FAO has considerable expertise on ANR to build on, with regard to different NR (from land to water, from fisheries to water, etc.) and to different geographical environments. Several fundamental SLA principles are already implicitly used in FAO's ANR activities. Moreover, numerous organizations have employed, explicitly or implicitly, SL analysis, concepts and tools in projects involving ANR, and partnerships with them may be explored. While organizations explicitly using SLA are mainly concentrated in the UK (with important exceptions, mainly for international organizations and for organizations based in other Anglo-phone countries), several organizations in French and Spanish speaking countries use approaches that present important commonalities with SLA.
This chapter seeks to identify strengths that Sub-programme 3.1 can build on and gaps that need to be filled. It also makes recommendations for the development of strategic partnerships within FAO and between FAO and external stakeholders. In so doing, it makes reference to the findings of Output 1.1 of Sub-programme 3.1 (Baumann, 2002). In many cases, the recommendations made in this chapter build on the discussion of the Siena Forum (FAO/DfID, 2000 and 2000b).
This report shows that SL is not a single approach but a bundle of approaches presenting strong similarities but also differences (in emphasis, in the framework, etc.), depending among others on the nature of the organization concerned. Therefore, in incorporating SLA in ANR activities, some reflection is needed on what aspects SLA (if any) are to be given particular emphasis.
Integration of SLA does not necessarily mean that a specific SL framework needs to be adopted, as many of the organizations included in this report have not developed any; nor that a special category of (SLA-labelled) projects needs to be created. Many other institutions flexibly use SL analysis, concepts and tools in policy-related activities and in various stages of the project cycle. FAO may therefore flexibly integrate the six core principles of SLA (people-centred, responsive and participatory, multi-level, conducted in partnership, sustainable and dynamic) into its activities, and if appropriate combine them with other approaches already used within the organizations (as the principles of the Code of Conduct of Responsible Fisheries in the SFLP).
In so doing, FAO may build on substantial work that has already been done by its departments, divisions and services, with or without specific reference to SLA. This work includes participatory forestry and institutionalizing participatory approaches in forest government agencies; holistic approaches within the context of agrarian reform programmes (e.g., the farming system development approach); inter-sectoral integration of ANR into projects not focusing on NR; vulnerability analysis (cf. FIVIMs); explicit use of SLA into ANR projects (e.g., the Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme); etc.
The tension between the holistic SL approach and ANR activities was highlighted among the conceptual difficulties met during this work. In the light of the literature reviewed (e.g., Ashley and Carney, 1999) and of the SL projects analyzed in this report (most of which have sectoral entry points), it is possible to say that while requiring a holistic approach, SLA are compatible with "sectoral anchors". These are often made necessary by practical factors (limited resources, organizational specialization, etc.).
SLA does not entail that a single project is to address all livelihood issues at all levels. However, within SLA, entry points acquire a new meaning:
Entry points are carefully chosen in the light of a holistic livelihood analysis enabling to identify the priority areas where to focus interventions.
Where ANR is identified as a priority area, the holistic analysis enables to identify all factors affecting ANR and livelihoods at all levels, and to understand how ANR is to be accompanied by access to credit and training, by infrastructure, institutional support, etc.
Holistic SL analysis may also entail different ways of working on ANR (e.g., ANR activities may be structured differently in communities with NR-based livelihoods and in communities with greater income diversification; NR management decisions may be based on the real livelihood contribution of NR rather than on - usually underestimated - monetarized values).
SLA also entail a more holistic approach within ANR, by considering different but interrelated NR and by considering competing uses of the same NR.
ANR may constitute a component of projects that have a non-NR entry point (e.g., nutrition, etc.) but that involve NR issues, and/or of projects that while having a NR management entry point do not necessarily target the poorest of the poor.
Interventions of sectorally anchored projects may be broadened to address issues that may emerge through the iterative diagnosis and reorientation process characterizing SLA (Figure 11; FAO/DfID, 2000).
Figure 11. Sectoral entry points and SL projects. Source: FAO/DfID (2000).
Based on original by Bangladesh Case Study Group
Reflection is needed on how to integrate SLA into ANR field programmes. Indeed, using SLA poses important challenges for several aspects of the project cycle, requiring:
A participatory and holistic diagnosis of vulnerability context, capital assets, PIPs, livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes, going well beyond the NR sector;
ANR projects developed on the basis of this diagnosis (rather than of standardized approaches), and possibly including non-NR components (conversely, non-ANR projects may include an ANR component);
Flexible projects enabling to respond to demands from beneficiaries and to refocus interventions on the basis of changes in livelihood strategies;
Cross-sectoral choice of local partners, possibly involving not only the ministries/government agencies most directly concerned (e.g., the Ministry of Land), but also other relevant government agencies (e.g., environment, decentralization, etc.), thereby promoting inter-departmental cooperation within the government.
New methodologies to assess the impact of ANR projects (within M&E), moving towards more holistic indicators enabling to assess broader livelihood outcomes; towards more participatory approaches; and towards a dynamic "learning" process enabling, if necessary, project reorientation.
Appropriate exit strategies, e.g. to scale up project interventions by promoting the integration of their approach in national institutions and policies (cf. the micro-macro linkage aspect of SLA).
These elements (as they relate to ANR projects) are gaps to be addressed by Sub-programme 3.1, building on the substantial work already done on this both within FAO (e.g., integration of SL into M&E in the Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme) and by external stakeholders (e.g., CARE, DfID, ODI, etc.).
For instance, an issue to be addressed is how to incorporate in practice participation in project design as well as in M&E (how to ensure that the poorest of the poor are effectively involved in participatory processes? How to reconcile conflicting needs and priorities emerging from participatory processes? Etc.). The experience of the organizations identified by this report shows that well-established participatory methods (PRA, etc.) are used within an SLA context, either as such or after adaptation to the SL context (e.g., PAPSL by UNDP). This issue deserves further reflection within the activities of Sub-programme 3.1.
Other challenges include for instance identifying appropriate indicators for livelihood impact assessments, and reconciling the need for greater project flexibility with accounting and reporting requirements by donors. More generally, a holistic and participatory approach may entail that the project cycle becomes more costly and time-consuming.
This report has found that while there are a large number of (SLAish) projects focusing on, or having components on, ANR or NR management (which also entails issues of access), much fewer projects have a ANR component explicitly targeting the assetless (landless, etc.). It was noted at the Siena Forum that SLA projects may not reach the poorest and most vulnerable groups, and that NR management programmes may leave out those without ANR (FAO/DfID, 2000).
Important examples of targeted ANR projects nonetheless exist, and lessons learned from them should be taken into account. Among the interesting ANR strategies that were identified in this report are:
the use of lease arrangements to enable ANR for the poor (e.g., IFAD/FAO leasehold forestry project in Nepal);
the allocation of use and management rights to fisheries communities (e.g., the IFAD Oxbow Lakes project in Bangladesh);
the granting of land titles to communities (e.g., FAO's involvement in the Mozambican land law reform programme);
the development and consolidation of community fisheries and community forestry (e.g., FAO project in Cambodia);
the promotion of participatory NR co-management and the involvement of local communities in monitoring compliance with reserved zones established for them by legislation (e.g., the FAO/DfID SFLP);
the strengthening of communities benefiting from land reform programmes, so as to enable them to address needs complementary to ANR (e.g., the SARC/TSARRD project in the Philippines).
ANR for the rural poor is the very core of Sub-Programme 3.1's mandate. Further work on this is needed, particularly analyzing the ability of different ANR strategies to include the assetless and the poorest of the poor. Consistently with the Work Plan of the Sub-programme, the projects identified in this report may be explored more in depth within Output 3 (the analysis of SLA/ANR typologies and strategies).
In the longer term, possible activities within Sub-programme 3.1 may include using particularly relevant field programmes as "laboratories" to analyze their effectiveness in supporting ANR for the poorest of the poor and ways to improve them (where an ANR component is present); to analyze ways in which an ANR component may be (or might have been) included, so as to improve livelihood impacts (in programmes where no specific ANR component is present); to assess whether the adoption of SLA improves (or would improve) the capacity of the programme to positively affect the livelihoods of poorest groups (through their greater ANR); etc. This activity may entail field studies by sub-programme members and the writing of assessments using the SL framework. Clear understandings with personnel working on the studied programmes and appropriate institutional arrangements need to be devised to ensure the maximum frankness in the assessment reports.
A gap that emerged, and that deserves attention by Sub-programme 3.1, is addressing the issue of ANR in specific contexts, e.g.:
In natural or man-made disasters. This requires addressing ANR in the context of conflict, displacement and/or resettlement, etc.
In urban contexts, in the light e.g. of the importance of garden farming for household food security in many urban areas.
For both cases, this report has identified work on which it is possible to draw (e.g., with regard to ANR in emergencies, cf. FAO's work in Sudan).
An issue that was raised in Siena was to revise/integrate the SL framework so as to enable greater understanding of intra-community differentiation. This is linked to the issue of targeting the assetless in ANR activities. Indeed, it is well-known that, within communities, ANR is strongly differentiated along gender, age, status, class, caste, etc lines. This area deserves closer attention. This report identified FAO resources that Sub-Programme 3.1 may draw on (e.g., SEAGA).
Baumann (2002) explored the relationships between SLA and rights-based approaches (RBA) at a conceptual level. This report has identified actors already combining the two approaches (e.g., CARE, Oxfam). Livelihood strategies depend among others on bundles of rights, and several such rights directly relate to ANR (e.g., the right to own land and other property; land rights of indigenous peoples; etc.). The potential of RBA to contribute in practice to ANR for the rural poor may be further analyzed. In this context, exchanges with organizations already combining the two approaches may be considered. Moreover, the experience of organizations helping the poor to implement their NR rights (e.g., Samata in Bangladesh) may be considered.
The main thrust of SLA is working in a holistic, interdisciplinary, and hence interdepartmental way. This entails strengthening cooperation between different departments, divisions and services e.g. by building on contacts already in place and by developing informal cross-departmental networks. This is fully in line with the directives embodied in the Strategic Framework and in the Medium Term Plan.
As for Sub-programme 3.1, the departments, divisions and services which should be approached, and the specific issues on which they should be approached, are identified in detail in part I of this report. Cooperation with them may involve first and foremost sharing of information, especially on uses of SLA, so as to enable lesson learning. It may involve also sharing of information on ongoing or pipeline projects where inter-sectoral needs arise. For projects having ANR as an entry point, the holistic approach may entail the inclusion of non-NR components. Conversely, non-NR projects may identify ANR problems and address them.
The LSP itself constitutes a very important tool to strengthen cross-departmental links, as it brings together SLA-minded staff from all departments. Cooperation with other sub-programmes should be deepened, so as to focus on ANR without losing the holistic picture and the linkages between the various sub-programmes. For instance, cooperation with sub-programme 3.4 (NR conflict management) may be particularly fruitful, as there may be some overlapping issues. Cooperation with 2.2 (SLA in different cultural contexts) may also be useful, particularly in relation to broadening the scope of the analysis to the non-Anglophone world (identifying relevant actors, etc.).
Lists of persons within FAO interested in SLA are already available to Sub-programme 3.1 through a variety of channels: the e-mail list for Sub-programme 3.1; members of other sub-programmes; the list of participants at the Siena forum (included in FAO/DfID, 2000b), which includes persons having a longstanding interest in SLA; etc. These persons may act as "bridges" for Sub-programme 3.1 to approach their divisions and services.
Partnerships within FAO should fully involve regional offices and field staff. While due to time constraints it was not possible to adequately include them in this report, their involvement is necessary and may enrich the work of Sub-programme 3.1 (by providing insights on relevant projects implemented at regional level, by enabling to identify additional partners in developing countries, etc.). If Sub-programme 3.1 determines to carry out field studies, selecting programmes located geographically close to regional offices may enable cost-effective involvement of staff at regional level.
Available IT resources also allow to strengthen cross-department cooperation, e.g. with regard to the Field Programme Management Information System (FPMIS), which enables to have information on pipeline and ongoing projects with a view to proposing partnerships and contributions.
While partnerships with external stakeholders are extremely important (see below), Sub-programme 3.1 should fully make use of the wealth of in-house resources, which may constitute a speedy and cost-effective way of learning lessons and may help strengthen contacts that may be built on for future activities.
For the purposes of Sub-Programme 3.1, two different types of partnerships with external stakeholders may be established.
These partnerships would involve for instance: building capacities in SL analysis, concepts and tools, and in their application to ANR (e.g., DfID, World Bank, UNDP, etc.); building on lessons learned on institutionalizing SL in the organization and in the project cycle (e.g., CARE, Oxfam, UNDP[1]); drawing on the SL expertise of research institutes for conceptual work (methodology development, etc.) and for livelihood analysis (e.g., with regard to the livelihood contribution of ANR and/or for the assessment of the livelihood impact of projects and programmes, so as to identify best practices) (CANARI, IDS, IIED, IISD, Khanya, ODI, etc.); exploring funding opportunities for FAO SLA/ANR projects (cf. the FAO/DfID SFLP); etc.
Particular attention should also be devoted to:
IFAD and WFP, in relation to their experience on innovative SLAish ANR approaches (Nepal and Bangladesh for IFAD, Ethiopia for WFP);
Using contacts with organizations using SLA/ANR to reach their local partners (governments, NGOs, etc.), so as to identify additional potential partners. Institutions and programmes "bridging" language divides may be particularly useful in this, within the LSP (particularly Sub-programme 2.2, SLA in Different Cultural Contexts), within FAO (e.g., the SFLP covers Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone countries; regional offices), and among external stakeholders (e.g., IIED).
Baumann (2002) highlights the commonalities between SLA and current ANR thinking. This report has identified organizations that although not using an SL framework, use similar principles and tools, including many organizations from non-Anglophone countries.
Partnerships with this type of organizations may result in fruitful exchange of ideas and cross-fertilization, contributing to the dissemination of SLA principles as applied to ANR on the one hand, and enriching SLA with contributions from culturally different contexts. As noted by Baumann (2002), the value of SLA is precisely incorporating lessons from other approaches in a systematic framework.
For instance, it has been noted that SLA provides few insights on the political dimension of ANR (Baumann, 2002). Indeed, in many societies, ANR touches the very foundation of the social structure, and ANR activities may not result just in win-win situations. Therefore, some form of political analysis is required. On this, lessons may be learned from Latin American organizations working on access to NR (e.g., CICAFOC, MAELA, Via Campesina, etc.).
Similarly, lessons learned in the context of gestion des terroirs, and their relevance to SLA/ANR, may be considered (e.g., ENDA, GADEC, GRET, IRAM, etc.).
|
[1] Lessons relate e.g. to the
attitude of regional and field officers towards approaches promoted from the
centre; problems in designing and implementing multi-sectoral programmes and
interacting with donors (that may have a sectoral orientation) and local
partners (usually government agencies have sectoral mandates); etc. |
