Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Chapter 16
The participatory planning process for SARM:
A conceptual framework

The participatory planning process for SARM involves a variety of different, and usually interrelated, activities. To improve their effectiveness, and to avoid a piecemeal approach it is suggested that all such activities should be conducted in a systematic manner within an overall holistic development framework.

The following outline is one such conceptual framework which can be used when undertaking participatory SARM planning at the field/community level. It is derived from the frameworks established for conservation farming systems development (in Norman and Douglas 1993) and for participatory technology development (in Reijntjes et al 1992) and consists of ten key stages, namely:

Table 14 briefly describes the activities at each stage, examples of the operational methods/participatory tools that could be used and examples of the output indicators. Four points should be stressed about this framework:

The time frame for completion of the stages will vary depending on several factors. These include as the experience of the `external' participatory planning team, manpower and financial resources available, size and accessibility of the area to be planned, the amount and quality of secondary data, the degree of ethnic/social diversity, attitude of individual communities to the participatory approach, the number of farm households involved as well as the complexity of their farming systems.

Table 11. The participatory planning process for community level sustainable agricultural resource management

Activity Phase

Description

Examples of operational methods/Participatory tools

Examples of output indicators

Pre-paratory Planning

  • Formulating planning goals and objectives
  • Preliminary determination of location, extent and boundaries of planning area
  • Identifying potential participating communities
  • Identifying and securing the manpower, financial and logistical support required by the `external' PRA team
  • Preliminary identification of appropriate operational methods and participatory tools
  • Coordinating with other interested government agencies and NGOs
  • Briefing community leaders, politicians and government officials in planning area
  • Planning meetings and workshops of technicians and senior officials
  • Co-ordination meetings with national and local government agencies and NGOs
  • Formation (and when necessary training) of inter-disciplinary `external' PRA team
  • Preparation of budget and workplan
  • Regional, district and local level briefing meetings /awareness creation workshops
  • Agreed set of planning goals and objectives (may be modified later in light of PRA findings)
  • Agreement on which communities and/or geographic area in which to work (may be modified later in light of PRA findings)
  • Approved budget and workplan
  • An established inter-disciplinary `external' PRA team
  • Agreed set of operational methods and participatory tools to use (may be modified later in light of experience with their use)
  • Enhanced awareness amongst local government agencies, NGOs and community leaders as to the nature and purpose of the PRA exercise

Pre-liminary Investi-gation

  • Collecting and reviewing secondary data
  • Field reconnaissance
  • Validation of (selection of alternative) planning area following rapid community level investigation of interest, capabilities and potential conflicts
  • Preliminary characterisation of the planning area's bio-physical and socio-econmic circumstances
  • Collection and review of secondary data
  • Reconnaissance field visits
  • Air photo interpretation and map analysis
  • Key informant interviews
  • Community level meetings
  • Report preparation
  • Final agreement on which communities and/or geographic area will be the focus for the primary data collection work
  • A preliminary report detailing the PRA team's initial findings with regard to the area's:
  • bio-physical circumstances (climate, soils, landforms, vegetation, water resources etc);
  • community structure and organization;
  • different land user groups/stakeholders and their socio-economic circumstances;
  • nature and extent of current land degradation and its on-site and downstream impact; and
  • the key information gaps.
  • Terms of reference for the primary data collection

Assessment of planning areas bio-physical and socio-economic circum-stances

  • Primary data collection
  • Assessing and describing the planning areas bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances
  • Assessing and describing the nature, extent and causes of current land degradation and future risks
  • Validation of the `external' PRA team's understanding of the local bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances with the participating communities (restitution of findings)
  • Participatory mapping
  • Participatory transects
  • Direct observation
  • Group interviews
  • Individual interviews
  • Participatory seasonal profiles
  • Participatory historical profiles/time lines
  • Participatory diagramming
  • Ranking/scoring matrices
  • Use of local value criteria
  • Wealth ranking
  • Stakeholder analysis
  • Gender analysis
  • Land suitability evaluation
  • Community level presentation and analysis
  • Report preparation
  • Enhanced understanding amongst government line agencies and NGOs as to the realities of farmers' bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances
  • Improved capacity of rural communities to inform `outsiders' about their specific local circumstances
  • Baseline report characterising the bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances within watershed/planning area to include detailed descriptions of:
  • (a) The bio-physical properties of each land management unit;

    (b) The social structure of, and organizations operating within, each participating community;

    (c) the farming system/household characteristics of each common resource management domain*; and

    (d) the nature, extent and cause(s) of current land degradation and its on-site and downstream impact.

Monitoring and Evaluation

  • Measurement/obser-vation (monitoring)
  • Evaluation
  • Revision of project proposals/reformulation of work plans and activities (replanning)
  • Regular farmer group meetings
  • Farmer field schools
  • Participatory transects within community area
  • Iterative learning
  • Community, user, common interest and/or womens group M and E analysis/replanning workshops
  • Community presentation workshops/village meetings
  • Methods and local criteria for monitoring and evaluation
  • Enhanced local capacity to monitor and evaluate development activities
  • Enhanced local involvement in reformulation of development plans and activities
  • Enhanced and stronger exchange and support linkages

Sharing experience with the partici-patory planning process

  • Communicating basic ideas and principles of the participatory planning process
  • Communicating results of implementing the participatory plan
  • Training in skills, proven technologies and use of planning and implementation methods
  • Visits to other communities
  • Farmer-to-farmer training
  • Farmers' manuals and audiovisual materials
  • Field workshops
  • Case study documentation
  • Preparation of guideline manuals/training materials for development workers
  • Spontaneous diffusion of ideas and technologies
  • Enhanced local capacity for farmer-to-farmer training and communication
  • Increasing number of communities involved in participatory planning process
  • Increasing knowledge of/experience with the participatory planning process amongst local government agencies and NGOs
  • Printed case studies
  • Guidelines manuals/training materials being used in the field by farmers and development workers

Continuation of the process

  • Creating favourable conditions for ongoing participatory planning
  • Organizational development
  • Documenting the planning and implementation
  • Participatory monitoring of impacts on sustainability
  • Consolidated community networks/organizations for rural self management
  • Resource materials
  • Consolidated linkages with institutions
  • Participatory approach institutionalised within local government line agencies and NGOs

The term common resource management domain is used to describe a relatively homogeneous group of farm households that: a) share broadly similar bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances; b) engage in similar farming systems; and c) face the same range of production constraints, sustainability problems and development opportunities (see Chapter 2).

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page