All together, the above considerations indicate that implementation on an annual basis of similar evaluation and re-planning workshop may provide a significant contribution to the strengthening of the participatory process launched through the initial PRA. Our conclusion and recommendations will therefore focus on the replication of this pilot-experience in other locations of the project area. In this connection four main issues will be considered: the relevance and appropriateness of the workshop design tested in Majgaon; the actual project staff and user group capacity of running similar event without external (consultants) supports; the cost/effectiveness of implementation, namely in terms of working time to be allocated by staff and participants; and the actual limitations of workshop planning exercise.
A major effort was done in workshop design to identify an organisational framework and a number of participatory evaluation and planning exercises, relevant to the specific needs of the participatory process promoted by the project, and appropriate to the local social, organisational and logistic conditions. The elements of judgement reviewed in previous session suggest that this effort was basically successful. Thus the design tested in Majgaon may be recommended for replication in other localities of the project area
However, as suggested by workshop team members, a number of improvement in the technicalities of the event could be considered. This may include:
* the use of drawing or symbols (instead of written statements) in participatory mapping of changes occurred/occurring in the community;* the preparation, during the relevant plenary session of a comprehensive map of changes occurred/occurring in the community;
* a stronger facilitation during participatory planning exercise, aimed at promoting (i) a thorough application of lessons learned from previous experience; and (ii) a more consistent identification of the outside partners to whom, for institutional reasons, demand for support in carrying out different activities should be addressed.
Preparation of a series of flip-charts illustrating PUCD project and other institutions mandates, to be presented and discussed during the introductory meeting with User Group representatives, can be instrumental in supporting participants to better understand the latter issue.
The good performance of workshop team members during the workshop has shown that their conceptual and practical background in participatory action research methods is enough solid and sound to allow them to manage similar event in the future without external consultants support. However, according to a precise request forwarded during the final internal evaluation session, it is recommended to continue to secure qualified technical assistance for the implementation of the next (or next two) workshop (s). Provision of such a support may be included in the framework of the new collaboration agreement between the PUCD project and "New Era".
In the light of long-term sustainability considerations, the opportunity of providing appropriate training in organising and running participatory evaluation and re-planning events to selected user groups members was also considered by the participants in the final internal evaluation session. The advantages of progressively transferring the responsibility of organising and carrying out similar events to community members are quite obvious, also in terms of user groups capacity building. Even though it was acknowledged that this idea is unlikely to be successfully implemented in the next months, development of a sound user groups training programme in planning, monitoring and evaluation should be considered while preparing the project workplan for 1997. Also in this case a collaboration between project "New Era" experts is likely to be very appropriate.
Over a period of one working week (six days), a total amount of 21 person/days (about 150 working hours) was spent by workshop team (not including external consultants) for the implementation of the Majgaon workshop. This figure is obviously affected by the high number of staff members involved for training purposes.
Based on this consideration, it is consultants opinion that in the future similar events could be run by 3 staff members10, working on a full time basis for a period of 4 days (one for preparation, two for implementation; and one for reporting to project management11). This gives a total estimate of 12 person/days for the implementation of each workshop.
10
In the final evaluation, while discussing this topic, field staff suggested that, in order to allocate one facilitator to each working group, at least five persons should be involved in the implementation of the workshop. Even though this may ensure a more accurate follow-up to group-work, consultant experience indicates that, with some practice, good results can be achieved also without meeting this requirement. On the other hand, limiting the number of staff to be involved in the exercise is essential to make these workshops a really cost/effective means to support the participatory process.
11 Reporting will basically consists in preparing results tables, similar to those presented in section 3 of this document.
To implement the workshop in each one the twenty-six villagers which prepared 1996 CAP, total working time to be allocated is 312 working days. Such a figure is equal to about the 60 % of the 510 working days, during which the ten project field staff (including group promoters) are supposed to be on-duty in the next months of December and January.
Such a significant effort should be compared with the actual contribution of these events to the strengthening of the participatory process and the building of user groups managerial capacity. By assuming that each user-group member will allocate at least two and a half working days to participate in the workshop, and that at least twenty persons will participate in each workshop, the total contribution of the communities to the implementation of these workshops will be not less than 1,300 working days, spent in actual involvement in high quality participatory learning-from-experience and decision-making work. Such an amount of time is higher than the overall time allocated by community members throughout the year for PRA, planning, capacity-building and training initiatives promoted by the project.
Based on these estimates, participatory evaluation and re-planning workshops seem to be a highly cost/effective way of promoting people involvement in the participatory process and training them in the management of their initiatives. Therefore, work and time required for implementation should not be considered as a substantial reason for limiting the implementation of these events to selected hamlets (as suggested by project management during the de-briefing meeting held in Kathmandu after the workshop).
In the light of these considerations, it is rather recommended to:
* replicate in the forthcoming months the pilot experience carried out in Majgaon in all the twenty-six village involved in initial PRA; and* envisage support to the organisation and implementation of these (or similar) events a basic elements of project participatory process promotion strategy, to be appropriately considered in project yearly workplan formulation.
Majgaon experience showed that even though highly effective (and cost/effective), annual evaluation and re-planning workshops are not able to fulfil all the planning capacity building needs of user groups. In particular, it was found that planning decisions made in the framework of a few hours discussion are sometimes not enough organised, nor supported by empirical evidence, to be considered more than working hypotheses. The need for counterchecking ideas forwarded in the framework of the workshop through a more in-depth feasibility analysis should be therefore considered.
In order to face this need according to the project participatory strategy, it is recommended to:
* review in the light of the experiences in participatory feasibility analysis carried out by the PUCD sister projects in Bolivia, Pakistan and Tunisia the conventional procedure so far adopted by DSC to assess the feasibility of physical works;* extend the practice of ex-ante participatory feasibility analysis (covering institutional, socio-cultural and economic feasibility) to all the activities to be promoted by the project in collaboration with local user groups;
* provide, as soon as possible training opportunities in this area to the field staff in-charge (through New Era and/or other possible sources of technical assistance) and ensure that in 1997 work plan enough time will be allocated to the completion of this important task.
