Navigation/Menü: Links auf weitere Seiten dieser Website
Objekt-Metadaten
| Three years after Kreutzmann, Hermann |
| Haupttitel | Three years after |
| Titelzusatz | evaluation of the GRC/ICRC livestock programme in the earthquake-affected areas of Pakistan-administered Kashmir |
| Autor | Kreutzmann, Hermann [Hrsg.]; Schütte, Stefan [Hrsg.] |
| Seitenzahl | VII, 101 S. |
| Schriftenreihe | Berlin geographical papers ; 36 |
| Fachbereich/Einrichtung | FB Geowissenschaften |
| Arbeitsbereich/Institut | Centre for Development Studies (ZELF), Inst. of Geographical Sciences |
| Erscheinungsjahr | 2009 |
| Dokumente | pdf-Datei
Falls Ihr Browser eine Datei nicht öffnen kann, die Datei zuerst herunterladen und dann öffnen.
|
| DDC | 300 Sozialwissenschaften |
| Dokumententyp/-Sammlungen | Monographie/Text |
| Medientyp/Format | Text |
| Abstract | Three years after the devastating earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir most relief and development programmes have gradually cut down their activities to help local communities recuperate from the disaster. In the immediate aftermath of the October 8th, 2005 earthquake a number of national and international relief organisations engaged in activities to support local communities. These activities have only rarely been evaluated to determine whether they had a mid-range or longer-lasting impact on the livelihoods of the affected people. The report presented here is the result of an impact assessment of a livestock project implemented in the earthquake affected areas by the German Red Cross (GRC) in collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This assessment was a joint effort of the relief and development activities executed by GRC/ ICRC, and academia from the Centre for Development Studies in the Institute of Geographic Sciences at Freie Universität Berlin. The participatory evaluation involved experienced staff from the Red Cross and representatives of village communities from the four Union Councils in Muzaffarabad District that were severely affected by the earthquake. Both acted as valuable knowledge resources, interpreters and mediators in focus group discussions and expert interviews that were conducted during the three weeks of fieldwork between March 18 and April 2, 2009. The learning experience during the mission changed the perspectives and insights of eight master and diploma students and their supervisors from the Centre of Development Studies at Freie Universität Berlin. The prime objective of this joint programme was to evaluate the impact of a livestock package that intended to augment the livelihoods and provide a resource base for families affected by the earthquake, going beyond sheer disaster relief efforts and moving towards more sustainable development. The second objective was to identify achievements and short-comings of the livestock package in order to identify lessons-learned for future economic and social programmes in the context of post-disaster interventions. The results presented in this report are encouraging and differentiated. For all participants it was a learning experience. This included the major challenge of determining how to evaluate the impact of a single package on the overall development of households and rural communities. The complex system of household economies and the variable sets of income sources, activities directed towards domestic sustenance and market production posed an intellectual challenge for the design of concepts and methods. In our approach we tried to understand and address these complexities by identifying different scenarios at the household level. From the aggregation of data it became obvious that certain households were better prepared to adopt and utilize offers such as the livestock package than others. The identification of eligible households with potential for success can be regarded as one of the great challenges of the programme. A second - sometimes rather neglected aspect - is the careful selection of suitable breeds of animals and the logistical burden of making the link between providers and receivers of improved livestock. Overall this evaluation found the GRC/ICRC project to have been planned and implemented with a high degree of understanding and consideration for the earthquake victims. I would like to thank Dr. Erhard Bauer form the German Red Cross for conceiving the idea of this evaluation mission and for the generous support of the evaluation team. I would also like to thank Marc Souvignier who acted as the link between Berlin and Islamabad. In Pakistan we enjoyed the challenges posed to us by Esther Lopez from the EcoSec department of the ICRC. In Muzaffarabad Jean-Jerome Casabianca proved to be a considerate and protective head of the mission and his team created a conducive environment for our task. II Without our interpreters and section experts who accompanied the team to the field and were valuable resource persons for a multitude of questions, none of our students could have conducted the necessary focus group discussions and interviews that led to the results presented in this report. Therefore, I also express my sincere gratitude to Imran Mehmood Banday (EcoSec Secretary), Arif Ayub Qureshi (MEI Team Leader), Mamoon Riaz Mughal, Fouzia Rafiq, Amer Rasheed Malik, Mohsan Nazir (MEI Field Officers), Sayed Ali Haider Bukhari, Rubina Shaheen Awan, and Muhammad Asif (former ICRC Field Officers). From the Berlin group I thank all participants of this course for their motivation and diligence in preparing the field visit, executing the empirical impact study, processing and analyzing the data and compiling of the report. The exercise would not have been feasible without the enthusiasm and unceasing motivation of Dr. Stefan Schuette who helped to incorporate this joint programme into the Master Studies Programme at the Centre for Development Studies at the Freie Universität Berlin. Finally I would like to express my gratitude to all institutions, named and unidentified supporters who contributed to the success of this enterprise that helped to bridge the gap between academia and practice, between relief and development, and contributed to a better understanding of the challenges people in Pakistan face in post-disaster and everyday circumstances. |
| Inhalt | Chapter 1 – Introduction............................................................................... 1 1.1 The setting – Earthquake and Response ..............................................2 1.2 Earthquake Response ....................................................................4 1.2.1 The ICRC in Pakistan-administered Kashmir ....................................5 1.2.2 The GRC in Pakistan-administered Kashmir ....................................6 1.3 From relief to development ............................................................7 1.4 Summary of the GRC/ICRC project....................................................9 1.5 Implementation of the livestock package – challenges and achievements ... 11 1.5.1 The beneficiary selection process.............................................. 11 1.5.2 Problems of transportation and non-adapted animals ...................... 13 1.6 The rationale of evaluating the livestock project ................................ 15 Chapter 2 – Context: Introduction to Pakistan-administered Kashmir ......................17 2.1 General facts for Pakistan-administered Kashmir ................................ 17 2.2 Introduction to the project area .................................................... 21 Chapter 3 – Methodology..............................................................................24 3.1 Three-Tiered Methodological Approach ............................................ 25 3.1.1 Village Level ....................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Household Level................................................................... 29 3.1.3 Expert Level ....................................................................... 29 3.2 Implementation of Methodological Approach and Field Logistics .............. 30 Chapter 4 – Assessment of production intervention ............................................33 4.1 Farming Systems........................................................................ 33 4.1.1 Agriculture ......................................................................... 35 4.1.2 Access to forest resources....................................................... 39 4.1.3 Animal Husbandry................................................................. 40 4.1.4 Role of cow in the livestock economy ......................................... 41 4.1.5 Interlinkages of agriculture and livestock economy......................... 43 4.2 Village-wise variations in cow utilisation strategies.............................. 44 4.2.1 Reasons for the absence of cows in beneficiary households ............... 45 4.2.2 Utilisation of cows in relation to altitude and market access ............. 48 4.3 At the household level: how the donation is utilised ............................ 54 4.3.1 Household composition and economical contexts - characteristics of study households.................................................................. 54 4.3.2 Household-specific factors determining the status of the donated cows 58 4.3.3 Animal health care, (re-)production, and utilisation of milk .............. 63 4.3.4 The beneficiary training ......................................................... 72 4.3.5 Ten major findings regarding household performance...................... 73 4.4 How to handle a cow donation? Three household scenarios .................... 74 IV Chapter 5 – Assessment of structural interventions ............................................83 5.1 The performance of Livestock First Aid Workers and Artificial Insemination Technicians ................................................. 83 5.2 Self assessment of LFAWs and AITs.................................................. 85 5.2.1 Economics of ‘barefoot veterinarianism’ ..................................... 86 5.2.2 The work routine of barefoot veterinarians .................................. 88 5.2.3 Effect of economic crisis on demand for veterinarian services ........... 89 5.3 Cooperation and competition between LFAWs/AITs and government agencies.................................................................. 90 5.4 The future of Livestock First Aid Workers.......................................... 91 6 Conclusions............................................................................................93 7 References ............................................................................................96 8 Annexes................................................................................................98 Annex 1 - Guideline for focus group discussions .................................... 98 Annex 2 - Guideline for household interviews....................................... 99 Annex 3 - Guideline for expert interviews with different actors................ 100 |
| Sprache | Englisch |
| Rechte | Nutzungsbedingungen |
| Zugriffstatistik | |
| Statische URL | http://edocs.fu-berlin.de/docs/receive/FUDOCS_document_000000006333 |
| Erstellt am | 18.08.2010 - 16:08:07 |
| Letzte Änderung | 14.03.2012 - 15:40:02 |
