Working paper Participatory Approaches to Rural Development and Rural Poverty Alleviation* 2009 * Dr. J.P. de Campos Guimarães, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Netherlands was commissioned by ESCAP to prepare this paper for the workshop on “Emerging issues in rural poverty reduction: The role of participatory approaches” The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Mention of firm names and commercial products does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided that the source is acknowledged. The ESCAP Publications Office would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. This publication has been issued without formal editing. 2 Table of contents 1 Introduction............................................................................................................4 2 Background to participation in RD........................................................................4 2.1 Historical background....................................................................................4 2.2 Definitions and typologies of participation...................................................5 2.2.1 Definitions.............................................................................................5 2.2.2 Typologies of participation....................................................................6 2.3 The special case of Participatory Rural Appraisal.........................................9 2.4 The ideologies of participation....................................................................11 3 Participation in Asia............................................................................................12 3.1 Poverty, rural development and participation in Asia.................................12 3.2 Participation in Asia: a partial overview around some themes....................13 Box 4: Improving crop-based pig production in Vietnam............................................15 4 Current debates on participation..........................................................................19 4.1 The ‘tyranny’ and other criticisms...............................................................19 4.2 ‘From tyranny to transformation’................................................................22 4.3 The relevance of the debate.........................................................................23 5 The challenges of participatory rural development: some reflections and points for discussion 24 REFERENCES............................................................................................................29 3 1 Introduction The term ‘participation’ has recently come to play a central role in the discourse of rural development practitioners and policy makers. At the same time, people’s interpretations of the term – and criticisms of other people’s interpretations – have multiplied, and the intentions and results of much participation in practice have been questioned or even denounced. In other words, participation has become a hotly contested term, in a debate with deep implications for the ways in which community, society, citizenship, the rights of the poor and rural development itself are conceived, and for the policies that are formulated about and around some of these concepts and the social realities to which they refer. This paper considers participation in rural development and rural poverty alleviation. It examines Asian experience and provides brief overviews of past interpretations and practices and of current debates. Its main purposes are to identify some of the main challenges facing the use of participatory approaches to rural development and poverty alleviation in Asia, and to propose a number of topics for discussion. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a briefly sketched background to participation, both historical and conceptual, and examines the range of uses of participation in development projects. This section also includes a short discussion of a particular family of methods, broadly associated with rapid and participatory rural appraisal (RRA/PRA), which has acquired considerable prominence in recent years. Then follows, in section 3, a discussion of some main themes of participation in rural development in Asia. Section 4 then gives an overview of recent and not so recent criticisms and debates of and around participation. Finally, Section 5 draws some lessons and puts forward some points for discussion. The paper is based exclusively on secondary materials. Although this allows a much wider coverage of perspectives and case experiences than would otherwise be possible given the limitations of a paper of this nature, it also has the disadvantage of possibly neglecting some of the most innovative approaches, because they are too recent, or were not adequately researched and written about, or simply escaped notice. The length of the paper does not allow detailed descriptions, thorough analyses or completeness of coverage of what by any standards is a vast and evolving field. Instead of those, the paper must rely on short characterizations, the use of examples, and the discussion of themes and ideas rather than of individual cases. 2 Background to participation in RD 2.1 Historical background A form of participation can be traced back at least to colonial times: In Eastern Nigeria in the late 1940s and early 1950s British colonial officials pursued a policy with many similarities to […] participatory development […] The chief propagandist of this policy was E.R. Chadwick, the Senior District Officer i/c Community Development. He wrote frequently about how self-help development could transform the capacity of Nigerians (as individuals and communities) to identify their own needs and strengthen their abilities to improve their own conditions. He was puritanical in his refusal to ‘deliver’ development since this undermined the very transformation that the policy sought to achieve (Page, 2002: 253). This surprisingly modern view already contains many of the central themes that are still present in current approaches: self-help, the community as well as the individual, transformation and capacity building and, at least by implication, a limited form of empowerment. Not much of significance was added by the community development approach that originated in India after 1950 and spread to other developing countries in the 1960s, with its underlying modernization ideology and its 4 practical combination of adult education, institution building, social welfare (especially education and health) and development projects. Only in the 1970s were the other main themes of modern participatory approaches added: increasing the awareness of the poor and oppressed of asymmetric power relations and of their own situation, creating or reinforcing networks of solidarity, gradually building up their confidence in their own knowledge and abilities, and consequently also a sense of entitlement (Freire, 1972). People’s participation as a concept was formulated – or rediscovered – in the 1970s, in response to the growing awareness that the various approaches then employed for rural development, such as community development, integrated rural development or basic needs did not often lead to significant rural development and especially poverty reduction, largely, as was then thought, because there was little involvement in development projects of those undergoing ‘development’, and particularly the poor. An important milestone in people’s participation in rural development was the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD – Rome, 1979), which declared participation by rural people in the institutions that govern their lives ‘a basic human right’: If rural development was to realize its potential, the Conference said, disadvantaged rural people had to be organized and actively involved in designing policies and programmes and in controlling social and economic institutions. WCARRD saw a close link between participation and voluntary, autonomous and democratic organizations representing the poor. It called on development agencies to work in close cooperation with organizations of intended beneficiaries, and proposed that assistance be channelled through small farmer and peasant groups (IWG, no date). After WCARRD, and throughout the 1980s and 90s, participation in rural development – as well as in development at large – gradually became more established among governments, donors and international organizations, to such an extent indeed that, as Stirrat (1996: 67) put it, ‘it is now difficult to find a rurally based development project which does not in one way or another claim to adopt a participatory approach involving bottom-up planning, acknowledging the importance of indigenous knowledge, and claiming to empower local people’. Inevitably, at the same time as participation became a ‘good thing’, there was also a trend towards greater diversity in the interpretations of what it really means and in the forms of its application in practice, as the various actors involved – ranging from consultants and academics to developing country governments, NGOs, bilateral donors and international organizations – chose from the different approaches, principles, methods or simply emphases available, to fit their own missions or interests. Participation thus became what some describe as a ‘new orthodoxy of development’, but one lacking an ideology (Henkel and Stirrat, 2001: 168). We will review here some of the main definitions and typologies of participation before going on to discuss its applications in practice. 2.2 Definitions and typologies of participation 2.2.1 Definitions The diversity mentioned above may best be illustrated by a brief analysis of some of the many definitions of participation that have been proposed. The FAO Informal Working Group on Participatory Approaches and Methods (IWG) transcribes some useful definitions in a web site dedicated to participatory project formulation1. First, two definitions from the 1970s: With regard to rural development … participation includes people's involvement in decision-making processes, in implementing programmes, their sharing in the benefits of development programmes and their involvement in efforts to evaluate such programmes (Cohen and Uphof, 1977). 1 http://www.fao.org/Participation/english_web_new/content_en/definition.html, accessed June 2007. 5 Participation is concerned with . . . the organised efforts to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social situations on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from such control (Pearse and Stifel, 1979). Cohen and Uphof were among the first to stress the importance of participation in the various stages of the project cycle, particularly decision making and evaluation, rather than simply sharing in the benefits of projects. Pearse and Stifel complement this by stressing control and, by implication, also issues of power. Power and empowerment are brought in explicitly in the following characterization: Participation can be seen as a process of empowerment of the deprived and the excluded. This view is based on the recognition of differences in political and economic power among different social groups and classes. Participation in this sense necessitates the creation of organisations of the poor which are democratic, independent and self-reliant (Ghai, 1990). Two other definitions are associated with international agencies: Participatory development stands for partnership which is built upon the basis of dialogue among the various actors, during which the agenda is jointly set, and local views and indigenous knowledge are deliberately sought and respected. This implies negotiation rather than the dominance of an externally set project agenda. Thus people become actors instead of being beneficiaries (OECD, 1994). Participation is a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them (World Bank, 1994). The OECD definition adds useful elements by stressing dialogue and negotiation between the ‘developers’ and the ‘developed’, as well as the fact that through participation people become actors in their own development rather than just passive beneficiaries. Along similar lines, the World Bank definition broadens participation from just the poor to other ‘stakeholders’, a term that has become almost widespread ‘participation’ itself. Together, the definitions above clearly illustrate the diversity mentioned in the preceding section. The IWG combines several of the elements in the five definitions above and gives its own definition of participation in development as … a process of equitable and active involvement of all stakeholders in the formulation of development policies and strategies and in the analysis, planning and implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development activities. To allow for a more equitable development process, disadvantaged stakeholders need to be empowered to increase their level of knowledge, influence and control over their own livelihoods, including development initiatives affecting them. 2.2.2 Typologies of participation Degrees of participation An influential participation typology has to do with degrees or levels of participation. Writing in North America, Arnstein (1969) defines participation as … the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future […] It is the strategy by which they can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society (p. 216). 6 She puts forward a model that consists of a ladder with eight rungs, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. Arnstein stresses that the ladder is a simplification and that the eight rungs are an imperfect representation of what is really a continuum, where a clear distinction between levels is not always possible. Still, she claims, it helps to illustrate the fact that there are different degrees of citizen participation. Figure 1: The ladder of participation Citizen control 8 Delegated power 7 Partnership 6 Placation 5 Consultation 4 Informing 3 Therapy 2 Manipulation 1 Source: Arnstein, 1969 This model is not neutral: as pointed out by Hayward et al. (2004: 99), ‘reading the ladder from bottom to top, it suggests a hierarchical view that promotes full participation as the goal to be achieved. This value-laden view deligitimises non- and/or peripheral participation’. Something similar may be said of the typology of participation presented in Figure 2 below, although of course here, unlike in Figure 1, lower generally tends to be ‘better’. Figure 2: A participation typology Type of Participation Some Components and Characteristics Passive Participation People are told what is going to happen or has already happened. Top down, information shared belongs only to external professionals. Participation in information giving People answer questions posed by extractive researchers, using surveys etc. People not able to influence the research. Participation by consultation People are consulted and external agents listen to their views. Usually externally defined problems and solutions. People not really involved in decision making. Participation as consultation. Participation by material incentives Provision of resources, e.g. labor. Little incentive to participate after the incentives end, for example much farm research, some community forestry. Functional Participation Groups are formed to meet predetermined objectives. Usually done after major project 7 decisions are made, therefore initially dependent on outsiders but may become self dependent and enabling. Participation as organization. Interactive Participation Joint analysis to joint actions. Possible use of new local institutions or strengthening existing ones. Enabling and empowering so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. Self-Mobilisation Already empowered, take decisions independently of external institutions. May or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. Participation as empowering. Source: Pimbert and Pretty, 1994. Efficiency and empowerment views of participation Both Arnstein’s ladder and the typology in Figure 2 carry the implicit assumption that different positions correspond to different degrees of one and the same thing (i.e. participation) and that therefore it would be possible to move gradually from one level to another. However, much of the theorizing of participation is based on a distinction that for some people implies a rejection of this assumption. This is the distinction between the efficiency argument and the equity and empowerment argument. The former envisages the use of participation instrumentally, to achieve better project outcomes or greater sustainability in rural development terms, for instance by mobilizing beneficiaries’ contributions through their involvement in implementation, or by increasing project acceptance, local ownership and sustainability. The latter regards participation as a process that empowers the poor and strengthens their capacity to take independent collective action in order to improve their own situation (and can, in some cases, even lead to changes in the distribution of power, as successful collective action and the associated increase in awareness and self-confidence lead the poor to claim a larger share of power and resources in the rural community). Its advocates dismiss instrumental uses of participation as inadequate, since they rarely if ever lead to the effective empowerment of the majority, particularly the poor and oppressed. Against this, some people argue that some beneficiary involvement is usually better than none, and that instrumental forms of participation may, over time, lead to more comprehensive and more empowering participation, particularly if care is taken to protect rural development projects from elite capture. In other words, they claim that it may be possible to move gradually from the forms of participation mentioned at the top of the table in Figure 2, towards the deeper forms below. Social scientists caution that institutions do not usually work like that, and that processes of empowerment can stop or move backwards as much as they can move forwards. Scope and applications of participation Participation is in practice used in various contexts and for different purposes, as we shall see in section 3.2 below. In the project cycle, the diagnosis of situations and problems, leading to project identification and formulation, is a field where the current trend is towards the use of various participatory approaches. As van Heck (2003: 46) puts it, Participatory research is to be included in any participatory project as it is indispensable firstly for the collection and analysis of the necessary information on the action areas and the disadvantaged people and secondly for project expansion and replication. Other stages of the project cycle where participation is used include project planning and design decisions, project implementation, monitoring and evaluation. In addition to these forms of participation at the micro level of projects, participatory approaches are also used at other levels. For instance, participatory poverty assessments (PPAs) are designed to influence policy at the macro level, particularly in relation to development and poverty reduction strategies (Norton et al., 2001). Exercises of this kind have acquired a new importance with the 8 introduction of poverty reduction strategy papers by the Bretton Woods Institutions in 1999 and the virtual imposition of the obligation to formulate them, supposedly with the active participation of the poor, upon a considerable number of developing countries. Between the micro and the macro level, a number of exercises in participation at an intermediate or meso level have also been carried out. These include participatory budgeting in local governments and various forms of territory-based rural development, among which the LEADER programmes of the European Union are notable for their support for decentralized development and participation of the local communities. 2.3 The special case of Participatory Rural Appraisal Because of the role that it has played in spreading ideas of participation in rural development and in recent debates on participation, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) deserves a special mention here. PRA has been described as … a family of approaches, methods and behaviours that enable people to express and analyse the realities of their lives and conditions, to plan themselves what actions to take, and to monitor and evaluate the results. Its methods have evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA). The difference is that PRA emphasizes processes that empower local people, whereas RRA is mainly seen as a means for outsiders to gather information. The key elements of PRA are the methods used, and – most importantly – the behaviour and attitudes of those who facilitate it (Chambers and Blackburn, 1996: 1). Poverty and the powerlessness of the poor are central concerns of PRA. PRA uses a wide range of methods developed by practitioners specifically to help local people, rural and urban – many of whom are not literate – express and share information, and also has several methods in common with RRA (see Box 1 for an example of a method where modern and community knowledge are combined into a tool with considerable potential). Many of these methods are visual, and they include participatory mapping and modelling, transect walks, flow diagrams, seasonal calendars and matrix scoring, institutional diagramming and analytical diagramming, all undertaken by local people2. Triangulation, i.e. the use of several methods, types of information, investigators and disciplines for purposes of cross-checking and progressive learning and approximation, is also a key principle of both RRA and PRA. Box 1: Participatory three-dimensional modelling Participatory three-dimensional modelling (P3-DM) is an innovative PRA technique conceived to support collaborative processes and help resolve conflicts of interest related mainly to land and resource use and tenure. It starts with the production of an accurate relief map of a particular territory, upon which community knowledge composed from the mental maps of the local participants is superimposed. Because the base map is accurate, it becomes possible to combine local knowledge with additional geo-referenced information obtained from field surveys, Global Positioning Systems’ readings, and secondary sources. Castella et al. (2005), Hardcastle et al. (2004) and Rambaldi and Le (2003) describe applications of P3-DM in Viet Nam, aimed at increasing public participation in problem analysis and decision-making at community level. An influential finding of PRA is, in the terms of one of its most proponents, that ‘villagers have a greater capacity to map, model, quantify and estimate, rank, score and diagram than outsiders have generally supposed them capable of’ (Chambers, 1995: 20). The success of PRA depends critically on facilitators maintaining very high standards of perszonal and professional behaviour: … as convenors and catalysts, but without dominating the process. Many find this difficult. They must take time, show respect, be open and self-critical and learn not to interrupt […] In PRA, facilitators act as a catalyst, but it is up to local people to decide what to do with the information and analysis they generate. […] there must be a commitment on the part of the facilitating organization 2 Strele et al. (2006: p. 8 ff.) has a very clear presentation of some main PRA techniques, in the particular context of results-oriented participatory livelihoods monitoring. 9 to do its best to support, if requested to do so, the actions that local people have decided on (Chambers and Blackburn, 1996: 2). The use of PRA has helped involve communities in the various decisions concerning their own development, including appraisal, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The ‘developers’ have also benefited from the interactions of PRA, in the sense that development practitioners have become more open to and respectful of local knowledge and more receptive to local priorities for research, action and policy. This has also helped development and research-oriented organizations move away from top-down, standardized procedures and towards a more open culture of learning (Guijt and Cornwall, 1995: 1). In the early 1990s, as donor agencies and international NGOs caught on to its potential, the practice of PRA spread very fast to many countries and organizations, initially in the NGO sector but increasingly also in government departments, aid agencies and universities. This was the high point of neoliberalism, and ‘PRA’s potential to deliver “locally owned” and “community-based” solutions led to meteoric uptake – in speed and scale’3 (Cornwall and Guijt, 2004: 164). As often happens in similar cases, scaling up created problems. Abuse and bad practice became common, which prompted a soul-searching on the part of a number of people close to the core of the PRA ‘community of practice’. It seems interesting to mention the concerns expressed at that time, published in PLA Notes 22, in 19954: • the assumption that using PRA methods and/or approach in itself brings about positive change; • lack of conceptual clarity, transparency and accountability; • emphasis on information extraction with the rhetoric of political correctness; • unchallenged assumptions of community harmony; • lack of in-depth analysis which obscures awareness of political realities within communities; • one-off training, with no follow-up by trainers or institutions; • poor integration of PRA into project planning and implementation; • lack of clarity about reasons for using PRA; • agendas driven from outside the community, not from within; and • co-option of the acronym, making it a label without substance (Cornwall and Guijt, 1995: 1-2). What this list shows is that it is easy to use PRA badly. Aware of this problem, the PRA ‘community of practice’ dedicates considerable time and energy to critical analysis of its own practices and to the search for quality, as is evidenced by the themes of the various issues of Participatory Learning and Action. Modest initial arguments that RRA, with its emphasis on ‘appropriate imprecision’ and ‘optimal ignorance’, was basically ‘organized common sense’ and was preferable to conventional research methods for certain kinds of action-oriented research, gradually gave way to claims that PRA is actually superior to conventional methods in the production of valid and reliable knowledge (see for instance Chambers, 1994). This has generated considerable disagreement and controversy, some of which will be mentioned below. In recent years, participatory methods have increasingly been used in national poverty assessments, initially for enabling the poor to express and analyse their priorities and realities. Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs) are promoted for instance by the World Bank, with the stated aim of 3 Ellis and Biggs (2001: 443) make a related point when they state that ‘While advocates of grassroots approaches to development may like to think that they have nothing in common with World Bank market liberalisers, nevertheless the spaces in which grassroots action flourished from the mid-1980s onwards were created in some measure by the backing off by big government from heavy-handed involvement in the rural economy’. 4 This publication, named successively RRA Notes, PLA Notes and, currently, simply Participatory Learning and Action, played an important role in consolidating PRA as a practice, by helping spread information about new methods, techniques and contributions to the PRA ‘basket’ of approaches, and by serving as a vehicle for critical discussion aimed at maintaining quality standards. 10