Advisory and Review Assignment Report

LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT & PROMOTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (LACI-P)
(by the GOP and PPAF, co-financed by the Federal Republic of Germany through KfW)
Charsadda 03.08.2012
Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1

HELVETAS SWISS INTERCOOPERATION September 12, 2012
Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 2 3 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives and Scope of the Advisory and Review Assignment...................................... 1
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS ............................................................................................... 2 COMMUNITY ORGANISATION ............................................................................................... 4 3.1 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions .......................................................... 4 Process of Community Mobilisation .......................................................................... 4 Identification of Ultra Poor (PSC methodology) ........................................................ 5 Role of Partner Organizations................................................................................... 5 Role of PPAF............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2 3.3
Analysis and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 8 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 9 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions ........................................................ 10 Recommended Approach to Planning and Monitoring ........................................... 10 Field observations ................................................................................................... 11 Planning Method and Process ................................................................................ 12 Monitoring................................................................................................................ 13
PLANNING AND MONITORING ............................................................................................ 10 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3
Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 12
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 13 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions ........................................................ 15 Objectives and recommended approach ................................................................ 15 Observations at the Level of Partner and Community Organisations .................... 15 Assessing markets for opportunities ....................................................................... 16 Assessing the feasibility of the proposed enterprise / trade ................................... 16 Support services for enterprises ............................................................................. 17 The role of PPAF ..................................................................................................... 17 Situation analysis .................................................................................................... 17 Livelihood Investment Plan ..................................................................................... 17 Identification of Market Opportunities ..................................................................... 18 Understanding barriers of entry .............................................................................. 18 Business planning ................................................................................................... 19 Analysis of sustainability of the livelihood / enterprise............................................ 19 Resources / Time Available for Preparation, Follow up ......................................... 20 Combining Sustainable Livelihood Development with Value Chain Development 20 i
LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION............................................................ 15 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7 5.2.8
Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012
5.3 6 6.1
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 21 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions ........................................................ 23 PPAF and CPI Manuals .......................................................................................... 23 Impression about Partner Organizations ................................................................ 24 Field Observations .................................................................................................. 24
COMMUNITY PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES ............................................... 23 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.2 6.3
Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 26 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 26 Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions ........................................................ 28 PPAF ....................................................................................................................... 28 Communities (COs)................................................................................................. 28 Partner Organizations ............................................................................................. 28 PPAF ....................................................................................................................... 29 Partner Organisations ............................................................................................. 29
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MANAGEMENT ........................................................... 28 7.1 7.1.1 7.1.2 7.1.3 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.3
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 29
FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................................... 30
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 Annex 5a Annex 5b Annex 6 TORs of ART Assignment ART Assignment Schedule Minutes of Introductory Workshop (prepared by LACI-P PMU) Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, DFID Typical Format of a Design Sheet for an Irrigation Channel O & M Technical Requirements, Hand Pumps & Sanitation Schemes Proposed Activities DPM (from the Inception Report) A- 1 A- 6 A- 7 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18
ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACO ADB AKRSP ARR ART BMZ BoD CBO CC CCB CIG CLF CO CPI CS CSO CSPM CUP CV DDP DNH DPM DRM DRR DRU EAD EIDM ESMF EU GBI GoP HADAF HDI HED HQ HSI IP IR IUCN IWEI KfW KP LACI-P LEP LFM LIP LSO M&E MER MGPO Assistant Coordination Officer Asian Development Bank Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (PO Funding Phase one) Advisory Review Report Assignment Review Team (German) Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development Board of Directors Community Based Organization Climate Change Citizen Community Board Common Interest Group Community Livelihood Fund Community Organisation Community Physical Infrastructure Conflict Sensitivity Civil Society Organization Conflict Sensitive Programme Management Community Uplift Program (PO Funding Phase two) Curriculum Vitae District Development Plan Do No Harm Disaster Preparedness Mitigation Disaster Risk Management Disaster Risk Reduction District Response Unit Economic Affairs Division (Federal Government) Energy, Infrastructure & Disaster Management Environment & Social Management Framework European Union Grant-Based Intervention Government of Pakistan Hazara Development and Advocacy Foundation (PO Funding Phase two) Human Development Index Health Education & People with Special Needs Headquarter HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation Implementation Plan Inception Report International Union for the Conservation of Nature Integrated Water Efficient Infrastructure Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (previously NWFP) Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project Livelihood Enhancement & Protection Logical Framework Matrix Livelihood Investment Plan Local Support Organization Monitoring & Evaluation Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Mountain and Glacier Protection Organisation (PO Funding Phase two) iii
MIED MIS MOU MTDF NDMA NGO NOC NRSP NWFP O&M PCR PMU PO PMD PPAF PRA QPR RDP RSP SABAWON SDC SDF SERVE SIE SMR SNE SO SRSP STEP SWO SWWS TL TOP TOR TOT UC UNDP UNHCR VDP VO VSWA WB W&E WO
Mountain Institute for Educational Development (PO Funding Phase two) Management Information System Memorandum of Understanding Mid-Term Development Framework National Disaster Management Authority Non Governmental Organization No Objection Certificate National Rural Support Programme (PO Funding Phase one) North West Frontier Province (officially renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Province) Operation and Maintenance Project Completion Report Project Management Unit Partner Organization (of PPAF) Pakistan Meteorological Department Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Participatory Rural Appraisal Quarterly Progress Report Rural Development Project (PO Funding Phase one) Rural Support Programme Social Action Bureau for Assistance In Welfare and Organizational Networking (PO Funding Phase two) Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Salik Development Foundation (PO Funding Phase two) Sustainable Development, Education, Rural Infrastructure, Veterinary Care and Environment (PO Funding Phase one) Senior International Expert Short Monthly Progress Report Senior National Expert Social Organisers Sarhad Rural Support Programme (PO Funding Phase one) Short-Term Expert Pool Social Welfare Officer Support With Working Solution (PO Funding Phase one) Team Leader Terms of Partnership Terms of Reference Training of Trainers Union Council United Nations Development Programme United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Village Development Plan Village Organization Voluntary Social Welfare Agency Ordinance World Bank Water & Energy Woman Organisation
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The first ART assignment was carried out from July 30th until August 14th, 2012. The team comprised six experts covering aspects of community mobilization, planning, livelihoods, community infrastructure and disaster management and preparedness. An orientation workshop was organized with all POs and subsequently meetings were organized with 11 out of 12 POs from the Funding Phases One and Two. Only two out of five Districts could be visited due to security restrictions and interactions took place with three Community Organizations. Despite some delays in project mobilization, the ART acknowledges that PPAF has quickly engaged already registered POs with a proven track record and with whom PPAF has past working experience to develop and submit project proposals. Two funding phases have already been approved and the POs of funding phase one have already initiated some interventions. POs of funding phase two are currently in the process of starting mobilization and detailed planning. While POs in general are found to be experienced and familiar with project implementation and the PPAF approach, the ART makes the following recommendations with regard to the different sectors: Community Mobilisation Male and female CO formation is currently focused around LACI-P and requires qualitative improvements, which can be brought by ensuring that its members are trained to do planning and activities that are more than just needs identification. Female Social Organizers capacities need strengthening and their role as facilitators needs to be enhanced. This is essential for improved participation of women community members at the VDO and LSO levels. Partner organizations need to review their implementation plans to ensure the VDO and LSO formation is completed latest by the end of the second year and first quarter of the third year. This would help to assess the results of the project. Sharing of experiences, best practices and lessons learned on community mobilisation are very few, only for the RSPs. POs who are just entering the LACI-P project could gain considerable knowledge and improve the quality of their community mobilisation efforts if they had an opportunity to learn from POs who are in the earlier funding phases of this project. The PPAF Operational Policies Manual needs to be complemented with updated and comprehensive implementation guidelines on Community Mobilisation More detail is especially needed on what processes can help facilitate women COs representation in the VDO in a qualitative manner. Also, further clarity guidance is needed on the planning cycle and on how male/female COs and VDOs can develop Multi Sector Plans, which go beyond the LACI-P and incorporate self-help or self initiated activities. Planning and Monitoring Communities require time for joint reflections, discussions and analysis, particularly the very poor households. Planning should be seen as an opportunity for the community to engage in social interaction and for a broader analysis of their problems. The planning process should enhance the capacity of the community to address needs/interests of the community, especially those of the excluded and the marginalized members. At present there is a considerable pressure on POs and the COs to produce results within a short period. This compromises on the quality of situation analysis. Sound planning must be based on a comprehensive situation analysis and a framework of analysis could be the DFID Framework of Sustainable Livelihoods.
A multi sector planning approach seems meaningful. The tools recommended for the establishment of an MSP should be reviewed and further refined so that they can actually yield the expected results. The POs need to integrate multi sector planning actively into their operations and systems. The planning should include livelihoods as a thematic area and the community should assess potentials and provide suggestions how their assets can be used for improved livelihoods. The MSP may also consider incorporating livelihood protection aspects (DPM) based on risk mapping as an integral part of the plan. Detailed implementation guidelines should be prepared for the multi sector planning process. POs need to develop detailed monitoring plans which are compatible with the requirements of LACI-P and which support POs in effective project management. A monitoring plan should also include the indicators for the outputs and the outcomes, the methods used for data collection, the frequency of data collection, details on who collects data and a corresponding reporting format for the LACI-P. Livelihoods Only a small number of different livelihood activities are proposed such as shops, small animals, tailoring, embroidery or different trades through skills training. The market is assessed on the basis of proposed ideas, no pro active checking of market demand/opportunities is carried out and no structured market appraisals are conducted by the POs. The existing overall approach to livelihood development needs to consider the market orientation of livelihood interventions by combining Sustainable Livelihood with Value Chain Development. The SLA is household-oriented, while VC focuses on markets and linkages. The two approaches are complementary and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the structure of markets. In general, more time needs to be allocated for planning and preparing of livelihood activities, in particular for the situation analysis, LIP preparation and doing market assessments. The focus must be on the sustainability of the enterprise and the development of a business plan. The LIPs are usually limited to a rather small number of different activities such as shops, small animals, tailoring, embroidery or different trades through skills training. The market is assessed on the basis of proposed ideas, no pro active checking of market demand/opportunities is carried out and no structured market appraisals are conducted by the POs. A focus has to be on building up local support services considering who in the market is able to provide such support services beyond the project duration (e.g. market linkages, business development services) rather than PO staff providing these services. There is a need to develop an implementation manual for livelihood/enterprise development and train trainers on using the manual. Community Physical Infrastructure The discussions with PPAF and POs revealed that there are no standard project planning and implementation format recommendations for the implementation of CPIs. Almost all POs follow their own formats which are all different and these should be checked for consistency and conformity with the PPAF Operational Policies Manual. There is also a need to technically update the existing Community Physical Infrastructure Project Manual and also to incorporate the new approach of the Operational Policies Manual. Of particular importance are guidelines for Operation and Maintenance detailing how the respective costs are being recovered. A separate exit and O&M strategy should thus be devised and integrated into every CPI project and integrated into the project proposal. Each CPI intervention needs to be protected against disasters through mainstreaming risk reduction measures and special structures that can prevent or reduce damage to structures in
vi
case of disasters. This needs to be integrated in the design process for CPIs and coordinated with general Disaster Management and Preparedness measures in a community. There is a dire need of capacity enhancement of the POs and PPAFs CPI staff especially on new technologies such as flow measuring techniques, open channels design including parabolic canals, gravity flow pipe irrigation systems, sprinkler/drip irrigation systems, DWSS, spurs and flood protection structures (with stability analysis), as well as in the use of modern design software. Disaster Preparedness and Management Disaster Preparedness Management (DPM) is part of the policy framework at PPAF and there is an independent DPM Unit. Partner Organizations acknowledge the importance of DPM and the communities are fully aware of disaster risks in their surroundings, as the LACI-P implementation area is highly disaster-prone. However, DPM is often viewed by POs as a post disaster activity such as relief and reconstruction. There is thus a need for accelerated efforts to integrate preventive DPM measures and it is suggested to implement the activities suggested in the Inception Report (ref. Annex 6). The development of a DPM mainstreaming framework, checklists and formats have top priority for the integration of preparedness and risk reduction measures at the planning stage of project proposals for the different sectors. There is also a need to reconsider the implementation plans of the Funding Phase One and Two and to incorporate DPM activities into them and make Disaster Management Plans an integral part of the Multi Sector Plans of PPAF. In conclusion, the main recommendations outlined above are considered to be linked to the following three issues: 1. Operationalization of the new Operational Policies Manual Implementation Manuals/Guidelines need to be developed and POs need familiarisation with the new approach. 2. Time Pressure Meaningful and participatory planning takes time and mostly new PO staff need familiarisation, training and coaching. 3. Management Capacities of the PMU The issue is acknowledged by PPAF, and the PMU will get six new permanent staff. Planning, monitoring and reporting need strengthening and streamlining. Finally, the nature of the ART assignments was questioned during the debriefing. PPAF and KfW pointed out a certain conflict of interest, as the Leader of the HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation Consultant team is in the uncomfortable double role of advising PPAF in the implementation of the LACI-P on the one hand and reviewing it on the other hand.
vii
viii
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The PPAF (Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund) started the Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project with financial support of KfW in five Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in February 2012. The overall objective of the Project is to contribute to the improvement of the general living conditions and quality of life of the poor population in the five selected project districts of KP1. The Project has a special focus on the poorest families and it is targeting approximately 600,000 people in those districts. The implementation of the project is supported by an international consultant, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, who has a permanent team stationed at the PPAF office in Islamabad and is integrated in the Project Management Unit. In addition, short term assignments by international and national consultants are scheduled in particular to carry out bi-annual review and advisory assignments. These assignments are to be carried out by a team of six experts, two internationals and four nationals and they are lead by the International Team Leader (Chris Morger). The main purpose of the assignments is to provide a general overview of the state of the Project in relation to achieving its overall goal and to point out possible needs to readjust, refocus or improve Project activities.
1.2
Objectives and Scope of the Advisory and Review Assignment
The main objective of this first review assignment was to conduct a review of the planning process currently being undertaken by the Partner Organizations and Community Organizations. It focused on participation and inclusion of the communities in the process as outlined in the PPAF Operational Policies Manual for Grant Based Interventions, reviewed recent rounds of community planning and the needs for capacity building at CO as well as at PO level. The ART thus comprised experts in community mobilisation, multi sector planning, as well as LEP, CPI and DPM specialists. The assignment was carried out between July 30th and August 14th 2012 and the methodology comprised a desk study of available documents, a briefing with PPAF and KfW followed by an orientation workshop with PPAF and all POs in Islamabad. ART members held bilateral discussions and interactions with the concerned PPAF Units and POs and COs were visited by the team, wherever possible in the field or alternatively in Islamabad. Field visits were unfortunately restricted to areas where NOCs could be obtained, namely the districts of Charsadda and Swabi. It was not possible to obtain NOCs for the other three Districts Chitral, Buner and D.I.Khan. Therefore, only three COs could be visited and the selection is thus considered rather incidental and neither comprehensive nor representative. The TORs of the ART Assignment and the schedule are attached as Annex 1 and 2.
The target districts for the project are Chitral, Buner, Charsadda, Swab, and D.I. Khan.
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS
The LACI-P and the consulting services have started on February 1st 2012. Despite some delays in project mobilization, the ART acknowledges that PPAF has quickly engaged already registered POs with a proven track record and with whom PPAF has past working experience to develop and submit project proposals. Two funding phases have already been approved and POs of funding phase one have already initiated some interventions while those of funding phase two have started mobilization and detailed planning. Funding Phase One A first funding phase (4/2012 9/2014) was approved in April 2012 with six POs2 working in 19 Union Councils. These POs have all started social mobilization, CO establishment and planning and first activities are being implemented in the fields of CPI and LEP. After only four months into project implementation it is still too early to assess whether implementation is on track but no evidence suggests that it is behind schedule either. However, many POs have mentioned that they feel a certain time pressure because targets are high, activities relatively small and numerous and participatory planning and implementation is a time consuming process. Just as an example, SWWS has more than 290 COs to either revitalise or establish new during the project period of 30 months. Progress in the first months was at an average of 7 COs so it is quite obvious that CO establishment has to speed up in the coming months and it certainly will in order to achieve the target within the given time frame. Other issues mentioned by these POs were related to the Implementation Plans which are part of the financing agreements. They are often considered unrealistic and over ambitious, again mostly in relation to the schedule and the time allocated for some activities. Chapter 5 on Livelihood Enhancement and Protection will go into more details on this. Funding Phase Two Funding Phase Two (7/2012 12/2014) was approved in July 2012 and the contracts with six POs3 have just been signed but no disbursements were made yet. POs are mainly in the process of mobilising their own teams and hiring the necessary staff. Some of the POs are going into new Districts where they do not have a presence yet and we were told that they also do need NOCs to travel to these Districts which can create problems (e.g. HADAF, which starts in Buner). This is very likely to complicate supervision from their main offices as well as training, coaching and monitoring of the new local staff. Among the six new POs of Funding Phase Two are two MGPO and MIED - which specialise on Health and Education respectively. This is considered a good strategy since supporting community health posts and schools requires specialised partners which are experienced to work with the respective government line agencies and are familiar with the requirements and procedures. Project Management During the recent months it became evident that project management faced a serious lack of capacities to manage the project effectively and efficiently. This resulted in several delays, e.g. the detailed Costed Work Plans for sub-projects requested by KfW and urgently needed for project monitoring could not be finalised in time and were still not available at the time of the ART
2 3
AKRSP; NRSP; RDP; SERVE; SRSP; SWWS CUP; HADAF; MIED; MGPO; SABAWON; SALIK
assignment. Similarly, the QPR for the second quarter 2012 was also not finalised yet, however, PPAF hired two consultants to collect the necessary information from the POs for the report. PPAF has recognised this lack of capacity and is taking measures to improve the situation. It is planned to constitute a PMU in the coming weeks and interviews with potential staff had been carried out at the beginning of August. The PMU will get six permanent staff members and it was confirmed that four would be existing and experienced PPAF staff, while two will be new to the organisation.
COMMUNITY ORGANISATION
Sustainable poverty focused development requires the presence of cohesive, active and broad based community organizations. These COs/WOs and their VDOs are the foundation and essential elements through which the LACI-P project has been designed to provide support to ultra poor households by livelihood enhancement inputs, resources for building essential community physical infrastructure, disaster risk reduction measures and health and education initiatives. The quality of processes applied for the formation and consequently the functioning and the institutional development of the COs/WOs and the VDOs will directly affect the effectiveness and efficiency with which these groups will use the internal and external resources and produce sustainable results. Hence, regular review and learning of the social mobilisation from community to village level are essential to ensure that timely support and interventions can incrementally improve the processes applied.
3.1
3.1.1
Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions

Process of Community Mobilisation
The steps for the formation of men and women COs as laid out in the PPAF Operational Policies Manual are being applied by the POs in the field, albeit in some places more in a mechanical way. The requirement of 70 percent4 coverage of a village and at least 40 percent participation of women in the community, e.g. at least one from each household, is a challenge for some of the smaller POs. Many POs thus had to employ new female staff and train them so that they can perform the role of Social Organizers (SOs) to mobilize woman and form women COs. There are separate men and women COs. Communication between the men and women COs is either through the respective SOs or through female or male relatives who are members of the respective COs in the same neighbourhood or hamlet. The coverage is nearly all the households in the neighbourhood. Male domination in the process of women CO formation and a certain dependence on men COs was observed, e.g. consent and cooperation of influential men in the village is necessary before the women CO formation process can begin. Although women COs identify needs, they expect the men CO to do the village planning with the PO. The process of men and women COs collectively forming a VDO is given in the Operational Policies Manual. However, most of the SOs from POs are not clear how women participation and involvement will be ensured in a VDO beyond the point of need identification. The Operational Policies Manual also does not actually specify which processes may be applied to ensure proper integration of representation of men COs and women COs at the VDO level. A truly participatory VDO does not appear to be possible at this stage. Similarly, an LSO may also have limitations with respect to the involvement of women members in decision making and participation in its management and programs. Office holders of especially the woman COs are nominated and elected on the basis of expediency as there usually are not many educated women in a community. Hence, normally the secretary of the CO is a younger educated girl, while the president is a mature woman who has respect and mobility within the community and often her husband is the local activist or office holder in the men CO. There is no position of a treasurer at the CO level, fund collection is for savings in a bank account for which records are maintained by the Secretary and overseen by the SOs of the PO. The democratic process of nomination and election of office holders in COs and VDOs is primarily through a show of hands and not by a secret ballot. In the village Asota in Swabi, where a women VDO has been established, the need for secret ballot was not perceived as necessary
Of the 70% coverage of households, 60 % membership in the village organization has to be from poor households
as the President and Secretary had unanimous support. This is being termed as the culture of KPK, where everyone in the community knows each others strengths and all are united when it comes to decisions. Minutes of COs meetings are written in Urdu and normally deal with the election of office holders, resolutions passed by the CO concerning specific project inputs, e.g. identification of community needs and their priority, or inclusion of poor and needy men and women in the membership of the CO. Although many issues may be discussed at the CO meetings, not everything may be recorded. The significance of recording minutes of meetings is not understood by the community, especially the poor. For the Secretary and President these are primarily to show the SO that the essential monthly meeting was held. Most of the members of the CO, especially the poor and women members are Pushto speaking and do not understand Urdu. Therefore, if and when the minutes are read out to confirm if they are correct and accurate there is very little or even an absence of participation unless a special effort is made to translate them by a bilingual member of the CO into Pushto. Records of contributions by members for savings are maintained in a register and individual account books. The realisation and the significance of participation of the ultra poor in the COs is at a nascent stage among the COs. The use of the PSC is a recent measure to ensure identification of ultra poor. However, processes to meaningfully engage the poor in the affairs of the CO are weak or absent. Male or female poor are often not aware of their role or reason for participation in the CO. Special sensitisation and efforts will have to be made as well as actual roles within the CO will need to be defined for them so that they are encouraged to participate in the actual processes of CO formation and consolidation into VDOs. During the womens meeting in which ultra poor had been selected the ultra poor members were not present and in the male group the ultra poor were not aware of their role or the reason for their inclusion in the CO apart from being identified for livelihood support.
3.1.2
Identification of Ultra Poor (PSC methodology)
The methodology of administering the PSC through POs is effective. Local community activists usually assist the SOs in identifying the ultra poor. In addition, verification through the CO is also useful in ensuring that there is consensus and no mistake in the selection of such households. The PSC process also permits the PO to identify the poor communities within a village as well as to ensure that the process of CO formation takes place in those neighbourhoods as well. However, SOs or enumerators of POs, who administer PSCs may require more clarity with respect to the definition of each variable in the PSC, e.g. whether a one room abode is to be counted or only additional rooms are to be counted. PPAF may need to audit at regular and frequent intervals the administering of PSCs at the early stages when it is being administered by the POs so as to ensure correct selection of poor communities and ultra poor households and to avoid manipulation of entries. Currently, PSC data scores come at a later stage, while the process of CO formation has already started in a number of neighbourhoods of a village. Some POs (e.g. NRSP) have tried using the BISP (Benazir Income Support Programme) data for identification of ultra poor households, but this has not been useful. First of all, the available data is two years old so circumstances of ultra and very poor may have changed, and secondly, there is the risk of manipulation of data in some cases where well off households are shown as ultra poor.
3.1.3
Role of Partner Organizations
POs in their proposals and implementation plans have already committed to the number of COs and women COs they are going to form, to the number of assets to be transferred, as well as the CPI schemes. These have been explained as estimates and actual figures will be finalised when they enter and work in the community. Similarly, for Health and Education development programs, it is explained that proposals were based on preliminary investigations and discussions. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 5
Changes in the implementation plan can be made to incorporate the field realities, even though it has been finalised with PPAF. In the Funding Phase One IPs, the process of CO formation is mainly to be completed in the first two years of the project. However, in the case of VDOs a significant number are planned to be formed only in the last six months of the project. Similarly, LSOs are in most cases planned to be formed in the last 6 months of the project only. Information from PO Implementation Plans on Formation of Number of COs, VDOs and LSOs in the three year project PO AKRSP SERVE NRSP SRSP RDP SWWS UCs 6 1 3 4 1 2 COs to be revived 10 80 280 44 0 20 New COs Yr1 140 60 70 10 104 140 Yr2 140 60 70 40 104 140 Yr3 0 0 0 15 0 0 Yr1 0 0 0 0 0 0 VDOs Yr2 9 7 14 11 7 9 Yr3 12 12 12 8 7 12 Yr1 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSOs Yr2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yr3 2 0 3 2 1 2
For example, in the IP for AKRSP it is mentioned that 12 out of 21 VDOs will be formed in the last 6 months of the project; similarly the 2 LSOs will also be formed in the last 3 or 6 months of the project. Same is the case with NRSPs IP, which shows 12 out of 26 VDO formations will be completed in the last six months of the project and the 3 LSOs will also be formed in the last 6 months. All the POs are following the steps laid out in Annex 8 of the PPAF Operational Policies Manual for Community Mobilisation. This document provides useful guideline for the smaller POs who do not have an institutionalised and well documented process for community mobilisation and organization. Larger POs like NRSP have developed comprehensive manuals and guidelines for their field operations and especially for social mobilisation. However, in some instances POs are going into new Districts and UCs where they have not worked before. They had to set up field offices, recruit new staff for social mobilisation and train them. In many instances the new SOs, although from the target area, do not have the requisite experience. It will take some time for them to understand the process of participatory development and community mobilisation in the true sense. More time will be required for the SOs to gain experience or confidence to engage the needy sections of the community in a manner that makes a meaningful CO. Close supervision and guidance of senior HID staff of the PO will be necessary at the initial stages of CO and VDO formation. Among the smaller POs no senior level women SO were evident nor were there female Community Mobilisation specialist. There appeared to be dependence on one senior male HID staff for the whole team. Another weakness noticed among female SOs especially of the smaller POs was the absence of knowledge of planning processes and of facilitation skills for the purpose of assisting community women to undertake village or community level planning. They felt their role as SO was the formation of women COs, training the office holders in community management skills, encouraging savings among women members and the identification and prioritisation of needs, training or sensitisation of women members on issues around marriage contracts, divorce, inheritance, identity cards and motivating them to become members of the VDO and LSO, etc. Among approaches to engage community members towards social organization formation, some POs use tools while others depend on verbal communication to interact with community members and especially with illiterates in village planning. Some POs were using tools like PRA to do resource mapping and village level planning. Many SOs or HID staff in POs feel
disadvantaged to engage and communicate with the illiterate ultra poor to get any response from them. Assistance of CO members or a village activist is considered essential for this purpose. Except for the RSPs (through the RSPN network and resource persons) other POs do not have any forum to discuss and share lessons or learn about developments related to Community Mobilisation. These POs are basically following the guidance provided by PPAF or through trainings that are funded by PPAF and the orientation meetings organized with each Unit of PPAF at the time their LACI-P project is approved. A recent initiative of the PPAF HID Unit has been to organize exposure visits of PO staff and CO members to other POs and COs. The HID Unit has also just started experience sharing forums.
3.1.4
Role of PPAF
Research, training and all aspects of Community Mobilisation are housed in the HID Unit of PPAF. The HID Unit staff undertakes field visits to the POs after a project has been approved by PPAF for capacity building of PO staff. Through a checklist, they also assess the extent of transference of values of governance, transparency and women inclusion in COs. Lessons learned of the HID Unit are shared on a monthly basis with other Units of PPAF and fortnightly reports are sent to the CEO on the status of community mobilisation among POs. The HID Unit also hosts 2 to 3 days annual workshops with POs on sharing lessons related to community mobilisation on what worked and what did not. The exposure visits mentioned in the earlier section and the experience sharing forums are important and key to enhancing the capacity of POs and COs as well as of PPAF internal staff. POs are usually being supported by other agencies as well and can draw upon other resources. Similarly, these POs facilitate COs to harness resources at a wider level and not exclusively through PPAF support. However, PPAF has introduced certain key elements or standards to community mobilisation which were or are not present in the current working modalities of most of the POs, e.g. ensuring a 70 percent representation of the community and at least a 40 percent representation of women in the Community Organizations. This requires change in the approach towards community mobilisation as well as staffing in the POs as discussed above. For example, NRSP has decided as a policy that it will focus on establishing VDOs primarily of women COs and focus on village development through these VDOs. Close monitoring and lessons learned from such changes in the approach - both institutionally and at the village level - will help the PPAF HID Unit to provide feedback to the other POs who may be struggling on how to manage this challenge. The HID Unit also supervises an internship program where interns from remote and less developed areas are given class room training on Social Mobilisation and then are sent to work for six months in POs field programs. The involvement of these interns in PO operations and interactions with the staff has helped to further facilitate inculcation of the three key values of governance, transparency and womens participation.
3.2
Analysis and Conclusions
1. The process of community mobilisation appears to be weak, male dominated and mechanical in most cases. The focus seems to be in meeting the targets specified in the IPs (number of Community Organizations established and LIPs or CPI schemes prepared per quarter). The SOs do not have an overall picture of the purpose of the CO formation in a village. Their understanding is to prepare COs for LACI-P project interventions and there does not appear to be any scope of collective work beyond this project. We did not find evidence of any CO undertaking any collective self initiated work during its formative phase which could contribute towards a COs sustainability and giving it a purpose beyond LACI-P. 2. In almost all POs, especially the smaller ones, the HID and social mobilisation is being led by men and in most cases there are no senior female SOs on their staff. More time will be required to consolidate the process of CO formation, especially those for women, as the female SOs require greater exposure and experience. 3. Some POs are going into new geographical areas on the suggestion of PPAF, e.g. Districts and UCs where they do not have a presence yet. Some areas have security concerns and movement of staff from head office to field office may be restricted or difficult5. Therefore, close supervision of new Social Mobilisation staff, support and guidance from the PO head office may be affected if free and unhindered access is not there. 4. The Implementation Plans are suggesting that a number of VDOs and almost all the LSOs will be formed in the last six months of the project. This would mean that these VDOs and LSOs may not be sufficiently consolidated and may not be able to complete their planning or project implementation work before the project ends. This may affect the expected results of the project which anticipates at least 30 per cent Village Organizations to be functioning actively. 5. PPAF has tried to bring together the best practices related to Social Mobilisation in a structured manner in its Operational Policies Manual. These serve as principles and guidelines for its staff to determine and measure the POs performance. However, the Manual has not dealt in detail with issues of quality of participation. One example is the quality of integration of woman CO membership into the VDO. Similarly, the importance of secret ballot in setting up the governance structure and in what circumstances it can be flexible is not addressed in sufficient detail. 6. During the formation of COs and VDOs there is (1) a visioning exercise undertaken with members facilitated by the SOs either in first or second dialogue phase. (2) During the second dialogue a needs identification is carried out followed by (3) the third dialogue and LACI-P project inputs. There is no intermediary planning in this whole process which is other than for LACI-P. This intermediary planning would be an exercise in planning either at community level or at village level in which the community takes on own initiatives or self help work to consolidate the CO or VDO formation process and works on initiatives beyond LACI-P. 7. This intermediary phase of self initiatives can be brought about if the CO or VDO has the skills for planning. However, there are neither specific guidelines for planning provided by the PPAF Operational Policies Manual nor support for training in planning or multi sector planning. The approach is more to see whether the CO is able to prioritise needs and supervise and monitor development programs.
particularly Chitral, D.I.Khan and Buner where travel NOCs have to be obtained from the 11th Army Corps
3.3
Recommendations
Community Organization: 1. In the short to medium term ensure that the process of CO formation includes training of its members in planning, especially on needs and activities that are self initiatives (e.g. self help). Partner Organizations: 1. In the short term review training of SOs, especially of female SOs to ensure they are equipped to facilitate and train COs in planning initiatives for LACI-P as well as self-help based activities. 2. In the short to medium term review the Implementation Plans so as to determine that, realistically, VDO formation is completed latest by end of two years and LSO formation within the first quarter of the third year. This would enable project results to be measured. PPAF: 1. In the short term facilitate quarterly forums for sharing best practises, experiences and lessons learned on Community Mobilisation between POs. This especially for those POs already into the LACI-P program, but also those joining in the later Funding Phases. This with special attention to: factors that help build sustainable and truly participatory COs and VDOs; integration of women CO representation and participation at VDO and LSO level; and role and participation of poor and ultra poor in COs, VDOs and LSOs.
2. In the short term conduct audit of the PSC application to determine if the correct entries are being made by PO field enumerators. 3. In the short to medium term complement the Social Mobilisation section of the Operational Policies Manual with specific guidelines for best practices and Multi Sector Planning approaches by COs and VDOs as well as processes that facilitate integration of women CO representation and participation at VDO and LSO levels.
4
4.1
4.1.1
PLANNING AND MONITORING

Recommended Approach to Planning and Monitoring
Planning A first plan is prepared for the proposal of the PO to PPAF after an initial situation analysis. The proposal in expected to include initial figures on social mobilization and a range of interventions that will be delivered in priority UCs. Targets are provided by PPAF, related for instance to household coverage by social mobilisation in a community or the time line for social mobilisation (to be done within the first six months), etc. PPAF also recommends a project cycle (OPs Manual, Annex 8) that should be followed by POs. That includes: Phase 0: Start-up and/or phase-in; preparation for field work Phase 1: Social Mobilization and CO Elections Phase 2: MSP Preparation and Subproject Identification Phase 3: Subproject Proposal Preparation and Disbursement Phase 4: Subproject Implementation Phase 5: Subproject Closure, Reporting and Audits Phase 6: Post-Project Sustainability The PPAF Operational Policies Manual outlines the steps for multi-sector planning (MSP), though it does not provide details on the method of MSP. In Phase 2: Community members to indicate priorities for PPAF financing as well as linkages with government departments and private sector CO and PO to work on MSP preparation Finalize MSP, showing priorities under each programme, and obtain community approval CO to nominate any sub-committees that are required for subproject proposal preparation. PO works with CO on subproject proposal(s) preparation Potential social and environment assessments carried out in accordance with the ESMF and impacts of the selected subprojects to be explained, a mitigation plan to be agreed and follow-up actions and responsibilities decided CO to elect higher-level/sector-specific institutions required for delivering MSPs.
In Phase 3: -
The Operational Policies Manual of PPAF is clear with regard to the scope of planning, limiting it to the requirements of the project. PPAF expects MSPs to enhance synergies between different interventions. Livelihood development and infrastructure are closely connected as much as infrastructure and health is. Interventions in one area will contribute to potential outcomes and impacts of interventions in other areas. The planning exercise should thus identify potential
10
synergies among interventions. This will help to prioritize and sequence interventions in such a way that synergies can be created and capitalized on. During a recent training workshop for POs on multi-sector planning (May 9, 2012), PPAF has provided a relatively simple format to support multi-sector planning at community / village / UC level. This format does not limit COs / POs in the kind of interventions which are necessary to mitigate / solve a particular problem; POs and COs are actually encouraged to go beyond the scope of what PPAF can fund. At the same time, PPAF underlined the importance of linking community organizations with local Government and development initiatives to ensure access to additional funds and programmes. Drawing in additional funds for interventions that cannot be covered by PPAF will enable communities to maximize potential synergies among different interventions. The given format, however, does not provide the space for visualizing linkages and potential synergies among different sectors (e.g. health and infrastructure, livelihood and particular interventions related to infrastructure). A common framework of situation analysis is not provided by PPAF. Planning is based on the situation analysis. The vulnerability context of a community / village is not considered in the situation analysis. Therefore the risks of natural disasters and their nature are not assessed, and subsequently disaster risk reduction is not covered by planning. Monitoring The PAFF Operational Policies Manual requires POs to monitor and report on expenditure, outputs and outcomes on a quarterly basis. Financial and output reports have to correspond to the format prescribed by LACI-P or rather KfW. Indicators have been defined by LACI-P and communicated to the POs.
4.1.2
Field observations
Planning In our interactions with POs the essential steps recommended by the PPAF Operational Policies Manual are followed in the planning process. We have not seen the multi sector planning method as prescribed being practiced, highlighting synergies between sectors. Most POs sit with COs to plan for a particular sector that is community physical infrastructure (CPI), in few cases also health and education (HED). Livelihood development is never discussed in planning at CO / VO level; this is always considered at the household level only. Other POs facilitate the development of village development plans. They will introduce COs / VOs to the method and facilitate planning, which is often done in two groups, men and women. The planning exercise may have two events, lasting one day each. Through the village level development plan COs / VOs articulate the needs of the community / village. In some cases, planning is done at CO level, which is then compiled at VO and UC level. In other cases planning is done mainly at the level of VOs and then compiled at the level of UCs. POs stated that they essentially continue the same approach to planning which they have practiced earlier and which they do for other projects. Monitoring It appears that POs at present do not have a monitoring plan that is compatible with the requirements of LACI-P. POs were provided by LACI-P with a set of indictors, which they will need to monitor. POs are aware of the indicators that need to be monitored; however, they appear to be unclear about reporting formats. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 11
Perspectives and Roles of PPAF in Regard to Planning Within PPAF the Human & Institutional Development (HID) Unit is responsible for planning. The role of the HID Unit is to monitor social mobilisation, knowledge sharing and research and training. HID considers the current planning practices of POs as insufficient. They lack inclusion, the poor are not sufficiently supported to articulate their issues, and they lack integration. The planning process must become more meaningful, more participative, and more inclusive. They should make use of local facilitators (women and men). Traditional birth attendants could take this role as well as women health assistants and teachers. The HID Unit proposes a three tier planning process. First tier: Second tier: Third tier: PRA mapping of settlements, services, resources, identification of power relations Preparation of multi-sector plans by POs PO implementation plan for PPAF.
This proposal follows the logic of PPAFs Operational Policies Manual, except that it specifies the method that should be used by POs for first tier planning. The HID Unit is aware of the conflict POs are in: balancing between wanting to achieve participation on the one side and having to achieve set goals and targets on the other side. The HID Unit confirmed that many of the POs currently plan sector-wise, and then simply compile the CO level plans at UC level. They also underlined the importance to support COs to develop democratic structures and procedures.
4.2
4.2.1

Planning Method and Process
PPAF introduced POs to the need for a strong multi-sector planning in a workshop. POs, however, continue to apply the method of planning which they have used in the past and are using currently for other projects. More follow-up and support is obviously needed to operationalize this planning method among POs and integrate the MSP into their operational structures. PPAF / LACI-P expect from the MSPs that they can identify synergies among different interventions. The planning tool provided in the workshop, however, does not really highlight potential synergies. Therefore, the tool should be further developed to enable COs and POs to clarify and visualize potential areas of synergies. The planning tool recommended by PPAF / LACI-P for the preparation of MSPs asks the user to identify the issues (problems) and then propose solutions. There is no step in which COs reflect and understand the problems and identify the causes of it. Only when they have developed a good understanding of the causes of a problem should they propose solutions. Numerous POs facilitate a process at CO or VO level to develop village development plans (VDP). These plans focus on needs. The risk is that they evolve as a wish list, crea ting an attitude of expectation and relying on outside institutions to provide the help and resources for resolving their problems. This would be unfortunate. Rather, communities should be encouraged to look first at their assets, what interventions are required to improve their assets (e.g. physical infrastructure), and how they will use the assets for the benefits of the community. At present village development plans and other planning efforts at the level of COs and VOs do not include livelihood options. This thematic area is discussed only with individual households. Livelihood options should be considered on the basis of assets of the household but also assets of the community. Identification of potential synergies for instance between livelihoods and infrastructure will otherwise not be possible. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 12
We were not able to observe planning sessions in a community. We are thus not able to comment on actual inclusion and participation of ultra poor households and women in situation analysis and planning. POs mentioned that they provide training to the community in planning. Important factors that facilitate inclusion of those who are traditionally excluded are preparing these households for the community planning session in separate sessions and skilled facilitation of the discussions to ensure that ultra poor households do and can participate.
4.2.2
Monitoring
POs should have a monitoring plan that fits with the requirements of LACI-P and the requirements of project management by the POs. Monitoring plans have not been prepared. A monitoring plan should include the outputs, outcomes and corresponding indicators, the method used for collecting information / data, the frequency of collection, the place of collection and the persons responsible. This should be done against the Baseline Survey data. Furthermore, if POs use monitoring as a management tool for steering project implementation they will need to include more indicators in their monitoring plan than just the ones prescribed by LACI-P. It appears that POs at present do not have a monitoring plan that is compatible with the requirements of LACI-P.
4.3
Recommendations
Provide more time for situation analysis and planning 1. POs are under considerable pressure to produce results within a short period. This will compromise on the quality of situation analysis planning. 2. Communities require time in the planning process for joint reflections and discussions, but also to build confidence in the method and the process. Furthermore, planning should provide an opportunity to people for doing some analysis of their situation, not jumping from problem identification to solutions. POs need time to provide special support and attention to the excluded and the very poor households so that they can participate in the process in a meaningful way. This should include preparatory coaching sessions, as well good facilitation of discussions. 3. The planning process should enhance the capacity of the community to address needs and interests of the community, especially those of excluded and marginalized sections, and increase the level of coordination with different stakeholders at local level to generate resources. This will be consistent with the objectives of multi sector planning. 4. POs should train local planning facilitators to support their communities in undertaking analysis and planning at regular intervals. The role of LSOs should be explored. Review methods recommended for situation analysis and planning 1. Sound planning is based on a comprehensive situation analysis. A framework of analysis (e.g. the DFID Framework of Sustainable Livelihoods) should be provided to POs and COs as a base for the situation analysis. COs need to participate in the situation analysis. The framework should be simple and clear to understand, yet it needs to be comprehensive to include also aspects such as risks of natural disasters. 2. A multi sector planning approach seems meaningful, as this also reflects the life and situation of people which cannot be compartmentalized by sector planning. The tools recommended for preparing MSPs should be reviewed and further refined, so that they can actually yield the results expected by the community, the PO and PPAF. The planning process should include situation analysis, problem analysis and planning. The communities need to be enabled to prioritize and sequence interventions according to their needs (including the needs of excluded households) and the potentials for creating synergies. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 13
3. POs need to integrate actively multi sector planning into their operations and systems. 4. The planning exercise should not exclude livelihoods as a thematic area as it is currently done; rather, the community should assess potentials and provide suggestions how their assets can be used for improved livelihoods. This will feed into the work with individual households for the preparation of livelihood investment plans. 5. Detailed guidelines need be prepared for the multi sector planning process by POs and COs. Monitoring 1. POs need to develop detailed monitoring plans which are compatible with the requirements of LACI-P and which support POs in effective project management. 2. In addition to the indicators provided by PPAF, POs should identify more indicators that will support their own project management. A monitoring plan should include the indicators for outputs and outcomes, the methods used for data collection, the frequency of data collection, who collects data and a reporting format for LACI-P.
14
5
5.1
5.1.1
LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION

Objectives and recommended approach
The objective of Livelihood Enhancement and Protection of PPAF is to develop the capacity, opportunities, assets and productivity of community members to reduce their vulnerability to shocks, improve their livelihoods and strengthen their business operations. Key activities of the programme are (ref. PPAF Operational Policies Manual): (a) Establishment of community groups around productive or entrepreneurial activities; (b) Finance interventions to community institutions in the form of Livelihood Grants for: asset transfers, which are for productive assets, targeted (through the PSC) at the ultra-poor and poor; the Community Livelihood Fund (CLF) to promote on-lending within COs of their own savings;
(c) Building linkages with other livelihoods and safety nets programmes of government and other actors; (d) Asset building to increase productivity; (e) Vocational, skills and technical training; (f) Micro enterprise development training, support innovative micro-enterprises and value chain development that will result in improved livelihoods; (g) For all the interventions mentioned above women should form at least 45% of the recipients. Key steps have been outlined by PPAF that should be taken by the POs from entry into an area to following up on livelihood projects. They include an initial situation analysis, formation of Community Organisations, methods for the categorization of the poor (PSC), the development of livelihood investment plans (LIPs) for those categorized as ultra-poor, training and asset transfer, and monitoring of the livelihood activity.
5.1.2
Observations at the Level of Partner and Community Organisations
The target group for livelihood enhancement and protection are households that are categorized by the Poverty Score Card method as ultra-poor. The approach that partner organisations follow for livelihood enhancement is always household-centred. The formation of common interest groups was not mentioned by the POs as an option. All partner organisations we have talked to essentially follow the steps outlined above. The difference is the intensity and depths applied by the POs to individual steps. The first step recommended is the situation analysis of the selected Union Council. POs seem to have different formats; some do just a walk through, others have structured checklists and questions. A common framework for the situation analysis does not seem to exist at this moment. The PO will then initiate the formation of community organisations (COs) and conduct a poverty survey using the poverty score card method. Those households which are classified as ultra-poor are eligible for livelihood support. Livelihood Investment Plans (LIP) are developed by sitting with husband and wife (either together or separately) of the ultra poor household, reviewing the assets they have, and developing ideas and plans for improving their livelihoods. The only livelihood outcome defined by the project is increased income. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 15
In some cases, PO staff develop the LIP with the respective household in only one meeting (taking around one hour), in other cases, several meetings are scheduled to help people reflect and finally come to a decision which new livelihood option they want to take up. Staff (mostly teams of two) had to prepare up to 100 livelihood investment plans during the first quarter. This leaves very little time for facilitating the preparation of an individual livelihood investment plan and for the beneficiaries to reflect and decide on their options. Based on the LIP, capacity building related to the proposed livelihood activity is planned and conducted. This may include for instance enterprise development training, a basic introduction to livestock management and livestock rearing, etc. The assets are then transferred to beneficiaries; they can include tools for skill-trained people, the first stock of a newly opened shop, or animals. Once beneficiaries take up their new livelihood activity, the main role of the PO is monitoring, regular counselling as well as linking beneficiaries with market actors. The main types of new livelihood activities that were mentioned by PO staff are: Various types of shops, mainly grocery, but also tailoring Small livestock (goats, chicken) Training in various trades, such as plumbing, welding, electric wiring
PPAF staff also mentioned that the provision of rikshaws is common. Specifically for women Tailoring and embroidery Small livestock
PO staff reported that it is an important factor for success when a livelihood intervention is built on existing skills and expertise and expanded further.
5.1.3
Assessing markets for opportunities
Some of the POs conduct an assessment of rural (village) markets for skills, services and products, recognising the importance of understanding market demand. Others just limit this exercise to a walk through the market and talking with entrepreneurs. The current efforts in understanding markets focuses more on assessing what demands there are for proposed livelihood activities in rural markets, and less on pro-actively checking out for market opportunities and feeding that back to beneficiaries. We did not come across a structured approach to market assessments, e.g. using a rapid market appraisal tool. We recognise that POs are under considerable pressure to prepare a large number of livelihood investment plans in a short time span and the time available for market assessments is very limited. Imparting new or additional vocational skills is of particular importance to people who own little or no land. Skills training will be short and concise, lasting normally around 3 months. It is important to understand which skills are in demand in the market, and tailor the training, e.g. the curriculum accordingly. Again, we did not see a structured approach to assessing the demand for skills in markets. At present the services of government vocational training centres are used for skills training of participants. We were not able to visit such centres; it is important to ensure that training providers respond to the specific demands for skills in the market and provide tailor-made training courses to beneficiaries.
5.1.4
Assessing the feasibility of the proposed enterprise / trade
The terms Livelihood Investment Plan and Business Plans are often used interchangeable, though both are very different. A business plan should assess the feasibility of a business and describe how the business will be operated and conducted. However, we have not seen actual
16
business plans that were prepared for a livelihood activity. PO staff does not seem to be prepared for that.
5.1.5
Support services for enterprises
Small enterprises as well as agriculture require support services for their sustainable operations. They also need backward linkages in the value chain and forward linkages to processors and traders. Support services may include para-veterinary services in case of livestock, business development and financial services and market information for enterprises, etc. However, we have observed that these support services are provided by the POs themselves rather than by local service providers in the market. This will compromise the sustainability of the interventions.
5.1.6
The role of PPAF
PPAF will screen and approve livelihood investment plans, approve them, and conduct monitoring visits. PPAF in the past has also called POs for thematic workshops with external inputs and exchange of experience.
5.2
5.2.1

Situation analysis
A livelihood analysis should take into account an understanding of the assets (capital) people have, the vulnerability context, which influences the way how people can make use of their assets for a sustainable livelihood, and the way how people currently manage their livelihoods. A large difference has been observed among partner organisations regarding the depth of the livelihood analysis conducted. Some do only a quick scan; others conduct livelihood analyses with some depths. Different questionnaires are used by POs for that purpose. What seems missing (or what we have not seen) is a framework for livelihood analysis that guides partner organisations in conducting the analysis and understanding the links between the different factors in the framework (including the vulnerability context). An option would be the revised DFID framework for sustainable livelihood development (see Annex 4, see also Chapter 4.3 Planning) which could be modified and adapted to make it applicable to the context in which PPAF and the POs are working. A pragmatic balance has to be struck between gaining an understanding that is sufficient for designing sustainable and effective interventions and doing the exercise within a reasonable time frame.
5.2.2
Livelihood Investment Plan
A key element in the process of supporting new livelihood options is the development of a livelihood investment plan (LIP). As outlined earlier, this is done by meeting with the individual ultra-poor household, identifying and discussing existing assets and opportunities of the household and finally identifying and deciding on the right livelihood options for the household that will be supported by LACI-P. We had the impression that these steps are often taken hurriedly by PO staff. For providing the base of a sustainable, new livelihood activity, PO staff need to understand well the context, the asset base and market opportunities; beneficiaries require time for reflection and analysis of different options. Some POs facilitate such a process; others essentially complete the preparation of a LIP in one sitting, resulting in a very mechanistic approach and almost foregone conclusions. We came across cases, where beneficiaries did not even know what was proposed in their LIP. Careful analysis and reflection, and finally ownership by the beneficiary are essential for successful livelihood interventions. POs have placed teams of two (male / female) who are responsible for all activities related to livelihood enhancement and protection. Already in the first three months they were tasked with preparing up to 100 LIPs. This leaves very little time for assessing market opportunities, for Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 17
developing quality livelihood investment plans, the details of the proposed business and mapping out the kind of training support the person will need. At present the IPs foresee to complete all LIPs during the first year. This places considerable strain on staff and compromises quality over quantity. PO staff is academically well trained, but have not been sufficiently exposed to the world of business. This makes it even more difficult for them.
5.2.3
Identification of Market Opportunities
The aim of the livelihood interventions is to support ultra-poor households to get out of poverty sustainably by gaining access to and acting in promising and profitable markets. Therefore, a good understanding of markets and market opportunities is essential. This includes in particular an understanding of what goods and services are in demand: In the village In nearby markets In towns and cities In final consumer markets By businesses
The current assessment of opportunities seems rather superficial and unstructured in many cases. Most of the proposed livelihood activities are relatively narrow and include: Shops Livestock Skills training (plumbing, electric wiring, etc) Tailoring, embroidery
Surely, there are many more market opportunities, which are currently missed out because PO staff do not have the time and capacities to identify them. Promoting only a limited number of enterprises and trades has the high risk of market saturation and business failures, particularly because beneficiaries have little experience themselves in running an enterprise. LACI-P is supporting livelihood activities only at the level of individual households. Individual households produce very small quantities and a lack of variety; therefore they are only of limited interest to wholesalers or businesses. Village traders may help to aggregate goods, or better horizontal coordination, e.g. the formation of CIGs for joint marketing, input supply, etc. could provide that function.
5.2.4
Understanding barriers of entry
It is important to understand barriers of market entry for newcomers and develop strategies to mitigate these barriers. Barriers include for instance: Financial and social obstacles to potential newcomers in a market; Poor people in villages may want to buy on credit in grocery shops but ultra-poor families starting with a grocery shop will not have the working capital to sell on credit and therefore will not get the customers; Established firms are likely to have a cost advantages owing to market concentration and realisation of economies of scale in production and distribution; they also have lower transaction costs as they know all actors in value chains; There is often a strong buyer or consumer preferences for the output of established firms; Social barriers to entry which may be significant particularly for women.
18
5.2.5
Business planning
As outlined earlier, we have not seen business plans for new livelihood activities in the field or in POs offices; the capacity for business plan development among PO staff seems to be limited. An initial business plan should cover at least a financial plan, looking at revenues and expenditures and a cash flow plan. Poor households very often struggle with their cash flow. Another important element would be a marketing plan. This will help to assess feasibility of the business at the start, and it will be a simple management tool for the entrepreneur.
5.2.6
Analysis of sustainability of the livelihood / enterprise
At present there is no systematic assessment of sustainability of the livelihood activity or the enterprise initiated. Sustainability in that context means that goods and services continue to be produced and/or consumed by the target group beyond the period of the intervention and the support. A systematic assessment would include a simple business plan, assessing the viability of the proposed activity as well as a picture of how the enterprise is embedded in the market, specifically with regard to value chain (linkages) and support services from the market. A simple tool for assessment could be the who does who pays table below. Example of a sustainability plan for women tailoring enterprise Project period Beyond project period
Function Value chain actors Input supplies Aggregators Traders Support services Market linkage Market information Business advisory service etc
Who does?
Who pays?
Function
Who does?
Who pays?
PO PO PO
Project Project Project
Market linkage Market information Business advisory service
? ? ?
? ? ?
The POs need to develop a clear picture of the future market system, identifying potential service providers and a strategy of how to bring them on board, train and support them and ensure that Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 19
there are incentives to provide support services to the poor. Alternatively, opportunities for embedded services within a value chain should be explored at a very early point.
5.2.7
Resources / Time Available for Preparation, Follow up
In Table 1, we listed the number of field staff responsible for preparing LIPs and following up interventions and the number of LIPs to be prepared. Results show that on average they can spend half a person-day in total on preparation of LIPs and half a day on following up of livelihood interventions. This figure confirms our observation, that LIPs are developed under a considerable time pressure and hurriedly. POs mentioned that they visit ultra-poor households with livelihood interventions for monitoring and counselling one time a month. Based on the total resources available this translates into 25 minutes per household per visit (not calculating the travel times). POs No of Livelihoods officers
Male SERVE SWWS AKRSP SRSP RDP NRSP 2 4 4 6 1 1 Female 1 Total Total 2 4 4 6 2 2 19
No of LIPs to be prepared
260 520 1560 1040 260 780 4420
No of LIPs per field staff

130 130 390 173 130 390 233
Time for preparation one LIP 1) (days)

1 1 0.33 0.75 1 0.33 0.56
Time for follow up 1) (days)

1 1 0.33 0.75 1 0.33 0.56
1) Assuming that livelihood officers spend 50% of their time (from the perspective of a whole year) on preparing LIPs and on following up of livelihood interventions in the field
Table 1: Resources (Human Resources & time) available for preparation & follow up for LIPs
5.2.8
Combining Sustainable Livelihood Development with Value Chain Development
Livelihood analysis tends to focus on people and prioritise the local context whereas value chain analysis tends to focus on relationships and other linkages between firms or enterprises, prioritising vertical linkages beyond the immediate locality. Value chain analysis and development provides an essential picture of how small producers interact with the larger firms and markets. Suitable governance systems (e.g. supply contracts) can provide opportunities for embedded services, between buyers and producers, e.g. market information, technical advice, product specifications and finance, and thus contribute to the sustainability of enterprises. Why combining the two approaches?: Livelihood and value chain development are complementary and combining the two approaches provides a more comprehensive understanding of both the structure of markets and the way in which markets for particular goods interact with livelihood strategies.
20
5.3
Recommendations
1. Provide more time for planning and preparing of livelihood activities, e.g. for situation analysis, LIP preparation and doing market assessments. 2. It has been discussed earlier that for new livelihood activities to be successful, a good livelihood analysis is required as well as a good understanding of market opportunities for poor households. Ultra-poor households need time to reflect and analyse which options for livelihood improvements fit best their situation. 3. We recommend not conducting all LIPs during the first 12 months, but spreading their preparation over a period of two years. This will provide more time to the POs for livelihood analysis and assessing market opportunities and more time for beneficiaries to prepare meaningful LIPs. Enterprises built on well prepared livelihood plans will require less support and follow up from the POs. 4. The process of livelihood investment plan development should include two to three meetings with the PO staff, but also a meeting of groups of poor household among themselves to discuss options: Discussion of ideas (for start up or for upgrading), calculation of economics of the existing economic activity, gaps and suggested solution; Time to allow beneficiaries to assess their own capacities and inclinations whether they can run a business; Meetings of ultra-poor households to discuss their ideas of livelihood options among themselves; Practical short assignment for the beneficiary to do a basic market assessment and the feasibility; Discussion on final selection of the economic activity, training need analysis, and development of action plan;
5. For the monitoring and follow up of livelihood interventions, we calculated that field-based PO staff has less than 25 minutes per household per month (see Table 1). With this time budget it will be difficult to provide good quality follow up services to each household. 6. We therefore recommend that PO staff provides regular group counselling rather than counselling at the household level. Furthermore, PO staff should rather focus on building up local services who provide support (e.g. market linkages) rather than PO staff providing this support service. 7. Develop a manual for livelihood / enterprise development and train trainers: POs follow the steps recommended by PPAF / LACI-P. Detailed guidelines and methods are missing. The basic content of a manual should be developed in a participatory approach with experienced PO staff. Key elements will include (the list is not complete, but gives some ideas): Review of the existing overall approach; detailed steps of the process; Methods for structured market assessments (rapid market appraisals): skills, services and products; Approaches and methods to increase relevance of skills training; Methods for assessing needs for support services, surveying existing service providers, their capacities and how to create incentives to draw them into providing services to beneficiaries; Preparation of simple business plans (finance, marketing, production); Linking CIGs with formal business for sub-contracting; Combining livelihood and value chain development for more sustainability and scale.
21
8. Inclusive business approach: Rather than starting with the needs and ideas of beneficiaries, start from the market end. In areas that are located in or near industrial areas contact labour intensive industries with a potential for outsourcing (for instance the shoemaking industry in Charsadda). Discuss with them whether they are practicing already outsourcing and whether they would consider working with groups of ultra-poor to do certain steps in their manufacturing process. LACI-P will support skill training of ultra-poor households to prepare them for the job.
22
COMMUNITY PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES
In order to stimulate growth and reduce poverty, it is essential to improve the supply, quality and affordability of infrastructure facilities and related services. The quality and extent of infrastructure networks significantly impacts economic growth and affects poverty and income inequality in a variety of ways. A well-developed infrastructure network comprising of safe drinking water supply schemes, drainage and sanitation, modern irrigation systems and transport and communication is a prerequisite for improving the quality of life of the less-developed communities significantly.
6.1
6.1.1

PPAF and CPI Manuals
Discussions with PPAF included meetings with the General Manager CPI followed by detailed discussions with his nominee for the LACI-P, Engineer Mr. Mohammad Ilyas, Manager CPI. During the discussions, the CPI Manager mentioned that guidelines are available for POs staff in the form of the Operational Policies Manual for Grant Based Interventions and Technical Guidelines for activities including Sanitation, DWSS, Irrigation Infrastructures and Integrated Water Efficient Irrigation (IWEI) systems. In addition to this, regular monitoring and spot checking visits are made to assess the quality and physical progress of CPI interventions in the field. All the available technical guidelines and CPI documents were studied and we found that the PPAF Operational Policies Manual is a valuable document for PPAF and PO staff where space is given to partner organizations to implement the project activities under their own framework. The CPI Unit of PPAF provide no specific format recommendations for situation analysis and feasibility study covering social mobilization, technical and financial aspects for different CPI schemes or quality control check lists. Training Need Assessment for POs and COs, Terms of Partnership (between PO and CO), etc. Regarding the CPI Project Manual the Consultant found that the Section-I in which the Project Process is explained needs to be reframed according to the updated Operational Policies Manual that provides for a holistic process approach including the mobilization and organization of communities into COs, VOs and then at UC level into LSOs. The overall strategy of the programme focuses on deepening and saturation in a particular community, so preference should be given to work more in the same UCs with same communities for different interventions including rehabilitation, modernization and extension of the existing schemes. Section-II of the CPI Project Manual, Format for Feasibility Proposal, needs a major revision and needs to be replaced with a situation analysis report comprising information and data required for planning and design of the agreed and most needed interventions. Section-III refers to important and complex parts of the implementation process. It mainly describes the design parameters and design steps for different CPI schemes. It was noted that existing guidelines for sanitation and micro irrigation systems such as sprinkler and drip irrigations systems need to be replaced with more simple and user friendly computer-aided guidelines which can be easily adopted by the POs technical/engineering staff. Similarly, the method for designing irrigation channels is mostly based on a theoretical approach in the existing CPI Project Manual and gives no idea as to how an efficient system can be designed for canal and non canal irrigation. The concept of topographic, bench mark and profile survey is totally missing in the manual but is necessary since it provides basic information/data for design calculations. Importance of long sections and design sheets is also not covered by the manual (A typical format of a design sheet is given in Annex 5). Guidelines for the design and cost estimates of turn outs and drop structure are equally missing, although these structures are integral parts of the water channel. Furthermore, design of pre-cast parabolic lining should also be added because this is now most commonly used in the project districts of KP. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 23
The Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of CPI schemes in Section-IV are in line with the prevailing environmental issues but the important aspect of DRR is missing. The same is required for disaster risk assessment and protection for all CPI schemes, particularly for schemes in disaster prone areas. Design techniques and procedures for protection structures are thus required to be included in the suggested new CPI technical guidelines.
6.1.2
Impression about Partner Organizations
During the meetings with Partner Organizations it was reported that POs of both funding phases are engaged in social mobilization and the establishment of COs and only five POs of Funding Phase One have so far started implementing CPI activities. Those who have initiated physical activities were interviewed for the scheme identification and selection process from the community inclusion point of view (particularly of the ultra poor). It was noted that though the identification process was generally in line with the PPAF Operational Policies Manual, the implementation process varied from PO to PO depending upon the area coverage, experience and capacity of the PO staff. POs have developed their own formats for feasibility reports, basic data for design purpose, quality control, design sheets, TOP and project completion format. Only the PPAF ESMF format for the environmental and social analysis is used across the board by all POs. As far as the CPI technical guidelines are concerned, every PO has its own format for the activities described above according to their own understanding. These formats should be checked by the CPI Unit of PPAF for consistency and conformity with the Operational Policies Manual and other PPAF CPI guidelines. Some major Partner Organizations have even developed their own manuals and internal guidelines but some of them also need improvement and updating. Most of the POs staff are unaware of flow measuring equipments, calibration techniques and available charts. Similarly, none of the Partner Organizations are aware of the importance and the techniques for flow and water loss measurement which is highly crucial to: i) pre-project locating of the most critical areas of the channel for renovation or lining and ii) measuring postproject conveyance efficiency - an output indicator that warns the community of potential maintenance needs and also permits the water user to adapt the cropping pattern to the available water at his or her site. It was also noted that although some of the POs are aware of the importance of the engineering surveys for roads and water channel profiles, they are not accustomed to conduct such surveys that are crucial to design e.g. economical and hydraulically efficient cross-sections for irrigation channels. The POs technical staff also requested to include design nomographs in the technical manual with proper descriptions and explanations for quick design of irrigation channels, DWSS and community roads. PO engineers asked also for guidelines for common parabolic canal systems, pipe irrigation systems and protection structures (retaining walls, spurs, flood protection walls, check dams, etc.) which are not covered in the existing manual. Cost estimate information is limited to PCC (Plain Cement Concrete) and earth work only and thus cost estimate procedures and norms for brick masonry, stone masonry, gabion structures, and precast structures need to be incorporated in the manual as well. In hard rocks, sometimes, blasting is required and specific estimation details to this effect are also required.
6.1.3
Field Observations
LACI-P is implemented in five districts through POs, some of them are well experienced in infrastructure development but a significant number, particularly the smaller ones, require further capacity building in design and should be provided with simple and user-friendly guidelines by the project. During meetings with the communities it was noticed that most of them are not aware of the type of information/data and the different formats required for planning and design of the required interventions.
24
It was also noticed that there must be a uniform standard for the various formats for feasibility studies, need assessments, design and cost estimates, Terms of Partnerships (TOP) as well as for O&M and M&E. Generally, communities are also not aware of the material sourcing process and there is a need for capacity building of the community and particularly of the CIP committee members. Every PO also has a somewhat different approach towards operation and maintenance of the schemes. However, every PO talks about the formation of O&M committees and 3% of investment costs as annual savings for operation, maintenance and replacement. However, the detailed procedures and mechanisms for the financial sustainability of O&M are unclear to say the least. Responsibilities are not defined and the source and the procedures to collect the specified 3% is not detailed in the Terms of Partnership or in the O&M plans. Sustainability is a commonly used term in the jargon of development staff. A service is considered sustainable when: It functions properly; It provides the service for which it was planned; It provides easy access to the service; It is continuous and reliable; It provides health and economic benefits; It functions over a prolonged period of time, according to the designed life-cycle of the equipment; The management of the service involves the community; It has an established a partnership with the local authorities and involves the private sector when required; Its operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement and administrative costs are recovered at the local level through user fees or through alternative sustainable financial mechanisms; It can be operated and maintained at the local level with limited, but feasible external support (e.g. technical assistance, training and monitoring); It has no harmful effects on the environment.
KfW in the Separate Agreement to the Loan, Financing and Project Agreement with PPAF (dated 12. June 2011) specifies very clearly under II.5 Provisions for the Proper Operation of the Project that the Project Executing Agency shall ensure that each physical infrastructure, health and education scheme proposal will include a sustainability plan spelling out how future operation and maintenance costs are to be covered. Clear O&M procedures specifying financing mechanisms, the role and responsibility of the O&M committee, human resource needs, materials, spare parts, tools and equipment needed are thus to be part of the O&M plans and the TOP. O&M activities and the frequency with which they need to be carried out as well as eventual repair work depend largely on elements such as the quality of materials, the quality of workmanship during the construction phase, and the level of corrective and preventive maintenance carried out by the actors concerned. Sample comprehensive operation and maintenance plans for a hand pump and a sanitation scheme are given in Annex 5. The capacity of the community and specifically of the O&M committee must be built in order for them to understand the function of each component of the scheme, the conditions under which the scheme will not work efficiently, the types of repair work that can be done at community level and where skilled persons are required, the estimation and quantification of community based repair works and the tools and implements required for the maintenance of the scheme. Similarly, the community should be guided in the identification of financial resources from where funds could be generated for O&M activities.
25
6.2
After visiting the field and meeting with Partner Organizations it is felt that exchange and close coordination is required between the executing agency, the implementing POs and the communities. Proper guidance and support is required from PPAF to POs and from POs to the COs. The existing technical manuals require updating regarding modern technologies, innovations and economical requirements. Although the holistic process approach described in the Operational Policies Manual is known to all partners, its application in the field could certainly be improved. This is the planning phase of the project and weaknesses at all levels must be addressed at this stage otherwise the implementation at a later stage or the sustainability of the CPI sub-projects maybe jeopardised including their financial sustainability. O&M and the exit strategy for project support is a special area of focus and it should be integrated into project development from the beginning. Although, community-based projects may take longer to develop and plan than agency managed and implemented projects, the longer development time can be used to identify factors that influence service sustainability. O&M is no longer simply a technical issue. It is now seen as encompassing social, gender, economic, cultural, institutional, political, managerial and environmental aspects and it is viewed as a key factor for sustainability.
Capacity of the POs engineers needs enhancement particularly in the case of those POs who have recently recruited new staff for CPI activities. These newly recruited staff members are often unaware of the design procedures for project interventions such as open channel parabolic irrigation systems, pipe irrigation systems, DWSS, design of protection structures or micro irrigation system design such as sprinkler and drip.
It has also been noticed that some POs are not aware of the presence or the role of the HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation Consultants supporting the LACI-P and the available expertise they can draw upon within the PPAF.
6.3
Recommendations
1. The existing CPI technical manuals need to be updated as per POs needs and additional manuals should be prepared for new technologies which are efficient, economical and locally available. To this effect there is a need for close collaboration between the PPAF CPI unit, the Consultant and POs staff. 2. Formats used by POs for survey, design and implementation of CPI schemes need to be checked by the CPI Unit for consistency and conformity with the PPAF Operational Policies Manual and other internal technical guidelines. For those POs who do not have their own formats, standard templates should be developed and provided. 3. PPAF and PO staff should regularly monitor infrastructure design and implementation and identify PO capacity building needs. The manuals should be updated accordingly. Also the need and areas in which the COs and the CPI committees need training should be jointly and regularly assessed. 4. Based on the Operational Policies Manual the CPI process of mobilization, criteria for scheme identification and participatory approach needs to be revised and updated. A special handbook on O&M including formats for different activities should be either prepared separately or incorporated in the updated manual. This can be done through a joint Workshop of the POs and PPAF. The Workshop recommendations then need to be incorporated in the hand book. 5. Proper O&M guidelines for the POs and COs on O&M of the infrastructure schemes are required. Such guidelines must include role and responsibilities of the O&M Committee, O&M plans and particularly financing mechanisms for O&M.
26
6. There is a dire need of capacity building of PO technical staff in flow measuring techniques, open channels design including parabolic canals, gravity flow pipe irrigation systems, sprinkler/drip irrigation systems, DWSS, spurs and flood protection structures (with stability analysis), etc. 7. For each CPI intervention a separate exit and O&M strategy should be devised and be integrated into project development from the beginning. 8. Each CPI intervention should be protected against disaster through risk reduction measures. In the disaster prone areas specific protection structures should be considered in the design. 9. In the water scarce and non-canal command areas, water conservation irrigation technologies, such as drip and sprinkler systems, should be considered.
27
7
7.1
7.1.1
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MANAGEMENT

PPAF
Detailed meetings were held with the DPM team of PPAF lead by Mr. Abid, General Manager. He informed that in the wake of the ever increasing number of natural disasters which adversely affect the development process of the country, PPAF has realized the importance of Disaster Risk Reduction as well as Mitigation and Preparedness measures. They are crucial to save precious investment into physical infrastructure and sustainable livelihoods, especially for the poor communities in the less developed regions of Pakistan. Accordingly, an independent DPM Unit has been created and included in the hierarchy of PPAF. The DPM Unit is planning to initiate measures for building the institutional capacities of not only PPAF but also of the POs for mainstreaming DRR into the development policy and agenda so that the built infrastructure and livelihoods can sustain the shocks from the ever increasing number of geological and hydro-meteorological disasters. PPAFs Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy has already been finalized and is expected to be launched towards end of August, 2012. Accordingly, DPM has also been included in LACI-P as an important component and funds are being reallocated for integrating DPM in its interventions. As envisaged in Annex-6 of the Inception Report of the LACI-P, the PPAF intends to carry out a number of activities for mainstreaming DRR into all interventions including CPI, HED, LEP etc. PPAF is also targeting to strengthen the preparedness and mitigation capacities of the communities through the COs, VOs and LSOs under the project. Annex 6 of the Inception Report is attached again for convenience.
7.1.2
Communities (COs)
Generally the communities are well aware of the hazards and disasters risk in their surroundings and there are some traditional coping mechanisms for responding to disasters. However these capacities are very limited and can only sustain them for a short period of time. Capacity strengthening is thus necessary through systematic incorporation of disaster risk reduction and preparedness interventions and continuous awareness raising.
7.1.3
Partner Organizations
The POs fully accept and understand the importance of DRR and its integration into the project activities. Based on their recent experiences of handling diverse disasters like floods, earthquakes and complex emergencies they have created some disaster management capacities especially for the post disaster response and relief phase. More efforts will be needed to integrate DRR at the design stage of the interventions. Furthermore, capacity building is also required to develop standard formats and check for mainstreaming DRR in CPIs, for hazard risk and vulnerability analysis, for establishing early warning systems and for disaster preparedness and management measures. While some of the partner organizations do have training materials for their own staff in disaster management, this is mostly limited to the relief and response activities and only a few POs have capacities in recovery and reconstruction. There is also a need to enhance the understanding of PO staff of the disaster management cycle.
28
7.2
On the basis of the extensive literature review of the PPAF resources, consultations with the various units of PPAF including the PMU and the observations recorded during field visits from three districts as well as inputs from the POs, the ART has made the following analysis.
7.2.1
PPAF
The implementation of the LACI-P has started in April 2012 and field activities under Funding Phase One are in full swing, but no initiatives of mainstreaming DRR into project design or during the planning phase was noticed. The implementation plans of the six partner organizations do not reflect DPM or DRR as a component, which for all practical purposes means no budgetary allocations for DPM. DPM is missing from the PPAF Implementation Plan format which also indicates that DPM will also likely be missing from the Implementation Plans of the Funding Phase Two. PPAFs disaster management strategy is yet to be finalized and the document was not available for review by the ART. None of the DRR and DPM activities envisaged in the Annex-6 of the Inception Report for capacity building of PPAF as well as PO staff have been initiated. They are already delayed and there are fears that further delay for all practical purposes means no value added to the LACI-P. All these activities need fast tracking so that some course corrections can be made in the Funding Phases One and Two activities and DPM is mainstreamed into Funding Phases Three and Four.
7.2.2
Partner Organisations
The ART was able to have detailed interactions with 11 partner organizations out of 12 and a thorough assessment of the capacities was carried out to analyze their strengths and to identify the gaps. None of the POs performs risk analysis of the project proposals with regard to the prevalent hazards and the past disaster events and no mechanism of formal hazards and vulnerability assessment was found with any of the POs. No organization has developed formats, check lists or frameworks for the purpose. In most of the cases the environmental impact assessment was taken as a proxy for the risk analysis. It was also noticed that in general the engineering staff do not have capabilities for design considerations with regard to hazards and disasters prevalent in the area. It was also noticed that the knowledge base of the PO staff with respect to Disaster Management is limited and the general impression was that DM was considered as the ability to respond to disaster situations once the disaster has occurred and to carry out relief operations and reconstruction afterwards.
7.3
Recommendations
1. PPAF has already initiated institutional arrangements for integration of disaster preparedness and mitigation measures into its policy, processes and procedures. However the pace of integration appears to be a bit slow. Special efforts are needed for initiation and implementation of the DRR and DPM initiatives for the LACI-P project as per Annex 6 of the Inception Report. One of the most important activities is the development of a training manual for TOT of the POs and the different Units of PPAF. This is to be done on priority for building core capacities of Disaster Management at all levels. 2. There is a dire need for developing a DRR mainstreaming framework, checklists and formats on top priority for integration of DRR at the planning stage of the project proposals for the different sectors. There is also a need to reconsider the implementation plans of the Funding Phases One and Two of the LACI-P to incorporate DPM activities into them. 3. Disaster Management plans must be made an integral part of the MSPs to be developed by the POs. 4. Extensive trainings for PO staff are strongly recommended in DPM and DRR. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 29
FINAL REMARKS
The recommendations pointed out by the ART members regarding the different sectors can basically be classified into 3 main issues: (1) Operationalization of the PPAF Operational Policies Manual for Grant Based Interventions; (2) Time pressure; and (3) Management capacities of the PMU. The new PPAF Operational Policy Manual is for the first time applied to a new project, the LACIP. While the Manual is considered an excellent document for setting the frame and defining the policies, it is not sufficient and it is not its intention to provide detailed guidance for project implementation. Guidelines for the operationalization are still missing for almost all sectors and those that are existing are outdated and need to be adjusted. The ART comes unanimously to the conclusion that POs need such guidelines to put the OPs Manual correctly into practise. In the absence of such guidance, it is very likely that project implementation will follow the usual practises or that policies are misinterpreted. All ART members have pointed out the need to elaborate implementation guidelines as a short term task and subsequently provide trainings for the POs on their application. More intensive supervision, monitoring and coaching of the POs during this initial stage of project implementation is considered necessary from all the concerned PPAF technical units to make sure that the new policies are applied correctly and to find out where POs have difficulties with the interpretation and the implementation of the new policies. The second issue relates to the time pressure for implementation that was reported by all of the POs. This time pressure is also fuelled by the disbursement pressure that is felt within PPAF. The Implementation Plans of the POs are thus very tight with many activities scheduled early in the project period. Some POs mentioned that the IPs are overambitious or even unrealistic and that more time should be allocated to the planning process. The ART comes to the same conclusion, meaningful participatory planning takes time and the planning process is considered crucial for the subsequent implementation of activities. Further, many POs have hired new staff for the implementation of the LACI-P and these will need familiarisation with the organisation, the project and the implementation principles. It is thus suggested to review the IPs and adjust them as implementation proceeds. Given the relatively short term nature of LEP as well as of CPI activities there is no hurry to start implementation early, however, more time should be allocated for the proper planning. HED activities on the other hand require more time for implementation, operation and handing over but again sufficient time needs to be allocated for the planning process. The last point concerns the management capacities of the PMU (the PMU is in fact only constituted now). It has become evident that presently the PMU does not have the necessary staff to execute the project effectively and efficiently, examples are the delayed QPR and the costed activity lists requested repeatedly by KfW and certainly required for project monitoring. The issue is recognised by PPAF and measures are taken to address it. Initially it was planned to have a full time dedicated Project Manager with senior staff from the units allocated on a part time basis in a matrix fashion. However, this setup proved to be unsatisfactory and six new full time staff are being recruited for the PMU, whereby four out of the six will be existing and experienced PPAF staff and only two entirely new to the organisation. This strengthening of the management capacities is considered a positive step and certainly necessary in view of the supervision, monitoring and coaching requirements and for supporting the POs to apply the new Operational Policies Manual. During the ART debriefing on August 13, 2012 the PPAF CEO, Quazi Azmat Isa, pointed out a fourth issue related to the management of the LACI-P: communication between the involved Units and with the Consultant. The Consultant shares this opinion. Regular weekly coordination meetings had been scheduled repeatedly in the past, but hardly any materialised for various reasons. It is hoped that with the reinforced PMU, coordination will improve and upcoming issues addressed early enough to take the necessary actions. Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012 30
Other issues addressed by PPAF and KfW during the debriefing concerned the nature of the ART assignments in general. According to the TORs for the Consulting Services the assignments are to be carried out by the Consultant to review the project status in relation to achieving its overall goal. The Advisory and Review Report is not a joint report but a communication tool of the Consultant to PPAF and KfW with management response by PPAF. The Consultant, therefore, faces a certain conflict of interest. On the one hand the permanent Consultant team is involved in project implementation and an integral part of the PMU team and on the other hand there is the review function, which requires a certain independence. This conflict of interest is even further amplified in the person of the Team Leader, Chris Morger, who is the Project Coordinator of the Consultant and the leader of the permanent as well as of the Advisory and Review Team. This double role of the Consultant does not facilitate the integration of the permanent Consultant team into the PMU but it rather creates or reinforces a feeling of us and them which is counterproductive to a fruitful cooperation. As a solution it could be envisaged to carry out regular joint reviews instead of the somewhat unilateral ART assignments. While regular reviews of project progress are considered necessary and useful, joint reviews would provide an opportunity to address issues together as a team and not put the Consultant in a kind of referee position which he anyway cannot assume because of the lack of neutrality and independence. In addition, joint reviews could also reinforce the advisory task of the assignments and topics for specific support by the Consultant could be discussed and decided jointly. The Consultant would thus welcome a readjustment of the ART assignments. However, it will be up to KfW and PPAF to redefine its role and tasks and to adjust the TOR. Possibly an external mid-term review could be considered to get a truly independent view of the project. According to the Inception Report the next ART assignment is tentatively planned for early November or in about three months time. However, the experience of this first assignment shows that such a close sequence of ART assignments by a team of six experts is not really necessary. It is thus suggested that the next assignment will be readjusted and a mission of the Team Leader alone or together with one other expert should be foreseen instead.
31
ANNEX 1

by the GoP and PPAF, co-financed by the Gov. of Germany through KfW
TERMS OF REFERENCE 1ST ART ASSIGNMENT LACI-P 29/07 14/08/2012

1. Background
The Consulting Contract between the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF, Employer) and HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation (Helvetas, the Consultant) for the latters services relating to the implementation of the KfW-funded Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project (LACI-P) in Khyber Pakhtunkwa Province (KP) includes the task to prepare the bi-annual Advisory and Review Report, which is a report by the Consultant with a management response by PPAF. The ARTeam comprises two international experts (the Team Leader of LACI-P, Christoph Morger as a fixed member) and max. four national members, which are either selected from the Short-term Consultants pool or may include other external experts proposed by the Consultant (see TOR of the Consultant, 4.3, 4.3.1. and 4.3.2). The exact composition of the ART may vary according to the perceived needs, but it is intended that a constant core group of experts shall be involved throughout the project duration, in order to ensure consistency in advisory and review services. The team composition and focus of work to be undertaken by the experts during the ART assignments will be coordinated with PPAF and KfW. 2. Objective of the assignment
To provide the first 6-monthly Advisory- and Review Team input according to the main tasks specified under 6 below and produce the Advisory and Review Report (ARR). The assignments are to be performed according to the TOR for the Consultant, e.g. the ARR should not duplicate information already provided in the QPRs, but rather provide a more global perspective of the status of the LACI-P in relation to achieving its overall goal. 3. Expected results
The ARR is a communication tool to PPAF and KfW for the Consultant reporting where he sees the need to readjust, refocus or improve LACI-P activities. It will contain specific recommendations proposing practical next steps for the relevant sectors and has to be produced within six weeks after the commencement of the respective ART assignment. The assigned experts (see under 5. below) perform their duties according to the requested, prioritized inputs by PPAF. 4. Working methodology The ART will conduct the assignment according to the tasks and the programme specified below and it will be coordinated by the TL. The methodology will comprise workshops, secondary data analysis, interviews, FGDs, etc.. Of importance are the direct contacts and discussions with COs and their members to get a first hand impression of Project implementation.
A-1
ANNEX 1 5. Mission Team This first ART assignment consists of the TL, Christoph Morger and Dr. Hans Martin Dietz as the international ART members. They are supported by the National members Muhammad Anwar Bhatti, Shahid Mehmood, Rabia Khan and Amir Mohyuddin, who are performing their tasks in the areas of LEP CPI, Community mobilization and DPM respectively. 6. Main Tasks and Activities of the ART a) Overall tasks for the ART: Conduct a joint review of the planning process currently being undertaken by the POs and the community organisations; criteria to be considered should include among others participation and inclusion, capacities of the community to conduct / participate in and contribute to the planning meaningfully, and fit with PPAF guidelines (OPs Manual and the Results Framework 2011-2015 therein); Review results of recent rounds of community planning; discuss the relevance of these plans for the community, particularly for disadvantaged households; how will results from planning be used by the community?; Does the current planning format provide a suitable base for monitoring of implementation? If not, what changes are required?; Discuss and review the needs for building capacities at the community level to conduct periodical and annual planning that can eventually fit into the planning by the District. Propose strategies and activities how to improve capacities for local level planning; Propose future training measures for POs and community members. b) Specific tasks of ART members Chris Morger, ART Leader/ Project Coordinator Responsible for the regular project performance analysis and the half-yearly Advisory and Review assignments Planning and coordination of the ART assignment Provide guidance, support and superve the ART Compilation and final editing of the RRA Facilitate the debriefing session with PPAF at the end of the assignment
Martin Dietz, Livelihood and MSP specialist Conduct a joint review of the planning process currently being practiced by community organisations (and facilitated by POs); criteria to be considered should include among others participation and inclusion, capacities of the community to conduct / participate and contribute to the planning meaningfully, and fit with national guidelines (in case they exist). Share and discuss experience of inclusive community planning in other countries; review the relevance of methods to the context of PPAF. Review results of recent rounds of community planning; discuss the relevance of these plans for the community, particularly for disadvantaged households; how will results from planning be used by the community. Does the current planning format provide a suitable base for monitoring of implementation? If not, what changes are required?
A-2
ANNEX 1 Review and discuss methods currently used for the preparation of multi-sector plans (MSP) for Union Councils. What are the weaknesses of recently prepared multi-sector plans? How can they be overcome? Based on the review discuss with partner organisations needs for training / exposure in regard to community-based planning (and budgeting??). Discuss and review the needs for building capacities at a community level to conduct periodical and annual planning that can eventually fit into the planning by the District. Propose strategies and activities how to improve capacities for local level planning. Propose future training measures for POs.
Anwar Bhatti, LEP Anwar Bhatti as the National Expert on LH will be working closely with Martin Dietz but more specifically he will look into the following four points in more detail: Review individual business plans (LIP) for asset transfers and verify whether they include reflections on factors impeding market growth and peoples benefits, access to information and formation of linkages and how do these LIPs increase economic and social resilience and inspire others?; Review the process of formation and establishment of Common Interest Groups (CIG, particularly for women!) and how individual asset-holders are brought together; focus on how Common Interest Groups at CO-level turned into Business Interest Groups, which improve backward and forward linkages in the market, become registered as organizations under the Cooperatives Act Assess processes of what PPAF calls graduating the poor out of poverty and empowering them; Propose new innovative aspects in the implementation of the LACI-P Livelihood component.
Shahid Mehmood, CPI Review the current state of affairs in the CPI sector with regard to implementation of CPI schemes. Are these interventions demand driven and have the poorest of the poor been targeted?; Assess the process of identification of activities of the CPI Unit undertaken by POs. Is the selected technology innovative, economical and efficient?; Comment on the extent of application of PPAFs OPs manual and CPI Technical Guidelines by POs; Review the participatory planning, survey, design and cost estimating procedures and approval process for activities under PPAF Funding Phase One and Two. Comment on safety factors in the CPI design and costs in disaster prone areas; Review and comment the viability of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plans; Verify the financial viability and exit strategies for the physical infrastructure interventions; Recommend capacity building measures for PO staff and communities.
A-3
ANNEX 1 Rabia Khan, Community Mobilization Analyze and highlight the sequencing this project has taken after all the delays (skips, short-cuts, full omissions?), the set-up, the blue-prints applied and needs already known before the planning even started; highlight the opportunities the PPAF-POs working relationship holds (embeddedness as an overall attribute for the POs experience in their respective Districts, successful implementation approaches and tools, etc.), but also look at known/common, as well as new risks (beyond security issues)in a challenging economic situation. Assumptions have still to be formulated for LACI-P as part of a more elaborate LFA; How participatory in relation to the PPAF OPS Manual Implementation Principles was the selection of the LACI-P UCs on the one hand and the individual households for the asset transfers on the other; Needs have been described as already known, what does this mean in practise?; Have the poorest of the poor, the vulnerable with food deficit, mothers-only HHs, etc. been targeted and the right UCs been selected within the Districts?; How do aspects of Protection (part of LEP) and Disabled (part of HED) get reflected in the schemes selected?; Is there a gender-balance in the distribution of the project interventions and is genderdisaggregated data available?;
Amir Mohyuddin, DPM Review the POs planning process in the DPM perspective and propose improvement in the planning process. Review the process for identification and selection of CPIs and assess if the DRR structures and measures have been incorporated in the plans and the on-going schemes and propose improvement in the process for mainstreaming DRR in CPIs. Together with POs identify and prepare list of disaster preparedness measures in the target area and assist the POs in preparing a plan for such disaster preparedness measures to be introduced with communities. Assess POs and staff capacities in DPM and propose trainings of the POs that might be needed for community awareness and capacity building both for mainstreaming DRR in CPIs as well as in disaster preparedness measures. Any other task relevant to DPM that might be proposed by ART team leader during the assignment.
7. Time Frame of the assignment The duration of the ART assignment is from 29.7. to 14.8.2012 for the field assignment plus the necessary preparation time and the time required for the finalisation of the ARR. The assignment foresees 2 days for the study of documents, 3 days for meetings and the workshop with Partner Organizations (POs). For the field period, 7 days have been allocated, while 5 days are for data analysis and draft report preparation. The final version of the ARR is due six weeks after the commencement of this ART assignment.
A-4
ANNEX 1
8.
Reporting / Debriefing
The Draft report will be available by 13.8.2012 for the Debriefing meeting. PPAF can give a Management Response, KfW will be invited for comments to be given to the TL by 20.9.2012. Three hard copies and an electronic version of the ART report are to be submitted to the ART Leader in English and he will send the final version to KfW and PPAF on or before 28.9.2012. 9. Documents
A list of project relevant documents for the ART assignment is given below: Consulting Contract between HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation and PPAF (5.5.2011) and Separate Agreement (12.6.2010); HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, LACI-P Inception Report (24.4.2012); PPAF Operational Policies Manual for Grant-Based Interventions (GBIs; Draft 22.8.11) including, e.g. the PPAF Results Framework; Funding Phase One and Two Project Proposals of 12 POs; Funding Phase One and Two Financing Agreements for 12 Pos (incl. The Implementation Plans of the POs; PPAF CPI Unit: Community Physical Infrastructure Project Manual (2. Edition, June 2001); PPAF LEP Unit: Strategy for Enhancing Livelihoods of Poor in Poverty Stricken Districts (December 2011); PPAF ESM Unit: Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF, 4th edition, April 2011); Management of Water and Water Related Disasters The Role of PPAF; Proceedings of a Panel Colloquium (22.3.2012); PPAF Monthly Progress Reports to the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit; Short Monthly Reports (SMR) to KfW (starting from February 2012 to present); Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) to KfW (the first will be available by end of July 2012).
A-5
ANNEX 2
ART Assignment Schedule (30/07 14/08/2012) Activities

1
Date
Time
14:00 - 15:00
2 3
Briefing/ Meeting of the ART members (National & International) Mon, 30.07.2012 and finalization of program, key ART processes, design/tools, questions and interview guidelines Briefing at PPAF with the GH-EIDM, and PGM, GMs of CPI, LEP, Tue, 31.07.2012 HID, HED, DPM, MER and Representative from KfW Review of documents by the ART members and preparation of Wed,01.08.2012 the Workshop on 2.8.12 bilateral meetings of ART members with Units of PPAF (CPI, LED, HID, DPM) Workshop with all 12 POs of Funding Phase One and Two at PPAF Thu, 02.08.2012 Islamabad (for introduction and field visit program) with participation from KfW Fri, 03.08.2012
9:30 - 10:30 09:00 - 15:00
09:00 - 12:00
Field Visits
5 Travel to Peshawar Meeting with SRSP at Peshawar Field visit to Charsadda (SRSP) Meeting with SABAWON at Peshawar 6 Travel to Mardan from Peshawar Meeting with SDF at Mardan Meeting and Field Visit with NRSP Field Visit and Meeting SWWS at Swabi Back to Islamabad Off Day 7 Travel to Haripur from Islamabad Meeting with HADAF at Haripur Back to Islamabad 8 Meeting with MER Unit Meeting with RDP at PPAF in Islamabad Meeting with AKRSP 9 Meeting with NRSP at NRSP office Meeting with MGPO at MGPO office Meeting with MIED at MIED office Meeting with SERVE at PPAF in Islamabad 10 Meeting with CUP at CUP office Meeting with KfW at KfW office 11 Data review and analysis ( Islamabad) 12 Preparation of 1. Draft Report for Debriefing 13 Preparation of 1. Draft Report for Debriefing (Departure of Martin Dietz to Bhutan) 14 Debriefing for KfW and PPAF ( at PPAF) End of ART assignment, departure Chris Morger) 15 Draft Final AR Report shared with KfW and PPAF 16 Feedback received 17 Submission of 1. AR Final Report 08:00 - 11:00 11:00 - 12:00 14:00 - 16:00 20:30 - 21:30 08:00 - 09:00 09:00 - 10:30 11:00 - 13:30 14:00 - 16:00
Sat, 04.08.2012
Sun, 05.08.2012 Mon,06.08.2012
08:00 - 10:00 10:00 - 14:00 09:30 10:30 10:30 - 12:30 no show! 10:00 11:30 11:45 - 13:00 13:30 15:00 16:00 17:30 10:00 11:30 13:30 - 15:30
Tue, 07.08.2012
Wed, 08.08.2012
THU, 09.08.2012 Fri, 10.08.2012 Sat, 11.08.2012 Sun, 12.08.2012 Mon, 13.08.2012 Tue, 14.08.2012 Mon, 27.08.2012 Mon, 03.08.2012 Mon, 10.09.2012
10:00 -12:00
A-6
ANNEX 3
Introductory Workshop
(prepared by LACI-P PMU)
PPAF LACI-P Partner Organizations and Advisory Review Team (ART) Members from HELVETAS Swiss Inter Cooperation
2nd August, 2012 at PPAF Islamabad
A-7
ANNEX 3
Summary
A one-day introductory workshop was organized by PPAF and HELVETAS Swiss Inter Cooperation at PPAF Office on 2nd August, 2012. Group Head (EIDM) Mr. Zaffar Pervez Sabri, General Managers of PPAF, Advisory Review Team of HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation and 12 Partner Organizations (POs) from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province participated in the workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to introduce the ART assignment including the field visit program to the POs, get brief introduction of each PO, bring in discussion the expectation of the POs from the ART over the coming days and years and present the expectations of the ART from POs in the field and over the years. Workshop was divided into five sessions.
Session One Introduction

In first session after the brief introduction of the participants, Mr. Zaffar Pervez Sabri (Group Head, EIDM) introduced the Livelihood and Small Community Infrastructure (LACI) project. Mr. Zaffar Sabri said that LACI-P to be financed by KfW for the period of three years aims to reduce the poverty levels by increasing economic opportunities in the KP region. The total cost of the project is 31.563 million Euros. In LACI-P PPAF is working with selective partner organizations which have been selected through a stringent appraisal process and today 12 selective POs of Phase I and II are present here in the workshop. The project is comprised of four phases. In first 2 phases 12 POs have been selected, in third phase small indigenous organizations will be selected and in 4th phase which is about 5-6 million EUR only those 6 partner organizations who have performed best will be selected.
He said LACI-P is highly organized project and fully committed management team headed by fully committed General Manager will be working not only as unit but will also be interacting with other PPAF A-8
ANNEX 3 units. Introducing the HELVETAS Swiss Inter Cooperation he started with the Consultant Team Leader, Mr. Chris Morger, who is based at the head office in Switzerland. The Senior International Expert (SIE)/Deputy Team Leader, Mr. Klaus Euler, and the Senior National Expert (SNE, both fulltime), Mr. Hayatullah Khan are based at the PPAF office in Islamabad. In addition, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation also placed a Senior National Advisor for DPM (50% time), Mr. Syed Sajidin Hussain, with the Consultant team. The first Advisory Review Team has been formed with cutting edge expertise in various sectors. Mr. Zaffar said that LACI-P is a very organized project as funding agency is also here, PPAF is implementing and consulting teams are also here for all the project duration. He said that PPAF is using aerial/spatial approach for poverty alleviation from vulnerable communities at Union Council (UC) level. Mr. Zaffar wished success to all POs for their future interventions.
Session two Introduction of Advisory review Team

In session two, Mr. Chris Morger (Consultant, Team Leader) introduced the advisory review team. He said that consultants of HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation are based in PPAF office. The services consist of support to the PPAF in technical, social and monitoring tasks and will be provided through a combination of short term international and national experts and through Advisory Review Team (ART) assignments. The first ART has been formed consisting of 2 international and 4 national experts. Mr. Chris said that it is the right time to do advisory review and consulting services are not only for PPAF, but also for POs to assist COs. He asked the POs if they find some gaps in their work and want to know better, ART will facilitate and provide them expert opinions.
While discussing the field visit as part of this ART assignment Mr. Chris said that ART will be visiting some POs and field visit schedule has been given below:
A-9
ANNEX 3 03.08.12 Meeting with SRSP and SABAWOON at Peshawar Field visit to Charsadda and Back to Peshawar(Night Stay at Blue Palace/Shelton Peshawar) 04.08.12 06.08.12 07.08.12 Meeting with SDF at Mardan and SWWS at SWABI and back to Islamabad Meeting with HADAF and RDP at Haripur and back to Islamabad Meeting with SWWS at Swabi
Mr. Chris said that those POs who are based in Islamabad, ART will be visiting them in next week at the end of their field visits.
Session three Brief Introduction of Partner Organizations (POs)

In the third session, all POs briefly introduced their organizations, the year they were formed, period of time they have worked with PAF, size of the organization, geographical coverage and areas under which they are working. The session was facilitated by Mr. Amir Mohayyudin (ART-member). SERVE While introducing the SERVE Mr. Ahmad Zeb said that SERVE is based in DI. Khan and was established in 1998. It is working in 7UCs of D.I.Khan with different partner organizations. The total number of employees is 38 and they are based in D.I.Khan. SERVE has its satellite office in South Waziristan. It is in partnership with PPAF from last 2 years. Under PPAF support SERVE is working for the benefit of local communities with emphasis on institutional building, small infrastructure, primary health, education and sustainable development. SERVE is working with 200 community organizations for poverty reduction through livestock, agriculture, provision of safe drinking water and microenterprise development. He said that under livelihood component we provide enough time to beneficiaries to decide what business they want to start as in their previous experience they have shifted trades very rapidly. Under LACI-P SERVE started working with PPAF from April, 2012 in flood affected union councils of the D.I.Khan. HADAF Mr. Sajid Mehmood gave the brief introduction of HADAF. RDP was established in 2003 and is in partnership with PPAF since 2005 working under community and physical infrastructure, health, education and social mobilization. HADAF covers 15 Union Councils (UCs) of Haripur in partnership with various donor agencies particularly GTZ. It has formed 35 community organizations (COs) and the organization strength is 35 comprising of permanent and project staff. SABAWON Mr. Anwar Zeb said that SABWON was established in 1990 and working with PPAF since 2005 in areas of emergencies, security, disaster risk reduction, education, and WASH. SABAWON is working with 500 COs in 6 districts and with PPAF it is working with 100 COs. Number of permanent staff members is 20 and are based in Peshawar.
A-10
ANNEX 3 NRSP NRSP was established in 1991 and is in partnership with PPAF since 1998. NRSP is working with 150,000 community organizations, 500 village organizations and 5,000,000 households. The numbers of employees are 500 and are working with PPAF in areas of social mobilization, health, microfinance, community and physical infrastructure, livelihood enhancement and protection and in health. SRSP SRSP was established in 1989 and is working with PPAF from last 12 years. The geographical coverage of SRSP is 4 districts of KP and has formed 8000 COs. The numbers of employees are 1500 and program management units are based in Peshawar. CUP CUP was established in 2012 and is in partnership with PPAF since 2004. CUP is working with WFP and USAID in KP and Baluchistan. It has formed 1500 COs and full time employees are 67 in number. CUP is working with PPAF in Buner, Laki Marwat and villages of Islamabad. SWWS Mr. Javeed Akhtar introduced the SWWS and said that it was established in 1992 and working with PPAF since 2002 in areas of microfinance, health and education, gender based violence, community and physical infrastructure, livelihood enhancement and protection. SWWS has formed 432 COs and 255 COs and 21 VOs are under PPAF projects. RDP RDP is rights based organization established in 1992 working in Haripur and is in partnership with PPAF since April 2012. It has 68 project staff and 8 permanent staff members in KP. It is working in 9 districts of KP, Balochistan and AJK covering 450 villages. RDP has formed 540 COs while working in areas of food security, LEP, DRRM and early response of natural disasters. Oxfam, FBO and PPAF are its financing partners. MIED MIED was established in 2003 and is working with PPAF since 2009. It is working in 17 UCs and has formed 90 COs. It has 500 staff members out of which 25 are permanent. MIED works in areas of education and early child care. MGPO MGPO was established in 2001 and is in partnership with PPAF since 2006 working in areas of education, health and CPI. It covers KP and Kashmir and has 35 staff members. While working with PPAF, UNICEF and CHR it has formed more than 100 COs. SALIK Development Foundation (SDF) SDF was established in 1998 and is working with PPAF since 2002. Its head office is in Mardan and numbers of employees are 120 out of which 36 are permanent. It works in areas of CPI, HED, LEP and HID. It has formed 400 COs in KP and AJK.
A-11
ANNEX 3 AKRSP AKRSP was formed in 1982 and is pioneer organization in rural development. It is in partnership with PPAF since 2000 in areas of CPI, micro hydel projects, micro enterprise and climate change. It covers 8 districts, 500 UCs and formed 1,000 COs.
Session four Group Work Expectation of POs from ART

The fourth session was facilitated by Ms. Rabia Khan (ART member). The 12 POs were divided into 3 groups and they were assigned to list down their expectations from ART in next coming days and for future. The list of POs in 3 groups is as below: Group I AKRSP NRSP SRSP CUP Group II RDP MGPO SDF HADAF Group II SABAWON SERVE MIED SWWS
Preceding to this task each group identified the issues, sectors and support they are expecting from ART. The findings of 3 groups are as follows:
Group I
Sectors 1. Renewable technologies 2. Disaster Risk Reduction 3. Climate Change 4. Enterprise development 5. Value chain 6. Action Research 7. Health and Education Support required from ART 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Staff capacity building in all sectors New technologies DRR adoption measures Banking and Marketing Program design Strategic planning Health centers (mother child care centers)
A-12
ANNEX 3
Group II
Sectors 1. Capacity building of POs 2. Capacity building in multi-sector planning, mainstreaming DRR in development and livelihood planning 3. Third party monitoring 4. ART reporting 5. Technical input in implementation category of POs.
Group III
Support required from ART 1. 2. 3. 4. Formation of unified reporting formats Development of implementation plans in consultation with POs Coordination among different POs in implementation program in the same UC Technical support in formation of union council, village and district level development plans.
After the presentations of 3 groups Ms. Rabia Khan elaborated the common areas which all POs identified to require assistance from ART. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Disaster risk reduction Technical support in formation of development plans Multi-sector planning Third party review and monitoring for feed back UC and village level planning and coordination of POs Technical support in reporting formats Clarity on implementation plans Coordination and formation of UC, village and district level development forums.
Ms. Rabia Khan mentioned if POs require any support in community and social mobilization sector.
A-13
ANNEX 3
Session five Expectations of ART from POs

The fourth session of the workshop was conducted by Mr. Martin. The overall expectation of ART is to develop a trustful and gainful collaboration with POs. He said that over the next few years we want to gain a better understanding of role of POs, work processes and procedures, constraints, obstacles and issues of POs working in the project. He said that ART can provide their advise if POs are facing any challenges in social mobilization and planning/ need identification, in implementation, in monitoring and results measurements and in reporting requirements. The support is required to ensure a high quality work. He said that the support should be delivered in community mobilization, networking, exchange and knowledge sharing. At the end of the workshop Mr. Chris Morger discussed the travel plan and ensured that ART will be visiting those POs who are based in Islamabad in next week at the end of the field activities. Mr. Haroon Qureshi thanked all the POs to spare time to attend this workshop. He said that ART report will be provided to PPAF and KfW and findings will also be shared with the POs. Workshop was ended with the concluding remarks of Mr. Zaffar Pervez Sabri. He said that LACI-P will take a lead role in future in all PPAF initiatives. The growing partnership with KfW shows the increasing interests of the German Government in development of this country, he said. He mentioned that all POs should benefit from the consultants as they are experts in their sectors. He said that we should look at future positively and POs are not just the organization but they are institutions of the poor who have to take charge of the project.
A-14
ANNEX 4 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, DFID (revised)
From: Pro-Poor Livelihoods: Addressing the Market/ Private Sector Gap by Andrew Dorward http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/outputs/R7823c.pdf
A-15
Typical Format of a Design Sheet for an Irrigation Channel

NAME OF PARTNER ORGANIZATION
ANNEX 5a
LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT & PROMOTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
Name of Scheme/Outlet No: Source of Water/Disty/Minor: Union Council: Parabolic segment size Station (m) Top width (m) 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Full depth (m) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
Village:
Name of CO/VO/LSO: District:
Free Board (m) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12
Discharge (m3/sec)
Drop in Water level (m)
Design bed slope 0.002
Head Loss (m)
Water Depth (m) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.11
Ditch bottom level (m) 99.16 99.1 99.08 99.04 98.98 98.55 98.37
High field level (m)
Velocity (m/sec)
Remarks
0 30 40 60 90 90 120
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.45
0 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.06
0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 98.86 0.35 0.46 0.46 2-way turn out Culvert
0.006 0.006
0.45 0.18
A-16
O & M Technical Requirements ANNEX 5b Handpump

S/No 1
O & M Tasks monitor handpump use and encourage proper use; check all nuts and bolts, and tighten if necessary; measure output per stroke and compare with expected output; check and adjust pump handle and stuffing box; grease or oil all hinge pins, bearings, or sliding parts; clean the pump, well head, concrete apron, and drainage area; check well head, concrete apron, drainage area, and repair cracks; record all O&M activities in a notebook. disassemble the pump and check the drop pipe, cylinder, leather, and foot valve for corrosion and wear; repair or replace parts, as necessary. conduct water tests for microbial contamination; check the water level and test the well yield. in case of contamination, locate and correct the source of contamination, and disinfect; adjust the cylinder setting if necessary; replace the entire handpump when worn out. Manage a stock of spare parts, tools and supplies.
Operation Responsibility Community
Financial Responsibility Community
Community and Local Mechanic, Private sector Government Community Mechanic government and and
Community
3 4
Government Community Community Government
and and
Community, Mechanic and Government
Sanitation Scheme
Activity and Frequency 1-3 Months Clean the system Every Six Months Clean and disinfect the reservoir Every Storm Divert the foul Flush Occasionally (as per need) Repair the tap or pump. Material and Spare Parts Disinfectant Disinfectant Tools Required Broom, Brush, Bucket Bucket
Washer, Cupseals etc
Spanner, Screw Driver
A-17
ANNEX 6
Detailed list of activities and roles of PPAF Operational Units for mainstreaming/ integrating DPM into LACI-P (from Inception Report)
S.NO 1) 1 Activities DPM Mainstreaming DRR in CPIs Draft a training of trainers (TOT) Manual for POs in order to mainstream DRR in CPIs including a checklist. Conduct the training of trainers (selected from the POs) on the manual Regular training of POs staff Monitoring of the DRR checklist to ensure that DRR is mainstreamed in CPIs. Technical advice in technologically innovative CPI schemes, especially focussing on piloting community based slope stabilization and flood protection measures. Awareness raising workshops on DRR/DRM Strengthening communities disaster Hazard and Vulnerability Assessments (HVA) Training of POs in HVA Conducting HVA Integration of HVA results in the VDPs. Integration of HVA results in UC level MSPs Integration of Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment results at district level Developing/ initiating early warning system for communities in target areas District level workshop on EWS Initiate the EWS in each target districts Regular updating and monitoring of EWS. Establishing/ equipping/ training Emergency Response Teams (ERTs) in selected villages. Formation of ERTs and Village Emergency Preparedness Plan in selected villages Training and equipping ERTs Regular monitoring and refresher Establishing linkages of ERTs with DRUs Lead CPI Role of Technical Units LEP HID Comment Comment PO Comment
Comment
Lead
Participate
3 4
Monitor Lead
Monitor Support
Support
Support
Lead and participate Facilitate
Lead
Facilitate
Support
Support
Implement
6 2) 1
Lead
Participate
Participate
Participate
Participate
Lead Advice Advice Advice Lead
Lead Support Support
Participate Lead Lead Lead Support
Lead Lead Lead
Support Support Support
Support Facilitate Facilitate
Advice
Support
Lead
Advice Advice Lead
Support Lead Support
Lead Facilitate Facilitate
A-18

Advisory and Review Assignment Report

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Advisory and Review Assignment Report

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT & PROMOTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (LACI-P)

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 12

Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 17

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 29

FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................................... 30

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Objectives and Scope of the Advisory and Review Assignment

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

CURRENT PROJECT STATUS

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Impressions from the Field Visits and Discussions

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Identification of Ultra Poor (PSC methodology)

Role of Partner Organizations

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Analysis and Conclusions

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

PLANNING AND MONITORING

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Analysis and Conclusions

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION

Observations at the Level of Partner and Community Organisations

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Assessing markets for opportunities

Assessing the feasibility of the proposed enterprise / trade

Advisory and Review Assignment Report 1, September 12, 2012

Livelihood Support & Promotion of Small Community Infrastructure Project

Support services for enterprises

The role of PPAF