EVALUATING P EOPLE-LED DEVELOPMENT IN ORISSA, INDIA ... · development approach generally have been successful. Communities and their organizations are becoming the main drivers of

F O U N D A T I O N

(Covering projects 321-081-1027, 321-081-1060, 321-081-1086 (DULAL)

321-081-1035, 321-081-1059 (KIRDTI);

321-081-1035, 321-081-1053, 321-081-1097 (ORRISSA))

EVALUATING

P EOPLE-LED DEVELOPMENT

IN ORISSA, INDIA

Summary report

for Misereor

(Ev 1831-Z1022-0868)

L. van Veldhuizen, T.M. Radha and R. Surdeo

Leusden, October 2013

PLDP evaluation summary analysis report final 2

ETC Foundation P.O. Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 (0)33 432 60 00 Fax: +31 (0)33 494 07 91

[email protected]

www.etc-international.org

Kvk nummer: 41188195

Cover picture by Rohit Kumar showing the presentation of group discussion results as part of the self-evaluation in Pokharikiari, Keonjar district. ETC project number 123041

Author(s) L. van Veldhuizen, T.M. Radha and R. Surdeo

Date October 2013

Electronic file name 123041 PLD Evaluation synthesis final

Disclaimer: The nature of ETC's work may imply that customers request us to suggest innovations, change or provide other recommendations. This document has been elaborated with the utmost care and by taking into account relevant social, cultural, ecological and economic aspects and, where applicable, the local legal context. ETC disclaims any responsibility for the way advice may be implemented; this is the full responsibility of the customer.


CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 11

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 12

2 THE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................. 13

3 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 15

4 THE CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 DULAL ................................................................................................................................. 17

4.2 KIRDTI ................................................................................................................................. 18

4.3 ORRISSA ............................................................................................................................ 19

5 LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT ..................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 20

5.2 Traditional agriculture and food systems ............................................................................ 20

5.3 Forest conservation and management ............................................................................... 26

5.4 Income generation .............................................................................................................. 28

5.5 Advocacy and action ........................................................................................................... 29

6 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP .................................................................. 32

6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 32

6.2 Farmer / community organizational development ............................................................... 32

6.3 Local resource people and specialists ................................................................................ 38

7 PLD IMPLEMENTATON AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION ........................................................... 40

7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 40

7.2 The NGOs’ approach to PLD .............................................................................................. 40

7.3 Reviewing PLD practice ...................................................................................................... 41

7.4 Integration of PLD within the partner organizations ............................................................ 43

7.5 The impact of using PLD ..................................................................................................... 45

8 SUPPORT AND PLD ACCOMPANIMENT BY MISEREOR ........................................................ 47

8.1 PLD Accompaniment .......................................................................................................... 47

8.2 Wider interaction with Misereor ........................................................................................... 49

9 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 50

9.1 Staffing ................................................................................................................................ 50

9.2 Monitoring & Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 50

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 52

10.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 52

10.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 54


ANNEXES Annex 1: Terms of Reference Annex 2: Notes on the evaluation methodology Annex 3: Synthesis of indicators at community level Annex 4: Synthesis of indicators at the level of partner organization and Misereor Annex 5: Schedule of activities of the final evaluation visit Annex 6: Villages included in the field studies and their features Annex 7: Time-line on PLD learning by KIRDTI Annex 8: Structure of the farmer organizations in Keonjar Annex 9: The PLD approach as practiced in Mayurbhanj Annex 10: Summary time-line of the accompaniment of partners by the PLD consultant


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BT Biotechnology

CBO Community Based Organization

DULAL “Love and concern” (in Adivasi language)

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FO Farmer Organization

FRA Forest Rights Act

GMO Genetically Modified Organisms

HYV High Yielding Variety

IGP Income generation project

IGSSS Indo-Global Social Service Society

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

KIRDTI Keonjar Integrated Rural Development and Training Institute

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

NRM Natural Resource Management

ORRISSA Organisation for Rural Reconstruction & Integrated Social Service.

PDS Public Distribution System

PESA Panchayat’s Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act

PLD(P) People led development (process)

PKS Paramparik Krishik Sanghatan (farmer organization at block / district

level)

PO People’s organization

PRI Panchayat Raj Institution (elected bodies for local and district

governance)

SHG Self Help Group

SRUTI Society for Rural and Urban Tribal Initiative

ToR Terms of Reference

UVS Udyan Vikas Samiti (farmer committee under NABARD)

VDC Village Development Committee

VFPC Village Forest Protection Committee

http://orrissa.co.in/


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The evaluation

Misereor and three of its partner organizations in Orissa India, i.e. DULAL, ORRISSA and KIRDTI, have worked together since 2006 to reorient their work and projects towards using a development approach in which communities and farmers take a central role in planning, implementation and M&E. This is known as the People-led Development (PLD) approach. To assist in this reorientation Misereor made available a PLD consultant to accompany the partners in developing a locally effective PLD approach. In 2013, a systematic evaluation was undertaken of this work with two key objectives: 1. To generate insight in operation and performance of the programs funded by Misereor as part of

the agreed regular project evaluation schedule; 2. To provide insight in the use and internalization of a people-led development approach, its strength

and limitations, and the impact the use of the approach has had on the realization or not of (project) achievements.

A three person team was formed to work with partners and Misereor in the evaluation including L. van Veldhuizen (participatory agricultural development), T.M Radha (sustainable agriculture) and R. Surdeo (organizational development and HRD). A methodology was designed for this evaluation that would allow systematic analysis of the participatory process. It would also be participatory itself in order to generate more detailed and relevant insights and strengthen the current change process towards PLD while maintaining overall system and rigor of the evaluation approach to arrive at well-founded results. The main steps in the evaluation have been the development of the study framework with areas or attention and indicators, an inception workshop with partners and farmer leaders, 1 week field studies in each of the working areas complemented by partner self-evaluation activities in some cases, 5 day institutional analysis visits to each partner and their FOs and a 2 day concluding workshop. Successful parts of the methodology proved to be its comprehensiveness, the participation assessment indicators, the intensive dialogues created, and some of the participatory tools used. Timing of the evaluation in the off season and the limited time per partner emerged as two clear concerns. The fielding of the Indian and international consultants over the different activities could have been improved too (though at a cost) while high level of community own mobilization during field visits posed made detailed discussions and data analysis at field level difficult at times.

Context and partners

Orissa is one of the poorer states of India. The infrastructure is not well developed. This is particularly true for the working areas of the Misereor partners. In rural areas people depend on agriculture and the forest of their food and income complemented by wage labor and government support in the lean seasons. Agriculture is mostly rain-fed with annual rainfall amounting to 1200-1700 mm/year. Agricultural productivity is generally low leading to a scarcity of food grains in the district. Orissa is known for its dominant Adivasi (tribal) population and vibrant culture and is the second largest tribal dominant state in the India. Adivasi form the main target group of the Misereor partners. They are among the most economically deprived groups and face challenges in accessing government services because of contempt and discrimination on the side of the service providers and limited self-confidence on their own side. The forest has always been and still potentially is a major source of food, other products and income. Unfortunately the forest are under major threats because of interest of larger economic players such as logging companies and conflicts over illegal logging are frequent. Orissa has also very rich mineral deposits and mining development is another hotly contested activity in the state threatening the


livelihood source of the Adivasi. Added to this, several project districts are naxalite1-affected posing an extra challenge to staff and communities. The three partner organizations that are part of this study are relatively small independent NGOs with PLD project teams typically of 15 to 20 staff, not counting volunteers. They have been partnering with Misereor between 8 and 11 years. Since the start of the PLD learning process they have had 2 or 3 three year projects with Misereor. Though these have different formal objectives and a diversity of activities a closer look shows that most of the work can be summarised under two central objectives:

1. To increase food security and food sovereignty through diversifying food production, forest conservation and management, reviving traditional varieties, spreading mixed farming practices, seed conservation and information exchange.

2. To establish a strong farmers' movement and community organizations, including reviving traditional institutions, to take ownership of development efforts, fight for rights and influence policies and actions from the government and interest groups affecting local livelihoods.

This synthesis analyses the work across the three partners based on available NGO-specific evaluation reports prepared as part of this evaluation and additional information and data generation with partners.

Conclusions

General The efforts by partners and communities to develop and practice a locally effective people-led development approach generally have been successful. Communities and their organizations are becoming the main drivers of development activities with the NGOs changing their role from initiator to supporter. The work reaches marginalized Adivasi communities while other marginalized communities such as scheduled-casts take part and benefit to various degrees. Women play an important role and give evidence of increased space and confidence to participate at all levels. The impact of the use of the people-led approach at this stage is becoming evident from the capacity and confidence of communities and their leaders to come-up for their rights and face external agencies, the improved technical results and the strength of the farmer organizations to undertake development activities and mobilize relevant resources and technical expertise without NGO involvement. Livelihood improvement The revival, strengthening and spread of traditional agricultural and food practices has been widely accepted among the communities in the project areas as a way forward. Numbers of farmers involved in or using a number (not all) key practices such as growing of different varieties and use of agro-ecological practices has been growing steadily of the past 5 years. Costs of production are likely to decrease because of this. Available but scattered information suggests that food security has increased as a result and that, particularly, nutrition and food practices improved considerably. The work reviving traditional varieties has led to a rich information base on varieties and their characteristics. This is an underutilized resource and more could be done to spread the information. There seems considerable room and need to seek ways to further strengthen agricultural and food systems. Overall productivity of the systems even in their diversified forms remains relatively low, also as compared to livelihood needs. (Re-) Strengthening the role of the forest in securing people’s livelihoods is much appreciated by communities. Income and food security increased through improved management and use of the forest with 50% and 100% respectively (Keonjar). Securing individual land ownership for more than 5180 households over all districts is a major achievement though land allocated has been quite below what was applied for.

1 This term refers to a still very active armed resistance movement that grew out of conflicts over access to land in Andra

Pradesh but has spread to several other states while partially losing its progressive position and becoming more violent. During this evaluation 28 people, among them many very high ranking government officials, were killed in an ambush on a road that only a few weeks earlier had been travelled by the evaluation team.


None of the 158 applications for FRA community land ownership has been successful. There is also considerable scope to expand work on processing and marketing of forest products to increase their role in generating income and increasing food security. Advocacy, lobby and related actions have become a major component of the work at local, block and district level, most strongly so in the Keonjar district. This work is very relevant and has been effective. Farmer organizations play an important role in organizing many these activities. Community organization and leadership A large number of active local level CBOs, groups, committees, and revived traditional institutions have emerged from the program most of which have become platforms to undertake own development activities or link-up with external agencies. The evaluation was confronted with serious requests though for further capacity strengthening at this level. Federating village level groups, a total of 37 farmer organizations have been formed at different levels. These farmer organizations play a key role in many activities. They are semi-formally organized and loosely structured and farmer leaders indicate to “struggle” how to make their organizations more inclusive and effective. Partners and communities urgently need to jointly reflect on the future of the organizations so that well-informed choices can be made on whether and how to further develop them. Community “specialists” play an important role in the field. Further capacity building at this level is asked for. Their longer term functioning and sustainability deserve further analysis and reflection. PLD its use and internalization The PLD approach has become the basis of all work of partners with communities. Though partners have some difficulty in articulating clearly their way of doing PLD and its various steps, they have generally put in place a PLD process that is systematic and leading to true farmer participation. Community members and leaders were found to play a key role in most activities showing considerable ownership. Dependency on NGO funding for implementation of activities is decreasing but slowly. Looking in more detail at the PLD approach as conceptualized and used in practice the evaluation team has flagged a number of issues that need attention by the partner organizations to various extent. PLD has been internalized within the three partner organizations to a large extent. The open attitude of NGO leaders and the well facilitated accompaniment process have played a key role in achieving this. Serious efforts have been made to try integrate PLD in projects by other donors. Some partners have succeeded in this to a certain extent but this is not well documented and there is still uncertainty and disagreements whether such integration is really possible. Capacity and skills in PLD facilitation are visible but differ among staff. It is a challenge to bring new staff up to the same level, also given that major exposure visits related to PLD outside Orissa are much less frequent now. Program management The PLD process has reached a stage where PLD teams may need to add key expertise to be able adequately support the FOs and their programs. Most farmer organizations and partners have created adequate space for regular monitoring of and reflection on progress and achievements. This action-reflection pattern is key in further developing both the programs and the PLD approach at large. Partners regularly collect impressive amounts of quantitative data which are very much underutilized and/or used effectively (progress reports). The interaction between partners and Misereor regarding the planning, monitoring and evaluation and reporting of work has generally been supportive for implementing more open-ended PLD projects. There still seems to be confusion on how to formulate and treat objectives and targets in PLD projects though.


Recommendations

Following the above the evaluation does the following recommendations: 1. Look for and systematically experiment with other practices that could strengthen the agriculture

and food systems as suggested in the report with attention too to strengthening the role of livestock.

2. Monitor and expand where feasible activities that provide important additional income generating components such as the case of flaxseeds and integration of dairy.

3. Seek ways to make current information on traditional varieties more widely available to farmers and

others and explore ways of “publishing” this taking Indian IPR into account.

4. Continue exploring ways to bring the work on seeds and varieties to a next level e.g. by further selection, development of clearer lines, and perhaps ultimately farmer-led breeding.

5. Give serious follow-up to the as yet unprocessed applications for community land titles under the

FRA, possibly in coordinated manner across all districts.

6. Jointly explore ways to further increase income and food security from forest products, e.g., through joint processing and/or marketing.

7. Identifying and review capacity building needs of current village level organizations and their

leaders and create opportunities jointly to pursue these.

8. FOs and partners engage in a well facilitated reflection and learning process for the FOs to make choices on the longer term vision of their organizations and future structure and management.

9. FOs, partners and CRPs review the position, level of formalization, functioning and incentive system

for local specialists, also taking into account their continued functioning beyond project support.

10. Identify further capacity building needs of existing and possibly new local specialists and give these follow-up through exposure, training events or other means.

11. Strengthen current PLD practice, maximize level involvement of non-Adivasi- marginalized groups,

include selected linkages and collaboration with government departments and programs, increasing space for farmer-experimentation and innovation and complement exposure and exchange visits with more widely accessible farmer learning and capacity building forms and activities.

12. Critically review experiences with incorporating PLD in NABARD type of projects as source of

learning and as basis for decision making on future collaboration with similar agencies. Use detailed documentation of the process in the Badi project in Mayurbhanj as input into this learning, compared with the low-cost horticultural development work in Keonjar.

13. Continued attention to PLD capacity building and induction of new staff. This to include participation

in national or international courses or workshops such as offered/organized by PRIA in New Delhi or IIRR in the Philippines to deepen understanding, learn to articulate, analyze, and document and share PLD more widely.

14. Partners to seek ways to strengthen capacities in critical areas of work such as (collective)

marketing, formal organizational development and sustainable agricultural development at large; building capacity of current staff, employing new staff, and/or strengthening networking with key resource organizations.

15. Simplify and focus data collection / processing system, based on the question what kind of data are

really needed by NGOs and FOs, considering both internal use and learning and use for external accountability.

16. Ensure that data collected are shared back to communities and the FOs so that they can learn from

them and adapt programs and activities accordingly.


17. Partners to agree with FOs what they want, need, and can do in terms of M&E and data collection, build capacities within FOs for M&E and focus own M&E on additional information as required.

18. Give more attention to M&E of the spread of the PLD process and its activities outside the project

intervention areas and without involvement of the project as indication for relevance of the work.

19. Undertake strategically focused documentation of the PLD process and its impacts to support internal learning and allow wider sharing of the important work done.

20. Misereor to initiate further reflection on ways to include targets in PLD projects that give enough

flexibility for the process yet create a clear basis for joint M&E, also considering the suggestions from chapter 9.2 of this report.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The evaluation team is very grateful to the staff of the 3 partner organizations under the leadership of Mr Prasanth Narayanan, Mrs Puspalata Pani, Mr Biswamohan Mohanty and Mr Duskar Barik for working with the team in this evaluation process. Given the participatory nature of this evaluation and the issues under study their openness in discussing successes and failures, their willingness to generate and provide a great variety of data sets and related documents, undertake self-evaluation activities and contribute fully to joint reflection activities played a key role in making this study a success. Particular reference in this needs to be made to staff involved in planning, organizing and facilitating the numerous evaluation activities in the field under difficult conditions created by time pressure, the weather and/or unstable local conditions such as strikes. Mr Biswamohan Mohanty of ORRISSA took-up the challenge of coordinating this complex evaluation process from the side of the local partners and managed to streamline implementation of various sub-studies and activities so that all could be completed as planned. Equally critically important has been the involved of the farmer organizations, local leaders and village people at large. We are very grateful for the warm welcome during all field visits expressed through songs, music, dance and rituals and the smooth facilitation of those visits. We have particularly appreciated the high quality inputs of community representatives and leaders in the various meetings and workshops that were part of the evaluation, from the inception workshop, focused group meetings and SWOT analysis with farmer leaders, to the debriefing meetings and the concluding reflection workshop in Puri. Finally we acknowledge the important inputs received and the time made available from a large number of resource people including NGO Board members, elected representatives of Panchayat Raj Institutions, staff of government administration and technical departments and staff of the Asia department of Misereor, among them Manny Yap, the PLD consultant, who also supported the inception and final reflection workshop. L. van Veldhuizen T.M. Radha R. Surdeo


1 INTRODUCTION

Misereor and three of its partner organizations in Orissa India, i.e. DULAL, ORRISSA and KIRDTI, have worked together since 2006 to reorient their development projects towards using a People-led Development (PLD) approach. PLD implies that local people, villagers, farmers, are the central actors of the development process, that their interests, needs and current resources are the starting point, and that the NGOs refrain from bringing their fixed programs but rather look for best ways to provide support where needed. To assist in the reorientation and PLD learning process Misereor made available a PLD consultant, Manny Yap, to work with and accompany the partners in developing a locally relevant PLD approach. This year, Misereor and the partners decided to use the opportunity of the scheduled project evaluations to undertake a systematic joint evaluation of the work undertaken by all three partners with a major focus on understanding to what extent the reorientation towards PLD has been realized and what the outcome and impact of this reorientation has been at the various levels. This evaluation thus served two purposes:

To generate insight in operation and performance of the programs funded by Misereor as part of the agreed regular project evaluation schedule;

To provide insight specifically in the use and internalization of a people-led development approach, its strength and limitations, and the impact the use of the approach has had on the realization or not of (project) achievements.

The evaluation was considered important not just for accountability reasons but also for learning by and across the 3 partner organizations. The findings would be used by all involved in mapping out the future direction of the programs. Documentation of approaches and activities where found successful would also create a basis for scaling-up and policy dialogue with other organizations. A three person team was formed to work with partners and Misereor in the evaluation including L. van Veldhuizen (participatory agricultural development), T.M Radha (sustainable agriculture) and R. Surdeo (organizational development and HRD). Initially it was hoped that a staff member and community representative from another partner would join the external team during the field visits but this was not realised. The overall terms of reference for this evaluation has been included in Annex 1. The evaluation took place between March and June 2013 as detailed in chapter 3. Given that the change to a PLD approach was initiated in the year 2006 the evaluation generally covered the period 2006-2012. This period covers

three cycles of 32 year projects in the case of DULAL and ORRISSA and two projects in the case of

KIRDTI. IN the case of DULAL and ORRISSA the first projects started actually before 2006. Assessment of the implementation quality and results of a development process in general and PLD in particular present a number of methodological challenges. The evaluation approach and methodology was therefore given extra attention during the preparation phase. This is discussed in chapter 3 while Annex 2 analyses in more detail the use of the methodology in practice. The current report present an overview analysis and formulates conclusions and lessons across the work of all three partners focusing on common areas of work and, particularly, on the use of the PLD approach. It is based on the report Facilitating Farmer Led Initiatives in the Mayurbhanj District: An Evaluation Report on three people-led project describing and analyzing in detail activities, achievements and impact of the work by DULAL, the draft report People Led Development Process as facilitated by KIRDTI: Assertion for access, control, use and management of natural resources. An Evaluation Report with a first similar analysis of the work by KIRDTI and data and information collected as part of this evaluation on ORRISA as yet not consolidated into a separate report. The focus on common areas of work implies that some activities specific for one partner, such as e.g. the health work by DULAL, will not get attention here, relevant though it may be in the specific context.

2 The projects by DULAL and ORRISSA supported by Misereor just before and around 2006 have been considered for this

evaluation too as partners did integrate important elements of the PLD approach already in these running projects


2 THE CONTEXT

Orissa

Misereor focuses its development cooperation and partnerships in India on a limited number of states Orissa, located in the North-East of the country, is among those states.

Orissa – or Odisha as it is currently known in India - is one of the poorer states of India. The below poverty line population is estimated around 37% (2009-2010 data) which is among the highest of the country. Infrastructure is not well developed. This is particularly true for the working areas of the Misereor partners in Orissa. In rural areas people depend on agriculture and the forest of their food and income complemented by wage labor and government support in the lean seasons. Seasonal labor migration to other states is a regular phenomenon. Rainfall in the state is between 1200 and 1700 mm/year. Generally this is sufficient for cultivation in both during the Kharif and Rabi seasons, provided rain water is managed well. While there are a number of irrigation projects and facilities agriculture is mostly rain-fed. Agricultural productivity is generally low leading to a scarcity of food grains in the district. Average formal land holding of Adivasi and Dalit families is often below 0.20 ha though customary law would allow them to use larger tracks of land. Illegal land transfer of land from Adivasi to non-Adivasi people is common practice. Orissa is known for its dominant tribal population and vibrant culture and is the second largest tribal dominated state in India. Ironically though being the most dominant group in terms of numbers the Adivasi are also among the most economically deprived groups. Given their current status they face many challenges in accessing government services and support programs including limited self-confidence and capacity issues on their own side and contempt and discrimination on the side of the service providers. In addition they suffer from the regular Indian bureaucracy frustrating many of potentially promising development programs. One distinguishes between so-called general Adivasi communities and those that are known as “Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups”. The first have a longer tradition of practicing permanent forms of agriculture and are relatively more in contact with external agencies. The latter live more isolated and deeper into the forest and food-gathering and shifting forms of agriculture are still important in their livelihood strategies. Misereor partners in Orissa interact with both groups but mostly with the first, also the largest, community. Though the forest cover has been reduced dramatically over the past decades it still covers around one third of the state. The forest has always been a major source of food, other products and income for the Adivasi communities. Unfortunately the forest and its trees are also of interest to larger economic players such as logging companies and conflicts between them and local communities on access and control over forests are frequent. In fact large parts of the State, particularly of the operational areas of the partner organizations fall under 5th Schedule Rule of the Indian constitution which provides indigenous communities with development rights and protection of their natural and other resources. In practice such rights are hardly recognised though.


Orissa has very rich mineral deposits, including large bauxite and high quality iron ore deposits. Though these provide important opportunities for economic development for the state they are often located in the forests on which the Adivasi depend for their livelihood. These forest have also important environmental and nature conservation functions. Mining development is therefore another hotly contested activity in the state in which civil society engages in influencing relevant local, state and national policies and plans while at the same monitoring implementation of these on the ground. The state has a history of road blocks and more violent confrontations between local people and companies to stop (illegal) mining activities.

The project districts

The Misereor partners operate in 4 out of the 30 districts of the State: Malkangiri and Kandhamal (ORRISSA), Keonjar (KIRDTI) and Mayurbhanj (DULAL), and within these districts they focus on the more remote parts. Malkangiri in the very South of the State is the most remote of the four in terms of distance and communication with the state capital, Bhubaneswar. It is a relatively new district carved out from undivided Koraput in 1992 and its government structures are - perhaps because of this - not as strong and fully developed as in other districts. It is known as the refugee district as refugees from East Bengal were rehabilitated here in 1965. The government has made development facilities and services available to the new settlers and policies and distribution of resources in the district have a bias towards the refugee settlements. Malkangiri is also one of the most naxalite-affected areas of the state. Though the villages are relatively free of violence, traversing to remote villages as done by ORRISSA staff can be risky. Political activities like strikes often disrupt normal life in the district including all transportation and communication. Kandhamal is situated in the Centre-East of the State. The project working areas have witnessed violent internal conflicts in late 2007, early 2008. Officially known as conflicts between Hindu and Christian communities the roots of the conflicts probably go deeper. The naxalite movement is also quite active in Kandhamal. Their operational areas are very close to if not overlapping with the working areas of the Misereor partner adding to the work pressure. Keonjar is located 220 km from the state capital in the northern part of Odisha and particularly known for its mining development and the – sometimes violent – struggles that have come with this. Large companies such as MESCO, MITTAL and STERLITE operate in the district. Around 40,000 ha of forest land traditionally owned by Adivasi have been occupied by mining companies with devastating consequences for the forest and ecology and resulting in huge displacement in the district. Because of the mines road accessibility is good. Mayurbhanj in the North of the State is relatively well accessible being on the coastal high way to Calcutta. Its forest cover stretches over 43% of the total area and this is where most of the project communities live. It houses more than 50 Adivasi communities including the Santals, followed by the Kolha, Bhuyan, Bathudi Bhuyan, and Gond. Valuable forest growth includes trees like sal, piasal, teak, asan, mahua, bamboo and other indigenous species provide tremendous developmental potential for exploration and harness to the benefit of the local people. The district is also affected by the naxalite problem and harassment of people as naxilite suspect is common but to a lesser extent probably than in Malkangiri. (Illegal) mining is not a big issue but struggles on the use of forest and its products abound. The creation and conservation of the Similipal Biosphere puts further pressure on Advisasi’s livelihoods and several villages are being displaced to other areas.


3 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the evaluation methodology. A more detailed analysis of and reflection on the methodology is added in Annex 2 to inspire and inform the design of future similar events. Following the spirit of the PLD approach the evaluation itself was to be designed to be fundamentally participatory both towards the communities and their groups and the partner organizations. This would ensure that more detailed and relevant insight in the processes would be mobilised through direct involvement of all. It would also support and further strengthen the learning process of partners and communities on PLD that had developed over the past years. Strong involvement of partners and communities in the process was achieved at three levels: 1. The design and planning of the evaluation process: To this end a 5 day inception workshop was

organized mid-March in Orissa bringing both partner staff and community representatives together with the evaluation team. The workshop discussed the purpose and focus of the evaluation, reviewed partners key program activities and helped them to develop evaluation indicators for each, and finally outlined the planning of the rest of the evaluation process. One day was used to try and practice possible field evaluation tools and methods.

2. Participation in the evaluation itself: Following the inception workshop partners and communities undertook self-evaluation activities. The extent this was done varied depending on the time available and the capacity of the partner organizations but where done they provided important insights. In its own activities the evaluation team used participatory tools and methods where appropriate. These included semi-structured interviews, participatory observation, small group work and SWOT analysis with both partners and leaders of the Farmer Organizations (FOs).

3. Debriefings: Before concluding each major evaluation activity a debriefing was organized for NGO staff and community leaders to verify findings and correct them where appropriate. A 2 day workshop was organized at the end of the process in India which provided an opportunity for debriefing across all 3 partners before they would receive the draft reports for last comments.

At the same time the process was designed to maintain overall system and rigor of the evaluation approach to arrive at well-founded results: 1. The evaluation team developed, in consultation with the donor, an overall framework for the

evaluation distinguishing 5 key areas of attention respectively at the level of communities, the partner organizations and the donor (summary included in Annex 2).

2. Using the framework the team reviewed and complemented the indicator sets developed by

partners during the inception workshop into coherent sets of indicators as attached in the Annexes 3 (community level) and 4 (level of partner organizations and Misereor).

3. The team collected and compiled where possible focused quantitative data to verify the qualitative information from the participatory evaluation activities. The M&E systems of the partners proved to have a surprising amount of data for this purpose.

4. It was agreed that the text of final reports would be the responsibility of the evaluation team alone. Above considerations were translated into a series of focused evaluation activities as in Table 1:


Table 1: Main evaluation activities and their focus

Timing Activity Purpose Main actors

Nov 2012 – March 2013

Preparations Develop framework, methodology, organize the team

Donor, team consulting partners

14 – 19 March 2013

Inception workshop in India

Agree on evaluation, develop focus and indicators, planning

Partners, community leaders, team, PLD consultant

2 – 7 April 2013

Brief follow-up visit international consultant3

Partner meeting to review outcome planning; support 1 field study of inception workshop; streamline

Partner staff, international consultant; ORRISSA, Indian, international consultant

April – May 2013

Self-evaluation & data collection

Cover additional villages, own learning & fill gaps in data

Partners and communities

April 2013 3 one week field-studies

Review and assess field level achievements

Indian consultants with individual partner staff & communities

16 May – 1 June 20134

3 final 5 day visits Institutional analysis at level of partners, FOs and stakeholders

Evaluation team with individual partner staff & communities

3 – 4 June 2013

Final joint analysis workshop

Verify findings and formulate learning across the 3 studies

Evaluation team, partners, communities, PLD consultant

The selection of villages to be included in the field studies received special attention both in terms of ensuring covering adequate numbers of villages as compared to the total number of villages reached by the projects and the representativeness of the villages selected. Annex 6 summarizes information on the villages visited both during the field studies and the final visits with their main characteristics. Generally a relevant cross section of around 10% of intervention villages were visited by team. In all cases a visit to village covered by another partner project, not funded by Misereor, was included for comparison sake. Only in the case of DULAL a village was visited with no major project interventions from NGOs or other organizations. The structured self-evaluations as designed during the inception workshop covered an additional number of villages. KIRDTI and ORRISSA undertook these self-evaluations most systematically and reports of self-evaluations were available as inputs to the evaluation for 8 villages in Keonjar and for three villages in Malkangiri/Kandhamal. ORRISSA also supported a self-evaluation of one of the Panchayat level farmer organizations the report of which provides additional insights. Coverage of the evaluation was widened again by extensive cross-checking of findings from villages visited with other villages though series of meetings with leaders from larger numbers of villages coming together at the cluster level to discuss progress and lessons learnt. The field studies relied mostly on focus-group discussions (FGD) often combined with a simple SWOT (Strength-Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats) analysis. In larger groups, the team organised small group work (e.g. per location, per activity, per gender) to mobilise a wide range of views. The field studies were complemented with the usual study of documents, reports, staff interviews, and review of the current monitoring and evaluation and data management system. During team interviews and meetings, buzz groups and meta-plan cards were often used to involve as many as possible. Overall more than 1500 community members took active part in the discussions that were part of the field studies while an additional 260 community members contributed to the self-evaluation activities by KIRDTI and ORRISSA. Structured interviews and FGDs generated feedback and data a/o from around 150 farmer organization leaders and local level resource persons (cadres), 45 members of local government bodies and 7 staff of relevant government line departments. .

3 The follow-up visit was needed when the international consultant missed the inception workshop due to visa complications

4 Detailed time schedule of the final visits is added as Annex 5


4 THE CASE STUDIES

4.1 DULAL

DULAL, an NGO created by Father Paul in 1990, focuses on empowering grassroots through various programs. 70-80% of the people in the working villages of DULAL are tribals belonging to the Santal, Munda, Bhuyan, Gondh, Ho and other tribes. They are dependent on agriculture and rely on forest

resources during lean periods, wage labor and government PDS support.5

DULAL started to work in agriculture in 2002 with MISEREOR funding for which it obtained technical support from AFRO, an NGO based in Bhubaneswar. In 2005, when the reflection on the need for a PLD type of approach started, MISEREOR supported DULAL though two projects one on drought mitigation and tribal development and one on rural development in the Kuliana Block. The need to change to a PLD type of approach was felt when DULAL’s initial work in agriculture with AFPRO did not seem to lead to sustainable results. It was typically focusing on introducing SA practices and supporting communities with inputs, knowhow and subsidies. After initial informal consultations DULAL thus responded positively to the invitation by MISEREOR to take part in an exchange and learning process with other partners in Orissa on people-centered approaches in rural development in 2006 – 2007. When initial results of the PLD approach in the running project were being felt, DULAL proposed to make it central to its new project with MISEREOR that started in 2008 as ‘Facilitating Farmer Led Initiatives in Mayurbhanj district’. This worked in 4 blocks of the Mayurbhanj district - Kuliana, Bangriposi, Bisoi and Saraskana. The project focused on sensitizing the communities on issues relating to sustainable farming and rights of tribal communities. It included awareness raising regarding revival and protection of traditional seeds, negative effects of mono-cropping, GMO and their threats to indigenous genetic resources, land rights and land alienation, loss of diverse food culture etc. Exposure visits, campaigns (on millets, GMO etc.), farmer exchanges, celebrating food and seed festivals were some of the activities carried out. The next, current, phase of the project works with communities to evolve to the next level of development. The focus is on increasing the area under diverse and traditional farming, help communities produce surpluses and organize them into cooperatives, so that they can efficiently market and generate income. Currently the project covers a total of 109 revenue villages and 6723 households in the 4 blocks. DULAL had different objectives for each of the project phases. They can be summarized under 2 headings: 1. To increase food security and food sovereignty through diversification of food cultivation, forest

conservation, reviving traditional varieties, adopting mixed farming practices, seed conservation and information exchange.

2. To establish a strong farmers' movement and community organizations, including reviving traditional institutions, to take ownership of development efforts and influence government policies and programs and other agencies and interest affecting local livelihoods.

Currently DULAL has 42 staff with a director, 2 Program Managers, 8 Block level Coordinators, 29 Program Organizers and 2 Administrative staff. It is governed by a Board. Around 17 staff are involved in the MISEREOR supported project. Leadership had moved from the founding father to Prasanth Narayanan for most of the period of the PLD projects. Recently leadership has changed hands again and some changes have been made in the Board to support the new leadership. DULAL is now in the process of adapting to the new set-up. Apart from the MISEREOR supported work DULAL runs two main other projects currently, both funded by NABARD: the well-known horticultural promotion project known as “Badi” and the more recent Watershed Development Project. This encouraged the organization to harmonize the working approach in these projects supported by a more bureaucratic organization with the PLD being developed in the MISEREOR supported projects.

5 The Indian Public Distribution System (PDS) is a national food security system that facilitates supply of food grains to the

poor at a subsidized price.


4.2 KIRDTI

KIRDTI started in 1989 by a few activists working in a PLD kind of mode, staying in the village to work with young tribal youths in the Harichandanpur Block to respond to issues related to poverty, malnutrition and hunger of the indigenous community, by mobilising people, support to deomstrations and other actions and highlighting issues in the media. There was no funding support except for a very small fund from Society for Rural and Urban Tribal Initiative (SRUTI), New Delhi, to support 3 activists. KIRDTI was registered under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in 1996 and started receiving support from donors such as IGSSS, (ended 2002) and Action Aid (1998-2001). It got diverted to a project mode due to the nature of emphasis by the support organisations. After a lean period 2002 to 2005 Andheri Hilfe and then Misereor became key donors first focusing on emergency food security and land issues but quickly moving into more comprehensive agriculture work, forest use and management and related advocacy and lobbying. Current donors are Misereor, the American Jews World Service supporting mainly lobby, advocacy and entitlement issues related to land and forest under a 3 year contract, and Andheri Hilfe. With the latter KIRDTI is about to conclude a 3 year project working a/o on land issues, food security, indigenous livestock promotion, and forest ecology in 110 villages in Harichandanpur block. The diagram shows relative contributions of the donors and the importance of the Misereor support. KIRDTI focuses its work in three blocks of the Keonjar district. All these fall under 5th Schedule Rule of the Indian constitution which provides indigenous communities with certain development rights and protection of their natural and other resources. In practice such rights are hardly recognised. KIRDTI has a staff of 37 (9 women) with 29 volunteers (8 women). The people in the working villages are mostly Adivasiis belonging to Juanga, Bhuyan, Sabar and Munda tribes. They depend on forest and agriculture for their livelihood. Empowering these communities is the central focus of all KIRDTI programs. In the period of this review Misereor supported two projects of KIRDTI with Euro 76,000 (2006-2009) and Euro 100,000 (2010-2013) respectively focusing on two of the three blocks: Harinchanpur and

Telkoi6. The current project has three objectives:

1. Consolidation of the gains in Harinchanpur of strengthening of organisations and indigenous social

structures to defend and implement their individual and community land and forest rights; 2. Expansion of people-led development activities to the Telkoi Block: People-led work on indigenous

agricultural systems, sustainable land use and management of natural resources, protection of land and forest rights and building alliances and political lobby and advocacy for influencing policy;

3. Strengthening of the institutional capacity of KIRDTI, to professionally support the community self-help initiatives through human resource development, provision of the infrastructure, qualification and consultation as well as through networking and alliance building from local to international level.

As in the wording of these objectives, the PLD approach had been integrated fully in the work of KIRDTI at the time. Women play a leadership role in the rights based actions. KIRDTI maintained its commitment to PLD even when staff members and farmer leaders were arrested, harassed and imprisoned during 2008-09 when they became too visible while confronting the powerful economic interests though this obviously did impact the project work. The work with Misereor targets 91 villages and 5920 households in the two blocks. For this evaluation KIRDTI has documented systematically its learning process on PLD. This document is added in Annex 7. It shows how KIRDTI systematically used the opportunities provided by the PLD consultancy to make the PLD process its own and adapt it to the realities of Keonjar.

6 In addition KIRDTI received a grant to accompany and support other NGOs in Orissa and 2 other states to learn about PLD.


4.3 ORRISSA

ORRISSA was founded in 1988. It primarily works with Tribal & Dalit communities in Malkangiri and Kandhamal district, forest dwellers and/or subsistence farmers. The first funding support to ORRISSA was from IGSSS in 1992. Between 1994 and 2000 the organisation focused its work on the Khandmal district with support by Christian Aid through the Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI). This work that took place in the deep forest & hill terrain of Khandamal has helped to create the identity of ORRISSA internally and externally e.g. through media coverage. In 1998 ORRISSA decided to extend its work to the Malkangiri district. Misereor has been a major donor since then with the Irish NGO Trocaire. During the last project cycle (2010-2013) MISEREOR and Trocaire joined hands and coordinated their support through one ORRISSA farmer-led development program. From 2005-09 ORRISSA facilitated improving the livelihoods of the forest communities in 60 forest villages in Kandhamal working with the Centre for People’s Forest (CPF), Hyderabad. ORRISA is an active member of various networks and alliances including the network “Antaranga’ in Khandamal building solidarity among communities affected by communal riots. ORRISSA is also a member of the WeCan network and the lead NGO for Malkangiri district leading the campaign to stop violence against women. It manages the ‘Gender Resource Centre’ of the Malkangiri district being a member of the National Alliance of Women (NAWO). ORRISSA is the Governing Body member of ‘ASHA’ – a national network on sustainable agriculture and also a member of ‘Organic Association of India’ and ‘Soil Conservation Society of India’. From 2006 onwards, the PLD approach of ORRISSA got consolidated when MISEREOR facilitated the exchange and learning process for partners in Orissa. The first 3-year PLD type project (2007 - 2010) ‘Facilitating Farmer Led Initiatives in sustainable agriculture at five blocks in Kandhamal & Malkangiri districts’ was implemented with an overall objective of promoting process-oriented approaches among the Adivasi to take control of their life and the natural resources upon which they depend. Central focus was helping Adivasi to self-organize into farmer organizations, increase their insights on the threats to their basic rights and jointly fight for their rights towards a sustainable living in their own environments. The very positive response of communities to this approach and its efforts to mobilise local resources and wisdom inspired ORRISSA to influence Trocaire to join the PLD work in the next phase. At that time ORRISSA also started to integrate PLD in all its programs. The first PLD project ended the use of subsidies. The team struggled to de-learn and create new learning to give space to communities to analyse and respond to the challenges in their livelihoods. Work on sustainable agriculture and rights of the communities included awareness on revival and protection of traditional seeds, the negative effects of mono-cropping, on GMOs and their threats to indigenous genetic resources, land rights and land alienation, loss of diverse food culture etc. Exposure visits, lobby campaigns, farmer exchanges, celebrating food and seed festivals were some of the activities carried out during this phase. The next, current, phase 2010-2013 aimes at helping communities evolve to the next level. It has three central objectives: 1. Increasing food security by expanding diversified agriculture, based on traditional millet and rice

seeds, to 12 villages in Malkangiri and in 20 in Kandhamal. 2. Increase income of women by 20% from legally recognised self-help cooperatives and from

processing and marketing of forest products. 3. Protection of people’s rights and entitlements to community forest, their access to the government

program MGNREGA and the sovereignty over their seeds through community-led advocacy and lobbying.

Currently the major interventions of ORRISSA are thus the ‘Farmer-led Initiative’ supported by MISEREOR & Trocaire in Malkangiri & Kandhamal, a 500 acre WADI project supported by NABARD in Malkangiri (since 2011) and a recent Watershed Development project supported by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of Odisha. ORRISSA has a total staff of 30, including the director, with 5 program coordinators, 14 program and assistant program officers, 4 accountants, 6 support staff and 2 civil engineers. It also has 16 Community Organisers. 22 staff are working in the Farmer-led Initiative. This focuses on 95 villages targeting a total of 4727 households. The current PLD project has a budget of Euro 417,000 (Misereor contribution of Euro 250,000 includes costs of publishing the LEISA Magazin in Orya).


5 LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT

5.1 Introduction

In line with the first objective of the evaluation a critical analysis was done of work by partners and communities to improve local livelihoods, increase food security and reduce poverty. This synthesis zooms in on four areas of work that are relevant for all partners: agriculture and food, forest use and management, income generation, and advocacy and action to support the other three.

5.2 Traditional agriculture and food systems

Agriculture being the backbone of the livelihood strategies of the indigenous communities it forms a central area of work of all three partners with the communities. Communities and NGOs refer to this work as ”traditional agriculture”. This seems to resound very strongly in the local languages but has a less positive connotation for outsiders such as the evaluators. In other contexts “traditional agriculture” is often associated with a limited focus on practices from the forefathers (and mothers) with little openness for innovation and interaction with other sources of knowledge. Endogenous agricultural development is probably what it is being done in practice: agricultural development led by people themselves building on existing strengths and resources and actively linking with others to seek further improvements. There is considerable diversity of activities under the broad heading of traditional agriculture and food systems as expected given the differences in context and the key role communities are playing in setting priorities. Many relate though to seed management and use, promotion of mixed farming and of specific agro-ecological practices with a number other activities supporting these three. These activities are relevant in the case of the general Adivasi communities who have started practicing permanent forms of agriculture often 30 years or longer ago. Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups depend often still on shifting forms of cultivation and work in the field of agriculture would have to focus on ways to strengthen or transform this system in the current context. Some initial work and thinking is done on this but as far this evaluation understands it is still in the very initial stages. But also in further developing agricultural activities with the general Adivasi communities it would be of interest to better understand to what extent shifting cultivation thinking and culture is still influencing choices made! Development of agricultural activities is grounded in the joint analysis (NGO-communities) of the problems and limitations associated with modern agricultural development as promoted by mainstream organizations. Communities had been used to growing primarily paddy under green revolution type of programs and many of the traditional paddy varieties got replaced with one or two high yielding varieties provided by the State government. Crops that are important for nutritional purposes or food security like pulses and millets got neglected. Apart from the unreliability in the availability of external inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides from external agencies the viability of this type of agriculture in the more marginal lands of the Adivasi has been found problematic. The ill effects of mono-cropping on soils and on human health through poor nutrition were also visible. These experiences form the starting point for NGO sensitization work and the joint search with communities for more viable and healthy ways of agriculture maximizing use of existing resources.

Seed mobilization, management and use

Access to good quality seed at the time when needed is a key issue in agriculture. Given the above problems experienced with HYV seeds communities show great interest in exploring alternatives such as revisiting the use of varieties used earlier. This has become an important and mobilizing area of work under the PLD collaboration. All agricultural activities of Adivasi have ritual components and this is also shining through in the work on seeds. Mapping of available traditional varieties is part of this work. In the form of participatory seed mapping this is very often an important activity in the initial stages of working together with communities. When some form of farmer organization has emerged in the village this usually organizes an inventory of seed available before the start of the season and coordinates access to seeds that are felt to be short in the village. Scouting for varieties elsewhere can be an action taken-up at that stage.


Where needed newly found (traditional) varieties are first tested locally through so-called adaptability trials by farmers. This implies growing the varieties on relatively small plots and systematically monitoring of performance as a basis for farmers decision making on their suitability. Elsewhere such process of farmer-led “research” has been found to be very effective in allowing farmers to identify and develop best practices under their conditions and build related capacities. It could be used more widely. Seed fairs (Melas) are organized to facilitate access to and spread of good seeds. In all project areas they have become a regular activity taking place either at the community level, the Panchayat or Block level, or the District Level as shown in the data for 2012 in Table 2. Detailed data such as from the DULAL report show an increase in fairs organized from 7 in 2007 to 25 in 2012. Melas typically take 1 day at community level, 1 or sometimes 2 days at intermediate level and often 2-3 days at district level. Apart from seed exchange the higher level fairs may feature a wider diversity of activities related to promotion of traditional agriculture and food systems such as presentations, discussions, cooking and tasting of traditional food, and award ceremonies. Communities and farmer organization leaders show great interest and ownership of the fairs. Though no systematic data are available across all three partner areas there are good indications from interviews that costs of such fairs are covered increasingly by communities themselves (more than 50% reported in some cases). Continuation of the seed fairs beyond project frameworks (sustainability) seems likely particularly at the lower levels. At district level it will depend on the strength of the farmer organization at that level.

Table 2: Seed fairs organized in 2012

No of fairs

No of participants

Highlights, other activities, notes

Local level

Mayurbhanj 19 2302 Seed display, List different seeds and names of

farmers, Seed exchange

Keonjar - -

Malkangiri/Kandhamal

Panchayat/Block level

Mayurbhanj 4 1050 Display of seeds with their characteristics, Display of IEC materials, Involvement of Govt Officials

Keonjar 7 659 6 Panchayat level fairs done with community contributions only


District level

Mayurbhanj 2 590 Display of seeds with details; Display of IEC materials, Involvement of Govt Officials, Display of compost and pest management methods, Display of chart with farmers having different traditional seeds

Keonjar 1 167


Generally costs of food, facilities and logistics including the sound system of a higher level fair are said to amount to around INR 40,000 - 50,000 (Euro 500 – 625). This excludes cost of time of the community members and NGO staff. Though often partially covered by communities the total costs need to be kept in mind. But time and cash expenses not only allow farmers access seeds (often several hundred kg are exchanged) but also create opportunities to meet and socialize, learn, share, discuss and plan.

Partners and communities also work together to strengthen local systems for conservation and management of the seeds. This is being done working though individuals or strengthening of joint seed systems / seed banks. In the DULAL area people have chosen mostly for a decentralized system where seeds are kept by individual farmers and the farmer organizations just play a role in monitoring who has which seeds. In the KIRDTI areas 11 community seed banks are functioning actively managing a collection of paddy, millet, pulses, vegetables and maize varieties. Other villages use the decentralized approach. The ORRISSA areas have probably the most developed system which combines elements of an individual and a joint approach. In each village experienced women (often custodians traditionally of seeds) have been encouraged, trained and organized to play a central role in seed conservation and management. They are known as Seed Mothers and operate linked to and under their respective village groups or farmer organization. They form a much empowered group and a strong entry point for any


further work on strengthening local seed management. The institutional arrangements around them, however, are still being discussed (see chapter 6.3).

As a result of all these activities the number of traditional varieties of paddy, millet, pulses and other crops identified, revived, conserved and now actively managed has increased steadily to reach the numbers given in Table 3.. This has been followed by a steady increase in numbers of farmer growing these varieties. For example, as per reports, in Mayurbhanj the number of farmers growing traditional paddy varieties has increased from 289 farmers in 2007 to 2806 in 2012, in Malkangiri/ Kandhamal from 2713 in 2010 to 3905 in 2012 and in Keonjar from 755 in 2006 to 3486 in 2012. For pulses the increase in Kenonjar district alone in the same period was from 230 to 2341 and for oil seeds from 310 to 2134 farmers. Table 3: Number of traditional varieties found, revived, used by farmers and documented (2012)

Paddy Millets Pulses Oilseeds Vegetables Tubers

Mayurbhanj 151 9 10 7 15 7

Keonjar 159 6 16 8 18 6

Malkangiri/ Kandhamal 139 22 27 7 37 15

This does not mean that traditional varieties have replaced HYV seeds in all cases. Members of a ground nut marketing cooperative shared, e.g., that they still used HYV seeds for this cash crop because they felt they lacked good traditional varieties and the market demand required them to go for HYV seeds. This in itself shows that farmers make informed choices in the use of seeds and do not dogmatically go for one approach.

Mixed farming

Communities and NGOs decided to gradually replace mono-cropping by mixed farming to address health and nutrition concerns, and reduce the risk of dependency on one single crop, paddy. Reflecting on earlier cropping and nutrition patterns and their strengths and weaknesses people are working to increase the diversity of crops grown. Central in this is the revival and further development of millet cultivation but promotion of a range of other crops such as pulses, tubers and vegetables grew out of this quite naturally. The millet revival implied re-mobilization and spread of relevant varieties and seeds following processes such as discussed above. In some areas millet seed was not available at all and had to be found elsewhere. Progress reports mention that in certain cases farmers had lost the knowledge of cultivating millet and are relearning and experimenting. Through various activities the farmer groups and communities promote not only the cultivation of this and other older crops but also the food culture that is linked to them. These include the organization of “food festivals” much along the lines of traditional festivals and indeed even food activities are integrated into regular local Adivasi festivals. In the DULAL areas alone 48 food festival were organized in 2012 with around a total of 1500 participants. Many farmer groups at community and even at higher levels are encouraging members towards farm planning before each season indicating which crops would be grown on which part of their land. Apart from creating a basis for determining seed needs for the season this practice encourages farmers to continue diversity cropping. The number of farmers growing millet cultivation and the total area cultivated has increased steadily as shown in Table 4. Similar patters can also be found for cultivation of pulses and vegetables, all playing a key role in family nutrition. Parallel to this the area under mixed farming has increased like-wise (Table 5).


Table 4: Development of millet cultivation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

No of farmers growing millet

Mayurbhanj 68 127 197 655 1128 1941

Keonjar 347 426 557 853 1236 1615

Malklangiri/ Kandhamal

Table 5: Spread of mixed cropping

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

No farmers cultivating

Mayurbhanj 50 88 155 208 310 974

Keonjar 255 540 854 980 1430 2115


216 479 572 797 1320 1784

Area cultivated (acres)

Mayurbhanj 12 42 66 115 222 563

Keonjar 309 433 729 947 1033 1136


96 137 183 370 774 1063

At the same time it is evident that paddy remains and probably will remain a key crop for most farmers. A group of 18 seed mothers interviewed as part of the evaluation revealed that paddy is the crop for which they conserve the largest number of varieties (Table 15 in chapter 6.3).

Agro-ecological practices

Efforts to replace or reduce the use of external inputs such as to maintain soil fertile and fight pests and diseases make sense in the above context when such inputs are often not available and have the negative implications discussed. Traditional varieties often do respond well to organic forms of fertilizer and much less so to synthetic ones. For handling soil fertility farmers and partners work on preparing and using organic manure and compost to replace factory-made fertilizers. Knowledge is shared mostly through various forms of farmer exchange and exposure visits sometimes complemented with structured training events. The number of farmers practicing compost-making seems to continue to grow steadily. Detailed data are available for the project areas showing this development, also in the area of production and use of vermin compost and liquid manure (Tables 6A and 6B).


Table 6A: Use of organic forms of fertilizer in Mayurbhanj and Keonjar districts.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

No. of farmers in Mayurbhanj using organic manure/compost

150 335 428 738 1227 1908

No. of farmers in Keonjar using

organic manure/compost 428 525 718 968 1219 1876

No. of farmers in Mayurbhanj using vermi compost

68 230 320 400 660 756

Table 6B: Use of organic forms of fertilizer in Malkangiri/Kandhamal districts

2010 2011 2012

No. of farmers having compost pits 1428 1875 3017

No. farmers using liquid manure 172 627 988

In some villages farmers have been preparing/using leaf compost but detailed data are not available. These activities are on a relatively small scale still. Collection of leafs from the forest has been and remains also part of local soil fertility management strategies. Improved management of the forest may lead to an increase of availability of this resources. Farmers interviewed, however, confirmed that by and larger quantities of organic fertilizer applied are not sufficient to maintain let alone enhance soil fertility. The evaluation team would support this. A said declining livestock population would be a limiting factor. But with the enormous availability of biomass in the area, owing to relatively favorable rainfall and proximity to forests, production of organic manure using biomass should be an option that could be and should further explored and expanded. In the area of pest and disease control work is being done to spread the use of botanical pesticides made from locally available plants or trees to replace factory-based inputs. It does not seem to receive major attention from partners and communities (reports, village meetings), perhaps with the exception of ORRISSA, and the evaluation is not in the position to make important observations on this work.

Other agriculture and food system’s activities

Partners and communities have also worked on transplanting paddy, most systematically in the case of ORRISSA and DULAL. In the case of ORRISSA the number of farmers practicing paddy transplanting over the last few years has gone down, however, from 165 in 2010 to 67 in 2012. According to staff this is due to the long dry spells during the past two years make investing time in transplanting not rewarding. In the case of DULAL there is no evidence of declining interest and more than 200 farmers are currently transplanting paddy. Interestingly enough, farmers in Malkangiri have started experimenting with transplanting millet, generally not often done, and the number of farmers practicing this has increased from 56 in 2010 to 117 in 2012. Millet is less sensitive to water shortage and the dry spells have not discouraged farmers in practicing transplanting this crop. Given the increasing importance of manure for soil fertility management efforts to strengthen integration of livestock keeping management in the farming system can play an important role. For that reason alone the work in Mayurbhanj to initiate dairy farming is worth noting. With technical support from the government three farmer groups from the DULAL working areas have organized themselves into societies to access livestock from a government supported dairy development program. Each member has bought 2 cows with bank loans. While the crop residues are fed to the livestock, the cow-dung is recycled back to the farms in the form of manure. The milk produced forms an important source of income to the 85 farmers involved. Milk collected is sold collectively through own selling counters or to a local hotel at Rs.30 per liter. So far marketing of the milk is not a problem at all. In the PLD approach communities are encouraged and have space to pursue activities that they see as promising even if these are not foreseen in project documents, some with only local relevance some with possibly wider potential. Farmers in one part of the Mayurbhanj district, for example, are trying to use residual moisture in paddy fields after the harvest by growing flax seeds which need very little further attention / expenditure. These seeds are used to make oil and can also be sold easily. More


than 300 farmers are now growing flax after paddy, earning INR 1000 of more apart from having oil for own use. Using flaxseed oil allows farmers to sell more of their mahua flowers fetching additional income. Communities in Keonjar experiment with low-cost horticulture development. Support from the NGO is in the form of seedlings but both men and women villagers are now able to practice grafting and develop own seedlings. Investments costs per family are said to be only INR 1000 per acre while in government / NABARD funded programmes these may be as much as INR 50,000. Communities and partners in all districts work together to access and make use of the opportunities provided by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREA) to strengthen their agriculture, food and natural resource management activities. This allows villagers to apply for funds to pay for their labor in undertaking specific labor intensive activities in the lean period. This work is most visible in Malkangiri. Though communities increasingly mobilize MGNREGA funds on their own partners often continue to play an important role in this too. They assist people in the bureaucratic process of obtaining MGNREGA job cards (more than 6000 households in Malkangiri alone). They also alert communities when MGNREGA opportunities present themselves, show the possibilities to use these to support running agricultural activities, initially help in preparing applications, and provide critical support to communities in case applications get stuck in the government bureaucracies. Over the past years 2350 households mobilized MGNREGA funds to dig compost pits while 152 households mobilized them for digging farm ponds in Malkangiri. Similar activities have also been undertaken in other district but at a smaller scale. Traditionally MGNREGA type of social support programs may encourage dependency dynamics within communities and a tendency of reliance on the goodwill of the government. From the interaction and observations during this evaluation it appears that in a people-led development project aiming at empowering communities MGNREGA funding can play a role if the central focus is to have empowered communities to access this on their own and if the funds are used strategically to strengthen ongoing programs looking at it as a temporary measure until regular agriculture and forest use allows communities a decent livelihood.

Analysis and conclusion

Generally the main thrust of the agriculture and food systems work that emphasizes building on community own resources and knowledge and prioritize traditional seeds and locally feasible practices for soil fertility and pest management, as starting point for development finds strong support among the target communities and their organizations. In songs, presentations and actions they show they believe in this approach. In the case of the Adivasi in Orissa the approach seems to resound well with the equally important processes of strengthening cultural identity. Evidence compiled for this evaluation shows that a number of key practices and components of the agricultural and food work are gradually gaining momentum and spreading to an increasing number of farmers. This refers to a/o the use and management of traditional varieties instead of or next to HYV ones, replacing synthetic fertilizers with various forms of compost and manure and use of local botanicals. Partners are encouraged to continue learning with communities on the longer feasibility of all these activities and seek ways to improve and strengthen. Both communities and partners claim that food security has increased substantially over the past 6 or 7 years as a result of the above work, mentioning sometimes an increase of 1 to 3 months. It proved, however, a challenge to have this confirmed with systematic data. The following developments seem to support the claim:

Data on the total production of key crops in the project areas documented in the report on the DULAL evaluation show a steady increase of such production thus increasing food availability in the area. Further analysis shows that the increase is not just reached by getting more farmers involved but also by a production increase per farmer, at least for paddy and millet, thus directly improving food availability.

The information on the spread of mixed cropping indicate a clear increase in the diversity of crops planted which results in lower risks in farming and contribute to improve nutrition.


Looking at the wider food system one notes that improved forest management has also led to increased food security (see 5.3). The work on seed conservation and management is convincing but also in this area more work is possible and needed to arrive at resilient and sustainable seed systems. Strengthening of decentralized seed management, related building capacity, issues of storage and pest management, and the future institutional position of specialized seed managers such as the Seed Mothers are part of the agenda that needs to be addressed. All three partners now have rich sets of data and information on a large number of local varieties. They need to discuss with farmer organizations, possible across all three, how to further develop this and make the information more widely available. So far information on these varieties spreads orally between farmers and between staff and farmers when they meet. Partners are recommended to consult relevant resource organizations on possible IPR and other aspects of publishing collected information in a more systematic manner. In most cases including information on traditional varieties and the communities that guard them is considered protective documentation preventing other to claiming such varieties as their own. The work on collection, management and use of seeds has also built a strong basis within communities to move to a next level and start improving the quality and potential of current varieties. This could in include further selection, development of clearer “lines” and even farmer breeding. A few farmer leaders have been exposed to such work through a visit to Thailand but it has not found any follow-up so far. Discussing this during the final workshop of the evaluation in Puri it seems this field of work is not being remembered among the farmer leaders. Perhaps the visit did not show practically enough how to undertake this work, or it did indeed (at the time?) not make sense to follow it up, or the work is too complex for both farmers and staff to take action after just one cross visit. The evaluation recommends all to keep this on the agenda because of the importance to improve potential of current varieties. The evaluation sees quite a number of possibilities to further widen and expand the agricultural related work. Various farm level practices to increase soil fertility could be explored, for example, such as mulching, crop rotation, green manure, as well as on farm water harvesting and management. Exposure and learning activities on these could be encouraged. As part of these efforts more attention should also be given to the role of livestock in the farming system, traditionally and currently. Participatory tools from the PRA family of tools could be used to analyze this role and related nutrient flows on farms by and with farmers as a basis for exploring ways to strengthen the contribution of livestock to farmers’ livelihoods directly and as source of manure. Finally, looking at the longer term time perspective, the evaluation team notes that most current agricultural and food activities, though contributing to increasing food security and generating some income and decreasing dependency on unreliable external inputs do not yet have the promise of creating a major breakthrough in terms of food and poverty reduction. Can the current strong mobilization of farmers and their organizations be the basis for exploring further and major improvements and changes in the agriculture and food system? The initiative of Mayurbhanj farmers to integrate dairy into the farming system shows one possible direction perhaps focusing on strengthening the role of livestock, increase of use of horticultural trees another. Currently communities and farmer organizations are in a stronger position to analyze pros and cons of such options - such as increased dependence again on external inputs or implications for family nutrition - to make well founded choices.

5.3 Forest conservation and management

People in the project areas give high emphasis to forest as source of livelihood. This is very visible in Keonjar but also in the other districts. Access to, and control, use and management of the forest can help people to a great extent in sustaining their livelihood. Use and management of the forest is traditionally strongly linked to the culture and beliefs of the Adivasi. But as chapter 3 described the forest is under threat because of (often illegal) interventions from mining and timber companies. It is thus no surprise that forest access and use has emerged as key line of work in PLD projects that start with key community concerns. In discussing forest use with communities they showed vast and detailed knowledge on the practical use of forest products for either food, income, fire wood, health/medicine or cultural purposes. In


Keonjar alone villagers from locations visited as well as from the self-evaluation areas easily identified between 35 and 60 forest products, their use, and way of processing, with an average of more than 40. This confirms the importance of the forest and the deep knowledge that either continued to exist or is being revived more recently. Part of the work focuses on securing land rights, both for individuals (small farms) and for communities (community forest areas). The Forest Right Act (FRA) has created the legal framework for formalization of individual and community land titles. Table 7 has the overview of individual and community FRA applications done over the past years and their success rate across the 3 partner operational areas. Table 7: Summary of FRA applications and their success rate

Applications done Successful applications7

Individual

Mayurbhanj 1171 792

Keonjar 4698 2325

Malkangiri/ Kandhamal

2858 2663

Community

Mayurbhanj 8 None

Keonjar 119 None


31 None

The role of the partners in this process includes awareness raising on the possibilities under the FRA act, training of village youth or others in preparing applications, sometimes facilitation of people trained to assist others, and sometimes direct support to the application process. Particularly in Malkangiri, communities have also accessed MGNREGA funds for development of FRA lands (total of 2760 acres covered). Important advocacy and lobby actions have been undertaken by farmer of organizations and partners where implementation of the FRA process was frustrated and delayed as discussed in chapter 5.5. Other advocacy and actions undertaken also directly impact people access to and use of this critical resource for their livelihoods such as the stopping of illegal mining explorations (Keonjar), the blocking and fining of illegal smugglers (all districts) and lobby with the Forest Department to stop forest development plans threatening forest biodiversity. Looking at the results of the work on land rights one can conclude that achievements are considerable where realization of individual land title deeds is concerned. More than 5180 farmer households have now, and often for the first time, their claim to land formally recognised. Unfortunately the amount allocated under most title deeds is much smaller than what was applied for and FOs and partners are considering options to appeal against these decisions and/or to re-apply. What is also worrying is the lack of progress on the applications for community land rights under FRA. None of the applications has been fully processed so far. Partners and FOs may have to return to advocacy and lobby to reach a break-through in this. For further managing the forest and it useful products Village Forest Protection Committee have been formed and are playing an active role in many villages, particularly in Keonjar and Mayurbhanj (see chapter 6.2). They have developed and do enforce village internal rules on locally relevant matters such as prevention of forest fires and harvesting and use of specific forest products. To this end traditional rules and related rituals are being revisited often by communities and re-applied if found needed. Security of land access and control in itself is an important program achievements particularly when communities are empowered to protect and enforce their rights thus obtained. According to villagers interviewed and the reports of the 8 self-evaluations by KIRDTI there are ample indications that

7 Success rate implies that farmers did receive formal land titles. In most if not all cases the area granted under the title is

however much smaller than requested and farmers, their organizations and partners have been considering ways for re-application or other forms of contesting the outcome of “ successful” applications.


regeneration of the forest is occurring as evident from the return of certain birds and other animals and the increase of presence of plant species that had become rare. Detailed data on income generation from the forest are available from Keonjar where forest management receives most attention (Table 8). Though forest-based income is not dramatically high yet in Euro terms, if converted to equivalent number of days work as wage labourer its importance is quickly understood. According to project data forest-based income increased with more than 50% as compared to 2009, with the increase in Harichandanpur block alone in this period amounting to 63%. Table 8: Average income generated from forest products in Keonjar project areas 2012

Block Families depending on MFP

Av annual income family (INR)

Income equivalent paid labour days

Income in Euro

Harichandanpur 3836 5.813 45 86

Telkoi 1644 3.775 29 35

Insight in the impact of the forestry work in terms of increased food security from the forest comes from a series of interviews by KIRDTI field staff with community representatives. These suggest that food security from the forest has increased from 1½ to 2 months around 2006 to 3 ½ months by 2012-2013. Generally and across all partners the evaluation team sees scope for further strengthening of food security and income generation from the forest through exploring various ways of coordinating and improving harvesting and processing and marketing of forest products. It recommends this as an area of future work. It will have implications that need to be considered carefully such as the best community-based organizational set-up, the mobilization and study of relevant market information, and – in cases where needed - the handling of relevant investments (process equipment, storage) so that it does not destroy the PLD spirit.

5.4 Income generation

Apart from getting direct income from selling agricultural and forest products partners are trying to increase income generation by encouraging joint agri-processing and/or marketing activities. This is done through existing or newly formed small local Self Help Groups (SHG, see also 6.2) and, in a more systematic and ambitious manner, through the establishment of farmer self-help cooperatives. A great diversity of income generating activities is undertaken, mostly by women Self Help Groups (SHGs). In Mayurbhanj, e.g., 72 out of 84 active SHGs are involved in income generating activities such as petty trading, goat or duck keeping, and nursery management. Given the decentralized functioning of these groups there are no systematic data on total income generated over the past years through the SHGs. But from the interactions during the evaluation one can conclude that considerable income generation is possible and manageable locally through the SHGs and actually happening in practice. In Keonjar, e.g., 61 SHGs involved in income generation activities earned an average of 1100 Euro from 2009 to 2013 which is close to 100 Euro per member. As discussed in Chapter 6.2 SHGs can be vulnerable because of external interference, local dynamics and personality issues. They always operate at a limited scale. The forming of farmer cooperatives would allow moving above activities to a higher level by creating a more focused organization, legally recognized to operate as a “business”, putting in place well defined structures and procedures and increasing scale by involving farmers from a larger number of villages. Table 9 summarizes the main features of the current cooperatives. Unfortunately the law under which these could be registered as Self Help Cooperatives has been withdrawn leaving all with the challenge to find the best legal framework to operate in the immediate future.


Table 9: Current farmer cooperatives and their main features

District No Main activity No villages

No of farmers

Income generation

Mayurbhanj 3 Dairy development 3 85 1500 – 3000 INR (20 – 40 Euro) / day

Mayurbhanj 1 Joint marketing (ground nut) 1 60 Income from marketing 2100 kg paddy & 2000 kg groundnut (2012)

Malkangiri 2 Petty business, joint marketing, promotion of bio-compost

7 and 7 166 Savings 2012: INR 112,730 & 226,010 (Euro)

Kandhamal 2 Petty business, joint marketing, promotion of bio-compost

12 and 8 133 Savings 2012: INR 49,860 and 4,900 (2012)

Most cooperatives studied seemed to function well and realize income generation, though still at a relatively smaller scale (Table 9). They very much build on capacities developed through earlier SHG activities or work in FOs and seem to do particularly well with a more clear activity focus (groundnut marketing e.g.) and limited number of villages covered. There seems ample scope to further nurture a “commercial spirit”. The evaluation noticed a strong demand for support in terms of marketing and market / demand analysis, but also in terms of the legal and other implications of forming these organizations and best ways to organize them internally. Partners need to consider their own capacities to provide such support and seek ways for further exposures of leaders to well function cooperatives.

5.5 Advocacy and action

Given the context in which the communities and partner organizations operate in Orissa as described in chapter 3 all projects include activity components aimed at not only influencing relevant government policies and design of support programs but also particularly monitoring and enforcing proper implementation of agreed policies. This work is clearly extremely relevant in the local context to create space for the development work reported above to flourish and bring results. This work brings local partners in direct opposition to groups with high economic interest in the project areas such as the logging and mining companies. A large diversity of activities is implemented under this component as determined by specific issues and needs in the four districts. They encompass work on village and Block level issues up to jointly addressing national issues such as the national Seed Bill. As chapter 3 showed the Keonjar district where KIRDTI operates is a focal district for mining development posing serious threats to the forests and living areas of the Adivasi. Opposing related interest groups FOs, partners and their allies face serious challenges that are not without risks. Advocacy and action is major part of KIRDTI’s work. PLD being a people-led approach the advocacy and action work is also led to a large extent by the farmer and community organizations that grew out of the projects. These are discussed in detail in the next chapter. Given the diversity it is difficult to make a fully comprehensive overview of what was done under this component. Table 10 below lists the most visible and/or referred to activities without claiming to cover all. They are clustered according to the level that was the main focus of the work (even though activities may have taken place at other levels). Activities specific for one district are indicated with Ml, Ka, Ke and Ma respectively. Without such indication activities have been done across most if not all districts.


Table 10: Selected advocacy and action activities and their results

Issue Activity description Results

Liquor stores and vending of country liquor

Rallies; Ma: some shops destroyed by women; Ke: women protest in front of police station;

Some success; Ke police arrested 3 liquor mafias; vending of liquor continues by and large

Prevention of illegal logging

In situ monitoring; lobby with the departmental officials and local police;

Smuggling often stopped, 12 smugglers jailed in Ke

Ma: Recognition as drought effected area

Letter to the Block Development Officer to declare their area as drought 2010

Accepted, some farmers (nominal) compensation

Ma: Millets in PDS cheap food program

Village and block meetings (44), post cards to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (402 from one block)

?

Ke: Preventing mining

12 villages jointly stopped mining survey around Sundaria, Kamadei, Bichakhani hills; leaders joining other movements campaign to resisting mining in Khandadhar;

3 hills protected; mining in Khandahar prevented (as yet)

Expedite and improve FRA process

Village and block rallies (M 32); Presentations by leaders

FRA process expedited; many got individual land record; K Money collection was stopped.

Ke: Commercial plantation in forest

Adivasi leaders approached Governor and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest; rallies and dharna.

Divisional Forest Office took back the plantation program, nurseries for indigenous trees done

Ke: links between agriculture department and agro corporations

Large meetings community leaders and people (awareness); publication in local media; resolutions from villages sent to state and centre agriculture ministry.

Only in terms on increased awareness

Ke: Corruption in National Rural Employment Guaranty Scheme (NREGS

Community mass meeting etc. to sensitize; corruption cases presented, Right to Information used, labour case in the district labour office, complains against bank and post office payment;

2419 new job cards, 1984 beneficiaries received pending wages totalling Rs18,66,903

BT Brinjal Farmer-farmer discussions, role plays, rallies, workshops at local, block and district level; posters at markets; memorandums to top government officials; Farmers from all districts joined state level rally and national consultation.

A moratorium on release of BT Brinjal for commercial cultivation.

National Seed Bill Memorandums to top government officials; signed by farmers (Ma 502 in 2010, 141 2011; Ke representatives of 212 villages)

No direct response and result

Rights on Land Water and Forest Act (Kisan Swaraj Yatra).

Ma: 1500 farmers participated in the Yatra. Expenses for travel met by farmers

?

Ml – Malkangiri; Ka – Khandamal; Ke – Keonjar; Ma - Mayurbhanj

The evaluation concludes that a lot has been done in the field of advocacy and action. The results have been mixed as is often the case but important achievements have been realized with major impact on the livelihoods of the Adivasi such as the prevention of mining operations in Keonjar, the proper implementation of the FRA process in all districts through which thousands of people received land titles for the first time, and the stopping of smuggling of timber and other threats to the forest. There is also no doubt that in the given context advocacy and action work will continue to remain very important needing continued attention over the years to come. Women play a very important role in these activities. When it concerns threats to their daily livelihoods they are easily mobilized and take lead roles in organizing and implementing activities such as mass meetings and rallies, quite a few which are not without risk. The evaluation noted that a number of specific lobby approaches and tools (open letters, post card actions) generate very little response and


a critically review of success rates of such methods is recommended to make informed decisions for future actions. Looking at the sustainability of this part of the work and the impact of the use of the PLD approach the evaluation looked particularly at the level of ownership as evident from the division of roles and responsibilities as well as resource mobilization and use. Based on the interviews, most notably those with the leaders of the farmer organizations, and review of advocacy documentation it is evident that currently the organizations and their leadership often do take the lead in many of the advocacy and action activities and have shown to have the organizational capacities to coordinate and implement these. This includes mobilizing people, planning of work as well as the formal communications with the authorities such as statements of demands. This is particularly true in the case of organization of campaigns and rallies at local, block and, increasingly, district level. The evaluation came across quite a few cases where farmer organizations had organized campaigns already fully independently from the NGO such as in the case of fight against opening of liquor stores. But the NGOs are acknowledged to continue to play an important role too. Most of all in terms of creating access to information and knowledge both in terms of “intelligence” (e.g. regarding new policy proposals being worked or other recent developments) and of background information on wider issues such as on genetic modification of crops in the campaign against BT Brinjal. They also help find and create linkages with potential allies within civil society organizations and networks and the media and are a source of possible alternative advocacy and action models and methods. Further capacity building of the farmer organizations should focus on strengthening them in these areas. There is considerable evidence of cases where relevant activities are funded to a considerable extent or fully from contributions by the communities themselves, though systematic data on the extent to which this is the case across all advocacy and action activities is not available. Farmer organizations do not possess own funds for running activities but they have a good system of mobilizing contributions for joint activities such as rallies and fairs. Implementation of activities from own funds is an encouraging development that should be further promoted, particularly where it concerns activities directly impacting own local livelihoods.


6 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP

6.1 Introduction

All partner organizations have a history of focusing on building or strengthening farmer and community organizations. The role of such organizations in development work is indeed important for at least three sets of reasons:

To facilitate and coordinate (project) activities at village level (efficiency);

To build strength and critical mass for communities to speak out, interact, influence or even “fight” with external actors and developments (empowerment);

To become the anchor for local ownership of development initiatives ensuring these continue and expand after donor funded projects end (ownership and sustainability).

Under the pre-PLD projects local organizations / farmer groups seemed to have played mostly but not exclusively a role at the first level facilitating project activities. In PLD, local organizations are to become the main drivers of the development process making the work in the area of farmer organizations even more critical. Over the years different forms of community organization have emerged including Village Development Committees (VDCs), farmer groups (Krishak Sanghatan), Village Forest Protection Committees, Self Help Groups, federations of farmer groups at the block and district levels, federations of SHGs, and cooperatives. In addition DULAL has help to revive and strengthen a traditional institution known as Majhi Madwa. In other cases traditional leaders and/or traditional mechanisms or rituals have been integrated into the newly formed organizations to a more or lesser extent. Linked to this the NGOs have built groups of local resource persons or “local specialists” to work as trainers for colleague farmers and link with external sources of information. Their functioning will also be reviewed in this chapter.

6.2 Farmer / community organizational development

Village level farmer or community organizations

The heart of a people-led development approach is the strengthening of community groups or organizations in some form at the local level to remain or become the main actor in the development process. Conventional project-mode interventions often suggest the forming of a local group or committee following a standard format very early in the process. A PLD process does not pre-scribe one organizational format but allows farmers and communities to assess existing organizations and structures in the light of main development challenges as basis for deciding whether to strengthen these or develop new ones. Different activities and processes are used to build or strengthen community organizations. Focused training in leadership development and community organization are among the most structured capacity building activities, practiced a/o quite systematically by ORRISSA. Equally important is the capacity building through exchange and exposure visits for leaders and members practiced by all partners and reflection and analysis discussions with farmers on strength and weaknesses of current farmer organizations. But most important perhaps in terms of capacity building is the stepping-back by NGOs in all main activities creating space for the FOs to take responsibility and ownership, to learn by doing, while using the NGOs for support and partner in reflection in the learning process. In the partner project areas different forms of local level organizations are now in place: Village Development Committees (VDC) are the dominant form of local organization in part of the ORRISSA working areas. Usually they have around 15 members and key local leaders such as local priests are often part of it. A VDC is responsible for planning, implementation and M&E of a wide range of village development activities, not just agriculture, food and natural resource management (NRM). It is working on behalf of the whole village without a formalization of links with individual villagers (membership). Generally they are to meet monthly but to what extent all maintain this schedule could not be established. Currently 38 VDCs are active and functioning. The VDC concept has remained from earlier project phases, particularly the work supported by Trocaire. VDCs can become a standard format for


local organizational development active serving only as a response to certain outside programs. Under the PLD approach the VDCs have kept their name but have been encouraged to become truly people-led organizations that would continue to lead development work after the outside project ends. In most other areas villagers have formed local level farmer groups. They have different shapes and come under different names but generally known as Krishak Sanghatan. They often also do not have formal membership arrangements for individual farmers but consist of a group of elected leaders coordinating activities for the group of farmers or community at large. They work first of all on agricultural, food and related NRM issues - which can be a strength – but were found to also pursue other issues if found relevant locally. Table 11 summarizes numbers of active farmer groups currently operating in the areas covered by the Misereor projects Table 11: Number of local level farmer groups in project areas

No of groups

Mayurbhanj 66

Keonjar 91

Malkangiri/ Kandhamal 51

Again the most common practice for the farmer groups is to meet monthly as well as additionally when the need arises. The pre-season meeting is a crucial one for planning of cropping and mobilization of seeds needed. FO leaders reported that NGO staff participate in only part of the meetings but this practice may vary over the districts. Most maintain some basic forms of documentation. Given the diversity of other arrangements and activities undertaken, in itself a sign of people ownership, it is difficult to arrive at generalized statements. Many groups mobilize funds only when needed for specific activities such as a Mela, a cross visit, or a lobby activity or demonstration. This follows patterns that Adivasi are used to. But farmer groups also shared initiatives to build up some form of group or village fund so that they would have resources under their control for activities when needed. The DULAL report documents the creativity used locally to mobilize funds such as through fines given as penalty when forest use rules are violated, from a possible balance on funds mobilized for festivals, a percentage of harvest (fund can be in the form of grain bank), income generated from performing cultural programs elsewhere (50% of the fee received), and prize money obtained through sports competitions. Finally partners work includes specific activities to mobilize, revive if needed and strength traditional institutions for governance. In Mayurbanj this focuses on revival of the socalled Majhi Madwa. This used to be an intricate system from the local to the district level and higher to manage affairs with the Santal and several other Adivasi tribes and handle conflict resolution. The Panchayat’s Extension to the Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act of 2006 creates a legal framework to give these institutions a formally recognized position and role but there is still considerable controversy over where and when this act would apply. DULAL helped create awareness on the possibilities created by this act through a series of meetings with traditional leaders. Local community leaders were trained in the application process under the PESA Act. By the end of 2012, active Majhi Madwas lead the development process in 21 villages. The Bhuyan and Juang tribes have their own institution known as PIRHA. In Keonjar this institution has been re-strengthened in 12 villages while traditional institutions of other tribes are also receiving attention through regular meetings and in community dispute resolution. According to staff of DULAL the Majhi Madwa is not only being strengthened but also expanded in terms of going beyond discussing mostly social issues to include farming and other development topics. In one or two cases the ancestral leadership system has been replaced with democratic elections of leaders. This would address a general concern of some traditional governance structures where it is not easy to replace non-performing leaders. Another limitation is that the system is strongest within one single Adivasi tribe or with 2 or 3 tribes that are closely related. In more heterogeneous communities revival of the system will be less feasible. Inclusion of non-Adivasi in such organization, e.g. people from scheduled castes, can be another issue of concern. Given above signs of modernization of the Majhi Madwa, could it address these concerns? How would it compare with other forms of farmer groups / community organizations in that case? As mentioned earlier Village Forest Protection Committees play an important role in helping communities to coordinate access and control, use and management of the forests. To date there are 67 of such committees active in Keonjar, and 18 in Mayurbhanj. They are all only semi-formal structures


having agreed on a set of rules and regulations for forest management and use and on ways to monitor adherence to these rules including ways to “punish” those who do not adhere to them. They have rarely been formalized through registration or elaboration of detailed structures and rules. Activities undertaken by the VFPCs differ. 33 Committees in Keonjar protect their forest through rotation watch. Most set rules for collecting timber and other forest products. Quite a few play a lead role in organizing demarcation of community forest lands and applying for community land rights under FRA. In Keonjar alone the evaluation learned that they have helped in the regeneration of 6625 hectares of forest. Generally the VFPC were found assertive in their role and their responsibilities clear. Women are playing a key role in forest management. The committees are able often to address the legal aspects of forest management while dealing with the smugglers and timber mafia. They do know how to address these issues and whom to approach for which type of actions.

Self-Help-Groups

Self-Help-Groups or SHGs are well-known all over India. They refer to local small groups of women who have organized themselves around savings and credit and income generation but can move into a wide variety of other activities. SHGs thus focus on a specific set of activities and operate autonomously of (but close to) the local farmer groups / organizations. Usually SHGs organize monthly meetings and carry out savings and thrift activities. From the savings

they lend loans internally but some of the SHGs have bank accounts and have availed bank loans, e.g.

to purchase small livestock or undertake other businesses. In such cases they may need to be

registered. The usefulness of obtaining so-called subsidized bank loans is debated among some groups

given the conditions attached.

Table 12 summarizes key data of current SHGs by 2012. It shows that average savings per group have grown to become between Euro 300 and 620. Though not huge amounts in absolute terms they form an important source of development funds at the local level. The SHGs achievements in terms of income generation have been discussed in Chapter 5.3. Table 12: SHGs and their savings in the project areas

No of SHGs

Total members

Total savings (INR)

Av saving / SHG (INR)

Av saving / SHG (Euro)

Mayurbhanj 84 1125 4,456,890 53,058 663

Keonjar 137 2045 3.481.852 25.415 318


The forming of the SHGs cannot be attributed only to the PLD projects. Some are from earlier projects

or even emerged with support from other organizations including government programs.

Comprehensive data on the total number of SHGs that have been formed in the past are not available but all indications are that that this number exceeds considerably the number that is currently active. SHGs are vulnerable for changes of leadership, internal conflicts and, increasingly, for interference from political or other interest. With the increased recognition of the potential of the SHG approach, quite a few government programs have developed components specifically targeting SHGs which makes them of interest to those seeking quick gains rather than women empowerment. In practice this means that part of the work by partners is trying to revive and reorganize SHGs that existed before but had become dormant. Such ups and downs in the life of SHGs are probably unavoidable. Interaction with the SHGs during this evaluation and evidence from elsewhere in India confirm the importance of the SHG approach in terms of local economic development but also in terms of capacity building and empowerment of the women. Currently, a considerable number of vibrant and active SHGs operate in the villages that provide a ready platform to take up or expand development activities.

The SHGs create a potentially strong basis for embarking on higher level commercial activities. This can be done when a number of SHGs form a federation and thus increase their scope, resources and capacity, as in the example of the groundnut cooperative in Mayurbhanj which is basically a federation


of 6 SHGs. The four cooperatives formed with support of ORRISSA bring together interested and empowered women of a larger group of (ex-) SHGs without direct links with the local SHGs. This prevents the cooperative to derive strength from the organized local groups or help them to gain strength when weak. The model may be the only way when (most) SHGs are weak or dysfunctional.

Higher level farmer organizations

In all districts farmers have decided to federate the local level groups, including VDCs, into what are called farmer organizations (FOs, sometimes known as POs or Peoples Organizations) or Paramparik Krishik Sanghatans (PKS). This is done first of all at the Panchayat and/or Block level, while in 2 districts these Block level organizations have federated again to form a district level farmer organization (Table 13). The block level farmer organizations in Malkangiri have been formed most recently, i.e. in 2012 and 2013 respectively. In most cases a farmer organization brings together a limited number (1 to 4) representatives from committed lower level organizations and a management committee is chosen from among them. Women participate substantially at all levels. At Panchayat and Block level the FOs bring together representatives from villages while the district organization is formed by representatives from intermediate level organizations. Not all villages in an area are represented at the higher level. In one case only 26 villages out of 148 villages are members of the block federation. Table 13: Status of current farmer organizations

Panchayat level Block level District level

No of farmer organizations

Mayurbhanj - 4 1

Keonjar 10 2 in PLD project areas, 3 others 1


17 2 -

No of members / member organizations

Mayurbhanj 4 block level FOs

Keonjar All 91 village groups, each represented by 4 people

All 91 village groups, each represented by 2 people

5 block FOs, each represented by 8

people


11-15 members in committee (45% women)

5-17 (av. 12) villages under one Farmer Organization

- -

Generally there is no fixed time period for leaders to perform their role. Representatives and leaders continue to pay their role until they are found not to perform during annual reviews. The farmer organizations clearly expressed why they had formed into federations, i.e. to raise issues affecting them collectively. Again meetings are organized mostly monthly. Though there seemed to be no written sets of objectives for the FOs at each level, in practice there has grown a pragmatic and flexible division of tasks, responsibilities and activities over the different levels. While the village groups focus on agricultural and forestry activities on the ground and related learning and lobby events, the higher levels encourage learning and sharing at their level and undertake lobby, policy and advocacy activities on issues affecting them all. Annex 8 shows the division of tasks in case of the Keonjar district. In Malkangiri and Kandhamal where the federations are operating at the lower Panchayat level they also play a role in supporting planning of work and M&E of the local level groups, including the planning and monitor of work of the community resource persons. The two district level federations are relatively young, are still in the process of being established as a formal organization though key people involved have successfully organized and coordinated activities such as rallies over many years.


The evaluation team facilitated SWOT discussions with groups of leaders of farmer organizations in all districts. Table 14 shows the results of a detailed SWOT analysis with leaders of 6 FOs from the ORRISSA operational areas. Table 14: Results SWOT analysis with 6 FOs from Malkangiri and Kandhamal

Strengths Weaknesses Plans

Common decision making at

the organisation level

2 district have 15

organisations

Farmer groups

Traditional knowledge

Farmer leaders and seed

mothers

Taking up issues in right time

and discussions to take up

action

Our fairs and our culture

We plan our activities and

work accordingly

Cooperation of ORRISSA workers

Sometimes participation in meetings not

high; emergency meetings not well

attended

Many decisions are not being implemented

in time

Negotiating with government offices is one

of our weakness

Missing the timely information on various

government schemes

Some villages are not organised and non-

cooperative

Pressure of the political people

Our farmer organisations are not registered

Need of meeting hall (permanent)

Farmer organisation own Fund

Bringing in more farmers as

member

Federation of farmer

organisations at the district

and state level

Organisation of Seed Mothers

Training on organisation

management

From the SWOT analysis with all FO leaders the evaluation notes their main concerns as:

Lack of own funding base for functioning of the farmer organization and undertaking activities though it was recognized that major activities are being organized by mobilizing direct contributions; there is currently no system of membership contribution.

Limited membership base: More members would imply a stronger voice. In discussions it was not always clear what this implied: more villages active at the block level or more farmers active in village level organizations. Expansion of membership would require formulating more clearly criteria for such membership. While in most cases so far membership seems limited to farmers from the project working areas/ villages the Keonjar farmer organization has moved beyond this and includes not only villages and block level organizations from other working areas of the partners’ organization but also one FO not directly linked to the NGO program of work.

Communication between the different levels, e.g. the district FO and the block level federations, was mentioned as a concern at the district level

Lack of status and recognition due to lack of formal registration: Leaders felt that they would need to go through a registration process: “If we register our Peoples Organisation we feel we will be recognised and our strength will increase. But we don’t know about the rules and regulation for registering the PO”.

Given this analysis and the evaluation’s own observations on current organizational mechanisms with the FOs as noted above, the final workshop in Puri did an extensive review of the functioning of the FOs and the need or not for further structuring. FO leaders clearly called for efforts to make their FOs more structured and organized. The partners agreed with the potential advantages but also had considerable reservations because of the danger of stronger visibility and vulnerability of leaders vis-à-vis vested interest groups such as mining companies, the possible killing of the movement by NGOization and the danger of political influence, and the considerable demands in terms of capacity and funds needed to run the formalized organizations. The workshop concluded that partners and FO leaders need to enter into a process to clarify various arguments and arrive at an agreed joint strategy and way forward. This evaluation agrees with this conclusion and strongly recommends that this is given high priority. Generally it finds more affinity with the position taken by the FO leaders and their interest in strengthening the way their organizations are formed and function.


Cooperatives

Chapter 5.4 on income generation has described the work undertaken by a relative small group of so-called self-help cooperatives, formed and registered under the national Cooperative Societies Act. This organizational form is appropriate when income generation through larger “commercial” activities becomes the key focus of work. Current cooperatives were found to function reasonably well at their own often still limited scale, particularly where they have a clear focus of their activities and build on capacities and people build through earlier SHG work. The withdrawal of above act forces all to look for alternatives ways to operate the former cooperatives.

Analysis and conclusion

Generally, the work over the past years has led to the growth of a diversity of people’s organizations in the project areas that are active and show important signs of local ownership. As one FO leader said: “Earlier we worked in the project with the NGO team coming to the village bringing their plans; now we are strong enough to make our own plans and seek the support of the NGO if and where needed”. The partners are correct in making the strengthening of farmer / people’s organizations at all levels central to the PLD process and all their work. As many of above organizations do not have clear membership arrangements with a related administration there are no comprehensive data available on social-economic status, age, or gender background of members. Generally the village organizations mobilize communities that are among the poorest in Orissa. Richer people, traders or others from outside are generally not directly involved. The field studies suggest that many FO leaders are perhaps a bit better off than other villagers, as is often the case, but differences seem to be too limited to have an influence on the performance of the organizations. Most if not all organizations have substantial numbers of women among the leaders and they gave evidence of their increased capacities and roles in the organizations during this evaluation. On quite a few occasions leaders mentioned difficulties in involving the younger generations in the organizations and activities. It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to analyze this in detail. As least partly it may have to do with the general tendency also found elsewhere for the youth to shy away from agriculture because of its lower status and poorer income generation perspective. Looking at the farmer organizations along the five main indicator areas from the framework in Annex 3 leads to the following conclusions: There is clearly a large and still growing number of farmer organizations in various shapes and forms, from the village or sub-village to the district level. Only in the case of the Self Help Groups numbers of active groups has gone down in some areas over the past years as part of internal dynamics and/or external influences. With the set-up of the village level organizations as described there are no data on numbers of individual members now and in the past. With the interest expressed to expand membership clarity on how such widened membership could be achieved would be needed, including criteria for accepting newcomers. The level of actual functioning of the organizations was found to be generally high as evident from activities implemented, records of meetings and activities, presentations and reports. Leaders of organizations on many occasions showed clear vision and leadership. Meetings are being held, activities organized, resources collected if needed. While in some cases the organizations may work still largely as a response to the opportunities provided by the projects, the evaluation team came across a considerable number of own collective actions undertaken by the organizations at all levels, witnessed various direct linkages and networking by them with other organizations, and learned that in quite a few activities (cross visits, Melas, rallies) own resources play an important role. This confirms the strength and people ownership of the organizations. As mentioned a deeper SWOT analysis with FO leaders revealed quite a number of issues and uncertainties in the current structuring and functioning of their organizations. Partners and farmer organizations need to critically review the strengths and weaknesses of the current level of farmer organizations, starting from the village up to district level, analyze pros and cons of improved structuring as basis for mapping a joint way forward. This needs to be based on the longer term vision and the objectives of the farmer organizations and their related program of activities. If promotion of farmers’


interest through coordination of lobby and policy advocacy is central a more semi-informal, less structured, movement may be the best mode. If in the long run farmer organizations would take over more roles of the NGOs and start coordinating development programs for their members (and receive funding for this) a clearer structure and formal recognition and registration would be needed. A clear formal structure is also required when income generation activities are a major focus. Answers to these questions may be different from district to district and even within districts between different levels and forms or organizations currently active. It is clear that the work with farmer organizations and the people-led development process, the cross visits and other learning activities, have led to the emergence of group of strong farmer leaders, men and women, who will continue to lead development efforts locally whether there are organizations or not. This is an important outcome. The only footnote that perhaps needs to be made is on the need to give attention to expanding the farmer leadership basis. One tends to come across a limited group of empowered leaders most of whom have been active for quite a few years and have benefited from past intensive capacity building efforts that included visits to many parts of India and even overseas. How can more and new leaders emerge and become empowered now? The developments around and within the various forms of community and farmer organizations, including the cooperatives, are going fast. What is legally accepted today may have to be disregarded tomorrow such as is the case after the withdrawal of the cooperative societies act. Farmer leaders have developed their strength and are looking for further advances in the way their organizations operate. The partners are challenged to ensure that their staff capacity remains at par with these developments and demands.

6.3 Local resource people and specialists

Farmer-to-farmer learning and training is often more effective and empowering than NGO-led training events. This therefore forms an important part of the PLD approach. If structured well it allows community people taking over major tasks that used to be controlled by NGOs. As part of this, farmers / local people are encouraged to become trainers of others, receive related capacity building and are more or less organized to play their role. Different names are use but “local specialist” covers them probably best. ORRISSA is one of the partners that gives the functioning of local specialists the most systematic attention. They know them as Community Resource Persons (CRPs) while the Seed Mothers, discussed earlier, are local specialists in the area of seed management. The position of CRPs is formally recognized at all levels, they receive focused training, the planning and M&E of their work is part of the regular agenda of the village and Panchayat level farmer organizations, and a system of payment/incentives is put in place. A total of 78 CRPs has been trained specializing on issues such as compost making, liquid manure, FRA applications and processing applications for MGNREGA and other government programs. They typically receive up to INR 100 or just above 1 Euro for a day of work. Seed mothers from a special group among the CRPs. There are currently 75 seed mothers, most with at least 3 to 4 years’ experience (ORRISSA data). They coordinate and lead seed conservation and management in the village, know who has which seeds and inform others, encourage farmers to use traditional varieties and advise on seed management, but often also promote other ecological friendly practices. They play a lead role in organizing the Melas. The evaluation had an intensive FGD with 18 seed mothers which confirmed their high activity level showing e.g. that this year on average each of them is keeping seeds of 18 varieties as in Table 15 below:


Table 15: Seed conservation by selected Seed Mothers in 2013

No of Seed Mothers

Average years in function

Av no of varieties kept and managed in May 2013 Total

Paddy Millet Pulses Vegetable Tubers

18 6 8 3 3 3 1 18

In the working areas of the two other NGOs farmer to farmer training and support is also visible e.g. in the work of farmers training others in seed management or compost making and in the support by experienced village leaders or trained youth in preparing applications for individual or community land ownership under the FRA act. Farmer to farmer exposures are being organized directly by communities as shared by staff. Generally though the functioning of local specialists is less “organized” in these two districts. This is partly a conscious choice to allow communities and farmer organizations to make use of local specialist (and reward them!) in their own way and partly caused by lack of strategy and/or general attention. From own analysis and interaction with (groups) of local specialists the evaluation notes the following:

The position and level of formalization of the local specialists is an issue that merits follow-up and regular reflection with the farmer organizations. The need for and mechanisms to realize payment in some form for their services outside projects and other external funds is part of this reflection. Different experiences on the ground now provide learning points to make choices for the future in terms of recognition, local ownership and links with or integration into the FOs.

The Seed Mothers provide a special case. Their development to date and the empowerment that resulted from this has led them to start considering forming their own organization or platform for learning, encouragement and planning of future directions. Whether this is a promising direction or not this interest does need attention and reflection support by the partner.

Finally the evaluation was faced with quite a number of requests for more capacity building of local specialists. Most of these seemed genuine. It could imply building capacity of existing CRPs but more often probably expanding the network of well-informed CRPs. Given the importance of building a strong local knowledge base and capacity in PLD these requests need to be addressed, particularly in those areas where local specialist have not received so much attention so far.


7 PLD IMPLEMENTATON AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION

7.1 Introduction

For 7 years partners have worked with the communities to develop and use a people-led development approach that generally works under their conditions. The following describes how the approach has taken shape and how it is used in practice. Generally the evaluation found that the approach has been successful in empowering communities, making them drivers of development. Communities which have been neglected and marginalized by development initiatives in the past, appear to have taken control over their basic resources like seed, knowledge and to a certain extent also land and forests. Having a strong belief in themselves, they are in a position to make informed decisions. In the numerous meetings of this evaluation they presented a clear analysis of desired development directions in the relationship with their immediate environment. With commitment, conviction and cooperation these communities show confidence in dealing with the issues affecting their day to day livelihoods

7.2 The NGOs’ approach to PLD

The analysis of the PLD work needs to start with the articulation of the approach by partners, a more or less systematic description of how the approach and its various components, steps or activities are shaped and done in practice. Unfortunately none of the partners had done this so far and documents describing their PLD approach were not available. Staff and NGO leaders acknowledge the challenge they have in articulating their PLD in writing. In their PLD support to other NGOs in India the partners generally focus on main principles without more detailed discussion of how PLD would work practically. The evaluation team asked the NGO leaders to prepare a description of their PLD approach for the purpose of this evaluation and assisted them in preparing this. It also facilitated focused sessions with field staff / PLD teams to describe how they do PLD on the ground. The results of these sessions combined with the writings by the NGO leaders do give a good insight in the PLD approach as conceptualized by them. The reports of two NGO specific studies that are part of this evaluation include annexes with the PLD descriptions prepared this way. This articulation of PLD can be very useful not only for own learning and reflection but also for sharing with new staff and other organizations. Annex 9 presents the PLD description developed by DULAL. In looking at PLD implementation by the three partner organizations and the communities a number of important common features clearly present themselves:

The approach includes a careful and relatively well-developed start-up process in new villages to build up rapport, understand local realities and dynamics, mobilize local interest in collaboration with the NGO while consciously looking for local people and leaders interested to become prime movers of the process in their village.

Participatory methods and tools such as from the PRA family of tools (resource mapping) are used particularly at the initial stages but in most stages and activities people rely a lot on individual and group interviews leading where possible to a village wide meeting.

The process to start-up PLD in new areas is strengthened and accelerated increasingly by linking new villages to experienced PLD villages and their leaders either through cross visits or through participation in open activities such as seed fairs or even rallies.

Horizontal learning among farmers and communities through farmer to farmer exposures and exchange visits plays a very central role in catalyzing new initiatives and in learning and capacity building. This probably partly mirrors the extensive use of such mechanisms in the accompaniment process by the PLD consultant.

Central in all the work is the gradual process of community organizational development starting from the village level growing to block and district levels. Generally the strategy is that organizational development follows from chosen areas of work and is adapted to local conditions. In this sense the VDC approach promoting one organizational form for all villages early in the process is the exception to this rule but already being transformed into a PLD mode. Common is also the hesitation from the side of the NGOs to move (too quickly?) to formalization and structuring of the FOs

Though the PLD process is open ended and variations per hamlet, village and districts can be observed one can still note a striking amount of commonality in the concrete activities in the area of food and agriculture systems that are embarked on by villages involved: revival of traditional crops and varieties, seed management and conservation, composting and natural pest


management, supportive soil and water conservation as well as lobby, action and advocacy to support and enable all this

There, however also important differences in the way partners implement and use PLD influenced by local conditions and the interests, views and capacities of each partner. Differences are subject of occasional heated debates.

Some focus almost exclusively on mobilizing, sharing and strengthening local knowledge and resources through farmer to farmer exchange and learning and are extremely careful in encouraging access ideas, knowledge, and resources from “outside”. Others show greater openness to knowledge and experience from other NGOs or government departments, facilitate regular inputs from them, e.g. through training activities, and generally facilitate links of communities with a wide range of support organizations.

It is partly in this context that the level of collaboration with government technical departments and agencies such as NABARD varies across the partners. The question whether the essence of the PLD process can be maintained in such collaborative activities is answered differently. The evaluation team would suggest to handle this pragmatically and look at the conditions and terms of each collaborative initiative rather than excluding such collaboration up-front. There is room for learning across partners how they managed to set terms and what kind of terms have been realized in such collaboration that would support to the PLD process. Ultimately FOs have the right to decide on partnering with other agencies once conditions and implications have been analyzed jointly.

Attention to and giving space to strengthening traditional institutions and rituals differs also across districts. This is may be influenced partly by local realities but systematic attention, at least, to traditional and cultural institutions and practices can be important in all PLD processes.

As discussed earlier, Community Resource Persons (CRPs) play a strong and structural role in Malkangiri and Kandhamal and a more informal role in the other districts.

Though it is fair to say – and easily confirmed by project budgets – that the amount of resources allocated to provision of materials, equipment, financial incentives or subsidized inputs has gone down substantially after the start of the PLD projects, such provision is still part of the approach to a certain extent of some while others have ended this completely.

7.3 Reviewing PLD practice

A systematic review of the strengths and weaknesses of the practice of PLD was done first of all through a SWOT analysis with the PLD teams. They identified issues at the level of the community, the approach itself and the organization and staff. Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 16. Table 16: Synthesis PLD SWOT analysis by teams

Strengths Weaknesses

Community People’s organizations with capable leaders confident in the PLD approach

FOs linked and networked to others

Group of trained community “ specialists”

No fund mobilization at FO level for management

No strong member based farmer organisation basis.

Political interference can weaken people organizations

The approach Involvement of farmers in planning, implementing & monitoring.

Regular reflection of PLD at community & staff level.

Platforms for farmer to farmer knowledge and seed exchange

Women participation / empowerment / seed mothers respected and increased self-reliance through IGP and cooperatives

PLDP is a slow process

Government programs with subsidies are a threat

Not enough attention to marketing

Difficult to involve youth in current PLD process

The team and organization

Experienced (low turn-over), PLD confident staff with facilitation skills, ready to face challenges and work in remote areas, respect & learning attitude

Good team work.

Staff jumping too fast in to action (emotion, values).

Induction of new staff with old mind set takes a lot of time and causes internal conflict.



Organization offers flexibility for change; management supports PLD strongly

Supportive donor

Staff expertise on marketing, certification, facilitation of people’s federations (registration, fund raising) inadequate

Lack targeted documentation of PLD process & results

Based on its own observations and analysis the evaluation team confirms that there is substantial quality in the PLD approach and how it used by partners and communities supporting by and large the above SWOT by the teams. The team noted two parts of the approach that would benefit from more attention and ‘strengthening”: Experimentation and innovation: While farmer adaptability trials have been done and a number of innovations by farmers are being recognized there is considerable room to be more alert on and encourage farmer experimentation, also in studying and comparing different practices and technologies, even if from other agencies. Across all 4 districts the evaluation encountered a series of similar new practices and technologies in many places. The Puri workshop argued that there is attention for this but given the importance of building the capacity of farmers to continue innovate and adapt to address future challenges and changes this part of the PLD process farmer innovation and experimentation should become more central. Exposure and exchange visits: These play a central role in the PLD as practiced by partners. Agreeing to the strength of this approach for farmer learning there are also important limitations. The number of villages and people that can be involved is always limited, sharing the learning from the visit beyond direct family and community members and ensuring adequate follow-up a challenge, while costs can be considerable whether paid by people themselves or projects. There is ample room for use of complementary farmer learning and capacity building forms and activities, including simple farmer-led audio-visuals, brochures, radio shows as well as more structured training events. Looking finally especially at the 5 indicators for this part of the evaluation the team notes the following:

Presence & role of staff in field: Generally most field staff showed maturity in supporting the field activities as part of this evaluation, though individuals had to be advised a few times. Unfortunately staff and FO leaders continue to use concepts such as “beneficiaries”, remnants of the old approach. This should be avoided.

Initiative and role of community members and leaders in activities: Based on the analysis of activities that were part of this evaluation this role proved to be strong. In many situations where it would not have been unusual for NGO staff to initiate a discussion or activities, FO leaders took this in their own hands and showed good leadership in doing so.

Ownership shown by community of activities: The presentations by FO leaders, by resource persons, community leaders, the songs, and the work shown all suggest considerable local ownership. The farmer organizations play a key role in this as discussed earlier. The evaluation team flagged that is was confronted a few times with the issue of inclusiveness, the reaching out to other – non-Adivasi- marginalized groups in the villages. Non-Adivasi, e.g. are not entitled land rights under FRA in the same way as the Adivasi, different rules apply. The work on this has not been able to reach out to them. In the final workshop in Puri community leaders and partner staff shared how they did try to reach all marginal groups and how some of them are leaders in the FOs. The evaluation, however recommends inclusiveness to remain an issue for reflection in the development of the work.

Level of dependency of community on NGO resources: Important progress has been made in this but systemic data are not available. Quite a few activities are done through partially mobilization of own resources, so the team learned. But FO leaders often mentioned the limited fund availability at their level as a constraint. Where support is still given by partners in terms of equipment or tools (free or subsidized) there is room to improve the conditions under why this happens adding perhaps the condition to replicate / multiply the support received within the organization or with others.

General views and perceptions of both community leaders and other stakeholders of how the partners work together with communities are generally positive or very positive. Several stakeholders called the approach quite unique for the district, different from others pointing indeed to key PLD aspects.


During the study it was noted that the level of standardization in forms of organizations or activities is a good indication of the quality of the PLD process. In a few cases too much standardization proved to be an indication that farmers had not yet fully understood or internalized their freedom to make choices of what fits their situation best (e.g. each farmer organization having the same number of people in the coordination committee). In many cases FOs showed very different ways in how they handled activities or addressed issues such as lack of funds.

7.4 Integration of PLD within the partner organizations

The continued use and further development of the PLD approach by the partners involved will depend on the extent the approach has become part and parcel of the whole organization, has become part of its “genes” This is often referred to as integration of PLD in an organization or “PLD Institutionalization”. This study reviewed PLD institutionalization on the basis of 8 indicators (Annex 4). These are based on draft indicators developed jointly during the inception workshop complemented with indicators from the framework on institutionalization of participatory approaches developed by Sophie Lizares-Bodegon

and others.8

The analysis of PLD institutionalization was based on three sets of activities. First of all notes on PLD institutionalization were compiled from the documentation of the accompaniment process prepared by the Misereor consultant from existing trip reports (Annex 10). Table 17 shows that over the years a number of encouraging signs were observed by the PLD consultant of gradual PLD internalization within the partner organizations. Table 17: Selected observations on PLD institutionalization from the accompaniment process

Year Observation on PLD institutionalization

2007 Subsidy in establishing adaptability trials discontinued. Strong farmer ownership of the trials.

Activities were observed to be controlled by farmers and not staff.

NGO rejected offer by NABARD to expand the area of BADI given the current conditions.

2008 Staff activities as planned in the project proposal not followed-up to respond to priorities of local communities.

NGO advocates PLD in its negotiations with NABARD and its Swiss donor. It also began sharing PLD to INAG network partners.

People-driven application process for forest land claims under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) used by NGO in blocks outside MISEREOR assisted working areas.

Staff shared that in the campaigns farmers were now writing and preparing campaign placards and posters.

Farmers were negotiating with the government and taking the lead in dealing with media.

2010 Second line staff showed PLD understanding and competence to introduce PLD concepts and processes in visit sharing PLD with other NGOs.

NGO successfully convinced staff of a major other donor to support and co-fund the PLD approach and give-up its highly subsidized program.

Secondly, the consultants facilitated a self-assessment with each of the 3 PLD teams. In one case the NGO leader under the past projects participated in the activity. Buzz groups were used to mobilize views and inputs of all. Table 18 summarizes the results of this work. It presents the average score given by the teams on each criteria (1 is lowest, 5 highest).

8 Sophie Lizares-Bodegon and others et al (2003) Participatory Technology Development: challenges for institutional

integration, IIRR, Silang, The Philippines.


Table 18: Results Self-assessment PLD internalisation by NGO staff

Criteria Scores by the teams Examples, notes

1 2 3 PLD approach included in vision/policy documents & proposal.

4

5 5 MKSP Proposal “Strengthening adivasi farm women self-help cooperatives to enable them pursue sustainable livelihoods” to Govt of India, Orissa; Mission Statement

revised 4 years ago include “farmer first”; Andheri Hilfe proposal; PLD included in proposal for Wadi project All proposals build on peoples’ views;

Community influence in NGO policy formulation & proposal development.

4

5 4 Decision to be involved in NABARD by local

consultation;

“All based on community decision”; Community members in Board (4, 1 & 2 members);

Use of PLD approach in other projects.

3 5 5 Values of PLD are maintained in NABARD project; resources managed by farmers/UDC; Uniform in all projects; Watershed project 100% PLD, also Badi project;

Successfully influenced other organisations to use PLD.

3 3-4 4 “Only successful in one case”; Successfully discussed with several NGOs, individuals in Agriculture department and NABARD;

All staff understands & supports PLD.

4 4 5 General understanding among all; no written document,

PLD is a process to be experienced;

Some internal discussion continues; Only new staff have problem in understanding;

Relevant staff fully capable of facilitating PLD.

3 3-4 3 Facilitation skills, some farmer leaders are more skilled

than new staff;

New staff capacity needs to be build; Still in the process of learning;

Adequate staff capacity development system in place, also for new staff.

3 4 3 “Reflection of PLD in every monthly meeting & around two PLD reflections/ trainings per year; Main learning through exposure visits and internal meetings. Some more reflective workshops and trainings are needed;

Internal culture within NGO conducive/ supportive for PLD (internal dialogue, staff responsibilities decentralised, flexibility)

4 3-4 5 Space for staff to discuss issues related to management, team able to analyse well strengths & weaknesses; Sometimes senior dominating, direct criticism; Like a family, flexible, room for open dialogue with management;

This analysis shows that the teams feel that the PLD approach is not just implemented in their own project but has become well-internalized in the whole organization. Not only is the PLD approach visible in organization policies, proposals and other projects but also in all cases community representatives are now member of the policy stetting bodies of the organizations. They also feel that the overall culture in the organization is supportive for PLD. They assess staff capacities as 3 on the scale from 1 to 5. This may reflect their modesty (“we still have a lot to learn”). Finally, to complement the self-assessment by the teams the consultants undertook their own review activities of PLD institutionalization. This included checking of actual policy documents and proposals by the NGOs, interview with staff of other projects and visits to some of their sites, individual and group


interaction with PLD project staff and observing their functioning in the field during village visits and observing general NGO culture during their visits. This analysis supports above conclusion that PLD institutionalization has taken place to a large extent across all 3 partners. But with the following important notes: The overall score of 5 of the teams on the use of the PLD approach in other projects is too high. It is true that efforts are being done to integrate PLD in other projects. And in applying for and implementing projects such as the horticultural project with NABARD (Badi) partners have succeeded to a certain extent in opening the given strict project approach to a more people-led approach (use of a wider diversity of technical practices, allowing intercropping as requested by farmers, initiation of the program only based on a direct demand by a village, management and ownership of the funds by the farmer group, use of farmer-to-farmer training). But the NABARD project framework has its limitations as far is the full use of the PLD is concerned: the entry point is the implementation of a specific technical development activity, the orchards, with less scope for wider historical and situation analysis as practiced in the PLD areas. In the first years the focus is on a limited group of 10 to 20 farmers though over the years DULAL tries to widen the process through establishment of Village Development Committee with a much wider agenda. Subsidies of INR 40 to 60 thousand (equal to around 300 days of wage labor) per farmer remain an important initial incentive for the farmers. In terms of staff capacity the evaluation team agrees with the medium score from the above SWOT:

Capacity and skills in PLD facilitation in practice differ among staff. Continued attention to strengthening this capacity remains a priority.

There seems to be a need to widen understanding and perspectives in PLD beyond the day to day field experience to be able to further articulate, analyze and develop and share more widely the PLD approach. Enrichment from both experiences elsewhere and more conceptual training in or studies of people-led development could address this;

The PLD process may have reached a stage that partners’ PLD teams need to add key expertise to be able adequately support communities, the FOs and their current programs. This refers e.g. to expertise in strengthening FOs including ways of formalization and/or registration, in all aspects of (collective) marketing and perhaps deepening of expertise in sustainable agriculture at large.

7.5 The impact of using PLD

A study such as the current evaluation is not very well placed to do a systematic comparison of the direct development impact of the use of a PLD approach as compared to earlier project intervention modes. The following presents a number of relevant insights and indications noted as part of the study. The horticulture work by DULAL in Mayurbhanj allows a certain direct comparison. Under Misereor funding the horticultural work followed a project based approach, focusing on outside generated development. In its current horticulture project, funded by NABARD, DULAL has integrated PLD to a considerable extent. Survival rates of planted mango and cashew seedlings have increased from less than 50% to above 85% thus showing direct development impact (DULAL data). Another case is the introduction of Vermi compost undertaken through NGO training under earlier Misereor projects. The level of acceptance and spread was close to zero. Cross visits as part of the PLD projects have now exposed a wider group of farmers to this form of composting, directly learning from farmers practicing it. From among the larger group some farmers have shown keen interest, are using this technology and have started promoting it with other farmers. Space given to farmer creativity led to a farmer-developed innovative bamboo version of the vermi compost unit that is cheaper, more flexible and easy to make. This version is currently spreading in Mayurbhanj. PLD is fundamentally a capacity building process that – apart from leading to improved performance and impact of activities – enables groups and communities to build their strength to initiate, undertake or demand development activities outside project and NGO frameworks. Probably the most important impact of the use of PLD would thus become evident when important development work is initiated and undertaken by local communities or FOs without direct NGO involvement. This is difficult to monitor but the evaluation came across enough cases and examples to be confident that this is the case now in the project areas:


Series of activities by lower level farmer groups / organizations to work on education and other issues not part of project frameworks; the struggle of women groups to stem liquor sales and misuse is another example;

Initiatives of organized communities to develop local irrigation infrastructure fundamentally improving local agriculture productivity witnessed in Mayurbhanj but also reported for quite a villages in Keonjar; either by mobilizing technical support from relevant agencies or using own insights and creativity;

Empowered communities successfully mobilising and organizing themselves on their own to stop local developments threatening their livelihoods such as the action by a village in Keonjar to stop a company to set up a Crusher unit in their territory threatening to damage to the local forest;

Rapid scaling out of work on FRA land titles in some districts where those assisted and trained help other communities in preparing their applications and submitting these;

The (groundnut) marketing cooperative successfully linked to the Orissa Rural Development and Marketing Society (ORMAS) and obtained processing machines for groundnut. They are also expanding their activities to include marketing of paddy and other crops.

Only in Mayurbhani the evaluation visited a village not involved in a project with the partner or in any other major development effort and interacted with a group of farmers. The apparent difference in dynamics, initiative and energy as compared to the PLD villages was striking. Farmers said they are fully dependent on HYV seeds, growing only paddy in one season. They explained to be totally dependent on the government for seeds, which never reach them in time. There also appeared to be high dependence on input dealers for fertilisers and pesticides, which are used indiscriminately. They are aware that the land is getting degraded, but they feel they are helpless. Farmers seemed to lack confidence in themselves and their abilities. Of course other factors beyond the knowledge of the evaluation team may have played a role causing this difference.


8 SUPPORT AND PLD ACCOMPANIMENT BY MISEREOR

8.1 PLD Accompaniment

A number of informal discussions between Misereor and a number of partners in Orissa on the need to experiment with a more people-led development approach – including those around the India workshop

on Food Sovereignty in 2005 – led to a joint agreement with four9 organizations to engage in a

collaborative effort to try and develop a locally relevant PLD approach. The process started for real early 2006 with a first visit of the consultant made available by Misereor. Annex 10, prepared with the consultant, documents the support and accompaniment process that developed over the years. Complementing this, Annex 7 captures the PLD learning process as documented by one of the partners, KIRDTI, showing how it made use of the learning opportunities provided. Looking at the process in more detail it is clear that learning by partners on the relevance of PLD and how to make it work has been encouraged mostly by creating space for sharing and learning first of all with communities and their representatives but also among the NGOs themselves and with organizations elsewhere in India and beyond. Table 19 presents basic data on key activities undertaken as part of the accompaniment from 2006 to 2012. Table 19: Summary PLD accompaniment activities 2006-2012

Activity How many times done

No of consultant days involved10

Notes

Accompaniment visits to Orissa partners

7 28

Exposure and sharing visits in India

13 53 Includes exposure visits to learn, to share PLD experiences and/or to build networks on specific themes as part of phasing-out of PLD support in India.

Exposure and sharing visits outside India

3 12 Visits to Bangladesh, and Thailand (twice) to learn and share (also on the PLD work in India) and jointly

review PLD consultancy.

In most activities the consultant made sure to create field-based open interactions between staff and communities as an entry point for creating awareness on the value of the PLD approach. These interactions showed the staff involved the capacity, knowledge, and own innovation capacities and interest of communities. The field-based activities already showed in practice new ways of interacting with rural communities and helped changing attitudes of NGO staff and creating interest on the side of communities. Field based interaction and reflection sessions were almost always combined with office level reflections with staff on the implications of the learning from the field for the work of the partners. The overall strategy was to stimulate partners to pilot and develop their own way of using PLD by following action-reflection-action cycles using the inspiration from the joint work during the consultant visits. No specific format or methodology outline was introduced. Own internal reflections on PLD implementation in the absence of the consultant were strongly encouraged. From the study it became clear that these reflections and sharing on PLD did and do take place regularly within the three organizations (see also Annex 7). Reflection and learning events with the consultant always concluded with planning of practical next steps, often pilots, to try out the learning in reality, starting in a small scale and expanding gradually when successful. The accompaniment process did not include any organized “training” event on concepts, approaches, methods and tools for PLD or participatory agricultural development in general or activities for training key skills in facilitating participatory development.

9 The fourth partner organization, Jana Vikas, was only partially involved in the joint learning process that followed and has

not been included in this evaluation. 10

In several cases the consultant participated only in part of the exposure or sharing visits and the total number of days

involved in the visits is thus considerably higher.


From the current study as reported in previous chapters it is evident that this accompaniment process

has been very effective in encouraging the three NGOs DULAL, KIRDTI and ORRISSA to move away

from a project and subsidy focused to a people-led approach. The accompaniment process “fell on

fertile ground” as all three NGO leaders had basic openness and interest in people-oriented

development. Fundamental changes towards PLD have been realized within all three NGOs and the

communities through this process as discussed in Chapter 7.4. It has been effective in creating a PLD

approach fitting the realities of Orissa and has been highly appreciated. People at all levels involved in

the learning process confirmed how the example of the consultant’s interaction with communities has

played a major role in showing how they could change their way of working. The strong current

ownership of the PLD approach at various levels is further evidence of the impact of the accompaniment

work.

Based on the discussions and observations as part of this evaluation, however, one could point to a

number of pitfalls in the accompaniment approach as it took shape over the past years:

First of all the geographical realities in Orissa on the ground have led to a certain concentration of

visits to two of the three partners as timing often did not allow the long travel to the working area of

the third partner.

The emphasis on sharing and learning through reflection as compared to create (access to)

organized training events seems to have contributed to the difficulties NGO staff and leadership

face in articulating “their” PLD approach noted in chapter 7.2. They partly lack the words, concepts,

and exposure to formulate and explain in a more analytical way various aspects and components

of PLD.

The reliance on one consultant has helped to create a strong basis of trust which is an important

condition for a successful accompaniment process. But it has prevented a wider diversity of ideas,

perspectives and skills on people-led development being brought into the process. Learning

through articulation and documentation of own PLD in practice, positioning and understanding of

PLD within the wider analysis of people-centered development approaches and institutionalization

of PLD are among issues that could have been brought in to complement the process as it took

place.

The international visits such as to Thailand for exposure to seed improvement work seemed to have

had less impact than expected in terms of follow-up in Orissa.

In interaction with outsiders the costs of the accompaniment process was referred to as possibly

one of its main disadvantages. Compiling and analyzing the costs involved proved to be a complex

exercise though, both within Misereor itself and with the various other actors involved. Often the

support trips to or with Orissa partners by the consultant were part of longer trips complicating

allocation of days and costs to the Orissa process. Costs carried directly by Misereor for the

consultant and his travelling are estimated by Misereor to be around Euro 10,000 per year over the

6 year period. Expenditures would be considerably higher in the first 2 years and lower in later

years. Costs carried by the partner organizations and community representatives themselves need

to be added to this but these are most likely to be lower than above amount. In the light of the

considerable extent of capacity building realized at community and partner level according to this

evaluation and comparing above amounts with costs of organizing conventional training programs

for staff over a number of years or sending staff to international courses regularly costs of the

accompaniment process do not seem to be prohibitive.

In this context the earlier observation from the evaluation is to be recalled on the need to expand

the leadership basis within communities and people’s organizations (Chapter 6.2). Where current

leadership has partly grown out of the quite intensive PLD learning process, capacity building of

more leaders needs focused attention in order to reach the same results in the absence of such

concerted learning process.


8.2 Wider interaction with Misereor

Generally the interaction with Misereor in managing the PLD projects in terms of planning, budgets, and reporting is appreciated by partners in Orissa. Misereor shows good understanding of the realities of the partners on the ground and realizes that in a PLD type of project good planning of the process is more important than adhering to strict targets on technical outputs realized. The flexibility shown in this regard is possible in a partner relationship based on trust in and respect for each other’s roles. Looking at the way project proposals are being framed from 2002 till today one can observe a clear change in the way objectives and indicators are being formulated between partners and Misereor. They increasingly reflect a growing understanding of the PLD approach and its influence on project design. But one can also note that generally project objectives and targets are not always formulated in a well-focused and systematically manner. This limits their usefulness in terms of creating a basis for joint M&E and this evaluation a/o for this reason developed the assessment framework directly from the most important program components. Realising workload and time pressure can be high during project proposal processing, it would still be important in the case of new projects to give focussed attention to arrive at a jointly understood set of clear objectives in a PLD mode. The role of targets in PLD is a contentious issue as was also noted in the recent evaluation of the Indian NGO KRAPAVIS supported by Misereor. Orissa partners seem not to be fully convinced if and how targets should be used in PLD project proposals. There continuous to be a mix in level of detail of what the projects want to achieve by the end of the three years. It would be useful to give this some further attention both in the interaction with the Indian partners and in the wider Misereor context of sharpening insight in formulating PLD projects that are open enough to allow a strong PLD process but set “targets” that can still be monitored jointly with partners. In setting targets within PLD projects one could consider the following:

Include targets on the PLD process itself: number of villages covered and numbers of key process activities foreseen such as mobilization, planning and review meetings and activities, training, exposures and other capacity building, innovation and farmer experimentation activities;

Direct targets in the area of community strengthening itself: how many organizations formed or strengthened, how many people being part of community organizations, level rather than exact form of empowerment to be achieved;

Intermediate results aimed for: Here short term and concrete targets are most controversial in a PLD context: use of number of people using compost, or of specific traditional seeds? What if compost or the seeds are found not practically by farmers? Increased productivity (how much) or increased diversity are possibly better and more open indicators at this level;

The higher level livelihood improvement levels aimed for: how many people practicing SA, have increased income or food security, with how much?


9 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Program management was not a main focus of this evaluation. The reports on the detailed evaluations of the partners raise a number of management issues. This synthesis zooms in on two program management issues that were noted across all partners with a direct influence on the PLD process and its success.

9.1 Staffing

The evaluation has been positive in previous chapters on the commitment and capacities of partner staff involved in the PLD work. The evaluation identifies three areas of concern: There are a number of potentially gaps in capacity of current staff. On PLD staff would benefit from deepening PLD understanding not just through exposure to alternative approaches but also through participation in training events or workshops addressing more conceptual and fundamental aspects .In a number of program areas work has progressed to a level that staff needs stronger capacities in critical areas to be able to effectively support farmer organizations and communities: this includes e.g. marketing, formal organizational development, and even sustainable agricultural development in a more strategic manner. This could be realized by finding new staff for this11, by building capacity of existing staff, and/or by strengthening networking with relevant resource organizations. Secondly the evaluation noted that current staff has learned a lot from the learning process on PLD that started in 2006. New staff joining more recently do not have access to the same type and level of learning opportunities. As staff attitude, understanding and skills in facilitating PLD form one of the most important factors for success of any PLD process partners have been advised to critically review current staff induction mechanisms and strengthen them where needed and possible. Finally there are important differences among partners as to the level of involvement of Adivasi in the regular staff. While there may be contextual or historical reasons for the different performance of the partners in this respect it should not keep them for continuing their efforts to improve on this. A similar observation can be made on the number of women in staff across the 3 partners.

9.2 Monitoring & Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation covers potentially a wide series of activities undertaken by partners and communities, both individually and jointly, to keep track of what is being done, make adjustments where things go wrong, learn and improve programs and approaches, and be accountable internally and externally. It is a complex area of study in itself. The evaluation led to the following comments on M&E:

Generally regular reflection on the realization of activities and progress made is part and parcel of the work of the partners and their communities. It’s part of the planning and M&E cycles by and with the community organizations and FOs as well as the PLD team themselves. Team reflections and learning are strongest when the NGO has an overall well-coordinated set-up such as in the case of KIRDTI. The decentralized set-up of the two other partner organizations puts limits to the possibilities for such regular reflection, while the multi-location structure of ORRISSA present another challenge in this.

The partners, particularly ORRISSA and DULAL, have extremely detailed quantitative sets of M&E data. Collection of such data is part and parcel of their regular work. They are, however, very much under-utilized:

A substantial part (ORRISSA) is kept in hard copy forms making processing of data time consuming if not impossible;

When entered in the computer it has been done in Word (DULAL), again limiting the scope for data processing and use;

11 In various discussions with all 3 NGOs the evaluators were made to understand that current budget arrangements

with the donor would not allow the NGOs to provide adequate salaries to candidates with relevant qualifications. While it is beyond the scope of this study to make judgements in this there is no doubt that people with the qualifications mentioned in the report are needed given the current and future dynamics of the program.


Far too many data are being collected the current usefulness of which is not always clear (e.g. continued collection of survival rate data of trees after their 4th year);

The use of data is haphazardly. Data that are of key importance to understand program progress and performance at various levels are not being put together regularly, as this evaluation also encountered. Annual reports often do not include them but may have other quantitative data that are less central for overall M&E. Data on the development over a number of years of a certain program component (no farmers planning millet) is almost always missing in the reports;

The linking back of data collected in a meaningful way to the farmer organizations and communities for their learning is hardly done.

The evaluators therefore recommend partners to simplify and streamline this part of their M&E system starting, as always, with the question what kind of data are really needed by the NGOs and the FOs, considering both internal use and learning and the use for external accountability. The work on the M&E indicators done by each partner with farmer leaders as part of this evaluation and the data formats given by the evaluators can help making choices in this.

Partners and communities are encouraged to give more attention to M&E of the spread of the PLD process and its activities (such as FRA entitlements, forestry management, successful traditional agricultural practices) to people and villages outside the direct project intervention areas and without involvement of the project. Such “autonomous” spread is a key indication for relevance of what is being worked on in the eyes of farmers and communities. In the context of strengthening the PLD process it is important to agree with the farmer groups, organizations and their leaders what they want, need, and can do in terms of monitoring of their work and data collection so that partners can assist them in doing this and only collect additional information as required for own use. A well-functioning FO at the district level, e.g., would be interested to have adequate data on the number of its member organizations, number of individual membership, and development of its own fund. Partners could build the capacity within FOs for such monitoring rather than continue such collection on their own. Finally, as mentioned in chapter 8.2, Misereor and partners are advised to give further attention to the way targets are set in PLD projects to create basis for joint M&E. As argued, targets may be formulated in terms of the PLD process itself (farmer group and organization, emergence of leaders, women participation, leadership qualities), the intermediate results formulated more widely (no of farmers trying out / practicing sustainable agriculture practices), and the longer term outcome or impact (empowerment level of the farmer organizations, changes in food security or income).


10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis presented in previous chapters has led to a series of conclusions and recommendations on the main components of the PLD projects and the way the PLD process takes place. This chapter summarizes the analysis by bringing together the most important conclusions and recommendations. The recommendations always target both communities / farmer organizations and the NGO partners unless specifically indicated other-wise. In this context it is relevant to note once more the decision of the final workshop to translate the current report into Orya to make findings available to the FOs and their leaders.

10.1 Conclusions

General

After a journey of six years to develop and practice a locally effective people-led development approach, it is clear that generally these efforts have been successful. Communities and their organizations have become the main drivers of development activities with the NGOs trying to change their role from initiator to supporter. The communities are gradually taking control over their basic resources like seed, knowledge and to a certain extent also land and forests. The work reaches Adivasi communities in the most remote areas of Orissa who are among the poorest in the state and it seems to fit well their realities. Women play an important role and many give evidence of increased space and confidence to take part at all levels. Other marginalized communities such as scheduled-casts that live in the project areas take part and benefit only to various degrees. The impact of the use of the people-led approach at this stage is evident from 1) the capacity and confidence of communities and their leaders to come-up for their rights and face external agencies, 2) improved technical results such higher survival rates of planted trees and, most importantly, 3) the strength of the farmer organizations to undertake important development activities and mobilize relevant resources and technical expertise without NGO involvement.

Livelihood improvement

The revival, strengthening and spread of so-called traditional agricultural and food practices has been widely accepted among the communities in the project areas as a way forward. The work resounds well with efforts to strengthen Adivasi identity and integrates cultural and spiritual dimensions. Numbers of farmers involved in or using key practices has been growing steadily of the past 6 years. Costs of production are likely to increase because of this. Available but scattered information suggests that food security is increasing as a result of this and that, particularly, nutrition and food practices improved considerably. The work reviving traditional varieties has led to a rich information base on varieties and their characteristics. This is an underutilized resource and more could be done to spread the information. Looking more closely, there is considerable urgency and room for making further steps in strengthening agricultural and food systems. Overall productivity of farming systems, even in their diversified forms, remains relatively low and government support is still needed to help communities through lean months. (Re-) Strengthening the role of the forest in securing people’s livelihoods and increasing food security is a line of work clearly very much appreciated by communities. There is good evidence of income and food security increases through improved management and use of the forest. Securing individual land ownership for more than 5180 households is a major achievement though areas allocated have been considerably below what was applied for. None of the 158 applications for community land ownership under FRA had been successful yet. This is a threat to the work on forestry management and the livelihoods of people at large. There is also


considerable scope to explore expand work on the management, use and marketing of forest products to increase their role in generating income and increasing food security. Advocacy, lobby and related actions such as demonstrations or road blocks have become a major component of the work at local, block and district level, most strongly so in the Keonjar district. This work is extremely relevant and has often been effective. Farmer organizations now play an important role in organizing most of these activities and take responsibility for resource mobilization.

Community organization and leadership

A large number of active local level CBOs, groups, committees, and revived traditional institutions have emerged from the program which provide ready platforms to undertake own development activities, collaborate with the NGOs or link-up with other external agencies. The evaluation was confronted though with numerous requests for further capacity strengthening e.g. on development and management of their organizations and collective marketing and value addition.

Federating village level groups, a total of 37 farmer organizations have been formed at Panchayat, Block and District level. These farmer organizations play a key role in many activities, particularly those related to advocacy and lobby and organization of events such as Melas. They are somewhat semi-formally organized and sometimes loosely structured. Farmer leaders are struggling to make the organizations more inclusive, more structured and perhaps formalized allowing the establishment of an own resource base. This is a key concern. Partners and communities are clearly at a turning point in which important choices need to be made to the further development of the organizations to prepare them for current and future challenges. Community resource persons or local specialists play an important role in the PLD process, often linked to the farmer organizations. In ORRISSA operational areas the CRP system involves 153 people and is quite structured. In all areas there was interest in further capacity building at this level. The longer term functioning and sustainability of the local specialists deserve further analysis and reflection.

PLD its use and internalization

The PLD approach has clearly become the basis of all work of partners with communities. Though partners have some difficulty in articulating clearly their way of doing PLD and its various steps, they have generally put in place a PLD process that is systematic and leading to true farmer participation. Community members and leaders were found to play a key role in many activities showing considerable levels of ownership. Dependency on NGO funding for implementation of activities is decreasing slowly. Looking in more detail at the PLD approach as conceptualized and used in practice the evaluation team has flagged a number of issues that need attention to further strengthen it. PLD has been internalized within the three partner organizations to a large extent. They score reasonably well to very good on all 8 criteria for institutionalization of PLD. The open attitude of NGO leadership and the well facilitated accompaniment process have played a key role in achieving this Serious efforts have been made to try and integrate the PLD approach in projects by other donors such as NABARD. Some partners have succeeded in this to a certain extent but this is not well documented and uncertainty and disagreements whether such integration is really possible continue.

Capacity and skills in PLD facilitation in practice are visible within the partners but they differ among staff. It is a challenge to bring new staff up to the same level, also given that major exposure visits related to PLD outside Orissa are much less frequent now.


Program management

The PLD process has reached a stage where PLD teams need to strengthen their capacity in a few key areas such as organizational development and marketing in order to be able to adequately support communities, the FOs and their programs. Most farmer organizations and partners have created adequate space for regular monitoring of and reflection on progress and achievements through meetings and specifically organized events. This action-reflection pattern is key in further developing the programs and the PLD approach at large. Partners regularly collect impressive amounts of quantitative data which are very much underutilized. Data included in reports are not always the most important ones and nor very clear either.

The interaction between partners and Misereor regarding the planning, monitoring and evaluation and reporting has generally been supportive for implementing more open-ended PLD projects. There still seems to be confusion, though, on how to formulate and treat objectives and targets in PLD projects, a confusion that is not unique for the Orissa projects.

10.2 Recommendations

Livelihood improvement

1. Look for and systematically experiment with other practices that could strengthen the agriculture

and food systems such as increase production of organic manure, green manure, incorporation of organic/crop residues and crop rotation, on farm water conservation and management, and possibly integration of trees (agro-forestry). Attention to be given to the possibilities for strengthening the role of livestock in the farming system.

2. Monitor and expand where feasible those agriculture and food activities that generate important additional income such as the case of flaxseeds and integration of dairy.

3. Seek ways to make current information on traditional varieties more widely available to farmers and others and explore ways of “publishing” this taking into account Indian Intellectual Property Rights implications and the role of “protective documentation”.

4. Continue exploring ways to bring the work on seeds and varieties to a next level e.g. by further selection, development of clearer lines, and perhaps ultimately farmer-led breeding.

5. Give serious attention to the as yet unprocessed applications for community land titles under FRA, possibly in coordinated manner across all districts.

6. Explore ways to further increase income and food security from forest products, e.g., through joint processing and/or marketing.

Community organization and leadership

7. Identifying and review capacity building needs of current village level organizations and their

leaders and create opportunities jointly to pursue these. 8. Partners, FOs and communities to seriously follow-up the discussions from the final workshop in

Puri and engage in a well facilitated reflection and learning process for the FOs to make informed choices on the longer term vision and objectives of their organizations and the future management and financial sustainability of their organizations.

9. FOs, partners and CRPs review the position, level of formalization, functioning and incentive system for local specialists, also taking into account their continued functioning beyond project support.

10. Identify further capacity building needs of existing and possibly new local specialists and give these follow-up through exposure, training events or other means.

PLD its use and internalization

11. Consider how the current PLD approach can be strengthened on the following points:

Inclusiveness: Enough done to involve other – non-Adivasi- marginalized groups?


Linkages and collaboration with others such as government departments and programs: Under which conditions would this be acceptable? How can FOs analyze implications of such collaboration as basis for final decision making by them?

Farmer-experimentation and innovation needs more attention? Encouraging farmers own innovative practices and systematic farmer-experimentation with alternative options builds the capacity of farmers to continue innovate and adapt to address future challenges and changes.

Complement exposure and exchange visits: More work to compliment these powerful farmer learning activities with more widely accessible learning and capacity building forms and activities, (simple audio-visuals, brochures, radio shows, structured training).

12. Critically review experiences with incorporating PLD in NABARD type of projects as source of learning under which conditions PLD can flourish and as basis for decision making on future collaboration with similar agencies; detailed documentation of the process used in the Badi project in Mayurbhanj to be used as input into this learning; above experiences to be compared with the low-cost horticultural development work in Keonjar.

13. Continued attention to PLD capacity building and critical review of processes of induction for new staff. Partners to seek ways to further deepen understanding of PLD among staff beyond the day to day field experience to be able to further articulate, analyze and develop and share more widely the PLD approach. Participation in focused national or international courses such as offered by PRIA in New Delhi or IIRR in the Philippines could be considered as part of this effort.

Program management

14. Partners to seek ways to strengthen their capacities in supporting communities in critical areas of

work such as (collective) marketing, formal organizational development and sustainable agricultural development at large. This could be done by building existing staff capacity, employing new staff with relevant expertise and/or strengthening networking with key resource organizations

15. Simplify and focus the data collection and processing system, based on the question what kind of data are really needed by both NGOs and FOs, considering both internal use and own learning and use for external accountability. The work on the M&E indicators by each partner with farmer leaders as part of this evaluation and data formats in this evaluation can help making choices in this.

16. Ensure that data collected are shared back to communities and the FOs so that they can learn from them and adapt programs and activities accordingly.

17. Partners to agree with the farmer groups and FOs what they want, need, and can do in terms of M&E of their work and data collection, build capacities within FOs for such M&E and focus own M&E on collection of additional information as required for own use.

18. Give more attention to M&E of the spread of the PLD process and its activities outside the direct project areas and without involvement of the project. Such “autonomous” spread is a key indication for relevance of what is being worked on in the eyes of farmers and communities.

19. Undertake strategically focused documentation of the PLD process and its impacts to support internal learning and allow wider sharing of the important work done.

20. Misereor to initiate further reflection on ways to include targets in PLD projects that give enough flexibility for the process yet create a clear basis for joint M&E, also considering the suggestions from chapter 9.2 of this report.


ANNEXES


Annex 1: Terms of Reference







Annex 2: Notes on the evaluation methodology

Introduction The evaluation and its methods and tools were selected based on two key considerations: 1. The evaluation would focus specifically on the use of the farmer-led participatory development

approach, the quality of it use and how this influences project results in addition to the assessment of the practical livelihood development activities, their outcome and impact (purpose of evaluation);

2. The evaluation design and its implementation would be participatory at the level of the target groups and at the level of the Misereor partner organizations in order to strengthen the current change process towards PLD (learning and further capacity building).

This annex analyzes design and realization of the evaluation process meeting these 2 requirements. Design In order to clarify and further define focus of the evaluation five main areas of interest were identified and agreed upon between Misereor, consultants and (later) the partners during the preparatory phase (see brief report by international consultant “Inception Notes”).This resulted in the overall evaluation framework: Table 1: Overall evaluation framework

Evaluation main areas of interest Central questions

Community level

Livelihood improvements planned and achieved.

To what extent have improvements spread and are being used among the population?

What is the impact of above improvements?

What contributed to realizing achievements and what prevented them where they did not occur?

Empowerment, organization and capacity building at community level12.

To what extent has community capacity and empowerment changed?

What is the impact of this?

What has contributed to realizing this and what prevented it? What are lessons learnt?

Partner NGO level

NGO approach and strategy Actual description of PLD approach used in practice, key steps / activities?

Analysis, assessment quality and efficiency us using the approach?

How has change to PLD influenced realization of achievements found under 1 and 2 above?

Institutionalization of PLD within NGOs To what extent has the PLD approach been integrated into the NGO structure and staffing?

To what extent has the approach been internalized in how the NGOs operates and takes decisions?

To what extent are organizational values and culture supportive to strengthen PLD?

Misereor level

Support towards learning PLD How effective has been the support by Misereor and PLD consultant in the change process?

12 With attention to inclusion of the poor, the adivasi communities, and women and youth.


Given the central focus of the evaluation on the PLD approach the inception notes discussed in more detail possible tools and methods to assess whether the use of the PLD approach is indeed leading to increased ownership and capacities at the level of the communities to take the lead in continuing development work in their area (process impact) as follows: Table 2: Indicators, methods/tools for assessing increased community capacity/empowerment

Indicator How

Self-confidence of local (Adivasi, outcasts, women, poorer groups) What have people / local organization / communities learned; knowledge and skills developed? What is still needed? Increased linkages with externally agencies?

Current networks and contacts with agencies; compared to before. Self-organization and leadership development: Community organizations and their leadership? Strength and their functioning? How do the communities themselves formulate own vision of the future External views and perceptions on position,

role and empowerment of communities Results in terms of community own new development initiatives, own resources used

Reduced conflicts, community or household

level through improved conflict resolution capacities

Observe during meetings and activities; Visualized/recorded (VDO audio) voices of community; Interviews, story telling Ask individuals; community brainstorming / self-assessment activity; (relevant also for other indicators); Check this in the field Venn diagram on interaction with externally agencies now; Venn diagram type of analysis on local organizations and their role in development work; SWOT discussion on key community organization; Interviews with “office bearers” and others. Community level documents on this? Vision discussion during field interaction. Interview with other agencies including several individuals not directly interacting with communities List of 2011 and 2012 community development activities: who initiated, who paid what? Pictures or other “evidence” of new own activities Interviews, story telling

The first two areas of interest from the framework (Table 1) are closely linked to the agreed project objectives and activities. As part of the preparations, partner organizations were asked by Misereor as usual to propose and define their content wise interest and related evaluation questions. The response was limited. During the inception workshop in India partners and community representatives discussed the evaluation of these two areas in more detail and developed with the external consultants specific sub-topics and related evaluation indicators. Annex 3 has summarized the results across all 3 partners. The above process implies that the formal project objectives and indicators mentioned in the contracts with partners played a less dominant role as compared to a conventional evaluation. This made also sense as project objectives had changed a lot over the various project cycles that are part of this review. The external evaluators checked frameworks proposed by partners and found that they did cover well the essential parts of the formal project parameters. Based on initial discussions during the inception workshop the consultants elaborated specific sub-topics and indicators for the last three areas of interest, i.e. those related to the PLD approach and its use by the NGOs and communities, its institutionalization and the PLD support by Misereor (Annex 4 of this report). Following the above a series of evaluation activities were planned and implemented as in Table 3:


Table 3: Main evaluation activities

Activity Purpose Main actors

Preparations Develop framework, methodology, organize the team

Donor, international consultant with partners

Inception workshop in India

Agree on evaluation, develop focus and indicators, planning

Partners, community leaders, external consultants, PLD consultant

Brief follow-up visit international consultant13

Partner meeting to review outcome of inception workshop; streamline planning; support 1 field study

Partner staff, international consultant; ORRISSA, Indian, international consultant

Self-evaluation & data collection

Cover additional villages, own learning & fill gaps in data

Partners and communities

3 one week field-studies Review and assess field level achievements

Indian consultants with individual partner staff & communities

3 final 5 day visits Institutional analysis at level of partners, POs and stakeholders

Evaluation team with individual partner staff & communities

Final joint analysis workshop

Verify findings and formulate learning across the 3 studies

Evaluation team, partners, communities, PLD consultant

Detailed findings for each partner organization were compiled in separate reports under the coordination of the Indian consultants while the international consultant coordinated the preparation of the synthesis report. Reflection on the realization of evaluation Looking back at the realization of the evaluation and on what worked well and what did not the following can be noted. 1) The overall framework with the 5 main areas of interest proved to be very useful and inspired structuring of all major evaluation activities as evident from the varioussub- reports. 2) The inception workshop in India was successful in bringing partners and communities on board of the evaluation process and increase commitment to it. A lot was done to identify specific areas of study by each partner and to develop relevant indicator sets, particularly related to community level activities. After the workshop partners were further supported by the consultants in refining the indicators. They did guide the evaluation activities in the field and most of them were covered but they were not always systematically addressed in the NGO reports. 3) As mentioned, for reasons beyond his control, the international consultant was not able to attend the inception workshop. The Indian consultants with the Misereor PLD consultant facilitated the event and ensured its success. Some confusion among partners and the consultants emerged whether the evaluation was to be a (guided) self-evaluation or an external evaluation. This was clarified during a brief follow-up visit by the international consultant to Orissa early April allowing further streamlining of the planning of the various sub-activities of the evaluation. 4) Several tools to assess specifically the realization of community empowerment and ownership proposed in the inception notes (see Table 2 above) were not used in practice (e.g. Venn diagram to assess external linkages, annual community development activities analysis, most significant change stories). Several others were used one or two times but the general dynamics of the field visits mobilizing large groups and communities made this complicated. Though the Indian consultants and partners knew the tools, they were much less familiar with their potential in analyzing PLD processes and empowerment. This could not be addressed during the inception workshop when the international consultant failed to attend. Relevant issues did receive attention though through regular interviews and discussions.

13

The follow-up visit was needed when the international consultant missed the inception workshop due to visa complications


5) In the course of the study a few other indicators / tools emerged to assess community empowerment and ownership. Most notably high diversity in organizational forms, procedures and activities across communities and farmer organizations was found to indicate stronger ownership as compared to situations where each farmer organization in each village had the same composition, procedures and activities. Participatory analysis of FO development based on the child development analogy is an example of another unplanned tool. 6) Adivasi, both men and women, traditionally use songs to document and share experiences and views. The evaluation encouraged communities and groups - as planned - to share and sing these songs. This did provide insight in how they look at and present the PLD approach and the various activities undertaken. The songs are in fact already signs of ownership of the work. The team has encouraged the NGOs to collect all the songs and make them accessible to others through translation. A compilation of songs could perhaps grow out of this. 7) Self-evaluation has been done most systematically by the KIRDTI team and also by the ORRISA team. This was done after the inception meeting jointly by partner staff and FO leaders in 8 villages in the case of KIRDTI and 3 villages in the caser of ORRISSA. The latter complemented this by a self-evaluation review with one of the farmer organizations. Each self-evaluation consisted of a one day activity with villagers working in small groups first followed by reporting and a big group discussion. Display of seeds and forest products and singing of songs often complemented this. Discussions focused on detailed description of activities done, their outcome and some impact as well as further challenges. The consultants integrated the findings as documented in a series of brief reports in the report. 8) The dynamics of the inception workshop discussed above did not allow enough time for reviewing existing data sets available with the NGOs as source of data for the evaluation. Such review would also have been a demanding exercise given the way the data are organized by the NGOs. The idea that the NGOs would collect specific additional quantitative data to fill certain data gaps was thus not pursued. Perhaps it was too ambitious. When visiting and studying the 3 organizations during the final evaluation visit it became clear that all three availed of extensive and detailed but under-utilized data sets. This allowed the consultants to request from partners focused implementation and impact data based on formats given at that stage. 9) The 3 field studies could be undertaken as planned thanks to the coordination of the relevant communities and the partner staff. The timing outside the main agricultural season was unfortunate though because it prevented the evaluators to see main groups of activities and their results and discuss performance in more detail. The enthusiasm and hospitality of the villagers often led to the mobilization of whole communities during the field visits. Though this is an indication in itself of commitment and ownership a lot of time and energies were lost in managing these large groups and it was often difficult to organize relaxed detailed discussions with small focused groups. The facilitation of the field studies by one rather than the two Indian consultants (or the full team) implied that not all areas of skills and expertise needed were covered fully. 10) The final visits and the concluding joint debriefing workshop worked well though the field visits had the same limitations as above. For the analysis with the teams of the PLD approach and its use and institutionalization of PLD the chosen indicators and tools proved very useful. 11) In the process of putting the evaluation approach together the idea to involve 1 or 2 staff / community representatives of another partner in the evaluation teams got side-tracked. In a similar context we would still recommend to consider doing this to strengthen the capacity of the evaluation team and also to contribute to further learning among the partners. Feedback from partners and communities At the end of the final workshop in Puri partners, community leaders and NGO staff commented on the evaluation process in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. The results of this discussion can be summarised as in Table 4. Numbers between brackets after statements () indicate how many people mentioned this particular point.


Table 4: Community and partner feedback on the evaluation process

Community leaders


Village and field visits very positive, open interaction, good questions (4)

Evaluation based on village level study is important

Analysis and discussion on strengthening People’s organization appreciated very much (4); including reflection on the 5 stages of growth of an organizations;

Atmosphere during all evaluation meetings give us a chance to give our views

Use of songs in all events, including final workshop, to create awareness

Not done in agricultural season so we could not show work in the field (2)

NGO staff

Strengths

Team responsive to feedback from group (from agriculture to food systems e.g.)

Systematic and analytical approach, particularly in the study with the PLD teams (3)

Well facilitated discussions at all levels, use of effective tools (3);

Attitude team positive, not threatening, respect to people at all levels (2)

Comprehensive involving all levels of work and all actors and staff, including the staff working in the field (4)

Team work among the three partner organizations to handle this together

Weaknesses

Timing in the wrong season, very little to show in the field (3)

Limited time per NGO; show only 60% (2)

More time in the field needed, especially during the final visit

Time between inception and first field visit too short for 1 partner, not enough for self-evaluation, pressure to plan field work;

Combined visit of the full three member team might have been the strongest option

No direct info or exposure to the analysis and feedback on the other partners’ work

Misereor not part of the concluding workshop

Remarks

We need to prepare Orya versions of the reports for sharing with farmer leaders and all staff

Perhaps add a visit next time to a village where no work is being done?

If increasing time for the evaluation is not possible more time for self-evaluation could be created.

Clearly the feedback is largely positive. People appreciated the inclusiveness and comprehensiveness of the process and the well facilitated and open interviews and discussions. The critical notes are also important to take note off. They partly reflect the analysis above: timing of the event, the lack of involvement of one partner with the process in other partners and the reference to the strength of the combined expertise of the 3 consultants. The additional observation that the time per NGO (effectively 9-10 days split over 2 visits) was limited if compared to the range and diversity of work being reviewed is a valid one too. Partners also missed the participation of MISEREOR in the concluding workshop. Final remarks There were no existing formats for use in designing and planning this evaluation. Approach, methods and tools were developed during the initial phase of the evaluation building on related experiences elsewhere. It was good that this was given ample attention by Misereor. In practice developing this design met with several complications though: First of all development, selection and planning of evaluation tools, methods and activities required effective combination of knowledge and insights from a diverse group of people covering both PLD and PLD evaluation expertise, practical possibilities and capacities on the ground, insight in capacities and expertise of Indian consultants, and available budgets and other formal requirements. The process was also not fully linear and certain evaluation activities needed to be planned in order to have everyone available. The Indian consultants, e.g., were selected before the approach and methods were fully clear and understood by all. There probably lacked a clear coordinating point in designing and fine-tuning the planning of the evaluation process and its sub activities and in maintaining adequate communications to all. The tasks


were shared among and between the relevant Misereor staff (both Asia and Evaluation Department), the Indian partners under coordination of the director of one of the organizations and the international consultant. Contracting of external consultants and formulation of ToR was done in Germany as well as in India. The latter was concluded only after the inception workshop based on ToRs that were known only locally and not necessarily fully matched the overall design of the process.


Annex 3: Synthesis of indicators at community level

Area of interest

Examples of program activities

Sub theme/ Impact

Indicator

Enhanced household level Food Security through traditional food/farming systems

Individual or collective seed banks Promotion of different types of seeds Procurement and exchange of traditional seeds at house and community level

Improved Food Security

Volume and diversity of seed stored under farmer control

Level of crop/ food production (yield)

Number of days food available through the year

Variety/diversity of food consumed (e.g. grains)

Awareness raising on the negative effects of modern farming Sensitization meetings/workshops Development and training in different ICM/IPM practices

Enhanced awareness and practice of ecologically oriented farming practices

Number of farmers using compost and integrated pest management methods

No. of farmers practicing mixed cropping

No. of traditional crops grown (e.g. millet)

Area under mixed cropping

Building Strong Local Institutions and leadership

Training / capacity building on functioning and managing PO

Strong peoples’ organizations, associations

No. of farmer organizations at village,

block an district level and their members

Functioning of PO: frequency and quality meetings, participation, understanding of FO among members, planning and strategy development, documentation and internal M&E

Farmer organizations undertaking collective action (e.g. control grazing system revived, Grain Bank management, collective marketing, community seed exchanges, food festivals, farmer Exchanges, etc)

Increased networking of POs with other organizations

Increased mobilization and use of own resources for dev actions

Cooperative fund development and management Capacity building

Strong Women SHGs and cooperatives

No of SHG and membership

Functioning: Meeting on a regular basis, participation in meetings

Activities taken up by women cooperatives (Income generating activities; group marketing; health services etc.)

Enhanced income levels

Training and awareness on legal framework. Farmer-led revival and integration of festivals with development activities

Traditional institutions

No. of cases of revival of traditional institutions and culture (such as Puja/Rituals associated with cultivation

Impact of this revival such as feeling of pride in protecting ecology and fostering unity among community members

Increased thinking/discussions on development issues

Selection and capacity building

Leadership emergence

No of community “leaders” and their capacity and confidence


Area of interest

Examples of program activities

Sub theme/ Impact

Indicator

Exposure visits

Initiatives and action by farmer & community leaders (e.g. training other farmers, elected and active as PRI members, accessing the Govt. Departments for their various demands, including entitlements (MGNREGA))

Access and control over resources and policy lobby

Rallies, sub-mission of memorandum media campaigns; at various levels Collective actions against e.g. log smuggling Lobby by the farmers at Block level on GM seed and Seed bill. Raise voice against local and global issues

No. of families possessing traditional forest land titles

No of farmers able to prepare the land right claims

No. of families who received funds for house construction

Delineation of forest boundaries by communities leading to community forest titles

Policies such as on GM crops and seeds influenced

……

Management of village ecology and forest /NMR

Demarcation of village forests Management rules development and implementation

Diverse food availability on sustainable basis from the forest

No of farm fields with natural fertilizer

Daily wood and fuel needs met

Note: women empowerment / gender and youth involvement are cross cutting and need to be looked into at all levels!


Annex 4: Synthesis of indicators at the level of partner

organizations and Misereor

Thematic area

Activities Sub-theme Indicators14

The PLDP approach and its use in practice by NGO

Description of main principles and steps and actual use of PLDP approach

Quality of PLD implementation

Presence & role of staff in field, has become facilitator?

Initiative and role of community members and leaders in activities

Ownership shown by community of activities

Level of dependency of community on NGO resources

General SW perception by community, and other stakeholders of NGO approached

Integration of PLDP approach into the NGO

Internal learning, sharing and change activities

Integration in NGO overall policy and planning Adequate human resources Overall culture and internal working style

References to PLD in NGO policy and planning documents, proposals to donors;

Role of FO and community representatives in NGO policy development

Actual use of PLD in non Miseroer projects

(Successfully) influencing other organizations (GO, NGO) on PLD

All staff understands and supports PLD approach

Relevant staff have capacity to facilitate PLD well

Effective induction and capacity building system for new staff on PLD

Openness and “flexibility” within organization and for staff staff to work with farmers and respond to their needs

Role of MISEREOR and External Consultant

Accompaniment by consultant; Planning and reporting with Asia team

Relevance and effectivity of support

General SW perception from, NGO, leaders and other staff

14

See also indicators for strength of organizations at community level


Annex 5: Schedule of activities of the final evaluation visit

Date Location Activity

May 15 Travel

16 Arrival Bhubaneswar

Interaction director ORRISSA and Chair board Joined by RK, interview chair and member ORISSA board Team planning

17 Travel Village

Interaction with board and members of Cooperative Group interview local youth club

18 Tikabili Village Car & night train

Group interview with Chairperson Panchayat Samiti, Fishery Extension staff, Sarapanch Rapalmendi-B-GP (also cooperative president) Village meeting cum workshop with farmer leaders, CRP, seed mothers

19 Koraput Interview with ORRISSA staff non PLD project Interview with Fellow and members Group interview and analysis with seed mothers

20 Koraput Group interview and analysis with leaders FO Group interview and analysis with ORRISSA project team

21 Koraput Night train

Team preparation Debriefing with community reps and members of ORRISSA staff

22 Bubaneswar Travel by car Keonjhar

Rest Introduction to KIRDTI, presentation and discussion Meeting with president and member of KIRDTI board

23 Banursuni Khedapada

Village visit, review of work of VFPC, agricultural activities, FRA Village visit, review of work of VFPC, agricultural activities, FRA, SHG, women organization at panchayat level

24 HCpur

Meeting with PRI Representatives Meeting with FO leaders Meeting with Block Dev Officer, staff of Dep of Agriculture, Horticulture, Soil and water conservation

25 Keonjhar Detailed SWOT analysis with community leaders Staff meeting and SWOT analysis on PLD with team

26 Keonjhar Team preparation for debriefing Debriefing with community reps, members of NGO staff and 2 board members

27 Travel by car Baripada

Meeting with former en current DULAL Director Presentation, discussion with the PLDP team

28 Bangriposi Baripada

Meeting and SWOT with FO leaders from block and district level Presentation Badi project and discussion with staff non-Misereor projects

29 Jagatpur Bangriposi

Village visit, discussion on forest protection, traditional institution, interaction with SHG members, brief field visit with farmer leaders Meeting with PRI Representatives

30 Baripada Meeting for SWOT analysis with PLDP team Review of M&E and data management system DULAL Team preparation for debriefing

31 Baripada Tavel by car

Debriefing with community reps, members of NGO staff and 2 board members

June 1 Puri Synthesis, preparation of final workshop

2 Puri Synthesis, preparation of final workshop

3 Puri Final workshop

4 Puri Final workshop

5 Puri Travel, car, plane

Wrap with team

6 AMS Arrival NL


Annex 6: Villages included in the study and their main features

Organization (no villages involved in projects)

Name of village

Category / Phase / Distance

Main activities studied

DULAL (109) Asanbani I, 10 km Block level farmer organization

Bagnagar I, 7 km Farmers group, active Women SHG

Ichinda I, 18 km Active Women SHG

Dharunia

/Parulia

II, 8 km Cooperative, joint marketing of

groundnut

Karanjharan II, 23 km VFPC, Seed Banks

Kuali II, 16 km Traditional farmers institution, VFPC

Panposi NABARD Project, 25

km

Local organisation (UVS) and overall

Producers Cooperative

Sajjudi No projects Group of villagers

Jagatpur Farmer group and women SHGs,

VFPC, traditional institution

KIRDTI (91) Nipania Direct village, road

side

…………

Thakurpada Direct village, 35 km Cluster meeting FO leaders

Deulahudi Direct village, remote n.a.

Chhutung Direct village, most

remote

n.a.

Purunapani Extension village,

most remote

n.a.

Bhaliadala Extension village, road

side

n.a.

Balisahi Andheri Hilfe project,

road side

n.a.

Bangursuni Direct village, most

remote

n.a.

Khedapada Andheri Hilfe project,

road side

n.a.

ORRISSA (95) n.a. n.a. n.a.

n.a. n.a. n.a.

n.a. n.a. n.a.

n.a. n.a. n.a.

n.a. n.a. n.a.


Annex 7: Time-line on PLD learning by KIRDTI

Date PLD reflection

with Manny, key milestones

Internal reflection and learning Activities Implemented resulting reflection Additional reflections after implementation

29th to 30th April 2006

Familiarization visit and introduction of PLD (office meeting and field reflection)

We began to realize the potentials of traditional institutions for coming together and self-empowerment of Adivasi to help them express/assert their own concept and vision of development and way of life. Our capacity building work was more focused on to “train” the leaders means to give knowledge which is modern community building approach. We had tendency to select leaders who can read and write and we were not conscious and appreciative of community’s own knowledge and leadership . Our rights based campaign to secure PDS or food subsidy from the government strengthened the power of community on other hand further make them forget their knowledge of their food based on biodiversity; there is also dependency being created Staff integration was limited with the community who did not come from village and speak tribal language and know well tribal culture. Vermi-compost pit we were promoting with some subsidy were not scale up yet people were using a lot of compost from traditional methods Landless families tend to be excluded from our activities.

Include reflection on PLD process during regular staff assessment and planning meetings. Began not only to organize farmers groups in one location (mixing different tribes and non-tribal farmers) but also to strengthen the social organization of each tribe (revival of their culture, tradition, music and meeting at their traditional domain level and their alliance meeting . The staff members as well as the farmers were facilitated to critically analyze and understand the issue in different meeting and they shared the impact of PDS on agricultural practices as well as on the younger generation (how the younger generation are forgetting the skill to harvest and gather different types of MFPs ). There were recruitment of two more community based staff in the project with three volunteers and the mobilization work could be strengthened. Began to organize farmer exchanges and cross learning visits. We also focused on exchange of traditional composting and use of traditional herbal pesticides as alternative to vermi-composts we were promoting with subsidy and chemical pesticides Explored how our activities could be more inclusive of landless. So, initiation started for the promotion of village grain bank , IGP activities , marketing of minor forest produces etc where the land les could participate and became part of the PLD process

There was growing confidence among the Sabar, Juang, Santal and Munda communities that they were resolving their internal disputes without running to local authorities or judiciary system. Some of the community based staff and volunteers hesitate to take initiative to facilitate addressing the community based issues.


Date PLD reflection with Manny, key milestones


1st to 5th August 2006

Field visit in DULAL working area with other PLD partners Farmers’ exchange 3-day PLD Workshop

WADI completely depends upon external input and highly subsidized program completely guided by NABARD. The farmer community hardly utilize their local knowledge. The land less were marginalized as they lost their traditional grazing area of their cattle and other ruminants with the fencing and horticulture activities, etc Farmer to farmers exchange in different district and agro-ecological environment were motivating farmers to share their knowledge NGO staff have tendency not to translate to farmer participants during the workshop and tend to talk more. Importance was given to translation and people were encouraged to speak in their tribal language to freely express themselves.

Began to give importance to local initiatives in our community on planting fruit trees (horticulture crops) in their farm and village. In fact there were self-help initiatives in this regard. Began to reflect and strategy how we can reduce financial support if not completely stopped providing subsidies to communities and were conscious of developing ownership of the community of their activity as achieved by low cost irrigation projects which had lots of community contribution.

We were later convince of the potential of PLD seeing the 600 acres of horticulture which was achieved with very limited support from our part to the communities in non-MISEREOR working area

22nd to 25th of November 2006.

Field visit to DDS areas with other PLD partners DDS sharing of farmer led research (BT cotton, IPM in cotton ) Workshop to draw lessons, operationalise understanding of PLD and plan peer learning

*Adivasi-farmer participants regained greater confidence seeing the value given to traditional seeds and how modern agriculture using lots of water and chemicals destroyed the land and the aquifers. *Realized weaknesses of the work of DDS. Dalit women identified themselves as members of DDS and did not seem to have their own identity *The important role/leadership of dalit women in biodiversity and in the food security and in their movement *Learned dangers of (Bt cotton), about alternative PDS. *Clearer understanding of PLD including differing roles of farmers, NGO, donors and other stakeholders. The value of working on seeds and farmer seed exchanges was fully understood

Sharing among the staff members on DDS visit experience and its learning. Not much sharing of farmers learning from DDS visit because the farmer participated began to focus on campaigning against preliminary mining survey in her village. The issue of mining became a priority issue. We organized visits of communities from our working areas to outside villages affected by open pit mining in our districts to facilitate people to people learning. Supported strategizing to block mining survey as decided by community. People agreed on direct action so facilitated networking of communities for this. We encouraged the farmers who were sensitized by the issue to move from village to village and organized other farmers to resist drilling for mining testing and mining operation through mass

PLD reflection and exposure visit were so helpful in strengthening leadership capacities. This is shown by the leadership of Adivasi woman called Sanjukta Dehuri in the anti-mining campaign. She was with us in the series of peer learning and exposure visit. Seed and food related activities stimulated wide participation of women in community activities. The seed activities strengthen the work of women self-help groups we have organized and created a bridge to bring several




meeting, networking and coalition building and direct action/mobilization to block mining survey. In other areas not directly affected by mining, seed exchanges and revival of traditional crops (millets, etc.) were initiated through farmer to farmer exchanges.

women SHGs groups together

25th to 27th Sept 2007

Field Visit to NIRMAN in Dindori (partner of ADS ) with other PLD partners Reflection workshop and exchange with 4 other NGOs involved in Using Diversity project

We realized the value of indigenous institutions playing a key role in organizing and mobilizing communities to campaign for their forest land rights as demonstrated by the Baiga community. Small NGO, NIRMAN with only 2 staff and limited resources can effectively support the PLD process because it utilizes local resources and capacities. We realized the negative impact of a number of government programs and the divisive nature SHG organizing by various NGOs and government department in one village. These have been creating dependency, making Adivasi lose confidence on their knowledge system and weakening indigenous institutions and way of life.

We continued to change our work in the campaign and rely more on farmers/adivasi forum. We focused on the exchange of analysis of their situation and threats of mining companies than the past awareness raising activities we were doing where our staff were the ones making communities “aware”. We began to change our approach to lobbying where the people were the ones who took lead in negotiations and were the ones making their banners, posters, walling during anti-mining campaign. Our role was helping to strategize with communities. Our staff began to listen more to the villagers as the indigenous leaders began to share their own reflections

The initial success to block the mining by several villages could be so motivating that it encouraged and empowered other villages to stand with the people for their right. As the number of communities resisting the mining grew the villager gets more and more empowered. The leadership of the people grew as they took more and more responsibilities in their campaign including their contact with local media, PRI members, and intellectuals concerned about environment.

6th & 7th of Nov 2007

Follow up visit to KIRDTI, field visit and reflection session with staff and farmers in the field and with staff in office.

We understood better the difference between field based training facilitation process and class room training facilitation process, the former being more powerful than the latter using our own learning in the mining campaign.

We decided to scale up the change in our capacity building with less and less class room type seminar and workshop to being more through learning by doing based action and reflection based on field realities.

The staff stared adopting the exposure learning and reflection based learning program.

2007 Plan for huge Commercial Plantation on

It was realised by the Juanga community that not only their forest based food will be affected but also the fooder of the domestic animals by

The community people got detail information of plantation plan of the forest department through RTI and the information passed from village to




4588 hector forest area of 88 adivasi villages (costs eight crore rupees ) and the indigenous people resisted .

plantation of such species in their natural forest .

village and the resistance against such plantation build on from village to village . People demanded to Forest Department through village resolution to withdraw such plan of the government. Although the department agreed to the people demand it went on with its own plan. Finally, the people protested on the street and addressed media demanding to stop it and to provide them the title of their land.

5th to 13th Nov 2007

Joint visit to Bangladesh to experience PLD related activities by BARCIK and farmer-led rice breeding, conservation and adaptability trials of the farmers with Caritas. This was with other Orissa PLD partners.

We saw the value of organizing large seed fair and seed exchange. Exposure of leaders in another country was so empowering because people see that there are similarities in their problems with other kind of people and environment. They understand better the global nature of the problem of corporate agriculture. We saw the risk that in such big seed fair the staff would tend to be taking the lead which was what we observed with the staff BARCIK who hosted us, We deepened our understanding of PLD. That it is also about helping people access to new knowledge from outside such breeding of seeds.

We strengthen the exchange of best practices of farmers in farming especially in other working areas not so much affected by mining issue We continued to scale up the FRA activities as this was really the priority of the communities together with the fight against mining.

11th March 2008

Illegal loggers arrested by the Community people and brought to police station with the leadership of women walking over 15KM distance.

The community people realized that unless the loggers problems is not addressed properly the ecological resources of the area cannot sustain any more.

Around 300 community leaders stayed alert the whole night around their forest and caught the smugglers in early morning next day , took them to police station by walking 15KM distance along with them , police arrested them and sent them to custody after lot of argument with the people leaders , the media also caught the news in their daily publications. We decided to emphasize people-driven application process for forest land claims under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and to expand to

The indigenous people could exercise their authority in the urban area and with the police . We realized that we were gaining full confidence in facilitating the PLD




19th to 20th June 2008

Consultant visit to KIRDTI to assist in strategic planning to scale up their PLD activities internally

We learned how to do proper SWOT analysis with all the staff members to assess the strengths, weakness, threats and opportunity of KIRDTI . We realized the relevance of PLD as it reduces the visibility of our organization in lobby and advocacy against mining, land grabbing, adivasi land transfer and logging. We realized that we have changed in how we are working internally (relationship between director, coordinators and field staff). We have naturally become more participatory internally in how we decided on the work to do.

blocks outside MISEREOR assisted working areas. In the campaign activities, we made it such that the farmers were writing and preparing campaign placards and posters, getting police permission, negotiating with the government and taking the lead in dealing with media. We scaled up FRA activities, informing people of their rights in FRA not only for individual claims but also for their community claims. We helped 220 farmer leaders and the youths learn to learn about FRA laws and procedure of claim file in the area to play the lead role or facilitator to claim forest land title.

process and needed to institutionalize PLD by actively sharing our experience to our board We further realized that we needed to look and review our Monitoring and Evaluation systems for PLD. We also realized a different manner of developing proposal to the donor MISEREOR based on the targets that the people themselves have set.

July 2008 Crisis caused at KIRDTI due to detention of three staffs by state police depicting them as maoist and imprisoned them for years

We realized that the local elites and vested interests were very powerful and that we need not only local support from the community but also outside support at state, national and international level We realized that mass mobilization and international support was not enough. We needed also to challenge legally the arrest of the staff and farmers

We organized a fact finding mission and mobilized support around this: human right activist, sympathetic media representatives, sympathetic politicians and other concerned organizations at state, national and international level, local political representatives, We linked up and solicited support from retired judge, senior bureaucrats, opposition party in the state assembly etc and got good lawyers to work out the bail petition in the High court and also pursue the legal challenge.

If the community were not oriented on the PLD, they would have probably blamed us for what happened. Because of PLD people took responsibility and even were the once who assisted us by being actively involved in campaign to release our staff and farmers. They and elected PRI members explained to media, politicians, and bureaucrats that staff were really innocent.

Feb 2009 3 days

Visit of consultant to support in post crisis team building exercise and strategize PLD activities for

Confidence building of the staffs, community leaders, victims’ relatives etc was highly important during crisis period. Alliance building at state level with high court lawyer, retired judge, activists, human right activities is very essential to deal with situation like this.

We organized a crisis management meeting at state level inviting the media, human right activists, high court lawyer, retired judge, NGO representatives, PRI representatives, relatives of the victims etc staff of KIRDTI, other NGO etc.




next proposal to MISEREOR Peer reflection about crisis management with other PLD partners

Team building among staff to draw out any hidden feelings and resentment and to draw lessons during the crisis is so important. We learned a lot of weaknesses on our part.

We kept in touch with all the alliances and update its relationship. We now member in number of human rights organization and lobby group at state, national and international level. We continued to conduct post crisis team building exercise, reflection and consolidation for the next phase proposal.

June 2009 4 days

PLD Documentation workshop with Jorge Chavez (ILEIA) and Radha (AME India) together with other PLD partners

Staff realized that we needed further strengthening of staff skills in documentation and writing articles.

We gave a lot of time to document our PLD process and write our article for the publication.

Nov 2009 4 days

Peer learning and reflection on community forestry hosted by RCDC. This was the second thematic session.

We realized the danger of NGOization of community lead initiative for forest conservation. This was what we saw in the case of the Nayagard forest protection movement supported by RCDC. This is a threat to the PLD process.

We intensively discussed this issue and agreed to be careful not to pass on NGO culture to the communities. We continued to emphasize the importance of reviving, strengthening and adapting the local indigenous social structure and practices.

2009-2010 Jan 2010 2 days

Institutionalization of PLDP in KIRDTI Assisted KIRDTI in sharing PLD to leaders of 3 Odisha and 2 Jharkhand NGOs

The staff of KIRDTI realized that the PLD process need to be institutionalized in whole of KIRDTI in all the project area. We realized that we were really ready to begin assisting other small NGOs to learn about PLD. Our second line staff were very effective on their own in explaining PLD to the visiting NGOs.

Staff decided to scale up the PLD process to all its working areas of all the projects .The process was also intimated to the Board members and it was passed in the board meeting after detail discussion to scale up and sustain PLDP in all the operational area. It was also decided by the Board members to expand PLDP to its two neighbouring districts and one neighbouring state Jharkhand. We developed a joint program with these 5 other NGOs to scale out PLD and expanding opportunities for widening the people’s movement.




We realized that it would be better to scale up PLD by linking with small NGOs around us instead of expanding our organization by hiring more staff to reach to more areas.

30th & 31st July 2010

Plan for plantation of exotic species on 4000 hector forest area under in the adivasi villages costing Rs50 crore and resistance of indigenous community turned very strong .

The indigenous people realized that marginalization of their forest resources through mining, compensatory afforestation, commercial plantation etc. will not only affect their lively hood resource but also the lively hood of the domestic as well as the wild animals.

The community people decided to have „Dharna“ in front of the collector for indefinite period to end plantation of exotic species in their forest area when the forest department did not listen to the earlier demands of the people . The people carried materials from their village and built a tent in front of the collector’s office, informed the local police , the media and forest department before hand They sent a memorandum to the chief minister and addressed the media. On the second day of Dharna the district administration invited a team of representatives of the people, negotiated with them and finally accepted peoples demand not to allow exotic plantation in spite hundred thousands of seedlings were on the nurseries .

The long struggle of indigenous people from 2007 to 2010 ended with victory.

Sept 2010 4 days. 18/09/2010

PLD Workshop on land rights involving Orissa partners at ADS. Solidarity support to Pahadibhuyan community of Khandadahr, Kadakala, Banapal

Learn different PLD approaches/experience in the context of securing land and forest rights in 3 different states of India. We could confirm from the other PLD partners the importance of supporting community claims instead of focusing on individual FRA rights applications only. We realized the potential risks of dividing communities through individual claims. This is against the traditional concept of communal ownership of resources by Adivasi in general. KIRDTI got information by RTI about the mining plan of some steel companies and about the displacement of 9 villages and their ROR plan.

The learning on different approaches of land right issues was shared among the staff members of our organization. We scaled up further the process of making community claims. The people of the affected villages were communicated and sensitized about the possible effect of the mining .The villages like Narsingpur did not allow company vehicle and barricaded the road ,broken the demarcation boundary of the company, Organized mass meeting, did media

The people’s movement at Khandadhar took ground again after 5 years.




advocacy and published the news. The process of resistance spread from village Narsingpur to other villages and the marginalization process was stopped.

18th to 26th Sept 2011 4 days

Visit to Anthra and Yakshi in Andra Pradesh

We could see the positive impact of developing local village volunteers who have good understanding of local culture in facilitating PLD in the work of Yakshi and Anthra. But we also saw the danger of beginning to give allowances to community volunteers and leaders which were done by Yakshi and Anthra so that local people could take active facilitating role in the development process

We decided to strengthen our efforts in developing the community based staff/ volunteers to multiply PLD process in the area.

2011 -2012 Linking Khandadhar movement with other existing powerful movement of Keonjhar

It was realised that the sensitisation and perspective building of Khandadhar indigenous people will be more powerful through linking this movement with other existing peoples movement like MITTAL and STERLITTE in Keonjhar

The Khandadhar indigenous people visited sterlite and Mittal indigenous people movement they have been fighting since last 6 years to protect their agricultural land from acquisition by government. The khnadadhar people also started attending their rallies organised at district, state and national level. Similarly the people of Sterlite also visited the Khadhar area and provided them all strategic information and skills.

Linking peoples movement to movement create greater platform of the common people and it has power to influence policy decision. It increases the confidence level of the people very high.

Feb 2012 1.5 days

All India PLD partners meeting

There are so many pertinent issues the IPs shared in the SOWT analysis which even the NGO leaders were not aware of. The periodical sharing of IPs build confidence, solidarity, and fellowship feeling among the Adivasi. We realized that there was a real opportunity to build a wider IP solidarity group in the tribal belt who are facing the same threats and working towards similar philosophy of development.

We scaled up sharing exchange of indigenous groups and leaders across different tribes in our working and neighboring area. The regional level/state level IP solidarity group meeting has been planned to be carried out being coordinated by the IP leaders for more and more learning exchange. KIRDTI and Adivasi from Kenojhar offered to host this big gathering.

Mar 2012 8 days

Hosting of the Adivasi conference and exchange involving PLD

Organising and hosting a big gathering is more complex than we anticipated. There is tendency of misunderstanding from different expectation, difficulties in

We also planned and began to provide opportunities for learning from other IP communities who are still able to show that their land and forest are sustainably management such as presented by Karen farmers in Thailand.




partners in 5 states together with visitor from Asian Indigenous People Pact and visitors from Karen people from Thailand. Hosting of NGO leaders reflection with the support of PLD consultant.

communication because of the different languages, and differences in orientation of the participants even if we share concerns for PLD. Despite difficulties we realized that such event was empowering communities, especially those communities that hosted visitors in their villages We learned a lot from the Karen visitors and from the exchange of experience related to rotation farming. We realized that there are many international trends like CBD, COP, REDD, REDD+ and development which will affect our communities which we and communities are not so aware of. We learned growing divergence of PLD practice based on the different context. Some NGO partners for instance are open to encourage participation in NABARD, the people in our area resist so called development force because of the threat of displacement, the other work on food sovereignty etc. The community leaders as well as the staffs reflected and learned how to manage a big gathering having people from different culture, background, region, food habit. KIRDTI learned how AIPP makes good alliances with IP organization, leaders.

The local leaders and the staff decided to be extra careful in all respects in organizing a big gathering in future. KIRDTI facilitated series of information sessions on these recent trends that can affect Adivasi in CBD, REDD and REDD+ which are related to the strengthening indigenous farming and sustainable development. We undertook with communities a critical analysis of the NABARD project. Since there has been a successful implementation of 600 acres of horticulture scaled up by various villagers using their own resources. We facilitated reflection with communities what are the positive and negative aspect of being linked to an Asian Indigenous peoples network such as AIPP.

April 2012 2 days

Peer learning and exchange visit to IMPECT, Thailand working with indigenous communities. Focus on shifting cultivation, co-

The Karen community has demonstrated ability to sustainably manage their land and forest resources (their territories) using their indigenous knowledge and resource management system. This has attracted a lot of interest among the indigenous people participants from Orissa.

We organised sharing of experience and reflection following the visit to Thailand within the staff and among the Adivasi communities We encouraged Adivasi communities who have decided to produce maps of their territory and develop resource management plan of their territory.

We realized that there is still a lot of work to do to support Adivasi to be more autonomous and lead their own development like what we saw in the Karen community.




management of national parks and climate change. Consultant only joined the first of this 10 day event to help establish a sharing environment

Another important learning was how the Hin Lad Nai village was actively involved in educating their children so that they are not alienated from their indigenous system. We could see college educated Karen who are proud of their way of life and with their education is more able to deal with outside organisations. The study proving that well managed rotation are carbon sink and not carbon emitters was also an eye opener for us. We were inspired to see very confident indigenous leaders who are involved on their own in lobby and advocacy on rotation farming who are not depending on other but rather are collaborating on equal basis with NGO, scientists, etc. They are even invited to international forums on forest management and climate change discussions.

We held workshops to support them in identifying the gaps in the resource use and conservation practices. Together with other PLD partners we decided to organise sharing of experience on rotation farming practices and how this can be enhanced and adapted and improved. This activity was hosted by Baiga communities in Dindori with the support of NIRMAN and SOBTI

There are so many external forces in our working area that is trying to impose their own vision of development like for example the wide scale horticulture of NABARD in Juang area brought by another NGO without any community consultation. Because of the big amount of financial subsidy, we can imagine that certain villagers will be attracted by the money.

2012 October

IP lead lobbing during the CBD conference in Hyderabad.

There is really growing capacity of IP leaders and second line staff of KIRDTI and other PLD partners to participate in a lobbying event during the CBD-COP meeting in Hyderabad.. There is still much to learn about IP led advocacy work and there is a needs to reflect together with Adivasi leaders what types of lobbying events are useful for the communities.

We facilitated sharing of experience within staff and among adivasi communities related to the lobbying event in Hyderabad. We also conducted a series of information sharing and forum about CBD and related issues. The indigenous community leaders regained their confidence seeing so much respect is being given to indigenous knowledge, culture, IP right s at Hyderabad event

There are lots process at the international that will be marginalizing further Adivasi communities and their access and control of biodiversity We need to do a lot of information sharing on this and facilitating exchange of such information to the wider Adivasi community.

2013 Community Forest Right claim started gaining ground

The staff got sensitised by the district administration on the amended community forest right laws came in 2012 and realised that this is very vital to be implemented in the adivasi area for the protection of the resources from external threats .

*The Adivasi leaders were sensitised on the amended community forest right provisions under FRA though village meeting * The people started demarcating their traditional forest boundary through contribution of money and man power and this is spreading from village to village and prepare claim form.

The community people proved their efficiency and knowledge about the delineation of village traditional boundary . People work collectively in hot summer to assert




Millet farming multiplied further to 927 families by the farmers themselves.

The adivasi people of sensitive zone like Khandadhar where companies were about to start their work have also started demarcating community boundaries. Around 927 families of 61 villages of two blocks moved outside of their village up to around 100 KM distance and brought millets seed through exchange from the hill dwellers adivasi community of Banspal Block for farming during 2013

their right over the forest and other natural resources. When farmers regain their confidence their own seed and technology they become vibrant by themselves to re-establish .


Annex 8: Structure of the farmer organizations in Keonjar district



Annex 9: The PLDP approach by Mayurbhanj15

The basic understanding

PLDP is an approach in social development where people plan, control and implement their own

development by partnering with different stakeholders like NGO’s, Govt, and other community

movements to support them in this. People do this by adapting /building on their traditional knowledge

and resources in the present day challenges they face. This approach leads to a self-evolved

community movement, formed and functional on their own resources, for planning for their own

development, fighting for their rights and addressing the issues the communities face.

Steps involved in PLDP process

Preparation

Staff orientation on PLDP approach, on general socio- political scenario and the politics in

development, policies of the Government, changes taking place in the policies and the interests

behind (eg: seed bill, land transfer laws, PESA, FRA)

Staff field exposures for practical sessions on village analysis

Facilitation of initial joint analysis and planning

Creating rapport with villagers: Meet the leaders of the village, understand them and discuss about

past and present conditions; meet farmers individually – sharing experiences with old farmers;

small group discussions leading where possible to entire village meeting

Village level historical analysis which includes historical analysis about the evolution of the village,

the traditional community structures and systems, rituals, cropping systems and changes evolved

in the cropping systems and food systems during the last two decades. Use of participatory

resource analysis and seed mapping, joint visits to farmers fields;

Village level identification of sustainable agriculture practices done by farmers. Staff visits to learn

from them.

Village discussion on issues related to sustainable development initiated in line with the historical

analysis and in the context of the present day situation/ problems/ crisis.

Priority Setting: Choice and decision on first activities

Certain interest is developed among few farmers for looking into what they had in the past which

is relevant even today but has been lost. This may be specific seed varieties in some villages,

forest in some villages, crop diversity in some villages like millets, flax seeds. This is more village

specific.

The above quest leads to farmer to farmer exchanges, fairs and farmer workshops being

organised on specific themes. Integration of outside knowledge thro exposure visits and training

events

Experimentation, e.g. with varieties by farmers in farmers field

Initial community organizational development

Village levels groups slowly get mobilised informally on the context of agriculture, seeds,

resources, issues (village specific and general) to play a role in monitoring and coordination of

activities and for planning subsequent activities?

Interaction with the village head to understand the system and discussion with other community

members the traditional system of Majhi madwa is revived, strengthened, expanded to include

other than usual social issues and occasionally renewed (elected leaders are replacing traditional

heads).

15

Compiled from draft notes by DULAL management and PLDP process analysis with project team.


Gradually expansion of the program:

Farmer to farmer exchanges and sharing continues both planned and unplanned in increased

dimensions as the actions by the farmers and the involvement of the number of farmers increases

Seed diversity, crop diversity, nutrient management and pest management techniques are shared

and explored.

Joint visits with stakeholders to increase their involvement

The community mobilisation increases and villages initiate regular meetings of the farmers groups

or the traditional institutions. Such groups are called as Parampariko Krushak Sangathan now.

Village level groups initiates dialogue with their respective Gram Panchayats on different issues.

This happens on village specific issues and is not a planned specific activity. The actions vary

from drinking water issues, road issues, anganwadi issues to usage of MGNREGS funds for their

agriculture work.

In the meantime, rigorous analysis is done at the staff team level. Discussions and fights continue

on the conceptual clarity angle.

Scaling-up and intensifying

The community exchanges slowly move up from village to village to a larger platform like block

level. Seed exchanges, technology transfer, and adaptability trials take place within the larger

platform. The farmers groups feel the need to form alliances at Block and District level.

Block level farmers movement take shape after meetings for a few months. Overall crop planning,

issues are discussed in the forum at the block level

Increasing role of experienced PLD farmers and leaders in the process to influence and work with

others on PLDP.

Crop diversity increases, organic farming is practiced by increased number of farmers. Farmers’

movement think about marketing activities and processing.

In the meantime, outside exposures are done to have a larger picture about the issues and to see

how other communities are adapting their sustainable practices/ knowledge to modern day

challenges

District level forum is evolved. Community discussions about issues take place like marketing of

products, planning for joint campaigns/ rallies, participation in different forums, resource

mobilisation for their actions.


Annex 10: Summary time-line of the accompaniment of partners by the PLD consultant

Timing Main activity Who were involved

Main positive and or negative outcome(s)

April 2006

6 days

First support mission framed in the context of PLD and biodiversity and SA concerns. Key activities: Familiarization visit and rapport building to Dulal and KIRDTI to know their approach and to get to know their partner communities (field visits) Meeting with all 4 Orissa partners to agree on the design of Orissa partners exchange and reflection process

All staff in MISEREOR assisted program joined the reflection session Only a few senior staff joined the field visit but All 4 executive directors

Partners’ agreement on the basic design of peer learning process and on consultant role in accompanying this process: Full involvement of farming community; Formation of “fixed” peer learning team; Consultant to be “third eye”, stimulating internal reflection and co-facilitator of partners’ exchange and learning; lead role of partners in internal reflection process; One year plan prepared: writing of case study for internal reflection, sharing workshop, internal exchange, exposure visit to DDS and second workshop Consultant established personal rapport with KIRDTI and DULAL staff and gained understanding of partners’ perspectives development challenges in Orissa in general Demonstrated to Dulal and KIRDTI relevance and potential of linking with communities and dialogue with farmers on their farms and not only in formal meetings. Dulal and KIRDTI realized limitations of subsidize project interventions (low adoption) and potential strength of local knowledge, experiences and strategies that could be build on.

Aug 2006 1.5 days

Familiarization visit to ORRISSA, shortened due to typhoon (1 day)

-

ORRISSA staff (7) and tribal men-women (20)

Importance of building on local food systems, biodiversity and local knowledge. Risk of mismatch between project work on soil fertility with problems of communities. Problems of spread of project work without subsidy Demonstration of dialogue with community in their farms and fields and not only in the formal group meetings. Generally visit too short for all

Aug-Sept 2006 3 days

2 days joint field visit with DULAL; reflection in the field with communities; Farmer-to farmer exchange was tried out for first time Followed by 3 day workshop with presentation of a case by each NGO and reflection.

All executive directors, program coordinator, one field staff with 2 farmers for each NGO (DULAL as host a bit more)

Confirmation of wealth of local knowledge, survival strategies and biodiversity. Farmers encouraged speaking out openly. NGO staff learned to listen to farmers rather than assuming they know what the farmers are going to say. Realization of importance of translation into local languages. Partners acknowledged certain tendency to impose own views, to consider themselves as more knowledgeable so as to end up as the main trainers on agricultural technologies ignoring Adivasi communities practical knowledge that works well.




Each partner developed an action plan to share their learning to the entire organization and implement further reflection process without the PLD consultant.

Nov 2006 6 days

Visit with partners to Decan Development Society 2 days field visit to DDS areas (seed management, organic farmers) with reflection session of the field visit and film 1 day sharing on DDS facilitated farmer led research (BT cotton, IPM in cotton ) 2.5 day workshop to draw lessons, operationalize understanding of PLD and plan to continue their peer learning and exchange process

Same people as above. This generally worked well.

Adivasi-farmer participants regained confidence in and started to appreciate their knowledge and biodiversity seeing the recognition and value accorded on local millets through the DDS. Appreciation by partners of the important role/leadership of women in biodiversity and in the food security Partners’ gained understanding of the limitations of the green revolution and the gene revolution (Bt cotton) and learned about alternatives ways of enhancing traditional food system; and saw how government subsidy could be used for empowerment and self-reliance. Participation dynamics in DDS not very convincing but partners saw the strength of farmers’ seed/knowledge exchange and how they could take a back seat to support or “facilitate” such exchange. The relative weakness of the DDS PLD approach as perceived did inspire participants towards a more empowering PLD approach for Orissa In the workshop, the partners came up with an initial operational definition of PLD. They defined roles of NGOs, farmers, and donors, etc in PLD and agreed on a joint documentation of the PLD learning. Each partner developed action plan on PLD and pilot PLD activities. Adivasi farmer participants had first own session planning session (creation of common front against marginalization by outside forces on their land and territories) and challenged the NGOs to support this.

End 2006 to Sept 2007

Implementation of work plans / PLD piloting and internal reflection and sharing by NGOs – communities; not fully clear to what extent this was actually done. Quite intensive email communication with consultant; but actual support in writing case studies limited by lack of experience of consultant

In practice partners seemed to have had little contact with each other for sharing on PLD. Reasons perhaps: Physical distance, work load and as yet not enough familiar with each other Documentation of PLD case studies was difficult and not completed. It seemed that partners became cautious to admit in writing that their past work was not so people led. Two partners (Dulal and KIRDTI) shared significant changes in their staff’s attitude as farmers in the pilot communities opened up and took more active role in response to the NGOs change in manner of working.




Sept 2007 4 days

Visit to Beej Bachao Andolon by Jana Vikas and ORRISSA; focus seed saver farmers’ movement and own Chipko movement. Initiated also to strengthen interaction NGO staff – PLD consultant and assess staff understanding of PLD and the PLD field implementation.

6 staff and 4 farmers each from 2 NGOs

Farmers and staff were inspired by the fully farmer-led seed movement participating in local and national advocacy activities and the non-violent CHIPKO movement. The farmer-led research also inspired but all saw that this involved better-off farmers with higher educational background. Consultant observed significant progress in piloting of PLD and staff attitude changes towards appreciating farmers’ capacities and innovativeness. But lack of translation of all discussions to the respective farmers continued to be noticed.

Sept 2007 4 days

2 day Field Visit to NIRMAN in Dindori (partner of ADS, which is Misereor partner involved in PLD and the Using Diversity Awards project) 2 day reflection workshop and exchange with 4 other NGOs involved in Using Diversity project

3 staff (including executive director) and 2 farmers for each of 4 NGOs

Impressed how a very small NGO with limited financial means managed to support very marginalized indigenous communies lead a movement on sustainable farming and control of territory and way of life. While they appear docile and powerless they can be very active actors and agents of changing, asserting their own vision of development Realization of the importance of building on indigenous social structures / traditional institutions and respecting cultural integrity of Adivasi; the limitations and potentially negative impact of their own SHG group model that could divide communities and weak own social structures. Staff understood better two important concepts: “official” versus “hidden” transcripts and the need to be able to dialogue authentically with marginal communities. Deeper analysis of forces of marginalization of indigenous communities including government programs focusing on “modernization” of Adivasis. Some limited analysis of the complex dynamics of resource degradation in tribal lands, with partners essentially still blaming the Adivasi for resource degradation due to slash and burn farming practices.

Nov 2007 2 days

Follow up visit to KIRDTI and DULAL (one day and evening for each with a field visit and reflection session with staff and farmers in the field and later with staff in the office) -

Dulal: field coordinator 4 staff of MISEREOR assisted program. Debriefing involved larger group

Revival of traditional rice seeds is truly what certain farmers wanted. Strong local ownership of the adaptability trials; no more subsidy by Dulal in establishing the trials. Farmers got seeds from a Mela and decided on their own to grow millet – not planted 40 years -for two seasons and have now enough seeds for mass production. Activities we observed to be controlled by farmers and not Dulal staff




KIRDTI: Half of field staff in first village visited, other half in the second village visited. All involved in reflection

2007 Seed/biodiversity Mela done by farmers with little funds from DULAL. Staff showed conviction in PLD (even without subsidy change can be catalyzed). Management mentioned PLD approach to be used in all working areas with a next project phase with MISEREOR to re-orient all staff on PLD even in NABARD funded areas. DULAL rejected offer by NABARD to expand their area of BADI. Blocking of the mining survey was really people driven, lesser role from NGO, strong role of Sangita, woman farmer leader, who participated in the series of PLD peer learning process. NGO begins to tap the farming community and farmers as resource person on sustainable farming. Traditional forest management practices and community rules governing the use of forest not yet recognized by NGO staff acc to farmers. Staff saw themselves as the ones sensitizing the village in forest protection when actually there was so much understanding within the community about this issue.

Nov 2007 4 days

Joint visit to Bangladesh to see PLD related activities by NGO BARCIK and farmer-led rice breeding, conservation and adaptability trials of the farmers with Caritas. Focus on PLD beyond building on traditional knowledge to include involving farmers in developing new technology through e.g. breeding. Opportunity for partners to dialogue more freely with MISEREOR staff, as they joined the event. Critical dialogue with donors is part of PLD At the end of the visit, there was a rapid assessment of the PLD consultancy facilitated by Anja Mertineit.

Executive director, 1 or 2 staff and 1 or 2 farmers for each of 3 key NGOs

Partners showed good understanding of PLD by critical analysis of work of BARCIK and relatively still strong role of NGO staff in the process. Partners expressed that they gained better understanding of the potentials of PLD in technology development. Partner staff during the assessment meeting with Anja testified how they have changed their attitudes and manner of working with communities and how the PLD approach is being effective The event was “criticized” by MISEREOR for doing too many things in one event. There was some debate and disagreement on encouraging versus “forcing” partners to freely dialogue and putting partners on the spot.

2008 Focus on out-scaling of PLD; less time to follow-up with Orissa partners; Partners in Orissa (except Jana Vikas) show good progress, interest of MISEREOR to extend PLD reflection to other partners in India and Bangladesh. PLD networking / platform building and strengthening partners’ appreciation of PLD, they work with consultant in out-scaling.

The fact that PLD consultant does not have an OD background or wide theoretical overview of PLD aspects also influenced made a continuation of his direct role with the 3 partners less relevant. Generally starting end of 2007 KIRDTI director and staff pledge to have made significant progress in changing how they were conducting their dialogue with communities. People-to-people exchanges have done wonders in motivating communities to take the lead in challenging the mining company. KIRDTI began




Request from 2 NGOs for support followed-up Request from ORRISSA for “support” in annual assessment and planning workshop could not be followed-up because of conflicting schedules. Very focused support and advice given by E-means and telephone to individual NGOs

adjusting their staff activities to respond to priorities of local communities, leaving behind some of their original planned activities as in their proposal.

March 2008 4 days

4 Orissa partners joined mission with Manny to KRAPAVIS; 4 days

KIRDTI, Dulal and ORRISSA executive directors and assistant director of Jana Vikas

Orissa partners deepened their appreciation of local pastoralist initiatives in managing forest resources in Orans and in Sariska National park. The visit also helped partners draw parallels between their PLD process with Adivasi and the PLD process appropriate to pastoralist.

June 2008 2 days

Consultant visit to Dulal to assist in drawing lessons from PLD piloting and deepening PLD understanding among all staff.

Lack of poverty focus was raised also for strengthening their methods in facilitating community situational analysis and action planning. Dulal showed gained confidence on PLD. DULAL advocates PLD inits negotiations with NABARD and its Swiss donor. It also began sharing PLD to INAG network partners .

June 2008 2 days

Consultant visit to KIRDTI to assist in strategic planning to scale up their PLD activities internally

NGO shows appreciation of PLD as it reduces their visibility in the lobbying and advocacy of communities against mining, landgrabbing of Adivasi land and illegal logging by forest mafias. KIRDTI embarked on people-driven application process for forest land claims under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to blocks outside MISEREOR assisted working areas. Staff shared that in the campaigns farmers were now writing and preparing campaign placards and posters. Adivasi farmers were negotiating with the government and taking the lead in dealing with media.

2 days Belgium

Backstopped Rajeev in assisting Orissa partners in documenting PLD experience

Partners however had difficulties in writing up their PLD experience and transformation even with Rajeev assistance.

2009 Even less time for Orissa 3 partners, reasons as in 2008. Even invitation to join PLD reflection workshop not followed-up; Consultant initiating PLD reflection elsewhere Strategy of working with Orissa partners in out-scaling PLD continued. Two PLD exchanges focusing on specific thematic issues

In 2008, this strategy contributed to networking and building platform for common advocacy on issues like SA, community forestry. Partners’ appreciation and skills in PLD and PLD out-scaling also increased as part of the process




Feb 2009 1 day

Consultant convened a workshop with partners on PLD in conflict situations.

Partner staff Prevent shift to an NGO-driven mode in times of crisis, when empowered communities challenge status quo; Value of PLD in conflict situations is that NGO have lower profile and visibility and this enhances credibility of the community struggle.

Feb 2009 2.5 days

Supported KIRDTI in post crisis team building exercise and strategizing PLD activities for their next phase proposal to MISEREOR

All KIRDTI staff including admin staff

Staff draw concrete lessons from the crisis especially the critical involvement of the people/communities in facing and dealing with conflict. KIRDTI staff realized the importance of attaining a critical mass of communities for effective fight / lobbying.

June 2009 4 days

PLD Documentation workshop with Jorge Chavez (ILEIA) and Radha (AME India)

5 staff from each of 3 NGOs

Staff strengthened skills in documentation and writing articled and a joint publication was realized. Process did not allow to effectively deepen understanding on PLD

Oct 2009 4 days 1.5 days

Training on ecological agriculture and seed improvement in Thailand by Khao Kwan. Exchange on people-led sustainable agriculture practices with partners from India (ORRISSA and DULAL), Bangladesh and Thailand

Director DULAL, director, 2 staff and 2 farmers ORRISSA

Potential of participatory technology development observed. ORRISSA planned to set up own learning and research farm; DULAL planned to have field staff trained by Khao Kwan (technical skills and facilitation of participatory technology development). Illness farmer participant ORRISSA leads to lack of concentration. Perhaps partners deepened understanding of PLD seeing its application in different context (export market driven agriculture of Thailand versus indigenous communities-led process and re-assertion)

Nov 2009 2 days

Dulal and ADS director joined consultant in facilitating PLD reflection with NGO MPSSS.

Director Dulal DULAL director showed solid understanding of PLD and capability to share PLD with others.

Nov 2009 4 days

Peer learning and reflection on community forestry hosted by RCDC. This was the second thematic session.

2 farmers and 2 staff from 3 NGOs (1 director only)

Community-led initiatives in forest management; dangers and risk of NGOization of people’s organizations, making it dependent on external funding support. Staff showed excellent skills in facilitating critical reflection of RCDC PLD activities on the forest issue.

2010 Consultant focused fully on assisting KIRDTI and Dulal in their scaling out PLD and developing their skills as PLD multiplier. Also effort to strengthen PLD platform in Orissa adding NGOs Living Farms and RCDC; PLD strengthening elsewhere continued

Jan 2010 2 days

Assisted KIRDTI in sharing PLD to leaders of 3 Orrisa and 2 Jharkhand NGOs

Many KIRDTI staff and director

Second line staff showed PLD understanding and competence to introduce PLD concepts and processes.




Jan 2010 1 day

Meeting between Trocaire staff and director ORRISSA to discuss how Troacaire project can be aligned to PLD

Director and 2 senior staff

ORRISSA successful in convincing Trocaire staff to support and co-fund ORRISSA”s PLD approach and give-up its highly subsidized program.

July 2010 3 days

2 NGO directors joined consultant visiting RCDC to share PLD experience and invite RCDC into the on-going peer learning process. 3rd Director did not join because of past issues between NGOs.

Directors Dulal and Kirdti.

Directors handled very well the reflection session with RCDC on PLD.

Sept 2010 2 days

Consultant joined visit on PLD of 2 NGOs to Dulal Director, staff and field staff DULAL; KIRDTI Director and 1 staff joined too

DULAL and communities were ready to host PLD orientation and exposure visit to new partners such as MPSSS. KIRDTI showed its second line staff skills in orienting MPSSS on PLD involving land and community forest rights issues.

Sept 2010 4 days

Workshop PLD on land rights involving Orissa partners; the third thematic discussion on PLD.

ORRISSA director, 2 senior staff, DULAL 2 staff and KIRDTI 2 staff; 2 farmers for each

PLD partners compared PLD approaches/experience in the context of securing land and forest rights in 3 different states of India. For first time consultant could have only observer role. Facilitation of all done by partners.

Nov 2010 3 days

Assisted DULAL in facilitating PLD reflection workshop with 4 INAG network partners in Jharkhand.

DULAL Director and 1 senior staff

DULAL team effective in facilitating peer learning with INAG partner organizations. It made a good choice of organizing this in Jharkand where indigenous communities with their indigenous social structures lead the process of asserting claims to land and forest resources under PESA.

2011 Focus of consultant on PLD reflection elsewhere. In India attention for Jana Vikas.

Feb 2011 4 days

Exchange with, annual assessment and PLD capacity building for Jana Vikas with ORRISSA

4 ORRISSA staff and 4 farmer leaders supported this as their working areas are near

ORRISSA second line staff has internalized well PLD and is capable of assisting Jana Vikas in assessing one year PLD implementation through field visit.

Sept 2011 4 days

PLD exchange with 2 new partners Anthra and Yakshi. Opportunity to convene a core group of PLD partners willing to support building of an IP alliance in the tribal belt.

Dulal senior staff and 2 Adivasi farmers; Kirdti Director, 1 senior staff and 2 farmers.

Capacity of staff to explain respective PLD experience to new comers confirmed again Adivasi leaders urged NGOs present to support them in organizing exchange leading to a possible formation of an IP alliance in the tribal belt. This led to a subsequent big gathering of Adivasis in the tribal belt hosted by Adivasis from Orissa. PLD partners from Orissa supported this.

2012 Focus consultant of PLD elsewhere; In India support to PLD platform building and handing over PLD accompaniment of new organizations to advanced partners.




Feb 2012 5 days

Participatory peer assessment of JV PLD work with MPSSS and 3 Orissa PLD partners Consultant participated in last 4 days only

3 senior staff and 2 farmers per partner

Staff beyond directors showed they internalized PLD and were capable in critically identifying the strengths and weaknesses of Jana Vikas PLD process. They were also able to explain their PLD experiences and assist the new partner MPSSS to understand better PLD. MPSS joints the ORRISSA platform. Partners got some idea how a participatory peer assessment can be done.

Feb 2012 1.5 days

All India PLD partners meeting 2 staff for each the 3 NGOs + 2 directors

Extensive SWOT of PLD done but less on the methodology. Manny presents idea of fully phasing out. In practice PLD partners including 3 from Orissa have now responsibility in executing commonly agreed activities among them including the continuing exchange of experiences on PLD and promotion of PLD to others

Mar 2012 3 days

Consultant is observer in an exchange visit and get-together of Adivasi supported by several PLD partners NGOs and their allies. One-day parallel meeting with NGO supported by consultant to discuss 1) scaling out of PLD, 2) NGO role in establishing autonomous IP organizations and alliances and 3) preparations for CBD-COP meeting in Hyderabad. Co-facilitation of a session with KIRDTI staff assessing the hosting of the two events

All staff of KIRDTI & adivasi communities as host. Dulal Adivasi communities fully involved. 4 ORRISSA staff and 4 Adivasi leaders 3 NGO directors & 2 senior staff in NGO meeting

Appreciation of the challenges and opportunities in establishing autonomous IP organizations and IP Clear coordination challenge among PLD NGOs to rally to a common agenda. PLD partners failed to effectively synergize, leaving too much of the task and responsibilities to KIRDTI. The biodiversity fair was conducted poorly therefore leading to discussion among Adivasi leaders. Different interpretations of PLD shown by Indian partners as manifested in their varying response to government programs such as NABARD. KIRDTI staff learned the challenges of hosting a big event, especially in getting their Adivasi communities to take the lead in hosting such event.

April 2012 2 days

Peer learning and exchange visit to Thailand on working with indigenous communities, also involving partners from Myanmar. Focus on shifting cultivation, co-management of national parks and climate change. Consultant only joined the first of this 10 day event to help establish a sharing environment

Director, 1 staff and 2 farmers from KIRDTI and ORRISSA; 2 staff and 2 farmers from DULAL

Partner appreciation of positive and negative aspects of rotation farming deepened it seems. ORRISSA, DULAL and KIRDTI seem to have reflected on the potential and importance of having IP staff and catalyzing IP-led organising processes after interaction with IP led networks and organizations. Indian PLD partners including 3 from Orissa now motivated to organise an IP led exchange and assessment of various rotation farming practices in the tribal belt.

Documents

EVALUATING P EOPLE-LED DEVELOPMENT IN ORISSA, INDIA ... · development approach generally have been successful. Communities and their organizations are becoming the main drivers of