• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»The impact of Area-Based Programming

The impact of Area-Based Programming

Helpdesk Report
  • Erika Fraser
October 2011

Question

What is the evidence to support the theory that area based programming will achieve greater impact in an environment such as DRC as opposed to sectoral/issue based approaches?

Summary

Area-Based Development (ABD) approaches use the geographic ‘area’ as the main entry point for intervention, rather than a sector or target group. Area-based programming is widely used in conflict-affected parts of Europe, the Middle East, South and Central Asia. ABD has been less commonly used in Africa, and where it has been applied, the programmes tend not to be as comprehensive and ambitious. Examples of impact from ABD programmes provided in the report include:

  • Area Based Early Recovery (ABER), South Central Somalia
  • PRODERE Area Development and Peacebuilding in Central America
  • ELS/ABD programme, Uzbekistan
  • Local Area Development Programme (LADP), Iraq
  • Sida-Amhara Rural Development Programme (SARDP), Ethiopia
  • Decentralisation, Local Governance and Rural Development, UNDP Assistance in Ukraine
  • National Area-Based Development Programme (NABDP), Afghanistan
  • Batken Area-Based Development Programme, Kyrgyzstan

The report also looks at how different programmes have been clustered together to promote real synergies and finds the main types of ABD interventions are:

  • Economic recovery and diversification;
  • Conflict resolution;
  • Infrastructure;
  • Basic services, such as education, healthcare, and WASH;
  • Agriculture and natural resources management;
  • Development of the energy sector (particularly rural renewable energy); and
  • Local governance mechanisms.

Several programmes also incorporate cross-cutting issues into their strategies, for example: gender; HIV/AIDS; environmental protection; and early warning systems.

Evaluations of ABD programmes implemented by international organizations suggest that they are often very effective in responding to complex conflict characteristics on sub-national levels across the world, although they are not without their limitations. With regard to the application of sector wide approaches (SWAps) in post-conflict contexts, there is ‘a notable paucity’ of studies, although there is recent evidence from DRC, Timor Leste, and Sierra Leone that health SWAps in fragile states are frequently challenged by the existence of diverse aid modalities, weak government leadership and capacity, and unpredictable donor policy and behaviour. No comparative studies of ABD vs. sectoral/issue based approaches were found during this query.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID DR Congo

Related Content

Engaging new governments on development priorities
Helpdesk Report
2019
Doing research in fragile contexts
Literature Review
2019
Social Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States
Helpdesk Report
2019
Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states
Helpdesk Report
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by FCDO are © FCDO Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more