Transcript Slide 1
Farmer First Revisited 12 – 14 December 2007 at the Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK Presentation, Theme 1d, Assessing outcomes: participatory learning and impact assessment Discussant: Maria Fernandez, University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina Assessing outcomes: participatory learning and impact assessment Maria Fernandez Research Institute for the Sustainable Development of the Upper Amazón (INDES-CES) Universidad Nacional de Amazonas – Chachapoyas Center for Integration of Research and Action (CIRA) University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill Contributors Abebe, Dawit, A. Catley, B. Admassu, G. Bekele– Tufts, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – Participatory impact assessment of pastoral development in Ethiopia Douthwaite, Boru, S. Alvarez, G. Thiele and R. Mackay – CIP/CIAT – Participatory Impact Analysis Pathways Douthwaite, Brou and Martin Gummert – International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and IRRI – Outcomes and impact pathways in innovation systems. Guijt, Irene – Learning by Design – Rethinking learning for collective learning in rural resource management Sanginga, Pascal – A. Abenakyo, R. Kamugisha, A. M. Martin and R. Muzira - CIAT/IDRC - Tracking outcomes of participatory policy change Martin, Adrienne – NRI - So What Difference does it Make? Key Questions How do we know that participatory approaches deliver results of benefit to the goals of poverty reduction and economic growth? How are such assessments framed? How are such appraisals designed? What indicators are appropriate? How can unlike processes be effectively evaluated? Windows on the issue Participatory methods & practices for tracking change Participatory learning experiences for management, policy and innovation Surprises, lessons & reflexions Monitoring “Farmer-First” development is*: Concerned with adaptive behavior, collective learning and interactive decision–making Value-driven, focusing on equitable and sustainable resource use, and poverty alleviation. Implemented in rural resource management initiatives with multi-stakeholder negotiated actions at the centre * Irene Guijt “Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis”* Done in workshops that build commitment, transparency and accountability Components of logical model and hypothesis to be tested are identified by key stakeholders. These include changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills and practice that should result from use of project outputs. Indicators consist in milestones and progress markers that all agree upon. * Brou Douthwaite et. al. “Learning Selection” Revisited: 25 years later* Learning is a 4 stage cycle: experience, making sense, drawing conclusions, action Key stakeholder ‘learning by using’ and ‘learning by doing’ are important early on “Plausible promise” and champions are critical Most successful rice dryers had been modified by users and manufacturers R&D teams drive the process & need to work with users from the onset & over long periods * Boru Douthwaite & Martin Gummert Using Participatory Impact Assessment to Inform Policy* Qualitative and quantitative data together with systematic data collection generate social-cost benefit insights Use of conventional methods (E.g. statistical analysis) make findings more credible to scientists and policy makers Participatory settings provide opportunities to bring policymakers and “users” together Including stakeholders (participants) that represent and have influence increase understanding Results are more accurate and reliable when group and/or individual responses are immediately cross-verified, and triangulated with information from process monitoring. Multiple policy influences and changes can be identified * Dawit Abebe Constraints to impact assessment* Time-consuming nature and expense of long-term data collection and the scope for scientific error Hypothetical nature of monitoring via models precludes surprise Stakeholders resistance to providing open access information Difficulty of achieving agreement on what merits experimentation and needs to be monitored Naivety about the real challenges and potential of joint design of monitoring systems and information analysis. * Irene Guijt Tracking outcomes of participatory policy learning and action research* Participatory Learning and Action Research are self-reflective processes where stakeholders analyze their own actions PLAR increased women’s confidence and changed perceptions of their status within the communities. Most (95.6% M&F) indicated that women’s participation in decision-making & community leadership improved in 3 years Horizontal linkages among farmers’ groups across communities and other villages improved (parallel groups) The groups become vehicles where farmers pursue wider concerns, initiate new activities, organize collective action & extend relations & linkages externally * Sanginga et. al. Lessons Learned Key stakeholder involvement is critical from the onset to build consensus for concerted action but multistakeholder groups and partnerships are messy Participatory reflexive processes increase commitment and create social capital Since multi-stakeholder groups function on the basis of consensus they may not be able to deal with power, politics and inequality in community processes. Build on existing governance structures, but move beyond community-level forums to socially disaggregated processes Drive the process with a “plausible promise” and engage champions over the long term Why has the debate stagnated? What are the implications of effective feedback loops that link reflection to planning and action for social and political capital building? How/when do participatory (co-learning) processes constrain powerful interests? Are participatory, reflexive, co-learning, action processes public or limited-access (private) goods? How is access controlled/constrained?