5. Preliminary Findings on the Main Constraints in Applying People-Centred Development Approaches

In this chapter, we attempt to analyse and compare the major constraints to implementing people-centred approaches as they have been experienced by staff in FAO headquarters. Emerging from the wealth of information that has been collected from the FAO staff is the idea that recent years have seen the juxtaposition of both a degree of continuity and of significant change in methodologies. It is, therefore, important to consider which of these changes have simply been the result of re-labelling, and which have actually added value to FAO projects and programmes. Examining this should provide us with a clearer idea of areas in which cultural groups, sectors, and technical sectors may be closer than has previously been thought (thereby facilitating a better working partnership). We should also be better able to understand where there are differences, and whether these may lead to positive new learning experiences. Thus, in part, we would like to begin to address that oft-heard concern that “this is nothing new”. We must also leave room for the fact that most of the interviewees had experience predominantly of the “approach with no name, based on general lessons and broadly accepted development principles”. In comparing the approaches below we aim to make it clear that a lot of these principles are included and mainstreamed in development in today’s world, even if there remains a gap between practice and principle, as is suggested in the interviews with FAO staff.

This section draws both on literature and on the material drawn from interviews and seminars

A Brief Background to the Theory of Development Approaches

A development approach can be defined as a theory about the goals of development (absolute growth, sustainable growth, more equitable distribution of assets and the like) and the best means to achieve these goals (the methods). Development approaches are thus primarily cultural constructions inspired by a grand theory of socio-economic and socio-cultural change, embedded in humanitarian values and supported (to a variable extent) by empirical research findings.

From a technical point of view, each development approach has its merits and faults and, under specified conditions, some are likely to work better than others. Indeed there is clearly a lot of scope to create, improve and fine-tune “better” development approaches. Over the last two or three decades, the evolution of development approaches has been incremental in the sense that our understanding of development processes has gradually improved. This, in turn, has sometimes also allowed for more effective development interventions. The mainstreaming of concepts such as sustainability, decentralization, participation, or gender equity, has indeed been a major outcome of development approaches. However, none of these constructs can claim to be a neutral wisdom generated in an ivory tower. Instead, we must acknowledge that any development approach is rooted in the economy of the development industry and reflects the political agenda of the donors and international organizations that adopt it.

Development approaches are usually created by academic or semi-academic institutions (universities, development studies centres, etc.), and, after some small-scale pilot testing, are spread through papers in development studies journals and presentations at international events. If convincing, such “marketing” may lead developing country governments, donors and international aid agencies to “buy in” to the new approach (which usually results in funding for conducting further testing or fine-tuning the approach).

The “marketability” of a development approach depends to a significant extent on its capacity to shape the development discourse in a way the purchasing government, donor or international organization is willing or ready to appreciate at that particular time. Therefore, to be successful development approaches must be consistent with the set of values, beliefs and patterns of behaviour prevailing in the institutional culture of that particular government, donor or organization.

Based on the above principle, approaches that are created by national research centres are more likely to be “bought in to” first by national development agencies and bilateral development aid agencies. Relevant comparative advantages of domestic over foreign approaches include a greater consistency of the approach with government policy vision and thrusts, enhanced national visibility of the interventions inspired by the approach, and easier interaction between “purchasing” agency officers and “selling” academic practitioners (thanks to the common language, communication style and behaviour patterns). More broadly, national development approaches reflect national intellectual or scientific traditions and, in some cases, some fundamental values of national culture.

Once an approach is bought by a national agency or a bilateral donor, these may decide to seek to mainstream it within international agencies (such as FAO). This is usually motivated by the intention to improve the performance of the concerned agency in the light of the principles and methods that the government or the donor consider more appropriate, efficient and effective. Yet, to achieve this “noble” goal, the “weapons” of cultural politics must be used. These include presentations, publications, translation of key-materials, support to the recruitment of experts in handling the approach, financing ad-hoc programs and lobbying at the technical and political levels. Under this perspective, the promotion and mainstreaming of new development approaches can become an element in the struggle for national visibility in the development arena and, in some cases, for cultural hegemony over international organizations in which member states (and sometimes regional transnational formations) are involved.

5.1 The Guiding Principles - Overlap between Principles and Objectives

‘You always need some strong driving forces for development’

One of the main discussions that emerged from the interviews focused on the commonly shared guiding principles in development activities. It revolved around the fact that there is often a certain confusion/overlap between principles and objectives. This confusion is found at different levels in the Organization. At the formal level the overarching development goals expressed through such documents as the Strategic Framework or the World Food Summit: five years later (WFS: fyl) become both objectives and principles. Poverty alleviation is a development objective for the Organization. It is also a principle in so far as any activity undertaken within a project should be shaped and determined by the principle that it should alleviate poverty or be poverty oriented. Poverty can further be a specific entry point for a project, using such methods as vulnerability profiles to establish the aim and scope of targeted interventions.

At a more informal level the dominant guiding principles of the no-name approach are those underwritten by the FAO in terms of its development goals under the overarching categories of poverty alleviation and access to safe food and water within established time-frames. These are further articulated into the various priority areas for intervention, detailed in some of FAO’s main governing documents such as the Strategic Framework and World Food Summit:fyl. The principles of these documents are reflected in specific programme and project objectives and follow them if the focus of the organisation’s goals shift and new values are introduced or fine tuned.

There tends to be a two way flow between the Organisation’s official objectives and goals and their adoption by programmes and projects. New ideas, approaches and principles are introduced to the Organisation by some of the more cutting-edge projects which may absorb them in cross-semination with other organisations (academics, NGOs, other agencies) or by dealing with specific issues/problems in the field. If the new principle is effective, it is frequently absorbed into other projects and programmes, thus becoming part of the informal culture of the organisation. It subsequently finds official recognition and support from top management and becomes articulated in official documents. At this point, principles need to be further strengthened by being implemented by a number of programmes and projects. Thus, principles become established through a circular flow from staff informal convictions which influence the official position of the organisation and then become the accepted driving force behind projects and programmes. The most obvious examples of this cycle of new ideas and principles from the periphery to the mainstream can be seen in the context of gender awareness and participation.

The main principles of the no-name approach outlined by respondents are:

Participation,
Consultation,
Multi-level,
Empowerment,
Capacity-building and
Sustainability.

The following two principles may also be included:

Poverty orientation
Gender sensitivity

A further category of principles is made up of those principles which are desirable in theory but are problematic in practice. The main principle in this category is holism, while a minority of respondents have also included the principle of “multi-level” interventions, expressed in terms of the ability to move from one scale to another (both scaling up and scaling down)

These principles derive directly from the project objectives and are implicit to the extent that they have been accepted over the last decade and were part of the working practice of everybody we interviewed.

A set of principles are usually explicitly stated in a project’s terms of reference, as well as appearing in justifications for future projects and interventions. All services have principles incorporated somewhere in their official mission statements and they are also stated in the overall FAO strategy papers and strategic framework. They are not significantly different to those of other organisations, or to the principles stated in international development targets. These principles are far more central to the working practice of some services than others. Broadly speaking, and based upon the interviews we conducted, principles seem to be more established in those divisions focusing on the human, social, economic and policy aspects of rural development. The more technical divisions, dealing with more ‘science-oriented’ fields have, in general, tended to be less interested and ready to adopt a set of principles which effectively shift the focus from production/technical aspects to ones centred on people, their vulnerabilities and involvement in the development process.

In the course of the interviews, it became clear that the main stumbling block as regards people-centred principles lies within the difficulties of implementing them in both the current operational framework, as well as being the result of structural obstacles. The implementation of these principles in practice was one of the most frequently discussed subjects in the interviews. All interviewees found that they were often not able to put these principles into practice.

A key discussion occurred on the issue of how certain areas of the principles involve a blurring of boundaries. For example, there was widespread agreement amongst people interviewed that linkages between the local level and the national level constitute a crucial principle (in livelihoods terms, the micro-macro links). Often, the linking also becomes a crucial institutional objective in development practice. This blurring of the distinction between principles and objectives is not necessarily negative. According to some respondents, it is an indicator of the vitality and relevance of the development objective pursued that when the objective merges with the operational principle supposed to animate it, it usually means that the objective is genuinely relevant and becomes ‘alive’. The development process takes priority over the target and this often leads to better, if unexpected, results and success. Nevertheless it remains important to separate, at least conceptually, principles and objectives, from time to time, so as not to let everything be absorbed by principles. Process is crucial but, at least conceptually, it needs to be led by a target. This is particularly true within the FAO framework, where results need to be shown on paper as much as in practice. This blurring of principles and objectives can also be seen in the blurring of principles and sectors.

5.2 Finding the Right Focus in Implementing Development Projects

There are different working cultures within services that influence the extent to which principles can be realised and addressed. Much depends on how technical they are - forestry for instance, can vary widely between community forestry projects and technical quantitative projects. In general, there are some technical divisions which use purely technical ‘hard’ operating principles while others have been increasingly adopting some of the ‘soft’^[18] principles, influenced by practice in participatory, bottom-up approaches that have emerged in recent years.

One tentative finding is that projects tend to either try and follow the principles and then end up fairly participatory and community oriented, but often at the expense of a clear technical agenda, or vice versa, focus on very technical issues such as counting trees or fish stock, but with no or very limited community involvement.

Likewise, while most people are amenable to the idea of adopting a holistic approach to projects, they regard it is as de facto, not practical. Holism is very enticing as a principle but in reality it can be very difficult to put into practice within the FAO institutional framework, even with projects which can benefit from a people-oriented non-technical starting point. As was explained in an interview:

For development we need to think of a space with a flexible geometry which can alter its coverage and its levels. It’s a change in vision. But reality is much more complex than we would like. So rather than trying to have an integrated approach we should try to ‘burst’ development, so that all the stakeholders can go the way they prefer.

This is why focused management of a given sector or technical aspect is, in reality, more practical and easier to apply according to the majority of respondents. There are, nevertheless, some supporters of holistic approaches who claim that it is possible to combine holistic management (especially of natural resources) if one begins with a well-selected entry point, and limits holism to the diagnosis phase of interventions. The main constraint to holism is nevertheless constituted by the practicalities (especially in terms of time and resources) of project implementation.

Principles are well represented in project objectives - and may be represented in the project design. But they are not so well represented in the actual planning process, which tends to be consultative at the very most and not genuinely participatory.

A further source of confusion is provided by the overlap between principles and sectors, at least in people’s perceptions. This is similar to the blurring between objectives and process principles, as discussed in Section 5.1. Returning once more to the example of gender, there is an overlap between gender as an overarching principle that must be dealt with in any type of project, and gender as a target area for specific ‘sector’ interventions through projects related to women. Another meaningful example of this tendency to mix the boundaries between principle and content is that of the role of policy (especially regarding the recent trend in participatory policy). Thus, is participatory policy a better ‘way’/‘means’ of doing things or should it be an end in and of itself? Should the focus of a project be participatory policy or should participatory policy be a guiding principle to achieve a number of other objectives in the chosen field of intervention? Following a similar trend, decentralisation, which is generally considered one of the crucial development topics of the moment, becomes both a sector for targeted intervention as well as an enabling principle for other interventions. For some practitioners the boundaries are clear, but for a number of others there is often a degree of confusion between principles, sectors and targets. As already mentioned, not everyone thinks that this confusion is necessarily negative. The reality on which we are struggling to have an impact, through development projects, is a highly complex one. This is reflected in the fact that process, content and aims often merge into one. The guiding principles are ultimately validated by their being put into practice. This is where most of the energies, ideals, but also frustrations, connected to development work take place. The operationalisation of the principles, through project design first and then through application, were indicated by respondents as the real acid test. This is discussed in turn.

5.3 The Development Cycle

5.3.1. Diagnosis and Design

‘The service has changed in response to new paradigm and participatory methodologies, but more in terms of the list of things to do than the way of doing things.’

Diagnosis is mostly end-driven, with the means worked out during the course of the mission, along the shortest possible and also the most efficient route. The formal ‘on- paper’ dimension of projects is, in many ways, the most important aspect of a project. Many professionals are uncomfortable with this feature as it has been known to breed a certain cynicism and a degree of professional detachment, stemming from the ability to deliver a formally perfect project, which satisfies all of the Organization’s requirements but which does not necessarily reflect reality. During the course of the interviews, it became apparent that one of the main efforts and preoccupations in the cycle of a project or programme was that of striking a balance between what is realistically do-able, in terms of design and application, and what the Organization requires of a project, given the severe time and resources constraints.

Backstopping and training in sector-specific participation is generally considered as being an area of strength of the FAO as a whole. At the same time, however, some of the respondents noted that there was a risk of engaging too much in the training and testing of handbooks produced by the organisation, without them being sufficiently linked with operational projects. In the opinion of the respondents, this decreases the effectiveness of the methods, and provides training and capacity building in a vacuum, to groups and communities that do not have the option of linking this training to real development objectives and outputs. It is, therefore, important to maintain close links between FAO backstopping capacity and the activities feeding directly into project design and implementation.

The interviewees highlighted the fact that the working culture and politics associated with local government institutions can be a major constraint to effective project implementation. This was particularly problematic for those staff members most actively engaged in the process of analysing and designing specific project interventions. The characteristics of project design become the primary field of negotiation between the official (and private) interests of national governments and the agenda of international organisations. FAO engages both directly in this process (mainly through TCPs) as well as being a broker on behalf of other agencies, for whom it provides project design and preparation services. Thus, the final design of a project is as much about negotiation and the brokering of the interests of the most powerful players as it is about effectively reaching the future beneficiaries. In the majority of cases, the general outline and scope of a project is decided long before a proper analytical diagnostic study of the situation has been conducted. The project must usually be designed within this pre-established framework despite the increasing pressure to allow projects to evolve more from demand on the part of a broader group of local stakeholders.

Within the context outlined above, there is often a large gap between those practitioners who favour a quantitative analysis to substantiate diagnosis leading to design, and those who favour a more qualitative and more consultative process. The country’s leanings, as well as the individual and combined profiles of the project staff and their leader, can have a significant impact in determining method. The opportunities for combining qualitative and quantitative analysis and diagnosis, and the extent to which each methodology influences the design of the project, is quite heavily dependent upon the nature of the leadership process. Generational factors appear to play an important role in the choice of approach to be adopted by a group of development practitioners in tackling project design. Diagnosis is generally driven by professional background, and methodologies tend to be embedded, even when they are not explicitly used. One could say, in a very broad generalisation, that there tend to be more technically-oriented experts among older practitioners. Younger staff, even those with strongly technical backgrounds, are often more familiar with, and more in favour of, using people-centred and participatory approaches. There are, naturally, numerous exceptions to this rule amongst older generation practitioners, although, many of these individuals are seen as ‘experts’ or ‘key pioneers’ by their peers and their status is set slightly apart in the informal culture of the institution. This further emphasises the ‘generational gap’. These key figures have a positive impact on the way in which projects are designed, by way of creating a virtuous cycle. They use innovative, demand-driven frameworks for their project design which often results in a successful project outcome. These are picked-up as ‘best practices’ and their choice of approach and methods then transferred to other projects.

Younger practitioners, even those with a technical expertise, are likely to be more inclined to using and experimenting with innovative approaches which give a primary role to local communities and emphasise their participation in the decision-making process of project design. They also tend to seek more flexible and holistic projects, fostering horizontal forays into other sectors and fields. Often though, they do not carry much decision power with them, so their ability to influence the design process is limited. Their role is probably better understood in terms of a contribution to the diagnosis through livelihoods analysis, PRA exercises and other forms of stakeholder consultation.

Within FAO, the “no-name approach” makes up the core of most technical assistance and investment projects. It is used during the identification and preparation stage, when teams have to design projects without having been given specific guidance as to what approach to use or how to conceptualise the broad social aspects of the project. The focus (or entry-point) of the project is usually related to a specific technical sector (agricultural production, livestock, fisheries etc), while the know-how reflects a specific expertise (engineering, agronomy, veterinarian etc). Although there has been an increase in the inclusion of both institutional and social assessment components, these are generally regarded as ‘add-on’ parts of the project, rather than as an integral part of the project design. The no-name approach is one attempt to combine them in an overall socio-economic and institutional picture that meets poverty alleviation, participatory and empowerment objectives.

Project objectives are increasingly including the establishment of local community-based organisations, whose aim is to empower local people and enable them to take part in the development process. This is connected to the over-arching policy objective of decentralisation. Policy projects are directed towards mainstreaming the social aspects of development - with an emphasis on the human and social aspects. A typical policy objective is the capacity building of governments and institutions regarding ways of incorporating these objectives in their development practice. This relates to the ‘soft’ objectives as opposed to the ‘hard-core’ technical objectives of projects.

The ‘soft’ objectives are usually not very well defined and, unlike the technical objectives of the project, usually have no clear criteria, definitions or targets. The requirements are that they bring out the human aspects and livelihood characteristics of the project beneficiaries. They must also include different levels; have institutional, as well as social, aspects; and address the linkages between these. The objectives usually include addressing gender and environmental aspects of the project. Poverty has become the explicit objective even of technical projects. Some sections of FAO have specific guidelines for the preparation of project documents and so there tends to be a predominance of the objectives and goals within the actual document, over the ‘real-life’ project objectives and goals. The activities which make up the project identification and preparation stages comply with the requirements of how the project should be presented in the written form. The formal, institutional format of ‘how a project should be’ drives the process. This reflects the fact that, when a project is ‘identified’ or ‘prepared’, some level of funding has already been earmarked for it and, therefore, the objectives, goals and overall profile have already been specified. Identification and preparation are just the fine-tuning and filling-in of an existing format.

There are some significant regional variations in terms of the extent to which ‘soft’ objectives are adopted in project design. Some regions have a stronger and more entrenched tradition of having projects which are participatory and livelihoods oriented. This is determined usually by the existence of a strong local development community made up of a broad range of development agents, from international organisations to civil society organisations, national academic institutions and so on. Latin American countries, some African ones and other countries, such as India, have a strong national community involved in development, and this community is able to exert some influence on the operational frameworks of projects within their countries. This influence is exerted indirectly, through the creation of a favourable environment, which is more in tune with ‘soft’ approaches. This ends up rubbing-off even on the most technical projects. On the other hand, there are some countries, such as Eastern Europe, the Former Soviet Union and China, which are much less conducive to the use of ‘soft’ approaches. In these environments, there tends to be a predominance of technically oriented projects.

Whether ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ most respondents indicated that the diagnostic and design phase of projects was by no means the most challenging one. Whether using the no-name approach or a more formalised approach, designing a project was part of their ‘skills’, something they knew how to do as part of their professional profile. On the contrary, the majority of respondents indicated that the implementation in ‘real-life’ project situations remains, to date, often unsatisfactory.

5.3.2. Implementing rural development: the gap between theory and practice

‘There is a crisis of execution, we have committed ourselves to invest in development projects but there is growing awareness that things are not happening’

There is growing awareness and frustration, amongst practitioners interviewed, that development projects are not achieving the intended impact. The overwhelming impression is that most development organisations and institutions are failing not through a lack of understanding, tools and means but mostly because of structural blockages internal to those same organisations and institutions. The tools, methods and approaches available to the community of development practitioners is more than adequate to plan a potentially successful and sustainable development intervention. The potential for structural issues to have a negative impact upon poverty and people’s livelihoods should not, however, be underestimated. Major externalities such as natural calamities, epidemics and adverse long-term trends are clearly extremely significant. Nonetheless, there is an increasing feeling that the blockage lies elsewhere and is determined by a number of factors linked to the ‘way things are done’ that ultimately prevents the effective and successful implementation of development interventions. Much time was spent discussing the causes and complexities of this situation with the people interviewed. Each respondent had his or her own specific interpretation or view on the matter. A significant number of people had experienced at least one successful project. In most cases, this further reinforced their frustration with all the other projects that have ‘gone to waste’ or have had no impact.

5.3.3. The role of Monitoring and Evaluation

The informal but substantive critiques of development frameworks and modes of operationalising them are symbiotically linked with successful projects and best practices; in other words, with what ‘works’. The development interventions which have had a positive impact are of many kinds; some are formally recognised as such and crystallised in ‘success stories’, ‘case studies’ and ‘best practices’. They are codified through Monitoring & Evaluation or are otherwise formalised and may become part of the institutional learning of an organisation. Other positive impacts of development projects and activities are found in the informal ‘oral’ memory of the institution, in the informal body of knowledge and practice of staff members. All our respondents had very clear and significant examples of development projects and/or activities that ‘had worked’ as well as of ones that had ‘not worked’.

5.4 Cross-Cutting Issues

But what are, according to FAO staff, the main reasons for this lack of impact in the implementation of development interventions? We have tried to group them around some dominant themes. These can be divided into the following broad categories:

5.4.1. Politics

Politics plays a determinant role in the implementation of development projects on more than one level. Member countries from both developing and developed countries have political agendas and interests shaping their position within the Organisation. Rich countries can push their priorities using the conditionality of financial contributions and funds. Likewise, developing countries have strong control over what type of projects and programmes to allow on their national territory. All these factors determine the political agenda of development and the priority areas for intervention. Aside from single country politics, FAO has its own internal political culture, with divisions and programmes in competition against each other for scarce resources (this does not mean, however, that there is no collaboration on other levels). Some programmes become the Organization’s flagship programmes and so are ‘first priority’ areas for investment and resources. The international political scene also has a significant impact on the Organization’s priority intervention areas. Recent events, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, have resulted in a critical mass of resources being re-directed to these countries. The strategic frameworks and political decisions of the Bretton Woods Institutions also have significant bearings on the typology of project implemented in a given country. The main problem associated with the influence of such politics on development is that they are rarely explicitly acknowledged. All practitioners feel their presence and the limitations or obligatory routes they impose. It is still not possible, however, to officially recognise them as determining factors in project design, implementation and outcome.

5.4.2. Hierarchy

FAO is regarded as a very hierarchical Organization. Top management drives the process and the decisions, often without engaging in proper consultations with the lower, operational echelons of their staff. Thus, those practitioners most involved in implementing projects and in ‘working in the field’ have a negligible impact on the decision-making processes which determine the framework and priorities within which development should occur. The disciplinary and sectoral divisions within the Organisation further strengthen this pyramidal structure where much of the base has difficulties connecting amongst themselves. ‘Human resources’ is another key aspect to have merged, with the number of permanent staff members being consistently reduced in recent years. Interviewees have noted, however, that their workload has increased in concert with this downsizing. As a result, greater chunks of the workload are being carried out by junior consultants who may have little first-hand experience of development projects. This would not be so much of a problem, if they were exposed to training and field experience in the course of their work, which is, unfortunately, very seldom the case.

5.4.3. Time

Time is considered a major constraint in the process of project implementation. Time allocation for field missions is generally insufficient to carry out a satisfactory assessment as well as for establishing longer term relations with local partners. These time limitations translate into official institutional partners overwhelmingly being the only available contact entry-point. Relationships with local communities, civil society organisations and private sector partners are often sporadic and indirect. The lack of sufficient time has an adverse effect on the applicability of some major principles, such as participation and multi-level flexible approaches to development. It is difficult for FAO staff to use mainstream approaches (such as Sustainable Livelihoods, gestion de terroirs or Farming Systems) in project applications because, in order for them to be implemented properly, they require more time than is generally available. In actual project implementation, the ‘no-name approach’ becomes the best fall-back option, where individual staff members can decide which short-cuts and adaptations to make to reach the best possible alternative. The other longer-term strategy adopted, is that FAO is always less involved in direct project application, favouring back-stopping activities to its partners. As has already been mentioned, many services have pulled out of projects altogether and only produce manuals.

A further blockage was identified in the amount of time it takes for procedural matters to be carried out in FAO.

The times of the Organisation are not those that are needed in development activities. It is hard to explain to partners and beneficiaries in a country why the activities and plans that you are discussing with them will take a long time to come through.

5.4.4. Commitment

There is a direct relationship between this lack of time and timeliness, and the difficulties of maintaining a high-level commitment to people-centred development projects and processes. Commitment to partners and beneficiaries was indicated by the respondents as being a crucial factor in development work, both on an organisational level and on a personal one. Commitment was described by one respondent as an ethical issue which has become stronger with the growing practice of placing people firmly at the centre of the development process. When FAO’s work was focused more on increasing and improving agricultural production systems, commitment was the subject of formal agreements between the Organization and the government of the recipient country. Now that development is about finding innovative ways of solving problems and poverty in partnership with people and communities, a strong sense of commitment must be present at both the official and non-governmental levels. FAO must ensure that its procedural requirements do not hinder this commitment and that it finds innovative ways of staying involved.

5.4.5. Voice

The issue of improving communication flows and giving local people a voice was widely discussed in the course of interviews. As one respondent pointed out, in some cases, it is not even a question of giving local people a voice but of actually hearing and listening to the voice that they already have. If their voice does not fit with our ‘development language’ it is up to us to change our hearing, not up to them to change their voice. People interviewed told us about their efforts to ensure that the voices of partners and beneficiaries be given more space within the institution. A number of projects within FAO are seeking to improve the mechanisms for the intermediation between local priorities and national and international policies and interest. Voices from the micro-projects and the field need to be carried all the way to the normative and macro levels. Voices from different regions, with their cultural and local specificities must also be encouraged more. FAO projects must ensure that there are adequate local representation mechanisms and that these be given legitimacy. The issue of local voices is considered crucial to project implementation, because it is an indication that the objectives and activities are not just being imposed by the development agency but are actually shared by all stakeholders. FAO can work with civil society and private sector organisations - so long as they are acceptable to governments - ensuring that the voice of such partners is adequately taken into consideration along the project cycle, but this requires continuous attention.

5.4.6. Risk-taking

This discussion of risk-taking is closely connected to the ideas concerning hierarchy, as discussed above. The Organization is often considered as being averse to taking risks in terms of allowing and promoting forays into innovative programme and project activities. The main reason identified, is that the existing hierarchy is loath to let go of its control over development processes. It is very difficult for local partners to gain significant control over project management aspects. They may be the ones implementing it and running it from day to day, but the ultimate decision making and financial control always takes place within the organisation. Delegating or giving away this type of control is considered too risky. The argument used is that ultimately FAO is accountable for results and has to report to donors and member states. Another advantage of minimising risks is that FAO has managed to maintain its role of ‘honest broker’ between governments and some International Financial Institutions. However, many practitioners find this risk aversion to be a great limitation to effective project implementation. ‘It is as though we were saying to our partners: we ask you to be responsible for this project and develop ownership but only to where we say stop. From here on we don’t trust you anymore. This is not to say that we should pull ourselves out altogether. We still need to work in partnership and often we are better placed to provide back-stopping and capacity but we have little leeway for extending trust and responsibility.’ It often reduces the possibility of implementing innovative ideas within projects. The risk is considered too big and there is usually a preference for sticking with what has already been tried out.

5.4.7. Ambiguities between organisational principles and practical realities - Driving forces

The section below is not intended to be a systematic or exhaustive discussion of the priorities and driving-forces, but rather it should provide some insights into aspects of development approaches which seemed to be of particular interest. It relates to some of the ambiguities between principles and practice that various interviewees indicated as being particularly relevant to their work.

The first point concerns the issue of both primary and second generation human rights. As far as primary human rights are concerned, there is a large gap between acknowledged human rights in principles and general empowerment objectives and the reality. In practice, human rights are acknowledged, but projects often take place in areas where there are massive infringements of human rights, with no explicit addressing of these rights issues. It is as though rural development, due to its specific focus, can simply remove itself from the human rights sphere. The strategy is to address human rights in broad terms in the general aims of a programme or project and to work around them in field situations. As FAO is not allowed to make judgements on country positions on rights, this leaves practitioners and staff in the field without clear guidelines on the matter and with no real choice other than to try to avoid involvement in these issues.

Second generation rights, especially those concerning access to natural resources, enter more forcefully into the sphere of rural development. One issue of major concern is connected to water and the debate as to whether water should be considered a human right or a human need. The issue is crucial as it has a direct impact on whether and how water should be subjected to charges and commercial measures. While other organisations, such as the World Bank, have blanket policies with strong political impact on these issues, FAO tends to follow along without explicitly addressing them or giving directives.

The concept of sustainability was discussed in depth in terms of its fall out on practice. In general, sustainability is considered to be a fundamental guiding principle but somehow it is hard to pin-point its applicability. The only area where the concept of sustainability is translated into a practical dimension is in the field of environment where there are some measures and criteria that can be applied. Even then, environmental sustainability is extremely hard to put in practice as it is a fairly abstract concept for local communities, thus creating what one respondent described as the ‘environmental loop’. In another area of rural development, it is harder to clearly define the criteria for sustainability. Some issues are connected to the discussion on rights in the previous paragraph, for example, the World Bank is introducing water charges world-wide, using the argument of sustainability. If farmers have to pay for water, the water sector will become sustainable. Is this correct? And should FAO not engage itself more in the discussion of the implication and potential ways of ‘applying’ sustainability in practice, even if this discussion is only an internal one?

5.5 Overcoming Common Fault Lines

The elements identified as being the root of either the success or failure to use different people-centred and livelihood-type approaches in development interventions can be grouped in a number of broad categories:

The guiding principles which frame the boundaries and determine the main track of development interventions

The applied modus operandi which is made up of a combination of the institutional culture of the organisation and of the ‘development customs’ of the recipient implementation site

The specific cultural, linguistic and regional context of the project/intervention site as well as of the implementing partner

The role of the leadership and skills present in the human resources animating the process

The structural or exogenous issues which may heavily influence the outcome of a development intervention

The above categories should be considered as loosely defined and as a preliminary attempt to sort out the levels and nature of the inhibiting and enhancing factors of development planning and activities. The interviews held with FAO staff, consultants and other development practitioners led us to these broad categories. The consistent thread that ran through all the interviews was the dedication to making development work better as well as an overarching ‘common sense’ about what was doable and realistic within certain institutional and cultural frameworks. The issues, factors and narratives that emerged all shared a body of common baseline attitudes and practice, which led us to recognise that there was such a thing as a ‘no-name approach’ and that this was, in its main characteristics and principles, shared by the majority of staff within FAO. The no-name approach is a mainstream collection of best principles, practices and a means of achieving a balance between formal requirements and informal ‘ways things are done’ within the institution. On the whole, it is more comprehensive and flexible than the more formally-defined approaches to development that have been discussed in this study. It is derived from experience and thus it reflects more how practitioners ‘do’ development than how they think about it.