Case Study

South Asia – Evaluation of a livelihoods approach to risk reduction; DFID (2003)

In late 2003 Aguaconsult was invited by the UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) to review the of Livelihood Options for Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia project, which was managed by the Intermediate Technology Development Group between 1999 to mid-2003.

Aguaconsult fielded a team of two evaluators to review this DFID-funded programme, which, working in five countries of the region, was designed as an alternative approach to risk reduction, in which livelihood security is at the core. ITDG approached this piloting programme by relating vulnerability to the impact of disasters, with a range of livelihood issues, including economic, social and cultural aspects, natural resources and their management and the political economy of a given population.

The project design argued that one of the keys to reducing vulnerability is in understanding livelihood options during so-called “normal” periods.

The team concluded that the project had largely achieved its stated purpose of providing the findings of research and demonstration projects in support of an alternative livelihoods approach, but that it had a more limited impact on national level disaster management policy and planning, except in the case of Sri Lanka.

At lower levels, including district government and community levels, the project had greater success in promoting the alternative approach, but interventions required further action to guarantee a sustained change in working practices and local strategies.

The pilot project approach was considered an important and successful element of the ITDG project. Having demonstration projects served multiple functions for audiences or target groups at different levels, including direct site visits, case study material for training and in the provision of concrete inputs into policy debate.

The value of funding pilot projects at a regional level for DFID was also considered by the team, who concluded that these types of activities, grounded in field level research, are an important complement to financing of higher-level policy reform initiatives with governments directly. The team recommended that DFID and ITDG should build upon this first phase of research by exploring the possibility of commissioning a study into the cost-effectiveness of the livelihoods approach over the longer-term.

Such a study would provide a powerful argument to present to policy makers if it can be shown that investments in disaster mitigation and risk reduction interventions can lead to savings in public spending on relief and rehabilitation.