Скачать презентацию Process Documentation and its future use within the Скачать презентацию Process Documentation and its future use within the

5124084f634abc65b4498f9e4cbb0475.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 185

Process Documentation and its future use within the Community -Based Fisheries Management Project CBFM-2 Process Documentation and its future use within the Community -Based Fisheries Management Project CBFM-2 Roger Lewins Dhaka 2003

Presentation Outline…. Explaining PD… 1. the concept - “what is process? ” 2. its Presentation Outline…. Explaining PD… 1. the concept - “what is process? ” 2. its development - early experiences & examples 3. lessons learned PD in the context of CBFM-2… 4. “where are the processes? ” 5. stakeholders, indicators, methods 6. analysing and interpreting feedback 7. drawing from discussion. . . guidelines for PD in CBFM-2

Part 1. What is “Process” ? Part 1. What is “Process” ?

What is “Process” ? Definition 1. Policies, Institutions and Processes and Sustainable Livelihoods The What is “Process” ? Definition 1. Policies, Institutions and Processes and Sustainable Livelihoods The famous PIPs provide the environment that shapes livelihoods In reality PIPs merge. . • policy is shaped by institutions such as culture • local access rights are both institutions and processes

What is “Process” ? Definition 1. Policies, Institutions and Processes and Sustainable Livelihoods “If What is “Process” ? Definition 1. Policies, Institutions and Processes and Sustainable Livelihoods “If structures (organisations etc. ) can be thought of as hardware, then processes can be thought of as software” SL Guidance Sheets The way things get done …everyday procedure

What is “Process” ? Definition 2. Processes within Development Projects “Processes” are actions that What is “Process” ? Definition 2. Processes within Development Projects “Processes” are actions that go to produce “outcomes” in projects. …activities (formal) and the way things get done (informal)

What is “Process” ? Definition 2. Processes within Development Projects In an ideal world. What is “Process” ? Definition 2. Processes within Development Projects In an ideal world. . . Intended Processes Intended Outcomes • regular community/staff dialogue • new management institutions • awareness building • environmental sustainability • inclusion of women • social development

Processes within Development Projects However…. . project processes become more than agreed activities. . Processes within Development Projects However…. . project processes become more than agreed activities. . . Intended Actual Processes Outcomes (activities) Changing interpretations Extra interventions Skill differences Revised expectations

Processes within Development Projects Unforeseen access issues Extra interventions Skill differences Revised expectations Changing Processes within Development Projects Unforeseen access issues Extra interventions Skill differences Revised expectations Changing interpretations Conflict resolution (new+old) Distractions - unrelated demands

Processes within Development Projects Extra interventions Skill differences Between sites Between activities & staff Processes within Development Projects Extra interventions Skill differences Between sites Between activities & staff Across implementation phases Revised expectations Changing interpretations

Processes within Development Projects Extra interventions Skill differences Greater local knowledge Revised expectations Unforeseen Processes within Development Projects Extra interventions Skill differences Greater local knowledge Revised expectations Unforeseen obstacles Unforeseen opportunities Changing interpretations

Processes within Development Projects Extra interventions Skill differences Revised expectations Changing interpretations Site-specific project Processes within Development Projects Extra interventions Skill differences Revised expectations Changing interpretations Site-specific project “institutions” Prioritisation of activities The “reading” of project objectives

Processes within Development Projects Two types of process. . . FORMAL INFORMAL Project-ascribed activities Processes within Development Projects Two types of process. . . FORMAL INFORMAL Project-ascribed activities & procedure Evolved project activities & procedure design of participation & CBOs staff/community interaction set of technical options learning & habit-forming design of staff reporting prioritisation of reporting

Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Donors National Mo. L Do. F Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Donors National Mo. L Do. F Upazilla Officials Project Staff HQ Interface Union Officials Project Field Staff Local Project Targets Nontargets

Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Donors Relevance at the national policy Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Donors Relevance at the national policy level. . . Mo. L Do. F Project Staff HQ • can donors create a better environment for integrated management? • what co-management relationships work well? • can (should) government change its emphasis?

Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales New interest in relevance of existing Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales New interest in relevance of existing formal institutions. . . Project Field Staff Upazilla Officials Union Officials • does the project work with or against wishes of local government? • can local government take forward some project tasks, or. . • are new institutions required?

Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales A focus of previous research projects. Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales A focus of previous research projects. . . Project Field Staff Project Targets Nontargets • impacts on non-targets • function and character of staff/community relations • potential sustainability for co-management

Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Other reasons to study this level. Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Other reasons to study this level. . . interface between project & community Project Field Staff Project Targets Nontargets • project CBOs are here…. . voice & input? • need to monitor formal structures and processes • need to monitor actual interaction • where dialogue and action cross over

Processes within Development Projects Donors National Policies Mo. L Do. F Upazilla Officials Project Processes within Development Projects Donors National Policies Mo. L Do. F Upazilla Officials Project Staff HQ Institutions Interface Union Officials Project Field Staff Processes Local Project Targets Nontargets

Processes within Development Projects Outcomes are usually monitored…. why monitor process? It helps. . Processes within Development Projects Outcomes are usually monitored…. why monitor process? It helps. . . • explain differences between sites • identify good and poor practice • reveal externalities (unrecorded impacts) • uncover strengths and weaknesses of project approach • detect problems before they worsen • detect new opportunities • highlight the effectiveness of project institutions • capture learning process for knowledge sharing

Processes within Development Projects Outcomes are usually monitored…. why monitor process? Projects are complicated Processes within Development Projects Outcomes are usually monitored…. why monitor process? Projects are complicated on paper and become more so. . . • human & unpredictable systems • stakeholders & agenda widen • evolve differently in each setting • may diverge from envisioned design

Processes within Development Projects Discrepancies between plans and practice “The cow is in the Processes within Development Projects Discrepancies between plans and practice “The cow is in the book - but not in the shed!” Bangladeshi proverb

Part 2. Development of PD early experiences & examples Part 2. Development of PD early experiences & examples

PD used within 2 LWI projects Methods for Consensus Building for Management of CPRs PD used within 2 LWI projects Methods for Consensus Building for Management of CPRs To document the PAPD methodology at 3 sites Case Study 1 To evaluate processes in 3 distinct projects work in progress… Institutions project To review processes across a range of projects Case Study 2

Case Study 1 Process Documenatation of the PAPD method for Consensus Building • to Case Study 1 Process Documenatation of the PAPD method for Consensus Building • to independently assess the PAPD workshops • to help identify strengths, limits & prospects • to test a process documentation methodology

Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . Good Consensus Building approaches should Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . Good Consensus Building approaches should demonstrate: • Shared and common purpose • Full participation • Perceived as fair • Create a mutual understanding of goals • Informs, engages and interests participants • Provide inclusive solutions • Encourage challenges to the status quo • Be self-organising

Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . Shared and common purpose understanding, Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . Shared and common purpose understanding, participation & fairness Full participation Perceived as fair Create a mutual understanding of goals Informs, engages and interests participants Provide inclusive solutions Increased awareness & changing relations Encourage challenges to the status quo Be self-organising

Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . Process understanding, participation & fairness Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . Process understanding, participation & fairness Outcomes increased awareness & changing relations mid-course Consensus end-of-workshop

Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . 1. Shared and common purpose Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . 1. Shared and common purpose 2. Full participation 3. Perceived as fair understanding, participation & fairness 4. Create a mutual understanding of goals 5. Informs, engages and interests participants 6. Provide inclusive solutions increased Indicators 1 - 4 for mid-course evaluation awareness & changing relations 7. Encourage challenges to the status quo 8. Be self-organising

Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . 1. Shared and common purpose Using indicators to break up the evaluation. . . 1. Shared and common purpose 2. Full participation 3. Perceived as fair understanding, participation & fairness Indicators 1 -8 for 4. Create a mutual understanding of goals end-of-workshop evaluation 5. Informs, engages and interests participants 6. Provide inclusive solutions 7. Encourage challenges to the status quo 8. Be self-organising increased awareness & changing relations

Consulting the relevant stakeholders 3 Survey Target Groups at the each site: • Facilitators Consulting the relevant stakeholders 3 Survey Target Groups at the each site: • Facilitators (midcourse and end-of-workshop) feedback on workshop (problems, unusual directions, unexpected discoveries etc. ) • Participants from each stakeholder group (end-of-workshop) feedback on perceived relevance, problems & level of understanding • Neighbours of participants (end-of-workshop) feedback on level of understanding throughout the community - the “spread effect”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Indicators help develop. . . 1. ) Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Indicators help develop. . . 1. ) Areas for discussion for semi-structured interviews • for smaller numbers of key informants • generally for qualitative information Good discussion is based on open questions…. . How…. ? Why…. ? What…. ? Provide us with contextual information and overview of important background issues

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Indicators help develop. . . 2. ) Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Indicators help develop. . . 2. ) Types of question for questionnaires • for larger numbers of similar respondents • for more quantifiable information Ensure responses can be tallied Can reveal differing perspectives between stakeholder groups and trends

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Questions to Facilitators Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Questions to Facilitators

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators Checklist for Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators Checklist for semi-structured interviews 1. Shared and common purpose • “ How do participants understand the purpose of workshop? ” • “Are any participants confused by any activities? ” • “How do participants understand relevance of activities? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide semi-structured interviews 2. Full participation • “Do all participants contribute to the workshop? ” • “Do some contribute too much? ” • “Any differences in participation between stakeholder groups? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide semi-structured interviews 3. Perceived as fair • “Any participants annoyed by behaviour of others or format? ” • “How well has workshop represented opinions within groups? ” • “Any complaints about direction or activities of workshop? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide Using indicators to form lines of enquiry mid-course evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide semi-structured interviews 4. Create a mutual understanding of goals • “How has level of understanding increased within groups? ” • “How could level of understanding been further increased? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide semi-structured interviews Indicators 1 -8 5. Informs, engages and interests participants • “Did activities keep participants’ interest? ” • “What did participants learn? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide semi-structured interviews Indicators 1 -8 6. Provide inclusive solutions • “Did 2 nd plenary focus on issues for all or few stakeholders? ” • “Did some groups feature more strongly than others? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide semi-structured interviews Indicators 1 -8 7. Encourage challenges to the status quo • “How will the workshop lead to new ways of doing things? ” • “Will this lead to new relations & support between groups? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators to guide semi-structured interviews Indicators 1 -8 8. Be self-organising • “Did the workshop develop as expected, or were you surprised? ” • “How active were participants in guiding direction of discussion? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Questions to Participants Using indicators to form lines of enquiry Questions to Participants

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 1. Shared and common purpose • “What do you think was the purpose of workshop? ” • “Were the activities relevant? ” • “Was anything confusing? ” • “Do you think the workshop was a success? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 2. Full participation • “Could you communicate your opinion sufficiently? ” • “Did some groups add more than others? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 3. Perceived as fair • “Did the workshop represent the diversity of interests? ” • “How fair was the workshop? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 4. Create a mutual understanding of goals • “Have you learned about other groups & their needs? ” • “Have you learned about other people like you? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 5. Informs, engages and interests participants • “Was the workshop interesting? ” • “Were any of the activities irrelevant to you? ” • “What did you learn new & interesting? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 6. Provide inclusive solutions • “Did discussions & plans address your issues? ” • “Did discussions & plans address just some stakeholders? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 7. Encourage challenges to the status quo • “How will the workshop lead to new ways of doing things? ” • “Will there be new relations and support between some? ”

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Using indicators to form lines of enquiry end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants For questionnaire Indicators 1 -8 8. Be self-organising • “Were the participants able to choose issues for discussion? ” • “Will people hold meetings like this in future? ”

Questions to Neighbours Focus on outcomes rather than process. . . 1. Does the Questions to Neighbours Focus on outcomes rather than process. . . 1. Does the household know anything about the workshops? 2. What do you understand was the purpose? 3. What do you understand were the activities? 4. Aware of those represented? 5. How do you know about the workshops? 6. Did your informant find the workshops useful? 7. What did they find useful/ not useful? 8. Do the workshops sound useful to you?

Facilitator Feedback Facilitator Feedback

Facilitator Feedback - mid-course evaluation Posna site / CNRS staff • some loss of Facilitator Feedback - mid-course evaluation Posna site / CNRS staff • some loss of interest during planning workshop (more materials? ) • richer groups dominate but not perceived as unfair by others Kathuria site / Banchte Sheka staff • good level of understanding • “educated” groups contributed most Diksi site / ICLARM staff • poor level of understanding but increasing • participants distracted (numerous “smoking breaks”)

Facilitator Feedback - end-of-workshop evaluation Posna site / CNRS staff • surprise at unprompted Facilitator Feedback - end-of-workshop evaluation Posna site / CNRS staff • surprise at unprompted discussion & full representation • UP attempted to direct discussion - exposure to UP useful Kathuria site / Banchte Sheka staff • unexpected connections (health/sanitation/water quality) • mutual concerns were identified and exposure to UP beneficial Diksi site / ICLARM staff • women’s understanding increased, particularly • increased awareness of local relevance of institutions

Participant Feedback Participant Feedback

Participants’ perceived input to PAPD by stakeholder group “Did some groups add more to Participants’ perceived input to PAPD by stakeholder group “Did some groups add more to the workshop? ” Posna Kathuria Diksi Fishers 4 8 9 Farmers 4 5 5 Elite / educated 4 4 1 Poor 1 - - Women - - 1 Stakeholder Summary • a better balance at Posna • a distinct fisher bias may reflect expertise of facilitators

Participants’ perceived relevance to stakeholder groups “ 2 nd plenary discussion favoured which groups? Participants’ perceived relevance to stakeholder groups “ 2 nd plenary discussion favoured which groups? ” Posna Kathuria Diksi Fishers 4 8 8 Farmers 2 7 4 All stakeholders 6 4 2 Poor - - 2 Women - - - Stakeholder Summary • most considered fishers & farmers the beneficiaries • 25% considered all participants as the beneficiaries • are Posna staff more skilled or were issues identified broader?

Participants’ perception of value of workshops “The best thing about the workshops? ” Posna Participants’ perception of value of workshops “The best thing about the workshops? ” Posna Kathuria Diksi reaching agreement 8 1 4 joint discussion 3 6 8 audience with elite & foreigners - 2 2 discussion of natural resources 1 - - meals - - 1 Summary • agreement was most appreciated where action plans were advanced • otherwise, the act of discussion was valued higher

Neighbour Feedback Neighbour Feedback

Neighbours’ understanding of workshops Neighbour knowledge of workshop process & aims • discussion 37% Neighbours’ understanding of workshops Neighbour knowledge of workshop process & aims • discussion 37% • problem-solving 33% 25% • farmers “What groups were represented? ” • meals / payments • don’t know “What were the activities of the workshop? ” 50% 92% • fishers 79% • women 71% • landless 25% • elite 25% • kua owners 8% • NGOs 4%

Neighbours’ understanding of workshops Source of information & neighbour attitude to workshops • participating Neighbours’ understanding of workshops Source of information & neighbour attitude to workshops • participating neighbour Neighbour attitudes • friends 33% • relatives 17% • workshop organisers “Who told you about the workshop? ” 42% 8% • 88% thought the workshops useful • 12% were uninterested in participation (misinformation - “I am already stocking”) Summary opinion varied between the 3 sites… • most appreciated where action plans were advanced • high level of understanding

Summarising data Posna Facilitators Some passive Kathuria Good understanding Diksi Some passive (farmers) Slight Summarising data Posna Facilitators Some passive Kathuria Good understanding Diksi Some passive (farmers) Slight boredom (PC) Seen as fair by facilitator Participants inclusive new relations Agreement valued favour fishers new relations potential new relations Discussion valued Stakeholder groups known & keen to participate Neighbours Has created consensus Has/may create consensus May create consensus

The methodology in retrospect Suitability of indicators? • Shared and common purpose • Full The methodology in retrospect Suitability of indicators? • Shared and common purpose • Full participation Derived from developed world examples • Perceived as fair • Create a mutual understanding of goals • Informs, engages and interests participants • Provide inclusive solutions • Encourage challenges to the status quo Challenge existing rural“institutions”? • Be self-organising PAPD needs to be directed • Identifies a collective goal (action plan)

The methodology in retrospect Timing & Coverage • Facilitator survey • important to gauge The methodology in retrospect Timing & Coverage • Facilitator survey • important to gauge opinion at mid-course and end-of-workshop • key facilitators targeted • Participant survey / • 4 respondents x 4 stakeholder groups • mid-course interview may have interfered with PAPD / • Neighbour survey • only 8 neighbours per site consulted • the workshops occurred in short period (travel time a factor) /

The methodology in retrospect Tallying, interpreting & presentation of data • Facilitator • Participant The methodology in retrospect Tallying, interpreting & presentation of data • Facilitator • Participant • Neighbour interviews provides local context …. helps interpret other data questionnaire allowed one word response for easy tallying (or clumping together)…. . small sample size means percentages less significant but. . . - the range of feedback did help build a picture

Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Case Study 2 Project goal - better Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Case Study 2 Project goal - better knowledge of factors for success or failure of IFM projects The role of PD - to document local processes that might affect performance • formal processes • informal processes

Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Formal processes The procedures in which the Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Formal processes The procedures in which the range of project stakeholders are supposed to interact. • how projects intend to interact with targets • how projects intend to interact with local government …. especially operation of structures (resource user committees or management groups) but also planned meetings and workshops

Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Informal processes The factors that influence the Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Informal processes The factors that influence the way things really work. • The character of relationships between staff and targets • The degree of local support for project activities (target, non -targets and local government) • Local “institutions” that can impact projects (power relations, access rights, traditional gender roles) …. again, informal processes within resource user group and committees will be key to their performance

Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Two forms of indicators. . . 1. Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects Two forms of indicators. . . 1. Community-Identified Indicators & 2. General Indicators of Good (Development) Practice

Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects 1. Community-Identified Indicators FGDs held with different Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects 1. Community-Identified Indicators FGDs held with different stakeholder groups at IFM project sites Discussed IFM institutions and good practise Male and female groups ranked important attributes Clumped indicator types and commonalities with general indicators

Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects 2. General Indicators of Good (Development) Practice Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management Projects 2. General Indicators of Good (Development) Practice Collect general indicators for good management institutions …particularly donor & academic indicators for functioning of CBOs Clump indicator types and commonalities with community indicators

1. Community-Identified Indicators Success criteria ranked into broader categories…. Male criteria 1. Honesty 2. 1. Community-Identified Indicators Success criteria ranked into broader categories…. Male criteria 1. Honesty 2. Punctuality Male & Female criteria combined 3. Harmony 4. Good judgement 5. Adaptable 6. Acknowledge poor Female criteria 1. Social education 2. Unity 3. Leadership for poor 4. Flexibility 5. Regular meetings 1. Unity / harmony 2. Honest / unselfish leaders 3. Good adaptable decision-making 4. Attention to poor 5. Delivery 6. Regular meetings

2. General Indicators of Good Practice Success criteria ranked into broader categories…. Commonly quoted 2. General Indicators of Good Practice Success criteria ranked into broader categories…. Commonly quoted criteria participation However…. criteria inter-related. transparency in decision-making perceived fairness equality sustainability representation For example, fairness participation representation sustainability? Clumping gives these categories…. 1. participation / equality / representation 2. transparency / fairness. . . leading to 3. sustainability?

Consulting the relevant stakeholders 4 levels of activity interest us: 1. ) Local Project Consulting the relevant stakeholders 4 levels of activity interest us: 1. ) Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and trainers) 2. ) Project Community-Based Organisations (River Management Committees etc. ) 3. ) Other Participants (primary targets - involved fishers, women, etc) 4. ) Non-Participants (other primary stakeholders - non-target groups)

Evaluation Strategy 1. ) Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and trainers) Understand roles, responsibilities Evaluation Strategy 1. ) Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and trainers) Understand roles, responsibilities and interaction with other stakeholders Semi-structured interviews with 3 -4 staff at each site Checklist: Interaction with primary stakeholders & how often? Nature & purpose of this interaction? Which groups involved? How is status of project communicated?

Evaluation Strategy 2. ) Project Community-Based Organisations (River Management Committees etc. ) Understand roles, Evaluation Strategy 2. ) Project Community-Based Organisations (River Management Committees etc. ) Understand roles, responsibilities and interaction with other stakeholders Semi-structured interviews with 3 -4 CBO members at each site & questionnaire Checklist: Important power issues (conflict or consensus)? Discuss procedure of decision-making, election? Any improvements? Effectiveness of CBO & project?

Evaluation Strategy 3. ) & 4. ) Other Participants & Non-Participants “Checklist” questionnaire 4 Evaluation Strategy 3. ) & 4. ) Other Participants & Non-Participants “Checklist” questionnaire 4 or 5 respondents for each primary stakeholder group Questions related to community indicators. . unity Is the CBO agreed on purpose etc. ? honesty Does CBO represent community fairly? decision-making Does CBO always choose best way? attention to poor Which stakeholders benefit most? delivery How often does CBO enact decisions? frequency of interaction How do you interact with CBO?

Early feedback Piloting of Fieldwork The Oxbow Lakes Project. . . status of surviving Early feedback Piloting of Fieldwork The Oxbow Lakes Project. . . status of surviving project institutions in Jessore Building a “contextual” picture by consulting a range of stakeholders…. separately Project staff CBO members Non-participants Do. F personnel Lake management Group (male) & Female Fisher Groups other villagers

Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback we provide support there is Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback we provide support there is no conflict profits are enjoyed profitable activity male/female conflict Do. F provide little help some BRAC staff corrupt fixed membership baor threatened Fish Farmer Groups Do. F staff benefits not shared mastaan in Groups threat of violence Do. F cannot help Other villagers

Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Do. F staff ? ? Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Do. F staff ? ? ? Fish Farmer Groups Other villagers

Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Do. F staff reality Fish Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Do. F staff reality Fish Farmer Groups Other villagers

Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Combining & cross-referencing we provide Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Combining & cross-referencing we provide support there is no conflict profits are enjoyed profitable activity male/female conflict Do. F provide little help some BRAC staff corrupt fixed membership baor threatened benefits not shared mastaan in Groups threat of violence Do. F cannot help reality

Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Combining & cross-referencing • Stocking Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork Triangulation of Feedback Combining & cross-referencing • Stocking is profitable for the group • Benefits are concentrated • Membership is rarely transferred • Mastaan influence Group • Previous conflict with some BRAC staff • Conflict between male & female Groups • Do. F support limited • Other uses threaten baor

Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance Formal processes • Leaseholds for male and female ponds Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance Formal processes • Leaseholds for male and female ponds secured via Do. F • Do. F facilitate technical but routine meetings • No scope for Do. F to address or investigate power issues • BRAC involvement reduced since 1997 • Groups sought professional advice over NGO corruption • Group size is fixed by Do. F.

Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance Informal processes • Women’s ponds better respected by others Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance Informal processes • Women’s ponds better respected by others than before • Women’s families have special interest in status quo • Muslim mastaan use threat of violence to control Groups • Otherwise conflict within groups is low • Group members do not relinquish membership

Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance However…. analysis must be framed in context of the Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance However…. analysis must be framed in context of the project Support for OLP ended 1997 OLP tried to maximise catch OLP tried to create self-funded groups Project activities now institutionalised Production from stocked baor still high Male & female groups require minimal support

Part 3. Lessons Learned Part 3. Lessons Learned

Learning from the Consensus & Institutions Projects & Case Study 2 • ways to Learning from the Consensus & Institutions Projects & Case Study 2 • ways to frame discussion & questions Indicators for good practice provide. . . • a benchmark to gauge performance • knowledge of local processes Staff, CBO members & target groups provide. . . Feedback must be interpreted together. . Case Study 1 • status of project & design issues • triangulate interview responses • discuss project in context (aims, scope) Use interviews & questionnaires carefully. . . • identify themes not conclusive statements

Consulting the Range of Stakeholders Consensus project Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 Consulting the Range of Stakeholders Consensus project Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 Institutions Project 3 levels of consultation. . . Facilitators Project Staff Participants “Interface” CBO Members Non-participants (neighbours) Community Primary stakeholders (targets & non-target)

The significance of the “Interface” Consensus project Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 The significance of the “Interface” Consensus project Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 Institutions Project Interface important level for co-management… discussion action Interface = Participants Interface = CBO members Communicated concept of PAPD to community Capacity to communicate project role to community? Communicated concerns to project staff Ability to represent diverse interests? but interface has diverse interests. . Ability to reach consensus? … survey revealed differences between stakeholder groups Ability to shape project? …life-span of CBO?

The Importance of Context Difficult (unfair) to gauge projects with same criteria? Careful choice The Importance of Context Difficult (unfair) to gauge projects with same criteria? Careful choice of indicators if range of scenarios studied must acknowledge the goal & approach of projects e. g. OLP does not aim to represent range of interests not such a problem within large projects activities repeated site-by-site CBFM-2 ?

Remember Limitations of PD Processes are less easy to quantify than outputs. . …. Remember Limitations of PD Processes are less easy to quantify than outputs. . …. so cross-comparison is harder Process may be very difficult to assess. A simple survey of participants or …. . outputs will probably not provide a meaningful assessment. Either could lead to a conclusion that a process was unsuccessful when it was actually successful or vice versa. For example, participants…. . . could say they were satisfied when they were actually manipulated and misled, or ……. dissatisfied when they actually accomplished a great deal but had unrealistic expectations. ” (Innes, 2000)

Over-reliance on survey? Survey format allows. . . • replication (for cross-comparison & interpretation) Over-reliance on survey? Survey format allows. . . • replication (for cross-comparison & interpretation) • standard practice for reviewer • feedback from large number respondents However, surveys can be. . . • intensive (may need many staff) • time-consuming (to report/interpret) • less valuable with repetition (survey fatigue)

Issues with Attitudinal Feedback Asking for opinions. . . limitations • respondents are not Issues with Attitudinal Feedback Asking for opinions. . . limitations • respondents are not impartial…. have own interests. . • responses may be exaggerated or biased • respondents have imperfect knowledge its value • attitudes (perception) will influence performance • increases our awareness of real concerns & local issues • stakeholder opinion is not widely sought

Suitability of the surveys? Processes versus To re-cap. . . Outcomes “character” of interaction Suitability of the surveys? Processes versus To re-cap. . . Outcomes “character” of interaction sustainable CBOs local institutional constraints & opportunities sustainable livelihoods support for project activities Which are visible & easy to measure? change over time gauge through continued consultation equitable management environmental & political awareness Evaluate at end-point Technical indications?

Summary How can we strengthen PD? 3 inter-related issues 1. ) Careful choice of Summary How can we strengthen PD? 3 inter-related issues 1. ) Careful choice of informants • suitable stakeholder groups • suitable individuals 2. ) Care in interpreting feedback • consistency of technique & documentation • acknowledging local project objectives & context 3. ) Triangulation • several sources allow cross-referencing • several sources can reveal true motives & concerns

How can we strengthen PD? The importance of triangulation Project staff Project Context Project How can we strengthen PD? The importance of triangulation Project staff Project Context Project target groups reality External groups

Part 4. CBFM-2…. Where are the “Processes” ? Part 4. CBFM-2…. Where are the “Processes” ?

Processes within most Development Projects Two types of process. . . FORMAL INFORMAL Project-ascribed Processes within most Development Projects Two types of process. . . FORMAL INFORMAL Project-ascribed activities & procedure Evolved project activities & procedure design of participation & CBOs set of technical options design of staff reporting “Log-Frame” Activities & Procedure

Formal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Formal Processes Interface Formal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Formal Processes Interface Local • Inform pro-poor & integrated policy • Transfer of water bodies to Do. F Interface • Influence revenue expectation of Mo. L • Study of policy formation • NGO network and exchange visits &. . • National & SSEA project linkage Local

Formal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Formal Processes Formal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Formal Processes Local • Formation of co-management bodies • Facilitation & support to management committees • Review & training for NGO partners • Monthly coordination meetings • Development & coordiantion of plans &. . . • Legal support to fisheries / wetlands …most relate to resource management institutions

Formal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Local Formal Formal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Local Formal Processes • Fishers organised into groups • Training & credit provision to fisher communities • Plans developed by fisher groups • Regular group meetings • Local surveys (impact on poor, fish, gender) &. . . • Dissemination & media survey

Processes within most Development Projects Two types of process. . . FORMAL INFORMAL Project-ascribed Processes within most Development Projects Two types of process. . . FORMAL INFORMAL Project-ascribed activities & procedure Evolved project activities & procedure design of participation & CBOs “Log-Frame” Activities & set of technical Procedure options design of staff reporting staff/community interaction learning & habit-forming prioritisation of reporting

Informal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Informal Processes Interface Informal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Informal Processes Interface Local • “Quality” of link with policy-formers (frequency, personal / formal) • Efficiency of Mo. L transfers (institutional constraints to change? ) • Ability to rationalise revenue collection (what impacts progress? ) • “Quality” of NGO dialogue (value of cross-visits, willingness to share)

Informal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Informal Processes Informal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Informal Processes Local • Approach to institution building (how stakeholders engaged, how rules developed) • Ongoing dialogue with institutions and committees (frequency & effect of meetings, flow of dialogue) • Input to management plans (from committees etc. , content and range) • “Character” of support to institutions (how engaged, frequency, issues)

Informal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Local Informal Informal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale. . . National Interface Local Informal Processes • Approach to group formation (directed / participatory, perceived value) • Approach to training (perceived value by facilitator & participant, quality) • Development of plans (inputs, representation, scope, adaptability) • Impact of surveys (coverage, discrepancies between sites, disruption)

Processes within CBFM-2 The value of organograms. . . • represent key stakeholders • Processes within CBFM-2 The value of organograms. . . • represent key stakeholders • represent linkages…. which stakeholders interact • allow us to view scale of formal processes. . • & visualise where key informal processes may be • allow our PD to focus on 2 or 3 stakeholders… • & break the review down to sections • identify key nodes of interaction … • who may be well-placed to inform us of process!!

Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Donors National Mo. L Do. F Processes within Development Projects Processes at different scales Donors National Mo. L Do. F Upazilla Officials Project Staff HQ Interface Union Officials Project Field Staff Local Project Targets Nontargets More detail required

Processes within CBFM-2 Starting from the bottom up. . . This model simplistic for Processes within CBFM-2 Starting from the bottom up. . . This model simplistic for Project need to document formal… NGO Partners Field Staff give 7 CBFM-2. . . project sites & informal… Advisory & Do. F variationsformation • Group of this. . . Committee? • Approach to group formation (co-management models) • Training & credit • Approach to training Non. Project • Management plans Resource targets Targets • Development of plans Management • Group meetings • Impact of surveys Committee • Surveys VOs VOs • Dissemination (media) Nontargets

Processes within CBFM-2 The interface. . . & informal… Other agencies involved. . Union Processes within CBFM-2 The interface. . . & informal… Other agencies involved. . Union Members UNO need to document formal… Upazilla Officials • Approach to institution building • Formation & help to RMCs etc • Dialogue between institutions • Training for NGO partners • Input to management plans Union • Coordination meetings Project Officials Field Staff • “Character” of support • Development of plans Upazilla & • Legal support District UFO Advisory Committee? NGO Partners & Do. F

Processes within CBFM-2 The national level & beyond. . . CBFM-2 Dampara, more complicated. Processes within CBFM-2 The national level & beyond. . . CBFM-2 Dampara, more complicated. . MACH etc Vietnam Donors World. Fish & DFID Do. F NGO Partners & local Do. F Mo. L need to document formal… Project Staff & informal… policy HQ • Inform • “Quality” of policy links • Transfer water bodies • Influence over revenue policy • Influence revenue policy • “Quality” of NGOformation &. . • Study policy dialogue • national & international links • NGO network &. . • National & SSEA project link

Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the LOCAL level… RMCs a fulcrum for many “log-frame” activities & procedures … central to deliver activities at each site … many stakeholders link directly to RMC partner NGOs & Do. F UNO, UFO, Union members primary stakeholders

Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the INTERFACE level… Partner NGOs are the key fulcrum for many -frame” activities & procedures “log … central to support to RMCs and target groups … facilitate interaction with government bodies & … key for delivery & monitoring

Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the NATIONAL level… Project coordinators (World. Fish & Do. F) are the key fulcrum for policy & learning “log-frame” activities & procedures … central to support to partner NGOs … interaction with Mo. L and Do. F … linkage with other projects (nationally, internationally)

Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? At the NATIONAL level World. Fish & Do. F At the INTERFACE level Partner NGOs At the LOCAL level RMCs Formal, log-frame processes occur between these groups & those they serve… For good PD… in addition to informal interaction. . we may consult frequently & learn from these groups …relationships & ways of getting things done but there are other key informants

Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? NATIONAL INTERFACE Processes within CBFM-2 What have we learned from the organograms. . ? NATIONAL INTERFACE World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs RMCs LOCAL Most important of all… …. Primary stakeholders Beneficiaries & Non-targets

Processes within CBFM-2 Preparing a sampling strategy World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs Processes within CBFM-2 Preparing a sampling strategy World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets We know these 4 nodes are central to CBFM activities. . …must develop a way to engage with them (survey)

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Partner NGOs important for knowledge of good co-management Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Partner NGOs important for knowledge of good co-management & suitable institutions RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets Complex. . . high intensity of interaction & diversity of stakeholders …many different interests 7 different models with different links

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 1 Partner NGO RMC NGO supported full Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 1 Partner NGO RMC NGO supported full time fishers Other NGO group members Committee focuses on poor fishers

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 2 Partner NGO RMC NGO full time Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 2 Partner NGO RMC NGO full time fishers + subsistence + part time fishers Advisory Committe e Elite & NGO Committee represents all fishers Advisory Committee of elite to support

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 3 Partner NGO RMC NGO supported fishers Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 3 Partner NGO RMC NGO supported fishers NGO, Do. F & UP with others Formal representation of NGO, Do. F etc.

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 4 Partner NGO RMC NGO fishers + Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 4 Partner NGO RMC NGO fishers + other fishers

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 5 Partner NGO RMC Fisher stakeholders UP, Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 5 Partner NGO RMC Fisher stakeholders UP, landowners, Kua owners etc. All stakeholders represented Suitable in floodplain context

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 6 Partner NGO Surrounding floodplain RMC NGO Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 6 Partner NGO Surrounding floodplain RMC NGO supported beel lesees land owners, landless & others Lesees pay for access & stocking Other interest groups included

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 7 Partner NGO RMC NGO supported full Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Model 7 Partner NGO RMC NGO supported full time fishers Where only poor fishers targeted (rivers or closed jalmohals)

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Each project site exhibits 1 of these models… Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes Each project site exhibits 1 of these models… a wide range of. . stakeholders roles & responsibilities forms of interaction functions We may need to tailor PD for each model

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes In addition, numerous “technical” activities… • surveys (household, Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting local processes In addition, numerous “technical” activities… • surveys (household, fish, market) • fish sanctuaries etc. Measurable by outcome • credit provision & completion • skill development Process and PD relates most to skill development… Need feedback on relevance, enthusiasm & usefulness

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting interface processes Role & responsibility of NGO partners vary between Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting interface processes Role & responsibility of NGO partners vary between sites Caritas have own criteria for group formation? Links with stakeholders depend on committee model? Key issues How do 1 o & 2 o stakeholders view the role of the NGO? How do the NGO view the input of 1 o & 2 o stakeholders? What types of process build consensus and lead to action?

Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting National processes Role & responsibility of World. Fish and Do. Processes within CBFM-2 Documenting National processes Role & responsibility of World. Fish and Do. F are fixed Key issues Are training commitments met & how received? How is policy dialogue process viewed by GOs and coordinators? Frequency of cross-links with other projects? Does “quality” of Do. F processes vary - frequency of interaction etc?

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Most collected data is quantifiable & local • Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Most collected data is quantifiable & local • Financial inputs (credit, revenue collected) • Household data • Fish market / catch • Beel stocking & harvesting • Number of participants (stakeholder group) Where processes are complicated, reporting is still numerical. . .

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation An example. . Group formation & committee function. Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation An example. . Group formation & committee function. . . Name of waterbody CBFM-1 No. groups male participants female participants CBFM-2 No. groups male participants female participants Name of waterbody Date BMC / RMC formed No. members Stakeholders? Advisory committee Y/N No. members Other committees Y/N

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation This is important information, but technical. . . Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation This is important information, but technical. . . PD is about collecting extra context behind these numbers • Level of satisfaction within group / committee • Level of understanding • Procedure of formation • “Knock-on” effects (disputes, dispute resolution) Good PD design will capture this & add to current monitoring

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation What can PD add…? • Level of satisfaction Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation What can PD add…? • Level of satisfaction within group / committee • Level of understanding • Procedure of formation • “Knock-on” effects (disputes, dispute resolution) Issues for discussion: Do diaries & record books provide us understanding of these issues? Does the new case study format cover these issues evaluating and reporting?

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at interface (NGO partners & links) Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at interface (NGO partners & links) Reports are mixture of. . . • technical achievements (boxes ticked) - activities completed • survey results & • site-specific comments (critical issues) Site history & “critical issues” interesting & useful … a form of PD

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at interface (NGO partners & links) Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at interface (NGO partners & links) Partner reports contain very interesting feedback. . . comments (critical issues) “self-governance & empowerment of fishers “women’s participation ” day-by-day” Can we develop PD to check this?

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at interface (NGO partners & links) Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at interface (NGO partners & links) Issues for discussion: Can this review of “critical issues” be systematic & consistent? Does the new case study format do this? Will these case studies cover relations with 2 o stakeholders?

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at National level (project coordinators) from Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at National level (project coordinators) from partners Achievements in all projects consists of. . . reports Reporting (coverage, sanctuaries, committees) Technical update project management (budgets, timing, personnel) Issues problems encountered & future needs Next stages future activities / overall strategies

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at National level (project coordinators) PD Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at National level (project coordinators) PD is important because it would help identify. . . Issues problems encountered & future needs which help develop. . Next stages future activities / overall strategies

Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at National level (project coordinators) Most Processes within CBFM-2 Current CBFM-2 documentation Collected data at National level (project coordinators) Most of this information relates to local and interface (partner) aspects…. Issues for discussion: Is there a need to formalise self-monitoring. . . ? • national & international links • policy dialogue with Do. F & Mo. L etc.

Part 4. Summary It is helpful to view CBFM-2 as 4 inter-linked nodes…. World. Part 4. Summary It is helpful to view CBFM-2 as 4 inter-linked nodes…. World. Fish & Do. F Each has log-frame responsibilities Partner NGOs or formal activities & procedure RMCs useful to know the way carried out…. . ”PROCESS” Beneficiaries & Non-targets

Part 4. Summary World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets Part 4. Summary World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets local level most complex & interesting regarding process. . Many stakeholders and patterns of interaction 7 basic committee models

Part 4. World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets Summary Part 4. World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets Summary We listed the main activities & responsibilities… and some potential important processes

Part 4. World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs Summary Also listed some types Part 4. World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs Summary Also listed some types of information collected & reported…. . can PD build on existing monitoring…. ? RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets case study reports, diaries & “critical issues”

Part 4. Discussion issues Local Issues: Do diaries & record books provide us understanding Part 4. Discussion issues Local Issues: Do diaries & record books provide us understanding of these issues? Does the new case study format cover these issues evaluating and reporting? Interface Issues: Can this review of “critical issues” be systematic & consistent? Does the new case study format do this? Will these case studies cover relations with 2 o stakeholders? Issues for discussion: Is there a need to formalise self-monitoring. . . ? • national & international links • policy dialogue with Do. F & Mo. L etc.

Part 5. Stakeholders, indicators, methods Part 5. Stakeholders, indicators, methods

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs To document processes we need to consult these groups & those they interact with RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets Stakeholder groups depend on scale examined

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing on group/committee processes. . . Advisory Committee? NGO Partners & Do. F Resource Management Committee VOs VOs Nontargets

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing on group/committee processes. . . Non-target 1 o stakeholders non-participating fishers, labourers, share-croppers, women Village Organisation members male fisher groups credit groups ♀ & ♂/♀ groups

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing on group/committee processes. . . Resource Management Committee members depending on model…? fishers, women, Union officals, kua owners, NGO staff, Do. F staff Advisory Committee members representatives from RMC, elite, Local Government (Union & Upazilla officials)

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Starting at the local level & focussing on group/committee processes. . . The final stakeholders interacting with the RMCs. . NGO partners & Do. F staff facilitating staff, representatives of committees (local NGO partners, Do. F trainers, TFO, UFO? )

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the interface…examining LG interaction with Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the interface…examining LG interaction with CBFM-2 Upazilla & District Union Members UNO UFO Advisory Committee? NGO Partners & Do. F

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the interface…examining LG interaction with Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the interface…examining LG interaction with CBFM-2 Union / Upazilla / District level officials UP and Upazilla officials interacting with committees and project staff (UP Chairmen & members, UNO etc. ) District level officials concerned with fisheries sector at project sites (NFMP? )

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the national level… Vietnam Dampara, Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the national level… Vietnam Dampara, MACH etc World. Fish & DFID Do. F NGO Partners & local Do. F Mo. L

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the national level… Do. F Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the national level… Do. F staff in Dhaka CBFM-2 coordinator, other Do. F staff linking with World. Fish Mo. L staff linked with CBFM-2 issues (revenue / transfers) World. Fish & others project managers with advocacy/policy-forming role donors (DFID) with interest in change

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the national / international level… Stakeholders, indicators, methods Listing stakeholders for PD Moving to the national / international level… Other project coordinators - nationally/internationally MACH, Dampara coordinators SSEA coordinators

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD Appropriate indicators depend on. . Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD Appropriate indicators depend on. . . The purpose of PD To document progress relating to attainment of project goals & activities only OR to document project performance relating to general criteria Case Study 2 “institutions study” Projects can achieve goals, but fail in respect to “good practice”

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD In the case of CBFM-2 Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD In the case of CBFM-2 a co-management project with interests in integrated floodplain policy • Establishment of sustainable local NRM institutions • Local collective action for sustainable management • Empowerment of the poor (fishers) In turn, these will relate to general good practice… • high levels of participation • transparency in institutions • empowerment of women

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD In the case of CBFM-2 Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD In the case of CBFM-2 There are commonalities between criteria for project success & widely held good practice especially, local institutional issues These issues / activities hardest to track & quantify… more technical activities (fish sanctuaries, training and credit) are currently evaluated by no. actions taken etc. As are technical aspects of groups/committees Concentrating on criteria for institutional documentation. . .

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD World. Fish & Do. F Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD World. Fish & Do. F Partner NGOs RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD World. Fish & Do. F Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD World. Fish & Do. F We lack knowledge of local processes. . Partner NGOs RMCs Beneficiaries & Non-targets We know no. groups & members but not how they change We know detail of other activities (training, surveys, credit etc. )

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD Beneficiaries & Non-targets • Level Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD Beneficiaries & Non-targets • Level of understanding of project • Perceived usefulness project activities • Project-induced conflict? • Project-related consensus & • Level of participation & representation?

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD RMCs • Transparency - understanding Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD RMCs • Transparency - understanding of decision-making, elections • Perceived power balance (bias or consensus) • Consensus & action? - agreement reached / activities taken • Perceived support/role of NGO, Do. F and LG & • Level of participation & representation?

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD Partner NGOs • Input to Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD Partner NGOs • Input to RMC plans (how facilitated / directed? ) • Group & RMC formation process (pre-defined vs self-elected) • Consensus & action? - agreement reached / activities taken • Perceived relations with other partners, Do. F and LG & • Perceived level of stakeholder participation & representation With respect to Union & Upazilla GO and Do. F. . . • Attitude to CBFM - issues and suggestions & • Level of engagement & understanding

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD PD here will emphasise national-level Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD PD here will emphasise national-level activities World. Fish & Do. F Difficult to document policy process • Linkage with policy-formers over time no. events (workshops, meetings, ) with national GOs level of support by GO personnel • Policy influence (policy changes attributable to CBFM) • Knowledge transfer with other projects evidence of use of CBFM experience & vice versa • Change in CBFM-Do. F relationship & role staffing/responsibilities

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Complementing existing surveys & reporting “Can current record-keeping be Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Complementing existing surveys & reporting “Can current record-keeping be expanded to incorporate process or new surveys required? ” Suggestion: local representatives from each stakeholder group to maintain diary of progress…. Information type pre-defined… categorised by issue in order to gauge… transparency, understanding, level of participation etc.

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Self-completion formats Advantages • less disruptive • able to Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Self-completion formats Advantages • less disruptive • able to track trends better than one-off surveys • independence from reviewer’s wishes • less reliance on field-staff Disadvantages • sampling issue (how representative? ) • impartial & honest? (motive for response) • formalising what should be informal feedback? • practicalities (literacy, identifying representative etc. )

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Previous experience from Case Study 1 & Case Study Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Previous experience from Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 …. gauges process via attitudinal survey limitations • respondents are not impartial…. have own interests. . • responses may be exaggerated or biased • respondents have imperfect knowledge its value • attitudes (perception) will influence performance • increases our awareness of real concerns & local issues • stakeholder opinion is not widely sought

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Attitudinal survey would be useful for PD in CBFM-2 Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Attitudinal survey would be useful for PD in CBFM-2 As discussed… • current survey documents technical achievements / events • need to gauge stability & functioning of arrangements PD of consensus building (PAPD) can help in this respect • Interest in institution (VO/RMC) • Understanding of . . … • Engagement in . . … • Appreciation of . . … • Community knowledge of . . . .

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Depends on local CBFM approach to groups. . . Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Depends on local CBFM approach to groups. . . Approach 1. Group formation of male fishers for training / credit & formation of RMC Approach 2. Group formation of representative stakeholders & planning and RMC design via PAPD Approach 3. Specifically targeting women and womenoriented issues & groups via PAPD

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. Approach 1. Group formation of Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. Approach 1. Group formation of male fishers for training / credit & formation of RMC • Shared and common purpose • Full participation • Perceived as fair • Create a mutual understanding of goals • Informs, engages and interests participants • Provide inclusive solutions • Encourage challenges to the status quo • Be self-organising • Envisioned future plans Neighbour survey

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. Approach 2. Group formation of Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. Approach 2. Group formation of representative stakeholders & planning and RMC design via PAPD • Shared and common purpose • Full participation • Perceived as fair • Create a mutual understanding of goals • Informs, engages and interests participants • Provide inclusive solutions • Encourage challenges to the status quo • Be self-organising • Envisioned future plans Neighbour survey

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. Approach 3. Specifically targeting women Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. Approach 3. Specifically targeting women and womenoriented issues & groups via PAPD • Shared and common purpose • Full participation • Perceived as fair • Create a mutual understanding of goals • Informs, engages and interests participants • Provide inclusive solutions ? • Encourage challenges to the status quo • Be self-organising ? • Envisioned future plans Neighbour survey

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. In each project area, take Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD…. In each project area, take a sub-sample of VOs and RMCs Facilitators Interviews with 3 staff? Questionnaire with 25% participants? Resource Management Committee VOs VOs Neighbours Questionnaire with 25% neighbours?

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying institutional survey Participants (primary stakeholders) Conduct questionnaire survey Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying institutional survey Participants (primary stakeholders) Conduct questionnaire survey with sub-samples of participants Checklist: Questions related to community indicators. . unity Is the RMC agreed on purpose etc. ? honesty Does RMC represent community fairly? decision-making Does RMC always choose best way? attention to poor Which stakeholders benefit most? delivery How often does RMC enact decisions? frequency of interaction How do you interact with RMC?

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying institutional survey RMC members Semi-structured interviews with 3 Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying institutional survey RMC members Semi-structured interviews with 3 -4 RMC members at each site Understand roles, responsibilities and interaction with other stakeholders at each project level Checklist: Important power issues (conflict or consensus)? Discuss procedure of decision-making, election? Any improvements? Effectiveness of CBO & project?

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying institutional survey Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Modifying institutional survey Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and trainers) Semi-structured interviews with 3 -4 staff at each site Checklist: Interaction with primary stakeholders & how often? Nature & purpose of this interaction? Which groups involved? How is status of project communicated?

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Moving to National & Policy PD Likely to be Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Moving to National & Policy PD Likely to be self-monitored by coordinators Annual Reports currently document relevant issues. . . • workshops & documents published • training modules completed • international cross-visits Possible to set these achievements to timelines to show trends Documenting advocacy and policy influence is problematic. . .

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Moving to National & Policy PD • Linkage with Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Methods Moving to National & Policy PD • Linkage with policy-formers over time no. events (workshops, meetings, ) with national GOs level of support by GO personnel • Policy influence (policy changes attributable to CBFM) • Knowledge transfer with other projects evidence of use of CBFM experience & vice versa • Change in CBFM-Do. F relationship & role staffing/responsibilities

Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD PD here will emphasise national-level Stakeholders, indicators, methods Suggested Indicators / Criteria for PD PD here will emphasise national-level activities World. Fish & Do. F Difficult to document policy process • Linkage with policy-formers over time no. events (workshops, meetings, ) with national GOs level of support by GO personnel • Policy influence (policy changes attributable to CBFM) • Knowledge transfer with other projects evidence of use of CBFM experience & vice versa • Change in CBFM-Do. F relationship & role staffing/responsibilities

Part 6. Analysing & Interpreting Feedback Part 6. Analysing & Interpreting Feedback

Analysing & Interpreting Feedback Experience from Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 shows. Analysing & Interpreting Feedback Experience from Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 shows. . . Criteria (indicators) allow attitudinal and qualitative feedback to be tallied and discussed non-participants, committee members, project staff All provide input and opinion about projects & activities

Analysing & Interpreting Feedback However…. Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 also show. Analysing & Interpreting Feedback However…. Case Study 1 & Case Study 2 also show. . . Attitudinal data must be discussed in context special attributes of project site • activities • site history • key issues and not in isolation TRIANGULATION

Analysing & Interpreting Feedback Case Study 1 An example of site-specific commentary of PAPD. Analysing & Interpreting Feedback Case Study 1 An example of site-specific commentary of PAPD. . . Explain feedback in context The landless stakeholder group was cited at Diksi where the issue of khasland redistribution was prominent…respondents at Posna seemed to perceive greater community-wide value…whereas opinion at Kathuria & Diksi were skewed towards fishers…. this may reflect the skill of facilitators to demonstrate linkages. . (experience).

Analysing & Interpreting Feedback If criteria / indicators are well chosen…. . interesting issues Analysing & Interpreting Feedback If criteria / indicators are well chosen…. . interesting issues should reveal themselves In a large-scale co-management project (CBFM-2) with a range of activities, sites, stakeholder groups……… responses and perception will vary and help build a contextual “picture” of processes PD feedback can shape case study reporting……. highlighting “critical issues”