1. A post – project impact assessment CARE UK October 2011
Reducing poverty and promoting women empowerment through market development in the southern Andean highlands of Peru
A post – project impact assessment
CARE UK October 2011

2. Why did CARE Peru work with rural communities in Puno?
Poverty levels: sample of 200 households in 2006 reported:
87% living below the poverty line and
60% below the extreme poverty line.
30% of children under 5 in region suffer chronic malnutrition

3. Why did CARE Peru engage with the cattle Value Chain?
Outreach: Cattle raising is the main economic activity in the area for smallholders (60% of total income in 2005)
Economic Potential: Puno produced 19% of the cattle sold in Lima and 53% of the cattle commercialized in Arequipa
Market opportunity: unsatisfied national market demand of 8.3% (or 61,700 cattle heads per year), which could be targeted by Puno producers

4. Puno Beef Cattle Value Chain
Organic market
Conventional market
District Markets and Supermarkets
Enabling environment: policies, labour gender division, legislation, physical conditions, climate change adaptation
Merchants and cold houses
Lima and Arequipa / other Slaughter Houses
Import market
Private Input providers
Cattle raisers’ associations producing fully fattened bulls
Farmers in southern Peru who terminate to fatten the animals
Transportation services
Financial Institutions
Interest groups
Interest groups
Middle men
Private vet. services
Private Technical Assistance providers
Smallholdersc
Smallholders
Smallholders
Smallholders
Smallholders selling semi-fattened bulls
Women project beneficiaries
Association
Commercial, relationship

5. Main VC strengths Bottlenecks
Strength: smallholders represent the vast majority of the cattle value chain
Weaknesses:
Low productivity / poor economic results
Access to higher value markets: cattle not fully fattened sold to middlemen making most of the profit
taking from 8-12 months to fatten a cow for market. Average family income from beef production in 2005 was around 1,600 new soles per year (around 350 GB£/year or 29.3 GB£/month

6. Project objectives
Increase the income (by 25%) and employment opportunities (143,627 new daily positions) for 2,550 poor families through fattening and commercialization of beef cattle
Develop technical and productive capacities for 2,550 families within the beef cattle value chain.

7. Project components (Fondoempleo 2005 – 2008)
Improving productive and Business Management capacities
Improving organizational capacity of the producers
Creation of a local market for technical assistance providers (PATs)
Promotion and facilitation of partnerships with the public sector and private sector
Interest groups, federated at higher level, learning exchanges,

8. Project methodology / gender
The semi-intensive bull fattening methodology permitted the involvement of women (close to home)
Active promotion of the role of women in economic activities including commercialization, producers associations / public life
Work on masculinities
Interest groups, federated at higher level, learning exchanges,

9. The external impact evaluation
Objectives:
To generate the necessary evidence to validate this specific initiative and its strategy as an effective rural development model for the Peruvian highlands.
Use the results of this study as an evidence based advocacy tool with the Peruvian Government
General project information:
9 months project, worth approximately US$ 31,500, funded by PPA3, in partnership with the IEP (Institute for Peruvian Studies), coordinated in CARE Peru by Claudia Sanchez, M&E Director.

10. What kind of evidence were we looking for? (Quantitative)
Household composition
Total annual cost composition (average)
Unsatisfied Basic Needs in the families
Per capita annual cost in households
Annual Income and expenditures individual and by house holds, by quintiles and deciles
Incidence of poverty and extreme poverty, poverty gap, poverty severity (squared poverty gap)
Income distribution by quintiles
Gini Coefficient
% of people with caloric deficiency
Agriculture and cattle sales
Gross Value of Production
Total income per household
Composition of production (agriculture, cattle, forestry)

11. What kind of evidence were we looking for? (Qualitative)
Qualitative evidence around individuals (men and women)
Empowerment level, happiness, dignity, self confidence
The main successful strategy adopted by the project, leading to these impacts
Application of CARE’s programmatic principles
Project sustainability

12. Methodology (key elements)
Multidimensional approach to poverty measurement (OPHI methodology, IDB methodology)
Surveys based on the ENAHO methodology (National Households Survey) in Peru.
Interviews with focal groups
Baseline for the control group built using secondary information, as it was not included in the baseline
In Partnership with the IEP (Institute for Peruvian Studies)

13. Main Results of the impact assessment
The analysis shows a statistically significant increase of net incomes of almost 100% compared with the baseline

14. Main Results (continues)
64% decrease in poverty incidence from 81% to 29% during the past 5 years (51% difference).
The percentage of people able to make savings is significantly larger in the treatment group (27.8%) than in the control group (7.5%)
The % of people reporting that they are living well or very well is significantly higher in the treatment group (32.4% vs. 16.7%)
Measured on expenditures, according to the national methodology

15. Most important tool and most relevant impact

16. Men and Women most important changes
Women Important changes
Men important chenges
Place
New skills, education for the children
Better family relationships
More participation in public spaces
Better economic conditions
New knowledge
Giving value to the cattle raising
Huayrapata
New learning, education for the children
More equality within the family
More leadership in the community
New incomes generation
New knowledge
Overcoming poverty
Huancané
Source: Focal groups CARE / IEP

17. What is power?
How do you define having power? (examples of answers and perceptions obtained during the evaluation)
Examples from women: ”She is somebody very clever, well trained. It is good that she has power in order to care for her community, in order for the other women to be well as well (…) They respect her at home, treated by her husband as an equal”
Examples from men: in the case of man power is mainly related to having formal power, to be in a power position. A man with power is somebody “who knows how to lead, who is or has been municipal authority or mayor or manager”. Beyond this, somebody who is in a dominant power position at home. Some of them mention that “there is always a chief of the family”, they are the persons who traditionally hold that position and need to do it well.

18. Women and men empowerment – differences in perceptions
Empowerment for men: more power inside the community
Empowerment for women: more autonomy and decision power

19. Other benefits linked to the project
Better use of technology in agriculture improving productivity and quality
Through the associations, access to tractors and other machines
Benefit of associations, formalized associations

20. Elements of happiness for women
More autonomy in the cattle activity
Participation in commercialization, questioning the gender division of Labour
Refusal of macho attitudes of men who do not value their role in the family
New knowledge, skills
Capacity of managing part or the totality of new incomes gives more autonomy

21. Elements of happiness for men
Improvement in the economic results from cattle raising
Improvement in the results from the direct commercialization
Interacting with urban markets in Lima and Arequipa
Exchanges of experiences in other countries (Chile and Guatemala)

22. Suggestions from CARE Peru for future impact evaluations
Clearly define the objectives: what we want to measure
Importance of the reflexions and learning process generated by the evaluation. It is a tool and not an end in itself
Use of rigorous processes and recognized methodologies at national and international level, partnership with well respected research institutions.
Think about the responsibility that we have in scaling up models that work rather than risky or failing models as this involve the lives of many people
Need to follow up with the institutions responsible for scaling up the successful models in order to be properly implemented. The document is not sufficient in itself