Process Documentation

Process DocumentationProcess Documentation

and its future use within the and its future use within the Community-Based Fisheries Community-Based Fisheries Management Project CBFM-2Management Project CBFM-2

Roger Lewins

Dhaka 2003

Presentation Outline….

4. “where are the processes?”

5. stakeholders, indicators, methods

6. analysing and interpreting feedback

7. drawing from discussion... guidelines for PD in CBFM-2

1. the concept - “what is process?”

2. its development - early experiences & examples

3. lessons learned

Explaining PD…

PD in the context of CBFM-2…

What is “Process” ?

Part 1.


Definition 1.

Policies, Institutions and Processes and Sustainable Livelihoods

The famous PIPs provide the environment that shapes livelihoods

In reality PIPs merge..

• policy is shaped by institutions such as culture

• local access rights are both institutions and processes

“If structures (organisations etc.) can be thought of as hardware, then processes can be thought of as software”

SL Guidance Sheets


Definition 1.

Policies, Institutions and Processes and Sustainable Livelihoods

The way things get done

…everyday procedure


Definition 2.

Processes within Development Projects

“Processes” are actions that go to produce “outcomes” in projects.

…activities (formal) and

the way things get done (informal)


Definition 2.


Intended Processes

Intended Outcomes

In an ideal world...

• regular community/staff dialogue

• awareness building

• inclusion of women

• new management institutions

• environmental sustainability

• social development


However…..project processes become more than agreed activities...

Intended Processes

(activities)

Actual Outcomes

Extra intervention

s

Changing interpretations

Skill differences

Revised expectations

Extra interventions


Skill differences



Unforeseen access issuesConflict resolution (new+old)Distractions - unrelated demands

Extra interventions


Skill differences



Between sites

Across implementation phases

Between activities & staff


Extra interventions


Skill differences


Greater local knowledge

Unforeseen opportunities

Unforeseen obstacles


Extra interventions


Skill differences


Site-specific project “institutions”

The “reading” of project objectives

Prioritisation of activities


design of participation

& CBOs

design of staff reporting

set of technical options

staff/community interaction

learning & habit-forming

prioritisation of reporting

Two types of process...

FORMAL

Project-ascribed activities & procedure

INFORMAL

Evolved project activities & procedure


Processes at different scales

Project Targets

Interface

Local

National

Non-targets

Project Field Staff

Union Officials

Upazilla Officials

Project Staff HQ

DoFMoL

Donors



Relevance at the national policy level...

• can donors create a better environment for integrated management?

• what co-management relationships work well?

• can (should) government change its emphasis?

Project Staff HQ

DoFMoL

Donors



New interest in relevance of existing formal institutions...

• does the project work with or against wishes of local government?

• can local government take forward some project tasks, or..

• are new institutions required?

Project Field Staff

Union Officials

Upazilla Officials



Project Targets

Non-targets

Project Field StaffA focus of previous

research projects...

• impacts on non-targets

• function and character of staff/community relations

• potential sustainability for co-management

Processes within Development Projects Processes at different

scales

• project CBOs are here…..voice & input?

• need to monitor formal structures and processes

• need to monitor actual interaction

• where dialogue and action cross over

Project Targets

Non-targets

Project Field StaffOther reasons to study this

level...

interface between project &

community


Interface

Local

National

Project Targets

Non-targets

Project Field Staff

Union Officials

Upazilla Officials

Project Staff HQ

DoFMoL

Donors

Policies

Institutions

Processes

Processes within Development Projects Outcomes are usually monitored….

why monitor process?

• explain differences between sites

• identify good and poor practice

• reveal externalities (unrecorded impacts)

• uncover strengths and weaknesses of project approach

• detect problems before they worsen

• detect new opportunities

• highlight the effectiveness of project institutions

• capture learning process for knowledge sharing

It helps...

Processes within Development Projects Outcomes are usually monitored….

why monitor process?

Projects are complicated on paper and become more so...

• human & unpredictable systems

• stakeholders & agenda widen

• evolve differently in each setting

• may diverge from envisioned design


Discrepancies between plans and practice

“The cow is in the book - but not in the shed!”

Bangladeshi proverb

Development of PD - early experiences &

examples

Part 2.

PD used within 2 LWI projects

Methods for Consensus Building for Management of CPRs

Institutions project

work in progress…

To document the PAPD methodology at 3 sites

To evaluate processes in 3 distinct projects

To review processes across a range of projects

Case Study

1

Case Study

2

Process Documenatation of the PAPD method for Consensus

Building

• to independently assess the PAPD workshops

• to help identify strengths, limits & prospects

• to test a process documentation methodology

Case Study

1

• Shared and common purpose

• Full participation

• Perceived as fair

• Create a mutual understanding of goals

• Informs, engages and interests participants

• Provide inclusive solutions

• Encourage challenges to the status quo

• Be self-organising

Good Consensus Building approaches should demonstrate:

Using indicators to break up the evaluation...

Shared and common purpose

Full participation

Perceived as fair

Create a mutual understanding of goals

Informs, engages and interests participants

Provide inclusive solutions

Encourage challenges to the status quo

Be self-organising

understanding, participation &

fairness

Increased awareness & changing relations


Process Outcomes


fairness

increased awareness & changing relations

Consensus


mid-course

end-of-workshop


fairness


1. Shared and common purpose

2. Full participation

3. Perceived as fair

4. Create a mutual understanding of goals

5. Informs, engages and interests participants

6. Provide inclusive solutions

7. Encourage challenges to the status quo

8. Be self-organising

Indicators 1 - 4 for mid-course evaluation



fairness










Indicators 1-8 for end-of-workshop

evaluation


3 Survey Target Groups at the each site:

• Facilitators (midcourse and end-of-workshop)

• Participants from each stakeholder group (end-of-workshop)

• Neighbours of participants (end-of-workshop)

feedback on workshop (problems, unusual directions, unexpected discoveries etc.)

feedback on perceived relevance, problems & level of understanding

feedback on level of understanding throughout the community - the “spread effect”

Consulting the relevant stakeholders

Using indicators to form lines of enquiry

Indicators help develop...

1.) Areas for discussion for semi-structured interviews

• for smaller numbers of key informants

• generally for qualitative information

Provide us with contextual information and overview of important background issues

Good discussion is based on open questions…..

How….? Why….?What….?


Indicators help develop...

2.) Types of question for questionnaires

• for larger numbers of similar respondents

• for more quantifiable information

Ensure responses can be tallied

Can reveal differing perspectives between stakeholder groups and trends


Questions to Facilitators


mid-course evaluation



• “ How do participants understand the purpose of workshop?”

• “Are any participants confused by any activities?”

• “How do participants understand relevance of activities?”

Checklist for semi-structured interviews





• “Do all participants contribute to the workshop?”

• “Do some contribute too much?”

• “Any differences in participation between stakeholder groups?”

to guide semi-structured interviews





• “Any participants annoyed by behaviour of others or format?”

• “How well has workshop represented opinions within groups?”

• “Any complaints about direction or activities of workshop?”






• “How has level of understanding increased within groups?”

• “How could level of understanding been further increased?”



end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Facilitators



Indicators 1-8

• “Did activities keep participants’ interest?”

• “What did participants learn?”





Indicators 1-8

• “Did 2nd plenary focus on issues for all or few stakeholders?”

• “Did some groups feature more strongly than others?”





Indicators 1-8

• “How will the workshop lead to new ways of doing things?”

• “Will this lead to new relations & support between groups?”





Indicators 1-8

• “Did the workshop develop as expected, or were you surprised?”

• “How active were participants in guiding direction of discussion?”


Questions to Participants


end-of-workshop evaluation Questions to Participants

For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “What do you think was the purpose of workshop?”

• “Were the activities relevant?”

• “Was anything confusing?”

• “Do you think the workshop was a success?”




For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “Could you communicate your opinion sufficiently?”

• “Did some groups add more than others?”




For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “Did the workshop represent the diversity of interests?”

• “How fair was the workshop?”




For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “Have you learned about other groups & their needs?”

• “Have you learned about other people like you?”




For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “Was the workshop interesting?”

• “Were any of the activities irrelevant to you?”

• “What did you learn new & interesting?”




For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “Did discussions & plans address your issues?”

• “Did discussions & plans address just some stakeholders?”




For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “How will the workshop lead to new ways of doing things?”

• “Will there be new relations and support between some?”




For questionnaire

Indicators 1-8

• “Were the participants able to choose issues for discussion?”

• “Will people hold meetings like this in future?”


Questions to Neighbours

Focus on outcomes rather than process...

1. Does the household know anything about the workshops?

2. What do you understand was the purpose?

3. What do you understand were the activities?

4. Aware of those represented?

5. How do you know about the workshops?

6. Did your informant find the workshops useful?

7. What did they find useful/ not useful?

8. Do the workshops sound useful to you?

Facilitator Feedback

Facilitator Feedback - mid-course evaluation

Posna site / CNRS staff

Diksi site / ICLARM staff

Kathuria site / Banchte Sheka staff

• some loss of interest during planning workshop (more materials?) • richer groups dominate but not perceived as unfair by others

• “educated” groups contributed most

• good level of understanding

• poor level of understanding but increasing

• participants distracted (numerous “smoking breaks”)

Facilitator Feedback - end-of-workshop evaluation

Posna site / CNRS staff

Diksi site / ICLARM staff

Kathuria site / Banchte Sheka staff

• surprise at unprompted discussion & full representation

• UP attempted to direct discussion - exposure to UP useful

• mutual concerns were identified and exposure to UP beneficial

• unexpected connections (health/sanitation/water quality)

• women’s understanding increased, particularly

• increased awareness of local relevance of institutions

Participant Feedback

Stakeholder

Fishers

Farmers

Elite / educated

Poor

Women

Posna Kathuria Diksi

4

4

4

1

-

8

5

4

-

-

9

5

1

-

1

Participants’ perceived input to PAPD by stakeholder group“Did some groups add more to the workshop?”

Summary

• a better balance at Posna

• a distinct fisher bias may reflect expertise of facilitators

Stakeholder

Fishers

Farmers

All stakeholders

Poor

Women


4

2

6

-

-

8

7

4

-

-

8

4

2

2

-

Participants’ perceived relevance to stakeholder groups“2nd plenary discussion favoured which groups?”

Summary

• most considered fishers & farmers the beneficiaries

• 25% considered all participants as the beneficiaries

• are Posna staff more skilled or were issues identified broader?

reaching agreement

joint discussion

audience with elite & foreigners

discussion of natural resources

meals


8

3

-

1

-

1

6

2

-

-

Participants’ perception of value of workshops“The best thing about the workshops?”

4

8

2

-

1

Summary

• agreement was most appreciated where action plans were advanced

• otherwise, the act of discussion was valued higher

Neighbour Feedback

Neighbours’ understanding of workshops

Neighbour knowledge of workshop process & aims

“What were the activities of the workshop?”

• discussion 50%

• meals / payments 37%

• problem-solving 33%

• don’t know 25%

“What groups were represented?”

• farmers 92%

• fishers 79%

• women 71%

• landless 25%

• elite 25%

• kua owners 8%

• NGOs4%

Neighbours’ understanding of workshops

Source of information & neighbour attitude to workshops

“Who told you about the workshop?”

• participating neighbour 42%

• friends 33%

• relatives 17%

• workshop organisers 8%

Neighbour attitudes• 88% thought the workshops useful

• 12% were uninterested in participation

(misinformation - “I am already stocking”)Summary

opinion varied between the 3 sites…

• most appreciated where action plans were advanced

• high level of understanding

Summarising data


Facilitators

Participants

Neighbours

Some passive (farmers)

Some passive Good understandin

gSlight boredom (PC)

Seen as fair by facilitator

inclusive favour fishers favour fishers

new relations new relations potential new relations

Agreement valued Discussion valued Discussion valued

Stakeholder groups known & keen to

participateHas

created consensus

Has/may create

consensus

May create

consensus

The methodology in retrospect

Suitability of indicators?









Derived from developed world

examples

Challenge existing rural“institutions”?

PAPD needs to be directed

• Identifies a collective goal (action plan)

The methodology in retrospectTiming & Coverage

• Facilitator survey

• Participant survey

• Neighbour survey

• important to gauge opinion at mid-course and end-of-workshop

• key facilitators targeted

• 4 respondents x 4 stakeholder groups

• mid-course interview may have interfered with PAPD

• only 8 neighbours per site consulted

• the workshops occurred in short period (travel time a factor)

/

/

/

The methodology in retrospect

• Facilitator

• Participant

• Neighbour

interviews provides local context

….helps interpret other data

questionnaire allowed one word response for easy tallying (or clumping together)…..

small sample size means percentages less significant but...

Tallying, interpreting & presentation of data

- the range of feedback did help build a picture

Process Documentation of Integrated Floodplain Management

Projects

Project goal -

better knowledge of factors for success or failure of IFM projects

The role of PD -

to document local processes that might affect performance

• formal processes

• informal processes

Case Study

2


Projects

Formal processes

The procedures in which the range of project stakeholders are supposed to interact.

• how projects intend to interact with targets

• how projects intend to interact with local government

….especially operation of structures (resource user committees or management groups)

but also planned meetings and workshops


Projects

Informal processes

The factors that influence the way things really work.

• The character of relationships between staff and targets

• The degree of local support for project activities (target, non-targets and local government)

• Local “institutions” that can impact projects (power relations, access rights, traditional gender roles)

….again, informal processes within resource user group and committees will be key to their performance


ProjectsTwo forms of indicators...

1. Community-Identified Indicators

&

2. General Indicators of Good (Development) Practice


Projects

1. Community-Identified Indicators

FGDs held with different stakeholder groups at IFM project sites

Discussed IFM institutions and good practise

Male and female groups ranked important attributes

Clumped indicator types and commonalities with general indicators


Projects

2. General Indicators of Good (Development) Practice

Collect general indicators for good management institutions

…particularly donor & academic indicators for functioning of CBOs

Clump indicator types and commonalities with community indicators

1. Community-Identified IndicatorsSuccess criteria ranked into broader categories….

Male criteria

1. Honesty

2. Punctuality

3. Harmony

4. Good judgement

5. Adaptable

6. Acknowledge poor

Female criteria

1. Social education

2. Unity

3. Leadership for poor

4. Flexibility

5. Regular meetings

1. Unity / harmony

2. Honest / unselfish leaders

3. Good adaptable decision-making

4. Attention to poor

5. Delivery

6. Regular meetings

Male & Female criteria combined

2. General Indicators of Good PracticeSuccess criteria ranked into broader categories….Commonly quoted criteria

participation

transparency in decision-making

perceived fairness

equality

sustainability

representation

However….

criteria inter-related.

For example,

fairness participation representation sustainability?

Clumping gives these categories….

1. participation / equality / representation

2. transparency / fairness... leading to

3. sustainability?

4 levels of activity interest us:

1.) Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and trainers)

2.) Project Community-Based Organisations (River Management Committees etc.)

3.) Other Participants (primary targets - involved fishers, women, etc)

Consulting the relevant stakeholders

4.) Non-Participants (other primary stakeholders - non-target groups)

1.) Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and trainers)

Evaluation Strategy

Understand roles, responsibilities and interaction with other stakeholders

Semi-structured interviews with 3-4 staff at each site

Checklist:

Interaction with primary stakeholders & how often?

Nature & purpose of this interaction?

Which groups involved?

How is status of project communicated?

Evaluation Strategy

Understand roles, responsibilities and interaction with other stakeholders

Semi-structured interviews with 3-4 CBO members at each site & questionnaire

Checklist:

Important power issues (conflict or consensus)?

Discuss procedure of decision-making, election?

Any improvements?

Effectiveness of CBO & project?

2.) Project Community-Based Organisations (River Management Committees etc.)

Evaluation Strategy

3.) & 4.) Other Participants & Non-Participants

4 or 5 respondents for each primary stakeholder group

“Checklist” questionnaire

Questions related to community indicators..

unity

honesty

decision-making

attention to poor

delivery

frequency of interaction

Is the CBO agreed on purpose etc.?

Does CBO represent community fairly?

Does CBO always choose best way?

Which stakeholders benefit most?

How often does CBO enact decisions?

How do you interact with CBO?

Early feedback - Piloting of Fieldwork

The Oxbow Lakes Project...

status of surviving project institutions in Jessore

Building a “contextual” picture by consulting a range of stakeholders….separately

Project staff DoF personnel

CBO members Lake management Group (male) & Female Fisher Groups

Non-participants other villagers

Triangulation of Feedback

Fish Farmer Groups

Other villagers

DoF staff


we provide supportthere is no conflictprofits are enjoyed

benefits not sharedmastaan in Groupsthreat of violenceDoF cannot help

profitable activity male/female conflict

DoF provide little helpsome BRAC staff corrupt

fixed membershipbaor threatened


Fish Farmer Groups

Other villagers

DoF staff


???


Fish Farmer Groups

Other villagers

DoF staff


reality



we provide supportthere is no conflictprofits are enjoyed

benefits not sharedmastaan in Groupsthreat of violenceDoF cannot help

profitable activity male/female conflict

DoF provide little helpsome BRAC staff corrupt

fixed membershipbaor threatened

Combining & cross-referencing

reality


Early feedback - Piloting of FieldworkCombining & cross-

referencing

• Stocking is profitable for the group

• Benefits are concentrated

• Membership is rarely transferred

• Mastaan influence Group

• Previous conflict with some BRAC staff

• Conflict between male & female Groups

• DoF support limited

• Other uses threaten baor

Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance

Formal processes

• Leaseholds for male and female ponds secured via DoF

• DoF facilitate technical but routine meetings

• No scope for DoF to address or investigate power issues

• BRAC involvement reduced since 1997

• Groups sought professional advice over NGO corruption

• Group size is fixed by DoF.

Preliminary Summary of Institutional Significance

Informal processes

• Women’s ponds better respected by others than before

• Women’s families have special interest in status quo

• Muslim mastaan use threat of violence to control Groups

• Otherwise conflict within groups is low

• Group members do not relinquish membership

Preliminary Summary of Institutional SignificanceHowever….

analysis must be framed in context of the project

Support for OLP ended

1997

OLP tried to maximise

catch

OLP tried to create self-funded groups

Project activities now institutionalised

Production from stocked baor still high

Male & female groups require minimal support

Lessons Learned

Part 3.

Learning from the Consensus & Institutions Projects

Indicators for good practice provide...

Case Study

2

Case Study

1 &

• ways to frame discussion & questions

• a benchmark to gauge performance

Feedback must be interpreted together..

• triangulate interview responses

• discuss project in context (aims, scope)

Use interviews & questionnaires carefully...

• identify themes not conclusive statements

Staff, CBO members & target groups provide...

• knowledge of local processes

• status of project & design issues

Consulting the Range of Stakeholders

Consensus project Institutions Project 3 levels of consultation...

Project Staff

CBO Members

Primary stakeholders (targets & non-target)

Facilitators

Participants

Non-participants (neighbours)

Project

“Interface”

Community

Case Study

2

Case Study

1 &

The significance of the “Interface”

Consensus project Institutions Project

Case Study

2

Case Study

1 &

Communicated concept of PAPD to community

Communicated concerns to project

staff

but interface has diverse interests..

… survey revealed differences between stakeholder groups

Interface important level for co-management… discussion action

Capacity to communicate project role to community?

Ability to represent diverse interests?

Ability to reach consensus?

Ability to shape project?

…life-span of CBO?

Interface = Participants

Interface = CBO members

The Importance of ContextDifficult (unfair) to gauge projects with same

criteria?

must acknowledge the goal & approach of projects

e.g. OLP does not aim to represent range of interests

not such a problem within large projects - activities repeated site-by-site

CBFM-2 ?CBFM-2 ?

Careful choice of indicators if range of scenarios studied

Remember Limitations of PD

Process may be very difficult to assess. A simple survey of participants or ….. outputs will probably not provide a meaningful assessment. Either could lead to a conclusion that a process was unsuccessful when it was actually successful or vice versa. For example, participants…... could say they were satisfied when they were actually manipulated and misled, or ……. dissatisfied when they actually accomplished a great deal but had unrealistic expectations.” (Innes,

2000)

Processes are less easy to quantify than outputs..….so cross-comparison is

harder

Over-reliance on survey?Survey format allows...

However, surveys can be...

• replication (for cross-comparison & interpretation)

• standard practice for reviewer

• feedback from large number respondents

• intensive (may need many staff)

• time-consuming (to report/interpret)

• less valuable with repetition (survey fatigue)

Issues with Attitudinal FeedbackAsking for opinions...

limitations

its value

• respondents are not impartial…. have own interests..

• responses may be exaggerated or biased

• respondents have imperfect knowledge

• attitudes (perception) will influence performance

• increases our awareness of real concerns & local issues

• stakeholder opinion is not widely sought

Suitability of the surveys?

sustainable CBOs

sustainable livelihoods

equitable management

environmental & political

awareness

“character” of interaction

local institutional constraints & opportunities

support for project activities

change over time

Processes versus Outcomes

To re-cap...

Which are visible & easy to

measure?

gauge through continued consultation

Evaluate at end-point

Technical indications?

How can we strengthen PD?

2.) Care in interpreting feedback

3.) Triangulation

1.) Careful choice of informants

• consistency of technique & documentation

• acknowledging local project objectives & context

3 inter-related issues

• suitable stakeholder groups

• suitable individuals

• several sources allow cross-referencing

• several sources can reveal true motives & concerns

Summary

How can we strengthen PD?

The importance of triangulation

Project target groups

External groups

Project staff

reality

Project Context

CBFM-2….

Where are the “Processes” ?

Part 4.

Processes within most Development Projects


& CBOs




FORMAL


INFORMAL


“Log-Frame” Activities & Procedure

Formal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by scale...

Interface

Local

National

• Inform pro-poor & integrated policy

• Transfer of water bodies to DoF

• Influence revenue expectation of MoL

• Study of policy formation

• NGO network and exchange visits &..

• National & SSEA project linkage

National Formal ProcessesInterfaceLocal


• Formation of co-management bodies

• Facilitation & support to management committees

• Review & training for NGO partners

• Monthly coordination meetings

• Development & coordiantion of plans &...

• Legal support to fisheries / wetlands

NationalInterface Formal ProcessesLocal

…most relate to resource management institutions


• Fishers organised into groups

• Training & credit provision to fisher communities

• Plans developed by fisher groups

• Regular group meetings

• Local surveys (impact on poor, fish, gender) &...

• Dissemination & media survey

NationalInterfaceLocal Formal Processes

Processes within most Development Projects


& CBOs




FORMAL


INFORMAL


“Log-Frame” Activities & Procedure

staff/community interaction

learning & habit-forming

prioritisation of reporting

Informal Processes within CBFM-2 Listing them by

scale...

• “Quality” of link with policy-formers

(frequency, personal / formal)

• Efficiency of MoL transfers

(institutional constraints to change?)

• Ability to rationalise revenue collection

(what impacts progress?)

• “Quality” of NGO dialogue

(value of cross-visits, willingness to share)

National Informal ProcessesInterfaceLocal


scale...

• Approach to institution building

(how stakeholders engaged, how rules developed)

• Ongoing dialogue with institutions and committees

(frequency & effect of meetings, flow of dialogue)

• Input to management plans

(from committees etc., content and range)

• “Character” of support to institutions

(how engaged, frequency, issues)

NationalInterface Informal ProcessesLocal


scale...

• Approach to group formation

(directed / participatory, perceived value)

• Approach to training

(perceived value by facilitator & participant, quality)

• Development of plans

(inputs, representation, scope, adaptability)

• Impact of surveys

(coverage, discrepancies between sites, disruption)

NationalInterfaceLocal Informal Processes

Processes within CBFM-2

The value of organograms...

• represent key stakeholders

• represent linkages….which stakeholders interact

• allow us to view scale of formal processes..

• & visualise where key informal processes may be

• allow our PD to focus on 2 or 3 stakeholders…

• & break the review down to sections

• identify key nodes of interaction …

• who may be well-placed to inform us of process!!



Project Targets

Interface

Local

National

Non-targets

Project Field Staff

Union Officials

Upazilla Officials

Project Staff HQ

DoFMoL

Donors

More detail required


Starting from the bottom up...

Project Targets

Non-targets

Project Field Staff

This model simplistic for CBFM-2... project sites give 7

variations of this ...

(co-management models)

Non-targets

NGO Partners &

DoF

Resource Management Committee

Advisory Committee?

VOsVOs

VOs VOs

need to document formal…

• Group formation

• Training & credit

• Management plans

• Group meetings

• Surveys

• Dissemination (media)

& informal…

• Approach to group formation

• Approach to training


• Impact of surveys


The interface...

Project Field Staff

Union Officials

Upazilla Officials

Other agencies involved..


• Formation & help to RMCs etc

• Training for NGO partners

• Coordination meetings


• Legal support

& informal…

• Approach to institution building

• Dialogue between institutions

• Input to management plans

• “Character” of support

Union Member

s

NGO Partners &

DoF

Advisory Committee?

UNO UFO

Upazilla &

District


The national level & beyond...

Project Staff HQ

DoFMoL

DonorsCBFM-2 more complicated..

NGO Partners & local DoF

DoFMoL

WorldFish &

DFID

Dampara, MACH etc

Vietnam


• Inform policy

• Transfer water bodies

• Influence revenue policy

• Study policy formation

• NGO network &..

• National & SSEA project link

& informal…

• “Quality” of policy links

• Influence over revenue policy

• “Quality” of NGO dialogue &..

• national & international links

What have we learned from the organograms..?

RMCs a fulcrum for many “log-frame” activities & procedures

… central to deliver activities at each site

… many stakeholders link directly to RMC

partner NGOs & DoF

UNO, UFO, Union members

primary stakeholders

At the LOCAL level…



Partner NGOs are the key fulcrum for many “log-frame” activities & procedures

… central to support to RMCs and target groups

… facilitate interaction with government bodies &

… key for delivery & monitoring

At the INTERFACE level…



Project coordinators (WorldFish & DoF) are the key fulcrum for policy & learning “log-frame” activities

& procedures

… central to support to partner NGOs

… interaction with MoL and DoF

… linkage with other projects (nationally, internationally)

At the NATIONAL level…




At the NATIONAL level

At the LOCAL level

At the INTERFACE level Partner NGOs

WorldFish & DoF

RMCs

Formal, log-frame processes occur between these groups & those they serve…

in addition to informal interaction..

…relationships & ways of getting things done

For good PD…

we may consult frequently & learn from these groups

but there are other key informants



NATIONAL

LOCAL

INTERFACE

WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs

Most important of all…

….Primary stakeholders

Beneficiaries & Non-targets


Preparing a sampling strategy

WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs

Beneficiaries & Non-

targets

We know these 4 nodes are central to CBFM activities ..

…must develop a way to engage with

them (survey)


Documenting local processes

important for knowledge of good co-management &

suitable institutions

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets

Complex...

high intensity of interaction & diversity of

stakeholders

…many different interests

7 different models with different links



Model 1

NGO supported fulltime fishers

Other NGO group

members

Partner NGO

RMC

Committee focuses on poor fishers



Model 2

RMC

Partner NGO

NGO full time fishers +

subsistence + part time fishers

Advisory Committe

e

Elite & NGO

Committee represents all fishers

Advisory Committee of elite to support



Model 3

RMC

Partner NGO

NGO supported fishers

NGO, DoF & UP with others

Formal representation of NGO, DoF etc.



Model 4

RMC

Partner NGO

NGO fishers + other fishers



Model 5

RMCFisher

stakeholders

UP, landowners, Kua owners

etc.

Partner NGO

All stakeholders represented

Suitable in floodplain context



Model 6

RMC

Partner NGO

Surrounding floodplain

land owners, landless & others

NGO supported beel lesees

Lesees pay for access & stocking

Other interest groups included



Model 7

RMC

Partner NGO

NGO supported full time fishers

Where only poor fishers targeted

(rivers or closed jalmohals)



Each project site exhibits 1 of these models…

a wide range of..

We may need to tailor PD for each model

stakeholders

roles & responsibilities

forms of interaction

functions



• surveys (household, fish, market)

• fish sanctuaries etc.

• credit provision

• skill development

Process and PD relates most to skill development…

Need feedback on relevance, enthusiasm & usefulness

Measurable by outcome

& completion

In addition, numerous “technical” activities…


Documenting interface processes

Role & responsibility of NGO partners vary between sites

Caritas have own criteria for group formation?

Links with stakeholders depend on committee model?

How do 1o & 2o stakeholders view the role of the NGO?

How do the NGO view the input of 1o & 2o stakeholders?

What types of process build consensus and lead to action?

Key issues


Documenting National processes

Role & responsibility of WorldFish and DoF are fixed

Are training commitments met & how received?

How is policy dialogue process viewed by GOs and coordinators?

Frequency of cross-links with other projects?

Does “quality” of DoF processes vary - frequency of interaction etc?

Key issues


Current CBFM-2 documentation

Most collected data is quantifiable & local

Where processes are complicated, reporting is still numerical...

• Financial inputs (credit, revenue collected)

• Household data

• Fish market / catch

• Beel stocking & harvesting

• Number of participants (stakeholder group)



Name of waterbody

Date BMC / RMC formed

No. members

Stakeholders?

Advisory committee Y/N

No. members

Other committees Y/N

Name of waterbody

CBFM-1 No. groups

male participants

female participants

CBFM-2 No. groups

male participants

female participants

Group formation & committee function...An example..



PD is about collecting extra context behind these numbers

This is important information, but technical...

• Level of satisfaction within group / committee

• Level of understanding

• Procedure of formation

• “Knock-on” effects (disputes, dispute resolution)

Good PD design will capture this & add to current monitoring


Current CBFM-2 documentationWhat can PD add…?

• Level of satisfaction within group / committee

• Level of understanding

• Procedure of formation

• “Knock-on” effects (disputes, dispute resolution)

Issues for discussion:

Do diaries & record books provide us understanding of these issues?

Does the new case study format cover these issues

evaluating and reporting?


Current CBFM-2 documentationCollected data at interface (NGO partners &

links)

• technical achievements (boxes ticked) - activities completed

• survey results &

• site-specific comments (critical issues)

Site history & “critical issues”interesting & useful

… a form of PD

Reports are mixture of...



links)

Partner reports contain very interesting feedback... comments (critical issues)

“self-governance & empowerment of fishers ”

“women’s participation day-by-day”

Can we develop PD to check this?



links)

Can this review of “critical issues” be systematic & consistent?

Does the new case study format do this?

Will these case studies cover relations with 2o stakeholders?



Current CBFM-2 documentationCollected data at National level (project

coordinators)Reporting in all projects consists of...from partners reports

(coverage, sanctuaries, committees)

project management (budgets, timing,

personnel)

problems encountered & future needs

future activities / overall strategies

Achievements

Technical update

Issues

Next stages



coordinators)

PD is important because it would help identify...

Next stages future activities / overall strategies

Issues problems encountered & future needs

which help develop..



coordinators)

Most of this information relates to local and interface (partner) aspects….


Is there a need to formalise self-monitoring...?


• policy dialogue with DoF & MoL etc.

Part 4. Summary

It is helpful to view CBFM-2 as 4 inter-linked nodes….

WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets

Each has log-frame responsibilities

useful to know the way carried out…..”PROCESS”

or formal activities & procedure

Part 4. Summary

WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets

local level most complex & interesting regarding process..

Many stakeholders and patterns of interaction

7 basic committee models

Part 4. Summary

WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets

We listed the main activities & responsibilities…

and some potential important processes

Part 4. Summary

WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets

Also listed some types of information collected & reported…

..can PD build on existing monitoring….?

case study reports, diaries & “critical issues”

Part 4. Discussion issuesLocal Issues:

Do diaries & record books provide us understanding of these issues?

Does the new case study format cover these issues

evaluating and reporting?Interface Issues:

Can this review of “critical issues” be systematic & consistent?

Does the new case study format do this?

Will these case studies cover relations with 2o stakeholders?Issues for discussion:

Is there a need to formalise self-monitoring...?


• policy dialogue with DoF & MoL etc.

Stakeholders, indicators, methods

Part 5.

WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets


To document processes we need to consult these groups & those they interact with

Listing stakeholders for PD

Stakeholder groups depend on scale examined

Starting at the local level & focussing on group/committee processes...

Non-targets

NGO Partners &

DoF


Advisory Committee?

VOsVOs

VOs VOs

Stakeholders, indicators, methodsListing stakeholders for PD



Non-target 1o stakeholders

non-participating

fishers, labourers, share-croppers, women

Village Organisation members

male fisher groups

credit groups

♀ & ♂/♀ groups



Resource Management Committee members

depending on model…?

fishers, women, Union officals, kua owners, NGO staff, DoF staff

Advisory Committee members

representatives from RMC, elite, Local Government (Union & Upazilla officials)



NGO partners & DoF staff

facilitating staff, representatives of committees

(local NGO partners, DoF trainers,TFO, UFO?)

The final stakeholders interacting with the RMCs..

Union Member

s

NGO Partners &

DoF

Advisory Committee?

UNO UFO

Upazilla &

District

Moving to the interface…examining LG interaction with CBFM-2


Moving to the interface…examining LG interaction with CBFM-2


Union / Upazilla / District level officials

UP and Upazilla officials interacting with committees and project staff (UP Chairmen & members, UNO etc.)

District level officials concerned with fisheries sector at project sites (NFMP?)

NGO Partners & local DoF

DoFMoL

WorldFish &

DFID

Dampara, MACH etc

Vietnam

Moving to the national level…


Moving to the national level…


DoF staff in Dhaka

CBFM-2 coordinator, other DoF staff linking with WorldFish

MoL staff

staff linked with CBFM-2 issues (revenue / transfers)

WorldFish & others

project managers with advocacy/policy-forming role

donors (DFID) with interest in change

Moving to the national / international level…


Other project coordinators - nationally/internationally

MACH, Dampara coordinators

SSEA coordinators

Stakeholders, indicators, methodsSuggested Indicators / Criteria for PD

Appropriate indicators depend on...

The purpose of PD

To document progress relating to attainment of project goals & activities only

OR

to document project performance relating to general criteria

Case Study

2“institutions study”

Projects can achieve goals, but

fail in respect to “good practice”


In the case of CBFM-2

a co-management project with interests in integrated floodplain policy

• Establishment of sustainable local NRM institutions

• Local collective action for sustainable management

• Empowerment of the poor (fishers)In turn, these will relate to general good practice…

• high levels of participation

• transparency in institutions

• empowerment of women


In the case of CBFM-2

There are commonalities between criteria for project success & widely held good

practice

especially, local institutional issues

These issues / activities hardest to track & quantify…

more technical activities (fish sanctuaries, training and credit) are currently evaluated by no. actions

taken etc.

Concentrating on criteria for institutional documentation...

As are technical aspects of groups/committees


WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets


WorldFish & DoF

Partner NGOs

RMCs


targets

We lack knowledge of local processes..

We know no. groups & members but not how they change

We know detail of other activities (training, surveys, credit etc.)



targets

• Level of understanding of project

• Perceived usefulness project activities

• Project-induced conflict?

• Project-related consensus &

• Level of participation & representation?


RMCs

• Transparency - understanding of decision-making, elections

• Perceived power balance (bias or consensus)

• Consensus & action? - agreement reached / activities taken

• Perceived support/role of NGO, DoF and LG &

• Level of participation & representation?


Partner NGOs

• Input to RMC plans (how facilitated / directed?)

• Group & RMC formation process (pre-defined vs self-elected)

• Consensus & action? - agreement reached / activities taken

• Perceived relations with other partners, DoF and LG &

• Perceived level of stakeholder participation & representation

With respect to Union & Upazilla GO and DoF...

• Attitude to CBFM - issues and suggestions &

• Level of engagement & understanding


Difficult to document policy process

WorldFish & DoF

• Linkage with policy-formers over time

no. events (workshops, meetings,) with national GOs

level of support by GO personnel

• Policy influence (policy changes attributable to CBFM)

• Knowledge transfer with other projects

evidence of use of CBFM experience & vice versa

• Change in CBFM-DoF relationship & role

staffing/responsibilities

PD here will emphasise national-level activities

Stakeholders, indicators, methodsSuggested Methods

Complementing existing surveys & reporting

“Can current record-keeping be expanded to incorporate process or new surveys required?”

Suggestion:

local representatives from each stakeholder group to maintain diary of progress….

Information type pre-defined…

categorised by issue in order to gauge…

transparency, understanding, level of participation etc.


Self-completion formats

Advantages

• less disruptive

• able to track trends better than one-off surveys

• independence from reviewer’s wishes

• less reliance on field-staff

Disadvantages

• sampling issue (how representative?)

• impartial & honest? (motive for response)

• formalising what should be informal feedback?

• practicalities (literacy, identifying representative etc.)


Previous experience from

….gauges process via attitudinal survey

Case Study

2

Case Study

1 &

limitations

its value

• respondents are not impartial…. have own interests..

• responses may be exaggerated or biased

• respondents have imperfect knowledge

• attitudes (perception) will influence performance

• increases our awareness of real concerns & local issues

• stakeholder opinion is not widely sought


Attitudinal survey would be useful for PD in CBFM-2

As discussed…

• current survey documents technical achievements / events

• need to gauge stability & functioning of arrangementsPD of consensus building (PAPD) can help in this

respect

• Interest in institution (VO/RMC)

• Understanding of .. .. …

• Engagement in .. .. …

• Appreciation of .. .. …

• Community knowledge of .. .. ...


Depends on local CBFM approach to groups...

Approach 3.

Specifically targeting women and women-oriented issues & groups via PAPD

Approach 2.

Group formation of representative stakeholders & planning and RMC design via PAPD

Approach 1.

Group formation of male fishers for training / credit & formation of RMC


Approach 1.

Group formation of male fishers for training / credit & formation of RMC

Modifying PD of PAPD….









• Envisioned future plans Neighbour survey










• Envisioned future plans

Approach 2.

Group formation of representative stakeholders & planning and RMC design via PAPD

Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD….

Neighbour survey







• Provide inclusive solutions ?


• Be self-organising ?

• Envisioned future plans

Suggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD….

Approach 3.

Specifically targeting women and women-oriented issues & groups via PAPD

Neighbour survey

Stakeholders, indicators, methodsSuggested Methods Modifying PD of PAPD….

In each project area, take a sub-sample of VOs and RMCs

Neighbours

Facilitators


VOsVOs

VOs VOs

Interviews with 3 staff?

Questionnaire with 25% neighbours?

Questionnaire with 25% participants?

Stakeholders, indicators, methodsSuggested Methods Modifying institutional survey

Conduct questionnaire survey with sub-samples of participants

Participants (primary stakeholders)

Checklist:

Questions related to community indicators..

unity

honesty

decision-making

attention to poor

delivery

frequency of interaction

Is the RMC agreed on purpose etc.?

Does RMC represent community fairly?

Does RMC always choose best way?

Which stakeholders benefit most?

How often does RMC enact decisions?

How do you interact with RMC?


Understand roles, responsibilities and interaction with other stakeholders at each

project level

Semi-structured interviews with 3-4 RMC members at each site

Checklist:

Important power issues (conflict or consensus)?

Discuss procedure of decision-making, election?

Any improvements?

Effectiveness of CBO & project?

RMC members


Local Project Staff (coordinating officers and trainers)

Semi-structured interviews with 3-4 staff at each site

Checklist:

Interaction with primary stakeholders & how often?

Nature & purpose of this interaction?

Which groups involved?

How is status of project communicated?


Moving to National & Policy PD

Likely to be self-monitored by coordinators

• workshops & documents published

• training modules completed

• international cross-visits

Annual Reports currently document relevant issues...

Possible to set these achievements to timelines to show trends

Documenting advocacy and policy influence is problematic...


Moving to National & Policy PD










Difficult to document policy process

WorldFish & DoF









PD here will emphasise national-level activities

Analysing & Interpreting Feedback

Part 6.


Case Study

2

Case Study

1 &Experience

from

shows...Criteria (indicators) allow attitudinal and qualitative feedback to be tallied and discussed

non-participants,

participants,

committee members,

project staff

All provide input and opinion about projects & activities


Case Study

2

Case Study

1 &However….

also show...

Attitudinal data must be discussed in context

special attributes of project site

• activities

• site history

• key issues

and not in isolation TRIANGULATION

Analysing & Interpreting FeedbackCase Study

1An example of site-specific commentary of PAPD...

“The finaldiscussion wasrelevant to ..”


Fishers 4 8 8

Farmers 2 7 4

All stakeholders 6 4 2

Landless /poor - - 2

Women - - -

The landless stakeholder group was cited at Diksi where the issue of khasland

redistribution was prominent…respondents at Posna seemed to perceive greater

community-wide value…whereas opinion at Kathuria & Diksi were skewed towards

fishers….this may reflect the skill of facilitators to demonstrate linkages..

(experience).

Explain feedback in context


If criteria / indicators are well chosen… ..interesting issues should

reveal themselves

In a large-scale co-management project (CBFM-2) with a range of activities, sites, stakeholder groups………

responses and perception will vary and help build a contextual “picture” of processes

PD feedback can shape case study reporting…….highlighting “critical issues”

Documents

Process Documentation