Assessment of the second integrated rural development project; part II - assumptions and goals : a review of the project paper

Special evaluation covers the period 1/79-4/81; no methodology is indicated. After two years of participation by farmers in the project, soil conservation treatments have not been maintained and improved cropping practices have not been adopted. This lack of success stems from a project paper which set unrealistic, undesirable, or contradictory goals; proposed inappropriate technology; and made invalid assumptions about the agricultural sector. Project soil conservation techniques are inappropriate for small farmers because they are costly, complicated, and unsuitable for lands held under insecure tenure, and because they create a dependence upon skilled workers. The achievement of a 250% increase in agricultural production, a goal set in the mid-1970"s, has been thwarted by high labor costs and low demand for locally-produced food. The goal of providing long-term employment opportunities is unattainable because farmers lack incentives for intensifying cropping patterns. Without such employment opportunities, there is little hope for stemming rural-to-urban migration. Farmer participation in the project is short-term, requires no input of resources from farmers, and does not include farmers in planning and decisionmaking, thus precluding sustained progress and community development. To increase project performance, it is recommended that: agronomic soil conservation techniques be stressed to enhance the probability of both reducing soil erosion and replicating the project; the project get a clear and immediate signal from the government specifying the types of crops for which there is a market; decisions regarding soil conservation or crops be made with farmer input; and allocation and distribution of benefits be tied to resource commitments by farmers.