9. Future options for the PED programme
There are four possible future scenarios for the PED programme.
Option 1 - Retaining the status quo
Continue to concentrate on the village/terroir dimension, neglecting the "local area" aspect and leaving the methodological tools unchanged
In this case, the current difficulties would persist, with often disappointing results and an inability to realise the PED programme's potential. Consequently, the Mission considers that this option does not deserve to be pursued.
Option 2 - "Improved" status quo
Continue to focus on the village/terroir level, neglecting the "local area" aspect, but streamlining methodological tools
Projects designed and set up in this way might not be very different from participatory rural development projects (such as gestion de terroir). One would then have to ask whether UNCDF has any comparative advantage over other international agencies in respect of this type of project.
Option 3 - New generation PED projects
These would effectively combine the village and "local area" dimensions, together with streamlining of the tool kit.
Two sub-options are possible here:
* Sub-option 3a: UNCDF takes all dimensions on board. This would be a considerable challenge for a small team, but UNCDF could take advantage of the possible synergy between its component parts (PED, LDF, etc.). If the challenge were met successfully, it is likely that UNCDF could become a single programme, made up of four components working in concert, which would be a beacon in terms of local development.
* Sub-option 3b: UNCDF concentrates on the "local area"/support to local governance dimension and subcontracts village scale development to bodies who have proven experience in that field (NGOs, local consultancies, etc.). This would probably alleviate UNCDF's responsibilities, without thereby reducing its credibility.
The Mission favours the third option, although it is unable to judge between the two sub-options.