Methods
-
Discussion with key donors and NGOs in:
-
Rome (FAO)
-
Uganda
-
Tanzania
-
Malawi
-
Uganda
-
51 meetings
Priorities
-
Improving food security
-
Reducing labour requirements in agriculture and related activities
Targeting
-
Based on vulnerability – but most vulnerable households often unable to participate.
Training
-
Timing (e.g. initial and/or ongoing)
-
Range of skills at group or individual level (e.g. social, practical, marketing etc.)
-
External support (e.g. extension workers)
Markets
-
Structural issues (e.g. physical access, cultural constraints, quality of roads, taxation, retail rents, inequalities of power between producers and suppliers)
-
Flow (e.g. peaks and troughs of production exacerbated by storage problems)
-
Demand (e.g. assured or assumed)
Social protection
-
Formal/informal inclusion in projects (e.g. legal support, changes in social organisation)
-
Entitlement (e.g. through legislation or support of traditional leaders)
-
Insurance (e.g. built into project design or developing as a result of losses)
Sustainability
Organisation of funding
-
Timing (length of funding impacts on project implementation and assessment of suitability and impact)
-
Fragmentation (competition for funding, isolation, reduced opportunities for cohesive development of interventions tackling different levels of vulnerability)
Summary
-
Areas of tension and congruence may exist between LETs and increasing food security
-
Are LETs likely to be successful?
-
Reduction in fragmentation and competition
-
Reducing exclusion from interventions
-
Role of social organisation in reducing time constraints
-
Vulnerability is not a static concept – can interventions reflect this?
|
