part2 Participatory Processes

Transcription

1 part part2 Participatory Processes

2 Participatory Learig Approaches Whose Learig? Participatory learig is based o the priciple of ope expressio where all sectios of the commuity ad exteral stakeholders ejoy equal access to the iformatio geerated as a result of a joit sharig process. The iformatio geerated i the process would ot oly be of use to the secodary stakeholders but would also to members of the commuity. What is Participatio? The word participatio ofte has differet cootatios for differet people i differet cotexts. Defiitios of participatio have also chaged over time. It is therefore useful to differetiate betwee differet levels of participatio each describig varyig levels of ivolvemet of the commuity, ragig from material cotributio, to orgaisatio, to empowermet. Participatio has bee categorised by Pretty, Satterthwaite, Ada, et al ad Hart 1 ito seve stages. (See typology overleaf.) 1 Iteratioal Istitute for Eviromet ad Developmet Participatory Learig ad Actio, A Traier s Guide. IIED, Lodo, Uited Kigdom. Participatory Learig Approaches 51

3 Catalysig chage A eighth level of participatio may be added to this typology, vis. the ivolvemet ad stakes of commuity members i ifluecig others i the eviromet to iitiate chage. Self-mobilisatio People participate by takig iitiatives to chage systems idepedet of exteral istitutios. They develop cotacts with exteral istitutios for resources ad techical advice they eed, but retai cotrol over how resources are used. Such selfiitiated mobilisatio ad collective actio may or may ot challege existig iequitable distributios of wealth ad power. Iteractive participatio People participate i joit aalysis, which leads to actio plas ad the formatio of ew local istitutios or the stregtheig of existig oes. It teds to ivolve iterdiscipliary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives ad make use of systematic ad structured learig processes. These groups take cotrol over local decisios, ad so people have a stake i maitaiig structures or practices. Fuctioal participatio People participate by formig groups, which are exterally iitiated to meet predetermied objectives related to the project. Ivolvemet of the commuity is ot solicited at early stages of the project cycle but rather after major decisios have bee made. These groups ted to be depedet o exteral iitiators ad facilitators, but may evetually become self-depedet. Participatio for material icetives People participate by providig resources such as labour, i retur for food, cash or other material icetives. Most ofarm research today falls i this category - farmers provide the fields for demostratio but are ot ivolved i the experimetatio or the process of learig. It is very commo to see this called participatio, yet people have o stake i prologig activities whe the icetives ed. Participatio by cosultatio People participate by beig cosulted, ad exteral people liste to views. These exteral professioals defie both problems ad solutios, ad may modify these i the light of people's resposes. Such a cosultative process does ot cocede ay share i decisio-makig, ad professioals are uder o obligatio to take o board people's views. Participatio i iformatio givig People participate by aswerig questios posed by extractive researchers usig questioaire surveys or similar approaches. People do ot have the opportuity to ifluece proceedigs, as the fidigs of the research are either shared or checked for accuracy. A typology of participatio A sustaied commitmet to the participatory learig approach will trigger a process, eablig a progressio from lower to higher levels of participatio i the commuity. Passive participatio People participate by beig told what is goig to happe or has already happeed. A uilateral aoucemet is made by the admiistratio or project maagemet without listeig to people's resposes. The iformatio beig shared belogs oly to exteral professioals. 52 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

4 The Need for Participatory Learig The evolutio of participatory approaches idicates a shift from a top-dow to a bottom-up approach that is popularly kow as the paradigm shift (Chambers, 1995). There are several limitatios iheret i the top-dow approach which brought about this shift: Traditioally, the iformatio-gatherig process took the form of extractio where commuities had o say i the cotet or type of iformatio required i desigig a project. The questioaire type of survey is ot oly extractive but also results i restrictive yes or o resposes. Whe the aalysis of such data takes place, the causal factors depicted i a curret situatio are ot revealed so that learig from the aalysis is also restricted. Field experiece shows that i may istaces pre-determied coclusios from restricted iformatio have failed to aswer the reality of problems faced by differet sectios of the commuity. This is particularly true for the vulerable sectios of society whose voices are ot heard ad who are frequetly left out i a extractive mode of iformatio-gatherig. I may istaces, the process is limited to validatig pre-coceived project ideas of policy-makers ad fuders. Such a process is ot trasparet ad the cross-checkig possibilities are extremely limited. The participatory learig approach (PLA) has the potetial for elimiatig may of the problems described above by beig trasparet, allowig for cross-checkig, providig space for the vulerable to voice their opiios ad for delvig beyod results to discuss issues of causality with the commuity. Prerequisites for Participatory Learig The attitudes ad behaviour of differet stakeholders should be supportive. Willigess to liste to others' views, patiece, respect, free expressio ad above all, the willigess to lear through a i-depth aalysis of causes ad effects of problems ad issues are attitudes which ehace a participatory approach. The tools ad techiques used i this approach must provide the meas through which participatory iformatio geeratio, aalysis, fidigs ad coclusios are arrived at. The situatio aalysis is further ehaced by the visualisatio that accompaies the tools ad techiques. The potetial of the visual i empowerig the vulerable commuities to express themselves i frot of authority, the powerful ad the rich is of great sigificace. There must be commitmet to the process ad learig through sharig of kowledge. Experiece shows that best results are obtaied through harmoisig methodologies ad makig use of the strog elemets i each for achievig the commo objective of a participatory learig process. There is o way i which a prescriptio for the use of these tools may be give the idea is to master the differet alteratives ad to pick, choose, adapt ad iovate to suit the purpose. The mechaical use of tools rus the dager of turig participatio to maipulatio. The spirit ad attitude that accompaies the methodology is crucial for creatig the space for the differet stakeholders more so that the primary stakeholder may participate. Participatory Learig Approaches 53

5 Usig Participatory Learig Effectively The role of facilitatio is a key elemet i the use of participatory approaches. Much emphasis is eeded i the traiig of facilitators ad traiig of traiers if payig lip-service to participatio is to be avoided. The stregth of harmoisig the positive elemets of differet methodologies with a strog emphasis o participatio requires attetio. Experiece shows that PRA types of iformatio geeratio leds itself to a log-frame kid of cosolidatio by adaptig to the eed. Tailor-made approaches are essetial i the applicatio of participatory methodology i differet cotexts. The tedecy to use rigid methodology does ot recogise the complexity of socio-cultural-ecoomic cotexts. Tools for Eablig Participatory Learig at Differet Stages i the Project Developmet Cycle Tools Situatio Plaig Implemetatio Moitorig Evaluatio aalysis Secodary data aalysis ü ü Social ad resource mappig ü ü ü ü Seasoality charts ü ü ü ü Historical timelie ü Daily activity charts ü ü ü Wealth ad well-beig rakig ü ü ü Livelihood profiles ü ü Matrix rakig/paired rakig ü Ve diagrammig ü ü ü Semi-structured iterviews ü ü Problem aalysis ü ü ü Objectives aalysis ü Alteratives aalysis/ optios assessmet ü ü Project plaig matrix ü ü ü Gatt/flowchart ü ü ü Stakeholders workshops ü ü ü SWOT* aalysis ü ü ü Group discussio ü ü ü ü ü Joit field visits ü ü ü ü ü Braistormig ü ü ü ü ü * Stregths, weakesses, opportuities ad threats 54 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

6 Field officers ad facilitators ed up i frustratio if eablig eviromets do ot exist withi orgaisatios. Frequetly, middlelevel maagemet withi orgaisatios are the most resistat to chage. This calls for adequate orietatio of all levels i a system towards participatory learig ad also for providig space for istitutioalisig a processorieted approach to developmet. High expectatios from oe-off traiig programmes affect the quality ad use of the participatory approach. May orgaisatios, both govermet ad o-govermet, do ot realise the eed for a log-term traiig package targeted at structural reorietatio. Evaluatio Moitorig Situatio aalysis Participatory learig Plaig Implemetatio At the plaig stage, care should be take to allow adequate time for the participatory process so that realistic targets are set durig the time-frame for implemetatio. Doors ad fuders must be adequately aware of time costraits i the use of participatory approaches. I desigig research usig participatory methodology, adequate attetio is eeded i selectig the appropriate tools for geeratig the iformatio required. There are istaces where stereotypical use of tools has eded up producig a mass of iformatio resultig i chaos at the data aalysis stage. The participatory learig approach may be used at all stages of the project cycle to empower commuities ad esure the sustaiability of developmet itervetios. Participatio: Buildig Micro-Macro Likages The commo allegatio that participatory approaches are useful oly for micro-plaig or small-scale operatios is wrog. Macro-level policy formulatio is best achieved by collatig the perceptios ad iputs from the micro level. The learig approaches discussed i this paper have the potetial to ifluece policy, if those cocered have the patiece ad commitmet to go through the process. I the past, valuable isights have bee elicited from commuity perceptios which had a impact o policy formulatio e.g., social forestry, sustaiable use of coastal fisheries, wildlife coservatio ad protected area maagemet, etc., ad i poverty reductio strategies. Prepared by: Mallika Samaraayake RESOURCE BOOK PRODUCED IN A PARTICIPATORY WRITESHOP ORGANISED BY THE Iteratioal Fud for Agricultural Developmet (IFAD), Asia NGO Coalitio for Agraria Reform ad Rural Developmet (ANGOC), Cetre o Itegrated Rural Developmet for Asia ad the Pacific (CIRDAP), South East Asia Rural Social Leadership Istitute (SEARSOLIN), MYRADA ad Iteratioal Istitute of Rural Recostructio (IIRR). Participatory Learig Approaches 55

7 Overview of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) A lterative views ad critiques of covetioal research started to appear i the literature ad became subjects i developmet discussios i the early 1960s. These were triggered whe agriculturebased actio-research revealed that may fidigs i laboratory ad covetioal research are irrelevat. This is because the research was ot tested i the real-life situatio of the farmers ad did ot beefit from the lifelog experiece of those who are familiar with the situatio beig researched. Covetioal research oly recogised kowledge geerated i supposedly scietific ways. Other forms of kowledge that were geerated were trivialised. This resulted i devaluig ad almost total obliteratio of ceturies-old idigeous kowledge that was beyod the ability of reductioist sciece to ecompass. 56 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

8 The Need for a Alterative to Traditioal Research There was a eed to fid a research method that would give power to the powerless ad make people the subject, ot the object of research. The methodologies employed by the athropologists marked a radical departure from the research methodologies of the social scieces ad the mathematical objective systems of the physical scieces. These methodologies provided widows that took people s ow words ad ideas at face value. As participat-observers, the athropologists, the social activists ad the developmet workers lived together with commuities ad chroicled their felt eeds, priorities, art ad worldviews. This marked the begiig of the practice of a participatory alterative to covetioal research. There was also a itellectual fermet that permeated the academe durig the 1960s that questioed the ivory tower stace of research ad how the results were beig used. The Chage i Developmet Thikig The work of Lati America scholars ad practitioers such as Paulo Freire ad Fals Borda poited out that crucial to the people s takig resposibility of their ow developmet is the coscietisatio of the people themselves to the problems ad structures that reder them powerless ad to their collective ability to chage that situatio. The other challege was how to maage chage together, as a commuity, to reap beefits for the good of the most disadvataged groups if ot for all members of a commuity. Aother challege was how to make those who are i a positio (to allocate resources for the poor) to view this shift as ecessary. Earlier work o commuity aimatio as practised by humaitaria NGOs provided isights that for commuity developmet to occur, the people eeded skills to orgaise themselves, to geerate iformatio ad ideas, ad to mobilise their resources. May programmes desiged to empower the poor followed the formula of orgaisig, educatio ad resource mobilisatio, before they tackled the work of ifluecig social structures. È È Overview of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) 57

9 PRA as a Participatory Alterative i Developmet ad Research The pioeerig work of Robert Chambers ad Gordo Coway i a techique called rapid rural appraisal (RRA) was oe example of a attempt to iclude the iterests of the poor i the desig of programmes ad projects. The importace of RRA was that it recogised the eed to cosult the poor o their eeds ad that it very quickly showed the iheret limitatios of this superficial tour to reality. RRA is maily see as a meas for outsiders to gather iformatio; ad hece, the eed to replace or supplemet it with participatory rural appraisal (PRA) which empowers the local people. PRA is a method that facilitates the commuity s ow i-depth look at themselves ad of their possibilities, ad eables them to articulate these discoveries i their ow colourful, meaigful, useable ad realistic way. Perhaps because of the work of Robert Chambers ad other developmet practitioers advocatig the shift i developmet thikig embodied i the PRA approach, may agecies, govermets ad fiacial istitutios ow prescribe the use of PRA i their developmet programmes. There is ow a wealth of experieces ad isights with which to view, defie ad practise PRA. PRA as a Set of Priciples After years of advocatig for PRA, ad after seeig the cotributio of this techique i eablig the poor to articulate their eeds ad to act o them, Robert Chambers would prefer PRA to be remembered as participatio, reflectio ad actio. This places PRA i the compay of other pioeerig exploratios of how to maistream the iterests of the disadvataged groups by puttig the farmers first. These exploratios share the followig priciples: That developmet workers are prepared to lear from the people, adapt to the flexible learig process ad pace of the commuity, ad to seek out the poorer people ad lear their cocers ad priorities. That the mai role of the developmet worker is to facilitate the ivestigatio, aalysis, presetatio ad learig, by the rural people themselves, so that they are able to articulate ad ow the outcomes of their activities. That developmet workers cotiuously examie their behaviours so as to recogise error ad to costatly lear to be better facilitators of developmet with the people. That relaxed rapport betwee outsiders ad rural people ca ad should be established early o i the process. That the people have a greater capacity to map, model, quatify ad estimate, rak, score ad diagram their ow realities tha ay outsider. That the sharig of these products is popular ad powerful because the iformatio is visible, public, checked ad owed by the participats. That the sequece of PRA exercises builds upo the commitmet of the participats to further actio ad self-learig measures. That differet PRA exercises have the cumulative effect of addig a few more dimesios to the commuity s uderstadig of itself. That all cocered lear through the process of sharig, observig ad aalysig. 58 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

10 PRA as a Set of Data-Gatherig ad Awareess-Raisig Tools PRA is ofte also uderstood as a set of tools with which the commuity ca visualise its ow reality. It deals with space, time ad relatioships. PRA tools ca be grouped together accordig to what kid of data or iformatio they are sesitive i capturig. Some examples are the followig. Spatial data Deals with data relatig to lad ad lad uses ad the differet ways i which they may be viewed. The tools that are commoly used to draw spatial iformatio are lad-use maps, resource maps, farm sketches, spot maps, trasects, thematic maps ad three-dimesioal models. Year Forest Agri lads Water Livestock Yield Temporal data Icludes time-related data such as those cotaied i time lies, tred lies, seasoal caledars ad time-allocatio diagrams Social/Istitutioal iformatio Sketches the relatioships of the people with oe aother or with outsiders or with differet orgaisatios. The tools rak ad/or score the relative values of these relatioships as derived i social maps, Ve or istitutioal diagrams, wealth rakig, flow charts, etc. Discrete data There is also some iformatio that stads aloe. This is gathered by such tools as cesus mappig, demographic profiles, simplified survey forms, sectoral cosultatios, matrices, etc. Idigeous or local data These are artefacts or cultural forms withi the commuity that have symbolism or histories behid them such as images, ceremoies, sculpture, sogs, daces, weavig patters, life stories, legeds, myths ad other idigeous ways of expressig realities. The process of costructig these tools ormally starts with a objective of why this iformatio is gathered, ad oce the PRA tool is costructed, it is subjected to deeper aalysis. Overview of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) 59

11 Aalysig each of the PRA tools results i a awareess of the deeper causes of the problem that the PRA tool reveals ad also egages the commuity i possible ways to address these problems by themselves. It has also bee oted that for a commuity to be able to view ad aalyse their ow situatio reverses their role from beig objects to beig subjects of research. Hece, the commuity takes the iitiative to make their recommedatios come true simply because the idea of the chage was theirs. This has bee oe of the satisfactios the villagers take home with them after a PRA exercise. Oe way of aalysig the situatio is to ask the followig questios: What are the observatios that ca be extracted from the PRA tool? What problems do the data suggest? What is the cause of the problem suggested by the PRA tool? What are the geder or evirometal implicatios? What should be the ideal situatio? What ca be doe to attai the ideal situatio or to eradicate the cause of the problem? PRA as a Method of Participatory Project Maagemet PRA is more commoly defied as a family of approaches, methods ad behaviours that eable people to express ad aalyse the realities of their lives ad coditios, to pla themselves what actios to take, ad to moitor ad evaluate the results. PRA has the potetial of beig used for participatory project formulatio, plaig, implemetatio, moitorig ad evaluatio. I this sese PRA ca be used for participatory project maagemet. This process ca be doe with just oe PRA tool or with a series of PRA tools that ca be used i the etire project cycle. Example A commuity draws a sketch map of their settlemet featurig houses, ifrastructure, roads, boudaries, etc. Oce the map is draw, the commuity looks at it ad idetifies the features they wat elimiated or added i five years time. They the draw a map of the future settlemet which cotais their plas. They idetify the ew elemets they wat to see i the commuity ad spell out steps they must take to achieve this. They make Pla for a Better Bolisog Commuity Village map today Approaches The commuity works together Traiig i gardeig ad sustaiable agriculture Fud-raisig for well ad school Village map after 5 years Baselie Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V Targets 1. Dirty water from ü Build (1) artesia shallow well well by youth group 2. Muddy road ü ü ü Improve road by me s group 3. Wasted lad area ü ü ü ü ü Grow vegetable gardes (40) by each family 4. No day-care ü ü ü Oe school with facility day care cetre by mother s group 60 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

12 estimates of the time ad resources eeded ad idetify the people who will be resposible for each of the steps. They the use this as a record to moitor ad track whether these activities have bee carried out ad whether their developmet objectives have bee achieved. Aother way of usig PRA i project maagemet is to match the differet PRA tools for each step i the project cycle. Matchig the Differet PRA Tools for Each Step i the Project Cycle 6. Moitorig ad evaluatio 1. Awareess raisig of the problems Street theatre, cosultatios, focus-group discussios, cosultatios, reportig the results of a previous study Project cycle stages 2. Project formulatio Data-gatherig tools such as stakeholders' aalysis, wealth rakig, cesus mappig, timelies, story with a gap, demographic profiles, seasoal caledars, Ve diagrams, trasect, etc. 3. Project plaig Stregths, weakessess, opportuities ad threats (SWOT) aalysis, commuity actio plas, problem tree, objective tree, Gatt chart, orgaisatioal chart, budget 4. Resource mobilisatio Cosultatios where the PRA reports are preseted to justify eed for support from exteral agecies ad from commuity cotributio 5. Project implemetatio Alterative techologies or methods like micro-fiace, sustaiable agriculture, alterative medicie, cooperatives, idigeous forest maagemet, appropriate techologies for livelihoods, etc. Gatt charts, focus-group discussios, commuitybased moitorig tools based o the data-gatherig PRA tools, other scales built for M&E, reflectio sessios There are also creative ways of meetig the demads of door orgaisatios for solid quatitative data with the developmet imperative to ivolve people. There are projects that coduct surveys or RRAs first i order to prioritise target areas or target beeficiaries. The PRAs are coducted i those commuities that are already sure of beig icluded i the project. This esures that the people ivolved will have a Overview of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) 61

13 greater say i what should be doe i their ow commuities. The RRAs provide data that ca be compared across commuities ad could be tracked over time, whereas the PRA results provide qualitative iformatio for commuity-based moitorig ad evaluatio systems. PRA for Addressig Specific Issues PRA is also useful for addressig specific cocers or sectoral issues. It is a matter of askig the appropriate questios so that the tool captures the specific data ad the aalysis eeded. Some examples are listed i the table below: Issues/Cocers Lad improvemet ad developmet Marketig systems PRA Tools Resource ad social mappig, trasect mappig, farm sketchig, tred-lie, three-dimesioal participatory modellig Service mappig, Ve diagrammig, flow charts Credit programme Cesus mappig, seasoal caledar, Ve diagram, sociogram for credit sources Health improvemet Cesus mappig, seasoal diagram, service mappig, demographic profile Targettig assistace to the poorest Wealth rakig, cesus mappig, demographic profile Agraria reform Mappig tools, Ve diagrams, sociograms, resource mappig, etc. The PRA results that are gathered for these specific issues ca be used very effectively i campaigs for reforms ad advocacy. The articulatios of PRA have the advatage of beig very reflective of the realities of the propoets. They are also semi-abstract ad are hece accessible to both the propoets ad the policy makers. 62 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

14 RRA PRA P A L M PSAP LLL IIRR PIM PAR TFT MAP?! PLA C I D S PME NYZ REFLECT PRA as a Work i Progress Because PRA has widespread acceptability ad is beig used extesively, there are boud to be may problems or mistakes with its implemetatio. Questios arise regardig the quality of data gathered through PRA ad the varyig levels of competece amog PRA facilitators. I some istaces, PRA has bee coducted i the same extractive way as covetioal research. There will be more criticism as praxis itesifies i the years to come. The challege is ot to stop altogether the use of PRA but to fid ways of improvig the applicatio of PRA. Stoppig it completely carries the risk of closig the opportuities of people to participate i the developmet process. The results of PRA may ot meet statistical stadards ad may ot have the characteristics of solid quatitative data. However, as log as they are a product of the collective thikig of the commuity ad the commuity is able to use the results for their ow self improvemet, the PRA is its ow excuse for beig. Because PRA depeds so much o the creativity of its practitioers, it has udergoe modificatios ad these modificatios are kow by other ames. Already there are several variats to PRA that are popular. There are ow other methods such as traiig for trasformatio (TFT) which origiated i Zimbabwe as a Freirea approach to eable people to uderstad the structural causes of their problems. There is the productivity systems assessmet ad plaig (PSA) popularised by the Istitute of Philippie Culture for the agraria reform programme ad the participatio ad learig methods (PALM) demostrated by MYRADA, a NGO based i Idia, to eable villagers to hadle ad process volumious amouts of data for their projects. More recet methods iclude the participatory learig approach (PLA) ad the liked local learig (LLL) that utilise the iheret power of participatio ad visualisatio to expad the possibilities of the people. PRA is a Perpetually Rejuveatig Approach ad has bee a importat uderlyig theme i the whole series of evolutio of participatory approaches. I may coutries, PRA is the domai of developmet workers ad social developmet orgaisatios. Its power i ispirig the grassroots is so dramatic ad lastig that it should be the domai of all iterested i upliftig the poor. The use of PRA should be secod ature to the ext geeratio of developmet workers comig from the academe or for those who seek learig with the people. Prepared by: Rachel Polestico RESOURCE BOOK PRODUCED IN A PARTICIPATORY WRITESHOP ORGANISED BY THE Iteratioal Fud for Agricultural Developmet (IFAD), Asia NGO Coalitio for Agraria Reform ad Rural Developmet (ANGOC), Cetre o Itegrated Rural Developmet for Asia ad the Pacific (CIRDAP), South East Asia Rural Social Leadership Istitute (SEARSOLIN), MYRADA ad Iteratioal Istitute of Rural Recostructio (IIRR). Overview of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) 63

15 Scalig Up Participatory Rural Appraisal: Lessos from Vietam This paper gives a brief overview of the use of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) i Vietam from 1991 to 1996, focusig o cosideratios give ad experieces gaied i scalig up applicatios of PRA i the Vietam-Swede Forestry Cooperatio Programme (FCP). It summarises the mai lessos leared from this experimet a term that aptly describes the developmet cotext i which the methodology was applied. PRA as a plaig tool ad catalyst for participatory developmet has bee used i Vietam sice late Prior to that time, there had bee some use of rapid rural appraisal (RRA) for such activities as project idetificatio. Widespread use of the methodology amogst foreig-based o-govermet orgaisatios (NGOs) started a few years later. However, the Swedish Iteratioal Developmet Agecy (SIDA)-fuded FCP is the oly programme i which PRA has bee used systematically o a large scale over a exteded period of years. Eve so, i the first four years of the programme, oly 70 villages i five provices were covered. PRA was itroduced to the FCP i December 1991, ad the first two years were spet tryig out ad modifyig the methodology to suit the specific eeds of the programme ad the variable settigs i which it was beig itroduced. At the ed of this period, a fairly stadardised PRA package was i use throughout the FCP. 64 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

16 This was a trasitio period whe most Vietamese orgaisatios were movig out from uder the protective umbrella of a subsidised system, ad cosequetly were facig greater risks ad ucertaities tha before. Because of the log years of war ad the almost total dedicatio of productive resources to support the war effort, all ifrastructure developmet was adversely affected ad the state of developmet of huma resources was poor. It was withi this cotext that the FCP itroduced PRA. There was o existig orgaisatio or system for extesio, so othig old had to be broke dow or chaged. Moreover, the Vietamese were iterested i tryig out ew thigs. The PRA approach seemed to fit i well with oe of Ucle Ho s dictums, that i order to create a successful revolutio the People s Army had to live with the people, work with the people ad lear from the people. Several other factors were also supportive. The doi moi policy of ecoomic reform shifted the basis of ecoomic developmet from the cooperative to the idividual households, creatig ew markets ad freedom to produce for these markets. There was a risig demad for extesio services. The allocatio of forest lad to idividuals ad groups also created additioal demads for techical ad material support for developig these lads. Other eablig factors were the high levels of literacy ad educatio amog the populatio, ad the presece of strog maagerial ad professioal skills withi may village commuities. This made possible the establishmet of strog commuity orgaisatios capable of ruig project activities with miimal outside help. The fudig agecy SIDA was very tolerat about the time required to develop ad test out ew methodologies. SIDA supplied large-scale fudig to the forestry sector ad supported some of the experimetal activities. How PRA Was Used I the begiig, PRA was used maily as a method for extesio workers to fid out about local village coditios before iitiatig extesio support activities. I the process of workig together, govermet staff ad farmers leared how to use the methodology. They also gaied a much better uderstadig of oe aother. Scalig Up Participatory Rural Appraisal: Lessos from Vietam 65

17 PRA became a catalyst for iitiatig a developmet process i each village. At the ed of every PRA, a prelimiary village developmet pla was formulated, this was fialised a little later by the villagers with the help of extesio staff. The result of this process was a pla based o local realities ad prefereces that gave local people a geuie sese of owership i its creatio ad implemetatio. PRA was also used for thematic aalyses of specific issues, such as livestock or the dyamics of village marketig. Idirectly, PRA was a factor i chagig idividual ad istitutioal thikig, as well as how people ad orgaisatios fuctioed. What Was Achieved The PRA approach was foud to be a useful method for gatherig data ad aalysig coditios withi a wide rage of evirometal ad socio-ecoomic coditios. Extesio workers became sesitised to the kowledge ad capabilities of farmers, ad accepted the importace of ivolvig farmers i the plaig ad developmet process. They also came to recogise the wide diversity of coditios withi ad betwee commuities, ad that there were o simple solutios to the farmer s problems. Over time, there was a oticeable chage i the way extesio staff approached ad worked with problems of local resource maagemet ad village developmet. They were evetually able to provide a more diversified ad relevat set of resposes to local eeds. As they built up trust, they became more ad more cofidet i delegatig resposibilities to villagers to carry out o their ow. Evetually, this delegatio of resposibilities spread throughout the system. As a catalytic ifluece for jump-startig the developmet process, PRA proved to be urivaled. It was a effective method for ivolvig local people i project plaig ad implemetatio. Evetually, villagers were successfully carryig out PRAs o their ow i eighbourig villages, ad they provided follow-up services ad back-up support to other commuities. Costraits of Scalig Up PRA Oe of the major objectives of FCP was to develop methodologies that could be scaled up. After four years, it was clear that PRA could be used effectively o a larger scale. However, there were some atural costraits ad certai basic requiremets would have to be met i order to achieve its successful applicatio o a wider scale. 66 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

18 The mai costraits relate to the cotext i which it is used istitutios, persoel ad the overall system i which developmet takes place. A Systems Approach PRA is ot a stad-aloe methodology. It is ever a ed i itself because it is always servig some other purpose. It has to be part of a systemic approach that is applied to achievig a broader developmet objective. As such, it is oe of the may steps take i the project cycle ad developmet process. Uderstadig its placemet ad timig i the process ad how it should be desiged to fit i with the other compoets i the system is critical for successful applicatio. The relatioship amog istitutios has to be well uderstood. Most developmet programmes ivolve a variety of players ad support mechaisms politicias, policy-makers, maagers, traiig support, fiacial support (subsidies ad credit), material supply ad techical support. Their roles, resposibilities ad lies of authority have to be made clear. The applicatio of PRA ad the cosequeces of usig PRA must be properly fitted withi this istitutioal framework. The Istitutioal Cotext Uder the ifluece of PRA, istitutioal dyamics chage over time. Tasks maybe iitiated at oe level i the system ad the shift to aother level at a later date. This may be part of a gradual process of decetralisatio ad delegatio that develops out of the use of PRA (e.g., a traiig task may start at the provice level, move to the district, ad the ed up beig carried out at the village level). It helps if this process of chage is aticipated ad plaed for, or at the very least, if some allowace is made for the fact that chages will happe. This kid of plaig requires special skills ad attitudes. There are geerally two kids of istitutioal realities that have to be maaged i relatioship to the PRA. The first is the formal establishmet govermet ad officially sactioed orgaisatios. The secod is at the village level iformal, local istitutios. Each of these istitutioal realities has to be carefully cosidered whe workig with PRA-led projects. Strog local orgaisatios are eeded to support the use of PRA ad the process that follows PRA. The stregth ad cohesiveess of local leadership have a importat impact o the success of PRA-iitiated activities. Usig local people ad orgaisatios to carry out PRAs i surroudig commuities has prove to be a very effective strategy for spreadig-out ad scalig-up. Costs are lower ad results are more rooted i local realities, resultig i more effective ad more efficiet use of all resources. Scalig Up Participatory Rural Appraisal: Lessos from Vietam 67

19 Istitutioalisig PRA requires a stable ad legitimate istitutioal eviromet. Ucertaiity about the future ca be tremedously demoralisig. Staff must be permaetly allocated for a fixed umber of years, ad they must receive appropriate remueratio. PRA usually works best with a multi-discipliary group of people. However, there may be iteristitutioal barriers that prevet the brigig together of people from differet sectors ad this must be cosidered i plaig for PRA itervetios. Persoel ad Traiig PRA is totally people-depedet. It requires a miimal, critical mass of people with specific techical ad commuicatio skills. People must also feel motivated ad ot become sidelied due to a lack of appropriate salary or icetives. It is especially importat to have a few key people i the right place who really uderstad what PRA is all about (preferably from first-had experiece). Oe right-mided perso ca make a tremedous differece i the quality of the work that takes place. However, it is more ofte a matter of good fortue to have such people i the appropriate positio, as it is seldom possible to ifluece this coditio. Traiig people to be effective PRA practitioers is ot easy. Learig how to use the tools is relatively straightforward, but it ofte takes several years to gai sufficiet uderstadig ad self-cofidece to move beyod this poit ad to become more creative ad aalytical. The most importat learig takes place i the field. Classroom traiig o its ow has limited value. Traiers themselves require special traiig. Very ofte there are ot sufficiet resources available for traiig, which meas buildig these resources up before you ca provide traiig to staff ad farmers. This is a factor that ca sigificatly delay the spread of the methodology. PRA traiig is almost totally depedet o village-level field traiig. This i itself ca be a major limitatio for scalig-up. Usig a village for traiig without the prospect of post-pra activities i that village ca limit the quality of ivolvemet from local people ad thereby compromise the usefuless of the learig experiece. If traiig always has to be liked to a commitmet for project-supported village developmet, it ca limit the umber of villages that ca be used for traiig. 68 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

20 Aother limitatio liked to usig a village as a traiig base is that there are oly a relatively small umber of persos that ca be accommodated durig a PRA. This ca be a major restrictio o the potetial umbers traied. Requiremets for Scalig Up PRA It is essetial to distiguish betwee the techiques of PRA ad the philosophy or spirit behid it. PRA is drive by a philosophy that dictates how it should be doe it caot be doe properly i ay other way. What is ofte missed is how to carry this same philosophy ito other aspects of the work that precede ad follow the PRA. If we do ot use the same attitudes ad philosophy i other aspects of the work, the good outputs from the PRA ca easily be distorted or eve lost. This reality is by far the biggest challege to widespread use ad scalig-up of the methodology. Allowaces have to be built ito projects ad programmes for the coversio of those who will ever experiece a PRA, yet who will have some ivolvemet i some part of the process that is geerated by PRA. We all kow how early impossible it is to teach PRA without ay direct ivolvemet, so what methods ca be used to chage the attitudes of those who will ever be directly ivolved? What kid of traiig ca be used for this purpose? This poses a very serious challege: how do we itroduce the same approach to the rest of the system? Is there some systematic way this ca be doe? Has ayoe attempted to do it? Because ultimately it requires major istitutioal chages to take place. Or is it sufficiet to be satisfied with the small, yet importat gais made through farmers ivolvemet i processes ad activities that affect them directly? To summarise, the mai requiremets for scalig-up are: the use of PRA has to be carefully desiged to fit withi ad be part of a overall developmet system; the developmet system has to be matched with existig istitutioal realities; methodologies used throughout the system have to be philosophically cosistet; additioal specialised traiig is likely to be required to achieve this; PRA requires sufficiet umbers of traied persos if it is to be implemeted o a large scale; traiig i PRA ad related skills takes time, ad requires specialised traiig resources which very ofte have to be built up; doors ad recipiets must allow sufficiet time for the build-up of experiece ad skills before sustaiable large-scale expasio ca take place; ad the use of PRA causes chages that caot easily be foresee doors ad recipiets have to leave room for uforesee operatioal ad structural chages to take place. Prepared by: Bardolf Paul RESOURCE BOOK PRODUCED IN A PARTICIPATORY WRITESHOP ORGANISED BY THE Iteratioal Fud for Agricultural Developmet (IFAD), Asia NGO Coalitio for Agraria Reform ad Rural Developmet (ANGOC), Cetre o Itegrated Rural Developmet for Asia ad the Pacific (CIRDAP), South East Asia Rural Social Leadership Istitute (SEARSOLIN), MYRADA ad Iteratioal Istitute of Rural Recostructio (IIRR). Scalig Up Participatory Rural Appraisal: Lessos from Vietam 69

21 Participatory Moitorig: A Experiece from Nepal PROGRAMME The participatory moitorig system i PDDP is cotributig sigificatly to empowermet, resource maagemet ad cofidece-buildig of commuity members. It helps them to improve uderstadig of the problems ad fid the solutios themselves, ultimately cotributig to improve the livelihood of poor people. Moitorig refers to the regular ad systematic collectio, aalysis ad distributio of iformatio about programme activities. It is carried out cotiuously, as periodic reviews durig programme implemetatio. A experiece i participatory moitorig from the Participatory District Developmet Programme (PDDP) i Nepal is highlighted here. I covetioal developmet practice, moitorig used to be carried out by exteral persoel (e.g., programme reviewer). I participatory moitorig, all the stakeholders of the programme, especially the beeficiaries, are regarded as parters of the moitorig process. Beeficiaries are give access to whatever is eeded to track the programme ad to take corrective measures. Participatory Moitorig Process The overall objective of moitorig is to brig the programme o to the desirable path through feedback ad suggestios. 70 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

22 For higher level maagemet with a view to: chagig programmatic visio of the programme; chagig or revisig programme strategies; strategic shiftig of the orgaisatio; ratioales for evolutio of ew programmig; ad iformatio o overall evaluatio of the programme. Suggestios ad advice Moitorig Feedback Sources: Reports, memos, other publicatios, meetigs, istructios from the maagemet, ad field visits For maagemet at implemetatio level with a view to: takig corrective measures beforehad; protectig quality of the programme; chagig certai procedures at implemetatio level; ad maagig additioal efforts. Ivolvemet of Stakeholders Merely ivolvig the beeficiaries i the moitorig team does ot make the moitorig process participatory. Rather, the stakeholders should be ivolved i: decidig what to moitor ad whe; selectig idicators for moitorig; selectig tools ad methods; processig ad aalysig iformatio; ad usig iformatio as outcomes of moitorig. Resposible Levels for Participatory Moitorig Grassroot level Field staff, other parters ad beeficiaries who are directly ivolved i implemetatio Project level Project maager alog with support staff State level Doors ad couterparts i the regio Differece betwee Moitorig ad Evaluatio Moitorig ad evaluatio are differet but complemetary processes. A programme could be small or big i terms of fudig or areas of coverage, but its basic elemets remai i.e., iputs, activities, outputs, effects ad impacts. There is a cosiderable overlap betwee moitorig ad evaluatio, particularly i the outputs they geerate. However, the focus areas of moitorig ad evaluatio are differet. Iformatio ad aalysis geerated by regular moitorig ca be used i evaluatig a programme. Thus, moitorig is a part of the whole evaluatio process of a programme. Differeces Betwee Moitorig ad Evaluatio Area Purpose Frequecy Ivolvemet Use Focus Reportig Moitorig Quality cotrol Correctio Regularly Mostly/oly iteral Project, beeficiaries ad doors Iputs ad outputs Iteral reportig Evaluatio Learig lessos Not repeatig mistakes Mid-term, fial ad after project Iteral ad exteral Project, beeficiaries, doors, couterparts ad other agecies Effects ad impacts Exteral reportig Participatory Moitorig: A Experiece from Nepal 71

23 Areas for Moitorig Iputs Are iputs (huma, fiacial ad other resources) for programme implemetatio reasoable? If ot, what chages are ecessary i the ogoig programme? If chage is ot required, what could be the status of the expected result of the programme? Activities Are appropriate procedures that are visualised by the programme followed? Are the activities desiged by the programme appropriate ad i lie with the programme goal? Are all the activities beig implemeted followig appropriate processes ad timig? Outputs Have expected outputs bee achieved? What are the qualities ad quatities of the outputs? Do these match with the programme objectives? Effects ad impacts What idicatios of effects ad impacts of the programme itervetios are visualised i the targeted commuities? Are the existig idicatios leadig the commuities towards the ultimate goal of the programme? Programme Moitorig System i PDDP At grassroots level, primary stakeholders sit together ad aalyse the iformatio collected about the programme. This has bee successfully practised ad istitutioalised i the Village Developmet Programme implemeted by the PDDP. All commuity orgaisatio (CO) members sit together oce every three moths, aalyse their progress ad update the impact idicators. This is compiled at the village, district ad atioal levels. Nepal s Local Self-Goverace Act (1998) made provisio for moitorig sub-committees at the district ad atioal levels. I this cotext, PDDP perceived that participatory moitorig is the mai tool to improve programmes accordig to the eeds of the villagers. 72 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

24 Moitorig System i PDDP Household Commuity Orgaisatio (CO) Keep household level iformatio Review quarterly Feedback Report to VDC Feedback Village Developmet Committee (VDC) Keep CO level iformatio Update/aalyse quarterly Sharig at VDC level Report to District Feedback District Keep VDC-level iformatio Update/aalyse quarterly Sharig at District level Report to Cetre Feedback Natioal Level (Kathmadu Office) Aalyse quarterly Prepare moitorig report (half-yearly) Report to UNDP/ Govermet Publish iformatio for public sharig, advocacy ad policy ifluece at atioal level Some Features of Participatory Moitorig by PDDP Empowerig process Participatory moitorig equips the commuities with cofidece ad motivatio so that they, themselves, ca iitiate a process of verifyig activity-related stregths ad weakesses regularly. A good moitorig process ivolves a rage of tools that fosters commuity empowermet ad cofidece-buildig. Mutual sharig ad learig The process builds o existig local kowledge rather tha o formal research processes. Trust is built by listeig to each other s opiios ad ideas. Participatory Moitorig: A Experiece from Nepal 73

25 Erichmet of programmatic relatioship The process aims to produce a multi-dimesioal relatioship amog the stakeholders ivolved i programme itervetios. Participats are ivolved i the decisios about the issues ad chages that may happe from the iformatio geerated ad aalysed. Process of beig iformed The outputs of moitorig, such as reports ad publicatios, must be made available to all the stakeholders ivolved i the moitorig processes. These publicatios erich trasparecy ad help the stakeholders to be iformed. O-the-spot aalysis Visual tools ad methods are more importat tha the formal ad exhaustig process of iformatio collectio. Successful moitorig deserves o-the-spot aalysis by the stakeholders. The public is o top of the process People at grassroots kow how to check the progress if they are allowed to do so. They also kow how to assess the stregths ad weakesses ad make suggestios about corrective actios. Participatory moitorig is carried out for the people, by the people, ad with the people. It caot be imposed, but it ca be adapted ad modified as required. Prepared by: Nai Ram Subedi RESOURCE BOOK PRODUCED IN A PARTICIPATORY WRITESHOP ORGANISED BY THE Iteratioal Fud for Agricultural Developmet (IFAD), Asia NGO Coalitio for Agraria Reform ad Rural Developmet (ANGOC), Cetre o Itegrated Rural Developmet for Asia ad the Pacific (CIRDAP), South East Asia Rural Social Leadership Istitute (SEARSOLIN), MYRADA ad Iteratioal Istitute of Rural Recostructio (IIRR). 74 ENHANCING OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY: A RESOURCE BOOK ON PARTICIPATION

26 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Some Cocers from the Field Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) marks a paradigm shift i developmet thikig that promises far-reachig beefits. It has udoubtedly goe a log way towards makig the developmet process more participatory. However, despite the rapid spread of PRA, there are cocers about the quality of the research, the degree of participatio that is actually achieved ad the iterpretatio of results. It must be emphasised, evertheless, that these cocers have to do with PRA practice, ad ot with the approach or method. This paper discusses a few recurret themes with regard to the may articles that have criticised the way PRA is practised. Some key readig material is listed at the ed. To this list we have added some cocers which have emerged from our ow experiece of usig PRA. The Tyray of Tools Although these cocers have to do with ALL participatory methods (icludig RRA, PRRA, PLA, etc.), the focus o PRA is basically because of its popularity ad high profile. Legitimisatio of Agedas Fears have bee expressed about PRA beig used to legitimise projects that commuities might have challeged give more iformatio, time ad political clout. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Some Cocers from the Field 75