1 / 10

Reaction to plenary session LIPW seminar Gisenyi 20 th October 2006

Reaction to plenary session LIPW seminar Gisenyi 20 th October 2006. Donors’ & MINALOC’s views. Opportunities LIPW (acc. to donors) Improved agricultural production Financial services Small-scale agro-processing Capacity building Opportunities LIPW (acc. to MINALOC) Decentralisation

pello
Télécharger la présentation

Reaction to plenary session LIPW seminar Gisenyi 20 th October 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reaction to plenary session LIPW seminar Gisenyi 20th October 2006

  2. Donors’ & MINALOC’s views Opportunities LIPW (acc. to donors) • Improved agricultural production • Financial services • Small-scale agro-processing • Capacity building Opportunities LIPW (acc. to MINALOC) • Decentralisation • Improved coordination between programmes • Development of standards • Need for new strategies and institutional setup • Incorporation private sector • Training • Further national LIPW policy development: how to go about it?

  3. LIPW according to ILO • ILO: Employment policies, investment policies and structural poverty reduction can be closely linked • ILO: approaches: • Social dimension: short-term, urgency • Economical growth: favoured option, if accompanied by instruments strengthening the productive capacity • ILO: for the same investment LIPW creates 2 to 5 times as much labour • LIPW – CIPW : a gliding scale, where to position ourselves on the scale? • When LIPW? Where technically possible and economically feasible • JK: ….. And environmentally sound !

  4. LIPW according to involved ministries and decentralised authorities • PSTA: available means < -- > ambitions • Tree planting, nursery management, mining JK: avoid example Namanya Salamabila DRC • Management of rain water drainage  PPGE • Finances: JK: decentralised taxing ? • Gender: > 50% ♀  54% ! • Youth: (>60%): JK: watch out ILO ! • Need for training centre and capacity building: 5x mentioned • Business development skills and micro-enterprise development • LIPW wages in line with market rates • Geographical extension / FER

  5. In the meantime, what happens in Madagascar ? • LIPW Training Centre: many hidden lessons • Training programme: • Roads • Buildings • Urban development • Technical standards & outreach = impressive • JK: no agriculture •  ILO experience elsewhere? •  Self-financing ? •  Exchange visits ?

  6. Field experiences LIPW HELPAGE: • Fishery sector: 600% on target ? • Is investment in radical terracing profitable, (as compared to environmental costs of non intervention?)  many unsubstantiated assumptions ! • Productivity levels unknown  accompanying measures to be in place GAA: • Emphasizes productive infrastructures (as a starting point)  value addition • Temporary benefit  long-term benefit • Emphasizes importance of training, networking, cadastral mapping

  7. Field experiences LIPW PPGE • Impressive changes • Variable costs of labour: FRW 1,600/day • BUT: obligatory savings, 6 months involvement  creation of « take-off fund » • Emphasizes: only work through sub-contracting PDL-HIMO • Elaboration, consulting, launch  3 years (?) • Limited job-opportunities (?) • Need for « centralizing training & skill dev. » • Need for different institutional framework • Viabilisation / sustainability put into question • JK: MTE  lessons learned ?

  8. Communalities and my perception (1/2) • HIMO < -- > HIEQ: gliding scale • Degree of HIMO, in function of: • Where technically possible • Where economically feasible • Environmental sustainability a necessary condition • Distinction: private vs public sector management of investments • Need for building up our learning capacity: • Impact monitoring, validation, scaling up to policy level, need for donor « laboratory » (incl. training, see development of PSU), or do we pretend that we found the right answers to all these complex problems ?

  9. Communalities in perceptions (2/2) OPEN QUESTIONS • How to address common need for training and capacity building • National/regional? • State-managed/multi-partnership ? Responsibilties of each (state, private sector, civil society)? Centralised management? • Feasibility for self-financing at mid-term? • Is legal framework supportive? (environmental & land management legislation, banking codes of conduct) • What procedure to follow to further develop the national LIPW policy ?

  10. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE

More Related