Demystifying Participatory Community

This book is one of the contemporary efforts today in search of effective strategies for poverty alleviation in Africa in the spirit of Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). It discusses a hybrid of ideas, methods and tools which have been tested with significant results in facilitating authentic people’s development. These include distinct methodological streams such as Development Education and Leadership Teams in Action (DELTA); Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME); Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) among others.

tory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) among others.

Introduction
A story is told of a peasant farmer who used to rise up early in the morning to go to the swamps to dig out arrowroots for his family. He would uproot only enough for the day and replenish by planting a few more. He would then relax on a rocking chair, watching birds of the air as the sun rises in its golden splendour. Meanwhile, he slowly licked his honey bottle. This he loved to do everyday at the wee hours of the morning. He spent the rest of the day visiting with his friends and fellow peasants, organising lobby groups to advocate for the preservation of swamps and peasants’ right of access to the swamps where arrow-roots do best. They would lobby against attempts by industrialists to grab swamps and pollute them with their waste dump. The peasants have initiated a peasants’ marketing association to bargain for fair prices for their small surplus produce. They have also initiated a micro-savings and credit scheme to build a foundation for collective financial security. At the end of the day the peasant retires home in the evening where each member of his family tells his or her story about the excitements and challenges of the day.

However, one early morning a friend passed by and found the villager relaxing on his rocking chair licking his bottle of honey as usual. He had already harvested enough arrow-roots for his family for the day and a small bundle for the peasants’ market association. The friend wondered and asked:

Friend - Why are you so relaxed this early when you should be working?
Peasant - I have already finished working.
Friend - But you have only harvested a few roots.
Peasant - Yes, and these are enough for my family today and for the coop.
Friend - Don’t be foolish. You should uproot more and sell it in the village to make money.
Peasant - And then?
Friend - Then uproot even more, sell more and make more money.
Peasant - And then?
Friend - Are you that dumb? You will employ people to plant more arrow-roots and then uproot more for you, even from the neighbourhood, and then you’ll take all that to the market, and make lots of money.
Peasant - And then?
Friend - Ofcourse at this point you can even start a processing industry, buy vehicles for distribution, and even export canned product. Come to think of it! You will certainly mint money and become rich!
Peasant - And then?
Friend - Of course you will now be rich and famous. You will be able to sit on a rocking chair and enjoy life, as you watch birds of the air fly past, licking a bottle of honey with a smile.
Peasant - And what did you find me doing when you came here? Do I need to go through all that before I can enjoy life with my bottle of honey?
(Story told by a Catholic Priest in charge of Justice and Peace Commission in one of prominent Catholic Parishes of Nairobi)

This story raises some fundamental questions. What is quality development in the true sense of the word? What constitutes quality life? Do we live to eat or do we eat to live? What are the most critical ingredients for poverty alleviation?

The story, however, is not intended to create the wrong impression that we should dismiss great ambitions in life or that we should not ‘work hard’ enough. Certainly we should have ambitions and toil for them. In fact, it has been suggested that an ambition worth of praise should be the one that is so ambitious that anyone who hears about it must conclude that it was bound to fail unless God was in it! Life without ambition is like parachute without an air-current, which is bound to collapse – for lack of inflation. However, the story warns us against the temptation of resorting to the adoration of those ambitions at the cost of relationships that guarantee quality life. We need to appreciate life as a gift, regardless of our present circumstances and live it to its fulness. It is on the basis of such a positive attitude to life that we can effectively begin to restore and preserve our sense of self-worth and respect, as well as self-confidence in ourselves and what we can do to transform any undesirable circumstances in our lives. Ideally, that is what quality development is all about.

Our challenge in community development is how to bring about this fulness of life against the reality of abject poverty afflicting the populations. Various methodologies and approaches have been experimented in the last two or three decades in an effort to attain effective poverty alleviation through community-based development initiatives. Emphasis has been laid on institutional and human resource capacity building at both organisational and target community levels. Management teams operating at various levels of development organisations have diligently sought to perfect institutional strengthening towards greater efficiency and effectiveness. Participatory assessments and people oriented planning processes have taken the centre stage towards this end. Local communities have been made to go through such processes as Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA) leading to milliards of Community Action Plans, Participatory Action Research (PAR), Participatory Indicator Monitoring (PIM); and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) among others. All of these are aimed at consolidating and enhancing local capacities towards self-management in their development initiatives.

The main purpose of this book is to establish in which ways methodological experiments have borne fruits in attaining capacity building for effective and sustainable participatory development. This is in contrast to the conventional ‘expert’ led development approaches, which have failed miserably in the war against poverty. In particular, the book focuses on the efficacy of participatory methodologies in causing authentic people’s development.

Admittedly, empowering community development processes are complex and call for a number of factors, which have all along either been taken for granted or overlooked altogether. It is for this reason some scholars have suggested that a holistic development process should of necessity concern itself with human needs that transcend physical factors (MaxNeef, et al. 1991). There is no dispute on the fact that, until recently, community development has nearly exclusively been understood as an effort to meet people’s basic needs. These basic needs have more often than not been limited to physical needs such as food, shelter, good health, and water. But now, it has been established that denying somebody his or her right to self-respect and right to sense of importance, right to freedom and participation, and right to human dignity, is as bad as denying that person right to existence.

Our hypothesis in this book holds that participatory methodologies are inclined to be more efficacious in enabling people attain a multitude of these less tangible human needs. Acquisition of physical needs is seen as a by-product of a holistic human development process. Participatory methodologies are effective tools for causing development by the people and for the people. They are empowering processes that will enable people make informed choices and decisions based on collective analysis.

Key Issues of Focus in Contemporary Debate on Community Development
Introduction
It is doubtful as to whether there is anybody known in human history to have stopped change. Infamous dictators of history are only known to have postponed or delayed it. Change will certainly take its natural course. The option we have is either to be reactive or proactive to change. One will either choose to be proactive by initiating, causing, and managing change or reactive by only managing the effects of change as it comes. It is believed that participatory methodologies represent a force of an idea whose time has come. How can we therefore hasten the impact and optimise on the benefits of participatory methodologies by being more proactive than reactive?

Three development paradigms will be discussed below. The Conventional Development paradigm often referred to as Modernisation Development, will be highlighted as an approach whose impact has left a lot to be desired. Social Welfare paradigm will be discussed as a rescue mission for the casualties of the conventional paradigm. Participatory Development paradigm will be discussed at some length as ‘an idea whose time has come’. There will be an attempt, both now and in the chapters to follow, to draw out insights and ideas from available literature on empirical experiences with participatory development approaches.

The problem is that a number of professionals and institutions who advocate participatory methodologies tend to peter-out when it comes to the practical defence and application of the methodologies. We fail to prove our conversion and commitment (Feuerstein, 1986). We tend to disown the same beliefs we advocate. This way, we become unreliable and undependable. Consequently, we can hardly be trusted to sustain efforts to promote genuine participation and people’s empowerment. At best, we choose to apply participatory methodologies on ad hoc basis, “marked by attempts to reform the existing conventional approaches in such a way that they become ‘more’ participatory” (Oakley, 1990: 3).

This book is built on the assumption that people’s level of commitment to a cause that calls for collective intervention, is directly symmetrical to the level at which the people themselves are involved in the initial decision-making and planning stages of that intervention. The more involved or consulted people are, the greater will be their commitment in the implementation and sustenance of the project involved. In other words, people will sacrifice more for what they have played part to create, than for blue print plans handed down to them for implementation from ‘experts’. That is the hypothesis the book seeks to pursue and establish.

It is the perception of the author that knowledge is still limited on the extent to which participatory methodologies are efficacious in specific contexts given the polarised realities of complex NGOs who seek to collaborate with the less sophisticated community based organisations within a country. How can one effectively promote participatory methodologies for instance where the supremacy of modern technology, intra-organisational competition, interpersonal conflicts, and individual ambitions tend to outweigh concerted efforts for collective creativity, cooperation for common good, collective ambition and not the least, teamwork?

The Questions
“Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton was the one who took the courage and the interest to ask why” (Honor Books, 1997).
A near hysterical reaction to participatory approaches to community development is currently sweeping across major developmental institutions and programmes in Africa. This is often loaded with the promise that there will be a difference this time round in efforts to alleviate poverty among the marginalised masses. The approaches have come in different fashions and packages. More often than not, these packages are brewed in the ‘one-third-world’ (read ‘first world’) and handed down to the ‘two-thirds-world’ (read ‘third world’) countries in form of published materials and through development consultants ‘approved’ by the ‘brewers’. Several questions can be advanced at this juncture in an effort to isolate the concerns of this book.

• What development paradigms have dominated the scene over the decades and what have been their strengths and inadequacies? – Discussed in Chapters One and Two.

• Why this sudden upsurge of interest in participatory methodologies in development circles and in particular in Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Community Based Organisations (CBOs)? – Discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

• Can participatory methodologies still pass today as ‘an idea whose time has come’ as opposed to the more conventional methodologies whose emphasis is delivery of services, exotic technology and development approaches characterized by top-down planning? – Discussed in Chapter Three.

• What are the common philosophical trends, principles, and factors cutting across the array of various participatory methodologies? Under what circumstances are participatory methodologies best suited to make an impact? Discussed in Chapter Three.

Running throughout the text are also views and debate as pertains to the following:
• To what extent do the exponents of participatory methodologies commit themselves as (genuine practitioners) to the promotion of authentic participatory development (whether as individual professionals or development institutions), as opposed to the rhetoric of survival and career development?

• In which ways would Participatory Development initiatives ensure true sense of local ownership within beneficiary communities? Will Participatory Methodologies guarantee local responsibility, crucial to the sustainability of community projects (not losing sight of the fact that the factors of sustainability can often take years to mature)?

• What effects (both positive and negative) have these participatory methodologies had in building both human resource and organisational capacities for sustainable development? (What impact are these participatory methodologies having so far in the field towards the empowerment of local stakeholders)?

• What problems are experienced in the efforts to scale-up participatory methodologies? What challenges and limitations have been experienced with the application of these methodologies?
• What prospects exist towards enhancing the value and efficacy of the participatory methodologies for greater impact in Participatory Development?
• What lessons can be drawn from the foregoing experiences to feed into the existing volume of knowledge in community development sector?

A Synopsis on Social Development Paradigms
“What is important in life is not so much as to where you are standing today, but in which direction you are moving towards the future!” (A Pakistan Saying).

‘Modernisation’: A Macro-development Paradigm that Contradicts the Autonomy of Local Communities
The ‘modernisation’ development paradigm has dominated the development scene for about half a century now. This is the kind of development that sought to maximize on the immediate concerns pertaining to the accumulation of commodities and financial wealth. As a result of the many years of such ‘accumulation’, we are informed that one billion of the world’s people live in absolute poverty, a condition described by former World Bank President McNamara as “so characterised by malnutrition, illiteracy and disease as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency” (Porter and Clark, 1985:1). The Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2001: 9) also supports this assertion as it observes that, of the 4.6 billion people in developing countries, more than 850 million are illiterate. Of these, 64% are women. The report adds that nearly a billion people in developing countries (22%), lack access to improved water sources, while 2.4 billion (52%) lack access to basic sanitation. Nearly 325 million primary and secondary age girls and boys are out of school. Of these, 56% are girls. Eleven (11) million children under the age of five are said to be dying each year from preventable diseases – equivalent to more than 30,000 a day. An estimated 1.2 billion people (26%) within developing societies are said to be living below the international poverty line of less than one US dollar a day. This reality is said to be unacceptable in a world of plenty (World Bank, 2002: ix).

The report further informs us that a total of 34 million people in developing countries were living with HIV/AIDS by end of 2000. A total of 163 million children under the age of five were underweight in 1998 (UNDP, 2001: 9). While infant mortality in the ‘one-third-world’ (read developed world) was 18 per thousand in 1985, the average was 110 per thousand in Africa. Life expectancy was placed at 73 and 50 years respectively. If per capita Gross National Product was the reliable or at least universally acceptable indicator of development, this was US dollar 9,380 for ‘one-third-third’ world (or developed world) in 1985 against US dollar 750 for Africa (Mulwa, 1994: 11-12). This reality has led Mahbub UI Hag to conclude that:

…after decades of development planning, when you tip aside the confusing figures on growth rates, you find that for about two thirds of humanity the increase in per capita income has been less than one dollar a year for the last 20 years. Even this increase, miserable as it may seem, has been unevenly distributed, with the poorest 40 percent of the population hopelessly squeezed in their struggle for existence and sometimes getting even less than what they received 20 years ago (Porter and Clark, 1985:4).

We are informed that as much as 55 percent of bilateral aid to (under-) developing countries in 1981 was tied aid. This was 75 percent for (bilateral aid from) Britain alone that year. This meant that the proportion of the aid that was tied would finance projects mutually identified by both the recipient and donor government, and that the projects had to import all its capital and expertise requirements from the donor country including the technology and its spare parts. The recipient country has minimal choice within these conditions, sometimes having to accept obsolete technology with spare parts costing as much as 25 to 30 percent above the prevailing market prices (Mulwa, 1994: 12).

Pricing of primary commodities from the South to North is yet another area calling for attention. Even though the South had no control over the pricing of manufactured goods and technology they import from the North, ironically their primary commodities are priced at international markets whose forces are again controlled by the North. This is the double tragedy suffered by the South. It is this kind of development that has produced big income disparities between (but also within) countries. The social gap between the South and the North (as well as between people of the same country) has continued to widen. Imminent social disruption has generated insecurity among and within nations. As a consequence, the world was reportedly spending more on military in two days than United Nations spends on health, food and education in a whole year (Porter and Clark, 1985: 1).

In economic terms, development means “the capacity of a national economy, whose initial economic condition has been more or less static for a long time to generate and sustain an annual increase in its Gross National Product (GNP) at rates of perhaps 5% to 7% or more” (Todaro, 2000: 14). It is expected that with this rate of growth which should always be greater than the country’s population growth, rapid development would be attained for that country. Hence, ‘per capita income’ comes handy as the appropriate measurement in this context. It is this kind of ‘development understanding’ that has dominated the scene of development planning over the years. This is the kind of development characterised by emphasis on economic growth, productivity and accumulation for further reinvestment. This understanding is clouded with an assumption that economic growth is key to ‘progress’ through modernisation. Economic growth, it is assumed, automatically promises better education, better health, better infrastructure and better social welfare for all as a result of what is termed as ‘trickle down effect.’

Apparently, it was not in the interest of development planners to consider any possibilities of adverse social implications of the development strategies they adopted as long as the ‘growth’ indices were positively appreciating. Such ‘development’ had debilitating effect on the socio-cultural fabric of the traditional rural communities. The labour mobility and the out flux of populations from the traditional sector to public and private employment (both in large farms and in the cities) resulted in the disintegration of traditional institutions, community kinships, and extended family bonds. Consequently, cultural values also began to erode. In fact, for the development planners to break through the core of traditional knots, they had to seek government support to use such tactics as displacement of people from more potential to less potential lands (some being rendered landless in the process). This effectively served to reduce people’s potential for self-sufficiency, especially in production of use-value crops and therefore hooking them into the modern sector where they would need wage employment for basic survival needs.
This was especially common in the advent of the colonization era and even during its hegemony as much as after independence. Taxes were also imposed in monetary form. Hence use-value production in agriculture gradually gave way to cash crop production to enable families meet the growing needs in the cash economy, including the purchase of manufactured supplies from the city. Sometimes political control and coercion was necessary to condition people to the labour demands of ‘modernisation.’

However, the last few decades have seen a growing call for a rethink and redefinition of development with more objective reassessment of societal priorities and goals. This call was necessary in spite of the remarkably impressive economic growth in a number of developing countries, as a result of the rigorous capital-intensive development strategies of the late 1950s and 1960s (the heydays of green revolution). To the dismay of development planners, it was learnt that the problems of hunger, unemployment, malnutrition, poverty and socio-political disintegration had not been resolved. As observed by Todaro (2000:14), “the levels of living of the masses of people remained for the most part unchanged. This signalled that something was very wrong with this narrow definition of development.”

It has been observed that during this modernisation era, economists tended to dominate the development debates, heavily influencing planners in the development field. This explains the tendency to emphasise on economic growth, industrialisation, and productivity as synonymous to development, a notion soon to be challenged and disapproved from empirical research (Bryant and White, 1982: 5). This dominant role of economists also explains why evaluation and assessment approaches have for a long time been characterised by heavy statistical and quantitative measurements which other social sciences could not offer (Bryant et al. 1982: 6).

Sometimes economists responded to this crisis by critiquing the earlier models of development, which they themselves had advocated. For instance, Bryant and White (1982:16) would argue that, “no matter how ‘developed’ an economy is, if only a small segment of the population benefited from it, development has not occurred.” Under outright challenge in particular was the assumption on the ‘trickle-down’ effect to the less fortunate, which never came true. It had become clear that the poor, (a product of modernisation process) would not benefit in the absence of relevant policy shift as to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits of development. What is the significance of the foregoing analogy? In my opinion, the arguments presented here converge to confirm one thing: that the modernisation development paradigm has failed to cause equitable development. Income disparities do not only exist between the developed and the developing countries, but also within the developed and the developing countries as well.

Changes in Policy and Approach: A Development Paradigm Fading Away
“If we refuse to learn from our past and ignore the lessons from our mistakes, we would erroneously brag about our ten years of working experience, when instead, we should actually be talking of one year experience repeated ten times!!” (Dr. Eric Amit, 1980 - Diploma Student Lecture at Coady International Institute, Canada).

Todaro (2000:14) has observed that economic development came to be redefined during the 1970’s in terms of reduction or elimination of poverty, inequality and unemployment within the context of economic redistribution. According to Todaro, the questions to ask about a country’s development are: What has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? Todaro (2000: 15) would also argue that if all three of these have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result ‘development’ even if per capita income doubled.

A new perspective on development became imperative in the wake of this unexpected realisation. In its 1991 report, World Bank articulates the new understanding of development in its declaration thus:

The challenge of development is to improve the quality of life. It contends that in the world’s poor countries, a better quality of life generally calls for higher incomes and much more. It encompasses better education, higher standards of health and nutrition, less poverty, a cleaner environment, more equality of opportunity, greater individual freedom and a richer cultural life (World Bank, 1991: 4).

Todaro concludes this thread of argument by observing that:
Development must therefore be conceived as a multidimensional process involving major changes in social structures, popular attitudes and national institutions, as well as the acceleration of economic growth, reduction of inequality and eradication of poverty. Development in its essence, must represent the whole breadth of change by which an entire social system, tuned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups within that system, moves away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory, toward a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually better (Todaro, 2000:16).

As noted earlier, authentic development process is complex and calls for a number of factors, which have all along either been taken for granted or overlooked altogether. It is now believed that for sustainable development to be realized, the kind that will have a long-term and positive impact on people’s lives, the people concerned should participate in their own development process. This involves a process of needs identification, setting of development priorities and the participation of the relevant stakeholders in the implementation, evaluation and sharing of benefits or loss accruing from their efforts.

The emerging endeavour to redefine development and its meaning saw an emphasis shift from exclusively economic growth orientation to a mutually complementary concern for income distribution; from production per se, to the production for the satisfaction of human needs and from technology emphasis to the concerted effort to develop human resources (Imboden, 1978:11). Underlying this shift are the issues of power and choice – who should decide the direction and nature of change and development in the society or in a community?
Structural Deficiency Identified
There was this powerful encounter with a pastoralist in Isiolo, the gateway to northern Kenya. This encounter completely changed our perspective as professionals on how the poor looks at the whole ‘drama’ of poverty alleviation. An illiterate pastoralist volunteered to move a vote of thanks at the end of a UNDP sponsored capacity building workshop towards poverty alleviation. Among those present included heads of government departments representing various government ministries and bilateral programmes in the District. The pastoralist gently and confidently cleared his throat and observed:

There are many doctors in Isiolo. Some are private while others are civil servants. A sick person in this area has choices to make among them and may try all the doctors but only one will cure him. I wonder why, with so many development experts around us and for so long, still there has been no cure for this disease called “ovati” (read poverty)? Experts have come to us from all over the world: Europeans, Americans, and Canadians…from many great nations, to see our ‘ovati’! It was only the other day they came to our village in twelve vehicles. Now, here you are from Nairobi talking about the same thing. How come with all these brains, still there is no cure, no solution to our ‘ovati’? I am not seeking for any personal gain out of this question, neither am I expecting a ‘quick-fix’ answer. But I am pleased to be able to express this concern in this forum as it has bothered me for a long time now! (KCDF Workshop Report, 2001).

Needless to say, the foregoing observation got us dumb-founded. The elder was raising an extremely fundamental question. A structural question for that matter, in a country rated among the top ten most unequal countries in the world (fifth most unequal in Africa). Oakley and Winder (1980: 6) see the causes of underdevelopment as fundamentally structural and therefore propose that any genuine strategies for transformation would likewise have to seek redress on structural issues. According to them, the structural deficiencies include: poor peasant access to government services and their poor or non-participation in development decisions that affect them; inadequacy of viable organisations that could effectively represent peasant interests; powerlessness in the hands of local money lenders, traders, and politicians and dependency and despair which characterises peasants’ lives.

These issues are not irrelevant to our area of concern in this discussion – the efficacy of participatory methodologies as an alternative development strategy. It is clear that neither increased economic growth, nor increased aid offers a solution. The underlying question is structural, or power relations. Another development paradigm is necessary. An alternative approach to community development planning is called for. Equally important, is a different yardstick for determining ‘progress’, to more objectively assess the effect of increased production on the lives of the majority of the people in the society (whether that effect is positive or negative). That raises the question of distribution – development with equity. For while ‘change is scientific, progress is ethical’ (Russell, 1950). Hence, no matter how ‘developed’ an economy is, if only a small segment of the population benefited from it, development has not occurred.
Contextualising Participatory Development

In the last thirty or so years, participatory methodologies have come as ‘an idea’ sweeping across Africa, with power to reckon with. Soon after the post-independence euphoria of early 1960s, it was realised that time had come for people to take greater control of their own lives including in the realm of social development. The aura of political independence started losing momentum in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s as people became more disillusioned with the economic decay and wide spread exploitation leading to social impoverishment that led to further deterioration of the standards of living for the masses. A different kind of ‘liberation’ was becoming necessary.

According to Julius Nyerere (1973), people will only develop themselves “by what they do; they develop themselves by making their own decisions, by increasing their own knowledge and ability and by their own full participation as equals.”Authentic community development is therefore perceived as a process by which:
“…a community of people strives to make it possible for all its members to satisfy their fundamental human needs and to enhance the quality of their lives...It is about people and the way they live, work and relate. It is not about objects, things, or services given to them. The purpose of objects, things, services and indeed the economy is to serve the people (Hope and Timmel, 1995: 86).

People should, of necessity, participate in decisions that affect their lives. This serves to instil local responsibility as well as enhancing their sense of dignity and worth. It is believed that people will give their total support to initiatives that they help to create.

The foregoing arguments complement UNDP’s understanding of human development as a process that entails much more than the rise or fall of national incomes. It is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests. People are the real wealth of nations. Development is thus about expanding the choices people have, to lead lives that they value. And it is thus about much more than economic growth, which is only a means – if a very important one – of enlarging people’s choices. However, UNDP is quick to point out that in order to enlarge the choices, it would be imperative to build human capabilities through capacity building programmes. Such an effort would enlarge the range of things people can do or can be in life. Thus the most basic capabilities for human development are to lead long and healthy lives, to be knowledgeable, to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living and to be able to participate in the life of the community. Without these, many choices are simply not available and many opportunities in life remain inaccessible (UNDP, 2001: 9).

Conclusion
The foregoing chapter serves as a substantive summary of the rest of the book. The chapter took particular interest in the exploration of conventional social development that largely had bias in economic development. We have concluded the chapter with the assertion that true development is about people and the way they live. Economy is only meant to serve the people, a means to facilitate human development, but not the ultimate purpose for human endeavours. This conclusion serves to set the stage for our entry into the debate on three dominant development paradigms; namely Modernisation, Social Welfare and Participatory Development.

To order:

Click here to see the order form
Write to: distribution@paulinesafrica.org

Contact other Paulines distribution centres: Contact