Interim Evaluation
Executive Summary

The target group for PATAP is: (i) project staff engaged in IFAD projects; (ii) farmers representing the beneficiaries in these projects; (iii) the sectoral ministry staff; and (iv) the national training institutions (NTIs).

PATAP's goals are to:

improve the ability of project managers and their staff to develop and implement projects for the rural poor;

develop and deliver training modules to improve beneficiary participation in the design and implementation of projects and to meet other project-specific needs;

make information on training courses in the region, relevant to poverty alleviation activities, readily available to potential trainees, facilitate their participation in such courses and improve the use of existing loan funds set aside for training; and

increase the ability and commitment of local institutions to develop and deliver training needed by those working to reduce poverty.

PATAP set out to create a model for a training programme to improve project performance. This model should be replicated in other countries in the region. PATAP would fund four components: (i) project management training; (ii) beneficiary participation training and other project training needs; (iii) the Training Information Clearinghouse (TIC) and Special Fund; and (iv)  strengthening of training institutions.

The training process: the design of PATAP defined training as being made up of four consecutive activities: (i) curriculum development and training of trainers; (ii) training of project managers (National Project Management Workshops); (iii) on-site training of project staff and beneficiary groups; and (iv) experience exchange.

Training Information Clearinghouse: a TIC would be created. It would: (i) prepare information on training courses in the region relevant to poverty alleviation activities for the use of project managers and other staff; (ii) articulate the supply and demand for training in the region; and (iii) develop a computerised database of pertinent information for project managers. The database could contain information on: course content, costs, schedules, entrance requirements, course evaluations, etc.

Strengthening training institutions: this component would comprise six activities:

training of trainers;

awarding contracts for the preparation and delivery of new PATAP modules;

linking projects to those institutions that can supply specific training activities according to needs;

providing equipment to improve facilities;

exposing local institutions to new teaching material and methods; and

facilitating networking among training institutions and between the institutions and their clients.

Organisation and Management

Afro-Asian Rural Reconstruction Organisation (AARRO): PATAP would be implemented region-wide with individual country programmes. AARRO was preselected by IFAD management for implementing these programmes for which its Secretary General would be responsible. The Programme Co-ordination Office would be headed by a Programme Co-ordinator (PC) based at AARRO headquarters in New Delhi. The PC would be responsible for the overall implementation of the Programme and administration of the funds. He would have direct responsibility for the activities to be undertaken on a regional/sub-regional level.

National Co-ordinators and Co-ordinating Institutions: National Programme Co-ordinators, under the supervision of the Programme Co-ordinator, would take full responsibility for the implementation of PATAP activities within their own countries. They would develop programmes suited to local conditions and resources, making maximum use of local expertise and trainers. In collaboration with their institution and the PATAP Programme Co-ordination Office, they would identify, select and liaise with other institutions and organisations in the country to constitute a national network of PATAP-associated institutions.

Supervision and Monitoring: Overall supervision, policy direction and periodic review of the Programme would be carried out by a Steering Committee, chaired by the AARRO Secretary General and made up of representatives from the Fund, AARRO, participating governments, donors and other representatives as the Committee deems appropriate.

The resources of the Fund are insufficient to evaluate but a few of the TAGs that are funded. Four factors were considered in mounting this evaluation: (i) a vehicle such as PATAP represents a potentially important tool with which to improve the design and implementation of IFAD projects; (ii) PATAP, at the outset, was seen as a pilot effort that needed a careful review or evaluation, before proceeding to an eventual second phase and expanded coverage; (iii) signals had been received from member countries that the execution of this TAG was not in line with expectations; and (iv) IFAD (OE) after the design of this TAG had undertaken an interim evaluation of the Agricultural Management Training Programme for Africa (AMTA) TAG which focused on sub-Saharan Africa: lessons learned from this experience could be drawn upon.

The principal objective of PATAP is to enhance across IFAD projects the ability of "...managers and staff to develop and implement projects for the rural poor" (see below). To operationalise this objective, this evaluation defined critical normative concepts at the outset. First, the poverty alleviation objective of the Fund is congruent with the so-called "farmer-first strategy". This orientation was clearly spelled out in the preparatory design consultation workshop. "Farmers", as a concept to the mission, means men and women of resource-poor households engaged in production in rural areas. Second, precise knowledge about the location-specific constraints and preferences of farmers in representative locations across the project area needs to drive the design and implementation. This is the starting point of this IE. Design and implementation cannot merely be driven by national government policies and directives, and emphasis on generic management skills.

Two quotes make the powerful connection between local knowledge and an improved resource allocation transparent:

"......if decision-making is still physically distant from the people, not informed by direct acquaintance with local conditions, not adapted to differences in local circumstances, not flexible in application, not taking full advantage of resources and opportunities, it is less beneficial ....."

and

"There could be authority and budget to work with but not the knowledge and expertise to use these effectively".

Limited knowledge about the variations across project areas in constraints and solutions lead to incorrect perceptions of consultants to the governments and IFAD, who are hired to design programmes and projects. The same applies for staff engaged in project implementation, who do not seek and obtain access to knowledge about the conditions and the environment of the rural poor. This means that priorities of resource-poor farmers, let alone their own training needs, cannot necessarily be perceived and expressed by project staff.

Relevant and cost-effective project and programme design and delivery is feasible only when the constraints and priorities of the target groups are known, synthesised, and reflected into measurable objectives for poverty alleviation, the progress of which can be monitored and measured. The same applies for training.

This means that a mere focus on general management skills for project implementation easily becomes of marginal value. Moreover, to focus simply on off-the-shelf technology - or established generic curriculum already developed - for training of project staff to address poverty alleviation issues, is also of limited relevance. Instead, skills in survey methods, in the design and execution of PRAs and RRAs, together with communication skills, become of paramount importance. This dimension was well understood in the design workshop.

The IE, with this farmer-first perspective set out to:

make an assessment of the actual capabilities of the national co-ordinating institution to: (i) assess the capability and performance of two to three IFAD projects to gradually attain project objectives in poverty alleviation; (ii) define the subset of constraints that can be actually resolved by training (TNA); and (iii) translate this subset through processes that ensure participation by farmer representatives, and other stakeholders, into developing and testing precise curriculum and course modules;

assess the coverage, content, relevance and multiplier effects of the training actually delivered under PATAP, compared to that delivered to the projects under their own and/or different institutional or funding arrangements; and

assess the institutional capability to manage the diffusion process, and hence ensure the multiplier effects of the developed modules. The diffusion process entails the following activities: (i) the use of Training of Trainers (TOT) approach for disseminating faster curriculum and modules; (ii) defining the role and responsibilities of a training co-ordinator or manager within each project; (iii) defining a training plan for the project and its associated institutions; and (iv) ensuring that sufficient funding is available.

Capacity for self evaluation: the point of departure is the standard methodology for evaluations with focus on capabilities of managers for their own evaluation, and adjustments to initial planned resource allocations.

Criteria for selecting the regional institution to manage the implementation of PATAP had not been articulated and presented in advance. IFAD management selected AARRO to be in charge even though participants at the Islamabad design workshop had expressed their reservations vis-à-vis this institution.

This institution did not have the capability to direct PATAP activities to follow a proper development sequence. The management training modules used elsewhere (AMTA), which served as models, were not adapted to an Asian context. Little emphasis was given to ensuring that project staff understood the importance of dialoguing with the target group. Little training was delivered in relevant participatory diagnostic techniques; and in grasping the crucial importance of the gender dimension.

The PATAP set of activities started up with little comprehension among those in charge within AARRO of the need of rigour in developing and testing training content and teaching/learning processes. The design workshop in Islamabad had called for far more attention to communication, feedback and learning from the target groups about their priorities for "the direction to take in project development".

Achievements have fallen fall short of expectations.

Awareness and Orientation: The set of activities began with the Programme Orientation Workshop, convened by AARRO in June 1994, primarily for the training co-ordinators. Delegates from India, Bangladesh, IFAD and AARRO attended the workshop. The awareness activity was of limited scope. The workshop was not used to explain the nature and the importance of the stepwise process of TNA, curriculum development and testing, TOT and evaluation.

TNAs: little attention was given to developing knowledge and skills in conducting TNAs, the critical step preceding curriculum development. Skills were limited at the outset in carrying out such need assessments, and remained so. Conversely, TNAs across PATAP countries and projects have been carried out in an ad-hoc manner.

Curriculum development: very limited attention was given to curriculum development, again reflecting the limited emphasis placed on this activity in the final design document. A workshop on TNAs was not included in the design, and was not conducted following the programme orientation workshop. A curriculum development workshop in Hyderabad took place. Only two out of seven days were spent on module development. The time was too brief to present and explain the critical curriculum development process.

TOT: activities in TOT were limited under PATAP. Under PATAP, to begin with, the national trainers would be trained in the delivery of project management modules; trainers recruited locally would then train project staff in delivering beneficiary participation modules. Yet, the limited recognition of the need of curriculum development in practice meant that the subsequent extension activity, the TOT was given a development role it could not master.

Training Delivery

Project management training: few project management training events followed by on-site training activities were organised although defined at time of final design. Project management modules were not produced in India and Nepal: the national level workshops of project managers and senior project staff did not take place. Moreover, on-site training at each project was not undertaken.

Beneficiary participation training: training of project staff in beneficiary participation techniques was conducted in several countries. The training institutions in Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka should be praised for having conducted such training. In Nepal, APROSC conducted one training event on beneficiary participation and PRA techniques for project officers involved in programme management at the district level. Moreover, in Nepal, a TOT training was organised on collaborative project implementation for 15 participants from the PCRW and HLFFD project officers in September 1995.

Other training: the National Training Co-ordinators organised a number of courses not defined at the time of PATAP design. In Pakistan, the NCRD organised two training courses on micro-entrepreneurship for women functionaries of IFAD projects; 34 women took part for a total of 13 days. Praiseworthy is that these courses used the TOT approach. Moreover, two courses on the role of extension workers for poverty alleviation were delivered to 40 extension workers engaged in IFAD projects.

In Sri Lanka courses were delivered on: (i) management and accounting for local level organisations, a four-day training course for 39 participants; (ii) social mobilisation for NGOs mobilises at local level, a two-day training course for 22 participants; and (iii) on rural credit management for three days with 15 participants. In Nepal, Agricultural Projects Services Centre (APROSC) developed modules for project staff but not for project managers.

In India, PATAP funded four National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) training programmes. They comprised: (i) orientation to poverty alleviation; (ii) watershed management; (iii) gender in tribal development; and (iv) monitoring and evaluation. This selection by the NIRD seems more than a coincidence. By selecting these courses, inter alia gender and diagnostic techniques, or M&E, the NIRD reverted to the priorities reflected by the programme design workshop in Islamabad.

Six issues have impaired the execution of PATAP. Execution has not been in line with expectations because: (i) programme administration and direction, at the level of AARRO, the institution selected was not appropriate; (ii) the design was not appropriate since the processes for the generation and delivery of relevant training content put too much weight on the assumption that "on-the-shelf" management modules were available for diffusion, with little or no testing and adaptation; (iii) capacity building of national training institutions was given little weight under PATAP; (iv) PATAP largely duplicated the efforts of the IFAD projects by implementing the type of training programmes already being funded; (v) the impact of project-specific training was much reduced, because of civil service regulations and incentives, facilitating rapid staff deployment and high turnover rates of trained staff; and (vi) IFAD's mechanisms for supervision and monitoring of the TAG were not sufficient to address issues that impair execution.

The search for institutions and agents that can ensure the delivery of relevant training is becoming more intensive. Future programmes and efforts in this area need to analyse in depth the issues that reduce the effectiveness of efforts to train staff who are involved in poverty alleviation projects. The prescriptive or "top-down" approach in technology diffusion is being discarded also for the type of training, which is based largely on a transfer of "on-the-shelf" management modules; typically in the latter there has been little or no regard for local organisational culture, and farmers' complex reality. The experience under AMTA is a case in point.

Significantly, the 1992 IFAD Interim Evaluation of AMTA found that a better content would have improved the impact of AMTA's training programme. The impact of training could have been greater if the curriculum and case studies had been more directed towards sector and project-specific issues in each country. Moreover, efforts should have been directed to have obtained a critical mass of trainees and decision-makers.

The impact of training, and its time frame, are much probed. Our considered judgement is that a well-structured programme focused on creating the capabilities with which first to generate and second to disseminate relevant curriculum and case studies raises the probability of impact and shortens the time period within which it occurs.

The challenge for IFAD and other donors is to create the capabilities in programmes involved with poverty alleviation, with which to generate: first, a synthesis of sector and project specific issues in each country; second, knowledge of diagnostic methods, analysis and synthesis to address concrete issues; third, skills and knowledge from actual in-country cases how to search for, and obtain agreement among concerned parties to generate feasible solutions; and finally, actual impact at the level of communities and rural households.

The relevancy of training improves the more when trainers: (i) have experience with sector and project specific issues, and are not just trainers in the application of general management skills; and (ii) can draw upon actual case studies from each country that are based on feedback from beneficiaries of representative projects.

The content and relevancy of training improves when those responsible for writing and drawing-up case studies: (i) have experience with project management in the agricultural sector; (ii) have experience in building up rural peoples' organisations; (iii) have skills in disciplines that seek to "integrate" knowledge (e.g., in farming systems analysis, economics and rural sociology); (iv) have learnt to elicit farmers' own agenda for progression in intensification and diversification of enterprises through such analysis; and (v) draw upon feedback from the beneficiaries in representative projects through monitoring, actual diagnostic surveys and PRAs.

Far more attention to the need of creating relevant location-specific course modules will raise the probability of an accelerated impact of training. The probability of impact of training is increased once training modules in sufficient numbers are developed that: (i) are relevant to each participating country, applicable to needs and operational responsibilities of selected course beneficiaries; and (ii) become part of a teaching/learning process that focuses on problem solving, conflict resolution and consensus building, with which to resolve concrete issues that impede programmes and projects in achieving expected impact at the level of rural households. But the development of such modules requires specific engineering of activities, programming, budgeting and monitoring.

A consensus is appearing. This PATAP IE, similar to that in 1992 of AMTA, reinforces the need of well established capabilities, skills and rigour in the design of critical processes, for the expected impact of training to occur. A consensus is emerging across several evaluations of aid effectiveness and training. "There can be no successful development without an efficient institution to push it through; and behind every efficient institution we almost invariably find - at least in its early stages - an individual who is both an entrepreneur and an innovator". In the current case, AARRO, the institution selected for implementing PATAP, did not meet this requirement.

Next Steps: first, a workshop should take place in Southeast Asia to discuss the findings of this evaluation and its lessons learned. Second, IFAD needs to have continuous access to, or recruit, an in-house person who can review and evaluate critical processes for upgrading capabilities of national training institutions and of project and NGO staff involved in poverty alleviation programmes.

Six issues have impaired the execution of PATAP. Execution has not been in line with expectations because: (i) programme administration and direction, at the level of AARRO, the institution selected was not appropriate; (ii) the design was not appropriate since the processes for the generation and delivery of relevant training content put too much weight on the assumption that "on-the-shelf" management modules were available for diffusion, with little or no testing and adaptation; (iii) capacity building of national training institutions was given little weight under PATAP; (iv) PATAP largely duplicated the efforts of the IFAD projects by implementing the type of training programmes already being funded; (v) the impact of project-specific training was much reduced, because of civil service regulations and incentives, facilitating rapid staff deployment and high turnover rates of trained staff; and (vi) IFAD's mechanisms for supervision and monitoring of the TAG were not sufficient to address issues that impair execution.

(i) Selection of AARRO

The design of PATAP by IFAD's Asia Division should receive high marks: the organising and conduct of the Programme Design Workshop in Islamabad was exemplary. Much care was given to process design, to soliciting participants for their preferences for improving capabilities in poverty alleviation. This contrasts with the unexpected subsequent selection of an organisation with a limited track record, namely AARRO. Criteria for eligibility, selection of a short list, and final approval of capable institutions had not been defined in the President's Report, a lesson learned. AARRO was selected in spite of reservations expressed by the participants at the Islamabad workshop.

The AARRO chief administrator and programme co-ordinator executed PATAP with a high degree of central control and with limited transparency as to the criteria to be used for allocation of funds. This applied to the allocation of funds by function and type of expenditure, as well as by country programme, to the national co-ordinators and associated institutions. This flaw was compounded since AARRO had unproved or negligible experience and capabilities in designing, implementing and co-ordinating training for poverty alleviation programmes. Under these two conditions, programme execution could not but become exceedingly difficult. Moreover, there was little capability for reflection within AARRO as to the limits of its own knowledge and capabilities.

The continued excessive focus on regional exchanges and workshops for information exchange, to the exclusion of national workshops with project managers and senior project staff in India and Nepal represented costly missed opportunities. The regional workshops were not effective beyond creating a limited initial awareness. Senior administrators, sometimes just remotely connected with project implementation, attended them. There was little representation of the technical staff required for building up of competencies. The workshops, as designed and organised, could hardly bring about attitudinal changes. They have had little lasting positive impact.

Even with the presumption that the prescribed management modules were entirely appropriate, per the design of PATAP, efforts were to have been undertaken to develop modules for beneficiary participation. But this area of critical curriculum development was also almost completely neglected; in total, a mere USD 4 000 had been spent on this item at the time of the Interim Evaluation (IE) out of a total TAG grant of almost USD one million. Knowledge and skills were not obtained by searching for the type of Technical Assistance (TA) which could have transmitted to AARRO the skills with which to generate and deliver relevant training.

At least efforts could have been undertaken to gain a wider acceptance across countries and projects of the need of improved techniques for TOT, and for strengthening the monitoring and the evaluation capabilities of the national training institutions. Such efforts would have set the stage for at least a partial improvement of two of the processes required for generating and delivering relevant training content. But none of this happened.

(ii) Development Cycle for Training Content

It is true on the other hand that AARRO's task was made more difficult than it should have been. PATAP's design reflected an excessive belief in the relevance of generic modules for project management, and in the effectiveness of such modules in driving change towards more effective implementation of poverty alleviation programmes. The design assumed incorrectly that "on-the-shelf" management modules were available for diffusion with little or no need of testing and adaptation to local culture, prior to TOT and dissemination. Little attention was given to the critical steps for generating and delivering relevant course modules and content, even though this process was reflected in the Formulation Report. The AMTA type of curriculum content was promoted far too easily without knowledge of the imperfections of this programme approach.

The President's Report and Recommendations for PATAP gave insufficient attention to the proper sequence in generating and delivering relevant content in poverty alleviation training. Neither was the specific engineering of activities, programming, budgeting and monitoring required for each step set out.

The TNAs are to drive, or set the priorities for curriculum development, and the production of content and training modules requires a competence that is quite different from that of trainers. But there was no workshop included on TNAs. Only one curriculum development workshop took place. It was of limited duration and did not enter into the depth necessary. By default, per the design, the TOT workshops were given the tasks of generating content and appropriate teaching/learning processes instead of concentrating on their proper task: ensuring the process of dissemination and multiplication of training delivery.

The complexities of the teaching/learning process, the need to create the preconditions for generating so called "deep learning", were not understood. The new literature on pedagogy and learning demonstrates that knowledge per se cannot be easily transferred from the trainer to the trainee. But the capability for obtaining knowledge is augmented by stimulating the willingness to acquire knowledge, not least by a widened exposure. The issues reported in this report from the evaluation of content and methodology of instruction under PATAP confirm the preferences of the trainees for a widened exposure to empirically relevant cases. For instance in India, they preferred: (i) reduced classroom instruction in favour of direct exposure in the field to farmers' actual reality; and (ii) far more case studies, and which are empirically relevant to the environment of the IFAD projects in the area. To wit, the recommendations from the PATAP design workshop pointed in the same direction, namely to the need of creating the preconditions for a shift from "light towards deep learning".

"Deep learning" is generated when participants: (i) are concerned with comprehending actual problems of rural households that seek to overcome their constraints; (ii) are provided with opportunities for handling data and information, combining facts and ideas; (ii) generate hypotheses and conclusions; and (iv) become involved in a real dialogue, where multiple interactions occur, where ideas are analysed and conceptualised, where a culture is developed in listening to the voices of the rural poor as well as in comprehending opposing points of view, and where solutions are generated that draw on the consensus obtained.

The literature setting out the farmer-first strategy confirms the importance of "deep learning", of learning directly from the farmers. To wit: (i) farmers' priorities need to be learnt by agricultural scientists directly, face-to-face in the field; and (ii) extension needs to be reoriented to facilitate farmers' analysis and experimentation and to search for what farmers need.

This is the direction that is required for the future development of relevant content and context with which to improve efforts in poverty alleviation. It is obvious that great care is necessary in defining criteria for selecting writers of case studies and the trainers of trainers. Strong capabilities are necessary for developing and testing of modules and relevant context for the teaching/learning process, so that project staff at all levels may learn to interact and gain from the knowledge of the rural poor. This is the path with which project staff and managers are given a choice that in turn may affect not only knowledge uptake, but even their values and attitudes.

(iii) Capabilities for National Training

Capabilities need to be enhanced at the level of national training institutions, which are required to deliver the training programmes. The national training institutions typically follow the age-old methodology of delivering largely classroom lectures. There is a need to improve the curriculum of selected programmes run by these institutions as well as their pedagogical methodology. The first step is to improve the capabilities of the national training institutions in disseminating knowledge about the teaching/learning processes which facilitate the "deep learning" about poverty alleviation. This will have to be started off by a well-structured process; to begin with, capabilities to conduct TNAs in the "farmer-first mode" will have to be created (see Normative Model below). Capabilities within these institutions need to be overhauled, also for contracting out training to competent NGOs.

Distance learning with the use of the Internet ought to be increasingly recommended and would directly complement teacher-guided instruction. Staff in poverty alleviation programmes would identify technical areas where they need support. Existing knowledge organisations, such as the Electronic University would be asked to provide material and guidelines for interactions with farmers with which to generate needed knowledge. Continued exchange and discussion via the Internet with resource persons belonging to the Electronic University would facilitate continuous learning. Moreover, the TAG Electronic Networking for Rural Asia (ENRAP) should become an important tool for distance learning with which to facilitate trainees search for "deep learning".

(iv) Reduced Duplication

The adoption of the approach suggested here would lead to an improved division of labour between training conducted and supported by the national institutes versus that provided directly or contracted out by the IFAD projects. Once the National Training Institutes (NTIs) are set in the direction of acquiring capabilities to facilitate the deep learning about poverty alleviation, these institutions will have found their niche or comparative advantage. They will be concerned with generating and disseminating knowledge of the processes comprising the teaching/learning technology, including evaluation. The issue of duplication with the training delivered at the level of projects should not arise.

(v) External Efficiency: High Staff Turnover

Many IFAD projects in South Asia experience an excessively high turnover of senior staff. This not only reduces continuity in project implementation, it weakens the impact of project-specific training. The skills in managing poverty alleviation programmes, and the participatory development processes involved, will have to be imparted to a much larger mass of trainees.

It would be more cost-effective to introduce relevant content into the curriculum of in-service as well as pre-service training institutions that upgrade the capabilities of rural development officials. Cost effective and sustainable efforts in this area would be to develop: (i) special curriculum for the civil service in-service training programmes; and (ii) a pre-service curriculum for the probationers who may manage future IFAD programmes as well as other types of poverty alleviation programmes; and (iii) skills in the management of poverty alleviation programmes and in participatory processes by improving the curriculum of agricultural and rural development universities. The graduates of these universities generally will be the more permanent middle-level staff managing IFAD projects.

(vi) IFAD Capability and its Supervision of TAGs

The capabilities within IFAD for supporting the re-engineering within NTIs and projects to facilitate the deeper learning associated with effective poverty alleviation have not been built up. Moreover, the implementation of the current TAG demonstrates that IFAD's possibility to intervene and to address issues is limited, once the Loan Agreement has been signed.

(vii) The Normative Model for a Training Cycle

This evaluation of PATAP incorporates the presentation of a normative model which demonstrates the steps to be followed for training content and modules to be generated which will have an impact more in line with needs and expectations. The model reflects a vision: to build up the capabilities of farmers/beneficiaries as a priority, and so address the key aspects of sustainability and equity, hereby reducing dependency on external resources, including project and training institutions

The challenge is how the building of capability through training can be integrated as a process into all stages of the project cycle. If this is achievable, impact in poverty alleviation would be much strengthened. The normative model presented below defines the process, the "technology" for developing the teaching/learning context and content suited to effective poverty alleviation programmes. The process with its stepwise activities is generic in nature. It would apply to all poverty alleviation projects.

But in reality the knowledge of this technology and development process is imperfect across training institutions, agencies and programmes geared towards poverty alleviation. Institutional capabilities are weak and underfunded in this area. For this reason, it is vital that a future PATAP appropriate and disseminate the technology reflected by the Normative Model. The point of departure for a future PATAP would be to define for each country: (i) its weak capabilities and missing activities required for applying the Normative Model; and (ii) the activities and modalities required with which to remedy and strengthen the weak building blocks. This is the setting for the presentation of the Normative Model below. The latter provides a conceptual framework for the emergence of a truly different and fully effective PATAP. The Normative Model starts with stating the vision.

(viii) Implications for IFAD

The steps in the normative model presented below describe the training process suggested for an IFAD-funded project. A pre-requisite is clarity among the relevant donor and lead agency on the vision. Orientation seminars may be held to ensure that IFAD personnel understand the vision.

IFAD should ensure that the TNA be undertaken at the time of project design. The basic data collected should also include the broader training needs of the beneficiaries. An appropriate training agency may be engaged to assist the project management in building tools necessary for the TNA.

It is fundamental to define the criteria for selecting an appropriate training agency at the outset. They comprise inter alia: (i) extensive experience in undertaking field level rural development; (ii) professional skills and knowledge in training processes; and (iii)  qualifications in designing, facilitating and reviewing need-specific participatory training processes for the rural poor. (For further requirements, see Normative Model).