1. The organization of a well-conceived decentralization process should recognise the existence of institutional actors other than the central State, endowed with their own organizations and financial autonomy, as well as structures led by elected bodies, to which responsibilities are transferred under decentralization. Since there is no sense in recognizing them if they are not afforded the right and the means of expressing themselves, decentralization implies participation, and vice versa.
2. From the point of view of grassroots geographical communities, decentralization is dependent upon three fundamental conditions: “i) recognition of the moral status of groups other than the central State with particular interests summarised in the concept of local affairs; ii) recognition of the community’s right to manage its own affairs, through the intermediary of bodies designated by it; iii) State control over geographical communities’ organisations and actions, which respects the community’s autonomy, yet prevents it from going beyond its sphere of competence and jurisdiction” (IV10, p. 1).
3. In political terms, decentralization is seen as a deepening of the democratization process and, therefore, as a special type of “sharing power”, notably decision-making power. This concept does not imply a reduction in the power of the State, but rather a means “of laying the foundations for a more operational, efficient State, that will act as guardian of the general interest, while fuelling, encouraging, stimulating and protecting the implementation of local initiatives for which the new decentralized institutions will enjoy decision-making power” (IV10, p. 2).
4. From the economic point of view, decentralization acts in conjunction with local partners, providing them with the means to develop, whether they be NGOs, community associations, producers’ organisations or other co-operative groups. They all benefit from decentralization since it permits them to fully utilise their powers and initiatives.
5. Through decentralization, the State starts to mobilise and facilitate local development initiatives proposed by grassroots communities. The underlying idea behind economic reforms and decentralization is the same: to release initiatives so that they are able to satisfy their particular interests. This does not resolve the problem of how to guarantee fulfilment of the general interest, but demand regionalization and policy differentiation can offer a means to do so.
6. Too often, participatory development projects have meant the re-emergence of local elites, who assume representation of populations in order to organize, lead and, to a certain extent, appropriate for themselves decentralized, participatory approaches. From the very moment when decentralization is conceived, counterbalances and mechanisms to correct this trend towards the predominance of local authorities over local populations must be set in place. The main mechanisms for curbing this trend are the support policies proposed under the RED-IFO model.
7. The contractual, partnership approach is aimed at creating new relations between rural development partners, to replace vertical relations based on strategies defined in isolation from local dynamics which lack a regional overview. It would be advisable to extend and enhance this approach.
8. The first area in which dialog and consultations between the State and intermediate associations should be put into practice concerns the pace of decentralization. This pace must not be too swift so that the beneficiaries of decentralization can adapt. Yet, it should not be too slow either, since this would give the forces which are not interested in decentralization time to mobilize against it and bring it to an end. When it comes to determining the pace of decentralization, it is necessary to recognize that differing regional situations, production conditions and strategies by each category of producer, form constraints which require decentralization to be carried out on the basis both of multiple consultations between national and local actors and a regionalization of the results of the dialog based on consideration of the views of intermediate associations. This would make it possible to adjust the pace of decentralization to suit the individual capacity of each region, municipality and category of producer to assume and perform the decentralized functions.
9. Decentralization, then, should be understood as a gradual process of transferring functions, resources and decision-making powers from the State to intermediate associations and local levels of government, at a pace which the strengthening of the intermediate associations and the creation and consolidation of the instruments which the latter endow themselves with as they develop, permit. Clearly, the need for a gradual pace of decentralization also influences the timetable for transferring finance sources and mechanisms for the decentralized functions. In this respect, each body which has been assigned a decentralized function or action should, in the medium-term, gain complete financial independence in order to be able to carry it out fully.
10. The decentralization methodology (regionalization/differentiation), and its support policies are incompatible with a centralized State which considers itself as the sole development partner (an active supplier of strategies and services), and populations merely as passive beneficiaries of its policies. By comparison, with differentiation and regionalization the underlying supposition is that dialog occurs between partners whose operating philosophies are different. Centralized State institutions must give way to new institutions which are capable of creating conditions for dialog between producer organizations and the other rural development agents. However, it is equally necessary for these new institutions not to be - as in the past - the fruit of a design by the central State to provide information, training and organisational assistance to rural populations, but, rather, the brain child of rural populations themselves, who provide representative, technical structures for themselves in order that they can engage in a dialog with all their partners. This is why the RED-IFO’ model’s strategic thrust consists in creating, reorganizing or strengthening intermediate associations. The role of the latter is, therefore, fundamental, for three main reasons: i) they can guide State action by means of policy differentiation which must accompany decentralization; ii) they provide a capacity for summarizing and regionalizing rural populations’ demands and desires; and iii) they can eventually gain sufficient maturity as agents to be able to forge partnerships with other rural development partners.
11. During the decentralization process, these intermediate associations will be encouraged to perform five functions, which are important to note.
Policy differentiation and demand regionalization are aimed at taking account of the specific problems facing each type of producer, region and branch. It is, therefore, necessary for intermediate associations to have access to information about each of these three categories, so as to be able to present proposals on the desired content of the differentiated policies.
Intermediate associations shall identify the specific problems which exist for each agricultural and non-agricultural activity in its different stages: credit, supply of inputs, production, manufacturing and packaging, and marketing and distribution. The intermediate associations would be in a position to identify the training needs arising from these problems, transmit information, and establish a dialog with a view to making known the constraints and potential of each activity.
In order to prepare for dialog with the State and the other rural development partners, and present proposals regarding the general thrust of rural development, intermediate associations must have, and be able to provide rural producers with, global, relevant information on the economic, institutional and technological environment in which the rural populations are located. This task consists in classifying and collating information on: i) State standardization and regulation; ii) the comparative advantages of each region and branch in terms of the national situation and global markets; iii) market changes regarding leading products and price modifications; iv) availability of alternative technology for production specialization/diversification and technological modernization, and v) new income-generating activities.
A function which intermediate associations should perform is to assist in strengthening rural populations’ skills in order to permit them to execute decentralized actions, and also to build productive partnerships with the private sector and derive maximum benefit from the skills of NGOs. The basis for the performance of this function must be a strong local presence which allows them to tailor their response to the circumstances and specific problems of each type of producer and type of region.
Finally, apart from providing a framework for consultations between producers themselves, the intermediate associations should foster types of dialog with local levels of government, in order to curb trends towards clientelism and the appropriation of decentralization by local authorities. This dialog could take the form of consultation committees, which would be the main forum for dialog between these associations and local levels of government. At the same time, they would make it possible to deal with the specific problems of each branch in a concerted manner and to clearly and coherently present demands for support to the State and other rural development partners.
12. These organizational efforts on the part of the intermediate associations would make it possible to achieve an overall implementation of the decentralization process and of rural development action on the basis of a continuous dialog among all the rural development agents. In this way, the regional interface would gradually become the arena for mediation and arbitration, thanks to its creation of instruments for consultation and participation for rural populations at all levels.
There is a growing consensus today that the rural sector has a decisive, crucial role to play in attaining the objectives of food security, poverty alleviation and enhancement of natural resource management. It has also been recognized that decentralization can improve the effectiveness of action aimed at developing this sector. But consensus is not enough. An institutional mechanism must be created in every nation and at every level to allow this consensus to be transformed into sustainable, participatory rural development. The goal of the RED-IFO model is to explain to the rural development agents the risks, opportunities and conditions for the success of a decentralisation policy, drawing on the experiences and knowledge which FAO has built up. The cornerstone of the model is the creation of conditions which will enable populations to participate in the selection and implementation of action which will determine their future.
In order to succeed, decentralization must be a general process encompassing all forms of public intervention, including a revision of the legal framework of each country. With respect to the rural sector, in particular, the major challenge posed by decentralization is how to manage the tension between recognition for community, local initiatives and the need to integrate these initiatives to form a whole. Differentiation, regionalization and the strengthening of intermediate associations can help to resolve this tension. These three instruments create conditions for dialog among the rural development partners.
The RED-IFO model recognizes that all the potential inherent in decentralization can only be harnessed if it is closely linked to a strengthening of democracy as a system for the expression of interests, conflict and mediation. The transition from a supply to a demand philosophy can, therefore, be achieved: i) through the impetus of policy beneficiaries; ii) if decentralization does not create vacuums, and iii) by forging a global, coherent, participatory strategy, with an inclusive philosophy of production specialisation, technological modernization and comparative-advantage creation, and which does not only benefit the strongest, best organized agents. What is proposed, therefore, is the creation of a new alliance for sustainable, viable, participatory rural development, in which rural populations play a full part in “extending rural markets, savings and investment, three key-factors in any rural development process.”(32)
Such a new alliance would make it possible to move from a social approach to rural development to a policy of identifying and effectively utilising profitable, production activities, which are not only agricultural, in the rural areas. Thus, one priority could be a search for economic alternatives and a broadening of options available to rural populations.
In the final analysis, the conditions required for decentralization imply that what is outside the center - the periphery - which is the focus for decentralization, is strong and dynamic, so that its partners can receive the functions and actions which are decentralized to them. The three focuses and different lines of action carried out by FAO all seem to be oriented in this direction. The resultant decentralization model seeks to facilitate conditions for a redirection of human and financial resources towards rural areas and, within these, to the most deprived populations. This implies acknowledgement that “ investing in the sustainable development of agricultural potential, forests and fishing will cost much less in the long-term than solving the social problems caused by lack of rural development”.(33)
FAO has long been arguing for the implementation of participatory rural development strategies and systematically has sought to incorporate the most suitable mechanisms into its projects and programs to guarantee such participation, while ensuring the restructuring of rural development institutions. These projects and programs are built on the principle that decentralization should make it possible for the effectiveness of the State to be augmented, inasmuch as its support services are close to producers’ needs. This improves the effective match between these services and production requirements, which is made possible by local assessments by those with the most relevant information. It should also be underlined that a structural legacy of centralized rural development policies exists, which should be taken into account when identifying the risks posed by decentralization. It is precisely by taking into consideration these risks that it has been possible to identify an appropriate decentralization methodology and a set of support policies which are fundamental to the success of decentralization. This methodology stresses the need for particular efforts to be made to create and strengthen intermediate associations which represent the entire rural population, and whose role would be to serve as the linchpin for dialog between the State and the other rural development partners.
