1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

CARITAS (Switzerland) - Швейцария

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

14/10/2016

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

1.4 Ссылка (-и) на Анкету (-ы) по Технологиям УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

The approach focuses on community engagement on a partnership basis. The model is a departure from the traditional approaches where the community mostly is reduced to being a beneficiary of project services without substantive responsibility.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

The Approach is hinged on community empowerment and partnership. The model is a departure from the traditional approaches where the community is reduced to a mere beneficiary of project services without substantive responsibility.

The main purpose of the approach is to enhance ownership, while fostering needed capacity for management of project outcomes. Ultimately, it is estimated that sustainability of project results is achievable with good community empowerment and meaningful participation. The approach also aims at cost effectiveness as the community is required to substantially contribute locally available materials, labour and sometimes cash.

Community mobilisation and capacity building is central to ensure that the community is prepared to undertake their roles and responsibilities. Mobilisation happens through discussions, sometimes aided by applying participatory tools and methods. Capacity building is done through workshop-type and/or on-the-job training. It is noteworthy that the communities do have indigenous knowledge and skills which are useful in processes of development at the community level. These skills and knowledge inform the project design, planning and implementation of activities. To enhance local skills, selected community members are trained as they work alongside the hired skilled artisans during the construction of the rock catchment system. The aim is to prepare and equip the locals with basic skills for operations and maintenance of the rock catchment system. Others are trained to get equipped with skills on hygiene and sanitation promotion.

The project was designed based on pre-project assessment. The assessment, besides identifying water and hygiene needs, also identified three areas/communities which had rock catchment potential - Ndikir, Manyatta Lengima and Mpagas. Initial meetings were done with support from community leaders and the local government administrators (chiefs). During the meetings the project was explained and discussed in view of the community needs and the roles for all stakeholders - Caritas Switzerland (CACH), the community, government and leaders. Agreed roles and responsibilities were drafted and formed the main part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CACH and the community. The MOU was signed before the entire community for collective ownership and formalise the relationship between CACH and the project.

At the county and sub-county level, the stakeholders are provided with progress updates, engaging with government and other leaders. The local leaders were useful in helping in community mobilisation and addressing areas of concern wherever issues arose.

The approach left the community more motivated with a desire to manage the project benefits for posterity. The community has appreciated that the project ended with a number of community members having acquired basic skills for operations and maintenance. Above all, they were proud that they significantly contributed to the successful implementation of the project. Initially the community were opposed to the idea that they had to contribute so much, since before they had mostly received assistance without any requirement on their side to contribute.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.4 Видеоматериалы по применению Подхода

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

1. Community mobilisation
2. Active community participation and ownership of the project and outcomes
3. Sustainability of the project outcomes
4. Enhanced skills and capacity to manage the Technology

2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	интерактивное	Planning for project activities was jointly planned between the community and the project staff specialists
планирование	интерактивное	More technical planning was done as advised by the technical project team. Planning for day to day field activities during implementation was jointly done with the community
выполнение	интерактивное	Community participation was more interactive in planning for specific project activities. However, there were specific tasks which required hired labour and by common agreement the community provided such labour for payment.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	Monitoring with community was mainly done during project reflection/review meetings. Monitoring in this respect was more limited to evaluation of project activities progress and timeliness with which the activities were being achieved.

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• все участники как часть процесса совместных действий

Поясните:

The project was designed initially without direct community involvement other than the pre-project information collected.

Поясните на чём было основано принятие решений:

• анализ подробно описанного опыта и знаний по УЗП (принятие решений на основе подтвержденных фактов)
• результаты исследований
• личный опыт и мнения (незадокументированные)

• Government policies

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

Тип обучения:

• в ходе работы
• опытные участки

Рассматриваемые темы:

Basic construction skills, management of water system (rock catchment), hygiene and sanitation promotion

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

The community has (in theory) access to government advisory services. However, the nearest government offices are about 20-50 kilometres away without reliable means of transport. The technical staff of the county government is often unable to offer quality and effective extension work, mostly due to transport limitations but also due to low motivation. However, this gap is being bridged through the work of various NGOs operating in the region who provide advisory services in addition to other interventions such as in water, health, livelihoods, and education.

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• да, умеренно

Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:

• местные

Опишите организацию, функции и ответственность, членство и т.д.

The Approach led to establishment of Water Management Committees. The committees have been trained and equipped to manage the systems.

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая
• повышение компетенций/ обучение
• оборудование

Подробнее:

One key lesson from this and other projects is that one-off trainings are rarely effective even if properly done. A continuous support/follow-up is necessary to maintain the skills and knowledge acquired.

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Нет

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Нет

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 2000-10000

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

Internal organisational funding and external donors

5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Да

Если да, укажите тип(-ы) поддержки, кто ее предоставил и условия предоставления:

Caritas procured the bulk of construction materials whereas the community contributed locally available materials - sand and hardcore stones

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• добровольный

Комментарии:

The labour contribution was split between the organisation and the community. Caritas paid 3 USD per day whereas the standard amount per day is 5 USD. This was discussed and agreed at the inception of the project. The consideration was that those who work on site will not have any other time for other work for their household daily needs.

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

5.5 Другие методы или инструменты стимулирования

Использовались ли другие методы или инструменты стимулирования для продвижения Технологий УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• да

Если да, опишите как:

The Approach greatly focused on capacity building, community empowerment and strengthened institutions. It is expected therefore that they will sustainably manage the Technologies that have been constructed.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
The Approach leads to greater ownership of the technology thus leading to better equipped community groups with skills for operations and maintenance. The Approach galvanises a community towards a common goal hence promotes cohesion and better organisation.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
It takes time to achieve the community´s buy-in so that they can adequately fulfil their obligations. This is particularly the case in a region where varied development approaches have been implemented, most of which create dependency and discouraged self-initiative.	This can be changed through long terms engagement processes with all stakeholders such as county government and NGOs to advocate for approaches that foster community empowerment.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

A Handbook of gravity-flow water systems for small communities; Thomas D. Jordan Junior; 1980; 978 0 94668 850 0

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

Caritas Switzerland office, Nairobi