INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: DEFINITIONS AND ISSUES

1. WHAT IS STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION?

• Stakeholders
  
• Stakeholder participation
  

3. WHO PARTICIPATES?

• Primary stakeholders
  
• Secondary stakeholders
  

• Key issues for partnership with primary stakeholders
  
• Key issues for partnership with secondary stakeholders
  
  

• Negotiating stakeholder participation in aid funded activities
  

• Selecting the appropriate degree of participation
  

• Costs and benefits
  

PART TWO : PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE

6. POLICY AND PROJECTS

• Policy reform
  
• Projects
  
• The process approach
  
• The project framework
  

7. METHODS FOR ENHANCING PARTICIPATION

• Monitoring and reviews
  
• Diagnosis and studies
  
• Training
  
• Communication
  

• Partnership with key secondary stakeholders
  
• Critical features for primary stakeholder participation
  

INTRODUCTION

These agencies, like ODA, are still defining and developing appropriate tools and methods for enhancing stakeholder participation. There is no blueprint. The conditions prevailing in the recipient country, the Country Strategy, the economic, social and institutional characteristics of the sector and the professional resources available both in country and in Britain, must necessarily produce a great deal of variation in possibilities and opportunities. Although there is convincing evidence of the benefits of participation in some specific sectors, including economic reform, management of water resources, urban development and forest conservation, no development agency has as yet undertaken a cross-sectoral study of the costs and benefits of participation throughout the life cycle of an aid assisted activity.

This TN provides guidance, rather than prescription. It is supplemented by two guides for ODA staff on measuring participation and doing a stakeholder analysis. Additional guidance may be prepared if there is demand. In due course the Note will be revised to incorporate further ODA and other donor experience in practising participatory approaches. Training in participatory approaches to project cycle management is already under way and will continue.

Enhancing participation is key to our Good Government objective. The TNs on Institutional Development, Risk and the Process Approach, as well as the Social Development Handbook, are also relevant to some aspects of the TN.

Part One provides definitions and describes the extent to which we can at the moment answer the questions of why, when and how to encourage stakeholder participation. It explains why participatory approaches are important for a sustainable and effective aid programme. It describes how to identify key stakeholders through stakeholder analysis and lists key issues for partnership with these other stakeholders. A series of steps are provided for negotiating participation of other stakeholders in ODA-financed activities; and the extent to which participation is feasible, sensible and cost effective is explored in relation to the type of aid and sector.

Part Two is concerned with specific practice in different kinds of aid activities. It recommends an initial stakeholder analysis at an early stage to be incorporated in the Project Concept Note, and then further refined for the Project Submission, with revisions during annual reviews. Participatory approaches are then described in connection with the process approach and the project framework. Methods for enhancing participation during the aid activity are identified; and the TN concludes with Checklists.

1. WHAT IS STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ?

1.1 A stakeholder is any person, group or institution that has an interest in an aid activity, project or programme. This definition includes both intended beneficiaries and intermediaries, winners and losers, and those involved or excluded from decision-making processes.

1.2 Stakeholders can be divided into two very broad groups: those with some intermediary role - secondary stakeholders - and those ultimately affected, primary stakeholders, who expect to benefit from or be adversely affected by our aid. ODA is a secondary stakeholder, with its own perspective, culture and agenda. ODA-related secondary stakeholders may include consultancy companies, training institutions and British NGOs. In a typical education project, other secondary stakeholders might include the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Planning or Finance, local government, suppliers of text books, teachers' training institutions, teachers and their trade unions, and owners of private schools. Primary stakeholders are potential schoolchildren and their parents.

1.3 Stakeholders are groups of people who share a common interest, for example "the consultancy company", "the project management", "the villagers", "the local authorities" etc. But, within any of these, there are sub-categories of stakeholders with differing interests which they may or may not be prepared to subsume in the general collective interest. Analysis might conclude that the concept of "villager" as a collective stakeholder is quite meaningless because the various groups of people living in a village have so little in common; some villagers might consider that they have more shared interest with the representatives of the local authorities than with their next door neighbours. Similar issues arise in formal institutions, such as government ministries. Competition between departments or individuals may be stronger than commitments to the institutions as a whole. There may also be cross-cutting interests, such as on an ethnic basis, both within the institution and affecting outside relationships. Care is therefore needed in using terms like "recipient government" to recognise the variety of interests involved.

Stakeholder participation

1.4 Participation is often used to mean a number of different kinds of activity and confusion may arise when the term is used without specifying which is meant. For example:

1. a person can be said to participate by the very fact of agreeing to interact, such as coming to meetings but remaining silent;
   

2. people may participate in management or implementation of a project, through active involvement (such as in the operation and maintenance of infrastructure);
   

3. people may participate in the governance of a programme or project. This could include consultation about sector objectives and setting the criteria by which project success might be measured.
   

2. WHY STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IS IMPORTANT

2.2 Participation contributes to the chances of our aid being effective and sustainable because:

• It is more effective because, in drawing on a wide range of interested parties, the prospects for appropriate project design and commitment to achieving objectives is likely to be maximised.
• It is more sustainable because people are more likely to be committed to carrying on the activity after aid stops, and more able to do so given that participation itself helps develop skills and confidence.

2.3 Evaluation findings from the Institutional Strengthening and NGO Syntheses show that the most successful projects proved to be those where the project objectives corresponded to the priorities of partner institutions and beneficiaries, and where the local institutions and beneficiaries were regularly involved in decision-making at all stages of the project cycle. Enhancing participation is an integral part of the Project Cycle Management approach.

2.4 By enhancing stakeholder participation we aim to strengthen local ownership of our aid activities - in structural adjustment programmes, teacher training projects or parastatal reform, as much as community level projects. It also means encouraging and helping our institutional partners become more participatory and responsive to the other stakeholders, particularly their clients. And in this assistance we are more credible, and therefore effective, if we practice the same principles of responsiveness, transparency and accountability with our aid recipient partners

2.5 Participation should reduce the risk of failure. But it is not a guarantee of project success. Achieving participation is not easy. In any aid activity there may be conflicting interests among recipients as well as among others involved in the project or programme. It may result in conflict, it can have significant costs in time and it means that institutions, including ourselves will have to change the way they go about their business.

3. WHO PARTICIPATES ?

3.2 As there is no blueprint for participation, how do we reach a judgement about whom we think should participate (remembering that other stakeholders may have other views)? The universe of stakeholders is potentially boundless. We can set parameters by deciding that only key stakeholders should participate. Key stakeholders are those who can significantly influence the project, or are most important if ODA's objectives are to be met. Both primary and secondary stakeholders may be key.

3.3 Stakeholder analysis is a tool which helps us discover the key stakeholders in any aid-assisted programme or project. It is the first step in helping us decide, from our perspective, whom we believe should be encouraged and assisted to participate.

3.4 Stakeholder analysis aims to:

• identify and define the characteristics of key stakeholders;
  

• assess the manner in which they might affect or be affected by the programme/project outcome;
  

• understand the relations between stakeholders, including an assessment of the real or potential conflicts of interest and expectation between stakeholders;
  

• assess the capacity of different stakeholders to participate.
  

3.5 Stakeholder analysis differs from institutional analysis which is concerned with looking at the appropriateness and effectiveness of institutional arrangements and assessing the strengths, weaknesses and development needs of individual organisations. Supplementary guidance on how to do stakeholder analysis is available from the Social Development Department. Institutional analysis is described in the TN on Institutional Development.

Primary stakeholders

3.7 There are no particular sectors where primary stakeholder participation is more needed than others. More important than sector is type of project. Participation of primary stakeholders is essential in projects which are expected to have a direct positive impact on defined groups of people. Included here would be slum improvement projects, rural health or population projects, agricultural projects targeting small farmers, skills training for the unemployed/landless, small scale enterprise, rural water supply projects, primary education and forestry conservation projects. Primary stakeholder participation is also essential when they are to be negatively affected by the project outcome, for example with the construction of a road or airport which may require resettlement or create a potentially dangerous environment. Sometimes primary stakeholders, who believe their interests or livelihood is threatened by the project outcome, may win the support of secondary stakeholders, such as NGOs, a local newspaper or a Member of Parliament.

3.8 Primary stakeholders may participate in a project as individuals, for example entrepreneurs in a small business promotion programme; and information and consultation can take place on an individual basis through the use of audio-visual materials, interviews and questionnaires. But if participation is stronger than this, and involves a partnership between primary stakeholders and the implementing agency - in a rural water supply project, for example - then some kind of alliance or association will need to be established by those sharing a common interest. This is sometimes referred to as popular participation, replacing the earlier usage community participation which implied the existence of a homogeneous community -often not the case.

Secondary stakeholders

3.10 In considering which secondary stakeholders we would like to participate in our aid activity, our primary consideration must be their potential for affecting the livelihoods and welfare of the activity's primary stakeholders and to influence achievement of project objectives. The box overleaf illustrates how negotiations between various secondary stakeholders (including ODA) can strengthen the project's viability, effectiveness and sustainability.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS IN PROSHIKA Primary stakeholders are poor people who are actual or potential members of Proshika. People vary in the extent and manner of their poverty. Proshika's members are drawn from the ranks of marginal peasant households and urban slum dwellers, as well as from landless households. In all these categories, women's poverty is greater. Proshika addresses this heterogeneity (and therefore possible conflicts of interest) among the primary stakeholders by establishing separate groups, based on gender, occupation and economic status. Secondary Stakeholders include Proshika and its donors, government and the local and national organisations, such as other NGOs, and fundamentalist organisations, affected by Proshika's approach to development. Potential differences between the donors have been minimised through agreement to common fund and monitor the programme. Government has sanctioned the programme through its NGO Affairs Bureau. Proshika is managing its relations with fundamentalist organisations through the Association of Development Agencies of Bangladesh (ADAB). Proshika's internal management style is open and stresses collective decision making. Decision making is less centralized than that of other Bangladesh NGOs, for example BRAC. Two major institutional challenges face Proshika and reflect different stakeholders' concerns. First, the organisation has to retain its approach to social and economic development through empowerment while instilling the organizational discipline, necessary to run the expanded credit programme - a discipline which donors see as necessary for their further support. Second, Proshika has to strengthen its gender and development goals. Men and women members of Proshika are unequal sets of primary stakeholders because although there are more women's groups than men - and the women's groups function better -women are under-represented in the higher-level meetings of members at the union and district level. This reflects a similar problem for paid staff in Proshika, where despite efforts to redress the imbalance between men and women in management positions, Proshika is still a "woman-unfriendly" working environment. Under pressure from Bangladeshi women activists, a women's coordination unit is being established to address this issue. Adapted from PEC Submission

3.11 Stakeholder analysis may reveal different sets of stakeholders within an institution, men and women for example. In the example provided in the box below, ODA supported the views of the women staff members because we believed this would further our objective of reducing poverty among the primary stakeholders.

3.12 Another example of possible conflicts of interest is in public administration reform projects, which aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the civil service and thus benefit the primary stakeholders: the citizens of the country. To achieve these benefits, there may be a requirement to reduce the size of the workforce to pay higher salaries (and thus enhance motivation) to those remaining. Without careful planning, there is the likelihood that staff faced with redundancy will resist reform; this can be overcome with suitably designed compensation measures which are designed in consultation with those potentially negatively affected by the change.

3.13 Systematic information exchange and consultation between ourselves and other secondary stakeholders contributes to reducing misunderstandings and possible conflicts between them and ourselves. Our own practice in this respect also signals to other secondary stakeholders in the public sector the advantages of a more open style of government.

4. HOW CAN STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATE ?

4.2 From any stakeholder's perspective, participation can be seen as a spectrum model with a range of possibilities:

• being in control and only consulting, informing or manipulating other stakeholders;
  

• partnership (equal powers of decision-making) with one or more of the other stakeholders;
  

• being consulted by other stakeholders who have more control;
  

• being informed by other stakeholders who have more control;
  

• being manipulated by other stakeholders.
  

4.4 Partnership is the type of participation in which two or more stakeholders share power equally in the management of the activity. Partnership may be necessary for more effective and sustainable aid activity but it will not work by simply wishing for it. It is achieved by a conscious and informed effort in design and implementation.

4.5 Key issues for partnership with primary stakeholders

• Primary stakeholders may lack the political power or institutional means for their views to be taken into account. The principal output of a project's first phase may be the development of representative, decision-making institutions, such as user groups or village or neighbourhood committees.
  

• They may also lack the appropriate information for effective decision-making. Training programmes may be needed or access to the media provided; there may be a case for providing literacy and numeracy skills.
  

• Some primary stakeholders are more powerful than others. Targeted activities may be needed to include powerless groups such as women, children or ethnic minorities. There is a strong pragmatic case for supporting activities where poor people or women have the opportunity to enhance their economic or social status while the rich or more powerful do not perceive themselves as losers.
  

• Primary stakeholders may view the time and money costs of participation as being too high compared with the benefits expected from the project's outputs. Information, consultation, planning and management activities must be designed to respond to this challenge or the project fundamentally restructured to reduce costs to primary stakeholders.
  

• The legitimacy of a particular group's participation may be challenged by other primary stakeholders: for example, in a forestry conservation project, the rights of nomadic cattle herders to participate in joint forest management or the rights of women to sit on a village water committee. We must decide whether the good government or human rights principle involved is sufficiently important to insist on full participation despite any adverse impact on the participation of others.
  

• Efforts at partnership may be undermined by the non-participatory, hierarchical management structure of the implementing agency. Communications may break down because the local-level, community-based workers are actively discouraged from being themselves involved in project decisions. In such a case priority in a first phase of a project should be given to institutional change within the main implementing agency, rather than primary stakeholder participation.
  

• Certain categories of secondary stakeholders seek to represent the interests of primary stakeholders, for example local NGOs who sometimes have a management structure and values system not conducive to primary stakeholder partnership. When we seek to involve local NGOs in a project we may have to provide training and consultancy support for them, as well as for the main implementing agency. (see box below)
  

5.1 The following steps can help us decide the role of ourselves and the other stakeholders. The detail with which they are followed will obviously depend on the type and size of the activity we are funding.

1. Identify the other stakeholders by means of a stakeholder analysis.
   

2. Decide on the stakeholder role we ourselves wish to play in the activity. For example, do we wish simply to provide funds and be consulted about progress or do we want to be full partners? Which circumstances, if any, would merit our taking control?
   

3. Decide when and how we would like participation by the other stakeholders. For each stage in the activity key tasks should be identified, with the respective role of each of the stakeholders, including ourselves, spelt out.
   

4. Draw up a participation matrix (see box at top of next page) for each of the main institutional stakeholders (and summarise conclusions in Project Concept Note and first draft of logical framework). The groups to be involved, from senior levels in donor and recipient institutions, down to primary stakeholders at the consumer end, are entered in the boxes of the matrix.
   

5. Use this matrix as a basis for negotiation in workshops with other secondary stakeholders and thereafter through participatory appraisal and other methods with primary stakeholders and agree on the role and responsibilities of each.
   

6. With other stakeholders revise matrix as necessary during course of implementation.
   

5.3 Stakeholders have varying degrees of power and access to information; some may lack the organisational basis for negotiation - indeed, at the identification stage intended beneficiaries may not even be aware that they are stakeholders in this aid activity. The participation matrix is likely to be used at this stage for negotiations between ODA and perhaps only some of the concerned formal institutions on the aid recipient side, with informed guesswork about the possible type of participation from beneficiaries and other institutions. But agreement as to how to include these other stakeholders so that they can be involved, as appropriate, in subsequent negotiations is essential. This may often mean aid-funded activities to enable less powerful stakeholders to organise and equip themselves for negotiations.

Selecting the appropriate degree of participation

5.4 A country strategy will be influenced by aid talks and other negotiations with senior representatives from the central policy making units of aid recipient governments. A wider range of recipient and UK-based secondary stakeholders could potentially be involved in this process. Dutch official aid, for example, has established a process of inviting academics, NGOs and consultants from both the Netherlands and the aid recipient country to provide information and to give their views on the key challenges facing the country concerned and to make recommendations concerning Dutch assistance. Representatives from other official donor agencies involved in this country are also invited to attend to exchange information.

5.5 Generally, secondary stakeholders from regional or local government or the private or voluntary sectors are not likely to be involved in any way at this stage - nor will primary stakeholders in our aid programme, other than through the normal democratic channels by which citizens influence government policy.

5.6 Sector strategies should always be developed, implemented and evaluated in partnership with key local secondary stakeholders. These should include secondary stakeholder organisations representing the interests of primary stakeholders. Setting up of special committees, consumer councils or other arrangements may be needed to ensure the views and needs of less influential primary stakeholders are included.

5.7 At any stage in the project cycle, different stakeholders may wish to participate in different ways, depending on the discrete project activity. For example, at the implementation stage, the teachers' trade union may only wish to be kept informed about the progress of the school building programme, while the parents' representatives may wish for management partnership in actual construction of the new schools. On the other hand, the parents may wish to be kept informed in curriculum development, whereas the teachers' unions desire to be consulted.

5.8 In projects where there is only an indirect or limited impact on specific local populations, we may decide that investment in primary stakeholder participation in management or implementation of the project is probably not cost-effective. The primary stakeholders may not even want this, although we would normally seek to ensure that adequate information and consultation procedures are in place. In such a case, primary stakeholders may only participate in the "governance" of a project. This level of participation could include consultation about sector objectives and the normative criteria by which project performance would be measured -evaluation of impact (para 1.4).

5.9 All those in a particular stakeholder set may not wish to participate actively for most of the time. A small and active primary stakeholder group may want to be involved in day-to-day management of a project which directly concerns the wider community, such as a water supply system: others may prefer simply to have a high quality, reliable water supply system at a reasonable price. However, these same people may feel that, if some problem arises during implementation, they should have the right or ability to have their voice heard.

Costs and benefits

5.10 The costs and benefits of participation will be differentially calculated by all the stakeholders, primary and secondary. ODA has learnt that participatory approaches early on may often save time later by uncovering and overcoming problems which would otherwise hinder implementation. But costs for secondary stakeholders, including ourselves, may be high: particularly the cost of delays in preparation and implementation arising from the need to consult and negotiate with the other stakeholders. Participation slows down disbursement and hinders necessary short-term management activities. It may also take up scarce administrative and advisory resources. Complete participation results in complete inertia. The longer term benefits of participation must be calculated against the short-term costs. A recent World Bank study indicates that participatory approaches to project preparation correlated significantly with rapid disbursement once the loan agreement had been signed. No one has as yet looked at the costs and benefits of participation through the whole life-cycle of a project. After the initial stakeholder analysis and preliminary consultations, a selective approach is advised. Not all our aid activities can or need be equally participatory.

5.11 The time factor may, however, be an excuse for organisations keen to avoid participatory approaches, when they are aware that significant stakeholders, if permitted to be involved in the decision-making process, might strongly disagree with the line of action proposed. Narmada Dam is a case in point.

5.12 There is no standard method available for calculating the costs and benefits to ODA of enhancing stakeholder participation in relation to a particular sector, type of aid activity or aid recipient country. Such a calculation must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis drawing on all the information available and using the guidance in this TN, particularly taking into account the key issues summarised in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6.

PART TWO: PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE

6. POLICY AND PROJECTS

6.2 There is a spectrum of possibilities from which we, as one of the stakeholders, can choose. These are not mutually exclusive. The role of ourselves and other stakeholders in an aid activity may variously move backwards and forwards across the spectrum from information to partnership to control during the lifetime of the project. Various degrees of participation can be encouraged at all levels of aid activities, and with a wide range of institutional stakeholders. Spending departments will need to consider the human and financial resource implications in practising participation. Staff training may be needed and skilled facilitators and other resource persons identified for working with groups of stakeholders. Lastly, while ODA has the right to make a judgement on the extent of participation it wishes to include in a project, we should be aware that other stakeholders may reach different conclusions. We should be prepared to discuss their views.

Enhancing participation in policy reform

6.3 At this level our aim should be to encourage broader participation and consensus building in the process of designing policy reforms. More participatory approaches are necessary in order to negotiate reforms which are both politically feasible and adapted to local circumstances: policies need well-informed local adaptation, difficult to achieve if reforms result from rushed, donor-led missions, proposing solutions from a standard recipe book.

6.4 At the macro-level (economic reform, poverty assessments, public expenditure reviews) the work on the donor side is under World Bank leadership; the main implications for ODA are to encourage the Bank to enhance local ownership of policy decisions. Ensuring that institutional stakeholders in the aid recipient country are the originators and owners of their country's policies, and publicly accountable for them, is a necessary first step to more broad-based and poverty-focused participation in policy formulation. At this level, the relevant institutions are essentially the core central ministries, such as Finance. Where policy making in government is weak, hidden from view and not accountable, measures to strengthen processes of government may be appropriate, including encouraging greater openness on policy issues. Efforts may also be made to strengthen capacity outside government to contribute to healthy debate on policy. Donors also have a key role in ensuring that the views of poor and marginalised people are heeded, since these are groups least likely to be heard through representative institutions. Indicators of local ownership include whether the recipient government has a clear and consistent vision and by comparing stated priorities with public expenditure patterns.

Programme Aid Beyond Structural Adjustment "Sectoral policies and programmes should be prepared by local stakeholders. A significant proportion of existing investment assistance is for operations that have been largely prepared by foreign consultants with varying degrees of endorsement from recipient governments. The reason for this heavy external involvement lies in the limited human and financial resources of recipient countries to prepare operations that meet the criteria of the donor agencies within the time frame required by donor agencies. However the result of the heavy external involvement is that donor-funded programmes often enjoy limited local ownership, and local stakeholders often seem less concerned about success or failure than their foreign sponsors" from Stephen Denning (World Bank) Programme Aid Beyond Structural Adjustment

6.5 The box above argues the need to make people and local organisations aware that they are stakeholders in aid-funded programmes. Participatory approaches at the sector level can range from:

• donor consultation and joint ownership with central or provincial government;
  

• consultation with and involvement of intermediate organisations and other secondary stakeholders;
  

• systematic involvement of primary stakeholder groups in policy making and strategy building.
  

Projects

6.6 Participatory assessments for sector planning can provide some guidance concerning primary stakeholders' interests and priorities for project investment. However it is still usually the case that projects are identified by the donor agency and the concerned aid recipient institutions without any detailed consultations with beneficiary or affected populations. In many cases this would be impracticable. For example, large-scale infrastructure projects, such as an electricity supply project, would not normally involve the direct participation of the ultimate beneficiaries in identification of the project On the other hand, the scope for stakeholder participation should always be reviewed at the design stage. Those directly affected, such as people living on the site of a hydro-electric dam should be at the very least consulted about the design of the resettlement programme.

6.7 Stakeholder analysis is advisable for all projects and should be repeated at intervals throughout the project cycle. A first attempt should be made at the identification stage and summarised in the Project Concept Note. The analysis will be refined and strengthened as further information becomes available. We should first do an internal ODA exercise and then seek to do a further exercise in partnership with recipient institutional stakeholders. Subsequent participation, in project design or implementation of those affected by the project, will need to be decided as a result of this analysis. No prior assumptions should be made that this is a sector or type of project unsuitable for broad-based participation. For example, aid for privatisation might be more effective if the participation of employees was encouraged through share ownership, because this would give everyone in the enterprise the chance of a stake in the transition; and of consumers, if analysis showed they were also key stakeholders.

6.8 A realistic time-scale for the project should be established in the Project Concept Note. This is essential because of the long lead times required for participatory projects and to guard against pressure to compress project preparation for quicker spending.

The process approach

6.9 Participation in projects with a process approach is likely to be more significant throughout the project cycle because planning is iterative. For locally specific, community-based projects, phase one might be to support the development of local organisations by which people can make their opinion known. Only then are specific project objectives and outputs decided upon for implementation in the second phase. The box on the following page provides an example from an agricultural project in western India. Note that the level and type of participation is different for each stage.

6.10 A similar approach will also often be appropriate in working with formal institutions, such as ministries or parastatals, especially where programmes of institutional change are involved. For all such projects a participatory approach is important: ensuring, as far as possible, appropriate consultation within institutions, with other institutional stakeholders, and, as appropriate, with primary stakeholders. This may raise issues of participation for the institution which are of wider significance and application.

6.11 A project with a participatory process approach is characterised by:

• comprehensive assessment of sectoral and institutional capacity jointly shared between key secondary stakeholders;
  

• mutual understanding and design of any support project or main project;
  

• jointly-shared implementation and learning process between relevant ODA (and other donors) and recipient country implementing agency(ies);
  

• building of capacity at individual, institutional and possibly sectoral level;
  

• reviews and evaluation which include all key stakeholders, including primary stakeholders, if these have been identified as key;
  

• the project being designed and implemented to ensure that learning takes place for all key stakeholders, including the donor; and
  

• the project having a measurable impact, with indicators for measurement identified and agreed by the key stakeholders.
  

6.12 Development of the Project Framework should involve aid recipient stakeholders. The Project Cycle Management (PCM) approach emphasises the importance of participation of stakeholders in a "meeting of minds" to agree the project purpose. At the start we will need to identify which stakeholders we believe should be involved in the development of a framework, while recognising that, in turn, these stakeholders may identify others who should contribute to the process. The PCM approach can be used most easily between donor and aid recipient institutions but the broad elements of the approach should be used with all other interested parties. ODA so far has little experience with developing a project framework with stakeholders other than formal implementing agencies. However other donors, such as the Germans (through GTZ), have reported that the project framework approach can be used successfully with other stakeholders, including those with minimal levels of formal education. Participatory rural appraisal techniques (7.5) may assist in developing appropriate cross-cultural frameworks.

6.13 In designing the project framework the principal stakeholders need to be involved in agreeing objectives, outputs and activities; in determining and weighting risks (assumptions); and in identifying indicators for measuring progress. Stakeholders may well select different indicators. Minimally we should expect to include some of our own indicators, some from the main implementing agency and some from the primary stakeholders. Experience of several NGOs has shown that participatory processes using people's own indicators can generate quantifiable and time-bound indicators which relate to outputs relatively easily. Although indicators of purpose and goals are more difficult to develop in a participatory fashion, it is possible; and in fact debates with the other stakeholders on this issue have often started to show up differential objectives not only between beneficiary stakeholders but between them and the implementing agency, leading to a changed project purpose. This may need careful handling if, for instance, approval has been obtained only to appraise a project with the original purpose.

6.14 In proposing to other stakeholders the process by which the project framework is agreed consideration must be given to how decisions are made in that particular cultural and institutional context. The PCM approach must be adapted to local circumstances and allowance needs to be made for the time it will take project partners to become accustomed to this approach. Other planning methods should not necessarily be excluded for certain stages of the project framework.

6.15 The effectiveness of participatory strategies during project implementation will be strongly influenced by how projects are monitored and what information is documented. This requires indicators for progress in participation, as well as the more usual indicators for achieving outputs. The same participatory approach, described in the previous paragraph, can be used to determine indicators for measuring this also. This will probably not be possible until some time into the life of the project. However, we may include at the very start some of our own indicators for measuring the participation of other stakeholders (eg number of institutions/groups to be formed, level of representation of different social actors, proportion of population participating in project-inspired activities etc). A supplementary guide is available on how to measure and assess participation, with examples.

7. METHODS FOR ENHANCING PARTICIPATION

7.1 Mechanisms for participatory monitoring need to be developed during the project design stage in partnership with the implementing agency. Monitoring should not be seen as an ODA "policing" activity. Instead, monitoring should be seen as an integral part of the implementing agency's activities, supported by periodic joint reviews with ODA. The extra time spent in developing key indicators of achievement with stakeholders is an important investment in the success of the project, leading to a sense of greater shared commitment among the various stakeholders. Local intermediary organisations should be identified who would be responsible to the implementing agency for much of the monitoring, with ODA providing support and technical assistance as necessary.

7.2 Conventional periodic review missions often involve a large ODA inter-disciplinary team and representatives from a range of recipient institutions, joined in co-financed projects by representatives from other donors. Meetings often concentrate on senior bureaucrats in urban centres, which means that the viewpoints of beneficiaries, representatives of local-level institutions and of field workers are not taken into account. Because such review missions tend to be large, hierarchical and formal, even field visits fail to establish any real communication with junior officials and primary stakeholders.

7.3 Possible strategies to overcome these problems include:

• designing review missions as a series of visits, rather than all-inclusive single visit: one component of such a review would be a preliminary participatory field visit, using participatory appraisal techniques (para 7.5);
  

• Avoiding large and, for some stakeholders, intimidating meetings where lower level staff or women beneficiaries may be afraid to speak out. Smaller, more informal discussions may help to elucidate more "truthful" opinions.
  

7.4 The aim of participatory diagnosis is to enable stakeholders to define the problem and decide what needs to be found out in order to design solutions. Participatory diagnosis means that knowledge is not the monopoly of the most powerful or informed stakeholders. Shared knowledge is essential if stakeholders are to work as partners in project implementation.

7.5 Of the various participatory research methods for development practice, the most commonly used is Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). PRA is a method which allows local people living in urban (despite its name!) as well as rural areas, to access, understand and share with others the knowledge which is already present within the community. In many situations PRA is a much more effective research method than the use of large-scale surveys. PRA can be done at all stages of the project cycle but it is not without its problems. Communities are not monolithic and people may have very differing views on the issues and problems confronting them. While those carrying out PRA will certainly be aware of the necessity to gain access to the views of less advantaged groups, such as women and ethnic minorities, they may find this very difficult.

7.6 It is not possible to carry out an in-depth anthropological study in each and every community affected by development assistance; knowledge has to be gained and decisions leading to action reached fairly quickly in the context of development aid. PRA certainly provides a better tool for coming to sensible, locally acceptable decisions than top-down strategies which impose an outside view of the problems facing a community and which ask questions based on extraneous assumptions. But it must be borne in mind that the picture gained through PRA is necessarily an incomplete one. And even PRA takes time and money.

7.7 Participatory approaches can also be taken in diagnostic work on formal institutions. Rather than having an essentially external assessment of institutions and options for the future, the diagnosis and planning may better be undertaken in a participative way. Methodologies include combining traditional interviewing techniques with working groups, workshops and group discussions. Activities may be aimed at developing understanding of issues and various parties' perceptions on them - or they may have a more directly action-oriented purpose. Often an external facilitator has an important role in helping a group work towards agreeing objectives and a plan of action.

Training

7.8 Much in-country project-related training is tailor-made to the needs of project staff and other stakeholders. Trainers should be encouraged to use participatory approaches. Use of these methods encourages the participants to become conscious and informed actors. It is a methodology which can be used both in training on a particular technical subject and in activities aimed at strengthening people's capacity to organise themselves and to change and strengthen their own institutions. The underlying principles are equally applicable to large public sector organisations and to village development committees.

7.9 These training methods are increasingly used to assist employees of hierarchical stakeholder institutions develop the capacity to develop partnership relations with the other project stakeholders - as for example in joint forest planning and management.

Communication

7.10 Participatory communication means listening as well as speaking. We need to be aware of the misunderstandings which may arise as a result of differences in experience, language and culture. We also need to recognise the political dimension to access to information: innovative methods may be required to reach those who most need the information and who are least likely to get it.

Communicating with pensioners about land privatisation ODA's aid to the former Soviet Union includes support to a pilot project for privatisation of state farms in Nizhniy Novgorod. The size of shares to be distributed in the privatisation process is related to length of service on the farm; pensioners are therefore key stakeholders in the process. ODA looked at on-farm communications and discovered that many elderly pensioners were not aware of how the privatisation process would affect them. While information was freely available at the farm administrative offices in the central village, and public meetings were held, it was difficult for elderly pensioners living outside the central village to have access to the information provided in this way because of ill-health and lack of transport. Consultants therefore recommended a mobile information dissemination procedure, visiting various locations at pre-determined intervals throughout the restructuring process.

7.11 Participatory research methods can also be used for effective communication with marginalised or politically excluded groups. Effective methods may also be based on using indigenous media and cultural forms such as street theatre, puppets, wall paintings, popular music and songs etc. Other methods include study tours when stakeholders meet participants in other projects and radio broadcasts with listener feedback.

8. CHECKLISTS FOR ENHANCED PARTICIPATION

Partnership with the key secondary stakeholder(s)

8.2 Much of what follows is already being practised or being planned in one way or another by different parts of ODA. It represents a menu of possible activities; they are not all appropriate in all cases.

• Identify sponsor institution: at project identification stage ensure there is at least one stakeholder institution (or a number of people within that organisation) really committed to the idea of the project.
  

• Provide information: provide as much information about how ODA functions as we seek to obtain about the functioning of the aid recipient institution. Examples would include offering to show a video or distribute pamphlets about the work of ODA in that particular sector or country. Make it clear what we can and cannot do in terms of our own rules and procedures.
  

• A shared vision: attempt to involve a wide range of staff from the sponsor institution. Seek agreement on the project's goal and purpose.
  

• Techniques: learn about the project design tools of the sponsor organisation. Introduce key secondary stakeholders to participatory logical framework planning. Draft LogFrame in collaboration with other stakeholders and revise at regular intervals during design and implementation stages, including agreement on participatory indicators.
  

• Project design: consider providing the opportunity for sponsor and other key stakeholders to visit similar projects elsewhere in the world; and also of establishing a pattern of exchange visits between UK and their own country so that they come to us as well as we go to them.
  

• Consultants: make full use of local consultants wherever possible for project preparation; provide training in ODA procedures as necessary. With all consultants (expatriate or local) endeavour to ensure maximum continuity of personnel.
  

• Stakeholder analysis: with the partner (sponsor) institution, identify the other key stakeholders in the project and agree how these can be involved in the project design.
  

• Planning workshops: with the sponsor institution, and assistance of a local facilitator, organise a planning workshop for all significant secondary stakeholders and representatives of primary stakeholders; if necessary encourage a series of preliminary workshops for different stakeholders to ensure everyone as an equal voice.
  

• Participation matrix: use as described in 6.9 above and summarise conclusions in Project Concept Note.
  

• Risk analysis: with partner institution and other identified stakeholders, identify and rank the principal sources (including ODA and the other stakeholders) areas and types of risk and agree a risk management plan.
  

• Process approach: identify which elements of project need a process approach; ensure sufficient time and resources for institution building for sponsor organisation and other stakeholders.
  

• Project appraisal: seek agreement to include participation of all key stakeholders who wish to be involved (including representatives of relevant institutions of civil society and the private sector).
  

• Institutional appraisal: involve institutions as much as possible in institutional appraisal; ensure consultants have suitable approach and skills. Use task forces, working groups etc to tap in-house knowledge and ideas and to develop ownership.
  

• Conditions: identify with sponsor institution action and decisions necessary for success and discuss fully any conditions for our involvement.
  

• Project approval: consider inviting representative(s) from the sponsor institution to participate in final ODA approval process.
  

• Appointment of TCOs: consider inviting a representative from sponsor/partner organisation to sit on selection board or take short-listed candidates to be interviewed in the aid recipient country.
  

Participatory aid to the health sector in Zambia Following initial interviews in London, the five short-listed candidates were flown to Lusaka for the final stage of the selection process. After an initial briefing by the Ministry team and the BHC, the candidates were taken away by their Zambian counterparts to spend 1-2 days at the institutions they would be working at. This allowed the relevant Project Management Groups. other stakeholders, and the candidates to interact closely with each other. Subsequently an open "seminar style" meeting was held (with over 20 Ministry participants) where each candidate made a 20 minute presentation on their analysis of the situation they observed and the strategic approach they would take to addressing the project objectives. They were also required to make a personal statement about themselves, including their motivation to work in Zambia and why the Zambians should be convinced that they had the expertise and personal skills to bring added value to the continued implementation of the health reforms. This was followed by a lively question and answer session, with some sharp interrogation from the audience. Extract from health adviser's mission report