A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships, Area Resource
Assessment and Planning Together
Mark Lundy, María Verónica Gottret, Rupert Best, and Shaun Ferris
i
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships, Area Resource
Assessment and Planning Together
Mark Lundy, María Verónica Gottret, Rupert Best, and Shaun Ferris
ii
Copyright © 2007 Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
Reprint edition published by Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, 2008.
ISBN 0-945356-43-9
First edition published 2007 byCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical(International Centre for Tropical Agriculture)Cali, ColombiaISBN 978-958-694-091-7
For information, addressCatholic Relief Services228 W. Lexington St.Baltimore MD 20201USAwww.crs.org
AGROVOC descriptors in English:1. Rural development. 2. Enterprises. 3. Small farms. 4. Partnerships. 5. Community involvement. 6. Capacity building. 7. Empowerment. 8. Training. 9. Innovation. 10. Planning.
Local descriptors in English:1. Participatory research.
AGROVOC descriptors in Spanish:1. Desarrollo rural. 2. Empresas. 3. Explotación en pequeña escala. 4. Coparticipación.5. Participación comunitaria. 6. Creación de capacidad. 7. Autonomización. 8. Capacitación. 9. Innovación. 10. Planificación.
Local descriptors in Spanish:1. Investigación participativa.
I. Gottret, María Verónica. II. Best, Rupert. III. Ferris, Shaun. IV. Tít.V. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. VI. Ser.
AGRIS subject category: E20 Organization, administration and management of agricultural enterprises or farms / Organización, administración y manejo de empresas agrícolas o fincas
LC classification: HD 9000 .L8
Republication of this report is made possible by the generous support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance’s Office of Food for Peace under the terms of Catholic Relief Services’ Institutional Capacity Building Grant Award Number AFP-A-00-03-00015-00. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Contents
iii
Page
Preface vii
Acknowledgments viii
Introduction and Background to the Guide 1Overview of the Area-based Approach for Rural Agroenterprise Development 2Objectives and Structure of the Guide 4
Section 1. Basic Principles of Livelihood Development 5Defining Livelihood 5Evaluating Innovation for Agroenterprise Development 8Rural Agroenterprise Development within a Target Area 8
Section 2. Preparing the Groundwork 9Setting Goals and a Philosophy for Community Engagement 9Rapid Reconnaissance Survey for Planning 9Applying the Agroenterprise Approach 10Engaging Partners in the Process 10Roles of the Partners 10Building In-house Agroenterprise Capacity through Pilot Testing 14Considerations for Scaling Up 16Exit Strategies 16
Section 3. Area-based Resource Assessment 17Forming the Working Group 17Defining an Area 17Zoning the Area 18Analyzing Resources Available in Each Zone 20Analyzing Social Resources in Each Zone 20Profiling Client Groups through Wealth Evaluation for Each Zone 26Zoning Livelihood Strategies by Wealth and Gender 27Innovation Processes for Each Zone, Resource, and Social Group 29
Section 4. Planning Together for Joint Action 32Reviewing the Roles of the Working Group 32Planning for Rural Agroenterprise Development in the Area 33Consensus Building 34Who We Are 34Developing a Common Vision for Agroenterprise in our Area 35Writing a Joint Work Plan 37Conclusion 39
Section 5. Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning 41Designing and Building an Appropriate Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
System for the Working Group 41Utility of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning for the Working Group 42Tools for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning 42Monitoring and Evaluation Advances in the Working Group’s Action Plan 42
iv
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Page
Section 6. The Planning Report and Preparing for the Next Steps 47Outline of the Planning Report 47Next Steps 48Conclusions 48
Appendices1. Planning, Organizing, and Taking Action: Key Event in Rural Agroenterprise
Development 502. Checklist for Developing a Pilot Agroenterprise Project 513. Transitional Exit Strategy with a 5-to 10-year Timeframe 52
Bibliography 53
v
Contents
Page
List of Figures1. Market chain participants at their first planning session 12. Flow chart of key stages in the participatory agroenterprise development approach 33. The “sustainable livelihoods conceptual framework” 64. Market chain actors and services 115. Partnerships and links in the agroenterprise approach 116. Evolution of farmer groups with indicative years at levels 137. Steps for conducting a basic diagnosis for a given area 188. Example of locating agroenterprises in a given zone 249. Key for qualifying relationships between agroenterprises in a zone 25
10. Highland example of qualifying relationships in a zone 25 11. Example of income sources based on zoning within a project area 29 12. Example of income trends within a zone 30 13. Single loop learning cycle 42 14. Double loop learning cycle 42 15. Steps and feedback loops in the MSC system 45 16. Idealized flow diagram for stories collected during a reporting period 45
List of Tables 1. Evolutionary stages of smallholder farmers and their agroenterprises 15 2. Example of a matrix identifying homogeneous zones in an area 20 3. Example of a matrix showing natural resources in three zones 21 4. A human resources matrix for three agroecological zones in an area 22 5. A productive resource matrix for three ecological zones in an area 23 6. Format to describe agroenterprise organizations by zone 24 7. Matrix of agroenterprise actors by agroecological zone 26 8. Well-being levels in terms of access to a zone’s resources 27 9. Well-being matrix from Valle del Cauca, Colombia 28
10. Example of income sources for community members 29 11. Gender analysis of an economic activity in a given zone 30 12. Identifying innovations, innovators, dissemination, and impact in a zone 31 13. An example of a SWOT matrix with “crosses” 34 14. Results of “crossing” between strengths and threats 34 15. Format for information exchange among members of a working group 35 16. An example of how to construct a pair wise ranking matrix 38 17. An example of a completed pair wise ranking matrix 38 18. Final results from a pair wise ranking exercise 38 19. Identifying local and external resources required for a prioritized activity 39 20. Building a simplified action plan for the working group 39 21. Building a monitoring and evaluation tool for the working group 43
vi
About the Authors
Mark LundyCorresponding author, based in CIAT headquarters, Cali, Colombia. United States of America National.Senior Research Fellow, Rural Agroenterprise Development project.E-mail: [email protected]
María Verónica GottretBased in CIAT headquarters, Cali, Colombia. Bolivian National.Senior Research Fellow, Rural Agroenterprise Development project.E-mail: [email protected]
Rupert BestBased in FAO offices, Rome, Italy. British National.Senior Technical Advisor for the Global Forum for Agricultural Research.E-mail: [email protected]
Shaun FerrisBased in CIAT headquarters, Cali, Colombia. Dual British/Australian National.CIAT Project Manager, Rural Agroenterprise Development project.E-mail: [email protected]
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Preface
vii
development program operating within definedThis guide is the second in a series of
documents designed to support agenciesimplementing participatory agroenterprise
geographical areas. The titles in the CIATagroenterprise “good practice guide series”include:
1. Strategy Paper: A Participatory and Area-based Approach to Rural AgroenterpriseDevelopment.
2. A Participatory Guide to DevelopingPartnerships, Area ResourceAssessment and Planning Together.
3. Identifying Market Opportunities forRural Smallholder Producers.
4. Participatory Market Chain Analysis forSmallholder Producers.
5. Evaluating and Strengthening RuralBusiness Development Services.
6. A Market Facilitator’s Guide toParticipatory AgroenterpriseDevelopment.
7. Collective Marketing for SmallholderProducers.
8. Rapid Market Appraisals to SupportSmallholder Agroenterprise Development.
9. Agricultural Marketing Extension: Toolsand Methods.
10. Policy Analysis for SmallholderAgroenterprise Development andAdvocacy.
The starting place for this guide is a biophysicalasset based analysis of the area under
consideration, a social profile analysis of theclient group(s), and the establishment of anagroenterprise working group.
The output of the work from this guide is anaction plan, based on two options:
(i) A market pilot test for an existing productwith the target farmer group, typically with afocus on collective marketing.
Or
(ii) A plan to work towards greater cropdiversification through the marketopportunities identification process.
For those following the full CIAT process, thisguide is the first step in the agroenterpriseprocess.
Note to usersService providers should read the guides in theirentirety, to absorb the ideas and concepts priorto going to the field. Our experience has shownthat best results are attained when theseprocesses are not implemented in a mechanicalmanner; rather that the principles areinterpreted and adapted to local conditionsbased on the marketing environment, availableresources, and anticipated scale ofimplementation.
Discover your InnovationDiscover your InnovationDiscover your InnovationDiscover your InnovationDiscover your Innovation
Acknowledgments
viii
and CORPOTUNÍA (Colombia), CLODEST,The CIAT team would like to thank the
many partners that contributed to thiswork with particular thanks to: CIPASLA
Universidad Nacional (Honduras), CARE-Nicaragua, GTZ, CRS-LACRO, CRS-EARO (EastAfrica), CRS LAC (Latin America and Caribbean),and ASARECA Foodnet (Africa).
We acknowledge the dedicated support that wereceive from our colleagues in these institutionsand the collaboration of the many farmers andtraders that were involved in the development ofthe methods and tools described.
We give thanks to IDRC and DFID for theirlogistic and financial support over many yearswhich have enabled partners to learn, discover,and create this body of knowledge. Thanks alsogo to USAID and CRS for providing funds topublish these documents.
Technical and language editing of this documentwas done by Libby Finney. A special word ofthanks to Jorge Enrique Gutiérrez for hisdrawings.
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
1
Introduction and Background to the Guide
Introduction and Background to the Guide
Figure 1. Market chain participants at their first planning session.
Mr. BusyBuyer forBest Fruit
SupermarketsLtd.
Mr. SamChairman
Green FarmerAssociation
Mr. MarcoNGO MarketFacilitator
Prof. MargaretMarket
Researcherand Academic
Mrs. JemimahFruity
Processors Ltd.
Mr. MovitRapid Transit
Traders
using traditional strategies based onMany small-scale farmers in developing
countries are finding it increasinglydifficult to improve their livelihoods
agricultural production, particularlywhen they work as individual family units. Inthe past 10 years the agricultural world haschanged dramatically, with reduced governmentexpenditure, falling commodity prices, andincreasing competition in the marketplace.
To assist rural communities, many donororganizations follow the convention of investingto increase the production of a limited numberof commodities. This approach has merits, it is
simple, can increase demand for new researchtechnologies such as varieties and fertilizer,and usually overcomes food security issues.For communities that are unable to providethemselves with a reliable food source, thisoption is a necessary first step.
Unfortunately, in the past, production-basedapproaches give little attention to marketingissues. Rapid increases in production, with noother changes can lead to markets, especiallylocal markets, being oversupplied. In theworse cases, this can create a situation wherefarmers receiving less income than before theproject.
2
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
This situation is not caused by a lack ofresources or genuine effort to support ruralpopulations, but is a consequence of limitedbusiness planning, the need to producedramatic results within a 3-5 year project cycleand lack of coordination between supportagencies and local private sector participants.We believe that for many communities,particularly the poorest communities, a morerobust strategy is required which has realistictimeframes and achievable goals. We believethat each intervention should begin with abasic business planning process (Figure 1). Inthis figure we attempt to show those criticalparticipants who can assist in making marketswork better for smallholder farmers. Greatereffort should also be made to bring togetherdevelopment agencies working within a definedgeographic area and that the local communityshould be closely involved in the design andtesting of options that meets their needs.
To address this challenge, CIAT’s RuralAgroenterprise Development Project (RAeD) hasdeveloped a series of participatorymethodologies which aim to assist rural serviceproviders to enable farmers to benefit fromimproved social structures, learn basicagroenterprise skills, and improve their abilityto innovate. This process has been divided intoa number of discreet tasks, which whencombined, make up a strategy entitled the“participatory and area-based approach to ruralagroenterprise development”.
“Agroenterprise” is defined in this guide, as abusiness activity that is implemented byresource-poor smallholder farmers. Theapproach is based on the idea of developingskills and building assets before moving toscale. “Service providers” are those agencies,organizations, and local entrepreneurs whofacilitate the process of learning and marketengagement. Service providers who do not haveexpertise in rural business development areencouraged to start small and to read theguides thoroughly before attempting to replicateideas on a broader scale.
Overview of the Area-based Approachfor Rural AgroenterpriseDevelopmentThis guide provides the starting point forapplying the strategy developed by CIAT’s RuralAgroenterprise Development Project (RAeD), to
address the entrepreneurial development needsof institutions that support rural communities.The methods, tools, and learning approachesdescribed here, were the result of manycollaborative projects undertaken over the past10 years in Latin America, Africa, and SouthEast Asia. The implementation draws heavilyupon participatory methods that assist thefacilitating institute to focus on realizing newbusiness opportunities for rural communities.The basic steps in the process include:
(i) Developing partnerships, area-basedanalysis, and planning.
(ii) Market opportunity identification.(iii) Analyzing production chains and generating
business plans.(iv) Implementing agroenterprise projects.(v) Strengthening business development
services in rural areas.(vi) Evaluating and advocating for improved
marketing policies.
This approach was developed in response todemand from partners who wanted asystematic method for shifting from a foodsecurity strategy that focused on increasingproduction to a market-oriented approach thatemphasizes local empowerment and buildinglocal skills for income generation and marketengagement.
The approach aims to provide ruralcommunities with the basic skills tounderstand their market environment, identifymarket opportunities, design newagroenterprise projects, and integrate projectswithin market chains. This process is flexibleand decisions will enable smallholders to adoptthe most appropriate marketing strategy toassist their prospects for increased income,such as:
1. Improving the competitiveness of productsin local and regional markets.
2. Achieving economies of scale throughcollective action and group marketing.
3. Diversifying into improved or higher valueproducts linked to growth markets.
4. Adding value to products by changingfarming practices to accesses higher incomemarkets enhance product quality andincorporate processing activities.
A flow diagram linking actions and goodpractice guides is shown in Figure 2, and
Introduction and Background to the Guide
3
Figure 2. Flow chart of key stages in the participatory agroenterprise development approach.
Note: Guide 6: “The Market Facilitator’s Guide” is a summary of Guides 2-5.
Strategy paper
Identify intervention siteReconnaissance survey
Form working group
Area-based resource assessmentPlanning and monitoring systems
Identifying market opportunities for smallholder producers(Classify market options according to level of risk)
Strategy 1Lower risk, short term
Strategy 2Higher risk, higher value
Market opportunity identification(seeking diversification)
Market assessment of existing products(focus on market penetration)
Participatory market chain analysis for smallholder producers
Design and establishment of new enterprise
Evaluating and strengthening of rural business development services
Collective action for marketingApproaches for scaling up and learning alliances
Evaluate process performance and impact
Knowledge management and advocacy
Guide 1
Guide 2
Guide 3
Guide 4
Guide 5
Guide 7
4
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Appendix 1 provides an overview of therelationships between the main tasks in theagroenterprise strategy, with an indicationof the time and effort required. For eachstage, there is time allocated for (i) learning,(ii) putting ideas into practice, and(iii) evaluating the outcome. This participatoryprocess aims to work towards building aconsensus for activities to increase thelikelihood of success.
Given that local contexts have unique featuresand that markets are dynamic, serviceproviders should implement the methodsbased on local opportunities and resources.Enterprise activities are complicated socialactivities that need to be facilitated byskilled staff with motivated partners. In allcases the approach requires that roles and
responsibilities are agreed at the outset; thatplanning and investments are client-led andperformance is critically observed.
Experience shows that for these approaches tobe effective, service providers and farmers needto acquire new skills and new workingarrangements. This change from a productionto a marketing perspective requires time andfinances, which is why we recommend theapproach is first introduced within a long-termcapacity building program, typically over a2-year period.
N.B. In certain situations and locations, thismarket-led approach may not be the mostappropriate, such as in areas suffering fromcivil insecurity or chronic food insecurity, wherefood assistance maybe the primary need.
Objectives and Structure of the Guide
The aim of this guide is to provide a systematicmeans to (i) select and evaluate an area,(ii) establish an overall working group tosupport inter-institutional agroenterprisedevelopment, (iii) profile client groups toimplement enterprises, and (iv) agree area plansfor joint activities.
This guide has the following sections:
··Basic principles of livelihood development.
·Agroenterprise working group development.
·Selection and diagnosis of an area.
·Profiling of clients.Planning for action.
··Making decisions on pilot testing.Designing a system for monitoring,evaluation, and learning.
The results from each section are used as theinput for the following section. On finalizing themethods in this guide, you will have
(i) Selected an area.(ii) Established a working group made up of
diverse organizations.(iii) Undertaken an area resource assessment.(iv) Agreed upon joint activities with partners for
marketing and enterprise development.
5
Basic Principles of Livelihood Development
SECTION 1
Basic Principles of Livelihood Development
To facilitate analysis of the area, wepropose using the “sustainablelivelihoods” approach developed by
Scoones (1998) (Figure 3).
The term livelihood describes the capacities,capital (human, social, productive/economic,natural), and activities needed to sustain life(Chambers and Conway, 1992). A livelihood isconsidered sustainable when it can respondand recover from abrupt shocks, and canmaintain or improve its capacities and capitalwithout undermining the natural resource base.
Defining LivelihoodThere are five key elements in this definition:
1. Generation of employmentThis is related to the capacity of a combinationof life strategies to generate employment,whether on the farm or outside it, or in the
formal or informal system. Employment hasthree aspects: income (salaried employmentfor employees), production (employmentproducing a consumable good), andrecognition (where employment gives theindividual recognition for having participatedin something of value). Generally, 200 days ofemployment per year is estimated as theminimum for generating a livelihood.
2. Reducing povertyThe level of poverty is a key criterion inevaluating livelihoods. Various indicators canbe used to develop an absolute measure of“poverty line”, based on, for example, levels ofincome, consumption, and access to services.Alternatively, relative measures can be used,such as the Gini coefficient. Thesequantitative measures of poverty can also beused in combination with more qualitativeindicators.
6
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Histroy
Policies
Climate
Agroecology
Demographics
Socialdifferentiation
Natural capital
Economic andfinancial capital
Human capital
Social capital
Institutions andorganizations
Agriculture
· Intensification
· Extensification
Livelihoods
1. Employment
2. Povertyreduction
3. Quality of lifeand improvedskills
Sustainability
1. Improvedcapacity toadapt andrecover fromshocks, reducedvulnerability
2. Ensuresustainablenaturalresource use
Context,conditions, and
trends
Resources forobtaining
livelihoods
Institutionalprocesses andorganizational
structures
Livelihoodstrategies
Results in termsof sustainable
livelihoods
Diversification oflivelihoods
Migration
Figure 3. The “sustainable livelihoods conceptual framework”.
3. Well-being and skillsThis concept goes beyond the material needs forfood and income, including the idea ofcapacities (i.e., “what can people do or be, givenwhat they possess?”). Hence, the peoplethemselves should determine those criteria thatare part of the concept of well-being, such asself esteem, safety, happiness, low levels ofstress and vulnerability, increased power,reduced exclusion, as well as the other moreconventional elements.
4. Adaptation, recovery, andvulnerabilityThis refers to the ability of a livelihood torespond and recover from abrupt changes andstress. Those that cannot respond (i.e., maketemporary adjustments as a result of change) oradapt (i.e., make long-term changes in lifestrategies) are inevitably vulnerable and have alow probability of achieving a sustainablelivelihood.
5. Sustainability of natural resourcesMost rural livelihoods depend on the naturalresource base. The concept thus refers to thesystem’s ability to maintain productivity when
faced with disturbances, including stress orabrupt changes. This implies preventing naturalresource reserves from diminishing to a levelthat results in the effective and permanentreduction of products and services that thesegenerate to achieve “the means by which tolive”.
Seeking sustainable livelihoods: Achieving asustainable livelihood is the result of acombination of factors within the area such asavailable resources, organizations, andinstitutions. To understand the livelihoods of agiven area and possible ways of improvingthem, we must analyze these factors. Thissection briefly describes each component of the“livelihood approach”.
Context: The context of an area includesgeneral aspects such as history, policy, climate,agroecology, demography, and socialdifferentiation (Figure 3). Much of the data onthese aspects are available in secondarysources of information (e.g., statisticalyearbooks) but they are important for obtaininga clear idea of the area in which interventionwill be carried out. An important aspect tounderstanding context is the social
7
Basic Principles of Livelihood Development
differentiation between groups. Thisdifferentiation can be based on: levels of well-being and income, access to certain resources,sex, age, or ethnicity. What is important is todifferentiate among the various groups of peoplethat live within the area to understand theirrelationships with resources, organizations, andinstitutions, and thus to eventually understandthe life strategies they use.
Available resources and their access: Theability to develop different life strategiesdepends on the basic resources, both materialand social, that people possess or have accessto. Four types of important resources can beidentified for generating livelihoods. Theseresources are defined as follows:
1. Natural resources. These are the set ofnatural factors (e.g., soil, water, air, forest,genetic resources) and environmentalservices from which the resources andservices needed to achieve livelihoods arederived.
2. Human resources. These include knowledge,abilities, good health, and physical capacity.
3. Productive/financial resources. These refer tobasic assets (e.g., cash, credit, savings, andother economic and productive assets,including basic infrastructure, productionequipment, and technology).
4. Social resources. These include the socialorganization (networks, social relationships,associations, norms, confidence, andwillingness to work for the common good).The social organization facilitates thecoordination, cooperation, and collectiveaction for the common good.
On analyzing the resources, a series ofquestions arise:
Sequence: What is the starting point forsuccessfully establishing a given life strategy?Is a particular type of capital (assets) anessential precursor for gaining access toanother type of capital?
Substitution versus combinations: Can onetype of capital be replaced by another? Or mustthere be a combination of different types ofcapital to acquire a given life strategy?
Limiting factors: Are there limitations inspecific types of capital or competencies thatare preventing members of a community fromimproving their life strategies?
Clusters: If one has access to one type ofcapital, does one normally have access to othertypes? Or do “clusters” of given combinations ofcapital types exist, which are associated withcertain groups of people or life strategies?
Access: Clearly, different people have access todifferent capital types, depending oninstitutional agreements, organizationalcharacteristics, power relationships, andpolicies. Hence, we must analyze the access andcontrol of capital type taking into account socialdifferentiation (e.g., well-being, sex, or age).
Trends: What are the trends in the availabilityof different capital types? How are these types ofcapital accumulated or undermined, and bywhom? What are the trends in terms of access?What new capital types are being createdthrough environmental, economic, and socialchanges?
Organizations and institutions: Within thelivelihoods framework, the understanding oforganizations and institutional processes areimportant, given that organizations (the players)and institutional processes (the “rules of thegame”) interact in ways that facilitate or hinderthe ability of different segments of thepopulation to carry out different life strategiesand achieve, or not, sustainable livelihoods(Figure 3).
The combination of context, resources,organizations, and institutions combine togenerate different life strategies which can begrouped into three broad categories:
Agricultural intensification orextensification: Rural inhabitants can achievelivelihoods through agriculture (includinglivestock, fish farming, and forest resources) byprocesses of intensification (i.e., increasingproduction per unit of area through capitalinvestments or increased labor), orextensification (i.e., increasing the area of landcultivated).
Diversification of livelihoods: Another optionis to diversify towards agricultural activities ofgreater value, or toward nonagriculturalactivities. Thus, diversification seeks to developa portfolio of activities that would generateincome, and which would make the populationless vulnerable to economic shocks.
8
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Migration: A third option is migration, eithertemporary or permanent, to another region orurban center in search of a livelihood.
Despite these differences, the reality of lifestrategies in rural areas is that, rather thanchoosing one or the other, the population usesa combination of the three, which variesaccording to the time of year or the reigningeconomic conditions in the country.
Using the livelihood framework in ruralagroenterprise developmentThe livelihood’s framework provides a means tocharacterize the context, resources, socialorganization, and life strategies available to acommunity. This can be considered as abaseline from which to evaluate new options inthe design of agroenterprise interventions.
Gathering information on the variouscomponents of the livelihoods framework, suchas local capacity, existing resources,institutional processes, and the local businessenvironment can also assist in deciding upondifferent entry points and strategies to supportdifferent types of groups within an area/region.The levels of differences can include the veryresource-poor farmers, women, or farmers withmore favorable assets and market access. Basedon the information and differences in clienttypes, interventions can be tailored to specificneeds. Thus interventions may range from afocus on one specific skill or technology toenable more effective market engagement, tomore complicated interventions that includecombinations of investments in infrastructure,building of associations, and strengtheningbusiness relationships.
Developing plans based on a holistic analysis(i.e., context, resources, processes of socialorganization, and life strategies), also provides auseful means of designing specific indicators,which can be used for monitoring impact.Incorporating impact analysis into the earlyplans enables both project staff and communitymembers to design compatible impact pathways
and systems for monitoring and evaluatingresults.
In this guide, the livelihoods framework is usedas a conceptual tool, for characterizing an areato design and monitor agroenterpriseinterventions. Given that the local assessmentis rapid, we can only gain a basic “snapshot” ofthe situation at a particular time. Therefore thisinformation is complemented with a review ofthe innovation processes within the target areato gain a better understanding of key changesover time.
Evaluating Innovation forAgroenterprise DevelopmentIn its simplest form innovation is the way inwhich an existing situation is changed andimproved over time. These improvements can bederived from a mixture of local and externalknowledge applied to a specific situation.Improvements can be technical (e.g., newvarieties or production systems) or social(e.g., forms of organization), or a combination ofthe two. In the context of rural agroenterprisedevelopment, we need to understand howprocesses of agroentrepreneurial innovation aregenerated. Who generates these processes? Howare innovations disseminated?
Rural Agroenterprise Developmentwithin a Target AreaThe concepts of livelihoods and innovationprovide a general framework on which toanalyze agroenterprise development in aselected area. In general, the types ofagroenterprises being designed depend uponthe resources and capacities of target groupsand the innovation systems. The approachtherefore begins by gathering information onthe resources, organizations, institutions, andinnovation status of the community. Thisinformation is analyzed with a view toestablishing new combinations and/orupgrading specific activities to generate higherincome livelihood strategies.
9
Preparing the Groundwork
SECTION 2
Preparing the Groundwork
Starting new projects is a crucial time, asthis is when decisions are made aboutwhere to work, who to work with, and
what types of interventions will take place.When incorporating an agroenterprise approachissues that should be addressed include:
· Defining the geographical area of
·intervention.
·Framing the project duration.
·Reviewing in-house staffing.
·Review the budget.
·Sound out key partners.Gain greater insight into your client
·capacities, assets, and their communities.Clarify targeting decisions (i.e., project focuson specific sectors, client types).
Setting Goals and a Philosophy forCommunity EngagementThe lead agency should develop a clearunderstanding of what they want to achieve interms of client types, investment areas, levels ofindividual/family income gain, scale ofintervention and expected outcomes when usingagroenterprise. Full details do not have to befully crafted as changes are likely whenreformulating ideas with partners. From a CIAT
perspective, one of the major goals is to“empower local communities with the ability toidentify market opportunities and develop newagroenterprises using their own skills andresources”. To achieve this goal, participatorytools are used as a means to co-innovation andlearning is implemented through learning-by-doing. This goal, however, needs to be temperedwith a practical return or level of impact basedon the investment costs of the project.
Rapid Reconnaissance Survey forPlanningAs part of the initial planning, the leadorganization should undertake a rapidreconnaissance survey of the area in which theyintend to work. This information will provide abetter understanding of where to start activitiesand who could be useful partners. When ageographic area has been defined, the surveyshould gather general information on thefollowing areas, as outlined in the livelihoodframework:
· Social context: History, climate,
·population, social groupings.Natural resources: Basic understanding ofsoils, climate, product specialization,
10
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
· Local productive resources: Transport
·system, market infrastructure,Partner social capital: Gain an overviewof other institutions and developmentagencies working in your area, what theydo, find out if they share any commonvalues and if they are interested inparticipating in the market oriented work.Evaluate level of social networking, farmer
·groups, and associations.Business assets: Interview leading traders,processors, and service providers to gain abasic understanding of the major goods,products and services traded in the area,major challenges and opportunities asviewed from the private sector.
This information will be used to identify like-minded partners, to initiate a “working group”,define criteria for selection of enterprise groups(i.e., farmer groups who will develop newbusinesses), and to select a defined area forinterventions.
Applying the AgroenterpriseApproachThe entry point for the area-based approach isflexible, depending on factors such as:
1. In-house marketing capacity.2. Partners skills involved in the process.3. The skills and asset base of the clients.4. Local political conditions and infrastructure.5. The level of participation to be used in the
process.6. A priori decisions on client/beneficiary
profiles.7. Investment processes.8. Duration of the exercise.
Evaluating in-house marketing capacityFor the lead organization in this process, thefirst issue to consider is the level of in-housecapacity and competence to lead a marketingprogram that includes partners and farmergroup organization. If skills exist, start workingthrough the agroenterprise approach asindicated in the generic process outlined inFigure 2.
If however, your organization or immediatepartners are doing this type of work for the firsttime, they may benefit from testing the methodvia a pilot project before going to scale. Pilotprojects enable the team to learn the basics ofthe enterprise process and field staff to gainconfidence in applying/adapting the methods to
local conditions. This experience will putparticipating organizations in a better positionto train others, using their local experience.
Engaging Partners in the ProcessAgroenterprise development is a complex taskthat involves working with actors within amarket chain and linking to business servicesthat support the market chain (Figure 4). Tolink activities with multiple actors requiresmany skills and it is unusual to find all of thenecessary technical, social, business, andanalytical skills within one organization.Therefore success in agroenterprise generallyrequires that organizations find like-mindedpartners from the public and the private sectorto support the process at specific points.Partners are also essential when it comes toscaling up activities.
The main categories of partners required tofacilitate agroenterprise development include:(i) service providers typically NGOs or extensionworkers form the public or private sector;(ii) farmer groups and associations; (iii) marketchain actors; and (iv) business support services.
Roles of the PartnersTo achieve tangible impact, it is recommendedthat the lead organization operates at a morestrategic level, by facilitating partners through a“working group”. This will enable the leadorganization to focus on capacity building andlearning how best to adapt the methods to localconditions, with partners. Local partners willfocus their attention at the farm level, where wewant impact to occur. There are additionalspecific guides to assist in more detailedprocesses; see support guides in this seriesincluding Collective Marketing and MarketFacilitator’s guide (see Preface).
To implement the process, there are four maintypes of organizational players in theagroenterprise approach:
··Management team.
·Working group.
·Farmer groups and associations.Buyers.
An example of the type of network that isenvisaged for this process is outlined inFigure 5; however, partnerships should beconsidered in a flexible manner. Work withpartners that want to be together.
11
Preparing the Groundwork
Consumption
Retailing
Trading
Processing
Trading
Post harvesthandling
Production
Research
Transportation
Government policy regulation
Communications
Technical & business training & assistance
Financial services
Market information and intelligence
Production input supply
Figure 4. Market chain actors and services.
Working GroupPolicy and implementation
Specialists
Chamber ofcommerce
Development agencies
BDS BDS BDSPA FA FA
FG FG FG
FG FG
FG FG FG
FG FG
FG FG FG
FG FG
Farmergroups
Lead organizationmanagement
NGONGO
MicroFinance
Entrepreneur
Research
CBO Gov Ex
Figure 5. Partnerships and links in the agroenterprise approach.
FG = farmer groups; FA = farmer associations; BDS = business development service providers;NGO = nongovernmental organization; PA = partner agencies; CBO = community-based organization;Gov Ex = extension; Working group = consortium of partners.
12
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Management teamThis team is charged with the overall projectdesign and monitoring and follow-up on projectimplementation. This agency will be from thedevelopment or research sector and their role isto provide overall direction. In some cases, themanagement team may include a partnershipbetween a research and development agency.This is often how CIAT works with partners. Themanagement team is responsible for:
··Selecting an area.
·Initiating a working group.Establishing criteria for selection of client
·groups.
·Decisions on skills training, levels of inputs.
·Scale of investments.
·Duration of project implementation.
·Scaling up approaches.Entry and exit strategies.
Working groupThe role of the “working group” is to provide afocal point where representatives of interestedpartners can convene to design and implementan agroenterprise work plan. The group’s role isto promote improved working relations betweenservice providers, local government, smallholderproducers, and traders that operate within adefined area. The agroenterprise working groupwill be responsible for making decisions on therules of engagement and the goal of theconsortium. At an operational level, the workinggroup will provide technical oversight, training,dialogue with partners, monitoring andevaluation, and a means for managing fieldactivities. This group will also develop coremembers for scaling up in the future. Tasks forthis group are to:
(i) Timetable events, and maintain a focus onthe goals.
(ii) Ensure that results are generated, that theyare meaningful.
(iii) Provide support to inter organizational orgroup processes.
The working group will set out as a looseassociation of partners with a common orshared interest in improving their marketingskills and commercialization of identifiedproducts. During the agroenterprise process, itis anticipated that membership will changeaccording to levels of activity. Some memberswill fall out due to loss of interest, lack ofresources or a change in focus. Other members
will enter into the working group as the processgains tangible results and some specialists maybe co-opted into the group. Some morespecialized members and private sectorpartners may be more interested to play anactive role once market chains are in operation.
Farmer groups and associationsFarmer groups are often the target clients/beneficiaries of an agricultural interventionprocess. However, in market-led interventions,beneficiaries should also include traders,processors or local entrepreneurs. In the caseof farmers, the enterprise process generallyworks with organized farmer groups. Thesefarmer groups will provide representatives toserve on the working group or be included in amarket survey team.
The farmer group(s) will learn new marketingskills from the service providers (NGOs) as theydesign and implement agroenterprise projectsin selected market chains. The type of groupschosen for agroenterprise development is animportant decision. Methods described in thisguide, and in complementary guides, will assistpartners to make decisions on how to engagefarmer groups in an enterprise process. Howproducer groups are organized is important asfarmer groups are the basic unit of change atthe production level. If farmer groups are poorlyorganized, or simply follow the instructions ofservice providers, rather than learning newskills in marketing, the enterprise process islikely to be unsustainable.
If farmers within the defined project area arenot organized, then the service provider will berequired to develop some form of farmermarketing groups. These groups may be formalorganizations that are maintained throughoutthe year or may be informal groups that onlycome together for collective marketingpurposes, i.e., produce in larger quantities(truck load) for distribution/sale. CIAT hasdeveloped a guide on this aspect. For moreinformation see “Guide to Collective Marketingfor Smallholder Producers” (www.ciat.cgiar.org/agroempresas/pdf/guide_collective_marketing.pdf).
The information shown in Figure 6 indicatesone type of evolutionary process for farmergroups as they become more organized andsupply larger markets. In poor, marginalizedareas, it is not uncommon to find that farmersare essentially working as individuals. The role
13
Preparing the Groundwork
Stage 1. Service providers startto organize farmers into looselyassociated groups for marketlinkage and more competitiveproduction
Figure 6. Evolution of farmer groups with indicative years at levels.
Timeframe Levels of farmer group organization and association Service provider roles
This level is lesscommon anddepends onmarket type1-5 years
Level 3. Formation of an associated company
Stage 4. Service providersassists associations to link andprovide specialized services tomembers
2-5 years
Level 2. Farmer marketing groups cluster into associations
Stage 3. Service providersassist groups to associate tosupply larger markets andprovide more internal servicesto their members
2-5 years
Level 1. Formation of farmer marketing groups
Stage 2. Service providersassist farmer groups toconsolidate collectivemarketing
2-5 years
Level 0. Individual farmers begin process of organizing andworking together
of the service provider in this case will be tobring farmers together into more organizedgroups. The shift from level 0 to level 1 requirestime but can pay considerable benefits in termsof farmers being able to learn new ideas morequickly in a group and also being able to bulkproduce for the market.
As farmer groups mature they become morestable units that are able to supply a moreconsistent product to the market. The first levelof farmer organization is often recognized asfarmers working within a group but not linkedto other farmer groups. The second order oforganization, which is often termed anassociation or cooperative, brings togetherseveral farmer groups. This has severaladvantages in terms of being able to providemembers with more specialized services for both
input and output markets and financialservices. In some cases, farmer associationscan themselves start to cluster and there aremodels whereby a company is established toassist the farmer organizations to supply largeror higher value markets.
Problems with farmer groups: One of theobvious and much repeated problems withfarmer groups as they become more organizedis that the costs in terms of time, money, andrelationship building can outweigh thebenefits. Whilst it is intuitive to think that themore organized the better for farmers, this isnot always the case. Farmer groups can sufferfrom poor financial management, poormarketing decisions, political abuse, and otherproblems. Therefore the service providershould seek to develop an appropriate
14
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
structure to meet the needs of the situation andaim for light and flexible rather than large andcomplicated.
BuyersWhilst, considerable attention is generally givento producer groups, the agroenterprise approachis designed to operate at a market chain level.Therefore working with buyers, such as traders,processors, and retailers is also a vital part ofthe market linkage process.
At the local level, this means that the leadingorganization should invest in strengtheningrelationships between the producer groups andpeople to whom they sell their produce, ratherthan attempting to “avoid the middleman”.Working with traders will assist in producingproducts of the quality and type for whichbuyers are willing to pay a premium and alsoprovides opportunities for developing collectivemarketing strategies, by selling bulked produceto known buyers. Traders are also one of themost effective private sector service providers forresource-poor smallholder farmers, especiallythose linking in remote areas and so theselinkages should be fostered so as to facilitategreater sustainability of interventions.
More recently, the rise in the power ofsupermarkets has changed opportunities formany smallholder producers, particularly in thehigher value, or niche products. In view of themarket share enjoyed by supermarkets, somedevelopment specialists believe that far greateremphasis should be given to working withcorporate buyers so that smallholders can beintegrated into their buying systems.
Building In-house AgroenterpriseCapacity through Pilot TestingPilot testing of the agroenterprise approach willinvolve a limited number of partners andtypically focus on a short duration product toaccelerate learning. The use of an off-seasoncrop provides an opportunity to work with apartner agency and a farmer’s group at a limitedlevel. In Figure 5, the partners with a shadedbackground indicate a potential pilot projectarrangement. A checklist for undertaking a pilotprocess is outlined in Appendix 1.
The importance of local contextCIAT is currently testing the agroenterprisemethod with partners from 30 countries in threecontinents. Our findings show whilst the basic
economic principles apply in all locations, thereare major differences in how the approach isapplied. In addition to the differences caused byphysical, factors such as climate, soils, andtopography, other critical factors includepolitical systems and their associated marketingenvironment, land tenure systems, financialmarkets, market access as affected byinfrastructure and communications,marginalization caused by remoteness frommarket centers, gender, ethnicity, and powerrelations within market chains. Other factorsinclude degree of farmer organization andrelations with larger agricultural operators.
Consequently, the agroenterprise process needsto be used in a flexible manner, taking intoaccount previous history and currentopportunities. Our belief is, however, thatmarketing principles are robust and even underdifficult economic conditions farmers are keento find new ways of increasing their income.Given this background, we would like to stressthe need to be aware that within any ruralcommunity there are many social classes, eachwith a particular asset base, level oforganization, and agroenterprise capacity. Theinformation in Table 1 shows the different typesof client group that service providers are likelyto encounter. These groups will have differenttypes of agroenterprise strategies that are mostappropriate for their level of development.
Entry points for agroenterpriseengagementStarting out: The simplest entry point whenworking with farmers in market chains is to findways to improve sales of existing products. Thisapproach is most useful for those with limitedmarketing capacity. Using this approach is alsoencouraged as a pilot, to test the enterpriseapproach so that both the market facilitator andthe farmer group get a better understanding ofhow the process works, prior to going to scale.
Diversification: For farmer groups that arealready organized and interested in investigatingnew product ideas, the starting point in thearea-based approach to agroenterprise shouldbe a study of market opportunities identification(MOI) (Guide 3). It is anticipated that organizedfarmers already have competence in growingbasic food security crops for the market and areseeking new, typically higher value options. TheMOI will provide a list of new opportunities toinvestigate in more detail.
15
Preparing the Groundwork
En
terp
rise
em
ph
asi
s
Foc
us
on o
rgan
izati
on o
f fa
rmer
s in
to g
rou
ps
to b
uild
soca
il c
apit
al,
tru
st a
nd s
imple
bu
sin
ess
skills
in
order
to
lay
the
fou
ndati
ons
for
incr
ease
dco
mpet
itiv
enes
s.
For
en
terp
rise
dev
elop
men
t, s
tart
wit
h e
xist
ing
pro
du
cts
that
show
hig
h m
ark
et d
eman
d,
valu
e, a
nd a
re p
rodu
ced
by
the
majo
rity
of
farm
ers.
Ser
vice
pro
vider
s to
dev
elop
th
eir
skills
an
du
nder
stan
din
gof
th
e m
ark
etpla
ce a
nd
its
oppor
tun
itie
s. I
den
tify
an
dsu
ppor
t m
ark
et f
aci
lita
tion
.
Foc
us
on g
rou
p d
ynam
ics
an
d d
evel
opin
g bu
sin
ess
skills
of t
he
grou
p.
Lev
el o
f m
ark
et e
nga
gem
ent
will
ass
ist
inse
lect
ion
of
exis
tin
g or
iden
tify
ing
new
mark
et o
ppor
tun
itie
s.R
ecor
d k
eepin
g, t
o la
y th
e fo
un
dati
on f
or f
utu
re f
inan
cial
acc
redit
ati
on a
nd s
uit
abilit
y fo
r in
vest
men
t fr
om m
icro
fin
an
ce,
shou
ld b
e in
trod
uce
d.
Oth
er g
rou
p s
kills
su
chle
ader
ship
, gr
oup r
oles
an
d h
ow t
o ru
n m
eeti
ngs
sh
ould
be
stre
ngt
hen
ed.
Gro
ups
shou
ld r
ecru
it o
r tr
ain
a “
mark
etfa
cilita
tor”
. S
eek e
nte
rpri
ses
that
are
mor
e pro
fita
ble
for
the
targ
et g
rou
p.
Foc
us
on i
ncr
easi
ng
scale
an
d v
alu
e addit
ion
wit
hin
the
sele
cted
su
bse
ctor
s.Lea
d g
rou
ps
shou
ld s
eek l
inks
to l
ike-
min
ded
· gro
ups
in o
rder
to
enco
ura
ge s
cale
an
d t
o part
ner
wit
h m
ore
spec
ialize
d s
ervi
ce p
rovi
der
s to
ass
ist
indev
elop
ing
new
mark
et o
pti
ons
an
d f
ind w
ays
of
gain
ing
effi
cien
cies
in
th
e su
pply
ch
ain
.R
ecor
d k
eepin
g an
d b
usi
nes
s pla
nn
ing
shou
ld b
e· s
hare
d w
ith
fin
an
cial
exper
ts a
nd g
rou
p s
hou
ldse
ek f
inan
cial
suppor
t so
ugh
t.
Foc
us
on c
hain
ch
am
pio
ns
an
d i
ssu
es o
f go
vern
an
cean
d e
qu
ity
in t
he
mark
et c
hain
.G
rou
p s
hou
ld l
ink w
ith
spec
ialist
skills
an
d i
nfo
rmati
on· s
ervi
ce p
rovi
der
s, w
hic
h s
hou
ld b
e fe
e base
d.
Gro
up s
hou
ld f
ocu
s ef
fort
s on
to
pro
du
ct d
evel
opm
ent
· iss
ues
, in
clu
din
g bra
ndin
g, c
ust
omer
rel
ati
ons
an
dbro
aden
ing
pro
du
ct p
ortf
olio
.S
hif
t to
valu
e ch
ain
appro
ach
es t
o co
nso
lidate
mark
ets.
·
agr
oen
terp
rise
s.
Pre
con
dit
ion
s to
en
terp
rise
dev
elop
men
t
Th
is t
ype
of c
omm
un
ity
may
requ
ire
spec
ialist
inte
rven
tion
th
at
can
be
con
sider
ed a
s pre
-en
terp
rise
ori
ente
d.
Man
y age
nci
es s
upply
su
chco
mm
un
itie
s w
ith
su
ppor
t pro
cess
es s
uch
as
re-s
tock
ing
ass
ets,
aft
er a
soc
ial/
natu
ral
shoc
k.
Th
is m
ay
incl
ude
pro
visi
on o
fF
ood a
id.
· See
ds,
too
ls,
live
stoc
k,
inpu
ts.
· Con
flic
t re
solu
tion
.· S
afe
ty n
et c
lau
ses
an
d i
nte
rven
tion
s.· C
omm
un
itie
s at
this
sta
ge a
re w
ell
pos
itio
ned
to
ben
efit
fro
m e
nte
rpri
se o
rien
ted i
nte
rest
gro
ups,
i.e.
, co
ordin
ati
on o
f age
nci
es t
hat
have
a c
omm
onin
tere
st i
n m
ark
et o
rien
ted p
roce
sses
.
Ser
vice
pro
vider
s sh
ould
rev
iew
th
eir
com
pet
ence
an
d s
taff
pro
file
s to
en
sure
qu
ality
of p
rovi
din
g m
ark
etin
g se
rvic
es p
rovi
ded
.
Th
ese
grou
ps
will
requ
ire
spec
ialist
su
ppor
t in
are
as
of e
nte
rpri
se d
evel
opm
ent.
Ser
vice
pro
vider
san
d t
hei
r in
tere
st g
rou
p m
ember
s sh
ould
dev
elop
stra
tegi
es t
hat
bri
ng
spec
ific
skills
to
bea
r. T
his
may
incl
ude
asp
ects
su
ch a
s m
ark
et i
nfo
rmati
on,
lin
kage
to
mic
ro f
inan
ces
an
d i
npu
t su
pply
.
Th
ese
grou
ps
will
requ
ire
suppor
t in
are
as
ofbu
sin
ess
man
age
men
t an
d a
re l
ikel
y to
be
inte
rest
ed i
n r
isk c
apit
al
ven
ture
s th
at
will
pro
vide
them
wit
h p
rogr
essi
ve e
dge
in
th
e m
ark
etpla
ce.
Incr
easi
ng
use
of
ICTs
to s
uppor
t en
terp
rise
dev
elop
men
t. S
ervi
ce p
rovi
der
s an
d t
hei
r in
tere
stgr
oup m
ember
s sh
ould
dev
elop
str
ate
gies
th
at
bri
ng
spec
ific
skills
to
bea
r. T
his
may
incl
ude
mark
etin
form
ati
on,
fin
an
ces,
in
pu
t su
pplies
, et
c.
nary
sta
ges
of s
mallh
older
farm
ers
an
d t
hei
r
Ch
ara
cter
isti
cs
Indiv
idu
al
farm
ers
pro
du
cin
gpre
dom
inan
tly
for
thei
r ow
n c
onsu
mpti
on,
sellin
g sm
all s
urp
luse
s to
loc
al
mark
ets.
Pre
cari
ous
to n
onex
iste
nt
acc
ess
tose
rvic
es a
nd n
o u
se o
f pu
rch
ase
d i
npu
ts.
Low
ass
et a
ccu
mu
lati
on,
mos
t vu
lner
able
.
Sm
all s
cale
ru
ral
ente
rpri
ses
wit
h l
owle
vels
of
valu
e addit
ion
an
d w
eak b
usi
nes
sor
ien
tati
on,
poo
r le
vels
of
coh
esio
n.
Acc
ess
to s
ervi
ces
is i
nco
mple
te a
nd i
rreg
ula
r,lim
itin
g en
terp
rise
gro
wth
pro
spec
ts.
Com
mer
cially
orie
nte
d e
nte
rpri
ses
wit
hh
igh
er l
evel
s of
soc
ial
coh
esio
n t
hat
have
inco
rpor
ate
d v
alu
e addin
g h
an
dlin
g an
d/
or t
ran
sfor
mati
on p
roce
sses
, an
d p
rodu
ctdiv
ersi
fica
tion
. S
ellin
g in
to l
ocal,
reg
ion
al
an
d n
ati
onal
mark
ets.
Have
acc
ess
toappro
pri
ate
ser
vice
s th
at
per
mit
en
terp
rise
grow
th.
Farm
er e
nte
rpri
ses
are
fu
lly
inte
grate
d i
nto
supply
ch
ain
s pro
du
cin
g pro
du
cts
that
mee
t m
ark
et d
eman
ds
in t
erm
s of
qu
ality
an
d f
requ
ency
of
supply
, bot
h n
ati
onally
an
d f
or e
xpor
t. A
re c
apable
of
iden
tify
ing
an
d p
ayi
ng
for
requ
ired
bu
sin
ess
dev
elop
men
t se
rvic
es.
Table
1.
Evo
luti
o
Sta
ge
1.
Su
bsi
sten
ce
2.
Earl
y st
age
3.
Dev
elop
ing
4.
Matu
re
16
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Selected product: In cases where a producthas already been selected for investment, thestarting point within the area-based approachwill be a market chain study of that product. Itis likely, however, that the market facilitatorwill also need to work on improving theorganization of farmer groups and initiatinglinks with other support organizations andservice providers.
Contract farming: In some cases higher ordermarket actors, such as processors, wholesaletraders or retail outlets, are interested to workwith farmer groups on contractual basis tosecure supply of a selected product. In thiscase, the agroenterprise approach does notneed to focus on demand or marketing issues,but concentrate on providing a quality producton a competitive basis.
Considerations for Scaling UpScale is an issue that the partners need toconsider from the outset. Given a successfulpilot project, the next stage in a scale processwill be for the lead service provider to apply theapproach to more farmer groups within thearea. The aim of the up scaling process beingeither to (i) encourage more groups to sell aselected product into an identified market, thusachieving economies of scale or (ii) to empower
many groups to diversify into a wider range ofproducts and markets to achieve diversificationover a wider area.
Whatever the aim of the scale process, the leadorganization should investigate opportunitiesfor networking so that other service providerscan apply the methodology more widely. Inmany cases projects that are successful at thepilot level, fail to achieve scale because toomuch time is invested in learning lessons withthe pilot group and there are insufficient levelsof facilitation to push ideas beyond a limitedfew. Therefore we suggest that an aggressiveapproach to demonstration, learning, andscaling up is adopted and spread through localpartners.
Exit StrategiesAs part of the planning stage, the leadorganization should also make decisions onhow to apply an exit strategy. This can beconsidered in terms of time, i.e., how long theorganization intends to spend with acommunity/farmer group, on skills trainingprovided to a community, on income gainsthrough agroenterprise development or on otherselected criteria. A potential timeframe andstructure for an exit strategy is given inAppendix 3.
17
Area-based Resource Assessment
SECTION 3
Area-based Resource Assessment
This section of the guide describes amethodology for analyzing the livelihoodsand innovation processes of a specific
geographic area for rural agroenterprisedevelopment. The methods should be adaptedaccording to the time and resources available.The steps detailed below could be developed,using secondary information, and by usingparticipatory methods with key informants orfocus groups to collect primary information. Thesteps for carrying out a basic diagnosis for ruralagroenterprise development are shown inFigure 7. Each step is explained with someindications of possible methodologies.
Forming the Working GroupBefore starting an analysis of local resources foragroenterprise development, it is important toform the working group members, asrepresentatives from this group will participatein the resource assessment. As described, theworking group will set out as a looseassociation of partners with a common interest
in improving their marketing skills and thecommercialization of identified products. Theworking group members help to avoidduplication of efforts and highlight possiblesynergies between participating organizations.At this point, those most interested in joiningthe process will make up the working groupmembership and survey team.
Defining an AreaAfter having organized a survey team, withresources, the first decision to be made is thelimits of the area to be studied. In many cases,the area maybe defined by the local politicalboundaries, a village, a cluster of villages, adioceses, or a watershed. An alternative is toconsider the area where project activities will beimplemented. Experience has shown that manyprojects set out on a large data gatheringexercise only to find out later that a very smallpart of this information is useful, e.g., this canoccur when the analysis is made at the districtlevel, and the project only operates in two
18
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Selecting and defining the territory and its limits
Identifying and grouping similar agroecological zones
Analyzing the resource base of each zone
Welfare criteria and social differentiationfor each zone
Livelihood strategies by zone, social group,and gender
Processes of innovation by zone, resource,and social group
Basic diagnosis for ruralagroenterprise development
Figure 7. Steps for conducting a basic diagnosis for a given area.
villages. As a rule of thumb, limit the studyzone to the area of the project interventions. Ifthe group is unclear about where to draw theboundary, then the group needs to developsome questions or define some criteria thatwould help to delimit the area for intervention.These criteria should be developed with theagencies operating in the selected area and mayimply negotiation over areas to cover so eachentity has a manageable area.
Selection criteria for defining an area ofintervention
· With whom are we working at present?
·Where are they located?With whom would we like to work in the
·future? Where are they located?What scope do we have as an organizationor group of organizations without the
·quality of our work being compromised?In the case of companies that provide RAeDservices, what populations should they
·serve to be economically sustainable?Are activities of production, processing, andmarketing carried out in the targeted area?If not, then most probably, the area needs tobe expanded to include local or regional
markets and thus better understand the
·region’s economic organization.Other criteria according to theorganization(s) participating in the process.
Once the area is delimited, decisions onwhether some form of zoning is required can betaken. The process of zoning is undertaken sothat the intervention team can develop differentintervention strategies for specific types ofclients or beneficiaries, i.e., very resource-poorfarmers and farmers with significantly moreassets, or farmers working in the valleys withtropical crops versus farmers working at highaltitude with subtropical products, women’sgroups versus mixed gender groups. Hence, thecomplexity of this next section will depend uponthe size of your area and the heterogeneity ofthe area.
Zoning the AreaIf the project is only dealing with a small areaor a cluster of villages, zoning may not benecessary. Similarly, if the area of interventionis highly homogeneous, in terms of landscape,market access, farmer assets, and productionpossibilities, then zoning may also not prove to
19
Area-based Resource Assessment
be effective, as zoning is a means to separateclients based on existing differences. If the“working group” is working over large anddiverse areas, such as districts or clusters ofdistricts, a more structured approach to themanaging differentiated clients maybe helpful.The following lists show details of someimportant aspects to evaluate in your area-based diagnosis.
Natural resources
· General topography (altitudes: steep, less
·sloping, flat areas).Water sources (rivers, streams, springs) and
·their flows throughout the year.Relative productivity of soils (good, medium,and poor soils).
Productive resources
· Roads (paved, improved, dirt) and their
·respective usability during the year.Infrastructure coverage (electricity, phone
·coverage, potable water, irrigation).Major businesses with agricultural links(wholesale sorting and packing facilities,processing firms, export firms, among
·others).Support services (input suppliers, internet
·cafes, machinery suppliers or others).Transport for produce (frequency, costs and
·quality).Markets for the area’s produce and markets1.
Communities
· Location of communities and their relative
·populations.Land tenure structure (farmers who are
·owners, day laborers, or share croppers).Location of different ethnic groups, or otherdefined social groups, and their
·identification.Level of social organization (do farmer groupsexist, do they work collectively).
Once this information is placed on the map,zones that have something in common and canbe treated as more or less homogeneous unitscan be distinguished from zones that aresufficiently different to merit a separate analysis.Some criteria to take into account when zoningthe area could include:
1. Some markets may not appear on the map but theroads linking the territory to them should be clearlymarked.
· Agroecosystem, if this has implications forcrops or potential economic activities in a
·zone.Access to roads or markets, especially if thisfactor changes during the year because ofrainy seasons or if it affects the produce
·that can be taken to market.Land tenure is an important factor,considering as it greatly influences the typeof crops planted and the possibility of
·introducing new ones.Access to water and how it fluctuates duringthe year can be a means of distinguishingbetween areas with good, regular, or pooraccess. The theme of irrigation can also be
·reviewed.Productive orientation zones alreadyproducing for markets require differentstrategies than those oriented towards
·household consumption or food security.Types of existing production systems. Thepresence of a particular crops such ascoffee, for example, will significantly affect a
·zone’s economic dynamic.Others according to the criteria of the localparticipants.
Once the relevant differentiation criteria areidentified for the area, a matrix for zoning canbe constructed and zones defined. An exampleis shown in Table 2.
When zoning an area the focus should be oncriteria that represent the most severeconstraints to production and agroenterprisedevelopment. These are the aspects thateffectively differentiate one zone from another.In addition, the number of selected criteriashould be manageable, e.g., two or three at amaximum.
Once the communities are located in thematrix, similarities should be checked prior todefining the final zones for analysis. Forexample, in Table 2 the conditions between thezone with permanent roads and permanentwater and the zone with permanent roads andwater for more than 8 months per year aresimilar enough to group them into a single zonefor analysis. It is important to remember thatthe objective of zoning is to distinguish betweenzones with such marked differences that theywill require different strategies. Do not zonefor zoning’s sake. Effort must be made to seeksimilarities and thus reduce the zones to amanageable number.
20
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Table 2. Example of a matrix identifying homogeneous zones in an area.
Road type Water
Permanent >8 months/year <8 months/year
Permanent Communities with permanent Communities with permanent Communities with permanentroads and permanent water. roads and water for more roads and water for less than
than 8 months of the year. 8 months of the year.
Temporary Communities with dry-season Communities with dry-season Communities with dry-seasonroads and permanent water. roads and water for more roads and water for less than
than 8 months of the year. 8 months of the year.
Unimproved path Communities with Communities with Communities withunimproved access and unimproved access and water unimproved access and waterpermanent water. for more than 8 months of for less than 8 months of
the year. the year.
Source authors. Key variables, access to markets, and irrigation.
At the end of this process, each zone should be“named” to distinguish it from the others. Suchdesignation can be based on each zone’s specialcharacteristics such as slopes (flat land,foothills, and hillsides), access (paved road, cartracks, and bridle path), altitude (highland, mid-altitude land, and lowland), or other locallyacceptable designations. The logic behind thename assigned to each zone is that it should beclearly defined so that all agree on its use in thefuture.
Once the area is divided into zones, thelivelihood resources available to the householdsand communities who live there can be assessed.
Analyzing Resources Available inEach ZoneThe analysis of available resources by zoneshould be relatively quick because the goal is tohighlight the most important themes. Secondaryinformation can be used, if it exists or, throughinterviews with key informants, focus groups, orparticipatory transects. The information can thenbe organized into matrices that permit a briefoutline on the resources within each zone.
Resources for employment are natural, human,productive/financial, and social in nature. Forthe first three cases, matrices similar to Table 3can be used. For social resources, an additionalmethodological tool is proposed for filling in thematrix. Table 4, provides a matrix for humanresources; and Table 5, a matrix for productive/financial resources.
Analyzing Social Resources in EachZoneTo analyze the availability of social resources,i.e., organizations with business activities andthe relationships among them, a “Venn diagram”can be used. This method enables the social/business networks in each zone to be visualized.
The method comprises five steps in which theorganizations involved in the zone’sagroenterprise development are:
··Identified.
·Briefly described.
·Located within or outside the zone.Have existing relationships with each otherdescribed.
21
Area-based Resource Assessment
Table 3. Example of a matrix showing natural resources in three zones.
Zone Availability of natural resources
Water Soils Forests
Sufficient, available from Fragile soils with steep slopes. Forest patches exist in therivers or springs. Possibilities Forest vocation in conflict with area and around someof irrigation by gravity. Water- production uses. Need for soil springs. Primary use isproducing area. conservation methods within firewood for cooking with
cropping system. some collection activities.
Hill Land Sufficient water but some Soils more stable with good Few forests but fruit trees(600 to 1500 m) problems of access and production potential. Need exist in the area.
contamination. Possibilities to work with green fertilizersof irrigation in some sites. to improve fertility.
Lowlands Water limited in summer, with Stable soils with good No forests. Occasional trees(600 m) considerable contamination production potential. Need in paddocks.
problems. Access limited to work with green fertilizersto those living close to the to improve fertility, retainriver (which dries up in water, and irrigate for summer.summer).
Highlands(>1500 m)
· Actors identified who are significant for ruralagroenterprise development in the zone. Forexample, traders, processors, transporters,and wholesalers/retailers.
To achieve a complete analysis of these networks,this activity should be conducted with keyinformants or focus groups from several of theidentified organizations. The steps for this typeof analysis are described in more detail below.
Identifying organizations related toagroenterprise developmentKey informants or focus groups are asked toname all the organizations that are involved inthe zone’s agroenterprise development. Theseorganizations may be within or outside thetargeted zone and may be formal (e.g.,cooperatives, farmer associations, NGOs,or service companies) or informal (e.g.,intermediaries, lenders, or workshops),but should have some relevance to the zone.This step aims to achieve consensus on theseorganizations and details about each one.
In this step, it is also important to differentiateorganizations involved in agroenterprisedevelopment from those established for purelysocial purposes. The latter category wouldinclude, for example, water boards, parentassociations, religious groups, and generalassociations for development. To facilitate thisprocess, it is better to include only thoseorganizations that fulfill an agroenterprisefunction, including the delivery of supportservices, within the zone or area.
Describing the organizationsFor each organization identified in the previousstep, basic information is obtained on its legalstructure (e.g., cooperative, formal company,informal company, individual person, NGO, orassociation), activities, headquarters, area ofinfluence, and other relevant data (such as thenumber of members, history, and achievements).This information can be included in a simpletable as shown in Table 6. After compiling thisinformation, the name of each organizationidentified is written on a circular card.
Partnerships...
22
A Participatory Guide to Developing
Table
4.
A h
um
an
res
ourc
es m
atr
ix f
or t
hre
e agr
oeco
logi
cal
zon
es i
n a
n a
rea.
Zon
eA
vailabilit
y of
skills
an
d k
now
ledge
Sch
oolin
gLoc
al
kn
ow-h
owTec
hn
ical
suppor
tH
ealt
h
Hig
hla
nds
Low
lev
el o
f fo
rmal
sch
oolin
gLoc
al
kn
owle
dge
(h
eld b
y ol
der
Tec
hn
ical
suppor
t of
fere
d b
yLoc
al
hea
lers
. A
cces
s to
hea
lth
(>1500 m
)(<
60%
of
inh
abit
an
ts c
an
rea
dpeo
ple
) on
th
e tr
adit
ion
al
use
s of
rura
l pro
mot
ers
an
d i
nfr
equ
ent
pos
ts a
nd h
ospit
al
in u
rban
an
d w
rite
). L
ocal
pro
cess
es o
fbio
div
ersi
ty.
Bro
ad k
now
ledge
of
wor
ksh
ops
of N
GO
s.ce
nte
r is
dif
ficu
lt.
Pro
ble
ms
ofpart
icip
ato
ry l
iter
acy
an
dso
il m
an
age
men
t, b
ut
not
applied
.m
aln
utr
itio
n i
n s
ome
childre
n.
dec
entr
alize
d h
igh
-sch
ool
Hig
h r
ate
s of
in
fan
t an
d m
ate
rnal
edu
cati
on.
mor
tality
.
Hill
Lan
dB
ette
r le
vel
of f
orm
al
sch
oolin
gB
road k
now
ledge
of
cash
-cro
pPer
man
ent
tech
nic
al
suppor
t by
Loc
al
hea
lth
pos
t. R
estr
icte
d(6
00 t
o 1500 m
)(>
80%
of
inh
abit
an
ts c
an
rea
dpro
du
ctio
n.
Som
e ex
per
ien
cepro
mot
ers,
tec
hn
icia
ns
from
acc
ess
to t
he
hos
pit
al
in u
rban
an
d w
rite
). P
rim
ary
sch
ools
wit
h p
roce
ssin
g an
d m
ark
etin
g.F
ED
EC
AF
É,
pri
vate
tec
hn
icia
ns,
cen
ter.
Hig
h in
fan
t m
orta
lity
.ex
ist
plu
s so
me
dec
entr
alize
dN
GO
s, a
nd t
he
gove
rnm
ent.
hig
h-s
choo
l ed
uca
tion
.
Low
lan
ds
Goo
d l
evel
of
form
al
sch
oolin
gK
now
ledge
of
exte
nsi
ve l
ives
tock
Tec
hn
ical
suppor
t fr
om p
riva
teH
ealt
h p
osts
an
d r
apid
acc
ess
to(<
600 m
)(>
90%
of
inh
abit
an
ts c
an
rea
dra
isin
g.te
chn
icia
ns,
NG
Os,
an
d t
he
the
hos
pit
al
in u
rban
cen
ter.
an
d w
rite
). P
rim
ary
sch
ools
gove
rnm
ent.
exis
t plu
s acc
ess
to h
igh
sch
ools
in
urb
an
cen
ter.
23
Area-based Resource Assessment
Table
5.
A p
rodu
ctiv
e re
sou
rce
matr
ix f
or t
hre
e ec
olog
ical
zon
es i
n a
n a
rea.
Zon
eA
vailabilit
y of
pro
du
ctiv
e/fi
nan
cial
reso
urc
es
Roa
ds
Mark
ets
Cre
dit
Agg
rega
te v
alu
e
Hig
hla
nds
Bri
dle
path
s im
pass
able
in
rain
yPro
du
ce t
aken
to
“Hill
Lan
d”
zon
e,C
redit
ava
ilable
th
rou
ghN
o added
valu
e pro
cess
ing
in t
he
(>1500 m
)se
aso
ns.
Tra
nsp
ort
is o
n f
oot
orw
her
e it
is
sold
to
loca
l tr
ader
s.co
mm
un
ity
len
der
s an
d s
ome
zon
e.by
bea
st o
f bu
rden
.R
are
ly v
isit
th
e lo
cal
mark
et.
rura
l sa
vin
gs a
nd l
oan
s fa
ciliti
es.
Hill
Lan
dR
oads
dif
ficu
lt d
uri
ng
rain
yPro
du
ce s
old o
n f
arm
to
loca
l an
dC
redit
off
ered
by
loca
l le
nder
s,In
cipie
nt
added
valu
e pro
cess
ing
for
(600 t
o 1500 m
)se
aso
ns.
Sm
all t
ruck
s an
d j
eeps.
exte
rnal
trader
s. F
arm
ers
trader
s (a
dva
nce
d a
gain
stsu
garc
an
e, f
ruit
s (s
elec
tion
an
dD
aily
tran
spor
t to
urb
an
cen
ter,
occa
sion
ally
go t
o u
rban
cen
ter
harv
ests
), r
ura
l sa
vin
gs a
nd l
oan
spack
ing)
, an
d c
hee
ses
in f
am
ily
leavi
ng
in t
he
mor
nin
g an
dto
sel
l th
eir
pro
du
ce d
irec
tly.
faci
liti
es,
an
d s
ome
NG
Os.
ente
rpri
ses.
retu
rnin
g in
th
e aft
ern
oon
.
Low
lan
ds
Roa
ds
acc
essi
ble
yea
r-ro
un
d.
Pro
du
ce s
old o
n f
arm
to
loca
l an
dC
redit
off
ered
by
loca
l le
nder
s,A
dded
valu
e pro
cess
ing
for
milk a
nd
(<600 m
)B
use
s ru
n b
etw
een
majo
r u
rban
exte
rnal
trader
s. F
arm
ers
larg
e tr
ader
s (a
dva
nce
d a
gain
stch
eese
pro
du
cts
thro
ugh
ace
nte
rs s
ever
al
tim
es d
aily.
freq
uen
tly
go t
o u
rban
cen
ter
harv
ests
), r
ura
l sa
vin
gs a
nd l
oan
sco
oper
ati
ve.
Tra
nsp
orta
tion
rel
ati
vely
easy
.to
sel
l th
eir
pro
du
ce d
irec
tly.
faci
liti
es,
som
e N
GO
s, a
nd b
an
ks
(for
larg
e fa
rmer
s).
24
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Table 6. Format to describe agroenterprise organizations by zone.
Organization’s name Brief description
Legal structure Activities Headquarters Area of influence
Locating the organizationThe following step consists of geographicallylocating the different organizations within oroutside the zone being described. To do this, werecommend drawing on a large piece of paper,or on the floor, a circle that represents the zone,and leaving blank space around. Then, cardsrepresenting the organizations withheadquarters in the zone are placed within thecircle, and those that have relationships withthe zone but have their headquarters outsideare placed outside the circle.
Within the zone, the cards of organizations thathave their headquarters in the same communityare grouped together, to clarify whichcommunities have more and which have lessagroentrepreneurial organization.
With the external organizations, those that havemore presence or are more permanent in thezone are placed closer to the large circle thatrepresents the zone, while those that have lesspresence or permanence are placed fartheraway. An example is given in Figure 8.
Analyzing the relationships betweenactorsIn this step, a key must be developed to helpqualify existing relationships in at least threesenses: (1) their strength or permanence;(2) power (that is, who sends who); and (3) thetype of exchanges (for example, goods formoney), that take place in the relationship.Other themes can also be included (such astechnology transfer), if they are of interest tothe analysis.
Community A
Livestockassociation
Community B
Community C
Cheeseplant
Localtrader
Localtrader
Localtrader
Regionaltrader
Juicecompany
Highlands(>1500 m)
NGO
Regionaltrader
Figure 8. Example of locating agroenterprises in a given zone.
Fruitcooperative
25
Area-based Resource Assessment
To explain the diagram a key is required thatprovides different types of lines, arrows, orcodes that express dynamics between partnersin terms of relationship strengths, power, andexchanges. Figure 9 gives an example of a key,and Figure 10 shows how it is applied.
Identifying key actors for the area’s ruralagroenterprise developmentOn finalizing this exercise for each zone, theresults should be compared to see if any of the
Strength of relationshipStrong, permanent
Fair, semi permanent
Weak, occasional
Power of relationshipUnidirectional
Bidirectional
ExchangesGoods for money G/$$
Services for money S/$$
Goods for services G/S
Figure 9. Key for qualifying relationships betweenagroenterprises in a zone.
identified actors have activities, or areimportant, in more than one zone. Hence,identifying people or key organizations for theentire area’s agroenterprise development,whether formal or informal, becomes feasible.
Once the key actors are identified, they can begrouped by category of principal activity, asshown in Table 7.
Once the actors are located, the zones arereviewed one by one to identify actors with apresence in the various zones of the targetedarea. Using Table 7 as an example, the keyactors for rural agroenterprise development inthe area—understood as the set of zones—areidentified as the following people or companies:
· Fruit growers’ association (in zones
·“highland” and “mid-altitude land”).Coffee growers’ association (in zones
·“highland” and “mid-altitude land”).Local and regional intermediaries (at leastthe two regional ones who handle fruits,
·coffee, and milk derivatives).Juice company (in zones “highland” and“mid-altitude land”).
Livestockassociation
Cheeseplant
Localtrader
Localtrader
Localtrader
Fruitgrowers’
cooperative
Fruitjuice
company
Regionaltrader
Community A
Community B
Community C
Highlands(>1500 m)
NGO
Regionaltrader
S/$$
G/$$
G/$$
G/$$
G/$$
G/$$
G/$$
Figure 10. Highland example of qualifying relationships in a zone.
26
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Table 7. Matrix of agroenterprise actors by agroecological zone.
Zone Actor’s principal economic activity
Production Post harvest Marketing Agroenterprisehandling, development servicesprocessing
Highlands Fruit growers’ Local fruit traders. Local fruit and coffee Fruits growers’(>1500 m) association. Individual coffee traders. Three regional association.
Municipal coffee growers. Juice coffee and fruit traders. Municipal coffeegrowers’ association. company. Juice company. growers’ association.
Independenttechnicians for fruits.Village shop sellingagricultural inputs.
Mid-altitude land Fruit growers’ Local fruit traders. Local fruit and coffee Fruit growers’(Hill Land) association. Individual coffee traders. Three regional association.(600 to 1500 m) Municipal coffee growers. Juice coffee and fruit traders. Independent
growers’ association. company. Juice company. technicians for fruits.Village shop sellingagricultural inputs.
Lowland Milk producers’ Three local plants for One plant and two Cooperative (inputs for(<600 m) cooperative. cheese and milk regional traders (same members). Independent
derivatives. Cooling as above). Multinational technicians for milkplant (cooperative). milk company in urban producers and
center. processors. Shop sellinginputs for cheesemakers. Swiss NGO forcheese production.
· The independent technicians (present in all
·three zones).The village shop selling inputs (importantfor all three zones).
In zone “lowland”, the actors related to milkproduction gain importance. Likewise, if we areinterested in this product or zone, we need toinclude the cooperative, cheese, and milkplants, multinational company, and the SwissNGO.
The importance of this exercise is that it gives aclear idea of who should be taken into accountwhen considering the area’s agroenterprisedevelopment options and gives an initial baseon which to form a working group for a giventheme. The list of related agencies does notmean that all should be represented, only themost relevant and effective organizations shouldbe included in the working group.
Profiling Client Groups throughWealth Evaluation for Each ZoneThe next step in conducting the basic diagnosisfor rural agroenterprise development is to
identify different social groups in the area. Thiscomplements existing secondary data, such aspoverty2 maps with more qualitative data.
This work should be developed with a focusgroup made up of key actors from each zone toidentify possible variations in welfare betweenzones. By working at the zone level we candifferentiate between livelihood strategies thatare intensive, high value in small areas orextensive, produce of low value or no addedvalue in large areas. An example is thedifference between small-scale fruit productionas opposed to extensive livestock ranching3.
2. Secondary data such as census figures, povertymaps, and participatory poverty assessments can allbe drawn on. Much of this data should already existas it is a major criterion for targeting developmentfunding in most parts of the world.
3. This is simplistic differentiation that leaves out agreat many issues that you may confront at the fieldlevel. In Asia, for example, the inclusion of livestockin the production system may actually indicate amore intensive use of resources, not a moreextensive strategy, while in Latin America ranchingis rarely intensive.
27
Area-based Resource Assessment
Before beginning the analysis with the focusgroup, a short discussion about the differentclasses of resources (see definitions on page 7)is useful so that the participants have a clearidea of what will be analyzed.
It is best to begin with one extreme of thecontinuum of local welfare, either the mostwell-to-do or the least well-to-do, as this helpswith the analysis of other groups. This processcan be facilitated using the matrix (Table 8),and advancing top to bottom by columns orfrom right to left by well-being level. Careshould be exercised in interpreting therelationships among the different well-beinglevels.
To carry out this analysis, a guide can bedeveloped with the focus group to includequestions such as the following:
· What access to the zone’s natural resources
·do well-to-do families have?What access to the zone’s natural resourcesdo families with medium-sized incomes
·have?What access to the zone’s natural resourcesdo families who have very limited incomeshave?
Similar questions are asked about humanresources. The matrix in Table 8 can be adaptedto note the information (it can also be preparedon a flipchart, as shown in Table 9). As thisprocess is purely subjective, key indicators ofwell-being in each resource (e.g., measures ofland or water for natural resources) must beidentified and access of the population group tothe key indicator can be discussed. Someindicators of well-being may change from zoneto zone according to the life strategies that therespective population has developed whileothers (e.g., access to health services, formalcredit, or public offices) can be kept more orless stable for the entire area.
Table 8. Well-being levels in terms of access to a zone’sresources.
Well-being Access to the zone’s resourceslevel
High
Natural Human Production Social
Medium
Low
The definition of wealth, “well-being” can varyby zone. What is moderately well off in one zonemay be well-to-do in another and marginalizedin yet a third. It may be more useful todistinguish only among three categories—‘well-to-do’, medium, and most marginalized—andnot in as much detail as is shown in Figure 8.The group facilitating the analysis should makethis decision. The number of well-beingcategories should be constant for all zones.
Zoning Livelihood Strategies byWealth and Gender4
Some projects are designed to support specificgroups, such as those living in extreme povertyand women. This section describes a method forunderstanding the different possibilities that acommunity’s members have to generate income,using the concept of community developmentand social stratification.
The following exercises should be developed foreach zone, making use of the previous results(e.g., access to resources) to identify indicatorsthat separate livelihood strategies. Theindicators help explain why a household adoptsone livelihood strategy versus another and mayconstitute key constraints to processes ofagroenterprise development for certainsegments of the population.
This exercise is carried out with key informantsdrawn from diverse groups in each zone. It isimportant to have good representation acrossdifferent social groups in order to get a morecomplete picture of existing livelihoodstrategies. The steps to follow are:
1. Explain the objective of the exercise.2. Request informant(s) to provide information
on all sources of income available tocommunity members (Table 10). Recordincome sources on a flip chart removerepeats and write different ideas onto cards.At the end of this process you should have alist of cards with different sources of incomefor households in the zone.
3. Group the sources of income, based on theease of access to them for households in thezone; for example, can all households in thecommunity access this activity? If not, whocan? Who does not have access? Why not?Group the different sources of income.
4. Adapted from Gottret (2000).
28
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Table 9. Well-being matrix from Valle del Cauca, Colombia.
Class Criteria No. of families at: No. of Observationsfarmers
Rich 100 ha of well cultivated land, Vergel = 0 Contracts labor120 head of cattle, 1 car, Diamante = 1 V = 0 No cultivation1 house, earns 6–8 minimum Balsal = 5 B = 5 B = pastures and coffeewages, money at interest, Cristalina = 0 D = lulo and Andeanbusinessman, access to credit Manzano = 0 D = 1 blackberryand card. Producers Incera = 0
Medium (rich) 50–100 ha of land, V – Contracts more labor25–50 head of cattle, 1 car, B = 10 B = 10 C = coffee and sugarcanegood house, 5 min. wages, C = 5 C = 5 D = lulo, And. blackberry,businessman, has credit— D = 5 and livestockeasy access. M = 0 D = 5
P.I. = 0
Medium (poor) 20–30 ha of land, 10 head V = 12 V = 12 Can contract labor, hasof cattle, 1 motor cycle, B = 40 B = 40 cattle and crops;good house but unfinished, C = 0 D = 5 V = pastures, pigs,2–3 min. wages, businessman, D = 5 M = 6 sugarcane, coffee, andcredit. M = 6 granadilla; B = tomato,
P.I.= 0 cucumber, and cabbage;M = coffee, pastures, andgranadilla
Poor 5–10 min. wages, 1 milk cow, V = 6 V = 6 Works on farm and sells1 horse, regular house, B = 100 B = 100 labor, has cattle and1 min. wage, lives off farm, C = 6 C = 6 crops; V = coffee,credit ok and restricted. D = 0 M = 4 pastures, sugarcane, lulo;
M = 4 P.I. = 11 C = And. blackberry,P.I. = 11 coffee, lulo, plantains;
M = And. blackberry andlulo; P.I. = coffee,pastures, and plantains
Very poor Freeloader, house loaned, V = 2 V = 0 Sells labor.doesn’t own transport, day B = 40 B = 0laborer, credit is ok. C = 5 C = 0
D = 9 M = 0M = 3 P.I. = 0P.I. = 0
4. Once all conditions of access have beenexpressed rank them in order of importance,from the most important limitations to theleast important, re order all cards in theform of a flow chart as shown in Figure 11.
5. Identify sources of income that are stable(=), increasing in importance ( ), or losing inimportance ( ). An example is shown inFigure 12.
6. The last step is to examine the importanceof the different economic activities from thepoint of view of gender. The key question inthis step is: Who is mainly responsible fordeveloping this activity? During the firstlevel of analysis, this question can wait. If
there is interest, there are several ways ofadvancing but perhaps the simplest is todefine, by economic category, the specificactivities carried out and by whom. Anexample of this second level of analysis,extracted from Figure 13 appears inTable 11.
This study can be deepened by asking whodecides what to do, when and who controlsincome. This probes the question of who makesdecisions related to economic activities and whodoes the work. With this knowledge, futureefforts can focus on issues of equity in relationto income generating activities.
29
Area-based Resource Assessment
Table 10. Example of income sources for communitymembers.
Sources of food security Sources of income
List major products Production of:
Maize Basic grainsCassava Vegetables
Green vegetables Milk
Goats
LivestockGoats Work in the textile factory
Chickens for eggs Carpentry
Cow for milk HandcraftsWork for wages on farms
At the end of these exercises, the enterpriseteam should have a clear idea of the livelihoodstrategies of specific segments of the populationin specific zones. Some strategies maybe similarand, thus, can be generalized to the entire area.However, it is highly probable that differentclient types use specific income strategies andby understanding these options, agencies cantailor interventions for specific clients.To complement this livelihood analysis, werecommend a quick review of innovationprocesses in the area, as described under thenext heading.
Innovation Processes for EachZone, Resource, and Social GroupBy understanding innovation processes we canidentify how change takes place over time andthe channels thought which it flows. This canassist in the effectiveness of future intervention,whether it is hard technology (such as newvarieties, production systems, machinery, ormobile phones); soft technology (such aslearning new skills), and organizationaltechnologies (such as new social structures andbuilding links to other institutions).
Often, innovations are related to each other,e.g., improvements in production leads toimprovements in organization to sell the newsurplus and grouped by themes (e.g., specificproducts of a zone or natural resources). Anexhaustive inventory of innovation is notnecessary the aim is to obtain an idea ofoutstanding innovations in each resource, howthey came about, and their impact.
To understand innovation history and flow, werevisit the zones resource tables, and the socialdifferentiation carried out as part of thelivelihood analysis. This information can begenerated with a focus group made up of keyinformants from the zone that representsvarious social groups.
Sources of income
Land owners
Irrigation No irrigation
Live off:
Irrigated farming
Basic grains
Vegetables
Milk
Goats
Basic grains
Milk
Goats
Live off: Live off:Live off:
Factory work
Carpentry
Work for wages onfarms
Handcrafts
Landless
Figure 11. Example of income sources based on zoning within a project area.
30
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Sources of income
Land owners
Irrigation No irrigation
Live off:
Irrigated farming
Basic grains
Vegetables
Milk
= Goats
Basic grains
Milk
= Goats
Live off: Live off:Live off:
= Factory work
Carpentry
= Work for wages onfarms
Handcrafts
Landless
Figure 12. Example of income trends within a zone.
Table 11. Gender analysis of an economic activity in a given zone.
Category: Growing market vegetables Importance: Average
Activities Responsible for the activity
Women Men Both Children
Purchase of seed
Preparing seedbeds
Transplanting
Hilling/weeding
Irrigation
Pest management
Harvest
Washing, selection, and packing
Marketing
To facilitate this process, the following steps aresuggested:
1. Remind participants of definitions used forresource analysis.
2. Ask the participants to identify importantmoments of change in each resource (one byone). Participants should discuss and agreeon what constitutes an “important momentof change” based on their own criteria.
3. Document changes by resource and ask theparticipants to clearly identify theinnovation (what was it and why was itneeded) and who invented or adopted it forthe first time. At this stage, it is importantto identify the innovators by name, their
geographical location, and levels of well-being. Here, profiles of each zone’sinnovators should be made.
4. Once the innovation and its innovator(s) areidentified, ask the participants to analyzethe sources of information that led to theinnovation. Was it a process of trial anderror carried out by one farmer only? Orwas it a combination between externalinformation (e.g., radio, television, flyers, orvisits) and local ingenuity? Was it anexternal actor who shared his or herknowledge with the innovator(s) (e.g.,training, written information, or field days)?Most likely, the innovation builds on acombination of factors. What we hope to
31
Area-based Resource Assessment
Table 12. Ide
Resources
Natural
ntifying innovations, i
Innovation(change)
Use of livebarriers to controlerosion and feedlivestock, pigs.
nnovators, dissemina
Innovator(s)
Landowningfarmers ofmoderate wealth.
tion, and impact in a
Sources ofinnovation
External NGO,training,participatory trials,farmer exchanges.
zone.
Disseminationchannels
Farmer to farmerexchangesbetween moderateand low wealthfarmers.
Impact
Increased presenceof barriers, extraanimal feed andsome additionalincome.
Human Decentralizedhigh-schooleducation programfor those withoutaccess to formalschooling.
Teachers. External NGO,government.
Rural promoters(farmers ofmoderate wealth).
Better access toeducation.
Production New and moreefficient design forsugarcane mills.
Mill owners(moderate towealthy farmers),skilled workers.
Visit to anotherpart of the country,information from aspecializedresearch center.
Skilled workers. Six mills withimprovedtechnology in thearea (belongingto moderate towealthy farmers).Greater demandfor sugar cane yearround.
Social Organization offruit growers’association.
Farmers ofmoderate to lowwealth.
Producers,advisory servicesof external NGO.
Producer toproducer(invitation tobecome part ofthe association).
Better channels(contracts) for saleto fruit companies,increased volumesand income. Betterorganization andnegotiating skills.
understand is the relative importance of thelocal know how versus sources of externalinformation. This process to looks at howinnovations are introduced into the zoneand how such introductions can befacilitated in the future.
5. Once the innovation was made, how was itdisseminated among the zone’s householdsand communities? How did new peoplelearn and adapt the innovation for use ontheir farms? Who disseminated theinnovation? Was it intentional (e.g.,workshops, visits, or organized field days) orspontaneous (e.g., informal talks in thevillage or the general store)?
6. What impact has the innovation generated?Who benefited from the innovation and whatwas their well-being level? An exhaustiveanalysis of impact is not required butmerely to ask participants to evaluate theinnovation’s relative importance in the zone.If they have concrete data (e.g., X number ofsugar mills were improved with thetechnology), these should be noted.
For analysis the focus group’s conclusionscan be noted in a matrix similar to that inTable 12.
32
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
SECTION 4
Planning Together for Joint Action
In the previous section, representatives of theworking group carried out a diagnosis of theresources available to support
agroenterprise development in an area, takinginto account options for zoning the area. Thissurvey will have provided information on:
· Existing endowments of natural, human,
·productive, and social resources.Livelihood strategies for differentiated socialgroups by area and zone according to local
·welfare criteria.Existing organizations and institutionsrelevant to processes of rural enterprisedevelopment and their relationships in the
·diverse zones of the area.Current and historical processes ofinnovation in the area.
This information is now used to develop simpleaction plans to promote agroenterprisedevelopment. This section is divided into fourparts:
1. Review of working group members and theformation of the group.
2. Analysis of the area’s potential for ruralenterprise development.
3. Identification of areas of consensus forcommon action.
4. Generation of a shared action plan.
The implementation of these four steps isfocused on the organizations that plan to bemembers of the working group. The steps canbe facilitated by an external or supportorganization but the discussions and finalagreements should be the product of theworking group members.
Reviewing the Roles of the WorkingGroupBefore generating an action plan, timeshould be taken to assess the stakeholders inthe working group and to gain a betterunderstanding of their level of interest. Insome cases new participants may have beenidentified from the diagnosis stage. Review thecomposition of the group; gain anunderstanding of their expectations, what theycan provide and what they may need to play anactive role in the group. This is the time todevelop some basic ground rules for roles andresponsibilities for all group members.
33
Planning Together for Joint Action
One of the results of the diagnosis was theidentification of key actors for the area’s ruralagroenterprise development. These actors maybe similar to those already in the workinggroup or they may be different. This is anappropriate time to review the identified actorsand openly discuss the following questions asa group:
· Do the participants in the working grouprepresent the most important actors for
·rural enterprise development in the area?Do they have sufficient information,resources, and access to the market tochange the existing situation bythemselves, or would it be better to includeadditional organizations? If so, which
·organizations?Are lead organizations for rural enterprisedevelopment adequately represented in thegroup? Who else is missing or needed?
Typically, the diagnosis identifies severalorganizations that share similar approaches toagroenterprise development, such as growers’associations, NGOs, public sector entities,universities, and private enterprises, whichcould strengthen development processes in thearea. This is the moment for identifying thoseorganizations that are available and have bothinterest and capacity to participate asmembers of the working group. A keyrecommendation is to look beyond thetraditional partners (growers’ associations,NGOs, the government) to include new actorswho bring other perspectives to the group. If,for example, a dynamic private company or alocal Chamber of Commerce is selected, thenthese could bring a well-developed businessapproach that would complement thestrengths of the other development actors.
More recently, new actors such as largesupermarket chains are desirable partners, asthey can effectively provide markets for variousproducts from the area and thus “pull”processes of enterprise development from themarket.
Once the key actors are identified andmotivated to participate, an informalagreement should be developed in which eachparticipant expresses their intention tocollaborate in the rural enterprise developmentof the area. This agreement should include:
··Purpose of the working group’s formation.
·The group’s objectives.
·The initial work timetable.The roles and responsibilities.
Once the working group is convened, theplanning process can begin as follows:
Planning for Rural AgroenterpriseDevelopment in the AreaPlanning begins with an analysis of localcapacities, a review of target zones, localpartners, and client farmer groups, a reviewof the more promising enterprise options,based on zonal preferences and resourcesrequired to move the process forward. Theseissues can be addressed using the Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats,methodology, more commonly known asSWOT analysis.
The SWOT analysis should be undertaken ina rigorous manner, so that the results can beused by the working group. Whilst SWOTanalysis can be very useful, if done by adedicated team, but if done superficially,results will be poor and difficult to interpretin a meaningful way. Spend time on thisprocess if you want a useful product. Thebasic steps are as follows:
1. Ask the working group to list thestrengths, in terms of rural agroenterprisedevelopment, that are evident in the area-based diagnosis. The strengths groupedby topic (e.g., natural resources, businessorganization, or markets ties).
2. Once identified and grouped, thestrengths are prioritized. Which are moreimportant—or evident—and which are lessimportant? Which constitute solid basesfor generating change and which do not?At the end of the discussion, strengths areranked.
3. Ask the working group to list and groupopportunities, in terms of agroenterprisedevelopment, that are evident in the area-based diagnosis. Some opportunities maybe within the area, others, may havemarket opportunities beyond the area.This is normal; the key is whether theproduct can be produced within the area.
4. Prioritize the opportunities.5. Ask the working group to list and group
weaknesses, in terms of agroenterprise
34
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
development, that are evident in the area-based diagnosis. These weaknesses arefound within the area.
6. Prioritize the weaknesses.7. Ask the working group to list threats, in
terms of agroenterprise development, thatare evident in the area-based diagnosis.Although threats can be internal, they tendto be external and related to the market orcompetition.
8. Prioritize the threats.
The results of this discussion should bewritten up in a SWOT matrix and thenvariables can be combined, or “crossed”, asshown in Table 13.
The combination or crossing step is facilitatedusing the following questions:
· How can we use the strengths found in thearea to turn identified threats intoopportunities for existing or future
·processes of rural enterprise development?How do we take advantage of ouropportunities to improve the weaknesses,in terms of rural agroenterprisedevelopment, found in the area?
The results of these two “crosses” are noted ina matrix such as found in Table 14.
Consensus BuildingOnce the rural enterprise developmentpotential of the area has been assessed, based
on the results of the SWOT analysis, the groupcan focus on concrete activities required. Atthis stage, we must identify the members of theworking group who are committed to workingtogether, discover their common vision interms of sustainable rural agroenterprisedevelopment for the selected area, define howthe working group can contribute to theattainment of these aspirations (or mission),and define “rules of the game” (or principles)for action.
Who We AreBefore we define the vision, mission, andprinciples for the working group, we must beclear on who the participants are. To facilitateinformation sharing among group memberswho may or may not know what each otherdoes, each member should briefly describe theorganization that he or she represents, thesites where they are active, the products theysupport, and the needs for support that havebeen identified. Exiting or desired links withother members of the working group can alsobe discussed at this time.
The rationale behind this exercise is that offacilitating effective networking amongmembers of the working group throughcomplete information and, at the same time,answering concerns regarding the experience,capacity and coverage of each organization.Table 15 presents a sample format fororganizing this presentation.
Table 13. An example of a SWOT matrix with “crosses”.
Strengths Weaknesses
The strengths found in the area’s potential for The weaknesses found in the area’s potential foragroenterprise development noted here. agroenterprise development noted here.
Opportunities Threats
The opportunities for the area’s potential for The threats to the area’s potential for agroenterpriseagroenterprise development noted here. development noted here.
Table 14. Results of “crossing” between strengths and threats.
Strengths versus threats Opportunities versus weaknesses
Results of the group’s discussion on comparingstrengths against threats in terms of the area’spotential for agroenterprise development.
Results of the group’s discussion on comparingopportunities against weaknesses in terms of thearea’s rural agroenterprise development.
35
Planning Together for Joint Action
Table 15. Format for information exchange among members of a working group.
Name:
ACELY (Asociación Campesina de Enlaces de Ladera de Yoro)[Rural Association for Liaisons for the Yoro Hillsides]
Sites: Yorito, Sulaco, and Victoria.Products: Basic grains.Services: Monitoring visits on soil conservation.· Survey of demand.· Facilitate access to improved bean seed for members.·Needs: Marketing.· Financial and credit support.· More training in micro-business.·Name: AGASUL (Asociación de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Sulaco)
[Association of Sulaco Livestock Owners and Farmers]Site: Sulaco.Products: Coordinate activities in favor of region’s livestock and agriculture.Services: Orient and train members on how to increase and diversify production.Needs: Shorten the marketing chain for produce: basic grains or milk.· Support in acquiring agricultural and livestock inputs.· Financial support soft loans.· Training on processing produce, which would then have aggregate value.·
Developing a Common Vision for Agroenterprise in our Area
Once working group membership is clear, wecan begin the planning process with the groupwith a visioning exercise. This exercise requiresthat each member define a ‘preferred future’ forthe rural agroenterprise development of thearea. This exercise is completed through thefollowing steps:
· Each participant indicates, in one or twoshort phrases, the key elements of their‘preferred future’ for the ruralagroenterprise development of the area. Keyelements might include phrases like,“I see producer groups working with localprocessors, NGOs, and traders from the
36
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
capital city to develop new value-addedproducts for supermarkets” or “I see marketinformation reaching farmers and NGOs in atimely and useful manner and crop pattersshifting based on market demands”. Theseideas should be written on cards using largeletters, using a maximum of three lines andone idea per card. Each member thenshares his or her ideas with the other
·members of the group.As each participant defines and shares herdesired future, the cards are placed on awall, so they remain visible to all
·participants.Once all the preferred future cards arepresented, they are then grouped accordingto common themes (i.e., market information,value added products, improved relations
·between chain actors, etc.).For each common theme, one or morephrases are written down that summarizethe sense of the dream cards generated bythe group members. These phrases maycome either from the existing cards or be asummary of several phrases from different
·participants.The summary phrases are then grouped intoone or more paragraphs that describe thedesired future for rural agroenterprisedevelopment in the area as definedcollectively by the group. This final desiredfuture (or vision) should be written on alarge sheet of paper and placed so that it isvisible to all participants.
What is the working group’s mission?Once we have a clear idea of the desired future,we need to ask, “how can the working groupcontribute to this future?” The group mustdetermine what it can realistically contributetowards achieving the desired future, in theknowledge that the desired goal will alsodepend on other local and external actors notyet part of the working group.
The working group’s mission should reflect thearea-based diagnosis, the analysis ofagroenterprise development potential of thearea, and the capacity, knowledge and coverageof the working group members. The missionshould be aligned with the group’s capacities.Grounding the mission of the group in reality isimportant because it is easier to broaden amission that is too limited than to focus a moreambitious one.
The steps for achieving this process are similarto those used to define the desired future:
· Each participant writes one or two shortphrases with their key ideas on what theworking group could contribute to thedesired future for the area’s agroenterprisedevelopment. The phrases are written oncards in large letters, with a maximum ofthree lines, with one idea per card. Later,each member of the group presents their
·cards to the other members of the group.As each participant defines and shares howthe working group could contribute to thedesired future, the cards are placed so that
·they remain visible to all participants.Once all the cards are presented, they are
·grouped according to common themes.Once the common themes are identified, oneor more phrases are written down thatsummarize each theme and then fed back to
·the group for discussion and approval.The summary phrases are then grouped intoone or more paragraphs that describe therole of the working group in bringing aboutthe desired future. This final expression ofthe role (or mission) of the working groupshould be written on a large sheet of paperand placed so that it is visible to allparticipants.
What are our principles?The final step prior to drafting a concrete actionplan is the definition of basic principals thatwill guide the working group. The intention ofthis exercise is to define some general principlesthat can be adapted to each organization’sactivities and guide the overall thrust of theworking group. They can be generated byfollowing the steps described previously, butwith a change towards the end.
· Each participant nominates one or two keyprincipals (the idea plus a shortdescription). Examples of working groupprincipals include things like “participatorydecision making” or “sustainablemanagement of natural resources”. Eachprincipal is written on a separate card inlarge letters with a maximum of three lines.Later, the cards are shared among group
·members as in the previous exercises.As each member describes theircontributions, the cards are placed so thatthey remain visible to all participants.
37
Planning Together for Joint Action
· Once all the contributions are presented,they are grouped according to common
·themes.With the common themes identified, adiscussion is conducted to name eachgroup of cards. When consensus is arrivedon the name of a group of cards (theprinciple for this group of ideas), the nameis written on a different colored card and
·place above the others.Once all the principles are named, a briefdescription of this principle is written. Thisdescription seeks to clearly define thegroup’s understanding of the principal andhow it relates to the promotion ofagroenterprise development in the area.
At the end of this process, the working groupwill posses a common desired future (vision), aclear idea of what the working group willcontribute to this desired future (mission) andshared principals to guide the activities of theworking group towards the future. With theseinputs, the group is ready to design an initialwork plan.
Writing a Joint Work PlanAn effective work plan is similar to a map, itprovides a clear idea of where we want to goand some key signposts or indicators tell uswhether we are heading in the right direction.To construct an adequate map, fourmethodological steps are proposed:
1. Identify specific areas for intervention, andwho to work with.
2. Prioritize areas according to theirimportance, feasibility, and impactpotential.
3. Identify short-, mid-, and long-termactivities that can be done with the existingresources and those that require externalsupport.
4. Construct an action plan with a timetable,showing clear responsibilities for theworking group members.
The information below outlines the contents ofeach step.
Identifying key areas for interventionThis first step aims to generate, by means of abrainstorm, the largest number of ideas andpossible concepts on what the working groupshould do within the area. To carry out thisexercise:
1. The working groups should name afacilitator for the exercise.
2. A general question is put to the group toinitiate discussion. In this case, thequestion could be something like, “whatactivities should the working group developduring the next 12 months?”
3. Each participant writes down the two bestideas that s/he has.
4. The ideas are shared among all participantsand common ideas are sought and groupedtogether. At this point, if any of the groupmembers have additional ideas that are notadequately represented in the emerging list;these can be shared and incorporated ifnecessary.
5. Once similar concepts are grouped, eachconcept needs to be defined clearly. Forexample, for a group of cards relating to“training”, what kind of training are wetalking about? What are the themes ortopics? Who will train whom? Does thisactivity need external support or can it beundertaken by working group members?
6. At the end of this exercise, the workinggroup should have a list, not yet prioritized,of key areas of intervention, clearly definedand written in a common language.
Prioritizing key areas of interventionOnce the key areas of intervention have beenidentified and defined, the working group needsto rank them by importance. Often, all theissues seem important and, as result, we do notknow where to begin. This exercise helps toorient the working group in this regard. Thesteps for ranking areas of intervention include:
1. Organize a pair wise ranking matrix, wherethe title of each key area of intervention isplaced both on the vertical and horizontalaxis. Each pair of ideas will be comparedonly once so the bottom half of the matrix isnot used. In the example, this section isshown in dark gray in Table 16.
2. Each pair of options is then compared todecide which of the two key area ofintervention is most critical to develop first.In this case, the facilitator should ask thegroup “is it more important that we trainourselves in accounting or organize ameeting with microfinance institutions?Which comes first?” The group shoulddecide which of the two key areas underanalysis is more important, and place thisidea in the matrix as shown in Table 17.
38
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Table 16. An example of how to construct a pair wise ranking matrix.
Key areas of Bookkeeping Organize a meeting Analyze markets for Negotiate supportintervention training with credit products in high from the government
providers demand
Bookkeeping training
Organize a meetingwith credit providers
Analyze market forproducts in highdemand
Negotiate supportfrom the government
3. Once the matrix is completed, the facilitatorcounts the number of votes that each areaof intervention has received and tallies upthe totals. As in any election, the areas ofintervention with the highest number ofvotes are the most important. The resultscan be documented in a table as shown inTable 18.
In the examples shown, it is now clear that theworking group should start by analyzing themarket chains for products in high demand,followed by arranging for funds from thegovernment and organizing a meeting withmicrofinance institutions, with training inaccounting coming later.
This exercise can last an hour or more,depending on the number of activities thatmust be analyzed and the discussion generatedaround this process.
Table 18. Final results from a pair wise rankingexercise.
Key areas of intervention No. of votes Rank
Bookkeeping training 0 4
Organize a meeting withcredit providers
1 3
Analyze market chainsfor products in high demand
3 1
Negotiate support fromthe government
2 2
Building momentum with local activitiesFor the prioritized activities the working groupshould analyze whether or not the skills andresources needed to move forward are availablelocally or not. Working group activities shouldbe initiated with interventions that dependprincipally on existing local knowledge and
Table 17. An example of a completed pair wise ranking matrix.
Key areas of Bookkeeping Organize a meeting Analyze markets for Negotiate supportintervention training with credit providers products in high
demandfrom the government
Bookkeeping training Organize a meeting Analyze markets to Negotiate supportwith credit identify products in from the government.providers. high demand.
Organize a meeting Analyze market Negotiate supportwith credit providers chains for products from the government.
in high demand.
Analyze markets Analyze marketchains for products in chains for productshigh demand in high demand.
Negotiate support fromthe government
39
Planning Together for Joint Action
resources. This helps to focus interventions inareas where rapid change can be achieved withminimum effort and generates a positivedynamic among group members. Establishing asolid base of local capacity does not mean thatthe working group should ignore opportunitiesfor external support. In fact, working groupswith strong internal dynamics tend to be moreeffective in linking to external technical andfinancial support and when this assistancearrives more effective in transforming it intosustainable processes of rural agroenterprisedevelopment.
To assess local capacity to implement keyintervention strategies, the working group liststhe resources or knowledge it needs for eachintervention strategy and compares that listwith what exists locally (Table 19).
The time needed for this exercise will varyaccording to the number of activities and thesteps that are required to develop each one.
Building an action plan for the workinggroupWith the inputs previously constructed, the laststep of this process is to generate an actionplan for the first 12 months of working groupactivities. The matrix can include informationsuch as that found in Table 20.
If the working group wishes, the action plancan also include the financial needs for eachactivity and thus generate a budget thatcomplements the action plan.
ConclusionBased on the analysis of the resources availableand potential market options, the members ofthe working group can start to build aconsolidated plan for enterprise developmentthat will engage various local actors.
The planning process therefore serves severalpurposes. It raises the profile of income
Table 19. Identifying local and external resources required for a prioritized activity.
Activity: Analyze market chains for products in high demand
Steps Resources required We have them here☺☺☺☺☺
We have to get themfrom outside
Identify key market chain actors Information about the chain
People
Review how the chain is working
now and identify critical points
Information from people
More general information
People
Training in this field
Analyze data generated, etc. People
Advisory services
Table 20. Building a simplified action plan for the working group.
Activity Steps People responsible Dates (months)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Analyze the chains 1. Identify product John and Maryof the prioritized areas for furtherproducts analysis.
2. Undertake a Rapid John with theMarket Survey. working group
3. Analyze the data. Maria with theworking group
40
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
generating methods, based on agroenterprisedevelopment within a defined geographic area,it provides a basic platform for dialogue withdiverse partners and an approach that isinclusive, that seeks to build relationshipsrather than operate in isolation.
The approach is long-term and one of the basicprinciples of this approach is to include localactors in a participatory manner, so that theyare able to learn new skills, put them intoaction, reflect on their level of success, andadapt them to the local context.
Although the final outcome of this guide is abasic planning tool, much social capital willhave been gained in the process and this willallow for greater sharing of roles andresponsibilities in the future.
The following two sections raise issues ofmonitoring the process and the final writing upand dissemination of results from the activitiesundertaken in this guide.
41
Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
SECTION 5
Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation,and Learning
learning system for the working group. TwoThe purpose of this section is to provide
some general ideas about the utility of asimple monitoring, evaluation, and
simple methods will be put forward documentadvances place. The final decision on which touse will be in the hands of the group.
Designing and Building anAppropriate Monitoring, Evaluation,and Learning System for theWorking GroupThe principal objective of a monitoring,evaluation, and learning system is to assist theworking group and clients to become moreeffective over time. To build an appropriatesystem, the working group and client groupsshould review their information needs and
design a system that focuses on those demands.Some key principals to keep in mind in thissense are:
1. Design the system around what the workinggroup members and, for example, thefarmer groups want to control, evaluate orlearn.
2. Keep the system as simple andstraightforward as possible.
3. Base the system, where possible, on existinginformation that can be analyzed in newways (poverty or income data, for example).
4. Link the system into existing data gatheringexercises (i.e., baseline studies, surveys,others) in the area and build on the datacollected in the diagnosis of the workinggroup.
42
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
5. Resist the temptation to gather “interesting”information on a wide range of activities.
6. Be systematic in data collection andanalysis and make use of locally relevanttools for both (use visual methods ratherthan surveys for low literacy areas, forexample).
7. Assess the utility of information generatedfor decision making in the working group.
If the working group adapts these principles,the resulting system should fit well with theircapacities and information demands.
Utility of Monitoring, Evaluation,and Learning for the Working GroupThis section presents monitoring tools to assessand control activities, and learning tools tohighlight important learning experiences forspecific members of the working group. Whilethese tools are best used together, it is commonto find working groups focused principally onthe monitoring and evaluation function.However, without a useful and simple learningprocess, the working group runs the risk ofbeing stuck in ‘single loop learning’ as shown inFigure 13.
Action strategy Consequences
Single loop learning
Figure 13. Single loop learning cycle.
In a single loop learning cycle, people andorganizations plan, act, and evaluate theresults of their actions. Based on the effects oftheir actions, they then complete the cycle byreturning to the planning phase. This process isuseful if the relation between the problem andits solution is straightforward, lineal, andcausal. In addition, a single loop systemassumes that the basic assumptions on whichthe system rests are valid and static. However,many problems encountered in ruraldevelopment, do not respond to this simplemodel, which requires a more complex analysis.In reality, what is needed is to review basicassumptions about what needs to done, whenand why5.
5. For more discussion on this point, see Fairbanksand Lindsay (1997).
Monitoring and evaluation on its own tends toreinforce a single loop learning system. Amonitoring and evaluation system linked to alearning process, on the other hand, moves ustowards a more complex learning system. Thissystem, known as ‘double loop learning’ byArgyris6, generates a process through which thebasic assumptions underlying planning,implementation, and evaluation are questionedand improved upon. A ‘double loop learning’model is shown in Figure 14.
A double loop learning system helps to movebeyond the simplistic plan-act cycle and beginsto question the way that organizations promoterural agroenterprise in the area. This morethorough analysis should lead to a moreeffective process.
Actionstrategy Consequences
Single loop learning
Governingvariable
double loop learning
Figure 14. Double loop learning cycle.
Tools for Monitoring, Evaluation,and LearningThe two tools included in this section aresimple. As the focus of this guide is on basicprinciples and techniques that can be adaptedto diverse needs at the field level, the first toolfor monitoring and evaluation draws on theaction plan developed in the previous sectionand focuses on documenting, controlling, andmonitoring the implementation of the workinggroup’s action plan. The second, known as‘most significant change’, seeks to documentlessons learned by diverse members of theworking group and facilitate discussions on theunderlying assumptions of the group to reframeapproaches based on experience.
Monitoring and EvaluationAdvances in the Working Group’sAction PlanThe most straightforward way to establish amonitoring and evaluation system for the
6. For more discussion on this, see:www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm#_Single-loop_and_double-loop
43
Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
working group is to base it on the action plandeveloped in Section 3 of this guide. In theaction plan, the working group defined keyactivities, steps, responsibilities, dates and,perhaps, budgets. A monitoring andevaluation system can revisit each activity inthe action plan periodically7 to assess howsuccessfully this activity has been carried outand what the results are. In operationalterms, this process can occur in the course ofnormal meetings of the working group or, ifimplemented in conjunction with the ‘mostsignificant change’ learning tool, to specialsessions of the working group focused onmonitoring, evaluation, and learning.
To document changes, positive and negative,in the evolution of the action plan, theworking group can make use of a monitoringtool such as that found in Table 21.
The working group assesses each activity infour areas:
1. Results achieved.2. Lessons learned what worked well and
what worked less well.3. Changes that need to be made to the work
plan based on results to date.4. Level of satisfaction with the activity.
7. The meaning of “periodically” can vary based on theneeds of the working group. In those groups with astrong tradition of collaboration, monitoring andevaluation might occur every 3 to 6 months while innewer groups monthly revisions might be moreappropriate.
It is important to note that the monitoring andevaluation should take place at the level of theactivity—which includes several steps—and notat the level of each step. This distinction ismade to save time for the working group andavoid getting trapped in details when what wewant to assess is the overall effectiveness of theactivity as such. Has this activity—with all of itssteps—led to the changes that the workinggroup expected? Why or Why not?
In operational terms, the revision of the actionplan takes place in a workshop with theworking group members. Each person or groupof people who appear as ‘people responsible’ forthe activity present a short summary of work inthis area focusing on results achieved, lessonslearned (both positive and negative), andchanges that need to be made based on resultsup to now (points 1 through 3 above). Asummary of this information is discussed withthe rest of the working group. The final step isto assess the level of satisfaction of the workinggroup with each activity. This information iswritten on a flip chart prior to advancing to thenext activity.
Once all of the activities have been reviewedand the level of satisfaction assessed, theworking group decides on what changes need tobe made to the existing action plan in terms ofactivities, steps, dates, budgets, responsibilitiesor any other aspects. These changes are thennoted and incorporated into the action plan forimplementation. At the end of the workshop,the working group should have several flipcharts showing their results to date, the
Table 21. Building a monitoring and evaluation tool for the working group.
Activity Steps Results to date Lessons learned
Positive Negative☺☺☺☺☺
Changes needed,new plans
Analyze the chains of 1. Identifythe prioritized products participants
in the chain.
2. Make adiagnosis ofits problems.
3. Analyze thedata.
4. Level ofsatisfactionwith activity.
44
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
assessment of each activity and the changesrequired in the action plan. These can be typedup and shared within the working group as wellas with other interested stakeholders to showthe advances made by the group as well asserving as a record of the working group assuch.
The process of planning, acting, monitoring,and evaluating should lead the group throughan iterative process that allows the action planto evolve and develop or hone skills. In dynamicworking groups, this process becomes secondnature and continuous while in weaker groupsit often falters. To avoid this pitfall, the workinggroup requires tools and spaces to reflect ontheir assumptions and deepen theirunderstanding of processes of ruralagroenterprise development. The ‘mostsignificant change’ method is one way of doingthis.
‘Most significant change’ as a learningtool8
If the working group decides to make use of the‘most significant change’ (MSC) method todocument learning, this process can evolvedirectly out of the monitoring and evaluationwork described previously. The MSC methodcomes from experiences in Bangladesh (Davies,1996) and Australia (Dart, 1999a) that soughtto document processes of organizationallearning in development activities.
According to Dart, MSC can be understood asprocess through which program stakeholdersinterpret their experiences with the programand select instances of significant change andrecord each as a story. They are also required torecord why this change is significant to them.Then when the reviewers read and evaluate thestory, they engage with it and construct furthernew meaning. When this is done in a group,this construction may be shared. In the MSCapproach the criteria that are used to interpretthe story are documented, made transparentand attached to the story itself. It is thistransparency that makes the whole processeven more open to new and more sophisticatedconstructions of meaning (Dart, 1999b).
8. This section draws on Dart (2000).
‘Most significant change’ processes andlogicTo make use of this method, the working groupneeds to undertake three main activities:(a) establish the kinds of change the groupexpects to see; (b) organize a system to collect,process and review stories of change, and;(c) find time—and perhaps assistance—toconduct a secondary analysis of the storiesselected. Each process is described briefly inthe following section.
Defining the types of change the groupwants to see: In this step, the working groupmembers should identify no more than threekinds of changes that they would like todocument as a result of their activities.Examples could include ‘more diversifiedlivelihoods’ or ‘increasing value addedactivities’. This list serves as a guide formembers of the working group to identify andreport changes they see at the field level.
Collecting, reviewing, and processing thestories of change: Stories that show the kindof changes that the working group would like todocument are recorded by those most directlyinvolved in project implementation (i.e., fieldworkers and farmers or entrepreneurs). Peopleat each level of the project hierarchy are theninvolved in reviewing a series of stories andselecting those that they think represent themost significant accounts of change (Figures 15and 16). The selection of the stories takes theform of an iterative voting process, untilconsensus is achieved. At the various reviewfora, participants are required to documentwhich stories they selected and what criteriathey used. This information is then fed back tothe storytellers and the project stakeholders. Itis intended that the monitoring system shouldtake the form of a slow but extensive dialogueamong working group members, theirorganizations, and farmers during eachreporting period (Dart, 2000). This process canbe repeated with important externalstakeholders (i.e., donors or governmentofficials) to establish a dialogue with themabout what constitutes significant change interms of agroenterprise development in thearea.
Secondary analysis of the stories: Thestories reported by the organizations involved in
45
Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
Storiescollectedby field
staff andfarmers
Storytellers
reflect onindividualpractice
Storiesreviewed
atorganiza-
tionalmeetings
Organiza-tions
reflect onpractice
Storiesreviewed
byworkinggroup
Workinggroup
reflects onpractice
Discussionfrom
reviewprocess isrecorded
Key stake-holdersreviewstories
and reflecton
desirableoutcomes
Figure 15. Steps and feedback loops in the MSC system.
SOURCE: Adapted from Dart (2000).
Level 4
Represents a single story
Round table meeting of key stakeholders
Level 3 Area-based working group
Level 2
Level 1
Organization 1 Organization 2 Organization 3 Organization 4
Staffmeet. 1
Staffmeet. 2
Staffmeet. 3
Staffmeet. 1
Staffmeet. 2
Staffmeet. 3
Staffmeet. 1
Staffmeet. 2
Staffmeet. 3
Staffmeet. 1
Staffmeet. 2
Staffmeet. 3
Stories collected by those working directly with farmers and brought to monthly staff meetings
Figure 16. Idealized flow diagram for stories collected during a reporting period. (Adapted from Dart, 2000)
the working group can be grouped foradditional analysis. These stories are ofparticular use in understanding the outcomesand limitations of agroenterprise developmentin terms of ‘big questions’ such as ruralpoverty, social and gender equality, andchanges in natural resource management.The inclusion of social science researchers fromlocal universities may be useful for this kind ofanalysis.
‘Most significant change’ toolsFor each of the above mentioned steps, thefollowing tools can be adapted for use by theworking group.
Defining the types of change the groupwants to see: The definition of the types ofchange that the working groups hopes to see,can be based on the ‘preferred future’ (or vision)that they developed in Section 3. From thiswork, the group selects no more than threespecific types of change to document and liststhem. This list of expected changes is then
communicated to the field workers—staff whowork directly with farmers or agroenterprises—who then identify stories of change thatcorrespond to these categories.
Collecting, reviewing, and processing thestories of change: The collection of the storiesof significant change at the field level can takevarious forms depending on the region, localculture, and relative levels of literacy. In allcases, the stories of change should be short andfocused on answering the basic journalisticquestions of:
· What was the change that occurred and why
·is it significant to the people involved?
·Where did this story of change take place?
·When did this change occur?
·Who was involved in the significant change?How did this change occur?
In areas with low levels of literacy, it may bemore effective to document stories of significantchange using drawings, photographs or
46
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
interviews (audio or video). There is amplespace here for field staff and farmers to usetheir creativity and design reportingmechanisms that are adapted to theirconditions.
Once each field worker has identified anddocumented with farmers or agroentrepreneurstheir best story of significant change in theperiod of analysis—including the reasons why itis significant—these are fed into organizationalmeetings (shown as level 2 in Figure 16). Thestories are reviewed internally and up to fourstories are selected to share with the workinggroup. At this stage it is important that theorganization explain why these stories ofchange are significant in relations to the type ofchange the working group hopes to see. Theworking group, in turn, reviews the stories fromeach partner organization and selects the mostsignificant to share with key stakeholders(shown as level 3 in Figure 16).
The final step of the process is sharing anddiscussing stories of change and theirsignificance with the key stakeholders of theworking group. Stakeholders might includeupper level managers from the partneragencies, project investors, private sectoractors, and relevant government officials. Inthis space the stories selected by the workinggroup are reviewed and their significancedebated with the key stakeholders. The goal ofthis space is not so much the selection of themost significant story of change but rather thediscussion about what constitutes significantchange for rural agroenterprise development inthe area. This discussion is useful because ithelps to:
· Inform the key stakeholders of the outcomesof the activities of the working group in atangible way and build support foragroenterprise development process in thearea. What does the working group mean forrural agroenterprise development in the
·area? How successful are its activities?Align the goals of the working group withthose of the key stakeholders who canfacilitate structural changes that are beyondthe capacity of the working group as such(i.e., government, donor or private sector
·policies).Provide feedback to all levels of the workinggroup as to what is seen as significantchange and should therefore be pursuedactively.
The results of this discussion arecommunicated with all levels of the workinggroup (levels 1 through 4 in Figure 16) anddecisions made incorporated into future actionplans. In this way the MSC approach completesthe second loop of the double loop learningcycle.
Secondary analysis of the stories: The sumof the MSC stories provides a rich picture ofhow the working group is contributing toagroenterprise development at the field level.This data contrasts and complements moretraditional indicator-based impact assessmentand can be reviewed to provide important socialdata about why changes—either positive ornegative—are occurring. As mentionedpreviously, this task is best undertaken incollaboration with social science researchersfrom local universities who can assist in theinterpretation of the stories at other levels.
47
The Planning Report and Preparing for the Next Steps
SECTION 6
The Planning Report andPreparing for the Next Steps
The planning report based on the work inthis guide aims to establish a commonframework for partners to begin a
process of agroenterprise development in theirdesignated area. The report should be written ina simple style, so that the results from theresource assessment and joint planning processcan be shared amongst partners andcommunity members. Results can be presentedin two ways:
1. As a combined text and table document thatincludes sections on purpose, results, andnext steps.
2. As a verbal talk, with key points illustratedby pictures to show areas of interventionsand basic bullet points for actions,indicating who will be responsible for whichactivities.
Outline of the Planning ReportA basic outline for the planning documentcould be as follows:
Title and authorsAcknowledgmentsExecutive summaryContentsIntroductionObjectives for the agroenterprise planning
processReconnaisance studyFormation, purpose, and membership of the
working groupResults from the resource assessment
Definition and map of areaCriteria and results from zoning exercise
(if undertaken)Identification of farmer groups and potential
productsPrioritize interventions according to their
importance, feasibility, and impact.Identify short-, mid-, and long-term
activitiesResource allocations—existing and requiredAction plan with a timetable, showing roles
and responsibilitiesPlan for monitoring and evaluation
48
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Conclusions and recommendationsAppendix 1. List of organizations in the working
groupAppendix 2. Questionnaire used in resource
surveyAppendix 3. Cards of the most preferred
products
This final document should be held by thefaciltating organization and local working groupmembers as a record of how the process wasconducted and results. The product optionsshould now be used in the next step of theagroenterprise development process, which isfocussed on the identification of marketopportunities and market chain integration.
Next StepsAt the end of this planning guide, the workinggroup survey team will have selected a specificarea for intervention, identified key partnersand farmer groups to work with, and identifiedpotential products that require marketevaluation.
The study will also have highlighted areas ofweak capacity, where additional training isrequired and where more contacts need to bemade. In some cases, additional training andpreparation will be required prior to shiftinginto the next stage. Some issues to reviewinclude:
· Are the existing smallholder producergroups sufficiently well organized to take onmarket based interventions? Are theyalready involved in collective actions, or will
·this be a new concept for them?Are the partners and their farmer groupssufficiently interested and/or motivated toinvest more time in undertaking furthermarket studies to evaluate market prospectsfor products they are already producing, orare they more interested to evaluate new
·market options?Do the facilitating partners have sufficientin-house capacity to lead a market-basedintervention or do they require additionaltraining prior to or as part of their learning
·process?Does the combination of partners andfarmer groups have sufficient financialcapital to invest in new enterprise options?If not, can the group obtain credit from alocal service provider, a micro creditorganization or do the farmers also need to
start a savings and loans scheme to build
·financial skills and capital.What scale of intervention is the workinggroup hoping to achieve? Will the workinggroup opt for a small pilot project, severalmarketing approaches for diverse producergroups, or focus activities on one
·mainstream market option?Are there any conflicts between seekingwidespread impact for a given market areaand the desire to provide differentiatedoptions for diverse beneficiary groups?
After discussing the most important issuesrelated to next steps, we advise the team tocontinue as quickly as possible onto the nextstep in CIAT’s Agroenterprise DevelopmentStrategy. Depending on the strategy selected,the farmer group should work with the mostappropriate skills set outlined in one of thefollowing guides from the AgroenterpriseDevelopment series:
· Identifying Market Opportunities for Rural
·Smallholder Producers.Participatory Market Chain Analysis for
·Smallholder Producers.A Market Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory
·Agroenterprise Development.Collective Marketing for SmallholderProducers.
The service providers, research team, andrepresentatives of interested smallholderproducer groups, should evaluate whichmethods are most appropriate in their nextsteps and then begin the process of upgradingtheir skills to identify new opportunities forincreasing their incomes through successfulagroenterprise development.
ConclusionsUndertaking this first practical part of theagroenterprise development approach is thebeginning of a new journey towards marketingfor smallholder producers. This first step willhave highlighted some of the assets andresources available in the target area and alsoprovided a flavor of the requirements inbuilding new enterprise options.
Although no investments have been made asyet, the planning stage is an important part ofthe overall process, and learning how to analyzelocal resources, and engage local agencies andbusiness options, are important elements in
49
The Planning Report and Preparing for the Next Steps
building agroenterprise capacity. This firstanalysis is an important learning process, notonly for the lead service provider but also forthe members of the working group, who canbegin to use these skills now and in their futurebusiness planning.
This first step provides a sound basis to startengaging in marketing and for developing skillsin systematic information, gathering, analysis,and decision making. These are all vital skillsfor the subsequent stages in agroenterprisedevelopment.
50
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
APPE
ND
IX 1
Key E
ven
t in
Rura
l A
gro
en
terp
rise
Develo
pm
en
t
Pla
nn
ing
an
d o
rgan
izin
g
Rec
onn
ais
san
ce(R
ecom
men
ded
)
Pla
nn
ing,
Org
an
izin
g,
an
d T
akin
g A
cti
on
:
Imple
men
ted b
y
Ser
vice
pro
vider
in
hou
sest
udy
pri
or t
o pro
ject
imple
men
tati
on.
Inte
rmed
iate
pro
du
ct(s
)
Pro
ject
pla
nn
ing,
rev
iew
of
scale
of
inte
rven
tion
.· R
apid
su
rvey
of
pro
du
ctio
n a
nd t
rade
of g
oods.
· Rapid
su
rvey
of
trader
s an
d s
ervi
ce p
rovi
der
s.· R
apid
ass
essm
ent
of t
arg
et c
lien
ts.
·
Est
imate
dti
me
2 t
o3 w
eeks
Pro
cess
es a
nd a
ctiv
itie
s to
est
ablish
Th
is o
pti
onal
appro
ach
bu
ilds
in h
ouse
· skills
an
d p
rovi
des
clien
ts w
ith
opti
on o
fra
pid
mark
et e
nga
gem
ent.
Are
a-b
ase
d r
esou
rce
ass
essm
ent
an
d f
orm
ing
of w
orkin
g gr
oups.
Op
tion
al
exer
cise
Lea
d s
ervi
ce p
rovi
der
,w
orkin
g gr
oup
(a c
oaliti
on o
fdev
elop
men
t age
nci
esop
erati
ng
in t
he
are
a).
Sel
ecti
on o
f are
a.
· Bio
-ph
ysic
al/
econ
omic
dia
gnos
tic
of a
rea.
· Dev
elop
men
t of
agr
oen
terp
rise
gro
ups.
· Pro
filin
g of
ben
efic
iary
gro
ups
an
d r
isk a
naly
sis.
· Pla
n o
f act
ion
.· S
yste
m f
or m
onit
orin
g, e
valu
ati
on,
an
d l
earn
ing.
· Pilot
en
terp
rise
rou
nd
to
gain
in
hou
se s
kills
.·
2 t
o3 m
onth
sE
valu
ati
ng
ass
ets
an
d s
kills
base
.· O
bta
inin
g co
nse
nsu
s on
wh
at
to d
o, a
nd
· how
an
d w
hen
to
do
it.
Org
an
izati
on a
nd c
oord
inati
on o
f act
ivit
ies
· am
ong
act
ors.
Pilo
t op
tion
ba
sed
on
exi
stin
g p
rod
uct
s.· e
na
ble
s p
art
ner
s a
nd
clien
ts t
o b
uild
sk
ills
.
·1 t
o·
Iden
tify
ing
mark
etop
por
tun
itie
s.Part
icip
an
ts f
rom
SP
an
d e
nte
rpri
se g
rou
p.
Rapid
stu
dy
of m
ark
ets
(loc
al
an
d n
ati
onal).
Ch
ara
cter
izati
on o
f m
ark
et o
pti
ons.
· Part
icip
ato
ry s
elec
tion
of
mark
etin
g op
tion
s.·
4 m
onth
sE
valu
ate
div
ersi
fied
pro
du
ct o
pti
ons.
Est
ablish
rel
ati
onsh
ips
wit
h m
ark
et a
ctor
s.·
Mark
et c
hain
an
aly
sis
an
d b
usi
nes
s pla
nn
ing.
Wor
kin
g gr
oup.
ente
rpri
se g
rou
ps,
an
dpri
vate
sec
tor.
Det
ailed
part
icip
ato
ry m
ark
et c
hain
an
aly
sis.
· Eva
luati
on o
f cr
itic
al
poi
nts
in
mark
et c
hain
.· D
evel
opm
ent
of b
usi
nes
s pla
n f
or e
nte
rpri
se.
·2 t
o4 m
onth
sE
valu
ate
sel
ecte
d m
ark
et c
hain
in
det
ail
· an
d d
evel
op a
bu
sin
ess
pla
n f
or i
nve
stm
ent.
Inve
stm
ent
an
dim
ple
men
tati
on o
f n
ewen
terp
rise
.
En
terp
rise
gro
ups
an
dpri
vate
sec
tor.
Est
ablish
men
t of
bu
sin
ess
(pilot
pro
ject
).· F
ine
tun
ing
of b
usi
nes
s.· S
ale
s of
pro
du
ct a
nd c
ost:
ben
efit
an
aly
sis.
·2 t
o4 m
onth
sD
evel
opm
ent
of t
he
inte
grate
d p
rodu
ctio
n· p
roje
ct t
o im
pro
ve t
he
chain
’s o
per
ati
on.
Eva
luati
ng
an
dst
ren
gth
enin
g key
BD
Sin
are
a.
Ser
vice
pro
vider
s an
dpri
vate
sec
tor
Eva
luati
on o
f lo
cal
suppor
t se
rvic
es.
· An
aly
sis
of c
riti
cal
gaps.
· Str
engt
hen
BD
S t
o su
ppor
t on
goin
g en
terp
rise
s.·
3 t
o4 m
onth
sIm
pro
ve B
DS
ser
vice
s in
th
e are
a.
· Base
d o
n d
eman
d,
esta
blish
men
t of
new
· BD
S.
Sca
lin
g u
p.
Ser
vice
pro
vider
s an
dpri
vate
sec
tor.
Des
ign
up-s
calin
g appro
ach
an
d i
mple
men
t.·
1 t
o4 y
ears
Dev
elop
an
d i
mple
men
t u
psc
alin
g op
tion
s.·
Pol
icy
an
d a
dvo
cacy
(sp
ecia
lize
d)
Ser
vice
pro
vider
s an
dlo
cal
adm
inis
trati
on.
Ass
essm
ent
of c
urr
ent
mark
et/tr
ade
pol
icy.
· Eva
luate
eff
ects
of
new
tra
de
pol
icy
opti
ons.
· Advo
cate
for
pro
-poo
r pol
icy
opti
ons.
·3 t
o5 y
ears
Op
tion
al
rese
arc
h t
o ev
alu
ate
lon
g-te
rm· c
ha
llen
ges
such
as
ma
rket
acc
ess,
ma
rket
pow
er,
cha
in e
quit
y,
gen
der
, a
nd
dec
lin
ing
pri
ces.
51
Appendices
APPENDIX 2
Checklist for Developing aPilot Agroenterprise Project
The lead agency and partners to undertake the following tasks:
The lead agency selects a partner organization interested in the process
· The partner organization nominates a market facilitator (a person who will take the farmer group through theprocess). In some cases the management team will also have market facilitators.
· The market facilitator reads the guide on market facilitation.
· The lead agency and market facilitator undertakes a mini-reconnaissance survey of the area and evaluates thefarmer group, as described in this guide.
The market facilitator selects a farmer group
· Using participatory tools, the market facilitator evaluates the internal organizational strengths of the farmergroup.
· S/he selects a crop product that is of short duration and grown by most of the farmers as a cash crop.
· S/he works with the farmer group to improve internal coordination: Sets up positions in the group if this is notclear, initiates record keeping, and organizes a marketing committee.
· They discuss options for collective action.
The market facilitator conducts a rapid market evaluation
· The market facilitator organizes a farmer marketing representative from the farmer group to undertake a seriesof visits to potential markets for the selected product.
· Potential markets may include local market, local shops, next largest market at a more distant location,traveling traders, and hotels and restaurants.
· This team should interview market traders to determine product prices, volumes they receive (per week/month), and buying conditions (minimum lot, quality, time of sale, repeat sales requirements). This interviewprocess should be done with a range of buyers at the local market.
· The information should be summarized to report back to the farmer group(s) so that decisions can be made onwhat to invest into for the collective marketing.
Market facilitator develops a simple business plan with the farmers
· The market facilitator will lead a visioning process with the support of the marketing committee members toestablish a simple business plan.
· This will include what to grow, when to plant and harvest, and who to see.
· The key issues for the plan will be to outline the key points of production to sales, including preplantingrequirements, production, harvesting, post harvest issues, marketing, sales, and follow up.
· The group should develop ideas on collective marketing.
· Market facilitator should read guide on collective marketing to gain further information on group formation andselling produce collectively.
52
A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...
Tra
nsi
tion
al
Exit
Str
ate
gy w
ith
a 5
-to 1
0-y
ear
Tim
efr
am
eTim
ea
6 m
onth
s1–2
yea
rs2–5
yea
rs6–7
yea
rs8–1
0 y
ears
Lea
d s
ervi
ceG
ain
in
-hou
seE
stablish
a M
&E
Foc
us
on s
calin
g u
p t
hro
ugh
Eva
luate
loc
al
BD
S o
pti
ons
Foc
us
on b
road-b
ase
d·
··
·pro
vider
com
pet
ence
.pro
cedu
re.
inte
rest
gro
up p
art
ner
s.fo
r st
ren
gth
enin
g.se
rvic
e pro
visi
on s
uch
as
Init
iate
in
tere
stPro
vide
train
ing
to o
ther
Lin
k f
arm
ers
to B
DS
fin
an
ce a
nd m
ark
et·
··
grou
p.
part
ner
s th
rou
gh a
lea
rnin
gpro
vider
s.in
form
ati
on.
allia
nce
pro
cess
, i.e.
,Lin
k f
arm
ers
to o
ther
Init
iate
wor
k r
elate
d t
o·
·in
crem
enta
l le
arn
ing.
hig
her
ord
er e
ntr
epre
neu
rs.
pol
icy
an
aly
sis
an
dIn
itia
te p
roce
ss o
f w
orkin
gIn
itia
te w
ork o
n p
olic
yadvo
cacy
.·
·w
ith
BD
S p
rovi
der
s.an
aly
sis
an
d r
efor
m.
Farm
erF
arm
ers
orga
niz
eS
tart
savi
ngs
Farm
ers
focu
s on
new
pro
du
cts
Lin
k w
ith
oth
er f
arm
erPay
for
serv
ices
to
suppor
t·
··
··
grou
ps
into
a m
ark
etin
gsc
hem
e.S
tren
gth
en r
ecor
d k
eepin
g fo
rgr
oups
for
sele
cted
pro
du
cts.
grow
th i
n p
rodu
ct s
ale
s.·
grou
p.
Intr
odu
ce M
&E
fin
an
ce a
nd m
onit
orin
g.S
tart
pro
cess
of
ass
ocia
tion
Lin
k w
ith
or
dev
elop
··
·S
tart
en
terp
rise
pro
cess
.E
xper
imen
t w
ith
in s
elec
ted
bu
ildin
g.lim
ited
com
pan
y·
·cy
cle
wit
h a
pilot
Exp
an
dm
ark
et c
hain
to
impro
veass
ocia
tion
s fo
r·
pro
ject
.en
terp
rise
s.en
terp
rise
.co
mm
erci
al
sale
s.
Part
ner
sO
bse
rve
firs
tE
nte
r le
arn
ing
Sca
le u
p p
roce
ss w
ith
new
Wor
k w
ith
BD
S g
rou
ps.
Take
on m
ore
spec
ialize
d·
·en
terp
rise
cyc
le.
allia
nce
pro
gram
.fa
rmer
gro
ups
an
d t
hei
rLin
k t
o sp
ecia
lize
dro
le w
ith
in t
he
agr
icu
ltu
ral
·part
ner
s.in
nov
ati
on p
art
ner
s.se
ctor
.In
trod
uce
exp
erim
ents
to
· acc
eler
ate
in
nov
ati
on.
Res
earc
her
sW
ork w
ith
farm
er g
rou
ps
an
d S
Ps
toW
ork w
ith
loc
al
serv
ice
Wor
k w
ith
loc
al
SPs
to s
cale
Con
tin
ue
pro
cess
of
··
·id
enti
fy n
ew m
ark
ets.
pro
vider
s to
sca
le u
p l
ocal
up l
ocal
abilit
y to
pro
vide
intr
odu
cin
g n
ewW
ork o
n t
ech
nol
ogy
inn
ovati
on t
oabilit
y to
pro
vide
succ
essf
ul
succ
essf
ul
tech
nol
ogie
s.in
nov
ati
ons
into
th
e sy
stem
.· s
uppor
t se
lect
ed m
ark
et c
hain
s.te
chn
olog
ies.
Spec
ialize
in
cer
tain
·W
ork w
ith
hig
her
ord
er t
rader
ste
chn
olog
ies
an
d s
ocia
l· a
nd p
roce
ssor
s to
in
crea
seor
gan
izati
on p
roce
sses
.pro
spec
ts o
f sc
alin
g u
p a
nd
valu
e agg
rega
tion
.
BD
S p
art
ner
sW
ork w
ith
farm
er g
rou
ps
toD
evel
op p
aym
ent
pro
cess
esS
pec
ialize
d l
ocal
SPs
iden
tify
mos
t cr
itic
al
serv
ices
to s
ust
ain
loc
al
suppor
tem
erge
.lin
ked
wit
h s
elec
ted a
nd
serv
ices
.su
cces
sfu
l m
ark
et c
hain
s.
Hig
her
ord
erLin
k n
ew l
evel
mark
et-c
hain
Pri
mary
pro
cess
ing
New
mark
ets
dev
elop
,·
·en
trep
ren
eurs
pla
yers
wit
h s
ucc
essf
ul
pu
shed
back
to
rura
l are
as.
base
d o
n m
ark
etfa
rmer
gro
ups
to s
tren
gth
enId
enti
fy n
ew p
roce
ssin
gin
tellig
ence
an
d t
ech
nol
ogy
·m
ark
et l
inks.
oppor
tun
itie
s to
lin
k w
ith
scou
tin
g an
d a
pplica
tion
.Lin
k w
ith
res
earc
h t
o m
ake
farm
er-p
roce
ssor
gro
ups.
· new
tec
hn
olog
ies
ava
ilable
.
a.
B
DS
= b
usi
nes
s dev
elop
men
t se
rvic
es;
M&
E =
mon
itor
ing
an
d e
valu
ati
on;
SP =
ser
vice
pro
vider
.
APPE
ND
IX 3
53
Appendices
Bibliography
Chambers, R.; Conway, G. 1992. Sustainable rurallivelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21stCentury. IDS Discussion Paper, no. 296.Institute of Development Studies (IDS),Brighton, United Kingdom. 29 p.
Dart, J. 1999a. A story approach for monitoringchange in an agricultural extension project.In: Annual Conference of the Association forQualitative Research. Issues of Rigour inQualitative Research [on line]. University ofMelbourne, Australia. Available at:www.latrobe.edu.au/aqr/offer/papers/JDart.htm
Dart, J. 1999b. Storytelling to help practitionersmake sense of their program’s impact. In:Australasian Evaluation Society InternationalConference. Proceedings of AustralasianEvaluation Society International Conference.Australasian Evaluation Society Inc., Perth,Australia.
Dart, J. 2000. Stories for change: A systematicapproach to participatory monitoring. In: FifthWorld Congress on Action Learning, ActionResearch and Process Management.Reconciliation and Renewal—ThroughCollaborative Learning, Research and Action.The Action Learning, Action Research andProcess Management Association (ALARPM),Ballarat, Australia.
Davies, R.J. 1996. An evolutionary approach tofacilitating organisational learning: Anexperiment by the Christian Commission forDevelopment in Bangladesh [on line]. Centrefor Development Studies, Swansea. Availableat: www.swan.ac.uk/cds/rd/ccdb.htm
DFID (Department for International Development),Natural Resources Department. 1998.Research and the sustainable rural livelihoodsapproach. In: Carney, D. Sustainable rurallivelihoods: What contributions can we make?London, United Kingdom. p. 131-137.
Fairbanks, M.; Lindsay, S. 1997. Plowing the sea:Nurturing the hidden sources of growth in thedeveloping world. Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, USA.
Gottret, V. 2000. Guía de primera visita a campo. In:II Curso Internacional: Promoción de laAgroempresa Rural para el DesarrolloMicroregional Sostenible. Centro Internacionalde Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Aframework for analysis. Working Paper no. 72.Institute of Development Studies (IDS),Brighton, United Kingdom.
Smith, M.K. 2001. Chris Argyris: Theories of action,double-loop learning and organizationallearning [on line]. The encyclopedia of informaleducation [on line]. The Informal EducationHomepage (Infed), London, United Kingdom.Available at: www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm
About the Partners
ASARECA FOODNET (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa)FOODNET is ASARECA’s post harvest and market research network for East and Central Africa. The network was establishedin 1999 and focuses on market analysis studies, market information, agroenterprise development, and related businessdevelopment support services. FOODNET works in collaborative partnerships with research and development partnersfrom the public and private sector.
CARECARE International is a global humanitarian organization working with over 45 million people in 70 of the world’s poorestcountries. CARE tackles underlying causes of poverty so that people can become self-sufficient. Recognizing that womenand children suffer disproportionately from poverty, CARE places special emphasis on working with women to createpermanent social change. Women are at the heart of CARE’s community based efforts to improve basic education, preventthe spread of HIV, increase access to clean water and sanitation, expand economic opportunity and protect naturalresources. CARE also delivers emergency aid to survivors of war and natural disasters, and helps people rebuild theirlives.
CIPASLACipasla, an inter-institutional consortium that fosters sustainable agriculture in hillsides, was founded in 1993 and isbased in Pescador, a village in northern Cauca department, located in south-western Colombia. In its first phase Cipaslaincluded twelve public and private agencies and its structure involved a support committee consisting of communityrepresentatives. Cipasla’s agenda encompasses community organization, environmental education, soil and waterconservation, integrated crop management, marketing and agro-industry. Several CIAT projects have been implementedresearch activities in this region which is considered as a pilot site.
CorpotuníaCorpotunía, a local rural development NGO, was founded in 1986 by community leaders and development NGOs andoperates in the Cauca Department, located in south-western Colombia. Corpotunía executes development projects fundedby the Colombian government and international donors. It is a member of a research and development network in whichCIAT also participates, and makes use of participatory methods and tools with a business and market orientation, developedby CIAT’s Rural Agroenterprise Development Project.
CLODESTCLODEST is a local inter-institutional committee that promotes sustainable development agriculture in the pilot region ofYorito-Sulaco, in north-central Honduras. This region includes plains and hillsides. CLODEST members include farmerassociations, development NGOs and CIAT. CLODEST conducts activities around community organizations, environmentaleducation, soil and water conservation, integrated crop management, marketing and agro industry. Several CIAT projectshave implemented research activities in this region, which is considered as a pilot or reference site in Central America.
Catholic Relief ServicesCatholic Relief Services was founded in 1943 by the Catholic Bishops of the United States. Their mission is to assist thepoor and disadvantaged and promote development of all people and to foster charity and justice throughout the world.CRS operates on 5 continents and in over 90 countries. CRS aids the poor by first providing direct assistance thenencouraging these people to help with their own development.
SNVSNV is a Netherlands-based international development organization that provides advisory services to nearly 1800 localorganizations in over 30 developing countries to support their fight against poverty. SNV is dedicated to a society where allpeople enjoy the freedom to pursue their own sustainable development. SNV works with organizations that operate atdistrict and provincial level and function as linking pins between national policies and frameworks and the people living intowns and communities. Its clients include private, governmental and civil society organizations.
About the Donors
CIDACanadian International Development Agency’s mandate is to support sustainable development in developing countries toreduce poverty and contribute to a more secure, equitable, and prosperous world. The Agency’s work is concentrated inthe poorest countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. CIDA’s program is based on the Millennium Development Goals,to which it contributes through four key areas: social development, economic well-being, protection, conservation, andmanagement of the environment and governance.
DFIDThe Department for International Development (DFID) is the part of the UK Government that manages Britain’s aid to poorcountries and works to reduce extreme poverty. DFID’s work aims to bring people out of poverty through programs thatsettle conflicts, increase trade and improve health and education.
GTZThe work of the German Technical Agency, GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) providesinternational cooperation for sustainable development. GTZ operates on a worldwide basis, provides viable, forward-looking solutions for political, economic, ecological and social development in a globalized world. GTZ supports complexreforms and change processes. All activities are geared to improving people’s living conditions and prospects on a sustainablebasis.
IDRCThe International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is a public corporation created by the Parliament of Canada in1970 to help developing countries use science and technology to find practical, long-term solutions to the social, economic,and environmental problems they face. Support is directed toward developing an indigenous research capacity to sustainpolicies and technologies that developing countries need to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies.
NZAIDNZAID is the Government’s International Aid and Development Agency. NZAID places a high priority on building strongpartnerships and concentrates its development assistance on activities that contribute to poverty elimination by creatingsafe, just and inclusive societies, fulfilling basic needs, and achieving environmental sustainability and sustainablelivelihoods. NZAID supports projects in the Pacific region, Asia, Africa and Latin America.
SDCThe Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) is organized and funded by the Swiss government and operatesby financing programs both directly and in partnership with other agencies to countries around the world.
USAIDThe United States Agency for International Development is an independent federal government agency that aims to furtherAmerica’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of thedeveloping world. USAID supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances U.S. foreign policy objectivesby supporting: economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health; and, democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarianassistance.
228 W. Lexington Street Baltimore, MD 21201-3413 USATel: 410.625.2220 • www.crs.org ISBN 0-945356-43-9