Training and Consulting Blog

Using Sketchup 3D Modeling Software for Community Development and Relief

As a community development worker, I’m always looking for new tools that can help bridge the gap between donors, technical experts, policy makers and communities. At the same time, I have a strong belief in the principles of Appropriate Technology and try to keep my work as low-tech as possible for fear of alienating people because of unnecessary complexity, excessive cost or technical skill required for completing a particular task. As a person who has used GIS for nearly 20 years, I have found more times than not a simple hand-drawn sketch map can accomplish the same or more in less time than a scale map overlaid on high resolution satellite images – especially in a community workshop setting. Nonetheless, there are times when accuracy counts and clarity matters, such as when communicating with government agencies or policy-makers. Additionally, one could argue that the longer the design process remains the hands of stakeholders the more satisfied they will be in the end product.

Recently, I have discovered a new tool that I believe could find a good home among community development and relief workers. Sketchup (formerly Google Sketchup) is a software program that makes it easy to create and share 3D models. It’s is available as a freeware version (SketchUp Make), a paid version with additional functionality (SketchUp Pro) and a free beta online version at http://my.sketchup.com. It’s compatible with Mac and PC and can be run on Linux using Wine (a MS Windows compatibility layer). Professional engineering/drafting program such as Autocad will set you back about $380 per year and comes with a much steeper learning curve. Sketchup on the other hand is easy to learn, thanks to millions tutorials on YouTube (1,800,000 to be exact) and you can’t beat the price (free).

Autocad is designed for creating blueprints for buildings, airplanes, toasters, etc. Sketchup on the other hand focused on creating the easiest way to draw in 3D. I have found Sketchup to be an excellent tool to work between end-users and engineers and architects by providing end users much better means to communicate their vision. It allows end users the ability to visualize, think through and adapt many design problems on their own and saves the time and expense of having engineers and/or architects thinking through all these details.

I’ve been using the freeware version for the past couple of years and have found it able to do most of things I want it to. Connected to Sketchup is an extensive database of millions of user created and shared models including houses, cars, plants, lights, animals, people, furniture, industrial equipment, etc. All it takes is a few clicks to add any model to your Sketchup project. Sketchup also makes it easy to create scale models of existing buildings through its connection to Google Earth which allows you to import a scale basemap of any location on earth. Once in the model it’s easy to quickly reproduce buildings and the layout of entire communities, trees, plants and all! Once created you can export your 3D project as an real-to-life image or as a Google Earth KMZ file which can be opened and viewed in 3D in it’s proper location on the earth. Sketchup models can also be printed using a 3D printer.

Wind turbines created in Sketchup and modeled in Google Earth. Source: http://stigmergist.blogspot.com/2013/06/modelling-windfarms-with-sketchup-and.html

Now that you have a better idea what Sketchup is all about, below are some ways I feel Sketchup can be used as a tool by community development and relief workers.

1. For collaborative design, using it to build consensus, work through problem and generally “bring-to-life’ the ideas expressed by community stakeholders that can then be shared with donors, policymakers, architects, engineers and contractors.
Sketchup can greatly facilitate collaborative design efforts by giving people a more accurate and “true-to-life” representations than hand-drawn sketches, it can also give community members more control over the design process by enabling them to work through more of the nuts and bolts issues that can more readily be revealed with a 3D model such as issues with access, functionality, maintenance, wear and tear, etc.


Above: A model of a biogas latrine built by EWB at Shirali Primary Primary School in Kenya. Still under construction. Model will change a bit. (click on model to enable 3D view)

2. For communicating with donors and policy makers
Sketchup can be a powerful tool to express community needs to donors and policymakers by making outcomes more visible and tangible. It also creates greater accountability by giving communities and donors a clearer, more measurable expectation of outcomes.


Above: Plan for community gardens located at the Genesee Valley Farm Discovery Center. (click on model to enable 3D view)

3. For Development Communication and Education
Sketchup can be a great tool for development communication and education by empowering community workers to model realistic scenarios related to public health, community dynamics, visioning, etc. With the millions of models available in Sketchup’s 3D Wharehouse one can easily drag and drop latrines, hand wash stations, wells, farm animals, cars, etc. for use in educational slides, posters, handouts, videos, etc.

4. For planning temporary facilities and shelters in relief situations.
Sketchup is an excellent tool to plan temporary facilities and shelters in a relief scenario because of the ability to situation Sketchup projects to-scale in Google Earth. This combined with the ability to drag and drop “pre-designed” models for tents, latrines, water tanks, offices, etc. makes it possible to literally drag and drop to-scale models on an exact location on the earth, facilitating both rapid collaboration and design.


Above: Model of Italian army refugee camp. (click on model to enable 3D view)

Whether you’re a community development/relief worker or not, I recommend trying out the free Sketchup software and share your experience in the comment section below. If you’re interested in topics discussed in this post check out our online class “Technology and Community Development” which is part of our online certificate program in Sustainable Community Development.

April Courses in the Online Certificate Program in Sustainable Community Development

TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Course Tuition:  $390
Continuing Education Units (CEU’s): 2
Duration:  5 weeks

 
Next Offered Deadline to Register Registration Status Offered By
April 21 – May 26, 2017 April 17, 2017 Open

Course Overview

Explore how technology, both a blessing and curse, is critical for individuals and communities accessing and managing resources. Consider equitable distribution of its productive gains, environmental impacts, debt burdens, health consequences and impacts on the social and cultural fabric of a community.  Examine some of the practical and ethical challenges faced by communities and community workers in their efforts to develop or introduce new technologies to enhance human well-being. Discover important concepts and strategies for successful participatory technology development, emphasizing principles developed by thinkers such as Ghandi and E.F. Schumacker.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Outline the history and basic principles of appropriate technology.
  • Work with communities to analyze their situation, develop strategic directions, and generate appropriate technology packages.
  • Support community-based technology generation efforts by creating linkages to information and resources.

Instructor:

frankFrank Bergh, EIT, LEED-AP

Frank Bergh is a 2011 alumnus of the Certificate of Community-Based Development Program at Colorado State University and has collaborated with Village Earth in training workshops in Community Mobilization for Engineers Without Borders USA (EWB-USA). He is the VP of Grid Engineering at Sigora International, designing and implementing community-based renewable energy micro-utilities in frontier markets.

Frank has been an active member and leader within Engineers Without Borders USA since 2005, holding officer positions in at the local, regional, and national level. He is the former president of EWB-USA’s Great Lakes Region, former Chair of the Energy Standing Content Committee, and a former Board Member.

Frank has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering (2008) from Washington University in St. Louis. His professional and volunteer work has spanned 14 countries and 4 continents.  His career in the renewable energy industry has spanned wind energy, solar energy, and battery-based energy storage systems. He continues to advise several NGOs and startups on appropriate technology and participatory community development.


 

Building Climate Change Resilient Communities

Course Tuition: $390
Continuing Education Units (CEUs): 2
Duration: 5 Weeks

 
Next Offered Deadline to Register Registration Status Offered By
April 21 – May 26, 2017 April 17, 2017 Open

“The environment and the economy are really both two sides of the same coin. You cannot sustain the economy if you don’t take care of the environment because we know that the resources that we use whether it is oil, energy, land … all of these are the basis in which development happens. And development is what we say generates a good economy and puts money in our pockets. If we cannot sustain the environment, we cannot sustain ourselves.”   — Wangari Maathai

Course Description
 
Local communities around the globe are already affected by climate change. People in least-developed and developing countries are among the most vulnerable ones, yet they have the least coping capacity. Climate change impacts are localized and diverse therefore, the response needs to be as diverse and adapted to the local situation.
 
This class will explore key concepts of resilience, vulnerability, adaptive capacity and social capital in the context of community exposure to climate change. We will engage in critical analysis of tools and methods for building resilience to climate change and will look at several case studies from around the world.
 
Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:
 
  • Understand the variety of issues and challenges faced by organizations, nations, local and indigenous communities related to climate change;
  • Understand mitigation and adaptation options in community resilience-building;
  •  Make informed decisions when working with communities to critically assess the impacts of climate change and build a resilience plan.

Instructor:

Luminita Cuna, M.S.

TedxLuminita Cuna has a Master of Science in Sustainable Development with focus on Environmental Management from the University of London/School of Oriental and African Studies. Her Master’s thesis researched the impact of conservation policies on protected areas in the Amazon and their effects on the indigenous people that live in these areas. Luminita worked for 10 years in Information Technology, including at the United Nations. She studied International Economics and French at Mount Holyoke College, where she earned her BA. Luminita holds a Graduate Certificate in Management of Information Systems and a Professional Certificate in Journalism, both from New York University and a Certificate of Community Development from Colorado State University.

 Luminita is the founder and director of Maloca (a Village Earth affiliate), a grassroots support organization that works with indigenous communities living in the Amazon basin. Luminita has been traveling extensively to the Amazon region to Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Brazil and has been working with indigenous communities in the Amazon since 2006. She participated several times in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York, and in June 2012 she attended the Kari-Oca II indigenous conference, part of Rio+20 – United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

 

COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION

Course Tuition:  $390
Continuing Education Units (CEU’s): 2
Duration: 5 weeks

 
Next Offered Deadline to Register Registration Status Offered By
April 21 – May 26, 2017 April 17, 2017 Open

Course Description

Explore what turns a group of individuals into an organization or social movement.  Consider what structural, social, or  psychological barriers inhibit or prevent individuals and groups from getting involved and working together for change.  Examine the definition of community mobilization as both an initial and ongoing process central to any community and social change effort that seeks to build support and participation of individuals, groups, and institutions to work towards a common goal or vision. Learn from the theories and methods of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, whose work has guided some of the most successful development and education programs around the globe, including the Orangi Pilot Project in Pakistan, The NAAM movement in Burkina Faso, and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement in Sri Lanka, among others.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Identify the role of community mobilization in the context of human rights-based approaches to community development.
  • Better outline the causes and psychological affects of poverty oppression.
  • Better communicate with individuals and communities to enhance trust and solidarity.
  • Assist communities to mobilize for collective action and cooperation.

Instructor:

David Bartecchi, M.A.

Dave received his M.A. in Cultural Anthropology from Colorado State University and has worked with Village Earth since 1998.  He is now the executive director of Village Earth.  Since 2000 he has been working with grassroots groups on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to recover lands for community-based bison restoration. He has also worked with the indigenous groups in Peru and Ecuador and trained and consulted on community-based development projects in in Azerbaijan, Armenia, India as well as with Native American tribes in California and Oklahoma.  He has been an instrumental part of several research projects with CSU’s Department of Anthropology including a 6 year longitudinal study of the informal economy on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota funded by the National Science Foundation, a survey of farmers and ranchers participating in the National Conservation Reserve Program conducted by CSU’s Natural Resource Ecology Lab and funded by the USDA, and community-based censuses on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservations in South Dakota.

Dave teaches online courses in Approaches to Community Development, Community Mobilization, and Community-based Mapping.


 

APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Course Tuition:  $390
Duration: 5 Weeks
Continuing Education Units (CEUs): 2

 
Next Offered Deadline to Register Registration Status Offered By
April 21 – May 26, 2017 April 17, 2017 Open

Course Description

Explore both the structure and practice of community development around the world.  Engage in a critical analysis of different approaches to community development, their historical development and underlying assumptions.  Gain an understanding of the structural and practical issues that promote or detract from the goal of community empowerment.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Outline  the historical development and underlying assumptions of different approaches to community development.
  • Identify the issues faced by the rapidly changing field of community development.
  • Distill key structures and practices for becoming more effective on the ground.

Instructor:

JohnStrawJohn Straw, M.Ed.

John Straw has an M.Ed. from the University of Illinois at Chicago, focused on social justice education, and his bachelors from the University of Michigan with a degree in Spanish and Education. John has spent five years working in Honduras and Guatemala on community-based health and development projects, and the past 15 years working with Concern America, an international development and refugee aid organization, based in southern California, with health, water, and income-generation projects in Latin America and Africa. He has been the Executive Director of Concern America since 2012.

The Enduring Relevance of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed for Community Development Workers

Like most people, when I first read Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed I didn’t get it. It wasn’t until I read it again several years later after working with Indigenous communities in North and South America where I could finally appreciate its relevance. It’s not surprising I didn’t get it on the first read considering I’m a white male who grew up in an upper-middle class household in the United States. By comparison, I gave the book to a friend who grew up in Ethiopia, she said she couldn’t put it down and how it explained so much to her about the world. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is also difficult to read. Numerous scholars and activists have pointed out how his ‘leaden philosophical prose’ has a tendency to obfuscate the practicality of work.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed was first published in 1968 with the English version being released just two years later. Yet his work remains as relevant as ever and continues to be cited in academic books and journals. Below is a graph of the number of citations to Pedagogy of the Oppressed by year for books and journals indexed by Google Scholar since 1995.

Citations for Pedagogy of the Oppressed in Google Scholar

 

It’s clear that his influence is widespread but I find that very few community workers understand how to apply his concepts at a practical level. My goal in this brief blog post is to attempt to distill what I believe are the most practical concepts from Pedagogy of the Oppressed for Community Workers.

Freire’s philosophy, at its core, is existentialist which is the belief that the norms, values, beliefs and practices that define our culture are not fixed or preordained. Instead, we humans, as participants in communities and societies are not only reproducing culture but also actively creating and shaping it. In fact, for Freire, the ability to shape and create culture is what makes us “human” and what really makes Freire’s ideas liberatory. Human culture can vary dramatically around the globe from the Bushman of the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic to the industrialized western societies – we have all developed different subsistence strategies, political organizations, kinship patterns, religious beliefs, etc.

This is where red flags might be going up for some people, and for good reason. The notion of culture change can and should evoke painful colonial images of forced assimilation and missionization but also more contemporary Eurocentric theories of cultural and economic modernization. Rest assured, this is not what Freire has in mind. In fact, these practices, since they are the imposition of culture, is what Freire refers as dehumanizing, a concept which is diametrically opposed to the process of humanization.

Allow me to provide an analogy. Slavery was an acceptable practice in the Americas since the first colonies in 1492 until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Notions of white supremacy and institutional racism are still prevalent features of American society. However, these practices likely wouldn’t have changed much without the Abolitionist movement and Civil Rights movements. These movements were made up of people who didn’t just accept the culture  of white supremacy as being fixed but instead were able to critically analyze it, envision something different and a path to changing it. In fact, this process and struggle is still taking place with movements like Black Lives Matter. Other examples can be found around the world the movements for indigenous rights, women’s suffrage, landless peasants, the list goes on and on.

For Freire, an oppressed person is a person who accepts culture and their station in life as being fixed, someone who is incapable or unwilling to critically analyze the culture they live in. According to Freire, these people live in a false reality – a reality where they have been taught to accept slavery, racism, sexism, and other injustices as being fixed components of their culture. Both oppressors and the oppressed can exist a state of false consciousness. The slave may have been taught that he or she is incapable of learning to read and owning his or her own farm and the wealthy slave owner may falsely believe the slave is fully human and capable of the qualities necessary to manage his own farm. Of course, in reality, both are are humans and equally capable if provided the same opportunities, but it’s their false reality which prevents them from questioning the injustice of the situation. Of course, the slave may be fully conscious of the injustice but terrorized to the point of inaction. Which helps illustrate Freire’s argument that in order for their to be true, lasting liberation, both the oppressor AND the oppressed need eject these false conceptions of reality and in the process become liberated.

The process for breaking free from from the false reality is called praxis which is a cycle of analysis, action and reflection. Essentially, it’s a process of identifying and challenging your conceptions of the world (accurate or false). To illustrate praxis, I’ll use an example from my work with indigenous communities in North America. Today, for most Native American Reservations in the United States, more than two-thirds of the farms and ranches are controlled by non-natives. As might be expected, this disparity in land use has had a dramatic impact on the ability of Native Americans to fully benefit from their natural resources. Statistics on income reveal that the total value of agricultural commodities produced on Native American Reservations in 2007 totaled over $2.1 Billion dollars, yet, only 16% of that income went to Native American farmers and ranchers.

The unequal land-use patterns seen on reservations today is a direct outcome of discriminatory lending practices, land fractionation and specifically, Federal policies over the last century that have excluded native landowners from the ability to utilize their lands while at the same time opening it up to non-native farmers and ranchers.

Despite the exclusionary policies of the past today Tribal members have more options available to them but because they’ve been alienated from their lands for so long, they oftentimes don’t know where to start and in many cases, have been given false information by Government authorities. For example, in strategic land planning workshops I facilitated across the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation several Native landowners said me they were told the government would not conduct a necessary appraisal because the appraisal would cost more than the value of the land. I double-checked this and the government is required to do the appraisal regardless of the value of the land but this one piece of false information prevented countless of people from taking action their land that could have impacted their families for generations. False information and the general lack of information available to tribal members about their lands and the laws governing them contributes to a false understanding of the world around you, one where there is no path forward aside from the one that is prescribed for you.

This false reality is also shared by the oppressors. For example, the general American public has a far from adequate understanding of the ongoing struggles of Native Americans. In fact, I would argue that most American’s will agree that Native Americans were treated unfairly in the past but have trouble accepting that oppression continues to this day. Few Americans today could even explain the recent 2010 class action lawsuit Cobell vs. Salazar, the largest class-action lawsuit in American history brought by some 300,000 Native American landowners who argued that the government failed to pay them nearly 42 billion dollars in lease revenue collected by the government over the past 120 years serving as their self-appointed Trustee. Even fewer Americans know the government settled for only 3.2 Billion dollars, less than 7% of what was owed. This was a huge injustice but was only allowed because there was little fear of public outrage.

A praxis in this example would be to begin to challenge the limit situations you encounter day to day. For example, challenging the contradiction that despite most people on the Reservation would like to live on and utilize their lands most of the land is leased to non-tribal members. So it might start with trying to move forward in that direction – towards acquiring some land. In doing so you will likely encounter what Freire refers to as “limit situations”, according to Freire.

“Once perceived by individuals as fetters, as obstacles to their liberation, these situations stand out in relief from the background, revealing their true nature as concrete historical dimensions of a given reality. Men and women respond to the challenge with actions which Vieira Pinto calls “limit-acts”: those directed at negating and overcoming, rather than passively accepting, the “given.””

A limit situation from the example above would be the false information that “you can’t get an appraisal if the appraisal process costs more than the value of your land.” This, for many prevents action but if tested we will discover that it is not true and thus begging to clearing a path forward for others. If we continue on our journey we might find that the Government appraisal process, once initiated, is itself an obstacle because of the massive backlog and processing times. This can then be the next limit-situation we can confront and reveal the true nature of the problem – hopefully exposing the injustice and causing reform.

The example above, I feel it illustrates well the necessity for liberating both the oppressor and the oppressed. I feel it also illustrates another principle of Freire’s theory, that the oppressed must lead the process. According to Freire; “It is only the oppressed who, by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors…As the oppressed, fighting to be human, take away the oppressors’ power to dominate and suppress, they restore to the oppressors the humanity they had lost in the exercise of oppression.“

According to Freire, oppressors are unable to recognize their privilege.

The oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having more as a privilege which dehumanizes others and themselves. They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a possessing class, they suffocate in their own possessions and no longer are; they merely have. For them, having more is an inalienable right, a right they acquired through their own “effort” with their “courage to take risks.” If others do not have more, it is because they are incompetent and lazy, and worst of all is their unjustifiable ingratitude towards the “generous gestures” of the dominant class. Precisely because are “ungrateful” and “envious,” the oppressed are regarded as enemies who must be watched.”

What does Freire say about people from oppressive classes seeking to become allies with the oppressed?

Given the preceding context, another issue of indubitable importance arises: the fact that certain members of the oppressor class join the oppressed in their struggle for liberation, thus moving from one pole of the contradiction to the other. Theirs is a fundamental role, and has been so throughout the history of this struggle. It happens, however, that as they cease to be exploiters or indifferent spectators or simply the heirs of exploitation and more to the side of the exploited, they almost always bring with them their deformations, which include a lack confidence in the peoples’ ability to think, to want, and to know. Accordingly, these adherents to the people’s cause constantly run the risk of falling into a type of generosity as malefic as that of the oppressors. The generosity of the oppressors is nourished by an unjust order, which must be maintained in order to justify that generosity. Our converts, on the other hand, truly desire to transform the unjust order; but because of their background they believe that they must be the executors of the transformation. They talk about the people, but they do not trust them; and trusting the people is the indispensable precondition for revolutionary change. A real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people, which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust.

Those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly. This conversion is so radical as not to allow of ambiguous behavior. To affirm this commitment but to consider oneself the proprietor of revolutionary wisdom — which must then be given to (or imposed on) the people — is to retain the old ways. The man or woman who proclaims devotion to the cause yet is unable to enter into communion with the people, as totally ignorant, is grievously self-deceived. The convert who approaches the people but feels alarm at each step they take, each doubt they express, and each suggestion they offer, and attempts to impose his “status,” remains nostalgic towards his origins.

Conversion to the people requires a profound rebirth. Those who undergo it must take on a new form of existence; they can no longer remain as they were. Only through comradeship with the oppressed can the converts understand their characteristic ways of living and behaving, which in diverse moments reflect the structure of domination. One of these characteristics is the previously mentioned existential duality of the oppressed, who are at the same time themselves the oppressor whose image they have internalized. Accordingly, until they concretely ‘discover” their oppressor and in turn their own consciousness, they nearly always express fatalistic attitudes toward their situation.

Freire describes this relationship as collegial, the point when the oppressed “figure-out” the oppressor. I interpret this as the point when titles, status, and qualifications wash away and that both the oppressed and yourself realize that all that is facade – the only real value you have to offer is your solidarity (which is a sacrifice you are finally willing to make). It’s the point when all people involved are equally willing to listen each other’s ideas as they are to challenge and criticize them. I once was talking about this idea in a training and I noticed a group of people start whispering to each other. I asked them what it was about. They said “they just realized they did something wrong,” they recounted a workshop they were hosting in a rural community where, they as facilitators had a disagreement, they decided to pause the meeting to go outside to discuss. I asked why?, and they said “because we didn’t want them to see that we weren’t in full agreement but now we realize doing so was dehumanizing.” Precisely! They were talking about THEIR community and a point of confusion or disagreement should be utilized not to exclude the community but instead the engage the community in helping to find a solution. Furthermore, admitting their disagreement would only help the community to “figure them out” – to demystify their qualifications, making it easier for the community to share their ideas and criticisms.

Ironically, our insecurity as community workers can be just as, if not more, oppressive than our privilege. When you’re new to a community or situation our instinct is to try to be helpful, especially when you’re there as a community worker – you want to prove your worth, your value to the community by sharing what you know, your ideas, connections, possible solutions, etc. etc. However, this overeagerness gets in the way of what your real objective should be; listening, asking questions and just making connections with people. I feel it’s best to assume from the outset that you have nothing to offer besides your willingness to listen and learn about their world. Don’t give into the temptation to “be useful” until you’re confident you really can be but also, until people are comfortable enough with you to tell you when you’re wrong.

I know I’ve just touched the surface of Pedagogy of the Oppressed here but hopefully I’ve provided some insight into its practical application in a community development setting. I plan to write in future posts more about the practical applications of his ideas as well as ways we at Village Earth have interpreted and even depart from some of his ideas.
If you’re interested in learning more about Freire I strongly encourage you to participate in our online Community Mobilization course which is part of our online certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Colorado State University.

For-Profit or Non-Profit…The choice between inefficiency and neocolonialism.

By Frank Bergh, instructor for Village Earth’s Technology and Community Development course. This post originally featured on Engineering for Change’s blog.

Why member-owned co-ops are the best kept secret in humanitarian development

In publications like E4C, practitioners are exposed to diverse perspectives from experts in engineering for global development regarding the best strategies for community engagement, human centered design, appropriate technology, and social entrepreneurship. Among so many approaches to humanitarian impact, there remains a lively debate between the inherent merits of for-profit versus non-profit approaches. But is there a third way?

The choice between inefficiency and neocolonialism

Oftentimes, non-profit models are thought to be old-fashioned. They seem reminiscent of large, monolithic NGOs, some of which have been accused of excessive overhead and administrative costs, as well as mismanagement of funds in the context of disasters. Thought leaders such as Paul Polak have proclaimed “The Death of Appropriate Technology,” accusing global aid providers of creating non-viable markets with overpriced ideas that are highly prone to failure in heavily subsidized and poorly understood operating environments. This critique is certainly relevant in a world where upwards of 30-40% of water pumps in Africa are in disrepair, and developing economies are craving “Trade, Not Aid” for sustainable growth. Much has been written about how the phenomenon known as “Poverty, Inc.” has created an aid-industrial complex which fosters foreign dependency rather than local self-reliance in the case of Haitian rice or Jamaican dairy, for example.

Over the past decade, the discourse of development has favored social entrepreneurship models, whereby strict free-market principles govern the strategy and allocation of investment in emerging markets. Many of the former paradigms of Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA), community-driven strategic planning have been replaced by human-centered design (HCD) product-driven design interventions. The contrast in these approaches is the tendency of PRA to yield slow results with high overhead costs versus HCD’s emphasis on rapid prototyping and business models, with implicit assumptions that a market-based approach can address socioeconomic marginalization.

In the social entrepreneurship model, project-companies focus on tweaking known products in hopes that mass production will drive down costs for accessibility, while earning revenue via volume-driven franchise models to reach scale. While this model has yielded several incredible success stories (notably d.light became the world’s leading solar lantern thanks to $2.9M from the Acumen Fund), due in large part to “patient capital” from large foundations and angel investors, the ultimate success rate of start-up social enterprises in developing countries is largely unknown. There have also been some noteworthy products that didn’t live up to the hype (LifeStraw, Sockket soccer ball, PlayPump). This funding paradigm favors foreign entrepreneurs with access to capital rather than local stakeholders whose ideas are less likely to encounter deep pockets. The result is a neocolonialist distribution of foreign investment in products designed for – not with – those in greatest need.

What about crowdfunding?

Some donors have been enthusiastically supportive of startups with timely ideas that create crowdfunding appeals for game-changing startup funding. When we look at the actual results of these Cinderella stories (Solar Freakin’ Roadways raised $2,275,872, Gravity Light raised $399,590), we find ‘viral’ concepts that might have been shunned by investors, yet they attract large amounts of donor funding from everyday web surfers. Generally, these campaigns are made by not-for-profit organizations, but at times it can be used by social enterprises to raise capital without surrendering equity. However, this model decouples funding from outcomes in the field, promoting a lack of transparency and accountability that could render the product useless or even harmful to end users (if they ever get their hands on it).

So, is there another way?

We tend to overlook the capability of the public sector in funding or sustaining sustainable development work. This approach is easily validated by direct experience: If governments in emerging markets had sufficient resources, then the UN’s development goals (the Millennium Development Goals that have evolved into the Sustainable Development Goals) would already be satisfied. We would have clean water for all and universal electrification achieved by taxes, not donations, without any foreign intervention. Oftentimes, progress towards these goals is hindered by real or perceived volatility and corruption in public sector agencies for public works. Long-term project horizons may be compromised by changes to the ruling party in election years. Big aid projects might be derailed by lack of accountability in civil society for large government contracts issued to multinational firms or fledgling local companies. Clearly, public-sector actors need private sector collaborators.

7 cooperative principles

Cooperatives: Unfashionably effective

Many large infrastructure projects around the world are managed by cooperative governance structures. These entities are so far out of vogue as to be seldom even mentioned in contemporary discussions of humanitarian engineering. Could that be because cooperatives are primarily a sociological, not a technical phenomenon? Perhaps the engineering sector overlooks what it doesn’t understand. Take the following examples:

  • Rural electrification in the USA was not achieved by handheld solar lanterns. It was stimulated by a massive public works project under the Rural Electrification Act to put people back to work after the Great Depression. In rural areas of the USA, there are miles between electricity customers. For investor-owned utilities to serve those areas would have taken decades to see any return on investment based on meager electric consumption. Rather than create a massive new appendage of the Federal government, rural communities created over 800 member-owned electrical cooperatives to sustainably manage and maintain their infrastructure for the past 80+ years.
  • Remote water distribution systems installed by NGOs such as Engineers Without Borders USA have a lot to tell us about project sustainability. In 2013, EWB-USA hired local practitioners to audit all of its water distribution projects in Guatemala. It turned out that all of the projects with a full-time paid circuit rider (maintenance personnel) were in good working order, whereas the working condition of systems without a budget for cooperative maintenance was much more inconsistent. In other words, the sustainability of the bricks and mortar were primarily dependent upon the resilience of the cooperative social network that maintained it. Going forward, EWB-USA and many peer organizations now require a “water board” (basically a member-owned cooperative) to own and maintain its infrastructure and technology for improved sustainability.
  • Large-scale worker-owned cooperatives, such as Mondragon in Spain, have demonstrated the capability to compete in highly competitive consumer markets without compromising labor conditions or workers’ rights. The question remains whether this paradigm can thrive in emerging markets where skilled labor and capital are less plentiful.

In the matrix below, I examine differential factors and outcomes of various governance structures.

Matrix

Let’s start by asking the right question

As Einstein would say, “we cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” When we fail to transcend the exploitation, oppression, and dependency of neoliberal and neocolonialist interventions, we replicate the same broken promises that developing communities have come to expect from Western intervention.

Aspiring development engineering practitioners often ask, “Should my big ideas be for-profit or non-profit?” In fact, the premise of starting the conversation around “my” ideas for other people’s livelihoods is inherently flawed, and perhaps reflects implicit bias in favor of foreign intervention rather than local self-determination.

On the other hand, philanthropists and impact investors looking to support big ideas often ask, “Should I be an investor or a donor?” In fact, delegating our capital to foreign owners presumes that community members are somehow incapable of taking ownership and autonomy for their own capacity building. Such presumptions are frequently built on discrimination, racism, or cultural superiority—infantilizing the very people we attempt to help.

Let’s re-frame the discussion. Let’s make the most significant question become, “What structure maximizes the resiliency, ownership, and self-determination of the end users?” Quite honestly, why else would we have been invited in the first place? If we really believe that the role of development engineering is to collaborate with communities in pursuit of a brighter future of shared possibility, then development practice must be re-oriented as pedagogy. Engineering-For-Change does not mean depositing “our” ideas and technology into “their” community, but fostering the mutual discovery and amplification of voices we’ve never heard before.

Design is a manifestation of creativity and creation is a means toward liberation. The goal of humanitarian development is not only to reduce vulnerability, but also to increase resiliency. Therefore, empowerment won’t be the destination unless it was also the journey. As development practitioners, establishing leadership and ownership within a local cooperative is the most effective way of deliberately working ourselves out of a job and leaving communities stronger than we found them.

 

If you’re interested to learn more about these concepts join Frank Bergh for his Technology and Community Development online course now enrolling through April 17. The course runs April 21 – May 26, 2017.

Why Should We Care About Climate Change. by Luminta Cuna

In a previous blog post I showed how the Amazon is drying due to changes in weather caused by land use change. Intense, large scale deforestation made space for immense grazing pastures and industrial monocultures like soy. Through a feedback effect, less Amazon forest means less rain, therefore the shrinking of this vast swath of trees in itself becomes a contributor to changing weather patterns. Last September, around Xingu Indigenous Park in Brazil, the biggest indigenous reserve in the world, a record 53,000 forest fires were detected. Dry, hot atmosphere led to even more forest destroyed and threw tons of CO₂ in the atmosphere, contributing, through a feedback loop, to more global warming.

Here in New York, since my last blog post 10 days ago, we experienced again a few days with 60 F followed by 2 days of blizzard and temperatures in the low 20s.  Everybody feels something is not right.

All over the world the effects of a warming world are already felt. Extreme weather events cause shoreline erosion, flooding, infrastructure damage severely disrupting daily activities. Melting mountain glaciers reduce water availability, which means failed crops and food security at risk. Heatwaves cause human deaths even in cities like Paris. Warmer winters enable pests and pathogens to survive and extend their range northward, spreading new diseases to humans, plants and animals. Crops and forests are decimated by fungi or mountain pine beetles. Vector borne diseases spread and new ones appear: the range of ticks carrying Lyme disease expands, the same stands true for mosquitoes carrying West Nile Virus, Zika or dengue fever.

If some population segments in wealthy industrialized countries are still sheltered from the effects of our warming planet, other groups are already extremely vulnerable to these changes. “Building Climate Change Resilient Communities” class explores what makes these groups vulnerable and looks at mitigation and adaptation options to build community resilience to climate change effects.

In brief, vulnerability of a group or people is determined by three main factors:

1 – the extent to which they are affected by climatic events (sensitivity)

2 – exposure to hazards

3 – the ability to avoid or adjust to potential hazards, the capacity to anticipate risk, to respond to climatic events, to recover and change (adaptive capacity)

We now live in a world where mitigation and adaptation became necessary. Village Earth’s class Building Climate Change Resilient Communities explores some of the options:

Mitigation: fuel efficient vehicles, solar and wind power, efficient lighting solutionms, improved land management and cultivation techniques, composting, wastewater treatment

Adaptation: smart agriculture, crop relocation, building seawalls and storm surge barriers, water reuse (rain harvesting and ocean water desalinization)

To enrol in the Building Climate Change Resilient Communities click here. Registration is open until April 17, 2017.

Unprecedented Climatic Changes Posing Challenges to Indigenous Communities in Amazon Basin

It has been yet another unusual (read “warm, extreme weather fluctuation”) winter in New York City. More than once this year we had both winter weather (snow storm, below freezing temperatures) AND 70 degree days in one single week. Just this past Wednesday New York hit a whooping 70F degrees. Today, 2 days later, New Yorkers shivered in 30F high temperature. Early February smashed the 52 year mark for warmest temperature on record with 65 F on February 7th. Early the next day, temperatures plummeted to 30F. Luckily for us New Yorkers the most annoying thing this winter was to keep at hand both warm and cold weather clothes. And fight a few nasty colds that went around the offices.

We were not the only ones experiencing strange weather. Far away in Brazil, in the middle of Mato Grosso state, the indigenous peoples that populate Xingu Indigenous Park experienced unusual weather as well. Rains did not arrive in October as they have been for hundreds of years. There was some rain in January and then heavy rain in February. What did this meant for them? A few months with almost no food. Hunger. Their main crop, manioc, is usually planted in September. Because rain did not arrive during it usual schedule, the first planted manioc crop died. The communities replanted a new crop (note that they save only a certain number of manioc stems for planting). The second crop died as well: it did not rain. Third time was a charm this year: after the third crop was planted, the long awaited rains finally arrived in January and it looks like the third crop will make it. Three months later than normal. Still the rain pattern was strange, with scattered showers alternating with several hot sunny days, unusual for this time of the year.

The indigenous people of Xingu were not as lucky as New Yorkers. The climatic variability they experienced affected their food supplies. They went hungry for weeks and months. New Yorkers just kept switching from flip flops to down jackets in a matter of days.

The weather forecast for both places: beyond normal. Yes, we might have seen less snow in NYC because of La Niña, but still… a drop of 40 F in 2 days?

In Xingu, years of deforestation replaced cool moisture-producing forests with hot, dry pastures for cattle and massive soy fields. This has caused permanent changes the regional weather: less rain during the rainy season and increased heat during the dry season. In 2016, a scorching July gave birth to wild fires that burnt for weeks and wracked havoc in the already shrinking Xingu forests. Once rainy summers (I witnessed a 5-day period of almost continuous rain just 3 years ago in December) turned dry.

Our comfortable lives in New York City may not be drastically disrupted for now. We just need to have winter and spring clothes next to each other in our closets, get frustrated about it and vent on Facebook about the crazy weather swings our city has. In Xingu however, people are concerned about their lives. What will happen to their existence if they cannot grow manioc, what will they eat? With no rain and low river levels, not even fish can breed properly. Manioc and fish make 90% of their diet.

The communities of the indigenous park started thinking seriously how to become more resilient to all these climatic changes. 2017 is not the first year that their crops died; 2016 was similar, with one crop failing, not two like this year. Similar to New Yorkers, they are also thinking that maybe this is the new normal. They now meet in the center of their villages to find solutions that will ensure their food security: from irrigation methods (but with what funds?) to moving the crops location to changing the planting season. They are scrambling to find the most appropriate solutions. There is not enough past experience to provide advice on how to deal with this kind of problem. The elders have never faced similar weather shifts in their lifetime. They can only draw on past experiences when they used to move their manioc gardens when the soil became too depleted of nutrients to bear crops. This option is on the table. In fact, one village decided to split in two and form a smaller village further away, to alleviate the pressure the 300 strong population puts on the surrounding crop soil (see blog entry).

These changes are not going anywhere. These anomalies are becoming the new normal. All humans need to adapt, ones faster than others. Communities, from New York to Xingu have to become resilient and adapt to extreme weather, a consequence of climate change.

The “Building Climate Change Resilient Communities” class offered by Village Earth in April offers insights on what climate change resilience is and how to adapt to this new climatic reality.

How to Teach Health: Providing Quality Primary Healthcare to Impoverished, Rural, Isolated Communities

By John Straw, Executive Director at Concern America and Instructor for the Village Earth Community-Based Health online course

Village Earth’s Community Health course focuses on the many challenges, but also opportunities, related to health care (or the lack thereof) in materially impoverished regions of our world.  The course explores a range of insights and actions from methods for determining health needs to creating community-centered approaches for bringing care with/for regions lacking this important human right.  One hopeful program is Concern America’s Health Promoter Practitioner model.  The organization has just self-published a 35-book set of training manuals and student guides in Spanish titled “Cómo Enseñar Sobre La Salud” (How To Teach Health), a resource for organizations wanting to implement comprehensive community health programs in which the people themselves are the health care providers.  The books will soon be sold through The Hesperian Foundation, publisher of the well known resource “Where There Is No Doctor.”

THERE EXISTS A MODEL OF COMMUNITY-BASED, PRIMARY HEALTH CARE THAT IS AFFORDABLE AND EFFECTIVE.  IT IS A MODEL THAT ENGAGES COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN ITS PROVISION: “THE TRAINING AND ACCOMPANYING OF HEALTH PROMOTER PRACTITIONERS”.

In the U.S., the term “health promoter” often refers to individuals who provide health education and basic health care follow-up under the strict supervision of a medical doctor.  In the regions of Latin America where Concern America works, these Health Promoter Practitioners’ depth of knowledge, skills, and ability to provide primary health care, in their native languages, is comparable to the work of physician assistants and nurse practitioners in the U.S.  As a result, in villages located hours away from health care centers and whose residents earn less than $2.00/day, high-quality, low-cost health care is a reality, saving and sustaining innumerable lives, using few resources.

In places like Chiapas, Mexico; Petén, Guatemala; and the Lower Atrato region of Colombia, the health care providers who give daily care in hundreds of villages and towns are not doctors or nurses but rather Health Promoter Practitioners.  These amazing community health care providers, many with less than three years of primary school, have been successfully trained as their communities’ medical practitioners who diagnose and treat patients, administer a wide range of medicines, and even perform surgeries like the tendon repair described above.

The series of books, entitled CÓMO ENSEÑAR SOBRE LA SALUD, employs the wisdom of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy, building on each student’s knowledge and understanding when teaching complicated medical concepts and procedures. There are 35 books in all and three levels of training: a teacher’s guide and a student handbook for each health care theme (e.g., Digestive System) taught over three years.   What is described, presented, and taught in CÓMO ENSEÑAR SOBRE LA SALUD has been fashioned by and in use by Concern America field teams in Latin America over more than 30 years and found to be extraordinarily effective in providing quality primary health care to impoverished, rural, isolated communities.  We want to multiply this model, which is why Concern America is writing CÓMO ENSEÑAR SOBRE LA SALUD.  It will eventually be translated into French and English and, hopefully, adapted to many indigenous languages.

 

FIRST LEVEL OVERVIEW

The Teacher Guides

Each First Level Teacher’s Guide covers important topics such as:

  • How to organize a course and how to teach Health Promoters
  • How to organize community groups
  • How to teach about the use of medicines
  • How to teach about respiratory and digestive diseases
  • How to teach about nutrition and environment

Student Handbooks

Each reference book for the Health Promoter student contains informative documents about how to prevent, diagnose and treat the most common sicknesses and when to refer a patient.

  • The language is simple.
  • The illustrations are clear.
  • The treatment and diagnostic guidelines are easy to understand.

SECOND LEVEL OVERVIEW

Teacher Guides

Second Level Teacher Guides cover the following topics:

  • How to teach about accidents and traumas
  • How to teach about reproductive health
  • How to teach about pregnancy and delivery
  • How to teach about chronic diseases
  • How to teach about dental and oral care

Student’s Handbook

  • The language is progressively more complex.
  • The graphics are explicit and educational.
  • The treatment and diagnostic guidelines are still easy to understand and to adapt.

ELECTRONIC ANNEX

AND THIRD LEVEL OVERVIEW

An Electronic Annex is included with the Teacher Guides. It is an educational tool where the teacher can find:

  • Pictures to project and ready to use Power Points documents
  • Sounds to listen to and recognize symptoms
  • Videos
  • Ready to print games, tests/evaluations and worksheets
  • Ready to print Student Handbooks with and without page numbers, giving flexibility to the teacher to build one’s own customized Student Handbook
  • A PDF of each one of the Teacher’s Guides and Student’s Handbooks from the “Cómo Enseñar Sobre La Salud” series
  • Third level handouts

THE ESSENTIAL MEDICINE INDEX

A vital part of the series “Cómo Enseñar Sobre La Salud,” the Essential Medicine Index (Índice de Medicamentos Esenciales) is THE REFERENCE BOOK of medicine for Health Promoters.

Its very simple and easy to read format and content makes it an indispensable every day tool for beginners and advanced Health Promoters. It contains information about the most prescribed essential medicines. It contains information about the most prescribed essential medicines recommended by the W.H.O.

 

For more information or to purchase the books, please visit Concern America Health Manuals.

To enroll in the Community-Based Health Course click here. Now enrolling through February 28, 2017.

Spring Session II Courses Now Open for Registration in Online Certificate Program in Sustainable Community Development

 

Classes for the Village Earth/CSU online certificate program in Sustainable Community Development are open for registration until March 3rd, 3017. This session we are offering four courses: Participatory Monitoring and EvaluationDevelopment and the Politics of EmpowermentCommunity-Based Health, and Community-Based Mapping.

Descriptions, instructor profiles, and registration links for each course can be found below.

PARTICIPATORY MONITORING & EVALUATION

Course Tuition:  $390
Continuing Education Units: 2
Duration: 5 weeks

Next OfferedDeadline to RegisterRegistration StatusOffered By 
June 9 - July 14, 2017June 5, 2017Open

Course Description

Discover participatory methods in monitoring and evaluation for community development, where multiple stakeholders are involved in the process of planning, collecting, interpreting, communicating, and using information. Gain skills in using regular monitoring and evaluation processes, which will lead to continuous improvements.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Plan a monitoring and evaluation project
  • Develop evaluation questions that address stakeholders needs
  • Select the most appropriate data collection method for a given situation
  • Effectively communicate monitoring and evaluation data
  • Use the monitoring information for effective feedback and improvement

Instructor

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

Pilar Robledo

Pilar is currently Director of Programming and Training for US Peace Corps in Kiev, Ukraine. She’s also serves as Education Cluster Co-lead at UNICEF Pakistan. Previously she’s worked for UNHCR, Save the Children, International Rescue Committee, and IREX. She holds an MPA in Public Administration from University of Colorado, Denver and a BA in Anthropology and Latin American Studies from CU Boulder.

 

 

 


DEVELOPMENT AND THE POLITICS OF EMPOWERMENT

Course Tuition:  $390
Continuing Education Units (CEU’s): 2
Duration: 5 weeks

Next OfferedDeadline to RegisterRegistration StatusOffered By 
March 3 – April 7, 2017February 28, 2017Open

Course Description

“…development is a process of empowerment.”
–Edwards, The Irrelevance of Development Studies

Over the last few decades, many scholars have begun to challenge traditional conceptions of development. Their work has generated an intense debate between those that attribute “underdevelopment” to cultural factors, and those that dismiss such ideas as racially motivated and instead recognize poverty and marginalization as primarily structural and systemic issues. Indeed, the concept of poverty itself has been challenged. Employing this critical lens, the course will examine the assertion that development should not only be seen as an economic process of wealth accumulation, but rather as a socio-political process of empowerment. This realization has major implications for how NGOs approach development, as it brings to light the fact that this work has a substantial political component. In order to overcome the disadvantages of poverty, structural barriers to success must be addressed. Through a careful investigation of the historical applications of development, we will explore the idea that development is an inherently political process and challenge the claim that any development NGO is apolitical. Additionally, we will strive to identify successful methods of community empowerment through political organization.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Analyze the underlying political implications and perspectives of seemingly apolitical actions in development work
  • Apply and refine techniques of empowerment and advocacy
  • Explain the history of development thinking as it relates to politics
  • Articulate a broader understanding of key terms, such as empowerment, participation, politics, and power

Instructor

Jamie Way, M.A.

Jamie received her M.A. in Political Science from Colorado State University. Her academic work focused on Latin America, international development, political theory and indigenous rights. She has worked with Village Earth since 2008 and now holds the position of Training Director for Village Earth/Colorado State University’s online certificate program in Community-Based Development. She has also been involved with Village Earth’s work on the Pine Ridge Reservation and in the Peruvian Amazon for the past three years. Her specialties include advocacy campaigns, strategic planning, issue framing and training for social justice.

Jamie speaks Spanish and Portuguese and is studying Chinese in Beijing. She is also currently working as Media and Communications Coordinator at Alliance for Global Justice, a Latin America solidarity organization.  Jamie teaches online courses on Approaches to Community Development, Development and the Politics of Empowerment and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation.


COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH

Course Tuition:  $390
Continuing Education Units (CEU’s): 2
Duration: 5 Weeks

Next OfferedDeadline to RegisterRegistration StatusOffered By 
March 3 – April 7, 2017February 28, 2017Open

Course Description

Access to health care and other resources, such as nutritious foods, employment, clean water, safe housing, education, etc. are crucial to maintaining health and well-being.  In an ideal world, everyone would have access to these essential means for survival, however, it is all too apparent that this is not the case for many communities and populations around the world.  It is desirable, therefore, for those groups who are not supported by a formal health care system to seek alternative solutions for the resources they lack.  Using case studies and other readings, along with group discussion, this course will explore the global, social, political, economic, and cultural factors that contribute to poor health.  It will also look at methods for empowering communities who lack access to health care to create practical solutions that are relevant to their unique situations.  Community-Based Participatory Research will be one of the key strategies dealt with in this course due to its focus on promoting change at the grass roots level.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Identify micro and macro level factors that affect health and well-being.
  • Collaborate with communities to evaluate their needs in regard to health and cultivate ideas for appropriate actions to address those needs.
  • Provide support for community-based solutions to health issues by establishing connections to information and resources.

Instructor

JohnStrawJohn Straw, M.Ed.

John Straw has an M.Ed. from the University of Illinois at Chicago, focused on social justice education, and his bachelors from the University of Michigan with a degree in Spanish and Education. John has spent five years working in Honduras and Guatemala on community-based health and development projects, and the past 15 years working with Concern America, an international development and refugee aid organization, based in southern California, with health, water, and income-generation projects in Latin America and Africa. He has been the Executive Director of Concern America since 2012.


COMMUNITY-BASED MAPPING

Course Tuition:  $390
Continuing Education Units (CEUs): 2
Duration: 5 weeks

Next OfferedDeadline to RegisterRegistration StatusOffered By 
March 3 – April 7, 2017February 28, 2017Open
 

Course Description

Mapping can be a powerful tool for communities to use to better manage their resources, plan for the future, record and utilize local knowledge, raise awareness about areas of concern in their environmental and social landscape, and communicate their priorities and concerns to external agencies or government officials. This course will explore theories, ethics, applications, and methods of community-based mapping and its role in participatory learning and action as well as larger processes of integrated community-based development. Students will be encouraged to develop a specific research/mapping question relevant to their interests and/or work and with the help of the instructor, will identity the mapping methods and tools to answer that question creating both a final product for the course as well as solid foundation that can be utilized in a more community-based research setting.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Summarize the basic principles, theories, and ethics of Community-based mapping and its role in Community-based development
  • Identify which mapping methods and tools are most appropriate to achieve the desired objectives in your community
  • Locate and utilize existing geographic information data sets, online and elsewhere, for specific project areas
  • Perform some basic mapping functions including projecting GPS coordinates onto a map, downloading and projecting satellite images, creating features from aerial imagery, and more.

Testimonials from Past Course Participants for Community-based Mapping:

“I am grateful to this course to make me think about space and power in such pronounced and palpable terms.” – UNDP Employee

“The assertion that mapping is power and that there are differences between mapping and community based mapping stuns me. This whole course is really an eye opener…These assigned readings make me think…One of the most profound readings was on the ethical considerations. More thinking – what am I trying to do here. As part of my job, merely asking programs to use maps of someone else’s making to communicate where they are and what they’re proposing to do in those locations. Not so simple, eh?”

David Bartecchi, M.A.

Dave received his M.A. in Cultural Anthropology from Colorado State University and has worked with Village Earth since 1998.  He is now the executive director of Village Earth.  Since 2000 he has been working with grassroots groups on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to recover lands for community-based bison restoration. He has also worked with the indigenous groups in Peru and Ecuador and trained and consulted on community-based development projects in in Azerbaijan, Armenia, India as well as with Native American tribes in California and Oklahoma.  He has been an instrumental part of several research projects with CSU’s Department of Anthropology including a 6 year longitudinal study of the informal economy on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota funded by the National Science Foundation, a survey of farmers and ranchers participating in the National Conservation Reserve Program conducted by CSU’s Natural Resource Ecology Lab and funded by the USDA, and community-based censuses on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservations in South Dakota.

Dave teaches online courses in Approaches to Community Development, Community Mobilization, and Community-based Mapping.


 

2017 Online Courses are OPEN for Registration

All Spring 2017 online Sustainable Community Development Certificate courses are open for registration. The deadline to register for the first session is January 9, 2017.

January 13 – February 17, 2017

March 3 – April 7, 2017

April 21 – May 26, 2017

 


SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

Next Offered Deadline to Register Registration Status Offered By
January 13 – February 17, 2017 January 9, 2017 Open

Course Description

One of the biggest challenges we face in today’s global economy is the alleviation and ultimate elimination, of poverty. Unemployment, lack of economic opportunities and the inability to provide for one’s needs and those of one’s family, lead to destructive consequences at the individual level and can lead to crime and armed conflict at the social level. While the latest development theory recognizes the importance of entrepreneurship and micro-enterprise generation in combating poverty, providing employment and increasing income, in order to address poverty at the grass-roots level, we need to explore the intersection of traditional business concepts with social venturing. This course aims to provide an understanding of social entrepreneurship that will help us put theory into practice in a meaningful way.

This course will examine entrepreneurship and enterprise generation as a key foundation of the development of both economic and social capital, as well as individual and community empowerment. Its main emphasis will be the exploration of entrepreneurship with an imperative to drive social change and build sustainable ventures. Its focus will be on designing enterprises for the base of the economic pyramid in the context of disadvantaged communities. We will participate in the unfolding dialogue about what constitutes a “social entrepreneur”, develop an understanding of the power of “disruptive innovation”, and study success stories from around the world, thereby gaining valuable insights into how to develop our own enterprises.

This course will require critical thinking, be highly interactive, and students will share their experiences, ideas, insights and challenges. Participants will be able to apply the learning from this course to their own start-ups and field projects.

Instructor:

Vinod Parekh

Social Entrepreneur, Proprietor of Human Development Services, Consultant Trainer and Mentor of several companies, visiting and online faculty at Colorado State University, Independent Director Man Diesel and Turbo India, World traveler.

I began my career in Sales and Marketing and then went on to be with BBC UK and trained as a Broadcaster before I discovered my passion for people development. I continue to be a student of Personal, Organisational and Community Transformation. Education: Organisational Development (OD) Chicago USA, Psychology Major: University of Nagpur, India. Marketing Management at NTC, Calcutta, India. Early Career: Radio and Television Broadcasting, BBC, London, Glasgow, Director Community Development Projects of the Institute of Cultural Affairs International, Chicago, USA an affiliate of the UN.

Current Responsibilities:
• Director-Human Development Services & Human Development Consultants and Trainers-A management consultancy- leadership training and development enterprise which specializes in conducting management alignment, team building, personal and organizational effectiveness enhancement programs for public, private , academic and voluntary sectors.
• Chairman-Unnati Enterprises – A Socio-Economic Enterprise dedicated to empowering rurban communities particularly youth;
• Mentor -Teaching Learning Community of Small & Medium Scale entrepreneurs;
• Visiting Faculty at: Maharashtra Police Academy, India International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Colorado State University ,USA; Several Management Colleges and Institutes including Bharati Vidyapeet Institute for Management studies and Research, Moonje Mgt Institute, Mahatma Gandhi Management Institutes (MBA program) of the University of Pune, India Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai and Tuljapur;
•Independent Director- MAN Diesel Turbo

Previous Positions:
• Marketing Director-Communication Services, Hyderabad, India.
• Consultant / Trainer- Institute of Cultural Affairs-International, Chicago USA.
• Director Community and Village Development Projects, Maharashtra-India
• Project Director-Community Development Programme, Lusaka, Zambia.

Areas of Expertise:
•Designing and facilitating needs based training and development programmes aimed towards personal, organizational/community transformation using the Technology of Participative Management (ToP)
•Bridging intercultural gaps.

Passion: Traveling, interacting with people.

My MISSION – To equip individuals, communities and organizations (for and not for profit) with practical mindset change techniques and soft skills tools towards enhancing their overall effectiveness. My VISION – Personal and organizational/community transformation.


APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Next Offered Deadline to Register Registration Status Offered By
January 13 – February 17, 2017 January 9, 2017 Open
April 21 – May 26, 2017 April 18, 2017 Open

Course Description

Explore both the structure and practice of community development around the world.  Engage in a critical analysis of different approaches to community development, their historical development and underlying assumptions.  Gain an understanding of the structural and practical issues that promote or detract from the goal of community empowerment.

Instructor:

David Bartecchi, M.A.

Dave received his M.A. in Cultural Anthropology from Colorado State University and has worked with Village Earth since 1998.  He is now the executive director of Village Earth.  Since 2000 he has been working with grassroots groups on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to recover lands for community-based bison restoration. He has also worked with the indigenous groups in Peru and Ecuador and trained and consulted on community-based development projects in in Azerbaijan, Armenia, India as well as with Native American tribes in California and Oklahoma.  He has been an instrumental part of several research projects with CSU’s Department of Anthropology including a 6 year longitudinal study of the informal economy on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota funded by the National Science Foundation, a survey of farmers and ranchers participating in the National Conservation Reserve Program conducted by CSU’s Natural Resource Ecology Lab and funded by the USDA, and community-based censuses on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservations in South Dakota. Dave teaches online courses in Approaches to Community Development, Community Mobilization, and Community-based Mapping.


COMMUNITY-BASED FOOD SYSTEMS

Next Offered Deadline to Register Registration Status Offered By
January 13 – February 17, 2017 January 9, 2017 Open

The cultivation, preparation, distribution, and consumption of food are practices that shape how we organize ourselves socially, economically and politically. Control over food is central to the sustainability and self-determination of communities. In this seminar, you will learn about different approaches to building community-based food systems and movements for food justice around the world. Together, we will evaluate various strategies for protecting community food resources and rebuilding local food economies, as well as the factors that threaten these efforts. With special consideration for marginalized communities in the global North and South, students will develop a conceptual toolkit and set of resources to help them assess the limitations and possibilities of their own community’s food system.

Instructors:

This course is facilitated by the International Agroecology Action Network (IAEAN) a consultancy group composed of ultra-motivated scientists willing to work hard to change the world. Although we are all agroecologists, we combine our diverse backgrounds and skills in order to dynamically implement sustainable and effective projects. Our pool of available consultants offer a wide range of skills and competences. We seek to improve society through our actions and research and we believe that both grassroots and top-down approaches are necessary to drive systemic change. Our members are currently involved in international organizations, private companies, development associations and in academic spheres.

2016 Holiday Fundraising Campaign to Support Village Earth’s Global Affiliates

2016holidaycampaign

Olimometer 2.52

 Global Affiliate NameGeographic FocusAbout 
Facebook-Vert-LogoVillage Earth Area of Most NeedGlobalLet Village Earth decide how best to allocate your donation.
AmahoroAmahoro ProjectBurundiAmahoro project is a collaboration betweeen Colorado State University and Ngozi University in Burundi (UNG) to establish UNG as a ongoing site and dissemination center for research in sustainable peace and development.
CRDTCambodia Rural Development Team Northeast CambodiaWorks to sustainably improve food security, incomes, and living standards of subsistence rural communities in support of environmental conservation throughout Cambodia.
Earth TipiEarth TipiPine Ridge Reservation, SDWorks to sustainably improve food security, incomes, and living standards of subsistence rural communities in support of environmental conservation throughout Cambodia.
Eco_VEco-Friendly VolunteersSri LankaECO-V is a voluntary organization engaged in environmental conservation in Sri Lanka. ECO-V has a network of 400 volunteers throughout Sri Lanka who contribute to research and community work to support conservation of the environment.
EYCEmpowering Youth CambodiaPnom Penh, CambodiaEYC is a organization working to improve the lives of young people and their families. Our vision is to see youth empowered with skills & confidence to be leaders who actively develop themselves, their families and community.
FOFCODForum for Community Change and DevelopmentSouth SudanFOFCOD envisions a new generation of productive and self-reliant south Sudanese who can ably participate in community development programs to meet their needs and those of other disadvantaged groups.
GOLDGrowing Liberia Democracy (GOLD)LiberiaGOLD promotes poverty reduction as well as democratic & high quality governance by empowering local communities to effectively engage their law makers as to make policy decisions favorable for Liberians and to be fully transparent.
ICA_NEPAlInstitute of Cultural Affairs (Nepal)NepalICA’s mission is to promote social innovation through participation and community building. We do this throughout the country through training, facilitation & development activities.  
Human-and-Hope-Association-500x500Human and Hope AssociationSiem Reap, CambodiaHuman and Hope Association works to empower Cambodians to create sustainable futures for themselves through projects focused on education, vocational training and community support.
JalambaJalamba Nursery School ProjectThe GambiaThe goal of the of the Association is to empower youths, children and vulnerable families through education. The project has government support as a new school  which will serve ages of one through six. 
JenzeraJenzeraColombiaSupports community processes so that people can freely decide on their social, political and economic lives by defending their territories, empowering their own governments and developing a self-managed economies.
KnifeChiefKnife Chief Buffalo NationPine Ridge Reservation, SDThe Knife Chief Buffalo Nation, a grassroots project on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota, works to reclaim 1800 acres of ancestral lands for restoring buffalo, and Lakota culture and lifeways.
LBCCLakota Buffalo Caretakers CooperativePine Ridge Reservation, SDThe Lakota Buffalo Caretakers Cooperative (LBCC) is a 100% Native American owned and operated cooperative association on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Its membership is made up of small family buffalo caretakers who respect the buffalo and the land. Members of the LBCC are committed to the restoration of the northern plains ecology, self-sufficiency and strengthening the sovereignty and self-determination of the Oglala Lakota Nation and all indigenous peoples.
LLRPLakota Lands Recovery ProjectSouth Dakota ReservationsThe LLRP works to reclaim and consolidate tribal lands and access the resources needed for the Lakota people to live on, protect, and utilize it — promoting self-determination and sovereignty.
MalocaMalocaAmazon BasinWorks with Indigenous Peoples living in the Amazon Basin. It works directly with Indigenous leaders to raise awareness about the needs of their communities and find means to establish self-sustaining strategies to address their needs.
TasunkeWakanTasunke WakanPine Ridge Reservation, SDOur primary goal is to develop and implement Lakol Wicohan (Lakota life ways and laws, which includes language, values, beliefs, ceremonies and laws of the Lakota people) within the Oyate (Community).
TRCDATitukuke RCDAPetuake, ZambiaTRCDA is devoted to to uplifting livelihoods, reducing illiteracy, poverty and HIV/AIDS Health problems among the communities in Petauke, Zambia

Better Decision-making Through Community Mapping in Mongolia | October 26, 12pm. CSU Morgan Library

mapping-in-process

Village Earth and the Center for Collaborative Conservation are hosting a very special presentation on community-based mapping and GIS by  Enkhtungalag Chuluunbaatar from the Ger Communty Mapping Center based-in Ulaanbaatar Mongolia. This presentation will take place from 11:30am to 1pm, October 26th at the Morgan Library Event Hall on the campus of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado.

3a688ce

Enkhtungalag Chuluunbaatar

Abstract: Ulaanbaatar, capital city of Mongolia is home to almost half of the country’s population, in which more than 60% live in the ger area. Centralized administrative power, rapid urbanization, economic and political instability calls for a stronger civil society with a vision for long-term, sustainable, and inclusive development. Ger Community Mapping Center sees community mapping as one of the tools to inform and empower local communities and the general public to promote participatory decision-making. Community mapping draws on the implicit knowledge within local communities on everyday issues with long-term consequences.

This presentation will take place from 11:30am to 1pm, October 26th at the Morgan Library on the campus of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Co-sponsored by Village Earth and

casestatement-logo

Tourism “business as usual” is Broken: Reflections on the Global Tourism Industry

ethical issues with tourism

By Cynthia Ord, Tourism and Development Online Course Instructor

Tues Nov 8 is an important date for Americans – the federal election will determine our new president. Meanwhile, across the pond in London, it’s also a big day for the global tourism community. Nov 8 will mark the 10th annual World Responsible Tourism Day, celebrated as part of World Travel Market (WTM), one of the biggest annual trade shows of the industry.

At face value, the WTM trade show looks a lot like “business as usual”. In a huge conference center, reps from big-name travel brands network with public tourism boards and deep-pocketed destination marketing organizations (DMOs, in travel-speak). Execs strike deals. Thought leaders deliver keynotes. PR agents pitch puff pieces to the travel media elite. Costumed “Mayans” from the Guatemala booth and “Carnival” dancers from the Brazil booth parade around the corporate suits in a charade of authenticity.

But tourism “business as usual” is broken.

Only a fraction of tourism dollars reach the destinations themselves. The quality of service jobs created for locals is low. Overcrowding degrades the travel experience. Tension flares up between hosts and visitors. Biodiversity suffers. Climate change alters destinations. These are just few of the challenges we face as the runaway global travel industry speeds up to 2 billion annual tourists spending $2 trillion yearly by 2030.¹

Take a deeper look at the WTM and, fortunately, you’ll also find a group that faces these challenges head-on. They organize the Responsible Tourism Day events. I’ll be spending Nov 8 at the WTM learning and celebrating on that bright side of the trade show. Here are a few highlights from the World Responsible Tourism Day schedule that I’m looking forward to:

Responsible Tourism Awards
Out of 13 finalists, five awards will be granted for the following categories:
Best accommodation for responsible employment
Best contribution to wildlife conservation
Best innovation by a tour operator
Best for poverty reduction and inclusion
Best responsible tourism campaign
An overall winner will also be announced.

I’ve spent countless consulting hours this past year researching all the different responsible tourism awards schemes out there, and the WTM award is arguably the most illustrious and competitive. This is one election whose candidates I can really get excited about. Sure to be a glamorous affair!

Keynote Speaker Doug Lansky
Doug Lansky, travel writer, tourism industry advisor, and author of the thought-provoking new visual book TRAVEL: The Guide, takes us on a journey to find the Holy Grail of tourism: sustainable, profitable, and authentic travel.

Captivity, Wildlife and Tourism
Over the last year increasing concern has been expressed about the use of wildlife in tourism with campaigns focused on elephants, lions and orcas. Three panelists will consider these campaigns and reflect on how successful they have been.

This topic is near to my heart, as I spent several months in Thailand this past year examining the thorny issue of elephants in tourism. I compiled a guidebook on the subject called Elephants in Asia, Ethically: Humane Experiences with Asia’s Sacred Animal. Several of my collaborators on the book will be presenting at this discussion panel.

Other panel discussions on the Responsible Tourism agenda include:

  • Responsibility and resilience: how can tourism be more resilient?
  • Human rights in tourism
  • Responsible “better” volunteering
  • Disintermediation and destination management
  • Communicating responsible tourism: advocacy and marketing
  • Enhancing the tourist experience in Africa
  • Climate change and tourism

These are the issues that face local communities in the destinations that, as travelers, we often either love to death or fail to consider. It will be a busy few days for me at the WTM, and I’ll be thrilled to pass on my new knowledge and insights as instructor of the course Tourism and Development. Now enrolling through November 1.

Applying the APT Approach to Wicked Problems in International Community Development.

Community Development

What are wicked problems? Can sustainable community development be considered a wicked problem? If so, what value does this this lens provide us, what changes in policy and practice does it imply and what is preventing international non-governmental organizations from addressing wicked problems?

In a perspective essay in the forthcoming October 2016 edition of the journal Landscape and Urban Planning, noted scholars in the field of planning and complex problems Brian Head and Wei-Ning Xiang, building on earlier works (Xiang & Wei-Ning, 2013 & B. W. Head & Alford, 2013), argue for the expanded use of Adaptive, Participatory and Transdisciplinary (APT) approaches when dealing with “wicked problems” (Brian W. Head & Wei-Ning, 2016). In this brief blog post, I will attempt to reflect what this might mean for development NGOs.

 

International Community Development as a Dilemma for Traditional Project Management

Anyone who works in international community development understands the unique challenge of planning in such a complex and unpredictable socio-political context. Ika and Damiam (2014) offer some reason why international development projects are so complex from a project management perspective (Ika & Damian, 2014).

  • International development projects cover almost every sector of project management application
  • International development projects are public sector projects
  • International development projects are international projects
  • International development projects share managerial/organisational challenges with conventional projects
  • International development projects are different and more complex: unique goals and way of organising
  • International development projects are different and more complex to manage: unique context and institutional challenges
  • Different types of projects emerge with time and with an increasing complexity
  • Overall, international development projects are an extreme case of conventional projects

 

Image from Ika and Damian 2014

Above Image from (Ika & Damian, 2014)

 

International Community Development as a Wicked Problem

The term “wicked problems” was first uttered in 1967 by W.F. Churchman at a seminar he had organized to investigate whether lessons learned from the space program could be utilized to solve the various social problems tearing at fabric of American society at the time (Skaburskis & Andrejs, 2008). When presented with a list of differences between social and scientific/technical problems by Horst Rittel, Churchman responded, “Hmm, those sound like “wicked problems” – kicking-off an entire field of study. Rittel, later refined and summarized the list in a now famous 1973 article in Policy Science by Rittel and Webber called “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning” (Rittel & Webber, 1973).

Rittel and Webber’s 10 characteristics of wicked problems (quoted in B. W. Head & Alford, 2013)

  1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
  2. Wicked problems have no “stopping rule” (i.e., no definitive solution).
  3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad.
  4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
  5. Every (attempted) solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; the results cannot be readily undone, and there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error.
  6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
  7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
  8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
  9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways.
  10. The planner has no “right to be wrong” (i.e., there is no public tolerance of experiments that fail).

Ok, anyone working in community development should relate pretty quickly to the lists by both Ika and Hodgson as well as Rittel and Webber, so how does the lens of “wicked problems” help? Well, according to Head 2008, traditionally, social planners have “coped” with complex social and ecological problems by “cherry picking” problems “[dealing] with manageable elements today, while recognizing that there will be other aspects to tackle tomorrow. However, because of their amorphous and interdisciplinary nature, wicked problems require an entirely different approach.

According to Xiang (2013, p.2), [b]y examining a wicked problem as a whole through a panoramic social lens rather than a scientific microscope, and working with it through an open and heuristic process of collective learning, exploration, and experimentation, the APT approach [Adaptive, Participatory, and Transdisciplinary] promises to be efficacious in fostering collaborative behaviour, reducing conflicts, building trust among all stakeholders and communities involved, and ultimately producing better and more satisfying results.

To be fair, the NGO community hasn’t been entirely in the dark when it comes to debates about the shortcomings of traditional project management models. In fact, as Ika and Damian (2014) point out, “The poor results of projects from the 1950s through the 1980s have led to disillusionment with the traditional approach and widespread calls to change or even reject outright the traditional [project management] approach in [international development] and adopt instead what have been described as ‘process’ projects.” The champions of process projects, most notably David Korten (1980), describe them as long-term projects that become more impactful over time through a process of trial and error (Korten, 1980).

According to Korten “the learning process approach calls for organizations that have little in common with the implementing organization geared to reliable adherence to detailed plans and conditions presented favored in the blueprint approach. Its requirement is for organizations with a well developed capacity for responsive and anticipatory adaptation – organizations that: (a) embrace error; (b) plan with the people; and (c) link knowledge building with action.”

Now, Korten was writing about this in the 1980s so surely NGO’s and other actors in community development have adopted these practices? Sadly, INGDOs are still largely failing to address the wicked problems of community development. There is a longstanding and growing argument that INGDOs are not doing enough to address the world’s social and ecological problems and remain too close to donors and governments to fully utilize their competitive advantage of being neither governments nor private sectors (Banks, Nicola, David, & Michael, 2015).

What is really needed is for INGDOs to engage with communities for the long-term and work as partners to help tease apart and address the complex relationships of power, policies and perceptions in an adaptive, participatory, and transdisciplinary (APT) way. However, despite widespread agreement on the importance of this this kind of partnership, very few INGDOs actually do it because of their failure to take a critical stance on issues of power (Ika and Hodgson, 2014), bias towards a single sector (Romeo, 2003), a particular technological solution (Samper & Jimena, 2012), faddism (Mansuri & Rao, 2004), failure to spend adequate time and resources needed to mobilize and engage the community and focus on implementing the priorities of funders vs. that of communities (Power, Grant, Matthew, & Susan, 2003).

 

Recommendations for INGDOs

  • Being able to implement an APT approach requires high-levels of programmatic freedom which is often compromised by our relationships, in particular funding sources but also political relationships. If we want to truly address wicked problems we need to develop funding and partnership models that allow for the kind of freedom independence they require
  • The traditional “project” or “contract” approach, focused on addressing just one or two sectors for a 3-5 years is too narrowly focused and short-term to address wicked problems. An APT approach requires that INGDOs become skilled in facilitating broad-based participatory planning that engages stakeholders in not only identifying and prioritizing project but more importantly, engaging stakeholders in a thorough analysis of issues in a holistic, transdisciplinary manner. 
  • The role of participatory monitoring and evaluation must be elevated beyond just being accountable to donors to an active process of clarifying and redefining people’s understanding of the issues and behaviors bound-up in wicked problems. In essence, monitoring and evaluation should be viewed as a tool for the social construction of reality. 
  • NGDOs and community workers must promote a culture of self-critical awareness which promotes bottom-up learning among individuals and within institutions.

For more about this topic, read the related blog post: Breaking-out of the Piecemeal Project Approach: The Importance of Holistic Community Planning

If you are interested in the ideas and concepts discussed in this post, you’ll enjoy the following courses in our online certificate program at Colorado State University. Development and the Politics of Empowerment, Approaches to Community Development, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, Community Mobilization, Community-Based Organizing,

References Cited:

Banks, N., Nicola, B., David, H., & Michael, E. (2015). NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for Comfort? World Development, 66, 707–718.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739.

Head, B. W., & Wei-Ning, X. (2016). Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 4–7.

Ika, L. A., & Damian, H. (2014). Learning from international development projects: Blending Critical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1182–1196.

Korten, D. C. (1980). Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach. Public Administration Review, 40(5), 480.

Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-based (and Driven) Development: A Critical Review.

Power, G., Grant, P., Matthew, M., & Susan, M. (2003). 7. Operationalising bottom–up learning in international NGOs: barriers and alternatives. In Critical Reflections (pp. 86–103).

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

Romeo, L. G. (2003). The role of external assistance in supporting decentralisation reform. Public Administration and Development: A Journal of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, 23(1), 89–96.

Samper, J., & Jimena, S. (2012). Cross Sector Partnerships for Development in Colombia. The Annual Review of Social Partnerships, 2012(7), 10–10.

Skaburskis, A., & Andrejs, S. (2008). The Origin of “Wicked Problems.” Planning Theory & Practice, 9(2), 277–280.

Xiang, W.-N., & Wei-Ning, X. (2013). Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 110, 1–4.

Breaking-out of the Piecemeal Project Approach: The Importance of Holistic Community Planning

Community Development Training

In a recent blog post I argued that if international community development is a “wicked problem” than we should follow the advice of Head and Wei-Ning (2016) and stop “cherry picking” problems and instead adopt an APT (Adaptive, Participatory, and Transdisciplinary) approach. However, the authors give very little insight into what this might actually look like or how it might be applied to a particular disciplinary context like that shared by International Development NGDOs, which has integrated a surprisingly standardized toolbox of procedural norms.

In particular, while NGOs have developed countless tools for collecting information from communities on a wide range of topics such as infrastructure, social networks, gender roles, health, education, natural resources, etc., there is often little rationale for the use of one particular tool over another and the information it’s collecting, aside from generating a pool of information from which ideas for project emerge. As the training manual for one large INGDO states, “assessments, mapping, community profiles, and similar participatory processes can generate a large pool of issues that the community would like to address through projects.” From this pool, stakeholders are generally asked to prioritize or rank issues and identify projects that can be worked-on with support from the NGDO. Single-sector NGDOs will often narrow this participation even further by agreeing to support only those projects within its specialization.

What I find most problematic is that while there is often a strong emphasis among NGDOs on stakeholder participation in providing information and ranking, there is very little emphasis on engaging communities in bigger-picture analysis of the issues – especially at a macro-political level. Why is this a problem? To begin, past experience have likely taught them that NGDOs have a bias for defined technical projects which automatically narrows people’s thinking to “things” like a new well, health clinic, or latrines vs. the often more important but less tangible outcomes like enhanced collaboration with neighboring communities, educating farmers about local land-tenure laws and how they might be impacted by proposed international trade agreements, or addressing the complex gender-based status issues associated with outmigration of young men, as just a few examples.

The second issue with this piecemeal, problem-based planning approach is that there is literally no end to problems. We can always identify, prioritize and create projects to address problems but is doing so moving the community qualitatively towards a better situation? Or, by focusing on “problems’ are we just “putting-out fires” where as soon as one goes out another appears? Furthermore, ranking exercises just tell us how troublesome or annoying a problem is and not necessarily its contribution or role in the larger wicked problem. The same critique could be made about asset-based approaches. Just because something “works” doesn’t mean its amplification, replication, or adaptation is moving the community towards a better, more just situation.

Lastly, the traditional process of planning is overly focused on outcomes and doesn’t emphasize enough the importance of the process itself. Part of the defining characteristic of wicked problems is the role that varying perceptions of that problem have on its potential resolution. Take for example climate change – clearly a wicked problem, and in the United States we have a large population of people who, for various reasons and motivations, do not believe it’s caused by human activity. We also have varying levels of understanding on its severity. Based on the science one would think climate change would be the number one geopolitical priority, that we would be mobilizing like we did to get a man on the moon in the 1960s. One could argue that there needs to be much deeper dialogue taking-place to more closely align our perceptions and behaviors with the science. Community planning is the perfect opportunity to begin this dialogue. It’s an opportunity for people to deeply analyze the issues and facts together and create a shared understanding of the issues and how they can be resolved.

 

How can we apply APT principles to community development planning?

The first step is to not make the mistake of underestimating the complexity of local issues. A good rule of thumb is that they are likely as complex, if not more complex, than the issues in your own home community. Accept that because of cultural, language and privilege you will likely never fully grasp their complexity. It’s important to also recognize that, despite your limitations, you can play a valuable role as a facilitator. First, your ignorance gives you license to ask dumb questions giving you the ability to constantly be learning. Second, the fact that you are not embedded in local social networks gives you the unique perspective to “see the forest for the trees” and understand the range of ways people are thinking about an issue. Not being embedded in social networks can also mean you can more easily navigate them, serving as a broker to help connect individuals and groups that might not do it on their own.

 

The Importance of Holistic Participatory Planning

The planning process I’ve gained the most appreciation for and will be referencing here was developed by the Institute for Cultural Affairs (ICA) and is called the “Technology of Participation.” ICA developed this planning process with the social construction of reality in-mind.  The process, allows for wide-scale participation and follows four stages – visioning, contradictions, strategic directions, and action planning.

 

Community Visioning

How do we overcome the piecemeal, problem-based approach to community planning? A community vision is a shared understanding of the kind of world we want for ourselves, our children, grandchildren and beyond. It should reflect our highest shared values (equity, respect, community, culture, etc) vs. the selfish interest of individuals. In planning circles, a vision is typically 5-20 years in the future but I’ve heard of visions being as far into the future as 100 years. The purpose of a vision is not to serve as a benchmark to assess our progress against. Rather, a vision is something that is always out in the future, just beyond our reach and constantly evolving.

Ideally, a vision should be holistic and encompass any areas the community feels are important. For example, infrastructure, access to land and resources, housing but also less tangible things like the way people treat one another, their status relative to other ethnic groups, cultural revitalization, and language.

A vision overcomes the piecemeal approach by setting a standard by which contradictions, strategies, and actions are measured against, focusing your energy on the things that will help move your community towards its vision.

 

Contradictions

If we all agree that we want to live in a world like the one described by our vision than why aren’t we already there? This is how I understand and describe the contradictions phase of the planning process. This is often where the deepest-level analysis takes place because the participants are asked to view the vision holistically and they are asked to look at the contradictions holistically. This is where you start to get very nuanced discussions about, for example, how the out-migration of young men is causing a whole host of social problem, shifting of gender roles, and health issues and how it is not just about earning more money but how it’s also bound-up in what they’ve learned it means to be a “man”. Such nuanced discussions build awareness and consensus about the issues so by the time you get to the next stage, strategic directions, people are more likely to come to consensus. The goal of this phase is to help clarify and build consensus on the contradictions.

 

Strategic Directions

For the strategic directions phase we ask the participants “What can we do in the next year to begin to overcome the contradictions and move towards our vision. Because they/we now have developed a shared understanding and language to talk about the issues/contradictions, they/we can also develop more nuanced, transdisciplinary strategies to begin to overcome them. But it’s important to remind participants that this is a two-part question – coming up with actions that overcome the contradictions BUT ALSO move us towards our vision. This is where our higher-level values come into play. If we identify preserving our language or forest is a priority than we’re going to rule-out out actions that might endanger our language or forest.

 

Action Planning

The goal of this phase is similar to traditional NGDO action planning models, namely to agree upon who is responsible for what, develop implementation timelines, identify available and needed resources, etc. The difference however, is that people will be much more motivated to follow-through with implementation because they have a deep and nuanced understanding for why they’re doing it and what they hope to achieve.

 

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation plays a critical role in APT strategies for its contribution to the creation of social reality – namely by helping to answer questions and test assumptions raised during planning and implementation. For example, it was the participants assumption that they could transform young men’s perceptions of what it means to be a man through a series of community plays. To test this they developed a pre and post play questionnaire to assess members of the audience’s perceptions on manhood and whether it was impacted by the play.

 

Conclusion

By transitioning from a piecemeal to a more holistic APT approach to community planning, I argue that NGDOs can play a more impactful role in tackling the wicked problems we face as a global community. Planning approaches like the ICA’s Technology of Participation is one tool to assist this transition. Regardless of the tools we use, as a community, we need move beyond participation as just another donor requirement and instead see it and utilize it as a powerful tool for analysis and transformation.
Topics discussed in this post are also discussed in the following courses in Village Earth/Colorado State University’s online certificate program in sustainable community development: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, Community Mobilization, Development and the Politics of Empowerment, Community Participation and Dispute Resolution

Upcoming Courses in the Online Certificate Program in Sustainable Community Development

There’s one session left in 2016 for the Village Earth/Colorado State University online certificate program in Sustainable Community Development. Three courses are available (below) and will take place online November 4th – December 9th, 2016. The deadline to register is November 1st, 2016. 

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

Next OfferedDeadline to RegisterRegistration StatusOffered By 
June 9 - July 14, 2017June 5, 2017Open

Course Description

Discover participatory methods in monitoring and evaluation for community development, where multiple stakeholders are involved in the process of planning, collecting, interpreting, communicating, and using information. Gain skills in using regular monitoring and evaluation processes, which will lead to continuous improvements.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Plan a monitoring and evaluation project
  • Develop evaluation questions that address stakeholders needs
  • Select the most appropriate data collection method for a given situation
  • Effectively communicate monitoring and evaluation data
  • Use the monitoring information for effective feedback and improvement

This course counts towards the following specialized tracks: Natural Resources Management, Economic Development, Political Empowerment, Food Security, and Participatory Facilitation, Community Planning and Development.

Instructor: Pilar Robledo

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

Pilar is currently Director of Programming and Training for US Peace Corps in Kiev, Ukraine. She’s also serves as Education Cluster Co-lead at UNICEF Pakistan. Previously she’s worked for UNHCR, Save the Children, International Rescue Committee, and IREX. She holds an MPA in Public Administration from University of Colorado, Denver and a BA in Anthropology and Latin American Studies from CU Boulder.

 

 


Community-Based Organizing

Next OfferedDeadline to RegisterRegistration StatusOffered By 
July 28 - September 1, 2017July 24, 2017Open

Course Description
The importance of an approach to community-development that increases the rights of poor and marginalized people within governing structures has never been more apparent. Situations of severe oppression and marginalization demand organizing-techniques that go beyond a traditional “hand-out” style approach to development. Taking a practical hands-on perspective, this course will explore the theories, tools, styles and challenges of community-based organizing. It will discuss practical strategies for developing community leadership and working with marginalized communities. Together, we will discover the impact that ordinary individuals can have on the world.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Apply basic organizing techniques, such as popular education and direct action
  • Understand the role of privilege, race, gender and class in struggles for change
  • Understand the history and basic principles of community organizing
  • Design methods to help support and organize the community in which they are working

This course counts towards the following specialized tracks: Political Empowerment and Community Planning and Development

Instructor: Raul Paz Pastrana

Raul has been an organizer for over eight years and has given many workshops around the country and Latin America. These workshops have focused on diverse topics such as theater of the oppressed, popular education, participatory filmmaking, strategic organizing and base building.

He has worked as the Organizing Director for Centro Humanitario para los Trabajadores, a non-profit that works to empower immigrant workers in the Denver, Colorado area.  He currently works as a Director/Producer and Cinematographer at Andar Films in New York, NY.


Tourism and Development

Next OfferedDeadline to RegisterRegistration StatusOffered By 
July 28 - September 1, 2017July 24, 2017Open

Globally, tourism initiatives receive considerable public funding and private investment as a means of economically developing low-income communities. NGOs are taking on a growing role in local tourism initiatives, as well as voluntourism, in hopes of injecting capital into the communities where they work. Amongst proponents, tourism is seen as a mechanism for local communities to capitalize on assets such as the natural environment and cultural heritage. Yet critiques often note that tourism can be destructive, elite and at times oppressive. In light of this critical lens, we will explore both successful and problematic tourism initiatives. We will critically examine the nature of tourism, its impacts on communities and considerations that must be taken into account in order for a tourism project to have the desired impact of development without destroying.

Upon completion of this course participants will be able to:

  • Identify best practices for successful tourism initiatives
  • Work with a community to evaluate how tourism may impact their lives
  • Network with private, public and non-profit institutions in the field of tourism and development
  • Understand common challenges and issues with eco-tourism and voluntourism

Counts Towards the Following Specialized Tracks:  Economic Development and Community Planning and Development

Instructor: Cynthia Ord, M.S.

Cynthia Ord holds a Masters of Tourism and Environmental Economics degree from the University of the Balearic Islands in Palma de Mallorca, Spain and a B.A. in Spanish and Philosophy from Colorado State University. Her M.S. program focused on the socio-cultural, environmental and economic impacts of global tourism. Ord’s research focused on non-commercial volunteer tourism networks. She currently lives in Addis Ababa and works in tech solutions for tour operators in Ethiopia. In the past, she’s worked on e-market access and business development for small and medium sized tourism enterprises in the Global South, with a specialty in Latin America. In her spare time, she is a travel blogger.

Introduction to Humanitarian Assistance for Community Workers and Funders

According to Good Humanitarian Donorship, Humanitarian Assistance is broadly defined to mean the action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the occurrence of such situations.

Humanitarian assistance in the international arena vastly differs from domestic emergency response within the United States.  As a field unto itself, humanitarian assistance also differs greatly from shorter-term disaster response in scope, objectives, and duration.  In addition, the field encompasses codifying norms, international standards, and critical concepts that exist to maintain humanitarian principles, ensure quality intervention, and create sustainable improvement.

After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, over 400 medical teams arrived to assist communities in need. Only a tiny fraction of teams were able to identify or plan intervention strategies and programs utilizing international humanitarian architecture or standards. This lack of knowledge translated into failures in communication, coordination, and usage of resources with direct implications for populations affected.

This problem is neither new nor has it been adequately addressed over time. Several studies, ranging from 2001 to present have reported that a dearth of nongovernmental organizations responding to disasters offers any teaching or orientation prior to departure. Authors and practitioners have put forward a critical call to action for improved accountability, well-defined core competencies, and greater quality control.  With appropriate and tailored training, practitioners will have exponentially improved efficiency, impact, and sustainability. In turn, these professionals better share expertise with local and national staff who remain, as always, the first-responders in their communities as they build themselves toward resilience and self-reliance.

In addition, the underlying circumstances necessitating pre-departure education of humanitarian workers have been intensifying. For example, the complexities of urban disasters require multi-sector coordination, community stakeholder engagement, and division of scarce resources more than ever. There are increasing risks and threats to humanitarian aid workers and less room for inexperience, waste, and error. Compassion in and of itself is not enough, however, compassion coupled with knowledge, guided by experience, and directed into effective action leads to substantive effective change.

If you would like more information and want to better inform your humanitarian efforts, consider enrolling today in our Introduction to Humanitarian Assistance Course.

Sustainable Community Development Online Course Schedule Through the End of 2016

Online Training in Community Development

“For 26 years, I had worked with an international NGO assigned in several countries but I must admit that despite these years of doing development work, it is only now that I have a deeper understanding of what community-based development should be.”  — Course Participant

The following courses are open for registration between now and November 1st 2016. These courses are offered as part of our online certificate program in Sustainable Community Development in partnership with Colorado State University.

Click on the courses below to register by September 13. Spring 2017 courses will be posted by September 15, 2016.

September 16 – October 21, 2016

November 4 – December 9, 2016

Students can enroll in just one course or complete all four courses to receive a Certificate in Sustainable Community Development.  We also offer specialized tracks for those who would like their certificate program to focus in on a particular subject area within the field of sustainable community development.

Using Local Networks in Humanitarian Disasters: A Guide for Aid and Relief Workers

This article was originally published in the Oxford Public Health Journal August 2016 edition by our colleagues over at emBOLDen Alliances.  If you are interested in learning more about using local networks in humanitarian disasters please join us for two courses taught by emBOLDen Alliances in our Sustainable Community Development Certificate with a specialization in Humanitarian Assistance.

Now enrolling for Introduction to Humanitarian Assistance and Humanitarian Assistance Toolbox.

 

On 25 April 2015, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter in the Gorkha District of Nepal caused severe destruction in 14 of the country’s 75 districts. Two weeks later, on 12 May, another quake of 7.3 magnitude hit with a more eastern epicenter, and worsened the humanitarian situation. According to the United Nations Dispatch, the earthquake and subsequent aftershocks affected approximately 5.6 million people, killed 8,891 people and displaced approximately 2.8 million.

Within days of the earthquake, relief flooded into the country and an estimated 100 international search and rescue and medical teams immediately dispatched to provide emergency relief and to help prepare for recovery. As the earthquakes affected predominantly remote mountain villages, rescue and humanitarian operations took place in extremely challenging terrain. Local knowledge and networks were critical in minimizing further death and damage and maximizing delivery of life-saving resources.

This is the story of several exemplary Nepalese who acted immediately to help their fellow citizens. Their response assisted countless individuals and invaluably directed international aid efforts.

The Earthquake
group photo.p2p4

The day of the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal, Ang Tshering Lama, owner of Ang’s Himalayan Adventures, was about to launch off on a river trip on the Trisuli River about three and a half hours from Kathmandu, when everything around him began to shake, rocks started to fall from the cliffs above, and brown clouds of dirt filled the air. The earthquake continued for a seemingly long time with continuous aftershocks. He immediately packed up his crew and clients and rushed back to Kathmandu. On the drive back, Ang and his rafting crew had to clear through landslides as the massive destruction caused by the earthquake became clearer. “It was dark at night, there was no electricity, it was just with the lights of the car, but I could see [the destruction].”

Recovery in Kathmandu

Ang arrived in Kathmandu at 1:30AM, and after ensuring that his mother, who had been alone in his apartment, was okay, he quickly realized that although none of his neighbors were hurt, no one had eaten. Ang had been expecting a big earthquake to come at some point and had kept a store of emergency food. He fed 15-25 people that night with Wai Wai (Nepalese noodles) that he cooked on his camping stove. As a mountaineering guide, he had extra tents and parachutes to use as shelter for those who had lost their homes or were too frightened to sleep inside due to the many aftershocks. He felt scared at times, but he tried to stay calm. “ I couldn’t stand seeing the plight, I knew I needed to help.”

To the Mountains

In the days after the earthquake, money for relief efforts began trickling in to Ang. Previous clients and Nepali friends living abroad started to send money to him and said: “Go. Your people need your help.” Then more and more people started sending money, and in Ang’s words, “then, we went big.”

Sherap Sherpa, owner of Wild Tracks, also knew that he had to get to the mountains to help his fellow villagers. Sherap lives in Kathmandu, but he is from a small village of 26 households 148km north from Kathmandu, near the Tibetan border. He tried calling his family for five days after the earthquake. When he was finally able to get through, he learned that everyone in his small village was fine, but many peoplep2p4n had lost their homes and were in need of medication and daily essentials. Sherap started by going to the local market in Kathmandu where he bought 20 tarpaulins, rice, cooking oil, and plastic containers for water. However, he had no idea how to transport the supplies as the roads were buried, and it was impossible to even hike to the village. Then he received a call from a friend who flies for Dragon Air who said that his friend who worked for Search and Rescue Technical Rescue (SRTR) in China was flying into Kathmandu to help. Could Sherap meet them at the airport?

Meanwhile, Ang’s response effort was also quickly escalating. He started to work closely with his good friend from Nepal Kayak Club and within a week after the earthquake hit, he had started to make trips out to Sindhupalchok District with other outdoor trekking guides to bring food and supplies. “We had this whole team of kayakers, rafting guides, mountaineers, so we blended in. If we had to climb a mountain, we did it.” Through his connections with the mountaineering world, he connected with Person 2 Person 4 Nepal, a national grassroots movement and with emBOLDen Alliances, a non-profit based out of Colorado, to transport duffle bags filled with temporary shelter and supplies up to remote villages in the mountains. They called themselves the “Grassroots Gorillas”.

Then Ang received a call from Ming Serpa, a Nepali American Nurse associated with a Nepali-American Nursing Association who said that her organization wanted to send four nurses from the United States. With those nurses as well as local Nepali nurses, Ang and his team of mountaineers and river guides, traveled to 15-20 villages in Sindhupalchok, where they provided medical care, distributed food and supplies and trained villagers on proper hygiene. This work required traveling to very remote villages, negotiating challenging terrain, and executing helicopter evacuations of wounded patients. But, for Ang and the Nepalese medical team, they took these obstacles in stride with focus and determination.

Meanwhile, Sherap was headed for the districts of Nuwakot, Sindhupalchok and Rasuwa with SRTR. Through SRTR, Sherap met another international relief organization that he assisted with medication and supply deliveries. While assisting this organization and coordinating with several other international organizations, Sherap was also able to deliver the first round of aid to his own village and its two neighboring villages using helicopter and road transportation.

Sherap also helped to build temporary learning centers in Syabru Bensi of Rasuwa District in-coordination with Head Master Madhav Lamichhane of Shri Shyame Wangphel Secondary School. With help from another international organization, he brought tents to setup a temporary hostel for 40 resident kids in the same school, setup clean drinking water facility for the kids, and provide solar rechargeable lamps. Without Sherap to guide these international resources appropriately, the school children may have suffered waiting or may never have been reached.

Local Networks

Both Ang and Sherap work in the tourist guiding industry and have a deep understanding of the complexities of Nepali culture and language. Their knowledge and skill helped them to respond to the April earthquake with flexibility and speed. “For westerners, it’s hard, because they have to do a lot of logistics, they have to do the research first, and that takes time you know. Whereas I go on word of mouth from people whom I know and trust: ‘This many people are killed, this many are injured and this is all gone’. Then we say: ‘Okay we are coming,’ and this is how we do it. We don’t have to have a team go and do all of that scrutiny first…you know, write it down, evaluate the situation, etc. We knew that everything was gone, everyone’s homes are gone,” explained Ang. He continued: “In Nepal, it is not like America, it’s through word of mouth. ‘Do you need our help? Okay, we are coming’.”

Jiban Ghimire who also worked very hard with Ang on the Person 2 Person 4 Nepal effort, agreed: “I would say [that a] bigger organization has bigger issues [which] means red tape. But we had smooth supply [chain] without any disturbance. To be honest, I was very fortunate as [a] Nepali to support my people on behalf of our team whom we worked together without borders & boundary twenty four-seven.”

Because of their work hostelin the tourism industry, all of these men had contacts in and direct knowledge of the affected areas. For Sherap, he would call hotel owners that he knew from motorcycle tours and ask them what they ne
eded, how badly people were affected, and if there was an accessible road for them to get there. He would then post that information on Facebook to let others know. Within the next three to four days, he would get supplies from friends in India, who were also a part of his same motorcycle club, Friends of Royal Enfield (FORE), and he would be off to the villages in need with the supplies and with Nepali members of his club.

Understanding of the culture and language of Nepal also played a huge role in their nimble response. According to the 2011 Nepalese Census, 123 languages are spoken in Nepal. Sherap speaks 9 of these, helping him to communicate quickly with those in need. Additionally, knowledge of the complex caste system in Nepal helped Sherap and his friends identify priority towns, know with whom to speak within communities, and identify those who may be voiceless. For example, when Ang learned from his local connections that a delivery of rice had been given to a household that already had significant stockpiles, he had the rice recalled and given to a household that had none. Most agencies may have just walked away, checking the household off their distribution list off, but here, local insight directed this limited resource most appropriately.

Continuing On

Both men are still working on projects in affected areas. Sherap and his motorcycle club are working to rebuild a health center in Dubachour. The previous health center was devastated in the earthquake, and after speaking with the locals, it was clear that they wanted a primary care center. They already had the land and an agreement signed with the Ministry of Health, however due to the current political crisis and boarder blockade from India, his team cannot get supplies across the boarder to build the center. Sherap also plans to work with an international relief effort to bring in engineers from Macau and rebuild 27 homes in Thalo village of Sindupalchok.

Ang too is hindered by the current political crisis. He is working in Sindhupalchok to rebuild a school and has all of the materials ready, but due to the fuel blockade, he cannot yet transport the materials.

Both men were motivated by a great need to help their fellow countrymen: “I couldn’t stand seeing people suffering, I tell you…I am not religious, [but] for me, religion is helping people [laughs]. At the end of the day, it gives me good sleep,” says Ang. For Sherap, he feels that if we don’t help, no one else will. He feels the government is practically hopeless in Nepal. “We have to help, because these our people, they belong to our country…if we don’t help them, who will?”

Lessons Learned

IMG_1437

Local knowledge, generosity, local language and culture, and deep-seated compassion are priceless in any situation, and particularly during disasters. Ang, Sherap, and Jiban were able to spring into action the moment the earthquake hit using their connections and knowledge to understand where the most affected areas were and what was needed. They mobilized resources from clients and partners around the world to effectively and efficiently deliver aid to those most in need.

As a final word of caution for the next disaster, Jiban states: “We have to have basic supplies ready to move first [during an emergency]. You guys should collect money rather sending unusable stuffs. I found [that overall from everything I saw come in], 35% of relief goods coming from USA could not be used. [It seemed that] some people were just clearing out their garage.”

 

 

Acknowledgements

P4N and emBOLDen Alliances’ Nepal response.Emily Lawrence, Ang Tshering Lama, Sherap Sherpa, Jiban Ghimire, Liesl Clark, Julie Hull, Jake Norton, Bill, Rohs, Matt Murray, Patti Bonnet, Neena Jain, and ALL of the scores of individuals who contributed.

Photo credits: Person2Person4Nepal, emBOLDen Alliances, Sherap Sherpa

17 International Development Terms And Their Use Trends Over The Last 70 Years

International Development Terminology

While doing research for an upcoming course, I found myself captivated by a tool developed by Google to analyze search trends called, you guessed it “Google Trends“. The way it works is that you enter a keyword like “community development” and it will generate a chart displaying search volume over time. The problem with Google Trends however is that the it only goes back 2004 and this doesn’t do you much good if you want to better understand the use of terms used in the field of international community development, the modern conception of which has its origins just after the end of WWII. I was aware of Google’s ambitious project to scan all the books in the world, a project which has currently scanned about 25 million titles or 19% of the known books! So I was curious if they had developed a “trends” for Google Books.  Low-and-behold they have and it’s called the “Google Books Ngram Viewer” and let me say – it is amazing – allowing you to search the use of phrases in books printed between 1500 and 2008! So I decided to search for some common terms in international development.

Now, a brief disclaimer. This is by no means is this a scientific analysis. For one, it’s still very incomplete (only 19% of known books) and there’s really no way of knowing Google’s selection criteria or where the gaps exist. Second, there’s no real way to filter only for books related to international development, so if a term is used in another subject area than those results will appear as well. I tried to get around this by using terms that (to the best of my knowledge) are only or mostly used in international development related fields.

So, onto the results.

I was first curious about when authors started writing about poverty in other countries. The reason I was curious is because some prominent development authors like Arturo Escobar, Jeffry Sachs, and Majid Rahnema argue that the “problem” of global poverty was not a concern for western countries until after WWII. After this time, the thinking started to shift to an understanding that the prosperity and stability of the rich countries was linked to the overall prosperity and stability of the world.  This along with a general fear of Soviet/communist expansion and poor countries was fertile ground for communist thinking to take root. The data from Ngram viewer supports this assertion where prior to 1940 there was virtually no reference to “poor countries” and even less use of terms like “global poverty”, “world poverty”, “poverty around the world”, etc. But as you can see in the chart below, the use of this term skyrocketed around 1950, just as Escobar, Sachs and Rahnema argue.

The concern for “poor countries” would appear to wane in between 1990 and 2000 but a more likely explanation is that the terminology shifted. Shortly after the “discovery” of global poverty around the 1950s came new classifications for countries that would become the objects of this new discourse. These classifications were born out of wider discourses about the underlying pathology behind “poverty” as well as a ready-made cure which for the west could be summarized as “more capitalism”.

Through the Ngram viewer we can see the rise of the the two dominant and competing theories in the development discourse; modernization theory and dependency theory. The focus of Modernization is on particular countries and assessing which stage they’re in. Modernization is where the terminology of First World, Second World, and Third World comes from. First World being the free-market industrialized countries, the Third World being the so-called non-industrialized or developing countries, and the Second World are the lesser Industrialized Communist Countries. The strategy for modernization is to help countries progress to the stages of growth. The primary measure of this growth was GDP (Gross Domestic Product – the value of all goods and services generated within a particular country).

By the 1960’s another theory of Development started to gain traction, not necessarily among U.S. and European Policy makers but rather, among an emerging group of Third World scholars. It was called Dependency Theory and had its roots in nationalist thinking in India from the turn of the century. It gained traction as the promise of Modernization seemed less and less achievable, and as many in the Third World began to realize that this so-called “aid” from the rich countries came with a price. In many cases, the price was the loss of control over their economies and political systems.

Dependency Theory challenged the very premise of Modernization Theory arguing that the poverty in the south was NOT because their cultures were primitive and inherently non-scientific, or that their economic systems were backward but rather, these scholars argued that if you want to understand poverty in the south, you have to analyze their colonial and neo-colonial relationships with core countries. They argued that these relationships not only explain the great poverty in the south, but also the great wealth in the north. They argued that the rich countries got rich in the first place by exploiting the wealth and labor of poor countries … and that the new “development policies” and foreign investment were just a new form of colonization or “neo-colonialism.”

 

Much of development thinking after WWII was influenced by the broader thinking of the time which was dominated by scientific positivism and the promise of social engineering. In development this translated in the field into policies and practices drafted by so-called “experts” working in the newly air-conditioned offices far from the field. Localizing projects was formulaic based on data collected and analyzed by outside experts. There was very little room for local input in the planning of development projects. The dominant approach used to localize development projects was RRA or Rapid Rural Appraisal. However, the 1960’s and 1970’s brought-about broad-based and political upheavals – the war in Vietnam, the decay of “socially engineered” urban slums, the Civil Rights Movement, etc all contributed to a general questioning of long-held western superiority generally referred to as the rise of postmodernism. This general shift influenced developing thinking by forcing a reexamination of policies and practices. By the 1980’s and 1990’s the concept of participatory development became dominant approach – if not in practice, at least rhetorically. RRA was supplanted by PRA (Particpatory Rural and Action), where communities are involved in the data collection process which is being supplanted by (Participatory Learning and Action), where communities are doing their own data collection AND analysis.

This general trend towards greater local control over planning and action is also reflected in literature with the rise in the use of terms such as community-based development and community driven development.

In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote the book “Silent Spring,” which focused on pollution and pesticides in the United States and eventually lead to the banning of DDT.  Then, two pivotal events happened in 1973: the first pictures were sent back from the Apollo missions depicting the earth as a tiny blue dot floating in space, a single planet lacking geo-political boundaries, and the Oil Crisis, which planted the seeds for the modern environmental movement.

For the first time, many people started to think about the finite nature and abuses of the earth’s resources. Neither Modernization nor Dependency theorists really took the environmental issue seriously. In fact, in 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm was the first real international conference that addressed these issues.  It did not, however, address the gross inequalities in consumption and pollution between industrialized and non-industrialized countries.  In April 1987, the Brundtland Commission, as it came to be known, published its groundbreaking report, “Our Common Future,” which introduced the concept of sustainable development into the public discourse. It defined sustainable development in terms of both protecting resources and ensuring equality in distribution.

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

“A world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always be prone to ecological and other crises. … Sustainable development requires that societies meet human needs both by increasing productive potential and by ensuring equitable opportunities for all.”

According to the United Nations: “The wide-ranging recommendations made by the Commission led directly to the holding of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which placed the issue squarely on the public agenda in a way it had never been before.  Meeting in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, the “Earth Summit”, as it came to be known, adopted its “Agenda 21”, a blueprint for the protection of our planet and its sustainable development.

Today, there are nearly 370 million people classified as Indigenous Peoples. While there’s no universally accepted definition, indigenous people are generally defined as ethnic groups that have historical ties to groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state. They also have generally preserved a degree of cultural and political separation from the mainstream culture and political system of the nation state within the border of which the indigenous group is located. They exist today, and historically, as the poorest and most vulnerable sector of the global society.

In terms of development, indigenous peoples have traditionally been viewed as obstacles, or “in-the-way” of progress. They didn’t fit into Socialist or Capitalist notions of development, do not traditionally pay taxes because of their reliance on production for consumption vs. consumption for cash. Because of this, the primary project for Capitalist and Socialist States has been the destruction and/or assimilation of indigenous peoples.

While they have historically resisted colonization, the modern Indigenous Rights Movement has its origins in the 1970s, growing in parallel with the democracy movements around the globe. But also, later in the 1970s and 1980s, indigenous peoples became co-opted by the environmental movement, used as a symbol for the Noble Savage who doesn’t litter or who protects the Amazon rainforest. This partnership between environmentalists and indigenous people was often at odds, since Western environmentalists originally saw protection of the environment as separating humans from it, which is a practice that often further marginalizes indigenous peoples from the resources upon which they have historically relied.

Today the Indigenous Rights Movement has served as a model for a decentralized movement which has influenced the anti-globalization movement and more recently, the Arab Spring. It has been theorized as injecting new ideas into a global system that can’t be saved by Capitalism or Communism. Indigenous people have lived close to the earth and have developed unique social and economic systems that have endured since time-immemorial  Quite possibly they hold the answer, or at least part of it, for how human can live more sustainably and equitably.

What does viewing the use of common development terms teach us about international development? It’s hard to say, one thing for sure is that it provides us another window to understand its development and evolution. It makes clear that the West’s concern with global poverty exploded after WWII. It also reveals how connected it is with the broader shifts in thinking of a particular era vs. evolving gradually based on lessons learned in the field. Hopefully it also puts into perspective that discourses, such as the one surrounding international development are born, change and even disappear – where is the discourse on international development headed? If you’re interested where Village Earth feels we’re headed, click here.

If you’re interested in the ideas and concepts discussed in this article please check out our Online Certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Colorado State University, in particular the course Approaches to Community Development.

A Different Way of Thinking About Development, Praxis and Humanization

Sustainable Development Training

Sustainable Development Training

Around the world, wealth is measured in many ways. There is  a diversity of  definitions of what it means to be well-off, for example, the country of Bhutan has a measurement of Gross National  Happiness as opposed to the usual Gross Domestic Product as a measurement of how well a country is doing.  Development always entails looking at other worlds in terms of what they lack, and obstructs the wealth of indigenous alternatives. Instead of the never-ending concept of “development”, many of the indigenous movements of Latin America have adopted an Aymara concept called suma qamaña–living well, not better.

So then what is development when we at Village Earth use the phrase?  We see development as a process of humanization, a part of the decolonization process outlined by great thinkers like Fanon, Escobar, and Freire. It is not a paternalistic ‘we feel sorry for you’. And through a Community Praxis Model we practice “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it”. Oftentimes, do-gooders are the elite in themselves defining development and it’s their dialogue.  So how do we encourage and promote the dialogue of local indigenous conceptions of development? Through community-based solutions and social movements.

If you would like to learn more about these concepts, please join us for upcoming courses such as Community Mobilization, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, and Participatory Water Resource Management. Now enrolling through July 26, 2016.