One particular example of this kind of bottom-up approach to a development problem can come from PHAST, which is an abbreviation for Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation. The approach is clearly defined in the WSSCC 2009 Annual Report:
The approach is a participatory learning methodology that seeks to help communities improve hygiene behaviours, reduce diarrhoeal disease and encourage effective community management of water and sanitation services.This is an approach which has an objective to empower small-scale, local communities to improve their hygiene behaviours by promoting community-management of both water and sanitation services. The goal is to improve the general health of the targeted populations by reducing and eventually preventing the spread of diarrhoeal diseases. PHAST encourages community learning and planning through the application of a seven step process (Lienert, 2011), introduced from the World Health Organisation (1998) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Seven steps to community planning for the prevention of diarrhoeal disease. Source: WHO (1998)
The seven-step process is applicable to a wide-range of communities which are attempting to enhance their overall hygiene behaviours and sanitation facilities. There are many advantages to such a participatory approach, including the fact community members can: gain the ability and confidence to undertake their own projects, meaning their voices are heard; have an effective involvement in the workings of the community through monitoring and evaluating the implemented services; and be trained in participatory techniques to become a lasting asset to the community.
Nevertheless, the development of such a process can be quite burdensome. There are some standout disadvantages in regard to the PHAST initiative, including the fact: training requires a vast number of man-hours to conduct in-depth training of community members, which also has implications on the budget; training does not mean community members will end up being equipped with the appropriate skills to assist community projects; the initiative requires a well-structured management structure; and it is relatively time-intensive.
All-in-all, participatory approaches to development provide a valuable alternative to “top-down” initiatives. The PHAST approach, as an in-depth example, offers many advantages compared to market-based or "top-down" approaches.
Do you think there is a high possibility this PHAST approach (or a similar participatory approach) could fail on the basis of community disagreement? James
ReplyDeleteHello James,
DeleteThanks for your question. I do think so, but only to an extent. On the one hand, disagreement can cause friction within the community, which can therefore increase the possibility of delaying or even preventing projects. For instance, research on the Njom community water supply in Cameroon by UCL’s Dr. Ben Page shows that some members of the community wanted to spend their development fund money on bribing the parliamentarian in order to get him to bring electricity to the village, while others wanted to spend the money on building a new church as they had just been converted to a new branch of Christianity.
On the other hand, if participatory based approaches to development are governed and manage properly and effectively, with the right resources, they ought to be successful. With specific reference to the PHAST approach identified above, there is an extensive planning stage that identifies all the problems and helps schemes pick the right development options. This should eliminate any disagreement in the process. Furthermore, organisations which manage the participatory approaches often adopt specific techniques to try and ensure the projects are successful. For instance, community-based participatory projects typically have a better success rate if the community has contributed to (partially) financing the scheme. This is because there is a sense of ownership, and it is therefore more likely to be seen as a community project.
Robert
Hi Rob
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see that bottom up actions, famously opposed to a one method fits all approach, have an outlined framework such as PHAST to go by. I was wondering how effective the PHAST approach has been in reality?
Hi Ana,
DeleteI'm glad you have raised this, as it was not something I had given any attention. It does seem strange to have a fixed framework for a bottom-up and participatory approach to development, but, in the case of PHAST, I believe it to be not as strict as one might expect from a top-down framework.
Like with any developmental agenda, there were things that could be improved upon in regard to: behaviour, requirements, start-up costs, sustainability, and expansion. However, due to the altruistic nature of actors involved, the PHAST initiative did show many signs of success.
In one rural community in Zimbabwe, twenty-four latrines which had been left unfinished were completed and eighteen wells were upgraded. In a peri-urban community in Uganda, the community built latrines, organised the maintenance of neglected drains, and collected tariffs to pay for maintenance workers. And in a school in Botswana, after community meetings, teachers and parents decided to create a fund to buy soap dispensers and keep them filled with soap.
Robert
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/envsan/EOS96-11a.pdf