Poverty Alleviation Programmes
Make It Meaningful for Poor

By Dinesh B. Malla

AFTER more than four decades of development efforts in Nepal, the majority of people still continue to live in abject poverty. General development efforts like building roads, adding health facilities, constructing irrigation networks, enhancing agricultural production and many others have not made much of a dent on the situation of poverty in the country. In absolute terms we are no better than what we were some forty years ago. From the situation prevailing today we can only say that the programmes and projects directed at poverty alleviation have been inadequate, ineffective or improperly designed.

Weakness

With the failure of poverty alleviation programmes it has become evident that poverty must be attacked at the ground level instead of relying only on general macroeconomic growth in the hope that a rise in GNP or GAP will automatically take care of the poor. Nepal has initiated direct and exclusive poverty alleviation efforts like Small Farmers Development Programme Production Credit for Women and others. The outcome of the efforts has been good but it overall impact has not been substantially evident due to the short duration and limited coverage. These programmes have weakness in designs and delivery systems, and lessons learnt from them must be incorporated in the future ones.

The design is a very critical element as it is the very basis on which hinges the success of achieving the objectives. Poverty Alleviation Programmes (PAPs) had been ineffective in the past since the selection of the activity has been wrong or the intended beneficiaries have not been clearly and unambiguously defined or the process of identifying the poor was full or loopholes. Besides that the necessary backward and forward linkages were not identified or provided for.

In the past poverty focused programmes (PFPs) were designed in an ad hoc manner by the seasoned experts without clearly defining the process of identifying the poor and the absolute poor. They have been a small part of a much bigger development project portfolio and were adopted in an ad hoc basis. If the PAPs are to be made meaningful to the poor, fundamental departure from the past must take place in analytical framework, in approach and in attitude of the designers. We must rectify the weaknesses in the design and implementation made in the past.

The first and the most important factor in the design is that the programme must be formulated only and exclusively for the poor. If it is only general rural development like building roads, education, water supply, irrigation, education or health projects, they never reach the poor. In general development programmes the benefits meant for the poor are usually siphoned off by the rich and the well-to-do. In a highly inequitable rural structure like ours, the poor have to be separated and insulated from the existing power structure. So the necessary though not sufficient condition for this is to design programmes which are separate and exclusive for the poor.

The second important factor in the design is to clearly spell out who the poor are. In most of the programmes "the poor" is used interchangeably with the rural small farmer, a poor or backward area, or scheduled caste. The poor must be identified based on the income asset, and gender so that the non-poor have very little chances of smuggling themselves in that criteria.

Another critical element in the design is the activity selected for alleviating poverty. All programmes should have economic development as the main activity for poverty alleviation. For the poor there has to be a direct attack on poverty. Only enhancing the rural infrastructures which most of the development agencies in Nepal like the ADB, the World Bank INGOs and UNDP are doing will not make much difference in poverty reduction. In fact these programmes only widen the gap between the poor and the non-poor. Income generation should be the anchor for poverty alleviation. We must fight poverty like a war. Only then it will make some impact on the lives of the poor in the long run. If not, all resources will be wasted. To alleviate poverty permanently activities, which bring about higher levels of income on a continuous basis must be emphasised. In general, activities dealing with self-employment and which builds on creating capital, assets and skills are effective. If emphasis is made only in infrastructure development, the objectives of poverty alleviation programmes will never be achieved.

Many development agencies in Nepal have focused on wage employment through food for work programmes. These have provided only temporary relief on poverty. As a matter of fact wage to a poor man is only a consolation. Removal or reduction of poverty is a continuous process of creation of assets so that the asset base of the poor becomes stronger at each economic cycle. The future progarmmes should initiate self-employment supported by credit with emphasis on improving the asset base. Besides, the poor have to be protected from the loan sharks, material suppliers, and the middlemen till they become strong enough in terms of assets, capital, skills and bargaining power.

The other critical elements in the effectiveness of the programme is the question of duration. Do programmes provide sufficient time for continued support to each poor person or household. One time subsidy, loan or the dole of materials does not help. Programmes must provide technical help and marketing support until the poor become self-reliant on a long term basis. In the past most of the programmes in Nepal have failed because they provided meager amounts for a short duration without giving sufficient time and leeway to build capital and asset base. To overcome poverty and reduce chances of relapse efficiently managed programmes take more than five years with expenditure of some Rs. 50,000 per poor household. After all poverty alleviation is a long term affair and money spent on it is an investment.

Effective PAPs should have a very fine blend of centralisation and decentralisation with close supervision, control on malpractices and strong insistence on performance. Sufficient flexibility and freedom in decision making should be provided at the decision making level based on participation of the poor.

If PAPs are to be made successful, the beneficiaries must be given due attention, their needs and views respected and support provided, but performance must be demanded from them with equal determination.

Mobilisation and organisation of the poor are important elements in poverty alleviation activities. The poor have to be empowered in terms of information, knowledge, skills, and awareness of the larger social, economic, and political environment so that they can fight domination and exploitation.

For PAPs to be successful inclusion of information, awareness and education is indispensable. Participants must be organised into a planning committee with equal representation of men and women. The beneficiaries must be made to play key roles in planning and implementation of activities. Further to this participants must be organised into trade union, cooperative society, bank, and other grouping so that they have a stronger bargaining power. Programmes need intensive education and training activities with a variety of methods that help build skills, capabilities, and confidence of the poor.

New Breed

Since the requirements and needs of implementing poverty alleviation programmes are very different from implementing administrative or general development activities, there has to be a separate and exclusive delivery system or implementing mechanism. Most of the PAPs in Nepal have not produced the desired outcome since they were managed by the same old archaic bureaucratic system and by the same old officials and functionaries with the same outdated procedures and regulations.

Other Story

• The Proud Dharahara