................................................................................................................................

HKKH Technical Paper

CESVI

Project Activity Code (s): A.1.5.4

June 2009

Participatory Tools Handbook

2 of 47

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AI Appreciative Inquiry AKRSP Aga Khan Rural Support Programme APPA Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action CBO Community Based Organisation CESVI Cooperazione e Sviluppo CKNP Central Karakoram National Park in Pakistan DDO Dubani Development Organization DFID Department for International Development DGCS Directorate General for Development Cooperation, Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs DOP Detailed Work Plan DSS Decision Support System Ev-K2-CNR Ev-K2-CNR Committee GO Governmental Organisation GOP General Operational Plan HD Human Development HKKH Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalaya ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development IMF International Monetary Fund INGO International Non Governmental Organisation IUCN-ARO IUCN Asia Regional Office INGOs International Non Governmental Organizations KIU Karakorum International University KT Karakorum Trust MACP Mountain Areas Conservation Project MS Mountain Spirit NA Northern Areas NGO Non Governmental Organisation PA Protected Areas PC-1 Planning Commission 1 for CKNP PLA Participatory Learning and Action PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal QNP Quomolongma Nature Preserve RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal SNP Sagarmatha National Park SNV Netherlands Development Organisation TAR-China Tibet Autonomous Region of PR China TFD Theatre for Development TMI The Mountain Institute TRPAP Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Program UNDP United Nation Development Program UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation VDC Village Development Committee WSSD World Summit for Sustainable Development WWF-Pakistan World Wide Fund for Nature - Pakistan

3 of 47

The presentation of material in this document and the geographical designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of any of the agencies involved, concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

4 of 47

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been developed in the framework of the HKKH Partnership Project under CESVI responsibility, providing the Outlines, the overall objective and providing some guidance and revision of the works but it was only through the absolutely critical contribution of Mountain Spirit, local counterpart of CESVI in the Project and great working team composed by Lhakpa Tenji Lama, Gelu Sherpa and Mingma N. Sherpa, that was possible to develop the present Handbook. They are the real contributors to the work, without which the present Handbook would have never been developed. I take anyway the responsibility of the mistakes that could have happened and that could have been underestimated in the process of the review. CESVI contribution to the present Handbook would have been impossible without the work and strong commitment of Paolo Caroli, Giuseppe Da Conto, Dr. Lhakpa Sherpa and Dr. Jeremy Spoon, who contributed in the early phases of the Project to the overall design of the Methodology and the fining tune to the specific case of the project of some specific techniques like the Scenario Planning, the Quantitative Management Oriented researches and the Situation Analysis. An overall review of the content has been undertaken thoroughly by Fabio Ammar who happened to be in Nepal at the right time to be involved in this task. Contribution has been made directly and indirectly by the other Partners of the HKKH Partnership Projects, through the lengthy, but always interesting and challenging discussions especially in the beginning of the Project. I would like to acknowledge the contribution and great support by Emanuele Cuccillato, Dr. Barry Haack and Laxmi K. Amatya (IUCN), Dr. Marcello Basani and Dr. Franco Salerno (EvK2-CNR), Basanta Shresta,and Birendra Bajracharya (ICIMOD).

5 of 47

Table of contents 1 Executive summary ............................................................................................ 7 2 Objectives of this documents............................................................................ 7

2.1 Outline of the project ..................................................................................................................7 3 History of Participatory Methods and Tools .................................................... 7

3.1 Concept of Participation.............................................................................................................7 3.2 Historical Notes ..........................................................................................................................8

4 Key issues on Participatory Methods and Tools ............................................. 9 4.1 Participation and Power ...........................................................................................................10 4.2 Tyranny of Techniques.............................................................................................................11 4.3 Catching Local Potentialities....................................................................................................11 4.4 Role of Facilitator/Practitioner..................................................................................................12 4.5 Team Work...............................................................................................................................14

5 Participatory Methods and Management........................................................ 14 5.1 Situation Analysis (SA).............................................................................................................14 5.2 Scenario Planning (SP)............................................................................................................15 5.3 Quantitative Sample Surveys (Visitors, Porters and Household) ............................................16 5.4 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Most Significant Change (MSC) Techniques ...............17 5.5 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action (APPA)...............................................................................................................................................19

3.1. 4 D Model in APPA Process...........................................................................................................20 3.2. The Discovery Phase .....................................................................................................................20 3.3. The Dream Phase ..........................................................................................................................21 3.4. The Design Phase..........................................................................................................................22 3.5. A sample of categorization of selected ..........................................................................................24 3.6. Planning..........................................................................................................................................25 3.7. Process:..........................................................................................................................................25 3.8. Commitment ...................................................................................................................................26 3.9. The Destiny/Delivery Phase...........................................................................................................26 6 Participatory Tools ........................................................................................... 26

6.1 Tool Selection ..........................................................................................................................26 6.2 Mapping Tools..........................................................................................................................28

1.1.1 Social Map ...............................................................................................................................28 1.1.2 Resource Map..........................................................................................................................31 1.1.3 Mobility Mapping ......................................................................................................................32

6.3 Diagramming Tools ..................................................................................................................34 6.3.1 Institutional Map .......................................................................................................................34 6.3.2 Seasonal Calendar...................................................................................................................36 6.3.3 Trend Analysis .........................................................................................................................37 6.3.4 Time Line .................................................................................................................................39 6.3.5 Development Wheel:................................................................................................................40

6.4 Ranking Tools ..........................................................................................................................42 6.4.1 Pair-wise Ranking ....................................................................................................................42 6.4.2 Matrix Ranking .........................................................................................................................43

6.5 Discussions/Interview Tools.....................................................................................................45

6 of 47

6.5.1 Focus Group Discussion:.........................................................................................................45 6.5.2 Structured Interview: ................................................................................................................45 6.5.3 Semi-structured Interview: .......................................................................................................45 7 References ........................................................................................................ 46

7 of 47

1 Executive summary The present document is intended as a handbook, providing a comprehensive reference point for the use of Participatory Tools included in the DSS Tool Box. It provides at the same time inputs on other possible Participatory Tools needed for the Project. One of the main objectives of the HKKH Partnership Project is the development of a Decision Support System Tool Box to be of effective use for the three Parks the Project is operating in. Within the Tool Box a considerable role is given to the Participatory Tools and Methods that CESVI is contributing to develop. The present document is intended to be used as a reference tool that could be helpful for achieving Project Objectives, serving local Management Needs and reviewing the most common tools currently. It has been tried to address the challenges present in the current debate on Participatory Tools and Methods that is questioning the real effectiveness of these approaches. Together with an analysis of the critical points and issues that need to be taken into account in the use and implementation of Participatory techniques, a List with the Tools that could be useful for the objectives of the present Project is presented.

2 Objectives of this documents

2.1 Outline of the project

The regional Project Institutional Consolidation for the Coordinated and Integrated Monitoring of Natural Resources towards Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation in the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalaya Mountain Complex is a partnership initiative developed in the framework of the priorities defined in the WSSD Draft Plan of Implementation and considering the recommendations made for achieving successful implementation of the priorities identified in Agenda 21. The project aims at consolidating institutional capacity for systemic planning and management at the local, national and regional levels and focuses on poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation in the Hindu Kush - Karakoram Himalaya (HKKH) region. The activities will initially be focused on three national parks: Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) in Nepal, Central Karakoram National Park (CKNP) in Pakistan and Quomolongma Nature Preserve (QNP) in Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) of PR China. The Project is financed by the Italian Cooperation DGCS. The implementing organization is IUCN through its Asia Regional Office (IUCN-ARO). The Executing Agencies are the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Ev-K2-CNR, CESVI - Cooperazione e Sviluppo and IUCN. The project goals, results and activities have been outlined in a General Operational Plan (GOP) while detailed activities are outlined in Detailed Work Plans (DOP) for the coming Semesters. All documents where submitted to the donor to obtain approval. Project activities started on July 1st with the agreement of DGCS.

3 History of Participatory Methods and Tools

3.1 Concept of Participation

The concept and practices of participation have become popular among development practitioners both involving government and non-governmental sectors around the world. It has also been practiced by academic institutions and researchers in their research works. Many international donor agencies have incorporated this term into their major mission of development. The participation

8 of 47

practitioners working at the grassroots level advocate the importance of peoples participation in a development processes for real social change.

Some descriptions of participation by various institutions: Participation is the act of taking part in an activity of event (OXFORD Advanced Learners Dictionary, 2000) Participation is a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them. (The World Bank1996) Peoples participation is essentially to do with economic and political relationships within the wider society; it is not just a matter of involvement in project activities but rather the process by which rural people are able to organize themselves and, through their own organisation, are able to identify their own needs, share in design, implement, and evaluate participatory action. (FAO, 1982). Participation is the fostering of a dialogue between the local people and the project preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation staff in order to obtain information on the local context and on social impacts. (Mikkelsen, B., 2002) Participation is to achieve a special kind of power peoples power which belongs to the oppressed and exploited classes and groups and their organisations, and the defense of their just interests to enable them to advance towards shared goals of social change within a participatory system. (Rahnemam M. Development Dictionary, 2000) Organizations participation in communitys issues or communitys participation in organizations agendas has been a prominent question while discussing about participation. One of the serious criticisms is that many donor agencies want to impose their agenda on local people by using participatory approach to legitimize their ideas. This criticism is found true to some extent. General understanding about participation is that organisations (outsiders) should participate in community issues which will help the local people, preferably marginalized peoples, to analyze their situation and plan for the better future using their indigenous knowledge and local resources. Outsiders can play the role of facilitation in this process. Participation has been accepted as a mandatory approach in strategies for development organisations globally. However, on the other hand, participation has been crowned as the new tyranny (Mikkelsen, 2005). Many more challenges in the social development field have been emerged. The gap between the rich and poor is only widening. Millions of people are in a worse condition now than over a decade ago (HD Report, 2003). Though participatory development methods have been well accepted globally, people raise many questions on its use in the field. There is a vast difference between saying and actually practicing participatory development. It is also said that participation no longer has the radical connotations it once had during the radical popular movements of the 1960s (Mosse, 2002) which had contributed highly for peoples participation in the social transformation processes. Most development workers, both individuals and organisations, impose their already planned ideas over the people and wrap it nicely with the flag of participatory development concept.

3.2 Historical Notes

There have been continuous evolution of the concept and theories of development over time. During the decades after 1950s, only investment of huge capital and application of high technology were taken as the indicators of development i.e. countries with large investment and access to high technologies were developed and rests were under developed. However, this concept has changed with time.

Since the mid 1970s, there has been an accelerating evolution of participatory methodologies in development practice. One part of this has been a sequence known by its acronyms Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), and Participatory Learning and Action (PLA). These are sets of approaches, methods, behaviors and relationships for finding out about local

9 of 47

context and life. All three continue to be practiced and are in various ways complementary (Chambers, R. 2007; IDS Working Paper 286).

RRA began as a coalescence of methods devised and used to be faster and better for practical purposes than large questionnaire surveys or in-depth social anthropology. Its methods include semi-structured interviews; transect walks with observation, and mapping and diagramming, all these done by outside professionals.

Table 1: Differences between RRA and PRA Differences RRA PRA Major period of development Late 1970s, and 1980s Late 1980s, and 1990s Major basis for research Universities NGOs working in communities Major practitioners Donor agencies

Universities NGOs working in communities GOs

Expected major source Knowledge of local people Capacity of local people Major focus for research Methods Behavior Pattern Exhibitors, information collector Cooperative, exchangeable Major objectives Learning by outsiders Local peoples empowerment Long term output Plans, projects, publications Sustainable local activities and

organisations Source: Discussion Paper 311, Robert Chambers In the late 1980s and early1990s PRA evolved out of RRA. In PRA outsiders convene and facilitate the appraisal process. Local people, especially those who are poorer and marginalized, are the main actors. Typically, they, in small groups who map, diagram, observe, analyze and act. The term Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) introduced in mid 1990s is sometimes used to describe PRA but is broader and includes other similar or related approaches and methods. Because of the continuities and overlaps this methodological cluster or family is sometimes referred to as PRA/PLA or even RRA/PRA/PLA. Some, as in Pakistan, have sought to accommodate the shifts in practice by taking PRA to mean participatory reflection and action. But increasingly practitioners in this tradition have moved beyond these labels and created new and specialized adaptations, some of these with other names. While continuing to use and evolve PRA methods and principles, many have become eclectic methodological pluralists. In the early 1990s, the main features of PRA emerged, with three principal components. Bearing in mind these considerations, a review on the most common and used Participatory Tools in the fields of Protected Areas and Community Based Development will be carried out, with a particular focus on Tools and Methodologies that have been used in Mountain Areas and are relevant to Protected Areas management. Decision Making Processes for Natural resources Management need to be supported by a system that is comprehensive and could bring together all the different components that are required. The Review will be organized on three main dimensions required by an effective management system like Knowledge, Time and Space: the area of Participatory Research, aiming at producing knowledge in a participatory way that could be of benefit of local and non local stakeholders; the Participatory Tools applied to Planning, which bear in mind the temporal dimension of management; and the participatory mapping or geographical zoning which instead is addressing the spatial component of management. Each of the three can be explored through participatory Methodologies.

4 Key issues on Participatory Methods and Tools The use of Participatory Tools and Methods has been supported and promoted along the last three decades by an increasing number of Development Organizations, NGOs and International Organizations operating in the fields of Development Cooperation and Natural Conservation. The importance of Participatory Tools and Methods into those programmes has been highly recognized and it is considered to be essential for the involvement of local communities, whose role is crucial for the success of such initiatives. In recent years the Participatory Approach has been challenged from different perspectives because of its non-clarity in properly addressing some issues especially regarding: the importance of power dynamics while putting the methods in practice; the use of such techniques to support programmes

10 of 47

goals and needs rather than focusing on participants perspectives; the opportunity of focusing on local present potentialities rather than drive the process on a top-down basis.

4.1 Participation and Power

Participation is a process through which stakeholders including the poor and marginalized can influence and share control over development initiatives, and the resources and decisions that affect their livelihoods. Participation occupies a central place in development thinking and practice. Governments, funding agencies, and civil society actors including NGOs, and multi-lateral agencies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) all have arrived near consensus that development cannot be sustainable unless peoples participation is made central to the development process. While there is virtual unanimity about the need for peoples participation in development, there is a wide spectrum of views on the concept of participation and the ways of achieving it. So, from the perspectives of practitioners of this approach, it is essential to clarify the framework and principles of participation in development. Participation has wider scope and vague meanings depending on the context, and perspectives. The ways in which participation is exercised in different development interventions reveals that participation is conceptualised and understood differently. There different types of participation or intensity of participation from the perspectives of community participants: Passive Participation: People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already

happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without listening to peoples responses follows this kind of approach. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals.

Informative Participation: People participate by answering questions posted by researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. There is one-way flow of information people do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy.

Consultative Participation: People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to views. The external professionals define both problems and solution, and may modify these in the light of peoples response. Though there is two-way flow of information, this process does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board peoples views.

Material Incentive Participation: People participate by providing resources, for example labor, in return for food, cash, or other material incentives. Much of the on farm research falls in this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not fully involved in the experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called meaningful participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end.

Functional Participation: People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organizations. Such involvement does not tend to occur at the early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decision have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent.

Interactive or Collaborative Participation: People participate in joint analysis, identification of needs, development of action plans, and formation or strengthening of local institutions. Participation is seen as a right, not just the means to achieve project goals.

Self Mobilisation or Empowerment Participation: People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and the technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self initiated mobilisation and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. Participation at the level of empowerment where transfer of control on decision and resource is made is more active and meaningful participation.

Participation may be viewed along a spectrum with passive participation at one end and self-empowerment at the other end where outsiders power is inversely proportional to the participation of local people. As one moves from passive participation to self-empowerment, the control of the local people and outsiders over the process varies. At one end of the spectrum, say in the case of passive participation, peoples control is almost non-existent while at the self-empowerment, people have almost total control over the process while the role of outsiders is at the best minimal. It is also

11 of 47

possible to have manipulative participation where participation is simply pretence, and people have no role as in the case of nominated members to some official boards, who have little say in decision-making process. While participation by manipulation and passive participation cannot directly empower community, both interactive participation and participation by self-empowerment can be highly empowering. Participation is therefore being increasingly viewed as the process of empowering the local people. The focus is on transfer of power and change in the power structure. Thus, interactive participation and participation through self-empowerment are critical for participation to become a process of empowering the people so that they gain more control over their own resources and lives. APPA exercises active and meaningful participation participation should be interactive, inclusive, and functional. Here participation is both an end and means to development initiatives. In this regard, power dynamics will have high influence on participation of the local communities. Therefore, it is essential to determine what type or at what level of participation is essential to exercise a particular tool for achieving the objectives of the project. One cannot achieve the objectives without defining the type of participation necessary for the intervention. Here the power of externals or the facilitators will have direct control and influence on the participation of the local communities. The facilitator should be able to decide what level of participation is necessary for the program activities because it is the key issue of participatory methodology. Different levels or intensity of participation is required to exercise different tools and to address various needs of the target groups.

4.2 Tyranny of Techniques

Participatory Techniques are powerful tools that need to be used in a very sensitive and careful way. Thats particularly true in the case of researches, where methodologies are not usually shared with local stakeholders and can often be perceived as a way to steel data from the ground, but this can also be the case for some of the other participatory methods that might be perceived as imposed in a top-down manner. On this regard it is important to review the concerns related to what has been defined as the Tyranny of techniques (see Cleaver, 1999). Techniques should always been considered as useful tools that could support development actions or researches and not as a substitute to those. Practitioners should also consider carefully the effects that the implementation of such techniques could have on the final users. Tools are in fact subject to the goals and objectives they are used for and use of participatory techniques does not automatically provide real participation by stakeholders, on the contrary, ss it has been argued by Cleaver (Cleaver, 1999), it could be used simply to justify top down decisions with the inclusion of stakeholders just to give a participatory touch to the process. Stakeholders, practitioners, NGOs, International organizations and other international or national institutions should always consider the approach that has been used by Antonin Artaud in his Theatre of Cruelty in which he was fighting for the sense against the tyranny of the text. Techniques are not neutral and cannot be considered therefore as always functional. Their use depends on the context they could be applied to and on the dynamics of power between the practitioners and the users and among the users themselves. The Sense should always prevail against the Text.

4.3 Catching Local Potentialities

Participatory methods and tools should be designed in order to catch the potentialities present on the ground and build on synergies locally present. Participatory Tools should be integrated or combined with local knowledge and practice and should always consider the combination of local strengths and potentialities. The importance of such a point has been clearly stated in the need of developing a specific tool that could get the best out of a working relation between development practitioners and the users and

12 of 47

target groups. On this regard Mountain Spirit developed the Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action (APPA), which goes exactly in this direction. Participatory Tools should be considered as a way to catch local potentialities in all the stages of the decision making process, from the analysis and assessment, to the planning and programming phases to the implementation. The principle used in the APPA should be extended also to the Decision Making Process. In order to better do so it is critical to investigate the presence of potentials on which base future decisions. The analysis should start exploring the meaning of problem and the meaning of potential. The problem is a perception of a lack combined to the necessity or the need to overcome this lack. The potential is a perception of a resource combined to the willingness to exploit it. A lack is objectively verifiable but its only when there is a consciousness that something is lacking and the community perceives the need to overcome the lack that the community is in the position to face a problem. A similar analysis can be done for the potential. A resource, natural or human, is also objectively verifiable, but its only when the community perceives the presence of this resource and is also willing to exploit it that a resource becomes a potential. The scheme below can better explain the concept.

The presence of the problem combined with the potential generates the objective of the decision, which through the exploitation of the potential will solve the problem. What is critical in all the steps is the role played by the stakeholders. It is only through the perception they have of both Resources and Lacks that it is possible to take sound decisions, The human factor is central and should be taken into proper account.

4.4 Role of Facilitator/Practitioner

The role of facilitator is very important in exercising the participatory methodology, tools and techniques ensuring active and meaningful participation to achieve the target objectives. The facilitator should be a keen listener, learner, supporter rather than giving direction, commands talking too much. Successful and proper exercise of tools depends on the skills of a good facilitator. Active Listening: The facilitators should be active listener that means more than just listening. It means helping people feel that they are being heard and understood. Active listening encourages the participation of people and a more open communication of experiences, thoughts and feelings. In active listening, the person listening uses body language to show interest and understanding. In most cultures this will include nodding and turning the body to face the person speaking; using facial expression to show interest and reflect on what is being said. It may include looking directly at the person speaking; and listens to know how things are said by paying attention to a speakers body language and tone of voice. Effective Questioning: Effective questioning increases peoples participation in group discussions and encourages their involvement in problem solving. In effective questioning, the person should ask

PROBLEM

LACK + NEED

POTENTIAL

RESOURCE + WILLINGNESS

OBJECTIVES OF THE DECISION PROCESS

13 of 47

open ended questions. Facilitator should ask probing questions by following up peoples answers with further questions that look deeper into the issue continually asking but why? is useful for doing this. It is necessary to ask clarifying questions to ensure they have understood. This can be done by re-wording a previous question. Questions about personal points of view by asking about how people feel and not just about what they know are also helpful. Asking questions is showing desire to know and understand. Supporting and Empowering: The facilitator should summarize and rephrase the discussions to check on an understanding of what has been said and ask for feedback. The overall role of the facilitator is to empower individuals, groups and organizations in a community to collectively conduct their own analysis of their lives and conditions. Then to facilitate them to make a plan from this analysis, act on that plan, monitor and evaluate it. In order to do this, APPA facilitators need to perform several roles: they need to encourage all people to participate equally in their own analysis, planning, action, monitoring and evaluation. They should advocate for participation and ensure meaningful and representative participation of vulnerable and marginalized groups. The facilitator should play the role of a mobiliser of groups to bring individuals, groups and organisations in a community together and build their capacity and motivation to jointly riorit, plan, act, monitor and evaluate their own actions. Trust building and Learning: They need to build trust between different people, groups and organisations that may have different viewpoints and priorities. They are the sharer of information facilitators need to be prepared to share accurate information on related subject matters. In order to perform all these roles, APPA facilitators need to acquire the right knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours. Here are the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours necessary for the facilitators: Active listening skills Effective questioning skills Skills in facilitating group discussions Appropriate attitudes and behaviours which encourage participation, learning and action Knowledge of APPA/PRA/PLA tools in planning, monitoring and evaluation To be able to work as a team Knowledge of local language of that community is advantage Understand and respect the culture of the community Committed to empower the marginalized and the poor groups Be literate so that they can record information Ensures that everyone is comfortable and can see and hear each other Agrees with the participants on the aims of the session and how much time is available Agrees on group norms with participants, including the need to respect opinions and

confidentiality Enables all group members to contribute to the discussion by paying attention to who is

dominating discussions and who is not contributing (remember that people have different reasons for being quiet they may be thinking deeply!)

Summarize the main points of the session and any action points that have been agreed Acknowledge the participants for their time and contributions. Perhaps the most important quality of an APPA/PRA/PLA facilitator is that they develop the appropriate attitudes and behaviours in themselves and others. These are attitudes and behaviours that are empowering rather than disempowering; facilitating rather than dominating; participatory rather than excluding; flexible rather than rigid; include and empower the most marginalized and vulnerable member of the group. It is therefore less about what tool is used than how it is used. Proper facilitation is another key issue in participatory approach because the spirit of the methodology is guided by the facilitation skills, attitudes and behaviour of the facilitators. In participatory approach, there are some norms of facilitation that every facilitator should be aware about, see Table 2.

14 of 47

Table 2: Norms for participatory facilitators

Dos Donts Be humble Be imposing Listen to others Talk all the time Be creative Be rigid Work with people Work for people Give people time to come up with their own ideas Always express your ideas first Be patient Rush Respect peoples viewpoints Impose your ideas Be tolerant Be intolerant Be practical Doubt people Trust people Be arrogant Build trust Ignore peoples ideas and priorities Be supportive Keep knowledge, skills and experience to yourself Share (experiences, tools, ideas, time, food etc.) Physically dominate people Stand or sit at the same level with local people Focus on the person rather than the issue Focus on the issue not the person Exclude anyone Involve everybody Be distant Let them do it (draw, map, count, score, prioritise, discuss, conclude etc.)

Distrust yourself

Empathize Beat yourself up when things dont go quite according to plan Use your best judgment Be too serious Embrace error Have fun

4.5 Team Work

APPA is team based exercise. Because of the many tasks required to facilitate, it is helpful to do the sessions as part of a team. Exercising participatory tools without proper planning may lead to serious consequences. There are different roles that need to be performed by each team members: Facilitator: This person will take the lead role in facilitating the use of the tools to enhance discussion about topics with participants as described above. Recorder: This person takes notes and record information that will be useful for participants, your team and other stakeholders. This needs to be done in a timely and accurate manner and presented back to the participants who took part in the session. Having a common form to record both the content and the process of each tool can help stakeholders to easily review information generated in earlier participatory sessions. Observer: The role of this person is to observe the attitudes and behaviours of both the facilitator and the participants. It is very important that all the participants take part equally and actively in the process.

5 Participatory Methods and Management The use of Participatory Techniques in the Decision making Process could be quite useful in all its phases towards sound Management Decisions and Actions. Tools such as the Situation Analysis, the Quantitative Sample Surveys and the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) are powerful tools for understanding and analizing the situation where a decision has to be made, while Scenario Planning and Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action (APPA) are quite useful for planning accordingly and the Social Impact Assessment and the Most Significant Change provide critical instruments to monitor changes of decision taken and assess their impacts in a participatory way.

5.1 Situation Analysis (SA)

Understanding a current situation of any environment is critical to the decision process. A Situation Analysis approach will allow a systemic approach that would try to consider the target area not in isolation. As explained by the technical Report on the Subject the:

15 of 47

Situation Analysis attempts to take stock, describe, and document a current situation in any environment. It should assume that the target area does not exist in isolation, but within a situation or environment that is often complex and dynamic. The changes in its external and internal situation bring changes to it. Therefore, understanding the situation is the first step in designing management responses that will bring effective and lasting impacts. The more we understand the present situation, the more robust designed interventions will be. (Sherpa and Caroli, 2009)

A Situation Analysis should include: Review of regulatory and legal framework at national and international level that could be

relevant to the specific context analyzed Analysis of specific local Governance Structure and Composition, their objectives, interests,

shortcomings and strenghts Understanding of local Knowledge, Habits and Practices that could be useful and relevant to

the specific Action and Decision to be taken A Stakeholder Analysis that should include analysis of their importance, role, value and

attitude towards external actions Sectorial Analysis of elevant sectors A SWOT (Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis of the stakeholders.

The combination and existence of all these kind of different component ensures a useful understanding of the situation on the ground only if owned and changed by the stakeholders which should be part of the process if not at all its stages a crossing some critical steps.

5.2 Scenario Planning (SP)

A clear description of what a Scenario Planning Exercise is, it has been given in the Methodological Document prepared by the CESVI on that regard, which is reported here below (Da Conto, 2007):

Scenario planning was developed in military and business circles in the 1950s as a technique to deal with uncertainty in forward analysis of complex contexts. This technique is meant to identify and stimulate analysis around alternative (hypothetical) futures as a way of short-circuiting biased and entrenched views of the world and prepare for developments which could not be anticipated by simply extrapolating from past trends. In this context, scenarios are neither forecasts nor estimates. They are rather alternative, plausible future trajectories of change in a system. In the words of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005) a scenario is a plausible, simplified, synthetic description of how the future of a system might develop, based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about key driving forces and relationships among key variables. Scenarios are described through narrative presentations, and may include qualitative or quantitative definitions. Scenario planning techniques were developed by two main schools of thought (Bradfield et al, 2005): the intuitive-logic school: this model was first established by Shell. The general approach entails the development of narrative descriptions of alternative futures, based on intuitive logic and involving a range of stakeholders. A large number of experiences and models have since been developed, which cannot be coalesced in a unified methodology. The wide range of methodologies developed by various authors and groups, reflect the range of problem applications and practitioners which have evolved applied experiences. the probabilistic modified trends school: this refers to a range of experiences and models based eminently on quantitative and expert driven analysis: historical data (time-series) are extrapolated to generate possible future trends (probabilistic forecasts) and combined with expert judgments and narrative descriptions to build quantitatively determined alternatives, often involving computer modelling and proprietary methodologies and tools, to address possible future unpredictable factors. These applications typically aim at improving policy effectiveness in handling reasonably well defined problems (it has a narrower focus than the former model). As Bradfield at al (2005) point out, the intuitive logic school is a flexible approach designed to guide a process of continuous learning and adaptation within organizations, which becomes the overall goal for the adoption of scenario planning techniques. Established practices mostly rely

16 of 47

on internal expertise within the organisation/context; external expertise is brought in to facilitate the process, rather than to offer substantive expert advice. So called remarkable people with extensive sector specific experience can be brought in the exercise to open new perspectives. The approach is versatile and suitable to address a wide range of problem scales. It relies on a number of general techniques such as stakeholder analysis, brainstorming, simulation modelling, etc. These are used to structure coherently narrative and qualitative descriptions of future alternatives, e.g., through matrices which help to organise the information that constitute scenarios along key perspectives/parameters. Scenarios produced (typically 2-4) should be equally plausible and probable, internally coherent and logically structured. The narrative produced are evaluated for internal consistency and eventually used to assess alternative strategic options, to identify unforeseen events and implications and to recognise early warning signals of system change. Scenarios in this approach are different from exercises of what-if planning, which produce forecasts of outcomes based on a range of assumptions. In scenario planning, individual scenarios do not have attached probabilities or estimates. However, it is assumed that elements of a given scenario may happen. Therefore, the purpose of the approach is not to devise optimal scenarios, but rather to assess system change over trends of key drivers, accommodating also unexpected but plausible surprises. Managers can thus explore long term perspectives, escaping from pressing near term concerns; identify drivers of systemic change in their environment; identify future trends, opportunities and threats; question their assumptions about the environment which surrounds their organisations operations and bring in the open ambiguities and uncertainty; test policies and options in face of surprises and unforeseeable events. SP can support through these experiences a process of organisational learning and continued review. SP studies have been used for decades to study global change in business and security applications. SP has been proposed particularly in contexts characterised by high uncertainties and driven by uncontrollable external drivers (Peterson et al., 2003), which are common in conservation practice. In the environmental arena, SP has been applied to the study of global environmental change, such as in climate change related studies and, more recently, in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Carpenter et al., 2005). The latter study involved analysis at global scale, as well as at sub-global (regional) scale.

5.3 Quantitative Sample Surveys (Visitors, Porters and Household)

Participatory tools have wider range of applications both qualitative and quantitative data can be obtained by practicing the different participatory tools and techniques. CESVI, a partner organization of HKKH project in collaboration with Mountain Spirit, a national NGO have conducted quantitative sample surveys on Visitors, Porters, and Migration Dynamics in Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) in 2007-2008. Normally, such quantitative surveys are carried out by rapid appraisal methodology. But, field level practical experiences shows that surveys carried out with active participation of the informants and target groups results for eliciting authentic, genuine, and relevant information on the issues to be addressed. In this regard, the above mentioned sample surveys were based, to some extent on participatory methodology rather than just compiling information. Prior to the surveys, required information was disseminated by posters, notice boards, and banners along the main trail in order to encourage all the informants for their active participation in the program. The program was conducted in coordination and cooperation from the local communities, park management and other related stakeholders. For the survey on visitors, they were given a form consisting two parts first part to be filled at the park gate before entry and the second part to be filled during their visit and submit while leaving the park. The first part of the questionnaire is about more general information necessary for park management, while the second part was about their feedbacks, suggestions and observation on the entire park situation. As most the visitors were already well informed about the importance and relevance of the program, they were very eager to participate in the voluntary survey. Wider range of

17 of 47

information from various perspectives very useful for all the partners, local communities, park management, and stakeholders were obtained from the participatory sample survey on visitors. The other participatory sample survey on porters who have been working in the park. Since there are no more viable alternatives to porter especially in remote areas like SNP, they have greater role in tourism industry in Nepal. On the other hand, there are many issues linked to porters the socio-economic, cultural, and environmental impacts made by porters are more serious in this area. SNP is not only the most popular tourism destination in the world but also a unique world heritage site due to its pristine natural landscape and cultural heritages. The survey was conducted in order to reveal the socio-economic, cultural and environmental impacts connected porters in this region. As the issue was sensitive both for the porters and local stakeholders, it was not easy to obtain right information from the porters. However, the survey team managed active participation of most of the porters by visiting their night stops, and utilizing their rest days at the main contact location, Namche in the region. Since majority of the porters are illiterate, the survey team also used local materials like parts of different plants, pictures to find out their level of knowledge on different issues. Within one month during the peak season about 800 porters were involved in the survey in their working ground. A lot of relevant and authentic information essential for all the stakeholders for bio-diversity conservation, tourism development, and entire park management was obtained from the participatory sample survey on porters. Besides these two quantitative surveys, an opinion survey on Migration Dynamics in SNP was conducted in 2007. Immigration and emigration has been a burning issue in this region from socio-economic, cultural and environmental perspectives. The local communities, park management and stakeholders are concerned about the increasing number of immigrants in this reason. The increasing number of immigrant has posed heavy pressure on environment as well as local socio-cultural harmony. So, the opinion survey was conducted to learn from the experiences and feelings of different individuals about the gravity of seriousness of the issue, alternative solutions, and suggestion for the stakeholders including park management and government bodies. Though it was a very sensitive issue to deal with, about 120 individuals including local inhabitants, outsiders, park staffs, security personals, government officers, business person gave their opinion on the subject matter.

5.4 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Most Significant Change (MSC) Techniques

In many cases decision need to be monitored and their Impacts assessed. Assessment of Impacts could happen along with their implementation and after or even at the beginning in an Ex-Ante modality. The definition of the Social Impact Assessment rose from the development and application of the much more known Environmental Impact Assessment passing through some clear and critical steps that could be listed as follows:

US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969 Requirement of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Trans Alaska Gas Pipeline Project: (1970s) resident Population claimed the EIA did not

adequately consider Social Impacts on population and SIA accepted Northern Cheyenne Tribe Mining Project (1985) socio cultural impacts got inadequate

attention from the EIA, proposed Project rejected and could be defined as a method of analyzing what impact a government action may have on the social aspects of the environment. (NEPA, 1998) and according to the same policy (NEPA, 1998) the SIA is requested to assess:

18 of 47

After the assessment that should be done following a number of principles, for which the participation and presence of the stakeholders is not only critical, but essential such as to:

Involve the diverse public Analyze impact equity Focus the assessment (Scoping) Identify Methods and Assumptions Define Significance Provide feedback to Project planners Use SIA practitioners Establish monitoring and mitigation programs Identify data sources Plan for gaps in data

The SIA could assess and verify the Population Characteristics, the Community and Institutional Structures together with the Political and Social Resources the Individual and Family factors and the Community Resources. In order to do so 9 steps should be followed:

1. Develop an effective public involvement plan 2. Identify and characterize alternatives 3. Define baseline conditions 4. Define the scope 5. Probable impacts 6. Predict responses to impacts 7. Consider indirect and cumulative impacts 8. Recommend new alternatives 9. Develop a Mitigation Plan

The final step of the mitigation Plan opens up to the needs of monitoring its own effects together with the ones of the actions proposed. Those effects could be considered as Changes in the first place and a smart way to organize the data and the stories collected in this way could help us a lot in considering not only the objectively measurable impacts, but also the ones that are perceived by the stakeholders as the Most Significant. The most significant change (MSC) technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation. It is participatory because many project stakeholders are involved both in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and in analyzing the data. It is a form of monitoring because it occurs throughout the program cycle and provides information to help people manage the program. It contributes to

19 of 47

evaluation because it provides data on impact and outcomes that can be used to help assess the performance of the program as a whole. Essentially, the process involves the collection of significant change (SC) stories emanating from the field level, and the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by panels of designated stakeholders or staff. The designated staff and stakeholders are initially involved by 'searching' for project impact. Once changes have been captured, stakeholders sit down together, read the stories aloud and have regular and often in-depth discussions about the value of these reported changes. When the technique is implemented successfully, whole teams of people begin to focus their attention on program impact. Stories can be collected on the basis of Domains previously identified and the entire process could be summarized in the following 10 steps (Davies and Dart, 2005): 1. Getting started: establishing champions and getting familiar with the approach 2. Establishing domains of change 3. Defining the reporting period 4. Collecting stories of change 5. Selecting the stories within the organizational hierarchy 6. Providing stakeholders with regular feedback about the review process 7. Setting in place a process to verify the stories if necessary 8. Quantification 9. Conducting secondary analysis of the stories en masse 10. Revising the MSC process. The two processes, though thought for different purposes could be quite useful, if combined, to assess the Most Significant Impact of a certain action or policy that decision makers could decide to apply in a certain context. Impacts could be collected as stories by the stakeholders and organized according to a number of domains previously chosen. The constant repetition of the exercise will ensure an easy and sound monitoring system that is not difficult to implement even in remote and marginalized areas.

5.5 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action (APPA)

APPA is the combined approach of PRA and Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Professor David Cooperrider and other experts in mid 1980s first developed AI for organizational development at Case Western Reserve University, USA. It is not a complete methodology in itself, but a concept that has greater role to make other methodologies more effective. The main aim of AI is seeking the root cause of success and identifying the existing resources, skill, and capacity. Its main mission is to empower the community to make commitments to take part in their own development action. The use of AI allows the participants to identify the reality, the vision and the organizational plan, of both the community and individuals. In brief, this concept is based on the principle of appreciation and positive thinking. So, the appreciative methodology creates a more relaxed environment even in tense situations. The main focus of AI approach is seeking the root cause of success, not root cause of failure and it believes that positive questions generate positive answers and positive answers generate positive action. If people have faith in their dreams they can achieve miracles (Odell, 1997). In Nepal, the idea was exercised during implementation of projects by The Mountain Institute (TMI) in 1993 for organisation review. Later in 1996, TMI incorporated the idea of AI in various projects with the collaboration of various projects in Nepal and Sikkim, India. Similarly, Mountain Spirit (MS), an NGO supporting for mountain people and communities, exercised APPA extensively incorporating both PRA and AI approaches for community planning and development in different sectors including eco tourism and conservation in Nepal, Tibet Autonomous Region, China, and Sikkim, India. Now, there are many NGOs and INGOs exercising APPA approach in community level for development programs. Many donor agencies including World Bank, UNDP, DFID, SNV, Winrock International, Pragya Management, Imagine Nepal, have implemented various projects in Nepal following the APPA

20 of 47

approach. Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Program (TRPAP1) used APPA tools to implement tourism projects in Nepal. PRA principles, attitudes and skills can help bring about considerable changes among staff and organisations to make them responsive and sensitive to local situations and needs. APPA believes that people are capable of managing their surroundings and at making decisions. The whole process can be carried out through an appreciative and participatory approach believing that if we look for problems we find more problems. In the same time one can never learn and adapt PRA techniques unless one practices them. Guidebooks and training manuals are just one part of the process only a cover page. So practitioners should use their best judgment at all times. The very nature of the participatory process is dependent upon the participation. PRA is very important not only in planning but also at the beginning for identification, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the projects. Appreciation of success is powerful tool itself.

3.1. 4 D Model in APPA Process APPA approach is based on a well structured process. The whole approach proceeds as discovery, dream, design and delivery, known as 4 D model. It starts with selecting an affirmative topic for inducing positive thinking and strengths followed by Discovery (appreciating and valuing), Dream (envisioning), Design (co-constructing the future), and Destiny/Delivery (Learning, empowering, and improvising to sustain the future). In APPA process, various participatory tools such as mapping, diagramming, ranking, discussions and interview tools are used throughout Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny. These all Ds are interwoven and connected to each other. The phases are shown in Figure 1, Appreciative Inquiry 4 D models.

Figure 1: Appreciative Inquiry 4 D Model

3.2. The Discovery Phase The first step in this process is to discover and value those factors that give life to the organisation or community. For example, the organisation might discover as much information as possible about the 1 TRPAP was funded by UNDP, DFID and SNV working with MoCTCA, Nepal. The project used APPA tools in tourism planning and promotion benefitting about 160,000 people in six districts.

Affirmative Topic Choice

Discovery What gives life?

(the best of what is) Appreciating

Destiny What will be?

(how to empower, learn and

adjust/improvise) Sustaining

Dream What might be?

(imagine what the world is calling for)

Envisioning

Design How can it be?

(determining the ideal) Co-constructing

21 of 47

organisation such as its positive aspects (strengths and successes), resources availability, livelihood activities, institutional networks, and trends of livelihood related activities through participatory discussion and interaction. Participatory tools such as resource mapping, social mapping, mobility mapping, institutional diagramming, transect mapping, seasonal calendar, time line, trend line, focus group discussion, semi structured interview, well being ranking are used to explore information. The list of positive or affirmative topics for Discovery is endless: high quality, integrity, empowerment, innovation, customer responsiveness, technological innovation, team spirit, best in class, and so on. In each case, the task is to discover the positive exceptions, successes, and most vital or alive moments. Discovery involves valuing those things that are worth valuing. It can be done within and across organisations (in a benchmarking sense) and across time (organizational history as positive possibility). As part of the Discovery process, individuals engage in dialogue and meaning-making. This is simply the open sharing of discoveries and possibilities. Through dialogue, a consensus begins to emerge whereby individuals in the organisation say, Yes, this is an ideal or vision we value and should aspire to. Through conversation and dialogue, individual appreciation becomes collective appreciation, individual will evolves into group will, and individual vision becomes a cooperative or shared vision of the organisation.

3.3. The Dream Phase The Dream amplifies the positive core and challenges the status quo by envisioning more valued and vital futures. Especially important is the envisioning of potential results and the bottom-line contributions to the world. The Dream phase is practical, in that it is grounded in the organizations history. It is also generative, in that it seeks to expand the organizations potential. One aspect that differentiates AI from other visioning or planning methodologies is that images of the future emerge out of grounded examples from its positive past. These images are compelling possibilities precisely because they are based on extraordinary moments from an organizations history. Sometimes this data is complemented with benchmarking studies of other organisations. In both cases, the good-news stories are used like an artist uses materials to create portrait of possibility. Without all of the colours (red, green, blue, and yellow), the painting is less beautiful. So, too, are many visions or re-engineering programs that fail to take notice of organizational history. The Dream phase is a time for key stakeholders to collectively share their stories of the organizations past and their historical relationship with it. As the various stories of the organisations history are shared and illuminated, a new historical narrative emerges. This narrative engages those involved in much the way a good mystery novel engages a reader. As participants become energetically in re-creating the organizations positive history, they give life to its positive future. This is the second phase of APPA methodology. After discovering the details in the community, organization or individual, the participants make dreams for future. This dream is not the subconscious or unconscious dreaming rather it is conscious dreaming. It is visualizing the aspirations and expected changes of the local people of their future. As it is real visioning of the future, the following points are essential to keep in mind while exercising dreaming: Dreams must be achievable and measurable. Then only people can visualize it. Dreams must be based on the resources available. For example, if there are no rivers and

streams, then they cannot dream of installation of hydroelectricity plant in the region. Dreams should not be only in the form of physical infrastructure. For example, there will be a

school, a noodles factory, railway station etc. At the same time they should think the impacts of such infrastructures in the community.

Dreams should be well-defined. Sufficient exposure and warm up is necessary to the participants. Dreams should be based on the socio-economic, socio-cultural, geographical, and political

structure of the community. Be relaxed and take time while dreaming. As dreams are the basis for action plan and activities for development initiatives, the facilitator

should give proper focus on this phase. The vision should reflect the needs, aspirations, of local communities based on their geographical, environmental, socio-cultural realities.

The main purpose of this phase is to derive a future vision based on the present situation; to identify the needs and address them for improvement through positive and participatory methodologies. The

22 of 47

exercise is useful to develop the mission and vision of organization, communities and people. For example see the Table 4.

Table 3. A sample Dream of people from Humla, Nepal Completion of Hilsa to Simkot motorway Bachelor level multiple college Improved quality education Tourism infrastructures developed Famous tourism destination in the world Natural resources, religious and cultural heritage preservation Other infrastructure developed: Trails, schools, clinics, bridges Development of renewable energy: hydropower plants Well equipped hospital in the district Empowerment of local people Income generating opportunities in the district Location: Simkot, Humla Nepal Participants: Representatives of 5 VDCs in Humla Project: Humla Ecotourism Development Project/UNESCO Facilitator: Gelu Sherpa and Tuka Chheki Sherpa Date: 2004

Process: Encourage a brief reflection on the present situations and the findings in discovery phase. Define the time duration before dreaming. For example, what changes would you like to see in

your organization or community in the next 5 years? Create a comfortable environment to think of a vision through explanation. Ask the participants what they would like to see in five or ten years to come in their community. Let them first think individually, and then ask them to share their dreams with the smaller groups. Facilitate participants to pull out dreams in the form of statement or in the form of picture. Here

the activities can be represented in the form of a picture because even the layman can understand and interpret it.

Give them meta-cards to collect their dreams. According to the level of participants they can express their dreams in different forms: by writing

on meta-card, by drawing pictures or by expressing orally. List out all the dreams in mass and present it. Summarize the common dreams. Then, categorize the dreams under certain topics or categories

such as Infrastructure development, Education and Awareness, Natural Resource Management and Preservation, Socio-Cultural Development etc. so that it will be easier to recommend activities to fulfil the dreams under each category.

Encourage the participants for positive thinking and a positive dream. Ask questions like: What is your vision of what could be done in future or where we want to go? What would you like to see in this village in 5 years time?

3.4. The Design Phase

Design is the third phase of APPA methodology. In order to fulfil the dreams, some activities should be carried out definitely. As it is the dream of the local people, they can give a list of activities to be intervened to achieve the dreams. Then they will select, prioritise the activities, and make plans according to the preference. The main purpose of this phase is to make action plans based on the discoveries done in the first phase of the methodology. It is essential to simplify the visions of the communities converting the conceptual dream into defined activities. Then the communities will make plans of their future, themselves defining the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders to achieve the vision. Process: If there are more than 25 people divide participants into small groups to examine different dreams and extract the activities that lead to their achievement. Facilitate to extract activities from dream through group discussions on fulfilling the dream. Ask them to present the activities for their dream to the other groups and receive feedback. Categorize all the activities from all the dreams into different subject areas. List out all the activities to fulfill the visions. Select the activities based on certain criteria.

23 of 47

Make time table of the activities i.e. which activities to carry out in first year, second year and so on.

Prioritize the selected activities. Make a detailed unit planning and its action planning for each and every activity. Without doing certain activities the dreams will never be fulfilled. So, according to the dream, the participants have to list out or mention certain activities to be carried out in order to achieve the visions. Selection of Activities The participants may come up with many activities to be carried out to achieve their visions. So it is necessary to categorize all these activities under certain categories: such as education and awareness, natural resource and culture preservation, infrastructure development, tourism development etc. But, before categorizing the activities, the participants should select only those activities that are essential on the basis of certain criteria. Avoid those activities that are not relevant to the visions. There are different factors which play greater role to select the activities such socio-economic, cultural, geographical, and political structure; the fields of different organizations etc. For example, see the following Table 5. Here are some criteria for selecting the right activities to be carried out to fulfil the dreams: Based on the Community Beneficial to a Maximum Number of People Based on Target Group (Poor and Needy) Based on Available Local Resources and Natural Resources Based on the aims and objectives of the project Cost Effective and Financially Feasible Useful for Sustainability

24 of 47

Table 4: A sample of activities proposed by the participants to fulfil the above dreams Construct of Hilsa to Simkot motorway

Construct four bridges on the way from Simkot to Limi

Establish one guest house in every VDC.

Establish and operate information center in Simkot

Establish a museum in every VDC

Conduct training to preserve and promote local Handicrafts

Establish a handicraft shop in Simkot

Construct hydro electricity in Simkot

Make camp side in every village.

Make tea houses on the way of Simkot to Limi

Improve the service in Simkot hospital.

Establish and operate health posts in every VDC.

Establish a trilingual school in Limi VDC.

Establish a bachelor level multiple campus.

Conduct teacher training at least 150 teachers in Humla.

Provide furniture to 10 primary schools in the district.

Give guide training at least to 5 local people.

Conduct local food cook training to 15 local people.

Form committee to preserve and promote culture.

Conduct adult literacy class in 5 VDCs for 6 months.

Conduct English language training for 15 locals in Simkot.

Renovate 5 old monasteries.

Improve the trails from Simkot to Limi

Give CMA training to 5 local people.

Preserve the temples, ponds, and religious sites.

Conduct waste management training in Simkot.

Conduct Handicraft Training to 20 Locals in Simkot for 5 Days.

Location: Simkot, Humla Nepal Participants: Representatives of 5 VDCs in Humla Project: Humla Ecotourism Development Project/UNESCO Facilitator: Gelu Sherpa and Tuka Chheki Sherpa Date: 2004

Categorization of Activities The activities selected by the participants must be divided into different major categories. The participants should actively take part in this process. For example, see the following sample:

3.5. A sample of categorization of selected Category-A: Infrastructure Development

Improve the trails from Simkot to Limi Establish a bachelor level multiple campus. Construct hydro electricity in Simkot. Establish a handicraft shop in Simkot. Construct Hilsa to Simkot motor road. Construct four bridges on the way from Simkot to Limi. Establish one guest house in every VDC. Establish and operate information center in Simkot. Make camp side in every village. Make tea houses on the way of Simkot to Limi

25 of 47

Category-B: Awareness and Education

Local Food Cook Training to 15 Locals at Simkot for 10 Days. Supporting Furniture to 10 Schools in Humla. Establish Tri-Lingual Lower Secondary School in Limi VDC. Conduct Teacher Training at Simkot for 50 Teachers for 5 Days. Conducting Adult Class in 5 VDCs for 6 Months. Conduct Handicraft Training to 20 Locals in Simkot for 5 Days. Conduct English Language Training to 15 Locals at Simkot for 5 Days. Guide Training to 5 Locals from Limi.

Category-C: Culture and Heritage Preservation

Form committee to preserve and promote culture. Renovate 5 old monasteries. Preserve the temples, ponds, and religious sites. Establish a cultural museum in Simkot.

Category-D: Health, Environment and Sanitation

Establish and operate health posts in every VDC. Improve the facility of Simkot hospital. Give CMA training to 5 local people. Conduct waste management training in Simkot.

3.6. Planning In this design phase we make the detailed plan and the final action plan of the prioritised activities. The essence of this phase is the participatory action planning with the local community. Action Planning is the core of APPA exercise. There are mainly two types of planning in this phase: detailed activity planning and final action planning. The main purpose of this exercise is to describe the identified projects objectives, characteristics and needs of the activities- including location, responsible people, estimated costs and the extent of shared costs.

3.7. Process: Highlight the situation of priority activities with brief description and questioning why they have

chosen. Ask them to fill out forms A, B, C, and D with your close observation and facilitation. Encourage sharing of the prepared planning with leaders or community members who have not

been involved before, making sure to cover the interests and suggestions of the community for transparency and future participation.

Inform community about the next step in the agreement between local leaders, implementers and project representatives.

Do not forget to decide the responsible person for the plan activity. Note: Personal commitment is very important. People who commit should feel comfortable with his or her commitments. Commitments of participants lead mostly to behavioural change in their day-to-day life in society.

5.5.1.1.1 Activities Detailed Planning In detail planning, we make the detail planning of each activity including the budget on each topic. Detail planning is essential for final action planning. If we make the detailed plan including the budget break down, then it is easier to give the responsibility to individuals, community, or other organizations to carry out the activities.

5.5.1.1.2 Action Planning Action planning is another important part of APPA methodology. Final action planning is based on the detailed unit planning. Final action planning is made with the community to implement the activities. So, it includes the activities, place, starting time, responsible organizations or individuals, estimated

26 of 47

budget; the action planning also includes the time and responsible person for monitoring evaluation; and the indicators of success.

3.8. Commitment In order to make the plans successful the commitment from individuals, the organization, and the community is essential. In Design phase commitments are made. The commitment from individuals, groups, organizations or community is taken to create a feeling of ownership in the mind of participants so that the program will be sustainable. Moreover, commitment is necessary for joint effort to meet the vision of the community. But the participants who make commitments should feel comfortable with their commitments. And whatever commitments they make, should be measurable.

3.9. The Destiny/Delivery Phase This is the implementation phase of action plans prepared in design phase and adopt changes if necessary. The Destiny phase delivers on the new images of the future and is sustained by nurturing a collective sense of purpose. It is a time of continuous learning, adjustment, and improvisation (like a jazz group)-all in the service of shared ideals. The momentum and potential for innovation are extremely high by this stage in the process. Because of the shared positive image of the future, everyone is invited to align his or her interaction in co-creating the future. Stakeholders are invited into an open-space planning and commitment session during this phase. Individuals and groups discuss what they can and will do to contribute to the realization of the organizational dream as articulated in the provocative propositions. Relationally woven action commitments will then serve as the basis for ongoing activities. The key to sustaining the momentum is to build an appreciative eye into all for the organisations systems, procedures, and ways of working. The Destiny phase is ongoing and brings the organisation back, full circle, to the Discovery phase. In a systematic fashion, continued appreciative inquiry may result in new affirmative topic choices, continuous dialogues and continued learning.

5.5.1.1.3 Process: Provide explanation of immediate action. Ask to extract some possible project concerned activities, which can be done within 10 to 20

minutes, or more depending on time limitation and participants interest. Quickly divide them into small groups and ask them to develop some project related proverbs,

songs, role-play or clean up program. Briefly review the learning. Motivate the participants for commitment. Do some activities for immediate action. For example, we can collect some funds; arrange the

rooms or present cultural dances as immediate action. 5.5.1.1.4 Immediate Action Unless we do some actions based on the APPA exercises, we will not perceive this methodology and we cannot even achieve the visions. In this regard, there is a saying, You will never reach to the destiny unless you start. So, in order to reach our destination we should start doing some work immediately. For immediate action, the participants can collect some money to do something related to our planning, or they can do some group works like planting some plants, or collecting litters around the place, or they can present some cultural dance to preserve the culture.

6 Participatory Tools

6.1 Tool Selection

The facilitators should have knowledge of a range of tools and which work the best in different situations with different people. Since there is a pool of participatory tools, selection of suitable tool based on the need, timing, and situation is very essential. Matching tools with the issues and topics is important. However, there is no rule or criteria to exercise a particular tool for particular issue or topic

27 of 47

dealing with. Tools that involve very detailed analysis, or deal with very personal issues are best used in small groups. But tools dealing with sensitive issues are best used with smaller groups. Select the suitable place, proper materials, and right time for exercising the particular tools makes great difference in the approach. The location should be suitable for exercising the tools. Similarly, sometimes tools may threaten the participants. So, it is necessary to make the tools simple to local people by using local materials and encouraging people to work in their own ways. Using participatory tools may not always be easy because people may feel uncomfortable they may feel that they are not good at drawing. Facilitator should remember, it is the quality of discussion, rather than drawing which counts most. Some people may feel that such visual tools are childish and be unwilling to use them it is important to remind them of the advantages of visual tools over verbal tools and that adults use visual tools such as maps, and signs all the time to make life easier. The facilitators may believe that their role is to extract information in order to design a project, rather than facilitating a participatory process of community discussion, problem solving and mobilisation. Table 5 will give general guidelines regarding the selection of tools in terms of timing, size of groups, and materials required. Various participatory tools have been developed to enable people to express and share information, and to stimulate discussion and analysis. Many tools are developed to empower local peoples capacity and skills in sharing their reality, which enable them to realize that they know their real situation better than experts (outsiders). These tools are practiced by villagers where experts (outsiders) only convene and facilitate. There are various participatory tools to explore information of local people which can be mainly divided into four categories which are mapping tools, diagramming tools, ranking tools and discussions/interview tools. Since many of the villagers in rural areas are not familiar with paper and pens, they hesitate to participate if they are provided such material and cannot share their views properly. In such condition, local materials such as sticks, stones, grasses, wood, tree, leaves, and soils can be used to share the local information and analyse their condition. Participatory exercises usually take place in groups, working on the ground or on paper. The process is more participatory, helps empower those who are not literate. Visual techniques provide scope for creativity and encourage a frank exchange of views. They also allow crosschecking. Using a combination of participatory tools a very detailed picture can be built up, one that expresses the complexity and diversity of local peoples realities far better than traditional way of surveys (Phuyal, K., 2007). There are many tools developed for participatory exercises, see some of the tools in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Participatory tools

Mapping tools Social mapping Resource mapping Mobility mapping Transect

walk/mapping Others

Diagramming tools Seasonal calendar Time line Time trend diagram Institutional/Venn

diagram Others

Ranking tools Well-being ranking Pair-wise ranking Matrix ranking Others

Discussions/Interview tools Focus group discussion Semi-structure

interview

Others Pictures Theatre for

development (TFD) Others

Participatory Tools

28 of 47

Table 5: Tentative Time, material and effective group size for exercise of different tools Tools Time

Required Materials Effective

Group Size Social Map or Resource Map

3 to 5 hours for each

Big chart papers, multi color markers, paper tape, scissors, stapler, color papers, pencils

Leaves, stones, matchboxes, seeds, color soils and

powders, utensils, thread, etc

10 to 15 members

Mobility Map

2 to 3 hours Big drawing sheets, multi color markers, big sheets, glue stick, paper tap, scissors

Wood, marbles, stones, sticks, tape, scissors

10 to 15 members

Institutional Map

2 to 3 hours Multi color drawing papers, multi color markers, glue stick,

paper tap, scissors

Wood, marbles, stones, sticks, tape, scissors

10 to 15 members

Trend Analysis

1 to 2 hours Big chart papers, multi color markers, paper tape, scissors, stapler, color papers, pencils

Leaves, stones, matchboxes, seeds, color soils and

powders, utensils, thread, etc

10 to 15 members

Seasonal Calendar

3 to 4 hours Big drawing sheets, multi color markers, glue stick, paper tap,

scissors

Wood, marbles, stones, sticks, tape, scissors, seeds,

fruits, grasses

10 to 15 members

Time Line

2 to 3 hours Multi color drawing papers, markers, big sheets, glue stick, paper tap, scissors

Pieces of wood, marbles, stones, sticks, tape, scissors

5 to 8 members

Development Wheel

2 to 3 hours Big drawing sheets, multi color markers, glue stick, paper tap,

scissors, ruler

10 to 15 members

Focus Group Discussion

2 to 3 hours Note books, camera, chart paper, markers

6 to 12 members

Semi-structure Interview

0.5 to 2 hours Note books, camera, chart paper, markers

2 to 3 members

Pair-wise Ranking

3 to 4 hours Big drawing sheets, multi color markers, glue stick, tape,

scissors, me