a) Opening session:
b) Issues
c) Country case studies
d) United Nations and international experience on decentralization
e) Lessons to be learned
f) Group discussions
g) Field visits
Mr Pakdee Ratanapon, Deputy Governor of Chiang Mai province inaugurated the workshop at 0900 hours on 4 November 1998, stressing the importance of decentralization in rural development. Dr Prem Nath, Assistant Director General and Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, welcomed participants, while Mr Anek Nakhabutr, Director, Social Investment Fund Office, Royal Thai Government, delivered the keynote address in which he analyzed how globalization has affected Asia and the Pacific region, with special reference to Thailand.
Thailand
Bangladesh
India
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Viet Nam
As analyzed by Ms Montip Krachangvej, Thailand's economy grew at a robust rate during the past three decades. However, the gap between the rich and the poor, and between urban and rural areas, widened as development objectives focused almost solely on economic growth. Current practices in Thailand emphasize people-centred sustainable development. The Participatory Decentralization Policy with innovations to strengthen local communities and organizations was followed by the Tambon Administrative Organization Act of 1994. Consequently, the Eighth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1997-2001) emphasized human development and the understanding that economic development should be considered as a means to achieve quality of life, not as an end in itself. Decentralized governance is given a prime place in Thai administration.
Dr Asanee Ratanamalai reports commendable effort in promoting decentralized rural development in Thailand. The success of farmers' cooperatives led to their expansion to help them further: government moved to consolidate, strengthen and expand them, beginning with the Cooperative Societies Act of 1928 facilitating varied cooperative development. In 1932, cooperatives organized in areas of land settlement and improvement, consumer, fishery, hire purchase, marketing and processing, thrift and credit groups appeared. The Cooperative Societies Act of 1968 repealed the previous act, empowering the Registrar of Cooperative Societies regarding registration, promotion and supervision of cooperatives.
This centralizing aspect is critiqued by Paradorn Preedasak and Viroj NaRanong who say that while governmental promotion was crucial in founding many cooperatives, official intervention often bars them from realizing their goals. A cooperative law amendment in the late 1960s resulted in forced consolidation of small cooperatives into general agricultural cooperatives, transforming some into bureaucratic organizations in which members lost their sense of ownership. An attempt to set up credit unions at tambon (subdistrict) level had similar consequences: the organizations were too big for a sense of participation and ownership. The Department of Community Development blueprint for credit unions, which attempts to set up credit unions uniformly nationwide, may impede rather than promote their growth. Nonetheless Thailand has over 5 418 primary cooperative societies with a current membership of 6 642 584 households contributing to overall improvement in the lives of small farmers, reducing their indebtedness and helping them maintain land ownership. Village credit unions (kloom orm sup) are founded to mobilize savings and later serve as small financial intermediaries at village level. In most cases, funds are loaned immediately to borrowers, usually members. Cooperatives rely heavily on Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives money, though their own savings mobilization has recently been more successful. Credit unions rely on their own funds, but their "loanable" funds are generally too small to be a reliable source of working capital for an entire village. However, their presence has a salutary effect on informal lenders and their interest rates.
Self-help organizations are not abstract entities; they are dynamic, people-led economic organizations. This is amply demonstrated in a case study of the Bangchak petrol station in Nakorn Pathom province, presented by Dr Supriya Kuandachakupt, in which villagers formed themselves as a self help group and began working on virtues of trust, sharing and cooperation in a small-scale community business. Their successful venture is a tribute to the Thai spirit of self help and cooperation, demonstrating that development can be achieved through self help, mutual help and cooperation. In this cooperative framework, all agents gain from cooperation and benefit sharing in terms of co-investment, co-management and profit sharing between the community and business. In the long run, with help and cooperation from business, the strength of CSOs will increase. Instead of being a threat to business corporations, their success will expand their business and their long-term profit.
The Population and Community Development Association (PDA) in Buriram relates the experience of an NGO in poverty alleviation and rural development. PDA development strategy involved forming self help organizations and group cooperation. It used community development activities, such as fertilizer and rice banks and a fair price store as entry points. Family planning and basic public health, AIDS education, development of water resources, women and children's rights environmental awareness and income-generating activities were also begun. PDA vigorously pursued cooperative development to build cooperative capacity.
Arguing in favour of decentralized governance, Dr Subrahmanyam holds that effective decentralization is not possible without reforming the existing power structure. Beneficiaries of the existing order defend the status quo; for them, all appears to be in harmony. Those who feel deprived are hopeful of change - a change for a better tomorrow. Real decentralization entails redistribution of political, economic, social and cultural power. Though the "market" and the "state" have failed to safeguard the interests of the poor, CSOs have undertaken the task of organizing the poor. NGOs and self help groups (SHGs) play key roles in microcredit, adult and non-formal education, health, small-scale irrigation, employment in non-formal sectors and income generating activities. BRAC and the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh exemplify this type of success.
NGOs are significant in Bangladesh, but are unlikely to replace government efforts in poverty reduction. Their principal contribution lies in being able to demonstrate participatory approaches and models that government might follow. They mobilize the poor to pressure government to initiate pro-poor policies and help the poor realize their benefits. Learning from NGOs and self help groups can enhance the effectiveness, improve the efficiency and strengthen outreach for poverty alleviation and rural development programmes. SHGs can be effective in a truly democratic milieu with active, dynamic CSOs. SHGs and well-informed citizens can ensure responsible, transparent, efficient and good governance.
According to Prof Raghav Gaiha, the 73rd Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1992 was designed to revive and strengthen the Panchayat Raj system. Following this act, panchayats became a third tier of governance, after Union and State governments, with a major role in rural poverty alleviation. Further, there is now greater recognition of the importance of NGOs in rural development, through delivery of programmes/services and empowerment of the poor. The act confers constitutional status on panchayats at village, block and district levels in each state; mandatory elections; quotas for vulnerable sectors (including women), financial devolution and a delineation of responsibility. Some evidence, however, points to problems. In an unstable political environment, bureaucracy overextended its domain. Where there are stable political settings and clear roles for bureaucracy, district and block panchayats reallocated areas of responsibility, curtailing the role of village panchayats. The limited financial autonomy of village panchayats and their weak accountability to village assemblies further impeded their poverty alleviation role. Designing rural institutions such as panchayats to serve the interests of the poor may accomplish little unless combined in strong coalition with the rural poor (an observation similar to that of the Bangladesh delegate).
P. K. Mishra focuses on cooperatives. In India, as in Thailand, they are recognized as instruments of agroeconomic change; state participation is advocated. Village cooperatives are ideal institutions for promoting self help groups. The National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) promotes Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, promoting and financing income-generating rural programmes via cooperatives, developing alternative linkages between cooperatives and NGOs. India's experience offers lessons on decentralization and people's participation: greater interaction and coordination is needed between grass-roots "political" (panchayats) and "economic" (cooperatives) institutions for development in rural areas. Linkages between such institutions at village level should include mutual representation in governing bodies; joint planning and coordination committees to plan and implement development; empowerment of the joint committee; enabling village-level cooperatives to enrol SHGs and amend cooperative laws and bylaws.
Amitabh Kumar Singh presents the experience of SAMARTHAN, a Madhya Pradesh NGO. Despite favourable inputs in the Panchayat Raj system introduced by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, the result is contradictory, including: a) a lack of awareness; b) bureaucratic resistance to decentralization; c) resistance by the dominant coalition to participation of the marginalized, the oppressed and women; d) too many political alliances; and e) increased caste alliances and conflicts due to the reservation policy. SAMARTHAN's experience in two panchayats reinforces the ideal of decentralized functioning and empowerment of local institutions of governance. Fifty years of centralized functions needs time to change, but growing civil society forces supporting decentralization will accelerate and give direction to a decentralized institutional system of local self-governance.
B.H. Gouda reviews the multi-dimensional efforts of SEARCH, an NGO involved in rural development. Its extension programme (launched in 1986) reaches over 150 villages in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu. Its strategy centres on formation of people's groups as grass-roots focal point agencies to plan and conduct development programmes focusing on poverty alleviation, food security, consumer rights and dalits. SEARCH also deals with gender issues such as girl child, women's health and reproductive health needs and rights, female infanticide, domestic violence against women and the political empowerment of women. SEARCH advocates economic independence (it established a women's bank in 1996 to mobilize SHG member savings) and helps build collaboration between local government and CSOs, helping free women's SHGs from poverty, helplessness and dependency.
Em Haryadi outlined three periods in Indonesia's development: the Green Revolution (1970s), Basic Needs (1980s) and Growth-led Development (1990s). Economic crisis was countered by a people-based approach for development to reduce poverty by promoting self-reliance: organizing and mobilizing the poor into self help groups is proposed. People-based approaches look to people's economic needs rather than growth models, locally-focused, decentralized development vs. "blue-print" development, socially-just development vs. elite-centered models, politically democratic vs. authoritarian approaches, ecologically sustainable vs. resource degradation, ethical and gender-balanced, to achieve self-reliance. Bina Swadaya demonstrates how the poor are enabled to alleviate poverty and access resources through self help efforts. The challenge lies in attaining a decentralized rural development by promoting SHGs that are economically people-centered, socially just, politically democratic and participatory, ecologically sustainable, ethically vibrant and gender balanced.
Phoung Parisak Pravongviengkham said that rural development in the Lao PDR is a means to eradicate mass poverty and achieve improvement through sustainable socio-economic development of people. New approaches and mechanisms attempt to harmonize development activities among central line agencies and between central agencies and local government to respond fully to the needs and expectations of local communities. Government recognizes that agricultural and forestry development demands a more holistic approach. Moreover, the diversity of rural livelihood systems implies that development efforts need to be decentralized to provinces, districts and villages. It is now policy that district level governments are to coordinate combined interventions of central agencies. Community participation calls for effective partnerships between government services and local communities, building on what is already there. This suggests moving toward flexibility in implementing policies, rules and regulations and the need to make adjustments to seemingly inflexible national programmes.
One key and strategic option for decentralized rural development is building the capacity of SHOs to enable them to plan and manage their own development, collectively and with others. The community assumes primary responsibility for all decisions and action. This was the strategic premise of the FARM Programme presented by Bishan Singh. Farmer-centred Agricultural Resource Management (FARM) is an Asian regional movement with eight participating countries: China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam. Conceived as a contribution to Agenda 21, action plan of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in June 1992, it is funded by UNDP and executed by FAO. FARM expresses a shift in the development paradigm towards a farmer-centred model of integrated participatory development. It emphasizes community empowerment and creation of an enabling environment for farm household resource management decision-making to promote sustainable agriculture, drawing on the indigenous knowledge, creativity and resources of rural people.
The paradigm shift involves other changes: from targeting women as beneficiaries toward improving gender equity, with more participation of women in development. Women are to be partners in decision-making at household, farm and community levels and be recognized as farmers with the same responsibilities, aptitudes and skills as men - a desirable situation far from being realized. FARM focuses on rainfed areas. Most development aid and government support formerly went to irrigated agriculture: a consequence has been the neglect of rainfed areas. FARM addresses this neglect, helping improve natural resource management, sustainable agriculture, food security and poverty reduction.
Beginning in 1962, Myanmar experienced a centrally planned economy. Reforms initiated in 1988 were a move toward a market oriented economic system, and in the early 1990s government began to decentralize central control. Soe Thant Aung reviews an innovative UNDP-supported human development initiative. Focusing on use and conservation of mangrove land and water resources of two townships in the Ayeyarwady Delta, the project assesses the potential role of rural self help groups in poverty alleviation and local-level food security. Project personnel designed a model of village-level institutions as part of its community organization activities as well as facilitated delivery of goods, services and the process of participatory village development. Village groups facilitated income generation, women's development, extension activities and forestry activities. The essay concludes with implications for improving the role of community-level self help groups in poverty alleviation and food security in the Myanmar context.
According to Mr Demetrio Imperial, Jr., the Philippines embraced participatory planning in both public and private sectors. The Philippines Rural Institutional Strengthening Programme (PRISP) of the Department of Agriculture has an initiative to promote participatory planning. It focuses on strengthening rural institutions, especially local government units at municipal and village levels, to facilitate participatory planning, expediting efficient delivery of rural development programmes, projects and services, and is based on participatory planning. Anchored in dialogue-oriented, people-centred planning, the expected outcomes of the project are: to identify the value of participatory planning in their work; to demonstrate skills in facilitating a participatory planning process; to facilitate formulation of a village development plan; and to replicate the planning process in other villages of the respective municipalities. The bottom-up, dialogue-oriented participatory planning (PP) approach opens new vistas and perspective for people and institutions in the process. To date, PRISP-PP has proven viable in pilot municipalities and villages of Nueva Ecija. Based on the planners experiences, the process can now be replicated elsewhere, but the challenge remains the same: to facilitate meaningful people's participation in sustainable development planning.
Mr Roel Ravanera of ANGOC assessed decentralization in the Philippines. From the period of Spanish and American colonization of the Philippine Commonwealth and Republic through the Marcos government in 1972, the Philippines was ruled from the capital. Centralization was intensified by a culture of dependency that looked condescendingly upon local level institutions in the belief that the centre knows best. Decentralized administrative authority (but not political decentralization) was attempted under Marcos though a local government code in 1983. Following the overthrow of the Marcos government in 1986, the Aquino administration adopted a "Policy Agenda for People-Powered Development" including decentralization of government structures, minimum government intervention and greater local involvement of the people in decision-making, planning and programme implementation through community organizations and non-governmental organizations. The general strategy was based on the emerging paradigm of "growth with equity": development efforts are focused on meeting minimum basic needs of the poor rather than on simply achieving macroeconomic targets. Since then, devolution and decentralization have characterized Philippine government policies. While the centre provides the broad policy framework and social environment, it is local government units, private sector and civil society entities that are the prime engines for growth, equity and sustainability.
During the past five decades, according to Mr Bedgar Perera, Sri Lanka has invested significantly in three major social development programmes: the food subsidy programme, education and health services. Their cumulative effect initially enabled Sri Lanka to surge forward in human development indicators in comparison with low and middle-income countries. In 1977, however, with a change of government, came a shift in policies to open-up and liberalize the economy. Liberalization has been remarkable in the industrial, agricultural and financial sectors through a structural adjustment policy to improve its adverse balance of payments situation.
Parallel to these past developments, the government of the time attempted to decentralize administrative and public institutions, by establishing new ones or restructuring the existing ones with varied objectives and strategies to accelerate development. Thus, a clearly observable trend in Sri Lanka during the last two decades in the field of political, institutional and administrative systems and structures is a dominant move towards decentralization and devolution. Such moves have the objective of promoting decentralization towards subnational levels and local participation in planning and development interventions.
Prof Vu Trong Khai and Mr Pham Ngoc Thu documented self help organizations of Vietnamese farmers. In a case study on irrigation, in suburban Ho Chi Minh City, farmers with plots in the same area organized to regulate their use of water resources from an area-wide drainage system, sharing water fees, and electing a team leader responsible for maintaining the small watering system. Similarly, in some provinces, vocational associations or job groups were organized in specialty areas such as horticulture, shrimp farming, raft-fisheries, sugarcane and cotton production. In the provinces of An Giang, Kien Giang, Can Tho, Vinh Long, Tra Vinh and Ho Chi Minh City formation of such self help organizations has become a significant movement.
Forming a capital and common material base in such self help units is the fundamental principle for new model agriculture cooperatives under the Law on Cooperatives. Although self help organizations have been established in many forms, until now there has been a shortage of direction by local authorities, whose capacity needs to be built.
Presentations by invitees and United Nations agency representatives included a presentation by Mr Jean Bonnal, Rural Development Officer, SDA, Rome, "Decentralization and rural development, from FAO's experiences and proposals", presented in his stead by Mr Wim Polman, Rural Development Officer, FAO-RAP. Structural adjustment policies, liberalization and globalization, he suggested, resulted in the shrinkage of state activities. State withdrawal has created a window of opportunity for other rural development agents to undertake action. Mr Bonnal presented FAO projects and programmes with a focus on public institutions, civil society and local government levels. He outlined a set of support policies fundamental to the success of decentralization: (i) information, (ii) formation (training) and (iii) organization and presented the typology on decentralization.
Mr Jan B. Orsini of ESCAP presented an innovative "Success case replication" (SCR) methodology of rural employment promotion for tackling rural poverty in which locally-identified entrepreneurs were successfully trained to train their peers and share success with their neighbours.
Mr. Prem N. Sharma of FAO Nepal presented an unusual study on people's participation watershed management as the basis for wider social organization and rural development. He described sustainable participatory watershed management based on indigenous knowledge, when revitalization of local confidence is needed. Such participation, he said, leads to holistic rural development, challenging conventional management paradigms with new participatory paradigms which are process- rather than target-based. The key elements in such participation and the lessons learned from recent case studies are tools to reorient integrated programmes to become more participatory. Refocusing of policy options follows, so that rural people take charge of rural development. Professionals and policy makers can thus assist in building confidence in local institutions for sustainable watershed management and rural development, leading to overall human development though appropriate natural resources management in small watersheds in upland rural areas.
Having reviewed individual country reports, the comparative perspective must be assessed. In terms of their policy framework, countries such as Thailand (with its Tambon Administrative Organization Act of 1994), India (with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments on decentralization in favour of panchayats) and the Philippines (with the Local Government Code of 1983) could well serve as models to other countries for statutory reforms regarding decentralized governance.
As concerns institutional capacities and organization building, almost all countries must strengthen their local government capacities. This point was emphasized by Jean Bonnal in discussing decentralization and rural development. In countries such as India, some constraints appear to be: a) lack of awareness, b) resistance of bureaucracy, c) opposition to participation of oppressed groups on the part of the dominant coalition and d) the weak leadership at the grass-roots level. Training, sensitization and "conscientization" are required for local government functionaries as part of capacity building exercises.
Regarding GO-NGO collaboration, Bangladesh, Philippines and Sri Lanka stand as models while India and Thailand are moving towards such a framework. Viet Nam, Myanmar and the Lao PDR do not yet have such NGO sectors. These countries could well learn from the successful ones.
Evidence presented in country case studies indicates that the response of SHGs/SHO is overwhelming. Even in Viet Nam, SHGs have been active - but there is a shortage of guidance and counselling - reflecting the inadequacy of capacity building of local self-governments, observes Jean Bonnal. Countries such as Viet Nam, Lao PDR and Myanmar could learn management and other aspects of SHGs from the Philippines, Thailand and India. Training-and-exposure visits for leaders and SHO members could build positive understanding of ground level realities and relate such learning to domestic environments. FAO could play a lead role in arranging such programmes.
Three working groups focused on various aspects of decentralization. Group 1 reviewed the promotional role of government in supporting the process of decentralization in rural development. Group 2 examined the role of SHOs in rural development. Group 3 concentrated on capacity building of SHOs.
To promote participatory decentralized rural development policy frameworks, an enabling environment is necessary. As explored by Group 1, the enabling environment embraces legal, economic, social and institutional frameworks. The group concluded that the macro-framework is not supportive and responsive to local realities; it is inflexible, intrusive and top-down. The group suggested a drastic change in favour of decentralization - giving more decision-making power to local governments and communities and stressed the need for providing more space to the private sector and CSOs.
Group 2 analyzed various rural development strategies and concluded that self help organization is a better strategic option and approach for rural development than previous practice. The group recommended a set of action plans for government, NGOs, SHOs, Regional Organizations and United Nations bodies.
Group 3 examined the aspect of capacity building of SHOs. It felt that training, organization, "conscientization", networking, alliance building, the exchange of information, social mobilization and self-reliance mechanisms are important contributory factors of capacity building. The group suggested the following interventions:
1. Continue to strengthen SHOs to
2. Participation in local governance for/to:
3. Demanding social responsibility from the business
sector
4. Advocating national and international policies favourable
to SHOs
The Tambon Authority Organization (TAO) of Sangsai was visited. Workshop participants were received by the TAO chief and elected members, who explained the structure, role and responsibility of their organization. The chief said that decentralization was still in process: most elected members were being trained and needed nurture and encouragement. There was good interaction between workshop participants and TAO members.
Participants visited a farmer's self help group and a women's self help group in Pingnoy (Village No. 8), where they met a farmers' group. Since 1997, 15 farmers have operated an integrated farm, raising varied commercial crops such as Chinese cabbage, garlic, red chili, cauliflower and leafy vegetables. They receive help from the TAO in the form of fertilizer, seeds, etc. The Department of Agricultural Extension provides technical support. Agricultural officers and extension workers visit and advise farmers on techniques and cropping patterns that farmers need to undertake. In addition, SHG members have retained their own agricultural advisors and are satisfied with current crop conditions and future prospects.
Participants also visited the women's SHG in Pingnoy. Its members are optimistic about new income generating activities, but feel constrained due to a lack of access to necessary credit facilities. (This may be a temporary phase due to the financial crisis affecting this part of Asia.) However, they believe the economy will improve. Women's groups produced clothing, shampoo and hair conditioners as well as grocery items. They want a larger role in decision-making through active political participation. FAO workshop participants were told that the women's SHGs response to participatory decentralization was quite promising.
Participants from India and the Philippines presented reports and examples of their own decentralization cases. TAO members showed interest and sought clarification on several issues, particularly on training for capacity building.
