Remote sensing technology and community participation

In a previous post, I mentioned how communities can be empowered by providing them with relevant information to become active decision makers in water supply management.

One might think about which kind of information would be more relevant for them.
As regards this question, a recent article on FAO news section reports the decision of the Dutch government to enhance their cooperation with the UN agency by investing $7 million in remote sensing technology to monitor and improve water use for agriculture in Near East and Africa.

'Example of an interpreted satellite image: Blue showing areas with good water-to-yield ratios, yellow showing areas with poor-water-to-yield ratios'

Credits: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/346377/icode/

Thus, this led me to think about the possible usefulness of giving communities access to data collected with this system. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the four-year program is to update a data portal of interpreted real-time remote sensing images -inclusive of data of inputs, such as rainfall and crop transpiration. Thus, experts can quickly identify the causes of low land productivity.

What seems interesting about this project is the possibility to share satellite images of the state of cropped areas to farmers, in order to show the success of good practices in scientific terms and stimulate the discussion about more productive techniques on the basis of the specific characteristics of land. The aim is that of improving water productivity in local agriculture. In this way, environmental sustainability, economic efficiency and community participation -three key elements of IWRM- would be improved. Still, I think that the most appropriate methods to give access to these data and discuss about them have to be explored.

Another aspect worth noting is that images in the database are already 'interpreted'. This can remedy the well-known 'lack of capacity and resources' of governments to 'analyze and work' with data resulting from remote sensing techniques (World Grain). But it does not seem clear how this interpretation will be conducted.

Finally, one might think about the possibility to link the spatial scales of analysis (continental level over the whole of Africa and Near East, country and river basin level and, irrigation scheme level) to decision-making levels. Thus, how it can be ensured that the voices of communities living in the river basin can access to the lower spatial scale data and they -and not only authorities at higher levels- are considered relevant actors in IRBM.

Sources:
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/346377/icode/
http://www.un-spider.org/news-and-events/news/fao-develop-database-support-water-scarce-countries
http://www.world-grain.com/articles/news_home/World_Grain_News/2015/08/Database_to_help_water_scarce.aspx?ID=%7B7DB8D43E-0348-4B13-A0B1-E6F9DE5241F7%7D&cck=1

Community management or community participation?

This week's blog will be about some reflections on two articles focusing on community participation in water supply management.

Both Carter and Howsam (1999) and Harvey and Reed, (2006) report some problems in community water supply and sanitation programs, identified by the authors as reasons of unsustainability.
I tried to reorganise them in two groups:

• Problems due to dissaffection with water supply projects, due to absence of participation of communities at different levels -mainly in decision-making and information sharing;

This takes the form of lack of sense of responsibility for the water supply facilities; doubts about the desiderability of new facilities; absence of trust in the water committee; abandonment of roles in the committee.

• Problems due to lack of institutional support to communities;

The authors report that communities lacking financial and technical resources,can hardly maintain or replace facilities without long-term support from governments and NGOs.

So, what are the possible strategies to cope with these problems?

• As regards the first set of problems, Harvey and Reed suggest that a necessary condition for sustainability is not community management, but community participation, as groups expressing a high sense of ownership still present low levels of sustainability. They consider community management one aspect of participation and express the idea that sometimes the latter does not even imply a real involvement of locals when it is only the result of governments' decision to get rid of their operation and maintenance responsibilities. 

Therefore, a good strategy might seem that of providing communities with information about all the possible systems of management, financing and maintenance in order to enable them to decide among various options with a sufficient level of knowledge. 

For example:

1) management: what are the 'boundaries' of the community? do locals prefer to organise themselves in smaller groups, based on households? which techniques should be used? is 'indigenous knowledge' considered? -in this last case, it seems important to highlight that the preliminary information exchange is not only unidirectional (from external agencies/experts to communities), but also bidirectional (form communities to external agencies/experts);
2) financing: how do member contribute? are there alternative types of contributions for low income families (e.g. providing labour force)?;
3) and maintenance: is the community responsible for maintenance? if so, how are roles assigned and how are members replaced? if not, can private sector take this responsibility?;
It can be argued that communities which choose the desired water management scheme, with a specific division of roles according to the every community member's willingness, are less likely to distrust the committee or abandon their roles.
Moreover, it seems that another important aspect of community participation is receiving correct information about the effects of water supply projects; so that institutions proposing these programs can maintain their credibility and there are less probabilities that locals do not support future projects taking into account that benefits promised failed to materialise.

• The second aspect, addressing the second group of problems, which might be taken into account is a greater institutional financial and technical support.

This can take various form, including training schemes to enable communities to maintain their facilities -in case they decide that this duty is a responsibility of the community.

In conclusion, these papers seem to reinforce the idea that what is really crucial is community empowerment: enabling communities to become active actors of the decision making process in possession of all revevant information.


Sources:

Carter, R. Tyrell, S. and P. Howsam (1999) ‘Impact and sustainability of community water supply and sanitation programmes in developing countries’ Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 13(4), pp. 292–296

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.1999.tb01050.x

Harvey, P. A., & Reed, R. A. (2007). Community-managed water supplies in Africa: sustainable or dispensable?. Community Development Journal, 42(3), 365-378.

Community involvement in financing and maintaining water facilities

In this week's post I will just attempt to highlight two interesting points of  a research on water supply services in Rwanda and Uganda by Golooba-Mutebi.

Who pays for water facilities and how?
The research reports difficulty in collecting money in Ugandian local communities to finance the construction of water sources. The solution has been asking for other types of contribution, such as materials, free labour force, accommodation and food for technicians.
It might be seen as a more feasible strategy to ensure financial sustainability of water facilities, by taking into consideration the real resources which communities can offer in exchange.
However, the question whether communities (instead of state administrations) should be responsible for financing water sources remains open. It might be argued that this solution can increase the communities' sense of ownership of facilities, a crucial issue I have mentioned in my last post.

Who maintains water facilities?
Golooba-Mutebi highlights the relation between lack enforcement mechanisms in water facilities maintenance operated by local communities and their ineffective management.
The author suggests that assigning a definite role to one individual, rather than transferring maintenance responsibilities to the whole community, might be more distant from the theoretical principle of public participation, but has proven to be more effective.
Therefore, a cause for reflection could be thinking if participation in water facilities maintenance implies the indistinct attribution of responsibilities to the community, or if it entails the involvement of locals in finding agreed solutions on how to manage them (including the choice of who is responsible for maintenance).

I hope to further explore these themes in the next posts.
Thanks again for reading this last post, and feel free to correct and comment it!



References:

Golooba-Mutebi F. (2012). ‘In search of the right formula: public, private and community-driven provision of safe water in Rwanda and Uganda’, Public Administration and Development 32 (4-5): 430–443.

Community participation in Tanzania

After a quick glance at a Chinese case, I have moved back to public participation in Africa, in particular to the Tanzanian case studies reported in a paper by Dungumaro and Madulu (2003),

The authors highlight the importance of community participation in water resources management not only from an ethical perspective (ensuring democracy and equity), but also for practical purposes.

As a matter of fact, they claim that development projects which lack public involvement can end up in failure and lead to conflicts between stakeholders. 

A reported example of failure is the Msanzi Irrigation Project, planned and implemented by Rukwa Development Project (RUDEP), a development programme of the Norwegian government, with an estimated value of about 70 million US dollar (2009). According to the authors, the local government stopped funding the irrigation scheme, as it was designed without any consideration of the indigenous techniques used for the construction of the previous Msanzi Irrigation Scheme, which had been destroyed by a series of floods.
In a Review Mission of February 1987 (quoted in a study of the RUDEP impact), it is only mentioned that central government funds were diverted to other sectors; but causes are not specified. In the study there is also a reference to the lacking 'sense of 'ownership and responsibility for the gift [emphasis added] they [the local communities] had received', without questioning the reasons of it.
However, the authors of the study also mention a training progma to promote village level management.

A case of conflicts between stakeholders is the one in the Pangani basin, in which there have been contentions for water use in farming and irrigation, pasture, hydro-power and domestic purposes.
The Pagani Falls Development project tried to solve this conflicts by instituting the Pangani Basin Water Office, in charge of 'allocating, managing, monitoring and controlling water use in Pangani Basin' (2007), One of the reported strengths of the Office is its capability of representing and defending upstream and downstream stakeholders interests.
Therefore, it seems that public participation could be analysed as an important factor for development programs success.
Dungumaro and Madulu list as channels for community involvement: public hearings, notice and comment procedures and  institution of advisory committees.

But what this channels should be used for? What should be content of public participation?
They highlight the importance of enabling communities to identify and report their specific needs, interests and water use problems. An important role is played by programs aimed at providing locals with negotiation skills, as being able to communicate opinions is crucial for communities.

In the paper there is also a great emphasis on the need to consider indigenous knowledge (ID), defined by the World Bank as the local system of 'skills, experiences and insights of people, applied to maintain or improve their livelihood'. As local communities have a deep knowledge of the specific features of their environment, it is suggested that indigenous knowledge is taken into account as a database for 'practical, relevant, achievable and acceptable solutions [emphasis added] to water related problems'.
Also the UN Agenda 21 deals with the relevance of the 'improvement of indigenous technologies 'to fully utilize limited water resources and to safeguard those resources against pollution' (1992).

Indigenous knowledge encompasses not only practical solutions, but also legal and cultural instruments for water resources protection.
By way of example, the authors refer to bye-laws aimed at limiting human activities near sources of drinking water effected in the rural areas of Mwanza Region. An interesting case is the Integrated Water Resources Management Project in the Ghanaian Volta region: the catchment inclusive of its vegetation was declared sacred to prevent cultural activities and waste accumulation in the area. This 'cultural' (rather than 'legal') prohibition proved to be effective for water quality maintenance.

Different types of training and educational programs are also considered of great importance. Besides the above mentioned projects to reinforce communicative and negotiating skills, Dungumaro and Madulu mention educational activities to enhance the understanding of correlation between human behaviour and waterborne diseases in the Tonga water resource management project (South Africa) and training programs to provide local communities with skills to properly maintain irrigation infrastructures.

All the activities aimed at increasing public participation seem to be relevant in raising the sense of responsibility and ownership of water management schemes and, thus, in guaranteeing the effectiveness of projects.
The very central idea of community involvement appears to be community empowerment: that is, not (or not only) transferring skills and technologies from experts to locals, but empowering communities with capacity to communicate their views to experts, negotiate with them and other stakeholders and implement their own solutions.




Sources:

Dungumaro, E.W. and Maduly, N.F. 2003. Public participation in integrated water resources management: the case of Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28, 1009-1014.

Alf Morten Jerve and E.J.K. Ntemi 2009. Rukwa Ruka. The attempt of a foreign donor to uplift a neglected region: A study of the impact of Norwegian aid to Rukwa Region, Tanzania. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI Report R 2009: 12) 98 p.

Kimwaga, R. J., and S. Nkandi 2007. Evaluation of the Suitability of Pangani Falls Redevelopment 

(Hydro Power) Project in Pangani River Basin, Tanzania: An IWRM Approach.

United Nations (UN) 1992. Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio - Chapter 18 'Protection of the Quality and Supply of Freshwater Resources'. United Nations, New York, USA.

http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/basic.htm

Public participation: a case study from China

In this new post, I will try to comment a paper not focused on an African region, but interesting in its contents.

Liu Jingling, Luan Yun, Su Liya, Cao Zhiguo, Zeng Baoqiang (2010) conducted a research about public participation in the upper and middle reaches of Haihe river basin.

They have divided the area in three parts: Anyang and Baoding city as urban modules, Qingfeng and Laishui county as rural modules, Boai and Anxin county as eco-sensitive area.

By measuring public participation in terms of  water environment satisfaction, willingness and actual participation rate, they have been able to rank the three areas in this order: eco-sensitive >urban>rural modules.

According to their analysis, the most relevant drivers of participation level (and, therefore, the explanatory causes of differences between the studied areas) are:

-Importance of river basin environment as income source (such as fishery and tourism) and significance of benefits derived by environmental protection.

-Past environmental incidents, which raised environmental awareness. The authors report the case of the "Dead Fish Incident" in 2000 and 2006, which brought to the attention of locals the damages of water pollution and stimulated their demand for environmental protection.

-Inadequacy of channels for public participation:

 Governmental initiatives are limited, mainly aimed at enhancing the public's environmental  awareness, but not at involving them into the WRM process, in particular in policy-making.  Specialised laws are usually not stipulated and procedures for public participation are not clearly  defined.

 In many cases media take on the government's duty to inform the river basin inhabitants, who  passively receive information.

 School education has a minor contribution in providing environmental knowledge and education.

The first two points seem to be more related to the public willingness to participate, while the third point on their actual possibility to participate granted by institutions.

The research also shows a high correlation between the environmental awareness and the willingness to participate. Citizens with a good knowledge of water pollution risks are more prone to take on water resources management responsibilities, as they are aware of water pollution damages. Therefore, it could be argued that, in this case, participation in water management, whose environmental awareness is one of the preconditions, can reinforce environmental sustainability, one of the three principles of IWRM.

At the same time, the authors highlight the lack of a 'commonly-recognized river basin value' and integration of activities between upper and middle reaches' inhabitants. Moreover, they also stress that publicity, education and participation arrangements were not adjusted to the specific features and needs of the urban and rural areas.

Therefore, it seems that the following scheme for public participation improvement in WRM could be drawn, by recapping the main results and suggestions of this paper.

Furthermore, increases in willingness to participate and in possibility to participate could also be considered mutually-reinforcing: governmental initiatives for public participation are likely to raise in response to a higher demand by well informed stakeholders, and the existence of opportunities to participate in WRM stimulates interest among locals who are informed about them.

Again, I am always grateful to anybody interested in suggesting/correcting/criticising, even more now that I am trying to develop more personal and critical recaps of my readings!

Sources:
Jingling, Liu, et al. "Public participation in water resources management of Haihe river basin, China: the analysis and evaluation of status quo." Procedia Environmental Sciences 2 (2010): 1750-1758.