Interim evaluation

The findings and conclusions of the evaluation mission have been reflected in the Namibia Country Opportunities Strategy Paper (COSOP) and will therefore become an integral part of the dialogue between the Government and IFAD on the nature of their future collaboration. In considering the continued involvement of IFAD in Namibia, several strategic linkages can be envisaged with other major donors operating in relevant fields, including German Technical Co-operation, the European Union, FAO and the United Nations Development Programme.

IFAD’s future assistance would be likely in principle to continue to be directed to the geographical area where the majority of the rural poor live and where there are opportunities and potential for development, namely the Northern Communal Areas (NCA). In the light of the current and emerging policy environment in Namibia, development experiences in the post-Independence era and the experience of IFAD’s association with Northern Regions Livestock Development Project (NOLIDEP), the main thrusts for such assistance, several of which are inter-related, would be to:

a. place people and the sustainable use of resources more at the centre of the development approach rather than the delivery of specific, pre-determined investment options. In this process, the conflict between disbursement pressure from IFAD on the on hand and the readiness of participating communities to take the lead in their own development process, should be taken into consideration;

b. help in securing access by the rural poor to natural resources, principally land, vegetation and water, as a fundamental pre-requisite to the introduction of sustainable resource management systems. The issue of so-called “illegal fencing” in the communal areas that might further marginalise the poor, needs to be specially considered. It is believed that the Communal Land Bill, that is currently awaiting formal promulagation, will largely contribute towards clarifying this;

c. support local level, representative organisations that can play a vital role in creating an environment conducive to poverty alleviation, economic growth and equitable asset distribution;

d. given the rate of human population increase prevalent in the NCA, aiming to reduce the proportion of the population and ultimately perhaps the absolute number of people reliant on primary agricultural production through stimulating a diversification in economic opportunity; an essential requirement to lowering the number of people living in poverty;

e. contribute to mainstreaming the recognition of gender concerns in all activities. A special focus on women would be justifiable given the high proportion of de facto or de jure rural female-headed households amongst whom poverty is often more prevalent;

f. introduce specific actions and investments that will enable rural communities and households to mitigate the effects of HIV/AIDS in order to safeguard human capital and maintain the opportunity to create economic growth in rural areas; and

g. consider the adoption of a longer-term, programmatic approach to planning and financing in order to accommodate the needs of fully participatory economic development and sustainable management of common property resources in an extremely fragile environment.

To develop further the dialogue between IFAD and Government on the investment implications of these possible areas of focus, take forward the evaluation of NOLIDEP as reflected in this Interim Evaluation Report and identify areas of convergence on rural development approaches to serving the interests of the poor, several key themes can be highlighted as topics for discussion. These include:

a. mechanisms for the effective participation of civil society and the population at large in the development process. In some cases, it might be needed to first develop the necessary capacity of civil society organisations in order to involve them in a meaningful manner;

b. development of rural financial services as the basis for stimulating entrepreneurship and sustainable economic growth;

c. Government’s ongoing decentralisation and restructuring of public services, to improve local accountability, promote resource allocations inclusive of the needs of the rural poor and emphasise Government’s role in creating an environment conducive to growth and the regulation of the development process;

d. community-based natural resource management; securing and protecting access and rights to the sustainable use of natural resources to the direct benefit, at least in large part, of local communities; and

e. land reform and its relevance to the rural poor – including the issue of land tenure systems governing access to common property resources.

Each of the themes is elaborated upon in the next section of the ACP.

Themes for policy dialogue.

Several key themes, a number of which are interrelated, can be highlighted as potential topics for discussion when considering the design of successor investments to NOLIDEP. The following notes illustrate some of the issues associated with each major theme.

Theme 1: civil society and popular participation in the development process.

In current rural development parlance, the term ‘participation’ implies an ongoing partnership in the interests of empowering rural communities and households and not only a process of (often brief) consultation with potential beneficiaries. In any future investment it would be important to establish a common understanding among MAWRD and its development partners of the operational implications of adopting a participatory approach to serving the interests of the rural poor.

In developing work programmes under NOLIDEP, field agents have been trained to use a number of participatory methods in the course of their interactions within communities, including Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). However, the use of such methods does not guarantee that the tendency for programmes to be supply driven will be reversed. The period of interaction with communities during PRA exercises tends to be short and geared to identifying priorities for investment from a menu of options, through a process of consultation with community representatives. Many of those involved in the consultation process are likely to be among the more influential and perhaps better-off members of local society, who may not necessarily raise any specific concerns of people poorer than themselves or appreciate that special measures may be required to ensure more equitable availability of and access to resources. Implementation approaches that allow the time to build relationships of trust between villagers and development agents have been shown elsewhere to give the necessary space and time for people to voice their genuine fears, concerns and ambitions, come to their own determination of a course of action and to carry it out on their own behalf, with support and guidance as necessary. Precedents for this approach already exist in Namibia and can be learned from and built upon (viz. Forum for Integrated Resource Management (FIRM); SARDEP). The actions of the two NOLIDEP facilitators in North Central Division and the voluntary social worker in Ikumwe (Caprivi Region) also go some way towards illustrating the types of catalytic relationships that may be envisaged.

The wider adoption of more intensive forms of interaction with villagers over longer periods implies a need for operational adjustments on the part of service providers (e.g. MAWRD) and their partners in the donor community. The implications for MAWRD include: (i) the need to reassess the role and job descriptions of field operatives; (ii) exploring the potential for devolving implementation responsibility to other potential partners (e.g. in civil society, other public services, farmers organisations or the private sector); (iii) encouraging/supporting voluntary workers from within the locality to act in a liaison and promotional role on behalf of the community and/or interest groups within it; and (iv) exploring innovative approaches to managing public funds closer to the point of need – funds could be broadly designated for supporting communities’ priority initiatives rather than pre-established categories that reflect only the technical skills and programme options available in MAWRD directorates. Funds would not necessarily be best controlled via the MAWRD (see also Theme 3). Implementing agencies would need to ensure that the effectiveness of a programme of support oriented towards people and the building of human assets could be measured via indicators that reflect changing skill levels, and the organisational, social and economic changes induced.

. Adjustments necessary within the donor community would involve: (i) the acceptance of a longer time-frame for investment programmes (particularly among lending agencies accustomed to investment in time-bound projects); (ii) avoidance of setting targets for the types and quantities of assets to be introduced, which automatically tends to pre-determine interventions within communities; and (iii) working with the host government to develop alternative financial management and control procedures that would allow discretionary funds to be set up closer to the point of need and drawn down on the basis of approved action plans developed (with the programme’s support) by the communities themselves.

Under NOLIDEP, support within communities mainly revolves around investments in physical assets (e.g. water points, hammer mills) or reflects the responsibilities of MAWRD implementing directorates (e.g. animal disease control services). Training is geared principally to helping community/interest group committees to arrange for any necessary beneficiary contributions to the cost of the asset and assume responsibility for the ongoing management and maintenance of the asset and is not designed to empower communities to take a pro-active role in organising themselves to (a) optimise the use and management of their available resources and (b) attract additional resources in support of their own socio-economic development strategy as a means of improving their overall livelihoods.

Under NOLIDEP training at the local level is either provided directed by MAWRD or is contracted-in under customised, short-term arrangements often involving specialised NGOs. There is scope (viz. the approach of SARDEP) for MAWRD not only to contract-in services on a ‘one-off’ basis but also to develop longer-term partnerships involving a transfer of implementation responsibility to others within an agreed operational framework. An associated aim would be to strengthen NGOs and perhaps farmers’ organisations to operate in such a capacity. Implementation capacity in MAWRD and other public services is likely to remain small; suggesting that approaches adopted under NOLIDEP may not be replicable on a wider scale through use of public services alone. A more replicable and ultimately more sustainable approach would for MAWRD to assume a catalytic role in linking communities with other stakeholders in development who would then assume specific implementation functions (e.g. Meatco, AGRIBANK, equipment and input suppliers, agro-processors and farmers’ organisations) and establish direct relationships with rural communities to their mutual benefit. Implementing partners could then establish their own contracts at a community level or with interest/business groups in the community to provide support in relation to a ‘plan of action’ in which the stakeholders involved are identified and the form of support to be provided is specified (see also the FIRM approach). The ‘plan of action’ can become a basis for the community/interest group to make its own assessment of the effectiveness of services holding suppliers to task as a means of encouraging improvement in service provision.

Civil society has a very important role to play in the process of sustainable development. Very often, civil society organisations have limited capacity to perform this role appropriately. In order for civil society to play a significant role in sustainable development, considerable capacity building in both technical and organisational fields is required.

Theme 2: development of rural financial services and a legislative/regulatory framework conducive to the stimulation of entrepreneurship and sustainable economic growth.

Substantial economic growth in the NCA will require a reduction in the proportion and ultimately the number of households directly reliant on primary agricultural production as their means of livelihood. Further, the environmental characteristics of the area suggest that a substantial growth in agricultural output is unlikely. There is an increasingly urgent need to diversify the economy by encouraging the emergence of businesses that add value to agricultural products and lead to an expansion of the service sector. Growth in the service sector and supply industries can be expected in turn to encourage consumer demand among rural households and, for those remaining in agriculture, gradually to raise livestock and crop producers’ interest in (i) investing more in their farming operations in order to increase efficiencies and (ii) increasing their orientation towards producing for the market.

There are three fundamental requirements under such a scenario. First, both farmers and potential business owners will require access to suitably designed financial services (savings and borrowing opportunity). Second, Government should support developments in the financial sector that not only encourage expansion in/adjustment to existing financing institutions serving the NCA, but also provide a well-regulated framework – governed by prudent banking principles – for the establishment of micro-financing institutions (MFIs). Third, there should be a commercial environment that is especially conducive to/provides incentives for the setting up of small- to medium-scale businesses, including value-adding enterprises, other service oriented businesses and the MFIs themselves.

Moves are already underway to stimulate development in the financial sector through the Rural Micro Finance (RMF) Programme in Namibia. The MAWRD has as primary focus, the development of agriculture related activities. The Ministry realises that sustainable livelihoods include more than only livestock related issues, and consider it of utmost importance. Addressing these issues, however, it should be done in close collaboration and consultation with other Ministries and related stakeholders. IFAD, Government and the stakeholders in the RMF should consider what (if any) further support may be needed to develop the finance sector in and for the NCA and, in particular, to identify areas where IFAD’s experience in the sector might help in (i) ensuring that organisational arrangements take into account the circumstances of the rural poor and are inclusive of their needs and interests and (ii) support the introduction of specific measures in practical terms as part of a future investment programme in the NCA and (iii) build capacity of RMF institutions in the rural areas.

Theme 3: decentralisation of services and resources and restructuring of the ministry of agriculture, water and rural development.

The establishment of Regional Councils and the gradual decentralisation of responsibility for public service delivery at the local level to the regions is expected gradually to provide new opportunities for the operations of implementing ministries to be modified and efficiencies of public services increased. MAWRD will be one of the key organisations affected as regional operations become increasingly linked with regional structures of administration. As regional authorities’ role increases, it will be possible to consider strengthening their regulatory and administrative functions in support of local development by setting up discretionary funds at regional level. These could be allocated by the regions under specified procedures to suitable development initiatives. The system could be developed to complement emerging facilities in the micro-financing sector and would require a regulatory framework that assisted communities to access local authority grants for specified types of expenditure subject to pre-specified criteria being met. Under such a system, public services such as MAWRD would increasingly adopt a facilitation and regulation role and need not be the exclusive channel for the allocation or expenditure of public funds for agricultural sector development.

With the exception of wildlife management associated with Conservancy legislation and the activities of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, implementation responsibility for community-based development has so far been retained to a large extent by MAWRD directorates in the regions, principally field operatives of DEES. Available implementation capacity within the directorates and the restricted budgetary allocations within the ministry accordingly limit their scale of operations. The ongoing process of restructuring public services provides an opportunity for MAWRD to reconsider its role, consider emphasising its facilitation, monitoring and regulation functions and adjust its operating procedures to expand the involvement of other potential development partners at the point of interaction with communities and interest groups. Job descriptions of personnel would need to be adjusted to reflect the change and future training emphasise the strengthening of analytical skills in identifying and assessing development requirements and opportunities and performing a catalytic role in linking rural communities/households with appropriate service providers. Precedents have been established in Namibia (under NOLIDEP and in association with other development initiatives) to operate in partnership with other stakeholders (see also Themes 1 and 5).

. In designing a future investment programme(s) for the NCA, the opportunities arising from decentralisation and restructuring would be explored with a view to improving local accountability of public services, promoting resource allocations inclusive of the requirements of rural communities and the rural poor and emphasising Government’s role in creating an environment conducive to local economic growth, regulation of sector activities and efficiency in resource allocation and use.

Theme 4: communal land reform.

Poverty reduction in the communal areas is intimately linked to complex issues surrounding access to and the management of common property resources. There is a growing need to accelerate land reform in Namibia since traditional systems of resource allocation and use are increasingly under threat from population expansion as well as various forms of encroachment and non-traditional use. Communal land reform does not imply legislation for the retention of unchanged traditional systems but the introduction of legal instruments that, in parallel with legislation governing land elsewhere in the country, can safeguard the rights and interests of the rural poor whose livelihoods are heavily dependent on continued access to (currently) common property resources.

The Communal Land Bill was passed by Parliament and is currently awaiting official promulgation. Meanwhile, the donor community in Namibia has expressed interest to Government in providing support to the overall land reform process. In looking to future investment, IFAD’s interest would focus on areas directly relevant to the poor, especially issues of security in land tenure, resource access and use and further empowering the poor through democratic organisations and processes. While monitoring developments related to the proposed Communal Land Bill and the land reform process in general, IFAD would seek to coordinate with other donors in exploring the possibilities of: (i) strengthening the networking of interested stakeholders in civil society to put forward the perspective of the rural poor and ensure their concerns are reflected in the land debate; and (ii) arranging a local-level mechanism for protecting and securing land rights of disadvantaged farmers within communal areas. Both aspects could either be linked to a prospective project loan or be considered as stand-alone initiatives if IFAD lending to Namibia is discontinued. In either case, support in these areas would be on a pilot basis and be conducted in collaboration with the Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty, an institution housed in IFAD.

Theme 5: community-based sustainable natural resource management.

In the NCA there is a growing problem of environmental degradation that ultimately threatens the basis of much of the area’s economic activity, i.e. its natural, common property resources. While communities have a de facto vested interest in maintaining and/or improving the productivity of these resources, they currently have few means through which to do so and in some cases may not yet recognise the growing urgency of their acquiring such means and taking full advantage of them. Interrelationships between economic activities (livestock and to a lesser extent crop production) and the broader aspects and economic advantages to be gained from employing sustainable environmental management practices are little understood or appreciated. In future development programmes in the NCA, much greater attention should be given to introducing specific actions (perhaps beginning with building a widespread awareness of problems and potentials and expanding recognition of the ‘knock on’ effects of inappropriate practices and their implications for the future sustainability of rural livelihoods) than has been the case under NOLIDEP. It would be imperative to link such activities with developments in legislation (Conservancy legislation and communal land reform – see below), facilitation of linkages with other partners in rural development (including for livestock marketing) and a recognition among technical agencies of Government that their programmes should respond to tackling wider environmental and economic concerns and not be viewed in technical isolation.

Namibia has growing experience of the benefits that can derive from community-based natural resources management in the communal areas. Under NOLIDEP, the principle has been adopted in relation to the expansion of water supply infrastructure under a system of cost sharing. The concept is fundamental to the operations of SARDEP and NAPCOD and lies at the heart of the Conservancy legislation introduced to enable local communities to gain economic benefit from wildlife resources via tourism developments in their locality, with support from NGOs and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Ongoing negotiations (April 2002) suggest that additional resources from the Global Environment Fund may be received in Namibia for this approach and modification of legislation to include vegetation resources (in presently communal rangeland) and rangeland management under the Conservancy legislation, be investigated. The Communal Land Bill, that is currently awaiting official promulgation, should serve as the major vehicle to achieve this. Should this materialise, it would markedly increase rural communities’ incentive to regulate grazing and improve the efficiency of vegetation use within a framework of environmentally sound management practices. Communities heavily dependent on livestock may also be encouraged to diversify into game management (for marketed off-take and/or in association with tourism developments.

Future investments in the NCA would recognise these precedents and developments and be designed to assist communities to take advantage of emerging opportunities. The more intensive forms of interaction associated with Theme 1 above would be especially important in helping communities to optimise potential benefits. This in turn would entail MAWRD and other development partners helping to build strong, representative community structures. Communities should be encouraged to identify their own problems, take the initiative in finding solutions and, most importantly acquire/solicit appropriate support (financial and technical) to implement the solutions. With the responsibilities communities assume through adoption of the community based management approach, there will be a shift away from absolute dependency on government and external project support to a sense of self-help and self-motivation.

In order to focus more closely on actions to support community-based resource management, closer collaboration is required between public services and NGOs/civil society organisations: (i) at programme or field level, where NGOs’ services and expertise in certain areas can be mobilised to provide training and community mobilisation skills and capacity; and (ii) at national level where public institutions and other stakeholders can work together on policy and advocacy related to the concerns of the rural poor. One appropriate forum would be the Namibia Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations (NACSO). Given the limited presence of strong civil society organisations in Namibia, support would be required for capacity building as necessary.