Community Involvement, Engagement and Management?

Rhetoric and Reality ……

Dr Richard FranceysInternational Research CoordinatorCranfield University, UK

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?

• 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?

• Community involvement spectrum

• Partnering entity spectrum

• Technical spectrum

• 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

• 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).

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

• 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 non-functionality

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

LEVELS OF COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT

Level Responsibility Authority ControlManagement capacity

Cash payments (from community)

Contributions in kind) from community

External support (from agency)

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 capital costs

Self-help labor; local materials; active committee support

Most capital costs

II External agency; community

External agency; limited formal role

External agency; moderate

Limited Some O&M Some self-help labor; local materials

All capital and most O&M costs

I External agency; External agency; External agency; InsufficientNone to limited

None to limited Full external support

little community responsibility

informal community consultations

limited community participation

Community Management spectrum

Citizen Control

Empower Delegated

Power

Supporting independent

community initiatives

Partner

Partnership

Deg

ree

of

citiz

en p

ower

Acting together

Bargaining

Involve

Placation Deciding together

Consult Consultation Consultation

Inform

Informing D

egre

e of

to

keni

sm

Consultative

Therapy (Education)

Influence

Manipulation

Non

-pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Information

Authoritative

Robinson, 2003

Arnstein, 1969

Wilcox, 1994

Vanderwal, 1999

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 institutions or the strengthening of existing ones.

It tends to involve inter-disc. methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes.These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or processes.

Functional participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organisation.

Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made.These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent.

Participation for material incentives People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash, or other material incentives.

It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end.

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 the light of people's response.

Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision making, and the professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views.

Participation in information giving People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches.

People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy [with the people]

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 listening to people's responses.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)

Citizen Control

Empower Delegated

Power

Supporting independent

community initiatives

Partner

Partnership Acting together

Bargaining

Involve

Placation Deciding together

Consult Consultation Consultation

Inform

Informing

Consultative

Therapy (Education)

Influence

Manipulation

Information

Authoritative

Robinson, 2003

Arnstein, 1969

Wilcox, 1994

Vanderwal, 1999

How to account for ‘non-scaleable’ cases of ‘charismatic leadership of communities eg. Gangadellipalli, Andhra Pradesh

PartnershipContinuum.pdf

Community Partnering (support) spectrum

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.”

www.servq.co.uk/systems-and-tools/partnership-continuum/

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

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?

Community Water Plus ?

Richard Franceys, DFID Water Forum, February 2006

‘the coevolution of economic institutions, social developments and technological innovation’

(Kay, 2004)

• 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

Appropriate customer involvement mechanisms

Involving large numbers of customers

('non-deliberative')

Involving small samples of customers

('deliberative')

Questionnaire surveys Quantitative tool

Focus groups Qualitative tool

‘Weaker’ knowledge related to everyday experience

+ standardised information;

time series and targeting (location,

income groups) possible

- sampling may conceal issues pertaining to

certain groups only

+ facilitates detailed understanding of

customer perceptions with

immediate feedback/moderation

- costly and time-consumer; limited reliability

('snapshot' overview)

Consumer forum Large, open meetings to air major issues

Customer committees Proactive complaints' auditors and informed questioners of providers

'Stronger' knowledge related to exposure to regulatory process and water issues

+ interactive (moderately),

good for publicity

- agenda likely to be determined

by influential/confid

ent speakers; can be

superficial

+ direct involvement in complaints

auditing & adjudication; educator role

unrepresentative members; needing

resources and training; danger

of system capture

DelftHoogheemraadschap van

Delfland

Civil Society Involvement

James, A.J., 2011. India: Lessons for Rural Water Supply; Assessing progress towardssustainable service delivery.

• 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 …..

• 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.

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?

• Selecting the most useful cases to study ….

• 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

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

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

• 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.

• 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”

• 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