Delivery of Rural Services NEPAL Namaste !

1. Delivery of Rural Services NEPAL 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/Objectives Hypothesis • service delivery works better when people are empowered Objectives • 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 services rivalry high low high Electricity grid distribution Private Toll e x c l u s i o n Input supply Shallow tubewells Farm specific advice Corporate roads Surface water supply/irrigation Ag. extension Market information Strategjc roads Ag. research (food crops) Village roads Res. on agro-forestry Community Public low

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 cycle Provisioning 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 public public public private private public private private

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. Models

22. Research model efficiency

23. Research model process

24. Research: main findings • NGO modelfacilitates identification of relevant researchable problems with farmer involvement • Public sector fundingis needed for public goods research (food crops) but on competitive basis (funds) • Agency/private model effective for industrial crops

25. Extension model efficiency

26. Extension model process

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 Performance

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