|
Chapter 3. Participatory action research (PAR)
Involving people in the analysis of the problems that affect them and in the design of
potential solutions is the best way to achieve sustainable development in the truest sense
of the term. Though more time-consuming, perhaps, than traditional conservation and
development approaches that rely on 'blueprint' plans and development 'experts',
participatory approaches generally lead to environmental conservation efforts that are
sustained over the long term - because the people themselves have an interest in their
success. This chapter provides some principles and methodological considerations for
carrying out participatory action research. Beginning with a discussion of the term
'participation', we lay the ground for the material which follows in Chapters 4, 5 and 6.
In those chapters, readers will be introduced to specific techniques for conducting
participatory action research on local population and the environment.
3.1 Participation
If we understand 'participation' in the simplest of its meanings - taking part, sharing,
acting together - people's participation is nothing less than the basic texture of social
life. For millennia, people have 'participated' in shaping their cultures and survival
strategies in an immense variety of ecological environments. For the greater part of the
existence of Homo sapiens, this sharing of tasks and responsibilities has taken place in
self-regulated small groups - 50 to 60 individuals who interacted in a face-to-face way
and shared the hunting, gathering, leisure and learning of daily life.
With the advent of agriculture, and even more so with the advent of industrial
production, social units grew in size and became internally diversified and specialized.
Regulations and enterprises developed and promoted by special groups had to face the
consensus, the indifference or the opposition of the rest of the people. Spontaneous
participation became an important test of confidence and trust.
In recent decades, large-scale planning, governmental services and regulations,
entrepreneurial projects and development schemes have increasingly dominated socio-political life. In this context, 'people's participation' is appreciated and sought by
virtually all institutions, large and small alike. Why is it so? What benefits can be
expected from it and, in particular, what benefits for activities related to population
dynamics and environmental conservation?
To begin with, participation is a condition by which local knowledge, skills and
resources can be mobilized and fully employed. Local people may know very well the
causes and possible remedies of deforestation or soil erosion in their environment. They
may know where to find and how to use plants of unique properties or how to prevent
animals from damaging new seedlings. They may be able to offer labor, land, food,
shelter or tools for the running of a project. Contributions like these increase the
flexibility of an initiative and its responsiveness to local conditions, they reduce the
chances of mistakes with major environmental consequences and often make up most of
the difference between success and failure. In fact, the overriding benefit of people's
participation is the increased effectiveness of any initiative.
Another major benefit is a more efficient use of resources. In fact, local knowledge and
skills help minimize waste and obtain results with limited investments; participation can bring to the project the full benefits of human and
material resources that would otherwise remain idle or poorly utilized; and local
monitoring discourages the undue use of assets and promotes accountability and the
respect of rules.
|
Box 3.1: What to expect from people's participation in a conservation initiative
- local knowledge, skills and resources are used more fully
- the initiative becomes more effective and more efficient
- local people and outsiders share and enhance their awareness of problems,
resources and opportunities
- local people and outsiders share and diversify their relevant knowledge and
skills
- local associations and institutions are created or become stronger and more
capable
- local initiative and self-reliance are encouraged and cultivated
- the local society is likely to become more mature, non-paternalistic
- 'development', 'democracy' and 'equity' are broadly promoted
… in all, the initiative becomes much more sustainable.
|
Most of all, however, the participation of local people provides a unique assurance of
the sustainability of conservation initiatives. In fact, local people are - at least
potentially - the most directly interested in the positive results of such initiatives. When
they initiate them or participate in setting them up, when they invest in them their own
hopes and resources, they are likely to remain motivated to sustain them in the long run.
In fact, most local communities possess greater stability and continuity than national
governments; their investments are made for the next generations rather than for the
next elections.
Agencies concerned with the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of conservation
and development initiatives can thus profit from people's participation. But
participation directly benefits local people as well. When people take part in assessing
population dynamics, environmental problems, resources and opportunities, they
acquire information and enhance their awareness of factors playing a role in their lives.
When they act and contribute, they often acquire new skills and face the opportunity of
organizing themselves - with a variety of returns for local equity, self-reliance and
building of community or group identity.
In fact, the benefits of genuine people's participation in initiatives for the common good
are so many that for some authors the concept merges with other concepts, like
democracy and development, and makes the whole difference between a mature and free
society and a paternalistic and possibly oppressive one.
|
Case Example 3.1: Participation in a population-environment project
The Orangi Pilot Project (OPP), located in a slum district north of Karachi, Pakistan,
has success-fully blended both population and environmental activities into one
integrated project using participatory approaches. Begun in 1980 as a sanitation project
to introduce flush latrines, the OPP staff organized the local population, and involved
them in self-financing and building the project. As a result of the collective efforts of
community members, latrines were introduced in more than 50,000 homes.
OPP moved from sanitation into the health field (disease prevention) and ultimately,
based on women's expressed needs, into reproductive health and family planning. In
Pakistan, women's mobility is limited for cultural reasons. In order to reach them, it was
thus necessary for project workers to go into the homes or neighborhoods of potential
clients. Because the service needed to be delivered to the door, it was important that the
outreach workers would be women who were trusted by the clients.
The solution was to train local women as family planning suppliers and motivators.
OPP developed a three-month-long training course for community activists on subjects
including family planning, preventive health, nutrition, hygiene, and gardening. These
activists organize by lanes and have weekly meetings which are also used for service
delivery at cost. Women are eager to learn and pay a nominal fee to attend meetings.
An important innovation is that OPP relies on capacity building of local community
members rather than on social organizers from outside the specific community. The
advantages are that the women have confidence in the local activists and that through
them OPP is able to reach a much larger audience. While women are left to make their
own decisions, based on full information, the activists play a critical role as catalysts,
providers of information and facilitators in service delivery.
Contributed by Tariq Banuri
|
Given all the benefits listed above, is participation universally desirable? Could any
problem arise? The management of a conservation initiative may wish to take into
consideration the following potential issues and constraints:
- Full local participation and empowerment are best developed in a democratic
society. Yet, several communities affected by conservation initiatives are highly
hierarchical in nature and generally follow the decisions of their leaders. In those
communities, the participation of certain disadvantaged groups may clash with local
customs (e.g., the participation of women, the landless, ethnic minorities, etc.).
- The very concept of 'stakeholder participation' may be quite alien to some cultures and groups. For instance, it may be that the self-assertion required to
express one's 'stake' (which differs from the 'stakes' and interests of others) is
considered unseemly and clashes with accepted behavioral norms. In fact, the
participation of various stakeholders presupposes that different interests exist within a
community, which is a concept largely derived from the economic and cultural context
of modern western society.
- National governments may not support local participation or empowerment,
especially if they regard it as a threat to their own authority, or as an encouragement to
opposition groups. The participatory approach also may not be viable because of local
political opposition or sheer lack of norms and institutional support.
- Participatory processes require specific investments of time and resources. In
particular, the process of participation needs expert facilitation and clear objectives, to
avoid chaotic meetings and a general loss of direction for the initiative. The needed
resources may not be available or the relevant activities may not have been foreseen in
the original plan of the conservation initiative. In these cases, creativity and managerial
initiative are necessary.
- Participatory approaches require commitment over time and results may take a
while to appear. This can tax the patience of donors, managers, staff and local people
alike. Threats against natural resources may be escalating, and the urgency of taking
action may discourage people from undertaking lengthy participatory processes.
- Time and resource investments may be required to reach a good level of
communication between the local people and the national or expatriate staff in the
conservation initiative.
- Some compromises in conservation objectives may need to be made. For
instance, a conservation initiative designed by outsiders may propose a total ban on
local access to natural resources, which may be simply unacceptable to the locals. Also,
emphasis on the process of participation may take attention and resources away from the
'technical content' of the initiative.
|
Box 3.2: The ambiguity of participation
The current widespread interest in people's participation in environmental and
development programs surely derives from the impressive benefits that participation is
expected to bring. It also derives, however, from a certain ambiguity of the concept
itself. Its possible interpretations (which also reflect alternative interpretations of the
concepts of development and democracy) span from participation 'as a means to
facilitate and improve external interventions' to participation 'as an end in itself'.
If local people participate, they are willing to contribute local resources: this is the basic
rationale for promoting participation 'as a means'. For instance, people participate when
they provide free labor for a local construction, free or low-cost lodging and food for
external workers, or needed land, timber, building materials, animals, water, etc. From
this point of view, participation regards only the people who are involved in specific
activities in a given period of time. The phenomenon is relatively easy to monitor and
evaluate.
The rationale of participation 'as an end in itself' is more lofty, and its practice and
evaluation are more complex. People participate when they take an active role in
planning, deciding, implementing and evaluating initiatives. In this process, people -
and in particular the poor and disadvantaged - end up organizing to overcome problems
and to gain more control over their local environment and livelihood. Thus, seeking
participation aims beyond the horizon of a specific initiative. A main indicator of
success is the development and strengthening of local organizations, which can
represent people's interests and concerns long after a specific initiative (e.g., a project)
ceased to exist.
The above views can appear incompatible, but, as often happens in real life, specific
people in specific contexts end up being more influential than ideological approaches in
determining results. At times, participation promoted for the sake of savings and work
efficiency has seeded a major development of local awareness and concern. On other
occasions, well-intentioned agencies never managed to arouse the interest of local
people for their own 'development' and/or 'empowerment'.
|
In short, participation requires time and effort, not to mention additional resources and
socio-political sensitivity. But the rewards, in terms of the sustainability of project
interventions, local empowerment and promotion of democratic processes, can more
than make up for the costs and potential frustrations encountered.
3.2 Participatory project management
In participatory project management two frequent practices are usually called into
question:
- the top-down decision-making process;
- the 'blueprint' approach to project planning and implementation.
Many, if not most, of the existing development and conservation initiatives around the
world are the result of top-down decision-making processes. What is to be done, as well as how, where and when it will be done, is decided by agencies from outside the local community. Institutional desires
and the wishes of 'well-meaning' outsiders carry more weight than the felt needs and
know-how of local actors. Even when local participation is actually pursued, the
rhetoric of program documents may talk about the 'poorest of the poor', but those who
are consulted are usually local leaders and prominent people.
In addition, the administrative needs and bureaucratic rules of donors and implementing
agencies pressure development and conservation initiatives into standard (conventional
or normative) project documents. These documents contain rigid sequences of outputs
and activities (so-called 'blueprint' plans), based on forecasting which may have been
fixed even before a preliminary contact with the local community has taken place.
Despite their coherent and meaningful appearance, these project documents do not
usually survive the reality of implementation. Delays, deviations, unforeseen
constraints, incidental events, unexpected outcomes and missed opportunities are the
daily lot of many conservation or development initiatives. Unfortunately, in the usual
development and conservation practice, a written project document is more important
and more 'real' to the funders and supervisors than a project in the field. Requirements
for delivery of inputs and production of outputs, as stated by the project document, are a
straitjacket for project managers and communities, preventing them from creatively
exploring alternative courses of action based on what they learn during project
implementation.
To overcome these limitations, some development and conservation agencies have
started to experiment with a new project management style, which is based on the
following:
Flexible and relatively open-ended project documents. Lists of objectives,
outputs and activities are presented as an open set of alternative courses of action. Their
relevance to local needs and resources is to be field-tested and validated, with the active
involvement of local actors, at the start-up of the project and during its lifetime.
Selection within this list, as well as reasonable shifts from the initial plan, is foreseen at
any time of the project. Consequently, timing, delivery of inputs and achievement of
results are left as open-ended as can be acceptable for the donor and the implementing
agency.
Field-based participatory appraisal, feasibility analysis and strategic planning.
Whatever the general objectives of the initiative are, time and resources are allocated for
carrying out a preliminary appraisal and feasibility analysis with the full involvement of
local actors, i.e., a participatory baseline assessment. This exercise usually leads to lists
of problems and possible solutions as perceived by different groups of local persons.
Planning decisions are eventually made by collectively negotiating these lists against
the mandate of the external agency and the policy priorities of other local institutional
actors. It is only on this basis that a detailed short-term plan and timetable is prepared.
Participatory implementation and monitoring. The responsibility of carrying out
decisions negotiated through participatory planning is shared by the different actors
involved, such as community groups, local authorities, NGOs and external donors. Each
actor is supposed to contribute its own resources (e.g., knowledge, skills, raw materials,
technical inputs, financing) to implement the common plan. Due to the variety of actors
involved and the flexibility of planning decisions, continuous monitoring by all the
concerned parties becomes an important component of implementation. The monitoring
helps to control the flow of inputs and the deployment of activities, as well as to identify
and settle conflicts and problems which may arise, and to take advantage of
opportunities as they come.
Participatory evaluation and re-planning. The open-ended and iterative (i.e.,
repeating cycles) orientation of the participatory process means that on-going evaluation
is essential. In contrast to summative evaluations that decide whether to continue a
project or not, evaluations in participatory processes generally have a 'formative' focus.
Their aim is to extract lessons learned during the implementation and use them to guide
the future evolution of the project. Re-planning of each ensuing activity or phase is thus
an expected part of such evaluations, in order to continuously learn from the previous
experiences.
|
Box 3.3: The power of the center: a view on participation in Africa
A strong tradition of centralized planning and administrative control has taken hold in
Africa. In the post-independence era, forging a single national identity from different
political, religious and tribal backgrounds was an overriding priority for most young
governments. The prospect of independent power centers was perceived as a threat to
central authority and, by extension, to national unity. As such it was aggressively
discouraged.
Centralized authority has become an established way of life. Even most
'decentralization' plans have merely shifted authority to surrogate administrators
located in provinces or regions. The slightest sign of independence or autonomy is often
dealt with quickly and harshly. It is not surprising that an attitude has emerged whereby
rural people believe that the lead in development activities should be taken by
recognized authorities.
Correspondingly, an atmosphere of passivity and dependence prevails in rural
communities. Local initiative, when taken at all, has evolved into a dismal shadow of its
true potential. People have become accustomed to petitioning those in authority, or
donors with outside resources, to do something on their behalf. That reinforces a self-perception as submissive objects of development rather than active players. The result is
predictable: with a shrug of the shoulders, many villagers spend a lot of time waiting for
development to happen through the efforts of others and point accusing fingers when it
doesn't take place.
Some political authorities, of course, do teach the need for self-reliance and thereby give
at least some rhetorical encouragement for local participation. This often takes the form
of half measures, of enlisting people to supply labor or make financial contributions to
projects that have already been decided elsewhere. When the recurring demands for
labor or money are high and associated with a low perception of personal benefits
among the villagers, there will be little participation and projects will fail.
Unfortunately, many attempts at locally initiated rural development projects do fail.
Rural people often have limited organizational and managerial skills. This not only
makes them vulnerable to intentional mismanagement and theft, but also contributes to
inadequate planning. Self-help projects are easily frustrated by inability to analyze
problems and formulate simple solutions. When such failures occur, the negative
experience goes a long way to discouraging similar initiatives in the future.
From: Bergdall, 1993
|
|
Box 3.4: The power of the villages: another view on participation in Africa
Can the pattern of 'local passivity' be broken? Can traditional and new knowledge and
skills be harnessed for the good of local communities?
The Naam groups of Burkina Faso, West Africa, are illustrative of traditional
participatory structures that have been adapted and updated to fit current circumstances.
Called Kombi-Naam in the local Mooré tongue, they were, until a few years ago,
traditional youth associations, composed of girls aged 15 to 21 and young men of 20 to
35, with the purpose of both developing moral qualities such as solidarity, cooperation,
friendship and loyalty in the young, and at the same time accomplishing socially useful
tasks for the village. Positions within the Naam were not at all based on caste or social
status, but rather on ability. The Kombi-Naam traditionally provided moral, civic and
technical training for the village youth.
Through the tireless work of Bernard Ouedraogo, a teacher turned agriculturist, Naams
were adapted for the purposes of modern development. The transition from the
traditional to the modern Naam was gentle, enabling village groups to adapt little by
little to their new roles. One important change was the opening up of the Naam to
people of all ages, thereby involving the whole village rather than just one age group.
The modern Naams also nominate counselors from among the village elders, an
innovation in line with the African tradition of respect for the wisdom of the elders. The
Naams are primarily involved in village agricultural development, but they also work in
income-generating activities.
In the late 1980s there were over 4,000 Naam and affiliated groups in the Yatenga area
of Burkina Faso, with well over 200,000 members - unquestionably one of the largest,
most powerful
peasant organizations in Africa, and a formidable force for development. The Naams
represent the triumph of the idea of 'developing without harming'.
The Naam is a form of development adapted to local needs, created by the people
themselves, which instead of destroying traditional structures from the outside, slowly,
like leaven, transforms them from the inside. It starts from where people are (based on a
true appreciation of their African identity), what they know (respect for traditional
knowledge and values), their know-how (rediscovery of traditional techniques, some of
which, for example in the field of water and soil conservation, have proven invaluable)
and what they wish to achieve (which implies meaningful grassroots participation in
defining the very objectives of the development process).
Adapted from: Pradervand, 1989
|
The new project management style entails several technical difficulties. Repeating
(cyclical or iterative), open-ended and comprehensive processes are much more
complex to manage than pre-defined one-time interventions in a single sector. Engaging
full participation calls for effective means of communicating, building consensus among
different actors and, whenever needed, helping them to solve their conflicts. Important
goals in potential opposition, such as the exploitation of natural resources for economic development and their conservation for future gains and
ecosystem functioning, need to be composed and harmonized. Working at the local
level is possible only if the political and economic links with the national and
international situation are acknowledged and strategically managed.
To meet these challenges, the professionals working with initiatives aimed at
participatory and sustainable development have looked for new and appropriate
technologies for project management. Various participatory methods for information
gathering and assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation have evolved in
response to this demand. In the following sections, we shall refer broadly to this
growing family of methods and tools as 'participatory action research'.
Partnerships between local and non-local actors
The process of responsible and informed decision-making at community level about
environment and population issues can become more effective by merging local
knowledge and resources with external skills and inputs. This is the justification for
establishing a partnership between local actors (community members and institutions)
and non-local professionals with the aim of improving quality of life in the community
and optimal management of its natural resources.
Ideally, such partnerships are based on the following principles:
Mutual respect. People from different backgrounds and social realities seem to
live in different worlds. Yet, if one is open minded, tolerant and respectful, meetings of
this kind can be among the most rewarding events that life can offer.
Complementarity of capacities. Most often, local and non-local actors have
diverse comparative advantages and skills, which can complement one another and at
times develop into true synergies.
Working for a common goal. At best, collaboration develops on the basis of a
shared vision of what is appropriate and desirable in a given context. When particular
benefits and interests merge into a mutual goal, all parties are more motivated to act.
(This said, even a good compromise, merging different goals of different partners, can
be at the basis of a successful partnership.)
Process orientation. A collaboration is best considered as an organic and
evolving phenomenon, rather than a way to produce a project plan that will stand
forever. Partners should feel that agreements can be changed, but they should respect them as they stand until all interested parties
agree to modification.
|
Case Example 3.2: When participation succeeds…
North of New Delhi, in the Indian state of Haryana, are the Shivalik hills, an ecosystem
of luxuriant broad-leaved and coniferous vegetation. Unfortunately, since the middle of
the last century these hills have suffered from wrong policies and unchecked resource
exploitation, in particular of timber and grass. Watershed erosion became so persistent
and severe that the topography of the region was profoundly affected. Deep gullies
carved the denuded hills while the lakes and reservoirs downstream slowly filled up
with fertile silt and sediments.
The Haryana Forest Department attempted to stop this destructive process by
constructing check dams, palisades and silt detention structures. It even erected barbed-wire fences around the areas to be protected and reforested: all attempts were frustrated.
As soon as the stones and wooden posts used to build the check dams and palisades
were in place, local villagers removed them for their own domestic use. Within days of
setting a fence, passages were opened to allow access for goats and cattle to what was
left of the hillside pasture. It was a battle with no end and no winners. People and
foresters fought one another while the environment worsened and the communities got
poorer and poorer.
The villagers of Sukhomajri were major contributors and victims in this state of affairs.
In the late seventies, after the latest baffled attempt at fencing a severely degraded area,
a concerned forestry officer pleaded with the people that they stop grazing and foraging
the watershed. The villagers replied they were ready to do so, but only if alternative
means of survival could be found, since they were hopelessly dependent on the hills for
fodder and fuel.
The solution was found in capitalizing on a previously unused resource: rainwater. Until
then, rainwater had been simply left to run downstream with its load of fertile soil. With
some outside support, the people of Sukhomajri constructed a small earth dam above a
gully head, thus collecting rainwater that could irrigate the village. Irrigation led to a
dramatic increase in local crop yields and provided a strong incentive to maintain the
supply by protecting the watershed.
The impounded water was distributed equally, irrespective of land ownership, meaning
that some could use it directly, and others could sell it: everybody shared in the common
interest. Slowly but steadily, the number of goats raised locally decreased, and the
number of stall-fed buffaloes and the local milk production increased.
A village society was formed and soon assigned responsibility by the Forest Department
for protection of the forest. The society built contour trenches to improve the moisture
regime in the hills, planted local tree species and sowed bhabbar grass. The grass
provided excellent fodder, which was hand-collected and sold following the society's
own rules to equally benefit all village households. Soon, another check dam was built
near Sukhomajri. By the early 1980s, the Haryana Forest Department had become the
leading agency in building dams, providing communities with grass leases and helping
to organize management societies in the villages of the Shivalik hills. The barbed-wire
fences could be completely removed: people's participation had successfully replaced
them with much more effective 'social fencing'.
|
3.3 Participatory action research: general features
Growing from experiences in applied research in the social sciences, community-based
development and participatory project management, participatory action research (PAR)
(see Box 3.5) has been used widely around the world. For instance, PAR has been
applied to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate many kinds of projects, such as
community organization and development, community health and nutrition, agricultural
extension, community forestry, urban environmental improvements, education and
training, etc.
Many variations on the theme exist. Some of the better known examples include: rapid
rural appraisal (RRA), participatory rural appraisal (PRA), rapid assessment procedures
(RAP), activist research and farmer participatory research. While there are differences in
emphasis, orientation and sector of application for these methods, all of them share
some common features which allow us to group them under the label of 'participatory
action research'. Such features include:
Local focus:
- An orientation towards the felt needs of local people and institutions. PAR deals
with issues directly experienced and explicitly
acknowledged as problems by local people and institutions.
- A strong link with locally generated initiatives. PAR aims at generating
information and supporting decision-making processes useful for local aims and
applicable to local initiatives.
- The involvement of non-local actors as partners in a learning process. When
non-local actors are involved, they contribute to PAR via discussions and negotiations
with local actors.
Action focus:
- A minimal time-gap between data collection, analysis and feedback. Timeliness
of analysis and rapidity of feedback are sought, to increase the cost-effectiveness of the
research and promote the practical use of its results.
- A direct feeding of research results into planning and action. PAR goes beyond
'recommending' changes based on the findings (as often happens with conventional
research). The action research process incorporates methods for translating the
knowledge gained directly into practical decisions and/or feasible courses of action.
Process focus:
- An equal concern for process and results. PAR consists of collecting 'fairly
quick and fairly clean' information, but it doesn't stop there. It also aims at making all
participants aware of the implications of the issue (problem, situation, etc.) being
investigated and supporting them in undertaking relevant action.
- A built-in communication strategy. While final written reports are useful for
institutional or training purposes, meetings and workshops are the most important
means to provide feedback to local institutions and the community at large.
- The re-definition of the role of non-local professionals. Non-local professionals
are expected to leave behind their attitudes as 'experts' and to act more as providers of
views and information that need to be evaluated for appropriateness and usefulness by
the local people. At times, they may serve more as facilitators than experts. Precision
and accuracy of findings are balanced by the timeliness and user-friendliness of research
and decision-making techniques.
|
Box 3.5: A view on participatory action research
An important concern among the early developers of participatory action research was
the need for integrating understanding and practice. Here are some thoughts from
Lewin, one of the pioneers of action research.
- Action research is intended to contribute simultaneously to basic knowledge in
social science and to social action in everyday life. High standards for developing and
testing theories are not to be sacrificed, nor is the relation to practice to be lost.
- Action research, like social management more generally, involves iterative
(repeated) cycles of identifying a problem, planning, acting and evaluating.
- Action research typically involves change experiments on real problems. It
focuses on a particular problem and seeks to provide assistance to solve it.
- The social change desired by action research generally affects the patterns of
thinking and acting that are presently well established in individuals and groups. The
intended change is at the level of norms and values, and it is expressed in action.
Effective change, in this sense, depends on participation by 'clients' in diagnosis and
fact-finding as well as having free choice to engage in new kinds of action.
Adapted from: Argyris et al., 1990
|
| |