-
A purposive sample of 5 projects Ghana, the Village
Infrastructure Project, VIP Mauritania, The Oases Development
Project, ODP-2 Senegal, Project dOrganization et Gestion
Villageoise, POGV-2Mali, Fond de Development Sahelien, FODESA Cape
Verde, Projecto de Lucha contra a Pobreza Rural, PLPR
-
Criteria for selecting the projects:the project major thrust is
to develop the rural communities, through a demand driven
participatory approachthe projects represent different options for
the organization and management of the service delivery system, and
the projects have been implemented for a sufficiently long time, or
represent a second phase of an earlier project with a similar
approach, to have accumulated experience that can be usefully
shared.
-
Features of CDD used to compare design and implementation
performanceScope for initiative by the Community Based
Organizations, CBOsTargeting instruments appliedContribution to
improving the local system of governance
-
Scope for CBO initiativeWho determines the menu of project
interventions?What measures to ration demand? Do CBOs implement
their own micro-projects?Do CBOs handle public resources in cash?Do
CBOs operate the rural financial services?Do CBOs participate in
project management?How complex is the procedure to approve funding
of CBOs initiatives?
-
Who determines the menu of project interventions?VIP, POGV-2,
and ODP-2 offer a limited menu: production and transport
infrastructure, NRM, functional literacy; credit is envisaged only
to groups engaged in productive activitiesFODESA and PLPR are very
liberal, a community can ask support for any priority initiative,
except if it falls in a simple negative list (determined jointly
with the communities in the case of the PLPR)During implementation,
eligible activities were increased in Mauritania and Ghana, to
accommodate strong demand for basic social needs
-
Participation of the CBOs in the delivery systemThe VIP does not
envisage a role for the CBOs; CBOs are users of services produced
and delivered by somebody elseODP-2, POGV-2, and PLPR envisage a
key role for the CBOs in the implementation phase of their priority
projects (participation in design, contracting, supervision of
deliveries, clearance of payments)FODESA design included the above
as well, but implementation has been rather different so farIn no
case do CBOs handle project cash
-
Providing rural financial servicesThe VIP had a credit
component, which did not envisage supporting community based MFIsA
matching grant mechanism was introduced after MTRBy the end of
phase 1, FODESA had not managed to contract the component designed
to develop the MFIsThe PLPR and the POGV did not have a MFI
componentThe MFI component of the ODP in Mauritania was quite
successful, despite some problem with loan delinquencies
-
CBOs participation in project managementThe PLPR and ODP-2 have
established close partnerships between the project and the CBOsIn
Cape Verde, the leaders of the CBOs are full right members of the
CRP, which is the operating unit of the PLPRIn Mauritania, the ODAs
(Oasis Development Associations) are the planning and executive
agent of the project at community levelFODESA was also to establish
partnerships with the CBOs but for a variety of reason did not
manage so farThe VIP did not envisage a management role for any
actor other than the local government
-
The FODESA experience highlights a problem with the CBOs
participation in project management organizationsThe partnership of
project and CBOs established by FODESA at regional level was an
impractical solutionToo many CBOs potentially members of the
associationFODESA project re-orientation suggested to decentralize
at district level The ODP experience: project reorientation cut
down the number of ODAs from 400 to 200The POGV deals with about
600 villagesThe PLPR does not have the problem: there are only a
few communities in each of the islands where there is a CRP
-
Complexity of processes and proceduresTwo extreme cases:FODESA
applied AGETYPE procedures designed for large public investment
projectsThe First Phase review counted over 20 bureaucratic steps
to get a micro-project implementedAs a result, the project could
not negotiate the large number of small contracts required to
fulfill the participatory implementation policy envisagedTo manage
its administration costs, the Project sidelined its community
capability building objectives and concentrated delivery contracts
in the hands of few private sector contractor foreign to the
receiver communityAn interesting concrete instance of project
induced elite capture of benefits that has little to do with elite
dominance at the community level
-
.more on proceduresQuite opposite the case of the PLPR:
Government introduced special instruments to transfer public
funds to the CRP, the associations of the civil society that
implement the PLPRThese instruments embody two key
concepts:Government approves a 3-years indicative plan, and The
principle of ex post control on the AWP&B of the CRPsThe result
is a remarkable simplification of procedures, that enables the CBOs
to participate in all the stages of their project
implementation
-
Targeting instrumentsFour sets of instruments were
introduced:
Ex ante selection of target community and related exclusion
criteria Exclusion vs. non-exclusion within the communitySpecific
measures to secure a role for women and the poorSelf-targeting
mechanisms applied to the support of specific activities
-
Targeting communities Four projects target the village (or the
oasis)The PLPR targets any CBO of poor people (as defined by the
GoCV policy reduction policy paper)Criteria of community
exclusion:VIP and PLPR have noneODP-2 excludes oases owned by
absentee landlordsFODESA excludes non-vulnerable villages, based on
food self-sufficiency indicatorsPGOV-2 excludes villages that have
badly performed under a predecessor project
-
Exclusion vs. non-exclusion within a target community No project
discriminates specifically against wealthy or otherwise dominant
members of the society within a community eligible for project
support
This greatly facilitates the mobilization of the community and
avoids opposition to project intervention
-
Specific measures to facilitate inclusiveness i.e. how to secure
a role to women and poor HHsVIP initially did not address the
questionODP-2, POGV-2, FODESA require to have women member of all
CBO institutions and operating bodiesPLPR relies on the consensus
of the communities on the role of women and the poor, supported by
the animation service of the CRPsAll projects record easy formal
acceptance by the communities of a new role of women in the CBOs
ODP-2 records considerable success in securing a pro-active role
for women, in the ODAs and in the MFIs, enhanced by the impact of
the functional literacy programme
-
Important self-targeting instrumentsCeilings on the amount of
project funding of community initiatives (per micro-project, per HH
of partner involved), automatically excludes wealthy members of the
community (Cape Verde)Access to credit is more important to the
poor than the cost of credit, MFIs set interest rates higher than
commercial banks, which excludes borrowers that have access to
formal credit, while attracting deposits from themRefusal to pay
the labor required to construct irrigation infrastructure activates
the traditional rule that entitles those who supply the labor the
right to share the land they helped to develop (Guinea)
-
CDD contribution to improving local governanceThree key
point:Establishing sustainable CBO within and beyond the individual
community to create the conditions for effective participation and
empowermentSupport of project policy by the political environment
and the public administrationControlling the impact of local elite
dominance
-
Creating sustainable CBOs The VIP experience:The VIP tried to
reach the communities through the decentralized public
administrationAt the level of the the District Assemblies it did
not work, priorities are different, level too far away from the
villageAt Area Council level, the activation of public delivery
mechanisms was much more effectiveIn Ghana, Area Councils are much
nearer to the village, and the gap with the District is quite
wide
-
The Mauritania and Cape Verde experienceIn Mauritania and Cape
Verde the governments enacted legislation that recognizes the
public utility of private associations of the civil society engaged
in poverty alleviation and/or community development, such as the
ODAs and the CRPs, In both countries, the respective roles of the
associations and of the decentralized public administration have
not yet been clearly definedRepresentative vs. participatory
democracy
-
On the capture of project benefits by the elites dominant in the
communities There is little objective evidence collected on this
issueAn insight can be gained by analyzing the emerging pattern of
effective community demandThis signals that communities attach
priority to investing their own resources to match project
intervention:first in basic social needs (water, house improvement,
functional literacy, health care), followed by income generation
activities, when the minimum social needs are satisfied,and attach
low priority to NRM
-
The projects experience suggests that:So far at leastThe CDD
approach has not resulted in serious cases of capture of project
benefits by the local dominant elitesOn the contrary there are
clear signals of the influence of women in the decision about
common preferences!
Whereas the risk may increase as community demand to support
income generation activities increases,capture of project benefits
by agents external to the communities (administrators, contractors)
induced by inappropriate implementation procedures is a higher risk
at the moment.
-
Impact of the projects on the local economy A completion
evaluation is available only for ODA-2, which incorporates advanced
CDD featuresIt suggests a very positive impact, through increased
agricultural production and activation of many other income
generation activities (mostly women led) The emerging pattern of
demand in Mali, Cape Verde, and Senegal suggests that the impact
depends of existing economic opportunities, and may well be slow to
start but growing with the passing of timeThe impact of the project
direct investment expenditure has been below the potential of the
amount of resources used
-
Cost of the CDD approachHow much does the CDD approach cost?At
appraisal, the estimated cost of project management was:14% of
total project cost in the case of FODESA10% and 15% respectively in
the case of the POGV-2 and the PLPRand 24% in the case of the
ODP-2The cost of training included in the other components was:6%
of total project cost in the case of FODESA16% and 12% respectively
in the case of the POGV-2 and the PLPRAnd 19% in the case of the
ODP-2
-
A clear concept of CDD emerges from the reviewCDD is a way to
unleash the potential for change of the rural communitiesRural
communities have institutions that can be used (and improved) to
achieve IFAD corporate objectivesCDD means empowering the
communities to shape their own institutional and socio-economic
developmentCDD addresses contextually the institutional system
within and around the communitiesCDD focuses on organizations of
members of a Community (the CBOs) as the building blocks of
socio-economic transformation that enhance opportunities for
individual HHs CDD encourages the establishment of linkages that
empower the CBOs to offset the negative impact of government and
market failures
-
Lessons learned on the projects institutional settingThe
projects faced two options to reach the communities
Through the public administration
Through civil society organizations and the private sector
-
Lessons learned on the first option:Need to find the right level
to reach the communities:The district is far too remote
(insufficient subsidiarity)Districts have no specific capacity to
deal with village problems (insufficient specialization) Clear risk
that, without corrective measures, district administrations
replicate at their level the centralized approach that prompted
administration reform in the first place
-
. moreSub-district units of the public administration are more
effective activators of delivery mechanisms for the communities But
still view the communities: only as users of servicesnot as
subjects of change in their own rightThe gap between district and
sub-district level of the local government is often very wideThe
respective mandates are not definedNeed to balance the hierarchical
relations with the higher levels of the local governmentNeed to
establish separate funding channels to support district and
community initiatives
-
Advantages of the second option:Partnerships that join together
the CBOs, the civil society, and the private sector, besides the
government: Provide access to a wider horizon and more sources of
support than just the governmentFacilitate transparency of
operations and accountability to their membersEnsure the single
allegiance of CBO leaders to the membershipCan adopt
community-friendly proceduresForce the CBOs to devise the
instruments of their own sustainability and growthEstablish centers
of pluralistic governance and promote autonomous advocacy of
community interests
-
Lessons learned on the second option:Governments may not agree
with a policy aimed at pluralistic governanceIf instead there is
agreement in principle:Need to define the role, functions, and
responsibilities of the partnershipsAnd their relationships with
the local government with respect to the five components of service
provision (regulation, planning, production, delivery and
financing)
-
The two options:Are not mutually exclusive, and in the course of
time may well complement one another
In either case, the CDD approach involves changes in the
institutions and this requires effective and continuous policy
dialogue
-
Police dialogue
is essential to:
reach understanding and agreement with government on the project
CDD approach before projects startkeep projects on the right track
during implementation
The right venue for policy dialogue is important
-
There are many other lessons learned.
Let us leave more to tomorrow session
-
End of Presentation
Thank You