improving access in rural areas · improving access and reducing poverty are correlated. a lack of...

Guidelines forIntegrated Rural Accessibility Planning

Improving Accessin Rural Areas

International Labour Organization

Chris Donnges

Copyright @ International Labour Organization 2003First published 2003

Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 ofthe Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may bereproduced without authorisation, on condition that the source is indicated. Forrights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to the PublicationsBureau (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-12ll Geneva 22,Switzerland. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with theCopyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London WI T 4LP [Fax:(+44) (0) 20 7631 5500; email: [email protected]], in the United States with theCopyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 [Fax: (+1)(978) 750 4470; email: [email protected]] or in other countries with associatedReproduction Rights Organisations, may make photocopies in accordance with thelicences issued to them for this purpose.

Chris Donnges

Improving Access in Rural AreasGuidelines for Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning

Bangkok, International Labour Office, 2003

Poverty alleviation, rural access, rural infrastructure, planning, decentralisation.

ASIST-AP Rural Infrastructure Publication No. 1

ISBN 92-2-113649-3 ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with UnitedNations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerningthe legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers.

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contribu-tions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorse-ment by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them.

Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not implytheir endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention aparticular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.

ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in manycountries, or direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free ofcharge from the above address, or by email: [email protected]

For further information: www.ilo.org/publns

Printed in Thailand

Guidelines forIntegrated Rural Accessibility Planning

Improving Accessin Rural Areas

International Labour Organization

Chris Donnges

4IRAP Guidelines

Preface 61 Rural Access 9

Background 9A History to Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning (IRAP) 10Rural Transport, Accessibility and Poverty 12Local Investment Planning 15Participation 17

2 Improving Rural Access 21Background 21Other Poverty Alleviation Initiatives 24DFID: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach 24The World Bank: Attacking Poverty 25The Asian Development Bank: Fighting Povertyin the Asia – Pacific Region 26

3 IRAP Overview 29Accessibility 29The Process 30Main Characteristics 32Planning Tools 33Area-based Approach 33The Main Questions 33Multi-sectoral and Integrated 33Participation 35Two Main Strategies 35Simple and Inexpensive to Use 35

4 Preparatory Activities 39The Necessary Groundwork 39The Policy Basis 39The Main Focus of Application 40The Best Institutional Address 41The Sector Coverage 42The Existing Planning System 43

5 The Collection of Data 45Objective 45Preparatory Works 47Training 50Implementation 51

6 Computerization of Data 55Objective 55Preparatory Works 55Training 56Implementation 57

5

Table of Contents7 The Accessibility Profile 61

Objective 61Preparatory Works 64Training 64Implementation 65

8 The Preparation and Use of Maps 67Objective 67Preparatory Works 68Training 68Implementation 68

9 The Accessibility Indicators 71Objective 71Preparatory Works 73Training 73Implementation 74

10 The Prioritization Process 79Objective 79Preparatory Works 79Training 80Implementation 81

11 The Identification and Design of Interventions 85Objective 85Preparatory Works 86Training 86Implementation 87

12 Action Planning or Integration into the Local Planning System 89Objective 89Preparatory Works 90Training 91Implementation 92

13 Monitoring and Evaluation 95Objective 95Preparatory Works 96Training 96Implementation 97

14 IRAP at the Village Level 105Background 105Planning 107Mapping 111Prioritization and Selection of Interventions 112Design 112Village Contributions 113

Table of Contents

6IRAP Guidelines

ccess is an importantfactor in rural develop-ment. People need to

have adequate access to water,energy, land, health services,education, transport services andmarkets. A lack of access limitsthe opportunity that people haveto improve and sustain theirsocial and economic well being.Improving access and reducingpoverty are correlated. A lack ofaccess is perceived as one of themain underlying factors of pov-erty, particularly in rural areas indeveloping countries.

The ILO has been involved indeveloping a planning process forimproving access in rural areasdesigned for application at thelocal government level. Thisapproach is called “IntegratedRural Accessibility Planning” or“IRAP”. IRAP simultaneously seeksto improve the rural transportsystem and distribution of facili-ties and services. The objective ofthe process is to - in a cost-effective way - improve access togoods and services in rural areas,in particular for poor and disad-vantaged communities. IRAPintroduces a set of planning tools

AAAAA

7

which are based on access needsof rural people and seek tomaximize the use of local re-sources. Its main features are itssimplicity, user friendliness, low-cost application and immediateoutputs. Local planners can makeuse of the tools, as part of theirroutine planning activities, todefine priorities for differentsectors and communities. Theprocess enables the planner toquickly assess what should be donewhere and identify rural infra-structure investment priorities.

These guidelines describe theIntegrated Rural AccessibilityPlanning (IRAP) process. IRAP iscurrently being applied in around15 countries around the world.The process is not uniform inthese countries and depends onlocal characteristics. Theseguidelines attempt to describe ageneric IRAP process. They havebeen produced to guide thedevelopment of the processwithin the context of a particularcountry.

The first country specific guide-lines on IRAP were produced in1992 in the Philippines. IRAP

Preface

country specific guidelines forLaos were produced in 1999 andan IRAP guide was prepared forMalawi in 2000. The developmentof country specific guidelines isongoing at the time of this writingin a number of Asian and Africancountries and recently guidelineshave been translated into Span-ish. There are plans to produce aguideline in French as well.

March 2003

Chris DonngesILO ASIST Asia Pacific

Bangkok

Preface

8IRAP Guidelines

9

1Rural Access

Background

It was agreed during the UN SocialSummit in Copenhagen in 1995 tohalve the incidence of povertybetween 1995 and 2015. As aresult, poverty alleviation strate-gies returned to the forefront ofthe agenda’s of most donoragencies and development banks.Despite development gains insome areas, the world is stillhome to 1.1 billion extremelypoor people. Projects of thedevelopment banks and bilateraldonors have to increasingly showthat they directly or indirectlybenefit these poor people.

To help people out of theirimpoverishment is indeed one ofthe world’s greatest challenges.Often, people are caught in a so-called poverty trap: people arepoor because they have noeducation (lack of opportunities);poor people can not afford propereducation for their kids who, inturn, will become poor unedu-cated adults and so on. It is animmense challenge to break thiscycle. Poverty also is a crosscut-ting issue that has many causesand effects. There is no single

solution to alleviating poverty.

Poverty reduction strategies needto take these different causes ofpoverty into account. It is there-fore useful to distinguish betweentransient poverty, structuralpoverty and chronic poverty. Eachconcept requires a somewhatdifferent treatment. Transientpoverty is the result of suddenshocks such as wars, financialcrises, or natural disasters.Structural poverty is basically dueto a lack of opportunity. It affectspeople who are disconnectedfrom the wider economy andsociety and is often geographi-cally focussed. The provision ofinfrastructure and services is keyto overcoming structural poverty.Chronic poverty may be due to anumber of disabling factors at theindividual or household level,including dependency, gender,caste or indigenous minoritystatus, and physical or mentaldisability 1

2 .

1 This paragraph has taken the Asian DevelopmentBank’s classification of poverty as described in thereport “Assessing the impact of transport and energyinfrastructure on poverty reduction (ADB 2001)”.

2 These guidelines on Integrated Rural AccessibilityPlanning present a strategy to overcome structuralpoverty. Wherever from here on the word poverty isused it refers to structural poverty.

Rural Access

❆

10IRAP Guidelines

As indicated above, poverty is theresult of development difficulties.Certainly a key element ofpoverty is isolation expressed asthe lack of access people have tobasic, social and economic goods,facilities and opportunities. Thisisolation, or a lack of opportunity,cuts across different developmentsectors and should be dealt within an integrated manner.

These guidelines will focus onphysical accessibility, defined asthe degree of difficulty people orcommunities have in accessinglocations for satisfying their basicsocial and economic needs such asfood production, water collection,firewood collection, education,primary health care, trading andtransport. It will introduce atechnique developed over the last10 years by the InternationalLabour Organization to identifyand prioritize interventions thatwill improve accessibility in ruralareas.

A History to IntegratedRural Accessibility Planning(IRAP)

Aid assisted development startedin the 1960s. In the first “aid”

decades most resources wereallocated to develop and improvelarge-scale infrastructure such asthe national road network,primary health and educationfacilities and, more commonly,the economy at large. Invest-ments were often biased towardsthe urban and already moredeveloped areas. Investments inrural areas that would benefit therural people often received asecond priority. In terms of roadinfrastructure for example, notmuch was initially done to im-prove the rural transport net-works. The primary road network,understandably, received thehighest priority. After the primaryroad networks were reasonablywell established, the attentionshifted gradually towards therural road network. Rural roadswere seen as the conduits thatcould facilitate rural develop-ment. Access in rural areas wasoften poor and existing roadswere frequently impassableduring the rainy season, limitingtransport services and restrainingaccess and therefore constrainingdevelopment.

In the late 80s, there was agrowing awareness that thetransport policy and road pro-grams of that time aiming atimproving access in rural areaswere often too narrowly focussedon a “conventional highway andcar” solution. In addition, itappeared that decision makingwas often overly centralized,providing the wrong interventionsin the wrong places often usinginappropriate technology.

❆

11

A different approach seemednecessary, one that could effec-tively address rural access prob-lems, reduce isolation and allevi-ate poverty. Research work onrural transport, initiated by theILO, was brought together in abook “Rural Transport in Develop-ing Countries” published in 1985.This book was important in that itmarked a new approach towardsrural transport in general andinduced a rural transport planningdiscipline3 . Initially the objectiveof this methodology namedIntegrated Rural Transport Plan-ning (IRTP) was to identify trans-port patterns of rural householdsand identify their transportneeds. The key features of IRTPwere:

❖ the starting point of ruraltransport planning had to bethe real transport needs ofthe rural people;

❖ in identifying interventions toimprove rural transport oneshould consider the followingoptions:

# the development of theroad network;

# improvement of the villagelevel transport networkincluding paths, tracks andfootbridges;

# development of transportservices

# increased use of Intermedi-ate Means of Transport(IMT)

The groundwork laid during thesecond half of the eighties onthese different aspects of rural

transport 4 was integrated anddeveloped into a number of pilotprojects for Asia and Africa.Although sharing the overall goalof improving rural accessibility,the different projects had some-what different objectives, strate-gies and activities. In Asia themain emphasis was on developinga decentralized access planningmethodology and capacity build-ing for access planning at thelocal Government level. In Africathe emphasis was less on capacitybuilding and more on identifying,implementing and pilot-testinginterventions to improve ruraltransport.

It appeared that improved mobil-ity and accessibility in rural areascould be achieved through:

1. The development of a localtransport infrastructure

2. The enhancement of ruraltransport services

3. The use of IMT4. The provision of facilities

which would reduce transportneeds

In the early 1990s, expertsworking with the pilot projects inAsia agreed that the originalobjectives of the exercise hadchanged and that the scope of themethodology had become wider.It no longer focussed on transportalone but also on complementary

3 Rural Transport in Developing Countries – Ian Barwell,Edmonds, G.A.., Howe, J.D.G.F. and de Veen J.(London 1985) Intermediate Technology Publications

4 Various research studies in Africa and Asia plus theMakete Rural Transport Programme in Tanzania andthe Rural Access project in the Philippines as themain operational programme on rural transport

Rural Access

12IRAP Guidelines

non-transport interventions toreduce the need for transport. Itwas decided to replace the oldacronym (IRTP = Integrated RuralTransport Planning) with a newacronym (IRAP = Integrated RuralAccessibility Planning). A newmethodology for rural accessplanning had been developed.Over the years, IRAP developedinto a set of comprehensiveplanning procedures that look ataccess, transport and mobilityfrom a broader perspective. IRAPhas become a tool for rural accessplanning that is used by localGovernments and developmentorganizations alike. It promotescommunity participation and theoptimum use of local resourcesincluding labour.

Before carrying on with thetechnical chapters of theseguidelines it is essential to brieflyintroduce three issues that are ofsignificance for the IRAP method-ology:

❖ Linkages between transport,access and poverty

❖ Local investment planning

❖ Local participation

Rural Transport,Accessibility and Poverty

The role of transport is to facili-tate the access people have togoods, services and facilities.Improving transport reducesisolation. People need to haveaccess to a wide variety of goods,services and facilities in order tolive an economic and social

productive life. Improved trans-port results in faster, safer,cheaper, more reliable and morecomfortable (less spoilage) travelof people and products. This ismost often done by the construc-tion of road infrastructure,anticipating a response (privateor public) to use the road 5 . TheILO defines transport as “themovement of people and goods byany conceivable means, for anyconceivable purpose”6 . The WorldBank defines transport as theactivity linking people to placesand resources. It is obvious thattransport is an intermediateactivity and not an objective initself.

Transport patterns in developingcountries and developed coun-tries, in urban areas and ruralareas differ substantially. Re-search work in several African andAsian countries revealed thatrural transport in developingcountries has its own very distinctfeatures. It is characterized bypeople moving around in ruralareas for a variety of subsistence,social and economic purposes.Some of the transport takes placeon foot and much of it is in andaround the community away fromthe main road network.

If transport is the means toimprove mobility of the people togain access to the goods, servicesand facilities they need, thenplanning for rural transport shouldnot overlook the option of non-road interventions. This wouldinclude transport services, IMTsand village infrastructure (paths,tracks, trails, footbridges etc.) to

❆

13

improve mobility and henceaccessibility.

Obviously, improving transport toenhance mobility is only one ofthe means to improve access. Oneauthor determined that “theheart of the problem isaccessibility, determined by thelocation of different points ofsatisfaction on the one hand, andon the other by people’s abilityto reach these points (the notionsof transport and mobility).Accessibility can be defined interms of ease (in terms of time,effort and cost) with which aneed can be satisfied”…and…”that transport is inreality a means to an end, andthat the end is gaining access 7 ”.

Rural access can be defined as theability, the level of difficulty, ofrural people to use, reach orobtain the necessary facilities,goods and services. Access isinversely related to the time,effort and cost necessary to reachlocations where one could availover these goods and services.

Accessibility has three elements:

1. the location of the house-holds;

2. the location of the facili-ties and services;

3. the transport system tobring 1 and 2 together.

The objectives of rural accessplanning therefore should be to,in a cost-effective manner,improve the access to the facili-

ties, goods and services that ruralcommunities need for their socialand economic development.Improvements could includeinterventions that effectivelyenhance mobility of rural dwellersfrom rural roads to intermediatemeans of transport (IMT) as wellas interventions that bring thefacilities, goods and servicescloser to the people such asschools, health centers, marketsand improved water supplies.

It is commonly acknowledged thata lack of access is a major con-tributing factor to poverty. It ishowever only one of the con-straints to poverty alleviation. Itis a difficult task to single out“access” and to point out to whatextent it constrains development.Research however has shown thata causal relationship existsbetween access and poverty. Alack of access generally meansisolation and isolation ofteninduces poverty.

The following excerpts illustratethe importance of access ineconomic development:

“Isolation is a major constraint todevelopment. Isolation sustainspoverty, because services do notreach those that are isolated

5 Guidelines Rural Transport Planning – David Tighe,Tom Strandberg (Geneva 1994) ILO

6 Accessibility Planning and Local Development –Kanyama Dixon Fyle (Geneva 1998) ILO – RuralAccessibility Technical Papers No. 2

7 Accessibility Planning and Local Development –Kanyama Dixon Fyle (Geneva 1998) ILO – RuralAccessibility Technical Papers No. 2

Rural Access

14IRAP Guidelines

keeping them illiterate and outof contact of income-generatingactivities. Accessibility can beseen as the contrary to isolation,is defined by Jones (1981) as theopportunity that an individual ata given location possesses to takepart in a particular activity or setof activities 8 ” and “Accesstherefore seems to be a factor inthe level of poverty. In the firstplace it is related at the mostbasic level of living. If there is noaccess to health services thenpeople will remain unhealthy,children will die and any epi-demic will have catastrophicresults. If there is no access tobasic information the householdwill be unaware of technologyand information that could assistthem in their daily lives. If accessto education is limited thensucceeding generations willremain at the same level of lackof knowledge”.

The author goes on to say that“Access is also related to povertyat a different level. Even ifaccess to the basic needs of lifeare assured, people need tobecome part of the economy ifthey are to develop. If there is noaccess to markets, farmers cannotsell their surplus crops. If they donot have access to information,they cannot learn of ways ofimproving either their skills ortheir productivity 9 ”

The international community hascommitted itself to “attackpoverty”. The World Bank, theAsian Development Bank, theUnited Nations and other majordonors are all developing strate-

gies, country frameworks anddevelopment assistanceprogrammes to assist countries toeradicate poverty. Rural transporthas an important role in thiseffort in that it provides ruralpoor with access to the basic,social and economic goods,facilities and opportunitiesrequired for people to build upand sustain their assets. A recentstudy commissioned by the WorldBank and DFID remarks “transportconditions impinge on the poor,and their opportunities forlivelihood enhancement, in a hostof direct and indirect ways. Atone extreme, investments intransport can create economicand other opportunities for thepoor in a very direct fashion, byproviding employment in con-struction or enhancing themobility of members of a house-hold. At the other extreme, theymay be equally relevant toreducing poverty because of theireffects on the general conditionsthat enable a process of sus-tained economic growth to occur,indirectly enhancing opportuni-ties for poor people”.

It is this last reference thatsummarizes the potential impactof rural transport on poverty. Onthe micro-level, at the householdlevel, it directly contributes toimproved mobility, increasedaccess and sometimes employ-ment and income while at themeso-level, at the local economylevel, it indirectly contributes ifimproved transport results ineconomic growth. Although, aswas stressed earlier, the latterdoes not necessarily imply thatthe rural poor actually benefit

15

from economic growth unless thisgrowth is pro-poor.

Rural access, transport andpoverty are inter-linked. Ruralaccess can be improved throughthe provision of rural infrastruc-ture and the improvement of ruraltransport. Access is the goal whileinfrastructure and transport areinterventions to reach this goal.

Local Investment Planning

One of the recent trends in manycountries in the Asia Pacificregion is the transfer of develop-ment responsibilities to localgovernments. This requiresefforts to strengthen local capac-ity for planning, implementationand monitoring to enable a morerational allocation of scarceresources according to realpriorities. This decentralizationprocess is well underway in forexample the Philippines and Indiaand more recently initiated incountries such as Thailand (1999),Indonesia (2000), Nepal (1999),Cambodia (1999) and Laos (2000).

The decentralization process isstrongly supported by the maindonors in the region. The WorldBank, according to its “WorldDevelopment Report 1999-2000:Entering the 21st Century”, sees“localization” as a major newtrend in 21st century. It defineslocalization as the growing powerof sub-national entities such ascities and provinces in response toa grass-roots drive by people for alarger say in their governmentand institutions. In its 2000/2001World Development Report,

Attacking Poverty, the Bankidentifies the empowerment ofcommunities and local organiza-tions (local governments) as oneof its three main strategies fordevelopment.

The Asian Development Bankidentifies, in their Poverty Reduc-tion Strategy, as one of the mainstrategies for poverty reductionthe fact that …”authority forprovision of public services shouldbe devolved to the lowest appro-priate level of government.”… ,and cites that …”the long termobjective, however, should be toempower the poor and developinstitutional arrangements thatfoster participation and account-ability at the local level”.

Two out of UNDP’s four focalareas for development assistancerelate to Good Governance andPoverty Alleviation and variousUNDP supported projectsstrengthen institutions andcapacity at the local level forimproved service delivery andsocio-economic management.DFID, as an example of the bi-lateral donors, sees theimprovement of the transportsector as an important contribu-tion to delivering sustainabledevelopment and focuses onencouraging policy makers toallocate resources efficiently andon helping to build local capacityfor effective management andimplementation.

8 Guidelines Rural Transport Planning – David Tighe,Tom Strandberg (Geneva 1994) ILO

9 Wasted Time: The Price of Poor Access – GeoffEdmonds (Geneva 1998) ILO – Rural AccessibilityTechnical Papers No. 3

Rural Access

❆

16IRAP Guidelines

The conventional approach toinfrastructure planning has beensectorial, top-down and non-participatory. This is probablycorrect for larger infrastructureworks such as airports, hospitalsand highways but is not veryappropriate for the developmentof rural infrastructure.

It is now generally believed thatlocal Government is indeed bettersuited to provide and managerural infrastructure compared totheir counterparts at the centrallevel. From the local Governmentperspective a major issue in ruraldevelopment is that of investmentchoices. With the limited re-sources at their disposal it isimportant to choose the bestpossible investment projects andto ensure that the resources areused in the most cost-effectivemanner. In order to carry outthese responsibilities a minimumlevel of capacity and properprocedures and techniques arerequired. Local Governments areadvantaged in that they havedirect contact with the people,they are physically closer to thecommunities, and are in a betterposition to facilitate the organiza-tion of villages and to improvetheir technical capabilities toperform certain tasks. Amongstthe issues to be addressed toeffectively transfer responsibili-ties to local Governments are:

1. The development of properplanning and managementsystems (methodologies,procedures);

2. The enhancement of capacity

at the local level to plan andmanage rural infrastructure;

3. Funding availability.

One of the first decentralizedfunctions is often the responsibil-ity for rural infrastructure devel-opment. This relates to theidentification of investment needsand allocation of scarce resourcesfor infrastructure developmentsuch as rural roads, water sup-plies, schools, health centers andmarkets.

Local investment planning, withinthe present context, is thereforedefined as the local identificationof priorities and local allocationof funds. In addressing the issueof developing the local capacityto execute these tasks in aparticular country to improverural access for example, it isnecessary to first analyze thespecific responsibilities of thedifferent institutions. It is thennecessary to undertake trainingneeds assessment in order todevelop a plan to strengthencapacity at the local level for the(new) tasks entrusted to the localinstitutions.

In terms of responsibilities it isusually sufficient to differentiatebetween government – national,provincial and district – and theprivate sector – communities,contractors and private enter-prises. The capacity buildingexercise should primarily targetlocal governments and the localprivate sector implementingworks on behalf of the publicsector. It is necessary to identify

17

different responsibilities and todevelop a programme not only tocapacitate the different stake-holders but also to stimulate anenabling environment for thedecentralization process.

The availability of finance is moreof a political issue, which has tobe dealt with as well but on adifferent occasion. It iscontroversially to notice that inmost countries local governmentsare increasingly assignedresponsibilities for planning andmaintenance however financiallythey still remain dependent onfund transfers from the Nationalgovernment.

Participation

Top-down planning of small-scalerural infrastructure projectswithout consulting the beneficiarycommunities has often proven tobe an ineffective approach andmay result in ineffective projectsand a waste of resources. Ruralinfrastructure projects shouldaddress the real access needs ofthe local people and shouldoptimize the use of local resourcesfrom a cost perspective. To theextent possible, they should beplanned, designed, implementedand maintained with participationfrom the communities.

Participation is a process wherebybeneficiaries (stakeholders)influence the development,direction and execution of strate-gies, programs and projectsrather than merely receiving ashare of the benefits. It has beendemonstrated time after time

that communities are perfectlyable to identify their real prob-lems and to define interventionsthat are best suited to their realneeds.

A case study on best practices incommunity-based rural infrastruc-ture planning, commissioned byESCAP, concluded 10 “that thetaking of responsibility by peoplefor their own development is abetter way to achieve improve-ments in economic and socialconditions, and it is more likelyto be successful, cost effectiveand sustainable. This way oforganizing development is appro-priate because it:

❖ Gives local people a direct andactive stake in organizingthemselves to develop theirareas economies

❖ Encourages the mobilization oflocal resources such as land,labor, savings, assets, plusindigenous knowledge ofspecific local conditions such

10 ESCAP Reducing Poverty by Improving Accessibility

❆

Rural Access

18IRAP Guidelines

as environmental and socio-cultural norms

❖ Helps build the capacity of thepeople to effectively plan andimplement projects

❖ Increases community controlover resources and develop-ment and promote greater selfreliance

❖ Enhances the sense of commu-nity ownership needed toensure maintenance of com-pleted projects

❖ Encourages more equitabledistribution of benefitsbecause project managementis accountable to a morerepresentative community”

Effective community participationrequires communities “ready” toparticipate and governmentdepartments and agencies“ready” to work with communi-ties and allow true participation.Creating an enhanced environ-ment, which facilitatessustainable and self-reliant socio-economic development, is often a

necessary pre-requisite foreffective community participa-tion. It is indispensable toharmonize community participa-tion with standard local levelinfrastructure planning proce-dures and to come up with anintegrated approach.

Many books have been writtenabout participation and relatedsubjects. ESCAP describes commu-nity participation as follows:

“An active process wherebybeneficiaries influence thedirection and execution ofdevelopment projects rather thanmerely receiving a share ofproject benefits. The objectivesof community participation arerecognized as social empower-ment, building beneficiarycapacity, improving projecteffectiveness and project costsharing 11 ”

11 ESCAP Reducing Poverty by Improving Accessibility

19

The World Bank maintains asimilar definition “participation isa process through which stake-holders influence and sharecontrol over development initia-tives and the decisions andresources which affect them 12 ”

The World Bank furthermoreaffirms that “the participation ofbeneficiaries is central to theeffective delivery of rural infra-structure; for participation to besuccessful, beneficiaries must beinvolved in decision makingrelated to planning, design,implementation, operation andmaintenance of rural infrastruc-ture; they must also contribute inkind or cash at such a scale as togain a sense of ownership of theinfrastructure and a commitmentto operating and maintaining it 13 .

It is clear that the stakeholdersshould be involved in all steps ofthe planning process and projectcycle. It is necessary however totake account of local reality. Interms of infrastructure develop-ment within a decentralizedstructure it is equally importantthat the local political eliteparticipates in the process ofidentifying and selecting projects.Without local political support itmay be difficult to secure fundingfor projects benefiting the ruralpoor.

It is therefore necessary toencourage local level planners toboth involve communities andlocal level politicians in theidentification, design andimplementation of projects.Maintaining a dialogue with these

12 World Bank Participation Sourcebook13 World Bank Lao PDR Sector Memorandum: Priorities

for Rural Infrastructure Development

Rural Access

stakeholders during all stages ofthe planning process, identifyingneeds, defining solutions andpriorities, selecting projects andcarrying out the projectsidentified, is necessary to ensuretheir full involvement. TheIntegrated Rural AccessibilityPlanning or IRAP processdescribed in the next fewchapters seeks to achieve this.

20IRAP Guidelines

21

2Background

“Poverty” and “accessibility” - orin fact “inaccessibility” - areclosely linked as illustrated in thefirst chapter of these guidelines.This chapter will identify whatthe common access needs of ruralhouseholds are, introduce anapproach to improve rural accessand link this approach to povertyeradication strategies developedby three main developmentinstitutions: World Bank, AsianDevelopment Bank and DFID UK.

There are several factors contrib-uting to poverty. Lack of access iscertainly one of them. A substan-tial element generally but cer-tainly not the only one as we haveseen in chapter 1. In fact, andwhat has become increasinglyclear is that, poverty is a multi-sectoral issue. The concept ofaccess is multi-sectoral as well.Interventions to improve accessoften cut across different sectors.This contributes to the difficultyof defining the meaning of theword “access”. It certainly is acomprehensive concept. The termaccess in fact comprises threeelements: physical access, social

Improving Rural Access

access and economic access.

Physical access relates to dis-tances and travel. How far dopeople have to travel to reachcertain locations. How easy orhow difficult is this journey ?Physical access is usually im-proved by the provision of physi-cal infrastructure. Although itneeds to be reiterated thatinfrastructure by itself does notimprove access.

Culture, customs and responsibili-ties determine social access. Avillage school may exist butparents may decide to not sendtheir daughters to school sinceeducation is perceived to be of noimportance for girls. Access toprimary education is thereforelimited for these girls for socialreasons.

Economic access relates to theability to pay. Health services maybe nearby but the cost of exami-nation and treatment may pre-vent poorer families from benefit-ting from these “accessible”services.

These guidelines deal with


❆

22IRAP Guidelines

physical access. A lack of physicalaccess deprives people of oppor-tunities to improve and sustaintheir level of living. Physicalaccess, hereinafter referred to asaccess, is determined by twofactors: “mobility”, reflecting theease or difficulty in travelling to aspecific location and “proxim-ity”, reflecting the distribution ofgoods, facilities and services.

The access needs of rural peoplecan be grouped in three broadcategories:

1. those associated with basicneeds such as water supply,firewood and food security;

2. those associated with thesocial welfare aspects of rurallife such as health andeducation;

3. those associated with theeconomic welfare aspects ofrural life such as agriculture,livestock, cottage industry.

Access can be improved in threefundamental and complementaryways:

1. through a better siting of basicfacilities and services thatrural people need to use(water supplies, schools,health centers, markets); and

2. through improving the mobilityof rural people so that theycan travel faster, easier, moreconvenient and less expensive(rural roads, tracks, trails,footbridges, waterways); and

3. through promoting and stimu-lating the use of communica-tion technology so that ruralpeople have improved access toinformation related to health,education and market prices(rural telephones, e-mail andinternet connections).

The first is a “non-transport/non-communication intervention”,the second is a “transport-intervention” while the third is a“communication intervention”.

Figures 1 and 2 detail the mainaccess needs and possibleinterventions to improve access inrural areas.

These guidelines will concentrate

Figure 1: Access to Social and Economic Needs

Figure 2: Access to Basic Needs

Schools Teachers Materials

EDUCATION

Roads Transport Services / IMT

MARKETSMarket Facilities

HEALTH

E-mail / Internet / Telephone

E-mail / Internet / TelephoneE-mail / Internet / Telephone

Roads Transport Services / IMT

Health Facilities Staff Medicines

E-mail / Internet / Telephone

Tracks and Trails Roads Transport Services / IMT

Tracks and Trails Roads Transport Services / IMT

EMPLOYMENTand INCOME

DRINKING WATER

ENERGY

Wood-lots

FOOD

Land IMT Roads Tracks and Trails

BUILDINGMATERIALS

(house, sanitation)

Electricity

Improved WaterSupply

Credit

Irrigation

Extension Services

Improved Containers / IMTTracks and Trails

Roads IMT

Tracks and Trails

23

on the transport interventions andthe distribution of facilities (theyellow and purple boxes in figures1 and 2).

A lack of access, in any sector,deprives people of the opportu-nity to improve their lives. Theprocess of improving rural accessshould always starts with theidentification of the real accessneeds and transport patterns ofrural people. Household andvillage level surveys can providesufficient information on thesespecific needs and the existingand lacking opportunities forpeople to satisfy these needs.Although not the sole indicator ofaccess, time spent on obtainingaccess often provides valuableinformation on the importance ofcertain activities and the diffi-culty in accessing locations whereassets, goods and services areavailable. Table 1, as an example,shows the average time people

spent in five selected rural areasin a number of different countriesin gaining access. Table 1 showsthat in the selected areas peoplespent most (travel) time inmeeting subsistence and liveli-hood needs (food, water, energyand income). As observed earlier,travel time spent is not the onlyindicator of access, however itsuggests the importance of anactivity and identifies areaswhere access improvements arelikely to have an impact on thequality of life.

If the objective isto improve accessin rural areas, oneshould first under-stand the realaccess needs andconstraints of ruralpeople. The ILO hasdeveloped planningprocedures forimproving rural

Percentage Travel Time (Annually)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Water Supply FuelwoodCollection

Travel to Stores Livelihood Travel toMarket

Travel to HealthFacility

Travel toSchool

Travel to OtherPlaces

Aurora, PhilippinesSekong, LaosSiem Reap, CambodiaOrissa, IndiaBantul, Indonesia

Table 1: Travel time by activity as percentage of total travel time


24IRAP Guidelines

access that identify these needsand constraints and, in a partici-patory manner, identify andprioritize access intervention.This process, Integrated RuralAccessibility Planning or IRAP, isdescribed in more detail in thesucceeding chapters.

Other Poverty AlleviationInitiatives

The emphasis in IRAP is on im-proving access in rural areas.IRAP, introducing a rural accessplanning framework, intends todirect public funds towards thoseinvestments that improve ruralaccess and maximize impact interms of poverty reduction.Access and poverty are linked andIRAP therefore contains a strategyto reduce poverty.

Rural areas of developing coun-tries contain over three-quartersof the world’s poor. The UN SocialSummit in Copenhagen (1995)agreed to develop a globalprogramme to halve the numberof people living in poverty be-tween 1995 and 2015. This haslead major donors such as theWorld Bank, the Asian Develop-ment bank and DFID to reassesstheir programmes, strategies andactions. This section will reviewthe poverty alleviation strategiesdeveloped by the three organiza-tions mentioned above and examineto what extent the IRAP process fitsin with these strategies.

DFID: SustainableLivelihoods Approach

DFID has adopted a sustainable

livelihood approach to eliminatepoverty. This approach provides away for DFID to develop andimplement its developmentprogrammes so that they betteraddress the priorities of poorpeople. A livelihood is herebydefined as “the capabilities,assets (including both materialand social resources) and activi-ties required for a means ofliving”. A livelihood is consideredsustainable if “it can cope withand recover from stresses andshocks and maintain or enhanceits capabilities and assets bothnow and in the future, while notundermining the natural resourcebase”.

The approach, like IRAP, putspeople at the center of develop-ment. It starts with an analysis ofpeople’s livelihoods and assesseshow these have been changingover time. It fully involvespeople in this process. It thenfocuses on the impact of policiesand programmes upon people andtheir livelihoods. It stresses theimportance of influencing poli-cies and programmes to addresspoverty. In this process, it worksto support people to achievetheir own livelihood goals. Aquick comparison with the IRAPprocess shows that both ap-proaches are quite similar indesign and execution. However,while the livelihoods approachsets out with a broader overallpoverty focus, IRAP centers roundone major dimension of poverty:inaccessibility.

The livelihood approach identifiesdifferent types of assets upon

❆

❆

25

which people draw to build theirlivelihood:

❖ natural capital (land, water,wildlife, biodiversity, environ-mental resources)

❖ social capital (networks,memberships of groups,relationships of trust, access towider institutions of society)

❖ human capital (skills, knowl-edge, ability to labour andgood health)

❖ physical capital (transport,shelter, water, energy andcommunication)

❖ financial capital (savings,credit, remittances, pensions)

It uses the five-axis graph belowto plot access of groups of house-holds to these assets. The axis arenot calibrated and the plotting ofassets is rather subjective. Thispentagon however can be used toanalyze what’s already there interms of assets (the strengths) onwhich one can build to furtherimprove livelihoods or make thesesustainable.

Again, as the earlier figures illus-trate, the analogous with IRAP isstriking. IRAP also uses a multi-axisgraph to plot access to facilities,goods and services. In fact, onecould argue that the IRAP graph isembedded in the livelihood penta-gon. The main differences are:

1. The IRAP graph centers roundthe concept of accessibility.Accessibility is only one of the

dimensions of poverty. Thesustainable livelihood penta-gon “includes” all dimensions.

2. The livelihoods pentagonvisualizes assets (strengths –what people have) while theIRAP graph measures a lack ofaccess (weaknesses – whatpeople lack).

3. The IRAP axes are calibratedand accessibility indicators areused to plot access to certaingoods, facilities or services.The livelihood axes are notcalibrated and plotting issubjective.

The World Bank: AttackingPoverty

The World Bank strategy to freethe world of poverty recommendsactions in three areas:

❆


Natural capital

Social capital

Human capital

Physical capital Financial capital

26IRAP Guidelines

! Promoting opportunity

Expanding economic opportu-nity for poor people by stimu-lating overall growth and bybuilding up assets and increas-ing the returns on theseassets.

! Facilitating empowerment

Making state institutions moreaccountable and responsive topoor people, strengthening theparticipation of poor people inpolitical processes and localdecision making and removingthe barriers that result fromdistinctions of gender,ethnicity, race, religion andsocial status.

! Enhancing security

Reducing people’s vulnerabilityto ill health, economic shocks,crop failure, policy induceddislocations, natural disastersand violence. Ensuring thatsocial safety nets are in placeto mitigate the impact ofpersonal and national calamities.

IRAP as a process could be drawnupon to advance in the first twoareas: opportunities and empow-erment.

Providing infrastructure andservices to “access poor” areas byfocussing public spending on theseareas is a main objective of IRAP.Improving access to facilities,goods and services creates newopportunities for people living inthese areas. Increased opportuni-ties provide a potential for

further building up assets.

In addition, IRAP promotesbottom-up planning and commu-nity involvement. IRAP is best beapplied at a local governmentlevel and through its transparentprocess strengthens local govern-ment and encourages participa-tion. The capacity buildingprocess that is inherent in IRAPempowers local governments andcommunities.

The Asian DevelopmentBank: Fighting Poverty inthe Asia – Pacific Region

Asia is home to two-thirds of theworld’s poor. Realizing this, the ADBhas set poverty reduction as itsoverarching goal. Poverty, in ADB’sview, is a deprivation of essentialassets and opportunities to whichevery human is entitled. Everybodyshould have access to basiceducation and primary healthservices. Poor households havethe right to sustain themselves bytheir labour and be reasonablerewarded, as well as having someprotection from external shocks.Beyond income and basic services,individuals and societies are alsopoor – and tend to remain so – ifthey are not empowered toparticipate in making decisionsthat shape their lives.

The three strategic pillars are:

❖ Pro-poor sustainable growth

❖ Social development

❖ Good governance

❆

27

To make its antipoverty operationsmore effective, the ADB intends touse new innovative approaches. It’sobvious from earlier discussionsthat IRAP presents such aninnovative approach. It cutsacross the three strategic strate-gies and applying the proceduresin ADB finance projects wouldallocate resources to achieveexactly what ADB’s povertyalleviation strategy envisions:pro-poor growth, social develop-ment and good governance.


In conclusion one could say thatthe strategies developed by DFID,the World Bank and the AsianDevelopment Bank resemble.They all focus on creating oppor-tunities and building up assets ofpoor people, promote participa-tion and strengthen local gover-nance. IRAP in that respect can beseen as an excellent opportunityto mainstream these povertyalleviation strategies.

28IRAP Guidelines

29

Accessibility

All households, rural and urban,poor and rich, need to haveaccess to facilities, goods andservices in order to fulfill theirbasic, social and economic needsand be able to live a social andeconomic productive life. Accesswas earlier defined as the ease ordifficulty of reaching locationswhere facilities, goods andservices are available.

Chapter 1 showed that access is animportant factor in rural develop-ment because it determines theopportunity that rural peoplehave to improve their social andeconomic well being. Peopleneed, amongst others, to haveproper access to water, energy,health services, education,transport services and markets.

Accessibility has three elements:

1. the location of the households;

2. the location of the facilitiesand services;

3. the transport system thatbrings 1 and 2 together.

Access is inversely related to thetime, effort and cost necessary toreach locations where peoplecould avail over facilities, goodsand services. The more time,money and energy people spent,the poorer the access is in general.

Chapter 2 explained that ruralaccess needs are grouped in threebroad categories:

1. those associated with basicneeds such as water supply,energy and food security;

2. those associated with thesocial welfare aspects of rurallife such as health and educa-tion;

3. those associated with theeconomic welfare aspects ofrural life such as agriculture,livestock, cottage industry.

It is known that a lack of access isa contributing factor to poverty. Itis however only one of the con-straints to poverty alleviation. Itis a difficult task to single out“access” and to point out to whatextent it constrains development.A lack of access however con-

3IRAP Overview

❆

IRAP Overview

30IRAP Guidelines

straints opportunities for peopleto develop and sustain their levelof living. A lack of proper accesstherefore often induces poverty.

Chapter 2 also showed that accesscan be improved in two funda-mental and complementary ways:

1. through a better siting of basicfacilities and services thatrural people need to use(water supplies, schools,health centers, markets); and

2. through improving the mobil-ity of rural people so that theycan travel faster, easier, moreconvenient and less expensive(rural roads, tracks, trails,footbridges, waterways).

The first is a “non-transport intervention”while the second is a“transport-intervention”.

A specific approach seemsnecessary in rural areas,one that effectivelyaddresses rural accessproblems and reducesisolation and alleviatespoverty. More emphasis isto be given to the devel-opment of an integratedapproach that simultaneouslyimproves the rural and feederroad network and the distributionof facilities and services. Thisapproach has been developed byILO and is called “Integrated RuralAccessibility Planning” or “IRAP”.

The Process

The IRAP approach varies in

different countries where it hasbeen applied but can be brieflydescribed as follows:

Steps 1 and 2: Data collectionand processing

The first step is to carry out asituation analysis that identifiesaccess problems in target areasregarding the mobility of thepopulation and the location ofservices and facilities. Localcommunities, organizations(government and NGOs) andindividuals are involved in thisprocess in terms of providing theinformation needed. Local enu-merators are trained to carry outthe survey and to process thedata. Data comprises secondarydata (population, agriculture

outputs, etc.) and primary data.At the village level, primary datais collected on time taken and themanner in which householdsobtain access to services andfacilities. The collected data isprocessed and analyzed, whichresults in the identification ofdemand-oriented access ortransport needs in the targetareas.

Collecting primary data in a village

❆

31

Step 3: Preparation of accessibil-ity profiles, indicators and maps

The access profile of a targetarea covers a set of basic infor-mation on both locations ofservices and facilities and thedifficulties that people have ingaining access to them. For eachsector, accessibility indicators (AI)are calculated. The indicators arecalculated by relating the numberof households in a target area tothe difficulty of reaching facilitiesand services. Different indicatorsare used in different countries. Inaddition, based on the gatheredinformation, accessibility mapsare prepared in order to have abetter visual presentation ofaccess profiles in target areas andto compare alternative solutionsto access problems.

Step 4: Prioritisation

The larger the value of AI, theworse is the access problem. Thetarget areas are ranked andprioritised accordingly. The targetarea with the worst accessindicator in a particular sectorgets the highest priority foraccess interventions in thatsector.

Step 5 and 6: Data validation anddefining targets and objectives

The access profiles will be pre-sented and the data validated in aworkshop with representatives oflocal authorities, organisationsand communities. During theworkshop the sectoral objectives

for access improvements willbe defined. Where nationaltargets exist, these will beused to define overallobjectives, e.g. all house-holds in an area should havedirect access to potablewater, not exceeding adistance of 500 meters, allyear around. Targets shouldbe realistic and attainable,based on the availableresources.

Step 7: Project identification

The results of the above men-tioned workshop contribute toidentification of a set of interven-tions or projects which wouldmost effectively reduce the timeand effort involved in obtainingaccess to supplies, services andfacilities. These interventions are

Presenting access priorities to the districtdevelopment council

An example of an accessibility map

IRAP Overview

32IRAP Guidelines

related to transport (rural trans-port infrastructure, low costmeans of transport or transportservices) and non-transportservices (e.g. better distributionor the most appropriate locationsof services).

Step 8: Implementation, monitor-ing and evaluation

The identified projects are thenconsidered and integrated intothe overall local developmentplanning system for implementa-

tion, monitoring and evaluation.The target communities andorganisations are, preferably, notonly involved in planning but alsocontribute to implementation andmaintenance of what has beenplanned.

Main Characteristics

The objective of Integrated RuralAccessibility Planning (IRAP) is to- in a cost-effective manner -improve access to goods andservices that rural communities

need for their social andeconomic development.

IRAP introduces a set ofplanning tools whichare based on the accessneeds of the ruralpopulation and seek tomaximize the use oflocal resources.

IRAP, in short, is a locallevel, needs-based,area-development,planning tool for localresource-based rural

Validation of data at commune level

Identification of interventions at village level

❆

33

infrastructure development. Itsmain features are its simplicity,user-friendliness, low-costapplication and immediateoutputs.

Planning Tools

Integrated Rural AccessibilityPlanning is a set of planning toolsthat can be used to strengthenexisting planning practices. Itdoes not seek to replace existingplanning processes or proceduresbut aims to support these byencouraging due attention foraccessibility issues.

The main tools introduced are:

❖ A Questionnaire❖ Accessibility Mapping❖ An Accessibility Profile❖ Accessibility Indicators❖ Catchment Areas❖ Priority Mapping❖ Project Development❖ Access Monitoring and

Evaluation

The diagram on the followingpage shows when these tools areapplied during different stages ofthe planning process.

Area-based Approach

The essence of the IRAP process isto introduce an area-basedapproach towards improving ruralaccessibility. IRAP identifiesspecific rural access needs andseeks to address access problemsthrough an integrated approach.It enhances participation andpromotes an efficient “bottom-up” process for planning of rural

access in general and ruralinfrastructure in particular.

Three Main Questions

The IRAP process endeavors toaddress three questions related torural accessibility, transport andinfrastructure: what should bedone where and how to improverural access:

1. it defines the priorities fordifferent sector activities toimprove accessibility of ruralhouseholds: what should bedone ? (improved road access,improved access to primaryeducation, improved marketaccess etc.);

2. it defines the priority locationsfor particular project interven-tions: where should it be done ?(in village A or village C orbetween village D and E, etc.);

3. it defines the most effectivedesign for project interven-tions to ensure communityparticipation and an effectiveuse of local resources: howshould it be done ? (usinglabour-based procedures ormore equipment based proce-dures; levels of communityparticipation, etc.).

Multi-sectoral andIntegrated

The planning procedures aremulti-sectoral and involve varioussectors simultaneously (transport,agriculture, health, education,water etc.) and stimulate a moreintegrated rural development

❆

❆

❆

❆

IRAP Overview

34IRAP Guidelines

IRA

P Q

uest

ionn

aire

Mon

itor

ing

Acc

essi

bilit

y an

dEv

alua

tion

Proj

ect

Impl

emen

tati

on

Dat

a A

naly

sis

and

Situ

atio

n A

sses

smen

t

Iden

tifi

cati

on o

fPr

oble

ms

and

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

s

Proj

ect

Prep

arat

ion,

Neg

otia

tion

and

App

rova

l

Catc

hmen

t A

reas

Prio

rity

Map

ping

Acc

essi

bilit

y In

dica

tors

Acc

essi

bilit

y M

appi

ng

Acc

essi

bilit

y Pr

ofile

Infr

astr

uctu

re In

vent

ory

Proj

ect

Des

ign

Gui

delin

es

Dat

a Co

llect

ion

and

Com

pila

tion

➛

➛

➛

➛

➛

➛

➛

➛

➛

35

through the proper planning ofinfrastructure that cuts acrossdifferent sectors such as the ruralroads.

IRAP is integrated in that itconsiders all aspects of householdaccess needs (subsistence, socialand economic) and in that itconsiders different strategies forreducing the problem.Water supplies, irrigation, ruralroads and social infrastructure areusually planned in isolation fromeach other. This does not presentany problems in relation to majorinfrastructure programs. Turningto rural infrastructure this ap-proach is not appropriate. Itrequires a more integratedapproach since, especially at thelocal level, there is often a closeinterdependence among differenttypes of rural infrastructure.

Participation

IRAP enables local people tomore actively participate in theprocess of planning. It is impera-tive for sustainability of accessinterventions that attention isgiven to all stakeholders from theadministration at the district orprovincial level to the beneficia-ries in the communities. IRAPseeks to involve all stakeholdersin its process.

In addition it encourages toinvolve those who benefit in thedesign and implementation oflocal infrastructure. This oftenreduces the cost of interventionsthrough cash or in-kind contribu-tions from beneficiaries and,again, increases the impact

through increased sustainability.

Two Main Strategies

Improved transport is only one ofthe means by which access can beimproved. The alternative is toimprove the distribution offacilities and services whichreduces the demand for trans-port. IRAP has adopted a dualstrategy to address the problemof poor access. Either bringingpeople more easily to the servicesand destinations they need toreach (i.e. improving the mobilityof people) or bringing servicesand supplies closer to the people(i.e. reducing the need fortransport).

Simple and Inexpensive toUse

IRAP consists of planning proce-dures that are simple to use andthat are not expensive to applyand identifies interventions thatrespond to people’s needs. IRAPhowever is not a planning systemas such. It consists of a set ofplanning tools that needs to beintegrated into an existingplanning process. Existing plan-ning systems in use, no matterhow rudimentary they may be,are the most sustainable forms oflocal level planning: they arebeing used by the local planners.IRAP seeks to strengthen theexisting processes by introducingnew techniques and procedureswhich can be integrated toupgrade specific activities such asdata collection techniques,mapping procedures, techniquesfor priority setting etc..

❆

❆

❆

IRAP Overview

36IRAP Guidelines

IRAP is a set of local level plan-ning tools designed for use at theprovincial or district level.Resources at this level are ex-tremely limited and consequentlya planning technique to beintroduced should not makeintensive demand on the financialresources. It should be inexpen-sive in its use. Provincial anddistrict staff carry out IRAPactivities. The cost of carrying outthe planning exercise is thereforelimited to field allowances andtravel cost of counterparts andparticipants in training courses,the reproduction of instructionmaterials and various miscella-neous costs.

38IRAP Guidelines

39

4Preparatory Activities

The Necessary Groundwork

The Integrated Rural AccessibilityPlanning (IRAP) process has beendesigned for application at thelocal level. Amongst its principleusers will be the local plannersand local government technicalstaff. IRAP, as explained in thefollowing chapters, is basically aset of local level ruralinfrastructure planning tools foruse at the community level andlower levels of administration. Inthe process of applying it, capacityis built at local government levelto sustain the process. IRAP is anarea-based planning tool, whichassists local governments toidentify the “real” access needsof the local communities and todefine and prioritize“appropriate” interventions toimprove access. Interventions toeither improve rural mobility(roads, bridges, tracks etc.) or toimprove the distribution offacilities and services (watersupplies, schools, health centers,markets etc.). The whole processis participatory and involves thelocal communities and localgovernment officials representingthe different sectors.

Before introducing the process ina country it is essential to firstanalyze the existing political andadministrative context in whichthe tools will be applied and, ifnecessary, modify the process sothat it addresses the actualplanning needs of the country.This preliminary work shouldconsider the following:

❖ The policy basis❖ The main focus of application❖ The best institutional address❖ The sector coverage❖ The planning system in place

The Policy Basis

Before starting to initiate theplanning process one needs toidentify a policy basis for IRAP.This is likely to be adecentralization act, a ruralroad/transport/infrastructuresector policy or both.

A decentralization act usuallytransfers extensive responsibilityand authority to local governmentunits. These new responsibilitiesbring forth a need for stafftraining and appropriate tools and

Preparatory Activities

❆

❆

40IRAP Guidelines

processes to adequately equip thelocal governments in facing theirnew tasks. Amongst the tasks tobe decentralized is often theresponsibility for localgovernments to develop andmaintain rural infrastructure.IRAP’s procedures, training andtechnical assistance, with its on-site and hands-on approach tolocal level access (infrastructure)planning, will indeed provide thelocal planners with relevant skillsand encourage active involvementin rural infrastructuredevelopment through a capacitybuilding process. The IRAPapproach virtually contributes tothe decentralization process andprovides a set of tools for localgovernments to be moreresponsive with their enhancedpowers and responsibilities.

A rural road/transport/infrastruc-

ture sector policy generallyincludes a strategy for developingrural roads, rural transport orrural infrastructure. Thesepolicies frequently emphasize theplanned and sustainable develop-ment of rural infrastructure(roads or transport) and identifyfunding mechanisms, the institu-tional set-up, responsibilities andplanning, implementation andmaintenance procedures andtechniques. The policies oftenemphasize the need for a decen-tralized approach. The IRAPapproach is generally in accor-dance with such a sector policyand could be introduced in linewith the said policy.

The Main Focus ofApplication

IRAP is a participatory, bottom-up, plannings process for use at

Table 1 shows that the main level of application is at district or sub-district level. This is generally thenext level up from the village.

Country Main Level Structureof Application

Philippines Municipality National level, region, province, municipality andvillage. A municipality generally consists of 10-20villages.

Laos District National level, province, district and village. A districtgenerally consists of 25 to more than 100 villages.

Cambodia District National level, province, district, commune and village.A district consists of 10-20 communes while a communecomprises 8 to 10 villages on average.

India Gram Panchayat National level, state, district, block, Gram Panchayat(sub-district) and village. A Gram Panchayat consists of5 to 15 villages.

Nepal Village National level, district development committeeDevelopment (DDC), VDC and village. A VDC consists of 9 wardsCommittee (VDC) (villages).

Indonesia Kecamaten National level, province, kabupaten, kecamaten,desa and dusun (village). A kecamaten consists of 5 to15 desa.

Table 1: IRAP Applications in Selected Asian Countries

❆

41

the community or local govern-ment level. The information,proposed interventions andpriorities that result from itsapplication at the village levelwill be consolidated at a higherlevel to expedite a response.Before the IRAP process isinitiated in an area or country itis necessary to assess anddecide the most appropriatelevel for its application. Is thisthe sub-district (a number ofvillages), district (a number ofsub-district) or provincial level(a number of districts)? Theanswer to this question willdepend on a number of institu-tional and other factors such asthe level of decentralization andresponsibility, decision-makingauthority and capacity (humancapacity and equipment). Theprimary focus of applicationshould be the level of adminis-tration that will have the mainresponsibility for the overalldevelopment of rural transport,roads or infrastructure. Byfocussing at this level theapplication of the process willenhance the effectiveness of the

decision making process. In viewof different responsibilities atdifferent levels it might benecessary to focus the applicationat different levels of local govern-ment. This would also contributeto an improved vertical coordina-tion between local governmentunits.

The following table identifies themain focus of application in anumber of Asian countries whereIRAP is presently being introducedor being applied.

Table 1 shows that the main levelof application is at district or sub-district level. This is generally thenext level up from the village.

The Best InstitutionalAddress

There is a need for an institutionto coordinate and oversee theimplementation and developmentof IRAP activities in a country.This unit could also become thecentral point for informationkeeping and technical assistance.The best institutional address for

Table 2: Main Institution Responsible for Developing IRAP.

Country Institution

Philippines Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)Laos Local Road Division under Ministry of Communication, transport,

Post and Construction (MCTPC)Cambodia Ministry of Rural Development (MRD)India - Rajastan State Birla Institute for Science and Technology (Pilani)India – Orissa State OSVSWA (Local NGO)Nepal Department of Local Infrastructure Development and

Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR)Indonesia Gadja Mada University

❆


42IRAP Guidelines

Table 3: IRAP Coverage by Country

such a coordination unit is acentral ministry or department.Ideally, this is a ministry ordepartment that oversees thedecentralization process in acountry and is responsible formonitoring and building capacityat the local government level.Alternatively, it could also be aministry that has the responsibil-ity for rural development or ruralinfrastructure development. Fromits central location, the teamworking with the IRAP activitieswould guide local governmentsthrough the process producing thedifferent IRAP outputs and con-currently build capacity tomaintain the process.

Also, being multi-sectoral in itsapproach, IRAP requires a certainlevel of co-ordination across thedifferent sectors. This requiresthat the central unit is located in

a ministry that is able to accom-plish such coordination.

Initially, during the introductionand development of IRAP in acountry, this unit could be at-tached to a University or a non-government organization. It couldthen be transferred to a moreappropriate institutional addressonce the procedures are beingreplicated at a larger scale. Table2 shows the main institutionaladdress of IRAP activities indifferent countries.

The Sector Coverage

Experience has shown thatdifferent IRAP applications indifferent countries cover differentsectors. A review of differentapplications showed that theselection of sectors included indifferent country IRAP applica-

Philippines Laos Cambodia India Nepal Indonesia

water water water water water water

health health health health health health

education education education education education education

firewood

electricity electricity

markets markets markets markets

livelihood livelihood

roads roads roads roads roads roads

water

transport

transport

services

❆

43

tions was primarily determined bythe institutional address of theprogramme. The following tableillustrates the different sectorcoverage in 6 countries whereIRAP is being applied.

Ideally, the selection of sectors isbased on research that is focus-sing on the accessibility needs ofthe rural households. IRAP is aplanning tool aiming to improvethe access that rural people haveto basic, social and economicgoods, facilities and services. Ifthe objective is to improve ruralaccess then the planning processshould take into considerationthose sectors where access isproven or perceived to be prob-lematic.

A sector that is presently notincluded in any of the IRAPapplications is InformationTechnology. Access to rural

❆

telephones or e-mail/internetservices is becoming an increas-ingly important element in ruraldevelopment. Future IRAP appli-cations should take this intoconsideration.

The Existing PlanningSystem

Last but not least, before anyapplication in a country it isnecessary to study the existingplanning process and practicefirst. This is to determine theentry points for the IRAP applica-tion and to determine how andwhere IRAP could strengthen oraugment existing planning pro-cesses or practices. IRAP is a setof planning tools and not anentire planning process as such. Itshould support existing processesand procedures and avoid dupli-cating these and not develop anyparallel systems.


44IRAP Guidelines

45

5Objective

The IRAP process really startswith the preparation of the surveyinstrument necessary for -collect-ing the data required for accessplanning. Different kind ofplanning requires different kind ofinformation (data) and data foraccess planning is usually notreadily available.

The main aim of using IRAP as aplanning tool as described in apreceding chapter is to identifyaccessibility problems and priori-tize interventions that willimprove access in rural areas.This process is based on a geo-graphical approach and cutsacross sectors. Access is an issuethat often affects several sectorssimultaneously. The accessinterventions however typicallybelong to a specific sector, forexample a road, a footbridge, aschool or a health center, allaiming at improving accessibility.

Specific information is generallyrequired to identify the particularaccess needs, access constraintsand access priorities of ruralhouseholds. Not all of this infor-

The Collection of Data

In the Philippines, a 13- page villagequestionnaire is used to collect nation-wideinformation on village accessibility levels,access problems and access priorities for thefollowing sectors:1. water supply2. energy (fuelwood and electricity)3. education4. health5. livelihood sources6. agriculture and fisheries7. markets8. transport services and roads

mation is always readily avail-able. The planner therefore oftenneeds to collect additional datato complement data that isavailable. A variety of data isneeded to understand the accesscharacteristics of the communi-ties, analyze levels of access andcalculate access indicators, whichwill be used in the planning anddecision making process.

Accessibility planning isoften a newadditional planningactivity and theIRAP processsometimesgenerates datathat did not exist


❆

46IRAP Guidelines

before. This information oftencomplements existing data andprovides a more comprehensivepicture of the area.

IRAP is best being done at thelocal level. At the village level todetermine intra-village prioritiesand at the local government levelto determine inter-village andinter-sector priorities. Especiallyat the local government level,detailed comprehensive informa-tion about the area under itsjurisdiction is often lacking.Villages usually are better awareof their access needs, problemsand priorities.

Data collection exercises aresometimes poorly conceived. Therationale for data collection isoften not “what information dowe really need to take decisionsabout accessibility, and what data

do we need to collect for thispurpose?” (a reverse question) butmore often “we now have col-lected this particular data andhow are we going to use this datafor planning purposes?”. Obvi-ously, the first procedure is thebetter one.

The remaining of this chapterdescribes IRAP as it is applied atthe local government level. IRAPdata however is collected at thevillage level. We need to knowwhere the people live, what theydo and what problems theyexperience with regard toaccessibility. Usually, two kindsof data need to be collected forIRAP planning purposes: primarydata and secondary data. Primarydata are those collected firsthand, by an enumerator, in thecommunity. Secondary data, onthe other hand, refers toavailable processed and semi-processed data already collectedand compiled for a variety ofother purposes.

Using secondary data is usuallyless costly and requires less timeto collect. It can usually becompiled in government officeswithout the expense of fieldvisits. However, this is also be oneof its main weaknesses since itisolates the planning team fromcontact with the villagers.

First decide on theindicators that you aregoing to use then decidewhat data you need tocollect

First collect data and thendecide how to use it

47

Primary data is first-hand dataand needs to be collected straightfrom village representativesusually in the village.Governments consist of,sometimes highlycompartmentalized, technical lineministries each in charge of theirown planning process and datacollection. Technical lineministries often have only part ofthe data necessary for IRAP. It isonly at the local level that data isoften collected and stored on amulti-sectoral basis. The mostuseful data for IRAP purposes isoften collected by localgovernment agencies and kept ina disaggregated form. The officialStatistics Center of theGovernment often lacks data in adisaggregated format. Experiencehowever has shown that mostdata necessary for rural accessplanning needs to be collectedfirst-hand in the villages.

Preparatory Works

Identifying data needsIRAP uses a variety of data which

basically comprise the followingfour broad categories:

❖ data on basic villagecharacteristics

❖ data on economic activities❖ data on access/transport

characteristics❖ village perceived problems and

priorities

Primary and secondary dataBefore collecting data theplanning team needs to make anassessment what data is available(secondary data) and what dataneeds to be collected in thevillage (primary data). Thefollowing sources of secondarydata are common in mostcountries:

❖ Census information (populationcensus, agricultural census,social census);

❖ Sectoral data from technicalline ministries;

❖ Statistical yearbooks;

Secondary data has to be fairlyrecent, comprehensive andreliable in order to be used. Theplanning team should thereforeassess the quality of differentdata sets. This can be done byevaluating the date, method andlevel of data collection, the

training for enumerators, datamanagement systems and fieldverification. If the quality of thedata is not reliable then the

The recommended procedure fordata collection is as follows:

1. Determine what data you need tocarry out the IRAP planning process;

2. Assess the scope and accuracy ofexisting secondary data;

3. Determine how to collect the“missing” primary data;

4. Develop the survey instrument;5. Train enumerators and supervisors;6. Visit the government agencies to

collect secondary data;7. Visit the villages to collect

primary data

❆


48IRAP Guidelines

validity of the planning resultswill be doubtful as well.

Once the planning team hasdecided what data is readilyavailable as secondary data andwhat data needs to be collectedfirst-hand in the village, the teamcan start developing a surveyinstrument. The planning teamhowever should see to it thatprimary data collection isminimized since this is expensive,time consuming and often notsustainable.

Developing the surveyinstrument to collect thesecondary dataThere are three main tools tocollect existing secondary infor-mation:

! A district questionnaire

The district questionnaire is usedto collect data in Governmentoffices at the sub-provincial level(district, sub-district or munici-pality). The questionnaire is oftendivided into different technicalsectors to be able to collectdifferent data from differenttechnical line ministries.

! An infrastructure (roadinventory) form

The infrastructure (road) inven-tory form is used to collect dataon infrastructure assets and/orroad network characteristics.

! A service-based informationform

This form is used to collect

available information directlyfrom a service center such as aschool, health post or market.

Developing the surveyinstrument to collect theprimary dataFor IRAP purposes, we have seenthat almost always at least someprimary data collection is neces-sary. It is important that the IRAPteam assesses the most effectivemeans of obtaining this requiredinformation. It is required todevelop a survey instrument tocollect this data. The surveyinstrument can consist of thefollowing tools:

! A household questionnaire

Household surveys are timeconsuming and difficult to imple-ment. It is therefore recom-mended to minimize the use ofhousehold surveys. Most datarequired can be collected throughkey informant interviews at thevillage level.

! A village questionnaire

This questionnaire should be usedto collect data at the village levelin a village meeting. Thequestions should relate to:

• general village characteristics• livelihood activities,

agriculture and marketing• existing transport system

(village access infrastructure,roads, transport vehicles)

• location, availability andquality of services (water,health and education)

49

• travel times, frequencies, costsand modes

• perceived problems andpriorities

There are basically two methodsto collect the data. Either teamsof enumerators visit the villagesto talk to people and collect thedata or village representativesare called to a district/municipaloffice to provide the necessaryinformation. The selection of thebest option will depend on theexpected quality of the data, the

collection costand the timenecessary. The

IRAP plannershould at allcosts try tominimize datacollection costsand avoid

duplication of data collection.

The village level data consists oftwo types: data on facts and dataon perceived problems andpriorities. The last mentioneddata is highly subjective and maychange over time, differ perperson and could be biased tosatisfy certain individuals (includ-

ing the interviewer) and not reallyreflect the problems/priorities inthe area.

Preparation for the villagesurveyBefore starting the data collec-tion it is necessary to have a listof all villages in the area to becovered, village codes and basemaps showing the location of thevillages. If maps are not readilyavailable it is recommended thatthe planning team somehowproduce these maps manually.

The villages should be grouped inclusters of nearby settlements.The planning team needs to take adecision on how many enumera-tors are needed to survey allvillages/clusters. Teams ofenumerators should then beassigned to different clusters ofvillages to start the process ofdata collection. The organizationof the survey, assignment ofenumerators and identification ofsupervisors should start before thetraining on data collection starts.

Selection of enumerators andsupervisorsEnumerators are people going out


50IRAP Guidelines

to the villages to collect data andshould preferably be recruitedfrom the areas to be surveyed, asfamiliarity with the place and thevillages is an added advantage.Enumerators should preferablyalso be selected from a group ofpeople that have past surveyexperience and work for a localgovernment agency. The planningteam also needs to identify agroup of supervisors to assist theenumerators and to monitor theimplementation of the survey.

Securing a budgetData collection involves costs andit is necessary to prepare a budgetbefore the work starts. Experiencehas shown that data collectionwould cost somewhere between$30 and $75 per village dependingon the size of the survey.

Training

People who will go out to collectthe primary data will have to betrained and instructed properly.Instructions as to the conduct ofthe village level interview shouldpreferably be given in a classroomtype of training. This training,which needs to be attended by allenumerators and supervisors,should provide the neededunderstanding of the intent of thequestions on the data forms andhow these will be filled out.Enumerators need to have athorough understanding of thequestionnaire to be able tocomplete the village question-naire during the interview.

Enumerators may need trainingin: # data collection techniques # community participation # planning the survey in their

allocated villages

Supervisors may need training andassistance in:# organizing the survey# supervising the survey# assisting the enumerators

during or in between theinterviews

# controlling the questionnairesand checking the data entrees

A standard training course existsand sets of training modules andmaterials have been prepared forthis course. This training course isusually referred to as the “T-1Training on Data Collection”. Thecourse is organized for enumera-tors and supervisors who will beresponsible for primary datacollection. Participants in thiscourse familiarize themselveswith the concepts underlying theIRAP process, the survey instru-ment and the skills necessary tocollect the data needed. Partici-pants review the village question-

❆

T-1 Training on Data Collection

51

naire and go out and do a fieldtest. The results of the field testare then discussed in plenary atthe end of the course. The entirecourse should take not more than2 to 3 days.

Immediately after the trainingsupervisors and enumerators needto jointly work out a timeschedule for the entire surveyincluding a detailed itinerary tovisit the villages.

Implementation

The entire data collectionexercise in an area should nottake more than a couple of weeks(maximum is 4 weeks). It is alsoimportant that the data collectionstarts immediately after thetraining. Supervisors could, ifdeemed necessary, accompanyenumerators during their first fewvillage interviews.

Secondary data collectionSecondary data is usuallycollected from existing databanks, socio-economic profiles,reports and other writtenmaterials. The informationneeded usually needs to becollected from differentgovernment agencies. Secondarydata forms include the districtlevel questionnaire, infrastructureinventory form and service centerform.

Primary data collectionThe village level survey will beconducted in all villages of aselected administrative area 14 .To the extent possible, villagesshould be informed about the

forthcoming data collectionexercise in order to be able toorganize themselves.

As discussed above, village leveldata can be collected in twodifferent ways. Enumerators visitevery village and consult villageofficials and other keyinformants or alter-natively villageofficials and otherkey informants arecalled to a district/municipal govern-ment office to beinterviewed. Obviouslythe first procedure is thepreferable technique since itbrings the enumerator in directcontact with the village.

Enumerators collect data atvillage level in a meeting withvillage key informants. Keyinformants should include peopleknowledgeable about the villagesuch as:

❖ village leaders❖ village elders❖ teachers❖ nurses❖ women representatives❖ farmers representatives❖ youth

Enumerators will fill in thequestionnaire during theinterview. It is recommended tokeep the group of key informantsrather small (5-7 persons).

14 A sub-district, district, municipality or province.

❆


52IRAP Guidelines

Quality controlIt is important to emphasize theneed to obtain good quality data.The data will be used as a basisfor planning, and the planningmay be less effective if the datais inaccurate. Wrong data canresult in less than optimaldecisions. Good quality data isdefined as being accurate andrecent

PaymentUpon satisfactory completion ofthe survey the enumerators andsupervisors will have to be

reimbursed for their expenditureswhich includes travel and fieldallowances. Sometimes it isnecessary to pay part in advanceto ensure that enumerators haveavailable cash prior to thefieldwork.

Compilation of survey formsA final step in the data collectionprocess is the compilation of thesurvey forms. The supervisorsneed to collect all primary andsecondary data forms and deliverthese to the planning team afterverification.

54IRAP Guidelines

55

6Computerization of Data

Objective

The IRAP exercise will makeavailable, often for the first time,a comprehensive set of data,which provides information onaccess in all villages in a certaingeographical area.

The “raw” village data needs tobe processed so that it becomesinformative and usable. Dataneeds to be compiled and com-puterized into tables presentingthe data for the different villages.These tables can then be workedinto village accessibility indica-tors. This would allow the analysisto identify access problems andpriorities at village level.

The IRAP data can also beaggregated in district, provincial,regional or national data banks.The information contained inthese data banks, referred to asthe Accessibility Data Base (ADB),needs to be made available tolocal government planners andother interested parties. IRAPdata can be used for a varietyof information and planningpurposes.

Preparatory Works

The computerization of datarequires data encodersand computers. One ofthe first tasks is toidentify the level atwhich the data will becomputerized. This ispreferable thelowest level ofadministrationwhere computersare available. In mostcountries where IRAP hasrecently been applied this is doneat district level.

After the data has been collectedby the interviewers, and reviewedby the supervisors to see if thequality is good enough, it needsto be brought to the data process-ing unit. It is important that thedata forms are complete, read-able and the data is of goodquality. If the data indeed meetsthese minimal standards it isready for computerization. Thisimplies that the data needs to becompiled into different tablespresenting the data by sector andgeographical area.

❆❆

Computerization of Data

56IRAP Guidelines

It is necessary to develop a datastorage and retrieval system forthis purpose. Standard files needto be prepared preferably usingcomputer software such asMicrosoft Access or Excel tofacilitate data encoding, process-ing and analysis.

Special data entry forms shouldbe designed to speed up dataencoding and minimize mistakes.

Before starting the processing ofdata it is recommended to firstcode the questionnaires based onpre-assigned village codes (usually

following a census-coding list).

The answers to thequestions containedin the questionnaire are eithernumerical or non-numerical.Answers need to be coded if non-numerical. Special lists for codesfor non-numerical responses needto be developed to facilitate non-numerical data entry. This shouldbe done before the data encodingstarts and needs to be updatedregularly if new answers areadded to the list. Standard lists ofnon-numerical responses couldalso be included as check-boxes inthe database. Such lists howeverwould need to be occasionallyupdated as well.

If the data storage and retrievalsystem has internet capability thiswould increase the sharing andtransferring of accessibility data.A good example is the Philippinedatabase (www.irap-phil.net).

Training

The data encoding requires dataencoders and supervisors. Often itwill be required to instruct localstaff on the basics of the softwareused to design the ADB to be ableto adequately and effectivelyenter the raw data into thedatabase. Different software isused in different countries.Experience has shown thatMicrosoft Access and MicrosoftExcel are amongst the mostappropriate software for settingup the database. An advantage ofthese programmes is that they arereadily available and people oftenknow how to use them.

Data encoders should have thenecessary computer skills and besufficiently familiar with thesoftware used before beingassigned to the job.

During the data entry training,data encoders need to receivebasic instructions and should beintroduced to the rules of dataencoding. This training is bestdone on-the-job.

People, for example, shouldreceive instructions not to sitbehind their computers for toolong a period of time. Dataencoding is a tedious affair and islikely to become boring after awhile. It is strenuous on the eyes

❆

57

and requires concentration. Thelikelihood of data entry errors, forexample, increases if regularbreaks are not taken.

Somebody more experiencedshould supervise the work andcheck on data entrees and workschedules and outputs.

Implementation

The computerization of data isusually done at a local govern-ment office. The standard dataentry and retrieval forms shouldhave been loaded on to a harddisk of the computer assigned andencoders should have beeninstructed on how to load thedata before the work can start.

The computerization of the datacan start as soon as the datacollection exercise for a districthas been completed. Data encod-ers will enter the information intothe database and the final outputof the data entry exercise is acomputerized database (Accessi-bility Data Base) presenting databy village, district or sector. It isimportant that data entrees arechecked regularly.

Once all the information hasindeed been computerized and

the Accessibility Data Base(ADB) is finalized, copiesof the computerprintouts of theconsolidated datashould be sent tothe relevantinstitutions forvalidation.

It is important that differentdistricts or provinces use similarfiles for afterward consistency. Itis also important to regularlyback-up the database files.

The database will be subjected toperiodic revisions. Such revisionsshould be furnished to the respon-sible repository of accessibilityinformation in the country. It isrecommended that the databasesbe updated every 3 years.

The document that contains allthe village level data is generallyreferred to as “the ADB Book”.The computerized data, inspecially designed data forms,will be printed out and draw upthis ADB Book. The ADB Bookhowever is a mere compilation ofraw village data and are preparedat district or municipal level.

The layout of the ADB Book shouldbe as attractive as possible andthe user should be able tounderstand its contents andquickly find the data he needs.The ADB book should be organizedby sector presenting the villagedata and the data should beexpressed as numerical values ortext. The use of codes should belimited to avoid complicationsonce using the book.

Computerization of Data

❆

58IRAP Guidelines

1. Cover page with map of district

2. Summary of consolidated data

3. General characteristics

4. Transport characteristics

5. Water supply characteristics

6. Education characteristics

7. Health care characteristics

8. Income generating activities

characteristics

9. Market access

10. Village problems

11. Village priorities

The ADB Book includes the “rawdata” by village and a summary ofthe consolidated data of allvillages in the district. A proposedoutline of the ADB Book could bethe following:

Upon completion the ADB Bookshould be presented at districtlevel to explain its contents todistrict officials and to validate,correct and/or update the ADBBook.

After corrections have been madethe final version of the ADB bookshould be printed in the locallanguage or in English.

59Computerization of Data

60IRAP Guidelines

61

7The Accessibility Profile

Objective

Both, institutions and individualsare likely to express keen interestin the Accessibility Data Base(ADB), which contains all theinformation collected. ADBs bythemselves however are not veryinformative and only presentdifferent “raw” data sets. Thereis no real analysis done yet exceptfor the calculation of somedistrict/municipal totals andaverages. Also, the reproductionof ADBs is rather costly (they areusually thick!) and they shouldonly be given to people who canreally make use of them.

A separate document, the Accessi-bility Profile, has to be preparedwhich will briefly describe adistrict/municipality and summa-rizes access conditions. Thisdocument should be more of adescriptive character,more reader-friendly and couldbe disseminatedon a larger scale.

This Accessibility Profileshould provide a writtensummary and a numeri-cal assessment ofaccess conditions inan area. It shouldaggregate andaverage villageconditions. The Accessi-bility Profile, together with theindicators, will reflect levels ofaccess in the individual sub-districts and/or the district orprovince as a whole. The Accessi-bility Profile is therefore a stand-alone summary document, whichprovides the reader a quickoverview of the access situationin a particular area. The Accessi-bility Profile is widely dissemi-nated. An example of the trans-port chapter of the AccessibilityProfile for Nonghet District inXiengkhouang Province in Laos isgiven below:

The Accessibilities Profile

❆

62IRAP Guidelines

ACCESS TO THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM 15

One of the principal factors affecting the daily lives of the rural population inthe Lao P.D.R. is their isolation and the limited access they have to basic, socialand economic goods and services. As a result of the often mountainous terrain,the low population density and large distances between the villages, access isoften poor.

Improving access is a major determinant for sustainable human and economicdevelopment in the province and roads are, correctly, seen as a means tofacilitate rural development; new roads will improve transport; improvedtransport will solve access problems.

The improvement of the rural road network however does not, of itself,improve access. Improved access is dependent on the extent to which ruralroad improvements result in transport services becoming cheaper, faster, morefrequent, more reliable and safer; the use of the improved network by morevehicles and traders and government extension workers coming to the villages.

Nonghet District’s road network is limited. Only 23% of the villages have allyear round road access. The majority of the villages (64%) have no road accessat all. 13% of the villages have road access during the dry season only.

River transport is not an important alternative means of transport in NonghetDistrict: Only 1 village is accessible by river throughout the year and 1 villageduring the rainy season only. Most villages (98%) have no river access howeverand fully depend on the road network.

Table 18 shows different characteristics for different zones.

The total length of the road network in Nonghet District is 147 kilometers.

15 “District Accessibility Profile _ Nonghet District, Xiengkhouang Province – IRAP Xiengkhouang”

62IRAP Guidelines

Table 18: Transport Characteristics by ZoneSub- Number Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

district of of Villages of Villages of Villages of Villages of Villages(zone) Villages With All Year with Dry All Year with Wet Without

Road Access Season Only River Season Any Road Road Access Access River Access or river

(including (including Accessvillages with villages with

all year all yearaccess) access)

Prefecture 10 90% 90% 0% 0% 10%Sandone 10 50% 60% 0% 0% 40%Phavaen 18 22% 27% 0% 0% 72%Thamtao 14 0% 29% 0% 0% 71%Phakboune 15 33% 47% 0% 0% 53%Phabong 15 20% 67% 0% 0% 33%Keohone 5 0% 0% 0% 20% 80%Chang 5 0% 0% 20% 20% 80%Borkor 23 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

District 115 23% 36% 1% 2% 63%

63

The road/population density is 0.0042 (4.2 meters of road per person).

The road/land area density is 0.065 (65 meters of road per square kilometer ofland).

At the end of the village interview key informants were asked to assess accessproblems by sector and identify priority sectors for projects. Tables 20 and 21present the results for Nonghet district.

Table 20: Village Access Problems as Perceived by the Key Informants

Percentage of Villages Having Identified Access to the Road Network as:A Very Big Problem A Minor Problem No Problem

63% 9% 29%

Table 21: Village Access Priorities as Perceived by the Key Informants

Percentage of Villages Having Identified Access to the Road Network as:A First Priority A Second Priority A Third Priority No Priority

for Improvement for Improvement for Improvement for Improvement

34% 15% 12% 39%

The main problems identified were no roads (90% of all villages identifyingaccess as a very big problem).

All year round transport services are available in 24% of all villages. The mainmeans of public transport are modified passenger pick-ups and trucks.

Table 22: Village Access Problems as Perceived by the Key Informants

Percentage of Villages Having Identified Access to Transport Services as:A Very Big Problem A Minor Problem No Problem

50% 22% 28%

The main problems identified were no vehicles (74% of all villages identifyingaccess as a very big problem.

The most important private means of transport are bicycles (1 for every 2.6households), motorcycles (1 for every 22 households), non-motorized boats (1 forevery 65 households) and trucks (1 for every 236 households).

63The Accessibilities Profile

Table 19: Road Network Characteristics

Classification Total Length All year Round Dry season Only

km % km % km %

National Road 69 47% 69 100% 0 0%Provincial Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%Rural Road 78 53% 18 23% 60 77%

Total 147 100% 87 59% 60 41%

64IRAP Guidelines

Complementary to the Accessibil-ity Profile is the IRAP road inven-tory. The aim of the road inven-tory is to make an overall assess-ment of the condition and geo-graphic distribution of the roadnetwork in a municipality ordistrict. The IRAP road inventorydoes not provide any technicalinformation on the specificcondition of each road link orprovide data on the cost of

maintaining or improving existinglinks. It is a first inventory togenerate a rather general pictureon the overall status of the (rural)road network. The road inventorytogether with the village data canbe used to prioritize individualroad links for maintenance orrehabilitation/constructionpurposes (see chapter 15).

Preparatory Works

The preparation of the Accessibil-ity Profile requires processeddata, a standard format andpeople capable of analyzing theraw data and transferring datainto meaningful statistics. TheAccessibility Profile can be a one-page document summarizing somekey statistics by sector or, alter-natively, a short report describingthe district/municipality com-plete with a map and a shortanalysis by sector.

For reasons of comparison it isrecommended that differentdistricts/provinces use a standardformat. This format needs to beprepared by the IRAP planningteam. Local planners need to beinstructed on how to take the rawdata from the ADB and translatethis into meaningful statistics.This process can either be donemanually or with the assistance ofdifferent computer software.

The IRAP road inventory is basedon one form to record data forthe individual road links. Provin-cial staff is trained on-the-job tofill out the forms. The data couldbe computerized using softwaresuch as Autocad and MicrosoftAccess. In addition local/ provin-cial teams could produce road keymaps displaying the road networkin a district, the quality of theroads and the villages with orwithout road and/or river access.

Training

Localtechniciansand plannersare often notused to orencouraged toanalyze data forpresentation or planning. Localpeople often collect data andsend it to higher authorities whowill do the job for them.Decentralization efforts however

❆

❆

65

aim to strengthen the localcapacity to interpret and use datafor planning purposes.

Local staff needs to be trained inpreparing the Accessibility Profilesand Road Inventories. This couldbe done in a more formalclassroom type of training or on-the-job under guidance ofexperienced IRAP planners.

Implementation

Accessibility Profiles should beprepared for all districts/prov-inces for which the data collec-tion exercise has been completed.The standard format developed bythe IRAP planning team should beapplied. The document willsummarize the accessibilitysituation in the area and shouldpresent the information in anattractive format.

A more comprehensiveAccessibility Profileshould have thefollowing sections:

❖ Overview❖ General charac-

teristics and maps❖ Accessibility situation

per sector❖ Description access problems

and priorities as perceived bythe communities

❖ Conclusions

After completion, the IRAPplanning team needs to carefullyreview the document and, ifnecessary, correct errors before itis being distributed to a largeraudience.

The Accessibilities Profile

❆

66IRAP Guidelines

67

8The Preparation andUse of Maps

Objective

Accessibility mapping is anintegral part of the IRAP proce-dure. It allows the planner tovisualize the location of villagesand infrastructure within a givenarea and can help in the identifi-cation and prioritization of accessproblems. It also facilitates theformulation of interventions andguides in the selection of the bestdevelopment alternatives. Themain purpose of accessibilitymapping is:

❖ to provide a picture of accessconditions in a given area,

❖ to facilitate the identificationof access problems,

❖ to formulate interventions,❖ to enhance the communication

of information and recommen-dations to an audience and

❖ to evaluate the impact ofaccess improvement projects.

Maps are often used in presenta-tions to communicate with anaudience as maps are a veryeffective tool in sending a mes-sage. Colorful, large size maps,immediately attract the attentionof the audience while visualizing

access conditions and accesspriorities in a given area. Mapsalso facilitate discussions andreactions from the audience sinceit allows reviewing issues oncommon grounds. This has provento be effective during for exampleresource mobilization meetingswith line ministries and donororganizations.

Maps enable integration ofdifferent sectoral analyses andprovide a technical tool todemonstrate how interventions(projects) can be used to solveaccess problems. Equally, map-ping provides a monitoringmechanism for the levels ofaccess in particular areas.

The Preparation and Use of Maps

❆

68IRAP Guidelines

Preparatory Works

The IRAP maps need to be basedon existing topographic or otherofficial base maps. These basemaps will have to be updated andmodified to reflect features suchas:

• boundaries• population centers• infrastructure• service centers• water bodies

A team needs to be appointed toprepare the maps. It is necessaryfor the mapping team to visit theareas where the maps are pre-pared for to collect additionalinformation and to verify basemaps with local planning staff andauthorities.

Maps are eitherhandmade orcomputerized.Handmade mapsare usually pro-duced at the locallevel following

standard IRAPmapping guidelines.

Computerized maps are preparedat a higher level using moresophisticated computer softwaresuch as Mapinfo or ArcView.

Training

Handmade accessibility mappinghas been developed as a “user-friendly” process that can beeasily understood by peoplewithout much technical training.Local planning staff is usuallycapable of preparing good quality

maps after a short demonstrationand explanation.

An important part in the develop-ment of computerized mapping isthe training of planning staff. Thebasics principles and possibilitiesof mapping software need to beexplained and counterparts needto be instructed on how to usethe software introduced. Thisrequires the IRAP team to have atleast one computer – GIS - experton board who can develop thetraining curricula, conduct thetraining and provide supervisionafterwards.

Implementation

As discussed above, maps can beprepared both manually and withthe help of computer softwareusually for use at the sub-districtand district level. Manual mapscan be produced locally usinginexpensive materials that arelocally available. Computerizedmaps require computer softwareand hardware, which are notalways available at the locallevel.

If the maps are produced manu-ally it is difficult to make

❆

❆

❆

69

changes. Also, making copies islaborious since it requires some-body to do the job all over again.It is recommended that after thenecessary capacity has beenestablished in the provinces toproduce, read and use manuallyproduced access maps the plan-ning team moves to the next levelwhere the mapping process willbe computerized. A simple GISsoftware package, Mapinfo or ArcView, can then be introduced atprovincial level to producedigitized maps showing bound-

The Preparation and Use of Maps

aries, villages and infrastructureand thematic maps showingdifferent levels of access.

Manual maps are usually comple-mented by set of plastic overlays.These overlays need to be preparedseparately showing the presentconditions in an area such as theexisting road network, healthcenter coverage, village distribu-tions etc. In addition, maps canbe used to visualize the indicatorsdescribed in the next chapter bycreating thematic maps.

70IRAP Guidelines

71

9The AccessibilityIndicators

Objective

A distinct characteristic of theIRAP process is the prioritizationof geographical areas whereaccess needs to be improved.Applying the IRAP process willresult first in the identification ofgeographical priorities – villagesor clusters of villages - for im-proving access related to differ-ent sectors (water, health,education, markets, transportsystem, energy). Follow-upactivities include the identifica-tion and appraisal of interven-tions to effectively improveaccess. This chapter concentratesprimarily on the identification ofpriority areas for access improve-ments and will not go into projectidentification, appraisal or

prioritization. Themain tool in IRAP

for identifyingpriorities forimprovingaccessibilityare theAccessibility

Indicators (A.I.).

The use of indicators is a commonpractice in planning. Accessibility

Indicators show the difficulty orease with which households haveaccess to goods and services. Asan aid to the decision makingprocess, the indicators areobjective measurements of thedifferent levels of accessibility fordifferent trip purposes in a villageor within a larger geographicalarea such as a district or munici-pality. The data collected underthe IRAP exercise is refined into aset of Accessibility Indicatorswhich relate to the specific sectorunder consideration.

Accessibility Indicators arederived at different levels:village, sub-district, district orprovince. At village level they canbe used to identify village inter-ventions. At the sub-district ordistrict level, indicators are oftenuse to identify villages that aremost disaffected in relation tobasic needs and social and eco-nomic services. At district level,indicators are being used toidentify priority sub-districts. Atprovincial level they could beused to compare districts witheach other and set sectoral andgeographical priorities for publicinvestments.

The Accessibility Indicators

❆

72IRAP Guidelines

Accessibility Indicators generallyrelate to the number of house-holds affected and levels ofaccessibility expressed in traveldistances and travel times.

A first step in the process ofdeveloping indicators is to decideon the variables to be used. It isrecommended to keep the indica-tors as simple as possible. Morecomplicated indicators are notnecessarily more accurate in

identifying priorityareas but risk tounnecessarily compli-cate the process. TheIRAP application hasstarted with collectingdata on accessibility.This data, after being

computerized, will be used tocalculate the indicators.

Accessibility indicators are usuallydefined for the following accessneeds: water, energy includingfirewood, land for cropproduction, education, health,

the transportsystem andagriculturalinputs andoutputsincludingmarkets.Indicators are

calculated fordifferent levels. Whilst

based on the same data,indicators become moregeneralized once calculated forthe next level up. At village levelthe indicators tells us somethingabout the level of accessibilityonce compared with nationalstandards, averages or norms. At

sub-district or district level theyshow for different sectors whichvillages should be assisted toimprove accessibility. If theprocess is repeated at provinciallevel then the indicators, at thislevel, could allow planners toselect geographical or sectorpriorities. The following figureshows an example of indicators atsub-district level. The darkershaded areas have higherindicators, which implies pooreraccess.

Table 1: Accessibility Indicators – Accessto the Transport System at Sub-districtLevel

Oudomxai – Lao P.D.R.16

16 This indicator reflects the average walking time tothe all year round road network.

The available information in thedata base should enable a plannerto make an initial assessment ofthe total time, cost and effortrequirements for a community inobtaining access to a certaingood, service or facility. Theindicators translate the actuallevel of access into numericalvalues. The indicators define howdifficult it is for a community as awhole to have access. Indicatorscould then be used to rankvillages on an ordinal scale.

73

Table 1 provides anexample of villageindicators.

It is important toemphasize thatindicators aredeveloped to guidepeople in makingdecisions. The use ofindicators should notbecome an automa-tism. They shouldnot replace aparticipatoryplanning and decision-makingprocess but merely guide thepeople involved in deciding oninvestment priorities.

Preparatory Works

Indicators used in accessibilityplanning generally relate to thenumber of households affectedand level of accessibility ex-pressed in travel distances andtravel times. In certain IRAPapplications, the indicators havebecome more complicated inthat they include quality ele-ments and perceived values. Afirst step in the process ofdeveloping indicators is to decideon the variables to be used. It isrecommended to keep theindicators as simple as possible.Different IRAP applications haveshown that complicated indica-tors are less likely to be used andupdated after the initial IRAPapplication. Also, more compli-cated indicators require morecapacity at the local level.

To calculate the indicators oneneeds the computerized raw

database (ADB), the formulasmaking up the indicator and staffinstructed to calculate andprocess the indicators. Thisprocess needs to be supervisedand checked in order to ensurethat small errors in formulas ordata entrees will not affect thevalue of indicators. This is likelyto happen if the entire processbecomes too mechanical.

Training

Calculating the indicators in itselfis a simple procedure that basi-cally relates the number ofhouseholds who need access toservices, goods and facilities tothe time it presently takes to getto them. The basic formulation ofthe indicators involves simplemultiplication. It remains neces-sary however that people calcu-lating and using the indicators areinstructed how to calculate themand how to use them, eventhough the process of calculatingthe indicators is likely to becomputerized.

Table 1: Village Accessibility Indicators – Santa Fe,Nueva Viscaya, Philippines

Accessibility Indicators

Village Water Fuelwood Health Education Markets

Atbu 96 112 294 146 294Bacneng 120 60 400 114 400Barabac 90 134 290 102 34Unib 80 72 172 160 68Villaflores 78 38 56 98 56Baliling 40 26 48 84 12Buyasyas 53 88 346 76 346Canabuan 36 49 88 102 128Imugan 48 36 66 117 235

❆

❆


74IRAP Guidelines

It is necessary to properly instructcounterpart staff responsible forthe development and calculationsof indicators. People shouldunderstand the role of the indica-tors in the planning process andneed to be able to “construct”the indicators. It is important todifferentiate between two groupsof people: people who are respon-sible for calculating the indicatorsand people who will use theindicators as a planning tool.

These two differentgroups of people are not

necessarily the same. The firstgroup usually consist of regularplanning staff responsible for database management functionswhilst the second group includesthe planners and decision-makers.The training of this latter groupwill take place during the so-called T2-Training on data analy-sis and prioritization.

Implementation

It is important to develop theindicators in a participatory way.Indicators can be calculated fordifferent levels. Whilst based onthe same data, indicators becomemore generalized once calculatedfor the next level up.

Once it has been decided whichvariables make up the indicatorsand the relative importance ofthe different variables has beendetermined (see below), theprocess of calculating indicatorscan start. From the existingAccessibility Data Base (ADB), theaccessibility indicators will becalculated to provide a simpleassessment of access conditions ina certain area and help topinpoint access problems andaccess needs. Ideally, this processis computerized in order to savetime. A simple function coulddirectly use the data from theAccessibility Data Base tocalculate the value of theaccessibility indicators.

Sometimes it is necessary toinclude weighting factors if notall variables are consideredequally important or if theplanner wants to involve peopleto assess the relative importanceof different variables. In doingthis, the entire process ofcalculating indicators becomesmore participatory butunfortunately also morecomplicated.

Once calculated, the indicatorsneed to be incorporated inaccessibility profiles, summariesor reports and can be used to:

! Categorize or rank villages orgroups of villages according totheir level of access;

! Compare the level of accessto a good or to a servicebetween sub-districts,districts and provinces;

❆

T-2 Training on Calculation ofIndicators and Priority Setting

75

! Assess the relativesignificance of access to eachfacility;

! Relate the levels of access todefined national, regional orprovincial standards;

! Monitor the developmentwithin or betweengeographical areas andsectors;

! Evaluate the impact of accessimprovement projects andinterventions.

It appears that the Philippines is using the simplest indicators, which are just afunction of two variables: people and travel times. For example, if a village has350 households and it takes, on average, 30 minutes to travel to the nearestmarket used by the village population the Accessibility Indicator is calculated as350 * 50 = 17,500.

The process in Laos is more complicated as the following box shows:

Calculation of Indicators

The primary village data is translated into a set of indicators which relate to thespecific sector under consideration. The following 7 indicators, for example, aredetermined for the water sector:

Number of people in the villageType of drinking water system in the villageAverage water collection timeType of traditional sourcePerceived water qualityVillager’s perceived problemsVillager’s perceived priorities

These indicators are qualitative or quantitative assessments of different circum-stances. The indicators used by IRAP Laos are rated from “0” to “4”. “0” meansrelatively good circumstances and “4” means relatively bad circumstances. A com-plete set of indicators and their ratings for the water sector could be presented asfollows:

75The Accessibility Indicators

The following example shows thecalculation of AccessibilityIndicators in 3 different countries(Philippines, Laos and Cambodia):

76IRAP Guidelines

The following table identifies the different classifications and ratings used inthe calculation of the indicators used in the example presented above.

Not all indicators are equally important. Some indicators may be more important thanothers. Different indicators should therefore have different weights. In Laos, localGovernment officials, as a group, therefore decide on the different weights of theindicators. Individual participants first assign different weights to the different indicatorsbased on their own preferences and perceived importance and afterwards a groupaverage is calculated. Once the indicators and their weights are known participantscalculate the score for each village. The following formula is used hereby:

7 Σ Indicator Weight * Indicator Rating = Village Score I = 1

A higher village score indicates a higher priority to do something; in this case to identify anintervention to improve access to drinking water.

Access to primary health care, primary schools, markets and roads are assessed by a similarprocedure. For income generating facilities the situation is more complex

The process used for calculating indicators in Cambodia is somewhat similar to the processin Laos. In Cambodia however planners attached greater value to the perceived problemsand priorities of the communities and calculate an overall village Accessibility Index, whichis a composite indicator of 4 sector indicators.

It seems that after comparing the different procedures, the Philippines process is theleast complicated one. The Philippine procedure basically relates the number ofhouseholds who need access to services, goods and facilities to the time it presentlytakes to get to them. The basic formulation of the indicators involves simplemultiplication.

An Example of Water Indicators

Village Indicator Indicator Indicator Indicator Indicator Indicator Indicator1 2 3 4 5 6 7

01 3 2 1 2 3 2 002 2 2 2 2 1 2 003 3 2 2 2 1 4 104 3 0 4 4 0 0 005 2 0 3 4 3 0 206 3 4 1 2 3 4 007 3 2 2 2 0 2 008 3 4 2 2 4 4 409 3 4 1 1 3 4 010 3 4 1 2 3 0 4

76IRAP Guidelines

77

Rating of Indicators – Water SectorDRINKING WATER

Indicator 1: Number of People in the Villagerating Classification

1 Villages < 150 people 3 300 <= village <= 4502 150 <= village <= 300 4 Village >= 450

Indicator 2: Type of Drinking Water System in the Villagerating Classification

0 Only Improved Source of Water 4 Only Traditional Source of Water2 Both Traditional and Improved

Indicator 3: Average Water Collection Time (Round Trip)rating Classification

1 5 Minutes or Less (X<=5) 3 20 Minutes or Less (10<=X<=20)2 10 Minutes or Less (6<X<=10) 4 More than 20 Minutes (X>20)

Indicator 4: Type of Traditional Sourcerating Classification

1 Spring 3 Rainwater2 Shallow Dug Well 4 Stream, Lake

Indicator 5: Perceived Water Quality (Dry and Wet Season)rating Classification

0 Good Quality in Both Seasons 3 Good in Wet Season but notGood in Dry Season

1 Good in Dry Season 4 Not Good in Both Seasonsbut not Good in Wet Season

Indicator 6: Villager’s Perceived Problemsrating Classification0 No Problem 4 Big Problem2 Minor Problem

Indicator 7: Villager’s Perceived Prioritiesrating Classification0 Not a Priority Project 2 Second Priority1 Third Priority 4 First Priority


Some planners argue that it isnecessary to include more quali-tative factors and/or includeweighting factors if not allvariables are considered equallyimportant and involve localpeople to assess the importance

of different variables. As men-tioned before, in doing this theentire process of calculatingindicators become more partici-patory but unfortunately alsomore complicated.

78IRAP Guidelines

79

10The PrioritizationProcess

Objective

The main objective of thisactivity is to identify investmentpriorities. This is usually doneduring a prioritization training/workshop (also referred to as theT-2 Training described in theprevious chapter). The overallobjective of this training is totrain local level planners in thepractical application of IRAP withthe emphasis on the use of IRAPplanning tools: the ADB, theaccessibility indicators andmapping. It involves the analysisof data, calculation of indicatorsand interpretation of maps toallow a comparison of differentlevels of accessibility betweenvillages and across sectors. Indoing this the participants reviewand analyze data and useindicators and maps to identifyvillage priorities based on a lackof or poor access.

Having said all this, theidentification of priorities cannever be an entire mechanical,computer programmed, processbased on indicators and mapsonly. The indicators and maps aremerely tools to guide local

planners in their prioritization.The planner’s knowledgeand understandingof localcharacteristics,constraintsand realitiesalso mayhave a role toplay in this process.

The end result is a list of villagepriorities by sector. In fact,villages are ranked according totheir levels of inaccessibility. Thepriority villages are villagers thathave a relatively large number ofpeople affected (by poor or acomplete lack of access) and havegenerally poor access to facilities,goods and services.

Preparatory Works

The following inputs are requiredfor the prioritization process:

1. The Accessibility Data Base(ADB)

2. The Accessibility Profile3. The Accessibility Indicators4. The Maps5. Local Technicians and Planners

(Local Knowledge)

The Prioritization Process

❆

❆

80IRAP Guidelines

It needs to be emphasized hereagain that the prioritizationexercise is not a pure machinelikeprocess as it requires skilfuljudgments. The local plannersunderstanding of the area as wellas his/her capability of usingcertain analytical tools areequally important in this exercise.

The processed informationcontained in the ADB is presentedto the participants in thePrioritization Training (alsoreferred to as the T2-Training)wherein the needed tools(accessibility indicators and maps)for prioritization are alsointroduced. The tools provide aquick and systematic procedure toidentify priority villages forimproving access. Theaccessibility indicators enableplanners to rank villages in orderof accessibility or better lack ofaccessibility. The maps provide asimple means to visualizeaccessibility and identify so-calledcatchment areas.

The analysis of the data and theidentification of priorities is atime consuming process if all hasto be done manually. It isrecommended that some dataprocessing is done prior to theprioritization exercise to avoidunnecessary long sessions on themanual mathematical calculationsof averages, sums etc.. It issuggested that the IRAP planningteam does most of this dataprocessing before going to aprovince, district or municipalityto conduct the prioritizationworkshop. Examples and somehands-on exercises should be

given during the workshop todemonstrate and guide theparticipants through the technicalprocess.

Training

A standard training course hasbeen developed and a set oftraining materials and modulesexists. This training has to beconducted for key people at thelocal government level, including

technicians, plannersand local decision-

makers. The main objective ofthis training is to identifyinvestment priorities and buildlocal capacity to use maps, dataand indicators to identify priorityvillages for improvingaccessibility.

This training is one of the mostimportant activities in the entireIRAP process. Local people areinstructed on how they could usethe IRAP prioritization process inidentifying sector or villagepriorities. It is important thatexperienced IRAP plannersconduct the training.Prioritization of investmentpriorities is a delicate activity andit is important that stakeholders

❆

T-2 Training on Calculation ofIndicators and Priority Setting

81

work together on a consensus.The IRAP tools will merelyfacilitate this process.

At the end of the training,participants will have producedconcrete outputs in terms ofsector and village priorities fortheir particular areas. Materialssuch as statistics, maps,indicators and priorities are nowavailable and understood by theparticipants. As a last activity ofthe training, participants willhave to be instructed and guidedhow to present the outputs,findings and recommendations toan audience. This mechanism isused to solicit support for theinterventions proposed. Thisactivity of communicating to apublic is an additional importantelement of the entire trainingprogramme. It also demonstratedthe skills that have beendeveloped during the earlierstages of the IRAP application.The main objective here is toinform the audience about thefindings and recommendations ofthe IRAP application in a particu-lar district or municipality and to

solicit further support for improv-ing accessibility. The typicalparticipants in the course aretechnical staff from local govern-

ment offices together with localdecision-makers. But also NGOsand donor agencies have re-quested their staff to be trainedin the unique prioritizationprocedures that IRAP provides.

Implementation

Village priorities are identified bycombining the two planning tools,mapping and accessibilityindicators, with the localplanners’ knowledge of the area.Villages are ranked and the worstoff villages, in terms ofaccessibility, are identified andprioritized for interventions.Technical staff participating inthe training/workshop shouldwork together for a period ofabout 3 days to analyze theaccessibility situation by sectorand identify village priorities.

The main purpose of this entireactivity is to teach local plannersthe skills of priority setting andpresenting these priorities tosolicit support. With the newtechnical skills local plannerscould further prioritize back in

their planning offices applying thesame tools and techniques.

The prioritization process could

Local planner sending a message Local politicians receiving a message

❆

The Prioritization Process

82IRAP Guidelines

result in an actionplan (see chapter12) whichsummarizes theproceduresfollowed and ranksthe village

priorities identified. Thisaction plan is important in that itconfirms the priorities identifiedand presented earlier. The action

This volume contains the reading materials for a complete T-2 training onintegrated rural accessibility planning. The different module delivery plansare prepared by the individual resource persons conducting this T-2training.

Module 1: Integrated Rural Accessibility PlanningModule 2: Earlier IRAP ActivitiesModule 3: Access to WaterModule 4: Access to Primary EducationModule 5: Access to Primary Health CareModule 6: Rural RoadsModule 7: Access to MarketsModule 8: Sector PrioritiesModule 9: Presentation

plan should be distributed to theinstitutions involved in improvingrural accessibility. Later on, itcould also function as a tool toevaluate the success of the localprogramme, in terms of priorityproblems being addressed.

The following box summarizes thecontent of a typical T2-TrainingManual used in the Lao PDR.

84IRAP Guidelines

85

11The Identification and Design of Interventions

Objective

The prioritization exercise de-scribed in the preceding chapterresulted in a ranking of priorityvillages where access needs to beimproved. The activity howeverdid not yet identify what could bedone to improve access or howinterventions could best beimplemented.

Once a village has been identifiedas a priority village, local plan-ners together with the villagerepresentatives need to identifywhat type of intervention wouldimprove accessibility in a particu-lar sector. If a village was identi-fied as a priority for improvingaccess to primary health care forexample, the question thatremains to be addressed is: whatneeds to be done to improveaccess? This could mean theconstruction of a health centre inthe village, assigning a full-timenurse to a nearby clinic, improv-ing the road or building a bridge.

It is important that this identifi-cation process is based on theIRAP strategy of having two maincategories of access interven-

tions, namelyinterventions thatimprove mobilitysuch as roads,bridges, tracksand trails, trans-port services andlow-cost means of transport andinterventions that improve thedistribution of facilities andservices such as water supplies,schools, markets and healthcentres.

It is equally important that theidentification of these accessinterventions is done in a partici-patory manner with villagers andlocal government officials bothparticipating. Villagers will have amore narrow focus and mainlyconsider their immediate accessneeds while local governmentofficials will look at it from abroader geographical and techni-cal perspective. Also, localgovernment officials will contrib-ute technical assistance and fundsto implement the projects identi-fied and often need to make aselection of projects to be sup-ported.

After identifying the most appro-

❆

The Identification and Design of Interventions

86IRAP Guidelines

priate and feasible intervention,the same people need to work

together to design the project.This could be a simple projectwrite-up or project proposal usingstandard format. It is importanthowever to include measures thatwill minimize cost and maximizeimpact. It is here that the use oflocal resources including labour,raw materials and products needsto be maximized.

Preparatory Works

Once the priority villages areknown, village representativesneed to be invited to a training/workshop on project design. Localgovernment officials and localtechnicians representing thedifferent sectors should alsoparticipate in this workshop. Themain objective of the workshop isto identify the most appropriateintervention and to prepare aproject design. A standard processneeds to be developed (alsoreferred to as the T-3 training) forthis workshop and training mate-rials need to be available. Peoplein the IRAP planning team need tobe identified to become special-ists in this activity. The maininstruments used in this trainingwill be a problem/objective treeand a standard project format.

These instruments often need tobe developed and examplesshould be ready prior to theconduct of training.

Project design includes thepreparation of a cost estimate. Itis recommended to use standardspecifications, norms and costs todo this preliminary project designand these specifications, normsand costs should also be availableprior to the workshop.

Training

A two to three day workshop (theT3-Training) should be sufficientto guide the participants throughthe project identification processand have them produce a set ofbasic project proposals. Thevillage priorities are the maininput for this training. On thebasis of a proper problem analysisit should be possible to identify ina relatively short time the mostappropriate solutions to existingaccess problems. Once thesesolutions and the objectives of apossible project are known, theparticipants will formulate theactivities to achieve the objec-tives as a project.

The three main training docu-ments that comprise the T-3Training therefore include amodule on identifying interven-tions, a module on designinginterventions and a module oncost guidelines and technology.Experienced members of the IRAPteam should specialize to conductthis kind of training.

❆

❆

87

Implementation

In all activities, village peopleneed to work together with localofficials to address the what andhow questions.

The combined villagerepresentative and localgovernment staff team will worksector by sector to identify themost appropriate and feasibleintervention during the first partof the workshop. It is

recommended that theproblem/objectivetree analyticalmethod will be usedto first identify thecauses andconsequences ofhaving poor access in a particularsector and subsequently identifythe interventions necessary toimprove access and the expectedresults.

Once a specific intervention hasbeen identified, the workshopparticipants will prepare theproject design or projectproposal. They will do this byusing a standard format and willcontinued to be guided by theIRAP team.

The end result is a project designor project proposal that can besubmitted for funding orimplemented if the resources areavailable.

❆

T-3 Training on ProjectIdentification and Development

The Identification and Design of Interventions

88IRAP Guidelines

89

12Action Planning or

Integration into theLocal Planning System

Objective

A “standard” IRAP procedureusually ends with the identifica-tion of individual projects. Itconcludes with what has to bedone where and how to addresspriority access problems. Theinterventions or projects aredescribed in project proposalswhich can be submitted to aGovernment agency, NGO orexternal donor for funding. Anintermediate step however wouldbe to combine all projects identi-fied and develop a more generalstrategy to improve accessibilityin a certain area. The IRAP teamcould formulate an access specificinvestment plan: an “Action Planfor Improving Accessibility”(APIA)”. Thiswould be amaster planfor improvingaccess in acertain area.

The APIA could be disseminated togovernment organizations,development agencies and privateinvestors informing about thegeneral socio-economic situationof an area, development goals,targets and strategies, plans,projects and resources needed toimprove rural accessibility.

An APIA combines the differentaccessibility improvementprojects identified. The APIA is anaction plan and should have acertain time frame and identifystrategies, priorities and re-sources to improve access.

One purpose of an APIA could beto seek donor support for inter-ventions that can not be fundedlocally or nationally. Anotherpurpose would be to use the planas a reference for monitoringaccess improvements in a particu-lar area.

IRAP however is a planning tooland not a parallel developmentplanning process. It enables aplanner to identify a set ofinterventions to meet accessneeds. It deals with a limitednumber of sectors only and often

❆

Action Planning or Integration into the Local Planning System

90IRAP Guidelines

acts as a complement to otherdevelopment planning proceduresand initiatives. Instead of produc-ing an APIA, the IRAP teams mayactively assist local governmentunits or sectoral line agencies toincorporate the identifiedprojects into their regular inte-grated or sectoral investmentplans to ensure future local/national funding for the proposedaccess improvement projects. Thefollowing figure shows threedifferent options. Sometimesfunds have been pre-allocatedand project proposals will befinanced immediately. A secondoption relates to action planning.Projects to improve access areincluded in a master plan foraccessibility improvements andcould be taken up by a potentialdonor or Government agency. Athird option is that identifiedprojects are included in theannual investment plans andenter the regular planning andbudgeting process of a countrywith the possibility of havingPublic Investment Funds allocatedfor implementation.

Project Proposals

Implementation

Accessibility Action Plan

Local PlanningSystem

IRAP Process

An action plans for improvingaccessibility is not necessarilyrequired. Often it is moreeffective to integrate the projectsidentified into existing planningsystems instead of preparingadditional plans. Different sectorprojects could be integrated intosector plans or strategies.

Preparatory Works

Three different options have beenidentified:

1. Funds have been earmarkedbefore project identification/design and fund sourcing is nolonger necessary.

2. Identified priority projects willbe integrated in sectoralinvestment budgets, plans orstrategies.

3. Area-specific action plans(APIAs) will be produced.

The first option requires noadditional work on behalf of theIRAP team or local planner.

Implementation can start as soonas the documents are ready andagreements are in place.

The three main usual sources ofGovernment funding are local

❆

91

government funding, sectoral(national government) funding orundistinguished congressionalfunding. To access these funds,local or national decision-makersneed to be convinced about thevalue of proposed interventions.Local planners with support fromthe IRAP team should seize anopportunity to present the

implementation of the IRAPprocess in their area and theresulting recommendations andprojects to decision-makers.These presentations need to bewell structured and a scriptshould be prepared beforehand.Earlier IRAP outputs such as maps,priority sheets, inventories,statistics, profiles etc. should beused to clarify the situation andvisualize reality.

If the purpose is to prepare anaction plan (APIA) it becomesnecessary to identify targets.What does the plan seek toachieve over a certain time in aspecific area. Targets have to beset for a certain time frame: whatdoes one realistically want toachieve over a certain period oftime. Targets have to be realistic,achievable and measurable.Projects are means to achievethese targets.

APIAs can be used tomonitor progress aswell. The IRAPindicators showpriority sectorsand/or priorityvillages for improvingaccessibility. Theindicators could be related tonorms, averages or nationaltargets and a “shortfall” could bemeasured and used to set sectoralpriorities or monitor progress.

The process of setting targetsshould be participatory. LocalGovernment agencies andnational line agencies representedat the local level shouldparticipate in this exercise.

Training

Several types of training may benecessary for different types ofagencies involved.

Local planners may need to betrained in basic communication/presentation skills to be able toeffectively communicatepriorities with the local ornational decision-makers.

❆

T-4 Training on Action Planningand Priority Setting

Action Planning or Integration into the Local Planning System

92IRAP Guidelines

If the purpose is to produce actionplans then an entire new trainingcourse on action planning (the T-4Training) needs to be developedand conducted. Local plannersshould be instructed and guided inthe preparation of area specificaction plans.

Implementation

The presentation of IRAPpriorities and identified projectsbest takes place in an openforum. The planner presents thepriorities to the people who havethe power to make decisions.Decision-makers have then theopportunity to respond. The resultwill be a participatory processwhere different stakeholders cancontribute opinions and support.

APIAs are to be produced by or inclose consultations with

government agencies. An APIAusually summarizes data and keystatistics in a simple and user-friendly manner followed byplanning targets, strategies andprojects relating to the particularsectors where accessibility is anissue.

However it needs to beemphasized that the real successof applying IRAP as a governmentplanning tool depends on itsintegration into the existingplanning structures rather thancreating parallel structures.

The ultimate objective of theentire IRAP exercise however is toimprove accessibility. Thisrequires that projects identifiedwill be implemented and thatplans will not just be shelved.This requires marketing andcommunication.

❆

94IRAP Guidelines

95

13Monitoring andEvaluation

Objective

The main purpose of IRAP is toproduce projects and otherinterventions that can be carriedout effectively to improve ruralaccessibility. Local planners areusually not directly involved inthe implementation of theprojects. This is often the respon-sibility of the sectoral line agen-cies with or without the help ofthe private sector. The responsi-bilities of the local planner oftenens once the plans and projectshave been prepared and proposalshave been submitted or arepresented.

At the implementation stage theplanner could have an additionalrole. He may be given the respon-sibility to monitor the actualimplementation. Or, once thework is done, he may be calledupon to evaluate the project’ssuccess.

Monitoring and evaluation areclosely related and often groupedtogether because they take placetowards the end of the planningcycle. Monitoring and evaluationhowever are not the same thing.It is important to understand thedifferent functions.

Monitoring relates to projectmonitoring and program monitor-ing. The first is a project manage-ment tool and is usually theresponsibility of the implementingagency. The latter is more generaland is part of the IRAP planningcycle. Access improvements needto be documented and progress inimproving rural accessibilityneeds to be reviewed as such.This step in the IRAP planningcycle is referred to as programmonitoring: does access improve,and if yes, in what sectors and towhat extent ?

Evaluations are intended to findout whether a specific project hasbeen successful or not, and whyor why not. Evaluations comprisethe final step in a planning cycleand information and lessonslearned will feed into the nextcycle. Evaluations are therefore

Monitoring and Evaluation

❆

96IRAP Guidelines

important notonly to measurethe success orimpact of aproject butalso to guidefuture invest-

ment decisions.

Preparatory Works

Both monitoring and evaluationinvolves the collection of informa-tion before the project begins andthen as it is carried out and afterthe project has been completed.The IRAP data collected at thebeginning of the cycle and theaccess indicators can be used asbase-line data. However forevaluation purposes often morespecific and detailed informationis needed. This information canbe collected through a householdsurvey in those villages that areexpected to benefit from theaccess improvement projects.This information can then becompared with similar informa-tion collected after the comple-tion of a project to assess theproject’s impact.

Various conventional evaluationtechniques exist with differentlevels of sophistication and datarequirements 17 . For IRAP pur-poses, a simple evaluation tomeasure impact on accessibilityusually suffice.

To prepare for such an evaluationone needs to first establish a baseline data-base. Household leveldata needs to be collectedthrough a household question-

naire in the villages that aresupposed to benefit from theproposed intervention. Thisinformation should include dataon assets, travel characteristics,use of services, preferences andperceived benefits. This datarepresents the before projectsituation. In order to measureimpact one needs a similar dataset for the after project situation.A project impact however oftenneeds time to become “visible”and the timing of the aftercompletion survey is important.To evaluate impact one needs tocompare the before and afterproject situation. This becomes adifficult process if not all impactis directly attributable to theproject but the result of someexternal factors as well. It is easyto measure the impact of afootbridge on travel time to ahealth clinic for example. Traveltimes are reduced as soon as thefootbridge is completed. It ismuch more complicated tomeasure the impact of thefootbridge on the overall healthstatus of the people. Otherfactors, such as a health aware-ness programme, might havecontributed to an increasednumber of visits to the healthclinic which in turn is reflected inimproved health statistics.

Training

In order to perform monitoringand evaluation functions, thelocal planner needs to undergosome basic training in monitoring

17 It is not the intention to describe these differenttechniques in this guide.

❆

❆

97

T-5 Training on Monitoringand Evaluation

and evaluation concepts (T-5Training). The trainees shouldpreferably, hands-on, contributeto the development of amonitoring and evaluationsystem, which will provide them

whether certain targets can bemet or not and, if necessary, takeappropriate corrective actions.Targets may have to be re-adjusted if they prove to be tooambitious. The following tableshows an example of this process.

In order to monitor achievementsand evaluate impact, the plannerneeds to collect additional dataduring and after projectimplementation. It isrecommended that the same datagathering techniques and toolswill be used that were usedduring the earlier data collectionactivities.

Below is an example of a verysimple, straightforward, impactevaluation of a rural road in LaoP.D.R.

feedback on how specific accessprojects are actually going and onhow access in a certain sector isbeing improved.

Implementation

Planners often use quantitativeindicators and targets to monitorprogress in improvingaccessibility. This process will alsoenable IRAP planners to assess

Sector Access Indicator 2000 Target 2002 Target 2004 ActualAchievement(31-12-2002)

Water Percentage of 20% 30% 40% 23%households

with access toall-year roundportable water

Education Average travel 350 min. 300 min. 250 min. 340 min.time to

elementaryschool

Rural Roads Villages with 32% 46% 60% 46%all-year round road access

❆

Monitoring and Evaluation

98IRAP Guidelines

A participatory rural infrastruc-ture project carrying out inter-ventions to improve accessibilityin two selected zones comprising19 rural villages started inOudomxai Province, Lao PDR, in1996. Most participatory planningand implementation activitiestook place in 1997 and 1998.Amongst the interventions werethe construction of two roads,two small-scale irrigationschemes and two village watersupplies in Phone Home Zone andthe construction of three schoolsand three village water suppliesin Mok Wen Zone. Other interven-tions included the preparation ofvillage action plans, sector actionplan, selected land-use planningin Mok Wen Zone and differentcapacity building exercises. Abaseline study was conducted inthe two selected zones.

The local government with supportof ILO IRAP staff conducted asimple impact evaluation. Itattempts to assess the impact theproject has had on accessibilityand livelihood in Phone Home andMok Wen Zones. The fieldwork forthis impact evaluation study hastaken place in 1999, six months upto a year after completion ofimplementation of the differentprojects prioritized and imple-mented by the local communities.The methodology and some of themain findings of this evaluationfor Phone Home are summarizedbelow.

I. Methodology

For this impact evaluation threedifferent tools were used:

- household surveys- village participatory meetings- traffic count

- household surveysIn 1996, at the start of theproject, household surveys wereconducted in all villages of PhoneHome and Mok Wen Zones. A 10-15% sample was drawn andinterviewers were asked to selecthouseholds of different socio-economic status to represent thevillage as a whole. Each villageconsists of one or more villageunits, and at least one householdwas interviewed in every unit.

In 1999 the household surveyswere repeated. The same ques-tionnaire was used and the samepersons were interviewed.

- village participatory meetingsIn 1996 village participatorymeetings were held in the villagesinvolved to find out about vil-lages’ problems and priorities.These meetings included PRAtechniques 18 like mapping andpriority ranking. In 1999 the teamwent back to these villages todiscuss to what extent the villagepriorities had been realized.Future plans for the villages werealso discussed, mainly focussingon activities the villagers intendto undertake by themselves.

- traffic countBoth in 1996 and in 1999, a yearafter the completion of roadconstruction, a traffic count wascarried out. For 14 days all typesof vehicles and foot passengerspassing the Phone Home roadwere registered. In both years the

96IRAP Guidelines

99

18 The community development workers used the AIC(Appreciation, Influence, Control) techniques alsobeing used, amongst others, in Thailand.

traffic count was carried out inthe same season, towards the endof the dry season.

II. Phone Home Zone

- results of household surveyThe average household size inPhone Home increased from 5,7 in1996 to 6,3 in 1999. Over theperiod reported on, the percent-age of households primarilydependent on income fromagricultural production hasremained 97%. The amount oflandless households decreasedconsiderably, from 38% to 19%,while the average amount ofhectares owned by the householdsremained almost the same. Overthe period under review, newlowland rice fields have beencreated and taken into use by thevillagers.

In Phone Home the amount ofcows and buffaloes owned by thevillagers has decreased. Accordingto IRAP/ESCAP staff working inthis area, many families have soldlivestock and bought rice mills,hand tractors and different meansof transport instead. Table 2confirms these observations.

The average household income in1996 was as low as 179.583 kip.The reported average income in1999 is 634.531 kip and theincrease is mainly due to anincreased selling of agriculturalproduce. To get an idea of thetrend in purchasing capacity ofthe villagers though, these figureswill need to be corrected forinflation. For the villagers inPhone Home the increase in the

Table 1: Livestock ownership

average number average number of heads of heads(1996) (1999)

cattle 1,4 0,9buffalo 1,9 1,4pigs 2,0 2,2poultry 10,9 15

Table 2: Other possessions

percentage of percentage ofhouseholds households

owning owning(1996) (1999)

boat 0 0motorcycle 0 0bicycle 17 23cart 7 12rice mill 4 56fish pond 19 42sewing machine 17 26generator 4 2tv 0 0radio 48 43

price of rice is probably the mostimportant factor. In 1996 ahousehold could buy 225 kilos ofrice for 179.583 kip, while in 1999634.531 kip would buy 253 kilosof rice. This is a real increase of12,5%, which can most likely beattributed to the projectinterventions.

99Monitoring and Evaluation

100IRAP Guidelines

Due to the construction of im-proved water systems the numberof villagers using a stream,shallow dug well or spring as theirmain source of drinking waterdecreased. The average watercollection time though increasedfrom 6 to 10 minutes.

The average number of plotscultivated decreased from 3,9 in1996 to 2,3 in 1999. Moreover, thesize of the first plot decreasedfrom 1,1 to 0,63. A logical expla-nation is that more families haveaccess to paddy fields, whichwould normally be smaller but

Table 4: Water supplies

source percentage percentage percentage percentageof households of households of households of households

using in using in using in using indry season wet season dry season wet season

(1996) (1996) (1999) (1999)

shallow dug 56% 78% 21% 56%well/springstream 43% 17% 40% 5%spring fed 0% 0% 30% 30%gravityimproved well 1% 5% 9% 9%

more productive plots 19 . Obvi-ously this would mean a reducedpressure on uplands for shiftingcultivation.

The following table shows thedifferent crops produced and soldin Phone Home. With the con-struction of the road through thearea, the selling of agriculturalproduce has become much easier.Traders from Meuang Xai oftenvisit the area and buy producefrom the farmers in the villages.Over the last two years thevillagers have experimented with

different cash crop. Sesame andgarlic have been tried out butwere not always that successful.

19 The improved irrigation schemes could betterregulate the water supply during the wet seasonand, if accompanied with appropriate extensionservices, allow for a second crop increasing annualyield drastically.

Table 5: Average size main plots

average size average size(hectares) (hectares)

(1996) (1999)

plot 1 1,1 0,63plot 2 0,8 0,82plot 3 0,7 0,67

Table 3: Sources of income

average averageannual cash annual cashincome (kip) income (kip)

(1996) (1999)

saleagriculturalproducts 49.457 355.930sale livestock 84.674 213.139casual labour 1.429 25.511regularemployment 7.655 24.836loans 17.095 9.302cashremittances 476 0business 15.321 5.813other 3.476 0

total 179.583 634.531

98IRAP Guidelines

101

By now most farmers concentrateon the cultivation of peanuts, forwhich they can receive a verygood price. It appears thatimproved road access inducestraders to visit the area and buyproducts at the farm gate.In 1996, 67% of the householdswere marketing crops. Mostlythey had to travel outside theirvillage to sell their products. Bynow, 86 % of the households is

marketing crops, mostly in thevillage. Only 26% of the house-holds travel outside their villageto sell, which confirms theobservation of traders travellinginto the area.

Table 6: Crops and their use

1996crop hh growing hh selling

rice 100% 47%maize 17% 0%peanut 62% 60%cassava 40% 11%chili 40% 11%sesame 26% 26%taro 19% 2%banana 9% 2%egg plant 19% 0%cucumber 2% 0%

1999crop hh growing hh selling

rice 100% 60%maize 42% 21%peanut 75% 72%cassava 5% 0%chili 33% 30%sesame 14% 14%taro 9% 7%banana 9% 5%egg plant 16% 12%vegetables 2% 2%garlic 5% 2%oranges 5% 5%

The amount of households tradingother than agricultural productshas decreased from 55% to 12%.Different explanations are pos-sible for this trend. One of themis the effort the villagers put inthe production of peanuts.

School attendance has increasedwith an estimated 10%, while thevisits to the dispensary havedecreased with an estimated 18%.This latter trend is remarkablesince the ADB dispensary wascompleted in 1996. Improvedhealth awareness and practice,demonstrated by an increasedmedical consultation in the area,might have contributed to thisdecline.

- village participatory meetingsIn the 1999 village participatorymeetings the villagers discussedthe achievements in the develop-ment of their village over the last

three years, as well as plans forthe future 20 . The following table

20 During the 1996 Village Participatory Meetings thevillagers developed a vision for future development oftheir community and identified priority projects to beimplemented by the community with or withoutassistance from the outside world.

Table 7: Use of social services

1996 1999

households withchildren attendingschool 64% 70%

households visitingdispensary in yearbefore interview 62% 51%

household makinguse of medical teams 87% 95%


102IRAP Guidelines

highlights the main achievementssince 1996 and the future devel-

opment projects the villagers planto undertake by themselves.

100IRAP Guidelines

Table 8: village participatory meetings

village already achieved future plans

Phone Home - road - tree planting- expansion paddy field area - improve village fencing- increased peanut production - latrines- increased number of fishponds- village fencing- shop opened

Phieng Xay - land rights - school repairs- water supply (ADB) - maintenance- school (ADB) water supply

Vang Mon - road - village fencing- increased peanut production - irrigation

Na Chang - road - village fencing- irrigation- increased cash crop production

Houay Lieng - increased number of fishponds- increased number of rice mills- increased number of carts - medicine bank

Houay La Vong - expansion paddy field area - village fencing- increased number of fishponds - stimulate saving- increased number of rice mills

Houay Khai - road - motivation school- improved water supply attendance- increased number of fishponds - village fencing- medicine bank

Sanang Pi - road - school repairs- increased number of fishponds - maintenance- increased number of rice mills water supply

Houay Tam - irrigation - school repairs- increased peanut production - latrines- increased number of fish ponds - village fencing- increased number of rice mills - road maintenance

Houay Hia - expansion paddy field area - motivation school- irrigation attendance- increased amount of rice mills - village fencing- medicine bank - livestock grazing area

Houay Top - water supply - village meeting room- expansion paddy field area- increased number of fish ponds - village fencing- increased number of rice mills- shop opened

103

- traffic countTable 9 summarises the averagedaily traffic on Phone Home road.It appears that fewer people walkand that traffic levels haveincreased drastically. This in-creased traffic consists mainly ofnewly purchased motorcycles orbicycles, traders coming in and

transport services linking the zoneto the provincial capital. Thesocio-economic benefits of theseincreased traffic volumes areobvious and include time savings,improved access to health,education and markets andincreased opportunities to sellproduce.

Table 9: traffic count

type of average number average numberpassenger/vehicle per day passing per day passing

(1996) (1999)

foot passenger 138 113bicycle 2.4 16.4motorcycle 1.1 10.4tuktuk/samlo 0 10.0handtractor 0 2.3private car 0 0.3pick-up 0.1 1.3truck 0 1.3


104IRAP Guidelines

105

14IRAP at the Village Level

Background

The Guidelines on IRAP describe aprocess of identifying investmentpriorities at higher than villagelevel (province, district or sub-district). These geographicalareas have in common that theyconsist of a number of villages.Village data and priorities are fedinto the process of investmentprioritization but priorities are setacross villages and not within thevillage. Village priorities arecollected during the villageinterviews with key informants(see chapter 5).

This last chapter is about ruralinfrastructure planning andcommunity participation atvillage level. The main purpose isto introduce a more sophisticatedmethod of deciding on infrastruc-ture priorities at the village level.Community participation is aprocess whereby beneficiariesinfluence the direction andexecution of developmentprojects rather than merelyreceiving a share of projectsbenefits. It has been demon-strated time after time thatcommunities are perfectly able to

identify their real problems andto define interventions that arebest suited to their real needs(see chapter 1).

Top-down planning of small-scalerural infrastructure projectswithout consulting the villagershas often proven to be an ineffec-tive approach and may result inineffective projects and a wasteof resources. Rural infrastructureprojects should address the realneeds of the local people andshould optimize the use of localresources from a cost perspec-tive. To the extentpossible, they shouldbe planned, designed,implemented andmaintained in thecommunities, by thecommunities and forthe communities.

Community participa-tion in (rural infra-structure) developmentis beneficial in that it:

! Gives local people a directand active stake in organisingthemselves to develop theireconomies

❆

IRAP at the Village Level

106IRAP Guidelines

! Encourages the mobilisationof local resources such as land,labor, savings, assets, plusindigenous knowledge of specificlocal conditions such as environ-mental and socio-cultural norms

! Helps build the capacity ofthe people to effectively planand implement projects

! Increases community controlover resources and developmentand promote greater self reliance

! Enhances the sense of com-munity ownership needed toensure maintenance of completedprojects

! Encourages more equitabledistribution of benefits becauseproject management is account-able to a more representativecommunity”

Effective community participationrequires communities “ready” toparticipate and governmentdepartments and agencies“ready” to work with communi-ties. The IRAP approach now seeksto harmonize community partici-pation with standard local levelinfrastructure planning proce-dures and to come up with anintegrated approach.

Many books have been writtenabout community participationand related subjects. It is there-fore also not the purpose of thischapter to contribute to theongoing conceptual discussion butmerely to identify possibleprocedures to augment the levelof participation in rural access

and infrastructure developmentefforts within the context of theIRAP planning cycle.

The World Bank maintains thefollowing definition “participationis a process through whichstakeholders influence and sharecontrol over develop-ment initiativesand the decisionsand resourceswhich affectthem 21 ”

The WorldBankfurther-moreaffirms that

“the participation of beneficia-ries is central to the effectivedelivery of rural infrastructure;for participation to be successful,beneficiaries must be involved indecision making related toplanning, design, implementa-tion, operation and maintenanceof rural infrastructure; they mustalso contribute in kind or cash atsuch a scale as to gain a sense ofownership of the infrastructureand a commitment to operatingand maintaining it”.

It is clear that the stakeholdersshould be involved in all steps ofthe planning process and projectcycle. It is necessary however totake account of local reality.Changes should not be too abruptand it is recommended to takesmall incremental steps towards

21 World Bank Participation Sourcebook

107

change. We can not expect amore flexible bottom upprocess to suddenlyreplace an existing, morerigid, top-down process.Pilot projects could assistin building local capacityand raising awarenessabout the benefits ofcommunity participationand could serve as anexample for other areas.

The objective of thischapter is to introduce ademonstrated procedurefor assisting rural villagesto better participate inthe planning, design and imple-mentation of small-scale ruralinfrastructure projects and topoint out where and how thisprocess can be integrated in thestandard IRAP planning cycle.

It seems that communities couldeffectively be involved at threedifferent stages:

! Planning

! Design

! Implementation/Maintenance

Figure 2 shows how theseactivities relateto a genericplanning cycle.

Figure 2: A Generic planning cycle withRural Access Planning integrated in it 22

This chapter will discuss commu-nity participation during theplanning and design stage of theprojects.

Planning

Community participation has tobe seen from the perspective ofthe community and from theperspective of the local Govern-ment. Communities are mostlyconcerned with their own environ-ment “the village” and identifypriorities primarily to benefit thevillage inhabitants. Districtauthorities, on the other hand,have a wider perspective andidentify priorities for a number ofvillages. In addition, they con-sider economics of scale andareas of influence of roads,health centers and schools. Froma community point of view, forexample, having a health center

22 Planning cycles look slightly different in differentcountries.

1. Data Collection 3a. Preparation DistrictAccessibility Profile

3b. Road Inventory

3c. AccessibilityMapping

IRAPPlanning

Cycle 4. Identification/Prioritization Access

Problems

5. Defining Objectives/Targets Strategies

6. Plan and/or ProjectFormulation

8. ProjectImplementation

9. Monitoring/Evaluation

7. Presentation toDecision Makers

2. Data BaseDevelopment

❆


108IRAP Guidelines

in their village may seem a firstpriority but from a district pointof view this may not be a priorityat all.

IRAP has evolved as a tool toprimarily assist local Governmentsin taking decisions concerningrural infrastructure investments.The process however, in whole orin part, could also be applied bydonors and communities toidentify and prioritize accessimprovement projects includingrural infrastructure.

The IRAP process encourages locallevel planners to involve commu-nities in the identification, designand implementation of projects.Maintaining a dialogue withcommunities during all stages ofthe planning process, identifyingneeds, defining solutions andpriorities, selecting projects andcarrying out the projects identi-fied, is necessary to ensure thefull involvement of people. Activecommunity participation however,at all stages of the planningprocess, is not always possible. Adistrict may count as many as 50to 100 villages. District officesare often poorly staffed and it isunattainable for district staff tohave a community dialogue with

every village. IRAP thereforerecommends a two step approach.Use the standard IRAP VillageSurvey to collect base data forevery community on socio-economic characteristics, access,problems and priorities. This datacan be analyzed and indicatorsdescribing the situation in avillage can be developed toidentify priority zones or preparea “shortlist” of priority villages.Once the priority villages havebeen identified it is recommendedto use a proven communitydevelopment technique to con-firm the priorities and involve thecommunities in the furtherplanning, design and implementa-tion of projects.

Step 1: Collect data in all vil-lages ⇒ Use IRAP Village Survey

Outputs

❖ Detailed data base❖ Base information on village

problems and priorities❖ Village indicators

Step 2: Start the communitydialogue ⇒ Use A.I.C.

Outputs

❖ Confirmed priorities❖ Community participation in

planning

IRAP Village SurveyThe standard IRAP process isapplied at the village level using aRapid Rural Appraisal technique tocollect relevant data. People’sneeds in this process are identi-fied through a survey of the

109

community. Although people havethe opportunity to identifyproblems and priorities forinterventions, in fact, the districtauthorities decide for them.Village participation at theplanning stage is limited to ashort interaction with the enu-merators during the actual datacollection exercise.

IRAP’s traditional data collectiontool “surveys” the community andcollects a range of socio-eco-nomic and access data. Communi-ties have the opportunity toidentify their problems andexpress their priorities during a 3-4 hour interview. This informationis feed back into the planningprocess at the district levelwithout further involvement ofthe communities until the projectdesign phase.

Appreciation, Influence Control(A.I.C.) 23

A more detailed technique,developed in the United Statesand widely used in many coun-tries, labeled “Appreciation,Influence, Control (A.I.C)”, couldbe used to conduct village meet-ings. During this process villagersare involved for a longer time (upto one sometimes two days) andproduce a future map of how theywould like to see their villagedevelop while identifying activi-ties they could do by themselvesand activities for which theywould need external assistance.The A.I.C. approach is succinctlyillustrated below:

Step 1: Identification of a groupof villagers

23 The World Bank Participation Sourcebook summarizesA.I.C. as follows “ a workshop-based technique thatencourages stakeholders to consider the social, political,and cultural factors along with technical and economicaspects that influences a given project or policy. AIChelps workshop participants to identify a commonpurpose, and creates an enabling forum for stakeholdersto pursue that purpose collaboratively. Activities focus onbuilding appreciation through listening, influence throughdialogue, and control through action.”

Step 2: Dividingthe partici-pants intothree groups;men only,women only,and a combinedgroup of both men andwomen

Step 3: Each person drawing amap of his/her village in thepresent form and explaining it tohis/her group

Step 4: Each person drawing apicture of his/her village as he/she would like to perceive it inthe future. This allows theparticipants to give some thoughtto identifying ways and means forimproving their quality of lifethrough better infrastructurefacilities and services in thevillage

Step 5: Consolidate all thedrawings into a single picture ofthe village with all the details.This helps to enhance team spiritin the community towards achiev-ing goals

Step 6: Each group listing itspriority needs and identifying arange of activities that could beundertaken in the village toaddress those needs


110IRAP Guidelines

Step 7: Consolidate the three listsand asking all participants toarrive at a consensus on a singlelist of proposed activities forimplementing in the village

Step 8: Dividing the proposedactivities into three groups:- Those which can be imple-

mented at the village level;- Those warranting the involve-

ment of the public and/orprivate sectors

- Those to be implemented fullyby the public and/or privatesector

Step 9: Prioritizing theproposed activities

Step 10: Request-ing each partici-pants to indicate

the activities in whichhe/she is willing to participateand/or take the responsibility forits implementation and alsoprovide details of his/her inputs

Step 11: Asking each group toelect a project manager who isentrusted with the task of prepar-ing a work plan for implementa-tion and presenting it to the village

During the process, communitiesdetermine those activities theycan undertake themselves as wellas those activities which requireassistance from Government orother external organizations. Bothwomen and men are equallyinvolved in the process.

The IRAP Village Survey and AICtechnique are probably at differ-ent ends of the spectrum. Theyintroduce different techniques toinvolve communities. The IRAPVillage Level Key InformantDiscussion is a quick, but shallow,approach to collect informationon problems and priorities asperceived by the villagers whilethe A.I.C. approach offers a moresophisticated, but time consum-ing, procedure. It is difficult tosay which method or whichcombination of methods is thebest. This will ultimately dependon the overall circumstances andthe objectives of a programme.

AIC has proven to be an excellenttool when the area of coverage isnot too large, as is often the casein donor supported area-develop-ment projects. From the districtperspective, the problem with

Table 1: Comparison between IRAP Village Key Informant Interview and A.I.C. Technique

IRAP Key Informant Interview A.I.C.

Consultation process Participation processQuick process (2-3 hours) Slow Process (up to 3 days)Inexpensive Fairly expensiveLow demand on community High demand on community (3 days(half day participation of 6-8 key informants) participation of many villagers)Shallow process In-depth processLess gender sensative Gender sensitiveDoes not really raise expectations Raises expectationsMinimal training of interviewersExtensive training of interviewers

111

having to spend 2 days in 50 ormore villages to find out aboutpriorities is that it is very re-source intensive. The followingtable compares some advantagesand disadvantages of the twotechniques.

Mapping

Mapping has always been acornerstone of the IRAP processand should be an integral part ofany village consultation process.The graphical representation ofaccess characteristics in a givenarea can help in the identificationand prioritization of accessproblems, facilitate the formula-tion of interventions and guide inthe selection of the best develop-ment alternatives. The purpose ofhaving the communities preparingthe map is four-fold:

1. to provide a clear picture ofthe (access) conditions in thevillage

2. to help in the identification of(access) problems and in theformulation of interventions

3. to enhance the communicationof information and recommen-dations to an audience

4. to evaluate the possibleimpact of projects

Village mapping is a “user-friendly” process, which caneasily be understood by villagepeople without any technicaltraining. The map should reflectthe actual situation in the village.The map represents the relation-

ship between the villagers and thefacilities and services they need.The map could visualize, forexample, how the construction ofa piped water system couldimprove the water supply forselected households or how theimprovement of a trail couldimprove transport and access toschools, health centres andmarkets.

One of the main outputs from theA.I.C. process, indeed, is aconsolidated village map builtfrom the individual group mapsand representing a consensus onwhat the villagers want and thebeginnings of projects that theymay attempt. Mapping exercisesand the discussions they generateare generally helping the villagersto think more about access anddevelopment issues.

Villagers could, in addition, beasked to list the places they visitand purpose of such visits. Theyshould draw maps and identifythe places and the routes theytravel. During this work theycould identify the locations wherethey experience difficulties whentravelling and solutions to theproblems could be identified and

❆


112IRAP Guidelines

even prioritized from their pointof view. Problems could bewritten on cards and could bemoved up and down as a discus-sion proceeds and prioritizationwill be make through consensus.

Prioritization and Selectionof Interventions

IRAP’s traditional planning toolsare used to prioritize interven-tions across villages. Communitiesidentify their village prioritiesbased on their perceived needs.The total resources necessary toimplement these priority projectsusually exceed the resourcesavailable in the community, fromGovernment or from externaldonors. The “most feasible” or“most needed” projects should beselected by the community in aparticipatory manner.

Project implemen-tation costs shouldbe estimatedbefore going intothe detaileddesign work, inorder to minimizeexpectations of

the communities,using information from

identical interventions undersimilar conditions in other areas.After the costs have been esti-mated, a simple feasibility studycould help the community toassess whether the proposedinterventions are feasible byrelating costs to the expectedbenefits.

Design

A detailed survey and design ofthe project should not be under-taken until a possible donor,internal or external, has beenidentified to avoid further raisingexisting village expectations.Participation in project surveyand design may become counter-productive and jeopardize futureinitiatives if funding possibilitiesdo not exist and designingprojects remains merely anacademic exercise.

Once the priorities have beenidentified by the community, atechnical team needs to surveyand design the projects. If fundingpossibilities exist then communi-ties should participate in finaliz-ing the design of projects. Thisparticipation should not belimited to an exclusive agreementon village contribution or localinputs but should include interac-tion on technical details and costsas well. With the cooperation ofthe local people, a design and acost estimate for undertaking theproposed intervention needs to beprepared. The final design of theinterventions is a social, iterative,process between experts andlocal people 24 .

Villagers not always correctlyprioritize their needs. Oftenpeople only consider the benefitsof interventions and while priori-tizing village needs, basic infor-mation about the cost and laboureffort of projects is often notseriously taken into consider-ation. During the design phasehowever costs and local contribu-

❆

❆

113

tions are taken into considerationand project components maychange or, sometimes, the com-plete project may be rejected andchanged for something else.

To maximize the use of scarceresources and optimize villageownership and sustainability ofthe interventions, it is recom-mended to maximize local contri-bution. This oftenincludes inputsto be providedby the villagersat no cost.Their inputshave to beestablished throughnegotiations and this has to beformally agreed upon through acontract. Agreement with commu-nities, often, are crucial for thesuccess of community-basedapproaches. These agreementscould be formal in the form of acontract or informal.

Village contributions

People need to understand whatthey commit once designing aproject. What does it mean inpractical terms if the community,for example, commits itself“transporting the constructionmaterials”. The following excerptcoming from the World Bank’sParticipation Sourcebook illus-trates this point:“The absence ofsufficient “commitment” in manyof the projects the bank financescomes, we believe, mainly fromthe external expert stance, inwhich small groups of experts askthe other stakeholders to commit

24 Another approach would be to start with communityinvolvement right from the start of the design.

25 World Bank Participation Sourcebook

themselves to a project theexperts have designed. Even ifthese stakeholders do so, theyoften have not learned enough tounderstand fully the commitmentthey are being asked to make.Nor have they learned enough tojudge their ability individuallyand collectively to fulfill it. Weneed to be clear that commit-ments made under such circum-stances cannot be relied on 25 .

Many villages especially in themore remote areas live at or nearsubsistence level and can usuallynot contribute any cash to theproject. Their main contributionwill be labour for transport andconstruction and collection oflocal materials such as sand,gravel, stone and wood. Villagecontributions can come in variousforms.

It is important here to reiteratethat participation is more thanjust contributing in terms oflabour, materials or cash. Thispoint is taken by Dee Jupps andsummarized in her paper on“community participation in ruralinfrastructure developmentwritten for the Bangladesh SecondRural Roads and Markets Improve-ment and Maintenance Project:

“For many the idea that poorunskilled and uneducated peoplecan contribute anything todevelopment initiatives under-taken on their behalf beyond

❆


114IRAP Guidelines

their labour and cash is unthink-able. They feel that planningdecisions, including site selectionand choice of technology, shouldbe left entirely to the technicalexperts. If participation isembraced at all, it is limited toinvolving villages in manuallabour and local cost sharing. It isassumed that contributions ofcash and physical labour consti-tute a willingness on the part ofthe people to participate andindicate a commitment to thedevelopment scheme. This, inturn, is assumed to generate asense of ownership of the facilityand collective pride which willensure its maintenance.

These assumptions have beenproved over and over again to bedubious. The fact is people willnot value anything which does not

26 Dee Jupp Community Participation in RuralInfrastructure Development

meet their needs. If the locationis inconvenient, the service tooexpensive and inadequate tomeet their needs then regardlessof whether they were involved inconstruction or cost sharing, thefacility will not be used, willgradually fall into disrepair orwill be abandoned altogether.There could have been a numberof reasons why they becameinvolved in the constructionwhich may not correlate with theusefulness of the scheme. Forexample, it may have beenregarded as a chance for earningdaily wages, albeit minimal, orthey may have been coerced byinfluential leaders 26 ”. Thesewords, again, emphasize theimportance of involving thecommunities during the inceptionof projects.

115

ASIST AP is a regional programme of the Employment Intensive Invest-ments Programme (EIIP) of the ILO, concerned with developing andmainstreaming poverty alleviation strategies through sustainableinfrastructure development. The programme is implemented throughfour major fields of operation, viz: accessibility planning, labour-basedworks technology, small-scale contracting and infrastructure mainte-nance, thus providing a comprehensive approach to infrastructuredevelopment covering all stages from planning and construction tomaintenance and operation.

Based in Bangkok, ASIST AP provides a full range of expert support toall stages of the project cycle from formulation, implementation,monitoring to final review and evaluation. These services includeactivities such as:

✦ planning, policy development and design of infrastructureprogrammes,

✦ influencing public investments in infrastructure towards the greateruse of local resources,

✦ technical and managerial support to project implementation,✦ information services,✦ preparation of planning and implementation guidelines,✦ developing appropriate methods for increased involvement of the

domestic construction industry in infrastructure works,✦ design and conduct of tailor-made training programmes, and✦ design of appropriate maintenance management systems.

This document forms part of a series of publications from ASIST AP, in itsefforts to develop and disseminate general and country specificguidelines, best practices and lessons learned in the context of planningand implementing infrastructure works programmes.

More information about ASIST AP can be found at www.iloasist.orgor by contacting us at

ASIST Asia Pacific, P.O. Box 2-349 Bangkok 10200 ThailandTel: 66 2 288 2303; Fax: 66 2 288 1062E-mail: [email protected]

International Labour OrganisationRegional Office for Asia and the Pacific

ASIST Asia PacificP.O. Box 2-349Bangkok 10200 Thailand

improving access in rural areas · improving access and reducing poverty are correlated. a lack of...

Documents