The Facilitator’s Toolkit: When (and When Not) to Use Trial and Error

"Trial and Error" is one of the most fundamental yet widely applied problem-solving methods. It is a staple technique I teach in my workshops on problem analysis and resolution. The method is simple: an individual or group tests various solutions one by one, evaluates the results, and, if unsuccessful, moves on to the next option until they reach the desired outcome. It requires no deep prior knowledge or complex analysis; it is grounded entirely in "learning through experience." In my own local-level fieldwork, I have often used—or witnessed the use of—this method (for instance, the experimental plots used in the Hyrcanian Forest multi-purpose management project).

However, what prompted me to reflect deeply on the trial-and-error method is the realization that it cannot be applied in every situation. I have often heard locals say, "Are we lab rats?" Their frustration isn't necessarily directed at the facilitator or project manager; it stems from a valid concern: even for the sake of experimentation, local communities feel that constant testing isn't always the right approach. Therefore, we must understand the specific conditions under which this method is effective:

When to Use Trial and Error

1.  Lack of Available Information: When facing a completely new problem without prior knowledge or sufficient data for logical analysis. In such cases, trial and error allows the local group or community leaders to gather necessary information through step-by-step experimentation. An example: Learning how a new app works by tapping on various options.

2.  Simple and Low-Risk Problems: The cost of failure is low, and mistakes carry no serious consequences. An example: Finding the right key to open a simple lock—if the wrong key is tried, the lock just doesn't open, with no further damage.

3.  Limited Number of Options: The smaller the search space for solutions, the more efficient trial and error becomes. An example: Choosing the right path at a junction with only two or three turn-offs.

4.  Speed Over Precision: When a quick response is needed and there isn't enough time for deep analysis or modeling. An example: When the lights suddenly go out, quickly flipping a few switches to see if the problem is the fuse or the lightbulb.

5.  Lack of Established Patterns: For new or emerging problems that have no historical precedent. An example: Cooking with new ingredients and experimenting with unfamiliar flavor combinations.

Essential Conditions: The "Must-Checks"

In my local experience, there are two vital conditions that must be evaluated before deciding to use trial and error:

Condition 1: No Human Harm (Zero Negative Side Effects; No Human Collateral Damage): This is non-negotiable. Trial and error should never be used where a mistake could lead to loss of life, physical injury, or psychological trauma. This is why we don't use this method in medicine, structural engineering, or aviation—a single error can be fatal. A surgeon cannot learn by trial and error which artery to tie off, nor can a building engineer say, "Let’s remove this pillar and see what happens!"

Condition 2: Low Cost of Failure: The cost of an error must be minimal, not substantial. If we stand to "lose a lot" in the event of a failure, trial and error is not an appropriate option. A positive example: Testing a new recipe by starting with a small batch—if it fails, you've only lost a few eggs and some flour. A negative example: Trying to understand the effects of a new medication through trial and error; the risk to the patient's health or life is far too high.

How to Facilitate the Process

Before jumping into trial and error, consider these steps:

1.  Check for Existing Knowledge: Can we use analytical methods or past knowledge? The facilitator should work patiently with community members to explore this.

2.  Seek Expert Advice: If that's not enough, can we get help from experts or credible resources?

3.  Evaluate Context: If neither of the above is possible, and the conditions (low cost, no human harm) are met, then trial and error is a suitable path.

Remember, while trial and error is a simple, intuitive tool for complex problems, it does not guarantee finding the "optimal" solution. It is fast for small issues but unsuitable for high-stakes scenarios. It encourages creativity and exploration, but it can also lead to hasty decision-making.

Why Trial and Error Works in Community Facilitation

In community-based facilitation, this method can be highly effective if the principles above are respected:

1.  Unique Contexts: Every neighborhood and village is unique. A solution that worked in one place might fail in another. Facilitators and local leaders must find solutions tailored to their specific culture and context through trial and error.

2.  Ownership: When people test, fail, and correct solutions themselves, they gain "ownership" of both the problem and the solution. This active participation ensures the sustainability of the results.

3.  Manageable Costs: Community projects usually start with small, scalable experiments. A pilot project in a neighborhood can often be carried out without significant human or financial risk.

Practical Examples

A Local Loan Fund: A facilitator and a group of village women decide to set up a credit fund. They set initial rules via trial and error: for example, they start with a 50,000 Toman monthly contribution. After two months, they realize it's too low, so they increase it to 100,000. They also find that a one-month repayment period isn't enough and adjust it to two.

Improving Waste Collection: People suggest various solutions: large bins in a few spots, specific bags in front of every house, or a fixed collection day. They try each option for one week, review the results, and eventually choose a hybrid solution.

Launching a Neighborhood Library: A group of youth tries placing books in the local mosque, but participation is low. They move the location to the park, then experiment with changing opening hours and adding children’s storytelling sessions. Through continuous trial and error, they eventually find a successful model.

Final Thoughts: Key Best Practices

Start Small: Always begin with a small pilot to minimize the cost of failure.

Maximize Participation: Ensure all stakeholders are involved in decision-making and evaluation.

Document Everything: Results must be recorded by the involved parties so lessons learned can be applied later.

Collective Evaluation: After each cycle, evaluate results as a group and reach a consensus on the next step.

Transparency: Do not hide failures. In community work, mistakes are learning opportunities, and transparency builds collective trust.

Trial and error is a simple yet powerful tool, provided it is used in the right conditions—where there is no risk of human harm, the cost of failure is low, and no more effective analytical method is available. In community-based facilitation, due to its flexible, participatory, and experiential nature, it remains one of the most effective ways to empower people and solve local problems. When people experiment, make mistakes, and correct them on their own, their learning runs deeper, and the results are far more sustainable.

Why Every Community Facilitator Needs to Watch The Old Oak

A personal reflection on Ken Loach's final masterpiece — and what it taught me about food, community, and human connection.

I've watched Ken Loach's The Old Oak three times now. And it hits harder with every single viewing.

If you haven't heard of it yet, The Old Oak (2023) is the 28th and — as Ken Loach has announced — very likely the final feature film from the legendary British director. At 87 years old, the man widely regarded as the master of social realism has given us one last, unforgettable gift. The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2023, where it received a standing ovation and widespread critical praise, before rolling out to theaters worldwide throughout 2024. It was written by Paul Laverty, Loach's longtime collaborator, and together they have crafted something deeply, achingly human.

The Story

The film is set in a former mining village in the northeast of England. The collieries have long shut down. Jobs have vanished. Young people have left for the cities. A heavy, quiet sense of abandonment hangs over the streets like the region's famous grey sky.

The only place still standing is a pub called The Old Oak, run by a gentle, quietly stubborn man named TJ. Dave Turner plays him with remarkable authenticity — a man who has seen his community fall apart and is doing his best to hold onto whatever is left.

Then one day, a bus pulls up.

It carries Syrian refugees — families who have fled war, destruction, and loss — and they are being resettled in the village. The community fractures immediately. Old prejudices surface. Fear and resentment simmer in conversations at the bar. But TJ finds himself drawn to help, especially after forming an unlikely friendship with Yara, a young Syrian woman who uses her camera to document everything she witnesses. What follows is a story about the painful, messy, beautiful process of strangers learning to recognize their shared humanity.

Why This Film Matters

I don't want to give away too much of the plot — the real magic of The Old Oak is in watching it unfold, sitting through its uncomfortable silences, and celebrating its small but profound victories. But here is what I will say: this is a film about dialogue. About community. About the radical, world-changing act of sharing a table.

Ken Loach has never been a director who preaches at his audience. Instead, he shows us real people — flawed, stubborn, scared, but also generous and capable of surprising kindness — and trusts us to draw our own conclusions. In an age where social media algorithms are designed to push us into echo chambers, where polarization seems to be the only thing growing, The Old Oak reminds us what it actually means to sit across from someone who is different from you and truly see them.

For facilitators — especially those of us who work in community-based settings — this film is nothing short of essential. It is a living, breathing case study in what it takes to bring divided people together.

The Line That Stopped Me Cold

There is one moment in the film that has stayed with me long after the credits rolled. A line so simple and so powerful that I had to pause the movie and just sit with it:

"If we eat together, we stick together."

This hit me like a thunderbolt.

Because this is something I have always done in my own workshops and facilitation work. A shared lunch. A collaborative, group meal. People from different backgrounds, different opinions, different walks of life — sitting together around the same table, passing the salt, reaching for the water pitcher, laughing at someone's questionable cooking, and discovering that the stranger across from them is not an enemy, not a threat, but just... a person. Just like them.

There is something profoundly disarming about breaking bread together. It lowers invisible walls that no argument or lecture could ever bring down. It builds bridges that no policy document could ever construct. It reminds us that before we are anything else — before we are political beings, religious beings, or ideological beings — we are human beings who need to eat, who find joy in a good meal, and who feel a quiet, deep warmth when someone offers us a seat at their table.

The Old Oak understands this truth better than almost any film I have ever encountered.

What Community Facilitators Can Take Away

For those of us working in community facilitation, this film offers a quiet masterclass in several things:

Patience. Building trust across deep divides does not happen overnight. TJ doesn't win anyone over with a grand speech or a single heroic act. He shows up, day after day, makes small gestures, withstands suspicion from both sides, and keeps the door of The Old Oak open — literally and figuratively. As facilitators, we often want quick results. The Old Oak reminds us that real change moves at the speed of trust, and trust moves slowly.

Dialogue over debate. The film is filled with conversations that go nowhere, arguments that flare up and fizzle out. But it's also filled with moments where people truly listen — where TJ sits with Yara and lets her tell her story without rushing to fix anything. This is the heart of facilitation: creating space for voices that are rarely heard, and holding that space steady even when it gets uncomfortable.

The power of shared experience. The most transformative moment in the film doesn't happen in a meeting room or through a formal program. It happens over a meal. When the Syrian women cook their traditional food and the locals hesitantly, suspiciously, begin to taste it — something shifts. Walls crack. Curiosity replaces fear. This is the very essence of community-building: not forcing people to agree, but giving them a reason to be together.

The facilitator as bridge, not savior. TJ never positions himself as the hero of the story. He stumbles, he has doubts, he questions whether he's doing the right thing. He is simply a person who refused to look away. For facilitators, this is a vital lesson: our role is not to solve people's problems for them, but to stand in the gap, to connect, and to trust the community to find its own way forward.

 

Final Invitation to watch

The Old Oak is not a comfortable film. It doesn't wrap up neatly. It doesn't offer easy answers. But it does offer something perhaps more valuable: hope. The kind of hope that is hard-won, grounded in real human connection, and worth fighting for.

If you work with communities — whether you're a facilitator, a social worker, a local leader, an educator, or just someone who believes that people can learn to live together despite their differences — I cannot recommend this film enough.

Watch it. Let it sink in. And then come back and tell me what you thought over a cup of tea — or better yet, over a shared meal.

Have you seen The Old Oak? What was your experience? Drop a comment below — I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The Art of Collective Prioritization: A Guide for Facilitators

At the heart of every participatory process and every collective decision-making toward change lies a simple yet vital question: “Where do we begin?” 

Experience shows that local communities, work teams, and stakeholder groups are rarely short on ideas, identified problems, or proposed solutions. The real challenge is choosing the smartest starting point among numerous options. When we spend hours in discussion, hear all perspectives, but still cannot reach a clear consensus, that is precisely the moment when "structured prioritization" transforms from a useful technique into an unavoidable necessity.

Prioritization is not merely choosing one option over another; it is the art of allocating the fairest attention to the most pressing concerns, given limited resources. When done collaboratively, this process becomes more than an administrative routine—it becomes a mirror reflecting the collective values, fears, and hopes, building trust and shared ownership. 

In this text, we proceed from the belief that there is no single "best" method for prioritization. Success is determined by the fit between the method, the group's composition, and the nature of the decision. A skilled facilitator, like a proficient physician, must diagnose which "tool" is most suitable for which "condition". 

A Glance at the Facilitator's Toolkit

On this path, we will explore six key approaches I have used repeatedly in the field, each carrying practical lessons: 

1. The Two-Criteria Matrix (e.g., Importance/Urgency): A quick, visual tool for initial sorting. Ideal when time is short and we need a clear roadmap. (I have used it many times with young people in rural contexts and in forest-management project in Iranian Hyecania to prioritize threats to landscapes.) 

2. The Scatter Plot (e.g., Capital/Time to Breakeven): Useful when a decision is based on quantitative data and we need to visualize risk and return clearly. (I have applied this in rural contexts for prioritizing small business initiatives.) 

3. Simple Ordinal Voting: The most democratic and fastest method for large groups requiring maximum participation. (This is a frequent go-to, especially in populated workshops where inclusive and efficient decision-making is key.) 

4. The Pairwise Comparison Matrix: The most precise tool when options are limited and require the deepest collective comparison and judgment. (I have used it with both urban and rural communities; participants often appreciate the structured clarity it provides.) 

5. The Weighted Scoring Model: The most comprehensive method for complex decisions with multiple, varied criteria that need quantitative assessment. (This model is invaluable for transparent, multi-faceted choices.) 

6. The wise integration of criteria in real-world contexts, such as in a forestry project that combined "Impact Severity" and "Response Capacity" to prioritize threats effectively. 

Beyond Technique: Facilitation as Cultivating Collective Wisdom

This text, however, is not just about counting votes or filling matrices. It is about creating a safe space for dialogue where silence is heard as clearly as voices, and minority views are valued as much as majority ones. It is about how, before any vote, we must nurture meaningful conversation—dialogue where people reason not to win, but to understand. 

The facilitator on this path is not a neutral technician. They are a gardener preparing the ground for collective wisdom to grow, careful not to let the rush for results spoil the path to achieving them. They remember that sometimes the most valuable outcome of a prioritization session is not the final list, but the deeper shared understanding participants gain of the situation and each other. 

This text is born from years of experience alongside diverse communities, from remote villages to urban workshops. The methods discussed here have been tested in the crucible of real debate and urgent needs. May it serve as a flashlight in your hands, illuminating the path through difficult decisions and reminding us of this eternal wisdom: "The journey begins with the first conscious step." 

Let us take that step, wisely, together.

The Art of Observation in Community Empowerment

Imagine you are facilitating an empowerment process in a neighborhood or a rural community. As a facilitator, you need to equip yourself to guide a series of preparatory and collective activities. One essential reminder: pay attention to observation.

A facilitator must cultivate deep, holistic observation—and at the same time invite community members to observe with you, to practice seeing together. In other words, part of your role is to enable collective observation, or “seeing together.”

There are several important points I want to share. Of course, these are not the whole story. Observation as a skill for learning and understanding the environment is much broader than what I can cover here. It is not a side activity but a core part of empowerment: a tool that helps us notice signs, discover opportunities, and bring hidden capacities of the community to the surface. Each act of observation is a step toward deeper understanding and, potentially, more effective action.

1. Observation works with other senses—especially listening

Active listening is never just about the ears; it is about ears and eyes working together. In a community meeting, when people share their concerns, we don’t only listen—we also watch. How participants sit, whether they take notes, how they look at each other, who they whisper to, even their silences—all of these are signals.

This combination of listening and seeing helps us grasp not only the content of words but also facial expressions, body language, and collective reactions. As a result, the facilitator can better manage the atmosphere, recognize signs of trust or hesitation, and guide the conversation toward genuine participation. Observation alongside listening deepens communication and reveals hidden layers of social reality.

2. Observation beyond conversations

Observation is not limited to dialogue. During visits, walks through the village, games, or ongoing sessions, we must observe carefully—both the environment and participants’ responses.

To strengthen this skill, it is best to write down observations each time. Writing prevents details from being forgotten, reveals patterns, and turns scattered experiences into a coherent picture. (I often carry small notebooks to workshops so participants can practice observation and writing together.)

Recording observations strengthens the facilitator’s memory and enables collective reflection. Later, these notes can be revisited with community members, discussed, and transformed into new opportunities for empowerment. Writing is the bridge between seeing and acting.

3. Observation without bias

True observation means seeing reality as it is—without adding personal judgment or taking a stance. If a facilitator imposes their own interpretation while observing, they unintentionally steer the group toward their personal view, limiting free participation.

Neutral observation, on the other hand, allows for a more accurate understanding of the situation and gives the group space to decide based on their collective experience. Such observation is not about taking sides but about clarifying reality—a foundation for trust, constructive dialogue, and shared decisions.

4. Encourage observation constantly

This is part of my own practice: I keep saying, “Look, look.” A facilitator should continually invite the group to observe. Observation is not an optional extra; it is part of the ethics and method of facilitation.

I believe that neutral looking opens a window to fresh understanding. As one friend put it, every time we truly see, we discover something new. The more participants are encouraged to notice and pay attention, the greater the chance of building shared understanding and making informed decisions.

5. Observation for holistic understanding

Observation is not only about details; it must lead to a broader perspective. Whatever we see should be placed in a larger context.

For example, noticing a plant growing near a village is not just about the plant itself—it is part of the local ecosystem. Being served tomato stew in a rural home is not just about the tomato—it connects to daily life, agriculture, and culture.

This holistic lens pushes us to ask questions and seek connections between small elements and the larger whole, leading to deeper insight into reality.

6. Observation as shared interaction

I insist that part of interaction is “seeing together.” We must practice this: observe together, complete each other’s images, talk about what we see, and draw a collective mental map of observation.

Here, the facilitator plays a crucial role in enabling this process. Shared observation can spark creativity at any moment.

7. Practice observation continuously

We already observe all the time, but the challenge is to do it consciously. Write down the results. Try to identify opportunities while observing—and encourage others to do the same. Continuous practice makes observation a living skill.

Forget the Judgment. It's Time for Empowering Evaluation

Hey everyone,

I was in a workshop today (7 November 2025 in Sepidan, Fars Province, Iran) talking about the "generations of evaluation," and it got me fired up. We traced the path from simply counting things (1st gen), to describing them (2nd gen), to making top-down judgments (3rd gen).

Then we got to the game-changer: the shift toward collaborative, negotiated evaluation (the classic 4th gen). This is where we start handing the microphone to the community.

But I want to propose we take it a step further. The latest evolution isn't just about collaboration—it's about Empowering Evaluation.

This is the mindset we need for genuine, community-based facilitation.

What is Empowering Evaluation?

Let's be honest. The word "evaluation" can still make people tense. It hints at a report card, an external verdict, a pass/fail grade. Empowering Evaluation flips that script entirely.

It's not an audit; it's a process of co-creation and capacity building.

The goal isn't to produce a dusty report for a funder. The goal is to strengthen the community's own ability to understand, reflect, and direct its future. As a facilitator, my role isn't to be the judge, but to be a guide who helps the community build its own "learning muscles."

How is this Different?

- Old Way (Judgment): "Here's what you did well and poorly."

- Empowering Way: "What have we learned together? What power and knowledge do we now have to move forward?"

How to Practice Empowering Evaluation in Your Community Work

This isn't about complex metrics; it's about intentional practice.

1. Start with "Why Us?": From day one, frame the evaluation as for and by the community. Ask: "What do we need to learn to make this work more powerful for us?"

2. Co-design the Questions: Don't walk in with a pre-made survey. Facilitate a session where community members decide what success looks like and what questions are meaningful to ask. Their values drive the process.

3. Use Your Facilitation Tools for Reflection: Turn your regular meetings into reflective practice. Use simple tools like:

 - "What? So What? Now What?": What happened? What does it mean? What should we do based on that learning?

 - Appreciative Inquiry: Instead of focusing on problems, ask: "What's working best right now? How do we get more of that?"

 - Most Significant Change Stories: Collect and discuss stories of change, then have the group itself decide which stories were the most significant and why.

4. My Role as the Facilitator? A Mirror and a Bridge.

 - I am a mirror, reflecting back the patterns, strengths, and questions I hear from the group.

 - I am a bridge, connecting different perspectives within the community and linking their learning to actionable next steps.

The ultimate success of an Empowering Evaluation is when the community no longer needs me to facilitate the reflection—when asking "How are we doing?" and "What should we change?" becomes a natural, self-sustaining part of their culture.

That's the real goal: not a good evaluation report, but an empowered, self-aware, and adaptive community.

What are your thoughts? How have you seen evaluation empower—or disempower—a community you're part of?

Let's chat in the comments!

AI has helped me in arranging the text. 

Ethics in Facilitation: A Collective Reflection Across Borders

Recently, I hosted an online brainstorming session with facilitators from diverse backgrounds to explore the ethical principles that guide our work. The response was overwhelming—full of wisdom, experience, and heartfelt reflection. What follows is a synthesis of those contributions, enriched by a powerful set of insights from Iranian facilitators who added cultural nuance, lived experience, and philosophical depth to the conversation.

Universal Ethical Principles Shared by Facilitators

From the international brainstorming, several core ethical values emerged:

Respect for Participants: Every voice matters. Facilitators must create inclusive spaces where dignity is upheld.

Confidentiality and Trust: Safeguarding what’s shared builds the foundation for honest dialogue.

Neutrality and Impartiality: Facilitators guide the process, not the outcome.

Transparency and Honesty: Clear intentions and open communication are essential.

Responsibility and Accountability: Facilitators must own their decisions and their impact.

Empowerment and Equity: The goal is to uplift communities, not dominate them.

Cultural Sensitivity: Awareness of context and diversity strengthens facilitation.

Reflections from Iranian Facilitators: Ethics in Action

Iranian facilitators brought a deeply human and culturally grounded perspective to the discussion. Their insights added layers of meaning and practical wisdom to the ethical framework:

Emotional Intelligence and Self-Awareness

Patience and Tolerance: A facilitator must be a nonjudgmental listener with emotional resilience to manage disruptions calmly.

Self-Reflection and Self-Care: Ethics begins with the self. Facilitators must maintain their own mental and emotional health to serve effectively.

Avoiding Projection: Golshan Ghasemi reminded us that ethical lapses often stem from unresolved inner conflicts. Ethics requires introspection.

Human Dignity and Respect

Respecting All Voices: Honoring every participant’s experience and protecting their privacy is foundational.

Avoiding Top-Down Attitudes: Mitra Alborzi-Manesh emphasized that facilitators are not perfect beings—they must avoid imposing project goals and instead co-create them with communities.

Integrity and Accountability

Honesty and Transparency: Facilitators must be clear about their role, intentions, and limitations.

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Ethical facilitators must separate personal gain from community outcomes.

Responsibility for Impact: Maryam Lavi raised a critical question: Are facilitators responsible for long-term consequences of their interventions? Ethics demands foresight and humility.

Empowerment and Equity

Sustainable Facilitation: The goal is to build community capacity, not dependency.

Bottom-Up Approaches: True facilitation emerges from listening to lived experiences and redefining goals collaboratively.

Virtue and Character

Ethics as a Way of Being: Ethics is not just a set of rules—it’s a mindset rooted in values like honesty, kindness, and courage.

Universal Values: Traits like gratitude, humility, and respect are timeless and borderless.

Practical Wisdom

Listening Without Judgment: Active listening and empathy can defuse tension and build trust.

Updating Ethical Standards: Ethical frameworks must evolve with society’s changing values and contexts.

Structural Ethics

Defining Ethical Components: Ethics should be mapped to specific competencies in facilitation.

Respecting Cultural Contexts: Ethics must be adapted to the social and cultural nuances of each community.

Philosophical Foundations

Belief as a Moral Anchor: Mehdi Abedi argued that belief in the process itself generates ethical behavior.

Ethical Dilemmas and Outcomes: Should ethics prioritize process or results? This philosophical tension shapes real-world decisions.

Contextual Ethics: Sometimes, ethical action depends on the setting. Facilitating in unethical contexts may itself be unethical.

***

A Shared Vision

Across cultures and contexts, one truth stands out: facilitation is not merely a technical role—it’s a deeply ethical one. Whether in Tehran or Toronto, facilitators are called to be patient listeners, humble guides, and responsible stewards of collective processes.

This conversation is far from over. What other ethical dimensions do you think facilitators should embody? Let’s keep building this shared framework—together.

I am back after a long time

For the past ten years, my work in community-based empowerment across various contexts has been all-consuming, leaving me no time to write a single word here on my English blog. During this time, I actively maintained my Farsi blog, sharing various materials on community-based facilitation.

Last week, I decided it was time to bring this blog back to life. I'm excited to start sharing again in English!

2017 finishes, while our community activities continues

I would like to have a look at what I have done or better to say, what we have done (considering all members of the team of facilitators that are cooperating with me).

+ In poverty reduction, we are working on our patterns of NGO involvement as facilitators. In the three provinces of Semnan, Gilan and Kermanshah, we are still continuing; we have found out that the local entities are still active, and in this way, we are very happy that the activities have been sustainable.

+ In the project of the Multi-purpose Management of Caspian Hyrcanian Forests, we are still active as facilitators; in all four pilots, the local groups are becoming more empowered, and they are playing new roles. 2018 would be our last year of cooperation with this project. Therefore, our facilitators in all four pilot landscape are working on "exit" policies. In 2017, we have taken large steps forward, and this gives us a lot of hope to continue our efforts.

+ On issue of "regeneration" activities in urban communities, in 2016, we worked on the process. In 2017, we were mostly involved in coordination activities. I hope for 2018, we can directly work in communities. I have met some of the contracting parties and their facilitators attended a workshop that was run by me. I hope we can move forward in coming year.

We breathe with the Earth

Recently, I had an interview with Hamshahri, the major national Iranian Persian-language newspaper, on our community-based initiative. I tried to talk in a simple language since this was going to be read by general public. It was published on 25 February 2017. Zahra Taalaani, the journalist, interviewed me and prepared the text. I decided to translate the text into English. Here is the text.

We breathe with the earth

Every day, facts and figures on environmental degradation by human beings are published in the media, and officials or activists warn about the protection of environment or natural resources.

They believe that any environmental loss affects human beings more than others, because resources are limited and the life is endangered. Saeid Nouri Neshat, an environment activist, accompanied by a team, are working, more than three years, to empower local people in villages, not only to find a "way" or a "method" for conservation of their environment by them, but they can have a better livelihood. He calls this method 'facilitation'.

The increasing destruction of forests and pastures, excessive utilization of mines and natural resources, drought and the climate change, are happening due to the modern human lifestyle that has eroded the "earth" as our habitat. There are different ways to protect the environment but Saeid Nouri Neshat believes that empowering individuals, especially in rural areas, is the best solution for decreasing the destruction of forests and natural resources.

"I was involved in environmental activities, but then I understood that if people are causing damage to the environment, it is because of their economic pressures in their life", he says. "I found out when they have a better livelihood or a diversification of livelihoods, then the resources are better conserved." In other words, there is a direct relationship between the poverty reduction and environment conservation. Therefore, they started to focus on empowering people in the target areas. They helped them to understand their roots, to recognise their assets and to help each other to come out of the poverty.

He emphasized that the most important issue is to engage local communities and to promote group activities among villagers. It is, however, very difficult and has its special delicacy. There are certain helpful potentials in local culture and Islamic beliefs of rural people. The group sessions are usually held in mosques and hoseiniehs in villages; people are sensitized to the situation of their local communities and become ready to implement a series of activities in their own families or in their own village. In this way, they experience “participation”.

Saeid Nouri Neshat, or as the villagers call him “Uncle Saeid”, says about his special way of entrepreneurship: “it is not only entrepreneurship, it has to encompass other aspects of life. In other words, one cannot be active in economic issues; one cannot expect the situation remains sustainable; people have to think about other social problems that might even be the reasons for the unwanted economic status.” He continues that in one village, the produced chilies were first sold to the salesmen and the dealers – and the people could not earn enough money. But now, they are working on processing their chilies, using the guidance by the local group. In this way, they can earn more. They have held two chili festivals by now. At the present time, the facilitators have been working in eighteen communities in three provinces of Kermanshah, Semnan and Gilan. The provincial NGOs (Tanin Tabiat Tirgan in Shahroud; Hafezan Tabiat Payedar in Anzali, and Paraw in Kermanshah) and their facilitators are assisting in community work and livelihood activities.

Nouri Neshat explains about their methods of intervention and adds: “we try to be among people with a mind free from any imposed pattern or model; we help them to come together, and encourage them to talk about their existing livelihoods and interests. Our major concern is to maintain rural solidarity for achieving the goals set by themselves”. One idea is to establish revolving credit funds or local development funds. In many villages where they are active, such small funds have been formed out of rural savings and these funds are helpful for their economy.

Their colleagues have gained invaluable experience during the past years and this has facilitated their work. “Working at communities is time-consuming and one cannot expect to attain the results exactly at the time once designed in the project”. The experience has proved that the community work goes on slowly. The facilitators have to be patient and have to encourage local people to take the steps of empowerment gradually. Also, they have found out that the women are more inclined to participate in social activities. This is possibly because women have more free time, or they regard “participation” as an important issue or they enjoy participating and group activities more than others. Nouri Neshat says that they tried to form men’s groups too; only in one village, a group composed of men shaped, however, even in this group, the activities were more or less focused on producing handicrafts by rural women. In other villages, there are registered cooperatives with women and girls as their members.

Local knowledge reviewed in Nepal workshop

Today I attended a workshop on indigenous and local knowledge in Nepal held by IPBES - UNESCO. I am so happy since not only I learnt about the features of local knowledge, various papers were presented on cases of local knowledge in different Asian countries. My paper was about the local knowledge of Qanat in Iran, and I presented the results of the workshop on Qanat which was held in Kerman city by the Boompajuhan Society in September 2016. The report was prepared by me, Nina Aminzadeh and Mehdi Almasi.

The international Center on Qanats and Historic Hydraulic Structures gives a definition of 'Qanat’ as “an underground gallery that conveys water from an aquifer or a water source to less elevated fields. In practice, a Qanat consists of a series of vertical shafts in sloping ground, interconnected at the bottom by a tunnel with a gradient more gentle than that of the ground. The first shaft (mother well) is sunk, usually into an alluvial fan, to a level below the groundwater table. Shafts are sunk at intervals of 20 to 200 meters in a line between the groundwater recharge zone and the irrigated land. From the air, a Qanat system looks like a line of anthills leading from the foothills across the desert to the greenery of an irrigated settlement.” This is mostly a physical definition for Qanat, and to my point of view, it does not give an anthropological or cultural view of the Qanat system. It does not illustrate the intangible aspects of this ancient irrigation system. Especially when local management of a Qanat is studied, then certain social aspects of Qanat are revealed. The experiences of women in Takaab region in Kerman province - as explained by my colleague, Nina Aminzadeh, show how Qanat can act as an issue for solidarity.

I had also the chance to learn about the local knowledge on management of pastures of the Bakhtiari tribe in Zagros Area in Iran. She properly explained how the land reform has affected the whole system of nomadic management of natural resources during the past five decades and with settlement of part of their population in villages, the process of overgrazing has also increased.

There were other presentations from Pakistan, India, and Nepal. 

Local Knowledge in UNESCO Workshop in Thailand

I had a great chance to attend the Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue workshop for the IPBES regional assessment for Asia-Pacific which was held in Chiang Mai, Thailand from 26 to 28 June 2016. The workshop was held by the IPBES supported by UNESCO, UNEP, UNDP and FAO. There were three groups of participants in the workshop: experts of local knowledge who were assigned to write down the chapters of a book on indigenous and local knowledge for Asia and Pacific region; those who were holders of the knowledge from local communities; and those who had access to the local knowledge or have written about that in their own countries. Therefore, the workshop was like a dialogue to see how the chapters have to be written. The participants were from Iran, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, India, The Philippines, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

I am not going to give a full report of the workshop; I think those responsible for the workshop will prepare a report and it can be accessible through the IPBES website. In fact, the workshop was a good learning point for me; to learn more in deep about the local knowledge. One major lesson learned was about the system. Before, I knew that any local knowledge has its own value within a local system; during the workshop, I could feel it; you cannot talk about Qanat in Iran without talking about the local management system that governs it. When one of the colleagues was presenting about the irrigation system based on the local knowledge, I found out how the decision-making process within a local system can have a major role in using the local knowledge. The government could launch a parallel system to the one existing in the local context but it is not clear how these two can work together. The local system plays a major role in practicing the local knowledge. This can also be seen among nomads in Iran where the existing local system brings together all tribal members and without that, the local knowledge will loose its intrinsic value.

For workshop organizers and the authors, the role of women in protecting the local knowledge and their active participation in local systems and management activities was of great importance. I had a chance to talk about the role of women in a project on Qanat revival in Takab, and I was happy to mention that how women have been able to have shares of water from their Qanat.

There were discussions about the policy-making and how the holders of the indigenous and local knowledge have to affect the process of policy-making. I had the chance to talk about the issue in one of the workshops, and I tried to discuss the issue while using the model of a political system raised by Easton.

Other important issues were the local knowledge on seeds and agriculture, watershed management, local knowledge in oceans (raised by the participant from the southern India), drivers in promoting or obstructing local knowledge.

Two important principles in community work

1) Work in groups

The facilitator who is alone, and who goes to the community individually, may be successful however, let’s do not forget what promote what we live. We are going to train people to be together while we are alone. People learn from our behavior, and thus, I recommend that we have to be together too. It means that instead of one facilitator, be a team of facilitators who work together. This is our very precious experience when we were involved in poverty reduction project of the State Welfare Organization in Iran years ago. The facilitating bodies were the social work clinics in provinces. The clinics were run based on an individually managed entity. Therefore, they were somehow promoting individual management and work among communities. Just imagine: lonely facilitator talks about working together. It does not work. Even in our dialogues with some of the managers of the clinics, we heard they said: “there is not a culture of group activities in Iran, how you are trying to promote community work”. This is important to add that there should be a belief in community work too. Not only facilitators have to work in a team, they have to believe in team work. They must talk about their real experiences of success.

2) Do not be frustrated even if people are frustrated

In certain cases of community work (this is about Boompajuhan activities in communities), we found that people were not interested to continue: they are tired or they have not been successful in gaining the attention of others to their precious work or they could not move forward. In certain instances, you might hear that we could not continue since it has been useless. The facilitators have to be patient, and try to have meetings (or processes) with people to find solutions together. This is a problem like many other problems of the village that might have been resolved. This could have a solution too. Then encourage your local group to have a meeting. The members of the local group could talk about that. A structured dialogue could help them to understand the causes of the situation. Be patient and do not become frustrated.

The difference between a community and a neighborhood

A simple answer to the question on the difference of “community” and “neighborhood” could be a reference to the notion of “geography” since neighborhood has a strong geographic element, however, the first and the most important element in a community are the united people (or people bound by something) that may be in close proximity (like a neighborhood) or may not be. In this case, some may add that a neighborhood is a geographical notion while it is sometimes used in a physical sense, while community is a sociological one. Some may add that in a community, people are somehow united (by a common goal or a common ground) – they might have shared activities or even group events – where the people feel a sense of belonging. Meanwhile, the neighborhood has a boundary while there might be no reference to boundaries when we are talking about communities. For instance when you are referring to a neighborhood in a street (the street acts like an official designation – which means officially the street exists), then this street is a like a boundary that defines the neighborhood.

Others may add that a community is composed of certain number of neighborhood while a neighborhood is a community. In fact, each neighborhood may be one sub-community – if a community is composed of more than one neighborhood.

There might be consideration of rural and urban communities when we are discussing about the difference about a community and a neighborhood. In urban communities, neighborhood is important to consider while in rural communities people are living in neighborhood while there might be a sense of solidarity among people, which means a community is a neighborhood too.

There are also those who believe that there is no difference between the two notions: neighborhood and community can be used interchangeably – exactly when they are refereeing to those who are living in proximity and especially when people are from one race or ethnicity.

Photo taken from the book:

Facilitation of the poverty reduction processes:

a community-based approach (2014), published in Iran in Farsi

the picture has been designed

by Maryam Mansouri (Yazd)

In certain urban projects, neighborhood gains more important while whatever you do can be call a community-based activity with a powerful neighborhood component. Recognition of this fact can be important since neighborhood may have certain implications in the work. For instance dividing the community into neighborhood blocks can be done by the people themselves and they can even find names for their neighborhood sub-community. This is especially an important part of any community-based activity in a mega city like Tehran. I have noticed that you can not facilitate a meeting on a common issue in a community where people are from different neighborhoods, while when they are from one neighborhood, then the social capital (the level of trust) increases and the discussion or any further community-based research action moves more smoothly.

In conclusion, I request my facilitator colleagues in a big city like Tehran to pay a special attention to the notion of neighborhood in their community-based activities.

Shamans and Midwifes in Senoi Temiars - About the lecture by Prof. Sue Jennings

Yesterday (3 April 2014), I had a chance to be present in an exciting lecture by Prof. Dr. Sue Jennings entitled:  “From Top To Bottom: Complementary Roles Of Traditional Temiar Midwives And Shaman”, that was held by the Gender Studies Programme of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (University of Malaya) as part of its Gender Seminar Series - jointly with the Center for Malaysia Indigenous Studies.

The whole lecture was about the maintenance of health and healing practices among the Temiar peoples that are performed by experienced village mid-wives and shaman. The mid-wives main role is the assurance that newly-delivered mothers are out of danger, and immediate bonding (attachment) happens between the new-born and the mother. In contrast the shaman is concerned with the upper body, in particular the strengthening of head-souls. Nevertheless, everyone takes responsibility for not creating situations that could cause illness or misfortune to others. 

The important thing about the seminar was that the information offered by her, was the results of her doctoral fieldwork with the Senoi Temiars and her continued contact with them as an adopted member until the present. She has been there with them with her three children. She explained that when she was adopted as a daughter and became a family member, she could live in the community. She talked about the blood of a child birth (which makes women powerful), low mortality rate among them (possibly because they are using such traditional ways of giving birth) and the three shamanic seances of playing, healing and tiger (by major and minor shamans). 

The tiger seance was of particular interest to me, since she explained that Shaman trances in a shelter that is built inside a house or the area where the dance is performed. She said that the dance brings to our mind that there is always a little tiny tiger inside us.

She also explained about the small children and how they are socialized into the roles by the Shaman and midwives (since the very early time child starts to interact and somehow it helps the baby to develop his or her personality). By showing certain pictures she said how quickly the children take the family roles. 

She also explained about midwifery and how she does her own role during the birth; especially she said about the symbolic washing of mother and then the child. She said that she has not seen any involvement of men in child birth: "they stood outside smoking waiting to receive a news". 

Moreover she talked about non-violence culture among the locals; naming of children and parents (how the child birth affects the naming); the effects of people's culture on her own family members.

She invited us to read the chapter written by her about the dance and shamans: Jennings, Sue (1985) "Temiar dance and the maintenance of order"  in Spencer, P. (Ed.). (1985). Society and the dance: the social anthropology of process and performance. Cambridge University Press. I have not seen the chapter yet, and I hope I can be able to read the chapter as soon as possible.

This is the website managed by her: http://suejennings.com/

When all participants can participate in all topics...

In Farsi, I call it "Miz-e Dav-var" that can be translated as "rotating table". It is a facilitation technique. In English, it has got different names: Carousel technique or Rotating Review, World Café, Knowledge Café or Charette procedure. It is a brainstorming technique used by facilitators, when there are different subjects in a session and all would like to participate. 

For a definition, I quote from the website of readwritethink.org a part about Carousel technique or rotating review. The technique here has been used for students in a classroom:

"While taking part in Carousel Brainstorming, small groups of students rotate around the classroom, stopping at various “stations” for a designated period of time (usually 1-2 minutes).  At each station, students activate their prior knowledge of a topic or concept and share their ideas with their small group.  Each group posts their ideas at each station for all groups to read." (http://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/brainstorming-reviewing-using-carousel-30630.html)

I read in selba.org that the technique of World Café has been created and developed by Juanita Brow and William Isaacs in their book The World Café. As explained in Selba.org the technique is as follows: 

"The big group is divided in small groups of 4-5 people sitting around a table with a paper tablecloth —to write, draw, or doodle in the midst of the conversation— and talking about a given subject presented under the form of a question. In each table there is a table 'host' who stays at the same table throughout the process. After 20-30 minutes the general host invites participants to change tables. The table host explains briefly the essence of the previous conversation to the guests who arrive for the next round. After three rounds of progressive conversation there is a dialogue among the whole group with the intention of gathering and recording key ideas, questions or insights that might be useful for action planning or other purposes." (http://www.selba.org/EngTaster/Social/Facilitation/FacilitationTechniques.html)

In Wikipedia, it has been written that the World Café originated at the home of Juanita Brown and David Isaacs in 1995 when a "large circle" conversation became disrupted by rain. It is called World Café since A café ambience is created in order to facilitate conversation. The knowledge café or K-Café (and sometimes conservation café) shares certain features with The World Cafe. I think it is good to have a look at this slide to know more about knowledge café: http://www.slideshare.net/dgurteen/introduction-to-the-knowledge-cafe

Of course, the technique may go back more deeply into history if we call it Charette procedure. I found the following part in Mind Tools: 

"The Charette Procedure (sometimes spelled 'Charrette')... involves organizing people into several small groups, each of which brainstorms ideas one-after-the-other until everyone involved has had a chance to contribute fully. Derived from the French word for wagon, it comes from the practice of architecture students in the early 1800s, who used carts to rush their drawings from one place to another to get final approvals. In much the same way, when you use the Charette Procedure, you take the ideas generated by a group, and cart them over to the next group, for them to be built upon, refined, and finally prioritized." 

After this introduction about the different names and history, I have to emphasize that this technique is not only talking, it is a technique of thinking and producing something that is created through brainstorming while everyone in the group has participated in the production process. and of course, it is a different technique from Open Space Technology where there are more people and it may take longer for several days. Meanwhile, speed geeking is a similar tool used for presentation.

I have used the technique several times in different contexts (villages and urban communities). It works. People love to become involved in such a model of thinking and working together.

The procedure for facilitating:  

1. The content: how many questions are on the tables? Questions are related and fill in a bigger puzzle. 
2. Arrange the setting and make ready what would be needed for each group (paper, markers, flip charts,...)
3. Explain for the participants how the technique is going to be done.
4. Divide the participants into small groups of 5 - 7 people (sometimes more; it depends how many participants are in your workshop and how questions have to be responded). If there are four questions and there are 24 participants, then you have four small groups of six participants.
5. One person is chosen as group facilitator (it can be called host or recorder). Choosing can be done by the workshop facilitator or by the group; as he or she needs to have facilitation skills, it would be better to be selected by the workshop facilitator. 
6. Provide each group with a discussion topic or question. 
7. Establish a time limit (8 to 10 minutes) for the groups to generate ideas in response to the topic. The time limit can determined through looking at : 1) number of the questions; 2) how deep the questions are; 3) participants energy; and 4) and the time you have for the workshop.   
8. At the end of the time period, we can do in two ways: a) Participants sit in their place and the group facilitator moves and takes the responses from their group and rotate to the next group. b) Each group of participants moves clock-wise or counter clock-wise and the group facilitators remain in their own place.
9. Once the group facilitator joins his/her new group (for 8.a) or once each group of participants joins the next facilitator (for 8.b), the group is asked to review the information generated by the previous group and quickly add any other ideas or comments they have. 
10. Repeat the the previous step, until each group has had an opportunity to discuss every issue. Some facilitators prefer that during the last rotation, each group should prioritize the most significant or important ideas generated on that topic. 
11. The total group is reconvened. Each group facilitator summarizes the discussion and priorities generated by the topic. The workshop facilitator may connect the ideas if needed. The puzzle may become complete at his stage.

Revolving tables, Rotating Review, Carousel technique, Charette procedure, World Cafe or Knowledge Cafe all seem to be one facilitation technique: All Participants Participate in All Topics, and do not forget, it is not a decision-making method.

This method is useful when the facilitator is involved in carrying out a SWOT workshop. I have also used it in knowledge sharing workshops when there are five or six topics at the end.

A facilitator pays attention to "hospitality of local people" and their "art"

Parvin Pakzadmanesh is a local facilitator. In her weblog Community Gender Empowerment, she has posted an extraordinary series of photos - coming from various community-based projects that seem to be invaluable. Also she introduces two important notions of community-based activity: local people's hospitality and local art. Do not hesitate to have a look at these photos. 

A glance at the definition of "group" from a facilitator's point of view

To have a clear definition of "group" is a necessary part of work for any professional facilitator. Before starting to think about the definition, let's see why such definition is important. Any facilitator works with groups of people; a mentor may be with one mentee (Wikipedia definition: mentorship is a personal developmental relationship in which a more experienced or more knowledgeable person helps to guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable person), but a coach, a facilitator or even a social worker work with groups of people. If a facilitator can have a clear definition of group, then this will help him/her a great deal in "group-building", since he or she knows what part of the group has to be strengthened to help the group to shape. For instance, if we say that a group "is a two or more people who have one common goal", during facilitating the work of a group, our mind automatically or even consciously goes towards "defining a common goal" since based on the definition, this is the common goal which is the most important element of the definition. One may ask whether there are other definitions or not ?

In my workshops on facilitation, this is always among the starters. I always begin the training workshop with the definitions and request the participants to think about these four major concepts: "human being", "group", "community" and "participation"; sometimes, I divide the participants into three groups and I request each group to think about the definitions of "group", "community" and "participation" (the definition of "human being" will be done later in a public discussion). I would like to say that participants always emphasize on this element that a group should have a common goal. But for a facilitator this is not important.

I always ask the participants, whether those standing in a bus stop are a "group" or not. If you think that a group should have an aim, then these people who are in bus stop and all of them would like to take the bus, should be a group, since there is a goal, a common goal. But we know that this is not a group. By the time there is not 'interaction" among them, it is not a group. Interaction means that they have to talk to each other, they have to listen to each other, there should be some kind of interconnection among them.

There are so many examples that clarify why "interaction" is a necessary element. To my point of view, this is the way to create the group. Participants in a group talk to each other; they try to find common ground, they try to search for those things that can be used as resources; they listen to each other; and they can know and understand. This has to be done in a respectful environment. A facilitator can play a major role in creating such environment.

People come together, shape a group through interaction, and create an identify for the group; such identity or group identity helps them to be more connected to each other; a relationship based on "trust" shapes among them. They define certain values and regulations. Gradually they find their way and define their goal. They use their own resources and recognize their own differences. In this way, they experience a process of empowerment within the group. All these happen because of "interaction".

See the following slide on "power"; There are only ten slides, but it is going to connect the concept of "power" and "empowerment" based on a definition of group with an emphasis on "interaction".

http://www.slideshare.net/saeidnourineshat/power-saeid-nourineshat

All techniques, the process, and all a facilitator does, have to contribute to "interaction".

See also this presentation (updated on first of September 2013):

http://www.slideshare.net/saeidnourineshat/how-does-a-facilitator-look-at-group

Biodiversity Products

GEF/SGP has a global online portal for biodiversity products. Biodiversity “products” are any consumable, usable, artistic, or medicinal remedy created from the wealth of biodiversity. One of the foundations for sustainable development is acknowledging biodiversity’s value for local communities and the global community. 

When I was working in Touran villages as a facilitator, a series of products were produced and now these products have got "online" in the portal and I am happy. I thought it would be good if I share this happiness with you and to put their links here so that you can have a look at them. 

All these products are made by hands, they are environment-friendly and produced by rural women who work together in their own cooperatives. 

For the wall carpets see the following link:
http://www.biodiversity-products.com/products/iran/asiatic-cheetah-wall-carpet/

Courtesy of GEF/SGP - Iran

For kilims, see the following link:
http://www.biodiversity-products.com/products/iran/traditional-kilims/

Coutesy of GEF/SGP - Iran

For gourds with designs of Asiatic Cheetah, see the following link:
http://www.biodiversity-products.com/products/iran/asiatic-cheetahs-on-gourd-carving/

Courtesy of GEF/SGP - Iran

Two more products recently added:

1) Integrated Pest Management Rice:
http://www.biodiversity-products.com/products/iran/integrated-pest-management-rice/

2) Art & Conservation: Patterns for making cloth animals of sensitive and endangered species.(Emperor Spotted Newt/ Lorestan Mountain Newt/Neurergus - Iran
http://www.biodiversity-products.com/products/iran/art---conservation:--patterns-for-making-cloth-animals-of-sensitive-and-endangered-species.(emperor-spotted-newt--lorestan-mountain-newt-neurergus/

I hope many other biodiversity products from Iran can be posted to this global portal.

Visit to Kuala Gula ! A friendly village, three hours far from Kuala Lumpur

I had a great chance to be with Mehdi Almasi and Parvin Pakzadmanesh, both PhD students, to go to Kuala Gula to help Mehdi to fill his questionnaires on SWOT analysis of the participatory management of Matang Mangrove Forest. Kuala Gula is a fishing village near the sea and most of its inhabitants are involved in fishing.
For several reasons, I found that these people are really hospitable. When we arrived to the village, we went to a coffee shop which seems to be managed by a woman. Everybody was very kind to us. First of all, there was a Chinese Malaysian who really explained about the village, they even invited us to Ice-Lemon-Tea, and after being with them for some time and explaining about our work (while some people filled some of the questionnaires), we left the village to Kuala Sepetang (another village), and then they seemed to be waiting for us, as we told them that we would come back in the afternoon.

One strange thing was that again a Chinese man living in the village invited us to dinner and even bought for us a dinner (Nasri Goreng Sayur Sayuran). They really helped us in filling the questionnaires. There was one young lady who acted like a facilitator and was explaining about the questionnaire to others who were sitting round a table. In summary the behavior of the community members towards these three students who were trying to connect to these people were much friendly. Do not forget that we had the language barrier too. Not so many people talked in English, while their Malay was not good. Anyway, we had really a good time and a fruitful experience over there.
I wrote these lines as an appreciation to what they did to us today. These people were really hospitable and we really enjoyed ourselves.

But this visit gave me a good opportunity to think more. When communities are somehow far from cities, when the people within the community are more close to each other, the community seems to enjoy from a solidarity that can help its members. I do not know and it is very difficult to say it without evidence, but I am sure those people whom we met today - who are not rich people - are living in peace. I am sure they have a good life since they seemed to be happy. That's something I found over there.

Microfinance under scrutiny!

On Friday (22nd March 2013), I attended a seminar on micro finance entitled "'Evaluating' Microfinance: Academic irrelevance" by Professor Salim Rashid who is the visiting professor of the department of development studies in the Faculty of Economics and Administration in the University of Malaya. In the abstract provided before the seminar, the professor has explained that the choice of Microfinance (MF) by the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) as the primary means of poverty alleviation should have brought clarity to the role and functioning of MF, but instead it seems to have generated a fog. It is desirable to take a fresh look and start from first principles to clear the air. Microfinance is microfinance --- it is finance writ small. If finance works, microfinance works. Much of the difficulty has been created by academics and arises from scholars treating MF as though it is some new economic phenomenon. With a series of specific questions, and with the Bangladeshi case in mind, it will be argued that many of the interesting and constructive questions have not been on the research agenda. Instead, the attempt to rely on randomized controlled trials is serving to distract.

Before giving more details about the seminar, first let me clarify why I have added this text on microfinance here in this blog. When I was working in villages, the micro finance was one of the choices we were focused in certain areas where sustainable livelihood was targeted. However, the way we were working was based on "group initiatives" rather than individual endeavor. In our model, there is always a group as an entity that will be involved in micro finance. As a facilitator of group activities, I think this works better than the individual initiatives for various reasons.

Professor Salimm said that microfinance requires special attention. He also mentioned that it is culture and context oriented. It means that those applying for finance, they have to have certain habits (such as to be organized); without these habits they cannot easily enter business to generate money. He said most of the time, the people use finance as consumption loans. They use the money for other necessary things in their life and then for returning the money, they might apply for another loan. Here the story starts and never ends. Loan after loan. In fact, people have to use the money in an income-generating business with a good profit to be able to return the money and the interest to the Micro Finance Institute. The professor gave a series of examples to clarify the issue. He said that there is not enough empirical data on success of microfinance, especially there seems to be a lacuna in intertemporal research.

To my point of view, group activities (based on group facilitation) where people can share their own experiences and resources - is very important in micro finance, especially when people earn "hot money". Loans are only "cold money" that cannot generate money. They can complete the capital, but what is more important is the "hot money" generated by the group in a well-defined business with defined role for every member of the group.