2.5.1 Project level monitoring
2.5.2 Project level evaluation
2.5.3 Community level monitoring
2.5.4 Community level evaluation
Given the high number of proposed activities included in the 26 CAPs, project level monitoring of the implementation of the CAPs was essential. This monitoring took different forms at different levels.
A Community Action Plan Data Base was developed (in Excel) by the APO/Watershed Management Officer, Ms. H. Qwist-Hoffmann, in the period February - April 1996. This database was extremely useful, because it produced an overview of the 26 CAPs, and served as an important planning tool. The database was updated several times, in order to keep track of activity feasibility, design estimates, and progress in implementation. However, it became gradually evident that there were too many changes occurring in the field, such as changes of site names, user group and community responsibilities, that eroded the reliability of the database, and increased the time needed to keep it up to date.
A Physical activity implementation data base was developed (in LOTUS) by the project's Administrative Assistant, Mr. R.S. Thapa. This database used the agreements with user groups for the implementation physical activities and enabled project management to monitor financial aspects of implementation, including the delivery of materials.
At the District Soil Conservation Office level, the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Mr. B.D. Dhungana, served as focal point to monitor the quality of the detailed design estimates, and subsequent implementation of activities.
Regular staff meetings were most important in monitoring the implementation of activities. It was in such meetings that systematic information was provided concerning each and every scheduled (i.e. agreed with user group) activity, problems were highlighted, adjustments agreed upon, and staff assignments made according to need.
At the field level, responsibility was assigned for all activities in a particular area to mid-level technicians, the so-called Area Facilitators. Still the amount of activities in their assigned areas was too much to handle without assistance. Two kinds of assistance were provided (i) the Field Assistants (male) monitored progress in activity implementation by the user groups and informed the Area Facilitators of the need for technical back-stopping, or the supply of additional material; (ii) the Group Promoters (female) were instrumental in contacting communities and user groups to collect their demand for fruit and forest tree seedlings, improved breeding bucks, particular training events, and so on.
The Group Promoters were also monitoring the performance of the user groups, which was particularly important because of the criteria set by the project to work only with active user groups.
Project level evaluation of implemented activities also took different forms. Overall project self evaluation took the form of a two-day Self-evaluation workshop, 11-12 July 1996.
Final payments to user groups, upon reported completion of activities, were not made until field verification was carried out by the Area Facilitators.
The overall quality of the work performed in a particular area, i.e. within the responsibility of a particular Area Facilitator, was jointly but informally evaluated by the District Soil Conservation Officer/National Project Director, Mr. B.K. Rimal, and the concerned staff members.
Detailed and formal evaluation of implemented physical activities was limited to the most popular activity, water source protection/drinking water supply. This evaluation was based on filled out forms, which was done by the Group Promoters.
Training activities directly organized by the project usually included a final evaluation session, in which participants could give their opinion. The adult literacy classes ended with a simple test, which only 65 of the more than 100 participants passed.
Communities constantly monitor and evaluate whatever is going on in their surroundings, though in an informal way. However, with regards to the physical activities there are at least four different types of more formal monitoring by user groups:
(i) The time that each user group member spends in the completion of a particular activity;(ii) The quantity of local material provided by the user groups in the implementation of physical activities (sand, gravel, etc.);
(iii) The income generated -at the user group level- by communal vegetable production by women groups; and
(iv) The mating frequency of improved breeding bucks.
It should be noted, that the active user groups operate savings and credit schemes, which they scrupulously monitor.
Community level evaluation was facilitated by the project in a series of 5 Participatory Evaluation and Re-Planning (PERP) Workshops in the period October -December 1996, covering 8 of the original PRA communities included in the 1995/96 PRA, notably Majhgaon (Chhoprak #7); Tutunga, Firfire and Arubothe/Mathure (Chhoprak #8); Katubanse (Chhoprak #9); and Belbas, Kolkate and Khurpajung (Khoplang #4). A total of 19 user groups were represented in these workshops.
In each workshop participating user groups typically consisted of a ward level user group, 1 or more women groups, a forest user group and a disadvantaged minority group. Participatory evaluation tools used included (see also Field Document 7/96):
(i) Impact assessment, identification and mapping of changes in the community; and(ii) Assessment of work done, observation walks and strength, weakness and opportunity analysis.
This community level evaluation focussed on implemented activities. As far as non-accomplished activities are concerned, if they were still considered relevant, the PERP workshops were used to re-schedule their implementation in 1997. A more detailed and specific report will be produced regarding the outcomes of these PERP workshops and the related 1997 Community Action Plans.
