5.3 Negotiating and agreeing upon a plan

At this stage the PAR process should have achieved several results:

• an assessment of the local environment, population dynamics and health situation in the community at stake;
• the identification and consolidation of interest groups through common work on participatory appraisal and analysis of specific problems and 'solutions' to address them;
• the identification of key potential partners from inside and outside the community and their potential roles in addressing the community's concerns; and
• communication and discussion about the appraisal and analysis with all community members and interest groups, and prioritization of actions to pursue.

It is now time to :

• contact the relevant potential partners and jointly negotiate a plan to implement the priority actions agreed upon by the community.

Workshops are appropriate methods to carry out this last step. Indeed, experience in participatory action research has shown that a structured discussion on specific issues of common interest, supported by a sensitive and diplomatic preparation and a shared information base, is likely to lead to mutually agreable 'solutions'. Suggestions for organizing, designing and implementing such a workshop are provided below.

Recruiting participants and organizing the workshop

In principle, it is desirable to involve in a participatory planning workshop a variety of social actors, both internal and external to the community. Besides the interest groups that participated in the PAR process, this may include the community leadership and various partner institutions with a stake in the natural resources or economic development, education, health services, etc., as appropriate. For ensuring real participation and keeping group dynamics under control, it is advisable that not more than about 30 persons take active part in the event.

Keeping the planning workshop to a manageable size means that all the potential partners should be encouraged to identify suitable representatives. Ideally, each would be represented by the same number of delegates (two to four) so that a numerical balance is maintained. Depending on the internal structure and dynamics of the various groups, reasonable approaches to the identification of such people could be designation (appointment), election or volunteering. In any case, groups and institutions need to be encouraged and allowed to make their own selections, provided that the chosen delegates are entitled to a reasonable amount of negotiating power and authority on behalf of the group. Otherwise, their contributions could later be discounted or de-legitimized.

In some cases, it may be difficult to obtain the necessary support from government agencies, which may need to be persuaded to send a representative to the planning workshop. The support team may play a useful role in convincing local agencies of the importance of assisting communities in participatory appraisal and planning exercises, and of the need for their full support.

To ensure actual involvement of every participant and proper inter-change of ideas, the design of the workshop should be based on a balanced mix of small group activities and plenary discussions. A possible list of activities to share information and elaborate a joint plan in the workshop is presented in Box 5.1 (below). Further general suggestions include the following :

• The community is in charge of organization and logistics. Even if an external budget is available, equitable cost-sharing by the community is recommended. Local residents might be able to assist with a venue, contributions of food and cooking fuel, help with cooking, etc. Most of all, the workshop should be 'owned' by the community and the PAR support team must make clear that they are present to assist, but they are not in charge. One or more local persons should be designated focal points for organization and logistics.

• Finalize in advance a 'procedural' understanding. This is an understanding among all the expected participants and chairing persons covering the workshop objectives, agenda, duration, organization, logistics and criteria for the selection of participants.

• Plan the workshop's timing and schedule carefully. The length of the workshop might vary according to the number of topics to be discussed, the number of participants and the methods to be employed. As a rule of thumb, a participatory planning workshop should not last less than half a day nor more than three days. A weekend or any locally acknowledged rest day during the week can be appropriate for maximizing attendance by various representatives. In some situations, it works well to break the workshop program into two sessions, respectively devoted to information sharing and decision-making, which are carried out on two consecutive weeks on the appropriate rest days. This can help participants to digest the information and, if needed, consult their colleagues and leaders about acceptable commitments to be taken.

• Have the workshop in an appropriate setting. The workshop venue needs to be comfortable (according to local standards) and reasonably protected from external interference, yet not totally isolated from the places of daily life.

• Pay attention to the communication support. Participants and other interested persons will appreciate short summaries of the main findings prepared and made available prior to the workshop. During the workshop, presentations should be very short (i.e., no longer than 10-15 minutes each) and supported by visual aids. If needed, translators should be available.

• Facilitate official acknowledgment of the workshop. Conducting a formal opening and closing of the meeting according to local protocol helps all parties to accept the importance of the information being shared and the seriousness of commitments being made. If possible, the opening and closing will include the participation of local civil and religious authorities.

• Take care of details. It is very useful to make a list of all the equipment, supplies, materials and tools that may be needed and to check that everything is available before starting the workshop. The support team may assist to anticipate and make provisions ahead of time for items and supplies not easily found in rural areas, such as lights, audio-visual equipment (if appropriate), stationery and a photocopier.

Box 5.1: Possible program for a two-day participatory planning workshop First day - morning Opening ceremony: Local authorities and/or or religious leaders as appropriate Plenary session: Explanation of the agenda by the chair and introduction of the facilitators and/or resource persons, as appropriate (members of the PAR support team may play some of these roles) Plenary session: Presentations and discussions of the results of the participatory appraisal and analysis (problems, opportunities) and of the remedial actions prioritized by the community. First day - afternoon Work in small groups: Formation and organizing of work space for the small groups, each dedicated to one specific action to be implemented. Each group is composed of the expected partners in the implementation of the action. Personal introductions and statements of desired results by all small group participants. Illustration of proposed solutions and actions (discussion of action matrices, Tables 5.1 a-c) Second day - morning Work in small groups: Discussion of actions in detail, in particular regarding feasibility, potential conflicts, timings and divisions of tasks and responsibilities (possible discussion of feasibility matrices as in Table 5.3a-c and planning matrices as in Table 5.4a-c) Second day - afternoon Plenary session: Presentation of the results of the work in small groups by the group spokespersons, and discussion by all participants. Process comments by member of PAR support team Summary of results by chair of workshop, with indication of expected next steps and accomplishments in the future Group evaluation of the workshop Closing ceremony: Authorities, refreshments, etc.

Sharing the appraisal and feasibility analysis information

Sharing the information generated by the appraisal and feasibility analysis exercises among interest groups and other local actors is the first task to be accomplished during the workshop. For this, each interest group may briefly recount the problem they wish to tackle, their analysis of causes and effects, the 'solution' they have identified, the actions necessary to achieve the solution and why the community believes that the action is feasible and can work. Exchange of these elements in plenary will help the external partners get 'on board' with the results of the PAR process so far. Moreover, it will facilitate the participants' understanding of the inter-linkages existing between different problems, solutions and - in general - factors shaping the environment, health and population situation of the community.

Oral presentations by interest group members are perhaps the best way to convey the PAR information. Conducting the sessions in this way carries the message that whatever is presented is the result of a learning process whose main actors are community members. As with the community feedback meeting described in section 5.2, these presentations need to be adequately prepared beforehand, as well as being short (about 10 minutes) and to the point. Some poster drawings set up in the meeting room or written handouts made available to the workshop participants can be useful in supporting the presentations.

After each presentation, a reasonable amount of time for clarification and discussion is necessary. Members of the interest group can take advantage of questions or comments raised by the audience to provide further information which, due to time constraints, they were not able to include in the presentation. The discussion can also lead to new ways of looking at issues through the general contributions.

The PAR support team has some important facilitation functions to perform in these presentation and discussion sessions. These include:

• assisting the chair in clarifying the modalities of group work, presentations, etc.;
• assisting the chair in coordinating presentations and the question-and-answer discussions to ensure that the workshop is kept on schedule;
• assisting in visually recording (e.g., on a flipchart or chalkboard) the key points arising from the plenary discussions (at best, however, this is done by members of the interest groups);
• keeping a record of the proceedings through note-taking.

Matrices and notes can be used at the end of the series of presentations and discussions for concluding the session. This task includes a very brief overview or summary of what has occurred. In some cases, it is appropriate for the overview to be done by a member of the support team. This is a good time to stress the inter-linkages existing among different environmental and population issues, as well as the need to coordinate efforts among various government agencies, local interest groups and other actors.

Negotiating a suitable course of action

Once a common information base is shared among all the participants, small working groups are the most appropriate way to discuss the proposed solutions and actions in more detail. It is desirable that these groups consist of representatives from the concerned interest groups plus representatives of the institutions that were identified as potential partners in the appraisal phases. Likely, the interest group that proposes a certain 'solution' (e.g., strengthening family planning services, supporting community-based soil management, creating a rotating fund for young people's enterprises, etc.) will be appropriately matched with institutions that have mandate and capacity to deal with the subject (e.g., health departments of the central or local governments, agricultural or environmental NGOs, international development agencies, etc.). If needed, members of the support team can participate as facilitators.

Once a working group is formed, it is good if people introduce themselves and state what they would like to achieve from the workshop. A facilitator can then initiate the working session itself by asking the interest group representatives to summarize briefly what they are suggesting to do and what kind of support they may need from the partners convened. After this beginning, the potential partners' representatives will comment, ask questions and present alternative options. The facilitator can use open-ended questions to help elicit comments about how the solution and required support fit with the institutional mandates, policies and resource capabilities of the participants in the small group.

Answers and other key points can be recorded (on flipchart, chalkboard, etc.) for the group to use in their discussion. In case the 'solution' and relative action are acceptable and feasible for the partners, the terms of reference of the collaboration could be drafted by summarizing or highlighting the main points of the discussion on the flipchart or chalkboard (the participants should confirm whether the facilitator's phrasing really catches the meaning of what has been said). Planning for action involves deciding which specific activities should be carried out by whom, where, when and with what means. In other words, the following questions should be clearly answered:

• What is to be achieved?
• What specific skills are needed?
• Who will be responsible?
• Who will actually do what?
• Where will activities take place?
• When will the activities occur (e.g., in relation to seasons and other pre-set activities of the community), and for what duration will they be happening?
• What material inputs will be needed (e.g., seeds, tools, family planning supplies, etc.) and how will they be provided or gathered?
• How much money is required, and from what source(s) is it to be provided?

In planning for specific activities in the community, it will be important to establish the 'ownership' of the project. In this context, ownership relates to responsibility and control, especially for taking on-going decisions and distributing benefits. If this issue is not specifically clarified, participants may simply assume that the 'ownership' is commonly understood only to run into conflict when multiple perceptions become apparent (e.g., at the time of distributing benefits). Clear statements in the planning phases will help avoid subsequent disputes.

In order to implement one or more portions of the plan, the interest groups and/or pre-existing institutions in the community may wish to become more formalized, with rules of membership and procedures. Such groups will be stronger and more sustainable if they formulate a simple set of by-laws. Facilitators can guide this process by asking some basic questions like the ones in Box 5.2. Since many of these questions need to be answered by all the members of the relevant groups, further meetings may need to be scheduled to clarify all the points. These new or strengthened pre-existing institutions may be a most important and lasting benefit of the PAR process.

A good plan will include a monitoring component, i.e., a set of statements indicating how and by whom the implementation process will be checked to ensure that activities are taking place as planned and that the desired results are occurring (see Chapter 6 for more on monitoring and evaluation). Members of the monitoring task group can assess inputs and outputs (e.g., quality, quantity, timeliness) and, if needed, check on accountability (e.g., profits and losses). Monitoring is an especially important function to uncover problems as early as possible (e.g., constraints or unanticipated negative impacts), and thereafter to bring those problems out into the open for group discussion and re-planning. In these ways, monitoring will help sustain community trust and legitimacy for the planned activities.

To facilitate planning, a participatory planning matrix similar to the one presented in Tables 5.4 a-c could be drawn on a flipchart and progressively filled out by the facilitator on the basis of group suggestions. The facilitator should make clear that the purpose of the exercise is to define and agree on a framework for joint action whose validity is to be continuously checked. Conditions or terms of reference in the framework might, for example, say how the participants will:

• establish a management committee in which all actors (persons, groups and institutions) with a stake in the implementation are represented;
• monitor activities and results, i.e., what strategies and types of information will be used to keep track of what is happening and whether the desired outcomes are occurring.

Table 5.4a
Example of filled participatory planning matrices; interest group of mother of young children ('Amada',1997)

Table 5.4b
Example of filled participatory planning matrices; interest group of farmers of hillside plots ('Amada',1997)

Table 5.4c
Example of filled participatory planning matrices; interest group of landless youth ('Amada', 1997)

During this process of refining plans, it is useful to ask once again about gender issues (see Box 5.3).

I If the suggestions brought up by the interest group are not acceptable and/or feasible for all the partners, or if a conflict of interests becomes apparent, further efforts will be needed to explore the nature of the difficulties until the parties have reached an agreement.

Managing conflicts

The success of a participatory planning workshop depends on the willing-ness of participants to share information and make common decisions. Involving local actors in such a process is a sensitive task, in which the PAR support team can provide good human, diplomatic and organizational support. There are many potential sources of conflict, including contrasting economic and status interests, ethnic and cultural differences, previous misunderstandings between the community and government or NGO representatives, bad records in personal relationships, family grudges and individual rivalries. Any of these can act against the efforts of the interest groups to establish agreements.

When there are strongly conflicting interests, it is generally wiser to acknowledge the difficulty of solving most of these conflicts and concentrate on suitable means of managing them. Experts in conflict management have identified three basic strategies for addressing a conflict: negotiation, mediation and conciliation (see Figure 5.4) The support team can assist in the use of such strategies if and when needed in the planning workshop. In all likelihood, conflicts that are serious and complex enough would surface and be dealt with before the workshop. If they come out during the workshop, the postponement of decisions may be needed.

Figure 5.4: Methods in conflict management

Negotiation is a voluntary process in which parties meet face-to-face to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of a conflict issue. Mediation is the assistance of a neutral third party to bring about a negotiation process. Conciliation is an attempt by a neutral third party - such as the support team - to communicate separately with disputing parties for the purpose of reducing tension and agreeing on a process for resolving their disagreements. While in a formal judiciary system a conciliation has the power to decide the controversy, the PAR support team has usually only the mandate to assist and facilitate.

Getting conflicting parties to achieve a compromise agreement entails a strongly pragmatic attitude and behavior on the part of all the support team, including minimizing the bias of their own personal and political views. This is not to say that a support team can ever be totally neutral, but to stress that, in a facilitation role, its members should try to behave as much as possible as if they were neutral with respect to local interests and points of view.

Several difficulties can arise in the small group work. The time allocated for the workshop might not be sufficient to explore in detail all the implications of the conflicts which become apparent. Institutional representatives may have insufficient decision-making power without returning to their organizations to consult at a higher level. Resources required to implement the solution might not be available through any of the participating groups or partner institutions. Sometimes, for a variety of overt or hidden reasons, one of the parties is not interested in actually reaching an agreement. In these cases, it might be appropriate to agree at least to explore the issue in more detail. This may include a schedule for further meetings and reciprocal visits at which the PAR support team may again facilitate the process (after due preparatory work).

Stating commitments and concluding the workshop

At the end of the specific planning session, the results of the working groups should be presented in plenary by spokespersons identified by the groups. Planning matrices such as the ones in Tables 5.4 a-c (above) can be displayed on the walls of the plenary room and the spokespersons can illustrate them. The purpose of these short presentations is to make every workshop participant aware of the problem-solving, negotiating, and eventual agreements achieved within the groups. Stating the reciprocal commitments in front of a wider audience will powerfully strengthen the reached agreements.

The PAR support team members may comment and stress the importance of inter-linkages among the different types and levels of 'solutions' and activities. For instance, it can be mentioned that soil protection will benefit local productivity, and therefore income and nutrition, which will improve local health and well-being and encourage the youths to stay. New businesses will enhance the chances for local livelihood and encourage people towards sound environmental management. The health and family planning services will mean that women will be much better off and have time to invest in sound environmental management, including soil preservation measures. And so on. This will help convey the idea - especially to the external workshop participants - that a comprehensive and integrated effort is needed to deal with the local environment and population dynamics. A comment might also be made about the need for on-going monitoring and evaluation, and the value of another participatory assessment exercise after a suitable period of time to assess the progress towards implementation.

It is important that the process itself be evaluated by the participants. The workshop participants should share their assessments of the procedures used and the results of the exercise (be aware that a 'courtesy bias' may prevent participants from sharing negative assessments and thus encourage them to do so, if appropriate).

Copies of the final plans of action can be circulated among the interested people in the community and outside. In addition, summaries of the agreements can be posted at one or more suitable community locations as large semi-permanent displays, which may include graphics or pictograms to aid non-literate members of the community.

An official closing ceremony and a customary social event can be very appropriate to acknowledge the work of the interest groups and other participants in the planning workshop.