0100,0100,0100RURAL TRANSPORT SERVICES E-MAIL DISCUSSION Summary of week 2: Strategies for low-density situations out1.0 Introduction The week 2 of the continuing e-mail discussion focussed on strategies for promoting Rural Transport Services in “low density” contexts. As a background to the discussion, the demographic, economic, social and geographic characteristics of low-density situations were outlined. Dispersed population, a low volume of economic activity, and a dearth of transport infrastructure typify low-density situations widespread in most of Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as some of the remote parts of South Asia and Latin America. The central problem of low-density situations is the preponderance of “non-market” conditions; consequently, there is insufficient volume of transport demand to attract entrepreneurial activities in the development of transport services. The question posted by the authors was - what strategies are to be used to stimulate RTS in the low-density contexts? A list of 10 possible strategies was presented, leaving it to the participants to amplify them or make additional contributions. Below, we summarize the week’s discussion into 7 points. At the end of the summary, and in keeping to the structure of week 1 , we reflect on the main direction of the week’s discussion, by posing a summary question. It is our hope that the running issue(s) from the entire discussion can be captured through points of reflection at the conclusion of each week. 2.0Summary of the week (i) Ensuring effective participation of the poor: The principle of participation by all important stakeholders in the planning, implementation and maintenance of RTS was further re-affirmed in week 2. A discussion on who the stakeholders are, had already taken place in week 1. In week 2, more emphasis was given to the need for structuring an approach that can give a bigger voice to the interests of poor, who not only form the bulk of the target group in “low-density” contexts”, but often run the risk of getting disenfranchised in conventional planning processes. There were calls for a deliberate methodology for involving the poor and for finding practical examples of poor people taking an active part in the planning, operation and maintenance of RTS. The paucity of experiences of promoting RTS especially in low-density situations as obtaining in SSA was pointed out. What the week highlighted was not the absence of willingness to bring the poor to the centre of the planning process but rather, a lack of knowledge on the practical means with which to do it. (ii) Private sector and Private sector where do they interface? Although not an explicit thrust in the week’s discussion, there seems to be a general agreement that operation of RTS is principally the business of private enterprise. The role of the government is cast as one of providing the “enabling environment”. this model is not generally contested, interesting questions arose in respect of its interpretation/application in low-density contexts. What for instance does an “enabling environment” mean in relation to the participation of the poor? An example of a futile attempt in some rural part of Nicaragua to “jumpstart” provision of RTS by the private sector through distribution of IMTs to the micro-enterprises in rural areas was given. The failure of this initiative was in contradistinction with the proliferation of the same IMTs in towns (read a high-density context). In Cuba, as a consequence of the oil crisis, the government imported large consignments of bicycles which were sold to the public. Subsequently people in the country, perhaps due to this stimulus provided by the government, started making a wide range of IMTs on their own. An important point arising therefore relates to the nature of the enabling environment required under the problem conditions of low- density situations. While the position o f private sector operated services and a policy role for government can be confirmed, there could be a need for selective government intervention in operating RTS for the poor. Are there certain critical thresholds that the government needs to cross with the poor people? Are there certain crucial preconditions the private sector is looking for before operating services in low-density situations, and to what extent is the government willing/able to put these in place? Is there an optimal mix of functions between the private sector and the government that could result in improved RTS situation? (iii) Training: A case is made on the need for training as a strategy to reinforce the voices of the poor in the context of participatory planning. Different types of training are required for different actors, and especially focussing on the different needs of men and women. (iv) Micro-credit: Credit as an input to stimulate RTS was proposed. Though this served to amplify one of the prospective strategies outlined in the background reading, subsequent contributions did not propose how to specifically customize credit to low-density situations. (v)Use of Labour based methods for infrastructure development: Over the years, a reasonable body of experience has been built in respect to substituting capital for labour in rural infrastructure projects. Absence of infrastructure in low-density areas can be addressed by utilisation of labour in low-season periods to improve connectivity that is critical to the local livelihoods. The added benefits of this approach would include the injection of cash in an area, thus stimulating demand for goods and services, as well as creation of a pool of skilled to semi-skilled labour for local transport infrastructure maintenance. (vi) Sustained Financing of RTS initiatives : One contribution implores on the need to put the money where the mouths are. Commitment to improved transport services for the poor should be translated into well financed programmes. Governments in developing countries should be persuaded to pay more attention to the transport problems of poor people, through poverty alleviation programmes. It was pointed out that the volumes of publications and guideline papers often overshadow the amount of resources set-aside for actual RTS. In the meantime, a considerable amount of resources are still directed at transport infrastructure, which is deemed less cumbersome technically and administratively. Could the lamented paucity of large scale results on RTS be related to the perceived under-resourcing and therefore the small-scale and isolated nature of existing initiatives ? (vii) Working on, and promoting a common approach and understanding: It was pointed out that a considerable amount of work still remains to be done in order to arrive at a broadly accepted framework for action among all stakeholders. An example was given of a Rural Road Investment Project in Guatemala sponsored by the World Bank that was hampered by differences in approach between the World Bank, the Local Authorities and Central Government. One of the problems included the poor image attached to Non-Motorized Transport by the Government, and hence lack of interest to push forward NMTs as a strategy for promoting RTS. These examples help to underscore the ground that still needs to be covered in order to come to a better understanding and broader acceptance of transport needs from the point of view of poor people. 3.0 Week’s reflection. It is apparent that “low-density” conditions present a formidable challenge to the conventional model of transport planning. Absence of market conditions (lack of a critical mass of transport demand) means that economic criteria for developing RTS are not immediately applicable. If we are to make the issue of equitable development of transport services the centre-piece of three week’s discussion, our attention is immediately called to being more forthcoming on what practically needs to be done in low-density situations. Question: What are the minimum enabling conditions required of Governments in order for a sustainable RTS to evolve in low-density contexts? Peter Njenga 27th October 2000 Nairobi.