PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 1, 265-270 (1981)

Managing rural development in Botswana

JAMES LEACH Rural Development Adviser

SUMMARY

Rural development in Botswana has proceeded using a non-directive approach. During the period 1973-1979 sectoral programmes for promoting development in rural areas have been administered by executive ministries, but, in addition, there has been non-executive machinery devoted to achieving a co-ordinated approach to development in rural areas. The emphasis in the work of the non-executive rural development unit was to promote communication and co-operation, and the success of the programme so far is partly attributed to this approach. The article points to additional lessons to be learnt from the experience of using this approach.

How often has the cry gone up, ‘If only headquarters would organize themselves; we can get on together perfectly well in the field, and get things done-the trouble is at the centre’! The search for improved co-ordination, or better still, integrated rural development goes on. This is a brief account of the efforts in one country, Botswana, over the 6 years 1973-1979, to organize its rural development programme in accordance with national development objectives. No two countries are alike; each has a different combination of natural environment and history. Nevertheless other people’s efforts are usually interesting and an attempt will be made to draw some conclusions from this experience. The six years 1973-1979 span the first phase of Botswana’s current rural development programme, starting with the publication in 1973 of a policy paper on rural development (Chambers and Feldman, 1973; Botswana Government, 1973), and ending in 1979 with the election of a third Parliament and the commencement of the fifth National Development Plan.

BACKGROUND AND POLICIES

With a population estimated at 763,000 in 1978, 643,000 live in rural areas, and 120,000 in the four large towns, situated along the railway line which runs up the eastern side of the country. The rural economy revolves around the beef cattle industry, though the poorer majority subsist principally upon income transfers from migrant labour in South Africa or from workers in the four towns of Botswana, and upon extensive and risky growing of sorghum, millet, maize and cowpeas. In recent years, a start has been made on tapping mineral resources-diamonds,

James Leach was Rural Development Adviser in the Ministry of Finance and Development Manning, Botswana from 1973-1979.

0271 -207518 1/040265-06$01 .OO 0 1981 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

266 James Leach

copper-nickel and low grade coal. The country’s vulnerability to outside forces (political and economic), and the uncertainty of its climate have dictated its approach to development planning. The engines of economic growth (beef and mineral exports) have dominated decision making. In an atmosphere of continuous uncertainty, rapid growth and change, the main theme of rural development policy has been to attempt to spread the benefits of growth and increasing national income as widely throughout the population as possible. This was to be achieved by promoting employment and directly productive activities such as agriculture and rural enterprises as well as extending and improving physical and social infrastructure and services. Since independence in 1966, Botswana .has received much external assistance which it has sought and welcomed, but always with a view to strengthening its own capacity to run its affairs. Although traditional society was hierarchical, there has always been a strong democratic tradition, and consultation and consensus is a central feature in all public affairs. Finally, under the impact of rapid economic and political change, the fabric of society is very clearly under tremendous pressures: political awareness is growing, accelerated by expanding education; laissez-faire attitudes are being challenged; old disciplines are cracking and not being replaced.

STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS

Against this background, rural development advanced on two fronts, side by side. On the one side, executive ministries with portfolio responsibilities for livestock, crops, water, commerce and industry, health, education, roads, local authorities etc. developed their sectoral policies, programmes and projects, secured resources and implemented their programmes. Resource and co-ordinating ministries supported these efforts through the usual planning, budgetary and manpower management processes. In organizational terms, these operations were carried out rather well, and sectoral programmes flourished.

On the other hand, in order to tackle some of the more intractable problems, to co-ordinate the efforts of the different ministries and to provide, if possible, the necessary thrust and drive for a national rural development effort, it was recognized that some kind of additional effort or mechanism was needed to supplement the normal sectoral approach. The formula selected was the establishment of a Rural Development Council, with two standing committees, and a permanent secretariat, called the Rural Development Unit, based in the office of the Minister of Finance and Development Planning, who was also the Vice President. The key factors in the operation of this machinery were the decisions to make the rural development institutions non-executive and to base them on the authority of the Vice President and Minister of Finance and Development Planning, who was given portfolio responsibility for the co-ordination of rural development. As a result, no ministry or agency with statutory or portfolio responsibility was threatened: the rural development institutions were created to help them to carry out their responsibilities, to create linkages and information flows, and to remove constraints. On the other hand, the Vice President has overall responsibility for development and has the right and power to call for reports and to monitor progress. The question of responsibility is important. No one agency or office

Managing Rural Development in Botswana 267

claims responsibility for rural development, certainly not the Rural Development Unit. It is a shared responsibility and nearly all agencies participate in one way or another, one re-inforcing another.

The role of the Rural Development Unit was largely catalytic. It serviced co-ordinating committees, either directly by providing the secretariat, or through active membership; it offered advice, ideas and information; with its access throughout the bureaucracy, it often directly intervened to cause things to happen; it was in a position to offer know-how in getting things moving, or to say a word in the right quarter to remove a difficulty. In particular, it concentrated on communication, information flows and consultation. It devoted considerable time and effort to non-formal education and extension, and to social and community development matters. Finally, the unit was well placed to contribute to National Development Plans an overview on rural development policies, priorities, and progress.

Outside the capital, in the districts, the principal mechanism for organizing rural development has been a system of local administration based on four authorities-the District Council, the Land Board, the Tribal Authority and the District Administration. This pattern of local administration had developed out of the traditional tribal and chiefly system. In the 1960s a modern system of local administration was most skilfully grafted on to the traditional tribal system. The success of this operation has been one of the contributory factors in the country’s subsequent political health and stability. There has been strong political commitment to decentralizing financial and executive responsibility to local authorities, and to involving them to the maximum extent possible in the business and responsibilities of government and development.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED?

In summary, the following happened:

(a) An Accelerated Rural Development Programme was carried out, in which, over a 3 year period, a vastly increased amount of rural infrastructure was constructed all over the country (Chambers, 1977). (b) The Tribal Grazing Land Policy and Programme was formulated and launched. This initiated a long term process of land use planning and land tenure change, together with several long steps forward in modernizing the livestock industry and range management (Botswana Government, 1975). (c) The Arable Land Development Programme was initiated, which, building on the Tribal Grazing Land Programme, will grow into a national crop development programme and the development of an improved, integrated farming system in the communal land areas, where the bulk of the farming population lives. (d) Comprehensive district plans were produced for all 10 districts; a planning system was introduced which links district plans to the national plan; and a management and monitoring system adopted which causes the district plans to be implemented (Ministry of Local Government and Lands, 1979). (e) A Drought and Disaster Relief Organisation was established and was used to deal with the partial drought of 1978-79.

268 James Leach

The rural development institutions played a major role in formulating, launching and monitoring these activities (United Nations, 1980). They had a less visible but equally important influence on the development of policies and programmes for wildlife utilization, extension and communication, village and small agricultural projects, research and innovation, and the promotion of such non-government organizations as the brigades and development trusts. Local authorities also played a major role in each of the activities mentioned, which further enhanced their importance as key instruments in the country’s development.

If rural development is defined as invigorating the rural economy and shifting income distribution towards the rural poor, not very much progress was made between 1973 and 1979. Yet what has been achieved can be seen as laying the foundations for rural development in important ways-provision of rural infrastructure and developing local authorities’ implementation capacity, commencing land use and spatial planning, developing the capacity at local and community level to plan and implement development. There are also several points to note about the methods employed. First the style suits the local scene. Undeniably, expatriates working for the Government have contributed substantially, but Botswana officers have increasingly taken over responsibility not only at top management levels but throughout the structure, and all the critical decisions have been taken by them. Secondly, a sequential system of planning has been used-one thing leading on to another: there are many things that might be done to accelerate development, but there are also formidable constraints of manpower and executive capacity; it is often best in such circumstances to start with those tasks which appear immediately possible and practicable, and to seize opportunities thereafter to move forward one or two steps at a time. Perhaps the most important achievement has been the organization of a system which has enabled many people, both official and non-official, to make a useful and significant contribution to national development. This release of talent and energy was secured by a variety of measures, the most important being the widespread dissemination of information, ideas and advice so that people got caught up in a surge of creative development, and officials were given a greater sense of purpose and direction in their work.

WHAT LESSONS EMERGE FROM THIS EXPERIENCE?

No attempt has been made in this article to do more than summarize outlines of activities, and therefore there are no prescriptions for replicable practical lessons. However, there are some conclusions of a general nature which may be drawn.

It may be that many of us, who are engaged in the business of development, both expatriates and nationals, expect results too quickly. Sometimes quick results are possible, but more often than not the constraints and problems of development are complex and involve changes in people’s attitudes and operations. Botswana has devoted time and resources to institution-building in the manner described, in the belief that the benefits over time will be considerable. Its leadership believes in the importance of processes, as well as programmes and projects.

The formula for co-ordination is important. Too often co-ordination is confused with direction. The Botswana formula is specifically non-directive. It complements,

Managing Rural Development in Botswana 269

and does not conflict with, the normal sectoral approach. The co-ordinating mechanism comes into play to tackle difficulties and complicated activities, and at all times it serves, rather than dominates, executive agencies. Discrete sectoral programmes and projects such as beef marketing, animal disease control measures, and major road construction go ahead without being much affected by the rural development institutions.

‘Knowledge is power’. Co-ordination is, in fact, better achieved through communication and information linkages, through consensus and negotiation, than by directives and orders. The Rural Development Unit makes it its business to be useful and knowledgeable and its rights of access give it the necessary opportunities. ‘Getting the act together’ is its stock in trade.

Decentralization and delegation should be accompanied by better communication links. The centre will always be concerned with policy and resources and local authorities look to the centre for these things. The detailed mechanisms for central/local communications and linkages are a crucial factor in rural development, and they are often neglected.

The rule has been at all times to work ‘through the system’ and at no point to bypass it. There is a place for experimental or special projects, but these are invariably functionally linked to the permanent organization, so that their eventual takeover and absorption may be ensured from the outset.

Every democratic state wrestles with the problems of communication between the people and the government, between the officials and members of the public and how best to ensure participation of the people in decision making and in development. Opinions vary on the extent to which Botswana has so far been successful in this respect, but all agree on the reality of the process of consultation, and that local authorities can play a vital role in this process, if they become part of the very weft and warp of government.

And last, but no means least, (and this is not a descent from the sublime to the ridiculous) one of the most critically important ingredients of success in organizing and co-ordinating rural development is an infinite capacity to take trouble over the nuts and bolts and detail-rganizing meetings, discussions, visits, tours, seminars, conferences, transport, etc.

SOME THOUGHTS FOR AID AGENCIES

A few observations from Botswana’s experience are pertinent to aid agencies. Agencies devote a great deal of time and energy to attempting to understand and interpret the developing countries which they assist. Frequently, in spite of these efforts, their assistance in the rural development sector is less effective than they wish it to be. Three suggestions arise. First, donor agencies should invariably ask themselves whether the assistance, which is requested or offered (sometimes unasked), accords with the recipient country’s development priorities and builds up its own capacity to manage the service in question; or by contrast, does it divert scarce national resources by undue concentration on one place or one activity. Frequently the opportunity cost of external assistance is unacceptably high and tends to distort national priorities. Second, when a developing country is struggling to develop its own institutions and planning and management capacity, donors

270 James Leach

should go out of their way to adjust their own procedures to assist. In the case of Botswana this has meant relying more heavily upon the Government’s planning, appraisal and reporting system, the use of block financing of rural sector programmes, and the delegation of authority to local aid offices. Third, donor agencies should pay much more attention to the quality of technical assistance offered for key rural development posts. The right man can and will make a success of a poorly planned project; an inadequate man will make a mess of the best planned and financed project. Botswana has found it extraordinarily difficult to acquire the right kind of person for some of its key rural development technical assistance posts. Agencies should copy the example of big business, and give a higher priority to placing the right men in the right jobs.

REFERENCES

Botswana Government (1973). National Policy for Rural Development, Government Paper

Botswana Government (1 975). National Policy on Tribal Grazing Land, Government Paper

Chambers, R. (1977). Botswana’s Accelerated Rural Development Programme 1973-76:

Chambers, R. and Feldman, D. (1973). Report on Rural Development, Government Printer,

Ministry of Local Government and Lands. (1979). District Planning Handbook, Ministry of

United Nations (1 980). Rural Development, Botswana: Project Findings and

No. 2, Government Printer, Gaborone.

No. 2, Government Printer, Gaborone.

Experience and Lessons, Government Printer, Gaborone.

Gaborone.

Local Government and Lands, Gaborone.

Recommendations, Government Printer, Gaborone.