Realising Participatory Community Development in the Niger Delta.

The training programme "Realising Participatory Community Development in the Niger Delta" was designed by the Institute for Sustainable Development for the Micro Projects Programme in Bayelsa, Delta and Rivers States (MPP3), funded by the Commission of the European Community (CEC). The report introduces the core issues covered by the course as well as the key learning points and skills gained from the training. After completing the course, it is hoped that the course participants will possess a wider range of skills and understanding of development processes for the design, delivery and facilitation of a sustainable community development programme.

Download the full document

Three workshops were conducted at the 'living universities' of Akassa and Eastern Obolo and were designed to addresses critical elements in community development including institutional development, capacity building and participation skills. Learning objectives were achieved through a combination of theoretical presentations, participatory learning activities, practical exercises and field excursions.

The five day schedule followed a logical sequence that covered key issues in community development. The daily schedule involved presentations and learning activities in the mornings and field visits or practical exercises in the afternoons.

The objectives of the course were:

1. Provide an Overview of Community Development Foundations, with reference to institutional roles, responsibilities, structure and functions.
2. Build skills for facilitating community participation and self-mobilisation.
3. Provide a better understanding of the importance of Capacity Building for effective community institutional development.
4. Provide opportunities for interaction and shared learning with community institutions, community members and senior staff of Community Development Foundations.
5. Provide NGOs with a better understanding in the design of strategic approaches to community-led development for the mitigation of conflict.

Field visits were designed to compliment the information presented and provide opportunities for community members involved in the planning, implementation and management of community development interventions to interact with the learners. It also linked the theoretical elements to the success and failure of actual development projects. Participants were able to question community members about both the identification and implementation process used in various community projects situated within the study area. Success or failure of each project could be linked to strengths and weaknesses of the participatory process that was followed. In addition, participants in Akassa could also experience the direct consequence of inter-community conflict over 'host' community status.

Participants were also required to practise participation tools and skills through a mini Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) organised within local communities. This allowed participants to practise PRA tools in a real-life environment.

Participants in the course were mainly project officers, project managers and field officers involved in the identification, organisation and supervision of small scale infrastructure projects. Many participants had some experience in conducting a needs assessment and facilitating community contribution of land, materials, labour and other necessary resources. The training provided therefore proved very popular in introducing a much broader perspective to their work. Some participants had experience of issues and problems raised by during the workshop. Participants commented that, in retrospect, the approaches, skills and knowledge learnt could have assisted them to either prevent or mitigate problems or conflict situations that they had previously encountered. According to one participant "this training should have been provided at the start of the programme instead of the end" .

Feedback provided by the participants was generally very high. Many showed great commitment to transferring lessons learned back to their workplace and communities. "The training was interesting; so much has been learnt for the five days. All what I have learnt will be translated to my organisation" said one participant. Participants were asked to evaluate each morning and afternoon session of the programme according to relevance, level of participation and quality of instruction. Most participants rated the training programme above expectation. In addition, very positive comments were made about the programme. Comments such as " the program should be spread far and wide especially among all the Niger Delta communities" reflected the fact that many participants were greatly impressed by the level of organisation within the communities. Others also reflected on the fact that time was limiting factor and limited the scope for additional discussion and in-depth analysis, " The programme should last not less than 5 whole days, i.e. arrive Sunday evening and depart Saturday morning".

Many of these comments also form recommendations to MPP3 management unit. Additional recommendations we have are:

1/. MPP3 should encourage more of this type of training.

The ISD is able to facilitate a wide range of participatory workshops in field. The curriculum developed by the ISD covers all the key areas of knowledge required for effective participatory development. Furthermore, the benefit of conducting community development training programmes in the field justifies itself - participants become inspired to effect real change for the benefit of society.

2/. A training programme on integrated training should be provided to all organisations partnering in the MPP9 programme.

The management of the upcoming MPP9 project should be strongly encourage to locate as much as possible, all of their training on integrated community development and community development skills in the 'living universities'