Zopp and PRA

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 fr Technische Zusammenarbeit
Postfach 5180, D-65726 Eschborn
Germany
Tel.: + 49-(0) 6196-79-0 (1709)
Fax.: + 49-(0) 6196-70 6109
Unit 04
Group 042
Quality Assurance
Edited by:
Reiner Forster, Martha Gutirrez
Eschborn, November 1996
Unit 04
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
vi
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
The organization of the "ZOPP marries

PRA?" workshop required a great deal of
dedication and cooperation from a multitude 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 Samaranayake, Kamal Kar, Jimmy Mascarenhas and Sam Sekyembe.
Great appreciation is expressed to the

workshop's moderator, Matthias zur Bonsen, who navigated more than fifty participants carefully, but determinedly through a
dense and animated workshop programme.
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 participants, for the commitment, the encouragement, and their stimulation. We are
looking forward to a continuing collaboration with all of them.
vii
viii
Preface
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 participatory 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 80s, we parted
from the premise that it would be a significant 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. Nevertheless, 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 approaches since the early 80s.
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-
press their interests and to influence the

shape and direction of projects and programmes 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 responsibility and decision-making power both in GTZ as well in our partner organisations. This implies changes in our selfperception 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 management 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 organisational structure, GTZ is trying to
make a move in exactly this direction: giving 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 certainly help GTZ to make the best use of the
given opportunities for change and reorientation. 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 procedures.
Franziska Donner
Head of
Strategic Corporate Development Unit
GTZ
Introduction
Introduction
Participatory approaches have gained significant acceptance in official development

cooperation over the last few years. Often
rooted in the self-help and community development tradition of NGOs, these approaches emphasise decentralised decision-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 capabilities are the focus of the approach and
not the funding nor the organisational realities and operational procedures of partner
agencies. In view of the diverse interests,
values and visions of the groups and institutions involved in development efforts, the
core questions of these approaches are:
"whose reality counts?", "who are the
beneficiaries?" and "how can their autonomy and their initiative be supported and a
dialogue between decision-makers be created?". 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 reorientation, in particular for outside support agencies.
Having realized the deficits of traditional
top-down approaches, most of the bilateral
and international development organisations 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-
ticipatory rural appraisal methods (PRA),

action research or other learning approaches.
However, participatory project approaches
have long co-existed with institutional
structures, procedures and instruments of
Technical Cooperation, which have often
proven unconductive for decentralised decision-making, for flexibility and mutual
learning processes. An example of this
situation is that GTZs 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 unsuitable for an adequate involvement of beneficiaries.
GTZ recently re-oriented its management
approach. A framework for the participatory
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 constraints 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 participatory methods in an otherwise unchanged institutional context supports the
degeneration of these approaches to mere
techniques of data collection? Do projects
see the necessity for new roles, competencies and subsequent institutional development processes? How do they overcome in practice the dichotomy between
process/beneficiary orientation and the
requirements of donor and partner organisations in terms of pre-determined objectives, outputs, fixed time schedules? How
do the tendering procedures between the
ministry and GTZ, the sequential financing
of project support and the control imperative restrain or facilitate participatory development?
to elaborate recommendations for necessary changes with regard to policy

orientation, procedures, instruments, as
well as skills, roles and ethical standards.
The programme of the workshop allowed
for maximum participation, sharing of experience and coverage of issues of interest, 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 GTZs recently
re-oriented project management ap-
proach by Michael Goeble and Christian Seufert

from GTZs group for Quality Assurance. Robert
Chambers, from the Institute of Development
Studies in Sussex/UK, added his critical analysis of PCM/ZOPP and the pre-requisites for the
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 objective of providing an orientation on how participatory development processes can be
institutionalised in GTZ's work and on the
implications this might have for GTZ as a
large development organisation. The results envisioned were
proposed marriage.
These two keynote
speeches served as a common ground for debate 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 morning, groups discussed, visualised and exchanged ideas. The results were shared within
a market forum in which the participants had the
opportunity to share in the visualised presenta-
to analyse experiences of the interplay

between participatory learning approaches and the planning and management system of GTZ (in theory and
practice);
to share best practices of using of the
existing management policy, instruments and procedures; and
1 Cf. the list of participants in Annex 1.
tions of other groups and clarify si sues. The

initial groups met again, in order to elaborate
concise recommendations. These were presented to the forum. The plenary session sanctioned the recommendations which were of
common agreement and identified others for
further discussion.
Introduction
This reader collects the most important

contributions to the workshop. It includes
the thoughtful speech by Robert Chambers and the presentation of the recent
developments in GTZs 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 establish 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 participants perspective, an
overall view of the procedure of the workshop 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 elaborated on specific issues concerning planning, participation and facilitation within
GTZs Technical Cooperation. Others discussed the objectives and the methodological approach of how participation can
be introduced at different levels of project
planning and in various institutional contexts. 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.
The first part of this reader is concluded by

Reiner Forsters 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 GTZs institutional learning.
In the second section of this documentation, a series of background papers, written 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 GTZs institutional learning, but also deal with challenges facing the support of participatory
approaches in partner countries and organisations.
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 processes can not be planned, but they can be
influenced, for instance, through an appropriate 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 indicates, the persistence on an output oriented 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 compensate ZOPPs shortcomings. He concludes his paper with some recommenda3
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 Panam. The authors
demonstrate not only the paradigm shift in
the understanding of development projects, but also portray, using an example of
the Ngobe mythology, the profound importance of cultural considerations in Technical Cooperation. The reader can also gain
insight on how PSC is being successfully
implemented in a project and on the challenges and limitations encountered during
the process.
The fourth paper describes the experience
of an NGO in India with participatory approaches and planning methods. The author, Jimmy Mascarenhas, briefly recounts
how the NGO strives to combine the practical goal of capital formation with participatory and learning processes in the community.
In the following paper, Ulrike Breitschuh
analyses the applicability of ZOPP in planning processes within NGOs. Based on
the deficiencies she has established along
her practical experience in West Africa, the
author formulates concrete recommendations as how to implement ZOPP flexibly
and still maintain the benefits of a structured technique. This is, she argues, of
special importance for NGOs who need to
elaborate structured project proposals acceptable 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 examining 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 developmental efforts by linking planning at different levels of decision-making.
In the last paper of this section, Walter
Huppert focuses on participation from the
perspective of a service management approach. He differentiates the question of
participation according to the framework
within it is supposed to occur: Are the participants members of an organisation or
are they rather clients of service provision?
Having stressed the fundamentally different conditions for participation -and patterns of responsibility- within various
frameworks, Huppert pleas for a new understanding of TC organisations as service
providers and of target groups as customers or clients. As he points out, TC organisations 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 projects.
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 organisations, perhaps especially the EU
which I understand is currently adopting something like ZOPP for its projects.
I feel bad coming here and making the
critical remarks which will follow. This
is for two reasons. First, I have a disreputable past: I have been responsible for the management of a pastoral
development project which was a disaster because of its top-down authoritarian style; and in the early 1970s, I
was involved in the development of
procedures in the Special Rural Development Programme in Kenya
which some have identified as an antecedent 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 "marriage". 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 British 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 respect, namely that ZOPP is masculine, being linear and rigid, more concerned with things and with an engineering mode in action, while PRA is
more feminine, (and I should be careful with any adjectives), and more
concerned with people and processes. More than marriage perhaps
we are concerned with mutual learning
and with looking for the best alternatives, 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.
ZOPP marries PRA?
Context
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 accelerating. This includes the lives and aspirations of people all round the world,
including those who are "remote".
Second, we - development profes-
sionals - have a history of astonishing

error. It is humbling to see how often
we have been wrong. And third, a
problem running through this is dominance in behaviour and attitudes. The
dominance of "uppers" over "lowers"
is part of the problem, and leads to
many errors. The issue can be expressed as "Whose reality counts?".
There are many relationships between "uppers" and "lowers":

Table 1: Relationships between "uppers" and "lowers"
Dimension/Context
Spatial
International
Development
Personal, Ascriptive
Life Cycle
Bureaucratic Organisation
Social, Spiritual
Teaching and Learning
North
Uppers
Core
(urban, industrial)
The North
IMF, World Bank
Donors
Creditors
Male
White
High Ethnic or Caste Group
Old person
Parent
Mother-in-law
Senior
Manager
Official
Patron
Officer
Warden/Guard
Patron
Priest
Guru
Doctor/Psychiatrist
Master
Lecturer
Teacher
"Uppers" construct their own realities

and impose them on "lowers". When
6
South
Lowers
Periphery
(rural, agricultural)
The South
Poor countries
Recipients
Debtors
Female
Black
Low Ethnic or Caste Group
Young person
Child
Daughter-in-law
Junior
Worker
Supplicant
Client
"other rank"
Inmate/Prisoner
Client
Lay Person
Disciple
Patient
Apprentice
Student
Learner
they do not fit, misinformation is generated, and development projects and
other initiatives often fail. One way of

seeing this is as mutually reinforcing
north-south magnets. Bureaucratic
hierarchies and social systems, families, relationships between professionals 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) trying to weaken these dominant northsouth 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.
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 positions about the dangers of perpetuating our own fantasies in a development context.
The question is
"Whose reality counts?", "ours" or
"theirs". As part of this we have to
ask: Whose knowledge counts?
Whose
needs?
Whose
priorities/criteria? Whose appraisal? analysis? planning? Whose baseline?
Whose action? Whose indicators?
Whose monitoring? Whose evaluation? Is it ours, or theirs?
To illustrate this, a spectacular example is that of psychoanalysts, from

Freud until the 1980s and to some
extent even the 1990s. They have
believed that the accounts of being
incestuously abused in childhood,
given to them by women patients,
were untrue, and reflected wishfulfilment, the repressed sexual desires of the victim for the abuser. That
The reality which has counted in the

past has tended to be ours, top-down
and related to things rather than people. Two columns can illustrate the
contrast between the paradigm for
things, which is top-down with planning blueprints and that of people,
which is bottom-up, with participatory
processes.
Two Paradigms
ZOPP marries PRA?
Table 2:
The Paradigms of Things and People Contrasted

Things
People
Mode
Blueprint
Learning Process
Key Activity/Concept
Planning
Participation
Objectives
Pre-set
Evolving
Logic
Linear, Newtonian
Iterative
Actions/Outcomes
Standardised
Diverse
Assumptions
Reductionist
Holistic, Systemic
People Seen As
Objects, Targets
Subjects, Actors
Outsiders' Roles
Transfer, "Motivate"
Facilitate, Empower
Main Outsiders
Engineers, economists
Any/all who have

participatory behaviour/
attitudes
Outputs
Infrastructure
Physical Change
Capabilities
Institutions
Historically, development has been

dominated by the "things/blueprint"
column. We need that side, especially
when infrastructure is being constructed. 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 topdown, centralised, supply driven, and
with accountability upwards; the righthand column tends to be bottom-up,
decentralised, demand drawn and with
accountability downwards.
These
may be slight caricatures and idealisations. 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 operation of the "things" column and perhaps is appropriate there; and whether
it is in the process of shifting, through
PCM (Project Cycle Management),
8
towards the "people and process" column 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 analogy 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 appropriate 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 principles of PRA may come up with a different list. However, seeing and trying
to understand what PRA practitioners
do, and how they behave, there seem

to me four commitments or principles
which stand out:
Personal Responsibility
This includes self-critical awareness, 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 empowering "lowers", those who are
weak, disadvantaged and marginalised.
Diversity
Encouraging and celebrating diversity 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 failure to recognise the primacy of the
personal and of behaviour and attitudes. Nothing that I say here should
give the impression that PRA is a universal solution to be applied everywhere 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 processes of reconstruction and rehabilitation 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 confidence, and also to conduct the analysis, 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 interaction to dispel this. It is so easy, and so
widespread for those who are dominant and powerful to transfer their reality 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 sequence of procedures which has
tended to impose the reality of "uppers" on "lowers". Seven defects (I
will not say deadly sins) express and
reinforce this tendency:
The top-down descending sequence of ZOPP workshops.
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 consensus, and can reflect the interests
and wishes of the powerful and articulate 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 enabling people to move, choose, and
determine their own destinies.
Language
Accounts of ZOPP workshops
suggest that fluency in the language used - usually English - enables some participants to dominate and marginalises others.
Who is present?
Who participates?
And on what terms? How frequently and with what degree of
empowerment to analyse and express 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 quotation from a ZOPP process in Chad
comes from the World Bank Participation Sourcebook. One of the Chadians 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, especially in the management and organisation of the cards on the wall. This
contrasts with the democracy of the
ground where people are free to move
cards around themselves into whatever 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 illustrate, 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 exercise began I protested, rather vociferously, that these decisions should
not be taken in this room and argued
for a more participatory, open-ended
planning process. The outside facilitator tried to convince me that this exercise 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
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 opportunity to get in a word, leave alone participate, in deciding on the perceived
problems of local people and the sectors on which [the NGO] should concentrate!" (pers.
comm Rashida
Dohad, 1995). The second is from
Lars Johansson, a social anthropologist, 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 project documents had become increasingly 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 intelligible and based on subjective representations of reality, so that they could be
negotiated in spoken Swahili during
village workshops amongst people
with different perspectives and interests. Personal commitments to a
coalition of people proved much more
important than scientifically adequate
project logic, but required a totally different approach to planning. " If these
are some of the problems, the question then is whether the paper on project 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 participants 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 particular stage, depends on the circumstances 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 decisionmaking and analysis - Transparent to
whom? And whose decision-making
and analysis?
The paper asks whether what is proposed 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 verifiable by whom? Who is accountable
to whom?
There is not only much of the old language in the PCM document. There
are also words which I do not find
there or which are not strongly emphasised - 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 professionalism, behaviour and attitudes
influence the personal, and sharing
and partnership influence the institutional (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 topdown 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 professionals, at all levels in organisations and interactions with farmers
and the food-insecure, to adopt behaviour and attitudes which are truly participatory, non-dominating and empowering". That is a huge challenge.
Ideas for Action
Let me suggest three thrusts and actions:
Experiment, learn, share.
The regional learning groups on participation and the programme of R&D
(Research and Development) on
"Critical Factors and Pre-conditions
for Success in Participatory Approaches" sound like positive initiatives 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, perhaps, sometimes think of an ALP (Action Learning Process) rather than a
"project". It is excellent that in the official 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 process.
PRA-type processes very early on
involving the poor, marginalised
etc., in their own analysis and identification of their needs and priorities
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 orientation, career pattern, dependency on
ZOPP training as a source of livelihood etc., they must vary a great
deal. If there is to be a shift towards more participatory approaches at field level, they could
be both an obstacle and a resource. Does it make sense to institute a programme of training for
them, providing them with new opportunities, stressing behaviour and
attitudes (e.g. using the ground
rather than the wall, handing over
the stick etc., etc.,) and perhaps including "WIN-WIN" experiences,
staying with communities. ("WINWIN" training have been developed
by Sam Joseph of Action Aid in India. Communities agree, in return
for a fee, to host outsiders, to teach
them about community life and activities, 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 Personnel. 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 organisations like GTZ? (See Figure
2. ) Is it critically important that
those who recruit staff to join GTZ,
should themselves have a participatory mode of interaction, that they
should themselves share the values which go with a peopleoriented process approach in development, and should recruit others 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 learning 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 experiences 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
15
ZOPP marries PRA?
16
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 rhetoric, and most development professionals would endorse this statement.
2. For those realities, needs and priorities to be expressed requires special efforts, 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 diverse, 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. Outsider 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 consensus, 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 assumption 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 important. 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 flexible, unhurried projects, with truly participatory processes, not blueprints or products, as
the objectives to be monitored.
by Robert Chambers
17
18
Recent Developments in GTZs Project Management Approach
Recent Developments in GTZs Project Management

Approach
by Michael Goebel, Christian Seufert and Reiner Forster
ZOPP marries PRA? - Quite a few practitioners and colleagues may still be sceptical about the proposed marriage. However, let us make ti clear from the very
beginning, that we, at GTZ, see no fundamental obstacle to the marriage of ZOPP
and PRA. Actually, they have been interrelated in the field since the early 90s - even
without an official ceremony. As we know
from most relationships, problems, disputes or even conflicts may of course occur. But we are confident that the conditions 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 "marriage" does not only mean joining the
worldly possessions and moving into a
common home. Similarly, the marriage
between ZOPP and PRA can not be reduced 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 development organisations understand their
role and shape their services in close interaction 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 basic cooperation model and the new management approach, before addressing the
question of how well ZOPP and PRA

match.
1. GTZs 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 therefore start with an overview of GTZ's experience with ZOPP.
In the early 80s, GTZ developed Zielorientierte Projektplanung (ZOPP) - objectives oriented project planning - on the basis of the Logical Framework concept and
turned it into its main project management
tool. Subsequently, a number of management tools was added to ZOPP, i.e. Operational Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, 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 process. Before beginning the implementation of a project, a consensus, i.e. a
common understanding of all stakeholders, 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 results transparent for those collaborating
within the project as well as for third
parties. In order to avoid sectoral biases, planning should be carried out by
interdisciplinary teams.
More than 10 years of ZOPP application
gave evidence of remarkable improvements in the planning and management of
projects:
The justification of projects has tremendously improved since then. The relationships between objectives, results
and activities are better founded and
transparent,
facilitating
decisionmaking, 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 frequently a blueprint for project implementation.
ZOPP is reduced to "the" ZOPPWorkshop.
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.
The History of ZOPP: From the Standard Tool to a Flexible Method

before 1980:
Prior to ZOPP
situation prior to introduction:
no systematic planning;
- in many cases: unclear,
unrealistic targets;
- difficulties in evaluation
and impact assessment
through lack of criteria
and indicators
economic efficiency difficult to prove
problems of cooperation
and coordination
- project - head office
- German adviser partner
1980 - 1990:
Experience with ZOPP
important improvements: further improvements:

active involvement of the
stakeholders in project
preparation and design
clear and unified structure
of projects; facilitates decision-making, steering
and control
more realistic planning
through incorporation of all
important variables
all steps in planning and
decision-making are
made transparent
emerging deficiencies:
as an answer to these
difficulties:
from 1990 onwards:

Redressing ZOPP
planning function is given

too much attention
wrong focus: ZOPP as
introduction of LOGinstrument
FRAME and adaptation/
further development into ZOPP reduced to the
ZOPP
ZOPP workshop; ritualistic, "mechanical" applica team work and interdiscition
plinarity as basic principles
planning as inflexible
blueprint
visualisation and documentation of all important no genuine participation of
steps and outputs
local people; "fig leaf"
no differentiation of interest groups at target group
level (women/men etc.)
technocratic belief that if
is properly planned it can
be implemented
process-oriented approach to project management

clear orientation towards
development objectives
and directives
cooperation is organised
according to the principles
participation, subsidiarity
and genuine partnership
stronger focus on heterogeneity of target groups
clear delineation of functions, responsibilities and
roles of the different actors
related developments:
Project Cycle Management (PCM) as frame of
reference and orientation
for participatory development cooperation
firm integration of ZOPP
into this comprehensive
frame
from mere ZOPP workshops back to an objective-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 participatory development cooperation and
(2) a flexible and process-orientated
management approach.
PCM - an orientation framework for
participatory development cooperation
As an orientation framework, PCM provides guidance on how to shape cooperation in a way that makes it work successfully for all participants and produces sustainable results on the ground. PCM helps
to clarify roles, responsibilities and ownership 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 central quality criterion of German Development 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.
Basic model of development cooperation

development process
outset
situation
activities of target groups

(self-help process)
future situation /
intended improvements (development
goal)
project /
programme of the
partner-country
organisations
TC
contribution
PCM starts from a basic structure of development cooperation and includes

the target groups, at whose level the
intended development is to take place,
the partner organisations who implement a project or programme, in order
to assist the development effort on target group level, and
22
the GTZ who, on behalf of the BMZ or

other financing institutions, provides input to help the partner organisation in
implementing the project or programme.
Within this basic model, three different
levels of responsibility can be differentiated: the target groups are responsible for
their own development, the partner organisations 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 responsibility to shape (or manage) its own decision-making process and the required service provision.
The target groups must reach a consensus on the planned improvement in
their life situation (which will be the development goal) and the measures
necessary to achieve this goal.
Counterpart organisations have to design their support services with regard

to the development processes envisaged by the target groups. They must
have a clear understanding of the selfhelp efforts at target group level. This
implies asking, why the target group is
not succeeding under its own steam
(outset situation), whether a vision exists 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.
PCM: Levels of Cooperation and Processes

Levels of Cooperation
target groups
Processes
outset
situation
development goal
achieved
Cooperation
partner organisations
project / programme concept
project/
programme purpose
achieved
Cooperation
GTZ
proposal for
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.
objective of
assistance
achieved
itself is successful when, with its help, the

intended development at target group level
actually takes place.
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 services without external support. The project
23
ZOPP marries PRA?
Frequently, GTZ's task in the early stages

of the project cycle is to work towards
interlinking communication and coordination processes between the partner organisation and the target groups.
PCM - a flexible management approach
In addition to its function as an orientation
framework for the clarification of roles,
responsibilities and cooperation relations,
PCM puts emphasis on the continuous
and flexible performance of all management functions throughout the project cycle.
Managing means shaping social processes in order to achieve a common objective. Management can be broken down
into separate functions, e.g. creating
shared visions and objectives, giving
shape to them through analysis and planning, informing, organising, motivating,
establishing cooperation networks, monitoring 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-tooften in the past. Planning is, above all, a
process of reaching agreement about objectives 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 continuous task of project management which
is performed as need arises.
The following diagram depicts the "life cycle" of a project, stretching from the first
idea to the conclusion of project activities,
as well as the functions and tasks of project management. According to this concept, a project goes through phases of
identification, conception and implementa24
tion which build on one another: the ideas

concerning the targeted objectives and
their assembly into a system must be outlined before any decision can be taken on
the required inputs. Before deciding to implement a project and providing the necessary resources, the cornerstones of a project concept must be in place. The entire
process is not linear but has many feedback loops in which the analyses, the
planning and the decisions made can be
reviewed or re-examined in more detail, in
line with experience gained.
Within PCM, the instruments and techniques for project management have to be
selected and applied in a way which is
appropriate to the situation; i.e. they have
to be geared to the various management
tasks throughout the project cycle as well
as to the given socio-cultural context.
Project Cycle
develop
obectives
listen
inform
steer
Identification Phase
project
idea
reflect
steer
project purpose
achieved
project plan
listen
plan
observe/ reflect
Implementation Phases
Concept Phase
project
objectives
assess
plan
organise
set
objectives
organise
assess outset situation
establish project co ncept
operationalise planning
establish system of objectives
prepare decision to implement the project
implement, adjust and update planning
terminate project
motivate
25
ZOPP marries PRA?
Redressing ZOPP
The deficits in the application of ZOPP
include the mechanistic use of two-yearly
ZOPP workshops. Workshops were frequently 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 particularly 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 instruments - imply major consequences for the
understanding and future application of
ZOPP.
In contrast to "instant package" workshops, ZOPP should in future be understood as a method which consists of a
sequence of analytical and planning steps
(e.g. stakeholder analysis, problem analysis, 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 instruments and techniques, e.g. of appraisal
techniques, PRA, SWAP or Future Search
Conferences to name but a few. The conventional comprehensive workshop remains one, but only one, option.
Instruments and techniques should in future be selected (1) according to the purpose or function of the analytical or planning step and (2) according to the capabilities of the people and social groups n
ivolved. For illiterate people, the use of written visualisation does not make much
sense. Since the 70s, a variety of new instruments and techniques have been de26
veloped (often by NGOs) which rely on

visual display of symbols, dialogue, interactive learning and moderation/facilitation.
GTZ is encouraging the use of these instruments where appropriate.
Depending on the social, cultural and institutional environment and the specific task,
certain choices have to be made; e.g. between strategic planning meetings with the
ministries and NGOs involved and the facilitation of participatory planning processes to reach a consensus on village
action. In future, GTZ staff will, therefore,
be expected to display a high level of professionalism and ethics when recommending and using relevant methods.
Standardised solutions must become a
thing of the past.
3. ZOPP and PRA: proposing the marriage!
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 interaction 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 perspectives for individual or collective action
often remained a blind spot in TC projects
(or were seriously underestimated). Including two or three representatives - with often doubtful legitimacy - in a ZOPP work-
shop was not an adequate procedure to

improve the decision-making power of the
intended beneficiaries. Similarly, the consultation processes in village meetings
often merely scratched the surface of social 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 according 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 necessary involving the different social subgroups of the beneficiaries. This process
on target group level may - but does not
have to - be supported by external or internal facilitators.
To support participatory learning and decision-making on target group level, quite a

few GTZ supported projects have experimented with the PRA approach and techniques. The following diagram illustrates
how the accompanying of a participatory
process on village level by outside organisations can well be accommodated within
the PCM framework. Supporting participatory processes at target group level is primarily the responsibility of the partner organisations. However, the Technical Cooperation contribution frequently has the
role of encouraging the partner organisations to work on participatory lines and
providing methodical and institutional advice. 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.
Supporting Participatory Planning at Community Level

Target groups
Problem Perception
What
to
do?
Vision for Change
Joint Reflection
Shared Objective
Implementation
Action Plan
?
Inform.& PreStudy Visits
Village
Contract
PRA
Workshop
!
Agreement
on external contribution
Partner organizations
Project
TC Contribution
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 redressed ZOPP method.
With some scepticism, however, we already observe the abuse of PRA workshops 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 organisations as learning events. A related phenomenon 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, organisational
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 applications of methods and tools cannot replace participatory processes and change
roles and attitudes of people providing external support. For support agencies in the
South and the North alike this is generally a
huge challenge.
To create an enabling environment for participatory processes requires "organisa-
28
tional development" on all levels. GTZ has

started with adapting its management approach and the ZOPP planning method. In
the latest policy statement, staff and projects are particularly encouraged to experiment with new planning instruments
and techniques. Already in 1992, new administrative 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 offices and staff working in partner countries.
With this effort, we also hope to considerably 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 consultants. Furthermore, as an implementing
agency, we have to learn more about how
the administrative procedures, budget ceilings and individual directives from our
commissioning ministry affect our scope
for manoeuvre. In order to get more systematic feedback on the pre-conditions
and impacts of participatory approaches,
and on how to adapt our own organisation,
we will carry out a Research & Development 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 partners already deeply engaged.
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
Approach
Include in the PCM guidelines the issue of equity, regarding

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
Tendering
Procedure
Make the BMZ and GTZ tendering procedure more flexible to fully
encompass participatory approaches.
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
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
Policy
Recruit and promote personnel with participatory and facilitating

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
Policy and
Country
Strategies
Develop a common vision statement with BMZ as to what

participation means and implies.
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 isnt exactly a Prince
Charming. Born in the USA in 1970 under
the name Logical Framework, developed
and combined with visualisation techniques and moderation, its been the official 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 disrepute for inflexible and ritualistic use. After a
general overhaul in response to massive
criticism in 1995, the new flexible and reformed ZOPP became the core of a Project 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 participants 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, radiant 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 seminars 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 Assurance 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 introduction to participatory approaches,

combined with evident distaste for
the PCM-ZOPP approach.
This was followed by a sort of marketplace in which each participant

had the opportunity to propose a
topic for discussion and form a working group with other participants interested in this topic. After two hours
of work in groups, there was an opportunity to hear and discuss the results 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 process of discussion and the results obtained,
depending on the experience and expectations they brought with them.
My own experience is 18 years with Logical 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 Participatory and Integrated Development Approach (PIDA). For the past two years, I
have been a cooperating in a consulting
capacity on institutionalizing PIDA in
Kenyas Kilifi District.
Based on this experience, I know both approaches, value them both highly and believe that ZOPP and PRA can supplement
each other superbly, because what is lacking 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 participation, creativity and flexibility.
In most of the cases I know, PRA had the
opposite strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, 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 aversion to ZOPP. This led to a rehashing of
ancient ZOPP criticisms and GTZ internecine struggles between PCM-ZOPP
advocates and opponents. The ZOPP opponents received welcome support from
other participants who had either suffered
from unprofessional application of ZOPP
34
themselves or heard about other peoples

bad experiences with ZOPP. A third group
had come to discuss PRA and were unable to make much of a thematic linking of
ZOPP and PRA.
Summarising (and simplifying to a degree),
ZOPP was in the dock, with some participants calling for the death sentence. PRA
shone as the bright new hope. Attempts to
link the two concepts met with little interest.
Perhaps the workshop was held too early.
Perhaps PRA first has to go through the
valley of disillusionment and disappointment which will almost certainly follow the
current euphoria. Perhaps the two concepts 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 emerging which will contribute to undermine the
PRA euphoria:
The countless PRA training events

world-wide without systematic follow-up. At the end, the communities
involved for training purposes will feel
just as much abandoned as the
trained staff in the development organisations. The question of how to
institutionalize PRA remains mostly
unsolved. There is a raging bonfire of
enthusiasm but little sustainable development.
The one-sided concentration on the

appraisal phase of community development projects without considering that awareness-raising processes, 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, implementation 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 highranking members of a government
organisation or NGO, frequently supplemented by staff from development
organisations like GTZ. This idyllic
and euphoric process of communication between two groups who actually have little to do with each other
and will perhaps never see each
other again ignores the organisational landscape in which the village
is embedded and which it depends
on. Sustainable community development depends decisively on
communities communicating and
cooperating better with the local organisations responsible for them.
Workshops for individual communities with PRA teams whose members do not come from the local organisational landscape will not produce sustainable development.
cal advisers, or just managers or just

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 development organisations like GTZ taking an official and detailed position on individual approaches, instruments, methods and
roles. Much more important is to permit
learning processes in the context of everyday cooperation and promote discussion
of this. GTZ is doing more of this than
other organisations, and is delegating responsibility for the development, testing,
improvement and professional use of approaches, 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 approaches, instruments and methods which
can be combined as the situation demands. The attitude will continue to gain
ground that staff are not just simply techni35
36
Open Space Session Summaries
PART ONE
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 convened in order to jointly reflect on the
implications that a clear commitment
to peoples 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 planning process shall mainly serve to
create the "room for manoeuvre" for
action planning by the concerned
people and groups. Likewise, the following central quotation from GTZs
new directives for "Managing the Im plementation of German Technical
Cooperation Activities" was introduced at the beginning, because it
reflects the idea of a limited planning
framework:
"A minimum planning framework, limited to strategic goals and input ceilings and leaving as much as possible
to a joint learning process during implementation, might lead to much
better results. "
In the open space group, we attempted 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
order to collect the main ideas about

the "minimal planning framework",
both for project planning and for "action planning at the grassroots". Second, the resulting cards were clustered and analysed. A third step, i.e.
the drawing of general conclusions
from this analysis, could not be carried out, due to a longer procedural
discussion as well as to the time limit
of two hours for the open space session. 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 helpful comments.
Results/Conclusions
Technical Cooperation involves an
intervention into natural and social
environments. Essentially, it is an
attempt to initiate a structured process of social change within an environment which is constantly changing. 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 portrays the situation: Todays 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 advance by means of a few external
experts -the architects- but about a
common attempt to find the answers
to tomorrows problems under circumstances where the influence of
external forces -such as wind, rain,
the kind of fish to catch- is strong, but
cannot be foreseen. Rather, decisions 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 understood 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 financing 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 conditions for the actual "action planning",
but should also create the necessary
"room for manoeuvre", i.e. the flexibility needed by the people and supporting actors to steer the development
activities.
40
In this sense, a number of requirements for such a "framework" or project planning can be defined:
Principles of project cooperation
The principles for cooperation should
be agreed upon and be made transparent. The main principles for participatory projects are: transparency,
institutional pluralism, participatory
learning and action approach (process approach) to planning and implementation, subsidiarity.
Vision
It should be clarified to what extent
there is a common ground among
the visions and interests of the different actors (broad strategic vision), 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 divergent interests and goals. An
overall transparency of interests
and motivations should be pursued. An artificial agreement on
only one interest should be
avoided.
Regional and sector priority
A regional priority should be
broadly outlined. To state a sectoral boundary would, however,
contradict a participatory approach, and should thus be left for
the actors and the process to decide.
Goal/objective orientation
The partners should agree on legitimate objective(s), rather than
on precise targets. Target or objective "corridors" should be defined showing the commonly desired direction rather than trying to
precisely predetermine a future reality. This cannot be foreseen
given the complex process of social changes in development cooperation.
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 describe the necessary reflections on
the way. Quantitative and qualitative milestones for longer intervals
within this learning process should
be established to monitor the overall process. However, emphasis
should be made on qualitative
rather than quantitative indicators.
Project duration and timing
The duration of overall project cooperation should be defined. The
time allowed for project preparation
should be long enough to allow
participatory processes to take
place.
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"
(rtliche Zuschsse) to support actors initiatives, such as certain implementation activities, but also
coaching, training, consultancies
and other activities. A general caution is given to over-funding in the
initial project periods.
To establish such a planning framework implies the need for highly competent personnel which is able to react 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. GTZs General Directors vision of "Managing the Implementation of German Technical
Cooperation Activities" gives leeway
to do so. Now it is up to all people in
the organisation to take up this challenge 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 framework of the person applying the n
istrument differs from that of the person who developed it, errors are
bound to occur. Therefore, the open
space group pondered on the basic,
even fundamental, conditions for participation and the use of appropriate
instruments in this context. In the time
available we could only make a rough
collection of ideas. We then documented these using a mind-map. The
view reflected in this mind-map is the
view of the development workers present, applying participatory instruments in their field of work.
An initial brainstorming rendered the
following main topics:
Commitment to enter and to
continue
Conceptualisation of Participation
Ethics
Behaviour and Attitudes
Use of instruments
Scale and Institutionalization
Commitment to enter and to continue
Participatory processes are not a
"one-night stand" but rather a longterm 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
precondition for entering such processes is sufficient financial resources.

Conceptualisation of Participation
We understand self-help and empowerment as basic principles for participation, where peoples actions, visions
and choices are the focal point. Working 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 record').
Ethics
A person applying participatory approaches 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 processes, building trust in the relationship, 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 participation. Don't mistake the toolbox for the
vehicle. Always make sure to act
process oriented. There are no standards. 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. Beware 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 instrument can be introduced. Without a
participatory and empowerment oriented setting, PRA will lead to an in-
44
creased exertion of power on the 'target' group. Local facilitators and a

thorough documentation of all processes 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 personnel and users. User networking,
exposures of technicians and politicians to 'their' people are as useful as
intermittent support by process consultants. 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, instead 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 Agroforestry Project in Panama and the
Process Supportive Consultancy between 1993 and 1996;
The role of facilitation in development;
Institutional conditions required
to support participatory processes.
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 donordriven 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 dialogue with the project team and village 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 following processes of change:
To understand the paradigm
shift from a conventional technical
development project to a learning

process which is to design appropriate 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 indigenous representations as well as the
national and international indigenous networks.
The Role of Facilitation in Participatory Development Processes
After the presentation of the case
study, the group proceeded to work
on the role of facilitation in development processes which foster
participatory processes. The possible actors encompass not only
the consultants and the external
long-term advisors but also the project 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 described in the case of Panama.
The role of facilitation is to:
structures learning processes in

an experiential way,
trains on required instruments
and tools, aiming also at a
change of attitude towards participation and dialogue,
establish and support dialogues,

create equitable interactions,
negotiate between different actors and interests,
assure the participation and interactive capacities of marginalised groups,
develop a management of conflicts,
engender sensitivity towards the
reflections, visions, potentials
and aspirations of the local people as principal development actors.
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.
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 flexible,
is sensitive to the existing sociocultural 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
Institutional Conditions of GTZ

to support Facilitation in Development Processes
After describing some of the multifaceted dimensions of the facilitators role in development, we
passed on to discuss the necessary institutional conditions to
stimulate facilitation in development. The following clusters reflect
a first collection of ideas about the
institutional conditions and management styles conducive to a
paradigm shift in development policy:
With regard to staff:
promote the role of process facilitator for field-staff,
personnel selection and development criteria and policies
should focus on facilitation skills,
supporting GTZ-personnel in acquiring participatory competence,
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 peoples processes
rather than on problems, projects or just quantitative objectives,
get local views on what facilitation means, based also on previous experiences,
strengthen cooperation with
NGOs and peoples organisations,
develop Corporate Identity towards process orientation (versus objective and result orientation),
involve local know-how,
reduce cooperation with local elites,
focus on social, political, institutional and human issues of development, not just on technical
aspects,
do not impose a certain kind of
technology as a symbol of partnership (for example Mercedes
4-wheel-drive vehicles),
With regard to the cooperation

with BMZ:
negotiate with BMZ for more
leeway for participatory processes (open beginning and open
end),
share and decentralise responsibilities,
develop long-term perspectives
and strategies.
With regard to instruments and
tools of PCM:
change of instruments to develop project proposals and design,
link PRA-tools to planning processes,
improve the planning procedures
by improving ZOPP for participatory cooperation, using its potentials and going beyond ZOPP,
establish guidelines for participatory and qualitative indicators,
give help to manage M&E, by revising the actual M&E procedures, 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 experience with participatory methods
in projects at different levels of implementation.
Based on that experience, they
formulated recommendations on
how a participatory approach could
be introduced at the level of intermediary institutions and policy making.
They also elaborated general recommendations 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 participatory methods in different project situations. Reference was made to Tanzania, where PRA training was undertaken with 9 projects and in four villages (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 experiences (as the one mentioned
above), but also constraints on the
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 stationary?
Policy makers tend to think in
terms of technical approaches
to problems.
Basic problems in the field of agriculture are known to women
and men of the target group as
well as to the Ministry of Agriculture (i.e. the case of Zambia),
but the problem-solving approach is narrow-minded. There
is no, or relatively little, interministerial cooperation. Therefore, 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 participants involved in project im plementation are usually not fully
informed about service and n
iformation 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 participatory approach to function.
Specific recommendations:
49
ZOPP marries PRA?
Use instruments that help clarify

who provides information services (i.e. interaction analysis).
Use methods of participatory
poverty assessment (undertaken, 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 communities. In cooperation with NGOs,
needs should be assessed and
a problem analysis should be
undertaken within the communities. The results can be integrated within the project strategy.
Make more use of "dialogue and
exposure programmes" or "winwin experiences for decision
and policy makers. These people live for a fixed time in a poor
rural or urban community. The
community hosts the guest.
The agreement is made by mutual consent. The exposure visit
could be supported by an informed outsider as mediator.
Support
PRA
consultancy
groups.
50
At the outset of an advisory project 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 ministry. The purpose is information
and awareness raising. (The
Ministry of Agriculture in Tanzania, for example, has used PRA
techniques to demonstrate effects of policies).
Promote an interdisciplinary approach at ministerial level to foster cooperation.
Make better use of GTZ offices,
of AMA and AP networks and regional advisors to support organisations and institutions in
the partner country in the identification phase before a participatory 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 successes! Especially at the ministerial level and in intermediary
institutions (GTZ-HQ).
External organisations (incl.
BMZ) should support democratization processes. Pressure
should be exerted on governments to allow target group representation.
General recomme ndations:

When selecting personnel, place
emphasis on experience in participatory 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 compensate.
When institutionalizing a participatory approach, be aware that
participation is a process of empowerment, 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.
Information channels need to be

established in order to gain access to knowledge and experience at project level (usually undervalued 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 consensus (as the need to find a consensus in ZOPP planning was
criticised), how can local resources 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 examine issues of scaling-up village
level planning to the district level.
At the beginning, the convenor provided additional background information on the topic. A short brainstorming session followed, in which the participants noted down some of the issues 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 presented. After elaborating on the case
studies, a lengthy discussion and exchange 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 results at the information market.
Results, conclusions, remarks from
the presentation
A presentation by John Thompson on
his experiences in participatory approaches in government bureaucracies ("facilitating the process of institutional change") set the general tenor of
the discussion. John Thompson illustrated how the institutional learning

process was carried out over a number 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 unanswered. 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 representatives from the village and 1/3 appointed 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 undertaken by the facilitators. The pro-
53
ZOPP marries PRA?
ject provided the necessary coaching.

The intention was to classify the projects into two groups: those activities
which the villages can handle completely on their own and those which
require some form of external support.
The latter were forwarded to the district level where the relevant sectoral
departments determined their technical feasibility. The recommendations
of the sectoral departments were
listed in a series of options for the district assembly to decide upon. The
final decision was to be a political and
not a technical one, since the assembly persons had to defend their decisions 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 process stood at the forefront of the approach, 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 continuing their own self-help activities. Villages which showed initiative were to
be given a bonus for next years selection 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 project is currently progressing nor as to
what extent the concept had been implemented 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 presented in the case studies can complement each other; one dealing with
the individual organisations, the other
with a process amongst many organisations and the villages at the district
level. Similarly, the PRA and ZOPPPCM approaches have their specific
role in different processes, there being
no universal and absolute definition of
when and how each of the approaches 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 Development Approach to be used by Local Development Agents
Convenor/Rapporteur: Bernd Schubert
An example of how a GTZ-funded project can promote the institutionalization 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 problems 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 integrated development approach in dealing with communities. This means
they
encourage and facilitate participatory activities at community
level (e.g. by facilitating PRAvillage-workshops);
assist the communities when
they request assistance in m
i -
plementing community development plans.

Project Output
Training and management assistance are provided to GOs and
NGOs that are willing to use a participatory 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 integrated way.
Open funds are provided or solicited to finance the promotion of development activities at community
level
resulting
from
PRAworkshops.
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 objectives of the Kilifi project, as specified
on purpose and on goal level (ZOPP
terminology that refers to the objectives of the project specified in the
project planning matrix). They did not
include any material impacts, but concentrated on the facilitation of processes. It seemed to the participants
55
ZOPP marries PRA?
that the process-orientation of a project 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 development (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 (German Ministry for Economic Cooperation) would agree to such an open
planning approach. The participants
agreed, however, that in the Kilifi case,
an objective oriented planning approach (ZOPP) was helpful for clearly
defining the role of the project in institutionalizing the district-wide application 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 following conclusions:
1
56
A detailed documentation of the Kilifi experience with institutionalizing a participatory and integrated development approach
is given in: Bernd Schuster et al. , 1994,
"Facilitating the Introduction of a Participatory and Integrated Development Approach (PIDA) in Kiliti District, Kenya. "
Volume I: "Recommendations for the Institutionalization of PIDA based on four Pilot
Projects. "
Precondition for the institutionalization of a participatory and integrated

approach:
The political will to decentralise
decision-making. In Kenya, this political will is documented in the "District 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 "facilitate the facilitators".
Institutionalization should take place
within existing organisational structures.
The Tools
For achieving a sustainable and far
reaching institutionalization of a
participatory and integrated development 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. Institutionalizing Participatory Approaches into Government Departments
Convenor/Rapporteur: Jrgen Hagmann
The Subject
As an introduction, a case study from
Zimbabwe was presented. A participatory 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 communities, 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 awareness about the necessity of change.
After three years, senior staff was
convinced that a reorientation of the
department towards farmer participatory extension was necessary to im prove the output of the department. At
that point, institutional learning about
implementation had started and institutionalization of this approach became a main issue.
After some time, however, they realized 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 organisational structure and communication
within the institution and between the
hierarchies became subject of intense
discussion. After all, participatory approaches could hardly be imple-
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 towards performance. Such transformation 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 extent 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 reflection 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 appropriate. 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 process-oriented working styles can even
be conflicting with the planning systems. The working group undertook
the task of elaborating process indicators by defining ZOPP output indicators 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
ivolved in judging the performance of,
for example, extension workers.
There was also a valuable suggestion
to link self evaluation in the communities with participatory impact assessment 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 question of the cultural conformity of participatory 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 participatory approaches is a process which
deals with changing attitudes, behaviour and social relations. This
can best be attained through learning 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 institutions without any clear incentives
(internal) for these additional efforts
is difficult to achieve. It is recommended 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 GTZs

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 planning steps (ZOPP 1-5) were analyzed as
to their advantages and disadvantages.
The group discussed the limitations inherent 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 observations:
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.
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 agencies demand certain formal rules to be
respected, the process of planning activities with local groups requires interactive 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 preliminary contribution to a further, more detailed proposal for a new planning procedure.
59
ZOPP marries PRA?
Checklist for a flexible and participatory planning procedure

Phase of project
Proposals for
improvement
Remarks
Support for participatory planning should be offered to organizations, institutions and

groups in the partner country
interested in requesting German TC
Job descriptions of GTZ staff

in the partner country should
include this point and resources be made available to
support participatory project
identification processes.
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 elaborated in a participatory process. The legitimacy of the
proposal should be examined.
(Who was involved in the
elaboration of the proposal?)
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 participated in the elaboration of
the proposal, this process
has to be organized during
project appraisal
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 planning advise to partner organizations).
Consultants with experience

in the country or region are
needed.
Identification phase
Request for Technical Cooperation from partner government
Find ways to overcome reservations from BMZ and partner countries against open
orientation
phase
during/preceding the first project phase
Assure that consultants are

competent in participatory
methods.
Appraisal phase
Detailed participatory analysis

should take place, specifying
the different socio-economic
groups; invite partner organisations to participate in PRAappraisal.
Planning meeting with rep- Be sure that the results from

resentatives of GOs, NGOs, consultation with or participaGTZ etc. (ZOPP 3)
tory planning on local level are
accounted for in the strategic
planning meeting/ document.
60
Participatory analysis can

frustrate local people when
the projects dont materialize.
Phase of project
Elaboration of project offer
Proposals for
improvement
Remarks
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.
Decision by Ministry to support the proposed project

Operational planning workshop (carried out 4 to 6
months after project start
with local and expatriate
experts - ZOPP 4)
According to PCM requirements, participation should

have been realised before
elaboration of Plan of Operation
Projects improve their efficiency when making use of

detailed plan of operation.
However, it has to be handled
flexibly.
Output: Plan of Operation

Project Progress Review
Involve the target groups in

participatory self-evaluation of
their own role and contribution
and the one's of the project.
Replanning (ZOPP 5)
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 planning 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
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
formulated and
Management.
submitted
to
Senior
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.
Reiner Forster
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 related 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
Background Papers
Social Processes and the Limits of Planning

by Manfred Beier
The following paper describes a problem which appears frequently, in different guises, in development support:
An agricultural research institution has
made what it calls an important innovation. 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 commonly used varieties and, at the same
time, does not grow as high, thus improving 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 workers 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 stimulate 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
summarise the results of the first harvest: While on irrigated land it is 20%
above the old varieties, on nonirrigated land it is distinctly below the
level which the old varieties yielded
under these difficult weather conditions. In the following year, the demand 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 normal years means increased availability of food;
Less straw production means
fewer costs for commercial farmers;
The Ministry made a timely decision, planned the operation and activated lower authorities successfully;
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 promised 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 breeding) and neglect menial ones - but
the latter may be particularly important 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 accept the first five points readily, not
many will refrain from planning the
adoption of innovations - it is not considered impossible. Yet, the frequent
divergence between plans and
achievements touches a major question 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 unfavourable 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 replanning. Planning works quite well
where budgets are involved. As planning 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 activities based on it. In other words,
people should plan only if they
Background Papers
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 multiplication, 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, according to their main functions:
for steering investment processes:
The dominance of private economic planning and appraisal requirements in nearly all fields of
social life, not surprisingly, led to a
vast array of methods for investment planning, answering questions 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 methods have helped people to become
aware of the social processes they
participate in by learning from and
with the members of the community. A typical question PRA methods try to answer is "What is the
level of knowledge of social processes in the community and how
can it be increased?".
specific planning methods for raising initiatives have been evolved

and they are promising. They are
based on questions like "How can
people recognise community problems 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 implementation steps to the participants
who have the capacity to steer implementation. Development is unthinkable
without
increased
selfdetermination.
In the context of poor countries, development 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 processes of their countries. It must integrate their participation, emancipation
and empowerment. Therefore, development must at least include the following two main components
material growth to overcome poverty and provide for at least the basic needs of individuals;
participation and emancipation in
order to give to individuals the necessary room to develop themselves, which will also mobilise the
maximum development effort of a
society.
for raising peoples' initiatives to

improve their conditions: Recently,
71
ZOPP marries PRA?
Development support aims at material

improvements as well as emancipatory 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 advisers, as failed attempts have proven
time and again. If they have decisionmaking 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 various PRA methods have demonstrated
their usefulness with convincing results. 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 development support. ZOPP has been applied too rigidly and some long recognised weaknesses have been difficult
to overcome. Perhaps it has even
hindered the development of organisational flexibility, so important for a multipurpose 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 application were considered essential. From
72
this perspective, the development history of PRA has been completely different: Its built-in flexibility has stimulated users' creativity to experiment
and adopt methods to their specifically
required purpose - which can be considered 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 project management either not noticed a
changed situation or stuck to long obsolete activities, instead of reflecting
on the changes and designing a more
appropriate course of action. The
dangers posed to projects by an unfavourable political and economic environment have to be reflected by formulating, 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 incorporate 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 present concentration on activities and
inputs.
At GTZ, ZOPP has been state-of-theart 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
Background Papers
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 targets, budgets, work contracts, etc.)
leave them to proceed however fast
and in whichever direction they go?
This is unacceptable for many reasons: From a moral point of view, development support to poor peoples'
efforts cannot accept unnecessary
delays and experiments with too uncertain an outcome. Development
workers must accept their share of
responsibility for contributing to the
alleviation of poverty quickly and effectively. If they know and identify with
the recognised development principles, they will be able to follow a
course incorporating peoples rights to
individual
and
communal
selfdetermination as well as the development objectives of societies - for present and future generations.
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 encourage 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 developed anybody else - people develop
themselves".
73
74
Background Papers
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 experience 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 neighbouring 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
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 incrementalistic PRA approach. There is no
"vision" in these plans and if they are
simply collected and scaled-up at the
district level, no cohesive developmental 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 participatory, 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 organisational 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 democratically elected villagers from the
district.
Noteworthy is that the
proposed organigram has been
adapted from the current organisational set-up practised in Ghana
(where the district assembly constitutes the second highest political
authority in the country - after the
national parliament). The district administration 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).
Background Papers
2.1 Grass-roots Approach

Planning and Management
to
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
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
Ministry of
Economic
Planning
Other National
Ministries
National
Level
Ministry of
Finance
Ministry of
Local
Government
National
Development
Planning
Authority
National
Sectoral
Ministries
Regional
Coordinating
Council
Regional
Level
Regional
Planning &
Coordinating
Unit
Regional
Sectoral
Departments
General
Administration
District
Assembly
Executive
Committee
District
Level
Development
Planning &
Budgeting Unit
Economic
Development
Sub- committee
Technical
Infrastructure
Sub- committee
Social Services
Sub- committee
General
Administration
Law & Order

Sub- committee
Sectoral
Departments
Community
Level
78
Administration/
Finance
Sub- committee
Sectoral
Departments
Village, Area or Unit Comittees

Local Community
Disaster
Sub- committee
Background Papers
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
provincial policies and recommendations, 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 precondition
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, multilateral 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
Multi & Bi-Lateral
Donors
ELECTED DISTRICT
ASSEMBLY
POLITICAL
DISTRICT
LEVEL
6
District
Development
Fund / Budget
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION
4
SECTORAL
LINE
DEPARTMENTS
2
DISTRICT
PLANNING &
BUDGETING
UNIT
DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN(PRODUCED
USING PRA & OTHER
METHODS
)
TECHNICAL
DISTRICT
LEVEL
TECHNICAL SUB
COMMITTEES
1
VILLAGE
LEVEL
ELECTORAL
CONSTITUENCY
VILLAGES
VILLAGE LEVEL PLANS

PRODUCED USING
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 subcommittees 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 subcommittees, 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
Background Papers
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
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.
technocrat: a dynamic and politically

active planner is required who is
85
86
Background Papers
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 Panama Government represented by the
National Institute for Natural Resources 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 inhabited by Ngobe people. The project
team expressed their n
i terest to get
the support of a process supportive
consultancy which has been developed by the convenors since 1993 in
irregular short term visits. The consultancy during 1994 was part of the approach of socio-cultural counseling.
Since October 1994, it has been a part
of the NARMS-Pilot Project.
The Ngobe Indians are the largest indigenous 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 Chiriqu. The Ngobe people
have been fighting for legal recognition
of their territory and for selfadministration of the natural resources
within their territory. The Ngobe are
deprived of their rights and disadvantaged in their living conditions, as they
were driven away by Spanish speak-
ing settlers who reduced their land to

the hill and mountain areas,. Besides,
the Panamean society does not recognize the Ngobe culture as a national
wealth.
The project concentrated its efforts in
San Flix in Chiriqu, selecting 4 villages for pilot work in agroforestry and
crafts. The GTZ-advisor insisted in
recruiting staff with indigenous background, 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 appropriate development project. With the
help of two process supportive consultants, the project initiated a learning
process which aimed at three goals:
to improve the interaction and dialogue between the project team and
the Ngobe people;
to recognize the Ngobe cosmovision and to revitalize Ngobe culture
as a project strategy;
to design a project approach (philosophy, attitudes, management
tools, extension system) based on
Ngobe values and traditions.
This learning process is one example
for the paradigm shift from a conventional donor driven project to an endogenous
development
process
based on the culture of the local people.
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 participate 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 observed. 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 prepare 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 peoples hunger. Keba Sula mediated 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 mythology 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 curiosity 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 negotiates between different worlds or realities, 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 extension worker or urban development
agent, whom the Ngobe people are
used to confront.
The means and processes of the
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 visited the project for the first time to clarify the initial task of a process supportive consultancy (PSC). This visit was
an exchange of impressions, observation of the project reality at that moment and a rough planning of future
activities.
It was agreed to start with a PRATraining 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-
Background Papers
logue mechanisms for the team of

technicians and deepen the situation
analysis of the villages based on the
Ngobe peoples view. The PRA application 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 design a proper Ngobe Agroforestry Extension 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 cosmovision 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 villagers themselves. So, in November 94,
we facilitated the first of four workshops to create, adapt and apply a
Village Planning Methodology which
aimed at overcoming the usual shopping list by departing from the visions
of future development and enhancing
the village organisation.
After the four village planning workshops in the four pilot villages, the next
stay in San Flix in February 95 was
dedicated to edit the village planning
manual, design a qualitative processoriented
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-
tween villagers, project team, Ngobe

leaders in the region, the national
Ngobe Congress and other development agents (GO and NGOs).
In October 95, the PSC was continued, in order to elaborate with the
team and villagers a specific Handbook for technicians and village promoters called the Keba Sula Manual.
The technicians and the villagers
thought that this was an excellent title
for the development workers who negotiate between different cultures,
technologies, cosmovisions and development visions. Besides the handbook, we trained the whole team and
interested villagers in facilitation skills
so that the projects 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 directions:
within the project, to advance the
technological experimentation with
interested families in the villages
revitalizing the indigenous knowledge and technology
design an indigenous strategy for
development projects parting from
the Ngobe experience and networking with similar projects and development 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 development project to a learning
process which is to design appropriate 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 facilitation skills of project members
and motivated villagers;
The empowerment of the Ngobe
organisation, from families to
community organisations, and
strengthening the regional indigenous representations as well as the
national and international indigenous networks.
The main bottlenecks encountered
during the process of PSC relate to:
1. The fact that there are no instruments available for PCM for the project team:
ZOPP is handled too rigidly and
in
a culturally insensitive way.
The evaluation in 1995 was
undertaken as a control measure to
compare the planning schedule and
the realization of the quantitative indicators denying the advances of the
participatory processes and the design of the culturally oriented project
management. There was no orientation to establish the appropriate M&ESystem - it was left to the project to
invent their own system.
2. There is no systematic and structural backstopping for this indigenous
90
agroforestry project coming from the

GTZ institution, the PSC was a fortunate 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 intercultural dialogue. This was confronted
with the special training of four facilitators as PRA-trainers which took place
in the framework of the regional network for participation and gender
which links a dozen projects supported by GTZ in Central America.
4. A bottleneck, but also an advantage, 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 involved with a PSC, as the project requires a permanent contact as well as
regular visits of external consultants
(in our case a team of two anthropologists) and this has to be budgeted.
Hopefully, there will be professionals
available in the region in future who
can accompany projects creatively.
Background Papers
Participation and Planning:

What to Get Things Going?
Who
Needs
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 document on which funding and evaluation
of results can be based. In order to
achieve this, they generally destine
part of their organisational development support to NGOs to improve
planning processes. Since the capacity to design a project proposal and to
justify funds often determines whether
funding will be provided, ZOPP planning instruments tended to be accepted enthusiastically. On the basis
of the author practical experience in
West Africa the present paper describes:
how ZOPP has been modified to fit
specific conditions;
how ZOPP and PRA instruments
have been combined during the
planning processes within NGOs.
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 organisations.
There are, however, several deficiencies of ZOPP which need to be dealt
with:
The visualization techniques

used in conventional ZOPP
workshops, i.e. markers and
cards, often make people with
low formal education feel uneasy.
The analysis of the potentials
and
interests
of
"partners/participants" is often omitted when doing the planning of
activities.
The problem analysis may introduce a skewed focus on problems and, carried out by outsiders, 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 undesirable approach, as it implies
that the responsibility and contribution of local people is being
underestimated or overlooked.
Defining indicators and assumptions can contribute enormously
to strengthening planning capacities of NGOs or communities 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 adaptation the project plan and the plan
of operation have to be regularly
adjusted to changes taking
91
ZOPP marries PRA?
place, because probably by default the initial version (during

"planning for budget") will probably 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, especially if they do not feel comfortable
writing in a European language. In
these situations the visualisation techniques 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.
3. Problem Analysis
The problem analysis may introduce a
skewed focus on problems and, carried out by outsiders, it may increase
the tendency to charity and to deresponsibilize 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 problems; 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
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 doing 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 intensive discussion of the relationships
between the different actors, especially NGO's and government services. In order to improve the management of cooperation and to better
involve NGO's in government activities
a special field of action should therefore be dedicated to this task in the
plan of operation.
92
Objective analysis 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 undesirable 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 concentration on problems puts people into a pos ition of weakness while those asking to
know about the problems place themselves 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 aspirations have increasingly replaced the pos ition of "you have a problem, tell me, I'll
help you out".
Background Papers
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 aspiration come true". Any outside support has to be based on the decision
making process on community level.
5. Indicators and Assumptions
The definition of indicators and assumptions is probably, besides the
plan of operation, the most important
tool of ZOPP. Indicators favour a
down-to-earth thinking. They are essential 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 becoming 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 operational consideration of what was discussed in the analysis of partners.
Again, it is not sufficient to put all the
conflicting or uncertain points under
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 allocation of human and financial resources.
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 implementation. The reviewing of operational
planning has, therefore, be done on a
regular basis (monthly or threemonthly).
All in all one can say: If used flexibly,

with the right understanding of responsibility 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
Background Papers
Result oriented ZOPP and quantitative Indicators undermine demand and process Orientation of Projects
by Dieter Gagel
Process orientation and establishing goals, results and indicators
tinually changing priorities of the users.
Process-oriented, participatory approaches 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 framework, 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 support measures, remain the main actors.
An example of a "process-integrating"
indicator is: "At least 60% of the support activities were proposed by the
craftspersons themselves"2.
This
indicator establishes the project unambiguously. It is not formulated in
terms of statically set results, but as
an animation method to be implemented. It makes the implementations process- and demand-oriented
character obligatory.
Process-oriented project implementation depends on a permanent dialogue

with the users and is therefore subject
to continual change. It must be possible to question goals, results and indicators, 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 results/indicators can be integrated with
changes of the users ideas, proposals
and perspectives. This process, as a
permanent and demand-oriented activity, is orientated towards the con-
Indicators of the type "100 craftspersons 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 project 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 (ma2
.....Indicator in project A: Supporting crafts

trades in Africa
3
.....Project B: Supporting crafts trades in Africa. The demand orientated activity listed
in the same ZOPP: "Diversifying Support
Activities in accordance with the Needs of
various Groups" methodologically contradicts 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 committed to results when formulating indicators 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 showing 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 independence (for instance, through the
connection between loans and savings 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 monitoring of these changes possible (the
former, for example, through the formulation 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 cooperating with certain institutions (for example, with chambers of trade, although
these are often state-controlled and
encumbered with an apparatus of
functionaries). Formalising cooperation by committing users to a project
goal or result means that this commitment 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 example of a project supporting the
crafts trades in Africa: Due to cabinet
reshuffles and rotating administrations, the secretary general and the
partner organisations personnel (the
chamber of commerce), who were
partially appointed by the state,
changed so frequently that it was no
longer possible to cooperate effectively. Project measures, which were
dependent upon training the chambers personnel, could not have a lasting effect. Yet the partner organisation
5 ...We should not underestimate the conditions of the environment which impede a
"continuation" of ZOPP projects once they
have been set: for instance, admitting inadequate original planning, the work of
formulating a new offer to BMZ, the need
of short-term missions having to check
changes again, etc.
Background Papers
remained: As a consequence of its

result orientated approach, ZOPP had
raised it to the status of a law at the
beginning of the projects implementation.
ZOPP as system
It is not only the problem of formulating
results, goals and indicators that frequently brings ZOPP into conflict with
process orientated methods of carrying out projects. It is the ZOPP planning 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 atmosphere and operate exclusively goaland 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 organisational 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-
resented by representatives, whose

legitimacy is not always clear. Furthermore, there are many ZOPP
seminars in which the seminar discussion 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 dont
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 organisations, was made the universal
planning system for carrying out projects. This step was guided by the
traditional conviction that these projects are the property of the German,
English, American, etc. TCs and not a
collaborative endeavour with local
partners. How else would it be possible to make the general planning system of a TC organisation the basis of
a common project! Dont 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 systems, which correspond to the level of
the users, and develop them successively alongside the users planning
capability. Would this not significantly
increase lasting results?
An organisation of craftspersons, village community or any other local initiative 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 starting 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 auspiciously renamed Participatory Cooperation 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 participation and the process character of
planning.
In the past, GTZ has
strongly brought planning out of the
context of other management functions. Here, it has often had the experience that understanding planning
as a rigid prescription and stiff administrative rules was more than likely a
hindrance to fashioning the manner of
carrying out the project in a goalorientated fashion. Furthermore, GTZ
has had the experience that the value
of planning and therefore the binding
character of plans can be very different in different cultures. For this reason, GTZ attaches the greatest importance to the communicative aspects
and the process character of planning
today. 6
Beyond this general statement, the

document fails to consider how hindrances 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 organisation 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 follows the principle of intervening as
little as possible8, 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, continues to be imported/exported.
Recommendations
The following recommendations do
not claim to be a comprehensive alternative 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 union. This is the best we can hope for
.....GTZ: Project Cycle Management and

ZOPP - A Guide. Manuscript. October
1995, Eschborn, page 12.
98
7
8
....See loc. cit., page 10.

....See loc. cit., pages 6 and 9.
Background Papers
since this marriage is neither a love

match nor, for the reasons mentioned
above, a marriage of convenience,
but above, all a marriage of necessity:
a. ZOPP modifications
Emphasis in formulation of indicators
should shift form the current quantitative bias to qualitative and processoriented results.
Indicators must be formulated in a way
that does not impede the projects
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 seminar 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 project for supporting the crafts trades in
the Rombo District, Tanzania, a socalled Craftsperson ZOPP was carried out in advance of the ZOPP seminar, taking place in the local language
and without the host of experts. The
analyses and results from the craftsperson ZOPP then formed the basis of
the second part of the seminar. Unfortunately, the experts regained the initiative during the second part and monopolised the formulation of indicators.
This example nevertheless shows
how the principle introduced in the
craftsperson ZOPP could be devel-
oped into a tool for giving users an

advantage.
b. Taking various planning systems 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 experiences, 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 mediumsize planning system which would
stand up to the critical eye of the planning expert.
Of course, this requires an identification and analysis of existing users
planning systems before the project
begins. Up to now, this type of stocktaking has generally been looked upon
with a certain degree of arrogance,
and a consideration of the planning
systems of users is deemed unnecessary 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 participatory 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 already existing systems in collaboration

with the users.
One of the most important means of
planning is "the phase of open orientation". 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 cooperation with the users. Action-research
methods are especially well suited for
this type of project implementation
(planning on the basis of practical cooperation with the users). Of course,
it should be a phase of really open
orientation, that is, without an introductory ZOPP event (ZOPP should take
place at the end and not at the beginning of a phase of open orientation)
100
and without dependence upon a "provisional" 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 dialogue with the users and in their environment. Perhaps an expert needs
some of the qualities of a development
volunteer.
Finally, GTZ should seriously and systematically reappraise the criticisms of
ZOPP which have been articulated by
a variety of persons and projects.
Background Papers
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 environmentally degraded areas by enabling 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 developing countries. Our experience with
ZOPP was limited to a five day workshop. The venue was a hotel and no
members of the village community
were present. The group, consisting of
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 present). For the next two
weeks, information from
the workshop was processed into a final project
document and its respective budget, which was
sanctioned by the donors.
Our team did not question
this approach, as it
seemed to meet the doMethods nors requirements and
satisfy their expectations.
In October 1989, Prof. Robert Chambers came to work at the Administrative 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 fiveday exercise was organised, where
the participants lived in a village (Kalmandargi). It was the first PRA exercise 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 preparation of a watershed development plan
which addressed problems and opportunities relating to the community ti101
ZOPP marries PRA?
self, services such as health, education, land-based and non land-based

activities. Many key elements from our
normal planning methods and formats
(including ZOPP) could be incorporated 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 implementation 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 satisfactory 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 forestry, agriculture, livestock, credit,
Rich
Poor
102
Religious
Order
Social
Order
health, education and several other

projects.
Over the years, weve 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.
OUTREACHs 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 effectively in the project activities. This
gives the project an equity and gender
focus without creating much disturbance; an important factor given the
complex Indian context where caste is
ever present.
Political
Order
Economic
Order
Self-Help
group
Background Papers
OUTREACHs 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 borrowing, we were able to develop programs around what people actually
wanted.
OUTREACH believes that for sustainable development to take place, the
community must be encouraged and
enabled to develop forms of institutions that are appropriate and which
they can understand, identify with and
participate in. These groups and institutions 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 OUTREACH.
The OUTREACH concept of development is that of Capital Formation
within the community. Capital consists of the following:
1. Cash ==> Savings, loans, interest
contributions, donations, fines,
grants etc.
2. Assets ==> Buildings, equipment,
roads, wells, pumpsets, checkdams, irrigation canals, trees
etc.
3. Human ==> Knowledge, skills, confidence, leadership, etc.
4. Institutional ==> Systems and procedures, norms, rules, sanctions, 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 established. 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 become learning organisations which
reflect their experiences, adapting and
evolving constantly. New forms of
institutions and institutional arrangements 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 PREPARATORY PROCESS which includes 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

staff, bosses and administrators,
(of GOs, NGOs, donor organisations, or financial, research or training institutions).
2. Project field level staff: Again
belonging to the above organisations.
Training
and
Orientation
3.
Client communities.
The three pillars diagram shown on

the first page will therefore look as
follows.
Policy
H.O.
Bosses
Project
staff
Communities
Attitudes
Constantly
Evolving
Learning
Organisation
3
pillars
of
PRA
Sharing
Methods
New forms of institutions and

institutional arrangements
This preparation needs to be followed

by a learning process that is dynamic
and which will result in the evolution of
104
appropriate institutions and institutional

arrangements which foster a culture of
participation.
Background Papers
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 cooperation as sacrosanct as this one? Is it
conceivable to question the necessity
of participation on the part of partners
and target groups in development projects? 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 appropriates 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, veiling 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 service management important elements of the participation debate have
been largely ignored to date.
1. Who Participates in What?
Participation means taking part, getting 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 decisionmaking process of that organisation.
More precisely, it entails involving
members of an organisation in the
decisions of that organisation such
that a non-manipulative consideration of the needs of the members
of the organisation is possible (1).
This would seem to give us a fundamental answer to the question, "who
participates in what?"(2).
One thing is conspicuous however:
"Classical" views pertaining to participation are very much focused on inner-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 services. 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 customer 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 pursued by participation on the part of
members of the organisation, being
geared only to a greater or lesser involvement in the provision of a
service and the decisions pertain-
106
ing thereto. Participation in the decision-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 participates in what?" will be different depending on whether the potential participants belong to the organisation
providing services or to the environment in which the organisation operates (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-
tomer/client")
Customer/client
B
("member")
Member participation
Participants
participation (in high-
Participants
outside the
interaction services)
within the
service providing
organisation
service providing orPurchaser participa-
Staff co-determina-
tion (in low-interaction
tion
ganisation
services)
("purchaser")
("employee")
A
Provider of services
bears overall responsibility
for the provision of services
107
ZOPP marries PRA?
2. Participation - the Overall Responsibility

The understanding of participation
diverges yet further if one includes
another variable, the ultimate responsibility for the services provided, where manufacturing and service organisations tend to differ.
One important difference between
manufacturing and services is that
services cannot be produced and
"stored". Services are only produced when the customer is prepared 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 services 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 provide a service of this sort and that it is
provided in line with certain predetermined 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 determines who is responsible for selecting
a certain provider of these services
and for assessing the capacity of this
108
provider to produce the services required (4). It likewise aims to specify

who monitors the provision of services
and works to have these changed or
modified if necessary, and who accepts the final responsibility for justifying the service and for it being of benefit 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 physical 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 provision 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 interaction between the customer and
the provider of services in a way
conducive to the process of providing services.
If, for instance, we take the example of

a private language school and the services it provides in the field of language training, we can illustrate the
above differences in the following way:
The responsibility for executing the
services lies quite clearly in the domain of the school, which is responsible for developing an appropriate, target-oriented curriculum, selecting
Background Papers
qualified teachers and speakers and

providing suitable teaching materials.
3. Participation and Responsibility

in Development Cooperation
The school is also responsible for ensuring that pupils are adequately prepared to enable them to play their part
in the process. Examinations and
other means of assessing performance must ensure that only pupils
that meet the relevant standards attend courses; homework and other
exercises must be set as preparation
for the classes.
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 participating.
The responsibility of the school for

executing services also includes tailoring the form of classes, i.e. the interaction 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 interaction between the teacher and the pupils is interesting and learningoriented.
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 themselves (or their parents or guardians)
who are responsible for selecting the
correct school and a suitable course
in the first place. They are also responsible for identifying what they see
as shortcomings in the course and
raising these points with a view to
remedying them, or alternatively leaving 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 professional position (5). Thus the ultimate responsibility for the language
course rests with the pupil himself (6).
Do we mean the members of the service providing organisations in the

sense of employees, bound to follow
directives from above, where the ultimate responsibility for the provision
of services rests not with them, but at
another, higher level within the organisation?
Or do we mean members of a cooperative 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 involved/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 customers or clients who do indeed influence 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 question, "Who participates in what?" depending on the various possible constellations (9).
same time, the scope of the customer

or client to shape the services in question is great, especially when the services are "high-interaction" ones, i.e. if
they involve an in-depth exchange between the demander and the provider
of these services.
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 participation assumes the character of a
debate on
appropriate codetermination 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 question is how the position of the members, who are fully responsible for their
organisation is expressed and put into
practice in the context of a democratic
decision-making process.
The participation situation in case A'

("purchaser") is quite different as it
regards a purchaser external to the
providing organisation. In manufacturing or low-interaction services, the
scope of the purchaser to influence
the provision of services is limited. He
has no authority or responsibility vis
vis the type of services and the way
these are provided.
The a priori conditions vary every bit

as much when we look at the "external" participation of customers or clients. 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 participation. They are able to a large extent
what sort of services will be provided
on what terms. And they are responsible for deciding whether or not it
makes sense to provide a certain service and whether the service in question can be "used" as intended. At the
110
Participation is here relevant at best in

the sense of a human resources
strategy (10). The main aim is to mobilise the expertise of the purchaser
and harness it for the process of service provision, or to take into account
the needs of the purchaser in terms of
his potential purchasing decisions or
acceptance of future services. Collaboration and decision-sharing on the
part of the purchaser within the scope
of the provision of services under
these circumstances does not generally enter here into the participation
debate.
4. Observations on SituationSpecific 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.
Background Papers
Case A ("employees") may correspond to the actual situation in largescale 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 produce - is provided to its environment,
e.g. to the market or to the economy
as a whole. The organisation can influence the behaviour of water users
as "hired labourers" by imposing formal rules and issuing personal directions. 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 organisations services.
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 allocates areas to settlers which have to
be cultivated according to the
agencys directives. In systems like
this too, (e.g. the Mwea irrigation system in Kenya) the participation debate
focused mainly on questions of determination 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 management organisations the situation is
different. These organisations undertake to supply and provide water independently and generally as a monop-
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" water, nor do the users play any im portant 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 operation 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 "participate" in maintaining the main system
in this sort of scenario.
Recently, some water management
organisations and project organisations have emphasised their service
function vis vis water users, in irrigation development as in other sectors
(12). The resultant situation in terms
of the participation debate is closest to
case B' ("customer/client") as illustrated in Figure 1. The water users
enjoy the status of clients vis vis this
organisation. The various consultancy
111
ZOPP marries PRA?
services provided by the organisation

demand close interaction between the
representatives of the service organisation 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 consultancy 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 provider, and secondly the issue of participation of water users in their capacity 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 responsibility for the provision of services genuinely does rest with the water users, the demanders of services,
it is perfectly conceivable that it may
be to the advantage of both sides if
individual service elements are provided 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 participants. 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 system.
The participation issue here thus focuses on designing the decisionmaking procedure within the memberbased 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 different to the cases outlined above. Efforts to offer external support must
take this situation into careful account
so as to establish which impacts support 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 different conditions for participation have
been outlined as a basis for the participation debate. The various situations 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 efforts to encourage target group participation in a project or development
approach will contribute to sustainability, if these "participants" are ascribed
a status which grants them little overall 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 failure 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 organisations and their partners see themselves as the "project managers" with
ultimate responsibility, while the target
group only has to participate in the
course of action already laid down.
Background Papers
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 participation 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 development policy context, making
problems in the realisation of participation 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 unanswered. Is the participant a mere employee of the service organisation,
bound to follow the instructions he is
given, or is he a member of a cooperative 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 organisation, and does not actually belong to the organisation per se?
become involved in the provision of a

certain service is something quite different again.
These examples indicate that "participation" is a topic which must be tackled in different ways, in line with the
situation in hand. In irrigation this
means that the participation debate
raises many varying problems, depending 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 participation
"pseudo
often
being
understood
participation"
in
as
practice:
some decision-makers do not really intend to take into account the values
and needs of their members. "Participation" is instrumentalised and is only
intended to ensure that members identify 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-
In each of these various scenarios

"participation" means something different and demands a different course
of action if it is to be realised. Participation, in the sense of codetermination exercised by the employees of an organisation is something quite different to participation as
an expression of the entitlement of
members of a cooperative organisation to actively promote the services
in question. And participation as the
option given to customers or clients to
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 advance 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 enters into the relevant agreement.
(12) The National Irrigation Association in

the Philippines is one organisation
which has adopted this approach. The
(5) While it is true to say that this respon-
GTZ project, Proyecto de Riego Inter
sibility also exists when a customer
Valles (PRIV) in Cochabamba, Bolivia
decided to purchase a physical prod-
is an example of a project organisation
uct, it is much easier to accept in the
which explicitly sees itself as a service
latter case, where he can inspect the
provider.
product in advance. The benefit of an

identical product to other purchasers
can be seen and appreciated.
(13) The conditions under which an inten-
Serv-
sive client-side participation is desir-
ices, on the other hand, are never iden-
able for both sides are examined more
tical, because of the role played by the
closely in Huppert (1989), p. 291 ff.
customer, and cannot be readily compared.
References
(6) This responsibility is limited, or nonexistent, where the language training is
a compulsory course within the scope
of basic or further education.
(7) This issue is, however, becoming n
i-
Huppert, W.,Situationskonformes und

dienstleistungsorientiertes
Management von Bewsserungssystemen.
Prisma-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main,
1989
creasingly important within the scope

of the project ownership discussion.
(8) The latter case depicts a clear service
Kirsch, W., Das Management des

geplanten Wandels von Organisationen.
situation: in line with the "identity principle" the members of organisations of

this sort, associations, co-operatives,
societies, etc., are at once the organisational decision-makers within the
organisation and the recipients of services provided by the organisation.
(9) The diagram simplifies the facts in so
far as there are not four distinct constellations in practice but a twodimensional 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
Esser, W.M., C.E. Poeschel Verlag,

Stuttgart, 1979
Acronyms
Acronyms:
AMA
Auslandsmitarbeiter/-innen (Technical Advisors)
AP
Ansprechspartner/-innen (Principal Technical

Advisors)
BMZ
Bundesministerium fr Wirtschaftliche
Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (German Ministry
for Economic Cooperation and Development)
GTZ - HQ
Gesellschaft fr 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
SLE
Seminar fr Lndliche 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
Ulrike
Breitschuh
GTZ HQ, Pilot Project Livelihood System

and Tropical Forest Areas (LISTRA)
Robert
Chambers
Institute for Development Studies,

University of Sussex
Franziska
Donner
GTZ HQ, Strategic Corporate

Development
Madgy El
Menshawy
GTZ HQ, Country Desk Jemen, Iran
Hansjrg
Elshorst
GTZ HQ, Director General, currently

Senior Advisor at the World Bank
Reiner Forster
GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Quality Assurance
Christiane
Frischmuth
Dieter Gagel
GTZ HQ Country Desk Malawi

Advisor to Programme dappui
lautopromotion des Artisans du Mali
Projekt-Consult
Limburger Str. 28 d
61462 Knigstein/Ts.
Adrian Gngi
Swiss Agency for Development and

Cooperation (SDC)
Schwarztorstrasse 59
CH-3003 Bern
Annina Gningue

Development Unit
Michael Goebel
Evi Gruber
GTZ HQ, Latin America Department,

Advisor on Gender and Poverty
Jrgen
Hagmann
Albert Hilbrink
GTZ HQ Country Desk Pakistan
Sieberstr.6
37412 Herzberg
UK - BN 1 9 RE
Brighton Sussex
World Bank
Talstr. 129
79194 Gundelfingen Wildtal
117
ZOPP marries PRA?
NAME
Uli Hoesle
Klaus
Hornberger
118
ADDRESS
GTZ HQ, Plant Production, Plant

Protection, Agricultural Research,
Farming Systems
GTZ HQ, Environmental Protection,
Conservation of Natural Resources,
Dissemination of Appropriate
Technologies (GATE)
Walter Huppert
GTZ HQ, Agro-Policies and Agricultural

Services
Kamal Kar
c/o Gautam Gosh

10 RAM Mohan Roy
Road
Calcutta 700009
INDIA
Voker Kasch
Mittelstrasse 37
53175 Bonn
Uwe Kievelitz
Evangelische Zentralstelle fr
Entwicklungshilfe
(EZE)
GTZ regional advisor Asia
Theda Kirchner
Sieberstr.6
37412 Herzberg
Hartmut Krebs
GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Corporate and

Development Policy
Thomas Kuby

Development
Petra Knkel
GTZ HQ, Organization, Communication

and Management Consultancy
Jimmy
Mascarenhas
OUTREACH
Annagela
Oppermann
GTZ HQ, Country Desk Mali
Juliane
Osterhaus
Renate Pollvogt
GTZ HQ, Country Desk Malawi/

Mozambique
c/o GTZ-PAS Nepal

Kathmandu
NEPAL
109 Coles Road

Bangalore 560 005
INDIA
Participants
NAME
Sabine Preuss
GTZ advisor to Indo-German Changar
Eco Dev. Project
ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25
Palampur -176061
(H.P.) District Kangra
INDIA
Maruja Salas
Gomaringerstr.6
72810 Gomaringen
Mallika
Samaranayake
INTERCOOPERATION
Self-help Support Programme
92/2 D-S-Semanayake
Mawatha;Colombo 8
SRI LANKA
Nikolaus Schall
Langwiesenweg 20a
62167 Neu-Anspach
Christina
Scherler
GTZ HQ, Multisectoral Urban and Rural

Development Programmes
Michael
Schnhuth
Institute for Socio-cultural Studies,

Kassel University
Steinstr. 19
37213 Witzenhausen
Bernd Schubert
Centre for Advanced Training in

Agricultural Development (CATAD)
Humboldt University
Berlin
Podbielskiallee 66
14195 Berlin
Thomas
Schwedersky
GTZ, Pilot Project Nateral Resource

Management through Self-help
Approaches
GTZ/RMSH
Wachsbleiche 1
53111 Bonn
Sam Sekyembe
Crossland Management Consultants
P. O. Box 32234
Nairobi; KENIA
Christian
Seufert
John Thompson
International Institute for Environment and

Development (IIED)
3 Endsleigh Street
UK - London WC 1 0
DD
Timmi Tillmann
Gomaringerstr.6
72810 Gomaringen
Annette von
Lossau
GTZ HQ, Forest Resources Management,

Livestock Farming, Fisheries, Nature
Conservation
119
ZOPP marries PRA?
NAME
Christel Weller
GTZ HQ, Gruppe Quality Assurance

Angebote
Sondra Wentzel
GTZ advisor to SFMP-Project
Uli Winkler
GTZ HQ, Unit 04, Corporate Organisation

and Management
Bernd Wolf
GTZ HQ Country Desk Laos, Cambodia,

Vietnam
ADDRESS
Kotak Pos 1087

Samarinda 75001
East Kalimantan
INDONESIA
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

Zopp and PRA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zopp and PRA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 04

Strategic Corporate Development

Particapatory Learning and Action A Challenge for our Services

Reiner Forster (ed.)

Participatory Learning and Action A Challenge for our Services

ZOPP marries PRA?

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

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

The organization of the "ZOPP marries

Great appreciation is expressed to the

The broad consensus that participation is

press their interests and to influence the

ZOPP marries PRA?

ing our new management policy and procedures.

Participatory approaches have gained significant acceptance in official development

ticipatory rural appraisal methods (PRA),

ZOPP marries PRA?

ways for a productive integration? Which

to elaborate recommendations for necessary changes with regard to policy

After a welcome address and an outline of the

re-oriented project management ap-

proach by Michael Goeble and Christian Seufert

These questions were raised at a seminar

These two keynote

speeches served as a common ground for debate in the group.

Some participants then

claimed a time slot and introduced topics for

to analyse experiences of the interplay

1 Cf. the list of participants in Annex 1.

tions of other groups and clarify si sues. The

This reader collects the most important

The first part of this reader is concluded by

ZOPP marries PRA?

tions to modify ZOPP and relativise it as a

several African and Asian countries, he

ZOPP, PCM and PRA: whose Reality, Needs

First let me thank GTZ for convening

I am not sure about this term of "marriage". Nowadays, it is more and

ZOPP marries PRA?

sionals - have a history of astonishing

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

Teaching and Learning

"Uppers" construct their own realities

they do not fit, misinformation is generated, and development projects and

other initiatives often fail. One way of

this professional and patriarchal myth

To illustrate this, a spectacular example is that of psychoanalysts, from

The reality which has counted in the

ZOPP marries PRA?

The Paradigms of Things and People Contrasted

Any/all who have

Historically, development has been

do, and how they behave, there seem

Let me illustrate how these themes

ZOPP marries PRA?

Reductionism to one core problem.

you keep telling me that I have a

have found it difficult to follow all the

ZOPP marries PRA?

are to be involved from the start - who

democratic empowerment. At the

Personnel. At a workshop of the

ZOPP marries PRA?