FACT Reader

FACT Reader
Farmers Advocacy
Consultation Tool
- FACT -
Christian Gout
Agriterra Solutions Series
Agriterra
P.O. Box 158
6800 AD Arnhem
Willemsplein 42
6811 KD Arnhem
The Netherlands
T +31 26 44 55 445
F +31 26 44 55 978
agriterra@agriterra.org
www.agriterra.org
IBAN: NL92 RABO 0369 724666
Foundation Agriterra
Chamber of Commerce
41 048542
Member of AgriCord
Publication details
Content: Agriterra
Editorial: Opraappers Communicatie b.v.
Photography: Agriterra
Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool
- FACT - is an Agriterra publication.
More information on this document is
available through www.agriterra.org;
e-mail: communicatie@agriterra.org.
Agriterra All Rights Reserved.
No part of this document may be
reproduced without Agriterras
express consent.
Arnhem, June 2013
Author: Christian Goet (Chilean Agronomist),

is an international consultant based in France,
who began working in Chile directing extension
programs and as CEO of a smallholder-owned
company. Christian studied and worked as an
invited researcher at Wageningen University
(Communication Group), The Netherlands.
Hefollowed a MSc in Management of
Agricultural Knowledge Systems and is currently
completing his PhD in Communication and
Innovation Studies, which included a series
of modules of the MBA in Food Industry and
Agribusiness at the Wageningen School of
Management. Christian was the Development
Program Manager for the International
Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) for
2007-2009. Since the year 2000 he works for
Agriterra as external advisor and he developed
the FACT methodological basis, piloted it with
workshops and adviced farmers organisations
in more than 20 countries in Africa, Asia
and Latin America. He advised Agriterra and
the International Labour Office (ILO) in the
development of the MyCoop training modules
on cooperative management and he acts as
senior trainer of trainers for MyCoop.
Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution
Table of Contents
Foreword 5
About Agriterra
Acknowledgments 9
Abbreviations 13
Introduction
15
The four FACT pillars
21
Pillar 1: Consultations
25
Pillar 2 Participatory Research
37
Pillar 3: Writing SMART Proposals
51
Pillar 4: Lobby mapping and stakeholders analysis
59
Lessons learned from using FACT concepts
71
FACT trajectory
77
ANNEXES

Annex 1. Summary of the FACT Basic Pillars
85
Annex 2. Consultations: Steps, Tips and Checklist
86
Annex 3. Methodological Insights - Consultations / Participatory Research
87
Foreword
Time and again, farm leaders claim their place at the
negotiation table. Decisions about farming are, however,
often made without their participation. But what if
suddenly this negotiation space is granted? Every farm
leader knows the excitement of that moment, but also the
stress when addressing and negotiating with government
officials. Armed with statistics and polished arguments,
those government negotiators try and pursue their
political objectives. Sometimes they bring forward their
arguments with so many facts that it is hard to defend
the interests of farmers. In this way farmers participation
sometimes becomes merely cosmetic. Thefarmers have
their say, but with no influence on the outcome.
Farm leaders have a strong case to propose: they represent farmers. They come to voice the
feelings, concerns, interests and opinions of the grass-root members of their organisations.
FACT is a method of support for farm leaders to build on the opinions of their farming
membership. FACT helps with a number of questions: How to construct focused advocacy
issues from the multitude of opinions that come up in meetings in villages scattered all over
the country? How to come to sound proposals? How to manoeuvre strategically among a
multitude of interest groups?
Obviously, negotiation partners will take a proposal more seriously if it has demonstrably
been generated out of a survey of the members interests and needs, and has subsequently
been developed into a coherent framework with the support of experts. This is the purpose
of FACT. The organisations policy proposals and economic plans are generated by member
consultations which are subsequently developed systematically. In this way, they are
translated into transparent views and concrete policies. This can be done with the help of
the best experts in the country. The resulting proposals are then so good that the other
negotiating parties cannot ignore them. In this way, farmers obtain a REAL say in economic
and rural policy measures in their country. If farm leaders want their organisation to be in a
position where no negotiation partner can ignore them, they will use FACT.
FACT was piloted in workshops which included the participation of more than two hundred
farm leaders and senior staff of 45 farmer organisations in 26 countries. Arecurrent request
was to have a FACT manual and training materials. Agriterra has generated this material
and tested it several times in different contexts, adjusting it to farm leaders comments and
suggestions.
Agriterra is now pleased to present a set of documents for farm leaders, the staff of farmers
organisations and trainers, in order to improve the skills needed to be more influential at the
negotiation table, be it with government, other social organisations, business groups, banks,
foreign investors or donor agencies. These documents refer to the consultation of farmers
and collection of information to build strong arguments. These cases are then systematically
developed, working with experts, generating a strategy for lobby and negotiation. By using
FACT, farm leaders will be in the best position to upload the real problems and concerns
of farmers, at the same time as proposing efficient solutions for downloading corrective
measures for problems that affect farmers. Farmer participation in policy development will
become genuine and effective, and that is a FACT.
Kees Blokland
Managing director
Agriterra
About Agriterra
Agriterra, founded in 1997, is a Dutch agri-agency, which is an organisation for international
cooperation on agricultural and rural development with structural bounds to the Dutch rural
membership-base organisations like LTO North, ZLTO, LLTB (united in LTO Netherlands), the
Dutch Rural Womens Organisations (SSVO), the National Cooperative Council for agriculture
and horticulture (NCR) and theDutch Rural Youth Organisation (NAJK).
The agricultural sector is the engine that drives the economy. Entrepreneurial farmers and
growers foster development and play a crucial role to fight problems of hunger and poverty.
If they do not manage to organise themselves, they will remain powerless on a political level
and will be economically disadvantaged. Agriterra seeks to ensure that farmers organisations
and cooperatives in developing countries are strong enough to help their members to
establish a strategic position in the market and to represent their interests.
This does not only mean providing financial support but, above all, facilitating the transfer
of knowledge. Assistance and advice are provided in the field by agripoolers - Dutch farmers
and agricultural specialists who share their knowledge and experience. By strengthening
farmers organisations, Agriterra wants to enable them to teach farmers how to run
their farms better and stimulate their entrepreneurship by improving product processing
and marketing. Strong, healthy farmers organisations and cooperatives improve the
entrepreneurship of their members. They establish relationships with governments and
other national and international players in order to achieve demonstrable benefits for their
members. They improve the income position and future prospects of their members. This is
why Agriterra supports them in realising their growth ambitions.
Agriterra contributes to those organisations which particularly aspire to look after the interests
of their members (representative membership-based organisations), in order to be able to
play a real influential role, for example towards governments. Farmers are still not always
considered as an obvious dialogue partner by governments or by international and bilateral
donors and institutions. Working with farmers organisations, Agriterra aims to ensure that
those institutions cannot overlook the more than 250 million organised farmers.
You can find more information about Agriterra on its website: www.agriterra.org, and
information about theinternational alliance of agri-agencies Agricord, onwww.agricord.org.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his profound gratitude to his wife Ana Maria and to his
daughters Micaela and Martina for their keen support for his participation in the FACT
project, which has demanded his absence at difficult times.
The author acknowledges and wishes to thank Nellie van der Pasch - Agriterras Advocacy
Team manager, for the firm determination and key decisions taken to make FACT a reality
as well as for the constant advice and close support in the many different spheres related to
developing FACT.
The author wishes to acknowledge that the FACT approach was generated following the
PIPGA methodology developed by Kees Blokland and from the initial conceptualization of
FACT (as a Participatory Generation of Policy Proposals) by Jur Schuurman.
Thanks to Bertken de Leede, Bertine Sian, Marielle Schreurs, Niek Thijssen and Ninoska
Gonzalez, for their support in organising the FACT workshops in four continents, and for their
valuable feedback. And thanks to colleagues from Trias-Uganda, Trias-Tanzania and SCCNairobi, for their interest and support for the initiative of piloting FACT in Eastern Africa.
The authors gratitude also goes to Jur Schuurman, Kees Blokland and Marielle Schreurs for
their valuable comments, reviews and suggestions. Also to Jose van Gelder from Agriterra for
organising the production of the documents.
Acknowledgments and appreciation from the author are also extended to Bader Mahaman
Dioula and Yolanda Rodriguez for their valuable observations and suggestions on the
manuscript and the translation work into French and Spanish. To Neil Sorensen for his
assistance in editing the first manuscript and for the design of Powerpoint presentations.
ToGabriela Quiroga for her assistance in the final writing and rewriting of the FACT
workshop documents.
The author wishes to thank Tom Wambeke, Nat Clegg and Martin Gasser from the
International Training Centre of the International Labour Office (ITC-ILO) for their
methodological advice and inputs for the FACT Reader, the FACT workshop methodological
design and the FACT evaluation strategy.
It has been an honour for the author to be in the middle of this Agriterra process.
Special acknowledgments to partner farmer organisations

The author would specially like to express his gratitude to the leaders and staff of the
farmers organisations (listed below) who participated in the FACT workshops during the
last three years: thanks for enthusiastically welcoming the initiative of designing and piloting
FACT and for vitally valuable inputs, demands and contributions!
A.E.N NGaina Association des Eleveurs du Niger NGaina
Niger
AFA
Asian Farmers Association for sustainable rural
development
Asia
AMADANE
Fdration Rgionale des Eleveurs Pasteurs Amadane
Mali
ANAPA

Asociacin Nacional de Avicultores y Productores

de Alimentos
Nicaragua
ANOPER

Association Nationale des Organisations Professionnelles

des Eleveurs de Ruminants du Bnin
Bnin
APROSOR
Asociacin de Productores de Sorgo
Nicaragua
AREN
Association pour la Redynamisation de lElevage au Niger Niger
ASE
Antenne nationale du Sngal du RBM
Sngal
CAPAD

Confdration des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles

pour le Dveloppement
Burundi
CIFA
Consortium of Farmers Associations of India
India
CIOEC

Coordinadora de Integracin de Organizaciones

Econmicas Campesinas Indgenas Originarias de Bolivia
Bolivia
CMC
Coordinadora de Mujeres Campesinas
Costa Rica
CNAC

Confdration Nationale des Associations des

Caficulteurs du Burundi
Burundi
CONAPAC

Confderation Nationale des Producteurs

Agricole du Congo
Congo
CONFRAS

Confederacin de Federaciones de la Reforma Agraria

Salvadorea
El Salvador
CRUS
Comit Rgional des Units de Production du Sahel
West Africa
CTCF
Central Tea Cooperative Federation
Nepal
CUC
Comit de Unidad Campesina
Guatemala
EAFF
East African Farmers Federation
East Africa
FEMUCOPRAM Federacin Agropecuaria de Cooperativas de Mujeres

Productoras del Campo
10
Nicaragua
FOPAC/SK

Fdration des Organisations des Producteurs

Agricoles du Congo, Sud Kivu
Congo
FOPAK/NK

Federation des Organisations des Producteurs

Agricoles du Congo, Nord-Kivu
Congo
GNAP

Groupement National des Associations des

Coopratives Agro-silvo-pastorales
Mauritanie
IMBARAGA
Syndicat des Agri-leveurs du Rwanda
Rwanda
INGABO
Syndicat Rwandais des leveurs et agriculteurs
Rwanda
JNC
Junta Nacional del Caf
Peru
KENFAP
Kenyan National Federation of Agricultural Producers
Kenya
KKM
Kendrio Krishok Moitree (Central Farmers Organization) Bangladesh
LOFEPACO

Ligue des Organisations des Femmes Paysannes

du Congo
Congo
MIETTE ALLAH
Nigeria
MVIWATA

Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania

(network of farmers groups in Tanzania):
M. Manyara, M. Iringa, M. Mbeya and M. Monduli
Tanzania
NEFSCUN

Nepal Federation of Savings & Credit

Cooperative Unions
Nepal
NFFM
National Farmers Federation of Moldova
Moldova
NLRF
National Land Rights Forum
Nepal
RBM

Rseau Billital Maroob (Rseau des Organisations

dEleveurs Pasteurs du Sahel)
West Africa
RECOPA
Rseau de Communication sur le Pastoralisme
Burkina Faso
SYDIP
Syndicat pour la Dfense des Intrts Paysans
Congo
TASSAGHT
Mali
TCU
Uganda
Teso Cooperative Union
TEOSA Tanzania Tanzania Eatable Oil Seeds Association
Tanzania
TFC
Tanazania Federation of Cooperatives
Tanzania
TUSOCO
Red de Turismo Solidario Comunitario
Bolivia
UCA
Uganda Cooperative Alliance
Uganda
UCCCU
Uganda Crane Creameries Cooperative Union
Uganda
UNAG

Union Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos.

Including: UNAG Managua; UNAG Chontales and
Centro de Negocios Chinandega
Nicaragua
UNFFE
Uganda National Farmers Federation
Uganda
11
12
Abbreviations
CIOEC
Bolivia: Coordinadora de Integracin de Organizaciones Econmicas,

Campesinas, Indgenas y Originarias de Bolivia (Bolivian National Union
of OECAS smallholders economic organisations)
FACT
Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool
LLTB
Limburg Agricultural and Horticultural Federation
LTO Noord North Netherlands Agricultural and Horticultural Organisation

NAJK
Dutch Agricultural Youth Organisation
NCR
National Cooperative Council for Agriculture and Horticulture
NEFSCUN Nepal Federation of Savings and Credit Cooperative Unions Ltd.

PIPGA
Programa de Investigacin Participativa Generadora de Alternativas de

Desarrollo (Participatory research processes for generating development
alternatives)
SACCOS
Savings and Credit Co-operatives
SSVO
Dutch Foundation of Cooperating Womens Organisations
ToT
Training of trainers
UCA
Uganda Cooperative Alliance
UNAG
Unin Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Nicaragua

(Nicaraguan national union of farmers and ranchers)
UNFFE
Uganda National Farmers Federation
VECO
VredesEilanden Country Offices
ZLTO
South Netherlands Agricultural and Horticultural Organisation
13
14
Introduction
15
16
Introduction
Why this reader?
This reader describes and explains the FACT (Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool) method
developed by Agriterra. The aim is to provide methodological insights for facilitators
involved in piloting the method among national level farmers organisations (and/or trainers,
promoters and coordinators of FACT piloting work and training).
The method can be used by farmers organisations to prepare proposals and position
statements. It makes use of information provided by farmers, and is based on their needs
andaspirations. This information is integrated with advice from experts and can be applied
inthe preparation of a proposal, strategy plans, business plans, and research agendas.
History of FACT
Agriterras FACT method is rooted in the Programa de Investigacin Participativa
Generadora de Alternativas de Desarrollo (PIPGA) methodology used by farmers
organisations in Latin America. ThePIPGA approach was initiated by the Nicaraguan
NationalUnion of Farmers (UNAG) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. PIPGA is the acronym
for the Spanish Procesos de investigacin participativa para la generacin de alternativas de
desarrollo, which translates as Participatory research processes for generating development
alternatives.
From the late 1990s, Agriterra and its predecessor, the Paulo Freire Foundation, promoted
the PIPGA methodology as a conceptual framework for formulating policy positions and
proposals, primarily in Latin America and among international farmers organisations.1
The current approach is the result of Agriterras many years of collaborative learning about
the practices of farmers organisations worldwide. In 2009, Agriterra decided to develop the
PIPGA approach as a method for farmers organisations touse inpreparing proposals and
position papers. In 2010 the method was further defined and piloted through a programme
involving farmers organisations in
Central America, EastAfrica and India.
Their exchange of experiences and their
suggestions for improvements have been
incorporated into the method and into
the preparation ofthis manual.
For further information (available through www.agro-info.net):

- Blokland, K. (1996) La lucha econmica del campesinado. Cuaderno Intercambios. Paulo Freire Foundation (PFS). Arnhem, 1996.
- Biekart, K. (2000) Participatory Policy-Generating Research (PIPGA): A joint programme of Latin American farmers organisations and Agriterra (1996-99).
Evaluation Report for DGIS. Arnhem, Agriterra.
1
17
Farmers organisations and representation: proposals and position statements

A basic function of a farmers organisation is to represent its members in relation to relevant
actors, particularly decision makers. Typically a farmers organisation represents its members
when decisions about policy or support for projects and programmes are made, or in
relation to decision making by donors or financial institutions about business plans and loan
applications.
One of the basic tasks of a farmers organisation is to prepare proposals and position
statements that present members concerns and needs and propose actions on their behalf.
In fact farmers organisations cannot properly represent their membership without doing
this. In this context a proposal is a message from one person or party to another in which
the proposer asks the other party to do something, normally to make a decision. When
proposing something to decision makers a farmers organisation is essentially up-loading
information and asking for solutions. Such uploading is meaningful only if it generates a
solution that can be downloaded to theconstituency of the farmers organisation.
To simply upload problems without proposing or downloading solutions amounts to
little more than the making of a statement or declaration of principles. While a declaration
of principles may be needed from time to time to call attention to certain issues, the primary
task of a farmers organisation is to generate proposals and position papers that reflect the
concerns of members and to facilitate the making of decisions in response to these. For a
proposal to succeed, a farmers organisation must be able to demonstrate that the proposal is
based on facts and genuine needs, that the proposed solution istechnically sound and that it
reflects the opinion of it members at grassroots level.
The FACT approach
The FACT approach is a way of generating proposals and position statements based on
consultations with the members of a farmers organisation, together with the advice of
experts. It is based on the aforementioned earlier approach known as PIPGA.
FACT is essentially a way for farmers organisations and their constituencies to relate to each
other. Itensures that any proposal and position statement that the organisation prepares
take root in the reality and needs of members. The combination of the representation of
members of farmers organisation by their leaders with members information and concerns,
and experts advice can generate proposals that are accountable, well informed, tackle
relevant issues and are technically well prepared. While the success of any proposal is never
guaranteed, the FACT approach certainly increases the possibility of success.
18
Members information is obtained through a systematic consultation process that enables

the farmers organisation not only to know what the relevant issues and information are,
but also to show that it knows. Thismeans that any position paper or proposal based on
the FACT method remains accountable to those that it represents and is credible for decision
makers. If members feel that their organisation is genuinely concerned about consulting
them, their feeling of ownership of the position papers and proposals is enhanced.
The approach is based on four pillars: (1) consultations; (2)participatory research
(data gathering and analysis with advice of experts); (3) preparation of proposals;
and(4)presentation of proposals.
Use of the FACT approach
The FACT approach can be used by any farmers or other membership-based organisation,
but it is especially suitable and significant for layered federated national farmers
organisations. Layered organisations have the capacity to gather insights from grassroots,
pass it up to higher levels, and then todecision makers at different levels, from village to
national level, as required.
The FACT approach is also suitable for international, regional and sub-regional organisations,
to which each ofthe country-level members can provide information andproposals
generated from members consultations.
19
20
21
22

The FACT approach consists of pillars, each of which is discussed here:
Consultations to membership must be well-documented and accurately recorded.

The aim of these consultations is to get the opinions of members and gather
information about their needs, the reality they face and their aspirations concerning
a specific issue. The collected information is used to set the agenda of the
producers organisation.
Participatory research is a particular way of conducting in-depth consultations in

order to gather the information and data needed to prepare and substantiate strong
proposals.
Writing SMART proposals means gathering and synthesizing the relevant

information and arguments for the proposal or position statement. This phase
should include going back to Pillar 1 andconsulting the members about the draft
proposal or position statement.
Lobby mapping and stakeholders analysis for lobby and advocacy

may involve negotiation, lobbying or advocacy.
Participatory research is an indispensable feature of the FACT approach. In fact in Pillars 1, 2

and 3 all incorporate participatory research.
A FACT process has to include all four pillars to be methodologically correct. If you follow the
method systematically your proposal will be technically correct, which will greatly improve
your chances of success when lobbying or presenting it. The approach ensures that your
proposal:
- Tackles all relevant issues (as identified in consultations with members);
- Is based on valid information and data;
- Is accountable to members and reflects their concerns, which in turn builds
their sense of ownership and
- Responds appropriately to the target group to whom the proposal will be presented.
To put it simply, the approach shows that your organisation knows what it is talking about
because the proposal is based on relevant and demonstrable facts.
23
The following sections outline the objectives and key activities of each of the four pillars.
Chapter 3 includes some reflections about FACT and key lessons learned by farmers
organisations that have tested the approach.
The annexes to this manual provide further explanations on activities, methodologies and
tips concerning the FACT pillars. A summary of some of the main points of the four pillars is
included in Annex I.
24
Pillar 1:
Consultations to membership
25
26
FACT pillar 1
Pillar 1:
In the FACT approach the term consultation to membership describes an interaction with
the members that is not specifically designed to gather factual data, but rather to gain an
understanding of members opinions about general or specific issues, and to find out what
their needs and perceptions are.
The main objective of these consultations is to ensure that the work of the farmers
organisation (including any future proposals and position statements) is Accountable, well
Informed and tackles Relevant issues. For didactic purposes, in the FACT approach we call
this the AIR for preparing proposals and carrying out the farmers organisation work.
Accountable
AIR
Informed
Relevant
The basic operational objectives of these consultations may be one or more of the following:
- To identify new issues from membership that need to be addressed (needs, problems,
expectations, and potential opportunities).
- To gather basic information needed for defining proposals and position statements.
- To get feedback on the process of preparing proposals and position statements,
as well as feedback on the organisations work in general.
Consultations are a basic tool that a farmers organisation uses to set agendas in an
accountable manner. They enhance not only the quality of the organisations work,
but also the sense of ownership of the work.
A consultation (either a general one, or a more detailed one - as in participatory research)
takes place in two phases: defining the consultation, and executing the consultation work.
27
FACT pillar 1
(A) Defining the work

The first phase of a consultation consists of defining the work that needs to be done and
describing how to do it. The key questions to answer are:
What will be consulted and for what purpose?

> The answer to this question leads us to the definition of the consultations objectives.
Who will be (or needs to be) consulted?

> This must be defined in as much detail as possible, sothat the target group is clearly
identified
(this question also includes where - where will the consultation be conducted?).
When will it be done?

> Here, an ideal time line is given as well as a deadline. This needs to be worked out in
relation to the who question. The timeline will define how the consultation work is
carried out.
How it will be done?

> This means defining a strategy and a methodology for the consultation work: the
objectives, the target group and the ideal timing. The consultation can be done by means
of plenary discussions at village-level meetings, or through interviews with some of the
persons from the target group, or by using questionnaires, or through a combination of
these.
The tools and materials needed for the consultation process should be clearly defined.
www.how
What
Who
When
How
In answering the question of how the consultation will be done you need to describe the
specific activities that must be carried out, the resulting outputs, the deadlines for completing
the activities, and the people responsible. Itis a good idea to engage expert support for this.
For didactic purposes, the what, who, when and how questions which direct the consultation
work, will be referred to as the www.how.
28
After defining the objectives and the strategy (in terms of the mechanism and methodology)
for implementing the consultation, the organisation can start executing the actual
consultation work. Thisconsists of three phases:
Consulting members according to the selected methodology
> This initial step is the actual work of consultation, whatever methodology is used.
Registering the results
> This step is done either at the same time as the consultation or just after it. It is the
systematic registration (or recording) of the information obtained inthe consultation: what
the consulted members said, and names of those who responded (could be individuals
and/or groups, depending onmethodology used).
Keeping records is a basic necessity for a good proposal. Detailed and accurate information
that can be verified shows how many people were consulted, where the consultations took
place and what the respondents said. This demonstrates the relevance and validity of the
information and is crucial for accountability and negotiation purposes.
29
FACT pillar 1
(B) Consultation work
FACT pillar 1
(C) Ordering and Processing the results

This step is carried out once the consultation is complete and everything has been recorded.
First, theinformation is ordered according to needs, for example, by region, level of
organisation, or issue. Theway the farmers organisation orders the information depends on
how it will be processed. Consulting an expert on how to order the information is advisable.
How to do this should be defined in the methodology described in (A). However unexpected
relevant types of information might appear, in which case a new decision about how to order
the information will be needed.
Once the information coming from the consultation work has been ordered, the organisation
is ready toprocess it. This activity consists of drawing conclusions from the set of information
obtained.
This information will not normally be very specific or technical, but should be sufficient to
identify issues and problems. It is unlikely to require sophisticated analysis. Nonetheless it is
best to have the support of aprofessional so as to be sure that the work is properly done and
the conclusions are valid.
The processing of the information ends with the conclusions and an explanation about how
these conclusions were obtained.
For didactic purposes, we refer to the three phases of carrying out a consultation the consulting, registering, ordering and processing of the information - as the CROP.
CROP
30
Consult members
Register results
Order information
Process information
FACT pillar 1
Consultations leading to the identification of problems, causes and solutions
Most of the time consultation work is done through meetings in which people express their
opinion on issues. Typically, people tend to confuse problems with their causes, which makes
it difficult to find solutions. It is common to find organisations wasting time and energy
trying to address the problems directly, rather than identifying and tackling the underlying
causes. Itis crucial to clearly define the causes so that the problem can be addressed properly.
Problems normally have a hierarchy (problem tree2) and are rooted in specific causes.
Feasible solutions can be identified and formulated only byordering theissues and their
relevant causes.
Those facilitating consultative meetings need to understand that there is a hierarchy of
problems and an underlying cause in which each problem is rooted. Theyalso need to
understand that the solutions to a problem may be diverse and that some of the solutions
proposed will not be feasible or achievable.
When trying to identify issues through consultations, the focus should be on differentiating
problems, needs, and causes that are observable by farmers. Experts may be able to provide
some insights about the complex relationships between causes and problems, and how to
arrive at solutions.
Only correct systematisation of all aspects in the process should lead to the identification of
commonly felt problems and needs, and the identification of at least some of the causes.
Quite often a simple consultation with members about their needs, aspirations and problems
will itself produce solutions or potential solutions to the problems. However, if the problems
are complex and deeply embedded they will require a more systematic analysis of in-depth
information plus expert advice. In such cases, the consultations needed should be, in fact, like
a Participatory Research (Pillar 2).
Annex 2 provides a more detailed explanation of steps to follow for conducting
consultations as well as tips and a basic checklist. Annex 3 provides some methodological
insights for the consultation work.
2
See references for further reading at the end of this section.
31
FACT pillar 1
Key challenges to the conducting of general consultations

Farmers organisations encounter many challenges when trying to implement the
consultation process. Generally farmers organisations claim that there is insufficient time,
resources and capacity to undertake the consultations. Table1 gives examples of how
farmers organisations perceive possible ways to overcome these challenges:
Table 1: Overcoming the main challenges in implementing consultations
General
Consultations
32
Main characteristics
Most difficult
challenges
Ways to overcome
them
Identifying problems
and hot issues
Getting feedback
Gathering basic and
general information
Insufficient time due to

ad-hoc planning
Be SMART in planning
Integrate general
consultation (FACT) with
the normal activities of
the organisation
Insufficient funds
Plan for funding for

implementation of FACT
Adjust previously
budgeted activities to fit
the FACT process
Inadequate/insufficient
and/or less capacitated
human resources
Capacity building among

responsible staff
Hiring consultants
FACT pillar 1
Case:
A consultation for identifying issues needed
to be tackled by a national level organisation.
In 2010, the Uganda Cooperative Alliance -UCA, decided to start a process of consulting
its grassroots members for identifying and prioritizing membership needs and aspirations.
Theidea of doing this consultation was decided as UCAs conclusions during a FACT
preparatory workshop in Arusha, Tanzania. The chairman of the board and the executive
secretary, both present in that workshop, pointed out that UCA was losing strength because
of a members feeling of their concerns not being enough incorporated in the organisations
work. They realised that they were not consulting grassroots members about what they
would like their organisation to do for them. In stead the higher levels of the organisation
were the ones informing down what they were doing and why it was relevant for members.
During the FACT workshop they realised that for their own members, the organisation was
losing AIR (working on issues Adequate, well Informed and Relevant for its members).
UCA, like any national level organisation, needs information from the local level member
organisations for correctly representing its members aspirations and concerns. Limiting
consultations to the higher level representatives, like for example districts representatives,
does not suffice. It is better to decentralise, do capacity building of lower level organisation
to ensure a participatory logic of work, uploading issues from the grass roots to the central
level of the organisation.
33
FACT pillar 1
In a first stage, UCA carried out a series of 7 regional workshops targeting 138 local farmer
leaders in collaboration with other organisations (UNFFE and VECO). By doing this, UCA
started a process of identifying and prioritising farmers issues using the FACT approach
for conducting a consultation. The consultation was clearly focused and planned
(www.how) as well as conducted, registered and processed systematically (CROP):
Activities done were planed according to the www.how criteria (what, why, when and how
to carry out the consultation) and the consultation work was done according to the CROP
criteria (Consulting work, Registering results, Ordering results and Processing the results for
obtaining conclusions).
UCA was able to identify new issues to include in its work and to recover the enthusiasm of
the local level organisations that were consulted in the process. The consultation identified
two main issues for UCA to work on:
- Need for improving agricultural financing mechanisms within the farming community.
- Urgent need for the government of Uganda to review its technical and strategic support
systems to the cooperative sector.
Using the FACT concept UCA hired 2 consultants to carry out a detailed review of the
2issues. Reports were produced and the results shared with the cooperatives. During the
discussion of the results, the recommendations of the consultants were further validated and
agreed upon.
UCA management is trying to follow up on the recommendations that were made by the
participants with both government and private sector practitioners. At this point in time it so
difficult to quantify the results as a lot of advocacy is still taking place. However, in the area
of agricultural financing, the insurance companies are slowly beginning to confirm some risks
being faced by the farming community. Newagricultural insurance products tailored to the
small and rural farmer are currently being developed and tested in the country.
Activities done by UCA in the consultation work:
1. Identify target groups
2. Consultation meetings (workshops)
3. Prioritise the issues
4. Produce record of proceedings
5. Exchange feed back
6. Report and feedback workshop
Learning note
The questions posted to participants in the consultation
workshops were simple and direct:
a. Defining the Mandate: Who are we?
b. Defining the Mission: Where do we want to go?
c. Defining the Issues: What do we want to change?
34
FACT pillar 1
Summary of FACT Pillar 1:

Keywords (key ideas) for

CONSULTATIONS TO MEMBERSHIP IN FACT
AIR
www.how
CROP
Accountable
What
Consult members
Informed
Who
Register results
Relevant
When
Order information
How
Process information
35
36
Pillar 2:
Participatory Research
37
38
FACT pillar 2
Pillar 2:
Participatory research presents people
as researchers in pursuit of answers to
questions encountered in daily life.
Ajit Krishnaswamy3
While all four FACT pillars are essential, the second pillar is at the centre of the FACT
approach. Participatory research serves two purposes: it is a special type of consultation and
simultaneously it leads to the preparation of the first drafts of the proposal. In this sense Pillar
2 overlaps with both Pillar 1 (consultations) and Pillar 3 (proposal preparations).
The FACT participatory research process consists of deep data gathering among the members
of the farmers organisation and consultation with expert advisors in order to formulate
accurate proposals and positions. Expert advice is sought on whatever subject is being
analysed, whether it is marketing, road planning, a health issue, or a production limitation.
The experts may be professional consultants, lawyers, specialists from universities or research
centres; or they can be staff members of the farmers organisation provided that they have
the necessary expertise.
The participatory research process brings together the farmers knowledge about their own
problems and the knowledge of experts. This makes for a well rounded, representative,
andefficient proposal preparation process.
Adding to the advantages that a general consultation brings, namely, accountability, good
quality information and a focus on relevant issues (AIR), the participatory research enables
the farmers organisation to know in detail what relevant issues must be included in the
proposal, and at the same time demonstrate to the farmers that it has in fact fully understood
their input, andto negotiation partners that their proposal is well-founded.
In: Krishnaswamy, A. 2004. Participatory Research: Strategies and Tools. Practitioner: Newsletter of the National Network of Forest Practitioners 22:
17-22. On line in: http://cnr.berkeley.edu/community_forestry/Workshops/powerpoints/tools%20and%20strategies%20of%20PR.pdf
39
FACT pillar 2
For didactic purposes, we call this KSK: to Know and to Show that you Know. This makes
a proposal accountable towards farmers and credible for the decision makers to whom the
proposal will be presented.
KSK
to Know
and to Show
that you Know
The main objective of this phase of consultations is to derive arguments based on

adequate, detailed and validated information, which will be the basis for formulating
a winning proposal. This information will be both correct and relevant because
members knowledge of their own reality and expert professional knowledge have been
brought together.
What participatory research achieves is the forging of a link between farmers knowledge
and experts knowledge for the purpose of preparing sustainable proposals and finding
appropriate solutions for problems:
- The organisation uses membership for gathering data and information that reflects
their reality.
- This data is combined with experts knowledge and information and analysed using
the required scientific, legal or professional input.
The participatory research method makes it possible to arrive at and propose a solution to
problems and issues based on a response to the reality that the farmers organisation knows,
and can show that it knows.
Participatory research conducted by an organisation to gather data for preparing a proposal
will normally be made up of the following steps:
40
Step 1: Defining the methodology

The strategy for conducting the participatory research is done in consultation with experts
and leaders of the Farmers Organisation. Ideally, the issue will already have been identified
during the initial general consultation described in Pillar 1.
(a) The farmers organisation links up with experts (advisors, researchers) and with farmers
to define the main purpose of conducting the participatory research.
(b) Experts give advice on what kind of information needs to be gathered and the
methodology to be used (such as questionnaires, meetings and focus group discussions).
Different issues call for different types of information and different levels of detail in the
information for preparing the proposal. It is recommended to engage an expert who can help
you defining what kind of data is needed and how to gather it.
Note on consulting experts
Organisations tend to see consultants as the experts on almost any topic. However an expert is simply
a person who has expertise in a particular subject, and has the ability to access diverse information
and to gather data through the consultation process. Professionals working in universities or research
centres are often well equipped to fulfil this role. Since they need to conduct research, there are potential
synergies between them and farmers organisations. Students at the end of their university studies usually
need to conduct research as final project or thesis, and for them (and their supervisors), a link with an
organisation with interesting and meaningful data is an opportunity.
Step 2: Data gathering from membership

The organisation implements the plan to gather data from the membership as defined with
the advice of experts. Allmethodological steps are followed carefully and the data is ordered
and processed according to advice. Staff (or consultants or leaders) who are gathering data
pay special attention to any new issues arising out of the research process.
One can make use of

any means to collect data
41
FACT pillar 2
The six typical steps of a Participatory Research:
FACT pillar 2
Step 3: Data analysis and desk study

Experts and staff analyse the data that has been gathered in the light of already existing
data, for example data put together in a desk study. Comparing the findings with existing
information helps to assess the validity of the conclusions and to decide if more information
isneeded, or a new analysis.
Central American example
In the early 1990s, a national farmers organisation in Central America, after a consultation
process and participatory research, concluded that they needed to prepare a proposal
to lobby for improved marketing conditions. At that time the market price of a certain
agricultural commodity was too low to generate a profit or even to cover farmers costs.
Experts conducted an exhaustive desk study on market information and statistics, which
showed that the prices paid to farmers were not the main issue, but that profits were being
lost because farmers were paying too much for farm inputs and transport. As a result the
organisation was able to tackle the problem from a more realistic perspective.
Step 4: Initial definition of what to propose

This is the stage at which a first draft of the proposal is prepared. From here on we are
already working in FACT Pillar 3 (preparing the proposal).
Let us recall the participatory research process up to this step. First, an issue which needs to
be addressed is identified. The organisation then contacts experts to get advice about what
information to gather and how to do so, in order to define and substantiate a proposal to
tackle the issue. Second, following the advice of experts, the organisation gathers data from
its members. Third, with the advice of experts and in consultation with the organisations
leaders, the organisations staff analyse the gathered data, and at the same time analyse
relevant statistics, studies and other sources through a desk study. Then, a deep analysis of
the problem is conducted, assessing the evidence on hand, the context, and information
from other sources. Theorganisation staff and leaders with advice of experts, then define the
possible solutions and steps to follow, or what to propose.
The nature of the proposal - its characteristics, such as level of detail and complexity - will
vary according to the nature of the issue, the possible solutions and the depth of the analysis
and proposal.
Normally, the analysis of the gathered information generates clear signals about what can
and should be proposed. Thefactors to consider are normally:
(a) the initial problem or issue that the organisation needs to tackle
(b) the apparent reasons why the issue or problem exists
(c) potential solutions, and finally
(d) what the decision makers addressed by the proposal can do.
The key point is not to gobeyond what the information can justify.
42
FACT pillar 2
Situations where a survey is needed

The need for a survey normally derives from the fact that only
hard data (figures) will convince the government officers and
surveys are the correct tools for gathering this kind of data.
Looking at the example of case 2 (Afarmers organisation in
India conducts an annual survey of their production costs), the
purpose of the survey there is to compare their survey results
with those of a study conducted by the government which
determines the potential price that a farmer can get for a
product. The government survey is conducted using a defined
questionnaire and the producers have to make sure that their
survey is at least as accurate as the governments in order
to generate a sufficiently accountable and convincing set of
information and analysis. The organisation has been doing this
efficiently for some years.
Another type of situation calling for a survey is one where an
important issue needs to be tackled (for example, access to
microfinance for women) and hard data is needed in order to
persuade the authorities to include the issue in policy debates
and future decision making. In this case, the survey needs to
gather enough of the right sort of information to make the
case. For example, a proposal to create a fund for delivering
microfinance services to rural women in a certain geographic
area, would need detailed information about number of women
to be served, the level of financial need, the way funds will be
used, proposed terms of repayment, and estimates of costs and
risks.
43
FACT pillar 2
Step 5: Feedback from constituency

Calling for feedback on the first draft of the proposal gives members a chance to discuss
the proposal in the light of theresearch and the advice of experts. Whether to conduct a
feedback process and at what stage depends on the time and resources available and the
type of proposal.
Feedback from members means that the proposal will be more accountable to members and
provide more credibility for the decision makers it is addressing. It ensures that what is being
proposed reflects members realities and wishes. In a case where the constituency has good
reasons to ask for modifications, the farmers organisation will benefit from the feedback
exercise.
The feedback exercise should be conducted with as many members as possible - ideally the
same range of members consulted for the data gathering. However, if time and funds do not
allow this, feedback from a smaller number of selected members, or leaders, or focus groups
will also improve the proposal. If the initial data gathering was done at one of the regular
meetings of the organisation, it is recommended that the feedback exercise is also conducted
at one of the regular meetings.
Whatever the difficulties are in relation to time and resources, the farmers organisation
should never simply go ahead with a proposal prepared by staff and experts without knowing
the opinion of the members. The organisation should always try to get as much feedback as
possible, asthis will be a cornerstone for ensuring the adequacy and accountability of the
proposal. This should be done even if there is only enough time to ask the national leaders
ofthe organisation for feedback.
Once the feedback has been done, the people formulating the proposal and the
organisations leaders will have to decide if the proposal needs further modification or
improvement. If the answer is yes, a new cycle of data gathering and desk studies should
be conducted. Normally, this second round will be focused only on the information that is
lacking, so it should be a focused and fast exercise.
44
Step 6 (final definition of what to propose) will not need much work if the feedback
process of step 5 (feedback from members) shows that what was defined in step 4
(firstdefinition of what to propose) is fine according thoseinvolved in the feedback
activity.
Given that the outcomes of the feedback might call for further information and data, the
process of participatory research (in FACT) can be cyclical and iterative, as the following
diagram shows.
2. Data
gathering
and consulting
members
3. Desk study by experts,
to add and contrast to
gathered data
1. Defining the methodology

for the participatory research
4. 1st Definition of
what to propose
in the proposal
6. Definition of what
to propose (plus gather
new data if necessary)
5. Feedback
from members
(when possible)
on suitability of
defined solution
45
FACT pillar 2
Step 6: Defining the proposal (draft)

The participatory research ends with a definition of what will be proposed, which is close to
a draft proposal. This is actually the first step of the next FACT pillar, which focuses fully on
preparing the proposal.
FACT pillar 2
Key challenges to face when doing participatory research

Farmers organisations are likely to encounter several difficulties when implementing the
participatory research that FACT proposes. Their main challenges will be resource constraints
and the misrepresentation of members in the consultation process. The following suggestions
on how to overcome these challenges were provided by farmers organisations themselves:
Table 2: Overcoming challenges to conducting participatory research
Participatory
Research
Most difficult
challenges
Ways to overcome
them
Integrating information
from members and
expert advice into
meaningful conclusions
about reality.
Resource constraints
(time, human resources,
finances).
Proper planning and

resource mobilization.
Misrepresentation of
the members and other
stakeholders.
Proper mapping of
the stakeholders and
astakeholders analysis.
Providing/getting
feedback to and from
the members and other
stakeholders.
46
Engage qualified,
experienced and
committed experts.
The government evaluates the costs of production of agriculture products (red-grams in this
case) and based on this evaluation an official baseline price is decided. For years, farmers
were confronted with the fact that the baseline price was too low compared with their actual
production costs.
The farmers organisation contacted researchers of a well known university. These experts
analysed the case, studying the official governmental system for evaluating the crops
production costs, contrasting this with farmers reality and existing studies. After a careful
analysis, a definition of an alternative method for evaluating the production costs was done.
The farmers organisation carried out the data gathering by consulting its members. A survey
format was produced in the different languages needed. Basically, the questionnaire was
used during the organisations meetings. Those with difficulties in reading and writing were
assisted by other members to fill up the questionnaires. Interviews with farmers in the field
-with detailed analysis of their production records were also done.
At the end of the day, the organisation ended with a proposal that was twofold: (a) they
proposed a baseline price different (higher) from the one proposed by the government,
and (b) they proposed to adapt the government system, using the parameters and criteria
designed by the researchers and based on the findings that were possible only by gathering
data directly from thereality of thousands of farmers. They were successful in both aspects.
47
FACT pillar 2
Case:
Indian farmers negotiating the baseline price
of red-grams with the government.
FACT pillar 2
Learning note
- Researchers from universities and research centres are experts that normally
will be interested in carrying out studies (to do research is their job) and they
can provide valuable advice in data collecting methodology, advising what data is
needed to gather for building a proposals on a particular issue and also about the
best methodology for the data gathering.
- Every meeting of an organisation is an opportunity of consulting members for data
gathering. You need to visualize this and to use this opportunity systematically,
planning (www.how) and conducting the data gathering (CROP).
48
FACT pillar 2
Summary FACT Pillar 2:

Keywords (key ideas) for CONSULTATIONS IN FACT
AIR
www.how
CROP
KSK
Accountable
What
Consult members
to Know
Informed
Who
Register results
and to Show
Relevant
When
Order information
that you Know
How
Process information
49
50
Pillar 3:
Writing SMART proposals
51
52
Within the FACT approach, the third Pillar writing SMART proposals is the final process
of formulating a proposal based on the consultations and participatory research that have
gone before. The proposal must clearly show that the farmers organisation knows what it
is talking about, so that it shows that it knows. Thepreparation of the proposal will have
already started with the participatory research. This third pillar ensures that the final proposal
or position statement focuses on key strategic aspects, aiming to facilitate the presentation
and negotiation process with decision makers. Pillar 3 thus starts with the draft proposal
prepared in Pillar 2.
The primary focus of the FACT method is on how to integrate the four FACT pillars into well
informed and accountable proposals and position statements. The FACT methodology does
not provide detailed information about how exactly to formulate a proposal. What it does
is to provide basic guidelines concerning the content and strategy of a proposal, needed in
order to get a clear response or reaction from decision makers.
A proposal using FACT criteria will have these characteristics:
- The proposal or position document should clearly show that it is based on real facts and
expert advice. It should provide information on the consultation and research work (size,
methodology, etc), and the experts involved.
- The proposal should clearly and explicitly address heartfelt needs that call for a clear
response. Both the vision and knowledge of the relevant community and of experts should
be represented, so that there are solid arguments for uploading problems and feasible,
concrete and efficient ways of downloading good solutions.
- Ideally, a good proposal should include a cost-benefit analysis, both from the point of view
of the farmers and of the country, showing the loss or gain if the proposed solutions are
implemented. Thisanalysis should provide strong arguments for the negotiation.
53
FACT pillar 3
Pillar 3:
Writing SMART proposals
FACT pillar 3
To make it difficult for decision makers to bypass the proposal with evasive responses, the
FACT approach uses SMART criteria (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time
bound). These criteria are often used in project preparation, but have been adapted here for
FACT purposes.
Specific
Something specific that the organisation wants to see to happen.

(what, where, how)
Measurable
Something that can be measured, whether it has happened or not.

(what, when, how much)
Achievable
Something that is feasible in terms of the organisations ability to make it to

happen and make it explicit. (what, when, how much)
Realistic
Something that is realistic (possible within the particular circumstances).

(how, when, who and with what)
Time bound
A time-frame for the proposed actions to happen

(what + when)
The objective of SMART logic for preparing proposals is to force decision makers to give
a clear response rather than an evasive reply. Even in the face of an evasive response, the
use of SMART logic keeps discussion open. First, it enables you to clearly define what the
proposal/position statement is about and what is being asked. Second, it allows you to
situate the proposal in time and to make it clear that what is being proposed is feasible.
SMART logic in FACT can be further described as follows:
> Specific means that you phrase your proposal in such a way that decision makers are not
able to give vague or non-specific responses. For example, if a farmers organisation simply
asks for improvement of the roads in their region, decision makers can easily point out
that road work has already been done in the region. However, if your request for road repairs
is focused on a particular section of road, listing the bridges, cuttings, places for trucks to
turn, and sections that badly need work, then thedecision makers are forced to give a yes
or no response. Another example that is too vague or open ended would be a request for
an increase in the budget allocation for extension services in a locality. Decision makers
can easily reply that they did increase the budget for extension services, but a more specific
proposal would be to ask for an increase in budget for extension services so that specific
districts or numbers of farmers can benefit. If your initial question is clearly defined and
specific and you get an evasive response it will be easy to restate your request and press for
ayes or no answer.
54
FACT pillar 3
> A Measurable proposal means just that. If you make a request for something that
is clearly measurable and the decision makers give back a service or commodity that is
incomplete or inadequate, the farmers organisation will be in a position to insist that the
terms of the agreed proposal were not met. Using the example of road improvement,
ameasurable request would be the improvement of the 25 km of road between A and B,
including three new bridges so that trucks of at least 20 tons can transport crops.
Or, applied to extension services budgets, to ask for an increase in the budget in a certain
locality, so that the number of farmers receiving the service goes up from 300 to 400.
> An Achievable proposal in FACT means that what the farmers organisation is proposing
is technically feasible. The proposal needs to demonstrate this using arguments prepared by
experts based on existing data, and case studies. If the achievability is clearly demonstrated,
the decision makers cannot dismiss the proposal on technical grounds.
> Realistic in the FACT approach means that was is being proposed is doable within the
circumstances. This means more than simply technically achievable as described above.
Realistic means, for instance, that there will be access to the necessary budget, or that the
decision makers have the necessary authority to agree towhat the farmers organisation is
proposing.
> Time-bound means that there are clear time limits in the proposal that specify when the
action must be done. This makes it difficult for the decision makers to give evasive replies
such as Yes, the budget for extension service will be increased next year. If the proposal
asks for a total increase of 100 farmers receiving the service, to be achieved in two years,
with 50 farmers per year, starting next July, then, if this deadline has passed, the farmers
organisation will be able to go back and discuss the matter.
55
FACT pillar 3
The criteria in the box below will help to ensure that your proposal is well prepared with a
good possibility ofsuccess.
Outcomes of consultations and participatory research are systematized with advice of experts
(the proposal is accountable, properly informed and tackles a relevant issue - all shown
clearly).
The results are complemented by a desk study (statistics, regulations, laws - normally
information brought by experts).
A draft proposal is checked by getting feedback from members (as thoroughly as possible,
depending on time and resources).
The position statement or proposal document is prepared in response to the input and
concerns of membership, using their data and looking for afeasible and appealing solution.
The proposal clearly uploads a problem to decision makers and proposes a good solution
tobe downloaded.
The proposal follows SMART criteria as defined in FACT.
The proposal or position statement clearly shows that the farmers organisation knows what
it is talking about. This will be evident if the consultation processes are explicitly included
andexplained.
The final proposal is checked, for feedback, with elected leaders of the organisation to make
sure that it accurately reflects the concerns and suggestions from farmers (and this is clearly
mentioned in the document).
56
FACT pillar 3
Key challenges in writing SMART proposals

A farmers organisation may encounter a number of difficulties when writing a SMART
proposal, and gaining access to the right experts is likely to be one of them. Table 3 offers
some suggestions by farmers organisations themselves on how to overcome three of the
most common challenges.
Table 3: Overcoming challenges to the preparation of good proposals
Preparation
of Proposals
Most difficult
challenges
Ways to overcome
them
SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic, Time bound)
Acquisition and analysis of

real facts > identifying the
real problem
- Proper methods
and mechanisms for
information gathering
(systematisation of
work)
- Data analysis > from
participatory research
Engaging experts > cost,

availability, skills
- Partnership and
networking > multistakeholder platforms
Setting up feedback
mechanisms > channels,
time, bias
- Planning in advance for

feedback and validation
meetings
Note (related to table 3) that the most difficult challenges mentioned by participants in
writing SMART proposals are related with the actual implementation of the first two pillars.
Hence this has consequences on the development of a SMART proposal.
57
FACT pillar 3
Summary FACT Pillar 3:

Writing SMART Proposals
Keywords and key ideas for

WRITING SMART PROPOSALS
AIR
www.how
CROP
KSK
Accountable
What
Consult members
to Know
Informed
Who
Register results
and to Show
Relevant
When
Order information
that you Know
How
Process information
Criteria:
To make sure of having
a grip on the proposal
or position
SMART
Uploading
problems
Downloading
solutions
58
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time bound
Pillar 4: Lobby mapping

and stakeholders analysis
for lobby and advocacy
59
60
A proposal should create a favourable impression on those who receive it. Even if the first
people who receive the proposal are not the final decision makers, their impressions may
well influence the willingness of the decision makers to respond favourably. If major issues
are being raised, it may be necessary to influence public opinion, and this could involve the
media, experts, political parties, and other groups in society that could advocate for the
proposal or at least express their agreement. Understanding which groups are directly or
indirectly associated with the issue is essential for increasing negotiation capacity.
The following activities should be part of the lobby mapping and stakeholders analysis
for lobby and advocacy:
> Try to identify all actors directly or indirectly involved or affected with the decision that the
position statement/proposal is asking for. It is useful to distinguish between those who are
directly involved in the decision making process (those who actually take the decision) and
those indirectly associated with the decision making process, who could well influence in
the decision makers.
> When these actors are identified (as many actors as possible), make a diagram that maps
allthe actors potentially involved, showing the links between them.
> Select the most relevant actors and do a stakeholders analysis of them, showing their
particular interest in the issue and their power in relation to the decision making process.
You can distinguish four types of actors:
- Low Power + Low Interest
- Low Power + High Interest
- High Power + Low Interest
- High Power + High Interest
> Finally decide how to approach each relevant actor, and how much effort to put
into approaching them, following basic stakeholder criteria. For example:
61
FACT pillar 4
Pillar 4:
Lobby mapping and stakeholders
analysis for lobby and advocacy
FACT pillar 4
These four groups can also be described in a diagram with four sections,
each of which should be handled differently, as follows4:
high
Keep
Satisfied
Manage
Closely
Monitor
(Minimum
Effort)
Keep
Informed
Power
low
low
Interest high
Based on: Stakeholders analysis. Winning support for your projects by Rachel Thompson http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm and
on Stakeholders Interest Matrix, on line in: www.stakeholdermap.com
62
FACT pillar 4
High power, interested people:

> People you must fully engage with, and make the greatest efforts to satisfy.
> They are Key players who deserve maximum attention.
> Analyse who else can influence them.
Hints for how to deal with Key players:
- Concentrate your efforts on these key players
- Involve them in governance/decision making bodies
- Implicate them regularly during the consultative process
High power, less interested people:
> Put enough work into approaching these people to keep them satisfied, but not so much
that they become bored with your message.
> Meet their needs.
> They have power if you make them interested, they will be with you, but somebody else
could equally well persuade them to go against your interests.
Hints for dealing with the Meet their needs group:
- Engage and consult on area of interest
- Try to increase level of interest
- Aim to move them into the upper right part of the matrix (labelled manage closely)
Low power, but interested people:
> Keep these people adequately informed, talk to them to ensure that no misunderstanding
and/or unwillingness regarding the issue turns up .
> Show consideration so that they can get power and be transformed into key players.
Hints for dealing with the Show consideration group
- Make use of their interest by involving them in low risk areas
- Keep them informed and consult them on specific issues
- Consider them as potential supporters/ goodwill ambassadors
Low power, less interested people:
> Again, monitor these people, but do not bore them with excessive communication.
> Least important but be careful if they become interested and/or powerful.
Hints for how to deal with the Least important group
- Minimum effort
- Inform via general communications - newsletters, website, mail shots
- Aim to move them into the upper right part of the matrix (generating their interest).
63
FACT pillar 4
Example of Lobby Map and classifying Stakeholders (by NEFSCUN - Nepal):

A quick mapping of actors prepared in a workshop:
And a quick stake-holders classification (by Power/Interest) for the ISSUE

of passing a Credit Union Act inNepal:
high
Politicals
parties
National Coop.
Devt. Board
Ministry
of law
Department of
Cooperative
Ministry of
Cooperative
Power
Big SACCOS
Central Bank
Central
Coop.
Federation
National Coop.
Federation
low
low
64
Interest high
A crucial moment for the success of a proposal is the meeting between farmers leaders and
decision makers. Farmers leaders should arrive at this meeting with a well prepared agenda
and strategy. If possible, they should be accompanied by an expert on the topic (the decision
makers are also likely to bring their advisors). Thefollowing table gives basic tips for a
successful lobbying meeting between farmers leaders and decision makers.
The right people

in the right place
(RPRP).
65
FACT pillar 4
While the FACT approach does not include specific techniques for the lobby actions itself,
it certainly helps the leaders of farmers organisations to prepare strong and convincing
proposals (Pillars 1 to 3) and offers two important tools for use in the lobbying or negotiation
phase (Pillar 4), namely the stakeholders analysis and lobby mapping. These tools are the
bases for strategising lobby actions: defining who needs to be to addressed and how.
FACT pillar 4
Table 4: Tips on How to Lobby Decision Makers in a Meeting

(Adapted from http://stream.greenbicycle.net/downloads/031109_Documents/tips/10_tips_on_how_to_lobby.pdf)
1. Come prepared
Everyone should know what role they are playing. Bring a set
of materials for the decision maker and extra copies for the
staff. Know how much time you have for the meeting. Know
the issues, and know who are your allies and opponents.
> A good proposal based on

consultation with members and
experts through a FACT process will
ensure that you arrive well prepared
to the meeting.
2. Identify everyone in the room

It is important for the decision maker to know exactly whom
you represent, where your organisation is based and how
many members your group has.
> A good stakeholders analysis and

lobby mapping will allow you to
better understand the relationship
between power and the interests of
those involved in the discussion.
3. State what you know

Never lie or bluff. There is no faster way to lose your
credibility than to give false or misleading information to a
decision maker. If you dont know the answer to a question,
acknowledge it and offer to get the facts and get back to the
main topic of the meeting.
> Try to bring an expert as your advisor.

Show that you know what you
are saying and that your arguments
are based on consultation and expert
advice.
4. Be specific and direct about what you want

What is the purpose of the meeting? Do you want the
decision maker to increase funding for a programme in the
budget? Sponsor a bill? Vote a certain way? Intervene in a
parliament assembly? Make sure you ask in a clear, direct
manner. Only one person should ask the key questions.
> Focus on the arguments prepared

in the FACT process, especially the
SMART criteria used in preparing the
proposal.
5. Stay focused
Decision makers are good at getting advocates to engage on
every topic except the one at hand. Forcefully, but politely,
steer the conversation back to the issue you came to lobby
on. Focus on getting the answers you want for your key
questions.
> Focus on the SMART strategy of

your proposal. Go back as often as
needed to the specifics of what
you are asking for.
6. Dont argue
No matter what, stay calm. You dont win any points for
passion by arguing with a decision maker.
> Dont argue. Rather explain the

FACT process that your organisation
followed.
> Try to express, rather than impress.
7. Maintain control of the meeting

Dont let the decision maker start facilitating the meeting.
You asked for the meeting. You are the one with the agenda.
> Focus on your points. Prepare an

agenda in advance with the advice
of experts who were involved in the
FACT process.
8. Keep briefing materials brief

Decision makers and their staff will read a well-put-together
one-page fact sheet, but will do little more than glance over
a thick packet of information.
> Prepare a summary of your

proposal, maintaining the
SMART criteria. Bring both a
summary and the full proposal. Focus
the discussion on your summary
but use the complete version for
argument.
9. Anticipate the arguments of your opponent

It is better to address your opponents arguments early in
the dialogue. Do so directly and openly, without a hint of
defensiveness.
> Prepare for the meeting on the basis

of the stakeholders analysis and
the advice of experts.
10. Follow-up and follow through

Send a thank you note to the decision maker. The note
should restate the commitments you extracted in the
meeting. Follow up after an appropriate interval to find out
if your interlocutor did what he or she committed to doing.
Its also important for you to follow through on
commitments that you made.
> Use the SMART criteria and make it

clear that there is time allocated for a
follow-up of the meeting.
66
In 2004, CIOEC-Bolivia -the Bolivian national union of OECAS (smallholders economic

organisations), submitted a proposal for the Ley OECAS (the OECAS Law). Thisinitiative
aimed to attain the legal recognition of the OECAs and to have a legal basis for their
promotion and support for their activities in agriculture production, processing and
marketing.
This OECA Act initiative was in stagnation for several years. At the end of 2011, during a
FACT preparatory workshop, the CIOEC Bolivia decided to reinitiate lobby actions on the
OECAs Act, seek approval for its adoption in 2012, with emphasis on the legal regulation
of the constitution, organisation and organisational functioning of the Peasants Economic
Organisations (OECAs) and tax rules affecting them (seeking for special rules for OECAS).
With the support of Agriterra (www.agriterra.org) and the ESFIM program (www.esfim.org)
it has initiated a national consultation process with their members and hired expert lawyers
and lobbyists for reformulating the law and re-launching the lobby discussions.
The strategy for the lobby actions was prepared with the advice of experts and included
the lobby mapping in terms of identifying all the relevant actors that in one or another way
are related to the process of discussion for a Law in Bolivia, from presenting it to approval.
Institutions involved as well as the specific persons were identified.
The organisation then followed a strategy for involving different actors and to approach
them according totheir role in the discussions on the Law. They did a one year process of
reformulation of the proposal and they lobbied at all the different levels needed.
Finally, all relevant actors involved were in line with the major points of the proposal.
CIOECinteracted with many different actors and adapted positions and details of the Law
proposal. As a result, the Law was approved at the end of 2012 and was promulgated by
thepresident in January 2013.
67
FACT pillar 4
Case:
Mapping and analysing relevant actors for discussing
the approval of a Law in Bolivia
FACT pillar 4
Learning note
CIOEC identified all relevant actors that were in one or another way related to the
process of discussing and approving a law in their country. The advice of experts
was needed for this.
The different actors were addressed according to their role, their power on the
decision to be made and on theirinterest in the Law under discussion.
This was a key difference with the way of lobbying the law in the previous years
which focused just on the actors who are taking the final decision. Now, they also
addressed all those relevant actors who influence thedecision.
MDP
MDPyEP
MDRyT
UNIVERSIDADESY
OTRAS
INSTITUCIONES
MUNICIPIOS
ALLIES
COOPERACION
INTERNACIONAL
CONAMAQ
OPPONENTS
CIDOB
GOBERNACIONES
CONAFRO
CAMARA D/SENADORES
SECTORIALES
ACTIVE
ALLIES
CAMARA DIPUTADOS
CIOEC - DEPARTAMENTALES
OTRAS ORG. DE
PEQUEOS PROD.
ASAMBLEA
PLURINACIONAL
OECOM
CIDOB
BARTOLINA SISA
ACTIVE
OPPONENTS
CSUTCB
OECAS
LAW OF OECAS
CIOEC - BOLIVIA
68
FACT pillar 4
Summary of FACT Pillar 4:

Lobby Mapping & Stakeholders Analysis
Keywords and key ideas for

LOBBY MAPPING & STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS
Good and well

prepared message
AIR
Accountable
Informed
Relevant
www.how
CROP
Consult members
RPRP
(We)
(Them)
What
Register results
Who
Order information
Right
Right
When
Process information
People
People
Right
Right
Place
Place
How
KSK
SMART
to Know
Specific
and to Show
Measurable
that you Know
Achievable
Realistic
Time bound
The FACT approach builds

a good and well prepared
message for efficiently
uploading problems,
so that solutions can be
downloaded.
69
70
Lessons learned from

using FACT concepts
71
72
Lessons learned from

using FACT concepts
The most important lesson learned by farmers organisations piloting FACT concepts has been
the need to build capacity. While the method is highly appreciated and viewed as helpful and
positive, applying it requires more capacity, resources, and time than farmers organisations
have available. The consultation process, which is the cornerstone of FACT, is the activity that
most demands extra capacity, time and resources.
One way to overcome this obstacle is to convince the organisation to see the FACT approach
as part of their routine work. FACT activities can then be included in time allocated for staff,
and seen as part of the agenda setting process for the organisation, the calendar of activities
for the year, and capacity building programmes. This means that donors and other partners
who support the farmers organisations general plan of activities will then be indirectly
supporting the FACT process as well.
Selected lessons learned and priorities, as experienced by leaders and staff of farmers
organisations, are detailed in Table 5. It is interesting to note that, from the perspective of the
farmers organisations, the involvement of experts in the process has medium-level relevance,
while capacity building has a very high level of relevance. Note, however, that in many
cases, the extra capacity does not necessarily have to be supplied from within the farmers
organisation, but can also come from outside experts.
The lessons detailed in Table 5 are in line with those experienced in Latin America in the late
1990s where the FACT predecessor5, PIPGA, was used. A key lesson learned at that time,
which is useful to recall, was the advantage of institutionalizing membership consultation
processes so that these occurred on a regular basis. This in turn guaranteed an ongoing
cycle of internal reflection, in which organisations learn from earlier experiences. The success
of participatory consultations is determined largely by an organisations capacity and the
willingness of its leadership and management to democratise the generation of ideas.
More recently, the leaders and staff of organisations from different countries attending
a FACT workshop in East Africa defined a number of characteristics of successful FACT
implementation, including ways of building capacity. Their discussions and conclusions are
summarized in Table6.
73
Table 5: Lessons learned by Farmers Organisations through

FACT piloting activities and the relevance they give to it
Lessons learned
Capacity
building
needs
FACT is a useful tool but needs additional capacity building (training

of staff and leaders responsible for the execution of the activities).
Relevance
Very high
Need to also build capacity among members.

All people in the organisation should be involved / learn the FACT
approach.
Appreciation
of FACT
approach
FACT helps organisations to be more organised and hence makes

consultation and negotiations more fruitful.
High
Consultations bring out issues for the organisation to address,

including long term ones.
FACT is a relevant learning tool.
Participatory
nature of
the FACT
approach
Thorough consultation with members in order to gather information

is essential.
High
Consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Effective consultation is the cornerstone of the FACT approach.
Resources /
time needed
For the FACT approach to work, producer organisations need to

invest resources and time: this should become part of the working
routine.
High
FACT takes a lot of time but it leads to greater ownership.

Availability of resources is the main constraint in FACT application.
Involvement
of experts
Important to bridge the gap between experts and members.
Importance of
stakeholder
mapping
Stakeholder mapping (interest and power) is not easy but it is

important.
Medium
Need to involve experts in all stages of FACT implementation, but

more so at the initial stage.
MediumLow
For further information (available through www.agro-info.net): Biekart, K. (2000) Participatory Policy-Generating Research (PIPGA): A joint programme of
Latin American farmers organisations and Agriterra (1996-99). Evaluation Report for DGIS. Arnhem, Agriterra.
74
75
Main Characteristics
(of each FACT pillar)
Identifying problems
and hot issues.
Gathering basic and
general information.
Getting feedback.
Integrates
information from
both consultations
and experts.
Provides feedback
to the members and
other stakeholders.
It is systematic.
SMART (Why?):
Proposal must
be feasible, clear,
confident, and
demand adherence
to deadlines.
Classification.
Identification.
Accountability.
Influence of decision.
FACT Pillars
Consultation to
membership
Participatory
Research
Writing SMART
Proposals
Lobby
mapping and
stakeholders
analysis for
lobby and
advocacy
Identifies the right
institution, which is key to
get proposals approved.
Accountability: captures
stakeholders interest.
Influences stakeholders
beyond decision makers,
so that results achieved
faster.
To have clean document.

Presentable.
Easy to lobby with.
Helps us to better
understand the reality on
ground.
Help us to validate
information gathered,
and seek consent and
commitment of members.
Helps us to present
general info gathered
from consultations in a
more systematic and clear
way.
It creates ownership.
It promotes accountability
Why it is relevant
Motivation/training of
existing staff to practice
FACT.
Recruit and train new
staff in FACT concept.
Refresher FACT training.
More research and
updates from facilitators.
Workshops, training,
meetings.
Booklets, flyers.
Share sample proposals.
Include it in farmers
organisation routine
activities.
Create networks that
can support the activity.
Engage experts.
Hold special feedback
activities.
Disseminate publication/
reports to stakeholders
Train the farmers

organisation on how to
use it.
Spread the word
to other partner
organisations.
Ways to promote it
Training of trainers
(ToT).
Publications
(brochures, flyers,
newsletters, press
releases).
Networking / sharing
success stories.
Capabilities of staff on
FACT concept.
Resource, especially
funds.
Good communication
skills (data gathering
and also report
writing).
Data collection and
analysis skills needed
by staff.
Note: Advice by experts
can fill in some
capacity, so that not
all capacities are
needed in-house.
Human resource.
Financial.
Capacities needed
Training of staff.
Support in financial
resources.
Literature /
references.
Skilled staff.
Trainings and
meetings.
Exchange of
information and
experience.
Diversify fund raising.
Identify and build

the capacity of focal
point persons in each
farmer organisation
on FACT, so that they
in turn train the rest
of the staff.
Participate in refresher
course seminars and
workshops.
Share relevant
FACT documents
and experiences,
exchange visits /
exposure.
Recruit and train staff

Networking with
other organisations.
Ways to build those

needed capacities
Table 6: FACT Pillars, main characteristics and capacity building needed according to Farmers Organisations experience.
76
The FACT trajectory

FACTs basic promotion/training approach
77
78
The FACT trajectory

FACTs basic promotion/training approach6
The FACT Trajectory is the approach proposed by Agriterra for promoting and piloting FACT
among farmers organisations, which is based on three phases: the FACT Trajectory. an initial
preparatory workshop, a period of piloting the FACT concepts in each participating farmers
organisation for a period of 6 - 12 months and a second workshop to reach conclusions
concerning lessons learned and ways forward for using and further promoting FACT.
A basic assumption of the proposed approach is that each participating Farmers Organisation
has the will, disposition and agreement to incorporate concepts and methodological
approaches for piloting or trying itout.
These FACT workshops are meant for promoting the FACT method as a work approach for
farmers organisations, paying special attention to exchanging the organisations experiences
on participatory policy generation. Therefore, it should be noted that these workshops should
ideally be embedded in platforms and forums where farmers organisations normally meet
and exchange positions, like international, regional and sub-regional events.
The basic work plan for promoting and piloting FACT among farmers organisations includes
the threephases mentioned above, as follows:
Phase I
FACT preparatory workshop for explaining the method and for analysing how it could
be used for different issues and by different farmers organisations. The workshop focuses
on explaining and analysing the FACT approach, contrasting the method with the practice
of participating farmers organisations (and other methodological inputs that participant
organisations might bring in).
The event includes 3 days for training, including exchange of experiences, analysis and
methodological discussion around the FACT approach. In the final 4th day, participants do
group work for defining a plan to insert and test methodological insights of their interest in
the organisations work for preparing proposals.
This chapter is a brief summary about the process of promoting the use of FACT and basic training for preparing an organisations leaders and staff for
piloting FACT, and not about a FACT process itself within a particular organisation.
79
Phase II
Follow up (piloting), in which farmers organisations include and try selected FACT
methodologies and concepts in the organisations normal work. This is following a work
plan defined by the representatives of each participating farmers organisation in the
preparatory workshop.
This phase consists of applying some concepts that participants defined as a plus for their
organisations patterns of work. These can be related to one or more of the FACT pillars.
Abasic assumption is that the participating farmers organisation will not work on a special
particular project of piloting FACT, but will include FACT elements in its current work.

The second phase can take 6 to 12 months, after which a second workshop concentrates
on analysing the experience in terms of results, bottlenecks, etc. Close follow up and
coaching should be done for each organisation, through email contact and through one or
two visits during the period, depending on developments and needs.
Phase III
Final workshop takes place after the piloting phase. In this workshop, each organisation
presents the work done in the follow up to the first workshop, explaining what they did,
the bottlenecks they encountered, the possibilities they see for the future, etc.
This three-day workshop, basically, is a deep analysis of the organisations piloting work on
participatory generation of proposals using the FACT approach. Participating organisations
share their piloting experience, and together they define lessons learned from it. The issue
of taking FACT from theory to practice is analysed. The main benefits as well as issues and
bottlenecks are discussed. Needs for further using and developing the FACT approach are
included, and ideas for further follow up are proposed by participants.
When resources and time allow, it is recommended (ideal) to have a mid-term workshop
for sharing the experience of the piloting phase at the midway stage. This intermediate
workshop would allow participants to better focus during the second half of the piloting
phase, improving results. However, as it is said, to have this mid-term workshop - and
to be a meaningful activity - the program will require the extra resources needed and a
longer period for piloting activities.
80
81
82
Annexes 1, 2 & 3
83
84
- Lobby mapping, and/or

- Multi-stakeholders analysis
> The organisation gives focus to the message and

identifies the targets for lobbying, advocacy or
negotiation through a process of:
Lobby
mapping and
stakeholders
analysis for
lobby and
advocacy
(With FACT
criteria)
> Preparation of proposals and position statements based

on the results of consultations and participatory
research.
> Preparing proposals with experts advice and making
use of feedback mechanisms with membership.
> Preparing proposals and position documents that
are direct and clear, and which decision makers
find difficult to by-pass (using smart criteria as
understood in FACT).
Writing SMART
proposals
> This data is used in conjunction with expert

knowledge and analysed using the required scientific,
legal, or professional criteria.
> The organisation gathers information and data from its

members, which reflects their reality.
> The organisation creates links between farmers

knowledge and that of experts in order to prepare
sustainable proposals and find appropriate solutions for
problems.
Participatory
Research
(Consultations
specifically for
the purpose of
gathering data
and specific
information
> To gather basic and general information
> Gathering basic information for preparing and

sustaining proposals and position statements (one way to
do this is through participatory research).
> Getting feedback on the work of the organisation
and on the process of preparing proposals and position
statements.
(General
consultations)
A consultation process make possible for a proposal

(or position statement) to be prepared in a way that is
Accountable, well Informed and tackles a Relevant issue
1. Defining the consultation: www.how

- What is the subject of the consultation?
- Who will (or needs to be) be consulted?
- When it will be done?
- How it will be done?
> To identify the maximum possible number of actors who

are directly or indirectly affected by or associated with
the decision that the position statement or proposal is
asking for (lobby mapping).
> To analyse the most relevant stakeholders: their level
of interest in the topic and their level of power in the
decision making process.
> To have a proposal or position document that clearly

shows that it is based on facts and expert advice.
> The proposal or position document has a grip on
decision makers so that they will be forced to reply
directly and clearly to it.
> To be able to show with solid arguments and a good
quality document, that you are uploading real
problems and proposing a feasible, concrete and efficient
way of downloading a good solution.
- Try to identify all actors who are either directly or

indirectly involved with or affected by the proposed
decision (especially those who are part of the decision
making process).
- Draw a diagram (on paper) that maps all those
potentially involved and their links.
- Select the most relevant actors involved. Analyse their
interest in the topic at stake and their power in the
decision making process. From there you decide who to
approach, and how and when to do so.
- Outcomes of consultations and participatory research are

systematized with the advice of experts.
- These outputs are supplemented by information
contributed by experts (such as statistics, regulations, and
laws).
- A proposal document is prepared using data supplied by
the farmers and reflecting the opinions and concerns of
the members of the farmers organisation. The proposal
suggests a feasible and appealing solution using the
SMART criteria, as defined in FACT.
- The proposal is checked by getting feedback from
members or from a sample of the members.
1. The organisation links up with experts (advisors,

academics, etc) and with farmers.
2. Experts give advice on what information to gather and
how.
3. The farmers organisation gathers information from its
members.
4. Experts analyse the information and data gathered and
look for other sources of information.
5. The research conclusions (linked to solutions for a certain
issue) are shared with the organisations members for
feedback.
6. The end result is a body of information and data
that reflects the rural reality and has been validated
by experts and farmers. This is powerful material for
preparing proposals.
2. Consultation work: CROP

- Consulting members
- Registering results
- Ordering and Processing results
Know
and Show
that you Know
Know
and Show
that you
Know
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time bound
AIR + KSK + SMART + RPRP

(Right People in the Right Place)
Adding to the above, the organisation investigates,

analyses and defines where, to whom, and how to
present, advocate, lobby or negotiate a proposal.
Accountable
Informed
Relevant issue
AIR + KSK + SMART
Furthermore, the proposal is concrete and feasible and

leaves no room for decision makers to reply in vague or
ambiguous terms.
Accountable
Informed
Relevant issue
AIR + KSK
Participatory research (in addition to being Accountable,

well Informed and tackling a Relevant issue) gives you a
foundation from which you Know what you are talking
about (in a proposal or position statement) and are well
prepared, so that you can Show that you Know.
Accountable
Informed
Relevant issue
AIR
What outcome or outcomes should be obtained?
What is actually done (in practice)
Annex op A3
> To get arguments based on adequate, detailed and

validated information. This information will be correct
and relevant when members knowledge (of reality) and
expert professional knowledge are combined:
- Farmers provide information from the reality of the rural
area
- Experts contribute information from science, technology,
markets, law, etc.
> The above makes it possible to find and to propose a
good solution to problems and issues: A solution that is
based on responding to the relevant facts and reality and
with which you can show that you know.
> To get feedback
> To identify issues
> Identifying problems and hot issues for

membership which need to be addressed.
Consultations to
membership
Basic objectives of each pillar
The four pillars consist of
FACT four
pillars
Annex 1: Summary of the FACT Basic Pillars
Annex 1
85
Annex 2
Annex 2: Consultations to membership: Steps, Tips and Checklist

Tips
The objectives of the consultation and of gathering particular

information are clearly defined.
Where the objective is to get feedback, the precise points on which
feedback is needed are clearly defined. In this case, the information that
is to be shared with members before the consultation is also defined.
Where the objective is to get detailed information, the topic, sub topics,
and detail of information needed is clearly defined, with details related
to the level of the needs.
In this last case, expert advice is always recommended.
Checklist
Key points
Consulting for new issues:

It is important to ask open ended questions with no influencing of respondents. Meetings are useful
opportunities for this.
Consulting for information on a predefined topic:
Questionnaires are most suitable for this purpose. Meetings and interviews can also be used, but
it is more difficult to gather specific information in these ways. A combination of meetings and
questionnaires can be used, although time may not allow this.
Consulting for feedback:
Every point needing feedback must be clearly explained and discussed before asking for feedback.
Local radio broadcasts can be used beforehand to inform members about the issue or topic.
> Consultation of members can take place at the regular meetings of the organisation, especially to
identify new issues and to get feedback.
An advisor or staff member with experience in preparing proposals and

dealing with surveys will, in line with the defined objectives, check that
the target group for the consultation is adequate and sufficient to be
representative.
Steps
Sometimes members will need to be prepared before a consultation. For example, you can ask people at
a meeting to look out for particular information at their farms or villages, and then get their answers in
a next meeting.
1.1. What topic/s or

issue/s will be
covered
The methodology is defined with the support of an experienced person (expert advisor or staff with
expertise). Only simple consultations (direct, simple questions for identifying new issues or getting
feedback) can be prepared with minimal advice.
See details in Annex 3 on suggested approaches and methodologies for consulting membership in FACT.
Methodology is defined with the advice if a qualified person

Once completely designed, the methodology is checked by a qualified
person.
Information on a predefined topic: T

- Consulting for feedback:
The topic must be clearly defined and the
feedback detailed.
- New issues:
No specific topic is previously defined.
Three possibilities:
Defining the consultation
1.2. Who needs to be

consulted
The target group to be consulted is defined in

relation to the topic and to the groups need
for specific information.
1.
1.3. When must the

consultation be
done (time frame)
> Use a Gantt chart to visualize the calendar of activities, indicating the need for preparation
(scheduling in the calendar, also) , the deadlines for reporting, and who is responsible for the
activities.
> Make a separate Gantt chart for the personal use and monitoring of each person responsible for the
activities.
The organisation chooses a methodology

and tools for the consultation work (for
further details see Annex 3, on suggested
approaches and methodologies for consulting
membership in FACT.
Make a template for monitoring that each activity is done.
All activities are included in a calendar of activities.

Each activity has a person responsible for it.
There is one person in charge of the compete set of activities.
Deadlines are clearly defined.
There is no single activity for which the timing, preparation needed,
person responsible and deadline for reporting are not clear.
A detailed plan is drawn up, indicating the

following: activities (including a calendar of
activities); the persons responsible for each
activity; the deadlines. This is done in either
parallel with or after defining 1.4. how to
do the consultation.
Consultation work:
1.4. How it will it be

done
2.
Methodology defined in 1.4. is clear for all involved persons.

Templates and other materials are available.
Monitoring templates are available.
2.1. Consulting
members
The consultation work will be done following

the methodologies, tools and calendar of
activities and deadlines defined in point 1.
2.2. Registering
Make a template and include it as part of the consultation tools to be used.

Examples of templates for registering meetings, focal group discussions and surveys/interviews are
offered in Annex 3.
All planned activities are registered in a template, including:

Date, place, name and signatures of consulted members. Lists are made
in the case of meetings and focal group discussions. List by village or
locality in case of individual surveys.
Results of the consultation (answers, information)
The results of the consultation work are

registered ensuring that the information is
clear: (a) for further ordering and analysis,
and (b) for accountability purposes, in
order to show how many persons where
consulted, who was consulted, and when the
consultation took place.
Report includes conclusions that satisfy the initial expectations.

Findings are available and well ordered.
Included data like number of persons consulted, places, meetings dates
Simple consultations (like identifying new issues) sometimes do not need specific or detailed ordering
and processing.
The primary material obtained in the

consultation is ordered in the way needed for
the processing and analysis.
Simple consultations call for brief and simple reports.

Complex consultations call for detailed reports.
Do not to forget the accountability side: to show that you know (see example of outlines in Annex 3).
All gathered information is included in the compilation.

All the detailed information needed (defined in methodology) is covered.
Expert advisor and/or expert staff define the template to be used and
monitor that it is properly done.
After the above is checked, experts and or staff process the information
and generate conclusions.
The conclusions show the link between the information derived from the
consultation and the detailed explanatory logic that is behind it.
A document is prepared, including all relevant
information and conclusions.
2.3. Ordering and

processing results
3.
Writing and
reporting on the
conclusions
86
Annex op A3
Individual
approach
Interviews
Survey questionnaires
(respondents fil
in questionnaire
documents)
Focus group
discussions
Organisations
meetings
A mix of both types of questions can be included to get insights and data about what you are looking for and also
insights on potential new issues that need to be addressed, as well as feedback.
Mixed questions (fixed + open)
Mixed questions
Fixed questions
(specific answers)
The methodological details used in designing the questions are similar to (or the same as) those for surveys.
However, in a survey the questionnaire is applied through a conversation between the interviewer and the respondent.
A survey is a particularly good tool for asking open-ended questions or conducting open interviews, in which the
interviewer identifies a topic and discusses it with the respondent, while taking notes of the main ideas expressed by the
person being interviewed. The interview format is also useful for getting responses to fixed questionnaires, especially in
situations where the respondents are functionally illiterate.
Here, the questions are such that the answer can be whatever the respondent wishes to say. For example: What do
you think about xyz; or What is your biggest problem at the moment?
These types of questions are useful for getting information about new issues and concerns, and for broadening the
scope of the farmers organisation. It is also a useful feedback exercises.
Open questionnaire
(few open questions)
Open interview
(few open questions)
These are questions that have a fixed number of possible answers and are not open for interpretation by respondents.
Forexample asking something that can be answered only by yes or a no; or questions about figures (how
many); orabout specific things: what crops do you have).
Questions of this type are useful for finding out what is more relevant for people, or how to measure the level of
something.
Fixed (or preset) questions

(specific answers)
This is a discussion between a small number of persons selected according to certain criteria, such as age, gender,
geographic location, or type of farm produce (advisors can suggest the criteria).
This discussion is moderated (facilitated) by a moderator (facilitator), who needs to be prepared and qualified for doing
so.
The discussion follows a line of questions or topics presented by the moderator (facilitator).
For each topic, the moderator does a wrap up (summarises the main points made) after 2 or 3 rounds of opinions
by participants. A conclusion for each topic is agreed upon after this wrap up. In cases were more than one position
statement or conclusion is reached, the facilitator takes note of these differences.
Interviews are also based on questions. However they do

not contain as many questions as survey questionnaire
and the discussion is more open ended in an interview so as
to get insights from respondents.
Sometimes questionnaires can be used in conjunction with

a meeting or a focus group discussion, giving participants
some time to answer it.
Questionnaires can be used by the organisation staff/

leaders, or can be handed out to be answered by members
(in cases where the questionnaire is simple).
Quality and sharpness of questionnaires is the key success

factor for getting the right information from respondents,
such that the results will be easy to register, order and
analyse. Expert advise is recommendable.
Good method for identification of new issues and for

feedback. Not particularly useful for consultations that
require specific information and detailed or hard data.
Participants selected randomly or selected according to

information needs.
These are meetings for the particular objective of consulting members. Therefore, the meetings need to be planned
according to that. A strategy for getting the needed information needs to be put in place.
Extraordinary meetings (especially

for consultations)
Group discussions
(especially for consultations)
- Assemblies and/or boards.

- National, sub-national, village level, special groups
(women, youth, by commodities, etc)
A regular meeting is the simplest way to conduct a consultation, because the meeting will take place in any case.
There are two possibilities: (a) specific questions are posted to participants, or (b) the meetings always include general
questions so that every single meeting includes a consultation. The meeting agenda can be organised to incorporate
aconsultation structure. This can be done in simple steps, such as including the following in each meeting agenda:
- Analysis of what the farmers organisation is doing (strategy, actions and results)
- Identification of problems not yet properly addressed
- Identification of new issues, problems or concerns (not yet visualized/included in the farmers organisation work)
- Discussion of possible solutions
- Recommendations to higher levels of the farmers organisation about what to tackle and how.
Regular meetings of the organisation
Group
approach
Comments
Annex op A3
Methodological cornerstones
Possible methodologies for

consulting constituency
How to approach the constituency

for consulting them
Annex 3: Methodological Insights Consultations / Participatory Research
Annex 3
87

FACT Reader

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FACT Reader

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FACT Reader

Author: Christian Goet (Chilean Agronomist),

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

The four FACT pillars

Pillar 2 Participatory Research

Pillar 3: Writing SMART Proposals

Pillar 4: Lobby mapping and stakeholders analysis

Lessons learned from using FACT concepts

Annex 2. Consultations: Steps, Tips and Checklist

Annex 3. Methodological Insights - Consultations / Participatory Research

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Special acknowledgments to partner farmer organisations

A.E.N NGaina Association des Eleveurs du Niger NGaina

Fdration Rgionale des Eleveurs Pasteurs Amadane

Asociacin Nacional de Avicultores y Productores

Association Nationale des Organisations Professionnelles

Asociacin de Productores de Sorgo

Association pour la Redynamisation de lElevage au Niger Niger

Antenne nationale du Sngal du RBM

Confdration des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles

Consortium of Farmers Associations of India

Coordinadora de Integracin de Organizaciones

Coordinadora de Mujeres Campesinas

Confdration Nationale des Associations des

Confderation Nationale des Producteurs

Confederacin de Federaciones de la Reforma Agraria

Comit Rgional des Units de Production du Sahel

Central Tea Cooperative Federation

Comit de Unidad Campesina

East African Farmers Federation

FEMUCOPRAM Federacin Agropecuaria de Cooperativas de Mujeres

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Fdration des Organisations des Producteurs

Federation des Organisations des Producteurs

Groupement National des Associations des

Syndicat des Agri-leveurs du Rwanda

Syndicat Rwandais des leveurs et agriculteurs

Junta Nacional del Caf

Kenyan National Federation of Agricultural Producers

Kendrio Krishok Moitree (Central Farmers Organization) Bangladesh

Ligue des Organisations des Femmes Paysannes

Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania

Nepal Federation of Savings & Credit

National Farmers Federation of Moldova

National Land Rights Forum

Rseau Billital Maroob (Rseau des Organisations

Rseau de Communication sur le Pastoralisme

Syndicat pour la Dfense des Intrts Paysans

Teso Cooperative Union

TEOSA Tanzania Tanzania Eatable Oil Seeds Association

Tanazania Federation of Cooperatives

Red de Turismo Solidario Comunitario

Uganda Cooperative Alliance

Uganda Crane Creameries Cooperative Union

Union Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos.

Uganda National Farmers Federation

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Farmers Advocacy Consultation Tool - FACT - an Agriterra Solution

Bolivia: Coordinadora de Integracin de Organizaciones Econmicas,