Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQUITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONvillage and sub-district facilitators and their districtlevel supervisors, and b) KDP 2 project manualson proposal formulation, verification and finalselection criteria. In late 2002 project trainingbecame operational.2.1 Lessons learned in KDP 22.1.1 Capacity building for the MPAand PRA ToolsThere is capacity and readiness among the villagefacilitators of KDP 42 to use the selectedparticipatory tools. The trainees demonstratedhigh levels of enthusiasm for using them at thecommunity level, but stressed the importance offield practice for building skill and self-confidence.Accordingly, at least two days of field practice arenow included in the seven-day training programdesigned for KDP 2 village facilitators.Village facilitators need additional sensitivity andskills building in analysing gender issues in localcultures and dealing with them in culturallyacceptable ways. All participants demonstrateda lack of gender analysis skills and ability toaddress gender issues. Some gender training wasprovided during KDP 1, which could bestrengthened by linking it in a practical mannerwith the community level facilitation tasks and thefacilitators’ own community experiences. Gendertargeting would also benefit from an increase inthe number of female facilitators at village andsub-district levels. Efforts are currently ongoing toachieve this objective in KDP 2.The field test experience suggested somerevisions in the criteria for the selection of villagefacilitators. Empowering methodologies call forfacilitators with listening skills and openness tolearning. Criteria used during KDP 1 emphasized“speaking skills” and “ability to impartinformation”, which can lead to the selection ofthose who command respect. Such people areused to providing direction and advice inIndonesian communities, and are ill-at-ease inlistening and learning-facilitation roles. Duringthe training pilot, a few facilitators who happenedto be figures of authority in communitiesdemonstrated low capacity and interest to workin a participatory learning mode.The participatory nature of the training,modeled after the approach to be used incommunities was appreciated, with manyparticipants commenting during evaluation thatthey enjoyed the “relaxed” nature of thelearning. Facilitator training programs need toexemplify the desired kind of facilitation forbetter skill development.2.1.2 Community use of the toolsduring field testThe high level of enthusiasm shown by thecommunity, , both men and women demonstratedtheir interest in working with the selected tools.Their ability to grasp the concepts and purpose ofthe tools was encouragingly high even thoughunderstanding depends on the presentation styleand information provided by the facilitators. Itrequired approximately two hours per tool to makesure that information emerging from a communitygroup is relevant and of good quality. This wasnot seen as a constraint if group sessions werescheduled at the convenience of communitymembers.42 KDP’s village facilitators are residents of the village where they work and are to be chosen by the villagers.They are expected to have at least middle-school level education and “good communication skills.” KDP 1 didnot formally provide them with facilitation training but KDP 2 does.117