A Community Based approach for the evaluation of a development-oriented project in Southern Kurdistan
Azad Hama A.A.
IUAV
The present study forms part of a post¬doctorate research held in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Architecture of Venice (IUAV). The study presents the result of a lengthy evaluation of a development-oriented project implemented by an Italian NGO, ACS, in the Chwarta area in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The project is part of the current rural reconstruction programme undertaken in Kurdistan. The programme aimed to reconstruct all the villages destroyed by the Iraqi regime during the 80’s, whilst their population has been deported forcibly to the so called “Collective Towns” located in the three main Kurdish provinces of Sulaymania, Arbil and Duhok.
In April 1991, following the ...
BACKGROUND
The present study forms part of a post¬doctorate research held in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Architecture of Venice (IUAV). The study presents the result of a lengthy evaluation of a development-oriented project implemented by an Italian NGO, ACS, in the Chwarta area in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The project is part of the current rural reconstruction programme undertaken in Kurdistan. The programme aimed to reconstruct all the villages destroyed by the Iraqi regime during the 80’s, whilst their population has been deported forcibly to the so called “Collective Towns” located in the three main Kurdish provinces of Sulaymania, Arbil and Duhok.
In April 1991, following the Gulf war, the UN’s Security Council issued the Resolution 688, according to which “Iraq must allow immediate access to the International Humanitarian Organisations, to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations”'
This resolution was followed by the action of Operation Provide Comfort (OPCA American, British and French forces were deployed to establish a “Safe Haven” in Kurdistan. One of the fundamental works of OPC was, firstly, to help about 1,5 million Kurdish refugees to return to their homeland, after flying to Iran and Turkey; secondly; to encourage the country transiting from the emergency phase to a more stable one in economic and political terms.
As regards territorial aspects, the task of humanitarian organisations was to reverse the previous forced resettlement scheme (Collective Towns), which was part of the anti-rural policy conducted by Saddam and to encourage people to return to their homes in rural areas.
The reconstruction programme comprises the upgrading of communication facilities and the building of new infrastructures such as road and bridges: these activities were conceived as a function of restoring the villager’s livelihood system.
Since 1991, there have been 95 agencies working in Kurdistan who have shown interest in providing humanitarian assistance to needy people: 68 are international and 27 local, most of whom are involved in shelter in one way or another.
The intervention carried out between 1991 to 1995, mainly by UN agencies (UNICEF, UNCHR, WHO) ECHO (European Community Humanitarian Organisation), USAID-OFDA (Office of foreign Disastei’ Assistance), ODA and other Western Government donors, enabled the reconstruction of about 64% of the villages in the three main Kurdish provinces.
Aside from the physical reconstruction of villages, particular attention was given to initiatives aimed at local economic recovery, that is projects which might guarantee food self-sufficiency.
By 1993 some donors (such as the Overseas Development Administration-UK and the European Union) had started to allocate funds to development programmes and to support income generation activities, including agricultural projects. As part of these economic recovery measures, the present project aims to sustain the rural sector. In particular, it provides agricultural assistance to those farmers with less financial resources to restore their own livelihood system.
Objectives of the project and actors involved
In 1991, a survey of the project area was conducted by ACS which preceded the creation of the Integrated Rural Project in Chwata (IRPC) in 1992. The project was funded by ECHO, part of the European Community, which covers the agricultural sector, chicken farming, cheese manufacturing and bee-keeping as well as the reconstruction of a number of agricultural buildings in the area.
Unlike most NGOs working in Kurdistan, who have adopted emergency-relief approaches, ACS differs in its philosophical orientation and approach by placing a greater emphasis on economic development.
Although the IRPC is funded by the EU as an emergency project, it assists the long-term development programme. The distinctive feature of the project is the construction of the Rural Agriculture Centre (RAC) in Chwarta, aimed at developing agricultural and rural activities, providing technical and support services and supplying farm inputs and other activities based on the needs of rural people.
As an immediate objective, the project aims at bringing the population to food self-sufficiency and improving the agricultural production of the entire district of Sharbazer.
A starting point for the implementation of the project was the establishment of a training programme at the RAC in order to facilitate the application of mechanised farms introduced by ONG in the project area. These techniques were perceived to be acquired, firstly, by Agriculture Advisers operating at the RAC, and then progressively learned by the farmers them selves. For this purpose, a network has been formed including f2 Rural Advisers. Each one of them covers from 3 to 6 villages. Their task is to visit villages, advising farmers on agricultural practices, the use of fertilisers and pesticides, alongside animal disease prevention and plant protection. In the 65 villages covered by the project, some 21,000 farmers received assistance from ACS (see tab.l).
The IRPC was carried out in close co-operation with the Agriculture Department of Sulaymania, with the contribution of some international NGOs: i.e. CPP and MAG.
The collaboration with local government was perceived to provide the RAC with a highly specialised staff from the Department of Agriculture, which has led ACS to form the Rural Agriculture Centre Committee. Supported by ACS, in terms of financial aid and consultancy, the Committee has established a direct contact with the rural communities.
The Committee should represent the interest of the Rural Centre: in the future, it could be responsible for liaison with local government. Apart from guaranteeing the arrival of benefits to the farmers, the Committee should insure the continuity of the development process, once the NGO no longer supports the project.
The following scheme illustrates the range of actors involved in the project. On the top side it illustrates the organisations belonging to donor countries, while the recipient is shown below. On the right, private sectors are shown, while on the left the public sectors of both donors and recipient country.
Project context
The project area is situated in Chwarta in the Sharbazer district (Prov. of Sulaymania). Chwarta covers an area of 48,301 Hectares and is about 30 km north-east of Sulaymania. The Chwarta district encompasses a number of small towns, including Chwarta, which was inhabited by 60,000 people before being razed to the ground by the Iraqi army. Chwarta is currently inhabited by some 200 households which have returned to the area in the last four years, after being forced to live for more than four years in the Collective Towns of Bazian, Baynjan and Piramagrun.
The new villages rebuilt in the Chwarta area have small dimensions with a population varying from 50 to 150 households.
There are no agricultural co-operatives in the project area, nor any sign of intensive crop cultivation are developed. In general, there has been irregular crop growth, due to the bad quality" of traditional seeds, crop disease, lack of fertilisers and crop medication.
The total amount of public land in Chwarta is almost double that of private land-holding (21,632 against 12,441 Hectares). The average public land leased to the farmers is one Hectare, while private land-holding differs in size.
Similar to other rural areas of Kurdistan, Sharbazer district has an homogenous physical landscape. Communication routes existing in the area have determined the site selection of the new villages reconstructed: in fact, the new schemes are mainly located close to the road which connects Sulaymania to Chwarta (which follows to the Iranian border), and the road which connects Chwarta to Mawat and Barzanja. Sharbazer has no cities of regional importance. It’s economy is based traditionally on fruit production, sheep and goat rearing. The major crops cultivated are grapes, apples and peaches, which before the Gulf war supplied the city of Sulaymania. In the Sharbazer territory, high- intense agricultural production is not developed. Rather, there are small pieces of land which provide purely household self consumption.
Since there are no basic public facilities like electricity, or the supply of potable water in remote villages, people uses kerosene lamps and water is taken directly from the rivers for drinking, washing and cooking.
Project structure
The broad structure of the project consists of the following components.
- The restoration of a building, 1200 Sq.m., used to support agricultural activities, together with the construction of a Rural Agriculture Centre (RAC), 300 Sq.m., in Chwarta, which comprises one silo used for crop storage, an administrative office, a training hall for rural advisers, a space for cereal drying and a hall for equipment storage.
- The provision of agricultural aid and technical services for the families settled in Chwarta area: i.e. agricultural mechanisation, seed supplying, ploughing, fertilisers, crop and plant protection distributions and canalisation drainage.
- The removal of rubble accumulated in Chwarta following the destruction of houses, which created obstacles for people willing to return to Chwarta to build homes.
- The restoration of a school and a community hall in Chwarta.
- The setting up of a rice cleaning machine, a dryer and three grain mills: one fixed mill (working with electricity, set up at the RAC), two mobile mills on tractors (both fuelled by Diesel and powered by P.T.O.). The mills are managed with the supervision of the RAC. It’s management is insured by three millers who are also responsible for mill maintenance.
- The installation of a cheese factory in Kanarwe. 5 Km from Chwarta, which is managed directly by the RAC. It aims to produce cheese in a hygienic way.
- The construction of a 300 Sq.m, health centre in Kanarwe. This would provide services for about 1000 inhabitants of Kanarwe as well as a dozen surrounding villages totalling about 3000 people.
- Repairing one of the three poultry factories already existing in Qalachwalan, 3 km from Chwarta. It has a capacity to produce 10,000 chicks for each production cycle of 57 days2.
- The construction of a bee-keeping Centre in Bayanan, 4 km from Chwarta. The centre includes a space for honey bearing.
- The installation of a 200 Sq.m, green house near to the RAC for the cultivation of various type of vegetables.
- The mobilisation of the agricultural co¬operative culture in the district, together with the introduction of the agriculture mechanisation in order to lighten the load of manual work, especially in the family environment.
- Preparation of courses for farmers interested in agriculture, zoology and administrative activities.
The following criteria is adopted for the selection of project beneficiaries:
- the farmer should own a minimum of four donems3;
- the farmer should return back to the RAC the amount of seed agreed upon: i.e., 25% of the yield in the case of wheat, 20% in the case of barley';
- the land owned by beneficiaries should be fertile;
- once the seed is received, the farmer should consult the Rural Adviser responsible for sowing, fertilisation and pesticide use in his area, or any eventual problem emerging from the yield. In this regard, the RAC plays a vital role: it provides farmers with seeds and agricultural services (ploughing, zotechnical advise) in exchange for their return to the RAC the amount of seed agreed upon. On the one hand, the crops store, together with the revenue derived from milling, should guarantee the RAC financial self¬management; but on the other hand, it would be possible in this way to provide crops and deliver sendees continuously to the new farmers arriving in the area, as well as favouring farmers who haven’t previously had any benefit from the RAC.
To obtain a sufficient quantity of milk for running the cheese factory, 215 sheep and goats were distributed to the inhabitants of Kanarwe. The provision of livestock in the area of Chwarta represents an important event, since it leads the start of a continuous production cycle of dairy-farming activities and trades for the local people.
The evaluation methodology
The evaluation drew on two main sources of data: The first is derived from a review of project documentation and relevant secondary materials available from ACS and ECHO (EU), and also information collected from discussion with ACS staff, interviews with beneficiaries and local authority officials. The second source is derived from using some techniques drawn from the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), including field observation and empirical research conducted with the participation of the inhabitants.
PRA was a key component of the evaluation study, which has determined some indicators to judge the effectiveness of the project.
Field investigation has been deployed with the participation of a group of informers, and among the various PRA techniques we used transect walks which lead to identification and discussion of the problems and opportunities in the project area.
A sample of 40 informers from 6 villages were involved. The process of village selection took the following factors into account:
- geographical location (differences in access to government services, proximity to market towns:
- quality of communications;
- level of economic development (intensity of land use, diversity of economic activity).
For comparative purposes, non project beneficiaries were also interviewed in order to collect their thoughts on the project, as well as to investigate the degree of co-operation existing between settlers.
Initially a group discussion was held with the villagers as a whole, accompanied by open- ended interviews focusing on the inhabitant’s livelihood strategy.
The collective discussion took place during the transect walks: this operation aimed to collect information about the change occurring in the project area following ACS intervention. It aimed also to assess the compatibility between the inhabitant’s needs and objectives of the project. Further interviews were also held with the local leaders and “Village Committee” officials in the project area.
The information derived from field investigations together with secondary project data was collated into a preliminary field report which was then discussed widely with ACS staff and constitutes the basis for the present evaluation study.
The evaluation approach adopted is known as “goal free”, in the sense that it doesn’t attempt to assess the correspondence between objective to project’s outcome, neither does it rely strictly on cost-benefit analysis (or assessing the budgeting components of the project). Rather, the study examines this project in relation to the livelihood strategies of the inhabitants and their point of view, as well as in relation to locally founded value systems.
Inspite of resources allocated, the project has suffered from a number of deficiencies which have reduced its effectiveness in tackling the problem of rural people. These include: misplaced assessment of need and inadequate perception of the local reality, conflicts between emergency aid and long-term development objectives, the limited potential for project sustainability and self-management and, finally, the limited participation of inhabitants in the project.
The findings
Most successful projects will be only partly so. The most important part of the project may be a resou nding success, but there may also be a failure that is just as resounding. It is very important to give a differentiated picture of the project, rather than an “on average” picture of success or failure. A contrasting of the parts that are working well to those that are not will contribute to an understanding of ivhat made the success in one area, and prevented realisation in another (Tendler J.,
1982, “Turning private voluntary Agencies into Development Agencies: Questions for Evaluation”,
Aid Program Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 12, Washington: US Agency for In ternational Development).
Inadequate understanding of the local
conditions and misplaced assessment of the need
If the aim of the IRPC was to increase villagers food self-sufficiency, then most aspects of the project insufficiently reflected locally prevailing economic conditions, potential and farmers needs. A general observation demonstrates that the project did not have a clear understanding of the problems and beneficiaries’ needs.
PRA helped to gather much more accurate information in the context compared to the appraisal study undertaken by the NGO (see tab. 2).
While ACS emphasises managerial philosophies (i.e. the promotion of productive investments), and especially gave priority to those activities which were relatively more “prestigious” and “visible” to the donors; in contrast, the inhabitants cited a preference for small-scale endogenous initiatives.
These small-scale activities were avoided by the NGO because they did not appear to be rapidly implementable or easy to manage in accounting terms, and especially because they are less visible to donors, although they are far better …
