of the stakeholder-groups taking part.
Amongst these and perhaps above all on the ‘world view’ of ‘outsider-stakehold-ers’, many of which do adopt a participa-tory approach. Once local people, such as a small-scale coffee farmer (Figure 3.1) have expressed their problems in the
con-text of the intervention, these local people may consider it to be in their interest to request strengthening of the input by ‘out-siders’. The need for those ‘outsiders’ to be prepared to learn and work with the participants from ‘the bottom up’, referred to above, comes to the fore here.
The highest priorities go to the staff of participating NGOs, the people who pro-vide funds and have control over them and to the local farmers, as ‘users’ of the project. The Ministry of Agriculture has a
significant impact, especially as far as achieving the target or aim of the interven-tion is concerned. This, however, shows that effective cooperation, defined as “to act or work with another person, or other
TABLE 3.2. Stakeholder table for an agricultural investment project; design based on a learning process approach. a
Type of stakeholder Interests
Potential Owner: NGO
sharehold-ers, membsharehold-ers, trustees
1. Control over design procedure 2. Control over funds
1. (+/-) 2. (+/-)
=2
Practitioners: Staff NGO 1. Control activities 2. Doing project management 3. Achievement of targets
1. (+) 2. (+) 3. (+)
=1
Financiers: Investors, project donors
1. Control over funds 2. Evaluation of project
1. (-) 2. (-)
=1
Regulators: Ministry of Agriculture
1. Achievement of targets 1. (+) =2
User owner practition-ers, local farmers
1. Participation in design procedure
2. Doing project management and experimenta-tion
3. Achievement of targets
1. (+) 2. (+) 3. (+)
=1
Users: other local peo-ple, customers
1. Achievement of targets 2. Availability of markets
1. (?) 2. (+)
3
Regulators: local gov-ernment
1. Achievement of targets 2. Availability of infrastructure
1. (+) 2. (+)
4
Potential impact: the (+) and (-) signify a positive and negative impact respectively on particular stakeholders; (?) signifies an impact which is unclear. Relative priorities given to each stake-holder are identified from high (1) to low (5).
a. Adapted from OU course TU870. File 1, Part 2, section 2.3.2 Stakeholder Analysis, pages 42-44. ©The Open University 1997.
Chapter 3 Alternative Approaches Examined
people for a common purpose” (the New Penguin English Directory, 2000, p. 305) will depend on trust between these groups of stakeholders. Here trust can be seen as a control mechanism, as it shapes the ideas and motivation of participants by a sense of common purpose (Robinson et al., 2000, p. 271).
Awareness of this common purpose, as far as financiers and regulators are con-cerned is based on their world view that
‘bottom-up’ control and participatory management is essential for success. As far as users are concerned, this awareness is based on a conviction that achievement of the targets (here improved agricultural performance based on a stable landscape) is vital for sustained benefit to all. Under-standing that in fact there is a common purpose between the groups of stakehold-ers can be strengthened by applying the Feyerherm framework (see Table 3.3).
These ‘What questions’ are important and should be considered by participants
during initial negotiations and ongoing implementation of the project.
Once roles and contributions of each of the participants have been agreed to com-mon satisfaction, this agreement should be recorded to form the ‘contract’ on which the partnership is based.
3.1.2 Setting standards for participation
The success of PLA depends on sustained trust between the parties involved.
Much of what has been stated in the pre-vious section is based on the concept of
‘self-actualizaton’, defined as ‘the need a person has to fulfil his or her capabilities and potential’ (from OUBS course B600, Book 3, page 24).
However a counter-balance to this ideal situation of ‘pure’ participation can be found in Cooke and Kothari (2001), as well as in Dichter (1989). These authors argue that aspects of ‘pure participation’
where
• people are involved in the design and implementation of a project, thereby influencing its development at every stage - by being decisive about key issues;
• people organize themselves to take action to deal with a shared problem, rather than reacting to the initiative of outside agencies (Eade and Williams, 1995, p. 15)
may cause conflict, due to different levels of interests amongst the people con-cerned. Potentially this could result in the failure of the intervention. This point of view is exemplified by Dichter’s state-ment that “whether the managestate-ment approach is ‘people-centred’ or ‘blue-print’ becomes less important than
TABLE 3.3. The Feyerherm framework. a
a. Source: From Feyerherm, 1994.
Purpose What is the activity or negoti-ation about?
Process What are the means for dis-cussion to proceed and con-flict to be resolved?
Character-ization
What is the perception of people involved? (individu-als and groups)
Interests What are the parties’ inter-ests?
Stake What is at stake for the par-ties?
Judge-ment basis
What are the criteria for a proposal to be judged ade-quate?
Relevant to participatory learning and action (PLA)
whether the efforts they are engaged in move towards their goals”. A case study of a health project in India concluded that in that case a ‘pure learning process is
hardly feasible, some elements of a blue-print approach may be unavoidable’ (Vil-larosa, 1994). In our complex case a trade-off between these two approaches may
Real world problem situation
Natural resources
Institutional landscape
Socio-economic environment
Commitment
Donor community
Accountability
Participation beneficiaries
Evaluate on-farm trials
Farmer-led participatory research
Project environment
Identification
Preparation
Appraisal
Implementation
Policy environment
Determine policy
Determine design approach NGOs
FIGURE 3.2. Influence diagram, indicating factors affecting the choice of design approach,
Chapter 3 Alternative Approaches Examined
have to be considered. To arrive at a basis suitable for our intervention, which aims at combining an improvement of agricul-tural production with the protection of a stable landscape, the four-stage model advocated by Rondinelli (1993, pp. 118-153) is of interest. The four stages move from implementation of action to comple-tion of the intervencomple-tion as follows:
1. the implementation of a model as an experiment
2. to pilot and demonstration projects
3. to full implementation of a final stage
4. and successful replication of the final stage under different landforms and farmers’ communities.
This might accommodate subsistence farmer-led research.
Various approaches are compared in Fig-ure 3.2 on page 37. The figFig-ure indicates that NGOs may involve subsistence farm-ers in research and use the results of that research, again in conjunction with the farmers, to look at the policy environment and decide (together) the approach to the design of the project. Alternatively, NGOs may identify and implement a project directly, that is without input from
farm-ers’ groups, by using a prescriptive or blueprint approach.
3.1.3 Root definitions and conceptual models regarding a blueprint and learning process approach
As indicated in Figure 3.2, the design of a project based on successful subsistence farmer-led participatory research, which
TABLE 3.4. CATWOE elements for the building of root definitions. a
For blueprint approach For learning process approach C
‘custom-ers’
Urban and rural populations, workers and markets, state and local government
Small farmers, markets, local government
A ‘actors’ Ecological and agricultural experts Small farmers, agricultural extension services, ecological and agricultural experts
T ‘transfor-mation’
process
Agricultural performance improved agricultural performance, based on improved land and water use manage-ment, by means of efficient land use and agricultural projects, leading to economic growth
Relatively low productivity of rural agricul-tural sector improved agriculagricul-tural performance and use of water and land, by means of mobilizing, and learning from farmer-led research, leading to economic development
W ‘world view’
An ‘expert’ approach is necessary if sus-tainable improvement in agricultural per-formance and land use is to be achieved
A participatory approach is necessary if sus-tainable and equitable rural development, based on agricultural performance and land and water use, is to be achieved
O ‘owner(s)’ Implementing organizations, funders, state and local government
Small farmers’ organizations, agricultural research and extension services, ‘outside’
organizations, funders, state and local govern-ment
E ‘environ-ment
Project environment Participatory and policy environments
a. Based on Checkland and Scholes, 2000, p. 35.
Relevant to participatory learning and action (PLA)
occurs on a micro, or landform scale, will be influenced by the policy environment in which the intervention takes place. The implementation of the project on a macro
or landscape scale, will depend on the political, social and natural resources environment in which the project is to be implemented.
It is here where the steps to be taken prior to implementation, that is from its identification to its preparation to its appraisal and finally its implementation,
should be based on the design approach as determined by the result of the participa-tory subsistence farmer-led research (see Figure 3.2 on page 37). This is where the
FIGURE 3.3. Conceptual models for ‘pure form’ blueprint and learning process approaches.
B lu ep rint a p pro ac h L e arn ing p ro c es s a pp ro ac h
1 . D o fe as ibility
s tud y 2 . A ss es s s o cio -e c on o m ic e nv iro n m e n t
3 . M o biliz e ec o n om ic res o u rc es
4 . D e cid e p o lic y a n d s tra teg y
5 . U se b lue p rin t a p p ro a c h
6 . D e sig n a n d im p lem e n t on e -s te p p ro je c t
7 . C o n trib u te to ec o n om ic g ro w th
9 . M o n ito r 1-7 10 . T a k e c o n tro l a ctio n
8 . D e fine p e rfo rm an c e
in dic ato rs
1 . D o fe a sib ility s tu dy
2 . As se s s r u ra l p o p ula tio n inv o lv e d in p e a sa n t ag r ic u ltu r e
3 . D o s ta ke h o ld e r a n a lys is to m o b iliz e lo c a l
kn o w le dg e
4 . U s e fa rm e r-le d re se a rc h to c o ntrib u te to p o lic y, s tra te g y
a nd d e sig n
5 . U se lea rn in g p ro ce ss a p pro a ch
6 . D e sig n a n d im p le m e n t fo u r-s te p p ro je c t
7 . C o n trib ute to e co n o m ic g ro w th
9 . M o n itor 1 -7
1 0 . T a ke c on tro l a c tio n
8 . D efin e p e rfo rm an c e
in dic ato rs
11 . A p pre cia te m o d e l b u ild e rs ’ a s piratio n s fo r
th e sy ste m 1 2 . D e fin e m e a s ure s
o f p e rfo rm a n ce 1 3 . M o n itor
1-1 0
1 4 . T a k e c o n tro l a c tio n
1 1 . Ap p rec iate m o de l b uild ers’ a sp ira tion s for
th e s ys te m 1 2 . D e fine m e as u re s
o f pe rform an c e 13 . M o n ito r
1 -10
1 4. T ak e co n tro l a c tio n
Chapter 3 Alternative Approaches Examined
considerations stated in Tables 3.1 (see page 34) and 3.2 (see page 35) are of some importance. Local people may request strengthening of input by ‘outsid-ers’.
To highlight the importance (and poten-tial difficulty) of the arrow connecting the policy and project environment in Figure 3.2 it is useful to compare and contrast the blueprint and learning process approach and their ‘ideal type’ conceptual models.
In the context of root definitions dis-cussed below, see also Table 3.4.
Root definition for a blueprint approach. This concerns a system to
“improve agricultural performance and land use of the agricultural rural sector by using expert agricultural and ecological knowledge and economic resources in a sustainable and equitable manner to con-tribute to economic growth”.
Root definition for a learning proc-ess approach. This concerns a system to
“improve the agricultural performance and land use of the agricultural rural sec-tor through the mobilization/enhance-ment of local knowledge/insight in a sustainable and equitable manner to con-tribute to sustainable agricultural produc-tion and sustainable economic development”.
To facilitate our discussions, ‘ideal forms’ of the blueprint and learning proc-ess approach are shown in Figure 3.3 above. The main characteristics of these
‘ideal types’, relevant in the context of our discussion, are summarized as follows:
Blueprint approach. Activities indi-cating how change is to be achieved are prescribed and take place under the con-trol of ‘experts’. This is indicative of a mechanistic (closed) approach and a
hier-archical (command) structure. The suc-cess of the project rests on effective and efficient management. The process of managing the project takes place in an
‘expert environment’, basically excluding so-called non-expert user stakeholders.
Learning process approach. This
‘ideal type’ takes account of factors out-side the control of any one single agency.
‘User-stakeholders’, as subsistence farm-ers are involved in relevant dialogue and negotiations. They take part in the design and implementation of the project, thereby acquiring a sense of ownership of the project, promoting its sustainability.
The process of managing the project takes place in a socio-political environment.
3.2 Relevant to ideal type models and ‘real world’ problem situations
3.2.1 The conflictAs stated in Section 3.1.1 (see page 33), projects to manage improvement of agri-cultural performance whilst achieving/
maintaining a stable landscape rest on a dynamic management of change. This requires effective monitoring, evaluation and corrective action based on that evalu-ation, by user-stakeholders. A blueprint approach, which is mechanistic and based on hierarchy (command structure), is not suitable for that kind of problem situation environment.
Typical for the problem situation is that it is affected by factors, such as climate, soil, slope which are outside the control of any single agency. To establish what is feasible, small-scale and subsistence farmers, with their knowledge of and insight into the local situation, will have to be involved in relevant dialogue and