m arket

Agricultural produc tivity (Fertility level, cash c rops, fr uits, export, etc.)

TTTTTotal scoreotal scoreotal scoreotal scoreotal score

Ranking AssessmentRanking AssessmentRanking AssessmentRanking AssessmentRanking Assessment

HighHighHighHighHigh MediumMediumMediumMediumMedium Lo wLo wLo wLo wLo w

3 2 1

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

66666 88888 1010101010

TABLE 10: Selection of VDCsSelection of VDCsSelection of VDCsSelection of VDCsSelection of VDCs

Inside quantitative sample

Adjoining (outside q uantitative) sample

Low RankingLow RankingLow RankingLow RankingLow Ranking

(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)

High RankingHigh RankingHigh RankingHigh RankingHigh Ranking

( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)


31/432 22 22 22 22 2


STEP IV: Selection of Communities within VDCs

Once the VDCs were selected the teams had to decide on where within that VDC to

work. The guidelines below (Table 3.4) were designed following discussions.

TABLE 11: Selection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities Within VDCVDCVDCVDCVDC

StepsStepsStepsStepsSteps

1

2

3

4

ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivities

Review VDC data and cast/ethnic com position to determine major ethnic groups within the VDC

population. Choice of community should reflect the major district ethnic composition.

Meet VDC chairman/key informant who has knowledge of the entire VDC ethnic data and get

advice. Choose someone who is not likely to be biased.

Choose a combination of cluster of settlements that meet the district level ethnic com position.

Number of households should be approximately 100.

Describe how your team chose the cluster of settlements and document the process in your

notes.

The main and overall guiding factor for the selection of VDCs and communities was that

they represent the characteristics of many other VDCs and clusters in the district.

4.3 The Design of Topical Outli ne (Checkli st)

4.3.1 Partic ipatory ApproachA preliminary draft of the checklist for the qualitative study was developed during the

qualitative training cum workshop organised in October 2002 with the involvement of

key LFP stakeholders. The draft topical outline was further refined, and discussed with

the district level stakeholders in a separate regional qualitative workshop. The stakeholders

listed below included the training programme participants as well as the field work team

who tested the methodology and collected information from the field.

TABLE 12: Stakeholders Who PStakeholders Who PStakeholders Who PStakeholders Who PStakeholders Who Pararararar ticipated in the Rticipated in the Rticipated in the Rticipated in the Rticipated in the Regional Tegional Tegional Tegional Tegional Training and Field Wraining and Field Wraining and Field Wraining and Field Wraining and Field Work.ork.ork.ork.ork.

StakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholders

District Development Committee

District Forest Office

Local NGOs (Anim ation Programme)

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme

Development Vision Nepal (Baseline Implementing agency)

Tango International

ParticipantsParticipantsParticipantsParticipantsParticipants

Programme Officer of Local Governance Programme.

Rangers with substantial experience of the districts.

Representatives with experience in PRA tools, surveys.

District Programme Officers.

Senior professional as a team leader of the study.

Designer and trainer of the study.


32/432 32 32 32 32 3


4.3.2 Two Regional Qualita ti ve Training and Design Workshops, March/April 2003

Two regional training workshops were conducted in the Eastern and Western regions with

the involvement of the above participants. The main objective of the workshop was toprepare participants with all the necessary skills and information required to conduct

fieldwork, and analyse and prepare primary reports. The outline of topics were reviewed,

the tools and methods for collecting information and sample sites were decided, and

participants were trained to analyse data using the agreed tools.

The participants were already familiar with the

PRA tools so the workshop focused on the use

of livelihoods assessment tools according to the

checklist questions, analysis techniques, and

development of a livelihood profile.

Participants went through a more interactive

process and practical work, which enabled

them to conduct fieldwork without much

confusion after the training. The experience

gained in the first workshop was shared in the

western workshop and some tools and the site

selection process were refined.

The sustainable livelihood framework was the main basis to design the topical outline

and questions. A simplified framework was developed and followed to design the questions

under broader topics of the framework (Figure 4 below).

FIGURE 4: Basis to Design TBasis to Design TBasis to Design TBasis to Design TBasis to Design Topic al Outline-opic al Outline-opic al Outline-opic al Outline-opic al Outline-The Simp lified Livelihood FThe Simplified Livelihood FThe Simp lified Livelihood FThe Simplified Livelihood FThe Simplified Livelihood Frameworkrameworkrameworkrameworkramework

Source: Tango International, USA

CONTEXTS,CONDITIONS

AND TRENDS

LIVELIHOODRESOURCES

INSTITUTIONALPROCESSES &

ORGANISATIONALSTRUCTURES

LIVELIHOODSTRATEGIES

SUSTAINABLELIVELIHOODOUTCOMES

PolicySocial

EconomicPolitical

EnvironmentalInfrastructureDemography

Historical

Natural CapitalEconomic/Financial

CapitalPhysical CapitalHuman CapitalSocial Capital

Political Capital

Production andIncome Activities

Processing,Exchange and

Marketing ActivitiesSacrifices and

trade-offs

Nutritional SecurityFood Security

Income SecurityEducation Security

Health SecurityHabitat Security

Social Network SecurityPersonal Safety

Environmental SecurityLife Skills Capacity

State

Formal Civil Society

Informal Civil Society

Private Sector

Contextual analysis ofconditions and trends

and assessment ofpolicy setting

Analysis of livelihoodresources; trade-offs,

combinations,sequences, trends

Analysis ofinstitutional/organisational influences on accessto livelihood resources

and composition oflivelihood strategy

portfolio

Analysis of livelihoodstrategy portfolios and

pathways

Analysis of outcomes,adjustments and

trade-offs

Orientat ion on sustainable livelihood

framework

Livelihoods assessment tools and methods

Rev iew of the top ical outl ine

Reorganising topical outl ine quest ions

according to the tools

Sam p le si te selec tion

Sample data analysis and technique to

develop livelihood profiles.

Brief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksh opsBrief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksh opsBrief Session Plans of the Worksh ops


33/432 42 42 42 42 4


The details of the components are not discussed here. Please see www.livelihoods.org for

details and for relevant documents on sustainable livelihoods.

The above framework helped the participants to understand the key components oflivelihoods in a more simple way and design the topical outline. Many questions were

developed to address the information needs of the LFP programme within these key

components. For example, under institutional processes and structure, questions were

designed to explore forestry related institutions to which LFP is directly related.

Flexibility plays an important role in digging out information according to major

programmes, otherwise every project or programme that wishes to conduct livelihoods

baseline studies may end up collecting only very general livelihoods information, which

may not be totally relevant to what they are doing. Therefore, it is important that although

the framework deals with broad livelihoods issues, it adapts questions under each framework

component according to the information needs of the programme or projects.

4.3.2 Part ic ipat ory Livelihood Assessment Met hods and Tools

The survey teams used the following Rapid Rural Appraisal tools to gather qualitative

information:

social maps case studies

focus group discussions well-being ranking

seasonal calendar Venn diagram

key informant interviews time line

transect walks community group interviews.

The team also collected secondary information in the form of district level profiles and

reports from various government and non-government offices.

A one-day field practice was conducted during the training where the tools were tested

and the questions adjusted. The information collected from the field practice was used

to practice analysing information and developing sample livelihood profiles.

The questions developed in the outline of topics were arranged according to the tools

mentioned above. Each tool was accompained a set of questions to ask, which assisted

the participants to understand why they were using a certain tool and what informationthey were going to gain with it . It served as a guide to collect the right information and

avoid the collection of haphazard information, which tends to occur when using PRA

tools.


34/432 52 52 52 52 5


4.4 Implementation and Information Analysis

4.4.1 Team Composit ion

Two types of personnel were selected for the qualitative survey: Firstly, team leaders and

district coordinators who were proficient in the use of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

and had experience using it in the field. Secondly, people living in the districts working

for local NGOs and district level l ine agencies. These peoples participation was a

fundamental element of the process, the capacity building and the shared design phase

and created a good working environment that ensured that the collected information was

demand-led. LFP made the recrui tment of women a central concern and achieved gender

balance within the teams.

In each district level team the six members were as follows:

one district coordinator appointed by DVN;

one district level LFP staff;

one District Forest Office (DFO)representative ;

one District Development Committee (DDC)representative ;two representatives

from local NGOs.

Seven teams were employed for the seven districts for a duration of one month.

4.4.2 M onitori ng and Qualit y Control

DVN and LFP paid due consideration in the monitoring and quality control of the study

once team members were recruited. A set of criteria was developed by DVN to recruit

qualified candidates for the study. Some guidelines were developed to ensure the quality

of information during implementation:

team members will stay at the study site during data collection;

hold a discussion each evening among the team members about the data collected.

The team leader will insure that data are collected according to the guidelines and

direct team members to revisit the site if there is any missing information;

analyse collected information each evening using tools such as social and resource

maps, and Venn diagrams, so that early interpretations can be made;

the study team wil l only visit the next site once all collected information isinterpreted, preliminary analysis is made and put into the livelihood profile matrix.

This ensures that information is not lost and duplicated with another site;

present all collected information to the vil lagers at the end of the survey day. This

ensures verification of information as well as team responsibility to provide feedback

to the villagers about the findings.


35/432 62 62 62 62 6


Three supervisors were appointed to monitor field activities during implementation. They

met the field teams on the spot, observed their work and checked and advised on

information quality. LFP and DVN senior officials also checked the quality of information

and in the case of one site, suggested that the team repeat the fieldwork and recollect all

the information due to the poor quality of information.

4.4.3 Inf ormation Analysis

1) Livelihoods Profile Preparation

The primary analysis followed the livelihoods profiles development in the same order as

the topical out line. An example is the broader headings of the livelihoods framework

mentioned above in Figure 4. The qualitative study field teams prepared this as their

study findings report. An analysis of case studies, social and resource maps, and Venn

diagrams was made and the findings were included in the relevant sections.

Altogether 28 profiles were developed following the same pattern and translated into

English.

2) Analysis of Data Using Different Tools

In August 2003, an analysis workshop was conducted with part icipation of the qualitative

study teams and LFP staff. The purpose was to prepare a consolidated report by analysing

the information contained in the livelihoods profiles using different analytical tools and

perspectives. It helped to draw out issues, and key findings according to the tools. The

tools used are as follows:

TABLE 13: TTTTTools Used in the Analysis of Livelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of L ivelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of Livelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of L ivelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of Livelihoods Profilerofilerofilerofilerofile

TTTTTools Usedools Usedools Usedools Usedools Used

Gender analysis

Livelihoods prof ile analysis (strategies and activities)

Problem analysis

Institution analysis

Opportunity analysis

PurposePurposePurposePurposePurpose

To understand gender relations and dynam ics,

participation, use and control of resources.

To understand key livelihoods activities, coping

strategies, changes and their effects on the poor.

To understand the key problems faced by the

com munities and poor people and its cause and effects.

To understand capacities of internal and external

institutions, their strengths and weaknesses.

To understand the positive deviance carried out by

households or communities in addressing common

constraints.


36/432 72 72 72 72 7


There are several other tools, which can be used to analyse livelihoods information e.g.

stakeholder, rights and responsibilities, benefit-harm analyses and so on (For details, please

refer to CARE HLS toolkit prepared by Tango International). Their use will depend on

the types and relevance of the analyses to the analyser. The analysis will help to understand

key insights, which otherwise may be unclear by just simply reading profiles.

3) Preparation of the Consolidated Report

DVN, Tango International and the LFP team worked together to develop a consolidated

report using the 28 profi les and the findings from using the above tools. Where possible,

the findings from the consolidated reports were again blended with the quantitative survey

findings.


37/43

Conclusions

5

5.1 Key Issues and Lessons Learnt

5.1.1 LFP accommodated the fundamental basis in the livelihoods baseline design i.e.

the livelihoods approaches and its own programme outputs and indicators. This helped

to streamline the design from overworking approaches and drew out several of LFPs related

forestry information to do with livelihoods.

There are, however, still weaknesses in mainstreaming the programme outputs with all

aspects of the livelihoods framework and designing the outline of topics and questionnaires

to reflect these. For example, it was difficult to relate data on vulnerability and livelihoods

outcomes to forestry, although the PIP did provide some relevant information and more

data on forestry related institutions.

The usefulness of the livelihoods approach was obvious while designing the livelihoods

baseline. However, there is always a danger of overworking the livelihoods approach if

the relation with the overall programme mandate is not properly established. Although

it may not be possible to relate the main programme mandate or work according to every

element of the livelihoods framework (as some of them apparently stand alone with their

own significance), it is worthwhile to look at every design aspect from the inter-linkages

of the programme mandate and the framework. However, i t does not mean that

programmes/projects should not look beyond their mandate; they should and that is

why the livelihoods approach is necessary. However it is important to maintain a balanced

approach.

5.1.2 The inter-relationship between qualitative and quantitative studies has raised queries

in past surveys, as has the livelihoods study. The strength of the relationship between

the two studies (conducted with the same purpose) depends on their designs. In thecase of LFP, this particular issue was considered from the beginning and efforts were made

to readdress any queries while preparing the main report.

Some information from the qualitative study blended with the quantitative study. However,

some design effects remained, which disallowed blending them all in the desired

appropriate manner. The reconciliation of the household survey questionnaire was carries

out using the qualitative topical outline; however, the opposite would have been more

appropriate as the blending of qualitative information with quantitative information is

useful and logical due to the statistically valid data in quantitative analysis.


2 92 92 92 92 9


38/433 03 03 03 03 0


It would also be better to conduct the quantitative survey first, analyse the data and then

conduct the qualitative study by establishing better links between both the studies. This

allows the identifying of gaps found in the quantitative survey, and in getting a broader

qualitative picture for the information needs found from the quantitative analysis. LFP

conducted qualitative study after the quantitative survey, however, due to security reasons

as well as the consultants limited time, it was necessary to start the qualitative study

before the analysis of the quantitative information. All these factors became determinants

in appropriately allowing the blending of information between the two studies.

5.1.3 Conducting a livelihoods baseline study is a secondary priority for monitoring

but primary one for providing broader visions for programme planning and steering.

In the baseline designing, LFP sought the information needs from the existing log frame

indicators and the SL framework, but it did not specifically identify concrete indicators

for baseline use.

Specific baseline indicators were therefore not pre-determined in LFP, as is the case with

surveys conducted with monitoring as the primary purpose. It i s presumed that the

baseline information will indeed provide many indicators for monitoring system

development. There is a debate on approaches and the logic behind the approach adopted

by LFP is not yet clear. The lessons learned by LFP in developing monitoring systems

including indicators will be documented in a separate report.

5.1.4 It is important that the programme, its partners, and stakeholders have a common

objective while conducting livelihoods baseline studies. LFP has endeavoured to ensure

this by involving partners and stakeholders in the design process as well as the field

implementation. The process started with a basic training on what a livelihood is, SL

framework etc. and slowly moved on to technicalities of baseline methods and processes.

5.1.5 The qualitative study, which uses the common PRA tools during information

collection, is a widespread participatory technique. It is more complex than quantitative

surveys when one reaches the data analysis stage and the aggregation of results and findings.

The formulation of guiding notes or checklist and the primary reporting matrices (the

livelihoods village profiles) are very important without them information cannot be

streamlined.

The use of these tools is important in identifying the key findings from the data and

aggregating them for a consolidated report. This group and participatory work will consume

a lot of a professional teams time. It becomes more complicated to consolidate information

and conclude on generic findings when the number of study sites is greater. A common

problem in all qualitative studies is that much information will be site specific and can

never be generalised for the study population. This has been the case in LFP too.


39/433 13 13 13 13 1


5.1.6 Determining a budget for the baseline survey is not an easy task. It is difficult to

predict the budget if the sampling plan is not finalised because the budget will depend

on the sample size. It took longer than expected to finalise the sampling plan for LFP,

therefore it was necessary to extend the contract with DVN. When conducting a large

baseline or monitoring survey, it is best to contract local partners only after the sampling

plan has been finalised.

5.1.7 During an ongoing internal conflict, it is difficult to implement a baseline study.

It i s important to assess how to conflict may affect the sample sites. LFPs sampling

strategies included conflict elements in two stages: avoiding the inclusion of highly sensitive

conflict areas in the sampling plan and developing of alternative sites. There were also

other important considerations in the recruitment of personnel, team composition, and

communication strategies during the fieldwork. Apart from some minor difficulties, the

baseline implementation was successful.

5 .1 .8 Once the household survey questionnaire is designed, collecting information

according to the questionnaire is normally quite simple. LFPs experience has been the

opposite. The local surveyors could not understand the questions the way the designers

understood them. Some mid-level professionals of the national consulting firm pre-tested

the questions however this did not help to make the questions understandable to the local

surveyors. A rigorous five-day orientation with field practice simpli fied the structure and

phrasing of several questions, and simplified units of measurement that were employed.

Regional differences in terminology and units of measurement were also addressed in the

final survey design.

The experience of LFP, despite the rigorous orientation of local surveyors, is that the quality

of information still cannot be ensured unless local surveyors are guided continuously by a

professional team leader. The local surveyors learned a lot from this survey and realised

that past surveys were superficial in quality, and lacked seriousness in the data collection

process.

5.1.9 Field work is necessary to design both the household survey questionnaire and the

qualitative topical outline. It provides an opportunity to the field teams to learn and

gain clarity on any confusing issues. A one-day field practice for the LFP team helped to

clarify the use of the tools, their relevance to questions set out in the topical outline, andmethods of wealth ranking.

During practice in the field, many participants interpreted the tools and their objectives

differently, for example, many participants drew up Venn diagrams and mobility maps with

different perspectives and objectives in mind. When maps were then linked to the key

questions, the objective in drawing them was missing. Such lessons are very important and

can be learnt through field practice. The information collected was used to develop sample

livelihoods profiles and provided insights to analyse the data, interpret the findings, and

prepare reports.


40/433 23 23 23 23 2


5.2 Key Learning and Future Impac ts The livelihoods baseline design should build on both a programmes mandate and

livelihoods approach. Imbalance towards one side undermines the study, unless theobjective is the complete assessment of livelihoods issues.

Both qualitative and quantitative studies are necessary for a livelihoods study; however,

their relationship should be established in the design and processes of data analysis,

and report writing.

I t may be logical to conduct a qualitative study to understand information gaps

according to the SL framework and log frame only after the gaps in quantitative

information are determined. In the present context, security is the limiting factor.

Theoretically, qualitative and quantitative stud

Methodology Baseline

Documents

Transcript of Methodology Baseline