SD: People : Participation and grass-roots organizations in integrated range and livestock development, Pakistan: Part 3

Posted June 1997

Participation and grass-roots organizations in integrated range and livestock development, Pakistan: Part 3

by Angelo Bonfiglioli
Socio-economist
FAO/UNDP Integrated Range and Livestock Development Project (IRLDP)
Balochistan, Pakistan

< Part 2

Participative organizations in action

Introduction

This final Part analyses and describes the basic principles underlying the establishment of social and economic initiatives in the IRLDP pilot areas, in line with the organization of participation presented in the two previous Parts. It also outlines the particular features of the development process initiated by the IRLDP in the pilot areas and presents the main steps followed in this process. Finally, we provide an detailed presentation of all the activities initiated in the pilot areas, focussing on their respective objectives and methodology.

From impoverishment to development

The challenge
The studies and surveys undertaken by the SEU have highlighted, among other issues, particular aspects of the impoverishment process which are taking place in Highland Balochistan. The findings led to the identification of a number of factors explaining the generally low productivity in the pilot areas and, consequently, the extreme vulnerability of the population to crises, poverty and destitution.

Thus, in terms of action, the major challenge faced by the project has been:

to start a development process which would involve local populations in the design and implementation of a set of initiatives aimed at improving their social and economic conditions, and reversing the process of impoverishment.

In order to be socially acceptable, economically feasible and environmentally sustainable, the initiatives undertaken also have to strengthen basic production and survival strategies already tested and adopted by the local populations. In order to counter the effects of the impoverishment process, the development model adopted by the project was the following:

A set of technical initiatives would lead to higher productivity of agriculture, livestock and rangeland.
Higher productivity would improve the basic conditions for economic take-off (local financial capability to assume sustainable development, technical skills, equipment, infrastructure, etc.), promote social welfare (better nutrition, decreased vulnerability to diseases, self-reliance, food security, education, etc.), and establish a new social and economic setting.
A new social and economic setting would foster the dynamics of a development process, strengthening internal solidarity mechanisms, and enhancing internal resistance to shocks.

An integrated approach
The above approach to development characterizes the IRLDP as a wholly-integrated program, made up of multidisciplinary units, specializing in rangeland, watershed, horticulture, and animal health and nutrition activities.

Within the context of a participatory approach, these technical units have had the role of designing and implementing, the most appropriate initiatives aimed at increasing productivity. The Socio-economic Unit, on the other hand, has had the role of:

providing detailed socio-economic data on the structure and dynamics of the communities involved in the pilot areas;
creating participative local organizations capable of carrying out development initiatives;
establishing a precise methodology to facilitate application of participation;
facilitating contacts between technical units and local communities;
directly identifying and implementing general socio-economic initiatives.

Methodology

Progressive steps
Taking the results of the socio-economic studies as a basis, and working through community and village organizations established at local level, one of the main challenges for the SEU was to define a precise methodology aimed at fostering the development process and facilitating participation, and initiating specific development activities according to this methodology. The chart below synthesises the main steps or phases characterizing the methodological approach.

**Steps in the initiation of development activities**
Step	Expected outputs
1. Discussions with all members of village/community	- community understanding of the objectives and role of the project - identification of local needs -identification of priorities
2. Consulting Village council or Community Steering Committee	- points for establishment of a mutual agreement - precise definition of respective roles - common decisions on technical matters - decisions on local contributions (financial/labour) - selection of village specialists - establishment of systems for internal monitoring
3. Training one or more village specialists	- build internal administrative/technical capability - set up monitoring system - establish the conditions facilitating the general education of all community members
4. Starting activity	- specific benefits related to the initiative
5. Monitoring and evaluating	- assessment of impact - indications for improvement/changes
6. Formal evaluation by project and/or independent body	- assessment of impact - indications for improvement/changes

This methodology was followed for all the initiatives in which the SEU was involved. However, it was applied in a very flexible manner since the initiatives were of diverse nature and their requirements not comparable.

Flexible procedures.
For certain initiatives, steps 1 and 2 were quite laborious, requiring much effort from the project staff and the members of the village/community. In several cases, these steps represented only the beginning of a long-term effort accompanying the entire implementation process.

For instance, the establishment of resting areas (pargora) in the communal grazing lands required a large consensus of all the members of the community as well as a precise understanding, on the part of the project staff, of local herding practices and, on the part of the members of the community, a certain environmental awareness. The selection of specific sites, the establishment of rules concerning their management, the definition of roles and functions within the community as well as decisions concerning dispute resolution mechanisms were difficult points which had to be worked out prior to taking any action. These were very sensitive points which led to delicate discussions, not only before, but also during the implementation process. In at least one pilot area (Kach Mulazai), for instance, internal monitoring/evaluation revealed that, even several months after the designation of the resting area, disagreements within the community remained concerning its siting and internal management.

In other cases, the issues raised by certain initiatives were so delicate and sensitive that the project decided to delay any action until achievement of an unanimous consensus among the community members.

For instance, in Ragha Bakalzei, the rehabilitation of a communal spring had been identified as a priority. But in the initial discussions concerning the rules of its future management, the members of the community were incapable of overcoming factionalism and individualism, so as to perceive the interest of the community as a whole beyond the interest of their respective family lineages. After several attempts at a compromise, the project decided to suspend any involvement in that pilot area, foregoing initiation of an activity which could have created even deeper divisions within the community.

For other activities, the participative methodology adopted by the project encouraged all the members of the community to assume their responsibility in the decision-making process. This created great enthusiasm, but also a 'jam' of ideas and opinions.

For instance, in the provision of spraying machines to village organizations for treatment of their orchards, several small decisions cropped up concerning the use of the machines which demanded certain decisions. The alternatives were numerous, and everybody had a different point of view. The project staff had to be careful to guarantee democratic procedures, while avoiding the loss of 'honour' by individuals or groups of individuals. Finally, after very long discussions (resembling somewhat 'ferocious' disputes), it was decided, for instance, that: the members of the village had to assume at least 25% of the cost of the machine; individual members had to pay a rental fee of 10 Rs. per tank for the use of the machine; two members of the Village Organization had to be in charge of the machine (one for the technical side and another for the financial side); 4 out of 10 Rs. per tank should compensate the technician for its work and the rest should be put in the Village Development Fund (in the special bank account of the village) for future activities; etc. All these points were the object of intense and detailed discussions, in which individuals invested all their energies.

All the initiatives concerning women have also passed through a long process. The problem is that, cultural values required initial consultation with the male members of the Steering Committee and Village Councils in order to assess their points of view and take into consideration their hopes and fears. It was only after having achieved a general agreement among the men that the project's female group promoter was able to discuss these issues with the members of women's associations.

In Kach Mulazai, for instance, the issue of building a social centre for women was extremely complex. At first, the project was ready to assist the community in building only one centre. But men resisted that idea, opposing the principle of the mobility of their wives/daughters/sisters within the village area. When the proposal to build three social centres, one in each neighbourhood, was accepted by everybody, new discussions were started to select appropriate places. For men, it was out of the question to select a place from the communal land, because this land was located outside the habitat and women would not have been allowed to leave the residential area. For reasons linked to individual honour and prestige, several elders then offered a piece of their private land, near or even inside their compounds, where the social centres could have been built. Final negotiations were long and delicate. In one neighbourhood, male heads of two households situated only a few hundred meters from the selected site decided that their women would not be allowed to attend the social centre activities, because they would have to cross the entire neighbourhood to reach it. This demonstrates the particular difficulties of establishing communal facilities and activities for women in a socio-cultural setting marked by strict adherence to the principle of women's seclusion (parda).

The training component (step n.3) varied in terms of time and methodology, according to the particular initiatives undertaken.

The training for Village Traditional Birth Attendants (or local mid-wives) had to comply with the rules established by the Health Department (such as a 15-day training course, choice of certain topics, use of defined pedagogical materials, etc.). On the other hand, the training of the accountants in charge of keeping financial records of the use for the spraying machines was given on the spot by the project's group promoters.

Formal training courses were offered to only a few individuals (selected by the other members of the community) who were chosen to play a specific role (as 'village specialists') in providing a service to their group. In other cases, what was needed was only an informal 'demonstration' session open to everybody.

For instance, while a 10-day training course on animal health and nutrition was provided to only one person per village (who eventually obtained a certificate and a kit of veterinarian products and materials), a short (one hour) explanation of appropriate pruning techniques was judged sufficient to initiate everybody in improved pruning.

As a general principle, activities were never initiated without a concrete financial contribution from the members of the Village Organization or without the signature (by the elders of the community and the project representatives) of a written agreement.

According to the overall methodology, the internal monitoring and evaluation of the activities (step 5) should be considered as a regular activity, to take place at least once a year, using participatory tools. In two of the pilot areas, the SEU has already completed this evaluation. A more formal external evaluation (step 6) could be done after 3 to 5 years.

Extension principles in a participatory approach

In the participatory approach of the IRLDP, the importance of extension activities and technical packages aimed at improving local conditions (production, equipment, skills) was not ignored, but rather re-evaluated. It was reaffirmed that in a participatory approach:

while outside partners play an important advisory role, they should not act as entrepreneurs or decision-makers;
extension agents should not be responsible for activities and should not dictate behaviours;
the basic role of project staff should be to assist local communities to articulate their needs and priorities, educate them about the probable consequences of different courses of action; provide them with basic information (for instance, on market regulations, trends of the main agricultural products, government programmes and policies); demonstrate the effectiveness of new or improved animal husbandry and range management practices and local technical knowledge, promote exchange of information between producers, etc. But the final decision should be made by the community;
the success or failure of the project should be evaluated not on the basis of number of initiatives implemented, but on the degree to which local communities have been encouraged to tackle their own problems, identify and articulate their own needs, and act as units of collective action.

4. Conclusion

The experience of the IRLDP in participation and organization highlights the importance of building on people. Investing in people means that people should be both the objectives and the means of development. That is, for instance, while education, health and nutrition are ends in themselves, healthy and educated people are also the principal elements for achieving development.

Several policy orientations underlie the IRLDP approach to integrated participatory development. In line with these principles, the social and economic development of the populations living in the pilot areas requires some political, social and environmental conditions, such as:

a long-term political commitment to human development on the part of decision-makers, planners, development agents and donor/lending agencies to set up an enabling environment (in terms of infrastructure services, incentives, legal and administrative support, etc.);
an equitable process which is primarily intended to enhance local capacities as a prerequisite for self-reliance as well as to reduce poverty and improve the access of the poor to the productive assets;
sustainable objectives which essentially protect the productive capacity of the environment.

Although promising and interesting, the experience of the IRLDP is limited in time and in space. The approach should now be continued and strengthened, and its lessons adapted to other areas in order to provide a more substantial contribution to the emergence in Balochistan of a form of sustainable development based on participation.

However, past development experiences sadly show that lessons may be ignored or forgotten, that a favourable momentum may be lost, and that an original and harmonious development approach may be diluted and fragmented.

Care should be taken in the next phase of the IRLDP activities to build on the lessons learned and to guard against any encroachment on the principles of people's participation in all actions and decisions affecting their lives.

Essential bibliographic references

AHMED A. (1980) 'Pukhtun Economy and Society. Traditional Structure and Economic Development in a Tribal Society' (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul)

BARTH F. (1965) 'Political Leadership among Swat Pathans' (London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, N. 19, New York, Humanities Press)

DUPREE L. (1973) 'Afghanistan' (Princeton, Princeton University Press)

GRIMA, B. (1993) 'The Performance of Emotion among Paxtun Women' (Oxford University Press, Karachi)

HALL A. (1988) 'Community participation and development policy: a sociological perspective' in HALL A. & MIDGLEY J. eds. (1988) 'Development policies. Sociological perspectives' (Manchester University Press) p. 91-107

HALL A. & MIDGLEY J. eds. (1988) 'Development policies. Sociological perspectives' (Manchester University Press)

JOHNSTON B. & CLARK W. (1982) 'Redesigning Rural Development. A Strategic Perspective (The John Hopkins University Press)

KORTEN D. & ALFONSO F. eds. (1983) 'Bureaucracy and the Poor. Closing the Gap' (Kumarian Press)

LINDHOLM, C. (1982) 'Generosity and Jealousy. The Swat Pukhtun of Northern Pakistan' (Columbia University Press, New York)

NORHONA- SPEARS 1985 'Sociological Variables in Forestry Project Design' in CERNEA M. (ed. ) 'Putting People First. Sociological Variable in Rural Development' (Oxford University Press) p. 227-266

UPHOFF N. (1985) 'Fitting Projects to People' in CERNEA M. (ed. ) 'Putting People First. Sociological Variable in Rural Development' (Oxford University Press) p. 359-396