|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Perhaps a consensus is emerging about the importance of capacity development in its wider sense for effective poverty alleviation for resource poor households in rural areas? Useful is to first explore governance, organisation and administrative capacity that prevent resources from reaching poor farmers; and second the commitment by the old institutions in pursuing relevant strategies. Vinay Chand succinctly put it: "we don't need money half as much as we need better targeting, management, control and accountability." Resource use efficiency in aid flows rarely is in line with expectations, yet too many argue for more aid before first looking at the efficiency of present resource flows. Poverty that reflects deprivation in terms of knowledge is particularly debilitating; freedom to choose, to progress then remains closed. Programme design and results will remain weak unless explicit measures are taken to create capabilities across rural resource poor households so that their present or dormant organisations are empowered, and their rights are protected. Nutrition security is one such right; it transcends food security in longer term importance, yet is more ignored since largely invisible. Progress in across donors in embedding human nutritional initiatives within cross sectoral approaches so far few remain few - in spite of justification and documented gains in effectiveness. Strengthening capabilities for knowledge transfer, for representation of deprived households, for accountability and transparency of programme objectives and results is well justified. The new thinking is that otherwise risk remains high that either local elites and/or governmental structures capture resource allocations intended for the poor. Many examples point to fund capture and limited impact of devolution of control to local bodies. For instance, in the area of NRM, it was found that "the degree of organisation amongst poor resource users and awareness of their rights were critical factors influencing devolution outcomes (Shackleton et al, ODI NR Perspectives No 76, 2002). The same study found for India and the Philippines that federations of NGOs and local groups increased the ability of forest users to pressure government into meeting their needs, for example by pointing out shortcomings of existing programmes. Aid organisations and recipients are not necessarily quick in endorsing and incorporating change that assists organisational capabilities of resource poor households, shifts the power balance and protects them from fund capture. Accountability about end results too often suffers, i.e. who benefits, in what form, to what extent. Programmes ought not to be dressed up as poverty alleviation when in reality they provide mere budget support to ministries of agriculture, to line agencies, and to national level farmers and women unions. Donors and programme managers then do not wish to demonstrate results given "problems of appropriation". But the design often was not appropriate in the first place. If sufficient capabilities were not ensured, targeting mechanisms were not put in place, indicators of impact were not relevant, few if any surveys of adoption and impact were to be conducted; only scant progress can be expected. True, in dialogue, the case for more accountability and transparency is not easily contested. For this reason, intriguing would be to measure progress in "the old institutions" in ensuring use of "new policies" for better representation, empowerment, accountability, and transparency. Important though is that no stigma should be attached to cases where actual poverty reduction falls short of expectation; what remains important is for the public to then understand severity of constraints, take stock of lessons learned and support longer term commitment. Perhaps a review could be usefully conducted across donors and agencies to catalogue cases where governments have facilitated communities to own programmes, to define objectives with relevant indicators to gauge measurable progress in poverty reduction. Empowerment as an effective process means that first relevant organisational models are accepted for devolving authority directly to disadvantaged resource users. Relevant models comprise those needed for financial intermediation and risk mitigation (relevant models have been developed in Tamil Nadu). When villagers' organisational capabilities are enhanced, their bodies may begin to participate also in monitoring policy and poverty reduction impacts and distil lessons learned. Moreover, structured social capital, i.e. capabilities of community organisations - and their acquired extent of programme ownership - can be measured and monitored (such measurements undertaken in Nepal and PNG, references available on request). To wit, use of easily collected indicators in the field for children's nutritional status remains a surprisingly simple low-cost instrument for empowering mothers with missing knowledge as to priorities, for tracking overall progress, for accountability. In the final analysis, long term capacity development for facilitators and extension staff cannot remain neglected. Too often agricultural colleges in recipient countries are forgotten. But to generate sustainable local solutions, to promote adoption of new concepts, agricultural colleges and related institutions warrant support. Knowledge needs to be diffused about organisational approaches that embed nutritional approaches within cross sectoral initiatives, inter alia about positive interactions between crops, feed for livestock and fishery development and impact in reducing human malnutrition. Faculties of agriculture with colleges need to develop relevant curricula as part of an overall programme to raise end use productivity to humans of resource flows to agriculture and rural areas. This remains important not least for Sub-Saharan African livelihood systems given the impact of HIV. The interface between agriculture and HIV warrants a discussion by itself. Best wishes, Per A. Eklund
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.