|
SLE (CATAD) Centre for Advanced Training in Rural Development
Humboldt-University Berlin
CONTENTS Food security and conflict: the case of Trincomalee - The IFSP Trincomalee linking relief and development - Facilitating approach development - Theory of vulnerability - Entitlement promotion - Double strategy - The IFSP support philosophy - Project cycle - Stepping in: village selection - Participatory needs assessment (PNA) - PNA: steps 1-6 - Social mobilisation - Facilitating planning & action - Assessing key actors - Co-ordination procedures steps 7-14 - Guidelines are not a corset! - What still has to be done - Reflections on the scope of participation: acting in the project arena - Reflections on the role of the CATAD study team: insider or outsider? - Cross-cultural cooperation
Food Security and Conflict
A Participatory Development Concept for the Integrated Food Security Programme Trincomalee, Sri Lanka
SLE Team: Eberhard Bauer, Christine Bigdon, Antonia Engel, Benedikt Korf, Giang Nam Ha, Kerstin Schaefer, Esra Terzioglu
IFSP Team: M. Rohini Singarayer, T.C. Emmanuel, R. Rohan Prasanth, M. Shanthikumar, M. Swaminathan, K.M. Thoufeek, K.B.S. Wijeratne
Trincomalee and Berlin, December 1999
Food security and conflict: the case of Trincomalee
Food security is often a key problem in conflict situations and civil disturbances. During periods of violence, food insecurity can become an acute problem for a large part of the population. In Trincomalee District, the conflict situation has resulted in an alarmingly high percentage of malnourished and exceptionally impoverished people.
The IFSP Trincomalee: linking relief and development
The German-Sri Lankan Integrated Food Security Programme Trincomalee (the IFSP), therefore aims at enabling the conflict-affected, malnourished and vulnerable groups in Trincomalee District to diversify and intensify their food and income sources and improve their diet and health care. The IFSP seeks to improve the acute food security situation whilst mobilising human resources and generating social and productive assets essential for structural food and nutritional security.
Facilitating approach development
The IFSP/CATAD study team assisted the IFSP in elaborating and field testing a participatory and integrated village development approach (PIVDA) towards food and nutritional security. The main tasks were to analyse existing operational procedures, to assess relevant service providers and, on this basis, to design an approach adequate to the situation. This reports presents the results of these efforts.
Theory of vulnerability
Food insecurity is not a static phenomenon, but a problem characterised by the lack of protection against risks and threats to individual livelihood systems. Vulnerability has an external (risks, shocks, stress) and an internal dimension, i.e. a lack of means to cope without damaging losses. Vulnerable people are those who will suffer most from a socio-political crisis, a natural disaster or environmental degradation.
The key principle of PIVDA is entitlement promotion: to enable those vulnerable conflict-affected groups within a community with inadequate access to food to cope with a food crisis and to deal with their precarious situation by themselves. Social mobilisation and strengthening of local organisations and capacities is thus at the heart of the PIVDA philosophy.
Double strategy
The IFSP follows a double strategy in implementation: Community projects contribute directly to the improvement of the basic conditions for food availability (rehabilitation of infrastructure) and to the benefit of the community as a whole. Poverty projects provide services, extension and social mobilisation to vulnerable groups, mainly in order to strengthen their entitlements to food (income generation).
The IFSP support philosophy
The IFSP advocates a complementary strategy of facilitating planning and implementation through local organisations. Existing GOs and NGOs shall be strengthened to deliver better services at village level with regard to food and nutritional security. At the same time, the IFSP promotes social mobilisation at the grass-roots.
The three main groups of actors relevant to the IFSP are:
- Co-ordinating body. The District Planning Secretariat (DPS), the body responsible for co-ordinating all development activities.
- Service providers. Governmental and non-governmental organisations and private enterprises deliver services and support to facilitate planning and implementation of projects.
- Implementing partners. the local communities and vulnerable groups are the owners of the development process and thus the main actors responsible for implementation.
Project cycle
The IFSP/CATAD study team developed a model of a participatory and integrated village development approach (PIVDA; Chapter 3) and a user friendly field guide (Part B) for the following sequence of steps (in brackets the number of steps in the field guide ((TP 6)):)):
- Setting priorities: village selection for further action (8)
- Bringing the villagers into the game: participatory needs assessments (PNA; 9, 10)
- Achieving sustainability on village level: social mobilisation (11).
- Project planning, implementation, co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation (12-15)
Stepping in: village selection
Village selection: to reach the most vulnerable groups, the most needy villages are to be selected for priority intervention, according to a set of clear criteria relating to vulnerability and food security.
Participatory needs assessment (PNA)
The IFSP/CATAD study team developed methodology for participatory needs assessment (PNA) based on the following four key principles.
- Entitlement promotion: PNA focuses attention on vulnerable groups and on their potential and opportunities for promoting entitlements to food and services.
- Process orientation: the village level PNA workshop tends to focus more on facilitation and awareness raising rather than on pure data collection.
- Optimal ignorance: the teams collect only relevant information for further action rather than producing masses of data (data graveyards).
- Time budgeting: the overall time framework of the workshop is compact and scheduling is adapted to local seasonal time availability to reduce the opportunity costs of participation.
PNA: steps 1-6
Participatory Needs Assessment (PNA) is a process which follows a step-wise approach ranging from preparation to documentation:
- The preparatory phase (Step 1-4) consists of four consecutive steps. The quarterly review meeting (Step 1) assesses past experience and selects villages for further action. Secondary data analysis (Step 2) is a prerequisite for the preliminary investigation visit (Step 3) which informs villagers about PNA and provides the PNA teams with a first insight into conditions on the ground. A co-ordination meeting subsequently prepares all necessary logistical arrangements (Step 4).
- The focus of the PNA village workshop (Step 5) has been substantially shifted in accordance with the principles stated above. The first day covers community problems and identifies community projects. The following two days are exclusively spent with vulnerable groups to facilitate a process of problem-sensing/problem-solving and of action group formation.
- For report writing (Step 6), clear guidelines have been developed to focus documentation on relevant information only required for further planning and action.
Social mobilisation
The formation of action groups during PNA marks the entry-point for social mobilisation which aims at:
- Strengthening the self-help capabilities of vulnerable groups (empowerment),
- Enhancing a feeling of ownership to achieve sustainability, and
- Contributing to conflict reconciliation at local level (mediation)
The IFSP/CATAD study team developed a model for social mobilisation. The model makes a distinction between an internal facilitator (the village co-ordinator), and an external guide (the social mobiliser). The social mobiliser is in charge of training and supervision of village co-ordinators and of monitoring project implementation.
Facilitating planning & action
Shortly after the participatory needs assessment, it is crucial that the relevant service providers of the IFSP start immediate action on project planning and implementation. The co-ordination of different actors should ensure that they follow the principles of PIVDA.
Assessing key actors
Relevant service providers are assessed by the IFSP/CATAD study team. Results are documented in a separate project internal report; the major constraints for co-operation are summarised below:
- The capacities of the District Planning Secretariat (DPS) as the co-ordinating body are limited due to a lack of experienced staff.
- Governmental line departments are until now, neither used to working in an integrated manner, nor are participatory methods in needs analysis, planning or implementation well established.
- Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are presently engaged primarily in relief and rehabilitation. They often lack technically competent staff for development-oriented work. (cf. Annex 3.3)
- Community-based organisations (CBOs) are often ineffective, politicised and represent mainly the local elite.
Coordination procedures steps 7-14
The IFSP/CATAD study team developed procedures in order to facilitate the co-ordination, planning, implementation and monitoring activities of the IFSP (Part B: field guide).
The procedures comprise Steps 7-14 of PIVDA which are:
- Pre-assess project proposals arising from the participatory needs assessment (Step 7).
- Screen project proposals and select suitable service providers at a divisional level meeting (Step 8).
- Elaborate technically and financially sound project plans (Step 9)
- Assess the plans further and adjust if necessary (Step 10).
- Approve adjusted project plans (step 11).
- Elaborate and sign agreements on budget lines, working plans and supervision (Step 12).
- Assist with project implementation (Step 13).
- Facilitate monitoring and evaluation (Step 14).
Guidelines are not a corset
The field guide (Part B) for service providers and for the DPS has been developed in response to the requests of the IFSP partners for a clear support policy. Although the procedures might appear bureaucratic at first sight, they constitute a great help in the initial stage of the conceptualisation of the project cycle. After some experience in the field, the co-ordination procedures can be substantially simplified.
What still has to be done
IFSP/CATAD supported the ongoing process of concept development for the IFSP. To firmly root a participatory and integrated approach in the project cycle of the IFSP, further steps are necessary, among others:
- training of GO and NGO staff in the adjusted PNA methods and further development of local training capacities for PNA
- conceptualisation of the social mobilisation model and developing user-friendly guidelines for the implementing partners.
- facilitating acceptance of institutional ownership with GOs and NGOs
- purpose-oriented capacity building and support for service providers
Reflections on the scope of participation:
acting in the project arena
Approach development does not take place in a vacuum, but in a complex system consisting of different actors. The particular situation of conflict in Trincomalee, to some extent restricts the scope for participatory and integrated approaches:
- expectation pressures calling for quick action but at the expense of development-oriented long-term sustainability,
- lack of coherence in different donor strategies on district and community level,
- limits of participation and partnership in cooperation between the IFSP and local stakeholders,
- temporary interventions hardly likely to induce post-project sustainability, especially when the recipient mentality among beneficiaries and institutions is as deeply rooted as in Trincomalee.
Reflections on the role of the CATAD study team:
insider or outsider?
It is crucial that external consultants clarify their role before entering a system. For the CATAD team, clarification of roles proved to be difficult. Co-operating intensively with IFSP counterparts meant that CATAD became deeply involved in the system ‘IFSP’. Which of the IFSP/CATAD activities should have been performed by a consultant, and which ones by other stakeholders in the system IFSP?
Cross-cultural cooperation
Cross-cultural cooperation is always a challenge. Although in the case of IFSP/CATAD, some external conditions did not permit full-time co-operation, process monitoring revealed a degree of satisfaction on both sides. However, pressure of time meant that we tended to neglect social contacts between the members of CATAD and the IFSP. Differences in the availability of time meant that it was not always possible to incorporate them at all conceptualisation stages of the research design. Above all, the external conditions which are imposed on activities, will be hard to change. It is fundamental to keep expectations realistic from the beginning, whenever planning of decision and action-oriented research within a cross-cultural context is undertaken.
|
