Enabling poor rural people
to overcome poverty
Participatory development: the AKRSP model and its adaptations
The purpose of this assessment was to explore the potential for replication of the 'model' embodied in the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP), in the light of IFAD-financed project experience.
The essential features of the AKRSP approach are given in Chapter X of the main report. As for replicability, it has often been considered that AKRSP's success is related to the specific circumstances in which it operates which are not easily found elsewhere, including:
(i) the territorial characteristics of the Northern areas, i.e. its remoteness, and its relatively flexible political and bureaucratic structures;
(ii) the social cohesion of the particular communities involved; and
(iii) the quality of the management and staff of AKRSP, who are gifted, efficient and operate in a non-bureaucratic organization.
89. The implicit assumption made by the sponsors of IFAD-financed projects, however, has been different and may be described as follows: although the AKRSP programme itself cannot be repeated elsewhere, its working methodology aimed at beneficiaries' involvement is applicable in other socio-economic circumstances.
90. Similarly, the National Rural Support Programme (NRSP), an NGO sponsored by GOP, aims to replicate the principles of development, rather than the total programme package adopted by AKRSP. The principle of investing in social organization remains, but the investment can take different forms which are specific to the context. The Productive Physical Investment (PPI) which was extremely effective in the Northern Areas as an investment in organization, may not be required or feasible in many areas of Punjab and Sindh. In such cases, credit programmes or investments in natural resource conservation, could prove effective investment in organization. In other cases, rural communities may be willing to organize themselves to manage social service schemes.
To what extent does available experience support any of the above views? There is no doubt that efforts undertaken to adapt the AKRSP model have considerably enhanced participatory features in project design and implementation. So far, there are some very positive signs, in particular the active involvement of villagers in decision-making as well as the provision of labour and savings. The establishment, by GOP in collaboration with other Donors, of specific non-profit making development agencies along the lines of AKRSP also represents a landmark.
In particular, the model provides an excellent vehicle for the provision of services which have the nature of public goods, or in which economies of scale prevail. Adaptive research, extension, crop protection, social services such as drinking water, renovation work, group sureties for credit and processing of local agricultural production are among the candidate services. As the major stakeholder, the community's participation in the design, implementation and supervision of community services schemes, such as drinking water supply schemes, is essential for diligence in implementation, cost effectiveness and sustainability.
Notwithstanding all these efforts and achievements, it is unlikely that the level of achievement of the projects which emulated to various degrees the AKRSP can ultimately compare with AKRSP itself. The difference in performances is explained to a significant extent by the higher level of management autonomy, flexibility, continuity and incentive structures displayed by AKRSP. Another cause is found in the frequent political interference and the inadequate technical support which impinged on IFAD-supported projects.
Moreover, there are serious limitations to the replicability of the model. Most fundamental among these is that grass roots organizations themselves are mainly young and inexperienced and cannot create the required level of social cohesion in a relatively short period of time. The same is true of the mediator organizations (Government-sponsored NGOs) and their staff.
The extent to which the model is effective in targeting the poor (IFAD's main concern) is also debatable. There are, at best, mixed results: in some cases the traditional leadership and the more powerful have assumed control of the social organizations, and in others, the targeting itself has been on the basis of the whole village or community. Yet, in other cases, private entrepreneurs may successfully compete with VOs in identifying emerging opportunities and in capturing the corresponding benefits.
With respect to the potential for replication of the AKRSP model, the evaluation mission notes that AKRSP itself is a replica of earlier models experimented in various communities worldwide, and tested closely in Comilla and subsequently by the Pakistan Academy for Rural Development (PARD). The essence of replication is in the process of adaptation and adjustments of the model to suit the socio-cultural, religious and politico-economic characteristics of the new community. What is therefore important is to distinguish the principles and attributes that may have a general validity, from features that are specific to a given context.
It is further observed that the adaptation process is essentially a cumulative one; the fruition of community development models requires time, patience and persistence. Hence the approach adopted by IFAD in which successive projects, with special design features, variable emphasis and a continuous iterative learning process is basically the right approach. The fundamental improvement which this approach represents over earlier ones warrants close monitoring and periodic evaluation of the relevant projects to establish which aspects (negative and positive) are of general relevance and which problems or successes are due primarily to factors specific to each particular project.
An important difference between AKRSP and IFAD-financed projects concerns the emphasis given to participation and the means allocated to it. In the former, social organization is an end in itself, while for the latter, participation is considered a means to an end. To achieve more success, IFAD should provide more adequate resources in its project budgets for social organization.
The training of a core group on the participatory rural development model should be accorded highest priority. Social organizers represent the cornerstone of the approach. AKRSP as an institution has provided a critical share of social organisers to IFAD and other projects. It would be desirable that donors, including IFAD, assist AKRSP to expand its current training facilities to respond to the increasing demand for such trained personnel.
Development of the community members' skills to provide technical services is an essential feature for sustainability of project benefits. There are three problems which need to be addressed: the quality of training; the ability of beneficiaries to pay for services; and of the para-professional to acquire stocks of consumables and equipment necessary for the continuation of the services. With respect to training, projects should be equipped to upgrade skills through refresher courses. With respect to the other two problems, internal credit from group savings should be devised to overcome them.
The line agencies find the grass roots institutions convenient for facilitating their interventions but feel reluctant to be accountable to community organisations (COs). To alleviate this problem, project designers should give consideration to enhancing the capacity of the department of Local Government and Rural Development (LG & RD)Local Government and Rural Development (LG & RD)Government and Rural Development (LG & RD)Government and Rural Development (LG & RD) to liaise between line agencies and the communities as well as to provide support to the COs and the training of their members.
As noted above, targeting features account for one of the weaknesses of the model, at least as far as replication is concerned. Nevertheless, improvement could be made by a more systematic consideration of social aspects at all stages of projects to ensure that objectives and approaches are compatible with the actual social situation. In particular, the structure of COs should be designed both to integrate, and, if necessary, to modify the pattern of social relations which prevails in the community.
Building on best project practices the main suggestions are to:
(i) use more frequently Rapid/Participatory Rural Appraisal starting with the earlier stages of the project cycle;
(ii) improve baseline surveys to ensure that they include comprehensive information on social aspects;
(iii) issue short and appropriate guidelines on social issues to consultants and project personnel with a view to giving greater consideration to the socio-political constraints of design and implementation; and
(iv) ensure that the above considerations are appropriately incorporated in the terms of reference of supervision missions.
The poor and disadvantaged who are frequently illiterate are unlikely to have had the opportunity of developing leadership skills and therefore find themselves in the position of followers, or at best, junior decision-makers in group meetings. It is recommended that project support to such groups be made conditional on the adoption and enforcement of internal rules and regulations ensuring a fair representation of the target group in decision-making.
Finally, it is recommended building into future project design, specific activities and structures3/ aimed at keeping an inventory of potential ideas for profitable business that could be tested and developed locally, and especially, those ideas stemming from the communities themselves. This could be done through the following process:
(i) each year project managers could select from among the available proposals, those which could be piloted by interested COs;
(ii) some resources would be allocated for such local experiments, and workplans prepared annually to this effect; and
(iii) successful undertakings would be publicized and used to spread the message of self-reliance among the target population.
This type of activity planning and implementation lends itself to a high level of people participation, and can thus practically reinforce the managerial capacity of grass roots organization.
3/ In particular, within the project management/coordination unit.