unit 7:participatory project management concept and case of Nepal

Concept of participatory project
management and planning
• With regard to rural development....participation includes people’s involvement in
decision-making process, in implementing programmes, sharing the benefits of
development programmes and their involvement in the efforts to evaluate such
pro-grammes.
• According to the Japan International Cooperation Agency ( JICA, 1995),
participatory project is not an attempt to replace the top-down development
approach with local community-led approach but it attempts to compensate for or
overcome the imitations and shortcomings of the top-down development
approach by adopt-ing a bottom-up style of development.
• It is the agenda for development driven by the people themselves, and the
agencies or any outsiders claiming to support the development process
(researchers, NGOs,extension Workers, etc) would in fact be acting as
FACILITATORS of this process in the community.
• Participation” is more and more seen now as a MUST in view of sustainable
development: if people DON’T participate in a project that concerns them, they
will NOT own the process, results, and assets or outcomes, whatever these may
be. The project will not have long term success, and will not likely be sustainable,
when external agencies (State extension services, NGOs, etc) leave at the end of
the project.
2Compiled by-Roshan pant(NCC-MBM)

Thus the participatory project management process
should produce two sets of results:
• In the short term, the tools of participatory
planning should generate a two‐way learning
process, which will shape project interventions to
local needs, opportunities and constraints.
• In the long term, this learning process should
lead to local empowerment and effectivesupport
at the institutional level.

Compiled by-Roshan pant(NCC-MBM) 4

Purpose of participatory planning
• The purpose of participatory planning is to create a
platform for learning rather than plungingdirectly into
problem solving. The process is expected to enhance
(1) Identification of the felt needs of the people
(2) Bringing forth consensus
(3) The empowerment of local disadvantaged groups
(4) Integration of local knowledge systems into project design
(5) Two‐way learning process between the project and local
people
(6) Political commitment and support
(7) Accountability in local governance

Principles of participatory
management
• People are experts in their lives, others learn from them.
• Participatory work tries to include everyone relevant to the activity. It
includes include voices and ideas thatmay not normally be heard.
• In good participatory work people take ownership of the process that is
developed together with others frommany different backgrounds.
• Participatory work follows cycles of learning- each step helping to form the
next step
• Participatory work requires people to be self-reflective. Practitioners
continuously examine and develop theirpractice
• Participatory work is rigorous and ethical. Participants continuously check
their work and design ways of testingthe process and the findings
• Participatory work should lead to action.
• Good participatory work should recognize the role of power in
relationships and seeks to lead to empowermentof those disadvantaged
by the present situation

• Inclusion;
of all people, groups, representative, affected by a project
• Equal partnership;
everyone brings capacity, equal right, skills to the process
• Transparency;
climate of open communication and building dialogue
• Sharing power;
avoid the domination of one group over the other,
• Sharing responsibility;
all have equal responsibility for outcomes and decision
• Empowerment;
encouragement of people with skills to apply them, mutual
reinforcement

Types of participation in development
• Passive participation: People Participates by being told what is going to happen or
has alreadyhappened.
• Participation in information sharing: People participate by answering questions
posed by extractive researchersusing questionnaire surveys or similar approaches.
• Participation by cosultation: People participate by being consulted, and external
agents listen to views.These external agents define both problems and solutions,
and may modify these in the light of people‟s respon ses.
• Participation for material incentives: People participate by providing resources,
for example labour, in return forfood, cash or other material incentives.
• Functional participation: People participate by forming groups to meet
predetermined objectivesrelated to the project, which can involve the
development or promotion of externally initiated social organization.
• Interactive participation: People participate joint analysis, which leads to action
plans and theformation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing
ones.
• Self mobilization: People participate by taking initiatives independent of external
institutions tochange systems.

Participatory project Approaches
(broad)
• Target Approach:The objective of this approach is to deliver a pre-set of
output(goods and services) to specific target groups. In such approach
people as beneficiaries are brought into the agenda/plan at some stages
of the process. The community involvement Varies, from passive
recipients to consultative, to engaging : willingness of people to take part
in activities.The decision making resides at external parties i.e the project
managers level.The role of NGO is directional and operational.
• Experiential approach:The objectives of this approach is To createpositive
change in a community, by way of promoting people‟s capacity to take
charge and lead their own developmentprocess. In such approach people
are themselves involved in project with their max support and the people
take charge, and engage with other actors through negotiating their plans,
support needed, etc.The decision making Resides within the community,
based onconsensus or interests of collective groups.The role of NGO is
Facilitation, negotiation, and bridging what emerges from the community
to the outside world.

Other key participatory approaches(narrow)
• Rapid Rural Appraisal(RRA): Rural people look at and assess their own problems,
spell out their own issues;People themselves set their own goalsThey define their
plan for action based on their chosen objectivesThey monitor their own
achievements. RRA has been applied to rural livelihoods, health, nutrition,
emergencies and disasters, water,food production and is used intensely in
marketing systems. RRA uses a range of simple techniques to gather a summary
picture of a community‘s situation, issues, problems and path to improvement. It
can be used for research, for project decision, for programming directions,
forneeds assessment among others, but mostly as a basis for project planning.
RRA techniques
• Interview of individual, household, and key informants in and around the
community
• Methods of cross-checking information from different sources (triangulation)
• Sampling techniques that ensure quick access to result and information, adapted
to an objective
• Group interview techniques, including focus-group interviewing
• Collection of quantitative data directly and by many means
• Direct observation of physical site, set-up, environment, infrastructure, behaviors,
etc.

• Participatory Rural Appraisal(PRA): With PRA, the information collection
an its interpretation reside with the community itself, with outsiders
playing the role of facilitators instead of instigators, or “extractors’ of
information. PRA is meant to be a shared learning approach, where each
of the people and the outsiders learn, and inform. PRA approach is used at
multiple stages and for multiple functions, not only for needs assessment
of project identification phase. The main principles are respect, capacity to
listen and learn without prejudice, accepting to step back and work as a
catalyst in the facilitators‘ role, letting the people lead anddecide on the
directions they want to take. It is also useful as a means for monitoring
and evaluation.
Some PRA tools
• Semi-structured interviewing
• Mapping and modeling
• Preference listing and ranking
• Focus group discussions

Participatory approach in project
identification and formulation
• For successful project it is important to accomplish that all
parties concerned have a common interest and
understanding of the problems and know which of these
are to be addressed by the project. For that reason it is
necessary to pay special attention to the participatory
character of the planning process.
• This may be achieved by composing working groups, in
which parties concerned are represented, and by
participating in the project identification and formulation
process in one or more workshops especially organised for
that purpose.
• Project can be identified and formulated in participatory
approach by following ways …………………….

Project identification
• Project identification is the initial phase of the project development cycle.
 It begins with the conceiving of ideas or intentions to set up a project.
 These ideas are then transformed into a project.
Clear project identification allows you to answers questions like:
a) How do the projects come about?
b) Where do projects come from?
c) Why are projects where they are?
For projects to be properly conceived, the characteristics below must be
clearly defined:
– Objectives
– Expected outputs
– Intended beneficiaries
– Planned lifespan
– Extended outcome of the project
– Principle stakeholders
– Financial plan and source of financing

Conceive the project ideas from participation of
– Individuals
– Groups of individuals (community)
– Local leaders
– NGOs
– Policy makers
– Planners
– International development agencies
– Government pronouncements
Project ideas may be due to:
• prevailing problems in a given area.
• availability of resources in a given location

15
There are two major approaches to project identification
• (a) Top-down approach:Projects are identified based on
demands from beyond the community. This may include
directives from:international conventions (such as climate
change) ,international institutions or NGOs that have
determined particular priorities and thus projects,national
policy makers identifying projects that pertain to party
manifestos and/or national plans.
(b)Bottom-up approach:In this approach
community/beneficiaries are encouraged to identify and
plan the projects themselves with or without outsiders
Approaches to project identification

Participatory decision in project
identification
• identification of potential project areas as per
the need and problems in the community
• Utilization of locally available resources for the
development

Project formulation
• It is a formal document that gives a distinctive identity of the
project and precise meaning of project work to prevent conflict,
confusion, or overlap.The formulation stage is also called Initiation,
Conceptualization, Definition, Pre-Project. This stage aims to:
 Carefully identify and weight various components of project work
 Analyze project feasibility and cost-effectiveness
 Examine and approve project inputs and outputs
 Identify stakeholders and their involvement and contribution
 Define benefits and expectations
 Estimate resources needed
 Perform a preliminary analysis of risks
 Make an outline of project schedule

Participatory decisions in project
formulations
• identification and description of the government agencies and
NGOs which could effectively be involved in the implementation of
beneficiary participation in a project
• selection and detailed operational profile of the institution(s) to be
responsible for the above implementation
• financial arrangements required for a participatory project such as
agreements with one or more cooperating credit institutions,
establishment of credit funds for (group) loans, and (group) loan
conditions including social liability and interest rates
• manpower resources for locally recruited project staff.
• participatory training; identification of training needs and
preparation of a programme for (a) the intended beneficiaries, (b)
project personnel, and (c) supporting government and NGO staff;
furthermore search for suitable training institutions, personnel,
methods, opportunities and materials

Participatory Implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation(PIME)
• Participatory monitoring & evaluation (PM&E) is a process through which stakeholders at
various levels engage in monitoring or evaluating a particular project, program or policy,
share control over the content, the process and the results of the monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) activity and engage in taking or identifying corrective actions. PM&E focuses on the
active engagement of primary stakeholders
• Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation is one of many approaches to ensure that the
implementation of the different projects within the action plan ― or smaller individual
projects ― leads to the expected outcomes. As with all other monitoring and evaluation
elements, the process for PM&E has to be prepared prior to project implementation
• The stakeholder groups typically involved in a participatory M&E activity include: the end
users of project goods and services, including both men and women at the community level;
intermediary organisations, including NGOs; private sector businesses involved in the project;
and government staff at all levels
• In participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation the process of engagement is as
important as the outcomes. It aims to shift power from development professionals to the
intended beneficiaries of the intervention. With participatory approaches, it is these people
who set the direction for change, plan their priorities, and decide whether the intervention has
made progress and delivered relevant change.

Importance of PM&E
• Impact assessment(what has been achieved so far?)
• Project management and planning(what should be
done and how? To adress the problem of projects)
• Organizational strengthening and institutional
learning (what are the areas to be improved SWOT
analysis)
• Understanding and negotiating shareholders
prospective(who are the stakeholders are their interest
solely taken care of?)
• Public accountability(the ultimate beneficiaries are the
public or local are their problem adressed or solved?)

Principles of Participatory Monitoring &
Evaluation
• Local people are active participants — not just
sources of information.
• Stakeholders evaluate, outsiders facilitate.
• Focus on building stakeholder capacity for
analysis and problem-solving.
• Process builds commitment to implementing
any recommended corrective actions.

short-Steps in the Implementation of
a PM&E Process
Step 1: Planning the PM&E Process and Determining Objectives and Indicators
At this initial stage, the stakeholder groups to be involved in the planning of the PM&E process must first
be identified. Stakeholders must define the objectives of the PM&E, including what will be monitored, how
and by whom. The planning stage requires a lengthy process of negotiation, contestation and collaborative
decision-making among various stakeholders. Identifying objectives and monitoring indicatorscan be the
most difficult part of planning a PM&E process. In some cases, a common set of indicators is developed,
while in other instances different stakeholder groups develop their own sets of indicators.
Step 2: Gathering Data
Data collection can include the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods and tools. Quantitative
methods can include: community surveys; interviews; and observations. Qualitative methods can include
various participatory learning methods using visual, interviewing and group tools and exercises.
Step 3: Analysing Data
While data analysis is often thought of as a rather mechanical and expert-driven task, PM&E should be an
opportunity to actively involve various categories of program stakeholders in the critical analysis of
successes and constraints and the formulation of conclusions and lessons learned.
Step 4: Sharing the Information and Defining Actions to Be Taken
However participatory the M&E process in Steps 1-3 is, not all stakeholders can be involved in M&E data
collection and analysis. In this step, the results of M&E activities are shared with other stakeholders, and
there is discussion of appropriate actions to be taken based on the findings. 34Compiled by-Roshan pant(NCC-MBM)

Social audit in project management
• Social Audit is a monitoring process through which project
information is collected, analyzed and shared publicly in a
participatory fashion.
• Social audits may go beyond the oversight of project
finances and procurements to examine all aspects of the
project, including level of access to information,
accountability, public involvement, project outputs and
outcomes.
• The central objective of a social audit is to monitor, track,
analyze, and evaluate project performance, thus making
project officials accountable for their actions and decisions.
• Social audits are typically carried out by community
volunteers (social audit teams/committees) and findings are
presented at a public forum/hearing.
• WHEN?-Social audits can be utilized throughout project
operation its planning and also during the monitoring and
evaluation (M&E)phase to measure the progress and
outcomes of public service delivery.

WHEN?-Social audit in each step of projects
 Conducted over the life span of a scheme/project, i.e.
Planning-Implementation-Monitoring- Evaluation.
 For instance, in the case of National Rural Employment
Guarantee project social audit can be taken at:
To ensure that
the Guarantee
Plan is need-
based covering
productive/
Investments.
To ensure that
estimates are
proper and
are in tune
with the
approved
quantum of
work
To ensure
that wages
are paid
rightly,
properly
and to
right
people
To ensure
that quality
of work is in
tune with
quantity
and
estimated
cost
PLANNING
STAGE
PREPARATION
STAGE
IMPLEMENTING
STAGE
AFTER
COMPLETION

Purpose of social audit
• to monitor the effects of, and inform
policy makers about, the devolution
of public service delivery and local
governance
• to assess the views of citizens about
public services, measure citizens’
knowledge about local governance,
and to evaluate their participation
• to increase the informed interaction
between communities and public
service providers; and
• to enhance citizen participation in
monitoring access and quality of
services
• .

Principles of social audit
• Transparency: to give full access to all relevant
information
• Participation: Entitled for all affected persons to
participate in the process of decision making
• Comaparability: compares the intented and
achived goals and their fulfilment
• Verification: verifying with intended result the
deviation and their cause
• Disclosure: disclose the fact

Steps in social audit
• Defining boundaries
• Identifying stakeholders
• Data collection
• Social audit Finding and verification
• Public meetings
• Institutionalization of social audit

Step 1: DEFINING BOUNDARIES.
 Identify the program or activity, which is to be audited
and understand why it is selected.
 Understand the organization, the focus and context of
social audit and then by framing the objectives for social
audit.
 The Objectives of social audit should be relevant to
the strategy, realistic about what can be achieved.

Step 2: IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS.
 Identify the stakeholders to be consulted in the audit
and determining how often these stakeholders could be
included in the process.
 The selection of representatives for consultation is to be
unambiguous and transparent and should cover
maximum stakeholder groups.

Step 3: DATA COLLECTION.
 Gathering secondary information is very important in
the process of social audit & it is inevitable for making
social audit reports.
 All the information and data pertaining to the schemes
will be collected. It is important to see clearly what is the
use of information that is going to be collected.

Step 4: SA FINDINGS & VERIFICATION.
 Once the findings in the SA is consolidated and
organized, Verification should be done to understand
If everything is done as planned.
 Care should be taken in recording the findings as
a small mistake could leave the processes of the
audit in disarray

Step 5: PUBLIC MEETINGS.
 The main purpose of public meeting is to obtain
public testimony or comment.
 The key findings of the audit will be discussed in
the public meeting and the concerned government
officials will respond to the key issues raised in
such a meeting. 45Compiled by-Roshan pant(NCC-MBM)

Step 6: INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SA.
 Impact is the greatest and most sustainable when
social audit process is systematically implemented by a
civil society, state or by any other organization.
 The replication of social audit on regular basis is one
such process, which will force the state to incorporate
this as an integral part of the government

Participatory project management in
Nepal
• Planned development formally started in 1956 and efforts have been recently made by the government to
make the planning process more participatory and transparent. Promulgation of laws and acts,
restructuring of the bureaucracy and modification of the political structure are some of the efforts made in
this direction.
• Besides the government sector, several external agencies have joined hands in strengthening planned
development in the country. These agencies have largely influenced the state policies related to
development. As a consequence, the local Self-Governance Act (1998) and Associated By-laws (1999) were
passed by the parliament. These marked the beginning of the “one-door policy in planning” within the
legal framework of the state. This new policy has encouraged many groups in the non-government sector
to join and support the mainstream of government planning structure.
• Until the end of 1980s, citizen participation in local policy making used to be organized through the
traditional types of community based organizations. Because the country had not intriduced democratic
practices as such, a few number of local elites used to be nominated by the central government to look
after certain local affairs in the selected localities. Regardless of the promulgation of several acts and
creation of local institutions such as the Village Panchayat, a meaningful citizen participation had not been
realized. However, a number of charity and religious-based organizations at the local level were very active
at that time. The reason for their activeness was that they were patronaged by the monarch because the
nature of such organizations were non-political.
• As a consequence, the local Self-Governance Act (1998) and Associated By-laws (1999) were passed by the
parliament. These marked the beginning of the “one-door policy in planning” within the legal framework
of the state. This new policy has encouraged many groups in the non-government sector to join and
support the mainstream of government planning structure

• The modern form of PP is one of the instances of participatory institutions that has been envisioned
in the Local Self Governance Act 1999. In 1999 Nepal passed the Local Self Governance Act (LSGA)
which devolved administrative, judicial and fiscal powers to locally elected bodies. In theory the Act
provides for better representation of disadvantaged groups in local governance and greater
participation in development processes. The law envisions that the planning process should be
designed to articulate citizens' voice in the local decision-making process.
• Formulating local public policies in participatory environment has been one of the consistent local
governance strategies since early 1990s. Village Development Committees, Municipalities and
District Development Committees which are collectively known as local bodies have been given the
roles and responsibilities to formulate local public policies through the Participatory Planning
Process (PPP). The original institution of the PPP is coded in the Local Self-Governance Act (1999).
• The planning process is mainly organised in three different yet interrelated stages. Stage 1 involves
the preparation of general guidelines to be followed throughout the process. Stage 2 focuses on the
deliberation of demands and proposals at communities. Stage 3 concerns about the articulation of
demands, and thereby prepares a list of recommended policy and developmental projects to be
approved by the relevant local council. All of these stages are carried out through a range of
associated activities
• Nonetheless, as there could not happen any local elections for over a decade, the legislative
provision of PP has been disturbed. As a result, the central government has been continuously
reforming the structure and processes of the PP so that people from all walks of life could
participate in the local policy making process. A number of international financial institutions
including the United Nations have been actively working with the Government to make the PP a
real participatory institution.

• The PP is therefore a relatively new institution that has been conceptualised in the relevant legislations
that govern Nepal's local governance. It is temporal in nature and procedural in function. It starts in every
November and ends in March. The process is officially recorded and many of the events of PP are
sponsored by the local bodies such as the Village Development Committees, Municipalities and District
Development Committees. Additionally, the central government has appointed 'community mobilizers' at
the grassroots level in order to facilitate the process. The donor agencies - through the Local Governance
and Community Development Program (LGCDP) - contribute in providing training for the participants as
well as helping with necessary infrastructure support to the local bodies.
• PP, as a process, offers various opportunities for people to participate, interact, deliberate and thereby
influence the overall decision making process. Firstly, the local bodies communicate the policy and budget
guidelines to the communities via the Ward Committee (supposed to be elected authority but currently
are run by the appointed bureaucrats). The community-based organisations, non-governmental
organizations and other sectoral institutions such as the sub-health posts, schools, forest user's
committees are invited by TLOs, WCFs, Community Mobilizers and alike to deliberate on the guidelines.
The deliberation takes place in public places and any of the community member can participate and join
the discussions. A local staff of the municipality is also present in these meetings. Experts, activists
including the representatives of local political parties and advocates also take part in the process.
• Realising the importance of participatory planning, the Government of Nepal has introduced the
Participatory District Development Programme (PDDP) and the Local Governance Programme (LGP) with
the technical assistance of the UNDP.
• Participatory planning encourages a bottom-up approach that will promote local autonomy and
discouragethe tendency to follow guidelines and instructions from the top. PDDP believes in convincing
local leaders, bureaucrats, etc. of the effectiveness of genuine decentralisation in the system
• Basically the parties involved in participative planning in Nepal is shown in next slide.

•

Participatory District Development Programme (PDDP) works
simultaneously at the local and central levels to achieve its
objectives.
At the micro level
• PDDP supports the improvement of the governance system and
social empowerment processes at thevillage level through the
development of self-governing community institutions.
At the meso level
• PDDP supports the strengthening of development programming
and management capabilities of DistrictDevelopment Committees
(DDCs).
At the macro level
• PDDP supports the National Planning Commission (NPC) and the
Ministry of Local Development(MLD) towards policies that reflect
and support local-level development initiatives.

Some participatory project in Nepal
• The Community Development and Forest/Watershed Conservation Project: The Government of Nepal (GoN)
1994-2005, implemented the Project with the technical and financial assistance of the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA). Throughout this time, the project came to be known as the “SABIHAA Model”
(Saamudaayik Bikaas Tathaa Hariyali Ayojana - Community Development and Greenery Project). The SABIHAA
Model mobilized local people to participate during all stages of watershed management, from planning through to
evaluation. August 2009, The project later was implemented in many dstrict with the main objective “to improve
participatory watershed management by strengthening the local governance system” and the purpose was, “to
improve participatory watershed management in better collaboration with District Soil Conservation Office (DSCO)
and local bodies within the target districts.”
• Participatory Forest Fire Management: The main objectives is to prepare and implement fire management plans
and to participate in general forest fire prevention and suppression programmes in the community forests and
neighbouring government managed forests (e.g., fire lines and access trails, fire fighting tools and lookout towers,
pre-attack planning, etc.). The Master Plan of Forestry Sector Nepal (1988- 2008) has considered the Community
Forestry as first Primary Programme. The Tenth Five Year Plan of Nepal (2002-2007) has considered it as first
Priority Plan. Forest fire prevention activities are being carried-out in priority districts (for instance, Saptari, Siraha,
Sindhuli, Sindhupalchowk, Kathmandu, Dang, Surkhet and Dadeldhura) by the Department of Forests under the
National Forest Programme on an ad-hoc basis. Very few budgets have being allocated (for instance, NRs 50,000
for each district in fiscal year 2004-2005) for paying wages for fire watchers, producing and setting up signboards
and posters, distributing flyers and using loudspeaker announcements during the fire season
•

unit 7:participatory project management concept and case of Nepal

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à unit 7:participatory project management concept and case of Nepal

Similaire à unit 7:participatory project management concept and case of Nepal (20)

Plus de Roshan Pant

Plus de Roshan Pant (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

unit 7:participatory project management concept and case of Nepal

Notes de l'éditeur