1. Introduction and Background

This paper is one of the outputs of the work of the Livelihood Support Programme (LSP)^[4] on the use of people-centred/livelihood-type approaches,^[5] in the context of LSP sub-programme 2.2 on People-Centred Approaches in Different Cultural Contexts. The primary focus of the work is on those people-centred approaches actually used within FAO, as well as on development approaches used in different cultural-linguistic regions. The LSP is composed of nine complementary sub-programmes; this study has been undertaken by a team working under LSP sub programme 2.2. On “People-centred approaches in different cultural contexts”

The objective of this work is to draw some lessons on the implementation of people-centred approaches in FAO and, to some extent, in different development contexts (cultural, linguistic, etc). Given that there have already been many volumes written on the different approaches to development, an explanation as to why we thought this comparative process worth undertaking is in order.

1. The ‘livelihoods type’ of approaches, which have emerged over the course of the 1990s, have created some confusion amongst development practitioners. Their concern appears to be rooted in the claim that livelihoods approaches^[6] make to represent ‘best practice’ principles. Since the evolution of approaches towards best practice has been a constant, yet ‘quiet’ and unlauded feature of development, the question arises: “So what?” One of our main questions is, therefore, do the new livelihoods approaches actually offer something new, and what are the practical implications of this for working practice in FAO?

2. The influence of culture and language on the development of approaches per se is an issue that has received fairly minimal attention. It is an issue that has emerged recently in regards to the SLA, which many observers perceive as being an Anglophone framework that is difficult to translate into different contexts both conceptually and practically speaking. The question thus arises as to how the institutional and cultural context of development and the approaches themselves interact in influencing the performance of projects and programmes? What do development approaches used in different cultural and linguistic contexts have to learn from each other?

3. Despite the abundance of material on inter alia development approaches, principles, methodologies, tools, best practice reviews, criteria and indicators we found that most staff within FAO are not able to make effective use of this information. This is partly a matter of insufficient time for revising working practices by delving into manuals and reviews. It is also the result of a significant divide between principles and practice, resulting from the political and administrative structures that determine and influence the development process. Our question here is whether there is, in fact, an insurmountable divide between principle and practice in the development approaches of the 1990s? In what way can we draw on the experience of the development approaches under review in order to overcome this?

4. Early consultations within FAO established the fact that while most staff does not draw upon explicit approaches, they do tend to follow broad principles and practices that are similar to those promoted by livelihoods type approaches. For example, at both the policy and operational levels the staff interviewed tried to ensure participation (albeit usually within limiting circumstances) and to consider the ‘development issue’ within a holistic framework. There has, however, been a tendency for divisions and services with a more technical or scientific focus to consider issues of people-centred development as being outside of their remit. This is changing recently, with issues such as plant genetic resources and land law being given a people-centred perspective. The question then arises as to whether development approaches become redundant once the ideas that they embody have been mainstreamed? Is there, therefore, any value-added that FAO officers can gain from the use of so-called ‘development approaches’?

The four directions of enquiry outlined above are the substantive reason as to why we think a comparison of development approaches is valid. The final reasons relate to the context and method of our enquiry, which we outline in further detail in the next section.

5. The context of our enquiry is the institutional and working environment of FAO staff and the development policies, projects and processes in which they are involved. FAO’s long institutional and organisational history in rural development provides a unique opportunity for examining the evolution of development approaches. The international and multi-lingual working experience of FAO staff is also an important and untapped resource in exploring issues related to the regional and cultural specificity of approaches.

6. The methodology of this enquiry has been to investigate - through interviews and seminars - the ways in which development approaches are used and understood within FAO. In doing so, we have tried to focus only on those issues which are considered as being of potential value and importance to practice. This study is, therefore, not intended to create a ‘manual of manuals’ but rather it is an initiative to clarify where we are in terms of development approaches, and the ways in which these can be most effectively accessed and operationalized. The participatory process is intended to support closer collaboration between linguistic groups, disciplines and sectors, in adapting approaches useful for their particular needs.