Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

Pastoral, Arid and Semi Arid Area

Northern Kenya, Southern Ethiopia

Study Area

Introduction Questions motivating the study –What has been the development experience to date? –What kinds of interventions are most highly desired by people living in these communities for the future? –To what extent are these desires shared by individuals within these communities?

Introduction Move to community based, participatory project definition. –What do people have experience with and how do they evaluate this experience? –What do they see as the most important future priorities? Help know what types of organizations should be working where. Help know what types of resource allocations to expect. –Need to understand if there is heterogeneity within communities

Literature on Community Based and Driven Development Mansuri and Rao (2004) provide a review indicating that project selection is not clearly related to participatory methods. Rao and Ibanez (2003) find that the expressed needs of households are not matched by funded projects in Jamacia. Platteau (2003), Platteau and Gaspart (2003) focus on potential for ‘elite capture’ of the process. Conning and Kevane (2002) contrast local information advantages against rent seeking / lack of orientation toward the poor in targeting. Bardhan (2002) places this issue in the context of overall decentralization.

Study Area

SiteMarket Access Ethnic Majority Relative Ag. Potential Annual Rainfall Kenya Dirib GumboMediumBoranHigh650 KargiLowRendilleLow200 LogologoMediumAriaalMed.-Low250 N’gamboHighIl ChamusHigh650 North HorrLowGabraLow150 Sugata MarmarHighSamburuMedium500 Ethiopia Dida HaraMediumBoranMedium500 DilloLowBoranLow400 Finchawa Qorati High Medium Guji Boran High Medium WachilleMediumBoranMedium500

Development survey Survey of 249 people in six communities in Kenya, 147 people in five communities in Ethiopia; 396 people. Open ended work to develop survey form. Run in late 2001 in Kenya, 2002 in Ethiopia. Kenya interviewed multiple individuals per household, Ethiopia only household head. Had been working with them since Text to make clear motivation.

Percent having personal experience with project of type:

How many of these on average per site per person?

Who did the projects? Recall N’gambo, Finchawa, Sugata Marmar high market access; Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.

How are these past interventions ranked by most helpful to least? Significant difference between community and personal for: Livestock Health, Education (C>P); Alternative Income Generation, Food Aid (P>C); Others NS difference.

Is low rank because no experience or low evaluation of experienced project? Rank by those with experience

Any that caused harm? Ethiopia –12% noted something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (fertilizer burned plants, wrong medicine in health centers, restocked animals brought diseases, a few others) Kenya –23% identified something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (borehole water poisoned and killed animals, the spread of mesquite plants, loss of grazing land to natural resource management projects or wildlife, a few others).

What about ranking future interventions - overall Education in only one with statistically significant difference, C>P

There is a lot of variation: by site

And within sites: North Horr respondents

Overall variation As a general rule, things ranked more highly have less variance about them as measured by the CV.

Regression results: Example Human Health Water CommunityPersonalCommunityPersonal Female Indiv Age P * Education indiv Herd Size P ** ExpenditureN * % Income salary % Income lstockN ** Female Head N ** BankP **P *** Education HH HH members N ** DG P *** KAP *** LL P *** NGN ***N *P **P *** NHP *P ***N ** ConstantP ** P ***

Summary of regression findings Individual characteristics not all that influential. Household characteristics more influential. Site specific dummies almost always significant. –These are only for Kenya. Ethiopia data analysis ongoing.

How do ranks contrast? Past ExperiencePast rankFuture Rank Human Health221 Water412 Education553 Livestock Health334 Livestock Marketing965 Conflict resolution776 Restocking11107 Food Aid148 Agriculture1089 Alternative income16 10 Savings Transport6912 NRM81113 Institutional dev Phone, electric13 15 Wildlife management121416

Conclusions Past rankings: –Government is main source of past interventions. –Kenya and Ethiopia profiles not all that different. –Site differences exist. Easier to get to sites better served, more government intervention.

Conclusions Future rankings –Top ranks for interventions for past and future are pretty much the same with the exception of food aid. –Top three types of things desired have nothing to do with pastoralism: human health, water, and education. –Basic development needs are still in need of attention. –Food aid drops significantly, argument is that if other interventions are provided, need for food aid will be significantly reduced (not eliminated, but reduced)

Conclusions Pastoral specific interventions are desired, following these basic needs. –Health and marketing are priorities. –Conflict resolution and restocking follow. –Natural resource management low on the list (11 and 13 in rankings, but 8 th most commonly experienced). Note that most have had development agencies coming at them armed with a “tragedy of the commons’ worldview.

Conclusions New opportunities are identified –Agriculture about the same (8 and 9) –Savings and credit about the same (12 and 11) –Alternative income generation moves up (16 to 10) Some move down –Wildlife management (14 and 16) –Transport infrastructure (9 and 12) –Electricity and phones. (13 and 15)

Conclusions: is the message getting through currently?

Conclusions World Bank ALRMP in Kenya: phase million USD will be spent on natural resources and disaster management 24.2 million USD will be spent on community driven development 14.8 million USD will be spent on support to local development (working with other development agencies already active).