Introduction
The focus of this report is on NRM activities broadly defined as those that promote sustainable agricultural production through improvements in on-farm soil and water management, such as social forestry, micro-watershed management, irrigation water management, and soil conservation. These types of projects directly combine economic and environmental benefits, and entail decentralized actions including investment in socio-economic infrastructure (at the municipal and micro-catchment levels) through active beneficiary participation.
Sustainable management of natural resource systems requires:
(i) locally adapted resource-conserving technologies;
(ii) coordinated action by groups or communities at the local level; and,
(iii) supportive external government and NGO institutions working within an enabling policy environment and in partnership with resource users.
Most successes to date consist of small islands of accomplishment; scattered projects working with small numbers of communities. At the heart of these successes are community-based institutions consisting of resource users working together for individual benefit. The challenge lies in implementing programs that achieve sustainable results at a grassroots level through beneficiary participation, while at the same time, operating on a large enough scale to have an impact at the national level.
Practical guidance is provided for program planners on how to design community-based NRM programs that can be scaled-up. It is based on a review of programs that have achieved some degree of success in this sphere. Recommendations are put forward on policy preconditions, program strategies, structure of program implementing agencies, and appropriate financing mechanisms (see page xi).
NRM, Institutions For Collective Action, And Decentralization (Chapter 0, page 3)
Sustainable agricultural production resulting in improvements in household incomes would imply that the state does not have a role in promoting productive NRM programs. However, an in-depth analysis of the nature of NRM programs concludes that they provide joint products, wherein an activity gives rise to multiple outputs, some of which are private, purely public, and impurely public. Moreover, most NRM programs are also characterized by being subject to free-rider problems; specifically, when one person cannot be excluded from the benefits that others provide, each person is motivated not to contribute to the joint effort, but to free-ride on the efforts of others. An analysis of successful programs, on the other hand, demonstrates that institutions for collective action are essential for over-coming free-rider problems associated with managing resources with asymmetric costs and benefits. The state therefore has a role in promoting the evolution of such “public” institutions to increase optimal resource allocation and substitute for market failure.
Forming and strengthening local institutions is itself a strategy of decentralization to create local capacities for handling authority and responsibility. In addition, through an analysis of the essential characteristics of long-enduring institutions, it is also found that government decentralization of fiscal, political and administrative authority and control to local institutions and local government is an essential precondition in creating the enabling conditions for large-scale evolution of collective action.
Preconditions: Fostering An Enabling Environment For Effective NRM Programs (Chapter 0, page 15) And Socio-Psychological And Environmental Factors Contributing To The Supply Of Successful Institutions (Chapter 0, page 23)
Sustainable NRM and supply of local institutions for collective action requires more than decentralization of fiscal and administrative authority. It also requires fostering an enabling environment through:
Sound macroeconomic policies.
Investment in rural infrastructure.
Policies governing property rights and legal status of local institutions
In addition, planners need to be aware that the propensity of individuals voluntarily to organize themselves into institutions is related to:
Existing levels of local organizational capacity.
Extent and rate of environmental degradation or impending crisis that is apparent to resource users.
Perceived levels of resource tenure and physical security that affect the extent to which individuals discount future benefits.
Program Strategies For Catalyzing The Supply Of Local Institutions (Chapter 0, page 27)
Evidence indicates that the most effective program strategies are those that build Local Organizational Capacity (LOC) through the implementation of productivity (or well-being) enhancing subprojects. These are positive-sum in there orientation, i.e. creating new values for all participants through mobilization and utilization of resources that would otherwise be differently used. The following strategies strengthen LOC:
“Entry point” subprojects that result in positive financial and/or economic returns act as strong incentives for collective action - this is the “carrot” for organization formation.
Benefits that accrue quickly, locally, transparently, and as equitably as possible given resource constraints, add further impetus for continuing collective action - this keeps the “carrot” appetizing.
Reducing delays between subproject identification and implementation to ensure benefits accrue quickly.
Catalytic agencies are required to organize individuals into institutions for collective action. The process of social organizing should include intensive face-to-face approaches with individuals over a period of time; information-sharing, awareness raising, building rapport, participatory micro-level planning, and so on. Participatory micro-level planning techniques are particularly useful in:
Stimulating demand for NRM.
Identifying appropriate entry-point activities.
Resolving potential conflicts that might undermine the viability of natural resource management.
Asymmetric costs and benefits mean that adoption of NRM technologies and institution formation will require appropriate financial incentives and subsidies. The joint products nature of NRM goods means that the decision to use credit or matching-grants for subproject financing is not obvious. The probability of success of using individual or group loans is affected by wealth of target population, inequality of income distribution, gestation period before returns start accruing to individuals, discount rate of individuals, extent of social cohesion, and so on. If the probability of success of using credit is less than 80 percent, then matching grants are proposed. The share of matching-grant provided by the program is determined by the beneficiaries ability and willingness to contribute to a given subproject. This encapsulated in a formula that includes wealth, income inequality, demand, social cohesion, capital cost of subproject, financial profitability relative to economic returns, and so on. (see the section on 5.4 Structuring financial incentives for adoption of NRM technologies and institution formation., page 31, for more detail).
Paths To Scaling-Up Of Participatory Approaches (Chapter 0, page 41).
A number of tested approaches can be used in combination:
Clustering social organizing inputs in “nodes” of 1,000 ha watersheds, or a handful of villages, produces an “impact zone” that can help to stimulate demand by acting as visual demonstrations of program benefits, and as training areas for new institutions.
Farmer-to-farmer exchanges used in conjunction with the nodal approach are a cost-effective means of rapidly replicating the program and creating new nodes.
Communications campaigns using culturally appropriate media are highly effective at raising awareness about the program objectives, incentives and potential benefits.
Structuring the participatory process can improve program planning and coordination between service providers. It also assists in defining an exit strategy so that catalytic agencies reduce their involvement with institutions over time and move on to new geographical areas.
Limiting the range of subproject interventions supported by the program focuses the participatory process on outcomes; makes the program less complex to administer because of standardization of subprojects, technical assistance, production of operational manuals, etc. It is also more transparent to beneficiaries.
Standardizing matching grants for agro-ecological areas encourages transparency and reduces the time taken by catalytic agency to negotiate appropriate beneficiary contributions.
Transferring responsibilities for implementation, procurement, and operation, to institutions rapidly builds internal capacity as individuals “learn by doing”; reduces the burden on catalytic agencies for day-to-day management enabling them to work with a larger number of communities; and, reduces the cost and time required for subproject implementation by 30 - 70 percent.
Creating and capitalizing a maintenance fund during subproject implementation increases the probability of investments continuing to be maintained after construction. It is preferable to “contracts” between institutions and implementing agency.
Mobilizing administrative and political support through Cabinet Resolutions at state and federal level are required to persuade sectoral line ministries to provide technical assistance, budgetary allocations, and acknowledge community rights over use of common pool resources. This reduces the time spent negotiating individual agreements with each ministry and department.
Program Management And Implementation (Chapter 0, page 52)
NGOs have limited potential (and are often unwilling) to scale-up their programs. The responsibility for implementation therefore requires public sector institutions. Two broad types of public sector agencies can be discerned:
(i) Multidisciplinary agencies consisting of single unified authorities providing holistic inputs, including a cadre of social organizers, and technical personnel specialized in integrated management of natural resources;
(ii) Single sector agencies specializing in motivating and catalyzing resource appropriators relying upon other agencies to provide technical inputs for the detailed design and implementation of subprojects.
Donor agencies usually rely upon the creation of multidisciplinary project implementation units with staff recruited from different line ministries. This is effective for the implementation of isolated projects but not sustainable in the long-run; governments rarely continue to support them after the end of the project period because they are not considered to be statutory public institutions.
A program approach that is based on a sector-wide strategy and policy framework offers more potential for long enduring systemic change. But this requires improved coordination and collaboration between line ministries. Good practice for promoting this include:
Develop a policy framework spelling out the long-term vision and strategy for achieving program goals; and, respective roles, responsibilities, systems and procedures of different public sector agencies.
Get Cabinet/Council of Ministers approval of policy framework.
Create apex working and learning groups to ensure that the policy framework is implemented and coordination occurs at multiple layers.
Review and restructure public sector agencies to identify quick wins in efficiency and responsiveness to clients and also develop a phased strategy for implementation of reforms.
In the absence of any proven model for the formation of local institutions for collective management of natural resources, program implementing agencies need to closely monitor their progress to adapt program approaches. In essence, three types of monitoring activities are required:
Assessing efficacy of participatory processes and sustainability of the institutions;
Monitoring and evaluating social, environmental, and economic impact;
Tracking physical and financial performance.
Design Of Decentralized Financial Instruments For Subproject Financing (Chapter 0, page 61)
The financing instrument used by donor agencies must facilitate the following:
Government ownership of the program.
Strengthened government capacity to implement the program.
Community authority and control over decision-making, implementation, procurement, operation and maintenance.
Quick accrual of initial subproject benefits through local level approval and disbursal mechanisms.
Adapted versions of Demand Driven Rural Investment Funds (or Local Development Funds as used by UNCDF) are proposed in preference to a Social Fund because they vest the investment programming functions (the power to reject/select subprojects) in existing local government institutions rather than in specially created quasi-governmental, or non-governmental, agencies. They are also designed to introduce or improve decentralized, participatory planning procedures and to build the capacity of local governments and other local institutions to design and manage local projects. An example is provided in the main document on how complimentarity can be achieved between the catalytic implementing agency, local government and financial instrument (see page 62).
The essential attributes required of a decentralized financial instrument are:
Democratic and representative local government bodies responsible for subproject approval to be accountable to resource appropriators and transparent in their operations (using culturally appropriate mechanisms of accountability rather than imposed western values).
Geographic targeting is required because the common pool resource aspect of NRM necessitates participation of all resource appropriators in an institution for collective action to: (i) receive program inputs and benefits; and, (ii) avoid the problem of free-riders undermining the authority and control of the institution.
Community procurement of goods and services as part of the strategy to build local organizational capacity and as a pathway for scaling-up.
Advance payments and verification of the use of funds to minimize delays of disbursal, facilitate local procurement of good and services, and ensure quick accrual of benefits.
Recommendations
Scaling-up community-based NRM programs requires strengthening local organizational capacity.
Joint products provided by NRM programs necessitate the involvement of external implementing agencies for awareness raising, catalyzing group formation, soliciting commitment from all appropriators, and identifying subproject interventions through participatory micro-level planning.
Decentralization policies and programs can stimulate the voluntary evolution of local institutions for collective action.
Program strategies used by agencies need to include incentives for group formation and strengthening, and also private incentives for adoption of new technologies.
Scaling-up can be achieved by utilizing de-concentrated catalytic agencies working in nodal areas and employing effective communications campaigns.
NRM programs cannot be viewed as isolated endeavors; they need to be part of the rural development agenda and systemic, enduring, change is required in the structure and operation of government agencies to make them more client responsive and effective.
Piloting programs on a small scale to fine-tune program strategies, incentives, and also to build the capacities of implementing agencies is essential before attempting to scale-up.
Monitoring and evaluation systems must be in place before piloting to learn from experiences and enable adaptive programming.
Potential dangers of decentralization in terms of transparency, accountability, and capture of benefits by local elites, mean that monitoring of participatory processes and effectiveness of local institutions must be given greater priority than previously.
