Role of The Engineer in Poverty Alleviation
Role of The Engineer in Poverty Alleviation
Role of The Engineer in Poverty Alleviation
David Singleton
Introduction The statistics on world poverty are frightening. Close to half the worlds 6bn people live on less than US$2 a day; conversely 1% of the population has an income equal to that of the entire bottom 57%1. But poverty is not only about lack of wealth in monetary terms; it also implies the denial of various choices and opportunities basic to human development. These include the ability to lead a long, creative and healthy life, to acquire knowledge, to have freedom, dignity, self-respect and respect for others, and to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living.2 Community infrastructure is key to alleviating poverty and thus engineers have an essential role to play. Without ready access to clean water and sanitation, productivity is severely reduced through illness and time spent in water collection. Without roads, the poor are unable to sell their goods at market. Basic infrastructure is not a luxury that can wait for better economic times, but a precondition for creating them, and its provision is an urgent and ongoing requirement. The Economist has observed that over the past 50 years rich nations have given US$1 trillion in aid to poor ones. This stupendous sum has failed spectacularly to improve the lot of its intended beneficiaries. Poor countries that receive lots of aid do no better, on average, than those that receive very little3. Poverty is thus not being ignored, but alleviation strategies must be more effective for relief to be achieved. The origins of poverty To begin solving poverty, its origins must be clearly understood. The basic causes are: lack of access to safe water and sanitation lack of facilities for adequate health care lack of access to educational opportunities shortage of adequate nutrition lack of adequately paid employment inadequate or expensive transport facilities limited or expensive power supplies. Urban and rural poverty generally have different causes, though not mutually exclusive. The main causes of urban poverty are likely to be: lack of adequate income or no income, due to underemployment or unemployment inadequate housing, sanitation, and water supply limited opportunities for education inadequate or expensive transport facilities. Poor health and lack of access to education tend to minimize skills, compounding the problems of un- or underemployment, leading to reduction of income-earning capacity. The predominant causes of rural poverty are likely to be: lack of access to health care and education inadequate shelter, sanitation, and water supply lack of access to markets for agricultural products limited opportunity to earn income inadequate or expensive transport facilities no access to power and telecommunications facilities.
Poverty in rural areas tends to be more widespread and more intense than in urban areas, because: Employment opportunities are more limited. Access to a range of key facilities is much reduced. Many households are headed by women often due to abandonment of families by the males, with commensurate reduction in income. Sanitation and water supply deficiencies are more intense, leading to ill health. The trend in developing countries worldwide - whereby male family members gravitate to urban areas in search of employment - often reduces the rural familys ability to survive in a subsistence economy. Poverty alleviation strategies Historically, poverty alleviation strategies have focused on direct intervention to provide facilities that are lacking. Investments by international lending agencies over the past two to three decades have concentrated on solutions to deficiencies in infrastructure that are usually expensive, often with apparently limited thought to ongoing operation and maintenance. Local observers in several recipient countries, and other stakeholders, have commented on inadequacies in the implemented projects and programmes: lack of planning for ongoing operation and maintenance of the facilities limited attention to the development of a sense of ownership by the local community political interference and intervention allocation of funds to countries without a poverty alleviation strategy of their own corruption, leading to ineffectiveness of investment. At the recent Rio+10 Sustainability Summit, both the United Nations and the World Bank called for alleviation strategies involving no more hardware, noting that major investments over the last 20-30 years in water infrastructure schemes had often failed to benefit the people at whom they were aimed. This is because most facilities involving technology are generally abandoned within two years, as revenue streams are insufficient to pay for repairs and maintenance and because of the lack of local skills to carry out repairs. Corruption is also often a barrier. In agreeing to a target to halve the number of people without sanitation globally by 2020, the Summit noted that emphasis should be on smaller-scale solutions suited to local capabilities, understanding and skills. The role of engineers in delivering infrastructure schemes needs to change significantly. Again over the last 20-30 years, experience with implementing large-scale infrastructure improvement projects has led to an improved understanding of the conditions necessary for sustainable reduction in poverty levels: The local community must be empowered by the decision-making process. The local community must be involved in ongoing operation and maintenance. National and regional governments must also be involved in the project. Project selection must favour those projects that lead to economic growth. Strength of the market economy is a prerequisite to economic growth. Close involvement of the local community will improve the chances of project success; it needs to be owned. Poverty alleviation requires interventions that involve considerable social and cultural change. Poverty has many aspects, and solutions require more than a technical or engineering basis. Provision of infrastructure alone will not alleviate poverty, without access to that infrastructure. We can ask such questions as: What good is a road if there is no means of transport? What good is a latrine if it is not being used? What good is a water supply system if it is in disrepair? In developing strategies to alleviate poverty, we must take account of and address these wider issues.
1a & b. Problem and solution (see Case study 2, p5).
This article is an edited version of the Fourth Brunel International Lecture 2002/03, given under the auspices of the Institution of Civil Engineers, by David Singleton, Chairman of Arup Australasia.
Sound engineering solutions to poverty alleviation Engineering solutions are integral to mitigating poverty; however, engineering is not the sole contributor to successful poverty alleviation programmes, which also entail attention to social, economic, and political influences. Sustainable engineering will be achieved when the engineering solutions adopted take into account their use of natural resources. Optimum solutions will have a positive or neutral impact on natural resource consumption. Unsound engineering solutions, by comparison, may leave the environment depleted and society poorer over time. Life-cycle engineering takes into account the operational and maintenance cost of the engineering solutions proposed, such that the completed projects have effective and affordable operational and maintenance regimes. Empowered engineering will take into account the capabilities of the local community, particularly its engineering and technical professions. Where possible, the solutions developed will involve local professional and technical staff and will establish an on-going engineering and operational resource. Appropriate engineering will consider various options that meet the engineering needs of the project and may adopt techniques of labour-based construction, which differs significantly from labour-intensive construction. The latter basically substitutes men for machines, eg constructing a concrete-framed building where the concrete is mixed by hand without a mechanical mixer. Labour-based construction, by contrast, aims to change the technology involved to what is appropriate for manual labour, eg eliminating the concrete frame and building the structure of load-bearing masonry. Labour-based construction has been shown to compare favourably with plant-based construction4. In addition, it facilitates knowledge transfer, creates jobs, encourages private enterprise, creates ownership, and may reduce cost. The following five case studies illustrate engineering applications to poverty mitigation programmes and identify the associated social, economic, and political actions put in place. Each shows sound and appropriate engineering.
Project details This pilot project was implemented in six remote communities in Queensland. It was a grassroots initiative for indigenous communities that aimed to: improve the health and wellbeing of their people develop and support a culture of asset management protect investment of capital funds in their infrastructure. Arup was appointed as project co-ordinator to oversee the project and liaise with communities, funding and training agencies. The firms role included the development and implementation of technical and management on the job training (during Stage 1, 21 Trainees completed Certificate 2 in Essential Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) communities through the Technical and Further Education Programme (TAFE)), the implementation of best practice in infrastructure asset management, raising awareness among community members of the importance of caring for infrastructure assets, and the need to establish mechanisms for permanent Essential Services Officer positions.
2. Drilling a borehole.
Messina
MOZ.
Upington
Kimberley
Bloemfontein De Aar
LESOTHO
East London Port Elizabeth Area where roundabouts have been installed
Mosselbaal
5. Southern Africa.
4. Play power.
Progress report More than 300 roundabout pumps have been installed in South Africa, each serving a community of over 2500 people. Various improvements to standard of living have been noted, including the ready availability of clean drinking water. This reduces water-borne diseases like cholera, and helps in the development of thriving vegetable farms providing fresh produce for schools and for sale at market.
6. Children at play turning a roundabout bolted above an existing borehole. This action works a pump enabling drinking water to be pumped into an overhead storage tank screened with billboards promoting HIV/AIDS awareness to the community.
NEPAL
Rangpur
INDIA
7. Bangladesh.
Mymensingh Rajshahi Tungi Dhaka INDIA Narayanganj Jessore Khulna Mongla Barisal Chittagong Comilla Sylhet
MYANMAR
Progress report The Bank operates efficiently and is widely considered innovative, progressive, and corruption-free. The rate of repayment for all loans is 98%, and for housing loans it is close to 100%, compared to 25-30% for other banks. Loans are currently available at 8% interest, again comparing very favourably with the 20% interest charged for regular or short-term loans from other banks9. The Bank provides employment for 12 600 people. To date, the Grameen Bank housing programme has assisted hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi families to break out of the downward spiral of poverty. A sturdy, well-built house is a symbol of social status, so borrowers gain dignity and standing within the community. The larger houses give improved environments for work and study, and hence have directly contributed to higher income generation. It is estimated that 95% of borrowers children attend school, well above the nationwide average. By demanding standardized construction practices like the use of cement pillars and installation of sanitary latrines, Grameen Bank assists in improving the health and safety of borrowers. In one survey, the general health of those with the new Grameen houses compared well with those in pre-existing or more traditional houses. Fever, influenza, and typhoid (among other diseases) were down by almost 50%9. Micro-credit programmes based on the Grameen experience have been established in 56 other countries.
8. A group of borrowers at their micro-credit weekly meeting with the Grameen Bank manager.
Progress report MSIP commenced in November 1997 and completed in May 2001. In total 1145 packaged solar systems were installed in 11 Provinces, 53 Municipalities and 435 Barangays. The quality of life for over 720 000 people in some of the most remote and poorest provinces of the Philippines has been improved12. Improved health, safety, education, governance, and easier access to potable water will bring about poverty alleviation. The project improved local governance by enhancing the ability of the Local Government Units (LGU) to deliver essential social services and elicit the participation of community organizations and individuals in improved governance. Although it was necessary for BP Solar to pull out of several areas over the life of the project due to political uncertainty, an impressive list of community facilities were upgraded: Four district hospitals, 11 rural health centres, and 104 Barangay health centres: More than half a million people will directly benefit from improved services. Improved capacity to store and utilize vaccines, and other medicines will reduce infant maternal mortality rates, assist in tetanus prevention, and improve general illness treatment. 289 areas of communal lighting for markets and fishermens wharves: These facilitate safer night vessel navigation and reducing night fishing wharf accidents. 260 Barangay potable water supply systems: These will lead to substantial reductions in water-borne disease. Women in particular will benefit from time savings in water collection and caring for ill family members. 266 schools, six municipal halls, and 201 Barangay halls: Access to school facilities at night for adult education or entertainment will further improve quality of life.
0 50 100 km Aparri
Jolo
The communication and social mobilization package has been improved each year to give greater attention to upgrading unsanitary latrines and integrating washing of hands into the sanitation cycle. Interested households form a village sanitation committee, which plays a fundamental role in co-ordinating activities. Implementation: Construction activities commenced only after the awareness campaign had been launched and hygiene and sanitation education provided. Thus construction took place only in motivated communities and with the co-operation of the end users; indeed, it was promoted as a do-it-yourself construction programme. Families were responsible for installing and financing their own sanitation facilities, with subsidies only made available for schools and for the communities that could not afford self-finance. Households were in fact subsidized during the 1997 floods but even then an element of self-help was expected. A low-cost (Kyat 900 or US$2.75) locallymanufactured plastic pan and pipe set was made available to each household that had excavated (and lined where necessary) a pit and then built as good a superstructure as it could afford16. A wide range of low cost and appropriate latrine designs was developed, suited to individual family preference and affordability. Every effort was made to promote capacity and income generation activities among community members, to allow them to participate by contributing labour, cash, and/or materials towards building the project. The private sector responded, to meet the rising demand for parts. Local production of plastic latrine pans has increased by a factor of six in the last five years, from about 40 000 in 1995 to more than 250 000 annually16. To reduce costs, locally available materials were widely used and some village leaders organized the bulk purchase of bamboo. Progress report In 1997, before the national campaign was launched, the sanitation coverage throughout rural areas stood at 39%13. In 2001, sanitation coverage stands at 57%17. Hand-washing with soap and water after latrine use has also increased, from 18% in 1996 to 43% in 200118. Too frequently, the success of sanitation programs is measured by the total number of latrines constructed, with little attention to actual operation, maintenance, or usage. Long-term success of these systems depends on the availability of supplies, parts, equipment, and the availability of trained people needed to monitor, maintain and repair the systems, as well as continued community demand for their use. As sanitation coverage in Myanmar grows, campaigning continues. Programmed follow-up to the National Sanitation Week is being provided in selected townships through more intensive social mobilization targeted at hard to reach households and communities, and activity-based sanitation and hygiene education in selected schools. This approach recognizes that schools create an excellent participatory and enabling learning environment in which to promote sanitary habits and hygienic practices. There continues to be widespread general training of decision-makers, planners, and trainers in social mobilization programmes for hygiene. The 2002 National Sanitation Week accordingly gave special emphasis to activities to be carried out in 73 of a total of 324 townships, where 50% or more of the households still do not have access to a sanitary latrine18. Myanmars success is a model to other countries and has been internationally recognized by South East Asian Region Countries. Government delegates from Indonesia, Pakistan, Bhutan, China, Vietnam and Laos have come to Myanmar to observe their activities and learn from their experiences. Nepal launched its own National Sanitation Action Week: March 2001.
Zayu
INDIA Myitkyina
CHINA
Banmauk
Moulmein
0 100 200 km
14. Myanmar.
Conclusions
Each case study illustrates the application of relatively low technology engineering in small-scale investments which nonetheless enjoy high levels of community engagement. The success of these programmes is due in significant measure to this level of community commitment and to the extent of understanding of social, economic and political influences in that local community. As Sir Ove Arup said, Engineering problems are under-defined, there are many solutions, good, bad and indifferent. The art is to arrive at a good solution. This is a creative activity, involving imagination, intuition and deliberate choice. In these case studies and in many similar scenarios, the solutions developed have not been primarily engineering solutions, although engineering plays a key part in the outcome adopted. It is not known which profession took the lead in which scenario, but it is clear that engineers with appropriate sensitivity could have led in all of them. The case studies therefore illustrate the application of sound engineering solutions to poverty alleviation: Sustainable engineering was achieved, as the solutions adopted will have a positive or neutral impact on natural resources. Life-cycle engineering took into account the operational and maintenance cost of the engineering solutions. The completed projects have effective and affordable operational and maintenance regimes. Empowered engineering took into account the capabilities of the local community, in particular its engineering and technical professions. The solutions developed involve local professional and technical staff and will establish an on-going engineering and operational resource. Appropriate engineering considered various options that met the engineering project needs and adopted labour-intensive construction where relevant, so as to create community involvement and knowledge of the projects operations and to stimulate community income. The challenge for the engineering profession is to revisit our Brunel roots and develop a suite of solutions to the issues raised in this paper. These should include solutions not only to the alleviation of poverty when it occurs but also to the development of sustainable urban infrastructure; solutions that recognize rather than resist the inevitability of migration to urban centres and then make provision for these rapidly growing populations. Engineers can work effectively with other professions and community leaders to develop sustainable solutions to poverty. And engineers can take the lead in developing sustainable concepts for the urban areas of the future, concepts in which: Access to and opportunities for employment are enhanced. Housing, sanitation, and water supply are provided at affordable prices. Access to and opportunities for education are enhanced. Affordable transport facilities are available. This is our Brunel challenge. It is worthy of our commitment.
Authors acknowledgement: Nicole Hahn undertook the research for this paper. Her enthusiasm and personal commitment for this topic is unbounded and exemplifies the commitment of many young engineering professionals to make a difference. I am grateful for her contribution and support.
Text references (1) WORLD BANK. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. Oxford University Press, USA, 2000. (2) UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP). Understanding and responding to poverty. [online at http://www.undp.org/poverty/overview/]. Accessed 20 September 2002. (3) USAKA and GABORONE, Helping the third world: How to make aid work. The Economist, 26 June 1999. (4) CROSWELL, J. The role of the consultant: Symposium on labour intensive construction. Midrand, South Africa, 1993. (5) SMALL, K. The rural village water supply programme, Botswana. The Arup Journal, 28(1), pp15-17, 1/1993. (6) TSOUKAS, J. Managing the HIPP programme. The Arup Journal, 34(4), pp10-13, 4/1999 (Millennium Issue 1). (7) AVERT. How many people in Africa are infected with HIV/AIDS? [online at http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm]. Accessed 20 October 2002. (8) BUSINESS ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (BASD) and UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME. Virtual Exhibit - South Africa: the roundabout outdoor HIV/AIDS initiative. [online at http://www.virtualexhibit.net/new/home.php]. Accessed 18 September 2002. (9) BUILDING AND SOCIAL HOUSING FOUNDATION (BSHF). World Habitat Awards: The Grameen Bank low-cost housing programme, Bangladesh. [online at http://www.mandamus.co.uk/bshf/ cgi-bin/wha/show.a.wha.cgi?whaNo=31]. Accessed 30 September 2002. (10) GRAMEEN BANK. Microfinance. [online at http://www.grameen-info.org]. Accessed 11 May 2001. (11) BUSINESS ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT and UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME. Virtual exhibit The Philippines Municipal Solar Infrastructure Project. [online at http://www.virtualexhibit.net/new/home.php]. Accessed 18 September 2002. (12) WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (WBCSD). Sustain online - A ray of sunshine in the Philippines. [online at http://www.sustainonline.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/265/ A_ray_of_sunshine_in_the_Philippines.html]. Accessed 18 September 2002. (13) YANGO, R. Fourth National Sanitation Week 2001 (Myanmar Information Centre) [online at http://www.myanmar-information.net/infosheet/2001/010225.htm]. Accessed 22 May 2001. (14) WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 report. WHO Publication Center, USA, 2000. (15) SANDA, D, and OYA, K. Community-based water supply and sanitation improvement. Proceedings of the 24th Water Engineering and Development Centre Conference, Islamabad, Pakistan, 1998. WEDC,1998. (16) UNICEF MYANMAR. Rehabilitation of water supply and sanitation facilities affected by the flood. [0nline at http://www.unicef.org/myanmar/pages/WES_Echo.pdf]. Accessed 18 September 2002. (17) WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. World health report 2002. WHO Publication Center, USA, 2002. (18) BAJRACHARY, D. Myanmar experiences in sanitation and hygiene promotion: Lessons learned and future directions. UNICEF, Yangoon, 2002. Other references (19) BOTHA, D and HOLLWAY, A. Addressing poverty alleviation through engineering development. South Africa (20) CLEARY, P. Africas Holocaust - How the West is ignoring the disaster. The Weekend Australian Financial Review, 14-15 September, 2002. (21) DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DFID). Making connections Infrastructure for poverty reduction. Copyright UK Ltd, UK, 2002. (22) UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSION FOR REFUGEES. What is poverty?. [online at http://www.unhchr.ch/development/poverty-02.html]. Accessed 18 September 2002. (23) WHYTE, A. Guidelines for planning community participation activities in water supply and sanitation projects. WHO Publication Centre, Geneva, 1986. (24) WORLD BANK. DM past projects: South Africa Journal. [online at http://www.developmentmarketplace.org/safrica3journal.html]. Accessed 20 September 2002. (25) WORLD BANK. South Africa: the roundabout outdoor playpump. [online at http://www.worldbank.org/af/findings/english/find218.pdf]. Accessed 20 November 2002. (26) WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Developing Countries and Technology Co-operation 10 business cases. WBCSD, Austria, 2002.
Image Credits 2, 3: Arup 1, 4, 6: Roundabout Outdoor 5, 7, 11, 14: Daniel Blackhall 8-10: Building and Housing Social Foundation 12, 13, 15: BP Solar
The difference between what we do and what we could do would suffice to solve most of the worlds problems: Mahatma Ghandi No other issue suffers such disparity between human importance and its political priority: Kofi Annan (on water and sanitation)