RURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (RDS) IN NIGER

1. RURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (RDS) IN NIGER Policy Analysis Alice Stock Ana Carolina Henriques Cristina Maldonado Matthew Muthuri Robert Narvaez May 2011

2. Policy Analysis Framework • Programs • Objective / where? • Budget • Instruments • Results • Indicators • Means of verification • Possible effects

3. General observations and remarks • Strong assumptions (hard to happen in reality) • Ambitious and vague objectives • Differences among regions are not taken into account in the programs • Dynamic of interaction between actors is not specified (from construction to implementation of the policy) • Accountability mechanisms are not specified

4. General observations and remarks • No potential conflict alleviation mechanism is considered (e.g. pastoralist vs. farmers, land use conflicts) • Potential problems of inequality • Gender • Incentives for private sector vs. social inclusion • Previous strategies vs. RDS (differences) • RDS does not take into account cyclical behavior of climate

5. Unstated and contradictory objectives • Introduce (test) a model designed by donor countries • Obtaining reliable data on land ownership, land use, yields, production. • Possible international interest in Niger’s minerals • Incorporation of international companies in the implementation of the policy and in the country’s economy. • Exports vs. food security

6. Budget • In some cases the sources of the budget are not clear. • Not detailed (deadlines, management, accountability, overlap between programs) • Too short for ambitious objectives • Criteria to estimate the budget are not clear • Infrastructure projects have the highest budget • Is there a balance between economical, technical and social expected improvements from large scale irrigation projects?.

7. Instruments • Not explicitly mentioned • Not explained in detail (e.g. how would the selection to access to credit be undertaken?) • They are not integrated with each other (ex. credit and training)

8. Stated Results • None of the expected results specify the actors included and who is responsible for the implementation and evaluation. • Lack of consistency between results • In general, results are vague and broad • May not consider the change and desires of the society.

9. Indicators • There is no base line or it is not explicitly specified • When is the evaluation going to be undertaken? • Some indicators are not objectively verifiable (e.g. quality of laboratories, quality of scientific publications) • Not good assessing the effectiveness of the policy (e.g. number of agreements)

10. Conclusions • Lack of focus in the policy might lead to weak impacts and inefficient use of resources • The interaction between stakeholders from the construction to the implementation of the policy has an effect on the results • A 9-year rural development strategy can hardly change the reality and the political dynamic of all the country • Regional considerations are important to have long term impacts. Cultural, climate and other type of differences among regions can result in unequal development and inapplicability of the policy