Docstoc

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (DOC)

Document Sample
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (DOC) Powered By Docstoc
					  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

        Rural Institutions and Participation Service (SDAR)




                        Auto-Evaluation



Promotion of Participatory Approaches and Methods to
   Support Food Security and Rural Development

               Programme Entity 253A4




                     Rome, April 2006
                                      Acknowledgements



The Evaluation Team wishes to express its gratitude to all persons contacted who provided
information, opinions and recommendations.




                                                                                            2
                                  Auto-Evaluation of PE 253A4

                                        Table of contents




Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

1.    Introduction

2.    Process and Methodology

3.    Main Findings
3.1   Participation Mainstreaming
3.2   Review of selected activities
3.3   Programme Entity Planning and Decision Making
3.4   Monitoring and Evaluation

4.    Conclusions and Recommendations




Annexes

Annex 1.     Terms of Reference of the AE
Annex 2.     Persons Contacted
Annex 3.     Desk-study and PE elements
Annex 4.     Issues and Questions
Annex 5.     Work Plan




                                                                3
                               List of abbreviations

AE       Auto-Evaluation
BS       Brainstorming Session
ET       Evaluation Team
FAO      Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAOR     FAO Representative
FO       Forestry Department
DRM      Disaster Risk Management
LF       Logical Framework
LFA      Logical Framework Approach
LSP      Livelihood Support Programme
MTP      Medium Term Plan
NGO      Non-Governmental Organization
OOA      Objective-Oriented Approach
PNWM     Participatory and Negotiated Watershed Management
PBEE     Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation-Evaluation Service
PC       Programme Committee
PCM      Project Cycle Management
PER      Programme Evaluation Report
POA      Process-Oriented Approach
REGREP   Regional Representative
SPFS     Special Programme for Food Security
TF       Trust Fund
TO       Technical Officer
TOR      Terms of Reference
UNDP     United Nations Development Programme




                                                                         4
Executive Summary

The programme entity 253A4 (PE) was initiated in 2000 with the overall objective of sensitizing FAO units
and member countries in integrating participatory approaches into their programmes with emphasis on the
Special Programme for Food Security. The programme entity was designed to promote the extensive use of
in-house coordinating mechanisms on participation, the preparation of training materials, the convening of
an inter-agency Consultation on Operationalizing the use of Participatory Methods to support Sustainable
Livelihoods (the “Siena Forum”) funded by extra-budgetary resources, and the organization of regional
workshops, with participation of SPFS country teams. As follow-up to the “Siena Forum” the programme
entity contributed to launching the inter-departmental Livelihood Support Programme (supported by extra-
budgetary funds) which is undertaking a variety of activities including institutional learning from
experience, cultural dimensions of livelihoods, access to resources (especially land), participation in
decision-making processes, income diversification, conflict management, and mainstreaming of livelihood
approaches, analysis and methods in investment projects.

This Auto-evaluation process was carried out as a participatory analysis by the Evaluation Team and the
SDAR Technical Officers (TOs) . The chief of SDAR attended relevant events such as the Focus Groups and
the Final Workshop1. The ET contacted stakeholders in FAO and outside FAO in order to collect
information and exchange opinions and perceptions. The following tools were used: i) Desk-study and
Preliminary Workshop. A desk-study was carried out to collect basic documentation on the PE and on
activities identified by the TOs. A preliminary workshop with the technical officers was held to identify the
outcomes of different activities undertaken through the PE as well as the set of overarching issues and
questions for the Auto-Evaluation. A number of key documents from the PE were also reviewed as part of an
in-depth analysis. ii) Brainstorming Sessions. The brainstorming sessions were organised every month with
the TOs in order to analyse the work-in-progress of the auto-evaluation. iii) Focus Groups. Two focus
groups were organised. The first addressed issues of Planning, Decision making, Human Resources and
Monitoring. The second one was used to discuss Participation including the Livelihood Support Programme
and the Participation Web Site. iv) Individual interviews. The individual interviews were carried out with
TOs, SDAR Officers (not related to the PE) and other FAO Officers in headquarters. V)Telephone interviews
and e-mail interviews. These tools were used to contact stakeholders outside FAO HQs including FAO
regional and sub-regional officers and partners in recipient Countries.

The auto-evaluation was initiated on July 20th and concluded with a workshop to discuss the preliminary
results on 7 December2005.

Conclusions and recommendations.

It is noted that this PE represented a relatively small PE among the 4 PEs undertaken by SDAR, with average
non-staff resources of $ 83, 600 per year, compared with $184, 133 for the largest PE (253A2) which dealt
with institutional capacity-building. The resources devoted to all the PEs in SDAR fell steadily over the
three biennia, reflecting the fall in funding for FAO’s Regular Programme throughout this period. This PE
also complemented the work undertaken in 253A2 and, in an attempt to further streamline programmes in the
future, the 2 PEs (253A2 and 253A4) were merged into a new PE 253A6 for the Medium Term Plan period
2006-11 with the title “Enhanced Rural Institutions, Extension and Participatory Processes for Sustainable
Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD)”. Under the FAO Reform proposals, this new PE will become
3GA02 “Participatory processes for sustainable rural livelihoods”.

Participation Mainstreaming

Conclusions. Both positive aspects and constraints were found. Positive aspects are: i) SDAR
contributed both to the production and diffusion of guidelines; ii) participatory methods have been

1
 Jennie Dey de Pryck, Chief of SDAR. TO: S. Baas, J. Johnson, J. Bonnal, B. Seiffert, E. Crowley. ET: Constance
Neely, facilitator, Massimo Rossi, Analyst, Ana Guerrero, Evaluation Assistant.

                                                                                                                  5
mainstreamed in field projects, in particular during the initial programme/project phases
(assessment and planning using PRA tools); iii) Livelihoods assessment (community profiles and
diagnoses of household livelihood strategies) are the more recent comprehensive approaches used
and promoted by the PE; iv) the FAO Participation Website contains a good compendium of
participatory methods and tools and the number of visitors continues to grow; v) the methodology
RED-IFO developed by SDAR contributed to the analysis of the relationship between processes of
participation and decentralization. Constraints are: i) insufficient focus on promoting participatory
processes in developing country rural institutions and helping them to apply participatory tools; ii)
insufficient focus in identifying criteria on participation. It is recommended: i) enlarge the concept
of participation towards partnership, which would imply the shift of focus from enhancing
participatory methods and tools and their application towards the promotion and guidance of
participatory multi-stakeholder processes on subject matter related issues, including in particular
cross sectoral issues); ii) revisit the methodology on stakeholder appraisal focused on assessing
participatory processes; iii) strengthen normative work on participatory processes within and
among institutions (assess degree and quality of participation, timing at which participatory
processes are most useful, costs and benefits, how to handle conflicts); iv) produce, ideally in
collaboration with PBE Guidelines on Institutional Processes and Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation; v) diffuse the mentioned aspects through the Participation Website.


Livelihood Support Programme

Conclusions. This Programme is viewed as continuing the thread of participation across the
house in a very positive sense and even bringing in new people. The interdepartmental aspect is
very positive because this programme contributed to overcome bureaucratic barriers and there is
much inter-departmental collaboration. The programme places a strong emphasis on learning from
its efforts in terms of substance, process, and methods. It is recommended: In the last 14 months of
the LSP programme remaining at the time of this report, the LSP’s most useful contribution in the
context of its interaction with SDAR and the successor of 253A4 be a) support to the re-organisation
and rejuvenation of the inter-departmental Informal Working Group on Participatory Processes
(successor to the LHOO PAIA and the LSP) for which SDAR/ 3GA02 has accepted lead
responsibility, and b) integration of livelihoods perspectives and people-centred processes into
FAO’s re-organisation through SDAR/ LSP inputs to the Food Security, Nutrition, and Livelihoods
“cluster” and other appropriate windows of re-organisational opportunity.


Disaster Risk Management

 Conclusions. All interviewees underlined only positive aspects of this programme, such as the
following: i) inputs from SDAR concerning research methodology and participatory methods; ii)
the aim and success in assisting rural communities and national institutions to put in place their
own mechanisms for better preparing for/coping with disasters; iii) the contribution to the
reinforcement of FAO interdepartmental cooperation. It is recommended: i) that DRM be an area
of focus for the Programme Entity with a focus on building the capacity and setting up institutional
mechanisms; ii) continue the link to the PAIA Rehab which provides an opportunity to attract more
interdisciplinary efforts; iii) broaden the engagement of SDAR technical officers working on this
effort; and iv) further link DRM to livelihoods as it focuses on local institutions with a livelihoods
approach.

The Participation Website


                                                                                                    6
Conclusions. Based on the recommendations made by the 2003 Evaluation, the Website has
undergone a series of improvements. Visits to the Website continue to increase. In fact, 2005 is
proving to be a record breaking year for visits to the Website: between January and September
2005 alone there were 68,559 visits. There are several constraints : i) very limited financial and
human resources; ii) the “Interact” aspect planned as a forum for contacts and discussion did not
work as planned. It is recommended: i) to continue maintaining the website and further improve its
interactive part, initiating a short survey among newsletter readers assessing why they do not post
their lessons learned, etc. as basis for redirection) ii) create a new section “Help Desk” (using CD
ROM); iii) include the website in a communication strategy to diffuse normative work including the
recommended Guidelines on Institutional Processes and Participatory Evaluation.




                                                                                                  7
1.      Introduction

Auto-evaluations in FAO

In September 1999, the FAO Programme Committee (PC), at its 82nd Session, approved the
Secretariat’s proposals for a New Evaluation System (NES)2.

In November 2001, the purpose of evaluation was outlined in a Director-General’s bulletin:
“Evaluation is both a management and accountability tool. Evaluation should serve several
purposes: i) to catalyse improvements in overall planning, selection and design of programmes; ii)
to support management decision-making for in-course correction and improved execution; iii) to
provide input to management decisions regarding the future of programmes (e.g. their extension, re-
orientation or termination); iv) to provide organizational learning by highlighting lessons and
issues; v) to contribute to enhanced management accountability and transparency, including
reporting to Government Bodies and other stakeholders”3.

In September 2004, the purpose, institutional arrangements and methodology of Major Evaluations
were presented in a specific document4.

Auto-evaluations (AE) are a relevant part of the NES. In fact, NES marked “a shift in emphasis to
more independent policy-oriented evaluation, with less emphasis on the evaluation of individual
small programmes. Evaluation of individual programmes has been addressed through the
introduction of auto-evaluation by managers, with an input of external expertise and the continued
arrangements for independent evaluation of extra-budgetary activities.”5A number of auto-
evaluations have been and continue to be carried out every year at Division level.


Participatory Approaches

Participatory approaches, due to the failure of top-down development, become an important
stimulus for fostering economic and social development and can significantly assist countries and
projects in addressing major obstacles to improved food security and rural development.
“Participation in development” is a process of active involvement of all stakeholders in the
identification, formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development strategies,
policies, programmes and projects. There is a need to ensure “ownership” by the various categories
of stakeholders in order to ensure equitable access to resources and benefits related to project
implementation. In addition to the rural men, women and youth, supported by their own
organisations (i.e.. community based organisations, farmer organisations, cooperatives and self help
groups), stakeholders include non-governmental organisations, local institutions, government
institutions at all levels, bilateral and multilateral donors, private sector and financial institutions,
amongst others.

Participatory approaches should ensure that small farmers, vulnerable sectors of the population and
the rural poor are more fully involved in the planning, implementation and monitoring of

2
  FAO, September 1999, Evaluation in the context of the Strategic Framework and the new Programme Model, PC 82/4,
Rome.
3
  FAO, November 2001, Strengthening the FAO Evaluation System, director-general’s bulletin 2001/33, page 1.
4
  FAO, September 2004, Approach to Major Evaluations in FAO of Strategies, Themes, Institutional Performance and
Programmes, www.fao.org.pbee.
5
  FAO, September 2004, Approach to Major Evaluations in FAO of Strategies, Themes, Institutional Performance and
Programmes, page 4.

                                                                                                               8
development programmes affecting them. New institutional environments are emerging in
developing countries both in response to and in turn further demand the introduction of innovative,
more participatory approaches, methods and tools to facilitate the delivery of development services
through decentralized public, private or civil society organizations. Such approaches also serve the
needs of FAO’s SPFS and other priority technical cooperation programmes which require effective
use of methods and tools to facilitate a more proactive participation of the intended beneficiaries.
FAO’s policy advisory services at national and regional levels also benefit from recourse to
participatory approaches tailored to different policy levels.

The Programme Entity (PE) 253A4 was initiated in 2000 with the overall objective of sensitizing
FAO units and member countries in integrating participatory approaches into their programmes
with emphasis on the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS).

The PE was designed to promote the extensive use of in-house coordinating mechanisms on
participation, the preparation of training materials, the convening of an Interagency Consultation,
(FAO, IFAD, WFP, UNDP, DFID and CARE International) on Operationalizing the use of
Participatory Methods to support Sustainable Livelihoods (the “Siena Forum”) funded by extra-
budgetary resources, and the organization of regional workshops, with participation of SPFS
country teams. As follow-up to the “Siena Forum” the PE contributed to launching the inter-
departmental Livelihood Support Programme-LSP (2001-2007, supported by extra-budgetary
funds) which is undertaking a variety of activities including institutional learning from experience,
cultural dimensions of livelihoods, access to resources (especially land), participation in decision-
making processes, livelihoods diversification, natural resource conflict management, and
mainstreaming of livelihood approaches, analysis and methods in FAO’s field programme. Another
emerging thrust of focus under the programme element was the preparation of a concept paper and
nine country case studies on the role of local institutions in disaster prevention or in rehabilitation
which will form the basis of further work. Profiles of the livelihood systems and causes of
vulnerability were also undertaken in collaboration with the FAO-Netherlands Partnership
Programme (FNPP). Supportive activities consist in the establishment of an electronic information
centre through the Participation Website consolidating FAO’s expertise on participatory approaches
for agricultural and rural development, the maintenance of the FAO Participation website including
an annotated inventory of FAO normative work on participatory approaches and field-level
activities that use participatory methods, and the issuance of a CD-ROM covering a selection of 215
FAO publications on participatory approaches to agricultural and rural development.

The objectives and major outputs defined per biennium for the period 2000-2005 are presented in
the Table 1.




                                                                                                     9
      Table 1 PE: Biannual Objectives and Major Outputs

      Biennial Objectives                                    Major outputs

                                   2000-2001
To     facilitate mainstreaming   of     331.     Mechanisms      improving     and    developing
participatory approaches in national     participatory approaches for delivering the FAO field
food security and rural development      Programme
programs and FAO’s own programmes        332. Analysis and evaluation of employing participatory
and projects.                            approaches and methods in delivering the FAO Field
                                         Programme
                                         333. Design of capacity building process and methods to
                                         mainstream use of participatory approaches
                                   2002-2003
To promote adoption and use in 001 - Inter-disciplinary applications of participatory
countries of improved participatory approaches and methods for sustainable rural livelihoods
methods and tools in the formulation of and more equitable access to resources
policies and programmes for the
equitable sharing of economic growth 002 - Identification and dissemination of appropriate
and the development benefits.            indicators to assess the degree and quality of
                                         participation in rural development and food security
                                         projects and programmes
                                         003 - Dissemination and exchange of information on the
                                         use of participatory methods
                                             Expanded scope and user services of participation
                                              website (IV 2003)
                                             Regularly updated website on participation (IV
                                              2003)
                                   2004-2005
Programmes and projects, funded by 001 - Inter-disciplinary application of participatory
national governments and international approaches and methods for sustainable rural livelihoods
development agencies, aimed at food and more equitable access to resources
security, sustainable use of natural 002 – Regionally and culturally appropriate indicators
resources and rural development, adopt and methodologies field tested and refined
and/or       implement      appropriate 003 – Dissemination and exchange of information in the
participatory methods and sustainable use of participatory methods
livelihood approaches; FAO’s normative 004 – Capacity building, institutional learning and
outputs      incorporate    sustainable enhanced methodologies for sustainable livelihoods
livelihoods approaches and methods.      approaches in inter-departmental and cross-sectoral
                                         FAO’s normative and field activities. (This major output
                                         is where the Livelihood Support Programme, “LSP”
                                         [GCP/INT/803/UK] finds its home).




                                                                                                    10
Non Staff Resources (°)

                     A4                   A2                  P1                           S1
2000                 87.4                 243.4               135.0                        n/a
2001                 92.2                 246.4               122                          n/a
2002                 63.4                 169.4               122.2                        n/a
2003                 129.4                151.9               110.1                        54.2
2004                 72.0                 159.7               43.1                         33.5
2005                 57.2                 134.0               30.0                         32.0
(°) Consultants, contracts, general operating expenses, publications


The Terms of Reference (TOR) of this auto-evaluation of the PE 253A4 are presented in Annex I.

It should be noted that the auto-evaluation was initiated prior to the release of the Director
General’s reform proposal. The reform process required an unexpected and heavy demand on the
time of the Technical Officers (TOs). Bearing these in mind, the TOs associated with 253A4 were
committed to the auto-evaluation process and felt that it was an important effort with or without the
reform process.


2.      Process and methodology

This AE process was carried out as a participatory analysis by the Evaluation Team (ET) and the
SDAR TOs . The chief of SDAR attended relevant events such as the Focus Groups and the Final
Workshop6. The ET contacted stakeholders in FAO and outside FAO (a list of the persons contacted
is provided in Annex 2).

In order to collect information and exchange opinions and perceptions the following tools were
used:
i)     Desk-study and Preliminary Workshop. A desk-study was carried out to collect basic
       documentation on the PE and on activities identified by the TOs. A preliminary workshop
       with the technical officers was held to identify the outcomes of different activities
       undertaken through the PE as well as the set of overarching issues and questions for the
       Auto-Evaluation (Annex 4). A number of key documents from the PE were also reviewed
       as part of an in-depth analysis. A list of the information collected and documents reviewed
       is provided in Annex 3.
ii)    Brainstorming Sessions. The Brainstorming Sessions (BS) were organised every month
       with the TOs in order to analyse the work-in-progress of the auto-evaluation.
iii)   Focus Groups. Two Focus Groups (FGs) were organised. The first addressed issues of
       Planning, Decision making, Human Resources and Monitoring. The second one was used to
       discuss Participation including the Livelihood Support Programme and the Participation
       Web Site. Methodologies, issues and questions for these are provided in Annex 4.
iv)    Individual interviews. The Individual Interviews (II) were carried out with TOs, SDAR
       Officers (not related to the PE) and other FAO Officers in headquarters.
v)     Telephone interviews and e-mail interviews. These tools were used to contact
       stakeholders outside FAO HQsincluding FAO regional and subregional officers and partners
       in recipient Countries.

6
 Jennie Dey de Pryck, Chief of SDAR. TO: Stephan Baas, Jean Bonnal, Eve Crowley, Jan Johnson, Bernd Seiffert,
ET: Constance Neely, Facilitator, Massimo Rossi, Analyst, Ana Guerrero, Evaluation Assistant.

                                                                                                                11
The TOs have considered the following for the auto-evaluation analysis:

i)     Major horizontal issues (Participation Mainstreaming, PE and Decision Making, Monitoring
       and Evaluation, and
ii)    A selected number of activities identified by the TOs which were planned to be carried
forward as part of the FAO reform process in the new PE Participatory Processes for Sustainable
Rural Livelihoods.

The auto-evaluation was initiated on July 20th and concluded with a workshop to discuss the
preliminary results on 7 December 2005.


3. Main Findings


3.1    Participation Mainstreaming

SDAR and in particular the PE played a major role during the period 2000-2005 in the
mainstreaming of participatory approaches within and outside FAO. While the SDAR efforts have
been formidable, there is still a strong feeling that FAO needs further work on participation. There
is a general consensus that methods and tools are available, however it is still contended that a large
number of FAO officers do not know how to apply them in their field projects beyond the
assessment and design stage.

Positive aspects and constraints were identified.

Positive aspects

i)     Key among the successful elements is that of the development and mainstreaming of
       participatory methodologies particularly as applied to the initial phases of field projects
       (assessment and planning using PRA tools). During the last fifteen years, the FAO
       interdepartmental groups (PRA network and Working Group on Participatory Approaches
       and Methods to promote Sustainable Livelihoods and Food Security (IWG-PA) and a
       variety of projects/programs (including LSP) contributed to the diffusion of participatory
       diagnostic methods.

ii)    The TOs have identified two categories of experiences related to promoting participatory
       processes in institutions: the first is related to promoting participatory processes among
       stakeholders representing different institutions (see examples given in section § 3.2 on
       Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and the Honduras Lempira Sur project). A second
       category is related to promoting participatory processes among stakeholders within a single
       institution (see section § 3.2 for references to the Tunisia and Morocco projects: Programme
       de Conservation des Eaux et du Sal dans les Gouvernarats de Kaironan, Siliana et Zaghouan
       GCP-TUN-028-ITA and Projet pilote d’aménagement des bassins versants - MOR/93/010) .
       However, these experiences indicate that this is a crucial, very fruitful and yet somewhat
       neglected line of study and technical assistance and that there is a need to give rather greater
       attention to institutional aspects in the future.




                                                                                                    12
ii)      The Participation Website is a good compendium of tools whose visitors continue to grow.
         All actors contacted underlined the excellent design and positive use of the Participation
         Website (see § 3.5 ).

iii)     An interviewee said : “The SARD Initiative is putting participation into practice - and is
         teaching us about understanding rules of the game, transaction costs, power relationships,
         communications required, and respecting autonomy among others”.

iv)      FAO (and SDAR in particular) contributed both to the production and diffusion of
         guidelines 7 and to the application at field level of participatory diagnosis during the nineties

7
 1990-1999
Chambers R. , 1992, Diagnostic participatif: hier, aujourd’hui et demain, Arbres, forets et Communautés rurales,
bulletin n° 1, FAO, Rome.

FAO-Investment Center, 1992, Sociological analysis in agricultural investment project design, Technical paper 9,
Rome.

D’Arcy, David Case, 1992, The community toolbox. The idea, methods and tools for participatory assessment,
monitoring and evaluation in community forestry, community foresty field manual 2, FAO, Rome.

FAO, 1995, Participation et risques d’exclusion, Participation populaire 9, Rural Institutions and Participation Service,
Rome.

Hizem H. , juin 1995, Projet de guide méthodologique d’approche participative dans le domaine de la conservation des
eaux et du sol en Tunisie, Ministère de l’Agriculture-Direction de la C.E.S., Projet PNUD/FAO/TUN/92/001, Tunis

Fé d’Ostiani L. and Warren P. 1996, Steps towards a participatory and integrated watershed management (prepared
by), Project GCP/INT/542/ITA, FAO, Tunis.

Bonnal J., Rossi M. (Principal Authors), 1996, Guidelines for Participatory Constraints Analysis at Community and Farm
Household Level (SPFS/DOC/17), FAO, Rome..

Wilde V. (Principal Author), 1998, Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis Programme (SEAGA), Field Level
Handbook, FAO, Rome.



2000-2005

Project GCP/INT/542/ITA, La planification participative dans le basin versant de l’Oued Sbaihya, Tunisie document
de terrain 9, Ministère de l’Agriculture, Tunis, 2000.

FAO (based on the works of. Rossi M and. Natarajan M), December 2000, Participatory Diagnosis of Constraints and
Opportunities at community level related to soil and plant nutrient management, AGL/MISC/30/2000, Land and Water
Development Division ,Rome.

FAO, 2001, Guide technique: Gestion du cycle de projet, ASEG-Programme d’analyse socio-économique selon le
genre, Rome.

Messer N., and Townsley P, 2003, Local institutions and livelihoods: Guidelines for analysis, Rural Institutions and
Participation Service, FAO, Rome.

Marsh, Robin, 2003, Working with local institutions to support sustainable livelihoods, Rural Institutions and
Participation Service, FAO, Rome.

Carloni, Alice, 2005, Rapid Guide for Missions. Analysing local institutions and livelihoods. Rural Institutions and
Participation Service,, Rome.


                                                                                                                       13
      and during the period 2000-2005, where the present auto-evaluation is more focused. Over
      time the “basket” of participatory tools became more and more consolidated and organised
      by different approaches within the family of Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) and
      applied during many phases of the project cycle, in particular during the identification and
      formulation phases. Livelihoods assessment (community profiles and diagnoses of
      household livelihood strategies) have also enriched this work in recent years.

v)    Special Programme on Food Security (SPFS). TOs outside SDAR referred to the very
      positive support received by SDAR TOs in developing a pro poor community fund
      mechanism and group savings approach in Cambodia and strengthening the participatory
      institutional aspects in the Indonesia SPFS. In Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo
      and Laos a Livelihoods Assessment was carried out with the support of LSP. The SPFS
      identified the utility of the recommendations for the re-orientation of the SPFS presented by
      the external evaluation of the programme, as the following: i) to improve targeting; ii) to
      strengthen participatory approaches; iii) to reinforce the programme’s monitoring and
      evaluation system.

vi)   The methodology Régionalisation et Différenciation -Information, Formation, Organisation
      (RED-IFO) developed by SDAR contributed to the analysis of the relationship between
      participation and decentralization processes. A Training Handbook presenting these aspects
      is currently being edited.


Constraints to Mainstreaming

i)    Insufficient focus in identifying criteria for monitoring the type and impacts of participatory
      processes was found in various activities (see the § 3.4 ).

ii)   Participatory methods and tools are getting more and more mainstreamed. During the
      biennium 2000/01 A4 had actively earmarked resources to contribute to staff training on
      participatory methods, which however ceased later due to lack of resources. According to
      some interviewees there is still a strong need to organise internal training at HQ. Some
      interviewees, as in FAORAF, declared that in the vast majority of field activities people do
      not yet know well how to apply participatory approaches. Therefore there is a felt need for
      continued training and technical assistance to be provided by international and national
      specialists and thus a revitalization of a training output. While the development of the
      normative product (training material) would need to be done and funded by SDAR, the cost
      of its delivering to field staff and consultants (e.g. in FAOR, SPFS, Emergency
      Coordination Units etc.) could and should be funded by the concerned unit or field
      programmes, using trainers that SDAR would have trained and under SDAR technical
      supervision. In order better target training to internal audiences, specific, more tailor made
      training materials should be prepared by SDAR such as for TC Staff who tend to work
      under tight deadlines and severe administrative constraints and who cannot be expected to
      design and implement the best participatory projects ever. But if SDAR come to them with
      more, simple and practical tools for participatory design, implementation and evaluation of
      FAO field projects, TC might be highly interested.




                                                                                                  14
iii)   The Community Forestry Unit was abolished and “this is a step backwards” in FAO as one
       interviewee underlined since it suggests that Management is less supportive of participatory
       approaches. The loss of an “ally” also weakened SDAR’s efforts to promote mainstreaming
       of participatory processes.




3.2    Review of selected activities


Disaster Risk Management

As part of the commitment of the Rural Development Division (SDA) and in particular of the Rural
Institutions and Participation Service (SDAR), Natural Disaster Risk Management (NDRM)
became a key area for work within the Programme Entity 253A4. Main activities were the
development of a series of case studies and a subsequent workshop on Strengthening the Role of
Local Institutions in Disaster Risk Management FAO HQ, March 2004). As an output of the
workshop, an indicative cross departmental programme on DRM was initiated together with the
PAIA Rehab.

All interviewees underscored the positive aspects of this programme and specifically pointed out
the excellent support of the responsible TOs. Affiliated officers recognized the intellectual
leadership, facilitation and championing that SDAR has undertaken with regards to NDRM.

A pioneer approach was introduced, using participatory methods in a sensitive environment, such
as that of pastoralists and providing technical assistance for institutional strengthening. In
particular, in Mongolia, FAO is considered a “leading force”, as declared by a TO and confirmed
by the national authorities. NDRM was defined as a new and promising approach for FAO by an
interviewed person:

“A completely new perspective that was missing as previously FAO has concentrated primarily on
relief after the disaster. Exceptions are work on animal and plant pests including locusts but some
of the attempts in these programmes were constrained by the need for large scale funding that often
is not available until after the disaster – e.g. the locust outbreak last year was foreseen by the
technical staff but the funding was not available till the locust problem was very serious and was
widely publicized by the press. What is interesting and special about the NDRM work is that it
attempts to assist rural communities to put in place their own mechanisms for better preparing
for/coping with disasters, so that they do not have to wait passively for outside assistance which is
often slow in arriving. The results in some countries supported by FAO/SDAR – e.g. the Honduras
projects, show that the communities are now much more resilient to disasters, feel less vulnerable
and confident that they can cope, and have responded much more effectively and in a timely
manner to disasters. The link between disaster management and development is made more
explicit and meaningful in this SDAR-sponsored work, and the initiatives taken for NDRM in such
communities can flow over into promoting more effective community-led development too.

The contribution to the reinforcement of FAO interdepartmental cooperation. In fact, SDAR’s
NDRM Technical Cooperation Programme (TCPs) projects (Mongolia, Bangladesh, China) played
a pivotal role in the development of NDRM conceptual and practical guidelines. SDAR then
launched the organisation of the March 2004 Workshop on DRM where 8 case studies were
presented and discussed. A Concept Note was produced, proposing, inter alia, the creation of an

                                                                                                  15
interdepartmental programme, the present NDRM in Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. All persons
contacted referred to this interdepartmental cooperation and underlined the positive role of SDAR’s
own technical NDRM programme in developing this more comprehensive and multi-disciplinary
inter-departmental programme.

The LSP has been providing financial support, to the preparation of the inter-departmental Natural
Disaster Risk Management programme in FAO, an excellent example of productive interactions
between SDAR, the LSP, and the REHAB PAIA.

From external partners, the Center for International Agricultural Development (CIAD) and the
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), it was noted that SDAR greatly contributed
“to development of the research concept and introducion of new research methodologies, which
greatly enhanced the research competency of the CIAD Team”8. Pointing to the experience in
Bangladesh, the UNOPS officers stated, “There is a Climate Change project in Bangladesh which
has collaboration from FAO. There is support from 2 FAO officers….. Collaboration has been very
positive. The SDAR TO is very competent and shows a lot of interest in this work and the project.
The project is so successful that they are going to expand it to 3 other regions”.

The World Bank interest. The World Bank requested that the FAO support through the Investment
Center the formulation of a World Bank five year Sustainable Livelihood Project project for
Mongolia which includes one major component (US $6 million) on NDRM. This project has built
on the SDAR-supported TCP that assisted in the design of a pastoralist risk management strategy.
The World Bank project, with its considerably great resources, has adopted several of the
recommendations of the TCP.

Finally, SDAR was invited to give a major presentation to the Permanent Representatives on its
NDRM programme in early December 2005. This further underscored its value and raised its
visibility in terms of future funding opportunities.


The Livelihood Support Programme

Some Background
The Livelihoods Support Programme (LSP), a DFID funded programme, was initiated at the end of
2001. It is an important outcome of the Siena Forum, a workshop held in 2000 with FAO, WFP,
IFAD, UNDP, CARE International, and DFID participants, and organized by FAO’s
Interdepartmental Working Group Participatory Approaches (IWG-PA) which was coordinated by
SDAR in collaboration with other concerned FAO units. The PE A4 provided the lead technical
support and the SDAR Service Chief acted as budget holder9. After the Siena Forum, SDAR also

8
  E-mail interview Managing Director of the Center for Integrated Agricultural Development (CIAD) China
Agricultural University.
9
  An informal association of technical staff interested in participatory approaches, the “PRA network”, was organised
by FAO officers in 1989, and was quite active for over a decade. SDAR was an important patron of this informal
working group along with AGSF and Community Forestry. A decade later, in 1999, SDAR, ESAF and the Community
Forestry programme established the Interdepartmental Working Group on Participatory Approaches and Methods to
promote Sustainable Livelihoods and Food Security (IWG-PA). The original aim of this IWG-PA was to carry out
certain specific objectives of the founding Services with the assistance of a twenty member inter-departmental working
group drawn largely from members of the PRA-Network. With the active support of the service chiefs, however, the
IWG-PA quickly expanded its membership to over 100 officers and evolved into 4-6 FAO-wide thematic interest
groups which focussed on specific themes. One of these interest groups was the team behind the design and
implementation of the above-mentioned Siena Forum, and subsequently took a leading role in the design of what
eventually became the LSP. Much of the active membership of the IWG-PA eventually transformed into active

                                                                                                                   16
coordinated the preparation of the LSP project document and assisted in the formulation of four of
the LSP’s subprojects, namely “Participatory Policy Reform”, “Capacity Building and training”
“Institutional Learning” and “Natural Resource Conflict Management”. SDAR has hosted the
programme since it became operational. The LSP has afforded an opportunity for officers to work
in an inclusive, integrated and informal way on a number of interlinked issues related to the
promotion and operationalization of livelihood approaches and perspectives as well as participatory
processes within FAO and beyond. The programme has a strong emphasis on learning from its
efforts in terms of substance, process, and methods. The LSP underwent a Mid-Term Review
during 200410. In addition, the LSP sub-programmes have undergone peer reviews during 2004 and
2005 and the programme as whole reviews progress annually. It was therefore decided that with
respect to the LSP the present auto-evaluation would focus on its interface and interaction with the
service SDAR, rather than on the LSP’s wide-ranging inter-departmental aspects.



Relationships with SDAR and the Division
The views of SDAR staff members regarding the LSP have varied both through time and with
respect to the individuals concerned.

One clear point of view was that “the LSP is an institutionalized mechanism that allows for cross-
departmental collaboration. It brings money to the department. Officers choose to be a part of it.
This mechanism could be an alternative or complement to the PAIAs because it works; it’s well
organized.” The LSP started off its life with four of SDAR’s professional staff members heavily
involved with LSP activities.

Some other SDAR staff members, however, did not feel so positive about the LSP, particularly in
the beginning. These staff members felt that in its early phase the LSP was ambitious and
dogmatic, pushing Anglophone concepts and terminology of “livelihoods” which may not fit very
well in other cultural contexts. They also felt that certain ideas and subjects for publications had
been appropriated by the LSP. One staff member noted that LSP in its earlier period had focussed
on the production of a number of very technical papers on specific livelihoods issues, rather than
focussing on “concrete outputs for a wider audience”. Those who were critical of the LSP in its
early phase however, have generally agreed that things have changed. Currently there is more
interaction and it is more open. It serves as a platform for dialogue and for interaction with the
various regular programme activities of the SDAR officers. Most (but not all) of the SDAR staff
members critical of the LSP’s early phase are now active contributing members of one or more of
the LSP’s sub-programmes. Several interviewees also noted that some SDAA officers have aligned
their work with LSP in a favourable way.

The issue of the cultural dimensions of “livelihoods” concepts had in fact been flagged at Siena, and
as a result a sub-programme had been set up within the LSP to review the complementary
approaches such as “gestion de terroirs”. The term “livelihoods” is now widely used by Member
Governments in Governing Body meetings and the Director-General has named a new PE
“Participatory Processes for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods” (3G) in his Reform proposals. This is
the PE that most SDAR officers will work on from 2006.


members of the LSP, with the result that the IWG-PA has essentially been replaced by the LSP in a kind of evolutionary
transformation.


10
     See Livelihoods Support Programme Mid Term Participatory Review Report – November 2004.

                                                                                                                   17
The LSP has a clear mandate to influence FAO which can in turn influence field efforts and
outcomes. A voice from the region noted that “Implementation of LSP was very participatory,
including evaluation.” Some colleagues felt that the LSP has helped to deliver concrete results in
the field. Within SDAR, some examples of field projects which have benefitted from specific LSP
interaction and assistance are rural development projects in Honduras, Argentina and Mozambique.

“The LSP is considered helpful in Honduras as the project funding was finished before the project
outputs were fully completed and many loose ends were left. The LSP has helped pick these up and
systematise the learning generated by the project. Such an approach really needs to be
institutionalised within FAO if it is to be taken seriously as a knowledge organization.”

In Argentina, building on the success of a recently-completed TCP project, the LSP successfully
supported the participatory design of an enlarged watershed investment project. Unfortunately this
proposal has not yet been funded because of conflicting interests at the national level.

The LSP organised a mission to Mozambique in 2002 with SDAR participation to identify possible
LSP actions there. Follow-up to this mission in Mozambique culminated in a series of LSP-
commissioned studies of the activities and lessons of six different projects in Mozambique (most
but not all of them FAO) with respect to local participation in the formation and implementation of
policy. These results then formed the basis for a national workshop of these six projects (co-
sponsored by the LSP and three collaborating FAO Services – including SDAR - and the FAOR),
plus relevant government agencies to see what best practices they could learn from each other and
subsequently apply in their own project areas.

Within the FAO
Officers external to the Division felt that there were some key areas that are being expanded
through the LSP – such as approaching emergencies from a livelihoods perspective - noting
particularly the LSP’s significant training investment with interested FAO staff and Services. “The
LSP has been a predominant force.” The organizational structure of the LSP with its horizontal
inter-sectoral teams has been viewed positively as it has improved the capacity for challenges to be
faced through the multidisciplinary approach. It also reflects a flexible structure which can provide
the experimental space for evolving towards improved effectiveness. It was noted that the FAO
Reform Process initiatives are using inter-departmental mechanisms very similar to those which the
LSP has made familiar to many in FAO.



The Participation Website

The Participation Website (http://www.fao.org/participation/) was established in 1999 by the
Informal Working Group on Participatory Approaches and Methods to Support Sustainable
Livelihoods and Food Security (IWG-PA). The goal of the Task Group was to capitalize on FAO's
most successful normative and field experiences with participatory approaches and methods
through their adaptation, replication and dissemination, in order to enhance FAO's field programme.

An internal evaluation of the Participation Website was carried out between June and September
2003 with the overall objective of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the website’s services,
to serve as a basis for the improvement of the site11.

11
  The main findings were the following:
 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PARTICIPATION WEBSITE: The site is well known and there is an increasing
  number of users. The overall amount of hits, from May 2001 to July 2003, was approximately 1.3 million. People

                                                                                                             18
As a result of this internal evaluation, the Website’s most frequently used sections were identified
and have been constantly updated. To date, the Participation Website offers:

   652 titles in the Library database with links to their online versions as well as document specific
    links to the Corporate Document Repository, the FAO Sales Catalogue and the FAO Publications
    Catalogue.
   159 participatory methods, approaches and tools
   9 Lessons Learned articles
   links to 155 websites and 37 organizations
   Q&A service which responds to email queries

Based on the recommendations made by the internal evaluation team, the Website has undergone a
series of improvements:
    - Website development activities have focused on those sections for which the highest
        demand was expressed: Library, Field Tools, Lessons Learned and the Links database.
        These sections are constantly being updated with new material.
    - The English, Spanish and French and Arabic versions were updated
    - A new section on Sustainable Livelihoods was added to the English, Spanish and French
        versions
    - A resource CD-ROM with the Website’s most popular methods, approaches, tools and
        publications was printed; over 2000 copies have been distributed to 995 different individuals
        and organizations worldwide. The CD-ROM can be used even where there is no Internet
        connection.
    - A quarterly newsletter is produced in English, French and Spanish and distributed via email
        to currently 873 recipients to keep them informed of the Website’s latest resources. The
        newsletter is also available in the Website’s News section.
    - A database of Website users has been created in order to monitor Website related activities.
        Currently there are 1190 contacts in the Access database.
    - To this day, some 675 Websites provide links to the Participation Website12
    - A new website promotion brochure has just been produced in four official languages. The
        purpose of the brochure is to increase Website visibility and to motivate Website users to
        contribute their Lessons Learned, tools and recommended publications.

Visits to the Website continue to increase. In fact, 2005 is proving to be a record breaking year for
visits to the Website: between January and September 2005 alone there have been 68,559 visits. So
far, 2004 had been the year with the most visits, a total of 69,545. The monthly average of visits to
the Website for 2005 is 7618, an increase of 24% compared to the previous year.


   from all over the world visit the website, especially people working for international organizations, NGOs,
   educational organizations and governmental institutions.
 USABILITY: THE PARTICIPATION WEBSITE IS REGULARLY USED by researchers, people working for
   training providers or field staff from multilateral organizations, governmental and non-governmental organizations,
   and a wide range of programmes and projects throughout the world.
 PERCEIVED VALUE: THE PARTICIPATION WEBSITE IS PERCEIVED AS USEFUL AND RELEVANT as it
   offers a detailed annotated bibliographical database of FAO publications or other publications available in FAO
   Rome, dealing with participatory topics; a collection of participatory field tools, methods and approaches developed
   or applied by FAO and other organizations; a database with links to websites and organizations working in the field
   of participation in development issues.
 COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE: The FAO Participation Website brings together the rich experiences of the
   different FAO departments, focusing on the nexus where approaches to participation in development, sustainable
   livelihoods, agriculture and food security come together.
12
   Result of a Google search conducted on 2 November 2005 (links: www.fao.org/participation)

                                                                                                                    19
There are several constraints that limit the growth of the Website. Mainly, the Website has limited
financial and human resources: currently, the Website team consists of one part-time co-ordinating
officer and a part-time consultant. The “interact” aspect planned as a forum for contacts and
discussion did not work out as planned, as was underlined by a SDAR TO. A main constraint for
the Website visibility has been the removal of the link from the FAO Website’s home page and it
has to be accessed in a circuitous way through SD-Dimensions.


Other Field Projects directly linked to the normative work under PE A4

Improving Nutrition and Household food Security in Northern Shoa and Southern Zone of Tigray,
Ethiopia (GCP/ETH/060/BEL).

The Nutrition Officer contacted expressed his satisfaction on the contribution of SDAR to the
preparatory PRA, project design and training. The methodology and impact of this project is
considered so relevant that the methodology was applied to other countries (Mozambique,
Cambodia).

The Community Action Planning (CAP) methodology was appreciated by the Ethiopian
Agricultural Extension Department and the project is currently modifying the CAP guidelines
developed by SDAR to adapt them for wider uptake beyond the project areas. The CAP
methodology has already been used by the Government of Ethiopia in a number of other woredas to
operationalize other Food Security/Rural Development Programmes (e.g. World Bank funded).

Programme de Conservation des Eaux et du Sal dans les Gouvernarats de Kaironan, Siliana et
Zaghouen (GCP-TUN-028-ITA) and Projet pilote d’aménagement des bassins versants
(MOR/93/010)

Both projects reinforced, in Tunisia and in Morocco, the Participatory and Negociated Watershed
Management (PNWM). In the two countries, SDAR has been supporting PNWM, through various
projects, since the early nineties. In Tunisia, for example SDAR supported, before the present one,
the following: the Inter-regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and Development
(Bolivia, Burundi, Nepal, Pakistan) and Tunisia-GCP/INT/542/ITA and PNUD/FAO/TUN/92/001
which also dealt with participatory approaches to land conservation.

The major methodological support provided by SDAR was focused on:
i)    institutional constraints analysis;
ii)   identification of socio-spatial units. The spatial units were called Analysis and Planning
      Units during the implementation of GCP/INT/542/ITA and later on Socio-Territorial Units
      by the project GCP-TUN-028-ITA. In both cases the units represent limited spatial
      dimensions meaningful to the local actors, identified through various criteria, and used for
      zoning, planning and managing the projects.
iii)  Detailed phases and steps in participatory planning.

The project GCP-TUN-028-ITA is a very positive example of cooperation between two
departments (SDAR and AGL).

The field tested approach of these projects led to the production of specific guidelines under PE A4.



                                                                                                  20
Project Lempira sur (GCP/HON/028/NET)

The project constitutes a follow-up of a series of five projects in Lempira Sur, Honduras, supported
(since 1990) by the Government of Netherlands. All the TOs contacted defined the project as a
success thanks to:
    i)     the territorial approach based on participatory watershed management;
    ii)    the institutional strengthening in particular at commune level;
    iii)   the attention to risks, related to the “appropriation by the elites”, during the
           decentralization process
    iv)    the recent application of the livelihoods approach by LSP.

A constraint was identified in the insufficient exchange between FAO projects with a similar focus
on participatory watershed management. In fact, it was noted that little interaction was realised
between this project and the Inter-regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and
Development (Bolivia, Burundi, Nepal, Pakistan), and Tunisia-GCP/INT/542/ITA.

It is worth noting that in both the final phase and subsequent to the official closure of the project the
LSP has been and continues to provide technical and financial inputs to assist in documenting the
lessons learned and to prepare an analytical history and description of the Lempira Sur series of
projects which will serve to explain the lessons and methods of the approaches used to a global
audience.


Cooperation FAO-SECALINE en alimentation et nutrition (UTF/MAG/071/MAG)

This project in Madagascar is a positive and fruitful example of cooperation between departments.
Both the TOs from SDAR and from the Nutrition Division expressed their satisfaction both on the
methodology and on the results of this project.

It carried out an analysis at District level as a first step, and later participatory diagnoses on food
and nutrition were realised at local level. The following phases were related to testing of food
production/processing/storing activities and to capitalization of the experience in cooperation with
other projects.

The final phase concerned the production of guidelines: Guide référentiel sur l’alimentation et
l’agriculture à Madagascar (GRAAM). A CDROM was also produced.




3.3 Programme Entity Planning and Decision Making


Evolution of the PE

The title of the PE 253A4 changed over the six years of implementation. Its first title was :
“Participatory Approaches and Methods to support Sustainable Livelihoods and Food Security” 13.

13
     FAO, Medium Term Plan 2002-2007, Rome, page 145.

                                                                                                      21
The title of the PE changed in a planning document in 2004 14 into its second title: “Participatory
Approaches and Methods to support Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) to
enhance Livelihoods and Food Security”. This title is confirmed in another 2004 planning
document15 and in a 2005 planning document16. The concept of SARD was added as SDAR had
been assigned the function of task manager for SARD in mid 2001 and, following the considerable
contribution to the 2002 Johannesburg Conference, was actively engaged in follow-up of SARD.
Only in the second 2005 planning document, the Medium Term Plan 2006-2011, it is finally
explained that “Although the title of the entity changed, there has been no substantive change in its
formulation” 17.

The evolution of concepts and titles in the PE thus reflected changes over the period, as new
functions were allocated. The rolling nature of the planning process is designed to facilitate this.


PE Planning and Decision making

Programme Entity Planning takes place in participatory brainstorming meetings, in the context of
divisional and service level strategic planning meetings, as well as in small groups of concerned
TOs. The selected objectives and activities reflect member country demand, as evidenced by the
statements in the reports of governing body meetings, and country requests for field project
assistance. Taking account the available biannual budget envelopes, agreement is reached between
the TOs and Service Chief on priorities and the final set of activities. The final draft programme is
then submitted to the Director for approval.

In spite of the planning procedures in place, one TO felt that sometimes “we do not have the full
vision of the (evolving) PE”. One TO referred to the positive aspect of “freedom” related to the
bottom-up planning approach, but admitted that sometimes it is difficult to properly monitor the
implementation of activities

3.4 Areas for future improvements

Lack of sufficient quantifications: The TOs identified insufficient quantification including indicators
related to the following concerns: Objectives, Major Outputs and Outputs , Also the narratives were
perceived as often being rather vague. However, this is deliberate as the PWB planning process
takes place so far in advance that the narratives have to be couched in general terms in order to
allow for flexibility to later shape the PE in the light of the actual priorities and demand from
countries at the time of implementation. PE indicators are defined only in the 5 years planning
context. The integral development of improved quantifications and indicators will facilitate both
planning and monitoring of activity implementation.

Better linking group structures and content responsibilities: During the first BS with the TOs, one
participant said: “We never met as a PE group before this meeting” and “No formal group/team
relationship exists between these persons and PE”. This aspect was confirmed by the other
participants during this meeting and later on in the individual interviews. During the FG 1 the
Service chief confirmed that they meet as a service and discuss RP planning and implementation
inter alia, or meet as sub-teams concerned with planning and implementation components of the PE,

14
   FAO, Programme of Work and Budget 2000-2001, Rome, page 197.
15
   FAO, Adjustments to Programme of Work and Budget2004-2005, Rome, 2004,page 102.
16
   FAO, Committee on Agriculture, Medium TermPlan 2006-11, Rome, April 2005, page 93.
17
   FAO, Medium Term Plan 2006-2011, Rome, 2005, page 125.

                                                                                                    22
but not as a group related to planning and management of the entire PE. The establishment of
temporary working groups under PEs (rather than crosscutting PEs) was as seen as one way of
strengthening the consistency of PEs in the future. Another way, actually chosen by SDAR, was to
merge A4 with A2 so that these complementary programmes could be dealt with more coherently at
the service level.


Normative development of criteria for participation: The PE did not succeed in the area of criteria
development; The PWB 2000-2001 indicates the following methodological and promotional
activities: “The identification of indicators for assessing and monitoring the degree and quality of
participation in projects and programmes with attention to equity and sustainability aspects” 18 This
issue concerning the relevance of criteria was no longer considered as an output in the Biennial
objective 2000-2001. It turned into Output 002 related to the Biannual Objective 2002-2003:
“Identification and dissemination of appropriate indicators to assess the degree and quality of
participation in rural development and food security projects and programmes”. The previous PWB
reference to equity and sustainability aspects is lost. The following activities, related to the above
mentioned Output 002, and more generally to criteria development, failed or are in difficulty:

i)      The Indian Treaty Project. During Focus Group 1 it was observed that the work was not
well done by the contracted organization and as it would have required a huge amount of work to
bring it up to a satisfactory standard, “We had not the time needed to follow up properly so we
preferred to close the Indian Treaty project”.

ii)     The activity on Hill tribes was completed, but the results have not yet been used, as planned,
for identifying indicators due to the addition of unplanned activities by Senior Management.

iii)   Finally, the activity “Critical reflection on lessons learned in the evolution of participatory
approaches” (Biennial Objective 2004-2005, Major output 1), including best practices from
beneficiary Monitoring and Evaluation was cancelled due to new assignments given and lack of
time available to undertake this work.

The AE assessed that the insufficient focus and success in developing indicators is related to the
following factors:

i)     In general, indicators are insufficient in the FAO official planning documents and so the
focus also slipped in PE A4 19
ii)    Criteria and indicators on participation are hard to identify and difficult to use for objective
measurement
iii)   The more updated Logical Framework Approach (LFA) methodology is used in some
SDAR projects but is too elaborate for a small PE such as A4.20.

18
   FAO, Programme of Work and Budget 2000-2001, Rome, 2000, page 196.
FAO, Medium Term Plan 2006-2011, Rome, 2005,
19
   The only “indicators” (in fact, only parameters) that were found in MTP or PWB are the following:
    - “Interest in the information generated (number of “hits”, requests, etc.).
    - Uptake of methodologies and outreach of training components” (FAO, Medium Term Plan 2002-2007, Rome,
        page 146)
20
   There are references to LFA in the Methodological notes of PER 1996-1997 and of PER 1998-1999. These
Methodological notes, including references to LFA, are no longer presented in the two last PERs (2001 and 2003).
Reference is made to LFA and to logical causality in the Approach to Major Evaluations document 20.
The LFA is not applied to TCP projects and it is partially applied to Trust Funds projects.


                                                                                                             23
4.     Conclusions and recommendations

It is noted that this PE represented a relatively small PE among the 4 PEs undertaken by SDAR,
with average non-staff resources of $ 83, 600 per year, compared with $184, 133 for the largest PE
(253A2) which dealt with institutional capacity-building. The resources devoted to all the PEs in
SDAR fell steadily over the three biennia, reflecting the fall in funding for FAO’s Regular
Programme throughout this period. This PE also complemented the work undertaken in 253A2
and, in an attempt to further streamline programmes in the future, the 2 PEs (253A2 and 253A4) were
merged into a new PE 253A6 for the Medium Term Plan period 2006-11 with the title “Enhanced Rural
Institutions, Extension and Participatory Processes for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development (SARD)”. Under the FAO Reform proposals, this new PE will become 3GA02
“Participatory processes for sustainable rural livelihoods”.

Participation Mainstreaming

Conclusions. Both positive aspects and constraints were found. Positive aspects are: i) SDAR
contributed both to the production and diffusion of guidelines; ii) participatory methods have been
mainstreamed in field projects, in particular during the initial programme/project phases
(assessment and planning using PRA tools); iii) Livelihoods assessment (community profiles and
diagnoses of household livelihood strategies) are the more recent comprehensive approaches used
and promoted by the PE; iv) the FAO Participation Website contains a good compendium of
participatory methods and tools and the number of visitors continues to grow; v) the methodology
RED-IFO developed by SDAR contributed to the analysis of the relationship between processes of
participation and decentralization. Constraints are: i) insufficient focus on promoting participatory
processes in developing country rural institutions and helping them to apply participatory tools; ii)
insufficient focus in identifying criteria on participation. It is recommended: i) enlarge the concept
of participation towards partnership, which would imply the shift of focus from enhancing
participatory methods and tools and their application towards the promotion and guidance of
participatory multi-stakeholder processes on subject matter related issues, including in particular
cross sectoral issues);; ii) revisit the methodology on stakeholder appraisal focused on assessing
participatory processes; iii) strengthen normative work on participatory processes within and
among institutions (assess degree and quality of participation, timing at which participatory
processes are most useful, costs and benefits, how to handle conflicts); iv) produce , ideally in
collaboration with PBE Guidelines on Institutional Processes and Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation; v) subject to the availability of resources revitalize a staff training programme on
participation ideally through AFHO; vi) diffuse the mentioned aspects through the Participation
Website.


Livelihood Support Programme

Conclusions. This Programme is viewed as continuing the thread of participation across the
house in a very positive sense and even bringing in new people. The interdepartmental aspect is
very positive because this programme contributed to overcome bureaucratic barriers and there is
much inter-departmental collaboration. The programme places a strong emphasis on learning from
its efforts in terms of substance, process, and methods. It is recommended: In the last 14 months
of the LSP programme remaining at the time of this report, the LSP’s most useful contribution in



                                                                                                   24
the context of its interaction with SDAR and the successor of 253A4 would be a) support to the re-
organisation and rejuvenation of the inter-departmental Informal Working Group on Participatory
Processes (successor to the LHOO PAIA and the LSP) for which SDAR/ 3GA02 has accepted lead
responsibility, and b) integration of livelihoods perspectives and people-centred processes into
FAO’s re-organisation through SDAR/ LSP inputs to the Food Security, Nutrition, and Livelihoods
“cluster” and other appropriate windows of re-organisational opportunity.

Disaster Risk Management

 Conclusions. All interviewees underlined only positive aspects of this programme, such as the
following: i) inputs from SDAR concerning research methodology and participatory methods; ii)
the aim and success in assisting rural communities and national institutions to put in place their own
mechanisms for better preparing for/coping with disasters; iii) the contribution to the reinforcement
of FAO interdepartmental cooperation. It is recommended: i) that DRM be an area of focus for the
Programme Entity with a focus on building the capacity and setting up institutional mechanisms; ii)
continue the link to the PAIA Rehab which provides an opportunity to attract more interdisciplinary
efforts; iii) broaden the engagement of SDAR technical officers working on this effort; and iv)
further link DRM to livelihoods as it focuses on local institutions with a livelihoods approach.

The Participation Website

Conclusions. Based on the recommendations made by the 2003 Evaluation, the Website has
undergone a series of improvements. Visits to the Website continue to increase. In fact, 2005 is
proving to be a record breaking year for visits to the Website: between January and September 2005
alone there were 68,559 visits. There are several constraints: i) very limited financial and human
resources; ii) the “Interact” aspect planned as a forum for contacts and discussion did not work as
planned. It is recommended: i) to continue maintaining the website and further improve its
interactive part, initiating a short survey among newsletter readers assessing why they do not post
their lessons learned, etc. as basis for redirection) ii) create a new section “Help Desk” (using CD
ROM); iii) include the website in a communication strategy to diffuse normative work including the
recommended Guidelines on Institutional Processes and Participatory Evaluation.

PE Planning and Monitoring

Conclusions. Both positive aspects and constraints were found. Positive aspects are: i) Programme
Entity Planning takes place in participatory brainstorming meetings, in the context of a divisional or
service level strategic planning meetings, as well as small groups of concerned T0s; ii) the selected
objectives and activities reflect member country demand. Constraints are: i) while evolving nature
of the MTP process enable divisions/services to adapt the programmes to met new demands, it is
hard to monitor; ii) Objectives and Outputs are often not quantified, and narratives remain vague in
order to provide flexibility to respond to evolving country demands. It is recommended: i) would
be easier in the future to have 4 year PE (not 6 as now) and built these as a unit, not two blocks of 2
years, or even each year. SDAR could then benefit from a more uniform programme planning
process, and development of indicators for monitoring, ii) increase the clarity and specificity
(quality and quantity) of objectives and outputs of the PE, as well as the primary users of the work.




                                                                                                    25
Annex 1. Terms of Reference for the AutoEvaluation

Promotion of Participatory Approaches and Methods to support Food Security
                           and Rural Development
                                  (253A4)
                      TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AUTO-EVALUATION
                                      May 2005


A.    Introduction.

      Participatory approaches and methods have become an important stimulus for fostering
      economic and social development and can significantly assist countries and projects in
      addressing major obstacles to improved food security and rural development.

      “Participation in development” is a process of equitable and active involvement of all
      stakeholders in the identification, formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
      of development strategies, policies, programmes and projects. In addition to the rural men,
      women and youth, supported by their own organisations (i.e.. community based
      organisations, farmer organisations, cooperatives and self help groups), stakeholders include
      non-governmental organisations, local institutions, government institutions at all levels,
      bilateral and multilateral donors, private sector and financial institutions, amongst others.

      Participatory approaches should ensure that small farmers, vulnerable sectors of the
      population and the rural poor are more fully involved in the planning, implementation and
      monitoring of development programmes affecting them. New institutional environments are
      emerging in developing countries both in response to and in turn further demand the
      introduction of innovative, more participatory approaches, methods and tools to facilitate the
      delivery of development services through decentralized public, private or civil society
      organizations. Such approaches also serve the needs of FAO’s SPFS and other priority
      technical cooperation programmes which require effective use of methods and tools to
      facilitate a more proactive participation of the intended beneficiaries. FAO’s policy
      advisory services at national and regional levels also benefit from recourse to participatory
      approaches tailored to different policy levels.

      At the same time, it is recognized that people in rural communities are rarely consulted
      about the aims of projects and are often not involved in managing or monitoring their
      implementation. Target beneficiaries are too often assumed to share the same perceptions
      and goals of (usually external) project designers, which is frequently not the case. Results of
      projects based upon this assumption have often been disappointing. FAO has responded to
      this challenge by developing and implementing an impressive number of participatory field
      programmes and projects, with heightened emphasis in the last ten years.

      A second major breakthrough in the last decade has been the growing realisation that
      poverty and hunger will not be solved through a programme/project approach alone. Instead,
      the poor must be actively involved in the decision-making processes, determining policies
      and the institutions through which they can be implemented; they must also decide upon the
      allocation of resources. Active involvement in these decisions would significantly affect the
      ability of the rural poor to ensure their livelihoods in a sustainable manner. This necessitates
      the empowerment of the poor and marginalised groups and requires partnerships, alliances

                                                                                                   26
and dialogue among all stakeholders. FAO has been a pioneer among UN organisations in
fostering this dialogue, inter alia, through the WFS and WFS: fyl processes and their
follow-up.

The end beneficiaries of such participatory process will be male and female farmers, rural
producers and consumers, with an emphasis on increased and more equitable access to
diversified sources of timely information and knowledge that reflects their needs and
priorities. In addition, they should gain access to new channels of communication that may
enable them to influence development decisions.

Background PE 253A4
The programme entity 253A4 was initiated in 2000 with the overall objective of sensitizing
FAO units in integrating participatory approaches into their programmes with emphasis on
the SPFS.

The programme entity was designed to promote the extensive use of in-house coordinating
mechanisms on participation, the preparation of training materials, the convening of a
Headquarters-based (FAO/IFAD/WFP) Consultation on Operationalizing the use of
Participatory Methods to support Sustainable Livelihoods (the “Siena Forum”) funded by
extra-budgetary resources, and the organization of regional workshops, with participation of
SPFS country teams. As follow-up to the “Siena Forum” the programme entity contributed
to launching inter-departmental Livelihood Support Programme (supported by extra-
budgetary funds) which undertook a variety of activities including institutional learning
from experience, cultural dimensions of livelihoods, access to resources (especially land),
participation in decision-making processes, income diversification, conflict management,
and mainstreaming of livelihood approaches, analysis and methods in investment projects.
Another emerging thrust of focus under the programme element was the preparation of a
concept paper and nine country case studies on the role of local institutions in disaster
prevention or in rehabilitation which will form the basis of further work. Profiles of the
livelihood systems and causes of vulnerability were undertaken in collaboration with the
FAO-Netherlands Partnership Programme (FNPP).

Methodological and promotional activities include: the identification of criteria for assessing
and monitoring the degree and quality of participation in projects and programmes with
attention to equity and sustainability aspects and the organization of an electronic
conference on stakeholder analysis and complementary methods to assess the costs and
benefits of participation in diverse types of projects and programmes. Supportive activities
consist in the establishment of an electronic information centre of FAO’s expertise on
participatory approaches for agricultural and rural development, the maintenance of an on-
going annotated inventory of FAO normative work on participatory approaches and field-
level activities that use participatory methods, and the issuance of a CD-ROM covering
FAO’s publications on participatory approaches to agricultural and rural development.

The objectives and major outputs defined per biennium for the period 2000-2005 are
presented in the table below.




                                                                                            27
      Biennial Objectives                                    Major outputs

                                   2000-2001
To     facilitate mainstreaming   of      331.     Mechanisms     improving     and     developing
participatory approaches in national      participatory approaches for delivering the FAO field
food security and rural development       Programme
programs and FAO’s own programmes         332. Analysis and evaluation of employing participatory
and projects.                             approaches and methods in delivering the FAO Field
                                          Programme
                                         333. Design of capacities building process and methods
                                         to mainstream use of participatory approaches
                                   2002-2003
To promote adoption and use in 001 - Inter-disciplinary applications of participatory
countries of improved participatory approaches and methods for sustainable rural livelihoods
methods and tools in the formulation of and more equitable access to resources
policies and programmes for the
equitable sharing of economic growth 002 - Identification and dissemination of appropriate
and the development benefits.            indicators to assess the degree and quality of
                                         participation in rural development and food security
                                         projects and programmes
                                         003 - Dissemination and exchange of information on the
                                         use of participatory methods
                                             Expanded scope and user services of participation
                                              website (IV 2003)
                                             Regularly updated website on participation (IV
                                              2003)
                                   2004-2005
Programmes and projects, funded by 001 - Inter-disciplinary application of participatory
national governments and international approaches and methods for sustainable rural livelihoods
development agencies, aimed at food and more equitable access to resources
security, sustainable use of natural 002 – Regionally and culturally appropriate indicators
resources and rural development, adopt and methodologies field tested and refined
and/or       implement      appropriate 003 – Dissemination and exchange of information in the
participatory methods and sustainable use of participatory methods
livelihood approaches; FAO’s normative 004 – Capacity building, institutional learning and
outputs      incorporate    sustainable enhanced methodologies for sustainable livelihoods
livelihoods approaches and methods.      approaches in inter-departmental and cross-sectoral
                                         FAO’s normative and field activities. (This major output
                                         is where the Livelihood Support Programme, “LSP”
                                         [GCP/INT/803/UK] finds its home).




                                                                                                     28
PE Budget (human and non-human resources)
(All amounts in US$ 000)

     Period       RG Programme of         ZRG Programme of             Revised
                       Work                    Work                 Programme of
                                                                        Work
    2000-2001                -                     872                    -
    2002-2003              1146                   1146                    -
    2004-2005              1087                   1023                  1088

Purpose of the Evaluation

The auto-evaluation is timely because programme entity 253A4 will be closed at the end of
the 2004-05 biennium, on 31 December 2005. Key elements of the PE A4 will be merged
with PE A4 into a new PE A6. The auto-evaluation will therefore provide the opportunity
to:
 review evolution and progress made under 253A4
 assess strengths, weaknesses and potentials of those major outputs coming from the P.E.
    A4 which will be carried forward within the new major thematic areas under the new PE
    A6 starting in 2006. This relates on in particular to the major thematic areas
       o Strengthening of institutional capacities to reduce rural people's vulnerability to
           natural, economic and political shocks, and
       o Inter-disciplinary application of participatory approaches and methods for
           sustainable rural livelihoods

        and to a limited degree also to the thematic areas
        o Support to policies and practices to strengthen the implementation of Sustainable
           Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) and Sustainable Livelihoods
        o Strengthening of rural institutions, including public, producer and community-
           based organizations

   identify any further steps that may be necessary to ensure fulfilment of the programme
    entity’s objectives
   to provide recommendations to the division on further steps necessary to consolidate
    progress and ensure consistent integration of PE achievements under the new PE A6.
   provide guidance in relation to identified problems and emerging issues

Quantitative and qualitative information will be collected in order to validate or re-orient the
activities that have been piloted under these thematic areas, as well as assess their individual
effectiveness and articulation with other components of the P.E. The auto-evaluation will
also review the P.E.’s congruency vis-à-vis current trends in the field of participation and
sustainable livelihoods for food security and rural development, both within other
departments in FAO and at the global level.

Scope and issues of the Evaluation
During the evaluation an appraisal of the overall performance and quality of the programme
entity will be conducted, as well as the adequacy of outputs produced and the relevance of
the programme entity to the needs and priorities of the intended beneficiaries. The auto-
evaluation will assess the P.E’s design, performance as well as evolution since 1999 (last
three biennia), focussing specifically on:


                                                                                             29
a)   Relevance of the programme entity to development priorities and needs of Member
     Nations, including the flexibility of the PE to respond to emerging trends/changing
     priorities;
b)   Clarity, consistency and realism of the programme entity design, including
     specification of inputs, outputs, objectives and outcomes, and of users and
     beneficiaries;
c)   Efficiency of project implementation including: availability of funds and human
     resources as compared with budget; managerial and work efficiency; and
     implementation difficulties;
d)   Value added gained through external institutional relationships, and in the managerial
     and institutional framework for implementation
e)   Results, including a systematic assessment of outputs produced to date (in quantity and
     quality) and progress towards the realization of the programme entity outcomes and
     objective; and prospects for sustaining the results by the targeted users and partners
     after the termination of the programme entity;
f)   Contributions to gender and social equity, in particular contributions to the Gender Plan
     of Action, and contributions to PAIAs;
g)   A review of emerging issues of particular importance to management.

The analysis will cover the history of promoting participation and people centred approaches
since 2000, taking into account the pioneering work carried out by the PPP programme in
the early 1990th the IDWG-PA in the late 1990’s the Participation Website since 2000 and
the LSP since 2002, and will lead to an assessment of current and emerging future issues
related to the promotion and mainstreaming of participatory processes. The evaluation will
assess the technical aspects of the use, applications and the appropriation of participatory,
people centered and sustainable livelihood approaches for development, and if the
orientations on those applications are relevant to SD and other departments of FAO, to the
needs of member countries and other development organizations working at the local and
national level. Has the PE contributed to improving the performance, and outreach of
national food security and rural development programs and FAO’s own programmes and
projects?

A thorough review of the various activities will be carried out. The review will include an
inventory of the activities implemented and will analyse whether the declared outputs were
achieved and whether they are adequate and relevant, in view of the various limitations and
constraints faced. The national and regional activities, especially those initiated with
universities and other institutions, partner NGOs, etc., will be analysed so as to determine
how activities are formulated, planned and implemented and what specific factors can
determine the success and failure of an activity. The auto evaluation will also assess the use
of programme outputs (publications, Web pages, databases, etc.): Questions to be raised
include: Did the activities respond to the requirements of the regions, including language;
did member countries request support for the formulation of appropriate approaches and
methodologies in the field of participation and sustainable livelihood promotion, and if so
how many? Were the methodologies considered relevant by key stakeholders and partners
who have applied them? Are the activities under this PE supporting national and regional
capacities in the use of participatory approaches? Are the capacity building efforts, training
and resource materials designed filling the knowledge gaps? And how are the capacity
needs of the recipients assessed? Are the activities promoting improved efficiency of the
knowledge institutions? Is there a link between normative and field work?



                                                                                           30
     Regarding management and consistency of the programme entity the auto-evaluation will
     assess: How are SDARs activities within this P.E. selected for implementation? Is there a
     formal selection process? Are activities supporting vulnerable groups including
     marginalized farmers, indigenous people, rural women, disabled? Is an analysis carried out
     prior to the formulation process to determine the gender impact? Is there a formal process
     for monitoring and evaluating the impact of such activities? Is the allocation of resources
     done in line with programme priorities and was/is there the capacity for efficiency of
     implementation; were/are adequate human, physical and financial resources available.
     Given     the    limited   human      and    financial   resources     how     could    the
     management/implementation of the PE benefit from the comparative advantage of SDAR
     and FAO vis-à-vis promotion of participatory and sustainable livelihoods approaches? How
     can PE benefit from partnerships within and without FAO, in particular with other UN and
     international development agencies?

     The ways of and the value added through the collaboration of the PE with other partnerships
     in the formulation and implementation of the PE will be studied, including other FAO’s
     technical divisions, Regional offices, and UN and bilateral and multilateral development
     agencies . The review will assess the role that FAO, through the PE, has played in the
     implementation of its activities. Was the organization recognized as an international leader
     in the specific activity? Did other institutions look to FAO as a valuable partner to work
     with? Has the PE generated interest for partnerships and for attracting extra budgetary
     resources?

     Based on the above analysis the evaluators will draw specific conclusions and lessons of
     general interest and make recommendations for any necessary further action by FAO to
     ensure a successful implementation of the programme entity, including opportunities that
     may be grasped and issues that should be resolved. Some success stories, failures, lessons
     learnt, as well as some recommendations should be presented as brief case studies.

     The LSP will not be part of the evaluation per se since it has undergone an extensive
     participatory review in 2004. With regard to the LSP the auto evaluation of PE A4 will
     focus on the links and complementarities between the A4 and the LSP and would assess the
     extent to which the LSP has in fact supported, assisted, and contributed to the specific aims
     of PE A4 and the associated SDAR activities and outcomes. The evaluations of the LSP as a
     whole, for the purposes of this auto-evaluation of PE A4, can be taken from the results of
     this extensive evaluation carried out in 2004.


C.   Evaluation methodology

     The evaluation will be carried out by the officers involved in this PE with the support of a
     facilitator and an evaluation assistant over a period of six weeks between June and
     December 2005.

     The proposed methodology will consider a number of steps as follows:

     a) Desk study and summary of PE activities implemented under each major output. This will
     entail the collection and review of all relevant documentation which will serve as the basis
     for the evaluation. The material will include:

        1. Workshop reports

                                                                                               31
   2. BTORs
   3. Project proposals, terminal reports
   4. Number of projects related to the P.E.
   5. Requests for assistance by member countries
   6. Publications, articles, training modules, Web publishing and fora, etc.
   7. Training activities
   8. Studies and methodologies
   9. Report of Evaluation of Participation Website conducted in 2004
   10. Report of Mid-term Participatory Evaluation of the LSP conducted in 2004,
       including the Peer Reviews of the sub-programmes, and the results of the December
       2004 LSP Annual Meeting.

b) Regular brainstorming sessions between the officers, the facilitator and the evaluation
assistant.

c) Interviews with Headquarters’ technical officers to assess the impact and the
complementarity of the P.E. with other P.E. managed by collaborating FAO divisions. The
interviews will also enable the evaluator to gather views, perceptions and opinions regarding
the way the P.E. has been monitored and implemented. The exercise will be carried out
through semi-structured interviews.

Key resource person interviews with a selected number of in-house and external partners
who collaborated with PE A4 in the design/implementation of selected activities

d) Focus group discussions (telephone) with regional officers. The objective of the
assessment would be to collect feed back, data and information on programme outputs, use
of product and impacts from regional perspectives. The assessment methodology will be
designed in advance by the international consultant in close collaboration with the technical
officers in SD (Headquarters and RO).

e) one day in-depth workshop among A4 team members to conduct analysis of the PE based
on the outcomes of steps a-e; to address key issues using SWOT methodology.

f) Debriefing with Headquarters technical divisions.

g) Drafting of the final evaluation report and recommendations for future activities.

h) Presentation of the evaluation results.




                                                                                             32
D.       Calendar

         Month                                         Activities
       June 2005    Finalise TORs of auto-evaluation and submission to PBEE
                    Recruitment of facilitator and assistant
                    Finalise the work-plan of the evaluation.
                    First brainstorming session

       July 2005 Prepare desk study outline and methodology.
                 Desk study and summary of P.E. activities and outcomes.
                 Design of methodology and tools for the focus groups; identification of
                 focus group participants
                 Periodic brainstorming sessions
       September Conduct focus group
       2005      Analysis of documentations and focus group results; assessment of outputs,
                 outcomes and impact of activities.
                 Periodic brainstorming sessions
       October   Drafting of preliminary report; discussions with technical officers
       2005
       November Final evaluation report
       2005



E.       Budget
                                                                              US $
     Senior facilitator             30 days @ $350                            10500
     DSA                            15 days @ $308                             4620
     Travel                         3 @ $750                                   2250
     Junior evaluation assistant    60 days @ $120                             7200
     GOE                                                                       1000
     Total                                                                    25570

     PBE Contribution                                                         15000
     SDAR Contribution                                                        10570

In addition SDA will contribute with staff time as follows:
      - Staff at Headquarters (4 officers) – 4 m/m
      - Staff at Regional Offices (RAP,RAF, RLA, REU) – 1 m/m




                                                                                              33
Annex 2 – Persons Contacted and Interviews

                                        Date of      Conducted
            Interviewee                interview         by                            Topic
                                                    Ana &
Alice Carloni (personal & email)       19/10/05     Massimo       LSP, Part, DRM
                                                                  LSP, Participation, Manual on use of part
Bernd Seiffert                         13/10/05     Massimo       methods and SLA
                                                                  Participation, handbook on
                                                                  methods/approaches for part processes in
Eve Crowley                                         Constance     Near East; livelihoods vulnerability folder
                                                    Ana &
Federica Battista (personal & email)   30/09/05     Massimo       LSP, DRM
                                                    Ana &
Florence Egal                          30/09/05     Massimo       Part, DRM
                                                                  handbook on methods/approaches for part
Hani, May, RNE Cairo (email)           21/10/05     email         processes in Near East
Hans Bage                                           email         DRM
Ian Cherrett (email)                   21/10/05     email         LSP
Jan Johnson                                         Constance     Part
Jean Bonnal                            12/10/05     Massimo       Part
Jennie Dey-DePryck (personal &
email)                                              Constance     LSP, Part, DRM
                                                    Ana &
Karel Callens                          30/09/05     Massimo       Participation
                                                    Ana &
Kevin Gallagher                        24/10/05     Massimo       Participation
Laura Sciannamonaco                                 email         DRM
Liu Yonggong (CIAD Beijing)                         email         DRM
Mahmud Islam (NPO)                                  email         DRM
                                                                  GCP/ETH/056/BEL: Improving Nutrition
                                                                  and HHFS in Northern Shoa and Southern
Melaku Jirata (email)                  21/10/2005   email         Zone of Tigrray
                                                    Ana &
Olivier Dubois                         13/10/05     Massimo       LSP, Participation
Pamela Pozarny (telephone &
email)                                 19/10/05     Ana           Participation, DRM
                                                    Ana &
Paola Termine                          13/10/05     Massimo       livelihoods vulnerability folder
                                                    Ana &
Paolo Groppo                           26/10/05     Massimo       Part, Budapest workshop
Patrick Jacqueson                                   email         DRM
                                                    Ana
Ralf Ernst (Climate Cell)                           (telephone)   DRM
Richard China                                       email         DRM
Stephan Baas                           30/09/05     Massimo       LSP, Part, DRM, Yemen Training
Sylvie Tourrette (email)               21/10/05     email         Part
                                                    Ana &
Tomas Lindemann                        12/10/05     Massimo       LSP, DRM
                                                    Ana           lessons related to inst capacities for
Wim Polman (telephone)                 19/10/05     (telephone)   disaster and SL




                                                                                                       34
Annex 3 –


Annexe 3A Information collected during the Desk Study

Planning

        Planning: concepts, methods/tools, terminology
        Programmes of work and budget
        PE: evolution
        Indicators
        Requests for assistance (Member countries)
        Other requests (other FAO Departments, other Organizations)
        Internal planning mechanism related to PE 253A (guidelines, meetings, etc)
        Field projects related to PE 253A
        Design of field projects
        Task assignments (activities/persons)
        Budgets


2.       Implementation

        Use/adaptation of planning concepts, methods/tools, terminology)
        Use/adaptation of programmes of work and budget
        Internal management mechanism related to PE 253A (guidelines, meetings, etc)
        Re-planning
        Use of indicators )
        Studies\training activities
        Publications, articles
        Web site
        Field projects related to PE 253A
        Formal internal monitoring
        Task assignments (changes: activities/persons encharged)

3.       Reporting

        Use/adaptation of planning concepts, methods/tools, terminology
        Programme implementation reports
        Workshops reports
        BTORs
        Other internal reporting mechanisms (individual/group)
        Terminal reports
        Use of indicators
        Report to DG on participation
4.       Evaluation

        Use/adaptation of planning concepts, methods/tools, terminology
        Use of indicators
        External evaluations/auto-evaluations
        Evaluation reports
        References to FAO PE by other organizations
        Learning process (formal, informal) )
        Re-planning




                                                                           36
   Annexe 3B Programme Entity 253A4 – Elements and Remarks

         Major outputs                               Outputs                                                            Activities                                             Responsible officer and Remarks
                                                                                                             2000-2001
Biennial Objective: To facilitate mainstreaming of participatory approaches in national food security and rural development programs and FAO’s own programmes and projects.


331. Mechanisms improving and       Output 1: Technical analysis and                Bi-annual progress reports on the IWG-PA and its Task Groups                   Dey/Baas/Marsh/Rouse/Seiffert/Bonnal
developing        participatory     recommendations produced by SDAR on             COMPLETED
approaches for delivering the       Participation                                   Annual IWG-PA progress and planning workshops COMPLETED
FAO field Programme
                                                                                    A set of recommendations on mainstreaming participation in the FAO Field
                                                                                    Programme
                                    Output 2:                                                                                                                       Dey/Marsh/Baas
                                    FAO/IFAD/WFP/UNDP/DFID               Inter-      Electronic discussion COMPLETED                                               This is considered a major achievement of cross-
                                    Agency Forum                                                                                                                    departmental efforts.
                                                                                     Series of 8-10 case studies for Forum COMPLETED
                                                                                     State-of-the-art innovative policy advisory recommendations (Siena
                                                                                        Report?) COMPLETED

                                                                                     Recommendations for strategic follow-up activities COMPLETED
                                                                                     Action plan for taking forward the operationalisation of SL type approaches
                                                                                        through participatory methods COMPLETED

                                                                                       Guidance of forum follow-up process COMPLETED
                                    Output 3: Annotated inventory of FAO               Existing annotated inventory is expanded COMPLETED                          Bonnal/Seiffert
                                    normative  work     on    participatory
                                    approaches                                         Web-based Search & Output templates translated to F & S COMPLETED
                                                                                       Annotated inventory continuously updated COMPLETED
                                                                                       CD-ROM on FAO’s knowledge base on participation COMPLETED in
                                                                                        2003
                                    Output 4: Interactive Participation Website        “About” Section of the Website finalised. COMPLETED                         Bonnal/Crosby/Seiffert
                                    of the IWG PA expanded
                                                                                       First version of “Resources Section” of Website completed COMPLETED
                                                                                       “Interact Section” of Website expanded COMPLETED
                                                                                       “Links Section” of Website expanded COMPLETED
                                                                                       Translation of parts of Website into F, S, & partly Arabic COMPLETED
                                                                                       Website continuously updated COMPLETED
        Major outputs                                  Outputs                                                          Activities                                          Responsible officer and Remarks
                                     NEW Output 5, 2001: 2001-2004                                                                                              Dey/Rouse/Baas
                                     Partnership programme IWG-PA/DFID
                                     “Improving      support    for    enhancing
                                     livelihoods of the rural poor” prepared and
                                     launched                                                                                                                    COMPLETED
                                     NEW Output 6, 2001: Cross sectoral state
                                                                                                                                                                 Baas/Seiffert
                                     of the art assessment and comparative
                                     analysis of participatory approaches to
                                     conflict management in natural resource           comparative analytical desk study (initiated)
                                     management currently applied/ developed                                                                                     Passed on to LSP
                                     in FAO.                                           interdepartmental workshop (not done)
332. Analysis and
employing
                    evaluation of
                     participatory
                                     Output 1: Identification of indicators for
                                     assessing the degree and quality of
                                                                                       Issues paper/funding proposal prepared and included into LSP             Rouse/Baas/AGSF
                                                                                                                                                                 The methodology was tested in east Africa It needed more
                                                                                          COMPLETED
approaches and      methods in       participation in projects and programs, to                                                                                  work but funds and time were not available to follow-up
delivering the      FAO Field        include objectives of equity and                  E-mail conference "Stakeholders appraisal of participatory methods and   (other commitments). Was supposed to be carried on by
Programme                            sustainability    (part    of    conceptual          tools..." COMPLETED                                                    LSP,
                                     framework), on the basis for participatory        Workshop COMPLETED
                                     monitoring.
                                                                                       Evaluation methodology field tested. FIELD TEST EAST AFRICA

                                                                                       Publication of indicators and guidelines
                                     Output 2: CD-ROM of FAO’s knowledge                                                                                         Remark: This output has been moved as intermediate
                                     base on participatory approaches to               COMPLETED                                                                output under to component 331 output 3
                                     agricultural and rural development

                                     Output 3: Electronic conference on                                                                                          Remark: This output has been moved as intermediate
                                     stakeholders analysis and complementary                                                                                     output under to component 332 output 1
                                     methods to assess the costs and benefits of
                                     participation in divers types of participatory
                                     projects and programmes to support food
                                     security and sustainable livelihoods

                                     Output 4: Publication of technical                Draft technical framework on participation                               Bonnal/Rouse/Baas/Marsh
                                     framework on participatory approaches
                                                                                       Synthesis illustrations                                                  DEAD END
                                                                                       Finalization
                                     NEW Output 5: 2001 Develop and field test         indicator development and research design COMPLETED                      Dey/Rouse/Baas
                                     methodological approach for stakeholder
                                     analysis on impacts of participatory
                                     processes
333. Design of capacities            Output 1: Design of decentralised capacity          Needs assessment from different sources analyzed and synthesized       Bonnal/Baas/Marsh/Rouse/Seiffert
building process and methods to      building strategy.
mainstream use of participatory                                                          Decentralized capacity-building strategy designed                      DEAD END
approaches                                                                               Funding proposal prepared
                                     Output 2: Four regional Training of                 Training modules for 4 regional workshops                              Baas/Bonnal/Seiffert
                                     Trainers Workshops for the FAO Field
                                     Programme, all to include regional office                                                                                   Did not happen, insufficient resources
                                     and field staff and SPFS country teams            Regional TOT workshops


                                                                                                                                                                                                                 38
        Major outputs                              Outputs                                                             Activities                                              Responsible officer and Remarks
                                   Output 3: Series of demand driven                  Training events for FAO staff on backstopping                                 Marsh/Rouse/Baas/Seiffert
                                   workshops for FAO staff/management at
                                   HQs and decentralised units                        Training events for FAO staff                                                 Did not happen

                                   NEW output 4, 2001 Practical training
                                                                                                                                                                     Baas
                                   handbook on methods and approaches for
                                   introducing and assisting in participatory
                                   processes of community based natural
                                   resource management in pastoral areas of           design of draft handbook
                                   the NE.                                            final editing (published in En, Ar.) COMPLETED IN 2003
                                   NEW output 5: 2001 Manual on the use of                                                                                           Seiffert
                                   participatory methods and the application
                                   of Sustainable Livelihood Approaches for
                                   appraisal, analysis and planning of
                                   Nutrition and Household Food Security
                                   Interventions.                                     design of first version of Manual (COMPLETED IN 2002)
                                                                                                        2002-2003
    Biennial Objective: To promote adoption and use in countries of improved participatory methods and tools in the formulation of policies and programmes for the equitable sharing of economic growth and the development
                                                                                                              benefits.
                                                                                Participate in lessons-learned stakeholder workshop to be held in Kenya after
001       -     Inter-disciplinary A4001001: Field resource materials on                                                                                               Baas
                                                                                field testing of draft participatory training/teaching material "Savannah livestyles"
applications of participatory      participatory approaches and methods to
                                                                                ; Travel postponed from 2002 COMPLETED
approaches and methods for         promote sustainable rural livelihoods
sustainable rural livelihoods and                                               Finalization of East Africa material; COMPLETED
                                                                                                                                                                       COMPLETED
more equitable access to                                                        The FDR 2002 (for training of teachers) COMPLETED
resources
                                                                                follow-up to prepare adequate material for the Sahel Region with AGPC (staff
                                                                                time) + Mauritania + Himalayas COMPLETED
                                                                                      Develop conceptual framework and methodology and conduct 9 country
                                   A4001002: Case specific guidelines for                                                                                              Baas
                                                                                       case studies in 3 Regions (Africa, Latin America and Asia) to assess and
                                   strengthening local institutional capacities
                                                                                       compare the role, strengths and limitations of local institutions in preventing
                                   for disaster preparedness and prevention
                                                                                       (long term) and preparing (short term) for natural disaster, and in disaster
                                   and long-term SL development in high risk                                                                                           Chengu/Lindemann
                                                                                       response and post-disaster sustainable livelihoods development.
                                   areas.
                                                                                       COMPLETED in 2003                                                               Cherret
                                                                                      Realize lessons learned case studies: 2 in Sub-Saharan Africa and one in LA
                                                                                                                                                                       Pozarny
                                                                                       (Lindeman Cherret) COMPLETED
                                                                                      Additional case studies in West Africa (Pozarny) 2 in LA (Lindeman
                                                                                       Cherret) 2 in Asia. (Baas plus travel) COMPLETED
                                                                                     Comparative analysis workshop possibly in connection with SDA retreat
                                                                                     Implemented in April 2004
                                                                                    Design of action research in complex emergency situations, piggybacking on
                                                                                     existing FAO projects (travel) DEAD END/OVERPLANNING
                                                                                    Report on “The development of Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Indicators for
                                   A4001003: SL based project/programme                                                                                              Baas/Crowley/Polman
                                                                                     Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (to be completed 2003,
                                   proposal focused on institutional capacity
                                                                                     covered under 2002) Int. Indian Treaty Org LoA COMPLETED                        NO FOLLOW UP; DEAD END DUE TO LACK OF
                                   building and livelihoods enhancement of




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      39
        Major outputs                             Outputs                                                           Activities                                            Responsible officer and Remarks
                                  indigenous peoples prepared and submitted                                                                                       TIME/RESOURCES
                                  to donors                                      Stakeholder seminar with IFAD and Indigenous People representatives from 1
                                                                                  region to define project proposal on institutional capacity building and
                                                                                  livelihoods enhancement of indigenous peoples (travel + perdiem; document
                                                                                                                                                                  Did not materialize (limited quality of above)
                                                                                  translation and reproduction) (see also S1001001) RELATED TO
                                                                                  PREVIOUS ACTIVITY

002     -   Identification  and   A4002001:     Regionally and culturally-       CANCELLED                                                                       Baas/ Rouse, Crowley
dissemination of appropriate      appropriate indicators and methodologies
indicators to assess the degree   developed for Asia, Africa, CEE and Latin
and quality of participation in   America regions
rural development and food
security      projects      and   A4002002: Guidelines for the application      Review draft methodology field tested once (by AGSF) and initiate 2nd field      To be implemented through LSP SPs 2.3 and 2.2; staff
programmes                        of the methodology of stakeholder appraisal   testing thereafter;                                                               time; No follow up within LSP as planned
                                  of participatory approaches for local users

003 - Dissemination and           A4003001: Regularly updated Web site on           Lessons learned section updated (new articles; contracts Paloma Vivaldi      Seiffert
exchange of information on the    participation                                      (PV) and Karin Halborg (KH)
                                                                                                                                                                  COMPLETED
use of participatory methods
                                                                                    Library section updated (new documents identified and provided with
                                                                                                                                                                  ONGOING ACTIVITIES EVERY BIENNIUM
    Expanded scope and user                                                         abstracts and keywords and included in database; contract PV and volunteer
      services of participation                                                                                                                                   Report on FAO’s work on participation
      website (IV 2003)                                                             Field tools section updated (new methods included) contract PV and
                                                                                     volunteer
    Regularly updated website
      on     participation (IV                                                      Received e-mails answered and user requests followed up; contract PV
      2003)
                                                                                    News section concept and structure revised and announcements updated;
                                                                                     contracts PV and KH

                                                                                    Selected new materials and website sections translated to French, Spanish
                                                                                     and Arabic languages; contracts translators and PV

                                                                                    Web design and Graphic Design of new and modified sections in French,
                                                                                     Spanish, Arabic and English (contract KH)

                                                                                    New text implemented in HTML format in the English, French, Spanish and
                                                                                     Arabic versions of the website; contract KH

                                                                                    Scanning of new key documents on Participation in Development for
                                                                                     inclusion in Participation Website and FAO Document Repository; contract
                                                                                     through WAICENT

                                                                                Monthly hits statistics reports prepared and disseminated through the
                                                                                Participation Website; contract KH

                                                                                Participation Website Maintenance Manual updated; contract PV and volunteer
                                                                                Detailed Workplan developed for all Participation Website activities in 2002
                                                                                (including co-ordination and monitoring of activities under outputs 01 and 02
                                                                                contract PV and SDAR staff time




                                                                                                                                                                                                                   40
         Major outputs                               Outputs                                                           Activities                                                   Responsible officer and Remarks
                                    A4003002: Expanded scope and user                  Existing Participation Projects database fully integrated into FPMIS (phase    Seiffert
                                    services of participation Web site                  2), additionally covering data entry and maintenance through FPMIS,
                                                                                        instead of SDAR; still subject to approval through ADG TC

                                                                                       CD-Rom on Participation Web site COMPLETED

                                                                                  Draft Sustainable Livelihoods Section modified and expanded; co-funding from
                                                                                  DFID envisaged and SDAR staff time
                                                                                  PR materials produced and disseminated
                                                                                  Sustainable Livelihood Section developed COMPLETED 2004
                                                                                  Participatory Rapid Appraisal PRA self learning course developed
                                                                                  Strategy for collaboration with other organizations (other websites)
                                                                                  COMPLETED
                                                                                  Functionality of field tools section expanded
                                                                                  PW Promotion materials developed and distributed COMPLETED
                                                                                  To be cancelled
                                    A4003003:      E-mail conference on the                                                                                            Bonnal/Dey
                                                                                  CANCELLED
                                    strengths and weaknesses experienced in
                                    the application of participatory approaches
                                    in the FAO field programme
                                                                                  Completed in 2002
                                    A4003004: COAG paper on sustainable                                                                                                Rouse; Impact Study (LSP) was a result of this.
                                    rural livelihoods

                                    A4003005: New - Evaluation of actual use,      Evaluation of actual use, functionality and perceived value of Participation       Seiffert
                                    functionality and perceived value of            Website; contract P COMPLETED
                                    participation website
                                                                                    Plan of Action developed and implemented, responding to the results of the
                                                                                      Evaluation COMPLETED

                                                                                                           2004-2005
       Biennial Objective: Programmes and projects, funded by national governments and international development agencies, aimed at food security, sustainable use of natural resources and rural development, adopt and/or
                            implement appropriate participatory methods and sustainable livelihood approaches; FAO’s normative outputs incorporate sustainable livelihoods approaches and methods.


                                                                                                             2004
Major Output 1:       Inter-
disciplinary    application  of
                                    Normative materials on        participatory       CANCELLED Retiree consultant to prepare “Critical Reflection on lessons         Seiffert/Crowley/Baas/Termine
participatory approaches and
                                    approaches and methods        to promote          learned in the evolution of participatory approaches since 1980” including
                                                                                                                                                                       POST REDUCTIONS; SEIFFERT                  TAKES       ON
                                    Sustainable Agriculture       and     Rural       best practices from beneficiary M&E and analysis of how participatory
methods for sustainable rural                                                                                                                                          OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES
livelihoods and more equitable
                                    Development (SARD) in         FAO's field         approaches within projects lead to participation in other areas21
                                    programmes and projects        to enhance
access to resources
                                    livelihoods                                       2 day SDA retreat to enrich findings with SDA experience COMPLETED,
                                                                                      ALSO IN 2003




  21
       Possible co-funding from LSP: Review of lessons and good practices from participatory approaches and beneficiary M&E in livelihoods programmes

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         41
        Major outputs                                Outputs                                                        Activities                                                 Responsible officer and Remarks
                                                                                    Framework for participatory M&E to be included in new projects                Crowley; not completed due to insufficient time because
                                                                                                                                                                   of heavy commitments on SARD

                                                                                    1 day workshop on M&E (during SDA divisional retreat) (M&E group)             Crowley ; Done with no follow up however

                                                                                    Finalisation and publication of selected case studies and a lessons learned   Baas
                                                                                    document on the role and potentials of local institutions/organizations in
                                                                                                                                                                   Resulted in case studies + lessons learned
                                                                                    disaster preparedness and prevention (A4001) from Philippines, Vietnam,
                                                                                    Honduras, Argentina (not published), South Africa, Mozambique, Niger,          TCP Hungary + Bangladesh (MOA, Livelihoods adapt to
                                                                                    Burkina Faso (not published) and Iran and from TCPs in China, Mongolia,        climate change)
                                                                                    and Bangladesh (mountain, coastal, arid, flood-prone areas) COMPLETED
                                                                                                                                                                   LSP supports DRM through contract for consultant

                                                                                    Reprinting of Savanna Lifestyle (reprinting with UNEP/AGPC) SDA               Baas
                                                                                    contribution COMPLETED
Major           Output        3:
           Dissemination     and
                                    Regularly updated and expanded website         Detailed plan of action for 2004 developed and implemented addressing the      Seiffert/Bonnal
                                    on participation                               outcomes and follow-up discussions of the Participation Website Evaluation
exchange of information on the
use of participatory methods                                                       undertaken in 2003. Above will also include regular updating and other
                                                                                   services as described under the biennial activities (E) COMPLETED
Major Output 4:      Capacity                                                      Publication of a Livelihoods and vulnerability folder, including an overview
                                    Cross- sectoral normative materials and                                                                                        Termine, Crowley, Baas, Seiffert, regional officers
building, institutional learning                                                   and profiles series on indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups (in
                                    institutional learning methodologies for
and enhanced methodologies for                                                     mountain, arid and coastal areas): Published on Web
                                    promoting sustainable rural livelihoods of
sustainable            livelihood
                                    the poor
approaches in inter-departmental
and     cross-sectoral     FAO’s
normative and field activities
                                                                                                            2005
Major Output 1:       Inter-
disciplinary    application  of
                                    Normative materials on participatory         CANCELLED Publication of lessons learned from participatory approaches,                      Seiffert, Crowley, Baas, Termine
                                    approaches and methods to promote            including best practices from beneficiary M&E and analysis of how participatory
participatory approaches and
                                    Sustainable Agriculture and Rural            approaches within projects can lead to participation in other areas. CHANGED
methods for sustainable rural
                                    Development (SARD) in FAO's field            TO AUTO EVALUATION ON 253A4
livelihoods and more equitable
                                    programmes and projects to enhance
access to resources
                                    livelihoods                                  Auto-evaluation COMPLETED                                                        Dey, Seiffert, Baas, Johnson; Bonnal

                                                                                 Cancelled: Framework for participatory M&E to be included in new projects        Crowley External demands on staff time (SARD)


                                                                                 Finalize editing of Honduras case studies in S and E for publication on SD       Lindemann
                                                                                 Dimensions COMPLETED




                                                                                                                                                                                                                         42
        Major outputs                                Outputs                                                          Activities                                                    Responsible officer and Remarks
                                                                                 Finalization of Concept Note and programme outline for Natural Disaster Risk          Baas
                                                                                 management (NDRM) in AG/FO/FI retaining focus on preparedness and
                                                                                 increased community resilience in regions with recurrent natural hazard risk;
                                                                                 ;presentations to potential donors COMPLETED
                                                                                  New , unplanned activities:
                                                                                  Coordinate together with Reha Paia a cross-departmental working group to
                                                                                 contribute to NDRM and NDRM programme preparations COMPLETED
                                                                                 Prepare 3 project outlines on country specific NDRM subprojects under NDRM
                                                                                 umbrella COMPLETED
                                                                                 Present Concept Note to FAO ECG (COMPLETED)

                                                                                  New , unplanned activity : Presentation to FAO Perm Reps on Role of local            Baas; Dey ; Rolle (Reha Paia)
                                                                                 institutions in DRM COMPLETED

                                                                                 Adapt and disseminate through the UN system network selected normative                Baas
                                                                                 materials on DRM to strengthen FAOR offices’ capacities for DRM and
                                                                                 emergency operations (focussing possibly on the 6 FAO country offices                  ONGOING
                                                                                 identified for the TCA led project : pilot implementation of in-country planning
                                                                                 frameworks and strengthening of technical capacities of country offices)

                                                                                 Assist TCER in designing a method and initiating case studies to assess the           Baas
                                                                                 impacts of recent FAO emergency operations on local institutions
                                                                                                                                                                        ONGOING
Major           Output        3:                                                 PSA contract Guerrero to:
                                    Regularly updated and expanded website                                                                                              Seiffert, Bonnal
           Dissemination     and
                                    on participation                             - revise and expand Lessons Learned; update Library, Field Tools, News sections
exchange of information on the                                                                                                                                          ONGOING ACTIVITIES
use of participatory methods                                                     and Maintenance Manual
                                                                                 - write and distribute 4 issues of email Newsletter in En, Fr, Sp and prepare a Hits   Also publication of Yemen training material
                                                                                 Statistics report
                                                                                 - update Participation Website Information Management System

                                                                                 Update Arabic version: translation and web-publishing

                                                                                 Additional updating, in particular French and Arabic sections (volunteer
                                                                                 contract)

                                                                                 Promotional activities/products, e.g. flyer
Major Output 4:      Capacity
building, institutional learning
                                    Cross- sectoral normative materials and      Completion of folder and indigenous people cases, editing, layout, printing           Termine, Crowley, Baas, Seiffert, regional officers
                                    institutional learning methodologies for     (English) s
and enhanced methodologies for
                                    promoting sustainable rural livelihoods of
sustainable            livelihood
                                    the poor                                                                                                                            ONGOING
approaches in inter-departmental
and     cross-sectoral     FAO’s
normative and field activities



                                                                                                                                                                                                                              43
Annex 4A Publications and Papers produced under PE 253A4


                                                          INDEX             AUTHOR
           TITLE                                          CATEGORY   DATE   (S)               WEBSITE
           Guidelines for developing improved risk
           assessment, prevention and management                            Baas,      S.
           approaches in pastoral areas of North                            (SDAR), and
           Western China                                  NDRM       2001   Liu, Y.           http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/IN0602a_zh.htm
                                                                            Batello, C.
                                                                            (AGPC),
                                                                            Edwards, S.
                                                                            (UNEP),
                                                                            Baas,      S.
           Savannah lifestyles: “Environmental issues                       (SDAR),           http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/pastu
           for schools in East Africa”                    NDRM       2001   Sortino E.        re/spectopics/savanna.htm
           Strengthening pastoral institutions in
           North-West China pastoral area to access
           improved extension services for risk                             Liu,     Y.;
           management and poverty alleviation             NDRM       2001   Baas, S.          http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/IN0601_en.htm
           Pastoral risk management for disaster
           prevention and preparedness in Central                           Baas,       S.;
           Asia with special reference to the case of                       Erdenebatar       http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC120E/A
           Mongolia                                       NDRM       2002   , B.; Swift, J.   C120e11.htm#P0_0
                                                                            Asian
           The role of local institutions in reducing                       Disaster
           vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters                     Preparedne
           and      in      sustainable     livelihoods                     ss     Center     http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_041101
           development: Case Study Vietnam                NDRM       2003   (ADPC)            _en.htm
           Assessing the Role of Local Institutions in
           Reducing the Vulnerability of At- Risk                           Matsimbe,         http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_041201
           Communities in Buzi, Central Mozambique        NDRM       2003   Z.                _en.htm
                                                                            Irene
                                                                            Hoffmann,
                                                                            Simon Mack
           Coping with Uncertainty -a Pastoral                              and Stephan       Proceedings of the VII Intl. Rangeland
           Livelihoods Approach, 2003                     NDRM       2003   Baas              Congress, Durban 2003
           The role of local institutions in reducing                       Asian
           vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters                     Disaster
           and      in      sustainable     livelihoods                     Preparedne        http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040701
           development: Case study Ilo-Ilo Province       NDRM       2003   ss Center         _en.htm
           The role of local institutions in reducing
           vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters
           and in sustainable livelihoods development                                         http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_041002
           Iran case study                                NDRM       2004   CENESTA           _en.htm

                                                                                                                                          44
The role of local institutions in reducing
vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters
and      in      sustainable     livelihoods                 Federica
development: Consolidated report on case                     Battista,
studies and Workshop findings and                            Stephan         http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_041001
recommendations                                NDRM   2004   Baas            _en.htm
                                                             M.
                                                             Abdoulaye,
Agropastoral land and drought risk                           O. Hamani       http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_050901
management in Niger                            NDRM   2004   et al           _en.htm
The role of local institutions in the
management          of       risk      and
prevention/mitigation of natural disasters:                  Lean Marie      http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/docs/pe4_05
Case Study Honduras                            NDRM   2004   Laurent et al   0902d1_en.pdf
The role of local level institutions in                      Rural
reducing vulnerability to natural disasters                  Institutions
and in sustainable livelihood development                    and
Disaster Risk Management: A dimension                        Participation   http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_050201
of Sustainable Development                     NDRM   2004   Service         _en.htm
                                                             S.G.
                                                             Reynolds,
                                                             C. Batello,
Grassland and forage to            improve                   S. Baas and     http://trophort.com/information/data/B03/S37
livelihoods and reduce poverty                 NDRM   2005   S. Mack         /REY05GRAAXG0698.html
                                                             Stephan
                                                             Baas,
                                                             Federica
Promoting      Natural  Disaster   Risk                      Battista
Management in Agriculture, Forestry and                      Florence
Fisheries - Program Concept Note               NDRM   2005   Rolle
                                                             Rural
                                                             Institutions
                                                             and
The Role of Local Institutions in Reducing                   Participation
Vulnerability    to    Recurrent     Natural                 Service, In
Disasters and in Sustainable Livelihoods                     Know Risk -     http://www.unisdr.org/news/know-risk-
Development                                    NDRM   2005   No Risk         flyer.pdf
The role of local institutions in reducing
vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters
and      in      sustainable     livelihoods                 University of   http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_050701
development: Case study South Africa           NDRM   2005   Cape Town       _en.htm
                                                             Baas,     S.,
Rangeland Management and Conservation                        Reynolds,       http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AG
– Lessons learned from a planner’s point                     S., Batello,    RICULT/AGP/AGPC/doc/Present/FAO/Baas
of view                                        NDRM   2000   C.              .htm


                                                                                                                            45
Participatory Processes towards Co-
management of Natural Resources in                                   Chatty, D.;
Pastoral Areas of the Near East” – A          NDRM/                  Baas,      S.;   http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe2/pe2_040501
Training of Trainers (TOT) Resource Book      Participation   2003   Fleig, Anja      _en.htm
Monitoring and evaluating stakeholder
participation in agriculture and rural                                                http://www.fao.org/sd/PPdirect/PPre0074.ht
development projects: a literature review     Participation   2000   Marilee Karl     m
Informal Working Group on participatory
approaches and methods to support
sustainable livelihoods and food security:                           Patricio
Task group on analysis and evaluation         Participation   2001   Warren           http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/PE0401_en.htm
                                                                     Jain     J.P.;
A handbook for trainers on participatory                             Polman,
local development.                            Participation   2003   Wim              Hard Copy
                                                                     Messer, N.;
Local     Institutions  and    Livelihoods:                          Townsley,         ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y5084e/y508
Guidelines for analysis                       Participation   2003   P.               4e00.pdf
Participatory Situation Assessment and
Planning (Arabic language learning                                   Ismail           http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/af197a/af197a0
resources)                                    Participation   2003   Sharief et al.   0.htm
Practitioners' Manual in Group Promotion
and Formation (Arabic language learning                              Ismail
resources)                                    Participation   2003   Sharief et al.   http://www.cbrdp-yemen.org/
Practitioners'      Manual    in     NGOs
Establishment and Management (Arabic                                 Ismail
language learning resources)                  Participation   2003   Sharief et al.   http://www.cbrdp-yemen.org/
Trainers' Manual in Training of Trainers                             Ïsmail           http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/af196a/af196a0
(Arabic language learning resources)          Participation   2003   Sharief et al.   0.htm
A Handbook for trainers on participatory                             S.P.      Jain
local development: The Panchayati Raj                                and       Wim    http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe2/pe2_050301
model in India                                Participation   2005   Polman           _en.htm
                                                                     B. Seiffert,
Guidelines for Participatory Village                                 (FAO) and
Planning for the National Programme for                              J.
Food Security and Poverty Reduction in                               Kodamanch
Cambodia.                                     Participation   2005   aly, (CARE)
                                                                     Rural
                                                                     Institutions
An inter-agency initiative to better                                 and
understand    Sustainable    Livelihoods                             Participation
Approaches (SLA) and their usefulness for     Sustainable            Service          http://www.fao.org/sd/PPdirect/PPre0069.ht
our work                                      Livelihoods     2000   (SDAR)           m
                                              Sustainable                             http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9371E/X
Institutions and sustainable livelihoods      Livelihoods     2000   Bingen, J.       9371E00.HTM
Livelihoods approaches compared               Sustainable     2000   Carney, D.;      http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9371E/X


                                                                                                                                      46
                                             Livelihoods          Drinkwater,       9371E00.HTM
                                                                  M.;
                                                                  Rusinow, T.;
                                                                  Neefjes, K.;
                                                                  Wanmali, S.;
                                                                  Singh, N.
                                                                  Frankenberg
                                                                  er,      T.R.;
                                                                  Drinkwater,
Operationalizing   household    livelihood   Sustainable          M.; Maxwell,      http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9371E/X
security                                     Livelihoods   2000   D.                9371E00.HTM
                                                                  DFID
                                                                  (Department
                                                                  for
                                                                  International
Proceeding - Forum on Oerationalizing        Sustainable          Developmen        http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9371E/X
Sustaibable Livelihoods Approaches           Livelihoods   2000   t)/FAO            9371E00.HTM
                                                                  DFID
                                                                  (Department
                                                                  for
                                                                  International
Sustainable Livelihoods – current thinking   Sustainable          Developmen
and practice                                 Livelihoods   2000   t)/FAO            Hard copy
                                                                  DFID
                                                                  (Department
                                                                  for
                                                                  International
Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches       -   Sustainable          Developmen        http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/X7749E/X7749
Inter-agency Experiences and Lessons         Livelihoods   2000   t)/FAO            E00.HTM
                                                                  Thomson,
                                                                  A.M.; ; FAO,
                                                                  Rome
                                                                  (Italy). Rural
                                                                  Developmen
                                                                  t         Div.;
                                                                  Department
                                                                  for
                                                                  International
                                                                  Developmen
                                                                  t,    London
Sustainable livelihoods approaches at the    Sustainable          (United           http://www.fao.org/../DOCREP/003/X9371E/
policy level                                 Livelihoods   2000   Kingdom)          X9371E00.HTM
Working with local institutions to support   Sustainable                            ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/Y5083E/Y508
sustainable livelihoods                      Livelihoods   2003   Marsh, R.         3E00.pdf
Forum on Operationalizing Participatory      Sustainable
Ways of Applying Sustainable Livelihoods     Livelihoods   2002                     http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/PE0903_en.htm

                                                                                                                                   47
Approaches - Proceeding
The      Forum       on     Operationalizing
Participatory Ways of Applying Sustainable                            Alice Carloni
Livelihoods Approaches (SLA) Inter-            Sustainable            Vanda
agency Experiences and Lessons                 Livelihoods     2002   Altarelli        http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/PE0903_en.htm
Improving Access to Natural Resources for
the Rural Poor – A critical analysis of        Sustainable
central concepts and emerging trends from      Livelihoods            Baumann,         http://www.fao.org/Participation/lsp/documen
a sustainable livelihoods perpective           - LSP           2002   P.               ts/baumann.doc
Improving Access to Natural Resources for
the Rural Poor – The experience of FAO         Sustainable
and of other key organizations from a          Livelihoods                             http://www.fao.org/Participation/lsp/documen
sustainable livelihoods perspective             - LSP          2002   Cotula, L.       ts/cotula.doc
                                                                                       http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise     Sustainable                             mmon/ecg/59347_en_Warren_initial_explor
Development: An initial exploration of         Livelihoods                             ation_concepts_issues_Dec2002revised_07
Concepts and Issues                             - LSP          2002   Warren, P.       04.pdf
Participatory Policy Reform from a
Sustainable Livelihoods Perspective –          Sustainable
Review of concepts and practical               Livelihoods                             http://www.fao.org/Participation/lsp/documen
experiences                                    - LSP           2002   Karl, M.         ts/karl.doc
                                               Sustainable            Rouah, C.
People Centered Development Day in FAO         Livelihoods            (ed); Cleary,
- Catalogue of the Participating Units         - LSP           2003   D. (ed)          Hard copy
Community Action Planning Guidelines for
Facilitation Teams - Improving Household                              Bernd
Food Security and Nutrition in Northern        Sustainable            Seiffert and
Shewa, Amhara Region and Southern              Livelihoods/           Jennifer         http://www.fao.org/participation/bibdb/retriev
Zone, Tigray Region,Ethiopia                   Participation   2003   Heney            al/index.asp?lang=english
Participatory Appraisal of Nutrition and
Household Food Security Situations and of      Sustainable
Planning Interventions from a Livelihoods      Livelihoods            Callens, K.;     http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp
Perspective                                    Participation   2003   Seiffert, B.     ?url_file=/docrep/006/ad694e/ad694e00.htm
                                                                      Cleary, D.;
                                                                      Baumann,
                                                                      P.;     Bruno,
                                               Sustainable            M.; Flores,      http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
People-Centred Approaches: A brief             Livelihoods            X.; Warren,      mmon/ecg/55446_en_Cleary_last_version.p
literature review and comparison of types       - LSP          2003   P.               df
                                                                      Biggs S. D.,
The Culture of Access to Mountain Natural      Sustainable            and              http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
Resources:     Policy,  Processes    and       Livelihoods            Messerschm       mmon/ecg/55436_en_ICIMODSLAandacces
Practices                                      - LSP           2003   idt D.,          stomountainresources2003.pdf
Understanding Access to Seeds and Plant        Sustainable            Seshia, S.;      http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
Genetic Resources. What Can a                  Livelihoods     2003   Scoones, I.      mmon/ecg/55444_en_IDS_SLA_and_acces


                                                                                                                                        48
Livelihoods Perspective Offer?                - LSP                                   s_to_seeds_2003.pdf
A livelihoods approach for analysing the      Sustainable
farm power asset base at the household        Livelihoods            Bishop-          http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040901
level                                         - LSP           2004   Shambrook        _en.htm
Case study: Lessons learned and good          Sustainable            Ayman Ali,
practice - Community-based organizations      Livelihoods/           Stephan          http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe2/pe2_040901
in Yemen                                      Participation   2004   Baas             _en.htm
                                              Sustainable
Farm Power and Smallholder Livelihoods        Livelihoods            Bishop-          http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040902
in Sub-Saharan Africa                         - LSP           2004   Shambrook        _en.htm
                                                                     Tim
                                                                     Hanstad,
                                                                     Robin
                                              Sustainable            Nielsen,
Land and Livelihoods: Making land rights      Livelihoods            Jennifer         http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040906
real for India’s rural poor                   - LSP           2004   Brown            _en.htm
                                              Sustainable
                                              Livelihoods            Stephen          http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040904
Land and Water – the rights interface         - LSP           2004   Hodgson          _en.htm

Poverty and forestry : A case study of        Sustainable
Kyrgyzstan with reference to other            Livelihoods                             http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040907
countries in West and Central Asia            - LSP           2004   LSP              _en.htm
                                                                     Baumann
                                                                     P.,    Bruno
                                                                     M., Cleary
Applying people centred development           Sustainable            D., Dubois       http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
approaches within FAO: some practical         Livelihoods            O.       and     mmon/ecg/71709_en_People_Centred_in_F
lessons                                       - LSP           2004   Flores X         AO_practical_lessons_aug_04.pdf
                                                                     Neely     C.,
Do sustainable livelihoods approaches         Sustainable            Sutherland       http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
have a positive impact on the rural poor? –   Livelihoods            K.,      and     mmon/ecg/80489_en_LSPWP16_SL_impact
A look at twelve case studies                 - LSP           2004   Johnson J.       _FINAL_ver_11_04_05_JJ28.pdf

Examining access to natural resources and     Sustainable                             http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
linkages to sustainable livelihoods: A case   Livelihoods                             mmon/ecg/74733_en_LSP_WP_17_Norfolk
study of Mozambique                           - LSP           2004   Norfolk S.       _Mozambique_ANR_2004.pdf
La mise en oeuvre de la réforme foncière      Sustainable                             http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
au Laos : Impacts sociaux et effets sur les   Livelihoods                             mmon/ecg/57973_en_Evrard_Laos_access_
conditions de vie en milieu rural             - LSP           2004   Evrard O         and_livelihoods_2003.pdf

                                              Sustainable                             http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
Livelihood Diversification   and   Natural    Livelihoods            Ellis      F.,   mmon/ecg/59947_en_ODG_UEA_SLA_dive
Resource Access                               - LSP           2004   Allison E.       rsification_ANR_Jan_2004_revised.pdf



                                                                                                                                     49
                                                 Sustainable                             http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
Post-conflict land tenure: using            a    Livelihoods                             mmon/ecg/77587_en_LSP_WP_18_Unruh_
sustainable livelihoods approach                 - LSP           2004   Unruh J.         Post_conflict_ANR_2004.pdf
                                                 Sustainable                             http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
Small home garden plots and sustainable          Livelihoods            Mitchell, R.;    mmon/ecg/59771_en_RDI_homegarden_plo
livelihoods for the poor                         - LSP           2004   Hanstad, T.      ts_and_livelihoods_2004.pdf
                                                                        Cotula      L.
                                                                        and Toulmin
                                                                        C.           ,
                                                                        Vlaenderen
                                                                        H.V.,     Tall
                                                                        S.M., Gaye
                                                                        G, Saunders
Till to tiller: Linkages between international   Sustainable            J., Ahiadeke     http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
remittances and access to land in West           Livelihoods            C.       and     mmon/ecg/65480_en_IIED_remittances_and
Africa                                           - LSP           2004   Anarfi J.K.      _access_to_land_2004.pdf


Between the Household and the Market: A          Sustainable                             http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
livelihoods analysis of SPFS seed                Livelihoods                             mmon/ecg/80867_en_WP20_WarrenP_SPF
multiplication in Southern Guatemala             - LSP           2005   Warren, P.       Sandseeds_Guatemala.pdf
                                                                        B. Seiffert,
Guidelines for Participatory Village                                    (FAO) and
Planning for the National Programme for                                 J.
Food Security and Poverty Reduction in                                  Kodamanch
Cambodia.                                        Participation   2005   aly, (CARE)      available from authors
Lessons Learned by the WIN Project on
Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise
Development: An Overview of WIN LDED-            Sustainable                             http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/co
related Activities in Cambodia, Nepal and        Livelihoods                             mmon/ecg/80487_en_LSPWP19_Lessonsle
Zambia                                           - LSP           2005   Eckman, C        arntbyWIN_Final_light.pdf
                                                                        Robin
                                                                        Marsh,
                                                                        University of
                                                                        California,
                                                                        Berkeley,
Working with local institutions to support       Sustainable            United
sustainable livelihoods                          Livelihoods     N/A    States           http://www.fao.org/sd/2002/PE0702_en.htm

Rural Family Income Strategies to Relieve
Poverty and Interactions with Local              Sustainable            Tembe and
Institutions: political implications             Livelihoods     N/A    Muchanga         in S-Drive




                                                                                                                                        50
                                                                   Appendini,
Rural Household Income Strategies and       Sustainable            K.       and
Interactions with Institutions              Livelihoods     N/A    Nuijten, M.    in S-Drive

Rural Household Income Strategies and
Interactions with the Local Institutional   Sustainable            Massingarel    http://www.fao.org/sd/ROdirect/ROan0021.ht
Environment: Seminar Report                 Livelihoods     N/A    a, Claudio     m

Resource CD-ROM on Participatory
approaches methods and tools. (215
documents and 135 methods).                 Participation   2004   Seiffert, B    TC/D/Y544IE/1/6.04/2000
                                                                   Bonnal, J.;
Participatory Project Formulation CD-ROM    Participation   2006   Rass, N.




                                                                                                                               51
Annexe 4 Focus Group 1


Date: 26 September 2005
Time: 14:00-16:00
Participants: Baas, Johnson, Seiffert, DeyDePryck
Auto-Evaluation Team: Massimo, Constance, Ana

Methodology: The Focus Group was conducted as a free-flowing conversation. The main topics for discussion were read, as well as a few of the
questions, and then the group was left free to comment on them.

The main topics for discussion were: Planning, Decision Making, Human Resources and Monitoring

Questions:

1. Regarding Programme Entity Planning:
      a. How do we identify needs/priorities? Are they stemming from the poor, donor governments, developing country governments or other
         requests?
      b. How are SDAR’s activities within the PE structure selected?
      c. How does PBE instruction influence the work plans?
      d. How much are the activities undertaken tied to the technical officer involved (is this good or bad?)
      e. How do we allocate budgets within the PE?

2. Regarding Programme Structures and Human Resources for Implementation:
      a. To which extent is the PE linked to the Working Groups?
      b. How do we decide when to add an activity or when to drop one?
      c. What causes activities to not go as planned? (issues of overscheduling and unplanned demands)
      d. What happens to outputs and activities when the technical officer leaves? (example)
      e. What happens to outputs and activities when external elements reduce dedicated staff time within the PE? (example)
      f. What are the skills/capacities required to undertake this work?

3. Regarding Impact Monitoring:
      a. In your view, what have been the greatest successes in A4? (Why?)
      b. What have been the least successful activities in A4? (Why?)

                                                                                                                                            52
c. How do we/ can we measure if the work has been successful in 2 year time frames/increments?
d. Is there still a need for normative work on participation or a need for awareness raising related to Participation?




                                                                                                                         53
        Annex 5                    Workplan

                            Month                                           Activities                                 Who
                     June                      Finalise TORs of auto-evaluation and submission to PBEE          TO22
                                               Recruitment of facilitator, facilitator/analyst and evaluation   AG23
                                               assistant

                     July 20                   First brainstorming session                                      ET24
                                                                                                                TO
                     July 21                   ET meeting:                                                      ET
                                                Finalise the work-plan of the evaluation.
                                                Review of TORs

                     July 22                   Second brainstorming/briefing session                            ET
                                                Validation of workplan                                         TO
                     July 22-29                Desk study                                                       ET:
                                                Identification of key activities and key resource persons       TO-ET
                                                                                                                     25 26
                                                Prepare outline and methodology                                 MR -CN
                                                Identify and collect key documents                              AG
                                                Preliminary review of key documents                             CN

                                               Communication to RO/SRO regarding the Autoevaluation             TO


                     August                    Desk study
                                                Preliminary review of key documents                            AG
                                                Identify and collect key documents                             MR
                                                Identify field projects relating/contributing to A4            TO

22
   TO: Technical officers in Headquarters – S. Baas, J. Johnson, J. Bonnal, B. Seiffert, E. Crowley
23
   AG: Ana Guerrero
24
   ET: Evaluation Team – facilitator, facilitator/analyst, evaluation assistant
25
   MR: Massimo Rossi
26
   CN: Constance Neely

                                                                                                                             54
     Month                                     Activities                                  Who

                     Design of methodology and tools for the interviews and focus   ET
                      groups                                                         TO
                     Identification of focus group participants
September           Summary analysis of P.E. activities and outcomes.                ET
                    Conduct interviews and focus groups                              ET

                    Briefing with PBEE                                               ET
                                                                                     TO
                    Periodic brainstorming/briefings sessions                        ET
                                                                                     TO
                 Analysis of documentations, interviews and focus group results;
October/November Assessment of outputs, outcomes and impact of activities.           ET
                                                                                     TO
                    Conduct interviews and focus groups                              ET

                    Drafting of preliminary report                                   ET
                                                                                     TO
                    Discussions with technical officers                              ET
                                                                                     TO
                    Periodic brainstorming/briefings sessions                        ET
                                                                                     TO
                                                                                     ET
7 December          workshop to analyse preliminary results                          TO
December            Submit final draft                                               ET
                    Final evaluation report                                          FAO
                    Debriefing with HQ technical divisions                           FAO




                                                                                                 55

				
DOCUMENT INFO