.
Add title here
Download
Mega Nav Image
The Social Way Toolkit
Find out more
Add title here
Download
Mega Nav Image
Main Content

What is participatory monitoring and evaluation and why do it? 

Participatory monitoring (and evaluation) goes beyond simply informing stakeholders of monitoring results and gives them an active role in setting targets and selecting indicators, and involves them in the process of gathering and analysing monitoring data. For some types of impacts, the consequences are so significant that the Social Way requires that a participatory approach is taken to monitoring and evaluating impact controls, for example potential impacts to Indigenous People. Further details are available in the relevant toolkit sections.

Table 1.6 explains the key characteristics of a participatory-monitoring approach compared to conventional monitoring and evaluation. The key steps in a participatory monitoring and evaluation process are shown in Figure 1.2.

Table 1.6 Conventional v participatory monitoring and evaluation

Conventional monitoring and evaluation Participatory monitoring and evaluation
  • Management measure, targets and performance indicators set by site or experts working on site’s behalf
  • Monitoring activity (timing, process, tools) designed by site or experts working on site’s behalf
  • Data collected from stakeholders
  • Evaluation of results and identification of corrective actions happens internally Stakeholders informed of results
  • Active participation by affected stakeholders to support identification of a project or management measure to address a point of concern and expected outcomes
  • Capacity building of stakeholders to enable their meaningful participation
  • Involvement of affected stakeholders in developing indicators (i.e. prior to project commencement) that are meaningful to them and agreeing how and by whom the monitoring and evaluation will be done
  • Physical presence of affected individuals at the time the monitoring takes place (e.g. when water quality samples are being collected).
  • Dialogue with stakeholders on the success of the impact control or SED'Socio-economic development' project being measured
  • Facilitated group discussion on any emerging issues to help jointly address problems and identify corrective actions
  • Focus not just on what is measured but how and who decided what indicators are important

anglo-american-infographic-1-3-01-governance1-2

Figure 1.2 Participatory monitoring and evaluation process

Involvement of affected stakeholders in participatory monitoring can reduce tensions and strengthen relationships through building ownership and accountability on issues of joint importance1. By involving stakeholders in the monitoring and evaluation process you are building their capacity to understand what works and what doesn’t, which is likely to help them in future decision making. At the same time, local stakeholders may have valuable insights regarding what factors should be monitored owing to their knowledge of the local environment and communities. Information about how and why a change happened and how important that change is to those affected is also more likely to emerge through participatory monitoring. Stakeholders are also more likely to be committed to activities that they have helped develop.

Sites may wish to use their Community Engagement Forum (see Section 3A) as an open and transparent approach to defining indicators, collecting data and holding subsequent discussions to increase trust levels between the company and affected stakeholders.

Key principles and considerations

Sites should consider applying the following key principles when developing a participatory monitoring approach2 3 4-:

  • Participation of affected stakeholders should take place at the design stage i.e. helping formulate meaningful indicators, and not just at the implementation stage.
  • Indicators should be easy to interpret and meaningful for affected stakeholders and other interested stakeholders.

  • Consider using a range of sources to collect data for indicators, to triangulate and check validity.
  • Stakeholders should be provided with a forum to take an active role in discussion of corrective actions when issues are identified.
  • Ideally, participatory monitoring should be put in place in a proactive manner for issues of known community concern and interest. When participatory monitoring is put in place in response to a conflict situation, it is more challenging to build trust.
  • Care is required to select appropriate and representative affected stakeholders who have the capacity to engage constructively and who are trusted by community members to speak on their behalf. The capacity of participating stakeholders may have to be built to enable effective data collection, meaningful dialogue on collected data and effective discussion of corrective actions. Appropriate resourcing may need to be made available by the site. Consider the value of involving third parties such as NGOs or local government, jointly agreed to with affected stakeholders, in the participatory monitoring and evaluation programme.
  • Where participatory monitoring is established for an issue that has been the subject of significant community discontent, it is likely that early discussions may be dominated by community voicing of legacy grievances and issues. These discussions should be allowed to take place, however long they take, to lead the way for constructive dialogue and debate on the issue.
  • Consider how to share a summary of the monitoring data and decisions made by the participatory monitoring group with wider community members and interested stakeholders e.g. regulatory authorities.

______________________________________

1 International Finance Corporation (IFC) and International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) (2017) Shared Water, Shared Responsibility, Shared Approach: Water in the Mining Sector. Available at: https://www.commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/P_ICMM-IFC-Water-and-Mining-FINAL.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2019]

2 International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2010) International Lessons of Experience and Best Practice in Participatory Monitoring in Extractive Industry Projects: Guidance Note on Designing Participatory Monitoring Programs. Available at: https://www.commdev.org/international-lessons-of-experience-and-best-practice-in-participatory-monitoring-in-extractive-industry-projects-guidance-note-on-designing-participatory-monitoring-programs/ [Accessed 12 March 2019]

3 Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO) (2008) Participatory Water Monitoring A Guide for Preventing and Managing Conflict. Available at: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/howwework/advisor/documents/watermoneng.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2019]

4 International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2007) A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets. Available at: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/938f1a0048855805beacfe6a6515bb18/IFC_StakeholderEngagement.pdf?MOD=AJPERES [Accessed 12 March 2019]

5 International Finance Corporation (IFC) and International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) (2017) Shared Water, Shared Responsibility, Shared Approach: Water in the Mining Sector. Available at: https://www.commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/P_ICMM-IFC-Water-and-Mining-FINAL.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2019]

1.Governance | 1.5 Monitoring and evaluation
1.Governance  |  1.5 Monitoring and evaluation