Diseño gráfico e interfaces

This study had two objectives: first, to examine the concept of popular participation in rural development, particularly in the forestry sector and its role in poverty alleviation, and second, to test the hypothesis that popular

participation can be promoted by foreign aid provided by one government to another.

The first of these objectives was addressed through a study of the literature on participation and social forestry. The literature on participation highlighted both the importance of popular participation in development

strategies since the 1970s, in which poverty alleviation was a central concern,

and the difficulty of making it an integral part of aid programmes and projects.

It showed the complexity of the subject and the many interpretations given to the concept. While there was no agreement in the literature about what participation was or should be, there did appear to be an emerging consensus on a number of issues: that popular participation should be both a means and an end; that it is inescapably political; that it is an important factor in empowerment of the poor and that

planning and implementation of participatory development strategies will require substantial changes in how rural development programmes and projects have been organised.

The literature on social forestry emerged from recognition of the increased importance of forests and trees for the well-being of people and the planet Jtself. Efforts to reduce rural poverty, as well as concern for the environment, led to a

new focus on people-centred forestry strategies. Involvement of people in forestry projects was seen as a means to address both poverty and environmental issues.

The second objective was explored through analysis of a foreign

government aid project in which local people were actively involved. Two things were necessary to do this: a working definition of popular participation in forestry projects and a framework for analysis. The definition deemed most useful from the literature defined popular participation as the organised efforts to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social situations on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from such control. Some key elements of this definition were specified as collective action,

institutional development and the establishment of enduring social structures and value systems to activate and organise individual actors. These elements feature prominently in the lessons from past social forestry projects, while not being exclusive to such projects. The literature also provided the building blocks of a framework within which to analyse the case study; a social forestry project in Malaita, Solomon Islands. This framework included a number of elements. The primary one was Cohen and Uphoff's matrix of different dimensions and contexts of participation, which provided a checklist of possible study variables and a framework within which to analyse them. However, given the focus of this study on whether or not aid donors and bureaucracies can promote popular

participation, this model was incomplete. It was extended in a number of ways: first, a fourth dimension, participation "for what purpose" was added to the 'What?', 'Who?' and 'How?' dimensions in Cohen and Uphoff's model, since this was considered important in discussing the role of outside agencies in the promotion of popular participation; second, the interrelationships between ecosystems and human social systems as highlighted iil Rambo and Lovelace's

systems model of human ecology was used to acknowledge the linkages between people and their environment and to relate the project context to the wider world and external factors and third, Korten's organizational fit model, that is, the connections between the project, its organization and the beneficiaries, was used to analyse some of the key factors within the project which supported or inhibited popular participation. Other useful insights were gained from the literature. Gow and Vansant highlighted the importance of external political and

bureaucratic factors. Other writers analysed experience from past projects and identified key variables which helped specify variables in the Cohen and Uphoff model on which to focus attention, particularly population, land, labour and social organisation.

Analysis of the case study was undertaken in four stages: first, the project was placed within the context of political, economic, social and cultural change in Solomon Islands over the past 100 years; second the various phases of the project from initiation, through implementation to evaluation was described; third, the various dimensions of popular participation in the project were discussed and fourth, participation in the project was analysed in terms of key variables and within the analytical framework outlined above.

So what can be said from this study about popular participation as defined above and its promotion by foreign aid donors and bureaucracies? Can

government to government aid projects promote popular participation, or has the case study demonstrated problems so fundamental as to challenge this belief. Given the focus in this study on one project by one aid donor, tentative

conclusions only are possible. The general conclusion reached from this study is a qualified yes; that promotion of popular participation by foreign aid and

government bureaucracies is possible. However, there are likely to be many constraints on its achievement. The case study provides some lessons for future projects which attempt to empower local people to gain greater self-reliance.

The Cohen and Uphoff model indicated the importance of context and the analysis in Chapter 8 identified various factors which influenced popular

participation in the project. The Malaita project emerged from a situation in which some form of partnership between the government and the people was necessary if government was to maintain a sustainable forestry industry in Solomon Islands. A way had to be found to work with local landowners and encourage them to grow trees on their land. Local landowners were keen to find development opportunities which were consistent with their cultural and social values. While the objectives of each group were not exactly the same, there was enough common interest to pursue a project involving external agencies and local

people. It is concluded that unless there is a significant degree of

complementarity of objectives, between the sponsoring agencies and the local people, it is unlikely that a participatory project could be undertaken. Even with a large degree of vested interest by all parties, the case study highlighted the complexity of designing and implementing a project involving popular

participation and the very real possibility of failure. On paper, the project demonstrated the potential to achieve significant benefits for the intended

beneficiaries as well as the national economy. But these were not guaranteed and their realisation depended on how the project was implemented and a significant degree of participation by the local people.

It is concluded that complementary objectives between the project sponsors, implementers and local people are a necessary but not a sufficient

condition for popular participation. In the Malaita project, consultation with, and participation by, the local landowners was seen by the donor agency and the Solomon Islands bureaucracy primarily as a means to achieve objectives of national significance rather than the aspirations of the landowners involved. Participation was not seen as an end in itself. Popular participation was therefore understood differently from the definition chosen for this study. The implementing agencies did not articulate empowerment and self-reliance of the local people as key objectives of the project. This influenced how the project was designed and implemented.

One of the key issues with respect to empowerment noted in the literature was the extent to which those holding power are prepared to share this in ways which enable decisions to be made by intended beneficiaries and learning from experience to take place. This needs to be a conscious process carried out over a long period of time, building up local capability through training and institution building, starting with incentives then moving towards more self-sustaining development activities. A danger of the project approach, and dependence on outside support, is that the donor's interest is short term: once the project is finished they move onto the next one. In the Malaita project the five year period could be seen as only the very beginning of a new form of community involvement in forestry. The landowners had just started thinking of a variety of forestry options for their land, based on the knowledge and skills they had acquired through the project. They had had their interest stimulated and were keen to explore other opportunities when the money ran out. This suggests two important points: the need for a long term commitment by partner agencies if participatory development is to be promoted and a more careful assessment of appropriate incentives, which will lead to sustainability.