Does Local Knowledge Count in NGO-driven Community Development Processes? The case of participatory approaches in water projects in Kitui District, Kenya

The last two decades have witnessed a proliferation and a continued professionalization of NGOs in not only Kitui district but the so called developing countries. These NGOs have been critical in facilitating local communities build capacity, reduce inequalities and alleviate poverty (Esman and Upholf 1984, Fowler 2000, Thomas and Allen 2000). This has been enabled by embracing participatory approaches which recognize that the poor know better their socio-economic situations and are no longer passive in development processes (Berner and Phillips 2005, Long 2001). Generally there is no NGO in the 21st century which does not profess to utilize bottom-up approaches which recognize the importance of local knowledge and community involvement (Stirrat 1996). PRA is one of the consultative approaches employed by NGOs to aid local communities in sharing local knowledge (Chambers 1992). However in reality the rhetoric might be too pronounced than the practice as marginalization of local knowledge is one of the key problems facing contemporary community development. Taking the case of water projects in Kitui District in the marginal easterly province, there are many cases of failed projects which attest to concealed or blatant marginalization of local knowledge as illustrated in the Kanziku brackish water case. In a world reeling with scientific imponderables and stereotypes, indigenous perspectives are viewed as inferior to western, external and science based knowledge (Heneriko 2000, Ocholla 2007). This paper analyses how NGOs in Kitui District in the process of facilitating local communities to realize water projects, identify, validate and integrate local knowledge in the development process. It posits to do this by following the processes of participation (consultation and contribution) and community organizing. It looks on how the donor- NGO relationship is structured, how COs relate with communities, and whose voice in the community counts and implications to local knowledge integration. This is supported by primary data collected in the field from FGDs, key informants, COs, and other NGO officers plus my own experience as a CO with one of the NGOs. The data is analyzed and discussed against the concepts of Community, Community Development, Participation, Local Knowledge, Community Management and Empowerment. From the findings it is clear that Kitui communities hold immense local knowledge (environmental knowledge, beliefs and values) and NGOs have recognized its importance and embrace participation and its off-springs (PRA, PLA) to capture local ideas and solutions. However the process is riddled with structural rigidities that emanate from the NGO-donor patron-client relationship hence not flexible enough to permit integration of local knowledge. Further the COs fail to transcend their professional biases and attitudes hence lead to ‘facipulation’ and marginalization of local knowledge. Also communities are not homogenous as sometimes depicted by NGOs and the process is hijacked by the powerful and dominated by men hence the voices of the poor remain unheard. In general the whole process is expert-driven and outsider-driven hence more often than not is structured to serve outsider interests with vague reasons for integrating local knowledge. However all is not lost. In fact NGOs are doing the rights things but they are not doing things right. What is needed is readjustment of methodologies and relaxation of donor conditionalities to make it more conducive and flexible for local knowledge integration. After all external intervention is necessary to alleviate the water shortages and if the community is left to their own devices (Berner and Phillips 2005) they would be worse off.