Systematization to Capture Project Experiences A Guide

Systematization to Capture Project Experiences: A Guide Pushkin Phartiyal ENRAP April 2006 Table of contents PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 4 SYSTEMATIZATION: AN APPROACH TO CAPTURING LESSONS OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 5 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 5.1. 5.2. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................5 WHY SYSTEMATIZATION .......................................................................................5 OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................6 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................7 LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE NERCRMP EXERCISE .............................................8 THE DAY CYCLE ...................................................................................................8 THE PARTICIPATION ..............................................................................................9 THE COST EFFECTIVENESS ..................................................................................10 STEP 1: KEY QUESTION .......................................................................................11 STEP 2: TEAM FORMATION .................................................................................12 STEP 3: IDENTIFYING FACILITATOR ....................................................................13 STEP 4: TRAINING OF TEAMS ..............................................................................13 STEP 5: VILLAGE SELECTION ...............................................................................14 STEP 6: SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION .............................................................14 STEP 7: TEAM BRIEFING......................................................................................16 STEP 8: TEAM MEETINGS AND PRESENTATION ....................................................16 STEP 9: FIELD VISITS ..........................................................................................17 STEP 10: DOCUMENTATION.................................................................................18 STEP 11: TEAM PRESENTATIONS AND FINALIZING FINDINGS ..............................20 STEP 12: SHARING OF FINDINGS ..........................................................................21 STEP 13: COMMUNICATION PRODUCTS FOR TARGETED AUDIENCE ....................21 SYSTEMATIZATION: THE PROCESS .............................................................................. 8 GROUNDING: STAGE I ...................................................................................................... 11 STRATEGY, FIELD VISIT AND DOCUMENTATION: STAGE II .............................. 16 SHARING AND DISSEMINATION: STAGE III ............................................................. 21 ANNEXURE 1: THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FACILITATOR ............. 22 ANNEXURE 2: QUESTIONNAIRE AS USED BY THE NERCRMP ............................. 25 ANNEXURE 3: PARTICIPATORY TOOLS OF INFORMATION COLLECTION .... 27 REFERENCE ......................................................................................................................... 30 Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 1 Preface Systemization is an evaluative and participatory technique of documentation that has been promoted among the IFAD family by FIDAMERICA, IFAD‟s network in Latin America, and has gained popularity due to the positive results it has produced in documenting and disseminating poverty reduction lessons. The methodology helps projects describe and analyze the situation before project intervention, after project intervention and the process of change with the help of a facilitator. It helps build project and partner capacity in regular and systematic documentation of project lessons. While the full scope of the methodology can run over several weeks, the core documentation process is completed over a seven-day period of intense activity with both project and partner staff involved fully. ENRAP1 has been keen to help IFAD projects in the Asia/Pacific region in exploring the application and benefits of this methodology. The first such exercise was conducted on the request of North Eastern Regional Community Resource Management Project (NERCRMP 2) in Meghalaya, India in October 2005. NERCRMP felt they had garnered rich experience in their six years of operation, but this needed to be documented in a comprehensive manner. It was also felt that it was necessary to build the capacity of the local stakeholders to undertake such documentation on their own. Given this need, the Systemization technique seemed appropriate as it allows stakeholders and community members to interact and evaluate the development process. In the process, participants also learn to address the issues involved and raise questions in a systematic manner in order to derive the research findings. ENRAP provided a set of guidelines for Systematization based on the FIDAMERCIA experience, which were customized in consultation with the project team and the facilitators. These guidelines emphasized the importance of focusing on the key issues within a broad topic selected and then looking at status before the project, impact after the project intervention and the process of change. Based on pre-defined criteria, teams were formed and villages to be visited selected. Facilitators and documenting teams comprising of project and partner staff made contact over email and the broad topics were further refined. And then systematically divided into smaller investigative questions, which could be useful in documenting the situation before the project intervention, after project intervention and the process of change Facilitators led the teams to investigate each of the chosen themes helping them through the strategy of the study, divide responsibilities among team members, the tools to be used and the report writing. In the two separate exercises conducted both Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Officers of other IFAD projects and also external experts were used as facilitators. While external experts bring a fresh perspective, M&E officers bring with them the 1 Special thanks to German Escobar, Coordinator, FIDAMERICA whose comprehensive information about FIDAMERICA‟s experience with Systematization helped explore its application for IFAD projects in Asia/Pacific. In the absence of English language documents of FIDAMERICA, ENRAP depended solely on the excellent advice of German. 2 NERCRMP is a joint initiative of the International Fund for Agricultural Development and Government of India. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 2 knowledge of IFAD projects in assessing data on an ongoing basis to track project progress and hence, constantly grapple with the challenge of documenting project lessons. Following this preparation, documentation was initiated. Over a seven day period the teams worked on their chosen theme refining the research topic, defining the research methodology, dividing collection of data documenting the findings and presenting it to other teams for peer review and finalisation. Teams also discuss how the document could be customized or repackaged to share with a variety of audiences and what would be the dissemination strategy. The results are comprehensive reports on the chosen areas of investigation, which will be used to disseminate findings to both grass-roots organizations and to policy makers while providing the necessary evidence-based feedback to the project management. These are available at: www.enrap.org Over the two applications of Systematization in two different locations of NERCRMP, the documentation exercise proved to be a very insightful event. It demonstrated to the project staff and stakeholders how they could document their experiences in a systematic and participatory manner. It gave them an opportunity to focus on evaluating their own work and reflecting on the project successes and challenges, which they often did not get a chance to do. In the process, they also benefited from improving their own documentation skills and recognized what needs to be done to comprehensively document their learning experiences. It is hoped that the research findings will help inform planning decisions and can be shared with other projects to raise the visibility of the NERCRMP‟s impact and enable a more fruitful policy dialogue. Participating M&E officers from other IFAD projects plan to apply the methodology in their projects. Could this be an effective way of documenting and sharing IFAD project experiences in Asia? Systematization has been used widely in different contexts in differing ways. This document is a reflection of experience with an IFAD project in Asia/Pacific region. Accordingly, this guide has benefited to a very large extent from NERCRMP‟s application of Systematization to capture its project experiences. Pushkin has comprehensively put together this step-by-step guide as a useful tool. He has also summarized much of this in a Brief Guide available at www.enrap.org. IFAD and other rural development projects can use this guide as a first step to learn and apply this methodology. With future experiences we hope to update this guide. Shalini Kala Coordinator, ENRAP II International Development Research Centre Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 3 Executive Summary This guide on Systematization is an effort to extend active learning initiatives that are participatory, self-evaluative and critically analyze the impact of rural developmental projects. The document is based on the initiative of Knowledge Networking for Rural Development for Asia/ Pacific Region (ENRAP) to facilitate such a process for IFAD projects in the region. The concept and process of Systematization as adopted by FIDAMERICA3 (a regional learning network funded by IFAD and coordinated by RIMISP-Latin American Center for Rural Development) was modified in accordance with the emerging site-specific needs and ground situations. This guide is developed for the regional contexts based on experiences gained for conducting Systematization. Thus, it becomes an excellent example of learning from global partners and its implementation with local concerns. Following the experimental learning, systematization has been divided into 3 stages of interrelated steps. The first two chapters, respectively, deal with the approach of systematization, its objectives and scope. The three stages have been illustrated in the chapters three to five. These following stages are classified on the basis of activities and outputs of the exercise: 1. 2. 3. Grounding deals with pre exercise preparations Strategy, Field visit and Documentation aims at experimental learning Sharing & Dissemination refers to sharing of learning by developing communication products Although, a day cycle has been suggested for efficient implementation of this methodology, the users may alter it in accordance with their own conditions and environment. The first and third stages are important part of the process that does not require physical presence of all teams members at a specific location. The guide comprises observations and conditions that enable effective learning in rural development initiatives. Notes in annexures provide information on participatory skills and useful tools for the exercise. 3 www.fidamerica.org Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 4 Chapter 1 Systematization: An approach to capturing lessons of rural development projects Introduction “Improving the performance and sustainability of IFAD‟s projects demands a sustained effort of organizational learning. In today‟s world it is no longer possible for an institution to remain effective if its main resources and capabilities are not continually reinforced. Knowledge is the main strategic resource of institutions involved in the complex task of reducing rural poverty. Learning organizations are those that organize systematic processes aimed at improving the quality and pertinence of their knowledge base to enhance their understanding of the context in which they operate, all with the purpose of applying this strategic resource to the task of making difficult strategic decisions.” (IFAD 2002) Like IFAD, other projects and funding agencies attach high priority to learning from project interventions. Often the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) teams in the projects are responsible for ensuring accountability, especially on financial matters. They also aid in decision-making before, during and after project implementation. M&E is also a key tool for learning and to provide evidence for advocacy and support. However, it has been observed that the efforts of M&E are mostly focused on intended outcomes and outputs of the project interventions and financial expenditures. In such a situation there is an apprehension of missing the unanticipated learning. Experiences in rural development projects show that the intervention impact may be achieved in long run but the beneficiaries may have some immediate influences. It is also vital to consider areas that were initially unimportant and outside the project objectives but become important with the emerging needs. The IFAD assisted projects in the region face the challenge for better capturing project lessons, which can be useful for the project itself and also for others. One project in India requested ENRAP to help them address this challenge. With this background and its mandate to support project knowledge sharing, ENRAP initiated the systematization exercise for evidence-based, qualitative learning from project processes. The basic objective of the exercise is to document project experiences in a systematic way and the "Systematization" tool was adopted. It is expected to share significant learning with others, including ongoing IFAD projects, and stakeholders. The learning is not simply "Stories from the Field" but a more in-depth analysis and review of project experiences. FIDAMERICA has developed a mechanism where the findings of the exercise are debated with a wider audience including IFAD and other related projects, expert agencies through e-discussion. This further distills project experiences for wider application. Thus, it is also a process of wider validation of the learning from the primary, secondary and external stakeholders. Systematization is based on learning and focuses around the process of generating knowledge from project experience. It can also be considered as „action learning‟ or „experiential learning‟. 1.2. Why systematization In a typical project scenario the time-bound and output-driven functioning allows limited scope for involvement of stakeholders to assess project impacts. Most of the time the project M &E division performs its responsibilities in an isolated manner. Thus, the focus is restricted to the intended outcomes and outputs along with financial utilization. The huge information generated through complicated formats is only partially used. Field staff, mostly from partner NGOs, collecting data have no clue regarding the reasons and ultimate use of the data. A conventional documentation and learning process is apparent from the figure as 1.1. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 5 follows (fig 1). Project  Information demanded Often confused how to use the quantitative data / information generated   Information supplied Not aware why the information is sought Fig. 1: A conventional information generation process Contrasting with this, Systematization involves project partners studying a specific issue, which they consider important in assessing influence or impact of project interventions. Fig. 2 illustrates its strength for attempting to answer a key question in a collective and participatory manner. In the process of systematization major project themes for evaluative documentation are identified. To study each theme identified teams are formed, which work systematically to develop a key question to be addressed. The process is an opportunity for systematic and in-depth analysis and documentation of project learning in a way that the project learning can be utilized both within and outside the project4. 1.3. Objectives Key Question Fig. 2: A systematic & focused vision of systematization To be able to apply project experiences within and outside the project, the main objectives of systematization:    4 To assess project influence and impact in a systematic and participatory manner. To assess emerging needs for achieving project objectives. To learn of the unintended outcomes of the project implementation process. Documenting high quality lessons as against lessons learnt. High quality lessons can be applied within the project and other projects acan also learn from them. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 6   To capture project lessons in the form of a presentation and a 10-15 page descriptive document. To use the above as the key input for sharing project progress through a variety of communication products. Scope 1.4. The uniqueness of Systematization lies in bringing all primary stakeholders at a common platform to undertake critical analysis of the key questions related to project objectives. The introspection, based on ground realities, enriches project learning. The information and learning that emerge from the exercise are validated and shared through different means. Information may be repackaged to be disseminated throughvarious communication products. Thus, systematization has vast scope (fig 3) for sharing of learning with different audiences.. 3 dimensions of Systematization Grounding What are we trying to learn and how? Systematization How do we share and disseminate? Where do we learn from? Sharing Dissemination Fig. 3: Scope of systemization Evaluative Documentation Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 7 Chapter 2 Systematization: the process This guide to systematization is based on the field experiences of NERCRMP. It has been categorized in three stages and thirteen steps that are interlinked and complementary. 2.1. Lessons learnt from the NERCRMP exercise For applying systematization in NERCRMP, project and partner staff was divided into four teams with a facilitator assigned to each team. Facilitators were drawn from other IFAD projects and their partners, ENRAP, and because of a last-minute contingency from NERCRMP too. Apart from the secondary data analysis, the teams undertook intensive field visit to collect information. Each team addressed a specific key question and also contributed in analyzing findings of other teams. Although the approach to systematization was adopted from the FIDAMERICA, modifications were made in accordance with site-specific needs. The approach to systematization is detailed in Figure 4 on the following page, illustrating three stages and within these a set of thirteen steps. The success of this exercise is directly linked to the preparation work carried out during stage I (step 1 to 6). All the teams come to a common platform for stage II, one of the most crucial stages, covering steps 7 to 11. All objectives of the exercise can be achieved by fulfilling steps 12 and 13 as suggested for stage III. Systematization process extends an opportunity to the teams to channelise their collective energy for project evaluation. The learning can be used as rectifying measures, if required or to replicate lessons for to inform IFAD projects and policy interventions. Thus, it becomes vital for the project to have the ownership of all the three stages to make maximum gains from application of systematization. Attempts have been made to rectify the mistakes made during the NERCRMP exercise, which will result in achieving the objectives more efficiently. The guidelines developed here for the three stages of the exercise are a result of the ENRCRMP experience. 2.2. The Day cycle The three stages have been divided through day cycles e.g. to initiate systematization, Day 1 commences with selecting key questions that the project wants to find answers to. The day cycle provides an idea about the classification of different stages and steps, indicating the time ideally spent for each step. The project team may consider altering the day schedule in accordance with their needs. The suggested time frame may be used as a guiding principle for undertaking the exercise. The day cycle is especially helpful in planning and preparation required for each of the steps and stages. It helps in following a systematic approach for the exercise. A more focused attention to the various steps, as defined in the fig. 4, allows for timely accomplishment of the process. Stage III for sharing the learning is initiated from 39th Day and continues seeking feedback from the stakeholders up to 70th Day. Simultaneously, project disseminates learning through different communication products for various audiences. The project may continue taking advantage of the generated knowledge and evaluative documentation beyond the suggested cycle. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 8 THREE STAGES OF SYSTEMIZATION IFAD Stage I: Grounding (D 1-30) Step1: Step2: Step3: Step4: Step5: Step6: Selecting key questions Team Formation Identifying facilitators Training of team Village selection Secondary data collection Policy Other projects Project stakeholders Stage III: Sharing & Dissemination (D 39-Onwards) Step12: Sharing of findings (D 39- 70) Step13: Communication products for targeted audience (D 39 onwards Stage II: Strategy, Field visit & Documentation (D 31-38) Step7: Team briefing (D 31) Step8: Team Meetings & presentation (D 31) Step9: Field Visits (D32 to D36) Step10: Documentation (D37) Step11 Team Presentation & finalizing findings (D38) Fig. 4: steps and stages for systemization The Participation Following the “learning by doing approach”, building capacity and enhancing skills of local project partners is an added advantage of systematization. The knowledge, skills and attitude required for conducting field study and systematization are shared with the participating team members. Through systematization, project functionaries can assess the project interventions by involving project stakeholders. This participation also results in healthy working relationships among the project stakeholders. 2.3. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 9 The number of teams depends on the number of key questions to be addressed, and each team deals with one specific question. Each team could comprise of anywhere from 3 to 8 members who refine the key question with regard to project objectives. A major advantage of systematization is ensuring participation and inputs from the concerned partners, even from those, who might not be physically present during the exercise. The stage III, Sharing and Dissemination, extends scope for receiving feedback on the reports from the project partners based in far off areas. 2.4. The Cost Effectiveness Systematization is a cost-effective approach for capacity building of the project functionaries by conducting self-evaluative exercises. Since it is undertaken by using internal resources, huge investments on evaluation and generation of field-based learning are not required. Various communication products that could be developed from the captured experience are an added advantage. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 10 Chapter 3 Grounding: Stage I This chapter deals with the preparation for systematization. The suggested period for stage I is about 30 days or a month‟s time. This preparatory period is significant for the effectiveness of the next two stages of the exercise. It is extremely important to ensure good communication among team members and facilitators for successful completion of steps 1 to 6 of stage I especially with respect to the process of systematization and its objectives. Information Technology based communication tools (email discussions etc) can help this process. While imparting their respective responsibility for stage I, teams gear up for stage II during which they comes together to perform field-based assignments. Thus, relying on electronic communication facilities, the grounding stage allows teams to develop a common understanding. Limited physical presence of all the team members at a specific location is required at this stage. 3.1. Step 1: Key Question Box 1: During systematization process in Meghalaya it was experienced that initially the teams selected broad key question, which were unrealistic and not focused enough to be covered in limited time scheduled. The teams revisited the questions to make them specific and SMART. Accordingly the questions were reframed with the help of three key elements of systematization; situation before the project intervention, situation after the project intervention and the process of change. The first step in the Systematization exercise would be to select questions based on the themes or interventions that the project wants to study. It is extremely important to select the key questions in consultation with the project team. A brainstorming session with the project teams before identifying the question is useful for clarity on proposed documentation and importance of intended learning. To ensure full ownership of the process, project and stakeholder staff it is important that they select the key question. Later, the facilitator should ensure that the key question being addressed is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time bound (SMART). This will also help teams assess the scope of the study that can be realistically achieved within the time frame specified for documentation. The key question framed can be refined further through discussion among the team members. For instance, one of the teams formed under NERCRMP, Meghalaya, initially identified the key area as “Mobilizing and building community capacity to care for their environment & ecology (Biodiversity)”. However, later the team realized that it would be unrealistic to cover such a broad area within a limited time frame. Moreover, the team also wanted to document the learning, which was of immediate concern for the project and policy makers. Therefore, the team revised this to , “The impact of project interventions for optimization and rationalization of areas under shifting cultivation”. The specific key question could be assessed by three sub queries i.e. situation before the project intervention, situation after project intervention and process of change. The key questions, identified by the teams, need to be relevant to the project objectives and goals. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 11 Once the key question is framed, questionnaires and schedule for generation of information are developed. The team should discuss possible content of questionnaires and questions for interviewing various community groups. The advance preparation would assist teams to utilize time for developing and finalizing field strategy on Day 31. This step should be achieved within the initial Day 1-10 of the process of systematization. The questionnaires and interview queries should not be shared in advance with the targeted communities that may result in preconceived notions for responses. A questionnaire, developed by the team dealing with key question, “The project interventions for optimization and rationalization of areas under shifting cultivation” for NERCRMP exercise is given at annexure 2. 3.2. Step 2: Team Formation Box 2: In Meghalaya NERCRM project the teams were missing representation from the communities, which is recommended for future but may take some time as projects become proficient with application of systematization. Moreover one team had the most experienced persons, as all of them were keen to document issues related to natural resource management. Thus, there was an obvious lack of balance with some other teams with limited experience of project. This reflected in the quality of output of the teams as well as in the efficiency of the process of documentation. After the selection of the key questions to be studied teams can be formed based on the individual areas of expertise. A multidisciplinary team having representation from crosssection of stakeholders will ensure holistic learning. Gender balance among the teams will be useful. Balanced teams require ensuring representation in terms of experience. The team members should be willing to be part of the documentation exercise and be aware of the individual learning opportunities. Division of responsibilities among the team, based on each individual member and team‟s collective strength, could be planned in advance. The local team members can also meet among themselves for advance planning. The logistic arrangement needs to be taken into consideration during team formation process. In the NERCRMP exercise it was observed that when a team had laptop computers it enabled them to key in the information at the field itself. Team building is a complex process and is obligatory for undertaking the exercise smoothly. It is worthwhile to have willing members who are keen to learn new skills and enhance their expertise. An appreciation certificate may be given to team members for their successful participation in systematization. Such a gesture can result in encouragement. A back up arrangement for any last minute dropout is always useful. A good team formation exercise should ensure:   gender balance, cross representation of the stakeholders, Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 12   balance in terms of experience in field studies, documentation, participatory approaches, computer skill etc, willing and enthusiastic members. Assigning one facilitator to each team should be done immediately after team formation. A brief background about professional experience, strengths and limitations of all members should be shared within the team to help division of responsibilities. 3.3. Step 3: Identifying Facilitator All teams are led by a facilitator to conduct systematization. The first NERCRMP exercise used M&E officers from other IFAD projects as facilitators to ensure mutual exchange of learning and experiences, and to allow M&E officers to network for future sharing. Alternatively, local or other experts may be used, as done in the second NERCRMP exercise. In the first exercise due to a last minute changes an internal project staff was also used as facilitator for one team. Whether experts or M&E officers of other IFAD projects, external facilitators are important for the success of systematization. It is hard for internal staff to facilitate without getting too involved in the documentation process 5. It also contributes to fine blending of external and internal perspective. And as some facilitators shared it is also a learning exercise for them and helps sharing among rural development projects. Thus, identification of external facilitators can be useful. However, in the absence of external facilitators the project may involve someone within the project with experience in participatory approaches. An ideal facilitator for systematization should understand the process and participatory approaches. Having firm belief in team spirit, good documentation skills and rich field experience are other essential qualities. Sometimes it might not be possible to have an external facilitator who is well versed with the local language or dialect. But if such persons are available then it is an added advantage. Facilitators would require devoting time for email exchanges and discussions. It is vital to ensure their involvement right from the beginning to develop a common understanding about the key questions and process. A brief about the role and responsibilities of the facilitator in general and with specific reference to systematization is given in annexure 1. 3.4. Step 4: Training of Teams To ensure all the team members are aware of basic participatory tools, training may be organized as per the needs of the team members. Apart from secondary data analysis, some of the recommended tools are observation; transit walk, interview and focused group discussions. In addition training on report and case study writing, analysis of data generated is of immense use. Often it is observed that the project functionaries are not well versed with documentation or case study writing. In absence of these, systematic learning is not clearly reflected in project reports. The concise case studies, reflecting project lessons are an integral part of the evaluative documentation. Conducting training needs assessment of the teams helps in planning appropriate training inputs for team members. 5 In the first NERCRMP exercise the staff that had to take on facilitation responsibility due to a last minute drop out found it difficult to separate his facilitation responsibilities from those of project staff participating in the documentation. Facilitation is significant responsibility by itself. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 13 Training for the team members could be organized within Day 15- 20 at the project‟s convenience. During the training, elements of the process of systematization should also be shared, highlighting the linkages of participatory tools with the exercise. Sharing of responsibilities among the team members could also be defined and discussed during the training. A brief on useful participatory tools i.e. observation; transit walk; interview and focused group meeting are given in annexure 3. 3.5. Step 5: Village selection Field study to document learning is the most critical part of systematization as designed, experienced and developed in the regional context of IFAD projects. Consistent with the key question identified, the teams should identify the project villages for field studies on certain specified criteria. Teams should formulate their own criteria based on the question selected and the objective of documentation. The selected villages need not to be the best performing communities. A representative village sample should include project villages where the project interventions has been successful, have not worked so well and are reported as a failure. Systematization enables the teams to assess the project interventions for intended or unexpected challenges of the project. Thus, rational selection of villages is the key to success for learning and sharing Village selection should be based primarily on the experience of the local project staff and by using secondary data about the project performance. The villages, subject to be selected for field visits, should be assessed with regard to the logistic arrangements. The biggest strength Meghalaya exercise had, was the night stay in the villages that enabled teams to have responses in an informal manner. Participation of the village communities in large numbers during late night focused group discussions, highlights the advantage of logistic planning. It is important to share the visit dates, stay requirements for the teams and other required logistic arrangement with the selected villages well in advance. This would enable the village communities to be comfortable in hosting visiting teams. Team members should be made aware of customs, culture and traditions of the communities of the selected villages, as this will smoothen the process of village level enquiry. Sensitivity of team members to community needs and their schedules is also important. Thus, considering time and dates suitable to communities is vital. 3.6. Step 6: Secondary data collection In line with the key question and villages selected, collection of relevant secondary data is essential. Secondary data could be obtained from the district and regional project offices, project base line survey and implementation records. The line departments, relevant to project activities, should also be approached for related secondary data of pre-project, implementation and current years. For example in India with reference to an IFAD assisted project on micro finance, the secondary data from government sources on the situation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) formed under other ongoing departmental schemes will be relevant. The respective teams should identify possible sources for relevant secondary data. The responsibility for its timely collection may be assigned to local team members. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 14 With the secondary data, the teams could assess the ground situations of project area and identified villages at the start of Stage II. The project team would develop the study hypothesis with the analysis of available secondary data. Secondary data related to the key question should be reviewed with the help of participatory tools during the field visits, which will support a holistic analysis of findings. The steps suggested for stage I are extremely important for the firm grounding of the following two stages of systematization. Consequently, accomplishing all the steps efficiently in a time bound manner is crucial. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 15 Chapter 4 Strategy, Field Visit and Documentation: Stage II The teams are actively engaged during field study under the stage II of systematization. A time schedule of seven to eight days is suggested for accomplishing this stage. The five steps of stage II are extremely stretched in terms of performing critical steps related to strategy development, field study and documentation. Keeping in mind the limited time availability, it is advisable to reside teams in same campus in order to facilitate long work hours. The meeting venue should have space for conducting individual team meetings and should be supported by access to workstations with computers, printers and photocopiers. Step 7: Team Briefing Stage II is initiated with clear and comprehensive briefing on systematization, its philosophy and objectives, its relevance for the project, the process especially the steps to be covered between Day 31 to 38, team expectations and logistic arrangements. An overview of project objectives and activities would assist in refreshing participant memory and orienting the facilitators. District project team, where the exercise and field visits are proposed, should share the project overview with specific details of the region. This may also include the specific challenges before the project for implementation, the socio-political and economic conditions of region and other relevant information. At this stage logistic arrangement such as photocopiers, cameras and stationary, transportation etc are required. It would be useful to convey details of logistic arrangements and weather conditions to the participants in advance to plan their essentials clothing for the field visits. Providing handouts on academic and logistic briefings along with contact phone numbers of team and project members would be useful. Step 8: Team Meetings and presentation After the briefing, teams guided by their facilitators have their respective meetings. The main purpose of these meetings is to consolidate the work of stage I, refine study topic, define study strategy and share study responsibilities among team members. It is extremely vital to discuss the key question once again with the insight received from the briefing on systematization and project overview. Team meetings could specifically attempt to achieve the following:  Getting together by formal and informal introduction. The facilitators have to play an important role for ice breaking among the members.  Ensuring high motivation level of the team members.  Assessing the scope of the key question selected and discussion about the hypotheses in light of secondary data collected and project objectives.  Collectively finalise the questionnaires, schedules and interview outlines for field study.  Scheduling field visit with appropriate logistic arrangements.  Sharing of responsibilities among the team members needs to be clearly defined in accordance with the strengths and weakness of each member. It may be possible that a member is not comfortable in report writing but has good communication skills. Such a member could be assigned responsibility of conducting village meetings. 4.2. 4.1. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 16  Team should work out minor details and assign responsibility for it e.g. taking notes from the registers of the village level community based organization.  It is useful to target specific outputs for each day and also mark down some ground rules for the field visits. The facilitators can take lead to motivate team members for setting up ground rules in a participatory manner.  Teams should discuss alterative plans if village visits spring surprises and the study strategy agreed needs to be modified. Following these steps the team would arrive at a work plan along with the schedule for field visit. Once the teams, in their respective groups finalize the work plan, all of them come together to share their strategy with other teams. Comments and suggestions from other teams help finalize the work plans. 4.3. Step 9: Field Visits The field visits are recommended for three to five days depending on the needs of the key questions. In accordance with the geographical spread 3 to 5 identified villages could be visited and studied. The team members, assigned with their roles and responsibilities, would require using participatory tools for information generation. The secondary data available with the village CBOs, formed under the project, is of immense value and should be collected carefully and comprehensively. Box 3: The NERCRMP systematization experience has shown that during the post-dinner meeting participation of village women was optimum. They were looking relaxed after completing the household jobs, enjoying participating in the meeting and feeling proud to be acknowledged The principle of participatory approaches needs to be kept in mind: in villages we have to follow the priorities and convenience of the communities if we want to learn from them. Experience of NERCRMP exercise indicated that some of the participatory tools are quite relevant for conducting village study under the systematization process. Transit walk enables the teams to understand the village profile; secondary data available for the village could be verified by observation. The team should identify the village groups who would be part of the focused group discussions. As suggested, night stay in the village extends scope for wider participation in such meetings. A brief about the participatory tools useful for conducting systematization namely Observation, Transit Walk; Interview and Focused Group Meeting is given at annexure 3 for further references. To get the best and comprehensive information, it is important that the villagers and other respondents are comfortable in being interviewed. Experience shows that village communities feel more comfortable in sharing their ideas and views in informal discussions. These informal discussions help in-depth study. Active participation of community representatives in the teams conducting systematization, would add value to the findings with the local wisdom and knowledge. A photo represents thousand words, should be kept in mind and visual documentation for capturing the influence of project intervention is suggested. The secondary data with the project may have visuals of the project areas prior to implementation, which could be used for a comparative analysis. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 17 During field visits the practice of a daily summing-up meeting would allow teams to assess progress as well as identify any task that remains incomplete or unattended. A checklist could be developed for the summing-up discussion to ensure completion of assignment as planned for a specific village. For example, if a team member shares a case study, other members can add value to it by suggesting effective presentation mode for which additional information could be collected. These regular meeting during the field would also give an opportunity to discuss the options for presentation of the report and possible content. The meetings may be conducted over the dinner table or at any convenient time after completing the interaction with the village community. Considering the limitation of time for field visits and travel, the facilitator has to play a significant role in time management. Conditional to availability of laptop computers, attempt to key in the generated information on a regular basis is suggested. This could include at least the static information such as village profile, list of participants in the meetings, organizational chart of the village level community organization formed, if any.. Using the Evaluation Triangle To review team‟s performance during the course of field visits, consider these three elements: Task: Did the team do what was set out to accomplish? Did the job get done? Process: How was the communication? How did team handle conversation? How did team arrive at conclusions? Relationships: How is the team getting along now? Are members closer than before? Are some people not speaking to each other? Task Process Relationships The facilitator need to ensure village visit principles, for instance introduction of the team members, stating the purpose of the visit, not making any promises for development of the village and thanking the villagers for their time are followed. Step 10: Documentation Documentation of the learning and findings is an important of systematization. As suggested earlier, additional time devoted during the field visits for report writing would enable the teams to complete their task on the Day 37, on their return from field. As soon as the teams are back from the field visits, they should assess their preparation for documentation. Facilitators will need to guide team sin coordinating the report writing process. Teams may divide responsibilities for this though all members should review the final output. Use of case studies, indicating success or failure of project interventions should be an integral part of documentation as it‟s a very effective communication tool. A case study 4.4. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 18 captured during the NERCRMP exercise is given in the following box. This reflects impact of project and non-project communities coming together to increase fish population and thus promote conservation efforts for the benefit of all involved. Box 4: Case study: Rombagre Village, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya The Poor too can fish The 18 villages of Chinabat cluster of the project have joined hands in a harmonious effort to boost the fish population in the river Simsang. These villages have revived the traditional practice of identifying and declaring fish sanctuaries, protected by the cluster of villages through the Nokma (traditional village chief) with the support of their respective NaRMGs (a CBO formed under the project). The NaRMGs have institutionalized rules and regulations for preventing any damages to fish sanctuaries. Among these Rs. 1,000/ fine for illegal fishing out of which Rs.100/ is awarded to the informer; no poisoning or use of fine nets etc have been registered with the District Council. Since 50 mt area on the both sides of the riverbank is also protected under the sanctuary. No trees or bamboo is allowed to cut within the area. Fishing, outside the sanctuary is permitted only with medium sized nets and angling hooks. The sanctuary can be harvested after 3 years for the first time after declaration of provision and thereafter every 2 years. Discussion on the management practices and enforcement of rules is undertaken once in a month both at NaRMG & Cluster level Since the population of fish has increased and it is now possible to catch them with out wasting much time, the poor labour class has also started fishing. Earlier to this due to time constraints, caused by less population of fishes, they used to prefer working on field to earn their livelihood. The project was instrumental to extend a forum of NaRGM to the local communities to make the dream of fish sanctuaries a reality. Now they are selling more fish; fingerlings to the village situated at upland areas and of course eat more fish, especially the women are having more nutrient. Junior NaRMG & SHG are given awareness training in the respective communities to ensure a brighter future for biodiversity conservation. Interestingly out of 18 villages, those came together for effective enforcement, only 8 villages are NERCRMP villages while reaming 10 non-project villages enthusiastically joined the initiative made by the former, which indicates the winding horizon of the participatory philosophy of the project. Such a case study indicating participation of non-project villages will be of great interest to IFAD and policy makers to assess what encouraged the non-project villages to come forward. Developing this case study was possible by focused discussion with the community members and with the help of questions framed by using the six basics for interview; how?; when?; why?; who?; what?; and where?. While highlighting learning or providing recommendations, teams should keep the target audiences in mind whether it IFAD, state and central government, other IFAD projects in the region and project stakeholders. In addition project team can take advantage of the learning for improving its own strategy or replicating some of the successful intervention in other project sites. Cover page, table of contents, an executive summary and annexures complete the report of findings. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 19 4.5. Step 11: Team Presentations and Finalizing Findings On the last day of stage II, all teams come together to present their findings to other teams for their critical comments and suggestions. After this, teams revisit their respective reports for required modifications, followed by final presentations where teams share the modifications made. It may be worthwhile for teams to plan for the possible communication products short documentaries, flyers, policy papers etc. that can be produced from the findings with a time schedule and plan to accomplish production and dissemination of these. It is strongly recommended that the facilitators and the senior project staff guide this process. It is significant to have participation of the senior project officials at this step to get a buy-in for the findings, recognize the usefulness of the documentation findings, a plan for application of these, and to support a practical of dissemination and sharing. This is important also for the morale of the participating teams. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 20 Chapter 5 Sharing and Dissemination: Stage III Systematization outputs provide vast scope for sharing and dissemination of the findings. This would be important to validate results and allow others to learn from the projects experiences. The stage III of the exercise deals with two important steps, which are major outcomes of the exercise. During 39th to 70th Day, the sharing step is attempted while developing communication products for dissemination. However, depending upon the emerging needs, development of additional communication products for dissemination may be continued as an integral part of outreach efforts. 5.1. Step 12: Sharing of findings At the sharing stage, the consolidated documents prepared by different teams are circulated among the project stakeholders and partners. Presentation of the findings is made to the senior project officials and through electronic means can be shared with the IFAD officials and other projects over a month‟s time. Feedback and suggestions are invited from the partners and stakeholders those were not directly involved in the process over email and otherwise. The success of this step depends on availability of infrastructure to support email discussions as long distance communication is involved. FIDAMERICA has been successfully using Internet for sharing findings of systematization. This step provides opportunity for mutual learning and sharing among the IFAD projects in region to up scale the best practices for sustainable development of rural communities. 5.2. Step 13: Communication Products for Targeted Audience The project management may nominate a nodal person for coordinating and repackaging information to develop communication products for various target audiences. Case studies, flyers and video documentary on the project interventions are some of the possible ways for effective communication. A research project in Uttaranchal, focused on community forestry and its role in Ecosystem Services, has used the New Year‟s Greeting cards as a communication product. These greeting cards were targeted for awareness building, networking and sharing the findings of the project. The cards were designed with photographs of project activities and a figure about project concept along with major findings. Such innovations may be needed for developing communication products to repackage learning as per the target audience. If a communication product is designed for policy makers it should be concise and focused suggesting policy intervention. The policy makers at senior positions are always short of time and prefer to have short and snappy information. Similarly, if the communication product is targeted for village communities then use of audio –visual aids should be optimized. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 21 Annexure 1: The Role and responsibilities of Facilitator The facilitator‟s role and responsibilities in systematization are crucial; as he or she has to support the team in producing an evidence-based documentation within a ashort period of time. A suggested role and responsibilities of the facilitators at different stages of systematization are as follows: Stage I:  As the teams select themes to be studies and accordingly define key questions, the facilitator needs to be pro-active in bringing the issues on board and promote exchange of ideas. This is particularly important since the team members and the facilitators may not be at the same location and dependence on electronic communication may be high.  Facilitator can help sum-up the discussion on specific issues. After completion of email discussion it would be useful to have the gist of discussions and conclusion for the team meetings scheduled on the first day of stage II. Stage II: Ensuring the team spirit is the prime task for the facilitator. And so is ensuring effective participation of each team member.  Helping teams in evolving a practical plan for documentation with the use of appropriate tools both on and off village sites.  Time management at each stage especially during the stage II is the key to success.  The daily reporting during the field visit is indispensable to ensure completion of the reports.  The facilitator should not write the report for the team but help with ideas, presentation forms and editing. An objective of systematization is building the capacities of local project partners for evaluative documentation  While report writing, ensure participation of all team members by various possible contributions in addition to writing such as formatting, photographs scanning making presentation etc. This would develop a sense of ownership over the document prepared. Stage III:  At the sharing stage facilitator can contribute in clarifying queries of the network partners, if any.  Developing communication products for different targeted audiences is primarily the responsibility of the project. The facilitators may provide suggestions for this. In addition to specific roles and responsibilities for the three stages some general tips for facilitators as developed by Ms Beatrice Briggs of International Institute for Facilitation and Consensus, Mexico are as follows: Managing participants: General tips Supporting the shy  At a certain point in the discussion, take comments only from those who have not yet spoken on the topic  Over- interpret the body language of the shy. Yes? Do you want to speak?  If someone is struggling to express himself, be patient. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 22  Repeating the person's comment out loud and write it on the easel sheet so the person will feel heard- and other will hear and see it. Silencing the verbose Every group has talkative members. As facilitator, you must not allow a few people to dominate the conversation. Here are some strategies for limiting their " air time." Preventative  Remind the group of the " Everyone participates" ground rule.  At the begining of a discussion, Set a time limit (one minute, two minutes, etc.) for each speaker and enforce it fairly. Pre- emptory  Use the facilitator's prerogative to limit comments to those who have not yet spoken on the issue. Send a non- verbal signal  Take a step or two toward the person to signal that the time is up. If the person continues talking, walk closer. Interrupt  When the speaker takes a breath, jump in and say one of these phrases: o I'm sorry, your time is up or Thank you, I think we have your point. Point to where it is written on the easel sheet. Drastic measures  If more subtle measures fail, gently but firmly put your hand on the speaker's shoulder. This is guaranteed to work! Personal contact  Speak to the person during the break. Ask for her help. Dealing with experts Some people deliver their opinions as if they were the last word on the subject, especially if they are used to speaking with authority in their professional lives. (Some doctors, lawyers and engineers, for example, suffer from this syndrome.) This can be intimidating to others and tends to cut off discussion. Do not let this happen. Acknowledge the person's contribution, while leaving the door open for additional input. Thank you for that information. Are there any other comments? Side conversations and other distraction If one or two individuals are having a private conversation, are interrupting or otherwise distracting the group, here are some options:  Raise your eyebrow or change the tone of your voice as a warning.  Go stand near the offending parties. This usually works for a while.  Say excuse me, so and so has the floor. Please wait your turn.  Say could you please wait until the break to have this conversation? Or else move outside? Everyone is talking at one When chaos erupts, recognize that something important has been triggered. Wait for a minute and then try one or more of these steps to restore a bit of order.  Raise your hand for silence Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 23  Ask the group to quiet down  Ask everyone to take three deep breaths  Call for a break When emotions come up  It is not necessary to " rescue" someone just because he/she is crying. If the person has the floor, wait patiently and calmly until they can continue.  Some people are very susceptible to the emotional energy in a room and react strongly to these currents. It often helps if they go outside for a while to clear themselves. Ask someone to go with them so they do not feel punished.  Know which group members are trained counselors or others with " people skills" so you can call on them for help if needed.  If someone in the group receives bad news, such as of a death in the family, during the meeting, call a break. Verbal attacks  The group must be protected from racist or judgmental comments. One approach is to get the group to ratify a strong stand against such behavior.  Say, " One of my here today is to make sure that this is a safe environment for everyone. Am I right in thinking that that those words not be used here again."  The quicker the action and the firmer your voice, the more likely the success of the intervention. Take a break- or during the nest break- speak privately with the offender and / or offended. Try to broker and apology. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 24 Annexure 2: Questionnaire as used by the NERCRMP Questionnaire: Group A Key question: The project interventions for optimization and rationalization of areas under shifting cultivation. Village:………………… Particulars Visit date……… Situation before Project Interventions Time……… Remarks/ Specific Interventions by project / process Situation after Project Interventions Total geographical area under village Catchments Reserve Forest area Bamboo Reserve area Thatch Reserve area Cane and Timber Reserve area Fodder/ Grazing Reserve area Terrace area Jhum Cultivation area Orchard and Plantation area Wild Life Sanctuaries Wild life habitation Village Records Crops grown Crop yield Paddy Income from Jhum crops Food & Commodity inflow (Commodities and its quantity) Food & Commodity outflow for sale purposes (Commodities and its quantity) Conservation practices Major building material Livestock average/ family Milk production Registration status of Community Forest with District Council Major edible plants collected from wild for consumption Major edible plants collected Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 25 from wild for sale Trainings organized for the villagers Water availability (distance/ source/ quantity) Water Management Fire wood source distance Fodder source distance Collection/ Availability of Medicinal Plants Issues discussed in Village Development Committee Networking for conservation (Attempted how many times by the village community) With govt…, NGOs…. Forest…. Neighboring village …….. With govt…, NGOs…. Forest….... Neighboring village …… Conservation vision and Mission (Status) Conservation Plan and Programme Climatic changes pattern Other issues The village wise information generated through this questionnaire was further compiled in one sheet to have a holistic reflection of the area under study. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 26 Annexure 3: Participatory Tools of Information Collection Observation, Transit Walk; Interview and Focused Group Meeting Observation A useful participatory rural appraisal tool, observation, contributes significantly to the systematization process. It gives an opportunity to understand the issues prevailing in the local communities. Observation, often considered as a source of evidence, is a process where by coming across the various aspects of the village conditions, analysis of those condition and its probable causes is undertaken simultaneously. By using observation study team could arrive on critical learning that could be crosschecked by interviews and focused group meetings. Some of the typical characteristics of this tool are as follows:  A simple process that continues during the entire field visit and study.  Catches sight of concerned issues or activities for analysis simultaneously.  Information generated through observation has its own limitation and requires further cross checking.  Avoids irrelevant questions and discussions.  Compliment s to use of other participatory tools and techniques such as interview or focused group meeting for conducting systematization. While using observation to understand the village, its issues and community‟s response to project initiatives, following needs to be ensured Do’s:  While in village try to use observation skills to improve understanding of study issues along with information generated through others means such as focused group discussions.  Staying in village, over a full day and a night may provide useful opportunity for relatively longer period of observation.  Don’ts  Should not attempt to conceal any errors. During the discussions if a mistake has occurred try to learn from it and rectify.  Should not arrive at conclusion only by using observation. Transit Walk Transit Walk is a tool for the team to take a round of the village. While initiating field study in a village team members should perform transit walk. By walking in and around as well as from one corner of the village to another gives an opportunity to use the observation tool and have informal discussion with the village communities. Findings of the transit walk can be validated through discussions with village individuals and groups. The teams could observe the physical outputs of project activities such as road or bridge construction and also use this opportunity to talk to the weaker and underprivileged sections of the village who may or may not be actively engaged at the main meeting center, usually the house of village head or local CBO. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 27 The secondary data and information should be crosschecked during this time. Guidelines to make interview a successful tool of gathering information Some guidelines that could be followed are:  Initiate the interview by exchanging greetings. Then introduce the team and its purpose making it clear that team is on a learning trip.  It is advisable to interview one person at a time though teams may decide otherwise depending on the field and study needs. In some cases communities may not a woman to be interviewed alone.  Ensure that the interviewees know the information will be kept confidential.  Ensure that the interviewees do not expect the study to lead to loans or subsidies.  Use the guiding questions what, when, how, where and who's to get relevant information.  Interview should be conducted in informal manner and further extended with discussion and remarks.  Each interviewer should be given opportunity to ask questions.  Avoid domination of the interview process by a section of people or individual. This may be tricky and needs careful consideration.  Do not express obvious discomfort with the surroundings where interview is taking place.  Refusal of food or water offered by local communities may be sensitive.  Group Interview should not be more than 1 and 2 hours, while individual interview should be completed within 30 minutes.  Village selection with a cluster approach is useful for optimum utilization of the time devoted for the field visits.  All the teams should not end up in a village on same date or time that would create problems for the logistic arrangements as well as may not be comfortable for the community.  Thank the interviewees at the end of the interview. Focused Group Discussion: consensus building Focused group discussion, as evident from the title of the tool, is conducted to seek feedback from the village community in a group meeting. During the process the study team discusses issues related to the identified key question While preparing for focused group discussion it is important to schedule it at the time and venue convenient for all the sections of village community. It may be possible that due to personal conflict some persons are not willing to attend the meeting. It is always advisable to organise the meeting at a common place such as school or Panchayat Ghar. If possible ensure gender balance in the meeting. Thus, seeking the convenient time for women should be one of the major criteria to organize these meetings. Accordingly to have an effective focused group discussion following needs to be ensured: Do’s Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 28  Conducting the meeting at a time and in a place convenient for village community, especially women and weaker sections of the society.  The team members should introduce themselves as well as share the purpose of their visit.  The facilitator should keep a track of the discussions and should not allow any diversion from the key question related issues.  Everyone present should be given an opportunity to participate in the course of discussion. Avoid attempts to dominate discussion. Conduct discussion meeting in a participatory manner where all participants feels comfortable in contributing their views and ideas.  The study team may identify an issues or information that needs detailed discussion. Such a section could be dealt in person with the identified community members after the meeting to maintain focus.  Appreciate and encourage participants for their contributions during the course of the discussion.  Thank the interviewees at the end of the interview. Don’ts  Rushing the course of discussion.  Allowing some persons to dominate over the meeting.  Making judgments on the responses given by participants that would give a negative signal.  The team members neither ask participants to give evidence in support of their statements nor attempt to prove that the information provided is false. These four tools suggested for systematization are the basic ones and the team may use other participatory tools as per their need. It is recommended that the team members be aware about the other tools they select for conducting the exercise. Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 29 Reference Facilitating Participatory Processes by Ms Beatrice Briggs of International Institute for Facilitation and Consensus, Mexico. Institutionalizing Learning in Rural Poverty Alleviation Initiatives by I. Guijt, J. Berdegue, G. Escobar, E. Ramirez, and J. Keitaanranta of FIDAMERICA. {FIDAMERICA is a regional learning network funded by IFAD and coordinated by Rimisp-Latin American Center for Rural Development (www.rimisp.org)}. Outcome Mapping, building learning and reflection into development programs by Sarah Earl, Fred Carden, Terry Smutylo, an IDRC, Canada publication. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last by Robert Chambers (Paperback - October 1997) Abbreviation CBO ENRAP IFAD NERCRMP NGO : Community Based Organisation : Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia/ Pacific Region : International Fund for Agricultural Development : The North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas : Non Governmental Organisation Systematization to Capture Project Lessons: A Guide, Pushkin Phartiyal, ENRAP, 2006 30