Introduction of Self-Help Approaches and Process ... · monitoring in order to make more tangible to the project team what process monitoring can look like, e.g. in the course of

Short-term Mission Report

by

Thomas Schwedersky

May 1997

On behalf of: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH and Mekong River Commission Secretariat

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction of Self-Help Approaches and Process Monitoring for Participatory Natural

Resource Management

---

Dak Lak Province, Vietnam

A. INTRODUCTION 1

A.1 Background and Objectives 1

A.2 Methodology 1

B. THE WORKING PROCESS IN DAK LAK PROVINCE 2

B.1 Defining the Team’s Priorities 4

B.1.1 Sustainability 4

B.1.2 Community Development Groups 5

B.1.3 Self-Help 5

B.1.4 Process Monitoring 5

B.1.5 Planning 5

B.2 Searching a Common Understanding of Basic Concepts: Sustainability and Self-Help / Self-Help Promotion

5

B.3 Process Monitoring: the Spark Measure ‘Introduction of Improved Wood Stoves’ 7

B.4 Process Monitoring: Land Allocation and Identification of Additional Agricultural and Forest Land

13

B.5 Observation and Interaction in the Field: The Training on the Construction of Improved Wood Stoves

16

B.6 Training on Improved Wood Stoves: Observations and Reflections 18

B.7 Planning for Action Learning: the Spark Measure ‘Improved Wood Stoves’ 20

B.8 The Final Working Session 28

C. THE PROJECT’S CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: SOME IDEAS AN D SUGGESTIONS

30

C.1 Learning from the Spark Measures 30

C.2 Playing a Supportive Role 31

C.3 Changing Land Use Patterns 31

D. PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF B EST PRACTISES 33

Page 1 of 20

A INTRODUCTION

A.1 Background and objectives

The cooperation between the MRC/GTZ and the NARMS project can be reiterated to February 1996 when Mr. Michael Glück contacted the project in Eschborn. In June 1996, Mr. Tran Ngoc Thanh participated in a one-week training course on participatory and self-help approaches to natural resource management, organised by the NARMS project. In January 1997, Mr. Christoph Feyen contacted Thomas Schwedersky in Bonn. As a follow-up, this consultancy mission was scheduled with the main objectives

� to support the project team in Dak Lak Province in their work towards participatory watershed development, � to realise the consultancy mission in a process-oriented mode, � and to support the MRC/GTZ project in identifying best practises in participatory watershed development in the Lower Mekong Basin.

A.2 Methodology

For this consultancy, I followed the principles of ‘in-process consultancy’ (IPC). My main concern therefore was to be a facilitator for developing the team’s capacities in cooperating with local communities in Lak District. Acting as a facilitator in this sense means:

� building on the team’s experience and knowledge, � privileging methodogical inputs and pertinent questions instead of ready-made "solutions", � supporting the team’s capacity development for action learning through process monitoring, � sharing experiences from other countries.

As an IP consultant I work with the project team, and not for the project team. My challenge in enhancing the team’s capacity development corresponds with the team’s challenge to support the capacity development of villagers and communities in Lak District (see also chapter B1).

B THE WORKING PROCESS IN DAK LAK PROVINCE

The working programme was based on the terms of reference (see annex 1) which Mr. Michael Glück had elaborated prior to the mission. But right from the beginning and in taking up opportunities in the course of the working process, the programme got a different more focussed shape. In fact, my work focused very much on the spark and back up measures, especially on the improved wood stoves as an example for organising an action learning process, on land allocation, and on land use planning. Despite the provisions in the ToR, leaving out the critical review of PRA work as well as a more general analysis of the organisational landscape and a more general assessment of self-help potentials were put aside. Giving the working programme a more process-oriented shape Focussing my work also meant to set the different issues in relation to process monitoring in order to make more tangible to the project team what process monitoring can look like, e.g. in the course of the introduction of improved wood stoves. The working process with the team in Dak Lak Province is reiterated in a synopsis (see table 1). The working process is documented in the following chapters (B 1 - 8).

Table 1: Synopsis of the working process

Page 2 of 20

B.1 Defining the team’s priorities

We started our joint work on April 25 in the afternoon with a presentation of myself as a consultant, including some explanations basic points about what I can offer and what I expect from the team (see table 2).

Following my presentation the team defined five priority areas to be worked on during the mission.

B.1.1 Sustainability

Page 3 of 20

� How to assess sustainability of an existing land use system? � What measures to protect water, land and forest resources? � How to protect the upper parts of a watershed in order to achieve positive downstream effects? � How to ensure sustainability?

B.1.2 Community development groups

How to assist community development groups in order to increase their capacities in terms of

� determining development needs and � planning and implementing development activities?

B.1.3 Self-help

� Which activities to take in a self-help strategy in relation to gender? � What sort of self-organisation exists on community level? � What sort of outside support is needed?

B.1.4 Process monitoring

How to regularly assess and evaluate our working process?

� perceptions: our own and those of other actors � testing of strategies � processes involved � lessons learnt � our role and position � ajustment of our plans and processes

B.1.5 Planning

Starting from the Vvision: "communities take action and responsibility for their own development"

Which process to organise from the beginning?

What should be done when?

We decided to start with the first priority area.

B.2 Searching a common understanding of basic conce pts: Sustainability and self-help/self-help promoti on

The team expressed the need to have a common understanding of sustainability. We distinguished three dimensions of sustainability:

� ecological � economic � social

We then attributed key features to the three dimensions (see table 3).

Page 4 of 20

Mr. Michael Glück proposed a definition of sustainable development which could serve as an umbrella for our common understanding of sustainability:

"Sustainable development meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" (World Commission: Our commomn future)

Before taking up more particular questions about how to assess and ensure sustainability, the team expressed the need to also find a common understanding of two other key terms: Self-help and self-help promotion (see table 4) [In relating these common understandings to the team’s work: to what extent is the common understanding already practised? What would be an occasion to review these common understandings at a later stage: are they still valid, or did they evolve in the course of time and in the light of new experiences?].

We decided to continue our discussion on Monday, April 28, as a field visit to Dak Phoi Commune was scheduled for the following day.

Page 5 of 20

B.3 Process monitoring: the "sspark" measure ‘introdu ction of improved wood stoves’

We continued our joint work on Monday, April 28. Following the priority areas which the team had defined in the beginning, day befored ‘community development groups’ would have been the topic to be tackled now. In order to avoid too general a discussion, we decided, however, to link this issue with an area of concrete project work: the spark measure on improved wood stoves. We also focused this "spark" measure in order to clarify the idea and potentials of process monitoring.

As a starting point, I proposed to use a simple tool in order to clarify the scene of actors involved with their respective tasks and responsibilities (see table 5).

Table 5: Spark measure: Improved wood stoves: Actor s and their tasks and responsibilities

Page 6 of 20

In elaborating table 5, we had put an emphasis on the following questions:

Who actually was involved to what extent in the selection of trainees?

Who actually was involved to what extent in the selection of volunteering households?

The main selection criterion was: representation of three types of households ⇒ better-off, medium and poor. [Which criteria do the villagers apply for distinguishing more and less wealthy households or families?]

Based on this criterion, 21 households were selected: that means seven per eachhousehold type. In order to privilege the poorer strata of the local society in Dak Phoi commune, the project intervened in requiring the identification of additional 21 poor households as intended beneficiaries from improved wood stove construction. So the number of households to participate in the construction of improved wood stoves went up to 42 [How was this intervention of the project perceived by the better-off and medium families? How did they select the additional 21 households? To what extent was this selection undertaken in order "to please the project"?]

The two wood stove specialists, whom the project had brought in from the Forest Institute in from Hanoi, carried out an initial survey focussing on the following issues:

� fuelwood collection and consumption, � traditional cooking practices, � availability of local materials for the construction of improved wood stoves, � willingness of the households, and especially of the women as the main concerned, to participate in this spark measure.

[To what extent was the result of this survey shared and discussed with the villagers?]

In the discussion we realised that our chart did not only comprise tasks and responsiblities as they had been taken over already, but also ourexpectations about other actors’ tasks and responsibilities, e.g. that the non-volunteering households adopt the improved wood stoves. It is important to notice that this chart only reflects our perspective. It would, of course, be interesting to also better understand the perspectives of other actors, e.g. the volunteering households’ expectations of our role as a project.

[Our chart can serve as a guide for future process monitoring activities, addressing e.g. the following questions:

Page 7 of 20

� Who actually accomplished which tasks und took which responsibilities? � To what extent does this state of affairs reflect our expectations, taking into consideration that our chart represents only our perspective

and not that of the other actors? � What drove the actual division of tasks and responsibilities in the course of the realisation of this spark measure, and what can we learn

from it? � How do the different actors assess the division of tasks and responsibilities, and what do they want to change for the future?]

As the term ‘process monitoring’ was new to the team, I gave a short introduction into the concept of process monitoring (ProM). The particular feature of ProM becomes comprehensible by highlighting the differences in comparison to output-oriented monitoring (see table 6).

Table 6: Spark measure: improved wood stoves

[Another illustrative example may be the following: for output-oriented monitoring it is essential to know how many trees have been planted and can physically be identified at a certain time on the spot. ProM wants to look at the processes related to tree planting: In this regard, a pertinent question might be: Who planted which trees for what reason and how? What sort of capacity and ownership development is related to this tree planting?]

The following question was raised from the team: ‘Why are we doing process monitoring?’ From a short brainstorming the following issues came to the board:

� review the activities and improve it � necessary in terms of testing best practices in pilot site � development of the project team’s capacities for action � base for evaluation

From there we came to the key idea "learning from experiences in order to develop its capacities for future action". In that sense ProM goes beyond output-oriented monitoring because it extends the "learning from experiences" to the dynamics of processes, e.g. with the questions: ‘Who among the users of improved wood stoves has to what extent developed ownership for the stoves? ‘Ownership of the stoves’ would mean that they were convinced of their utility and that they would take action in order to solve any technical problem which might come up.

Learning from experiences through ProM means to regularly make a learning loop as visualised and explained in table 7.

The training of seven trainees, which was being conducted by two specialists from Hanoi, servedd us as a concrete example for an entry point into process monitoring: observing what happensed during the training, reflecting about it after the training and then discussing the implications for improved action in two regards:

1. continuation of the introduction of improved wood stoves 2. further steps in process monitoring accompanying this spark measure.

In order to give a direction to our observation during the training, we brainstormeded on our expectations following the two questions of what

Output-oriented monitoring Process monitoring

number of stoves constructed taken the initiative to overcome

number of stoves operational disadvantages in using the improved wood stoves

number of participants in trainings and in demonstration cookings

the women`s union has taken the initiative for a demonstration cooking

women in two hamlets have made a self-assessment of the utility of the improved wood stoves

Page 8 of 20

should happen, and what should not happen (see table 8).

Table 8: Training on improved wood stoves April 28/ 29

Bearing in mind that we were missing the first day of the training we decided to go to Dak Phoi Commune the following day and to participate in the second day of the training. [Due to lack of time, we did not prepare in more detail how we wanted to observe the training process and how we wanted to interact with those villagers participating in the training, including the trainees.]

B.4 Process monitoring: Land allocation and identif ication of additional agricultural and forest land

The team put land allocation and the identification of additional agricultural and forest land on the agenda as closely related kea areas for processes in which the project seeks to be involved in a supportive manner. Therefore we focussed on developing scenarios of what the project’s role and responsibilities could be in finalising the land allocation process on one hand and in identifying agricultural and forest lands for additional land allocation on the other hand.

We started with the analysis of actors and steps in the current land allocation process (see table 9).

What support can the project offer to speed up the land allocation process?

� transport � manpower � digitising and printing, including individual maps � fitting 1:2.000 maps into 1: 10.000 maps

Table 9: Finalising the current land allocation pro cess

In order to make it a successful event:

What should happen? What should not happen?

all the trainees will be at the training

material for training is available

stove(s) are being constructed

men participate actively

many questions will be asked by trainees

the training changes it`s path through modifications proposed by the trainees.

trainers should be open to take up participant`s ideas and proposals.

trainers should talk and listen to

the training should be conducted in a manner that enables full understanding of all actors

quiet trainees

partial attendance by trainees

no woman will be at the training

training conducted in a manner which prevents full understanding of all actors

What happened which we did not expect at all?

Page 9 of 20

We agreed that further decisions about the project’s support should be taken after having assessed the requirements for support of the Land Management Department (LMD). As a first step in that regard, a meeting of Mr. Thanh and Mr. Michael Glück with the director and the vice director of LMD was scheduled for Tuesday, April 29. If possible, this meeting should be taken as an example for an entry point into process monitoring.

As a next step in our work, we developed a scenario for the project’s role in identifying agricultural and forest lands for additional land allocation by focusing the question: Who should do what? (see table 10)

From our discussion, the following questionsfeatures should be retained:

� Who owns which type of forest land?

Legally the People’s Committee is the owner of all forest land, but management responsibilities have been attributed to:

� the Lak Forest Enterprise for protected and plantation forest

� the Forest Protection Department for natural reserves.

� To what extent can the hamlet borders be clearly identified? � How are land conflicts solved, and who has which responsibility in that regard? � Who will be financing the conduct of the survey?

As we were already late in the afternoon, we closed our joint work for this day.

Page 10 of 20

B.5 Observation and interaction in the field: The t raining on the construction of improved wood stoves

On Tuesday 29, we (Mr. Nghi, Mr. Y Wel and myself) went to Dak Phoi commune. We found a group of three trainees who, under the guidance of one of the trainers, were constructing a wood stove in the house of the village headman who was present as well. Mr. Nghi asked the headman why his wife was not around. He said that she had had to go to the field but that she had seen the stove under construction in the morning and had given the comment " I like it!" [What was her first reaction when she realised that a group of men started changing her kitchen fundamentally? To what extent had she been in a position to decide where to put the new stove in her kitchen? What will be her practical experiences with the new stove? What will she then like about it, and what not, or less?]

We realised that, after having received some explanation from the trainers the morning before, the trainees started practising, thus learning on the job under close observation and guidance of the two trainers. One of the trainees expressed his concern about having a chimney for the improved wood stove constructed in his house. The trainer explained that cooking with the new stove could only start after five days. Mr. Nghi explained to me that in the first run, four improved wood stoves would be constructed in the same hamlet. After first practical experiences with these stoves, the schedule for further construction would have to be elaborated, taking in consideration possible modifications in the stove construction format.

We went to see the other group of trainees working. One of the trainees was absent because of a funeral in his hamlet. The owner of the house explained that he wanted to reconstruct his kitchen thus explaining the position of the stove. His wife was not present [What were her positive and possibly negative expectations with regard to the new stove?]. We realised that the form of the two stoves under construction was different. A woman dropped in with some children and looked what happened. She told Mr. Nghi that she would propose to her husband to construct a stove in their house as well [What did make her so curious about the stove though she had never used it? Considering that her family was already participating in the hybrid corn spark measure, did she see the stove as another opportunity to get support from the project?].

The three trainees expressed their concern about compensation for the time they constructed improved wood stoves and thus wereprevented from working in their fields. As the field work had to be done in any case, they would have to pay laborers to do it. Mr Nghi said that the project would consider this carefully, but that he could not take a decision on it now [What would be the implications, if the trainees were compensated by the project? How would the other villagers perceive that? What other options for compensation one could think of? To what extent could the Community development groups contribute to compensating the trainees?].

Later in the morning we went back to the house of the village headman. The trainer, who was working there with the trainees, engraved the acronyms MRC/MARD/GTZ into the fresh plaster [How significant was that for the ownership of the stove? How did the village headman perceive it?].

One of the trainers explained that they had brought the bricks from Lak. They also intended to build at least seven improved wood stoves with local bricks which would reduce the cost of construction. They had started working with the bricks from Lak because with those the newly constructed stoves dried more quickly, and cooking could start earlier. A few people dropped in saying that they would be interested in the new stoves, but considering the food shortage they suffered they certainly could not afford it. [To what extent could the households, especially the poor ones, increase their contribution to the construction of improved wood stoves by providing local bricks? What would be the possibilities of better-off and medium households to support poor households in this regard?]

We asked the trainer how long these new stoves could be used. From his experience the stoves could be used for three years provided they were handled properly. He had seen stoves broken down after six months or one year because of improper use. [What information and training would the women need in order to use the new stove properly, thus reducing the risk of damage and early discourage-ments?]

When the first two stoves were completed, we went for lunch. We then sat together with the trainees under a tree, asking them questions in order to get their first impressions on the training and on the improved wood stoves. Their feedback can be resumed as follows:

� Provided they had more time for learning on the job, they saw themselves capable of constructing the stoves. � From the explanations which the trainers and the project staff had given the last few weeks they expected the stoves to have chimneys.

This worried them because they needed the smoke from their traditional stoves for protecting the rice stored in the house. They felt more comfortable when they had realised, after construction work had begun yesterday, that the stoves would not be constructed with chimneys. One of the trainees, however, stressed that he would like to construct a stove with a chimney because his house had a tin roof.

� They expected the women to actually use the stoves, but (their) women only wanted to cook on the stoves after having made their assessment.

Page 11 of 20

� They considered it a great advantage of the new stove that cooking could be done simultaneously in three pots, whereas on the traditional stove cooking had to be done pot by pot.

� When constructing stoves they wanted to follow their customs which mainly meant ‘exchange of labour’, and they would not ask for money.

� They saw better-off and medium families in a position to pay for ciment and steel, but not the poor families, even if the cost of construction could be reduced by using locally made briques. [To what extent could the better-off and medium families subsidise the construction of stoves in poor families? What role could the community development groups play in this regard?]

Later we were present in another house when the construction of a new stove actually started. The old woman was in her kitchen when the position of the stove was decided on. It would be put in the middle of the kitchen, thus the traditional stove, which was in the same place, had to be removed [Why did the old woman accept this so easily?].

We asked her where she got her fuelwood. She explained us that she had to go three to four times a week, and since the new forest protection rules were in practice she had to go much further then before. After having a look at the stove which the other group had begun to construct, we took our road back to Buon Ma Thuot.

B.6 Training on improved wood stoves: observations and reflections

We met again an Friday, May 2, in a group of four with Mr. Thanh, Mr. Nghi and Mr. Y Wel. In reviewing our observation from last Tuesday, we referred back to the chart we had prepared on Monday (see table 8). We took up item by item in order to analyse to what extent had happened what we had expected to happen or not to happen, and also what we had not expected to happen.

� All trainees present?

Two trainees were not present, one due to a funeral in his hamlet; we did know why the other trainee had not attended the training. Apparently he had other preoccupations.

Action: next step: Mr. Nghi would talk to him in order to understand his situation; in case he was not committed any more - for what reason so ever - a new trainee should be selected.

Material had been provided as planned by both sides.

Four stoves had been constructed with men’s active participation.

� Trainees raised many questions?

As far as we had observed, there had only been a few questions, but we assumed that they had risen many questions on the first day.

� Trainees’ modifications change training?

We had not observed any modifications, but we had not asked neither the trainees nor the trainers about it.

Action: Evaluation with trainees and trainers before 20/5.

� Trainers open to trainees’ ideas and proposals?

Interestingly, we had different observations on this issue. While Mr. Y Wel presumed that the trainers might privilege the fulfillment of technical standards, thus putting the development of the trainees’ capacities in the second row, Mr. Nghi had got the impression that the trainers were very interested in participation. If the trainers had put their priority according to what Mr. Y Wel presumed, the trainees might not have claimed the development of their capacities, taking in consideration that the technology was new to them.

Action: evaluation: what was the balance of fulfilling technical standards and building capacities of the trainees?

� Understanding of all actors assured?

It would have been too early to say that full understanding of all actors had been achieved.

Action: evaluation: Who had understood what? ‘Who’ encompassed users (women), men and trainees.

What should not have happened?

� Quiet trainees?

We had observed that the trainees were learning on the job. When they had not been sure, they had apparently asked their trainers for advice. On the other hand, the trainers had been active in guiding and coorecting the trainees according to their observations.

� Women’s participation?

The trainees in fact were all men, due to the fact that this type of construction work is men’s duty. On the first as well as on the second day, some women from the neighbourhood had shown interest in the training and the ongoing construction work. The women from the women’s union and from the community development groups had not attended the training. Apparently they had been busy with fieldwork. Indirectly they had sent the message: "We have other priorities!" Without over-estimating this reaction, it would be interesting to take a forthcoming evaluation as an opportunity to find out to what extent women’s interest in improved wood stoves had risen, or if it had not been stimulated.

What happened that we did not expect to happen?

� two trainees missing

Page 12 of 20

� trainees had asked for compensation, putting forward the argument that during construction work they could not do their fieldwork and therefore had to pay laborers to take care of it.

� trainees had come earlier than appointed � trainees said: better-off and medium families could afford to pay for ciment and steel, whereas poor families would not be able to afford it.

We had a lively discussion on the question of compensation. Mr. Thanh put forward that compensation payments by the project bore a high risk of undermining sustainability and the promotion of self-help capacities. Our discussion turned around two scenarios:

Scenario 1

The project does not go the easy way of accepting the trainees’ demand for compensation. Instead, the project will look for alternative possibilities of compensation, e.g. by exchange of labour or by challenging the community development groups to take a responsibility in that regard. The risk in that scenario is linked to the fact that the community development groups were only in the process of formation and thus had little capacities for action. There are also doubts that households would provide a compensation for the trainees in terms of exchange of labour without having experienced the advantages of the improved wood stoves. The advantage of this scenario lies in better prospects for sustainability and for strengthening self-help capacities.

Scenario 2

The project recognises the need for compensation and takes full responsibility in this regard. The risk in this scenario is that at a later stage the project has to reduce its contribution in order to avoid that the trainees become a sort of project "employees". The advantage may be that more positive experiences with the improved wood stoves may be gained by the villagers thus making them more motivated to take a responsibility in the compensation matter.

I threw in the idea that the community development groups could play the role of subsidising the poor households by asking for financial contributions for wood stove construction from the better-off and medium households [What advantages could the better-off and medium families get - even beyond the spark measure ‘improved wood stoves’ - in order to make them accept the idea of subsidising the poor families?]

After this discussion we broke for lunch.

B.7 Planning for action learning: The spark measure ‘improved wood stoves’

When reentering into our discussion early in the afternoon we decided to look ahead along the question: ‘What phases of action do we want to distinguish for the continuation of this spark measure, and how do we want to go about process and output-oriented monitoring at the end of each phase?’ I proposed a visualised structure in order to work on that question in a systematic manner. Following our discussions we visualised the whole chart step by step. Table 11 in fact gives the result we had achieved in the early afternoon of May 3.

As we tried to distinguish different phases of action, Mr. Thanh expressed his concern to define more clearly which activities a phase of action would encompass. We therefore went into a short brainstorming the result of which we then discussed under two questions:

� What has been done? � What is still to be done? (see table 12 )

Table 12: Trial phase on a small scale

Which activities are important?

Activities What has been done? What is still to be done?

� Introduce advantages and disadvantages of wood stoves

� Wood stove training is Two-day training course for � training of users (six)

Page 13 of 20

As a workshop on May 12 was seen as very important for the team in order to analyse the experiences in the first action phase (trial on a small scale), we discovered that it would not make sense to push the construction work before May 12, as initially schedulded. This meant that the 42 stoves certainly could not be constructed up to May 20, the day when the trainers were supposed to leave Dak Phoi Commune. A prolongation of their mandate should be considered in the course of the workshop, depending on the appreciation of the trainees’ construction skills. An indicator for the appropriate moment for the trainers to leave the trainees on their own would be: 2-3 trainees have developed their skills to the point where they feel capable of supporting the other trainees in the case of technical problems to be solved.

As a next step, we took a closer on the workshop to be organised for May 12 (see table 13). We identify five key elements :

� feedback � demonstration cooking � exchange of experiences � transfer of experiences � proposals for further action.

Table 13: Workshop on May 12 in Dak Phoi Commune

organised. seven trainees starting on May 5 by trainers with trainees’ participation

� technical monitoring of the trainees

� Volunteer trainees registered for wood stove construction

possibly reselecting a seventh trainee

� Volunteer trainees construct wood stoves

four wood stoves constructed � 38 stoves to be constructed

� only 4-5 stove to be constructed up to May 12

� Construct four wood stoves and organise a workshop to get feedbach

four wood stoves constructed workshop to be organised on May 12

Page 14 of 20

We discussed each key element as well as the question: ‘Who should participate, and who should be invited?’ ( see table 13 for further details). I proposed two tools from the PRA toolbox as one option for stimulating feedback from and exchange of experiences among the women using the stoves (see table 14). We leave it for the team to work out the programme for this workshop during the following week, including a more detailed preparation work on questions (‘Whom should we ask which question in order to stimulate feedback and exchange of experiences?’) and on tools to be used during the workshop.

I emphasised that it was very important for the team’s learning process to reserve enough time after the workshop for a team meeting in order to reflect on the workshop process and results and to take decisions on further action.

Before ending our work for this day, we decided that on Saturday (May 3) we wanted to work on the other action phases and, if possible, look into the action phases for the spark measure ‘hybrid corn’.

Table 14: How to support the users of the stoves in their self-evaluation?

Tool 1

Note: Women should fill out this matrix in the course of a group discussion process. Letters may be replaced by symbols.

Tool 2

improved stoves traditional stoves

strengths weaknesses strengths weaknesses

Page 15 of 20

Note: A group of users (women) should define their criteria, symbolise them and then place between 1 and 10 dots for each criterion for both types of stoves.

We continued our work on Saturday, May 3. The next phase (May 13 - 30) should be an intensive construction phase (see table 11). We briefly looked into ongoing monitoring before coming to the question: ‘What information do we need to evaluate this phase?’ Mr. Thanh’s question: ‘Why do we need this information?’ gave an opportunity to clarify the linkage between evaluation and planning . Evaluation in this context meant to take a critical review on the phase of action lying behind. In fact, process monitoring and outputoriented monitoring in this context meant the same. We evaluated which processes of action learning of the users (women)- to take only one example - had developed during this phase. From the angle of output-oriented monitoring, we evaluated the achievements in terms of output at the end of this phase. The linkage with planning came in when we looked at the next phase and asked ourselves: ‘What are the implications of our evaluation for activities necessary in the next phase?’ This also meant that if we had not done the evaluation of the previous phase carefully, we would not have been in a good position to go into any pertinent planning for the action phase lying ahead. [The evaluation <-> planning linkage can also be described as a learning loop starting from observation on previous action then going into reflection and leading to conclusions for further action (see table 7)].

After having identified what information we needed at the landmark between the intensive construction and the testing phase (see table 11), we followed up with the question: ‘How to get information about the intensive construction phase?’ There were two proposals:

� survey in selected households � workshops on hamlet level

We decided that the two methods should be combined. Without opting finally for the way of combining both methods, we came to two different scenarios :

Scenario 1

survey -> analysis of the information -> presentation of results of the survey in the workshop in order to get feedback from the users and to stimulate exchange of experiences.

Scenario 2

workshop -> [presenting and discussing the idea of additional surveys] -> analysis of information from the workshop -> additional survey in selected households.

We were heading for the next action phase to be labelled ‘testing phase ’. When we were discussing the ongoing monitoring during this phase, Mr. Thanh brought up the important question of which role the CDGs should/could play in this regard. His question provoked an extended discussion on this issue.

The team stressed that the CDGs were in an very early stage of formation. In fact, not much had happened in terms of follow-up after their initiation during the PRA work. I shared my experience with the team that defining terms of cooperation between a project and a new community-based organisation (CBO) had little chance of success because the utility of the new organisation would in that case be rather vague for the villagers. It was more fruitful to define terms of cooperation in concrete activities. The spark measures therefore were a good opportunity to see whether the CDGs could find their role.

From the team’s point of view, the CDGs should play an intermediary role between the villagers, especially the ethnic minority families, and the project. The CDGs could also play the role of a service organisation for the villagers, e.g. in managing a water pump. I brought in my experience that even if the project had an idea of what the CDGs should do, it was not a matter of just telling them, but to define together who could play which role. When initiating a new CBO, the critical question also was whether there was not an existing organisations who could become a partner for the project.

It was to be the challenge for the project in the next month to find out which organisational setting is appropriate. In that sense I presented four differents options (see table 15 ):

� Existing organisations form a committee � Interested families / households form a group � All households are considered members of the organisation � Cooperation with one existing organisation

We stopped the discussion at that point. Mr. Thanh proposed to take up the issue again on Monday (May 5) for discussion with the whole team. We decided to continue working in the afternoon.

In the afternoon we started with the question: ‘What information do we need at the end of the testing phase (see table 11)?’, followed by the question: `How do we get that information?’. We opted for a workshop in Dak Phoi Commune which could be followed by additional surveys. In discussing about this workshop we discovered the mecanism ‘Villagers try to please the project’. It was legitimate that villagers, in giving feedback, may not give all the information they have, if their concern is not to put any harm to the relations with the project. It was a matter of confidence and frankness in order to reduce the incentive for the local people to play that card. We did not know yet if and to what extent the villagers in Dak Phoi Commune would try to please the project. But if it happened it was important for the project to understand the message and to find ways and means of smooth communication in order to put things on the table.

I resumed our work since yesterday morning in stressing that the team now had the framework and the tools so that it can elaborate on its own action phases and activities including process monitoring and output-oriented monitoring for the following areas of activities:

Criteria improved stove traditional stove

e.g.

e.g. ooooooo

oooo

� practicability for cooking � cost � fuelwood consumption

Page 16 of 20

� spark measure ‘hybrid corn’ � Finalisation of the land allocation process � Identification of additional agricultural and forest land for allocation.

Table 15: Four options for community-based organisa tions as the project’s cooperation partners

B.8 The final working session

We met again on Monday, May 5, for a final working session. I presented a process chart on which the whole consultancy mission was taken in review (see table 1). Then Mr. Thanh presented our work of Friday and Saturday (May 2 and 3) to the other team members (see table 11). The team decided that the tool ‘planning for action learning’ used for the spark measure ‘improved wood stoves’ should also be applied to the spark measure ‘hybrid corn’ and the further involvement of the project in the land allocation process as well as the identification of additional agricultural and forest land.

As already discussed on Saturday (May 3), again we put the crucial question of the role of CDGs on the agenda. Mr. Thanh emphasised the necessity to discuss this question today because of a field visit to Krong No Commune scheduled for Tuesday, May 6, where the possible role of CDGs would be on the agenda. Mr. Thanh and myself resumed our discussion of Saturday including the four options for organisational settings which we had identified (see table 15). I stressed that from my experience CDGs had to find their role in the context of the two ongoing spark measures. If their role was defined on a more general level without including certain tasks in the ongoing work on the two spark measures, the CDGs would have little chance to evolve as viable CBOs.

The question was brought up how extension could be organised after the spark measures had been proven to be successful on a smaller scale. The argument was that the project would be overburdened in assuring the transfer of experiences, therefore the CDGs would have to come in. I put forward that the CDGs might have a role in that regard if the project made clear what it could do and what it could not do. If it became evident that without the CDGs playing a crucial role in the transfer of experiences - with regard to improved wood stoves and hybrid corn - extension would not work, then they could decide how important it was for them to take action. We discovered at that moment how much the role of the CDGs was linked to the project’s role. The more the project explained their limited capacities, the better the CDGs could face the necessity to take action, provided there is enough commitment, e.g. for the extension of improved wood stoves. On the other hand, the CDGs would not be motivated if they could expect the project to take full responsibility even in the extension phase of the spark measures.

In this context, I proposed a fifth option for an organisational setting : those interested in extension, e.g. of improved wood stoves, could form an extension group organising and coordinating the transfer of experiences. Others might be interested to take the same initiative for the extension of hybrid corn. In a later stage different extension or interest groups, e.g. for joint management of a rubber plantation, could form a hamlet development committee. Of course, it would be easier for the project to cooperate with one CDG right from the beginning, but this was only "one side of the coin". From the villager’s perspective, it might be more fruitful to start organising in relation to distinct activities and evolving from there to a broader scope of action.

In order to take "both sides of the coin" into consideration, we had to ask two complementary questions:

Page 17 of 20

� Why do we need groups? � Why do they need groups?

We needed groups because we could not build up cooperation with each and every household. A group was to play the intermediary role. We also needed groups because we thought that they could organise services for individual households, e.g. management of a water pump. From what we knew they needed a group for sharing of labour, e.g. for fieldwork and house construction, and they might need a group for improved marketing and input supply.

Mr. Y Wel brought the example of the joint protection groups which had been formed by farmers in the context of the forest protection scheme as part of the 327 programme. The utility of cooperation was so evident because protecting a larger area once a week was easier then protecting a smaller area day by day.

We came back to the actual situation in Krong No Commune . During the PRA, the Women’s Union had occupied a central position in the Venn Diagramme. This indicated to the team that this organisation could play a role as its partner organisation. However, the question was on which background the Women’s Union was positioned. If the community appreciated the Union’s role in village health supply, this did not automatically mean that the Women’s Union could play a vital role in natural resource management. From the team’s information it seemed, however, that the Women’s Union had carried out activities in agriculture as well.

On the other hand, the project team had already requested the villagers to establish a list of those who were interested in forming a CDG. This list was supposed to be handed over to the team tomorrow. As this list had been asked for, does it mean that the project had to go for CDGs, or were there still other options, e.g. working with the Women’s Union or stimulating the formation of an interest group around a possible spark measure ‘improvement of paddy cultivation’? The crucial question was about the commitment for the formation of CDGs . If the list was prepared only "to please the project", it might even be appropriate to look for other options as the villagers then would realise that the project did not intend to "push" too much for the creation of CDGs. (How was the list prepared? Who took which responsiblity in preparing that list, and who was involved in any sort of discussion and consultation?).

Looking for perspectives in further cooperation with me , a follow-up mission in August 1997 was scheduled. This mission would focus on:

� supporting the team’s self-evaluation process in three areas � spark measure ‘hybrid corn’ � spark measure ‘improved wood stoves’ � land allocation and identification of additional agricultural and forest land � supporting the team’s action learning process: how did the team organise its action learning process, and what lessons can be learnt?

Prior to this mission the project will send me a proposal for the mission’s working programme which will give me the possibility to prepare the mission in more detail.

C THE PROJECT’S CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: SOME IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS

C.1 Learning from the spark measures

The project has opted for two spark measures in Dak Phoi Commune:

� introduction of improved wood stoves � introduction of hybrid corn

Both spark measures are related to the results of the PRA. On the other hand, they are not the result of a joint planning process with the villagers. The project took the initiative in order to start activities early without waiting for a detailed joint planning process to be finalised. As the two spark measures are designed as pilot activities, they offer various opportunities for the project and for the villagers in Dak Phoi Commune:

Stimulating the villagers’ capacity development in terms of organisation and problem-solving . While realising the spark measures, tasks will have to be assumed and problems will have to be solved. How the villagers will tackle them will indicate to them and to the project what capacities for action they have. From there the questions come up which capacities will have to be further developed, what the villagers want to do in that regard and what the project could contribute in terms of support (dialogue, advice, training). On the other hand, the project team will also get indications about their capacities to support the villagers in terms of (self-) organisation and problem-solving. The question of organisational development on the commune level will come on the agenda again, but with more and more practical experiences gained promising options can be identified more easily (see chapter B 8).

Building up relations of cooperation: clarification of roles and responsibilities. The two spark measures are also a test for the possibilities and forms of cooperation between the project and the villagers. There are mutual expectations of roles to play and responsibilities to take. The project expects e.g. that the villagers will take a major responsibility for the extension of the spark measure once promising results are achieved on a small scale. We do not know yet what the villagers might expect from the project in this regard. Thus, clarification of roles and responsibilities (who does what, why and how?) will be necessary from time to time. The challenge for the project is to build up fruitful relations of cooperation with the villagers during the realisation of the spark measures, thus setting the ground for cooperation in more complex areas like land allocation and identification of additional agricultural and forest land.

Building up confidence and reliability . For the villagers the spark measures are an opportunity to experience how reliable the project team acts in assuming tasks and responsibilities. The villagers might even be sceptical in the beginning, thinking of negative experiences in the past when services or support from outside was announced, but did not materialise in the same way. On this background, the project should stick to what has been agreed with the villagers. Apparently this already had a positive effect in the context of the spark measure ‘hybrid corn’ when, to the surprise of the villagers, the seeds were delivered in time. ‘Reliability’, however, would not exclude modifications while the work is going on. But any modification should be explained to and discussed with the villagers in order to avoid detrimental effects on confidence-building. Looking ahead and thinking of the difficult issues of changing land use patterns, some confidence between the project and the villagers will be indispensable if the project wants to pay a supportive role in that matter.

Opening the dialogue on land use patterns . In relation to the introduction of improved wood stoves, fuelwood consumption will be an issue. It may be a good entry point for the project to better understand the land use patterns leading to the question: which potentials and opportunities do the villagers see - and who exactly? - to change the land use patterns in the perspective of sustainable natural resource management. Who

Page 18 of 20

e.g. would be interested in planting trees for getting fuelwood?

C.2 Playing a supportive role

The project has opted for a supportive role instead of claiming to take the lead for any sort of action. The advantage is that other actors are stimulated to take their responsibility. The supportive role has to be clarified in consultation with the other actors. It will certainly vary from one activity to the other. The supportive role in the land allocation process will have a different shape in comparison to the project’s role in the introduction of improved wood stoves.

The supportive role cannot be clearly defined and negotiated right from the beginning. It will have to be part of the team’s action learning process through process monitoring to evolve playing a supportive role in cooperation with different actors.

The challenge will be to stick to the supportive role if the actors who take the lead do not assume their responsibilities in accordance with the expectation of the project. In such a situation, projects are often tempted to take the lead in order to get quick results. For the sake of sustainability and ownership development, the project in this case should opt for consultation and negotiation, even if the intended results will be achieved later than expected.

C.3 Changing land use patterns

The challenge for the project is to contribute to a change of land use patterns. One of the key issues in that context is the process of transition from shifting cultivation to more permanent systems of land use. So far, the project has chosen two entry points:

1. supporting the land allocation process; 2. supporting the identification of additional agricultural and forest land.

With land allocation, land users are supposed to get clear rights for using their land. This should give them security and certainty, motivating them to adopt more permanent forms of land use. Even if this can be assumed, there are probably a number of salient features to be tackled:

� To what extent are land allocation related conflicts really settled, or to what extent are these conflicts still "burning", even on a small flame?

� To what extent has land allocation opened opportunities to upland farmers to start more permanent forms of land use on low lands? � What are potentials in terms of local indigenous knowledge of forms and practices of permanent land use? � To what extent are customary and modern land use rights still juxtaposed in the sense that customary land use rights are respected by

parts of the land users despite the land allocation process being finalised? � What are the actual incentives and disincentives for upland farmers to change their land use system, and how can the balance be shifted

more towards ‘incentives’? What could be new incentives, and what could be the project’s role in that?

Looking at the second entry point, the project will probably face the following questions:

� To what extent will Lak Forest Enterprise (LFE) be flexible in reallocating forest land and in testing collaborative management approaches, e.g. for cashew plantations?

� What would be an appropriate procedure in order to come to collaborative management agreements between LFE and farmers? � What are potentials in the use and collection of non-timber forest products? To what extent could non-timber forest products become a

source of additional cash income and for whom? � What are potentials and opportunities for developing agro-forestry systems as a form of permanent land use? � What are potentials for intensifying land use in the low lands, e.g. utilisation of hybrid corn seeds? � Are there potentials for cash crops which could become an alternative to planting coffee?

D PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTISES

It is part of the activities of the MRC/GTZ project to identify best practices in watershed management in the Lower Mekong Basin. In identifying these best practices, the question of appropriate criteria comes on the agenda. In this context we had a working session in RECOFTC on May 7 with Mr. Pearmsak Makarabhirom (RECOFTC), Dr. Bob Fisher (RECOFTC), who could only partly attend, Mr. Schremp (SDC advisor to the MRC Secretariat), Mr. Christoph Feyen (GTZ advisor) and Mr. Michael Glück (Acting TL). The result of this meeting can be resumed as follows.

The term ‘best practices’ bears a risk: it may be understood as a recipe to be replicated in a blueprint mode. May be ‘learning cases’ or ‘promising concepts’ would be more useful terms. In contrasting the blueprint and the learning process approach, we identified a number of key issues:

� How can the replicability of the learning process approach be illustrated and conceptualised? � How can promising experiences with the learning process approach be presented in a way that it may convince those still promoting the

blueprint approach? � How can the ownership development issue, as the key shortcoming of the blueprint approach, be adressed? � In identifying best practises or learning cases, how can stereotypes be avoided, e.g. by asking: under which circumstances is which form

of shifting cultivation detrimental or benefecial to the stabilisation of the Lower Mekong Basin?

In clarifying the task of Mr. Pearmsak Makarabhirom, the following steps were defined:

1. Review of existing project experiences in the field of participatory NRM 2. Definition of the scope of work 3. Adressee: projects dealing with participatory NRM in the Lower Mekong Basin 4. policy makers, academics representatives or target groups. 5. Selection of six cases from Thailand, as a first stage:

Page 19 of 20

- 2 cases: Government-funded projects without external support

- 2 cases: Bi- or multilateral projects

- 2 cases: NGO projects

For the analysis of these six cases , the following questions were identified:

Descriptive questions

� What are the sources of funding? � What are the features of the physical environment? � What natural resources are focused? � What are the major goals and objectives? � Is there a list of publications?

Analytical questions

� Who cooperates how with whom? � Who has which mandate from whom? � [What did the project do for building up confidence among the different actors?] � What did the project do for the capacity development of the actors, especially resource users? � [What was the approach in land use planning? � To what extent did the project contribute to changing the land use patterns and if so, how?] � Do the target groups change their traditional practises? � How do they learn? � How do target groups perceive the project? � What was the approach in technology development? � [How did the project address the equity and gender issue?] � [What was the role of subsidies?] � What are the favoring and hampering factors for success? � What has to happen to sustain their success? � Can one replicate their experiences?

Annex 1

Terms of Reference

� Resource management through self-help approaches (assessment of potentials) � Crititcal assessment of present participatory methods used by the project staff � Results of first PRAs: Development of the project’s support approach: Confidence-building measures (CBM), Back-up Measures (BM),

Intervention Strategies (IS), Integration of CBM, BM and IS) � Recommendations for cooperation with partners, especially with CARE International � Recommendations for appropriate analysis of local organizational landscape with focus on transformation processes (Doi Moi) and

introduction of new actors (project) � Proposal for process monitoring � Proposals for the project’s conceptual development; � Proposal for future cooperation between the consultant and the project � Proposal and recommendations for principles and criteria for the identification of best practises (Querschnittsanalysen), e.g. "new

horizons projects".

Page 20 of 20