Loading...

Community Participation As a Determinant of Project Sustainbility Beyond Donor Support. The Case of Zambia

Thesis (M.A.) 2018 90 Pages

Business economics - General

Excerpt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 STUDY BACKGROUND
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.4 PURPOSE
1.5 MAIN OBJECTIVE
1.5.1 Specific Objectives
1.6 MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION
1.6.1 Specific Research Questions
1.7 STUDY SCOPE
1.8 RESEARCH RATIONALE
1.9 STUDY DELIMITATION
1.10 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE
1.11 CONCLUSION

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
2.2.1 Global and Regional perspectives on Project Sustainability
2.2.2 Lessons of Sustainability from Kenya
2.2.2.1 Sustainability challenges in Kenya
2.2.2.2 Sustainability Successes in Kenya
2.2.3 Lessons of Sustainability from Zambia
2.2.3.1 World Vision Community Project Sustainability in Zambia
2.2.3.2 Sustainability Challenge in Zambia
2.2.4 Dimensions of Project Sustainability
2.3 GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
2.3.1 Community participation Process
2.3.2 Community Participation Variables
2.3.2.1 Community Empowerment
2.3.2.2 Capacity Building
2.4 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
2.4.1 Modes, types and levels of community participation
2.4.2 Relevance of Community Participation
2.4.3 Community Participation in Project Cycle
2.4.4 Increasing Community Participation in Projects
2.4.5 Community Participation Indicators
2.4.5.1 Quantitative Indicators
2.4.5.2 Qualitative Indicators
2.5 CONCLUSION

CHAPTER THREE
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 Key theories and Concepts
3.1.1.1 The community participation Theory
3.1.1.2 The community participation Concept
3.1.1.3 Theory of Sustainability
3.1.1.4 Sustainability Concept
3.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK MODEL
3.2.1 Hypothesis Development
3.2.1.1 Hypothesis One
3.2.1.2 Hypothesis Two
3.2.1.3 Hypothesis Three
3.2.2 Justification
3.3 CONCLUSION

CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
4.2.1 Study Ontology
4.2.2 Study Epistemology
4.2.3 Study Axiology
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.4 STUDY APPROACH
4.6 RESEARCH CHOICES
4.8 STUDY POPULATION
4.9 SAMPLE
4.9.1 Sample Size
4.9.2 Sampling Techniques
4.10 DATA COLLECTION
4.10.1 Data Sources
4.10.1.1 Primary Data Source
4.10.1.2 Secondary Data Source
4.11 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
4.11.1 Questionnaire
4.12 DATA ANALYSIS
4.12.1 Correlation and Regression
4 .12.1.1 Correlation Analysis
4.12.2 Linear Regression
4.13 PILOT STUDY
4.14 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.15 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
4.16 CONCLUSION

CHAPTER FIVE
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 DEMOGRAPHICAL DATA
5.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
5.3.1 Local Action
5.3.1.1 Factor Analysis
5.3.2 Responsibility
5.3.2.1 Factor Analysis
5.3.3 Ownership
5.3.4 Community Participation as a Variable
5.4 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
5.4.1 Economic Sustainability
5.4.2 Social Sustainability
5.4.3 Environmental Sustainability
5.4.4 Project Sustainability
5.6 SUMMARY OF VARIABLES EXTRACTED
5.7 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
5.7.1 Hypothesis One
5.7.2 Hypothesis Two
5.7.3 Hypothesis Three
5.7.3.1 Regression Analysis
5.8 CONCLUSION

CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 70
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 DISCUSSIONS
6.3 CONCLUSION
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.5 LIMITATIONS
6.6 AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1-QUESTIONNAIRE

DEDICATION

I dedicate this piece of work to my grandmother (Nelly Mwansa) and my fiancé’ (Lucy Chibuta) for their support and inspiration throughout my studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank all who in one way or another contributed in the completion of this thesis.

I give thanks to God for protection and ability to do work. I also give deep thanks to the Professors and lecturers at the University of Lusaka, and other academic workers of the faculty of post graduate studies. My special and heartily thanks to my supervisor, Eng. Kasongo Richard Mwale who encouraged and directed me on his capacity as a parent and supervisor. His critic and challenging analysis and comments brought this work towards a completion. It is with his supervision that this work came into existence.

I am also deeply thankful to my study respondents. Their names cannot be disclosed, but I want to acknowledge and appreciate their help and transparency during my research. Their information has helped me complete this thesis.

I am also so grateful to my fellow students whose challenges and productive critics, more especially Misheck Bwalya who has provided new ideas to the work. Furthermore, I am thankful to my family and my fiancé who encouraged me and prayed for me throughout the time of my research.

May the Almighty God richly bless all of you.

ABSTRACT

Sustainability forms the basis for any developmental activity, without it all the efforts engaged in the project become a share waste of time and resources. It is a mystical theory to believe that affected communities are shocked and helpless to take responsibilities for their own survival and that their only hope is dependent upon external support. On the contrary, communities do have power and strength to manage and sustain their own challenges in any given case as long as they are involved in such a move that is aimed at curbing the community problems. That said community participatory approach is the most important slant towards enabling communities to help themselves and sustain efforts made by multiple developmental agencies. This study was aimed at investigating Community participation and its attributes as a determinant of project sustainability beyond donor support. The study was triggered by the eminent failure rates of many projects implemented in that collapse immediately the donor pulls out their support.

The researcher applied and elucidated on different philosophical standpoints within this thesis in terms of ontology, epistemology and axiology were objectivism and positivism underpinnings were established. The researcher then used explanatory study design on the DFID Community Led Total Sanitation supported project in 29 districts of Zambia. Stratified and random sampling techniques were used to select a sample of 128 respondents. Furthermore, the researcher used questionnaires to collect data and it was analyzed quantitatively using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software and results were summarized and presented using table and charts.

The findings of the study showed that an increase in community participation has a greater impact on the increased project sustainability beyond donor support. Hence Community participation is critical determinant of project sustainability beyond donor support. It is imperative to take cognizant of the fact that communities today should no longer be seen as recipients of development programmes; rather, they have become critical stakeholders that have an important role to play in the management of programmes and projects in their areas.

Key words : Community Participation, Project Sustainability, Determinant, Donor Support

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Dimensions of Project Sustainability

Figure 2: Key Variables of Community Participation

Figure 3: Key Variables of Community Participation

Figure 4: Dimensions of Project Sustainability

Figure 5: Conceptual Framework

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Modes and Types of Community Participation

Table 2: Stratified Sampling

Table 3: Roles of Survey Respondents in Surveyed Project

Table 4: Correlations of components of Local Action

Table 5: Total Variance explained with Eigen Values

Table 6: Component Matrix for One Factor Component Extracted

Table 7: Correlation of Components for Responsibility

Table 8: Total Variance explained with Eigen Values

Table 9: Component Matrix for One Factor Component Extracted

Table 10: Correlation of Components for Ownership

Table 11: Total Variance explained with Eigen Values

Table 12: Component Matrix for One factor component extracted

Table 13: Correlation of Variables of Community Participation

Table 14: KMO and Bartlett's Test for Factor Analysis

Table 15: Total Variance Explained with Eigen Values

Table 16: Component Matrix for Factor Analysis of Community Participation

Table 17: Correlations of Variables for Economic Sustainability

Table 18: Component Matrix for Economic Sustainability Factor analysis

Table 19: Correlation of Social sustainability factors

Table 20: Component Matrix for Factor Extraction

Table 21: Correlation of Variables for Environmental Sustainability

Table 22: Component Matrix for Factor extraction

Table 23: Correlation of Variables of Project Sustainability

Table 24: Variance explained with Eigen values

Table 25: Component Matrix for Data extraction

Table 26: List of Extracted Variables to used Hypothesis testing

Table 27: Correlation of Variables

Table 28: Pearson Correlation

Table 29: Descriptive Statistics

Table 30: Correlation of Variables

Table 31: Regression of fitness

Table 32: Analysis of Variances-ANOVA

Table 33: Regression linear of coefficients

Table 34: Residue of statistics

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Community Refers to a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by

social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings.

Participation Refers to involvement in the process or contribution towards a project.

Project Refers to a unique process consisting of a set of coordinated and controlled activities with a start and finish dates undertaken to achieve specific objectives conforming to specified requirements under the constrains of time, cost and resources.

Sustainability Refers to where community projects are managed efficiently with adequate resources, beneficiaries are involved at every stage of project implementation and there is transparency in financial administration.

Donor Refers to an organization that provides resources for community project

implementation.

Support Refers to the provision of resources for community project implementation.

Determinants Refers to a factor that decisively affects the nature or outcome of a project.

Management Refers to day to day running of a project for the benefit of a community.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the concept of community participation and project sustainability and its various persuasions in order to create a framework within which the research will unfold to the reader. Additionally, the chapter gives a preview of the backbone to this research and why it has to be undertaken. It will first provide the justification and the intended goals and then outline the scope and limitations before it finally provides the outline of the entire research.

It is a mystical theory to believe that affected communities are shocked and helpless to take responsibilities for their own survival and that their only help is dependent upon external support. On the contrary, communities do have power and strength to manage and sustain their own challenges in any given case as long as they are involved in such a move that is aimed at curbing the community problems. That said community participatory approach is the most important slant towards enabling communities to help themselves and sustain efforts made by multiple developmental agencies. It is imperative to take cognizant of the fact that communities today should no longer be seen as recipients of development programmes; rather, they have become critical stakeholders that have an important role to play in the management of programmes and projects in their areas.

1.2 STUDY BACKGROUND

Essentially, it is arguably understood across the community development field that communities are an integral part of development within their localities and that their continuous involvement is paramount to their own success. Panda (2007), states that building community capacities to effectively participate in identifying and responding to community issues and problems in developmental projects should be a priority for the cooperating partners whose aim is to ensure their projects remain sustainable beyond the mandates they have with their donors. Fundamentally, community stakeholders are just community-based mechanisms that can help support and sustain a programme or project (ibid). If we looked at the last fifty years of aid to the third world communities, it is observed that huge numbers of dollars are going down the drain with little or no impact; poverty continues to harass the millions of poor people in these communities. The question then is, should the North continue pouring aid to the third world poor or does the communities themselves have a say on how to sustain the given support?

While such is true, experience on the other hand in the development sector reveals that project sustainability is a major problem as supported by the writing of Panda (2007). Notwithstanding, the numerous efforts to develop self-sustaining projects in rural areas of most Sub-Saharan Africa, the progress is rather gradual leading to an outlay of massive resources on projects that have restricted benefits to the target population. Essentially, community development projects usually manifest a rapid failure once donor support is withdrawn. Dissimilar to the profit making enterprises which have been known to design and implement self-sustaining projects due to the prerequisite to generation of revenues. Non-Governmental Organizations, community based organization and Community based projects are mainly la-di-da by a range of factors that affect the sustainability of their projects of which community participation is one of them. The reality on the ground is that once a project is introduced to the communities, it distorts the stability of socio-economic structure and upon handing over to the community for management after withdrawal of donor funding, the communities are left worse than they were with luggage of dependability on help hitting hard on the target communities (Hibbard & Tang, 2004).

Zambia is not immune to the challenges of project sustainability beyond external aid. Lungo et al, (2017) reports that over 30 years, the country has been implementing three robust social investment projects through Community Driven Development (CDD) approach with the aim to empower local communities. The first segment alone guzzled US$ 64.7 million from World Bank. Lungo et al, (2017) further explains that “despite empowering local communities to co-finance a number of sub-projects, participation by communities and sector agencies was limited”. Consequently, community participation in addition to inadequate government counterpart funding and lack of community maintenance of the post project facilities, the benefits of the projects could not be sustained when funding for the same ended. As a result, the social investment project infrastructures achieved remain ‘white elephants,’ and to-date, beneficiaries are daunted by poverty and food insecurity.

Therefore, if appropriately managed and implemented, community participation can be effectual for sustainability. Nicole (2002), elucidates that communities have different needs, problems, beliefs, practices, assets and resources. Thus getting the community involved in program design and implementation helps ensure that strategies are appropriate for and acceptable to the community for sustainability purposes.

With this background, it is then imperative and necessary to study community participation as a factor influencing sustainability of community development projects beyond donor support.

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Despite the tremendous efforts that the government of Zambia and its cooperating partners have been putting forth, it still remains one of the poor countries in the world with its poverty level rated at 54.4% according to the CSO (2015). This is more rampart in the rural areas where the estimated poverty level is as high as 76.6%. In the quest to reduce these unpleasant statistics, government with support from multinational donor agencies have implemented a number of projects which are aimed at improving the living conditions of the rural Zambians one such an example is the Programme for Luapula Agricultural and Rural Development (PLARD Phase I And II). Most of these projects have failed to live up to their indented objectives as they have not been sustainable especially beyond donor support. It is reported that over 50% of the donor supported projects failed to meet their objectives (Ika, 2012) and that 64% of the projects were unsustainable beyond donor support according to the McKinsey-Devex survey.

Lungo et al, (2017) identified Community Participation, Lower Education Levels and Poverty as the major determinants of project sustainability. Lack of community participation in projects does not only stands out as one of the determinants but very essential factor in the success and sustainability of community based projects that are implemented in rural areas both during and after donor support. It is paramount to note that donor funding is a temporary driver for social and economic change, thus maintaining the determinants at the highest level is essential for both project success and sustainability. Hekala (2012), explains that while there are inherent risks to projects, they should not deter donors, yet they can be better managed.

The bone of contention here is the fact that the country is suffering from lower project sustainability beyond donor support and lack of community participation is one of those factors that are critically contributing to this current status quo, therefore, this research will endeavor to critically analyses community participation as a determinant of project sustainability.

1.4 PURPOSE

The main purpose of this study was to establish and evaluate practical ways in which Community Participation as a determinant of sustainability can contribute to project sustainability beyond donor support and thus improve rural livelihood.

1.5 MAIN OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the Impact of community participation on project sustainability beyond donor support.

1.5.1 Specific Objectives

i. To establish the availability of community participation
ii. To assess the relationship between community participation and project sustainability
iii. To determine the impact of community participation on project sustainability

1.6 MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the impact of community participation on project sustainability beyond donor support?

1.6.1 Specific Research Questions

i. Does community participation exist?
ii. Is there a relationship between community participation and project sustainability?
iii. What is the impact of community participation on project sustainability?

1.7 STUDY SCOPE

The focus of this study is on how the community members as project participants participated in design, development, implementation and decision making of the project as well as during project closeout or transition (looking at how did they participate that is the models of participation). Their participation was to be evaluated in order to determine and demonstrate their contribution or significance towards project sustainability. Although participation levels are not a pinnacle of this research it is needless to say that it might not influence the discussions of the outcomes.

1.8 RESEARCH RATIONALE

The study defined and discussed the concept of community participation in the rural context of social and economic development, with emphasis on establishing its impact on project sustainability and ways of contributing to sustainability. The research also underwrites to project sustainability even when the initiators and sponsors are no longer key players. Thus, its findings are used to add value to the body of knowledge in project sustainability and community development in Zambia, and also to the professional development of the researcher in community development and sustainability issues.

1.9 STUDY DELIMITATION

There are number of determinants of sustainability, nevertheless, the researches chooses to look only at community participation and will not examine any other factors. In addition, the researcher chooses to use DFID/UKAID supported Water and Sanitation projects for the rural Zambia as projects of focus for this research.

1.10 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE

This thesis is structured in such a way that it gives visible headings that provide sufficient guidance and elaborate information to the reader. The thesis structure begun with chapter one which gave a brief introduction and background to the research problem and further elaborated the objectives of the study. In addition, it set a tone of the research and provided the scope and delimitations to the study. On the other hand, chapter two provided the theoretical basis from literature of the study by comprehensively evaluating what other scholars had already done on the study topic in more detail. Similar to chapter two, was chapter three which is basically a summary or theoretical reflections of the reviewed literature into a framework.

Conversely, chapter four provided the guideline of the thesis methodology that was used to conduct this research while chapter five was the presentation of the primary data collected and the analysis thereof. Results and research findings are well discussed as well. In addition, discussions and interpretation of results is written down.

Conclusions drawn from the study were written in chapter six and also the recommendations for further studies. The study ended with a list of scholars whose materials have been referred to in the thesis as provided in the reference section of this thesis.

1.11 CONCLUSION

In this chapter above, the researcher has provided the backbone that justify the need to find the specific impact of community participation on project sustainability beyond donor support. At the same time the chapter has also given both main and specific study objectives while the rationale and scope of the study has also been conveyed. In the coming chapter, you will be expected to read about the different scholarly views on the study topic.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the literature review from different scholars. The chapter is organized using a funnel approach in that it first gives an overview of broader general understandings of concepts and relevance related to Community Participation and Project Sustainability. Later on, the chapter provide the theoretical analysis of the topic concepts in light of global, regional and later Zambian contexts as supported by multiple scholars in the field of project management and community development.

2.2 GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

There is a general agreement of perspectives on the understanding that sustainability concept is ambiguous, vague, liable to arbitrariness, and lacks clarity as to what has to be sustained in the post-project era. As a result, there are many explanations of sustainability concept and even more interpretations of its meanings. Travis (2010) clarifies that sustainability concept is frequently used in developmental discourse for project but often than then can be sources of misunderstanding or misrepresentation. As Sugden (2003), adds that sustainability “has become one of the most over used and abused words in the developmental vocabulary”.

The fact is that Sustainability is widely recognized in literature, while the concept itself is inconsistently defined, given the multiple dimension and stakeholders involved. Therefore, in a very broad way, this research uses Sebastian, Eduard and Cristian (2018) definition of sustainability as “whether or not something continues to work over time” especially when there is no external support. Other approaches are more detailed, with some scholars considering sustainability as addressing the program continuity in its entirety, while others addressed continuity of specific program components, improvement of community capacity, programs institutionalization or the capacity of the program to continuously respond to community issues. These divergent definitions attest that definitional consensus has not been made, and congruent sustainability factors are considered by various scholars or practitioners (Sebastian, Eduard and Cristian 2018). While in a more obvious sense, the concept of sustainability may refer to something which can be sustained, or kept going. But, it also refers to resource use and lifestyles which do not damage resources or society. Malcom (2018) postulates that once the project is launched and begins to engender some sort of benefits, it is possible to continue exploiting the same general approaches to allow the project to continue moving forward, providing those benefits for as long as necessary and that is the concept of sustainability. Malcom (2018), further maintains that as part of the sustainability process, the project should produce resources that can be used in that ongoing operation, making the project worth the time and effort to continue.

In most instances the particulars of project sustainability do vary to some extent, which is usually dependent upon the nature of the project itself. Ideally, efforts to build sustainability into a project early on should be appreciated and accepted as being a good approach, since attempting to integrate that type of ongoing benefit later on can be somewhat difficult. Malcom (2018) agrees with this idea by encouraging project managers to be looking at not only the nuts and bolts of structuring a project, but also the eventual outcome and how the effort can continue to produce results for a number of years which is suitability.

Another key element in project sustainability that should not be over looked is the consideration of the resources that are required for the effort. This means selecting resources that are likely to be available for the foreseeable future, minimizing the possibility of undermining the project once it is up and running, due to a lack of essential materials. In many cases, this will mean identifying secondary sources of those materials or even substitutes that can be pressed into action if circumstances merit a change in process. For example, a food manufacturer may have a backup resource for certain ingredients in the event that one or more resources used in the recipe are no longer available or are declared unhealthy by a governmental agency and must be eliminated from the product (Malcom, 2018). On the other hand, project sustainability requires compliance with current standards as well as providing a viable means of allowing the project to generate benefits on an ongoing basis.

2.2.1 Global and Regional perspectives on Project Sustainability

On the other hand, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), defines sustainability as a continuation of benefit flows with or without the programmes or organizations that stimulated those benefits. That is, the benefits realized are maintained and continued even after donors have pulled out their support to the projects. Whereas in our regional view Miriti (2016) defines sustainability in reference to the projects’ ability to continue with its operations and benefiting the intended communities within its lifetime. From a regional perspective, concept of sustainability is defined by Oino et al, (2015) as magnitude of inheritance after donor support, ability of the government to take over donor supported programmes, time after evaluation and before phase out, and the continuation of project activities after phase out of donor support.

The common understanding here is that the concept of project sustainability is maintaining capacity to produce and keeping the outcomes and impacts that ensue as the result of project interventions. It is the expectation of every stakeholder involved in a project to see it help the targeted population of beneficiaries in the long run.

Rendering credit to Ingle (2005), for a project to achieve sustainability, it is essential to be implemented through a strategic approach. The strategic approach incorporates four main elements,

- future orientation- assuming things will change, and planning to maximize benefits which can be derived during and from that change;
- external emphasis- recognizing the diversity of the project environment and the many dimensions which impact on project outcomes, including technology, politics, society, and economics;
- environmental fit- planning for a continual fit between the project and its environment, including mission, objectives, strategies, structures, and resources;
- and process orientation- planning and management priorities evolve in an iterative cycle of conscious and deliberate learning from experience as the reality changes.

2.2.2 Lessons of Sustainability from Kenya

According to Oino et al, (2015), despite huge amounts of money spent on implementation of projects in Kenya, poor sustainability is depriving them from the returns expected of these investments.

Several factors are responsible for poor project sustainability. Some factors are simple and others are quite complex. Some are within the control of the project management, while others come as external threats.

2.2.2.1 Sustainability challenges in Kenya

In Kenya, Oino et al, (2015) quoting NETWAS International (2009) noted that provision of water and sanitation services through projects is one thing and maintaining the services is quite another. Many evaluations and assessments which were done a few years after commissioning of various WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) projects in developing countries, Kenya inclusive, provided a very dismal report that project were „dead‟, or were performing far below par.

Even though the Kenyan government setting ambitious targets to provide access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation facilities to 85% of the population still faced considerable challenges in reaching the water and sanitation Millennium Development Goals (USAID/Kenya). According to the JMP 2015 progress report, access to safe water supplies throughout Kenya is 59 percent with access in rural areas remaining as low as 47 percent (Oino et al, 2015).

2.2.2.2 Sustainability Successes in Kenya

Oino et al, (2015) expressed that foreign development assistance in Kenya has been a move towards addressing the fundamental causes of poverty. With reference to the recent manifestation towards sustainability, which stresses community mobilization, education, and cost-recovery as supported by the Thematic Group (2005).

To be specific Oino et al, (2015) referred to a few water projects that had become sustainable, as due to the strategies incorporated before the projects were finalized encompassing:

- effective mobilization of communities through sensitization and training to achieve ownership
- collaboration with various stakeholders (the government, local leaders, politicians and the target communities) in the project sites that ensured actual implementation of projects and continuity of those projects when implementing agencies pulled out of the area
- application of appropriate technologies
- gender considerations that empowered women to handle community projects
- environmental impact considerations into a project
- sensitivity to socio-cultural factors in the communities
- capacity building for communities and effective monitoring and evaluation. Other factors include effective networking with all stakeholders.

Project sustainability is a major challenge not only in Zambia, but also in many developing countries. Many are the projects implemented at high costs often tend to experience difficulties with sustainability. Many funding agencies have been expressed concerns to this effect, despite the current trend with implementation of projects is showing significant improvement, post-implementation sustainability is rather disappointing with very few projects being sustainable.

In the most recent times, community based approaches for community development, have emerged as the best tools for achieving project sustainability. According to UNHCR (2008), a community-based approach is a way of working in partnership with persons of concern during all stages of project cycle. This will be discussed further in the coming sections of this chapter.

2.2.3 Lessons of Sustainability from Zambia

In Zambia, the situation is not different from that of Kenya and the whole region, where a number foreign assistance towards poverty alleviation has increase but not greater impact towards poverty reductions in the long run.

2.2.3.1 World Vision Community Project Sustainability in Zambia

With the view of making the farmers sustainable after donor pulling out, World Vision made the condition of payment of the loans very flexible to give the farmers time to raise produce more for their sustainability.

This was achieved through of revolving loans (World Vision, 1999). The strategy in which the community was made sustainable was through the creation of framer’s groups. The groups formed a committee, which was made to work in partnership with Agricultural Extension Officers from the Ministry of Agriculture. It was expected of the committee to take up the leading role in agricultural related matters concerning farmers in the area. Kabungo (2001) reports that two types of agricultural revolving loans were given to the community by the project in Pigs and goats. The project gave pigs and goats to the community during the 1998/99 agricultural season and nineteen (19) farmers benefited from the loans. Each beneficiary of the goats revolving loan scheme was given two female goats, one male and those from the pig scheme were given one female and one male. The community members who were involved in these agricultural revolving loans were put in groups and some committees were formed to monitor on usage of loans. The loan’s main purpose was to increase the number of livestock of the beneficiaries. The loans were meant in such a way that; they were rotating from one community beneficiary member to the other. The goal was that once the animal breed, the first beneficiary had to give the male and female animal to the next beneficiary, as this was to continue up to the last beneficiary in a group.

Kabungo (2001) further adds that the sustainability of this project was left in the hands of the community members as they were given all the powers to run the project. The loan was made self-sustaining, and the only task the beneficiaries had was to care for the animals properly. This agricultural revolving loan had its own risks especially that it was dealing with animal lives which meant that there was no control for natural death in that such death can be seen as a factor which can contribute to the failure of sustainability of the project. For the health of the animals, the projects had to put up the dip tanks to control the tick-borne diseases. As for sustainability purposes, the projects partnered with the veterinary department to take up the leading role in the control of the diseases.

2.2.3.2 Sustainability Challenge in Zambia

Zambia is not immune to the challenges of project sustainability after external aid. Lungo et al, (2017) gives an example of a robust social investment project which was implemented over 30 years through Community Driven Development (CDD) approach with the aim to empower local communities, with records showing that the first phase alone guzzled US$ 64.7 million from World Bank. Despite empowering local communities to co-finance a number of sub-projects, participation by communities and sector agencies was limited. Furthermore, Lungo et al, (2017) expounds that due to inadequate government counterpart funding and lack of community maintenance of the post project facilities, the benefits of the projects could not be sustained when funding for the same ended. Consequently, the project infrastructures achievements have remained as white elephants while to-date, beneficiaries are daunted by poverty and food insecurity.

It is thus clear that despite all the concentrated efforts directed towards poverty reduction through project implementation, Zambia’s overall poverty incidence remains high, at 54.4% (CSO, 2015). This is more rampart in the rural areas where the estimated poverty level is as high as 76.6%. Therefore, in the quest to reduce these unpleasant statistics, government of Zambia with support from multinational donor agencies have implemented a number of projects which are aimed at improving the living conditions of the rural Zambians one such an example is the Programme for Luapula Agricultural and Rural Development (PLARD Phase I and II). Most of these projects have failed to live up to their indented objectives as they have not been sustainable especially beyond donor support. It is reported that over 50% of the donor supported projects failed to meet their objectives (Ika, 2012) and that 64% of the projects were unsustainable beyond donor support according to the McKinsey-Devex survey.

Lungo et al, (2017) identified Community Participation, Lower Education Levels and Poverty as the major determinants of project sustainability. Lack of community participation in projects does not only stands out as one of the determinants but very essential factor in the success and sustainability of community based projects that are implemented in rural areas both during and after donor support. It is paramount to note that donor funding is a temporary driver for social and economic change, thus maintaining the determinants at the highest level is essential for both project success and sustainability. Hekala (2012) explains that while there are inherent risks to projects, they should not deter donors, yet they can be better managed.

The bone of contention that remains here is the fact that the country is suffering from lower project sustainability beyond donor support and lack of community participation is one of those factors that are critically contributing to this current status quo, therefore, the need to discuss community participation.

2.2.4 Dimensions of Project Sustainability

There are three key dimensions of project sustainability as identified below

i. Economic Dimension: A project would be considered sustainable if it will able to produce goods and services on a continuing basis, maintaining manageable size of government and external donor support. The core idea of sustainability is that current decisions should not impair the prospects for maintaining or improving future living standards of the project beneficiaries. This implies that our economic system of the project should be managed so it can live off the dividends of its resources even beyond donor support.
ii. Ecological Dimension: The ecological dimension of the project sustainability is about maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems, the preservation of genetic diversity and the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems. It does ensure maintaining a stable resource base, do not rout the waste assimilative ability of the environment nor the regenerative services of the environment, and deplete non-renewables only to the extent that can allow investment in renewable substitutes.
iii. Social Dimension: The social project sustainability dimension is directly concerned with increasing the standard of living of people (or beneficiaries) within the community of project implementation, which can be measured in terms of increased food, real income, education, health care, water supply, sanitation and only indirectly concerned with economic growth at the aggregate. Social project sustainability also entails the achievement of distributional equity, adequate provision of social services including health and education, gender equity and political accountability and participation.

The above discussed dimensions can be summarized as shown in the pillar below:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1 : Dimensions of Project Sustainability.

Source: Developed by Author, 2018

The principle behind these dimensions is to ensure the project is protecting the environment and at the same time fulfill economic and social objectives thus considered sustainable. Conversely, it is imperative to note that economic objectives should not be maximized without satisfying environmental and social demands. This implies that there should be economic growth and equity without leaving any region behind. On the other hand, environmental benefits should not be maximized without satisfying economic and social needs, while at the same time Social benefits should not be maximized without satisfying economic and environmental constraints

2.3 GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Broadly speaking, the concept of community participation has become one of the most relevant subject that can be discussed in various disciplines which have and need human input in the development process, such as social policy, health, community planning, psychology, and community economic development. And in the last 40years community participation paradigm in more especially in rural projects has become more popular than in the past (Rebecca, 2015). Notably enough, participatory development approaches have somewhat currently occupied a prominent and summit role in community development practice and discourses.

Mushtaq (2004), provides a most probable general understanding of community participation concept as a process by which people from all sectors of community (rich, poor, Men, women, uneducated, educated, and so on) can influence or control decisions which affect their lives. But this does not necessarily itself give a more definite elaboration of what exactly the process of influencing decisions would be, while Putnam (2000), elucidate on the concept at hand as peoples’ engagement in activities within the community that plays an essential and long-standing role in promoting quality of life.

In a nutshell, both Mushtaq (2004) and Putnam (2000) re-emphasized on peoples’ involvement in influencing decisions and in promoting quality of life for their general communities. Thus the concept of community participation in this literature has been used to describe many kinds of activities and processes carried out, directive or non-directive by the authorities responsible and the communities, or initiated by people themselves to bring social development and improvement for the betterment of general community.

On the other hand, Rebecca (2015) considers Community Participation has an evolutionary process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects as active participants and not just mere recipients of project benefits. Community Participation is an important concept in developmental projects and because of its wide application, it means different things to different people and sectors. Therefore, the concept of community participation can easily be considered ambiguous, implying that there is no specific or right way to ensure community participation in the development process. Wherefore, in a situation where participation is interpreted as a means, it normally becomes a form of mobilization to get things done by the people themselves for their total good. That said, Community participation should be a cyclical process and cumulative in nature thereby transformed into the locus of community empowerment.

Undoubtedly, it is also imperative that understanding of “community” is well stated. Thus, a “community” is group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings (Bhatnagar et al, 1992). While Community participation occurs when a community organizes itself and takes responsibility for managing its problems. Taking responsibility includes identifying the problems, developing actions, putting them into place, and following through.

Nicole (2002) adds that If implemented properly, the concept of community participation can be effective for a number of reasons as outlined below;

- Communities have different needs, problems, beliefs, practices, assets, and resources. Therefore, getting the community involved in program design and implementation helps ensure that strategies are appropriate for and acceptable to the community.
- Community participation promotes shared responsibility by service providers, community members, and other stakeholders within the boundaries of community.
- When communities "own" projects and programs, they often mobilize resources that may not otherwise be available. They are capable of working together to advocate for better programs, services, and policies.
- Community participation can increase the accountability of projects
- Participation can empower people within the community.

As a result, there is a growing increase in the demand for community participation in development projects as a result of numerous benefits. The resultant benefits of active community participation in project processes and discourses may include but not limited to the following;

- increase in project acceptability
- production of more equitable distribution of benefits
- promotion of local resource mobilization and project sustainability
- beneficiary community enhance cost-effectiveness for project implementation and resources distribution to a wider coverage of weaker sections of society
- crucial strategy of ensuring that responsibility and benefits trickle to the beneficiaries.
- more drive for satisfaction from the joy that comes from involvement,
- achieve more results, more rapidly, and with greater benefit to the community as a whole.
- Communities who participate in development initiatives report better success than those that only pay lip service to this important principle.

Community Participation as a concept does occupy a central and a vital role in project management and sustainability of developmental inclination with resultant potential to challenge, influence, and change and modifies the status quo for the benefits of all community members. Additionally, this approach is closely linked to sustainability, thus becomes a cardinal duty of funding and implementing agencies, including governments.

2.3.1 Community participation Process

Community participation does not just happen neither is it an idle principle, rather it needs some form of strategy and planned approach, resources and time allocation and commitment to the course (Rebecca, 2015). Therefore, according to Elizabeth (1998) the community participation process involves;

i. Planning for participation
ii. The structural components of community participation
iii. Living the philosophy
iv. Enhancing the credibility, and
v. The type of leadership required to facilitate community participation

2.3.2 Community Participation Variables

Credits to Dube (2009), there are two key variables of Community Participations namely; Community empowerment and Capacity Building.

2.3.2.1 Community Empowerment

Community empowerment in the context of community participation means that people or rather communities become aware of their problems, gain knowledge, competencies, take actions, and gain control over their resources.

2.3.2.2 Capacity Building

Unlike Community empowerment, capacity building in the context of community participation may simply mean as the skills training which also includes identification of training needs amongst project members. This explanation is also referred to the transfer of skills externals to project members. Ideally this skills transfer is done through provision of support to projects.

While the Advocates for youth (2001) reiterates that “Community participation occurs when a community organizes itself and takes responsibility for managing its problems. Taking responsibility includes identifying the problems, developing actions, putting them into place, and following through”

There are three key variables that comes out of this emphasis from the Advocate for youth noted as community local action, responsibility and ownership of which can further be amplified as:

i. Local Action: is the community led campaigns or range of activities that increases understanding, engagement and empowerment of local communities in design and implementation of projects to solve the community problems examples of these activities: GBV campaigns organized by locals’ community. Community local actions are led by local action committees whose goal is to inspire and motivate groups in their communities to take an active role in increasing community vibrancy.
ii. Responsibility: Taking responsibility includes identifying the problems, developing actions, putting them into place, and following through.
iii. Ownership: This is a community mechanism that allows the community to influence their own operation, management or use of the projects or assets. It brings out the “ours” principle and encourages community members to work extra hard to ensure the project is sustainable if they own it, if they know this project is for them and it will remain theirs after donor support.

Three principle variables identified by the Youth Advocates can summarized in a model as shown below:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2 : Key Variables of Community Participation

Source: Developed by Author, 2018

2.4 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

Patrick and Daniel (2016) says that community participation is a prerequisite for project sustainability unlike community management, in that the former helps to achieve community ownership of the project than the latter of which community ownership is the backbone of sustainability. Arguably enough that the when the sense of ownership increases the levels of dedication from community members increases hence the community participation which will enhance sustainability of a project. Nicole (2002), further explained that community participation is the movement that respects the rights and responsibility of community members to establish the causes of their own community problem and to actively engage in designing, implementing, and evaluating strategies to address the problem. It is strategy that can be used to help program planners appropriately and effectively address issues in the communities.

2.4.1 Modes, types and levels of community participation

Further claims by Nicole (2002) are that community participation is a proven approach to addressing sustainability in the United States and in developmental projects internationally. These projects may vary from sanitation to child survival, clean water, and health infrastructure. Nonetheless, the extent of participation will differ from project to project.

Dube (2009) suggests the following as the levels of participation in projects by communities:

i. Passive Participation: in simple terms a passive participation is described as people that participate by living in the area of the project.
ii. Participation by resource contribution: This requires communities contribute money, time or labor.
iii. Participation by Consultation: this simply means external project agency consulting the locals
iv. Interactive Participation: this has been defined as the inclusion of the intended beneficiaries in diagnosing and then solving problems.
v. Spontaneous Mobilization: this is when a group of people decides to take action without initial outside intervention

On the other hand, Advocate for Youth (2001) for Burkina Faso tabulated their understanding of community participation by highlighting modes of participation and the type of participation also linking these to sustainability, local action and community ownership as shown below;

Table 1 : Modes and Types of Community Participation

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

[...]

Details

Pages
90
Year
2018
ISBN (eBook)
9783668952157
ISBN (Book)
9783668952164
Language
English
Catalog Number
v470657
Institution / College
University of Lusaka
Grade
3.0
Tags
community case support donor beyond sustainbility project determinant participation zambia sustainability

Author

Share

Previous

Title: Community Participation As a Determinant of Project Sustainbility Beyond Donor Support. The Case of Zambia