This study aims to capture the challenges and tensions that arise in donor funded curriculum projects in Lesotho. Through an interpretive case study research design I investigated these challenges and tensions in two projects relevant to Education for Sustainable Development, namely the Lesotho Environmental Support Project (LEESP) and the Population/Family Education (POP/FLE) projects which are donor funded curriculum projects funded by DANIDA and UNFPA respectively. A review of donor funded curriculum projects in the field of environmental education/Education for Sustainable Development was undertaken to provide background and a theoretical context for the study. It highlighted different challenges and implementation tensions experienced by other similar projects in other countries. At the heart of such projects lies a particular political economy, which is based on development assistance to poor countries. Such development assistance is constructed around concepts of need, participation and innovation, and donor-recipient relationships. It is structured around a system of governance and management that normally uses logical framework planning as its main methodology. This political economy has shaped the two donor funded projects that were considered in this study, and has shaped many of the tensions and challenges identified in the study. To investigate the two projects, data for this study was generated through in-depth interviews, document analysis and focus group interviews, with people who had been involved with the projects at the national level. The data generation process did not involve the schools where the projects were ultimately implemented, as it was seeking to identify how local institutions such as the National Curriculum Development Centre could support better synergies between donor funded initiatives and the local context. The findings of the study revealed the ambivalent nature of donor initiatives, and identified that the political economy and donor-recipient relations influence the projects. Aspects such as the design and management of projects, the processes associated with introducing innovation in educational ideas and paradigms, pedagogical issues, and staff contributions and ownership were identified as some of the key tensions that existed in the projects. Other factors such as poor capacity levels of local staff, non-alignment with existing structures, inadequate sustainability mechanisms and the difficulty of the envisaged integration of new paradigm thinking (methods and approaches) into the existing curriculum framework were also significant tensions, given the positivist history of the Lesotho curriculum. The study recommends the need to establish mechanisms for working with donors to tackle the tensions that arise in such projects within longer-term donor assistance. It proposes that government should expedite the development of policy on donor coordination. Both donors and the NCDC need to put mechanisms in place to allow for debate and discussions on innovations brought in by the donors in relation to local needs. The study further recommends that in cases where more than one donor exists, the NCDC and the donors should work towards developing synergies between the different initiatives to avoid duplication and overlap. Finally, there is a need for projects to use bottom-up approaches for the design and formulation of projects to ensure ownership.

This study investigated rural livelihoods in two contrasting environments in the upper and lower reaches of the Gariep River: Sehlabathebe in the Lesotho highlands, and the Richtersveld in the Northern Cape, and how these have changed over time. Livelihoods were examined using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework in conjunction with the household development cycle. This study therefore adopted a multi-scale approach, where a micro-level household analysis was framed within the macro level social, political, environmental, economic and institutional context, while taking into account the role of temporal scale of livelihood change. A multi-scale approach facilitated the identification of the major drivers of change, both exogenous and endogenous. The combination of livelihood strategies pursued differed between the two sites. Households in Sehlabathebe are reliant mainly on arable and garden cultivation, livestock in some households, occasional remittances, use of wild resources, petty trading and reliance on donations. Households in the Richtersveld relied primarily on livestock, wage labour, use of wild resources and State grants or pensions. The livelihood strategies pursued in each site have not changed markedly over time, but rather the relative importance of those strategies was found to have changed. The assets available to households, the livelihood strategies adopted and the changes in these livelihood strategies are influenced by a households stage in the development cycle and differing macro-level factors. Drivers of change operate at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and are often complex and interrelated. The major drivers of livelihood change were identified as macro-economic, demographic, institutional and social and climatic. This study highlights the importance of using historical analysis in the study of livelihoods, as well as the complexity and diversity of rural livelihoods. Ecosystem goods and services were found to play a fundamental role in rural livelihoods and are influenced by institutional factors. Rural households are heavily reliant on the formal economy, and macro-economic changes have had a significant impact on livelihoods. This is highlighted by how the drastic decline in migrant labour opportunities for households in Sehlabathebe has negatively affected them. Vulnerability was shown to be a result of external shocks and trends, such as institutional transformation, a decline in employment opportunities, theft and climatic variation; and differed between the two sites. The role of institutional breakdown was shown to be a major factor influencing rural livelihoods, and this is related to broader economic and political changes. This study contributes to the growing literature on rural livelihoods by allowing for an appreciation of how differing environments and contextual factors influence livelihood strategies adopted, and which different factors are driving change.