Interest Overload

Jambo, mambo?

This post is a direct continuation from my previous one. 

So now the issue is not even overlooking power relationships- but finding ourselves surrounded by a multiplicity of interests, where tradeoffs will of course have to occur.  In any case, the IWRM paradigm appears to be a new form of disguised top down approach, where competent Western scientists from all disciplines ranging in the Arts and Sciences plan in Africa, albeit with different considerations and on different scales.

One of our seminars very neatly brushed upon the fact that sometimes, even if you do consult everyone, not only do we (this works for any individual and society) necessarily know what is best for us (in very crude terms) or for the environment, unless faced with precise facts (and even these are dependent on who present them to us. Some may even cry “fake news” when they believe said facts to be heavily biased…). The idea is to get them to potentially be presented in a way where individuals can shape their opinions based on available information. I strongly believe that Education, as part of National programs, as well as funded by NGos and Private donors in case of a weakened state, must be delivered across countries, from rural to urban livelihoods.

An article I read made me think about my experience in Kenya - how the community participation was working so well with Lewa, getting stakeholders concerned about the environment as well as different socio economic factors…but this was also through eduction, because the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy was funding the projects and assisting them, working hand in hand, managing the water projects as well as teaching them to use water sustainably. Lewa are implemented full time on this area of land (near Isiolo, in the Northern Territories), and use funds generated by conservation to help the communities, by notably having developed two freshwater springs, greatly supporting the locals year round for livestock and cultivation, tourism activities as well as supporting the wildlife. 

Women and men had access to clean, piped water, as well as arranged communal places for clothes washing, which also had toilets and showers. Pretty cool to see men washing their clothes, and the women telling me they had so much more free time now. 

This potentially links to another theme in participation development : the difference between participation and management. Both are intimately related to power and politics, and the sustainability (in the sense durability ) of the projects. Giving the power to localised levels may in fact be more efficient when participation is differentiated from consultancy to management. The same article I mentioned concludes that managing water is not always the top choice, had the communities been in the position to decide to transfer the power of ownership to a more centralised agent. In rural Uganda, 88% of the members in a village expressed no general objection water management by a local private sector enterprise…on the condition it did not cost the community more money.

Hence, participatory development on its own may not even be the most efficient option. In the first instance, I believe,- after reading this article - that it could be because we must differentiate Community Participation to Community Management. 

In the first instance, voices are heard and listened to, and in the second, the community takes over responsibility from the organisation which assembled the project. In fact, managing the water scheme did not always seem to be 

Making educated choices becomes relevant with community participation, considering that when consulted, some- if not many- of the participants responded based on feeling rather than rational choice. Which brings us back to the “do they know what’s best for them” thematic. Without delving into what could be interpreted as a neo-colonial narrative, it was shown after a study that decisions related to water projects in a village were mostly based on experiences and what they expected would impact them the less. Again, we find differentiated power relations which are indicative of what shapes the decision to chose/ accept x or y project.

For instance, women tended to chose new technology, or anything that appeared to be quite “high end”, based on the idea that it would work better and be more efficient, thus more liberating for the. On the other hand, men favoured simple technologies which would incur little repair costs in terms of time and money. Although option number 2 seems simpler to use and perhaps more efficient for short quantities of water, it does not necessarily enable revolutionary transformation in terms of means for water access. It is hence interesting to observe the differences between men and women’s expectations, considering the ideas they projected for the water scheme in the future, and the consequences on their ways of life. 

This is where I believe education should come in, to enable proper choice delivery and properly mobilise individual assets and capabilities. Stay tuned for my next post on education then :)

Kwaheri