7. Conclusions
The Mission acknowledges that activities of interest with the potential to improve community living standards have been carried out within the projects visited, which suggests that similar results may be expected in the others. However, results are more positive in terms of concrete achievements than non-technical impact, although this may partly be explained by the fact that many projects are of recent date.
Furthermore, PED projects sometimes display a spirit of innovation in their initiatives, such as promotion of local architecture, reviving hydro-agricultural schemes, rural credit and so on.
These results are often achieved in marginal, isolated areas, with weak physical and economic potential, which only makes the UNCDF intervention more praiseworthy.
Considerable quality and potential are found in the eco-development programme, viz:
- A wish to develop local "forums for dialogue" to assist decision-making with regard to rural development and supporting governance, thereby going beyond the level of mere village participation;
- A wish to work at several geographic levels of intervention, involving villages and local governance together, in order to break the seclusion of projects and increase the sustainability of activities;
- Bearing in mind the two previous points, the considerable advantage of having four programmes within UNCDF, whose complementarity, both in thematic terms and in respect of the scale of intervention, could undoubtedly drive forward sustainable local development, if there were greater synergy between the various elements of UNCDF activity in the field and New York. Few organizations have such potential within such a small unit and UNCDF is not taking sufficient advantage of this at the present time;
- Field teams who often know local reality and are equipped with substantial technical skills;
- Finally, in New York, a team which is open to criticism and prepared to act upon it where necessary.
Despite some interesting achievements and the potential they show, the Mission noted that, generally speaking, PED projects have often found it extremely difficult to translate concepts, approach and potential at field level. The overall feeling is that the programmes and activities carried out often follow a standard path and are not really linked into efforts to understand and appraise the local environment, as well as often being very similar to integrated rural development or land-use management projects. Furthermore, the framework for consultation very often does not exist since the "local area" dimension has been neglected.
Finally, the goal of the teams is to master programme tools rather than prepare an action strategy. As a result, a lot of time is given over to learning and using tools which are often of a size exceeding local capacities and needs. This means that tools are used in a mechanistic way, seen as an end in themselves rather than working resources.
To use some colourful expressions, one tends to get the impression, at the programming and implementation stage, most of the time, that people have "slaved away in vain" or "the graft has not taken".
The potential for innovation and genuinely sustainable development activity often seems to be stifled for reasons this report discusses in detail and which may be summed up as follows:
- Conceptually speaking, some concepts are somewhat reductionist in nature, especially those related to the notion of ecological balance. Some others, such as eco-swap, also involve operational difficulties and ethical questions. Finally, however essential they may be, some others are poorly defined. Here we are thinking of the notion of the "local area".
The tool kit recommended for translating concepts into practice, monitoring and impact studies was developed outside the programme areas and not by the field teams. It seems that there has been limited scope for local adjustments. Thus, current tools are too many in number and too complicated in relation to needs. If their cost is also taken into account, the risk of difficulties in use during the post-project phase is even greater.
It follows that the teams' energy has been concentrated on the mechanical handling of these tools, to the detriment of perspectives emanating from the local context which might lead to situation-specific orientations. Monitoring of activities is neglected for the same reasons.
The projects' current institutional arrangements, with an independent co-ordinating unit, place project teams in a difficult position wherein their employment benefits complicate relations with the technical services and do not foster a spirit of initiative.
Moreover, the short time span of PED projects – about four years - does not leave sufficient time for the assimilation of a new approach and new concepts or to put them in place efficiently. This therefore encourages an inward-looking attitude and concentration on learning and mastering the tools, especially in view of the possibility, which has been brought up at an inopportune moment, that private project management bodies might be established.
The local administrative authorities and technical services are, as a whole, considered as mere service providers, with no involvement in decision-making with regard to strategic options or programming. In view of the foregoing and especially the potential of the PED programme, the Mission thinks that the programme should be pursued, but that a series of measures must be taken to get back on course. The recommendations in the following section and the thoughts about the future of the PED programme with which this report ends are framed from this viewpoint.