PLA-66

66participatory learningandaction

Tools for supporting sustainable natural resourcemanagement and livelihoods

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) formerly PLA Notesand RRA Noteswas established in 1987, toallow practitioners of participatory methodologies fromaround the world to share their field experiences,conceptual reflections, and methodological innovations.The series is informal and seeks to publish frank accounts,address issues of practical and immediate value,encourage innovation, and act as a voice from the field. The PLA series is 25 years old this year and at this

important milestone and with the drafting of its newstrategy, IIED is taking stock to look at PLAs legacy andfuture direction, and the series has now been put on hold.Over the past year, the PLA team and other colleaguesfrom IIED have been carrying out an internal consultationon the future of PLAand we are now awaiting the findingsfrom an external evaluation, which has been exploringfuture options for the series. The review may presentoptions on appropriate publication models it may alsorecommend that PLAbe discontinued. Final decisions will be posted on the website towards the end of this yearat: www.planotes.org

We are grateful to the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency (Sida), UK aid fromthe UK Goverment, Irish Aid, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (Danida) for their financialsupport of PLA.

The views expressed in this publication do notnecessarily reflect the views of the funding organisationsor the employers of the editors and authors.

Participatory Learning and Action66 IIED, 2013Order no: 14620IIEDCover illustration: Regina Faul-DoyleDesign and layout: Smith+Bell DesignPrinted by: Full Spectrum Print Media Ltd.

Editors: Holly Ashley, Nicole Kenton and Angela Milligan.

Strategic Editorial Board: Nazneen Kanji, Jethro Pettit, Michel Pimbert, Krystyna Swiderska and David Satterthwaite.

International Editorial Advisory Board: Oga Steve Abah, Jo Abbot, Jordi Surkin Beneria, L. David Brown, Andy Catley, Robert Chambers,Louise Chawla, Andrea Cornwall, Bhola Dahal, Qasim Deiri, John Devavaram, Charlotte Flower,FORCE Nepal, Bara Guye, Irene Guijt, Marcia Hills, Enamul Huda, Vicky Johnson, Caren Levy, Sarah Levy, Zhang Linyang, PJ Lolichen, Cath Long,Ilya M. Moeliono, Humera Malik, Marjorie Jane Mbilinyi, Ali Mokhtar, Seyed Babak Moosavi, Trilok Neupane, Esse Nilsson, Zakariya Odeh, Peter Park, Bardolf Paul, Bimal Kumar Phnuyal, Giacomo Rambaldi, Peter Reason, Joel Rocamora, Jayatissa Samaranayake, Madhu Sarin, Daniel Selener, Meera Kaul Shah,Jasber Singh, Marja Liisa Swantz, Cecilia Tacoli, Peter Taylor, Tom Wakeford, Eliud Wakwabubi and Alice Welbourn.

The International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED) is committed topromoting social justice and the

empowerment of the poor and marginalised. It also supportsdemocracy and full participation in decision-making andgovernance. We strive to reflect these values in ParticipatoryLearning and Action. For further information contact IIED,80-86 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK. Website:www.iied.org

This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-Non-Commercial-

Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Recipients areencouraged to use it freely for not-for-profit purposes only.Please credit the authors and the PLA series. To view a copyof this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 SecondStreet, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA.

Download past and current issuesAll issues of PLAare now free to download fromwww.iied.org/download-participatory-learning-and-action

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) is an umbrella termfor a wide range of approaches and methodologies, includingParticipatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Rapid Rural Appraisal(RRA), Participatory Learning Methods (PALM),Participatory Action Research (PAR), Farming SystemsResearch (FSR), and Mthode Active de Recherche et dePlanification Participative (MARP). The common theme isthe full participation of people in the processes of learningabout their needs and opportunities, and in the actionrequired to address them.

In recent years, there has been a number of shifts in thescope and focus of participation: emphasis on sub-national,national and international decision-making, not just localdecision-making; move from projects to policy processes andinstitutionalisation; greater recognition of issues ofdifference and power; and, emphasis on assessing the qualityand understanding the impact of participation, rather thansimply promoting participation. Participatory Learning andAction reflects these developments and recognises theimportance of analysing and overcoming power differentialswhich work to exclude the already poor and marginalised.

1ForewordCamilla Toulmin..............................................................................................................................................................................................3Editorial......................................................................................................................................................................................................................5From rapid to reflective: 25 years of Participatory Learning and ActionRobert Chambers ..........................................................................................................................................................................................12

1. The multifaceted impacts of P3DM: experiences from the Solomon Islands Antonella Piccolella with James Hardcastle and Jimmy Kereseka....................................................15

2. Making the invisible visible: how was famine averted in Southern Africa?Christopher Eldridge................................................................................................................................................................................27

3. Sustainable animal welfare: community-led action for improving care and livelihoodsLisa van Dijk, SK Pradhan, Murad Ali and Ramesh Ranjan ................................................................37

4. Participatory digital map-making in arid areas of Kenya and TanzaniaTom Rowley ........................................................................................................................................................................................................51

5. Prejudice and participation: claiming rights to community forests in NepalGovinda Prasad Acharya and Pramod Jaiswal......................................................................................................67

6. Increasing womens incomes, increasing peace: unexpected lessons from NigerJindra Cekan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................75

7. Reflections on participatory HIV prevention research with fishing communities,UgandaPeter Kayiira Byansi, Paul Bukuluki, Janet Seeley, Pontiano Kaleebu, Leslie Nielsen,Kidega William, Simon Sigirenda, Kalinda Jimmy, Rebecca Nabbosa and DavidWalugembe ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................83

Contents

662

8. Can we define ethical standards for participatory work?John Rowley with Marilyn Doyle, Susie Hay and the Participatory Practitioners for Change (PPfC) members ............................................................................................................................................................91

9. Whose public spaces? Citizen participation in urban planning in Santiago, ChileViviana Fernndez Prajoux ........................................................................................................................................................101

10. Tools for measuring change: self-assessment by communitiesBernward Causemann and and Eberhard Gohl..................................................................................................113

In touch................................................................................................................................................................................................................123RCPLA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................143RCPLA and PLA: two sides of the same coinTom Thomas ..................................................................................................................................................................................................145Beyond RCPLALisa Van Dijk and Passinte Isaak ........................................................................................................................................147RCPLA Network pages ....................................................................................................................................................................151

3Foreword

When I first joined the International Insti-tute for Environment and Developmentmore than 25 years ago, I found myself onthe 3rd floor of Endsleigh Street in the nextdoor office to Gordon Conway. It was thebest place to be, as there was a great buzzaround the promise and practice of partici-patory methods. Gordon, JennyRietbergen-McCracken and Jules Prettywould return from the field having spent aninvigorating fortnight in Tigray, or in Sene-gal, hanging out with farmers, and walkingthe landscape with them. Many of such fieldvisits involved Robert Chambers, who hasinspired so many of us to trust our instinctsand turn established assumptions on theirhead.

Reading through the early issues ofRRA Notes, there is a freshness and energybubbling up, seeking to test out new waysof learning and understanding how toengage a more bottom-up process of deci-sion-making and development. Themethods and approach firmly rootedanalysis at the level of the people whoactually plan and manage fields and land-

scapes on a day-to-day basis. It helped putexperts in a better place, and legitimiseda different way of working.

It was also an approach whose timehad come in many different regions. In theSahel, for example, where I had beenworking since 1980, I had been intriguedby the very beautiful coloured maps show-ing different landscapes and pasture typesproduced for government and develop-ment agencies. The most elegant ofwallpapers, I couldnt quite understandhow you might use them in practice, sincethe people actually taking their herdsnorth and south had no access to thesemaps and relied on a very different infor-mation system. After the droughts of19834, there was much discussion aboutthe future of the Sahel many expertsconsidered that it would be better to movepeople to higher rainfall coastal regionsand abandon this large dry region. Manyfarmers and herders had not been waitingfor such instruction, but had been movinginto southern Mali and northern CtedIvoire for generations. But there were

66 Camilla Toulmin4

many who stayed behind, and evidenceshowed that they were managing theirpatchy resources with remarkable ingenu-ity, despite the uncertain rainfall.

The participation rhetoric was takenup across the Sahel, with donors pushingthe idea of gestion des terroirs (manage-ment of village lands) but no-one reallyknew how to do it. So it was lucky that agroup of Sahelians led by Bara Guye fromSenegal and Mathieu Oudraogo fromBurkina Faso built a network to traintrainers in RRA methods (known inFrench as mthode acclre de la rechercheparticipative (MARP)). This body ofpeople has been central to the spread oflocally driven decentralised managementand control of land and natural resourcesthat has offered such promise across theSahel most recently in the various green-ing the Sahel initiatives now documented.

After 25 years of publishing PLA, wehave decided to take a break. We arereviewing its achievements over the lastquarter century, celebrating the multipleand diverse impacts, and thinking aboutnext steps. Clearly, the space PLA hasoccupied is of huge importance offeringspace for shared learning, strengtheninglocal power, legitimising local expertiseand decision-making. We are reviewingthe best means to work on this agenda,engage a wider audience and make trans-

parency, accountability, tools and tacticscentral to whatever follows PLA. We areexamining new forms of communicationstechnology, and asking what others aredoing in this space. Well come back to youwith our proposals for next steps as soon aswe can.

As we take a break from publication, Iwould like to pay a particular tribute to thethree co-editors Nicole Kenton, HollyAshley and Angela Milligan. They haveplayed an enormously important part inbringing PLA to where it is today, creatinga vision and plan for each issue, andnurturing the many contributors. I mustalso thank all our contributors andsubscribers, and especially the guest-editors, the Strategic Editorial Board andthe International Editorial AdvisoryBoard. We are also very grateful to thedonors who have supported the series overthe years, in particular the Swedish Inter-national Development CooperationAgency (Sida), the UK Department forInternational Development (DfID), theNorwegian Agency for DevelopmentCooperation (Norad) and Irish Aid, whichhas enabled us to provide free copies tomany individuals and organisationsaround the world. Well be sure to let youknow how we plan to move ahead once theevaluation is done.Camilla Toulmin

CONTACT DETAILSCamilla ToulminDirectorInternational Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED)Email: [email protected]

55

Editorial

Welcome to Participatory Learning andAction 66. As Camilla Toulmin, IIEDsDirector, mentions in her Foreword, weare putting the PLA series on hold afterthis issue, pending the outcome of anexternal review. The PLA series is 25 yearsold this year and at this important mile-stone and with the drafting of its newstrategy, IIED is taking stock to look atPLAs legacy and future direction.

Since the series started in 1988, PLAhas seen an explosion of participatoryapproaches and methods, developed in awide range of contexts. It has often ledthe way in bringing together experiencesaround a particular theme or issue (seeBox 1 in Chambers, this issue), as well asreflecting developments in thinkingabout power and difference, governance,citizenship and rights. It continues to bein high demand on paper and online,with significant downloads. Feedbackshows that the material is both relevantand practical. PLA 65, for example, on

Biodiversity and culture: exploringcommunity protocols , rights andconsent1, was used to guide the develop-ment of Brazil s first bioculturalcommunity protocols (BCP) under theNagoya Protocol, and to support theConvention on Biodiversitys capacity-building workshops in developingcountries. The Spanish version was usedfor capacity building in Latin America.

PLAs collaborative capacity-buildingwriting and editorial process, whichbrings together authors and editors fromdiverse fields to learn from each otherand develop skills for critical analysis andreflection, is as far as we know unique, and has brought together agrowing network of collaborators withthe series.

Over the past year, the PLA team andother colleagues from IIED have beencarrying out an internal consultation onthe achievements and future of PLA andwe are now awaiting the findings from an

1 See: pubs.iied.org/14618IIED.html

66 Holly Ashley, Nicole Kenton and Angela Milligan6

external evaluation. The evaluation maypresent options on appropriate publica-tion models online or print or it mayrecommend that PLA be discontinued.Final decisions will be posted on thewebsite towards the end of this year atwww.planotes.org. We thank all of youwho have given your time to be inter-viewed, and/or complete online surveysduring the evaluation process.

As this will be the last issue of PLA inits current format and with its current co-editors, we would like to take thisopportunity to acknowledge all thoseinvolved with PLA since it began its life asRRA Notes a quarter of a century ago. Inparticular we would like to thank RobertChambers and Michel Pimbert, who havebeen unfailing supporters during our co-editorship. We would also like to thank allthose who edited special theme issues ofPLA. Without exception, they were hugelydedicated, putting in far more than theirallotted hours to produce some reallyground-breaking issues. Our interna-tional editorial board have read hundredsof articles and provided invaluable

insights and feedback despite their busyschedules, and for this we are truly grate-ful. One of our longstanding boardmembers, Bardolf Paul, reflects on histime as a PLA editorial board member(Box 1, right).

We would like to acknowledge thesupport of DfID in producing this issue,together with IIEDs frame funders IrishAid, Danida and Sida and all those whohave supported the production of PLAover the years, including translations intomany different languages and multimediaeditions.

We would also like to include a specialmention of Andy Smith and Denise Bell,our designers (www.smithplusbell.com),for their calm and organised presence andtheir tolerance of our moving deadlines,and also Regina Doyle, our cover illustra-tor, for her patience and creativity. Whenwe produced our 50th issue in 2004,Regina sent a vivid representation of thechallenges (and joys!) of working with us.

Last, but definitely not least, we wouldlike to thank all of you who havecontributed to, subscribed to and read the

Nicole Kenton presents her river of life at the RCPLAworkshop in Cairo, 2008. The tool allows participantsto reflect on personal experiences and influencesthat have motivated them in their personal andprofessional life (see also Moussa, 2009; 2008).

Angela Milligan writing up guidelines developed byparticipants for peer review during the writeshop forPLA 61 Tales of shit: community-led total sanitation inAfrica. As far as we know, the PLA writeshop process isunique. Read more in Lets write! Running aparticipatory writeshop (Milligan and Bongartz, 2010).

Photo: CDS

Photo: David Ngige

7l Editorial

series during our time as editors of PLA.We hope that you will continue to find away to share and learn from each othersparticipatory experiences.

About this issueIt is fitting that we start PLA 66 with somereflections from Robert Chambers, who asone of the pioneers of PRA/PLAapproaches, was instrumental in launch-ing RRA Notes, with other colleagues fromthe Institute of Development Studies andIIED.

We then move on to the articles forthis issue, which have all been submittedby you and cover a range of contexts, withan emphasis on sustainable naturalresource management and livelihoods.We would like to say a huge thank you toall the authors who worked with us on

Box 1: Reflections from a PLA editorialboard member

As a neophyte in the development field in 198990, direct exposure to experimentation insouthern India with the PRA methodology had aprofound impact on my thinking and on the futuredirection on my work and career in the yearsfollowing. It therefore was a great honour to beinvited onto the Editorial Advisory Board of PLA in2006. Because I tend to work in fairly remote andisolated areas, it provided an opportunity to pluginto the mainstream of thought and action in thefield of participatory practices, and to providecomments and insights from my own experiencein working with this development approach andphilosophy. As a result, I felt much moreconnected with current practices and thinking,and felt I was making a wider contribution tofurthering participatory practices.Bardolf Paul, Executive Director, YayasanTambuhak Sinta2, IndonesiaAugust 2013

2 For more information about Yayasan Tambuhak Sinta, see our In Touch section.


their articles and also to those whose arti-cles we have been unable to publish dueto time and space constraints.

We also include a short introduction tothe Resource Centres for ParticipatoryLearning and Action (RCPLA) pages,providing some reflections and thoughtson ways forward for PLA from the perspec-tive of RCPLA network membersincluding Tom Thomas, from Praxis India,and colleagues from the Centre for Devel-opment Services, Cairo.

Articles in this issueOur first article is on participatory three-dimensional modelling (P3DM) and itscapacity to mirror and address commu-nity needs, and this theme is reflected inour cover image. Antonella Piccolella,James Hardcastle and Jimmy Keresekadescribe the cases of Chivoko and BoeBoe in the Solomon Islands. Althoughextensive work has been dedicated to theadvantages of P3DM, limited effort hasbeen made to provide evidence of itsmultifaceted impacts or identify thefactors underpinning its effectiveness.Combining P3DM with good facilitationgenerated community-led and commu-

nity-controlled processes, with benefitsthat went beyond project boundaries.These ranged from ecosystem-basedadaptation to climate change to sustain-able natural resource management, fromwomens empowerment to sharingcultural heritage. The P3DM exercise alsobecame a critical tool for rights-basedadvocacy.

The 1992 southern African droughtwas the regions worst drought in livingmemory. By the time the drought ended,famine had been averted but how? Inour second article, Christopher Eldridgedescribes how he and the late SaitiMakuku investigated the responses oflow-income rural people to the drought.While travelling in Zimbabwe, the authorrealised that villagers were alreadyresponding to the drought in variousways, long before significant quantities ofrelief food began to arrive. However, theiractivities went largely unrecognised,partly because they were many, small andvaried and so were not supported duringthe relief effort. The study used a modi-fied form of scoring, within a livelihoodsframework, which revealed how faminewas averted largely by the activities of

During the writeshop for PLA 64 Young citizens: youth and participatory governance in Africa, Holly Ashley rana session on practical writing skills. This was later developed into a booklet providing guidance for PLAcontributors (Ashley, 2011).

Phot

o: H

olly

Ash

ley

9l Editorial

those whom the drought most severelyaffected. Although the drought happenedover 20 years ago, there are lessons thatwe can learn today from this experience.3

The third article, by Lisa van Dijk,S.K. Pradhan, Murad Ali and RameshRanjan, looks at community-led action inIndia to improve animal health and workpractices, and the development by thecommunity of a participatory animalwelfare needs assessment tool. Itdescribes its success and its scaling upfrom village level to associations andeventually union level. Working animalssupport the livelihoods of millions of ruraland urban families throughout the worldand the loss of an animal can cause majorstress to families. Yet the role and valueof the working animal is still overlookedby government and non-governmentalorganisations, because their services aremainly focused on improving the healthand husbandry of livestock that producemilk, meat, eggs or wool, and workinganimals do not produce a visible output their productivity is in their body energy.They play a variety of important roles,including providing a primary source ofincome by transporting people and goods,supporting agricultural activities andreducing some of the labour and burden,which impacts positively on women inparticular, as they are able to spend lesstime on household tasks and take upopportunities of other employment.

Tom Rowley describes a participatorynatural resource management projectwhere community representatives usedGoogle Earth imagery to precisely identifykey resources on a global reference grid.Participants were able to navigate thesatellite imagery with ease and lead thecollection of data to reflect their priorities.

This allowed local knowledge to bedescribed precisely, and therefore moreuseably, in digital maps. Iterative cycles ofthe mapping process and exploration ofsatellite imagery encouraged deeperconsultation of local knowledge, generat-ing a fuller description of key resourcesand usage patterns. The local knowledgemapped has been used to design byelawsand inform planning for the managementof resources central to local livelihoods andthe local economy, particularly in a contextof increasing climate variability, such asthe drylands of Kenya and Tanzania.

Govinda Prasad Acharya andPramod Jaiswal examine how theKamaiya, a former bonded-labour groupin Nepal, have campaigned to upholdtheir rights of access, use and control ofcommunity forests, using participatorymethods such as Reflect circles to analysetheir situation and converge on consen-sus within the group. More than eleventhousand Kamaiya have now becomemembers of local community forest usergroups (CFUGs), even managing around40 community forests on their own. Manyhave also been elected to leadership roleson CFUG executive committees. Thesegroups now produce ginger, turmeric andherbs and have started agro-forestrycooperatives. The Kamaiyas use ofindigenous knowledge, unity and partic-ipation has also led them to establishcommunity schools, training centres,nurseries and cooperatives.

In the next article, Jindra Cekandescribes a drought-rehabilitation andresilience project in Niger, focused onrestocking womens sheep, buildingmixed-use wells for communities,improving forage storage and transhu-mance. The author carried out baseline

3When reviewing the proportional piling method and participatory methods in general,Christopher writes that it became apparent that aspects of them reflected certainfundamental principles of human psychology. According to Christopher, advances made inthe understanding of these principles have contributed to a revolution in the behaviouralsciences over the last 40 or so years, and this revolution has paralleled the participatoryrevolution in the last few decades. For more information, download and read the discussionpaper which accompanies this article (Eldridge, 2013).


and final evaluation studies with thetarget communities, combining qualita-tive participatory and quantitativegendered budget analysis. The results,such as rises in income, were interesting,but also unexpected, such as the impactof water provision on womens incomesand decreased household violence. Thereare some interesting lessons for practi-tioners focused on increasing communityresilience.

Our next article is co-authored byPeter Kayiira Byansi, Paul Bukuluki,Janet Seeley, Pontiano Kaleebu, LeslieNielsen, Kidega William, SimonSigirenda, Kalinda Jimmy, RebeccaNabbosa and David Walugembe. Theyreflect on their experiences as a multidis-ciplinary team, using participatorymethods to research HIV/AIDS preven-tion in fishing villages in Uganda. Severalof them were born and raised in fishingcommunities with professional training insocial and medical anthropology, behav-iour change communication, health andsocial work. Coming from backgroundsthat participants identified with helped tobreak down communication barriers andbuild trust. A blend of PLA methods andethnographic approaches proved invalu-able in conducting research with fishingcommunities, and would be with othervulnerable or high risk populations.

John Rowley with Marilyn Doyle,Susie Hay and the Participatory Practi-tioners for Change (PPfC) membersoutline the ethical issues facing them intheir participatory practice. The articlediscusses the statements of principles andgood practice put together by themembers to describe what kind of partic-ipatory work they hope for in their work.This article tells the story of theserepeated attempts to describe betterparticipatory work and to define the ethi-

cal issues of participation and asks if cleardefinitions can be widely approved andapplied. Can we define ethical standardsfor participatory work or do practitionershave to struggle with the ethical issues ineach different piece of work?

Next, Viviana Fernndez Prajouxdescribes the process of communityengagement in two urban redevelopmentprojects located in an eastern communeof Santiago, Chile. The first proposal wasfor a shopping mall, and the second toenclose a public park. In both cases, thecommunity rejected the project propos-als, since they were not given anyopportunity to participate in the planningprocess. The community groups ability toorganise and to engage other actors madeit possible to stop these proposed devel-opments, and hopefully this action willhave an impact on future decision-making processes in the commune.

In our final article, Bernward Cause-mann and Eberhard Gohl describe theactivities of a collective of about 50 north-ern and southern NGOs that havedeveloped tools for participatory impactassessment. The tools have been used bycommunities to define, measure, monitor,review and analyse progress towards theirown social, economic and political targets.

We hope that you enjoy reading thecollection of articles in this issue of PLA.We look forward to the next chapter inthe history of PLA and to continuing tobe part of a growing network of individu-als and organisations promoting andpracticing participatory learning andaction. Please continue to share the richresource of articles from our completeback issue collection: www.iied.org/download-participatory-learning-and-action.Holly Ashley, Nicole Kenton and Angela Milligan

11l Editorial

CONTACT DETAILSHolly AshleyFreelance participatory writeshop facilitatorand editorEmail: [email protected]: www.hollyashley.com

Nicole KentonFreelance editor and local food activistEmail: [email protected] and [email protected]

Angela MilliganEmail: [email protected]

REFERENCESEldridge, C. (2013) 'Participatory methods, behaviour-influence and

development a discussion paper.' Unpublished discussion paper,available online: pubs.iied.org/G03636

Milligan, A. and P. Bongartz (2010) Lets write! Running aparticipatory writeshop. In Bongartz, P., S.M. Musyoki, A. Milliganand H. Ashley (Eds) PLA 61 Tales of shit: community-led totalsanitation in Africa. IIED, IDS and Plan. Online:pubs.iied.org/G02810

Moussa, Z. (2009) Rivers of life. In Reid, H., M. Alam, R. Berger, T.Cannon and A. Milligan (Eds) PLA 60: Community-basedadaptation to climate change. IIED: London. Online:pubs.iied.org/G02828

Moussa, Z. (2008) RCPLA Network collaborative planning workshopproceedings, Cairo, March 2008. RCPLA Network. Online:pubs.iied.org/G03226

Ashley, H. (2011) Kindling your spark: an editors practical advice towriters. Unpublished guidelines for PLA contributors. Online:pubs.iied.org/G03143

12

In her Foreword to PLA 50 Critical reflec-tions, future directions the first editor ofthe series, Jenny Rietbergen-McCracken,remembered its birth in a workshop held inIDS in 1988. At that time we were allexcited by the evolution of RRA (rapid ruralappraisal). She wrote:

the idea of sharing notes from the fieldwas discussed. The question was whowould coordinate, edit and disseminate aninformal RRA journal? All it took was anexpectant raising of Gordon Conwayseyebrows, a quick nod of my head, and theSustainable Agriculture team at IIED hadtaken you on!

At that time we had no idea of what wewere starting or that RRA Notes wouldevolve into PLA Notes and then into Partic-ipatory Learning and Action. Nor could wehave imagined the scale or scope of thecontribution these would make. The list oftitles speaks for itself (see Box 1 overleaf).The content has kept pace with the expand-ing range of participatory methodologies,

and has reported and disseminated innu-merable innovations, and inspiredadoption, adaptation and creativity in turn.The impact has been immense.

This is now a time for celebration andthanks to those who brought all this about:those who managed and edited these 66issues initially Jenny Rietbergen-McCracken and Jules Pretty; then IreneGuijt, John Thompson, Ian Scoones andJules Pretty; then Joanne Abbott and LauraGreenwood; and finally Angela Milligan,Nicole Kenton and Holly Ashley, togetherwith all the guest-editors of themed issues.This is, too, a time to recognise the visionand commitment of those in the SwedishInternational Development CooperationAgency (Sida), the UK Department forInternational Development (DfID), theNorwegian Agency for Development Coop-eration (Norad) and Irish Aid, who realisedthe key role that the series could and did playin the evolution, diversification and spreadof participatory approaches and methodsand who have been champions in providingsupport. And thanks must go too to IIED for

by ROBERT CHAMBERS

From rapid to reflective:25 years of ParticipatoryLearning and Action

13l From rapid to reflective: 25 years of Participatory Learning and Action

having provided a home for 25 years for suchan outstanding journal. With all its issuesnow permanently accessible on the Internet,it will remain as a lasting jewel in the crownof IIED.1

Much from the past can and willcontinue to inform and inspire: the semi-structured, evolutionary interviews andconversations of RRA, so in tune now withthe complexity concept of emergence; theversatility and power of the visualisation ofagro-ecosystem analysis and then itsempowering transformation in the groupmapping and diagramming of PRA; theinclusive versatility and diversity of PLA asa broad umbrella term, hosting a cornu-copia of participatory methodologies andtheir combinations.

Let us see this moment now as a fertileopportunity: a pause for breath, for rethink-ing, for seeing new needs and opportunities,and for visionary champions and funders tocome forward. Let all who are committed toparticipatory approaches and methods beproactive to ensure that this hiatus in publi-cation will be no more than a brief interlude.Let us make this a seminal period that willgive birth to and nurture a reincarnation ina new and fitting form. For participatoryinnovations continue to proliferate. Theneeds are there. The niche is there, cryingout to be filled.

Forming and framing this niche, much isnew. Change is ever faster. Our digital age hasopened up a wider range of participation: methodologically, with participatory

Box 1: List of PLA themed issues

66 Tools for supporting sustainablenatural resource managementand livelihoods

65 Biodiversity and culture:exploring community protocols,rights and consent

64 Young citizens: youth andparticipatory governance inAfrica

63 How wide are the ripples? Fromlocal participation tointernational organisationallearning

62 Wagging the dragons tail:emerging practices in participa-tory poverty reduction in China

61 Tales of shit: community-led totalsanitation in Africa

60 Community-based adaptation toclimate change

59 Change at hand: Web 2.0 fordevelopment

58 Towards empoweredparticipation: stories andreflections

57 Immersions: learning aboutpoverty face-to-face

55 Practical tools for communityconservation in southern Africa

54 Mapping for change: practice,technologies andcommunication

53 Tools for influencing power andpolicy

51 Civil society and povertyreduction

50 Critical reflections, futuredirections (double issue)

49 Decentralisation and community-based planning

48 Learning and teachingparticipation

47 Participatory numbers46 Participatory processes for policy

change 45 Community-based animal

healthcare44 Local government and

participation43 Advocacy and citizen

participation42 Childrens participation

evaluating effectiveness40 Deliberative democracy and

citizen empowerment39 Participatory communications38 Participatory processes in the

North37 Sexual and reproductive health 35 Community water management 34 Learning from analysis33 Understanding market

opportunities

32 Participation, literacy andempowerment

31 Participatory monitoring andevaluation

30 Participation and fishingcommunities

29 Performance and participation 28 Methodological complementarity 27 Participation, policy and

institutionalisation 25 Childrens participation24 Critical reflections from practice 23 Section on participatory

approaches to HIV/AIDSprogrammes

21 Participatory tools and methodsin urban areas

20 Livestock19 Training16 Applications for health15 Applications of wealth ranking13 Proceedings of the February 1991

Bangalore PRA trainersworkshop

11 Proceedings of a local leveladaptive planning workshop,London

7 Proceedings of second jointIDS/IIED RRA review workshop

1 For a full list of back issues all free to download online visit: www.planotes.org

66 Robert Chambers14

geographic information systems (PGIS),2 mobile phones3 and the like; creatively, with accelerating innovation indeveloping countries (as with M-Pesa andUshahidi, both born in Kenya);4 5 and socially, through the connectivity increas-ingly of many poor people.

Complexity theory resonates withparticipation, and the two together promisecountervailing alternatives to the excess oftop-down targets and linear determinismwhich have increasingly dominated somuch development practice.

In 1988, we were energised andenthralled by the sense that big things werehappening and about to happen. Now in2013, as change accelerates, we are sweptalong faster than ever we were 25 years ago.All over again, I have a similar sense of

imminent innovation. More than ever weneed learning and unlearning, and keepingin touch and up-to-date, not least with therealities of poor and marginalised people;and we need ways of communicating andsharing which fit our age.

Certainly, let us take this last issue ofPLA as a cause for celebration of all thathas gone before. Let us use this space forstanding back, seeing where we are, whatwe have, and what we need. Let us bevigorous and creative in seeing what needsto be done and in making it happen. Let ussee how we can follow PLAwith new initia-tives to realise more of the huge potentialthat participation and participatorymethodologies have to make our world abetter place. For the need and opportunityare not less but more than ever before.

2 See e.g. PLA 54 Mapping for change: practice, technologies and communications (Rambaldiet al., 2006).3 See e.g. Samii (2009) in PLA 59 Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development.4M-Pesa (M for mobile, pesa is Swahili for money) is a mobile-phone based money transferand micro-financing service for Safaricom and Vodacom, the largest mobile networkoperators in Kenya and Tanzania.5 Ushahidi is a non-profit technology company that specialises in developing free and opensource software for information collection, visualisation and interactive mapping. See:www.ushahidi.com and also Ory Okollohs (2009) article in PLA 59 Change at hand: Web 2.0for development.

CONTACT DETAILSRobert ChambersResearch AssociateParticipation Power and Social Change TeamInstitute for Development Studies (IDS)University of Sussex, UKEmail: [email protected]

REFERENCESRambaldi, G., J. Corbett, R. Olson, M. McCall, J. Muchemi, P.K.

Kyem, D. Weiner and R. Chambers (Eds) (2006) ParticipatoryLearning and Action 54 Mapping for Change: practice,technologies and communications. IIED: London and CTA:Wageningen. Online: pubs.iied.org/14507IIED.html

Okolloh, O. (2009) Ushahidi or testimony: Web 2.0 tools forcrowdsourcing crisis information. In: Ashley, H., J. Corbett, B.Garside and G. Rambaldi (Eds) Participatory Learning and Action59 Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development. IIED: Londonand CTA: Wageningen. Online: pubs.iied.org/G02842.html

Samii, R. (2009) Mobile phones: the silver bullet to bridge the digitaldivide? In: Ashley, H., J. Corbett, B. Garside and G. Rambaldi(Eds) Participatory Learning and Action 59 Change at hand:Web 2.0 for development. IIED: London and CTA: Wageningen.Online: pubs.iied.org/G02838.html

1515

IntroductionLiterature on the tyranny of participationunderlines that community-based devel-opment is promising but inevitably messy,difficult, approximate and unpredictable inits outcomes (Cleaver, 2001). These stud-ies legitimately caution against treatingparticipatory processes as acts of faith.However, they may have overlooked thevalue of open-ended processes whereparticipants are the principal actors.This article uses case studies from Boe

Boe and Chivoko in the Solomon Islandsto show that participatory three-dimen-sional modelling (P3DM) can achieve bothintended objectives and unintended posi-tive outcomes. The democratic character ofthe method combined with durability,flexibility and a sense of ownership bothserves community needs and ensures thatprocesses are not dictated by an outsideagenda. The article first provides a project back-

ground and outlines the participatorymethodology adopted. The results are thenexplained in light of the distinctive charac-

teristics of P3DM combined with a respectfor principles of good practice.

BackgroundBoth Chivoko and Boe Boe are smallcoastal villages of around 50 households,located in Choiseul Province (locallynamed Lauru) in the Solomon Islands.Choiseul is one of the more remoteprovinces of the country, with an undevel-oped mountainous forest interior. Thereare few roads and its communities aremainly connected by boat. As a traditionalMelanesian society, both villages are male-dominated with customary land ownershipand traditional institutions. Villagersdepend on reefs, mangrove ecosystems,forest and bush gardens for their liveli-hoods. In the last decade they have facedincreasing environmental and develop-ment challenges, including the depletion ofnatural resources, commercial logging and,more recently, proposed mining develop-ments. The threat of climate change isbeginning to further undermine social andenvironmental resilience.

by ANTONELLA PICCOLELLA with JAMES HARDCASTLE andJIMMY KERESEKA

The multifaceted impactsof P3DM: experiencesfrom the Solomon Islands 1

66 Antonella Piccolella with James Hardcastle and Jimmy Kereseka1616

Boe Boe is along the coast and the seaerodes it. It is part of a very steep moun-tain and people do not know where to gobecause it is not fit enough to build houses.It is quite dangerous having the villagedown there, and the mining company upthere, and the sea coming up. We do notknow where to go (Winifred Pitamama2012, personal communication).

In 2007, the villagers of Chivoko won ahigh-court injunction against a loggingcompany with support from the LauruLand Conference of Tribal Community(LLCTC), an indigenous organisationwhich represents the interests of customarychiefs and their communities in Lauru. In2009, with financial support from Swiss-RE insurance, LLCTC worked with thecommunity to create a participatory 3Dmodel to clearly define their customaryboundaries, and explore alternative land

uses for the forest. Following the success ofthe Chivoko P3DM, in February 2011 theLLCTC facilitated a P3DM in Boe Boe withPartners With Melanesians (PWM), aPapua New Guinea-based developmentorganisation.1 The P3DM exercise wasconducted alongside other participatoryactivities including participatory video,household surveys and shoreline walks,based on the idea that local communitiescan valuably contribute to adaptation deci-sion-making.2

The methodIn both cases, experienced facilitatorsassisted students and community volun-teers to build a cardboard, three-dimensional model of their land (see Box1). After construction, village informantsstarted to visualise their local spatialknowledge using paint, yarns and push-pins, and developed the legend. Both

1 The P3DM was part of the project Building the Resilience of Communities and theirEcosystems to the Impact of Climate Change in the Pacific, coordinated by James Hardcastle.It was funded by the Australian Government (AusAid) and implemented through The NatureConservancy (TNC).2 For more information, see Ririmae and Hardcastle (2011).

Boe Boe, Solomon Islands.

Map: Nate Peterson

17l The multifaceted impacts of P3DM: experiences from the Solomon Islands 17

models provided a platform for discussingeach communitys challenges and identify-ing locally appropriate solutions.In Boe Boe, as a parallel process, a

geographic information system (GIS)expert developed a digital elevation model(DEM) of the village. This was used togroundtruth features on the model andillustrate what if? scenarios of sea-levelrises of 50cm, 100cm and 200cm. Thepurpose was to show the exact elevation ofthe village above mean sea level and whatareas risked being submerged with aprojected sea level rise of 1m by 2100 or2m, for example in the extreme case of

Box 1: Participatory three-dimensionalmodelling (P3DM)

P3DM is a spatial visualisation method falling underthe umbrella term of participatory geographicinformation systems (PGIS). It consists of acommunity-based mapping method which integrateslocal spatial knowledge with data on land elevationsand sea depth to produce stand-alone, scaled andgeo-referenced relief models. Its core objective is toadd value to traditional knowledge and facilitategrassroots influence in policy-making. Once themodel is completed, a geo-referenced grid is appliedto facilitate data extraction and/or import, digitisationand plotting. The possibility of exporting to andimporting data from GIS provides a bridge betweentechnical and community-generated knowledge.

Boe Boe villagers building their participatory 3D model.

Photo: Javier Leon


tsunami (Javier Leon, personal communi-cation 2011). There was an opendiscussion around the participatory 3Dmodel, comparing the DEM scenarios toactual experiences of high tides and stormevents. In some instances, the communitychallenged the DEM scenarios, identify-ing the presence of near-shore rocks, an

exposed reef area and mangrove forestthat would provide a buffer against thepredicted inundation. The combined useof the digital model with the relief model,expressing the communitys perception ofrisk and landscape change, allowed a real-time integration of science with localknowledge.

Finalising the three-dimensional model in Boe Boe.

Photo: Javier Leon

19l The multifaceted impacts of P3DM: experiences from the Solomon Islands

A multi-purpose and open-ended processThe P3DM exercises were specificallyframed around key issues (forest manage-ment in Chivoko and adaptation to climatechange in Boe Boe). But interviews,conducted two years after the Chivoko

exercise and one year after the Boe Boeone, show that P3DM contributed tocommunity resilience across a broad rangeof development and local governanceissues (see Box 2).

Climate change awarenessIn the context of climate change, a three-dimensional map is very useful sincephenomena such as sea-level rise, coastalerosion, floods and landslides have a verti-cal dimension. In Boe Boe, rising sea levelswere already apparent. A base map dated1992 showed an island that the eldersremembered but which was now underwater. The P3DM stimulated an importantprocess of self-realisation, providing analternative to conventional awareness-rais-ing programmes.

Strengthening resilienceEcosystem conservationIn both cases, the P3DM emphasised thekey role of watershed forests, mangrovesand reef conservation in strengthening localresilience. Before the model was created,

3 I conducted the interviews in Honiara as a follow-up to my Masters thesis Participatorymapping for adaptation to climate change: the case of Boe Boe, Solomon Islands. I was keento hear feedback from community representatives and learn more about the impacts of theP3DM activities which took place the year before.

Box 2: Interviews on the impact of theP3DM exercises

In Boe Boe, Antonella Piccolella conducted one-to-one in-depth semi-structured interviews withcommunity members during a workshop in Honiara,May 2012.3 It was organised by the Technical Centrefor Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), TNC, theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)and PWM. The workshop raised awareness on thepotential use of P3DM in climate change adaptationand shared lessons learnt by its direct protagonists.These interviews completed information obtainedpreviously from project staff during remote one-to-one interviews, shortly after the modelling exercise.

In Chivoko, both James Hardcastle and JimmyKereseka revisited the community in July 2011 as partof the P3DM project evaluation. Both participated inboth the Chivoko and Boe Boe P3DM exercises andwere very familiar to the community. They discussedthe impacts and implications of the exercise with keyinformants during brief, semi-structured interviews.


trespassing on marine and terrestrialprotected area boundaries was commonsince their extent was not precisely known.Visualising the small terrestrial protectedarea in Boe Boe also provided evidence thatit needed enlarging. In both cases, partici-pants discussed the reasons underpinningconservation and the conditions underwhich this status could be suspended.

Natural resources managementOn the Boe Boe model, villagers identifiedmangrove areas for sourcing shellfish, woodfor building materials and other resources.The women said they had already noticeda significant depletion of natural resources.Due to rising sea levels, they were harvest-ing edible shellfish in more remotelocations. Once gathered around the modelthey also discussed over-harvesting and theneed to adopt more sustainable practices.

Now when they go for harvesting, they justtake what is needed (Winifred Pitamama2012, personal communication).

In Chivoko, the Solomon Islands Devel-opment Trust provided training in commu-nity forestry and eco-forestry techniquesand zoning to support the local export ofsustainably harvested timber. The model isused to plan these activities with a minimalimpact on the forest, the associated water-shed values and ecosystem services.

Relocating and diversifying economicactivitiesThe model has become an important visualsupport for reflecting on land use patterns.In Boe Boe, villagers realised that the needto relocate and rethink their economicactivities was inevitable. Although inde-pendent from the P3DM, the NaturalResources Development Foundation, alocal CBO engaged in sustainable forestmanagement, now organises regular train-ing to encourage alternative smallincome-generating activities includingraising poultry, crop diversification andbookkeeping.

Coastal landscape and marine protected areas on the Boe Boe participatory 3D model.

Photo: Javier Leon


Transmission of knowledge

Not many people have gone into the bush tosee how their land looks like. It is a chancefor them, especially for women and chil-dren, to know what resources they have inthe bush. They started to talk about thevillage sites, why they had to move from themiddle of the mountains down to the sea...They started to convey those stories(Gideon Solo, 2012, personal communi-cation).

P3DM also facilitates learning aboutnatural and cultural heritage. The partici-patory process favoured storytelling aboutsacred sites, which was important for thosewho did not know the stories or could nolonger access those places. Informationgenerated around the model also showedthe importance of nature in Melanesianculture. For example, some fishing groundswere traditionally protected for spiritualreasons. Creating sustainable fisherieswould strengthen livelihoods and protectcultural heritage. The community also decided which

information was confidential and wouldnot be incorporated in the model, to avoidexpropriation by outsiders. Traditionalburial sites were not marked on the models,but their existence was temporarily addedor pointed out during discussions. Card-board and paint models allow for suchalterations and temporary changes overtime.

Giving voice to womenThe P3DM process enabled people fromdifferent ages and genders to worktogether. Both gender groups affirmedtheir roles in society through the visualisa-tion of locations where they perform theiractivities. According to Winifred, a teacherinvolved in the process, the P3DM in BoeBoe was especially important for women,who usually spend all their life in thevillage, working in the gardens and look-ing after their families.

Women look at the model and get the ideathat this is our place, we should careabout our place rather than giving it tothe logging companies to spoil our lands.We should keep all these things forourselves, for our children (WinifredPitamama, 2012, personal communi-cation).

Rights-based advocacyThe clear visualisation of customaryboundaries in Chivoko reinforced thecommunitys legal claims against the grant-ing of a commercial license to a loggingcompany. The success of this conservationeffort helped to implement the LauruProtected Area Network.According to the Natural Resources

Development Foundation coordinator,knowledge generated through the P3DMin Boe Boe has also encouraged activeparticipation in decision-making in thevillage, by promoting villagers self-confi-dence and pride, in contrast to the sense offatalism and victimisation typical of top-down approaches to development.

Just a few weeks ago we had a publichearing during an environmental impactassessment for a proposed mining project.People from the government and consult-ants from overseas came to present a report.They showed a lot of pictures during thepresentation. We will be drilling this point,we will be drilling that point... Because ofthe knowledge from the model, people havea say (Ringo Kodosiku, 2012, personalcommunication).

The external environmental impactassessment experts were astonished bysuch an active civil society, and as a result,the Boe Boe community won an extensionon the deadline to submit their commentson the report.

They were very surprised, because this isnot the first place where they did this


public hearing. They have done it in othervillages but with different reactions. Theynormally only have to spend a couple ofhours there, but in our village they had tostay overnight (Ringo Kodosiku, 2012,personal communication).

Although their opposition may notprevent the mining project, the communityhas secured the complete lock-out of areasthey identified as culturally and environ-mentally important. This clearly reveals thepotential of P3DM for rights-basedcommunity advocacy.

Considerations and lessons learntThe success of these projects involved acombination of the unique characteristicsof P3DM with a respect for the basic prin-ciples of good practice.

Advantages of P3DMP3DM stands out because of its demo-cratic character. Everybody felt free tocontribute regardless of their position insociety. The limited eye contact and lackof verbal dominance, typical of hands-ongroup work, allowed participants to feel atease. The presence of an external entity

While presenting a report on a proposed mining project, external environmental impact assessment expertswere surprised by the community's detailed engagement in the discussions.

Illustration: Regina Faul-Boyle

(the model) enabled people to talk to themodel rather than directly confrontingeach other. Building a model is also funand engaging, helping to breach the rigidhierarchies governing traditional Laurusociety. Participants worked deep into thenight and from early morning, and itbecame more and more exciting as peoplestarted to recognise their homes, schoolsand gardens. Participants clearly identified with the

model. Cognitive psychologists explainthis due to the third (vertical) dimension,which stimulates memory. A two-dimen-sional map looks the same from anydirection. With a three-dimensionalmodel, what you see varies according toyour position. This implies processing abigger amount of data. The third dimen-sion offers more hints to memory(Rambaldi, 2010). Moreover, the tactileexperience is part of the learning processof many indigenous cultures. Ellen Taqe-vala (74 years old), despite not having seena map before, recognised her environment

and accurately described how Boe Boevillage was relocated from the hills to thecoast during the Second World War. ChiefKiplin of Chivoko also described to theyounger generation the layout of the pre-war settlement in the hills.The model belongs to the community

and is kept in a public place. It can beupdated and applied to any communityissue presenting a spatial dimension. It is arepository of precious information, whichcan be unexpectedly useful, for exampleduring discussions on the proposed BoeBoe mining project.

Good practiceWhose problems? Whose solutions? Whose knowledge counted? In both Chivoko and Boe Boe, despite thedifferent project entry points, the P3DMresulted in a much more community-ledand community-controlled planning anddiscussion process. The completed modelswere given to the chief and, through thechief, to the community. Implementing


Although Ellen Taqevala had never seen a map before, she could show where Boe Boe was relocated to duringthe Second World War.

Photo: Javier Leon


project activities were directed by thecommunity with a clear reference to thediscussions around the model, supportedby other participatory activities. Villagersbecame actors while outsiders were cata-lysts and co-learners. Many other internalactivities and decisions are still assisted bythe model, and conversations with villagersconfirm their sense of continued commu-nity ownership. One main limitation was having too

little time to discuss community issues in amore structured way. After an initial hesi-tation, participation in small self-selectedgroups happened naturally without theneed for planning or forcing villagersinvolvement. There was a free flow ofpeople in the room where the model wasbeing made. However, the informal unfold-ing of the process increased the frequencyof conversations being interrupted. Thismade it harder to capture different storiesand perspectives. More time should have been allocated to

collecting and reflecting on informationemerging during the P3DM exercise. Havingseparate discussions for different communitygroups would have given women greateropportunities to speak up. But the immedi-ate need to capture information dictated byproject-driven timeframes and the short-term presence of external facilitators shouldnot undermine the pace and interactiveprocess at the local level. The P3DM project was not an isolated

activity, but part of other ongoing initia-tives with both TNC and local partnerssuch as LLCTC. All parties could speakPidgin, which also significantly helped.4

Trust was built with time, transparency andrespect. Cultural sensitivity and an aware-ness of community problems strengthenedthe communities positive involvement. Forexample, most meetings were in theevening, to avoid interference with thevillagers regular daily activities. Thisshowed a respect for community time-frames and commitments.

Chivokos villagers gather around the completed P3DM model.

Photo: Javier Leon


ConclusionIt is hard to predict the multifacetedimpacts of a P3DM exercise. But theexperiences of Chivoko and Boe Boeconfirm the capacity of P3DM for gener-ating community-centred processes. Howthe model is used is determined through-out the participatory process and isadjusted as community needs evolve. Sowhile the model projected the impacts oflogging and climate change in line withproject objectives, it also became the focalpoint for discussing alternative livelihoodstrategies. Other welcome but unplannedimpacts included its use for rights-based

advocacy, its impact on women, and itscultural value. The models proved to becompatible with customary Melanesiansocieties and able to transcend their rigidhierarchic structures. The facilitationteam demonstrated respect and culturalsensitivity throughout, and the leadershipand intermediary role of the LLCTC andthe endorsement of the village chiefspaved the way for a fruitful communityengagement. The open-ended nature ofparticipatory mapping, the unique char-acteristics of P3DM and good facilitationall contributed to the achievement ofoutcomes beyond project expectations.

CONTACT DETAILSAntonella PiccolellaConsultantInternational Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD)Rome, ItalyEmail: [email protected]

James HardcastleProgramme Development ManagerInternational Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN)Email: [email protected]

Jimmy KeresekaLauru Land Conference of Tribal Community(LLCTC)Email: [email protected]

4Solomon Islands Pidgin English is the variety of Neo-Melanesian spoken in the SolomonIslands. Pidgin is an English-based language with a limited vocabulary and simplifiedgrammar, which was developed as a means of communication between groups that do nothave a language in common.


REFERENCESCleaver, F. (2001) Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory

approaches to development. In (eds) Cook, B. and U. Kothari (2001)Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books: London.

Rambaldi, G., J. Corbett, R. Olson, M. McCall, J. Muchemi, P.K. Kyem, D. Weiner and R. Chambers (eds) (2007) Participatory Learning andAction 54: Mapping for change: practice, technologies andcommunications. IIED: London and CTA: Wageningen. Online:pubs.iied.org/14507IIED.html

Rambaldi, G. (2010) Participatory three-dimensional modelling:guiding principles and applications. 2010 edition. CTA:Wageningen.

Ririmae, E. and J. Hardcastle (2011) Modelling the future: participatory3D mapping helps Boe Boe community plan for climate changeimpacts and other development challenges. The Nature Conservancy(TNC). Online: http://tinyurl.com/modelling-boe-boe. Full URL:community.eldis.org/.59e570a8/modeling%20the%20future%20CCA%20in%20Boe%20Boe%20Solomons.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis article was based on research done for and as a follow-up to myMasters thesis Participatory mapping for adaptation to climate change:the case of Boe Boe, Solomon Islands, with invaluable contributions byJimmy Kereseka and James Hardcastle. Many thanks to Jean-ChristopheGaillard (University of Auckland) and Giacomo Rambaldi (TechnicalCentre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, CTA) whose experienceand knowledge have been invaluable. Thanks also to CTA and TNC whosupported my work in Honiara. This allowed me to carry out face-to-face interviews with participants from the village of Boe Boe whichcomplemented insights from James Hardcastle (TNC), Robyn James(TNC), Javier Leon (University of Wollongong) and Gideon Solo (ChoiseulProvince Climate Change Officer). Especial thanks goes to RingoKodosiku and Winifred Pitamama from Boe Boe and to Ekan Velo andChief Kiplin Lato from the village of Chivoko for sharing their insights onthe P3DM experiences.

2727

BackgroundThe 1992 Southern African drought wasthe regions worst drought in livingmemory. It affected around 86 millionpeople in the region. In 1985, famine hadfollowed a severe drought in the Horn ofAfrica. It seemed that famine might alsofollow the current 1992 Southern Africandrought. This was the mental map1 I tookwith me when I moved to Zimbabwe in1988 from Sudan, where I had workedduring the 1985 famine, and initially, I wasthe prisoner of my experience.2

In 1992, I was country director inZimbabwe for Save the Children UK (SC-UK). We were already providing relief aidin two districts in Zimbabwe which werebadly affected by the 1992 drought, Bingaand Kariba. But while travelling in these

districts as the drought took hold, itbecame clear to me that villagers werealready responding to the drought in vari-ous ways, long before significant quantitiesof relief food began to arrive. However,their activities seemed to be overshadowedby our relief operation, one of the largestever mounted.

By the time the drought ended, faminehad been averted but how? To answerthis question I organised a study on thedrought (Eldridge, 2002).3

Making the invisible visible What does not happen is often as impor-tant as what happens. But it is not so ofteninvestigated. Moreover, when research iscarried out, or when major policies andprogrammes are being drawn up, people

by CHRISTOPHER ELDRIDGE

Making the invisible visible:how was famine averted inSouthern Africa? 2

1 Mental maps are explained by Koger and Winter (2010). Mental models in the context ofclimate change are discussed by Tschakert and Sagoe (2009) in PLA60 Community-basedadaptation to climate change (Reed et al., 2009). See: pubs.iied.org/14573IIED.html.2We tend to make decisions based on information that is easily available, such as frompersonal experience, rather than seeking facts and figures that are really relevant. As personalexperience is generally much more available than e.g. research or news reports, this hasbeen termed the prisoner of experience principle (Gardner and Stern, 2002).3 I carried out the original study after the drought, while head of Save the Children UKsregional office for southern Africa (199598). It involved 936 households in 72 villages inMalawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

66 Christopher Eldridge2828

and organisations without communicativepower or political and economic powertend to be overlooked.

The study addressed both these issues. Iaimed to answer the question: why was thereno famine in southern Africa following the1992 drought? I also aimed to understand theimpacts of the drought on those whom it mostaffected small farmers and to investigatetheir responses to it from their perspective.These aims were linked, and I discuss theconnection between them in the conclusion.

A livelihoods frameworkI carried out the study within a livelihoodsframework. The study focused on theactivities element of livelihoods, becauseits main purpose was to investigate theresponses of low-income rural people to thedrought. I designed the study, in mid-1995,with the late Saiti Makuku.4 Together withthree research assistants, we field-testedvarious participatory rural appraisal (PRA)methods in a Zimbabwean village. Wefound that a modified form of proportionalpiling (Chambers, 2002; Sharp, 2007) wasbest able to capture both the effects ofdrought on rural livelihoods, and villagersresponses to drought (see Box 1). It was our

principal method, though other PRAmethods were also used.

We used community mapping to obtaina household listing, and to identify themain features of each village studied. Weasked key informants to group the house-holds into three wealth categories: rich,poor and middle. Within each category fivepoor, five middle and three rich householdswere randomly chosen. We discussed theeffects of the drought and their responsesto it, using the modified scoring methoddescribed below. This method was used todevelop a visual framework for the discus-sion. The approach was repeated withseparate groups of men, women, childrenand older people in the rich and poorwealth categories.

Additional research assistants withprevious experience of rural work wererecruited and attended a 10-day trainingcourse, led by Saiti Makuku. Twenty-fourvillages were selected in each of three coun-tries: Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia.5

The investigation was carried out ineach village by a pair of research assistants:one to guide villagers through participatoryscoring, the other to record the accompa-nying discussion. They were supervised bySaiti Makuku in the first village they visited.

Developing and discussing score-tables

General approachBy the end of the pilot phase, we settled onthe following general approach. Wegrouped rural livelihoods into six maincategories: obtaining water, obtaining food,generating income, expenditure, livestockand crop production.

Because the main aim of the study was toinvestigate villagers responses to thedrought, we focused on activities. This activ-ity-focus was achieved partly by framing.6

Box 1: Proportional piling

Proportional piling is a semi-quantitative method fordetermining community priorities. Circles drawn onthe ground or pictures drawn on cards representproblems. Participants are then asked to pile pebblesor beans in proportion to the importance of theproblem. Using a fixed number of beans makes thetechnique more reproducible. Proportional piling ismore quantitative than simple ranking because itallows for greater graduation of emphasis, e.g. asignificant problem may receive almost all thebeans, while the second most important may receiveonly two or three. This type of drastic differencewould not be evident in a simple ranking exercise.Adapted from: tinyurl.com/fao-proportional-piling

4 Saiti Makuku worked with the Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFIRE)throughout Southern Africa, particularly in his home of Zimbabwe, but also in Malawi,Mozambique and Namibia. Saiti was one of the first PRA trainers in Southern Africa and wasinstrumental in promoting participatory approaches within the region.5 Selection was purposive: the villages selected were in low-rainfall areas.6 Framing is discussed in sections 1 and 2 of a discussion paper which accompanies thisarticle (Eldridge, 2013).

29l Making the invisible visible: how was famine averted in Southern Africa? 29

How questions are framed (worded andpresented) can significantly influence theresponses to them. For example, we wereinterested not only in changes in foodsources, but in the activities involved inthese changes, so we discussed withvillagers changes in how they obtainedfood. This activity-focus also facilitated acauses and consequences questionsdiscussion (see below).

We broke each livelihoods categorydown into 58 sub-categories. For exam-ple, food was broken down into staples(grain, maize-meal and tubers), vegetablesand fruit, meat and fish, wild foods andgroceries. For a few sub-categories, we dida further breakdown with villagers. Forexample, Obtaining staple food wasbroken down into obtaining food fromvillagers own production, purchases, foodfor work and drought relief, exchanges andgifts (see Table 1). This showed how theways in which villagers obtained foodchanged during the drought.

Proportional piling: developing a score-tableDuring the initial introductions in eachvillage, smallholders were asked whether1992 was in fact a drought year and, if so,which year could be regarded as a base-line: which year was approximatelynormal in terms of rainfall? All villagerschose 1991 as a reference year.7

The items in question (in a category orsub-category) were then listed vertically onflipchart paper, using words and/orsymbols. We added three columns for1991, 1992 and 1993. The following pointsrefer to the ways in which villagersobtained staple food, but they are gener-

ally applicable. They can best be followedby reference to Table 1 and 2 (for staplefood sources and for expenditure). Forsimplicity, the tables do not show the 1993scores. We gave villagers 60 small stones (orseeds).8We asked them to distribute themto show how much of their food came fromeach source in 1991. Once this column was complete, weasked villagers to compare the scoresvertically, to see if they approximatelyreflected the relative amounts obtainedfrom each source. They could change thescores if they wanted.9

Once they were satisfied, they wrote thescore on the paper. This formed a visualand publicly visible record, which couldlater be used for cross-checking.10

We then drew a second column for 1992and repeated the process. This time, for each item in turn, we askedthem if they wanted to change the numberof stones to reflect the change in foodsources between 1992 and 1991. If thelatter was lower, as it usually was, we askedif this approximately reflected reality. Ifnot, they could change the individualscores. We then drew a third column for 1993and repeated the process.

What the resulting score-table illustratedThis method produced a score-table whichenabled the villagers, and the researchassistants, to see in visual form: all the items in each category (or sub-category); their weighted importance, as perceivedby villagers, relative to each other (a verti-

7 See section 2.2.2 Anchoring and adjustment the use of a memorable reference point ofthe discussion paper (Eldridge, 2013).8We settled on 60, because we usually used 46 sub-categories, with an average of 1012stones for each. We found that more than 60 tended to be confusing fewer than 60 didnot provide enough sensitivity.9Comparison by participants is an important feature of participatory methods: it is apowerful means of generating information and insights, largely because it reflects a basicprinciple of behaviour. See Cross-checks below, and the discussion paper, section 2.2(Eldridge, 2013).10 The visual and publicly visible nature of participatory methods reflects a basic principle ofbehaviour, and helps account for their effectiveness and popularity. See also the discussionpaper, sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 (Eldridge, 2013).


11 Drought relief refers to food distributions which were not tied to food for work (FFW)projects.

Table 1: Changes in how staple foods were obtained during the 1992 drought

Poor households Rich households

Own production

Purchases

Drought relief/food for work11

Exchange

Gifts

TOTAL

1991 1992 1991 1992

38 3 89 7

42 53 11 56

12 18 0 21

5 3 0 6

3 4 0 5

100 81 100 95

Table 2: Expenditure changes by smallholders during the 1992 drought

Poor households Rich households

Grain and maize-meal

Other food items

Agriculture/livestock

Education

Health

Transport

1991 1992 1991 1992

29 52 15 36

14 6 17 15

6 3 11 11

14 7 12 12

5 2 6 6

3 4 3 4

Box 2: The score-card results

Table 1 shows that the total amount of food obtainedin 1992 fell for both rich and poor households, butespecially for poor households. Comparing scoresvertically with each other and with the total showsthe relative importance of each item.

In both years, the poorest households in this districtbought more staple food than they produced. Butthey bought even more in 1992 almost two-thirds oftheir staple food. Rich households also increased theirpurchases of staple food in 1992. But scoring showsthat they were able to buy more food than poorhouseholds, who were also forced to make more anddeeper trade-offs: they spent less on education andhealth (and agricultural inputs), whereas richhouseholds spent less mainly on household items.

These facts would not have been revealed by simple

ranking. Scoring is a richer source of information, aslong as it is accompanied by holistic questions,which can trace how one change in activity ripplesthrough the fabric of rural livelihoods.

This difference shows how the scoring method canalso reveal the difference between accessible andaccessed. Education and health services were just asaccessible during the drought as before. But poorhouseholds accessed them less than in 1992 (and lessthan richer households), because they had less timeand money to spend on these services. Discussionsrevealed that some poor children dropped out ofschool during the drought due to lack of money forlocal fees, hunger, and the need to help their familiesobtain food and cash. This brief discussion illustratedthe need to ask causes and consequences questionsrepeatedly when discussing score-tables.

31l Making the invisible visible: how was famine averted in Southern Africa?

cal comparison) in any given time period;12

and how each item changed between timeperiods (a horizontal comparison).

For each item, the change (if any) in itsscore illustrated three aspects of change (asperceived by villagers): the direction of change: increase, decrease,no change: a horizontal comparison; the approximate order of magnitude ofchange, if any: a horizontal comparison;and the change, if any, in the relative impor-tance of each item: a vertical comparison.

The score-table provided a visual repre-sentation both of the links between variousaspects of livelihoods, and of how the linkschanged over time in this case, as a resultof villagers responses to drought. It alsoprovided a visual framework for a form ofsemi-structured discussion.

Discussion: interviewing the tableVillagers were then asked various questionsabout the score-tables. Some answers tothese questions emerged while villagerswere developing the score-tables scoringthem prompted unsolicited comments. Itwas therefore necessary for one of the tworesearch assistants to note down key pointsduring scoring (as well as during the

discussion which followed its completion);the other oversaw the scoring process.

There were two main types of question.Questions about details: Who? What? Where? When? How much? How often? How? Questions about causes and consequences(or C questions): About the causes of the changes, if any, inthe item in question (usually an activity inthis study, for example, changes in howvillagers obtained staple food). Why didthis happen? About the consequences of changes, ifany. What happened as a result?

In training, we emphasised the need toask the two C questions several times:there is often more than one causal factor(or reason or influence) at work whensomeone does something, or when some-thing happens. Similarly, there may bemore than one consequence of a particularactivity (or event). This is further discussedbelow.

We showed an activity-burger diagram(above) showing a given activity sand-wiched between one or more causal factorsand one or more consequences. We alsoasked villagers what support they wouldwant, if drought struck again, to helpimprove their responses.

Figure 1: The 'activity-burger' diagram

C

C A

C

C

C C C

C

12 Weighted importance differs from ranked importance. It shows the proportionalcontribution of any one item to the total. For example, in the food sources score-table, aranked order for 1992 would show that purchases and own production were respectively thelargest and second largest sources of food for poor households, but would not reveal thelarge difference between their contributions.


Iterations: cross-checks and additionalinformationWe repeated the above sequence with indi-vidual households in three different wealthcategories and with different groups ofwomen, men, children and older people.

There were three main purposes ofthese iterations: to investigate how the effects of thedrought and the responses to it variedaccording to three variables (wealth,gender and age); to obtain more specific information; and to cross-check (see below) informationand some conclusions.

Cross-checksSeveral kinds of cross-checks were used tocheck the results:

Within a given score-tableA given score in 1992 could be checked intwo directions: by comparison to its scorein 1991, and by comparison to the scores ofother items in 1992.

Between different score-tablesWe could see (by comparison with thoserecorded on flipcharts) if an increasedscore for obtaining food from purchaseswas reflected in an increased score forexpenditure on maize-meal.

Between groupsFor example, some details provided by mencould be checked with those provided bywomen, children and older people.

With information provided by key informants This included key informants outside thevillages: e.g. teachers, health workers andagricultural extension workers. For exam-ple, if villagers said that some children haddropped out of school, we checked this witha teacher.

With official dataOne advantage of carrying out the studyretrospectively was that we could refer toreports published shortly after the droughtended by government ministries, the

I took these photos during a follow-up study in Malawi in 2004. A woman and her daughter have been cuttingdown trees to sell for firewood. It illustrates a relatively effective but environmentally damaging response todrought.

Photo: Christoph

er Eldridg

e


Southern African Development Commu-nity (SADC), research institutes (e.g. theInternational Crops Research Institute forthe Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), UnitedNations World Food Programme (WFP)and donors such as the UK Department forInternational Development (DfID, orOverseas Development Agency as it thenwas).

Issues

Consequences several kindsWhen discussing the consequences ofvillagers responses to the drought, wesometimes found it useful to distinguishbetween three types (or combinations) ofconsequences: a single consequence; two or more parallel consequences; and one or more sequential (or knock-on)consequences.

These differences are illustrated in theactivity-burger diagram and by the changesshown in the two tables.

Support questionsDuring the discussions it emerged thatsome household responses to the droughtwere: relatively effective but environmentallydamaging (e.g. cutting down trees to sellfor firewood); non-environmentally damaging but rela-tively ineffective or very time-consuming(e.g. gathering and selling wild foods).

In the support/policy discussion, itwould therefore have been useful to focuson support/policy suggestions which wouldpromote sustainable livelihoods in wayswhich were non-damaging, cost-effectiveand time-effective.

The psychological basis of proportional pilingand other participatory methods Following the study, it turned out thatproportional piling has a psychologicalbasis: it reflects certain deeply rootedmodes of thinking, decision-making andbehaving. Moreover, participatory methodsin general also have a psychological basis.13

Photo: Christoph

er Eldridg

e

13When reviewing the proportional piling method and participatory methods in general, itbecame apparent that aspects of them reflected certain fundamental principles of humanpsychology. Advances made in the understanding of these principles have contributed to arevolution in the behavioural sciences over the last 40 or so years, and this revolution hasparalleled the participatory revolution in the last few decades (Cornwall and Scoones, 2011).See the discussion paper (Eldridge, 2013).

Challenges

Data volume and linkagesThis approach generated a large volume ofvaried data, partly because of the manylinkages between different livelihoodsactivities, and partly because of the cross-checks used. These issues would need to beaddressed during the pilot phase of anynew project.

A holistic, networked mindset versus a linearmindset

It is easier to act your way into a newway of thinking than to think your wayinto a new way of acting.14

During training, we did not focusenough on developing the mental mapswhich the research assistants needed tonavigate through the many issues whichthe score-tables generated, thereby render-ing the intricate latticework of rurallivelihoods more visible. Research assis-tants initially focused only on a few aspectsof the score-tables, and did not ask enoughcauses (why?) and consequences ques-tions, even though it had been emphasisedduring training. This was rectified duringthe follow-up visits by the trainer, but itwould have been better to practise thisissue during training.

ConclusionFor learning from past experience, reflect-ing on what does not happen is often asimportant as reflecting on what happens.Additionally, reflecting on things that are

often not measured (for example, activities)may be as important as those that are(outcomes, for instance). In the case of the1992 Southern Africa drought, both theseomissions were linked.

The primary aim of this study was toaddress the first issue: why did the 1992drought not result in famine? But in sodoing, it was also necessary to address thesecond: the activities of villagers in theareas struck by the drought appeared tohave helped prevent famine. However,their activities had not been adequatelyinvestigated, partly because they weremany, small and varied. The second issuewas addressed by developing a modifiedform of scoring, within a livelihoods frame-work. This method revealed how a givenresponse could have consequences thatrippled through the fabric of their rurallives. By applying this method repeatedly,with variations, the first question wasanswered: famine was averted largely bythe activities of those whom the droughtmost severely affected.15

The second omission led to a third:because the activities of villagers wentlargely unrecognised, they were notsupported in effective ways. It appearedthat, in most cases, they were not consultedduring the planning phase of the 1992drought relief operation. But consultationis not enough if it does not reflect the real-ity of what people actually do, or theinter-related nature of their activities andthe consequences of their actions. Throughthese interactions, they also relate to, andso influence, each other. These relation-ships are captured by a term which,


14 Jerry Sternin, co-founder of the Positive Deviance Initiative (in Pascale et al., 2010).15Within the limits of conventional emergency programmes, the 1992 relief andrehabilitation programme, one of the largest and best coordinated ever undertaken (Clay etal., 1995), was a success. It was especially important during the months before the 1993harvest. Nevertheless, famine in Southern Africa in 19923 was averted largely by theactivities of those most severely affected by it, particularly in the 69 months beforesignificant quantities of relief food began to arrive. However, the context was also important:there was no conflict in the worst affected countries, governments generally reactedresponsibly, if belatedly, and donors were unusually responsive. This article focuses on the useof proportional piling to investigate changes in villagers activities in response to the 1992drought. The original country reports set these activities in the context of drought reliefprogrammes by governments and NGOs, and suggested a number of policyrecommendations for future drought relief operations.


appropriately enough, is used in SouthernAfrica. According to Nobel Laureate Arch-bishop Desmond Tutu (2013),

The methods used in this study reflectthe African concept of Ubuntu. Thismeans that a person is a person throughother people.

The social networks of villagers inter-connect with the natural networks of theecosystems on which we all, in rich andpoor countries alike, ultimately depend. Itwas their activities within these networks,not just their actions as isolated individu-als, which enabled the villagers ofSouthern Africa to survive the worstdrought in half a century.

It is now over 30 years since AmartyaSen (1981) began his celebrated book withthis observation:

Starvation is the characteristic of somepeople not having enough food. It is notthe characteristic of there not beingenough food to eat.16

It is also almost exactl

PLA-66

Documents

Transcript of PLA-66