Community Driven Development and Gender Mainstreaming APMAS report

850 views
781 views

Published on

The Asian Project Management Support Programme (APMAS) CDD Report: Best Practices and Lessons Learned on Community Driven Development and Gender Mainstreaming from the APMAS training/workshops, Hanoi and Delhi, November/December 2010 (21 pages).

The Asian Project Management Support Programme (APMAS) aims to enhance capacity
of project managers in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and India to implement and effectively
manage gender sensitive, pro-poor rural development interventions, through training,
information access and innovation. Late 2010 MDF Indochina has implemented two 4-day
training programmes in Vietnam and India on Community Driven Development (CDD) and
Gender Mainstreaming, from which the below lessons were drawn. The report below is a
only a summary of highlights, as APMAS documented the events in full through pictures,
and also captured facts tools at its website.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
850
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Community Driven Development and Gender Mainstreaming APMAS report

  1. 1. APMAS CDD ReportBest Practices and Lessons Learned onCommunity Driven Development and Gender Mainstreamingfrom the APMAS training/workshops,Hanoi and Delhi, November/December 2010ContentsBackground 2Summary of lessons learned 2 Community Participation versus CDD 2 Women in Development versus Gender and Development 3 Intervention Logic and Responsibility 3 See-Do-Get – Self-fulfilling management attitudes 4 Why and Challenges of Community Meetings 4 Adult Learning Cycle 4 Stakkeholder Analysis 5  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 Key issues and lessons concerning PRA tools 6 Methods used in WB Watsan film Nepal 7 Comparison of some tools 7 Working with Cards 9 Notes on Wealth Ranking 9 Options Prioritisation Matrix (OPM) 10 Lessons on Visual Aids 11 Monitoring (versus supervision) 11 Examples of indicators in community self-monitoring 11 www.mdf.nl Monitoring the effectiveness of your project community facilitators 12Annex A: Participants’ Evaluations 13Annex B: Participants’ Recommendations 18Annex C: Trainers’ Recommendations 20 Page 1 (21)
  2. 2. APMAS CDD ReportBackgroundThe Asian Project Management Support Programme (APMAS) aims to enhance capacityof project managers in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and India to implement and effectivelymanage gender sensitive, pro-poor rural development interventions, through training,information access and innovation. Late 2010 MDF Indochina has implemented two 4-daytraining programmes in Vietnam and India on Community Driven Development (CDD) andGender Mainstreaming, from which the below lessons were drawn. The report below is aonly a summary of highlights, as APMAS documented the events in full through pictures,and also captured facts tools at its websitehttp://apmasnetwork.org (particularly at the community driven development tab)Further note that IFAD has published a kit with CDD decision tools which is available athttp://www.ifad.org/english/cdd/pub/decisiontools.pdfBesides the summary of lessons, this report also contains:• The participants’ evaluations of the two trainings (Annex A)• The participants’ recommendations for further capacity development (Annex B)• MDF’s recommendations regarding further capacity development efforts (Annex C)Summary of lessons learnedCommunity Participation versus CDD Project Manager  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 Project Community Participation www.mdf.nl Supporting Community Driven Development Page 2 (21)
  3. 3. APMAS CDD ReportWomen in Development versus Gender and Development WID: A gender GAD: A gender unit organises unit ensures separate mainstreaming activities for of gender by all women units $Intervention Logic and Responsibility  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 www.mdf.nl Page 3 (21)
  4. 4. APMAS CDD ReportSee-Do-Get – Self-fulfilling management attitudes Traditional ModernSee Lazy employee Self-motivated employee Wish to control Wish to stimulate Focus on activities Focus on resultsDo Forcing Listen and suggest Setting deadlines Help think through Keep-in-the-box Encourage out-of-the-box Check time &money Delegate and empowerGet Just meet standards Innovation Sight SmileChanges in Doing (Skills), yields small gains. Changes in Seeing (Paradigm) allows forquantum leaps. Project managers and community facilitators have to able and motivatedto get the best out of the projects. Managers moreovver need genuine convincing andexcellent lsitening skills if they are to lead their staff to different convictions and behavior.Why and Challenges of Community MeetingsWhy have Community Meetings? • Get agreement with communities • Democracy • Community Consultation • Seeking experiences and ideas from communities • Planning with communities, need assessment, fund using • Voting for the households, who can be beneficiries of project. Priority • Conflict settelement • Problem Analysis • Information Dissemination • Implementing activities • Raising awarenessChallenges of Community Meetings • Not fully participatory, not all communities give inputs • It is difficult to gather all people, levels of knowledge are different  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 • Participatory is not as the same levels • Women are often shy and quiet • Incline to be a small group discussions • Diffirent in languages, diffirent interlecture and cultures • Illustration tools are poor and out of date • Old people are often dominated • Not understanding local languages and customs • Difficult to get agreement of every people. www.mdf.nl Page 4 (21)
  5. 5. APMAS CDD ReportAdult Learning CycleKolb’s Adult Learning Cycle (ALC) is a simple yet powerful concept a faclitator or trainercan always keep in mind in structuring efffective workshoops, meetings and trainings. 1.EXPERIENCING Doing / Seeing something Double people’s awareness and engagement 4.APPLYING 2.PROCESSING Using the insights Reflecting / Analysing Double the Double the depth of impact by analysis: From ensuring use symptoms to causes 3.GENERALISING Abstracting from experience to lifeStakeholder AnalysisThis tool is to prevent that participation in participatory events is random, unbalanced andunrepresentative.1. Establish the objective of your stakeholder workshop/meeting2. Identify ‘stakeholders’: All who have an interest (think broadly)3. Categorise the stakeholders and decide whom to involve how (and how many representatives to invite), considering the below matrixImportance High Protect Work together Empower InvolveImportance Low Ignore Advocate and  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 • Collaborate and/or • Oppose Influence Low Influence HighIn which importance is judged from the point of view of the programme or project: Whetherthis group is the target group (poor, disadvantaged, women), while influence stands forpower from the stakeholder to the others. www.mdf.nlNote that in the last box, stakeholders of low importance but high influence (oftencommercial companies), development thinking has evolved. Whether in the past suchstakeholders were often looked at as a threat to be excommunicated, nowadays they are Page 5 (21)
  6. 6. APMAS CDD Reportequally seen as an opportunity, specially if they are sensitive or can be convinced tobenefit from adopting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).Key issues and lessons concerning PRA tools• Does this tool and your attitude encourage or undermine community leadership?• On a very practical level: Consider alternatives to the situation in which the facilitator stands and the community sits, looking up• Is this tool really provide information needed by the community, or is it aimed to extract data for the government/donor/NGO? What is the exact purpoose of using this tool. Tailor the tool to that purpose, and skip it if not essential (e.g. Some projects make 7-year plans. It is questionable whether communities need this)• Go with ladies, if you want to meet with ladies (whether to meet separately or jointly depends on the culture)• Initial stage: Realise that you need several meetings to build rappport and trust• Be patient and accept people as they are, also realising that you can learn from them and their perspective• Be aware of outsiders in the meeting, who may usefully or unduely influence• Be prepared (with charts etc), so you can run ‘the show’ smoothly• Check for balanced representation• Attend to community conccerns (e.g. to get a loan), but do not commit what you (and your project) cannot or do not want to commit• Facilitate so that all speak – espacially the high importance, low influence groups• Explain at the start why you are there, and why you propose to discuss what. Explain what the project can and cannot offer• Consider stickering (lettting people express their view through anonymous votes), because this quickly gives all participants a voice, while in discussions often some dominate• Match your explanations to the vocabulary and way of thinking and communication of the participants• Do not blindly assume everything should be decided democratically, and that that willl be better (G.B. Shaw: Democracy is a system that ensures that government is not better than the people deserve)• Always reflect on who can best and permanently perform a function. The project can temporarily provide e.g. a market-price information service, but this fucntion should at least at the project end (if not from the start) be performed by other actors• If community priorities and proposals need project/government approval: Establish  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 and communicate crystal clearly the criteria, so that no surprises take place• Balance problem-oriented and opportunity-oriented thinking. Asking communities for what they see as their most pressing problems, may lead to less innovative and viable plans then identifying opportunities with them, because the former sticks to an old mindset (which brough the community where they are)• A concrete action plan has at least the dimensions What, Who (responsible) and When. But one may also add: Who helps, What rerources, Who monitors (and when) and Who evaluates (and when) www.mdf.nl Page 6 (21)
  7. 7. APMAS CDD ReportMethods used in WB Watsan film NepalThe following tools were recognised to be used in the Watsan project in Nepal (DVD):• Filming (which can have a powerful self-reflection effect)• Contract signing (community representative body, donor, support organisation in social mobalisation – contracts with contractors are to be signed between community representative body and contractors. Likewise the project does not interact with individual households, once it endorses that there is a true representative body)• Physical mapping• Social mappping (question: Is this really needed, from the community perspective?)• 4 Phase approach (which informs the community of the sequence of steps of the project)• Planning cards, helping communities visualise and agree the sequence and timing of steps• Estimating and discussing time extenditure on water collection and hygiene gains, as a realistic motivator how much laboour may be saved through the project and other benefits (this is a tool where objective expert assessment is useful, rather than subjective community views only)• Management game (board game, inspired by ‘Snakes and ladders’), to prepare for management issues and possible frictions• Money contribution (this can be a key tool, requiring them to get their act together rather than ‘training’ them in it, which tends to make them pasive recipients)• Public displays of accounts to all• Informed design choices (and service levels, notably public or in-house conections), with price tags, made by the community• Pocket chart, to depict and reflect on current sanitation practicesComparison of some toolsIn general: Use tools for prioritising and decision-making; not just for describing thesituation. And take into account:• Communitty majority insights and priority• Objective situation and opportunities (as you know and assess them)‘Lead the contents through the process’: Whenever you believe the view expressed by thecommunity is not yet balanced, facilitate until they consider the issues you felt lacking (youcan bring in the knowledge, but have to await their accceptance, or accept their rejection).  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 www.mdf.nl Page 7 (21)
  8. 8. APMAS CDD ReportComparison of some tools (continued) Mapping Ven-diagram Pro-poor prioritising Paire-wise prioritisingWhat can it Express the develoment of See areas of common Transparent and Transparent anddo? community and project interest of upto three actors participatory prioritisation participatory prioritisation between different options – between different options – while doing justice to requiring agreement among differing views participantsBefore you It is useless to make maps Works best with three cicles First establish your focal Be clear whether the optionsmeet: (out of habit) if it is unrelated only group, then focus on their are all realistic. ElseObjective to decision-making needs/opportunities participants priopritise thin airBefore you Be aware of interest if you Decide on which sub-groups Consider giving votes per This assumes there is onemeet: Who to use it to plan and keep them unless group rather than individual community opinion (or youinvolve genuienly convinced (so that women have more have to make people vote otherwise vote, even if in minority) rather than agree)Success factor Include (and agree) purpose Can use cards to assess theat the start: of the exercise needs of each areaOverallobjectiveSuccess factor Tell the purposes beforeat the start: drawing – else it seems onlySpecific entertainmentobjectiveProcess pitfall Guidance should be short Cannot define exactly the Takes long time and may Community must to get and crisp needs in areas in general therefore be hard to keep agreement on voting majority (heterogeneous) groups participants meaningfully awake and awarePitfall in the What is the mapping activity Some people think that the Theoretically high validity, Quicker but less meaningfulconclusion for? area of shared activity is by but if math are ill understood than pro-poor prioritising default the most important transparency is lost Page 8 (21)
  9. 9. APMAS CDD ReportWorking with CardsThe comments on what are ‘Bad’and ‘Good’cards could be slightly different if this where ina different context (e.g. solutions, brainstorming, or naming cluster, which are allowed tobe vague). The below notes apply to cards in a problem brainstorm. Bad Card Good Card Reason (for Good and Bad) ICIMOD has not been able to RMC’s not convinced of KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) show that its work is relevant to the poverty reduction agendas of ICIMOD’s relevance to and KILL (Keep It Large and the RMCs, and that its work adds poverty reduction Legible) value and impact to these Political instability and Political instability One problem per card increase in infectious Increase in infectious diseases diseases Communication Staff does not know the No balloons (be specific) problems company strategy Not enough trucks Most vegetables not Fight ‘absent solutions’ timely transported to market Bad politicians Rural poor mistrust Accept views as views politicians Politicians accepted . or find facts 1,000,000 $ in bribes Not enough money Leaking roof destroys Fight ‘absent solutions’ (again, stored produce because this happens so often) Sme dev. org. sld lrn to Some development Those abbreviations! For info: bcome PDQ organizations not quick PDQ = Pretty Damn Quick enoughSteps in Conducting Wealth Ranking1. Explain why and how you want to do this activity with the community2. Set the critteria with the community (or beforehand). Preferably use objective criteria such as: a. Land size b. Household status (...)  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 c. Other property d. Animals e. Education f. Health: E.g. underweight infants3. Review the status of each household. For objectivve criteria: Establish the fact. For subjective: Vote4. Announce the outcomes and start your pro-poor targetingNotes: Distinguish between nice to know and need to know information. Wonder who www.mdf.nlneeds to know. If it is you rrather than the community, take care not to unddermine CDD. Page 9 (21)
  10. 10. APMAS CDD ReportOptions Prioritisation Matrix (OPM)All too often decisions on what to do, and how to do it (e.g. whether to build a school or ahealth unit, and on where to locate it) are determined by who speaks most, and whopushes his/her view best from the start. Best decisions, that moreover unite and mobilisemaximum community support, however, separate the stages of identifying options, listingcriteria (why to prioritise which option), and then matching them.• Brainstorm on options, not allowing ‘Yes, but’ and ‘No, because’ discussions at this stage: Just list• Brainstorm on criteria or reasons, again ensuring only listing• Let all participants individually (or by group) ‘vote’ on the importance of the criteria (giving important groups a higher weight than minor groups, even if they are represented by an equal number of persons)• Make a matrix and jointly assess (as this is more an objective fact than a subjective value) to what degree the criterion is satisfied by the option (giving 3 for maximum and 0 for not at all)• Multiply importance of each criterion by the degree to which each option fulfills it• Use the sum outcomes as input for final informed discussions and decision making – Do not allow “mechanical decision making” (that is: Do not just look at the highest outcome and ignore the rest. Take the outcome of the voting as the input for a good final debate, which hopefully unites the people). Options Between B&C In C Central+Bridge 3 SchoolsCriteria or reasons Importance A B C=A*B D E=A*D F G=A*F H I=A*HHarvest holiday 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4Girl safety 18 2 36 3 54 1 18 4 72Conflict with village A 0 0 0 0More kids in C 5 0 3 15 0 0Not in village: kids wouldleave 2 3 6 1 2 3 6 1 2Free for girls 7 0 0 0 0Construction cost 10 2 20 3 30 2 20 1 10Other benefits 18 2 36 1 18 4 72 3 54  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 102 123 120 142Strength of OPM• Can alllocate scarce resources optimally• Enables to reach a wise and supported community decision, shaping the process• Better way to come to concensus• Facilitates to bring out in-depth issues, turning ‘Yes, but’ or ‘No, because’ fights into ‘OK, and’ mutual enrichment• Completely participatory and transparent www.mdf.nl• Best example of ‘By the the people, of the people and for the people’ Page 10 (21)
  11. 11. APMAS CDD ReportLimitations and challlenges of OPM• Complicated for villagers to completely understand (needs excellent facilitation lest the majority will disengage mentally). If ill understood, ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ applies. If stickering is done, correct understanding should first be tested (e.g. ask a participant to explain what a sticker in a certain field would signify)• Requires facilitator skills to help identify the best options and criteria – not just what surfaces immediately• Time consuming and therefore difficult to apply in a llarger forum, where atttention will drift• If participants are not a balanced representation, the voting also is not (unless you give corrective weights to different groups)Suggestions on Visual Aids• ‘Less is more’ – leave out distracting details. E.g. in LogFrame generallly do not display OVI’s and MoV• Be clear on your main message and target group bbefore design• Pretest before publishing and accept the feedback without response and defense: You can’t explain the poster, film or other means once it is ‘out there’• Use local language and symbols• Text should moostly just confirm what the picture already conveysMonitoring (versus supervision)• Project and process-oriented (as opposed to control and people oriented, pinpointing individual mistakes)• Mostly in-house; mostly self-monitoring (rather than by superior and higher level)• Learning and improvement oriented (at it least it should be!)• Is about imporving more than proving (although transparency to donors is also a function)Examples of indicators in community self-monitoring• Construction can be seen• Committee can discuss invisible aspects• Keep record of labour and display publicly  MDF Indochina copyright 2011• Disaggregate men and women in construction and benefit projections• Income indicator: Festival dress• Preference for single (non composite) objective indicators: Possibly dirty, but undisputable• Decrease in money lenders coming to the village• Child drop-out rate• Infant underweight percentage• Repliccation of demo’s www.mdf.nl Page 11 (21)
  12. 12. APMAS CDD ReportMonitoring the effectiveness of your project community facilitators• Increase IGA loans• Impact in the village: Adaptation of technologies• Record keeping and bank account management• Friendly relationship wiith alll households• High participation, even from non-ttarget groups• Moore demand from village (for training and facilitation, rather than funding)• Communities discuss social issues• Communities question and discuss fund management and their banking• Communities start social audit• People are clear about the project objectives, possibilities and limitations• How communities discuss priorotisation issues in groups – whether all voicces are heard and respected• Selling processed produce collectively• Note: The above is all based on field visits, looking at impact. Office discussions with your staff on bottlenecks and developments, can also give you information, and you can contribute to learning on effectiveness of your staff  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 www.mdf.nl Page 12 (21)
  13. 13. APMAS CDD ReportAnnex A: Participants’ EvaluationsTitle Managing Community-Driven Development ProcessDate 30 Nov - 3 Dec 2010Duration 4 daysVenue Fortuna Hotel, Ha NoiCoverage Sub-RegionalService MDF IndochinaProviderTrainer(s) Diederik Prakke + Tran Thi Le ThoCourse Evaluation Participants Total No Aspects Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score 1 Achievement of training course objectives 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 25 3.57 2 Effectiveness of course delivery methodology 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 3.86 3 Facilitation skills for adult group 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 27 3.86 4 Quality of training course materials 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 25 3.57 5 Trainer’s Knowledge of development project management 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 4.00 6 Relevance of case studies/examples used to development context 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 26 3.71 7 Applicability to my work 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 26 3.71 8 Overall outcome of the training course 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 27 3.86 9 Duration of the training course 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 27 3.86 10 Training facilities (classroom, equipments) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 4.00 11 Administrative and Logistics Arrangement 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 27 3.86 Page 13 (21)
  14. 14. APMAS CDD Report 12 Trainer: Mr. Diederik Prakke 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 4.00 13 Trainer: Ms. Tran Thi Le Tho 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 26 3.71Daily Evaluation (SMILEY) Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 No Aspects ☺ ☺ ☺ 1 Facilitation 0 1 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 2 Training Material 0 1 7 0 1 6 0 2 5 3 Time Management 0 6 2 0 0 7 0 0 7 4 Group Dynamics 0 2 6 0 0 7 0 0 7 5 Logistics 0 0 8 0 5 2 0 0 7 Page 14 (21)
  15. 15. APMAS CDD ReportPage 15 (21) www.mdf.nl  MDF Indochina copyright 2011
  16. 16. APMAS CDD ReportTitle Supporting Community-Driven Development ProcessDate 7 - 10 December 2010Duration 4 daysVenue Icon Towers, New Delhi, IndiaCoverage Sub Region IndiaService MDFProviderTrainer(s) Diederik Prakke & Sathasivam ThilakanCourse Evaluation Participants Total No Aspects Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Score 1 Achievement of training course objectives 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 67 3.94 2 Effectiveness of course delivery methodology 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 66 3.88 3 Facilitation skills for adult group 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 62 3.88 4 Quality of training course materials 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 66 3.88 5 Trainer’s Knowledge of development project management 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 67 3.94 6 Relevance of case studies/examples used to development context 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 64 3.76 7 Applicability to my work 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 65 3.82 8 Overall outcome of the training course 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 67 3.94 9 Duration of the training course 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 58 3.41 10 Training facilities (classroom, equipments) 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 56 3.29 11 Administrative and Logistics Arrangement 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 52 3.25 12 Trainer: Mr. Diederik Prakke 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 68 4.00 13 Trainer: Mr. Sathasivam Thilakan 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 62 3.65 Page 16 (21)
  17. 17. APMAS CDD ReportDaily Evaluation (SMILEY) Day 1 Day 2 Day 3No Aspects ☺ ☺ ☺ 1 Facilitation 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 2 15 2 Training Material 0 1 16 0 0 17 0 2 15 3 Time Management 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 9 8 4 Group Dynamics 0 7 10 0 0 17 0 2 15 5 Logistics 0 1 16 0 1 16 0 5 12  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 www.mdf.nl Page 17 (21)
  18. 18. APMAS CDD ReportAnnex B: Participants’ RecommendationsNote: The brainstorm on further development needs was requested by APMAS/AIT. FromMDF side a note of caution is that this is more of a wish-list, and often more-of-the-same,than a list of strategic and farsighted priorities. Nevertheless it may be useful forinspiration and to be informed of the current interest – if APMAS/IFAD wish to set morevisionary priorities, they will have to ensure buy-in.VietnamFor Project ManagersTraining• Management skills• Communications skills with community at the grassroot level, meeting organization skills• Work delegation for senior managers• Leadership skills• Llistening skills• Result-based management• Management skills for implementing activities in the fieldFor Community Facilitators/ Project Staff/Government and NGO counterpartsTraining• Community motivation• Observation skills• Skill development in working with the community• Skill to use PRA tools• Planning skills• Organize meeting skills• Training on M and E• Community-driven development process training (as done in 2010)  MDF Indochina copyright 2011Workshop• Experience sharing• Availability of documents on M and E (local language) www.mdf.nl Page 18 (21)
  19. 19. India APMAS CDD ReportPage 19 (21) www.mdf.nl  MDF Indochina copyright 2011
  20. 20. APMAS CDD ReportAnnex C: Trainers’ RecommendationsBackground and Objectives • APMAS aims to make an optimal Capacity Development (CD) contribution to IFAD project staff and partners • APMAS aims to balance working with CD providers on a case-to-case basis (best- value-for-money) and a basis of long-term collaboration (trusted partners, who understand the projects well) • APMAS combines a vision-oriented (vision of IFAD) and demand-driven (of Project Managers) approach to CD, which implies that CD is only implemented if there is genuine buy-in from the projects. APMAS and IFAD may therefore take an advocacy approach in promoting CD interventions that they assess as having the best potential to boost development results, but which are not directly requestedApproach and ProcedureIn order to match CD demand (by projects) and learning needs (as perceived byAPMAS/IFAD) MDF recommends the following procedure (Note that we have not receivedthe Professional Development Needs Assessment report at the time of drafting the belowideas): • APMAS develops a package of say 10 training modules of 2-days each, and each described in a one-pagers (listing learning objectives and course contents) which is distributed (in a brochure or web-page) to projects and partners. Besides these standard modules, the brochure (web-page) also lists options of tailor made training, mentoring and experience sharing • The projects request any of the above services for themselves or their partners, against a standard rate (e.g. 10$/pppd for national trainers/facilitators/mentors and 20$/pppd for international trainers/facilitators/mentors, besides travel and lodging) • Projects submit their requests to APMAS, though APMAS/IFAD may try to influence the demand through advocacy • APMAS logiscally matches demands and decides about the order and location of events (seeing which projects jointly have the critical mass for a certain event). The projects pay upfront, and the money may be used to pay the provider, or as a revolving fund for further CDContents of the PackagesBased on discussions with APMAS, IFAD, participants and own observations, MDFrecommends the following standard training modules • Value Chains and Public and Private Partnerships. Part of the challenge here is to  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 connect farmers to markets, seeing the private sector as a powerful partner in development, though negotiations are required to ensure fair trade. The other part of the challenge is to engage state and non-state actors beyond the project, so that the linkage and market information services will continue to flourish after project intervention • Effective Mindset and Behavior for Empowerment and Awareness-raising. Inadvertedly assistance to community risks to undermine rather than strengthen community management. Where people were self-reliant in the past, ill-designed project support makes them dependent. In the area of awareness-raising, an www.mdf.nl ineffective mindset will try to make communities accept solutions, without convincing them of the symptoms, problems and options first. • Facilitating Community Driven Development. Facilitating CDD not only requires a good command of some basic community facilitation techniques, but especially the Page 20 (21)
  21. 21. APMAS CDD Report skills and insight of how to offer them in ways that strengtehen community understanding and decision-making, rather than information extrtaction for decision-making in the offices of burocrats • Knowledge sharing methodologies, as already taken up by the FAO/IFAD project and the IFAD India office • Leadership and management skills • Result-based planning and monitoring, using MS Project • Introductory course to IFAD and its interventions, for new staffs, obviously including gender • Procedures and financial management of IFAD projects. This module may best be conducted by local service providers, but MDF wishes to flag that it has extensive expertise in making fun and efffective training packages on such rather dry issuesMentoring modules could be: • Personal coaching (4 persons per day) • Assistance to training module development and mentoring (through a reflection day after joint training implementation) of local training providersRecomendations concerning the CCD/Gender training module • We agree with the APMAS recommendation to integrate gender more throughout, rather than only in some exercises duriung the first two days • We also agree with the APMAS recommendation to refer more to the extensive training file given to the participants during the training, so that they know more what they have and where to find it • Translation of this training material into Lao. Khmer and Vietnamese may be considered • As in many trainings, some participants asked for more background information, whereas experiences shows that the more material is provided, the smaller the percentage that is being studied. In this context participants from India seemed more genuinely eager to read more, whereas their English was also good. Therefore, in future courses in India, more background materials may be provided, whereas in the other countries this may not be advisable • Repeat this module for Laos and/or Cambodia • If the above iis done, invite Vietamese partners who missed out, but then require good English language proficiency from the Vietnamese • Through timely invitation and “massaging” that this information is communicated through, future trainings may be more fully participated in. In this message, female participation in the events may be specially encouraged • The groups were fairly heterogeneous in level, which posed a challenge but also  MDF Indochina copyright 2011 opportunities (in terms of facilitating communication between them – which is key to management effectiveness). Even so, if in future more heterogeneous groups can be constituted, this may be an advantage www.mdf.nl Page 21 (21)

×