2.6.1 Quality of the CAPs
2.6.2 Implementation rate
2.6.3 Participatory implementation of physical activities
2.6.4 Planning of training activities
2.6.5 Monitoring and evaluation
If judged by the implementation rates, the quality of the Community Action Plans was not as high as expected. However, it should be noted that implementation rates could have been higher if less communities would have been included in the 95/96 PRAs. The following conclusions reflect on the quality of the 1996 CAPs:
1. Several factors influenced the planning process, notably (i) Expectations of the local population; (ii) Project norms, terms and conditions for the participatory implementation of activities; and (iii) The focus on communities and user groups during the participatory planning process.2. Physical activities usually form the core of the CAPs, and were systematically dealt with by the facilitators.
3. Training activities are haphazardly included in the CAPs, are often hidden under the physical activities, and were not systematically dealt with by the facilitators.
4. In general, the 1996 CAPs were too ambitious to be accomplished in one year, mainly because no analysis was made during planning of the actual time local community members could contribute in the implementation of the plans, and because participatory feasibility studies were carried out after the definition of the CAPs.
The combination of all CAPs, covering a majority of the population of Bhusunde Khola watershed, is the closest thing we have to a participatory watershed management plan. It has many drawbacks, such as limited time frame, poor spatial integration and little homogeneity, but it is the genuine product of a participatory planning process.
Out of a total of 223 activities included in 26 CAPs, 89 were actually implemented in 1996 and 1997, and the overall implementation rate was 40%. For physical activities the implementation rate was 42% (74 out of 177 planned activities). For training activities the implementation rate was only 33% (15 out of 46 planned activities).
These implementation rates appear to be quite low. This is partly due to the fact that feasibility studies were only carried out after the CAPs had been defined, and partly because of the terms and conditions set by the project for implementation. Of the original 177 planned physical activities, 81 (46%) were screened out and appeared un-feasible. Of the remaining 96 feasible activities the implementation rate was 77%, which seems not bad at all.
Several other institutions were involved in the implementation of both physical and training activities included in the CAPs. Some of the water source protection works (drinking water supply) were implemented by the District Development Council and the Village Development Committees. The District Forest Office and the District Agriculture Development Office provided training services to user groups in the Bhusunde Khola watershed, upon request (and renumeration) of the project. Adult literacy classes were provided through the services of local NGOs, in one case these were funded by another donor.
The people of the Bhusunde Khola watershed, in particular those organized in user groups and collaborating with the project, worked hard in the implementation of the activities they had planned themselves. Their contribution in the form of un-skilled labour without renumeration in engineering works, gully control, trail improvement, water source protection and small scale hill irrigation, included in the 1996 CAPs amounted to an estimated NRs 928,000 (equivalent to about US$ 16,352). This amounted to 41 % of the total cost of these activities.
A further contribution was made as remunerated un-skilled labour in gully control and trail improvement of an estimated NRs 260,000 (equivalent to about US$ 4,581), or 11 % of the total cost of engineering activities.
Finally, remunerated skilled labour was recruited from the population for an estimated total of NRs 110,000 (equivalent to US$ 1,938), or 5% of the total cost.
The values used for skilled and un-skilled labour were NRs 130 and NRs 65 per day respectively. The total remunerated and non-remunerated skilled and un-skilled labour contributed to implement the engineering activities amounted to about 19,000 workdays.
On top of this, a lot of time was spent on other engineering activities, not included in the 1996 CAPs, on other physical activities (planting trees, building community houses, etc.), on training, participatory feasibility analysis, and in many, many meetings.
Often activities were delayed or had to be postponed because of a lack of time of the members of the user groups that had agreed to implement these activities. There is clearly a limit to the "participatory capacity" in terms of time availability of the user groups.
The planning of training activities, as expressed in the CAPs, was clearly of less quality than the planning of physical activities. This was largely due to the limited instructions in this respect that the PRA facilitators had received. Often training subjects were proposed that were too vague and broad.
In fact the training program as it was implemented was only partially based on the results of the PRA and CAPs. The most relevant subject matters as indicated in the CAPs were selected for training events, and subsequently user group were asked if they would be interested to also participate in these training events.
Training was not systematically addressed during CAP planning, otherwise communities such as Firfire (Chhoprak #9), which had not included training in their CAP, would not have participated in almost every training event organized.
There has been a lot of discussion and self-criticism in the project about the perceived lack of monitoring and evaluation systems. However, it would not have been possible to implement such a large amount of activities without a functional monitoring and evaluation mechanism.
Some attempts were made in 1995 and again in 1996 to start a monitoring and evaluation "master plan", but this did not work as such. However, at different levels, from project management to mid-level technicians, group promoters and user groups, different monitoring and evaluation practices have functioned. Information flows were sufficient to enable staff and user groups to work fairly effectively.
The fact that different monitoring and evaluation mechanisms have been in effect at different levels, in fact were developed at these different levels, made the whole project level planning and implementation system resilient. Centrally planned, more formalized and computerized monitoring, appeared to have limited use and was very sensitive and easily disturbed by continuously occurring changes at field level.
