&20021*5281' LESSONS LEARNED FROM USAID/ZAMBIA INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Associates in Rural Development, Inc. For USAID Zambia Contract PCE-I-00-99-00001-00 5 June 2000 FDUHOLYLQJVWRQH IRRGVHFXULW\ SURMHFW FOXVD UXUDOJURXS EXVLQHVVSURJUDP DGPDGH -RAISE LESSONS LEARNED FROM USAID/ZAMBIA INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT by Andrew Lyons Presented to USAID/Zambia under the Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment (RAISE) Contract No. PCE-I-00-99-00001-00: Task Order 11 June 2000 ARD-RAISE Consortium 1601 North Kent St., Suite 800 Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703-807-5700, Fax: 703-807-0889 gkerr@arddc.com The ARD-RAISE Consortium: Associates in Rural Development, Cargill Technical Services, Associates for International Resources and Development, CARANA Corporation, A.P. Gross & Company, International Programs Consortium, Land O’ Lakes, Purdue University, and TechnoServe This report is available from the Development Experience Clearinghouse, http://www.dec.org Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this paper is to extract from the diversity of experiences of the rural development investments of USAID/Zambia the common lessons learned and overarching issues. The three SO1 projects reviewed include ADMADE, a community based wildlife management project, the CLUSA Rural Group Business Program, an income generation project, and the CARE Livingstone Food Security Project, a food security project. The lessons learned are grouped into design principles, implementation tools, and sustainability issues. LESSONS LEARNED IN PROJECT DESIGN Working Through Groups • When no existing CBOs are available, developing community-based organizations requires an initial investment in mobilization and training • Developing community-based organizations pays off by increasing the size of target audience, improving efficiency of service delivery, and creating opportunities for multiplier effects. • Leadership style plays a large role in the effectiveness of groups Site-Selection • Criteria for site selection should include factors conducive for achieving performance objectives as well as need for assistance. • It is more difficult to establish market driven development in areas with a strong history of relief programs or subsidies. • Selection criteria are dynamic and will often be refined with experience. Addressing the Heterogeneity of Communities • Rural communities are not homogenous units and have internal diversity based on socioeconomic factors such as gender, livelihood, and wealth • Community heterogeneity is more of an issue for projects targeting the entire population of an area as opposed to specific sub-groups • Mechanisms for incorporating the needs and interests of sub-groups should be incorporated into project design • Be cautious when using the term “community” in contexts where it is important to acknowledge the diversity in rural areas. The Carrot and the Stick • Negative incentives may be the most effective approach in the short term, however are costly to sustain economically and politically. • Positive incentives take time to develop and require a favorable policy environment but have the most long￾lasting impact for the least cost. • Implementing change and altering the behavior of rural people is most effective with a combination of positive and negative incentives. Getting Rid of Dead Weight • Many of the greatest breakthroughs in performance came after dysfunctional groups or processes were dropped. • Project design and cooperative agreement should incorporate a methodology for identifying when activities or groups are beyond hope and should be dropped rather than fixed. • Defining minimal standards for CBOs and adhering to them can be an effective way of improving performance results. Mechanisms for Feedback and Adaptation • One hallmark of an effective project is the ability to review and adjust project activities and strategies while maintaining the original goals. • Adaptation is dependent upon effective mechanisms for feedback, which can be formal or informal, internal or external. • Mechanisms for feedback and adaptation should ideally be systematized, not left in the heads of one or two highly knowledgeable people Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD ii Linking Activities with Goals Through a Conceptual Framework • Projects need mechanisms to select intervention strategies based on target goals • Conceptual frameworks are often assumed, but discussing them can help illuminate weak linkages between project activities and goals. • A project can only be as effective as its conceptual framework is valid. LESSONS LEARNED IN IMPLEMENTATION Pace of Change • Community-based = community-paced • Change can be threatening psychologically, culturally, and economically • Young and educated people are more adapted to change • The greater the amount of change being implemented, the slower the pace • Developing technical skills occurs faster than adopting new ways of thinking or interacting with resources • Trying to change structures and behaviors faster than the community is ready for will most likely result in failure • The pace of change is often affected by the availability of facilitation and extension support. • Change in institutions is slower than change in individuals • Multi-tiered structures should be introduced one level at a time • It is difficult to predict at what pace change will be introduced in a project. Projects may be better off identifying factors which affect when a community is ready for the next step and then developing a monitoring plan. Information Systems • The larger a project is in terms of service area and scope of activities, the greater the need for investment in information systems. • Computerization is a powerful tool for effective information processing, but requires more than buying PCs and software. • Staff training and application development represent opposite but complementary strategies. • Spreadsheets work well initially and for simple datasets, but more complex data needs require an investment in a relational database system. • Failure to develop an effective project information system can have severe repercussions. Delivering Training to Communities • Training will remain an important component of rural development, but is only one component of capacity building. • Regular follow-up in the field is costly but required for messages to sink in. • Multi-tiered community based organizations can extend the reach of training services and improve their efficiency. • Evaluating the impact of training programs helps to determine whether the right messages and audience are being targeted. LESSONS LEARNED IN PROJECT DESIGN Importance of Marketing • Marketing requires specialized skills and a presence at the national level. • Projects which depend on linkages to external markets need a dedicated marketing unit. • Projects can take steps to increase the attractiveness of their goods and services in terms of volume, quality, price, and credibility. • Developing marketing capacity requires a solid foundation of basic business skills and experiences, including budgeting, forecasting, and record keeping. Venturing Into New Service Areas • Expansions into new service areas should be done cautiously and deliberately, based on a strategic analysis of the importance of the new service to the project goals. • Inadequate or unsustainable service provision can be worse than doing nothing. Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD iii • Expansion into new service areas will eventually require new layers of administration, thereby reducing overall administrative efficiency and requiring new management skills • Forging partnerships with other service providers when possible is usually preferable to developing new capacity in￾house. • Dropping existing services when taking on new ones up prevents administrative capacity from being overtaxed. Community Auditing • Community-based enterprises require effective internal and external audit mechanisms to prevent and contain mismanagement. • Regular auditing should be seen as fundamental as any other component of business development, such as keeping cash books or taking minutes at meetings. • Auditing should be seen as not only an opportunity to ensure accountability, but also analyze business strengths and weaknesses. Being Proactive with Policy • Rural development projects should recognize the influence of national and international policy on their operations, and be proactive at influencing policy change. • Partnerships with similar institutions can increase the cost-effectiveness of policy reform efforts. Tooting the Horn: Communicating Results and Lessons Learned • Sharing methodology and results with external partners can have beneficial results for both parties • Sharing experiences with failure is at least as useful if not more so than success stories • Communicating results does not have to be a separate tedious activity if it is integrated into ongoing activities such as monitoring, activity planning, newsletters, etc. SHARING LESSONS LEARNED The three SO1 projects each have adopted strategies of developing new community structures, training programs, and appropriate technologies to achieve their development objectives. Each project has numerous strengths and experiences which can benefit the others. ADMADE's experiences in natural resource monitoring, working with traditional authorities, and empowering local communities to police their natural resources are experiences which can benefit both the CARE and CLUSA programs. CLUSA's innovative approach for screening farmer groups for participation in business oriented enterprises, use of community based facilitators, and experiences with conservation farming practices have provided lessons which can be built on by the ADMADE and CARE program. Finally, CARE/LFSP's development of a community-based seed multiplication program, participatory extension methods, and socioeconomic monitoring are areas that the other two programs are trying to strengthen. Cover Photographs: Livingstone Food Security Project community seed bank, CLUSA farmer showing results of conservation farming, ADMADE community quota setting meeting. Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 USAID/Zambia Investments in Agriculture and Natural Resources................................... 1 Finding the Common Ground: Lessons Learned................................................................ 1 2.0 Lessons Learned - Program Design.............................................................................. 3 Working Through Groups................................................................................................. 3 Site-Selection ................................................................................................................... 5 Addressing the Heterogeneity of Communities.................................................................. 6 The Carrot and the Stick ................................................................................................. 10 Getting Rid of Dead Weight ........................................................................................... 11 Mechanisms for Feedback and Adaptation ...................................................................... 13 Linking Activities with Goals Through a Conceptual Framework.................................... 15 3.0 Lessons Learned - Implementation Methods and Tools ............................................ 20 Pace of Change............................................................................................................... 20 Information Systems....................................................................................................... 23 Delivering Training to Communities............................................................................... 24 4.0 Lessons Learned - Sustainability ................................................................................ 27 Importance of Marketing ................................................................................................ 27 Venturing Into New Service Areas.................................................................................. 29 Community Auditing...................................................................................................... 31 Being Proactive with Policy............................................................................................ 32 Tooting the Horn: Communicating Results and Lessons Learned .................................... 33 5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................. 36 Disseminate Materials on Lessons Learned..................................................................... 36 Encourage a Learning Environment ................................................................................ 36 Strengthen Internal Evaluation Capacity ......................................................................... 37 6.0 Sharing Lessons Learned............................................................................................ 39 7.0 References ................................................................................................................... 43 Annex I - Scope of Work................................................................................................... 44 Annex II - ADMADE Lessons Learned............................................................................ 59 Annex III - CARE Livingstone Food Security Project Lessons Learned........................ 62 Annex IV - CLUSA/RGBP Lessons Learned................................................................... 66 Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD v ACRONYMS ADMADE Administrative Management Design CBO community based organization CFU Conservation Farming Unit CLUSA Cooperative League of the USA CMS Credit Management Services GMA Game Management Area LFSP Livingstone Food Security Project MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries NGO Non Governmental Organization NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Services PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RGB Rural Group Business RGBP Rural Group Business Program USAID United States Agency for International Development WCRF Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund WCS Wildlife Conservation Society (New York) ZNFU Zambia National Farmers Union Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION USAID/Zambia Investments in Agriculture and Natural Resources In 1998, USAID/Zambia introduced a new five-year country plan based around strategic objectives in four key sectors: rural development, health, democracy and governance, and education. Rural development fall under Strategic Objective One (SO1): “to increase rural incomes of selected groups”. Under SO1, USAID/Zambia sponsors several activities designed to increase the incomes of rural families working together as farmer group businesses, village management committees and village action groups. The CLUSA Rural Group Business Project (RGBP) began in May 1996 and promotes democratically self-managed, financially viable farmer group businesses that improve rural family incomes. The RGBP currently works with about 7,000 farmers in four districts near Lusaka. Since its inception CLUSA-RGBP has modified its group business development approach, now focusing exclusively on small farmer high￾value crop production under forward contracts with agroprocessors. The Livingstone Food Security Project (LFSP), implemented by CARE International, also began in 1996 and aims to improve food security in drought prone Southern Province. The LFSP supports drought resistant seed varieties, community management of seed multiplication and distribution schemes, soil conservation, construction and rehabilitation of water harvesting structures, marketing, and some income generating activities. The third investment under SO1, the Administrative Management Design (ADMADE) program, has been implemented by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (formerly known at the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS) since 1989. ADMADE was supported by USAID between 1989 and 1999 through cooperative agreements with the Ministry of Tourism, World Wildlife Fund, and the Wildlife Conservation Society. The overall goal of ADMADE is to introduce community-based wildlife management in about half of the 34 Game Management Areas (GMAs) in Zambia. Through ADMADE, about 70% of the revenue from international safari hunting is returned to GMAs for community development and resource management. These three projects share a common strategic objective, but have followed different paths to achieve their goals. The differences between these programs in design and implementation stem from the institutional and local context of each project, as well as the available resources and background of project staff. Finding the Common Ground: Lessons Learned The purpose of this paper is to extract from the diversity of experiences of the SO1 investments the lessons learned and major issues which impact all three projects. The three SO1 projects present a convenient natural experiment1 to explore common 1 An event or situation which was not designed or controlled for scientific purposes, but offers an principles for increasing rural income, strengthening food security, and managing natural resources. Because these projects were essentially planned and implemented independently, the common patterns and opportunity to deduce general principles or causal relationships Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 2 experiences are likely to be valid reflections of more general principles. The discussion of lessons learned and common issues presented in this document by no means represent an effort to present a universal outline or blue-print for achieving rural development. However comparative analyses of multiple projects contribute to an expanding body of literature and research which can be referred to, adapted, and applied when planning or evaluating efforts to alleviate rural poverty. Focusing on the common ground also allows us to articulate lessons learned at a level which is generic enough to be applicable in other settings, but not so general as to be meaningless. The table below illustrates the continuum of lessons learned, from the highly specific to the extremely broad. Spectrum of Lessons Learned Very General General but Non-Trivial Specific Widely applicable, but not terribly useful Applicable to multiple areas and sectors, but not meant to be universal Too specific to generalize )DUPHUVVKRXOGQRWGHIDXOW RQORDQVLQRUGHUWR PDLQWDLQWKHWUXVWEHWZHHQ WKHPVHOYHVDQGPLFUR FUHGLWDJHQFLHV ,VVXLQJORDQVWRUXUDO HQWHUSULVHVLQVWHDGRI LQGLYLGXDOVDQGLQFRUSRUDWLQJ FROOHFWLYHUHVSRQVLELOLW\LQWR PLFURFUHGLWDJUHHPHQWV KHOSVWRUHGXFHORDQ GHIDXOWLQJ &06VLJQVORDQDJUHHPHQWV ZLWK&/86$5*%VZKLFK DUHUHTXLUHGWRSUDFWLFH FROOHFWLYHUHVSRQVLELOLW\DW WKH5*%DQGGHSRWOHYHOLQ RUGHUWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQWKH RXWJURZHUVFKHPH Source: Adapted from Salafsky (1999) The lessons learned presented here are not all drawn from identical approaches towards the same challenge. The three SO1 projects often use different strategies for achieving the same general objective. However comparing and contrasting these approaches highlights the underlying dynamics and principles which have broader validity. Lessons learned are also not always derived from success stories, in fact quite often they arise from efforts that did not work very well. These lessons in this paper are grouped into three categories: project design, implementation tools, and issues affecting sustainability. It is assumed that the reader is somewhat familiar with each of the three projects. This paper was written as part of a simultaneous evaluation of the ADMADE, CARE, and CLUSA projects. Material for this paper was based on document reviews, semi-structured interviews with project staff, discussions among members of the evaluation team, and site visits to the three projects. Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 3 2.0 LESSONS LEARNED - PROGRAM DESI GN Working Through Groups A central design feature of all three SO1 projects is the use of community-level organizations. Working through groups has numerous advantages, including increasing the efficiency of service provision such as training or distribution of inputs. Groups also extend the reach of the project activities, and, in the best case scenario, improve accountability and transparency. The capacity building dimension of group development may also provide unforeseen benefits, such as improved local governance and development planning in other sectors. In each project's experience, there were no existing community groups in the service areas that could be utilized. So each project needed to make an initial investment in community organization and capacity building. ADMADE initially formed groups based around traditional authority structure, but has recently switched to a two-tiered structure of democratically elected community organizations. CLUSA and CARE developed their groups specifically to fit into the project model. Working Through Groups ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP ƒ 1988-1999 · Sub-authorities were the primary community level organization. Not truly representative. ƒ 1999 to present · Two-tiered structure of democratically elected community organizations · Village Area Groups committees represent 500-1000 people · Community Resource Boards represent an entire GMA. · Elections held in about 3/4 of GMAs ƒ Farmer Groups · 4-7 members ƒ Village Management Committee (VMC) · federation of 8-15 Farmer Groups ƒ Area Management Committee (AMC) · federation of 3-10 VMCs ƒ Interest Groups · focused around a common income generation activity or capacity building theme ƒ Groups used to maximize training efficiency and operate a revolving seed scheme ƒ Rural Group Businesses (RGB) · 15-25 farmers ƒ Depots · federation of 3-6 RGBs ƒ Groups practice collective responsibility for loan repayment ƒ Positions for training and oversight built into group structure 0XQZDQDXOLPXQ JZLKDXWXELQGD ´2QHILQJHUFDQQRWFUXVKDORXVHµ /R]LSURYHUE Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 4 &/86$IDUPHUJURXSVLQFUHDVHWKHHIILFLHQF\RIGHOLYHULQJWUDLQLQJDQGLQSXWV GHFUHDVHWKHFRVWVRIWUDQVDFWLRQVDQGVWUHQJWKHQEDUJDLQLQJSRZHUE\ LQFUHDVLQJYROXPHVRIJRRGVVROG /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • :KHQQRH[LVWLQJ&%2VDUHDYDLODEOHGHYHORSLQJ FRPPXQLW\EDVHGRUJDQL]DWLRQVUHTXLUHVDQ LQLWLDOLQYHVWPHQWLQPRELOL]DWLRQDQGWUDLQLQJ • 'HYHORSLQJFRPPXQLW\EDVHGRUJDQL]DWLRQVSD\V RIIE\LQFUHDVLQJWKHVL]HRIWDUJHWDXGLHQFH LPSURYLQJHIILFLHQF\RIVHUYLFHGHOLYHU\DQG FUHDWLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUPXOWLSOLHUHIIHFWV • /HDGHUVKLSVW\OHSOD\VDODUJHUROHLQWKH HIIHFWLYHQHVVRIJURXSV • 7KHPD[LPXPJURXSVL]HIRUGHPRFUDWLFGHFLVLRQ PDNLQJLVDURXQG WKHQXPEHURISHRSOH ZKLFKFDQPHHWIDFHWRIDFH • 7KHPD[LPXPJURXSVL]HIRULQGHSHQGHQWO\ UXQQLQJDEXVLQHVVYHQWXUHLV Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 5 Site-Selection The experiences of the three SO1 projects highlight the need for systematic mechanisms for identifying project sites, and the often evolutionary nature of selection criteria. Site selection is an important process not only during the initial project planning phase, but also for guiding project expansion and phase out. A need for assistance is certainly one criterion for selecting project sites, but equally important to identify are those factors which provide a conducive environment for the project activities. These may include agro￾ecological characteristics, access to urban markets, other NGOs or donor activity, government programs, and the level of local political support. Selection criteria should be researched and discussed before project sites are identified, however the criteria should be revisited and adjusted as new understanding and opportunities arise. CLUSA Rural Group Business Program USAID Supported ADMADE GMAs CARE Livingstone Food Security Project National Park Figure 1- Map of project areas The nine ADMADE GMAs initially identified to receive USAID support were selected based on the likelihood that the areas could sustain regulated safari hunting. The primary criteria included healthy wildlife populations, adjacency to national parks, and a history of successful safari hunting. The LFSP area is broadly defined as the drought-prone Southern Province, but within the province communities were selected based on need, access to the project field stations, and local interest. The recent expansion was guided by an 'in-fill' strategy which aims to intensify project intervention in a give area to achieve the many benefits from an economy of scale. Selection criteria for the CLUSA RGBP are probably the most tailored to achieve program goals. The RGBP only operates in districts which are ecologically suitable for growing cash crops, have relatively easy access to large agrobusinesses based in Lusaka. The RGBP also only works with farmer groups which can meet minimum yields, repay their loans, and develop fully functioning enterprises within one or two years of first contact. Groups which fail to meet these requirements are dropped from the program. CLUSA has also found that farmer groups in areas with a strong history of traditional development assistance, such as areas near major transportation corridors, tend to have a more difficult time adopting business practices needed to prosper in a liberalized market economy. &LWRQFR]LELGHFLOXP\DQWDOH ´$EDWKLQJSODFH\RXDUHIDPLOLDU ZLWKEULQJVIRUWKDFURFRGLOHELWHµ &KLWRQJDSURYHUE Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 6 Site Selection ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP ƒ Best GMAs for ADMADE are those which share passable boundaries with national parks, are distant from urban centers, and have supportive local leadership. ƒ Some depleted GMAs can be naturally restocked within five years of the introduction of effective law enforcement. ƒ Selection of areas is based on food security need and proximity to project field offices ƒ PRA exercises used to determine if the project approach will work in a community ƒ 'In-fill' strategy used in planning expansion ƒ Selection of seed varieties based on agroecological conditions and previous trials ƒ Participation in the market economy requires access to urban centers ƒ Areas with a history of relief aid or subsidized commodities (e.g., near major roads), are slower to internalize free market principles ƒ crop selection is constrained by ecological characteristics such as rainfall and soil fertility. /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • &ULWHULDIRUVLWHVHOHFWLRQVKRXOGLQFOXGHIDFWRUV FRQGXFLYHIRUDFKLHYLQJSHUIRUPDQFHREMHFWLYHV DVZHOODVQHHGIRUDVVLVWDQFH • ,WLVPRUHGLIILFXOWWRHVWDEOLVKPDUNHWGULYHQ GHYHORSPHQWLQDUHDVZLWKDVWURQJKLVWRU\RI UHOLHISURJUDPVRUVXEVLGLHV • 6HOHFWLRQFULWHULDDUHG\QDPLFDQGZLOORIWHQEH UHILQHGZLWKH[SHULHQFH Addressing the Heterogeneity of Communities The concept of a rural community is fundamental to conceptual and operational frameworks of rural development projects including the SO1 investments. However the popular notion of a “community” as a homogenous and cohesive unit tends to break down when project strategies are implemented. There are important social divisions within rural communities based on gender, wealth, livelihood strategy, ethnic group, and others variables. These sub￾community divisions are not always significant for certain interventions, such as primary health care, however for most project activities the community heterogeneity has an enormous impact on design and implementation strategy. The three SO1 projects have each had to deal with issues of intra-community diversity and divisions in their own way. ADMADE learned the hard way that traditional power structures do not necessarily represent the interests of the entire human population. Subsequently the program adopted democratically elected organizations with built in mechanisms to ensure better representation based on geography and livelihood strategy. Community diversity has less of an impact on CLUSA’s programs, as its target audience is defined as selected rural group businesses as opposed to the community at large. Nevertheless the implementation of CLUSA’s outgrower scheme recognizes the importance of socioeconomic sub-groups, in particular the role of women in agriculture and development. The LFSP has also integrated community diversity into its analytical framework. The project area is divided into three agroecological zones which define crop selection and intervention strategies. The project also conducts wealth ranking exercises during PRA workshops to draw attention to social Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 7 divisions based on wealth. The M&E unit also monitors the participation of women in leadership roles and as direct and indirect beneficiaries. Addressing the Heterogeneity of Communities ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP ƒ Household census conducted to document gender, age, and geographic distributions of human population ƒ Diversity of livelihoods recognized in inclusion of peer groups in CBO model ƒ Democratically elected community institutions designed to better represent the diversity of needs and opinions ƒ Some efforts to customize services for sub-groups such as women, ex-poachers ƒ Targets entire communities defined geographically ƒ Integrates wealth ranking exercises into PRA exercises ƒ Stratified project area into agro￾ecological zones for data analysis ƒ Monitors representation of women in leadership and activities ƒ Matrilineal Tonga culture facilitates the inclusion of women in CBOs ƒ water harvesting projects improve both agriculture and livestock ƒ Targets rural business groups, not rural communities in general ƒ Notes the importance of communities as the context for rural business activities ƒ Recognizes the importance of women in rural development and targets women groups ƒ Begun to focus on sub-groups, particularly widows LFSP uses PRA exercises like this one to help project staff and local people understand the heterogeneity of communities and the implications of social diversity on development activities. Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 8 ([DFWO\:KR,V7KH &RPPXQLW\ The term and concept of the “community” is central to each of the SO1 projects. ADMADE labels itself a 'community-based' natural resource management project; the CARE LFPS targets 'communities' in its service areas; while CLUSA's rural group businesses are considered 'community-based'. The ubiquitous presence of this term can be seen from a lessons learned document selected at random from one of the projects which contained the word 'community' 14 times on the first page. The popular use of the term “community” begs a few questions about its usage and connotations: • What do people mean when they use this term? • Is it merely a general term used for convenience or are there specific connotations attached? • When is it necessary to be more specific with language about rural people? Most people who have any experience whatsoever working in rural areas understand that the concept of a community as a homogenous cohesive social unit defined by geography and history is largely a myth. In any group of rural people there are bound to be wealthier residents and poorer residents, people with different livelihood strategies, groups with varying levels economic and political power, cooperative networks as well as competition and animosity, cultural and linguistic differences, recent immigrants and multi-generational households, and diversity based on numerous other social variables. Use of the term community for general descriptions such as “community-based” seems harmless enough, describing a very broad strategy where participation by local people is valued. However when the term community is applied to more specific processes or constructs, such as ‘community views’ or ‘community capacity,’ there is a risk that the important aspects of diversity can be overshadowed or forgotten. In these cases more specific referencing would be helpful, such as the members of group enterprises, leadership structure of CBOs, or specific livelihood groups. As a general rule of thumb, the more specific and operational the process or construct being described, the greater the need for other more specific terminology such as “views of the workshop participants” or “capacity of the staff of the community-based organizations.” Simplification of language often causes or reflects simplification of thought. Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 9 /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • 5XUDOFRPPXQLWLHVDUHQRWKRPRJHQRXVXQLWVDQG KDYHLQWHUQDOGLYHUVLW\EDVHGRQVRFLRHFRQRPLF IDFWRUVVXFKDVJHQGHUOLYHOLKRRGDQGZHDOWK • &RPPXQLW\KHWHURJHQHLW\LVPRUHRIDQLVVXHIRU SURMHFWVWDUJHWLQJWKHHQWLUHSRSXODWLRQRIDQ DUHDDVRSSRVHGWRVSHFLILFVXEJURXSV • 0HFKDQLVPVIRULQFRUSRUDWLQJWKHQHHGVDQG LQWHUHVWVRIVXEJURXSVVKRXOGEHLQFRUSRUDWHG LQWRSURMHFWGHVLJQ • %HFDXWLRXVZKHQXVLQJWKHWHUP´FRPPXQLW\µLQ FRQWH[WVZKHUHLWLVLPSRUWDQWWRDFNQRZOHGJH WKHGLYHUVLW\DPRQJWKHSHRSOHLQUXUDODUHDV Heterogeneity of communities is a major issue in ADMADE because the target audience is the entire population of the GMA. Land use planning meetings such as the one above are designed to capture the needs and interests of all groups within the GMA, including farmers, fishermen, honey collectors, women, hunters, and traditional leaders. Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 10 The Carrot and the Stick A common objective of all three SO1 projects is promoting behavior change in groups of rural people. ADMADE hopes to encourage behavior with protects wildlife and habitat, supports safari hunting, and fosters cohesion in community development projects. CARE LFSP wants farmers in Southern Province to use new seed varieties, become involved in the development and management of water harvesting structures, and participate in local seed loan schemes. CLUSA wants its farmers to adopt conservation farming practices and work together in groups in an outgrower scheme. Changing behavior is always challenging, particularly when important and long engrained practices such as livelihood strategies are at stake. To promote behavior change, projects can provide either positive or negative incentives, the carrot and the stick. The experiences of the SO1 investments suggest the most effective strategies employ a mixture of positive and negative incentives. Negative incentives tend to be more effective in achieving short term impact, however are more costly in material terms and political capital, and tend to be less sustainable. Positive incentives take a longer time to develop, however once established are more deeply embedded and cheaper to maintain. $'0$'(9LOODJH6FRXWVSURYLGHWKH QHJDWLYHLQFHQWLYHVIRUEHKDYLRU FKDQJHE\DUUHVWLQJSRDFKHUVOLNH WKHVHZKLOHWKHFRPPXQLW\ GHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWVSURYLGH SRVLWLYHLQFHQWLYHV 6DPYDDGDPYDQNKZDQJZDLULP PXWX ´$SHUVRQZKRGRHVQRWKHDUOHDUQVZKHQ WKHD[HLVLQKLVKHDGµ 1\DQMDSURYHUE Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 11 The Carrot and the Stick ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP ƒ Carrot: community initiated development activities and employment opportunities offer positive incentives to protect wildlife and habitat and support safari hunting ƒ Stick: anti-poaching patrols have reduced poaching of the bigger game species and forced local poachers to switch tactics ƒ Carrot: local seed loan scheme offers the promise of secure seed supplies ƒ Carrot: developing water harvesting structures increases water availability during dry season ƒ Stick: new seed loans are conditional on paying back old loans. If one crop fails the farmer may pay back seed from another crop ƒ Carrot: Conservation farming practices promise bigger yields and higher income ƒ Carrot: Outgrower scheme provides opportunities for receiving inputs on time and increased prices for cash crops ƒ Stick: Failure to practice conservation farming, pay back loans, or adhere to organizational procedures results in elimination from the outgrower scheme /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • 1HJDWLYHLQFHQWLYHVPD\EHWKHPRVWHIIHFWLYH DSSURDFKLQWKHVKRUWWHUPKRZHYHUDUHFRVWO\ WRPDLQWDLQHFRQRPLFDOO\DQGSROLWLFDOO\ • 3RVLWLYHLQFHQWLYHVWDNHWLPHWRGHYHORSDQG UHTXLUHDIDYRUDEOHSROLF\HQYLURQPHQWEXWKDYH WKHPRVWORQJODVWLQJLPSDFWIRUWKHOHDVWFRVW • ,PSOHPHQWLQJFKDQJHDQGDOWHULQJWKHEHKDYLRU RIUXUDOSHRSOHLVPRVWHIIHFWLYHZLWKD FRPELQDWLRQRISRVLWLYHDQGQHJDWLYHLQFHQWLYHV Getting Rid of Dead Weight There is unfortunately no crystal ball when developing strategies to raise rural income, conserve biodiversity, or improve food security. Failure is part and parcel of the learning process and may occur in specific intervention activities, geographic areas, or institutional arrangements. Problematic areas not only do badly on performance indicators, but also drag down other regions and other processes by devouring staff time and project resources. While there is a natural tendency in most managers to focus on improving or fixing the broken pieces of a project, the experiences of the SO1 investments demonstrate many of the greatest breakthroughs come after dysfunctional groups or processes are completely jettisoned and replaced with more appropriate structures. The SO1 projects also illustrate how program decisions may be constrained by institutional or legal mandates. ADMADE for example is the official government wildlife management policy for GMAs in Zambia, and can not merely withdraw services from areas where poaching pressure or community dynamics exclude the possibility of meeting performance goals. Eliminating support to a given GMA would also have cascading effects on adjacent GMAs and National Parks. CARE and CLUSA have more flexibility is selecting which groups and areas they want to work with, but they also have political and economic issues to deal with. In general, the tighter a project's activities are with the market economy, the easier it is to drop ineffective processes and institutional arrangements. 3DQDNRWDPHQHPEZDSDQDOHSH XOLPLZDPEZDNDWZRPRQD ´$GRJKDVEHHQEHQGLQJIRUWRR ORQJ\HWLWVDJULFXOWXUDO\LHOGLV QHYHUVHHQµ /R]LSURYHUE Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 12 Getting Rid of Dead Weight ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP ƒ As a government project, ADMADE is not able to easily withdraw service from any GMA, even those where resource management and community development has made little progress ƒ Ineffective management structures (e.g., Authorities and Sub-Authorities) have been replaced with more responsive and representative bodies ƒ A community-based savings and credit scheme was abandoned after low rates of participation ƒ Farmers or groups who fail to pay back seed loans or assist in water harvesting construction do not receive benefits of those activities or have to pay for them ƒ All new technologies and market linkages tested on a small scale to reduce losses and learn lessons from failed strategies ƒ Support for small scale rural businesses was dropped after low performance measures and replaced by an outgrower scheme ƒ Farmers, RGBs, and depots which fail to pay back loans, practice conservation farming, achieve minimum yields, attend trainings, and maintain group records are dropped from the program /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • 0DQ\RIWKHJUHDWHVWEUHDNWKURXJKVLQ SHUIRUPDQFHFDPHDIWHUG\VIXQFWLRQDOJURXSVRU SURFHVVHVZHUHGURSSHG • 3URMHFWGHVLJQDQGFRRSHUDWLYHDJUHHPHQWVKRXOG LQFRUSRUDWHDPHWKRGRORJ\IRULGHQWLI\LQJZKHQ DFWLYLWLHVRUJURXSVDUHEH\RQGKRSHDQGVKRXOG EHGURSSHGUDWKHUWKDQIL[HG • 'HILQLQJPLQLPDOVWDQGDUGVIRU&%2VDQG DGKHULQJWRWKHPFDQEHDQHIIHFWLYHZD\RI LPSURYLQJSHUIRUPDQFHUHVXOWV &/86$IDUPHUVZKLFKIDLOWRSUDFWLFHFRQVHUYDWLRQIDUPLQJDQGSURGXFH PLQLPXP\LHOGVDUHGURSSHGOLNHDKRWURFN Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 13 Mechanisms for Feedback and Adaptation Each of the SO1 projects has undergone significant transformations in project design and strategy, while maintaining the same basic set of goals. ADMADE's strategy to conserve biodiversity initially focused heavily on law enforcement effort and was dominated by traditional authorities, however it is now increasingly works via strengthening democratization and improving food security and other basic human needs. The CLUSA RGBP started out supporting small group businesses, but later switched to an outgrower scheme when it became apparent that the rural businesses were crippled by a lack of capital in the community. LFSP has also modified its choice of seed selection and improve farming technologies for promotion based on feedback from pilot studies. The ability to tweak program strategies and activities to achieve performance targets is a hallmark of an effective project. The capacity for self￾reflection and change is dependent on creative and bold leadership and a conducive environment set by project partners including the donor. Adaptation is also requires feedback on the efficiency and effectiveness of project activities. Feedback mechanisms can be categorized based on experimental style and origin, as illustrated below. Spectrum of Feedback Mechanisms Experimental Style Formal Informal ‡ K\SRWKHVHV ‡ SUHSRVWWHVWV ‡ FRQWUROJURXSV ‡ UHJXODUUHYLHZV ´/HW·VWU\ GRLQJLWWKLV ZD\DQGVHH KRZLWZRUNVµ Feedback Agents Internal External ‡ DSSOLHGUHVHDUFK ‡ SDUWLFLSDWRU\ HYDOXDWLRQ ‡ LQWHUQDOUHYLHZV ‡ PRQLWRULQJV\VWHP ‡ TXDUWHUO\DQGDQQXDO UHYLHZV ‡ FRQVXOWDQWV ‡ FRPSDULQJQRWHV ZLWKRWKHUSURMHFWV Each type of experimental style and origin for feedback has its own advantages and disadvantages. Formal methods tend to be associated with external evaluations, but can also be used by internal evaluation teams. Aside from being more rigorous, formal methods tend to be institutionalized and avoid the common situation of all feedback based on the personal intuition of one or two people. Internal feedback is generally preferable because it can be ongoing, however external feedback agent are helpful from time to time to point out patterns or opportunities missed by project staff. Mechanisms for Feedback and Adaptation ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP ƒ Ongoing internal reviews of project activities ƒ Several external evaluations ƒ Some intervention strategies are pilot tested ƒ Community-based monitoring ƒ Annual food production trends survey ƒ Community self-monitoring books ƒ Weekly staff meetings and activity reports ƒ Consultants and external reviews ƒ Ongoing review of operations ƒ Pilot test new crops and institutional relationships on a small scale ƒ Mostly informal analysis of feedback Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 14 ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP system ƒ Teach assessment techniques in courses on leadership skills ƒ Analysis and interpretation of monitoring at the project level dependent on personal knowledge of small core of senior managers ƒ Exchange visits with other projects ƒ All new market linkages and production technologies are pilot tested /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • 2QHKDOOPDUNRIDQHIIHFWLYHSURMHFWLVWKH DELOLW\WRUHYLHZDQGDGMXVWSURMHFWDFWLYLWLHV DQGVWUDWHJLHVZKLOHPDLQWDLQLQJWKHRULJLQDO JRDOV • $GDSWDWLRQLVGHSHQGHQWXSRQHIIHFWLYH PHFKDQLVPVIRUIHHGEDFNZKLFKFDQEHIRUPDO RULQIRUPDOLQWHUQDORUH[WHUQDO • 0HFKDQLVPVIRUIHHGEDFNDQGDGDSWDWLRQVKRXOG LGHDOO\EHV\VWHPDWL]HGQRWOHIWLQWKHKHDGVRI RQHRUWZRKLJKO\NQRZOHGJHDEOHSHRSOH 7KH3URMHFW0RQLWRULQJ&\FOH 0DUJROXLVDQG6DODIVN\GHVFULEHDQ LWHUDWLYHSURFHVVIRUSURMHFWSODQQLQJ WKDWHPSKDVL]HVWKHXVHRIIHHGEDFN DQGDGDSWDWLRQPHFKDQLVPV,QWKHLU PRGHOPRQLWRULQJV\VWHPVSURYLGH WKHEDVLVIRURQJRLQJDVVHVVPHQWVRI SURMHFWVWUDWHJLHVDQGDFWLYLWLHV JXLGHGE\DPLVVLRQVWDWHPHQWDQG FRQFHSWXDOIUDPHZRUNDGDSWHGIRU WKHORFDOVLWH A Design conceptual model based on local site conditions START Clarify Group’s Mission ITERATE Use results to adapt and learn B Develop Management Plan: Goals, Objectives, Activities C Develop Monitoring Plan D Implement Management and Monitoring Plans E Analyze Data and Communicate Results The Project Cycle Source: Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998 Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 15 Linking Activities with Goals Through a Conceptual Framework Most rural development schemes start out with a simple mission statement outlining a hierarchy of goals and objectives which are based on political and cultural values. From there, a series of activities or interventions are designed or implemented, which will hopefully achieve the desired outcome. One helpful tool for examining the links between goals and activities is the conceptual framework, a theoretical model which describes the factors affecting the target condition. Conceptual frameworks may be spoken or unspoken, portrayed graphically or described in text, but they are the essence of development and help identify where projects can hope to have the greatest effect. Conceptual frameworks are dynamic models that need to be continuously reviewed updated as new information and experiences become available. There can also be multiple conceptual frameworks that describe the same system each of which does a better job of explaining specific parts of the system. Ideally project beneficiaries and staff develop conceptually frameworks early on the project design phase. The SO1 projects have elements of their conceptual frameworks described in various project documents, but not graphically. Figure 2 through Figure 4 present sample conceptual frameworks for the three SO1 investments, with the primary areas of intervention highlighted. These diagrams help explain how project interventions may or may not result in influencing the desired outcome. /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • 3URMHFWVQHHGPHFKDQLVPVWRVHOHFWLQWHUYHQWLRQ VWUDWHJLHVEDVHGRQWDUJHWJRDOV • &RQFHSWXDOIUDPHZRUNVDUHRIWHQDVVXPHGEXW GLVFXVVLQJWKHPFDQKHOSLOOXPLQDWHZHDNOLQNDJHV EHWZHHQSURMHFWDFWLYLWLHVDQGJRDOV • $SURMHFWFDQRQO\EHDVHIIHFWLYHDVLWV FRQFHSWXDOIUDPHZRUNLVYDOLG /)63XVHVFDXVHHIIHFWGLDJUDPVOLNHWKLVRQHLQ35$H[HUFLVHVWRKHOS FRPPXQLWLHVDQGSURMHFWVWDIILGHQWLI\WKHDUHDVIRULQWHUYHQWLRQ Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 16 :KLFK:D\'R:H*R" Conservation Farming Family Planning Education Land Use Planning Outgrower Scheme Seed Multiplication Improved Pit Latrines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ommon Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 17 Sustainable Wildlife Populations in ADMADE GMAs Natural fertility and mortality Climate Habitat Quality and Quantity Legal Offtake Disease Illegal Offtake Subsistence Poaching Commercial Bushmeat Commercial Trophies Controls4 Controls2 Safari Hunting Resident Hunting Non-resident Hunting SO1 Increased Rural Income Local Attitudes Basic Needs Wildlife Im/Emigration Land Use Practices1 Group Enterprises5 Revolving Fund3 ADMADE Conceptual Framework xxx = ADMADE Intervention ADMADE Mission: To conserve wildlife and improve standards of living in selected GMAs ADMADE Interventions 1 Land use planning workshops assist communities to optimize revenue and food production through a balance of safari hunting, agriculture, and other activities 2 Additional manpower and procedures for regulating safari hunting; support for community quota setting 3 The Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund links safari hunting fees and community revenue 4 Village scouts have almost doubled law enforcement manpower in ADMADE GMAs 5 Group enterprises (CRBs) translate increased revenue into improved food security, standards of living, and attitudes towards wildlife and safari hunting Urban Markets Intn'l Markets Special licenses Figure 2 - A Sample Conceptual Framework for ADMADE Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 18 Food Security SO1 Increased Rural Income Intra￾Household Dynamics Buyers Buying Price6 Volume7 Transaction Cost 8 Agricultural Production Weather Soil Fertility Land Availability Crop Varieties Farming Methods Inputs Labor Training1 Credit3 Sourcing2 Research Market Research4 Outgrower Agreements5 Household Size Health Land Tenure Population Density Local History Poverty Alleviation Outgrower Agreements5 CLUSA Outgrower Scheme Conceptual Framework xxx = CLUSA Intervention Gender Roles Timing 2 CLUSA Interventions 1 CLUSA extension staff provide training in conservation farming 2 CLUSA headquarters locates sources for appropriate inputs and arranges for delivery in a timely manner 3 CMS provides micro-loans for inputs 4 CLUSA marketing unit researches crop varieties in demand 5 CLUSA facilitates pre-season outgrower agreements between depots and agrobusinesses 6 Through collective representation depots are able to negotiate a higher buying price for their crops 7 Through depots agribusinesses are able to buy sufficient volume to make the transaction worthwhile 8 Depots act as collection points thereby reducing transport costs 9 Because sales are prearranged, minimal crops are loss in long periods of storage 10 CLUSA marketing unit locates buyers for depots Farming Methods CLUSA Mission: To raise the rural income of selected groups Irrigation Gifts/ Handouts Income￾Generating Activities Marketing Loss from 10 Storage9 Handouts Figure 3 - A Sample Conceptual Framework for CLUSA RGBP Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 19 Livingstone Food Security Project Conceptual Framework xxx = LFSP Intervention LFSP Mission: To improve food security in drought prone areas in Southern Province Food Stocks SO1 Rural Income Food Aid Income Generating Activities 7 Household Assets Food Availability Price Agricultural Production Drought Seed Variety4 Water Harvesting & Irrigation2 Labor Land Seed Local Seed Production 5 Seed Quality Commercial Seed Buyer NRM Technology 3 Livestock Production Fertilizer Post-Harvest Management 6 LFSP Interventions 1 CBO mangement and capacity building empowers farmers to plan their own development and reduce vulnerability to drought 2 Water harvesting structures constructed and rehabilitated 3 Conservation farming methods taught 4 Improved drought-resistant seed varieties introduced 5 Local seed banks established 6 Post-harvest management includes promotion of improved storage, food preservation, and processing 7 Small income generating activities developed based on agricultural produce and coping strategies Capital Food Security Quality Volume Marketing Transactn Cost Household Size Intra-Household Dynamics Liberalization Education Quality of Life Health Forest/Soil CBO Management 1 Coping Strategies Figure 4 - A Sample Conceptual Framework for CARE LFSP Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 20 3.0 LESSONS LEARNED - IMPLEMENTATI ON METHODS AND TOOLS Pace of Change A never-ending issue for development projects is identifying an appropriate pace of change. Donors and participants often want to see change overnight, yet introducing new processes and structures too fast may result in a complete breakdown and even local backlash toward the project. Moving too slow can also reduce interest in the project efforts or result in lost opportunities to make progress. Identifying an appropriate pace of change is an important element of project planning, but can not be formulated as precisely as a business plan or economic forecast. The SO1 projects have had varying experiences with determining the optimum pace of development. The CARE LFSP had to contend with setting up community based organizations as the foundation for introducing the seed multiplication scheme and water harvesting projects. Their approach was to first understand the local context through a series of PRA exercises, and support the new CBOs through frequent field support. CLUSA also had to develop its RGB groups from scratch, and it took a couple of years to establish and train these groups and build up a capable network of extension staff before they could implement the current outgrower scheme. Formation of depot groups came even later, after a critical mass of strong RGBs was established. Change in ADMADE communities has varied enormously from area to area, based on the local political context and the availability of field support from Nyamaluma. The communities in some GMAs still have not progressed much beyond the passive-aggressive relationship with wildlife managers, while others have dynamic multi-layered community organizations implementing innovative projects such as local land use planning, community quota setting, and public education.. Pace of Change ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP ƒ Very fundamental reversal was needed in how communities perceive and interact with wildlife ƒ Ten years spent developing relationships between communities and project staff ƒ Communities allowed to make mistakes ƒ Dominance of traditional authorities limited socioeconomic ƒ Communities highly motivated to start seed scheme ƒ Community based organizations developed from scratch ƒ Capacity building and developing group cohesion takes time ƒ Farmer-to-farmer extension system speeds the exchange of information ƒ Monitoring CBOs based on ƒ Rural group businesses developed from scratch ƒ 30 years of behavior from socialist economic support policies had to be reversed ƒ Intensive field support from facilitators (once a week) gradually reduced as groups become more capable ƒ Groups have two years to learn to Factors Affecting the Pace of Change • number of behaviors and perceptions which have to be 'unlearned' • unit of change (e.g., institution, individual) • type of change (e.g., administrative, livelihood, cultural) • incentives for change • political and economic forces opposed to change • required sequence of incremental steps Common Ground: Lessons Learned ARD 21 ADMADE CARE LFSP CLUSA RGBP progress but was a necessary phase in establishing the concept of CBNRM ƒ Organic trial and error approach to project implementation ƒ Pace of change related to amount of field support 'graduation' helps track skills development become effective businesses, else dropped ƒ Outgrower scheme was based on two years of working with individual groups /HVVRQVOHDUQHG • &RPPXQLW\EDVHG FRPPXQLW\SDFHG • &KDQJHFDQEHWKUHDWHQLQJSV\FKRORJLFDOO\ FXOWXUDOO\DQGHFRQRPLFDOO\ •