FAO’s knowledge and experience relate to a number of actions concerning the overall support policies for processes of decentralization as well as to the restructuring of institutions themselves. Projects and programs developed by FAO represent particular responses to one of the following four situations, or a combination thereof:
1. A structural or temporary weakness in state institutions;
2. A decentralization process which has led to the emergence of institutional vacuums with regard to the supply of a certain number of support services;
3. Decentralization processes which have put forward the need for a certain number of support policies;
4. The restructuring of expensive, inefficient agricultural support services due to their excessive degree of centralization or the lack of ability to reach small farmers.
In the first two cases, FAO has sought to perform action to permit populations to play an important role in the new policy situation (state withdrawal, deregulation, privatization) or in a situation in which policy is lacking (state weakness, institutional vacuums). In the latter two cases, action by FAO is geared towards improving the effectiveness of government agricultural support bodies by promoting a greater involvement by rural populations.
From another standpoint, FAO’s projects and programs make it possible to provide an overview of decentralization processes, based on three complementary focuses:
1. Focus on public institutions: production of information to improve the effectiveness of State action, institutional restructuring, decentralized planning and training.
2. Focus on civil society: strengthening management capacity through a contractual approach, participatory extension work, popular participation programs and peasant structuring.
3. Focus on local government levels: the role of municipalities and geographical communities, intermediate towns and development poles, building of interfaces and regionalization.
A certain number of experiences has been gained from each focus, which should be born in mind during the formulation of a decentralization process.
These are actions which make it possible to enhance the effectiveness of government agricultural support bodies through the promotion of a new relationship between these institutions and rural populations, with particular emphasis on participation by small-holders. These actions give rise to three complementary lines of action: a) based on a production systems approach, surveys are carried out and typologies established to improve the State’s knowledge of the real situation of the rural populations, which makes it possible to enhance dialogue between the latter and the State; b) training action to enable local partners (populations, producers, officials and elected representatives) to play a better part in decentralized planning activities; c) a key plank, namely providing consultancy on the restructuring of government agricultural support and rural development institutions.
One of FAO’s first lines of action concerns the production of basic information on changes in agricultural production systems, which provides development policy decision-makers with a better knowledge of the development constraints which arise from these production systems.(1) The idea is to integrate into the policy formulation process the needs of producers and rural communities, which are identified by means of surveys and typologies. The underlying theory is that, in order to formulate effective policies, not only is improved knowledge required, and hence more information, but that this should be obtained from grassroots level. The experience which FAO has built up regarding the production of this type of information is an asset which makes it possible to deal with the risk linked to an imbalance in access to information and, therefore, with the obstacles to co-ordination of activities.
This approach, which has been largely directed towards researching technical realities and, therefore, towards zoning based on local agro-environmental similarities, is today seeking to evolve to take into account the heterogeneity within regions themselves. As it proceeds along this path, it will be possible to use this approach as a means of formulating differentiated policies.
The production systems approach provides an interesting means of revealing specific constraints on agricultural producers and, in more general terms, on rural populations, to public institutions. From this point of view, the approach permits public institutions to greatly enhance the effectiveness of policy formulation by providing them with basic information on the characteristics, constraints and potential of the production and reproduction systems. The approach’s value also lies in the fact that it was one of the first attempts to build popular participation into the identification of constraints and their solution. Four main stages make it possible to link constraints with foreseeable solutions: i) identification of constraints with the involvement of partners; ii) analysis of constraints to determine the exact causes of each one, iii) building of participatory solutions and decision-making, by involving the three levels of intervention (local, regional and national), iv) implementation of solutions at local, regional and national levels.
Dialogue and building partnerships between the different partners involved in the constraints and solutions are decisive to this approach. FAO has gained valuable experience regarding how to build such partnerships and to develop frameworks for dialogue.(2) It calls for a strong determination to record peasants’ opinions and to create structures for dialogue at regional level. In sum, training is as important as access to information when it comes to the social partners’ decision-making and action capacity.
A second important characteristic of this process concerns the movement which has occurred from the State towards the private sector, the civil society associations and the NGO sectors concerning the type of partners to be involved as a priority in the contractual relationship established by rural communities with other partners. This trend has evidently been accompanied by the new configuration in project financing resources, which consists of a reduced utilization of central State resources, and a greater one of decentralized development funds that communities should be able to manage themselves.
Finally, the third characteristic of this approach, seen in nearly all FAO’s areas of action, is an emphasis on partnership at every level. A network of partners should be created for each level of intervention: public sector representatives, elected representatives, individual economic partners or groups of the latter, and representatives of other social groups and institutions. This partnership focus is, perhaps, one of the most interesting experiences which FAO has gained in terms of building new relationships between the State, rural populations and other rural development partners.
FAO recognises that decentralization is a complex process whose viability depends on fulfilment of a certain number of pre-conditions. In order to succeed, decentralization requires, inter alia, new patterns of behaviour and a solid policy for the continuous training of staff and populations or organizations which will assume the decentralized functions and responsibilities. The implementation of new decentralized planning mechanisms and training programmes tailored to this type of planning is one of FAO’s strong lines of action. One of the main concerns in the work of training for decentralized planning has been to include rural populations in policy formulation and, therefore, to gear training not only towards government executives or local administrations, but also towards rural organizations.(3)
Decentralized planning is defined as “the result of an overall institutional effort undertaken by a given country to decentralize decision-making according to a process defined throughout the country. Accordingly, the concept differs from local level planning which appears more as a result of local, often isolated, initiatives, without special institutional set-up or links with the national level” (IV1, p. 1). Part of this effort concerns the creation of skills required by the decentralization process. In-service training is recognized, therefore, as an important element of decentralization programs. In this context, FAO has gained valuable experience in developing an analytical tool to permit planners to analyze the decentralisation process and use the analysis to evaluate the training needs which arise from it. The second valuable experience relates to efforts oriented towards involving rural populations in policy formulation.
i) A framework for the analysis of decentralization
Given that under decentralization, decision-making power passes down to sub-national level, it is necessary to reinforce or, in some cases, create local planning capacity. The transfer of planning responsibilities must be accompanied by training to bring local staff up to the skills-level required to carry out their new responsibilities. In order to assess the training needs required during a process of decentralization, it is first necessary to evaluate the type of decentralization which is taking place, and to identify the responsibilities and tasks which must be carried out by those involved in development planning and management.
The second stage of the training needs assessment concerns the financial rules which pertain to decentralization, since these establish the extent to which sub-national levels will be called upon to make decisions concerning development financing, which determines, in turn, the scope of the decentralization and also the spheres in which training needs may arise.
Once the training needs arising from the scope of the decentralization and the financial instruments adopted, have been assessed, it is necessary to turn to the planning process itself. The issues which should be clarified concern the decision-making capacity which the sub-national levels have in relation to project location, the existence of sub-national sectoral objectives, their formulation at local level, the existence of local sectoral plans, and the existence of global or sectoral data bases at sub-national level. All of these questions will also shape the content of the training programmes.
The final aspect to take into account when assessing the training needs which arise under decentralization, is the importance given to popular participation in the decentralized planning process. This is important when the participation approach includes popular participation in project formulation and management at village level, and even more important when the object is to involve populations in devising policy.
This is an important area of experience, since it permits FAO to support governments in targeting training activities at the key players in the decentralization process, by selecting and giving priority to those playing a central role, and finally in determining the knowledge, skills and behaviours which are needed to match decentralization.(4)
ii) Involving rural populations in policy formulation
One of the key problems with decentralization policies concerns the extent to which populations support the aims of decentralization and, therefore, their degree of motivation in participating in the planning process..Moreover, one of the training functions carried out by FAO consists in forging a real culture of decentralization within popular organisations and among government officials. The experience of FAO demonstrates that it is not always easy to involve the poorest groups in society in development activities.
The first problem with achieving participation by rural populations derives from the fact that instead of involving them from the project planning and formulation stage, projects tend to come sealed and delivered by experts, in response to a demand by the State. A second constraint which arises in relation to the participatory approach is the time required to encourage and organise it when projects must often be formulated in short time periods. A third constraint is the multiplicity of methods utilised for project formulation, which leads to a multiplicity of modes of intervention in the field in terms of setting quantitative objectives, restricting spheres of intervention, designating target villages, the more or less strict earmarking of budget lines and the setting of time frames for execution of activities.
However, one may ask oneself whether the main stumbling block which exists in relation to experiences of involving populations in policy formulation, is not the lack of organisation or immaturity of the intermediate associations. Under a decentralized, participatory approach, “projects trigger the creation of peasant organisations with a view to allowing the populations to take charge of their development activities. (However) the organizations in question here are modern associations created by the projects, and not at all spontaneous groups set up at the initiative of the villagers. The majority of these peasant institutions disappear when the projects which have created them have ended” (I1, pp. 51-53). Hence a certain number of conflicts arise, for example, between the village management committees set up by the projects and traditional chiefs who are trusted by the populations.
FAO has obtained three main conclusions and insights from these experiences, namely:
1. In order for training to form the main plank of a participatory approach, it must certainly be geared towards the officials in the support institutions, but also, and sometimes especially, towards the populations.
2. Training efforts cannot be truly useful unless the teaching topics and procedures focus on the creation or reinforcement of the knowledge and organizational capacity of grassroots partners, and take into account, equally, local know-how and skills.
3. Decentralization increases training needs in the same way that training increases the chances of success of decentralization. Lack of training and organization seem to be a strong reason which explains the shortcomings observed in relation to popular participation in policy formulation.
It is important to note that, starting out from an analysis of FAO’s experience in the field of training, we have progressively moved to two complementary topics: the lack of organization of populations and adequate information flows to ensure co-ordination. These three types of problems are highly inter-linked, and one of FAO’s valuable experiences is to have understood this and sought to integrate them in a single proposal for the creation of well-conceived decentralization policies.(5)
The third line of action implemented by FAO directly concerns supporting the overall decentralization process through projects for the restructuring of rural development institutions.(6) Here, restructuring is not viewed simply as action to organize services and improve their management, but rather as one of the key elements in structural adjustment, which accompanies and determines the implementation of the new political and economic approaches, based on the generally accepted principles of democratization, empowerment of and participation by populations, transparency, consultation and dialogue among the development partners. The experience acquired has made it possible to:
1. Define the new role of the State and transfer to the partners in civil society, in a decentralized manner, important activities and responsibilities which, until then, had been a matter for the central administration;
2. Revise relations between the different decision-making levels, giving the power which pertains to them to local levels in order to give meaning to the principles of decentralization and popular participation;
3. Redefine relations between the State and the private sector - in particular with agricultural trade organizations and associations of rural producers - on the basis of dialogue and consultation and, therefore, of participation in decision-making choices and formulation of development policy;
4. Propose and put in place a model for representing local agricultural diversity, informing and regularly consulting farmers on issues of interest to them, defending their points of view at decision-making bodies from local level to central level and, finally, supporting a structuring at grassroots level of rural communities.
The two planks of this line of action have to do, on the one hand, with the functions of the ministries of agriculture and, on the other, with agricultural support services
i) The new functions of flexible, decentralized agriculture ministries and the need for intermediate associations
Two principles inform FAO’s approach to restructuring rural development institutions. On the one hand, institutions must be first and foremost instruments for formulating and implementing development policies. On the other, these policies will be more effective if supported by rural populations and if the latter participate in their formulation. In other words, in order to be effective, development policies should be an expression of the desires of populations “responding to their needs and taking account of their real problems and constraints while situating them in their environment with all its physical and human diversity” (IV5, p. 1). FAO believes that “rural development institutions should possess significant power and sufficient intervention capacity, but the former should be used in the framework of, and with respect for functions which are clearly redefined for each type of rural development operator, in a spirit and relations which encourage co-operation and consultation among them” (IV5, p. 1).
The basic principles for identifying the functions which should fall to agriculture and rural development ministries during a process of decentralization are as follows:
1. Public services should not carry out commercial or productive activities, and these should be gradually transferred to the private sector, producer organizations or local government levels. The spheres in which public intervention specifically would occur are: the promotion of private enterprise; strengthening of peasant and local execution and management capacity; regulation and control and the protection of natural resources.
2. “Involvement by populations in selecting and executing development action and, in general terms, managing matters which concern them, particularly at local level. This participation involves reinforcing agricultural trade organizations at every level (and) calls for the setting up of consultation bodies at every level” (IV5, p. 2).
3. Decentralization of powers, responsibilities and action-financing methods in order to give greater freedom and scope for action to levels closest to local realities.
4. A global development approach in which sectoral actions are integrated into overall development action, and one which seeks to ensure local, regional and national co-ordination.
5. Regular follow-up and assessment of results and, hence, of the adaptation capacity of programs and projects. In this context, training is essential to motivate partners, encourage initiatives and promote team work.
6. Finally, institutions can only be gradually restructured to move from an interventionist approach to a support approach whose intensity diminishes as training efforts grow.
The restructuring methodology which has developed comprises three stages, which are essential if the public institutions are to adapt to the processes of decentralization while avoiding the risks posed by the latter.
1. Stage of analysis/assessment of existing institutions and proposal of the restructuring blue print. Here it is a matter of distinguishing between what corresponds to the new modes of State intervention and what the latter should release. This analysis also makes it possible to propose a new sharing of powers and responsibilities among the different levels and services, as well as a concerted decision-making process. A third diagnostic element concerns relations between ministries, other institutions concerned with rural development and farmers and their trade organizations. Finally, another important strand, introduced above, is the identification of training needs.
2. Stage of formulation of the restructuring plan. This is an operational plan which takes account of the views and suggestions of the partners involved in the restructuring, including those concerning organizational and legal aspects and sources, types and methods of funding. In order to create it, one must ensure that lines of information, decision-making, management and action follow-up, and working methods are clearly laid down.
3. Implementation support stage. The restructuring plan should be formulated in the shortest possible period of time to avoid possible demobilization and avert the emergence of institutional vacuums, while providing farmers with the services which the restructured institution will not be able to furnish during the restructuring stage. The plan should include a number of support measures.
4. One of these support measures concerns organizational problems: the reform of legislation on trade organizations and associations to allow them greater diversity and freedom of action and initiative, and to provide them with the possibility of uniting and organizing regionally and nationally. A second support measure concerns “reforming regulations governing the civil service and the formulation and implementation of budgets in to order to ensure that the principles of decentralization and participation can be implemented and partners empowered and motivated, in particular, at field level” (IV5, p. 18).
This restructuring methodology, which has already been implemented in many countries,(7) has made it possible to acquire valuable experience regarding what the exclusive functions of agricultural ministries in the decentralized context should be. FAO teams involved in the restructuring of institutions seem to have reached a consensus regarding the four main functions which fall to the public sector:
1. Guidance. This function consists in “defining rural development policies and determining measures and conditions to promote their successful implementation, bearing in mind local characteristics and the need to bring about a dove-tailing of the micro-economic interests of farms and business, and regional and national macro-economic objectives. To achieve this it is necessary to utilize dialogue, promote initiatives and stimulate efforts. (It is also necessary to ensure that there is) reliable information and solid analytical and macro-economic forecasting skills in order to track changes in the agricultural sector and the influence of factors determining its future” (IV6,p. 14).
2. Technical support. Technical assistance is provided to producers to boost their production, productivity and income. Technical support as a function is concerned with the training of peasants and officials in conjunction with peasant organizations, extension and management consultancy, research, and support and advice for professional agricultural organizations.
3. Follow-up and co-ordination. “The Ministry should follow the implementation (of development policies and projects) and assist in bringing about their effective implementation, while ensuring co-ordination among operators and effecting the necessary readjustments during implementation” (IV6, p. 16). This presupposes the organization of a flexible, reliable information system.
4. Regulation and control. “To establish the rules and procedures to be respected and the bounds which operators should not exceed in their activities, in order to conserve the national heritage and the general interest” (IV6, p. 17). This concerns most particularly the land ownership, water and forestry codes, and human, plant and animal health protection.
The above presupposes a decentralization of services to units in the community and departments to reinforce their presence on the ground and bring them closer to local realities. Department services and community offices “are the geographical level at which the ministry’s national policy is implemented. In their respective departments, therefore, they have the task of tracking the implementation of agricultural policies, informing the ministry of changes taking place in the agricultural sector, and proposing measures to encourage development and operational intervention in the field: they must have expert ability, powers of synthesis and intervention capacity to allow them to implement a global, coherent policy on the ground which matches the local agricultural characteristics” (VIII7, p. 14).
A further valuable area of experience gained by FAO with regard to the restructuring of public institutions was to deal with the issue of the new functions of ministries underlining the fact that these new functions cannot be carried out if professional organizations are not created or strengthened as a means of dialog with the State. FAO’s own approach to institutional restructuring, in fact, underscores the need to create and/or reinforce grassroots peasant organizations to enable them to provide the services which farmers expect, while utilizng partnerships with the private sector or NGO’s.
By putting forward the idea that decentralization cannot work if the decentralized State does not engage in a dialog with a partner which represents the different categories of farmers, who can play a consultative role, provide information and explain the decisions which are taken in order to facilitate their support for the new policies, has taken a decisive step towards understanding the most fundamental conditions which must be met in order for decentralization to proceed correctly. The intermediate associations would play a fundamental role as representatives and would be “ the favored partner at national agriculture-ministry level and at that of all operators who can contribute to agricultural development” (VIII7, p. iii).
The mission of the representative farming organizations, therefore, would be to: i) provide expert advice on the situation of farmers and policy measures to be taken; ii) provide information to farmers on measures which affect them and facilitate a sharing of experience among farmers and between the latter and other actors, and iii) act as facilitators and promoters in order to strengthen grassroots peasant organizations.
ii) Options for enhanced services and the development of small-scale farming
FAO’s conceptual and field work to enhance agricultural support services is grounded in its recognition that the majority of public institutions responsible for providing technical support to farmers, have proved inappropriate and inefficient. The problem is that the transfer of these legal powers and responsibilities to producer organizations or to local government levels is occurring in a context in which neither the former nor the latter are capable of furnishing the technical support which farmers require. Therefore, FAO has had to devize forms of technical support incorporating close co-operation between the State, farmers and private operators, which makes it possible for State operating costs to be cut and access by small farmers to these services to be improved.(8)
In general terms, FAO came to the conclusion that institutions responsible for providing support services for small-scale agriculture had to boost their degree of co-ordination and operate in a more decentralized manner: “co-ordination at the top, decentralization within each institution, co-ordination at the grass-roots level where the institutions operate” (IV8, p. 20). Nevertheless, FAO recognises that if it is difficult to attain participation by local agents, achieving that of small farmers is a real challenge, owing to their inadequate levels of organization and training. In this respect, one of FAO ‘s achievements consists in having dared to adopt a truly innovative approach, characterized by the following five aspects:
1. “Responsibility for the development of small-scale agriculture should be assumed mainly by the farmers themselves and less by the state and its services, thereby creating the conditions for farmers to gradually assume direct responsibility for their work and development.
2. “The state should transfer to the private sector services and activities on which the State has performed poorly and which can be supplied efficiently by the private sector. The small farmers’ organizations should also be included as part of the private sector.
3. “Extension and other services should focus less on encouraging the small farmer to adopt technologies based on the use of expensive and scarce inputs, which are often beyond their means, and should concentrate more on increasing the farmers’ capacity to exploit existing farm resources in an integrated and ongoing manner without incurring new costs and risks.
4. “The experiences of numerous ONGs should be put to good use”.
5. “Measures should be introduced to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of those public services which must necessarily remain under Government control: staff training and the effective participation of farmers in the programming of the services established for their benefit” (IV8, pp. 24-25).
When these guidelines are followed, agricultural support services in the decentralization context will be essentially a network of services supplied by government, semi-public agencies, NGOs, co-operatives and other rural organizations, private enterprise and market forces. This network would be better placed than the centralized institutions alone to meet the needs of farming communities and, in particular, of small farmers and most disadvantaged groups. Here again, small producers’ organizations are decisive in ensuring the proper functioning of the network. Recognition of the need to support the organization of rural populations by every means possible is an important achievement and characteristic of the experience and knowledge-base which FAO has built up. This explains why actions specific to the public institutions focus are accompanied by a simultaneous, very intensive development of a focus on civil society, which is complementary to it and vital for its success.
This consists of a number of actions which allow populations to play a decisive role in rural development and the management of their reproduction strategies. This focus comprises a great wealth and variety of approaches, programs and projects, three of which seem particularly important and assist in structuring analysis of decentralization processes. Firstly, the experience which has been built up with regard to village land management, designed to develop the contractual approach which characterizes ‘s different lines of work. Secondly, in the particular field of extension, a very effective organization of this activity based on a participatory approach which pay special attention to regional co-ordination of local actions. Finally, Popular Participation Programs and experiences connected with the structuring of peasant organizations.
One of FAO’s main lines of action consists of the promotion of Village Land Management projects (VLM).(9) It is aimed at creating conditions which enable local communities to become involved in managing social investments and natural resources. It has an impact on all analysis of decentralization since it puts forward the need to forge contractual links between villages and the State. Further development of this experience of FAO would make it possible to deal with risk 3 of decentralization, namely the problem of managing funds in the absence of technical skills. In addition, the insistence in this type of projects on including regional co-ordination mechanisms as well as different types of dialog with national public bodies, would also make it possible to avoid risk 1, namely of substituting a pure supply philosophy for a demand philosophy. In any case, the essence and importance of experience regarding this line of action lie in empowering peasant organisations and rural communities to directly assume agricultural and rural support services.
The knowledge accumulated by FAO in this area has to do with regional co-ordination mechanisms and forms of participation on the one hand, and, on the other, with the empowerment of peasant organizations and rural communities. Before introducing these two points, it is important to describe the background to this approach, the experience which has been gained and its limitations.
i) The land management approach - a means of ensuring community participation in land management
The village land management (VLM) methodology forms part of FAO’s work to assist public institutions to better understand the true nature of the constraints specific to the agricultural systems and agrarian structures in which they seek to intervene. This methodology is grounded in the finding that projects carried out without empowering populations have not led either to sustainable development or conservation of the productive capital of natural resources.(10) This is why FAO’s Investment Center has tested a new project implementation approach, VLM, aimed principally at ensuring sustainable production based on the protection of productive resource capital, participation by rural communities in designing policies to enhance their living conditions, technology based on rural populations’ expectations, decentralization of decision-making power and finance mechanisms, and management geared specifically to preventing land ownership conflicts and protecting bio-diversity. Hence, the VLM approach placed emphasis on a considerable empowerment of rural communities, which not only implies real decentralization but also an enhanced appreciation of the knowledge which the latter have about problems and possible solutions. Nevertheless, it has had to be recognized that in order for such empowerment to take place, organized village structures and strong social cohesion needed to exist.
Training has been recognized as a central requirement for VLM projects. However, in this approach it is recognized that training commences with information, which should form an integral part of the process. Political commitment must also be built around a VLM project. Such a commitment takes different forms: i) decentralization and delegation of power and decisions both at regional and village levels, ii) concerted, co-ordinated support by specialist ministries and sponsors, iii) a real willingness on the part of the administration to move from a policy of simply conserving the potential of natural resources, based on regulations and bans, to a rational, participatory style of production management.
Current experiences in Burkina Faso have made it possible to clarify some basic principles of the VLM approach: i) participation in and the transfer of responsibility for identifying constraints, selecting, performing and evaluating actions, sharing profits or losses; ii) the approach is global and multi-sectoral to permit balanced land development iii) there is a multidisciplinary analysis and design capacity; iv) it is also upward and decentralized and gives local communities the capacity to take charge of their own development; v) it includes dialog between the different partners; vi) it must be flexible, with open, multi-staged projects in which everything is not specified in detail.
The characteristics of the VLM approach assist in creating conditions which allow decentralization to operate successfully, since they prepare local communities for the transfer of state activities, while furnishing them with the chance to manage their own affairs. At the same time, however, land management can only function in a context in which formulation, management and assessment powers have been decentralized. For this purpose, FAO’s experience has repeatedly shown that decentralization must be accompanied by information and training activities, and the creation of a legal, institutional and legislative framework appropriate to such a transfer of powers. Even more importantly, the approach calls for a strong capacity to structure peasant communities as well as an ability on the part of officials to participate in such a process, and to provide technical support for and co-ordinate interventions.
If the success of projects hinges on the uncertain matter of transferring know-how and responsibility to the communities in question, “ the principal risk probably concerns the difficulties posed by such a transfer. In fact, for the process to succeed it is necessary for: i) those concerned to accept their new responsibilities and corresponding commitments; ii) the supervisory authorities to agree to relinquish age-old prerogatives and officially recognize the transfer and the new village leaders, iii) the process to be unhindered by the weakness of partners. In the first case, risks relate to the possibility of inadequate social organization, land conflict or disinterest in commitments to restore the natural environment when land pressure remains low. In the second case, the legal vacuum concerning recognition of villages’ powers and uncertainty regarding the content of agricultural and land reform and of decentralization and the establishment of elected authorities remain worrying. In the third case, the institutional evolution of the local project implementing agency, as well as knowledge of its intervention capacity, bearing in mind other commitments, pose another serious risk” (II6, p. 83).
On the other hand, the approach has also revealed limitations in certain areas. “ The conditions do not yet exist to permit the emergence of true community representativeness, without the exclusion of marginalised groups” (II6, p. 31). “In terms of land ownership, assessments generally fail to take account of problems within social groups or families, when there is a need to predict the land-ownership implications of innovations undertaken. (A further problem concerns) knowing how to reconcile short-term programming based on needs expressed by populations and long-term planning of actions to restore and develop renewable natural resources. (Finally) consultation frameworks have only functioned when created and supported materially by projects which involve themselves at every level. Not all the advantages which are expected of such consultation frameworks are achieved (because of): i) the presence of external partners with other priorities, ii) fear of technical services of losing certain sectoral prerogatives, iii) lack of effective decentralization, which precludes field experts from making decisions without referring to the parent structure, which does not always perceive the urgent nature of the consultations” (II6, p. 32).
This qualified appraisal of FAO’s experience is useful in pointing up the existence of two main stumbling blocks which have to be resolved for this type of project to succeed: on the one hand, achievement of forms of co-ordination and dialog, and, on the other, the transfer of responsibility to, and empowerment and structuring of peasant organisations and rural communities.
ii) Regional co-ordination mechanisms and types of consultation
An important requirement of the VLM approach is to achieve an articulation between land management and national development policies when formulating and executing LM plans. Regional co-ordination ensures a consistent, effective implementation of the approach and also the success of national policies on the ground.(11) Villagers are not cut off from the rest of the country, and nor can their strategies be. This is why one of the advantages of this approach, compared to traditional rural development approaches, lies in developing a new type of relationship in rural populations, based on dialog at local level, and subsequently, at regional and national levels. A requirement for the establishment of well-conceived decentralization policies is the creation of conditions for participation and upward planning. Yet these conditions also call, in turn, for an ability to organise concerted, co-ordinated strategies and partnerships. One advantage of FAO’s land management experience is precisely that it has been able to build this type of strategies and relationships.
In fact, in VLM, “participation is a dynamic which is constantly reactivated, functional and pragmatic, in which development agents and the population unite their knowledge, know-how and wishes in concerted actions, taken in partnership, to bring about a sustainable enhancement of the approach to and management of actions undertaken” (II3, p. 10). Fundamentally, therefore, this is a partnership approach favouring: complete involvement by partners in the environment, consultations with populations and all those intervening, a sharing of responsibilities and mutual commitment, as well as a pooling of knowledge and know-how.
iii) Transfer of responsibilities to peasant organizations and rural communities
It is impossible to conceive of LM without the existence of a certain degree of organization of grassroots communities. Village land management (VLM) presupposes the existence of a quite considerable level of organization of populations, for decision-making and action purposes. FAO teams involved in this area believe that organization around VLM should result from action and a real need felt by populations; it should be supported by existing local dynamics to make these evolve towards a representative, competent form of organization which, in the land management approach, is known as the Village Land Management Committee (LMVC). These CVGT face a certain number of problems, which are related in some cases with a lack of skills, but, more generally, with their legitimacy and representativeness, and therefore with possibilities of conflict with traditional authorities and the lack of government recognition.
What is seen, however, despite such obstacles, is that VLM projects have managed to gradually strengthen social cohesion within villages. Assessments performed as part of FAO projects in Burkina Faso seem to show that VLM projects bring villagers together; consultations and dialog between farmers and cattle breeders were attempted; technology skills are upgraded and awareness and understanding of the phenomenon of degradation of natural resources increase: “the operational capacity of peasant organisations grew considerably and there is an increasing sense of empowerment on the part of peasants in terms of managing development. The populations felt that the status of the administration had changed, since it is no longer a coercive structure but rather a service providing support for peasant initiatives and village development. The process of learning to seek out development support partners triggers a growth in peasant initiatives, offering villagers major development possibilities.
Empowerment and rural structuring are also two main thrusts of co-operation between the World Bank and FAO in north-east Brazil and of the joint project which both institutions have proposed for the development of deprived areas of Mexico.(12) In both types of intervention there is a recognition that “rapid progress can be made if community participation is enhanced and decision-making authority is decentralized to lower levels of government and other community-based institutions” (V6, p. 1). These two conditions ensure that investments carried out will match the populations’ priorities and that the latter feel accountable for the management of such investment.
There is another side to community empowerment which has to do with project financing mechanisms. There is a gradual move away from essentially public and/or international financing to finance schemes in which participation by municipalities and local populations starts to be incorporated into overall project budgets. This is the counterpart of the move from supply-driven projects to a new demand-led approach, as well as an expression of the fact that decision-making and resource allocation procedures are being transferred from national to regional level and to the level of regional-local co-operation.
One of the land management approach’s recognized advantages is that “ by making a pre-requisite for any intervention acquisition of an in-depth knowledge of the environment, it has permitted an enhanced identification, with the rural populations, of the real constraints on the sustainable development of rural areas. It has emphasized the predominance of social, legislative and financial factors over technical constraints alone. It has also revealed that it was less a matter of awareness-building among populations and more one of furnishing them with the means to organize” (VIII6, p. 19) of encouraging the structuring of communities, branches of production and farmers’ organizations at local and regional level and creating dialog frameworks in order to build partnerships. Organization, structuring, consultations and partnership are essential conditions required to avert the decentralization risks which FAO has identified. In this respect, the experience accumulated by FAO on these topics represents a valuable asset to be taken into account in the formulation of well-conceived decentralization policies.
However, we should not forget that VLM is just one component of rural development; it alone cannot ensure the development of different village areas or co-ordination and consistency among them. Further components concern up-stream and down-stream production activities and support services, such as training, extension, research and development and technical assistance. We have already shown that FAO possesses a wealth of experience in the field of training and restructuring support services. In addition, it has also accumulated experience and knowledge in the field of extension.
One line of FAO’s work, support for participatory extension, is directly related to an aspect that we have often seen in previous sections, namely, the organization of rural populations to enable them to assume the management of services transferred by the State or which the State is unable to assume owing to temporary or structural weaknesses.(13) Here FAO’s work consists in proposing an approach based on participatory extension and a search for proximity with government partners, which permits both an enhanced integration of the needs of small agricultural producers in the formulation of extension/research policy and the incorporation of these policies into a wider set of development actions. The approach leads both to particular support for peasant organizations, to enable them to participate in extension work and training as well as work to restructure national agricultural research systems.
FAO projects which have followed this approach, like those in the land management approach, have aimed at ensuring some degree of co-ordination of local actions, achieved thanks to the presence of regional extension co-ordinators or research planning committees responsible for ensuring consistency among local actions and presenting the regional program to central government. The participatory approach forms the central plank of extension projects. It has enabled FAO to strengthen its experience with regard to supporting peasant organizations and co-ordinating local action to ensure regional programming.(14)
i) Support for peasant organisation
The agricultural extension scheme proposed by FAO is based on the principle of peasant participation and based to a greater extent on a group approach than on the training of individuals. FAO has been keen to ensure that the scheme takes account of the diversity of production methods and, therefore, leads to the organization of a system of differentiated messages formulated on the basis of a sophisticated knowledge of local know-how and resources. Finally, the aim is for both government and populations to view extension not as an external service, but rather as a tool which strengthens the associative capacity of communities and their sense of responsibility, with the additional aim of solving up-stream and down-stream production problems.
The foundation of the extension scheme: the participatory approach
The participatory approach of the extension scheme ensures “peasants are involved in analysis of the environment and of agricultural problems, selection of extension subjects and programming, the follow-up and evaluation of the annual harvest, with a view to gradually empowering peasant groups” (I3, p. 2). Here, participation is viewed as “a joint undertaking of actions which are jointly decided” (I2, p. 5). Participation consists of three main forms of progressive commitment: during consultations, peasants give their views to the development agents or structures; in co-management, peasants make decisions at the same time as the agents; with empowerment, peasants make the final decision. The three formulae are utilised as much for analysis of situations and consideration of problems as for the selection of extension topics, management of actions and performance of follow up and assessment. Naturally the aim is to gradually move towards empowerment, although, owing to risks relating to the paternalist tradition, it would be a mistake to begin with this form of participation.
FAO believes that the extension scheme should have a certain number of well- identified characteristics: it should be “a co-ordinated overall development aiming to introduce improvements to farms, while carrying out a series of awareness-raising, promotional, training and support actions with peasants - whose selection and programming are the result of consultations with them and an analysis of the situation regarding their farming methods - and at the same time seeking to ensure that villagers take responsibility for their own development” (I3, p. 7). In the long run, as with the land management approach, it is necessary for organization and consultations to be the forms which the empowerment of and programming by the peasants themselves take.
The extension scheme ceases to be an external support service for peasants and becomes an instrument to support the creation of a participatory dynamic, which also ensures “the desired innovation-transfer inputs in the form of information, training and peasant organization” (I3, p. 7). The approach is global from two points of view: it deals with the entire set of problems experienced, as much from the technical and socio-economic as from the cultural and institutional points of view. The approach is also decentralized since it is carried out, firstly, at the place where the beneficiaries of extension are located (the village community) and is co-ordinated, subsequently, at regional level. Finally, the approach is supported by the national level.(15)
Partners and relations
The importance of experience as regards analysis of decentralization will already be apparent. This kind of project has succeeded in making peasants, particularly in the immediate intervention zone, the main protagonists of the approach rather than the targets of extension. It is with groups of peasants that the extension agents build information-exchange relationships. Decision-making is carried out on a contractual basis, creating commitment on the part of peasants and the extension worker. Under this approach, the rural population works in partnership with the extension agents.
“Particular emphasis is placed on feed-back of results of observations and surveys to villagers: such a feed-back makes it possible not only to validate the findings, but also to raise awareness among and mobilise the peasants” (I3, p. 27). In this sense, the feed-back provides an opportunity to incorporate peasants’ own behaviors, know-how and technical skills into the extension programs.
One tool on which assessments for the creation of extension programs are based, and which is very useful for differentiating policies and interventions, is the identification of standard peasant groups, which are characterised by combinations of field and size types. Representative samples are obtained for each group, which are then used to conduct in-depth surveys of each group household.: family composition, fields and production, labour and availability of same, capital, marketing, household spending, and output. This makes it possible to conduct an assessment highlighting the main features of the operation of the household and the constraints it faces, which is carried out for each peasant group. “This set of points strengthens the organizational potential of the peasants, because they are furnished with a structured image of their community” (I3, p. 28-29). However, the importance of such a typology of farmers also lies in the fact that extension topics can be differentiated, while enhancing chances of appropriation, and focusing action on those identified as the most important and/or weakest groups.
ii) From co-ordination of local actions to regional programming
A salient feature of FAO’s proposals regarding participatory extension schemes, is the presence of a co-ordinator responsible for all extension action in the region for which he or she is responsible.(16) He or she is assigned the task of harmonizing actions regionally and, to do so, must also fulfil an information role, providing data on all aspects of the agricultural situation and changes therein. The regional inspector, in liaison with the co-ordinator, uses this data to ensure co-ordination with the research and training operations and the rural communication systems. “Village programming will be performed following procedures which relate back and forth between needs identified by farmers in villages in the immediate intervention zone, on the one hand, and the aims and resources provided by national programming, on the other, which have an impact in each region” (I3, p. 36). This is a means not only of ensuring that there is a suitable level of consultations, joint decision-making and organization for each village, but also of ensuring consistency and co-ordination with regional extension programs. Naturally, peasant involvement is strongest at local level. In fact, at this level, the analysis of their environment enables them to grow in awareness. Village programming implies a collective commitment, extension action implies individual involvement, and follow-up and assessment offer the opportunity for self-criticism which is participatory and empowering. Regional partners (the inspector and co-ordinator) ensure consistency, summarise field data and guarantee and are responsible for the administrative and financial management of resources earmarked for extension. This methodology makes it possible to avoid the principal risk inherent in decentralization, namely the substitution of a supply philosophy for a pure demand philosophy, without any regionalization of demands or the possibility of setting up a national strategy.
The number of agents intervening may be large, but co-ordination of the system ensures that they implement a single policy in response to the mobilization of peasant organizations. A similar approach gives rise to a partnership with the support structures to provide producers with expertise or additional resources.
In this respect, and despite the difficult context, the Zairian National Extension Scheme seems remarkable, for it had the merit of bringing different partners together, co-ordinating their partnerships and mobilizing all existing resources, including the private sector and NGOs. More importantly still, it has brought together and empowered peasant organizations, while permitting extension to be reorganized, under the banner of constraint. These are all experiences which FAO has gained of creating pre-conditions for decentralization.
The sixth line of action concerns popular participation programs and programs for supporting the establishment and/or strengthening of intermediate associations.(17) Here the starting point was recognition that agricultural support services could be costly and ineffective, owing to their excessive centralization and inability to reach the small farming sector. The core of experiences and knowledge which FAO has accumulated in the field of popular participation comprises three types of highly complementary actions.(18)
Firstly, the popular participation programs themselves (PPP, decentralized, participatory rural development) which focus, in particular, on building rural organizations capable of assuming the management of support services and developing income-generating activities. Secondly, the establishment of partnerships with NGOs in order to ensure production of information and a flow of the latter towards producer organizations. Finally, projects designed to encourage a structuring of peasant organizations and, hence, the enhancement of conditions for consultations between the State and representative organizations.(19)
i) Building rural organizations capable of assuming management of support services: PPP programs
Popular participation involves a process of returning to rural populations “powers of initiative and decision-making concerning the implementation of actions and programs concerning their own futures. It presupposes that external agents and states consider peasants, cattle breeders and craftspeople, etc. as development agents and full partners and not as targets for an external project or the means to implement decisions taken without them” (VI5, p. 275). Participation can only be built around a mobilizing project. Hence the birth and development of popular participation programs (PPP) geared towards identifying and bringing about a general spread in income-generating activities, based on a business philosophy.(20)
Background to the PPPs: guiding principles and methodology
The PPP approach was developed following the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development held by FAO in 1979. The idea was to develop an operational means of incorporating popular participation into rural development and agricultural development programs, as well as into the formulation of government strategies and programs. “ Its main emphasis is on the formation of small, self-reliant groups of the rural poor which will allow members to work together on income-generating activities, with access to credit, farm inputs and training, and which provide a collective voice for representing their interests with local government and other organizations with whom they wish to interact”. (VII5, p. 1).
The closest forerunners of this approach were two FAO programs launched in the mid- 1970s: the Rural Organizations Action Program (ROAP) and the Small Farmers Development Program (SFDP), which posed questions about why the poorest did not have access to resources. Lack of organization appeared as a key explanatory factor and action to correct this shortcoming became a central feature of these two programs. The second idea was that the network of public institutions was not designed to support the smallest farmers. The development of the SFDP was aimed at combating these two trends, on the basis of several principles which subsequently came to form the core of PPPs:
“participatory research and planning from below;
small, socially and economically homogeneous groups with a common desire to work together;
decision-making by consensus, group action and group responsibility;
use of group organizers as facilitators, with small farmer groups developing their own leadership and fostering self-reliance;
low-cost technology appropriate to farmer needs and means of sustainability;
access to credit through mobilization of group savings, or financial institutions which accept social collateral;
productive employment for the landless;
group marketing and storage” (VII5, pp. 4-5).
In summary, the guiding hypothesis behind the PPP approach is that “government and non-government development services could most efficiently be channelled to the rural poor if the latter were organized into small, informal self-help groups, formed around common income-generating activities which they themselves had identified” (VII5, p. 7).
In PPPs, participation is two-dimensional: there is an economic dimension geared towards income generation and incorporation into the market economy, and a political dimension, which for the poorest, consists in acquiring “voice and recognition in the community as equals with others, including more social and political involvement. This is achieved within PPP by acquiring leadership skills following organization into groups and inter-group associations” (VII5, p. 9).
To fulfil these two dimensions, the PPP approach proposes a methodology with the following features: i) targeting interventions towards the poor in the countryside; ii) assisting them to form small groups as a means of organizing for action; iii) defining action on the basis of priorities defined by the beneficiaries; iv) training group facilitators in participatory methods and making local authorities aware of the aims of PPPs; v) structuring participation around income-generating activities; vi) introducing credit and savings schemes; vii) setting up local co-ordinating committees made up of representatives of the groups, authorities and local leaders; viii) introducing a continuous, participatory follow-up and assessment process.(21)
Subjects relating to the development of the approach: implementing agency and target population
One change which the approach ushers in concerns the selection of the program implementing agency, which brings about the move from international co-operation to a special partnership with NGOs: “ there is a general consensus amongst the international development agencies that the promotion of agricultural and rural development can often be achieved more effectively through non-government organizations than by government agencies. Government agencies have the advantage of major access to resources and of substantial authority and institutional capacity, whereas NGOs are considered to be closer to the people. Another advantage of NGOs is their flexibility. The value of an NGO as an implementing agency might be measured against its ability to form linkages and interface effectively with government services” (VII5, pp. 4041).
A complementary issue concerns the means of selecting the target populations for programs. A summary typology of rural populations was set up to distinguish between: “a) the rich, those with an abundance of the means of production, b) the middle class, those with secure and sufficient access to institutions providing agricultural services income and assets, c) subsistence producers, with some but not very much access to productive means, d) the very poor, those with very little access to resources and e) the destitute, those who are not able to help themselves. There was consensus that the third and fourth categories were those most able to be assisted by the PPP approach (VII5, p. 42).
The PPPs are an important development by FAO to create conditions under which most deprived groups can organize to assume the management of support services, in a context of decentralization and empowerment. Out of these conditions, the approach favored the development of entrepreneurial skills as a means of ensuring self-reliance for the groups in the medium- and long-term. A particular facet of this organizational work concerns a focus on women during group training.(22) In fact, FAO underlined the need to take account of gender questions in the participatory programs, because the position of women and men in relation to social and economic forces is not necessarily the same.
The five main advantages gained from involvement in PPPs, and which all assisted to some extent in strengthening decentralization processes are:
1. Empowerment, defined as “increased confidence or ability to speak for one self; or an encouragement to become a leader in the community. Such confidence in their own leadership, organizational and decision-making capabilities gained through PPP participation represents empowerment and a stronger desire for action” (VII6, p. 11).
2. External linkages. These take different forms varying from learning through contact with people outside the group (GP, extension agents, health workers, etc.) to knowledge and recognition of them by the outside world.
3. Sharing knowledge in a large number of spheres relating to productive activities, marketing (market and price information) and input suppliers.
4. Emergency resources, which allow people to help each other in times of difficulty.
5. Joint work to assist each other in work in the field or to solve other types of problems.
One important lesson of PPPs, concerning international co-operation mechanisms, is that it is possible to augment the impact of the funds available to public development authorities by transforming them into levers to mobilise additional resources. Co-operation resources should be seen as resources for mobilizing other resources. This is a fundamental methodological step forward, which was usefully implemented to develop entrepreneurial activities.
These advances which were made possible under PPPs are important because they can play a central role in rural development by making it possible to create an information, organization and representation network, since the groups of enterprises created by the PPPs have the authority to re-group in small community enterprise associations. The existence of associations of this type can facilitate services such as: bulk purchasing of inputs; funding, either through the association’s savings fund or the banks; joint marketing of produce; group representation vis-à-vis government and other organisations or service institutions; the organization of training, and, in general, an interchange of information.
ii) A model for relations between the rural development partners: FAO - NGOs - Popular Organizations
The experience of co-operation between FAO, NGOs and popular organizations in Senegal is very interesting from the point of view of building innovative relations between rural development partners.(23) In the 1970s, Senegal witnessed the emergence of a new type of organization, which started to develop around food-related issues and gradually focused on up-stream and down-stream production activities. They federated at district and regional level and, in 1976, nine regional associations set up FONGS, an independent peasant movement of State co-operatives.
“From the outset, FONGS granted top priority to strengthening the nascent peasant movement, by running a substantial training program for leaders and members of rural associations and fostering solidarity and co-operation links among peasant organisations. The State’s abandonment of functions and services which it had previously provided, obliged FONGS to step up mobilisation by its members” (VII8, p. 4). Thus, new activities were launched: a grain bank and a savings and credit program. What is important to note is that during the course of this process, FONGS strengthened its capacity to express and defend the interests of small rural producers; this “shed light on the need to build a basis for systematic dialog between the government and representative farming associations such as FONGS” (VII8, p. 5). In order to set this dialog in motion, FONGS decided to hold a national forum on the future of Senegalese peasants.
The Forum’s aim had been recognized by FAO as an approach which could be favored to support partnership approaches in rural development: “assisting FONGS members in analysing the difficulties they face at micro-economic level, understanding the links between these difficulties and the macro-economic constraints imposed upon the Senegalese government by structural adjustment, and formulating reasonable, viable proposals for mitigating the negative impact of structural adjustment and means of helping farmers’ organizations to undertake tasks previously performed by the State” (VII8, pp. 5-6).
The Forum made it possible to clarify the concept of peasant empowerment, incorporating into it the maturation process of the peasant movement itself; to commence consideration of the environment and appropriate corrective measures; to discuss the impact of new policies on peasant farming, based on an analysis of FONGS and its proposals for the future; as well as to “consider together the creation of an appropriate framework for dialog and negotiations between the Government, the peasant movement and donors” (VII8, p. 9). This experience of co-operation between FAO and NGOs represents both a model and a tool for organizing the dialog and consultations relations which the decentralization process implies.
The popular organizations considered that it was important to make the State understand that, although the peasant movement accepted the State’s retrenchment as a strategic thrust, it felt that the pace of withdrawal was too swift, and was impeding it from adapting and taking advantage of the possibilities offered by it. Clearly this approach is central to FAO’s position on decentralization processes. In fact, co-operation between FAO and FONGS has allowed the peasant movement to affirm its right to participate, as an important component of society, in decision-making on issues relating to the countryside: namely, the use of rural development-oriented external financing; the drafting of laws affecting the rural population and, in the framework of the regionalization process, the right to participate in local government and land management through representation on local, department and regional development councils. Thus, FAO’s assistance had made it possible to lay the foundation for dialog among peasant associations, NGOs, governments and major development partners.
It should be pointed out that FAO understood very early on the potential for mobilization inherent in co-operation with NGOs.(24) Since 1959, in the framework of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign/Action for Development (FFCH/AD), one of FAO’s established aims was to launch “a campaign aiming to publicize the facts of the food situation, to induce non-governmental organizations in industrialized countries to raise funds for grassroots projects in developing countries and thus to link people in developing and developed countries in shared action” (VII9, p. 1). During the 1960s, this campaign made it possible to strengthen relations between NGOs and governments through symposia for joint analysis and action on hunger and malnutrition; to set up over 300 development projects and carry out information and training work.
“With the launching of the Campaign in 1959, FAO was among the first agencies in the UN system to give organized access to the non-governmental organizations. This represented a tangible evidence of the importance attached to keeping the organization’s ultimate goals firmly in mind, despite the essentially technical nature of activities, and to the belief that development cannot be an exclusive concern and responsibility of government but pertains to society as a whole” (VII9, p. 2). Subsequently, during the 1970s, there was a growth in the profile of popular participation issues and the strategic importance afforded to NGOs as facilitators of popular participation, and they became key concepts.
On the other hand, the growth in relations with NGOs in the South, had an impact on the project approach promoted by FAO. These projects had been locally oriented to make specific achievements available to rural populations. Yet their impact on development had been hindered by their sectoral focus and the fact that they had been identified and formulated outside the communities which they were intending to benefit. Hence, two project-formulation innovations were introduced by FAO in the context of FFHC/AD: “First, it tried to ensure that action projects were formulated and implemented in such as way as to belong to local organizations. Secondly, FFHC/AD began to examine, with its NGO partners, the kinds of non-project support they required in order to render their activities more effective” (VII9, p. 5).
It was during the 1980s that NGOs were generally recognized as development partners, echoing recognition of their ability to reach the poorest sectors and achieve impact at local level. At the same time, there was a clearer awareness of the limitations of “projects” as a development tool and of the need to explore other forms of co-operation to complement the programs-projects approach.
The model of relations between FAO and NGOs was, therefore, gradually extended and enhanced. Today, it represents a definite advantage when it comes to setting up policies to support well-conceived decentralization policies. Indeed, one risk posed by decentralization is that appropriation by local elites may occur, owing to a lack of or weakness in rural organization. Work with NGOs aimed at creating or strengthening rural organization curbs the tendency on the part of local elites to present themselves as the sole interfaces between the outside world and the countryside, and to strip rural populations of their bargaining powers.
iii) Enhancement of conditions for dialog between the State and representative organizations by means of peasant organization
The concept of sustainable development has reinforced the trend towards the promotion of popular participation since it holds that development action can only be reproduced if the rural populations themselves take effective charge of it. This new rural development strategy recognizes that if the rural poor are not provided with the means to participate in actions affecting them, they will remain on the sidelines.
Fostering popular participation goes hand in hand with bolstering spontaneously formed, autonomous, democratic popular organizations, local community organizations, and self-help organizations, which also encompass traditional community councils, informal groups, co-operatives, organizations of rural workers, peasants unions, women’s associations, etc. Nevertheless, “the vast majority of the rural population is not yet organized and does not benefit from the dynamics of such groups” (VII4, p. 4). This is why, in 1991, FAO launched an Action Plan to Augment Popular Participation, which involves peasant organization and an enhancement of conditions for dialog with the State.(25)
An important area of experience which has had considerable impact on levels of peasant organization and dialog with the State, concerns the Forestry, Trees and Populations Program (FTP), which aimed to ensure peasant participation in community forestry management.(26) This program recognises the importance to rural populations of forestry resources, as well as the need for local involvement by populations in the sustainable management of such resources. The FTP program poses some key questions: “How can dialog be promoted between interested parties based on their common interests and principles of equity? How can opportunities be enhanced for dealing with disputes arising with respect to community forestry activities through measures such as decentralization, empowerment and land privatization? How can local and traditional systems contribute to resolving such conflicts and improve institutional conflict resolution capacity?” (VII13, pp. 13-14).
The FTP is structured along three main lines: i) participatory methodologies, ii) local management of forestry resources, and iii) extension, training, and communication. Essentially, it is a prescriptive community forestry program designed to strengthen network members’ capacity to carry out the following types of action: methodologies, experimentation, and adaptation. An essential component of the activity are the facilitators, whose role is to bring institutions connected with forestry together to assist them in analyzing opportunities and constraints for community forestry in each country. They strive to involve all partners in order to form institutional clusters.
In Latin America, facilitators acted quite successfully as an interface between States and communities. While they did not always succeed in changing policies, they managed to bring some influence to bear on policy formulation and to bring about the inclusion in the State’s agenda of a number of grassroots concerns. One of the FTP Program’s most interesting achievements was the creation, in Central America, of the Coodinacion Indigena-Campesina Agro-Forestal Comunitaria (COICAFOC), an umbrella organization representing over 50 organizations from all of Central America. FAO strongly supported the establishment and institutional consolidation of this organization. Today, COICAFOC is in a position to negotiate with the State, express its views and present an important development platform.
Hence, this program represents an area of experience that FAO possesses regarding rural organization and dialog with the State. Its aim is to: “reinforce national and regional institutions that in turn work to strengthen local people’s ability to manage and use their natural resources. Regional facilitators and local institutions identify opportunities and constraints for community forestry development on the basis of which national and regional priorities are identified and activities planned” (VII10, p. 1).
This third focus covers action to strengthen areas, and local and regional levels, of policy formulation. As a line of action it raises the issue of local government levels (municipalities) in a way which can directly aid thinking on decentralization, since the question of regionalization is introduced from the standpoint of the capacity of local government levels to become true poles of rural development.(27) This approach complements that which poses the question of how to build interfaces between national and local levels of government: regions, micro-regions, information schemes for rural communities, links between local development and strategic frameworks. The two approaches constitute a specific contribution by FAO, which can be used to enhance one strand of decentralization methodology, discussed in later sections, namely: regionalization or, more precisely, the role of the region as interface between local development and strategic frameworks.
Development of the local level, as the place not only for initiatives but also for decision-making, raises the question of the articulation between this level and wider geographical and decision-making levels. Under decentralization, the local level is no longer the point of implementation of guidelines determined by external agents, but, rather, the place where local actors regain the initiative and define and implement guidelines to achieve development for themselves.
What is important about the FAO approach to local levels is its recognition that at these levels there is room for initiative regarding organization and association, economic activity and the recognition of partners. It is then a matter of supporting local partners, so that they can set themselves objectives which are really dynamic and shared, as a foundation for the construction of new dynamics. Finally, this approach acknowledges that the local level is not a homogeneous area, and that, when evaluating mobilization at the local level, account must be taken of the numerous partners acting directly at local level, or making decisions which have an impact on the local situation.
Furthermore, the local level is not an area governed by separate rules, but rather a set of areas with corresponding, specific, decision-making units. Decisions made in each area are influenced by decisions taken in other areas, and also influence them, in turn; naturally the room to manoeuvre of each decision-making unit varies and is also complicated by the fact that there may be several decision-makers in each area. Therefore, there is a need to elucidate the areas and the decision-making units which govern them, as well as relations between these areas and the decision-making units. The rise in the importance of the local, nevertheless, calls for an ordering by the State of actions undertaken at this level, if the risk is to be avoided of replacing a supply-driven philosophy with one that is demand led, and lacking national co-ordination or regional consistency.
In the joint FAO-World Bank Projects in north-eastern Brazil, prioritisation of local levels under decentralization is aimed at building into development strategies not only the interests and wishes of individuals, with the productive assets at their disposal, but also, and to the same extent, those of all members of local communities, particularly the poorest, who tend to be marginalized and excluded from more global or national development approaches. An assessment of these projects throws up some interesting results regarding the importance of local government levels to development processes:
“First, the program has generated unprecedented enthusiasm among beneficiaries and favorable multiplier effects, and mobilized additional public municipal funds. Second, the reformulated NRDP’s participatory approach has benefited community organization, increased transparency, and demonstrated that rural communities can influence the allocation and use of resources at the municipal level in order to alleviate poverty. Third, investments funded by the program have been of satisfactory quality and less costly than those executed by public agencies” (V6, p. 21). Particular recognition has been given to production and infrastructure projects which allow beneficiaries to take better advantage of opportunities arising for profitable activities.
A recent innovation consists in emphasizing a strong productive investment focus, no longer as a support measure, but rather as a main project feature. Under decentralization, then, the idea is to furnish municipalities and town councils with the means to develop this type of investment, so that they can provide rural communities with flexible technology packages, manufacturing and marketing activities, production diversification, and support for communications infrastructure works.
Teams are engaged at FAO in finding ways to extend analysis of the role of municipalities in the promotion of sustainable, participatory development.(28) The context created by structural adjustment policies (liberalization, deregulation, privatization, the increased focus on markets in terms of resource allocation), represents an important framework for understanding the emergence of this municipal approach to development action. From the political point of view, we are witnessing widespread democratization and strong demands for participation and decentralization., which imply a strengthening of local administrations. Municipalities are increasingly being seen as areas to focus on to develop new rural development strategies in the context of decentralization.
This implies a strengthening of local government institutions, such as municipalities, to enable them to establish dynamic links with the needs expressed by communities, and to build a dialog between the co-ordination functions being transferred back to them and the needs and demands of their populations Decentralization should delegate considerable decision-making power to municipalities, as local authorities, and to other local government bodies.
The delegation of functions to municipalities has been impeded by the fact that it arose more as a response to budgetary problems faced by central governments than as a reflection of a desire to strengthen them as decision-making authorities which promote local development. This opens up an area of analysis and experience, namely: “ the identification of possible actions by rural municipalities and clarification of subjects on which their participation should be decisive/exclusive, complementary, or restricted to promotion, follow-up and supervision” (III1, p. 5). It is a matter, in particular, of identifying the real action potential of rural municipalities, in terms of support services for small farmers and social services for poor populations, but also of asking about the ways in which they can fulfil these functions, while involving local populations. In general terms, municipalities should be responsible for promoting an institutional environment which encourages an organized, systematic and sustained participation by the local population in municipal, regional and state programs and projects.
Under decentralization, municipalities are increasingly responsible for rural development activities. It is, therefore, necessary to train specialist municipal staff in these new functions and the techniques which will permit them to formulate their programs in conjunction with the populations. “ A minimum of skills must be developed in the municipalities so that specific economic projects can be formulated and evaluated and the production dimension of local initiatives supported” (III2, p. 6). At the same time, however, the importance of co-ordination between rural municipalities and other levels of administration must also be recognized.
Thus, municipalities could become the basic geographical level at which private and public initiatives relating to rural development are articulated and managed, opening up the way to what one could term the municipalization of rural development. A number of conditions must be satisfied in order for the municipalization of rural development to forge ahead:
1. Actions in each municipality must result from a decision by the communities concerned, and be supervised by them;
2. The development of primary activities must feature as a separate action in municipal development plans;
3. The majority of seat on rural development municipal councils must be held by representatives of civil society;
4. A mechanism for co-ordination with higher levels of government must exist.
5. There must be technical support and training for services which must be assumed by the municipalities;
6. Regional bodies must exist to co-ordinate and oversee actions determined by the municipalities.
7. There must be co-financing mechanisms to supplement resources mobilized by the municipalities with public, international and private funding.
Once these conditions have been fulfilled, “ the municipality (will be able to emerge) as a body which channels and triggers initiatives and energy within the community itself, which lends structure to and articulates social life, assumes responsibility for managing and resolving conflict and local public problems, and which opens up areas and opportunities for carrying out participatory development” (III2, p. 27).
FAO projects aimed at bolstering municipalities may become an experience which serves to underpin decentralization and local governance, insofar as they accept that the new state-market-civil society articulation can only be set up within the framework of a local, intensive process of transformation of local levels into true poles of rural development.
In order to identify and enhance the development potential of local levels of government, FAO teams have initiated a project in Bolivia, the initial stage of which is the identification of the most dynamic intermediate regions and towns. A study is then conducted into the factors which explain their dynamic nature, and which could permit them to become rural development poles. Finally, the study analyzes the services and support which FAO could furnish to government to assist it in strengthening the dynamism of these towns.(29)
In Bolivia, one can observe a pattern of behavior which justifies the proposal on intermediate towns: “i) a close correlation between an agricultural market economy and urbanization; ii) greater poverty in areas where agriculture is more traditional and which are furthest removed from cities; iii) the existence of sub-regional areas with varying growth rates, which means that development potential is not to be found just anywhere and cannot be simply the sum total of areas in a region, but rather that it only occurs in areas characterized by certain conditions: population settlements undergoing demographic growth (expanding markets), which are integrated in a hierarchical urban system (regular financial and productive flows); means of access and communications facilities; availability of land which is suitable for production activities; existence of urban manufacturing and services activities and, finally, the presence of a number of intermediate towns with growth rates above the national average, which implies a migratory influx, and absorption of a percentage of the rural migrants thanks to their social, financial and/or production advantages” (VIII9, pp. 103-104).
“The existence of second and third level towns with considerable growth dynamics, with potential for articulation with other population settlements of a different size, occupying a strategic location in the region, are all urban development advantages which have hardly been studied or acted upon for the purposes of rural development” (VIII9, p. 105). In other words, intermediate urban development may be a sustainable alternative to rural development, since this type of intermediate towns can receive the investment needed to boost the growth potential of primary activities (manufacturing and services) and become the principal market for agricultural produce. Intermediate towns also provide alternatives for rural migrants, without any loss of human capital from the region.
The aim, therefore, of this type of program is to promote a process of peasant accumulation in the framework of a boosting of urban-rural trade at regional and sub-regional levels. The main lines of action are support for the marketing of peasant produce, development of their bargaining capacity vis-à-vis markets, support for the development of manufacturing activities in second and third level towns, and assistance in regulating the flow of migrants from the country to the city, by seeking to direct them to second-level towns.
If the idea is to allocate a more central role to local levels of government, work in this direction must be supplemented by a training program on development planning at regional and local levels, aimed at strengthening local planning capacity so as to enable these levels to achieve a enhanced integration in the decentralization process. This is fundamental to the advancement of the decentralization process.
The question remains of knowing what would be the best division of powers between State and local communities, and how to clarify the areas of responsibility of each jurisdiction. This also implies solving the finance issue: the transfer of costs implies a financial transfer and a reinforcement of the funding capacity of local communities. These questions raise, in general terms, the problem of co-ordination between national and local areas, the need to build interfaces between these levels and, hence, the problem of the role of the region under decentralization.
The strengthening of local levels of government and their possible transformation into true poles of rural development both call for local capacity to make decisions and assume responsibilities, which can only be assured through the three types of decentralization: the decentralization of support services (regionalization of the State), delegation of decision-making powers to local authorities (differentiated interventions), and the devolution and transfer of decision-making power and financial responsibilities to local government institutions, which are elected by populations (the municipalization of development).
The selection of geographical communities as the location for development initiatives is justified since the linkage with local government structures is essential, because it is once this is achieved that it will become possible to truly and sustainably integrate grassroots communities and organisations in society in a coherent political whole, and link them with a system in which they can express themselves and participate. The development strategies proposed as a result of FAO’s experiences, are based on the concept of partnership. The concept implies a number of development characteristics which should be clarified.
1. The first characteristic is acknowledgement that local partners play a central role in defining and executing development programs. This implies the need to negotiate the objectives and ways to implement the programs with them.
2. The second characteristic is the main focus on the local level, as the place for initiatives and decisions. This level is no longer the point of implementation, but the place for initiatives by local partners. “Local development only occurs, on the one hand, when contractual relations are established between villagers and other local partners and, on the other, when negotiated relations are created between local partners and other levels of economic and political decision-making” (VI5, p. 188).
3. The third characteristic is acknowledgement of the need to incorporate a short-medium-long-term sequence into development programs to ensure that “actions are swiftly taken which can assist in solving immediate, urgent constraints, and that the short-term program acts as an aid for reflection at local level making it possible to determine long-term directions and a medium-term action plan” (VI5, p. 188).
Now, the augmented role of local partners under decentralized development, does not mean that the State no longer has an important role to play: it should, in particular, make certain that actions performed are consistent with each other. This calls for interfaces to be built between local and national levels which are capable of incorporating the needs and initiatives expressed at grassroots level, on the one hand, and trends, constraints and co-ordination at country level, on the other.
The regional level offers both an opportunity and a requirement for mediation between a pure supply-driven philosophy and one that is demand led (the first risk of decentralization), which makes it possible to envisage arbitration or readjustment. It can also make available information on the institutional, economic and technological environment to rural populations, and permit them effectively to participate in policy formulation. In this way, the region can become the place for autonomous action and initiatives by rural populations and local levels of government.
“Decentralization, which provides a new balance between supply and demand for support and facilitates a more equitable sharing of information, and hence, decision-making, also carries with it restrictions. These are, on the one hand, the risks of diluting action, difficulty in achieving co-ordination, and a partial view of problems which need to be solved. This being the case, it would seem logical for the region - as optimum location for mediation - to be the interface between local development and macro-economic instruments. The region, therefore, can become an area in which there is an intersection between, on the one hand, rural development agents with an overall approach and a global policy provision and, on the other, the partners who are knowledgeable about local conditions and have a specific demand for support projects and programs. This intersection is the natural location for a decentralized formulation of a rural development strategy and the formulation of strategic frameworks” (VIII3, p. 2-3).
The region is the place in which the specific features observed at grassroots community level can be incorporated. The region is also the place where dialog with the different partners takes place in proximity to rural populations and their concerns, while also facilitating comparison with national dimensions and demands.
Recognition of the role of these interfaces has led FAO to support trends towards a structuring of the rural environment and sector through regionalization. This is viewed as a dynamic means of integrating the strengthening of the local level and State disengagement. In this relatively new approach, a more precise definition is still required of boundaries both between and within regional and local levels. In order to further advance in this analysis, a proposal was made to set up a network for exchanging information and support in the form of an information scheme for rural Mediterranean communities.(30) By breaking the isolation of rural communities, this scheme can allow them to reduce waiting times, enhance the quality of decisions and diminish social costs.
The areas covered by the scheme would be in line with the trends towards a transfer of responsibility to communities and an enhancement of their management capacity, investment programming; current short- and long-term management; sharing responsibilities with the State and other partners; structures desired by the communities and available resources.
A similar initiative is a comparative study of decentralization processes of rural development procedures in the countries of the Maghreb and Sahel.(31) The study analyzed rural sector management methods, interfaces between central and local levels and, in particular, the role of the regional level within this overall problem - all from the standpoint of current trends regarding decentralization, varying degrees of involvement of populations and their organizations, and the nascent sharing of responsibilities between central government and regional and local authorities.
An as yet unresolved issue is the question of defining regions under decentralization. Should account be taken of natural criteria, or criteria concerning administrative or ethnic uniformity? Or, alternatively, should an identification be made of systems constituted by towns and their surrounding districts? The concept of a region which best suits the building of interfaces is one which views it as an area of social cohesion and a network of inter-connections, which furnish it with its identity and with unity.
The second issue concerns the institutional conditions which allow the regions to act as interface, namely the strengthening of local and regional planning bodies; special assistance for least favored regions; expansion of fiscal resource allocation; reinforcement of regions’ resource utilisation capacity; co-ordination bodies and the recognition and promotion of local rural development initiatives.
