1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The pilot WIN project (Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and Water Resources Management for Household Food Security) was an operational research project implemented by FAO from 2000-2003. The project was designed specifically to test a multi-sectoral approach to empowering women in irrigation management, and to address nutrition and health concerns associated with irrigation schemes. Although WIN was not originally foreseen as a livelihoods diversification project, a variety of income-generating activities (IGAs) emerged in Cambodia, Nepal and Zambia. A number of groups were successful in diversifying their livelihoods as a result of WIN’s intervention. However, it is still too early to fully assess the long-term viability and sustainability of these activities.

This paper aims to identify some operational lessons learned as well as good practices from the WIN project. The paper reviews the processes which facilitated the emergence of livelihood diversification and enterprise development (LDED) activities, outlining lessons on what did and did not work, with recommendations for the future.

Through an iterative process of participatory appraisal, analysis and planning, a number of IGAs emerged, particularly in Zambia and Nepal. WIN’s experience in these two countries demonstrates that people-centered^[2] practices, appropriate technical training and decentralized management can create a constructive environment for local action. In such conditions, even the poorest farmers can diversify their production systems and income streams, through initiating their own IGAs.

It is essential that the project team and steering committee are flexible and do not impose their own ideas and methods on local people. Income generating activities appear to thrive best when they have been identified and undertaken through local stakeholder consensus, and are supported by an enabling policy environment. The training activities and funding methods should also be flexible and responsive to changing priorities.

By 2003, participants had become involved in market-oriented agricultural production as a result of WIN’s intervention. The groups learned to save their own money as well as opening new land to group production. Their farming systems and crop mix were increasingly diversified, and they had the opportunity to generate income through selling their produce at local markets. As a group, women slowly gained access to and control over resources, although little is known as to the change in women’s access as individuals.

Some Lessons from WIN

• The experience in Zambia and Nepal shows that even the poorest and most marginalized groups can benefit from involvement in IGAs. The introduction of new products and the facilitation of women’s entry into the marketplace have led to their increased self-confidence. They have begun to generate their own income through the sale of livestock, vegetables, eggs and fodder. However, there is considerable variation between WIN project sites as regards the participants’ capacity to enter the market and many of the groups are not yet able to adequately deal with the fluctuating product cycle. There are further differences in the degree to which the participants adopted new technologies. It remains difficult to quantify the new market activity as a result of the project, as there have been limited opportunities to communicate with the participants since the end of the project.

• It is clear that a multi-disciplinary approach, such as WIN, must be demand-driven. Ideas and methodologies which are imposed in a top-down manner tend to lead to conflict and confusion among the stakeholders.

• The WIN experience demonstrates that the longer-term outcomes of LDED activities may not begin to materialize until the second or third year of a project’s lifetime. Income-generating activities may still be in the preliminary stages after a couple of years and will continue to need support. The transfer of technical and business skills to the groups takes time.

• Technical projects with a diversification component should seek to fully involve local partners with experience in LDED activities. More could be done to support livelihoods diversification activities if local expertise was identified and tapped.

• There appears to be a need for sensitization and awareness-raising of technical staff in livelihoods diversification issues. Raising awareness among higher-level policy makers and staff responsible for project planning and financing could lead to the creation of a more supportive environment for LDED activities. Furthermore, FAO normative work on diversification must feed into on-going field activities, as well as into the policies of local and national government.

• There needs to be a balance struck between FAO normative work, financial and administrative procedures, and the conditions and realities of the field.

• WIN’s experiences highlight the need for a shared vision of livelihoods diversification and enterprise development issues among FAO and its partner agencies. A common strategy, agenda and guidelines to support governments and local people in their LDED activities should be developed. This would require the input of a broad range of stakeholders at multiple levels, and perhaps a series of workshops could be organized to facilitate this process.