Orangi and gal oya

ORANGI vs. GAL OYA projects:Lessons in participatory involvement

Orangi, Pakistan

1960s: Poor, immigrant influx

1970s: Unsanctioned = no govt. funds or harmony

1980s: Enter OPP

(Orangi Pilot

Project)

Challenges for Dr. A.H. Khan -

CONCEPTUAL

TECHNICAL

ORGANIZATIONAL

No preconceived problems/solutions

ACTIVE LISTENING

Unhurried observation:

CONCEPTUAL: Identifying problems

Priorities:

SewerageSanitary water supply

No govt. funds, BUT…

Locals are

valued

social

capital . . .

ORGANIZATIONAL: Build local capacity

Only initial impetus from OPP:

SOCIAL MOTIVATORS talked about:

-- Benefits of sewer lines…

-- Govt. not solving problems…

-- Informal, elective process at fraction of cost

TECHNICAL: OPP plus Thallawalas (and other indigenous populations)

Inexpensive, simple technology to:

Minimize cost

Simplify training/education

Ownership, installation, maintenance

Pre-project findings

No formal impositions

People free to organize efforts, elect leaders

Very slow education process for buy-in

OPP Local people

Funding realities

No donor funds to projects themselves

Solely for: tech assistance, training, overhead, tools loaned to citizens

Financial resources

Labor

Project scheduling

(and whether/when to lay lines)

Villagers sole stakeholders

Beneficiaries involved

Three months to first lane installation

(Implementation learning)

Another project: GAL OYA (Sri Lanka)

Begun in 1951 as Gal Oya Colonization Scheme:

Relevant lens (Reservoir water going throughout area to benefit ALL people

in Valley;

e.g. tail-enders for those at end of water stream and head-enders for those at beginning);

Multiple perspectives: Prime Minister, farmers, and several affected indigenous populations

LENS: Prime Minister/Irrigation dept.

Mission: Increase small farmer rice production through the use of irrigation

Result: self-managed farmer organization

Size: 120,000 acres, 40 colonies of 150 families

LENS: FarmersOld system: Govt. built systems, engineers supervise construction, farmers trained to maintain.

(Farmers uncooperative)

Newer system: More active role, stronger water associations

Farmer-to-farmer approach

(from research by “Institutional Organizers”)

Design: Outside consultants and govt. staff

LENS: Sinhalese community Head-enders on chain

Viewed as direct beneficiaries of Gal Oya project

Major ethnic group in Sri Lanka

“Head-enders”

LENS: Tamil community Tail-enders on chain,

Skewed number of Sinhalese households were resettled in Tamil community, favoring Sinhalese political/ethnic balance

Tamil protests led to widespread ethnic, religious riots (aka Gal Oya massacre)

Now noted as case study of how one minority group can be elevated over a majority group (Sinhalese over Tamil)

LENS: Wanniyala-Aetto community Dam Eviction from hunting-and-gathering lands

Forest home clear-cut for hydro-electricity

Near extinction in 1983 with three new reservoirs

Tribe split into three resettlement areas

Forbidden to live in ecological sustainability

OngoingCivil war between Sinhalese and Tamil

Indigenous fellow-citizens rebel at Gal Oya anniversary

Orangi Gal Oya

World Bank lens(local residents should have control and authority to

manage, supervise, evaluate projects)

“Conceptual” success

Project defined with equal voices

Borrowing entities developing planning capabilities

Political repercussions

Relocation of indigenous

Perceived inequality with “tail-enders” and “head-enders”

Blueprint-engineering or social learning? Whose agenda is served?

ORANGI: BYPASS

Ignore governmentSet up parallel structure

May ultimately join govt. system

GAL OYA: IN/with

Operating with govt. framework

But avoid costly reorganization

Production vs. institutional strengthening

Updates

AMA calls for eradication of bucket latrines by 2010 in Ghana, Accra

Orangi model adopted elsewhere.

Gal Oya: Paternalist vs. Populist fallacy

Is guided participation best approach for empowerment, OR

Is it too open to outside manipulation?