CHAPTER SIX: PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDY OF THE GADP
6.1 INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE GADP
6.1.1 Terms of reference of the GADP
The GADP was conceived in 1990 (Bguyonb and GADP, 1993) by the Government of Rwanda, with a total budget of $EU 35.6 million, of which an amount of $EU 7.7 (European dollars) was funded by beneficiaries, $EU 5.4 by the Rwandan government, $EU 11.2 by IFAD, $EU 4.7 by the United Nations Fund for Equipment (FENU), $EU 3.4 by PNUD, and $EU 3.2 by the World Food Program (WFP). At the beginning, the GADP duration was estimated at 7 years (Bguyonb and GADP, 1993). This means that the project was expected to close by the end of 1997. But the duration was extended and the project was terminated on 30 June 2001, as one former manager of the GADP confirmed. The GADP was implemented in the southern region of Rwanda (Map 6-1).
Map 6-1: The GADP location on the map of Rwanda
Source: Maps of World (2009).
According to Bguyonb and GADP (1993), the GADP comprised 7 districts out of 13 of Gikongoro Province. The project covered a surface of 83,508 ha with 250,000 habitants. The area’s altitude varies from 1600 to 2400 meters. The population density is very high, that is, 250 people to 400/km². This may be one of the causes of the severe poverty in the region. The distribution of land among the targeted people of 42,000 families was uneven. In 1989, 28% of the people owned ½ ha of land and 37% owned between ½ ha and 1 ha. At that time, less than 40% had cattle, so more than 60% had no livestock. Among those who had livestock, less than 50% kept sheep, goats, and pigs. The small family incomes came from export crops such as coffee, and food crops like potatoes, wheat, sweet potatoes, and so on. The consequence of this distribution was that the population consumed less than 1,500 kcal/day in nutritional requirements on average. The GADP came in Gikongoro at a time when people urgently needed it to solve these problems.
The purpose of the GADP implementation in Gikongoro was to help people to alleviate their poverty (IFAD, 1993) and to reduce the problem of food insecurity. In Gikongoro, food insecurity was a result of small farmers not being able to sustain themselves on less than ½ ha of farming land. Approximately 40% of those farms were headed by women. Rural young people and the households of older people were particularly affected (IFAD et al, 1993). The GADP set out to make a significant impact on the lives of people living in Gikongoro province. It was
hoped that the nutritional quality of their food would be improved by increasing the production of livestock and agriculture. The project would contribute to alleviating the problem of unemployment and increasing the incomes of small farmers by more than 50%. People would have more developed farmland (IFAD, 1993). The project wanted to improve the standard of living of the poorest and integrate the region of Gikongoro into national economic exchanges (Bguyonb and GADP, 1993).
For this reason, Bguyonb and GADP (1993) state that the GADP was directly concerned with improving the farming production, particularly in the areas of agriculture, livestock, popularization, research and development, as well as developing valley land and land at high altitude. This was in support of the reorganization of the national structure of MINAGRI. The GADP also aimed to improve the economic environment by promoting upstream and downstream production, and by subcontracting some activities to national organizations. These included roads and storerooms construction, rural area structuring, micro-enterprises support, farming loans, and training for the GADP personnel and farmers. This subcontracting was inevitable as the GADP had far too many tasks to fulfil.
Besides the allocation of newly developed land, the project considered activities (business) other than agriculture in order to help vulnerable people, particularly women, to increase their small incomes. The women were given a high priority because they formed the majority of the target group and many of them headed families (IFAD, 1993).
6.1.2 The GADP implementation
Bguyonb and GADP (1993) indicate that, in its attempts to alleviate poverty in Gikongoro, the GADP had been supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Food Program (WFP) since 1977, specifically with agricultural development in 7 districts of Gikongoro province. The main activities that they supported include:
• Reforestation and anti-erosive activities;
• Integration of agriculture and animal rearing;
• Agricultural intensification with growing seeds and distribution of inputs (fertilizers);
• Marsh development and cooperatives support.
In that context, Bguyonb and GADP (1993) state that the GADP intended to increase monetary income in the project zone by increasing commercial crops and to improve the nutritional situation (objective: 1875 Kcal /day) in the project zone, integrating women and small farming enterprises.
Four former employees of the GADP expressed the view that the project was seriously intended to promote the development of Gikongoro province by means of training farmers to increase their harvests to meet their needs in food and market crops. This should also contribute towards solving the problem of the chronic famine experienced in the region for a long time. Therefore, the GADP was implemented in Gikongoro at the right time, replacing another project PIA.
One manager of the GADP asserted that the GADP took over 80% of the PIA’s infrastructures.
Two ex-employees of the GADP added that the GADP made a remarkable difference and accomplished other concrete activities such as improving the availability of inputs (fertilizers, seeds) besides the activities of popularization. Popularization of the GADP entailed making itself known and attractive to the Rwandan community, using radio, TV, media, meetings and training. This was not done by the PIA when it was operating in Gikongoro. In addition, the head office of the GADP was based in Gikongoro, close to the beneficiaries in other words. This was an important advantage and it should have favoured rapid growth and a speedier achievement of its activities.
Another GADP manager added that, during the first three years, the project had been in a good position to achieve its objectives, mainly because its human resources were sufficient, both in quality and quantity. At the beginning, the project had three to four experts. Even the managing director of the project was an expert in management and agricultural engineering. But, according to IFAD et al. (1993), 56 out of 89 staff, employed by the GADP in management, had only high school and were not trained in the field of management. Therefore the quality of staff was doubtful.
The manager said that, as from July 1992, the leadership of the project had changed and the number of experts was reduced because of decreased sponsorship as Rwanda was still in the throes of the war that had started in 1990. The war had serious consequences for the project because it lost both personnel and material (infrastructures). But according to Bguyonb and GADP (1993), the changes in 1992 were part of a reorganization aimed at integrating the GADP
into the national structures of MINAGRI. This process had begun in 1990 and involved a reduction in GADP staff from 311 employees in 1990 to 89 employees in 1993. As IFAD (1993) indicates, it was in 1993 that the first mid-term evaluation team was put in place and its findings were published.
Two GADP managers said that after the war and genocide of 1994, the project had only three full-time employees. The sponsors officially brought the project back on track in July 1996. But from 1997 to early 1998, funding was blocked due to administrative problems. During that period, the employees were not paid their salaries. The year 1998 was characterized by the rehabilitation of infrastructures. One GADP manager affirmed that, from 1998 to 2001, the project made rapid progress towards the achievement of its objectives. This was due to changes in the project leadership in late 1997. With the new director, there was an improvement in project management and leadership, characterized by the speed that dossiers and the allocation of funds were dealt with. Some work was subcontracted to private enterprises after the works had been put out to tender. This was not done while tendering had been in the hands of the National Tender Board (Government institution). Hence, as far as certain aspects of management were concerned, things were going well, but IFAD (1993) points out that the GADP had serious problems with the coordination of activities, subcontracted to different contracting parties such as those in charge of training farmers and constructing roads.
The failure of the GADP was confirmed by 14 farmers who acknowledged that the GADP recorded some achievements, such as providing farmers with knowledge on financial management of cooperative and farming techniques. They learned how to efficiently use resources and savings and they received self-employment opportunities. However, they found that the overall positive impact of the project was not significantly perceptible in their lives because the war and the genocide destroyed all that they had achieved, and because of their very limited participation in the project from beginning to end. They were not involved even in the planning processes in spite of being the main beneficiaries of the project.
There is no doubt that the war and genocide played a big role in destroying the GADP resources (people, fixed assets and other resources). However, this was not the only, or even the major, cause of the failure. Although views regarding the reasons for the reorganization of the GADP introduced in 1992 differ, the reality is that there was a problem in relation to the GADP management, particularly in the area of planning. It is, for example, difficult to understand how,
within only 3 years, the number of employees could be reduced from 311 to 89. In the resource planning, the number of employees needed had been overestimated, resulting in waste of financial resources because of undue payment of salaries, while the project already had a serious sponsorship problem. But no matter how strong the GADP leadership would have been – and it apparently was strong, but only at a late stage – on its own it would not have been able to affect the desired significant changes in the project implementation. It would have needed the total and active involvement of all GADP stakeholders throughout its life-cycle.
6.1.3 The GADP leadership
One ex-manager of the GADP indicated the duality of responsibilities of the Head of the GADP.
The duality consisted of also being director of RDAS (Regional Director of Agricultural Services and GADP). For the respondent, the duality of responsibilities did not cause the Director any problems. On the contrary, he concluded that it was an advantage because he knew the way of things in both organizations and could move ahead more quickly. This was also because there was no one to interfere with his supervision and control.
Duality of responsibilities was, however, a serious problem caused by the poor organizational structure of the project. The organizational structure was ambiguous and this resulted in poor job description and resource allocation. In fact, the GADP was under the direct control of MINAGRI and RDAS. MINAGRI was represented in the Gikongoro province by RDAS. There was confusion between the GADP and the RDAS, the two organizations which were under the same direct supervision of MINAGRI and doing the same things in the same region. For the GADP, this ambiguous organizational structure made the coordination of activities very difficult and, as there was only limited autonomy in the carrying out of tasks, there could also be no optimal allocation of the resources. The duplication of the responsibilities of the head of the GADP contributed to poor planning of the project.
Furthermore, as one farmer indicated, the senior managers of GADP departments and sub- programmes carried out daily management activities, but they had to report directly to the director of the RDAS instead of to the director of the GADP. In other words, the project was not managed in a transparent way. It seemed that management and leadership were in the hands of senior project managers and other powerful and influential people. The project was designed without consulting the persons targeted and it had just been imposed on them. The result was
that some of the project’s achievements and infrastructures were destroyed because beneficiaries, particularly farmers, did not understand that they were the owners. This concerns, for example, stores and fertilizers. Today, they regret such behaviour. In addition, different activities were carried out in different districts. For example, what was done in Nyamagabe, differed from what was done in Mudasomwa. Some districts were given cows; others received goats, while the neighbouring districts of the Nyungwe forest received wheat and potatoes.
Regarding supervision, one farmer said that the direct supervisor of the agronomists and veterinarians, operating in the districts, was the director of the GADP, who would receive the compulsory authorization to supervise his employees from the local government (the Mayor of the district). The farmer concerned saw this administrative rule as an indication of the good relationship between the GADP and the districts, rather than as a barrier. However, the employee performance appraisal was not done by the director of the GADP but by the head of the district where employees were allocated.
The GADP leadership was problematic and confusing. If the employee performance appraisal was accompanied by a reward, how could a direct supervisor (employer) reward an employee whom he had not followed-up on a daily basis and evaluated himself? How is it that an employee of the GADP, working in a district area, had to report on his activities directly to the head of the district, rather than to his direct supervisor? How is it possible to be the director of two different organizations doing the same thing in the same region, one organization being under the supervision of another?
The GADP leadership was marked by poor partnership, which had many implications. The leader might concentrate the power into his own hands. He could find it difficult to delegate authority and responsibilities to his subordinates. He could for, example, think that he was the only one who knew all there was to know and think and make decisions alone, or with a small group of people, for the rest of the employees who would become de-motivated. This would lead to lower productivity and a high rate of staff turnover, and ultimately to a loss of employees’
knowledge, experience and skills. Re-motivating the same employees might be difficult, even impossible, and the recruitment of others would be costly. It is obvious that such leadership would result in poor coordination of activities and waste of resources. It would also be a handicap to internal and external cooperation with different stakeholders and an obstacle to effective communication. It could lead to mismanagement of resources and limit the free flow of
information (stakeholders’ opinions, fresh and new ideas), which could contribute to the project’s success.
It is hard to understand how one and the same person can be director of two organizations and distribute his time and energy evenly. In addition, one can question the quality of decisions made under these conditions. How would it be possible for him to remain principled while resolving conflicting situations, when these concern decisions linked to leadership and management issues, considering that all decision-making powers were in his own hands? Having two workplaces, his absence at the one could lead to some activities being paralysed because some important dossiers had to wait for his signature. The circumstances were not conducive for transparent processes of decision-making and problem-solving, nor did they encourage leadership accountability.
In an interview conducted with Governor K on his past experience with the GADP, the Governor said it is important that project leaders be instructed at least once a month on the objectives, activities and benefits of the project so that, when they have to sensitize the local people they know the project in and out. For the success of the project, the governor indicated, strong partnership relationships are needed between project managers, local people (target beneficiaries) and government authorities at all levels.
The fact that strong GADP leadership was established only late in 1998, when the project was approaching its end, and the frequent changes in leadership before that time, negatively influenced the realization of the project’s objectives. The GADP was active at a time when the government authority was not decentralized at provincial, district and local levels. That the project was under the supervision of the centralized government, which had the last word on important decisions, made at GADP level, was a serious impediment to the active participation of, particularly, farmers in GADP decisions.