Rethinking Communtiy Development.
Despite the array of development programs carried out in NWFP since the 1960s, non-government sector has largely failed to devise a strategy that helps poor people even after the end of the projects or programmes. Daudzai project in the early 70s was probably the first to introduce the concept of community organisation in the province. Likewise in the 1980s, rural support programmes came up with the idea of rural development that would transform lives of the poorest of the poor. Government and donor funded joint programmes, like Pak-German IRDP Mardan and Kalam Integrated Development Programme were also introduced. The result is that some of these have formed thousands of community organisations but couldn't bring about a transformation that would address the social, economic and political inequalities that are keeping them poor. Others have helped the communities develop millions of dollars worth of infrastructure but without any capacity to sustain any concerted and continued efforts for addressing their poverty.
Looking at the worsening figures of people going below the poverty line, many have come to the conclusion that rather than sticking to the old guns, both the community development specialists and aid agencies must think of alternatives strategies. Much of the responsibility lies on the shoulders of aid agencies because for NGOs changing partners means different dances. NGOs who decided to follow aid money without paying attention to what this means for long-term benefit of the poor risk weakening their contribution to the development process. Now is the time to find out if the past two or three decades of providing aid involving millions of dollars, thousands of staff and countless projects, together with shifts in priorities, strategies and approaches have made any substantial impact on the scale of poverty in NWFP and rest of the country.
Direct and indirect sanctions, worsening economic status of the province, increased load of Afghan refugees on the available resources and other similar factors are leading to increased human deprivation and criminality, with increasing pollution and unsustainable use of natural resources even in the areas where some of the development organisations claim to have established thousands of community organisations. These disappointing realities add extra fuel to the debate about whether the principle of forming community organisations and delivering a few packages is correct and whether present priorities and practices will ever lead to real solutions. Disappointment also re-enforces the arguments of those who question if poverty reduction is the real purpose of international assistance.
A more critical appraisal of the aid system is one sign of the post two decades of extensive and intensive work of different NGOs and post-Cold War context, which has also brought a new agenda for government aid. Recognising the ground realities and overall context, some of funding agencies are trying to change themselves and the aid system overall; unfortunately, too many others believe that with no re-adjustment to their approaches, they can carry on as before.
Suggesting how to enhance NGO effectiveness, particularly of those dealing with larger issues like community development for poverty alleviation, calls for an approach which is both critical and pragmatic, starting from an analysis of what they have to be effective at. Forming more and more community organisations? Disbursing ever more micro-credit? Raising statistics and playing with figures? Might be none of these, because compared to the time when the present poverty alleviation approaches were chalked out, poverty is now seen as a complicated condition. The poor were then identified as those who fell below some basic minimums. Subsequent shifts have broadened the understanding of poverty and acknowledged people's capability to fulfil valuable functions with society - like a person's access to and control over commodities, education, good health, social standing, influence over decisions and security. The exaggerated statistics of poverty alleviation programmes in no way can enable the poor to gain control in a rough sequence related to survival, well being and empowerment.
The causes and symptoms of poverty are overlapping and confusing. It is vitally important for all aid agencies to reach an organisational decision about such causes, otherwise only the symptoms of poverty will be treated and that's what is going on in Pakistan. Impact of the development programmes will not be sustainable if causes are not tackled. What we are witnessing is that treating symptoms is actually reinforcing the causes of poverty by, for example, undermining people's motivation to act and to claim their entitlements or generate their own solutions. One sign of the inappropriate approaches to poverty is the NGOs inability to explain the cause(s) of the issues they are trying to address.
Since reducing poverty and eradicating marginalisation are complicated undertaking for all development actors, we have assumed formation of the village organisations (VOs) to be the best solution. The mere formation of these organisations at the micro level do not help the communities get out of marginalisation and social exclusion. Nor does it put the community in a position to sanction the behaviour of those with political or administrative authority. Correctly, identifying key linkages and addressing them in the right order or at the same time is virtually impossible for a single organisation. However, to address localised, situation specific reasons for poverty and marginalisation among social groups, formation of village organisation can be used as a first step in the formation of empowered and effective local institutions. Past efforts clearly indicate that VO formation is neither an end, nor it can be applied across the board in a standardised manner. It is naive to assume a harmony or consensus model for addressing poverty as a local, provincial, national or global issue.
Notwithstanding the debate about VOs as means and ends, there is probably a reasonable consensus that functional purpose of development organisations is to foster socially just, sustainable economies with inclusive systems of governance that involve actors from the Micro to macro-level. We have assumed that only two stages of development action at the micro-level are sufficient. The first involves poverty reduction measures, which lead to the growth and functioning of micro-level organisation. There is no serious focus on sustainability of ways in which these measures are being taken and no consideration is given to the viability of the grassroots organisations. The second stage is a process through which these disparate grouping collaborate, associate and form other social structures with which they exert themselves ad pursue their interests. This arena has being left at the mercy of its own momentum. There is not systematic and organisational effort to fill the institutional gap between the micro and macro-level. Without a proper, local institutional set up at the meso-level, communities would never be able to stimulate and facilitate the forming of some civic institutions, as well as strengthening their capacity to engage with the actors at the macro-level.
The aid agencies and development NGOs need to develop and promote local institutions both at micro and meso-levels because it is the poor and marginalized who produce their own development, not external NGOs. Moreover, for how long will the external and expensive actors keep on serving the thousands of VOs at the grassroots, and do we see any sustainable result of their decades long work without any signs of leaving the community alone. If external supported development initiatives are to be rooted and woven into the fabric of poverty-stricken regions, we need to adopt strategies which build up local capabilities of multi-level local institutions, because it is their own efforts and life-long presence in their respective areas that actually produce development.
The fact should not suggest that governments and aid agencies have no role as providers of new resources, supports or guide once these meso-level institutions are developed. Simply, it must be local institutions, which embody what development is about and carry out their own development activities since they are both its means and ends. If an external NGO can bring and implement a development project to an area, why can't a local NGO do it more cost effectively for itself? A critical balance, therefore, has to be achieved to ensure that the external NGO withdraw as the local institutions become self-sustainable and effective. Getting this right through proper training and proper institutional maturity assessments is probably the most vital element in this process.
Without developing local and representative NGOs at the meso-level, external NGOs and aid agencies would never be able to bring empowerment in the micro-development process. Besides, this is very likelihood that material, economic or social gains of the current approaches will simply be lost to or exploited by better placed, meaning that structurally nothing will have changed, if the external development organisation kept on working without rethinking their approaches to community organisations and development as a whole. Most importantly, close collaboration among representative NGOs is a vital aspect of reforming the government in 'pro-poor' ways. Downscaling of services and devolution of power is meaningless without up scaling capacities of local institutions and mainstreaming functions from the grassroots up to the macro-level.
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Manager
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff 2
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.