Stories from the Field

Aguacatán: How seven communities joined hands for having water

To get to Aguacatán, Guatemala from the capital, one must travel 305 kilometres. This municipality is made up of 49 rural communities. Seven of these – Chex, Chichoche, Tucuná, Aguacatán Canton, Patzalam, Agua Blanca and Río Blanco – are home to 550 families (3600 inhabitants) that organized themselves for a water project.

The thing that stands out about these communities is that they are of indigenous ethnicity – Aguateca, Quiché and Chalchiteca. The men are rarely literate and the women even less. In general, they only speak their own language, which is not recognized as “official”.

On Aguacatán's various dirt roads or small plots of 5 to 10 cuerdas, we can see men with their hoes, hats and shoulder-slung bags ready to work the land in ten- to twelve-hour shifts, producing corn, black beans and lima beans for their families. We can find still others growing garlic, onions and tomatoes to later sell and in that way earn some income.

In the houses, the women generally busy themselves with domestic activities – cooking, sweeping, bathing the children, tending the chickens and pigs. Sometimes they sit down to make their clothes, such as the güipiles, cortes and cintas.

Every year in the months of April, July and August the men, women and children, with their bags, hoes and kitchenware in hand, load into the backs of trucks heading for the southern lowlands. There they work on the plantations in miserable conditions at a salary of about one dollar a day for the men, and even less for the women. The children are sad because often they have had to leave school to be able to accompany and help their parents.

Drinking water

Until 1986 these seven communities in Aguacatán did not have a potable water system. The women and children were the ones who would go get water from the rivers, streams and homemade wells in the area, running many risks because of the steep ravines and swift currents. They spent three hours every day bringing water back to their homes.

The water was of poor quality, and consequently, the children, especially, developed various disorders – diarrhoea, vomiting, stomachaches, headaches and dehydration. Without health services at their disposal or the economic means to pay for a doctor, many children died. Doña Ana Simón, a resident of Chichoche, commented on this situation: “It's very hard for us to go all the way to the hillside to get water. And the water is very dirty – it looks like chocolate. That's why it gives the children diarrhoea so often. Sometimes they just die."

Working for a project

In the Patzalam community, three of its leaders thought about the need to do a water project. They convened a community assembly to consult with all the people. Having their endorsement, but not having the money, they decided to organize and make a general collection to create a fund that would serve the travel needs for the committee to go out and look for the support of an institution.

For five years they sollicited several governmental institutions, but these did not respond. Then they found the support of an NGO called Agua del Pueblo (ADP), which made the initial studies and budget. The president of the Patzalam committee recounted the process: “We in Patzalam began looking for an institution that would help us bring water from Pericón. Since it was very expensive, we thought that it would be better to speak with other communities to do one single project for everyone. That was how Tucuna Chex, El Cantón and the other communities got involved. That was the hardest thing about this project."

The leaders of the other communities held assemblies. The seven communities realized that they had the same problem and that the water source could supply them all. They also realized the many advantages of working together: the project would be cheaper; there would be more manpower for the construction; and the labour could be divided into operation, maintenance and improvement when the system was finished.

They then decided to do one single project for all seven communities, taking advantage of the same water source, as well as the financial resources and technicians from the institution that was going to support them.

Seven local committees were then organized, one in each community. With two representatives from each committee, a general assembly of “associates” was then formed. A Central Council was also elected, initially devised only to coordinate the project's execution.

A new water system but no water

Fourteen years after the water supply had been built and after eleven years of serious technical and administrative problems with the supplying of water in Aguacatán, the PAR support team intervened. We presented the PAR project and discussed it with the Central Council of the association of water projects in the seven communities of Aguacatán – APAGUA. At first, incredulity reigned because they saw us as outsiders from yet another institution that came offering “stuff.” They were also suspicious since there were many paramilitary groups in the region that used whatever pretext to obtain information about the community. Slowly and with great difficulty, they accepted the idea of working together.

Starting the participatory assessment

When the SER support team began a process of participatory action research (PAR) to improve water management in seven communities belonging to the municipality of Aguacatán, the community leaders asked: “Do you have financing to fix our project? Can you give us tubing to improve the flow?”

Explaining the project to the director was difficult; explaining it to the community was even more difficult. From there we began the process with a few community leaders that were willing to try. Along the way, other community leaders got involved; still later, the community members themselves became protagonists. This passage from “spectators” to “actors” occurred only when they saw that the meetings, assemblies and discussions, which initially seemed like a waste of time, came to life and showed results.

The PAR process involved participatory assessment, problem sharing and analysis. Little by little, the deeper everybody got involved in the process, the better it was understood. Based on this understanding, the community leaders and their organizations made a plan, later to be validated in community assemblies, detailing priorities, alternative solutions, and decisions. This process occurred with respect for the community's own way of organizing and participating. This was a difficult process because an internal war had recently ended in the country; ten years ago, thinking, speaking or meeting was a crime often paid for with one's life.

Also, the process involved actions that were not previously planned. People demanded fast action and asked themselves: How do we guarantee that we will follow through on what we planned? How do we manage to improve service of good quality water at the lowest cost possible and that, above all, lasts?

As the community progressively got more involved in the process, it was increasing unlikely that they would leave it. Don Chabelo, the president of APAGUA, explained: “If we don't solve our water problems ourselves, nobody is going to solve them. If someone else does it for us, we get used to that, and that is even worse because water is not our only problem."

Together with the people, we at SER have managed to learn and understand. These processes need to combine the short term and the long term, the theoretical with the practical. People told us: “It's fine what you're saying, but we're the ones who have to mend the tubing and have water”.

We began with an assessment of the seven communities through meetings with council members, which was later subjected to consultation and validation in community assemblies. Several techniques were used, such as mapping, walks, observation, matrices, cross sections, structured interviews, as well as an examination of the Mayan calendar and the community's daily routine. Throughout this assessment process, one could get to know the community. As we can see in the following comments heard in meetings and assemblies, the community members were dissatisfied with the irregular operation of their water system: “We're tired because of the problems with the project. The tubes break all the time; there are times that we're left for more than ten days without water . . . You can't see the committee and the Central Council's work. You can't trust them – they have sold new taps, but who knows where they spent the money.” (…) “They keep asking us for contributions to fix the project, but they don't repair it. We don't want to pay the fee anymore or give more contributions because nothing gets fixed."(…) “Some residents take advantage by demanding service but then not taking care of the water. And when you ask for their participation, they don't even show up.”

With respect to the poor operation of the system, the water engineers observed: “A big part of the reason for the interruption of the water supply for several days was because of the damage to the structures, which was due to, more than anything, administrative problems.”

The Chex committee members explained how the problems affected them: “When we come down from the mountain to inform those on the committee about the kind of damage to the flow, we don't find anybody. Most of the time, we go back without fixing anything. To us that means having walked ten kilometres to come down and ten to climb back up to our community.” […] “The Central Council has the tools to make repairs, and every time there are problems in el Pericón, we have to go down and get them. But if we don't find anyone, we return and come back to town on market day to look for the president or treasurer."

In the assemblies, the council members explained the situation from their perspective: “Our project has problems in the conduction lines for two reasons: first, due to the landslides that sweep away all the tubing, and second, because people break the tubing to be able to drink water. That's why the service gets interrupted every so often . . . (The associates) weren't happy and . . . the situation was very worrisome because people don't want to pay their contributions anymore. That's why the water problems can't get fixed, because a lot of money is needed . . . [T]hey also don't come along to go see what the problem is; they always say they don't have time. It takes us a lot of time to go see where the problems are – hours of walking and lots of dangers climbing up the mountain. People don't see that."

The previous selections demonstrate the confrontation between the council and committee members and the associates of the water supply system – a project that cost Q 900,000 (US$ 140,625) and that did not work.

Improving the ability to manage water

Having gotten to know, discuss and analyze their problems, the Central Council and seven local committees made priorities and plans. (It was impossible to prioritize and plan with the entire community.)

Several planning techniques were used, such as the scale of priorities, matrices, logical frameworks, and la placita. Taking advantage of meetings and assemblies, the central problems were identified and community plans were made, which included a programme.

During the planning process, many associates made themselves heard:

• The project is ours and we have to take care of it.
• It would be good if those on the Central Council and the committees informed us about everything that happens so that people don't go around spreading rumours . . . [I]t would also be good if the committee worked and put us to work, and if someone doesn't want to, have their service taken away.
• It's better if we use the regulations; that way, there's no nonsense – everyone is equal with regard to what is demanded of us and what we have to do. If what we have doesn't work [i.e. the regulations], let's make new ones.
• What we want is that the tubing on the mountain gets fixed, or that the PVC pipes get replaced with steel pipes.
• We want a new project because the one we have gives us a lot of problems and we have to keep on repairing it.

Others, feeling more desperate with the situation, suggested that “it would be better if we sell the taps because they are asking too much money for repairs".

A few leaders gave their opinions: “It's better if we talk to the director of the institution in Xela so that he can help us fix the project . . . Where people break the tubes, let's put a tap there and see how it goes."

These were the preliminary ideas put forth to improve the management of water. After a heated argument between the beneficiaries and their leaders in the assembly, they began working together. They managed to divide the operation and maintenance of the water system. They also divided the 17 kilometres of conduction line into seven parts, with one part being the responsibility of each community. Next, the keys to the padlocks of certain key structures in the system were distributed, and more tools were obtained.

Elsewhere, they recognized the need to train more water engineers so that each community would have its own. Regarding this work, the seven council members set for themselves certain tasks: “First, look for a solution to fix the technical problems with the water so that people give their contributions and don't sell their taps. Later, let's strengthen [train] the committee and water engineers to avoid the same problems in the future.”

After several meeting and assemblies, they managed to make plans and timetables. The people decided to keep track of the completion, and everyone had to watch over them and indicate in the assemblies when they were not done.

Seven communities organizing and working together

At first, the communities had united only to execute the project. But now, according to the needs identified in the assessment, they made their plan by consulting with all the associates. This obligated them to better define their organization and operation.

Within each community, the water committees were strengthened. The committees were now elected through community assemblies, wherein a list of new members was presented. Their function was to direct each community in the management of water. To guarantee the coordination among these committees, a general assembly of associates was organized, made up of all the committee members in the seven communities.

This assembly, in turn, elected a Central Council, which was in charge of the global management of the water supply. Through this process the community members, organizations and leaders participated and made decisions about the system and water management.

The local committees are made up of seven people: president, vice president, secretary, treasurer and three other committee members.

Plans were made in the community and followed by the support team. Activities included exchanges with other committees in the municipality, workshops with committees, and training sessions for community leaders. These actions allowed the community leaders themselves, by using participatory methodologies and techniques, to better define their functions:

• All of us who are project associates have to pass through the committee because there is no way only a few are going to lend services while others do not. That is why the community named the committee through a list; that way, we all participate equally. When someone refuses to participate, there will be a sanction: water is taken away from us for one year. To get our service back we will have to keep giving our contribution and work shifts.
• We have to be at all the committee meetings to deal with matters relating to the water. We also have to go to Central Council meetings in town. When there are technical problems, we advise the water engineer so that he is with us to see how to solve the problems.
• When there are problems with the water we invte the associates in order to plan with them what we are going to do, as well as to ask for their contributions and manpower for work in the project.
• The committee is changed every two years. If we do not render accounts of our work and finances, we get a punishment: our water can be taken away for one year.

The group of people that represented the seven communities was the Central Council. Ever since the Central Council was organized, different actions had been taken, but its work was mired in debilities, conflicts and obstacles that limited its proper functioning. Like the local committees, the Central Council at first had little knowledge of the work it had to do in the management of the project.

In one Central Council meeting, their functions had to be analyzed and discussed. In the end, they were defined thus: “Our biggest job is to see to it that the water service works. One must, then, have knowledge of what happens with everything related to the water; make a work plan; and make decisions."

The Central Council members determined more specific functions as well:

• Meet every fifteen days to talk about water and sanitation.
• Look for ideas for the project maintenance and see to it that it lasts.
• See that all the assemblies help to improve the water project.
• Make sure that maintenance and operation work is done.
• Keep the local committees informed about the work we do in the Central Council.
• Invite the local committees to decide what work we have to do with the water.
• Look for help from other institutions and organizations to improve the water project.
• Report on the financial resources we have and how we spend them.

The president of the Central Council, recalling the work done to fix the project, explained: “When we were working on the repair of the project, we realized in the assessment meeting that there were other problems, and we began to see what they were. During the talk, many more problems surfaced and we said that it would be good to fix them, too. So afterwards, we made a work plan, wherein we would look at the fee, new regulations and household taps, as well as organize the community for maintenance . . . [Also,] we would tell people to plant trees and do something to care for the conduction line, where there was always a problem."

According to the secretary of the Central Council, there were positive results: “After the work that was done to fix the project, and when everyone had water, the people loved us because they saw our work and because we talked with them in the assembly – they know what we do. It's better for us if people know about our work; that way, they help more."

In summary, the organization was now clearly defined with respect to its levels of decision making, organs, forms of participation and communication mechanisms. It was now easier to get organized for the work.

Strengthening the power of the local water committees

The auto-assessment initially done by the council members revealed a lack of legitimacy among the authorities and, consequently, a lack of attendance, power disputes resulting from personal interests, and discouraged community participation. The plans made by the council members included strategies to strengthen and improve the authority and power of the local committees and the Central Council.

With the implementation of these plans, the situation began to change. Don Pascual, one of the beneficiaries in Agua Blanca, commented on this change: “When the committee or Central Council let us know that there are meetings, we all have to be there, because if not, they punish us – they can take away our water for a while… The meetings that those on the committee invite us to are good. They say how the water project is going. When it breaks down, they say how much of a fee we have to pay and who is going to work; that's why we always go to the meeting."

Doña Estela expressed the situation of the women regarding the change: “When our husbands go off to the lowlands to work, they tell us that if there is a water meeting, we have to go to find out what those in the committee say. They [our husbands] also tell us that when we want to say something, we have to say it, even if we're afraid to."

The work and economic contribution strengthened the identity that the associates had with their water system. This translated into the feeling of ownership among them, as expressed here by Don Reginaldo from Chex: “We all feel like owners of the water project because we always have to watch what we're doing so that everything works out well and that we have water in our houses – also because we pay our fee."

One APAGUA associate in the Tucuna community observed: “We in the community use the water better because our tank always has water and we don't see it go down.” Another from Río Blanco Chiquito added: “We tell the committee not to sell more new connections; one must think about whether there will be enough water for later on – our children are going to need water, too.”

The communication had been strengthened in the meetings and assemblies. Matters relating to the operation of the supply of water were reported on, principally when the system had problems; afterward, the situation was presented along with possible solutions, and decisions were made together.

Making a community business for the supply of water

With regard to the water project, the leaders and associates consider some basic ideas valid:

• The project belongs to the community, that is, an idea of ownership exists.
• It is not acceptable that the municipality assumes responsibility for this service.
• There is a desire to continue managing the project.
• Management implies expenses that must be charged to the associates.
• The capacity of APAGUA must be improved.

From these ideas arose the effort to institutionalize the water service; that is, to make it run like a “business.” To do this, APAGUA now has land and a local headquarters where its office currently functions with the minimum requirement of materials – desks, blackboards, benches and water engineering equipment. A general coordinator and an accountant have also been taken on as paid staff.

Although no one specifically posed the idea of a community business, it arose as part of the project activities. Some council members did not think it was a good idea because the associates might have interpreted it as business profitable only to the leaders. The idea of the leaders, however, was to “have a business directed by the community members themselves to permanently provide themselves with sufficient high-quality water at the lowest cost possible.”

Making decisions in community assemblies

The committees of Aguacatán would always meet to make their decisions. In these meetings, the heads of families from the seven villages and hamlets participated – be they men or women. The assemblies were often not very productive because other subjects were discussed and because not everyone participated. For this reason, the council members themselves determined some “rules and recommendations” to improve the running of the community assemblies.

This development helped the community assemblies present water supply problems, look for solutions, make decisions, as well as report on activities and the money collected and spent. The assembly was also the time to resolve conflicts within the community or with outside people and institutions. Conflicts and disagreements always arose in the assemblies.

These assemblies were part of community tradition, for although their form of functioning is not written down, what is discussed and agreed upon there is respected and carried out. This activity was part of the common law norms of these indigenous peoples. Formally recognized, traditional community leaders directed the proceedings. The assemblies were always held in the Aguatecan language; for those who speak another tongue, the assembly is translated. Don Angel Velázquez from Agua Blanca explained the importance of the assembly: “The assembly helps the beneficiaries of the water project to realize what activities the Central Council and local committees were doing. The fact that people are aware of problems and progress helps when their collaboration is sollicited. They happily give it because they are informed about what it is for. What's more, it was they themselves who had decided it should be that way."

On one occasion, an assembly was held to decide what to do with an associate who had broken his back and ended up handicapped. After a heated discussion, it was decided that he was not obligated to work any shifts nor pay for them.

Some of these agreements were written down, but the majority were not. The community members themselves respected the oral tradition. The assembly had also come to be a mechanism for social control and pressure for those who violated the regulations or did not fulfil their responsibilities.

Making and applying water regulations

The communities themselves responded to a system of common law, that is, unwritten laws. Oral tradition – the spoken word – was the law of these communities.

Previously, no clear norms or agreements existed regarding the supply of water. As a consequence, they had had many problems, especially relating to water use for production ends; the amount of consumption; the fee payment period; and the situation of the widows.

The institution that had supported the project construction in 1986 also brought them a well-organized set of written regulations. These regulations, however, did not help these communities much, principally because their content was highly technical and because they espoused a vision different from that of the community. Later, a technician from the community itself made other regulations, but these contained only his ideas. Once again, they did not work out. Likewise, one of the council members drew up some regulations, but because she had not consulted with the community, they too were not accepted and respected.

Don Aurelio Gómez, the ex-secretary of APAGUA commented on the problems: “We beneficiaries are not familiar with the regulations that we have. We only get to know them and apply them when we become council members. It seems like the council members that made them thought more about their own interests and not about those of the everyone else."

During the assessment process, it came to be understood that the projects lacked regulations that reflected the interests and vision of the associates themselves. Through a slower, more labour-intensive process that applied participatory techniques, the council members started elaborating a document. There were several steps in this process:

• A list was made of the problems with the supply of water.
• The key problems were analyzed.
• Alternatives were sought for regulation.
• Agreements were established for the new regulations.
• These regulations, although analyzed and agreed upon among the council members, were also subjected to consultation with the communities to assure that they were in agreement.

The community members said that now, with the regulations that they themselves had made, they had managed to clarify the responsibility of the Central Council, the local committees and the project associates. It was also revealed that a small group of associates (a minority) had been adversely affected by the new regulations, given that there were limits stipulated for water use in production activities.

The inhabitants also determined that, within the regulations, they were not to be called “beneficiaries” because that term implied that they only received the benefits of the project. Nor should they be called “users.” Instead, the community members agreed to call themselves “associates” because this meant that they were owners of the water system and that they had responsibilities. This feeling of ownership had made them assume more responsibilities regarding the management of the water.

Don Chico illustrated how the assembly continued to be a control mechanism to apply pressure and so enforce the regulations: “I know the case of a person who has a tap connected on his land but hasn't told the committee about it. If I were to tell him not to do it, he'd tell me to go to hell. It's better if I say it in the assembly. That way, he feels shame and doesn't do it again."

Applying the community's knowledge and human resources

In the beginning, when there was no water project, the leaders always thought about looking for an institution that would “make them a project”; that would “hand out financing to them”; that would “train them to handle it”; that would “bring them regulations”; and that would even “put in some technicians”. Consequently, the institutions only imposed a solution and made the decisions about community matters.

Now the community takes advantage of the new system and manages it, but also continues utilizing its different water sources – wells, rivers, streams – to wash clothes, irrigate crops and water their animals. They do this in accordance with their own agreements, some of which are established in the regulations.

The community's elders exercise their authority and forms of organization to manage the water, for they are now the advisors to the council members. The community assembly continues to be a mechanism for consultation, discussion and collective decision making.

The experience and training that their leaders have received in accounting, organization and water engineering now constitute the basis for permanently maintaining water service of high enough quality for human consumption.

The basis and legitimacy of the community's common law norms now have more validity and written support in most cases. The norms are complied with not because they are written down, but because they have been defined by the community members themselves.

Social pressure is an indispensable element for proper control and management of water. The leaders have also established some formal mechanisms to keep track of and follow through on planned activities. Many of these mechanisms work by means of visits by the leaders, meetings and community assemblies.

Defining a high enough fee for the operation and maintenance of the water system

Through problem identification, analysis and internal discussion, the Central Council and local committees – using the participatory methodologies offered by the SER support team – tackled the problem of the fee.

The fee amount and form of payment had been a problem ever since the water system was constructed in 1986. Initially, a fee of Q6 (US$.94) per year was established. The problem the council members observed was that the institution that built the project “imposed” a fee without knowing the nature or amount of expenses the system's operation and maintenance would involve. This situation led the council members to determine a new fee of Q12 (US$1.88) per year.

Once again, the fee showed itself to be inadequate when more serious problems began, especially when conduction pipes broke.

The irregularity in the water service caused some associates to refuse to pay their fees. Without a fee and financial resources, the committee could not operate and maintain the system, much less repair the broken parts. The associates who did pay began to lose faith in their local committees and the Central Council. Soon after, the members of the Central Council resigned one by one.

Once this problem was identified, discussed and analyzed, the council members presented it to the associates in each community. They also took advantage of the opportunity to obtain alternative solutions from each. This activity served as a basis to make a plan to redefine the fee and subject it to consultation.

Following the plans, the Central Council did an analysis in which the operation and maintenance costs were calculated for one year. By comparing the expenditures with the income generated by the fees in this same time period, a negative balance was apparent, for much more was spent than taken in. With this finding the Central Council members detailed what things the fee was invested in; they also established the need to define a new fee and plan their expenses annually.

As a result, the Central Council decided to analyze and propose a new fee within the APAGUA assembly and later subject it to consultation with all the associates of the seven communities, detailing the expenses. During this assembly, the associates committed themselves to paying additional fees for repairs, so long as the Central Council reported on what things the money was spent for. It was also established that the fee be reviewed every year.

The system used to collect the fee was improved. Now all the associates paid their fee directly to the local committee. Previously, the local committees held assemblies to remind people of the day and place of collection. For those who did not comply, there were sanctions, such as the temporary suspension of service.

The treasurers of the local committees kept track of the funds obtained through the fee payment. This accounting was maintained in cash books with a list of users that paid and those that owed. The Central Council received all the funds that the committees collected in their communities.

In the APAGUA Central Council, a general accountant was named. Every three months, he made accounting reports to the departmental government as a way to institutionalize the handling of resources within the legal framework established in the country. He would also keep account of the funds collected through fees and extra contributions. The purpose of this move was to make a general account each year of income and expenditures, as well as to offer clear information to all the associates.

It was decided that the local committees would handle a percentage of the fee collections to be able to attend to water problems specific to their communities, without having to report to the Central Council.

Because the treasurer and local secretary would have to handle money and give reports, it was established that they, as a minimum, would have to be able to read and write, as well as add, subtract, multiply and divide.

Ever since the system began functioning without major problems, the community members have made their contributions through fees and extra payments. As a result, the Central Council currently had administered approximately Q 40,000 (US$ 6250).

Defining strategies for the financial support of water management

Managing the supply of water in rural communities required not only local organizing, technical assistance and human resources, but also financial support. Without economic resources, management would not be easy. Don Abraham Velázquez, ex-president of the Central Council, summed up the situation: “Ideas and plans are nice, and we can go on talking, but without economic resources, they just don't do any good.”

Nevertheless, the financial situation had been critical. At times, the Central Council was left without any funds. The local committees did not manage money; record keeping was not the best; and corruption also occurred among some directors. The lack of confidence among the associates grew even more.

Having analyzed this problem, the Central Council moved to improve financial management, with the following results:

• The local committees collected funds by way of fees and used a percentage for local management.
• The local committees and Central Council paid off Q 900,000 (US$140,625) on a loan from the NGO that built the project, in accordance with the agreement set down.
• Collections were made within the seven communities for Q 50,000 (US$ 7,812.50) to be used for repairs and to pay off a loan from another NGO.
• A loan of Q 30,000 (US$4,687.50) was taken out from a financial firm to improve the current system. With their harvest, they would be able to pay it off.
• Currently, APAGUA has a bank account of Q 12,000 (US$ 1,875).
• There is now an accountant who has made a plan to improve the financial management of the resources. APAGUA has made fixed-term loans to business people and to groups to collect interest and maintain the fund.

These experiences have helped to consolidate the accounting, administrative and financial capacity of APAGUA, and consequently, to bolster the confidence of the associates toward their directors.

Reforesting the conduction area to avoid landslides

The deficiencies of the water service were due in large part to the rupture of the conduction tubing. This, in turn, caused landslides and erosion due to the deforestation in the conduction area.

The plans of the Central Council and the local committees proposed the creation of a nursery in Aguacatán to thereby reforest the areas. But this task required much money, time and effort; and moreover, they had little experience with reforestation. This activity was not very attractive to the associates since it did not offer them a direct economic benefit.

Responding to this new need, the APAGUA Central Council contacted the Unidad Ejecutora del Proyecto de la Cuenca del Río Chixchoy (UNEPROCH).

At that time, UNEPROCH was going through a difficult time, since its programmes and projects had been rejected by the communities of this municipality. APAGUA proposed that a plan be made through this institution to reforest part of this basin, but it had to be a plan where the association took advantage of the resources of UNEPROCH and not the other way around. UNEPROCH accepted this proposal.

Taking advantage of its knowledge and abilities in the application of participatory methodologies, the Central Council made a forest assessment, a corresponding plan and a timetable that included those responsible for its execution. This plan was subjected to consultation in the community assembly and was approved. Among other things, the plan included forestry nurseries, reforestation and training of forest promoters. The communities involved were consulted on the plan.

As a result, forest nurseries were set up with 100,000 plants; 50,000 trees were planted in the landslide zones, an area that was part of the Chixchay microbasin. Also, fourteen forest promoters were trained. These achievement were the result of the participation and organization of the Central Council, local committees and associates, and with the financial, material and technical assistance of UNEPROCH.

Starting again

In one of the communities, something rather instructive occurred. One day, when the community was happy and we were satisfied with what had been accomplished in the PAR project, it rained very hard. Part of the tubing blew, the distribution tank clogged up, and the catchment tank split. The community's joy ended. However, one of the community leaders, despite her sadness, mustered up courage and told her companions: “It looks like we must begin again. The good thing is that we already know how to do it.”

Accomplishments of the project

One of the biggest achievements has been the use of participatory methodologies and tools. The leaders not only apply these to water management, but also in other community development work. An ex-council member and current worker in the local cooperative provides just such a case: “I was given work in the cooperative because they say that I can handle participatory techniques to work with people.”

With the improved management capability, APAGUA could move beyond their role of supplying water and promote “integrated community development” projects benefiting the associate communities.

APAGUA has been invited by the Public Health Ministry to present its experience before the directors of all the institutions in the country's water sector. Also, the neighbouring communities have solicited support from APAGUA to train other committees and follow the process of water management.

The municipality of Aguacatán and other communities have asked the SER support team to help with other processes, using the experience with the seven communities in Aguacatán as a base.

APAGUA currently has cooperation agreements with three other institutions – UNEPROCH, Housing Cooperative, and Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Aguacatán (ASDIA) – to implement plans to improve water management.

Contact:

In Guatemala, the participatory action research was undertaken by SER (Servicios para el Desarrollo) in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. For questions and remarks, please contact Fabian Gonon of SER.