Jason Wolfe (USAID) and Radha Rajkotia (IRC) are researching and writing an “open paper” aimed at outlining how the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and the Value Chain Approach can be used to improve the lives of youth affected by conflict. The open paper approach welcomes community input and feedback throughout the writing process – click here for more information. This post outlines the goals and structure of the paper.

Having decided to write about how sustainable livelihoods approaches and value chain approaches can be integrated for youth in conflict, we are left with a tough and intimidating question - how can sustainable livelihoods approaches and value chains be integrated for youth in conflict? In our discussions about this issue we have thought about the relative merits of each of the approaches individually, and debated whether integration of the two approaches should even be our goal if our ultimate aim is to better serve the economic needs of youth in conflict.

In the end, it seems that the best way to sort through this conundrum is to roll up our sleeves and muddle through it. As we said in our initial posting, we are hoping that the process of writing this paper by engaging with colleagues and interested onlookers will help contribute to a collective resolution of these difficult issues. We want to have voices of the youth development workers and the die-hard economists coming together, if not to make harmony, then at least to make for a productive discussion.

So, below you will find the outline of the paper. It is a basic structure, but one that we hope will allow us to delve into the thick of the issues that we are trying to understand. What is hugely important to us is that we don’t duplicate existing efforts, but instead connect the dots between disparate writing that has already been produced. We want to be thorough and we want to be critical. We want to be able to question what we think we know and also hold our hands up about what we don’t. We want to avoid jargon, but also be thoughtful about the meanings that we commonly attach to the words that we use. Most of all though, we want to move our thinking forward so that we can design and implement better programs and really move towards our development goals.

As always, we welcome comment and response from you and will be happy to hear if you have opinions on this endeavor or suggestions on how to approach it. We also welcome suggestions on existing resources that will help inform this writing project, so please feel free to share them with us.

- Radha & Jason

Open Paper Outline

Section 1: Introduction
This section will serve as the foundation for the paper, providing an overview of each of the development approaches, an historical perspective on their application and an overview of where they sit in relation to other prominent economic strengthening approaches. Given that this is the first section of the paper, it is likely that amendments will be made to it once all of the sections have been completed.

Section 2: What do we know about economic strengthening initiatives for youth in conflict-affected settings?
This section will draw out defining characteristics of both youth and conflict-affected environments so that we can look at generally recognized truths and frequent assumptions or unproven hypotheses as they relate to economic strengthening initiatives. We will look at common development objectives for economic strengthening programs for youth in conflict and will set the objectives that we will aim to use as parameters for our discussion through the remainder of the paper.

Section 3: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Value Chains Approach in relation to youth.
Section 4: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Value Chains Approach in relation to conflict
These sections look discretely at each of the approaches in relation to youth and conflict, examining in turn what works well and not well for each; what they each emphasize in terms of programming content; and what each of them suggests as important or unimportant in terms of their application. We will aim to ensure that each of these approaches is looked at both individually and in comparison to the other so that we may steadily build up our understanding of the connections or gaps between the two.

Section 5: Livelihoods and Markets for Youth in Conflict
The final section aims to pose recommendations for how programs may concretely draw from the two approaches to design and implement more effective economic strengthening programs for youth in conflict. The underlying assumption for this closing section is that integration of the two approaches is both possible and more effective than using one or the other.

Click here to read previous posts in this series.

When it was launched in September 2004, the India Growth-Oriented Microenterprise Development Program (GMED) was USAID’s first enterprise development project in India. A 4-year, $6.3 million program funded under the Accelerated Microenterprise Advancement Project (AMAP), GMED was an innovative program that developed sustainable and scalable approaches to job creation in agriculture by fostering the growth of micro and small enterprises (MSEs).

GMED’s components included agribusiness and urban services. The agribusiness component focused on fruits and vegetables, organically certified food products, maize value chain improvement, and the integration of HIV/AIDS-affected communities into commercial supply chains. The urban services component worked to improve municipal solid waste management through outsourcing to MSEs. GMED was solely a technical service program and had no grant or subsidy component, making it unique for a donor project.

Strengthening the Value Chain through Partnerships and Technology

GMED adopted a value chain approach to enterprise development following the principle that the growth of micro and small enterprises must be driven by sustainable growth strategies for all of the firms in a value chain. ACDI/VOCA developed partnerships with larger firms and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which then provide embedded business development services to associated MSEs as an integral part of their commercial transactions. Thus, GMED was a service facilitator, rather than a service provider. The ultimate goal of the project was to enhance MSE growth opportunities by expanding the scope of the embedded services being provided by corporate and NGO partners, helping to make them more effective.

Addressing Opportunities and Challenges

• GMED, with two partner NGOs, organized and obtained organic certification for several thousand small, marginal, mostly women farmers. It also helped to effectively market and export these organically certified products.
• GMED helped several major Indian corporations and larger NGOs integrate smallholder farmers into commercial supply chains by increasing their capacity to meet market demand. Growing demand represented significant potential for smallholder fruit and vegetable farmers, who account for the great majority of fruit and vegetable production in India—provided that these farmers can gain the ability to produce to market specifications. GMED helped two of its principle corporate partners establish three model smallholder vegetable farmer production bases to illustrate the measures required to accomplish this.
• In addition, ACDI/VOCA pioneered the Village Extension Agent model to expand the availability of private agricultural extension services at reduced cost while providing employable skills to local youth. 18 under-employed farm youth from within a vegetable production cluster were recruited, trained in the rudiments of crop, soil, water and pest management and stationed in their home village. The village agents, who spoke the local dialect and were acquainted with the village farmers, were trained provide solutions to less complex farming problems and could call on professional agents whose work they supplemented.

ACDI/VOCA and GMED demonstrated commercially viable solutions to MSE growth constraints through development of these models, inspiring other industry participants to adopt them. This bodes well for the sustainability and scalability of GMED efforts, benefiting SMEs and the industries involved through enhanced competitiveness and greater growth opportunities in India.

Alex Pavlovic
apavlovic@acdivoca.org

Sept 2004 - Sept 2008