Lesson 8: Experiences in the Field

Principles for success at the community level
Field experiences ‐ Examples
 General Principles
General Principles for success at the community level:

‰ the political will to democratize and genuinely empower local communities; 
‰ shared visions across all institutional levels, based on careful problem 
analyses; 
‰ effective coordination of civil and professional science; 
‰ commitment to a continuous and iterative learning process
 Survey of case studies

Twenty‐three case studies, ranging from Landcare in Australia to the Aga Khan Rural 
Support Program in India. 
The features common to successful projects at this community level include:

Small micro‐catchments with boundaries rarely defined and rarely hydrological. 
Planning units that are community‐based in organization rather than as 
individuals, with the emphasis on working with people who have something 
important in common (e.g., caste, blood, class, common dependence, common 
priority). 
A reasonable degree of social organization through which the necessary critical 
mass of collective action can be organized. 

Where this does not exist, it has to be created, requiring significant development of trust and platform 
building. The social units most appropriate for participation need to be tailored to the particular 
setting, and the approach may not work where “community” is not the norm and people are devoted 
to individual actions (e.g., absentee landlords, landless people). 
 Contd

Flexibility. A thoroughly predesigned and preplanned project is not 
considered a good project. Indicators of success focus on adaptation rather 
than adoption. 
Clearly defined roles for the different organizations: state departments, 
NGOs, and CBOs. 
Orienting initial projects and approaches away from “treatment” of specific 
problems toward whole‐catchment management focused on livelihood 
priorities. 
. 
 Contd

Tangible benefits to participants in a short space of time. 
Group access to finance through credit or other means. 
Highly subsidized by government and donors, with local residents contributing 
only a small percentage of the value of the development works in cash or as 
labor. 

Adequate financial and institutional support is considered critical where authorities are handing 
responsibility for complex, costly, and conflict‐ridden problems back to local people
Community participation in local development. 

This generates a stake in the process and enhances the prospects of effective and sustainable joint 
action. However, entirely “bottom‐up” proposals for improvements limited to the possibilities 
already known to rural people will not suffice. The process must be open to the wider possibilities 
known to outsiders and in a format for planning, implementing, and monitoring that allows these 
outside agencies to verify that public funds have been spent properly. 
 Contd

A clear strategy for scaling‐up. 

Expansion pathways for NGOs are often poorly defined.
Support agency roles that allow the necessary degree of participation for interventions to be 
planned and function adequately, but that at the same time are rapidly replicated
 Sustainability

A criticism of donor‐supported watershed development, for example, is that 
despite large amounts of funding on infrastructure, institutional arrangements 
are rarely adequate to continue maintenance. 
On the other hand, long‐term empowering approaches adopted by some NGOs 
achieve institutional sustainability in individual villages at the cost of extremely 
slow replication. 

A balance is required.

From: Chris Lovell, Alois Mandondo, and Patrick Moriarty
The Question of Scale in Integrated Natural Resource Management
 Issues of Scale

• Different scales
‰ Small scale – Laurel Creek Watershed
‰ Large scale – Fraser River Action Plan

• Laurel Creek Watershed, Waterloo –
monitoring and planning of Waterloo. 
‰ Monitoring study
‰ Involved community at a later stage only for collecting information 
(data).
 Maps
City of Waterloo

City Boundary
Watershed Area

Approximately 74
square kilometers

80% is within the City

of Waterloo.
 Evolution of Project

• 1990- Laurel Creek Watershed Study initiated

• 1993- Official Plan Amendment #16

• 1996- Laurel Creek Watershed Monitoring Program Pilot Study

• 1997- Present Ongoing Monitoring

 Program Objectives

• Detect changes to the watershed

• Determine the effects of land use and best management practices

• Promote partnerships between agencies, municipalities and watershed

residents

• Increase public awareness and stewardship

• Develop database for comparison and trend analysis.

 Analyses

Water Quality
Total Phosphorus Aquatic Habitat
Suspended Solids Benthic Invertebrates
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
E. Coli

Terrestrial Features
Greenspace Size
Hydrology Greenspace Health
Baseflow
Storm Flow
Precipitation
 Summary of Findings

• Surface water quality is a key indicator

• Monitoring has confirmed existing land use impacts (e.g. agriculture)
• Pre-development conditions have been benchmarked
• Certain parameters consistently exceed targets
• Final analysis of SWM facilities, buffers, vegetative planting will be
possible in 3-6 years
• Development controls are critical
Why is Monitoring Important
Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada

‰ Largest river in B.C., 
‰ 5th largest river in Canada
‰ Over 1378 Km in length
‰ The drainage of the Fraser 
River watershed is nearly 
one quarter of a million 
square kilometres ‐ which is 
larger than the area of 
Great Britain 
 Fraser River Valley Project

Initiative was intended to foster a cooperative, multi‐organizational approach to 
restoring the environmental health of an entire watershed. The main points were;

‰ Focus on ecosystems
‰ Address the whole watershed: take the 
watershed as an appropriate unit for ecosystem 
analysis
‰ Work cooperatively: encourage partnerships, 
joint action, and collective stewardship for 
effective watershed management.
‰ Involve the public
– Studied contaminants, issues were;

• Study which contaminants are present
• How to measure the contaminants
• Cycle of contaminants from origin to graveyard 
including their entry into (and impact on) food chain.

– water quality (contamination from point sources and 
non‐point sources), pollution impact on flora and 
fauna and on human, urban centers, agriculture, 
paper and pulp mills etc
Two case studies raise the question of what is the 
right scale !!
The issue of scaling

What are the issues of scaling?
Is there an the ideal scale for IWRM in terms of population, 
geographic area, watershed size or catchment area?
Can IWRM be done effectively on that smaller sub‐watershed 
scale?
Can sub‐watershed scale IWRM efforts easily be combined into 
a larger whole?
 What is the right scale?

• Community level
• Municipality level
• Province/State level
• National level
• International level
• Watershed level etc,
 Issues of Scaling

Moving from a small‐scale to a larger scale implementation of IWRM is an 
issue when the original scale is not at a catchment or watershed level.
Many projects that attempt small‐scale IWRM find it difficult to “scale‐up”
“Bottom‐up” or community‐driven projects are usually at the smaller scale 
levels
 Preconditions for scaling‐up, defined in the design phase, in the Indo‐
German Watershed Development Program, India
Preconditions for scaling‐up, defined in the design phase, in the Indo‐German Watershed Development Program, India

1. The setting of appropriate criteria for the 
selection of watersheds, villages, and local‐level 
NGO partners, and the design of local‐level 
collaborative mechanisms
i. Technical criteria include: 
a. notable erosion, 
b. land degradation or water scarcity problems; 
c. villages located in the upper part of drainage systems; 
d. watershed size around 10 km2; 
e. village boundaries corresponding closely with those of the watershed.
ii. Socioeconomic criteria include: 
a. villages poorer than average; 
b. no wide disparities in size of landholding; 
c. villages having shown a concern for resource conservation and having a 
known history of coming together for common causes.
 Conditions
iii. As a condition for support, villagers must commit themselves to 
a. banning the felling of trees; 
b. banning free grazing; 
c. undertaking social fencing to protect vegetation; 
d. reducing excess populations of livestock; 
e. limiting water‐intensive crops; 
f. contributing voluntary labor to a value of 16% of the unskilled 
labor costs of the project (landless and single‐parent households 
exempt); 
g. starting a maintenance fund; 
h. setting up a village watershed committee. 
iv. In the interests of replication, the IGWDP decided not to work with 
larger NGOs inclined toward long‐term, empowerment‐type 
approaches to group formation
2. The design of village‐level mechanisms for 
participatory planning, learning, and 
implementation

i. Planning by agencies based on external maps failed. 
ii. Community mapping was done
3. Design of a sustainable mechanism for 
screening and funding individual proposals 
submitted for watershed rehabilitation ‐
4. Mobilization of administrative and political support from the
early stages

5. Establishment of channels for drawing on technical

expertise in the post-rehabilitation period - facilitated in the
IGWDP by a watershed organization trust (WOT).
 IWRM No Replication
Top‐down
Diagram
National Pilots in a 
restricted 
policies Primarily Technical area

Delegated to 
Basin  Individual
management  Communities
Primarily Social and 
level
Institutional

Sub‐watershed  Typically
or catchment  NGO
level initiative

Bottom‐up
No delivery mechanism at ground level
 Scaling
Scaling and NGOs
‰ The NGO perception of scaling‐up recognizes that it is about relationship‐
building. 
‰ It is not just replication of technologies or approaches, but expansion of 
principles and knowledge, such that people build capacity to make better 
decisions and influence decision‐making authorities. Thus, scaling‐up has 
power and development dimensions. 
‰ However, the “learning‐process” approach that is adopted generally proceeds 
through three slow stages: 
‰ learning to be effective (with emphasis on building interpersonal 
relationships)
‰ learning to be efficient (withdrawal from individual sites)
‰ learning to expand (but focused on local organizational development 
rather than broader policy and institutional arrangements).
 Scaling
‰ The NGO approach tends to be: 
‰ try a project, have success, 
‰ then think about scaling‐up, including development of relations 
with the state and how to sustain the momentum, both 
vertically across institutional levels and horizontally. 
‰ Collaborative planning from the outset between communities, NGOs, and 
the state is crucial if social change and empowerment of people is to 
occur in a meaningful and lasting way. 
‰ The Government(s) and NGOs will need to undertake certain 
commitments to help reconcile current top‐down (predominantly 
technical) and bottom‐up (predominantly social/institutional) approaches 
to IWRM  ‐‐ or “Bridging the Gap”
 Bridging the gap – Government Actions
Scaling
‰ Provide a stable, supportive, and enabling environment.
‰ Provide long-term meaningful support to IWRM.
‰ Implement meaningful devolution of control with institutional
capacity-building at middle and lower levels.
‰ Avoid top-down community manipulation and NGO tension by
ensuring that programs are led by, and remain focused on,
community priorities.
‰ Provide clear mandates that allow NGOs to participate.
‰ Provide clear mandates among state agencies.
‰ Develop infrastructure for disadvantaged communities.
‰ Provide appropriate technical support.
‰ Ensure independent monitoring and evaluation and documentation
of lessons learned and best practice.

From: Farrington and Boyd (1997)

 Bridging the gap – NGO  Actions
Scaling
‰ Forge strategic alliances to generate impact on a large scale.
‰ Build up sufficient broad-based community pressure to
influence policy.
‰ Lobby politicians; invite them to see what is happening in the
field and how this fits with their own mandates.
‰ Influence market forces and market development.
‰ Encourage local champions.
‰ Help to construct a shared vision for scaling-up through
active participation by all.
‰ Strengthen community knowledge and skills in law, planning,
decision making, marketing, team building, communication,
conflict resolution, and natural resource management,
‰ Strengthen community understanding of the government
system in the scaling-up process.
‰ Build social capital (trust/cooperation networks).

From: Farrington and Boyd (1997)

 Lessons
A lesson to date in IWRM is that there are no magic, generic solutions and no quick fixes. To 
benefit many people across large areas requires considerable political will, investment, and 
planning from the outset. It also takes time, as institutions, roles, and responsibilities evolve 
and the slower variables change. Emphasis needs to be on long‐term management of 
resources at all levels, even though this may not be attractive to bureaucrats and politicians 
who want another glittering initiative 
From: Batchelor et al. 2000. 

The process also goes far beyond simple, area‐based extension or expansion concepts 
envisaged by some NGOs. There must be demand for IWRM at the local level, it should be 
integrated with means of enhancing livelihoods, and it needs to be tailored to local conditions. 
Nevertheless, account must be taken of the “global” as well as the site‐specific causes of the 
problems facing people and the environment 
From Turton and Farrington 1998.

From: Chris Lovell, Alois Mandondo, and Patrick Moriarty
 Capacity Building
Capacity building is the key to sustainability
Capacity building is targeted towards ensuring that all 
participants share a common set of basic knowledge, data 
and capabilities, especially in areas where they are not 
specialists
Coastal Zone Resources Management ‐ Indonesia

The project initiated a participatory 
process in each village to develop 
profiles of coastal resources 
management issues of concern to the 
community, and subsequently, to 
prepare coastal resources 
development and management plans.
• The purpose of the early implementation actions were 
to:
– Build community support for the 
longer‐term planning initiative 
– Experiment with mechanisms 
for community implementation 
– Build community capacity for 
implementation through a 
learning‐by‐doing process
• Three example sites discussed:
– Water Supply System (Blongko) 
– Water Supply System River Dike 
(Tumbak) 
– Water Supply Extension 
(Bentenan)
Involvement of all stakeholders is required

– Genuine participatory decision making is the rule, 
not the exception.
– Conflict resolution procedures are available and 
used.
– Reporting is a collaborative process.
– Management and implementation are also 
collaborative
 Institutionalising Community Management in Uganda

Institutionalising Community Management in 
Uganda

• Amsalu Negussie ‐ WaterAid Uganda
• Community management in Uganda
• The Water and Sanitation Sector in Uganda
• The WaterAid District Support Programme
• Scaling‐up?
• Lessons Learnt
 Community Mobilization for Sanitation in Kenya

– The village of Maina is an informal settlement

within the boundaries of Nyahururu town in
Kenya, where the Danish International Aid
Agency executed a sewerage house connection
project between 1988 and 1991.

– In the first year of the project, a trunk sewer and a

few lateral sewers were constructed without any
participation by the residents .
 Community Mobilization for Sanitation in Kenya

The consequences were predictable.

Villagers did not understand the project motives

They resisted collaborating with project teams

when the plans indicated that the layout of some
plots would be altered to make room for roads,
storm drains, and toilet units.

Villager apprehensions were based on a valid

concern that engineering plans would result in
large-scale alterations to existing houses and
structures.
 Community Mobilization for Sanitation in Kenya

– A review mission by the Danish International Aid Agency

in 1989 recommended that, before any further
investments were made, the physical plan be revised
with community participation.
– A site committee was formed, involving residents in the
process of determining what the project components
would be.
– The results were striking.
Communities began mobilizing labor and materials for
construction and began participating in O&M of
constructed facilities.
By the time the project came to an end;

the community groups with support from the

NGO had charted a completely different course
for the project

were able to engage the municipal council in a

productive dialogue on where and when other
infra-structural facilities such as roads, a police
station, and a post office should be located
within the village.
Efficient water use is essential and often an important “source” in itself
Striking a gender balance is essential
 Case Study in Gurjrat, India

• Initiated and managed by extremely poor

women, this decade long program lead to:
– increased watershed sustainability,
– rehabilitation of ecosystems, and
– sustainable livelihoods for participants.
• Facts:
– Patan District is arid. Average annual rainfall is 7 inches. 
Frequent droughts, severe salinity in land and water, high 
temperatures and sandstorms reduce communities to survival 
level. When crops fail due to drought, there is no option 
except migration.
– Two‐thirds of water‐user are women.

• Planning:
– In 1995, the Self‐Employed Women's Association (SEWA), a 
trade union of 215,000 poor self‐employed women, launched 
a 10 year water campaign in 9 districts of Gujrat.
– Watershed Committees were set up at meetings where every 
villager from Users Groups and self‐help Groups were present. 
Put of a total of 11 members, at least 7 were women. The 
chairperson was unanimously elected from the women 
members.
– The Watershed Committees first collected detailed 
information on the resources of each village ‐ natural 
resources as well as human resources. Then they prepared an 
action plan for every 4 years. Treatment works were 
implemented on the basis of annual micro plans.
• Results:
– Over the period of the program, the committees
constructed 15 farm ponds, recharging 120 tube wells.
They also repaired 20 village ponds, and recharged 3
check dams and 15 open wells in 8 projects. Through
soil and moisture conservation work, the salinity of the
land decreased. With more productive land, the women
began getting higher and more sustainable incomes.
About 3,662 hectares were thus treated. Now they grow
cash crops using organic farming.
– Using pachayat wasteland, community pasture land and
private land, about 5,000 trees have been grown and
grass cover created on 3,500 sq. meters of field bunding
for better retention of water. This has created a green
belt in the area and generated employment opportunities
for about 240 women. About 2,500 hectares of land,
which formerly had only rain-fed agriculture, have an
irrigation facility, and drinking water in now assured.
The Key Messages of the Rural Women in
the Program:
– The most important method of mainstreaming women is enhancing
their financial and managerial powers.
– Unless women watershed users groups manage their own
watershed resources, the watershed will remain unbalanced, in
favor of men and vulnerable to overuse.
– Equity, not only between women and men, but also between poor
women and better-off women, is important. This means
recognizing the poor women as watershed users in an individual
capacity as well as in a group.
– Women are good managers and they have access to traditional
technical knowledge.
– The key to women's effective involvement in forestry and
biodiversity protection is through their access to the watershed.
 Summary ‐ Why implementation of IWRM fails

• Single framework for IWRM for all countries is not possible because there is
a difference of

– Natural resources
– Population distribution and styles of living
– Economy
– Political, institutional and legal structures.

• Projects are often too ambitious – most of the developing countries do not
have enough capacity (financial or human).