Strengthening institutions for the rural poor

Panel participants

P. Roy, IFAD, Facilitator
John Hariss, London School of Economics
David Pulgar, CIDA
J. Wilkinson, IFAP Chairperson

Introduction

The Chair reminded that while rural poor organisations has always been a deep concern in IFAD operations, their institutionalisation faces two crucial issues:

• An institutionalised organisation has often been observed as captured by a rural elite who may not anymore serve the rural poor and may even be counterproductive since they occupy a space on behalf of rural poor who remains even more excluded.
  
• IFAD agents behaviour on the fields in spite of being animated by noble intentions to contact rural poor may be counterproductive when they “organise” fields visits composed of a caravan of 4 wheel drive with experts from all over, rural poor may not feel very comfortable and can hardly trust such collaboration or may develop hidden expectations

We came to think that IFAD has to take side in some cases and become more pro-active than just provide space for a forum bringing all parties together. Access to such forum is already a tough road and are the rural poor equipped for such journey?

In other words, how to build strong rural poor institutions that …do not exclude the poors, that do not exclude the women or the youth, that do not exclude marginal groups and ethnic groups?

And yet, how can IFAD address contradictory practices when rural poors themselves are far from inclusive particularly when they stand on indigenous particularities? All kind of reasons are invoked to exclude the youth, the women, the landless, the pastoralists, …How then to influence indigenous practices when they exclude towards more inclusive approaches? How to combine tradition and modernity in a rural poor organisation?

Through its practices, IFAD cherished the importance of trust and listening, to avoid outsiders judgement that at the end of the day often fire-back on the very same excluded people.

IFAD practitioners came to value very much the importance of the people’s contribution in policy making. IFAD saw how crucial such collaboration is valuable when the people are organised but have also been capacitated to contribute in a rich manner to the discussions.

However, discussions needs two parties to sit together and at this stage, IFAD wonders whether governments themselves have been adequately capacitated to interact with rural poors, to listen to their voice that may not be as audible as other stakeholders more used to policy dialogue?

Presentation 1: learnings from CIDA in Latin America

There has been a trend around to focus on organisational assessment (how do you do things?) rather than institutional analysis (who are you interacted with?).

In LA, CIDA consolidated the new paradigm enforcing bottom-up approach versus the traditional top-down way of doing things, particularly to allow rural poors to be in a position, once organised, to actively contribute to address challenges that they faced in terms of natural resources management, trade agreement, consequences of the transformation and modernisation processes, conflict situations…

3 main questions are yet at the core of our learnings:

• How to up-scale positive micro outcomes at the macro level without losing touch with the basis?
• How to set the balance in supporting government and communities for them to interact in a mutually strengthening way for the benefit of the rural poors?
• How to balance the importance given to income generating activities, that may often requires a broader local involvement than the poorest components of the community and ethical issues of not excluding the poorest and enhance a sometimes costly and less economically viable solidarity?

Presentation 2: Nurturing Social Capital

Research done in India emphasised that social capital is indeed a potential that can only be realised when there are capable agents to make it useful.

It has been often wrongly assumed that social capital is just the same thing as local organisation. In many cases, village organisation appeared actually to be counterproductive to outreach the rural poors.

Due to various reasons, any kind of organisation tend to be dominated by the wealthier component of the community. In some cases, the wealthiest elite even capture any support and nobody never even questioned their position to speak on behalf of the poors. In a particular case, a local system of social insurance that was functioning and mainly benefiting rural poors before being institutionalised, just excluded the very same rural poor who were not in control of the institutionalised organisation that set criteria that they could not reach. At the end of the day, the poor were left worse off through the institutionalisation and the capacity building that went with it.

On the contrary and a more positive note, in the Andes, researchers identified “Islands of sustainability” where local organisation of rural poors managed to improve the conditions of their members on the long run. Researchers identified 3 key factors that contributed to break the impoverishment vicious circle and to transform it in an empowerment virtuous circle:

1. the production of high values crops that allowed the communities to access market
2. a good local organisation
3. a long term linkage to a wider network of actors through outsiders that could be universities, priest, NGO volunteer…

In most cases, the organisation was created in specific circumstances when the community had to struggle to access a crucial service, or resource, or right.

In such cases the social capital, linked up to the outside world had a positive effect on the rural poors. Trust is central to the process, it is built over time.

It has been observed in different Indian states, that there is a higher poverty elasticity of growth where the state had a strongest intervention, local organisations also played a more pro-active positive role to change the life of the rural poors.

In Western Bengale, decentralisation processes were more successful where the state intervention was very strong in favor of the poor. This paradox of decentralisation has often been observed that a decentralised intstance will be more controlled by a local elite and therefore will have less concern in reaching out rural poors, in spite of being closer to them, than a central government when some dedicated civil servants may strictly apply pro-rural poors policies. This paradox may also be observed with local organisation.

Public action could be defined as an interaction between the state and local organisation:

• Government creates the spaces and fora for rural people to voice out their concern and pro-actively participate in policy making processes;
• Local organisation through such fora can hold the government accountable for its practices in regard of public policies

Social capital is created by a state intervention in the sense that the state provides for a conducive environment that allows a complex development of socially built interactions that checks and balances that very same state while providing spaces for people driven transformation processes.

Intervention 3: P. Wilkinson, IFAP Chairperson

Mr. Wilkinson emphasised the importance of only strengthening the existing farmers organisations rather than being tempted to create new ones. FOs faces huge chalenges in defending their members in the globalisation environment set by the agreement signed by their own governments.
Mr. Wilkinson elaborated on the consequences of the ratification of the Kyoto protocol that affect poor farmers that have to be very cautious in using fertilisers and other products. FOs have to educate their members accordingly and need to be capacitated to do so propoerly.

However, Mr. Wilkinson emphasised the positive role played by North-South interaction where FOs from the Northern countries directly receive or visit farmers leaders from South based FOs. Mr. Wilkinson argued that being at a less advanced stage, FOs leaders from the South can develop a better vision of what their organisation could do. Furthermore, Mr. Wilkinson highlighted the human factor where farmer leaders develop personal linkages of friendship just like Canadian farmers decided to spend their holiday in Ukraine where they went firstly to interact with FOs.

Finally, the speaker elaborated on the integration of commodity chains upstream of the distribution through supermarkets. Supermarkets are held by multinationals whose expectations particularly on traceability of the product are enormous and very constraining, to meet standards, the speaker insured that only FOs can weigh enough to educate members to be the best to provide the products as specified by the supermarket; the real risk being that a non satisfied supermarket just contact producers in another part of the World and get the product it wants regardless of the producers circumstances.

Questions from the floor

• Globalisation tends to destroy market access to the poors. What kind of role can play a social capital in such context?
• Does economical benefits outweigh the destruction of social capital?

As a matter of fact, one can observe that the weakening of the state is associated to the globalisation trend as one of its main feature. However, evidence shows that returns on investment increase with the engagement of the state to provide a conducive environment and opening the market on its own terms. Countries like China or India open up their markets at their own pace insuring that their people were not sacrificed

More political work and education is to be directed to government officials before they sign international agreements that commits their governments in some ways that might be detrimental to their people. Some officials seems overwhelmed by the complexity of the negotiations and they fail to identify their margin of negotiation.

Finally, governments have to provide a conducive legal framework allowing FOs to exist and operate legally under the knowledge and protection of the state.

• Poverty is often characterised by a lack of infrastructure in the poor countries, how can focusing assistance on individuals (even organised) address such challenges? Who will build a road, a bridge or an airport?

It is important for IFAD to develop with countries long term development plan that go beyond the limits of project time-frame; However, the involvement of the community remains a crucial component of the sustainability of new infrastructure. The approach is to combine investment in infrastructure and social capital.

In Latin America, resources have been directly affected to communities for them to hire technical assistance on their own terms. This conception of extension services has been very efficient.

• Would not strengthening rural institutions encourage confrontation?

As a matter of fact, strengthening Local organisations needs a very courageaous political push and support.

In post war or conflict situations, how can support to Local organisation have a positive impact on the poors?

It is crucial to insure that the organisation are not hijacked by either an elite or lobby groups that talk on behalf and capture the resources regardless of any impact.

It is crucial to be patient and allow local organisation a trial and error process that contribute to their true maturation.

Via Campesina is the other international farmers organisation as opposed to IFAP.

Via Campesina delegate highlighted the danger of rapid institutionalisation of FOs for the sake of it.  However, she also stressed the importance to strengthen the existing organisations that struggle to play their role with very limited resources, supporting the existing FOs does not also mean to support the more visible ones but all the organisations and their components that may impact on the rural poor.

It has been emphasised that although many agreed with providing direct support to the existing farmers organisations who voice out their claims, one has to be cautious to question who may be hidden behind farmers…. Farmers OK but what kind of farmers?

Well off farmers tend to be the more organised and the more apt to capture resources and direct them to their sole members.

• How to accompany pertinent institutions without deciding on their behalf? How to maximise their efficiency by increasing social capital in farmers organisation?

The way IFAD interact with FOs in LA is the right thing to do.

It is rather consensual that the state is a major player in setting a conducive context for FOs, however, what about the characteristics of the state? In the case of dictatorial or patriarchal kind of state, what is to be expected?

In Haiti, 2 approaches have been developed to favour the emergence of a citizen responsible and autonomous at all levels from the family to the international arena.

The first approach is called the participatory and responsible approach that relies on proper access to information, sensitisation, communication, motivation (direct by the market, indirect by the legal framework), formation, structuration and networking.

The other approach or hexagonal approach relies on the six components of sustainable livelihoods are dealt with – human, social, environmental, information access, economical and financial and finally political.  

Several conditions also impact on the quality of the social capital of the local organisations; Strengthening Extension services is crucial however the competencies of the extension staff should extended to support social capital. Very few have the necessary facilitating skills and they themselves need to be trained to support local organisations.

It could be interesting for government to enforce national corporate to be better economic citizen.

South-South cooperation has been crucial in the case of Maldivian fishermen folks.

Conclusions

The Chairperson acknowledged the richness of the exchanges and various ideas have emerged from the discussions:

• Institutionalisation should not be used as a mantra but on the other hand it does matter when a driving force keeps the momentum
• Micro and macro issues are not the same and growth from a level to the other might not be a continuum
• The rules of the game may not be the ones set by IFAD, rural poors may have ther own rules of engagement
• In multinational arena, the government of the respective countries have a responsibility to defend their stake
• Poor people can make a difference
  Social capital has a different understanding than local organisation
• The link between the local and the outside world is very important
• Public action is required to enhance the role of local organisations
• Access to land though not addressed in this round table has been highlighted as a crucial empowerment component
• The existence of the rule of law that nurtures confidence and trust among the stakeholders is a determining factor of the existence of a vivid social capital