in Tool 4: Assessment of Reconstruction Needs
and Resources. Care needs to be taken with all
participatory approaches that they are done well
and in the right spirit. If development organisations
do not commit enough time, use inexperienced
staff as facilitators, or do not build the findings into
their programmes, communities can become very
disillusioned.
Communities in developing countries,
particularly in rural areas, already have long
traditions of planning and carrying out work for
the benefit of the community as a whole. This
requires co-operation and agreement. It has
been given a special word in some countries, for
example damayan or bayanihan in the Philippines,
Shramadana in Sri Lanka, or Gotong Rojong in
Indonesia.
Community Action Planning
The best participatory tools for settlement
development, and practices from experiences such
as micro-planning and Planning for Real, have been
brought together in the Community Action Planning
(CAP) methodology. Much of this is available online
on the communityplanning.net website and in the
handbook (Wates, 2000)
The application of CAP to post-disaster
reconstruction dates largely from the aftermath of
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and even then
it was not widely used. It has wide relevance at
all stages of the reconstruction process, and can
cover a broad range of issues including livelihoods,
raising awareness of disaster risks, and disaster
preparedness.
The main differences in applying CAP in a
disaster context (compared to ‘normal’ development
contexts) are:
• The existence of greater and more urgent needs.
Instead of prioritising only 2-3 activities, as
many as 10 might be given priority.
• The difficulty of using participatory methods
effectively, as the communities are often
traumatised and need more time to re-establish
their social relationships and networks.
• The availability of more resources, so larger
scale activities can be carried out
• The presence of more development agencies in
the area, which can make planning and co-
ordination between all the stakeholders more
complicated
• That a higher priority may be given to disaster
mitigation measures such as flood defences
In terms of Arnstein’s levels of participation,
CAP is usually around level 6: partnership. This
is probably an appropriate level to aim for in
terms of post-disaster reconstruction. The levels
of delegated power (the best known example of
which is participatory budgeting, used successfully
in Brazilian cities such as Curitiba); and citizen
power where people take charge of their own
resources, can be considered long-term objectives
of development. Aiming for partnership among
the reconstruction stakeholders including
communities, NGOs, local authorities, the
government’s reconstruction agency, architects,
building materials suppliers etc. would make a real
difference to the quality and sustainability of the
reconstruction process.
What can be covered in CAP?
CAP can cover many of the key elements
necessary for successful and sustainable post-
disaster reconstruction. Its overall aim is to assist
communities to plan their rebuilding, ensuring that
the response from development agencies is in line
with their expressed needs. Within this, it can:
• Ensure the active participation of vulnerable
groups, giving special attention to the disabled,
and to those who were tenants or squatters.
• Include a thorough assessment of risks, damage,
needs and resources, as the basis on which
plans can be built
• Tackle the issue of relocation, ensuring affected
communities have the final say about whether
and where to relocate
• Address the issue of future vulnerability to
disasters through the reconstruction process,
and through developing contingency and
preparedness plans
• Identify opportunities for rebuilding livelihoods
and local markets
• Prioritise environmental sustainability in
recovery and reconstruction
• Be the basis for participatory monitoring and
evaluation, and allow for flexibility in the
implementation of the plans
Principles for CAP
The basis of CAP is to achieve consensus about
what needs to be done, and a sense of common
purpose in implementing the plans. The planned
actions need to be achievable with the resources
available. Everyone needs to approach the process
knowing they have something to contribute, and
something to learn. If carried out in this spirit,
it can be the basis for good collaboration and
partnerships between communities, NGOs and local
authorities.
In applying the kinds of principles common to
participatory approaches (see box page 3), it is
important to recognise that inequalities can still
distort the process. Those with most authority,
power and resources can become dominant in
driving the agenda and producing the outcomes
most favourable for themselves. This can include
2