approaches and experiences of integrated local … · projects, micro-credit programs india, sri...
TRANSCRIPT
APPROACHES AND EXPERIENCES OF INTEGRATED
LOCAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
REGIONAL SYNTHESIS PAPER
Prachanda Pradhan Tokyo, April 27, 2000
Introduction
• The experiences of community development in Asian Productivity Organization (APO) members countries are rich.
• Different approaches and strategies are followed in these countries to address the problem of poverty alleviation and empowerment of the local community to let them take responsibility to manage their affairs.
• Reflecting the diversities in the region, the selection of the projects by the national experts for survey are also varied.
Table shows the types of ILCD selected for survey among these different countries.
Countries Type of ILCD
1. Rural Infrastructure Projects for ILCD
China, Indonesia, Korea Nepal, Vietnam
2. Income Generating Projects, Micro-credit programs
India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand
3. Rural Enterprises through Cooperatives
Iran and Japan
4. Social Development Projects
Philippines, Pakistan
Hanoi workshop: broad agreement on framework for ILCD survey in participating
countries
Objectives & Scope of survey
The objectives of the survey of ILCD conducted by the national experts in respective APO countries are;
• Identify key factors for the success of community development.
• Analyze the inter-linkages between a participatory planning process and capacity building of the community.
Methodology used for the preparation of syntheses paper
General characteristics of the participating countries
130
Ban
glad
esh
----
- 22.
1 C
hina
1000 India
209
Ind
ones
ia
68
Iran
127
Jap
an
47
Kor
ea
23 M
alay
sia
2.5
Mon
golia
23 N
epal
138
Pak
ista
n
76
Phi
lippi
nes
19
Sri L
anka
63
Tha
iland
80
Vie
tnam
( in million )
Population
Per Capita Income $2
89 B
angl
ades
h
$12,
040
Chi
na
$436
In
dia
$460
In
done
sia$2
,500
Ir
an
$30,340 Japan
$6,8
10
Kor
ea
$3,0
92
Mal
aysia
$396
M
ongo
lia
$225
N
epal
$492
Pa
kist
an
$907
Ph
ilipp
ines
$827
Sr
i Lan
ka
$1,8
50
Thai
land
$310
V
ietn
am
Urban Population
21%Vietnam
36%Thailand
23%Sri Lanka
57% Philippines
35% Pakistan
14% Nepal
62% Mongolia
Malaysia56%
Korea84%
Japan79%
Iran 61%
India 28%
China 58%Bangladesh
20%
Indonesia 38%
Rural Population
Vietnam79%
Thailand64%
Sri Lanka77%Philippines
43%
Pakistan 65%
Nepal 86%
Mongolia 38%
Malaysia 44% 62% Indonesia
72% India
42% China
80% Bangladesh
39% Iran21%Japan
Korea 16%
Literacy Level
Vietnam 92%
Thailand 94%
Sri Lanka 90%
Philippines 94%
27%Nepal
95%Mongolia
94%Malaysia
97% Korea
100% Japan
68% Iran
84% Indonesia
India52%
China84.4%
Bangladesh38%
Pakistan 37%
Population Growth
Bangladesh2.2%
1.0% China
1.9% India
1.6% Indonesia
3.4% Iran
0.3% Japan
0.9% Korea2.4%Malaysia
1.7%Mongolia
Nepal 2.3%
Pakistan 2.6%
Philippines 2.3%
Sri Lanka 1.2%
Thailand 1.5% Vietnam 2.3%
Life Expectancy 58
Ban
glad
esh
75 C
hina
----
----
----
--- 5
2 In
dia
65 I
ndon
esia
70 I
ran
80 J
apan
72 K
orea
72 M
alay
sia
65 M
ongo
lia
57 N
epal
63 P
akist
an
67 P
hilip
pine
s
73 S
ri L
anka
69 T
haila
nd
68 V
ietn
am
Table: Political Characteristics of the surveyed countries
Country Structure System of Government
Head of the Government
Head of the State
Bangladesh Parliamentary Prime
Minister President Unitary
China Presidential Unitary President President
India Federal Parliamentary Prime
Minister President
Indonesia Presidential President President Federal
Iran Unitary Presidential President President
Japan Unitary Parliamentary Prime
Minister King
Korea Unitary Presidential President President
Parliamentary Prime
Minister King Federal Malaysia
Mongolia Unitary Presidential President President
Philippines Federal Presidential President President
Thailand Unitary Parliamentary Prime
Minister King
Sri Lanka Unitary Presidential President President
Nepal Unitary Parliamentary Prime
Minister King
Pakistan President Federal Parliamentary Prime
Minister
Vietnam Parliamentary Prime
Minister President Unitary
PERCEPTION OF APO COUNTRIES ON ILCD, POVERTY, PARTICIPATION AND CAPACITY
Integrated Local Community Development
Among survey programs from 15 countries, the perception on ILCD are different. The important components of ILCD are;
• social, economic and cultural development projects at the village level;
• decentralization giving authority to local agencies and people's associations for planning and resource allocation based on local community need.
• assistance to locally initiated development plans with finance and facilities and such development plans are based on self-help approach.
• involvement of the local community in the centrally planned program.
• it also refers the improvement of productivity and quality of life in the local community.
• undertaking responsibility of local development through self-help mechanism.
• active participation of the local people for development along with their initiative for implementation.
• promotion of group as a community which will be organized as cooperative in order to undertake welfare components effecting to all members of the community.
Poverty
Poverty is defined in term of • deprivation of opportunities, • inability to meet even the minimum basic
need prescribed by the government, • inaccessibility of resources and • extremely limited opportunities to make
choice.
Participation
The components of participation are; • collective effort by the people • people's involvement in problem analysis,
project design, research,testing and implementation.
• sharing work and benefit
• self-help tradition is an other form of participation at the community level
• making choice by the local residents in the broad framework prepared by the central government
• labor or resource contribution to the centrally proposed project at the local level is considered as participation
• participation creates opportunity to take initiative for involvement resulting into community empowerment
• sharing of benefits by the members of the community through their active involvement in decision-making and implementation
Capability/Capacity
Capability is defined in different ways. They include:
• the accessibility of information, new technology, resources (financial and material),
• skill and knowledge development and • strengthening the sustainability of the
institution and organizations.
Types of ILCD Projects surveyed in APO countries
These ILCD projects can be broadly categorized as
• Rural infrastructure projects • Income generating projects • Rural Enterprises through Cooperatives • Social Development Projects.
Focus of many of these ILCD projects has been
• poverty alleviation, • empowerment of poor people, • formation of self-help groups, • family income generation, • social awareness creation.
These ILCD projects have incorporated multiple components like
• income generation, • rural infrastructure improvement, • technical skill development, • environment improvement, and • social and cultural development.
It is interesting to note that the implementing agencies for ILCD are different. • Government agency like Ministry of Rural
Development, Ministry of Construction, etc. • NGO implemented projects like in Pakistan
& Iran. • Consultant implemented projects like in
Indonesia.
• Some of the projects are of the national coverage and other projects are confined to the village level.
• Hence, the size, area and population coverage are also different.
National Level Approach on ILCD
• The national level approach on ILCD also differs from country to country.
• In some country, rural poverty alleviation is equated with ILCD program.
• In other country, social awareness generation among the rural population is considered the ILCD.
• In other countries the rural infrastructure development is considered as the ILCD.
• In most of those countries surveyed, rural development is in the agenda of the government.
Relation between Central Agency and Local Agency
• Broad framework of Rural Development is provided by the national agency.
• Along with the broad framework of the ILCD program, national budget is also allocated to the program.
• The national agency makes effort to mobilize the internal as well as external resources.
• However, ILCD is not only the responsibility of the national agency alone.
• It has now contributions from the local agency, people's organization and non-governmental organizations.
• In some case, the NGO has been active for the implementation of the program.
• In other place, the consultant took the responsibility of project implementation.
• It is necessary to strike a good balance among the contributions of the national agency, local agency and NGOs.
Local Institutions and its contributions
• Majority of the survey reports have shown the important role played by local agencies, in the form of people's organization, locally elected agency or local NGOs and CBOs.
• Wherever the responsibilities of the local agencies are clear in relation to ILCD implementation, the implementation of ILCD programs have become effective. The impact was visible.
Description of the Surveyed Projects
• Effort is made to look at the survey projects from four important components.
• They are general description of the project, project impact as reported in the survey report, integration among agencies and policies and reasons for success and failure.
Social Mobilization Process for ILCD
• In the community development program, it is assumed that the community members have to play active role.
• In many cases, bottom up approach, decentralization, participation make it necessary that the community members become the center of ILCD activities.
In order to mobilize the effective role of the people, two strategies are followed. They are;
• group formation like users group, self-help group, community groups, women group.
• to employ the catalyst/ social mobilizer for the group formation and make them active.
• Among the survey reports, it is noticed that in many ILCD survey, group formation was taken as strategy for the implementation of ILCD activities.
• Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka are the examples.
Social Mobilizers / Catalysts
• Two types of social mobilizers are identified.
• One type of social mobilizer was employed by the government department for people's mobilization.
• The other type of social mobilizer is employed by NGO and consulting agency.
• Such employed social mobilizer seems to be effective and active as compared to the government employed one.