Regional Livelihood Exchange Visit: India
(Janet Seeley: DFID India) 3 July 2000

Rural Livelihood Advisers and Field Managers to a Regional Livelihood Exchange Visit to India from 7 to 12 May 2000. DFID programmes represented included DFID-Nepal, DFID-Bangladesh and DFID-India. DFID-HQ was represented by the Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office (SLSO). Carl Jackson, from the Institute of Development Studies, UK, who is assisting SLSO establish the Livelihoods Connect learning platform, and Steve Jones who works with both DFID-India and DFID-Pakistan also participated.

The purpose of the visit was to familiarise other DFID offices with the DFID-India rural livelihoods programme, share experiences on livelihoods, and explore areas of mutual interest and possible future co-operation.

The visit was organised in collaboration with DFID-India partners: Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rural Development Department and Gramin Vikas Trust (GVT). The itinerary was based around field exposure, rather than office based workshops, to provide a 'real-life' backdrop to issues that are fundamental to the work we are all engaged in. The idea was to encourage learning and discussion in an informal setting, while keeping the basic issues firmly in the forefront of our minds.

The majority of the week was spent 'in the field'. The Group spent Monday/Tuesday, 8/9 May in AP with AP Rural Livelihoods Project (APRLP). Wednesday/Thursday, 10/11 May were spent with the Western India Rainfed Farming Project (WIRFP). On Friday 12 May , the Group returned to Delhi. After a debriefing, the Group attended a workshop on monitoring livelihood indicators with consultants and project staff of the Eastern India Rainfed Farming Project (EIRFP), which was being held in Delhi. The Group departed on Friday evening.

Focused regional exchanges of this kind provide a valuable forum for discussion and institutional learning as well as identifying possible areas of common interest for future work. The trip provided a very useful exchange of views and experiences in rural development and livelihood approaches and highlighted a number of areas where similar lesson learning was going on and benefits could be made by sharing of outputs.

The major learning for DFID-India staff was the opportunity to look at our own, ongoing work through the eyes of outsiders who are:

• well-versed in the key issues we are grappling with from a generic 'development' perspective;
• are knowledgeable of a South Asian context (which has many similarities as well as differences); and
• have a thorough understanding of DFID's own (global) agenda.

Specific lessons for DFID-India include:

• recognising the strengths of, and opportunities associated with, our existing portfolio;
• recognising that many of the difficult issues we grapple with are common across the different country programmes;
• recognising the enormous advantages we have in our partnership with GoAP to move forward in a donor/State Govt initiative of which our colleagues can only dream;
• discovering that both DFID-India and DFID-Bangladesh are in the process of developing monitoring tools for impact and outcome assessment. This has resulted in a meeting being arranged in the UK during the NRAC (Natural Resource Advisers Conference) week in mid-July, to bring together ideas arising from these initiatives and encourage further internal learning in this key area;
• visitors saw value in the portfolio of RL work we are developing in India (e.g. the way that projects like APRLP are moving on from the 'enclave' projects characterised by WIRFP);
• recognising the degree to which our Rural Livelihoods Advisory Groups (not just in India, but across offices represented, and probably across DFID globally) have moved away from the 'commodity-focus' of 'traditional' NR programmes towards a more holistic engagement with livelihood strategies and associated policy processes. The traditional NR areas of focus are still important as entry points for engaging with rural people, and this still requires specific technical expertise. However, the current emphasis is as much on institutional change, engagement in policy debate, supporting and strengthening non-land based assets (including social and human capital) as it is on increasing water use availability or crop yields. Particularly important is the way in which DFID's livelihoods approach leads us to recognise the importance of non-land based activities (NLBAs) for securing improved livelihoods for poor rural communities and individuals.

The Bangladesh and Nepal teams have written brief reports. A summary of the Key lessons they feel they learnt are presented here:

• the importance of a commitment to a reform agenda by government;
• the value of working within a national policy framework;
• important to identify entry points for dialogue with government during design;
• water or land based entry points providing a focus are necessary to motivate partners and control project boundaries but sequencing of interventions needs to be considered. There is a need for a clear strategy for ensuring equity and inclusion of the poorest and avoid the danger of local elites (even in very poor areas) capturing most of the benefits;
• community empowerment savings and credit groups as a means of social mobilisation - 'Jankar' (village professionals) system is a way to build skills and self-confidence to demand government services within communities;
• partnerships between NGOs and GOs within the programme are possible;
• importance of effective partnerships (and how India's decentralising government structures and commitment to a reform agenda) provide opportunities to explore this in the context of local level decision making and resource allocation;
• exit strategies - the importance of developing clear exit strategies at the very beginning of projects;
• informing and influencing Government is absolutely key for real impact;
• macro level to micro level linkages are key and every opportunity should be taken to influence Government - government commitment and developing a shared vision is important. Certain NGOs have only limited motivation and ability to make macro linkages;
• importance of understanding pre-existing/ongoing vulnerability and coping strategies;
• defined land based entry points such as crops or water;
• decentralisation is an opportunity for structuring livelihood approaches;
• the Jankar or local village activist is valuable for local ownership and potential sustainability of inputs;
• self-help savings groups provide a good entry point;
• developing relationships at national, state and local level is key;
• institutional sustainability remains unresolved for many NGO projects;
• area based approaches can deliver livelihood impacts but a sustainable strategy for remote areas is rarely found. Chances of success may be enhanced where there is a link to policy development and transformation;
• monitoring of livelihood impacts is a growing concern to all DFID programmes. In DFID-Bangladesh concern over attribution of project benefits has arisen

Future Plans - a number of important issues emerged where further discussion would be valuable. Some of these will be initially followed up by arranging a meeting at the NRAC in July on livelihood indicators, but given the similarity of issues and objectives, a regional workshop at the end of the year would also be useful. DFID-Bangladesh has offered to host this. It is envisioned that this would include partners rather than being a purely internal DFID gathering. Details to be discussed further. This picks up on suggestions by DFID Rural Livelihoods Department (London) for such a meeting. There are also possibilities for Advisers to join teams in neighbouring countries for key missions and reviews. These opportunities to be explored further.

Janet Seeley (Rural Livelihoods Advisory Group, DFID-India)