HUMAN-CENTRED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT: USE OF VIDEO

AS A TOOL FOR PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL IN MALAWI

by Angela Zamaere

The need for a participatory, bottom-up and people-centred approach to development cannot be over-emphasized. Participation at its highest levels, according to Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (Arnstein, 1969), is citizen control, delegated power and partnership that entails getting communities involved at every stage of the project cycle.

Furthermore, everyone within the community gets involved throughout the development process; this is genuine participation. Other types or levels of participation are considered to be tokenism, whereby communities are just consulted or informed about decisions already made elsewhere.

In fact, in most communities across the world there are only a few that make decisions governing the majority. It is also a fact that women’s participation in many countries is discouraged by cultural as well as legal barriers. Recent efforts to break these barriers have met resistance and often have needed a combination of interventions. This is partly because we have been trying to dissolve boundaries that have existed over centuries in very short periods of time. However, it is mainly because we expect people who have never had an opportunity to voice their needs and views to suddenly become perfect public speakers and clearly articulate their plight in front of the very people who may have suppressed them for years.

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is an approach that seeks to encompass communities at all levels of decision-making processes in project development. It has a variety of tools that are aimed at obtaining information from participants while at the same time taking them through a journey of discovery about resources that they have, potential resources, and other strengths of the community that can be used for its development. PRA allows the community to identify and prioritize its needs in addition to making it aware of organizations, individuals and other institutions that may assist in its development. Most importantly, when a PRA has been done well, it leaves the community empowered, aware of its environment, and able to take positive action to deal with future predicaments.

Toward the end of a PRA exercise, an action plan is drawn up so that responsibilities are shared within the community. The PRA exercise usually ends at this point.

Short Falls in Follow-Up

Unless a potential donor is behind the PRA process and commits itself to help the community realize its development venture, the community has little hope of acquiring funding. The PRA process may have raised its awareness about who might be approached for assistance, but it might not know how to approach donors.

For example in Nyanthumbi village in Malawi, a team of practitioners undertook a PRA exercise in 1996 with a community at the request of the Ministry of Environmental Affairs for the Malawi/World Bank Community Environmental Micro-Projects programme. Both the community and the consultants had expectations about receiving funding from the programme. The previous year the ministry had hired a different set of consultants, who had visited the community and promised that a PRA team would visit them on request from the ministry. At the end of the PRA process in Nyanthumbi in the same year, both the community and the consultancy team felt they had developed a project that would be in line with criteria set out by the programme. They were disappointed, therefore, when the project was rejected by the ministry’s selection committee. The committee said that although the community had requested an irrigation project, the area was a potential flooding area because it had suffered a flood eight years before. Actually, for almost 11 out of 12 months in the year the area is dry and harsh with high temperatures—any visitor would see that crops are dying due to lack of rain. The selection committee, however, made its decision without visiting the area. Even though it later promised to reconsider the decision after visiting the area, several years have passed and the visit has still not taken place.

The community knows that there are other organizations that may be able to help, but it has no means of contacting them and presenting their case. If the consultants failed to convince possible donors when representing the community, chances are slim that a group of villagers can convince the donors.

Whereas communities are able to articulate their needs to some extent by the time they conclude the PRA exercise, grooming of community members for presentations to high-ranking politicians, government officials and NGOs cannot be achieved during the normal PRA process. Although communities may be able to express their sentiments, they may not be able to communicate and discuss their case with the very decision makers who might be able to assist them. Communities need ways to present their case with appropriate aids that will capture the interest of decision makers and motivate them to action.

Use of Video as a Tool for PRA

In Malawi, the use of video as a tool for PRA was introduced during a 1996-1997 survey on Incentives and Hindrances in the Use of Alternative Firewood in Malawi, jointly implemented by Natural Resource International (NRI) and the Malawi Ministry of Energy and Mining. Sue Braden, lecturer at the University of Reading (United Kingdom), trained a team of PRA practitioners to use video as a tool in participatory programme development. Its feasibility was then tested out in two of the four communities that went through PRA exercises for the survey.

An obvious advantage of using video is that it introduces individuals to themselves. People get used to seeing and hearing themselves speak and gain confidence in public. Usually the process starts when the community elects an editorial committee, which decides on shots that are allowed for public viewing or not, as well as those that may or may not be taken outside the community. The consultants at this point have input to ensure that the committee elected is gender- and culturally-balanced.

The editorial committee also establishes the fact that ultimately all material is the property of the community, and consultants cannot use information they have not been authorized to use. This a step toward gaining confidence of the community as a whole, and individual participants in particular.

Initially, PRA practitioners may opt to have separate sessions of young women, older women, young men and older men. After the sessions are filmed, they are played back and discussed separately with the different groups. Each group selects what it wants to share with another group. Group members practice presenting and defending issues in their video to a different group.

Sessions may then mix the groups into, for example, all women (young and old), and all men (young and old), or youth and adults. These again are filmed and a number of copies made. Each group watches a copy and discusses how to improve or expand on issues raised during their presentations.

Once the groups have built up confidence and are able to present points clearly and support each other in defending their issues, they are ready for the next challenge. Groups make known their stand on different issues before the entire community. At this point the consultants play a key role in setting up a code of conduct during presentations. The code might include: no interrupting when someone is presenting their issues; differences of opinion must be respected; members should be encouraged rather than discouraged, such as clapping after each presentation before asking questions or challenging; everyone must understand that diversity strengthens rather than weakens; and everyone must realize that there is never only one “right way” to do things. It is the duty of the consultants to ensure that the code is adhered to and that they lead by example.

Groups may then become more mixed and task-oriented. At this point the focus is on community issues rather than personal, individual or group predicaments. Therefore problems are raised and debated with the full and equal participation of all.

Once the community has agreed on an action plan, the editorial team sits down to decide how best to present their problems in a 20- to 30-minute film. It determines what shots need to be included that will support and best portray the community’s plight, and how to spell out or defend its objectives. For example, scenes of agricultural land with crops that are obviously doing poorly in an area that is bare of trees and natural vegetation provide visual justification for an integrated environmental and agricultural programme. It is always best to have narratives in the local language to enable the community to understand and explain the contents in future. For the sake of those who may be interested in the film but do not speak the local language, sub-titles in English can be included in some tapes. This ensures full ownership of the final product by the community.

Advantages of Video as a Tool

For countries that have national television, video gives a community the conduit to share a little bit of themselves with the rest of the country. This may also attract the attention of well-wishers and others who may be able to assist the community. Further, it raises awareness that all within the nation have a responsibility to aid those less fortunate. Most importantly, issues that are captured on tape are more self-explanatory since evidence of the problem is visual. Therefore the community has a tool that can be used again and again in the future, and that others can show on its behalf. The process itself leaves the community in a position to plan similar presentations in the future, and it learns to involve and listen to all its members. Communities are also left in a position to make joint decisions on projects they want to undertake, and to conduct the process of deciding about coordination.

Finally, with video communities have a permanent record for future reference and for different forums they may organize or be invited to attend.

Disadvantages of Video as a Tool

Video is costly and needs experienced camera persons. Equipment in countries such as Malawi is scarce; when available it costs exorbitant prices. Coverage in countries without national television is limited to meetings or workshops. Even at these types of forums, it is not always possible to obtain the necessary equipment.

A PRA team that wants to use video as a tool needs to carry extra equipment on top of its already bulky PRA materials. Although there are increasingly smaller brands of video recorders, the team still needs to carry numerous tapes, a video machine and video monitors. In addition, travelling to remote localities that have no electricity means the team must carry generators and extra fuel.

Summary

The idea of using video in development has been introduced and has tremendous potential for a human-centred and bottom-up approach to programme development.

Using video as a tool for PRA is an example of how technology can be used to promote development, especially at the grassroots level. Perhaps unique to this technology is the fact that it can be used by both the literate and illiterate. Whereas with other technologies learning might be internal with benefits apparent for the community after a long period of time, this is one technology that brings changes to the community soon after exposure. Its direct fruits are also felt when the community receives support in response to presentation of its video. Just the discovery itself and links established during development of a video goes a long way in boosting people’s confidence and ability to achieve their objectives. Indeed, video as a tool for PRA takes the notion of participation a step further and adds a whole new dimension to participatory rural appraisal.

References

Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” in Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4): 216-224.

Voices from Africa no. 9