This document contains de analytic synthesis of three casestudies:
The objective of the first experience was to improve the watersupply conditions for 6 organisations in the districts of Ventanillaand Puente Piedra of Lima (Peru); the second aimed to encourage theurbanisation dynamics through joint activities of the localgovernment and the inhabitants of the peripheral zone of Fortaleza,Brazil; and the third experience aimed to improve the sanitation ofAltos de Menga, a squatter settlement in Cali (Colombia), throughjoint activities between the local institutions and the community,with the help of an University Research Centre as facilitator.
The actors who participated in the process were the following:
1. The Community participated in each one of the initiatives. Itparticipated in the technology - selection process: In the Peruviancase, by discussing the technological conceptions proposed by the NGOCIPUR, and contributing to their modification; in the Colombian case,the community designed the technology, which was later reviewed bytechnicians in the institutions. In each one of the initiatives, thecommunity participated in the construction by providing labour andmaterials, and in Peru and Colombia, they also supervised the workundertaken by agents. In Colombia, the community also evaluated theproject. In each one of these experiences, the community participatedin operations and the maintenance of infrastructures.
2. The Local Government participated in each one of theexperiences through various institutions. In Peru, this participationwas unsatisfactory, and limited to a logistical support in theexecution of the works; in Colombia, the public service institutionof the Municipality participated actively to the entire process, andin the case of Brazil, the urbanisation project was part of agovernmental programme.
3. The NGOs played the role of facilitator in Peru (CIPUR) andBrazil (CEARAH Periferia). In Peru and Colombia, the NGOs MISEREORand Plan International supported the inhabitants through the fundingof infrastructures.
4. In Colombia, a University Research Institute, the CINARA of theUniversity del Valle, was the facilitator of the process.
Alternative technologies were used: in Peru and Brazil, standpostswere built for water supply. In Brazil and Colombia, non-conventionaldrainage systems were used: in Parque Havaí they were built bygroup of households, with filters for solid elements, anaerobicfilters and a system for the chloration of water. In Colombia, thereis also the RAS system (Simplified Drainage Network, which reducesthe demand on the urban drainage systems), and a rainwater drainagesystem.
The projects achieved their expected results: in Peru, the publicstandposts serve some 7800 people; in Brazil, land was made availablefor the construction of housing for 150 families, and in Colombia,the non-conventional drainage system serves 143 families.
The main problem was the initial opposition by the population tothe use of alternative technologies (and in the Colombian case alsofrom the institutions). In each case, it was also difficult to ensurethat the local authorities keep their promises. In Peru, promisesmade to the population during election campaigns were also difficultto keep once elections were passed.
The main impact of these experiences is the strengthening ofmanagement capacities of the grassroots organisations. In Brazil andColombia, these initiatives allowed the organisations and populationto work with public institutions, in which they had little trustbefore the project. Considering the fact that these experiences aimto improve water supply or sanitation, let us hope that they willalso have an impact on health, in particular that of children. TheColombian and Brazilian experiences had a specific impact on theevacuation of human excreta and waste waters.
The main lesson learned from this experience is that communitiesand institutions can work together with the help of a facilitator forthe dialogue process. Each actor can assume his or her role withresponsibility, and without stepping on anyone else's toes.Furthermore, technological solutions must not be the starting pointfor project, but rather we must find organisational mechanisms andprocesses which will allow us to arrive at these solutions.