2010
What are the differences between 3E framework (effective, efficient and equity) and the RUPES frame (Voluntary, Realistic, Conditional and Pro-poor)?
Ever coming across both frameworks and wondering how they match? Dr Meine van Noordwijk, former RUPES Project Coordinator and currently Global Science Advisor of the World Agroforestry Centre, drafted the following answer to the question.
The two frameworks indeed address the same broad set of issues. The RUPES framework can also be summarized under ‘efficiency’ (realistic, conditional, voluntary) and ‘fair’ (pro-poor). When we look in more detail, we see that the concept effective maps mostly on ‘realistic’, efficient on ‘conditional’ and ‘voluntary’ and equitable on pro-poor. However, all cells of the 3 * 4 matrix contain relevant questions that can be reported under either a 3E (the rows) or a RCVP (the columns) framework.
|
|
Efficient |
Fair |
||
|
|
Realistic |
Conditional |
Voluntary |
Pro-poor |
|
Effective = achieving set targets |
Are targets realistically achievable? |
Is achievement of targets monitored and linked to rewards/payments? |
Are targets mutually agreed under FPIC standards? |
Is existing pover-ty understood as ‘driver’ of pro-blems that need to be addressed? |
|
Efficient = effective relative to inputs |
Is the pathway to achieving targets the simplest? Lowest cost? |
Are transaction and monitoring costs reasonable as part of overall inputs? |
Do bargaining powers on both sides secure net overall benefit? |
Will ignoring in-terests of rural poor undermine long term impact? |
|
Equitable = allocations of costs and benefits are considered ‘proportional’ to social norms |
Are existing ‘rights to pollute’ respected and adequately compensated? |
Are options for local monitoring used in conditional rewards to enhance transparency and reduce costs? |
What level of ‘representation’ is used in nego-tiations & what safeguards are in place? |
Do social norms include reduction of inequity and address the va-rious dimensions of poverty? |
index news