Resources

This overview introduces the concept of community-based planning (CBP) looking back at its development and how it has evolved in the light of an increased emphasis on decentralisation in many countries during the 1980s and 90s. In this context it also considers the relevance of community-driven development models, including participatory poverty analysis, being promoted by parts of the World Bank over the last five to ten years, which typically have included a CBP component. It looks at the end uses of CBP in integrated development planning and sectoral planning; in promoting community action and control over development; and to comply with policy or legislation for public participation in planning. It examines approaches and methodologies, with the use of PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) methods; the role of facilitators and training; community managed funds; accountability, monitoring and evaluation; and linkages to local government and higher-level planning. It evaluates the impacts of CBP on different policy levels, the quality of services and community participation and action. The future development of CBP is discussed with a need for an increased effectiveness and widening of the approach. It concludes by linking the topics discussed with the following articles of pla notes 49.

The concept and practice of participatory planning is not new in Ghana, however the link to the national planning system is either weak or non-existent. This article highlights the experiences of two projects which aim to deepen community participation in planning and link it to the existing planning system of the country. It also discusses GhanaÆs experience in planning at the sub-district level, reviewing approaches by the communities, NGOs, project interventions, etc.; and outlines GhanaÆs local government system, CBP (community based planning), and the way forward. It describes the application of CBP in Ghana with experiences from a project which was part of DFID funded action research project covering Uganda, Zimbabwe, Ghana, and South Africa, where GhanaÆs experiences of participatory planning processes were reviewed and a steering committee established. The councils, New Edubiase and Morso/Kuofa, were chosen to host a CBM pilot project which proved successful. The second project was the Village Infrastructure Project (VIP) which aimed to empower local communities to manage infrastructure investments; increase local access to development resources; strengthen institutional capacity at community level; and support government strategies for decentralisation. The article goes on to look at some of the innovations in the use of participatory methodologies used in the projects, and lessons learned. It concludes with some recommendations for future CBP in Uganda such as reactivating the council as an appropriate level for managing community driven development (CDD); harmonisation of CBP and CDD approaches; the need for promotion of CBP within the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development; and the institutionalisation of an experienced CBP steering committee.

This article gives account for experiences from the Centre for Alternative Technologies (CTA), an NGO working on alternative futures for and with rural small-scale farmers in Zona da Mata of Minas Gerais, in Brazil. CTA staff work with a Local Development Plan (LDP) focussing on developing participatory Municipal Rural Development Plans (MRDP) in three municipalities: Araponga, Tombos, and Acaiaca. This article compares the three municipal planning processes, offering them as an exiting alternative methodology for local development in the Brazilian context. The article starts by describing the study area, CTA's evolution to municipal planning, and CTA's vision for pro-poor municipal planning. It goes on to explain the main building blocks of the CTA-supported MDRP, including participation as a learning process; planning process and methodology; working with new partners giving and giving farmer groups a more prominent role in the process; building accountability structures; non-neutral pro-poor facilitation; and finally learning from diversity, where the importance of differences between the participating communities are and how that forms the process are discussed. The key impacts and challenges are examined, with the problems of standardisation of methodologies in scaling-up of these types of processes. However despite many differences, several elements were found to be effective in all the three cases: the value of PRA (participatory visioning, problems appraisal and solution identification); the importance of some kind of supervision and decision making body; the needed for patience in conflict solving in the group (internally and in interaction with external parties); capacity-building of leadership, facilitation, and negotiation skills; and the need for clear facilitation at the onset of the process with a gradual transformation of the role of external bodies to advisory bodies.

This book reflects upon the introduction, implementation, and assessment of a participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) training program in China. It documents a PM&E training process in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces, China, illustrating how PM&E can strengthen the learning and accountability of research teams and, consequently, the effectiveness of their research work. The training programme was part of a the International Development Research CentreÆs community-based natural resource management programme, and involved the Kunming Institute of Botany and the Guizhou academy of Agricultural Sciences and Community-based Natural Resource Management. Some of the issues dealt with in the programme was watershed management; accessing and distributing water resources; natural resources management; and rural development. Through the proceedings of several workshops and practical experiences from the field, the book examines the processes of: learning by doing; building a common understanding; and PM&E. Using concrete examples, the book shows that it is not only what is being assessed that matters, but also who is doing the assessment and for whom the assessments are intended.

This research examines the conduct and consequences of the use of participatory rural appraisal techniques in four rural development projects in The Gambia. It includes a review of literature on PRA and the identification of a series of themes that allow for an assessment of PRAÆs usefulness. The fieldwork in The Gambia included reviews of project documentation, key informant interviews, and periods of village-based research using PRA methods. The main research findings were that PRA has had some positive effects, particularly in motivating rural development workers, and generating a spirit of enquiry. There are a number of concerns, however: whether these can be maintained over the longer term; data quality, cost-effectiveness and high transaction costs of PRA use; the idealisation of the nature of æcommunityÆ and a bias towards the literate; little evidence that PRA is effective in empowering the poor or challenging long-term power relations. The main policy implications that arise from this are, firstly, although methodological instruments like PRA have some potential for capacity building in development organisations and communities, institutional structures and relationships are likely to be more important. Secondly, practitioners need to acknowledge the limitations of PRA as an analytical tool as its capacity to relate norms and values to other variables in the social system appears very limited. Thirdly, PRA can help engender greater community participation in development, but it is necessary to guard against the substitution of tools and methods for more concerted efforts at changing social relationships.