Chapter 1 - Design and implementation of the PUCD project's PME systems

1.1. General framework of the PME systems
1.2. Bolivia
1.3. Nepal
1.4. Pakistan
1.5 Tunisia

1.1. General framework of the PME systems

To comply with the open-ended and flexible design of the Project Document (ProDoc), the PUCD Project's PME systems should be able to:

· enable local staff to prepare sound and detailed workplans, focusing on specific micro-outputs to be pursued in a given period of time, relevant actions and organizational aspects;

· ensure timely monitoring of the progress made towards achieving the micro-outputs specified by the workplans;

· extract lessons learned from implementation, through simple "formative" evaluation exercises;

· promote application of lessons learned to further planning.

Further requisites are posed by the participatory approach. These include:

· enabling the participating communities and interest groups to identify relevant and feasible activities to be carried out with assistance provided by the project (or other partners);

· supporting local participants in ensuring the appropriate follow-up of the implementation process;

· contributing to participants' "learning-by-doing process" by facilitating self-evaluation and re-planning practices.

To meet both sets of requisites, the general framework of the PME system prepared by the consultant in 1994 included both a project-level and a community-level component.

a) Project-level PME

This component aims to support NFTs in planning, following-up, and assessing the project's performance and the achievement of micro-outputs. Project-level PME is based on simple conventional PME techniques and tools and is organized into the following four modules:

· The planning module facilitates the identification of micro-outputs to be achieved, major steps in implementation, and tentative deadlines for achievement. It includes exercises for priority-setting, feasibility analysis, logical-framework (means/end) analysis, and programming.

· The monitoring module facilitates the continuous adjustment of the project's workplans to the constraints encountered in implementation. It also allows for the assessment of timeliness in implementation. It is based on regular monitoring meetings during which the project staff analyses the progress made and the causes for delay.

· The process-evaluation module facilitates the periodical assessment of implementation. It allows the project's and the partners' inputs to be reviewed in terms of both quantity (based on lime-allocation indicators, see Box 1) and quality (as perceived by staff and participants). Its main output is the identification of strengths and weaknesses in implementation.

BOX 1 - Time-allocation indicators for quantitative process evaluation

INDICATORS	PROXIES FOR
Average no. of staff involved	Project's commitment to implementation
Total hours contributed by staff	Project's work input
Average no, of participants involved	Participation in implementation
Total hours contributed by participants	Participants' work input
Ratio of staff to participants in terms of total hours (total hours staff/total hours participants)	Efficiency of the participatory process

· The result-evaluation module facilitates the assessment of the preliminary achievements of project implementation. Based on the specific needs of each NFT, which may vary by location and time, this module may include exercises for evaluating the following results, based on relevant indicators:

- environmental changes (e.g., re-vegetation of rangelands; see example from Pakistan in Box 2);

- social changes (e.g., capacity-building of grassroots organizations, women's participation);

- changes in people's competence or behaviour (e.g., adoption of "conservation-by-use" practices, management of community nurseries).

- financial results of income-generating activities and technical results of field trials (e.g., introduction of new species or varieties, innovative measures for natural resource management).

These exercises may be carried out just once or repeated several times during the project. Their main output lies in distinguishing those aspects of the project's technical contributions that work best

BOX 2 Indicators for assessing environmental changes related to project activities identified by the NFT in Pakistan (February 1995) Agricultural land protected by bunds (surface) Agricultural land serviced by cemented channels Depth of the water table in selected wells Surface of plots afforested with Tamarix Survival rate of Tamarix plantations Surface of plots afforested with saltbush Survival rate of saltbush plantations No. of trees planted (by species) in special locations (roads, irrigation channels, compounds) Survival rate of trees planted (by species) % cover by species under different treatments % composition of vegetation under different treatments % overall cover under different treatments Biomass (kg) per acre under different treatments

b) Community-level PME

Community-level PME aims to support interest groups and communities in learning how to better orient and implement their initiatives. It is based on participatory action-research methods similar to Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA).

Community level PME is organized into the following three modules

· The planning module, is based on the initial participatory appraisal or the subsequent participatory-evaluation exercises It is meant to facilitate the identification of priority needs, the design of relevant activities, the assessment of their feasibility, and the preparation of a simple workplan answering the basic planning questions of "What?", "What for?", "How?", "By whom?", and "By when?". The participatory techniques and tools for this module include: problem-tree analysis, priority-ranking participatory feasibility analysis matrixes, and participatory planning matrixes

· The participatory monitoring module includes exercises conducted during implementation for facilitating participants awareness of the progress made and of the difficulties met in putting into practice initial planning decisions, and for adjusting the process accordingly The main technique used is participatory monitoring meetings

· The participatory evaluation module allows participants to review the work process and results, to extract lessons learned from implementation, and to plan the continuation of activities accordingly. Relevant techniques and tools include: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Limitations (SWOL) analysis; Problems, Causes and Solutions analysis; observational walks; slide; language; community-based experiments; participatory mapping of changes; scoring of key indicators; and ex-post participatory cost-benefit analysis

Since 1994, the above general framework of the PUCD Project's PME systems has been progressively adjusted according to the specific needs, assets, and constraints of each project field component. ⁷ As a result of this process, the individual PME systems that have been actually implemented significantly differ among the four field components. The key features of each of these systems are summarised in the following sections. Some examples of the techniques, tools, and procedures adopted are provided in boxes.

⁷ Adjustment of the system's framework to local conditions was facilitated through start-up and follow-up consultancies. During start-up consultancies, the system's framework was discussed in detail with project management and staff, and upgraded on the basis of their suggestions. Paper and computerized tools were developed for data collection and storage, as were procedures for data analysis, and for the feedback and subsequent use of information, taking into account users' preferences. The outcomes of these activities were presented to the NTT in training workshops, aimed at clarifying the rationale and objectives of each exercise included in the system, and at transferring the relevant skills for data collection and processing. In subsequent follow-up missions, the experience undergone in the six to twelve months following the start-up mission was reviewed with project management (including, when appropriate, staff members in-charge of coordinating PME operations) and staff. The system's shortcomings were identified, and amendments were made, according to users' demands and suggestions. When appropriate, original ideas developed by NFTs were integrated into the system. Furthermore, the staff in-charge was provided with additional training on how to design project- and community-level exercises addressing specific evaluation needs not covered by the initial design.

1.2. Bolivia⁸

⁸ The summary of the PME system established by the NFT in Bolivia is based on observations made by the consultant during his last visit to the project (June 1997) and on the following sources: BOL/93/10; BOL/93/11; BOL/94/2: BOL/94/7; BOL/94/10b; BOL/95/1; BOL/95/6; BOL/95/8; BOL/95/12a; BOL/95/12b; BOL/95/12c; BOL/96/4; BOL/96/6b; BOL/96/10a; BOL/96/11a; and BOL/96/11d.

Bolivia was the site of the preliminary field-testing of the PUCD Project's PME framework; thus the Bolivian version of the system most closely resembles the initial design.

Project-level planning is carried out every six months during evaluation and re-planning workshops with the NFTs and representatives of local communities. During these workshops, staff members assess the possibility of continuing established activities and of beginning new ones, according to the findings of evaluation exercises (see below). Priorities are established, together with micro-outputs to be achieved in the subsequent six-month term. For each micro-output, a list of relevant actions is prepared, and tentative deadlines are set. Responsibilities for implementation are shared among team members, according to the specific content and location of each activity. This information is entered a micro-output file (see example in Box 3), and all of these files are entered into a workplan database.

To facilitate project-level monitoring, the staff in-charge of each micro-output provides the M&E Officer with a monthly progress report on the work completed. Relevant data are entered into the workplan database, and the updated file is printed.

Box 3 Example of a filled-out micro-output file (NFT, Bolivia, 1997)

MICRO-OUTPUT FILE

Micro-output: Coverage of a 0.25 ha fruit tree orchard parcel
Location: Floripondio
Staff in-charge: Sixto Hernandez
Support staff: none
Start-up date: October 1997
Expected date of completion: March 1998

Interested farmers		Working area
Beginning	End	Beginning	End
Cayo Martinez	Cayo Martinez	0.25 ha	0.25 ha

Date	Action	Staff			Participants			Costs
		N	Hrs	Tot	N	Hrs	Tot	Cash	Input
Sept 97	Site identification and implementation agreement	1	4	4	1	4	4
Sept 97	Site inspection and soil analysis	1	4	4	1	4	4
Oct 97	Soil preparation and clearing	1	4	4	2	4	8		2 kg of soya seeds
Jan 97	Sowing	1	8	8	1	8	8
Mar 98	Weeding and evaluation of the plantation	1	4	4	2	4	8

Process-evaluation summary:
Expected date of completion:	31 March 1998
Actual date of completion:	29 March 1998
Number of initial participants	1
Number of final participants:	1
Hours spent by staff:	24
Hours spent by participants:	32
Efficiency:	1:1.5
Cash input:	None
Material input:	2 kg of soya seeds

Micro-outputs suffering from significant delays are highlighted. A monthly monitoring meeting is held to review this information. The staff in-charge and the managers analyse the problems and the causes for delay and identify remedial actions. The overall workplan is adjusted accordingly.

Process-evaluation is conducted during biannual evaluation and re-planning workshops, focusing on the degree of completion of micro-outputs and the time invested by staff and community (as per time-allocation indicators collected through the above micro-output planning and monitoring file; see Box 3). The M&E Officer analyses field-data for each type of activity and location and, using simple computer-generated graphs, summarises findings in a process-evaluation report, which includes open-ended questions to be answered by workshop participants (i.e. field-staff and representatives of grassroots organizations). Based on these questions, a discussion takes place, during which qualitative elements of project activities observed by field-staff and other workshop participants are used to interpret quantitative data. The results of this discussion are applied to re-planning for the subsequent six-month term.

One specific project-level result-evaluation exercise is carried out every six months, covering different types of project outcomes, such as: capacity-building; functioning of rotating funds; community participation; acceptability and effectiveness of conservation measures for soil and other natural resources; use of incentives for adoption of conservation measures; and women's participation in project activities ⁹. The design of these exercises begins with the identification of key indicators. Data collection tools are prepared, and data analysis procedures are defined. The staff in-charge carries out data collection for relevant micro-outputs. Findings are discussed during the evaluation and re-planning workshops, following the same procedure used for process-evaluation.

⁹ A case study on the acceptability of the project's approach in a pilot community was also carried out in 1996 (see BOL/96/10a).

Community-level evaluation and planning are usually jointly carried out during a one-day annual workshop held in selected communities of the project area. The workshop is attended by members of interest groups, staff in-charge, and community members at large The interest group members present the work done during the year; an SWOL analysis is carried in small groups assisted by project staff (see Box 4)¹⁰.

¹⁰ In the initial design, field tested in 1994, the initial presentation of the work done was meant to be backed-up by a slide-language exercise (see BOL/94/10b).

The results of this exercise are presented in a plenary session, during which the concerned interest groups make decisions on the continuation and/or modification of ongoing activities. New activities can also be proposed during this session. Eventually, a plan for the collaboration between the project and the community's interest groups is drafted by means of a participatory planning matrix This plan is submitted to project management, fine-tuned according to the results of a technical feasibility analysis (carried out by project resource-persons) ¹¹, and re-discussed with the concerned groups.

¹¹ With regard to income-generating activities, the project has developed a method to carry out ex-ante cost-benefit analysis in a participatory fashion.

Regarding participatory community-level monitoring, time constraints prevented the project from establishing a regular practice. However, several interest groups have autonomously developed some form of informal monitoring practice. Furthermore, the project extension staff provides technical follow-up to the implementation of activities on an individual basis. Only in cases of major operational problems or disagreements are meetings scheduled between the interest group, extension staff, advisors, and project management.

BOX 4
SWOL analysis of the experience with the potato seedlings rotational fund (Bella Vista, Bolivia, October 1997).
WHAT WAS DONE WELL?	WHAT PROBLEMS WERE ENCOUNTERED?	HOW CAN THESE PROBLEMS BE OVERCOME IN THE FUTURE?	WHAT CONSTRAINTS CANNOT BE CONTROLLED?
1. Income increased by 75%,	1. Production was affected by excessive rain.	1. Sow before the beginning of the rainy season. Look for parcels with better drainage.	1. Weather
2. Potato seed storage facilities (silos) were built.	2. Storage facilities were far from the field, making the carrying of the seedlings to the silos difficult.	2. Build smaller individual silos, close to the parcels.	2. The high cost of building individual silos
3. Soil conservation measures proved to be effective.	3. A lot of labour was needed.	3. Encourage mutual help among group members.	3. Time availability
4. Money borrowed on credit was paid back by most group members.	4. Some group members withdrew from the credit scheme.	4. Develop stricter rules.	4. Insufficient power to enforce the rules

1.3. Nepal¹²

¹² The summary of the PME system established by the NFT in Nepal is based on observations made by the consultant during his last visit to the project (September 1996) and on the following sources: NEP/95/10a; NEP/95/10b; NEP/96/4c; NEP/96/10d; NEP/96/10e; NEP/96/12a; NEP/97/2a; NEP/97/2b; NEP/97/7; and NEP/97/10.

In Nepal, both project- and community-level PME focus on Community Action Plans (CAP), which consist of lists of activities developed by members of User Groups and field-staff according to findings of participatory appraisal or evaluation exercises ¹³

¹³ One major consequence of this approach is that PME focuses on field activities; little systematic PME is done for process-oriented activities such as PRA, research, training, and preparation of reports.

Project-level planning consists of assessing which CAP activities actually match the criteria for project assistance ¹⁴. After this preliminary screening, an agreement for implementation is prepared for all major activities (i.e. those requiring fairly large amounts of input). The agreements specify mutual obligations, main steps in implementation, modalities for delivering inputs and an implementation schedule. Relevant information is eventually entered into a CAP database, which is used for facilitating the monthly planning of field-workers' activities and for monitoring (see Box 5).

¹⁴ These criteria include: i) being promoted by "active" (properly functioning) User Groups, ready to engage in a cost-sharing arrangement; and (ii) being technically, socially, financially and environmentally feasible, according to a simple ex-ante assessment carried out by the project's field staff.

Information for project-level monitoring is collected by area facilitators from field assistants and group promoters during area-level meetings ¹⁵ and entered into the CAP database. This information is reported to all project staff during meetings, which are the most important element in project-level monitoring. In these meetings, NFT members analyse field information on each activity included in the CAP database. Problems met in implementation are discussed, and adjustments are agreed upon on an as-needed basis. Finally, staff assignments for the forthcoming month are made according to the findings of the monitoring exercise.

¹⁵ In Nepal, the project's watershed has been divided into a number of "areas" roughly corresponding to Village Development Committees (VDC administrative) territories. A team consisting of a coordinator, one field assistant and one or more group promoters is entrusted with the responsibility of facilitating implementation of project activities in each of these areas. See section 2.2.

Project-level evaluation takes different forms. Project-level process evaluation is carried out through exercises in Strengths and Weaknesses analysis in the framework of Project Self-Evaluation Workshops. Furthermore, based on monitoring information, the NPD and staff members monthly evaluate, in an informal and participatory fashion, the overall quality of the work performed in a particular area ¹⁶. Systematic project-level evaluation of results includes the annual evaluation of overall project achievements and the evaluation of the functioning of User Groups. An in-depth evaluation of the most popular physical activity, water source protection/drinking water supply ¹⁷, is also conducted.

¹⁶ Use of time-allocation indicators for project-level process evaluation was not considered appropriate by the NFT in Nepal.

¹⁷ Due to time and personnel constraints, it has not been possible to fully implement other result evaluation exercises designed with the support of external consultants (such as the "Technical evaluation of community plantation", the "Distributed planting material survey" and the "Economic evaluation of improved goat production").

BOX 5 - Planning and monitoring of participatory implementation in Nepal The participatory planning exercise carried out in Bhusunde Khola in 1995/1996 allowed for the formulation of 26 CAPs including 226 activities. Of these, 96 physical activities and 33 training activities were assessed as feasible and became the subject of a project/User Group implementation agreement. To ensure the timely delivery of technical assistance and material inputs consistent with the actual progress made in implementing each initiative, a simple CAP monitoring system was established. This monitoring system relied on a Community Action Plan database, designed by the staff member in-charge of M&E activities. It consisted of an Excel spreadsheet including the following main columns: * Village Development Committees and ward in which the hamlet is located * Name of the hamlet * Name of the activity * Number of expected beneficiaries * Contribution of User Group(s) * Contribution of the project * Other line-agencies involved * Total estimated cost * Date of agreement * Date of expected completion * Monthly status of the activity This information was integrated by a second database, developed by the project's Administrative Assistant, for the purpose of monitoring the financial aspects of implementation, such as the purchase and delivery of materials. Both databases were updated every month on the basis of information collected by mid-level technicians, field assistants and group promoters, through meetings with concerned User Groups and on-site observations. Monthly cross-tabulation of data entered into the two spreadsheets allowed several monitoring tables to be prepared, the most important of which were the tables "status of on-going activities" and "delivery of inputs". Although problems in information flow often affected the reliability of this information and increased the time needed to keep the databases up-to-date, this procedure was found to be instrumental in facilitating the proper management of the project's field operations at the community-level.

Community-level monitoring also focuses on activities being implemented. In addition to the informal monitoring carried out autonomously by all villagers, the following three aspects of implementation are followed-up by concerned User Groups and reported to project field-staff: the time required by each User Group member to complete a particular activity; the quantity of local material provided in the implementation of physical activities, and, whenever applicable, the income generated.

The NFT began to facilitate community-level evaluation in October 1996, based on the design of participatory evaluation and re-planning workshops jointly developed by local staff and external consultants. Participatory evaluation exercises carried out in these workshops start with an assessment of the effects of project implementation, based on the participatory mapping of the changes taking place in the community as a result of CAP implementation (see Box 6). This is followed by a Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities analysis also covering a self-assessment of the User Groups' performance. Based on the findings of these exercises, a re-planning session is held. Between November 1997 and January 1998, 40 User Groups went through participatory evaluation and re-planning workshops ¹⁸.

¹⁸ Significantly enough, after their first exposure to workshops facilitated by project staff, most User Groups preferred to facilitate these exercises themselves, with project staff acting as observers and resource persons.

BOX 6

Effects of project activities as identified by User Group members during a change-mapping evaluation exercise carried out in Majghaon (Bhusunde Khola watershed, Nepal, October 1996)

ACTIVITY	CHANGES
Forest management	easier access to fuelwood
	more rational use of forest resources
	increased group cohesion
	increase in User Group's funds
Distribution and plantation of forest, fodder, and grass seeds and seedlings	increase in milk production
	use of wasteland
	more widespread concern, within the community, for tree planting
Compost-making and Vegetable gardening	increased awareness of the importance of women's self-organization
	time saved (manure being available on the site)
	supply of healthy and fresh vegetables
	income generation, increase in User Group's savings increase in vegetable production
Water-source Protection	supply of clean water
	decrease of diarrhoeal diseases
	time saved
	identification of a means of sharing the work according to the activity's expected benefits
	increase in the quantity of water from the source
	use of surplus water for livestock-watering and irrigation

1.4. Pakistan¹⁹

¹⁹ The summary of the PME system established by the NFT in Pakistan is based on observations made by the consultant during his last visit to the project (October 1996) and on the following sources: PAK/94/10; PAK/95/3b; PAK/95/8a; PAK/95/9; PAK/95/10b; PAK/95/11; PAK/95/12b; PAK/96/7b; PAK/96/11a; PAK/97/4; PAK/97/7a; and PAK/97/7h.

The PME system began to be implemented in February 1995, during the consultant's start-up mission. Difficulties met in implementation and ideas provided by the CTA led to the initial design being amended, as described below ²⁰

²⁰ With the end of Phase 2, the project experience in Pakistan is expected to conclude in October 1998.

As in other countries, project-level planning is carried out by breaking down the ProDoc outputs into a number of specific micro-outputs, to be achieved during the year (in some cases, extending beyond the year). Project management identifies key steps in achieving each micro-output and develops a tentative schedule with the staff in-charge. This practice is limited to "core" project activities, including activities related to natural resource management, income-generation, improvement of farming systems and development of basic services. A less detailed plan is prepared for "regular" activities related to the promotion of the participatory process (such as Monthly Village Meetings), staff development, research, publications, and networking

Project-level monitoring is carried-out in monthly staff monitoring meetings, focusing on qualitative information collected by field-staff through participant observation. During these meetings, planned sequences of actions and implementation schedules are reviewed in light of the progress made and the difficulties met

Based on an initial test period, project management concluded that process-evaluation using time-allocation indicators was too complex, not highly reliable, and only partially relevant It was thus decided to focus on qualitative elements of the implementation process (staff and villagers' perceptions)

In accordance with the initial PME design, several project-level result-evaluation exercises have been implemented, including a periodical assessment of Men's and Women's Village Associations ²¹, a yearly assessment of the progress in the implementation of Village Upland Use Plans, and a continuous supervision of the functioning of community nurseries. Furthermore, a yearly monitoring of the ground-water level in the project area has been performed since 1994.

²¹ The project has adapted the organization of its staff to the local custom of segregating women by operating through separate Men's and Women's Teams and promoting the formation of gender-based Village Associations.

Community-level planning is carried out by facilitating the preparation of comprehensive Village Action Plans. These include rangeland rehabilitation activities (the so-called "Village Upland Use Plan") and other development initiatives identified by the local people during the initial PRA and subsequent evaluation exercises. For each of these activities, detailed planning has been conducted, specifying the objectives, modalities of implementation, participants, cost-sharing and time schedule. Area conventions involving several communities collaborating with the project have also been organized to discuss and compare Village Action Plans.

Community-level monitoring is carried out in regular monthly monitoring meetings, whose main purpose is to identify the progress in implementation and solutions to problems affecting this progress. Simple visual record-keeping tools have been developed by the Women's Team in order to facilitate the involvement of illiterate participants.

Several community-level evaluation techniques have been developed by both Men's and Women's Teams in order to help villagers in assessing the process and results of the work done with the support of the project. These include: participatory cost-benefit analysis, (applied by the Women's Team to assess the results of income-generating activities; see Box 7); identification and scoring of key indicators (used by both Men's and Women's Associations to evaluate the of activities for rangeland development and the improvement of farming systems; see Box 8); problem causes and solution matrixes (applied to identify bottlenecks in the implementation process and relevant solutions (see Box 9), and results, comments and recommendations matrixes (used to identify ways of improving the relevance and effectiveness of the activities according to the villagers' perceptions)

BOX 7

Participatory cost-benefit analysis of a poultry rearing scheme (Pakistan, February 1995)

COSTS		BENEFITS
Netting	25 rupees	120 eggs/month x 12 months x 2 rupees each	2,880 rupees
Lime	40 rupees
Feeder Drinker 12 Chickens	65 rupees	10 layers to be sold x 100 rupees each	1,000 rupees
	70 rupees
	900 rupees
		TOTAL INCOME	3,880 rupees
Service Fees (10% credit interest rate)	110 rupees
Feed	1,200 rupees
		EARNINGS
Veterinary care	160 rupees	Total income
Labour (estimate)	530 rupees	Total costs =	780 rupees
TOTAL COST	3,100 rupees

Slide-presentations and interactive slide language sessions have also been organized by the Women's Team with the aim of visually demonstrating and discussing the impact of rangeland rehabilitation and water harvesting measures. Finally, a series of Village Workshops was organized in the final period of the project, with the aim of promoting the self-evaluation of the Village Associations' performance and the preparation of mid-term Village Action Plans. These exercises were designed and implemented by facilitators recruited from within the communities. They included the identification and scoring of "indigenous" indicators by a number of randomly selected groups of project participants and non-participants.

BOX 8 - Participatory evaluation of latrine demonstration through scoring of key indicators (Raw Mohammad, Pakistan, October 1996)

OBJECTIVES	INDICATORS	SCORE
To save time	Number of hours saved	5 (Very good)
	One hour per day was saved because cleaning the compound has become easier.
To improve health conditions	Less flies in the compound	5 (Very good)
	Achieved because the compound is now free from children's faeces and rubbish.
To increase privacy and provide shelter from rain and snow	Women's privacy and safety	4 (Good)
	All latrine owners appreciated this improvement
	Number of latrines built
To replicate the construction of latrines throughout the village	After an initial demonstration in two compounds, four more latrines were autonomously built in the village.	4 (Good)

BOX 9

Analysis of problems met in rangeland rehabilitation (Lehri, Pakistan, March 1996)

PROBLEM	CAUSES	SOLUTIONS
Illegal grazing in protected areas	A rumour spread that if plants were allowed to grow, then the Forest Department would seize the area.	Misunderstandings about Forest Department's policy should be clarified.
	Parents were not aware that their children were bringing animals into the protected area.	A local community body should be appointed to ensure protection: five elders permanently living in the village would be entrusted with this responsibility
	Since the protection of the area was not strictly enforced and animals were seen in the protected area, others felt authorised to do the same.	Fines should be applied to transgressors. Proceeds from the fines would be deposited in the Village Association's cash box.
		The present watchman should be replaced by a new watchman.

1.5 Tunisia²²

²² The summary of the PME system established by the NFT in Tunisia is based on observations made by the consultant during his last visit to the project (July 1997) and on the following sources: TUN/96/3a; TUN/96/3b; TUN/95/5; TUN/96/6b; TUN/96/7; TUN/96/8a; TUN/96/8c; TUN/96/9c; TUN/96/12a: TUN/96/12h; TUN/96/12c; TUN/97/la; TUN/97/1b; TUN/97/2B; TUN/97/6a; TUN/97/8a; and TUN/97b.

In Tunisia, the PUCD Project's field activities were started only in the second half of 1995. The PME framework was introduced to the NFT by the consultant in-charge in May 1996, after completion of the initial participatory appraisal exercises. The start-up mission provided the basis for project-level planning, monitoring, and process evaluation and some conceptual and methodological orientation for the development of community-level PME practice. Follow-up of this introductory work was limited to informal exchanges between the staff in-charge of M&E and the consultant. However, NFT members and national consultants significantly contributed to developing the result-evaluation module and the community-level component of the system.

The NFT conducts project-level planning on a quarterly basis. The ProDoc's workplan outputs and activities are broken down into micro-outputs. For each micro-output, a sequential list of actions is prepared and a tentative deadline is set A staff member is made responsible for the accomplishment of each micro-output

Project-level monitoring takes place in monthly monitoring meetings and consists of reviewing the progress in achieving the planned micro-outputs and identifying problems and constraints met in implementation and remedial actions. project-level process-evaluation focuses on lime allocation. However, to date, little use has been made of this information, whose relevance and reliability have been questioned by several NET members.

Due to the limited development to date of the project's field activities, project-level result-evaluation is still incipient. A comprehensive evaluation of the methods and the results of the initial participatory appraisal and planning phase was carried out in August 1996, with the consultant's support. An interesting method for assessing the effectiveness of soil conservation measures has been developed by the NET in collaboration with the Forestry Department of the University of Turin. A simple practice to assess the planting of fruit trees has also been established.

The NET and the national consultants have developed a method of community-level planning. To this end, based on problem-tree analysis and participatory mapping exercises, a number of solutions to problems identified during PRA are reported on simple planning matrices filled-out during a special meeting with the concerned communities. The results of these exercises are submitted to governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO) collaborating with the project to assess their feasibility and negotiate cost-sharing. Based on these elements, further meetings are held with the communities to identify interest groups and decide upon implementation modalities for the initiatives found to be feasible and acceptable by relevant agencies (see Box 10). For the time being, community-level monitoring is carried out only with women's interest groups. Meetings are held to review assets and constraints in implementation.

Community-level evaluation practice has been limited to a number of activities implemented by the Women in Development Team (namely, the distribution of tabouna oven covers and the poultry micro-credit scheme). To assess the acceptability of these initiatives, simple qualitative analysis of advantages and disadvantages has been successfully used.

BOX

10 Steps in participatory planning Followed by the NFT in Tunisia

OBJECTIVES	ACTIVITIES
To provide participants with feedback of the information collected during the initial appraisal	Presentation and discussion with participants, supported by visual aids, such as maps on land tenure, slope, erosion and soil use (prepared by technical experts)
To identify the main problems perceived by participants	Problem-tree building exercise, supported by visual aids (mobile charts)
	Preparation of a short-list of problems to be addressed through collective action
To identify solutions to priority problems, as proposed by participants	Brainstorming with participants for matching problems with solutions
To assess, with institutional partners (decision-makers and experts), the feasibility of participants' proposals	Preparation of an executive report on findings from the previous steps of the participatory planning process
To negotiate modalities of implementation	Meetings among participants, project staff, decision-makers and experts; field visits with decision-makers and experts
To develop and agree upon a workplan	As above
To prepare and sign implementation contracts	As above