Role of Local Communities and Institutions in Integrated Rural Development
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ROLE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND INSTITUTIONS IN INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT Report of the APO Seminar on Role of Local Communities and Institutions in Integrated Rural Development held in Islamic Republic of Iran, 15-20 June 2002 (ICD-SE-3-01) This report was edited by Dr. Chandrasekera M. Wijayaratna, Agricultural/Natural Resources Economist, Institutional Strengthening Specialist, Auckland, New Zealand. The opinions expressed in this publication do not reflect the official view of the Asian Productivity Organization. For reproduction of the contents in part or in full, the APO’s prior permission is required. ©Asian Productivity Organization, 2004 CONTENTS Foreword Part I Summary of Findings ........................................... 1 Part II Resource Papers 1. Role of Local Communities and Institutions in Integrated Rural Development……………… Chandrasekera M. Wijayaratna .. 34 2. Local Communities and Institutions: Realizing Their Potential for Integrated Rural Development…………………… Norman Uphoff .. 63 3. What Makes Effective Local Organizations and Institutions in Natural Resource Management and Rural Development …………………………………………………… Robert J. Fisher .. 85 4. Institutionalization of People’s Self-organizing Actions for Rural Development: Comparative Analysis of Micro-finance Organizations in Rural Thailand, Philippines, and Indonesia ………………………………………………… Shinichi Shigetomi .. 97 Part III Country Papers 1. Bangladesh…………………………………… Abdul Aziz Talukder . 120 2. Republic of China…………………………………… Shih-jui Tung . 132 3. Fiji…………………………………………………… Akhill Chand . 141 4. India………………………………………………… R. K. Tripathi . 144 5. Islamic Republic of Iran (1)……………… Hassan Hashemi Daran . 168 6. Islamic Republic of Iran (2)………………… Hossein Mahdidoust . 175 7. Islamic Republic of Iran (3)…………………… Javad Sayahi Kashi . 185 8. Islamic Republic of Iran (4)…………………… Masoud Motamedi . 190 9. Nepal………………………………………… Dirgha Man Shrestha . 194 10. Pakistan……………………………………………… Abdul Sattar . 208 11. Philippines…………………………………… Adeliza F. Gabalfin . 217 12. Sri Lanka……………………………………… R. D. S. Jayatunga . 228 13. Thailand………………………………………… Sanit Suwansorn . 239 14. Vietnam……………………………………………… Tran Viet My . 246 Part IV Appendices 1. List of Participants, Resource Speakers, and Secretariat............ 251 2. Program of Activities ...................................... 255 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BACKGROUND In the development of rural communities in Asia and Pacific, the coordination of various rural development activities has been indispensable to maximizing and sustaining rural development efforts. This has been accomplished in a major way with the adoption of an Integrated Rural Development (IRD) strategy in many countries. The IRD programs usually require the establishment of a central coordinating organization at the national level. The experiences in the implementation of such programs, however, reveal that the new central organization would merely create an additional stratum of bureaucracy and has not been effective in coordinating the various activities done by different sectors in the rural development efforts. Accordingly, some IRD programs such as those in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Malaysia have set up coordinating mechanisms at the lower levels involving project offices and local government units in the identified project areas. With the decentralized manner of project implementation, people’s participation in the process of rural development has been stressed and made an indispensable component of the program. Under such circumstances, the role of local institutions such as local government units, both formal and informal local organizations like cooperatives, culture groups, and NGOs, is becoming more important for sustainable rural development and realizing integration of various rural development efforts. It is useful, therefore, to undertake a comparative analysis of the role of local communities and institutions for IRD projects in member countries, and to identify innovative approaches through benchmarking efforts for the future direction to be pursued in this respect. Accordingly, the present seminar examined the role of various stakeholders in IRD based on the experiences and findings of the past Integrated Community Development (ICD) program activities.1 Objectives The objective of the Seminar was to undertake a comparative study by way of examining the nature, role and functions of local communities and various local institutions in member countries in terms of sustainable integrated rural development and their future directions. Methodology The Seminar consisted of technical inputs by resource paper presentations, experience sharing through country paper presentations, learning from the field through field visits and summing-up session. The seminar included individual assignments, small group workshops and plenary discussions. The workshops have been structured through a participatory process at plenary sessions and at the end of each workshop, the groups presented the output to the plenary. At the plenary sessions, issues emerged from small groups were discussed and 1 The ICD program has been implemented by the Asian Productivity Organization since 1996. - 1 - debated to reach consensus. This process has contributed to reflect and internalize the learning of the seminar. The major topics covered during the seminar were as follows: a) Review of historical evolution of IRD in member countries with special attention to the role of local communities and institutions; b) Identification of local communities and institutions and definition of their nature: such as local government units; local organizations (formal/informal and historical/new), NGOs, etc; c) Comparison of such local communities and institutions in member countries; and d) Future direction of role of local communities and institutions for sustainable IRD. Participants The seminar was participated by 13 participants from 11 APO member countries; Bangladesh, Republic of China, Fiji, India, Islamic Republic of Iran (3), Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. Three observers from the host country also attended the seminar. Majority of them were government officers responsible for rural community development in respective member countries, and a few of the participants were from NGO and academia involved in rural community development. Three international resource persons, from Australia, Japan, and New Zealand contributed to the seminar. The facilitator from the host organizations, Ministry of Jihad for Agriculture, the Islamic Republic of Iran, conducted the entire process of the seminar. HIGHLIGHTS OF RESOURCE PAPERS The following are the highlights of resource papers presented at the seminar. Role of Local Communities and Institutions in Integrated Rural Development This paper examined the role of local communities and institutions in IRD. More specifically, it emphasized on the role of two major actors: a) local government; and b) community organizations and institutions under the category of “local communities”. In addition, the role of NGOs and the organized private sector was examined briefly. First, the paper submitted a brief account on the “evolution of rural development approaches” and the recent emphasis on “decentralization” and its impact on IRD. Next, the paper elaborated on the “shared roles and responsibilities in rural development” (especially after decentralization). Effective IRD, which cuts across multiple sectors, is a multidisciplinary affair and it is difficult to separate the roles of different stakeholders. This discussion was followed by brief accounts on the specific roles of: a) local government; b) local communities; c) NGOs; and d) organized private sector. Subsequently, with special reference to local communities, the paper examined the role of capacity-building. Following this, “constraints on effective IRD” were examined. In the past, rural development had been adversely affected by top-down approaches to development and has become “supply-driven” in many countries. On the contrary, recent developments in decentralization advocate a “demand-driven” strategy and have the merit of considering the specific demands and potential of each locality. The local government institutions and local community organizations could establish a collaborative partnership in undertaking the responsibility for developing a local “vision” and strategy; and designing/ planning, allocating resources, implementing and monitoring/evaluating of development - 2 - activities that would better cater the local needs. They would “jointly” become the driving force towards development, develop a “sense of shared ownership” and become “managers” of their development initiatives. An important function of the central government would be the formulation and implementation of policies to facilitate the effective functioning of the new roles assumed by the other actors. With decentralization, local governments will have to assume greater responsibilities and would become the focal centers for local development. Local governments have to be effectively linked with the national levels as well as with local communities. They would be expected to undertake certain activities hitherto performed by the central government, such as certain legal and regulatory functions and the provision of services like extension. In addition, especially with increased demand and diversification of economic activities mainly due to the growing emphasis on globalization and associated changes, they would be entrusted