services, and c) support to income generation, microfinance and job creation with focus on agriculture and demonstration of appropriate local technologies that can provide an alternative to existing centralised services and small business opportunities. This project is currently ongoing.
2.2.2 Evaluation of ABD programmes
Overall, at UNDP, the ABD approach has been implemented in complex development situations of several regions around the world. In terms of project evaluation, common practice involves the analysis of five key development assessment criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability (UNDP, 20008; 2010b); but on the whole, evaluation reports are influenced by a case-specific outlook. In this respect, The Report on the Evaluation of The Programme for Rehabilitation and Sustainable Social Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina (PROGRESS BiH) (UNDP,1999) constitutes a good example of ABD programme assessment from a practical point of view. This programme had operated in seven severely war- damaged municipalities in the northwest of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its main objective was to rehabilitate infrastructure and strengthen local government’s ability to make the most effective use of the available resources while promoting local economic activity. Even though the overall assessment of PROGRESS was positive, (chiefly in capacity building activities) some limitations in its operations were spotted. These mainly referred to budget constraints on one hand and the inability to engage in cross-municipality, cross-inter-entity initiatives (particularly in terms of local economic development). This was partly due to the definition of the project’s scope that was initially too wide (given the available resources) and it was necessary to narrow it down throughout the implementation of the project, ultimately affecting its deliverables in the specified area. Moreover, it is mentioned that no exit strategy was devised, thus damaging the sustainability of achieved results. Similar critiques can also be found in the Final Evaluation of the Pro II project in South-West Serbia (UNDP,
2010b) (a follow up of PRO I project discussed above by Vrbensky (2008)). According to this UNDP report, despite some positive aspects, PRO II was weak both in design and execution. It is particularly highlighted that ‘transaction costs accounted for 30 to 60 percent of the total financial envelope which is excessive’ (p. 65). Likewise, the timeframe of 18 months for capacity-building activities was assessed as ambitious ‘especially knowing that elections will take place during the project implementation period; therefore the reform objective became unrealistic’ (p. 66). These shortfalls in technical organisation implied that PRO II did not manage to achieve its overall purpose of coordinating regional development and securing long-term sustainability.
Vrbensky (2008) also provides a practical evaluation of the application of ABD programmes in South Serbia (MIR II) and South- West Serbia (PRO I). First of all, he argues that both programmes were successful in the sense that they followed principles of inclusiveness, non-discrimination, participation, gender sensitivity, transparency and accountability; issues of key relevance in conflict-scenarios. In fact, in the case of MIR II, the UNDP evaluation reports highlights that ‘the project design was carried out thoroughly and the process of engagement was a model of best practice and laid the grounds for its implementation success and most notably, the political premium of engagement and endorsement of local mayors which was critical to the project’s potential success’ (UNDP, 2008). Naturally, this level of engagement also contributed to the creation of a platform for interaction between government, donors, municipalities, non-government organisations and the private sectors. As in the Bosnia and Herzegovina experience, described above, the general assessment of the initiatives was positive in the sense that the likelihood of eruptions of violence was reduced. Vrbensky (2008) however, argues that the projects were unable to ‘directly deal with the important issues related to democracy and governance relevant for the conflict and peace dynamic,
33
Fa
ci
lita
tin
g
an
a
re
a-
ba
se
d
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t a
pp
ro
ac
h
in
r
ur
al
re
gi
on
s
in
th
e
W
es
te
rn
B
al
ka
ns
such as the role of spoilers of peace, criminals and influence of identity politics’ (p. 30). Likewise, it is mentioned that ‘programmes have been limited in reflecting and influencing broader context and responding to cross-border and national considerations, especially as they relate to legitimate political authority on the national level’ (p. 30).
From these two programme evaluation reports, it is possible to identify a basic list of recommendations/lessons for successful ABD implementation in rural and cross-border scenarios of the Western Balkans.
i. Analyse whether budget and time constraints are consequent to established outcome and objectives. If this is not the case, the scope or funds of the project must be examined and altered in order to secure a realistic degree of feasibility. The exact focus of the programme implementation should be defined.
ii. The number and type of stakeholders involved must be contacted and engaged from the beginning of the project, particularly in post-conflict and cross-border initiatives. It is important not to create false expectations regarding the programme results and build a sense of trust. Field visits are thus of key importance.
iii. Coordination must be established between the local project agenda and the regional and national initiatives for the area in question. ABD programme policies must be coherent with general government guidelines and the macro situation.
iv. Open communication channels with potential donors must be established early on. Likewise, programme visibility must be secured in the target areas through effective communication campaigns.
v. An exit strategy must be devised in order to attend to the sustainability of the project
initiatives once the programme is over. One possibility is to enable local partners to perform project-related tasks.
vi. Introduce frequent evaluation and monitoring activities throughout the programme life span. These procedures not only are necessary to maintain an appropriate communication channel with superiors but also to respond to the needs of the different stakeholders along the implementation phases. In other words, a flexible stand is compulsory.
vii. Participatory schemes must be inclusive and power differentials must be negotiated. The objective is secure equitable socio- economic advances among diverse target population segments.
viii. The identification of priorities must involve all relevant stakeholders and the needs of the target area should be evaluated against the nature of horizontal and vertical linkages that emerge. For instance, focusing on rebuilding chains of production which generate sustainable income resource; such practices will simultaneously contribute to the competitiveness of the area.
ix. Capacity-building activities must be followed by practical initiatives that allow the communities to implement their newly learned skills.
x. Depending on the actual nature of the programme and the specific problem or problems to be addressed, the following practices could be implemented: empower local economic development associations, establish microfinance and leasing institutions, secure a minimum access to health and education services, improve on transport infrastructure, promote gender equity, introduce farmer to farmer extension services to establish networks and spread knowledge, etc.
34
2 T
he
or
et
ic
al a
nd P
ra
ct
ic
al C
on
te
xt f
or t
he A
re
a-
B
as
ed De
ve
lo
pm
en
t A
pp
ro
ac
h I
m
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
...
xi. Coordination must be encouraged both horizontally and vertically, possibly via joint training sessions. It is convenient that representatives of different municipalities/ agencies interact in neutral settings.
xii. Stimulate the development of multi-ethnic, cross-border civil society organisations and the preparation of communication strategies based on the inclusion of key representatives of the different municipalities.
Table 2. Strengths and potential limitations of ABD programmes
Strengths Potential limitations
Integrated approach – allowing for holistic solutions and encouraging horizontal linkages and cross-sector responses even if problems are sector-specific as development and conflict prevention requires addressing a number of issues holistically to become sustainable
Missing macro-picture – broader strategic context not sufficiently taken into account, weak understanding of macro situation and policies
Platform for partnership and coordination – high potential for increased participation and better coordination since it promotes cross-sector partnerships and division of labour
Inability to respond to structural problems – even in the case of a good understanding of the broader context, there is no or limited influence on structural cross-cutting issues (e.g. related to conflict, governance, poverty, unemployment)
Promoting regional cooperation – utilisation of economies of scale, facilitation of inter-municipal cooperation and trust building, establishment of regional institutions and investment in regional infrastructure
Limited partnerships and lack of coordination – insufficiently broad partnership or inadequate coordination, where partners have no sufficient capacity or mandate to deal with the problems, insufficient focus on or inability to deal with economic development
Understanding of local context – understanding and taking into account specificity of the local situation, high level of insight and closeness to issues and beneficiaries
Fragmentation – local approaches leading to fragmented thinking and realisation, partial solutions and duplications Involvement of local people – local empowerment, building of
human capital, local people as agent of change
Lack of focus – dealing with a broad range of issues superficially leading to a lack of concentration on key problems and results Enhancement of local democracy – promotion of integration,
inclusiveness and non-discrimination through the involvement of the entire community rather than specific group, promotion of participation and transparency, avoiding stigmatization and mentality issue, reduction of perception of social inequality
Visibility trap – concentration on the most visible and easy-to- implement activities instead of promoting systemic change
Support to local governance – promoting decentralization, capacitating local administration, supporting institutional development and organizational reform leading to increased effectiveness
Dependency – developing dependency on external support, often lack of well planned exit strategy, Government reliance on external support leading to lack of involvement and support, preferential treatment for some areas
Manageability and flexibility – focus on manageable size allowing for integrated, comprehensive approach, keeping programme relevant in changing context
Capacity substitution – reducing urgency of systemic change, substituting for inefficiency of sector-level policies, insufficient institutional capacity or budgetary support
Improved monitoring and cost-efficiency – better monitoring of results and reflection of lessons learned, improved cost- efficiency through coherent approach avoiding duplications and addressing real needs
Donor-driven and short-term approach – interventions often donor-driven with high expectations and short timeline where conflict context and special development situation requiring longer time frame to generate systemic change
Source: Vrbensky (2008)
xiii. In post-conflict (as it is the case of the Western Balkans), it is crucial to design refugees / returnees / internally displaced programme interventions.
Table 2 presents a summary of ABD strengths and potential limitations obtained from a survey (Vrbensky, 2008) of ABD practitioners in the Balkans (specifically in Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia and Ukraine). The resulting items accurately match the main ideas drawn from the literature review.
35
Fa
ci
lita
tin
g
an
a
re
a-
ba
se
d
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t a
pp
ro
ac
h
in
r
ur
al
re
gi
on
s
in
th
e
W
es
te
rn
B
al
ka
ns
From Table 2, it may be concluded that each of the stated ABD strengths must be handled in such a manner that it does not translate into its equivalent limitation. For instance, the integrated nature of ABD implementation which guarantees a holistic approach to development challenges, must neither loose track of the macro–situation, nor of the identification of structural problems which in reality cannot be tackled locally. This gap may be particularly addressed by linking political and developmental agendas at the local and national levels; (once again, the establishment of appropriate horizontal and vertical linkages is stressed). However, this promotion of regional cooperation can only be successfully undertaken if there is sufficient capacity for accurate coordination between key players. Otherwise, programme results will be fragmented and only the most easy-to-implement tasks will be conducted.
The multi-dimensional nature of the ABD approach must be reviewed so that the ABD intervention is controllable (under adequate monitoring) given the available resources and capacities. The scope and extent of objectives must be realistic at all times and match the time and budget constraints. Equally, exit strategies for the ABD programme must be prepared in advance in order to secure the degree of local involvement and participation in long-term development issues. Another important factor is that of donor dependency: ABD programmes must therefore support effective local governance and democratic activity so that the institutions in question may be in a position to manage future funding both from internal and external sources.
The review of the strengths of the ABD approach reflects that it possesses features which make it ideal to address local level complexities and regional disparities from a multi-dimensional perspective. The identified potential limitations may also serve as guidelines to design adequate intervention strategies and these will be explicitly addressed during the implementation phase of the pilot study in order to avoid potential pitfalls.
On the whole, given its integrated, inclusive, participatory and flexible nature, ABD is capable to adapt and address both rural and cross-border issues, although these aspects are not a primal ABD focus. However, lessons learnt from similar approaches (with similar key features such as place-based approach, participation, integrated/ multi-sectorial approach), but with different history/background (rural development tradition, cross-border experiences) than ABD (with its mostly post-conflict history), should also be useful. This is the purpose of the next section.
2.3 Other approaches to local / rural
development
In this section, alternative approaches to local development are examined. In this respect, a clear effort has been made to highlight similarities and differences of such approaches with the previously discussed ABD features. As stated, ABD relies on widely accepted principles that are common to many other development programmes, particularly those participatory schemes in rural contexts. These other approaches will be thus assessed against the six key features of the ABD approach as highlighted (in italic) in Harfst’s (2006) definition: ABD is targeting specific geographical areas in a country (area-specific versus the country as a whole) characterised by a particular complex development problem, through an integrated (multi-sector), inclusive (community versus particular groups or individuals), participatory (bottom-up) and flexible (responsive to changes) approach.
In the selection of approaches to be included in the present exercise, priority has been given to participatory approaches designed for or applied in rural settings. The section thus starts with an overview of community-based approaches to rural development, mainly applied in least- developed economy scenarios. Next, the focus is shifted to the participatory approaches for rural development in the EU, where Leader is understood as the main approach (Shortall