324
have to depend on experts from outside their community at a higher cost than would
be required to train a person from Chipala. This had the effect of limiting capacity
building within their community as no one had been taught new skills. The BVC
and fish processors’ groups particularly pointed out that the project did not honour
their promise of loans to fish processors. This complaint was quickly rejected by the
service providers during an interface meeting that was neither planned nor communicated. The community asserted that the project had not achieved anything by way
of value addition. The community had expected linkages to markets, exchange visits to areas where the facilities were being successfully used, as well as packaging
and branding of their products. Other activities such as value addition to the products were not achieved because the dryer was not used for long and thus issues of
packaging or marketing were not explored. One of the service providers even
showed pictures of branded products from Vinthenga where the dryer is in use.
3.6 Adoption
The indicator was only identified by the service providers, under which they gave a
score of 1. The issues raised under this indicator however were raised by the community under other indicators: consultation, ownership, value addition, technology
testing, and tent location.
4 Action Plan: The Resolution
Following the discussion of scores, the two parties were asked to draw up an action
plan that would best rectify the problems discussed, to prevent such conflicts from
recurring. The action plan is presented in Table 3. The action plan even though
hypothetical was planned as realistically as possible.
We find that the community at Chipala would have benefited from using the
facilities had the CSC been used during the project, ideally midterm. The resolution
would have allowed for reallocation of funds to activities that the community and
the implementers, through the CSC process, realised were crucial in introducing
technological innovations in a community. In as much as participatory management
planning is time-consuming and costly, we note that such processes result in building the management capacity of community members, as well as implementers. The
prioritisation of issues in the resolution (Table 3) reveals that the community considers participatory management planning as key for them to assume ownership of
development initiatives. We consider participatory approaches as value for money,
unlike creating a ‘white elephant’. The data shows that despite the enactment of
policies and legislation on devolution of authority and decentralisation, the norms
of centralised management remain deep-rooted in government departments
(Chinsinga 2005), as well as in rural communities. Thus, participatory approaches
F. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.
have to depend on experts from outside their community at a higher cost than would
be required to train a person from Chipala. This had the effect of limiting capacity
building within their community as no one had been taught new skills. The BVC
and fish processors’ groups particularly pointed out that the project did not honour
their promise of loans to fish processors. This complaint was quickly rejected by the
service providers during an interface meeting that was neither planned nor communicated. The community asserted that the project had not achieved anything by way
of value addition. The community had expected linkages to markets, exchange visits to areas where the facilities were being successfully used, as well as packaging
and branding of their products. Other activities such as value addition to the products were not achieved because the dryer was not used for long and thus issues of
packaging or marketing were not explored. One of the service providers even
showed pictures of branded products from Vinthenga where the dryer is in use.
3.6 Adoption
The indicator was only identified by the service providers, under which they gave a
score of 1. The issues raised under this indicator however were raised by the community under other indicators: consultation, ownership, value addition, technology
testing, and tent location.
4 Action Plan: The Resolution
Following the discussion of scores, the two parties were asked to draw up an action
plan that would best rectify the problems discussed, to prevent such conflicts from
recurring. The action plan is presented in Table 3. The action plan even though
hypothetical was planned as realistically as possible.
We find that the community at Chipala would have benefited from using the
facilities had the CSC been used during the project, ideally midterm. The resolution
would have allowed for reallocation of funds to activities that the community and
the implementers, through the CSC process, realised were crucial in introducing
technological innovations in a community. In as much as participatory management
planning is time-consuming and costly, we note that such processes result in building the management capacity of community members, as well as implementers. The
prioritisation of issues in the resolution (Table 3) reveals that the community considers participatory management planning as key for them to assume ownership of
development initiatives. We consider participatory approaches as value for money,
unlike creating a ‘white elephant’. The data shows that despite the enactment of
policies and legislation on devolution of authority and decentralisation, the norms
of centralised management remain deep-rooted in government departments
(Chinsinga 2005), as well as in rural communities. Thus, participatory approaches
F. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.