German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL) 
at the Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences of the 

University of Kassel 
 

ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED ACTIVITIES THROUGH 

IMPLEMENTATION OF A PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND 

EVALUATION SYSTEM 

 

 

MSc Thesis 

―Sustainable International Agriculture - Organic Agriculture‖ 

Faculty of Agricultural Science 

George-August-University Göttingen 

 

Faculty of Organic Agriculture 

University of Kassel 

 

 

by Maria Jose Restrepo Rodriguez 

Matrikel: 20979594 

 

Supported in the frame of the collaborative research project: 
―Supporting the vulnerable: Increasing adaptive capacity of agro-pastoralists to climate 

change in West and Southern Africa using a transdisciplinary research approach‖ 
funded by BMZ 

 

Supervisors 

PD. Dr. B. Kaufmann 

Jun. Prof. Dr. M. Wollni 

 

 

 

October 2011  



 

 

 

 

 

STATUTORY DECLARATION: 

I herewith declare that I composed my thesis submitted independently without having use 

any other sources or means than stated therein. 

 

Date: Signature: 

 

  



iii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I am particularly grateful to the project ―Supporting the vulnerable: Increasing adaptive 

capacity of agro-pastoralists to climate change in West and Southern Africa using a 

transdisciplinary research approach‖ funded by BMZ for providing me with the support to 

undertake my MSc thesis as part of this study.  

I would like to thank my colleague in the project, C. Levy, for her advice and hospitality, as 

well as for introducing me to the villages where the research was conducted. To all the 

people in Mozambique who offered me logistical and technical support while dealing with the 

field phase. The villages of Mabomo and Mungazi opened their homes to me and allowed 

me to work freely amongst them. The members of the two CBOs were very cooperative and 

welcoming. The translator Delfino Isac Belarmino Afo helped to make my work much easier.  

I am particularly grateful to my supervisors, PD. Dr. B. Kaufmann and Jun. Prof. Dr. M. 

Wollni for their guidance at all stages of my work. My supervisors, despite their very busy 

schedules, always made time for me and offered highly valuable contribution to my work.  

I would like to thank my husband and all my family for their love and support. 

  



GLOSSARY 

Adaptive capacity: 

The ability of a system to adjust to moderate potential damages, to take advantages of 

opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. Adaptations, or changes in the 

system to better deal with problematic exposures and sensitivities, reflect adaptive 

capacity (Smit & Wandel 2006).  

The capacities in a society that enable self-protection and collective action to prevent 

or cope with stressors (Pelling & High 2005) 

The potential or ability of a system, region, or community to adapt to the effects or 

impacts of climate change (Smit 2001) 

Adaptation 

Adaptation is adjustment in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to 

actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. This term refers to 

changes in processes, practices, or structures to moderate or offset potential damages 

or to take advantage of opportunities associated with changes in climate. It involves 

adjustments to reduce the vulnerability of communities, regions, or activities to climatic 

change and variability (Smit 2001)  

Collective action: 

Action taken by a group (either directly or on its behalf through an organization) in 

pursuit of members' perceived shared interests (Marshall 1998) 

Experimental learning:  

The process whereby knowledge is created through transformation of experiences 

(Kolb 1984:38)  

M&E: 

Reflective, action-oriented process that seeks to build capacity, while generating 

knowledge leading to corrective actions or improvement. In the same line 

(Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008)  

An approach of increasing decision-making and problem-solving capabilities through 

systematic inquiry (King 2007) 

A communication process, which requires the creation of an information sharing 

system, namely feedback loops, which guarantees collective learning, therefore 

making possible action (Guijt 1999, 2008) 



v 

A process of collective or social learning (Mahanty et al. 2007) 

Joint learning by sharing ideas and experiences and by reflecting in the success and 

failure of the action (Hagmann et al. 1999) 

Social capital: 

―An attribute of individuals and their relationships that enhance their ability to solve 

collective action problems‖ (Ostrom & Ahn 2003) 

Social learning:  

A process of social change in which people learn for each other in ways that can 

benefit wider social-ecological systems 

Transformative learning:  

Focuses on how to transform the way in which adults see things (Mezirow 2000). How 

to encourage learning by reflection, altering the perception and consciousness of 

individuals (Mezirow 2000). 

Uncertainty:  

Imperfect knowledge, and is a function of time: further the future, grater the uncertainty 

(McConnell & Dillon 1997).   

Vulnerability: 

The ability or inability of people or social groups to respond (cope, recover or adapt) to 

any external stress on their livelihoods (Keen et al. 2005) 



ABSTRACT 

The impact of extremes causes livelihood disruption among resource-dependent 

communities. Climate variability is expected to increasing production failure rates. Agro-

pastoralists need to change their livelihood strategies to maintain food security and 

income generation. This research examines how increasing the active-learning 

possibilities of agro-pastoralists improves their livelihood strategies. In this frame, a 

participatory monitoring and evaluation system, using a five-step methodology, was 

designed and implemented for two community-based organizations in rural Mozambique. 

The PM&E was structured as an iterative learning process with cycles of exploration, 

analysis, decision-making, action, and reflection. Its development was based following a 

set of principles, which allowed CBO members to be the owners of their own process.  

The PM&E system promoted learning and empowerment among CBO members, which in 

turn created opportunities for consensus building, collective sense making and action. It 

enhanced and fortified the skills of CBO members to plan, implement, and follow a PM&E 

system. At the same time, the PM&E process showed to be a motivational aspect that 

acted as a positive feedback to community-based activities. It increased the efforts of the 

community to continue with their activities and the PM&E system itself. Key factors form 

the CBO to enable community-based activities were trust, leadership and decision-

making processes 

  



vii 

 

CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii 

GLOSSARY iv 

ABSTRACT vi 

1 INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 OBJECTIVES 3 

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 

2.1 PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION 4 

2.1.1 General characteristics 4 

2.1.2 Objectives 4 

2.1.3 Principles 6 

2.1.4 Implementation 7 

2.1.5 Sustainability of M&E 8 

2.1.6 PM&E and learning 9 

2.2 COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES: COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 15 

2.2.1 Community-based organizations 15 

2.2.2 Collective action 18 

2.2.3 Social capital 19 

2.3 LOW EXTERNAL INPUT AGRICULTURE 23 

2.3.1 Farming systems in Southern Africa 23 

2.3.2 Farming system characteristics in less-favoured areas 24 

2.3.3 Smallholder agriculture and climate change 27 

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 30 

3.1 STUDY REGION AND SYSTEM 30 

3.1.1 General conditions 30 

3.1.2 Livelihood and farming systems 31 

3.1.3 Villages 31 

3.2 STUDY CONTEXT 32 

3.3 DATA COLLECTION 35 

3.3.1 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PM&E SYSTEM 37 

3.3.2 IS THE PM&E AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT TO SUPPORT 

COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES? 42 

3.3.3 WHAT ARE KEY OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS FROM THE CBOs 

TO ENABLE COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES? 43 

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS 45 



 

viii 

4 RESULTS 46 

4.1 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PM&E SYSTEM 46 

4.1.1 STEP 1: Planning the PM&E 46 

4.1.2 STEP 2: PM&E focus 49 

4.1.3 STEP 3: PM&E system development 50 

4.1.4 STEP 4: PM&E information collection and analysis 52 

4.1.5 STEP 5: Presentation and action plan 56 

4.2 IS THE PM&E SYSTEM AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT TO SUPPORT 

COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES? 60 

4.2.1 Handling of the gathering and analysis of PM&E information by the team 

members 60 

4.2.2 Usefulness of PM&E system 61 

4.2.3 Appropriateness with regard to the different group activities 65 

4.3 WHAT ARE KEY OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS FROM THE CBOs TO 

ENABLE COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES? 66 

4.3.1 CBO structure 67 

4.3.2 CBO performance 71 

4.3.3 Lessons learnt by the CBO members 74 

5 DISCUSSION 77 

5.1 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PM&E SYSTEM 77 

5.1.1 PM&E Principles 77 

5.1.2 PM&E and learning 83 

5.2 IS THE PM&E SYSTEM AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT TO SUPPORT 

COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES? 85 

5.2.1 Handling of PM&E information gathering and analysis by the PM&E team 

members 85 

5.2.2 Usefulness of the PM&E system 86 

5.2.3 Appropriateness with regard to the different group activities 87 

5.3 WHAT ARE KEY OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS FROM THE CBOs TO 

ENABLE COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES? 88 

5.3.1 CBO Structure 88 

5.3.2 CBO performance 90 

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90 

7 REFERENCES 92 

8 APPENDICES 103 

8.1 Appendix 1: TOOLS 103 

8.2 Appendix 2: PM&E ASSESSMENT 108 



ix 

 

8.3 Appendix 3: PERFORMANCE INQUIRY 108 

8.4 Appendix 4: SYMBOL-BASED INSTRUMENTS 109 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Objectives and benefit of a PM&E 5 

Table 2: Learning theories and key characteristics 10 

Table 3: Social learning definitions 12 

Table 4: Overviews of costs and benefits from participating in CBOs 17 

Table 5: Definition of collective action 18 

Table 6: Definitions of social capital 20 

Table 7: Characteristics of coping and adaptive mechanism 26 

Table 8: Definitions of adaptation in the context of climate change 27 

Table 9: Characterization of the villages 33 

Table 10: Structure of the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi 34 

Table 11: Specific objectives of the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi 35 

Table 12: Profile of 11 CBO members interviewed in Mabomo 37 

Table 13: Profile of 10 CBO members interviewed in Mabomo 37 

Table 14: Data collection methods of the three components of the research 37 

Table 15: Steps to develop a PM&E system 39 

Table 16: Guiding questions to develop a PM&E system 40 

Table 17: Components, questions and criteria for the assessment of implementation, 

usefulness and appropriateness of a PM&E system 44 

Table 18: Related to the PM&E focus activity in the CBO in Mabomo (MA_G1) 50 

Table 19: Related to the PM&E focus activity in the CBO in Mungazi (MU_F1) 50 

Table 20: Issues, indicators and data collection methods of the PM&E system in Mabomo 

(MA_W, MA_F2) 51 

Table 21: Issues, indicators and data collection methods of the PM&E system in Mungazi 

(MU_W) 51 

Table 22: PM&E information collected for goat keeping activity in the CBO in Mabomo 

(MA_W, subsequent) 53 

Table 23: PM&E information collection for revolving loan scheme develop in the CBO in 

Mungazi (MU_F2) 54 

Table 24: Result from the SWOT analysis performed in Mabomo (MA_G2) 57 

Table 25: Result from the SWOT analysis performed in Mungazi (MU_F3) 58 

Table 26: Comparison of the main issues in the development of the PM&E system in 

Mabomo and Mungazi 59 



 

x 

Table 27: Comparison of handling of information gathering and analysis during the PM&E 

implementation process for the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi 61 

Table 28: Perception of the CBO members in Mabomo regarding the state of the activities 

planned and implemented 62 

Table 29: Perception of the CBO members in Mungazi regarding the state of the activities 

planned and implemented 63 

Table 30: Comparison of the man motivational aspects for the CBOs in Mabomo and in 

Mungazi 67 

Table 31: CBO members‘ perception of the rules less complied 67 

Table 32: Decision-making process in the CBO in Mabomo and Mungazi 69 

Table 33: Comparative summary the structure of the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi 70 

Table 34: Perception of benefits and contribution of CBO members in Mabomo 71 

Table 35: Perception of benefits and contribution of the CBO members in Mungazi 72 

Table 36: Perception of a good working CBO in Mabomo 73 

Table 37: Perception of a good working CBO in Mungazi 73 

Table 38: Comparative summary of the perceived performance of the CBOs in Mabomo and 

Mungazi CBO 74 

Table 39: Lessons learnt by the members of the CBO in Mabomo 76 

Table 40: Lessons learnt by the members of the CBO in Mungazi 76 

Table 41: Assessment of learning outcomes for the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi 83 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Kolb learning cycle. Source (Kolb) 10 

Figure 2: Transformative learning. Source (Tarnoczi 2011) 11 

Figure 3: A multiple-loop learning framework. Adapted from (Armitage et al. 2008) 13 

Figure 4: Social learning model. Source (Muro 2006) 14 

Figure 5: Factors that influence collective action outcomes in a common pool resource. 

Modified form (Agrawal 2001, Araral 2009) 19 

Figure 6: Social capital forms and their entailment with collective action. Source (Ostrom & 

Ahn 2003) 21 

Figure 7: Possibilities to create or increase adaptive capacity through social capital. Source 

(Pelling & High 2005) 22 

Figure 8: Major farming system in Sub-Saharan Africa. Source: (Dixon et al. 2001) 24 

Figure 9: Map of the study area. Source (Ara-Sul 2002) 30 

Figure 10: M&E learning cycle. Modified from Woodhill & Robins (1998) 36 

Figure 11: Steps used to develop and implement PM&E system in the CBOs in Mabomo and 

Mungazi 38 



 

xi 

 

Figure 12: Steps used to assess the implementation, usefulness of the PM&E system 

Mabomo and Mungazi 43 

Figure 13: Steps used to assess the key opportunities and barrier form the CBOs to enable 

community-based activities 43 

Figure 14: Steps used to develop and implement PM&E system in the CBOs in Mabomo and 

Mungazi 46 

Figure 15: M&E drawing used during the PM&E-planning meeting in Mabomo (MA_G1) and 

Mungazi (MU_F1). Modified form (Germann & Gohl 1996) Booklet 1 (see 

Appendix 1: TOOLS for text content in English) 47 

Figure 16: Goats herd collectively purchased by the CBO in Mabomo (left), with the care of 

the herd assigned to a single CBO member, the herder (right) 47 

Figure 17: Development of PM&E instrument in Mabomo (MA_W1) 52 

Figure 18: SWOT analysis with the CBO members in Mabomo (left) (MA_G2) and Mungazi 

(right) (MU_F3) 58 

Figure 19: Pig (right) and goat (left) corrals in Mungazi 64 

Figure 20: Instrument for the PM&E of the pig keeping activity in Mabomo (see de-

codification of the symbols in Appendix 4: SYMBOL-BASED INSTRUMENTS)64 

Figure 21: Model that integrates the PM&E principles to the development and 

implementation of the PM&E system. The five-step methodology is situated in the 

middle of the model. Principles attained in specific steps of the process are at the 

left side, while principles implemented during the five-step methodology are at the 

right side of the model. In the bottom stands learning and empowerment, which 

are objectives of M&E system, and outcomes. 78 

Figure 22: PM&E learning cycle (based on Woodhill & Robins 1998) for the CBO in 

Mabomo: creation of the PM&E instrument and data register (left), and its 

validation (right) 84 

Figure 23: PM&E learning cycle (based on Woodhill & Robins 1998) for the CBO in Mungazi

 85 

 





 

1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Agro-pastoralists are one of the most important farming systems in Southern Africa. This 

farming system is based on maize production, which is the major staple food, and the main 

cash sources are remittances, cattle and small ruminants, and the sale of food crops (Dixon 

et al. 2001). Agro-pastoralists are resource dependent-communities, which livelihood is 

connected to variability and productivity of the natural resource base. Impact of extremes 

causes livelihood disruption among them. Within different climate change scenarios for this 

farming system, failure rates are projected to increase between 18 to 30% (Jones & Thorton 

2009). The effects will be stronger to resource-dependent communities, where maize 

cultivation will no longer be possible (Jones & Thorton 2009). Moreover, by 2025, annual 

average precipitation in southern Mozambique is expected to decrease between 10-15% 

(Ragab & Prudhomme 2002), with an increase in the intensity of erratic rains (Cook et al. 

2004), and greater probability of dry years (Usman & Reason 2004). Agro-pastoralists need 

to change their livelihood strategies to maintain food security and income generation.  

Vulnerability of agro-pastoralists could be address by increasing their adaptation strategies 

to improve livelihood opportunities. Studies performed in Africa to capture farmers‘ 

perception of climate variability and adaptation strategies, establish that adaptations are 

promoted by greater farming experience, better access to information, farmer-to-farmer 

learning, and being previously exposed to other learning opportunities (Hassan & 

Nhemachena 2008, and Deressa et al. 2009). These findings are in accordance with an 

‗adaptation with climate‘ approach. Here, adaptation is seen as continue process of learning 

and development (Ison et al. 2007), which warrants that integrated and concerted actions 

are developed (Collins & Ison 2009a).  

For this, the active-learning possibilities of agro-pastoralist need to be increased. Within this 

context, a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) system where CBO members are 

engaged in an on-going process of exploration, analysis, decision-making, action and 

reflection plays a key role. This process permits the CBO members to learn about PM&E 

process and about the outcome of the community-based activities implemented in the frame 

of the project. At the same time it allows the identification of possible constrains or 

improvement options.  

Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) has different definitions in literature. It is 

essentially a continues process in which participant are encourage to reflect on the learning 

that has taken place; where multiple knowledge are involved in a collaborative process; 

where effective learning supports action regarding decisions made from the M&E process; 



 

2 

and where participant are promoted to work toward best practices (Cundill & Fabricius 

2009). 

This master thesis demonstrates how a participatory monitoring and evaluation system 

(PM&E), aiming to support community-based activities, can be designed and implemented 

based on learning principles. The implemented PM&E system was structured as an iterative 

learning process with cycles of exploration, analysis, decision-making, action and reflection. 

It follows a qualitative approach, which focuses on the perception and experiences of the 

CBO members in relation to the implemented PM&E system. The design and 

implementation of the PM&E system was guided by a set of principles that allowed CBO 

members to be the owners of their own process. 

The analysis of the implemented PM&E seeks to provide qualitative empirical data to 

elucidate the key elements for its successful establishment. The hypothesis that a PM&E 

system is an effective approach in supporting community-based activities is critically 

approached. At the same time key opportunities and barriers from the CBOs to enable 

community-based activities are analyzed. 

This master thesis was developed within the collaborative project ―Supporting the vulnerable: 

Increasing the adaptive capacity of agro-pastoralists to climatic change in West and 

Southern Africa using a transdisciplinary research approach‖ which is funded by the German 

Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The project aims to 

increase the adaptive capacity of agro-pastoralists to climate variability and to the expected 

effects of future climate change (DITSL 2011). In the frame of the project two Community-

Based Organizations (CBOs) were formed during the first trimester of 2010; one in the 

village of Mabomo and the other in the village of Mungazi, both in the Mabalane District of 

the Gaza Province, Mozambique. An important guiding focus of the CBOs was the 

empowerment through collective action and social learning, emphasizing on the potential to 

build collaborative networks to take action, reflect upon outcomes, and modify future 

directions from community-based activities (Levy 2010). At the same time, the project 

intended to build local capacity for project planning and management through strengthening 

newly created CBOs.  

The thesis is organized into six chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 contains a 

review of the relevant literature. This literature review is arranged in three sections that 

summarize the current knowledge regarding PM&E (participatory monitory and evaluation) 

systems, community-based organizations, and low external input agriculture. Chapter 3 

describes the location of the study and the research methods used. Results of the 

investigation, divided into three sections according to the objectives of the study, are 

presented in Chapter 4. Section 4.1 consist of the results from the development and 



 

3 

implementation of a participatory M&E system in two CBOs. Section 4.2 comprises the 

assessment of the implementation, usefulness and appropriateness of the PM&E system. 

Section 4.3 contains an evaluation of the CBOs potential to enable community-based 

activities. Chapter 5 discusses the results. Chapter 6 is a conclusive chapter, which 

addresses the implications of the research. 

1.1 OBJECTIVES  

The general objective of the master thesis was to increase the active-learning possibilities of 

agro-pastoralist for improving their livelihood strategies and the sustainability of the system 

The specific objectives of the master thesis were:  

1. Develop and implement a participatory M&E system for the assessment of adaptation 

strategies conducted in CBOs;  

2. Assess the implementation, usefulness and appropriateness of the PM&E system; 

3. Evaluate the CBOs potential to enable community-based activities. 

The research was based on the following questions: 

1. What are elements of successful PM&E system? 

2. Is the PM&E system an effective instrument to support community-based activities? 

3. What are key opportunities and barriers from the CBOs to conduct community-based 

activities? 

 



 

4 

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

2.1.1 General characteristics 

As described by Estrella & Gaventa (1998), there is a considerable amount of terms used to 

describe participatory monitoring and evaluation processes: Participatory evaluation (PE), 

participatory monitoring (PM), participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation (PAME), 

participatory impact monitoring (PIM), process monitoring (ProM), self-evaluation (SE), auto-

evaluation, stakeholder-based evaluation/stakeholder assessment, community monitoring/ 

citizen monitoring (CM). In this study, I will use the term participatory monitoring and 

evaluation (PM&E). 

There are as many definitions used to describe PM&E processes, as terms to name it. On 

one line, Anandajayasekeram et al. (2008) describe it as a reflective, action-oriented process 

that seeks to build capacity, while generating knowledge leading to corrective actions or 

improvement. In the same line, King (2007) consider it as an approach of increasing 

decision-making and problem solving capabilities through systematic inquiry.  

On other line, Guijt (1999, 2008) describe it as a communication process, which requires the 

creation of an information sharing system, namely feedback loops, which guarantees 

collective learning, therefore making possible action. Likewise, Mahanty et al. (2007) 

describe it as a process of collective or social learning, while Hagmann et al. (1999) describe 

it as joint learning by sharing ideas and experiences and by reflecting in the success and 

failure of the action.  

The term M&E system refers to the set of activities that must be undertaken to plan for M&E, 

gather and analyse information, report and support decision-making and implementation of 

improvements (Woodhill 2007). In summary, PM&E promotes learning processes that in turn 

create opportunities for consensus building, collective sense making and action. PM&E has 

also been associated with the enhancement of trust relationships (Rist et al. 2006), and in 

general increasing collaboration therefore social capital between actors (Armitage et al. 

2008). 

2.1.2 Objectives  

Given the wide range of application of PM&E process, it can be used to achieve multiple 

purposes and benefits (see Table 1), such as empowerment of stakeholder to take action, 



 

5 

improved accountability, improve strategic planning, and learning (Guijt 1999, Woodhill 

2007, Cundill & Fabricius 2009). 

Esterella (2000) distinguishes the objective of M&E between monitoring and evaluation 

findings and the use of the process. While the evaluation findings can be used to make 

judgment, to improve the project management cycle or to generate knowledge, the use of 

the process is related to the experience gained in iterative cycles of action, observation and 

critical reflection (Estrella 2000).  

Table 1: Objectives and benefit of a PM&E  

OBJECTIVES BENEFITS OF PM&E 

To provide accountability of 

project and programme 

expenditure to funding 

agencies 

A condition for receiving funding; 

More funding, if the outcome is positive. 

To review implementation of 

projects/programmes 

 

Better understanding of the realities and, therefore, more realistic and 

appropriate plans; 

Timely identification of bottlenecks in carrying out activities as planned, 

so timely adjustments to plans, schedules and/or budgets; 

Opportunity to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of activities; 

Knowing whether activities are achieving desired outcomes; or  are 

having unanticipated negative impacts that need correcting; 

Information to convince others of the merits of one‘s efforts, for 

example, when influencing policy makers. 

To provide public 

accountability of local and 

national government 

programmes to communities 

Local empowerment; 

Helps ensure that project and programme impacts influence and 

reorient policy; 

Encourages institutional reform towards more participatory structures; 

To strengthen organizations Better working environment as learning from mistakes eases 

performance fears; 

More motivated staff; local and staff empowerment; 

Better programmes and, therefore, more locally appropriate 

development; 

Less waste of money and time; 

More self-development initiatives. 

To understand and negotiate 

stakeholder perspectives 

Re-assessment of objectives and attitudes by funding agencies. 

To provide information at 

different levels 

To provide information at different levels. 

Knowledge creation Generating new insights that contribute to the established knowledge 

in a given field. 

Empowerment Building the capacity, self reliance and confidence to effectively guide, 

manage and implement development initiatives. 

Source: Guijt 1999, Woodhil 2007, Cundill & Fabricius 2009 

 

 



 

6 

2.1.3 Principles 

Establishment of core principles for PM&E means accepting diversity in the design and 

implementation, but also clarifying the understanding of what is PM&E and how it should be 

implemented. When these principles are foreseen in the design and implementation of M&E 

system, it is ensured that learning and change takes place (Estrella et al. 2000). Said in 

other words, these principles shape the M&E effort.  

The principles of PM&E process are participation and collaboration; context specificity; 

inclusiveness; learning; flexibility; and empowerment:  

1. Participation and collaboration: opening the process to involve and be useful to the 

program‘s end users (Burke, King et al. 2007, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008), 

fostering collaboration (Maarleveld & Dabgbgnon 1999, Mahanty et al. 2007, 

Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). Participation promotes self-sufficiency and 

sustainability while it increases ownership and responsibility (Estrella & Gaventa 

1998), as it increases the probability that PM&E data will be considered valid, will be 

understood, and will be used to improve decision-making processes (Cundill & 

Fabricius 2009). M&E is a collaborative problem-solving process (Estrella & Gaventa 

1998, Mahanty et al. 2007); 

2. Context specificity: the PM&E process must be embedded in the concerns, interest 

and problems of the program‘s end user (Burke 1998, Anandajayasekeram et al. 

2008); 

3. Inclusiveness: PM&E requires negotiation to reach agreement on the process of 

development and implementation of the monitoring and evaluated (Burke 1998, 

Estrella & Gaventa 1998, Guijt 1999, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008); 

4. Learning: participants learn from the reflection on their experience and gain ability to 

improve by planning and undertake corrective actions (Burke 1998, Estrella & 

Gaventa 1998, King 2007, Mahanty et al. 2007, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008, 

Guijt, 2008); 

5. Flexibility: PM&E is a process continually evolving and adapting to the specific 

circumstances (Estrella & Gaventa 1998, Guijt, 1999, Anandajayasekeram et al. 

2008). There is a need of creativity to adapt methods to the context being evaluated 

(Estrella & Gaventa 1998, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008), including the use of 

multiple and varied approaches (Burke 1998);  

6. Empowerment: participants of CBOs strengthen internal accountability by sharing 

and analyzing experiences (Papineau & Kiely 1996, Burke 1998, Estrella & Gaventa 



 

7 

1998, King et al. 2007, Mahanty et al. 2007, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). At the 

same time, they improve in project management, decision-making, problem-solving, 

and allocation of resources (Papineau & Kiely 1996, Estrella & Gaventa 1998, 

Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008);  

These principles allow end users to be the principal decision-makers on matters related 

to their livelihood and welfare. At the same time, innovation can occur when such 

principle drive the process (Estrella et al. 2000), as they are not a blue-print. 

In PM&E, a crucial role is that of the facilitator. Here, the evaluator acts as a facilitator 

that assists stakeholders in asking key questions (King et al. 2007, Anandajayasekeram 

et al. 2008). Evaluator should facilitate learning, helping stakeholder feeling empowered 

(Burke 1998). The facilitator should understand both the practicalities and principles of 

M&E system (Woodhill & Robins 1998), preventing the process from becoming 

mechanical, and helping to negotiate (Estrella et al. 2000).  

2.1.4 Implementation 

Participatory monitoring and evaluation consists of five basic steps, as discusses below. 

Nevertheless, there is not a blue-print, as previously stated by Estrella & Gaventa (1998) 

and Hagmann et al. (1999). These steps should be followed with flexibility, guided by the 

M&E principles (Woodhill & Robins 1998, Estrella et al. 2000). 

1. Pre-planning and preparation: outline a conceptual framework based on participatory 

evaluation principle (Estrella 2000, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). This framework 

should be clear to all stakeholders involved in process. In other words, for 

stakeholders to pay an active role in designing and implementing the evaluation they 

need to understand what is all about (Burke 1998); 

2. Generating evaluation questions: collectively identify the evaluation focus and 

objective (Woodhills & Robins 1998, Estrella 2000, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). 

This is a critical step for the success and effectiveness of the process, reason why it 

should involve higher number of people as possible (Estrella and Gaventa 1998); 

3. Data gathering: this step should be done collectively, and the method to be used 

should depend on local experience, expertise and knowledge (Woodhill & Robins 

1998, Burke 1999, Estrella 2000, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). Triangulation and 

cross-checking of the information to verify and validate the process is very important 

(Woodhill & Robins 1998, Burke 1999, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008); 

4. Reflection and action: collective analysis of the data aids in creating validity and new 

knowledge, as it facilitates the planning for corrective actions or future action plans 



 

8 

(Woodhill & Robins 1998, Burke 1999). For this, end user‘s may get involve in critical 

reflection about problems, constrains, success and outcomes of their activities 

(Estrella & Gaventa 1998, Estrella 2000); 

5. Outcomes and reports: it should be clear from the beginning how end users are 

going to use and present the results (Burke 1999). The main criteria for the 

presentation should include clarity, simplicity, use of visuals and accessibility 

(Estrella & Gaventa 1998, Woodhill & Robins 1998). 

According to Guijt (2008), in general M&E guidelines ignore processes to analyze, critically 

reflect, interpret, and communicate information. To correct this, resources should be 

allocated in building capacities to stimulating critical reflection (Guijt 2008), which requires 

participants to question, doubt, and consider different assumptions (King et al. 2007). 

There is a wide range of methods and tools that can be used in PM&E. These include PRA, 

audiovisual tools, quantitative tools and many others. Combining tools and techniques is 

required for data triangulation, and achieving validity (Estrella & Gaventa 1998, 

Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). The entire process may involve several workshops with 

the stakeholders: a planning workshop, where stakeholders can define the parameters of the 

evaluation, a smaller workshop for data collection and possibly another workshop for the 

analysis of data and feedback (Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). 

2.1.5 Sustainability of M&E 

When developing and implementing PM&E, one of the objectives is that stakeholder 

continue using the system in the long-term. Guijt (1999) described some factors influencing 

peoples sustain participation in PM&E as the perceived benefits, the flexibility of the process, 

the quick and relevant feedback of findings, and the capacity to act on the recommendations 

arisen from the process. Since M&E systems are designed to fill information needs, for them 

to be successful, stakeholders should be able to anticipate information needs (Guijt, 2008). 

Moreover, a participative process increases motivation by highlighting the success of 

people‘s efforts, while it also strengthens working relationships (Guijt 1999). To put it in a 

different way, the active use of the information with stakeholders not only improves the work, 

but also strengthens the groups involved. As stated by Guijt (1999), these types of learning 

processes make PM&E valuable. 

In rural areas it is common that local people undervalue their own knowledge. The process 

of sharing experiences and collectively solving problems, increases awareness of the value 

and application of their own knowledge (Millar & Curtis 1997, Rist et al. 2006); thus 

empowers (Blackstock et al. 2007) and motivates (Hagmann & Chuma 2000), which is a pre-

condition for overcoming feelings of helplessness, powerlessness and apathy (Hagmann 



 

9 

et al. 1999). A learning-oriented, monitoring and evaluation process helps in motivating and 

empowering communities to take action themselves, which, in turn, strengthens local 

capacities and promotes self-reliance (Ward 2000). When a PM&E highlights the successes 

of people‘s efforts, motivation increases (Guijt 1999), and in turn increases the efforts to 

continue with the activities and the PM&E system. At the same time, reciprocity, or the 

simultaneous exchange of goods and knowledge, increases trust (Pretty & Ward 2001, 

Ostrom & Ahn 2003, Pretty 2003), therefore strengths the collective action.  

2.1.6 PM&E and learning  

As stated by Woodhill (2007), for M&E to be successful, it must be focused on learning. The 

learning building blocks of M&E should rely on practice. It is the capacity of learning from 

experiences that gives M&E participants the ability to solve real-world problems (Woodhill & 

Robins 1998, Woodhill 2007). A M&E learning system is characterized by the following 

(Woodhill 2007): 

 Clear analysis of the stakeholders involved, their information and learning needs and 

their power relations; 

 Creation of a set of norms and values and level of trust that makes transparency of 

performance and open dialogue about success and failure; 

 Design and facilitation of the necessary interactive learning processes that make 

critical reflection on performance possible; 

 Establishment of clear performance and learning questions that deal with the what, 

why, so what and now what aspects of M&E; 

 The collection, analysis and presentation of information in a way that triggers interest 

and learning from those involved. 

Within the context of M&E, aspects of experimental learning theory (Kolb), transformative 

learning theory (Mezirow 2000) and social learning theory (Argyris & Schön 1978), provide 

the basis for discussion. Table 2 offers a summary of these learning theories, and their key 

characteristics, while in the following paragraphs they are described in more detail. 

In M&E learning can be view as the ability to improve the efficacy of actions (Woodhill 2007). 

Such learning is assumed to require systematic seeking and sharing of information, hence 

the need for feedback loops for which monitoring is considered the prime vehicle (Guijt, 

2008). As the building blocks of M&E learning in this context rely on practice, experimental 

learning becomes important. As describe by Kolb (1984:38) experimental learning is ―the 

process whereby knowledge is created through transformation of experiences‖. It follows a 



 

10 

cyclic process composed of four dimensions, as seen in Figure 1 (Kolb): (i) having an 

experience; (ii) reflecting on that experience; (iii) conceptualizing from the experience; and 

then (iv) testing out new ideas/concepts which lead to a new experience.  

Table 2: Learning theories and key characteristics 

Learning theories Key characteristics 

Experiential learning 

Kolb (1984) 

Learning as a process of creating knowledge through the transformation of 

experiences, learning-by-doing. This iterative learning cycle has four stages: 

concrete experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and 

active experimentation. Largely modelled on individual learning processes, but 

also applied to group processes 

Transformative 

learning 

Mezirow 

(1995,1996,2000) 

Learning as a reflective process that enables an individual‘s perceptions and 

consciousness to be altered. Transformative learning includes instrumental 

(task-oriented, problem-solving actions to improve performance of current 

activities) and communicative (ability of individuals to examine and reinterpret 

meanings, intentions and values associated with actions and activities) 

learning. Largely modelled on individual learning processes 

Social learning 

Argyris and Schon 

(1978), Keen et al 

(2005), Leeuwis and 

Pyburn (2002) 

Learning as a process of iterative reflection that occurs when we share our 

experiences, ideas and environments with others. Social learning includes 

single-loop (correcting errors form routines), double-loop (correcting errors by 

examining errors and policies), and triple-loop (designing governance norms 

and protocols). Modelled on group learning processes 

Source: (Armitage et al. 2008) 

 

Figure 1: Kolb learning cycle. Source (Kolb) 

Transformative learning theory, as part of the experimental learning theories, gives important 

insights into how adults learn. It focuses on how to transform the way in which adults see 

things (Mezirow 2000). It is basically a change on the frame of reference. It focuses on the 

processes of learning and accommodates the social context in which learning occurs 



 

11 

(Mezirow 2000). Transformative learning theory centers on how to encourage learning by 

reflection, altering the perception and consciousness of individuals (Mezirow 2000).  

In this sense, learning occurs when there is a transformation of a frame of reference. In turn, 

a transformation of a frame of reference occurs with critical reflection on points of view and 

habits (Mezirow 2000). Transformative learning theory describes two pathways: transforming 

habits of mind and transforming points of view, as represented in Figure 2. Both pathways 

begin with information that is comprehended by instrumental and communicative learning 

(Mezirow 2000). 

Instrumental learning, as described by Mezirow (2000), is that concerned with controlling or 

manipulating the environment. The main characteristics are: (i) obtaining skills and 

information; (ii) determining cause-effect relationships; and (iii) task-oriented problem 

solving. 

Communicative learning, as described by Mezirow (2000), is that concerned with 

understanding and negotiating concepts and values. The main characteristics are: (i) 

understanding values and normative concepts, and (ii) understanding others‘ point of view. 

 

Figure 2: Transformative learning. Source (Tarnoczi 2011)  

Transformative learning is believed to be important for flexible decision-making and 

autonomous thinking, making it advantageous for responding to changing environmental 

conditions. This is important for the development of climate change adaptation strategies 

(Tarnoczi 2011), where adults combine elements of instrumental and communicative 

learning when engage on observation and experimentation activities (Sims & Sinclair 2008, 

Tarnoczi 2011). Moreover, since small-holder farmers deal with uncertainty, they required of 

critical thinking to question actions, values, claims, and knowledge of a practice. Then 



 

12 

transformative learning is also advantageous to respond to changing conditions (Tarnoczi 

2011). 

Alternatively, the concept of social learning extends experimental learning into collective 

learning. That is why it is important to create adequate conditions to link experience, 

reflection and experimentation between individuals and groups (Kolb). For social learning to 

occur a change in understanding is necessary; as in transformative learning, critical 

reflection is a key point. Different schools of literature have conceptualized social learning in 

different lines. In this research the social learning concept used is that of a process of social 

change in which people learn from each other in ways that can benefit wider social-

ecological systems (Reed et al. 2010). From more detailed definitions, see Table 3.  

Table 3: Social learning definitions 

AUTHOR DEFINITION 

Kolb (1984)  ―a process of experiential learning‖ 

Leev (1993), p.8 ―a combination of adaptive management and political change ‖  

Thomas et al. (1995) ―a process of collective action to solve a shared problem‖ 

Dangbegnon 1998 ―a dynamic process which involves continuous sense-making of the world 

through perspectives or frames of reference based on concrete, experience-

modified, knowledge, beliefs, values ‖ 

Maarleveld and 

Dangbegnon (1999) 

―a continuous dialogue and deliberation among scientists, planners, managers 

and users to explore problems and their solutions‖ 

King (2000), p.43 ―learning processes among a group of people who all seek to address shared 

problems and take action collectively‖ 

Woodhill and Rolling 

(2000) 

―action-oriented philosophy focusing in participatory processes of change‖ 

Ison (2003) ―a process of collective action and reflection among different actors directed 

towards improving the management of human and environmental 

interrelations‖ 

Keen et al. (2005), p.4 ―the collective action and reflection that takes place amongst both individuals 

and groups when they work to improve the management of the 

interrelationships between social and ecological systems‖ 

Rist et al. 2006 ―the simultaneous transformation of cognitive, social and emotional 

competences as well as of social capital which includes attitudes and values 

related to collective or individual social actors emerging from the joint search 

for more sustainable management of natural resources at the interface 

between the world of rural actors, experts and public administration‖ 

Ison et al. (2007) ―iterative approach to decision-making and problem solving‖ 

Rist et al (2007) ―recognizing complexity and building shared understanding or ‗collective 

cognition‘ of the problem ‖ 

―different actors can deliberate and negotiate rules, norms and power relations‖ 

Pah-lWostl et al. 

(2007),  

―iterative and ongoing process that comprises several loops and enhances the 

flexibility of the socio-ecological system to respond to change‖ 

Source: (Hiyama & Keen 2005, Reed et al. 2010) 

Another way of conceptualizing social learning is by the different cycles or loops of learning 

(Argyris & Schön 1978, Maarleveld & Dabgbagnon 1999), as shown in Figure 3. Single-loop 



 

13 

learning (correcting errors form routines) involves the identification of alternative strategies 

and actions to resolve specific problems, and improve outcomes by increasing the 

effectiveness and efficiency (Argyris & Schön 1978, King & Jiggins 2002). It occurs at 

individual level, and involves little reflection (Maarleveld & Dabgbagnon 1999). This learning 

also includes the first improvement of the capacity to make and implement collective 

decision (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Double-loop learning (reframing) involves renewing or doing the 

right things (Argyris & Schön 1978, Maarleveld & Dabgbagnon 1999). It implies a reflection 

on how goals can be achieved (Pahl-Wostl 2009), as it incorporates feedback of experience 

into planning (Hiyama & Keen 2005). Improvement is achieved by experiementing with 

innovative approaches (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Thus, it is characterized by trust building efforts, 

and willingness to take risks (King & Jiggins 2002, Armitage et al. 2008). The implementation 

of innovative approaches may not be possible without modifying the context and factors that 

determine the frame of reference (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Triple-loop learning (transforming) 

occurs through the reflection of single and double-loop learning (Maarleveld & Dabgbagnon 

1999, King & Jiggins 2002). It is a consideration of why we do what we do. 

 

 

Figure 3: A multiple-loop learning framework. Adapted from (Armitage et al. 2008, Pahl-

Wostl 2009) 

On the other hand, Figure 4 presents a model of social learning, based on a literature 

reviewed performed by Muro (2006). The model includes (i) process features that foster 

social learning; (ii) communication and interaction in participatory processes; (iii) principal 

characteristics of social learning; (iv) what social learning leads to; and (v) what social 

learning contributes to.  

 



 

14 

 

Figure 4: Social learning model. Source (Muro 2006) 

Some evaluation parameters to assess learning goals and actions are (Plummer & Armitage 

2007): (i) Shared actions are undertaken; (ii) Modifications are made in an on-going process 

of reflection; (iii) Fixing errors form routines (single-loop learning); (iv) Correcting errors by 

reframing (double-loop learning); (v) Correcting errors by transforming (triple-loop learning). 

A social learning approach can be incorporated into M&E system. Incorporating social 

learning principles and practices in a M&E process can promote collective action, critical 

reflection, and increase knowledge (Cundill & Fabricius 2009, Measham 2009). Additionally, 

as stated by Cundill & Fabricius (2009), a well-designed M&E system that fosters social 

learning should include the following parameters:  

 

 

 



 

15 

1. Encourage on-going reflection on the learning that has taken place; 

2. Involve decision-makers directly in indicator selection, monitoring and analysis 

through a collaborative process that encourages input from multiple knowledge 

systems; 

3. Effective learning is about practice, and monitoring should therefore feed directly into 

decision-making and encourage action; 

4. Encourage participants to work toward an ideal, or best practice, and encourage 

visioning about ‗what could be‘ alongside ‗what is currently possible‘ through a 

process of collective sense making  

2.2 COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES: COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

Community-based activities are participatory, build on priorities, knowledge and capacities of 

local people (Reid et al. 2009). They empower1 the community by allowing them to define 

their problems, as well as design and implement the correspondent responsive measures 

(Bernard et al. 2008).  

2.2.1 Community-based organizations 

Community-based organizations (CBO) are local level institutions, or organized groups 

involved in development activities. CBOs are composed of members seeking to improve 

their livelihood through collective action (Place et al. 2002). They differ from traditional 

organizations in having legal status and formal membership. CBOs fulfil three main 

functions: provide services when markets fail, club goods2 or public good when state fails, 

and voice in political affairs (Bernard et al. 2008).  

CBOs include those having a long and enduring past, such as clan-based groups, or more 

recently organized groups formed with a specific purpose, such as marketing, farmer 

training, natural resource co-management, or income generation (Butler & Mazur 2007). All 

forms are relevant at attaining more sustainable livelihoods. For this, most common activities 

are related with animal husbandry, horticulture, marketing, and rotational credits for their 

                                                

1 Increased capacity and capability of individuals or communities to participate effectively in their own 

development (Papineau & Kiely 1996) 

2 Club good are public goods that are excludable but non-rival. In other words, i) certain people can 

be excluded from the consumption, and ii) one person‘s consumption does not diminish another 

person‘s consumption (Cornes & Sandler 1996) 



 

16 

members (Place et al. 2002). Depending on the operational style of the CBOs, they can 

support capacity strengthening by encouraging participation and empowerment, 

inclusiveness, decision-making by consensus, and decentralization (Butler & Mazur 2007). 

In many occasions, these forms of organization also provide public goods or a safety net for 

their members, through food banks or the accumulation of financial resources by the 

commercialization of their products (Bernard et al. 2008). CBOs rely on three sources of 

funding: (i) members fees, (ii) funds generated by the group activities, and (iii) resources 

obtained by external actors. For the farmer groups to support income generation activities of 

their members, they may engage in community-based activities. 

In general, CBOs are high dependent on the community context on which they evolve 

(Bernard et al. 2008). Besides, their success and sustainability depends on the attributes of 

the CBO structure and functioning.  

2.2.1.1 CBO structure 

The structure of an organization generally refers to constructed frameworks and patterns of 

organisation, which constrain or direct human behaviour (Bilton et al. 1996). The structure of 

an organization should serve the organization‘s functions and goal (Swanson et al. 1998). 

The structure of a CBO is related to the roles, responsibilities, rewards, and punishments for 

the members. Each member in the CBO occupies a position, and there is a pattern of 

relationships among positions, which gives the group the organizational base to participate 

(Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008).  

CBO structure features of a successful organization are (Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008):  

- Leaders chosen to guide;  

- Clearly stated objectives and work plan;  

- Decision-making process should be transparent and involve actively all members;  

- Maintenance of clear records;  

- Well-planned and effectively managed meetings; 

- Compliance of norms and rules 

Leadership is very important, as the success and sustainability of any CBO depends mainly 

on the attributes or qualities of the leaders chosen to guide it (Anandajayasekeram et al. 

2008). Anandajayasekeram et al. (2008) describe some leadership problems as: (i) take up 

leadership positions for self-gain; (ii) lack leadership knowledge and skills; (iii) fail to motivate 

followers; (iv) abusing their authority; (v) or absentee leaders—not always available to the 

people. 

 

 



 

17 

2.2.1.2 CBO functioning 

The functioning or performance of a CBO is defined based on its effectiveness at serving 

their members. Benefits have two components; ‗soft‘ such as training and information, and 

‗hard‘ such as providing members access to credit, inputs, or infrastructure (Place et al. 

2002, Bernard et al. 2008). On the other side, there are short-term and long-term benefits. 

Short-term benefits are characterized by the access to credit and saving, and the creation of 

networks that facilitate information flow. Usually short-term benefits are individual 

(Weinberge & Jutting 2001). Long-term benefits can be collective or individual. Individual or 

household benefits are those that increase income or productivity, while collective benefits 

arise through the creation of markets and other income-generating activities (Weinberge & 

Jutting 2001).  

To participate in a CBO or be engage in community-based activities, the individual has an 

interest both as beneficiary of a collective action and as contributor to the common project 

(Weinberger & Juetting 2001, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008). Each actor will have to 

weight his interest as beneficiary against those as a contributor. Table 4 describes the costs 

and benefits of an individual of participating in CBOs. 

Costs of participation occur when the CBO is founded, the annual fees, and when a project 

is implemented (Weinberge & Jutting 2001). Another cost of participating in a CBO is the 

opportunity cost, established as the time taken from activities that secures family livelihood, 

like household work, agricultural and livelihood work burden (McAlistrer 2001). 

Table 4: Overviews of costs and benefits from participating in CBOs 

 DIRECT INDIRECT 

Sunk cost CBO functioning (time) Overcoming resistance of 

household  members 

Permanent cost Membership fees, time or 

opportunity cost 

Other household members‘ time for 

taking over activities otherwise 

carried out by the participating 

member 

Immediate benefits Provision with credit, saving 

facilities, creation of networks and 

others 

Creation of networks 

Long-time benefits Increase in income or productivity 

Creation of markets and income-

generating activities 

Safety net or insurances 

Source: Weinberge & Jutting 2001  

Factors reflecting the ability of a CBO of generating benefits include (Place et al. 2002): 

- Contribution by members; 

- Violations of rules; 



 

18 

- Major conflicts; 

- Ratification of formal rules; 

- Decision-making procedures. 

2.2.2 Collective action 

Collective action is recognized as a positive force for rural development in Africa (Place et al. 

2002). The ability of societies to adapt is partly determined by their ability to act together 

(Adger 2003). Getting and acting together allows to better cope with risk, as it also 

empowers individuals (Place et al. 2002). There are many different definitions of collective 

action in the literature; the most prominent are reviewed in Table 5. What all have in 

common is that collective action requires (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2004): 

- Involvement of a group of people; 

- Shared interest within the group of people; 

- Common action which work in pursuit of that shared interest; 

- This action should be voluntary. 

Table 5: Definition of collective action 

AUTHOR DEFINITION 

Sandlers (1992), p.1 ―Collective action arises when the efforts of two or more individuals are 

needed to accomplish an outcome‖ 

Sandlers (1992), 

p.19 

―The study of collective action examines the factors that motivate 

individuals to coordinate their activities to improve their collective well-

being‖ 

Ensminger (1992), p. 

22 

―Collective action arises when individuals join together to work for a 

collective good ‖ 

Giddens (1997), p. 

581 

―Action undertaken in a relatively spontaneous way by a large number of 

people assembled together in a particular place or area. One of the 

most important forms of collective action is crowd behaviour. In crowds, 

individuals can seek to achieve objectives which in ordinary 

circumstances are denied to them‖  

Marshall (1998) "action taken by a group (either directly or on its behalf through an 

organization) in pursuit of members' perceived shared interests" 

Vermillion in 

Meinzen-Dick, Knox, 

Di Gregorio (2000) 

―... coordinated behaviour of groups toward a common interest or 

purpose‖ 

Source: (Capri 2011) 

According to Agrawal (2001) and Araral (2009), collective action is affected by: (i) the 

characteristics of the system resources, (ii) the characteristic of the group of people 

dependent on resources, (iii) the institutional arrangement of the group of people, and (iv) 

the interrelations. Figure 5 summarizes and lists the most important aspects under these 

four categories. 



 

19 

 

   Internal context      

   Resource system characteristics 

Scarcity 

Infrastructure condition 

Market proximity 

Resource size 

Excludability and rivalry consumption 

  
 

    
External 

factors 

Interrelations 

High levels of 

dependence by 

group members 

on resources 

 

Fairness in 

allocation of 

benefits 

  

        

  Group characteristics 

Group size 

Wealth and income 

Shared norms 

Past successful experiences  

social capital 

Appropriate leadership 

Interdependence of group members 

Homogeneity of interest 

Heterogeneity of endowment 

  

 

 

 

 

Incentives Outcomes 

  

  

         

   Institutional arrangements 

Rules are simple and easy to 

understand 

Ease in enforcement of rules 

Sanctions are applied 

Accountability and monitoring of 

officials to users 

  

   

         

Figure 5: Factors that influence collective action outcomes in a common pool resource. 

Modified form (Agrawal 2001, Araral 2009)  

Collective action can take place directly by members of a group through a formal 

organization (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2004). Networks and flows of information between 

individuals and groups is required to permit a decision-making process that enables 

collective action (Adger 2003). In the context of this research, what makes collective action 

important is that it helps regulate the acquirement of benefits in community-based 

organizations (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2004), and in this way is related with the outcome of 

community-based activities. 

2.2.3 Social capital 

The debate on social capital has brought together sociologist, anthropologist, political 

scientists, and economist. There are several different definitions of social capital, which are 

shown in Table 6. Here it will be considered as ―an attribute of individuals and their 

relationships that enhance their ability to solve collective action problems‖ (Ostrom & Ahn 



 

20 

2003). It captures the idea of social bonds and norms, being a resource available to 

members of a social network (Pretty & Ward 2001, Ostrom 2009). Social capital decreases 

transactional costs of working together, facilitating cooperation (Pretty 2003). 

Table 6: Definitions of social capital 

AUTHOR DEFINITION 

Lyda Judson Hanifan 

(1920), p. 22 

―... that in life what tends to make these tangible substances count for 

most in the daily lives of people; namely, goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, 

and social intercourse among the individuals and families that make a 

social unit‖  

Glenn Loury (1992), 

p. 100 

―... naturally occurring social relationship among persons which promote 

or assist the acquisition of skills and traits valued in the marketplace‖ 

Pierre Bourdieu (with 

Wacquant, 1992), p. 

19 

―Social capital is the sum of resources, actual and virtual, that accrue to 

an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of 

more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and 

recognition‖ 

James Coleman 

(1994), p. 302 

―Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a 

variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they 

consist of some aspects of social structure, and they facilitate certain 

actions of individuals who are within the structure‖ 

Robert Putnam 

(1993), p.169 

―... features of social organizations, such as trust, norms, and networks, 

that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated 

action‖ 

Burt (1992), p.9 ―... friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through whom you 

receive opportunities to use your financial and human capital‖ 

Nahapiet and 

Ghoshal (1998), p. 

243 

―... the sum of the actual or potential resources embedded within, 

available through, and derived from the network of relationships 

possessed by an individual or social unit. Social capital comprises both 

networks and assets that may be mobilized through the network‖ 

Wookock (1998), p. 

153 

―... the information, trust and norms of reciprocity inherent in one‘s social 

network‖ 

Ostrom (1999) ―The shared knowledge, understandings, norms, rules, and expectations 

about patterns of interactions that groups of individuals bring to a 

recurrent activity‖ 

Ostrom and Ahn 

(2003), p. xiv 

―... social capital is an attribute of individuals and their relationships that 

can enhance their ability to solve collective action problems‖ 

Adler and Kwon 

(2002), p.23 

―Social capital is the goodwill available to individuals or groups. Its 

source lies in the structure and content of the actor‘s social relations. Its 

efforts flow from the information, influence and solidarity it makes 

available to the actor‖ 

Source: Adapted from Ostrom 2009, p. 3 

There are four central aspects of social capital: (i) relationships of trust, (ii) reciprocity 

exchange, (iii) common rules, norms and sanctions, and (iv) connectedness, networks and 

groups (Pretty & Ward 2001). These are particularly important in the study of collective 

action. According to Ostrom and Ahn (2003), trust, as a form of social capital, is the most 



 

21 

inclusive factor in facilitating collective action, while the other forms contribute by increasing 

trust (Figure 6).  

Trust takes time to build and is easily broken (Pretty & Ward 2001, Pretty 2003). It reinforces 

norms and reciprocity (Pelling & High 2005). Reciprocity, or the simultaneous exchange of 

goods and knowledge, increases trust (Pretty & Ward 2001, Ostrom & Ahn 2003, Pretty 

2003). Common rules, norms, and sanctions are mutually agreed; sanctions ensure that 

those who are breaking the rules know they will be punished (Pretty & Ward 2001, Ostrom & 

Ahn 2003, Pretty 2003). Connectedness may be related to: (i) bonding capital or people with 

similar objectives, as in farmer groups; (ii) bridging capital or the capacity of such groups to 

make links with others with a different view; and (iii) linking capital or the capacity to engage 

with external agencies or groups (Pretty & Ward 2001, Pretty 2003, Pelling & High 2005). 

Strong bonding ties are associated with survival more than with development (Pelling & High 

2005). 

  Contextual variables   

Connectedness, 

networks and 

groups 

 
 

  

 

 

 

Trust and reciprocity 

exchange 

 

 Collective action 

Common rules, 

norms and 

sanctions 

(Institutions) 

    

Figure 6: Social capital forms and their entailment with collective action. Source (Ostrom & 

Ahn 2003) 

Related to climate change, it has been argued that social capital can be mobilized to bring 

material adaptations (Adger 2003, Pelling & High 2005). This is only one focus of how social 

capital can be used to enhance the adaptive capacity3 of communities. Figure 7 presents 

                                                

3 The ability of a system to adjust to moderate potential damages, to take advantages of 

opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. Adaptations, or changes in the system to better 

deal with problematic exposures and sensitivities, reflect adaptive capacity (Smit & Wandel 2006). 

The capacities in a society that enable self-protection and collective action to prevent or cope with 

stressors (Pelling & High 2005) 



 

22 

four different possibilities to create or increase adaptive capacity to climate change through 

social capital (Pelling & High 2005): 

(i) Mobilise existing social capital to generate material interventions directed to reduce 

material vulnerability to climate change; 

(ii) Education to increase resilience to future risk;  

(iii) Activate latent social capital to generate enhanced access to resource for future 

interventions; 

(iv) Vote, or taking part of collective decision-making. 

 

Figure 7: Possibilities to create or increase adaptive capacity through social capital. Source 

(Pelling & High 2005) 

With this integrated view, adaptive capacity is understood as the capacities in a society that 

enable self-protection and collective action to prevent or cope with stressors (Pelling & High 

2005). At the same time, social learning scholars recall the role of social capital in 

understanding the adaptive capacity behaviour in communities of practice (Pelling & High 

2005). Hence, social learning is assumed to occur at two, or three, levels (Pahl-Wostl et al. 

2007): 

 On short to medium time scales at the level of processes between collaborating 

stakeholders in collaboration processes; 

 On medium to long time scales at the level of change in actor networks (possible 

outcome/ feedback of processes); and 

 On long time scales at the level of change in governance structure (formal and 

informal institutions; cultural values, norms, and paradigms). 

 



 

23 

2.3 LOW EXTERNAL INPUT AGRICULTURE 

2.3.1 Farming systems in Southern Africa 

A farm system is composed of the household, its resources, the resources flows, and 

interactions (Dillon, Dixon et al. 2001). A farming system is defined as the population of 

individual farm systems that have broadly similar resource based, enterprise patterns, 

household livelihood, and constrains, and for which similar development policies are 

appropriate (Dixon et al. 2001). Farming systems can be delimited based on (i) natural 

resources; (ii) dominant livelihoods; (iii) degree of crop-livestock integration; (iv) scale of 

operation. 

Based on these criteria, Dixon et al. (2001) delimited the main farming systems of the 

developing regions across the world. For the sub-Saharan region 15 farming systems were 

identified (Figure 8), from which the predominant in the studied area are (Dixon et al. 2001): 

 Cereal-root crop mixed: Intercropping is common, crops grown vary from are millet, 

sorghum, maize, cassava, yams, legumes, and cattle. The main source of 

vulnerability is drought.  

 Maize mixed: The most important faming system of Southern Africa. The main staple 

is maize, and the main cash sources are remittances, cattle and small ruminants, and 

sale of food crops. Cattle are kept for ploughing, wealth, and savings. The main 

sources of vulnerability are drought and market volatility. 

Alternatively, Seré et al. (1995) developed a livestock based production system 

classification. In the study region, the prevalent production system is mixed rainfed arid and 

semi-arid tropic and subtropics (MRA) system. The MRA system is characterized by (Seré 

et al. 1995):  

 The vegetation growth period is no longer than 180 days, were the main restriction is 

primary production of the land due to low rainfall; 

 The more sever the constrain the greater is the importance of livestock in the area; 

 Grazing land no suitable for crop production is the main feed source for livestock, 

which in most of the cases is community owned; 

 Crop production is mainly for subsistence, usually produced extensively with minimal 

inputs; 

 Livestock have a range of roles in the system, including animal traction, production of 

manure, cash reserve and provision of meat and milk; 

 The major concern is related with the degradation of resources 



 

24 

Livestock are integral part of the agricultural systems in Africa, contributing to the livelihood 

of the poor and insecure in many ways (Delgado et al. 2001). They are an important source 

of cash income, and offer risk management option to reduce vulnerability (Delgado et al. 

2001). In the semi-arid mixed crop systems of Southern Africa, cattle are of greater 

importance, followed by goats (Perry et al. 2002). 

 

 

Figure 8: Major farming system in Sub-Saharan Africa. Source: (Dixon et al. 2001) 

2.3.2 Farming system characteristics in less-favoured areas  

Roughly 40% of the developing world‘s rural population lives in less-favoured areas 

(Van Keulen 2006). These areas are characterized by having either (i) low agricultural 

potential because of limited and uncertain rainfall, poor soils, steep slopes, or other 

biophysical constraints; or (ii) higher agricultural potential, but limited by socio-economic 

constraints like access to infrastructure and markets (Dixon et al. 2001, Van Keulen 2006). 

In brief, smallholder farming systems are characterised by having low resources in terms of: 

(i) land; (ii) capital; (iii) income; and (iv) poor food security (Dixon et al. 2001). Besides, it is 

common to find diversified agriculture and some off-farm activities, mostly informal, to 

supplement household incomes (Dixon et al. 2001). 



 

25 

Livelihood and farming systems of these less-favoured areas are usually characterized by 

heterogeneity in resource use by farmers and fields, and high levels of spatial and temporal 

variability in yields and income (Van Keulen 2006). Heterogeneity can be created by the own 

farmer by crop, soil and / or livestock management (Van Keulen 2006).  

Specific agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions that prevail in these areas are 

(Van Keulen 2006): 

 Low agricultural yields; 

 High risk that discourage farmers to specialize, leading to risk aversion in input and 

investment behaviour; reducing crop losses from pests and disease and making 

more efficient use of farm labour; 

 Degradation of natural resources and deterioration of soil physical properties, soil 

erosion, and nutrient depletion. 

Uncertainty and risk go hand by hand in farming system (McConnell & Dillon 1997). 

Subsistence and semi-subsistence resource-poor small farmers are characterized by using 

several strategies for risk aversion (McConnell & Dillon 1997). Being resource poor and 

depending on their own production means to be at risk of malnutrition, starvation of death if 

the production fails. 

Uncertainty is defined as imperfect knowledge, and is a function of time: further the future, 

grater the uncertainty (McConnell & Dillon 1997). It is relevant regarding the decision-making 

on planning and running the farm, or farm management (McConnell & Dillon 1997). 

Uncertainty is always present, but on the other hand, risk is only present when the uncertain 

effect of a decision is view by the farmer as worth to worry about (McConnell & Dillon 1997). 

These risks may come from the external environment or from the farm processes 

(McConnell & Dillon 1997). Because of the dependency of agriculture on the natural 

resources, the risks associated with them are the more important, mostly those related with 

weather (short term) and climate (long term, change in patterns) (McConnell & Dillon 1997). 

Although risk associated with the social environment are generally not perceived as high, in 

the study area, change in traditions may come with an important source of risk (Dube & 

Sekhwela 2008). To exemplify, some past strategies that helped cope with climate variability 

are (Brouwer & Nhassengo 2006, Dube & Sekhwela 2008):  

 Traditional decision-making institutions, that secured access to land for females and 

the poorer households. 

 The bride price reduced the possibility for development of poor female-headed 

households;  



 

26 

 The herding system, in which livestock owners loan their livestock to poor families 

whom take care of the livestock and in exchange use the animal for labour and milk, 

plus a payment depending on the health of the animals or the increase of the herd; 

 Work in someone‘s land in exchange for ploughing; 

 Outplace of cattle to a relative or friend, to reduce risk. In exchange, the friend or 

family member can milk the animal or use it for traction or ploughing.  

Weathered the source of risk, smallholder farmers adopt various strategies to reduce or 

mitigate it. These strategies are mostly related to production or yield risk (McConnell & Dillon 

1997). Furthermore, for farmers that behave in a risk averse way, maximization of profit is no 

guiding principle, on the contrary pursuing utility maximization (McConnell & Dillon 1997). 

Resilience to the risk associated with climate variability can be built by insurance 

mechanisms, which can in turn reduce the vulnerability of people to climate variability 

(McConnell & Dillon 1997). 

Vulnerability, on the other hand is considered to be the ability or inability of people or social 

groups to respond (cope, recover or adapt) to any external stress on their livelihoods (Kelly 

& Adger 2000). In this perspective, vulnerability of a group is determined by the availability of 

resources and the capacity of the group to use them (Kelly & Adger 2000). 

Davies (1993) distinguishes between coping mechanism and adaptive strategies based on 

the risk, as summarized in Table 7. Coping mechanisms are used by secure livelihood 

system during period of stress, while adaptive strategies are characteristic of vulnerable 

socio-ecological systems, and constitute a permanent change in the rules to meet the 

livelihood (Davies 1993). 

Table 7: Characteristics of coping and adaptive mechanism 

CHARACTERISTICS COPING MECHANISM ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES 

Time  Short-term Long-term 

 Reactive, ex post Anticipatory, ex ante, or  

Reactive, ex post 

Cause Locally or externally induced Locally or externally induced 

Space  Acting within the prevailing rule 

system 

Changing the prevailing rule 

system 

Efficiency Short-term Long-term 

Resilience Reversible in short-term Sustainable. Difficult to reverse 

Source: (Davies 1993) 

 

 



 

27 

2.3.3 Smallholder agriculture and climate change 

The effects of climate change are expected to be harmful to agriculture, were warming and 

drying in tropics and subtropics may reduce crop yields in 10% to 50% to 2050 (Jones & 

Thornton 2009). Precisely, in MRA (mixed rainfed arid-semiarid) systems failure rates are 

projected to increase from 18% to 30%, depending of the scenario (Jones & Thornton 2009). 

Here, maize cultivation will no longer be possible; therefore, rural people need to change 

their livelihood strategies to maintain food security and income generation (Jones & 

Thornton 2009). These effects will be stronger in places with reduces accessibility, were 

livestock provide an alternative (Perry et al. 2002, Jones & Thornton 2009). Adaptation to 

climate change is critical, particularly in areas where vulnerability and poverty is high, as in 

the study area. 

Adaptation is also a tricky term. It comes from biology and evolution, and was originally 

defined as the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its 

habitat, leaving fertile progeny. In the context of climate change, there are several definitions 

of adaptation, all of which describe it as anticipatory or preventative (Table 8). In the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is defined as the adjustment in natural or 

human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which 

moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (Smit & Pilifosova 2001).  

 

Table 8: Definitions of adaptation in the context of climate change  

AUTHOR DEFINITION 

Burton 1992 The process through which people reduce the adverse effects of 

climate on health and their well-being, and take advantage of the 

opportunities that their climatic environment  provides 

Smit (1993) Involves adjustments to enhance the viability of social and 

economical activities and to reduce their vulnerability to climate, 

including its current variability and extremes events as well as longer 

term climate change 

Stakhiv (1993) Any adjustment, weather passive, reactive or anticipatory, that is 

proposed as a means for ameliorating the anticipated adverse 

consequences associated with climate change 

Smit et al (1996) Includes all adjustment in behaviour or economic structure that 

reduce the vulnerability of society to changes in the climate system 

Waston et al (1996) The degree to which adjustments are possible in practice, process, or 

structures of systems to projected or actual change of climate. Can 

be spontaneous or planned, and can be carried out in response to or 

in anticipation of change in conditions 

Source: (Smit et al. 2000) 



 

28 

On the other hand, adaptation can be describe as a ―co-evolution‖ process of mutual 

interactions, which in human social systems can be seen as the process of learning and 

development (Ison et al. 2007). This will entail a change of ‗adaptation to‘ to ‗adaptation with‘ 

(Collins & ), which requires new approaches that engage all the actors involved in the topic 

of climate change. As a response, social learning approach emerge as a system for 

integrated and adaptive concerted actions (Collins & Ison 2009a).  

The impact of climate change will be felt particularly by resource-dependent communities. 

Therefore it is important to learn from past and present adaptation strategies to understand 

both the process by which adaptations take place and the limitations of the agents of change 

(Adger 2003). Better understanding of how farmers have developed coping strategies, why 

they do what they do, and the constrains they face, is essential for policy making to enhance 

adaptability (Kaufmann 2011). 

Recently, several studies performed in Africa have captured famers‘ perception of climate 

and the strategies considered suitable for adapting (Hassan & Nhemachena 2008, Deressa 

et al. 2009, Gbetibouo et al. 2010). The results from these studies coincided in that the 

majority of the farmers perceived that temperature is warming and precipitation declining, the 

timing of rains has changed, and droughts are more frequent (Hassan & Nhemachena 2008, 

Deressa et al. 2009, Gbetibouo et al. 2010). The adaptation strategies perceived by farmers‘ 

as priority include (Hassan & Nhemachena 2008, Deressa et al. 2009, Gbetibouo et al. 

2010): 

 Crop diversification; 

 Using different crop varieties; 

 Varying the planting and harvesting dates; 

 Increase the use of irrigation; 

 Increase the use of water and soil conservation techniques;  

 Shading and shelter; 

 Crops with shorter vegetation cycles; 

 Diversifying of income generation activities 

Farmers state they have varied their production system in order to adapt by (Hassan & 

Nhemachena 2008): 

 Diversify into multiple crops and use mix crop-livestock systems; 

 Vary planting dates; 

 Use different crop varieties; 

 Practice soil and water conservation techniques 



 

29 

Besides, Hassan & Nhemachena (2008) found that greater farming experience promotes 

adaptations. In additions, farmers that have not undertake any adaption strategy attribute 

this to lack of information (Deressa et al. 2009). Both Hassan & Nhemachena (2008) and 

Deressa et al. (2009) found in their studies that education and farmer-to-farmer learning are 

prevalent condition to enhance the adoption of adaptation strategies among farmers. As it, to 

stimulate farm-level adaptations policy measures should focus on education programmes, in 

which farmers become aware of the potential benefits of adaptations. 

  



 

30 

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 

3.1 STUDY REGION AND SYSTEM  

The area of study of the present research is located in Mabalane District of Gaza Province, 

Mozambique (Figure 9). The work was done with two CBOs, one in the village of Mabomo 

and the other in the village of Mungazi. Mabalane district has a population of 25.464 

individuals (Brito et al. 2009). This region is strategically located, with the train railway 

passing through it, from Maputo to Zimbabwe, which enables the trade of commercial 

products and charcoal. 

 

Figure 9: Map of the study area. Source (Ara-Sul 2002) 

3.1.1 General conditions 

Gaza Province area experiences year-to-year variability in rainfall (Usman & Reason 2004). 

The Limpopo River Basin, more exactly Mabalane District of Gaza Province, is characterized 

by having an annual precipitation of 400-600 mm (Sitoe 2005, Brito et al. 2009). During the 

rainy season, from October to March, the precipitation varies between 361-470 mm and 

temperatures vary between of 21 a 33 ºC (Brito et al. 2009). During the dry season, from 

April to September, the precipitation varies from 30 to 120 mm, with a temperature of 15 a 

28 ºC (Brito et al. 2009). 

Livelihood in the study area is centered on subsistence farming, with production of cattle, 

goats, chicken and pigs and mostly rainfed cultivation. Local land use systems have evolved 

to accommodate this variability. People are dependent both directly and indirectly on the 



 

31 

surrounding natural resources, and consequently their livelihoods are closely connected to 

the variability and productivity of the natural resource base (Brouwer & Nhassengo 2006).  

The impact of extremes, such as the flooding in 1977 and 2001 (Brouwer & Nhassengo 

2006), or droughts in 1983-1984, 1994, 2003 (Usman & Reason 2004), caused livelihood 

disruption. According to Osbahr et al 2008, rural population in the Gaza province in 

Mozambique is reliant on traditional coping mechanisms of reciprocity and exchange. Local 

responses to cope with climate disturbances include diversification and collective land-use 

management (Osbahr et al. 2008).  

Forecasts for Southern Mozambique envisage an increase in the intensity of rainfall, mostly 

in the form of erratic rains (Cook et al. 2004), with an increase probability of dry years 

(Usman & Reason 2004). By 2025, annual average precipitation is expected to decrease 

between 10-15%, and temperature increasing between 1.75-2.25 °C in summer and 1.25-2 

°C in winter (Ragab & Prudhomme 2002). Moreover, the Mozambique vulnerability 

assessment committee of the ―Famine Early Warning System Network‖ foresees low crop 

production because of low rainfall at critical flowering period for maize (FEWS.NET 2011).  

3.1.2 Livelihood and farming systems 

Gaza provinces show as much as 50% of the households being headed by women, given 

the traditional migration of labour to South Africa (De Matteia et al. 2006). At the same time, 

the production in the province is the lowest compared with the rest of the country and 

remittances pay an important role, being higher than in the rest of the country (Brouwer & 

Nhassengo 2006, De Matteia et al. 2006). Access to remittances and risk reducing 

mechanisms has made most households in the Limpopo valley resilient to major shocks, 

such as the 2000 floods (Brouwer & Nhassengo 2006). These mechanisms allow 

households to obtain a regular income regardless of local circumstances.  

Rural households diversify out of agriculture into a variety of income-generating activities to 

cope with risk and uncertainty (Cunguara et al. 2011). Besides agriculture, charcoal 

production and wood cutting, are predominant in the area (Brito et al. 2009). Simultaneously, 

hunting and gathering are important activities in the province, with higher levels than in other 

provinces (De Matteia et al. 2006). Livestock, both cattle and small ruminants play also an 

important role in the livelihood of the province with average numbers higher than in the rest 

of the country (Brouwer & Nhassengo 2006, De Matteia et al. 2006). 

3.1.3 Villages 

The selection of the villages was done based on: (i) absence of CBOs in the village; (ii) not 

target before by a development programme; (iii) motivation to form a CBO and engage in 



 

32 

collective activities; (iv) receptivity of village leader; (v) village not scattered, but grouped 

together (vi) accessibility (near/far) to river and market (Levy 2010). Table 9 compares the 

most important issues form both villages. 

Mabomo 

The village of Mabomo is located on the margins of the Limpopo River at a distance of 30 

km from the District‘s headquarter, Mabalane (see Table 9). The village consists of 110 

agro-pastoralist families, and a population of 1046 individuals (Levy 2011). It is connected 

with the District‘s headquarter, Mabalane, by public transport offered twice a week. 

The ‗Mozambique baseline livelihood report‘ form FEWS.NET (2011) categorizes the 

production system in Mabomo as maize subsistence agriculture. Only better-off household 

have cropping plots near the river plains, which present soil of better quality. The main 

wealth of the area is livestock, especially cattle and goats. The main constrain that limits the 

possession of animals is the lack of cash to invest, and the pressure to sell animals to buy 

food. The main cash income is from charcoal production, and remittances from family 

members working in South Africa. 

Mungazi 

The village of Mungazi is located in the buffer zone of the Bahine National Park, at a 

distance of 100 km from the District‘s headquarter (see Table 9). The village consists of 80 

households, and a population of 235 (Levy 2011). There are no public transport connections 

between the Mungazi and the village. Therefore, the movement of goods and people is 

limited.  

Economic activities are agriculture, livestock keeping, self-employment in charcoal 

production and migration to work in South Africa (FEWS.NET 2011). Agricultural activities 

relays on the rainy season, from October to March. Low rainfall amount and sandy soils with 

poor water retention capacity, have lead household to grow sorghum (FEWS.NET 2011). As 

in Mabomo, the main wealth of the area is livestock, especially cattle and goats (FEWS.NET 

2011). The main constrain that limits the possession of animals is the lack of cash to invest, 

and the pressure to sell animals to buy food. The main cash income is from charcoal 

production, and remittances from family members working in South Africa. 

3.2 STUDY CONTEXT 

The here presented research in this master thesis is part of the collaborative project funded 

by BMZ ―Supporting the vulnerable: Increasing the adaptive capacity of agro-pastoralists to 

climatic change in West and Southern Africa using a transdisciplinary research approach‖. 

The goal of the project is to increase the adaptive capacity of agro-pastoralists, who are one 



 

33 

of the most vulnerable groups in Africa to climate variability and the expected effects of 

future climate change (DITSL 2011). 

 

Table 9: Characterization of the villages 

 VILLAGE OF MABOMO VILLAGE OF MUNGAZI 

Village size* 110 households 80 households 

Population  1046 individuals 235 individuals 

Distance to 

town 

30 km form Mabalane 100 km from Mabalane 

Production* Agricultural production is based on maize, 

beans, peanuts, and pumpkins. Also is 

produced watermelon, tomatoes, and 

sweet potatoes. 

Livestock keeping is characterized by cattle 

and goat rearing, and in a fewer extent pig 

and sheep rearing. 

Agricultural production is based on millet, 

sorghum, maize, beans peanuts, pumpkin, 

and watermelon for self-consumption. 

Livestock keeping is characterized by cattle 

and goat rearing, and in a fewer extent pig 

and sheep rearing. 

Social 

homogeneity / 

heterogeneity 

Same ethnic group 

Hierarchical social structure by traditional 

leaders 

Same ethnic group 

 

Vulnerable 

socio-economic 

context * 

Constrained agricultural production; 

Post-war process of herd repopulation; 

Dependency on structural and aid program; 

Reliance on off-farm alternative livelihood activities. 

Environmental 

risk** 

Inundations; 

Low and unpredicted rainfalls; 

Crop pest; 

Livestock diseases;  

Violent storms;  

Wild animals. 

Malaria; 

Poor soil;  

Low and unpredicted rainfalls;  

Crop pest; 

Livestock diseases;  

Wild animals. 

Coping 

strategies** 

Very poor and poor families:  

(i) Selling livestock, specially goats, and in 

extreme circumstances cattle;  

(ii) Increase their production and sales of 

charcoal and wood extraction;  

(iii) Males travel to South Africa searching 

for jobs. 

Middle and better-off families:  

(i) Selling livestock;  

(ii) Small-scale trading activities;  

(iii) Renting oxen 

(i) Increase search and consumption of wild 

food;  

(ii) Intensification of self-employment 

activities such as charcoal production;  

(iii) Increase livestock sales;  

(iv) Increase food purchase 

Development 

priorities** 

Potable water;  

Oxen for traction;  

Food commercialization;  

Agricultural projects;  

Animal vaccination campaigns 

Market development; 

Potable water;  

Oxen for traction;  

Agricultural projects;  

Animal vaccination campaigns  

Source: *Levy 2010, **(FEWS.NET 2011), personal observations  

 



 

34 

To begin a collaborative learning approach, two CBOs were formed at the beginning of 2010 

in two different villages in the Gaza province of Mozambique (Figure 9). Both CBOs have 

their statutes officially registered, and a bank account opened. An important guiding focus of 

the CBOs was empowerment through collective action and social learning (Levy 2010). For 

a summary of the main aspects of the structure of the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi, see 

Table 10.  

Since the formation of the CBOs, they have been part of a facilitation process of (i) 

production of specific CBO objectives (Table 12); (ii) action plan for community-based 

activities (iii) organization of meetings and record keeping; and (iv) knowledge exchange 

with zonal research institutes (Levy 2011).  

Table 10: Structure of the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi 

 CBO IN MABOMO  CBO IN MUNGAZI  

Activities Animal husbandry Revolving loan scheme 

Objectives* Empowerment through exchange of 

knowledge and experiences 

Empowerment through exchange of 

knowledge and experiences 

Active since 2010 2010 

Size 18 members 20 members 

Legal constitution Yes Yes 

Board of director Yes Yes / regular members not happy  

Code of conduct penalties Yes / compliance Yes / no clear compliance 

Control commission Fiscals Fiscals 

Decision-making During general meetings During general meetings / important 

decision taken by official members 

Meetings Once a month Planned once a month 

Accounting books Yes Yes 

Proceeding books  Yes Yes 

Sources of founding 

- members fees 

- funds generated by the 

CBO activities 

- resources obtained by 

external actors 

 

Yes 

No 

 

Yes 

 

Yes 

No 

 

Yes 

Source: own study, *Levy 2011 

At the beginning of the project, each CBO received an input of 1000 Euros to be used 

according to the project goals. That is, in an activity that enabled the CBO members to 

increase their adaptive capacity to climate variability. Decision power over the use of those 

founds was fully in hands of the CBO members. After a facilitation process, both CBOs 

stated their objectives and a plan of action to use the received founds (Levy 2010). During 

the project period, the CBO members in Mabomo have implemented a goat keeping activity, 

and are currently constructing an improved corral for confined pig rearing. On the other 

hand, the CBO members in Mungazi have used the money in a revolving loans scheme. 



 

35 

Since a key component of the collaborative project ―Supporting the vulnerable: Increasing 

the adaptive capacity of agro-pastoralists to climatic change in West and Southern Africa 

using a transdisciplinary research approach‖ was to increase the active learning possibilities 

of smallholders and pastoralists (DITSL 2011), a PM&E system was planned. The intention 

of the PM&E system was to play a key role for the CBO members to learn about the 

outcome of the group activities, and to identify possible constrains or improvement options. 

This research thesis provides qualitative empirical data to elucidate key elements for the 

successful establishment of PM&E system; support or refute the hypothesis that a PM&E 

system is an effective approach in supporting community-based activities; and unfold key 

opportunities and barriers form the CBOs to enable community-based activities. 

Table 11: Specific objectives of the CBOs in Mabomo and Mungazi 

CBO in MABOMO CBO in MUNGAZI 

3 months 

Construction of improve coral for pigs and goats; 

Selection and acquisition of pigs and goats; 

Establishment of a PM&E system 

Construction of corrals; 

Selection and acquisition of pigs and goats; 

Training of veterinary promoter; 

Establishment of a PM&E system 

1 year 

Period for the multiplication of animals; 

Acquisition and commercialization of veterinary 

products; 

Construction of the CBO headquarters 

Period for the multiplication of animals; 

Acquisition and commercialization of veterinary 

products; 

Construction of a well for the animals; 

Construction of the CBO headquarters 

2 years 

Organization of a central market for the 

commercialization of livestock and production 

form cropping field 

Commercialization of goats and pigs 

5 years 

From the resources acquired from the activities performed by the CBO, members can benefit by 

animal and / or revolving loan scheme. 

Source: Levy 2011 
 

3.3 DATA COLLECTION 

The field phase of the present research was conducted on rural Mozambique from April to 

July 2011. Because of the participatory nature of the action-research presented here, the 

investigation is structured as an iterative learning process with cycles of exploration, 

analysis, decision-making, action and reflection (Figure 10). 



 

36 

 

Figure 10: M&E learning cycle. Modified from Woodhill & Robins (1998) 

The present research follows a qualitative approach, with a focus on the perception and 

experiences of CBO members in relation to PM&E system for the activities implemented. 

Because of the subjective nature of issues connected with learning and empowerment, 

these have to be captured via participants‘ perceptions (Blackstock et al. 2007). For this, the 

research draws on a series of focus groups, semi-structured interviews, workshops, and 

feedback meetings. Interviews, focus groups and workshops were supported with visual aids 

when necessary. 

The duration of the interviews and focus groups was between 45 and 90 min. Each 

individual interview and focus group was recorded and transcribed. Guiding questions were 

used to maintain focus; however, these activities did not follow any formal structure and 

were more conversational in nature. This approach allowed interviewees and focus group 

members to feel comfortable and to focus primarily on the topics that they were more familiar 

with. Interviews and focus groups were always initiated by describing the purpose of the 

research, and every member was asked for permission to digitally record the activity. The 

interviews were performed with 11 CBO members in Mabomo (Table 12) and 10 CBO 

members in Mungazi (Table 13).  



 

37 

The data collection is divided into three components, according with the research objectives. 

The data collection method according to each component is shown in Table 14. 

Table 12: Profile of 11 CBO members interviewed in Mabomo 

CODE INTERVIEWEE POSITION DATE 

MA01-O Silvano Mapande Baloi President 19.05.2011 

MA02-O Jose Cumbulela Mundlovo Secretary 17.06.2011 

MA03-OT Frazao Lainane Simago Treasurer/Herder 24.05.2011 

MA04-OT Maria Mpungo Ngulele Fiscal   18.05.2011 

MA05-OT Cristina Rafael Machava Fiscal   17.06.2011 

MA06-R Manuel Pretoria Simango Regular 18.05.2011 

MA07-R Inacio Simango Regular 19.05.2011 

MA08-R Francisco Jutasse Ringane Regular 16.05.2011 

MA09-R Frazao Papai Baloi Regular  16.06.2011 

MA10-R Antonio Vicente Tivane Regular 24.06.2011 

MA11-R Eduardo Sango Macamo Regular 25.06.2011 
MA: Mabomo, O: Official, T:PM&E team, R: regular 

Table 13: Profile of 10 CBO members interviewed in Mabomo 

CODE INTERVIEWEE POSITION DATE 

MU01-OT Antonio M Chauque Secretary 20.06.2011 

MU02-OT Piosse Samuel Chauque Treasurer 22.05.2011 

MU03-O Albertina Chauque Fiscal 21.05.2011 

MU04-OT Jossias Mungazi Chauque Fiscal   19.06.2011 

MU05-RT Jotasse Matsumbane Chauque Regular 19.06.2011 

MU06-R Paulo Pambule Chauque Regular 22.05.2011 

MU07-R Elizabethe Chauque Regular  22.05.2011 

MU08-R Gabriel Alfredo Chauque Regular 19.06.2011 

MU09-R Sara Madrai Tsani Regular 20.06.2011 

MU10-R Armando Sabão Chauque  Regular 20.06.2011 
MU: Mungazi, O: Official, T:PM&E team, R: regular 

Table 14: Data collection methods of the three components of the research 

COMPONENT DATA COLLECTION METHOD 

Development and implementation of a PM&E 

system 

- Focus groups 

- Workshops 

- Semi-structured interviews Assessment of the PM&E system 

Evaluation of CBOs potential to enable 

community-based activities 

- Semi-structured interviews 

3.3.1 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PM&E SYSTEM 

The process of development and implementation of a PM&E system was divided in five 

basic steps following (Burke, Estrella & Gaventa 1998, Woodhill & Robins 1998, Cramb, R. 

and, FAO 2003, Slocum 2003, Geilfus 2008, Anandajayasekeram et al. 2008), as shown in 



 

38 

Figure 11 and Table 15. Nevertheless, because of the difference in the community-based 

activities and maturity of the CBOs, the process was adapted to each context. The guiding 

questions used for each step are shown in Table 16.  

To ensure the effectiveness of PM&E, participation and collaboration, context specificity, 

inclusiveness, learning, flexibility, and empowerment principles were included in th