1

Delivery of Delivery of Rural ServicesRural Services

NEPALNEPAL

Namaste !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 empoweredObjectives • 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 servicesrivalry

exclusion

high lowhigh

low

Private Toll

Community Public

Input supplyShallow tubewellsFarm specific advice

Market informationStrategjc roads

Ag. research (food crops)

Corporate roads

Ag. extensionSurface water supply/irrigation

Electricity grid distribution

Village roads Res. on agro-forestry

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 cycleProvisioning 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

private private

privatepublic

public

public

private

public

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

Model Research Extension

Agency NARC DADO

NGO LI -BI RD CEPRED

SAPPROS

Agency/Private Sugar f actory + NARC

Private Agro-vets

Sugar f actory

22

Research model efficiency

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

service cost- eff sust. impact

Agency

NGO

Agency- priv

23

Research model process

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

user inv. co- prodn.

Agency

NGO

Agency- priv

24

Research: main findings

• NGO model facilitates identification of relevant researchable problems with farmer involvement

• Public sector funding is needed for public goods research (food crops) but on competitive basis (funds)

• Agency/private model effective for industrial crops

25

Extension model efficiency

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

service cost- eff sust. impact

Agency

NGO

Private

26

Extension model process

0

5

10

15

20

user inv. co- prodn.

Agency

NGO

Private

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 PerformanceSector Sub-Sector Preferred Model

(Efficiency-Process)

Ag. technology

Ag. Research Agency/NGO/Private

Ag. Extension NGO/Private

Irrigation Surface CBO

Ground Agency/CB

Drinking water

Surface Fund/NGO/CBO

Ground NGO/CBO

Roads Rural roads Local body/CBO

Bridges Local Body/NGO/CBO

Electricity Agency-Private/CBO

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