Thematic evaluation of UNODC alternative development initiatives (página 2)

36. The second argument against the effectiveness
of AD is that, in those places where lasting reductions in
production have been seen, other possible influences on farmer
decisions not to cultivate drug crops can be put forward as being
equally likely causes for change. These include: overall economic
growth (Thailand and Viet Nam), political change (Myanmar),
increasing government access to formerly remote areas (Pakistan),
social pressure (Lao PDR, Bolivia), subsidies (Thailand), and
booming prices for alternative crops (coffee and
cacao growing areas). Vertical integration of the Colombian drug
industry is credited with reducing production in Bolivia and
Peru. Market price changes in Peru are considered to be most
influential in farmers' cropping choice. Loss of market share to
Afghanistan is credited, by some researchers, with lowering
production levels in Pakistan. Interesting and understudied
possible causes for the reduction of poppy cultivation in
Pakistan and elsewhere are shortages of male labour and the
effects of remittance income resulting from labour
migrations.

37. The third constraint is that too few
methodologically sound impact analyses of UNODC AD projects have
been undertaken. No rigorous meta-analyses of historic data have
been conducted. Data have been lost and methodological problems
arise from project design flaws that will be discussed later in
this report. AD project designs in UNODC often do not contain
objectively verifiable indicators. Complicating an analysis is
the tendency of mid- term and final evaluations of UNODC projects
and programs to be rather lenient so as not to upset national
governments, especially if there are questions about
accountability and transparency. Other factors that make
empirical analysis difficult include:

• Developing (and therefore evaluating) projects as
geographically limited activities can mask the balloon effect
– production is not eliminated, it simply moves outside the
project area;

• UNODC projects routinely measure
activities not impacts.

Finding 3. From a technical perspective, the
rural development methodologies used in AD projects are not
notably different from those employed in other development
settings. There is no basis for designing or evaluating AD
activities on different criteria from mainstream development
activities.

38. The difference between AD and mainstream development
lies in the speed of change mandated by the political agenda and
in the destructive motivation for intervention. In such cases
where eradication takes place it first rapidly destroys regional
economies in the name of drug control and then AD tries to
rebuild them quickly. Rapid destruction of the local economy
destroys the knowledge base of that economy. The inherent
weakness of this approach lies in that AD projects attempt to
create a new economy without giving adequate time and effort to
teach people new skills and develop a new knowledge base.
There is no evidence anywhere, in any context, that it is
possible to rebuild economies quickly but regardless of the
futility of the effort, from a technical perspective, the rural
development methodologies used in AD projects are not notably
different from those employed in other development
settings.

EL PRESENTE TEXTO ES SOLO UNA SELECCION DEL TRABAJO
ORIGINAL.
PARA CONSULTAR LA MONOGRAFIA COMPLETA SELECCIONAR LA OPCION
DESCARGAR DEL MENU SUPERIOR.