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.