Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Community involvement, engagement and management? Rhetoric and reality...

348

Published on

Community involvement, engagement and management? Presentation by Dr Richard Franceys, Cranfield University for the India Community Water Plus Project

Community involvement, engagement and management? Presentation by Dr Richard Franceys, Cranfield University for the India Community Water Plus Project

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
348
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Community Involvement, Engagement and Management? Rhetoric and Reality …… Dr Richard Franceys International Research Coordinator Cranfield University, UK
  • 2. The overall research question, to be answered through the ’18’ Case Studies is: What type, extent and style of supporting organisations are required to ensure sustainable community managed water service delivery relative to varying technical modes of supply? Specific research sub-questions are: • What are the current modalities of successful community management and how do they differ in their degrees of effectiveness? • What supporting or partnering organisations are in place to ensure sustainable water service delivery relative to alternative modes of supply? • What are the indicative costs of effective support organisations? • Can particular trajectories of professionalising and strengthening the support to rural water be identified?
  • 3. • Global interest in this research – Not only in India • Because India is ahead on the water supply development trajectory … • And has invested much in CM • But wondering about what level of CM can be both effective and efficient? • DRA and CM where the contractor pays the 5%? • Have we asked too much of CM?
  • 4. • Community involvement spectrum • Partnering entity spectrum • Technical spectrum
  • 5. • Local government ‘failure’ ? • ... funding has been declining and many completed systems are in disrepair or have been abandoned. This state of affairs has led many experts to question whether the emphasis on centrally managed schemes needs to be re-evaluated and a new approach taken to the provision of rural water supply as a public service. • Community management has been proposed as one possible alternative strategy in view of the increasing evidence that systems are more sustainable when designed, established and operated by the community. • Externally imposed solutions do little to build capacity, increase empowerment, or create support structures that represent the interests of users willing to maintain these RWSS systems on a long-term basis. • Community Management of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services , McCommon, Warner and Yohalem, WASH Technical Report 67, UNDP-World Bank, 1990
  • 6. • By the mid-1980s most development organizations formally supported the idea of community participation, although few included the concept in their programs and fewer still could claim any success in applying it. • World Bank definition: • "an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects rather than merely receive a share of project benefits" (Paul, 1986).
  • 7. The objectives of community participation in the context of development programs may include: • a) sharing project costs (beneficiaries contribute money or labor) • b) increasing project efficiency (beneficiaries assist in project planning and implementation) • c) increasing project effectiveness (beneficiaries have a say in project design and implementation) • d) building beneficiary capacity (beneficiaries share in management tasks or operational responsibilities) • e) increasing community empowerment (beneficiaries share power and increase their political awareness and influence over developmental outcomes) • Community Management of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services , McCommon, Warner and Yohalem, World Bank, 1990
  • 8. • Community management failure? • We have moved from supply-driven centralised government programming to more demand-driven approaches, based on the philosophy of community participation with community-based management . . . • the reality behind these aggregated figures is often quite different: – communities unable to cope with management of their schemes, – poor maintenance, lack of financing, breakdowns, poor water quality, – lack of support and, ultimately, an unreliable and disrupted supply of water to households. • Commonly cited figures from a range of countries put nonfunctionality at somewhere between 30-40% of all systems at any one time. Lessons for Rural Water Supply: Moving towards a Service Delivery Approach, Lockwood, H. and Smits, S. 2011
  • 9. LEVELS OF COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT Management Cash payments capacity (from community) Contributions in kind) from community External support (from agency) Level Responsibility Authority Control V Full community responsibility Full community authority Full community control High All O&M and most capital costs All noncash needs Access to loans and grants IV Community; external support Community; external support Community; external support Sufficient All O&M and some capital costs Most non-cash needs; strong Some capital costs III Joint: community responsible for O&M Joint; collaborative role for community & agency Joint; strong community participation and Moderate All O&M and minimal Self-help labor; local Most capital costs capital costs materials; active committee support II External agency; community External agency; External agency; limited formal role External agency; External agency; moderate External agency; Limited Some O&M I Insufficient None to limited little community responsibility informal community consultations limited community participation Some self-help labor; All capital and local materials most O&M costs None to limited Full external support
  • 10. Community Management spectrum
  • 11. Involve Consult Inform Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy (Education) Influence Manipulation Robinson, 2003 Arnstein, 1969 Degree of citizen power Partner Supporting independent community initiatives Acting together Bargaining Deciding together Degree of tokenism Delegated Power Nonparticipation Empower Citizen Control Consultation Consultative Information Authoritative Wilcox, 1994 Vanderwal, 1999
  • 12. People participate by taking initiatives independently Self mobilisation of external institutions to change systems. Such self-initiated mobilisation and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. Interactive participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institut It tends to involve inter-disc. methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining Functional participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which c Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rat These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may bec Participation for material incentives People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash, or other materi It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging a Participation by consultation People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to views. These external professionals define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision making, and the pro Participation in information giving People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surve People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the researc Passive participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without listeni The information being shared belongs only to external professionals. What do we mean by participation?' Tear Fund based on Pretty (1994) adapted from Adnan et al (1992)
  • 13. How to account for ‘non-scaleable’ cases of ‘charismatic leadership of communities eg. Gangadellipalli, Andhra Pradesh
  • 14. Community Partnering (support) spectrum PartnershipContinuum.pdf
  • 15. PARTNERING • LEVEL 3 interactions Party A and Party B will typically have shared aspirations and a strong desire to work as equal partners toward a goal or set of goals that both wish to achieve but cannot achieve alone. These engagements are usually long-term in nature and require substantial commitments (and sometimes sacrifices) to be made by each party. We consider this to be “Alliance.” • LEVEL 2 interactions are characterized by greater collaboration between the parties. In this case, both Party A and Party B are willing to share ideas in the expectation that by doing so each will benefit in some way. We have labeled this level of engagement as “Collaboration.” • LEVEL 1 interactions are tactical in nature. In a two-party interaction, for example, Party A may have something of value to Party B and is willing to provide it to Party B in return for some other form of consideration (tangible or otherwise). We have labeled this level of engagement as “Transaction.”
  • 16. www.servq.co.uk/systems-andtools/partnership-continuum/
  • 17. Technical supply spectrum • Hand-dug well with/without handpump • Borehole with handpump • Borehole with motorised pump • Gravity flow piped system • Powered small piped system (SVS) • Rural distribution from bulk supply • Powered medium piped system (MVS) • Package Reverse Osmosis Plants
  • 18. Danger of expecting too much in • Limited community capacity situations • Limited governance capacity situations • Relatively sophisticated technical situations • What is a ‘good enough’ level of community management?
  • 19. Community Water Plus ?
  • 20. ‘the coevolution of economic institutions, social developments and technological innovation’ (Kay, 2004) Richard Franceys, DFID Water Forum, February 2006
  • 21. • Community Management – England and Wales • Water service providers (private companies) have to report at public CCWater meeting twice a year • Customer Challenge Groups have been established and have to approve private company business plans (billions of dollars) for the coming Price Review to agree prices for 2015-202
  • 22. Appropriate customer involvement mechanisms ‘Weaker’ knowledge related to everyday experience 'Stronger' knowledge related to exposure to regulatory process and water issues Involving large numbers of customers ('non-deliberative') Questionnaire surveys Quantitative tool + standardised - sampling may information; conceal issues time series and pertaining to targeting certain groups (location, only income groups) possible Consumer forum Large, open meetings to air major issues + interactive (moderately), good for publicity - agenda likely to be determined by influential/confid ent speakers; can be superficial Involving small samples of customers ('deliberative') Focus groups Qualitative tool + facilitates detailed - costly and understanding of time-consumer; customer limited reliability perceptions with ('snapshot' immediate overview) feedback/moderation Customer committees Proactive complaints' auditors and informed questioners of providers + direct involvement unrepresentative in complaints members; auditing & needing adjudication; resources and educator role training; danger of system capture
  • 23. Delft Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland Civil Society Involvement
  • 24. James, A.J., 2011. India: Lessons for Rural Water Supply; Assessing progress towards sustainable service delivery.
  • 25. • What added value from Community Water plus ? • Quantifying in resource terms – financial and quantity/quality person hours – what it takes to deliver and sustain ‘good enough’ community involvement and the water services they can deliver • Partnering does not stop with completion of new systems • Understanding what this means for the ‘hard to reach’ final 15% whilst sustaining the 85% as they continue the transition to ‘conventional’ water supply…. • Sharing this knowledge with low-income countries (consultant & academic opportunities) who are significantly behind on the transition curve …..
  • 26. • A key output from this research will be a categorisation of different community-management and sustainable services partnering models along with trajectories for professionalization, including costing, for the sustainable delivery of the range of alternative technologies. • We see this categorisation giving us the confidence to plan in any forthcoming project proposals that ‘ – rural water supply through handpumps in type ‘X’ socio-economic context’ – requires a ‘level 2’ support system – with ‘Band A’ capital maintenance budgetary support and – zero potential cost recovery – whereas a ‘single village piped scheme’ in a ‘Y’ setting – requires ‘level 4’ support system with – ‘Band C’ budgetary support but – ‘level IV’ potential for cost recovery.
  • 27. The overall research question, to be answered through the ’18’ Case Studies is: What type, extent and style of supporting organisations are required to ensure sustainable community managed water service delivery relative to varying technical modes of supply? Specific research sub-questions are: • What are the current modalities of successful community management and how do they differ in their degrees of effectiveness? • What supporting or partnering organisations are in place to ensure sustainable water service delivery relative to alternative modes of supply? • What are the indicative costs of effective support organisations? • Can particular trajectories of professionalising and strengthening the support to rural water be identified?
  • 28. • Selecting the most useful cases to study ….
  • 29. • • • • • • • • Mr. Sujoy Mojumdar, Director (RWS) Dr. James A.J., (Viju), Independent Consultant Dr. Manish Kumar , WSP-SA Mr. Arumugam Kalimuthu, Country Director, Water for People Mr. Hemant Kumar Joshi, CCDU, Rajasthan Mr. R. P. Kulkarni, Chief Engineer, K RW S & S Mr. Ravi Narayan, Advisor to Arghyam Mr. Joe Medith, Gramvikas
  • 30. Research Team • Dr Kurian Baby, IRC, Co-Director Stakeholder, Engagement and Communications • • • • • Prof Srinivas Chary, ASCI, Co-Director Academic Research Dr Mekala Snehalatha, National Research Coordinator Dr Richard Franceys, International Research Coordinator Stef Smits, IRC, The Netherlands CEC, Chennai, MS Vaidyanathan, Dr Rema Saraswathy, Dr Gladston Xavier, • MNIT, Jaipur, Dr Urmila Brighu • ASCI, Hyderabad, Ms Shaili; Cranfield, Paul Hutchings
  • 31. Requested support from Steering Committee • Provide overall advice for effective implementation of action research • Guidance on methodology and tools • Advice on choice of case studies • Review of outputs • Advocacy support- national and international
  • 32. • Key activities • Debriefing – steering committee – Group email • Case study – ver 0 draft • Common understanding on criteria, methodology and tools • Feb meeting – deliverables – Develop a work plan • • • • • Advocacy and communication Preparing for tomorrow Debriefing – stakeholder consultation Contracts and management issues Admin arrangements – if any.
  • 33. • Key messages – Steering Committee – Clear methodology with flexibility – Water quality is an important criteria – Service delivery improvement for disadvantaged communities is a criteria for defining success – Measuring “plus” – resource implications – is the key differentiator of this research – Richard – Collecting secondary information – Success stories – documents and no documents – in lagging states should be considered – Water security issues + O & M – are important – Engagement with state level agencies / district level agencies to capture “plus”
  • 34. • Defining Success – Service levels – quantity (40-55 lpcd), quality (BIS – 10500) , access, reliability, citizen satisfaction - as per the design criteria / parameters – scale / replicability – Equity – and inclusion (caste, income, vulnerable groups if any) – Sustainability – time, cost recovery – Water resources – Degree of empowerment – Support by the Government

×