5. Methodological tools and approaches

5.1 General considerations

The main programme phases and their functions, as well as the methodological tools, are summarized in Table 2 below (UNCDF, 1997a).

Our analysis will deal first of all with general aspects (overall methodology), before looking more closely at certain tools which are apparently more complicated to use.

Table 2: Summary of the main phases, functions and methodological tools of eco-development projects

Phases and Functions	Methodological Tools
1. Start-up Phase Expected duration:(18) 6-12 months * establishing logistical arrangements, personnel and equipment
* Knowledge-acquisition on the local area	- Summary of existing documents - Communication strategy (consultant - Typology of agro-pastoral systems (researchers) - Micro-regional study (consultants)
* Mobilizing partners/information and training	- Start-up seminar - Workshops/training courses
2. Knowledge-acquisition on communities and their environment Expected duration: variable in accordance with size of the terroirs; average 1-2 months
* Socio-tenurial interpretation of terroirs (repeated annually)	- Socio-tenurial mapping - Socio-tenurial survey - Setting up socio-tenurial database
* Analysis of production systems (repeated annually)	- Dynamic analysis of natural environment (village assembly discussion) - Analysis of production systems (village assembly discussions)
3. Appraisal, strategy and programming phase Expected duration: about 15 days
* Consultation within project team
* Participatory appraisal of the development potential and constraints in the terroirs	- Internal meeting - MEGEVE, supported by the results of the socio-tenurial interpretation of terroirs and the micro-regional study (group and village assembly meetings)
* Definition of strategic choices	- Village assembly discussions, based on the results of the environmental studies and negotiations in accordance with the eco-swap concept
* Programming (to be updated every year)	- Typology of activities and possible funding methods - Village development programme (VDP) - Annual village development programme (AVDP)
4. Implementation and monitoring of village development programme Expected duration: continuous depending on programme
* Negotiation and signature of agreements	- Written agreements
* Putting agreements into practice
* Monitoring of agreements	SEGESTE, comprising: - Monitoring forms - Database on agreements - Thematic studies (if necessary)
5. Impact evaluation Expected duration: 4 weeks for the consultancy; 3-4 weeks per quarter for implementation
* Setting up the impact evaluation system	- Use of specialist consultant/
* Implementing system (3-4 weeks every quarter)	- Systematic approach - External evaluation of physical impacts and process - Self-evaluation (by the villagers) - Impact assessment database
* Feed-back and decision-making	- Meetings with villagers and communes

(Source: UNCDF, 1997a)

Examination of the various documents relating to methodological tools reveals a possibly excessive concern for exhaustive descriptions of how to use the tools.

• This tendency is probably partly due to UNCDF's lack of experience in rural development, especially participatory rural development, generating a need to provide exhaustive explanations for its own reassurance.
• In addition, this may result in a tendency to use tools in a mechanistic way, as if following a recipe. Little room seems to be left for learning by doing, although this is a daily reality in the field of development.
• It could also denote an overly interventionist approach in New York, as if the tools were developed mainly at this level and elsewhere in the "North", rather than on the basis of field experience. This centralizing trend has already been noted and criticized by the 1996 evaluation mission (Christensen et al. 1996).

Furthermore, examination of Table 2 and documents relating to the methodological tools clearly shows two substantial imbalances in relation to the vocation of eco-development projects:

* on the one hand, the bulk of the tools relate to activities at terroir level. There is practically no mention of tools for developing support to local governance and negotiating with the services and authorities which will remain in place. This backs up the previous observation that a substantial gap exists here; while

* on the other hand, great importance is given to acquiring knowledge about the environment and to appraisal, whereas there currently seems to be unanimous agreement that GT type projects erred in giving too much attention to this type of activity (Demante et al. 1995). The same need for simplification of procedures was expressed at the seminar in Senegal (UNCDF, 1997b, p. 1).

These considerations lead us to put three simple but nevertheless fundamental questions regarding methodological tools:

• What are the minimum tools required in order both to be operational in the field and to keep to UNCDF's policy directions?
• How should these tools be perfected (by whom, at what levels)?
• How is the sustainability of the methodology developed to be ensured, especially in the post-project phase?

We give below a more specific analysis of the tools, guided by these questions.

5.2 Methodology of the pre-formulation and formulation phases

The first remark relates to the fact that Table 2, like the operational guidelines, contains no indications on the pre-formulation and formulation phases. Our evaluation is therefore based on the few references found in evaluation reports (Jenny et al. 1997), oral testimony collected during the mission and two documents designed to improve these approaches (Luche, 1996 & 1997a).

5.2.1 Pre-formulation/identification of projects

According to the sources quoted above, it seems that, until recently, the pre-formulation phase was conducted in a rather conventional manner: a team of experts collected information essentially through discussion with government officials, academics and the main donors.

With a view to broadening the range of information sources, it has recently been suggested that representatives of civil society (journalists, NGOs, interest groups, etc.) should be used as additional sources (Luche, 1997a). Moreover, it has been suggested that this process should be made more open, organizing a two day workshop for representatives of the bodies consulted, so as to improve information and communication on the political and operational aspects of the projects. This proposal deserves to be made part of the recommended procedure. In fact, it should reduce the risks of basing project strategy on incorrect assumptions – about the capacity of the DPDRE in Guinea, for example (Diakité et al., 1996, p. 30) – thereby making overall programming more realistic. One may wonder, however, whether two days are really necessary at this stage.

5.2.2 Project formulation – institutional arrangements

1. Procedure
With regard to the procedure for formulating projects, this consisted until recently mainly of an exchange of information on local conditions and the main themes of the development programme, by means of separate meetings between consultants and government authorities, some donors and communities. There was no feed-back/information workshop in the future project area, but provision has recently been made for this in the joint eco-development/LDF project in Senegal, as well as in the new LDF projects in Gambia and Burkina Faso. It would seem advisable to use this procedure systematically, especially from the point of view of more sustained effort in supporting local governance. In fact, this type of workshop could then form a first stage in setting up a forum for dialogue worthy of the name.
Questions could be raised, however, about the usefulness of the start-up seminar as planned at the end of the start-up phase, if a broadly based information workshop were incorporated as a feature of the project formulation procedure. Considering that there would be few concrete achievements between the two events, it should be possible to dispense with the start-up seminar. It is important to avoid succumbing to the "2/3 day workshop syndrome" as a basic tool in communication.
Finally, some of the practical methods suggested by Luche (1996) should be called into question:
The number of participants
The first workshops of this type were attended by some 120—130 people (Jenna Luche, pers. comm.). Experience with workshops of this nature does, however, show that the number should not exceed 50-70 participants; this enables the richness of debate to be retained, while making logistics and the task of mediating the discussion easier and less costly.
Representation of the various interested parties
According to Luche (1996, p. 7), there should be 30% representation for government structures and NGOs and 70% for village communities. Although one must ensure that the local people are properly represented, there is a risk, if they have a majority in debate, of compounding the current failing of concentrating much more on the terroir level, to the detriment of the local governance dimension.
2. Products – project documents – institutional arrangements
The formulation of most project documents, especially those relating to the first PED projects, follows a fairly "classic" pattern:

• Adequate knowledge of "physical" aspects (ecology, production systems, demography, infrastructure, etc.) of the programme area in order to start projects;
• Conversely, little or no reference to the "non-physical" aspects of projects, such as extension methodology, community organization, appropriation of activities and results, institutional support, etc.;
• The list of programmed activities in the project documents is quite similar, if not identical, to that appearing in village development programmes (VDPs), thus acting as a blueprint for the co-ordinating unit (e.g. Mayahi project, Niger). It would certainly be desirable not to provide a list of possible activities in project documents, in order to cut down on standardized definitions of the content of VDPs. The list of possible activities could be replaced by overall themes or options for action.
• From the point of view of institutional arrangements, the project is implemented by a multi-disciplinary team recruited for the duration of the project rather than based within one of the permanent local structures. In general, governmental local authorities and technical agencies are considered not as direct partners in decision-making, but rather as service providers. When support is given to local governance, as in the case of the project in Guinea, capacity-building relates much more to technical than to institutional aspects(19).
• The timeframe of these projects is relatively short (maximum of 4-5 years), which is not sufficient for activities aimed at both development of productive practices and more balanced management of natural resources.
• The last two points show that assistance is designed mainly along the lines of a project and not according to the programme approach(20) promoted by the United Nations System (UNS).

In view of this, innovative capacity is weak and projects too often function "in isolation", with no guarantee of continuity. By way of comparison, Box 2 describes the institutional arrangements of two Natural Resource Management (NRM) /GT projects, located close to the PED project in Seno, Mali, which are more conducive to a programme approach and where activities are more likely to be put on a permanent footing.

Box No. 2: Two examples of institutional arrangements conducive to the programme approach in Mali In Mali, the eco-development project shares the same geographical area as several other World Bank, IDA and GTZ natural resource management/village development projects. * The GTZ project (grant) is implemented at local level by the Local Development Committee (LDC), which brings together all the technical services and is chaired by the Circle Commander. This committee is assisted by a single resource person, the technical support officer, recruited by the project. Relying exclusively on MARP, the team works out a technical and financial implementation plan for the villages selected within the Circle and passes it on to the project's national office. This office is responsible for identifying shortcomings in field operations and engaging in policy dialogue with the LDCs and the line ministries. * Conversely, the IDA and World Bank projects (loans) are led at local level by a co-ordinating team restricted to a facilitator, a specialist in natural resource management, a financial administrator and extension staff working on a contractual basis in the target villages. The level of investment per village amounts to FCFA 15 million. Here again, planning and authorization of expenditure is a matter for the LDC, under the supervision of the co-ordinating team. These two forms of funding are managed by the same project office at national level, co-operating with the various ministries and public services, thus fostering better co-ordination between donors as well as policy dialogue at national level. By way of example, GTZ actively seeks to develop the best possible relationships between the LDC and management committees at village level, based on transparency in management and control of activities. In particular, resources made available to the public services must be monitored at village level, where records are kept of technical operations carried out by the services. This monitoring is carried out both by the co-ordinating structure and the village committees. The effective participation of the public services is not just requested, but checked and criticized at several levels. Clearly, the success of the project depends on genuine transparency in management and motivation of the local authorities and services.

The NRM/GT projects described above have some interesting characteristics in terms of formulation, which differentiate them from PED projects:

• The final goal, essentially geared towards natural resource management;
• The longer lifespan of the NRM/GT projects, which are designed over a period of 10-15 years. This gives scope for an orientation phase and developing a genuinely trusting relationship between partners at several levels. Since project failure quite often results from shortcomings in the management of infrastructure and activities, there is also time to understand and influence trends and village behaviour;
• Relatively lower implementation costs incurred by NRM/GT projects;
• The institutional framework. First of all, the projects are run from within a permanent structure (the Local Development Committee). In addition, the NRM/GT projects fit within an institutional framework which starts with the national level, where there is a national co-ordinating committee and a central project implementation unit, working through the co-ordinating committees at regional and sub-regional level (Region, Circle and Arrondissement) and ending up with the village natural resource committees at village level. Programming, co-ordination, extension and control of activities are defined for each type of committee. Extending the institutional framework of the project to all levels undoubtedly has advantages in terms of exchange of experience between the various levels and adapting more rationally to the changes brought about by decentralization and the shake-up of institutions, thereby potentially reducing the risks of dramatic changes in government and decentralized structures. The main advantage of these projects is the opportunity they provide to commit the government to improving concepts and procedures at institutional level. However, the approach also has its drawbacks. In particular, the participation of state structures is very often limited to acquiring the project's financial and material resources. These projects experience substantial conflict with regard to the management of subsistence allowances, fuel and the round of seminars and study tours which do not always contribute towards the effectiveness of the project.
• The higher degree of involvement of the public services, although they do not always have the same responses and motivation: some LDCs take an adequate interest in project implementation and others much less so.(21)

Despite the difficulties mentioned above, the Mission recommends that PED projects should draw inspiration from the above examples of the programme approach. It would thereby be possible to avoid formulations which have shown a low level of sustainability and replicability and to take part in the ongoing experimentation of new types of institutional arrangements. There are several possible options and, as often happens in the development field, one should not be afraid to proceed by trial and error, while learning from agencies which have more experience in this regard (especially IDA, GTZ and the Dutch Co-operation Service).

5.3 Knowledge-acquisition tools

5.3.1 General remarks

The methodological tools whose systematic, sequential use is suggested in the operational guidelines include:

• The comprehensive village study method (French acronym MEGEVE), which is conducted in several sub-stages, starting with socio-tenurial mapping. Drawing on village memory, landholdings are mapped using GPS with reference to the various lineage groups. Socio-economic household surveys are then conducted to establish the background to the communities' position in relation to their terroirs. This knowledge base on the social sphere allows an inventory of resources to be made at the start of the project and agreement to be reached on monitoring land-related activities. The potential of the village land and natural resources is also established at the end of this stage in order to design activities relevant to the situation in question.
• The following stage consists of carrying out a participatory appraisal and looking for alternative solutions, by means of the active method of appraisal and identification of socio-economic alternatives (French acronym: MADRAS). During this stage, the communities themselves analyze the operation and evolution of production systems. They then identify the constraints and difficulties which hinder production systems. Theoretically, this exercise should lead to the selection of possible solutions for the constraints identified, after which the conditions for carrying out the selected activities can be defined and these can be ranked in order of priority. This stage ends in the formulation of village development programmes (VDPs). The programmes are documented in foundation agreements and operational agreements, which define not only the terms and conditions for the implementation of the selected projects, but also the communities' responsibilities. They are backed up with a budget and schedule.
• The last stage in the process is the establishment of an evaluation, management and monitoring system (French acronym: SEGESTE). Monitoring criteria and procedures are worked out to determine the impact of activities on the communities.

The eco-development methodology aims thereby to combine a scientific approach using the Geographical Information System (GIS) and socio-economic database with a participatory approach based on consultation and dialogue with the communities and their involvement at all stages.

Each stage is backed up with a series of external consultancies employing skills in GIS, developing the database and defining monitoring criteria. The results of each stage are also fed back to the village communities.

The important place given to knowledge acquisition has been pointed out elsewhere in this report. This aspect and especially the respective tools are currently the subject of lively debate amongst the staff of the eco-development programme at all levels. These instruments need to be analyzed from the qualitative and quantitative points of view:

• Examination of Table 2 and reactions at field level show that there are too many tools. In fact, a closer look reveals no less than 7 different tools(22), in addition to procedures used during project identification and formulation. This entails:
• Overlap of results obtained from the use of the various tools, thereby reducing the "individual added value" of each tool. In other words, there is a certain amount of waste of time, money and energy;
• Excessive mobilization of the villagers as a source of information, to such an extent that they sometimes see knowledge-acquisition as one of the activities, if not the main activity, of the project (Luche, 1997, 1997b, p.8). This was one of the faults of the GT type projects as already described.(23)
• Knowledge-acquisition becomes the main focus of project staff, with consequent overuse of tools, seen as an end rather than a means, as well as underuse of information collected in debate and decision-making.
• Substantial delays occur in setting up activities following knowledge-acquisition. In theory, the time between project start-up and production of the village development plan is around 15 months (see Table 2), yet it was more than 2 years in Niger (Jenny et al., 1997, pp.18-19) and the number of VDPs is well below expectations (Niger Report – Annexe 3).
• In some projects (e.g. Niger and Mali), as a result of ambiguous information on the matter of "taking over" from the project teams, acquisition and mastery of the various tools have become bound up with notions of technical superiority and power. This has led to a deterioration in working relationships, with team members turning in on themselves and defending their "skills", both within projects and in relation to the technical services.
• Furthermore, the use of tools making great demands in terms of funding, equipment and training raises questions about the possibility of local ownership and, especially, about their sustainability after the departure of the project.
• Finally, it can be seen that exhaustive knowledge of the local environment is not necessarily a pre-condition for setting up concrete development activities: for instance, in Niger, many entry point activities started before the end of the knowledge-acquisition phase and even in the absence of development plans(24) (Jenny et al., 1997; Niger Report – Annexe 3).
• The latter point is often used to justify the requirement for exhaustive knowledge of the environment, especially at local area level, in order to reduce the risks of scattering (Jenny et al., p. 26; Michel & Lazarev, 1997). However, the experience of the first generation of GT-type projects has more than demonstrated that an excess of knowledge does not solve the problem. Recent thinking in this regard has generally come to the conclusion that scattering of activities should be reduced by linking the terroir/village and district/governance levels (Demante et al., 1995; UNSO, 1994).
• A second justification for the use of relatively sophisticated tools concerns the combination of local and external know-how (Micheau, 1997, p. 14). Against this, one might argue that knowledge sharing can also occur – more dynamically – "in action"(25) and that it should be able to take place more flexibly, without necessarily having to precede the setting up of activities.
• A third argument put forward in favour of developing knowledge-acquisition tools relates to the need for sound knowledge to set up a good database to monitor agreements and impact (Arab, 1997, p. 31). This argument should essentially be discussed on the same basis as the methodology developed for monitoring activities and impact, presented elsewhere in this report.(26)

The need to simplify the overall procedure for knowledge-acquisition is clear from many documents (Diakité et al., 1996, p. 54; UNCDF, 1997b, p. 1), as well as field visits. By way of example, the project team in Seno, Mali, suggests that the typology of agro-pastoral systems should only be used in reference villages and that a less cumbersome toolkit be used elsewhere.

With these concerns, as well as the three key questions mentioned in Section 5.1, in mind, recommendations concerning knowledge-acquisition tools are as follows:

• Such tools should be developed on the basis of needs in order to enable local stakeholders – primarily communities, local governance, private operators and NGOs – to define and discuss the constraints and opportunities inherent in sustainable local development and to start activities as soon as possible. The decision as to what knowledge is required should therefore depend on local demand for knowledge and not be predetermined by the project.
• From this perspective and to meet the need for less cumbersome tools, the Mission feels that knowledge acquired by means of participatory, properly conducted appraisal should serve as a reference point as far as the minimum need for knowledge of the local environment is concerned. Such knowledge would be a prerequisite for the development of the basic activities required to address the most urgent needs and establish the project's credibility in the eyes of local stakeholders.
• The foregoing also means that the need for additional knowledge acquisition by other means than participatory appraisal and learning by doing should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the needs not just of the project but also of the local stakeholders.
• This knowledge-acquisition strategy should be adopted in parallel with support to local governance. In this regard, tools should be developed for the participatory analysis of local institutions and the negotiation of strategic development options. In view of the striking lack of instructions on this subject in documents relating to participatory eco-development, a separate section is given over to it elsewhere in this report.(27)
• Whatever the need for knowledge acquisition, the development of tools in this regard should respect three principles:

* Not seeking to "re-invent the wheel". In other words, project and development agencies involved in similar activities should be consulted to find out what instruments they use. One current example involves local development projects (or second generation GT projects);

* Combining external and local know-how, whether the latter be national or within the project. This would decentralize the development of such tools, bringing in the field dimension, whereas hitherto these tasks have mainly been handled by external experts;

* Finally, tools should be perfected gradually and follow an iterative process of applied research.

5.3.2 Specific considerations relating to certain tools

(i) Typology of agro-pastoral systems

With more specific reference to this tool, in Niger, the only instance where it has been developed, the purpose was mainly academic and the results were not fed into the project (Jenny et al., 1997, p. 16). The intellectual advantage of the study is not reflected within the programming which is essentially based on a mental picture of village land management (GT) projects. The range of activities is not structurally difference from those conducted as part of the latter type of projects. It does seem here that development, in this case the UNCDF project, has been placed at the service of research, whereas the converse should, in principle, be expected!

(ii) Socio-tenurial mapping The maps certainly have the advantage of combining physical (land-use) and social (lineage groups) data. However, to a greater extent than other instruments, this type of mapping tool tends to "freeze" situations which are by nature dynamic and difficult to mark out in space, such as pastoralism, changing land-use strategies and so on.

Moreover, one should not fall into the error of giving more importance to spatial aspects than the resource aspect of local production strategies. The documents are rarely used to raise crucial questions in relation to land tenure, especially in view of the need to analyze the latter from a social and political point of view (its reflection of the existing power structure, for instance).

In fact, it is hard to see the link between the data produced using this tool and the strategies mentioned in the VDPs and AVDPs.

One is led, therefore, to query the relevance of these tools as they stand at present. They should perhaps be used only as and when required, for instance when substantial development of village lands is feasible and planned.

(iii) GIS (Geographical Information System) The following points most commonly arise in this regard:

* Incomplete training of national experts on the development and possible fields of application of the geographical information system (GIS). A GIS is inconceivable unless it allows cross-referencing of spatial information with socio-economic information in order to general new information which can be used to support decision-making. This is what makes it an information system. There is a degree of incompatibility between socio-tenurial mapping and the database, which was developed separately without taking into account the cartographic units identified by the land tenure study. Putting the GIS to full operational use depends on staff having a good grasp of the software and information management. It should be mentioned in passing that the software used by the project is unknown to other local GIS users so that on-going training by local human resources is not possible. In Niger, the project team acknowledges these shortcomings, noting that procedure between the MEGEVE and MADRAS stages was not made very explicit, meaning that the approach did not hang together very well.

* It is rare for even 40% of the GIS potential to be used, in that once the maps have been produced, they are no longer used:

• either to define "discrete" target groups whose presence in the village is rarely taken into account;
• or to define the main development themes by bringing out very clearly which activities are most appropriate for one or other cartographical unit;
• or, finally, to underpin negotiations between the various groups in the village in respect of access to land.

(iv) The database

The amount of data gathered is often impressive, but:

• It should be borne in mind that, at the start of a development project, a database essentially serves the project. This helps to see how it really fits in with other tools and activities when starting a project.
• The way the database works is more like that of a regional statistical agency, in that information-gathering does not necessarily feed into thinking about strategic choices and other decisions to be taken at project level.
• The database itself contains superfluous or even unreliable information and is generally under-used. For instance, in Mali, activities to measure and quantify certain socio-economic data (quantities of seeds or livestock numbers) have turned out to be impracticable or without foundation. Paradoxically, the projects have very detailed information about the socio-tenurial situation, but have no basic data on yields, cash income or other aspects which are needed to assess and measure the impact of the projects' productive activities.

In sum, the tool seems to be out of proportion and sometimes ill-suited both to its intended use and to needs.
It should, however, be noted that a database is justified, especially when working at "local area" level.
5.4 Participation in the eco-development programme

This report looks at two levels of participation:

• village participation at the level of natural resources;
• institutional participation, i.e. project co-operation with other agencies providing support to natural resource management in rural areas.

High quality participation is necessary at both levels to ensure the replicability of projects. In fact, it could be said that the concept of replicability involves three aspects:
• management of knowledge/experience acquired by projects
• appropriation of this by the local structures which will remain in place(28), namely the local communities and national institutions (technical services, NGOs, etc.);
• sustaining impact over time.

5.4.1 Village participation

(i) General considerations

Typology

Reference to participation is found in most documents dealing with rural development and environmental management. However, this notion is rarely defined clearly. As a result, everyone interprets it in their own way and the expression becomes hackneyed. In order to avoid this error here, we prefer to supply a typology of the various types of participation in Table 3 below.

The major concern of the participatory approach should relate to a process of social transformation which is acceptable from both the ecological and the socio-economic points of view, while the way this is brought about must fit in with local circumstances.

Table 3: Summary of the various types of participation found in rural development programmes

Typology	Explanation
1. Passive participation	People participate in that they are informed about what has happened or is to happen.
2. Participation by supplying information	The community participates by supplying answers to questions asked.
3. Participation through consultation	Communities participate by being consulted and outside agents listen to their opinions, which may alter the definition of problems and proposed solutions. However, this is the prerogative of the outside agents, so the communities do not participate in decision-making.
4. Participation related to material benefits	People participate by providing resources, such as labour, in exchange for food, money or other material incentives. This is often considered as participation, but the communities are not taking part in decision-making.
5. Functional participation	People participate on the basis of predetermined activities after the decision has been taken about project strategy and planning.
6. Interactive participation	The communities take part in appraisal leading to plans of action and training or strengthening of interest groups. The latter take over local decision-making, with a view to the continuity of the activities and/or structures set up.
7. Self-mobilization/active participation	The communities participate by taking initiatives independently of external structures.


(Adapted from "Whose Eden?" EPG/IIED, 1995)

Application

It is acknowledged that the closer one comes to the types of participation in the lower part of the table, the greater the likelihood that the activities undertaken will have a lasting, beneficial impact, both on the local community and on the environment. Nevertheless, care should be taken to avoid a mechanistic approach to the concept of participation, as if following a recipe. Critical judgement about the relevance and mode of application of participation seems to be in order. For instance, it is wrong to assume that participation disrupts tradition less than family or private resource management. Participation implies, in particular, setting up organizations possessing qualities which are not always easy to acquire: organizational capacity, knowledge of how democracy works, skills in accounting management, etc. Such organizations are often created more at the instigation of outside agencies (especially donors) and do not therefore always reflect "customary values". Because of this, their viability will depend on their ability to take more account of local conditions and needs than of the wishes of outside agencies.
Furthermore, in view of the foregoing, it is easy to see that participation requires time as well as financial and human resources. From this perspective, there is also a need to qualify the feasibility of using "high quality" types of participation when the natural resource base is weak, as in Sahelian regions. In fact, in such circumstances, it can sometimes seem somewhat utopian to expect community self-mobilization in the short term, especially in terms of self-financing development activities. It can sometimes seem more realistic to carry out activities via type 4 participation (linked to material benefits) or even under local government control. Nevertheless, the question of replicating project achievements then arises and this type of participation may be hard to sustain in the long term as far as financing is concerned.
(i) The experience of PED projects

As it had been geared in the past mainly towards setting up infrastructure and supplying equipment, UNCDF had practically no experience of participation when it was decided, in 1994, to change direction and concentrate on facilitating local development. As a result, one might have expected that the programme would have paid particular attention to addressing this gap. According to the Mission, UNCDF management in general and the eco-development programme in particular then had three options: either to recruit experienced personnel, or to subcontract this part of the approach to agencies (local if possible) deemed to be competent in this regard, or finally to place the emphasis on training UNCDF staff.

In fact, none of these options was taken up and it does seem that the quality of participation is an aspect which has been somewhat neglected until recently(29), as can be seen from the fact that:
• Documentation on knowledge-acquisition tools is as extensive as it is rare or even non-existent on tools relating to participatory methodologies to be applied throughout projects.
• There are many shortcomings in the application of the participatory approach at various levels:
• On the part of project teams, despite a manifest desire to do well and to learn. Participation tools are in fact used in a mechanistic way. Moreover, the participatory approach as a major project component does not seem to be automatically used by all project managers in their work, some of them thinking that participation is mainly a matter for the extension workers;
• In results at community level, where there is generally a low level of representation of less powerful social groups (such as herders and women) and little sense of ownership of achievements.

It is encouraging to note recent efforts designed to remedy these failings, especially questionnaires intended for project staff (Luche, 1997c) and training seminars (Sawadogo, 1997).
In parallel with these recent and extremely necessary efforts, another possibly complementary way of making learning more dynamic and avoiding too many errors in the field could consist of sub-contracting the communication aspect initially to local specialist agencies.
• This would prevent PED projects from "reinventing the wheel" with a new methodology (MEGEVE), allowing tried and tested approaches, such as MARP(30), to be used by experienced individuals and agencies(31);
• Project staff would be involved in sessions on applying such methodology, thus allowing a kind of learning "on the job", which is often more effective than attending workshops. After a period of apprenticeship, the staff themselves could carry out this type of activity.

Leach (1997 – Annexe 2) also points out one of the failing of village assemblies as vehicles for community participation: the fact that what goes unsaid and marginalized groups are not taken into account, hence the idea of concentrating rather on interest groups, as previously mentioned(32).
5.4.2 Institutional co-operation – partnerships

Within most PED projects, this type of co-operation has so far often begun only at the stage of establishing implementation agreements. It has rarely gone beyond service provision by the technical services and the definition of strategic options without any participation by the latter. This is partly due to overlooking the "local area" dimension.

It must be admitted, however, that even if this dimension had been developed, this type of participation would have encountered practical difficulties. Some of these are inherent in the particular status of UNCDF project staff and are discussed later in this report(33).
Other difficulties are related to the way the forums for dialogue work in general, these being a tool linked to institutional co-operation and therefore liable to develop within the "local area" framework. This theme is developed in Annexe 8.

5.5 Selection of development activities – methodology of negotiation

Knowledge acquisition and participatory appraisal of constraints and opportunities are supposed to lead to the selection of priority development activities.
The Mission feels that there are serious shortcomings in the approach used so far in this phase of the projects. In fact, currently, the decision as to which activities should be undertaken is usually a matter for the project and the village communities. The local authorities and technical services are not involved in taking the decision and often simply respond to requests. This means that it is difficult to make a link between the terroir and "local area" levels, a concern strongly expressed by field teams during the seminar in Senegal (UNCDF, 1997a, pp. 11-13). Now if the continuity of development activities is to be ensured and the risk of projects operating in isolation is to be avoided, projects must be appropriated not just by villagers, but also by the State and its offshoots, in a process of support to local governance. For example, in the case of school construction, while the project and the village communities may be able to meet needs arising from construction, it is still the State which has to supply staff. With regard to agricultural production activities, the technical services ought to be involved earlier in discussion and more intensively in providing assistance; the projects should, in principle, merely facilitate matters.
The eco-development programme is sorely lacking in tools to link the terroir and district/local governance levels. This is why the Mission is suggesting some methodological tools which could help in decision-making about activities to be undertaken, to be used between the stages of situation analysis and programming activities:
• a procedure linking environmental conditions to community livelihood strategies;
• a framework for analyzing stakeholders' roles;
• a multi-criteria analysis tool; and finally
• a way of improving many participatory tools.

These tools are not mutually exclusive. Table 4 (Section 5.10) indicates which should, in the Mission's opinion, be considered indispensable and which should be used as required.

(i) Linking the environment to community livelihood strategies
The relationship between rural communities and their environment is heavily dependent on livelihood strategies and especially those related to land use. Environmental activities have every chance of lasting if they are seen as a way of enhancing existing production systems and not simply in sectoral terms as a way of "restoring the environment".
With a view to better understanding of the trade-offs between environment and development, avoiding the eco-swap approach, the Mission also thinks that the appraisal process should allow for a review of the understanding and definition of the relationship between natural resources and the living standards of rural communities. This could be done as follows:
• Each group of natural resource users must be able to voice the relationship between their own livelihood/production practices and the state of natural resources. This analysis should lead into critical analysis, by each user group, of how natural resources have changed. This would help to check the relevance of the notion of degradation of vegetation cover, from the point of view of its users and managers. It is important for all protagonists to be involved in this analysis and, in particular, groups which are often marginalized such as herders, women, etc. From the methodological standpoint, analysis should be conducted separately with each protagonist.
• In a second stage, a discussion forum should be held so that protagonists can hear each other's opinions. This exercise should lead to better understanding, as well as a degree of consensus on the state of natural resources and their links with the living standards of rural communities.

If the exercise is conducted in a genuinely participatory and holistic manner, ambiguity arising from different perceptions of the notion of the terroir should be substantially lessened. The same goes for limiting factors, especially those relating to land tenure. Finally, the constraints and needs of each protagonist will be known to the others.
Activities set up this way should be accompanied by:
• a guarantee given to the villagers of a degree of security of production/income during the time needed to produce effects;
• training on site or in neighbouring areas (e.g. central nurseries);
• direct or indirect contributions from the community to the work undertaken.

The Institute for Development Studies (IDS) suggests an analytical approach(34), which combines environment, livelihood strategies and local institutions with MARP tools (Leach, 1997 – Annexe 2).

(ii) The "4Rs" tool for clarifying stakeholders' roles at local level

Negotiation as proposed above means having a clear idea and minimum consensus about the roles of each stakeholder in the operation. In fact, fundamental questions concerning land tenure(35), for instance, as well as the responsibilities and revenues/returns of the various stakeholders, are not systematically tackled in participatory approaches in general, not to mention eco-development projects. While socio-tenurial mapping allows knowledge to be acquired about landholding, it does not suggest any approach for discussing land rights. Such issues are sensitive, since they affect existing power structures. Consequently, projects generally do not tackle them, although they are a vital element in sustainable development. This is why the Mission suggests using a framework for analysis which makes the concept of stakeholders' roles more operational. One such framework, known as the "4Rs"(36), systematically analyzes rights, responsibilities, revenues/returns and relationships as a whole in relation to the main local stakeholders – essentially the state and its offshoots, private operators and village communities. This tool is currently being used in an IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) project in six African countries(37) and is proving useful between the situation analysis and planning phases. More information on this subject is given in Annexe 6.

(iii) Multi-criteria analysis

If a consensus about activities to be undertaken cannot be reached simply by consultation/dialogue, a method related to multi-criteria analysis (analysis of harmony and disharmony) is suggested in Annexe 7. This makes it possible to define, if not the perfect solution, at least a satisfactory compromise for all parties in the choice of activities(38).
(iv) Using the future as a starting point for reaching consensus(39)
Participatory approaches based on examining the problems and needs of local communities often have the disadvantage of raising their expectations so that they come up with a wish list. One way of avoiding this type of outcome is to start not by expressing needs and problems, but by looking for consensus between stakeholders about what the position of the environment and development will be for their children's generation, i.e. in about 25 or 30 years time. Consensus can usually be reached at this level(40). It is then possible to discuss what must be done now to achieve the common objective, stressing what is possible without external assistance. In principle, this procedure avoids blockages due to existing conflicts and can very easily be combined with the "4Rs" framework for analysis. It is currently being tested officially in Madagascar.
The team in Mayahi, Niger, is operating in a similar way to establish inventories (of land, fodder and water resources) with the local population. This procedure deserves to be fleshed out and extended to other aspects and projects.

5.6 Programming activities – VDPs and AVDPs

5.6.1 Village development programmes (VDPs)

These plans are spread over several years and, broadly speaking, list the characteristics of the terroir, development constraints, activities suggested to relieve those constraints and budget forecasts. The relevance of village development programmes (VDPs) will now be analyzed on the basis of functionality/usefulness and replicability.

(i) Functionality/usefulness

In general, it may be said that:

• Drawing up these plans seems to have become the goal for the technical unit, to the detriment of overall thinking about the relevance and ability of the tools to define and refine an original, targeted programme strategy.

• The quantity and wealth of information obtained during the knowledge-acquisition phase stands in some contrast to the weak analysis and stereo typical nature of the appraisals in the VDPs.

• This stereotypical, repetitive nature allows the "contractual strategy" of programming to be cast without difficulty into the pre-established mould of the activities indicated in the operational plan set out in the project documents.

• The local communities have no sense of ownership of the plans. This can be seen, for instance, in the conclusions of the self-evaluations conducted at the Mayahi Rural Development Project in Niger in July 1997 (UNCDF, 1997c): "The adults, men and women, have not grasped the content of the PADVs(41); furthermore, the women of Janruwa do not even know that a plan exists".

• In fact, VDPs are most commonly the prerogative of a favoured fraction of the population: people who are literate and/or have power. The plans do not clearly define the target groups and the whole structure of the human environment revolves around the classic pattern of the village chief and his advisers or the Council of Elders. There is then a risk than ADPs will increase existing privileges;

• The plans often do not start an iterative basis, so that regular readjustment is not possible.

• The opportunities for economic linkages which could be followed up by a village or inter-village organization or even a given informal group are not specified. On the other hand, large numbers of management committees are springing up in the villages for one or other activity with no assessment of their impact in the medium or long term.

• The appraisal carried out in some terroirs seems to overlook some quite considerable economic potential they contain. For example, eco-tourism in the village lands at the foot of the cliff in Mali or the possibility of developing certain agricultural resources for the external market (as in the case of sorrel in Mayahi, through a drinks production plant in Maradi) represent economic opportunities which should not be overlooked by an eco-development project.

(ii) Replicability

The fundamental pragmatic question to ask is as follows: is it reasonable to suppose that each village community in a country must go through a VDP to start development activities? The answer is obviously no. This must then be set against the existing and/or necessary planning tools at the administrative level immediately above the villages, i.e. local governance.(42)

So while a development plan may be a necessity at commune level, the preceding analysis shows that the same does not always go for the village/terroir level. With this in mind, the procedure at the latter level needs to be simplified. It should be possible to envisage, or indeed test on a pilot basis in a region, a system wherein formal GT plans would be drawn up when essential from an administrative point of view. On the other hand, at village level, a formal document is probably not always necessary. In any event, determining the need, as well as choosing and preparing a tool for planning/programming activities, would be up to the resource users. The Mission thinks that it should be possible, at this level, to try using a document which does not lay down what is to be done, but simply the "rules of the game" in respect of resource use. In other words, such a system would place more emphasis on norms/rules than on a plan(43). The "rules of the game" worked out locally would feed into discussions when formal plans were being drawn up at local area level. The link between terroir and district could then be established by means of written agreements, leaving a degree of autonomy in decision-making at terroir level and acknowledging the plans/programmes drawn up as needed. The last point does, however, mean that a formal plan following a certain model must not be a legal condition for using natural resources. This would thus, to begin with, require special dispensation from existing rules in many countries. In this regard, an analysis of the interface and possible synergy between local development and decentralization processes would prove very useful.
In short, the bulk of current VDPs are drawn up in a very formal and standardized manner, thus fitting into the mould of project documents. In general, they do not take much account of information acquired about the local environment or the results of appraisal. As a result, operational choices are often virtually known before the appraisals are even carried out. If such information were brought in, however, it would be possible to come up with a concerted definition of a strategy and programme involving, on the one hand, land-use planning on the basis of tenurial status and productive potential and, on the other, an economic and social development programme based on local human capacity and potential.
The Mission therefore recommends questioning the usefulness of VDPs in their current form. Attention should be paid to simplifying these programmes and giving local stakeholders – communities, technical services and local authorities in particular – a greater role in drawing them up.
5.6.2 Annual village development programmes

Unlike a village development programme, an annual village development programme (AVDP), specifying activities to be undertaken during the year, does seem to be a necessity. Indeed, it is important to know how each partner will contribute in the short term.

However, the Mission has observed that such documents are virtually absent from the projects visited. In fact, operations are usually based on the VDPs, which themselves draw on the project documents. In view of the standardization observed at this level, AVDPs appear superfluous and yet they would be of even greater usefulness if the inadequacies of the VDPs were remedied. However, AVDPs should also be drawn up as simply as possible, taking into account the existence of agreements and possibly of specific contracts for each activity.
5.7 Setting up activities
An innovative and very interesting aspect of the PED approach is that activities are carried out on the basis of contracts with a range of partners: technical services and private, public or voluntary (e.g. NGO) operators.
Formally, each jointly defined activity recorded in the VDP/PADV and AVDP is reflected in a development agreement and becomes operational through the implementation of a contract by a service providing partner.
After barely three years of "new UNCDF focus" PED projects, it is too soon to assess the viability or replicability of activities, especially those relating to production, all the more so in that monitoring tools have only recently come into use (mid-1997). It therefore seems wise to concentrate on analyzing the modes of implementation of the activities.
The Mission was able to note some very interesting achievements, such as: well construction, urban infrastructure (water supply), dispensaries built with local materials using low-cost techniques, market gardens, permeable rock dams, etc.
However, generally speaking, the effects of the weaknesses observed in connection with the VDPs and AVDPs can be felt in the way activities are set up. Indeed, in the absence of a genuinely dynamic strategy based on the VDPs and AVDPs and of links with the "local area" dimension:
• Activities are, in general, standardized and often reflect the proposals put forward in the project documents. The contribution of information gathered and appraisals to activities is often slight;
• This results in a scattering of sometimes unsuitable activities, a low level of appropriation by the villagers and partial integration of the various activities in a way which is not always consistent. It is strongly recommended that the choice of activities be made more strategic, in order to have a smaller number of less scattered activities;
• Development agreements and implementation contracts are put together in a very traditional manner, following the service provision pattern.
• The fact that "implementing partners" have not been involved in the phases prior to implementation results in sectoral application, which is not in accordance with the theoretically holistic approach of PED.
• Another consequence relates to the quality of services provided, which is often below expectation and likely to cause problems (e.g. literacy training and management of cereal banks in the Mayahi project in Niger and the water control brigade in the Assaba programme in Mauritania). It would be a good idea to draw up an agreement in advance on the various quality standards to be observed. In this regard, it is recommended that a technical data sheet be prepared for each planned activity. In a few pages, this would take stock of the accumulation of methodological and technical experience of operations of that nature conducted in the area. The set of data sheets would be used to define the modus operandi and level of quality expected from the operator. The preparation of technical data sheets could form the beginnings of a technical reference work, which could enhance the presentation of the UNCDF approach.
• Appropriation of innovations by producers is dependent not only on their technical/productive input, but also on the operator's ability to provide the producer with security during the time needed to take the measure of the resulting benefits. This openly raises the question of encouragements, incentives and rewards. There is a need to decide whether such aspects might be integrated within the operator's procedures or remain the prerogative of the project.
• Support for and independent replication of activities also depend on the level of awareness and understanding of grassroots stakeholders. Everyone agrees on the vital need to train the local people, so that they can master basic notions of numeracy and literacy.

5.8 Monitoring tools

Implementation of a monitoring and evaluation system within the PED projects really got under way in 1997. The purpose of monitoring is to measure the progress of the development agreements established with partners.
The mass of information to be gathered should, in principle, make it possible to carry out cross-checks to monitor agreements in relation to the project objectives. One can thereby find out how far the agreements have contributed towards achieving objectives, the level of involvement of different social groups (men and women) and the level and nature of community/project input. Where appropriate, monitoring also provides information on the micro-finance component (geographical and gender distribution of credit, changes in reimbursement rate, etc.).
There is every reason to be satisfied with the implementation of these tools for monitoring which will allow the increasingly large volume of agreements to be listed and managed, at least ex post.
These positive aspects should not mask the inadequacies, the many unanswered questions or the potential for improvement:
• A large proportion of these agreements cannot be called participatory, as a result of classic programming according to the project document.
• The monitoring system is mainly put together and used as an accounting tool, allowing the rate of achievement of objectives to be measured.
• For the moment, monitoring is not seen as a tool for steering the programming and implementation strategy of the VDPs. In Niger, although these plans are in part finalized on the basis of an annual budget forecast, technical and financial monitoring per community has not been chosen as a management tool at project level (nor indeed for the communities, judged incapable of understanding the VDP).
• There are a large number of other aspects which need to be monitored to provide more qualitative data both on the procedure and on the quality of delivery. In their current relationship with the majority of implementing partners, the projects do not in fact have enough control over the activities to develop genuine quality certification relating to methods, quality and local management capacity.
• The large number of parties involved in carrying out activities within eco-development projects makes monitoring particularly difficult, inasmuch as these parties do not all work according to the same timetable or in the same programme areas. The rate of progress always varies and it is difficult for the co-ordinating team to co-ordinate the work of each party. Some contracts are negotiated without the team's participation. The most striking example is the negotiation of impact monitoring contracts with local consultancies or co-operation contracts through UNOPS. These contracts do not provide for any penalty should the contractor not provide the expected services or simply be unacceptably late in providing them. The projects in Mali and Mauritania have been particularly badly affected by these arrangements: in Mali as regards the construction of the project offices and housing and, in Mauritania, with various contractors, including Cités Unies and the consultancy in charge of installing the boreholes.
• The current monitoring system needs to be improved, to facilitate better management of the way activities are carried out. With a view to pursuing the participatory relationship with the communities throughout the process (which does not stop at the programming stage), it would be advisable for each community benefiting from a VDP to develop permanent monitoring of programming, with the help of the extension worker.
• With particular reference to computerized databanks, it is likely that such tools will initially be necessary mainly for the project staff. Developing them should not therefore be seen as a priority. They could be set up partly on the basis of the various criteria and indicators developed by the other protagonists (villagers, technical agencies and so on).

5.9 Impact studies

This aspect of PED projects has not yet been developed, in view of the short time that current projects have been operating. In principle, an impact study should encompass two viewpoints: evaluation by the project on the one hand and, on the other, self-evaluation by the target communities. In this regard, mention should be made of the splendid initiative of the PDRM team in Niger in conducting self-evaluation in two rural communities which have an AVDP and a VDP. As noted earlier, this exercise showed that local people have very little knowledge or sense of ownership of the programmes.
Perusal of documents(44) and field visits lead to similar observations about the methodology advocated for studying the impact of eco-development projects.
• The components of the impact study system (principles, criteria and indicators) are mainly developed by external experts. The involvement of project staff in the process has been limited so far, while the local people have not been involved at all;
• Quantifiable aspects of operations are stressed;
• Users (project staff) have little sense of ownership of the tools, while the local structures (e.g. technical agencies and village committees) which will remain in place post-project have virtually none;
• As a corollary, project teams, with little experience of impact studies, are likely to encounter difficulties in applying the system. This may be due to excessively zealous procedures(45) resulting in an arsenal of cumbersome, time-consuming tools. Considerable debate on this subject is currently going on amongst the staff, with a clearly expressed wish for simplification and clarification (UNCDF, 1997b, p. 14). It is planned to subcontract this aspect of projects to local bodies outside the project (e.g. consultancies and NGOs).

In fact, it seems that all these difficulties derive from the tendency to "put the cart before the horse", without sufficient concern to adapt the "cart" to local conditions. Experience of monitoring and evaluating rural development projects actually shows that:
• Systems developed externally, with a list of criteria and indicators prepared without substantial local input, usually come up with ineffective and inefficient results.
• Such systems are useful above all to project teams and not so much to project beneficiaries. They should not therefore be allowed to affect actual development activities, for example because of the amount of work they require.

It would seem more prudent to adopt an approach which attempts to answer the following sequence of questions:
(i) Why and for whom is the impact study being conducted?
In accordance with the idea that the system should be useful to all protagonists, the question should first be put to the latter. This means working at both village and governance level and it is frequently necessary to delay the process until a degree of mutual understanding and confidence exists, namely after concrete development activities have been set up.
Such consultation should go hand in hand with dialogue about how the links between living conditions and the state of the environment (its degradation in particular) are perceived, as indicated in Section 5.4 (i) of this report.
The answer to these two questions makes it easy to respond to the following logical sequence of questions.
(ii) What is to be measured?
It is important that this question also should be put to all interested parties, because there is a need to differentiate, at this level, what is common to several parties from what is specific to each of them, as this has implications for the way criteria and indicators are determined.
Realism is essential here. It is difficult, not to say pointless, to try to measure too many things. Choices must therefore be made at this level, having regard not just to the objectives, but also to the time and other means available.
(iii) How should it be measured? Determining criteria and indicators
At this level, the choice of criteria and indicators should be based on the absorption capacity and wishes of each group of stakeholders: in the case of soil fertility, farmers often have evaluation criteria based on the observable characteristics of the soil, such as taste, colour and so on. On the other hand, technical agencies rely more on laboratory methods. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, which does not raise any major problems if objectives are clear and if each group has a sense of ownership of the approach used.
(iv) What is needed to make impact monitoring operational?
It is clear that needs will differ from group to group. For instance, it is likely that the system developed by the villagers will not initially require a computerized tool. Whatever the case may be, needs should be defined by the groups themselves with the help of the extension worker, so as to decide what can be achieved with or without the assistance of the other protagonists, especially the project.
The procedure described above has the following advantages:
• Compatibility of the various systems and their needs with the desiderata and capabilities of each protagonist;
• Greater appropriation by local stakeholders;
• As a consequence of the previous two points, a greater likelihood that the monitoring and evaluation systems developed by these local stakeholders can be sustained after the projects have gone.
• Finally, use and strengthening of local capacity as the various systems develop.

5.10 Summary analysis of methodological tools – suggested operational procedure for eco-development projects
The overall analysis of tools suggested in the current approach of eco-development projects has led us to propose altering some of them and considering others in accordance with needs and local circumstances, as well as to suggest new ones where gaps have been identified. In the interests of clarity, we thought it useful to illustrate this analysis by means of Table 4, which should be read in conjunction with Table 2.(46)
Table 4: Summary of the proposed operational procedure

Phases and Functions	Methodological Tools
0. Identification and formulation phases	Compulsory/Sequential	To be developed and used as required
	Consultation/dialogue, including representatives of civil society KADRE workshop Field visits Workshop in project area
1. Start-up phase Setting up logistics Acquiring knowledge on programme area	Summary of existing documents Learning by doing	Communication strategy (workshops) Typology of agro-pastoral systems Micro-regional study
2. Acquiring knowledge about communities and their environment Analysis of production systems (repeated in accordance with local needs and availability)	MARP methodology	Socio-tenurial mapping Setting up socio-tenurial database
3. Participatory appraisal, strategy and programming phase Consultation within team Participatory appraisal of village development potential and constraints Negotiation/definition of strategic options Programming	Internal meeting MARP methodology Comparative, participatory analysis of perceptions of the links between living conditions and the state of the environment Clarification of roles of local stakeholders (e.g. "4Rs" tool) Negotiation as such Consensus about the future Typology of activities and possible funding mechanisms Resource use rules AVDP	Aids to decision-making (e.g. multi-criteria analysis) VDP
1. Implementation and monitoring of village development programme Negotiation and signature of agreements Putting agreements into effect Monitoring of agreements	Written agreements SEGESTE, comprising: Monitoring forms Quality agreements	Database of agreements Thematic studies
2. Impact evaluation Set-up of the various systems Feed-back and decision-making	Answer to questions why, for whom, what, how and which needs, for each group of stakeholders Meetings at various levels	Use of specialist consultant/s Impact evaluation database

In comparison with the prevailing situation within eco-development projects, the following features of the suggested procedure can be seen from looking at the two tables and Section 5:

• Reduction and simplification of the work to be done between project start-up and the choice of development activities, moving from seven to three types of activity, i.e. mainly:
• summary of existing documents;
• learning by doing; and
• use of the MARP methodology.

The other knowledge-acquisition tools should be used as required and, where necessary, adapted to local circumstances.
• This will bring about a concomitant reduction in the period before development activities begin.
• Better adaptation of tools to needs and local capacity, through greater involvement of local expertise (project staff, technical agencies and village communities) in perfecting them by means of an iterative procedure.
• Greater emphasis on support to local governance, as a result of the involvement of permanent local state structures in decisions about strategic development options. This means that:

• more attention should be paid to developing tools and approaches relating to "negotiation between multiple decision-makers". Two appropriate tools are suggested in Annexes 6 and 7;
• more attention should be paid to institutional support, starting with an analysis of the local structures which will remain in place post-project;
• the eco-development programme should link in as far as possible with the LDF programme, in view of the latter's experience of supporting local governance. For its part, the eco-development programme could help the LDF programme in making links between governance and productive activities at village level. Synergy does therefore seem possible and even desirable.

Clearly, the introduction of this procedure will not go smoothly and a period of apprenticeship will be needed. However, being prepared to take risks and to innovate was one of the recommendations of the "Capacity Assessment of UNCDF" (Christensen et al., 1996), which argues in favour of an overall learning by doing approach. Moreover, many development co-operation agencies are currently facing the same challenge of supporting local development within a pluralist institutional framework.
5.11 Some remarks on the UNCDF operational guidelines

In May 1997, a first draft of the guidelines was prepared. Following the seminar in Senegal, in June 1997, the final version came out in July of that year. While the idea of operational guidelines is attractive, both the Mission and the bulk of UNCDF staff feel that the final version of the document leaves a lot to be desired:

• It is unwieldy in content and excessively geared towards knowledge-acquisition and land-use management tools;
• Some questions raised in the draft produced in May were not answered in the July version;
• The form of the document is very academic, which is likely to enhance the current bias against innovation amongst the field staff.(47)
• Drawing up operational guidelines involves a risk of standardization and of encouraging mechanical working through of all the prescribed stages in the process. In view of the diversity of the agro-ecological and socio-cultural situations in the programme areas, there is already a tendency to concentrate on learning and handling tools, leading to the accumulation of a mass of information which does not get used and may even have no direct connection with the project.

Having regard to these failings, a communications expert was contracted in December 1997 to review the form of the document. While the initiative is certainly welcome, the Mission does think that it should have been taken after examination of the recommendations of this report, some of which suggest simplifying the procedure and certain tools in particular, while new tools are proposed, etc.




Table of Contents
< Previous / Next >