National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

“Very Little Can Happen Without Peace”

— David Wood

David Wood is the chief of the Department for International Development (DFID) in Nepal. The DFID, British government body, is one of the important development partners of Nepal and has been engaged in different development projects across the country. He spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on present situation in the country and DFID's contributions to the Nepal's development efforts. Excerpts:

As one of the largest donors to Nepal, how do you find the present scenario following deadlock in the government-Maoist talks?

DFID was extremely concerned at the prospect of a breakdown in the peace process. In our view, there is no military solution to the conflict. It can only be resolved through a negotiated settlement. We have now seen two attempts to resolve the conflict through negotiations. If this attempt had been unsuccessful, it would have been harder for the parties to make a third attempt. Moreover failed attempts at negotiations are not costless — after each attempt the level of violence increases and along with it, the level of human rights abuses and suffering. Poor people suffer the most from any conflict, and they are the people that DFID works for.

What has been you impression about the political, social and economic development of Nepal?

Our assessment is that the development experience in Nepal since 1990 has been mixed. There have been some real achievements, e.g. in reducing child mortality, increasing enrolment in schools, and increasing access to safe water amongst others. There have also been disappointments, maternal mortality, governance, access to sanitation. Also the benefits of development have not been widely shared and inequality has increased. This is not acceptable. In our view development has to change. Ordinary people have to see greater improvements, and the priority should be given to the most vulnerable — women, dalits, and ethnic minorities. Nepal cannot afford to wait until it is wealthy before it invests in its people — it has to deliver better basic health education, water and rural access services now. Governance also has to improve, if these benefits are to be sustained.

How do you evaluate the six months cease-fire period?

DFID has used the ceasefire period to put together a rapid impact programme for rural communities particularly, but not exclusively in the Mid and Far West. The programme consists of a Community Support programme to conflict affected areas delivered from the new DFID office in Nepalgunj. We have also funded programmes for child victims of conflict, delivered essential drugs and equipment to sub health posts, seeds to small farmers, food for work, new light infrastructure programmes, and new district and feeder road building projects. The total programme cost comes to approximately $12 million and the programme is delivered through the UN, NGOs as well as directly through DFID projects. We put this programme together because we want to help provide a ëpeace dividend' to communities which have suffered greatly from the conflict and who need, and deserve, urgent support. But this is only a short term response. We believe Nepal needs much greater international support to restore the damage caused by the conflict and to improve the delivery of basic services to poor people. Development also needs to be discussed during this peace process. We would like to see a new compact between Nepal and the international community, which would deliver greater international support for development to make a real change in the lives of poor people of this country. The UK would be willing to help mobilise international support.

Have you found any difference in carrying out development activities in different parts of the country before and after ceasefire?

It has been easier since the ceasefire. Movement and access is easier and we are able to work with communities and deliver more assistance. However the position varies from place to place. Some areas are still difficult to access and people still suspicious of outsiders. However we have significantly increased our development expenditure from £17 million in 2001 to £28 million this year.

Has the government ever contacted DFID for the mediation in the talks? What is the DFID's position regarding the mediation?

Government has not asked DFID to mediate in the conflict. Our view is that this conflict has to be resolved within and by Nepal. The role of the international community is to support the process, for example by making available to Nepal the lessons from conflicts in other parts of the world, and by making clear our support for peace.

Since the DFID has been launching various programs focussing on poverty alleviation, how do you see the present state of poverty reduction programs?

Poverty reduction is the overarching ambition of DFID Nepal. That is why we are here. We are pleased that DFID programmes have largely been able to continue so far through the conflict. This is because they have community support and because they are neutral. We are working to make them more transparent and accountable to local people. Government's development expenditure has declined in the last few years because of the security situation. Government's ability to work in different parts of the country is also more limited. This is very unfortunate. The first priority is to restore peace so that development programs throughout the country are put back on track. The Government's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper is a good one and it provides a good basis to go forward. We want to see the political conditions restored so that development can be implemented.

At a time when local bodies do not have elected representatives, have you felt difficulties in implementing the projects in grass root level?

We felt a serious decision making vacuum particularly in some remote rural districts due to absence of elected representatives and government bodies. Although His Majesty's Government of Nepal has delegated authority to local officials, most recently including legislative powers, there are real difficulties in replacing elected representatives. For example officials are largely confined to the district headquarters. This massively increases the difficulties in coordinating assistance at local level. We are working to try to improve this. As soon as the local representatives are elected, we will start working with them and particularly to increase their ability to coordinate development programmes at the local level. We would like to see much more of our assistance flowing through local bodies.

How do you see the institutionalization of democracy in Nepal?

Democracy is new in Nepal and, as in many developing countries, its roots do not go very deep. The institutions of democracy; political parties, parliament, electoral commission etc are there but the culture of democracy is weak. There is great commitment to the idea of democracy. The main political parties fought for it over many years (and are now campaigning to have it restored), but they have not been very successful in making it work. The process of institutionalising democracy is likely to be a long one, but progress is needed urgently. Key issues include the provision of effective checks and balances on political power, the excessive politicisation of the administration and on corruption, the need for good leadership and a focus on policies rather than personalities or patronage. Democracy is not just about political parties and elections. It is also about how people participate at the grassroots level; how they organise themselves, how inclusive local bodies are. Here, there are some more encouraging signs. Nepal has a better track record at the grassroots level, although much still needs to be done.

How do you see the evolution of democratic process in Nepal including at the local level?

All I would add is that the dissolution of the democratically elected local bodies in July of last year was a major setback, which could have been avoided. Donors urged the Government to extend the terms of office of the democratically elected local bodies, but to no avail. In its 10th Plan Government has committed itself to greater decentralisation. We support this. This means more responsibilities and more resources for local bodies. This will increase the chances of having effective democracy at the local level.

In the name of good governance, the donors are putting so much pressure on government to convert the representative government into a bureaucratic one. How do you look at it?

Neither DFID, nor as far as I am aware, any other donors are pressurising for representative Government to be converted into bureaucratic government. Our objective is poverty reduction. We consider that, over the long term, a democratically elected government offers the best prospect for this. We are keen to see a return to democratically elected government. However, we recognise the constraints and the impractically of holding elections in the present circumstances. Although, since October 2002, the government has not been an elected government, a number of reform measures are being implemented which we welcome and support, but this does not mean that we are happy with the current situation, or would prefer non-elected to elected government.

How do you find the privatization and economic liberalization process in the country?

The privatisation process in Nepal has been uneven. After the privatisation of a large number of public enterprises during the 8th Plan, only a few were privatised during the 9th Plan period, despite significant DFID technical assistance support. Inefficient public enterprises continue to remain a significant drain on the Government budget. They waste money, which could be used to reduce poverty. However, I am pleased that the Government has decided to revitalise the programme under the 10th Plan/PRSP and plans are already underway to liquidate or privatise 9 enterprises during the current year. The ADB has provided loan funds to help Government cover the contingent liabilities of some of these enterprises and to fund staff redundancy costs. DFID is also willing to support this process using our grant funds. Concerning wider economic reforms, I think that Nepal is making generally good progress, particularly when you take into account the negative affects of conflict and the global economic downturn. I am encouraged by the fact that Government is in the final stages of negotiations for two new policy-based loans with the IMF and World Bank. This sends signals to the private sector and donors that the Government is serious about economic reform. The accession process for the WTO has also required the Government to accelerate trade and investment policy reforms and these should also help Nepal to become a more attractive destination for foreign direct investment.

What Nepal needs to do to accelerate the development process?

First and foremost, peace should be restored. Very little can happen without peace. Secondly after restoration of peace, Nepal has to deal with the causes of conflict. We have identified that the urban centred development, failures in governance and social exclusion are the major causes of conflict. These issues are already realised by the Government and are reflected in economic plans. Now the issue is to implement these effectively. I think Nepal needs an accountable and efficient system of implementation. It needs political commitment, including to decentralize, followed by bureaucratic efficiency. We will support His Majesty's Government to implement its poverty reduction strategy. Our new country assistance plan is built around that objective.