EUALUATION OF NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PROGRAM: PEOPLE PARTICIPATION, CHALLENGES AND SUSTAINBALITY

The case of Sayed Abad District of Wardak Province

• Tariq Salari

Table of Contents (Jump to)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

• 1.1. Context of the study
• 1.2. Rationale of the study
• 1.3. Hypothesis:
• 1.4. Limitation of the Study:
• 1.5. Organization of the thesis:

ABBREVIATIONS

AF Afghani (Currency of Afghanistan)

ANDS Afghanistan National Development Strategy

AREU Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

CDCs Community Development Councils

CDP Community Development Plan

CRDP Comprehensive Rural Development Program

CSO Central Statistics Organization

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DFID Department for International Development

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FP Facilitating Partner

IFAD International Fund for Agriculture

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

ILO International Labour Organization

IWG-PA Informal Working Group on Participatory Approaches & Methods

KW Kilowatt

N Number

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NSP National Solidarity Program

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PDPs Provincial Development plans

PIDRA Participatory Integrated Development in Rain-fed Area

SAHEE Sustainability for Agriculture, Health, Education and Environment

SCA Swedish Committee for Afghanistan

UN United Nation

UNDP United Nation Development Program

UN ESCAP United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific

UNESC United Nation Economic and Social Council

UNRISD United Nation Research Institute for Social Development

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USFAA United States Foreign Assistance Act

WB World Bank

WCARRD World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

WECD World Commission on Environment and Development

WMP Watershed Management Program

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Context of the study

In the 1950s and 1960s many top-down development programs failed because of the wrong policies of the governments, donors and non-governmental organizations, which people were not involved in the design and implementation of the projects. World Bank (1994) proclaimed that top-down fashion entailed long bureaucratic process; they prefer participatory approaches because it is “learning by doing” which means people learn throughout the process. Top-down forms provide limited opportunities for participatory learning and decision-making as well. It obstructs local culture and habits (FAO, 1997). Shah (2012) stated that it is assumed that if local people were involved in the project cycle, it would be more successful. In most countries top-down policies caused the isolation of the people, increase in poverty, social and economic inequalities and deprivation.

Many governments, non-governmental organizations and development agencies have acknowledged that traditional top-down approaches in many developing and developed countries failed to reach the benefits of rural people (FAO, 1991). Moreover, Binns et al. (1997) asserts that top-down strategies have failed to raise living standards of rural people; these approaches ignore rural people’s perception, needs and understanding. It is clear that without people’s participation it would be difficult for the planners to understand the socioeconomic and cultural situation, needs, problems and priorities of the rural communities.

In the last few years the term of participation has become popular, especially in relation to sustainability of rural development projects (Bagherian et al, 2009). In the 1970s people’s participation recognized as a missing component of development projects which caused intensifying poverty (Karl, 2000). Participatory approach got momentum after the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD) organized in 1997. WCARRD emphasized on the organization and active participation of rural people in the development programs (UN ESCAP, 2009). Local participation is considered as a vitally import