RURAL DEVELOPMENT CHUPICAL SHOLLAH MANUEL

The term ‘community participation’ has recently come to play a central role in the discourse of rural development practitioners and policy makers. At the same time, people’s interpretations of the term and criticisms of other people’s interpretations have multiplied, and the intentions and results of much participation in practice have been questioned or even denounced (Booth, 2005) and Cornwall, 2004). Community participation as a methodology has become a “buzzword” and at its base has become a cornerstone for every developmental project in developing countries. According to Fung (2002), participation is the active involvement of the community, particularly the disadvantaged groups such as women, children, elderly, disabled and the poorest of the poor, in the decision making, planning, implementation, and evaluation of their own development activities The concept of community participation however, has remained a contested terrain. This paper considers participation in development programmes and assesses its relevance both in theory and practice. A definition of development and community participation will give a clear insight of the applicability of the methodology. The essay also stresses the strengths and

weaknesses of the approach with the aid of case studies from developing nations.

The concept of community participation in development became the common currency of exchange in development discourse in the 1970s and since then literature on the subject has grown dramatically. What was initially a radical critique of development has relatively quickly become a staple for development practice in the world. The incorporation of the locals in development projects has become a common phenomenon that almost every organization talks about. The concept originated after it was realized that the top-down approach to development that was in place had serious consequences in project sustainability terms. Therefore, this new approach of community participation in development has been viewed as a panacea for the sustainability of projects at community level (Dzinavatonga, 2008: 01). Community

participation is the active process by which beneficiary groups influence the direction and the execution of a project rather than merely being consulted or receiving the share of the project benefits. The beneficiary groups do this with a view of enhancing their well being in terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish (Theron, 2005:115-116).

Nghikembua (1996:2is of the opinion that community participation is about “…empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors …manage their resources, make decisions and control activities that affect their lives. Theron (2005b:117) in Wates (2000) agrees that community participation “…implies decentralization of decision making and entails selfmobilization and public control of the development process”

Nevertheless, even though the discourse on participation has been widely accepted as a workable alternative for the realization of sustainable development, the rapid proliferation of the term and its myriad applications have ignited a great deal of debate and controversy, and served as an impetus for more critical analyses of the concept in recent times. Furthermore, despite its wide acceptance as a useful approach to rural development there still are many projects that are lying idle and the blame has often been shifted to lack of funding and other factors like inflation as having been behind this setback. Concerns have thus been raised on the effectiveness of community participation in project sustainability because of the incompatibility of theory and practice.

The definition of participation is very elusive in development discourse. Given the complexity of community participation it is necessary to firstly grapple with the terms “community” and “participation” in their individual capacity to best explain the concept of community participation. Wates (2000:184) has thus defined a “community” as a group of people sharing common interests and living within a geographically defined area. With regards to ‘participation’ Wates (2000:194) defines it as the act of being involved in something. Makumbe (1996) notes that participatory development can be presented as a continuum of participation levels from passive participation, where donor or government-initiated ideas are promoted, to active participation where the recipients are involved in all stages of a development project. At this juncture, community participation involves the stakeholders of a particular development project to be involved in the problem identification, formulation, planning, implementation,

management, monitoring and evaluation, as well as finding solutions to their problems. In essence, these will create a sense of ownership of projects by local people and thus enhancing commitment among participants. It is in this light again that this essay will evaluate the

methodology against its principles with various examples from development projects carried out across the developing nations.

A comprehensive rural development project which uses participatory approaches should take into consideration the indigenous knowledge systems, existing assets, local organizations and governance structures (Mararike, 2011). A successful rural development project which used a participatory approach can be drawn from The ITDG/GTZ Chivi Food Security Project. Chivi Food Security Project was initiated in response to localized chronic food insecurity in pockets of semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe and the need to ensure that communities are self-sufficient in food supply. The project aimed at understanding the constraints to household food security and addressing these, with the objective of enhancing food security at the grassroots level. The

project was implemented within the framework of participatory research and extension approaches in which farmers organized themselves into groups of 70 to 80. The groups were involved in project identification, planning and the elaboration of action plans. The objective was to empower farmers and improve the adoption of technologies.

Farmers were exposed to soil and water conservation technologies from areas outside the project area, including infiltration pits and fanyajuu. The latter are inverted contour ridges that are designed to retain water on the land, as opposed to the conventional contours used in Zimbabwe, which draw water away from the field and are therefore inappropriate to semi-arid regions, where fields are normally dry because of the prevailing conditions. Another project component was the identification of indigenous soil and water conservation technologies for promotion within the project area. Farmers selected the practices that they preferred, and tried these. They met periodically to discuss the results and any problems encountered, make other observations and suggest possible solutions among themselves. Information was also shared during field days, evaluation meetings, field visits, competitions and, when funds permitted, look-and-learn tours. In the project, farmers adapted technologies and tested their own adaptations. Another interesting feature of the project is that farmers did not adopt whole technologies but bits and pieces of technologies (step-wise adoption of technologies) adapted from Hanyani-Mlambo (2002:08).

The project was a success both in Chivi District itself and, in terms of ripple effects, in Chimedza and Mukaro Wards of Gutu District and various areas of Zaka District. Extension agents involved in the project tend to be more professional, use participatory approaches in their work and have a different perception of extension and intervention projects. These extension agents view themselves as facilitators in the rural development process rather than providers of technical solutions. The project’s success was based mainly on its use of participatory approaches, its addressing of a pressing livelihood need and its acknowledgement of local indigenous knowledge. The project also strengthened the ways in which communities share information, as well as strengthening support from external institutions such as AGRITEX and linking that support to local demand. The project succeeded also because it strengthened various institutions, including traditional leadership. However, as with any initiative, the approach used in the Chivi project presented some constraints, which would need to be solved before it could be used in other projects (Hanyani-Mlambo, 2002). This shows that community participation as an approach is very relevant both in theory and practice in developmental projects.

On the contrary, another project was implemented in Gutu by The GTZ CARD Programme. A typical failure cited by several informants was the Coordinated Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Programme, which was initiated and funded by GTZ. This programme was implemented in Gutu District, emphasized land management and concentrated on land-use planning and utilization, crop improvement, livestock development and agro-forestry. Millions of dollars were spent on the programme but, when it was phased out in 1994, it seemed not to have had any impact on the ground. According to informants, there is still no evidence of the grazing schemes that were supposed to have been established (Hanyani-Mlambo, 2002: 16). The reasons for the project’s failure include donor pressure and the use of top-down approaches. Programme identification and implementation were both based on very top-down approaches: planning was carried out in offices on the assumption that expatriate “experts” understood the local people’s problems. In other words, the programme was affected by donor pressure and failed to involve local communities in project identification, preparation and active participation during implementation. The failure of this top-down approach still justifies the applicability of participatory approaches in development projects.

Participatory modeling is a very useful tool to ensure project ownership and sustainability (Hare et al., 2003, McGurk, 2006 adapted from IJERD, 2010). Batanai village located in the Mafungautsi region of central Zimbabwe endorsed participatory modeling in their broom grass project (Standa-Gunda et al., 2003 cited in Vanclay, 2006/2010: 122). Brooms contributed a substantial household income of Batanai community members so vlei management was crucial to ensure sustainable growth of the grass. Community engagement through learning and

participatory modeling helped them gain a new understanding of the resource and the opportunities for marketing their products. The villagers developed shared vision, formulated a model that allowed them to explore options and brainstormed to find innovative options under the facilitation of Richard Nyirenda (Haggith and Prabhu, 2003 in Vanclay, 2006/2010:123). Thus, it is crystal clear from this case study that community participation is an edible ingredient for the success of development projects and Batanai community managed to deal with the problems of common property resources.

Another case study from Vietnam justifies the relevance of community participation in development projects. Vietnam has important lessons in participation, rural development and poverty alleviation. In the recent past, the share of people living in poverty fell from 58% in 1992 to 37% in 1998 and 29% in 2002; rural poverty fell from 45.5% in 1998 to 35.6% in 2002. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Bank supported rural development projects in Vietnam that take a participatory, bottom-up approach: ‘The most important first generation project, the Participatory Resources Management Project (PRMP), was designed in 1993. The project sought to ensure equitable access to all development planning with the full participation of communities in the province of Tuyen Quang, one of the poorest in the country. The project introduced new approaches to poverty reduction, including decentralization and promotion of provincial autonomy, to promote food security, build management capacity at the community level, and introduce participatory, demand-driven approaches in institutions providing rural support services. These projects have done a good job of targeting poor people, and decentralization and participation have empowered rural people to identify, plan, implement, and evaluate interventions, giving them a greater stake in development efforts’ (Markanday, 2004). Factors explaining the country’s success in reducing rural poverty include the existence of an environment conducive to rural development, with a national policy focus on poverty

reduction and a policy of economic reforms that has delivered remarkable growth for a considerable period of time. Community participation is a necessity for project success (Thwala, 2010). The Jeppe Reef case study for rural water supply project used participator approach and succeeded in providing water for more than 90% of the Mpumalanga Province (Thwala, 2010).

On the other hand, there is also overwhelming evidence which shows that community participation is but just a continuation of the donor agency politics on poverty and underdevelopment. In sub-Saharan Africa community development has been hampered by conflict, anti-developmental politics, corruption, poor polices to augment donor agencies’ efforts and also gender disparities in communities. Handicraft Projects in Lesotho despite using the participatory methods failed dismally. One major reason is that the project had no clear stipulated goals which will ensure sustainability upon the withdrawal of the donor aid. Secondly, although women and the disabled managed to get involved still there was no provision for elf initiation (Tanga and Maliehe, 2011: 204). Despite an important role played by community participation, it is on the other hand associated with some problems. Swanepoel (1998) maintains that one of the problems relates to coordination and integration of diverse interests into the project plan and implementation. When community participation involves many diverse groups, bringing together their different needs in the design and implementation of the project can prove to be very challenging cited in Tanga and Maliehe, 2011: 206). Another dominant weakness of community participation is the community fallacy and rhetoric. Some critics argue that there is nothing like community because there is no perfect society with perfect people, whose behaviour is standard and share the same values and norms. Governments are still reluctant to decentralize fully and give decision making power to spearhead own development. In some contexts the projects are used by government officials to gain political mileage against opposition parties thus rendering any intervention to be ineffective.

Community participation has been compromised by development agents who often bring with them alternative ways of engagement in project implementation in the Sangwe communal lands in Zimbabwe (Dzinavatonga, 2008: 63). This has seen the adoption of such models of participation like ‘Participatory Development Management Model’ as put forward by facilitating organizations. These so-called models have been prescribing to the people how they should

participate in development. This impacted greatly on the participation of the locals in the implementation of projects. Thus organizations imposed their own will to communities so that their organizational aspirations can be realized. New reflections have tended to emphasize new perspectives such as sustainable livelihood framework, indigenous knowledge systems and others are inclined to African Renaissance for sustainable development (Matunhu, 2011).

In conclusion, this essay has shown the heated debate over the relevance of community participation in development projects. Evidence from various case studies has shown that participation is indeed an ingredient for sustainable development. On the other hand, some cases have illustrated that community participation is not relevant in all contexts and thus the theory is not universal and hence it does not always work. On the whole, despite overarching criticisms community development stands a great chance to be one of the methodologies which can spearhead sustainable development in developing nations. Further suggestions bring on board the sustainable livelihood approach as a panacea for development projects which take into consideration the various factors which affect development such as trends, seasonality and shocks. Despite all these developmental politics, one can still argue further that community participation still has a place in development discourses as a panacea for development interventions.

REFERENCES Booth, D. (2005) ‘Missing Links in the Politics of Development: Learning from the PRSP Experiment’. Working Paper 256. London: Overseas Development Institute. Cornwall, A. (2004) ‘Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and difference in participation in development’. Chapter 5 in Hickey and Mohan, 2004, pp. 75-91.

Dzinavatonga, N (2008) Community Participation and Project Sustainability in Rural Zimbabwe: the Case of Sangwe Communal Lands, University of Fort Hare, South Africa

Fung, A (2002) Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Hanyani-Mlambo, B. T (2002). Strengthening the pluralistic agriculture extension system: a Zimbabwean case study. Agricultural Research Centre (ARC) Zimbabwe Makumbe J. Mw, (1996), Participatory Development: The Case of Zimbabwe, UZ Publications, Harare Markanday, A. (2004) ‘Scaling Up IFADs Experience with Decentralized and Participatory Rural Development and Poverty Reduction in Vietnam’. Scaling Up Poverty Reduction: A Global Learning Process and Conference, Shanghai, May 25-27, 2004. Washington DC: World Bank.

Mararike, C. G (2011) Survival Strategies in Rural Zimbabwe: The Role of Assets, Indigenous Knowledge and Organizations. 2nd Ed. (1st Ed pub in 1999) Harare, Best Practices Books

Matunhu, J (2011). A critique of modernization and dependency theories in Africa: Critical assessment. African Journal of History and Culture Vol. 3(5), pp. 65-72, June 2011

Nghikembua S. (1996), From Drought-Relief Recipients to Community-Based Development Organizations: A case of participation in human development Namibia, Windhoek, Multi-disciplinary Research Centre, university of Namibia

Swanepoel, De Beer. F (1998) Community Development and Beyond: Issues, Structures and Procedures. Pretoria, J. l Van Schaick Publishers.

Tanga, P. T and Maliehe, L (2011) An analysis of community participation in Handicraft Projects in Lesotho, National University of Lesotho, Anthropologist, 13(3): 201-210

Thwala, W. D (2010) Community Participation is a necessity for project success: A case study for rural water supply project in Jeppes Reefs, South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol 5 (10), 970-979, 18 May 2010.

Vanclay, J.K (2006/2010) Participatory Modelling to inform Rural Development: case studies from Zimbabwe and Australia. Research Article. Lismore, Southern Cross University, International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development 1-2: 10 March 2010.

Wates N, (2000), The Community Planning Handbook, London