|
|||||||||||||||
Regional Seminar for Labour-Based Practitioners "New challenges for employment-intensive investments" Key Note Speech - Synopsis Geoff Edmonds The paper is presented to a conference of labour-based practitioners. This is a rather select group of individuals of whom the author would like to count himself as one. The theme of this paper however is that the objective of our work is to ensure that in the development of rural and small scale urban infrastructure, the maximum use is made of local resources. To achieve this we need to look at the broader framework in which labour-based methods (and local level planning) operate. Focussing on the tools is necessary. However if this is to the exclusion of the environment in which they operate then the tools will only be used for as long as they are promoted by the salespersons. The paper will concentrate on rural infrastructure, as it is the area with which the author is most familiar. However many of the arguments proposed will apply equally well to urban areas. Local resource use in rural infrastructure development is dependent on an array of factors, most of which have little to do with technical matters. The principal issues seem to be: · Decentralisation · Community involvement · Financial dependence · Donor influence · Local empowerment The paper discusses all these factors and will try to indicate that to generate sustainable enthusiasm for the tools that we are trying to promote, one has to be fully aware of the framework in which we are working, to be flexible in our approaches to be compatible with the framework and to promote labour-based methods and participatory local level planning as a natural outcome of the broader issue of the effective use of local resources. The paper will also draw on the experience in both Africa and Asia of labour-based projects and of the application of accessibility planning techniques to illustrate the arguments put forward. Geoff Edmonds 9th October 2000 Regional Seminar for Labour-based Practitioners Cairo 15th -19th October 2000 Key Note Speech by Geoff Edmonds Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like to say what a pleasure it is to be here amongst so many friends and colleagues. When I started in this business some 25 years ago, we were a small group of enthusiasts. It is very gratifying to see such a large gathering dealing with a subject with which most of my career has been concerned. I am trying hard not to sound like a fraternity elder remembering the good old days. However I do have to say that in the early seventies promoting labour-based was not easy. We were rather evangelical, preaching the word on labour-based and hoping that none would notice that, like the emperor, we had no clothes. That the only piece of real practical evidence to back up our ideas was a 6 km piece of gravel road in the Philippines, where our first pilot project was. The gathering here confirms what I believe is true that labour-based has become acceptable even commonplace. It has become part of the development lexicon and we can look at several examples of the success of the use of labour-based methods. The Minor Roads and its successor the Roads 2000 Programme in Kenya. The LCU in Lesotho, the Feeder Roads Programme in Ghana and the work here in Egypt with the Social Fund for Development and many other projects in several countries throughout the developing world. Some would say that labour-based has become, in the present jargon, mainstream. However this is where I have some reservations. There are many labour-based projects around the world. However how many would survive, or indeed have survived, the withdrawal of donor funding. The answer is, I fear, very few. The arguments in favour of labour-based are well known. Three times as much direct employment creation as compared to equipment. Several times more indirect employment. Huge savings in foreign exchange. On top of that labour-based methods are generally cheaper. Moreover labour-based roads are of high technical standard and look beautiful! Despite all this, labour-based is not mainstream. Very few governments outside South Asia and China have implemented labour-based programmes without assistance, some might say insistence, of donors. Labour-based methods are still not considered as part of the range of techniques that engineers have at their disposal. The question then has to be asked - why, if labour-based methods are so beneficial, are they not more generally adopted? Why have so few governments without external prompting, incorporated labour-based methods into their programmes? Over the years several ideas have been put forward. First and foremost has been the argument that engineers are not trained in the use of labour-based methods and therefore they have difficulty adopting them. The ILO responded to this by incorporating modules into University courses. However one of the concerns raised by the universities and colleges has been that whilst they see the intellectual value of these modules they do not see the market for the use of labour-based methods. The next argument was that there needed to be political commitment so that engineers would feel that they were part of a movement that was assisting their country. Further arguments have been presented suggesting that labour-based methods are seen as a second rate, backward technology that these methods smacked of colonialism or even worse exploitation. All these arguments may of course have validity. However if the benefits of labour-based methods are as obvious as we believe, surely the obstacles would have been overcome? Perhaps, therefore, we need to think again. We are clear on what are the benefits. But actually who benefits? People will generally adopt something new if they can see the benefits to them. Certainly we believe that labour-based methods will also provide national economic benefit by reducing the drain on foreign exchange. We also believe that roads and other infrastructure can be produced cheaper. However these are longer term, rather intangible benefits. Direct benefits go to the workers on the site, and these are people who have very limited voice in society. We have concentrated our efforts on training engineers and trying to convince engineers that labour-based methods are the best option. Many of us are Engineers and believed that all engineers are open to rational and logical arguments. However, what benefit will they get from using these methods? Very little it seems to me. I am always impressed by the commitment of engineers who are involved in labour-based programmes. The more so because if as a practicing civil engineer I was earning $100 a month I would certainly want to be sure that getting involved with labour-based methods was at the least not going to be detrimental and if possible positively beneficial to my in my career or in any other way. Might it not be that we have to concentrate on a broader audience on a more general framework within which labour-based methods are applied? By applying more effort to the overall framework within which rural infrastructure is implemented, it may be that the obstacles to the acceptance of labour-based methods and other initiatives to promote the use of local resources for infrastructure can be overcome. We tend to focus on labour-based methods first and on the environment they operate in second. We believe these methods are appropriate and then look for ways to shape the environment for their effective use. Perhaps we should concentrate on the environment first. What then are some of the key elements of the framework in which labour-based methods seek to operate? Institutions Most of the labour-based programmes have been concentrated in the roads sector. From an institutional point of view this has generally meant that the focus has been the Ministry that is responsible for roads. These ministries still spend most of their funds and human resources on the main road network. Rural roads receive limited funding and are viewed as the poor relation. Where rural road units have been set up in technical road ministries, they are not seen by engineers as a productive career path. The vast majority of the funds going into rural roads come from donors. Consequently whilst technical ministries have less interest in rural roads, they generally do not want the responsibility devolved to any other agency. Most donors, including the financing institutions, have accepted in principle the validity of labour-based methods. Why then is still a continuous struggle to ensure that rural road programmes, for example, are oriented to labour-based? I do not believe it is because of a natural aversion to labour-based. On the other hand, experience suggests that rural road programmes work most efficiently when they are decentralised. Moreover, locating these programmes in an agency, which is solely responsible for rural roads enhances the chances of labour-based methods being adopted. This is not necessarily to the benefit of the main road agency and strong arguments are advanced regarding lack of capacity at the local level, lack of equipment in the rural areas and tendering procedures which require central approval. In one country in South East Asia over the last 4 years, a labour-based rural roads programme has been implemented using local contractors. The agency through which this has been executed is the Ministry of Rural Development, which has very few civil engineers. It is doubtful if the Ministry has strong views on labour-based methods. As far as they are concerned these methods work and good roads are being built. If funds continue to be available then there is every reason to suppose that more roads will be built using the labour-based contractors. This is because the institutional arrangements were set up from the start specifically in relation to rural roads to facilitate the implementation of the programme. In another country, in central Africa, a small contractor development programme was set up as part of donor project on feeder roads and was run through the central road agency. Contractors were trained, good roads were built, the project ended and there was no further work for the contractors. Lesson learned? In both cases the funds were loan funds. In the first case labour-based was not an issue. Contractors were trained on site and then proceeded to carry out contracts. In the second case a whole training school for labour-based contractors was set up separate from the Ministry of Works school. Not only was it donor driven, when the funds ran out, the Ministry felt no obligation to put some more funds in. The Ministry felt no ownership of the project. Decentralisation Decentralisation is a major theme of government policy in many countries. In practice this can often mean deconcentration. That is to say responsibility is devolved but often without authority and even more frequently without financial allocation. Nevertheless the potential for local governments to take responsibility for their own affairs is there. In planning rural infrastructure for which they are responsible, local authorities are keenly aware that is in their interest to use local resources. This partly because funds from central government are limited but also, at least in democratic societies, that using local resources is popular with the voters. In Kenya in the 1980s the head of the labour-based rural access roads programme was a very popular person with local MPs who lobbied him to bring the project to their area. He was not popular because he was an engineer but because his programme provided jobs and income to the potential voters. When programmes are directed from the centre, often the only parties supporting labour-based methods are the donor and the rural people who have no voice at this level. With decentralisation the list of potential proponents not only grows to include local officials but also the major beneficiaries, the rural people, are closer to the decision-making bodies Because human resources are limited we often see decentralisation as a problem in the sense that there is a lack of capacity to manage labour-based works. It seems to me that decentralisation is something we need to support and understand more fully as it provides an opportunity for using local resources including labour-based methods. The use of accessibility planning provides a positive experience. Here is a simple planning tool which uses the level of access to facilities, measured by time or distance, as a criteria for defining rural infrastructure priorities. Its strength as a planning tool is that it relies on actual data from the rural population on their access needs rather than a perceived need by the planner. It is fair to say that accessibility planning has been extremely successful in the six or seven countries where it has been applied. The reasons for its success and more importantly its acceptance is partly to do with its simplicity and relatively low cost. However its main appeal to local planners is that, for the first time in many cases, they have a tool that they can use. They have some control over their own work and they are able to use the skills which many of them undoubtedly have but are frustrated from using. To use another buzzword, they have been empowered. In a time when decentralisation is in vogue such a tool is likely to become more and more appreciated. Accessibility planning responds to a need at the local level. It provides benefits in terms of planning. More important for its acceptance, the people who are responsible for using it feel that they benefit from it. And finally it fits into an overall framework which is conducive to its application. Community Involvement Community Involvement has also become a major issue over recent years. This has had much to do with the belief that communities should be provided with the possibility of taking advantage of their own resources. It is the extension and refinement of bottom up development. It is the result of an about face in development strategy on poverty alleviation. There is now less emphasis on the top down provision of enabling environments and of basic social services and much more emphasis on developing people's assets - human, natural, physical, financial and social. The philosophy is now incorporated in the World Bank's Development Report for 2000 and the Sustainable Livelihoods approach of DFID. As long as the policy is focussed on developing people's assets and providing responsive institutional mechanisms this approach is very positive. It must not be seen however as a way of absolving the governments (and the donors) of the responsibility for the provision of basic services. In relation to infrastructure, community involvement all too often means the provision of labour and resources either for the provision of assets or more commonly for their maintenance. The argument has still tended to be top down. "We have sufficient funds to construct infrastructure, often from donor funds, but little or no funds for maintenance. As the infrastructure is being provided for the communities then the communities should be encouraged or even obligated to maintain them." In the case of some facilities, which are directly beneficial, like water supply, this approach can work. In the case of roads, however, there are very few examples where communities have been prepared voluntarily to maintain them. There is a strong argument which says that as the state does not have, nor is likely to have, funds for local road maintenance, then the ownership of these roads should be with those that are prepared to manage them. Whilst the World Bank Social Funds can be criticised, the principal that funds for construction of infrastructure will go to communities that are willing to take on the responsibility for their maintenance has much to commend it. After all it is the criteria that donors use to governments for nationally administered road programmes. The use of labour-based methods and the introduction of simple planning techniques such as accessibility planning are the natural adjuncts to a policy of decentralisation and local ownership. They use local resources, provide local employment and are under the control of the local organisations. The benefits accrue directly to those responsible for the infrastructure. Donors It is right to talk of ownership being related to responsibility and authority. However it has to be accepted that in many countries donors provide up to 80% of the development budget. In several countries this is likely to be the case for some years to come. Whilst donors of course will work towards the overall goals of the national government, they also have their own agendas and perhaps more pertinently time frames. In a perfectly organised system donors would give money to the Government and let them decide what to do with it. This of course is not the case. Indeed the phrase donor driven projects is all too often heard. It takes a strong government indeed to tell a donor that what they are offering is not what they want. It is of course politically difficult for donors to publicly admit that they expect to provide aid to a country for a very long period. However looking at support, for instance, to the rural roads sector in terms of a 3 or 4-year project is unrealistic. A great deal is spoken about sustainability. However it is just not feasible to expect to implement a sustainable system for rural road management over a time span of 3-4 years. Given the scale of donor involvement in the development budget of many countries, a much longer and broader approach is perfectly feasible and should be adopted. The success of the Rural Access Programme in Kenya was in large part due to a partnership between several donors and the government and their agreement on long-term targets. This allowed everybody involved to plan for the institutional changes that were necessary for this labour-based programme to flourish. Summary Over the last twenty-five years it has been clearly demonstrated that labour-based methods are technically and economically viable. Several very effective labour-based programmes have been implemented. We have produced a mountain of documentation on all the technical and socio economic aspects of labour-based work. In many senses we know more about the detail of labour-based work than we do about equipment based. Labour-based is accepted and acceptable, however it is still not mainstream. My view is that this is not because of any fault with the technology itself. If anything it is because we have concentrated too much on the technology and too little on the environment and the framework within which we attempt to introduce these techniques. These methods will be best accepted by the people who will directly benefit from their use. These are unlikely to be people in central ministries and agencies. Decentralised programme financing, management and implementation provide the best potential for labour-based methods. However to take advantage of this potential requires that our focus is on assistance to the decentralised agencies in the effective use of the resources that they have available. This means understanding and assisting in the planning process, the management structure and the financial administration. Taking our focus closer to the beneficiaries also means that we have to become much more preoccupied with community involvement. There is still too much superficial thinking on how communities will be prepared to be involved in rural infrastructure. The limited resources that are available for the maintenance of rural infrastructure are a critical factor. In dealing with community involvement in rural infrastructure, we need to look in detail at issues of ownership, responsibility and authority. Donors, of course, have a major influence on development activities. We have spent a great deal of time convincing donors that labour-based are technically and economically viable. Other factors however have restricted the more general application of labour-based in donor programmes. I suggest that our approach to donors should be more focussed on the management of local level infrastructure development. Certainly local level planning and the use of labour-based methods would be part of this. However we need to show that we are addressing the key institutional, managerial and financial aspects of local level implementation. Many of you will say that we already are. But we are not perceived in this way. We are, I feel, seen as labour-based salespersons. We are, and have to be, more than that if labour-based is to become mainstreamed. You have a significant array of topics to cover over the next few days. I am sure that the conference will be a rewarding experience. I hope that the ideas I have presented will have relevance during your discussions. Thank you. Geoff Edmonds |
|||||||||||||||
