1
Delivery of Delivery of Rural ServicesRural Services
NEPALNEPAL
Namaste !Namaste !
2
Why Nepal rural services?• Limited ec. and social progress• Due to adverse physical
constraints and communications difficulties, but also political instability and flawed policies
--- > Ineffective inst. arrangements• Half population is poor, mostly
rural• Services not provided to rural poor--- > Hence the focus of the study
3
Small farmers need….
Agricultural services:•new and adapted technologies (research)•advice and information (extension)
4
Small farmers need….Infrastructure services : for agricultural production (irrigation)
5
Small farmers need….
Infrastructure services : for market access (roads and bridges)
6
Small farmers need….Infrastructure services : •to stay healthy and productive (water supply)
7
Small farmers need….Infrastructure services:•to process products and cottage industries (rural electrification)
8
Small farmers need ...• Above priority sub-sectors are the
focus of the study• Prepared 1999/2000 with a Nepali
NGO (SAPPROS)• Focus on the Tarai region of Nepal• Under oversight of National Planning
Commission• Recommendations were
shared/discussed in both national and local level workshops
• Donor community was involved
9
Hypothesis/ObjectivesHypothesis• service delivery works better
when people are empoweredObjectives • establish institutional features of
best performing models (underlying correlation between efficiency vs. degree of participation)
• determine policy conditions for models to work and be upscaled
10
Conceptual framework
• Provisioning and production of services
• Polycentricity, co-production and competition
• Public vs. private services• Subsidiarity• Social capital development
11
Methodology• Case study approach: sample of 60
purposely selected case-studies• Define and classify services • Identify delivery actors and steps• Develop generic models• Assess performance (efficiency
and process=farmer participation)
12
Classification of servicesrivalry
exclusion
high lowhigh
low
Private Toll
Community Public
Input supplyShallow tubewellsFarm specific advice
Market informationStrategjc roads
Ag. research (food crops)
Corporate roads
Ag. extensionSurface water supply/irrigation
Electricity grid distribution
Village roads Res. on agro-forestry
13
Key institutional actors• Individual end-users/beneficiaries: rural
dwellers in the broader sense• CBOs: including User Groups and
community associations• NGOs: national, international, local• Decentralized bodies: local
governments (DDCs/VDCs)• Government agencies: local services of
ministries, public agencies and projects• Private sector: individual operators,
companies or industry associations
14
Service delivery cycleProvisioning stage
- Initiation: formulation of request - Planning: preparation/design - Res. mobilization: funds and others - Resource allocation amongst projects
Production stage - Project execution/service delivery - O&M: operation and maintenance - M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation
15
Measure of performance Efficiency criteria (scale of 3)
- Service delivery standards - Cost-effectiveness - Impact (output, income…) - Sustainability (fin./inst.)
Process criteria- User involvement in project/delivery cycle (No. of steps, scale of 6) - Co-production index (total No. of actors in delivery cycle, Scale of 6 x 5)
Sector specific indicators
16
Generic models
• Agency model• Local government model• NGO model• CB0 model• Private sector model• N.B.: actual models = hybrid
17
Funding ……... Delivery
private private
privatepublic
public
public
private
public
18
Agricultural Services: research and
extension
19
Agricultural research• in Nepal:
- agricultural research is mostly applied and adaptive
• in this study:– crop variety selection and
improvement– breeder and foundation seed
production
20
Agricultural extension• Information about technology• Exposure to performance of
technology (demonstrations)• Practical and cognitive skills• Identify problems and opportunities• Technical advice to solve problems• Market information: prices, demand
21
ModelsModel Research Extension Agency NARC DADO NGO LI -BI RD CEPRED
SAPPROS Agency/Private Sugar f actory +
NARC
Private Agro-vets Sugar f actory
22
Research model efficiency
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
service cost- eff sust. impact
AgencyNGOAgency- priv
23
Research model process
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
user inv. co- prodn.
AgencyNGOAgency- priv
24
Research: main findings• NGO model facilitates
identification of relevant researchable problems with farmer involvement
• Public sector funding is needed for public goods research (food crops) but on competitive basis (funds)
• Agency/private model effective for industrial crops
25
Extension model efficiency
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
service cost- eff sust. impact
AgencyNGOPrivate
26
Extension model process
0
5
10
15
20
user inv. co- prodn.
AgencyNGOPrivate
27
Extension: main findings• NGO (best)
– integrated with other services– full participation of clients– builds social capital
• Agency (worst)– quality and coverage poor and costly– lack transparency
• Private (OK for special cases)– effective for specific types of service
28
Recommendations: research
• Agenda setting by stakeholders• Collaborative research
(NARC/NGO/private)• Public funding of research through:
– core funding– autonomous research fund (competitive)– commissioning NGOs for adaptive research
• Cost recovery for private benefit• Capacity building in NGO, private sector
29
Recommendations: extension
• Private sector for private goods– capacity building– credit for agro-vets– regulations to assure quality
• Private/NGO sector for public goods (subsistence crops)– experiment with contracting
• Industrial commodities (sugar cane)– leave to private sector
30
Summary PerformanceSector Sub-Sector Preferred Model
(Efficiency-Process)Ag. technology
Ag. Research Agency/NGO/Private
Ag. Extension NGO/PrivateIrrigation Surface CBO
Ground Agency/CBDrinking water
Surface Fund/NGO/CBO
Ground NGO/CBORoads Rural roads Local body/CBO
Bridges Local Body/NGO/CBOElectricity Agency-Private/CBO
31
Summary findings• Strong correlation between efficiency
and beneficiary involvement.• Pure agency model consistently rates
lowest. Agency-managed projects are systematically larger/more complex + involve perverse subsidies + clear lack of accountability and transparency
• Community-based arrangements rate higher. Not panacea ---> partnerships better. Lack of capacity and social capital need to be addressed.
32
Key messages• Change paradigm: disengage
agencies and get CBOs involved • Rely on NGOs and private sector for
technical support in service delivery• Rely on local (vs. central)
government for provisioning• Build social capital• Better governance/transparency• Arrangements to be sector-specific
(sectoral funds) and tailored to local circumstances
33
the end