«the garbage city» SLUMS OF MANSHIET NASSER, EGYPT

Fuente:  architectureindevelopment.org, image © MatthewCassel

Desde hace ya bastante tiempo las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) han ido trabajando lado a lado con diferentes gobiernos locales y regionales en la lucha contra la pobreza y desigualdad social, es así como muchas de estas entidades han logrado brindar mejor calidad de vida a ciudadanos de los denominados asentamientos humanos informales, también conocidos bajo el nombre de SLUMS.  Sin embargo, también existe mucha controversia sobre si realmente estas organizaciones son guiadas por políticas estrictamente organizacionales que buscan el bienestar común en poblaciones vulnerables, o que tal vez siguen patrones políticos y agendas de los propios donantes que financian sus actividades.

En ese sentido, se propone analizar el programa de mejoramiento urbano en la denominada “garbage city” en Egipto, tomando en cuenta investigaciones llevadas a cabo por diferentes organizaciones civiles, así como del sector privado y académico.

Fuente: architectureindevelopment.org

Regarding those statements above, exist diverse participatory planning approaches, which depends basically on how to address issues into the communities. Notably, the World Bank within the Upgrading Urban community distinguished four different, one of them carried out by GTZ, the ZOPP (or GOPP in English: Goal Oriented Project Planning) (Noureddine Tag-Eldeen, 2003). Indeed, the performance of ZOPP, according to Hamdi and Goethert (1997), lack of efficiency when it uses methods to empower communities, due to ZOPP works through objectives preestablished, such this approach does not contribute to strengthening the community itself (Ibid). In other words, ZOPP methodology operates selecting representatives among the participants namely, individuals that represent the interests of others. Most of them, technical staff and high-level authorities, since they have all of the knowledge of how to set out the project. As a result, GTZ worked with high standards of technicality in order to develop workshops to implement the goals of the programme. This approach does not permit the community as an organisation capable of leading or planning its programs; instead, they always will depend on external organisations. Consequently, the ZOPP methodology is profoundly dependent on a high-grade external input; therefore, the community cannot develop either its unique participatory projects or manage those (Hamdi & Goethert, 1997). In that scenario, the condition and position of the community members are determined as a low-qualified, placed into the low level of the hierarchy, when relational power is acting.

Likewise, considering Cornwall and Gaventa (2006), exists three forms of power, the visible, hidden and invisible, and are recognisable when they are interacting in the participatory process. For instance, each of these types of power shapes the relationships among the actors, in which knowledge is performing as a way of power. Thus, knowledge is a resource which defines decision making, becoming it a visible way of power (Ibid). In that sense, the ZOOP methodology practices the visible power when places the staff, responsible to implement the project, as a high-qualified knowledgeable, and the communities as a low-qualified organisation. Afterwards, the hidden power which is related to the action of the production of knowledge is capable of shaping the political agenda(Ibid), thus the NGOs are performing the hidden power as well, since they have been empowering the individuals into the communities, but no strengthening the community itself to permits them produce knowledge to prepare their plans(Ibid). In that sense, the participation process whit unchangeable power relations will only contribute to see the process as more democratic but not changing the status quo. Besides, Chambers argues, specialists during the process of participatory process produce and reproduce hierarchies of knowledge linked whit power directly, in fact, they are establishing a position of more qualified than others, the character who will train and teach (Eyben, 2008). Thus, power widely will be understood as a relationship of dominations in which the control of knowledge makes a set of differences in social relations (Ibid). Therefore, it is clear that the relational power placed in the last position the community members of Manshiet Nasser since they lacked the technical expertise to address their issues, in this manner they were only following the plan specified before.

On the other hand, according to the project team responsible of the PUMP pinpoint that the participation planning carried out by the NGOs involved women and young people in upgrading project, thus was expected that both roles would be strengthening in order to make a change in their daily life (Hegazy, 2015). In consequence, the project was striving to remove the old preconceptions between men and women in the development process to guarantee and promote sustainable urban upgrading (Ibid).

At that point, and according to Eyben (2008), mutual accountability could be seen different if the view of relational of power is understood as a process instead of resource, namely if the notion of power related to principal holder is displaced by the notion of power as dispersed along the community, this power could operate in all relationships. Thus, power recognised as a capability can enable to the social change, in other words, when the power does not attribute to specific entities, the approach changes to reciprocal responsibility to help others to work in changing their social limits and empower their selves. Hence, the NGOs working beneath the umbrella of PUMP designed by GTZ and GOPP showed the power as a resource, since they were responsible for meeting first the purposes determined before by the Donor and the State.

Following aforementioned before, according to the research carried out by the team operating the upgrading plan, The NGOs were operating in Manshiet Nasser with a not accurate definition of the community nature due to the PUMP previously authenticated a homogeneous identity of the households (Noureddine Tag-Eldeen, 2003). Thus, it does not necessarily expose homogeneity over the condition of socio- economic status. In other words, and according to Hamdi & Goethert (1997), The accurate recognition and understanding of the type of a particular community provide the knowledge to undertake accurately tools to operate on the ground. Indeed, over the area of Manshiet Nasser, there are the low, middle-income groups running their workshops, as well as, investors that have their business activities inside the area (Ahmed Soliman, 2018). It reflects various types of residents with diverse matters, expectations and conflicts. Consequently, and mentioned before in this paper the methodology using in this participatory process of empowering communities (ZOPP), lacks to understand the complexity of community as a whole, instead only has identified the necessities and characteristics among the individuals (Ibid). That means that NGOs have been following the conditions and preconceptions rooted in the PUMP by the Donor and government.

Overall, the NGOs performed a role taking the initiative of empowering communities following the programme towards improving the national upgrading policy, addressing informal settlements based on the experience and lessons learnt by GTZ in small- scale upgrading projects in other parts of Egypt. The GTZ approach efforts on participatory process-oriented and poverty-oriented. The PUMP set out a field of dialogue, between the beneficiaries, local communities, and the decision makers authorities (Noureddine Tag-Eldeen, 2003). Therefore, NGOs have played a role as an arm of the GTZ, giving the opportunities to the dwellers, to at least be consulted in the process of taking actions over the upgrading programme. This approach could be another case where the residents were persuaded to meet the policies and the vision of the authorities to address slums.

Moreover, according to the project team, the involvement of the residents is one of the primary means to execute the upgrading plan. The results were reached by recognising all actors as mutual equivalent (Hegazy, 2015). Indeed, NGOs over the process of participation has followed some directions assigned by GTZ. First, the community is urged to participate in the plan, yet it is not clear if that meant that they were taking part in decisions or instead that they were only being informed. Also, it has existed concerns among the participants to being persuaded to validating professional measures (Ibid).

To sum up, the framework where the NGOs where able to work was established by the strategic planning and showed in the PUMP, since it opened the space to permit a process of dialogue among the actors. Hence the scheme meets principles such as reinforcing synergies, consulting and informed the procedures among the communities, then creates a relationship based on respect and trust between the state, the international agencies and the civil society, aiming for good governance. However, the power of the donor and government have not passed through into the communities instead of that the power of knowledge remained presented on the GTZ and NGOs over the process. In a broader sense, it arguably that mutual accountability should not remain as a particular concept and relation between governments and donors, it should be transparent and embrace a more extensive set of stakeholders, aiming to perform power as a capacity to empower grassroots organisations and local institutions (Eyben, 2008). Finally, NGOs assistance has been seeing as a supplement to complement, when international governmental institutions work with other governments on the scheme of multilateral aid. In other words, the actions and roles taken by the NGOs lastly have been more as implementors of projects, using participatory methods (Marcussen, 1996), due to NGOs are perceived by the governments and Donors as organizations capable to work directly whit the recipients of the projects, reaching the poor and reinforcing the links with the state (Ibid). In that scenario, exists the hypothesis that strengthening civil society through NGOs, will give a positive outlook of the state since the NGOs are filling some critical functional gaps in service not offered by the government before, but working on behalf them (Ibid). Moreover, it will provide the state with the resource to retain power and control over the communities, and even consolidating its legitimacy. Therefore, according to the case carried out in Manshiet Nasser, the power was remaining by the Donor, and it used the NGOs to perform the project preestablished.