Capacity Building for Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Environment Development
By Prabin K. Prajapati
According to popular definition of the poverty, a person who earns less than a dollar a day is poor. Poverty has a direct link to the environmental degradation or vice versa. In context to a large number of population from southern hemisphere falls under the absolute and relative poverty, natural resources are depleting day after day. Sustainable energy or renewable energy has become a best resolution to fight against poverty. Fast depleting natural resources eventually contribute to green house effects which result immense increase a number of poors. World conferences on environment and UNO’s environment protocals are less effective at implementation level. As preferred earlier rich countries should contribute one percent GDP to least developed countries which yet to be implemented honestly. Exceeding use of petro-chemicals, and growing mass consumptions patterns, developed countries are blindly exploiting resources instead of educating people to make them capable to overcome from absolute and relative poverty. A brief example of absolute poverty, people from western Nepal spend much of their productive hours to get a few kilos of rice waiting at food distribution centres (rice). Lack of policy and implementation of capacity building, most of the people in western Nepal face drying fields and no working hands and insufficient infrastructures. To maintain both environment and economic sustainability, knowledge transfer has become a neccessity. Extreme privatization in Education and Health has hit the poor becoming poorer. It has expanded the ring of poverty trap in least developed countries.
In connection with enhancing capabilities of deprived people it requires democratic practice, liberal and structural change, institutional development and freedom to rights contributes to creativity and knowledge in developing countries, as Sen A.K. argues for alleviating poverty. Of course, authoritative regimes are impending to equality and justified distribution. The lack of creative resistance also contributes to inequality and injustice. Therefore, Sen (2001) highly emphasizes on freedom at all components of state. And, that freedom is only possible when qualitative knowledge is produced. I argue that although international development agencies implement different policies and measures, the least developed countries still lack a system and new technology in respect to achieving the development goals. It is therefore a thorough review on drawbacks of systems needed to be evaluated. Lack of ownership among communities has caused many development projects failure. In the world, there are many organizations which lobby to allocate a huge amount of development fund in particular areas without much considering the other prioritized sectors. And additionally, many projects go ashtray without continue follow ups and monitoring. If we have to achieve the goal, it needs continue follow ups and monitoring and further inputs. A constant watching and evaluating system is needed on foreign aids at different distribution channels of government to grass root level agents. Or, we have to evaluate the mechanism from the state to grass root level and is to be activated accordingly maximum outcomes in development goals.
