Thursday, October 30, 2008

To what extent donor funded projects addresses poverty alleviation and contributed to the goals of development a case of Kilimanjaro Village Environme

Introduction
The intention of this paper is to make a critical analysis on the extent of donor funded projects has addressed poverty and contributed to the goals of development a case of Kilimanjaro Village Forest Project (KVFP) Tanzania that was sponsored by JICA.
The analysis will draw much of its information from the evaluation report that was conducted by a joint team of JICA and UNDP to KVFP. The evaluation took place between17th October to 11 November 1999. In due course of the analysis the paper will give a brief background of Kilimanjaro Village Forest Project. The evaluation exercise objectives, findings and recommendation. Beforehand the paper will sight some definitions by different scholars on what they have expressed on the concept poverty. Then finally the paper will discuss if the KVFP has addressed poverty as per the needs of the communities in Kilimanjaro and its contribution to the goals of development goals.
Poverty definition:
The word poverty has been a complicated and a relative term that has been defined in various ways from time to time by different scholars as Rahnema, M (1992: 158) pointed out that:
“There may be as many poor and as many perceptions of poverty as there are human beings-----World languages compete with each other for the number of worlds referring to the stations and conditions associated with the different perceptions of the poverty”
For the purpose of this paper discussion the analysis on poverty by Rahnema, C. 1992) has been sighted that gives different dimensions as follows:
The Materialist dimension:
Poverty is viewed as the lack, deficiencies, or deprivations of things that can be either of non-material and existential kind, or of material nature. It is inability to meet one’s end, lack of good fortune or self-confidence, not being respected or loved by others, being neglected or abandoned, etc. In addition could include discrimination, inequality, political or other forms of oppression and domination, absence of entitlements, non availability of minimum of necessaries required for economic or biological survival, as defined by one’s particular culture, all other forms of deprivation, destitutions, hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, ill health, and exclusion from educational possibilities, etc
Commenting on the materialistic point of view is that it gives a room for the meaning of poverty to be relative one, that it can differ from one culture, tribe or nation this is due to the fact that lacking or inability to meet ones end can mean differently in different culture. For example if somebody is lacking a TV set to un urban person ( Dar Es Salaam) can mean that person is poor while for the one in Kilimanjaro Masai can mean nothing compared to a person lacking a cow, which to the urban person can mean nothing.
Individual perception on poverty
Individual perceives poverty with its causes. Referring to the materialist that of lacking something someone will tend to attribute with what they lack to conditions independent of their will and beyond their control. Some can conclude that they lack the necessary ability to overcome their condition due to metaphysical causes such as God’s will or the unjust constitution of the society. On the other hand some can view the lack of things as something to be proud of it. This in some faith to both Islam and Christians shows that for the poor is likely to have more chances of going to heaven than the ones who have material things (it is real had for the rich to go to heaven as like a camel to go through a hole of the needle). Therefore differences in perceptions can give problems in getting the real meaning of poverty.
Social-cultural space-time
Time and social cultural also affect the definition of poverty. As it has been said societies can differ on lacking material thing for example in the past sukuma defined poverty as lacking of cattle while these days people talk about having a bicycle or nice house instead of a flock of cows.
The Global construct:
Global construct has come up as a result of the World Bank trying to economise the life and integrating the third word countries to world economy. The World Bank defines poverty according to the Gross National Product (GNP) and Gross Domestic Product. (GDP) They have ranked countries according to per capital GDP. They define poor countries as those who have the average of per capital income less than $100
From that perspective the economic poverty is to be perceived and acted at global level. This resulted to enrichment as desirable goal for the economy. The assessment of needs was evaluated on the bases of globally established economic criteria and systems for comparisons depending on the institution. For example the United Nations Education Social Culture Organisation (UNESCO) looked upon the percentage of illiteracy above a certain figure; World Health Organisation (WHO) poverty is expressed in terms of the ratio of doctors, nurses and health centres to the population; FAO, poverty is evaluated in terms of per capital calorie or protein in- take. UNICEF ranks countries according to their under five mortality in all these cases the poverty/ needs are perceived as figures.
All these shows up weaknesses in the correlations between income poverty and some other factors contributing to poverty “The income distribution is given more weight than other factors to wellbeing of a human such as love, story-telling, self- sacrifice, laughter, music, health, creativity” Chamber, R. (1995: 6)
Policies on poverty reduction
On view of the perception of poverty different policies and strategies have been developed in an attempt to alleviate poverty among poor countries these included: production of goods and services; sectoral reforms; redistributive policies; assistance and aid programmes. The results of all these policies and programmes on the well being of the deprived were often very different from the planner’s expectations. In most developing countries, neither the production of economic resources and commodities, nor the extension of social services has ultimately served the poor. More often has resulted in further diminishing their capacity to meet their real needs, which they used to do in the context of their traditional livelihood.
Globalisation as a recent strategy on poverty eradication aims at making the world to one village. The strategy argues the poor to follow the same route that the developed ones used to develop. The question comes how the poor can compete in the same market while they lack all necessary capacities for competing? The capacities include technology, infrastructure, human skills, capital etc. In this approach the poverty alleviation results into the poor to work for the rich rather than for themselves. Income–poverty thinking can neglect vulnerability in seeking to raise incomes. Some can think of providing subsidised loans to poor people to acquire assets aimed at raising their incomes. But this have been experienced that there is an increase of vulnerability: loss of the asset which lead to debt and being worse than before , wife separate to husband. FINCA, PRIDE Africa micro credit scheme or organization are among of the organizations in Tanzania giving small loans to women groups which for many years have not managed to alleviate poverty among women in Tanzania. Therefore Income poverty can serve only one dimension of many, and it is suspect because it serves the needs of professionals in the core of power, rather than emerging from the realities of the poor at the peripheries.
In view of the above definitions and explanations it can be summarised that poverty alleviation is a relative term that it can mean differently depending on who define it.
Background of the Kimanjaro Village Forest Project (KVFP)
In Tanzania semi arid areas are wide spread and savanna forest resources were rapidly decreasing due to the inhabitation on forest areas as well as over collection of firewood and overgrazing. The Tanzania Government thus requested Japans assistance in forestation activities in semi arid areas with purpose of deforestation and meeting local peoples needs for fire wood, through adopting community forestry approaches such as starting plantations of firewood and fodder trees and introducing an agro forestry system.
Purpose of the Kilimanjaro Village Forest Project (KVFP)
To assist forestation activities in semi- arid areas, for the purpose of alleviating deforestation and meeting local peoples needs for firewood, through adopting community forestry approaches such as starting plantations of firewood and fodder trees and introducing an agro forestry system.
Stakeholders of the project:
Forest and Bee keeping Division; Ministry of Tourism, Natural resource and Environment and staff of the Project; Village members, Government officers; JICA experts
The overall objective of the evaluation:
The evaluation aimed to grasp the local people's views on poverty and their recognition of the outcomes of KVFP in addressing poverty.
Methodology:
The evaluation applied the participatory Method as to get the subjective information such as views of the people on poverty and their recognition of the subject impact from objective indicators such as the number of seedlings distributed, survival rates and growth of planted trees. Such information can only attained through an evaluation based directly on people’s voices. The team used Focus group Discussion to identify villager’s perspective on poverty. The team held plenary meetings with female and male participants female and male participants had separate meetings respectively and were asked to identify their criteria for "poor families" and "poor people".
Results of Evaluation
The first point revealed from this study was that there was a gap between donors' and people's perspectives on poverty. The gap was seen, for example, in a finding that an "increase in income" or "improvement of economic situation", which donors have always put in the center of their programs for "poverty reduction," was not necessarily in conformity with the people's views on poverty. In this regard, it was interesting that the villagers seldom mentioned poverty factors related to money which the project of forestation did not bring any money to the community. Therefore at the project level did not address poverty alleviation according to the villagers perception on poverty.
Secondly, people seldom mentioned "empowerment" that is recently emphasized by bilateral donor agencies in western countries and international organizations, and other factors related to social justice including some concepts of democracy summarized as "good governance". This could be also considered as a gap between donors' and people's views on poverty. For the villagers, at least in their subjective views, the logic connecting "empowerment" and "elimination of poverty" did not exist. On the contrary, it was material needs such as "water", "schools" and "health facilities" that were mentioned first.
Thirdly although social justice might be an important factor for getting out of poverty in the long-term, donors should not neglect the fact that people would have little interest in social justice such as democratization unless material needs as a precondition are met. In this regard, a woman said during the female focus group discussion in that a characteristic of "poor villages" was the existence of men who would not listen to women, but this opinion was not supported as an indicator for poverty by the villagers.
Fourthly Gender and regional perspectives on poverty, the focus group discussions revealed the differences between men and women in their recognition of poverty. It was beyond question that people were mainly interested in "water", "hospitals/clinics" and "schools/ education" regardless of sex and geographical areas. However, while men showed relatively high interest in "agriculture (production aspect)" women in the same sub-village were more interested in "milling machines (processing of produced grain)" and "market (selling of products)"
Fifthly in regard to the gap among different village’s views on poverty, the team also confirmed by the crosschecking study in another sub-village that recognition of poverty also varied depending on people's living conditions. The sub-village that have good infrastructure provided by the government has better natural conditions than the other villages. Under these circumstances, the "poverty keywords" mentioned in this village, such as "water" and "school", literally looked similar to those mentioned in the first target villages, but what were meant by those words were different. For example, "water" was meant water for household use in first target village, while it was meant water for irrigation in the second village. Likewise, as for the word "school", there were high demands for primary schools in the first target village, while in other sub-village, where there were already primary schools; lack of kindergartens was mentioned as a "poverty keyword".
Also, in one sub-village the participants mentioned many agriculture-related "poverty keywords" such as "agricultural inputs", "farmland" and "irrigation water", which suggested agriculture was widely practiced there compared with the other villages.
From these findings, it could be said that even in the same geographical area, factors of poverty recognized by the people might be different from community to community and by gender. Therefore, poverty reduction activities must be carefully examined based on a solid understanding of these differences.
KVFP addressed poverty?
As it has been discussed in the results of what the people differed in the perception of poverty it can be said that the KFVP project did not address poverty as per the first target village members’ perception on poverty. Throughout the FGD participants did mention "school construction" or "well digging", agriculture inputs, farmland, irrigation water; health facilities and road. They did not mention the KVFP activities such as "distribution of seedlings" and "establishment of Village Environmental Conservation Committees (VECCs) which were the major activities of the project. Villagers hardly recalled the KVFP activities until a reminder was given by the study team. This fact itself was evidence of low recognition of people regarding the impact of KVFP.
In another village where KVFP had provided water to produce bricks for school construction, procured 100 iron sheets for the school roofing. It was obvious from the focus group discussions where these activities were frequently mentioned that people appreciated this support and acknowledged them as positive impact for poverty reduction. People pointed out that as the result of the construction of a new school in the village, children were able to attend school from home, not from under someone else's roof in another village, and that saved living costs and parents became able to pay more attention to children. Moreover, there was an opinion that women's workload would be reduced if children live together and help with housework and thus they might become able to spend their spare time for income-generation or other activities. From this it could be said that KVFP's assistance, though indirectly, addressed a poverty. In addition to that on the other hand, villagers pointed out that the school brought about positive effects beyond its original purpose: for example, the school roof provided shade for village meetings or for nearby cattle, and the school building was suitable for antenatal care or other activities in which privacy must be considered. In this regard, the assistance from KVFP had indirect connection to the poverty alleviation.
Lessons Learned and Recommendation
Consideration of the multidimensionality of poverty the evaluation study confirmed that there were many aspects of peoples' perspectives on poverty, which also varied by sex and region. When planning a project for poverty reduction, one should keep such differences in mind and formulate an appropriate plan for the project site.
Addressing social aspects of interventions Originally, KVFP was a purely technical project in the forestry sector, not a poverty reduction project. The project thus did not clearly intend to directly address poverty issues. However, the experts came to recognize that people would not plant trees until their minimum needs were met, and started efforts for the improvement of the target groups' living conditions as a prerequisite for tree-planting activities.
The first lesson learned from this case is that JICA experts must give more attention and sensitivity to the living conditions and needs of the people living in the project sites. Secondly, when a social problem is found, it should not be addressed from the individual judgment of an expert or different interpretation of budget items: JICA should arrange to incorporate measures to address social issues in project activities under certain conditions, and should prepare a mechanism for such arrangements.
As stated above, the impact of technical cooperation to a specific sector on multi-faceted poverty issues is limited a case of KVFP. That is why other donors implement poverty reduction projects dealing with several sectors under the name of "integrated approach" or "multi-sector approach". However, it is impossible in reality for one project to include all sectors related to poverty factors. In Tanzania, where poverty reduction has consistently been a priority since independence, the government and donors have tried a variety of poverty reduction approaches. However, none of them can be said to take a full-fledged "integrated approach".
JICA could look towards having flexibility to extend assistance in one sector to others without losing its strength of sector-specific technology transfer. It is very important to JICA projects to have attempted to ensure that beneficiaries participate in the design process whereby the predefinition of poverty alleviation is well understood by both stakeholders this will avoid the misconception of poverty alleviation among stakeholders.
The above recommendations are in the same position with the Poverty-Reduction Strategy by the Government of Tanzania that was issued in October 2001, which was prepared in the context of the enhanced Debt Initiative for Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs). The PRSP provides a medium term strategy for poverty reduction and is seen by some as an element of the Tanzania Assistance Strategy a strategy for economic and social development, developed at national initiative and encompassing the joint efforts of the Government and the international community. The PRSP may also be considered as a follow-up both to the Government’s Vision 2025 (the Government’s vision of economic and social objectives to be attained by 2025) and to the national poverty-eradication strategy, which outlines objectives for poverty-eradication efforts through 2010. The PRSP defines the priority sectors; and within these, priority items as education/primary education; health/primary health; water; roads/rural roads; judiciary; agriculture/agricultural resources and extension; and HIV/AIDS.
The strategy also points out that substantial efforts towards poverty reduction by international partners are still being implemented outside the framework of central government budget. To ensure maximum progress toward poverty reduction and improved predictability of budgets, these efforts would need to be rationalized and realigned progressively, to reflect PRSP priorities. Second, a large amount of international resources is being channeled through specific donor-driven projects, sometimes entailing duplication. An effective struggle against poverty will require continued efforts to channel these resources in the context of sector-wide development strategies that will achieve the millennium goals.
Conclusion
The realities of poor are local, complex, diverse and dynamic. Income poverty, though important, is only one aspect of deprivation. The participatory evaluation/ appraisal confirm many dimensions and criteria of poverty alleviation according to the beneficiaries. Therefore poverty alleviation strategies by donors/ practitioners need to realise that “to successfully overcome poverty of the local people KVFP being a case requires not only addressing the income aspect, but also requires a broader transformation that includes involving the community in defining poverty alleviation strategy for viable project design, building the capacity of the people, empower local people in the governance of the community economic development organisation as a whole. This shows that people develop themselves. They are not developed. Tanzania should rely on its own strategies in responding to poverty according to its reality.





References:
1. Majid Rahenema: 1992 the development Dictionary; A Guide to Knowledge as Power,
2. JICA/UNDP Joint Evaluation (Poverty in Tanzania)
3. http://wwwjica.go.jp/english/evaluationreport/pdf (sighted 19th Nov 2007)
4. Robert Chambers; 1995 Poverty and Live hoods: Whose reality Counts? Institute of Development Studies (monograph series) DP347
5. Stan Burkey; Peoples First: A guide to self- reliant participatory rural development ZED Books, London

No comments: