Corporate Policy Papers
Taking Risks: Background Papers
Background Papers Index
Participatory Eco-Development
A large and growing number of rural poor live in ecologically vulnerable areas where the combined effects of population growth, rural poverty and environmental degradation threaten the very survival of local communities. Efforts to restore the environment can carry substantial costs or short-term sacrifices to the community. In response to this dilemma and based on its longstanding experience in rural development, UNCDF developed a new approach in the early to mid-1990s centered on the belief that effective sustainable development can only be obtained through local-level solutions.
Background: historical context and status report
Confirmed in this belief by growing international consensus as expressed in Agenda 21 of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), UNCDF elaborated on this new approach in its 1995 policy paper. The policy paper stated that "UNCDF has developed and is now testing an approach called eco-development in order to better address the development constraints faced by populations in ecologically fragile and over-populated areas". The policy paper was followed by a separate policy document in 1997 called "Eco-Development-People, Power and the Environment" which explained the approach in detail. Following these two publications, a number of regional workshops and evaluations helped refine and develop the approach.
Participatory eco-development was a development concept aimed both at addressing the development constraints faced by people in ecologically fragile areas and at sustainable management of natural resources. All eco-development projects aimed in the first instance at reinfusing economic dynamism in regions where nonrenewable natural resources are the local population's only productive capital. Strong emphasis was placed on participation and community ownership since the approach was based on a common commitment and responsibility of those most directly concerned with the use and regeneration of natural resources. Long-term development strategies and annual programmes were identified and prioritized by the communities, who were then asked to consider longer term environmental conservation activities in exchange for immediate short-term investment activities related to the development of productive activities or the provision of social services. Social services were to be provided as incentives to community participation in environmental restoration activities and were expected to yield visible impact only in the long run. This trade-off, which was central to UNCDF's original eco-development approach, was termed "eco-swap." Another key feature of eco-development was the intention to focus not only on the level of the terroir (a group of villages with common resource interests) but also on the petite region (the smallest territorial unit with a government administrative apparatus) (UNCDF 1994).
The original underlying framework for participatory eco-development was as follows:
- Participatory eco-development projects constitute learning laboratories where methods are worked out and experience is gained and applied there and elsewhere. No two projects are identical since each is adapted to the specific local circumstances and needs.
- Grassroots communities and villages are the basic entry points for managing natural resources in a sustainable way.
- Sustainable resource management implies collective environmental action and consultation and ecologically sustainable individual land management.
- The strong commitment of the population, especially those not reaping immediate benefits, is required to contribute to and maintain longer-term investments and equity.
- Village development plans must reflect an appropriate balance between short- and medium-term productive and social activities and longer-term environmental investments and activities.
- Sustainable development includes investing in sustainable livelihoods. Emphasis is therefore on combating poverty by supporting productive activities as well as improving health and promoting education.
- Effective and representative community institutions are indispensable for ensuring broad-based understanding and action by all community members.
- Community action must be complemented by actions at higher levels-the provincial or district levels-to help communities deal with problems beyond the reach of the village level (such as local market organization, road and communications, social services, banking and credit and local administration).
- The innovative nature of this approach requires maximum flexibility in its implementation and a focus on establishing sustainable processes rather than fulfilling preestablished physical objectives.
- All development activities are implemented on the basis of contractual relationships, be it the village development plan (between the community and the project facilitators) or small projects executed by private contractors or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
- The role of the project facilitators (or project team) centers on assisting villages and local institutions to take on their own responsibilities and advising them how to develop sustainable strategies and how to operate their development plans within a context of partnership (village-district administration, village-NGOs).
To date UNCDF has provided more than US$48 million for the development of eight eco-development programmes in Burkina Faso, Guinea, Laos, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania and Niger (table 1). On the average eco-development projects are programmed for four and a half years, have a budget of US$6 million and reach about 50,000 direct beneficiaries. Per capita funding varies, influenced by factors such as population density and coverage and overall UNCDF country budget allocation. Per capita allocation is highest for Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger reflecting higher costs for infrastructures supplied outside of the village funds (such as dams and water provisions). (Top)
| Country | Year project started |
|
|
|
Direct bene- ficiaries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Laos (Oudoumxay) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mauritania (Kiffa) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No two programmes are identical since they respond to specific local conditions and resource management issues. Differences in design between the different eco-development projects include emphasis on irrigation and social infrastructures (Guinea, Laos, Mauritania) or emphasis on schools and the targeting of bigger settlements for water supplies and markets (Niger). It is also notable that a number of NGOs are involved in the implementation process. The number of project collaborators and participating NGOs varies from programme to programme. In Mauritania a large number of NGOs are associated contractually to the project, while in Guinea only a few NGOs are involved. In Mayahi the entire livestock component is implemented through a local NGO.
Main features of the original eco-development approach:
The main features of the original eco-development approach involved a four-phase participatory planning process.
Phase 1: Gaining participatory local knowledge. This first step involves building trust and creating the conditions for dialogue through a number of activities designed to gain knowledge of the local environment. Sociocultural, economic and historical information obtained through household surveys and key informant interviews are systematically collected and analysed in a special project data bank. At the end of this phase there is a feedback session of this participatory local knowledge to the villagers.
Phase 2: Mapping of land tenure arrangements. Information
on land is gathered by use of a global positioning system (GPS)
using satellite imagery to draw maps containing land use and
proprietary boundaries. These maps are discussed with the community
and land use and land tenure patterns identified and verified.
Phase 3: Appraising common problems facing the communities
and their possible solutions. Mediators help the community appraise
the problems they are faced with and then help them understand
the possible solutions to these problems.
Phase 4: Planning process-establishing priorities and identifying resources. During the planning process, which priorities are established and internal and external resource requirements are defined. Based on the local priorities, a one year plan is established, which addresses short-term socio-economic needs but also longer-term natural resource management issues. Once the programme has been approved, a development agreement and contracts are signed by the community and the project. For each development or natural resource management activity, individual contracts are drawn up stipulating the partners' contributions and undertakings as well as the terms and conditions of their implementation. (Top)
|
Project description: The Guinea eco-development project was conceived following
a long-standing effort of the UN system in the Fouta Djallon
region of Guinea, notably UNCDF and UNDP. It covers the administrative
regions of Labe, Pita, Mamou and Dalaba in support of rural development.
This was to be achieved through credit at both the regional and
communal levels and community development efforts focusing on
20 terroirs in the communes of Ditinn, Bodie, Doune, Mafara and
Poredaka. Intensive management schemes of land resources were
to be undertaken at the commune level. Project approach: The Guinea case is characterized by a long-term reliance on a top-down planning methodology in the rural sector that needed to be reversed in the eco-development project using more or less the same human resources. However, the design emphasizes that more resources and efforts be directed at the commune and community level. A large project management unit (PMU) was put in place with various national and international expertise. Project activities: Elected representatives were targeted at the communal level for skills development and capacity building as well as for putting in place the appropriate management tools. These training and follow-up activities were carried out by a Canadian NGO, CECI. The investment program at the community level includes the establishment of economic and social infrastructures and micro-enterprises through grants and credit. Group formations and women were specifically targeted within each community. Small-scale irrigation schemes have been the driving force of group formation around economic enclaves producing potatoes, onions and other cash crops for domestic consumption and sale to urban areas. Evaluation findings The main mid-term evaluation finding was that the project did generate an impressive local demand for some key activities and infrastructure undertaken at the commune level and among communities, but mostly for prestige reasons or control over tenure rights. The economic impact is being reduced mostly by national constraints over which communities have little or no control: seeds availability, transport, conservation, fertilizers and pricing. Many of the organizational problems are being fueled by lack of leadership within the team and inherited burdens from previous projects. Community appraisals and development plans are engineered mostly by one staff member with little participation from the rest of the team. Following the mid-term evaluation the project was reformulated and streamlined. More emphasis is now put on integrating activities at the communal level and the terroir level. Local elected governments (communes rurales de development) (CRDs) are increasingly entrusted with full management and implementation of socio-economic infrastructure. The project team now systematically involves the deconcentrated technical services. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Participatory eco-development was never meant as a final product, but rather as an approach that is continually refined based on early experiences from individual projects. In this section we will discuss the key concepts and implementation issues that have emerged from our initial experience. Many were discussed by UNCDF staff involved with eco-development projects initially in an informal manner and later through the forum of a staff task force on eco-development. Insights were also gained from the mid-term evaluations undertaken for the Mayahi and Fouta Djallon projects. Findings and lessons from these evaluations were also considered when UNCDF commissioned an external review of its eco-development portfolio in late 1997. In addition, a number of learning and discussion events have taken place both at headquarters and in the field, which have greatly influenced the internal process of reflection and refinement of the concept in theory and practice. (Top)
(1) UNCDF Policy Series: Poverty Reduction, Participation and Local Governance: The Role for UNCDF, 1995. (return)
