Forum (Spotlight Weekly)

GARDP-II: A Model Of Rural Development

By DHANANJAYA POUDYAL

Nepal has implemented a variety of rural development projects in different regions/districts at different times. Rasuwa-Nuwakot is a successful example of the Integrated Rural Development Projects (IRDP) of the 1970s. Following the impact of the Rasuwa-Nuwakot initiative, others rural development projects were launched in different parts of the country with support from donor agencies. However, none was recorded a success.

The Gulmi-Arghakhanchi Rural Development Project (GARDP) Phase-I was introduced with financial support from the European Commission in the two hilly districts of Lumbini Zone in 1988. However, it was not considered a successful project, primarily because of its modality. Nevertheless, GARDP-I went on to complete its five-year period.

After the restoration of democracy in 1990, the new government requested the donor to continue its support for the project. The second phase commenced on April 25, 1997 with a scheduled life span of five years upon approval of the Global and Annual Work Plans by the European Commission and His Majesty's Government. The working modality and other administrative and managerial procedures of the second phase were different from those of the first.

The goal of the new and bigger GARDP II was "sustainable improvement of the social and economic conditions of the rural communities through local participation, widening the range of options to villagers, maintaining environment, and women empowerment, etc." All Village Development Committees (VDCs) - 79 in Gulmi and 42 in Arghakhanchi - were covered by the project.

GARDP itself being a project, its activities are known as sub-projects. The sub-projects are related to almost all components/sectors of local development, including agriculture, livestock, environment, irrigation, drinking water, health, education, feeder roads, buildings, women in development and small industries. Besides, relevant training and study/observation tours are organized for District Development Committee (DDC) and VDC officers, line agencies and GARDP staff. Moreover, support has been provided for the establishment of the planning unit in the DDCs, which are functioning along the PDDP approach of the United NationsDevelopment Program.

Likewise, monitoring and evaluation, and dissemination of information system have been wellestablished in both the District Project Management Units of Gulmi and Arghakhanchi. Information on project activities is regularly provided to DDCs, VDCs and to the people at the local level; to the concerned ministries and departments at the central level; and to the European Commission and other interested parties.

There are micro-projects, too, which are quicker and shorter. The budget is limited for such projects. Many micro projects are being run under different components/sectors. Though the scale of micro projects is very small, their economic and social returns are very high, with a huge number of beneficiaries in the districts.

GARDP has two types of funding: Rural Development Activities (RDA) and non-RDA funding. The former is exclusively for development activities, whereas the latter is for managerial and administrative works. Approximately 700 activities (sub and micro projects) under RDA funding have been implemented in Gulmi. Similarly, some 250 activities under RDA funding have been implemented in Arghakhanchi. Apart from these, various sub projects under non-RDA, especially in the field of training and support, have been implemented in both districts.

What are the reasons behind GARDP-II's success? The initial period of the second phase was not encouraging. The situation changed within a short period. The project succeeded not only in achieving its targets but also in creating a positive impact in the community. The project has been appreciated by DDCs, VDCs, line agencies, local people, central agencies, intellectuals, and the donor, i.e., the European Commission.

Among the many factors behind GARDP-II's success are strong leadership, team spirit, external support, participatory approach, broad spectrum and prompt monitoring and supervision. There are two types of leaders in the project: the European Co-director on behalf of the European Commission (the donor) and National Co-director on behalf of His Majesty's Government (Local Development Officer).

They came from different environments, societies, disciplines, thinking and attitudes. But both became good friends and well wishers of the project. They always took firm and quick decisions. They established very good relations with the DDCs, VDCs, line agencies, local people, Ministry of Local Development (MLD) officers/staff, European Commission, other government and non-government organizations and with others who came in touch with the project. Similarly, the leadership kept a friendly relationship with all subordinates, which bolstered staff motivation.

The role of others has been equally critical to the project's success. GARDP-II received vital support from dynamic people with a positive attitude inside and outside the districts. The DDCs, including chairperson and members, VDC officers, parliamentarians of the districts, line agencies, secretary and liaison officer (under secretary) in the MLD and other well wishers extended laudable support.

Besides these three managerial issues, the project's participatory approach was very popular in the field. GARDP-II, working fully through a participatory approach, achieved its targets within a limited time. Project sustainability has also been maintained, since the target beneficiaries participate in the sub/micro projects. Before approving the sub/micro project under any component/sector, including training programs, the commitment of the concerned VDCs and the users is sought. The contributions of the GARDP, VDCs, users and, sometimes, DDCs are clearly indicated in the Sub Project Agreement (SPA) and Sub Project Document (SPD). When all the concerned parties sign the SPA, it is assumed to have been implemented immediately. If the parties agreed in the SPA/SPD to contribute some amount at a given time but actually failed to do so, the sub project is considered as deferred or rejected by the management. The management has strictly followed this rule, which has helped to create a feeling of ownership among the VDCs and users' committees.

It is not easy to concentrate on all sectors of development in remote hilly districts like Gulmi and Arghakhanchi. Moreover, the concept of integrated or multisectoral development is not realistic or result oriented for local development. This was one of the reasons behind the failure of IRDPs. But GARDP-II demonstrated that integrated or multicultural projects could succeed if properly managed and supported. Such projects have a greater chance of succeeding than single-sector ones, since the latter have limited

beneficiaries within the project's command area. Those who feel left out become dissatisfied and uncooperative.

On the other hand, integrated or multisectoral projects include almost the entire population of the command area. Sometimes they might benefit from more than one sector. Thus, the coverage of the project widens, which can create more beneficiaries and ensure better support. If people are unable to benefit because of failures in a particular sector, they might be able to get advantages from successful ones. In this way, nobody would be left out, ultimately creating a multiplier effect in the command area. Thanks to this substantial change in society, the beneficiaries are inclined toward the project and advocate on its behalf.

In some cases, the beneficiaries might gain from two or three sectors. For instance, members of the Aama Samuha (mother's group) are benefiting from the women's sector. In the meantime, they could get advantages from the agriculture or livestock sector, Moreover, they can be considered beneficiaries from drinking water sector if it is being supplied to their locality. Thanks to such opportunities, they are motivated to support the project. Group or personal advocacy from the local people has contributed to GARDP's success.

GARDP-II has given great priority to monitoring sub-projects. Regular monitoring is not an easy task. It becomes more complicated in remote hilly districts like Gulmi and Arghakhanchi, where people find it difficult to travel between VDCs. However, the management has been able to despatch staff (both technicians and non-technicians) to the field for monitoring and supervision of sub/micro projects regularly. The monitoring expert and his subordinates also visit the project sites. Based on data according to Logical Frame Work Approach available during field visits, progress reports and monitoring sheets are prepared, updated and submitted to the concerned organizations, including the European Commission and the DDCs, through the co-directors. Regular monitoring and supervision is focused not only on ongoing progress but also on the sustainability of completed sub/micro projects.

The government could learn important lessons from GARDP-II and apply the same modality in other rural and urban development projects. An evaluation team on behalf of the European Commission has recommended the implementation of rural development programs in adjoining districts like Baglung and Pyuthan. A large segment of the rural population of other districts could benefit from such projects.

For private parties GARDP-II provides a good example of an efficient and dynamic management system. Researchers, management students and others could visit the districts to observe the activities and consult with project officials.

(The writer worked as a national expert in GARDP-II for about three and half years)