PAC-II (Bolivia)

The Program for Farmers’ Auto-development-II (“Programa de Autodesarrollo Campesino-II”) was a Project financed by hte European Union and the Bolivian Government. PAC-II started using Pachamama Raymi from 2003, when Willem van Immerzeel was designated as co-manager of the Patacamaya work area. This is a very high, cold, dry and huge region of the bolivian highlands, between La Paz and Oruro. Willem immediately set out to prepare a number of documents and produced them in rapid succession, using his experience from PRODERM. See: Contributions of the Patacamaya Work Area to the Annual Operational Plan (pdf) of PAC-II, and the first project draft (pdf) of Pachamama Raymi, using a new but similar name chosen by the project field staff and authorities of Aymara Communities: "Pachamaman Urupa" (day of Mother Earth, in Aymara). The first contest started after a difficult period to obtain the approval of the project directors in August of 2003. See also: The first contest PAC-II (pdf).

The training system Pachamama Raymi, as implemented in PAC-II, included a number of elements: (1) demanding targets in terms of number of families and communities, as well as the general orientation of the innovations to be introduced (focusing mainly on improving communal natural range land management) (2) the farmer-to-farmer training (also called inter-learning, or peer learning), (3) motivators: mainly consisting of contests between families and between communities, (4) transcultural bridges and (5) partnering with local farmer unions (and not with local governments, which at the time, were little more than offices registering births and deaths. Later, when government policy changed radically, giving more resources to local governments, these were involved in the program as well, but through SID-Bolivia, as PAC-II had already expired). (6) The crucial decision to allocate project resources (prizes) according to the farmers’ decision, and based on criteria of quality of natural resources management.
PAC-II didn’t allow to provide cash prizes. Instead, small infrastructure, “materials” (barbwire, alfalfa seed, tools and even good breeding animals) were distributed as prizes. The winners could pick from a list of options. Their choice was mainly oriented towards “materials”, diminishing the construction program to almost nothing, simplifying the project significantly, as almost the entire tiny-infrastructure program was eliminated, and with it, a managerial nightmare evaporated (making it possible to concentrate investments in infrastructure on more relevant issues such as roads and bridges).

The sixth element was particularly interesting (allocating resources according the quality of resources management) as an alternative to distributing resources according to “needs”, problems, or “demands” of the population. This element caused a rapid improvement of natural resources management. It is believed that distributing according to “needs” or “problems” would tend to optimize such needs or problems. Besides, the population no longer needed to express their demands through “workshops” or other time consuming mechanisms, such as letters, frequent visits to the head office, etc. saving time and trouble for project staff, as well as for the authorities of the farmer communities.

One day, out of the blue, came a student of anthropology from the University of Amsterdam, looking for an “anchor” to do her field work: Luella van Turnhout. She arrived when the discussion between the 14 member field staff about how, and whether or not to introduce Pachamama Raymi, was in full swing. It took Luella only a few days to be convinced that Pachamama Raymi was a bad idea. She feared it would cause or worsen conflicts and tensions in the communities. Her opinion weighed heavily among the field staff. However, ultimately it had the effect of improving the discussions and strengthening convictions, either in favor or totally against Pachamama Raymi. Such an atmosphere is a good thing, as the field staff taking on the responsibility to implement the new ideas want to prove that they are right.
Quickly though, all doubts and opinions against Pachamama Raymi evaporated, as the enthusiasms and other very positive reactions of the population became evident. Turnhout (pdf)

The European Union organizad a workshop “identifying supply and demand in Training Methodologies in Projects of the European Union in Latin America (Arica-Chile, 27-28 of march 1995)”. Pachamama Raymi stood out in this workshop as the most effective training system of the EU used to date in the entire region. The EU ordered PAC-II to write a manual for use in other projects of the European Union, to facilitate replication. Its author was Juan Carlos Soria (co-manager of the Patacamaya Area, with Willem van Immerzeel).
He continued after PAC-II closed down, to use Pachamama Raymi in the Post-PAC-II period. The title of the manual is

RURALTER (pdf) also Publisher a manual base on the experience of PAC-II.

The European Union decided not only to continue Pachamama Raymi in the Post-PAC-II period of its project in La Paz, but also in similar PAC projects in other areas of Bolivia (Oruro and Potosi). The scale on which Pachamama Raymi was implemented by EU projects would never again be so huge.

PAC-II slide show