Chapter 6. PAR on population dynamics and the local environment: learning by doing

A peculiarity of participatory action research is that the phases of information gathering, appraisal, analysis and planning continue into the implementation phase. The researchers, planners, implementers and beneficiaries are one and the same, working for themselves to improve their livelihoods, their health and their environment. This chapter will describe a process of 'learning by doing' that is an integral part of project implementation, and not a separate evaluation that comes only after the project is completed. The example of Pallisa, first introduced in Chapter 1, is used again to illustrate how plans and activities are refined as they are implemented.

6.1 Getting started

Having successfully completed the planning phase of participatory action research, the community can embark upon the difficult but rewarding task of implementation. At this stage, interest group members, external partners and other members of the community, as appropriate, carry out the action plans developed during the planning workshop.

Though implementation may appear to be the long sought-after (and at times elusive) goal which justifies the research and planning phases of PAR, it is important to maintain a balanced perspective on the relative value of each PAR component. In fact, the two early steps of PAR are as important as the actual implementation, for they help to build the understanding, commitment and sense of 'ownership' necessary to carry out the initiatives. By the same token, unless there is an action component in PAR, the whole process falls short of its potential, and people are likely to become disheartened. Therefore, it is important that the momentum built up during the research and planning phases is soon channeled into concrete initiatives to solve specific problems.

A few key factors should be considered:

• implementation demands good coordination and an explicit attribution of responsibilities;
• time lines are important for keeping initiatives on track;
• financial and material resources need to be procured sufficiently in advance of project activities, so that they do not constitute bottlenecks to implementation.

The last two points are addressed in the participatory planning matrices presented in Chapter 5 (Tables 5.4 a-c). In the following sections the roles of the interest group coordinators and the PAR support team are addressed.

Organizing for action

It is important to the success of the initiative that one or a few people assume responsibility for coordinating activities (see Box 6.1). The coordinator role could be an elected position, or a position that rotates among members of a group. The coordinator ensures that the priority actions decided at the planning workshop do get implemented and that meetings of the relevant partners are held on a regular basis. Such meetings facilitate communication among the various actors and are crucial for monitoring process and outputs. In addition to the overall coordinator of activities, the interest groups may wish to elect other 'responsible persons'. These individuals can follow up activities more specifically related to one issue or problem, or to broad subjects of importance to the interest group. A specific individual may also be selected to monitor all the planned activities and report on those to the village council or other relevant body.

The implementation phase may also benefit from an advisory council. Ideally, the council would be composed of respected individuals with an interest in community well-being, but without a direct vested interest in the outcome of the specific actions. Male and female elders, school teachers and even professionals residing outside the community may be appropriate. The benefit of 'institutionalizing' the PAR in this way is that it broadens participation by community members (and non-members) and draws on a wider body of expertise. It may also help to ensure that the PAR process is carried forward, and that there is accountability on the part of coordinators and others involved.

Role of the PAR support team

In keeping with the primary environmental care approach, PAR is aimed at empowering communities to address problems that they have identified and defined. By supporting the community in a systematic review of their problems, opportunities and constraints, by working with them to develop a plan of action and by supporting them to gather the resources and agreements necessary to implement it, an effective support team helps them to gain new confidence, new avenues and new alliances for their own welfare.

Usually, the participatory appraisal and planning phases are the time of maximum involvement of the support team. Yet, the members of the team can still play an advisory role during the implementation phase, and may be called upon for consultation when problems arise. Some team members, particularly local field workers, will have regular interaction with community members in the course of their work, and can serve as valuable resources during the implementation phase.

In addition, the PAR support team can work with community members to propose changes to government policies that are obstacles to community development, or meet with bankers in the capital to extend small credit schemes in rural areas. It can also be called on by the community to facilitate monitoring and evaluation activities. This can help to reinforce the tools and procedures the community has got acquainted with in the original participatory appraisal and planning phases.

Care must be taken to critically evaluate assistance to the community. For instance, team members need to avoid playing too big a role mediating between the community and outside agencies or authorities. Team members may wish to introduce community members to potential sources of technical or financial support, but the actual negotiating and coordinating with those external agencies is best left to the community itself. Too much help by a facilitator tends to undermine independence and self-confidence in the same way that premature introduction of capital inputs does: it can foster dependency rather than self-reliance and sustainable development.

Case Example 6.2: Field notebook: primary environmental care in Burkina Faso In 1995, Burkina Faso's Ministry of Environment and Water established a PEC project in Namentenga, a semi-arid and drought-prone province with high mortality rates and poor infrastructure. Two test villages were chosen for the pilot project on the basis of criteria such as severity of water and energy problems, community dynamism, number of outside interventions and incidence of Guinea worm disease (dracunculiasis). (The latter requirement was to establish links with UNICEF's eradication program.) The two villages selected - Pelga and Kologhsom - contend with major agricultural constraints: declining soil fertility, lack of fallow periods, and low-level technical inputs. Pelga, located in the north and more agro-pastoral, is characterized by severe soil erosion. Kologhsom has the highest incidence of Guinea worm disease in the province. The project invested much time in PAR in each village. The PAR assessment and planning techniques employed included social and environmental maps and walks, agricultural/seasonal calendars, daily activity profiles, and decision-making matrices. Women, men and youths were involved in both joint and separate groups. The materials used varied according to the group's comfort level; women (almost none of whom are literate) used local materials, whereas men and younger people were more comfortable with markers and paper. Meetings were held in each village to synthesize results, draw out problems, causes, solutions and develop action plans. Based on the needs identified by the communities - and the project's budget - the action plans are now being carried out. Kologhsom's top priority is access to potable water: the number of village wells is insufficient, and they are not evenly distributed. The village women created a water management committee to oversee existing waterholes and repair pumps. Improved health and agricultural production are the village's next priorities. In Pelga, access to water is also a priority. Villagers have plans to construct a water point at the village school to irrigate a vegetable garden. The garden will help to meet students' food needs and diversify their diet. The villagers hope to construct a canteen at the school with revenues from the garden. Another priority is sanitation. The village has plans to construct pit latrines to mitigate water contamination. Other plans include the purchase of a mill to lighten women's workloads, and a credit scheme to help meet household expenses. There is also an afforestation component in both villages to 'nourish' the environment upon which they depend. The benefits of the appraisal process can be seen in the community mobilization and motivation it prompted; inhabitants of both villages established committees to support the implementation of their own action plans (with women well represented). Because some of the partners had little experience with a gender-sensitive approach, as an integral element of PAR, a one-day workshop was organized to acquaint them with gender issues in conservation and development. Currently, monitoring and on-going evaluation of the activities are crucial, as the initiative is piloting PEC experiences in Burkina Faso in view of a replication/expansion phase. Contributed by Lisa Garbus

6.2 Learning by doing

In PAR, evaluation is not a one-time activity at the end of a project. Rather, monitoring and evaluation are on-going throughout the PAR process (see Figure 5.3). Through a reflective approach, interest groups learn from successes as well as mistakes along the way, building their knowledge base and their capacity to respond to external change.

The two words - monitoring and evaluation - are used so frequently together that they may appear to be different ways of saying the same thing. However, it is important to distinguish between the two. Monitoring involves checking to see if specific project tasks are being accomplished in a timely and appropriate (i.e., transparent, honest, participatory) manner, and identifying external conditions that affect project performance. Evaluation, on the other hand, refers to a periodic look at project organization, approach and outputs. Evaluation can help to determine if the project is properly designed to achieve longer-term objectives. Put in another way, monitoring regularly checks if the project is 'on track', and evaluation questions whether the project is 'on the right track'.

Monitoring is integral to any activity, and most of us regularly monitor our progress towards achieving various personal and professional goals, even when we do not consciously call it by this name. Because of its iterative nature, most interest group members will probably be involved to a greater or lesser extent in PAR monitoring. Still, it will most likely be the responsibility of coordinators to ensure that regular monitoring of the planned activities takes place, and that up-to-date records are kept of finances and progress. Together with all the partners working together on a specific activity, decisions can be made about how to redress deficiencies in implementation. Evaluation takes place less frequently, and therefore requires a more formalized mechanism.

Participatory evaluation

In traditional project management, evaluation is frequently left to outside consultants who assess the results of a project, often with the intention of determining whether or not a given activity will receive continued funding. The reliance on external evaluators to obtain an 'objective' view of the project too often results in alienation and fear on the part of project implementers and beneficiaries, especially if the project's continuation is tied to a favorable review. It can also serve to perpetuate a 'conspiracy of success' in which project achievements are emphasized while mistakes and problems are downplayed or ignored.

In PAR, evaluation is carried out with the participation of all stakeholders in the project, and especially the community members. The goal is to involve as many parties as possible in a frank and honest assessment of what has been achieved, but also where and how the initiative needs to be improved. The results of evaluation are then implemented as quickly as possible (Gajanayake and Gajanayake, 1993). This 'learning by doing' is characterized by a willingness to learn from mistakes and a recognition that projects evolve in response to changing circumstances and needs.

The evaluation of initiatives provides an opportunity for both outsiders and insiders to reflect on the past in order to make decisions about the future. In a participatory process to design an evaluation, community members are encouraged and supported by the PAR support team, local institutions and external agencies to take responsibility for and control of:

• planning what is to be evaluated;

• deciding how the evaluation will be done.

Much of the material acquired from the participatory information gathering, assessment and planning exercises can be used in participatory evaluation.

In a preliminary evaluation meeting of a half day's duration, the interest group and/or the community at large might go through the following steps to develop a plan for the evaluation:

Define the purpose. Review the goals and objectives of the initiative as defined during the planning phase, and the reasons for the evaluation (i.e., what do we want to know?). A useful exercise may be to write a one-sentence statement of purpose that seeks to answer the following questions:

• Who has a stake in the outcome of this evaluation?
• What would they like to come out of this?
• How will the results be used?

Define the priority areas. These can be written as questions on large sheets of paper or a blackboard, and then rank-ordered. In addition to results-oriented questions (Did we achieve our stated objectives? Were the benefits achieved at a reasonable cost?), several process-oriented questions might be included, such as:

• Was the process participatory?
• Was decision-making open and transparent?
• How did we handle contingencies (setbacks, constraints)?
• Was the budget well managed?

Identify responsible people. Decide who will do the evaluation (e.g., the whole community in an open meeting, the interest group, or the interest group with the PAR support team), and which people will gather what information. If the community lacks the skills to conduct a thorough evaluation, an outside facilitator may be hired, with terms of reference that include capacity-building of local 'evaluators'.

Identify indicators. These can be direct and indirect. Direct indicators are pieces of information that directly relate to what is being measured (e.g., the number of cattle owned by a family). Indirect indicators provide information on aspects which cannot be easily or accurately measured (e.g., whether a family possesses a radio or a bicycle can, in some communities, be an appropriate indirect indicator of its 'total wealth'). Examples of indicators in the population, health and environmental sectors can be found in Chapter 2.

Identify the information sources for evaluation questions. If the information is not currently available, decide what ways of gathering information and what tools would be appropriate. If one tool has been used before, it may be used again to update the information and show the change that has occurred.

Once an evaluation plan has been agreed upon, the interest groups and partners (if any) can develop a time line for carrying it out. Timing needs to take into account factors such as seasonal constraints, labor demand, religious holidays and field staff availability.

The tools for evaluation will depend largely on the activity being evaluated, and on whether quantitative or qualitative data are sought. Quantitative approaches measure changes in numerical indicators (e.g., number of people served by the village health assistant, area of hillside fields where erosion signs are still evident, or income from the sale of non-forest timber products). Qualitative approaches, such as focus groups and open-ended interviews, identify and describe people's subjective perception about performance and results (e.g., people's perceptions of how the initiative has affected health, agriculture or income). Many of the tools that are covered in Chapter 4 and in Annex B can be adapted for evaluation purposes, and further tools can be found among the documents in the bibliography.

Communicating findings and follow-up

When the evaluation is completed, it is important to schedule a meeting to discuss results and decide on follow-up. The meeting should again gather all relevant stakeholders, including the interest group, the PAR support team, community members, external partners and donors (if appropriate). The results of the evaluation can be presented in much the same way the appraisal results were presented in a community feedback meeting.

In order to incorporate the evaluation results quickly into the implementation process, a follow-up plan can be linked directly to the participatory planning matrices described in Chapter 5 (Tables 5.4 a-c). A follow-up plan should include:

• an agreement on specific activities that must be taken by the interest groups and their partners to meet the evaluation's recommendations;
• the dates by which the activities should be completed;
• a list of materials/resources required, and their sources;
• a designation of responsibilities for each activity; and
• a description of the assessment/monitoring procedure.

By holding this meeting and modifying/adding to the original planning matrix, the evaluation's results are systematized into the normal implementation procedures (Aaker and Shumaker, 1994).

External evaluation of the PAR process

On a final note, even if the implementation phase encounters setbacks, or is not particularly successful in terms of quantitative indicators, there may still be benefits of the PAR that should be recognized. For instance, the PAR may have succeeded in raising questions that had never been discussed within the community and, in the process, generated awareness of potential opportunities.

The answers to some of the following questions may not be of direct interest to the community members, but may be of interest to the PAR support team (or donors, if outside funding was used):

• Did the PAR raise awareness among community members about local population dynamics, environmental issues and their linkages?

• Did it enhance communication on the subjects within the community?

• Has there been some form of organizing for action?

This kind of awareness, communication, and community empowerment can leave lasting and tangible benefits for the community, long after the implementation of the 'priority actions' has officially ended.