© 2002 Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal

Community Development Journal Vol 37 No 3 July 2002 pp. 233–248 233

Barriers to communityparticipation in developmentplanning: lessons from theMutengene (Cameroon) self-help water project

Ambe J. Njoh

Abstract The study draws on the experience of the Mutengene, Cameroon self-helpwater project to: (i) underscore the indispensable role of community partici-pation (CP); and (ii) identify and discuss leading barriers to CP in develop-ment planning. Eleven constraints, including the paternalistic posture ofauthorities, prescriptive role of the state, embellishment of successes,selective participation, inattention to negative results, hard-issue bias,intra/inter-group conflicts, gate-keeping by leaders, excessive pressuresfor immediate results, lack of interest, population size, and beliefsystems, are discussed. Efforts to promote understanding of CP as aviable strategy for implementing capital improvement projects in LDCsare recommended.

Introduction

The study reported in this paper has two major objectives, namely toilluminate leading barriers to meaningful community participation (CP),and underscore the role of CP in water supply projects in less developedcountries (LDCs). The empirical referent here is the self-help water supplyproject of Mutengene, Cameroon.

The task of providing safe drinking water to residents of African towns isbecoming increasingly urgent. Seventy percent of Africa’s ever increasingurban population has no access to basic services, particularly potable water(Gaye and Diallo, 1997). Yet, the resource scarcity problem of African coun-tries remains nightmarish. This accentuates the need for innovative, cost-saving and sustainable public service delivery strategies. A promisingstrategy, as demonstrated by WaterAid, an organization involved in water

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 233

service delivery to impoverished populations in LDCs, embodies a strongCP component (Professional Engineering, 2000).

Drawing on the experience of the self-help water supply project of Muten-gene, Cameroon, I discuss the role of, and barriers to, CP in developmentprojects. I begin by retracing the history of CP and the community develop-ment (CD) enterprise in Cameroon. Next, I sketch the project setting in termsof its demographic, social, economic and physical attributes. Then, Idescribe the water project itself. Finally, and before concluding the paper, Ihighlight the hurdles to community participation experienced by theproject.

Evolution of Community Development in Cameroon

Formal CD was introduced in Cameroon by colonial authorities.1 Kwo(1984; 1986) has chronicled the evolution of CD in Anglophone Cameroon.Early CD efforts focused almost exclusively on education, agriculture,women, health, and medical services. The major actors in the country’s CDfield included Christian missionaries, colonial corporations, philanthropicagencies, and the colonial government itself.

Christian missionaries sought to promote literacy through the establish-ment of adult literacy centers, primary and, later, secondary schools.Colonial corporations such as the Cameroons Development Corporation(CDC) were concerned with improving the economic productivity as wellas the social, and physical well-being of employees and their families. Con-sequently, the corporation organized sporting and film events in workers’camps. Philanthropic agencies based in metropolitan countries wereinvolved in identical activities. However, their focus was on improving thequality of life for women through entities such as the Women’s CornmillSociety designed to improve women’s literacy rates, and train local farmersin modern farming techniques.

The colonial government also used CD in the health field, particularly inefforts to combat common causes of death such as syphilis, herpes, gonor-rhea, dysentery, yaws, smallpox and ankylostomiasis. Consequently, itcreated centres to train CD health technicians. One such centre was estab-lished in Man O’War Bay in 1951 by the colonial government of Nigeriathrough which the Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons (present-dayAnglophone Cameroon) was administered. The centre provided partici-pants pragmatic skills in hygiene and community leadership.

234 Ambe J. Njoh

1 The word ‘formal’ is used here to draw attention to the fact that informal community develop-ment activities existed in Africa prior to the advent of colonialism. Such activities remain common-place today.

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 234

Problems of resource scarcity prevented the colonial government fromcreating a separate department exclusively in charge of CD. However, withUNESCO funds, the country’s first Department of CD was created in 1959,the eve of national independence. The department is currently part of theMinistry of Agriculture, responsible for poverty eradication and serves as aliaison between rural communities and the state. The department has bene-fited from the largesse of international development agencies, such as theSwiss Association for International Cooperation (Helvetas),2 UNESCO, andUNICEF. A notable Cameroonian government policy on CD for the purposeof this discussion makes local project beneficiaries responsible for 100 percentof the manual labour, and 15 percent of the in-cash, cost of the project.

The Mutengene water project

Project localeThe Mutengene Water Supply Project pre-occupied CD and other author-ities in Cameroon during the 1960s and 1970s. Mutengene Town,3 isadministratively part of Tiko Sub-Division in the South West Province, one of Cameroon’s ten provinces. Located at the lower reaches of Mount Cameroon, some thirty-five minutes west of Cameroon’s economiccapital city, Douala, Mutengene constitutes the meeting point of theTiko/Douala–Buea, and Limbe–Buea–Tiko/Douala highways.

Demography and economyThirteen different tribal groups were represented in Mutengene during theproject’s implementation phase (see Table 1). As shown in Table 1, the town’spopulation is very heterogeneous, with the native group, the Bakweri’sbeing numerically dwarfed by non-indigenous groups. Individuals of thelatter category are commonly alluded to as ‘strangers.’ It is noteworthy thatthe strangers were initially excluded from all project decision-makingforums. This phenomenon, as we note below, was at the root of some of themost nagging problems that threatened the project’s success.

Mutengene’s economy is predominately agricultural. Rapid gains inpopulation that have always been experienced by this town, dating back to

Barriers to community participation in development planning 235

2 Helvetas was formerly known as the Swiss Association for Technical Assistance (SATA). Theagency has been in Cameroon, and has collaborated with the Department of CommunityDevelopment in rural and local development projects and programmes since 1961. Since then, theagency has helped to complete 300 rural water projects, a few roads and bidges, and several com-munity halls (Helvetas, On-Line).3 When the Mutengene water project started in the mid 1960s, it was classified as a village.Mutengene has since experienced large gains in its population. With its present population ofbetween 15 000 and 20 000, it is an urban center by Cameroonian standards. In Cameroon, humansettlements with populations of 5000 or more people are classified as urban areas.

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 235

when it was a small village inhabited almost exclusively by the natives,attest to its popularity. By the end of the 1960s, the population stood atbetween 2500 and 3000, and by 1979 the population had reached 7500(Abebe, 1979, p. 1). By the mid 1980s, the population of Mutengene was esti-mated to be approximately 10 000 (Republic of Cameroon, 1986). Unofficialestimates put the present population at 15 000–20 000.

Community participationThe plan to undertake the project was formally conceived by the town’sresidents as far back as 1959. The plan was in response to a dire need tofurnish the town with potable water. Prior to that time and almost twodecades thereafter, inhabitants depended on very remote, inadequate,polluted and/or undependable sources of water.4 Although as noted above,the project plan had been on the drawing board since the 1950s, it was notuntil the early 1960s that serious steps were taken to realize the project. In1962, an undisclosed sum of money was raised from local sources to financefeasibility studies for the project. The studies were never conducted becausethe funds were allegedly mismanaged.

Interest in the project was re-ignited in mid 1960s, particularly because ofunprecedented population gains. Throughout the mid 1960s, the town’swater problem dominated the agenda of almost all Village Council meetings(Ndovi, 1980). In February 1967, the water supply plan was officially revivedand an ad hoc committee of local elders constituted (see Table 2). The com-mittee was tasked with locating a viable water source. The committee’sefforts culminated in the identification and recommendation of a natural

236 Ambe J. Njoh

Table 1 Tribal groups in Mutengene (1960s/70s) by province or country of origin

Tribal group Leader Province or country

01. Bafanji Bernard Alima N.W. Province02. Bakossi Johnson Ewane S.W. Province03. Bakweri Chief Lifoko S.W. Province04. Bali Gerald Gabsia N.W. Province05. Bangwa Alphonse Njana S.W. Province06. Banyang Joseph Ayuk S.W. Province07. Ibibio Edet Ekpenyong Nigeria08. Ibo Gabriel Okorie Nigeria09. Mbo Thadeus Fotabong S.W. Province10. Meta Peter Taminang N.W. Province11. Ngemba John Taning N.W. Province12. Nkambe Solomon Mango N.W. Province13. Yaounde Abraham Ayah Centre Province

Source: Project files.

4 The remote and non-dependable sources included one seasonal spring, one river, and rain.

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 236

spring in a dense forest near the neighbouring village of Ekande. The spring,which is about five kilometres northeast of Mutengene, had a dry seasonwater flow rate of 1200 litres per minute, and a rainy season rate of 2000litres per minute. The spring’s location was particularly ideal because of itsaltitude, which is higher than that of Mutengene and the neighbouringvillages served by the same system.5 The higher altitude permitted the waterto flow under the natural force of gravity thereby nullifying the need forcostly mechanical water pumps or cognate devices.

One week into its existence, the committee formally informed the Divi-sional Officer (D.O.) of Tiko sub-Division of the town’s project plans. On theadvice of the D.O., a formal letter of application for community develop-ment project support was written through the Department of CD, Victoria(present-day, Limbe) to the Ministry of Agriculture, Yaounde. The letter con-tained the results of feasibility studies and data attesting to the local resi-dents’ ability and willingness to contribute to the project. Initially, the projectwas projected to cost 5 600 000 frs CFA.6 As required by government’s CDpolicy (see above), local residents were responsible for 15% of this amount.Consequently, local authorities embarked on crafting fundraising strategies.As shown in Table 3, two levy schemes were used.7

Local residents contributed as much as 2 733 252 frs CFA or 14% (13.6%)of the total cost of the project. Additionally, residents were responsible for100% of manual labour input.

The project was completed in 1978 at the total cost of 21 562 869 frs CFA.Significant portions of the money, which originated in a variety of sources(see Table 4), were used to defray the cost of engineering, technical/mana-gerial services and construction materials. Substantial portions of the money

Barriers to community participation in development planning 237

5 The Mutengene water system serves a number of neighbouring villages, including Mile Fourteenand Dibanda. The system also supplies potable water to the National Police College, some 2.5kilometres southeast of the town. There are plans to extend the system down to Likomba, about4 km southeast of the town.6 230 frs CFA = US$1.00 (at that time). Presently (September 2001) 740 frs CFA = US$1.00.7 The second scheme was necessitated by the fact that funds raised through the first schemeproved inadequate.

Table 2 Ad hoc committee, Mutengene water project, 1967

Post Name of member Sex

Chairman Mr Fokoblab MVice Chairman Mr E. Woleta MTreasurer Rev. Fr Damian MSecretary General Mr O. N. S. Monono MAdviser Mr Noto M

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 237

were also spent on constructing and/or installing thirty-five water fountainsand eight laundry platforms, equipped with water fountains, and thirtyreinforced concrete soakaway pits throughout the town.

ConstraintsThe completion of the Mutengene water project is particularly praisewor-thy in light of the many financial, institutional, and other problems itencountered. Two of these problems are particularly noteworthy becausethey resulted in prolonged interruptions of the project. The one relates toseemingly irreconcilable differences between the native population and so-called strangers. The other concerns conflicts within the project committee.Such conflicts resulted in the dissolution of the 1967 project committee in1970 and the creation of a new one in 1971.8

Post-project maintenance committeeA post-project maintenance committee was established in 1980. The com-position of the committee is presented in Table 5. The committee is an auton-omous local body comprised of volunteer members. The committee isresponsible for maintaining, as well as ensuring the efficient, judicious andsafe utilization the water system.

Other responsibilities of the committee include penalizing defaulters ofrelevant rules and regulations, collecting necessary fees, and addressingnew water installation and extension requests.

238 Ambe J. Njoh

8 The new committee was comprised of the following members: Mr A. N. Ngassa (Chairman), MrJ. Taning (Vice Chairman), Mr P. C. Mbako (Financial Secretary), Rev. Fr Damian, Principal ReginaPacis College (Treasurer), Mr S. P. Fohtung (Advisor). Heads of the different tribal groups served asex-officio members of the committee. Other members of the committee included the ParamountChief of Mutengene, who served as the General Advisor, the Divisional Officer of Victoria sub-Division, who served as the Administrative Advisor, and the Community Development Officer,who served in the capacity of Technical Advisor.

Table 3 Levying scheme for Mutengene water project

Scheme Class of resident Levy AMT (Frs CFA)

ONE Businessmen 500Formal Sector Workers 500Informal Sector Men 400Informal Sector Women 200

TWO Businessmen 1000Formal Sector Men 1000Businesswomen 800Formal Sector Women 800Informal Sector Men 600Informal Sector Women 400

Source: Compiled from Project Documents.

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 238

Among the many achievements of the committee is the development of ascheme to raise funds for maintaining the water system. The scheme entails,in part, a levy of 7000 frs CFA per annum on all local residents. This amountis not a water rate.9 Rather, it is applied towards a maintenance fund. Partof this fund is used to pay two part-time plumbers and a clerk.

Barriers to community participation

In a recent paper in this journal, Botes and van Rensburg (2000, p. 42),identified a plethora of factors that can ‘hinder and indeed constrain the pro-motion of participatory development.’ These factors can be discussed undertwo broad categories, namely ‘external and internal obstacles.’ Externalobstacles include factors residing outside of the beneficiary community butcan inhibit or prevent meaningful participation. Internal obstacles comprise

Barriers to community participation in development planning 239

9 Those who fetch water from public standpipes pay essentially no water rate. However, a one-time fee of 20 000 frs CFA is charged to individuals, who wish to install water on their privateproperty. Commercial and industrial users are charged a one-time fee of 50 000 frs CFA.

Table 4 Cash contributions to the Mutengene Water Project by Major Actor

Major Actor Amount frs CFA % of Total

Government of Cameroon 24 900 000 22.9Department of Community Development & SATA (in-kind 24 000 000 18.5contribution, techs/engrs)Local Community 22 733 252 12.6(cash from residents of Mutengene)NOVIB Grant 22 716 840 12.5UNICEF Grant 22 000 000 09.2SATA Grant 21 770 000 08.2Tiko Local Government Council 21 700 000 07.8Local Community (in-kind contribution, town’s residents) 21 500 000 06.9Miscellaneous 22 235 599 0.09TOTAL 21 562 869 100.0

Source: Compiled from Mutengene Water Project Committee minutes, notes, and from Abebe(1979); Muluh (1981).

Table 5 Post-project maintenance committee, Mutengene

Post Name of member Sex

Chairman Mr John N. Taning MVice Chairman Mr Thomas N. Manga MTreasurer Mr Zaacs N. Ngaaje MSecretary General Prince Paddy Awonfor MFinancial Secretary Mr John Loke MWomen’s Representative Madam Sophie Lyonga F

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 239

factors located within the beneficiary community. These are hurdles ema-nating from locally based entities such as local interest groups and elders orelites.

Nine of the identified impediments to CP of interest here, include thefollowing (Botes and van Rensburg, 2000, pp. 42–51),10 the paternalisticposture of authorities, prescriptive role of the state, embellishment of suc-cesses, selective participation, hard-issue bias, intra/inter-group conflicts,gate-keeping by leaders, excessive pressures for immediate results, disin-terest within the primary beneficiary community. To the foregoing list ofimpediments to CP, I would like to add the following two, namely popu-lation size, and the belief system(s) of the beneficiary community. With theMutengene Water Supply project as empirical referent, I discuss each ofthese obstacles in turn.

Paternalistic posture of authoritiesExternally induced development projects are commonplace, especially inAfrica. Such projects are often doomed to fail, particularly because of themany erroneous assumptions they make about local conditions and needs.Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of externally induced projects is thetendency for experts and bureaucrats to dominate the decision-makingprocess.

Paternalism played a significant role in the Mutengene water project. Forinstance, the D.O. of Tiko was reportedly very active in the local politics ofMutengene, especially during the implementation phase.11 In this regard,the D.O. is said to have taken sides with the minority native populationwhen it was alleged that the said population insisted on excluding the so-called strangers from project decision-making forums. As noted below, thiscaused the non-natives or strangers to withhold financial and in-kind con-tributions to the project until the matter was resolved.

Although paternalism played a limited role in the project, it dominatedand in fact negatively affected the outcome of cognate projects in theprovince. For instance, the state and its agents played a central role in atleast one project, the Mpundu Water Project, which was also in its planningphase at about the same time as the Mutengene project. The role of the stateand sub-units thereof, including the Muyuka Rural Council, the Depart-ment of Community Development, and the sole and ruling political partyat the time, the Cameroon National Union (CNU), conceived, planned andproceeded to implement the project. The overwhelming dominance of

240 Ambe J. Njoh

10 The obstacles to CP are discussed under appellations slightly different from those employed byBotes and van Rensburg (2000).11 Based on information via personal communication.

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 240

these entities in the failed water project discouraged the participation oflocal residents. Also, because of limited or no knowledge of the localenvironment, government authorities over-estimated the local popu-lation’s ability and willingness to contribute towards the project’s realiza-tion. As a result, the project was abandoned after two decades of fruitlessefforts.

Prescriptive role of the stateDevelopment project planning and implementation is like most activities insociety, very political. Based on some of the cases uncovered in LatinAmerica (e.g. Gilbert, 1987), it would appear that the state’s interest in com-munity participation has goals that are at variance with those of society atlarge. The state’s interest in this case is best captured by (Botes and vanRensburg, 2000, p. 45) when they contend as follows.

For the state, it appears that the main aim of community participationprogrammes is less about improving conditions for the poor . . . . thanmaintaining existing power relations in society and ensuring silence ofthe poor.

It is therefore not surprising that since the Mutengene water project wascompleted, the state has vehemently insisted on transferring the responsi-bility for managing and maintaining the water supply system to the largelygovernment-owned water company, SNEC (or Société Nationale des Eaux duCameroun). Among the implications of such a transfer, which local residentshave vigorously opposed, is the fact that residents will be obliged to payexorbitant water rates to SNEC. Local residents contend that they are willingand able to take charge of the conceivably daunting responsibility of main-taining and managing the system. A post-project maintenance committeecharged with this responsibility has already been set up (see above). Themerits of a structure that permits the citizens to play a central role in mattersaffecting their own well-being cannot be exaggerated. Such a structure goesa good way in promoting community participation in a political system thatis best-known for its autocratic orientation.

Embellishment of successesThere is a tendency to focus on the successes of development projects to theexclusion of their failures. This means, amongst other things, that develop-ment planners are deprived of the opportunity to learn from past mistakes(Dudley, 1993; Friedman, 1993). Yet, it is hard to overstate the importance ofunderstanding ‘what went wrong in development initiatives, the reasonswhy they went wrong and some suggestions as to how the same mistakescan be avoided’ (Botes and van Rensburg, 2000, p. 45).

Barriers to community participation in development planning 241

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 241

Project documents on the Mutengene water project are replete withinstances of success and thin on details regarding instances of failure. Forinstance, the documents contain hardly any information from which one candeduce the reasons for the seemingly excessive delay in completing theproject. While there are sporadic mentions of lack of funds, there is no wordon whether this was an anticipated problem. Were the project plannerssimply taken aback by the almost insurmountable financial problems thatwere visited upon the project? The documents also contain sparse infor-mation on the fact that actual project cost significantly exceeded the esti-mated cost. Without further details, one is left to simply ponder, didinterruptions during implementation drive cost upwards or was cost drivenupward by the interruptions? This question conjures nagging images of thefamiliar ‘chicken and egg’ tale.

Selective participationSome members of the project beneficiary communities either tend to excludethemselves, or are excluded, from the development process. Consequently,the voices of self-appointed individuals are erroneously perceived as reflect-ing the views and perspectives of the larger community or society. The chal-lenge for development planners is therefore, to encourage the involvementof members of the ‘silent camp’ in the development process.

One cannot help noticing the conspicuous absence of women andteenagers from the project committees that were responsible for makingsome of the most crucial decisions relating to the Mutengene water project.An attempt to redress this problem resulted in the inclusion of only onewoman and no teenager in the post-project committee. Yet, women andchildren undertake most, if not all, activities requiring the domestic use ofwater in LDCs. The views of individuals in this group would have enhanceddecisions affecting the location and design of public stand-pipes andlaundry platforms.

Hard-issue bias‘Hard-issues’, such as questions relating to technology, finance, and physicalresources, tend to dominate discussions on any given development project.Hence, questions relating to ‘soft’ matters such as community participation,decision-making procedures, community empowerment, effectiveness, andinstitutional development are relegated to a secondary position.

With respect to the project discussed here, while authorities were quick tosolicit financial and labour input from all residents, they were reluctant to enlist the participation of most residents, especially women, in projectdecision-making. This phenomenon demonstrates the tendency to downplay‘soft issues’ in the development planning process.

242 Ambe J. Njoh

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 242

Intra/Inter-group conflictsIn heterogeneous communities such as Mutengene, intra/inter-group con-flicts may result from perceived or real differences in culture, language, orsocioeconomic status. As noted above, one of the many hurdles that con-fronted the Mutengene water project relates to internal conflicts betweenmembers of the native and non-native populations. The most intensive ofthese cleavages occurred between persons originating in the hinterland,particularly the grassfield region, and individuals who hailed from theforest zones of the country. A detailed account of the raison d’etre of con-flicts of the latter genre appear in Box 1, which is a letter of grievance fromthe elders of the ‘Stranger Population’ in Mutengene to the Senior D.O. forVictoria Division. Traces of these cleavages were also conspicuouslypresent in the project committees. Recall that intense conflicts amongstmembers of the pioneer ad hoc committee of 1967 led to its dissolution in1970.

Gate-keeping by local leadersQuite often, a local organization, almost always the dominant one in a ben-eficiary community, may insert itself between the development agency andthe beneficiaries (Botes and van Rensburg, 2000). One of the dangers here isthat community-level decision-making may be hijacked and monopolizedby a small and self-perpetuating clique, acting in its own, as opposed to thecommunity’s, interest (Friedman, 1993).

Elders of the native population, in collaboration with the D.O. of Tiko, atthe time, did succeed in inserting themselves between residents of the com-munity and higher-level authorities at the divisional headquarters inVictoria and the national headquarters in Yaounde. This action on the partof the elders and the D.O. partially explains the fact that members of thenon-native population withdrew their support for the project at least onceduring the implementation phase. The action is also a cause of the inter-group conflicts mentioned earlier.

Excessive pressures for immediate resultsPressures for immediate results emanating from higher level authoritieshave the tendency to overemphasize the imperatives of delivery (product),while neglecting other laudable objectives such as community participation(process), particularly poverty reduction and institution-building. Suchpressures are also capable of encouraging development workers to completeproject-related tasks or portions thereof by themselves as opposed toallowing the community people to complete them (Botes and van Rensburg,2000).

Pressures of this genre, especially the pressure to meet pre-determined

Barriers to community participation in development planning 243

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 243

deadlines, resulted in most of the unskilled work at the tail end of the Mutengene water project being completed by paid labourers (Magembe,1981).

244 Ambe J. Njoh

From: Family Heads,C/o Mr. S. K. Mango,Mutengene Town,West Cameroon,Federal Republic of Cameroon.

15th May, 1971.

To: The Senior District Officer,Divisional Office, Fako DivisionWest Cameroon

Time has now come when we have to bring all our grievances to you for a peaceful and just solution as the DivisionalOfficer has failed to do so in all respects.

During a certain meeting on the 19th of February, 1971 in which the District Officer for Victoria Sub-Division wasChairman, we put our points to him for a solution. The first and most important point was the illegal dismissal of six dulyelected Traditional Councilors and Secretary of the Development Committee respectively by the Chairman of these bodies.We told the District Officer that we were not prepared to take any part in the Water Project until this point and otherswere looked into. After some discussions of these points the District Officer appealed to us not to be vexed and asked us tocontinue with work on the Mutengene Water Project and ruled as follows:-

a) That the six dismissed councilors be re-instated;b) That the Traditional Council should not hold any meetings until a solution is found to the existing

problems.He then promised to set up a probing committee to look into the misunderstandings between the Traditional Council andthe family Heads committee. This probing committee was duly set up by the District Officer immediately after the meeting.The committee met or the first time on the 6th of March and after listening to both parties i.e. the Family Heads, illegal dismissal of the six councilors, the Chairman of the Mutengene Traditional Council and Development Committee respectively, advised that both parties should table before the committee a written statement which would guide it to take ajustifiable decision and the meeting adjourned until Friday March, 12th 1971. We the Family Heads and the dismissed Secretary of the Development Committee did our grievance in writing and broughtthe documents on the said day. But to our utter surprise, our opponents brought none. Instead the Chairman of the unconstituted, so called Traditional Council (. . . . . . since 6 of the 12 members that make up the council had been illegallydismissed) drew the attention of the probing committee duly set up by the District Officer, to a confidential letter its councilhad forwarded to the District Officer and said a copy had been sent to the committee Chairman which had not been so.That the Development Committee should also be dissolved by the Director of Community Development and let themembers and others seek a new mandate from the people because at the moment we do not know how the whole thing isrun. Many people pose to be money collectors. We are being told to pay the contributions to the Rev. Treasurer, others sayall money should be paid to the Financial Secretary. The President says all money should be paid to him.

In fact he has been keeping some money from some collection for over two months now. He says he is the overall man andnobody should gainsay his directives. That is why the former Secretary was sacked because he happened to have kickedagainst a certain sum of money which was used at Ikande for customary rites instead of the water project without theconsent of the Family Heads. He the President has gone into the practice of receiving heavy tips from the people promisingto employ them when work starts fully on the water scheme.

In fact we cannot say everything here as we hope that you will soon come to listen to our cry. But we should be frank totell you that we will not listen to the Divisional Officer for Victoria Sub-Division because he has ignored us. He foresawthat the commission which he appointed was to bring everything to light and he and his Chairman, because they had thepowers, quickly made it impossible for the commission to go on with the findings and reported us to the security.

We therefore, call upon the Senior Divisional Officer for Fako Division to come to our aid because we now live in fear. Weare prepared to listen to you and not the Divisional Officer.

We remain, Your obedient servants,

Signed by: 16 Heads of Families.

Source: Project files.

Box 1 A Grievance Letter from Tribal Leaders in Mutangene to the SDO, Fako Division (1971).

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 244

Disinterest within beneficiary communityOne reason for development project failure relates to the unwillingness ofpotential project beneficiaries to become involved. The urgent task fordevelopment planners is therefore to isolate the factors contributing to suchunwillingness. In some cases, the cause of this problem may simply be thefailure of the state or funding institutions to build CP into the project design.In other cases, the cause may be a lot more intractable and difficult to isolate.

In the case of the Mutengene project, there was a noticeable lack of interesttowards the end. One reason for this was the constant demand for especiallyin-cash contributions from the local residents. Quite possibly, the level offrustration amongst the residents would have been minimized, if not elim-inated, had project planners done a good job in computing the project cost.This would have negated the need for more than one request for financialcontributions from the residents.

Population sizeThe size of the population of the beneficiary community is an importantdeterminant of the level of participation in community development projects.The population size may enhance or inhibit community participation. Largepopulation sizes tend to have a positive impact on participation, especiallywhen participation is operationalized in terms of the amount of in-kind orin-cash contribution made towards a project’s realization by the beneficiarycommunity. Conversely, small population sizes often mean less of such contribution.

The importance of population size is amplified in community develop-ment projects such as water supply. This is because the cost of such projectsis not a function of the size of a human settlement’s population. Rather, it isa function of the distance from the water source to the settlement and naturalfactors such as topography, geography and geology. It therefore follows that,ceteris paribus, larger human settlements are more likely than their smallercounterparts to sustain the cost of a water supply project. One reason for thedemise of the Mpundu water project mentioned above was the diminutivesize of the village’s population, which numbered in the hundreds when theproject was discontinued in 1980. In comparison, the population of Muten-gene was more than 7500 when its water supply project was completed in1978.

Belief systemThe belief systems to which members of the beneficiary community adherecan inhibit or enhance community participation. Belief systems, particularlyreligious systems set certain days of the week or periods of the month or year aside for observance as holidays. For instance, Christians observe

Barriers to community participation in development planning 245

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 245

Sunday as a Holy Day. Muslims have Friday as their Prayer Day. Budhists,Hindis and other religious systems have other days of the week. These daysmay not, and often do not, coincide. Thus, in the event that the residents ofa community are drawn from different belief systems, the task of schedul-ing work on community development project is likely to be rendered morecomplicated.

The local Catholic clergy is on record for objecting to work being per-formed on the Mutengene water project on Sunday, despite the fact that thiswas the only day on which most local residents were available for volunteerwork. Furthermore, given the economic characteristic of Mutengene, whichwas at the time comprised of a mélange of some formal sector activities, alot of subsistence farming and petty trading, Sunday was ideally suitable forvolunteer work.

Conclusion

The worsening problem of resource scarcity in sub-Saharan Africa dictatesthat governments can no longer rely on conventional means to successfullyaddress the basic needs of their populations. Community participation (CP)has been advanced, and in fact tried, as a strategy that can be potentiallyviable in complementing efforts to meet these needs. The project discussedhere would not have been realized without the enormous in-kind and in-cash contributions of local residents. Paradoxically, these and other forms ofCP were constrained by several barriers. This paper has identified and dis-cussed a few of these barriers, including paternalism, the prescriptive roleof the state, over-reporting of development success, selective participation,hard-issue bias, inter-group conflicts, excessive pressures for immediateresults, lack of interest, population size, and belief systems within the ben-eficiary community. The study is based on the premise that unless barriersto CP are fully understood and addressed, efforts to take advantage of itsstrengths in the development process are likely to fail.

Dr Ambe J. Njoh is associate professor of Government & International Affairs at the Universityof South Florida, St Petersburg, USA. His background is the area of development planning withemphasis on infrastructure development, transportation, housing and community development,and spatial structures.

Address for correspondence: Dr Ambe J. Njoh, College of Arts and Science, University ofSouth Florida, 140 7th Avenue South, St Petersburg, Florida 33701-5016, USA. Tel: +1727 553 1509; Fax: +1 727 553 1526; Email: njoh@stpt.usf.edu

246 Ambe J. Njoh

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 246

References

Abebe, A. (1979) Case Study: Mutengene Water Project, End of Course Report, RegionalPan African Institute for Development (Du Sautoy College), Buea, Cameroon.

Botes, L. and van Rensburg, D. (2000) Community participation in development: nineplagues and twelve commandments, Community Development Journal, 35(1), 41–58.

Ebiloma, A. J. (1984) Problems and Prospects of Community Development Activities: ACase Study of Small Soppo Water Supply Project, End of Course Paper, Regional PlanAfrican Institute for Development, Buea.

Gaye, M. and Dialo, F. (1997) Community participation in the management of theurban environment in Rufisque (Senegal), Environment and Urbanization, 9(1), 9–29.

Haidari, S. H. (2001) Participation and participatory development among the Kalhornomads of Iran, Community Development Journal, 36(1), 53–62.

Helvetas (On-Line). Helvetas Cameroon: Swiss Association for International CooperationProjects in Cameroon. http://www.helvetascameroon.org.

Kera, D. and Campbell, M. (1985) Local initiatives and community development: theIriri community in the Solomons, Community Development Journal, 20(1), 32–40.

Khapoya, V. B. (1998) The African Experience: An Introduction, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall,New Jersey.

Kirsch, O. Benjacov, A. and Schujmann, L. (1980) The Role of Self-Help Groups in RuralDevelopment Projects, Verlag breitenbach Publishers, Saarbrucken, FL.

Kwo, M. (1986) Community education and community development: AnglophoneCameroon experience since 1961, Community Development Journal, 21(3), 161–168.

Kwo, M. (1984) Community education and community development in Cameroon:the British colonial experience, 1922–1961, Community Development Journal, 19(4),204–213.

Lineberry, W. P. (1989) Assessing Participatory Development: Rhetoric versus Reality,Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Lucas, J. R. (1956) Democracy and Participation, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Magembe, P. R. (1981) A Case Study on the Mutengene Pipe Borne Water Supply, End of

Course Report, Regional Pan African Institute for Development (Du SautoyCollege), Buea, Cameroon.

Midgley, J. (1986) Community Participation, Social Development and the State, Methuen,London/New York.

Muluh, E. P. (1981) A Village Water Supply Project: A Case Study of Mutengene Village,End of Course Report, Regional Pan African Institute for Development (Du SautoyCollege), Buea, Cameroon.

Myrdal, G. (1970) The Challenge of World Poverty: A World Anti-Poverty Program inOutline, Pantheon Books, New York.

Ndovi, B. C. (1980) Case Study Report of Mutengene Water Project, End of CourseReport, Regional Pan African Institute for Development (Du Sautoy College), Buea,Cameroon.

Pennock, J. R. (1979) Democratic Political Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Professional Engineering (2000) Self-help begins as a trickle, Professional Engineering,

May 10.

Barriers to community participation in development planning 247

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 247

Republic of Cameroon (1986) VIth Five-Year Economic, Social and Cultural DevelopmentPlan 1986–1991, National Printing Press, Yaounde, Cameroon.

Taylor, W. E. K. (1974) The nature of community work, Community DevelopmentJournal, 9(1), 104–107.

UN (1971) Popular Participation in Development: Emerging Trends in Community Develop-ment, United Nations, New York.

UN (1975) Popular Participation for the Improvement of the Human Environment inMarginal Settlements, United Nations, New York.

Wiles, P. (1969) A syndrome, not a doctrine, in Ionescu and E. Gellner, eds, Populism:Its Meanings and National Characteristics, Macmillan, New York.

248 Ambe J. Njoh

04Njoh (bc/d) 6/24/02 10:21 AM Page 248