UNDP-WORLD BANK WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAM REGIONAL WATER AND SANITATION GROUP-EAST AFRICA

"

PROWWESS EASTERN AFRICA ASSESSMENT REPORT

VIEWS OF PROWWESS TRAINED PERSONS IN 9 AFRICAN COUNTRIES

Prepared by: Joanne Harnemeijer, consultant ETC International Harare, Zimbabwe

December 199tl

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Table of Contents page

List of Acronyms Executive Summary Preface vii

1 Introduction 1 2 Scope and methodology of the review 1 3 Profile of PROWWESS trained persons 4 4 The SARAR methodology 6 5 Country strategies 11 6 Adoption of participatory approaches 16 7 Forces determining adoption 19 8 Respondents' views on the future 26 9 Expectations about PROWWESS' role in RWSG-EA 28 10. Recommended strategy 30

References and documentation received and consulted for the review 32

Tables 1. Country responses 3 2. Year of respondents' first training in panicipatory methods 4 3. Main focus of work of PROWWESS trained respondents 5 4. Sector of application and setting of PROWWESS trained respondents 5 5. Top ten SARAR techniques adopted by respondents 6 6. Ten main strengths and limitations of the methodology 8 7. Adoption of SARAR methodology in respondents' work 16 8. Factors which helped respondents to use panicipatory methods in their work 20 9. Obstacles for respondents to use panicipatory methods in their work 21 10. Weight of factors determining adoption, or non-adoption 22 11. Country specific key factors 23 12. PROWWESS future in Africa 27 13. Features of 1990 job description of PROWWESS specialist 29

Annexes 1. Terms of Reference 2. Summary of recommendations of 1991 PROWWESS Forward looking Assessment 3. Questionnaire sent out by RWSG-EA 4. Persons who contributed to the review

Persons suggested by respondents to take pan in national networks, per country 5. SARAR tools and techniques adopted 6. PROWWESS Action Plan for Zimbabwe

List of Acronyms

AMREF ARUNET EA HESAWA HIV ITN IWSD KEFINCO KUPP KWAHO NETWAS NGO PALNET PDST PHAST

PRA

African Medical and Research Foundation Africa Research Utilization Network East Africa (in RWSG-EA) Health through Water and Sanitation Human Immuno Deficiency Virus International Training Network Institute of Water and Sanitation Development Kenya - Finland Western Water Supply Program Katwe Urban Pilot Project, Uganda Kenya Water for Health Organization Network for Water and Sanitation Non Governmental Organization Participatory Learning Network, Kenya Provincial Development Support Team, Mongu, Western Province, Zambia Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation, a collaborative programme between PROWWESS, WHO, UNICEF, and national counterparts. Participatory Rural Appraisal

PROWWESS Promotion of the Role of Women in Water and Environmental Sanitation

RUWASA RWSG SARAR

SOC SWIP TCWS UNDP UNICEF

Services Rural Water and Sanitation Project, Uganda Regional Water and Sanitation Group Self esteem, Associative Strength, Resourcefulness, Action Planning, Responsibility Swiss Development Cooperation South West Integrated Programme, Uganda Training Centre for Water and Sanitation United Nations Development Programme United Nations Children'S Fund

Executive Summary

Originally established as a special inter-regional project under UNDP, PROWWESS (lNT/83/003) has been providing technical support and guidance to community based water and sanitation programs in Africa since 1984. The cornerstone in East Africa has been the training of trainers and field personnel in the design and use of participatory methods and materials for involving communities, and in particular women, in the planning, implementation and evaluation of water and sanitation projects. The methodology used and promoted is SARAR, which stands for Self esteem, Associative Strengths, Resourcefulness, Action Planning and Responsibility.

Since 1990 PROWWESS in East Africa has functioned as a component of the UNDP­World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Under the guidance of a PROWWESS trainer, based in the RWSG-East Africa office in Nairobi, the strategy for Anglophone countries has concentrated on training and on organizing and supporting inter-institutional and inter-ministerial networks. In 1991 this specialist was joined by a locally recruited associate who has since been seconded to NETW AS, the regional East Africa Centre of the International Training Network in Nairobi. Since 1992, the regional PROWWESS team has also included a participatory training specialist at the Institute of Water and Sanitation Development (formerly TCWS), the ITN centre in Harare.

After 4 years of regional presence a review was felt to be appropriate. Like most reviews it has a dual purpose to review what has been achieved, and to help give direction for the future. The review is unusual in that it is guided from start to finish by the intermediate target group, persons trained in the SARAR methodology.

It follows then, that the SARAR methodology - its strengths and limitations, and its adoption - is the review's key focus. This is appropriate, because, in East Africa as one respondent put it, "PROWWESS really is SARAR". Ron Sawyer describes the essence as follows:

"The purpose is a shift from an autocratic to a participatory approach. A correct attitude is essential for a commitment to participatory processes. SARAR works on attitudes and values, which is why it can stimulate greater commitment and behaviour change than many other methodologies. "

The data, which are generated by PROWWESS-associates of 9 African countries, are presented in tables and direct quotations throughout the review. Thus succinct opinions, and opinions expressed by many respondents got weight. Table i on the next page gives the cumulative set of the associates' recommendations, categorized in 5 sub-headings the first letters of which form the word SHAPE.

The recommendations only partially convey the strong and positive opinions on the merits of the SARAR methodology. To experience this one has to go to the field, or to the workshops, and see the difference. Indeed. the majority of respondents stated they wanted

Table i: PROWWESS future as seen by PROWWESS trained persons in Africa Recommendations relate to the program's n* Setting:

Introduce SARAR participatory training in curriculum of professional training institutions; incorporate in other training methodologies 11 Help create country specific strategies and action plans, in suitable institutions 9 Introduce methodology in regular government programs & institutions 7 Expand the program to new geographic areas 5 Seek field appl ication in more projects; right from projects' start 5 Link up with national and regional water sector projects 3 Strengthen inter-institutional relationships, both with GOs and NGOs 3 Program to stay within RWSGIEA; remain semi-independent 3 Strengthen PROWWESS component of NETW AS 1

Human Resources: Train more people both within & outside water sector; give more courses; arrange for larger capacity 22 Continue as at present; with even more vigour 11 Give follow up to former trainees; do this within national programs 9 Better utilize trained PROWWESS persons, and groom them to become trainers themselves; form national teams of trainers & resource persons 9 Promote networks and sharing of national & regional experience 6 Promote interdiscipl inary group of experts to support projects on request 2 Keep focus on capacity building of local institutions I

Application: Seek applications in other sectors 7 Expand range of tools; encourage innovation. Make this part of follow up. 7 Help create country specific participatory resource guides embodying basic methodologies and principles, including case studies. 7 Arrange for adaptation of methods to suit local situation 5 Strengthen participatory research, monitoring and evaluation skills; explore applications in data collection and planning more thoroughly 4 Keep focus on women 4 Give more attention to toolkit production; to more and better materials 4 Provide a prototype tool package for regional use 2 Keep methods simple 2 Explore use of participatory methods at managerial level e g to manage office staff; to conduct meetings; to reach consensus; to plan programs 2

Profile: Train & sensitize managerial level of GOs & NGOs in participatory methods 8 Give higher profile and more publicity to PROWWESS participatory methods 6 Arrange for concerted donor agency support at country level 4 Convince donor agencies to demand participatory methods in their projects 2

Evaluation: Promote documentation of experience at national I regional level; Newsletter 7 Assess own training approach with a view to make the necessary amendments 4 Strengthen program's & participants' self-evaluation 3 Evaluate impact at community level

.. n gives the number of answers given by 124 respondents. Multiple answers recorded.

ii

more training, more visual tools, and broader application, and not a single respondent recommended that the program should wind up and give way to newer trends. This is because there is no other methodology that has both the drive, the theoretical insights, and the practical tools, all blended into a logical sequence of steps which makes working with communities a manageable challenge, and, in many cases, a joyful experience.

An important asset is that the methodology has no sectoral boundaries. The underlying concepts hold for other sectors, while the tools developed for the water sector can with little effort be transposed to other sectors. The methodology has also proven useful to planners, to managers and to evaluators. Application for such specific purposes could be more distinctly explored and publicized.

The main three reasons given by individuals for non-adoption are lack of SARAR tools, the time demands posed by the methodology, and its lack of credibility in a bureaucratic setting leading to lack of support for potential adopters to deviate from the trodden path. These constraints are real and need to be addressed when considering future applications and institutional settings.

At country level three interrelated factors give momentum to adoption and promotion of participatory methods. They are, firstly, the presence of projects calling for continued or renewed combined efforts of local participatory experts. An example is the PHAST project in 4 African countries. I A second decisive factor is the joint production of tools and work on new applications - actions requiring team work and creativity of PROWWESS adepts. The third factor is availability of participatory expertise in training institutions geared to respond to demand for services of their staff.

In the countries reviewed no country has yet reached a stage where participatory approaches have been institutionalized in government practice. However, it appears that Zimbabwe, which has a long history with PROWWESS, is now pressing ahead as it benefits from the combined forces of the PHAST project, of the presence of a strong ITN centre with participatory trainers, of significant momentum within UNICEF which sets an example in its sectoral projects and of a number of government executed pilot projects that promote participatory approaches.

Yet even in Zimbabwe there is no evidence that the SARAR methodology has been taken beyond the sector and neither is there a body of expert trainers specialized in training for trainers. Thus, although the trainers in the above institutions have become skilled and confident they are only just able to cope with the increased demand for training field staff - a situation which is self-perpetuating in the absence of proper training for trainers opportunities. These experts then are clearly unable to entertain requests for assistance beyond the sector both because they are too busy already and because the transposition of the SARAR methodology and its tools to other sectors, although quite feasible, would require a separate exercise which generally would be beyond the mandate and sectoral expertise of these experts.

PHAST stands for Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation, a collaborative program between PROWWESS. WHO, UNICEF, and national counterparts.

iii

SARAR and Gender

In the hands of able extension staff the SARAR methodology works well for PROWWESS' objectives of promotion of the role of women. This is because the methodology in meetings and workshops creates an atmosphere of equality in which people's judgements and needs count regardless of their status or gender. Specific visual tools in addition help to steer community meetings to discuss gender issues, but this is designed to happen in a non-threatening way, rather as a matter of course. SARAR thus provides a neutral framework for addressing diverse needs. It enables both men and women to influence, participate in and benefit from development. This is in line with current thinking on gender: women are not to be treated as a special or vulnerable target group, but as mainstream actors.

The methodology is in itself not enough to bring about empowerment of women. It needs extension staff who are sensitive about gender issues, and aware of possible gender related conflicts of interest. This awareness can be learned, to some extent, but similar to concepts of participation and equity gender issues need to be 'heart felt' for staff to exploit the options given by the SARAR methodology. In addition extension staff need to be set in an enabling ­environment with superiors who do more than paying lip service to gender issues, and who are themselves supported and encouraged by policy decision makers.

To really make headway with gender issues one would need to work at all levels: firstly, the community; secondly, the extension staff & trainers; thirdly, the higher authorities - the bosses; and lastly the policy level. SARAR's potential to do this has so far been under-explored and under-utilized as demand for training grassroot level staff in the water sector has kept SARAR adepts from also establishing approaches beyond the community level, and beyond the water sector. The methodology is designed for extension staff working at the community level, in people-focused sectors and there is at that level no limitation to transpose the methodology to other sectors. Some of SARAR's field techniques and tools and all its theoretical concepts apply at higher level. To design packages which address all levels in and beyond the water sector is possible but would need considerable input of the small core group of international experts.

Examples of gender issues in and beyond the water sector which have proven difficult to tackle through conventional approaches are:

Typical gender issues such as women's reproductive health; transmission of HIV; adolescent reproductive health (think for example of teenage pregnancy); gender roles; violence against women. Role of women in community management. e g of water supplies; water resources; natural re. ..ources; wildlife; urban agriculture.

This reviewer would suggest to design and demonstrate a SARAR based gender-sensitive extension package on selected central themes. for all relevant levels of actors. Community management comes to mind as a suitable central theme:

It is relevant and topical for both the drinking water sector and for other sectors It is a mainstream concern It needs women as mainstream actors It has sufficient clout to attract political attention, and input of government actors. Funding agencies recognize community management and gender issues in it as priorities. SARAR takes gender issues in the main stream address, in a matter-of-factly way and this will help to stay clear off the 'women only' niche.

IV

The recommendations of PROWWESS respondents consistently demonstrate a need for continued support and promotion of participatory methodologies. The recommendations are at country level as this is the direction indicated by the PROWWESS associates.

Strategy for further support and promotion of participatory methodololies

1. Support country networks and country specific programmes in selected countries. 2. In these countries identify training institutions which can host country networks,

and which themselves have PROWWESS trainers, or are willing to recruit them. 3. Draw in expertise on other participatory techniques and make 'participation', or

'community participation', rather than PROWWESSISARAR the issue. 4. Link up with other networks and programmes pursuing participatory techniques. 5. Build up a core group of persons in each country with marketable participatory

skills. 6. Arrange for, and design, a training for trainers program, per country. 7. Move out of the extension--only domain and be clearer on applications for planning,

data collection, evaluation and management. For this: Arrange for follow up courses which are set to break new ground & avoid repetition.

8. Be open to demands from beyond the water sector, but keep the focus on applications for which participatory methodologies are most suited.

9. Select central themes which have sufficient clout and for which participatory methods offer tangible tools - such as community management.

10. Draw in government actors from the start (this can be steered by the choice of central themes). Make uptake in mainstream government practice an objective.

11. Develop durable and attractive tool packages for a range of sectors. Or: support ongoing production of tools, per country, for relevant sectors, as the need arizes. Groom a set of trained artists, through (inter) country networks.

12. Assist in giving country networks, and the participatory concepts they stand for, a high profile, and help create demand from projects and donors for services of network members.

13. Arrange for a number of mainstream projects to adopt participatory methods and concepts from inception through to implementation, in selected African countries and arrange for network members to play a role in such projects.

14. Document such projects carefu11y and make sure the experience feeds back into country and regional networks.

The implications of the above are sketched below for action at Program, Regional and National level:

v

Implications at Program level:

This is the right time to explore options for broader institutional support for participatory approaches, and thus to broaden the opportunities for adoption both within and outside the sector. The ground should be prepared for other agencies to adopt the SARAR methodology;

Action: PROWWESS at headquarters should identify donors committed to support of participatory processes. In order to attract donor support it should arrange for preparation of an information set of what SARAR has achieved, and what its potentia] is for·specific applications both within and outside the sector. The information should be presented in an attractive and participatory way, true to the SARAR principles, with a focus on visuals. The set should also contain examples of action plans at country level.

Implications at Regional level:

The regional PROWWESS expert should facilitate implementation of the above strategy in selected African countries. Countries which presently have a strong ITN centre ­Zimbabwe, Kenya - are the most likely candidates, but a country like Uganda, which has acquired strong expertise in sizable projects, would also be suitable.

Action: Recruit a senior expert, who, together with the PROWWESS expert based at NETW AS, Nairobi can pull off this exercise.

Implications at National level:

Within the selected countries indigenous institutions with a training focus have to be identified which can become strongholds for such participatory networks. These can be TIN centres, or training institutes without a sectora1 bondage.

Action plans should be drawn for the countries selected by core groups of PROWWESS associates and a 2-3 year budget to help networks start off secured. Action plans should address a limited number of core themes which have sufficient clout to generate interest with both donor agencies and national actors, including government representatives. Annex 6 gives the IWSD's Action Plan for Zimbabwe.

The data base provided in this review - see Annex 4 - could be a starting point for network membership. Alternatively (he creation of professional associations could be considered.

vi

Preface

One of the characteristics of the PROWWESSISARAR methodology is its use of visual tools without text on the materials used at community level. The chart on the next page shows how even a theoretical concept such as 'Resistance to Change' can be illustrated in pictures,!

Not all concepts can be visualized, however, and reports such as this review thus use words rather than pictures and are not usually appreciated if they leave a gap or are open ended - other SARAR techniques which have proven their worth at community level. This report may therefore look like a conventional one and yet it has been put together in an unconventional way:

Reviews normally acknowledge the input of those who gave their time and thoughts and in so doing contributed to the reviewer'S insights. In this report the informants' role is even more significant as the reviewer has taken a step back, and has aimed to faithfully record the insights of the informants - PROWWESS associates of 9 Anglophone African countries, trained at some point between 1985 till date. The reviewer compiled and arranged, but the data really are what the associates have to say. Their names are listed in Annex 4.

PROWWESS stands for 'Promotion of the Role of Women in Water and Environmental Sanitation Services' and yet the report does not address 'women' in separate sections. The review will make clear why: the methodology advocated by PROWWESS enables both men and women to participate in, and benefit from development which is in line with current thinking on getting gender issues into mainstream development efforts. Indeed, one of the biggest advantages of the methodology is that it treats women as regular people, who are entitled to their own needs and opinions without being referred to the women-only niche.

It has been a pleasure to do this assignment, and, going through the responses, to rethink the experience the reviewer had herself, some 8 years ago when she was introduced to the SARAR methodology and found how it can shape a project, and the people in it.

A methodology can only shape people when they are ready for it. This readiness relates to the principles of adult learning which form part of the SARAR theory. The best trainers enhance this readiness as a matter of course, and without apparent effort. One such person is Ron Sawyer who, initially by himself, and later together with Rose Lidonde, undertook to spread the SARAR techniques, and the underlying principles in Anglophone countries in Africa. It is hoped that the review does justice to their work and inspiration.

Harare, December 1994 Joanne Harnmeijer

Drawings by Juliet Waterkeyn, Studio AHEAD, Harare.

vii

1 Introduction

PROWWESS has been reviewed before, in 1991, when an independent team did a "forward looking assessment" with a focus on the institutional place of PROWWESS. The 1991 team recommended, amongst other things, that the transfer of PROWWESS to the UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme be consolidated, but that PROWWESS should keep a separate identity for a period of 5 years. The recommendations of the 1991 Assessment are summarized in Annex 2.

The current review has a regional focus as it concerns the Anglophone African countries addressed since 1985, with emphasis on the countries addressed by the two Nairobi based PROWWESS specialists from 1990 and 1991 respectively. In terms of content it aims to:

'Review and reflect on the activities that have taken place, to assess their impact within the various programs' and national contexts, and to assess the strategies and structures that have been established as a result of these activities. If special support mechanisms will be required to sustain the momentum of the program, or if new directions are in order, these should be identified at this time.'

Annex 1 refers for the Terms of Reference.

PROWWESS is a sectoral program. Its objectives are, in broad terms, to achieve meaningful community participation and empowerment of communities, and notably of the women in such communities, in sectoral projects and programs. I To achieve this the program has utilized the SARAR methodology. A review of PROWWESS in East Africa is thus to a large extent a review of SARAR.

The body of the report gives an inventory of the opinions of those who have been trained in this methodology to what extent their training has helped them to better achieve 'community participation', or empowerment, the ultimate aim of both PROWWESS and SARAR. This is followed, in chapter 9, by an overview of the PROWWESS expert's assignment in the RWSG-EA, which is a reflection of the objectives of the UNDP-World Bank's Water and Sanitation Program. The last chapter summarizes the recommendations into an outline of a strategy. Boxes highlight and summarize points brought up by respondents and also note additional points considered relevant by the reviewer.

2 Scope and methodology of the review

The review concerns Anglophone African countries which have received significant PROWWESS support since this program's integration into the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. In East Africa these countries are Kenya, Tanzania. Uganda and Ethiopia; in Southen Africa this is Zimbabwe; and in West Africa these countries are Ghana and Nigeria. Other countries to be included in the review were Lesotho and

The terms 'community', 'community participation' and 'empowerment' are used, but not elaborated in this report.

Zambia, where there was PROWWESS input prior to 1990, and Malawi, where the program had a limited one-off input. Botswana, which has taken part in the PHAST initiative since 1993 completes the list of II countries which the review aimed to address. l

The review was done by an independent, SARAR trained consultant who lives in Harare, Zimbabwe. The time budget was 25 consultant working days spread over a period of 11 months. In two countries, Kenya and Zimbabwe, interviews were held with key informants. However, the mainstay of this review is a set of replies to a questionnaire which was designed by a core group of PROWWESS associates during a half day workshop in Zimbabwe. Pre-testing of the questionnaire was also in Zimbabwe. Please refer to Annex 3 for the questionnaire.

The RWSG-EA contributed to the review in many ways: Ron Sawyer attended the workshop in Zimbabwe, and together with Rose Lidonde commented on various drafts of the questionnaire. RWSG-EA staff compiled the data base of PROWWESS trained persons in 11 countries and RWSG-EA also sent out the forms. There were several debriefings about the preliminary results and feedback from RWSG-EA about the direction the review should take. The write up of the results, however, has been the reviewer's responsibility.

A low response rate was expected since in many cases the forms were sent to addresses indicated at the time of training, which could be as long ago as 1985. A low response rate thus most likely means that people simply did not receive the form, or received it too late to make an effort and meet the deadline. Not so Zimbabwean village community worker Clemence Nyariri who did respond and wrote:

•.. Your questionnaire has reached me as late as July (three months after the deadline). I think: it is because of the address. Since I am interested in PROWWESS I have decided to return it anyway.•

A generous amount of time was given for responses to reach the reviewer as the report was compiled 16 weeks after the deadline. However, reminders were sent in only a few cases. There were no responses from Lesotho and Malawi, and respondents from Zambia represented a batch of recently trained persons rather than the 1986 group.

In addition to dire~t mailing questionnaire forms were distributed along informal channels. Expressed in numbers: of the 258 forms sent out by RWSG/EA only 69 (27%) completed forms were returned, while the remaining (55) responses came from such networking contacts. It is thus hard to define a 'response rate' since it is not known how many people received a questionnaire to fill in. Table 1 below gives an indication of the response.

PHAST stands for Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation, a collahorative program between PROWWESS. WHO. UNICEF, and national counterparts.

2

Table 1: Country responses

Questionnaires Remarks

sent by completed RWSG-EA & returned

n n (%)

Botswana 6 2 (34) Ethiopia 3 13 (> 100) Questionnaire forms were copied and passed on Ghana 4 2 (50) Kenya 50 24 (48) Lesotho 4 0 (0) Since no response, no data to include in the review Malawi ? 0 Since no response, no data to include in the review Nigeria 28 4 (14) Two more respondents now reside in 'other

countries' Tanzania 34 14 (41) Includes 1 multiple response Uganda 7 8 (> 100) Questionnaire forms were copied and passed on;

Includes 1 multiple response Zambia ? 6 Questionnaire forms were distributed on various

occasions Zimbabwe 105 42 (40) Not including 5 responses gathered during pre­

testing. Other 12 4 (33) Includes persons responding from experience in countries one of the above countries. Pre-test 5 5 (Zimbabwe)

Total > 258 124

Two forms were filled in by more than one person. In the analysis the total number of respondents is for most questions set at 124 which includes the (5) respondents of the pre­test. The table shows that among the 9 countries reached, respondents of 5 countries provided most of the data. These countries are Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda.

The above methodology of sending a questionnaire to all PROWWESS trained persons who could be reached was inspired by the wish to 'take stock', that is to update and validate a regional roster of PROWWESS trainers, artists and process specialists, which was an additional objective of the review. In Kenya and Zimbabwe the whereabouts of PROWWESS trainees were better known than in other countries, and these two countries thus make up 53 % of the respondents. It is hard to tell what bias was introduced by combining the objectives of a review and of updating a roster. Where responses appeared country-specific the data are presented per country.

The questionnaire itself was designed to give an opportunity to express opinions - all questions were open. Since virtually all answers are recorded respondents with many and well defined views feature more strongly in the analysis. Only when there was obvious

3

3

mis-interpretation of a question was the answer discarded.

What was gained by doing the review this way is a response from a large group of people representing a number of disciplines and working at levels ranging from farm health worker to manager of a large institution. The one common factor is that all respondents have attended SARAR training workshops in one of the nine African countries covered by the review.

It is especia1ly gratifying to have had so many responses from field staff, who have incorporated the methodology in their daily work. This group of respondents a1so put most detail in their replies.

A list of respondents and of other persons who contributed to the review is provided in Annex 4. In the presentation of the data the phrasing used by respondents is adhered to except in cases where minor editing was needed for brevity and clarity. When respondents are cited in the review their names and titles are as they were filled in on the questionnaire form. The next chapter gives an overview of the profile of the PROWWESS trained persons whose combined opinions form the substance of this review.

Profile of PROWWESS trained persons

To give the profile of respondents is more than a matter of form as these persons represent the intermediaries between PROWWESS and the ultimate target group, the communities. They are a selection (albeit not a random selection - see chapter 2) of those who have taken part in the training. Table 2, 3 and 4 give some details about the respondents.

Table 2: Year of (113) respondents' first training in participatory methods·

year before '85 1985 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94

number 2** 3 10 2 7 2 24 13 17 28

* II respondents either did not fill in the question (7) or stated they were not trained (4). ** This is before PROWWESS training took: place in Africa. Respondents thus indicated other

participatory training prior to their PROWWESS training.

The number of (4) people who stated they were not actually trained is explained by the fact that a questionnaire was sent to both participants and resource persons. The latter group in some cases only attended part of a workshop.

4

5

Table 3: Main focus of work of 118 PROWWESS trained respondents*

training; promotion

management & administration; planning

extension work at community level

material production; media

research & data collection

technical (water supply)

other; ill defined

n (%)

44 (34)

29 (23)

25 (20)

13 (10)

7 (5)

4 (3)

6 (5)

Total 128 (100)

* No information on 6 respondents; for 10 re.~pondents more than one category applied.

Table 4: Sector of application and setting of (118) PROWWESS trained respondents *

employment setting of respondents

Governmentl International I National Area bound Privatelsectorl profession University Regional NGO Program project consultancy

community participation & hygiene education in water supplyl sanitation lenvironmental health

47 9 20 2

artist 8

engineer I technician 5 2

community developmentl women's affairs 5

management I administration 3

HIV/AIDS; family planning 4

health learning materials I media

wildlife I agriculture I conservation 2

education (adult; pre-school) 2

Other

Total 63 (53%) 14 (12%) 6 (5%) 25(21%) 10 (9%)

* No information on 6 respondents.

5

4 The SARAR methodology

The main activity of the PROWWESS experts based in Nairobi has been the training of trainers and extension staff in the use of SARAR participatory methods and materials. Petronilla Chitera, AIDS Counselling Trust, Zimbabwe gives a short definition of her understanding of the methodology:

'It is based on the belief that every human being has the innate capacity to develop into an effective agent of change.'

Ron Sawyer expresses it as follows:

'Today a community's problem is water. Tomorrow it is another problem. SARAR is about getting people out of that shell, make them realize their life is in their hands.'

It follows that all SARAR methods and techniques should be seen against this backdrop and that to describe the methodology merely in terms of its methods and techniques would not do justice to the underlying principles without which the methodology could easily be reduced to a bag of tricks. Nevertheless it seems useful for those readers who are not, or no longer, familiar with SARAR to recall the most commonly used techniques and concepts which are listed in table 5 below.

Table 5: Top ten SARAR techniques adopted hy (24) respondents

n*

pocket chart 29 story with a gap 26 mapping 19 3 pile sorting 17 unserialized posters 16 faecal contamination routes 13 gender & task analysis 10 sanitation ladder 10 lohari's window 10 resistance to change 10

.. n indicates the cumulative numher of times a technique is mentioned.

Answers such as "I use all elements" were discarded in this analysis. Field staff gave most detail in their replies on the techniques that they like best and which they have been able to fit into their work. These are on the one hand practical techniques such as the pocket chart which are popular in work with communities. They are also the theoretical concepts such as lohari's window and the cup exercise which are brought across in the SARAR training and which are from then on assimilated in the trainees' approach to

6

working with communities. Annex 5 gives the cumulative list of SARAR elements - both theoretical and practical - adopted by the respondents.

Since the SARAR methodology is the core of PROWWESS in East Africa, it is useful to consider its merits before looking at factors which promote or hinder adoption in the environment in which the methodology is to come to life. Table 6 on the next page gives an overview of the opinions of SARAR trained persons.

The factor 'time' is apparently a major limitation while on the positive side the effect of the methodology is seen as a major advantage compared to all other methodologies. A sample of respondents' opinions is perhaps the best way to convey how positive the users of the methodology really are and how in many cases using the methodology has made a difference to people's professional life.

Beatrice E.Sakyi. Kumasi Health Education Unit, Ghana: 'It makes my work very easy. It helps me to know what my target group know already and this makes planning programmes easy. In summary it makes health education simpler.'

Phoebe K.Baddu, SWIP, Uganda: 'I believe I am a better communicator/trainer and facilitator than I was before PROWWESS exposure.'

P.V.Ndoro, Ministry of National Affairs. Zimbabwe: 'It is the only method which helps people develop the outlook. the competence, self confidence and commitment which will ensure a sustainable and responsible community effort in a given programme .•

Jolly Barigye, SWIP, Uganda: 'It is breaking down the monotony of the methods that I was already using.'

M.L.Mapuranga, Ministry of Health, Mutare, Zimbabwe: 'I have stopped identifying problems for the community and finding the solutions for them. Communities have those capacities themselves. '

W.B.Azeez, Federal Ministry of Health and Social Services, Nigeria: 'The people in the community have confidence in me, mainly because of the application of the participatory approach.'

Bernard N.Mureka, Kilifi Water and Sanitation Project, Kenya: 'It reduced my workload that is less talking and instruction; it enabled me to learn from the participants new concepts and techniques.'

Clotilde Runganga. Farm Health Worker Trainer in Mvurwi, Zimbabwe (SARAR trained in 1986): 'It improved my approach; it made life easy for me. I would love to have more training to improve the health standards of our people.'

G.P.Chiyangwa, Ministry of National Affairs. Bindura, Zimbabwe: 'It helped me to learn that we have to build up from where the people are.'

Ngoni Mudege, IWSD, Harare, Zimhahwe: 'The methodology bridges the gap between the informant and the evaluator. the facilitator and the trainee, the leader and the led, and between peers.'

7

Table 6: Ten main strengths and limitations of the methodology noted by PROWWESS trained persons in African countries

Strengths & Advantages as compared to other methodologies: Limitations:

Methodology achieves community participation in the true sense

Easy to use, tlexihle; reduces strain on facilitator

Logical sequence of steps leads to action; Group responsibility for decisions and action

Concepts clear and understandahle

Use of visual tools overcomes barriers of illiteracy

Enjoyable and interesting for all who take part

Enables facilitator to better understand community's options for change

Gives equal opportunity to everyone, and thus overcomes bias to women

Empowers to make informed decisions

Better penetrates into people's minds than other methods

n* n*

30 • Time consuming for communityI

23

20 • Time consuming for extension staff to conduct; to learn; to prepare 23

20 Requires extension staff/trainer with special qualities;

15 ; may backfire in the hands of poor trainer 14 I

Needs training materials and visual tools; needs funds to prepare such materials II

Needs support and commitment of superiors 9

10 i Visual tools need to be clear so that they cannot be misinterpreted 7

7 • Simplicity of toolkit and concepts reduces credibility of methodology 7

Requires groups of small size 6

Needs personnel trained in the methodology 5

• Is not geared to perform in situations which are less than ideal such as 7 i time pressure; lack of homogeneity of target group; power struggles 4

I Ignores existing hierarchy; assumes that change of unequal 7 I relation-ships is feasible and wanted 4

I 5 t

I 5 I Is insufficiently open to input of other participatory methods 4.

*' n gives the number of answers given by 124 respondents. Multiple answers are recorded.

8

Limitations of the methodology are also given1:

Tendai S Katsande, Farm Health Worker Trainer, Bindura, Zimbabwe: 'Traditional beliefs can be limitations. For example, some wells are said to belong to spirit mediums and therefore cannot be protected.' (SARAR works on the principle that prompting the cumulative wisdom of a community generates the most suitable message. The respondent refers to a situation in which a community's combined wisdom confirms an 'undesirable belief .)

Lancelot Moyo, District Administrator, Kezi, Zimbabwe: 'The method can be used only in communities with common customs, norms and values.'

S.M.Mwendar, UNICEF, Nairobi: 'The methodology cannot wholesomely be fitted into other aspects e.g. hygiene education. It is very suitable for community participation ­motivation, awareness and so on, but not fully so for hygiene. '

Lauchlan Munro, UNICEF, Harare: 'Not everyone is cut out to do that sort of work, especially where more didactic, directive modes of work have prevailed before. Thus, large scale replication is difficult and slow.'

Mayling Simpson-Hebert, WHO, Geneva: 'It reaches few people and slowly.'

Nomathemba Musabayane, IWSD, Harare: 'One can easily be led astray from mainstream purpose. There is a tendency to use the methodology out of context. One can be restrictive in a participatory manner. Data analysis is often a problem. It needs time to master the techniques.'

Abednego Chigumbu, Provincial Environmental Health Officer, Zimbabwe: 'Time for true participatory approach in real life situations may be limited.' .

John K. Odolon, RUWASA Project, Uganda: 'It relies a lot on illustrations thus making an artist a must.'

Patrick Tajjuba, RUWASA Project, Uganda: 'In affluent communities it is taken as something for children.'

Nimrod W.M.Mwanyalo, ASAL Programme, Kenya: 'Some of the pictures do not apply in some situations. They can give a completely different view from what was intended.'

Citations may reflect only one angle of a respondent's view.

9

--

Reviewer notes on SARAR methodology:

The methodology has merits, which are exceptiona1 and invaluable as no other methodology quite matches SARAR's integrity and community focus.

The methodology enables issues to come up which would otherwise be too sensitive to be openly discussed. The methodology is invaluable for prompting people, and notably groups of people, to drop their defenses, and to explore practices and standards which normally go unchallenged. Examples are gender roles; leadership.

The methodology works well for PROWWESS' objectives of empowerment of women, and this is because it provides a neutral framework for negotiating diverse needs and in so doing overcomes the inequality of conventiona1 gatherings.

The methodology sits uneasily with messages, and there also is a measure of disregard for the content part of messages since the philosophy is that the target group knows best.

The methodology requires inputs, notably locally appropriate visual tools.

The visual tools are a major attraction of the methodology. This advantage has a flip side: the methodology offers a one for all package, and the tools, at least in the water sector, are essentially unchanged after 10 years of practice. In the current set up trainees depend on materials the production of which is linked to individual workshops resulting in mUltiple sets of mediocre quality materials. The assumption that trainees, or their institutions, have the resources and capability to take material design and production in their own hands does not seem to hold. The materials are thus both an asset and a limitation.

The methodology's dependence on visuals means that the issues at hand should lend themselves to 'visualization'. This may lead to a biased selection of issues.

The methodology requires trainers and extension staff with a fair amount of inner security but on the other hand it will help to develop this security for those who are prepared to try.

The methodology is most appropriate for dealing with issues of high felt importance, which justify considerable time expenditure; in communities or groups which have a common framework for the issues at hand; and in situations which tolerate equality of participants.

In other words - and this comes hardly as a surprise: The methodology is most appropriate in situations for which it was conceived, for communities, for community participation, for community participation on important and shared issues - such as communal water supplies.

10

S Country Strategies

Introduction of the SARAR methodology in African countries has been a staggered process since 1985. Kenya and Zimbabwe were the first countries where demand from externally funded projects led to workshops for project staff. These workshops were facilitated by members of the small core group of international trainers who conceived and enriched the SARAR methodology.

The workshops and the methodology, which was regarded as highly innovative, made an impact on the projects concerned and in many cases led to a tota1 change in their approach. At that time, however, the concern was not so much to institutionalize the approach but rather to demonstrate how 'working with communities' could be done in a different way. Projects were thus the main entry point.

In 1990, when the PROWWESS international expert joined the RWSG-EA, participatory approaches had been adopted by projects in a number of African countries. The chalJenge was to take these approaches beyond projects into mainstream and government practice. I This chapter describes for some of these countries how this challenge was addressed.

Tanwnia

In 1988 a regional PROWWESS methodology workshop was held in Tanzania which led to an agreement between three key ministries to have a national PROWWESS program, coordinated by one of these ministries. This commitment made Tanzania a priority country for PROWWESS support and this country was thus weJl represented in the 1990 regional Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop, which was the first major workshop co­facilitated by the international expert after joining the RWSG-EA. This was followed in 1991 by a Danida funded national workshop attended by staff of about 7 projects which further helped to create interest and also led to the formation of a core team of PROWWESS-associates based in Dar es Salaam. AMREF came on board and recruited an expatriate volunteer who was to assist in the design and production of participatory tools ­identified as a key area for support. In 1992 the Ministry of Water, Energy and Minerals requested another workshop, specifically for projects without external funding. At the same time the core team worked on a National PROWWESS Strategy, which was later officially endorsed.

Constraints were the following: a) Resources: NETWAS funding for Tanzania fell through and the NETWASIAMREF

staff member then was assigned to other duties. Production of visual tools did not materialize.

b) Key institutional stronghold: The link with a regional NGO, which had potential to promote country-wide participatory approaches and regional exchange, thus became severed at a time when the core team still needed this external support.

c) Network: Externally funded projects operated on their own and participatory

Chapter 9 gives more detail on the joh description of the international expert.

11

approaches were not shared between projects. d) Institutional position of participatory experts: The core team did not have the

mandate, nor the capacity to give follow up to workshops. e) Ability to respond to demand: The core team's full time employment and the

institutional position in a 'hardware ministry' made for little outreach. Demand for assistance could thus only partially be met and up-front activities to create demand were unfeasible.

At present. despite the fact that Tanzania is the only country where a PROWWESS strategy is officially adopted, and where trained persons have from the start been in mainstream government positions, these persons' expertise remains underutilized. The RWSG-EA kept in touch with the associates, and notably with the core team. Core team members were occasionally invited to attend and assist in other national workshops. Tanzania was not, however, among the four countries selected to participate in the PHAST project - partly because there was no established link with the Ministry of Health. The RWSG-EA could thus not help the core team to regain momentum through a new shared purpose.

Ethiopia

One of the participants in the 1990 regional Monitoring and Evaluation workshop was an Ethiopian who subsequently pressed for PROWWESS input in his country. In 1991 a workshop was arranged in the Awassa area in Southern Ethiopia, where RWSG-EA had commitments to a CIDA project. UNICEF came in with support for production of a toolkit and three cooperating government departments gave an institutional stronghold. The most important factor steering the initial momentum was the commitment and enthusiasm of a group of individuals. who, despite transfers and other institutional hurdles, became committed and confident trainers. This was helped by initial demand for their input by UNICEF, and by professional and moral support of RWSG-EA which worked in tandem with NETWAS.

Constraints were many and, as may be expected, mostly political, institutional and inter­personal:

a) Decentralization operated against sustainable endeavours in governmental settings. Government institutions proved too unstable a climate for a new approach to take root.

b) Essential support of higher levels in the bureaucracy was missing. c) The vital support and networking role of the RWSG-EA country based technical

advisor came to a halt with this person's sudden departure. d) Donor demand for nationals to give participatory training faltered.

At present there is in Ethiopia a small but highly motivated group of participatory trainers, with strong informal links, some of whom still promote participatory approaches in any situation that can be created. The RWSG-EA under the circumstances could do no more than keep in touch with this group of associates and arrange for their attendance at regional workshops.

12

Kenya

Kenya had in 1985 its first encounter with the SARAR methodology when Kwale project staff from various ministries in the project area were trained. After the 1990 regional workshop several projects, and notably KWAHO, requested follow up from the RWSG· EA based international expert. This led to the formation of a consultative group, later called PALNET, consisting of project representatives, NGOs and Ministry of Health staff. PALNET found a coordinating office in NETWAS, which itself is established at AMREF in Nairobi. As mentioned before, the locally recruited PROWWESS trainer was in 1991 seconded to NETWAS and this organization was thus both partner and co· implementor in RWSG-EA efforts. In 1993 the PHAST project came in which gave a sense of purpose to cooperation between the participating projects and institutions ­CARE, KEFINCO, UNICEF, NETWAS and the Ministry of Health. This project's emphasis on material development led, amongst other things, to production of visual tools on hygiene and sanitation, which is an area of common interest. Kenya is one of the few countries where participatory approaches have filtered through to other sectors, notably AIDS education, partly because NGOs with a multi sectoral focus such as CARE are now involved.

The constraints in Kenya have thus been relatively mild. Yet it is obvious that governmental pathways to spread participatory approaches have only just been opened through the PHAST project, and that, despite a long PROWWESS history, there are no formal links with ministries other than the Ministry of Health. Participatory approaches have been embraced in projects, but are far from being adopted in government practice. It is also noteworthy that there is a certain amount of secrecy on participatory methodologies, and that some projects are guarding 'their methodology' as if it was a unique recipe to fame. The PHAST project counteracts this tendency because it is set up to share experiences and new applications.

A recent evaluation of NETWAS has recommended amongst other things that the marketable services of this organization . and notably participatory training skills - take a higher profile. Reinforcement with professional staff in this area may expand NETW AS' and PALNET's operations and open the way to a larger body of skilled trainers whose services can be hired. Other recommendations can then be addressed which are, firstly, that decision makers are singled out as a target group for sensitization on participatory processes and secondly, that relevant courses formally incorporate participatory approaches in their curricula.

Uganda

The 1990 regional workshop was attended by one person from Uganda, and it was only in 1992 when requests from NETWAS/AMREF in Uganda led to a national workshop attended by several projects - CARE, KUPP, RUW ASA, SWIP - and by the Ministry of Health. This workshop, and the pre-planning preceding it, created a team of competent and motivated participatory trainers from the various projects. A parallel development was the SIDA support to the sector's training needs which led to the formation of a HRD club of these participatory experts. Other factors that helped towards a quick uptake and

13

high profile of participatory approaches were the recommendations of the RUWASA project's review, which concurred in time and thrust with the initial phase of the PHAST project.

Thus although in Uganda the introduction of the SARAR methodology came relatively late, constraints are apparently few. The RUWASA project has played an important role because it is significant in size and because it is set in a government department. The PHAST project has reinforced the links with the Ministry of Health as it has done in other countries. This project has also strengthened the links with PROWWESS associates in neighbouring countries, notably Kenya, as there have been several joint endeavours such as the Artist Workshop. It is noted though that not all projects in Uganda directly benefit from the PHAST project as some, such as the SWIP project, are not taking part.

Zimbabwel

Zimbabwe was one of the first countries in which the SARAR methodology was demonstrated. This was in 1986, in a provincial workshop for Farm Health Workers, sponsored by Save the Children (UK). The workshop created enormous interest among those involved. This is apparent from the fact that Zimbabwean staff who played a role as co-trainers in this first workshop subsequently became themselves facilitators of similar workshops, with little external assistance. In 1988 a National Workshop followed for Ministry of Health staff facilitated by a UNDP consultant.

Lack of visual tools proved a stumbling block. Visual materials were produced for the Ministry of Health, eventually, but their design was disjointed from real life settings and the materials were not field tested. Other materials were produced at provincial level through the persistence of one of the participants of the 1986 workshop. It is noteworthy that another former participant of the 1988 workshop has incorporated elements of the SARAR methodology in the environmental health technicians training sylJabus. However, in the absence of wider distribution of appropriate visual tools the use of the methodology has been sketchy.

New impetus came with the recruitment in 1992 of a participatory trainer in the ITN centre in Harare, and more recently with the directions of UNICEF, which in several pilot projects demonstrated its commitment and its affinity with participatory approaches. The PHAST project then drew in the Ministry of Health staff and in addition three more pilot projects executed by governmental staff adopted the SARAR methodology, and set out to produce locally appropriate visual tools.

Zimbabwe now appears to be in a favourable take-off situation compared to other African countries. Yet even in Zimbabwe there is no evidence that the SARAR methodology has been taken beyond the sector and neither is there a body of expert trainers specialized in training for trainers. Thus, although the trainers in the above institutions have become

With thanles to Julita Maradzilea who gave an overview of the early PROWWESS history in Zimbabwe.

14

skilled and confident they are only just able to cope with the increased demand for training field staff - a situation which is self-perpetuating in the absence of proper training for trainers opportunities. These experts then are clearly unable to entertain requests for assistance beyond the sector both because they are too busy already and because the transposition of the SARAR methodology and its tools to other sectors, although quite feasible, would require a separate exercise which generally would be beyond the mandate and sectoral expertise of these experts.

The above review on five countries demonstrates that there has not been a lot of room to set and follow a strategy for institutional rooting of participatory approaches, since input has depended on demand and funding from external sources with, generally speaking, a conventional project-focused interest. Where project and institutional interests concurred - as in RUWASA, Uganda - acceptance and expansion was fast, but this was fortuitous. The RWSG-EA based experts thus had to play it by ear, or as circumstances allowed. Also the manpower initially only consisted of three master trainers for the whole region. The input given by these master trainers then mostly was in workshops, and in informal support to networks. It was up to the persons and projects trained to follow up on these.

The PHAST project has made a difference for a number of reasons: It is co-funded by RWSG-EA and the strategy is therefore co-determined by RWSG­EA (unlike the usual dependence on conventional project agendas) It has continuity (unlike the usual one-off workshops) It has a clear central theme - transformation of hygiene behaviour - which is relevant and important for actors of different institutions and projects Actors see potential to come up with tangible output and solutions It creates a positive atmosphere of exchange and competition between country teams (compare with conventional sectoral projects where exchange is erratic). It gives renewed energy and status to PROWWESS associates The central theme and the weight of donors draw in governmental staff and the results of the project thus are likely to feed into government practice It has donor cooperation (UNICEF, WHO, PROWWESS).

The above is in fact a list of 'ingredients of success'. Although it is too early to draw firm conclusions some lessons are obvious:

Strategic lessons for introducing participatory approaches at country level:

1) There has to be a degree of continuity, and thus of guaranteed funding. 2) Introduction of participatory approaches works best around a central theme which

has sufficient clout. One example, apart from hygiene behaviour, could be 'community management', which is an area of increasing interest both in and beyond the water sector - refer to the Campfire experience in Zimbabwe.

3) The theme has to lend itself to new, creative and preferably visible solutions and outputs - refer to the 'cookbook of SARAR tools' which is generated in Kenya.

4) Uptake in mainstream practice has to be a key objective and government staff should thus be partners from the start.

5) Concerted donor action gives weight.

15

6 Adoption of participatory approacbes

6.1 Adoption by PROWWESS trained persons

The purpose of the PROWWESS/SARAR training is, in broad terms, a shift from an autocratic to a participatory approach. Trainees' adoption of a participatory approach - the SARAR methodology - is the desired end-result of the training. Adoption comes in different degrees. Table 7 is an attempt to rank to what extent trained persons have adopted the methodology in their work.

Table 7: Adoption of SARAR methodology in (124) respondents' work

Respondents statements on adoption of the methodology: I ... n (%)

use and promote the methodology whenever an occasion can be created; methodology is part & parcel of my daily work 4 (3)

use all elements & have made adaptations to suit working situation 4 (3)

have incorporated methodology to fit in already existing training courses; to fit in my management style 5 (4)

use all elements as taught 15 (12)

use specific elements; use specific elements in amended form 57 (46)

use it for data collection 3 (2)

don't use tools. but have changed outlook and approach on work with 12 (10) communities

am waiting for occasion; have insufficient opportunity to use; am-prevented 12 (10) from using

other: blank; forgotten what methodology is about; not sufficiently trained'" 12 (10)

... 4 respondents stated they had only witnessed part of a workshop.

The grading of the above categories is a little arbitrary, and since the answers were categorized from open questions it was sometimes difficult to correctly interpret the level and intensity of adoption of the methodology.

An excerpt of respondents statements:

lohn K. Odolon. RUWASA Project, Uganda: 'Ruwasa has embraced the approach by remodelling the various training courses to use participatory methods. Supervisory and operational staff have to go through the training. '

David Ede, formerly Rusafiya Project, Nigeria: 'It provides a framework in which my inherent management style can fit and he understood and appreciated.'

16

Andrew W.M.Kwezi, executive engineer with the Ministry of Water, Morogoro. Tanzania: (I use it to) 'plan together for example by giving bills of quantities of the project and together decide on the division of contribution. '

Denford Maruta, Ministry of Health, Juru, Zimbabwe: 'The methodology offers variety. You choose a method which is suitable. The choice is yours. '

Mayling Simpson-Hebert. WHO, Geneva: '} apply SARAR principles in whatever situation} can - } find it can tum any experience into a positive one.'

Reviewer notes on adoption of the methodology:

There is a group of SARAR converted who 'live the methodology' and who have taken the methodology further than what was taught. For those people SARAR has endless applications.

The methodology is not, or seldom, adopted in its totality which is to follow a sequence of problem identification through to joint problem solution and action (the assumption being that after such a sequence of steps communities can begin to handle subsequent problems by themselves).

Most respondents have picked up elements which they like, and for which they have the tools. Elements that are easy to apply such as 'story with a gap' are widely used, also in other sectors.

6.2 Adoption for specific purposes

Both for investigation and planning SARAR has developed techniques and tools which are meant to be used in the sequence of steps leading to community action. However, a number of respondents specifically mention the usefulness of such participatory techniques for data collection and planning in other contexts, and for purposes beyond the community level. A sample of their statements:

Ray Clinton Ndhlukula, Provincial Administrator, Zimbabwe: 'At least at the lower level one expects data that will be relevant to planning; data which in the past one was forced to run around looking for. ' 'It has made my subordinates see the benefits of involving the people in planning and managing projects.' 'The production of water and sanitation plans using participatory methods means that other sectors could be planned in a similar manner, especially those that directly affect the lives of the rural folk. It is a methodology that realizes the democratization of the planning process.'

Munguti Katui-Katua, Community Management and Training Services, Nairobi: 'It makes it possible to collect information cheaply and accurately. It is the only way to know people's feelings, attitudes and knowledge without hurting them.'

17

Ms Pamhidzai Piyo, Principal Environmental Health officer, Shamva, Zimbabwe: 'Participatory methods could be employed in higher levels of planning where various agencies have to work together to come up with prioritized development plans.'

Lauchlan Munro, UNICEF, Zimbabwe: 'It has allowed knowledge and experience to come to light that would otherwise have gone unnoticed and unused by project managers.'

Reviewer'S note: This application is in practical terms similar to techniques used in Participatory Rural Appraisa1. It has no sectoral boundaries.

6.3 Adoption in other sectors

Adoption of the SARAR methodology in other sectors is not a PROWWESS objective. Yet there is demand from other sectors - which is understandable since SARAR has a lot to offer and because the methodology has by nature no sectoral limitations. Participatory techniques are used in other sectors where there has been need for new and unconventional approaches as in HIVIAIDS related education. To this reviewer's knowledge, however, there has been no transplant of the complete range of SARAR tools and concepts to other sectors. Yet the methodology is eminently suitable for a wide range of sectors. A sample of opinions of PROWWESS associates:

Ron Sawyer, RWSG-EA, Kenya: 'So many people ask to be trained; when they are in the (water) sector, we can refer them to Palnet, but if they are not, we can do nothing for them .. '

Melvin Woodhouse, AMREF, Nairobi: 'Once you have the techniques you can apply them where your imagination allows you. The techniques can be applied on broad range of issues. The point is that the momentum has to be kept up through continued development, application, and dissemination.'

James M Ndungu, Kenya Wildlife Service, Voi: 'Participatory methods are being used for the first time in community based wildlife conservation and utilization in Kenya. Although SARAR approach can work, there is need to develop tools and an approach best suitable for community wildlife interventions.'

Munguti Katui-Katua. Community Management & Training Services, Nairobi: 'The potential in agriculture, livestock and husiness/trade is immense.'

Extension staff of all sectors are expected to work with communities, and this they tend to do in the way they themselves have been taught: top down and message oriented. Committed extension staff, however, are only too happy to adopt a methodology in which they no longer have to perform solo acts on slippery ground.

18

7

Adoption in other sectors:

The SARAR methodology has no sectora] boundaries. Transposing SARAR to other sectors appears an option worth considering since there ~ly is no other methodology which offers such an integra] package of concepts, methods and tools for use at community level. The strengths and limitations of the methodology should be kept in mind, however, as these are similar for all sectors - refer to chapter 4.

6.4 Adoption in RWSG projects

One of the aims of having a PROWWESS expert in the RWSG-EA was to enrich and guide the 'social aspects' of RWSG supported projects in Eastern. Western and Southern Africa. Specifically this was to include training in participatory techniques at all levels. health education, WID, social research, and community level income generating activities.

In interviews with RWSG-EA staff the reviewer found that these staff hold the SARAR/PROWWESS approach, and the experts, in high esteem. There had been efforts to incorporate the approach from the very start in an urban project in Ethiopia, but the project eventually did not materialize. In the Katwe Urban Pilot Project in Uganda, which is the only Program project of RWSG-EA, the cooperation worked as intended and to all parties' satisfaction.

It thus appears that the opportunities for hands-on cooperation in RWSG projects have been few and far between. The PROWWESS experts had an amicable setting in the RWSG-EA, but their work was paraJlel and complementary rather than part of their colleagues' work.

The PROWWESS experts had a subtle effect on the management style of the RWSG-EA. Their search for ways to do things in a different way, to bring meetings to life with participatory techniques, and their openness and interest in RWSG-EA colleagues are highly appreciated. Though difficult to Quantify, such inputs are of obvious importance.

Forces determining adoption

The persons addressed by the questionnaire were requested to give their experience on what factors have helped, and what factors have hindered them to use participatory methods. The answers are tabulated below in Tables 8 and 9, in categories which are easy for the reader to memorize (acronym: DREAMS, for Demand; Relevance; Effect; Availability, Methodology. and Support). Please note that these categories cover both positive and negative factors. Thus: absence of demand. non-availability, lack of support, a low opinion on the methodology's feasibility etcetera are factors that hindered adoption.

19

Table 8: Factors which helped respondents to use panicipatory methods in their work

Factors related to n*

Demand: personal satisfaction of being in demand for what is seen as a special skill 4 demand for demonstration & training and recognition from other programs 4

Relevance relevance to own work 21 complementary to own background & training; increased understanding of theoretical concepts underpinning own work: matching own philosophy 11 immediate application 5

Effect response of communities; their eagerness to participate & use the tools 15 seen to be effective in the field & therefore give confidence 9 previous failure to achieve meaningful cooperation with didactic methods 4 response of women 3 proves itself in workshops 3 eagerness of trainee extension staff, no boredom 2 increases self esteem of extension staff 1

Availability availability of extension materials; tool kit 14 availability of manuals; of resource book 8 availability and cooperation of trained persons in country 6 availability of resources; funding 4 own determination and creativity 3

Methodology the PROWWESS workshops; confidence gained during the workshops 18 adaptability of methodology to suit local situations 4 clarity of concepts; completeness of methodology 3 repeated exposure to methodology 3 variety of methods & tools 2 use of all senses, especially use of visual materials 2 focus on sustainability 2 methodology translates the jargon of participation into reality 2 easy application of tools I

Support open mindedness of supervisors: support and appreciation of management 13 conducive working environment; team spirit; creative momentum; synergy 8 support, inspiration and commitment of RWSG/EA facilitators 6 sharing experiences with staff of other departments; multisectoral approach 3 appreciation of funding agency 2 structure of organization I legitimacy when official policy endorses participatory approaches (fanzania) 1

* Numbers indicate the frequency of answers. Many respondents gave multiple answers and virtually all answers are recorded.

20

Table 9: Obstacles for respondents to use participatory methods in their work

Factors related to: n*

Oack of) Demand project I funding agency gives priority to meeting construction targets 7 prevailing climate of top down methods inhibits demand 5 hardware component of project operates out of step 3

Oow perceived) Relevance target group looses interest if project fails to address priority needs; if hygiene education comes without service improvement; if project of little relevance 6 requires a well defined target group to be relevant 2 methods distant from funding realities 1

Oittle) Effect women shy away from the empowerment offered by the methods; creates tension when traditional role models overturned reluctance of communities to follow through on what was agreed in such informal meetings

Oow) Availability lack of appropriate extension materials 29 lack of resources; especially lack of funding 13 no budget for training; no budget for material production; costly II shortage of suitable artists 5 lack of transport 4 shortage of trained persons and trainers 4 production and distribution of materials too long after course completion 3 lack of capacity and facilities to create suitable (coloured) tools 3 lack of reference materials for sectors other than the water sector 2 lack: of basics such as paper & pencils 2

(problems with) Methodology time consuming for communities to attend: for facilitator to prepare; for project to adopt 29 need to modify materials to suit local situation; difficult to improvize 8 short life time of the materials; difficult to make them durable 5 lengthy training which leaves too little room for discussion of incorporation into participants' real life working situation 3 methodology ill-suited for large meetings 3 package of materials too heavy to carry around on field visits 1 materials unconvincing for those who haven't witnessed their application 1 materials must be good to avoid misunderstanding and embarrassment 1 methodology brings out perceived needs which are beyond project to solve 1 competition with non-PROWWESS participatory methodologies 1

(lack of) Support resistance to change & scepticism of supervisors and colleagues; adherence to conventional methodologies 14 lack of support & commitment of management 13 lack of follow up of PROWWESS training 6 lack of support of funding agency; insistence on methodology of donor's choice 6 apprehension of technocrats: low esteem of target group's abilities 5

* Numbers indicate the frequency of answers. Multiple answers are recorded.

21

2

Although the phrasing of the question refers to any participatory method, not just the SARAR methodology, respondents took this to be PROWWESSISARAR.

It is noteworthy that problems perceived with the relevance and effectiveness of the methodology are few. Clearly, the response of communities is particularly inspiring, and a relief for extension staff who experienced failure when using conventional methods. A conducive working environment with support and encouragement of superiors, and with team work. is another major determinant and this to some extent explains why participatory approaches are more easily adopted in project settings than in bureaucratic surroundings.

The strong points in favour of adopting participatory methods are spread fairly evenly over five categories whereas the forces operating against adoption are mainly found in three categories: availability (of extension materials), methodology (time demanding), and support (lack of support of superiors). This is more clearly shown in Table 10 below which is a compilation of tables 8 and 9.

Table lO: Weight of factors determining adoption, or non-adoption, of participatory methods*

effect on adoption of methods

positive negative Positive forces i e high: n** n Negative forces i e low:

Demand 8 15 Demand

Relevance 37 9 Relevance

Effect 37 3 Effect

Availability 35 76 Availability

(Opinion on) Methodology 37 53 (Opinion on) Methodology

Support 34 44 Support

See preceding tables for the factors making up the categories "* n indicates the number of times (124) respondents mentioned a factor.

The low number of respondents in all but 5 countries makes a comparison between all countries futile. Table lIon the next page lists the positive and negative factors mentioned most often as decisive for adoption of participatory methods in the 5 countries which generated 8 or more responses.

22

Table II: Country specific key factors determining adoption of participatory methods in S African countries * Key factors promoting adoption Ethiopia Kenya Tanzania Uganda Zimbabwe

relevance to own work * * * * seen to be effective in the field & therefore gives confidence * response of communities; their eagerness to participate & use the tools * * availability of extension Itraining materials; guidelines * the PROWWESS workshops which offer the methodology * * * * * open mindedness of supervisors; support and appreciation of management * * *

Key factors inhibiting adoption

non-availability of extension Itraining materials * * * lack of resources; especially lack of funds for training * * * time consuming for communities to attend; for facilitator to prepare; for project to adopt * * * * need to modify materials to suit local situation * lack of support & commitment at higher levels * scepticism about the approach * *

* These 5 countries generated 8 or more responses to the review's questionnaire, and also have had solid experience with PROWWESS/SARAR.

23

The data show that respondents largely experience the same positive and negative forces, regardless of their country of work. The PROWWESS workshops are held in high esteem as 'attending a PROWWESS workshop' is mentioned in all 5 countries among the top three factors which helped to adopt participatory methods. The effect of the workshops is even more impressive when one considers the time span: some respondents were trained only once, in 1985 or 1986, and yet they still use the methodology. Below a sample of statements on factors which influenced adoption of the SARAR methodology:

Musara Cleophas, District Environmental Health Officer, Goromonzi, Zimbabwe: 'Appropriate materials are hard to come by and inappropriate materials can be so embarrassing that it might derail the whole exercise. If problems of material development can be solved and if professionals well trained and followed up then PROWWESS can be a big success in the community. '

David Ede, formerly Rusafiya Project, Nigeria: (Obstacles were) 'Lack of time for gradual development and establishment of relationships. (Furthermore) Rigidity of project outline prior to adoption of methods, and inflexibility following adoption.'

Kalthoum M-Adam, UNV/PROWWESS trainer, Ministry of Water, Energy and Minerals, Tanzania: 'Many participatory methods have been applied in Tanzania by different institutions; now to get these institutions sensitized on the PROWWESS methodology is somehow difficult. •

Ally A.Mnzava, community development advisor, Iringa, Tanzania: 'Some of the technical personnel, especially at the higher level, accept the participation only because they are forced. They don't believe in it and they don't want even to hear about it. They only believe that the 'rural people' are to he told everything, In other words they believe they themselves know everything and the un-educated knows nothing. '

M.L.Mapuranga, Ministry of Health, Mutare, Zimbabwe: (An obstacle is) 'Fear of loss of power from some professionals.'

Unnamed health official, Zimbabwe: 'Very few people in my work place have been trained and this makes my effort look like a drop in an ocean:

M.OJdowu, Federal Ministry of Health and Social Services, Nigeria: 'Different donors adopt different approaches. Donors dictate informally what to do. There are no national guidelines within which all donors are to operate.'

Philip Oyoo, BKH Consulting Engineers, Kenya: 'The management has adopted the PRA and has been reluctant to integrate any new inputs. I have therefore not had adequate opportunity to introduce aspects of the SARAR methodology in the programme. '(However), 'I had the opportunity of using a number of the SARAR tools during a training workshop I facilitated in Tanzania. The impact was astonishing given that the participants and villagers had heen for long subjects of dependency on the government. They discovered potential within themselves!'

Tendai S.Katsande, Farm Health Worker Trainer, Bindura, Zimbahwe: 'We have managed to attain unity among the community as well as coordination between ourselves and other agencie..<;.·

24

Reviewer's notes: Key areas to promote adoption of participatory approaches

Follow up: Participants of SARAR workshops more often than not finish their training with a sense of excitement and a firm intention to adopt the methodology. Yet a set of follow up measures is required in order for the trainees to start using the methodology:

Trainees must be challenged to implement what they learnt The application of the methodology in trainees' working life should become part of training and follow up. SARAR techniques such as 'force field analysis' can be used for this purpose. This would also be a way to encourage, document and spread new and creative applications in the practice of working life. Durable quality tools (i e visual materials) must be readily available, preferably right after the training. Alternatively trainees must have access to capable artists who are not only talented, but also prepared to take instructions. These artists must have a long term commitment in order to design and produce materials to the trainees' requirements. Mechanisms for production and distribution of materials must be in place. Manuals must be made available which provide not only a description of the use of the tools, but which also pay attention to the practical problems one may have when appl ying the tools.

These are to be negotiated for as part of a package of PROWWESS assistance to projects and programs. It appears that this is realistic onl y in situations where there is institutional backing for trainees.

Too little attention is given to applicaJion in difficult circumstances. Resource books, and/or Newsletters, preferably compiled from practical experience, should give guidance on issues such as : How to use participatory techniques - where there is little time; where supervisors are less than supportive; where the target group is large; where basics such as papers are missing; where artists cannot be had ....•.

SARAR has no recognized advanced stages oflearning after mastering the initial skills nor are there specific courses for training of trainers. There is thus no recognized career with different degrees of mastership. However, it is conceivable that the job satisfaction of SARAR trainers and extension workers will increase with demand. This could be achieved by marketing participatory skills, and by exploiting specific appllcaJions such as participatory research, planning and evaluation.

As stated by several persons interviewed "seeing is believing" and that, although in itself a positive judgement, points to a practical limitation of the methodology: it needs to be seen, preferably in a setting it is suited for, which is in the field, under the village tree, or in a workshop situation. There are numerous accounts of higher level passive obstruction of SARAR application, partly because the tools are perceived as naive and only suitable for grass root levels. Higher level officials need to be trained using issues & topics that appeal to them. The SARAR methodology presently is not geared to sensitize managers on its merits.

The need for support of superiors also ha.c; another dimension as pointed out by Paul Taylor of the IWSD, Harare: 'One cannot promote a methodology at grassroot level without also addressing the institutional and policy environment. An example is community management ­how many governments or projects have truly adopted community management!'. In other words: 'participation' has to he more than a huzz word, there has to be political commitment to the outcome of the participatory process.

25

8 Respondents' views on the future

All responses on the question 'What do you think should be the future of the PROWWESS program' reflect respect for the SARAR methodology's concepts and philosophy, and for its potential for more and broader application. The question was only rarely answered in terms of the institutional setting of PROWWESS itself, which for most respondents perhaps was a distant concern. A sample of the responses:

Mayling Simpson-Heben, WHO, Geneva: 'It should be strengthened and expanded throughout the UN system to reach more countries, more development groups.'

R.Y.Budimu and P.L.Kusare of Tanzania's Ministry of Water, Energy and Minerals: 'Each country should chan out its own befitting strategy and action plans depending on institutional arrangement and policy in place.'

Phoebe K.Baddu, SWlP, Uganda: 'PROWWESS should be decentralized to country level so that it offers promotion of methodology, follow up, suppon, monitoring and evaluation,'

Melvin Woodhouse. AMREF, Nairobi: 'The main constraint comes when donors insist on their own formula for training or evaluation, It is the donors who by insisting their projects use these techniques can speed up the process of dissemination of panicipatory techniques. Therefore PROWWESS must address itself to the donor community in a serious way.'

Nomathemba Musabayane, IWSD, Harare: 'The methodology has been applied in the water sector. It should now go beyond the (sectoral) programme.'

Jackson Mutuku Muganda, KEFINCO, Kenya: 'When decisions are made on the future of the PROWWESS Program, please ensure that tentative solutions to the limitations of the SARAR methodology are sought .•

Lakech Haile. MNREP. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: 'In the office the system of management is not conducive to use this methodology. Maybe the whole management should get this training in the form of panicipatory management systems.'

LOenga, NElWAS, Nairobi: 'Training funds are needed on a continuum not per specific course as is currently done.'

Eunice Takawira, National Aids Coordination Programme, Zimbabwe: (PROWWESS must) 'Have a follow up component encouraging feedback + exchange of ideas among the implementors. There is need for refresher training .•

Ngoni Mudege, IWSD, Harare. Zimbahwe: 'We always think of changing communities, never of changing the way in which we conduct our own professional relationships. We need to entrench the process in our daily work. The real challenge is to adopt the tools to every situation.'

The opinions are tabulated in Table 12 in categories which are easy to memorize: SHAPE, for Setting; Human Resources. Application, Profile, and Evaluation. See below.

26

Table 12: PROWWESS future in Africa

Recommendations of respondents relate to the program's: n*

Setting Introduce SARAR participatory training in curriculum of professional training institutions; incorporate in other training methodologies 1 I Help create country specific strategies and action plans, in suitable institutions 9 Introduce methodology in regular government programs & institutions 7 Expand the program to new geographic areas 5 Seek field application in more projects; right from projects' start 5 Link up with national and regional water sector projects 3 Strengthen inter-institutional relationships, both with GOs and NGOs 3 Program to stay within RWSGIEA; remain semi-independent 3 Strengthen PROWWESS component of NETW AS I

Human Resources Train more people both within & outside water sector; give more courses; arrange for larger capacity 22 Continue as at present; with even more vigour 11 Give follow up to former trainees; do this within national programs 9 Better utilize trained PROWWESS persons, and groom them to become trainers themselves; form national teams of trainers & resource persons 9 Promote networlcs and sharing of national & regional experience 6 Promote interdisciplinary group of experts to support projects on request 2 Keep focus on capacity building of local institutions 1

Application Seek applications in other sectors 7 Expand range of tools; encourage innovation. Make this part of follow up. 7 Help create country specific participatory resource guides embodying basic methodologies and principles, including case studies. 7 Arrange for adaptation of methods to suit local situation 5 Strengthen participatory research, monitoring and evaluation skills; explore applications in data collection and planning more thoroughly 4 Keep focus on women 4 Give more attention to toolkit production; to more and better materials 4 Provide a prototype tool package for regional use 2 Keep methods simple 2 Explore use of participatory methods at managerial level e g to manage office staff; to conduct meetings; to reach consensus: to plan programs 2

Profile Train & sensitize managerial level of GOs & NGOs in participatory methods 8 Give higher profile and more puhlicity to PROWWESS participatory methods 6 Arrange for concerted donor agency support at country level 4 Convince donor agencies to demand participatory methods in their projects 2

Evaluation Promote documentation of experience at national I regional level; Newsletter 7 Assess own training approach with a view to make the necessary amendments 4 Strengthen program's & participants' self-evaluation 3 Evaluate impact at community level I

* n gives the number of answers given by 124 respondents. Multiple answers recorded.

27

9

Reviewer's notes on r~ndents' recommendations:

The recommendations point out the need for country specific strategies and action plans.

It seems that for further promotion of participatory approaches countries must have a number of SARAR trained persons based in institutional settings

which allow them to implement what they learnt and which encourage them to be groomed as trainer of trainers which are willing to malc:e such staff available as trainers in other settings, possibly on a consultancy basis.

The institutions should thus preferably have a national character and a recognized training focus. Such institutions could in addition be the coordinating agency of country networks, or professional associations, of participatory trainers.

The focus of SARAR should shift from advocating one particular set of participatory tools to promoting 'ethical participatory principles and techniques' in any interaction with the target group. This would open up the SARAR label and enable integration with other methods which have proven their worth when properly used. This happens in projects which successfully incorporated the methodology such as SWIP and RUWASA in Uganda.'

There is a tende.1cy to judge the success of SARAR by the enthusiasm of workshops' participants and by the uptalc:e of the methodology, rather than by the outcome of participants' work. The methodology's reputation would gain if achievements were better recorded, preferably using the methodology's own techniques for investigation.

Expectations about PROWWESS' role in RWSG-EA

At this point it is useful to compare the above views and recommendations of PROWWESS associates with the expectations of the UNDP-World Bank's Water and Sanitation Program in Washington which in 1990 assigned a PROWWESS Community Development Specialist to work in the RWSG-EA.

A number of job descriptions were drafted for the international PROWWESS specialist, by different people, and it is not clear to this reviewer which one prevailed. Table 13 gives a summary of their features and indicates when there is overlap with the PROWWESS associates' recommendations compiled in this review.

Information from field reports kindly sent oy staff of these projects.

28

Table 13: Features of 1990 job description of PROWWESS specialist

Overlap with views Items in Job Description and in Strategic Work Plan PROWWESS respondents

(compare Table 12)

Setting promote and ensure the quality of participatory planning, training and community development activities within RWSG-supported projects ensure that social components are properly integrated into the RWSGs' planning and policy work

Human resources train and backstop country level staff that will be needed in the implementation of community development '" activities strengthen network of community development specialists '" in the countries of the region and ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place for them to * continue to support participatory processes in the region

Application refine and adapt participatory training techniques and materials for rural water supply and sanitation and urban * sanitation projects

Profile contribute to PROWWESS global and Africa activities

Evaluation monitor and document the utilization of participatory training approaches and materials for water and sanitation * projects in the region

The above obviously has less detail than the cumulative set of suggestions of 124 resJX>l1dents. It is clear, though, that the expectation was in 1990 that oPJX>rtunities for developing human resources and for refinement in application would occur or could be created in the context of the RWSG supported projects, in Eastern (and Southern) and Western Africa. Such projects, however, did not materialize in sufficient volume.

The opportunities therefore had to come from other projects and programs, making the PROWWESS activities demand driven rather than strategic. This has had obvious implications for the options to create and maintain a viable network of community development specialists. For example, when in Tanzania funding of NETWAS came to a halt, that country's PROWWESS network lost its momentum despite a strongly motivated and capable group of associates.

One long term opJX>rtunity for institutionalising SARAR arose in the cooperation with WHO and UNlCEF in the PHEW - now PHAST project. This project focuses on hygiene education in 4 African countries, through both governmental agencies and NGOs. This

29

opportunity was taken up, and has since medio 1993 been a major part of the PROWWESS experts' work.

10. Recommended strategy

The PROWWESS future has to be considered from different angles:

Firstly. the strengths and limitations of the SARAR methodology which dictate in which settings and for what purposes SARAR should be used - Tables 6, 8 and 9 refer.

Secondly, and that is a debate beyond the domain of this review: Should PROWWESS remain a sectoral program, or should the potential of its SARAR methodology be exploited in other sectors as well? In other words: should SARAR become a component of a program that aims for community participation, or, even wider, for 'participation'?

Either way, this review demonstrates that there is need to give the methodology and the principles it stands for, a higher profile with those whose support is needed for implementation - persons referred to in this review as 'the management', or 'superiors'.

The review has made clear that the PROWWESS experts have had insufficient leverage on projects and programs funded by other donors. In future follow-up should become part of a package for assistance to such projects. Opportunities for application should continue to be sought within World Bank funded projects and programs.

Returning now to PROWWESS in the RWSG-EA setting, the way forward appears to be clearly indicated by the associates. The recommendations are phrased in a general way so that they may be taken up by other funding agencies. The recommendations mostly pertain to actions at country level.

30

Strategy proposed for further support and promotion of participatory methodololies, at country level (for more detail see Tables 8, 9 and 10):

1. Support country networks and country specific programmes in selected countries. 2. In these countries identify training institutions which can host country networks, and

which themselves have PROWWESS trainers, or are willing to recruit them. 3. Draw in expertise on other participatory techniques and make 'participation', or

'community participation', rather than PROWWESS/SARAR the issue. 4. Link up with other networks and programmes pursuing participatory techniques. 5. Build up a core group of persons in each country with marketable participatory skills. 6. Arrange for, and design, a training for trainers program, per country. 7. Move out of the extension-only domain and be clearer on applications for planning,

data collection, evaluation and management. For this: Arrange for follow up courses which are set to break new ground & avoid repetition.

8. Be open to demands from beyond the water sector, but keep the focus on applications for which participatory methodologies are most suited.

9. Select central themes which have sufficient clout and for which participatory methods offer tangible tools - such as community management. _

10. Draw in government actors from the start (this can be steered by the choice of central themes). Make uptake in mainstream government practice an objective.

11. Develop durable and attractive too) packages for a range of sectors. Or: support ongoing production of tools, per country, for relevant sectors, as the need arizes. Groom a set of trained artists, through (inter) country networks.

12. Assist in giving country networks, and the participatory concepts they stand for, a high profile, and help create demand from projects and donors for services of network members.

13. Arrange for a number of mainstream projects to adopt participatory methods and concepts from inception through to implementation, in selected African countries and arrange for network members to play a role in such projects.

14. Document such projects carefully and make sure the experience feeds back into country and regional networks.

The above means that the focus of the Nairobi based PROWWESS experts has to shift from implementation (i e training) to a slightly more distant, enabling role. A decision has to be made as to which countries will get priority for assistance with formation of national participatory networks. Countries which presently have a strong !TN centre ­Zimbabwe, Kenya - are strong candidates, but a country like Uganda, which has acquired strong expertise in sizable projects, would also be suitable.

Within these countries indigenous institutions with a training focus have to be identified which can become strongholds for such participatory networks. The institutions hosting country network secretariats should become independent of this external support within a period of three years. Action plans should be drawn for the countries selected. by core groups of PROWWESS trainees, and a budget to help networks start off should be secured. The data base provided in this review -see Annex 4- could be a starting point for network membership. Annex 6 gives an outline of an Action Plan drafted by the IWSD, Zimbabwe on how this institute seeks to further pursue PROWWESS related activities.

31

References

Srinivasan Lyra, Tools for Community Participation, a manual for training trainers in participatory techniques, PROWWESSfUNDP, 1990.

UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Workshop on Goals and Indicators for Monitorin& and Evaluation of Water Supply and Sanitation, June 1990, Geneva, Switzerland.

UNDP, An Assessment of the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Report of an Independent Team, May 1991.

UNDP, A forward looking assessment of PRQWWESS, Report of an Independent Team, 1991.

Cairncross Sandy, Sanitation and Water Supply: Practical Lessons from the Decade, UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, DP Number 9, September 1992.

Wehrle K et ai, Evaluation of NEIWAS, for SOC, Switzerland, February 1994.

Development Co-Operation Directorate, Development Assistance Committee. Gender and Water Resources Management. a paper prepared by Carolyn Hannan-Andersson on behalf of the DAC Expert Group on Women in Development. Paris, April 1994

Narayan Deepa, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, World Bank, Designing Community-Based DevetQPment (Draft), August 1994.

Reports received & consulted for the review

a) Regional workshops

1989, Tanzania PRQWWESSIAfrica Training in Community Participation 1993. Mukono, Uganda WHO/PRQWWESS Participatory Hygiene Education Workshop

32

b) (Sub) National workshops

1986, Bindura, Zimbabwe 1993, Ndaija, Uganda 1993, Uganda 1993, Ndaija, Uganda 1993, Kasese, Uganda 1994, Jinja, Uganda 1994, Lukulu, Zamhia 1994, Sesheke, Zambia

c) Manuals, Tools

1986, Lesotho 1987, W. Province Zambia 1993, Mbarara, Uganda 1993, Harare, Zimbabwe

d) Other reports

undated, Zimbabwe

1992, Nigeria

1993, Kenya

SCF, UK Mbarara University I SWIP Mbarara University SWIP SWIP RUWASA POST POST

Rural Sanitation Project WASHE Programme SWIP Zimbabwe Aids Networkl UNICEF

Farm Health Worker Programme Kumasi Health Education Project NElWAS

Participatory Training Workshop, Farm Health Worker Programme Mashonaland Central Community Based Health Care Community Health and Participatory Research Course Participatory Methodology Workshop on Gender issues Gender Sensitization Workshop Training Course in Participatory Community Development Community Participation and Participatory methodologies for District staff Idem

A participatory Approaches Manual Participatory Health Education, Ready for use materials Participatory Skills for Community Based Trainers Communicating about AIDS, A Training Manual

1.Maradzika, Report on the use of participatory teaching methods at Dendera Farm, Centenary, Mashonaland Central Province An Outcome Evaluation of the Health workers in service training programme

NElWAS Report to the ITN Meetings

33

Annex 1

Tenns of Reference

Terms of Reference

PRQWWESS Assessment- RWSG-EA

BACKGROUND

Originally established as a special inter-regional project under UNDP. PROWWESS (INT/83/003) has been providing technical support and guidance to community-based water and sanitation programs in Africa since 1984. The cornerstone of the PROWWESS approach has been the training of trainers and field personnel in the design and use of participatory methods and materials for involving communities, and in particular women, in the planning, implementation and evaluation of water and sanitation projects.

Since 1990 PROWWESS in East Africa has functioned as a component of the UNDP­World Bank Water and Sanitation Program in East Africa. Under the guidance of a PROWWESS Participatory Development Specialist/Trainer, based in the RWSG-East Africa in Nairobi, the Regional Anglophone strategy has concentrated on institutionalizing participatory approaches within sector programs by training trainers and organizing and supporting inter-institutional and inter-ministerial networks. In 1992, the PROWWESS Specialist was joined by a locally recruited PROWWESS Associate who has since been seconded to NETWAS, the regional East Africa Center of the International Training Network, based at AMREF in Nairobi. Since 1992, the regional PROWWESS team has also included a Participatory Training Specialist at the Training Center for Water and Sanitation (TCWS), the ITN center in Harare.

In July 1994 the RWSG-EA international PROWWESS Specialist will be terminating his contract and leaving the region. Approximately nine years will have elapsed since the first PROWWESS faciliated SARAR participatory methodology workshop was conducted in Kwale, Kenya, in April 1985. Furthermore, four years will have elapsed since PROWWESS was integrated into the Regional Water and Sanitation Group in Nairobi. This is considered to be an opportune moment to review and reflect on the activities that have taken place, to assess their impact within the various program' and national contexts, and to assess the strategies and structures that have been established as a result of these activities. If special support mechanisms will be required to sustain the momentum of the program, or if new directions are in order, these should be identified at this time.

PURPOSE

The Assessment is intended to generate a set of specific recommendations regarding the future strategy of the PROWWESS component of the Regional Water and Sanitation Program in Eastern and Southern Africa. The proposed strategy will be based upon a systematic review of the PROWWESS experience in Anglophone Africa over the past nine years, with particular emphasis on the last four.

SCOPE

The Assessment will concentrate primarily on those countries which have received significant PROWWESS support since its integration into the Program in 1990. These are: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia, in East Africa; Zimbabwe, in Southern Africa; and Ghana and Nigeria in West Africa.

In addition, the Assessment will review the PROWWESS experiences in Lesotho and Zambia, where there was significant PROWWESS/SARAR input prior to 1990. In particular, it is hoped that these experiences will provide important insight into the longer term sustainability and impact of PROWWESS interventions.

The Assessment will include an examination of the different types of activities which have taken place, the spin-off effects from these activities, and lessons learned during the process. Specifically the assessment should:

Review the PROWWESS activities in the region from 1985 until the present;

Update and validate a regiona1 roster of PROWWESS trainers, artists and process specia1ists;

Provide concrete, time-bound recommendations to the RWSG-EA on how best to define a regional strategy for "PROWWESS"-related activities during 1994 and beyond. This proposed strategy should encompass continued technical and institutional support to processes already initiated, as well as the possible expansion of SARAR methodology training activities within the region;

Identify and extract lessons learned from the regional PROWWESS experience that can help to guide other regions, the overa11 Program, as well as other external programs and institutions --both from within and outside the sector-- on how to (or not to) go about developing participatory training support for community-based development programs.

MEmODOLOGY

In particular, the consultant will:

1. Review relevant literature, including PROWWESS workshop reports and lists of participants, trainers, artists, donor agencies, and participating institutions.

2. Design questionnaires to be sent to the people and institutions involved in the PROWWESS training activities and networks. The development of the questionnaire will include key informant interviews, resulting in a draft questionnaire to be tested and refined. The fina1 draft of the questionnaire will be reviewed by the RWSG prior to being sent out.

3. Tabulate and analyze the results of the questionnaire, and write a brief preliminary report discussing the findings. including a plan for the more in-depth country assessments.

4. Conduct in-country assessments in at least two countries, holding semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with those who have been involved with PROWWESS. This would include government and agency staff and community members. The in-country assessments will be done by a small team composed of the RWSG-EA consultant, a representative of the PROWESS regional team and one or two members of the local PROWWESS core team, or "network".

5. Write a PROWWESS Assessment Report, covering the results and interpretations of the questionnaires, in-country assessments and consultant's ideas concerning recommendations, strategies and action plans for the future.

6. Assist with the planning for a participatory debriefing workshop (PROWWESS Assessment/Strategy Workshop), at which the findings and proposed action plan will be discussed and a new RWSG/PROWWESS strategy for the future developed. The specific timing and configuration of this debriefing workshop is to be determined at a later date and will be beyond the immediate scope of the PROWWESS Assessment.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

The RWSG-EA has identified a number of specific concerns that should be examined, leading to the fonnulation of recommendations for the future development of the program. The following list, which is by no means exhaustive or all inclusive, should serve as a guide in the fonnulation of hypotheses or areas of focus for the Assessment:

What strategies, explicit or implicit, have been followed have been followed towards institutionalize PROWWESS within the different countries? Which have proved to be most successful? Could they be replicated in other countries? Regions?

Strengths and weaknesses of the Program as perceived by PROWWESSISARAR trainees. This to be addressed in terms of gains and constraints of SARAR trainees and SARAR "exposed" field staff to implement what they have acquired:

as individuals as (members of) projects and institutions (NGOs; government departments; funding agencies etc) as (members of) networks.

What specific inputs and support are required to achieve a multiplier effect after the initial training? Or more specificaJly: What are the preconditions for SARAR to take root, especially in terms of institutional setting; continuity (financial security) of institutions involved; target groups; processes; follow up of trainees and institutions; materials production and distribution.

Spin off effects (impact and benefits) outside the water and sanitation sector and implications for targeting SARAR training.

Programmatic "fit" of SARAR within current RWSG-EA program. How does participatory development complement and enrich HRD efforts, such as the partner ITN programs?' How have participatory principles and processes been applied and benefitted other components of the overall program?

To what extent has the PROWWESS component and the participatory training approach helped (or hindered) gender awareness and pro-active concerns both within and outside the Program.

QUALIFICA TIONS

Proven social science research and evaluation skills;

Previous exposure to PROWWESS/SARAR Participatory Methodology;

Minimum 5 years experience working in water and sanitation sector, or related, programs;

Minimum 10 years experience working in Anglophone Africa;

Good English writing and reporting skills;

Social science degree, or equivalent.

Ron Sawyer

December 1993

Annex 2

Summary of Recommendations of 1991 PROWWESS Forward looking Assessment

Recommendations of 1991 PROWWESS Forward looking Assessment

1 PROWWESS should have a separate identity within the (UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation) Program for a period of 5 years and then be assessed.

2 PROWWESS should, in collaboration with governments and other appropriate partners, in particular the ITN centers, intensify its training activities at all levels. Development of tools for use at community level should be pursued. Special attention should be given to gender issues, cross cultural communications and methods for identifying resource flows in communities.

3 Core funding for PROWWESS should be through the Program. This calls for a strong presence in countries where the Program is involved and a small group of specialists at Headquarters. Funding through separate channels should be confined to specified collaborative ventures.

4 PROWWESS should promote credit schemes and community based micro enterprises for women.

5 A more general application of the PROWWESS approach should be explored beyond the water sector. A process approach is recommended.

6 The roster of PROWWESS international trainers and consultants should be updated.

7 The proposed network of PROWWESS associated should be identified and preparations initiated for an international seminar.

8 A document should be prepared specifying which follow up activities are the responsibilities of PROWWESS as incorporated in the Program, and which activities will be acted upon by UNDP.

Annex 3

Questionnaire designed by PROWWFSS associates

UNDP-World Bank Regional Water and Sanitation Group

THE WORLD BANK. P.O. BOX 3!l571. NAIROBI. KENYA. TEL (254-2) 228477 FAX (2S4-2) 213925/617 TELEX (963) 22022

March 30, 1994 Name & address of respondent

Dear Sir/Madam:

The UNDP/World Bank Regional Water and Sanitation Group for Eastern and Southern Africa is conducting an assessment of the PROWWESS component of its program. In addition to providing information on the strengths and limitations of the PROWWESS activities in the region and the SARAR methodology, it is our expectation that the assessment will assist us in making decisions about the future of the PROWWESS program. In addition, the assessment will help us to update our roster of participatory trainers, artists and development specialists.

A central element of the review will he a survey of the persons who have been involved in one or more of the numerous workshops conducted in 10 Anglophone African countries since 1985. The attached questionnaire was designed in a participatory manner together with PROWWESS associates in Zimbabwe and Kenya.

I would be very grateful if you would take ahout half an hour to fill out the form and return it not later than April 21st 1994 to Joanne Harnmeijer, an independent consultant, who is assisting in the review (see address below). Alternatively, if you would prefer to use the questionnaire as a guide for group discussion, please feel free to do so, making sure that the various responses and conclusions are adequately recorded.

Sometime later in the year we hope to be able to convene a meeting of key respondents from each of the participating countries in order to review the conclusions and recommendations of the assessment and to outline a strategy for subsequent PROWWESS activities in the region.

I am thanking you in advance for your support to this important endeavour. Your timely contribution to this review will he essential in formulating an informed follow up program.

Best regards,

Ron Sawyer Participatory Development Specialist

Plea.~email your completed questionnaire before April 21st to: Joanne Harnmeijer ETC Foundation 31 Ha7..e1 Road, Mandara Harare, Zimbabwe

-------------------------------------------

QUFSll0NNAIRE PROWWFSS REVIEW

Respondent Name(s) Title(s)/function(s)

Willing to be cited in review report: Yes I No OrganisationlDepartment: Address:

For the open ended questions use as much space as you like - e g use the flip side of the form.

What training did you receive in participatory methods?

When Where Title/Type of workshop Organised by

2 What do you understand by 'participatory methodology'?

3 Please indicate what elements of the PROWWESS training you have adopted (concepts; techniques; materials; other .. )

4 What helped you to use participatory methods in your work?

5

6

What have been obstacles to use participatory methods in your work?

What have been the benefits of using participatory methods inl

a) your own professional functioning

b) your institution or project

c) the drinking water and sanitation sector in your country

d) other sectors in your country (please include your views on potential benefits)

We would be very interested in recelvmg documentation (case studies, workshop and evaluation reports) of such henefits.

1 Please give your views on the PRQWWESS/SARAR methodology's

a) strengths & advantages (as compared to other methodologies)

b) limitations

8 What do you think should be the future of the PRQWWESS program?

9 Do you wish to be listed as a member of a national or regional "participatory learning" network?

If yes, how would you describe yourself (if you respond as a group, indicate how you should be addressed):

field staff/promoter trainer artist manager evaluation/research specialist other: ................................... .

Remarks:

10 Please give names and addresses of other PRQWWESS trained persons who should be included in such a network.

Annex 4

Persons who contributed to the review

Persons interviewed during visit to Nairobi, January 24th -29th 1994 (in chronological order)

Ron Sawyer, RWSG-EA Rose Lidonde, NETW AS Gunnar Schultzberg, RWSG-EA Deepa Narayan, World Bank, Washington Nancy George, Aronet Ken Maskall, UNICEF Salome Mwendar, UNICEF Leif Hommelgaard RWSG-EA lars Kallren RWSG-EA Tore Lium, RWSG-EA Matthew N.Kariuki, NETWAS Ms Margaret Mwangola, KWAHO Abonyai Kiogora, KW AHO Khamis Chome Abdi, KW AHO George Mazuri Yaa, KW AHO

Persons who took part in a half day workshop at UNICEF, Harare to draft questionnaire February 17th 1994

Jamela Dube, Domboshawa Training Centre, Ministry of Health, Harare Julita Maradzika, University of Zimbabwe, Department of Community Medicine Lauchlan Munro, UNICEF, Harare Therese Dooley, UNICEF, Harare Nomathemba Musabayane, JWSD, Harare Ron Sawyer (attending), RWSG-EA Joanne Harnmeijer, consultant, ETC Foundation

Persons who completed & discussed the questionnaire's pre-test

Mr Cornelius Mukandi, Blair Institute, Harare Ngoni Mudege, JWSD, Harare Dorothy Dhliwayo, Ministry of Health & Child Welfare, Harare Priscilla Hove, Musasa Project, Harare Julita Maradzika, University of Zimbabwe, Department of Community Medicine

Other persons interviewed

Paul Taylor, IWSD, Harare Juliet Waterkeyn, Studio AHEAD, Harare

Respondents of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April - July 1994

In order of arrival of response; names a~ indicated hy respondents Respondents who sent additional information such as reports are indicated with *

Respondents of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April - July 1994

interest in national or regional participatory learning network as: name and address

field staffl artist evaluatorl trainer manager other promoter researcher

Botswana: 2

Moses Segotlong, Dept of Non Formal Education, PO Box 113, Kasane x

Tlamelo M.Kedikilwe, Ministry of Local Government, Lands & Housing, P Bag x 006, Gahorone

Ethiopia: 13

Asmamaw Admasu, WSSA, P Box 5144, Addis Ababa X

Yitagessu Alemu, Environmental Department, PO Box 5504, Addis Ababa X

Ah.:be Misgina, Sidamo Regional Health Department, PO Box 51, Awassa, Sidamo X

Mrs Abeba Ejigu Beyene, Environmental Department, PO Box 5504, Addis Ababa X

• Teshome Regassa, Environmental Health Department, PO Box 8494, Addis Ababa X

Selamawit Alxmeh, private artist, PO BOl{ 33433, Addis Ababa X

Mihret Dawit, private artist, PO Box 31900, Addis Ababa X

Faantaa Fayyisaa, Po BOl{ 8630, Addis Ababa X

Markos Wodamo, WSSA. PO Box 153, Awassa, Sidamo X

Assefa Dessalegne, Teacher Training Institute, PO Box 214, Awassa, Sidamo X

Aselefech Tinkishu, OXFAM (UK). PO BOx 2333, Addis Ababa x

Mengistu Lule. WSSA NW Regional Office, PO Box 201, Baherdar trainee

Lakech Haile, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, PO Box x 33524 (pvt), Addis Ababa

Respondents of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April - July 1994

interest in national or regional participatory leaming network as: name and address

field staffl artist evaluatorl trainer manager other promoter researcher

Ghana: 2

Oliver Frimpong, Department of Civil Engineering, UST, Kumasi x X

Ms Beatrice Sakyi, Kumasi Health Education Unit, PO Box 1916, Kumasi x lt

Kenya: 24

Ms Rose K.Kimaita, KWAHO, PO Box 61470, Nairobi secretary

Joseph Noellah Atenyo, Africa Water Network, PO box 10538, Nairobi X

Melvin Woodhouse, AMREF, Box 30125, Nairobi x X

Jackson Mutuku Muganda, Kenya Finland Western Water Supply Programme, PO X

Bolt 774, Kakamega

Ms S.M.Mwendar, UNICEF, KCO, Bolt 44145, Nairobi lt X X

Jacinta N.Macharia, Kenya Health Learning Materials, KMTC, PO Box 30195, lt lt Nilirobi

Titus O.Ogogo, CARE Kenya/SHEWAS Project, PO Box 606 Siaya x

without name, CARE International in Kenya, PO Box 88, Kisumu x x

Hillary M.Musyoka. CARE International in Kenya, PO Box 88, Kisumu x x

S.M.Mbau, Min. of Land Reclamation. Regional & Water Devt. Box 360, Kerugoya x

James Mhugua, artist, CARE Kenya, PO Bolt 203. Voi x

Bernard Nyongesa Mureka, GTZ. Kilifi Water & Sanitation project, Box 666, Kilifi x x

Isaac K. Rullo, District Puhlic Health Officer, Bolt 5, Kapsabet x x

Alicia Sawyer, (formerly Nairobi), Apartado Postal 8 Tepoztlan, Morelos. Mexico x

Janet A. Agaya, Ministry of Health, Box 21, Kabarnet lt

Jame<; Mutimu Ndungy. Kenya Wildlife Service, PO Box 66, Voi :It

I.O.Oenga. NETWAS. PO Box 30125, Nairobi x x x

2

Respondents of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April - July 1994

interest in national or regional participatory learning network as: name and address

field staff! artist evaluator! trainer manager other promoter researcher

Veronicah Moraa Mitema, CARE Kenya!SIIEWAS Project, PO Box 606 Siaya x

Munguti Katui-Katua, Community Management and Training Services (E. A.), PO x x x BOll 292. Kiserian, Nairobi

Philip Oyoo, BKH Consulting Engineers, PO Box 175 I, Kisumu x

Rose Lidonde, RWSG-EA/NETWAS, Box 30577, Nairobi x x

Theresa Riunge, NETWAS, BOll 30125, Nairohi x

Nimrod W.M.Mwanyalo, ASAL Programme, Box 1143, Wondanyi x

Mumiah Aukah, Momhasa Designs & Crafts Ltd, PO Box 88411, Mombasa x x x x

l.<!sotho : 0

Malawi : 0

Nigeria : 4

M.O.ldowu, Federal Ministry of Heallh and Social Services, Po Box 3653, (keja x

Mohamed Kahir Yakuhu, ICOWASS, 5 Metropolitan Crescent, Tudun-Wada, Jos x x

Mrs Victoria A.Nyisana, Health Department, Po Box I, Gwagwalada, F.C.T, Abuja x x

W.B.Azeez, WATSAN, Federal Ministry of Health, PO Box 3463, Yaba, Lagos x x

Tanzania : 14

Douglas Mpoto, artist, clo Danish Volunteer Service, PO Box 2519, Dar es Salaam x

Abdullkadri A.K.Mchomvu, Preventive Department, Po Box 110, Morogoro x x

Esther Chissunga, Community Development Department, Po Box 50(, Morogoro x

M r Felician J. Hillu, Health Department, Po Box 17, Shinyanga x

Cosma.~ G.Gunje, Water Department, PO Box 147, Shinyanga x

Andrew W.M.Kwezi, Ministry of Water, PO Box 164, Morogoro x x

3

Respondent'! of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April - July 1994

interest in national or regional participatory learning network L'l:

name and address field staff! artist evaluatorl trainer manager other promoter researcher

Mr Benedict Kapinga, Oanida Water Project, PO Box 951, Sonkea x x

Ally A.Mnzava, Soil and Water Conservation Project, c!o Hima Makete, Box 6, 'partici-Makete pation'

Jomo Kitundu, artist, c!o Afro Aid, Box 2122, Dar es Salaam x

Ms Mariana Kyumana, Oanida Water Project, PO Box 205, Mbeya x

Kalthoum M-Adam, UNV/UNOP, PO Box 9182, Dar es Salaam x

M" R.Y Budimu and Mr P.L.Kusare (& others, without name), Ministry of Water, x Energy and Minerals. PO Box 9153, Oar es Salaam

MohamOO Ali Muhungutwa, Ministry of Community Development, Women Affairs x x and Children, PO Box 3448, Oar es Salaam

Elitha Julieta Kahembe, HESA WA, PO Box 604, Mwanza not filled in

Uganda: 8

Oavid M.Mukarna, RUWASA, PO Box 20026, Kampala x

Patrick Tajjuba, RUWASA, PO Box 20026, Kampala x

Mwebesa Kayamha Tom, MOHSP, AMREF, PO Box 25, Mukono

John K.Odolon, RUWASA Project, Box 20026, Kampala x

... Phoebe Kisakye Baddu, SWIP, PO Box 1216, Mbarara x

Zachary Bigirimana, NETW AS!AMREF, PO Box 51, Entebbe x x

Edward S.Gaamuwa & Elisha Mutyaba, World VisionlWATSAN, Box 5319 not filled Kampala in

... Jolly Barigye, SWIP, PO Box 1216, Mbarara x

Zambia: 6

Mr Edward P Lungu, NORAO/Oepartment of Water Affairs, Box 910029, Mongu x

4

Respondents of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April July 1994

interest in national or regional participatory learning network as: name and address

field staffl artist evaluatorl trainer manager other promoter researcher

David Namatama, Ministry of Health, Bolt 910022, Mongu ·PDST"

Rose N.Lubinda, Ministry of Health, Box 910022, Mongu too early to tell

L.Wamunyima, Ministry of Health, Bolt 910022, Mongu not filled lD

... Winny Koster, POST, Bolt 910022, Moogu x x

... Mugubo Himoonga. Kalabo Agricultural Project, Box 930025, Kalabo X

Zimbabwe: 5 + 42

. Pre-test

Priscilla Ndlovu Hove. Msasa Project. Bolt A 712. Harare lt x lt

Dorothy Dhliwayo, MoHCW, Bolt Causeway, Harare Jt

... Julita Maradzlka, UZ Medical School of Community Medicine, Box A 718, Harare x x

Ngoni Mudege, IWSD, UZ, Dept of Civil Engineering, PO Box MP 167, Harare Jt lt

Cornelius Mukandi, Blair Institute, Box 8105, Causeway, Harare x

. Regular questionnaire

Nomathemba Musabayane, rWSD, UZ, Department of Civil Engineering, PO Bolt x x MP 167, Harare

... Jamela Dube, Ministry of Health, Domboshawa Training Centre, P.Bag 7746, lt Causeway, Harare

Abednego Chigumba, MoHCW, PO Bolt 147, Masvingo lt

Garth S Parsons, MoHCW, PO Box 73, Kadoma x lt

Magaba Phillir, MOHCW, Box 323, Mutare x x

Mhla.<;eli S Mrofu. Zimbabwe Information Service, P Bag 513, Ken x

5

Respondents of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April - July 1994

interest in national or regional participatory learning network as: name and address

field staffl artist evaluatorl trainer manager other promoter researcher

M.L.Mapuranga, MoHCW/SIDA, Box 323, Mutare x

Jones Meyer, MLGRUD, PO Box 146, Gwanda

x

x

Musara Cleophas. MoHCW, PO Box 660, Causeway (Goromonzi District) x x

without name, PMD Midlands, Box 206, Gweru x

G Kurebgaseka, Murongwe RHC. P Bag 628, Zvishavane x

Eunice Takawira, NACP, Box 8204, Causeway, Harare x x x

P.V.Ndoro, MNAECC, PO Box 78, Gwanda admin

Petronilla Chitera, AIDS Counselling Trust, PO Box 146. Glendale. Harare x

Rose Chikoto, MoHCW, Box 441, Bulawayo x x

Denford Maruta, MoHCW, Box 660, Causeway; or Box 30, Juru x

John Brown Ncube, Box 2, Filabusi x

without name. artist, Masvingo postal stamp x

Misheck P Simoko, MoHCW, Box 323, Mutare x

Beatrice Dupwa, Africare, Box 308, Harare x

Fortunate Lizzie Sibanda, MoHCW. Box 441, Bulawayo x

,.. Tendai S Katsande, MoHCW, Bindura Rural District Council, P Bag 922, Bindura x

Clotilde Runganga (Moyo), Farm Health Training Centre. Po Box 23. Mvurwi x x

Janet Mabuza, Alliance Mine, Box 79, Shamva x

Hilda Muchadondwa, Bindura Rural District Council. P Bag 922, Bindura x x

joyce Phiri, David Nelson Clinic, Box 61, Centenary x

Lucious G.Mukodzani, MoHCW, PO Box 10, Marondera x

G.P.Chiyangwa, MNAECC, 199 Fleetwood Ave, Bindura x

6

Respondent<; of PROWWESS Questionnaire, April - July 1994

interest in national or regional participatory learning network as: name and address

field staffl artist evaluatorl trainer manager other promoter researcher

without name, PMD Office, MoHCW, Box 10, Marondera x II

Nathan Tembo. MoHCW, Po Box 8204, Causeway, Harare x x

Ray Clinton Ndhlukula, MLGRUD, Box 1496, Bulawayo x

Mugwambani Aleck Smart, MoHCW, P.B.20JJ. Odzi x

Fatima Bopoto, Zimbabwe NFPC, PO Box ST 220, Southerton, Harare x

L.Moyo. DA's Office. P Bag 507. Kezi NA

Ms Pamhidzai Pi yo, MoHCW, PO Box IOJ, Shamva II

without name, BOIl; 31, Filabusi x

without name, AIDS Counselling Trust, PO Box 7225, MP, Harare x IEC

R.Mashozhera. MoHCW, Box 441, Bulawayo x x

Lauchlan Munro, UNICEF, PO Box 1250, Harare x x

Be:nedict T.Majaja, NCU, MLGRUD, P.Bag 7706, Causeway, Harare x x

Mr Amos Rwavazhinji, MoHCW, PO Box 178. Chiredzi x x

Clemence Nyariri, Chiimbira School, Bindura

Other countries: 4

Mayling Simpson-Hebert. WHO. Geneva. Switzerland x

Dr Paz C.Lutz, 54 Eddystone Way. Mt Laurel, New Jersey 08054, USA NA

David Ede, (house:) 57 Finsburg Tee. Brynmill, Swansea, SAZ 0 AH, UK x x x

M.Kariuki, RWSG-EA, PO Box 30577, Nairobi, Kenya

7

Other persons suggested by respondents or 1994 PROWWESS Questionnaire for participatory learning network

Botswana

Ethiopia Mrs Abeba Ejjigu, PO Box 5504. Addis Ababa (2x) Mr Ahmed Emeou. PO Box 550. Addis Ababa Tesfaye Assefo. Awassa Health Centre Mr Abdulbdir Memhur, Tigray Regional Healtb Bureau. PO Box 207, Mable Teshome Regassa, PO Box 8494, Finfinne. Ororoiyaa (2x) &iye Tefera, WSSA NW Regional office, PO Box 207, Baherdar Zerede Yetebarek, Redd Bama, PO Box 6589, Addis Ababa Tadesa (no address given)

Ghana

Kenya Jamlick Rutonga, PO Box 61470, Nairobi Mr MorTis Mulesbe. PO BOlt 774, Kakamega Mr Godfrey Maiga, artist, PO Box 774, Kakamega Mr Patrick Imwene, PO Box 774, Kakamega Mrs Cbristine Kacbi, PO Box 774, Kakamega Mrs Julia Kanguru. PO Box 774, Kabmega Cbarles Kut. Care Kenya. PO Box 88. Kisumu (2x) Leah A Ochuka. Care Kenya. PO Box 88. Kisumu Florence Osobo (?), Care Kenya, PO Box 88, Kisumu Taffy Naisbo. AMREF. Box 61470. Nairobi Rose Lidonde. NETW AS. Box 30577. Nairobi Sue Cavanna, Water Aid clo KWAHO. Box 61470. Nairobi Nimrod Mwanyalo. Taita taketa ASAL Porgramme. Box 1143. Wundanyi Mumiah Aukah. KWAHO, Box 1591. Mombasa B.E.N.Olrumu, Care Kenya, Box 606. Siaya (2x) Mr S.G.Mwangi., KIWASAP. PO Box 666. Kilifi Mr Cbristian Odhiambo. SHEWAS. Box 606. Siaya (2x) Philip Oyoo, RDWSSP II, Box 175 I. Kisumu Chome Khamis Abeli. KWAHO, Box 1591, Mombasa Mr Josiah Omoto. Care Kenya. Box 88. Kisumu (2xO Mr Bernard Nyingesa. KTW ASAP. Box 666. Kilifi Mr Peter Numo Gatturu. NCCK/CORDS, PO Bo~ 45009. Nairobi Mrs Mary Wandera, Kefingo project. Busia Leah Achien Ochuka. CARE/CRUSH. PO Box 88. Kisumu Lucas Odawo. Nyasita Primary school, Po Box 50. BorolSiaya Paul Obura. RDWSSP II, Bo~ 1751, Kisumu Isaac Oenga

Nigeria Samuel Tawasini. Gwagwalada Area Council. PO Box I. Gwagwalada. Abuja Tanko Kure. Gwagwalada Area Council, PO Box I. Gwagwalada. Abuja Malam Ibrahim Allyu. Ningi Local Government, Bauchi State

Tanzania Pascal Kusare, Po Box 2000, Dar es Salaam (4x) Mr M.A.Muhungutwa, Ministry of Community Development, PO Box 3448, Dar es Salaam (3x) Ms Ausi Hilda Gon~we. PROWWESS National Coordinator, Min. of W.E.M, Po Box 9153. Dar es Salaam (2x) Marco Komba. artist, Mweoge Office. PO Box I, Peramiho, Songea Ms Hildegarda L.Kiwasila, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Po Box 35097, Dar es Salaam Felician J.Hillu, Health Officer, PO Box 17. Shinyanga (2xO Elizabeth A.Mbega, Community Development. Po Box 5128, Tanga Andrew M.Kwezi. Exec. engineer, PO box 164, Morogoro (2x) Majaliwa R.Mabula, health officer PO Box 1051, Kigoma Mr Cosmas Gunje. Po Box 147, Shinyanga Mr N.KaIomo, Box 320, Shinyanga (2x) Mr Joachim Hakizimana, Box 102, Shinyanga Ms Monica Mbogono, Box 42, Songea Ms Bibi Mnyamagole, clo Box 95 I, Songea Mr Mekyades. clo Box 951, Songea R.Y.Budimu, Ministry of Water. Energy and Minerals, Dar es Salaam Madina Kemilembe, Ministry of Water, Energy and Minerals, Dar es Salaam Yousouf Mwita, Po Box 9083, MoH, Dar es Salaam (2xO R.Sbambina, PO Box 9083. MoH, Dar es Salaam

Uganda Pboebe Baddu. SWIP, PO Box 1216, Mbarara (2x) Zachary Bigirimana, NETWAS/AMREF, Po Box 51. Entebbe (4x) Paul Mubiru, SHI, Mukono Yossa Kazimoto, PHI, RUWASA W.Wamimbi, RUWASA Project, Box 20026, Kampala M.Ochwo, Katwe Urban Project, Kampala Ms Jolly Barigye, Training Unit SWIP, PO Box 1216. Mbarara Ms Maria Lutagwera, Training Unit SWIP, PO Box 1216, Mbarara Peter Kabagambe, Training Unit SWIP, PO Box 1216, Mbarara Charles Musekura, Training Unit SWIP, PO Box 1216, Mbarara Jossy Kiiza, KCC Sam Mutono, RW ASA

Zambia John Mwale, DWAINORAD, PO Box 910029, Mongu Mr W.Mulaliki, Bo)( 920060. Senanga Mr S.Mundia, Box 29. Sesheke Roza Kalanga, Box 910067, Mongu

Zimbabwe Mr Shadreck Khupe. PMD. PO Box 441. Bulawayo (2x) Mr A. Rwavazhinji. Box 178, Chiredzi Mr Mugwabani. PMD Manicaland. Box 323. Mutare Mr Mukodzani. PMD Mashonaland East. Box 10. Marondera Mr A.P.Maguta. Dep of Physical Planning. Box 8, Gwanda Mr L.Moyo. Agritex. Box 214. Gwanda S.Sadambu. DDF, Box 595, Masvingo A.B.Mboko, Box 660 Causeway (Goromonzi Di!<trict) D.Maruta. Box 660 Causeway (Goromonzi District) P.Masimba, Box 660 Causeway (Goromonzi Distnct)

2

Mr Muyumbiri, PMD Midlands, Box 206, Gweru Gibbs Kurebgwaseb, Murongwe RHC, P Bag 628, Zvisbavane E.Ncube, EHT, Moene Hospital, P.B. 232, Mberengwa F.Makumbe, EHT, Mnene Hospital, P.B. 232, Mberengwa J.Mpofu, EHT, Mnene Hospital, P.B. 232, Mberengwa K.Mutuva, EHT, Mnene Hospital, P.B. 232, Mberengwa Ms Eunice Garwe ('1), PO Box 135, Concession Mrs N.Ngwenya, CHEO, Box 8204, Harare Mr Chigumbu, PMD, Masvingo Mr Ncube PMD, Mat S, Box 441, Bulawayo Mr A.B.Mboko, Box 660, Causeway, Harare Mr C.Musara, Box 660, Causeway. Harare Mr P. Masimba. Box ]8, Arcturus D.D.Lutbe ADA. Training Officer Mrs Musabayane, IWSD. (UZ). Harare Mr Maunganidze. Unicef, Harare Dingani Ncube, Beitbridge Hospital, Box 57, Beitbridge Mrs E.Tabndisa, Goromonzi RDC, Box 3. Goromonzi Mr Goora, EHO, PMD Manicaland, Box 323, Mutare Mr Chioyama, Agritex, Box 5]4, Mutare Ms Dorothy Dhliwayo. MoHCW, PO Box 2804, Cau.o;eway, Harare Ox) Alfred Mhondiwa (2x) Mr C.Maruza, PO Box 98, Bindura Mrs Mutsetse, PO Box 70, Concession Tracy Ndlovu, Alliance Mine, Box 79, Sbamva Mrs J.Mutandiro, Save the Children (UK) Mr Chitera, Aids Counse11iog Trust Mrs Ngandu, Chaminuka ROC Mr S.Sinski, PMD, Box 10, Marondera Mr C Madzura, PMD, Box 10, Marondera Mrs Julita Mardazika. UZ. Harare Ox) Mrs Dorothy Dhliwayo, MoHCW, Harare (2x) Ms Bopoto, Zimbabwe NFPC, IEC Officer (2xO Mr S.S.Musingarabwi, Director of EHS Mr J.Mutaurwa, MoH Mr J.Dube, P.B. PB 7746. Causeway. Harare Mr L.K.Moyo, Box 507, Kezi Mr E.Mufambanhando, PO Box 30, Mutare Ms V.Ndlovu. PMD Matabeleland S, PO Box 441. Bulawayo Mrs Mabuzane. Gwanda Public Health Dept. PO Box 39, Gwanda Elizabeth Mazhetese, MoHCW, Harare Eunice Takawira Tllus Rungangeh, ZNFPC. PO Box 220. Southerton, Harare Mrs Madanko. PMD Matabeleland N. Box 441. Bulawayo Mrs Kona. PMD Wbange, Box 206. Hwange Mr N.Mudege Mrs N.Musabayane (2x) Mr S.Maungamdze M r Mapuranga Mr P.Vhoko, PMD. Masvingo Ms J.Chitando. Matron Ma.wingo General Hospital

3

Annex 5

SARAR tools and techniques adopted by respondents

SARAR tools and techniques adopted by (124) respondents n

pocket chart 29 story with a gap 26 mapping 19 3 pile sorting 17

unseriaJised posters 16

faecal contamination routes 13

gender & task analysis 10

sanitation ladder 10 ]ohari's window 10

resistance to change 10 socio drama! role play 10

flexi flans 10 force field analysis 7

problem posters; picture codes 6 barrier matrix 6 cup exercise 6 photo parade 5 Dr Tanaka 5 open ended story or drama 5 planning posters 4

hopes and fears 3 community participation indicators 3 attributes of people 2

transactional analysis seasonal calendar .. life line ** 1

.. A seasonal calendar is not specifically a SARAR method. ** Reviewer does not know what this stands for.

Annex 6

IWSD's PROWWFSS Action Plan for Zimbabwe

PROWWESS ACTION PLAN FOR ZIMBABWE

Status PROWWESS training began in Zimbabwe in 1986. Since then training in participatory methods has been carried out through several agencies but most recently mainly through the Institute of Water and Sanitation Development (IWSD). Participatory methods have been the subject of some courses and have been included in others. Mainly this training has enabled trainees to implement their programmes in a more participatory way but has not led to the application of the principles of SARAR, which is empowerment of the community. More recently, the use of SARAR/participatory methods has been introduced into Community Management Training of IWSD and into the PHAST programme. PHAST (Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation) is a regional programme with the involvement of several major organisations, WHO, UNDP-World Bank, SIDA, and UNICEF. It has been implemented in Zimbabwe over the last year through the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare with the objective of using participatory approaches to effect improved hygiene behaviour and improved community sanitation. Both PROWWESS and PHAST use the SARAR concept which emphasises empowerment of the community and this philosophy is being fully supported in Zimbabwe.

Action plan Action to continue the process begun by PROWWESS will take place under Training, Promotion, and Implementation.

1) Trainin& The IWSD will continue to incorporate PROWWESS training into existing training activities. In particular, PROWWESS training is believed to be essential in order to achieve effective transition to community management and will therefore form an essential element in training on community management conducted by the Institute. Training in Community management is planned for 1995 a) by IWSD; b) By WHO and c) by the District Development Fund who plan to extend it to over 30 Districts in Zimbabwe over the next two years.

Some special training may be offered by IWSD in support of the PHAST initiative and to promote PHAST regionally. This is likely to be in response to demand from WHO and UNDP-World Bank.

2) Promotion The PROWWESS programme is undergoing some changes whilst the initiative is being further extended by the PHAST programme. In collaboration with WHO and UNDP-World Bank, the rwSD will assist in the promotion of PHAST through a series of activities. Some of these activities are global such as the development of promotional materials for the PHAST programme, and rwSD as well as others, will contribute to the development of these materials. There is a plan to document existing successes and lessons from PHAST to date by the preparation of case studies. One case study will be prepared for Zimbabwe in 1995 which will contribute to the further extension of the

programme in the country. A video on the successful application of the SARAR philosophy in the PHAST programme may be commissioned and made, largeJy in Zimbabwe, during 1995.

The PROWWESS programme in Africa, its offshoot PHAST and other related WHO initiatives are IikeJy to be linked through the AFRICA 2000 programme. Collaboration between WHO, UNICEF, UNDP, MOHCW and institutions such as IWSD, will be enhanced through this programme raising the opportunity for the broad acceptance and implementation of PROWWESS in Zimbabwe.

3) Implementation Participatory methods, whilst known for some time in Zimbabwe, have not been widely applied. In 1993 the PHAST initiative started the full use of participatory methods to achieve community change. This has been a very successful pilot programme. Plans at the end of 1994 for PHAST in Zimbabwe are to extend beyond the pilot areas in each of the three implementing Districts and even to extend into new projects areas. Plans are for the institutionalisation of the programme within the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare and the National Action Committee has shown interest in the programme.

The District Development Fund, the agency responsible for operation and maintenance of rural water supplies, has been piloting community management as an improved way of achieving sustainability. They now wish to extend this programme over 30 districts within the next two years. This will entail extensive training of extension staff in participatory methods and the application of these on a wide scale to achieve community empowerment and acceptance by the community of the need for community management. Agencies involved in this process are likely to be DDF, UNICEF, Ministry of Local Government, Rural District Councils and the IWSD.

In summary the demand for training and implementation of SARARI PROWWESS principles to achieve real goals is high and will stretch Zimbabwe's capacity in participatory skills to the limit.

1 t

I t