5.1 Quality and quantity of the PRA exercises
5.2 Quality and quantity of the community action plans
The quality of the PRA exercises varied with the PRA teams, the experience gained and the attitude of the villagers. However, in general, the quality of the information gathered is not very high. This became especially apparent while preparing this report. Many PRA tools were used in a large number of sites, but information was rarely cross-checked (triangulated), and the recorded data are often incomplete.
However, it is important to recall that the main objective of this PRA was not to gather high quality information, but rather to improve the understanding of the target communities of their own situation and environment, in order to set the stage for a participatory planning of development activities. When this is used as a criterium, the quality of the result seems to be satisfactory, though not excellent (see chapter 5.2).
It has gradually become clear to the project field teams that in a situation where villagers, especially women, have a severe time constraint to attend PRA or other gatherings, it is important to limit PRA exercises to necessary and functional tools. Thus the number of PRA tools and subjects for which they were used gradually decreased. An example is the matrix ranking of preferred food crop varieties or fodder tree species. This kind of quality information is more interesting for the outsider, involved at a higher level in development planning.
The mapping tool, especially the resource mapping has since proven to be essential in follow-up activities, most notably the participatory monitoring and evaluation of the CAPs. Seasonality Diagrams, which give details on the farming calendar and time availability, have proven very useful in detailed planning of activity implementation.
Though water and water use plays a central role in village life and figures prominently in the CAPs, no specific PRA tool was used to analyze water resources, problems and opportunities.
In some villages the PRA exercise seemed to have been unduly influenced by high profile people (local leaders), who acted in an undemocratic way. In such situations a lot depends on the skills of the PRA facilitator. It has subsequently become clear that to avoid situations dominated by one or two strong local leaders, the PRA exercise should focus on small interest groups, thereby giving opportunity to these different groups to express their own views and opinions.
Some of the quality problems of the information gathered in the 26 PRAs could be solved by combining the data from the different sites, which is what was done in this report.
The quantity of PRA exercises carried out in a quite short time is impressive. We can safely assume, that never before has PRA and participatory planning been applied at such a scale in soil conservation and watershed management in Nepal. Despite some problems with quality the resulting mass of data provides an important watershed wide data base, that could not have been obtained in any other way.
In this respect, the methodology used, starting from the use of trained project and District Soil Conservation Office staff, and including the relatively short duration of the PRAs, as well as the targeting of small, sub-ward level, communities, has proven to be very successful.
5.2.1 Consistency of PRAs and planned activities
5.2.2 Quantity of activities in the caps
Communities with very low literacy rates, such as Khurpajung (Khoplang #4) set priority to adult literacy classes. Those with important forest resources, such as Kolkate (Khoplang #4) prioritized forest handover and management. Those with little forest resources, such as Tutunga (Chhoprak #8), emphasized fodder and forage production. Communities with a high proportion of the land taken up by gullies, such as Ghimiregaon (Harmi #6) selected gully control. Water use figured high almost everywhere, especially water source protection and irrigation, depending on the actual resource availability.
The activities selected by the communities in their Community Action Plans, is in general very consistent with the results of the PRAs, the large majority of activities selected were based on problem ranking exercises rooted in the PRA (10). The CAPs are in general also very consistent with the mandate of the project and the Department of Soil Conservation. This could mean that the mandate of the DSC fulfills to a large extent the needs of small mountain communities, and/or that the local communities are well aware of the kind of activities the DSC is likely to support, and make sure that these are well represented in the CAPs.
10 There is, however a discrepancy between the problems apparent from the PRA data, such as poverty and food insufficiency, and problems ranked during the planning part of the PRA and Planning proces.
The fact that many communities selected activities that they would have to pay for themselves, such as improved breeding animals and fruit tree saplings, or that would need assistance from other institutions than the project, such as the construction of latrines and a public health center, is proof that these CAPs are truly the communities own plans, rather than a plan to "please" the project.
It should, however, be noted that a number of important problems in the watershed, most notably the food deficit, do not get much specific attention in the PRA and do not or rarely figure in the problem ranking exercises.
As has become clear during the implementation of the CAPs, the quantity of activities included in these was too large for short term implementation. This was due to a lack of participatory planning skills of both the PRA teams (project staff) and the communities.
The PRA teams did not realize the importance of the Seasonality Diagram in that it provides a clear planning tool by indicating when farmers have time available for specific activities.
In the communities involved one can see a certain evolution, whereby communities that had gained more solid previous experience in participatory activity planning and implementation tended to have more realistic plans, such as Majhgaon (Chhoprak #7). Communities that had not earlier been closely involved in such exercises tended to draw up less realistic plans (wish lists), such as Salbot (Chhoprak #4). In such cases, the local resources available to implement specified activities, for instance labour, are far short of actual requirements.
