Document(s) 4 of 13

We re-elected our village leader. The former leader was not strong-willed and not wanting to assume responsibility for sharing his time for the common good of the village. We employed a group responsibility system to manage forest and wastelands clarifying the rights, duties and benefits of group members. This strategy encouraged farmers to plant trees; last year, we planted more than 20 000 trees on the wasteland. The tree survival rate was as high as 94%. We also installed a drinking water system, but unfortunately the water source does not provide enough water. We are unable to make good use of the system. From this we learn that when we make a decision we have to be careful and consider the different aspects of things. Niuanyun village resident, reflecting on progress made by the Community-Based Natural Resource Management project in Guizhou, in a monitoring meeting with researchers from the Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

This book is about the experience of two research teams in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces in southwest China (Fig. 1) who carried out a participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) project. PM&E is a joint effort or a partnership between researchers and other stakeholders(such as farmers, government officials, or extension workers) to monitor and evaluate, systematically, one or more research or development activities (for a discussion of the core elements of PM&E, see Armonia and Campilan 1997, Abbot and Guijt 1998, McAllister and Vernooy 1999). Focusing on participatory field research in the area of community-based natural resource management, we aimed to contribute to the(still scarce) literature on PM&E, especially conceptual, methodological, and capacity-building issues (Estrella et al. 2000).

Figure 1. Sketch map of location of Yunnan and Guizhou in Southwest China (above) and project sites (below) (The boundaries and names shown on the maps in this publication do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the International Development Research Centre.)

We hope that this book will fill a void by documenting the complete cycle of introduction, implementation, and assessment of a training approach in a real-life situation. It represents one of the first examples of this kind of effort in China, although the concept of PM&E is not new there(see Li Xiaoyun 2001: 115–128). This book, which is published in both English and Chinese, is aimed at a broad audience of practitioners and theoreticians interested in or involved with participatory research and development work, in China or elsewhere.

Opening a new window on research practice

More than anything, this book illustrates how PM&E has opened a new window on our research practice. Its integration into the project cycle has strengthened the learning, accountability, and effectiveness of the research efforts of the two teams, in particular through the realization that what matters is not only what is assessed, but who does the measuring and assessing. In addition, the experience gained during the PM&E activity has contributed to a better understanding of how different concerns and interests are represented and negotiated in a research process. The PM&E training and fieldwork contributed greatly to a better understanding by researchers and local government officials of the interests and needs of both women and men farmers. It also strengthened farmers’ participation in the research process in Yunnan and Guizhou and catalyzed the introduction of a self-monitoring mechanism among farmers in Guizhou for the management of their local water system, thus enhancing local governance.

In the remainder of this chapter we describe how the PM&E experience was born and explain the capacity-building approach and process. This is followed by an introduction of the two projects, the organizations to which they belong, and a short description of the emergence and evolution of participatory research and development approaches in the southwest of China.

The interest in a PM&E process

The initiative to undertake a PM&E activity in China was born at the crossroads of two forces. On one track, the International Development Research Centre’s (IDRC’s) Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program promotes an interdisciplinary and participatory approach to solving problems related to natural resource management at the local level(see box).

Building the research capacity necessary to apply this approach is an important goal of the program, and one component of this capacity-building concerns the monitoring and evaluation of research projects.

Concluded

On the other track, several of the research teams working with the CBNRM program identified PM&E as an important component of their research efforts, but lacked the necessary skills to integrate it into their projects (Vernooy 2001). In response to this interest, in early 1999 the CBNRM program team designed and funded a special project that aimed at addressing the need for improved research skills in PM&E. Ronnie Vernooy, a CBNRM team member and program officer based in Ottawa (and a rural development sociologist by training), collected and designed training materials and methods and facilitated the training process. The core elements of these are described below.

The approach and process

Training for PM&E is based on learning-by-doing and interaction, and consisted of a series of three workshops combined with fieldwork to strengthen conceptual and methodological skills(see Appendix 1 for an outline of the workshops). The activity described here can best be viewed as a “pilot

project” involving only two teams working with the CBNRM program: the Kunming Institute of Botany (Kill) /Chinese Academy of Sciences-PARDYP team in Kunming (“People and Resource Dynamics in Mountainous Watersheds” project); and the Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences (GAAS) team in Guiyang (“CBNRM in the Mountainous Areas of Guizhou” project).

The objective was to design and implement a PM&E component that would complement ongoing research in both projects. The workshop format allowed participants not only to acquire conceptual and methodological insights into PM&E, but also to put them into practice immediately. Exchanging experiences between the teams allowed for critical reflection and revision of the PM&E component as required.

Workshop 1, Guiyang, Guizhou province, 20–23 July 1999

The first workshop introduced the key concepts, approach, and basic questions related to PM&E. The focus was very much on working toward a shared understanding of the meaning of participation, monitoring, and evaluation. The meeting brought the two teams together for the first time and allowed them to start exchanging ideas, experiences, and interests. The workshop also generated a draft PM&E plan for each team, focusing on a specific project component: water resource management in the case of the Guizhou team; and technology development with a focus on community management of tree nurseries in the case of the Kunming team. The key element in the elaboration of these draft plans was not so much the content (and topic chosen), but the process used to design them.

Workshop 2, Kunming, Yunnan province, 6–8 April 2000

The second workshop focused on the PM&E fieldwork carried out so far within the context of the projects at large. Both teams presented their research and PM&E work, highlighting what they had learned so far. They also provided feedback to each other through a “market” exercise: what would they “buy” (i.e., adopt) from each other, and what would they do differently. This proved to be very valuable. It was followed by exercises identifying and discussing research gaps linked to the six key PM&E questions: why? for whom? what? who? when? how? (more about these in Chapter 2). Here the focus was on achieving a better sociological understanding of participation as a process. In small groups, the most important of the identified gaps were

debated and suggestions were made for additional research work. The workshop was very intense and involved good exchange dynamics-an excellent example of CBNRM networking in practice.

Workshop 3, Baoshan, Yunnan province, 31 May to 2 June 2001

Additional and updated results of the fieldwork were presented and discussed at the third workshop, and a critical assessment of the overall experience was made through identification of the value added by the PM&E work, challenges and constraints, and possible next steps at both the project and organizational levels. The two teams also assessed the training method and made suggestions for improvement. In chapters 3 to 5, we present the results of the implementation of the training approach in the form of two case studies. In Chapter 6, we reflect on achievements and shortcomings.

Key elements in capacity-building for PM&E

Two elements are central to PM&E capacity-building: access or the opportunity to take part in the process, and ability or the knowledge and skill to do something (Johnson 2000: 217–228). To ensure both access and ability in the capacity-building process, we designed the following chain of events(sometimes called theory of action, adapted from Patton 1997: 215–238).

1. Resources are devoted to monitoring and evaluation, including stakeholder time and financial inputs.

2. Working with intended users, important monitoring and evaluation issues and questions are defined, and, based on these, the design is prepared and data are collected.

3. Key stakeholders and primary users are involved throughout the process.

4. Intended users react to their involvement.

5. The monitoring and evaluation process and findings provide (new) knowledge and understanding.

6. Intended users interpret results, generate and adopt recommendations, and use the monitoring and evaluation results.

7. The project improves and (new) decisions are made.

The work described in this book involves two regional, well-established research organizations, both active in the area of natural-resource management and both supported by IDRC’s CBNRM program (both organizations also receive funds from other donors, such as the Ford Foundation). In both cases, the PM&E component was added to ongoing research efforts. In both provinces, the whole project research team took part in the PM&E capacity-building process (although over time, some staff changes took place, notably in the GAAS team when several members went abroad to study) as well as a number of selected local people (farmers, technical staff, and government employees). Both teams also had strong organizational support when they undertook the PM&E process.

The idea of bringing the two teams together—from different organizations, with a different composition (age, men to women ratio, disciplinary background, experience), operating in different local contexts although with certain similarities in terms of natural resource management issues, but with a similar research focus and methodological approach—arose from the assumption that two know more than one. Learning from each other could increase effectiveness (as we would be able to learn about two cases simultaneously by comparing experiences), relevance (it would allow to see our own research in a broader context), and possibly efficiency (increased speed of learning).

As much as possible, we built on existing skills and relied on participants’ contributions in a learning-by-doing, semi-structured process (rather than a blueprint training model) and a longer-term commitment based on the belief that a one-off event does not work in participatory research. For maximum utility, the workshops were conducted mainly in Chinese, with translation back and forth to English when necessary (during the first workshop by a Canadian-Chinese cofacilitator, during the second and third workshops by team members).

Resources used in the process included a binder of selected, background reading materials (compiled by Ronnie Vernooy) although no lectures about these materials were prepared; funds from IDRC for the organization of the three workshops; ongoing field research operations (PM&E fieldwork expenses were covered by project funds); and facilitation by Ms. Fong Ku (at the first workshop) and Ronnie Vernooy (at all three workshops). For workshops 1 and 2, the facilitator(s) prepared a number of hands-on exercises

that occupied most of the time. In addition, several “ice-breaker” and energizing exercises were conducted to allow participants to look at PM&E from a different angle!

Overall, we aimed at an approach that Robert Chambers (1997: 214) has described as “inventive through interaction, practical in application, rigorous through self-criticism, and empowering through process.” In the final chapter, we reflect on how well we did in putting this approach into practice and following the envisioned chain of events.

The project teams

Kunming Institute of Botany and the PARDYP team, Yunnan

The introduction of participatory methods in Yunnan: Before 1990, efforts to alleviate poverty and develop rural areas of China consisted largely of research projects and studies that had a limited policy orientation. Researchers collected data from (at best) lower levels of government and, rarely, carried out surveys or used other techniques at the community level. Findings were transmitted to policymakers, accompanied by comments and suggestions. Important decisions would be made, although not necessarily in compliance with study findings and recommendations. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several factors contributed to a questioning of this modus operandi. New approaches began to surface. New centres and organizations emphasized the need to work toward “sustainable development” and highlighted the importance of involving people and communities in the development process. Yunnan province has been at the forefront of these changes.

Yunnan attracted the attention of international and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), not only because it is one of the undeveloped provinces in China, but also because of the relatively open attitude of government officials toward innovative approaches (including those initiated by NGOs) and new sources of funding. A number of events set the wheels turning. The most significant was the development and approval of the Yunnan Upland Management Project, the first interdisciplinary, intersectoral collaborative project for integrated upland development. The project, which started in 1990 with funding and support from the Ford Foundation, was aimed at achieving sustainable development in the region. Project objectives included strengthening the capacity for interdisciplinary research and

establishing a participatory approach to assessment, planning, and implementation. The capacity-building process began with a month-long social science training workshop on rural surveys, conducted by Nancy Peluso early in 1990. This was followed by training in rapid rural appraisal (RRA) by the Southeast Asian Universities Agroecosystem Research Network led by Dr. Percy Sajise. In 1993, additional training in participatory rural appraisal (PRA) was provided by Robert Chambers. After the PRA workshop, a number of practitioners and researchers decided to establish the Yunnan PRA Network based at the Rural Development Research Centre to look at ways to apply these methods in the Chinese context.

The Yunnan Upland Management Project: In 1987, the Yunnan Poverty Alleviation Office (YPAO) asked the Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences (YASS) to carry out a study called “Strategy for Poverty Alleviation and Economic Development of 41 Poor Counties in Yunnan.” At about the same time, representatives of the Ford Foundation China and Winrock International Asian Regional Office conducted a study tour in Yunnan. Two major causes of poverty identified in an earlier study were lack of information and lack of qualified staff owing to the remoteness of Yunnan. Following discussions with the head of the YPAO and the director of the Institute of Rural Economy (at YASS), the two donors agreed to cooperate with the provincial government on the Yunnan Upland Management Demonstration Project.

This project focused on four counties, each representing a poverty classification type. In each county, one village was selected as a project demonstration site. Project participants—including researchers and teachers from both the natural and social sciences, as well as government officials—from 13 organizations had the opportunity to spend long periods of time working with the villagers at the grassroots level. Their experience made them realize the importance of farmers’ participation in decision-making (Assessment Working Group 1998).

Between 1991 and 1994, 30 people from the various participating units were sent to selected universities in Thailand and the Philippines for training in environmental sciences, natural resource management, social forestry, agricultural systems, social and development studies, and other related areas. In 1995, 13 more people were chosen and, since then, Winrock International has sponsored new participants each year. In Kunming, training was provided

in English, RRA, PRA, interviewing skills, and monitoring and evaluation; these skills were then put into practice at the demonstration sites.

This program has created a group of high-quality trainees, many of whom have established their own NGOs or participated in international projects in Yunnan province by providing feasibility reports and consultancy services.

The Yunnan PRA Network: In 1993, the Yunnan Institute of Geography invited Robert Chambers to provide training in PRA. The result was the establishment of the Yunnan PRA Network in 1994 (mainly funded by the Ford Foundation, with a small initial grant from the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex). Since then, participatory approaches in Yunnan have largely been promoted and applied by members of that network, through their own research and action projects, through their participation in government projects, or through consultancy services they have provided to international agencies.

The network has provided many training experiences to its 52 members, as well as opportunities to practice their new skills through the allocation of small grants. Most of its members see the network as a forum of people with a common interest and value its relaxed atmosphere in which information is exchanged and interdisciplinary sharing stimulated.

After several years of learning by doing and sharing, most network members praise the benefits of participatory methods and have tried to adopt them in their daily work. They believe that cooperation among equals and mutual understanding and trust should be important components of any development initiative, as they are necessary to build harmonious and productive working relations between villagers and outsiders. Experimenting with participatory methods has changed the attitudes of project staff and local officials toward farmers and made them realize the capabilities of the latter. Villagers, on the other hand, have gained confidence and awareness of their role in self-development, which, in turn, has increased their interest and enthusiasm.

The participatory process has often been accompanied by a change of roles. Farmers take on more responsibility as they actively participate in decisions regarding projects that will affect their lives. Meanwhile, government agencies can focus more on providing services and training, ensuring organizational structure, assisting farmers, and providing information. In research projects, respect and transparent working procedures have also significantly contributed to the generation and sharing of information.

One issue that has been stressed by members of the PRA Network and thoroughly discussed during meetings is the importance of institutional structures and supporting project management mechanisms that enable and support participation. Many innovations in that direction have been implemented, as “the establishment of community organizational institutions and structures are an important basis of sustainable community production, livelihoods and development management . . ., Community organizational management and coordination capacities are often ignored in the provision of external support.

Thus, in some projects after the project ends, all the achievements and progress cannot be sustained” (Xue Jinling, quoted in Wilkes 2000). For example, one project developed a system to monitor the use of participatory methods in its design process. In another case, technicians had to report to villagers and seek their approval for any changes in technical designs. There are many other experiments of this kind.

However, in many instances, the lack of such supporting mechanisms has presented an important obstacle to the implementation of participatory methods. Many PRA practitioners in Yunnan come from research institutes whose mandate is mainly to provide consulting services and training, but not to implement projects. Thus, even if they use participatory tools in the design of projects and activities, top-down implementation and management styles prevent the continuation of the participation. Moreover, the leaders of many institutes do not recognize PRA as a valid research method, let alone its promotion as a mission. This situation creates a conflict for practitioners whose work units relate promotion and salary bonuses to the number of “valid” research reports published. There is thus a real need to train project implementers and field staff in participatory project management to reconcile participatory project tools and approaches with appropriate management structures.

Participatory approaches also require a gradual learning process on the part of villagers, local staff, and government officials. This is especially true in China, where farmers are used to being told what to do by government officials and, thus, need time to begin trusting outsiders who are questioning the status quo. If insufficient time and consideration are given to gradual learning, passive participation may result despite the adoption of participatory

approaches. On the other hand, where gradual learning is allowed, participatory approaches prove to be better adapted to local conditions and the uncritical use of methods can be avoided. The cost of this approach, especially in terms of manpower, presents a significant limitation (Lu Xing 2000; Wilkes 2000).

The Kunming Institute of Botany: In 1987, the KIB established a Department of Ethnobotany to promote the investigation, documentation, and evaluation of indigenous knowledge systems related to useful plants and herbal medicines; to conserve the great wealth of biological and cultural diversity of southwest China; and to promote socially equitable and environmentally sound development in the mountainous ethnic minority areas of that region.

It is the first department of a research institute in Yunnan to carry out fieldwork and interdisciplinary research. Participatory methods were initially introduced through projects—the first instance was in the early 1990s during the implementation of the “Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands of Mountainous Ecosystems in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas” project, funded by IDRC. Later, in 1993, after four members of the department attended the already mentioned PRA training course facilitated by Robert Chambers, they applied PRA to their community-based biodiversity conservation and community development projects. Other staff members were exposed to participatory methods through joint fieldwork and training opportunities offered by the newly created Yunnan PRA Network. Most of the department’s staff joined the network’s forestry group, which was headed by Xu Jianchu, the deputy head of the department and the PARDYP country coordinator.

Through the implementation of participatory methods, the work of the Department of Ethnobotany progressively shifted from quantitative research focusing on data collection to applied ethnobotany for community development. Eventually, the department adopted the framework of participatory technology development (PTD) to direct most of its work in the field.

PTD requires long-term interaction between outsiders and local people; its aim is to develop sustainable systems of livelihood based on indigenous/local knowledge and cultures. It links the power and capacity of agricultural research with the interests and the knowledge of local communities. In a broader sense, PTD deals with natural resources management by strengthening the local, indigenous specialists and their

communities and enabling them to carry out experiments to become more sustainable and self-reliant using their local resources. Development practitioners recognize themselves as “outsiders” in the rural environment and should, therefore,

• focus on creative interactions within rural communities so that indigenous knowledge and local experiences become the driving force of development;
• be aware that their own knowledge is the product of learning at research centres, universities and development agencies and is technical/ scientific/ modern knowledge;
• promote dialogue between the two knowledge systems to find joint solutions to rural problems, taking full advantage of local resources (natural, social, and cultural).

The role of outsiders, thus, consists of facilitating the intercultural process of learning and sharing between the “technicians” from development institutions and local people, as well as facilitating the organization of a network of village specialists that will increase communication about local innovations and encourage local people to continue experimenting with new forms of self-sustaining agriculture and resource management (more about the PTD process in Chapter 3).

Although independent in many ways, as part of a formal research institute, the Department of Ethnobotany has also recognized the shortcomings of some aspects of its managerial structure and has recently taken steps to overcome them. In particular, the “People and Resource Dynamics in Mountainous Watersheds” project (PARDYP) has provided an opportunity for learning and experimenting with PM&E.

The “People and Resource Dynamics in Mountainous Watersheds” project: PARDYP is a research-for-development project, initiated in October 1996 with funds from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), IDRC, and the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), with the aim to contribute to a balanced, sustainable and equitable development of mountain communities and families in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas (HKH).

Five watersheds with different characteristics were selected in Nepal (two watersheds), China, India, and Pakistan to learn some of the issues involved in

managing their resources and, with the participation of local people, develop means of improving this management. In China, KIB coordinates research in the Xizhuang watershed (Baoshan city) in close collaboration with a number of government departments.

The objectives of phase 1 of the project, which was completed at the end of 1999, were:

• to generate relevant and representative information about, and technologies for, measuring water balance and sediment transport related to degradation in a watershed;
• to identify technologies and strategies to improve soil fertility and control erosion and degradation using a farming system approach;
• to generate socioeconomic information on resource management and degradation;
• to apply community-based participatory principles in the generation, testing, and evaluation of natural resource management strategies and technology;
• to strengthen participation of project partners;
• to make relevant information on project outputs accessible to stakeholders;
• to manage the project, effectively and efficiently, as a regional collaborative research and development project.

During phase 1, participants made a start at understanding many of the issues involved in the management (and degradation) of resources by communities and, with the help of local people, began introducing means of improving natural resource management (Allen et al. 2000). However, the emphasis during the first 3 years was on biophysical research. Although a wealth of technical data were collected, more effort is needed to move from research to development, and to turn the technical and social understanding of physical resource dynamics into appropriate natural resources management strategies that contribute to the improvement of local people’s livelihoods.

Thus, the objectives of phase IT initiated in 2000, are:

• to build on and generate knowledge and facilitate the exchange and dissemination of information and skills in the middle mountains of the Hindu-Kush Himalayas;
• to enhance the capacities and options of families and communities, especially those who are marginalized, in the use and management of natural resources in mountain watersheds, thereby increasing household and community benefits;
• to stimulate and engage in wide-ranging policy dialogues through the involvement of policymakers at local and higher levels in the research activities and in the development needs of people in the four project countries.

The project cycle now includes cycles of participatory planning and implementation, accompanied by rounds of PM&E (Fig. 2). Throughout the whole process, the responsibilities of the PARDYP team should diminish from their initial leading role to an accompaniment function, and finally retreat. Steps will be taken to turn over responsibilities to local people and empower and motivate them to initiate their own activities.

Figure 2. The PARDYP project cycle. The light indicates the PARDYP team; the black, the local people; the thickness of these lines reflects the relative responsibility of these two groups during the various phases. PME = participatory monitoring and evaluation; PRA = participatory rural appraisal; PTD = participatory technology development.

For this reason, the entry and withdrawal phases are extremely important. During the entry phase, identifying and building good relations with local partners is key, and this requires making the project mission and methods clear to all the various stakeholders. At that point, the specific goals of the project will be developed together with the local communities, who should be in agreement about the work. The withdrawal phase includes building the capacity of local organizations or institutions to continue supporting the initiatives developed by local people. This is necessary for the sustainability of project interventions.

The Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Community-based Natural Resources Management project team, Guizhou

The Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences: The GAAS is the provincial governmental body of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. It carries out research in agriculture, horticulture, soils and water management, conservation, and, since the beginning of the 1990s, community-based natural resource management. Funding for research comes from the Chinese government and through a number of donor-funded projects, such as IDRC’s CBNRM project. Other donors include the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Ford Foundation, and the Asian Development Bank. In 2000, the team that carried out the IDRC-funded project created a new unit at the GAAS, named the Integrated Rural Development Centre IDRC; not to confuse with IDRC).

The IDRC is committed to the sustainable development of rural Guizhou through the effective, efficient, and equitable use of limited natural resources. It advocates a participatory approach to policy changes, provides training and extension for local capacity-building, and raises research and development funds for the adaptation of methods and technologies that contribute to sustainable community development and poverty alleviation. The first director of the new centre is Ms. Sun Qiu.

Following the example of Yunnan, a number of researchers from GAAS and other organizations in Guizhou province established the Guizhou Participatory Rural Appraisal Network. Currently, the network has over 30 members with backgrounds in agriculture, ecology, forestry, sociology, anthropology, and management. The Ford Foundation and the CIDA’s Canada Fund provide financial support. The network and its members are involved in

internal capacity-building, training, consultancies, and project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Four theme groups make up the network: conservation and community development, social forestry, natural resource management, and ethnicity, gender and development.

The CBNRM project: Guizhou, located in the southwest, is also one of the undeveloped provinces in China and about half its population belongs to ethnic minority groups. These groups mainly inhabit the mountainous rural areas where they manage complex production systems consisting of irrigated and rain fed rice fields, less-productive uplands and grasslands, forested areas and so-called “wastelands.” Problems that people face include low yields, little crop diversification, forests that in general are not in good health, and overgrazed common grasslands.

In 1995, a multidisciplinary research team at the GAAS initiated research in two villages, Dabuyang and Xiaozhai in Changsuan county, to address natural resource management issues at the local level. Using participatory appraisal tools, the team described and analyzed current household and community-based management practices, evaluated the impact of economic, sociocultural and agro-ecological factors on the natural resource base in the villages, and identified constraints and opportunities for technical and policy interventions aimed at improving livelihoods and the sustainable management of land, water and trees (Chen Deshou et al. 2000).

With input from and the participation of villagers, the team facilitated the implementation of the following interventions and monitored and evaluated their impact.

• Management groups and rules and regulations for resource use and management were established. The rules and regulations were based on the customary laws of the local communities, and the members of the management groups were selected by village assemblies. To date, the resource management organizations at the community level have been effective, because they are relevant to real situations and are operated by the local farmers. They complement the state laws.
• Participation of the local farmers in resource management was enhanced through participatory planning and implementation of the project, and PM&E activities.
• Capacities of local communities were increased through various training activities, cross-farm visits, and fieldwork.
• PTD was practiced; farming technology options were provided and tested in farmers’ fields by farmers and researchers.
• A participatory model of infrastructure-building at the community level was designed focusing on integrating livelihood improvements and innovative management processes. Women and men farmers were involved in the design, mobilization of resources (labour, materials, and funds), construction, operations, and maintenance. The meaningful involvement of the local farmers in the whole process has been the key incentive for building high-quality facilities and managing them well (with an eye for efficiency, equity, and sustainability).

In one village, a 200-year-old problem was solved by the construction of a village-managed drinking water system, which is regulated under a set of standards and rules that define the rights and obligations of all users (more about water management in Chapter 4). New regulations for the management of the remaining, collectively owned forest lands were formulated in both villages and include an obligation to practice afforestation and reforestation. Orchards were established on some of the wastelands. Physicians and health care workers from GAAS also spent time in the two villages; their support was of particular benefit to women and children.

Following a very positive external evaluation of the project in 1998, a proposal for a second phase was developed and approved by IDRC. The principal aim of the second phase was to investigate opportunities for the transfer of the approach and its results to four new villages and, eventually, to the whole province. At the same time, the team continued to monitor health, nutrition, and environmental conditions in Dabuyang and Xiaozhia villages. In the four new villages, participatory analyses of resource management systems, including the study of gender roles, were carried out and constraints and opportunities for interventions were identified. The research team also broadened the involvement of key stakeholders, actively including local and provincial-level administrators and policymakers. In addition, the team integrated PM&E concepts and tools into the research cycle to reflect critically on the research process and the meaning of participation. This further strengthened learning and increased accountability and effectiveness because PM&E emphasizes not only what is being monitored and evaluated, but also who is measuring and how various concerns and interests are negotiated and represented (Sun Qiu et al. 2000).

The KIB-PARDYP and GAAS-CBNRM projects are good example of learning-by-doing; team members were trained to use a set of new tools, then went on to develop and adapt a participatory, integrated natural and social science approach to address community-based institutional and management issues together with farmers. “Working for our own dreams,” is how the farmers describe this process. In the following chapters we document in more detail how these capacity building and research efforts are contributing to the realization of their dreams.

Document(s) 4 of 13