WaterAid is a charity created to help people in Africa and Asia improve their water supply and sanitation. Here
in Uganda WaterAid, has been providing a variety of water systems to rural communities for over 8 years. More recently there has been a greater emphasis on integrating sanitation activities with water projects.
WaterAid has always been committed to community participation but has learnt that for true sustainability,
participation means more than just contributing local materials and labour for constructing a water supply. There has been a lot of talk about how “empowerment” of communities is needed to achieve any real sustainability.
In practical terms this means that communities must feel that they own the water system and are therefore responsible for the operation and maintenance (O&M). Furthermore,
they need to be involved in selecting and promoting improvements in sanitation and hygiene practices,
not just be told (read “educated”) what to do. This is easier said than done. Communities need external assistance
but donors have to be careful in their approach to communities to make sure their participation in the project leads to sustainable systems. This paper provides the experiences of Programme Support Unit (PSU) which was set up to help develop an approach which enhances the way communities participate in water supply and sanitation initiatives

John V. Pinfold (7220585)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

A   COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: PINFOLD3521st WEDC Conference Kampala, Uganda, 1995Participatory techniques and didactic methodsDr J.V. Pinfold, UgandaSUSTAINABILITY OF WATER AND SANITATION SYSTEMSWATERAID IS A charity created to help people in Africaand Asia improve their water supply and sanitation. Herein Uganda WaterAid, has been providing a variety ofwater systems to rural communities for over 8 years.More recently there has been a greater emphasis onintegrating sanitation activities with water projects.WaterAid has always been committed to communityparticipation but has learnt that for true sustainability,participation means more than just contributing localmaterials and labour for constructing a water supply.There has been a lot of talk about how “empowerment”of communities is needed to achieve any real sustainability.In practical terms this means that communities must feelthat they own the water system and are therefore respon-sible for the operation and maintenance (O&M). Further-more, they need to be involved in selecting and promot-ing improvements in sanitation and hygiene practices,not just be told (read “educated”) what to do. This is easiersaid than done. Communities need external assistancebut donors have to be careful in their approach to commu-nities to make sure their participation in the project leadsto sustainable systems.This paper provides the experiences of ProgrammeSupport Unit (PSU) which was set up to help develop anapproach which enhances the way communities partici-pate in water supply and sanitation initiatives.Participation techniquesOne of the roles of PSU has been to introduce “tools” thatmake community participation easier. These techniqueshave been adapted or subsequently developed from thoseemployed in PRA, PROWWESS, RRA and some are de-scribed in the following (Chambers 1989; Srinivasan,1990; Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1987).Community mappingCommunity mapping involves participants in drawing alarge map of the local area on the ground. A variety ofinformation may be included such as homes, paths,boundaries, services (e.g. health centres, schools), tradi-tional water sources, natural resources (e.g. sand, rock,gravel) and crops. Active participation and cooperationin drawing the map helps give participants confidence todiscuss and analyse community needs. It has proved veryvaluable as an entry point for introducing water andsanitation activities to communities, particularly on firstcontact.The responsibility chartThe responsibility chart divides roles and contributionsbetween donor and beneficiaries, thus specifying exactlywhat is involved in constructing the water supply andclarifying any unclear issues (usually as to who is respon-sible for repairs).The seasonal calendarThe seasonal calendar helps the community and projectstaff to plan the actual construction of the water systemtogether. First, busy months of the year for the commu-nity are marked on a large calendar drawn on the ground(e.g. harvest time). In the next step, pictures depicting thevarious construction activities and quantities of materialsneeded are placed on months of the year. Discussionsthen centre around which activities need completingbefore other can begin, the best time to attempt allottedtasks and expected completion date.Story with a gapStory with a gap uses pictures to stimulate communitydiscussion about what steps need to be taken to transforma broken water supply into a well maintained system. Itis very useful for raising awareness about the need for thecommunity to contribute funds for O&M. It also helpsthem appreciate the role of the committees in O&M andcan be useful in discussing any problems with the currentwater committees, especially management of funds col-lected.The sanitation ladderThe sanitation ladder encourages all participants to con-tribute to discussions on latrine use and common types oflatrine in their community. Pictures of different latrinesare place in order from worst to best (sanitation ladder)with the advantages and disadvantages of each discussed.Participants then select the most suitable latrine type fortheir community after discussing the constraints to chang-ing defecation practices and improving existing latrines.Hygiene behaviour (3 pile sorting)Hygiene behaviour (3 pile sorting) procedure takes par-ticipants through a process of arranging pictures of (un)hygienic behaviours into piles of common or uncommonpractices within their community. Pictures are then re-sorted according to what they feel are good or bad behav-iours. Common good and uncommon bad behaviours arethen eliminated from the pile and participants discussA   COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: PINFOLD36constraints to changing the remaining behaviours. Anaction plan is devised for promoting 2 or 3 prioritybehaviours with the least constraints.Gender analysisGender analysis is very useful in demonstrating the im-portance of women in water and sanitation projects.Again participants divides pictures of everyday choresbetween women’s work and men’s work. Discussionsthen centre around how a better balance of duties couldbe achieved e.g. what activities could men and womenshare.SchoolsChildren can play a very special and important role inpromoting improvements in sanitation and hygiene be-haviour both in their homes and at school. Materialsdeveloped specifically for schools include faecal-oralroutes where pupils draw pictures of important factors intransmitting germs from faeces to mouth. These are thenplaced on the ground and lines are drawn between themto show the direction of transmission routes. Pupils thendiscuss ways of breaking these routes emphasising, ac-tivities that can be managed by children. Versions ofsanitation ladder and hygiene behaviour (3 pile sorting)described above have also been specifically adapted forschool children. After each exercise two action plans aremade, one for children’s homes and the other for theschool itself.Feedback from the fieldTraining on participatory techniques has been conductedthrough specially designed workshop and by on the jobtraining. Those trained have, in the past, been used to amore didactic approach in dealing with communities andinclude both technical and nontechnical worker fromWaterAid, partner organizations and community mem-bers.The response from field workers using these techniqueshas been very positive. Generally, in comparison to tradi-tional didactic methods there has been better attendanceat meetings (with, tellingly, a vast reduction in the numberwalking out before the end because sessions are moreinteresting), an enormous improvement in active partici-pation and a more equitable contribution by those attend-ing (particularly from women). Just as important, espe-cially where voluntary trainers are utilised, there hasbeen a marked improvement in the confidence of trainersbecause they now receive requests from the communityfor the illustrated materials used during the sessions andto come back again.In more formal meetings, information tends to be pro-vided in one direction, from the speaker to audience.Although questioned may be raised and answered in thisforum, participants may not always understand what isbeing discussed and may not be confident to speak out.Water supplyDiscussing the community map always leads to a greaternumber of participants voicing opinions or providinginformation. For instance field workers may want toknow about traditional water sources, whether this isavailable the whole year round and what the water isused for. This sort of information is automatically crosschecked because everyone understands what is beingtalked about and can come to a consensus about anyparticular subject. People who want to manipulate mat-ters by giving false information are quickly exposed.Moreover, this technique automatically provides accu-rate baseline information.The amount of community participation in planningthe construction of water systems has improved dramati-cally. One things the water engineer quickly learns is thatthese techniques allow for better communication betweenhimself and communities. Technical maps of gravitysystems mean little to the average community memberbut once this information is transferred onto the commu-nity map then it is readily understood. Such issues assiting a well or locating positions for tap stands have achance for debate and communal agreement so that po-tential conflict can be resolved before it is too late.Engineers often complain about the difficulty in man-aging construction of a water system when the communi-ties have to provide local materials and labour. This leadsto uncertainty in planning because communities may notbe ready when the engineer wants them to be or visaversa. The seasonal calendar facilitates dialogue betweenthe community and engineer so both sides can plantogether. Usually communities are not used to planningthis type of project and the engineer can use the calendarto explain what resources are necessary before certainactivities can begin and communities can show whenthey are likely to be busy with other ventures. Thus thecommunity and engineer can negotiate the timing ofvarious activities. This has not only helped provide arealistic plan for the community but also leaves themsomething to use as a yardstick which can be constantlyreviewed according to their progress.In our experience communities usually try to get themost they can out of a project. Often opinion leaders orlocal politicians may start rumours such as the govern-ment provides water for free, with no contributions ex-pected from the community. These issues need to be airedso everyone understands and agrees who is responsiblefor what. Story with a gap and the responsibility chartmakes dialogue between beneficiaries and donors clearand open. These need to be introduced as early as possibleto avoid any misconceptions about ownership of thewater supply. Conditions can also be set before a projectbegins.SanitationPerhaps the most enthusiastic response about the partici-patory techniques has come from field workers involvedA   COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: PINFOLD37in promoting sanitation and hygiene activities. Commu-nities are actually led into a process of analysing their ownsituation and deciding what they want to do about it. Thisis a far cry from being told what to do by someone whooften feels the community is ignorant.Initially, health educators are often reluctant to acceptability of communities to select hygiene behavioursthrough this technique. In our experience, communitieshave been fairly consistent in their selection of hygienebehaviours and the most popular have been hand wash-ing particularly before cooking and after latrine or clean-ing a baby’s bottom; washing dishes immediately aftereating; and disposing children faeces in the latrine regu-larly. On the other hand, boiling drinking water is the onemost common behaviours traditionally stressed by healtheducators. Although this behaviour is usually considereda good if not uncommon practice by the community, it isalways near the bottom of their priorities because of thehigh constraints involved (e.g. time, fuel costs, effort andinconvenience). A certain amount of manipulation hasbeen made in choosing the behaviours used in this proce-dure but interestingly research suggests that these behav-iours selected by communities are likely to be moreeffective in reducing disease than advice traditionallygiven health educators (Esrey et al. 1985).Thus, this procedure not only assists the community toanalyse hygiene behaviour for themselves, but it alsogives “health educators” an important opportunity tolisten and learn from the community about constraints tobehaviour change with reasons why. A more positive rolefor health workers has been to arrange meeting for dem-onstrating facilities that assist improving the selectedbehaviours e.g. “tippy-taps” for hand washing. This sortof approach is compatible with social marketing whereprojects, in collaboration with communities, can play animportant role in helping to provide appropriate commu-nication support.Similarly the sanitation ladder leads communities toanalyse their existing situation and discuss constraints tochanging this. Consequently, improvements to facilitiesselected through this process are both appropriate andmanageable. This contrasts with the previous procedurewhere the health officers imposed their selections thatwere often neither practical nor appropriate. Once thisexercise has been completed the community is then in aposition to produce an action plan for improving latrinesand latrine usage. Gender analysis has also played animportant role in encouraging men to take a more activerole in supporting women by sharing some chores andhelping with sanitation in the home.Activities are likely to be more sustainable throughparticipation as communities feel in control of their ac-tions. Previously, some communities used to be told whatto do by the health educator who assumed a position ofbeing more knowledgable. Communities were then en-couraged to follow this advice by using competitions andgiving away prizes to the winners. What we have nowfound is that although there was some limited successwith reward method, all sanitation activities ceased oncethe prizes stopped coming.We have been very encouraged about the success ofincluding school children in our programmed They pro-vide an eager and willing resource but it is important thatany action plan focuses on activities that children are ableto manage at home (e.g. washing dishes, bathing youngerbrothers and sisters, disposing faeces into latrine). Actionplans for improving sanitation in schools is also discussedamongst teachers so that it can be combined with healthclubs or other school lessons (e.g. poster competitions inart classes). Teachers have also been keen to promotevarious facilities in school and at home (e.g. tippy-taps).The school visits have proved very successful and theyare arranged around the same time as village meetings sosimilar messages are reinforced from different sources.Perhaps the best sign of “empowerment” comes whenthe community is involved in monitoring its own efforts.For example, we have assisted in developing a commu-nity based system for monitoring the number of tippy-taps owners as an indication of hand washing behaviour.Members were initially taught how to make these fromplastic cooking oil containers after selecting hand wash-ing during the hygiene behaviour exercise. The commu-nity then used the community map to indicate homeswith tippy-taps and this in itself has led to a dramaticimprovement in both behaviour and demand for facili-ties.There is a lot more to making water supply and sanita-tion activities sustainable than just applying these partici-patory techniques. Nor can we say that these techniqueshave provided a magical solution for “empowering”communities. However, what we have found is that theparticipatory techniques are a distinct improvement onthe traditional methods previously employed. Further-more, they give a practical focus for training which makesit much easier to train people to be more participatory intheir approach to communities.ReferencesChambers R. (1983) Rural Development: Putting the lastfirst. Longman, Harlow.Scrimshaw C.M. & Hurtado E. (1987) Rapid AssessmentProcedures for Nutrition and Primary Health Care. Anthro-pological Approaches to Improving Programme Effective-ness. UCLA, University of California, LA.Srinivasan L. (1990) Tools for Community Participation - AManual for Training Trainers in Participatory Techniques.PROWWESS/UNDP, New York.Esrey S.A., Feachem R.G. & Hughes J.M. Interventions forthe control of diarrhoeal disease among young chil-dren: improving water supplies and excreta disposalfacilities. Bull WHO; 63: 757-772.

Participatory techniques and didactic methods

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Participatory_techniques_and_didactic_methods/9594194/files/17234372.pdf

Participatory techniques and didactic methods

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository