See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248980676

The power of participatory monitoring and evaluation: Insights from south-

west China

Article  in  Development in Practice · August 2006

DOI: 10.1080/09614520600792275

CITATIONS READS

16 674

3 authors, including:

Ronnie Vernooy Jianchu Xu

Biovesity International the Netherlands World Agroforestry Center
124 PUBLICATIONS   556 CITATIONS    116 PUBLICATIONS   6,518 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bark the neglected organ in wood decomposition View project

Research on Community seed banks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jianchu Xu on 13 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006

The power of participatory monitoring

and evaluation: insights from
south-west China

Ronnie Vernooy, Sun Qiu, and Xu Jianchu

This article examines the capacity-building experiences of two research teams in Yunnan and
Guizhou provinces in south-west China who used participatory monitoring and evaluation
(PM&E) to strengthen their development research, particularly in the area of natural-resource
management (NRM). The authors describe their efforts to incorporate PM&E practices in their
work. The process proved challenging, despite political and economic changes in China that
aim to allow more space for local voice and decision-making power in the management of
natural resources and other village affairs. Institutionalising PM&E has still a long way to
go and will require more field practice, greater integration in the processes of organisational
development, and stronger connections with agendas of political change.

Introduction: a new window on research practice

This article examines the capacity-building experiences of two research teams in Yunnan and
Guizhou provinces in south-west China who used participatory monitoring and evaluation
(PM&E) to strengthen their development research. PM&E is a joint effort or a partnership
between researchers and other stakeholders, such as farmers, government officials, or extension
workers, whereby they systematically monitor and evaluate one or more research or develop-
ment activities (Armonia and Campilan 1997; Abbot and Guijt 1998; Estrella and Gaventa
1998). Focusing on participatory field research for community-based natural-resource manage-
ment (NRM), this article aims to contribute to the still scarce literature on PM&E (Estrella et al.
2000). The efforts analysed here represent one of the first examples of a complete cycle of
PM&E practice in China, although the concept of PM&E is not new there (Li Xiaoyun
2001:115– 28).
By ‘participatory’ we mean various types and degrees of involvement in, control over, and
decision making in an activity or a research process. It can encompass a wide range of
approaches, methods, and tools, and debates about it abound in the literature (Chambers
1997; Pound et al. 2003). The rationale for using a participatory process may be to increase
the relevance and effectiveness of the research to stakeholders or to make the process more
efficient, or both (Pretty 1995). Another reason may be empowerment or social transformation:
participation as both a means and an end to strengthen people’s capacity to make decisions and
their ability to create an environment for change. Often, participation has both functional and

400 ISSN 0961-4524 Print=ISSN 1364-9213 Online 050400-12 # 2006 Oxfam GB

DOI: 10.1080=09614520600792275 Routledge Publishing
 The power of participatory monitoring and evaluation

empowering aspects, and the types and degrees of participation can change during the project
cycle or research process. It is therefore crucial to ask the questions: Whose participation? What
difference does participation make?
Monitoring is the systematic, regular collection and occasional analysis of information to
identify and possibly measure changes over a period of time. Evaluation is the analysis of
the effectiveness and direction of an activity or research project; it involves making a judgement
about progress and impact (Patton 1997). The main differences between monitoring and evalu-
ation are the timing and frequency of observations and the types of questions asked. However,
when both are integrated into a research strategy as a project-management tool, the line between
the two becomes rather blurred.
PM&E has emerged because of the recognition of the limitations of conventional monitoring
and evaluation (M&E). Conventional M&E mainly serves the needs of project implementers and
donors; it ignores the interests of other groups involved in research and development efforts,
especially local people. The M&E activities are normally carried out by outside ‘experts’, with
the result that a gap exists between the experts’ perception of the project and its results and
that of the people who are directly involved. In addition, M&E is usually done towards the
end of a programme or project, allowing little opportunity for improvement during early and
mid-term implementation. PM&E is most valuable as an integral component of a project and
closely woven into the whole cycle, although not necessarily used in all project components or
activities. It provides information that can be fed back into the project immediately to improve
subsequent performance. Following Patton’s (1997) terminology, it is utilisation-focused.
PM&E emphasises participation of the stakeholders in deciding how project progress should
be measured and results acted on (Guijt et al. 1998). Broadening the involvement of the various
stakeholders in identifying and analysing change can create a clearer picture of what is really
happening on the ground according to the perspectives of women, men, and various groups
defined by age, class, and ethnicity. It allows people to share successes and learn from each
other. At the same time, PM&E is potentially empowering, because it puts local people in
charge, helps to develop their skills, shows that their views count, and provides an opportunity
for joint learning. As such, PM&E can increase the accountability of all the people involved.
When practised skilfully, PM&E can also be a key component of a broader process of rural
development and political change. It has an important role to play in decentralisation and
more downward-oriented accountability systems and processes (Xu and Ribot 2004).
It is important to be aware that the results generated by participatory research, and thus by
PM&E, depend on the context in which the research takes place. This includes the socio-econ-
omic and political situation; local culture; access and rights to resources; social identities and
relationships along lines of gender, class, kinship, ethnicity, and age; and attitudes, interests,
and abilities of the various stakeholders, including the researchers. In other words, as with
all science, we need to be aware that knowledge is socially structured, and that this implies a
process of representation, discussion, and potential conflict and negotiation. In China, local
politics from the village to the township to the county levels play a key role in the process
of rural change. PM&E can be conducive to greater transparency and accountability, but
may also generate (new) tensions.

Process roadmap
Origins of the initiative
The initiative to undertake a PM&E activity in China arose at the crossroads of two forces. On
one track, the Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) programme of the

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006 401

Ronnie Vernooy, Sun Qiu, and Xu Jianchu

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) promotes an interdisciplinary and partici-

patory approach to solving problems related to NRM at the local level. Building the research
capacity required to apply this approach is an important goal of the programme, and one
component of this capacity building concerns the monitoring and evaluation of research pro-
jects. On the other track, several of the research teams working with the CBNRM programme
identified PM&E as an important component of their research efforts, but lacked the necessary
skills to integrate it into their projects. In response to this interest, in early 1999 the CBNRM
programme team designed and funded a special project that aimed to address the need for
improved research skills in PM&E (Vernooy et al. 2003).
Training for PM&E is iterative, ongoing, and based on learning-by-doing and interaction.
The training process consisted of a series of three interrelated workshops, combined with field-
work, to strengthen conceptual and methodological skills. The process described here can best
be viewed as a pilot experience involving only two teams working with the CBNRM pro-
gramme: a team from the Kunming Institute of Botany (KIB)/Chinese Academy of Sciences
in Yunnan province on the ‘People and Resource Dynamics in Mountainous Watersheds’
(PARDYP) project (Allen et al. 2000); and a Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences
(GAAS) team from Guiyang, Guizhou province on the ‘Community-Based Natural Resource
Management in the Mountainous Areas of Guizhou’ project (Chen Deshou et al. 2000). The
objective was to design and implement a PM&E process that would complement ongoing
research in both projects. The workshop format allowed participants not only to acquire concep-
tual and methodological insights into PM&E, but also to put those insights into practice
immediately. Exchanging experiences between the two teams allowed for critical reflections
on local contexts and allowed revisions to be made as required.
The PARDYP project is a research-for-development project initiated in October 1996 with
funds from the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), IDRC, and the Inter-
national Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), with the aim of contributing
to the balanced, sustainable, and equitable development of mountain communities and families
in the Hindu-Kush Himalaya. Five watersheds with different characteristics were selected for
study in Nepal (two watersheds), China, India, and Pakistan in order to learn some of the
issues involved in managing their resources and, with the participation of local people, to
develop means of improving this management (Allen et al. 2000).
In China, KIB co-ordinates research in the Xizhuang watershed (close to Baoshan city) in
close collaboration with a number of government departments. The project has generated a
wealth of relevant and representative information about, and technologies for, measuring
water balance and sediment transport related to degradation in a watershed; and it has identified
a number of technologies and strategies to improve soil fertility and control erosion and degra-
dation, using a farming-system approach. Based on a better understanding of the major issues
involved in the management (and degradation) of resources by communities, a start has been
made with the use of community-based participatory principles in the generation, testing,
and evaluation of NRM strategies and technologies.
The ‘Community-Based Natural Resource Management’ (CBNRM) project is located in
Guizhou, one of the poorest provinces in China, about half of whose population belong to
ethnic-minority groups. These groups mainly inhabit the mountainous rural areas, where they
manage complex production systems consisting of irrigated and rain-fed rice fields, less-
productive uplands and grasslands, forested areas, and so-called ‘wastelands’. Problems that
people face include low yields, little crop diversification, forests that are in generally poor
health, and overgrazed common grasslands.
In 1995, a multidisciplinary research team began research in Changsuan county, to address
NRM issues at the local level. Using participatory appraisal tools, the team described and

402 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006

 The power of participatory monitoring and evaluation

analysed current household and community-based management practices, evaluated the impact
of economic, socio-cultural, and agro-ecological factors on the natural-resource base in the vil-
lages, and identified constraints and opportunities for technical and policy interventions aimed
at improving livelihoods and the sustainable management of land, water, and trees (Chen
Deshou et al. 2000). With input from participating villagers, the team facilitated the implemen-
tation, monitoring, and evaluation of NRM and infrastructure-building groups, and rules and
regulations, experimentation, and multi-faceted capacity building. More recently, the team
has started to research scaling-out and scaling-up strategies to broaden the base for CBNRM
at the local and provincial levels.

Main features of capacity building

The PM&E capacity-building process involved these two regional, well-established research
organisations, both active in the area of NRM, and both supported by IDRC’s CBNRM pro-
gramme. Both organisations also receive funds from other donors, such as the Ford Foundation.
In both cases, systematic PM&E was added to ongoing research efforts. In both provinces, the
whole project research team took part in the PM&E capacity-building process (although over
time, some staff changes took place, notably in the GAAS team when several members went
abroad to study), as well as a number of selected local people who included farmers, technical
staff, and government employees. Both teams also had strong organisational support when they
undertook the PM&E process.
The idea of bringing the two teams together arose from the assumption that ‘two know more
than one’. GAAS and KIB are quite different organisations, with the teams having a different
composition (age, sex ratio, disciplinary background, experience), operating in different local
contexts. However, the projects share certain similarities in terms of NRM issues, research
focus, and methodological approach.
Learning from each other could increase effectiveness, as we would be able to learn about two
cases simultaneously by comparing experiences; relevance, as it would allow us to see our own
research in a broader context; and possibly efficiency, as it would facilitate more rapid learning.
As far as possible, we built on existing skills and relied on participants’ contributions. We used
an iterative, semi-structured, learning-by-doing process, rather than a blueprint-based training
model. This implies a longer-term commitment. It is based on past experiences that show that
one-off training events do not work in participatory research. Overall, we aimed at an approach
that Robert Chambers (1997:214) has described as ‘inventive through interaction, practical in
application, rigorous through self-criticism, and empowering through process’.
Workshop 1, Guiyang, Guizhou province, 20 –23 July 1999
The first workshop introduced the key concepts, approach, and basic questions related to
PM&E. The focus was very much on working towards a shared understanding of the
meaning of participation, monitoring, and evaluation. The meeting brought the two teams
together for the first time and allowed them to start exchanging ideas, experiences, and interests.
The workshop also generated a draft PM&E plan for each team, focusing on a specific project
component: water-resource management in the case of the Guizhou team; and technology
development with a special interest in community management of tree nurseries in the case
of the Kunming team. The key element in the elaboration of these draft plans was not so
much the content (and topic chosen), but the process used to design them (GAAS 1999).
Workshop 2, Kunming, Yunnan province, 6 –8 April 2000
The second workshop focused on the PM&E fieldwork carried out so far within the context of
the projects at large. Both teams presented their research and PM&E work, highlighting what

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006 403

Ronnie Vernooy, Sun Qiu, and Xu Jianchu

they had learned so far. We also provided feedback to each other through a ‘market’ exercise:
what would we ‘buy’ (i.e. adopt) from each other, and what would we do differently? This
proved to be very valuable. It was followed by exercises that involved identifying and discuss-
ing research gaps linked to the six key PM&E questions: why? for whom? what? who? when?
how? Here the focus was on achieving a better sociological understanding of participation as a
process. In small groups, the most important of the identified gaps were debated, and sugges-
tions were made for additional research work (KIB 2000).
Workshop 3, Baoshan, Yunnan province, 31 May to 2 June 2001
Additional and updated results of the fieldwork were presented and discussed at the third work-
shop, and a critical assessment of the overall experience was made through identification of the
value added by the PM&E work, challenges and constraints, and possible next steps at both the
project and organisational levels. The two teams also assessed the training method and made
suggestions for improvement.

Field experiences in Guizhou: PM&E and water management

Design of the action plan
During the first training workshop (July 1999), the two teams gained a basic understanding of
the three key concepts (participation, monitoring, and evaluation), the six basic questions (see
above), and the principles for identifying indicators and choosing measurement tools. The
workshop emphasised the importance of learning by doing, and the fact that the project team
should also follow the learning– action –reflection cycle in practising PM&E. The GAAS
team developed a draft PM&E action plan, based on this principle, which focused on water-
resource management in two villages.

Why PM&E? Participatory monitoring and evaluation techniques were employed for the
following reasons:
. To promote better understanding and co-operation among the various stakeholders (villagers,
local government officials, and the project researchers).
. To identify the problems involved in water management and find solutions and opportunities
to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
. To empower the local community in decision-making, leadership, and management skills.
What? The GAAS project involved a wide range of interventions and research activities regard-
ing the management and use of water, forests, farmland, grassland, and wasteland in six target
villages. Because it would be difficult for new practitioners to introduce a PM&E process into
such a large project, water management in the villages of Dabuyang and Dongkou was ident-
ified as a priority for the first round of fieldwork for the following reasons:
. Water is the most important resource in all six villages because of its scarcity for both drink-
ing and irrigation purposes. The shortage causes great difficulties in people’s daily lives, and
all of the villagers place a high priority on water management in their village planning.
Because of this, the project team put considerable effort into research and interventions
concerning water management.
. Dabuyang is a Buyi ethnic village, and Dongkou is a Han village. People from different
ethnic groups have different perceptions, which are influenced by their culture, norms, and
customs.
. Dabuyang has been a target village since the first phase of the project. Now, several years
later, the team considers it necessary to introduce PM&E to assess the effectiveness of the

404 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006

 The power of participatory monitoring and evaluation

interventions. In Phase 2 of the research, the project area expanded to six villages, and
Dongkou was among them. Dongkou was chosen for comparison.
Who and for whom? The fieldwork involved the villagers in Dabuyang and Dongkou, the water-
management staff in both villages, local government officials, and the project researchers.

How? The team identified a number of potential indicators and relevant PRA tools, including
group discussions, interviews, and ranking.

When? Activities were carefully scheduled as part of the ongoing field research so as not to
overload the farmers and officials.

Fieldwork
With the plan in mind, we started the PM&E fieldwork with a one-day workshop with the farmer
representatives from the two villages and the township officials in the project site. This proved very
useful: it contributed to a more coherent plan, with more appropriate indicators and tools in terms
of ‘farmer-friendliness’. It was agreed that water management was an important topic and a good
choice for the PM&E efforts. Additional information was generated in the workshop by asking the
questions: ‘What has been done on water management in your village since the implementation of
the project?’ and ‘What do you think about water management in your village and why?’ Drawing
on the improved plan, the team allowed for two days of additional fieldwork. The plan now
included the establishment of two multi-stakeholder PM&E teams (one for each village), a
description of the roles of the team members in the field, and a scheduling of work.
The two PM&E teams used PRA tools such as resource mapping, focused group discussion,
key-informant interviewing, and ranking. Gender-sensitive data analysis was carried out to
identify problems and issues in water-resource management in the two villages. Discussions
were held with women and men farmers about the reasons for those problems, and possible
solutions. Feedback was given to the two villages, which made the farmers, local government offi-
cials, and researchers reflect more deeply about what actions should be taken to improve water
management. Soon afterwards, adjustments were made as the result of the PM&E fieldwork.
In April 2000, the KIB and GAAS teams met in Kunming to share experiences and provide
critical feedback about their attempts to carry out PM&E in the field. The insights, ideas, and
comments generated during that workshop helped us to draft a plan for the next steps in the
fieldwork. The GAAS team realised that further fieldwork was needed in order to learn more
about how to make a useful and meaningful monitoring system work. The team was also
encouraged to expand its efforts to introduce a self-monitoring instrument in Dabuyang and
Dongkou villages. They improved the design and planned to test it in two additional villages.
Subsequent fieldwork continued to focus on water management, with emphasis on the efficiency
and effectiveness of the system for both drinking water and irrigation in the four villages in
terms of the service provided by management staff, the adequacy of water supply and effective-
ness of the facility, management system, and regulations; and the usefulness of the new
self-monitoring tool.
Simple and highly visual self-monitoring booklets were distributed to the selected households,
who provided monthly comments and opinions about the water-management system in their
village. They were encouraged to use their own indicators to judge its adequacy. Village meet-
ings were held at three-monthly intervals to review the comments, assess the situation, and ident-
ify problems in management and the use of the collective fund derived from water fees. It was
also agreed that in case of an emergency, villagers would call a meeting immediately.

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006 405

Ronnie Vernooy, Sun Qiu, and Xu Jianchu

Towards the end of 2000, the research team conducted focus-group discussions with separate
groups of men and women, and with management staff, households living in similar locations,
and village leaders. Key-informant interviews were conducted with management staff and
households using the self-monitoring booklets to get feedback about their use. Several meetings
were also held to discuss findings with the villagers. The PM&E practice enhanced villagers’
capacity to identify problems in water management and to find effective solutions for the
problems. Dabuyang village, for example, had suffered cuts in power and water supplies
because of an ineffective system for collecting water fees. Villagers (men and women) analysed
what caused these difficulties and reached agreement to take collective action. They replaced
the water-management staff with more skilful and responsible villagers, modified the manage-
ment regulations, and set up a self-monitoring and regulation system. As a result, water man-
agement in Dabuyang village greatly improved. Women in particular have become more vocal
and active. With the research team’s assistance, village women set up an animal ‘bank’ in 2002
to improve their organisational and management capacity and to increase their incomes. They
elected a management committee. They help and learn from each other. So far, the animal bank
has been run very well.
We observed that government officials had mixed feelings about PM&E. On the one hand,
since PM&E strengthens villagers’ capacity in self-management, the officials felt that their
work was made easier. Local government officials have heavy tasks, including improvement of
rural livelihoods through strengthening economic growth, welfare, and environmental protection.
Through PM&E, villagers are now more actively participating in these tasks, sharing responsibil-
ity for some of the tasks with the government officials. But on the other hand, PM&E has enhanced
villagers’ capacity to be involved in decision-making processes. Villagers now regularly negotiate
with government officials, which troubles the latter somewhat, since they were not accustomed to
villagers having equal rights in a decision-making process. Slowly, however, officials are becom-
ing aware of the importance of people’s participation in development initiatives.

Reflections
Through the training workshops and fieldwork, we have come to recognise the important roles
that PM&E can play. At the GAAS project site, PM&E helped the water users, project research-
ers, and local government officials to work together to identify problems as well as opportu-
nities and strategies for improving effectiveness and efficiency of the water-management
system. At the same time, PM&E helped to build capacity, accountability, and confidence
about water management. Dongkou villagers stated this eloquently: ‘Everybody in the village
cares about water management and makes efforts to maintain the facilities and implement
the management regulations. Now we can also manage our own resources well.’
There is no fixed model for participatory monitoring: different villages have different inter-
ests, and different geographic, economic, and political contexts. As work in four villages
demonstrated, villagers have a unique cultural background and social system (networks,
values, rules) and are dealing with a variety of natural conditions. Introducing and using
PM&E requires an open mind, flexibility, and a step-by-step approach.
We learned that water management not only consists of managing the water (a technical
matter), but is also very much related to socio-cultural and economic issues and power/knowl-
edge configurations and dynamics. In Dabuyang, the former water-fee collector found it difficult
to do his job, ‘simply’ because he was not Buyi and not respected by the villagers. Chaoshan had
a large, but very effective, management group selected by the villagers from both Buyi and Miao
groups, and endorsed by important clans in the village. Management staff represented a variety
of interests, and this seemed to be instrumental in their relatively smooth performance.

406 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006

 The power of participatory monitoring and evaluation

Despite such progress, we still face difficulties in practising PM&E in the field, especially in
ensuring the continuity of the process. We must continue the learning process. We also feel that
there is a need for further research into appropriate participatory tools, the development and
testing of suitable indicators, and the development of training materials. We have learned
that PM&E is most useful when it is an integral part of the entire project cycle. Going a step
further, we suggest that institutionalisation of PM&E should become a priority as part of a
broader process of rural transformation.

Field experiences in Yunnan: participatory technology development,

monitoring, and evaluation
Design of the action plan
The KIB team applied PM&E progressively and integrated concepts and methods into the ongoing
‘People and Resource Dynamics in Mountainous Watersheds’ project (PARDYP). The main
objectives of the PM&E application were: (a) to conduct self-reflection and improve project
implementation by the team; (b) to enhance the participation and self-development capacity of
local farmers; (c) to improve the local livelihoods through small grants; and (d) to increase the
transparency of the project and, therefore, to increase the accountability of various stakeholders.
The PM&E activities ran parallel to the participatory technology-developmet cycle and included
local farmers, technicians, and project-team members. Activities were carried out in the natural
villages located upstream, midstream, and downstream of the research watershed.
This process was supported by small grant-funded projects, which were designed with both
indigenous innovators and volunteer farmers. Detailed information was collected about their
households, and M&E indicators were identified. In particular, the following questions
guided the process:
. What do you want to do with this small grant?
. Why do you want to do it?
. What kind of support do you need, such as material, financial, and technical assistance?
. Who will carry out the activities in your family?
. When do you want to begin your project?
. How can we monitor the project and evaluate its success or failure?
. Who will/can monitor and evaluate activities during the project?

Fieldwork
Early each year, the team discussed the results from previous experiments, field monitoring,
and evaluation efforts. We reviewed the field reports and discussed the cost and feasibility of
each small project according to the household action plan. We also discussed the provision
of technical support. After that, the second project-planning stage began, including very import-
ant feedback meetings. Returning to the villages, the team interviewed participating and non-
participating household members, both women and men. The team carried out semi-structured
interviews and sometimes open discussions with both participating and non-participating villa-
gers. With those who had taken part in the projects, they focused on evaluation of the various
activities. In addition, randomly selected households, who were not directly participating in the
projects, were also asked the following:
. What had they heard about the project?
. Which activities did they think were the most appropriate in their context, and what activities
did they prefer?

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006 407

Ronnie Vernooy, Sun Qiu, and Xu Jianchu

. Which activities had they taken part in and what role did they play?
. What suggestions did they have for improving activities to benefit more people?
. What kinds of activity would they like to develop in the future?
. What did they think about the project?
. What are the indicators for success?
. What kinds of activities helped people to improve their lives in their village and in nearby
villages?

Reflections
It is still too early to draw well-defined conclusions about the introduction of PM&E alongside
Participatory Technology Development into the project cycle. Instead, we are looking at what
succeeded and what went wrong, and discussing the skills that we still need to acquire, as well
as the management changes we might have to make to strengthen the process. What is certain is
that the project team now realises that quality is improved by integrating an M&E system into
project management. Interactions with farmers made us aware that we need to improve our
practice of participation and give them greater voice and decision-making power.
We learned that we should incorporate PM&E into project implementation, establishing a
basis for long-term participation. We also learned that PM&E helps to spread the risk of
failure between the project team and farmers. Too often, the project bears all the risk, with
the result that farmers do not care enough about managing the activities well. From the
outset, the farmers and project team should establish a protocol to determine indicators of
success, identify who will benefit and how (should the project be successful), and establish
penalties for project failure caused by bad management.
For PM&E to be efficient, it must be institutionalised at each level of project management,
and all stakeholders must understand its benefits. The greatest effort is required at the admin-
istrative and village levels. PM&E should be built upon existing community institutions and
integrated into local governance structures and political processes. In this case, all village
committees were eventually elected by local villagers through the application of ‘the Village
Organic Law’, which promotes democratic election, decision making, management, and moni-
toring of village activities and expenditure. We envisage that PM&E can help to raise awareness
among villagers about their rights and responsibilities, and awareness among village officials
about villagers’ expectations and the value of good-governance principles such as transparency,
accountability, and participation. PM&E could also be a useful means to encourage township
and county-level governments to experiment with local solutions and greater autonomy in
villages.

Discussion
Learning about PM&E and applying the concepts and tools in our local contexts proved a chal-
lenging, demanding, but worthwhile enterprise. We learned that it is important to make careful
decisions about whose voices and insights we take into account when determining research
progress and achievements, and when considering new challenges and opportunities. PM&E
allowed us to bring the various people with whom we are working—the women and men in
the villages and in government offices in particular—closer to each other. It gave all of us a
better understanding of each other’s points of view, interests, doubts, and desires.
The experience also contributed to a better understanding of how the various concerns and
interests of villagers (both men and women), government officials, and researchers are
represented and negotiated in a research process. We now understand that carrying out research

408 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006

 The power of participatory monitoring and evaluation

is a social process. We are more aware that negotiations, tensions, and unintended
consequences are parts of the puzzle of doing research and PM&E. As the two case studies
prove, the training and fieldwork in particular contributed greatly to a better understanding
by researchers and local government officials of farmers’ interests and needs.
The project teams summarised the added value of the PM&E work as follows:
. More trust in each other (researchers, farmers, government officials) and a recognition of
each other’s roles, strengths, and weaknesses.
. Increased understanding and co-operation among stakeholders in an effort to join forces and
achieve common goals.
. Increased opportunities for farmers’ participation, particularly women, in the research and
change processes.
. A greater sense of ownership among farmers of the project, embracing both the process and
the outcomes.
. Contribution to building a stronger community identity through a variety of collective efforts.
. Clearer project objectives and expected outcomes that are closer to the diversity of villagers’
interests and needs.
. And improved project management with more space for reflection, responsiveness, and
adaptation.

Enabling and constraining factors

A number of factors influenced our work in south-west China. For instance, the changing socio-
economic and political context was largely favourable. Although not without problems, the
decentralisation and democratisation efforts were supportive of the central tenets of the
PM&E work. This is not to deny the continued existence of conflicts with powerful social
actors, for example, about benefit sharing. The solid relationship built up over time between
the researchers and local people helped to overcome past experiences of marginalisation.
The attention paid by the research teams to the villagers’ concrete and immediate livelihood
needs was another positive factor. Villagers appreciate our new approach to doing things.
We were lucky to have access to important resources, namely staff, funds, and transport,
which allowed us to get out into the field. Farmers and government staff also dedicated time
and effort to the M&E work. However, how much time should be dedicated to this activity
remains a thorny question. We think that we can still improve considerably on how we
jointly establish the M&E plans. Increasing the quality of participation remains a challenge.
We need to pay more attention to the different ideas, viewpoints, interests, suggestions, and
desires of those who are involved, as well as remembering those who are not directly involved
or are not visible or vocal. In other words, we could do a better job in considering gender and
other social variables and how they influence PM&E.

Conclusion and prospects

PM&E opened a new window on our research practice. Its integration into the project cycle
strengthened the learning, accountability, and effectiveness of the two research teams and
their work, in particular through the discovery that what matters is not only what is assessed,
but also who does the assessing. We now realise that PM&E should be integrated from the
very beginning (planning stage) in order to realise its full potential. We are more aware that
negotiations, tensions, and unintended consequences are parts of the puzzle of doing research
and PM&E.

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006 409

Ronnie Vernooy, Sun Qiu, and Xu Jianchu

As the two case studies demonstrate, the training and fieldwork in particular contributed
greatly to a better understanding by researchers and local government officials of farmers’ inter-
ests and needs. The experiences also suggest that strengthening the processes for peer network-
ing, review, and support (in our case, inter-provincially) are powerful means to build capacities.
But it is a time-consuming and resource-demanding process. The iterative capacity-building
process and methodology have been documented and disseminated with the aim of strengthen-
ing the existing knowledge base, in China and beyond. This can help to inform other researchers
and trainers working in Asia as well as other regions.
Farmers, together with researchers and government staff in the research sites (and beyond),
continue to use PM&E in a number of ways, and have also included PM&E in other projects.
Several members of the two research teams have been able to use their experiences elsewhere
through collaboration with other research and development organisations. Some of us have also
become PM&E trainers or facilitators. We are sharing our expertise in Yunnan and Guizhou and
in other provinces of China with NGOs, academic institutions, and government units. We
continue to strengthen capacities within the KIB and GAAS.
Despite our efforts over several years, we are still at an early stage in terms of making PM&E
an operating principle in the research, rural development, and political reform processes that are
currently underway in China. Integrating PM&E into the work of any organisation requires a
long-term process of learning by doing, adapting, and adopting step-by-step changes.
Making PM&E a central feature of policy making and political reform means moving
beyond the project level and strengthening the PM&E capacities of local people, farmers,
village leaders, and government staff alike. We still have a long and bumpy road ahead.

Acknowledgements
The research in Yunnan and Guizhou was supported by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development, the Ford Foundation, and the International Development Research Centre. The ideas and
views expressed are those of the authors only. We thank our colleagues at KIB, GAAS, and IDRC as
well as project partners in Guizhou and Yunnan for their contributions to our research and writing.

References
Abbot, J. and I. Guijt (1998) ‘Changing views on change: participatory approaches to monitoring and
evaluation’, SARL Discussion Paper no. 2, London: IIED.
Allen, R., H. Schreier, S. Brown, and P.B. Shah (eds.) (2000) The People and Resource Dynamics
Project. The first three years (1996– 1999), Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development.
Armonia, R.C. and D.M. Campilan (1997) Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: the Asian experi-
ence, Los Baños, Laguna: Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development.
Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the last first. London: IT Publications.
Chen Deshou, He Yuannong, Xia Yuan, Zhou Pidong, Sun Qiu, Li Zhinan, Yuan Juanwen, and Zhao
Zeying (2000) ‘Community-based Natural Resource Management in the Mountainous Areas of Guizhou
Province, China’, Guiyang: Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
Estrella, M. and J. Gaventa (1998) Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: a
literature review, Working Paper 70, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Estrella, M., J. Blauert, D. Campilan, J. Gaventa, J. Gonsalves, I. Guijt, D. Johnson, and R. Ricafort
(eds.) (2000) Learning from Change: issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation.
London and Ottawa: IT Publications and IDRC.
GAAS (Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences) (1999) ‘Strengthening Participatory Monitoring
and Evaluation Skills in China. Report from the first workshop’, Guiyang: Guizhou Academy of
Agricultural Sciences.

410 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006

 The power of participatory monitoring and evaluation

Guijt, I., M. Arévalo, and K. Saladores (1998) ‘Tracking change together’, PLA Notes 31:28– 36.
KIB (Kunming Institute of Botany) (2000) ‘Strengthening Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Skills in China. Report from the second workshop’, Kunming: Kunming Institute of Botany.
Li Xiaoyun (2001) Participatory Development: Theories, methods, tools, Beijing: Beijing Agricultural
University Press (in Chinese).
Patton, M.Q. (1997) Utilization-focused Evaluation, Thousand Oaks, CA, London, and New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Pound, B., S. Snapp, C. McDougall, and A. Braun (eds.) (2003) Managing Natural Resources for Sus-
tainable Livelihoods: uniting science and participation, London and Ottawa: Earthscan and IDRC.
Pretty, J. (1995) ‘Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture’, World Development 23(8): 1247–64.
Vernooy, R., Sun Qiu, and Xu Jianchu (eds.) (2003) Voices for Change: participatory monitoring and
evaluation in China, Kunming and Ottawa: Yunnan Science and Technology Press and IDRC.
Xu, Jianchu and Ribot, J.C. (2004) ‘Decentralisation and accountability in forest management: a case
from Yunnan, Southwest China’, European Journal of Development Research 16(1): 153– 73.

The authors
Ronnie Vernooy is a Senior Programme Specialist in Natural Resource Management at the International
Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Ottawa. Sun Qiu is Director of the Centre for Integrated Rural
Development Research, Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guiyang, China. Xu Jianchu is
Director of the Department of Ethnobotany, Kunming Institute of Botany, Kunming, China. Contact
details: Ronnie Vernooy, IDRC, PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9.

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 5, August 2006 411

View publication stats