Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra LeoneFor example, in the first phase of the decentralization programme the resources controlled bycouncils in key sectors (notably education, health and agriculture) were tiny compared to thedonor funds being channelled through line ministries. The DSPD project literature notes thatwhile transfers to local councils increased from 3.9% of domestic revenues in 2005 to 6.9%in 2008, these ratios remain low compared to other developing countries where transfers tosub-national governments are around 24% of revenue income. Total transfers in Sierra Leonerepresent only 0.7 percent of GDP, as compared to developing country averages of 2 percentof GDP (World Bank, 2009).While the quantitative data is not definitive, anecdotal and qualitative data is highlyindicative of decentralization’s material impact. Local councils have built or rehabilitatedschools, PHUs, slaughter houses, market enclosures, drinking water supplies, sanitaryfacilities and feeder roads, distributed seeds to ABOs, improved waste management in townsand played a key role in the rollout of the free health care scheme for pregnant and nursingmothers and small children. Local councils have also delivered high profile projects on an adhoc basis, e.g. the rehabilitation of school science laboratories in Makeni.Another indicator of the material impact of local councils is the fears expressed in one of theKono FGDs that losing the local councils would result in a substantial increase in local taxes.The designers of decentralization in Sierra Leone may have had greater ambitions for it thanas a method for subsidizing local development, but these fears indicate a nascent sense ofpublic ownership over the local councilsWhile grassroots demand for water wells, pumps, latrines, schools and PHPs currentlyoutstrips supply, decentralization has clearly created a resource distribution structure that canreach rural areas. It is noteworthy, for example, that the only external benefits received by theremote village in Bombali District were internationally donated mosquito nets distributed bythe local PHP. This particular PHP, originally built by Roman Catholic missionaries, was notin use before the civil war. A nurse was in post by 2003, but it was not until thedecentralization programme got underway in 2004 that the PHP was supplied with a workingrefrigerator and a full complement of drugs and medical equipment. Having a nursepermanently in post also helps villagers decide on the best course of action when medicalemergencies arise and when drugs are not available locally.B. Have local councils improved pro-poor decision making and enhanced poor people’svoice in local level political structures?A point emerging throughout the research is that the Sierra Leonean public does indeedrecognize that local councils are trying to deliver services even when they complain that theseservices are insufficient to satisfy their needs. Many FGD participants had a clear view of thetheoretical benefits of decentralization, i.e. that it represents an institutional mechanismwhose purpose is to make government aware of the development needs of the people and tosatisfy them. Yet the problem lies in translating theory into practice.One the one hand, the simple fact that Sierra Leone now has a fully fledged and monitoredsystem for inter-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. Underdecentralization, each district has guaranteed funds for local services and decisions over theallocation of these funds are made locally. The system is far from perfect. There is still talk ofFanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 42