The failure of ‘blueprint’ development interventions to deliver substantive improvements in poverty reduction has been well recognised over the last twenty years. Process approaches seek to overcome the rigidity and top-down operation of much aid-funded intervention. Sustainable livelihoods approaches (SLA) are one of the latest additions to this family of approaches. As a theoretical framework and as a set of principles for guiding intervention, sustainable livelihoods thinking has implications for development management. Drawing on research exploring the application of sustainable livelihoods principles in ten development interventions, this paper considers how these principles have evolved from continuing debates surrounding process and people-centred (bottom-up) approaches to development management. This research suggests that whilst these principles can improve the impact made by interventions, the effective application of sustainable livelihoods and other process approaches are fundamentally restricted by unbalanced power relationships between development partners. / BCID Working Papers: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bcid/research/papers/BCID_Research_Papers.php

Yes / The failure of `blueprint¿ development interventions to deliver substantive improvements in poverty reduction has been well recognised over the last twenty years. Process approaches seek to overcome the rigidity and top-down operation of much aid-funded intervention. Sustainable livelihoods approaches (SLA) are one of the latest additions to this family of approaches. As a theoretical framework and as a set of principles for guiding intervention, sustainable livelihoods thinking has implications for development management. Drawing on research exploring the application of sustainable livelihoods principles in ten development interventions, this paper considers how these principles have evolved from continuing debates surrounding process and people-centred (bottom-up) approaches to development management. This research suggests that whilst these principles can improve the impact made by interventions, the effective application of sustainable livelihoods and other process approaches are fundamentally restricted by unbalanced power relationships between development partners.

Yes / This briefing paper reports on research exploring ten detailed case studies of livelihoods-oriented interventions operating in Tanzania, South Africa, Uganda and Lesotho. As a proxy for best practice, these interventions were analysed through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿. This revealed general lessons about both the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development.

yes / This briefing paper reports on research exploring ten detailed case studies of livelihoods-oriented interventions operating in Tanzania, South Africa, Uganda and Lesotho. As a proxy for best practice, these interventions were analysed through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿. This revealed general lessons about both the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development.

Yes / This briefing paper compares two approaches to community-based planning in Tanzania, South Africa and Uganda. Analysing these interventions through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿ (as a proxy for best practice) reveals general lessons about both the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development

Yes / This paper is one in a series of working papers prepared under a research project on Goodbye to Projects? The Institutional Impacts of a Livelihood Approach on Projects and Project Cycle Management. This is a collaborative project between the Bradford Centre for International Centre for Development (BCID) with the Economic and Policy Research Centre (EPRC), Uganda; Khanya ¿ managing rural change, South Africa; and, the Institute for Development Management (IDM), Tanzania. The project is supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under their Economic and Social Research Programme (ESCOR). / Department for International Development

Yes / This briefing paper reports on research exploring four detailed case studies of rural livelihoods interventions operating in Tanzania, South Africa and Uganda. Analysing these interventions through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿ (as a proxy for best practice) reveals general lessons about both the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions. / Department for International Development

Yes / This briefing paper reports on research exploring detailed case studies of HIV/AIDS livelihoods-oriented interventions operating in Uganda, Lesotho and South Africa. The interventions were analysed through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿. This revealed general lessons both about the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development

SummaryToday one of the world’s biggest challenges remains the precarious livelihood situation of millions of smallholder farmers. Grounded in new types of traditionally-based technologies and locally available natural and social resources, agroecology seems to be a promising livelihood strategy, above all for African smallholder farmers, many of whom cannot afford expensive technologies and inputs. In fragile environments where entire families depend on small-scale agriculture, as in Eastern Burkina Faso, it is of utmost importance to understand whether agroecology can really improve livelihood outcomes and under what conditions. The present study explores the process of agroecological transitions in a developing cooperation context so as to understand how and why adoptions and adaptations of agroecologically-based development programs impact on farmers’ livelihoods. To encompass the complexity of agroecology in a development intervention context, the study is built on a triple interdisciplinary conceptual framework that combines the sustainable livelihoods approach, the agronomy-based comparative agriculture approach and the development anthropology-based ECRIS approach (Rapid Collective Inquiry for the Identification of Conflicts and Strategic Groups). Thriving from extensive qualitative field research in Gnagna Province, including semi-guided interviews with ninety smallholder farmers and eighteen key personalities as well as participant observation, the research shows the gap between agroecology’s potential in theory and its actual impacts on various farmers’ livelihoods when deployed in a development cooperation context.The study shows that development organisations choose among the manifold interpretations of agroecology and often ignore its transdisciplinary, participatory, bottom-up and action-orientated attributes. Nonetheless, results suggest that the promotion of agroecology-based farming techniques by the local NGO ARFA (“Association pour la Formation et la Recherche en Agro-écologie”) makes sense in the given context of environmental degradation and relatively weak livelihood asset bases of most farmers in the region and that the adoption of these techniques has a positive overall impact on farmers’ livelihoods. A deeper understanding, however, reveals precisely how farmers with the weakest livelihood asset base – manually-tilling, livestock-deprived, labour- and time-constrained, illiterate, and with the poorest household situation in terms of shelter, possession of everyday objects, diet quantity and quality, as well as with the lowest social status and influence – in the end benefit least from ARFA’s programs. Already better-off farmers typically become leader members of ARFA’s farmer groups, that are used as a medium to transfer the promoted agroecological techniques. These techniques are based on indigenous or traditional knowledge gleaned from farmers elsewhere, which means that farmers “targeted” by the program must acquire new knowledge, know-how, as well as equipment and inputs. The study shows that ARFA uses the farmer groups as seemingly neutral diffusion organs, failing to consider structural factors of a social, power and relational nature within the groups. Internal power structures, however, decide which group members have access to the best knowledge input via participation in farmer field schools, as well as access to equipment distributed via the groups. The benefits of belonging to new organisational structures more equally affect all group members, especially in the form of enhanced organisational capacities and new communication and social skills, yet the imbalance between better-off and worse-off farmers remains in force.By adopting a more aggregate perspective the study further demonstrates a new dependency of farmers created by agroecological development programs, that can be interpreted as conflicting with agroecology’s call for farmer autonomy. Furthermore, the feasibility of scaling-up agroecology within the existing transforming structures and processes at different levels is restricted. The results indicate the limitations of the idea of propagating agroecology in developing countries without simultaneously working towards a different global food system. / RésuméAujourd’hui, l’un des plus grands défis du monde est la situation précaire de dizaines de millions de petits agriculteurs. Fondée sur de nouveaux types de technologies traditionnelles et sur des ressources naturelles et sociales disponibles localement, l'agroécologie semble être une stratégie d’existence prometteuse, surtout pour les petits agriculteurs africains, dont beaucoup ne peuvent pas accéder à des techniques et à des intrants coûteux. Dans les environnements fragiles où des familles entières dépendent de l'agriculture à petite échelle, comme dans l'est du Burkina Faso, il est très important de comprendre si l'agroécologie peut réellement améliorer les moyens d’existence des ménages agricoles et dans quelles conditions. La présente thèse explore le processus de transition agroécologique dans un contexte de coopération au développement, afin de comprendre comment et pourquoi les adoptions et les adaptations d’innovations basées sur l’agroécologie ont un impact sur les moyens de subsistance des agriculteurs. Afin d’appréhender la complexité de l’agroécologie dans un contexte d’interventions de développement, l’étude est fondée sur un triple cadre conceptuel interdisciplinaire qui combine l'approche des moyens d'existence durables, l'approche agronomique de l’Agriculture Comparée et l’approche ECRIS (Enquête Collective Rapide d’Identification des Conflits et des Groupes Stratégiques) issue de l'anthropologie du développement. S'appuyant sur des recherches de terrain qualitatives approfondies dans la province de la Gnagna, incluant des entretiens semi-directifs avec quatre-vingt-dix agriculteurs et dix-huit acteurs-clés ainsi que de l’observation participante, la recherche montre l'écart entre le potentiel théorique de l'agroécologie et ses impacts réels sur les moyens de subsistance de diverses catégories d’agriculteurs.La thèse montre que les organisations de développement choisissent parmi les nombreuses interprétations de l'agroécologie, et ignorent souvent ses attributs de transdisciplinarité, de participation, de démarche ascendante et d’orientation vers l'action. Néanmoins, les résultats suggèrent que la promotion par l'ONG locale ARFA (Association pour la Recherche et la Formation en Agro-écologie) de techniques agricoles basées sur l'agroécologie a du sens dans le contexte régional de dégradation de l'environnement, et de moyens d’existence relativement faibles, de la plupart des agriculteurs :de manière générale, l'adoption de ces techniques a un impact positif sur les moyens d’existence des agriculteurs. Une analyse plus approfondie révèle toutefois comment les agriculteurs disposant des moyens d’existence les plus faibles – labour manuel, pas d’animaux, peu de force de travail, illettrés et vivant dans les ménages les plus démunis en termes d’habitation, de possession d’objets de consommation courante, de régime alimentaire en quantité et en qualité, ayant aussi un statut social bas et une faible influence – bénéficient le moins des programmes d’ARFA en fin de compte. Les agriculteurs un peu plus aisés constituent les membres principaux des groupements d’agriculteurs d’ARFA, qui servent de moyen pour diffuser les techniques agroécologiques promues. Ces techniques sont basées sur des connaissances traditionnelles d’agriculteurs d’autres régions ou pays, ce qui signifie que les agriculteurs « ciblés » par les programmes doivent acquérir de nouvelles connaissances, ainsi que du matériel et des intrants. L'étude montre qu’ARFA utilise les groupements d'agriculteurs comme des organes de diffusion apparemment neutres, sans prendre en compte les hiérarchies sociales et les relations de pouvoir structurelles au sein des groupements. Pourtant, les structures de pouvoir internes aux groupements décident quels membres ont accès au meilleur apport de connaissances par le biais de la participation à des champs écoles paysans, ainsi qu’au matériel distribué via les groupements. Les avantages liés à l’appartenance à de nouvelles structures organisationnelles - notamment sous la forme de capacités d’organisation renforcées, de nouvelles compétences sociales et en matière de communication - sont plus équitablement répartis. Mais, le déséquilibre entre les agriculteurs un peu plus aisés et les moins nantis demeure.En adoptant une perspective plus globale, l’étude démontre une nouvelle dépendance des agriculteurs induite par les programmes de développement agroécologique. Cette dépendance peut être considérée comme allant à l’encontre de l’appel de l’agroécologie à l’autonomie des agriculteurs. En outre, le passage de l’agroécologie à une échelle supérieure est réduit. Les résultats indiquent les limites de l'idée de propager de l'agroécologie dans les pays en développement sans une transition simultanée vers un système alimentaire mondial différent. / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Outcomes Based Education (OBE), has been, since its inception, fraught with problems. OBE in its very nature is complex. To fully embrace this method and ensure its success, schools must be able to make the necessary paradigm shift. This can only be achieved when schools receive relevant and empowering training, support and development. In other words, organisational development must be the key words. The aim of this study is to explore the impact of organisational development interventions on the implementation of OBE. The case study method was employed where it was realised that schools that received organisational development interventions, together with Outcomes Based Education, were able to implement this method with greater understanding, skill, and confidence. The investigation recommends an organisational development design that could be used instead of the cascade model, and provides suggestions on what can be done to ensure a more successful implementation process. / Educational Studies / M. Ed (Education Management)