Unit 04

Strategic Corporate Development

R. Forster (ed.)

Particapatory Learning and Action -

A Challenge for our Services
and Institutions

Workshop Documentation
Published by:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

Postfach 5180, D-65726 Eschborn
Germany
Tel.: + 49-(0) 6196-79-0 (1709)
Fax.: + 49-(0) 6196-70 6109

Unit 04
Strategic Corporate Development
Group 042
Quality Assurance

Edited by:

Reiner Forster, Martha Gutiérrez

Eschborn, November 1996

Unit 04
Strategic Corporate Development

Group 042
Quality Assurance

Reiner Forster (ed.)

Participatory Learning and Action -

A Challenge for our Services
and Institutions

Workshop Documentation

Eschborn 1996
 Contents

Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................... vii

Preface .............................................................................................. ix

Introduction........................................................................................ 1

ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs

and Priorities count?
by Robert Chambers.................................................................................................... 5

Recent Developments in GTZ's Project Management

Approach
by Michael Goebel, Christan Seufert and Reiner Forster .......................................... 19

Recommendations to GTZ ................................................................ 29

The Reluctant Bride. Some Thoughts about the Seminar.

by Bernd Schubert...................................................................................................... 33

PART ONE: O PEN S PACE S ESSION S UMMARIES ....................................................... 37

Minimum Requirements for Planning:

which Planning Framework do we need?............................................................ 39

Conditions for Participation.................................................................................. 43

The Role of Facilitation in Development .............................................................. 45

How can Participation be Institutionalized at the Level of

Intermediary Institutions and Policy Making? ....................................................... 49

Participatory Approaches in District/Village Level Planning ................................ 53

Linking ZOPP and PRA: Institutionalization of a Participatory and Integrated

Development Approach to be used by Local Development Agents .................... 55

From Islands to the Mainland. Institutionalizing Participatory

Approaches into Government Departments ........................................................ 57

Linking ZOPP and PRA Tools. How shall we do Project Planning

in the Future? ....................................................................................................... 59

How far have we travelled - and what will be around the corner?
by Reiner Forster ....................................................................................................63

iii
ZOPP marries PRA?

P ART T W O : B ACKGROUND P APERS .......................................................... 67

Social Processes and the Limits of Planning .............................. 69

by Manfred Beier

Linking Village and District Planning: Scaling Up Village Level

Planning ...................................................................................... 75
by Nikolaus Schall

The Ngobe Agroforestry Project and the Process Supportive

Consultancy................................................................................. 87
by Maruja Salas and Timmi Tillmann

Participation and Planning: Who needs What to Get

Things Going?............................................................................. 91
by Ulrike Breitschuh

Result oriented ZOPP and quantitative Indicators undermine

demand and process Orientation of Projects ............................. 95
by Dieter Gagel

Beyond methods - What?........................................................... 101

by Jimmy Mascarenhas

Participation and Service Orientation ...................................... 105

by Walter Huppert

Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 115

Participants .......................................................................................................... 117

iv
v
vi

Acknowledgements
The organization of the "ZOPP marries
PRA?" workshop required a great deal of
dedication and cooperation from a multi-
tude of people.
The organizers would like to express their
gratitude to Robert Chambers and Bernd
Schubert, who were the co-originators of
the idea to host an exchange of experience
on the topic. Both contributed valuable
insights and recommendations to the
workshop.
Among the participants, we are especially
indebted to the large number of non-GTZ
resource persons who dedicated their time
and energy to join the discussion on how
to support participatory development within
GTZ. Our special gratitude, for ideas and
encouragement, goes to the colleagues
from the South, namely Mallika Sama-
ranayake, Kamal Kar, Jimmy Mascaren-
has and Sam Sekyembe.
Acknowledgements
Great appreciation is expressed to the
workshop's moderator, Matthias zur Bon-
sen, who navigated more than fifty partici-
pants carefully, but determinedly through a
dense and animated workshop pro-
gramme.
Thanks also to the GTZ colleagues. A
number of them have been involved in this
process from the very beginning.
Finally, we would particularly like to thank
the authors of the background papers and
the open space session summaries for
pinning down succinctly the discussions of
the different sessions and for their in-depth
contributions on a variety of topics.
We are enormously grateful to all partici-
pants, for the commitment, the encour-
agement, and their stimulation. We are
looking forward to a continuing collabora-
tion with all of them.
vii
viii

Preface
The broad consensus that participation is
a key element of sustainable development
processes, democratisation, and poverty
alleviation constitutes the basis of this
workshop. Therefore, the topic of partici-
patory approaches is of great importance
to GTZ and the present reorientation within
our organisation.
As ZOPP was introduced as a planning
instrument in the early 80’s, we parted
from the premise that it would be a signifi-
cant step to enhance participation of the
various groups and actors involved in
Technical Cooperation. Today, we realise
that this premise was proven only partially
correct. ZOPP has indeed contributed to a
better participation of partner organisations
in project design and planning. Neverthe-
less, for the local population the promise of
participation in decision-making did in
many cases not materialise. During the
past few years, an increasing number of
projects have tried to overcome these
deficits by using and experimenting with
participatory methods and approaches
such as PRA, participatory action research
and others. Often, this occurred in close
cooperation with local NGOs, who have
developed and promoted these ap-
proaches since the early 80’s.
Based on lessons learned from the field,
GTZ management has recently adopted a
new management approach: the Project
Cycle Management (PCM). This policy
framework and a modified understanding
of the ZOPP planning method put more
emphasis on flexibility, process-orientation
and the appropriate use of participatory
methods. These changes should allow
disadvantaged groups of society to ex-
Preface
press their interests and to influence the
shape and direction of projects and pro-
grammes much more effectively than in
the past. We are aware that a policy
guideline is just a first step. To make its
spirit gain practical relevance, a great deal
more must happen than just a modification
of instructions and procedures. The most
crucial aspect of this reorientation is that
the aim of "peoples' participation" requires
the readiness and ability to delegate re-
sponsibility and decision-making power -
both in GTZ as well in our partner organi-
sations. This implies changes in our self-
perception and of our role in development
cooperation. It requires a learning attitude
and the conviction that people have the
potential and creativity to find solutions for
themselves. This attitude is something
which cannot be reduced to a manage-
ment policy. It has to be lived by everyone
and has to become part of the "institutional
culture" of the whole organisation. With
the recent decision to decentralise its or-
ganisational structure, GTZ is trying to
make a move in exactly this direction: giv-
ing more responsibility and trust to the staff
working abroad, reducing hierarchical
structures and bureaucratic burden.
A large organisation like GTZ does not,
however, have the capability of changing
overnight. There are many challenges and
questions to be tackled in the process.
The contributions of this workshop will cer-
tainly help GTZ to make the best use of the
given opportunities for change and reorien-
tation. Especially the recommendations
formulated throughout the workshop, will
be highly valued and will play an important
role in the current process of operationalis-
ix
ZOPP marries PRA?

ing our new management policy and pro-

cedures.

Franziska Donner
Head of
Strategic Corporate Development Unit
GTZ

x

Introduction
Participatory approaches have gained sig-
nificant acceptance in official development
cooperation over the last few years. Often
rooted in the self-help and community de-
velopment tradition of NGOs, these ap-
proaches emphasise decentralised deci-
sion-making, joint learning processes, and
an orientation towards action and process
rather than output. Development is seen
as empowering people to help themselves,
and as allowing them to influence initiatives
and decisions which affect their lives. The
people themselves, their needs and capa-
bilities are the focus of the approach and
not the funding nor the organisational reali-
ties and operational procedures of partner
agencies. In view of the diverse interests,
values and visions of the groups and insti-
tutions involved in development efforts, the
core questions of these approaches are:
"whose reality counts?", "who are the
beneficiaries?" and "how can their auton-
omy and their initiative be supported and a
dialogue between decision-makers be cre-
ated?". These participatory approaches
are more than just new sets of methods
and techniques: They emphasise the im -
portance of changes in personal values,
role reversals and institutional reorienta-
tion, in particular for outside support agen-
cies.
Having realized the deficits of traditional
top-down approaches, most of the bilateral
and international development organisa-
tions are currently exploring and promoting
participatory development. This trend can
also be observed in German Technical
Cooperation (TC). An increasing number
of GTZ-supported projects have gained
experience with village level planning, par-
Introduction
ticipatory rural appraisal methods (PRA),
action research or other learning ap-
proaches.
However, participatory project approaches
have long co-existed with institutional
structures, procedures and instruments of
Technical Cooperation, which have often
proven unconductive for decentralised de-
cision-making, for flexibility and mutual
learning processes. An example of this
situation is that GTZ’s obligatory planning
method ZOPP ("objective oriented project
planning") was reduced in the past to a
standardised five-day planning workshop,
which in many project types was unsuit-
able for an adequate involvement of bene-
ficiaries.
GTZ recently re-oriented its management
approach. A framework for the participa-
tory management of development
cooperation has been established. ZOPP
was redressed as a logical sequence of
planning steps. In future, these should be
carried out with greater flexibility, making
use of other methods and techniques
where appropriate. These changes may
enlarge the scope for process-oriented
project management and decentralised
decision-making. It will be important to
test, document and reassess experiences
with the application and combination of
new instruments and approaches for the
purposes of TC.
So far, too little attention has been paid to
the question whether participatory learning
approaches are compatible with the con-
straints of a management and steering
system which is essentially based on the
logical framework approach. Are there
1
ZOPP marries PRA?
ways for a productive integration? Which
re-orientations are necessary? Is there a
danger that the swift embracing of partici-
patory methods in an otherwise un-
changed institutional context supports the
degeneration of these approaches to mere
techniques of data collection? Do projects
see the necessity for new roles, compe-
tencies and subsequent institutional devel-
opment processes? How do they over-
come in practice the dichotomy between
process/beneficiary orientation and the
requirements of donor and partner organi-
sations in terms of pre-determined objec-
tives, outputs, fixed time schedules? How
do the tendering procedures between the
ministry and GTZ, the sequential financing
of project support and the control impera-
tive restrain or facilitate participatory devel-
opment?
These questions were raised at a seminar
held at GTZ Headquarters in Eschborn,
Germany on March 25 and 26, 1996. A
large number of practitioners of ZOPP and
PRA, policy planners and trainers from the
North and the South1 met with the objec-
tive of providing an orientation on how par-
ticipatory development processes can be
institutionalised in GTZ's work and on the
implications this might have for GTZ as a
large development organisation. The re-
sults envisioned were
• to analyse experiences of the interplay
between participatory learning ap-
proaches and the planning and man-
agement system of GTZ (in theory and
practice);
• to share ”best practices” of using of the
existing management policy, instru-
ments and procedures; and
1 Cf. the list of participants in Annex 1.
2
• to elaborate recommendations for nec-
essary changes with regard to policy
orientation, procedures, instruments, as
well as skills, roles and ethical stan-
dards.
The programme of the workshop allowed
for maximum participation, sharing of ex-
perience and coverage of issues of inter-
est, relating to the workshop topic.
P ROGRAMME OF THE W ORKSHOP
After a welcome address and an outline of the
two-day event during the opening session, the
participants received an overview of GTZ’s re-
cently re-oriented project management ap-
proach by Michael Goeble and Christian Seufert
from GTZ’s group for Quality Assurance. Robert
Chambers, from the Institute of Development
Studies in Sussex/UK, added his critical analy-
sis of PCM/ZOPP and the pre-requisites for the
proposed ‘marriage’. These two keynote
speeches served as a common ground for de-
bate in the group. Some participants then
claimed a time slot and introduced topics for
discussion. Afterwards, 12 „open spaces“ were
formed in which they had the opportunity to
discuss the topics of their choice and exchange
their own experiences.
During the first afternoon and the following morn-
ing, groups discussed, visualised and ex-
changed ideas. The results were shared within
a market forum in which the participants had the
opportunity to share in the visualised presenta-
tions of other groups and clarify si sues. The
initial groups met again, in order to elaborate
concise recommendations. These were pre-
sented to the forum. The plenary session sanc-
tioned the recommendations which were of
common agreement and identified others for
further discussion.

This reader collects the most important
contributions to the workshop. It includes
the thoughtful speech by Robert Cham-
bers and the presentation of the recent
developments in GTZ’s management.
This last text also briefly outlines how PRA
and the new PCM/ZOPP approaches
could fit together effectively. One of the
main objectives of the workshop was to
bring together recommendations on how
GTZ should proceed in its efforts to estab-
lish a participatory development approach.
The recommendations have been edited to
improve readability and conciseness.
They represent an invitation to participate
in a further discussion of the issue. An
insight into the workshop and its results is
offered by Bernd Schubert, from the SLE
at the Humboldt University in Berlin. He
gives, from a participant’s perspective, an
overall view of the procedure of the work-
shop as well as some insights into the
degree of acceptance of the proposed
marriage.
The first section of this documentation
consists of the Open Space Session
Summaries. These document briefly the
procedure in the discussion groups and
the results achieved. Some groups elabo-
rated on specific issues concerning plan-
ning, participation and facilitation within
GTZ’s Technical Cooperation. Others dis-
cussed the objectives and the methodo-
logical approach of how participation can
be introduced at different levels of project
planning and in various institutional con-
texts. The discussion groups worked on
the basis of their own experience with
ZOPP and participatory approaches in
project management, including occasional
case studies. Therefore, the results and
practical recommendations formulated,
mirror the multiplicity of perspectives on
this topic.
Introduction
The first part of this reader is concluded by
Reiner Forster’s text. Under the title
"How far have we come“ it assesses the
process and results of the workshop and
outlines some of the next steps necessary
for GTZ’s institutional learning.
In the second section of this documenta-
tion, a series of background papers, writ-
ten by participants after the end of the
workshop, have been brought together.
From a variety of viewpoints, the authors
expand on particular aspects topical to the
workshop, i.e. the institutionalisation of
participatory development approaches.
These are not only related to GTZ’s institu-
tional learning, but also deal with chal-
lenges facing the support of participatory
approaches in partner countries and or-
ganisations.
In the first paper, Manfred Beier analyses a
central issue of development work: the
limits and ambiguities of planning when it
comes to influencing social processes.
Using a general case study, he exemplifies
the complexity of adjusting planning and
appraisal methods to the changing social
reality. He concludes that social proc-
esses can not be planned, but they can be
influenced, for instance, through an appro-
priate and differentiated utilisation of ZOPP
and PRA methods.
The second paper, written by Dieter Gagel,
thematizes ZOPP and PCM from a critical
perspective. As the title of his essay indi-
cates, the persistence on an output ori-
ented ZOPP and on quantitative indicators
enforces the supply character of a project.
He pleads instead, for a reappraisal of
qualitative and process-oriented planning
systems, questioning the usability of ZOPP
for this purpose. He also reflects on the
question whether PCM can actually com-
pensate ZOPP’s shortcomings. He con-
cludes his paper with some recommenda-
3
ZOPP marries PRA?
tions to modify ZOPP and relativise it as a
system.
In the third paper, Maruja Salas and Timmi
Tillmann portray procedures and learning
processes within a Process Supportive
Consultancy in Panamá. The authors
demonstrate not only the paradigm shift in
the understanding of development pro-
jects, but also portray, using an example of
the Ngobe mythology, the profound impor-
tance of cultural considerations in Techni-
cal Cooperation. The reader can also gain
insight on how PSC is being successfully
implemented in a project and on the chal-
lenges and limitations encountered during
the process.
The fourth paper describes the experience
of an NGO in India with participatory ap-
proaches and planning methods. The au-
thor, Jimmy Mascarenhas, briefly recounts
how the NGO strives to combine the prac-
tical goal of capital formation with participa-
tory and learning processes in the com-
munity.
In the following paper, Ulrike Breitschuh
analyses the applicability of ZOPP in plan-
ning processes within NGOs. Based on
the deficiencies she has established along
her practical experience in West Africa, the
author formulates concrete recommenda-
tions as how to implement ZOPP flexibly
and still maintain the benefits of a struc-
tured technique. This is, she argues, of
special importance for NGOs who need to
elaborate structured project proposals ac-
ceptable to donor organisations.
In the next paper, Nikolaus Schall tackles
the topic on how to scale up village plans
at district or province level. He analyses
the problems of concentrating participatory
approaches at village level without examin-
ing the interrelations in a larger context.
From the background of his experience in
4
several African and Asian countries, he
then offers concrete examples as how to
increase the overall impact of the devel-
opmental efforts by linking planning at dif-
ferent levels of decision-making.
In the last paper of this section, Walter
Huppert focuses on participation from the
perspective of a service management ap-
proach. He differentiates the question of
participation according to the framework
within it is supposed to occur: Are the par-
ticipants members of an organisation or
are they rather clients of service provision?
Having stressed the fundamentally differ-
ent conditions for participation -and pat-
terns of responsibility- within various
frameworks, Huppert pleas for a new un-
derstanding of TC organisations as service
providers and of target groups as custom-
ers or clients. As he points out, TC or-
ganisations can therefore participate in the
development efforts of self-determined
groups in partner countries rather than
assume the overall responsibility for the
management of the target groups’ pro-
jects.
Reiner Forster
Group 042
Quality Assurance
 ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs and Priorites count?
ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs
and Priorities count?
Robert Chambers, Institute for Development Studies, Sussex
First let me thank GTZ for convening
this workshop. It is both timely and
important. It is timely because it may
help us to see good ways forward in
our crisis of paradigms. It is important
because since GTZ has been so
much a leader in innovating with and
spreading ZOPP, changes in GTZ
may have big impacts in other organi-
sations, perhaps especially the EU
which I understand is currently adopt-
ing something like ZOPP for its pro-
jects.
I feel bad coming here and making the
critical remarks which will follow. This
is for two reasons. First, I have a dis-
reputable past: I have been responsi-
ble for the management of a pastoral
development project which was a dis-
aster because of its top-down authori-
tarian style; and in the early 1970’s, I
was involved in the development of
procedures in the Special Rural De-
velopment Programme in Kenya
which some have identified as an an-
tecedent of the Logical Framework
and of ZOPP. Second, old or ageing
men who go around telling people
what they should do, are a major part
of the problems of our world. And
here am I doing just that. However, if
there is one field in which the English
can claim to be world-leaders, it is
hypocrisy. So if you are generous,
you will interpret my behaviour simply
as an attempt to maintain national
standards.
I am not sure about this term of "mar-
riage". Nowadays, it is more and
more the custom here in the North to
have prolonged partnerships before
formal union. Also there is a problem
of stability in marriages, and if the Brit-
ish Royal Family is anything to go by,
the higher the level of the marriage,
the less stable it is liable to be. Still,
the imagery is appropriate in one re-
spect, namely that ZOPP is mascu-
line, being linear and rigid, more con-
cerned with things and with an engi-
neering mode in action, while PRA is
more feminine, (and I should be care-
ful with any adjectives), and more
concerned with people and proc-
esses. More than marriage perhaps
we are concerned with mutual learning
and with looking for the best alterna-
tives, combinations, and sequences of
activities.
Two quotations seem appropriate.
The first is from Karl Popper who
wrote something on these lines, "You
may be right, and I may be wrong, and
by an effort, together, we may get
closer to the truth", and the other is
from a character in Tom Stoppard's
play "Arcadia": "It is the best time to be
alive, when almost everything you
thought you knew is wrong". In the
spirit of these two quotations we can
struggle together to find better ways of
doing things.
5
ZOPP marries PRA?

Context sionals - have a history of astonishing

The context in which we do this is
relevant. Three dimensions stand out.
First, the rate of change in almost
every domain seems to be accelerat-
ing. This includes the lives and aspi-
rations of people all round the world,
including those who are "remote".
Second, we - development profes-
error. It is humbling to see how often
we have been wrong. And third, a
problem running through this is domi-
nance in behaviour and attitudes. The
dominance of "uppers" over "lowers"
is part of the problem, and leads to
many errors. The issue can be ex-
pressed as "Whose reality counts?".

There are many relationships between "uppers" and "lowers":

Table 1: Relationships between "uppers" and "lowers"

Dimension/Context North South

Uppers Lowers
Spatial Core Periphery
(urban, industrial) (rural, agricultural)
International The North The South
Development IMF, World Bank Poor countries
Donors Recipients
Creditors Debtors
Personal, Ascriptive Male Female
White Black
High Ethnic or Caste Group Low Ethnic or Caste Group
Life Cycle Old person Young person
Parent Child
Mother-in-law Daughter-in-law
Bureaucratic Organisation Senior Junior
Manager Worker
Official Supplicant
Patron Client
Officer "other rank"
Warden/Guard Inmate/Prisoner
Social, Spiritual Patron Client
Priest Lay Person
Guru Disciple
Doctor/Psychiatrist Patient
Teaching and Learning Master Apprentice
Lecturer Student
Teacher Learner

"Uppers" construct their own realities they do not fit, misinformation is gen-
and impose them on "lowers". When erated, and development projects and

6
 ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs and Priorites count?
other initiatives often fail. One way of
seeing this is as mutually reinforcing
north-south magnets. Bureaucratic
hierarchies and social systems, fami-
lies, relationships between profes-
sionals and non-professionals and the
like can be seen as oriented between
the powerful and the subordinate. The
enterprise, in which we are engaged in
development, is (I think correctly) try-
ing to weaken these dominant north-
south magnetic fields. This means
that although we retain hierarchy and
bureaucracy, which is necessary up to
a point, the magnetism is weakened
and we are freer to relate laterally,
upwards and downwards, and to be
adaptive and flexible in new ways.
To illustrate this, a spectacular exam-
ple is that of psychoanalysts, from
Freud until the 1980’s and to some
extent even the 1990’s. They have
believed that the accounts of being
incestuously abused in childhood,
given to them by women patients,
were untrue, and reflected wish-
fulfilment, the repressed sexual de-
sires of the victim for the abuser. That
this professional and patriarchal myth
could have been perpetuated for three
generations is a terrible warning to the
rest of us who may be in powerful po-
sitions about the dangers of perpetuat-
ing our own fantasies in a develop-
ment context. The question is
"Whose reality counts?", "ours" or
"theirs". As part of this we have to
ask: Whose knowledge counts?
Whose needs? Whose priori-
ties/criteria? Whose appraisal? analy-
sis? planning? Whose baseline?
Whose action? Whose indicators?
Whose monitoring? Whose evalua-
tion? Is it ours, or theirs?
Two Paradigms
The reality which has counted in the
past has tended to be ours, top-down
and related to things rather than peo-
ple. Two columns can illustrate the
contrast between the paradigm for
things, which is top-down with plan-
ning blueprints and that of people,
which is bottom-up, with participatory
processes.
7
ZOPP marries PRA?
Table 2: The Paradigms of Things and People Contrasted
Things
Mode Blueprint
Key Activity/Concept Planning
Objectives Pre-set
Logic Linear, Newtonian
Actions/Outcomes Standardised
Assumptions Reductionist
People Seen As Objects, Targets
Outsiders' Roles Transfer, "Motivate"
Main Outsiders Engineers, economists
Outputs Infrastructure
Physical Change
Historically, development has been
dominated by the "things/blueprint"
column. We need that side, especially
when infrastructure is being con-
structed. The question is whether the
approaches that fit there should be
transferred and applied to people and
processes. It will be obvious that
these two columns resonate with
ZOPP and with PRA respectively. The
left-hand column tends to be top-
down, centralised, supply driven, and
with accountability upwards; the right-
hand column tends to be bottom-up,
decentralised, demand drawn and with
accountability downwards. These
may be slight caricatures and idealisa-
tions. Nevertheless, the contrast does
seem to have some meaning. So a
question we can ask ourselves is,
whether ZOPP, in practice, tends to
have evolved from the modes of op-
eration of the "things" column and per-
haps is appropriate there; and whether
it is in the process of shifting, through
PCM (Project Cycle Management),
8
People
Learning Process
Participation
Evolving
Iterative
Diverse
Holistic, Systemic
Subjects, Actors
Facilitate, Empower
Any/all who have
participatory behaviour/
attitudes
Capabilities
Institutions
towards the "people and process" col-
umn which is from where PRA has
evolved and to which it applies.
There is a danger here of "four legs
good, two legs bad", to use the anal-
ogy of George Orwell's "Animal Farm",
of "people good", "things bad". What
we are concerned with is seeing what
is appropriate and what fits where. My
argument is that what has been ap-
propriate and fits when dealing with
things is not appropriate and does not
fit when dealing with people, society,
and social processes.
PRA
If PRA has a philosophy, it is one
which encourages each individual to
use personal judgement. This means
that any PRA practitioner or trainer
who lists the commitments and princi-
ples of PRA may come up with a dif-
ferent list. However, seeing and trying
to understand what PRA practitioners
 ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs and Priorites count?
do, and how they behave, there seem
to me four commitments or principles
which stand out:
• Personal Responsibility
This includes self-critical aware-
ness, non-dominating behaviour
and attitudes, and a commitment to
the other three principles.
• Equity
A commitment to trying to enable
those who are worse off to improve
their lives and experiences in ways
they welcome.
• Empowerment
Enabling them to do that, and em-
powering "lowers", those who are
weak, disadvantaged and marginal-
ised.
• Diversity
Encouraging and celebrating diver-
sity and pluralism in every domain.
Putting these into practice generates
many questions. Among these is,
"Who participates in whose project?".
Do they participate in ours? Or do we
participate in theirs? And following on,
the question is again and again: who
are they? - Poor women? People who
are "remote"? Minorities? The young?
The old? The poor? The rich? The
local elite? Officials? Or who?
PRA is not a panacea. There is a
widespread mass of bad practice in
the name of PRA, often through a fail-
ure to recognise the primacy of the
personal and of behaviour and atti-
tudes. Nothing that I say here should
give the impression that PRA is a uni-
versal solution to be applied every-
where to solve all problems.
Nevertheless, paradigmatically it
seems to fit people and process and
to have potential for empowering those
who are weak.
Let me illustrate how these themes
come together with a practical case.
Meera Shah was invited by the World
Bank to facilitate some of the proc-
esses of reconstruction and rehabilita-
tion after the Maharashtra earthquake.
She found that everyone was agreeing
that the best layout for the new villages
would be a grid. She doubted this.
But the engineers, the officials, the
planners, and also the local people all
seemed to agree. It was only through
persistent facilitation and enabling
people to express their reality through
mapping and modelling that the local
people were able to gain the confi-
dence, and also to conduct the analy-
sis, which enabled them to recognise
and express that they did not want the
grid layout. They wanted a more
complex and varied arrangement
which allowed them to live together in
their familiar social groups, and to
have open spaces. The point here is
that there was a self-reinforcing myth,
imposed by the powerful, and reflected
back to them. It required commitment
and an empowering mode of interac-
tion to dispel this. It is so easy, and so
widespread for those who are domi-
nant and powerful to transfer their real-
ity to others rather than to empower
others to express their own.
ZOPP
From this perspective, ZOPP in its
classical form can be seen as a se-
quence of procedures which has
tended to impose the reality of "up-
pers" on "lowers". Seven defects (I
will not say deadly sins) express and
reinforce this tendency:
• The top-down descending se-
quence of ZOPP workshops.
9
ZOPP marries PRA?
• Reductionism to one core problem.
Life simply is not like that. Different
people have different problems, and
different mixtures of problems.
• The imperative of consensus.
Divergent opinions, as surely
among ourselves here, are positive.
Agreement, or apparent agreement,
can be a lowest common consen-
sus, and can reflect the interests
and wishes of the powerful and ar-
ticulate rather than those of the
weak and inarticulate, in a ZOPP
workshop as in a community.
• People as targets.
People are treated as objects rather
than subjects. There is a "target
group", with all the imagery of us
aiming and shooting and trying to
hit the target, rather than of ena-
bling people to move, choose, and
determine their own destinies.
• Language
Accounts of ZOPP workshops
suggest that fluency in the lan-
guage used - usually English - en-
ables some participants to domi-
nate and marginalises others.
• Who is present? Who partici-
pates?
And on what terms? How fre-
quently and with what degree of
empowerment to analyse and ex-
press their reality, have poor
women been involved in ZOPP
workshops?
• The assumption that we know best.
This may not always be the case, but
seems implicit in the process. A quo-
tation from a ZOPP process in Chad
comes from the World Bank Participa-
tion Sourcebook. One of the Chadi-
ans said to a Bank staff member in the
middle of the ZOPP process: "I am
telling you that I have a headache, and
10
you keep telling me that I have a
footache and you want to force me to
take a medicine for that. " (Page 30 of
the Sourcebook)
There may be more. For example,
ZOPP moderators may tend to be in
physically dominant positions, espe-
cially in the management and organi-
sation of the cards on the wall. This
contrasts with the democracy of the
ground where people are free to move
cards around themselves into what-
ever categories and relationships they
think are appropriate. To what extent
these points apply will be well-known
and recognised by many in this room
who have ZOPP experience. To illus-
trate, let me quote from two relevant
accounts. The first is a letter from
Rashida Dohad in Pakistan. She took
part in a ZOPP process with a NGO.
She wrote: "... they began developing
a Project Planning Matrix. Based on
problems identified by the participants
at this workshop, this matrix listed the
sectors in which [the NGO] would
work over a certain period of time and
set indicative targets. When this ex-
ercise began I protested, rather vocif-
erously, that these decisions should
not be taken in this room and argued
for a more participatory, open-ended
planning process. The outside facilita-
tor tried to convince me that this exer-
cise was in fact participatory since it
involved "representatives" of the local
people! I pointed out that the 8 people
-- all males -- from 12 "clusters" (each
cluster consists of about 8-12 villages
which means these 8 persons were in
fact representing 49 villages!) could
only represent their own view, or at
best that of a certain group. I also
argued that as they were outnumbered
by the articulate [NGO] staff and may
 ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs and Priorites count?
have found it difficult to follow all the
written stuff (ZOPP makes profuse
use of index cards). These so-called
reps of local people had little opportu-
nity to get in a word, leave alone par-
ticipate, in deciding on the perceived
problems of local people and the sec-
tors on which [the NGO] should con-
centrate!" (pers. comm Rashida
Dohad, 1995). The second is from
Lars Johansson, a social anthropolo-
gist, who has worked a lot in Tanzania
in the Lindi and Mtwara regions. He
has written in the Forests, Trees and
People Newsletter (Vol. 26/27, 1995:
62-3) that in the process of evolution
of an on-going project there was a "not
very constructive period of trying to
write up and appraise a five year plan
according to the logical framework
format. Making programme and pro-
ject documents had become increas-
ingly traumatic to all involved. The
more we learned, the more important
it seemed not to mystify development
and take the initiative away from local
people through abstract concepts of
objectivity like outputs and indicators.
The strategies that proved to work, did
so, because they were locally intelligi-
ble and based on subjective represen-
tations of reality, so that they could be
negotiated in spoken Swahili during
village workshops amongst people
with different perspectives and inter-
ests. Personal commitments to a
coalition of people proved much more
important than scientifically adequate
project logic, but required a totally dif-
ferent approach to planning. " If these
are some of the problems, the ques-
tion then is whether the paper on pro-
ject cycle management goes far
enough in overcoming them and in
proposing and legitimating new ways
of going about things.
PCM
As I read it, the paper bears scars of
honest struggle. At times it seems
almost schizoid in the language used.
It has some of the old and some of the
new, some of what fits with things and
some of what fits with people. I do not
underestimate the valiant efforts which
have gone into this. There are positive
statements. For example: That par-
ticipants should be involved from the
start; that there should be participation
by all affected; that there should be
transparent decision-making and
analysis.
On the other hand, the old language is
in there. There should be a solid plan.
Development is a structured process.
A project must have cornerstones in
place before implementation. It should
be clearly target-oriented. There
should be pre-defined analysis and
planning steps. All of these belong to
the paradigm of things, of control, of
predictability, of standardisation. But
development is not like a Swiss train
journey, much as one may appreciate
its hyper-reliability and punctuality. It is
more like being in a boat at sea and
trying to fish. The weather changes,
the tides and currents vary, the waves
come from different directions, the
boat is blown about, and where the
fish are and what sort they are, differs
constantly. What is done at any par-
ticular stage, depends on the circum-
stances and the perceptions of a
changing reality. What matters is
judgement, sensitivity, to use the
steering wheel, to avoid dangers, and
to exploit opportunities. So one
comes back to the people-oriented
statements and asks: If participants
11
ZOPP marries PRA?
are to be involved from the start - who
and how? If participation is to be by all
affected - who are they? How are they
identified? How do they participate?
To what extent? And how are they
empowered? It is their reality that
counts? With transparent decision-
making and analysis - Transparent to
whom? And whose decision-making
and analysis?
The paper asks whether what is pro-
posed will be accepted by the target
group, whether it will be accepted by
the individuals affected. Perhaps
more pertinent questions are whether
the "target group" - the people whom it
is sought to empower, to enable to
gain a better life according to their own
values and desires - were involved in
deciding the priorities. Again it is who
participates in whose project? Who
monitors whom? What is to be verifi-
able by whom? Who is accountable
to whom?
There is not only much of the old lan-
guage in the PCM document. There
are also words which I do not find
there or which are not strongly em-
phasised - empowerment, facilitation,
women, behaviour, attitudes. Perhaps
it helps to recognise that the paradigm
we are talking of implies changes in
different dimensions. In PRA, we have
talked of there being three pillars.
These pillars link with dimensions of
change. Methods influence profes-
sionalism, behaviour and attitudes
influence the personal, and sharing
and partnership influence the institu-
tional (see Figure 1). Of these the
most important is the personal. But all
three interact and can reinforce one
another either in the direction of top-
down hierarchy or in the direction of
12
democratic empowerment. At the
50th Anniversary Symposium of FAO
in Quebec in October 1995 there were
fifteen statements adopted. One of
them was: "To develop and implement
methods and approaches to help pro-
fessionals, at all levels in organisa-
tions and interactions with farmers
and the food-insecure, to adopt behav-
iour and attitudes which are truly par-
ticipatory, non-dominating and em-
powering". That is a huge challenge.
Ideas for Action
Let me suggest three thrusts and ac-
tions:
Experiment, learn, share.
The regional learning groups on par-
ticipation and the programme of R&D
(Research and Development) on
"Critical Factors and Pre-conditions
for Success in Participatory Ap-
proaches" sound like positive initia-
tives which should bear good fruit.
There is much scope for trying out and
adapting sequences and combinations
for different conditions. Perhaps, quite
radically, ideas about what is a project
can be diversified. Much of this is
happening anyway. Should one, per-
haps, sometimes think of an ALP (Ac-
tion Learning Process) rather than a
"project". It is excellent that in the offi-
cial statement of GTZ policy, diversity
and experimentation are legitimated.
Some of the implications would seem
to be:
• The importance of behaviour and
attitudes training for staff at an early
stage in any project or ALP proc-
ess.
• PRA-type processes very early on
involving the poor, marginalised
 ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs and Priorites count?
etc., in their own analysis and iden-
tification of their needs and priori-
ties
• A high ratio of expenditures on staff
to other items, especially in the
early stages
• Low expenditures especially at first
• Monitoring process rather than
product
• Throughout struggling to ensure
that it is "their" reality that counts
• Retraining ZOPP trainers.
I crossed out the word "rehabilitating"
and will not use that. All the same,
there is a very large and influential
body of people around the world
who have been trained in ZOPP.
Surely, in terms of personal orienta-
tion, career pattern, dependency on
ZOPP training as a source of liveli-
hood etc., they must vary a great
deal. If there is to be a shift to-
wards more participatory ap-
proaches at field level, they could
be both an obstacle and a re-
source. Does it make sense to in-
stitute a programme of training for
them, providing them with new op-
portunities, stressing behaviour and
attitudes (e.g. using the ground
rather than the wall, handing over
the stick etc., etc.,) and perhaps in-
cluding "WIN-WIN" experiences,
staying with communities. ("WIN-
WIN" training have been developed
by Sam Joseph of Action Aid in In-
dia. Communities agree, in return
for a fee, to host outsiders, to teach
them about community life and ac-
tivities, to demonstrate PRA type
forms of analysis, etc... UNDP and
ODA are both starting to send their
staff for these types of experiences.
).
• Recruitment.
There is no-one in this room from
Personnel. At a workshop of the
Participatory Learning Group of the
World Bank, at which almost a
hundred Bank staff were present,
there was also no-one from Per-
sonnel. And yet recruitment, and
the criteria used in recruitment, are
critical. What are the attitudes and
criteria and values of those who
carry out the recruitment for or-
ganisations like GTZ? (See Figure
2. ) Is it critically important that
those who recruit staff to join GTZ,
should themselves have a partici-
patory mode of interaction, that they
should themselves share the val-
ues which go with a people-
oriented process approach in de-
velopment, and should recruit oth-
ers who are similarly comfortable
with and committed to participatory
approaches?
To conclude, I sense in this meeting a
wonderful openness and willingness to
struggle to find better ways of doing
things. I suppose that in this room we
are not a representative group for GTZ
as a whole. Nevertheless, it is hugely
encouraging to have the sense that we
are all of us engaged in an open learn-
ing process. It allows us to ask
whether, in considering ZOPP and
PRA, and the needs for bottom-up
empowering modes of development,
anything like a marriage makes sense.
I rather doubt it. It is easy from outside
an organisation to urge people to be
radical. It is much harder within. But
this workshop provides a safe space
to think radically, but also practically.
Let us hope that our sharing of experi-
ences will lead us all to insights and
ideas of how to do things which are
new and better, especially for those
13
ZOPP marries PRA?

whose realities in the past have

counted for little.

14
ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs and Priorites count?

15
ZOPP marries PRA?

16
 ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs and Priorites count?

Seven Assertions

Here are seven assertions. Do you agree?

1. The realities, needs and priorities that should count most are those of local
people, especially the disadvantaged -women, the poor, the marginalised, those
who are physically and socially weak and deprived. This is now conventional rheto-
ric, and most development professionals would endorse this statement.

2. For those realities, needs and priorities to be expressed requires special ef-
forts, enabling local people, especially those who are deprived and disadvantaged,
to meet, to reflect, to express and analyse their realities and needs, to plan and to
act and to be sensitively supported. PRA, done well, is a way of facilitating such
processes.

3. The realities, needs and priorities expressed by local people are typically di-
verse, and often differ from those supposed by outsider professionals. Different
communities have different needs and priorities, as do different groups (women
and men, young and old, rich and poor, ethnic groups... ) within communities. Out-
sider professionals often misread local situations.

4. In its classic form, ZOPP has been a top-down process in which professionals’
realities, needs and priorities have tended to dominate and be imposed. This has
occurred through the descending sequence of ZOPPs, the imperative of consen-
sus, the reductionism of the method, the use of outsiders’ languages, the physical
and social isolation from poor women and others, and perhaps at times the as-
sumption that `we know best´.

5. The challenge is for us to organise and behave, so that the diverse realities,
needs and priorities of the poor and weak can be expressed and accommodated.
This requires radical reversals in project sequences, processes and procedures, in
institutional cultures and rewards, and in personal behaviour and interactions at all
levels. Our knowledge and values can help, but for truly empowering participation,
only if they come last.

6. To explore and implement these reversals is immensely exciting and impor-

tant. Any organisation which leads, can make a huge contribution, far beyond the
direct impact of programmes. Precisely because it has such deep experience of
ZOPP, and has promoted it so widely, GTZ is exceptionally well placed to make this
contribution the reversals require guts and vision. The rewards, for the poor, could
be immense.

A good way forward is for sensitive PRA to come first and inform the evolution of flexi-
ble, unhurried projects, with truly participatory processes, not blueprints or products, as
the objectives to be monitored.
by Robert Chambers

17
18
 Recent Developments in GTZ’s Project Management Approach
Recent Developments in GTZ’s Project Management
Approach
by Michael Goebel, Christian Seufert and Reiner Forster
ZOPP marries PRA? - Quite a few practi-
tioners and colleagues may still be scepti-
cal about the proposed marriage. How-
ever, let us make ti clear from the very
beginning, that we, at GTZ, see no funda-
mental obstacle to the marriage of ZOPP
and PRA. Actually, they have been interre-
lated in the field since the early 90s - even
without an official ceremony. As we know
from most relationships, problems, dis-
putes or even conflicts may of course oc-
cur. But we are confident that the condi-
tions for a beneficial and enriching union
are favourable. In our view, both partners
can develop a deep mutual understanding
and, hopefully, long-lasting love.
We are well aware of the fact that a "mar-
riage" does not only mean joining the
worldly possessions and moving into a
common home. Similarly, the marriage
between ZOPP and PRA can not be re-
duced to a more effective combination of
methods and planning techniques. It is
clear that the larger question behind the
metaphor aims at our general vision of
development cooperation and the way de-
velopment organisations understand their
role and shape their services in close in-
teraction with their clients.
In recent years, GTZ has improved the
institutional conditions for a participatory
development approach. As these changes
are fundamental for the success of the
proposed marriage, we will outline the ba-
sic cooperation model and the new man-
agement approach, before addressing the
question of how well ZOPP and PRA
match.
1. GTZ’s Experience with ZOPP
When considering a marriage, it is always
good for both partners to know a bit about
the history of the other, where they come
from and how they developed. We there-
fore start with an overview of GTZ's ex-
perience with ZOPP.
In the early 80s, GTZ developed Ziel-
orientierte Projektplanung (ZOPP) - objec-
tives oriented project planning - on the ba-
sis of the Logical Framework concept and
turned it into its main project management
tool. Subsequently, a number of manage-
ment tools was added to ZOPP, i.e. Op-
erational Planning, Monitoring and Evalua-
tion, Project Progress Report, and Project
Progress Review, thus establishing a
comprehensive management system.
It is often not realised by people within and
outside GTZ that, with the introduction of
ZOPP, GTZ specifies its quality criteria for
planning and the planning process:
• The Project Planning Matrix (PPM,
comparable to the Logical Framework
grid) defines the essential elements of a
plan.
• These elements (i.e. the information in
the PPM) are to be elaborated in the
course of a participatory planning proc-
ess. Before beginning the implementa-
tion of a project, a consensus, i.e. a
common understanding of all stake-
holders, is to be ensured on what to do,
19
ZOPP marries PRA?
why, how, and with which resources.
The whole sequence is documented to
make the planning process and its re-
sults transparent for those collaborating
within the project as well as for third
parties. In order to avoid sectoral bi-
ases, planning should be carried out by
interdisciplinary teams.
More than 10 years of ZOPP application
gave evidence of remarkable improve-
ments in the planning and management of
projects:
• The justification of projects has tremen-
dously improved since then. The rela-
tionships between objectives, results
and activities are better founded and
transparent, facilitating decision-
making, steering and control.
• As the stakeholders got involved more
actively in project preparation, planning
tended to become more realistic.
20
However, since the beginning of the 90s,
GTZ has become aware of deficiencies
which seriously endanger the benefits of
ZOPP:
• Too much attention is paid to creating
"the perfect plan" instead of looking at
planning as a continuos process of
building a consensus.
• Once established, the Logframe is fre-
quently a blueprint for project implemen-
tation.
• ZOPP is reduced to "the" ZOPP-
Workshop.
• The sequence of ZOPP workshops is
executed in a rather mechanical, rigid
manner.
• Participation of target groups is often
reduced to including "the token poor" in
the workshop.
 Recent Developments in GTZ’s Project Management Approach
The History of ZOPP: From ‘the’ Standard Tool to a Flexible Method
before 1980: 1980 - 1990:
Prior to ZOPP Experience with ZOPP
situation prior to intro- important improvements: further improvements:
duction:
• no systematic planning; • active involvement of the
- in many cases: unclear, stakeholders in project
unrealistic targets; preparation and design
- difficulties in evaluation • clear and unified structure
and impact assessment of projects; facilitates de-
through lack of criteria cision-making, steering
and indicators and control
• economic efficiency diffi- • more realistic planning
cult to prove through incorporation of all
• problems of cooperation important variables
and coordination • all steps in planning and
- project - head office decision-making are
- German adviser - made transparent
partner
emerging deficiencies:
as an answer to these
difficulties: • planning function is given
too much attention
• introduction of LOG- • wrong focus: ZOPP as
FRAME and adaptation/ instrument
further development into • ZOPP reduced to the
ZOPP ZOPP workshop; ritualis-
• team work and interdisci- tic, "mechanical" applica-
plinarity as basic princi- tion
ples • planning as inflexible
• visualisation and docu- blueprint
mentation of all important • no genuine participation of
steps and outputs local people; "fig leaf"
• no differentiation of inter-
est groups at target group
level (women/men etc.)
• technocratic belief that if
is properly planned it can
be implemented
from 1990 onwards:
Redressing ZOPP
• process-oriented ap-
proach to project man-
agement
• clear orientation towards
development objectives
and directives
• cooperation is organised
according to the principles
participation, subsidiarity
and genuine partnership
• stronger focus on hetero-
geneity of target groups
• clear delineation of func-
tions, responsibilities and
roles of the different ac-
tors
related developments:
• Project Cycle Manage-
ment (PCM) as frame of
reference and orientation
for participatory develop-
ment cooperation
• firm integration of ZOPP
into this comprehensive
frame
• from mere ZOPP work-
shops back to an objec-
tive-oriented planning
process: planning as an
iterative, dynamic process
21
ZOPP marries PRA?
2. Re-orientation through PCM
To overcome the weaknesses indicated
above, GTZ has been reassessing and
changing ZOPP and incorporating it into
the "Project Cycle Management" approach
(PCM).
PCM, as defined by GTZ, is at the same
time
(1) an orientation framework for participa-
tory development cooperation and
(2) a flexible and process-orientated
management approach.
PCM - an orientation framework for
participatory development cooperation
As an orientation framework, PCM pro-
vides guidance on how to shape coopera-
tion in a way that makes it work success-
fully for all participants and produces sus-
tainable results on the ground. PCM helps
Basic model of development cooperation
development process
outset activities of target groups
situation (self-help process)
project /
programme of the
partner-country
organisations
TC
contribution
PCM starts from a basic structure of de-
velopment cooperation and includes
• the target groups, at whose level the
intended development is to take place,
• the partner organisations who imple-
ment a project or programme, in order
to assist the development effort on tar-
get group level, and
22
to clarify roles, responsibilities and owner-
ship of processes.
Experience shows that cooperation is
most fruitful, if all stakeholders
• have clarified the expectations they
have of each other,
• broadly agree on the objectives to be
reached, and
• recognise their respective responsibility
for achieving the objective, and accept
this throughout the process.
Participation is recognised today as a cen-
tral quality criterion of German Develop-
ment Cooperation. Within PCM, it means
the active involvement of individuals, social
groups and organisations in the planning
and decision-making processes that affect
them. From this viewpoint, the overriding
principle inherent in PCM is to ensure that
the intended beneficiaries are involved as
participants in these processes.
future situation /
intended improve-
ments (development
goal)
• the GTZ who, on behalf of the BMZ or
other financing institutions, provides in-
put to help the partner organisation in
implementing the project or pro-
gramme.
Within this basic model, three different
levels of responsibility can be differenti-
ated: the target groups are responsible for
 Recent Developments in GTZ’s Project Management Approach
their own development, the partner organi-
sations for the project, and GTZ for the
German contribution. In order to achieve
the common aim, i.e. the development
goal, each player has the prime responsi-
bility to shape (or manage) its own deci-
sion-making process and the required ser-
vice provision.
• The target groups must reach a con-
sensus on the planned improvement in
their life situation (which will be the de-
velopment goal) and the measures
necessary to achieve this goal.
PCM: Levels of Cooperation and Processes
Levels of Coope-
Processes
ration
target groups outset
situation
Cooperation
project / pro-
partner organi- gramme concept
sations
Cooperation
proposal for
GTZ contribution
of TC
• Similarly, GTZ must know the needs
and intentions of the two higher levels -
target groups and partner organisations
- before it can specify its own services
and inputs to the project.
The success of the intervention made at
one level becomes evident at the next
higher level: i.e. the TC assistance has
achieved its objective when, with its help,
the partners are able to provide their ser-
vices without external support. The project
• Counterpart organisations have to de-
sign their support services with regard
to the development processes envis-
aged by the target groups. They must
have a clear understanding of the self-
help efforts at target group level. This
implies asking, why the target group is
not succeeding under its own steam
(outset situation), whether a vision ex-
ists and is shared by the different social
groups, how far this vision has been
concretised in goals and activities, and
which "external" assistance is needed
for the development to take place.
development goal
achieved
project/
programme purpose
achieved
objective of
assistance
achieved
itself is successful when, with its help, the
intended development at target group level
actually takes place.
23
ZOPP marries PRA?

Frequently, GTZ's task in the early stages tion which build on one another: the ideas
of the project cycle is to work towards concerning the targeted objectives and
interlinking communication and coordina- their assembly into a system must be out-
tion processes between the partner or- lined before any decision can be taken on
ganisation and the target groups. the required inputs. Before deciding to im-
plement a project and providing the neces-
PCM - a flexible management approach sary resources, the cornerstones of a pro-
ject concept must be in place. The entire
In addition to its function as an orientation process is not linear but has many feed-
framework for the clarification of roles, back loops in which the analyses, the
responsibilities and cooperation relations, planning and the decisions made can be
PCM puts emphasis on the continuous reviewed or re-examined in more detail, in
and flexible performance of all manage- line with experience gained.
ment functions throughout the project cy-
cle. Within PCM, the instruments and tech-
niques for project management have to be
Managing means shaping social proc- selected and applied in a way which is
esses in order to achieve a common ob- appropriate to the situation; i.e. they have
jective. Management can be broken down to be geared to the various management
into separate functions, e.g. creating tasks throughout the project cycle as well
shared visions and objectives, giving as to the given socio-cultural context.
shape to them through analysis and plan-
ning, informing, organising, motivating,
establishing cooperation networks, moni-
toring and reflecting etc. These functions,
and the resulting tasks, must be performed
regularly throughout the process being
managed, from the outset to the very end.
This implies for example, that planning a
project can not be limited to the two-yearly
planning workshop, as happened all-to-
often in the past. Planning is, above all, a
process of reaching agreement about ob-
jectives and action. As such, it is highly
susceptible to changes in the environment
of a project and to new perceptions and
priorities of the different players. Planning
must therefore be considered as a con-
tinuous task of project management which
is performed as need arises.

The following diagram depicts the "life cy-

cle" of a project, stretching from the first
idea to the conclusion of project activities,
as well as the functions and tasks of pro-
ject management. According to this con-
cept, a project goes through phases of
identification, conception and implementa-
24
 Recent Developments in GTZ’s Project Management Approach

Project Cycle

develop inform steer reflect plan observe/ reflect steer

listen obectives

Identification Phase Concept Phase Implementation Phases

project project project plan

project purpose
idea objectives achieved

assess plan listen

organise set organise motivate
objectives

ð assess outset situation ð establish project co ncept ð operationalise planning

ð establish system of objectives ð prepare decision to implement the pro- ð implement, adjust and update planning
ject

ð terminate project

25
ZOPP marries PRA?
Redressing ZOPP
The deficits in the application of ZOPP
include the mechanistic use of two-yearly
ZOPP workshops. Workshops were fre-
quently selected by default as the standard
solution and equated with the planning
function of a project. At the same time,
their potential to ensure adequate target
group participation has proven to be par-
ticularly low.
These problems have led GTZ to embark
on a process of redressing ZOPP within
the PCM approach. Both innovations of
PCM - the clear division of responsibilities
and processes and the continuous and
flexible application of management instru-
ments - imply major consequences for the
understanding and future application of
ZOPP.
In contrast to "instant package" work-
shops, ZOPP should in future be under-
stood as a method which consists of a
sequence of analytical and planning steps
(e.g. stakeholder analysis, problem analy-
sis, objective analysis, results, activities,
assumptions, required resources etc.).
Meaningful planning requires to work
through this sequence, with a flexible and
complementary use of all suitable instru-
ments and techniques, e.g. of appraisal
techniques, PRA, SWAP or Future Search
Conferences to name but a few. The con-
ventional comprehensive workshop re-
mains one, but only one, option.
Instruments and techniques should in fu-
ture be selected (1) according to the pur-
pose or function of the analytical or plan-
ning step and (2) according to the capabili-
ties of the people and social groups n i-
volved. For illiterate people, the use of writ-
ten visualisation does not make much
sense. Since the 70s, a variety of new in-
struments and techniques have been de-
26
veloped (often by NGOs) which rely on
visual display of symbols, dialogue, inter-
active learning and moderation/facilitation.
GTZ is encouraging the use of these in-
struments where appropriate.
Depending on the social, cultural and insti-
tutional environment and the specific task,
certain choices have to be made; e.g. be-
tween strategic planning meetings with the
ministries and NGOs involved and the fa-
cilitation of participatory planning proc-
esses to reach a consensus on village
action. In future, GTZ staff will, therefore,
be expected to display a high level of pro-
fessionalism and ethics when recom-
mending and using relevant methods.
Standardised solutions must become a
thing of the past.
3. ZOPP and PRA: proposing the mar-
riage!
A new and flexible mix of instruments and
techniques alone is not enough to improve
the quality of development cooperation.
According to PCM, it is essential to respect
the responsibilities and processes of the
different actors involved. For the issue of
"participation of target groups" this means
that, ideally, they develop their own vision,
objectives and, maybe, if collective action
is required, their own plans. Only in inter-
action with this self-help process at target
group level can the outside organisations
derive and negotiate their support services
in a way that strengthens existing self-help
and connects with the target groups'
needs.
In the past, the clarification of visions or
objectives of target groups and their per-
spectives for individual or collective action
often remained a blind spot in TC projects
(or were seriously underestimated). Includ-
ing two or three representatives - with of-
ten doubtful legitimacy - in a ZOPP work-
 Recent Developments in GTZ’s Project Management Approach
shop was not an adequate procedure to
improve the decision-making power of the
intended beneficiaries. Similarly, the con-
sultation processes in village meetings
often merely scratched the surface of so-
cial reality and resulted in skewed or
stereotyped 'shopping lists'.
Today, we have to acknowledge the fact
that target groups are not homogeneous
with respect to their needs, interests and
priorities. These vary tremendously ac-
cording to gender, social class, age and
cultural factors. In order to account for this
diversity and to support, if possible, the
emergence of common objectives and
socially accepted changes, participatory
learning and decision-making is often nec-
essary involving the different social sub-
groups of the beneficiaries. This process
on target group level may - but does not
have to - be supported by external or inter-
nal facilitators.
Supporting Participatory Planning at Community Level
Target groups
Problem Perception Vision for Change
What
to
do?
? !
Village
Inform.& Pre-
Contract
Study Visits
Partner organizations
Project
TC Contribution
To support participatory learning and deci-
sion-making on target group level, quite a
few GTZ supported projects have experi-
mented with the PRA approach and tech-
niques. The following diagram illustrates
how the accompanying of a participatory
process on village level by outside organi-
sations can well be accommodated within
the PCM framework. Supporting participa-
tory processes at target group level is pri-
marily the responsibility of the partner or-
ganisations. However, the Technical Co-
operation contribution frequently has the
role of encouraging the partner organisa-
tions to work on participatory lines and
providing methodical and institutional ad-
vice. The competence and willingness to
interact constructively and honestly with
target groups should also be a criterion for
the decision to cooperate with a specific
mix of partner organisations.
Joint Reflection Shared Objective Implementation
Action Plan
PRA
Agreement
Workshop
on external con-
tribution
27
ZOPP marries PRA?
The PRA instruments and techniques
showed their strength in mobilising people
and allowing, if facilitated competently,
women or ethnic groups to also voice their
concerns and priorities. If integrated in a
process of participatory learning and action
we see, thus, no obstacle at all to propose
PRA as one of the instruments to support
analysis and planning within the re-
dressed ZOPP method.
With some scepticism, however, we al-
ready observe the abuse of PRA work-
shops comparable to the degenerated use
of ZOPP workshops. The tool box PRA is
sometimes taken for the participatory
process. Applied in a mechanistic way or
as 'one shot events' these workshops can,
at best, benefit the staff of outside organi-
sations as learning events. A related phe-
nomenon is to take PRA as a panacea.
Sometimes it is considered as comprising
all steps and activities necessary to realise
a participatory development approach.
Obviously the label PRA is over-stretched,
if all kind of training activities, organisa-
tional development, decentralisation
measures etc. are covered by the notion.
4. Challenges/Perspectives
True participation entails a redistribution of
authority to decide on, control and manage
the use of resources. Finely-honed appli-
cations of methods and tools cannot re-
place participatory processes and change
roles and attitudes of people providing ex-
ternal support. For support agencies in the
South and the North alike this is generally a
huge challenge.
To create an enabling environment for par-
ticipatory processes requires "organisa-
28
tional development" on all levels. GTZ has
started with adapting its management ap-
proach and the ZOPP planning method. In
the latest policy statement, staff and pro-
jects are particularly encouraged to ex-
periment with new planning instruments
and techniques. Already in 1992, new ad-
ministrative options for project preparation
have been introduced to allow for greater
flexibility when selecting the preparation
process for projects (appraisal, extended
planning consultancy, open orientation
phase).
GTZ is currently in the midst of a major
reorganisation aiming to decentralise a
substantial part of HQ functions to its of-
fices and staff working in partner countries.
With this effort, we also hope to consid-
erably improve the pre-conditions for a
participatory development approach.
At the same time, we have to admit that
more has to change. One major area
where we feel that additional efforts are
needed are the competencies and skills of
our own staff and of collaborating consult-
ants. Furthermore, as an implementing
agency, we have to learn more about how
the administrative procedures, budget ceil-
ings and individual directives from our
commissioning ministry affect our scope
for manoeuvre. In order to get more sys-
tematic feedback on the pre-conditions
and impacts of participatory approaches,
and on how to adapt our own organisation,
we will carry out a Research & Develop-
ment activity. Based on an exchange of
experience of about 40 GTZ supported
projects, we will empirically explore the
pre-marital contacts between ZOPP and
PRA, and are optimistic to find both part-
ners already deeply engaged.
 Recommendations to GTZ

Recommendations to GTZ

In order to bring together all thoughts, discussions, ideas and conclusions which had been
raised and debated during the open space and market forum sessions, the initial groups
conceived and elaborated the recommendations to GTZ on how to institutionalize
participation. The following list is an edited version of these recommendations.

Management Include in the PCM guidelines the issue of equity, regarding

Approach women, poor, weak and marginalized groups.

More attention should be placed on communication processes

at target group level and between them and the partner
institutions.

The operationalization of PCM requires a learning process.

Therefore establish opportunities and channels for information
flow and peer group discussion. Create a learning environment.

Illustrate the scope for flexibility within the PCM/ZOPP by using

positive case-studies.

Compile a series of short case studies on participatory planning

and evaluation at local level, stressing process orientation, local
indicators and criteria.

Document and disseminate positive and negative experiences

of ZOPP and PRA combinations and related approaches.

Offer "on-the-job" advice, training and materials to operationalize

PCM (e.g. ethics, attitudes, tools, sequences, procedures etc.)

Keep in mind that ZOPP and PCM represent basic conceptual

frameworks. Their suitability for application should be reflected
upon in each situation.

Experiment/innovate without ZOPP (in an action learning

approach).

Give financial and institutional support to groups within the GTZ

to responsably experiment with and without PCM/ZOPP and
PRA; document it and enable exchange.

Change evaluation procedures. Evaluate process and physical

output.

29
ZOPP marries PRA?

Assure that the management functions are carried out in a

process-oriented and participatory manner with regard to:
- timing
- analysis of difference (heterogeneity)
- the negotiation of cooperation principles
- objective corridors.

Make more use of "process supportive consultancies" in project

work; document and integrate the experiences in GTZ's
management approach.

BMZ/GTZ Make the BMZ and GTZ tendering procedure more flexible to fully
Tendering encompass participatory approaches.
Procedure
Ensure more flexibility from BMZ in terms of allocation of
resources and time for participatory processes.

Reduce the time needed for administrative procedures before

starting off learning processes on the ground.

As an operational possibility to implement these

recommendations, the tendering procedure should be modified
as follows:

1. Minimize time for project appraisal between BMZ and GTZ.

Start with a wide cooperation framework; agreed upon by
partner countries and BMZ; which can be concretized
gradually through a bottom-up learning approach.
2. The content of project proposals from GTZ to BMZ should be
reduced to the following basic information
- purpose
- budget ceiling
- main cooperation partners
- strategy (including risks)
- coherence with regional, sectoral and cross-sectoral
concepts of BMZ
- time horizon for cooperation

The flexibility gained by limiting project proposals to this basic

information, can only be assured if:
- in its bilateral negotiations, BMZ specifies only a political
(possibly also regional and sectoral) framework for partner
cooperation;
- during the first steps of the tendering procedure, BMZ limits
its directives to the strategic planning level, avoiding

30
 Recommendations to GTZ

operational details as much as possible;

- GTZ considerably improves its impact monitoring
capabilities and generates reliable information.
This enables BMZ to exercise its general development policy
control over projects and programmes on a basis of impact
information rather than purpose level documents.
3. At the outset of the project, create a cooperation network with
potential partner institutions. Discuss a strategy and the first
steps. Then organize participatory analysis and planning by
local people. Based on the results, elaborate
project/programme design and strategy.

Personnel Recruit and promote personnel with participatory and facilitating

Policy competencies (skills and attitudes)

Re-train ZOPP trainers as process facilitators with a wide

knowledge of different methods, techniques and instruments.

Offer "win-win" experiences for all senior staff (comparable to

Exposure-and-Dialogue-Programmes)

Development Develop a common vision statement with BMZ as to what

Policy and participation means and implies.
Country
Strategies Shift focus from a technical to a people-centred development.

GTZ should foster a culture of participation not only within its

own organization but also in partner organizations. This implies
that GTZ should promote an understanding of development as a
socially negotiated process and a respective profile of
professionals as process facilitators.

Feed back knowledge about people's priorities and potentials

into policy dialogues between partner countries and BMZ.

Elaborate country strategies in consultation with a broad range

of actors in the partner country.

31
32
 The Reluctant Bride. Some Thoughts on the Seminar ZOPP marries PRA?
The Reluctant Bride
Some thoughts on the seminar “ZOPP marries PRA?”
by Bernd Schubert
The groom – ZOPP, or objectives oriented
project planning – isn’t exactly a Prince
Charming. Born in the USA in 1970 under
the name Logical Framework, developed
and combined with visualisation tech-
niques and moderation, it’s been the offi-
cial planning system at GTZ since 1984,
increasingly recognised and copied by
other organisations since the end of the
eighties.
Then came 1990 and its slide into disre-
pute for inflexible and ritualistic use. After a
general overhaul in response to massive
criticism in 1995, the new flexible and re-
formed ZOPP became the core of a Pro-
ject Cycle Management (PCM) approach.
Prized by managers as a solid tool, it was
often used and abused in a dilettante way
in practice. Some of the seminar partici-
pants – for example, Robert Chambers –
had only known ZOPP as a caricature of
its true self and shunned it accordingly.
By contrast the bride, PRA, is young, radi-
ant and full of promise. Her appearance is
uncomplicated, effective and has ethical
appeal. At last a ray of hope in the grey,
success-challenged world of development
policy, she has taken hearts by storm all
over the world. In this phase of her life, she
is more a Joan of Arc than a blushing bride
seeking her mate. The seminar’s initiators
were wise to set a question mark after the
title “ZOPP marries PRA”.
The witnesses to the union of ZOPP and
PRA were organised as follows:
− Representatives of the Quality As-
surance Unit briefly presented the
learning processes in using ZOPP
(ZOPP critique) and the development
of the PCM-ZOPP approach based
on these.
− Robert Chambers gave a brief intro-
duction to participatory approaches,
combined with evident distaste for
the PCM-ZOPP approach.
− This was followed by a sort of mar-
ketplace in which each participant
had the opportunity to propose a
topic for discussion and form a work-
ing group with other participants in-
terested in this topic. After two hours
of work in groups, there was an op-
portunity to hear and discuss the re-
sults of other groups.
− Subsequently, recommendations
were formulated in working groups
and these were discussed and
adopted in plenary session.
The participants were free to draw their
own conclusions from this intensive proc-
ess of discussion and the results obtained,
depending on the experience and expecta-
tions they brought with them.
My own experience is 18 years with Logi-
cal Framework, followed by ZOPP and
33
ZOPP marries PRA?
finally PCM-ZOPP as a concept developer,
trainer and planner. In addition, I have three
years of experience with using and training
users of PRA and developing it into a Par-
ticipatory and Integrated Development Ap-
proach (PIDA). For the past two years, I
have been a cooperating in a consulting
capacity on institutionalizing PIDA in
Kenya’s Kilifi District.
Based on this experience, I know both ap-
proaches, value them both highly and be-
lieve that ZOPP and PRA can supplement
each other superbly, because what is lack-
ing in each is complemented by the
strengths of the other.
Used professionally, ZOPP helps planners
to proceed in a logical and systematic way
and ensure transparency, consistency,
realism and sustainability. However, ZOPP
rarely shone when it was a matter of par-
ticipation, creativity and flexibility.
In most of the cases I know, PRA had the
opposite strengths and weaknesses. Ac-
cordingly, I came to the seminar hoping for
an exchange of different experiences with
the combination of PCM-ZOPP and PRA –
sparkling, inspiring brainstorming on other
possibilities for combination.
These expectations were not entirely met.
Virtually nobody seemed to have thought
about the combination of ZOPP and PCM.
Some had just finished working on revising
and refining PCM-ZOPP and were fully
occupied with explaining, justifying and
defending this approach. Others saw a
welcome opportunity to voice their aver-
sion to ZOPP. This led to a rehashing of
ancient ZOPP criticisms and GTZ inter-
necine struggles between PCM-ZOPP
advocates and opponents. The ZOPP op-
ponents received welcome support from
other participants who had either suffered
from unprofessional application of ZOPP
34
themselves or heard about other people’s
bad experiences with ZOPP. A third group
had come to discuss PRA and were un-
able to make much of a thematic linking of
ZOPP and PRA.
Summarising (and simplifying to a degree),
ZOPP was in the dock, with some partici-
pants calling for the death sentence. PRA
shone as the bright new hope. Attempts to
link the two concepts met with little inter-
est.
Perhaps the workshop was held too early.
Perhaps PRA first has to go through the
valley of disillusionment and disappoint-
ment which will almost certainly follow the
current euphoria. Perhaps the two con-
cepts must sit side by side in the dock
before they can get together.
Without trying to anticipate the charges, let
me touch on the problems already emerg-
ing which will contribute to undermine the
PRA euphoria:
− The countless PRA training events
world-wide without systematic fol-
low-up. At the end, the communities
involved for training purposes will feel
just as much abandoned as the
trained staff in the development or-
ganisations. The question of how to
institutionalize PRA remains mostly
unsolved. There is a raging bonfire of
enthusiasm but little sustainable de-
velopment.
− The one-sided concentration on the
appraisal phase of community de-
velopment projects without consider-
ing that awareness-raising proc-
esses, empowerment and activation
are only the first steps on the road to
project success. Neither the training
events nor most of the PRA literature
present experience and knowledge
 The Reluctant Bride. Some Thoughts on the Seminar ZOPP marries PRA?

about planning, organisation, imple- cal advisers, or just managers or just

mentation and steering of community
projects.
− The “us and them” mentality, which
takes the simplifying approach that
there are only two groups of actors in
the successful implementation of
community development projects –
the members of the community and
the PRA team. The PRA team
mostly consists of relatively high-
ranking members of a government
organisation or NGO, frequently sup-
plemented by staff from development
organisations like GTZ. This idyllic
and euphoric process of communi-
cation between two groups who ac-
tually have little to do with each other
and will perhaps never see each
other again ignores the organisa-
tional landscape in which the village
is embedded and which it depends
on. Sustainable community devel-
opment depends decisively on
communities communicating and
cooperating better with the local or-
ganisations responsible for them.
Workshops for individual communi-
ties with PRA teams whose mem-
bers do not come from the local or-
ganisational landscape will not pro-
duce sustainable development.
process facilitators, but must assume
several roles at once depending on the
circumstances. Flexibilisation is the slogan
here, and this played a major role in the
seminar as well.
It is not a question of the major develop-
ment organisations like GTZ taking an offi-
cial and detailed position on individual ap-
proaches, instruments, methods and
roles. Much more important is to permit
learning processes in the context of every-
day cooperation and promote discussion
of this. GTZ is doing more of this than
other organisations, and is delegating re-
sponsibility for the development, testing,
improvement and professional use of ap-
proaches, methods and instruments to its
staff. Seen in this light – as a signal that
GTZ is serious about flexibilisation – the
seminar was a success.

An encouraging recommendation from the

seminar is that GTZ should promote and
document experience with the combination
of ZOPP and PRA. Experience of this type
will possibly be acquired on a larger scale
than the workshop atmosphere suggested.
This is in line with the new awareness
among staff of development organisations
that they have available a toolbox of ap-
proaches, instruments and methods which
can be combined as the situation de-
mands. The attitude will continue to gain
ground that staff are not just simply techni-

35
36
 Open Space Session Summaries

PART ONE

Open Space Session Summaries

The introduction by the organisers and the keynote addresses provided the basis for
discussion for the participants. The following sections represent summaries of the
debates during the open space sessions and the ensuing comments during the
market forum. All open space sessions were seen in the light of the workshop topic,
namely, to assist GTZ in institutionalizing participation within its project management
approach (PCM) and planning instruments (ZOPP).

37
38

Minimum Requirements for Planning: which
Planning Framework do we need?
Convenor/Rapporteur: Uwe Kievelitz
What did we do?
The open space group on "minimum
requirements for planning" was con-
vened in order to jointly reflect on the
implications that a clear commitment
to people’s participation would have
on the project planning process of
GTZ when applying for funds from the
Ministry and establishing a framework
of action.
At the beginning, the initiator of the
open space session stated the main
assumption, i.e. that the project plan-
ning process shall mainly serve to
create the "room for manoeuvre" for
action planning by the concerned
people and groups. Likewise, the fol-
lowing central quotation from GTZ´s
new directives for "Managing the Im -
plementation of German Technical
Cooperation Activities" was intro-
duced at the beginning, because it
reflects the idea of a limited planning
framework:
"A minimum planning framework, lim-
ited to strategic goals and input ceil-
ings and leaving as much as possible
to a joint learning process during im-
plementation, might lead to much
better results. "
In the open space group, we at-
tempted to deal with the implications
of this general vision. This was done
in a two-step process: first of all, a
general brainstorming took place in
Open Space Session Summaries
order to collect the main ideas about
the "minimal planning framework",
both for project planning and for "ac-
tion planning at the grassroots". Sec-
ond, the resulting cards were clus-
tered and analysed. A third step, i.e.
the drawing of general conclusions
from this analysis, could not be car-
ried out, due to a longer procedural
discussion as well as to the time limit
of two hours for the open space ses-
sion. Nevertheless, we were able to
reflect upon the results jointly with
participants from other working
groups during the market forum; we
shared insights from the open space
discussions and gathered some help-
ful comments.
Results/Conclusions
Technical Cooperation involves an
intervention into natural and social
environments. Essentially, it is an
attempt to initiate a structured proc-
ess of social change within an envi-
ronment which is constantly chang-
ing. Therefore it has to be understood
that planning for, and within, such
social changes can hardly be done in
the way that planning for technical
implementation has been done up
until now. The following allegory por-
trays the situation: Today’s Technical
Cooperation is not like building a
house, but rather like going out fishing
in a small boat on a rough open sea.
39
ZOPP marries PRA?
Technical Cooperation is not about
laying down technical details in ad-
vance by means of a few external
experts -the architects- but about a
common attempt to find the answers
to tomorrow’s problems under cir-
cumstances where the influence of
external forces -such as wind, rain,
the kind of fish to catch- is strong, but
cannot be foreseen. Rather, deci-
sions have to be constantly made by
the boat crew once they have agreed
on the general direction and started
moving. And the crew has to be able
to reflect on their actions, and to learn
about the difficulties and intricacies of
pursuing their aim.
If Technical Cooperation is under-
stood as a common endeavour of
different actors for structured social
change, and as a complex learning
process, it becomes evident that
planning takes on new dimensions.
At least two different kinds of planning
can be differentiated: on the one
hand, there is the need for a general
framework which states the principles
of cooperation, the overall direction of
the enterprise, and the resources at
hand. This is the framework needed
by the different partners and the fi-
nancing agencies. On the other
hand, periodic "action planning" on the
ground is required, i.e. undertaken by
the people who should be the prime
movers of development activities.
The overall planning framework
should not only stipulate the condi-
tions for the actual "action planning",
but should also create the necessary
"room for manoeuvre", i.e. the flexibil-
ity needed by the people and support-
ing actors to steer the development
activities.
40
In this sense, a number of require-
ments for such a "framework" or pro-
ject planning can be defined:
• Principles of project cooperation
The principles for cooperation should
be agreed upon and be made trans-
parent. The main principles for par-
ticipatory projects are: transparency,
institutional pluralism, participatory
learning and action approach (proc-
ess approach) to planning and im-
plementation, subsidiarity.
• Vision
It should be clarified to what extent
there is a common ground among
the visions and interests of the dif-
ferent actors (broad strategic vi-
sion), and what the differences
among them are. It is important to
have both, a general vision with
which everyone can identify and
which all actors can support, as
well as a clear understanding of di-
vergent interests and goals. An
overall transparency of interests
and motivations should be pur-
sued. An artificial agreement on
only one interest should be
avoided.
• Regional and sector priority
A regional priority should be
broadly outlined. To state a sec-
toral boundary would, however,
contradict a participatory ap-
proach, and should thus be left for
the actors and the process to de-
cide.

• Goal/objective orientation
The partners should agree on le-
gitimate objective(s), rather than
on precise targets. Target or ob-
jective "corridors" should be de-
fined showing the commonly de-
sired direction rather than trying to
precisely predetermine a future re-
ality. This cannot be foreseen
given the complex process of so-
cial changes in development co-
operation. Open strategies to
reach these objectives should be
defined.
• Learning process
The overall path to reach visions
and objectives should be defined in
terms of a learning approach. This
should include major landmarks as
well as "iterative loops" which de-
scribe the necessary reflections on
the way. Quantitative and qualita-
tive milestones for longer intervals
within this learning process should
be established to monitor the over-
all process. However, emphasis
should be made on qualitative
rather than quantitative indicators.
• Project duration and timing
The duration of overall project co-
operation should be defined. The
time allowed for project preparation
should be long enough to allow
participatory processes to take
place.
Open Space Session Summaries
• Financial scope
An overall financial framework in
terms of the budget ceiling needs
to be established for transparency
to the supporting institutions and
for accountability to the taxpayer.
However, it should be created in a
way which leaves as much room
as possible to the main actors to
define individual expenditures.
This can be done by means of
"open funds"/"local contributions"
(örtliche Zuschüsse) to support ac-
tors’ initiatives, such as certain im-
plementation activities, but also
coaching, training, consultancies
and other activities. A general cau-
tion is given to over-funding in the
initial project periods.
To establish such a planning frame-
work implies the need for highly com-
petent personnel which is able to re-
act flexibly to the challenges of the
planning process. But also the
"planning culture" within GTZ needs
to be changed substantially. This has
to take into account that Technical
Cooperation is a complex process of
social change, involving the need for
interactive learning on the part of the
involved actors. GTZ’s General Di-
rectors’ vision of "Managing the Im-
plementation of German Technical
Cooperation Activities" gives leeway
to do so. Now it is up to all people in
the organisation to take up this chal-
lenge and fill it with life.
41
42

Conditions for Participation
Convenor/Rapporteur: Uli Hoesle
People tend to use any instrument
acquired according to their own
framework of thought. If the frame-
work of the person applying the n i-
strument differs from that of the per-
son who developed it, errors are
bound to occur. Therefore, the open
space group pondered on the basic,
even fundamental, conditions for par-
ticipation and the use of appropriate
instruments in this context. In the time
available we could only make a rough
collection of ideas. We then docu-
mented these using a mind-map. The
view reflected in this mind-map is the
view of the development workers pre-
sent, applying participatory instru-
ments in their field of work.
An initial brainstorming rendered the
following main topics:
• Commitment to enter and to
continue
• Conceptualisation of Participa-
tion
• Ethics
• Behaviour and Attitudes
• Use of instruments
• Scale and Institutionalization
Commitment to enter and to con-
tinue
Participatory processes are not a
"one-night stand" but rather a long-
term liaison, since they usually aim at
changing behaviours. They also have
an open end. External supporters of
such processes should therefore be
committed to enter and to continue. A
Open Space Session Summaries
precondition for entering such proc-
esses is sufficient financial resources.
Conceptualisation of Participation
We understand self-help and empow-
erment as basic principles for partici-
pation, where people’s actions, visions
and choices are the focal point. Work-
ing with 'a village', using participatory
instruments requires a permanent
contact (commitment to continue) and
what is called in Spanish 'convivencia',
living together. This means that the
personnel should become acquainted
with village living conditions and meet
the people on informal terms ('off re-
cord').
Ethics
A person applying participatory ap-
proaches and instruments should
• be ready to change
• respect and foster diversity
• respect the others
• be committed to people
• …and to equity
• respect human rights
Behaviour and Attitudes
A learning attitude and a (self-) critical
awareness as well as the ability to
listen and to observe are important
qualities for the facilitation of proc-
esses, building trust in the relation-
ship, enhancing the skills of others
and their self respect. Any activity
should obviously avoid the tinge of
charity and seek to build relationships
between equal partners.
43
ZOPP marries PRA?
Use of instruments
Instruments have to be seen as
means to an end, to serve participa-
tion. Don't mistake the toolbox for the
vehicle. Always make sure to act
process oriented. There are no stan-
dards. Instruments need not be im -
ported. Knowledge and action can be
generated locally as local instruments
are likely to exist already. These
should always be given priority. Be-
ware of instruments needing expert
support.
Scale and Institutionalization
The most important aspect of using
instruments is that the right setting
must be created before any instru-
ment can be introduced. Without a
participatory and empowerment ori-
ented setting, PRA will lead to an in-
44
creased exertion of power on the 'tar-
get' group. Local facilitators and a
thorough documentation of all proc-
esses may help to avoid this. They
cannot, however, substitute the right
setting and attitude.
How to improve?
The most important domain is Human
Resource Development of both per-
sonnel and users. User networking,
exposures of technicians and politi-
cians to 'their' people are as useful as
intermittent support by process con-
sultants. All management instruments
such as those for planning and M&E
will have to be adapted accordingly, in
order to turn them into instruments of
supportive learning and sharing, in-
stead of instruments of control.

The Role of Facilitation in Development
Convenor/Rapporteur: Maruja Salas and Timmi Tillman
Proceeding of the open space
group:
• Presentation and discussion of
the case study: Ngobe Agrofor-
estry Project in Panama and the
Process Supportive Consul-
tancy between 1993 and 1996;
• The role of facilitation in devel-
opment;
• Institutional conditions required
to support participatory proc-
esses.
The Ngobe Agroforestry Project
and the Process Supportive
Consultancy
The Ngobe Agroforestry Project in
Panama was taken as an example
of the process of changing the
paradigm of a conventional donor-
driven project to an endogenous
development process based on the
culture of the local people. The
means for this process of change
were designed step by step in dia-
logue with the project team and vil-
lage members. It was not a fixed
procedure but a carefully planned
advancement being evaluated
along the way. At the end of each
consultancy, new agreements on
the next steps were reached with
the project team.
The main aspects relate to the fol-
lowing processes of change:
• To understand the paradigm
shift from a conventional technical
Open Space Session Summaries
development project to a learning
process which is to design appro-
priate concepts and tools and to
achieve a participatory attitude;
• The revitalization of the cultural
identity of the Ngobe people as a
strategy for survival, dealing with
cosmovision, spirituality, wisdom,
knowledge and technology;
• The building of team-work and
facilitation skills of project members
and motivated villagers;
• The empowerment of the Ngobe
organisation, from families to
community organisations, and
strengthening the regional indige-
nous representations as well as the
national and international indige-
nous networks.
The Role of Facilitation in Par-
ticipatory Development Proc-
esses
After the presentation of the case
study, the group proceeded to work
on the role of facilitation in devel-
opment processes which foster
participatory processes. The pos-
sible actors encompass not only
the consultants and the external
long-term advisors but also the pro-
ject team and local leaders (female
and male). The actors should be
engaged in facilitating participatory
processes. In future, the long-term
advisors should come in to support
the project team in addressing
specific technical, organisational or
45
ZOPP marries PRA?
conceptual problems. Considering
the specific local conditions of each
project, the facilitation process
aims at the shift of paradigm de-
scribed in the case of Panama.
The role of facilitation is to:
• establish and support dialogues,
• create equitable interactions,
• negotiate between different ac-
tors and interests,
• assure the participation and in-
teractive capacities of marginal-
ised groups,
• develop a management of con-
flicts,
• engender sensitivity towards the
reflections, visions, potentials
and aspirations of the local peo-
ple as principal development ac-
tors.
Facilitation includes a combination
of three main functions which are
used according to the specific
needs of the ongoing processes:
1. Advising or counselling:
• knows how to listen,
• is ready to learn and to be flexi-
ble,
• is sensitive to the existing socio-
cultural conditions,
• is process oriented,
• is concerned with “all parties“,
• responds to the request of the
development actors (people and
team).
2. Training or moderating:
• joint identification of training
needs and methods
• likes to work with groups,
• moderation and not teaching
(top-down),
46
• structures learning processes in
an experiential way,
• trains on required instruments
and tools, aiming also at a
change of attitude towards par-
ticipation and dialogue,
3. Be a mirror:
• allow a self-critical reflection by
accompanying the main actors,
• reflect, encourage, strength-en,
focus on topics and processes
and give feedback,
• allow for processes which can
not be justified to donors and
GTZ.
Institutional Conditions of GTZ
to support Facilitation in Devel-
opment Processes
After describing some of the multi-
faceted dimensions of the facilita-
tor’s role in development, we
passed on to discuss the neces-
sary institutional conditions to
stimulate facilitation in develop-
ment. The following clusters reflect
a first collection of ideas about the
institutional conditions and man-
agement styles conducive to a
paradigm shift in development pol-
icy:
With regard to staff:
• promote the role of process fa-
cilitator for field-staff,
• personnel selection and devel-
opment criteria and policies
should focus on facilitation skills,
• supporting GTZ-personnel in ac-
quiring participatory compe-
tence,
• stimulate in-house discussions
about facilitation role of technical
cooperation,

• document and spread positive
experiences with participation
and facilitation.
With regard to the orientation of
TC:
• focus on people’s processes
rather than on problems, pro-
jects or just quantitative objec-
tives,
• get local views on what facilita-
tion means, based also on pre-
vious experiences,
• strengthen cooperation with
NGOs and people’s organisa-
tions,
• develop Corporate Identity to-
wards process orientation (ver-
sus objective and result orienta-
tion),
• involve local know-how,
• reduce cooperation with local el-
ites,
• focus on social, political, institu-
tional and human issues of de-
velopment, not just on technical
aspects,
• do not impose a certain kind of
technology as a symbol of part-
nership (for example Mercedes
4-wheel-drive vehicles),
Open Space Session Summaries
With regard to the cooperation
with BMZ:
• negotiate with BMZ for more
leeway for participatory proc-
esses (open beginning and open
end),
• share and decentralise respon-
sibilities,
• develop long-term perspectives
and strategies.
With regard to instruments and
tools of PCM:
• change of instruments to de-
velop project proposals and de-
sign,
• link PRA-tools to planning proc-
esses,
• improve the planning procedures
by improving ZOPP for participa-
tory cooperation, using its poten-
tials and going beyond ZOPP,
establish guidelines for participa-
tory and qualitative indicators,
give help to manage M&E, by re-
vising the actual M&E proce-
dures, change the evaluation
procedures (less emphasis on
control more on facilitation of
critical self-reflection).
47
48

How can Participation be Institutionalized
at the Level of Intermediary Institutions and
Policy Making
Convenor/Rapporteur: Ebba Augustin
The discussion in the open space
group proceeded in three steps:
• The participants shared their ex-
perience with participatory methods
in projects at different levels of im-
plementation.
• Based on that experience, they
formulated recommendations on
how a participatory approach could
be introduced at the level of inter-
mediary institutions and policy mak-
ing.
• They also elaborated general rec-
ommendations in order to adopt
participatory methods in project
planning and implementation.
Various experiences
At the beginning of the discussion, the
working group participants shared
their experience in the use of participa-
tory methods in different project situa-
tions. Reference was made to Tan-
zania, where PRA training was under-
taken with 9 projects and in four vil-
lages (including two Massai hamlets).
The PRA revealed that only one village
had needs which were reflected in the
projects' portfolio. This was an eye
opener for the participating project
personnel, including representatives
from the ministries involved.
Thus, there are not only positive ex-
periences (as the one mentioned
above), but also constraints on the
Open Space Session Summaries
participatory approach which need to
be overcome:
• How can decision makers and
personnel in ministries attempt
to reach people at the grassroot
level if they do not even have
sufficient means to buy station-
ary?
• Policy makers tend to think in
terms of technical approaches
to problems.
• Basic problems in the field of ag-
riculture are known to women
and men of the target group as
well as to the Ministry of Agricul-
ture (i.e. the case of Zambia),
but the problem-solving ap-
proach is narrow-minded. There
is no, or relatively little, inter-
ministerial cooperation. There-
fore, proposed solutions, which
have to be cross-sectoral and
interdisciplinary, tend to be
mono-sectoral.
• A common problem seems to
be that the institutions and par-
ticipants involved in project im -
plementation are usually not fully
informed about service and n i-
formation networks. This is,
however, of special importance
at the outset of a project, or in
the early phase of project m i -
plementation, for the participa-
tory approach to function.
Specific recommendations:
49
ZOPP marries PRA?
• Use instruments that help clarify
who provides information ser-
vices (i.e. interaction analysis).
• Use methods of participatory
poverty assessment (under-
taken, for example, by the World
Bank in Ghana, Zambia and
South Africa).
• PRA research networks can
help to get feedback from people
on existing policies and planned
policy changes. Such a network
has been established in Nepal.
15 to 20 people (teachers,
community workers etc. ) were
trained in PRA methods.
Whenever policy changes are
planned, they could check the
probable effects or impacts on
the population in their respective
communities.
• Project sequencing: Projects
should start a learning process
with the respective communi-
ties. In cooperation with NGOs,
needs should be assessed and
a problem analysis should be
undertaken within the communi-
ties. The results can be inte-
grated within the project strat-
egy.
• Make more use of "dialogue and
exposure programmes" or "win-
win“ experiences for decision
and policy makers. These peo-
ple live for a fixed time in a poor
rural or urban community. The
community hosts the guest.
The agreement is made by mu-
tual consent. The exposure visit
could be supported by an in-
formed outsider as mediator.
• Support PRA consultancy
groups.
50
• At the outset of an advisory pro-
ject to a ministry, the portfolio of
the respective ministry should
be analysed and the effect of its
policies assessed using PRA in
selected regions of the country.
It is recommended that ministry
staff participate in the PRA and
feed back the results to the min-
istry. The purpose is information
and awareness raising. (The
Ministry of Agriculture in Tanza-
nia, for example, has used PRA
techniques to demonstrate ef-
fects of policies).
• Promote an interdisciplinary ap-
proach at ministerial level to fos-
ter cooperation.
• Make better use of GTZ offices,
of AMA and AP networks and re-
gional advisors to support or-
ganisations and institutions in
the partner country in the identi-
fication phase before a participa-
tory project proposal is handed
in at the embassy.
• PRA methods can be utilized at
the institutional level, i.e. in an
institutional analysis, to define
work fields etc.
• Report and publicize suc-
cesses! Especially at the minis-
terial level and in intermediary
institutions (GTZ-HQ).
• External organisations (incl.
BMZ) should support democrati-
zation processes. Pressure
should be exerted on govern-
ments to allow target group rep-
resentation.

General recomme ndations:
• When selecting personnel, place
emphasis on experience in par-
ticipatory development, on the
ability to enter in dialogues etc.
• GTZ advisors need coaching in
participatory methods.
• Emphasise the need for a strong
representation of the target
groups (women and men alike).
Nice "instruments" do not com-
pensate.
• When institutionalizing a partici-
patory approach, be aware that
participation is a process of em-
powerment, not a toolbox.
• ZOPP and PRA are suited for
application in different situations
and by different users.
• Projects need to develop their
own participatory approach;
there is no text book approach
for all cases.
Open Space Session Summaries
• Information channels need to be
established in order to gain ac-
cess to knowledge and experi-
ence at project level (usually un-
dervalued by GTZ HQ).
• No ZOPP-workshop should take
place before and during an open
orientation phase.
• Conflict-solving must be a vital
part of participatory processes.
Open Questions
• How to get people to express
their development needs (local
and regional)?
• How to handle the local/regional
diversity of problems, ideas,
situations?
• If one is not looking for consen-
sus (as the need to find a con-
sensus in ZOPP planning was
criticised), how can local re-
sources be strengthened?
51
52

Participatory Approaches in District/Village
Level Planning
Convenor/Rapporteur: Nikolaus Schall
Process (what did we do):
Our open space group agreed to ex-
amine issues of scaling-up village
level planning to the district level.
At the beginning, the convenor pro-
vided additional background informa-
tion on the topic. A short brainstorm-
ing session followed, in which the par-
ticipants noted down some of the is-
sues and topics which they felt
needed closer examination. The
group came to the conclusion that the
best way of proceeding would be to
discuss the issues based on some
practical case studies. Case studies
from Kenya and Ghana were pre-
sented. After elaborating on the case
studies, a lengthy discussion and ex-
change of ideas followed. The results
of the discussion were portrayed in
two diagrams (one from each case
study) on the pinboard, including some
experiences and lessons learned
which the participants regarded as
worth sharing with the other groups.
The convenor then presented the re-
sults at the information market.
Results, conclusions, remarks from
the presentation
A presentation by John Thompson on
his experiences in participatory ap-
proaches in government bureaucra-
cies ("facilitating the process of institu-
tional change") set the general tenor of
Open Space Session Summaries
the discussion. John Thompson illus-
trated how the institutional learning
process was carried out over a num-
ber of years in the agricultural sector
in Kenya. The diagram illustrated the
"process" approach which had been
undertaken and also provided a good
impression of the time period which
was needed in order for the cyclical
process to take effect.
This model described the process
within an organisation; the vexed
question of how to scale up village
level PRA results to the district level
remained, though, partially unan-
swered. The convenor then provided
a description of the district planning
process in Ghana. A clear advantage
in Ghana is that, at the district level,
there is a district assembly which is
made up of 2/3 elected representa-
tives from the village and 1/3 ap-
pointed representatives. One of the
biggest problems in applying the PRA
approach within the district is the need
to ensure an equitable access to the
limited resources. With more than
200 villages in many of the districts,
facilitators had to be provided and
trained for all the villages and not
merely for a selected few (a common
approach of GTZ supported projects).
The ideal candidates for this process
were the assembly persons. The next
step in the process was to conduct
PRA with the villages, preferably un-
dertaken by the facilitators. The pro-
53
ZOPP marries PRA?
ject provided the necessary coaching.
The intention was to classify the pro-
jects into two groups: those activities
which the villages can handle com-
pletely on their own and those which
require some form of external support.
The latter were forwarded to the dis-
trict level where the relevant sectoral
departments determined their techni-
cal feasibility. The recommendations
of the sectoral departments were
listed in a series of options for the dis-
trict assembly to decide upon. The
final decision was to be a political and
not a technical one, since the assem-
bly persons had to defend their deci-
sions with the village electorate. Im -
portant elements of this concept are:
the integration of the district and village
level, the attempt to equitably distribute
limited financial resources amongst
the villages, the development of a
transparent decision-making process,
the separation of technical and political
decision-making, and the realisation
that not all villages can get assistance
each year, a fact which requires clear
selection criteria based on a district
development plan.
Since the self-help participatory proc-
ess stood at the forefront of the ap-
proach, the people of the villages had
to accept that not all their applications
54
could be assisted. However, this was
not to discourage them from continu-
ing their own self-help activities. Vil-
lages which showed initiative were to
be given a bonus for next year’s selec-
tion criteria. Similarly, a planning cycle
was introduced to deal with village
applications collectively and not on an
ad hoc basis.
After presentation of the concept, the
convenor pointed out that he had no
further information as to how the pro-
ject is currently progressing nor as to
what extent the concept had been im-
plemented as defined above. Clearly,
practical modifications based on field
realities will have become necessary,
but these were unknown to the group
convenor. Finally, the participants
concluded that the approaches pre-
sented in the case studies can com-
plement each other; one dealing with
the individual organisations, the other
with a process amongst many organi-
sations and the villages at the district
level. Similarly, the PRA and ZOPP-
PCM approaches have their specific
role in different processes, there being
no universal and absolute definition of
when and how each of the ap-
proaches is to be used. The creativity
of the planner is called for in each
case.

Linking ZOPP and PRA: Institutionalization
of a Participatory and Integrated Develop-
ment Approach to be used by Local Devel-
opment Agents
Convenor/Rapporteur: Bernd Schubert
An example of how a GTZ-funded pro-
ject can promote the institutionaliza-
tion of a participatory and integrated
development approach is the "Kilifi
Integrated Development Project" in
Kenya. The objectives of this project
are:
Project Goal
Communities in Kilifi district analyze
their problems and their potential, set
priorities, plan their own development
and
• through self-help, solve those prob-
lems which can be solved by their
own means;
• request assistance from local GOs
and NGOs to solve those problems
which lie beyond their capacity.
Project Purpose
Local development agencies (GOs,
NGOs) use a participatory and inte-
grated development approach in deal-
ing with communities. This means
they
• encourage and facilitate partici-
patory activities at community
level (e.g. by facilitating PRA-
village-workshops);
• assist the communities when
they request assistance in m i -
Open Space Session Summaries
plementing community devel-
opment plans.
Project Output
• Training and management assis-
tance are provided to GOs and
NGOs that are willing to use a par-
ticipatory development approach.
• Assistance is offered in running and
evaluating pilot activities in which
GOs and NGOs learn how to work
together in a participatory and inte-
grated way.
• Open funds are provided or solic-
ited to finance the promotion of de-
velopment activities at community
level resulting from PRA-
workshops.
• Regional planning organisations
(above village level) are assisted in
collecting, analyzing and using data
generated from village workshops.
For a number of participants in the
workshop ZOPP marries PRA, it was
difficult to understand that the objec-
tives of the Kilifi project, as specified
on purpose and on goal level (ZOPP
terminology that refers to the objec-
tives of the project specified in the
project planning matrix). They did not
include any material impacts, but con-
centrated on the facilitation of proc-
esses. It seemed to the participants
55
ZOPP marries PRA?
that the process-orientation of a pro-
ject and its facilitating role cannot be
planned using the ZOPP-method and
terminology. Once they realized that
the project was designed in such a
way that the material contents of de-
velopment (e.g. drinking water, better
health, increased production, better
roads etc. ) were not planned by the
project but were left to be determined
by each community, they expressed
doubts about whether the BMZ (Ger-
man Ministry for Economic Coopera-
tion) would agree to such an open
planning approach. The participants
agreed, however, that in the Kilifi case,
an objective oriented planning ap-
proach (ZOPP) was helpful for clearly
defining the role of the project in insti-
tutionalizing the district-wide applica-
tion of a participatory and integrated
development approach.
The rationale behind this issue was
understood as follows: participation,
empowerment of communities and
bottom-up development will only be
sustainable and will only achieve a
wide coverage if it is facilitated and
supported by local development
agents (GOs, NGOs) and integrated
into their day to day work.
Conclusions
Using the Kilifi project as an example,1
the working group agreed on the fol-
lowing conclusions:
1
A detailed documentation of the Kilifi ex-
perience with institutionalizing a participa-
tory and integrated development approach
is given in: Bernd Schuster et al. , 1994,
"Facilitating the Introduction of a Participa-
tory and Integrated Development Ap-
proach (PIDA) in Kiliti District, Kenya. "
Volume I: "Recommendations for the Insti-
tutionalization of PIDA based on four Pilot
Projects. "
56
Precondition for the institutionaliza-
tion of a participatory and integrated
approach:
• The political will to decentralise
decision-making. In Kenya, this po-
litical will is documented in the "Dis-
trict Focus Policy".
The strategy
• The role of GTZ-funded pro-jects
should not primarily be that project
personnel acts as facilitators on
community level. The main focus
should be in the empowerment of
local development agencies to act
as facilitators. Projects should "fa-
cilitate the facilitators".
• Institutionalization should take place
within existing organisational struc-
tures.
The Tools
• For achieving a sustainable and far
reaching institutionalization of a
participatory and integrated devel-
opment approach, a combination of
PCM/ZOPP and PRA can be very
useful.
• Training and capacity building is
needed to use these tools flexibly.
• Using ZOPP in a participatory way
means using ZOPP on different
levels, involving the respective
stakeholders at each level.
• No tool as such is good or bad, it is
the utilization which counts.
Volume II: "From Concept to Action: A
Manual for Trainers and Users of PIDA“.

From Islands to the Mainland. Institutional-
izing Participatory Approaches into Gov-
ernment Departments
Convenor/Rapporteur: Jürgen Hagmann
The Subject
As an introduction, a case study from
Zimbabwe was presented. A partici-
patory extension approach was being
institutionalized and consolidated in
the agricultural extension department
in Masvingo, Zimbabwe. This process
started with the development of case
studies as learning cases in commu-
nities, together with the development
agents of the extension department.
Institutional staff was exposed to the
case studies in order to sensitise
them to new ideas and create aware-
ness about the necessity of change.
After three years, senior staff was
convinced that a reorientation of the
department towards farmer participa-
tory extension was necessary to im -
prove the output of the department. At
that point, institutional learning about
implementation had started and insti-
tutionalization of this approach be-
came a main issue.
After some time, however, they real-
ized that considerable changes in the
institution were required to make a
participatory approach work. Training
and job enhancement at all staff levels
became major issues. Also the organ-
isational structure and communication
within the institution and between the
hierarchies became subject of intense
discussion. After all, participatory ap-
proaches could hardly be imple-
Open Space Session Summaries
mented in a top-down hierarchical
institution. The learning process
showed that the institutional culture,
which is mainly control-oriented, has
to be transformed and oriented to-
wards performance. Such transfor-
mation processes require a long-term
perspective and are difficult to plan.
The major challenge is to initiate a
change of attitude and behaviour of the
staff since this depends to a large ex-
tent on their individual personality.
The Group Discussion Process
The first issue of the discussion was
the reorientation of staff. Field-level
staff has the opportunity to intensively
interact with farmers; through this
process they can develop different
attitudes. Higher level staff, however,
have no direct interaction with farmers
and therefore have more difficulties in
undertaking a paradigm shift. Some
valuable ideas and experiences came
from Sri Lanka, where PRA exercises
were carried out while videotaping the
staff during the exercise. Self reflec-
tion on the basis of these video tapes
had a substantial impact.
The crucial question was posed about
what people/staff can gain from the
change. If incentives can be provided
through performance evaluation, the
criteria for performance must be ap-
propriate. With a planning system like
57
ZOPP marries PRA?
ZOPP, where OVIs and targets are the
indicators for performance, a process
is difficult to evaluate and monitor.
Therefore, the change towards proc-
ess-oriented working styles can even
be conflicting with the planning sys-
tems. The working group undertook
the task of elaborating process indica-
tors by defining ZOPP output indica-
tors and then juxtaposing them with
new, more qualitative indicators which
would be in line with the participatory
approaches. Direct indicators to
measure the performance of staff in a
participatory process were debated
and it was generally agreed that, to a
large extent, farmers have to be n i-
volved in judging the performance of,
for example, extension workers.
There was also a valuable suggestion
to link self evaluation in the communi-
ties with participatory impact assess-
ment by using local indicators and
joint, multi-sectoral and multi-level
evaluations.
The issue of „perfect planning“ and the
reality behind it was also tackled in the
discussion. Cases were mentioned
where only 10 per cent of the planned
activities were implemented.
Cultural and intercultural issues were
also subject of discussion. The ques-
tion of the cultural conformity of par-
ticipatory approaches was raised,
58
showing ways to avoid impositions
through, for example, PRA. Facilitation
is the key factor to utilize PRA tools in
a culturally sensitive manner.
Results and Recommendations
• The institutionalization of participa-
tory approaches is a process which
deals with changing attitudes, be-
haviour and social relations. This
can best be attained through learn-
ing processes. Therefore, the
planning cycle has to be short and
highly flexible. ZOPP and PCM
should -if at all- be applied only as a
framework for planning; they should
not dictate the details.
• The reorientation of staff to use
participatory approaches in institu-
tions without any clear incentives
(internal) for these additional efforts
is difficult to achieve. It is recom-
mended to create such incentives
(not necessarily material ones).
• Meaningful indicators which leave
room for a process-orientation are
required. These should be worked
out together with people concerned
at the different levels.
• Understanding organisations and
bureaucracies and using the tools
properly requires a high cultural
sensitivity. Therefore, ZOPP, PCM
and PRA should not be handled too
rigidly.

Linking ZOPP- and PRA-Tools: how shall we do
Project Planning in the Future?
Convenor/Rapporteur: Ulrike Breitschuh
The open space group examined GTZ’s
procedure for project planning in order to
make it more conductive for participatory
and realistic self-help oriented planning
processes at local level.
Starting from the present project cycle, the
existing sequence of different ZOPP plan-
ning steps (ZOPP 1-5) were analyzed as
to their advantages and disadvantages.
The group discussed the limitations inher-
ent to the different steps during project
preparation. The prime criteria for the
analysis was the extent to which visions,
problems and interests of local groups are
taken into account by the sequence of
ZOPP planning steps.
The group started with the following obser-
vations:
• Project proposals often reflect particular
interests of one particular ministry. The
participation of local target groups in the
elaboration of the proposals is generally
not ensured.
Open Space Session Summaries
• It is convenient to distinguish stages of
planning to allow for specific needs.
Management requirements again call
for a planning process which provides a
structure for monitoring and resource
allocation. However, while donor agen-
cies demand certain formal rules to be
respected, the process of planning ac-
tivities with local groups requires inter-
active participation of all those who are
concerned.
Recommendations have been made on
how to improve the existing planning cycle.
The following table contains a checklist
according to the existing procedure for
project planning that allows for a maximum
of interactive participation and provides a
planning matrix acceptable to the donors.
The results are to be considered as a pre-
liminary contribution to a further, more de-
tailed proposal for a new planning proce-
dure.
59
ZOPP marries PRA?
Checklist for a flexible and participatory planning procedure
Phase of project Proposals for
improvement
Identification phase Support for participatory plan-
ning should be offered to or-
ganizations, institutions and
groups in the partner country
interested in requesting Ger-
man TC
Request for Technical Coop-
eration from partner gov-
ernment
Screening according to pol- The screening in the different
icy guidelines at the em- institutions should particularly
bassy, the BMZ and GTZ assess whether the project
proposals have been elabo-
rated in a participatory proc-
ess. The legitimacy of the
proposal should be examined.
(Who was involved in the
elaboration of the proposal?)
Preparation of the appraisal The conventional appraisal
and planning phase setting with a 3-4 weeks time
frame does not allow engaging
in participatory processes on
local level. If a participatory
planning process has to be
initiated, the appraisal process
is to be extended (selecting
either an open orientation
phase or a medium term plan-
ning advise to partner organiza-
tions).
Assure that consultants are
competent in participatory
methods.
Appraisal phase Detailed participatory analysis
should take place, specifying
the different socio-economic
groups; invite partner organisa-
tions to participate in PRA-
appraisal.
Planning meeting with rep- Be sure that the results from
resentatives of GOs, NGOs, consultation with or participa-
GTZ etc. (ZOPP 3) tory planning on local level are
accounted for in the strategic
planning meeting/ document.
60
Remarks
Job descriptions of GTZ staff
in the partner country should
include this point and re-
sources be made available to
support participatory project
identification processes.
Project appraisal has to
adapted to the results of the
screening. If a proposal does
not allow to judge whether
the intended beneficiaries
have been consulted or par-
ticipated in the elaboration of
the proposal, this process
has to be organized during
project appraisal
Consultants with experience
in the country or region are
needed.
Find ways to overcome res-
ervations from BMZ and part-
ner countries against open
orientation phase dur-
ing/preceding the first pro-
ject phase
Participatory analysis can
frustrate local people when
the projects don’t material-
ize.

Phase of project
Elaboration of project offer
Decision by Ministry to sup-
port the proposed project
Operational planning work-
shop (carried out 4 to 6
months after project start
with local and expatriate
experts - ZOPP 4)
Output: Plan of Operation
Project Progress Review
Replanning (ZOPP 5)
Open Space Session Summaries
Proposals for Remarks
improvement
Build in sufficient flexibility for
participatory processes into
the project strategy and offer to
the Ministry. Convince BMZ to
accept more flexibility and
honest planning.
According to PCM require- Projects improve their effi-
ments, participation should ciency when making use of
have been realised before detailed plan of operation.
elaboration of Plan of Opera- However, it has to be handled
tion flexibly.
Involve the target groups in
participatory self-evaluation of
their own role and contribution
and the one's of the project.
Replanning should be done as
need arises, as well on target
group as on project level. New
ways have to be tested how to
combine these different plan-
ning levels.
61
62

How far have we travelled - and what will be
around the corner?
The workshop was cautiously titled "ZOPP
marries PRA?" - a caution that proved
well-founded since, at the end of the day,
the marriage was not supported
unanimously by all participants. There was
a general agreement on the need and
potential for a close and mutually beneficial
relationship, and a set of
recommendations were formulated. Yet
there was also a fear of a marriage which
might turn out to be a fixed, inflexible, and
often routine, relationship, especially if it
were preceded by a hasty engagement
period.
It was interesting to observe that ZOPP
users and GTZ staff were much more
ready to agree to a marriage than the
practitioners of participatory learning
approaches.
The warm welcome on the side of the
agency's staff certainly stems from their
experiences with mechanistic ZOPP
applications and the disappointing results
as far as the participation of beneficiaries
is concerned. Responding to these
deficiencies, GTZ has re-oriented its policy
for planning and managing projects. As the
use of a wider range of methods and
techniques is emphasised in this process,
the vivid interest in new approaches was
comprehensible.
Equally understandable was the reluctance
of practitioners of PRA and related
approaches. In their view, participatory
development is above all concerned with
increasing autonomy and control of people
and communities over resources and
decisions which affect them. From this
perspective, participatory learning and
Open Space Session Summaries
action is a philosophy requiring substantial
changes in the roles and attitudes of
individuals and in the relationships
between people and institutions. They
feared that, if absorbed too readily in the
institutional context of a large
administration, participatory approaches
are in danger of being watered down to a
set of tools - leaving the decision making
patterns, the norms, operational
procedures and professional standards of
the institution unchanged.
In its endeavour to further engage in
participatory development, GTZ will have to
make operational down-to-earth
innovations which are viable in its
institutional and political context.
Additionally, the critical momentum of
participatory learning approaches needs to
be maintained to continue the institutional
learning path towards a flexible, people and
service oriented organisation.
The conclusions of the workshop showed
that institutionalising participatory
approaches is not limited to GTZ's
planning and management system. During
the open space discussions and in the
recommendations, various other areas
were identified as relevant, including
personnel policy, the tendering procedure
between GTZ and the Ministry or the
programming mechanism for country
assistance. Although the discussions
initially focused on GTZ's own institutional
development, they also covered issues
related to the institutionalisation of
participation in partner countries, e.g. how
to support partner organisations in opening
up to participatory approaches, or how to
63
ZOPP marries PRA?
link community planning to decentralised
district level resource allocation.
A striking observation made during the
workshop was the apparent gap between
policy decisions by senior management
and the knowledge and everyday
experience of staff at GTZ: while there are
management documents that postulate a
more flexible management approach,
colleagues at HQ or in projects are often
not aware of these policy changes. At
times, the relevance and usefulness of
these policy directives were explicitly
questioned, since HQ and project staff still
operate in unchanged institutional
environments (as far the requirements of
the commissioning agencies and the
conditions in partner countries are
concerned). There seems to be the urgent
need of communicating the new policy
and examples of its successful application
more effectively, both within GTZ and to
the BMZ as well as in partner countries
(e.g. through presentations, workshops,
trainings etc.).
In this respect, the difference between
ZOPP and PCM has to be stressed more
clearly. Quite a large number of
participants had difficulties to realise that
PCM and ZOPP are not treating the same
matter, that PCM is indeed not the
successor of ZOPP. PCM is a
management framework which includes
the normative principles of cooperation,
whereas the new ZOPP is a logical
sequence of planning steps to organise
collective action between multiple
stakeholders.
The doubts raised during the workshop
regarding the usefulness and conceptual
shortcomings of PCM/ZOPP should be
openly discussed when operationalising
the approach. Operationalisation should
make use of multiple decentralised
64
consultation, including sceptical opinions.
Great care has to be taken not to reduce
the flexibility of the new approaches by
standardising new procedures and
patterns of application. Instead,
experiments with alternative approaches
should be promoted and embraced in a
supportive way.
Overall, the workshop demonstrated that
participants were closely involved and
concerned with participation, learning and
a more people-oriented development. The
atmosphere during the two-day workshop
was intense, often emotional and highly
energetic. The opportunity to exchange
experiences and opinions of the topic
among colleagues, both from within and
outside the organisation, was clearly
appreciated. The workshop served as a
large and competent "forum" in which
participants formulated valuable
recommendations to support the marriage
between German Technical Cooperation
and participatory learning approaches.
Seeing the amount of energy created
throughout the event, GTZ should aim at
hosting these "think forums" more often.
In fact, at the end of the workshop nobody
was ready to simply accept the question
mark in the title. Rather, participants
spontaneously offered their support to
consider and further elaborate the wealth
of material and recommendations
gathered during the two days.
How will GTZ make use of the ideas and
recommendations of the workshop and
how will it continue to work on the issue? In
fact, the "ZOPP marries PRA" workshop
was only one of several learning
opportunities in 1996 providing feedback
on the state of participatory approaches
within GTZ's work. An internal Research &
Development project has approached
similar questions in collaboration with

about 40 projects in Asia and Africa. In
Latin America, a network was established
in 1995 dealing with "people centred
development" and participation as one of
its core issues. Feedback and experience
from all of these initiatives should be
merged and incorporated into GTZ's
institutional learning.
The activity benefiting most directly from
these initiatives is the operationalisation of
the new ZOPP approach, under way since
October 1996. In this context, a large
number of recommendations will be
considered, e.g. the documentation and
analysis of case examples on participatory
methods, their suitability for different
planning functions and their respective role
in a flexible ZOPP planning process.
Following the operationalisation, the
indication that GTZ should be prepared to
invest in (re-)training of staff and ZOPP
trainers on a large scale has to be
translated in operational forms. The
insights and experiences on the
requirements and pre-conditions of
participatory approaches from the three
initiatives will be synthesised in a joint
document during 1997. From this basis,
operational recommendations will be
Reiner Forster
Open Space Session Summaries
formulated and submitted to Senior
Management.
In a longer-term perspective, and in view of
GTZ's current efforts to decentralise
important parts of its HQ functions to staff
in projects and offices in partner countries,
all of these initiatives can be seen as first
attempts to develop a decentralised quality
assurance system based on learning
groups and networks on different levels.
Exchange of experiences, peer group
advice and joint learning, both from outside
and from the centre of the organisation,
could be carried out in facilitated or
self-managed groups and networks. Via a
combination of horizontal and vertical
learning processes, best practices and
locally adapted solutions could be
disseminated, professional standards and
norms be evolved, and feedback cycles be
institutionalised between the central and
non-central parts of the organisation. Thus,
the principles of participatory development
("sit down, listen, start where the people
are", "don't rush" etc.) not only apply to our
interaction with stakeholders in partner
countries, but would also shape the
structure and corporate identity of our own
organisation.
65
66
 Background Papers

PART T WO

Background Papers

During preparation and the follow-up activities of the "ZOPP marries PRA?" seminar, a
number of participants expressed their willingness to elaborate on some issues re-
lated closely to the topic of the seminar. Therefore, the following selection comprises
articles that deal with the question of institutionalization of participatory approaches
from different perspectives.

67
68

Social Processes and the Limits of Planning
by Manfred Beier
The following paper describes a prob-
lem which appears frequently, in dif-
ferent guises, in development support:
An agricultural research institution has
made what it calls an important inno-
vation. A new variety of maize has
been bred and tested extensively in its
fields. This variety is able to produce
up to 40% more grain than the com-
monly used varieties and, at the same
time, does not grow as high, thus im-
proving its standing capacity. The
Ministry of Agriculture welcomes the
potential increase in maize production,
the country's main food grain, as well
as the increased income for the many
poor farmers. It decides to support
dissemination of the new variety. The
seed is multiplied and extension work-
ers are trained to teach farmers how
to sow it, which fertiliser to add when,
which harmful insects may require
which pesticide, when weeding should
best be done, etc. Most farmers in the
main production areas receive some
training in the first year.
The records of seed sales show early
that the demand for the new seeds is
much smaller than planned. To stimu-
late demand, the government decides
to sell the seed below its production
cost, but sales remain at a fraction of
the planned quantity. Even worse, the
rains are erratic this year and the new
variety turns out to suffer more than
the old ones in a prolonged dry spell.
Only a few large commercial farmers
are able to irrigate their maize, as it is
done in the research station. To
Background Papers
summarise the results of the first har-
vest: While on irrigated land it is 20%
above the old varieties, on non-
irrigated land it is distinctly below the
level which the old varieties yielded
under these difficult weather condi-
tions. In the following year, the de-
mand for the new variety seed is so
low that the ministry decides to cut
losses by discontinuing production of
this variety. However, the Ministry has
experienced similar failures before and
the recently appointed new minister
decides to have this one evaluated by
a team of administrators, consultants
and farmers. They first look at what
went to plan and what went wrong in
this effort to improve the country's
food supply:
Positive:
— More grain production during nor-
mal years means increased avail-
ability of food;
— Less straw production means
fewer costs for commercial farm-
ers;
— The Ministry made a timely deci-
sion, planned the operation and ac-
tivated lower authorities success-
fully;
— Seed multiplication and distribution
services have functioned well;
— The extension service has reached
most farmers in the relevant areas
in time.
69
ZOPP marries PRA?
Not positive:
— Small farmers have not been willing
to take the risks involved in the new
variety, even though the potential
was said to be very high;
— The new variety reaches its prom-
ised results only under controlled
conditions;
— Small farmers, who eat most of
their maize themselves, do not like
its taste;
— Small farmers also need the straw
for their animals.
Which are the lessons that can be
learned from this example? The
evaluation team came to the following
conclusions:
— The new variety may be useful for
large commercial farmers, but their
seed requirements may be too
small to produce the seed in the
country. The import option should
be checked;
— Small farmers cannot accept the
risk of failure in droughts. For them
the research result was irrelevant;
— Researchers prefer to work with
noble tasks (such as plant breed-
ing) and neglect menial ones - but
the latter may be particularly impor-
tant for poor farmers;
— The researchers do not orient their
work according to the development
policy of the country;
— If the researchers do not let the
small farmers decide what they
need, they cannot expect that their
research results will be adopted;
— The planning of the dissemination
process has been a success in its
technical aspects only - in trying to
plan farmers' adoption it failed
completely.
70
While most research managers ac-
cept the first five points readily, not
many will refrain from planning the
adoption of innovations - it is not con-
sidered impossible. Yet, the frequent
divergence between plans and
achievements touches a major ques-
tion in development work: How far can
social processes be planned and what
determines the limit of planning?
Every farmer accepts, for example,
that the weather cannot be planned.
But no farmer omits the use of various
means of insuring against unfavour-
able weather. Poor farmers employ a
multitude of strategies to survive
droughts, from reducing stocks via
employment outside of agriculture to
migration, and each strategy has to be
well planned because of the small
resources. Planning can reduce the
insecurity of the future, although it
cannot avoid it. But it can prepare us
better for what may happen. Planning
will show us which materials, skills
and finances we need at which point in
time. It will enable us to have every
single item ready when it is needed to
be combined with other items, to carry
out the investment within the expected
limits of time and finance. The longer
the investment period takes the more
insecurity n i creases, but this can be
compensated with frequent re-
planning. Planning works quite well
where budgets are involved. As plan-
ning is so valuable for us, we tend to
continue to plan and re-plan even
where it is no longer possible.
Planning really comes to its limits as
soon as the impact of the investment
or social processes are involved. The
reason is simple: Our planning works
only as long as we can steer the ac-
tivities based on it. In other words,
people should plan only if they

have real decision-making power.
In the above example, planners were
unable to steer adoption of the new
seed. Besides, the researchers or the
ministerial staff did not find out poor
farmers' reactions before multiplica-
tion, a common mistake caused by
the wish to save time.
The planning and appraisal techniques
applied in development cooperation
can be divided into four types, accord-
ing to their main functions:
— for steering investment processes:
The dominance of private eco-
nomic planning and appraisal re-
quirements in nearly all fields of
social life, not surprisingly, led to a
vast array of methods for invest-
ment planning, answering ques-
tions such as "How can we ensure
that our actions will be efficient?".
— for increasing external knowledge
of social processes: There is also
a huge variety of methods available
for increasing external peoples'
knowledge of social processes
they are interested in. A relevant
question would be "How do people
behave, and why ?".
— for increasing peoples' awareness
of social processes they participate
in: In the last decade, PRA meth-
ods have helped people to become
aware of the social processes they
participate in by learning from and
with the members of the commu-
nity. A typical question PRA meth-
ods try to answer is "What is the
level of knowledge of social proc-
esses in the community and how
can it be increased?".
— for raising peoples' initiatives to
improve their conditions: Recently,
Background Papers
specific planning methods for rais-
ing initiatives have been evolved
and they are promising. They are
based on questions like "How can
people recognise community prob-
lems and their potential to solve
them with their own initiatives? How
can communities learn more from
their experiences in development
work?".
A precondition for the functioning of all
four groups of planning and appraisal
methods is to leave the planning as
well as the responsibility for all imple-
mentation steps to the participants
who have the capacity to steer imple-
mentation. Development is unthink-
able without increased self-
determination.
In the context of poor countries, devel-
opment must include material growth
as long as populations are growing
and as long as poverty is widespread.
But the way growth is secured also
can make a difference. Development
today is seen as the development of
people. Therefore it must also include
people who have not yet been able to
take part in the development proc-
esses of their countries. It must inte-
grate their participation, emancipation
and empowerment. Therefore, devel-
opment must at least include the fol-
lowing two main components
— material growth to overcome pov-
erty and provide for at least the ba-
sic needs of individuals;
— participation and emancipation in
order to give to individuals the nec-
essary room to develop them-
selves, which will also mobilise the
maximum development effort of a
society.
71
ZOPP marries PRA?
Development support aims at material
improvements as well as emancipa-
tory ones. Where poverty exists, the
material side of development has to be
improved urgently. This depends
largely on investments which have to
be planned with appropriate methods,
of which ZOPP can be one. The
emancipatory side of development
cannot be planned by external advis-
ers, as failed attempts have proven
time and again. If they have decision-
making power, it can be planned by
the development subjects, at least to a
certain extent. In addition, planning
has to be conceived as the first step of
a process which continues with m i -
plementing, reflecting and evaluating,
re-planning, and so on. Here the vari-
ous PRA methods have demonstrated
their usefulness with convincing re-
sults. Most of them are appropriate for
poor communities, they are simple
and flexible enough to function even
for illiterate people.
There have been many difficulties
when projects attempted to use the
over-complex ZOPP for village or
group level planning, a situation in
which PRA methods would have been
more appropriate. ZOPP and PRA
have uses for different tasks in devel-
opment support. ZOPP has been ap-
plied too rigidly and some long recog-
nised weaknesses have been difficult
to overcome. Perhaps it has even
hindered the development of organisa-
tional flexibility, so important for a mul-
tipurpose development organisation
working in most countries of the world.
During its introduction phase, ZOPP
has inspired peoples' visions and their
creativity, but this has been largely lost
as rules and regulations in its applica-
tion were considered essential. From
72
this perspective, the development his-
tory of PRA has been completely dif-
ferent: Its built-in flexibility has stimu-
lated users' creativity to experiment
and adopt methods to their specifically
required purpose - which can be con-
sidered a successful development
story in itself.
If and how ZOPP and PRA can be
combined will depend on the projects
using them. ZOPP could benefit
greatly, if it could be used flexibly.
There have been instances when pro-
ject management either not noticed a
changed situation or stuck to long ob-
solete activities, instead of reflecting
on the changes and designing a more
appropriate course of action. The
dangers posed to projects by an unfa-
vourable political and economic envi-
ronment have to be reflected by for-
mulating, monitoring and reporting
assumptions more seriously.
The new stress on project relevance
and impact is on the one hand a result
of analysing project weaknesses more
intensively, but it is also an indicator of
the planning methods' failure to incor-
porate those aspects. To improve
ZOPP as a project planning tool
probably requires directing it more
towards impact by valuing outputs and
purposes higher, instead of the pre-
sent concentration on activities and
inputs.
At GTZ, ZOPP has been state-of-the-
art for a decade, following high level
management decisions; the need of
which was not always seen on project
level. PRA has been introduced the
opposite way: Many projects have
employed it on their own initiative,
based on a need they recognised

themselves. Although this is the
proper way for bottom-up methods,
PRA's spreading could be accelerated
by management's active support.
When social processes cannot be
planned by non-participants, should
development workers (bound to tar-
gets, budgets, work contracts, etc.)
leave them to proceed however fast
and in whichever direction they go?
This is unacceptable for many rea-
sons: From a moral point of view, de-
velopment support to poor peoples'
efforts cannot accept unnecessary
delays and experiments with too un-
certain an outcome. Development
workers must accept their share of
responsibility for contributing to the
alleviation of poverty quickly and effec-
tively. If they know and identify with
the recognised development princi-
ples, they will be able to follow a
course incorporating peoples’ rights to
individual and communal self-
determination as well as the develop-
ment objectives of societies - for pre-
sent and future generations.
Background Papers
The development worker's support to
groups in poor countries is financed by
tax-payers in developed countries who
have a right to know that the money is
spent according to certain accepted
criteria. Development support can
never be carried out with blank
cheques. Ignoring this opens the door
to paternalism on the side of donors
and their employees, and it would in
time probably destroy the morale of
most honest recipients. Development
workers dealing with social processes
cannot plan them, but they will have an
influence on them. This influence can
either facilitate the process or it can
obstruct it. To be effective they must
accept their responsibility to facilitate
and monitor the process and encour-
age the participants to monitor and
evaluate it themselves, so that they
can take corrective action where they
consider it necessary. It has to be
kept in mind that "nobody ever devel-
oped anybody else - people develop
themselves".
73
74

Linking Village and District Planning
Two case examples
by Nikolaus Schall
1. Introduction
1. 1 Why is a Linkage Necessary?
Significant knowledge and experience
exists on participatory planning and
management at the village level
(including all Participatory Rural
Appraisal techniques - PRA). The
need for such participatory processes
at the community or village level has
been demonstrated by many
successful examples of community
initiated development activities in
numerous countries. While experi-
ence exists at the village level (or at
best over several selected villages)
there is only a limited experience
regarding the effective scaling-up of
the village plans at the district or
provincial level. Village plans are often
treated in isolation and participatory
approaches rarely exam-ine
interrelationships between neigh-
bouring villages (i.e. inter and intra
village linkages). As long as the
developmental activities of the village
have no effect on neighbouring
villages, this approach is adequate.
Problems appear, for example, when
one village in a watershed area
restricts the water flow to another
village as a result the decision to
construct a small dam. Furthermore,
when villages require external
assistance (either in form of funds or
ideas) the limited resources available
at the district level have to be
distributed in an equitable and
Background Papers
transparent manner. Therefore, there
is a need for scaling-up village level
planning to the district level or rather
guiding village level development on
the basis of a creative district
development approach.
Even though PRA is used effectively in
many countries, villages still have a
tendency of simply coming up with
"wish-lists" through an increment-
alistic PRA approach. There is no
"vision" in these plans and if they are
simply collected and scaled-up at the
district level, no cohesive develop-
mental approach would be discernible.
In addition not all villages in a district
take part in the PRA exercises. This
results in isolated pockets of
development, and the overall impact of
the developmental effort in the district
is very limited. Such a piecemeal
approach to development will not
produce any synergy effects, it can
lead villages to compete for already
scarce resources, often produces
distorted development in a district and
rarely takes into account potentials
which may exist in a district. The
danger of this approach is that PRA
simply staggers like a drunk, putting
one incrementalistic foot after another.
Direction and purpose of the PRA
exercises in a district context are not
discernible.
Many of the classic PRA partner
projects (which are supported through
German contributions) concentrate on
75
ZOPP marries PRA?
selecting a few villages in a district.
Using PRA techniques, these villages
then benefit through material
contributions from the project. Little or
no conceptual thought is given at the
start of these projects on the ability of
the partner country to scale-up the
process to include all villages in the
district or province. The term
"participation" is thus rather hollow
since the process only involves a few
selected villages. This is neither par-
ticipatory, democratic nor equitable.
Furthermore, the manner in which the
villages are selected is often shrouded
in mystery, and the remaining villages
are never consulted in the whole
process. Furthermore, once the
German contribution comes to an end,
many of the partner organisations are
left wondering how they are going to
promote the concept throughout the
district or, even better, throughout the
country.
Despite these rather general criticism
which have been raised above,
experience has been gained in a
number of countries as to how the
process can be improved. The author
has gained valuable experience in
Ghana, Zambia, Lesotho, Kenya and
Indonesia where the linkages between
the village and the district have been
successfully established. Approaches
for linking village and district
development plans have been tried
and tested under two different frame
conditions: districts with
democratically elected assemblies (or
councils) and districts with traditional
district administrations who are
appointed by the central governments.
76
2. Districts with Democratically
Elected Assemblies
A democratic planning and
management process at the district
level requires an appropriate organi-
sational form, many of the traditional
bureaucracies at the district level have
tended to vest the decision making
powers in the district ad-ministration.
The organigram in figure 1 depicts one
possible set-up which allows a
democratic process to take place in a
district. Centre piece of the
organisational set-up is the district
assembly which comprises demo-
cratically elected villagers from the
district. Noteworthy is that the
proposed organigram has been
adapted from the current organi-
sational set-up practised in Ghana
(where the district assembly con-
stitutes the second highest political
authority in the country - after the
national parliament). The district ad-
ministration and line departments are
in principle subordinate to the district
assembly and subject to its control. In
practice, the strength of these
traditional bodies and the fact that they
usually control the resources has led
to a certain demotion of the district
assembly. This can only be
redressed if the assembly is able to
take effective control of the resources
available to the district. (e. g. through
the establishment of a district
development fund).

2.1 Grass-roots Approach to
Planning and Management
This short article does not intend to
elaborate on the role and functions of
the various different levels in the
organigram depicted below (readers
interested in additional information on
these topics should contact the
author). Instead, it focuses on the
process for integrating village level
plans with district development plans.
2. 1. 1 Village Level
Normally, several villages make up an
electoral area (or constituency), and
each electoral area has one elected
representative sitting on the district
assembly (or council). This means
that villages have a direct
representation on the second highest
political body in the country.
Furthermore, a participatory approach
at village level requires that a small
group in each village/area need to be
identified to form a development
committee. This committee can be
made up of teachers, health workers,
village headmen and villagers (both
female and male). The committee
Background Papers
may decide to elect a village level
animator (who could also be a
member of the district assembly) who
would receive training in participatory
methods and techniques as well as in
project identification and simple
planning. The animator is then
expected to help the committee to
initiate a dialogue process within the
community. Guided by a very simple
systematic approach, the villages will
assess the potentials which exist in
their area, will determine the problems
and constraints which they face in
trying to tap these potentials and will
then jointly seek ways in which they
can plan and implement changes in
their villages. The elaboration of a
community action plan stands at the
centre of this approach. Two types of
projects may be planned by the
villages: projects which can be dealt
with entirely by the villages (type "A"
projects); projects which require some
form of external assistance from the
district (type "B" projects). The
examples being presented in this
article concentrate on type B projects
since type A ones are well
documented in literature dealing with
PRA.
77
ZOPP marries PRA?

Figure 1: Organigram for a Decentralized Planning Approach

Head of State, National Government,

Cabinet

Other National Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of

Ministries Economic Finance Local
Planning Government

National
National
Level Development
Planning
Authority

National
Sectoral
Ministries

Regional
Coordinating
Council

Regional Regional
Planning &
Level Coordinating
Unit

Regional General
Sectoral Administration
Departments

District
Assembly

Executive
Committee
District
Level

Development
Planning & General
Budgeting Unit Administration

Economic Technical Social Services Law & Order Administration/ Disaster

Development Infrastructure Sub- committee Sub- committee Finance Sub- committee
Sub- committee Sub- committee Sub- committee

Sectoral Sectoral
Departments Departments

Community
Level Village, Area or Unit Comittees
Local Community

78

With limited funds available at the
district level, a planning calendar
needs to be introduced in order to
avoid a "first-come-first-served"
principle. The calendar is based on a
yearly planning cycle and is linked to
the yearly budgeting process. In this
calendar, villages should be given a
deadline by which they are expected to
present their project type "B"
proposals to the district. What is
important is that a process is set in
motion at the village level which is
upheld every year, whether assistance
from outside the village is forthcoming
or not. The development committee
and village level animator will have to
maintain the momentum and euphoria
of any participatory process beyond
the initial first couple of years.
2. 1. 2 District Level
There are several professional bodies
at the district level: sectoral line
departments, district sub-committees
(which are made up of elected
assembly members, sectoral line
departments, NGO representatives,
project officers, etc.) and the planning
and budgeting unit. The administrative
level is made up of the district
executive committee which is chaired
by the district secretary and the
traditional district administration. The
political level comprises first and
foremost the district assembly.
Both a "vision" and a development
plan need to be established for the
district. The "vision" is basically a
narrative summary of where the
district would like to be in ten years
time. Based on both, the existing
constraints and the potentials of the
district, and in line with national and
Background Papers
provincial policies and recommen-
dations, the vision describes how the
district anticipates tapping the limited
potentials it has, where the focus for
the development activities should be,
how problematic areas will be dealt
with, the impact that interventions are
likely to have, etc. Furthermore, the
guiding developmental principles (i.e.
participatory bottom-up approach,
etc.) and the developmental concepts
and theories (i.e. endogenous
development, selected closure, etc.)
which the district wants to pursue
have to be highlighted. The document
should be based on realistic scenarios
of different developmental models and
describe the most appropriate
scenario for the district. The
document will be approximately twenty
pages long and it should be broad
enough in scope to gain the necessary
political approval yet precise enough to
indicate how the developmental efforts
will be concentrated to maximise the
benefits for the district. The document
requires political approval at the
district council level.
While the district vision is designed to
provide the broad outline of
development for the district, the
development plan will be a three year
rolling plan as to how the development
work in the district should be
implemented.
2. 2 Process for Linking Village
Level Planning with District Plans
A fundamental misconception which
often surrounds rural development is
that communities can initiate and
sustain development entirely on their
own. Villages and communities
(particularly remote ones) require
79
ZOPP marries PRA?
assistance from institutions at regional
and national levels. Furthermore,
governments must not be exonerated
from their responsibility to jointly
provide important infrastructure to
promote rural development. This
means that a fair distribution of
national resources for all districts in
the country needs to be a pre-
condition for promoting rural
development. If this does not take
place, there is the distinct danger that
participatory approaches at the village
level will further relieve the national
government of its obligation to assist
rural areas in developing themselves.
This could mean catapulting the
villages into permanent poverty.
Participatory approaches must not
lead governments into thinking that
they can shirk their responsibility
towards rural citizens. This means
that resources for promoting village
level development will also be provided
from the regional and national level
(whether sectoral line agency funds,
other government funds, multi-lateral
80
or bilateral donor funds, NGO's, etc.).
Figure 2 illustrates the main process
steps which the village level
applications need to go through when
a democratically elected assembly
has been constituted at the district
level. The steps have been further
highlighted in the two fictitious case
studies presented below.
The first example focuses on project
proposals which villages make as a
result of a participatory approach but
which require some form of external
assistance. Projects which the village
can implement completely on their
own have not been taken into
consideration in this example since
there is no need to gain approval at
higher levels for any of these activities.
The second example illustrates how a
potential donor (e. g. NGO, multi-
lateral or bilateral donor) can make
effective use of the information gained
through a district plan and village level
plans and how it can inter-link with a
participatory process in a relatively
equitable and democratic approach.
 Background Papers

Figure 2: Procedural Steps for Linking Village Plans with District Plans

National Sectoral
Ministries ELECTED DISTRICT
Multi & Bi-Lateral ASSEMBLY POLITICAL
Donors
DISTRICT

6 5 LEVEL

2
District
DISTRICT DISTRICT
Development EXECUTIVE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Fund / Budget COMMITTEE BUDGETING PLAN(PRODUCED
UNIT USING PRA & OTHER
METHODS)

TECHNICAL
DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION 4 TECHNICAL SUB
COMMITTEES
DISTRICT
LEVEL

SECTORAL

7 LINE
DEPARTMENTS
3
1

ELECTORAL VILLAGE
CONSTITUENCY LEVEL

VILLAGE LEVEL PLANS

PRODUCED USING
VILLAGES PRA METHODS

81
ZOPP marries PRA?

EXAMPLE 1: Villages Request Assistance for their Projects from the District

With more than 200 villages in any given district, it is clear that some form of
categorization and prioritization has to be undertaken. Assuming that the district receives
a number of different requests for assistance from the villages (step 1 in figure 2), there
are two possible ways in which these applications can be processed at the district level.
Applications can either be processed on a "first-come-first-served" principle, or they can
be gathered to be assessed and scrutinized at a pre-determined date they. The first
approach, which is quite common at present, basically means that the projects are
allocated to villages without any overriding district prioritization (i.e. based on possible
potentials in the district). Therefore, no other project can be supported the funds are
exhausted. The second approach would mean that all applications have to be collected
at a set date (i.e. planning calendar). They are then passed on to the technical sub-
committees and the sectoral line departments (step 3 in figure 2) for closer technical
assessment. As an example, let us assume that forty applications are received, ten
referring to water, five to health, five to education and ten refer to agriculture. The water
applications would be dealt with by the director of works who would look at the technical
feasibility of the applications. He may decide that, of the ten applications for boreholes,
five are suitable for bore holes, three are suitable for hand-dug wells, and the remaining
two are unsuitable since water cannot be extracted in the area either through borehole or
wells. The cost of carrying out the work would be estimated by the director of works.
Together with the district planner, the director of works would also assess whether the
applications meet the development criteria laid down in the district development vision
and plan (step 2 in figure 2, which can be done parallel to step 3). During this
assessment, an additional two applications are rejected on the grounds that they do not
fall into the priority areas of the district. Based on the capacity of the district to actually
implement the work, the sub-committee may come up with two proposals. Finally, the
executive committee will be presented with a number of different proposals for perusal
(step 4 in figure 2).
Of the initial forty applications, perhaps only thirty remain, while ten have been rejected
either on technical grounds or because they do not meet the agreed upon priorities of the
district. At the executive committee meeting, the total funds available in the development
fund are matched against the proposals presented by the sub-committee. Once this
matching process has been completed, one or more final proposals are submitted to the
assembly for approval (step 5 in figure 2). As a result of this process, the assembly
agrees on supporting five villages with bore holes, two with hand dug wells, two villages
will be assisted with the construction of schools, and four villages storage facilities for
agriculture will be constructed jointly with the community. Villages whose applications
have been rejected in the above process need to be informed by the assembly persons
who are politically accountable to the community.
Ideally, a district development fund is established into which all funds are placed,
independent of their source (step 6 in figure 2). Money is then disbursed from this fund to
the villages and the sectoral line departments (step 7 in figure 2) in order to implement
the approved projects. Accountancy of the fund is carried out by the district
administration. Supervision and control of the fund rests with the district assembly or
with the executive committee.

82
 Background Papers

EXAMPLE 2: An NGO Wants to Support Sectoral Development Activities at the Village

Level

A donor or NGO has shown an interest in assisting villagers of a certain district in the field of
rural water supply and in the provision of agricultural inputs. The donor is uncertain whom to
approach in the system, but initially takes up contact with the district administration. The
ideas of the donor are discussed with the district planner and the matter is then referred to the
technical sub-committees (step 3 in figure 2). While these technical discussions are in
progress, the district planner will assess the ideas of the NGO/donor to determine whether
the ideas are in line with the overall district development concept as outlined in the "vision" for
the district and detailed in the district development plan (step 2 in figure 2). The sectoral line
department has to assess whether it has the capacity to assist the NGO/donor in
implementing the proposals (i.e. personnel, equipment, logistics). In other words, does the
department of agriculture have the capacity to supply the inputs to the farmers? Assuming
that the NGO/donor is not in a position to increase the sectoral line departments
implementation capacity (i.e. by providing vehicles, paying allowances), then it is imperative
that the technical sub-committee only approves projects which can be realistically
implemented under present frame conditions (step 6 in figure 2). The same holds true for the
water supply component. During the meetings of the technical sub-committee, all of these
aspects are discussed and recommendations are formulated for the district executive
committee and assembly meetings.

Throughout this process, the NGO/donor will be fully involved, particularly in the work of the
technical sub-committees. Furthermore, the ideas of the villagers need to be evaluated to
ascertain villages which show a general interest in taking part in the NGO co-sponsored ideas
(step 1 in figure 2). The applications which villages have made are examined, and suitable
villages are then contacted by the NGO. Additional PRA work may become necessary. Once
approved, work can begin. This process has following advantage: existing applications from
villages which may have been initially rejected due to the lack of funds are re-examined as a
result of additional funds being made available by the NGO. Approval by the district assembly
is not required since these village applications had already been approved in principle and
were rejected only due to the limited availability of funds.

In this example, the funds for the agricultural component could flow directly to the Department
of Agriculture and the villages. Monitoring the project implementation would be a function of
the sub-committees and the district planning unit. In other words, the overall responsibility for
the project would still remain with the villages and the sectoral line department, only the
decision making process and, finally, the monitoring and coordination would be carried out
through the decentralised system.

83
ZOPP marries PRA?
3. Districts with Traditional
Administration and No Elected
Assembly
Less democratic but more typical of
many districts in developing countries
is the organigram depicted in figure 3.
The controlling force at the district
level is the district administration. The
District Secretary/commissioner is a
political appointee of the central
government (a fact which is usually
true of districts also having district
assemblies). The sectoral line
departments allegiance is to the
provincial and national level, funds are
dispersed via the sectoral line
departments and the planning unit has
little or nothing to say in the whole
process. Top-down decision making
is the rule, participatory processes are
the exception.
Nevertheless, even in such a situation,
a more participatory process can still
be encouraged and practised.
Referring to figure 2, the need for
carrying out PRA work at the village
level remains (step 1 in figure 2).
Similarly, the need for a district
development vision and plan also
remains. Cross-checking the
compatibility of the village plans with
the district plan also has to be carried
out (step 2 in figure 2). However,
rather than submitting the ideas of the
villagers to multi-sectoral sub-
committees, the matter is simply
referred to the respective sectoral line
department, who in turn refers the
matter for funding to the provincial and
national ministries. Funds are then
disbursed to the sectoral line
departments who in turn will promote
the activities at the village level (step 7
84
in figure 2). In this example, close
cooperation between the district
planning unit, the sectoral line
departments, NGOs and donors at the
district level has to be maintained.
Often the districts establish a
development coordinating committee
which fulfils these functions.
The participatory process in this
traditional administrative set-up is
heavily dependent upon the stamina,
flexibility and willingness of the district
planning unit to pursue a participatory
approach. Furthermore, the power of
the administration and of the sectoral
line departments who control most of
the important resources should not be
under estimated. Small changes in
the existing organisational set-up,
such as the introduction of a
coordinating committee or the
strengthening of the district planning
unit, can lead to pursue more
participatory approaches, which in turn
can provide a linkage between village
level planning and district planning.
More difficult to ensure is the
disbursement of funds by the sectoral
line departments since their allegiance
is to their parent ministry rather than to
the district administration or, least of
all, to the district planning unit.
While it is possible to conclude that a
decentralised approach in a district
with some form of democratically
elected assembly enhances the
possibilities for pursuing participatory
approaches at the this level in order to
link up with the village level, traditional
administrations can also be modified
to enhance their performance. In both
cases, the power and authority of the
district administration and the sectoral

line departments (who are not
generally inclined to give up their hold
on power) has to be dealt with in a
pragmatic manner. The key role of the
district planning unit cannot be
emphasized enough. The calibre of
staff for such a unit generally exceeds
that of the classical planning
technocrat: a dynamic and politically
active planner is required who is
Background Papers
prepared to take up the role of actively
coordinating the different actors in the
development process. This process
is not a technocratic one but revolves
more around effective leadership,
personal motivation and a certain
degree of brazenness.
85
86

The Ngobe Agroforestry Project and the
Process Supportive Consultancy
by Maruja Salas and Timmi Tillmann
The Ngobe Agroforestry Project
The Ngobe Agroforestry Project was
established in coordination with the
Ngobe National Congress, the Pa-
nama Government represented by the
National Institute for Natural Re-
sources and the German Government.
GTZ is in charge of the execution of
the German part of the joint effort in
Western Panama to improve the living
conditions of the Ngobe Indians. The
project focuses on agroforestry and
crafts in one of three provinces inhab-
ited by Ngobe people. The project
team expressed their n i terest to get
the support of a process supportive
consultancy which has been devel-
oped by the convenors since 1993 in
irregular short term visits. The consul-
tancy during 1994 was part of the ap-
proach of socio-cultural counseling.
Since October 1994, it has been a part
of the NARMS-Pilot Project.
The Ngobe Indians are the largest in-
digenous minority of Panama with
about 150,000 people. They occupy
large areas of tropical forests and
mountainous regions in the western
provinces of Veraguas, Bocas del
Toro and Chiriquí. The Ngobe people
have been fighting for legal recognition
of their territory and for self-
administration of the natural resources
within their territory. The Ngobe are
deprived of their rights and disadvan-
taged in their living conditions, as they
were driven away by Spanish speak-
Background Papers
ing settlers who reduced their land to
the hill and mountain areas,. Besides,
the Panamean society does not rec-
ognize the Ngobe culture as a national
wealth.
The project concentrated its efforts in
San Félix in Chiriquí, selecting 4 vil-
lages for pilot work in agroforestry and
crafts. The GTZ-advisor insisted in
recruiting staff with indigenous back-
ground, so the majority of the staff is
of Ngobe origin. It was a technical
project, but the project team looked for
external advice for the consideration of
the specific situation of indigenous
people and the design of an appropri-
ate development project. With the
help of two process supportive con-
sultants, the project initiated a learning
process which aimed at three goals:
• to improve the interaction and dia-
logue between the project team and
the Ngobe people;
• to recognize the Ngobe cosmovi-
sion and to revitalize Ngobe culture
as a project strategy;
• to design a project approach (phi-
losophy, attitudes, management
tools, extension system) based on
Ngobe values and traditions.
This learning process is one example
for the paradigm shift from a conven-
tional donor driven project to an en-
dogenous development process
based on the culture of the local peo-
ple.
87
ZOPP marries PRA?
The Story of Ivi Molo and Keba Sula
Ivi Molo was a female cacique (chief)
who provided the Ngobe people with
chicha (maize beer) when the families
worked together in juntas (self help or
reciprocal help). Ro, the iguana was
very curious to know how Ivi Molo
could produce chicha that was always
available. So he decided not to partici-
pate in one junta in order to find out
her secret. He hid behind a rock and
spied on her. He saw her filling up a
huge container with water where she
took a bath. Her body was wounded
and full of scars from which the chicha
came out. Ivi Molo got very angry when
she noticed that she had been ob-
served. She took a stone and threw it
at Ro hitting his ear. “From now on
you will be deaf. You will be able to
see but not to hear anymore“. Ivi Molo
was so angry that she refused to pre-
pare chicha and to create the maize
seeds. This caused hunger among the
Ngobe people who asked Keba Sula, a
suclla or fortune-teller to intercede
between the Gods and Ivi Molo so that
she would restore seed diversity and
calm people’s hunger. Keba Sula me-
diated successfully. Ivi Molo agreed to
prepare chicha again but not like in old
times. The variety of seed diminished
as a consequence of the behaviour of
Ro, the spying iguana.
This fragment of the rich Ngobe my-
thology gives us an insight into how
the Ngobe people understand nature
and in which terms they use natural
resources. Ivi Molo represents the
diversity of resources of nature. They
are generously given to the Ngobe
people when they work together. Ro
represents the intruder. He breaks the
natural and the social rules. His curi-
osity destroys the mysteries of seed
88
diversity and reproduction of life. The
diversity of seeds and the capacity of
Ivi Molo represents the sustainability of
Ngobe life and of nature. Keba Sula
represents a human being who nego-
tiates between different worlds or reali-
ties, here with the power of the gods to
transform a situation in favour of his
own people. That is a metaphor for
the role of the facilitator. In contrast,
Ro represents the development agent
who comes to observe, who looks
around, takes out benefits for himself,
pursues native women: in fact, a being
very similar to a conventional exten-
sion worker or urban development
agent, whom the Ngobe people are
used to confront.
The means and processes of the
Process Supportive Consultancy
The means for this change process
were constructed and designed in
dialogue with the project team and
village members step by step. It was
not a fixed procedure but a careful
advancement, planned and evaluated
periodically with the project team and
leading to a new agreement on the
next step the end of each stay of the
consultants.
In September 93, one consultant vis-
ited the project for the first time to clar-
ify the initial task of a process suppor-
tive consultancy (PSC). This visit was
an exchange of impressions, observa-
tion of the project reality at that mo-
ment and a rough planning of future
activities.
It was agreed to start with a PRA-
Training for all members of the team
and for a group of male and female
members of the pilot villages in March
94. PRA served to link the team
closer to the villages, establish dia-

logue mechanisms for the team of
technicians and deepen the situation
analysis of the villages based on the
Ngobe people’s view. The PRA appli-
cation was continued by mixed teams
of technicians and villagers during the
next months.
Based on the results of the ongoing
PRA, we (as consultants) guided a
series of workshops in June 94 to de-
sign a proper Ngobe Agroforestry Ex-
tension System with the project team,
villagers and a group of Ngobe elders
who were specialists in their culture
and traditions. The Extension System
included the basic philosophy of
Ngobe development, their cosmovi-
sion and cultural values. On this basis
we designed the concepts, methods,
content guidelines and organizational
requirements of an institutionalized
dialogue between the PAN and the
villagers.
It became clear that this dialogue had
to be based on the situation of each
village, interpreted by the Ngobe villag-
ers themselves. So, in November 94,
we facilitated the first of four work-
shops to create, adapt and apply a
Village Planning Methodology which
aimed at overcoming the usual shop-
ping list by departing from the visions
of future development and enhancing
the village organisation.
After the four village planning work-
shops in the four pilot villages, the next
stay in San Félix in February 95 was
dedicated to edit the village planning
manual, design a qualitative process-
oriented M&E-Information-System,
accompany the first session of the
project council which included a male
and a female representative of each
village in the monthly evaluation and
planning of the project team, and to
design a strategy for the dialogue be-
Background Papers
tween villagers, project team, Ngobe
leaders in the region, the national
Ngobe Congress and other develop-
ment agents (GO and NGOs).
In October 95, the PSC was contin-
ued, in order to elaborate with the
team and villagers a specific Hand-
book for technicians and village pro-
moters called the Keba Sula Manual.
The technicians and the villagers
thought that this was an excellent title
for the development workers who ne-
gotiate between different cultures,
technologies, cosmovisions and de-
velopment visions. Besides the hand-
book, we trained the whole team and
interested villagers in facilitation skills
so that the project’s planning work and
the meetings with the villagers could
be improved in the direction of more
dialogical working pro-cess.
For 1996, the project team requires
the support of the PSC in two direc-
tions:
• within the project, to advance the
technological experimentation with
interested families in the villages
revitalizing the indigenous knowl-
edge and technology
• design an indigenous strategy for
development projects parting from
the Ngobe experience and network-
ing with similar projects and devel-
opment actors in the region.
A series of processes were stimulated
by the PSC. The main aspects relate
to the following change pro-cesses:
• To understand the paradigm shift
from a conventional technical de-
velopment project to a learning
process which is to design appro-
priate concepts and tools and to
achieve a participatory attitude;
• The revitalization of the cultural
identity of the Ngobe people as a
89
ZOPP marries PRA?
strategy for survival, dealing with
cosmovision, spirituality, wisdom,
knowledge and technology;
• The building of team-work and fa-
cilitation skills of project members
and motivated villagers;
• The empowerment of the Ngobe
organisation, from families to
community organisations, and
strengthening the regional indige-
nous representations as well as the
national and international indige-
nous networks.
The main bottlenecks encountered
during the process of PSC relate to:
1. The fact that there are no instru-
ments available for PCM for the pro-
ject team:
ù ZOPP is handled too rigidly and
in a culturally insensitive way.
ù The evaluation in 1995 was
undertaken as a control measure to
compare the planning schedule and
the realization of the quantitative indi-
cators denying the advances of the
participatory processes and the de-
sign of the culturally oriented project
management. There was no orienta-
tion to establish the appropriate M&E-
System - it was left to the project to
invent their own system.
2. There is no systematic and struc-
tural backstopping for this indigenous
90
agroforestry project coming from the
GTZ institution, the PSC was a fortu-
nate complementary pilot activity with
little embedding in the institutional
structure.
3. The project team and the involved
villagers applied the participatory
methodology in a mechanistic manner
reducing the potentials for an intercul-
tural dialogue. This was confronted
with the special training of four facilita-
tors as PRA-trainers which took place
in the framework of the regional net-
work for participation and gender
which links a dozen projects sup-
ported by GTZ in Central America.
4. A bottleneck, but also an advan-
tage, may be the pilot character of the
project as the GTZ has no blueprints
for projects with indigenous peoples.
All tools and concepts were adapted
or developed by the project team with
our advice and support.
5. A serious limitation for development
projects may be the high costs in-
volved with a PSC, as the project re-
quires a permanent contact as well as
regular visits of external consultants
(in our case a team of two anthropolo-
gists) and this has to be budgeted.
Hopefully, there will be professionals
available in the region in future who
can accompany projects creatively.

Participation and Planning:
What to Get Things Going?
by Ulrike Breitschuh
By tradition and self-definition, local
NGOs in Western Africa tend to have
a flexible way of dealing with formal
procedures. Donor organisations,
however, often require a structured
and comprehensive planning docu-
ment on which funding and evaluation
of results can be based. In order to
achieve this, they generally destine
part of their organisational develop-
ment support to NGOs to improve
planning processes. Since the capac-
ity to design a project proposal and to
justify funds often determines whether
funding will be provided, ZOPP plan-
ning instruments tended to be ac-
cepted enthusiastically. On the basis
of the author practical experience in
West Africa the present paper de-
scribes:
• how ZOPP has been modified to fit
specific conditions;
• how ZOPP and PRA instruments
have been combined during the
planning processes within NGO’s.
Properly carried out, ZOPP provides
an excellent set of tools which can
improve the organizational capacity of
NGOs through providing a structured
method to elaborate project proposals
and budgets acceptable to donor or-
ganisations.
There are, however, several deficien-
cies of ZOPP which need to be dealt
with:
Background Papers
Who Needs
• The visualization techniques
used in conventional ZOPP
workshops, i.e. markers and
cards, often make people with
low formal education feel un-
easy.
• The analysis of the potentials
and interests of "part-
ners/participants" is often omit-
ted when doing the planning of
activities.
• The problem analysis may intro-
duce a skewed focus on prob-
lems and, carried out by outsid-
ers, increase the tendency to
charity and to de-responsibilize
local people.
• Objective analysis done in a
workshop setting tends to follow
the pattern of "the project will
make sure that...". This is not
only a fictitious but also an un-
desirable approach, as it implies
that the responsibility and contri-
bution of local people is being
underestimated or overlooked.
• Defining indicators and assump-
tions can contribute enormously
to strengthening planning ca-
pacities of NGOs or communi-
ties alike. However, the danger
exists that they become either a
straight-jacket or completely ri -
relevant.
• In order to provide sufficient
flexibility and scope for adapta-
tion the project plan and the plan
of operation have to be regularly
adjusted to changes taking
91
ZOPP marries PRA?
place, because probably by de-
fault the initial version (during
"planning for budget") will proba-
bly not cover the changes during
implementation.
1. Mixing visualization tools
When trying to involve NGO field staff
in project planning, there is usually a
certain reluctance to take markers and
write on coloured cards. Using visual
means other than typical ZOPP cards
and markers is generally an advantage
to make participants feel at ease, es-
pecially if they do not feel comfortable
writing in a European language. In
these situations the visualisation tech-
niques of the PRA tool box proved very
helpful, as even villager or staff with a
low level of formal education have no
difficulties and often enjoy using them.
2. Analysis of Partners
The methodological step of analyzing
the potential and interests of "partners
and individuals concerned" frequently
remains a warm-up exercise and the
results are usually not used when do-
ing the planning of activities.
The conventional ZOPP procedure
listing interest, potential for resistance
or negative impact of the partners etc.
should be complemented by using
Venn diagrams. This supports an in-
tensive discussion of the relationships
between the different actors, espe-
cially NGO's and government ser-
vices. In order to improve the man-
agement of cooperation and to better
involve NGO's in government activities
a special field of action should there-
fore be dedicated to this task in the
plan of operation.
92
3. Problem Analysis
The problem analysis may introduce a
skewed focus on problems and, car-
ried out by outsiders, it may increase
the tendency to charity and to de-
responsibilize local people. 1
Problem analysis is the stage of the
planning process where there is the
definite need to go into the villages and
discuss the potentials and problems
with the different groups. It should be
avoided to focus to rapidly on prob-
lems; instead, the potentials, interests,
visions and aspirations of the people
should be emphasized. Participatory
appraisal approaches have shown a
particular high potential for this.
4. Objectives Analysis and Analysis
of Alternative Strategies
Objective analysis in a workshop set-
ting tends to follow the pattern of "the
project will make sure that...". This is
not only a fictitious but also an unde-
sirable approach, as it implies that the
responsibility and contribution of local
people is being underestimated or
overlooked.
The project can instead propose and
negotiate its contribution according to
the objectives set by local people or
1 ...Indeed, it is often argued that concentra-
tion on problems puts people into a pos i-
tion of weakness while those asking to
know about the problems place them-
selves into the position of „saviours“. In
fact, in many African cultures, it is uncalled
for to investigate people's problems
unless the investigator wishes to resolve
them. Therefore, potentials and aspira-
tions have increasingly replaced the pos i-
tion of "you have a problem, tell me, I'll
help you out".

groups. Due to limited resources,
every project has to make a decision
as to where to contribute. However,
the question to be answered during
this stage of planning is not "what do
we propose to achieve" but "where
can we contribute to resolve problems
or to develop potentials and make as-
piration come true". Any outside sup-
port has to be based on the decision
making process on community level.
5. Indicators and Assumptions
The definition of indicators and as-
sumptions is probably, besides the
plan of operation, the most important
tool of ZOPP. Indicators favour a
down-to-earth thinking. They are es-
sential for operational planning, for
measuring the degree of success and
help determine the tasks implied by
the ‘objective/results’ agreed upon.
In order to prevent them from becom-
ing a straight-jacket or simply being
forgotten they have to be, together with
the beneficiaries reviewed on a regular
basis and, if necessary, adjusted. As
a rule they should be re-examined at
least once a year.
Assumptions allow for a more opera-
tional consideration of what was dis-
cussed in the analysis of partners.
Again, it is not sufficient to put all the
conflicting or uncertain points under
Background Papers
the assumptions category in the initial
plan. Instead, the actions to be taken
to assure that they materialize have to
be discussed and planned.
6. Detailed Plan of Operation
The project plan and in particular the
plan of operation serves as a basis for
budgeting and provides the starting
point for the internal planning and allo-
cation of human and financial re-
sources.
In order to provide sufficient flexibility
and scope for adaptation the plan of
operation has to be regularly adjusted
according to the processes taking
place. By default the initial version of
the project plan (established during
"planning for budget") will probably not
cover the changes during implementa-
tion. The reviewing of operational
planning has, therefore, be done on a
regular basis (monthly or three-
monthly).
All in all one can say: If used flexibly,
with the right understanding of re-
sponsibility and in combination with
other methods and techniques ZOPP
provides an excellent sequence to
clarify objectives and translate them
into steps, periods, responsibilities
and requirements of funds, inputs and
people.
93
94

Result oriented ZOPP and quantitative Indi-
cators undermine demand and process Ori-
entation of Projects
by Dieter Gagel
Process orientation and establish-
ing goals, results and indicators
Process-oriented, participatory ap-
proaches are fundamentally oriented
towards demand. The project strategy
is to encourage the beneficiaries to
identify and articulate priorities as well
as to develop their own proposals for
solutions and implementation with the
support of the project. In this frame-
work, the project personnel do not act
as managers. They accompany the
project as animators and facilitators of
a process of reflection and action, in
which the users, benefiting from sup-
port measures, remain the main ac-
tors.
Process-oriented project implementa-
tion depends on a permanent dialogue
with the users and is therefore subject
to continual change. It must be possi-
ble to question goals, results and indi-
cators, which have been set at one
time, as they need to be adjusted and
developed without a great deal of effort
or against great resistance. They also
have to be formulated in a way that
limits neither the process of finding the
problem nor the identification of the
need. In this way, goals and re-
sults/indicators can be integrated with
changes of the users ideas, proposals
and perspectives. This process, as a
permanent and demand-oriented ac-
tivity, is orientated towards the con-
Background Papers
tinually changing priorities of the us-
ers.
An example of a "process-integrating"
indicator is: "At least 60% of the sup-
port activities were proposed by the
craftspersons themselves"2. This
indicator establishes the project un-
ambiguously. It is not formulated in
terms of statically set results, but as
an animation method to be imple-
mented. It makes the implementa-
tion’s process- and demand-oriented
character obligatory.
Indicators of the type "100 craftsper-
sons used 1,200 person/day courses
in accounting; representatives of 40
groups completed courses to combat
illiteracy; craftspersons from 50
groups have received loans"3 have
exactly the opposite effect. These
predominantly quantitative indicators
enforce a supply orientation of the pro-
ject implementation. In this case, it
would be the project staff's concern to
"teach" the craftspersons the need for
training and continued education, while
the craftspersons themselves might
see their priorities in other areas (ma-
2
.....Indicator in project A: Supporting crafts
trades in Africa
3
.....Project B: Supporting crafts trades in Af-
rica. The demand orientated activity listed
in the same ZOPP: "Diversifying Support
Activities in accordance with the Needs of
various Groups" methodologically contra-
dicts the indicators mentioned above and
is impeded by them.
95
ZOPP marries PRA?
terial supply, technical consultation
and financing). In fact, courses on
accounting, which were demanded by
this project, had to be stopped due to
a lack of participants.
Furthermore, being formally commit-
ted to results when formulating indica-
tors and goals ("training courses will
be offered; x courses will be taught"4)),
obstructs the possibility of monitoring
the content and process orientation of
measures: A measure cannot be
deemed successful simply by show-
ing that it was carried out and how
often it was carried out. In contrast,
process oriented indicators check the
effects of a measure on its users: Has
the content of an training course been
applied effectively in practice? Has a
change in the behaviour of the users
been achieved in the course of the
support measure?
The purely quantitative indicator for
awarding loans mentioned above is
unsuitable for checking whether this
measure promoted the users’ inde-
pendence (for instance, through the
connection between loans and sav-
ings and the promotion of forms of
self-financing within the group) or
whether their independence was in
fact impeded by it (continuing the
awarding of loans to the same groups
without an appreciable formation of
personal capital). Process orientation
in this case would aim at producing a
change in the users’ attitude towards
external aid and developing their own
initiative. It would also make the moni-
toring of these changes possible (the
former, for example, through the for-
mulation of indicators which check the
4....Project B
96
formation of personal capital in the
course of the loan programme).
This tendency is continued on the level
of results: In the course of the linkage
to a partner organisation, required by
TC organisations rather than by users,
projects and users are frequently
committed ahead of time to cooperat-
ing with certain institutions (for exam-
ple, with chambers of trade, although
these are often state-controlled and
encumbered with an apparatus of
functionaries). Formalising coopera-
tion by committing users to a project
goal or result means that this com-
mitment becomes almost obligatory in
everyday TC practice - even if ZOPP
results may be „continued“ on paper.5
It also impedes process orientated
checking or questioning on the basis
of practical experience during the
course of the project.
The kind of conditions engendered by
this approach can be seen in the ex-
ample of a project supporting the
crafts trades in Africa: Due to cabinet
reshuffles and rotating administra-
tions, the secretary general and the
partner organisation’s personnel (the
chamber of commerce), who were
partially appointed by the state,
changed so frequently that it was no
longer possible to cooperate effec-
tively. Project measures, which were
dependent upon training the cham-
ber’s personnel, could not have a last-
ing effect. Yet the partner organisation
5 ...We should not underestimate the condi-
tions of the environment which impede a
"continuation" of ZOPP projects once they
have been set: for instance, admitting in-
adequate original planning, the work of
formulating a new offer to BMZ, the need
of short-term missions having to check
changes again, etc.

remained: As a consequence of its
result orientated approach, ZOPP had
raised it to the status of a law at the
beginning of the project’s implementa-
tion.
ZOPP as system
It is not only the problem of formulating
results, goals and indicators that fre-
quently brings ZOPP into conflict with
process orientated methods of carry-
ing out projects. It is the ZOPP plan-
ning system itself. We should not
overlook the fact that ZOPP, despite
claims to the contrary, represents a
seminar model which often has the
character of a selective event. Users,
particularly if they are basic target
groups such as craftspersons, rural
population, small traders, are placed
into an unfamiliar environment with a
particular style of discussion. Experts,
state functionaries and other insiders
have the advantage of being at home
in this time pressured seminar atmos-
phere and operate exclusively goal-
and result-orientated from the start
(the majority of ZOPP seminars take
place within a timeframe of 3-5 days.
The GTZ representative and the
„short-term experts“ have to journey
elsewhere, but if at all possible they
should have a result in their pocket;
unfinished work is frequently revised
afterwards among a few persons (the
moderator and project manager). If
someone is too slow or requires time
to consider what has been negotiated,
he/she is in a disadvantaged position.
The users themselves, as an organ-
isational unit on local level (village
community or group of craftspersons)
with its own style of discussion and
negotiation (generally requiring a
longer period of time), are non-existent
in the seminar. Rather, they are rep-
Background Papers
resented by representatives, whose
legitimacy is not always clear. Fur-
thermore, there are many ZOPP
seminars in which the seminar dis-
cussion has to be translated for the
target-group representatives since
they only speak the local languages.
Are these target-group representatives
actually token participants who don’t
take part in the real discussion or can
only keep up with difficulties?
A more fundamental problem is the
fact that the ZOPP planning system,
as developed and applied by TC or-
ganisations, was made the universal
planning system for carrying out pro-
jects. This step was guided by the
traditional conviction that these pro-
jects are the property of the German,
English, American, etc. TCs and not a
collaborative endeavour with local
partners. How else would it be possi-
ble to make the general planning sys-
tem of a TC organisation the basis of
a common project! Don’t the partner
organisations already have systems
for planning and implementation, no
matter what their nature may be?
Would a process-orientated approach
not be more logical? It could depart
from these existing „low-level“ sys-
tems, which correspond to the level of
the users, and develop them succes-
sively alongside the users’ planning
capability. Would this not significantly
increase lasting results?
An organisation of craftspersons, vil-
lage community or any other local ini-
tiative will not retain the imported TC
planning system on a long-term basis
after the project has been concluded.
The system and its concepts such as
„project planning overview, indicators,
assumptions, sources of verifiability,
97
ZOPP marries PRA?
highest goal, project goal, monitoring
and evaluation“ may have become
second nature to the „TC person“.
However, they are not suited for start-
ing on the level of experience of small
traders and village communities and
continuing to develop their planning
capacity on the basis of what they
have already achieved. Therefore,
beyond the duration of the project, they
will not evidence any lasting effects.
Project Cycle Management (PCM)?
Fortunately, since the end of 1995,
GTZ has been offering „Project Cycle
Management“, or what they have aus-
piciously renamed „Participatory Co-
operation Management“, as a solution
to the conflicts between ZOPP and
process-orientated methods. PCM
claims to understand planning as a
permanent process and attaches
greater importance to user participa-
tion and the process character of
planning. „In the past, GTZ has
strongly brought planning out of the
context of other management func-
tions. Here, it has often had the ex-
perience that understanding planning
as a rigid prescription and stiff admin-
istrative rules was more than likely a
hindrance to fashioning the manner of
carrying out the project in a goal-
orientated fashion. Furthermore, GTZ
has had the experience that the value
of planning and therefore the binding
character of plans can be very differ-
ent in different cultures. For this rea-
son, GTZ attaches the greatest impor-
tance to the communicative aspects
and the process character of planning
today. “6
6
.....GTZ: Project Cycle Management and
ZOPP - A Guide. Manuscript. October
1995, Eschborn, page 12.
98
Beyond this general statement, the
document fails to consider how hin-
drances in the ZOPP system could be
overcome with specific actions. An
advanced system for planning and
implementation should be established
on a precise analysis of ZOPP's
shortcomings. Although this analysis
has been initialised in various GTZ
documents, it has apparently not been
applied to the implementation of PCM
with the necessary attention to detail.
In the PCM system, we can see that
the users, as persons concerned with
the project, are merely considered as
„participants“, while the TC organisa-
tion remains the main actor of the
event: „GTZ analyses and evaluates...,
it tests..., it judges... and it attaches
special importance to the question...“7.
Therefore, even with PCM, the basic
problem remains: In contrast to its
own claim that „German support fol-
lows the principle of intervening as
little as possible“8, the complicated TC
planning apparatus, which cannot be
managed even by the project manager
him/herself and requires the help of a
specialised ZOPP moderator, contin-
ues to be imported/exported.
Recommendations
The following recommendations do
not claim to be a comprehensive al-
ternative to the existing system of
planning and implementing projects.
Residing in Bamako/Mali, the author
lacks the existing ZOPP critiques to
even attempt such a task. Instead,
they will hopefully contribute to making
the marriage between ZOPP and
PRA, conjured up by the seminar
topic, an acceptable and effective un-
ion. This is the best we can hope for
7
....See loc. cit., page 10.
8
....See loc. cit., pages 6 and 9.

since this marriage is neither a „love
match“ nor, for the reasons mentioned
above, a „marriage of convenience“,
but above, all a „marriage of neces-
sity“:
a. ZOPP modifications
Emphasis in formulation of indicators
should shift form the current quantita-
tive bias to qualitative and process-
oriented results.
Indicators must be formulated in a way
that does not impede the project’s
demand orientation. This enables
users to participate more effectively in
identifying support benefits and needs
not recognised at the beginning of the
project. Support benefits should not
be dictated to project personnel
through overly detailed indicators, but
result from discussions with users in
the course of project implementation.
The formal equality of a ZOPP semi-
nar is in practice an inequality between
experts and functionaries on the one
hand and users on the other. Users
should be able to hold parts of the
ZOPP seminar among themselves,
thus excluding project staff, experts
and functionaries. As part of the pro-
ject for supporting the crafts trades in
the Rombo District, Tanzania, a so-
called „Craftsperson ZOPP“ was car-
ried out in advance of the ZOPP semi-
nar, taking place in the local language
and without the host of experts. The
analyses and results from the crafts-
person ZOPP then formed the basis of
the second part of the seminar. Unfor-
tunately, the experts regained the ini-
tiative during the second part and mo-
nopolised the formulation of indicators.
This example nevertheless shows
how the principle introduced in the
craftsperson ZOPP could be devel-
Background Papers
oped into a tool for giving users an
advantage.
b. Taking various planning sys-
tems into account and relativising
the ZOPP system
What we need is courage to do things
in an open-ended and flexible manner.
A low-level planning system, which
might be insufficient in a formal sense,
but corresponds to the users’ experi-
ences, is probably more efficient and
acceptable to the target group. Above
all, we can expect it to be far more
beneficial in the long run than a super
planning system which is forced upon
the users from outside:
This low-level planning system can
then be developed successively in
accordance with the users’ needs and
capacities, thus becoming a medium-
size planning system which would
stand up to the critical eye of the plan-
ning expert.
Of course, this requires an identifica-
tion and analysis of existing users’
planning systems before the project
begins. Up to now, this type of stock-
taking has generally been looked upon
with a certain degree of arrogance,
and a consideration of the planning
systems of users is deemed unnec-
essary in the majority of TC projects.
ZOPP decisions can no longer be
looked upon as the all-determining
measure for monitoring success.
Results from self-evaluations and par-
ticipatory evaluations must receive
their institutionalised place next to
ZOPP measures. At the same time,
these methods of self-evaluation and
participatory evaluation should be kept
simple so that they can be carried out
by the users themselves in the short
or long term. Therefore, they should
not be developed by outside experts
99
ZOPP marries PRA?
but result from a stock-taking of al-
ready existing systems in collaboration
with the users.
One of the most important means of
planning is "the phase of open orienta-
tion". This allows the application of
demand-oriented, participatory and
process-oriented methods of planning
and implementation, since the phase
of open orientation, in contrast to the
selective ZOPP event, rests upon a
longer-term and permanent coopera-
tion with the users. Action-research
methods are especially well suited for
this type of project implementation
(planning on the basis of practical co-
operation with the users). Of course,
it should be a phase of really open
orientation, that is, without an introduc-
tory ZOPP event (ZOPP should take
place at the end and not at the begin-
ning of a phase of open orientation)
100
and without dependence upon a "pro-
visional" partner organisation which
often turns out to be less provisional
than it first seemed.
The selection of project personnel is
decisive for planning which is oriented
towards the needs of the users and
which is carried out together with
them. The classical TC expert who
only administers, plans, monitors and
evaluates the project from his project
office desk is unsuitable for the job of
establishing the users needs. This
must take place in a permanent dia-
logue with the users and in their envi-
ronment. Perhaps an expert needs
some of the qualities of a development
volunteer.
Finally, GTZ should seriously and sys-
tematically reappraise the criticisms of
ZOPP which have been articulated by
a variety of persons and projects.

Beyond methods - What?
by Jimmy Mascarenhas/OUTREACH
The three pillars of PRA have been
identified as: attitudes, methods and
sharing.
Attitudes
Sharing
However, there are many more pillars
to be added to these three in order to
strengthen and add more substance
to the participatory approach itself and
enhance its effectiveness.
OUTREACH is an NGO working in
South India. Its primary objective is to
„enhance the quality of life of poor
people living in drought prone and en-
vironmentally degraded areas by ena-
bling the community to restore their
environment and form capital“.
OUTREACH has had exposure to
ZOPP and has made a significant
contribution to the development of
PRA in India and several other devel-
oping countries. Our experience with
ZOPP was limited to a five day work-
shop. The venue was a hotel and no
members of the village community
were present. The group, consisting of
Background Papers
NGO staff, donors and government
staff, paid a cursory visit to the project
area for about an hour (once again,
people from the village were not pre-
sent). For the next two
weeks, information from
the workshop was proc-
essed into a final project
document and its respec-
tive budget, which was
sanctioned by the donors.
Our team did not question
this approach, as it
seemed to meet the do-
Methods nors requirements and
satisfy their expectations.
In October 1989, Prof. Robert Cham-
bers came to work at the Administra-
tive Staff College in Hyderabad not far
from the PIDOW, Gulbarga project
where we were working. We took the
opportunity to invite him to our project,
to give us an insight into PRA. A five-
day exercise was organised, where
the participants lived in a village (Kal-
mandargi). It was the first PRA exer-
cise and it helped us greatly to m i -
prove our knowledge. Perhaps the
most important realization was that
‘rapid’ cannot be ‘participatory’ and
‘participatory’ cannot be ‘rapid’. There
was a high level of quality participation
of different groups of the community
as well as of the project staff. The
program concluded with the prepara-
tion of a watershed development plan
which addressed problems and oppor-
tunities relating to the community ti-
101
ZOPP marries PRA?
self, services such as health, educa-
tion, land-based and non land-based
activities. Many key elements from our
normal planning methods and formats
(including ZOPP) could be incorpo-
rated in the plan. For example:
- The costs of each work: Are they
zero cost, low cost, medium cost or
high cost.
- The timing of each work: Is it im -
mediate, or could it be done later,
postponed indefinitely or not at all.
- The contributions for each item of
work: from community, banks,
NGOs, donors or government.
- The responsibility chart: For imple-
mentation of the various works, and
management of the program. Once
again, these were distributed among
the various partners as indicated
above.
Benefits for landless people and
women were negotiated with the rest
of the community and became part of
the project plan. This has been a sat-
isfactory approach up to now. The
approach has also gone further in the
sense that it is now applied not only to
watershed projects but also to for-
estry, agriculture, livestock, credit,
Rich Religious Social
Order Order
Poor
102
health, education and several other
projects.
Over the years, we’ve also realized
that neither ZOPP nor PRA are what
makes development actually take
place, i.e. they are not pre-requisites.
An indispensable pre-requisite is
community participation. This involves
a high degree of preparation and
awareness raising. OUTREACH is
therefore committed to the policy that
no programs are to be implemented
without a preparatory period of at least
12 to 18 months.
During this period, the communities
are organised into interest groups
which regularly meet and save money.
OUTREACH’s approach to community
organisation also has a bias in favour
of the poorer and more marginalised
members of the community, such as
landless families, tribal people, women
and marginal farmers. Efforts are
made to strengthen these groups so
that they can participate more effec-
tively in the project activities. This
gives the project an equity and gender
focus without creating much distur-
bance; an important factor given the
complex Indian context where caste is
ever present.
Political Economic
Order Order
Self-Help
group

OUTREACH’s experience shows that
communities will participate effectively
in a program if given an opportunity to
do so. During the savings and credit
management program, we discovered
that communities utilized credit for
over 29 purposes (there may be many
more). By analyzing patterns of bor-
rowing, we were able to develop pro-
grams around what people actually
wanted.
OUTREACH believes that for sustain-
able development to take place, the
community must be encouraged and
enabled to develop forms of institu-
tions that are appropriate and which
they can understand, identify with and
participate in. These groups and insti-
tutions need assistance in developing
the experience, skills and confidence
which they require to implement and
manage development programs (in
particular, the assets that are likely to
be created). OUTREACH addresses
this by supporting the formation of
Apex institutions. Project activities are
encouraged to run through these Apex
institutions and not through OUT-
REACH.
The OUTREACH concept of develop-
ment is that of ‘Capital Formation’
within the community. Capital con-
sists of the following:
1. Cash ==> Savings, loans, interest
contributions, donations, fines,
grants etc.
2. Assets ==> Buildings, equipment,
roads, wells, pumpsets, check-
dams, irrigation canals, trees
etc.
3. Human ==> Knowledge, skills, con-
fidence, leadership, etc.
Background Papers
4. Institutional ==> Systems and pro-
cedures, norms, rules, sanc-
tions, documentation etc.
OUTREACH strives to achieve the
goal of ‘capital formation’ in its work.
However, the major resource needed
is TIME for a preparatory process to
be initiated and developed and for a
participatory environment to be estab-
lished. PRA & ZOPP are therefore not
one-time happenings, but need to take
place at several appropriate intervals
in the life of the project.
These points emphasize the need for
a shift of attitude: from being more
rigid to being more flexible, from being
blueprint oriented to being process
oriented, from being target driven to
being participation oriented.
Experiences need to be generated and
shared. Policy makers need to be
exposed and influenced. Whether
NGOs or GOs, donors or community
based organisations, we need to be-
come ‘learning organisations’ which
reflect their experiences, adapting and
evolving constantly. New forms of
institutions and institutional arrange-
ments need to be developed which are
flexible and responsive to the needs of
rural communities, particularly to
those of the more marginal groups
and women.
In conclusion the three pillars of PRA
indicated at the beginning of this paper
need to be strengthened by a ‘PRE-
PARATORY PROCESS’ which in-
cludes the awareness creation and
role reversals (training, orientation and
exposure) of 3 main categories of
people:
103
ZOPP marries PRA?

1. Policy makers, head office 3. Client communities.

staff, bosses and administrators,
(of GOs, NGOs, donor organisa- The three pillars diagram shown on
tions, or financial, research or train- the first page will therefore look as
ing institutions). follows.
2. Project field level staff: Again
belonging to the above organisa-
tions.

Policy Project Communities

Training H.O. staff
and Bosses
Orientation

Attitudes
Constantly
Evolving
Learning 3
Organisation pillars
of
PRA
Sharing Methods

New forms of institutions and

institutional arrangements

This preparation needs to be followed appropriate institutions and institutional

by a learning process that is dynamic arrangements which foster a culture of
and which will result in the evolution of participation.

104

Participation and Service Orientation
Towards a new Perception of Participation in Development Cooperation
by Walter Huppert
Introduction
Participation. Is any other term in the
vocabulary of development coopera-
tion as sacrosanct as this one? Is it
conceivable to question the necessity
of participation on the part of partners
and target groups in development pro-
jects? Participation is held aloft as the
key to success and the trade mark of
quality in development cooperation.
Is there any justification for this, or
should we once again be on our guard
when development cooperation ap-
propriates and instrumentalises a term
to the extent that we lose sight of the
original meaning?
Is there not a danger that participation,
originally conceived as a means to an
end, may become an end in itself, veil-
ing the original purpose in a mantle of
participatory actionism?
This paper looks at what the term
"participation" really means, and at the
end that participation is intended to
achieve, from a vantage point rarely
found in development cooperation. I
hope to show that in terms of ser-
vice management important ele-
ments of the participation debate have
been largely ignored to date.
1. Who Participates in What?
Background Papers
Participation means taking part, get-
ting involved, playing an active role.
This is well known. Likewise, it will
come as no surprise that the question,
"Who participates in what?" has a
clear focus in the classical theory of
organisation: authentic participation
means the inclusion of the members
of an organisation in the decision-
making process of that organisation.
More precisely, it entails involving
members of an organisation in the
decisions of that organisation such
that a non-manipulative considera-
tion of the needs of the members
of the organisation is possible (1).
This would seem to give us a funda-
mental answer to the question, "who
participates in what?"(2).
One thing is conspicuous however:
"Classical" views pertaining to partici-
pation are very much focused on in-
ner-organisational participation, as one
can see from the above definition.
The question as to "Who participates
in what?" refers only to the members
or the employees of an organisation.
A completely new perspective
emerges if we look at the question of
participation with respect to service
organisations, characterised by the
fact that the customer or client
105
ZOPP marries PRA?
helps shape the provision of ser-
vices. An important new dimension is
thus added to the participation debate:
Apart from the question of participation
of organisational members in shaping
decisions, we now have to look at the
extent to which the customer or client
participates or should participate in the
provision of services.
It is important to note that the cus-
tomer or client cannot be regarded as
an "organisation member" in the strict
sense of the term. The customer
stands outside the organisation and
belongs to the "environment" in which
it operates (3).
This adds completely new aspects to
the question, "Who participates in
what?". The purpose of participation
on the part of the external customer or
client is quite different to the aim pur-
sued by participation on the part of
members of the organisation, being
geared only to a greater or lesser in-
volvement in the provision of a
service and the decisions pertain-
106
ing thereto. Participation in the deci-
sion-making process of the service
providing organisation, with respect to
ist goals, structures and procedures,
is not normally aimed at.
This has far-reaching implications for
the idea of participation: it means that
the answer to the question, "Who par-
ticipates in what?" will be different de-
pending on whether the potential par-
ticipants belong to the organisation
providing services or to the environ-
ment in which the organisation oper-
ates (see Fig. 1).
As these observations demonstrate,
the participation debate takes on a
new guise when the spotlight is turned
away from the organisation towards
customers and clients in the case of
service-oriented organisations.
 Background Papers

Figure 1

Differentiating Participation

Participants bear
ultimate responsibility
for the provision of services

B´ ("cus- B
tomer/client") ("member")

Customer/client Member participation

Participants participation (in high- Participants
outside the interaction services) within the

service providing service providing or-

organisation Purchaser participa- Staff co-determina- ganisation
tion (in low-interaction tion
services)

("purchaser") ("employee")
A´ A

Provider of services
bears overall responsibility
for the provision of services

107
ZOPP marries PRA?
2. Participation - the Overall Re-
sponsibility
The understanding of participation
diverges yet further if one includes
another variable, the ultimate re-
sponsibility for the services pro-
vided, where manufacturing and ser-
vice organisations tend to differ.
One important difference between
manufacturing and services is that
services cannot be produced and
"stored". Services are only pro-
duced when the customer is pre-
pared to collaborate. At the same
time, this means that the customer
ordering services contributes his own
ideas and preferences to the process
of producing these services: the client
wishing to build a detached house for
instance will be integrated into the
process of architectural design, and
will want to have his own wishes and
ideas taken into account to a greater
or lesser degree - often to the dismay
of the architect. The provider of ser-
vices can only accept this degree of
intervention if the overall responsibility
(i.e. that a certain type of service is
provided, that it makes sense to pro-
vide a service of this sort and that it is
provided in line with certain predeter-
mined conditions, which also govern
the participation of the client) is borne
by the client. The responsibility for
the execution of the work, i.e. for a
professional execution of the inputs of
the service provider is borne by the
latter, in this case the architect.
The ultimate responsibility for the
provision of certain services deter-
mines who is responsible for selecting
a certain provider of these services
and for assessing the capacity of this
108
provider to produce the services re-
quired (4). It likewise aims to specify
who monitors the provision of services
and works to have these changed or
modified if necessary, and who ac-
cepts the final responsibility for justify-
ing the service and for it being of bene-
fit to the recipient side.
The responsibility for the execution
of the services is much narrower in
scope: in manufacturing it applies only
to the correct manufacture of a physi-
cal product in line with specifications.
In the case of services, however, the
responsibility for execution is much
less tangible as a result of the role
played by the customer in the provi-
sion of the services. It embraces
three main elements:
- responsibility of the provider of
services for a correct, professional
provision of the relevant inputs
- the responsibility for preparing the
customer or client appropriately, to
enable him to play his part in the
process of providing services
- responsibility for shaping the inter-
action between the customer and
the provider of services in a way
conducive to the process of pro-
viding services.
If, for instance, we take the example of
a private language school and the ser-
vices it provides in the field of lan-
guage training, we can illustrate the
above differences in the following way:
The responsibility for executing the
services lies quite clearly in the do-
main of the school, which is responsi-
ble for developing an appropriate, tar-
get-oriented curriculum, selecting

qualified teachers and speakers and
providing suitable teaching materials.
The school is also responsible for en-
suring that pupils are adequately pre-
pared to enable them to play their part
in the process. Examinations and
other means of assessing per-
formance must ensure that only pupils
that meet the relevant standards at-
tend courses; homework and other
exercises must be set as preparation
for the classes.
The responsibility of the school for
executing services also includes tailor-
ing the form of classes, i.e. the inter-
action between teachers and pupils. It
is the responsibility of the school to
ensure that instruction is adapted to
the level of pupils and that the interac-
tion between the teacher and the pu-
pils is interesting and learning-
oriented.
This does not, however, mean that the
ultimate responsibility for language
training is borne by the school. It is
not the school, but the pupils them-
selves (or their parents or guardians)
who are responsible for selecting the
correct school and a suitable course
in the first place. They are also re-
sponsible for identifying what they see
as shortcomings in the course and
raising these points with a view to
remedying them, or alternatively leav-
ing the course. And finally, the pupil is
responsible for deciding whether or
not the language course is of any use
to him in his current private and pro-
fessional position (5). Thus the ulti-
mate responsibility for the language
course rests with the pupil himself (6).
Background Papers
3. Participation and Responsibility
in Development Cooperation
If we look at the participation debate as
it applies to everyday development
cooperation, we see that the issue of
ultimate responsibility for the services
provided has rarely been broached to
date (7). We thus often have no very
exact idea as to who is really meant
when we talk of the "target groups"
"those involved" or "partners" - the
people who are supposed to be par-
ticipating.
Do we mean the members of the ser-
vice providing organisations in the
sense of employees, bound to follow
directives from above, where the ulti-
mate responsibility for the provision
of services rests not with them, but at
another, higher level within the organi-
sation?
Or do we mean members of a coop-
erative organisation, where members
do make fundamental decisions and
thus bear the ultimate responsibility for
the provision of services? (8)
Or are the target groups/people in-
volved/partners not members of the
organisation that is offering services,
but the customers or clients of that
organisation? Should this be the
case, we must determine whether
they are mere purchasers who can
influence at most the acceptance of
the services, but are not involved or
only marginally involved in determining
the type of service and how it is to be
provided, or whether they are cus-
tomers or clients who do indeed influ-
ence these decisions too.
109
ZOPP marries PRA?
It becomes clear how important this
distinction is in the participation debate
if we look at Figure 1, and work out the
different answers to our original ques-
tion, "Who participates in what?" de-
pending on the various possible con-
stellations (9).
In case A ("employees"), participation
refers to the staff of the organisation
that is to provide services. Since
these employees do not themselves
bear the overall responsibility for the
provision of services, the issue of par-
ticipation assumes the character of a
debate on appropriate co-
determination of staff on important
decisions of the organisation. This
touches on a different aspect of the
participation issue, than that found in
case B ("members") where the ques-
tion is how the position of the mem-
bers, who are fully responsible for their
organisation is expressed and put into
practice in the context of a democratic
decision-making process.
The a priori conditions vary every bit
as much when we look at the "exter-
nal" participation of customers or cli-
ents. In case B' ("customers/clients")
the opportunity of the external clients
to participate in decisions affecting the
organisation is limited in comparison
to the opportunities of the members or
employees of that organisation. At the
same time, they have the authority to
make other important decisions which
will shape the form of client partici-
pation. They are able to a large extent
what sort of services will be provided
on what terms. And they are respon-
sible for deciding whether or not it
makes sense to provide a certain ser-
vice and whether the service in ques-
tion can be "used" as intended. At the
110
same time, the scope of the customer
or client to shape the services in ques-
tion is great, especially when the ser-
vices are "high-interaction" ones, i.e. if
they involve an in-depth exchange be-
tween the demander and the provider
of these services.
The participation situation in case A'
("purchaser") is quite different as it
regards a purchaser external to the
providing organisation. In manufactur-
ing or low-interaction services, the
scope of the purchaser to influence
the provision of services is limited. He
has no authority or responsibility vis à
vis the type of services and the way
these are provided.
Participation is here relevant at best in
the sense of a human resources
strategy (10). The main aim is to mo-
bilise the expertise of the purchaser
and harness it for the process of ser-
vice provision, or to take into account
the needs of the purchaser in terms of
his potential purchasing decisions or
acceptance of future services. Col-
laboration and decision-sharing on the
part of the purchaser within the scope
of the provision of services under
these circumstances does not gener-
ally enter here into the participation
debate.
4. Observations on Situation-
Specific Participation,
Taking Irrigation as an Example
The following examples, which look at
the participation of water users in rural
irrigation, are intended to illustrate the
various situations outlined above as
they occur in practical development
cooperation.

Case A ("employees") may corre-
spond to the actual situation in large-
scale irrigation schemes dating back
to the colonial era or on state farms.
In these cases, production takes place
under careful supervision of the
scheme management and the water
users have a de facto status similar to
that of employees. The service of the
scheme - provision of agricultural pro-
duce - is provided to its environment,
e.g. to the market or to the economy
as a whole. The organisation can in-
fluence the behaviour of water users
as "hired labourers" by imposing for-
mal rules and issuing personal direc-
tions. At the same time, not the water
users but the provider of services, in
this case the irrigation organisation,
assumes overall responsibility for the
provision of the organisation´s ser-
vices.
Case A ("employees") also resembles
project constellations found previously
in large-scale settlement projects. A
higher level agency is responsible for
carrying out the project. It designs and
implements an irrigation system under
ist own responsibility and then allo-
cates areas to settlers which have to
be cultivated according to the
agency´s directives. In systems like
this too, (e.g. the Mwea irrigation sys-
tem in Kenya) the participation debate
focused mainly on questions of de-
termination on the part of the settlers
in their capacity as subordinate
members of the organisation in the
decisions of the agency.
In the case of specialised water man-
agement organisations the situation is
different. These organisations under-
take to supply and provide water inde-
pendently and generally as a monop-
Background Papers
oly, but leave water users to make
their own decisions as regards the
use of the water. This corresponds
more or less to case A' ("purchasers")
in Figure 1. In organisations of this
sort, e.g. irrigation organisations,
which operate as public utilities, the
water users have a status akin to that
of the purchaser of services. There
are not as a rule any close personal
relations between the water users and
the organisation which "supplies" wa-
ter, nor do the users play any im por-
tant part in the provision of services.
The major canal irrigation systems in
India and Pakistan are examples of
this sort of constellation.
Participation issues here concentrate
on staff-co-determination with respect
to the decision making of the water
management organisation. As a
rule, little consideration is given to the
participation of water users in the op-
eration of the main system under
these circumstances. At most, the
expertise and participation of water
users may be mobilised in order to
introduce user-friendly irrigation
schedules (11). It is not difficult to see
why problems are encountered when
water users are expected to "partici-
pate" in maintaining the main system
in this sort of scenario.
Recently, some water management
organisations and project organisa-
tions have emphasised their service
function vis à vis water users, in irriga-
tion development as in other sectors
(12). The resultant situation in terms
of the participation debate is closest to
case B' ("customer/client") as illus-
trated in Figure 1. The water users
enjoy the status of clients vis à vis this
organisation. The various consultancy
111
ZOPP marries PRA?
services provided by the organisation
demand close interaction between the
representatives of the service organi-
sation and users. The client status
means that water users are involved
to a significant extent in shaping the
consultancy process and that they
largely retain the overall responsibility
for selecting and assessing the con-
sultancy services.
Participation efforts must concentrate
on two very different aspects here:
firstly the question of participation on
the part of the staff of the service pro-
vider, and secondly the issue of par-
ticipation of water users in their capac-
ity as clients. It is by no means easy
to answer the question if and to what
extent client participation might be
beneficial to the service provider and
ist customer. Provided the overall re-
sponsibility for the provision of ser-
vices genuinely does rest with the wa-
ter users, the demanders of services,
it is perfectly conceivable that it may
be to the advantage of both sides if
individual service elements are pro-
vided with minimal participation on the
part of water users (13).
In village irrigation systems which are
operated independently by water
users or water user communities the
users have the status of active par-
ticipants. The design of the system
and the organisation itself is in the
hands of the water users, who are the
driving force behind the system and
the decision-makers within the sys-
tem.
The participation issue here thus fo-
cuses on designing the decision-
making procedure within the member-
based organisations such that the
112
overall responsibility of the members
actually counts for something. The
situation, as represented by case B
("members") in Figure 1 is quite differ-
ent to the cases outlined above. Ef-
forts to offer external support must
take this situation into careful account
so as to establish which impacts sup-
port of this sort will have on the status
of the water users and thus on the
participation issue.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the fundamentally differ-
ent conditions for participation have
been outlined as a basis for the par-
ticipation debate. The various situa-
tions discussed above clearly indicate
that the organisational framework and
the status of the "participants" largely
determine the meaning, contents and
desired intensity of any participation. It
is therefore unlikely that intensive ef-
forts to encourage target group par-
ticipation in a project or development
approach will contribute to sustainabil-
ity, if these "participants" are ascribed
a status which grants them little over-
all responsibility in the first place.
This raises the question as to whether
an excessive emphasis on target
group participation in development
cooperation, in conjunction with a fail-
ure to take into account the issue of
overall responsibility is not the result of
a way of thinking which cannot be in
the interests of the target group: the
development cooperation organisa-
tions and their partners see them-
selves as the "project managers" with
ultimate responsibility, while the target
group only has to participate in the
course of action already laid down.

Service-oriented thinking and looking
at the target group as customers or
clients relativises and even reverses
this perspective in certain cases: the
question of target group participation
then gives way to that of the participa-
tion of development cooperation in
realising the plans of target groups.
Summary
The article presents the proposal that
the concept "participation" has to date
not been clearly defined within the de-
velopment policy context, making
problems in the realisation of participa-
tion efforts a foregone conclusion.
The crucial point is that the question
as to the status of participants with
regard to the organisation providing
services generally remains unan-
swered. Is the participant a mere em-
ployee of the service organisation,
bound to follow the instructions he is
given, or is he a member of a coop-
erative organisation, and thus initiator
and client of the service provision at
the same time? Or are we faced with
a situation in which the participant is a
customer or client of the service or-
ganisation, and does not actually be-
long to the organisation per se?
In each of these various scenarios
"participation" means something dif-
ferent and demands a different course
of action if it is to be realised. Partici-
pation, in the sense of co-
determination exercised by the em-
ployees of an organisation is some-
thing quite different to participation as
an expression of the entitlement of
members of a cooperative organi-
sation to actively promote the services
in question. And participation as the
option given to customers or clients to
Background Papers
become involved in the provision of a
certain service is something quite dif-
ferent again.
These examples indicate that "partici-
pation" is a topic which must be tack-
led in different ways, in line with the
situation in hand. In irrigation this
means that the participation debate
raises many varying problems, de-
pending on the status of the water
users. Participation efforts which fail to
take this into account, have little
chance of succeeding, as practical
irrigation schemes well illustrate.
Notes
(1) See also Kirsch et al (1979), p. 298
(2) This does not prevent member partici-
pation often being understood as
"pseudo participation" in practice:
some decision-makers do not really in-
tend to take into account the values
and needs of their members. "Partici-
pation" is instrumentalised and is only
intended to ensure that members iden-
tify with decisions already taken at a
higher level. See also Kirsch et all
(1979), p. 298
(3) The question as to whether or not cus-
tomers and clients can be regarded as
members of the organisation, and if so
to what extent is discussed in detail in
Huppert (1989), p. 200 ff
(4) This question is of major importance in
the services sector, as opposed to
manufacturing, since the customer
cannot examine the services in ad-
vance as he could do with a product.
He must decide on the strength of an
offer of services which have not yet
113
 ZOPP marries PRA?

been provided when the customer en-
ters into the relevant agreement.
(5) While it is true to say that this respon-
sibility also exists when a customer
decided to purchase a physical prod-
uct, it is much easier to accept in the
latter case, where he can inspect the
product in advance. The benefit of an
identical product to other purchasers
can be seen and appreciated. Serv-
ices, on the other hand, are never iden-
tical, because of the role played by the
customer, and cannot be readily com-
pared.
(6) This responsibility is limited, or non-
existent, where the language training is
a compulsory course within the scope
of basic or further education.
(7) This issue is, however, becoming n
i-
creasingly important within the scope
of the project ownership discussion.
(8) The latter case depicts a clear service
situation: in line with the "identity prin-
ciple" the members of organisations of
this sort, associations, co-operatives,
societies, etc., are at once the organ-
isational decision-makers within the
organisation and the recipients of ser-
vices provided by the organisation.
(12) The National Irrigation Association in
the Philippines is one organisation
which has adopted this approach. The
GTZ project, Proyecto de Riego Inter
Valles (PRIV) in Cochabamba, Bolivia
is an example of a project organisation
which explicitly sees itself as a service
provider.
(13) The conditions under which an inten-
sive client-side participation is desir-
able for both sides are examined more
closely in Huppert (1989), p. 291 ff.
References
Huppert, W.,Situationskonformes und
dienstleistungsorientiertes Manage-
ment von Bewässerungssystemen.
Prisma-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main,
1989
Kirsch, W., Das Management des
geplanten Wandels von Organisatio-
nen.
Esser, W.M., C.E. Poeschel Verlag,
Stuttgart, 1979

(9) The diagram simplifies the facts in so

far as there are not four distinct con-
stellations in practice but a two-
dimensional continuum with no clear
divisions.

(10) See also Kirsch et al, p. 299

(11) An irrigation schedule determines how

much water will be supplied to which
water user at which time.

114
 Acronyms

Acronyms:

AMA Auslandsmitarbeiter/-innen (Technical Advisors)

AP Ansprechspartner/-innen (Principal Technical

Advisors)

BMZ Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche

Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (German Ministry
for Economic Cooperation and Development)

GTZ - HQ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit -

Head Quarters

IIED International Institute for Environment and

Development

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PAL Participatory Action and Learning

PCM Project Cycle Management

PPM Project Planning Matrix

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PSC Process Supportive Consultancy

SLE Seminar für Ländliche Entwicklung (Centre for

Advanced Training in Agricultural Development
(CATAD) at the Humboldt University in Berlin)

SWOP "Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Problems"
Method

TC Technical Cooperation

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

NARSM Natural Resource Management by Self-help

Promotion (Pilot Project)

PAN Ngobe Agroforestry Project

GO Governmental Organization

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

ZOPP Zielorientierte Projektplanung ("Objective Oriented

Project Planning“)

115
116
 Participants

Participants

NAME INSTITUTION/POSITION ADDRESS

Charlotte Addy GTZ HQ, Country Desk Nepal

Ebba Augustin GTZ HQ, Africa Department, Advisor on

Gender and Poverty

Manfred Beier Freelance Consultant Sieberstr.6

37412 Herzberg

Ulrike GTZ HQ, Pilot Project „Livelihood System

Breitschuh and Tropical Forest Areas“ (LISTRA)

Robert Institute for Development Studies, UK - BN 1 9 RE

Chambers University of Sussex Brighton Sussex

Franziska GTZ HQ, Strategic Corporate

Donner Development

Madgy El GTZ HQ, Country Desk Jemen, Iran

Menshawy

Hansjörg GTZ HQ, Director General, currently World Bank

Elshorst Senior Advisor at the World Bank

Reiner Forster GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Quality Assurance

Christiane GTZ HQ Country Desk Malawi

Frischmuth
Dieter Gagel Advisor to „Programme d’appui à Projekt-Consult
l’autopromotion des Artisans du Mali“ Limburger Str. 28 d
61462 Königstein/Ts.

Adrian Gnägi Swiss Agency for Development and Schwarztorstrasse 59

Cooperation (SDC) CH-3003 Bern

Annina Gningue GTZ HQ, Strategic Corporate

Development Unit

Michael Goebel GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Quality Assurance

Evi Gruber GTZ HQ, Latin America Department,

Advisor on Gender and Poverty

Jürgen Freelance Consultant Talstr. 129

Hagmann 79194 Gundelfingen -
Wildtal

Albert Hilbrink GTZ HQ Country Desk Pakistan

117
ZOPP marries PRA?

NAME INSTITUTION/POSITION ADDRESS

Uli Hoesle GTZ HQ, Plant Production, Plant

Protection, Agricultural Research,
Farming Systems

GTZ HQ, Environmental Protection,

Klaus
Conservation of Natural Resources,
Hornberger
Dissemination of Appropriate
Technologies (GATE)

Walter Huppert GTZ HQ, Agro-Policies and Agricultural

Services

Kamal Kar Freelance Consultant c/o Gautam Gosh

10 RAM Mohan Roy
Road
Calcutta 700009
INDIA

Voker Kasch Evangelische Zentralstelle für Mittelstrasse 37

Entwicklungshilfe 53175 Bonn
(EZE)
Uwe Kievelitz GTZ regional advisor Asia c/o GTZ-PAS Nepal
Kathmandu
NEPAL

Theda Kirchner Freelance Consultant Sieberstr.6

37412 Herzberg

Hartmut Krebs GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Corporate and

Development Policy

Thomas Kuby GTZ HQ, Strategic Corporate

Development

Petra Künkel GTZ HQ, Organization, Communication

and Management Consultancy

Jimmy OUTREACH 109 Coles Road

Mascarenhas Bangalore 560 005
INDIA

Annagela GTZ HQ, Country Desk Mali

Oppermann

Juliane GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Quality Assurance

Osterhaus

Renate Pollvogt GTZ HQ, Country Desk Malawi/

Mozambique

118
 Participants

NAME INSTITUTION/POSITION ADDRESS

Sabine Preuss GTZ advisor to Indo-German Changar P.O. Box 25

Eco Dev. Project Palampur -176061
(H.P.) District Kangra
INDIA

Maruja Salas Freelance Consultant Gomaringerstr.6

72810 Gomaringen

Mallika INTERCOOPERATION 92/2 D-S-Semanayake

Samaranayake Self-help Support Programme Mawatha;Colombo 8
SRI LANKA

Nikolaus Schall Freelance Consultant Langwiesenweg 20a

62167 Neu-Anspach

Christina GTZ HQ, Multisectoral Urban and Rural

Scherler Development Programmes

Michael Institute for Socio-cultural Studies, Steinstr. 19

Schönhuth Kassel University 37213 Witzenhausen

Bernd Schubert Centre for Advanced Training in Humboldt University

Agricultural Development (CATAD) Berlin
Podbielskiallee 66
14195 Berlin

Thomas GTZ, Pilot Project „Nateral Resource GTZ/RMSH

Schwedersky Management through Self-help Wachsbleiche 1
Approaches“ 53111 Bonn

Sam Sekyembe Crossland Management Consultants P. O. Box 32234

Nairobi; KENIA

Christian GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Quality Assurance

Seufert

John Thompson International Institute for Environment and 3 Endsleigh Street

Development (IIED) UK - London WC 1 0
DD

Timmi Tillmann Freelance Consultant Gomaringerstr.6

72810 Gomaringen

Annette von GTZ HQ, Forest Resources Management,

Lossau Livestock Farming, Fisheries, Nature
Conservation

119
ZOPP marries PRA?

NAME INSTITUTION/POSITION ADDRESS

Christel Weller GTZ HQ, Gruppe Quality Assurance

Angebote

Sondra Wentzel GTZ advisor to SFMP-Project Kotak Pos 1087

Samarinda 75001
East Kalimantan
INDONESIA

Uli Winkler GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Corporate Organisation

and Management

Bernd Wolf GTZ HQ Country Desk Laos, Cambodia,

Vietnam

It was not always possible to retrieve the addresses of all participants. The information above
has been updated as much as possible since November 1996.

120