6. ABC de los proyectos comunitarios

Main ideas / lessons (ABC of Community Projects)

1) Turn “big ideas” into viable community initiatives

• Start from a real need: Every idea originates from an identified community need (big or small).
• Convert the need into a structured proposal:
  • Do a diagnosis/assessment to understand:
    • the current situation,
    • what need must be satisfied,
    • and how to develop the initiative step-by-step.
• Mindset shift about “viability”:
  • Community context often requires moving beyond a narrow, profitability/ROI-only definition of viability.
  • Many community projects may not be economically profitable in the usual sense, yet remain viable because they create deeper impacts and transformations.

2) Redefine “viability” using multiple feasibility pillars

Community projects should be evaluated across four pillars:

• Technical viability (the solution works as designed)
• Financial viability (costs and sustainability over time; not only profit—also affordability and long-term operation)
• Legal viability (permits, regulatory compliance)
• Social viability (community benefit, acceptance, participation, impacts on well-being and organization)

Co-benefits: projects can be viable even if they aren’t “economically viable” in a strict sense

• Co-benefits are indirect benefits that make a project worthwhile for the community.
• Example:
  • A rural school without electricity needs lighting, comfort, and internet access.
  • Even if the upfront investment (e.g., panels, inverter, batteries) isn’t economically “profitable,” it can still create:
    • social well-being
    • improved study conditions and motivation
    • internet access and learning opportunities
    • additional downstream community improvements
• Key takeaway: change the narrative of what counts as “value” in the project.

3) Use participatory “self-diagnosis” instead of outsider “diagnosis”

Speakers emphasize that for community projects:

• The community should perform self-diagnosis (participatory diagnosis from within).
• Otherwise, projects risk being poorly matched to lived realities.

The diagnosis process should also include:

• Threat assessment to understand how insecurity and external pressures affect feasibility and implementation.

Principle: The “right problem” and “right solution” must emerge from community understanding, not from imposed framing.

Practical guidance: finding the right solution

• Listen and observe extensively:
  • Listen to the community and also to participants’ own intuition.
  • Observe power dynamics (e.g., who speaks in workshops; ensure multiple voices, including women’s voices).
• Example logic:
  • Problem: no water access.
  • A proposed “solution” like water trucks may fail due to remoteness/supply constraints.
  • If self-assessment reveals a well and related infrastructure, the solution may shift toward using/strengthening that existing resource.
• Technical feasibility then compares options by:
  • lifecycle costs and maintenance,
  • operational costs over time,
  • long-term reliability (e.g., diesel generator running costs vs. solar + storage).

4) Rethink financing and power dynamics with funders/sponsors

Sponsors wanting to “take over”

Community projects should maintain:

• community agency,
• alignment with community needs and political positioning,
• and ethical/professional standards.

If funders impose control or reframe priorities against community goals, the project tends to fail.

Recommended stance:

• Mediate and negotiate, but preserve the community’s control over the project’s direction.
• Measure and report to funders without abandoning community goals.
• Build/add indicators that reflect community realities (not only donor metrics).

Financing constraints and guideline mismatches

International cooperation may fund energy transitions but also impose guidelines that don’t reflect on-the-ground realities (e.g., what happens when batteries break, local maintenance capacity).

Therefore:

• Don’t wait for a “perfectly viable in every dimension” project to begin.
• Build change while improving feasibility through iterative learning and community accompaniment.

5) Co-management, appropriation, and sustainability over time

Sustainability requires:

• community organization (committees, roles, maintenance systems, billing/allocation rules),
• training so the community can operate and maintain technology,
• appropriating the technology through collective learning.

A project that depends on external control is less likely to persist; projects should be owned and directed by the community.

Example case: “Loma Bonita” water pumping (solar)

• Solar-powered pumping system:
  • spring enclosed in a tank and pumped to elevated community cistern,
  • serves ~150 families / ~657 people,
  • adapts to service gaps (grid outages during parts of the year) using batteries.
• Reported framing:
  • socially viable (organized committee, local roles, training plans),
  • economically viable over a long period through electricity savings and resilience during outages.

6) Participatory methodologies for self-diagnosis (methods named or implied)

A methodology toolkit was discussed, emphasizing participatory, practical, and multidisciplinary approaches:

• Ethnography (including variants like autoethnography)
• Participatory mapping / social cartography
• Workshops as participatory tools
  • characteristic: practical doing, not only lectures
  • adapted forms of workshops (multiple formats)
• “Making contraptions” / inventions in popular education
  • building participatory artifacts to elicit knowledge and co-design
• Narrative practice

Multidisciplinarity/interdisciplinarity:

• Combine technical, social, and community knowledge.
• Collaborate with anthropology/sociology skills.

Guiding principle: humility

• Learn from other disciplines, communities, territories, and lived expertise.

7) How communities can organize to start when organization is weak

If community organization is weak:

• Identify an organizational nucleus, which may exist as:
  • an ejido body,
  • a water committee,
  • town-hall-related committees,
  • small neighbor groups.
• Begin with workshops and low-barrier activations:
  • e.g., short solar-related sessions,
  • calling people back repeatedly builds trust and participation.
• Patience is essential:
  • mobilization is often slow,
  • but momentum can begin from shared needs (e.g., “we all need energy access”).

---

Methodology / step-by-step instructions (explicitly or consistently advocated)

A) From need → community project (turning an idea into a viable initiative)

1. Identify the need inside the community (not a donor’s or outsider’s assumption).
2. Conduct participatory self-diagnosis:
   • analyze current context,
   • clarify what must be solved,
   • map actors, constraints, and threats.
3. Redefine viability using four pillars:
   • technical, financial, legal, social.
4. Generate solutions with community input:
   • listen/observe to understand what resources and options already exist,
   • compare options (technical + long-term cost/maintenance).
5. Co-design project components:
   • include training, roles, and maintenance plans so the community can appropriate the project.
6. Build indicators aligned with community value and co-benefits:
   • include social indicators (training, equity of access, quality/stability, etc.).
7. Seek financing while preserving community control:
   • report to donors without letting donors take over priorities.
8. Implement and adapt:
   • incorporate feedback and ensure long-term sustainability.

B) For selecting a “right solution” (example-based approach)

1. Start with the real problem as the community defines it.
2. Ask what the community already has (infrastructure/resources) via self-assessment.
3. Test solution feasibility:
   • technical reliability,
   • lifecycle cost and long-term operation.
4. Choose the option that best meets needs over time—not only the cheapest or quickest option.

---

Speakers / sources featured

Speakers invited / interviewed

• Sofía García Pacheco (industrial engineer; Onergia cooperative)
• Joseline (Joseline / Yots) Saldaña (project implementation team; Institute for Development, Energy and Environment)

Moderation / host / production references (non-primary speakers)

• Ada Baina (mentioned as coordinator who frames the discussion)
• Richard (referred to as a participant/host voice during Q&A and prompts)

Other named contributors / references (not speaking as primary guests)

• Dr. Salmón (credited as helping with the program)
• Óscar Jara (mentioned for methodology: systematizing experiences; popular education tools)
• Carlos Tornel (mentioned in context of earlier session points about democracy/state vs community action)
• Dr. Ferrari / Luca Ferrari (mentioned as a reading related to energy transition justice)
• Qlc / Coelzi / IDE A (IDEA) (referenced as organizations/teams associated with projects or support)
• TOSEPAN Union of Cooperatives (referenced in relation to grassroots organization / collaboration)
• Tosepan / ejido solar / Climate Initiative of Mexico (referenced as examples/resources)
• Grupo México / Cinemex (mentioned as examples tied to megaproject financing context)
• CFE (Federal Electricity Commission, referenced in the Loma Bonita description)
• Hackers for Our Future (organizational context and community chapters)
• CESDER / UCIRED (referenced in relation to popular education methodology training)