Typical characters

Let’s start thinking about 3 typical, real and common characters you come across in low-income countries:

Yasin taxiwala in Karachi,

Laxmi waste entrepreneur in Kathmandu, and

Peter Robinson senior planning Advisor with an international donor. 

1) Yasin drives a taxi in Karachi which is owned by a retired police officer. Yasin starts his taxi from 8 am in the morning and finishes at 10 pm. He works only half a day on Fridays and after the congregational prayers spends time with his family. During the day he waits in front of a shopping mall, for which he pays a monthly bribe to the local police office. He also needs an annual safety check for his taxi, for which he pays a bribe of Rs 3000. In the last 2 years his mobile phone and cash were snatched by armed burglars, twice. Despite all this, Yasin is a hardworking and honest person, and would like to drive his own a taxi one day. He would also like to see better roads and good traffic flow in the city.  

2) Laxmi runs a small but growing waste collection company in an area of Kathmandu. He collects waste from 14,000 houses, charges a monthly fee and makes a small profit. He also provides awareness-building and technologies to his clients for waste reduction and recycling. It started as a very small company 6 years ago, but he now employs more than 200 people. One day, he would like to collect waste from the whole of the city. His company is under threat from a large programme on sustainable waste management funded by global climate adaptation funds which would like to introduce low-carbon waste collection trucks for the whole of Kathmandu.  

3) Peter Robinson is a senior planning adviser with an international donor. He manages an annual budget of US$50 million, which is assigned to improve the participatory governance through good planning in 20 low-income countries. He is accountable to taxpayers and his minister for International Development. If all goes to plan, Peter’s efforts must change the lives and create opportunities for people like Yasin and Laxmi. Peter would like to have a better choice of successful projects, which could be shown to visiting ministers.

Please keep these characters in mind as we will revisit them at the end of this note.

Tough realities & opportunities in Low-income countries

Projects designed to improve planning and participation of the poor in low-income countries take place in a certain context. Let’s first try to understand some of the relevant features of that context:

1) Massive urban population growth and more than 1 billion people living in slum areas; in any city at least 40% of the population live in slum and low-income areas. The majority of the people are poor or on a low income.

2) Governments have (often imported) standards but have no funds to invest in infrastructure, so there is always a dependency on external sources to invest. The external funds often come from International Financing Institutions (IFIs) or investors from newly emerging economic powers, such as China, India or Brazil. These funds come with conditions and reinforce imported standards.

3) Extensive small, private and informal activities. Schools, hospitals, transport, shops and waste collection are all run by small private entrepreneurs

4) Most people are on a low income. They are hardworking and honest.

5) Corruption in government institutions, political instability and conflict are common

The main opportunities to development are therefore to build on the hard work and capabilities of the majority i.e. the low-income people. In reality, this does not happen. The space available to work with the poor with a goal to improve their well-being is limited. This is due to a number of external factors and in this short note, I cannot go into detail. However, it is worth noting that the programme of some NGOs - to plan with neighbourhood-level organisations - is an attempt to use this space, with an intention to influence the larger context. Plans are prepared, but influencing the larger context is always challenging.

Lessons in Using the Space through Participatory Planning

Practical Action has been using Participatory Planning as its core methodology to work with slum dwellers. So, far this has been tried in Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, where we have programmes in cities and towns. Practical Action is using this approach to enhance the ownership and participation of the poor in the delivery of basic infrastructure and services. In the past, Practical Action used methods such as participation of users in technology design and participation in technology choices. In cities and towns, the standards and design are pretty much fixed by local government. Participatory planning is more area-based and has to do with physical space, infrastructure and services. Practical Action has used the approach at neighbourhood level, often with existing Community Based Organisations (CBOs) approved by the municipality. The planning process also generates enough technical details and estimates to engage with the technical departments of the municipalities. Practical Action expects plans to be participatory, to engage people and later form the basis of wider partnerships of grass-roots organisations of slum dwellers with other organisations.       

The approach has been modified and adapted in Kenya, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, varying with differing ways of organising people, their needs and local government structures. In the four countries the planning process has been successful in mobilising slum-dwellers and building their awareness. It has aroused the interest of local authority staff and built capacity of municipal engineers, who are often constrained by checks, controls and standards. In Bangladesh, Nepal and Kenya it has helped municipalities to prioritise some capital investments in slum areas. In all these countries, the municipalities have allowed access to their land for social and environmental purposes.

The process has some limitations. Working with municipalities in infrastructure services leads to reduced choice of technology and systems, as standards and norms are pretty much fixed as per government guidelines. A good participatory process depends very much on the attitudes and skills of the facilitators, which is something you cannot just teach or instil with training of local authority staff, as it is requires a quality of natural leadership. There are difficulties in promoting partnerships, especially where large programmes aided by the International Financing Institutions are concerned. The needs of slum areas may change with time, and resources may not keep pace. Then there are issues of legal ownership of the plans, representation of community-based organisations and the overall policy framework within which the participatory plan is intended to work. If adequate guidance on details is not given and appropriate data analysed, the planning process will produce a technical plan for a slum area instead of a participatory or people’s plan responsive to the needs and priorities of the poor people.

Some important conditions could improve the quality and impact of the process. First, there is the attitude of the staff and their willingness to act as both a pro-poor planner and a facilitator. In particular, the facilitating process between planning and partnership-building stages needs resources and may not happen within the predictable time limits. Second, the presence of a national level policy and financing to implement the plans is important. In Kenya, this was crucial for success. Third, the slum-dwellers and areas are very much part of a city-wide system; they work outside the slums, access a range of resources in the city and in some cases develop the capacity to move out of the slums. The participatory planning process which addresses wider socio-economic needs must be sensitive to that context and its connectivity with the national policy and regional policies. Finally, it is important that plans must deliver something tangible, and that not too many plans are prepared.   

Challenges to Young Professionals

So, on the one hand, there is a potential of hardworking and honest poor people which can be used through the participatory planning process; on the other hand, there is a challenging and tough context which stops it reaching its full potential. A young planner and committed planner is often caught in the middle of this tension.  If not addressed, there is a danger that our young planners will become victims of tension between their employer’s business lines, his/her professional values and the realities and potential on the ground. A young planner interested in international development work may have a vision of becoming a leader in sustainable development and poverty reduction while the realities of the job and career aspirations may continue to challenge him or her. If a planner is determined and continues to work, he or she may soon be asking ‘where is the trade-off’? If professional associations and universities, responsible for the training and professional standards do not address these issues, there is a risk that planning practice will become irrelevant to society. It may not train future leaders to tackle global challenges.    

What can be done?

Exposure to the basic realities and the challenging context is important to start this process. The young planner will initially be self-conscious and may also start discussions with employers and clients. Within the space available in the professional practice, much can be achieved. Gradually this self-consciousness can then become a ladder of further intellectual growth. With support from Professional Associations, more pro-poor planning charters can be developed, keeping in mind that they have an emerging role in international development. As in the medical profession, ethical standards can incorporate values on human, environmental and ecological damage. Arif Hasan, a well known thinker on development and an active advocate of pro-poor planning, wrote;    

“In the case of Karachi, I see projects replacing planning for the foreseeable future. I have tried to promote some principles on the basis of which projects should be judged and/or modified. These are: one, projects should not damage the ecology of the region in which the city is located. Two, projects should as a priority seek to serve the interests of the majority who in the case of our cities are lower and lower middle income groups. Three, projects should decide land-use on the basis of social and environmental considerations and not on the basis of land values alone. And four, projects should protect the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of the communities that live in them. This would in my opinion produce better projects. But you cannot effectively follow these principles if you do not have affection and respect for the natural environment and for the people who form the majority in your cities. 

He said about his personal promise;

“I promised in an article.[1] “I will not do projects that will irreparably damage the ecology and environment of the area in which they are located; I will not do projects that increase poverty, dislocate people and destroy the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of communities that live in the city; I will not do projects that destroy multi-class public space and violate building byelaws and zoning regulations; and I will always object to insensitive projects that do all this, provided I can offer viable alternatives.” I have tried to keep that promise and I think I have succeeded”.

What this will change for our 3 characters?

Ultimately, gradual adoption of this ‘ethical filter’ of professional practice will flourish and make a massive change to the characters I introduced at the start, and millions more. The plans will deliver not only a secure working environment for Yasin taxiwala, but through savings and trust on plans, he will be the owner of his taxi one day. He will have a better relationship with the government. Laxmi can up-scale his affordable and innovative system to the whole of Kathmandu and can play a positive role in the global campaign on sustainable development, and Peter Robinson will be proudly accountable to the taxpayers about the impact their contributions can make. He will have hundreds of plans and projects to show when the Prime Minister of his country comes to visit a developing country.    

Key Messages

In summary, I offer 3 key messages to Young Planners:

1) Planning must relate to the social and economic realities of the context and not be driven by investor priorities or the technical skills of the professionals alone. These realities are rooted in social and cultural norms, affordability, ability to maintain etc.  

2) Planning intended to benefit poor people will also need to create trust and develop skills and match planning to the needs and priorities of the poor. It may need both plans and facilitation, and include those with less power to influence.

3) Plans cannot be delivered through projects alone, and projects are not a replacement for planning. Understanding and influencing the whole system is the key.

This is perhaps the best time in the recent history to make a difference in the lives of billions of poor people in the world.

Author:

Judith Eversley

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

12-Nov-09

Categories:

 

This article has been read 335 times.