Bottom-Up vs Top-Down

In my last post, I discussed a brief history of development practices, including the emergence of post-colonial development. Today I will talk about different bottom-up and top-down approaches in relation to gender inclusion and equality in water resources in Africa. 

Top-Down Approaches

Top-down approaches, as seen in my last post, are those where governments, development institutions or NGOs attempt to create policies and programmes that will help provide water resources to communities. However, the main issue here is that they sometimes miss the point. By not talking to the people in the community there is a lack of understanding about who needs the resources what they need them for. Specifically, when it comes to marginalised groups. 

Having said this, if governments or development institutions are committed to helping those marginalised groups they have the power to do so. For example, governments can change the law in regards to marital property rights, inheritance, land ownership and labour. The most common areas in which women are discriminated against (African Development Bank Group, 2015). Kenya has passed a number of significant pieces of legislation that addresses gender equity in government representation, decentralization of water resource management to local entities, and recognition of water as a basic right which shows the benefits that top-down approaches can have (Coulter et al., 2019). Similarly, in South Africa, policies such as ‘women in water’ awards and a bursary for young women to take up careers in the water sector have promoted the involvement and empowerment of women (UN Women, 2015). 

   Source: WaterAid

Furthermore, WaterAid started a project in Bashnet, Tanzania to provide water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities. They had introduced a strict equity and inclusion framework in 2010 where the primary aim was to 'mainstream gender'. This means constantly inquiring about gender dynamics as to further understand how male and female roles are perceived and experienced (Ndesamburo et al., 2012). They used awareness-raising practice to help people not only in the community but in low-levels of government understand what it feels like to be excluded and marginalised ((Ndesamburo et al., 2012).  This actively engaged all participants of the project from leaders down to locals. WaterAid found that applying their 'gender mainstreaming' approach was successful but required constant programming and documentation to be aware of what they are learning. This exemplifies how NGOs even though they are outsiders, with the correct intentions and frameworks set out they can successfully help communities improve WASH facilities ensuring that women and men can both benefit from the available water resources.

Bottom-Up Approaches

On the other hand, bottom-up approaches are carried out by NGOs or community-based organisations that aim to include all stakeholders to create inclusive user-friendly resources. Much of this is done through participatory development approaches where stakeholders and citizens are involved in the decision-making progress (Coulter et al., 2019). 

One common bottom-up approach being used for creating equitable water resources is water-user associations (WUAs). A WUA is generally made up of members from a local area who play a critical role in controlling water resources and promoting integrated water resource management (IWRM) at a community level (Aarnoudse et al., 2018). This means it is usually run by locals and doesn't involve NGOs or government. Therefore in order to be inclusive, there needs to be strict rules around participatory design and being a multi-stakeholder platform otherwise there is a risk that certain individuals or groups will take control. One successful example of participatory design in WUAs is the Messica Irrigation Pilot Project in Mozambique. The aim of the project was to produce a farmer-led irrigation system covering 50 hectares. Before starting the design process the potential water users, or farmers, were identified to ensure adequate representation. Meetings then took place with engineers, a management committee, and the farmers to come up with a plan that suited everyone. The project had a successful outcome with farmers being introduced to new technology (Aarnoudse et al., 2018).

So, what's best?

Firstly, it is important to note that both strategies have their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, when carried out correctly, as discussed, there are major benefits that can come out of bottom-up and top-down approaches. Therefore, I believe that if inclusion and equality are kept central to successful programmes that both approaches working together is the best. Top-down approaches need to leave space for bottom-up approaches to work effectively, therefore with an increase of the number of women as ministers of water and the environment this also needs to be felt in communities with women being empowered to be involved in local programmes (UN Women, 2015).