[rts] On the move - general comments

[Priyanthi Fernando]

Dear Paul Starkey, John Hine, Simon Ellis and Anna Ternell, 

At the risk of dominating the discussion but in the hope that the 
following comments will attract a greater response than my 
intervention on gender! I would like to make  the  few general 
comments about the paper that I warned you I was going to! They are 
not in any particular sequence or order of importance. They are all 
rather random and some are merely editorial but they do prove that I 
have read the document in some detail though not perhaps having the 
time to give it the attention it deserves.

In  the abbreviations you refer to IFRTD as the International Forum 
    for Rural Transport and Development, London, UK.  The IFRTD is a 
    global network with a Secretariat that happens to be in London so I 
    would appreciate it if the London, UK  is dropped from the definition 
    and the Forum’s international character is maintained.
I   am afraid I don’t like the term local transport solutions as a 
    substitute for intermediate means of transport.  I would prefer local 
    transport solutions to refer both to mobility and access 
    interventions at the local level and to encompass both infrastructure 
    and intermediate transport.  Intermediate means of transport or IMTs 
    is rather clumsy, but has become common usage at least among those 
    working on transport issues.  I think we need a term that keeps the 
    idea of means/modes and includes non-motorised and motorised. If  we 
    can't come up with something, I'd rather stick with IMTs. 
As  much as the paper would gain by mainstreaming gender into its 
    analysis, it would also gain by integrating the idea of a continuum 
    of conditions/situations that cut across regional and national 
    boundaries, into the earlier chapters. This is the most important 
    contribution that the paper is making to the debate and it would be 
    useful if the examples in the earlier chapters related to these 
    situations as well as their geographical locations.
It  is interesting that there are very few Latin American examples in 
    the study,  particularly in the tables in Chapter 2 on vehicle 
    operating costs  and vehicle utilisation which are confined to an 
    Asia/Africa comparison much as they were in the background papers. 
The paper’s position on state/private sector split seems ambivalent.  
    The overall assumption follows the general Bretton Woods  philosophy 
    of more market less state but on page 47 for instance, the paper 
    seems to argue for (state) agricultural extension officers taking 
    responsibility for providing advice on transport technologies., 
    though under reforms these extension services seem are declining  
    rapidly even in Asia.  
Whatreaders of the paper could benefit from is a closer analysis of 
    the Indian experience in providing state-run transport services and 
    what trade-offs have been made between equity and efficiency and with 
    what consequences.
I   am concerned that positive aspects of transport operators’ 
    associations are not highlighted.  For boda boda taxi operators in 
    Kenya and Uganda, associations provide protection for both the 
    operators (from night time attacks from non-paying passengers, heavy 
    taxes and harassment by the traffic police) and for the passengers 
    (thru’ compensation for accidents, clear identification of operators, 
    safety measures such as  regular maintenance of  bicycles, bumper 
    stickers etc). 
At  the workshop in London someone mentioned the importance of putting 
    the user at the centre of the analysis. On page 39  in the paragraph 
    beginning “depending on local circumstances
” you highlight the fact 
    that a value of a technology is not intrinsic to itself but to the 
    context of the user – which I think is a very valid point and one 
    that needs to  be made quite strongly.  But overall, and this could 
    be a matter of style, the reader can be forgiven for considering the 
    paper in general to be more technology-focused than people/user 
    focused .  So for instance, I think  diversity/complementarity is as 
    much diversity/complementarity of users as it is of technologies.  
    And the reason for stimulating diversity/complementarity  is to 
    expand the options available to a wider range of stakeholders, 
    including the disadvantaged.   Promoting diversity and 
    complementarity is, in my mind, an element of a more equitable 
    strategy.
Thereare some ideas that have been loosely thrown into the paper 
    almost without context. The reference to the livelihoods perspective 
    at the bottom of page 33 talks of importance of building social 
    capital.  But from the same perspective transport is also essential 
    to developing human capital – and  yet the paper hardly addresses the 
    role of transport services in providing access to education and 
    health services. On page 39 the description of the differential car 
    prices in the UK/Europe does not consider the influence of consumer 
    pressure and choice on the market. Following on from that surely 
    participatory processes that involve all stakeholders must also be 
    accompanied by strategies to strengthen stakeholder groups  
    especially “rural communities that are small and dispersed and not 
    effective in applying pressure on operators or transport 
    organisations” p.47?
Safety.The impression a reader gets (and again this could be a 
    matter of style) is that safety is a problem of unsafe vehicles.  
    However the major safety problem is for those who do not use vehicles 
    i.e pedestrians  and cyclists
On  reflection, I am not sure whether the  scenario of “much 
    agriculture involving traditional subsistence crops” and “little non-
    agricultural employment” is a realistic scenario.  There seems to be 
    increasing evidence that most poor rural households are no longer 
    solely dependent on agriculture – and have to engage in other, low 
    paid and low income-generating,  employment eg wage labour, beer 
    brewing, salt panning etc – as complementary livelihood strategies.  
    This could have implications for the design of transport 
    interventions since they will need to take into account trips to 
    employment sites..

These are my thoughts and I would like to know what you and other 
participants have to say about them and about anything else.  I hope 
Paul, John, Simon and Anna that you are not travelling and easily 
accessing your mail – it would be good to have your reactions to some 
of these and other comments.  I guess we participants will appreciate 
your feedback too!  

Best wishes to everyone

Priyanthi

________________________________________________________________________
Priyanthi Fernando
Executive Secretary
International Forum for Rural Transport and Development
2 Spitfire Studios
63-71 Collier Street
London N1 9BE
UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7713 6699
Fax: +44 (0)20 7713 8290
email: ifrtd at gn.apc.org OR priyanthi.fernando at mcmail.com
Web page: http://www.gn.apc.org/ifrtd