Methodologies for Conducting a Livelihoods Baseline Study

Experiences from the Design and Implementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme, Nepal

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme

Improving the livelihoods of poor rural people by promoting equitable and sustainable use of forest resources

The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme aims to contribute towards reducing the vulnerability of poor rural people by improving their livelihoods. It enhances the assets of rural communities 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 people to 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 participation. 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 benefits 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 altitude forests 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.

Methodologies for Conducting a Livelihoods Baseline Study

Experiences from the Design and Implementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme, Nepal

Dinesh K. Uprety April 2004

ii

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.

iii

iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements Table of Figures Chapter I: Introduction to The Livelihoods Baseline Study of Lfp
1.1 Background of the Report 1.2 What is A Livelihoods Baseline? 1.3 Why Livelihoods Baseline for LFP?

iii vii 1
1 6 5

Chapter II: The Initial Planning Stage of The Livelihoods Baseline

2.1. The Concept Development Stage 2.1.1 Bangladesh Visit 2.1.2 Baseline Planning in LFP 2.1.3 Review of Existing Literature on Baseline Studies Conducted by Outside Agencies 2.2 The Initial Planning and Arrangement 2.2.1 Hiring of International and National Consultancy Firms 2.2.2 Initial Planning to Design Sampling Framework 2.2.3 The First Qualitative Stakeholders' Training

5
5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7

Chapter III: Quantitative Study Design and Implementation

3.1 The Sampling Plan 3.1.1 The Multi-stage Probability Sampling Design 3.1.2 Sample Size 3.2 The Design of Household Survey Questionnaire 3.2.1 Participatory Approach 3.2.2 Two Regional Quantitative Workshops Oct/Nov 2002 3.2.3 Testing and Questionnaire Finalising 3.3 Implementation of The Household Survey 3.3.1 Survey Team Composition 3.3.2 Activity Planning for Data Collection 3.3.3 Experience Sharing Workshop between Eastern and Western Regions 3.3.4 Team Mobilisation 3.3.5 Supervision, Monitoring, and Quality Control

9
9 10 11 13 13 14 14 15 15 17 17 17 17

3.3.6 Development of Data Mask for Entry in the Computer 3.3.7 Data Analysis

18 18

Chapter IV: Qualitative Study Design and Implementation

4.1 Background and The Need for A Qualitative Study 4.2 The Sampling Plan 4.3 The Design of Topical Outline (Checklist) 4.3.1 Participatory Approach 4.3.2 Two Regional Qualitative Training and Design Workshops March/April 2003 4.3.2 Participatory Livelihood Assessment Methods and Tools 4.4 Implementation and Information Analysis 4.4.1 Team Composition 4.4.2 Monitoring and Quality Control 4.4.3 Information Analysis

19
19 20 22 22 23 24 24 24 25 26

Chapter V: Conclusions
5.1 Key Issues and Lessons Learned 5.2 Key Learning and Future Impacts

29
29 32

References

35

vi

List of Tables
Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Objectives and outcomes Differences and similarities between conventional baseline and livelihoods baseline Sampling Design Challenges The multi-stage sample plan Sample sizes for selected study strata Participants of the design process Pros and Cons of qualitative and quantitative studies Steps followed in Selecting Study Sites Indicators for VDC ranking Selection of VDCs Selection of communities within VDC Stakeholders who participated in the regional training and field work. Tools used in the analysis of livelihoods profile 3 4 9 10 12 14 19 20 21 21 22 22 26

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: LFP Operational Area Basis for LFP household survey questionnaire design Quantitative Survey Team Structure 9 15 16

Basis to design topical outline - The Simplified Livelihood Framework 23

viii

C H A P T E R

Introduction to the Livelihoods Baseline Study of LFP

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 districts. 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.

LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY: Experiences from the Design and Implementation 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.
Goal Reduced vulnerability and improved livelihoods for poor rural people Assets of rural communities are enhanced by more equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of forest resources

Purpose

The goal and purpose of LFP were designed following livelihoods 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 strengthening the district 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:

Output1 Output2 Output 3

Internal management systems and social processes of CFUGs are strengthened and more equitable and gender sensitive Capacity of FUG members to manage forests is improved improved enabling environment for district forestry sector

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

TABLE 1: Objectives and Outcomes

Objectives 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Develop a clearer understanding of the livelihoods context in which the programme operates. Generate information to strengthen existing planning and measure changes in livelihoods. Identify and develop a broader understanding of livelihoods status and its linkage with the forest use of Forestry User Groups. Characterise the livelihoods status of the FUG members; identify the poorest. Understand current trends in assets acquisition and depletion. Characterise vulnerability. Understand institutional issues.

Outcomes

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 participatory 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 livelihoods 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 baseline, the author means studies conducted to understand the poverty issues in a broader sense, especially in Nepal. Baseline studies might be conducted with several purposes, which have their own significance according to their objectives. The authors opinions presented here are not intended to cast doubt on such baseline studies.

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

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.
TABLE 2: Differences and Similarities Between Conventional and Livelihoods Baselines
Livelihoods Baseline Main focus People Conventional Baseline Resources Differences/Similarities 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.

Focus

Socio-economic status, Broader livelihoods approaches, relationships, and productivity, etc. Not comprehensive enough to issues understand well-being and livelihoods issues. Participation sought from all concerned stakeholders Less participatory, design done mainly by experts.

Design Techniques

Both quantitative and qualitative Either quantitative or qualitative Techniques are similar. techniques, but rarely both. techniques in data collection and analysis Examines beyond the project or programme's outputs Generally confined to project interventions and outputs or only some of the issues. Livelihoods baseline looks into outputs but within broader livelihoods framework.

Assessment

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

C H A P T E R

The Initial Planning Stage of the Livelihoods Baseline Study

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 Visit2

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 Baseline 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 the design and implementation of Nepals different topography and ongoing conflict.

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

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

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 Existing Literature on Baseline Studies Conducted 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 nongovernment 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 International and National Consultancy 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. There was 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 4

For details, please refer to Livelihoods Baseline Planning and Design-some key considerations Dinesh UpretyJuly 2002. For details, please refer to Review of LiteraturesFindings and Strategies for Baseline Study for LFP August 2002, Ganapati Ojha at the LF.

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

2.2.2 Initial Planning to 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 existing information 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 Qualitative Stakeholders 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 qualitative 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 qualitative 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: cr@lfp.org.np

C H A P T E R

Quantitative Study Design and Implementation

3.1 The Sampling Plan5
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.
: LFP Operational Areas FIGURE 1:

The design of the sample plan for LFP hill districts posed several challenges. Considering these challenges, a multistage sampling plan was developed, which was considered practical and possible to implement by LFP.
5

TABLE 3: Sampling 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

Resource Centre for LFP was designed by Tango International, USA

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

An initial discussion of sampling strategies laid the basis for the development of a multistage sample plan. However, the afore-mentioned challenges prevented LFP from reaching all the areas that would have been selected by full probability sampling. Probability sampling was used, however only in defined areas within each district.

3.1.1 The Multi-stage Probability Sampling Design

The following stages were followed in the sample design. 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.
TABLE 4: The Multi-stage Sample Plan
The Multi-stage Sample Plan Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Clustering of Village Development Committees (VDCs) Stratification of forest condition Stratification of forest to household density Selection of households

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.
6

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

10

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

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 list 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 substitution was made in case of a non-response. About 18 to 21 households were selected per village 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 D Za = = = required minimum sample size per strata design effect for multi-stage sampling 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) 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 estimated standard deviations for current and future survey rounds of a key variable the estimated level of an indicator during the baseline survey the expected standard deviation of the same indicator during a future survey

Zb sdx X1 X2

= = = =

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.

11

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

Table 5: Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.

Strata Total districts Total sampled CFUGs General survey population (HH) Western region Eastern region Good condition, low density Good condition, high density Poor condition, low density Poor condition, high density N 7 155 2,871 1,436 1,435 723 684 730 734 All households in the study. Districts of Myagdi, Baglung, and Parbat. Districts of Terhathum, Sankhuwasabha, Bhojpur, and Dhankuta Greater than 0.4 ha per household Less than 0.4 ha per household Greater than 0.4 ha per household Less than 0.4 ha per household Comment Myagdi, Baglung, Parbat, Terhathum, Sankhuwasabha, Bhojpur and Dhankuta

The P ar ticipator y Household R andom Sampling T echnique Used in the LFP Sur vey Par articipator ticipatory Random Technique Survey
STEP ONE: Update the List of Households: The survey team will meet the CFUG committee/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: Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee. Authenticate the HH list by having it signed by the CFUG Committee. (When there is no household list, the design team should 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: Identify the random interval number(s) by using the following formula: 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

12

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

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 interval no. 2 nine times and after that interval number 3 one time and repeat the same process again. STEP FOUR: 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 pieces of paper and select one number randomly. (But it should be between the number of HH needed) For example, if you select 7, then start counting from 7. A Complete Example is Given Below:
List of Households

SN 1 (16) 2 3 (17) 4 5 (15) 6 7 8 (Start counting-1) 9 10 (2)

SN 11 12 (3) 13 14 15 (4) 16 17 (5) 18 19 (6) 20

SN 21 22 (7) 23 24 (8) 25 26 (9) 27 28 29 (10) 30

SN 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

(11) (12) (13) (14)

SN 41 42

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 number. 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 Upret y Uprety

39 40 (15)

Total HH 42/Sample HH needed 18=2.34

3.2 Household Survey Questionnaire Design

3.2.1 Participatory 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.

13

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

ticipants of the Design P rocess Table 6: Par articipants Process

Stakeholders/Partners District Forest Office District Development Committee Development Vision Nepal Tango International, USA Livelihoods and Forestry Programme Remarks Implementing partner of Forestry Programme District planning and co-ordination body Baseline implementing agency Baseline Design Agency Key LFP staff

3.2.2 Two Regional Quantitative 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.
Brief Session Plans of the Workshops
Livelihoods overview Review of LFP log frame Sampling strategies Interview techniques and quality control Design of questionnaire Survey planning

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 Finalising Questionnaires

The questionnaires developed through the workshop were pre-tested and simplified so that 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.

14

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

: Basis for LFP Household Survey Questionnaires Design FIGURE 2:

SL Frame work

Livelihoods questionnaires designed by other projects

LFP Log frame indicators

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 coping strategies for forest products Forest-based IGAs Forest-related gender and participation issues Workload

Major Information Sources Minor Influence

3.3 Implementation 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 Composition

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.

15

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

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 conflict 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) Facilitator 2 (one man and one womanboth local, young people) Total team members: Regional coordinators Deputy Regional coordinator Supervisors Local facilitators Total survey team 3 1 17 34 17

The full DVN organisational structure was as follows:

: Quantitative Sur vey T eam Str ucture FIGURE 3: Survey Team Structure
Team Leader

Centre

Other Members of Team - SPSS Expert - Professionals - Support Staffs

Region

Regional Coordinator Eastern Region (2)

Regional Coordinator Western Region (1)

Deputy Regional Coordinator (1)

T-1

T-2

T-3

T-4

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

District/ CFUGs:

T-6

T-7

T-8

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

T = Team Source: DVN Report

16

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

3.3.2 Activity Planning for Data Collection

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 Experience-sharing Workshop Between Eastern and Western 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 Mobilisation

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, Monitoring, and Quality 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:

17

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

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 filled 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 Mask for Entry in the 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 conditionsas per sampling frame asset categoriesasset very poor, poor, intermediate and wealthy districts and regions.

18

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

C H A P T E R

Qualitative Study Design and Implementation

4.1 Background and the Need for a Qualitative 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 particular 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
TABLE 7: Advantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Quantitative Pros Facilitates collection of household level information Easy to validate information statistically if a good sampling approach is adopted Best suited for a large sample size Qualitative Facilitates collection of community level information Open and interactive process that allows collection of detailed and descriptive information Effective for a small sample Reveals the "why" and "how" of the issues in question Cons Difficult to collect community 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
7

Case studies of specific households can be 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

Quantitative studies also get some answers to why and how but within closed parameters only.

19

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

qualitative study or a quantitative study. For example, broader community 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 on the 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 Steps Activities development of the initial draft of I Overview of each districtsocio-economic indicators the sampling criteria, the team II VDC rankingwith agreed indicators for ranking villages realised that it would not be III Selection of representative VDCs based on their ranking possible to collect information for IV Selection of communities within the VDCs 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 villages within the districts and then the clusters within the VDCs for qualitative study.
TABLE 8: Steps Followed in Selecting Study Sites

STEP 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 socioeconomic levels (Table 3.2).

20

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

TABLE 9: Indicators for VDC Ranking

Criteria/Indicators High Poverty incidence (Food security, natural disasters, famine, etc.) Access to infrastructure (School, drinking water, health, communication, etc.) Access to road/market Agricultural productivity (Fertility level, cash crops, fruits, export, etc.) Total score 3 1 1 1 6 Ranking Assessment Medium 2 2 2 2 8 Low 1 3 3 3 10

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 illustrates this further. The scoring was based on available information and the knowledge and judgement of the participants. Five participants for each district representing local NGOs, the District 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 10: Selection of VDCs
Low Ranking (Better quality of livelihood) Inside quantitative sample Adjoining (outside quantitative) sample High Ranking (low quality of livelihood)

21

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

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 Within VDC
Steps 1 2 3 4 Activities Review VDC data and cast/ethnic composition 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 composition. 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 Outline (Checklist)

4.3.1 Participatory Approach
A 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.
ar ticipated in the R egional T raining and Field W ork. TABLE 12: Stakeholders Who P Par articipated Regional Training Work.
Stakeholders District Development Committee District Forest Office Local NGOs (Animation Programme) Livelihoods and Forestry Programme Participants Programme Officer of Local Governance Programme. Rangers with substantial experience of the districts. Representatives with experience in PRA tools, surveys. District Programme Officers.

Development Vision Nepal (Baseline Implementing agency) Senior professional as a team leader of the study. Tango International Designer and trainer of the study.

22

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

4.3.2 Two Regional Qualitative 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 to prepare 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.
Brief Session Plans of the Workshops
Orientation on sustainable livelihood framework Livelihoods assessment tools and methods Review of the topical outline Reorganising topical outline questions according to the tools Sample site selection Sample data analysis and technique to develop livelihood profiles.

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).
opical OutlineThe Simplified Livelihood F ramework FIGURE 4: Basis to Design T Topical Outline-The Framework
CONTEXTS, CONDITIONS AND TRENDS LIVELIHOOD RESOURCES INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES & ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES

Policy Social Economic Political Environmental Infrastructure Demography Historical

Natural Capital Economic/Financial Capital Physical Capital Human Capital Social Capital Political Capital

State Formal Civil Society Informal Civil Society Private Sector

Production and Income Activities Processing, Exchange and Marketing Activities Sacrifices and trade-offs

Nutritional Security Food Security Income Security Education Security Health Security Habitat Security Social Network Security Personal Safety Environmental Security Life Skills Capacity

Contextual analysis of conditions and trends and assessment of policy setting

Analysis of livelihood resources; trade-offs, combinations, sequences, trends

Analysis of livelihood strategy portfolios and pathways

Analysis of institutional/organisatio nal influences on access to livelihood resources and composition of livelihood strategy portfolio

Analysis of outcomes, adjustments and trade-offs

Source: Tango International, USA

23

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

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 of livelihoods 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 Participatory Livelihood Assessment Methods 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 information they 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.

24

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

4.4 Implementation and Information Analysis

4.4.1 Team Composition
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 line 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 recruitment 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 Monitoring and Quality 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 will only visit the next site once all collected information is interpreted, 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 villagers 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.

25

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

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 Information Analysis

1) Livelihoods Profile Preparation The primary analysis followed the livelihoods profiles development in the same order as the topical outline. 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 participation 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:
ools Used in the Analysis of Livelihoods P rofile TABLE 13: T Tools Profile
Tools Used Gender analysis Livelihoods profile analysis (strategies and activities) Problem analysis Institution analysis Opportunity analysis Purpose To understand gender relations and dynamics, 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 communities 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.

26

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

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 profiles and the findings from using the above tools. Where possible, the findings from the consolidated reports were again blended with the quantitative survey findings.

27

C H A P T E R

Conclusions
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, it 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 the case 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.

29

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

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 is 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.

30

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

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 is 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 simplified 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, and methods 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.

31

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

5.2 Key Learning and Future Impacts

The livelihoods baseline design should build on both a programmes mandate and livelihoods approach. Imbalance towards one side undermines the study, unless the objective 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. It 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 studies can be done in the following way: Linearboth studies done simultaneously; Iterativeconduct one study, analyse data, find gaps and recollect information. Repeat process until no gaps remain; Sequentialcomplete one study before starting the next. The iterative process helps the easy blending of qualitative and quantitative data compared to other methods, even if not much thought is given to blending during the design process. Nonetheless, it is time consuming and not feasible in a conflict situation. Any of the other two methods is helpful as long as the design of both the studies is done in an iterative way. The LFP baseline followed the third process. It is not easy to design a sampling plan, therefore it requires through planning before hand. The designing of the sampling plan is not an easy task and should be planned before it is designed. Each question on the questionnaire should be carefully assessed according to the studys objectives. This will dispense with unnecessary questions, which may appear important but may not be relevant to the study. The assessment of effects of the conflict must be an integral part of the study and the implementation process. The negative effects of the conflict on the important processes of baseline studies should be considered. Stakeholders participation is the foundation of any study so that they can claim ownership and know the importance of the information obtained. It is important to identify the main information necessary for the project or programme before the designing process. This will be largely determined by the information needs as per the SL framework and the log frame. However, an exercise with a team of relevant people will provide a broader vision so that important information is not overlooked the log frame and SL framework. Reduced the size of the questionnaire and checklist for any future baseline study.

32

R E F E R E N C E S

Ashley, Caroline and Karim Hussein. February 2002. Developing Methodologies for Livelihoods Impact Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. Development Vision Nepal. August 2003. Documentation of Quantitative and Qualitative Processes of the Livelihoods Baseline. (Draft) LFP. September 2003. Livelihoods Baseline Qualitative Report LFP. September 2003. Livelihoods Baseline Quantitative Report Ojha, Ganapati and Krishna Hari Maharjan. August 2002. Review of Literatures- Findings and strategies for Baseline Study for LFP. Tango International Inc. July 2002. Household Livelihoods Security Assessments- A Toolkit for Practitioners. Prepared for CARE USA, PHLS Unit. Uprety, Dinesh and Ramu Subedi. December 2001. Report on Bangladesh Visit on Livelihoods Baseline Study and Impact Monitoring System. Uprety, Dinesh. July 2002. Livelihoods Baseline Study Design and Implementation Planning some key considerations

33

Edited by: Mera Publications Design, Layout & Printing: Format Printing Press Kathmandu Nepal Tel: 422160, 4428572, 4428951

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme C/o: DFID, P.O. Box 106 Baluwatar, Kathmandu Phone: 977-01-4410010 Fax: 977-01-4410469 Email: lfp@lfp.org.np