[rts] WEEK 1 SUMMARY

[econf-ifrtd at gn.apc.org]

Following is a summary of the discussions on Week 1 prepared by Peter 
Njenga who is  based in Nairobi, Kenya and  is working as consultant 
advisor to SNV an international Dutch development orgnisation  in the 
field of Research, Policy and Strategy formulation for the country 
programme and  from time to time for SNV's Eastern and Southern 
African programme.  As such he is  a member of a three person SNV task 
force developing a 5-year regional program of work on support to Local 
Governance Processes.  

Peter  Njenga has a long association with Rural Transport issues.  He 
was  the manager of ITDG (Kenya) Rural Transport Programme and a 
founder member of the Kenyan national forum group. He  has worked on 
many Rural Transport assignments in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, 
Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.  He continues to be an active resource for a 
variety of initiatives like IFRTD, RTTP and ATNESA. _

________________________________________________________
RURAL TRANSPORT SERVICES E-MAIL DISCUSSION - WEEK 1 
SUMMARY by Peter Njenga

GENERAL BACKGROUND
Increasing rural mobility as a strategy towards poverty alleviation is a 
central theme of the three-week e-mail conference.  Reflecting on the past 
inadequacy of the conventional, macro-focussed approach to transport 
planning, the discussion seeks to distill the growing body of knowledge 
in the planning and implementing of rural transport systems that respond 
to the needs of people living under different circumstances. Indeed, an 
essential point of departure for the discussion is the recognition of the 
diverse problem conditions and circumstances under which rural people 
have to undertake personal travel or move their goods.  The need to go 
beyond the dogma of roads, and to design a broader and more flexible 
menu of integrated solutions in transport forms the backdrop to the 
discussion.  Two documents provide the framework for the discussion. 
These are Paul Starkey’s (to be published in 2000) “Local Transport 
Solutions: People, paradoxes and progress” and Simon Ellis and John 
Hine (1998): “The provision of Rural Transport Services.

1.0 SYNTHESIS OF WEEK ONE

1.1   INTRODUCTION
Week one sought to address two questions that are central to 
developing more effective strategies for rural transport: (i) Who are the 
stakeholders? (ii) what conditions influence the development of rural 
transport services?  We examine the discussion around each one of the 
two in turns.

1.2  WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS?

BACKGROUND NOTE:
The role of a more systematic involvement of stakeholders in problem 
analysis, design, implementation and evaluation of rural transport 
programs is given as an important pre-condition to success and 
sustainability.  While this principle is fairly accepted in a variety of social 
development programs – water, health, environment etc, it is less 
established in the programs considered to have strong “technical” 
orientations, transport being one of them. An area of change that the 
debate is seeking to promote is the institutionalization of a more 
consultative process in determining possible transport options for 
different users and regions.  Determination of key stakeholders is an 
important step towards a more participatory transport planning process.

SYNTHESIS  FROM THE E-DISCUSSION:
To stimulate the debate, a set of 10 institutional stakeholders had 
previously been given.  They comprise of public sector (Local 
Government, Ministries of Transport, Rural Development, Finance and 
Police Departments), private sector (transport service providers, banks 
and credit organizations) and civil society entities (actual and potential 
users, established organizations and non-governmental organizations).

In general, most contributions considered the presented stakeholder 
chart as a useful starting point for discussion.  Main comments are as 
follows:

Additional Stakeholders: Include Ministry’s of Health and Education.  A 
functioning rural transport system is critical to the delivery of services in 
these two sectors.  There are suggestions to explicitly include the 
ministries of agriculture, marketing trade and industry.

Structuring Stakeholders’ Responsibilities and Interests: It was 
suggested that the process of 
involving stakeholders should be systematic, logical and transparent. 
The interests/mandates/jurisdictions of various stakeholders should be 
clear and openly agreed.   In determining the degrees of interest among 
stakeholders, it is important to know the nature, regularity and magnitude 
of benefits and costs borne by different groups for a particular program 
under consideration.  The “hierarchy” of interests or the “proximity” to 
the problem being addressed will vary with the particular issue under 
consideration.  For example, a bus service project may present a slightly 
different stakeholder structure from a bicycle ambulance initiative.  Thus 
the weight of interest among different stakeholders is not uniform. The 
main challenge is in weaving the variety of interests (as embodied by 
stakeholders) into a sustainable, open and publicly accountable 
structure for effective rural transport planning. 

Prioritizing stakeholders: The following order was suggested: (i) “users” 
should be put at the center.  They offer the “anchor” point for all the 
other stakeholders.  Their demand/need for services is the basis for 
sustainability; (ii) second order of stakeholders suggested is the 
suppliers: they are central to increasing the efficiency of rural transport 
services. (iii) Government (central/local) is suggested as the third most 
important stakeholder in its policy/regulatory functions. If the user is the 
primary stakeholder, the government is the strategic partner/technical 
advisor, while the private sector is the primary service provider.

Functional clustering of stakeholders: suggestion is made to group the 
stakeholders as follows; Legislative/Policy making (consisting of key 
ministries): Executive agencies, responsible for implementation, operation 
and maintenance (representatives of line government line agencies, 
NGOs. Contractors, transport entrepreneurs etc) Judiciary (responsible 
for legal compliance or review of inhibitive provisions).  Finance (Made 
up of financing institutions, banks donors etc).

Need for a platform for involving stakeholders An additional point made 
is on the need to design an appropriate method and platform to involve 
stakeholders. This could for example, be through district planning 
process.  A district development plan is given as a good entry point for 
linking bottom-up approaches to top-down processes.  Additionally, 
integrating transport issues into other development programs – eg 
poverty alleviation, agricultural development etc can help mobilize a wide 
spectrum of stakeholders.

1.3   CONDITIONS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
RURAL TRANSPORT SERVICES:

BACKGROUND NOTE:
A variety of factors seem to determine the distribution of different 
transport services.  In the case of IMTs,  “nodes of use” for different 
technologies is unevenly spread.   The variable spread of technologies is 
partially a result of readily apparent factors –economy, topography, 
production systems etc.  In other cases, reasons for existence, or 
absence of, specific transport systems in particular areas is not easily 
accounted for.

The profit motive is often an important force in influencing investment 
patterns in transport services.  This explains a higher density of different 
transport technologies in urban/market areas.   8 “economic” factors that 
influence the efficiency and profitability of rural transport services are 
presented.  These are (i) the level of economic demand for transport 
(ii)cost of transport technologies and operating inputs (iii) competitive 
transport markets (iv) critical mass of users/service providers and 
support services (v)quality of infrastructure (vi) Availability of a range of 
appropriate and affordable transport technologies (vii)appropriate fiscal 
and regulatory environment (viii) impact of culture relations in demand 
and use patterns

The point of the week’s discussion was two-fold; firstly, and based on 
the 8 points above, to come to some idea of critical factors influencing 
development patterns of rural transport services and their order of 
priority.  Secondly, to examine the conditions that can influence and 
favor development of a more equitable rural transport services, focussing 
on the needs of the poor, women and the elderly.

SYNTHESIS FROM THE E-DISCUSSION:
This aspect of the discussion generated limited responses, the summary 
of which is as follows:

It is acknowledged that little is known about the conditions that 
influence the development of rural transport services and those that 
impede it.   If this were clear then it would be possible to establish who 
has got influence over what factors.   In general, good examples of 
success in Rural Transport Services are needed.
The need to simultaneously focus on aspects of efficiency/profitability 
as well as improved social services delivery is important.

>From the author’s introduction, a key question was put across. This was: 
 “should we be asking what conditions influence and favor the equitable 
development of transport solutions?”  This question has not been 
addressed in the discussion, and yet perhaps, it should form the center 
of gravity for the entire discussion. 

Peter Njenga
18th October 2000
Nairobi.