RURAL
WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION IN THE CONTEXT OF PEOPLE-BASED DEVELOPMENT
by
N. M. Pestelos
UNICEF
EAST ASIA
& PAKISTAN REGIONAL OFFICE
Bangkok,
Thailand
DECEMBER
1981
PART I: COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT:
A “TORTOUS
EXERCISE”
PART II: IDEALS VS.
REALITY
PART III: FOCUS
ON CONSTRAINTS
PREFACE
This
paper locates the advocacy for community participation in rural water supply
and sanitation within the broader framework of people-based development.
In contrast to providing a
“laundry list” of activities recommended to insure popular support to water
supply and sanitation which existing literature has well taken care of, we
place such advocacy in the context of an evolving strategy designed to
alleviate rural poverty.
Operationally, water pumps
and latrines, as well as the whole gamut of benefits accruing to the community
on account of their installation, proper use, and maintenance, cannot stand in
dreary isolation from the change process which seeks to transform Asia’s rural
villages.
Part I seeks to provide a
framework for assessing current difficulties in catalyzing community-government
collaboration in development.
Part II attempts to
document the difficulties in actual village conditions and relates them to a
complex of factors dealt within the previous section.
Part III summarizes the
constraints in operationalizing the community participation strategy as
reflected in the various country reports.
It is hoped that thru the
workshop, intensive discussions will materialize on these constraints and in
the process, evolve tactical ways of tackling them under varying field conditions.
COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT:
A “TORTOUS EXERCISE”
Over
the past several decades, governments in Asia have sought deliberately to draw
popular support in assisting communities liberate themselves from
under-development.
To
catalyze popular participation in development, communities have been either
“primed”, “socially prepared”, “politicized”, or “sensitized”, and legions of “target beneficiaries” are
almost always “mobilized” to improve their “quality of life”.
These
jargons seem to portray a common scenario:
After wallowing in the filth, squalor, and enormous self-pity brought
about poverty, disease, and utter despair, Asian communities have now risen
from the quagmire of their misfortunes to be self-reliant, capable of further
growth and renewal, and eternally grateful to government and donor agencies for
their assistance. Hence, they will no
longer resort to violent revolution to better their lot.
The
actual scene is not as rose-tinted. As
it has unfolded in the Asian context, the long-sought participation of the
people in development can only be refracted thru the prisms of cultural,
political, and economic disparities which characterize human society in
general.
Hence,
in Asia, as it is anywhere in the world, the experience of
forging close community-government partnership in a program of planned changed
has been fraught with untold difficulties.
Indeed, the experience has been a “tortuous exercise for those
initiating the developmental process and for those affected by such changes”. 3/
Around
80% of Asia’s 2.25 billion inhabitants live in virtually isolated rural
villages or hamlets. Majority of them
are peasants who do not own the land they till, small land-holders, and hired
farm workers who sometimes migrate from place to place in search of employment. They grow wheat and rice, the staple crops
of the region, and provide labor for agricultural products exported to
developed economies.
Their
income is generally low. Due to the
inequitable distribution of wealth within their respective countries, they
continue to live in impoverished communities, which invariably breed ignorance,
disease, apathy, fatalism, unemployment and early death.
Asia’s
rural masses belong to various races, ethnic groups, religious, cultures and
subcultures, which have withstood centuries of colonial subjugation or
influence, major power rivalries, and the pervasive Western-style modernization
trend. In most development journals and treatises, they are generally described
as “resistant to change.”
Despite
their heterogeneity, Asian rural communities belong to a common culture; that
of poverty, which has been their heritage for centuries, and which now
preoccupies development planners of their respective governments.
Liberation
from poverty fueled the anti-colonial struggles of many Asian countries. Past colonial governments had directed their
efforts mainly towards maintenance of law an order and tax collection. The succeeding governments inherited a
highly centralized administrative structure backstopped by uncoordinated
technical departments which could not be expected to reach the people with
meaningful services.
The
broad-based participation of the Asian people in the anti-colonial struggles
increased their political awareness substantially. In response to their clamor for reforms, the post-colonial
governments started to develop local institutions, provided channels of
communication between the Government and the people, and instituted a
significant degree of coordination in the delivery of technical services.
It
became a matter of political expediency that the majority of the people had to
be reached with government services.
The focal point of such efforts was the community development program
launched by most Asian governments with the assistance of international
agencies, such as the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, USAID, and several
United Nations agencies.
In
many Asian communities, there emerged the familiar figure of a “change agent”,
a multi-purpose worker who provides the vital link between the people and the
Government. He facilitates delivery of
technical services, promotes the strengthening of local governments, organize
cooperatives and other local organizations.
The vigorous implementation of
the community development strategy facilitated inception of anti-poverty
programs, such as land reform, agricultural production, land settlement,
overall rural development in some countries, the community development program
included counter-insurgency schemes.
Despite
several decades of anti-poverty programs, bolstered by application of community
development approaches, may Asian communities remain plagued by the constraints
of underdevelopment: malnutrition and poor health; inadequate
housing; unemployment; isolation due to lack of facilities for communication,
transport, and education; low
income. The rapid population growth
rate has further drained scarce resources of governments in extending
assistance to beleaguered communities.
Often
implemented in isolation from each other by various sectoral departments, these
anti-poverty programs were actually part of a development strategy which lays
emphasis on economic growth. The rise
in a country’s Gross National Product, however did not bring about the expected
alleviation of rural industrialized countries has failed dismally as an instrument
of most Asian governments in bringing the benefits of development to rural
communities.
The
dread of the Seventies was characterized by deep soul-searching among
development planners. The economic
growth theory was flogged to smithereens.
The consensus was that development could not be adequately measured by
Gross National Product.
The
basic needs approach gained many adherents.
Equity or reducing the gap between the rich and poor became a primary
concern. “Development is not for the
few, the elite and the best; it is for the many”. 3/
Aside from
the basic needs of food, employment, health, habitat, and education , popular
participation is sought as objective of integrated rural development:
“When
people begin to participate in all aspects of the development process, namely,
decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and benefit sharing,
other objectives of the new development strategy are also likely to be
fulfilled. For instance, people’s
participation in planning and implementation of development programs and
projects leads to the selection of the types of projects which are of direct benefit to them. The utilization of idle labor resources in
productive employment will lead to increase i.e. labor, indigenous material and
technology are used, the process is likely to become self-reliant.”
“The
most important form of participation is in sharing of benefits of developmental
projects. This brings in equity aspect
of the development. Similarly, the
improved management of physical resources such as land, water and forests, is
possible only through people’s participation:
group or community decision is extremely important in the proper use and
conservation of these physical resources.
There are many successful cases of community irrigation projects. Thus, we find that all other objectives of
integrated rural development revolve around the pivot of people’s participation
which makes it as the centerpiece in the alternative strategy in development.” 4/
Popular
participation is perceived as the “sine qua non of development, particularly at
the local level.” It is the “touchstone
of ‘unified’ or ‘integrated’ approach to development.” 5/
It is also considered a basic
human need:
“The
objective of development cannot be merely to meet the material needs of the
people by any system, irrespective of whether the system is integrated or not
with their reflective world, i.e., irrespective of whether or not the people’s
reflection are a fundamental input in the designing and operation of the
system.”
It
is through the integration of reflection and action that men and women give
expression to their creative faculties and develop them, and a process of
self-transformation is generated through which they develop as human beings. It is for this reason that participation is
a basic human need.” 6/
The World Bank in its 1975 Sector
Policy Paper observes:
“Community
involvement in the selection, design, construction and implementation of rural
development programs has often been the first step in the acceptance of change
leading to the adoption of new techniques of production. The manner in which early participation is
to be achieved, and balanced with the need for overall guidance and control from
the center, is a problem which can only be resolved within each country.” 7/
The
sentiment of the Seventies for a people-based development strategy was
expressed as follows during the 1973 Asian Regional Workshop on People’s
Participation in Development.
“No
longer is development viewed simple as a process of economic growth and
adjustment. It is an interrelated
process of change involving economic, social, cultural, and ethical factors.
“No
longer should development be the sole prerogative and responsibility of the
politician, the economist, technician, planner, or aid administrator. It is a process which demands he active and
conscious participation of the people.” 8/
The
strong advocacy for popular participation triggered criticism of the community
development approach as a “limited concept.”
While it can activate villagers to undertake projects, “it cannot lead
to sustained development efforts within the village.” As extension of Government, it cannot “make the community
participate in development.” 9/
The CD Worker is perceived as a
benevolent administrator, not as change agent.
“The CD worker, with his development funds, his administrative and
practical powers, might appear to be in the village to take the burden off the
peasant’s shoulders.” 10/
The
multi-purpose change agent was also criticized for being too “multi” and not of
much “purpose”. There was mostly “process”
and little of “product.” “From these we went to the other extreme of
embarking on single commodity production and promotional programs such a rice,
corn, wheat, contraceptives, etc. Now
we are all agog about integrated rural development.” 11/
As
early as 1975, the governments of the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh, South
Korea, Papua new Guinea, Malaysia, and Thailand reported formulation of
policies to promote integrated rural development:
“The
rural-urban imbalances and the inequalities in income distribution seem to have
activated them in this direction. All
of them aim to enlist people’s participation in their own development. Rural organizations, mostly cooperatives,
are the major institutional mechanisms being developed for this purpose. Every government professes a concern for decentralization
in decision-making and for an improvement in the quality of life of rural
people…” 12/
Integration
of services widens the technical base for service delivery in matching
community identified needs.
“Integration
of services” should not serve merely as
a decorative phrase in a country’s development plan:
“…The
danger is that new ideas for integration, for increased communication
activities, and for more community-based activities may become simply a new set
of symbols giving promise of some simple magical solutions to complex and
difficult problems. New programs and
new approaches should mean more than expansion of administrative structures,
more jobs, more payments and power for a growing corps of administration
personnel. If the aim of the integrated
approach to rural development is to provide better services to the rural
masses, we should do our best to find ways and means of integrating all the
available developmental activities to ensure maximum benefits for all.” 13/
The
most telling argument against the sectoral approach is that it has failed to
reach only the disadvantaged. More
often, the services reach only the poblacion or town centers, rarely the villagers, on account of the
peculiar ways of the bureaucracy when it is mandated to deliver services to the
general public. It seems the “public”
are composed only of those who are
better informed that such services exist and also happen to be accessible to
government functionaries. Moreover, the
delivery of services results in duplication of activities by various Ministries
(i.e. training, logistics, manpower)
which lead to tremendous waste in resources. If ever the services reach the rural poor, the brigade of
extension workers who parade by the doorstep of the target family one after
another only serve to confuse everyone with their cacophony of conflicting
messages.
In
contrast, the integrated approach is biased towards meeting the concrete needs
of particular layers of the population.
The basis of the integration of services is a clear recognition that
definite groups exist with interrelated needs. It is not interested in achieving service delivery targets of
particular agencies to fill the blank pages of glossy annual reports. Its main concern is to effect delivery of a
service package to match the needs of real human beings, living in particular
communities.
Integration
fits the reality faced by an individual, family community, or field
implementation of projects: “For
example, a health program cannot be developed, say, by the building of village
latrines; because, without an economic program there may be no land to build
even a latrine as at Yakdehimulla; without an educational program, the people
may not be motivated and trained to use the latrines, and without a cultural or
social program, the cultural or social patterns of behavior may be incongruous
with the use of latrines. Although
different interrelated needs require diverse programs especially tailored to
suit the exigencies at hand, the needs are inextricably interwoven with one
another and the solution of one depends on the solution of others. “ 14/
Integration
may mean merely to synchronize of activities of various sectoral agencies in a
given geographic area. To many
development projects in the region, integration means coordination of
activities related to planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation,
training. In the experience of the
Social Work and Research Centre in India, four types of integration were
identified: within programs; between
programs; between levels; and between organizations. 15/
Whatever
form it takes, whether it is undertaken formally or informally, integration can
only be meaningful if it results in the planning, programming, and prompt
delivery of services relevant to community needs, particularly of those who are
socially deprived. Such relevance will
make efforts at integration a vital catalytic element in generating popular
participation in development.
Integration
in this practical sense has remained largely an experimental feature of pilot
projects in the region.
In
Bangladesh, the Savar Project attempted to integrate health and family planning
services with other basic services, such as food production, income generation
and basic education. “Despite the
rhetoric of integration, there is a three-way separation now of curative
services, preventive measures, and family planning, while maternal child care
(and nutrition, the main problem of mothers and children) at the present time
is nobody’s concern by default.”
Consequently, community participation in these programs is limited to
following government directives. 16/
The
Sulla Project of the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) also
recognized the need for an integrated approach. “However, the resources and manpower committed to the project did
not permit a sufficient participation of the people… The program management also did not provide for the mutual
linkages and reinforcement of the different program activities essential for an
integrated approach. The result is a
series of parallel sectoral activities with only sectoral overlap to the
beneficiaries, “ 17/
Limited
success in integration of services to catalyze community participation was
however achieved by the Lampang Health Development Project in Thailand, the
Sarvodaya Movement in Sri Lanka, and the Saemual Undong and the Community-
Based Integrated Rural Development (CBIRD) in South Korea.
The
obstacle to integration are both attitudinal and institutional:
“They
are commonly found in the narrow training and vision of specialists and in
their natural impulse to concentrate single-mindedly in their own particular
‘targets’. They are also found in the
powerful tendency of specialized organizations to ‘go it alone’ and to guard
their jurisdictional turf against intrusion by others. Further inhibitions stem from the highly
centralized and hierarchical nature of most organizations involved in rural
development. Where integration matters
most is at the local level, but to achieve it requires considerable
decentralization of detailed planning and decision-making and substantial
latitude on the part of lower echelon agents of these large specialized
organizations to work across agency lines and with the local people in devising
the best solutions for meeting local needs. “ 18/
The
present administrative set-up in many Asian countries “owes its original
justification to the maintenance of law and order and to the needs of
traditional economic growth process or to the combination of the two.” Hence, it does not facilitate “involvement
of village communities and individual families in the planning process.” Lack of such involvement, in turn, isolates
the public sector from “local political processes and local production
systems.” 19/
Moreover,
without decentralized decision-making, authority, “public services cannot
respond flexibly and in a timely way to distinctive local needs and integration
with parallel public service become impossible.” 20/
The
strong advocacy for popular involvement in development has led several
countries in the region to lay the groundwork for local-level planning. As focal points for decentralized planning
and project implementation, districts (Sri Lanka); subdistricts (India,
Pakistan , Indonesia ); subcentres within each district (Nepal); and regional
development bodies (Philippines and Thailand) have been organized.
No
effective strategies, however, have been formulated by these countries at the
grassroots level:
“During
the coming decade, local level planning… could play a useful role in
crystallizing such strategies, provided that the process is supported by
appropriate national policies (including resources allocations), that the local
people (especially the rural poor) are well-organized to participate in the
development process and that the local administrative machinery is fully committed to assist in the
implementation of the rural development program with the local people. Otherwise, the local plan might turn out to
be little more than an academic exercise.”21/
POPULAR PARTICIPATION
With
varying degrees of success (or shades of failure), Asian governments and non-governmental entities have sought to involve
communities in a “program of planned changed” of one sort or another,
characterized as “conscious, directed, and purposive.” Rural communities are always at the
butt-ends of ideological conflicts, developmental approaches, social laboratory
experimentation, socio economic surveys, and other schemes.
To
many communities, however, participation seems to mean rejection of
government-initiated development for they have grown “skeptical and suspicious
of strangers bearing gifts and seeking to intervene in their lives.“ Over the years, their dreams have been
interpreted falsely by outsiders:
“…they
have learned to look out for themselves; and they are not about to abandon the
customs, beliefs, and practices that have held their families and clans together
in adversity for many generations in favor of unfamiliar and untried
innovations urged upon them by urban strangers who clearly know less than they
do about the realities of rural life.” 22/
Meanwhile,
an ever-increasing layer of the Asian rural population is getting
“marginalized,” unable to participate in production, crippled by disease,
illiteracy, malnutrition, denied of involvement in the change
process—pauperized almost beyond redemption.
“…one
can understand how the “by-passed” 40 percent of the people in the developing
countries have, through the past two or three decades, remained relatively
complacent in accepting their poverty position as God’s will. After all, nothing has been different from
what they had in the past or expected to have in the future. What is different now, however, is the
people ‘left behind’ can see for themselves clear evidence they need not
continue to be poor forever and ever.
They see those who have resources, especially land and water, making
great advances. They also see that as
the rich get richer, they, the poor, are growingly poor. They see the elitist. Operating the institutions for the benefit
of the elitist. They are increasingly
coming to understand the political verbiage about the deplorable plight of the
poor has not resulted in government programs to help them get jobs and earn to
provide for their families’ needs…” 23/
It
is they who will scream one day: “You
have deprived us of everything, and now you preach self-reliance!”
In
this particular milieu, popular participation in development is supposed to
happen, advocated by most Asian governments and international agencies thru
various strategies: Primary Health care
(WHO), Basic Services Strategy
(UNICEF). Basic Needs Strategy
(ILO), Integrated Rural Development (FAO); and “Redistribution with
Growth” Strategy (World Bank).
POLITICAL WILL
The
focus of all these developmental approaches is the willing and substantive
participation of the people. Although motivations
may differ, from mere political survival, cooptation of popular clamor,
adjustment to world opinion, or genuine solidarity with the constituency, the
emerging trend is for politically diverse governments of Asia to declare unity
around this theme.
Since
it is politics and not merely fine rhetoric’s which is the “command post of
life” in any country, the degree, scope, magnitude, and overall quality of
mass-level participation has been largely determined by the interplay of
dominant interests and the popular demand for the alleviation of rural poverty.
In
the final analysis, it is this political will, which welds vested interests and
popular ideals, that in the Asian experience has accounted largely for the
seeming ambiguous configuration of people-based development schemes.
It
is in this context that difficulties in catalyzing popular participation in
development should be seen to temper idealistic notions with pragmatism in
viewing them as operational constraints.
The
people-based strategy in the promotion of primary health care, cooperatives,
water supply and sanitation, basic services, agrarian reform, equity in
development, etc. recognizes
explicitly or implicitly that the
existing power structure in any country cannot work radically against its own
interests.
The
advocacy, therefore, for people-based development has assumed two basic tasks
by necessity: mobilizing the poor within the norms set by governments; and
locating the concerns for the poor within the enlightened interests of those
who wield power and dispense privelege.
It
has become necessary to belabor this point to counter the prevailing pessimism,
if not cynicism , of many project implementers when faced with overwhelming
constraints in their attempt to draw genuine participation from target
communities.
LOCAL ORGANIZATION
The
Asian village is an arena of varied economic and social conflicts. Social researchers and change agents seem
baffled that the rural poor do not normally organize to resolve these
conflicts. The fact is that the village
is well-knit, and the rural poor belong to tradition-bound aggregations, such
as their tribe, religion , or a neighborhood association ruled informally by a
“council of elders” which serve to mask the conflicts and whose unwritten laws
and moral precepts shape their perception and guide the conduct of their lives.
If
the rural poor are “resistant to change,” it is because impelled largely by
self-protection, they do not want to jar a belief system which they hold dear
and upon which their view of reality is firmly based.
During
the past three decades, many Asian villages have been penetrated by the market
economy, by mass communication technology, by external agents, and on the whole,
by a world-view which holds that is within their power to change nature and
social reality. They have been rallied
around all sorts of causes, “felt needs,” services. The lesson which emerged “during the past quarter of a century is
that the poor must be organized before they can claim their legitimate share of
the fruits of development.” 24/
In
most Asian countries, traditional village organizations have been supplemented
by those introduced by governments. The
experience of the rural poor with these organizations is not generally
pleasant. These new-type organizations
have become extension of the bureaucracy, which has its own sectoral priorities
that do not coincide with popular needs and with a work-style which normally
ignores that of the village. In most
instances, they have channel led more resources to the rural elites.
Such
experience adds another dimension to the constraints which plague
community-based approaches. Those who
now market the idea of participation to the rural poor must contend not only
with traditional village resistance, but they have to be highly skilled to
handle outright rejection, which seems almost a cultural reflex against foreign
intrusions in some communities.
PART II: IDEAL VS. REALITY
PERSPECTIVE
The
integration of services delivered to match community identified needs, which
are invariably inter-related; the decentralization of decision-making authority
to facilitate relevant planning and
effective project implementation; the existence of viable community
organizations to channel popular participation and catalyze
community-government collaboration in nation-building; and adherence to a political will in full
support of people-based development – all these which have been the subject of
Part I, are ideals to aspire for, if they have not yet become fossilized
planners rhetorics, in many Asian countries.
Majority
of Asia’s rural poor are still outside the developmental process. They are still an inert mass. On their own, they grapple with life’s
perplexities. Among themselves, they
have evolved forms of popular participation in response to sickness, disasters,
celebration of harvests, inter-family conflicts. Their self-reliance has made their communities survived wars, famine,
earthquakes, political regimes, and all sorts of anti-poverty schemes.
How
can they be involved in a change process, which is in itself liberative, so
that in participating, they lay the groundwork for strengthening local
institutions, sustaining services, and on the whole, insuring mutuality of
purpose and interests with their own government?
This
question preoccupies many government leaders, development planners and project
implementers. It is no longer a simple
life for the medical practitioner, the engineer, the technocrat, the planner,
everyone involved in development. For
it is no longer as simple as installing a water pump, a latrine; building a
clinic and prescribing drugs; propagating high-yield varieties; digging
irrigation canals; conscripting local labor for projects…
Doing
these things with the people also involves selling a point of view.
REACHING THE UNREACHED: THE BAREFOOT SYNDROME
To
make remote villagers participate in development, they first must be reached.
For
the past two decades, Asian governments have concentrated efforts around this
basic task. They have streamlined the
bureaucracy to improve outreach to the villages, building infrastructures in
the process, developing local leaders for administrative supervisions, and
deploying professional extension agents.
Lately,
in health, the barefoot doctors of China and the junior doctors of Vietnam have
their counterparts in many countries of the region. They are known as village health communicators and health post
volunteers (Thailand); village health volunteers or Roghtiamal (Afghanistan);
basic health worker (Bhutan); community health workers (Burma, Pakistan, and
India); village health promoters (Indonesia);village health agents, community
health aide (Republic of Korea); brigade pheldsher (Mongolia); and barangay
health aides (Philippines).
Their
main task is to link villages to the nearest health center, as well as to
motivate and deliver services to individual families. Ideally, they are nominated by the community and trained by the
government.
Since
rural communities are not as organized as those in china and Vietnam, these
volunteer workers virtually perform the task to organize communities around
health-related needs and prime up local support for projects or mass campaigns,
including environmental sanitation and safe water supply, although their belief
training may not adequately cover such aspect.
This
“barefoot” trend is also emerging in other sectors, such as social welfare,
agriculture, and other service components of rural development. There are also barefoot organizers for
mothers, tenants, women, youth, married couples, each grouping or mass
organizations linked to a particular sectoral agency, which after the initial
phase, is constrained to provide ample contracts and supervision.
The
sectarianism and petty competitiveness of sectoral agencies is exported to the
community. Each agency tends to think
it has the magic entry point to catalyze overall development in the village. Workshop proceedings of various agencies
make for interesting reading on this account.
All invariably recommend its particular sectoral interest as entry point
with hardly a sound guideline on hoe to make it coincide with actual village
conditions.
The situation
requires deep probing. In their desire
to reach rural communities fast, Asian governments may instead find the rural
poor further frozen into resistance, bewilderment, or confusion.
IMPLEMENTATION DIFFICULTIES
Other
difficulties usually encountered in applying the community participation
strategy have been identified by a field study on the Songkla Integrated Rural
Development Model, also
known as the Jana Project, of
Thailand. 25/
The
field study covered six villages in the Jana District. It was conducted by seminar participants
from 18 Asian countries when the project was not yet fully operational at the
grassroots level. Since the study dealt
on “community dynamics,” rather than on
impact, it was felt the initial stage of the project evolved “illustrate the
implementation difficulties of the concepts of Basic Community Services and
Primary Health Care.”
The
four- year (1977-1980) project seeks to create a model to integrate health,
education, agriculture, community development, with special emphasis on family
planning, for possible replication nation-wide. It also seeks decentralization of planning at district level;
community participation; and utilization of traditional practitioners and methods.
Here
are some highlights from the analysis of village studies:
On
Integration – “ While there have been developmental activities in the
village (e.g. the building of roads, construction of sanitary latrines,
introduction of electricity, improvement of schools), they have not been
carried out in an integrated manner.
Such integration would appear to be necessary if the villagers are to be
developed in a manner that would utilize available resources as efficiently and
effectively as possible and if benefits are to be distributed within the
concerned communities as equitably as possible.”
On
Village Leadership – “ While the village council appears to carry out a
reasonable job of transmitting government instructions and information from the
district to the community, it appears to have played a significant role in the
mobilization of community support and resources for the development of the
village. The village leadership tended
to depend on the government to identify community projects and to provide
significant development resources for their implementation.
“In
general it might be said that the villages and their leadership exhibit an
image of passivity in the sense of waiting for the government to tell them what
to do and provide them with resources for community development. It would seem that significant but
unutilized resources remain to be tapped for community development in all
villages.”
On
the Participation of the Rural Poor – “The poor had little faith in their
ability to influence community decisions and said they were too busy earning a
livelihood to participate in community affairs. They did not see the possibility of anything concrete being done
for their economic betterment. The
others tended to see them as sources of labor at best; and at worst as an
embarrassment that might be flushed out of the communities by encouraging them
to settle outside the village.”
There
is also no special organization of the youth in the villages studied. Likewise, there is no effective organization
for women.
What
have been said in these findings can be repeated for thousands of villages in
Asia where millions have yet to be motivated, trained, and mobilized to build,
use, and maintain water pumps and latrines, among other seemingly urgent
developmental tasks.
What
could have caused such a dreary situation?
Individual write-ups on each of the villages yield significant points
which can be reflected on and converted into corrective approaches.
1.
In Village No. 3, residents singled out electricity as their
most needed facility. Around 80% of
families have water-sealed tridets, and almost 100% have their own wells for
drinking water. There is very low
incidence of malaria, maternal mortality, and diarrhea diseases.
2.
On their own, the people of Village No. 6 built a beautiful
village temple to build a one-ton bridge.
They are raising funds for a village electrification scheme.
No
external agent motivated them to undertake these activities. The Village Development Committee set up by
the government is / ”to mere post office relaying district / reduced
information to the villagers.”
3.
The population of Village No. 2 is 100% Muslim. Community
activities center around the mosque and the Islamic School. Malaria and gastro-intestinal disease are
common due to unprotected water supply and poor sanitary conditions. Although immunization was arranged in the
mosque, very few came. Village
leadership is a monopoly of twelve rich families. There is no functioning community organization in the village.
4.
The people of Ban Tu-Rong have food to eat and cash to
spend. The village has
electricity. Everybody owns a piece of
land. Only three families have
latrines. Most of the families use
water from shallow wells. Except for
two, all the wells are unprotected.
Despite poor environmental conditions, the people are generally
healthy. The people consider
participation as social obligation to contribute labor, materials, and money
for community project. Village
leadership has rested upon a single family for the last 50 years. Whatever the Kamnan or Leadman says is
followed.
5.
The people of Ban Tong Phra are 100% Buddhists. Participation in community organizations
follow kinship patterns. The village
leadman chooses the member of each organization. Water sources are open dug-out wells. The residents defecate in the surrounding bushes. These practices appear to have no effect on
the health status of the people.
6.
Ban Kuan Heed has semi-official health practitioners: rambon
doctor, traditional birth attendant, traditional healer, and local injectionist. They are linked to the health center. Very few latrines and wells are
sanitary. The community has identified
potable water supply as its major need.
Each
village is unique. No two villages are
alike in their capability to respond to a change process. It is worthwhile to remember this fact when
planning for the application of the community participation strategy for rural
water supply and sanitation.
Whether it is water, latrine use,
agrarian reform, health-related services, etc. nothing happens in a
vacuum: it is filtered thru the
congruence of factors which either facilitate or impede the people’s acceptance
of change and their commitment to be
responsible for it.
PART III: FOCUS ON
CONSTRAINTS
The theme which runs thru this paper
is that catalyzing popular participation in people-based programs such as rural
water supply and sanitation is an arduous process. The few paragraphs devoted to this task in the various Country
Reports document the assertion. In a
sense, they also reflect the current consciousness on the various ramifications
of the experience in operationalizing
the community participation strategy.
Vietnam notes in its report
that coordination among various ministries involved in water is “poor”. It also “complex and difficult
problem”. It enumerates the following
factors which can influence community participation:
(a) confidence
in the regime which “must be won by some specific, concrete action; (b) presence of a “promotive factor” within the community itself; and (c)
involvement of a “state organization, working throughout the territory,
together with the local public authorities, according to a strategy and tactics
which apply country-wide”.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has identified “lack of community
participation as one of the constraints by government departments implementing
the Water and Sanitation Program. It
has established local bodies which will be used by all departments to motivate
the community in the various phases of program implementation.
Bangladesh observes that “behavioral changes are necessary in
recipients, who are sometimes resistant to them”.
The Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma lists the
following constraints: (a) lack of information to the communities regarding the
objectives of the project; and (b) lack of assistance to the village to assess
their responsibilities and help organize and mange more effectively the
financing, operation, and maintenance of the system.
Indonesia declares that community participation is the
professes policy of the Government with regards to social development
projects. It says with regards to rural
water supply, the role of communities has not been defined. The projects are fully financed by the
government and donor agencies.
Community participation is limited to providing labor (paid or, in more
cases, free) for the construction of
the ferrocement rain-collection tanks and the installation of handpumps. Consequently, water supply projects do not
generate “enough interest or felt need in the community”.
The Philippines reports that “priority in project development
assistance will be given to communities that express their interest and
readiness to form a water supply association and discharge the responsibility
of it”. It observes that “communities with strong competent
institutions are more able to actively participate in developing water supply
projects”.
The workshop will tackle the vital task of fleshing these observations
will more details so as to view them better as operational constraints.
FOOTNOTES
1. Paper
presented at the UNICEF Regional Workshop on People, Water Supply, Sanitation
on January 12-20, 1981, at Ubel Ratchthance, Thailand.
2. The author
is a resource person on community participation to this workshop.
3. Seah Chee
Meow, “People’s Participation at the Local Level in Singapore,” in PEOPLE’S
PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, Arnald Wehmboerner, ed., Bangkok:
Friendrich-Ebert-Stiftung,
March 1978.
4. A.Z.M.
Obaidullah Khan, “Participatory Development: The Need for Structural
Reform and People’s
Organization,” ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH FOCUS ON
LOCAL-LEVEL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Ram C. Malhotra and Vinyu
Vinchit-Vadakan, eds., Bangkok: UNAPDI,
April 1979.
5. Ram P.
Yadav, “ People’s Participation: Focus
on Mobilization of the Rural Poor, in ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT
WITH FOCUS ON LOCAL-LEVEL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Ram C. Malhotra and Vinyu
Vichit-Vadakan, eds., Bangkok: UNAPDI, April 1979.
6. Ram P.
Yadav, “An Alternative Strategy for Self-Sustaining Development with Focus on
Participation by the Poor at the Local Level,”
in ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH FOCUS ON LOCAL-LEVEL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Ram C. Malhotra and Vinyu Vichit-Vadakan, eds.,
Bangkok: UNAPDI, April 1979.
7. Anisur
Rahman, “A Methodology for Participatory Research,” in ASSIGNMENT CHILDERN,
Geneva: UNICEF, January- March 1978.
8. Sector
Policy Paper, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, World Bank, February 1975.
9. Hans A.H.
Dall, Introduction, Volume 1: the
Proceedings of the Asian Regional Workshop, in PEOPLE’S PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT, People’s Action for Development/ Indian FFHC Society and Action
for Development – FAO, Rome: September 1973.
10. Mohan Ram,
“People’s Participation in Development,” an approach paper, in PEOPLE’S
PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT, People’s Action for Development/ Indian FFHC
Society and Action for Development – FAO, Rome: September 1973.
11. Ibid.
12. Gelia
Castillo, “Various Governments’ Policies on Rural Development, “ in INTEGRATED
APPROACH TO LOCAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT, Marilyn Campbell, ed., Canada: IDRC, 1975.
13. Ibid.
14. Sook Bang,
“Integrated Approaches for Development Programs: Dangers and Prospects,” Ibid.
15. Nandasena Ratnapala, “The Sarvodaya Movement:
Self-Help Rural Development in Sri Lanka,” Connecticut, USA:
ICED, 1978
16. Pratima Kale and Philip H. Combs, “Social
Work and Research Center: An Integrated Team Approach in India,” Connecticut,
USA: ICED, 1978.
17. Manzoor Ahmed, “The Savar Project: Meeting
the Rural Health Crisis in Bangladesh,” Connecticut, USA: ICED, 1977.
18. Manzoor
Ahmed, BRAC: Building Human
Infrastructures to Serve the Rural Poor,”
Connecticut, USA: ICED, 1977.
19. Pratima
Kale and Philip H. Combs. Ibid.
20. M.A. Zaman,
“Some Aspects of Integrated Rural Development”
in INTER-REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT, Rome: FAO, 1977.
21. Milton J.
Esman, “New Directions in Rural Development”
the Changing Role of Officials,” Prepared for Policy Seminar on Strategies
of Training in Support of Integrated Rural Development, October 1977.
22. Local-level
Planning for Integrated Rural Development, Bangkok: ESCAP, 1978.
23. Pratima
Kale and Philip H. Combs. Ibid.
24. Ensminger,
D.Quoted in FAO Symposium in Integrated Rural Development. 1978.
25. C.
Supulveda and N. Mehta, Community and Health: An Inquiry Into Primary Health
Care in Asia, Bang kok: UNAPDI/ UNICEF, 1980.