community contracts, or cash-for-work programmes.
Larger-scale projects such as highways, airports
and hospitals are too complex and affect too many
people to be designed using this type of CAP.
Outline of a CAP workshop
Only a very brief outline of the process is presented
here. For further information, please refer to the
resources below, in particular the UN-Habitat
People’s Process manual. The overall output of
the 1-2 day workshop is a reconstruction and
development plan for the neighbourhood containing
drawings, models and decisions taken. The plan
needs to be in a format that can be used by the
Local Authorities and development agencies to
draw up specifications and assign budgets.
Workshop sessions can include:
• Opening. Introductions of all participants and
brief explanation about how the workshop will
be conducted, and what it expects to achieve.
• Social mapping showing the plan of the
settlement before (from memory and old
photographs if available) and after the
disaster. The map can show who owned what,
who lived where, and who did what where
(livelihood activity). If the map was already
done as part of an earlier needs assessment,
then the information just needs to be clarified
and confirmed. Satellite or aerial images, if
available, can also help with this.
• Problem identification. Small group discussions
of the problems faced in building back from the
disaster. The groups report back, and an overall
list is made of problems, and for whom the
problem is applicable.
• Problem prioritisation. The whole group together
discusses which problems should be prioritised
and therefore included in the plan.
• Identifying strategies to address the prioritised
problems. Small groups suggest activities
to address the problems. The objective is to
brainstorm a large number of activities.
• Options and trade-offs. To reduce the number
activities, the whole group assesses each one in
terms of how realistic it is given the time and
resources available.
• Planning for implementation. Each small group
is given a set of activities, as agreed in the
previous session. They discuss who does what,
where and when.
• Monitoring plan. The whole group together
discuss how the implementation of the actions
will be monitored, and by whom.
• Settlement map. If desired, this is a good point
in the process for participants to produce a final
map of how the settlement will look after the
agreed activities have been completed.
Social mapping exercise, Bangladesh
• Presentation to the wider community. The
facilitator and community representatives
explain to the wider community what they have
done, what was agreed, how the list of agreed
activities was decided, and what happens next.
If the audience raise significant objections, or
provide additional ideas, a shorter meeting of
the workshop participants might be needed the
following day to incorporate these ideas into the
plan.
As with all participatory processes, there is room
for flexibility. In Planning for Real, participants
build a scale model of the settlement using
coloured cards. In the post-disaster situation this
could show destroyed or damaged buildings and
infrastructure. People then individually, or in small
groups, place suggestion cards on the model of
what they want to see improved at what place.
People are encouraged to discuss these ideas as
they work on the model and decide which ones to
keep and which to discard. The agreed activities
are divided into those which should be tackled now,
with others tackled ‘soon’ or ‘later’.
After the workshop, timely follow-up and
communication is important. The community
representatives need to act as a channel for
information between communities and development
agencies. They also need to keep the momentum
and enthusiasm going if things seem to go quiet
after the initial workshop. Messages posted on
community noticeboards and short meetings can
keep residents informed on progress.
• Before construction work starts, other meetings
can be held to explain to residents about the
process for community contracting or cash-for-
work. Community contracting works best where
community groups are already well organised
and have a diversity of skills. If this is not
the case, cash-for-work is a better option. For
more information on cash-for-work see Tool 6:
Integrating Livelihoods.
5