Planning for Real is a set of community-building tools which has been developed over the last 20 years, first in the UK, then in various parts of Europe and the US, and currently on trial in parts of Africa, India, South-East Asia and Latin America. The article focuses on the use of the method in urban areas where all sense of community has been lost, and where there is profound mutual distrust between the residents and the local officials. Planning for Real allows people to explore possibilities, sort out options, rank priorities, share out responsibilities and set out a plan of action. It is also a strategy designed to establish common ground between 'Us' and 'Them' as a basis for a combined operation to create a working neighbourhood.
This training manual for innovative, community-based shelter training programmes is the result of a partnership which has developed since 1991 between the People's Dialogue, a national network linking representatives from illegal and informal settlements in South Africa, and a group of three organisations in India. These are SPARC, an NGO working broadly in the area of housing and community development; the National Slum Dwellers Federation; and Mahila Milan, a federation of women's collectives. The first part of the manual describes the participation of the South African delegation in a shelter training programme in India. Part two focuses on a follow-up training conducted by the South African delegates in their own country, with the support of the Indian trainers. Forty leaders of the Federations of the Homeless Poor in South Africa took part as they assisted one township to explore their shelter options. The final section reflects on the kinds of methodology followed in the process and provides guidelines for training.
This article describes 'Development Planning for Real', a new approach for integrating participation into the uban planning process. It has grown out of 'Planning for Real', which is discussed in the article by Tony Gibson in the same issue of RRA Notes. Pilot trials of the approach are being held in a number of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Early pilot results from Cambodia, Tanzania and Zambia suggest that the approach can be successfully used to generate a community-controlled planning process in both rural and urban contexts, and in a variety of societies and cultures.
This edition of 'Dialogue', the magazine of Homeless International, focuses on community exchanges as a learning process. These have been transformed into practices that have begun to change the way that development in informal settlements takes place. South-South exchanges have been important in this respect, and knowledge is now being shared in the UK through North-South exchange. The magazine looks at some of the exchanges that have taken place in more depth, as well giving some govenments perspectives on working in partnership.
This article describes the participatory method æBarangay Development Planning through Participatory Situational Analysis, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (BDP-Participatory SAPIME) used by ECPG (Empowering Civic Participation in Governance), an NGO working on village-level with local governance in the Philippines. The article gives a brief background to legislation and structures related to peopleÆs participation in governance, and goes on to explain the methodology the work of ECPG in Quezon City to improve urban participatory local development planning. In the BDP-Participatory SAPIME community members themselves identify and analyse their problems, the situation within which these problems are embedded, and the possible solutions. The key elements of the methodology are presented (social preparation and capacity-building interventions; multi-sector assemblies; preparation and mobilisation) together with the planning methodology. The article gives account of reactions from the community regarding the situation analysis, the process of participatory planning and implementation of the plan; it also looks at reactions from the local government. Some of the main issues and challenges encountered, and the possibilities of replication are discussed. It is concluded that the experience shows that the system is workable and practical and could be replicated in other villages (barangays). However, all the villages participating in this pilot were poor urban communities and the authors consider that another set of pilots may have to be conducted in dissimilar communities so that a more comprehensive set of guidelines and performance indicators can be developed.