National planning and implementation of socio-economic development in oncho-controlled areas: a discussion paper

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE PROGRAMME DE LUTIE CONTRE L'ONCHOCERCOSE EN AFRIQUE DE L'OUEST ONCHOCERCIASIS CONTROL PROGRAMME IN WEST AFRICA NOC.11 .2NATIONAL Eleventh ONCHOCERCIASIS COMMITTEES meeting 3-5 June 1987 National Planning and Implementation of Socio-Economic Development in Oncho-Controlled Areas: A Discussion Paper Bamako Revlsed Notes 18 Aprll 1987 National Onchocerciasis Committees 3-5 June 1987 Bamako, Mali- - National Planning and Inpleurentation of Soclo-Econornlc Development in Oncho-Controlled Areas: A Discussion Paper Introduction 1. At the Seventh Sesslon of the Jolnt Program Commlttee (JPC) ln Accra in December 1986, Afrlcan governments and donors participating in the Onchocerciasis Control Prograume (OCP) agreed that renewed and accelerated efforts should be made to promote soclo-economic development (SED) of the areas where the disease has been brought under control, or is likely to be controlled in the near future. To promote SED effectively, the JPC endorsed a plan incl-uding preparatory phase work to be carried out during 1987, followed by more detalled national planning, policy formulation, andproject preparation and executlon. Accordlngly, this brief paper assumes that the preparatory phase work will be successfully coupleted by early 1988, and therefore concentrates on the country-specific national plannlng and lmpLementatlon which will foIlow ln the eleven I'Iest African nations represented at the Bamako meetlng by thelr National Onchocerclasis Comsrittees (NOCs). The purpose of this paper ls to consider various approaches to SED which are available to indivldual countries. The presentation of this series of questions and a set of SED issues, which appear to be common to all eleven countries, and the discusslon which follows, should enable each of the Participating Governments to refine its views regarding national prlorltles for follow-up action. Thesepriorities would in turn be reflected in each of the national programs for the OCP countries, which are to be launched in the coming months. BACKGROUND 2. Since lnceptj.on of the OCP ln 1974, various approaches to plannlng and implementatlon of SED have been attempted, supported by a wide range of donor asslstance. On the plannlng sLde, for example, the FAO and World Bank ln 1975 elaborated a "methodology" for SED of the oncho-controlled areas, consisting of three steps: (1) a physical and human resources inventoryi (2) elaboration of a lO-year development plan; and (3) PreParatlon of lndlvldual projects. The UNDP also flnanced SED planning efforts ln several Lrest African countrles in the mid-l970s, and has recently supported a pllot planning and resettlement project in a sma1l oncho-controlled area. On the lmplementatlon slde, too, the experience of the dlfferent countries has varied widely. rn some countrles, sED has SED AGEN'DA: paf 3-23-87 REPORT -2- focused nainly upon large-scale resettlement, lncludlng both government- sponsored and spontaneous movements of population into oncho-freed areas. In other countries, SED has concentrated on provlslon of basic rural infrastructure and services to those rural populatlons already residing lt the oncho-controlled areas. Various natlonal policles related to migration, land tenure, local partlciPation, cost recovery, etc. have also had signiflcant inpact on SED programs, although thelr importance has not always been recognlzed. 3. As lndicated above, SED plannlng and implementation for the oncho-controlled areas have been going on for more that a decade; clearl-yt these are not new and innovative toplcs in 1987. I{owever, for several reasons, both Afrlcan governments and OCP donors have recently adopted the view that the tirne has come to devlse new SED approaches which mlght be nore productive than those of the past. First, since OCP has been highly successful in controlllng the fllarial disease, African governments are becoming increasi-ngly confident that vast river basin areas can now be successfully settled and cultivated. At the same time, these governments are recognizing that some past approaches to SED have proven too costly, or have been unable to cope with the pressing demands of potential migrants. Moreover, as various governments have recently made progress in achieving macro-economic stabilization, they are increasingly looking to agricultutal development of oncho-freed zones as an engine for future economlc growth. 4. The SED preparatory phase rdork, which is about to start with World Bank financing, should provide a comprehenslve lnventory of the physical and human resources available for SED ln the eleven countries, as well as a reconnalssance of urgent and promising development opportunities. In additlon, the resettlement review to be carried out ln 1987-88 wlth UNDP financlal support should reveal varlous lessons from past projects in the oncho-controlled areas, which can be incorporated ln future policies and investments. For these policies and investments to yield the deslred benefits, there would appear to be a need for each of the eLeven West African governments lnvolved to move forward wlth a clear and reallstic agenda for SED of its own oncho areas. Critical Questions for Each NOC 5. As each Participating Government assesses lts own SED strategles and program, there are a number of'pertlnent matters lt would be helpful to address: (a) What ls your current assessment of the socio-economlc development potential of your countryrs oncho atea? In te@ production? rndustrial outPut? Absorbing future populatlon growth? Has that potential been flrmly establlshed, or would further analysis be useful in thls regard? expect that control of onchocerciasls has created,(b) Do you w111 ln If so, the future create, r^rhat are those SED additional- opportunlttes for SED? opportunities likely to be? SED AGENDA: paf 3-23-87 REPORT -3- (c) What has been the nature of your governmentrs program ln recent years for SED of the oncho areas? Resettlement? Integrated rural developrnent? Has this program been successful? What have been lts liuritations and shortcomings? tlould it be useful to evaluate ln-depth such past and current programs? (d) Where onchocerclasis is ful-ly controlled, what other major problems and constralnts to SED remain? Other dlseases(e.g., malaria, trypanosomiasis)? Shortages of trained planners, project managers and technicians? Lack of financlal lncentlves for rural households? Scarce groundwater for drinklng water supply? Outdated land adninlstration practLces? How are those constraints to be ef f ectively addressed? (e) What is your governmentt" @ for reallzing SED opportunlties in the oncho areas? Elaboration of a special plan, as part of the overall public investment program or separately? How do you lntend to combine public and private sector actions? How w111 your governmentfs strategy involve locaL community partlcipation? Will investuents be concentrated on lnfrastructure or services? Irrlgated or ralnfed agriculture? llhich policy lssues do you expect to emphasize-l-and tenure, mlgratlon, envlronmental protection? (f) What ls your government'" @ alrangemeng. to glg SED? A speclal oncho secretariat? Re-gffiffiiannl-g units? What would be the optimal institutlonal arrangements for the lmplementation of SED? Utilizing existing government agencles? Creating a special autonomous development authority? Working through regional deveJ-opment bodies? Conrmon Issues Affecting SED 5. In additlon to the above, there appear to be a number of SED issues common to the OCP beneficiary countrles. It remalns to be determlned whether the solutions to be pursued by natlonal governments w111 also reflect commonality, and might thereby benefit from some degree of regional cooperatlon or collaboration. Some of these lssues include the followlng: (a) Improfrsd agricultural technology. It ls wldely recogniied that more productlve and sustalnable farming technologies need to be developed for l{est Afrlcars savanna reglon. hlithout such improved technology, it 1s doubtful that small-scale farmers can develop the oncho-controlled areas ln a manner whlch ls ecologlcal-ly sustainable. The lssue ls the degree to whlch the necessary lnproved tech- nology now exlsts, and whether the Participating Governments SED AGENDA: paf 3-23-87 REPORT -4- and donors can, and might, do more to hasten its emergence and dissemination. (b) Mlgration. As demonstrated in the Socioeconomic Inpact Study, rural-to-rural migratlon into the oncho-controlled areas is taking place, to some degree, in all of the OCP Participating Countries. Some of that migration has been subject to substantial government planning, while other rnigratlon has been largely or solely spontaneous. Migratton can also be used by governments as an lnstrument for achieving various economic, social, and po1ltlca1 obJectlves. The lssue is how Sovernuents night ln the future intervene ln order to influence migration, either by organizing the movement of people, or by lnducing mlgration through a serles of financial incentives/ disincentives(e.g., infrastructure, secure ownership of land). (c) Land Rights. As the oncho-control-led areas become available for agricultural and other uses, and as migration into these areas accelerates, a large number of conflicting clalms over Land have tended to arise. These conflicts, lnvolvlng both autochtonous and lmmigrant populatlons, cover rlghts to allocate and use land, as well as various obligations(gifts, rents, crop-sharlng) among parties. Such conflicts can be costly to development progress. Lack of secure latd rights may discourage productive ner^r lnvestment, thereby reducing economic growth. The issue is how governments ard their rural populatlons might in the future allocate and administer such land rlghts, in order to minimize costly conflicts, provide a degree of equity to varlous claimants, and promote efficient land use practices. Solutl,ons to thl-s problem, for example, might involve reforming the laws and practices related to land administration (e.g.r land registration and titling). (d) Incentives for Rural People. Rural inhabltants of oncho-controlled areas, whether autochtones or immlgrants" w111 need to be provided wtth adequate incentives 1f--such lands are to be developed wisely and expedl-tiously. Such lncentives could include: remuneratlve prices for varioue crops; security of land tenure; effective and rellable servlces (health, education, agricultural extension); hlgh priority baslc lnfrastructure (schools, we1Is, uarkets); opportunities for reducing financlal and physical rlsks(e.g., floor prlce schemes, savings and other mutual ald socletles). Planners have recognlzed that they nust endeavor to appreciate the rural dwellerts own perceptiono of SED, including hls felt opportunitles, obstacles, and risks. Planners have also generally acknowledged the merl,ts of enlisting the participatlon of the rural lnhabitants in the design and lmplementatlon of actions which dlrectly SED AGENDA: paf 3-23-87 REPORT -5- affect their welfare, and for whlch their commitment is essential to success. The lssue, then, is what optlons are available to Partlcipating Governments to increase local participation and improve lncentives for the rural population. (e) Environmental Protection. In some of the Participating Countries, the main i-mpetus for oncho control and SED has been chronlc overpopulatLon of certaln rural zones, which has resulted in ecologlcal damage (deforestation, erosion, declining soil fertillty). Oncho control should help to relleve - some of this populatlon pressure, by opening up unlnhabited or sparsely-populated river basln areas for settlers. Unless this settlement ls carefully managed and monitored, however, it can also rapidly lead to adverse ecologlcal effects. Some degree of land-use planning and lnplementation may be necessary. Instruments of environmental protection availabl-e to West Afriean governments include migration policy, incentives for rural lnhabitants to protect the envlronment, and related technology development, all of which are referred to above, plus other investments (reforestation, etc.) and legal measures (to establlsh national parks, wilderness reserves, etc.) The issue is both how Partlcipating Governments are tackling this environmental issue, and to what extent they requlre support in mobillztng the financial and institutlonal resources to deal wlth their envlronmental problens. (f) Poverty Alleviation. Oncho control and related follow-on SED offer scope for generating improved economic and soclal benefits (lncreased agricultural productlon and social services), thus improving the lives of large numbers of people ln the OCP countries. To the extent that these countries have beneficiary segments of popuJ.ation living below the poverty 1ine, the rural poor can be targeted through SED policies and projects, such as recruitnent for resettlement activities and promotlon of special health and nutrition programs. Such targeted lnterventlons in developing countrles often prove to be dlfficult and costly. One lssue is whether the OCP countrles view the rural poor as the primary beneficiarles of SED in the oncho-controlled areas. If sor there ls the related matter of the measures that governments and donors are adoptlng to implement an effective poverty-allevl- ation program. NOC Presentatlons 6. To commence a general discusslon, the NOC delegations from Ghana and Burkina Faso have kindly agreed to respond to the questlons and lssues ralsed ln this CSA presentatlon. I.Ie are delighted that these countrles will be opening the dlscussion, based upon thelr past experlences with, and future prospects for, SED of their oncho-controlled zones. We look forward to hearing the vLews of all of the NOC delegatlons. These vlews, ln addltlon to enriching the general dlscusslon, will greatly assist the CSA SED AGENDA: paf 3-23-87 REPORT .. 1 -6- ln focusl-ng future SED consultations in the West Afrlca capitals, and enhance the preparation of natLonal programs for the oncho-controlled areas. SED AGENDA: paf 3-23-87 REPORT