Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra Leone Education, not health, scores highest in the present study’s survey. This finding mayreflect the devolution of education functions to local councils since 2007 and therecent spate of council-funded school building work highlighted in the FGDs. In the final analysis, the conclusion reached by earlier studies still applies:decentralization has been consistent with substantial improvements in local services,but it is almost impossible to isolate the material impact of the programme in acountry still undergoing extensive, donor-supported post-war reconstruction. Qualitative data are highly indicative of decentralization’s material impact. Localcouncils have built or rehabilitated schools, PHUs, slaughter houses, marketenclosures, drinking water supplies, sanitary facilities and feeder roads, distributedseeds to ABOs, improved waste management in towns and played a key role in therollout of the free health care scheme for pregnant and nursing mothers and smallchildren.Have local councils improved pro-poor decision making and enhanced poor people’s voicein local level political structures? The Sierra Leonean public recognizes that local councils are trying to deliver servicesand many FGD participants had a clear view of the theoretical benefits ofdecentralization, i.e. that it represents an institutional mechanism to makegovernment aware of local development needs and to satisfy those needs. However,the problem lies in translating theory into practice. On the plus side, the simple fact that Sierra Leone now has a fully fledged system forinter-governmental transfers represents significant progress from the pre-warsituation. A point emphasized by devolved MDA staff is that in the old days of centralcontrol, some districts might receive a much bigger share of resources than others.Under decentralization, each district has guaranteed funds for local services anddecisions over the allocation of these funds are made locally. On the minus side, patronage politics continues to predominate in Sierra Leone. Localcouncils are under pressure from other authorities, notably MPs and chiefs, for accessto their resources or for a share of the political credit for their programmes. Enhancing the voice of poor people in local government can also be more apparentthan real. Local councils’ diligence in public consultation continues to be monitoredand assessed at the centre, but enhancing the voice of the poor in local governmenthas little intrinsic value unless it leads to concrete action. This is the fundamentalproblem with the WDCs. In some areas (notably WARD), local councils might dobetter by developing forums with local CSOs and CBOs. Political pressure from above and below has nevertheless encouraged local councils toconcentrate on their unique selling point. The councils in Bo District are currentlyexpanding the horizons of local government in Sierra Leone. For them, the keychallenge is to ensure that their planning maps and amenities databases arerecognized by other agencies as authoritative. These initiatives do not generate agreat deal of pro-poor decision making as yet, but they certainly have the potential todo so.Fanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 3