What works for rural development in fragile states and how can rural development contribute to mitigating fragility? This report highlights the major challenges rural development encounters in fragile settings. It looks at empirical evidence from five countries in South Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America (Afghanistan, Nepal, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Bolivia).
The research reviewed existing donor documents and academic and grey literatures on rural development programs in the sample countries.
Key findings:
- Extensive rural poverty is both related to: (a) significant deficits in state authority, legitimacy and capacity, particularly in settings with violent conflict (and associated external interventions); and (b) persisting high levels of social inequality and ethnic cleavages in states where authority and capacity deficits are less pronounced. Social inequalities between rural and urban areas are related to authority and capacity deficits, including the absence of strong, consistent and legitimate political leadership, and an historical urban elite bias.
- Factors that support positive results and outcomes of rural development and emergency interventions in fragile settings include: substantial engagement and dialogue with local institutions and stakeholders, including traditional and customary ones, in project design and implementation; adopting a multi-level governance-oriented approach that focuses on building and strengthening relationships between a broad range of local public and private actors and stakeholders at the different administrative levels rather than seeing the state, especially at the central level, as the principal agent and counterpart; providing effective support for the diversification of the income of rural families, including importantly through off-farm labour; Building on emerging political and social capital in rural areas to foster new forms of governance based on negotiated and consensual approaches, not top-down and in some situations militarized approaches.
- It is paramount to recognize that rural development in fragile and conflict-affected settings is eminently challenging and that there are a number of significant risks and no ‘silver bullets’. The emphasis on ‘working with the grain’ and systematically engaging local institutions and stakeholders, including traditional and customary ones, carries the risk of solidifying exclusionary or predatory practices and structures in rural areas, particularly if the role of local state institutions is not well defined or they are not endowed with sufficient administrative and financial capacity. If approaches to rural development become too ‘localized’ they are not able to address macro-level issues that can ultimately undermine their effectiveness.
- Quickly switching to emergency programming may be the right thing to do when dealing with a food security crisis, for instance, but if this is not accompanied by a strategy to integrate emergency projects with development-oriented interventions once the crisis has subsided little will be achieved in terms of sustainability.
- In illicit drugs contexts (such as in the Chapare region of Bolivia) it appears to be highly advisable to abandon repressive, top-down approaches to coca crop control. But if the empowerment of farmers and their federations and the creation of a new form of negotiated and consensual governance are not accompanied by comprehensive development programs that are backed by the national government and international donors a huge opportunity for rural development will be lost.
