a participatory guide to developing partnerships, area ... · implementing participatory...

A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships, Area Resource

Assessment and Planning Together

Mark Lundy, María Verónica Gottret, Rupert Best, and Shaun Ferris

i

A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships, Area Resource

Assessment and Planning Together

Mark Lundy, María Verónica Gottret, Rupert Best, and Shaun Ferris

ii

Copyright © 2007 Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

Reprint edition published by Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, 2008.

ISBN 0-945356-43-9

First edition published 2007 byCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical(International Centre for Tropical Agriculture)Cali, ColombiaISBN 978-958-694-091-7

For information, addressCatholic Relief Services228 W. Lexington St.Baltimore MD 20201USAwww.crs.org

AGROVOC descriptors in English:1. Rural development. 2. Enterprises. 3. Small farms. 4. Partnerships. 5. Community involvement. 6. Capacity building. 7. Empowerment. 8. Training. 9. Innovation. 10. Planning.

Local descriptors in English:1. Participatory research.

AGROVOC descriptors in Spanish:1. Desarrollo rural. 2. Empresas. 3. Explotación en pequeña escala. 4. Coparticipación.5. Participación comunitaria. 6. Creación de capacidad. 7. Autonomización. 8. Capacitación. 9. Innovación. 10. Planificación.

Local descriptors in Spanish:1. Investigación participativa.

I. Gottret, María Verónica. II. Best, Rupert. III. Ferris, Shaun. IV. Tít.V. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. VI. Ser.

AGRIS subject category: E20 Organization, administration and management of agricultural enterprises or farms / Organización, administración y manejo de empresas agrícolas o fincas

LC classification: HD 9000 .L8

Republication of this report is made possible by the generous support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance’s Office of Food for Peace under the terms of Catholic Relief Services’ Institutional Capacity Building Grant Award Number AFP-A-00-03-00015-00. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Contents

iii

Page

Preface vii

Acknowledgments viii

Introduction and Background to the Guide 1Overview of the Area-based Approach for Rural Agroenterprise Development 2Objectives and Structure of the Guide 4

Section 1. Basic Principles of Livelihood Development 5Defining Livelihood 5Evaluating Innovation for Agroenterprise Development 8Rural Agroenterprise Development within a Target Area 8

Section 2. Preparing the Groundwork 9Setting Goals and a Philosophy for Community Engagement 9Rapid Reconnaissance Survey for Planning 9Applying the Agroenterprise Approach 10Engaging Partners in the Process 10Roles of the Partners 10Building In-house Agroenterprise Capacity through Pilot Testing 14Considerations for Scaling Up 16Exit Strategies 16

Section 3. Area-based Resource Assessment 17Forming the Working Group 17Defining an Area 17Zoning the Area 18Analyzing Resources Available in Each Zone 20Analyzing Social Resources in Each Zone 20Profiling Client Groups through Wealth Evaluation for Each Zone 26Zoning Livelihood Strategies by Wealth and Gender 27Innovation Processes for Each Zone, Resource, and Social Group 29

Section 4. Planning Together for Joint Action 32Reviewing the Roles of the Working Group 32Planning for Rural Agroenterprise Development in the Area 33Consensus Building 34Who We Are 34Developing a Common Vision for Agroenterprise in our Area 35Writing a Joint Work Plan 37Conclusion 39

Section 5. Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning 41Designing and Building an Appropriate Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

System for the Working Group 41Utility of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning for the Working Group 42Tools for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning 42Monitoring and Evaluation Advances in the Working Group’s Action Plan 42

iv

A Participatory Guide to Developing Partnerships...

Page

Section 6. The Planning Report and Preparing for the Next Steps 47Outline of the Planning Report 47Next Steps 48Conclusions 48

Appendices1. Planning, Organizing, and Taking Action: Key Event in Rural Agroenterprise

Development 502. Checklist for Developing a Pilot Agroenterprise Project 513. Transitional Exit Strategy with a 5-to 10-year Timeframe 52

Bibliography 53

v

Contents

Page

List of Figures1. Market chain participants at their first planning session 12. Flow chart of key stages in the participatory agroenterprise development approach 33. The “sustainable livelihoods conceptual framework” 64. Market chain actors and services 115. Partnerships and links in the agroenterprise approach 116. Evolution of farmer groups with indicative years at levels 137. Steps for conducting a basic diagnosis for a given area 188. Example of locating agroenterprises in a given zone 249. Key for qualifying relationships between agroenterprises in a zone 25

10. Highland example of qualifying relationships in a zone 25 11. Example of income sources based on zoning within a project area 29 12. Example of income trends within a zone 30 13. Single loop learning cycle 42 14. Double loop learning cycle 42 15. Steps and feedback loops in the MSC system 45 16. Idealized flow diagram for stories collected during a reporting period 45

List of Tables 1. Evolutionary stages of smallholder farmers and their agroenterprises 15 2. Example of a matrix identifying homogeneous zones in an area 20 3. Example of a matrix showing natural resources in three zones 21 4. A human resources matrix for three agroecological zones in an area 22 5. A productive resource matrix for three ecological zones in an area 23 6. Format to describe agroenterprise organizations by zone 24 7. Matrix of agroenterprise actors by agroecological zone 26 8. Well-being levels in terms of access to a zone’s resources 27 9. Well-being matrix from Valle del Cauca, Colombia 28

10. Example of income sources for community members 29 11. Gender analysis of an economic activity in a given zone 30 12. Identifying innovations, innovators, dissemination, and impact in a zone 31 13. An example of a SWOT matrix with “crosses” 34 14. Results of “crossing” between strengths and threats 34 15. Format for information exchange among members of a working group 35 16. An example of how to construct a pair wise ranking matrix 38 17. An example of a completed pair wise ranking matrix 38 18. Final results from a pair wise ranking exercise 38 19. Identifying local and external resources required for a prioritized activity 39 20. Building a simplified action plan for the working group 39 21. Building a monitoring and evaluation tool for the working group 43

vi

About the Authors

Mark LundyCorresponding author, based in CIAT headquarters, Cali, Colombia. United States of America National.Senior Research Fellow, Rural Agroenterprise Development project.E-mail: [email protected]

María Verónica GottretBased in CIAT headquarters, Cali, Colombia. Bolivian National.Senior Research Fellow, Rural Agroenterprise Development project.E-mail: [email protected]

Rupert BestBased in FAO offices, Rome, Italy. British National.Senior Technical Advisor for the Global Forum for Agricultural Research.E-mail: [email protected]

Shaun FerrisBased in CIAT headquarters, Cali, Colombia. Dual British/Australian National.CIAT Project Manager, Rural Agroenterprise Development project.E-mail: [email protected]


Preface

vii

development program operating within definedThis guide is the second in a series of

documents designed to support agenciesimplementing participatory agroenterprise

geographical areas. The titles in the CIATagroenterprise “good practice guide series”include:

1. Strategy Paper: A Participatory and Area-based Approach to Rural AgroenterpriseDevelopment.

2. A Participatory Guide to DevelopingPartnerships, Area ResourceAssessment and Planning Together.

3. Identifying Market Opportunities forRural Smallholder Producers.

4. Participatory Market Chain Analysis forSmallholder Producers.

5. Evaluating and Strengthening RuralBusiness Development Services.

6. A Market Facilitator’s Guide toParticipatory AgroenterpriseDevelopment.

7. Collective Marketing for SmallholderProducers.

8. Rapid Market Appraisals to SupportSmallholder Agroenterprise Development.

9. Agricultural Marketing Extension: Toolsand Methods.

10. Policy Analysis for SmallholderAgroenterprise Development andAdvocacy.

The starting place for this guide is a biophysicalasset based analysis of the area under

consideration, a social profile analysis of theclient group(s), and the establishment of anagroenterprise working group.

The output of the work from this guide is anaction plan, based on two options:

(i) A market pilot test for an existing productwith the target farmer group, typically with afocus on collective marketing.

Or

(ii) A plan to work towards greater cropdiversification through the marketopportunities identification process.

For those following the full CIAT process, thisguide is the first step in the agroenterpriseprocess.

Note to usersService providers should read the guides in theirentirety, to absorb the ideas and concepts priorto going to the field. Our experience has shownthat best results are attained when theseprocesses are not implemented in a mechanicalmanner; rather that the principles areinterpreted and adapted to local conditionsbased on the marketing environment, availableresources, and anticipated scale ofimplementation.

Discover your InnovationDiscover your InnovationDiscover your InnovationDiscover your InnovationDiscover your Innovation

Acknowledgments

viii

and CORPOTUNÍA (Colombia), CLODEST,The CIAT team would like to thank the

many partners that contributed to thiswork with particular thanks to: CIPASLA

Universidad Nacional (Honduras), CARE-Nicaragua, GTZ, CRS-LACRO, CRS-EARO (EastAfrica), CRS LAC (Latin America and Caribbean),and ASARECA Foodnet (Africa).

We acknowledge the dedicated support that wereceive from our colleagues in these institutionsand the collaboration of the many farmers andtraders that were involved in the development ofthe methods and tools described.

We give thanks to IDRC and DFID for theirlogistic and financial support over many yearswhich have enabled partners to learn, discover,and create this body of knowledge. Thanks alsogo to USAID and CRS for providing funds topublish these documents.

Technical and language editing of this documentwas done by Libby Finney. A special word ofthanks to Jorge Enrique Gutiérrez for hisdrawings.


1

Introduction and Background to the Guide


Figure 1. Market chain participants at their first planning session.

Mr. BusyBuyer forBest Fruit

SupermarketsLtd.

Mr. SamChairman

Green FarmerAssociation

Mr. MarcoNGO MarketFacilitator

Prof. MargaretMarket

Researcherand Academic

Mrs. JemimahFruity

Processors Ltd.

Mr. MovitRapid Transit

Traders

using traditional strategies based onMany small-scale farmers in developing

countries are finding it increasinglydifficult to improve their livelihoods

agricultural production, particularlywhen they work as individual family units. Inthe past 10 years the agricultural world haschanged dramatically, with reduced governmentexpenditure, falling commodity prices, andincreasing competition in the marketplace.

To assist rural communities, many donororganizations follow the convention of investingto increase the production of a limited numberof commodities. This approach has merits, it is

simple, can increase demand for new researchtechnologies such as varieties and fertilizer,and usually overcomes food security issues.For communities that are unable to providethemselves with a reliable food source, thisoption is a necessary first step.

Unfortunately, in the past, production-basedapproaches give little attention to marketingissues. Rapid increases in production, with noother changes can lead to markets, especiallylocal markets, being oversupplied. In theworse cases, this can create a situation wherefarmers receiving less income than before theproject.

2


This situation is not caused by a lack ofresources or genuine effort to support ruralpopulations, but is a consequence of limitedbusiness planning, the need to producedramatic results within a 3-5 year project cycleand lack of coordination between supportagencies and local private sector participants.We believe that for many communities,particularly the poorest communities, a morerobust strategy is required which has realistictimeframes and achievable goals. We believethat each intervention should begin with abasic business planning process (Figure 1). Inthis figure we attempt to show those criticalparticipants who can assist in making marketswork better for smallholder farmers. Greatereffort should also be made to bring togetherdevelopment agencies working within a definedgeographic area and that the local communityshould be closely involved in the design andtesting of options that meets their needs.

To address this challenge, CIAT’s RuralAgroenterprise Development Project (RAeD) hasdeveloped a series of participatorymethodologies which aim to assist rural serviceproviders to enable farmers to benefit fromimproved social structures, learn basicagroenterprise skills, and improve their abilityto innovate. This process has been divided intoa number of discreet tasks, which whencombined, make up a strategy entitled the“participatory and area-based approach to ruralagroenterprise development”.

“Agroenterprise” is defined in this guide, as abusiness activity that is implemented byresource-poor smallholder farmers. Theapproach is based on the idea of developingskills and building assets before moving toscale. “Service providers” are those agencies,organizations, and local entrepreneurs whofacilitate the process of learning and marketengagement. Service providers who do not haveexpertise in rural business development areencouraged to start small and to read theguides thoroughly before attempting to replicateideas on a broader scale.

Overview of the Area-based Approachfor Rural AgroenterpriseDevelopmentThis guide provides the starting point forapplying the strategy developed by CIAT’s RuralAgroenterprise Development Project (RAeD), to

address the entrepreneurial development needsof institutions that support rural communities.The methods, tools, and learning approachesdescribed here, were the result of manycollaborative projects undertaken over the past10 years in Latin America, Africa, and SouthEast Asia. The implementation draws heavilyupon participatory methods that assist thefacilitating institute to focus on realizing newbusiness opportunities for rural communities.The basic steps in the process include:

(i) Developing partnerships, area-basedanalysis, and planning.

(ii) Market opportunity identification.(iii) Analyzing production chains and generating

business plans.(iv) Implementing agroenterprise projects.(v) Strengthening business development

services in rural areas.(vi) Evaluating and advocating for improved

marketing policies.

This approach was developed in response todemand from partners who wanted asystematic method for shifting from a foodsecurity strategy that focused on increasingproduction to a market-oriented approach thatemphasizes local empowerment and buildinglocal skills for income generation and marketengagement.

The approach aims to provide ruralcommunities with the basic skills tounderstand their market environment, identifymarket opportunities, design newagroenterprise projects, and integrate projectswithin market chains. This process is flexibleand decisions will enable smallholders to adoptthe most appropriate marketing strategy toassist their prospects for increased income,such as:

1. Improving the competitiveness of productsin local and regional markets.

2. Achieving economies of scale throughcollective action and group marketing.

3. Diversifying into improved or higher valueproducts linked to growth markets.

4. Adding value to products by changingfarming practices to accesses higher incomemarkets enhance product quality andincorporate processing activities.

A flow diagram linking actions and goodpractice guides is shown in Figure 2, and


3

Figure 2. Flow chart of key stages in the participatory agroenterprise development approach.

Note: Guide 6: “The Market Facilitator’s Guide” is a summary of Guides 2-5.

Strategy paper

Identify intervention siteReconnaissance survey

Form working group

Area-based resource assessmentPlanning and monitoring systems

Identifying market opportunities for smallholder producers(Classify market options according to level of risk)

Strategy 1Lower risk, short term

Strategy 2Higher risk, higher value

Market opportunity identification(seeking diversification)

Market assessment of existing products(focus on market penetration)

Participatory market chain analysis for smallholder producers

Design and establishment of new enterprise

Evaluating and strengthening of rural business development services

Collective action for marketingApproaches for scaling up and learning alliances

Evaluate process performance and impact

Knowledge management and advocacy

Guide 1

Guide 2

Guide 3

Guide 4

Guide 5

Guide 7

4


Appendix 1 provides an overview of therelationships between the main tasks in theagroenterprise strategy, with an indicationof the time and effort required. For eachstage, there is time allocated for (i) learning,(ii) putting ideas into practice, and(iii) evaluating the outcome. This participatoryprocess aims to work towards building aconsensus for activities to increase thelikelihood of success.

Given that local contexts have unique featuresand that markets are dynamic, serviceproviders should implement the methodsbased on local opportunities and resources.Enterprise activities are complicated socialactivities that need to be facilitated byskilled staff with motivated partners. In allcases the approach requires that roles and

responsibilities are agreed at the outset; thatplanning and investments are client-led andperformance is critically observed.

Experience shows that for these approaches tobe effective, service providers and farmers needto acquire new skills and new workingarrangements. This change from a productionto a marketing perspective requires time andfinances, which is why we recommend theapproach is first introduced within a long-termcapacity building program, typically over a2-year period.

N.B. In certain situations and locations, thismarket-led approach may not be the mostappropriate, such as in areas suffering fromcivil insecurity or chronic food insecurity, wherefood assistance maybe the primary need.

Objectives and Structure of the Guide

The aim of this guide is to provide a systematicmeans to (i) select and evaluate an area,(ii) establish an overall working group tosupport inter-institutional agroenterprisedevelopment, (iii) profile client groups toimplement enterprises, and (iv) agree area plansfor joint activities.

This guide has the following sections:

··Basic principles of livelihood development.

·Agroenterprise working group development.

·Selection and diagnosis of an area.

·Profiling of clients.Planning for action.

··Making decisions on pilot testing.Designing a system for monitoring,evaluation, and learning.

The results from each section are used as theinput for the following section. On finalizing themethods in this guide, you will have

(i) Selected an area.(ii) Established a working group made up of

diverse organizations.(iii) Undertaken an area resource assessment.(iv) Agreed upon joint activities with partners for

marketing and enterprise development.

5

Basic Principles of Livelihood Development

SECTION 1


To facilitate analysis of the area, wepropose using the “sustainablelivelihoods” approach developed by

Scoones (1998) (Figure 3).

The term livelihood describes the capacities,capital (human, social, productive/economic,natural), and activities needed to sustain life(Chambers and Conway, 1992). A livelihood isconsidered sustainable when it can respondand recover from abrupt shocks, and canmaintain or improve its capacities and capitalwithout undermining the natural resource base.

Defining LivelihoodThere are five key elements in this definition:

1. Generation of employmentThis is related to the capacity of a combinationof life strategies to generate employment,whether on the farm or outside it, or in the

formal or informal system. Employment hasthree aspects: income (salaried employmentfor employees), production (employmentproducing a consumable good), andrecognition (where employment gives theindividual recognition for having participatedin something of value). Generally, 200 days ofemployment per year is estimated as theminimum for generating a livelihood.

2. Reducing povertyThe level of poverty is a key criterion inevaluating livelihoods. Various indicators canbe used to develop an absolute measure of“poverty line”, based on, for example, levels ofincome, consumption, and access to services.Alternatively, relative measures can be used,such as the Gini coefficient. Thesequantitative measures of poverty can also beused in combination with more qualitativeindicators.

6


Histroy

Policies

Climate

Agroecology

Demographics

Socialdifferentiation

Natural capital

Economic andfinancial capital

Human capital

Social capital

Institutions andorganizations

Agriculture

· Intensification

· Extensification

Livelihoods

1. Employment

2. Povertyreduction

3. Quality of lifeand improvedskills

Sustainability

1. Improvedcapacity toadapt andrecover fromshocks, reducedvulnerability

2. Ensuresustainablenaturalresource use

Context,conditions, and

trends

Resources forobtaining

livelihoods

Institutionalprocesses andorganizational

structures

Livelihoodstrategies

Results in termsof sustainable

livelihoods

Diversification oflivelihoods

Migration

Figure 3. The “sustainable livelihoods conceptual framework”.

3. Well-being and skillsThis concept goes beyond the material needs forfood and income, including the idea ofcapacities (i.e., “what can people do or be, givenwhat they possess?”). Hence, the peoplethemselves should determine those criteria thatare part of the concept of well-being, such asself esteem, safety, happiness, low levels ofstress and vulnerability, increased power,reduced exclusion, as well as the other moreconventional elements.

4. Adaptation, recovery, andvulnerabilityThis refers to the ability of a livelihood torespond and recover from abrupt changes andstress. Those that cannot respond (i.e., maketemporary adjustments as a result of change) oradapt (i.e., make long-term changes in lifestrategies) are inevitably vulnerable and have alow probability of achieving a sustainablelivelihood.

5. Sustainability of natural resourcesMost rural livelihoods depend on the naturalresource base. The concept thus refers to thesystem’s ability to maintain productivity when

faced with disturbances, including stress orabrupt changes. This implies preventing naturalresource reserves from diminishing to a levelthat results in the effective and permanentreduction of products and services that thesegenerate to achieve “the means by which tolive”.

Seeking sustainable livelihoods: Achieving asustainable livelihood is the result of acombination of factors within the area such asavailable resources, organizations, andinstitutions. To understand the livelihoods of agiven area and possible ways of improvingthem, we must analyze these factors. Thissection briefly describes each component of the“livelihood approach”.

Context: The context of an area includesgeneral aspects such as history, policy, climate,agroecology, demography, and socialdifferentiation (Figure 3). Much of the data onthese aspects are available in secondarysources of information (e.g., statisticalyearbooks) but they are important for obtaininga clear idea of the area in which interventionwill be carried out. An important aspect tounderstanding context is the social

7


differentiation between groups. Thisdifferentiation can be based on: levels of well-being and income, access to certain resources,sex, age, or ethnicity. What is important is todifferentiate among the various groups of peoplethat live within the area to understand theirrelationships with resources, organizations, andinstitutions, and thus to eventually understandthe life strategies they use.

Available resources and their access: Theability to develop different life strategiesdepends on the basic resources, both materialand social, that people possess or have accessto. Four types of important resources can beidentified for generating livelihoods. Theseresources are defined as follows:

1. Natural resources. These are the set ofnatural factors (e.g., soil, water, air, forest,genetic resources) and environmentalservices from which the resources andservices needed to achieve livelihoods arederived.

2. Human resources. These include knowledge,abilities, good health, and physical capacity.

3. Productive/financial resources. These refer tobasic assets (e.g., cash, credit, savings, andother economic and productive assets,including basic infrastructure, productionequipment, and technology).

4. Social resources. These include the socialorganization (networks, social relationships,associations, norms, confidence, andwillingness to work for the common good).The social organization facilitates thecoordination, cooperation, and collectiveaction for the common good.

On analyzing the resources, a series ofquestions arise:

Sequence: What is the starting point forsuccessfully establishing a given life strategy?Is a particular type of capital (assets) anessential precursor for gaining access toanother type of capital?

Substitution versus combinations: Can onetype of capital be replaced by another? Or mustthere be a combination of different types ofcapital to acquire a given life strategy?

Limiting factors: Are there limitations inspecific types of capital or competencies thatare preventing members of a community fromimproving their life strategies?

Clusters: If one has access to one type ofcapital, does one normally have access to othertypes? Or do “clusters” of given combinations ofcapital types exist, which are associated withcertain groups of people or life strategies?

Access: Clearly, different people have access todifferent capital types, depending oninstitutional agreements, organizationalcharacteristics, power relationships, andpolicies. Hence, we must analyze the access andcontrol of capital type taking into account socialdifferentiation (e.g., well-being, sex, or age).

Trends: What are the trends in the availabilityof different capital types? How are these types ofcapital accumulated or undermined, and bywhom? What are the trends in terms of access?What new capital types are being createdthrough environmental, economic, and socialchanges?

Organizations and institutions: Within thelivelihoods framework, the understanding oforganizations and institutional processes areimportant, given that organizations (the players)and institutional processes (the “rules of thegame”) interact in ways that facilitate or hinderthe ability of different segments of thepopulation to carry out different life strategiesand achieve, or not, sustainable livelihoods(Figure 3).

The combination of context, resources,organizations, and institutions combine togenerate different life strategies which can begrouped into three broad categories:

Agricultural intensification orextensification: Rural inhabitants can achievelivelihoods through agriculture (includinglivestock, fish farming, and forest resources) byprocesses of intensification (i.e., increasingproduction per unit of area through capitalinvestments or increased labor), orextensification (i.e., increasing the area of landcultivated).

Diversification of livelihoods: Another optionis to diversify towards agricultural activities ofgreater value, or toward nonagriculturalactivities. Thus, diversification seeks to developa portfolio of activities that would generateincome, and which would make the populationless vulnerable to economic shocks.

8


Migration: A third option is migration, eithertemporary or permanent, to another region orurban center in search of a livelihood.

Despite these differences, the reality of lifestrategies in rural areas is that, rather thanchoosing one or the other, the population usesa combination of the three, which variesaccording to the time of year or the reigningeconomic conditions in the country.

Using the livelihood framework in ruralagroenterprise developmentThe livelihood’s framework provides a means tocharacterize the context, resources, socialorganization, and life strategies available to acommunity. This can be considered as abaseline from which to evaluate new options inthe design of agroenterprise interventions.

Gathering information on the variouscomponents of the livelihoods framework, suchas local capacity, existing resources,institutional processes, and the local businessenvironment can also assist in deciding upondifferent entry points and strategies to supportdifferent types of groups within an area/region.The levels of differences can include the veryresource-poor farmers, women, or farmers withmore favorable assets and market access. Basedon the information and differences in clienttypes, interventions can be tailored to specificneeds. Thus interventions may range from afocus on one specific skill or technology toenable more effective market engagement, tomore complicated interventions that includecombinations of investments in infrastructure,building of associations, and strengtheningbusiness relationships.

Developing plans based on a holistic analysis(i.e., context, resources, processes of socialorganization, and life strategies), also provides auseful means of designing specific indicators,which can be used for monitoring impact.Incorporating impact analysis into the earlyplans enables both project staff and communitymembers to design compatible impact pathways

and systems for monitoring and evaluatingresults.

In this guide, the livelihoods framework is usedas a conceptual tool, for characterizing an areato design and monitor agroenterpriseinterventions. Given that the local assessmentis rapid, we can only gain a basic “snapshot” ofthe situation at a particular time. Therefore thisinformation is complemented with a review ofthe innovation processes within the target areato gain a better understanding of key changesover time.

Evaluating Innovation forAgroenterprise DevelopmentIn its simplest form innovation is the way inwhich an existing situation is changed andimproved over time. These improvements can bederived from a mixture of local and externalknowledge applied to a specific situation.Improvements can be technical (e.g., newvarieties or production systems) or social(e.g., forms of organization), or a combination ofthe two. In the context of rural agroenterprisedevelopment, we need to understand howprocesses of agroentrepreneurial innovation aregenerated. Who generates these processes? Howare innovations disseminated?

Rural Agroenterprise Developmentwithin a Target AreaThe concepts of livelihoods and innovationprovide a general framework on which toanalyze agroenterprise development in aselected area. In general, the types ofagroenterprises being designed depend uponthe resources and capacities of target groupsand the innovation systems. The approachtherefore begins by gathering information onthe resources, organizations, institutions, andinnovation status of the community. Thisinformation is analyzed with a view toestablishing new combinations and/orupgrading specific activities to generate higherincome livelihood strategies.

9

Preparing the Groundwork

SECTION 2


Starting new projects is a crucial time, asthis is when decisions are made aboutwhere to work, who to work with, and

what types of interventions will take place.When incorporating an agroenterprise approachissues that should be addressed include:

· Defining the geographical area of

·intervention.

·Framing the project duration.

·Reviewing in-house staffing.

·Review the budget.

·Sound out key partners.Gain greater insight into your client

·capacities, assets, and their communities.Clarify targeting decisions (i.e., project focuson specific sectors, client types).

Setting Goals and a Philosophy forCommunity EngagementThe lead agency should develop a clearunderstanding of what they want to achieve interms of client types, investment areas, levels ofindividual/family income gain, scale ofintervention and expected outcomes when usingagroenterprise. Full details do not have to befully crafted as changes are likely whenreformulating ideas with partners. From a CIAT

perspective, one of the major goals is to“empower local communities with the ability toidentify market opportunities and develop newagroenterprises using their own skills andresources”. To achieve this goal, participatorytools are used as a means to co-innovation andlearning is implemented through learning-by-doing. This goal, however, needs to be temperedwith a practical return or level of impact basedon the investment costs of the project.

Rapid Reconnaissance Survey forPlanningAs part of the initial planning, the leadorganization should undertake a rapidreconnaissance survey of the area in which theyintend to work. This information will provide abetter understanding of where to start activitiesand who could be useful partners. When ageographic area has been defined, the surveyshould gather general information on thefollowing areas, as outlined in the livelihoodframework:

· Social context: History, climate,

·population, social groupings.Natural resources: Basic understanding ofsoils, climate, product specialization,

10


· Local productive resources: Transport

·system, market infrastructure,Partner social capital: Gain an overviewof other institutions and developmentagencies working in your area, what theydo, find out if they share any commonvalues and if they are interested inparticipating in the market oriented work.Evaluate level of social networking, farmer

·groups, and associations.Business assets: Interview leading traders,processors, and service providers to gain abasic understanding of the major goods,products and services traded in the area,major challenges and opportunities asviewed from the private sector.

This information will be used to identify like-minded partners, to initiate a “working group”,define criteria for selection of enterprise groups(i.e., farmer groups who will develop newbusinesses), and to select a defined area forinterventions.

Applying the AgroenterpriseApproachThe entry point for the area-based approach isflexible, depending on factors such as:

1. In-house marketing capacity.2. Partners skills involved in the process.3. The skills and asset base of the clients.4. Local political conditions and infrastructure.5. The level of participation to be used in the

process.6. A priori decisions on client/beneficiary

profiles.7. Investment processes.8. Duration of the exercise.

Evaluating in-house marketing capacityFor the lead organization in this process, thefirst issue to consider is the level of in-housecapacity and competence to lead a marketingprogram that includes partners and farmergroup organization. If skills exist, start workingthrough the agroenterprise approach asindicated in the generic process outlined inFigure 2.

If however, your organization or immediatepartners are doing this type of work for the firsttime, they may benefit from testing the methodvia a pilot project before going to scale. Pilotprojects enable the team to learn the basics ofthe enterprise process and field staff to gainconfidence in applying/adapting the methods to

local conditions. This experience will putparticipating organizations in a better positionto train others, using their local experience.

Engaging Partners in the ProcessAgroenterprise development is a complex taskthat involves working with actors within amarket chain and linking to business servicesthat support the market chain (Figure 4). Tolink activities with multiple actors requiresmany skills and it is unusual to find all of thenecessary technical, social, business, andanalytical skills within one organization.Therefore success in agroenterprise generallyrequires that organizations find like-mindedpartners from the public and the private sectorto support the process at specific points.Partners are also essential when it comes toscaling up activities.

The main categories of partners required tofacilitate agroenterprise development include:(i) service providers typically NGOs or extensionworkers form the public or private sector;(ii) farmer groups and associations; (iii) marketchain actors; and (iv) business support services.

Roles of the PartnersTo achieve tangible impact, it is recommendedthat the lead organization operates at a morestrategic level, by facilitating partners through a“working group”. This will enable the leadorganization to focus on capacity building andlearning how best to adapt the methods to localconditions, with partners. Local partners willfocus their attention at the farm level, where wewant impact to occur. There are additionalspecific guides to assist in more detailedprocesses; see support guides in this seriesincluding Collective Marketing and MarketFacilitator’s guide (see Preface).

To implement the process, there are four maintypes of organizational players in theagroenterprise approach:

··Management team.

·Working group.

·Farmer groups and associations.Buyers.

An example of the type of network that isenvisaged for this process is outlined inFigure 5; however, partnerships should beconsidered in a flexible manner. Work withpartners that want to be together.

11


Consumption

Retailing

Trading

Processing

Trading

Post harvesthandling

Production

Research

Transportation

Government policy regulation

Communications

Technical & business training & assistance

Financial services

Market information and intelligence

Production input supply

Figure 4. Market chain actors and services.

Working GroupPolicy and implementation

Specialists

Chamber ofcommerce

Development agencies

BDS BDS BDSPA FA FA

FG FG FG

FG FG

FG FG FG

FG FG

FG FG FG

FG FG

Farmergroups

Lead organizationmanagement

NGONGO

MicroFinance

Entrepreneur

Research

CBO Gov Ex

Figure 5. Partnerships and links in the agroenterprise approach.

FG = farmer groups; FA = farmer associations; BDS = business development service providers;NGO = nongovernmental organization; PA = partner agencies; CBO = community-based organization;Gov Ex = extension; Working group = consortium of partners.

12


Management teamThis team is charged with the overall projectdesign and monitoring and follow-up on projectimplementation. This agency will be from thedevelopment or research sector and their role isto provide overall direction. In some cases, themanagement team may include a partnershipbetween a research and development agency.This is often how CIAT works with partners. Themanagement team is responsible for:

··Selecting an area.

·Initiating a working group.Establishing criteria for selection of client

·groups.

·Decisions on skills training, levels of inputs.

·Scale of investments.

·Duration of project implementation.

·Scaling up approaches.Entry and exit strategies.

Working groupThe role of the “working group” is to provide afocal point where representatives of interestedpartners can convene to design and implementan agroenterprise work plan. The group’s role isto promote improved working relations betweenservice providers, local government, smallholderproducers, and traders that operate within adefined area. The agroenterprise working groupwill be responsible for making decisions on therules of engagement and the goal of theconsortium. At an operational level, the workinggroup will provide technical oversight, training,dialogue with partners, monitoring andevaluation, and a means for managing fieldactivities. This group will also develop coremembers for scaling up in the future. Tasks forthis group are to:

(i) Timetable events, and maintain a focus onthe goals.

(ii) Ensure that results are generated, that theyare meaningful.

(iii) Provide support to inter organizational orgroup processes.

The working group will set out as a looseassociation of partners with a common orshared interest in improving their marketingskills and commercialization of identifiedproducts. During the agroenterprise process, itis anticipated that membership will changeaccording to levels of activity. Some memberswill fall out due to loss of interest, lack ofresources or a change in focus. Other members

will enter into the working group as the processgains tangible results and some specialists maybe co-opted into the group. Some morespecialized members and private sectorpartners may be more interested to play anactive role once market chains are in operation.

Farmer groups and associationsFarmer groups are often the target clients/beneficiaries of an agricultural interventionprocess. However, in market-led interventions,beneficiaries should also include traders,processors or local entrepreneurs. In the caseof farmers, the enterprise process generallyworks with organized farmer groups. Thesefarmer groups will provide representatives toserve on the working group or be included in amarket survey team.

The farmer group(s) will learn new marketingskills from the service providers (NGOs) as theydesign and implement agroenterprise projectsin selected market chains. The type of groupschosen for agroenterprise development is animportant decision. Methods described in thisguide, and in complementary guides, will assistpartners to make decisions on how to engagefarmer groups in an enterprise process. Howproducer groups are organized is important asfarmer groups are the basic unit of change atthe production level. If farmer groups are poorlyorganized, or simply follow the instructions ofservice providers, rather than learning newskills in marketing, the enterprise process islikely to be unsustainable.

If farmers within the defined project area arenot organized, then the service provider will berequired to develop some form of farmermarketing groups. These groups may be formalorganizations that are maintained throughoutthe year or may be informal groups that onlycome together for collective marketingpurposes, i.e., produce in larger quantities(truck load) for distribution/sale. CIAT hasdeveloped a guide on this aspect. For moreinformation see “Guide to Collective Marketingfor Smallholder Producers” (www.ciat.cgiar.org/agroempresas/pdf/guide_collective_marketing.pdf).

The information shown in Figure 6 indicatesone type of evolutionary process for farmergroups as they become more organized andsupply larger markets. In poor, marginalizedareas, it is not uncommon to find that farmersare essentially working as individuals. The role

13


Stage 1. Service providers startto organize farmers into looselyassociated groups for marketlinkage and more competitiveproduction

Figure 6. Evolution of farmer groups with indicative years at levels.

Timeframe Levels of farmer group organization and association Service provider roles

This level is lesscommon anddepends onmarket type1-5 years

Level 3. Formation of an associated company

Stage 4. Service providersassists associations to link andprovide specialized services tomembers

2-5 years

Level 2. Farmer marketing groups cluster into associations

Stage 3. Service providersassist groups to associate tosupply larger markets andprovide more internal servicesto their members

2-5 years

Level 1. Formation of farmer marketing groups

Stage 2. Service providersassist farmer groups toconsolidate collectivemarketing

2-5 years

Level 0. Individual farmers begin process of organizing andworking together

of the service provider in this case will be tobring farmers together into more organizedgroups. The shift from level 0 to level 1 requirestime but can pay considerable benefits in termsof farmers being able to learn new ideas morequickly in a group and also being able to bulkproduce for the market.

As farmer groups mature they become morestable units that are able to supply a moreconsistent product to the market. The first levelof farmer organization is often recognized asfarmers working within a group but not linkedto other farmer groups. The second order oforganization, which is often termed anassociation or cooperative, brings togetherseveral farmer groups. This has severaladvantages in terms of being able to providemembers with more specialized services for both

input and output markets and financialservices. In some cases, farmer associationscan themselves start to cluster and there aremodels whereby a company is established toassist the farmer organizations to supply largeror higher value markets.

Problems with farmer groups: One of theobvious and much repeated problems withfarmer groups as they become more organizedis that the costs in terms of time, money, andrelationship building can outweigh thebenefits. Whilst it is intuitive to think that themore organized the better for farmers, this isnot always the case. Farmer groups can sufferfrom poor financial management, poormarketing decisions, political abuse, and otherproblems. Therefore the service providershould seek to develop an appropriate

14


structure to meet the needs of the situation andaim for light and flexible rather than large andcomplicated.

BuyersWhilst, considerable attention is generally givento producer groups, the agroenterprise approachis designed to operate at a market chain level.Therefore working with buyers, such as traders,processors, and retailers is also a vital part ofthe market linkage process.

At the local level, this means that the leadingorganization should invest in strengtheningrelationships between the producer groups andpeople to whom they sell their produce, ratherthan attempting to “avoid the middleman”.Working with traders will assist in producingproducts of the quality and type for whichbuyers are willing to pay a premium and alsoprovides opportunities for developing collectivemarketing strategies, by selling bulked produceto known buyers. Traders are also one of themost effective private sector service providers forresource-poor smallholder farmers, especiallythose linking in remote areas and so theselinkages should be fostered so as to facilitategreater sustainability of interventions.

More recently, the rise in the power ofsupermarkets has changed opportunities formany smallholder producers, particularly in thehigher value, or niche products. In view of themarket share enjoyed by supermarkets, somedevelopment specialists believe that far greateremphasis should be given to working withcorporate buyers so that smallholders can beintegrated into their buying systems.

Building In-house AgroenterpriseCapacity through Pilot TestingPilot testing of the agroenterprise approach willinvolve a limited number of partners andtypically focus on a short duration product toaccelerate learning. The use of an off-seasoncrop provides an opportunity to work with apartner agency and a farmer’s group at a limitedlevel. In Figure 5, the partners with a shadedbackground indicate a potential pilot projectarrangement. A checklist for undertaking a pilotprocess is outlined in Appendix 1.

The importance of local contextCIAT is currently testing the agroenterprisemethod with partners from 30 countries in threecontinents. Our findings show whilst the basic

economic principles apply in all locations, thereare major differences in how the approach isapplied. In addition to the differences caused byphysical, factors such as climate, soils, andtopography, other critical factors includepolitical systems and their associated marketingenvironment, land tenure systems, financialmarkets, market access as affected byinfrastructure and communications,marginalization caused by remoteness frommarket centers, gender, ethnicity, and powerrelations within market chains. Other factorsinclude degree of farmer organization andrelations with larger agricultural operators.

Consequently, the agroenterprise process needsto be used in a flexible manner, taking intoaccount previous history and currentopportunities. Our belief is, however, thatmarketing principles are robust and even underdifficult economic conditions farmers are keento find new ways of increasing their income.Given this background, we would like to stressthe need to be aware that within any ruralcommunity there are many social classes, eachwith a particular asset base, level oforganization, and agroenterprise capacity. Theinformation in Table 1 shows the different typesof client group that service providers are likelyto encounter. These groups will have differenttypes of agroenterprise strategies that are mostappropriate for their level of development.

Entry points for agroenterpriseengagementStarting out: The simplest entry point whenworking with farmers in market chains is to findways to improve sales of existing products. Thisapproach is most useful for those with limitedmarketing capacity. Using this approach is alsoencouraged as a pilot, to test the enterpriseapproach so that both the market facilitator andthe farmer group get a better understanding ofhow the process works, prior to going to scale.

Diversification: For farmer groups that arealready organized and interested in investigatingnew product ideas, the starting point in thearea-based approach to agroenterprise shouldbe a study of market opportunities identification(MOI) (Guide 3). It is anticipated that organizedfarmers already have competence in growingbasic food security crops for the market and areseeking new, typically higher value options. TheMOI will provide a list of new opportunities toinvestigate in more detail.

15


En

terp

rise

em

ph

asi

s

Foc

us

on o

rgan

izati

on o

f fa

rmer

s in

to g

rou

ps

to b

uild

soca

il c

apit

al,

tru

st a

nd s

imple

bu

sin

ess

skills

in

order

to

lay

the

fou

ndati

ons

for

incr

ease

dco

mpet

itiv

enes

s.

For

en

terp

rise

dev

elop

men

t, s

tart

wit

h e

xist

ing

pro

du

cts

that

show

hig

h m

ark

et d

eman

d,

valu

e, a

nd a

re p

rodu

ced

by

the

majo

rity

of

farm

ers.

Ser

vice

pro

vider

s to

dev

elop

th

eir

skills

an

du

nder

stan

din

gof

th

e m

ark

etpla

ce a

nd

its

oppor

tun

itie

s. I

den

tify

an

dsu

ppor

t m

ark

et f

aci

lita

tion

.

Foc

us

on g

rou

p d

ynam

ics

an

d d

evel

opin

g bu

sin

ess

skills

of t

he

grou

p.

Lev

el o

f m

ark

et e

nga

gem

ent

will

ass

ist

inse

lect

ion

of

exis

tin

g or

iden

tify

ing

new

mark

et o

ppor

tun

itie

s.R

ecor

d k

eepin

g, t

o la

y th

e fo

un

dati

on f

or f

utu

re f

inan

cial

acc

redit

ati

on a

nd s

uit

abilit

y fo

r in

vest

men

t fr

om m

icro

fin

an

ce,

shou

ld b

e in

trod

uce

d.

Oth

er g

rou

p s

kills

su

chle

ader

ship

, gr

oup r

oles

an

d h

ow t

o ru

n m

eeti

ngs

sh

ould

be

stre

ngt

hen

ed.

Gro

ups

shou

ld r

ecru

it o

r tr

ain

a “

mark

etfa

cilita

tor”

. S

eek e

nte

rpri

ses

that

are

mor

e pro

fita

ble

for

the

targ

et g

rou

p.

Foc

us

on i

ncr

easi

ng

scale

an

d v

alu

e addit

ion

wit

hin

the

sele

cted

su

bse

ctor

s.Lea

d g

rou

ps

shou

ld s

eek l

inks

to l

ike-

min

ded

· gro

ups

in o

rder

to

enco

ura

ge s

cale

an

d t

o part

ner

wit

h m

ore

spec

ialize

d s

ervi

ce p

rovi

der

s to

ass

ist

indev

elop

ing

new

mark

et o

pti

ons

an

d f

ind w

ays

of

gain

ing

effi

cien

cies

in

th

e su

pply

ch

ain

.R

ecor

d k

eepin

g an

d b

usi

nes

s pla

nn

ing

shou

ld b

e· s

hare

d w

ith

fin

an

cial

exper

ts a

nd g

rou

p s

hou

ldse

ek f

inan

cial

suppor

t so

ugh

t.

Foc

us

on c

hain

ch

am

pio

ns

an

d i

ssu

es o

f go

vern

an

cean

d e

qu

ity

in t

he

mark

et c

hain

.G

rou

p s

hou

ld l

ink w

ith

spec

ialist

skills

an

d i

nfo

rmati

on· s

ervi

ce p

rovi

der

s, w

hic

h s

hou

ld b

e fe

e base

d.

Gro

up s

hou

ld f

ocu

s ef

fort

s on

to

pro

du

ct d

evel

opm

ent

· iss

ues

, in

clu

din

g bra

ndin

g, c

ust

omer

rel

ati

ons

an

dbro

aden

ing

pro

du

ct p

ortf

olio

.S

hif

t to

valu

e ch

ain

appro

ach

es t

o co

nso

lidate

mark

ets.

·

agr

oen

terp

rise

s.

Pre

con

dit

ion

s to

en

terp

rise

dev

elop

men

t

Th

is t

ype

of c

omm

un

ity

may

requ

ire

spec

ialist

inte

rven

tion

th

at

can

be

con

sider

ed a

s pre

-en

terp

rise

ori

ente

d.

Man

y age

nci

es s

upply

su

chco

mm

un

itie

s w

ith

su

ppor

t pro

cess

es s

uch

as

re-s

tock

ing

ass

ets,

aft

er a

soc

ial/

natu

ral

shoc

k.

Th

is m

ay

incl

ude

pro

visi

on o

fF

ood a

id.

· See

ds,

too

ls,

live

stoc

k,

inpu

ts.

· Con

flic

t re

solu

tion

.· S

afe

ty n

et c

lau

ses

an

d i

nte

rven

tion

s.· C

omm

un

itie

s at

this

sta

ge a

re w

ell

pos

itio

ned

to

ben

efit

fro

m e

nte

rpri

se o

rien

ted i

nte

rest

gro

ups,

i.e.

, co

ordin

ati

on o

f age

nci

es t

hat

have

a c

omm

onin

tere

st i

n m

ark

et o

rien

ted p

roce

sses

.

Ser

vice

pro

vider

s sh

ould

rev

iew

th

eir

com

pet

ence

an

d s

taff

pro

file

s to

en

sure

qu

ality

of p

rovi

din

g m

ark

etin

g se

rvic

es p

rovi

ded

.

Th

ese

grou

ps

will

requ

ire

spec

ialist

su

ppor

t in

are

as

of e

nte

rpri

se d

evel

opm

ent.

Ser

vice

pro

vider

san

d t

hei

r in

tere

st g

rou

p m

ember

s sh

ould

dev

elop

stra

tegi

es t

hat

bri

ng

spec

ific

skills

to

bea

r. T

his

may

incl

ude

asp

ects

su

ch a

s m

ark

et i

nfo

rmati

on,

lin

kage

to

mic

ro f

inan

ces

an

d i

npu

t su

pply

.

Th

ese

grou

ps

will

requ

ire

suppor

t in

are

as

ofbu

sin

ess

man

age

men

t an

d a

re l

ikel

y to

be

inte

rest

ed i

n r

isk c

apit

al

ven

ture

s th

at

will

pro

vide

them

wit

h p

rogr

essi

ve e

dge

in

th

e m

ark

etpla

ce.

Incr

easi

ng

use

of

ICTs

to s

uppor

t en

terp

rise

dev

elop

men

t. S

ervi

ce p

rovi

der

s an

d t

hei

r in

tere

stgr

oup m

ember

s sh

ould

dev

elop

str

ate

gies

th

at

bri

ng

spec

ific

skills

to

bea

r. T

his

may

incl

ude

mark

etin

form

ati

on,

fin

an

ces,

in

pu

t su

pplies

, et

c.

nary

sta

ges

of s

mallh

older

farm

ers

an

d t

hei

r

Ch

ara

cter

isti

cs

Indiv

idu

al

farm

ers

pro

du

cin

gpre

dom

inan

tly

for

thei

r ow

n c

onsu

mpti

on,

sellin

g sm

all s

urp

luse

s to

loc

al

mark

ets.

Pre

cari

ous

to n

onex

iste

nt

acc

ess

tose

rvic

es a

nd n

o u

se o

f pu

rch

ase

d i

npu

ts.

Low

ass

et a

ccu

mu

lati

on,

mos

t vu

lner

able

.

Sm

all s

cale

ru

ral

ente

rpri

ses

wit

h l

owle

vels

of

valu

e addit

ion

an

d w

eak b

usi

nes

sor

ien

tati

on,

poo

r le

vels

of

coh

esio

n.

Acc

ess

to s

ervi

ces

is i

nco

mple

te a

nd i

rreg

ula

r,lim

itin

g en

terp

rise

gro

wth

pro

spec

ts.

Com

mer

cially

orie

nte

d e

nte

rpri

ses

wit

hh

igh

er l

evel

s of

soc

ial

coh

esio

n t

hat

have

inco

rpor

ate

d v

alu

e addin

g h

an

dlin

g an

d/

or t

ran

sfor

mati

on p

roce

sses

, an

d p

rodu

ctdiv

ersi

fica

tion

. S

ellin

g in

to l

ocal,

reg

ion

al

an

d n

ati

onal

mark

ets.

Have

acc

ess

toappro

pri

ate

ser

vice

s th

at

per

mit

en

terp

rise

grow

th.

Farm

er e

nte

rpri

ses

are

fu

lly

inte

grate

d i

nto

supply

ch

ain

s pro

du

cin

g pro

du

cts

that

mee

t m

ark

et d

eman

ds

in t

erm

s of

qu

ality

an

d f

requ

ency

of

supply

, bot

h n

ati

onally

an

d f

or e

xpor

t. A

re c

apable

of

iden

tify

ing

an

d p

ayi

ng

for

requ

ired

bu

sin

ess

dev

elop

men

t se

rvic

es.

Table

1.

Evo

luti

o

Sta

ge

1.

Su

bsi

sten

ce

2.

Earl

y st

age

3.

Dev

elop

ing

4.

Matu

re

16


Selected product: In cases where a producthas already been selected for investment, thestarting point within the area-based approachwill be a market chain study of that product. Itis likely, however, that the market facilitatorwill also need to work on improving theorganization of farmer groups and initiatinglinks with other support organizations andservice providers.

Contract farming: In some cases higher ordermarket actors, such as processors, wholesaletraders or retail outlets, are interested to workwith farmer groups on contractual basis tosecure supply of a selected product. In thiscase, the agroenterprise approach does notneed to focus on demand or marketing issues,but concentrate on providing a quality producton a competitive basis.

Considerations for Scaling UpScale is an issue that the partners need toconsider from the outset. Given a successfulpilot project, the next stage in a scale processwill be for the lead service provider to apply theapproach to more farmer groups within thearea. The aim of the up scaling process beingeither to (i) encourage more groups to sell aselected product into an identified market, thusachieving economies of scale or (ii) to empower

many groups to diversify into a wider range ofproducts and markets to achieve diversificationover a wider area.

Whatever the aim of the scale process, the leadorganization should investigate opportunitiesfor networking so that other service providerscan apply the methodology more widely. Inmany cases projects that are successful at thepilot level, fail to achieve scale because toomuch time is invested in learning lessons withthe pilot group and there are insufficient levelsof facilitation to push ideas beyond a limitedfew. Therefore we suggest that an aggressiveapproach to demonstration, learning, andscaling up is adopted and spread through localpartners.

Exit StrategiesAs part of the planning stage, the leadorganization should also make decisions onhow to apply an exit strategy. This can beconsidered in terms of time, i.e., how long theorganization intends to spend with acommunity/farmer group, on skills trainingprovided to a community, on income gainsthrough agroenterprise development or on otherselected criteria. A potential timeframe andstructure for an exit strategy is given inAppendix 3.

17

Area-based Resource Assessment

SECTION 3


This section of the guide describes amethodology for analyzing the livelihoodsand innovation processes of a specific

geographic area for rural agroenterprisedevelopment. The methods should be adaptedaccording to the time and resources available.The steps detailed below could be developed,using secondary information, and by usingparticipatory methods with key informants orfocus groups to collect primary information. Thesteps for carrying out a basic diagnosis for ruralagroenterprise development are shown inFigure 7. Each step is explained with someindications of possible methodologies.

Forming the Working GroupBefore starting an analysis of local resources foragroenterprise development, it is important toform the working group members, asrepresentatives from this group will participatein the resource assessment. As described, theworking group will set out as a looseassociation of partners with a common interest

in improving their marketing skills and thecommercialization of identified products. Theworking group members help to avoidduplication of efforts and highlight possiblesynergies between participating organizations.At this point, those most interested in joiningthe process will make up the working groupmembership and survey team.

Defining an AreaAfter having organized a survey team, withresources, the first decision to be made is thelimits of the area to be studied. In many cases,the area maybe defined by the local politicalboundaries, a village, a cluster of villages, adioceses, or a watershed. An alternative is toconsider the area where project activities will beimplemented. Experience has shown that manyprojects set out on a large data gatheringexercise only to find out later that a very smallpart of this information is useful, e.g., this canoccur when the analysis is made at the districtlevel, and the project only operates in two

18


Selecting and defining the territory and its limits

Identifying and grouping similar agroecological zones

Analyzing the resource base of each zone

Welfare criteria and social differentiationfor each zone

Livelihood strategies by zone, social group,and gender

Processes of innovation by zone, resource,and social group

Basic diagnosis for ruralagroenterprise development

Figure 7. Steps for conducting a basic diagnosis for a given area.

villages. As a rule of thumb, limit the studyzone to the area of the project interventions. Ifthe group is unclear about where to draw theboundary, then the group needs to developsome questions or define some criteria thatwould help to delimit the area for intervention.These criteria should be developed with theagencies operating in the selected area and mayimply negotiation over areas to cover so eachentity has a manageable area.

Selection criteria for defining an area ofintervention

· With whom are we working at present?

·Where are they located?With whom would we like to work in the

·future? Where are they located?What scope do we have as an organizationor group of organizations without the

·quality of our work being compromised?In the case of companies that provide RAeDservices, what populations should they

·serve to be economically sustainable?Are activities of production, processing, andmarketing carried out in the targeted area?If not, then most probably, the area needs tobe expanded to include local or regional

markets and thus better understand the

·region’s economic organization.Other criteria according to theorganization(s) participating in the process.

Once the area is delimited, decisions onwhether some form of zoning is required can betaken. The process of zoning is undertaken sothat the intervention team can develop differentintervention strategies for specific types ofclients or beneficiaries, i.e., very resource-poorfarmers and farmers with significantly moreassets, or farmers working in the valleys withtropical crops versus farmers working at highaltitude with subtropical products, women’sgroups versus mixed gender groups. Hence, thecomplexity of this next section will depend uponthe size of your area and the heterogeneity ofthe area.

Zoning the AreaIf the project is only dealing with a small areaor a cluster of villages, zoning may not benecessary. Similarly, if the area of interventionis highly homogeneous, in terms of landscape,market access, farmer assets, and productionpossibilities, then zoning may also not prove to

19


be effective, as zoning is a means to separateclients based on existing differences. If the“working group” is working over large anddiverse areas, such as districts or clusters ofdistricts, a more structured approach to themanaging differentiated clients maybe helpful.The following lists show details of someimportant aspects to evaluate in your area-based diagnosis.

Natural resources

· General topography (altitudes: steep, less

·sloping, flat areas).Water sources (rivers, streams, springs) and

·their flows throughout the year.Relative productivity of soils (good, medium,and poor soils).

Productive resources

· Roads (paved, improved, dirt) and their

·respective usability during the year.Infrastructure coverage (electricity, phone

·coverage, potable water, irrigation).Major businesses with agricultural links(wholesale sorting and packing facilities,processing firms, export firms, among

·others).Support services (input suppliers, internet

·cafes, machinery suppliers or others).Transport for produce (frequency, costs and

·quality).Markets for the area’s produce and markets1.

Communities

· Location of communities and their relative

·populations.Land tenure structure (farmers who are

·owners, day laborers, or share croppers).Location of different ethnic groups, or otherdefined social groups, and their

·identification.Level of social organization (do farmer groupsexist, do they work collectively).

Once this information is placed on the map,zones that have something in common and canbe treated as more or less homogeneous unitscan be distinguished from zones that aresufficiently different to merit a separate analysis.Some criteria to take into account when zoningthe area could include:

1. Some markets may not appear on the map but theroads linking the territory to them should be clearlymarked.

· Agroecosystem, if this has implications forcrops or potential economic activities in a

·zone.Access to roads or markets, especially if thisfactor changes during the year because ofrainy seasons or if it affects the produce

·that can be taken to market.Land tenure is an important factor,considering as it greatly influences the typeof crops planted and the possibility of

·introducing new ones.Access to water and how it fluctuates duringthe year can be a means of distinguishingbetween areas with good, regular, or pooraccess. The theme of irrigation can also be

·reviewed.Productive orientation zones alreadyproducing for markets require differentstrategies than those oriented towards

·household consumption or food security.Types of existing production systems. Thepresence of a particular crops such ascoffee, for example, will significantly affect a

·zone’s economic dynamic.Others according to the criteria of the localparticipants.

Once the relevant differentiation criteria areidentified for the area, a matrix for zoning canbe constructed and zones defined. An exampleis shown in Table 2.

When zoning an area the focus should be oncriteria that represent the most severeconstraints to production and agroenterprisedevelopment. These are the aspects thateffectively differentiate one zone from another.In addition, the number of selected criteriashould be manageable, e.g., two or three at amaximum.

Once the communities are located in thematrix, similarities should be checked prior todefining the final zones for analysis. Forexample, in Table 2 the conditions between thezone with permanent roads and permanentwater and the zone with permanent roads andwater for more than 8 months per year aresimilar enough to group them into a single zonefor analysis. It is important to remember thatthe objective of zoning is to distinguish betweenzones with such marked differences that theywill require different strategies. Do not zonefor zoning’s sake. Effort must be made to seeksimilarities and thus reduce the zones to amanageable number.

20


Table 2. Example of a matrix identifying homogeneous zones in an area.

Road type Water

Permanent >8 months/year <8 months/year

Permanent Communities with permanent Communities with permanent Communities with permanentroads and permanent water. roads and water for more roads and water for less than

than 8 months of the year. 8 months of the year.

Temporary Communities with dry-season Communities with dry-season Communities with dry-seasonroads and permanent water. roads and water for more roads and water for less than

than 8 months of the year. 8 months of the year.

Unimproved path Communities with Communities with Communities withunimproved access and unimproved access and water unimproved access and waterpermanent water. for more than 8 months of for less than 8 months of

the year. the year.

Source authors. Key variables, access to markets, and irrigation.

At the end of this process, each zone should be“named” to distinguish it from the others. Suchdesignation can be based on each zone’s specialcharacteristics such as slopes (flat land,foothills, and hillsides), access (paved road, cartracks, and bridle path), altitude (highland, mid-altitude land, and lowland), or other locallyacceptable designations. The logic behind thename assigned to each zone is that it should beclearly defined so that all agree on its use in thefuture.

Once the area is divided into zones, thelivelihood resources available to the householdsand communities who live there can be assessed.

Analyzing Resources Available inEach ZoneThe analysis of available resources by zoneshould be relatively quick because the goal is tohighlight the most important themes. Secondaryinformation can be used, if it exists or, throughinterviews with key informants, focus groups, orparticipatory transects. The information can thenbe organized into matrices that permit a briefoutline on the resources within each zone.

Resources for employment are natural, human,productive/financial, and social in nature. Forthe first three cases, matrices similar to Table 3can be used. For social resources, an additionalmethodological tool is proposed for filling in thematrix. Table 4, provides a matrix for humanresources; and Table 5, a matrix for productive/financial resources.

Analyzing Social Resources in EachZoneTo analyze the availability of social resources,i.e., organizations with business activities andthe relationships among them, a “Venn diagram”can be used. This method enables the social/business networks in each zone to be visualized.

The method comprises five steps in which theorganizations involved in the zone’sagroenterprise development are:

··Identified.

·Briefly described.

·Located within or outside the zone.Have existing relationships with each otherdescribed.

21


Table 3. Example of a matrix showing natural resources in three zones.

Zone Availability of natural resources

Water Soils Forests

Sufficient, available from Fragile soils with steep slopes. Forest patches exist in therivers or springs. Possibilities Forest vocation in conflict with area and around someof irrigation by gravity. Water- production uses. Need for soil springs. Primary use isproducing area. conservation methods within firewood for cooking with

cropping system. some collection activities.

Hill Land Sufficient water but some Soils more stable with good Few forests but fruit trees(600 to 1500 m) problems of access and production potential. Need exist in the area.

contamination. Possibilities to work with green fertilizersof irrigation in some sites. to improve fertility.

Lowlands Water limited in summer, with Stable soils with good No forests. Occasional trees(600 m) considerable contamination production potential. Need in paddocks.

problems. Access limited to work with green fertilizersto those living close to the to improve fertility, retainriver (which dries up in water, and irrigate for summer.summer).

Highlands(>1500 m)

· Actors identified who are significant for ruralagroenterprise development in the zone. Forexample, traders, processors, transporters,and wholesalers/retailers.

To achieve a complete analysis of these networks,this activity should be conducted with keyinformants or focus groups from several of theidentified organizations. The steps for this typeof analysis are described in more detail below.

Identifying organizations related toagroenterprise developmentKey informants or focus groups are asked toname all the organizations that are involved inthe zone’s agroenterprise development. Theseorganizations may be within or outside thetargeted zone and may be formal (e.g.,cooperatives, farmer associations, NGOs,or service companies) or informal (e.g.,intermediaries, lenders, or workshops),but should have some relevance to the zone.This step aims to achieve consensus on theseorganizations and details about each one.

In this step, it is also important to differentiateorganizations involved in agroenterprisedevelopment from those established for purelysocial purposes. The latter category wouldinclude, for example, water boards, parentassociations, religious groups, and generalassociations for development. To facilitate thisprocess, it is better to include only thoseorganizations that fulfill an agroenterprisefunction, including the delivery of supportservices, within the zone or area.

Describing the organizationsFor each organization identified in the previousstep, basic information is obtained on its legalstructure (e.g., cooperative, formal company,informal company, individual person, NGO, orassociation), activities, headquarters, area ofinfluence, and other relevant data (such as thenumber of members, history, and achievements).This information can be included in a simpletable as shown in Table 6. After compiling thisinformation, the name of each organizationidentified is written on a circular card.

Partnerships...

22

A Participatory Guide to Developing

Table

4.

A h

um

an

res

ourc

es m

atr

ix f

or t

hre

e agr

oeco

logi

cal

zon

es i

n a

n a

rea.

Zon

eA

vailabilit

y of

skills

an

d k

now

ledge

Sch

oolin

gLoc

al

kn

ow-h

owTec

hn

ical

suppor

tH

ealt

h

Hig

hla

nds

Low

lev

el o

f fo

rmal

sch

oolin

gLoc

al

kn

owle

dge

(h

eld b

y ol

der

Tec

hn

ical

suppor

t of

fere

d b

yLoc

al

hea

lers

. A

cces

s to

hea

lth

(>1500 m

)(<

60%

of

inh

abit

an

ts c

an

rea

dpeo

ple

) on

th

e tr

adit

ion

al

use

s of

rura

l pro

mot

ers

an

d i

nfr

equ

ent

pos

ts a

nd h

ospit

al

in u

rban

an

d w

rite

). L

ocal

pro

cess

es o

fbio

div

ersi

ty.

Bro

ad k

now

ledge

of

wor

ksh

ops

of N

GO

s.ce

nte

r is

dif

ficu

lt.

Pro

ble

ms

ofpart

icip

ato

ry l

iter

acy

an

dso

il m

an

age

men

t, b

ut

not

applied

.m

aln

utr

itio

n i

n s

ome

childre

n.

dec

entr

alize

d h

igh

-sch

ool

Hig

h r

ate

s of

in

fan

t an

d m

ate

rnal

edu

cati

on.

mor

tality

.

Hill

Lan

dB

ette

r le

vel

of f

orm

al

sch

oolin

gB

road k

now

ledge

of

cash

-cro

pPer

man

ent

tech

nic

al

suppor

t by

Loc

al

hea

lth

pos

t. R

estr

icte

d(6

00 t

o 1500 m

)(>

80%

of

inh

abit

an

ts c

an

rea

dpro

du

ctio

n.

Som

e ex

per

ien

cepro

mot

ers,

tec

hn

icia

ns

from

acc

ess

to t

he

hos

pit

al

in u

rban

an

d w

rite

). P

rim

ary

sch

ools

wit

h p

roce

ssin

g an

d m

ark

etin

g.F

ED

EC

AF

É,

pri

vate

tec

hn

icia

ns,

cen

ter.

Hig

h in

fan

t m

orta

lity

.ex

ist

plu

s so

me

dec

entr

alize

dN

GO

s, a

nd t

he

gove

rnm

ent.

hig

h-s

choo

l ed

uca

tion

.

Low

lan

ds

Goo

d l

evel

of

form

al

sch

oolin

gK

now

ledge

of

exte

nsi

ve l

ives

tock

Tec

hn

ical

suppor

t fr

om p

riva

teH

ealt

h p

osts

an

d r

apid

acc

ess

to(<

600 m

)(>

90%

of

inh

abit

an

ts c

an

rea

dra

isin

g.te

chn

icia

ns,

NG

Os,

an

d t

he

the

hos

pit

al

in u

rban

cen

ter.

an

d w

rite

). P

rim

ary

sch

ools

gove

rnm

ent.

exis

t plu

s acc

ess

to h

igh

sch

ools

in

urb

an

cen

ter.

23


Table

5.

A p

rodu

ctiv

e re

sou

rce

matr

ix f

or t

hre

e ec

olog

ical

zon

es i

n a

n a

rea.

Zon

eA

vailabilit

y of

pro

du

ctiv

e/fi

nan

cial

reso

urc

es

Roa

ds

Mark

ets

Cre

dit

Agg

rega

te v

alu

e

Hig

hla

nds

Bri

dle

path

s im

pass

able

in

rain

yPro

du

ce t

aken

to

“Hill

Lan

d”

zon

e,C

redit

ava

ilable

th

rou

ghN

o added

valu

e pro

cess

ing

in t

he

(>1500 m

)se

aso

ns.

Tra

nsp

ort

is o

n f

oot

orw

her

e it

is

sold

to

loca

l tr

ader

s.co

mm

un

ity

len

der

s an

d s

ome

zon

e.by

bea

st o

f bu

rden

.R

are

ly v

isit

th

e lo

cal

mark

et.

rura

l sa

vin

gs a

nd l

oan

s fa

ciliti

es.

Hill

Lan

dR

oads

dif

ficu

lt d

uri

ng

rain

yPro

du

ce s

old o

n f

arm

to

loca

l an

dC

redit

off

ered

by

loca

l le

nder

s,In

cipie

nt

added

valu

e pro

cess

ing

for

(600 t

o 1500 m

)se

aso

ns.

Sm

all t

ruck

s an

d j

eeps.

exte

rnal

trader

s. F

arm

ers

trader

s (a

dva

nce

d a

gain

stsu

garc

an

e, f

ruit

s (s

elec

tion

an

dD

aily

tran

spor

t to

urb

an

cen

ter,

occa

sion

ally

go t

o u

rban

cen

ter

harv

ests

), r

ura

l sa

vin

gs a

nd l

oan

spack

ing)

, an

d c

hee

ses

in f

am

ily

leavi

ng

in t

he

mor

nin

g an

dto

sel

l th

eir

pro

du

ce d

irec

tly.

faci

liti

es,

an

d s

ome

NG

Os.

ente

rpri

ses.

retu

rnin

g in

th

e aft

ern

oon

.

Low

lan

ds

Roa

ds

acc

essi

ble

yea

r-ro

un

d.

Pro

du

ce s

old o

n f

arm

to

loca

l an

dC

redit

off

ered

by

loca

l le

nder

s,A

dded

valu

e pro

cess

ing

for

milk a

nd

(<600 m

)B

use

s ru

n b

etw

een

majo

r u

rban

exte

rnal

trader

s. F

arm

ers

larg

e tr

ader

s (a

dva

nce

d a

gain

stch

eese

pro

du

cts

thro

ugh

ace

nte

rs s

ever

al

tim

es d

aily.

freq

uen

tly

go t

o u

rban

cen

ter

harv

ests

), r

ura

l sa

vin

gs a

nd l

oan

sco

oper

ati

ve.

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

rel

ati

vely

easy

.to

sel

l th

eir

pro

du

ce d

irec

tly.

faci

liti

es,

som

e N

GO

s, a

nd b

an

ks

(for

larg

e fa

rmer

s).

24


Table 6. Format to describe agroenterprise organizations by zone.

Organization’s name Brief description

Legal structure Activities Headquarters Area of influence

Locating the organizationThe following step consists of geographicallylocating the different organizations within oroutside the zone being described. To do this, werecommend drawing on a large piece of paper,or on the floor, a circle that represents the zone,and leaving blank space around. Then, cardsrepresenting the organizations withheadquarters in the zone are placed within thecircle, and those that have relationships withthe zone but have their headquarters outsideare placed outside the circle.

Within the zone, the cards of organizations thathave their headquarters in the same communityare grouped together, to clarify whichcommunities have more and which have lessagroentrepreneurial organization.

With the external organizations, those that havemore presence or are more permanent in thezone are placed closer to the large circle thatrepresents the zone, while those that have lesspresence or permanence are placed fartheraway. An example is given in Figure 8.

Analyzing the relationships betweenactorsIn this step, a key must be developed to helpqualify existing relationships in at least threesenses: (1) their strength or permanence;(2) power (that is, who sends who); and (3) thetype of exchanges (for example, goods formoney), that take place in the relationship.Other themes can also be included (such astechnology transfer), if they are of interest tothe analysis.

Community A

Livestockassociation

Community B

Community C

Cheeseplant

Localtrader

Localtrader

Localtrader

Regionaltrader

Juicecompany

Highlands(>1500 m)

NGO

Regionaltrader

Figure 8. Example of locating agroenterprises in a given zone.

Fruitcooperative

25


To explain the diagram a key is required thatprovides different types of lines, arrows, orcodes that express dynamics between partnersin terms of relationship strengths, power, andexchanges. Figure 9 gives an example of a key,and Figure 10 shows how it is applied.

Identifying key actors for the area’s ruralagroenterprise developmentOn finalizing this exercise for each zone, theresults should be compared to see if any of the

Strength of relationshipStrong, permanent

Fair, semi permanent

Weak, occasional

Power of relationshipUnidirectional

Bidirectional

ExchangesGoods for money G/$$

Services for money S/$$

Goods for services G/S

Figure 9. Key for qualifying relationships betweenagroenterprises in a zone.

identified actors have activities, or areimportant, in more than one zone. Hence,identifying people or key organizations for theentire area’s agroenterprise development,whether formal or informal, becomes feasible.

Once the key actors are identified, they can begrouped by category of principal activity, asshown in Table 7.

Once the actors are located, the zones arereviewed one by one to identify actors with apresence in the various zones of the targetedarea. Using Table 7 as an example, the keyactors for rural agroenterprise development inthe area—understood as the set of zones—areidentified as the following people or companies:

· Fruit growers’ association (in zones

·“highland” and “mid-altitude land”).Coffee growers’ association (in zones

·“highland” and “mid-altitude land”).Local and regional intermediaries (at leastthe two regional ones who handle fruits,

·coffee, and milk derivatives).Juice company (in zones “highland” and“mid-altitude land”).

Livestockassociation

Cheeseplant

Localtrader

Localtrader

Localtrader

Fruitgrowers’

cooperative

Fruitjuice

company

Regionaltrader

Community A

Community B

Community C

Highlands(>1500 m)

NGO

Regionaltrader

S/$$

G/$$

G/$$

G/$$

G/$$

G/$$

G/$$

Figure 10. Highland example of qualifying relationships in a zone.

26


Table 7. Matrix of agroenterprise actors by agroecological zone.

Zone Actor’s principal economic activity

Production Post harvest Marketing Agroenterprisehandling, development servicesprocessing

Highlands Fruit growers’ Local fruit traders. Local fruit and coffee Fruits growers’(>1500 m) association. Individual coffee traders. Three regional association.

Municipal coffee growers. Juice coffee and fruit traders. Municipal coffeegrowers’ association. company. Juice company. growers’ association.

Independenttechnicians for fruits.Village shop sellingagricultural inputs.

Mid-altitude land Fruit growers’ Local fruit traders. Local fruit and coffee Fruit growers’(Hill Land) association. Individual coffee traders. Three regional association.(600 to 1500 m) Municipal coffee growers. Juice coffee and fruit traders. Independent

growers’ association. company. Juice company. technicians for fruits.Village shop sellingagricultural inputs.

Lowland Milk producers’ Three local plants for One plant and two Cooperative (inputs for(<600 m) cooperative. cheese and milk regional traders (same members). Independent

derivatives. Cooling as above). Multinational technicians for milkplant (cooperative). milk company in urban producers and

center. processors. Shop sellinginputs for cheesemakers. Swiss NGO forcheese production.

· The independent technicians (present in all

·three zones).The village shop selling inputs (importantfor all three zones).

In zone “lowland”, the actors related to milkproduction gain importance. Likewise, if we areinterested in this product or zone, we need toinclude the cooperative, cheese, and milkplants, multinational company, and the SwissNGO.

The importance of this exercise is that it gives aclear idea of who should be taken into accountwhen considering the area’s agroenterprisedevelopment options and gives an initial baseon which to form a working group for a giventheme. The list of related agencies does notmean that all should be represented, only themost relevant and effective organizations shouldbe included in the working group.

Profiling Client Groups throughWealth Evaluation for Each ZoneThe next step in conducting the basic diagnosisfor rural agroenterprise development is to

identify different social groups in the area. Thiscomplements existing secondary data, such aspoverty2 maps with more qualitative data.

This work should be developed with a focusgroup made up of key actors from each zone toidentify possible variations in welfare betweenzones. By working at the zone level we candifferentiate between livelihood strategies thatare intensive, high value in small areas orextensive, produce of low value or no addedvalue in large areas. An example is thedifference between small-scale fruit productionas opposed to extensive livestock ranching3.

2. Secondary data such as census figures, povertymaps, and participatory poverty assessments can allbe drawn on. Much of this data should already existas it is a major criterion for targeting developmentfunding in most parts of the world.

3. This is simplistic differentiation that leaves out agreat many issues that you may confront at the fieldlevel. In Asia, for example, the inclusion of livestockin the production system may actually indicate amore intensive use of resources, not a moreextensive strategy, while in Latin America ranchingis rarely intensive.

27


Before beginning the analysis with the focusgroup, a short discussion about the differentclasses of resources (see definitions on page 7)is useful so that the participants have a clearidea of what will be analyzed.

It is best to begin with one extreme of thecontinuum of local welfare, either the mostwell-to-do or the least well-to-do, as this helpswith the analysis of other groups. This processcan be facilitated using the matrix (Table 8),and advancing top to bottom by columns orfrom right to left by well-being level. Careshould be exercised in interpreting therelationships among the different well-beinglevels.

To carry out this analysis, a guide can bedeveloped with the focus group to includequestions such as the following:

· What access to the zone’s natural resources

·do well-to-do families have?What access to the zone’s natural resourcesdo families with medium-sized incomes

·have?What access to the zone’s natural resourcesdo families who have very limited incomeshave?

Similar questions are asked about humanresources. The matrix in Table 8 can be adaptedto note the information (it can also be preparedon a flipchart, as shown in Table 9). As thisprocess is purely subjective, key indicators ofwell-being in each resource (e.g., measures ofland or water for natural resources) must beidentified and access of the population group tothe key indicator can be discussed. Someindicators of well-being may change from zoneto zone according to the life strategies that therespective population has developed whileothers (e.g., access to health services, formalcredit, or public offices) can be kept more orless stable for the entire area.

Table 8. Well-being levels in terms of access to a zone’sresources.

Well-being Access to the zone’s resourceslevel

High

Natural Human Production Social

Medium

Low

The definition of wealth, “well-being” can varyby zone. What is moderately well off in one zonemay be well-to-do in another and marginalizedin yet a third. It may be more useful todistinguish only among three categories—‘well-to-do’, medium, and most marginalized—andnot in as much detail as is shown in Figure 8.The group facilitating the analysis should makethis decision. The number of well-beingcategories should be constant for all zones.

Zoning Livelihood Strategies byWealth and Gender4

Some projects are designed to support specificgroups, such as those living in extreme povertyand women. This section describes a method forunderstanding the different possibilities that acommunity’s members have to generate income,using the concept of community developmentand social stratification.

The following exercises should be developed foreach zone, making use of the previous results(e.g., access to resources) to identify indicatorsthat separate livelihood strategies. Theindicators help explain why a household adoptsone livelihood strategy versus another and mayconstitute key constraints to processes ofagroenterprise development for certainsegments of the population.

This exercise is carried out with key informantsdrawn from diverse groups in each zone. It isimportant to have good representation acrossdifferent social groups in order to get a morecomplete picture of existing livelihoodstrategies. The steps to follow are:

1. Explain the objective of the exercise.2. Request informant(s) to provide information

on all sources of income available tocommunity members (Table 10). Recordincome sources on a flip chart removerepeats and write different ideas onto cards.At the end of this process you should have alist of cards with different sources of incomefor households in the zone.

3. Group the sources of income, based on theease of access to them for households in thezone; for example, can all households in thecommunity access this activity? If not, whocan? Who does not have access? Why not?Group the different sources of income.

4. Adapted from Gottret (2000).

28


Table 9. Well-being matrix from Valle del Cauca, Colombia.

Class Criteria No. of families at: No. of Observationsfarmers

Rich 100 ha of well cultivated land, Vergel = 0 Contracts labor120 head of cattle, 1 car, Diamante = 1 V = 0 No cultivation1 house, earns 6–8 minimum Balsal = 5 B = 5 B = pastures and coffeewages, money at interest, Cristalina = 0 D = lulo and Andeanbusinessman, access to credit Manzano = 0 D = 1 blackberryand card. Producers Incera = 0

Medium (rich) 50–100 ha of land, V – Contracts more labor25–50 head of cattle, 1 car, B = 10 B = 10 C = coffee and sugarcanegood house, 5 min. wages, C = 5 C = 5 D = lulo, And. blackberry,businessman, has credit— D = 5 and livestockeasy access. M = 0 D = 5

P.I. = 0

Medium (poor) 20–30 ha of land, 10 head V = 12 V = 12 Can contract labor, hasof cattle, 1 motor cycle, B = 40 B = 40 cattle and crops;good house but unfinished, C = 0 D = 5 V = pastures, pigs,2–3 min. wages, businessman, D = 5 M = 6 sugarcane, coffee, andcredit. M = 6 granadilla; B = tomato,

P.I.= 0 cucumber, and cabbage;M = coffee, pastures, andgranadilla

Poor 5–10 min. wages, 1 milk cow, V = 6 V = 6 Works on farm and sells1 horse, regular house, B = 100 B = 100 labor, has cattle and1 min. wage, lives off farm, C = 6 C = 6 crops; V = coffee,credit ok and restricted. D = 0 M = 4 pastures, sugarcane, lulo;

M = 4 P.I. = 11 C = And. blackberry,P.I. = 11 coffee, lulo, plantains;

M = And. blackberry andlulo; P.I. = coffee,pastures, and plantains

Very poor Freeloader, house loaned, V = 2 V = 0 Sells labor.doesn’t own transport, day B = 40 B = 0laborer, credit is ok. C = 5 C = 0

D = 9 M = 0M = 3 P.I. = 0P.I. = 0

4. Once all conditions of access have beenexpressed rank them in order of importance,from the most important limitations to theleast important, re order all cards in theform of a flow chart as shown in Figure 11.

5. Identify sources of income that are stable(=), increasing in importance ( ), or losing inimportance ( ). An example is shown inFigure 12.

6. The last step is to examine the importanceof the different economic activities from thepoint of view of gender. The key question inthis step is: Who is mainly responsible fordeveloping this activity? During the firstlevel of analysis, this question can wait. If

there is interest, there are several ways ofadvancing but perhaps the simplest is todefine, by economic category, the specificactivities carried out and by whom. Anexample of this second level of analysis,extracted from Figure 13 appears inTable 11.

This study can be deepened by asking whodecides what to do, when and who controlsincome. This probes the question of who makesdecisions related to economic activities and whodoes the work. With this knowledge, futureefforts can focus on issues of equity in relationto income generating activities.

29


Table 10. Example of income sources for communitymembers.

Sources of food security Sources of income

List major products Production of:

Maize Basic grainsCassava Vegetables

Green vegetables Milk

Goats

LivestockGoats Work in the textile factory

Chickens for eggs Carpentry

Cow for milk HandcraftsWork for wages on farms

At the end of these exercises, the enterpriseteam should have a clear idea of the livelihoodstrategies of specific segments of the populationin specific zones. Some strategies maybe similarand, thus, can be generalized to the entire area.However, it is highly probable that differentclient types use specific income strategies andby understanding these options, agencies cantailor interventions for specific clients.To complement this livelihood analysis, werecommend a quick review of innovationprocesses in the area, as described under thenext heading.

Innovation Processes for EachZone, Resource, and Social GroupBy understanding innovation processes we canidentify how change takes place over time andthe channels thought which it flows. This canassist in the effectiveness of future intervention,whether it is hard technology (such as newvarieties, production systems, machinery, ormobile phones); soft technology (such aslearning new skills), and organizationaltechnologies (such as new social structures andbuilding links to other institutions).

Often, innovations are related to each other,e.g., improvements in production leads toimprovements in organization to sell the newsurplus and grouped by themes (e.g., specificproducts of a zone or natural resources). Anexhaustive inventory of innovation is notnecessary the aim is to obtain an idea ofoutstanding innovations in each resource, howthey came about, and their impact.

To understand innovation history and flow, werevisit the zones resource tables, and the socialdifferentiation carried out as part of thelivelihood analysis. This information can begenerated with a focus group made up of keyinformants from the zone that representsvarious social groups.

Sources of income

Land owners

Irrigation No irrigation

Live off:

Irrigated farming

Basic grains

Vegetables

Milk

Goats

Basic grains

Milk

Goats

Live off: Live off:Live off:

Factory work

Carpentry

Work for wages onfarms

Handcrafts

Landless

Figure 11. Example of income sources based on zoning within a project area.

30


Sources of income

Land owners

Irrigation No irrigation

Live off:

Irrigated farming

Basic grains

Vegetables

Milk

= Goats

Basic grains

Milk

= Goats

Live off: Live off:Live off:

= Factory work

Carpentry

= Work for wages onfarms

Handcrafts

Landless

Figure 12. Example of income trends within a zone.

Table 11. Gender analysis of an economic activity in a given zone.

Category: Growing market vegetables Importance: Average

Activities Responsible for the activity

Women Men Both Children

Purchase of seed

Preparing seedbeds

Transplanting

Hilling/weeding

Irrigation

Pest management

Harvest

Washing, selection, and packing

Marketing

To facilitate this process, the following steps aresuggested:

1. Remind participants of definitions used forresource analysis.

2. Ask the participants to identify importantmoments of change in each resource (one byone). Participants should discuss and agreeon what constitutes an “important momentof change” based on their own criteria.

3. Document changes by resource and ask theparticipants to clearly identify theinnovation (what was it and why was itneeded) and who invented or adopted it forthe first time. At this stage, it is importantto identify the innovators by name, their

geographical location, and levels of well-being. Here, profiles of each zone’sinnovators should be made.

4. Once the innovation and its innovator(s) areidentified, ask the participants to analyzethe sources of information that led to theinnovation. Was it a process of trial anderror carried out by one farmer only? Orwas it a combination between externalinformation (e.g., radio, television, flyers, orvisits) and local ingenuity? Was it anexternal actor who shared his or herknowledge with the innovator(s) (e.g.,training, written information, or field days)?Most likely, the innovation builds on acombination of factors. What we hope to

31


Table 12. Ide

Resources

Natural

ntifying innovations, i

Innovation(change)

Use of livebarriers to controlerosion and feedlivestock, pigs.

nnovators, dissemina

Innovator(s)

Landowningfarmers ofmoderate wealth.

tion, and impact in a

Sources ofinnovation

External NGO,training,participatory trials,farmer exchanges.

zone.

Disseminationchannels

Farmer to farmerexchangesbetween moderateand low wealthfarmers.

Impact

Increased presenceof barriers, extraanimal feed andsome additionalincome.

Human Decentralizedhigh-schooleducation programfor those withoutaccess to formalschooling.

Teachers. External NGO,government.

Rural promoters(farmers ofmoderate wealth).

Better access toeducation.

Production New and moreefficient design forsugarcane mills.

Mill owners(moderate towealthy farmers),skilled workers.

Visit to anotherpart of the country,information from aspecializedresearch center.

Skilled workers. Six mills withimprovedtechnology in thearea (belongingto moderate towealthy farmers).Greater demandfor sugar cane yearround.

Social Organization offruit growers’association.

Farmers ofmoderate to lowwealth.

Producers,advisory servicesof external NGO.

Producer toproducer(invitation tobecome part ofthe association).

Better channels(contracts) for saleto fruit companies,increased volumesand income. Betterorganization andnegotiating skills.

understand is the relative importance of thelocal know how versus sources of externalinformation. This process to looks at howinnovations are introduced into the zoneand how such introductions can befacilitated in the future.

5. Once the innovation was made, how was itdisseminated among the zone’s householdsand communities? How did new peoplelearn and adapt the innovation for use ontheir farms? Who disseminated theinnovation? Was it intentional (e.g.,workshops, visits, or organized field days) orspontaneous (e.g., informal talks in thevillage or the general store)?

6. What impact has the innovation generated?Who benefited from the innovation and whatwas their well-being level? An exhaustiveanalysis of impact is not required butmerely to ask participants to evaluate theinnovation’s relative importance in the zone.If they have concrete data (e.g., X number ofsugar mills were improved with thetechnology), these should be noted.

For analysis the focus group’s conclusionscan be noted in a matrix similar to that inTable 12.

32


SECTION 4

Planning Together for Joint Action

In the previous section, representatives of theworking group carried out a diagnosis of theresources available to support

agroenterprise development in an area, takinginto account options for zoning the area. Thissurvey will have provided information on:

· Existing endowments of natural, human,

·productive, and social resources.Livelihood strategies for differentiated socialgroups by area and zone according to local

·welfare criteria.Existing organizations and institutionsrelevant to processes of rural enterprisedevelopment and their relationships in the

·diverse zones of the area.Current and historical processes ofinnovation in the area.

This information is now used to develop simpleaction plans to promote agroenterprisedevelopment. This section is divided into fourparts:

1. Review of working group members and theformation of the group.

2. Analysis of the area’s potential for ruralenterprise development.

3. Identification of areas of consensus forcommon action.

4. Generation of a shared action plan.

The implementation of these four steps isfocused on the organizations that plan to bemembers of the working group. The steps canbe facilitated by an external or supportorganization but the discussions and finalagreements should be the product of theworking group members.

Reviewing the Roles of the WorkingGroupBefore generating an action plan, timeshould be taken to assess the stakeholders inthe working group and to gain a betterunderstanding of their level of interest. Insome cases new participants may have beenidentified from the diagnosis stage. Review thecomposition of the group; gain anunderstanding of their expectations, what theycan provide and what they may need to play anactive role in the group. This is the time todevelop some basic ground rules for roles andresponsibilities for all group members.

33


One of the results of the diagnosis was theidentification of key actors for the area’s ruralagroenterprise development. These actors maybe similar to those already in the workinggroup or they may be different. This is anappropriate time to review the identified actorsand openly discuss the following questions asa group:

· Do the participants in the working grouprepresent the most important actors for

·rural enterprise development in the area?Do they have sufficient information,resources, and access to the market tochange the existing situation bythemselves, or would it be better to includeadditional organizations? If so, which

·organizations?Are lead organizations for rural enterprisedevelopment adequately represented in thegroup? Who else is missing or needed?

Typically, the diagnosis identifies severalorganizations that share similar approaches toagroenterprise development, such as growers’associations, NGOs, public sector entities,universities, and private enterprises, whichcould strengthen development processes in thearea. This is the moment for identifying thoseorganizations that are available and have bothinterest and capacity to participate asmembers of the working group. A keyrecommendation is to look beyond thetraditional partners (growers’ associations,NGOs, the government) to include new actorswho bring other perspectives to the group. If,for example, a dynamic private company or alocal Chamber of Commerce is selected, thenthese could bring a well-developed businessapproach that would complement thestrengths of the other development actors.

More recently, new actors such as largesupermarket chains are desirable partners, asthey can effectively provide markets for variousproducts from the area and thus “pull”processes of enterprise development from themarket.

Once the key actors are identified andmotivated to participate, an informalagreement should be developed in which eachparticipant expresses their intention tocollaborate in the rural enterprise developmentof the area. This agreement should include:

··Purpose of the working group’s formation.

·The group’s objectives.

·The initial work timetable.The roles and responsibilities.

Once the working group is convened, theplanning process can begin as follows:

Planning for Rural AgroenterpriseDevelopment in the AreaPlanning begins with an analysis of localcapacities, a review of target zones, localpartners, and client farmer groups, a reviewof the more promising enterprise options,based on zonal preferences and resourcesrequired to move the process forward. Theseissues can be addressed using the Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats,methodology, more commonly known asSWOT analysis.

The SWOT analysis should be undertaken ina rigorous manner, so that the results can beused by the working group. Whilst SWOTanalysis can be very useful, if done by adedicated team, but if done superficially,results will be poor and difficult to interpretin a meaningful way. Spend time on thisprocess if you want a useful product. Thebasic steps are as follows:

1. Ask the working group to list thestrengths, in terms of rural agroenterprisedevelopment, that are evident in the area-based diagnosis. The strengths groupedby topic (e.g., natural resources, businessorganization, or markets ties).

2. Once identified and grouped, thestrengths are prioritized. Which are moreimportant—or evident—and which are lessimportant? Which constitute solid basesfor generating change and which do not?At the end of the discussion, strengths areranked.

3. Ask the working group to list and groupopportunities, in terms of agroenterprisedevelopment, that are evident in the area-based diagnosis. Some opportunities maybe within the area, others, may havemarket opportunities beyond the area.This is normal; the key is whether theproduct can be produced within the area.

4. Prioritize the opportunities.5. Ask the working group to list and group

weaknesses, in terms of agroenterprise

34


development, that are evident in the area-based diagnosis. These weaknesses arefound within the area.

6. Prioritize the weaknesses.7. Ask the working group to list threats, in

terms of agroenterprise development, thatare evident in the area-based diagnosis.Although threats can be internal, they tendto be external and related to the market orcompetition.

8. Prioritize the threats.

The results of this discussion should bewritten up in a SWOT matrix and thenvariables can be combined, or “crossed”, asshown in Table 13.

The combination or crossing step is facilitatedusing the following questions:

· How can we use the strengths found in thearea to turn identified threats intoopportunities for existing or future

·processes of rural enterprise development?How do we take advantage of ouropportunities to improve the weaknesses,in terms of rural agroenterprisedevelopment, found in the area?

The results of these two “crosses” are noted ina matrix such as found in Table 14.

Consensus BuildingOnce the rural enterprise developmentpotential of the area has been assessed, based

on the results of the SWOT analysis, the groupcan focus on concrete activities required. Atthis stage, we must identify the members of theworking group who are committed to workingtogether, discover their common vision interms of sustainable rural agroenterprisedevelopment for the selected area, define howthe working group can contribute to theattainment of these aspirations (or mission),and define “rules of the game” (or principles)for action.

Who We AreBefore we define the vision, mission, andprinciples for the working group, we must beclear on who the participants are. To facilitateinformation sharing among group memberswho may or may not know what each otherdoes, each member should briefly describe theorganization that he or she represents, thesites where they are active, the products theysupport, and the needs for support that havebeen identified. Exiting or desired links withother members of the working group can alsobe discussed at this time.

The rationale behind this exercise is that offacilitating effective networking amongmembers of the working group throughcomplete information and, at the same time,answering concerns regarding the experience,capacity and coverage of each organization.Table 15 presents a sample format fororganizing this presentation.

Table 13. An example of a SWOT matrix with “crosses”.

Strengths Weaknesses

The strengths found in the area’s potential for The weaknesses found in the area’s potential foragroenterprise development noted here. agroenterprise development noted here.

Opportunities Threats

The opportunities for the area’s potential for The threats to the area’s potential for agroenterpriseagroenterprise development noted here. development noted here.

Table 14. Results of “crossing” between strengths and threats.

Strengths versus threats Opportunities versus weaknesses

Results of the group’s discussion on comparingstrengths against threats in terms of the area’spotential for agroenterprise development.

Results of the group’s discussion on comparingopportunities against weaknesses in terms of thearea’s rural agroenterprise development.

35


Table 15. Format for information exchange among members of a working group.

Name:

ACELY (Asociación Campesina de Enlaces de Ladera de Yoro)[Rural Association for Liaisons for the Yoro Hillsides]

Sites: Yorito, Sulaco, and Victoria.Products: Basic grains.Services: Monitoring visits on soil conservation.· Survey of demand.· Facilitate access to improved bean seed for members.·Needs: Marketing.· Financial and credit support.· More training in micro-business.·Name: AGASUL (Asociación de Ganaderos y Agricultores de Sulaco)

[Association of Sulaco Livestock Owners and Farmers]Site: Sulaco.Products: Coordinate activities in favor of region’s livestock and agriculture.Services: Orient and train members on how to increase and diversify production.Needs: Shorten the marketing chain for produce: basic grains or milk.· Support in acquiring agricultural and livestock inputs.· Financial support soft loans.· Training on processing produce, which would then have aggregate value.·

Developing a Common Vision for Agroenterprise in our Area

Once working group membership is clear, wecan begin the planning process with the groupwith a visioning exercise. This exercise requiresthat each member define a ‘preferred future’ forthe rural agroenterprise development of thearea. This exercise is completed through thefollowing steps:

· Each participant indicates, in one or twoshort phrases, the key elements of their‘preferred future’ for the ruralagroenterprise development of the area. Keyelements might include phrases like,“I see producer groups working with localprocessors, NGOs, and traders from the

36


capital city to develop new value-addedproducts for supermarkets” or “I see marketinformation reaching farmers and NGOs in atimely and useful manner and crop pattersshifting based on market demands”. Theseideas should be written on cards using largeletters, using a maximum of three lines andone idea per card. Each member thenshares his or her ideas with the other

·members of the group.As each participant defines and shares herdesired future, the cards are placed on awall, so they remain visible to all

·participants.Once all the preferred future cards arepresented, they are then grouped accordingto common themes (i.e., market information,value added products, improved relations

·between chain actors, etc.).For each common theme, one or morephrases are written down that summarizethe sense of the dream cards generated bythe group members. These phrases maycome either from the existing cards or be asummary of several phrases from different

·participants.The summary phrases are then grouped intoone or more paragraphs that describe thedesired future for rural agroenterprisedevelopment in the area as definedcollectively by the group. This final desiredfuture (or vision) should be written on alarge sheet of paper and placed so that it isvisible to all participants.

What is the working group’s mission?Once we have a clear idea of the desired future,we need to ask, “how can the working groupcontribute to this future?” The group mustdetermine what it can realistically contributetowards achieving the desired future, in theknowledge that the desired goal will alsodepend on other local and external actors notyet part of the working group.

The working group’s mission should reflect thearea-based diagnosis, the analysis ofagroenterprise development potential of thearea, and the capacity, knowledge and coverageof the working group members. The missionshould be aligned with the group’s capacities.Grounding the mission of the group in reality isimportant because it is easier to broaden amission that is too limited than to focus a moreambitious one.

The steps for achieving this process are similarto those used to define the desired future:

· Each participant writes one or two shortphrases with their key ideas on what theworking group could contribute to thedesired future for the area’s agroenterprisedevelopment. The phrases are written oncards in large letters, with a maximum ofthree lines, with one idea per card. Later,each member of the group presents their

·cards to the other members of the group.As each participant defines and shares howthe working group could contribute to thedesired future, the cards are placed so that

·they remain visible to all participants.Once all the cards are presented, they are

·grouped according to common themes.Once the common themes are identified, oneor more phrases are written down thatsummarize each theme and then fed back to

·the group for discussion and approval.The summary phrases are then grouped intoone or more paragraphs that describe therole of the working group in bringing aboutthe desired future. This final expression ofthe role (or mission) of the working groupshould be written on a large sheet of paperand placed so that it is visible to allparticipants.

What are our principles?The final step prior to drafting a concrete actionplan is the definition of basic principals thatwill guide the working group. The intention ofthis exercise is to define some general principlesthat can be adapted to each organization’sactivities and guide the overall thrust of theworking group. They can be generated byfollowing the steps described previously, butwith a change towards the end.

· Each participant nominates one or two keyprincipals (the idea plus a shortdescription). Examples of working groupprincipals include things like “participatorydecision making” or “sustainablemanagement of natural resources”. Eachprincipal is written on a separate card inlarge letters with a maximum of three lines.Later, the cards are shared among group

·members as in the previous exercises.As each member describes theircontributions, the cards are placed so thatthey remain visible to all participants.

37


· Once all the contributions are presented,they are grouped according to common

·themes.With the common themes identified, adiscussion is conducted to name eachgroup of cards. When consensus is arrivedon the name of a group of cards (theprinciple for this group of ideas), the nameis written on a different colored card and

·place above the others.Once all the principles are named, a briefdescription of this principle is written. Thisdescription seeks to clearly define thegroup’s understanding of the principal andhow it relates to the promotion ofagroenterprise development in the area.

At the end of this process, the working groupwill posses a common desired future (vision), aclear idea of what the working group willcontribute to this desired future (mission) andshared principals to guide the activities of theworking group towards the future. With theseinputs, the group is ready to design an initialwork plan.

Writing a Joint Work PlanAn effective work plan is similar to a map, itprovides a clear idea of where we want to goand some key signposts or indicators tell uswhether we are heading in the right direction.To construct an adequate map, fourmethodological steps are proposed:

1. Identify specific areas for intervention, andwho to work with.

2. Prioritize areas according to theirimportance, feasibility, and impactpotential.

3. Identify short-, mid-, and long-termactivities that can be done with the existingresources and those that require externalsupport.

4. Construct an action plan with a timetable,showing clear responsibilities for theworking group members.

The information below outlines the contents ofeach step.

Identifying key areas for interventionThis first step aims to generate, by means of abrainstorm, the largest number of ideas andpossible concepts on what the working groupshould do within the area. To carry out thisexercise:

1. The working groups should name afacilitator for the exercise.

2. A general question is put to the group toinitiate discussion. In this case, thequestion could be something like, “whatactivities should the working group developduring the next 12 months?”

3. Each participant writes down the two bestideas that s/he has.

4. The ideas are shared among all participantsand common ideas are sought and groupedtogether. At this point, if any of the groupmembers have additional ideas that are notadequately represented in the emerging list;these can be shared and incorporated ifnecessary.

5. Once similar concepts are grouped, eachconcept needs to be defined clearly. Forexample, for a group of cards relating to“training”, what kind of training are wetalking about? What are the themes ortopics? Who will train whom? Does thisactivity need external support or can it beundertaken by working group members?

6. At the end of this exercise, the workinggroup should have a list, not yet prioritized,of key areas of intervention, clearly definedand written in a common language.

Prioritizing key areas of interventionOnce the key areas of intervention have beenidentified and defined, the working group needsto rank them by importance. Often, all theissues seem important and, as result, we do notknow where to begin. This exercise helps toorient the working group in this regard. Thesteps for ranking areas of intervention include:

1. Organize a pair wise ranking matrix, wherethe title of each key area of intervention isplaced both on the vertical and horizontalaxis. Each pair of ideas will be comparedonly once so the bottom half of the matrix isnot used. In the example, this section isshown in dark gray in Table 16.

2. Each pair of options is then compared todecide which of the two key area ofintervention is most critical to develop first.In this case, the facilitator should ask thegroup “is it more important that we trainourselves in accounting or organize ameeting with microfinance institutions?Which comes first?” The group shoulddecide which of the two key areas underanalysis is more important, and place thisidea in the matrix as shown in Table 17.

38


Table 16. An example of how to construct a pair wise ranking matrix.

Key areas of Bookkeeping Organize a meeting Analyze markets for Negotiate supportintervention training with credit products in high from the government

providers demand

Bookkeeping training

Organize a meetingwith credit providers

Analyze market forproducts in highdemand

Negotiate supportfrom the government

3. Once the matrix is completed, the facilitatorcounts the number of votes that each areaof intervention has received and tallies upthe totals. As in any election, the areas ofintervention with the highest number ofvotes are the most important. The resultscan be documented in a table as shown inTable 18.

In the examples shown, it is now clear that theworking group should start by analyzing themarket chains for products in high demand,followed by arranging for funds from thegovernment and organizing a meeting withmicrofinance institutions, with training inaccounting coming later.

This exercise can last an hour or more,depending on the number of activities thatmust be analyzed and the discussion generatedaround this process.

Table 18. Final results from a pair wise rankingexercise.

Key areas of intervention No. of votes Rank

Bookkeeping training 0 4

Organize a meeting withcredit providers

1 3

Analyze market chainsfor products in high demand

3 1

Negotiate support fromthe government

2 2

Building momentum with local activitiesFor the prioritized activities the working groupshould analyze whether or not the skills andresources needed to move forward are availablelocally or not. Working group activities shouldbe initiated with interventions that dependprincipally on existing local knowledge and

Table 17. An example of a completed pair wise ranking matrix.

Key areas of Bookkeeping Organize a meeting Analyze markets for Negotiate supportintervention training with credit providers products in high

demandfrom the government

Bookkeeping training Organize a meeting Analyze markets to Negotiate supportwith credit identify products in from the government.providers. high demand.

Organize a meeting Analyze market Negotiate supportwith credit providers chains for products from the government.

in high demand.

Analyze markets Analyze marketchains for products in chains for productshigh demand in high demand.

Negotiate support fromthe government

39


resources. This helps to focus interventions inareas where rapid change can be achieved withminimum effort and generates a positivedynamic among group members. Establishing asolid base of local capacity does not mean thatthe working group should ignore opportunitiesfor external support. In fact, working groupswith strong internal dynamics tend to be moreeffective in linking to external technical andfinancial support and when this assistancearrives more effective in transforming it intosustainable processes of rural agroenterprisedevelopment.

To assess local capacity to implement keyintervention strategies, the working group liststhe resources or knowledge it needs for eachintervention strategy and compares that listwith what exists locally (Table 19).

The time needed for this exercise will varyaccording to the number of activities and thesteps that are required to develop each one.

Building an action plan for the workinggroupWith the inputs previously constructed, the laststep of this process is to generate an actionplan for the first 12 months of working groupactivities. The matrix can include informationsuch as that found in Table 20.

If the working group wishes, the action plancan also include the financial needs for eachactivity and thus generate a budget thatcomplements the action plan.

ConclusionBased on the analysis of the resources availableand potential market options, the members ofthe working group can start to build aconsolidated plan for enterprise developmentthat will engage various local actors.

The planning process therefore serves severalpurposes. It raises the profile of income

Table 19. Identifying local and external resources required for a prioritized activity.

Activity: Analyze market chains for products in high demand

Steps Resources required We have them here☺☺☺☺☺

We have to get themfrom outside

Identify key market chain actors Information about the chain

People

Review how the chain is working

now and identify critical points

Information from people

More general information

People

Training in this field

Analyze data generated, etc. People

Advisory services

Table 20. Building a simplified action plan for the working group.

Activity Steps People responsible Dates (months)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Analyze the chains 1. Identify product John and Maryof the prioritized areas for furtherproducts analysis.

2. Undertake a Rapid John with theMarket Survey. working group

3. Analyze the data. Maria with theworking group

40


generating methods, based on agroenterprisedevelopment within a defined geographic area,it provides a basic platform for dialogue withdiverse partners and an approach that isinclusive, that seeks to build relationshipsrather than operate in isolation.

The approach is long-term and one of the basicprinciples of this approach is to include localactors in a participatory manner, so that theyare able to learn new skills, put them intoaction, reflect on their level of success, andadapt them to the local context.

Although the final outcome of this guide is abasic planning tool, much social capital willhave been gained in the process and this willallow for greater sharing of roles andresponsibilities in the future.

The following two sections raise issues ofmonitoring the process and the final writing upand dissemination of results from the activitiesundertaken in this guide.

41

Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

SECTION 5

Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation,and Learning

learning system for the working group. TwoThe purpose of this section is to provide

some general ideas about the utility of asimple monitoring, evaluation, and

simple methods will be put forward documentadvances place. The final decision on which touse will be in the hands of the group.

Designing and Building anAppropriate Monitoring, Evaluation,and Learning System for theWorking GroupThe principal objective of a monitoring,evaluation, and learning system is to assist theworking group and clients to become moreeffective over time. To build an appropriatesystem, the working group and client groupsshould review their information needs and

design a system that focuses on those demands.Some key principals to keep in mind in thissense are:

1. Design the system around what the workinggroup members and, for example, thefarmer groups want to control, evaluate orlearn.

2. Keep the system as simple andstraightforward as possible.

3. Base the system, where possible, on existinginformation that can be analyzed in newways (poverty or income data, for example).

4. Link the system into existing data gatheringexercises (i.e., baseline studies, surveys,others) in the area and build on the datacollected in the diagnosis of the workinggroup.

42


5. Resist the temptation to gather “interesting”information on a wide range of activities.

6. Be systematic in data collection andanalysis and make use of locally relevanttools for both (use visual methods ratherthan surveys for low literacy areas, forexample).

7. Assess the utility of information generatedfor decision making in the working group.

If the working group adapts these principles,the resulting system should fit well with theircapacities and information demands.

Utility of Monitoring, Evaluation,and Learning for the Working GroupThis section presents monitoring tools to assessand control activities, and learning tools tohighlight important learning experiences forspecific members of the working group. Whilethese tools are best used together, it is commonto find working groups focused principally onthe monitoring and evaluation function.However, without a useful and simple learningprocess, the working group runs the risk ofbeing stuck in ‘single loop learning’ as shown inFigure 13.

Action strategy Consequences

Single loop learning

Figure 13. Single loop learning cycle.

In a single loop learning cycle, people andorganizations plan, act, and evaluate theresults of their actions. Based on the effects oftheir actions, they then complete the cycle byreturning to the planning phase. This process isuseful if the relation between the problem andits solution is straightforward, lineal, andcausal. In addition, a single loop systemassumes that the basic assumptions on whichthe system rests are valid and static. However,many problems encountered in ruraldevelopment, do not respond to this simplemodel, which requires a more complex analysis.In reality, what is needed is to review basicassumptions about what needs to done, whenand why5.

5. For more discussion on this point, see Fairbanksand Lindsay (1997).

Monitoring and evaluation on its own tends toreinforce a single loop learning system. Amonitoring and evaluation system linked to alearning process, on the other hand, moves ustowards a more complex learning system. Thissystem, known as ‘double loop learning’ byArgyris6, generates a process through which thebasic assumptions underlying planning,implementation, and evaluation are questionedand improved upon. A ‘double loop learning’model is shown in Figure 14.

A double loop learning system helps to movebeyond the simplistic plan-act cycle and beginsto question the way that organizations promoterural agroenterprise in the area. This morethorough analysis should lead to a moreeffective process.

Actionstrategy Consequences

Single loop learning

Governingvariable

double loop learning

Figure 14. Double loop learning cycle.

Tools for Monitoring, Evaluation,and LearningThe two tools included in this section aresimple. As the focus of this guide is on basicprinciples and techniques that can be adaptedto diverse needs at the field level, the first toolfor monitoring and evaluation draws on theaction plan developed in the previous sectionand focuses on documenting, controlling, andmonitoring the implementation of the workinggroup’s action plan. The second, known as‘most significant change’, seeks to documentlessons learned by diverse members of theworking group and facilitate discussions on theunderlying assumptions of the group to reframeapproaches based on experience.

Monitoring and EvaluationAdvances in the Working Group’sAction PlanThe most straightforward way to establish amonitoring and evaluation system for the

6. For more discussion on this, see:www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm#_Single-loop_and_double-loop

43


working group is to base it on the action plandeveloped in Section 3 of this guide. In theaction plan, the working group defined keyactivities, steps, responsibilities, dates and,perhaps, budgets. A monitoring andevaluation system can revisit each activity inthe action plan periodically7 to assess howsuccessfully this activity has been carried outand what the results are. In operationalterms, this process can occur in the course ofnormal meetings of the working group or, ifimplemented in conjunction with the ‘mostsignificant change’ learning tool, to specialsessions of the working group focused onmonitoring, evaluation, and learning.

To document changes, positive and negative,in the evolution of the action plan, theworking group can make use of a monitoringtool such as that found in Table 21.

The working group assesses each activity infour areas:

1. Results achieved.2. Lessons learned what worked well and

what worked less well.3. Changes that need to be made to the work

plan based on results to date.4. Level of satisfaction with the activity.

7. The meaning of “periodically” can vary based on theneeds of the working group. In those groups with astrong tradition of collaboration, monitoring andevaluation might occur every 3 to 6 months while innewer groups monthly revisions might be moreappropriate.

It is important to note that the monitoring andevaluation should take place at the level of theactivity—which includes several steps—and notat the level of each step. This distinction ismade to save time for the working group andavoid getting trapped in details when what wewant to assess is the overall effectiveness of theactivity as such. Has this activity—with all of itssteps—led to the changes that the workinggroup expected? Why or Why not?

In operational terms, the revision of the actionplan takes place in a workshop with theworking group members. Each person or groupof people who appear as ‘people responsible’ forthe activity present a short summary of work inthis area focusing on results achieved, lessonslearned (both positive and negative), andchanges that need to be made based on resultsup to now (points 1 through 3 above). Asummary of this information is discussed withthe rest of the working group. The final step isto assess the level of satisfaction of the workinggroup with each activity. This information iswritten on a flip chart prior to advancing to thenext activity.

Once all of the activities have been reviewedand the level of satisfaction assessed, theworking group decides on what changes need tobe made to the existing action plan in terms ofactivities, steps, dates, budgets, responsibilitiesor any other aspects. These changes are thennoted and incorporated into the action plan forimplementation. At the end of the workshop,the working group should have several flipcharts showing their results to date, the

Table 21. Building a monitoring and evaluation tool for the working group.

Activity Steps Results to date Lessons learned

Positive Negative☺☺☺☺☺

Changes needed,new plans

Analyze the chains of 1. Identifythe prioritized products participants

in the chain.

2. Make adiagnosis ofits problems.

3. Analyze thedata.

4. Level ofsatisfactionwith activity.

44


assessment of each activity and the changesrequired in the action plan. These can be typedup and shared within the working group as wellas with other interested stakeholders to showthe advances made by the group as well asserving as a record of the working group assuch.

The process of planning, acting, monitoring,and evaluating should lead the group throughan iterative process that allows the action planto evolve and develop or hone skills. In dynamicworking groups, this process becomes secondnature and continuous while in weaker groupsit often falters. To avoid this pitfall, the workinggroup requires tools and spaces to reflect ontheir assumptions and deepen theirunderstanding of processes of ruralagroenterprise development. The ‘mostsignificant change’ method is one way of doingthis.

‘Most significant change’ as a learningtool8

If the working group decides to make use of the‘most significant change’ (MSC) method todocument learning, this process can evolvedirectly out of the monitoring and evaluationwork described previously. The MSC methodcomes from experiences in Bangladesh (Davies,1996) and Australia (Dart, 1999a) that soughtto document processes of organizationallearning in development activities.

According to Dart, MSC can be understood asprocess through which program stakeholdersinterpret their experiences with the programand select instances of significant change andrecord each as a story. They are also required torecord why this change is significant to them.Then when the reviewers read and evaluate thestory, they engage with it and construct furthernew meaning. When this is done in a group,this construction may be shared. In the MSCapproach the criteria that are used to interpretthe story are documented, made transparentand attached to the story itself. It is thistransparency that makes the whole processeven more open to new and more sophisticatedconstructions of meaning (Dart, 1999b).

8. This section draws on Dart (2000).

‘Most significant change’ processes andlogicTo make use of this method, the working groupneeds to undertake three main activities:(a) establish the kinds of change the groupexpects to see; (b) organize a system to collect,process and review stories of change, and;(c) find time—and perhaps assistance—toconduct a secondary analysis of the storiesselected. Each process is described briefly inthe following section.

Defining the types of change the groupwants to see: In this step, the working groupmembers should identify no more than threekinds of changes that they would like todocument as a result of their activities.Examples could include ‘more diversifiedlivelihoods’ or ‘increasing value addedactivities’. This list serves as a guide formembers of the working group to identify andreport changes they see at the field level.

Collecting, reviewing, and processing thestories of change: Stories that show the kindof changes that the working group would like todocument are recorded by those most directlyinvolved in project implementation (i.e., fieldworkers and farmers or entrepreneurs). Peopleat each level of the project hierarchy are theninvolved in reviewing a series of stories andselecting those that they think represent themost significant accounts of change (Figures 15and 16). The selection of the stories takes theform of an iterative voting process, untilconsensus is achieved. At the various reviewfora, participants are required to documentwhich stories they selected and what criteriathey used. This information is then fed back tothe storytellers and the project stakeholders. Itis intended that the monitoring system shouldtake the form of a slow but extensive dialogueamong working group members, theirorganizations, and farmers during eachreporting period (Dart, 2000). This process canbe repeated with important externalstakeholders (i.e., donors or governmentofficials) to establish a dialogue with themabout what constitutes significant change interms of agroenterprise development in thearea.

Secondary analysis of the stories: Thestories reported by the organizations involved in

45


Storiescollectedby field

staff andfarmers

Storytellers

reflect onindividualpractice

Storiesreviewed

atorganiza-

tionalmeetings

Organiza-tions

reflect onpractice

Storiesreviewed

byworkinggroup

Workinggroup

reflects onpractice

Discussionfrom

reviewprocess isrecorded

Key stake-holdersreviewstories

and reflecton

desirableoutcomes

Figure 15. Steps and feedback loops in the MSC system.

SOURCE: Adapted from Dart (2000).

Level 4

Represents a single story

Round table meeting of key stakeholders

Level 3 Area-based working group

Level 2

Level 1

Organization 1 Organization 2 Organization 3 Organization 4

Staffmeet. 1

Staffmeet. 2

Staffmeet. 3

Staffmeet. 1

Staffmeet. 2

Staffmeet. 3

Staffmeet. 1

Staffmeet. 2

Staffmeet. 3

Staffmeet. 1

Staffmeet. 2

Staffmeet. 3

Stories collected by those working directly with farmers and brought to monthly staff meetings

Figure 16. Idealized flow diagram for stories collected during a reporting period. (Adapted from Dart, 2000)

the working group can be grouped foradditional analysis. These stories are ofparticular use in understanding the outcomesand limitations of agroenterprise developmentin terms of ‘big questions’ such as ruralpoverty, social and gender equality, andchanges in natural resource management.The inclusion of social science researchers fromlocal universities may be useful for this kind ofanalysis.

‘Most significant change’ toolsFor each of the above mentioned steps, thefollowing tools can be adapted for use by theworking group.

Defining the types of change the groupwants to see: The definition of the types ofchange that the working groups hopes to see,can be based on the ‘preferred future’ (or vision)that they developed in Section 3. From thiswork, the group selects no more than threespecific types of change to document and liststhem. This list of expected changes is then

communicated to the field workers—staff whowork directly with farmers or agroenterprises—who then identify stories of change thatcorrespond to these categories.

Collecting, reviewing, and processing thestories of change: The collection of the storiesof significant change at the field level can takevarious forms depending on the region, localculture, and relative levels of literacy. In allcases, the stories of change should be short andfocused on answering the basic journalisticquestions of:

· What was the change that occurred and why

·is it significant to the people involved?

·Where did this story of change take place?

·When did this change occur?

·Who was involved in the significant change?How did this change occur?

In areas with low levels of literacy, it may bemore effective to document stories of significantchange using drawings, photographs or

46


interviews (audio or video). There is amplespace here for field staff and farmers to usetheir creativity and design reportingmechanisms that are adapted to theirconditions.

Once each field worker has identified anddocumented with farmers or agroentrepreneurstheir best story of significant change in theperiod of analysis—including the reasons why itis significant—these are fed into organizationalmeetings (shown as level 2 in Figure 16). Thestories are reviewed internally and up to fourstories are selected to share with the workinggroup. At this stage it is important that theorganization explain why these stories ofchange are significant in relations to the type ofchange the working group hopes to see. Theworking group, in turn, reviews the stories fromeach partner organization and selects the mostsignificant to share with key stakeholders(shown as level 3 in Figure 16).

The final step of the process is sharing anddiscussing stories of change and theirsignificance with the key stakeholders of theworking group. Stakeholders might includeupper level managers from the partneragencies, project investors, private sectoractors, and relevant government officials. Inthis space the stories selected by the workinggroup are reviewed and their significancedebated with the key stakeholders. The goal ofthis space is not so much the selection of themost significant story of change but rather thediscussion about what constitutes significantchange for rural agroenterprise development inthe area. This discussion is useful because ithelps to:

· Inform the key stakeholders of the outcomesof the activities of the working group in atangible way and build support foragroenterprise development process in thearea. What does the working group mean forrural agroenterprise development in the

·area? How successful are its activities?Align the goals of the working group withthose of the key stakeholders who canfacilitate structural changes that are beyondthe capacity of the working group as such(i.e., government, donor or private sector

·policies).Provide feedback to all levels of the workinggroup as to what is seen as significantchange and should therefore be pursuedactively.

The results of this discussion arecommunicated with all levels of the workinggroup (levels 1 through 4 in Figure 16) anddecisions made incorporated into future actionplans. In this way the MSC approach completesthe second loop of the double loop learningcycle.

Secondary analysis of the stories: The sumof the MSC stories provides a rich picture ofhow the working group is contributing toagroenterprise development at the field level.This data contrasts and complements moretraditional indicator-based impact assessmentand can be reviewed to provide important socialdata about why changes—either positive ornegative—are occurring. As mentionedpreviously, this task is best undertaken incollaboration with social science researchersfrom local universities who can assist in theinterpretation of the stories at other levels.

47

The Planning Report and Preparing for the Next Steps

SECTION 6

The Planning Report andPreparing for the Next Steps

The planning report based on the work inthis guide aims to establish a commonframework for partners to begin a

process of agroenterprise development in theirdesignated area. The report should be written ina simple style, so that the results from theresource assessment and joint planning processcan be shared amongst partners andcommunity members. Results can be presentedin two ways:

1. As a combined text and table document thatincludes sections on purpose, results, andnext steps.

2. As a verbal talk, with key points illustratedby pictures to show areas of interventionsand basic bullet points for actions,indicating who will be responsible for whichactivities.

Outline of the Planning ReportA basic outline for the planning documentcould be as follows:

Title and authorsAcknowledgmentsExecutive summaryContentsIntroductionObjectives for the agroenterprise planning

processReconnaisance studyFormation, purpose, and membership of the

working groupResults from the resource assessment

Definition and map of areaCriteria and results from zoning exercise

(if undertaken)Identification of farmer groups and potential

productsPrioritize interventions according to their

importance, feasibility, and impact.Identify short-, mid-, and long-term

activitiesResource allocations—existing and requiredAction plan with a timetable, showing roles

and responsibilitiesPlan for monitoring and evaluation

48


Conclusions and recommendationsAppendix 1. List of organizations in the working

groupAppendix 2. Questionnaire used in resource

surveyAppendix 3. Cards of the most preferred

products

This final document should be held by thefaciltating organization and local working groupmembers as a record of how the process wasconducted and results. The product optionsshould now be used in the next step of theagroenterprise development process, which isfocussed on the identification of marketopportunities and market chain integration.

Next StepsAt the end of this planning guide, the workinggroup survey team will have selected a specificarea for intervention, identified key partnersand farmer groups to work with, and identifiedpotential products that require marketevaluation.

The study will also have highlighted areas ofweak capacity, where additional training isrequired and where more contacts need to bemade. In some cases, additional training andpreparation will be required prior to shiftinginto the next stage. Some issues to reviewinclude:

· Are the existing smallholder producergroups sufficiently well organized to take onmarket based interventions? Are theyalready involved in collective actions, or will

·this be a new concept for them?Are the partners and their farmer groupssufficiently interested and/or motivated toinvest more time in undertaking furthermarket studies to evaluate market prospectsfor products they are already producing, orare they more interested to evaluate new

·market options?Do the facilitating partners have sufficientin-house capacity to lead a market-basedintervention or do they require additionaltraining prior to or as part of their learning

·process?Does the combination of partners andfarmer groups have sufficient financialcapital to invest in new enterprise options?If not, can the group obtain credit from alocal service provider, a micro creditorganization or do the farmers also need to

start a savings and loans scheme to build

·financial skills and capital.What scale of intervention is the workinggroup hoping to achieve? Will the workinggroup opt for a small pilot project, severalmarketing approaches for diverse producergroups, or focus activities on one

·mainstream market option?Are there any conflicts between seekingwidespread impact for a given market areaand the desire to provide differentiatedoptions for diverse beneficiary groups?

After discussing the most important issuesrelated to next steps, we advise the team tocontinue as quickly as possible onto the nextstep in CIAT’s Agroenterprise DevelopmentStrategy. Depending on the strategy selected,the farmer group should work with the mostappropriate skills set outlined in one of thefollowing guides from the AgroenterpriseDevelopment series:

· Identifying Market Opportunities for Rural

·Smallholder Producers.Participatory Market Chain Analysis for

·Smallholder Producers.A Market Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory

·Agroenterprise Development.Collective Marketing for SmallholderProducers.

The service providers, research team, andrepresentatives of interested smallholderproducer groups, should evaluate whichmethods are most appropriate in their nextsteps and then begin the process of upgradingtheir skills to identify new opportunities forincreasing their incomes through successfulagroenterprise development.

ConclusionsUndertaking this first practical part of theagroenterprise development approach is thebeginning of a new journey towards marketingfor smallholder producers. This first step willhave highlighted some of the assets andresources available in the target area and alsoprovided a flavor of the requirements inbuilding new enterprise options.

Although no investments have been made asyet, the planning stage is an important part ofthe overall process, and learning how to analyzelocal resources, and engage local agencies andbusiness options, are important elements in

49

The Planning Report and Preparing for the Next Steps

building agroenterprise capacity. This firstanalysis is an important learning process, notonly for the lead service provider but also forthe members of the working group, who canbegin to use these skills now and in their futurebusiness planning.

This first step provides a sound basis to startengaging in marketing and for developing skillsin systematic information, gathering, analysis,and decision making. These are all vital skillsfor the subsequent stages in agroenterprisedevelopment.

50


APPE

ND

IX 1

Key E

ven

t in

Rura

l A

gro

en

terp

rise

Develo

pm

en

t

Pla

nn

ing

an

d o

rgan

izin

g

Rec

onn

ais

san

ce(R

ecom

men

ded

)

Pla

nn

ing,

Org

an

izin

g,

an

d T

akin

g A

cti

on

:

Imple

men

ted b

y

Ser

vice

pro

vider

in

hou

sest

udy

pri

or t

o pro

ject

imple

men

tati

on.

Inte

rmed

iate

pro

du

ct(s

)

Pro

ject

pla

nn

ing,

rev

iew

of

scale

of

inte

rven

tion

.· R

apid

su

rvey

of

pro

du

ctio

n a

nd t

rade

of g

oods.

· Rapid

su

rvey

of

trader

s an

d s

ervi

ce p

rovi

der

s.· R

apid

ass

essm

ent

of t

arg

et c

lien

ts.

·

Est

imate

dti

me

2 t

o3 w

eeks

Pro

cess

es a

nd a

ctiv

itie

s to

est

ablish

Th

is o

pti

onal

appro

ach

bu

ilds

in h

ouse

· skills

an

d p

rovi

des

clien

ts w

ith

opti

on o

fra

pid

mark

et e

nga

gem

ent.

Are

a-b

ase

d r

esou

rce

ass

essm

ent

an

d f

orm

ing

of w

orkin

g gr

oups.

Op

tion

al

exer

cise

Lea

d s

ervi

ce p

rovi

der

,w

orkin

g gr

oup

(a c

oaliti

on o

fdev

elop

men

t age

nci

esop

erati

ng

in t

he

are

a).

Sel

ecti

on o

f are

a.

· Bio

-ph

ysic

al/

econ

omic

dia

gnos

tic

of a

rea.

· Dev

elop

men

t of

agr

oen

terp

rise

gro

ups.

· Pro

filin

g of

ben

efic

iary

gro

ups

an

d r

isk a

naly

sis.

· Pla

n o

f act

ion

.· S

yste

m f

or m

onit

orin

g, e

valu

ati

on,

an

d l

earn

ing.

· Pilot

en

terp

rise

rou

nd

to

gain

in

hou

se s

kills

.·

2 t

o3 m

onth

sE

valu

ati

ng

ass

ets

an

d s

kills

base

.· O

bta

inin

g co

nse

nsu

s on

wh

at

to d

o, a

nd

· how

an

d w

hen

to

do

it.

Org

an

izati

on a

nd c

oord

inati

on o

f act

ivit

ies

· am

ong

act

ors.

Pilo

t op

tion

ba

sed

on

exi

stin

g p

rod

uct

s.· e

na

ble

s p

art

ner

s a

nd

clien

ts t

o b

uild

sk

ills

.

·1 t

o·

Iden

tify

ing

mark

etop

por

tun

itie

s.Part

icip

an

ts f

rom

SP

an

d e

nte

rpri

se g

rou

p.

Rapid

stu

dy

of m

ark

ets

(loc

al

an

d n

ati

onal).

Ch

ara

cter

izati

on o

f m

ark

et o

pti

ons.

· Part

icip

ato

ry s

elec

tion

of

mark

etin

g op

tion

s.·

4 m

onth

sE

valu

ate

div

ersi

fied

pro

du

ct o

pti

ons.

Est

ablish

rel

ati

onsh

ips

wit

h m

ark

et a

ctor

s.·

Mark

et c

hain

an

aly

sis

an

d b

usi

nes

s pla

nn

ing.

Wor

kin

g gr

oup.

ente

rpri

se g

rou

ps,

an

dpri

vate

sec

tor.

Det

ailed

part

icip

ato

ry m

ark

et c

hain

an

aly

sis.

· Eva

luati

on o

f cr

itic

al

poi

nts

in

mark

et c

hain

.· D

evel

opm

ent

of b

usi

nes

s pla

n f

or e

nte

rpri

se.

·2 t

o4 m

onth

sE

valu

ate

sel

ecte

d m

ark

et c

hain

in

det

ail

· an

d d

evel

op a

bu

sin

ess

pla

n f

or i

nve

stm

ent.

Inve

stm

ent

an

dim

ple

men

tati

on o

f n

ewen

terp

rise

.

En

terp

rise

gro

ups

an

dpri

vate

sec

tor.

Est

ablish

men

t of

bu

sin

ess

(pilot

pro

ject

).· F

ine

tun

ing

of b

usi

nes

s.· S

ale

s of

pro

du

ct a

nd c

ost:

ben

efit

an

aly

sis.

·2 t

o4 m

onth

sD

evel

opm

ent

of t

he

inte

grate

d p

rodu

ctio

n· p

roje

ct t

o im

pro

ve t

he

chain

’s o

per

ati

on.

Eva

luati

ng

an

dst

ren

gth

enin

g key

BD

Sin

are

a.

Ser

vice

pro

vider

s an

dpri

vate

sec

tor

Eva

luati

on o

f lo

cal

suppor

t se

rvic

es.

· An

aly

sis

of c

riti

cal

gaps.

· Str

engt

hen

BD

S t

o su

ppor

t on

goin

g en

terp

rise

s.·

3 t

o4 m

onth

sIm

pro

ve B

DS

ser

vice

s in

th

e are

a.

· Base

d o

n d

eman

d,

esta

blish

men

t of

new

· BD

S.

Sca

lin

g u

p.

Ser

vice

pro

vider

s an

dpri

vate

sec

tor.

Des

ign

up-s

calin

g appro

ach

an

d i

mple

men

t.·

1 t

o4 y

ears

Dev

elop

an

d i

mple

men

t u

psc

alin

g op

tion

s.·

Pol

icy

an

d a

dvo

cacy

(sp

ecia

lize

d)

Ser

vice

pro

vider

s an

dlo

cal

adm

inis

trati

on.

Ass

essm

ent

of c

urr

ent

mark

et/tr

ade

pol

icy.

· Eva

luate

eff

ects

of

new

tra

de

pol

icy

opti

ons.

· Advo

cate

for

pro

-poo

r pol

icy

opti

ons.

·3 t

o5 y

ears

Op

tion

al

rese

arc

h t

o ev

alu

ate

lon

g-te

rm· c

ha

llen

ges

such

as

ma

rket

acc

ess,

ma

rket

pow

er,

cha

in e

quit

y,

gen

der

, a

nd

dec

lin

ing

pri

ces.

51

Appendices

APPENDIX 2

Checklist for Developing aPilot Agroenterprise Project

The lead agency and partners to undertake the following tasks:

The lead agency selects a partner organization interested in the process

· The partner organization nominates a market facilitator (a person who will take the farmer group through theprocess). In some cases the management team will also have market facilitators.

· The market facilitator reads the guide on market facilitation.

· The lead agency and market facilitator undertakes a mini-reconnaissance survey of the area and evaluates thefarmer group, as described in this guide.

The market facilitator selects a farmer group

· Using participatory tools, the market facilitator evaluates the internal organizational strengths of the farmergroup.

· S/he selects a crop product that is of short duration and grown by most of the farmers as a cash crop.

· S/he works with the farmer group to improve internal coordination: Sets up positions in the group if this is notclear, initiates record keeping, and organizes a marketing committee.

· They discuss options for collective action.

The market facilitator conducts a rapid market evaluation

· The market facilitator organizes a farmer marketing representative from the farmer group to undertake a seriesof visits to potential markets for the selected product.

· Potential markets may include local market, local shops, next largest market at a more distant location,traveling traders, and hotels and restaurants.

· This team should interview market traders to determine product prices, volumes they receive (per week/month), and buying conditions (minimum lot, quality, time of sale, repeat sales requirements). This interviewprocess should be done with a range of buyers at the local market.

· The information should be summarized to report back to the farmer group(s) so that decisions can be made onwhat to invest into for the collective marketing.

Market facilitator develops a simple business plan with the farmers

· The market facilitator will lead a visioning process with the support of the marketing committee members toestablish a simple business plan.

· This will include what to grow, when to plant and harvest, and who to see.

· The key issues for the plan will be to outline the key points of production to sales, including preplantingrequirements, production, harvesting, post harvest issues, marketing, sales, and follow up.

· The group should develop ideas on collective marketing.

· Market facilitator should read guide on collective marketing to gain further information on group formation andselling produce collectively.

52


Tra

nsi

tion

al

Exit

Str

ate

gy w

ith

a 5

-to 1

0-y

ear

Tim

efr

am

eTim

ea

6 m

onth

s1–2

yea

rs2–5

yea

rs6–7

yea

rs8–1

0 y

ears

Lea

d s

ervi

ceG

ain

in

-hou

seE

stablish

a M

&E

Foc

us

on s

calin

g u

p t

hro

ugh

Eva

luate

loc

al

BD

S o

pti

ons

Foc

us

on b

road-b

ase

d·

··

·pro

vider

com

pet

ence

.pro

cedu

re.

inte

rest

gro

up p

art

ner

s.fo

r st

ren

gth

enin

g.se

rvic

e pro

visi

on s

uch

as

Init

iate

in

tere

stPro

vide

train

ing

to o

ther

Lin

k f

arm

ers

to B

DS

fin

an

ce a

nd m

ark

et·

··

grou

p.

part

ner

s th

rou

gh a

lea

rnin

gpro

vider

s.in

form

ati

on.

allia

nce

pro

cess

, i.e.

,Lin

k f

arm

ers

to o

ther

Init

iate

wor

k r

elate

d t

o·

·in

crem

enta

l le

arn

ing.

hig

her

ord

er e

ntr

epre

neu

rs.

pol

icy

an

aly

sis

an

dIn

itia

te p

roce

ss o

f w

orkin

gIn

itia

te w

ork o

n p

olic

yadvo

cacy

.·

·w

ith

BD

S p

rovi

der

s.an

aly

sis

an

d r

efor

m.

Farm

erF

arm

ers

orga

niz

eS

tart

savi

ngs

Farm

ers

focu

s on

new

pro

du

cts

Lin

k w

ith

oth

er f

arm

erPay

for

serv

ices

to

suppor

t·

··

··

grou

ps

into

a m

ark

etin

gsc

hem

e.S

tren

gth

en r

ecor

d k

eepin

g fo

rgr

oups

for

sele

cted

pro

du

cts.

grow

th i

n p

rodu

ct s

ale

s.·

grou

p.

Intr

odu

ce M

&E

fin

an

ce a

nd m

onit

orin

g.S

tart

pro

cess

of

ass

ocia

tion

Lin

k w

ith

or

dev

elop

··

·S

tart

en

terp

rise

pro

cess

.E

xper

imen

t w

ith

in s

elec

ted

bu

ildin

g.lim

ited

com

pan

y·

·cy

cle

wit

h a

pilot

Exp

an

dm

ark

et c

hain

to

impro

veass

ocia

tion

s fo

r·

pro

ject

.en

terp

rise

s.en

terp

rise

.co

mm

erci

al

sale

s.

Part

ner

sO

bse

rve

firs

tE

nte

r le

arn

ing

Sca

le u

p p

roce

ss w

ith

new

Wor

k w

ith

BD

S g

rou

ps.

Take

on m

ore

spec

ialize

d·

·en

terp

rise

cyc

le.

allia

nce

pro

gram

.fa

rmer

gro

ups

an

d t

hei

rLin

k t

o sp

ecia

lize

dro

le w

ith

in t

he

agr

icu

ltu

ral

·part

ner

s.in

nov

ati

on p

art

ner

s.se

ctor

.In

trod

uce

exp

erim

ents

to

· acc

eler

ate

in

nov

ati

on.

Res

earc

her

sW

ork w

ith

farm

er g

rou

ps

an

d S

Ps

toW

ork w

ith

loc

al

serv

ice

Wor

k w

ith

loc

al

SPs

to s

cale

Con

tin

ue

pro

cess

of

··

·id

enti

fy n

ew m

ark

ets.

pro

vider

s to

sca

le u

p l

ocal

up l

ocal

abilit

y to

pro

vide

intr

odu

cin

g n

ewW

ork o

n t

ech

nol

ogy

inn

ovati

on t

oabilit

y to

pro

vide

succ

essf

ul

succ

essf

ul

tech

nol

ogie

s.in

nov

ati

ons

into

th

e sy

stem

.· s

uppor

t se

lect

ed m

ark

et c

hain

s.te

chn

olog

ies.

Spec

ialize

in

cer

tain

·W

ork w

ith

hig

her

ord

er t

rader

ste

chn

olog

ies

an

d s

ocia

l· a

nd p

roce

ssor

s to

in

crea

seor

gan

izati

on p

roce

sses

.pro

spec

ts o

f sc

alin

g u

p a

nd

valu

e agg

rega

tion

.

BD

S p

art

ner

sW

ork w

ith

farm

er g

rou

ps

toD

evel

op p

aym

ent

pro

cess

esS

pec

ialize

d l

ocal

SPs

iden

tify

mos

t cr

itic

al

serv

ices

to s

ust

ain

loc

al

suppor

tem

erge

.lin

ked

wit

h s

elec

ted a

nd

serv

ices

.su

cces

sfu

l m

ark

et c

hain

s.

Hig

her

ord

erLin

k n

ew l

evel

mark

et-c

hain

Pri

mary

pro

cess

ing

New

mark

ets

dev

elop

,·

·en

trep

ren

eurs

pla

yers

wit

h s

ucc

essf

ul

pu

shed

back

to

rura

l are

as.

base

d o

n m

ark

etfa

rmer

gro

ups

to s

tren

gth

enId

enti

fy n

ew p

roce

ssin

gin

tellig

ence

an

d t

ech

nol

ogy

·m

ark

et l

inks.

oppor

tun

itie

s to

lin

k w

ith

scou

tin

g an

d a

pplica

tion

.Lin

k w

ith

res

earc

h t

o m

ake

farm

er-p

roce

ssor

gro

ups.

· new

tec

hn

olog

ies

ava

ilable

.

a.

B

DS

= b

usi

nes

s dev

elop

men

t se

rvic

es;

M&

E =

mon

itor

ing

an

d e

valu

ati

on;

SP =

ser

vice

pro

vider

.

APPE

ND

IX 3

53

Appendices

Bibliography

Chambers, R.; Conway, G. 1992. Sustainable rurallivelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21stCentury. IDS Discussion Paper, no. 296.Institute of Development Studies (IDS),Brighton, United Kingdom. 29 p.

Dart, J. 1999a. A story approach for monitoringchange in an agricultural extension project.In: Annual Conference of the Association forQualitative Research. Issues of Rigour inQualitative Research [on line]. University ofMelbourne, Australia. Available at:www.latrobe.edu.au/aqr/offer/papers/JDart.htm

Dart, J. 1999b. Storytelling to help practitionersmake sense of their program’s impact. In:Australasian Evaluation Society InternationalConference. Proceedings of AustralasianEvaluation Society International Conference.Australasian Evaluation Society Inc., Perth,Australia.

Dart, J. 2000. Stories for change: A systematicapproach to participatory monitoring. In: FifthWorld Congress on Action Learning, ActionResearch and Process Management.Reconciliation and Renewal—ThroughCollaborative Learning, Research and Action.The Action Learning, Action Research andProcess Management Association (ALARPM),Ballarat, Australia.

Davies, R.J. 1996. An evolutionary approach tofacilitating organisational learning: Anexperiment by the Christian Commission forDevelopment in Bangladesh [on line]. Centrefor Development Studies, Swansea. Availableat: www.swan.ac.uk/cds/rd/ccdb.htm

DFID (Department for International Development),Natural Resources Department. 1998.Research and the sustainable rural livelihoodsapproach. In: Carney, D. Sustainable rurallivelihoods: What contributions can we make?London, United Kingdom. p. 131-137.

Fairbanks, M.; Lindsay, S. 1997. Plowing the sea:Nurturing the hidden sources of growth in thedeveloping world. Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, USA.

Gottret, V. 2000. Guía de primera visita a campo. In:II Curso Internacional: Promoción de laAgroempresa Rural para el DesarrolloMicroregional Sostenible. Centro Internacionalde Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.

Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Aframework for analysis. Working Paper no. 72.Institute of Development Studies (IDS),Brighton, United Kingdom.

Smith, M.K. 2001. Chris Argyris: Theories of action,double-loop learning and organizationallearning [on line]. The encyclopedia of informaleducation [on line]. The Informal EducationHomepage (Infed), London, United Kingdom.Available at: www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm

About the Partners

ASARECA FOODNET (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa)FOODNET is ASARECA’s post harvest and market research network for East and Central Africa. The network was establishedin 1999 and focuses on market analysis studies, market information, agroenterprise development, and related businessdevelopment support services. FOODNET works in collaborative partnerships with research and development partnersfrom the public and private sector.

CARECARE International is a global humanitarian organization working with over 45 million people in 70 of the world’s poorestcountries. CARE tackles underlying causes of poverty so that people can become self-sufficient. Recognizing that womenand children suffer disproportionately from poverty, CARE places special emphasis on working with women to createpermanent social change. Women are at the heart of CARE’s community based efforts to improve basic education, preventthe spread of HIV, increase access to clean water and sanitation, expand economic opportunity and protect naturalresources. CARE also delivers emergency aid to survivors of war and natural disasters, and helps people rebuild theirlives.

CIPASLACipasla, an inter-institutional consortium that fosters sustainable agriculture in hillsides, was founded in 1993 and isbased in Pescador, a village in northern Cauca department, located in south-western Colombia. In its first phase Cipaslaincluded twelve public and private agencies and its structure involved a support committee consisting of communityrepresentatives. Cipasla’s agenda encompasses community organization, environmental education, soil and waterconservation, integrated crop management, marketing and agro-industry. Several CIAT projects have been implementedresearch activities in this region which is considered as a pilot site.

CorpotuníaCorpotunía, a local rural development NGO, was founded in 1986 by community leaders and development NGOs andoperates in the Cauca Department, located in south-western Colombia. Corpotunía executes development projects fundedby the Colombian government and international donors. It is a member of a research and development network in whichCIAT also participates, and makes use of participatory methods and tools with a business and market orientation, developedby CIAT’s Rural Agroenterprise Development Project.

CLODESTCLODEST is a local inter-institutional committee that promotes sustainable development agriculture in the pilot region ofYorito-Sulaco, in north-central Honduras. This region includes plains and hillsides. CLODEST members include farmerassociations, development NGOs and CIAT. CLODEST conducts activities around community organizations, environmentaleducation, soil and water conservation, integrated crop management, marketing and agro industry. Several CIAT projectshave implemented research activities in this region, which is considered as a pilot or reference site in Central America.

Catholic Relief ServicesCatholic Relief Services was founded in 1943 by the Catholic Bishops of the United States. Their mission is to assist thepoor and disadvantaged and promote development of all people and to foster charity and justice throughout the world.CRS operates on 5 continents and in over 90 countries. CRS aids the poor by first providing direct assistance thenencouraging these people to help with their own development.

SNVSNV is a Netherlands-based international development organization that provides advisory services to nearly 1800 localorganizations in over 30 developing countries to support their fight against poverty. SNV is dedicated to a society where allpeople enjoy the freedom to pursue their own sustainable development. SNV works with organizations that operate atdistrict and provincial level and function as linking pins between national policies and frameworks and the people living intowns and communities. Its clients include private, governmental and civil society organizations.

About the Donors

CIDACanadian International Development Agency’s mandate is to support sustainable development in developing countries toreduce poverty and contribute to a more secure, equitable, and prosperous world. The Agency’s work is concentrated inthe poorest countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. CIDA’s program is based on the Millennium Development Goals,to which it contributes through four key areas: social development, economic well-being, protection, conservation, andmanagement of the environment and governance.

DFIDThe Department for International Development (DFID) is the part of the UK Government that manages Britain’s aid to poorcountries and works to reduce extreme poverty. DFID’s work aims to bring people out of poverty through programs thatsettle conflicts, increase trade and improve health and education.

GTZThe work of the German Technical Agency, GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) providesinternational cooperation for sustainable development. GTZ operates on a worldwide basis, provides viable, forward-looking solutions for political, economic, ecological and social development in a globalized world. GTZ supports complexreforms and change processes. All activities are geared to improving people’s living conditions and prospects on a sustainablebasis.

IDRCThe International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is a public corporation created by the Parliament of Canada in1970 to help developing countries use science and technology to find practical, long-term solutions to the social, economic,and environmental problems they face. Support is directed toward developing an indigenous research capacity to sustainpolicies and technologies that developing countries need to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies.

NZAIDNZAID is the Government’s International Aid and Development Agency. NZAID places a high priority on building strongpartnerships and concentrates its development assistance on activities that contribute to poverty elimination by creatingsafe, just and inclusive societies, fulfilling basic needs, and achieving environmental sustainability and sustainablelivelihoods. NZAID supports projects in the Pacific region, Asia, Africa and Latin America.

SDCThe Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) is organized and funded by the Swiss government and operatesby financing programs both directly and in partnership with other agencies to countries around the world.

USAIDThe United States Agency for International Development is an independent federal government agency that aims to furtherAmerica’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of thedeveloping world. USAID supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances U.S. foreign policy objectivesby supporting: economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health; and, democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarianassistance.

228 W. Lexington Street Baltimore, MD 21201-3413 USATel: 410.625.2220 • www.crs.org ISBN 0-945356-43-9

a participatory guide to developing partnerships, area ... · implementing participatory...

Documents