1. The service involved in this line of action is AGSP (J.C. DE GRANDI: Mali, Morocco), but other services also call for use of the production systems approach.
2. This experience permitted FAO, for example, to launch in 1993 a special action program for the development of sustainable, family farming systems (PAS/SPFD) aimed at contributing to the rapid development and consolidation of new rural development concepts and practices. See Juan Carlos DE GRANDI’s contribution in this respect in VI5.
3. TCAS is the service involved in this line of action. Mrs Maria Grazia QUIETI and M. MAETZ have provided very interesting information about this aspect of FAO’s work.
4. One interesting experiment in decentralized planning and training of agents has been conducted jointly by FAO and APROSAC (Agricultural Projects Service Centre) in Nepal as part of a training program for the study of agricultural and rural development projects (FAO/NEP/035/SWI). This process is presented in IV4.
5. See the presentation of the RED-IFO model in a later section of the report.
6. Numerous services have been involved in this type of direct institutional support, principally ESP, ESHA then SDAR (M. NADIR, L. MONTESI, J. BONNAL in Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Togo, Guinea, Cambodia, etc...) or in interventions indirectly related to these processes.
7. See, for example, the rural development institutions’ restructuring experiment in Benin, as part of the CARDERs’ assessment project TCP/BRN/6755 and formulation of project BEN/87/024, financed by UNDP and executed by FAO. This experiment is presented in document IV6.
8. See, in particular, IV7, IV8 and IV9 and, in the specific case of agronomic research, I6.
9. The services involved in this line of action are TCIL (P. LUCANI: West Africa and L. SONN: north-east Brazil), TCIR (J. STREBELLE: Burkina Faso), TCII (J.M. CABALLERO: Mexico, Guatemala and Venezuela). Projects of this type have been conducted in Burkina Faso, Mali and Togo. The most extensive experience is that of Burkina Faso where progress has extended to the establishment of Decision-making For, in which rural populations can speak out on investment to be carried out at local level (see II2). II4 can also be consulted, since it reports on a certain number of VLM experiments in the Sahel, seen from the point of view of the methods and tools utilised in their execution. It should be noted that a recent variant of this approach in Latin America is the promotion of projects aimed at developing productive activities. For a long time FAO and the World Bank have been conducting experiments of this type in North-east Brazil under the rural development program and the new program to combat poverty in this region of Brazil.
10. See Philip ARDOUIN-DUMAZET’s contribution in VI5.
11. Regarding co-ordination and consultations, see II3, which presents lessons from the Burkina Faso government’s project concerning consultations and co-ordination in the land management projects, a project financed by UNDP and executed by FAO. In its preparatory stage, the project’s aim was to define real needs for, necessary and operational conditions for consultations and co-ordination regarding land management.
12. See V6 on the experiment in north-east Brazil and V4 on the proposed project for Mexico.
13. The services involved in this line of action are SDRE (J. JALLADE: Zaire, Mauritania) with respect to extension work and SDRR (G. BEYE: Congo, Cote d’Ivoire) regarding the agronomic research plank.
14. The projects on which the following studies are based are project MAU/88/002 UNDP/FAO in the case of Mauritania (I2 and I3), and projects UNDP/FAO/ZAI/96/002 and UNDP/FAO/ZAI/88/006 in that of Zaire (I4 and I5).
15. See I3 for a description of the way this system operates in close intervention zones and diffuse intervention zones, as well as for an introduction to the different extension tools and their role in training.
16. See also I4 and I5 which describe the main features of the extension system in Zaire.
17. The services involved in this line of action are SDAR (J. ROUSE: Zambia, Sri Lanka; M. NADIR: Haiti, Togo; L. MONTESI: Benin, Cote d’Ivoire; J. BONNAL: Burkina Faso, Guinea, Morocco and Tunisia), TCDN (N. MCKEON: Senegal) and FONP (K. ANDERSSON: Central America).
18. There is a vast documentation on these questions. It would be interesting to consult V3, VI1, VI3, VII5, VI2, VII6 and VII11 regarding the sub-topic building rural organisations; VII1, VII7, VII8 and VII9 on that of relations among the development agents, and VII2, VII3, VII4, VII10, VII12 and VII13 on that of peasant organisation.
19. The most interesting experiences are: i) Zambia and Sri Lanka, regarding PPPs (SDAR), ii) Senegal, for work with NGOs (TCDN), iii) Central America concerning the structuring of representative organisations and reinforcement of capacity for dialog between the State and rural communities both in terms of conflict solution and taking account of gender in the framework of projects for the local management of forestry resources (FONP).
20. See VII5 for an introduction to and assessment of PPPs on the 10th anniversary of these programs.
21. See VII5 for a more detailed discussion of technical aspects of the PPPs.
22. See VII6, which discusses a PPP project geared to the poorest in country areas, and with particular emphasis on women and the way they organised to carry out income-generating activities. See also VII11 on the role of women in forestry projects, in the framework of “Forestry for Local Community Development”, a special FAO program, launched in 1977.
23. The following analysis is based on VII8 which discusses the possibilities for co-operation between FAO and NGOs provided by a collaborative initiative among several NGOs, the Senegalese government, the donor community and FAO, which acted as catalyst and provided technical support.
24. For the historical background to co-operation with NGOs see VII9.
25. For the contents of this action plan, see VII4.
26. See VII10, VII12 and VII13.
27. The services involved in this line of action are: TCAR (A. PEREZ: Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Mexico); SDAR (T. LINDEMANN: Bolivia and Argentina and J. BONNAL: Sahel and the Mediterranean).
28. See III1 and III2.
29. For a description of project FAO/UNDP/BOL/91/010 see VIII9.
30. The scheme covers seven Mediterranean countries: Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. See VIII2.
31. Workshop in Praia (Cape Verde), May 1996.
32. FAO, Participation populaire au developpement rural: le plan d’action de la FAO, Rome, 1992, p..3.
33. FAO, Issues in rural poverty, employment and food security, World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, 6-12 March 1995, p. 1.
