At the end of the workshop an internal evaluation of the event was carried out by some members of the workshop team5. Translation work provided the consultants with a further opportunity of reviewing workshop results. Based on this, a brief discussion of selected content and methodological aspects of the workshop is forwarded in the following paragraphs.
5
Unfortunately, it was not possible to involve in this evaluation any representative of the community, nor all the staff member who participated in the workshop. In addition to the authors of this document, participants in this final exercise included Mr. Chapa, Mr. Joshi, Mr. Thapa, Mr. Shresta and Mr. Sheikh.
Participants in the final evaluation agreed in considering the workshop a successful experience, featuring a smooth and really participatory process. In particular, it was observed that "organising the workshop in the village has contributed very much to increase participation and villagers feelings of being the real protagonists of the event".
Work in small groups was also considered extremely useful to facilitate active involvement of less talkative persons, and preventing natural leaders and ward-level political representatives (who participated in the workshop, as members of the Nabajagaran User Group) to monopolise discussion. Presentation of the results of evaluation and re-planning exercises in plenary was found to increase participants motivation and to allow for further share of experience among groups.
It should be observed that the "technical" decision to entrust the direct responsibility of evaluating previous implementation and preparing the new plan to user groups has entailed a major "strategic" shift from the "community", to the "user-groups", as main actors of the planning process. This approach seems to be more consistent with project implementation procedures, which actually focus on technical and financial support to specific user group initiatives. Furthermore, it is likely to better fit the highly differentiated structure of Nepali rural society, than the idea that a "community of interests and goals" may exist (or could be built) within the territorial community (i.e., the hamlet)6.
6
Majgaon experience elicited the need for a deeper sociological understanding of the way in which user-groups form and work. Obvious criteria such as punctual interest, territorial proximity or even caste affiliation alone seems to not to providea satisfactory explanation. Rather, the possibility, that Majgaon (and project area) user groups are based on cross-caste "afno manchhe" ideology and structure should be considered. Following Nepali anthropologist. Dor Bahadur Bista (1994. Fatalism and Development. Nepal's Struggle for Modernisation. Calcutta: Orient Longman. Pp. 97-98), "The distinction between the group as "us" and the rest as "them" manifest itself in every walk of social, cultural, political and economic life. Everything inside the circle of "us" is predictable and the rest is external and unpredictable. Therefore there is a constant need to maintain the boundary. (...) 'Afno mancche' is the term used (in Nepali) to designate one's inner circle of associates - it means "one's own people" and refers to those who can be approached whenever need arises (...). Following Bista, these circles are usually mobilised for religious purposes. However, they provide also the basis for a community of long-term interests among their members, which is sociologically stronger than the territorial or cast solidarity.
"Participatory impact mapping allowed to share a lot of ideas within the group. It was specially helpful to elicit villagers perception of the changes or benefits which have (or will) come from the implementation of planned activities. It is a really participatory method". This quote by a participant in the evaluation session summarises the positive feelings shared by all members of the workshop team about this exercise.
Participatory impact mapping proved indeed to be easily understood by participants and managed by facilitators. The only practical difficulties met were related to the use of written "impact cards" by illiterate participants. To overcome this limitation, it was suggested to prepare in advance a set of drawings, representing different impacts or effects, to be used for plotting perceived changes on the map7. Use of big-size overlays was also suggested to facilitate the assembling of group maps into a comprehensive map of changes on-going in the community (i.e., a map similar to that shown in Table 3, which was prepared for the sake of this report, but not presented, nor discussed, during the workshop).
7
A similar tool has been prepared (even though for different purposes) by the Tunisian component of the Inter-regional Project of which PUCD is part. See, Ambroso, A. 1996. Note méthodologique sur l'utilisation des caries mobiles pour l'analyse de problemes avec la population. Zaghouan: Projet Inter-régional pour la Conservation et de Développement à caractère Participant des Hautes Terres.
Beyond these process-related aspects, some attention should be also paid to the conceptual content of the exercise. An overview of table 2 shows that listed "impact" statements are quite heterogeneous. Three major categories can be indeed identified:
a) actual impacts on affected household living conditions (e.g., "decrease of diarrhoeal disease") or natural resource base management (e.g., "better managed forest" or "increase in the quantity of water in the source");b) effects on the functioning of farming system and household economy (e.g. "easier access to fuelwood", "increase in milk production", "supply of healthy fresh vegetables", "increase in income generation" etc.); and
c) effects on user group development and community awareness (e.g. "development of cooperative feelings", "increase in user groups savings", "work-load sharing according to benefits", "awareness of the importance of women-self-organisation", etc.).
Presence of the three types of statements in the list is definitely consistent with the human and sustainable development process which PUCD wants to promote. However, statements belonging to category b) and c) (i.e., effects), are prevalent (and better phrased) than statements belonging to category a). Clearer perception of short term effects may be indeed related to the limited time span and size of most project-promoted activities, which, for the time being, are unlikely to generate observable changes in living conditions or natural resource management8. The opportunity of acknowledging this fact into the design of the exercise (i.e. explicitly presenting it as a "participatory mapping of changes", or similar) should be considered in the future.
8
The tree sapling distribution group as phrased this idea as follows: "benefits have been acquired from grass (fodder) species planting; yet, tree species can not bring any change in the short time".
A further conceptual issue was raised by participants in the tree sapling distribution group. They observed that "planting 60 or 6000 saplings is not the same thing" and that, consequently, the impact (as well as, effects) of this activity will depend very much on quantity. This observation can be easily generalised to almost all the CAP activities. The need for including into the design of this exercise some form of "soft" quantification (without, however, re-placing the qualitative focus of the technique) may be therefore taken into consideration.
Finally, it should be stressed that plotting impacts or effects on the community map has proved to be really an essential part of the exercise. Beyond the didactic advantage of relating group discussion to a practical task, this technique has indeed facilitated a comparison between the "before" situation, represented by the initial PRA map, and the after situation, represented by the new "impacts" map. It also helped to identify exactly where in the community territory changes have taken (or will take) place, and who actually benefited (or will benefit) for them9.
9
In this connection, it should be observed that, in Majgaon workshop, participatory mapping exercise was wery instrumental in eliciting the risk of exclusion faced and the specific needs felts by the 14 households belonging to the Adwabary low-caste ethnic group. It was indeed in the framework of this exercise that representatives of this sector of the community made the decision to organise themselves as an autonomous user group.
Positive comments were forwarded by workshop team also with regard to this two-fold exercise.
In particular, it was found that "on-the-spot-visit was easy to implement because based on 'go and see'. This is indeed the way villagers are used to evaluate their work. Therefore, very little facilitation was needed to carry-out the exercise." Subsequent SWO analysis was assessed as very instrumental in making "clearer things to be considered while re-planning the activities and in identifying suitable ways to improve".
These opinions are validated by the information presented in Tables 4-7. Most of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities stated by the different groups are extremely relevant to improve both technical aspects and management of User Groups initiatives.
Furthermore from this exercise several general suggestions could be elicited, to be taken into consideration by the project in future implementation of similar activities. This includes:
* the incorporation in water source protection package (and related formal agreement of measures aimed at facilitating maintenance and better use (lighter and more handy tank covers, training of user group members on tank periodical cleaning and chlorinating, establishment of a system of water charges, canalisation of waste water for irrigation use; see Table 4);* the need to secure in advance a suitable market outlet for income-generating activities (such as making agreements with hotels and restaurants which may be interested in relying on a regular supply of fresh vegetables during the dry season; see Table 5);
* the provision of technical support in assessing the extent in which handed over forests are able to tap the fuel-wood and forage needs of user groups and in identifying the actions needed to decrease any eventual gap (such as forestry plantation in waste lands, see Table 6);
* the need to give more consideration to farmers preferences about species in seedlings and saplings distribution and to provide relevant training and extension to farmers involved in this activity (i.e., to shift from the plain distribution of planting material to a more comprehensive assistance to agroforestry development; see Table 7).
This suggests that, as expected, the combination of the observational and empirical dimension of the on-the-spot visit exercise with the analytical process facilitated by SWO exercise is specially appropriate to mobilise villagers capability to extract lessons learned from implementation experience and make relevant suggestions for improvement.
A substantial improvement in participatory planning process and results was acknowledged by workshop team members, in comparison with the experience carried out during initial PRA. Such an improvement was related to the fact that "CAP preparation was based on a discussion of past experiences and on an assessment of what the group could be actually able to do during the whole year". It was also found that "asking each user group to make their own action plan and saying they would be responsible to implement was very appropriate". Furthermore, several team members were confident that through this exercise Majgaon villagers become more aware that "CAPs should be made without thinking to be dependent from the (PUCD) project for its implementation: support from other organisations is also to be sought".
Some of these impressions are actually validated by the user-groups action plans, presented in Tables 8 - 12. Due to their focus on specific user group needs and resources, and to the improved planning format used in this occasion, all these plans are indeed more detailed and organised than the 1996 overall community plan (see Table 1). Comparison between these documents and the SWO analysis matrixes indicates that, at least in some cases, lessons learned through previous implementation were considered in the design of new initiatives (e.g. the inclusion of a training and extension component and the specification of preferred species in fruit and fodder saplings distribution activities; and the incorporation of a re-afforestation of private land component into the Gairi forest hand-over package; see respectively Tables 10,11 and 9).
However, it should be acknowledged that such an application of lessons learned seems not having been so systematic as recommendable. For instance, no mention to the commercialisation issue raised by SWO analysis (see Table 5) is made in the vegetable production activity re-proposed by the Sabodaya User Group (see Table 12). Similarly, no reference to the establishment of maintenance regulations, identified as an opportunity for improved in Simpani Water Source protection SWO (see Table 4), is made in connection with similar initiatives proposed by Pragati and Sabodaya Women User Groups (see, respectively. Tables 11 and 12).
It should also be observed that despite facilitators efforts, PUCD project is still indicated as the key outsider support organisation in all the plans (also in connection with activities such as adult literacy classes which obviously fall outside project mandate). Furthermore, actual cost/effectiveness of some proposed physical works (namely, protection of water sources and trail improvement) benefiting a small number of households seems not having been fully considered by some groups.
This suggests that there is still a major room for improvement in both promoting a sounder link between evaluation and re-planning exercises and overcoming community dependence from project support. Such an improvement is likely to be achieved if the content of user-groups action plans developed during the workshop will be considered for what it actually is: a number of working hypothesis (or "wishes"), developed in a very short time, which are by definition in need for a more in-depth participatory analysis of their actual institutional, social and economic feasibility. Indispensable for the making of sound decisions about implementation, the execution of such a participatory feasibility assessment is indeed a task which could not be neglected, nor overlooked by project management and staff, in their effort to strengthen the management capacities and support the development process of Majgaon villagers.
