LSP Working Paper 5 People-Centred Approaches in Different Cultural Contexts Sub-Programme

PEOPLE-CENTRED APPROACHES
A brief literature review and comparison of types

By Dervla Cleary
With contributions from
Pari Baumann, Marta Bruno,
Ximena Flores and Patrizio Warren.

September 2003

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Livelihood Support Programme (LSP)
An inter-departmental Programme for improving support for enhancing
Livelihoods of the rural poor.
PEOPLE-CENTRED APPROACHES
A brief literature review and comparison of types

by DERVLA CLEARY

with contributions from

Pari Baumann, Marta Bruno,
Ximena Flores And Patrizio Warren

SEPTEMBER 2003

Revision June 2004

People-centred Approaches

The Livelihood Support Programme

The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) evolved from the belief that FAO could have a
greater impact on reducing poverty and food insecurity, if its wealth of talent and
experience were integrated into a more flexible and demand-responsive team approach.

The LSP, which is executed by FAO with funding provided by DfID, works through teams
of FAO staff members who are attracted to specific themes being worked on in a
sustainable livelihoods context. These cross-departmental and cross-disciplinary teams
act to integrate sustainable livelihoods principles in FAO’s work, at headquarters and in the
field. These approaches build on experiences within FAO and other development
agencies.

The Programme is functioning as a testing ground for both team approaches and
sustainable livelihoods principles.

Email: lsp@[Link]

People-Centred Approaches in Different Cultural Contexts Sub-Programme

The goal of this sub-programme is to review and compare the SL model with other
development paradigm models in use in different cultural linguistic regions of the world
with conceptual discussion of similarities and differences; and to provide a critical analysis
of existing SL translations into French and Spanish in order to improve terminology when
necessary.

ii
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

LIST OF ACRONYMS ...............................................................................................................................iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 2
CHAPTER 1: THE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH ..................................................... 4
1.1 The Central Tenets of the SL Approach: ......................................................................................... 4
1.2 The SL Approach in the Field............................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2: THE “GESTION DE TERROIRS” APPROACH ............................................................ 9
2.1 The Origins of Gestion de Terroirs .................................................................................................... 9
2.2 So, What is Gestion de Terroirs? ....................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Some Weaknesses associated with the GT approach to rural development:................ 12
2.3.1 Relatively High Start-up Costs...................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Maintaining Local Incentive........................................................................................................... 13
2.3.3 The Policy Vacuum ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.4 Local Institutions and Regional Specificity ........................................................................... 13
2.3.5 The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality .................................................................................... 16
2.3.6 Lack of Long-Term Planning .......................................................................................................... 16
2.3.7 Local Power Relations ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 Partnership Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.5 Practical Application of GT ................................................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER 3: APPROACHES AND LESSONS FROM LATIN AMERICA....................................... 23
3.1. Integrated Rural Development Experiences ..................................................................................... 23
3.2. Territorial approaches and “ordenamiento territorial”....................................................... 26
3.2.1 Structure and components ............................................................................................................. 28
3.2.2 History, evolution and institutional linkages........................................................................ 29
3.2.3 Territorial approaches and ordenamiento territorial in FAO......................................... 31
3.2.4 Key-focus, analysis, planning, implementation, evaluation........................................... 32
3.2.5 Methodologies and tools................................................................................................................... 35
3.3 ‘Brazilianising’ the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach ......................................................... 38
CHAPTER 4: FARMING SYSTEMS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW............................................................. 41
4.1 What are Farming Systems? ................................................................................................................ 41
4.2 Determinants of Farming Systems................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1 Natural Resources and Climate..................................................................................................... 44
4.2.2 Science and Technology................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.3 Trade Liberalisation and Market Development..................................................................... 44
4.2.4 Policies, Institutions and Public Goods .................................................................................... 45
4.2.5 Information and Human Capital................................................................................................... 45
4.3 Recognition of Cultural and Regional Differences .................................................................. 46
CHAPTER 5: COMPARING SOME PEOPLE-CENTRED APPROACHES ..................................... 47
5.1 What? Where? The Key Principles of Some Development Approaches........................... 50
5.2 What is the predominant focus of the approach?...................................................................... 51
5.3 What are the technical aspects of the approaches?.................................................................. 52
5.4 How do the approaches deal with broader issues? .................................................................. 54
5.5 Overcoming Common Fault Lines .................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 6: SO WHERE DOES THE REAL VALUE ADDED OF SLA LIE? ............................... 59
6.1 National Level Development Strategies ........................................................................................ 59
6.2 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) ............................................................................. 60
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ..................................................................................................................................... 62
Internet Resources: ................................................................................................................................................ 65

iii
People-centred Approaches

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CDF World Bank’s Comprehensive Development F

CPRM Common Property Resource Management
CSO Civil Society Organisations
CVGT Communes Villageoises Pour Gestion de Terroirs
DfID UK Department for International Development
ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
GT Gestion de Terroirs
GTZ German Technical Development
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IMF International Monetary Fund
IRD Integrated Rural Development
LLI Local Level Institutions
LSP Livelihood Support Program in the FAO
NSSD National Strategies for Sustainable Development
NRM Natural Resource Management
PIPs Policies, Institutions and Processes Box of the Sustainable
Livelihoods Framework
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
SAM Service Asset Management groups
SL Sustainable Livelihoods
SLA Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
UNDP United Nations Development Program

iv
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report aims to give a concise overview of some people-centred approaches to rural
development that are being used, or have been used, in different areas of the world. The approaches
covered here are the sustainable livelihoods approach, as is being developed by DfID; the gestion de
terroirs approach; the farming systems approach; and some approaches that have been emerging
from Latin America, and in particular ordenamiento territorial.

The discussion, here, of the sustainable livelihoods approach focuses on reviewing the major
principles of the approach and opening the discussion of the SLA’s potential in the field. The
sustainable livelihoods approach is an emerging and evolving approach to rural development, with a
great potential to learn from other approaches in the field, and to successfully apply those in the
battle against rural poverty.

The gestion de terroir approach has a longer history than the SLA and as such has many potential
lessons to teach. In chapter 2 of this report, there is review of the approach, with an emphasis on
these lessons. The key theme in this chapter is the weaknesses of the gestion de terroir approach
and the potential for other people-centred approaches to learn from and adapt these weaknesses.

The discussion of the approaches emerging from Latin America involves a review of the practical
experience of the integrated rural development schemes in Ceara, Brazil and Oaxaca, Mexico. The
newer approach, ordenamiento territorial, is placed within the socio-economic and political context
of Latin America in recent decades and its general features considered. The adaptation of the SLA
to the Brazilian context is also outlined in this section.

Farming Systems is an approach that has been in place throughout the world for decades. Here the
particular form of farming systems being reviewed is that version that is being adapted and
developed in the FAO, under the direction of John Dixon. The aim of this chapter is simply to
review the approach and discuss some of the features that make it useful for people-centred
development.

There is then a comparative review of the people-centred approaches that have been covered, which
is set up in a predominantly tabular fashion. The potential for all these approaches in successfully
battling rural poverty emerges in this chapter.

1
People-centred Approaches

INTRODUCTION

This report is a brief overview of some people-centred approaches and has been carried out under
the auspices of sub-programme 2.2, on People-Centred Approaches in Different Cultural Contexts,
of the Livelihood Support Program (LSP). The LSP is an inter-departmental initiative, funded by
the UK’s Department for International Development, which seeks to improve the impact of FAO
interventions at country level through the effective application of Sustainable Livelihood
Approaches1 As noted in the work plan for this program, experts within the FAO and other
development organisations have tended to work primarily with methods that they have used for
many years, which can result in distrust of new approaches and a reluctance to adopt such
approaches. Thus, potential synergies between approaches are often overlooked beyond a more
abstract, academic level. The consultants group will be examining in greater detail, through
interviews, documentary analysis and approach working groups, the potential for an exchange of
ideas, methods and ‘best practice’ in order to allow the various SL type approaches already in use in
the field to learn from and teach one another with the aim that the approaches will be most
adequately oriented to the particular cultural context in which they are used. In this way, this
review can be seen as simply a general overview of some existing literature on the different
approaches and lessons that have been learned from them.

The approaches covered here are:

1. Gestion de Terroirs, whose use has been predominantly within francophone West
Africa;
2. Farming systems, which has been used regularly within many cultural contexts;
3. The Sustainable Livelihoods framework.
4. Some of the approaches emerging from Latin America, including IRD and
Ordenamiento Territorial

The examination of the appropriateness of SLAs in different cultural contexts is noted within the
DfID/ FAO Sienna document as being essential to attracting a wider audience to use and adapt the
SL approach. As such, the document notes that concern was voiced by participants in the Sienna
Forum that the SL approach appeared to be rooted within an Anglophone context, which could
prove a serious obstacle to its uptake in other cultural contexts.

Thus, the main questions that would seem to need answering are:

1. What tools and methodologies are being applied to rural development and are they
showing some success?
2. Are their lessons that can be learned from these approaches that can benefit the rural
poor?

This report makes no pretence to answer those questions, rather the broad intention is to open the
debate and clarify some of the more obvious similarities between the approaches and lessons that
they may learn from one another. Hence, this review shall begin with a brief review of the
Sustainable Livelihoods approach, although, as many authors have already covered this in depth,
the review will be limited to that which may be relevant for the rest of the report. This will be
followed by a review of the gestion de terroirs approach, some of the approaches being used in

1
Baumann, P., Bruno, M., et al (2003) Applying People-Centred Approaches Within FAO: Some Practical Lessons
(Work in Progress)

2
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Latin America, and the farming systems approach, followed by an examination of how these
approaches compare to one another.

3
People-centred Approaches

CHAPTER 1 THE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH

The Sustainable Livelihoods approach has been explained and expanded upon by several
authors (Carney, Ashley, etc) so this report will not go into much detail on the approach itself
here. Rather, there will simply be a brief synopsis of the main principles underlying the
approach, noting its inclusion within the FAO as an increasingly important aspect of its rural
development programmes. This will be followed by a review of the various ways in which
the approach has been used in the field and a run down of some of the criticisms levelled at it.

1.1 The Central Tenets of the SL Approach:

The Sustainable Livelihoods approach is noted2as aiming “to promote development that is
sustainable not just ecologically, but also institutionally, socially and economically and to
produce genuinely positive livelihood outcomes”. This is to be achieved through a variety of
approaches, sharing the following elements:
- People-centred
- Responsive and participatory
- Multi-level
- Conducted in partnership
- Sustainable, with the four key dimensions of sustainability being economic,
institutional, social and environmental
- Dynamic

Included within this is the notion of the pentagon of five capital assets that are available to
rural people3:

Figure 1.1: The Pentagon of Assets

T h e P e n ta g o n o f A s s e ts

H um an
C a p i ta l

S o c ia l N a tu ra l
C a p i ta l C a p i ta l
E n h a n c in g th e
s u s t a i n a b il i t y
o f th e se a sse ts

P h y sic a l F in a n c ia l
C a p i ta l C a p i ta l

2
Ashley, C.; Hussein, K. (2000) Working Paper 129: Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact
Assessment ,p.14
3
Slides from de Satgé, R. Examining the DfID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework: Concepts and Critiques

4
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Singh and Gilman use the following diagram to illustrate the community assets that are vital
to the SL framework4:
Figure 1.2: Community Assets as an Entry-Point for SL
WEALTH STOCK

HUMAN
CAPITAL SOCIAL NATURAL PHYSICAL FINANCIAL
CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL

Knowledge Government Land/ Soil Buildings Cash

Structures

Decision- Water Roads Savings

Skills Making Power

Community Air Machinery Loans/

Creativity and other Funding
Institutions
Forestry/ Crops/
Participatory Vegetation Livestock
Adaptive Processes
Strategies

Culture

The FAO’s Medium Term Plan includes a commitment to include the SL approaches in its

4
Adapted from Singh, N. and Gilham, J. Employment and Natural Resources Management:
A Livelihoods Approach to Poverty Reduction SEPED Conference Paper Series No.5, p.5

5
People-centred Approaches

The FAO’s Medium Term Plan includes a commitment to include SL approaches in its future
work in the area of rural development. The objectives of the Plan are thus noted as being:
1. To improve the effectiveness of national policies and programmes aimed at
strengthening the contribution of local institutions to rural livelihoods and assisting
vulnerable populations
2. Foster local institutions and attendant organisational capacity for improving rural
livelihoods and ensuring equitable access to resources
3. Strengthen links of local institutions where appropriate to regional, national and
international institutions.

As such, it is clear that within the FAO there appears to be a genuine commitment to the use
of Sustainable Livelihoods in the search for successful rural development projects, with a
particular emphasis being placed upon capacity building of local institutions and the
empowerment of local populations through their participation in development planning
processes.

1.2 The SL Approach in the Field

Baumann5 examines the use of SL approaches in two districts in India, Dehradun (Uttar
Pradesh) and Rayagada (Orissa). Regarding this, she emphasises the need for Sustainable
Livelihoods to incorporate political capital as an endogenous asset within the livelihoods
framework. This is seen as of central importance in terms of ensuring local participation and
empowerment, such that she comments that changes in local power structures are going to
find themselves in opposition to local elites, such that SLAs may face considerable resistance
when there are attempts to organise the local population into groups for changing local access
to resources. In this way, the inclusion of political capital would allow for a clearer
distinction within the framework between operational and technical factors (resolved through
institutional innovation within the current political system), those that are legislative, and
those that are political (where politically induced constraints are preventing the successful
working of projects). This is further developed in this report, particularly as regards the Latin
American context, and has also been the subject of discussion within the consultants’
meetings.
Figure 1.1: A Women’s Group Meeting to Discuss their Objectives; Orissa, India6

Photo: Katia Dini

5
Baumann, P. (2000) Working Paper 136: Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital: Arguments and
Evidence from Decentralisation and Natural Resource Management in India
6
Taken from IFAD media base: [Link]/photo/region/PI/[Link]

6
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Ashley7 uses the SL framework to explore the links between rural livelihoods and common
property resource management (CPRM), focusing on the influence of CPRMs on livelihoods
and vice versa. Within this, three examples are examined from Namibia:

- The first focuses on participatory planning of wildlife use with communities, also known
as the WILD project – Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Diversification. The project
facilitated participatory livelihoods analysis and land use planning, with continuous
feedback of lessons into the community and other communities interested in the project.
As such, livelihoods analysis was seen as an intrinsic part of the project, rather than
simply a stage within it.

- The second was using an understanding of livelihood strategies to enhance the

community-based natural resource management program. The main focus was on
building institutional capacity for CPRM. As a by-product, the project also identified the
factors affecting people’s participation in the program.

- The final Namibian example reviewed assessed the impact of tourism development from
a livelihoods perspective. As such, the aim was to assess how tourism development
impacts upon the different aspects of rural livelihoods, using the SL framework as an
analytical checklist.

A fourth example was taken from Kenya with an assessment of the livelihoods impact of
wildlife enterprises, aiming to identify how such enterprises are contributing to development
and conservation.

Overall, Ashley8 found that the impacts of the above programmes on rural people’s assets are
of primary importance and that such analyses can assist in a wider understanding of why it is
that some groups participate and others do not. Such a finding would appear to have the
possibility of uncovering, in the situation in Peru9 as outlined in the Latin American section,
why it was that indigenous populations were not keen to participate and how this may be
altered.

Ashley and Hussein10 used the livelihoods approach to evaluate and assess wildlife
preservation projects in terms of their impact on the livelihoods of rural people. Their
analysis can be seen to highlight, as one of the weaknesses of the SL approaches, the risk of
over-reliance on the SL framework, which leads to a failure to overtly address issues of
politics, empowerment, gender relations, etc. This would seem to confirm the conclusions of
Baumann11, Marzetti12, Bebbington13, etc.

7
Ashley, C. (2000) Working Paper 134: Applying Livelihoods Approaches to Natural Resource Management
Initiatives
8
Ashley, C. (2000) Working Paper 134: Applying Livelihoods Approaches to Natural Resource Management
Initiatives
9
Lopez Ornat, A. (1996) Strategies for Sustainability: Latin America
10
Ashley, C.; Hussein, K. (2000) Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment
11
Baumann, P. (2000) ibid., Baumann, P. (2002) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Improving Access
to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor
12
Manzetti, G. (2001) Brazilianising the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
13
Bebbington, A, (1998) “Capitals and Capabilities”

7
People-centred Approaches

Carney and Drinkwater explore use of the SL approaches in different development

organisations,14 and some lessons were drawn as regards the practical use of SLAs. For
example, CARE International highlighted the importance of ensuring that the livelihoods
approach does not appear to be a ‘headquarters driven’ initiative, which can often lead to
doubting voices coming from the field. This could be hugely important for FAO to recognise
as it begins its introduction of SL approaches. The approach working groups set up by the
consultants, and any collaboration with staff in the field in developing the approach are likely
to overcome this potential problem area. CARE also emphasised the need to use a ‘light’
framework to ensure simplicity in the field, which was echoed by Lopez Ornat15 in his work
on sustainable development in Latin America. DfID noted that it is not necessary that there
be a wholesale abandonment of sector-based approaches for SL projects to be introduced.
Thus, there is recognition that SLAs can be successful when run along sector lines, as has
been noted in the Gestion de terroirs literature.

Farrington et al16 attempt to bring the SL literature into a practical setting, noting the usage of
the approaches so far in the field. Here they simply reiterate the findings of Ashley17 and
Ashley and Hussein18 in their work in Namibia and Kenya. Within this discussion, they note
that the SL framework is not to be used in isolation and is intended, rather, as a tool to design
projects, bringing together different perspectives contributing to a people-centred approach.
This serves to underline the necessity of the current work being done in the Livelihood
Support Program’s sub-program 2.2, on People-Centred Approaches in Different Cultural
Contexts, regarding the existence of SL type approaches in different cultural contexts. In this
way, it is recognised that the SL framework is not meant to replace other approaches, but
rather to build on them.

14
Carney, D.; Drinkwater, M.; Rusinow, T. et al (1999) Livelihood Approaches Compared
15
Lopez Ornat, A. (1996), Strategies for Sustainability
16
Farrington, J.; Carney, D.; Ashley, C.; Turton, C. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice
17
Ashley, C. (2000) Working Paper 134: Applying Livelihoods Approaches to Natural Resource Management
Initiatives
18
Ashley, C.; Hussein, K. (2000) Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment

8
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

CHAPTER 2:THE “GESTION DE TERROIRS” APPROACH

The Gestion de Terroirs approach to rural development has emerged from the francophone
West African states as an attempt to improve upon existing approaches to local rural
development. In terms of its introduction worldwide, this has happened only to a limited
degree, with trials in some areas of Latin America. The approach certainly has a number of
important similarities to the Sustainable Livelihoods approach being developed by DFID, but
gestion de terroirs is relevant to the other people-centred approaches discussed here and
elsewhere. Through a comparison between gestion de terroirs and the Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach, one can uncover many potential lessons that the latter can learn,
particularly as SLA begins to be applied in the field. This section includes a brief outline of
the origins and evolution of the concept of gestion de terroirs, the major principles upon
which the approach is based, and an examination of the different criticisms that have been
levelled at the gestion de terroirs approach.

2.1 The Origins of Gestion de Terroirs

From the mid-1980s there was a general movement away from projects emphasising technical
aspects of rural development within Sahélien West Africa. This can be partly attributed to the
widespread recognition that these projects had failed to consider the potential impact of the
agricultural intensification they tended to encourage on the environment and natural resources
in the region. Gestion de Terroirs projects thus emerged from this realisation that existing
rural development projects in the region were failing to make a significant impact upon rural
poverty. There was a widespread awakening to the reality of the situation within the Sahel
region, with an acknowledgement that the environmental problems in the region were
dependent upon space, time, and various inter-connecting economic, demographic and
institutional factors operating at national, local and international levels19.

Therefore, it was generally accepted that these issues could only be adequately dealt with
within the context of an approach that took into account these various dimensions. The GT
approach is regarded as being an attempt to overcome the perceived weaknesses of other
developmental approaches that had been operating in the region. Such weaknesses can be
said to include20:

- A lack of clarity regarding the rights to use and control land and other resources, a
confusion which lies predominantly in the conflict between government and
traditional authority.
- The poor performance of large single-sector or integrated rural development
projects in the 1970s and 80s.
- An over-extended state administration, which has led to increased pressure on
Sahélien governments to decentralise services, etc.
- Adverse trends in the natural resource base, often as a result of agricultural
intensification projects encouraged by IRD, etc.

The Gestion de Terroirs approach can be seen as an attempt to transfer the management of
control and access to natural resources from the grasp of the central government to local

19
Toulmin, C. (1994) Gestion de Terroir: Concept and Development
20
Toulmin, C. (1994) ibid.

9
People-centred Approaches

people. However, the first generation of GT projects simply emphasised the technical aspects
of environmental protection and natural resource management, while the priorities of the local
populations continued to remain focused on other things, such as credit, water, health, etc21.
A change can be seen in the early 1990s when the priorities of GT projects began to be drawn
in line with those of the locals themselves. Thus, the project terms came to be increasingly
defined by the rural communities involved in their implementation. However, it must be
noted here that this still did not solve the problem of the transfer of power from government to
local population, which has remained largely haphazard in most West African countries,
leaving a state of confusion around the question of who controls access to natural resources.
This could be seen as a continuation of the earlier conflict concerning traditional versus
central government institutions in the management of natural resources, a conflict which was
to be resolved through the implementation of GT approaches. (See Ribot22 for a critique of
the actual impact of decentralisation and participative rural development in West Africa).

The Gestion de Terroirs approach has focused on natural resource management at the village
or community level through three inter-related systems23:

1. Technical projects, such as those related to the conservation of soil, etc.

2. Socio-economic factors related to the organisational structures within which
people arrange their livelihood strategies.
3. The legal system and its administration, by which use rights are enforced in
practice.

Tall’s24 finding that there has been a rapid development of participatory approaches to natural
resource management in the Sahel in the past decade appears to confirm the increased
importance of taking into account these various dimensions of rural development.

The GT approach has evolved significantly from simply being one of pilot programmes being
initiated in order to tackle local problems of environmental degradation, to including general
principles of community involvement in natural resource management and the developments
of ‘terroirs’. The approach has also been gradually seeping through to the level of
government, aided largely by the current widespread decentralisation of government within
most of francophone West Africa. The World Bank, United Nations Development Program
and several small NGOs have been big supporters of GT projects, seeing them as the answer
to the problems of poverty reduction and development within the Sahel region of Africa.
Given that, however, it must be remembered that GT is not without its critics and that there is
often a major gap between the rhetoric of such agencies and the reality on the ground. These
two issues will be further explored later.

2.2 So, What is Gestion de Terroirs?

A terroir is regarded as a socially and geographically defined space within which

communities’ resources and associated rights are located in order to satisfy their needs. The
GT approach associates groups and communities with a traditionally recognised land area,
aiding these communities in building skill levels and developing local institutions for the

21
Bouttier, N. (1996) Décentralisation et Développement Locale
22
Ribot, J. (1998) Decentralisation, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry
23
Toulmin, C. (1994) Gestion de Terroir: Concept and Development
24
Tall, M. (2000) Presentation to IIED: Institutionalising Participatory Processes in Natural Resource
Management in Senegal and Burkina Faso

10
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

implementation of sustainable management plans25. Lund26 confirms this when he notes that
Gestion de Terroirs promises to integrate the social and physical environment, from a village
perspective. Thus, the 1994 UNSO27 report comments that gestion de terroirs involves the
wresting of control over resources from the hands of the state, placing them in local people’s
power, thus allowing them to be negotiated at a village level. Hence, one of the major
differences between GT and SLA is that GT focuses on the terroir and SLA focuses on the
people themselves and is as such not limited to particular geographical spaces. At the same
time, the Gestion de terroir approach simultaneously uses local empowerment and capacity
building to respond to the immediate socio-economic needs of the local population as well as
the long term problems of sustainable land and natural resource management, a feature it
shares with SLAs.

The Gestion de Terroir approach can be defined as including some mixture of the following
elements:
- Community-based natural resource management
- The empowerment of local communities
- Increasing local capacity, through training and education
- Stakeholder involvement – again leading to the empowerment of the community
- Flexibility and adaptability of both projects and funding – this is something which goes
against the raison d’être of most funding agencies!
- Facilitating resource conflict resolution – through mutual management of resources
- Participatory appraisal – on-going assessment and feedback in the hope of preventative
action and trouble-shooting
- Identifying local priority concerns (through involving them in processes of planning and
development as well as in outcomes). Within this is the incorporation of local tacit
knowledge in planning and development.
- Decision-making by the local community – having an active part in testing new systems,
identifying problems, researching solutions

Figure 2.1: Meeting of several village groups at the project offices to discuss the status of the project;
Widou Thiengoly, Senegal28

Photo: I. Balderi

25
World Bank (1998) West Africa: Community Based Natural Resource Management
26
Lund, C. (2000) African Land Tenure: Questioning Basic Assumptions
27
Toulmin, C. (1994) ibid.
28
From the FAO media base at: [Link]/media_user/_home.html

11
People-centred Approaches

The aim of the GT approaches is noted by the World Bank29 as being to tap into social capital
through a participatory approach to local rural development. This involves the devolution of
decision-making powers from the state and NGO staff to the level of the community or
village. There are three main approaches generally applied in the use of Gestion de Terroirs
methodologies30:

(1) Natural Resources Management (NRM) approach - Focusing on the physical

improvement of the natural resource base through existing institutions. A shortcoming
of this is that such projects tend to overlook the broader socio-economic needs of the
community. This is all too often the main tool used and is subject to frequent and
heated criticism.

(2) Institution building approach - Where the focus is on creating and supporting
community-based institutions. As such, there are two phases to this approach. Phase
1: establishing and training village GT committees, who then devise a local
development plan. Phase 2: implementing the plans through NRM. One problem of
this approach, however, is that the capacity of these committees is often compromised
by their lack of legitimacy as a result of their displacing existing traditional institutions
and/ or their non-democratic, non-representative character.

(3) Local development approach - An attempt to redress the problems of the former two
approaches and which involves community organisation, the transfer of financial
responsibility for rural land use planning to the committees, and these committees
subsequently calling for tenders from local contractors in carrying out the project
work. However, this approach also has pitfalls and risks, not least that the committee
may often feel that it has to invest in capital-intensive projects in order to be seen as
using the project money, and that the committees may come under intense pressure
from the villagers to address immediate priorities at the expense of long-term projects.

2.3 Some Weaknesses associated with the GT approach to rural development:

2.3.1 Relatively High Start-up Costs

A significant problem is the slow implementation and relatively high start-up costs that tend
to be associated with GT projects, which leave donors wondering where their money is going
to and villagers failing to see immediate benefits and therefore losing interest in the project
and incentives to maintain the programs. This is also likely to be a problem for SL
approaches, and it is difficult to know how best to overcome the problem of slow
implementation as this is often the result of the time needed to retrain officials and to train the
local populace, as well as to create or adapt village institutions. The World Bank “Findings”
report31 notes that there are several challenges associated with the community-based
approaches to natural resource management, of which, gestion de terroirs is one. Thus, they,
too, note that the implementation of these approaches tends to take up a significant amount of
time, in order to build the capacity of villagers to manage their resources, through training. It
29
World Bank (1998) West Africa: Community-Based NRM
30
Dalal-Clayton, B.; Dent, D.; Dubois, O. (2000) Rural Planning in the Developing World with a Special Focus
on Natural Resources
31
World Bank (1998) West Africa: Community-Based NRM

12
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

must be acknowledged, however, that while this capacity-building is slow and sometimes
costly to implement, it is likely that over time the costs associated with GT or SLAs will
decrease to lower levels than other rural development approaches. Institutional learning such
as is implemented within GT and SLAs is likely to seep down through the different
generations, creating a knowledge base that will rely less and less on external support and
ultimately lead to the sustainability that both approaches are aiming for.

The Findings report32 also notes that it is existing government and donor processes that often
hinder the empowerment of the villagers. Consequently, the report recommends the
following:

- The simplification of diagnostic and planning processes

- A reduction of scope of activities financed
- The increased involvement of other agencies in implementation
- An increase in field teams to expand coverage
- Improved operation linkages with agricultural extension staff
- Greater delegation of financial management to local populations.

2.3.2 Maintaining Local Incentive

As regards the problem of maintaining local incentives to continue the programs while no
immediate benefits are seen, some GT commentators have suggested that villagers be
encouraged through programs of food for work. However, this is liable to create a range of
new problems and probably is not a suitable long-term option. This is a problem that is likely
to affect most people-centred approaches to rural development as they aim for local
participation in projects.

2.3.3 The Policy Vacuum

There exists a policy vacuum around the GT approach. Governments in francophone West
Africa who are verbally committed to the Gestion de Terroir approach have failed to have this
commitment cemented in specific policy measures. As a result, GT programs tend to take
place within an institutional vacuum. There is one exception to this: Burkina Faso, which has
drawn GT into the law for the reorganisation of agrarian development (RAF) but this has been
a limited process. SLA will also need to address this, particularly given that there is a general
opinion within developing regions that new approaches are to a certain extent temporary and
that within a few years someone else from the developed world will have come up with a
whole new approach to rural development.

2.3.4 Local Institutions and Regional Specificity

Donnelly-Roarke, et al33, in their research into the existence of local level institutions in
Burkina Faso, note the country as having a history of informally recognising and including
local institutions in governance and development. Thus, there are various forms of local
institutions in place, of which, the Service Asset Management Groups (SAMs) are probably
the most important. These are a synthesis of long-standing development committees and
indigenous management councils. Their goal is for community growth, mixed with a healthy
respect for the values of equity and solidarity. Thus, while most rural development projects
have economic growth as their central objective, with the optimistic expectation that the poor

32
World Bank (1998) ibid.
33
Donnelly-Roarke, P.; Ouedraogo, K; Ye, X. (2001) Can Local Institutions Reduce Poverty?

13
People-centred Approaches

will benefit from such growth, SAMs begin with equality and solidarity, and aim for growth
through these twin principles.

There are four main dimensions of SAM groups:

1. Local institutional accountability
2. Local technical and intellectual capacity for management
3. Economic strategies based on existing local ecological and financial capital
4. Cultural and emotional resonance.

The example of Burkina Faso:

Burkina Faso (BF) is as yet the only West African country to encourage rural people to
integrate their local institutions into the legal, economic and institutional framework of
decentralisation. Thus, local populations are no longer simply passive beneficiaries of
development projects, but rather are partners within the process. The rules by which the local
institutions in BF operate are continuously changing, based as they are on cultural and spatial
context. Within BF, it is recognised here that there remains strong belief in the traditional
values of mutual solidarity, belonging and unity. Thus, it is on this value system that local
institutions and local management of resources is able to build. In this paper a comparative
study is carried out of the various local institutions in place in four provinces of BF. This
clearly demonstrates the cultural dependence of these participatory approaches.

It is a warning, loud and clear, to other SL approaches that the institutionalisation of

participation and local empowerment will be largely affected by the cultural context in which
they are operating. Thus, the authors note that local level institutions within Yatenga
province in BF tend to be plentiful in number, but are isolated and competitive as regards one
another. This was seen by the researchers as being partly a result of the fact that many of the
groups were performing similar and overlapping functions within a single village, thus
leading to considerable competition to grab scarce financial resources. The groups in this area
also tended to be exclusive in terms of their membership, limiting the possibility that they
could become locally accountable.

Figure 2.2: Villagers responsible for a cereal bank in Yatenga Province, Burkina Faso34

Photo: C. Errath

34
From the FAO media base at: [Link]/media_user/_home.html

14
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

At the same time, in Sissili province, local organisations were considerably less numerous but
displayed a definite willingness to cooperate with one another. In this way, local participation
practitioners are able to utilise these institutions to initiate different levels of consultation and
analysis among rural communities, local groups and external stakeholders. In Houet
province, there exist traditional chieftaincies, mutual aid institutions and religious
organisations, with management committees having a far lower profile. Sanmatenga
province, in stark contrast has seen a dense web of organisational activities, with members of
one committee often having membership in other organisations, allowing for an effective and
smooth flow of information, which has led to high levels of effective collaboration between
the various institutions. Thus, external gestion des terroirs projects have had a greater ability
to enact multi-sector participatory approaches in the province.

The authors discovered that local accountability and culture-based elements are those most
likely to be absent from external donor projects. Their findings indicate that without these
two institutional dimensions, the new organisations set-up by these projects will quickly
disappear once the external funding dries up. This is something that has continually beset GT
efforts, with many rural areas ending up with a plethora of local organisations and
communities, many of which flounder as soon as the external funding disappears. This will
also be important for SL approaches to take into account, as their very objective of
sustainability must be found within the institutions with which one is attempting to introduce
the concept at field level.

Research into the practical workings of the communes villageoises de gestion de terroirs
(CVGTs) in Burkina Faso was carried out by Ouedraogo et al35. Within this it was noted that
CVGTs can be viewed as pivotal organs around which institutional development initiatives
are formed. The situation on the ground is, however, far more complex than a simple review
of theory might suggest. As well as the traditional organisations existing prior to the GT
project of the Burkinabé government, there are new organisations created by the projects
under the new national law. Local institutions vary between regions and ethnicities. The
authors specify a need to link traditional institutions and the newer ones created by the
projects, in order to ensure there is no overlap of functions. One characteristic of the new
institutions is their extreme diversity. The installation of specific action committees (SAC)
was a pragmatic process; with SACs being created as need arose.

One constraint on institutional development was noted as being the absence of a ‘legal
personality’ for these groups. This ‘legal personality’ is defined as the ability of a subject of a
right to be a holder of this right and to be answerable to its obligations. This comes about
either through law or through the will of all parties involved. Villages do not have a “moral
personality”, thus the CVGTs that emanate from the villages do not have a “legal
personality”. As such, the CVGTs cannot officially exercise the authority that may be
necessary in practice.

However, CVGTs play an important role in the promotion of the economic and social welfare
of the terroir. The only legal and administrative texts relevant to CVGTs are those in Burkina
Faso’s RAF or agrarian reform law. Here the mission of the CVGTs is defined by reference
to the competencies of the land committees created within the urban environment and by the
heads of departments.
35
Ouedraogo, B; Ouedraogo, H.M.G. (1999) Elaboration de l’avant-projet d’arrêté portant constitution,
attribution, organisation et fonctionnement des Commissions Villageoises de Gestion des Terroirs

15
People-centred Approaches

In practice, there has been a tendency for GT projects to ignore the complex social, economic,
political and cultural realities in which their target populations exist, instead over focusing on
the technical side of NRM. This is probably due, to a large degree, to the difficulties of
intertwining cultural, social and economic realities into practical projects in the field.

2.3.5 The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality

The GT approach is rarely treated in practice as a planning process undertaken by local
stakeholders, thus indicating a glaring hole between the rhetoric and the reality of Gestion de
Terroir. Once again, there is a large probability that this is a result of the difficulties of
implementing participation in planning and diagnostics on a practical level.

2.3.6 Lack of Long-Term Planning

The GT projects undertaken have also lacked an emphasis on developing long-term
contingency plans to allow for changing circumstances. Given that sustainable rural
development projects are most likely to be implemented in regions seeing a high degree of
volatility – in weather conditions, conflicts, whether internal or external – it is unquestionable
that this should be a priority for GT.

2.3.7 Local Power Relations

GT approaches have also been heavily criticised for failing to take into account the power
relations that exist within any given community, a failure that can lead to local elites taking
over from the central government in monopolising power in the region. Though, see the case
of Burkina Faso, which has, through the Local Level Institutions (LLIs), managed to
incorporate power relations into local rural development36.

2.4 Partnership Institutions

The question of whether partnership institutions can apply their negotiated rules is dealt with
in Barraud37. They consider that the system of authority on which the announced rules of the
partnership structures rest constitute, without doubt, the cornerstones of their effectiveness
and their viability. The effective application of these rules depends on the legitimacy of the
system of authority and the relationships between the partnerships and the different local
powers.

The presence of these partnership structures, however, cannot alone fundamentally alter the
existing power relations. They remained enclosed within a socio-political context and cannot
prevent the opportunistic behaviour of farmers or herders having a privileged access to land
and local power. These structures do not alter, either, the ambiguous role of the local
administration, or the tendency for control by urban elites or foreign owners of plots of land
from closing seasonal access to herders. Thus, the arbitration of the local administration in
conflicts not resolved by these partnership institutions is necessary for the continued viability
of these systems. This is yet more confirmation of the need for broad government and
institutional support for gestion de terroirs and SL-type approaches. This is of central

36
Donnelly-Roarke et al (2001) Can Local Institutions Reduce Poverty?
37
Barraud, V.; Bérété, S.; Intartaglia, D. (2000) Des Instances Paritaires Pour Gérer des Ressources
Communes?

16
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

importance to the SL approaches, which are likewise limited in their ability to fundamentally
alter power structures at a broader level unless there is some degree of political will to do so.

GT approaches have tended to be holistic, encompassing various economic sectors. However,

government departments tend to run along very strict sectoral lines, with a tradition of limited
communication and collaboration between sectors. This will have an enormous impact upon
the capacity of GT projects and on the partnerships created by these projects. At the same
time, this general criticism has been levelled at the supporters of SLAs, who have responded
with the acknowledgement that such broad based holism may have to be rethought in some
cases to deal with the practicalities of the situation in the field. However, it is likely that the
presence of SL-type projects in one sector will spread across the board, leading to greater
recognition and respect for the approaches, and perhaps facilitating the implementation of true
multi-sectoral projects in the field.

Local communities often tend to lack institutions such as credit providers and it is essential
that GT projects build on these in order to ensure that the community does not become simply
a passive recipient of donor finances, but rather a more active provider, decision-maker and
manager. It is essential that GT and SL type programs take this into account in their
institutional capacity building in order to ensure real participation of the community in
planning and implementation.

Within the Gestion de Terroir concept there is limited room for focusing on institutional
issues or for influencing wider policy-making. Projects tend to operate relatively
autonomously, although formally attached to government structures. Thus, there is limited
connection between the macro and the micro. This is where the SL approach could have a
significant impact in that the value-added of SLA is primarily noted as lying in its ability to
connect the micro and macro levels.

Hussein38 emphasises the importance of understanding the international context within which
policy is formulated. Social dynamics and the roles of intermediaries must also be taken into
account in formulating public policy on development and poverty reduction. Public policy
should be regarded as an intermediary between the local and international context.

In this way it must be recognised by the GT and SL-type approaches that cultural context is
central to the acceptance of their projects and will dictate the tools and methodologies used in
rural development. For example, it is noted here that the history of ex-British and ex-French
colonies has left them with different political and administrative systems. As a result, there is
a clear contrast between Anglophone and francophone countries. At the same, there are
similar challenges to be tackled within these countries, such as the management of common
resources, issues around the mobility of pastoral livestock, etc. In this way, GT or SLAs must
be able to provide a general framework for action with recognition of the need for local
adaptability. This is further emphasised by Ribot39 in his discussion of participation and
decentralisation in practice. Thus, he notes that in NRM, participation and decentralisation
are being pushed as the saviour of rural poverty reduction on the basis that they can increase
rural equity, provide greater efficiency, benefit the environment and contribute to rural
development. However, he underlines the evidence that these approaches can only offer these
benefits to rural communities if there is commitment to a real devolution of power over
natural resources to local populations and if there are already in place locally accountable
38
Hussein, K.; Montague, S. (2000) Hill Agricultural Research Project, Nepal
39
Ribot, J. (1998) Decentralisation, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry

17
People-centred Approaches

authorities to whom these powers can be devolved. The reality, on the other hand, is that it is
simply a restricted set of powers that are being devolved to locally accountable authorities,
while at the same time most local authorities are upwardly accountable to the central state,
rather than downwardly to local populations. He also notes the limits of such NRM programs
in rigidly structured political administrations. So is he arguing that GT and SLAs must be
more political? He then goes on to comment, “efforts at participatory rural development are
often contradicted by political administrative laws that systematically disable accountable
local representation”40.

Another frequently cited critique of Gestion de Terroirs is that GT projects tend to be biased
in favour of settled communities, often unable to accommodate the nomadic pastoralists
common in the area who might use communal resources in a variety of ‘terroirs’. This is a
central factor in the resolution of resource conflict and should be dealt with by the SLA’s
conflict management sub-programme.

2.5 Practical Application of GT

There have been recent studies into the impact of GT on pastoral livelihoods within the Sahel
and here I will briefly outline some. Drabo et al’s41 study of Oudalan and Séno provinces in
North Burkinabé assessed the involvement of pastoral groups in community organisations,
and their role in the broader regional economy. Within these two provinces, operates the
Burkinabé Sahel Program (PSB), financed by several donors in cooperation with the
Burkinabé government. The program supports the population in a search for consensus
amongst different users of resources for a sustainable development of this capital. The PSB
approach works within the wider framework of the Programme National de Gestion de
Terroirs (PNGT). Along with broader trends in the evolution of the GT approach to rural
development, the PSB (Program Sahel Burkinabé) moved from an initial focus on the more
technical aspects of development to a stronger focus on the institutional aspects of natural
resource management. Particular emphasis was placed on questions of access, of exploitation
of key natural resources, and on management devices. This strategy involved significant
support for local social institutions. The role of the project itself was limited to facilitating a
dialogue amongst the users of the resources through participative tools and interactive and
iterative processes of communication.

40
Ribot, J. (1998) Decentralisation, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry (p.3)
41
Drabo, B.; Dutilly-Diané, C.; Grell, H.; McCarthy, N. (2001) Institutions, action collective et utilisation des
resources pastorals dans le Sahel Burkinabé

18
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Figure 2.3: Nomad Pastoralists from Mali arriving in Burkina Faso in search of temporary pastoral land

Photo: F. Botts

The inclusion of nomadic herders into the village groups from 1995 has led to a better
understanding of the realities of the ‘terroir’ and a more supportive flexibility and dynamism
within the project itself. Thus, there has been the establishment of a real partnership with the
local population. As such, the approach has been based upon the following principles:

- Clarification of roles within the partnership

- A valuing of knowledge and particularly local know-how
- Understanding the different interests of the users of natural resources
- A search for consensus through dialogue and continued negotiation
- Continuous training
- An open approach (without predefined stages and outputs)
- A negotiated follow-up process (according to commonly agreed criteria),
All of which sit well within the general framework of Gestion de Terroirs and would probably
do so, equally, within the Sustainable Livelihoods framework.

It is recognised here that the users of natural resources are not split into homogenous groups,
and thus the participation of all is paramount to the success of the project. The authors
acknowledge the importance of cultural context in their recognition that the PSB inherited a
pre-existing organisational structure. In the case of the North Burkinabé, the institutional
heritage is a mixture of ‘traditional’ and more ‘modern’ organisations. Politico- religious
affairs have traditionally fallen under the domain of the chieftaincy, which is itself controlled
by the local elite (Peuhls/ Touaregs) who traditionally administered the ‘Slaves’ (Rimaïbés).
Under national decentralisation schemes, village groupings were created. Tribal warfare and
the revolution of 1983 contributed significantly to a re-balancing of power in favour of what
were previously ‘oppressed social groups’.

As a result of this mixture of ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’, there can be found a plethora of
organisations in the area. This has been the case in many Gestion de Terroirs projects in
West Africa and is likely to have a significant impact upon the development of an SL
approach in the region. The majority of these organisations have a very limited use as they
were created predominantly in order to respond to the support needs of external interventions.

19
People-centred Approaches

Thus, the members are unclear of their responsibilities; meetings are irregular, and so on.
Through GT projects, supra and intra village organisations emerged. Within the associative
peasant movements in this region there are tendencies towards democratisation, while more
traditional institutions were likely to remain more autocratic.
The research found that there was a positive correlation between the number and duration of
NRM projects and the number of NRM institutions. This phenomenon can be explained in
part by the tendency of these projects to emphasise the systematic creation of institutions for
the execution of the program, and in part by the fact that the population easily organises itself
to benefit from external support. It is important to note here that this is a potentially valuable
lesson for SLAs.

Barraud42 examined the inclusion of pastoral groups into village organisations in Guinea
Maritime and eastern Tchad. This inclusion is largely a result of the continued conflicts
between the two main groups of users of agricultural land in these areas – nomadic herders
and settled cultivators. The study examined the different structures for managing these
resources in place in the two areas. In Guinea, there exists an egalitarian/ partnership
structure composed of farmers and breeders at the level of groups of villages, and sometimes
at a wider district level. Members of the committees are elected by both cultivators and
pastoralists. The job of these committees is to manage conflicts, define some rules and apply
them. There also exist prefecture committees, which are not egalitarian and are made up
predominantly of technical advisors.

In eastern Tchad there were serious conflicts between nomadic pastoralists and settled
cultivators, which was a result of strong competition for resources. The nomads were losing
their rights to access water sources. Thus, the securing of pastoral water sources became an
essential precondition for the continued survival of pastoral livelihoods. The project was
accompanied by the setting up of an egalitarian management structure, with the villagers and
nomads having an equal weighting in the definition and implementation of rules for the
management of pastoral infrastructure and resources.

The egalitarian institutions in both countries allow an explicit negotiation between groups of
users. Their success in the eyes of the locals rested on their ability to relieve tensions through
amicable and negotiated rule making. The management committees for nomadic herders in
Guinea insure effective and direct compensation of cultivators by herders for damage caused
to their crop fields. This method of resolving conflicts allows a more objective evaluation of
damage, as well as a reduction of recurring costs, when the local administration no longer
intervenes in the negotiation. In the same way, in Tchad, the activity of the mixed
commission allows an effective respect of the nomadic lifestyle and a reduction in the
frequency and gravity of conflicts. In both cases, these institutions have introduced an
awareness of the need to secure the mobility of herds and a positive recognition of the role of
nomadic herders, often seen by political decision-makers and projects as a problem.

Again, there is a need to emphasise the fact that these two groups are not internally
homogenous. This is something that the SLA and other people-centred approaches will have
to watch out for as the assumption of homogeneity can lead to a more outspoken sub-group
within one of the groups co-opting the process and drowning out the voices of other members
of their group.

42
Barraud, V. et al (2000) Des Instances Paritaires Pour Gérer des Ressources Communes?

20
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

In Guinea, the different groups of breeders do not have the same interests or the same
livelihood strategies. For the owners of large herds, the committees mean a loss of social
prestige and of their monopoly over the management and use of the plains, while for the
owners of smaller herds it has facilitated their access to the plains. The more powerful
cultivators and chiefs see in the committees a loss of power and a reduction in their perceived
resources linked to the nomads, while for the beneficiaries of hydro-agricultural
improvements and the exploiters of the coast, the committees constitute a securing of their
harvests and an effective reimbursement for damage.

In Eastern Chad, the diversity within nomadic herders is marked. The smaller nomads remain
all year in the same region. These breeders, for the most part, cultivate and develop
privileged alliances with villagers. The medium-sized nomads have a tendency to stay longer
in the North in the rainy season and during the spring, in order to profit from the annual
grassy plains. The large herds do not exploit surface water and rapidly move to the south in
order to avoid being blocked by the rapidly rising waters. The villagers do not constitute a
homogeneous group: many are breeders and therefore have specific strategies for access to
water and the preservation of pastures. The others, don’t have the same competitive
relationships with the nomads, vis-à-vis the pastoral resources.
In spite of the diversity of interests and strategies, there are common stakes between the two
types of users. These are the foundations of the partnership approach – based upon dialogue
and negotiation.

Batterbury43 criticises the GT approach with his comments that “there will always be
situations where the terroir remains an unsuitable scale of intervention”. Also, doubts are
raised about local government departments’ ability to assume the high capital costs of
maintaining GT programmes in the long run. Allison and Ellis further expand on this with his
critique of community-based approaches in the context of small-scale fisheries. They
comment that while community management appears to satisfy several goals, such as placing
decision-making at the local level, inclusion of local knowledge, ensuring participation, etc.,
this is based on assumptions that are not necessarily always true. For example, the
assumption that a ‘community’ is a group of households with livelihoods based on fisheries,
that there exist ‘fishing villages’ in which the village administrators are preoccupied
predominantly with the welfare of fishing families and the conservation of fish stocks above
all else, that territorial use rights (TURFS), based on location, are compatible with both the
behaviour of fishing families and the fish they catch. However, temporary migration to where
fish stocks are larger tends to be a common feature of artesianal fishing. This is unsuited to
territorial rights based on residence and tends to mirror what I mentioned earlier regarding the
positioning of nomadic pastoralists within the GT framework.

Thus, the effectiveness of Gestion de Terroirs projects is threatened by:

- Institutional constraints
- Real decision-making powers
- Governing tendencies
- The dominating role of the state administration
- The absence of credit systems
- The limited material capacity of stakeholders
- The character of civil society.

43
Batterbury, S.P.G. (1998) Local Environmental Management, Land Degradation and the ‘Gestion des
Terroirs’ Approach in West Africa

21
People-centred Approaches

All of which are likely to have a similar impact upon the effectiveness of projects developed
using other people-centred approaches.

22
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

CHAPTER 3:APPROACHES AND LESSONS FROM LATIN AMERICA

There exist wide variations in the agricultural and rural sectors amongst the Latin American
countries. As such, there are large differences in structure, growth and their ability to meet
the new global, regional and national challenges. However, the region can be seen to have
some structural similarities. According to IFAD44, there are six main features that
characterise the rural areas of Latin America and the Caribbean:

- A high degree of inequality

- Indigenous populations accounting for a large proportion of those in poverty
- Rural areas are highly vulnerable to external conditions
- There are broad weaknesses in policy and institutions within rural areas
- There tend to exist acute problems regarding access to land
- The region has tended to be a place in which there has been a significant degree of
experimenting as regards the development of economic policies.

3.1. Integrated Rural Development Experiences

Since the 1960s these similarities have facilitated the raise of Latin American approaches to
agricultural and rural development. The approach prevailing in the region until the late 1970s
was integrated rural development (IRD)45. The Economic Commission for Latin America and
the Caribbean (ECLAC, better known though its Spanish acronym, CEPAL) played a major
role in adapting and promoting IRD throughout the region.

The main features of IRD include a broadly holistic, multi-sector approach to development,
with projects tending to be large-scale. Gallopín46 notes IRD as implying the inclusion of
multiple goals within a project or programme, including increases in production and
productivity, social improvement, and physical capital formation. He recognises that attempts
to integrate action on different factors, institutional coordination, and strong participation by
the beneficiaries are also central to the approach. Many of the projects operated at the micro
level, in isolation, such that the end of the 1970s saw an increased need to link IRD projects
with an explicit national policy coherent with national and sectoral development strategies.
During the 1980s the economic crisis and recession led to the application of structural
adjustment policies, including severe reductions in public expenditure. This strongly affected
IRD projects, in particular, because they require substantial and sustained investments with
long maturation periods. Two projects implemented with IFAD assistance in the Ceara
Region of Brazil and in the Oaxaca State of Mexico offer a clear illustration of the goals and
implementation strategy of IRD projects, as well as of the bottlenecks that prevented them to
be fully successful.

44
IFAD (2002) Regional Strategy Paper: Latin America and the Caribbean, p.3
45
The Integrated Rural Development (IRD) approach has been used in a wide range of contexts also outside
Latin America. During the 1980 this approach has been widely discredited amongst those working within the
field of rural development, because of the high cost, poor efficiency and top down-orientation of most many IRD
projects. However, the “people-centred” approaches of the 1990s have learned a lot from IRD experience. For
instance, the gestion de terroirs approach was developed as an alternative to IRD, adapting lessons learnt from
the latter in an attempt to ensure a more useful, targeted, successful and participatory implementation of rural
development projects in the field. Also the SL framework developed by DFID has drawn lessons and
experiences from the shortcoming of IRD programmes.
46
Gallopín, G.C. (1998) The Restructuring of Tropical Land Use Systems

23
People-centred Approaches

The Ceara Project

The Ceara region IRD project installed in the 1970s, by IFAD, had as its primary goal the
improvement of income and living standards of small farmers through increased productivity
in agricultural and expansion of small-scale non-farm activities. Within this, the
strengthening of institutions was regarded as central to the success of the project47. All
technical, economic and institutional constraints on the development of small farmers’
potential for higher living standards and greater productivity were to be addressed
simultaneously. At the time of implementation of the project, however, Brazil experienced a
serious drought, such that the federal government created a large emergency programme,
which resulted in institutions being diverted from their work within IRD48.

One of the main problems of IRD in Brazil was the over-reliance on technology and attempts
to teach such technologies to small farmers. The project designers failed to take into account
the fact that the logic of subsistence farmers is far more complex than the profit maximising
assumption usually applied to large commercial farmers. Thus, it would appear that SL- type
approaches have far more to offer these farmers, given their explicit use of local knowledge.
The IRD projects in Brazil also failed to take into account the huge obstacle of access to land
in the region, devoting minimal resources to the issue, meaning that little was actually
accomplished. This, too, will be an important issue for SL approaches, particularly given
their failure to adequately deal with the ‘grey box’ of policies, institutions and processes. As
a result of this, there has been an increased demand amongst practitioners and developers of
the SL framework to include political capital and context more explicitly in the framework49.
The IRD project in Brazil is, however, noted by IFAD as being successful in as much as it as
built a new capacity of small farmers to organise themselves and promote better participation
in rural development, particularly in terms of defining local needs and preparing and setting
priorities for projects. It would, therefore, appear that IRD projects might have left some
lasting results that can be utilised by those introducing the other approaches into the region, as
regards building on existing capacity and understanding how it is that participation has been
applied in the area, with the aim that this may be adapted to other contexts and regions.

47
IFAD Brazil: Second Ceara Integrated Rural Development Project
48
This is similar to Mexico where a prolonged economic crisis, hyperinflation and a government policy of fiscal
austerity meant that counterpart funding for the IRD project in Oaxaca was reduced, delayed or unavailable48.
This problem could be faced by SLAs as much as IRDs, particularly in areas where droughts and other
meteorological phenomena are relatively commonplace. A question that SL does not appear to fully resolve in
this context is whether there is room within such projects to cope with the diversion of funds or institutional
backing as a result of such largely unpredictable crises.
49
See: Baumann, P (2000) Working Paper 136: Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital; (2002) The
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor; Bebbington,
A. (1999) Capitals and Capabilities; etc for more

24
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Figure 3.1: Goats, bred through the research of the Ceara Agricultural Research Company, being loaded
on a trailer; Ceara, Brazil50.

Photo: Franco Mattioli

The Oaxaca Project

IFAD have also implemented an IRD project within the Oaxaca State of Mexico. The IRD
project in Oaxaca aimed to increase livestock and food production, generate employment
through agricultural diversification, and protect natural resources through soil conservation,
among other things. This was to be achieved through agricultural production services
(increased and improved extension services, land titling, credit provisions, institutional
strengthening of the National Institute for Indigenous Peoples (INI)). Central to this was to be
community development, farmers’ participation and project management. Thus, the project
introduced a series of participative mechanisms, such as participatory planning forums and
consultation with elected representatives of the target population. Some of the major problems
that the project ran into were multiple supervision and a lack of accountability and
transparency on the part of institutions involved. The ultimate intention of participation was
for the beneficiaries of the project to assume some degree of ownership of the development
process, but this did not happen and the project failed to use existing forms of communal
participation, resulting in a plethora of community organisations, all unsure of their roles and
responsibilities in the wider context of development

However, as for the sister project in Ceara, Brazil, the major problem of the IFAD IRD
project in Oaxaca was more of an external than of an internal nature. Indeed the project was
designed during the late 1970s boom time of Mexican economy and implemented during one
of the worst and most prolonged economic crises in Mexico. A major gap between project
planning and implementation took place because of the impact of this crisis on the rural
economy of Oaxaca state.

50
From: [Link]/photo/region/PL/[Link]

25
People-centred Approaches

Figure 3.2: Mexico – Oaxaca Rural Development Project; Centro de Desarollo run by the project near
Santa Ana Trapiche51

Photo: Franco Mattioli

The role that the drought in Ceará and economic crisis in Oaxaca have played in disrupting
the virtuous process that these two project were seeking to start up suggest that the ambitious
goals and rich endowments of both initiatives proved to be not rooted enough among local
actors to sustain the external shocks affecting the fragile social architecture. This observation
endorses Pretty’s52 comment that IRDs are different to sustainable development in that
‘integrated’ systems are entirely designed or imposed by outside experts with little attention
paid to local needs, desires and constraints, thus leading them to fail. As a result, he views
sustainable development as offering new opportunities for rural development and poverty
eradication.

3.2. Territorial approaches and “ordenamiento territorial”

Since the 1980s a comprehensive economic-political and socio-cultural change has taken
place in many rural areas of Latin America53. Some of the main determinants and elements of
this change can be seen to be:

x The acceleration of the demographic transition process, leading to a progressive

shrinking of farm size (“minifundismo”), to the diffusion and adoption of “Green
Revolution” technologies (high yield variety seeds, fertilizers) and to a strengthened
rural/urban migration flow;

x The replacement of traditional communication between the peasants’ economy and the
market (e.g. client/patron, “habilitación”, “caciquismo”, “double functionalism”) with new
modernized forms including, among others, contract farming;

51
From: [Link]/photo/region/PL/[Link]
52
Pretty, J. (1999) Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa?
53
See Giarracca, N. (2001) Una nueva ruralidad en América Látina?; Schejtmann, A. & Berdegué, J. (2003)
Desarrollo Territorial Rural

26
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

x The impact of integrated rural development efforts of the 1960s and 1970s, which
though not fully meeting their ambitious economic and social objectives, enhanced
transport infrastructure and improved access to basic rural services such as schools, health
facilities, extension and credit;

x The massive diffusion in rural areas of literacy, primary education and electronic
media, which significantly contributed to decrease the cultural gap between rural and
urban sectors of Latin American societies;

x The progressive diversification of rural livelihoods strategies with local non-farm

activities (trade, repair, food processing, cottage industries, “maquila”, etc.) or displaced
off-farm activities (migrant rural and industrial labor) gaining an ever increasing
importance in rural household economy;

x The emergence of international migration as a key resource through which rural

people increasingly buffer major individual and social shocks and/or re-vitalize (through
remittances) de-capitalized household economies;

x The diffusion in rural society of new claims, such as cultural identity and
environmental integrity, which combined with peasant movements’ historical struggle for
land and social justice.

Between the 1980s and the 1990s, this change - epitomized by the concept of nueva ruralidad
(“new ruralness”) - reflected the impact of globalization on Latin American rural societies. At
the policy level, this transformation was facilitated by three major thrusts:

1. The so-called structural re-adjustment imposed to national government by some

powerful donors and international institutions as a way out from the debt crisis. This
often entailed the dismantlement of the “vertical” large scale rural development and
Agrarian Reform schemes run by the Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, and the
“devolution” of rural development responsibility to market forces and the civil society
(assisted by donors).

2. The de-concentration and decentralization of administrative responsibilities and (to a

lesser extent) political power that concretized in policies and laws aimed at
strengthening the decision making capacity of local governance institutions (the
Department and the Municipality, in particular) and (to a far lesser extent) to transfer
them the resources needed to implement rural development processes on a relatively
autonomous basis.

3. The partial shift from a growth-and-modernization view of rural development, to the

sustainable development paradigm. As elsewhere in the world, sustainability was
initially interpreted in Latin America as a trade-off between economic development
and the conservation of the natural resource base. However, as soon as sustainability
was redefined in terms of inter-generational equity (i.e. as a trade of between short
term and long term benefits), sustainable rural development evolved into a
comprehensive paradigm articulating a variety of environmental, socio-economic and
socio-cultural concerns including, among others, biodiversity protection, natural
resource management, poverty alleviation, gender equity, civil society
democratization, and indigenous people rights.

27
People-centred Approaches

3.2.1 Structure and components

Territorial approaches to rural development emerged in the 1990s amongst the Latin
American academic and development practitioner community, as an attempt to answer to the
above policy thrusts and to the rise of a “new ruralness” across the continent. Beyond the
diversity of national denominations (“ordenamiento territorial”, “desarrollo local”, “desarrollo
municipal”, etc.), these approaches share:
x A common focus on the local territory, broadly defined as the spatial unit in which
sound sustainable development processes are more likely to take place;

x The aim of fostering decentralized governments and local civil societies capacity to
launch such sustainable development process within their territory54

Territorial approaches address the territory both as a geographic space and a historical
construction55. The geographic dimension of the territory consists in its total or (more often)
partial overlapping with a geo-physical entity that can be defined on the basis of ecological
criteria, such as a mountain range, a watershed, an island, or a climatic micro-region. The
historical dimension of the territory is defined by factors related to human presence and
settlement, such as ethnicity, a particular productive vocation (e.g. the prevalence of a
particular farming system, crop or agro-industry enterprise) or, very often, the existence of a
local geo-political entity (e.g. a municipality). These human-made factors shape a territorial
identity, which becomes apparent in the feeling of belonging to that particular territory that is
shared (to a variable extent) by its inhabitants. Such territorial identity is indeed the basic
indicator of the existence of a territory as a historical construction.

Territorial identity tends to be stronger within small geographic spaces, such as village
community territory (corresponding to the Spanish concept of “terruno” or to the French
concept of “terroir”). Weaker territorial identities might exist with reference to broad
territorial units such as a department, a region, a nation or even a trans-national historical
formation (e.g. Latin America as a whole). However both such micro and macro territories
are not considered by territorial approaches as appropriate scenarios for territorial
development processes. The focus is rather on territories small enough to allow social actors
for a significant degree of immediate identification and big enough to contain those natural,
economic, social, technological, financial, legal and political assets needed to foster
sustainable development. In practice, these “meso” level territorial units correspond to the
lowest levels of the administrative territorial structure of the decentralized nation state, i.e. to
municipalities or clusters of municipalities (“mancomunidades”), or any other territorial unit
where a direct interface takes place between civil society institutions and local governance
structures56. From this perspective the concept of territorial development substantially
overlaps that of local development.

More recently, two additional elements have been included into the definition of such meso-
level “local” territorial units: the existence of relatively self-contained urban-rural linkages
and the emergence of a cluster of productive activities reflecting the agronomic and economic

54
Schejtmann, A. & Berdegué, J. (2003) Desarrollo Territorial Rural
55
Warren, P. (2001) Reflexiones sobre ordenamiento territorial local e investigación-acción partecipativa en
America Latina; SDAA Team (2003) El diagnóstico territorial participativo. Hacia la mesa de mesa de
nregociación. Orientaciones metodlógicas
56
Warren, P. (2001) ibid.

28
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

vocation of the territory. The former is based on the presence within the territory of a small-
medium urban centre with a population ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, that can
consume, process and trade rural production, while providing services to rural dwellers57. A
clustering of productive activities refers to the spatial concentration within the territory of
enterprises producing a particular type of agricultural, agro-industrial, or industrial
commodity and to the synergy that such concentration facilitates in terms of know-how, social
capital and capacity to operate on the national or global market in a quasi-corporate manner58.

Territorial approaches address the overall situation of a territory in any given point in time as
the outcome of a multi-factorial process including the natural resource base, the distribution
of livelihood assets in society, the existence of an appropriate know-how, the effectiveness of
local governance, the efficiency of urban/rural linkages and the relative capacity to articulate
with national and international markets (see below). Such process takes place spontaneously
reflecting both endogenous “push” factors and exogenous “pull” factors (originated from the
national and global economic and political environment in which the local territory is
embedded). The basic assumption of territorial approaches is that it is possible for local
actors to enhance control over endogenous and exogenous-generated change, in order to
maximize those elements and factors which supports sustainable development and minimize
whose who have a disruptive impact on the local environment, economy, society and cultural
identity. In other words, there is scope to promote an enhanced management of territorial
dynamics. During the 1990s this has started to be referred in Spanish as ordenamiento
territorial.

The concept of ordenamiento territorial was originated from State-led vertical policies aimed
at managing natural resources or critical ecosystems. However, as soon as the focus of
sustainable development shifted from the economy/environment linkages to the more
comprehensive trade -off between short and long term cost and benefits (and their
distribution), the scope of ordenamiento territorial expanded from natural resource
management to territorial development at large. Moreover, once applied to a bottom-up
approach to development dynamics, the term “ordenamiento” lost its “vertical” connotation to
denote a joint-decision making process (concertación in Spanish) involving all the
stakeholders belonging to the territory59. This twofold shift was supported by the
acknowledgement of the socio-political (rather than purely technical or economical) nature of
any choice concerning territorial management. In this way, the concept of territorial
management articulated with the political critique inspiration pervading most Latin American
social science and development thought.

3.2.2 History, evolution and institutional linkages

Latin American territorial approaches have a twofold origin. As observed above, some of
these approaches originated in the earliest attempts to combine actions aimed at promoting a
more sustainable use of natural resources with a bottom-up management style, supported by a
participatory methodology. The experience in participatory and integrated watershed
management carried out in different countries (Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru) since the first
half of the 1990s by the institutions and programs affiliated to the Latin American Watershed

57
Schejtmann, A. (1999) “Las dimensiones urbanas en el desarrollo rural”. Revista de la Cepal, 67.
58
Altenburg and Meyer-Stammer (1999), quoted by Schejtmann, A. & Berdegué, J. (2003) ibid., refer to this
property as “collective efficiency”
59
Dourojeanni, A. (1993) Procedimientos de gestión para un desarrollo sustentable

29
People-centred Approaches

Management network (Red Latino Americana de Manejo de Cuencas) is a good example of

this “environmentalist” stream of “ordenamiento territorial”60

The second stream, known as “desarrollo local” (local development), is linked to post-
structural re-adjustment de-concentration and decentralization policies. These policies pushed
local government to take over functions that were traditionally covered by the central
government, such as fostering economic development, maintaining infrastructure, delivering
social services and ensuring some degree of protection against environmental hazards. As
most local administrators and politician lacked the relevant technical competence, this often
led to open the doors of the Municipal Councils to those institutions of the local civil society
(enterprises, research centres, grassroots organizations, unions, chambers of commerce, etc.)
that can provide appropriate assistance. Moreover, as local government resources were
generally limited, a need for joining public/private effort (and often cater for international
assistance) was increasingly felt. As a result of these drives, local government lost their
traditional “bureaucratic” scope to become the focal point of a consultation and consensus
making process (concertación) involving all the social actors existing in the municipality’s
territory. During the first half of the 1990s this evolution was particularly evident in those
countries were - due to major national political conflicts - the national government was not
capable nor legitimated enough to control the periphery of the State and decentralized local
governments enjoyed a high degree of autonomy (e.g. Colombia, El Salvador, Peru, Chile).

Subsequently, based on the promising outcomes of some pilot experiences, Latin American
national governments started to acknowledge ordenamiento territorial and desarrollo local
processes as a means to put into practice the thrust that inspired de-concentration and
decentralization policies61. To this end, national ordenamiento territorial and/or local
development laws were issued in the second half of the 90s to facilitate the collaboration
between decentralized governance institutions and civil society organizations, and regulate
territorial development planning and management. Examples of the latter are the Bolivian
“People’s Participation Law” (Ley de Participación Popular, 1995), “Municipalities’ Organic
Law” (Ley Orgánica de Municipalidades, 1996) and “Ordenamiento Territorial Act” (1997),
the complex body of ordenamiento territorial laws and regulations issued by the Government
of Colombia between 1997 and 2000; and the Mexican “Rural Sustainable Development
Law” (“Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable”, 2002)

In the same years, governments’ endorsement of ordenamiento territorial and local desarrollo
practices pushed several donors and development assistance organizations active in the
continent to incorporate the new approaches in their regional policies. According to a recent
review62, substantive reference to the importance of the territorial approach to address rural
development problems (including rural poverty) are made in recent policy documents of the
Inter-American Development Bank (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) the World Bank the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), and the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural
Cooperation (Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura,)63. The same
60
Durojeanni, A. (1994) Políticas publicas para el desarrollo sustentable
61
As observed by Von Haldernwang, C.; (1997) “Descentralización, fases de ajuste y legitimación”. Diálogo
científico, 6, 2:9-26; this was essentially responding at a lower cost for central Government to the demands of
civil society and the constituency.
62
Schejtmann, A. & Berdegué, J. (2003) Desarrollo Territorial Rural
63
Since the early 1990s, important experiences in local economic development processes have also been carried
out in Latin America and elsewhere also by UNDP/UNOPS and OIT (see Catenacci, B. (2000) Local Economic
Development Agencies). The latter organization runs since 1998 a distance master course in “desarrollo local”.

30
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

source also highlights the linkages existing between the theory and practice of Latin American
territorial approaches to sustainable development and similar territorial-based approaches
implemented in Northern countries such as European Commission’s LEADER Program64)
and Canadian Government’s “Canadian Rural Partnership” Program.

3.2.3 Territorial approaches and ordenamiento territorial in FAO

Though some themes of territorial approaches (such decentralized governance, rural

institutions reforms and private/public sector linkages) have been dealt with by the latest FAO
Regional Conferences for Latin America65, it must be acknowledged that this Organization
has not been able (nor interested) so far to fully mainstream local development and
ordenamiento territorial in its policy agenda. Whatever the reasons for this, this institutional
choice contrasts with the pioneering normative work carried out at FAO headquarters by a
small group of SDAA officers and consultants since 1997, as well as a number of experiences
in local development and/or ordenamiento territorial conducted by some FAO field projects in
Latin America and elsewhere (such as, for instance, the “Participatory Upland Conservation
and Development” Project in Bolivia, the “Lempira Sur” Project in Honduras and the
“Assistance to Agrarian Reform” Project in the Philippines).

SDAA normative work on territorial sustainable development has been inspired by two
complementary sources: on one hand it represented an attempt to apply to the context of
development projects (and in particular of land management and Agrarian Reform initiatives)
the analytical and methodological tools developed by the French “systèmes agraires” school66;
on the other hand, it was significantly influenced by the relevant Italian experiences on
“sviluppo locale” and “gestione del territorio"67. In addition to that SDAA approach
incorporated elements of participatory and integrated watershed management as developed in
the framework of the Inter-regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and
Development (PUCD) Project68, which included, among other, the application of the
participatory action-research paradigm (see below) to territorial management.

Field testing of the above “cocktail” in a variety of settings (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia,
Venezuela, Philippines, Angola and Mozambique) has contributed to the progressive fine-
tuning of a methodological proposal for conducting “participatory territorial diagnosis”,
which is currently under discussion and validation. This proposal has benefited from the
exchange with Latin American and East European colleagues, which took place in special
events hold in Caracas (2001) and Budapest (2003). A third international workshop titled

64
LEADER is the acronym for “Liaisons Entre Actions de Dévéloppement de l’Europe Rural” (Linkages among
Development Action in Rural Europe).
65
Berdegué, J. & Schejtmann, A. (2003), ibid.
66
Mazoyer, M. & Roudart, L. (1997) Histoire des agricultures du monde. Du néolitique à la crise
contemporaine; FAO (1999) Guidelines for Agrarian Systems Diagnosis.
67
In particular, SDAA conceptualisation of ordenamiento territorial has directly benefited from the experience in
peri-urban territorial management which was developed in North-eastern Italy with the technical assistance of
the University of Padova (Franceschetti, G. (2000) Dinamiche fondiarie nelle aree periurbane). Moreover the
concept of “pacto territorial” (SDAA Team (2003) El diagnóstico territorial participativo; Groppo, P. (2003)
Desde el diagnóstico participativo) is clearly drawn from Italian “patti territoriali” policy (agreements between
the central and the local government to support through ad hoc credit lines and incentives for agricultural and
industrial small enterprises for the development of marginal areas; Garofoli, G. (1998) “Desarrollo rural e
industrialización difusa: aprendiendo de la experiencia italiana” ).
68
Warren, P. (1998) Developing Participatory and Integrated Watershed Management; Warren, P. et al (2000)

31
People-centred Approaches

“Territorio y Desarrollo Sostenible” (“Territory and Sustainable Development”) was recently

(June 2003) organized by SDAA in collaboration with the Rural Innovation Institute of the
International Centre for Tropical Agricultural (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical,
CIAT) and the Institute de Recherche pour le Dévéloppement (IRD) of the University of
Montpellier, France, in Cali, Colombia, from 17 to 20 June 2003. This workshop joined
experts and practitioners from different areas of Latin American with the aim of starting up a
forum for exchanging experiences and evaluation findings related to the processes and
methods for participatory and negotiated ordenamiento territorial, and exploring pathways
towards the implementation of new territorial development initiatives consistent with the
emerging economic-political and socio-cultural context of Latin American countries (SDAA,
CIAT, IRD 2003; Groppo and others 2003).

3.2.4 Key-focus, analysis, planning, implementation, evaluation

By definition, territorial approaches focus on the complex web of linkages and interactions
among environmental, economic, social and cultural factors which frame, determine and
orient territorial development. This includes linkages and interactions that take place within
the territory, as well as those that occur with neighbouring territories, national economy,
society and culture and global markets. Both types of linkages and interactions are addressed
as highly dynamic evolutionary processes, prone to change according to the historical
evolution of the territory and the “macro” context in which it is embedded69.

This holistic-systemic and dynamic-historical view of territorial development tends to

produce very complex analytical models, featuring a very high number of variables and
indicators70. Though useful for a thorough description and understanding of the local
situation, such complexity is difficult to handle in the context of local action-oriented
diagnosis and planning processes (see 3.2.5 below). A major challenge for territorial
approaches is thus to control the potential proliferation of factors to be considered by the
analysis, without losing their holistic-systemic and dynamic-historical inspirations.

No univocal and consolidated model or framework seems to exist in this connection. Instead,
the analytical models used to frame a territorial diagnosis and planning process tend to be
highly contextual, i.e. to reflect the major issues and concerns emerging from an introductory
exploration of the territory. Such exploration entails a negotiation about what is relevant and
important for that particular territory, which takes place among the social actors involved in
territorial diagnosis. An illustration of such preliminary modelling activity is provided by a
territorial diagnosis and planning experience carried out in the sub-watershed San Carlos
(Municipalidad de La Guardia, Departamento de Santa Cruz, Bolivia) in the framework of the
above mentioned PUCD project71

69
SDAA Team (2003); Schejtmann and Berdegué (2003)
70
See for instance Catenacci (2000); Gobierno de Colombia (1998); Gobierno de Bolivia (1999); Municipalidad
de Cali; Intendencia Municipal de Montevideo (1997); Municipio de Santiago de Cali (1999)
71
Warren (1999) ibid.; Warren (2000) ibid.; SDAA team (2003), ibid.

32
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

During this exercise the need to control the complexity, duration and cost of the initial
diagnostic and planning phase led the facilitating team (including international and national
experts and representatives of the Municipality) to identify five clusters of key-variables to be
considered in analysis. These included:

1. Soil coverage, i.e. the spatial distribution over the territory of the natural and man-
made vegetal formations (forests, rangeland, agricultural land, etc.) and its change
over time.
2. Population dynamics, i.e. the changes in the structure of population related to
natural growth and in- and out-migration.
3. Social stratification, i.e. the differences existing among local social groups
according to wealth, status and ethnicity.
4. Livelihood strategies (“estrategias de vida”), i.e. the way in which members of
different social strata gained a living (including on-farm, off-farm and non-farm
activities).
5. Political linkages, i.e. the relationships existing between village level groups and
organizations, the Municipality and departmental/national institutions.

33
People-centred Approaches

Fig. 3.3 – Territory dynamics analytical framework adopted in San Carlos watershed, Bolivia72

Soil
coverage

Population Social
dynamics stratification

PAST Livelihood Political

strategies linkages

TRENDS
Soil
coverage

Population Social
PRESENT dynamics stratification

Livelihood Political
strategies linkages

Soil
coverage

Population Social
dynamics stratification
FUTURE
Livelihood Political
strategies linkages

72
Warren, P. (2000) ibid.

34
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

These clusters of variables were selected because of their capacity to capture a situation
featuring major land degradation phenomena, complex in- and out-migration flows,
significant socio-economic gaps and ethnic differences among the inhabitants of the territory,
a strong trend towards off-farm income diversification in household economy, and disruptive
conflicts between local grassroots organizations and official institutions. Analysing the
historical evolution of these variables (also in the light of the changing linkages between the
territory and the “external” environment) was deemed to allow for the identification of major
trends and problems to be addressed by the participatory planning process (see figure 3.3).

This choice proved quite successful. The analytical model allowed participants in territorial
diagnosis to develop a territorial development plan covering the control of critical
environmental risks (landslides and floods), the support to livelihood diversification processes
according to the assets actually available to different groups (including the landless poor), and
the improvement of communication flow among grassroots organizations and the official
institutions (which all together was more than enough in the light of the available resources).
An impact evaluation system, based on the above analytical framework was also included in
the plan to check whether the agreed activities process would be capable on the mid-term (3-5
years) to solve (or at least alleviate) the problems identified during the diagnosis.

3.2.5 Methodologies and tools

The above “in-house” example highlights also the important function that participatory
method plays in designing, planning and managing territorial development processes.
Notwithstanding, the Latin American sources consulted for preparing this note are apparently
paying limited attention to the systematisation of a territorial development participatory
methodology.

In some countries (e.g. Gobierno de Colombia (1998); Gobierno de Bolivia (1999)), a major
emphasis is given to the so-called “mesas de concertación”. These are local forums in which
an exchange among local and external social and institutional actors takes place with the aim
of reaching a consensus on issues to be considered and included in territorial planning.
“Mesas de concertación” (or equivalent forums) play indeed a pivotal role in shifting from
top-down to bottom-up territorial planning73. However, the value of their output is likely to
be affected by several factors including in particular (i) the extent to which participants are
actual and legitimate representatives of different social groups existing on the territory and (ii)
the validity and reliability of the information on which opinions expressed and decisions made
are based.

Concerning the latter, it must be stressed that most Latin American experience in territorial
diagnosis hang between conventional “hard” studies which leave little room for the active
participation of local actors and more participatory “demand-based” exercises, which,
however often result in “shopping lists” rather than in a sound identification of the territory’s
trends and problems that can direct sound local planning. This has led some FAO practitioners
to test the use of participatory action-research74 in the context of territorial development
practice.

73
Groppo, P. et al (2003) ibid.; SDAA team (2003) ibid.
74
Warren, P. et al (2000) ibid.; Warren, P. (2001) ibid.; SDAA Team (2003) ibid.; Groppo, P. et al (2003) ibid.

35
People-centred Approaches

Based on Paulo Freire’s “educación popular”75 and Orlando Fals Borda work76, participatory
action-research is defined as a learning process through which professionals and researchers
with different disciplinary backgrounds assist disadvantaged local people to make sense of
their situation by providing them with the analytical concepts and methodological tools
needed to generate valid, reliable and relevant information77. Examples of the latter are:

x The identification of agronomic threats and opportunities existing in a farm jointly

conducted by the farmer and an expert agronomist;

x The identification of major environmental threats by interpretation in small groups of

a historical series of GIS maps of the territory;

x Ex-ante or ex-post participatory cost benefit analysis of a new rural enterprise, assisted
by an agrarian economist;

x The participatory analysis of social strata and ethnic relationship within the
community (stakeholder analysis) supported by a social scientist;

x The discussion with local actors of ethnographic life histories to make the new
generation aware of the determinants, outcomes and perspectives of socio-cultural
change processes.

These examples (drawn from the above Bolivian example78) suggest that participatory action-
research basically consists in socializing the professional expert knowledge (and in testing its
validity and relevance against the indigenous point of view). This entails that participatory
action-research deal simultaneously with the production of knowledge and its communication
throughout the community. In addition to that, participatory action-research assumes that the
generation of awareness among social actors and the promotion of a proactive behaviour
leading to change is the final validity test of such “socialized” knowledge79.

A recent SDAA contribution80 to the methodology of territorial diagnosis and planning

represents probably the more systematized attempt to articulate participatory action-research
paradigm with the consensus making process epitomized by Latin American “mesa de
concertación” practice.

The SDAA model splits the territorial diagnosis and planning process in three main phases:
overview (“mirada”), understanding (“comprensión”) and negotiation (“horizonte de

75
Freire, P. (1971) Pedagogia degli oppressi
76
See Fals Borda, O. & Rahman, M.A. (1991) Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with
Participatory Action-Research.
77
It must be stressed that participatory action research differs from most “conventional” PRA practice for
assigning a pivotal role to scientific and technical expertise in participatory processes. While PRA practitioners
tend to assume that lay people understand the reality at a level of validity and reliability which is sufficient to
solve community problems, participatory action-research believes that in most cases lay people capacity to
analyze and transform reality needs to be fostered by transferring selected scientific knowledge and technical
know-how elements (Argyris 1990).
78
A list of participatory action-research tools for ordenamiento territorial is presented in SDAR Team 2003
(annex).
79
Argyris, C.I; Ayales, E.D.; et al (1990) Action Science
80
SDAA Team (2003) ibid..; Groppo (2003) ibid.

36
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

negociación”). The first phase aims at identifying the critical challenges of territorial
development and the key-informants, which may provide relevant knowledge of the local
situation. In addition to that, during this first phase, awareness-raising activities are conducted
to promote and facilitate public participation in the process and the empowerment of the
weakest social groups.

In the second “understanding” phase a thorough stakeholder analysis (“análisis de los

actores”) is conducted, aimed at identifying the difference of interests and concerns which
may exist in local society and at assessing power imbalances and gaps. An analytical
framework covering the socio-economic, productive and eco-systemic factors affecting the
problems and challenges identified in the first phase is also developed and relevant
information collected. Then, information is analysed in a historical perspective with the aim
of identifying mid/long term trends affecting territorial development and make projection for
the future, based both on verbal and cartographic (GIS) sources. This entails a dynamic used
of the analytical framework aimed at eliciting cause/effect relationships, risk factors, and
feedback loops. As representatives of local actors are involved in this exercise, it is at this
stage that the competence in systemic analysis of the expert facilitators starts to be shared and
becomes “socialized”.

The third phase starts with the restitution to local actors of second phase findings, according
to the means more appropriate and acceptable in that particular context (meetings, interactive
media, etc). Restitution is meant to be a major opportunity to discuss and validate with local
social actors territorial diagnostic findings as well as to set up the “constituency” which will
participate to the “mesas de negociación”. Once these conditions are meant, participatory
planning is started up focusing on the identification of actions that might contribute to solve
the problems identified during the diagnosis, assess their social and technical feasibility, and
negotiate the contribution and role of each local actor in the implementation process.

Probably the major strength of the above model is the capacity of combining different
inspirations and experiences (some of which are drawn from other development approaches of
the 1990s81) into a flexible operational itinerary for territorial diagnosis and planning, which
is likely to adapt to different situation and settings. Yet, the model has been so far applied
only in a rather partial manner and on a limited scale and several questions are left
unanswered, concerning the scale of intervention, the legal and political conditions which
might enable (or prevent) implementation of such a participatory diagnostic and planning
process, the representativeness of participants in the “mesas de negociación”, the management
of extreme social exclusion and marginality, and last but not least, the continuity of the
process after that external support is withdrawn82. The opportunity of finding practical
answers to these questions and consolidating the overall proposal will depend to a significant
extent on the interest that the concerned FAO units will show towards territorial approaches
and local development (within and outside Latin America).

81
These include, among others, “collaborative management” (Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative
Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context) and “gestion de terroirs”.
82
Groppo, P. et al (2003) ibid.

37
People-centred Approaches

3.3 ‘Brazilianising’ the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

During the late 1990s attempts were made to adapt the SLA approach to the Latin America
context. An interesting experience was carried out in this connection by DFID, which held a
series of workshops in Brazil in order to discuss the relevance of Sustainable Livelihoods
approaches to the particular country context. Within the workshops, there were changes made
to the underlying principles of SLAs and to the DFID SL framework83 in order to include
issues that were specific to Brazil. Thus, there was an additional focus added on gender and
power relations, which were seen by workshop participants as a weakness of the DFID
framework. There was also an increased emphasis on the long-term impact of projects and
their outcomes. Also, given the importance of inequality as a social, economic and political
issue in Brazil, the approach was SL slightly altered to centre on poverty and inequality.

The Potential Weaknesses of the DFID Framework in this Context

A central problem identified in the Brazilian workshop was the lack of tools within the
Politics, Institutions and Processes box of the SL framework (which others have also noted
several times). Thus, yet again, the question of the use of SL approaches in the context of
wider power relations was raised. Ditchburn et al also noted that one of the reasons for
Brazilian (and Latin American) perception of SLA has a “foreign” approach has been the SL
approaches lack of incorporation of the history of the country, with particular reference to the
power relations in existence. Manzetti84 also noted that there was a general feeling that the
programme was incomplete due to a lack of discussion around the use of methodologies and
how to apply the SLAs in practice. The SLA framework itself was Livelihoods indeed altered
during these workshops as can be seen here85:

83
Manzetti, G. (2001) ‘Brasilianising’ the SLA
84
Manzetti, G. (2001) ibid.
85
Manzetii, G.(2001), ibid.

38
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Figure 3.4: The SL Framework Adapted for the Brazilian Context

RESOURCES
IMPACT ON
GOALS
- The resource
base
- Income
Human - Well-being
- Reducing
Natural vulnerability
- Increasing
ORGANISATIONS food security
Social Asset LOCAL
CONVENTIONS
AND SOCIAL
RELATIONS
Physical
Financial
STRENGTHS &
WEAKNESSES
STRATEGIES
- Trends
- Climate
- Changes

Figure 3.5: A Brazilian Framework for SL

Capacity to Formulation
Influence of Policy

ORGANISATIONS,
LOCAL
Priorities and
CONVENTIONS AND Policymaking
goals
SOCIAL RELATIONS

Livelihood Implementation
Strategies Methods

39
People-centred Approaches

Ditchburn et al86 further discuss the use of SL approaches in Latin America, noting that the
prime reason for their lack of uptake in Bolivia, Mexico and Brazil has been the lack of
adequate translation of the key concepts into Portuguese and Spanish; a problem that is
currently being investigated by the Livelihood Support Programme’s Sub-programme on
People-centred Approaches in different cultural contexts. It has also been noted87 that there
was a widespread feeling that the approaches are simply an imposition of DfID’s agenda,
which results in a loss of true local ownership of the programmes. Given the context of Latin
America, it is unquestionable that politics are of paramount importance. SLAs and gestion de
terroirs have claimed to be almost entirely apolitical, seeing this as one of their benefits. This,
however, has significantly hampered their ability to alter the status quo and has increased the
risk of local elites co-opting participatory planning processes. It should be noted that it would
be almost impossible to enter Latin America and achieve anything positive without the
political dimensions of development and poverty being of central importance.

This is further emphasised by Baumann88 who, in discussing the use of the SL framework,
notes that the framework fails to include theories of change based on politics. She then
comments that the inclusion of political capital into the SL framework is critical for the
following reasons:

xҏThe notion of political capital is essential as ‘rights’ are claims and assets – which, in SL
language, ‘people draw on and reinvest in to pursue livelihood options’. Because these rights
are politically defended, how people access these assets depends on their political capital. It is
therefore critical to understand how these are constituted at the local level and the dynamic
interrelation between political capital and the other assets identified in the SL framework.
xҏPolitical negotiation over rights is not transparent and cannot necessarily be captured in
structures and policies. The notion of political capital is critical in linking structures and
processes to the local level and understanding the real impact these have on Sustainable
Livelihoods.
xҏThe balance of power and location of political capital is not fixed and is under constant
political challenge. As is the case with the other five capital assets, an understanding of how
political capital operates will emerge gradually and is constantly evolving.
xҏNot to include political capital also weakens the SL framework as an approach to
development and therefore the likely effectiveness of interventions to meet SL objectives.
Political capital is important because transforming structures and processes is likely to be met
by resistance to change. Political capital places the focus on transition costs of policies and
projects; on those that are likely to meet resistance and on how these may be manifested.
Further, placing political capital into the framework avoids a false sense of objectivity in
deciding between alternative institutional arrangements, and makes explicit the values and
notions of justice on which choices are made89. In fact, it may be possible to learn from
UNDP in this respect as they include political factors within their list of assets available to
rural people90.

86
Ditchburn, L, Biot, Y., Armstrong, G., Wheatley, J. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: Latin America
87
Ditchburn, L. et al ibid.
88
Baumann, P. (2000) Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital
89
Baumann, P. (2000) Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital
90
Carney, D.; Drinkwater, M. et al (1999) Livelihoods Approaches Compared

40
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

CHAPTER 4 FARMING SYSTEMS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

There exist various perspectives on farming systems, their meaning and their practical
application, amongst various agencies involved in agricultural development. For the purpose
of this paper, however, the focus will be on FAO’s use of the farming systems approach in
their movement towards sustainable agricultural development. In order to better explain this
approach and its potential similarities and lessons for the SLA, this section will briefly outline
the main understanding of the approach at the FAO and some of the uses to which it has been
put. To gain a broader understanding of the system, it would probably be useful for the reader
to look in more detail at “Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a
Changing World” by John Dixon and Aidan Gulliver (FAO).

The farming systems approach utilised by FAO91 acknowledges the strong inter-relationship
between poverty and hunger, whereby:

Lack of adequate income ĺ Lack of food security ĺ Lower labour productivity; reduced
educational achievement; reduced resistance to disease ĺ Reduced income

Agricultural development is thus seen as playing a pivotal role in the reduction of poverty, in
both rural and urban areas.

4.1 What are Farming Systems?

Farmers view their farms as systems in their own right, with a variety of available resources
for them to draw on in accordance with their needs. Among these are:

- Natural resources, such as different types of land, a variety of water sources, and
access to communal property
- Climate and biodiversity
- Human capital
- Social capital
- Financial capital

In this way, it appears to be quite similar to the SLAs in that it accounts for all assets available
to farm households. The household, its resources and the resource flows and interactions at
the individual farm level are together referred to as a ‘farm system’92. The functioning of the
individual farm system is likely to be greatly influenced by external factors, such as policies,
institutions, markets and information linkages. In this way, the farming systems approach
acknowledges the existence of the ‘Policies, Institutions & Processes’ box that is an important
part of the DfID SL framework.

A ‘farming system’, then, can be considered as being a population of individual farm systems
that have broadly similar resource bases, enterprise patterns, household livelihoods and
constraints, and for which similar development strategies and interventions would be
appropriate93. In this way it seems to follow the same thought process as the SL approach,

91
Dixon, J.; Gulliver, A., Gibbon, D., Hall, M. (2001) Farming Systems and Poverty
92
Dixon, J. et al (2001) ibid.
93
Dixon, J. et al (2001) ibid

41
People-centred Approaches

through its recognition that development interventions will need to be tailored towards
specific regions and types of agriculture.

The farming systems approach developed from the 1970s, and since then has seen the
beginnings of a radical shift from top-down views of agricultural development towards a more
holistic perspective. However, it is necessary to point out here that the farming systems
approach has adapted and altered its focus over time, such that it is clear that some proponents
of the approach, such as Keating et al94 and Kaya et al95, continue to focus their efforts on
technical services extension to small-scale farms. Dixon et al96, on the other hand, note that
there has been a far greater accent on the socio-economic aspects of farming systems, based
on the wider goal of improved livelihoods and greater food security. As such, analytical tools
are seen as becoming increasingly participatory, with a greater emphasis on local knowledge,
group planning and monitoring.

Figure 4.1: A Schematic Representation of Farming Systems97

94
Keating, B.A., McCowan, R.L. (2001) Advances in Farming Systems Analysis and Intervention
95
Kaya, B.; Hildebrande, P.E.; Nair, P.K.R. (2000) Modelling Changes in Farming Systems
96
Dixon, J. et al (2001) Farming Systems and Poverty
97
Taken from Dixon, J. et al (2001) ibid., p.20

42
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Farming systems can be classified into eight broad categories, depending on climate,
resources, and so on, available to farmers in the region98:

• Irrigated farming systems

• Wetland rice based farming systems
• Rainfed farming systems in humid areas of high resource potential
• Rainfed farming systems in steep and high lands
• Rainfed farming systems in dry or cold low potential areas
• Dualistic (Mixed large commercial and small holder) farming systems
• Coastal artisanal fishing
· Urban based farming systems, typically focused on horticulture and livestock production

Similar to the other development approaches reviewed here, the Farming Systems approach
acknowledges the existence of a variety of strategies, which may be used by small- holder
farmers in order to pull themselves out of poverty. As such, Dixon et al mention five main
household strategies to improve livelihoods:

- Intensification of existing production patterns

- Diversification of production and processing
- Expanded farm or herd size
- Increased off-farm income
- A complete exit from the agricultural sector within a particular farming
system

(One example of improving off-farm income can be seen in the photo pictured below, where a
Sri Lankan woman uses a sewing machine, provided to her through United Nations funding,
in order to make and sell clothes:)
99
Figure 4.2: A Sri Lankan woman sewing clothes for sale as part of a UN scheme

Photo: G. Bizzari

98
Dixon, J. et al (2001) ibid., p11
99
From the FAO media base at: [Link]/media_user/_home.html

43
People-centred Approaches

It is through acknowledging these various strategies that are used in order to decrease
households risk of poverty that farming systems analysis has a variety of entry points for
assisting in the sustainable development of agriculture. These five main strategies are also
recognised by the Sustainable Livelihoods approach, as well as by gestion de terroirs and the
various approaches being utilised in Latin America and the Caribbean.

4.2 Determinants of Farming Systems

Farming systems types are determined by a variety of factors, which allow analysts and
development workers an opportunity to broadly categorise areas and prescribe a loose set of
possible projects, while acknowledging the heterogeneity that exists within these categories.
Thus, the following section will be a short review of the factors that determine a farming
system.

4.2.1 Natural Resources and Climate

The interaction of natural resources, climate and population provides the physical basis for
farming systems. A rapidly growing population in many developing countries, coupled with a
strong emphasis on increased production by development agencies in the 1970s and 80s, has
led to a tendency to intensify farming. This has place an overwhelming pressure on
woodlands and natural eco-systems, which has in turn threatened the biodiversity of many
development regions. As a result, there has been a growing tension between the goals of
development and conservation, with many viewing the situation as an “either/ or” solution,
rather than acknowledging the symbiotic relationship between the two. Thus, we have a
situation whereby the changes in the global climate are leading to greater food insecurity,
substantially increasing the risks to household livelihoods, which has tended to lead to greater
intensification of agricultural production and thus placed a greater burden on the environment.
In more recent years, however, various development approaches, including the Farming
Systems approach, have attempted to break this cycle of environmental degradation and food
insecurity through a recognition of the two factors as co-dependent rather than mutually
exclusive.

4.2.2 Science and Technology

There has been, in recent decades, a rapid expansion in investment in agricultural science and
technology. Both IRD and the Farming Systems approach have encouraged the introduction
of scientific methods and greater technology into the agricultural sector in an attempt to
overcome rural poverty. Poorer smallholder farmers in marginal areas have not, however, had
much opportunity to benefit from such investment. There has been little research into
integrated technology for diversifying the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and increasing
the sustainability of land use. The focus instead tends to be on the intensification of farming.
Recent years have, however, seen a gradual shift in the global research agenda, as the
importance of the smallholder farmer in rural development has become clearer. This is likely
to be of importance to people-centred approaches to rural development, including the
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach as it attempts to build human capital and improve farm
livelihoods in rural areas.

4.2.3 Trade Liberalisation and Market Development

The 1980s saw IMF and World Bank inspired structural adjustment programs in many
developing economies. The short-term result of this has tended to be shortfalls in ensuring
adequate services for more marginal smallholder farms as public goods have become speedily

44
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

privatised and government intervention pulled back. However, Dixon et al100 are inclined to
foresee the broader trade liberalisation as opening up new markets to farmers in developing
worlds, forcing greater competitiveness, and eventually increasing the well-being of
smallholder farmers in marginal areas. One word of warning here, though, this is not a
foregone conclusion and will be greatly affected by the continuing subsidies given to farmers
in the EU and USA. The external market forces are likely to continue to have an enormous
impact on the livelihoods of the rural poor. Unfortunately, however, the FAO cannot really
do anything about this. The Farming Systems approach, the approaches being developed in
Latin America and the Caribbean, and the SLA all make some attempt to ensure the
sustainability of the livelihoods of farmers, such that they will be able to weather large
changes in market conditions and government policy, and as such will not be heavily affected
by changes in international agricultural trade policies.

4.2.4 Policies, Institutions and Public Goods

There has recently been, on the international and national stages, a movement towards greater
participation through decentralisation of government and the privatisation of services.
However, there continues to be further marginalisation of smallholders and female-headed
households, as government services are not adequately replaced by the private sector and civil
society has tended to be unable to cope with replacing the shortfall of services. Policy shifts
have a dramatic effect on production incentives in farming systems. This further echoes the
criticisms of Sustainable Livelihoods and gestion de terroirs that there needs to be a greater
emphasis on the role of politics and public policy making, while the Farming Systems
approach also recognises the role of policies, institutions and public goods (see Figure 4.1).
In the GT approach, there were calls for participation, and the central role of local community
organisations, to be institutionalised in government policy and law making, which would be
relevant in this case, as well as in the case of the SL approach.

4.2.5 Information and Human Capital

The need for better information and enhanced human capital has been increasingly recognised
and attempts have been made to deal with it through literacy programs and wider access to
primary education. However, with the spread of HIV and continuing civil conflict, there has
been an increase in the number of female-headed households in developing countries. For the
most part, these households are being left out of agricultural extension services, although this
is an issue that is gaining in importance for the people-centred approaches covered in this
report. However, it remains a huge problem that the all these approaches will have to face
time and time again in the field.

100
Dixon, J. et al (2001) Farming Systems and Poverty

45
People-centred Approaches

Figure 4.3: Women attending a literacy class as part of a rural development project; Peru101

Photo: A. Odul

4.3 Recognition of Cultural and Regional Differences

Through its categorisation of different systems types within one region and between different
regions, the farming systems approach allows for far more tailored development interventions
than would have been seen in the past. Through its recognition of the importance of human
and social capital, as well as of policies, processes and institutions, it bears a strong
resemblance to the many of the other people-centred approaches, such as the sustainable
livelihoods approach. In this, it lays the foundations in many of the areas in the world where
it has been used in the field, allowing a more smooth transition towards more people-centred
and participatory practices. By developing from the farming systems basis and altering the
intervention to allow for cultural and regional differences the Sustainable Livelihoods
approach could be largely successful in its attempts at alleviating rural poverty. There is,
within the farming systems approach, a greater recognition that many traditional farming
systems incorporate features that:

1. Permit participants to reduce or share risks

2. Make efficient use of resources
3. Resolve potential conflicts over resource allocation, while at the same time ensuring
the long-term sustainability of limited natural resource endowment.

The same can be said for the GT approach and is an important lesson for the SL approach
when it applies its principles to the field. This recognition too is clear in the new approaches
being developed in Latin America and the Caribbean.

101
From the FAO media base: [Link]/media_user/_home.html

46
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

CHAPTER 5 COMPARING SOME PEOPLE-CENTRED APPROACHES

In this chapter there will be a brief review and comparison of the features of the different people-
centred approaches to rural development, which have been examined in this report. The chapter has
been laid out predominantly in the form of tables, which should more clearly illustrate the comparative
points made in the text. Table 1 attempts to give a concise summary of the broad history and
contextual base of the development approaches.

Table 5.1: Overview and Comparison of the Main Development Approaches

SLA GT IRD FS LAA

History Developed in the Mid-1980s: shift Emerged from Started from field- In the last decade
UK in late-1990s. A from emphasis on 1960s, at the same based experience in some international
change in technical aspects of time as realisation the 1970s, as it agencies and
perspective by rural development in that the future of became obvious that national
researchers from Sahelian West rural development there were clear governments have
food security to the Africa. GT emerged lay in small farm differences between started reflecting on
broader idea of from this, with agriculture and not actual circumstances the need to
livelihoods; from recognition of wider in industry. IRD in the field and those formulate a new
material to a social issues impacting on emerged for the in research stations. PCA, considering
emphasis. SLA rural poverty: practical the experience and
built on this, using environmental, operationalisation of the results of the
lessons learned from economic, this recognition and different approaches
other approaches to demographic, the consequential applied in the region
rural development institutional factors. focus on rural (IDB, IICA,
growth linkages, and ECLAC, IFAD, etc)
the central role of
the small farmer
Key Focus People and their The “terroir”: a Structures and Areas The farming system . People-centred
existing strengths socially and (considering
and constraints geographically heterogeneity of
defined space within social actors)
which communities’ . Territorial-based
resources and development
associated rights are
located in order to
satisfy their needs.
Structure and Principles and Principles are No one defining Different approaches . Principles are
Components framework for implicit; no one structure for IRD, in different contexts. implicit and are
analysis defining structure emphasis simply on Diagnostic similar to the ones
integration, and the Processes central to proposed by SLA.
importance of this are: natural . Framework
national government resources (land, analysis not yet
agencies in water, common developed
dispensing services property); climate
and biodiversity;
human capital;
social capital;
financial capital
Methodologies No specific Three main No specific Dynamic process: No specific
and Tools methodologies; methodologies have methodology, - Research in methodologies but
draws on existing been used: although in all cases, agronomy takes into account:
tools. - NRM: expert groups are - Modelling technical research,
- Institution used to assess needs, - Interaction territorial planning,
building, and then with no local between social and institutional
NRM participation. physical systems building,
- Local Reliance on - Gender data participatory

47
 People-centred Approaches

SLA GT IRD FS LAA

development: quantitative collection systems approaches
community information for Population dynamic
organisation, diagnosis and - Etc
transfer of analysis
responsibility to
local stakeholders

Cultural Anglophone Francophone International International Latin American

Context
Identity Well developed Diverse institutional Well-developed Diverse and varied Attempts to
identity with key history, but without identity international construct an identity
texts, guidance any definitive texts institutional based on common
sheets, web-site and or major players histories but some elements proposed
recognised experts. key defining texts by different
and experts organizations
Organisational Strong ties to DfID, Used by FAO, Was widely used by International International
Support ODI and other World Bank and development Farming Systems Organizations
development IIED, to a limited organisations Association (IFSA) (ECLAC, IDB,
agencies, including extent in West throughout the with associations in IICA, IFAD, FAO),
NGOs such as Africa, as well as by world, thus had Africa, Latin International
CARE and OXFAM other small NGOs. strong institutional America, Asia and Cooperation and
support from major Europe. Highly national
development institutionalised. governments
agencies, e.g. FAO, Roots in US
World Bank, etc. academia.
Current Uses Relatively on the Recently the No longer a Use d to a lesser Some Technical
Within FAO margins within approach has been mainstream extent, although Cooperation
FAO, although it is declining. At the approach there is still strong Programmes (TCP)
having an increasing moment it is used investment in the
importance as the within the evolution of the
approach is further Investment Centre approach, and
developed. for project resources within
Promotion of the preparation for the FAO are still being
sustainable World Bank put into FS
livelihoods concept
is a key objective of
the FAO Strategic
Framework for 2000
– 2015, although
there is less
importance placed
on the use of the
framework and the
approach if FAO
programming
Current Status Relatively Not a mainstream No longer much Has moved out of Some international
of Approach mainstream – has approach. Tends to used for the mainstream of agencies are
Outside FAO become the have a limited programming and the development promoting a new
approach to rural visibility and development context PCA for LAC
development, and is appears to be being (ECLAC, IDB,
supported by the UK absorbed, to some IICA, IFAD, FAO),
government, as well degree by as well as
as a number of other Community-Driven international
organisations, Development Cooperation and
including large (CDD), mainly national
NGOs, such as through the World governments
OXFAM and CARE Bank

48
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

SLA GT IRD FS LAA

Key Strengths a) Broad analysis of a) Establishment of a) Laid the a) Adapted new a) It takes into
development partnerships foundations for an technologies to account
problems b) Local integrated cultural context and heterogeneity in
b) Focus on participation is key; perspective of rural resource constraints rural areas in LAC
livelihood outcomes c) Institution and development b) Led to better b) It proposes
instead of project capacity-building b) Carried out ‘core understanding of differentiated
objectives functions’, which development strategies to address
c) Analysis of are now considered dynamics people’s needs and
complexity as essential c) Reinforced own different territories
d) Clear functions of national strategies c) It considers
identification of governments d) Enabled greater lessons learned from
principles c) Created an farmer flexibility other approaches
e) Enables a more enabling e) Looked to applied in LAC and
realistic prediction environment for external factors elsewhere.
of potential development influencing farmer
outcomes and through the decisions
impacts provision of f) Inclusion of
infrastructure farmers in action-
research and
practice;
g) Supported a
productive dialogue
across disciplines
Weaknesses a) Little practical a) Relatively high a) Failed to achieve Increasing . The framework is
experience start-up costs; transformative complexity and not yet structured
b) Fails to deal with b) Policy vacuum objectives it had proliferation of . Key elements and
politics and rights c) Gap between promised academic interest principles are not yet
c) Time and money rhetoric and reality b) Top-down has blurred institutionalized
consuming regarding approach to rural operational
d) Requires participation development practicalities
multidisciplinary d) Lack of long-term c) Lack of success in Continuity of
teams and specialist planning achieving poverty traditional
training e) Local elites taking alleviation hierarchies – top-
e) Difficult to over d) No inclusion of down approach –
quantify information f) Failure to include the community in prevented objectives
on capital assets marginal groups, development being reached
gathered through such as nomadic processes Not able to change
SLA pastoralists. concepts and
f) No defined role attitudes necessary
for markets/
economics

49
 People-centred Approaches

5.1 What? Where? The Key Principles of Some Development Approaches

The questions here are:

- What are the key principles of the development approaches mentioned here? (This seems
to be covered quite sufficiently in the table 5.2 below.) And what features do these
approaches have in common? One principle that seems to be gaining importance in all but
one of the approaches (IRD) is the concept of participation by the local population in the
development of their locality. This appears to stem from a broader movement towards the
recognition of local populations as being more active in the development process, rather
than simply passive recipients of benefits. Holism is another principle that appears to be
common amongst all the approaches mentioned here as development agencies
acknowledge the need to tackle the various roots of rural poverty in order to ensure that
there are real improvements in the quality of life of the local populace.

- Where are these principles developed and applied? In other words, are the principles an
offspring of a strong academic tradition; are they important in the field application of the
approach? For example, the sustainable livelihoods approach has a strong identity based
upon its key principles. As yet, however, the approach has had limited experience in the
field such that the application of these principles is not yet truly tested. In the case of
Gestion de Terroirs, on the other hand, the principles can often be sacrificed in the field in
the face of a pragmatic acceptance of the realities of the particular context involved.

Table 5.2: The Major Principles of the Approaches

SLA FS IRD GT LAA (90’s onwards)

Key - People-centered - Small farmer- - Broadly holistic, - Community-based Principles are implicit
Principles - Responsive and oriented multi-sector NRM and are related to:
participatory - Farmer approach to rural - Empowerment of people centred,
- Multi-level participation development local communities territorial based,
- Holistic - Location- - Production- - Local capacity- decentralization and
- Conducted in specificity of oriented building capacity building,
partnership technical and human - Provision of - Stakeholder multisectoral economy,
- Sustainable factors infrastructure involvement competitiveness and
- Dynamic - Problem-solving - Facilitating efficiency, multi-level,
approach resource conflict links rural-urban, and
- Systems management the consideration of
orientation - Identifying local cross-sectoral issues
- Inter-disciplinary priorities (gender for example).
approach
- Feedback to future
agricultural research
and policy
Role of Key part of the Not a part of the Important in terms Principles underlie The approach is not yet
principles approach organizing of national level the methodologies, systematized
within framework planning of but are often
Approach programs sacrificed to
(implicit etc?) pragmatism in
practical usage
Linkages to Policy is central No real Policy is key Policy is important Policy is central
policy and acknowledgement in theory, though (linkages micro-macro)
politics of policy frequently not in
practice

50
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Experience of Limited as approach Application is Application was Relatively . Limited

application is relatively new widespread widespread widespread use in . Lessons learned not
throughout the throughout the West Africa; some yet systematized
developing world, developing world. trials in Latin
although the Generally perceived America and other
particular use of the to have failed in its regions, but not
approach varies application very successful.
significantly Has been in use for
between time, place, about 18 years
and organization.

5.2 What is the predominant focus of the approach?

All the approaches here have overwhelmingly focused their attention on rural development. Their
policy focus does, however, vary significantly, with the sustainable livelihoods approach emphasising
the people at the centre of the development process, while Gestion de Terroirs tends to focus on
specific social and geographical areas. (See Table 5.3 for an overview). Entry-points, as can be seen
in the table, tend to be at local community level, although there are increasing attempts to focus on the
regional level as well. The meso-level can be problematic, as it often requires the presence of stable
government or civil society institutions in that region, such as strong municipal government.

Table 5.3: Main Focus of the Approaches

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s

onwards)

Sectoral Focus None, but started Rural dev Rural Rural Tends to be rural
in NRM development, with
a recent emphasis
on territorial units
Policy Focus The people at the The farming Small farmers and Geographical area Rural people and
center of the system and the their role in rural and social and territory (noting
development wider systems of development economic heterogeneity).
process which it is part. activities taking Attempts to
place within this formulate more
area differentiated
policies
Macro-Level; The use of the Occasional entry Entry tends to be Little focus on Although there is a
global and Sustainable through policies overwhelmingly macro-level, recognition of the
national Livelihoods and structures at through national although recent importance of the
framework is the non-local level governments, their changes have led global and national
encouraged for (national) ministries and to the recognition level, few
macro level agencies of the importance measures have
planning, and can of the global and been taken to
be especially national level, include PCA in
useful in the with some national strategies
drawing-up of the governments (such of rural
Poverty Reduction as in Burkina development
Strategy Papers Faso) cementing
(PRSPs) GT in national
level policy
making
Meso-Level; Through Regional zones are Entry also through GT criticised for Through
regional processes, such as mainly technical, municipal not dealing with processes,
decentralization, rather than an governments the regional international
the SL framework entry-point for aspects of agencies and
can be a useful aid programs development. national
in regional Recently some governments are

51
 People-centred Approaches

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s

onwards)

planning, while countries have promoting

this level may also seen a stronger decentralization
provide an entry- development of and strengthening
point for some SL regional and financial,
projects municipal administrative and
government political capacities
structures, of the municipal
allowing GT to structures to
develop provide the
relationships services required
between for territorially-
Community-Based based rural
Organisations development
(CBOs) and such
institutions.
Micro-Level; Focus of SL is Main entry-point Failed to The main entry- In general, rural
community, mainly on for FS is at this adequately reach point is through development
household, communities and level – through the local level - the local initiatives have
individual households as an farm household or main criticism of community based been mostly local,
Micro Level entry-point for community IRD was that it did within a specified one-off projects,
(Continued) projects, although not involve the “terroir” discontinuous and
this is not local unconnected from
necessarily the any national and
case international
strategy. The new
proposals promote
the modification of
this situation,
choosing as entry
points territorial
units and social
actors (considering
heterogeneity)

5.3 What are the technical aspects of the approaches?

The methods used for the design, application, monitoring and evaluation of the approaches are very
different for each approach. It must be said, however, that most of these approaches, with the
exception of IRD, have made some attempts to include consultations with locals at various stages of
the development cycle. These attempts are not always successful, but they do indicate the increasing
recognition of the important role of local populations in rural development and poverty alleviation.

Table 5.4: From Diagnosis and Design to Monitoring and Evaluation

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s

onwards)

Diagnosis Diagnosis is Diagnosis of Key role of Very technical, Diagnosis is mainly

mainly conducted farming constraints outside with very conducted through
through and potentials: technical geographical consultations with
consultations (1) Research experts in tools, such as rural communities.
with the local or secondary sources diagnosis and mapping, being Some agencies are
target population, for basic data of research used for diagnosis. promoting holistic

52
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s

onwards)

with the aim of target regions diagnosis

uncovering their (2) Identification
priorities of target groups of
The focus of SL farmers using agro-
is ultimately on ecological or
holistic diagnosis farming systems
criteria
(3) Exploratory
diagnosis, analysis
and synthesis of
findings
(4) Construction of
database for
monitoring and
evaluation
Design Programs may be Possible strategies Primary Design of GT The involvement of
either single- to overcome importance programs tends to rural population in
sector or multi- constraints, given to be technical, with the design is still
sector focused. potentials to build technical teams emphasis on the incipient. Some
The involvement on are formulated from outside use of outside proposals say that
of target – taking into region in design experts, rather programmes and
populations in the account technical of programs than the projects should be
design of projects feasibility, involvement of designed in such a
is central economic and local groups. way that include
political viability, Strong focus on decentralization of
social acceptability technical analysis activities and
of the territorial participation of
lay-out. Move beneficiaries
made to a more
socio-economic
framework for the
design of
programs
Implementation This is again a Farming Systems Partners for One problem Generally technical
and participative project team IRD projects associated with units manage
Management process, with making the major tended to be GT was that local projects. Some
there being a decisions as national and institutions that agencies and
strong emphasis regards the regional were being set up national
on stakeholder implementation government. by the programs governments are
ownership of and management Projects were lacked any legal promoting the
projects and their of projects. Even usually legitimacy, involvement of
implementation where there is local managed by a making it difficult communities
and management involvement in project to effectively
management, the management implement and
FS team tend to be unit, which manage programs.
the top-level posted inter-
management disciplinary
technical teams
in the field
Monitoring Participative Tracking farmer Through the Theoretically Monitoring is
Monitoring and adoption of Project monitoring of carried out by
Evaluation recommended Management projects should be executing agencies
Importance of strategies Unit participative, and donors. Some
collecting both involving local agencies are using
normative data community Participatory
and information organizations, but Monitoring and
relating to the in practice, it is Evaluation (i.e.

53
People-centred Approaches

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s

onwards)

criteria deemed often taken over IFAD in

central by the by outside experts Guatemala)
target population in a program
management unit
Evaluation This allows Assessing impacts Inadequate Evolution of Evaluation is
feedback through of adoption – evaluation as approach through carried out by
lessons learned feeding into further Project the feedback of executing agencies
research. Management lessons learned and donors. Some
Evolution through Units became agencies are talking
lessons learned. swallowed-up about flexibility in
by government monitoring and
agencies. No evaluation to
real feedback of incorporate
lessons learned changes in the
subsequent stages

5.4 How do the approaches deal with broader issues?

There are issues that these approaches confront in the field that do not fall simply under the category of
rural development, that are far broader and with greater implications for society and development,
including politics, power, human rights, gender and environment. Table 5.5. illustrates the different
ways in which the approaches mentioned here attempt to deal with these broader issues. As such, we
can see that politics is clearly an important arena in terms of development, although the approaches
prefer not to deal with the complexity that can be involved in this area. Rather, the aim seems to be to
ensure some degree of sustainable development that would not be hugely impacted by the political
context. The same can be said of some of the other issues discussed here, such as human rights,
although there has undoubtedly been a concerted effort to mainstream environment and gender
throughout the development of rural areas.

Table 5.5: Some Important Cross-Cutting Issues and How they are dealt with

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s onwards)

Politics Attempts are Politics are not Involves politics Certainly, there is a Politics is considered
currently being involved to a degree only dimension of local only at the
made to include at the negotiation politics involved, negotiation stage at
politics in the stage at the level particularly in the the national level.
SL framework, of national creation of Although with
with calls for governments. community decentralization local
the introduction organizations levels are gaining
of a sixth some spaces
“capital” asset
in the form of
‘political
capital’
Conditionality Explicit and Tends to be Strongly In theory, the aim is Tends to be
deliberate conditional conditional to remove conditional
attempt to conditionality from
unlink development aid,
development although this is a
aid from matter of debate in
conditions practice

54
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s onwards)

Empowerment Central to SLA Recently more Partnerships were Empowerment to Emphasis on the
– as seen in emphasis on the with government be achieved empowerment of the
capitals importance of agencies, and through local poorest (small
pentagon, the empowerment of NGOs, with an capacity building farmers, the rural
importance of farmers through emphasis on and the landless, artisanal
human capital capacity building technical staff, so strengthening of fisher folk,
there was no real community indigenous people,
attempt at organizations. rural poor women),
empowering local Although this is not through target
communities and often fully achieved strategies. There are
individuals in practice still few results
Human Rights Not explicitly Not explicitly Not considered a No real mention of Not really mentioned,
recognized. recognized factor in rural human rights, but in some cases
Tend to be within the FSA development although there has there has been a
overlooked, been increased recognition of the
especially as recognition that indigenous rights, as
regards rural such rights should well as the promotion
development. be included within of legal reforms to
Within this civil the approach. benefit women and
rights tend to other disadvantaged
carry more groups.
weight than In specific cases,
Social and there has been a
Economic. concern of displaced
May be people because
included in a armed conflicts,
new asset: terrorism, natural
“political disasters
capital” as is
being suggested
by some SL
developers
Secondary Part of SL Dealt with as IRD provided Access to common Promotion of some
Rights (Access framework, part of the infrastructure at a lands and water legal reforms to
to communal although not a broader farming broad level – no sources is a facilitate access to,
land, water, part of the system dealing with local important focus in rationale use of and
etc) principles community and GT, especially as decentralized
no concern with regards the management of
secondary rights nomadic natural resources
communities in the (land, water)
Sahel.
Gender From an SL No specific No mention of Gender and the There are some
perspective, attempt to deal gender or other strengthening of achievements, but
improving with gender or marginalized other marginal there is a gap
women’s access the inclusion of groups groups tend to be between paper and
and other overlooked in GT, reality. There is a
participation is marginalized as the strong focus need to allocate
an integral part groups on the community resources and efforts
of achieving tends to mean the to address gender
sustainable overpowering of inequalities
livelihoods vulnerable groups
such as women.
There is a nominal
acknowledgement
of the need to deal
with gender
Environment Central to SLA Environmental As agricultural GT grew from a Environment is
in the form of sustainability is intensification perception that one important at all levels

55
People-centred Approaches

SLA FS IRDP GT LAA (90’s onwards)

Natural Capital viewed mainly was central to the of the main failings (macro, intermediate,
through approach, it of the previous micro). Promotion of
scientific and tended to result in rural development community-based
technological the over-use of approaches was natural resources
research. FSA natural resources, their tendency to management (i.e.
has traditionally exacerbating intensify forestry).
focused on environmental production, thus Recognition of the
intensification of damage and destroying the long- importance of
farming, which putting huge term viability of indigenous
has had the amounts of land and eco- knowledge in the use
effect of pressure on local systems. As a and conservation of
destroying ecosystems. result GT does try natural resources.
biodiversity, but Environmental to emphasise the
this has changed consequences environment and
in the 1990s were not fully sustainability in its
considered, and programming.
were often seen
as opposing
development
Sustainability Central to the The IRD tended to Sustainability of Almost all
SL approach in sustainability of emphasise the livelihoods and in international agencies
the form of a farmer intensification of particular the and national
cycle resulting livelihoods is agriculture as a ability to withstand governments are
in people’s increasingly means for raising uncertainty and risk agree that
actual outcomes important to the living standards is nominally sustainability is not
and livelihoods FSA amongst important to the only related to natural
smallholder approach resources and
farmers. The environment.
sustainability of Although there are
its methods were few experiences on
not considered how to measure
key to the different types of
approach – as sustainability.
soon as external Some agencies define
donor support sustainability as the
left, projects steady improvement
tended to of standards of living
disappear among the rural
population which
does not require
continuous infusions
of external financial
aid and does not
degrade the natural
resources base.
Capacity to One branch of No mention of No attempt to Principle of GT is Natural resources
deal with the SLA does conflict and how deal with conflict facilitating conflict management
conflict specialize in FS would deal – projects simply management needs the
conflict with it. postponed or through NRM, application of
management in Although it may their focus altered although has some measures to
terms of access be dealt with difficulties with this deal with conflict
to natural through the in practice (i.e. land titling,
resources. The management of public goods,
SL framework common externalities,
can also be used resources property rights).
to deal with There are few
conflict experience in
management LAC

56
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

5.5 Overcoming Common Fault Lines

Here there is an attempt to compare how the approaches deal with some common fault-lines,
such as micro-macro linkages, holism versus sectoral entry-points, qualitative or quantitative
information. Thus, the questions are:
- Are the people-centred approaches discussed here forging adequate linkages between the
community level and the national level? We can see that the SL approach is making some
attempts to create macro-micro linkages, and a discussion of how this may be achieved can
be found in chapter 6. The Latin American approaches appear to place more emphasis on
the need for such linkages in order to maintain the sustainability of rural development.
- In practice, which are the approaches stressing, a holistic diagnosis of the development
needs, or the use of sectoral entry-points? It must be noted here that, for reasons of
pragmatism, when an approach implements a project in the field sectoral entry-points tend
to be favoured.
- What data should be used for diagnosis, monitoring and evaluation – quantitative or
qualitative? The choice here often depends on the academic origins of the approach, such
that more technical approaches (Farming Systems and IRD) tend to favour the collection
and use of quantitative data. Approaches that stem from a more sociological academic
background (SLA) generally encourage the collection and use of more qualitative data.
Again, however, there is a gap between what is said and what is done, and in practice it is
most likely that the data will be some mix of quantitative and qualitative information.

Table 5.6: Overcoming Common Fault Lines

SLA FS IRD GT LAA (90’s

onwards)
Micro-Macro Attempting to Acknowledgement Tendency to enter Tendency for the Attempting to
Linkages create linkages of the need for at the macro level, focus to be on the consider multi-
between macro and policy reform at so that one reason micro level. For level interventions:
micro levels– using national and global for its lack of more effective and (i) at the macro
the SL framework levels to support success in practical efficient programs, level, supporting
in designing the the sustainable application was its however, there is a the design of
national PRSPs in development of failure to reach the need for greater policies, strategies
coordination with farming systems at local level cooperation and investment
regional/local a local level. between the two programs; (ii) at
governments. That Although no real level, which may the intermediate
is, as a consultative discussion of the be achieved level, supporting
process role of FSA in this through the PRSPs activities related to
reform. and other central institutional
government modernization and
attempts to information
acknowledge the management: and
role of GT within (iii) at the micro
national decision- level, promoting
making processes territorial
approaches,
participatory
planning and
participatory
management of
natural resources.
Holistic Emphasis on Holistic diagnosis Entry-points are In principle, there Both of them.
Diagnosis versus holistic diagnosis, of farming system sectoral, and tried should be holistic Promotion of
Sectoral entry- although in type to be inter-sectoral diagnosis for GT. holistic diagnosis

57
People-centred Approaches

SLA FS IRD GT LAA (90’s

onwards)
points practice it can be In practice, to respond with
necessary to use however, entry- multisectoral and
sectoral entry- points tend to be differentiated
points and build on sectoral as they strategies and
them to make the deal with programs. The aim
program more institutions and is to address the
holistic agencies run along different needs and
strict sectoral lines. strengths of the
heterogeneous
rural population
and diverse
territories.

Quantitative and Tends to be more The technical roots Technical roots This is dependent Tendency to
Qualitative qualitative-friendly of FS would favour favouring upon the particular consider mostly
Information than the other a more quantitative quantitative project staff, quantitative
approaches, approach to data information although more information, but it
although collection and technical projects uses also
particulars will analysis tend to favour qualitative
tend to depend on quantitative data information
project designers over qualitative collected at the
field level. On the
other hand, there is
an increasing
demand for
gender-
disaggregated data
at the international,
national and local
levels to know the
contributions of
men and women to
development, and
to formulate more
adequate
interventions.
Analytical Detail As yet, SLA has Recommendation Analytical detail is Analytical detail is Previous
versus tended to be used Domains: farming more important important, experiences have
Pragmatism predominantly in systems classified especially in demonstrated that
diagnosis, rather into domains, mapping processes, the emphasis was
than within which the although on diagnosis and
implementation, same broad eventually must sectoral studies,
although it also research and give way to rather than
lends itself well to recommendations pragmatism in implementation
implementation are conducted. program and monitoring and
Thus, trying to implementation evaluation. The
balance analytical new proposals tend
research and to balance the
pragmatism analytical detail
and the execution,
although new
experiences are not
yet systematized.

58
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

CHAPTER 6 SO WHERE DOES THE REAL VALUE ADDED OF SLA

LIE?

Within this section the discussion will centre on the ability of SL approaches to link
macro policies to micro realities, which can be considered as the arena in which the
SLAs are most powerful as compared to the other approaches. As such, this section
will involve a brief outline of the various strategies being employed at national level
for rural development, and then examine them in the context of current trends and the
Sustainable Livelihoods approaches. By this I mean that a brief outline will be given
of National Strategies for Sustainable Development, Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers and the Comprehensive Development Framework with some comments as to
how they make act as a launch pad for SLAs, and whether there is even any reason to
view SLAs as potentially adding to these processes and truly linking macro and micro
strategies.

6.1 National Level Development Strategies

At the moment there are three similar national-level development strategies being
pushed by different international actors. Heidbrink and Paulus102 briefly outline the
main focuses of the three.
- Firstly, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) are encouraging
the formulation and implementation of National Strategies for Sustainable
Development (NSSDs). These are high-level frameworks to integrate and
harmonise existing development plans and strategies at a national level. The role
of donors within this process is seen as being one of facilitator and promoter. In
terms of its practical application, a UK headed task force is laying the groundwork
for the strategies with five selected partner countries – Bolivia, Burkina Faso,
Nepal, Tanzania and Thailand.

- Secondly, the World Bank’s Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) is

attempting to widen the development perspective beyond macro-indicators, to
include structural, human, physical and country-specific factors in national
development plans. The basic principles of this strategy include ownership of the
framework by the countries concerned, a holistic approach, a long-term
perspective, and the broad involvement of all relevant actors. In terms of its
practical implementation, the CDF is currently being tested in 13 pilot countries,
including Bolivia and Uganda. However, the process has not been immune to
criticism, with several sceptical voices surrounding the issue of the World Bank
being a ‘backseat driver’ and pushing its concerns above those of the countries
concerned. Countries, such as Bolivia, have complained that the World Bank has
simply latched onto an existing process within those countries and are pushing it
to its limits in the demand for results.

- Finally, the World Bank and the IMF are encouraging the drawing up of Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and tying them to debt relief in the countries
concerned. It is these that the Sustainable Livelihoods approaches are seen as

102
Heidbrink, K.; Paulus, S. (2000) Strategies for Sustainable Development in the Thicket of National
Planning Processes

59
People-centred Approaches

having most in common with and as having the potential, through developing a
‘checklist’ against which to compare these approaches, to link macro policies and
micro realities. A central facet of these PRSPs is that there must be involvement
of the actors affected by their outcomes in their drawing-up, thus giving a sense of
ownership of the process at a macro level. At the moment, some countries, such
as Burkina Faso, Ghana and Tanzania, have launched interim PRSPs, with others,
such as Bolivia and Uganda, beginning the first activities on the road to drawing-
up PRSPs.

From this brief synopsis of the different approaches it should be noted that there are
some countries involved in at least two of these strategies, with Bolivia being
involved in all three. This may facilitate a smoother entry of SL approaches in these
countries as they look to build on the work of each of the strategies. A warning note
must be sounded here in that there is a potential danger that the three strategies could
be carried out in isolation from one another, with little or no feedback between them.

6.2 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)

GTZ have dealt significantly with the PRSPs, facilitating a range of countries in
drawing up the strategies, including Mozambique. Asche et al103 note that from the
point of view of GTZ, the main risks and challenges regarding the PRSPs are that:

(a) There may be a trade-off between the speed of their elaboration and their
quality, with many countries opting for the former at the expense of the
latter, due their connection with debt relief

(b) There may, as a result, also be a trade-off between speed and participation,
thus reducing the concept of ownership to a theoretical principle as
opposed to a practical expectation. Here the SLAs may have a significant
role to play in building the capacity of local actors to participate in
planning processes, which may seep up to the higher government levels

(c) A sidelining of existing national strategies and action plans which may be
part implemented or may have already been designed within the cultural
context and with an appropriate understanding of the assets and constraints
facing all actors involved in the development process

(d) Neglect of existing project and programme experience, such as the lessons
from and the existence of community groups as a result of gestion de
terroirs projects.

(e) Over-extending government capacity at local and national levels, leading

to increased competition amongst government and non-government
organisations for increasingly scarce resources.

(f) Over-extending CSO capacity

103
Asche, H.; Breustedt, C.; Kampmann, M. et al (2000) Poverty Reduction Strategies in Developing
Countries

60
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

(g) A trade-off between the asset of donor plurality and the need for a unified
approach.

Carney104 furthers this discussion, when she notes that coherence between PRSPs and
SLAs is critical to ensuring successful outcomes in rural development. Thus some
areas in which SLAs are seen as having the potential to enrich PRSPs are:

- In understanding livelihood groups and their assets

- In predicting responses to different policy options
- In managing cross-cutting issues
- In highlighting the long-term
- In underlining the importance of participation
- In promoting a more decentralised approach
- In setting targets and monitoring them
- In providing a ‘checklist’ to assess the PRSPs.

From this it is clear that there is a viable argument to back up the notion that SLAs
have the capacity to link the macro and the micro. The present moment appears to be
the ideal time, as there currently exists such a high level of support for national and
local strategies on the global stage. The SL approach being developed within the
FAO must therefore investigate and learn from the existing approaches (such as
gestion de terroirs, Integrated Rural Development, Farming Systems, and those in use
in Latin America) as well as from the broader sustainable development strategies
being developed at national and international level. Through integration and
alteration, the SLA has the opportunity to contribute significantly to poverty reduction
and rural development.

104
Carney, D. (2001) Discussion Paper for DFID SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS Meeting

61
People-centred Approaches

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Allison, E.H, Ellis, F. (2001) The Livelihoods Approach and Management of Small-Scale Fisheries,
Marine Policy, Vol 25 (5) September 2001

Argyris, C., Ayales, I., Mclain Smith, E.D. (1990) Action Science (San Fransico: Jossey-Bass
Publisher)

Ashley, C., Carney, D. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience (DFID)

Ashley, C. (2000) Working Paper 134: Applying Livelihoods Approaches to Natural Resource
Management Initiatives: Experiences in Namibia and Kenya (ODI)

Ashley, C., Hussein, K. (2000) Working Paper 129: Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact
Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa (ODI)

Barbier, E.B. (2000) The Economic Linkages Between Rural Poverty and Land Degradation: Some
Evidence from Africa IN Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol 82 (1 -3) December 2000
(Elsevier Science Ltd)

Baumann, P. (2002) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Improving Access to Natural
Resources for The Rural Poor: A Critical analysis of central concepts and emerging trends (FAO)

Baumann, P., Bruno, M., Cleary, D., Flores, X., et al (2003) Applying People-Centred Approaches
in FAO: Some Practical Lessons (Work in Progress – FAO)

Batterbury, S.P.G., (1998) "Local Environmental Management, Land Degradation and the 'Gestion
des Terroirs' Approach in West Africa: policies and pitfalls". Journal of International Development
10:871-898. (1998)

Borrini Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the

Approach to the Context (Gland, CH: IUCN)

Cain, J., Batchelor, C., Waughray, D. Belief Networks: A Framework for the Participatory
Development of Natural Resource Management Strategies Environment, Development and
Sustainability 1 (1999) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands)

Carney, D. Discussion Paper for DfID SL Meeting, 25th October 2001: SL Issues Paper (DFID,
2001)

Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinow, T., et al Livelihoods Approaches Compared: A brief
comparison of the livelihoods approaches of the UK DFID, CARE, Oxfam and the UNDP (DFID,
1999)

Carney, D. (ed.) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution can we Make? (DFID, London,
1998)

Catenacci, B. (2000) Local Economic Development Agencies (Rome: UNOPS, OIT, Cooperazione
Italiana)

Dalal-Clayton, B., Dent, D., Dubois, O. (eds) Rural Planning in the Developing World with a Special
Focus on Natural Resources: Lessons Learned and Potential Contributions to Sustainable Livelihoods
(DFID & IIED, 2000)

DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (DFID, 2001)

DFID Briefing Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Elimination (December 1999)

62
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Dourojeanni, A. (1993). Procedimientos de gestión para un desarrollo sustentable (Serie “Medio

Ambiente y Desarrollo” N° 3. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL.)

Dourojeanni, A. (1994) Políticas publicas para el desarrollo sustentable (Lima: INRENA.)

Fals-Borda, O. & Rahman, M.A (1991) Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with
Participatory Action-Research. (London and New York: Intermediate Technology Publications and
Apex Press)

FAO (1999) Guidelines for Agrarian Systems Diagnosis. (Rome: FAO-SDAA)

Franceschetti. G. (ed) (2000). Dinamiche fondiarie nelle aree periurbane. Sintesi dei lavori del
gruppo di confronto Università degli Studi di Padova/FAO. (Rapporto interno del Dipartimento
Territorio e Sistemi Agro-Forestali N. 62. Pádua: Università degli Studi)

Freire, Paulo. 1971. Pedagogia degli oppressi (Milano: Mondadori)

Garofoli, G. (1998) “Desarrollo rural e industrialización difusa: aprendiendo de la experiencia

italiana”. (Memoria del Seminario Interrelación Rura-Urbana y Desarrollo Descentralizado. Políticas
agrícolas, número especial (pp.39 – 70))

Giarracca, N. (ed.). Una nueva ruralidad en América Látina? (Buenos Aires: CLACSO.)

Gobierno de Bolivia (1999). Guía metodológica para la formulación de planes de ordenamiento

territorial y municipal. (La Paz: Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación)

Gobierno de Colombia (1998) Lineamientos para la política nacional de ordenamiento ambiental del
territorio. (Santa Fé de Bogotá: Ministerio del Medio Ambiente)

Grojean, R., Dubois, O., Diakité, M.M., Leach, M. Evaluation Interne du Programme Eco-
Développement Participatif du FENU (FENU, 1998)

Groppo, P., Clementi, S. and Ravera, F. (2003). Desde el diagnóstico participativo. Hacia la mesa de
negociación : orientaciones metodológicas. Reforma Agraria : Colonización y Cooperativas 2003/1 (in
press).

Hobley, M. Transformation of Organisations for Poverty Eradication: The Implications of Sustainable

Livelihoods Approaches (DFID, 2000)

Kaya, B., Hildebrande, P.E., Nair, P.K.R. Modelling Changes in Farming Systems with the adoption
of improved fallows in Southern Mali. IN Agricultural Systems, Vol 66 (1) October 2000 (Elsevier
Science Ltd)

Keating, B.A., McCown, R.L. Advances in Farming Systems Analysis and Intervention IN
Agricultural Systems, Vol 20 (2 -3) November – December 2001 (Elsevier Science Ltd)

Lynam, J. A History of Farming Systems Research IN Agricultural Systems, Vol 73 (2) August 2002
(Elsevier Science Ltd)

Manzetti, G. Brazilianising the Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches (DFID, August 2001)

Mazoyer, M. & Roudart, L. (1997) Histoire des agricultures du monde. Du néolitique à la crise
contemporaine. (Paris: Seuil)

Ouedraogo, B., Ouedraogo, H.M.G., Elaboration de l’avant-projet d’arrêté portant constitution,

attribution, organisation et fonctionnement des commissions villageoises de gestion des terroirs
(CVGESTION DE TERROIRS) (Ministère de l’Agriculture, Burkina Faso, May 1999)

63
People-centred Approaches

Power, A.G., Linking Ecological Sustainability and World Food Needs IN Environment, Development
and Sustainability 1 (1999) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands)

Pretty, J. Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Process and Impacts
IN Environment, Development and Sustainability 1 (1999) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands)

SDAA Team (2003) El diagnóstico territorial participativo. Hacia la mesa de mesa de negociación.
Orientaciones metodológicas. (Draft for discussion. Rome: FAO – SDAA)

SDAA, CIAT, IRD (2003). Propuesta preliminar del taller latino américano: “Territorio y desarrollo
sostenible. (Cali, Combia: FAO, CIAT, Université de Montpellier)

Schejtman, A. (1999) “Las dimensiones urbanas en el desarrollo rural”. Revista de la Cepal, 67.
(Santiago de Chile: CEPAL.)

Schejtman, A & Berdegué, J.A. (2003) Desarrollo Territorial Rural. (draft for discussion). (Santiago
de Chile: FIDA/BID)

Toulmin, C. Gestion de Terroir: Concept and Development (UNSO, 1994)

Von Haldernwang, C. (1997) “Descentralización, fases de ajuste y legitimación”. Diálogo científico,

6, 2:9-26.

Wackernagel, M., Yount, J.D. Footprints for Sustainability – The Next Steps Environment,
Development and Sustainability 2: (2000) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands)

Warren, P. (1998) Developing Participatory and Integrated Watershed Management. A Case Study of
the FAO/ Inter-Regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation. (Community Forestry Case
Study N° 13. Rome: FAO, "Forests, Trees and People Programme")

Warren, P. (2001) Reflexiones sobre ordenamiento territorial local e investigación-acción

partecipativa en America Latina. (Unpublished working paper. Rome: FAO – SDAA)

64
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Internet Resources:

Asche, H., Breustedt, C., Kampmann, M. et al (2000) Poverty Reduction Strategies in Developing
Countries: The New Approach of the HIPC II Initiative (GTZ) [Link] de
[Link]/forum_armut/download/bibliothek/[Link]

Ayres, R.U & Weaver, P.M. (1998) Eco-restructuring: Implications for Sustainable Development
(UN University Press):
[Link]

Barraud, V., Bérété, S., Intartaglia, D. Des Instances Paritaires Pour Gérer des Ressources
Communes ? (2000) :
[Link]

Baumann, P. (2000) Working Paper 136: Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital: Arguments
and Evidence from Decentralisation and Natural Resource Management in India (ODI)
[Link]

Bebbington, A. (1998) “Capitals and Capabilities: A framework for analysing peasant viability, rural
livelihoods and poverty in the Andes” (IIED/ DFID): [Link]

Bonnal, J. Relating Social Capital, Traditional Community Institutions and Decentralisation

Processes The Online Sourcebook on Decentralization and Local Development
[Link]

Bouttier, N. (1996) Décentralisation et Développement Local: Quels Projets Pour les Territoires?
From: [Link]

De Satgé, R. Examining the DFID SL Framework: Concepts and Critiques, IDL:

[Link]
LIVELIHOODS%[Link]

Ditchburn, L., Biot, Y., Armstrong, G., Wheatley, J. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: Latin
America DFID: [Link]

DFID Better Livelihoods for Poor People: The Role of Agriculture (Consultation Document) (DFID,
May 2002):[Link]

Dixon, J., Gulliver, A., Gibbon, D., Hall, M. Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’
Livelihoods in a Changing World (FAO, 2001) Also available:
[Link]

Donnelly-Rourke, P., Ouedraogo, K., Ye, X. Can Local Institutions Reduce Poverty? Rural
Decentralisation In Burkina Faso (World Bank, 2001)
[Link]

Drabo, B., Dutilly-Diané, C., Grell, H., McCarthy, N. Institutions, action collective et utilisation des
ressources pastorales dans le Sahel Burkinabé : Rapport Final (IIED, Sept 2001) :
[Link]

Eberlei, W. Institutionalised Participation in Processes Beyond the PRSP (GTZ, 2001):

[Link] de [Link]/forum_armut/download/bibliothek/[Link]

Edja, H. Land Rights Under Pressure: Access to Resources in Southern Benin (IIED/ GRET, May
2001) [Link]

FAO Medium Term Plan 2004 – 2009: Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action – Local Institution
Building to Improve Capacity for Achieving Sustainable Rural Livelihoods
[Link]

65
People-centred Approaches

Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C., Turton, C. Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice: Early
Applications of Concepts in Rural Areas IN Natural Resource Perspectives, Number 24, July 1999
(ODI, 1999):
[Link]

FENU Résultats des Évaluations – 1999 – Mali (UNCDF, 1999) :

[Link]

Foster, M., Mackintosh-Walker, S. Working Paper 157:Sector-Wide Programs and Poverty

Reduction (ODI, 2001) [Link]

Freudiger, P., Jacob, J-P., Naudet, J-D. Stratégies et Instruments du Développement à l’échelle
locale : Examen Comparatif à Partir du cas Burkinabé (1999) :
[Link]

Gallopin, G.C. The restructuring of tropical land use systems From Ayres, R.U. & Weaver, P.M.
(UNU, 1998) :[Link]

Goodrich, R. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Summary of Research in Mali and Ethiopia (Institute
of Development Studies, 2001):[Link]

GTZ Presentation of Products for Poverty Reduction Strategies: Instruments, Methods, Approaches
[Link]
[Link]

Heaps, C., Humphreys, S., Kemp-Benedict, E., et al Sustainable Development in West Africa:
Beginning the Process (Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston, 1999):
[Link]

Heidbrink, K., Paulus, S. Strategies for Sustainable Development in the Thicket of National Planning
Processes (GTZ, 2000): [Link]

Hussein, K., Pesche, D., Sustainable Livelihoodsaymaker, T. Sharing Lessons from Collaborative
Franco-British – West African research and policy initiatives in West Africa: Relevance to Rural
Development Policy and Processes. (ODI, 2001):
[Link]

Hussein, K., Montagu, S. Hill Agricultural Research Project (HARP) Nepal: Lessons for the policy,
institutions and processes dimensions of the Sustainable Livelihoods approach (DFID, September
2000): [Link]

IFAD Brazil: Second Ceara Integrated Rural Development Project (051-BR):

[Link]

IFAD Mexico – Oaxaca Integrated Rural Development Project (036 – ME):

[Link]

IIED Notes from DfID’s workshop on land rights and sustainable development in Sub-Saharan Africa
(IIED/ DFID, 1999) [Link]

IIED, DFID, CARE, et al National Strategies for Sustainable Development: New Thinking and Time
for Action (2002) (Prepared for WSSD, Johannesburg) [Link]

Intartaglia, D., Corrèze, A. (eds) Le Développement Local Entre Décentralisation et Privatisation

(2002) :[Link]

Intendencia Municipal de Montevideo (1997) Plan de ordenamiento territorial de Montevideo.

(Internet Edition)

66
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Lopez Ornat, A. Strategies for Sustainability: Latin America (NSSD, 1996):

[Link]

Lund, C. African Land Tenure: Questioning Basic Assumptions. (IIED, 2000) Dryland Networks
Programme Issues Paper no.100. [Link]

Marsh, R. (2002) Working with Local Institutions to Support Sustainable Livelihoods (FAO: SD
Dimensions):[Link]

Meyer, K., Schmidt, A., Schmidt G. The Role Of Participation in PRSP: The View of German
Technical Cooperation (GTZ, 2001)
[Link]

Municipio de Santiago de Cali. (1999) Plan de ordenamiento territorial de Santiago de Cali.

(Internet Edition)

Ribot, J (1998) `Decentralization, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry:

Legal Instruments of Political-administrative Control', Pluralism email network, FAO

Singh, N., Gilman, J. Employment and Natural Resources Management:

A Livelihoods Approach to Poverty Reduction SEPED Conference Paper Series No.5
[Link]/seed/pei

Singh, N., Wanmali, S. Sustainable Livelihoods Concept Paper (UNDP, 1998):

[Link]
[Link]

Singh, N.C., Strickland, R. Sustainability, Poverty and Policy Adjustment: From Legacy to Vision
(IISD, 1994) [Link]

Tall, M. (2000) Presentation to IIED: Institutionalising Participatory Processes in Natural Resource

Management in Senegal and Burkina Faso, from: [Link]

UNDP Projet Pilote Pour La Gestion Rationnelle De Terroirs Villageois (PGRTV) CHD/91/X01:
République du Tchad [Link] projects/[Link]

UNDP Gestion Intégrée Des Ressources Naturelles Des Terroirs Villageois Dans L’Arrondissement de
Mayahi : Assistance Préparatoire : République du Niger
[Link]/seed/unso/lesson/compendium/[Link]

UNDP Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons Learned from Global Programme Experience:

[Link]
Livelihoods_lessons/[Link]

UNDP Back-To-Office Report on Sustainable Urban Livelihoods in Ecuador (21-29 June 1999):
[Link]
[Link]

Wanmali, S. Participatory Assessment and Planning for Rural Livelihoods (UNDP, 1998):
[Link]
.htm

World Bank West Africa: Community Based Natural Resource Management IN Findings: Africa
Region, Number 107, March 1998: [Link]

67
 A brief literature review and comparison of types

Further information about the LSP

The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) works through the following sub-programmes:

Improving people’s access to natural resources

Access of the poor to natural assets is essential for sustainable poverty reduction. The
livelihoods of rural people with limited or no access to natural resources are vulnerable
because they have difficulty in obtaining food, accumulating assets, and recuperating after
shocks or misfortunes.

Participation, Policy and Local Governance

Local people, especially the poor, often have weak or indirect influence on policies that affect
their livelihoods. Policies developed at the central level are often not responsive to local
needs and may not enable access of the rural poor to needed assets and services.

Livelihoods diversification and enterprise development

Diversification can assist households to insulate themselves from environmental and
economic shocks, trends and seasonality – in effect, to be less vulnerable. Livelihoods
diversification is complex, and strategies can include enterprise development.

Natural resource conflict management

Resource conflicts are often about access to and control over natural assets that are
fundamental to the livelihoods of many poor people. Therefore, the shocks caused by these
conflicts can increase the vulnerability of the poor.

Institutional learning
The institutional learning sub-programme has been set up to ensure that lessons learned from
cross-departmental, cross-sectoral team work, and the application of sustainable livelihoods
approaches, are identified, analysed and evaluated for feedback into the programme.

Capacity building
The capacity building sub-programme functions as a service-provider to the overall
programme, by building a training programme that responds to the emerging needs and
priorities identified through the work of the other sub-programmes.

People-centred approaches in different cultural contexts

A critical review and comparison of different recent development approaches used in different
development contexts is being conducted, drawing on experience at the strategic and field
levels in different sectors and regions.

Mainstreaming sustainable livelihoods approaches in the field

FAO designs resource management projects worth more than US$1.5 billion per year. Since
smallholder agriculture continues to be the main livelihood source for most of the world’s
poor, if some of these projects could be improved, the potential impact could be substantial.

Sustainable Livelihoods Referral and Response Facility

A Referral and Response Facility has been established to respond to the increasing number
of requests from within FAO for assistance on integrating sustainable livelihood and people-
centred approaches into both new and existing programmes and activities.

For further information on the Livelihood Support Programme,

contact the programme coordinator:
Email: LSP@[Link]

69
 LSP WORKING PAPERS to June 2004

Baumann P., (July 2002) Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor: A critical
analysis of central concepts and emerging trends from a sustainable livelihoods
perspective. FAO, LSP WP 1, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.
Cotula L., (August 2002) Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor: The
experience of FAO and of other key organisations from a sustainable livelihoods
perspective. FAO, LSP WP 2, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.
Karl M., (August 2002) Participatory Policy Reform from a Sustainable Livelihoods Perspective:
Review of concepts and practical experiences. FAO, LSP WP 3, Participation, Policy and
Local Governance Sub-Programme.( Available in french and spanish also)
Warren P., (December 2002) Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development: An initial
exploration of Concepts and Issues. FAO, LSP WP 5, Livelihoods Diversification and
Enterprise Development Sub-Programme
Cleary D., with contributions from Pari Baumann, Marta Bruno, Ximena Flores and Patrizio Warren
(September 2003) People-Centred Approaches: A brief literature review and comparison
of types. FAO, LSP WP 5, People-Centered Approaches in Different Cultural Contexts Sub-
Programme (Available in french and spanish also)
Seshia S. with Scoones I., Environment Group, Institute of Development Studies, University of
Sussex, UK (November 2003) Understanding Access to Seeds and Plant Genetic
Resources. What Can a Livelihoods Perspective Offer? FAO, LSP WP 6, Access to
Natural Resources Sub-Programme.
Biggs S. D., and Messerschmidt D., (December 2003) The Culture of Access to Mountain Natural
Resources: Policy, Processes and Practices. FAO, LSP WP 7, Access to Natural
Resources Sub-Programme.
Evrard O., (Janvier 2004) La mise en oeuvre de la réforme foncière au Laos : Impacts sociaux et
effets sur les conditions de vie en milieu rural (with summary in English). FAO, LSP WP 8,
Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.
Ellis F., Allison E., Overseas Development Group, University of Anglia, UK ( January 2004)
Livelihood Diversification and Natural Resource Access. FAO, LSP WP 9, Access to
Natural Resources Sub-Programme, Livelihood Diversification and Enterprise Development
Sub-Programme.
Hodgson S., (March 2004) Land and Water – the rights interface. FAO, LSP WP 10, Access to
Natural Resources sub-programme.
Mitchell R. and Hanstad T., Rural Development Institue (RDI), USA, (March 2004) Small
homegarden plots and sustainable livelihoods for the poor. FAO LSP WP 11, Access to
Natural Resources sub-programme.
Hanstad T., Nielsen R., Brown J., Rural Development Institute (RDI), USA, (May 2004) Land and
Livelihoods: Making land rights real for India’s rural poor. FAO LSP WP 12, Access to
Natural Resources sub-programme.
Fisher R.J., Schmidt K., Steenhof B. and Akenshaev N., (May 2004) Poverty and forestry : A case
study of Kyrgystan with reference to other countries in West and Central Asia. FAO
LSP WP 13, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme

Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) Email: LSP@[Link]