how do we redesign projects?

Forum participants emphasized that agencies did not need to wait for new projects or programmes in order to begin using SL approaches; there is much to be gained by applying SL principles to ongoing projects.

IF SL APPROACHES HAD BEEN ADOPTED AT FORMULATION, WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT HAVE MADE?

There was broad consensus in the Mali, Ethiopia, Mongolia and Bolivia working groups that the projects would have benefited had SL approaches been adopted from the outset. In the Ethiopian case study, SL approaches might have led project planners to reconsider the project's basic assumption that land degradation was the main cause of food insecurity. The understanding gained might have resulted in a very different project.

ETHIOPIA CASE STUDY GROUP

Reviewing the Ethiopian project with an SL lens led participants to:

question the project's basic assumption that land degradation was the main cause of food insecurity;

consider re-diagnosis with external facilitation. This would have resulted in the process being owned by the different stakeholders: government, staff, project staff, development committees, partner agencies and community members.

Expected outputs of the re-diagnosis are:

knowledge of the main causes of food insecurity for different livelihood typologies at different levels;

greater understanding of the influence of policies, markets, tenure rights, population pressure, land degradation, etc., on food insecurity;

greater understanding of the priorities/linkages between these causes;

identification of more appropriate entry points and a better idea of sequencing;

an appreciation of WFP's comparative advantage and those of partner institutions.

In the case of the Mali project, holistic diagnosis would have drawn out the community's development priorities. This would have avoided inappropriate entry points, provided the project with a greater poverty focus and encouraged greater ownership of the project among the community. However, broadening the scope of the project would also have increased the risk of implementing agencies finding themselves unable to cope with such a complex project.

TABLE 4
Benefits and risks of SL diagnosis and design - Mali case study group
BENEFITS	RISKS
There is a better focus on beneficiary priorities Entry points and levels are more appropriate There is increased flexibility in programme activities Programmes are more poverty-oriented Stakeholders are more accountable Stakeholders have an increased sense of ownership	Project becomes too complex and unmanageable Quality drops if project tries to incorporate too much too soon There are time lags and impatience for results Overdesign reduces flexibility Unrealistic expectations are raised Those who fear change react negatively Lack of implementation capacity and follow-up

The Mongolia case study group concluded that, although a conventional project design would have been quicker, cheaper, easier and more acceptable to the Government and funding agencies, its disadvantages would have outweighed its potential advantages. The SL design would have been slower, more costly and riskier, but it would have resulted in a more flexible and focused project of greater relevance to the livelihood systems of herders with poor or average incomes.

TABLE 5
A comparison of conventional and SL project designs - Mongolia case study group
ADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL DESIGNS	DISADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL DESIGNS
Quicker; cheaper; more predictable Easier for donors and governments to implement Less risk of failure Easier to gain approval and budget More acceptable to recipient governments since they can be designed by conventional livestock experts	More rigid Less likely to be sustainable Focus too early on sector Interventions may be less appropriate Less encouraging of partnerships Supply-driven Less informed decision-making Less chance of reaching the poor Do not address livelihood shock survival Less easy to establish micro-macro links Identify needs - not opportunities Good development practice not necessarily institutionalized Do not link types of capital Do not induce capacity-building
ADVANTAGES OF SL APPROACHES
Produce process projects able to respond to needs of the poor Possibly more sustainable Longer project life possible Institutionalize risk management Interventions are community-led Encourage partnerships Demand-driven and -negotiated Involve more informed decision-making Greater chance of reaching the poor Cater for shock survival measures Easier to introduce macro-micro links Identify opportunities Institutionalize good development practice Link different types of capital Require capacity-building
	DISADVANTAGES OF SL APPROACHES
	Slower More expensive Less predictable Less easy for donors and governments May be at greater risk of failure Not so easy to get approved or to budget May be less acceptable to recipient government

IF SL APPROACHES HAD BEEN ADOPTED AT IMPLEMENTATION, WHAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED?

The Mali case study group concluded that a redesign along SL principles would have redirected the aim of the project towards reducing the vulnerability of farmers to drought-induced crop failure. Greater awareness of the socio-economic make-up of the community would have increased the chances of reaching women and the poor. The feedback that farmers would have been able to give to management would have accelerated the joint learning and adaptation process. Had the need for an exit strategy been considered from the start, planners would have given higher priority to building sustainable village organizations that could have functioned independently once the project had ended.

TABLE 6
Can SL approaches add value to design? - Mali case study group
OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDESIGN	OBSTACLES FOR REDESIGN
Participatory methods enable the project to obtain people's input A monitoring-and-evaluation system informs management and planning, which in turn focus more on capacities, behaviour and institutions Analysis of gender relations and intrahousehold dynamics overcomes neglect of women and youth The vulnerability context - particularly risk can be assessed and addressed Participatory technology development can increase options Other economic activities - non-farm, agroforestry, migration, processing, storage, marketing - can be included Higher-level policies and organizations can be addressed Appraisals of soil-fertility management and land tenure issues can be conducted Procurement mechanisms can be modified to improve timeliness and involve people decision-making People's responses and adjustments to (many) shocks can be evaluated in order to better understand adaptive and coping strategies Feedback mechanisms can be introduced (e.g. workshops) designed to improve responsiveness of project management to people's preferences and changing circumstances Small management unit with more organizational partnerships and the flexibility to contract outsiders Most management functions can be devolved to village associations and groups, and co-management increased	Limited capacity of managers and service providers - would require substantial training at start-up Personal and institutional inflexibility - programme manager, credit agency, public administrators History of debt-forgiving and handouts creating a dependent/passive recipient culture and poor loan repayment discipline Other donors with different - sometimes destructive - approaches operating in same area, e.g. offering "gifts" or other incentives Overcoming dominant role of village leaders and elite Inflexible procurement procedures Weak use of information - capacity and will to use People and institutional commitments already made and obligation to follow through SL does not yet have a track record of success and simple guidelines to promote the idea Fatigue of farmers and managers with redesign and development paradigm shifts among donors Difficulty of overcoming managers' and support staff's bias in favour of their own sector-specific interests