1.1.1 General
1.1.2 Evolution of the project's participatory development approach
1.1.3 1992/93 Initial participatory assessment and planning
1.1.4 1993/94 PRA and participatory planning
1.1.5 1995/96 PRA and participatory planning
The "Inter-regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and Development", GCP/INT/542/ITA (or PUCD project), aims at promoting people's participation in the conservation and development of upland catchments, in accordance with HMG's policies and priorities. The adaptation and application of participatory methods and the promotion of an integrated approach to watershed management are the central elements of the project. The project became operational in the second half of 1 992, and has gone through several participatory rural appraisal and participatory activity planning cycles.
The main project area is the Bhusunde Khola sub-watershed, ranging from 500 -1500 m in altitude, and located in the Middle Hills of Gorkha District. The Bhusunde Khola is a tributary of the Daraundi Khola, which flows into the Marshyangdi River, which joins the Trisuli River. The Bhusunde Khola watershed has a total area of 32 km2, it covers 23 Wards of 4 Village Development Committees (VDCs) and has a population of approximately 12,000. There are no roads in the area and all transport is done on foot.
No recent or detailed maps exist or could be used, except for the 1962 maps prepared by the Surveyor Genera! of India, based on 1:80,000 air photographs taken in 1 957. Thus, planning and implementation of activities has been virtually carried out without any use of maps, air photos or comparative tools. The project has limited financial resources, which do not permit costly investments in more sophisticated Geographic Information Systems (1). Such, however, are normal conditions in large Darts of the country.
1 A G/S database application covering Gorkha District had been prepared in 1995 by ICIMOD for the HMG/GTZ funded Gorkha Development Project (MENRIS Case Studies Series No. 3). However, -apparently- due to operational problems, the GDP project could not make the G/S database available to the PUCD project.
The three main categories of project activities are:
(i) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and participatory planning (the main subject of this report) and participatory monitoring and evaluation of planned activities;(ii) Capacity building of user groups, which are the accepted community organizational units through which participatory field activities are implemented; and
(iii) Participatory implementation of field activities identified and requested by local communities through participatory planning methods.
The participatory development approach advocated by the project document needed to be adjusted to the actual field situation and put to practice. This has been a process of trial and error, resulting in a gradual evolution and improvement of actual participatory methods employed. Many problems were encountered, including:
(i) The question of scale, or what should be the smallest territorial unit for participatory planning (2);2 Most projects assume that the ward (9 wards in a VDC) is the appropriate smallest unit for participatory planning purposes. Experience from the PUCD shows that the "natural village" or hamlet level is more appropriate. Usually 3-5 such hamlets make up a ward.(ii) The timing, PRAs should be carried out during the slack season of farmers.
(iii) The question of duration, very short PRAs may not provide meaningful information, while very long ones make it hard or impossible for women, poor or otherwise disadvantaged groups to participate.
(iv) The discrepancy between villagers expectations (immediate benefits) and the need to reinforce local community organizations (user groups capacity building) before sustainable results can be achieved;
(v) The wide range of problems confronting villagers as compared to the actual mandate of the project (e.g. the need for education and health services) and the very modest financial means of the project;
(vi) How to involve disadvantaged groups in the decision making process (notably women and certain caste/ethnic groups); and
(vii) How to ensure consistency and continuity between the PRA itself, the participatory activity planning, and the participatory implementation of planned activities.
During field reconnaissance visits at the end of 1992 project staff met with villagers in each VDC area to obtain a list of local priorities for project activities, using the ward level as the basic territorial planning unit. In order to set activities for the first implementation year of the project, these lists were narrowed down to the 3-4 most urgent local priorities. After these visits, a more structured participatory rural appraisal (PRA) was conducted in two hamlets - but this was not related to the participatory planning of activities.
Further meetings were held with ward level villagers representatives in December 1992 to confirm identified and prioritized field activities and modalities for implementation in 1993, and a final session was held with VDC chairpersons and vice-chairpersons. Villagers were urged to form ward lever user groups to implement the agreed upon activities
Most of the selected priority activities were in one way or another directly related to physical works for soil and water conservation and for the rehabilitation of small collective infrastructures :gully and landslide control small scale hill irrigation trail improvement, water source protection/drinking water supply and conservation plantation. These are the usual Department of Soil Conservation activities, well known to the local population from previous experience with the RCUP (3) project.
3 The Resource Conservation and Development Project (RCUP) covered a.o. the Daraunde Khola watershed, and emphasized infrastructure.
During the months of November and December 1993 an NGO, sub-contracted by the project, undertook an extensive participatory appraisal and micro-planning exercise at the hamlet level in 40 different locations of the Bhusunde Khola watershed. Selected tools and techniques of PRA were used to facilitate discussion and gather information, identify problems and possible solutions (activities). However, these PRA and micro-planning exercises were, in fact, rather short and superficial.
The data generated by this exercise were regrouped from hamlet level to ward level by project management. Prioritized problems and related development activities were overwhelmingly construction works (water source protection, trail improvement, small scale hill irrigation), even in villages where people realized that their main problems were related to poverty and food deficits. The relative absence of productive and income generating activities from these workplans can be explained as follows:
(i) The counterpart institution, the Department of Soil Conservation (DSC), has a very technical profile, well known to the local population;(ii) There is a real need for support and guidance in these technical areas, as no other technical assistance is locally available; and
(iii) The way in which user groups were organized and decisions were made (both male dominated).
Project staff responsible for the implementation of selected field activities had in most cases not taken part in the PRAs and planning exercises, and thus felt little affinity with or responsibility for these plans, which at the same time were more than they could handle.
Due to funding problems related to the extension of the project, most of the activities selected in 1993 could only be implemented in 1995.
The second phase of the project started in September 1 994 with a legacy of unfulfilled expectations and commitments towards communities of the project area. This was the result of artificial group formation early in 1993, a not-so-good participatory planning exercise at the end of 1993, the long bridging period in 1994, and weak project management during the first phase.
New participatory appraisal and planning exercises could only be carried out once the commitments made during the 1 993 PRA were largely fulfilled. Moreover, the project decided to carry out PRA with its own staff, those who have daily contacts with the villagers and would be largely responsible for activity implementation afterwards. To do so, project staff first needed to be further trained in PRA methodology.
It was also decided that participatory appraisal and planning exercises should be carried out at the "natural village" level (e.g. hamlets or groups of small hamlets with 20-80 households), and should have a wider perspective to include a comprehensive appraisal of local resources, land use, farming systems, constraints and opportunities. Thus real communities at the settlement level were used as basic planning units instead of the artificial administrative units (the wards).
Between October 1995 and January 1996 new PRA and participatory activities planning exercises were carried out in 26 hamlets of the Bhusunde Khola watershed. A large part of the more than 200 activities thus identified and prioritized for implementation were in fact carried out in 1 996. At the end of 1 996 a series participatory evaluation and replanning exercises were organized (these will be reported upon in another report).
1.2.1 Objectives of the 95/96 PRA and participatory planning
1.2.2 Objectives of this report
The main objective of the Participatory Rural Appraisal carried out in the Bhusunde Khola watershed between October 1995 and January 1996 was to improve the understanding of the local communities of their own situation, living conditions and environment in general, and their local resources, land use, farming systems, constraints and opportunities in particular, in order to set the stage for a participatory planning of development activities that would fit into an integrated and participatory watershed management plan.
The main objective of the Participatory Planning carried out together with the PRA was to prepare detailed plans for upland conservation and development activities to be implemented by the local population with the support of the project, and which would form the core of an integrated and participatory watershed management plan.
The secondary objective of the PRA was to provide the project with data concerning population, natural resources, land use and farming systems, their constraints and opportunities, to be used as an information or data base for the integrated and participatory watershed management plan, and against which proposed and implemented activities and their impact could be assessed and evaluated.
Another objective of this PRA and Participatory Planning exercise was to test whether the innovative elements of this PRA as compared to earlier similar activities in the Bhusunde Khola watershed, notably the use of hamlets as smallest territorial planning units (as opposed to wards), and the use of trained project staff (as opposed to outsiders), would be more effective, especially during follow-up and implementation of identified activities.
It should, however, be noted that by definition a PRA will not result in exact measurable data.
The objectives of this report are to:
(i) Present the results of the Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning exercise carried out in the Bhusunde Khola watershed between October 1 995 and January 1996, and provide a basis against which future trends and changes in the watershed can be compared.(ii) Assess the quality and quantity of the PRA exercise; and
(iii) Assess the consistency of the activities planned with the results of the PRA.
(iv) Assess the value of the PRA tools used.
