Thematic evaluation

The Core Learning Partnership and the users of the evaluation

The members of the Core Learning Partnership (CLP) included representatives of IFAD's Asia and the Pacific Division (PI) and Office of Evaluation, UNOPS Asia Office, Professor Anil Gupta (NGO SRISTI and IIMA), Mr Wietse Bruinsma, Netherlands Organisation for International Co-operation (NUFFIC), the Cambodia Agriculture Development Support Project to Seila, China Yunnan-Simao Minorities Area Agricultural Development Project, India Andhra Pradesh Participatory Tribal Development Project, India North-East Region Community Resource Management Project, Nepal Hills Leasehold Forestry & Forage Development Project, Philippines Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project, Sri Lanka Second Badulla Integrated Rural Development Project and Vietnam Ha Giang Development Project for Ethnic Minorities.

This ACP was accomplished with members of the CLP and others including: Bangladesh Agricultural Diversification & Intensification Project, Laos Ouomxay Community Initiatives Support Project, Indonesia Post Crisis Programme for Participatory Integrated Development in Rainfed Areas, Vietnam Ha Tinh Rural Development Project, the co-ordinator of the Electronic Network for Rural Asia/Pacific (ENRAP), representatives of the Asian Institute of Technology (Thailand) and the Global Knowledge Partnership Secretariat (Malaysia), Centre for Integrated Agricultural Development (China), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD, Nepal), NGO Seilanithin (Cambodia), NGO Chaitanya (India), Janaseva Foundation (India), NGO DEPROSC (Nepal), CONCORED (Consortium of NGOs, Philippines), Sri Lanka Women's Conference, the representative from the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation (Bangkok), and representatives from the Governments of Cambodia, China, India, Laos, Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, as well as several IFAD consultants (Messrs Roberto Carpano, Sarath Mananwatte, Gian Marco Luberti, Roger Norman, J.P.L. Srivastava, and B.N. Yugandhar).

The ACP contains the main evaluation findings, insights and recommendations. It builds on the outputs of the thematic evaluation and includes the key recommendations generated during the regional workshop on the topic organised by IFAD in Bangkok in the week of 21 July 2003.
 

The main evaluation findings

The documentation reviewed during the thematic evaluation provides useful insights into the issues as well as efforts involved by IFAD in the promotion and development of local knowledge systems and innovations. Neglecting local technologies, local skills and natural resources has perpetuated dependence and distorted the social fabric among the very people whose progress is the major objective. In whichever manner we analyze and study the accumulated experience, it is obvious that each community has to develop its own local competence to find alternate routes, to collect information, screen, select, acquire, adapt and utilize given technologies, to generate and transfer relevant technologies and to link science and technology base with education, extension and production systems. The need of the poor is not "relief", but "release" of their inherent potential for individual growth, economic productivity and social and political responsibility.

Similarly, the eight case studies undertaken in the context of the thematic evaluation have provided important findings and recommendations. Even as they acknowledge the contribution of local knowledge and the primacy to be accorded to it, the existing situation bristles with several issues and problems. Important issues relevant to a proper framework for the promotion and development of local knowledge and innovations arise out of these case studies. They are:

• Absence of an explicit, formal and comprehensive process of capturing and disseminating local knowledge and innovation. This may be due to inadequate recognition by the official hierarchy of the contribution that the beneficiaries' knowledge and capacity for innovation can make to the success of the project. This was accompanied by failure to incorporate local knowledge into the administrative, technical and organizational structures of the projects;
• Design of projects and programmes tends to be dominated by considerations of financing institutions, government strategy and modus operandi of the delivery system. The beneficiary perspective was usually secondary to this priority. Those who control the finance have also tended to control knowledge in the development process;
• In most operations, both management and beneficiaries find themselves struggling to bridge the gap between a priori commitments to project targets and local knowledge systems. This is happening, inter-alia, due to lack of flexibility in the implementation phase. That is, in the context of local knowledge system, there was tension between the approved blue print and the field conditions;
• There was greater focus on physical and financial progress in the monitoring and evaluation systems and marginalization of the local knowledge in all aspects of the project cycle;
• There was a nominal commitment to participation. Even when appropriate policy and legal environments exist, results are restricted due to lack of institutionalization of participatory approaches. This has led to perpetual dependency and exclusion of local knowledge and innovations in subtle ways;
• Participation should extend to the processes for formulating and governing policies, as well as the management of the projects and programmes. In most interventions, such participatory platforms were neither established or where they existed, they performed subordinate ritualistic functions. Implementing agencies/partners were often more preoccupied with their own perspectives and procedures;
• Local knowledge and innovations was considered or promoted only for those problems for which normally no solution existed in exogenous knowledge. In other words, efforts to build upon the local knowledge in all aspects were not made and flexibility to adopt indigenous options even in situations where exogenous options existed was not provided; and
• It was not enough to focus upon beneficiaries' knowledge in the technical domain only. Such technical knowledge and innovations were not usually elicited and incorporated into project design and implementation. The exclusion of beneficiaries from the managerial and procedural domains associated with the project design and implementation was more evident and remedial action for the future should focus upon this.

In the Country Strategic Opportunities Papers (COSOPs) reviewed, the role of the community and their involvement in the identification of the sub-projects is stressed (Bangladesh COSOP). Similarly, the scope for mobilizing local knowledge networks using indigenous knowledge as the starting point for blending local and new technologies is referred to (China, Nepal). There is also an emphasis upon local initiatives and local institutions as well as upon partnership building with local communities, especially with the poor and the marginalized. The need to tap the traditional knowledge of the upland dwellers, to sift through their specific practices, identify opportunities and communicate this knowledge to other upland groups are mentioned (Philippines). A demand driven approach to recognize tribal farmers' local knowledge in soil and water conservation measures is given priority (India). Enabling the poor to access knowledge and technology to generate income on a sustainable basis is highlighted (Vietnam).

However in all this, institutional mechanisms relevant to the promotion and development of local knowledge and innovations are not spelt out in adequate detail. Though recognized as a strategy, necessary project components and implementation tools are not suggested. The strategies do not talk sufficiently about the knowledge and technology already available with the poor. COSOPs, in general are silent upon structured initiatives, operational mechanisms or investments required for using local knowledge and improving upon it. The scope provided for the local knowledge systems in participatory development programs is at the most incidental and in some cases anecdotal. The key issues relate to the methodologies and processes to enable the communities creatively scout for solutions to their problems, test new options and build upon their accumulated knowledge. These issues need to be addressed at the level of project design as well as during the process of facilitation. Pre-determination of a package of technological practices implies a lack of recognition of the complexity and diversity of the social and economic situation of the poor. Ability to generate a range of technical options from out of which they may choose and adapt is an index of participation. The strategy for local knowledge should basically weave in modern methods into the local-level technology tapestry.

Evaluation insights

 

One important insight emerging from the thematic evaluation is that, in our efforts to alleviate rural poverty the disadvantaged communities shall be empowered to overcome social, technical, cultural and psychological barriers through self-managed organisations. In such a way, they will be able to attain higher productivity with improved skills and asset base and utilise resources at their command to full potential and gain full access to services. Participation of concerned communities and respect to their knowledge systems and abilities are among the core principles governing these efforts. Promotion and development of local knowledge and innovations is undoubtedly a prime mover in the complex mechanics whereby science and technology gets transmitted into the communities of the poor.

Creation of technological capability among the poorest is very much like climbing a tall ladder, each step a base for greater heights. Experience reveals the importance of a long range vision and of a gestation period for the seeds to germinate. As in the case of institution building and capabilities development, the participative approach for the development of local knowledge and innovations demands a certain degree of commitment and consensus which could greatly aid subsequent implementation steps. Increased understanding would also promote a flexible approach, which is a vital element in managing local knowledge and people centred science and technology approaches. A cursory analysis of the achievements in integrating the science and technology structures with local knowledge and innovations reveals that these were not the result of big research laboratories or leading scientists responding to ‘technology pushes' or ‘market pulls'. They were achieved through an accumulation of innumerable and ceaseless small improvements in the production processes and quality brought about by the beneficiaries of development projects.

If local knowledge is disappearing, it is primarily because pressures of modernization and cultural homogenization that threaten the life-styles, practices, and the cultures of the small agricultural producers, the poor and the indigenous people. Their knowledge certainly cannot be saved in an archive, if they themselves disappear. What is important is to make the science and technology programme more acceptable to the people whose knowledge we wish to highlight and appropriate for the common good. Recognition of the multiplicity of logics and practices that underlie the creation and maintenance of different knowledge systems is essential for this endeavour. Useful knowledge is unavoidably anchored in institutional origins and cultural moorings. In situ conservation cannot succeed without populations living at the grassroots level gaining control over the use of lands in which they dwell and the resources on which they rely. Those who are seen to possess knowledge must also possess the right to decide on how to save their knowledge, how to use it, and who shall use it.

Decentralized and people centred implementation of development projects have become sine-quo-non of success. Social mobilization and group building have become important building blocks for promotion of participation and sustainability. There is abundant field experience in IFAD projects to suggest that a ladder of participatory groups of primary stakeholders leads to better accountability, transparency and success. This ladder of community-based organizations basically comprises of different types of groups at the grass-root level (e.g., self-help groups, user groups and commodity groups) and community-based organizations at the management level (e.g., federation of groups at the village level and also at cluster/intermediate level and finally an apex body representing all these community-based organisations at the project/district level). A social platform comprising of all these groups at different levels is an essential element for enhancing participatory approaches as well as for the promotion of local knowledge and innovations at the grassroots level. The sustainability of these groups and management bodies is stressed for genuine empowerment of the community. Such social capital reinforces the efforts towards building physical and financial capital. It is also considered as an important pre-requisite for providing due recognition and stimulus for efforts to promote science and technology and local technical know-how in development projects. On-going experience has clearly shown that any management structure, which has emerged out of heterogeneous communities, is far less sustainable and effective than the structures built upon the organic evolution of community based organizations built upon self-help groups and their apex organizations functioning as management bodies.

The socio-economic situations under which the families of the poor earn their livelihoods are heterogeneous and dynamic. The relevant infrastructure, their access to resources, their level of education, their participation in work and the size of their families are all undergoing a continuous process of change. Similarly, the rapid and explosive scientific and technological advancements impinge upon the generation of new technologies not only through exogenous research process, but also through indigenous research process. Therefore, it is appropriate to focus upon the families who could generate need based technologies through participatory adaptive research. The platforms for these researches should be the specific situations under which the poor families live and operate. Likewise, the participating families should be viewed as co-research workers rather than mere beneficiaries. It has often been commented that the poor should have countervailing power to match the power of providers in the formal knowledge system. It means that they should be able influence the content of what they need and what is provided and also determine how the knowledge provided will be used. Locating, acknowledging, using and promoting knowledge of the poor is an essential process in their empowerment.

The thematic evaluation highlighted that intellectual property rights forges several challenges to the domain of local knowledge and innovations. The eight case studies undertaken in the evaluation revealed that people and communities in the concerned projects and in developing countries at large are anxious that inappropriate patenting of biological materials or local knowledge should not take place. In the light of this, the World Trade Organisation is in the process of examining proposals suggesting that an applicant for a patent relating to biological materials or to local knowledge should provide, as a precondition to acquiring patent rights:

 

 

1. disclosure of the source and country of origin of the biological resources and of the traditional knowledge used in the invention.
2. evidence of prior informed consent through approval of authorities under the relevant national regime; and
3. evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing under the relevant national regime

Against this backdrop, IFAD and its partners need to contribute to the protection of intellectual property rights involving a four pronged approach; (a) there should be appropriate monitoring systems against outsiders especially commercial interests from trying to patent the local knowledge and grassroots innovations; (b) in the event of an outside interest trying to exploit local knowledge and innovation commercially, there is need to institute a policy framework that mandates the outside interest to share the benefit with the concerned local community; (c) in its future operations, PI should assist local communities in exploring the feasibility and desirability of patenting its knowledge and deriving full benefits, and (d) a review of the existing legal provisions would be useful to provide for better protection for biological and genetic resources and indigenous knowledge, particularly the provisions contained in the legislations relating to patents, protection of plan to varieties and farmers rights and bio-diversity conservation.

Preparing an inventory of local knowledge and innovations and periodic updating of such an inventory can contribute positively to the enabling environment for local knowledge and innovations. Such an inventory, besides making it difficult for outsiders to derive commercial benefits out of local knowledge and innovations without prior informed consent of the local community, will facilitate proper monitoring of action by the local community in respect of each and every item of local knowledge and innovation.

Recommendations agreed upon by partners

 

 

Need for explicit policy and strategy statement. The Asia and the Pacific Division (PI) of IFAD has acquired some experience in revitalizing local knowledge systems and blending them with modern technology in a broad range of areas, such as soil and water conservation, crop and livestock husbandry, participatory research, agriculture technology and even traditional medical practices. These activities boost the productivity and enhance the resilience of the concerned local communities. More importantly, the simple fact that their own knowledge systems were the starting point enhances their self-esteem. Blending local and modern technologies enhances the ecological sustainability of the results, leading to production increases, better-quality products and new products. However, the primacy of local knowledge and innovations in development cannot be fully realised, unless all the multiple stake-holders forge a strategic alliance upon raising sensitivity, awareness and emphasis about its benefits. The subject of local knowledge and innovation requires transcending the restricted debate among enthusiasts and specialists and becoming a part of the public agenda and an enriched debate at all levels. An explicit commitment and agreement in suitable policy statements regarding the promotion of local knowledge and innovations and strategies for weaving in modern methods into local technology is very important. Therefore, in spite of the efforts made so far in identifying, promoting and utilising local knowledge and innovations, there is need for PI to articulate in its regional as well as country strategies a clear commitment to the topic under consideration. In addition, it will only be possible to translate such commitment into through adequate allocation of resources at the regional, country and local level.

Embedding local knowledge and innovation in project formulation, appraisal mechanism and implementation aspects. The project designs are mostly silent on the ‘knowledge component' – be it technologies, solutions or institutional mechanisms. They implicitly assume that they are ‘there' or ‘given' or ‘known.' Often, this has led to externally framed institutional structures and expert driven technological choices or solutions that are currently fashionable in the development scenario. Recognizing the primacy of local knowledge systems in the project design is the first step towards its promotion. This calls for clearly spelling out the process of knowledge generation and use in the project design. In this context, a shift from "problem solving" mode to "augmenting solutions" has been suggested . This shift would also imply that there are already existing solutions, which can be augmented. In this regard, a key element in the project design is to build in a ‘knowledge generation phase' into the project cycle. This phase helps in mobilizing the community around augmenting the solutions to the problems that the project is addressing. Such a process of embedding the project interventions into the local knowledge system would increase the ownership/involvement of the community.

The concerns relating to the use and promotion of local knowledge require also to be translated into an essential facilitation processes in the project design, which should be reviewed and monitored regularly. In larger projects, developing appropriate facilitation processes and their systematization is important. Further, sensitizing the project facilitators and managers on the relevance of the local knowledge systems and building their capabilities is the basic foundation upon which the participatory processes for generation of new knowledge is built upon. Similarly, experimentation and validation through experience are key to adoption and development of local knowledge systems. The external ideas/solutions should also necessarily go through such a process of validation. Processes relating to documentation and communication strategies which help in sharing of knowledge and innovations in between communities are important elements in this facilitation process.

Actual utilization/practice of a solution is the ultimate test of validation for local knowledge. An appropriate timeframe is therefore critical for such a validation process to take place before the communities can act upon them. Widening the timeframe for a knowledge generation phase is important, just as a flexible and appropriate timeframe is an essential pre-requisite for any empowerment process. Back- up support of formal science and technology establishments is an essential element in the project design. This support has two important roles to play namely, (i) reflecting upon the local solutions and adding value to them and (ii) promoting scientific tools and attitudes. Providing space for local innovators within the institutional structures is important so that the prescriptive tendencies do not undermine the local knowledge sources. The following elements are some suggested for inclusion in project design and implementation for promotion and development of local knowledge and innovation.

• Provision for an intensive knowledge generation phase
• Provision of resources for experimentation by communities/innovators and generation of experience
• Back-up of formal science establishments
• Reward systems for successful innovators and facilitators
• Venture capital as an instrument in promoting local innovations, particularly for those solutions that have enterprise potential
• Capacity building of the project managers and facilitators
• Inputs to communities and specific innovators in terms of interaction with formal science establishments and exposure visits to other ‘successful' communities

Social platform and participatory management for promotion of local knowledge and innovations. A wide array of experiences in participation at different stages of project cycle can be found in the eight evaluation case studies undertaken. Several of these projects have demonstrated innovative features and a range of possibilities that can be replicated elsewhere. However, participatory management is one dimension that needs to be much better addressed in all projects. In fact, there is need to develop a comprehensive framework on participation, where participation is considered a partnership among key stakeholders and include, among other aspects, the provision of adequate time and budget to build participation, and capacity building to promote and monitor peoples participation. Notwithstanding the efforts to integrate participation at various levels of the project cycle, participation is still viewed in terms of particulars activities, or one-time event, such as a mechanical Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercise during project design or a simple incorporation of group formation activities. If it is to be meaningful, participation should be viewed and practiced as a continuous process built into all stages of the project cycle.

The following are some of issues that have emerged from the eight case studies, discussions during the Bangkok workshop in July 2003 and review of other documentation for strengthening the institutional structures at the community level for participation not merely on technical matters but in managerial aspects also:

 

• Existing informal/formal organizations to be taken into account before new organizations are promoted;
• SHGs should be used as basic social foundation to organize other groups, such as user groups, functional groups, livelihood groups, etc. They also form the basis for constituting management bodies, such as Village Organizations and Project level committees;
• CBOs to be involved in the management and ownership;
• Forum for scouting, learning, sharing required at the appropriate levels across different partners; and
• Empowerment of the poorest of the poor, such as agricultural workers, rural persons with disability, women headed families, etc. into separate SHGs, and federating them at the village level with Village Organizations.

Flow of funds and decision-making. The flow of funds and authority to sanction development works play an important role in the promotion of local knowledge and innovations. Smooth flow of funds and devising of financial mechanisms for expenditure control to the levels at which it is best incurred are vital for success of development projects. It is usually found that those who control finance also seek to control the decision-making in the development process. Thus, the flow of funds tends to be circumscribed by considerations of financing institutions, governmental procedures and the procedures of the delivery systems. The beneficiary perspective and involvement is usually lost in these arrangements. Therefore, the evaluation recommends that innovative solutions be found by the Fund to transfer due resources directly to local communities, which would allow them to control the finances and consequently have a greater say in the choice of technologies and development approaches promoted by the projects. This, of course, will need to be accompanied by adequate training of the communities in the management of funds, monitoring and reporting of disbursements on the one hand, and capacity building in dealing with and supervising the work of contractors, project authorities, public institutions, NGOs and other service providers on the other.

Use of contributory approach and mechanisms for corpus and revolving funds. In the arrangements for the flow of funds three types of mechanisms have been found useful in providing the beneficiary perspective and involvement. These are:

• As mentioned above, project funds should be directly released to community-based organizations for implementing the development works over which they have a managerial role. Only then their active participation in the program and empowerment truly becomes possible. This should become a formal requirement in project and programme design. The funds should be released and placed at the disposal of the community-based organizations at different levels for their approved action plans. The project implementing agency should incur expenditure only for the management component in overall budget to organize self-help groups and community-based organisations, build their capacity and facilitate preparation of their action plans. The bulk of the program and developmental funds should be released to community for implementation of the approved action plans prepared at implementation levels.
• For meeting the cost of non-recurring items in the project, a contributory approach adopted to build a corpus of funds has been found to be very suitable. This contributory approach secures a better degree of ownership of development efforts by the community and avoids the infirmities associated with top down subsidy-based and patronage-based distribution of funds. It helps in building a corpus fund for the community for future activities and to sustain benefits from these activities. This approach, however, is feasible only if grass-root level organisations and management bodies are established and facilitated efficiently.
• The provision of a revolving fund mechanism would be very useful to sustain the basic building blocks of participation, such as the self-help groups. Mature self-help groups have dynamically involved themselves in project activities and also in efforts for enhancement of their livelihoods whenever support has been provided to them through use of revolving fund.

Process-oriented implementation with focus upon building peoples' institutions and human resource development. Process-oriented implementation is required for sustainability of development, which also would foster the emergence of local knowledge and innovations. In this regard, the following are selected aspects that need to be addressed with priority in future projects and programmes:

• Building peoples' institutions to manage projects. The projects should become self-managed peoples' movement in which government participates, but not a government program executed for their benefit.
• Primary focus should be on human resource development through capacity building amongst institutions established for the purpose and amongst all agencies implementing the program.
• Operational flexibility in running the projects keeping in view that the normal departmental rules and norms militate again this flexibility. While strategy can be top down, tactics for implementation have to be bottom-up.
• Demystification of technology with participatory local technological development and avoidance of high cost sophisticated technologies.
• The projects with their platforms for participatory development should be used for convergence by all line and technical departments as well as other service providers.

Therefore, the success of IFAD-supported projects in Asia depends upon the recognition that local knowledge and innovations should be given explicit focus in project design and implementation. It should be seen as an empowerment strategy rather than a chance event that we may find something and build on it. This implies the realization that knowledge and ability to innovate are there within all the communities and an understanding that the problem is more in the capabilities to facilitate rather then the existence of such knowledge. The realm of effort therefore, needs to be shifted from scouting and identifying to facilitating. The number of independent stakeholders in these projects is several and spread over at different levels. There are several main actors in processes governing the promotion and development of local knowledge. Decision makers should have faith in and committed to the cause and use of local knowledge and solutions.

 

The scientific establishment should recognise their social responsibility and make researches relevant to the needs of the communities. Development Administrators should develop expertise in managing a multi-disciplinary creative endeavour instead of administering rigid rules and guidelines. An intensive capacity building phase for project designers, managers and facilitators is required. Building support mechanisms for validation and up-gradation of local knowledge and arranging effective inputs from formal science and technology establishment need to become integral elements of the processes. Similarly, building the capacities of self-help groups and community-based organisations is critical. One-shot training programs devoid of process oriented approach will not serve much useful purpose. The capacity building phase thus needs to be separated and front-ended to the main implementing phase. This would ensure that only such project implementing authorities and self-help groups and community-based organisations who have qualified in the capacity building phase would carryout the main implementation phase.

Operational flexibilities for technology options and modifications. In natural resource management and micro-watershed development projects, for example, a series of steps have proved useful in the processes for promotion and development of local knowledge. These are:

• Documentation of technological options including local as well as exogenous solutions
• Orientation of the community about unknown options through exposure visits to successful examples
• Selection of technological options and their location
• Preparation and scrutiny of the selected proposal in a participatory manner based upon agreed parameters
• Preparation of design and estimate of proposed structures/measures after scrutiny
• Technical sanction of design and estimate of agreed proposal
• Consolidation of proposals into an annual action plan
• Facilitation of social approval of the consolidated annual action plan
• Administrative and financial approval of action plan

These steps preclude that adequate flexibilities are built into this approach such as:
(a) freedom to propose and adapt any other local knowledge which was not included in the list of technological options; (b) flexibility to modify the choice of technological option even during implementation phase as long as the cost estimate is within the original amount or the community is able to absorb any extra cost; and (c) flexibility in adoption of wide range of technological options rather than a limited number of standardized solutions, even if they are based on local knowledge.

 

Participatory monitoring and evaluation and arrangements for process monitoring. It can been argued that the past practices of monitoring and evaluation adapted a scientific, technical and more managerial approach in order to obtain data for evaluation purposes. The first three evaluation traditions have been characterised as measurement oriented, description oriented and judgement oriented. Fourth generation evaluation is characterised by negotiation between various stakeholders, participation in every stage of the evaluation process and a focus on action and learning. The arguments generally advanced in favour of participatory evaluation are:

• Enhanced participation, especially of beneficiaries, in monitoring and evaluation helps improve understanding of the development process itself.
• Increased authenticity of monitoring and evaluation findings that are locally relevant.
• Improvement of the sustainability of project activities by identifying strengths and weaknesses for better project management and decision-making.
• Increasing local-level capacity in monitoring and evaluation: this in turn contributes to self-reliance in overall project implementation.
• Sharing of experience through systematic documentation and analysis based on broad-based participation.
• Strengthened accountability to funding agencies.
• More efficient allocation of resources.

The process-oriented nature of development projects is currently not adequately reflected in monitoring and evaluation systems of most projects and programmes in PI region. There is largely an absence of process indicators in M&E. Even if it is not considered feasible to redesign the entire system of monitoring and evaluation of ongoing projects, it may useful to introduce process indicators into the monitoring systems and evaluation procedures. The practise of half yearly or annual process monitoring over and over the regular monitoring system has demonstrated its utility in ensuring that the processes are adhered to thereby improving the quality of implementation.

---

1/ Gupta, Anil, Knowledge Centre/Network: Building upon what people know, Paper presented at the International Conference on Hunger and Poverty, Brussels, November 1995

2/ Also referred to as cost-sharing, where the rural people provide contribution in finances or in kind, for the execution of development activities