the interaction of some of the key characteristics and dimensions of participation can be analysed in terms ofKorten's organisational model discussed in Chapter 4.
This argued for a "learning process approach" to development planning if participation is intended and long term changes are to be achieved in terms of local control (self-reliance) and access to resources and decision-making
(empowerment). 'lb recap briefly, Korten's approach looked at projects in terms of the degree of fit that is achieved between project design, beneficiary needs and the capacities of the assisting organization. Successful community-based projects and programmes all appeared to have achieved a high degree of fit between these variables, despite wide diversity in approach, focus and initiating agency. Korten argued ( 1980:17) that the important lessons from t
�
ese projects are not found "in their final program or organizational blueprints but rather in the process by which both program and organization were developed concurrently". This was seen as a bottom up "learning process approach". Korten's schematicrepresentation (see Figure 4.4) of the interrelationships between these variables in project planning and implementation, has three parts: the fit between
beneficiary needs and the resources and services made available to the community as programme outputs, the fit between the means by which
beneficiaries are able to define and communicate their needs and the processes by which the organization makes decisions, and the fit between the task
requirements of the project and the distinctive competence of the organization.
In terms of the fit between the intended beneficiaries and the project, the
appraisal team that designed the project did not explore the range of beneficiary
needs and then attempt to respond to these. Rather they established what was
wanted by national and provincial governments and designed a project to achieve
this goal. The particular political, economic, social and cultural environment
suggested an approach: to convince landowner
leaders
that the project was inMoney was identified as a likely incentive to interest local people, given the high demand for cash income in Malaita. This, together with technical assistance,
seeds, transport and equipment, became the inputs to implement the project.
Participation was seen primarily as a means rather than an end in itself. It could be argued that because money was wanted by people, there was a good fit
between project objectives and beneficiary need. Discussions with members of the landowning groups suggest that income generated by the project was one of the major reasons people supported the project and want it to continue. But who got money and how much they got, became a major preoccupation and the cause of tension throughout the project. While the approach in general was successful in generating landowner interest in reforestation, it is debatable whether the approach is sustainable. In terms of sustainablility, long term local commitment, self-reliance and the replicability of the model elsewhere, the fit is not so positive. The narrow focus on technical outputs (trees in the ground), rather than training
of local people to take more initiatives themselves, could be seen as a weakness.
In terms of the fit between beneficiaries and the assisting organisations, some attention was given in the project formulation to the question of how the local communities would relate to the Forestry Division. It was envisaged that customary processes would operate and information would be communicated through traditional structures. This meant that landowner leaders played an important role as intermediaries between the community and the Forestry
Division. They selected workers, acted as workforce supervisors and represented the communities in discussions with Forestry Division. Less emphasis was placed on understanding how these traditional institutions functioned and what structures needed to be developed in the project to ensure the fit between
beneficiaries defining and communicating their needs to the Forestry Division
and the latter's decision-making processes. As a result, problems and tensions between the landowning communities and Forestry Division staff escalated and were only resolved by outside intervention (the mid-project review).
Establishment at this stage of a coordinating committee provided a forum for the landowning groups to express their views. Therefore, the fit which was initially poor, was improved.
The fit between the project and the assisting organisation considers the linkages between what was required in the project and the competence and structure of the implementing agency to complete these tasks. A number of examples show where a lack of linkages, systems and structures (a poor fit) were problematic. The lack of training of Forestry Division staff in social forestry or community development meant they perceived the project as little different from any other plantation forestry project and implemented it in a conventional
manner. This resulted in insufficient dialogue with the landowner groups and insufficient emphasis on working with the landowners who were seen as
labourers rather than equal partners. The approach taken by Forestry Division to provide the necessary labour inputs caused many problems, including adverse affects on the degree of participation originally envisaged and the distribution of benefits from the project. The failure of the New Zealand donor and the Forestry Division to establish clear accountability for management and identify and
quickly address problems that developed highlighted deficiencies not only in how the project was established and implemented but also in its organisational
structure. It also highlighted some of the constraints of implementing such a project requiring the support of not one but two bureaucracies.
A number of conclusions can be reached about the project in terms of
Korten's model. Neither the New Zealand agencies involved nor the Solomon
Islands Forestry Division fully appreciated the innovative nature of the project.
There was little awareness of the need to develop local structures and institutions
as well as the skills and knowledge of the local groups' members. Bureaucratic
blocks (e.g. delays in vehicle repairs, insufficient seeds) frustrated the
achievement of project targets and their impact on stimulating community
interest was not considered. This analysis suggests that the fit between project
design, beneficiary needs and the capacity of the assisting organisations was
weak, particularly during the project's early stages. It highlights the
bureaucratic impediments to the success of participatory development projects
that have been identified and well documented in the literature. 3
Yet despite these deficiencies, much was achieved. The landowners' interest was maintained despite the problems during implementation. By the end of the project, they were more committed than ever to reforestation on their land, a key objective of Forestry Division and the New Zealand donor. While this was partly because of the income generated, they also appreciated the longer term benefits. A concern however, is the extent to which future development is dependent on a high level of financial and technical support from outside agencies. The potential for future joint ventures in which government invests greater resources but expects some benefits is not known. Wider political and economic issues will impact on the project; issues on which the local communities are likely to have little impact. In part the progress achieved could be related to the flexibility of the assisting agencies which did modify their ways of working. Outside facilitation (the mid-term review) was necessary to initiate this change, supporting the idea that a role for the animateur exists in such projects. Changes
made included taking a new approach to consultation and joint decision-making by involving landowning groups in the resolution of disagreements. It also included some organisational changes, such as the coordinating committee,
instituted to overcome communication problems. While it has not worked as well
as it might, it nevertheless provided an opportunity for greater involvement in
decision-making by landowners. Another change that the Forestry Division was
able to make was the move towards contract work through the employment of work unions which, by the end of the project, all parties agreed was the best approach. Thus, the Solomon Island bureaucracy was also able to work in different ways. These changes indicate that there were elements of a learning process approach emerging from the failure of a conventional blueprint approach
to work. By the end of the project, a greater involvement of members of the
landowning groups had been achieved and the degree of participation in the
evaluation was greater than had occurred on any previous occasion. However, the
bureaucratic constraints have not necessarily gone away, nor has a learning process approach been institutionalised. This will depend on the extent to which a wider acceptance can be gained in the assisting agencies of a different way of working with projects involving rural people, placing greater emphasis on the process as opposed to outputs.