Community-driven development decision tools for rural - IFAD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

contribution to building a sustainable system. 41 It is the only option in which government wantsto retain tight centralized control over the rural development process.Channelling funds through the local government merges the resources allocated to supportcommunity initiatives with the general budget of the devolved local governments. This approachmust use conditional IGFTs that spell out the purpose of the transfer and the conditions for itsuse. It is good practice for the central government to require the devolved local governments toestablish a dedicated “window” to handle these funds and keep separate accounts.To transfer funds to CSOs of public utility, government establishes a central unit thatnegotiates with the CSOs, transfers the funds and monitors and evaluates their performance.Experiences with channelling funds through local governments or transferring funds to CSOsvary with different cooperation agencies around the world. Choosing one or the other isinfluenced by local conditions and by the preference to either strengthen decentralization of thepublic administration or to establish a complementary, competitive and diversified deliverysystem to reach the rural community through networks of CSOs. In several countries of LatinAmerica, municipal budgets have been successfully used by both IFAD and the World Bank torespond to community demand for social and production infrastructure. In India, the WorldBank implements its CDD approach to a large extent through national NGOs that operate with agreat deal of autonomy at the community level. In WCA, IFAD has experimented with bothsolutions, channelling funds through local governments in Burkina and Ghana and transferringfunds to CSOs in Cape Verde, Mali and Mauritania.The financial sustainability of either solution depends to a very large extent on the capacity tomaintain a steady flow of funding that supports the CBOs. Receiving public funds after the endof an externally financed CDD project depends on the government’s willingness and capacity tonegotiate repeater external loans with similar objectives and/or on its priority for using its ownfiscal resources.Using private fundsIn determining arrangements for the flow of funds, CDD project designers tend to focusalmost exclusively on public funding. However, this is by no means the only source ofsustainability for CDD initiatives. There is potential to attract resources from sources otherthan government (e.g. the communities and national and foreign private philanthropicorganizations). It would be wrong to disregard these opportunities because privatecontributions may be significant, particularly in small countries. The example described in Box35 is only one; another is the case where resources were transferred by communities ofemigrant workers to areas in northern Mali and Senegal.Though private funds can be, and actually are occasionally, made available to both publicand private organizations, philanthropic organizations may prefer to deal with civil societyorganizations having similar objectives and culture, if they exist and have a reliable record. Itis thus important to find ways of linking the philanthropic organizations with the CSOs ofthe South.From an institutional point of view, would the local government channel be more sustainablethan a CSO of public utility? It is sometimes argued that sustainability is ensured only byorganizations that are formally part of the government. Therefore the only sustainable solution isto establish a public unit at the central, district or provincial level to fund communitysubprojects. This is a spurious argument because government organizations can be suppressed,left to decay or given different mandates. The same can be said of other options as well. CSOs ofpublic utility that depend exclusively on government funding may be liquidated when41 Such a solution may be the only realistic option at the very beginning of the development process (e.g. the IFAD MauritaniaOASIS I) but it should be discontinued as soon as there are realistic opportunities to develop more lasting arrangements.73
government funding dries up. On the other hand, CSOs may survive and evolve into permanentfeatures of the local setting, even with reduced or no government support, if they are supportedby their own resources and other diversified sources.Financing projects through the district government budgetWhen funding for CBO microprojects is channelled through the district budget, the DistrictAssembly and the district administration retain the power to approve the CBOs’ requests. InAfrica, IFAD’s experience with this arrangement has not always achieved the intended objectivesof reaching out to the demands of the target group. Establishing a separate account to receive theconditional IGFT to fund the community subprojects provides protection from those funds beingused for other purposes.The district administration’s role may include, in order of increasing CDD content, thefollowing key functions:• the ex ante approval of all community requests before the subprojects are funded from thededicated account. This gives the district the authority to deny financing a communityproject if it is not approved by the Assembly based on the recommendation of the localadministration;• the opportunity to determine whether the community subprojects are consistent with theDMP. This information can be given to those managing the dedicated account who mustrespond to the request for funding (they may approve it nonetheless, request supplementaryinformation or turn it down definitively);• ensuring compliance with the technical, security and environmental standards. This may bedone ex ante, in which case it may stop the approval of a community project, or ex post, inwhich case it will halt disbursement of funds, if project funding has already begun).Box 35The Rhein-Palatinat / Rwanda JumellageProgrammeThe Rhein-Palatinat/Rwanda JumellageProgramme started in 1981 and providessupport for investment activities at thecommune level covering infrastructure,schools and training, agricultural productionand handicraft development. The programmeincludes some original design featuresthat combine official institutions andprivate initiatives.The programme promotes the jumellage(twinning) of Rwanda communes with apartner municipality or other agency in theRhein-Palatinat Lander in Germany. Once theconnection is established, the commune inRwanda makes a request to its counterpart inGermany for assistance to finance a project.The German municipality appraises therequest, approves it and collects privatecontributions to finance the project.The funds collected are forwarded to theprogramme administration in Kigali, whichopens a revolving fund account in the name ofthe commune. The account is used to transferfunds for payment of work for the approvedproject. When the work involves privatecontractors, the contracts are signed by theburgomaster (mayor), but subject to the Kigaliprogramme administrator’s clearance.In addition to the administrator and hissecretary, the Rhein-Palatinat/RwandaJumellage Programme has a small staff ofRwandan national engineers who assist thecommunes in contracting and supervisingwork. The programme has funded projects in56 communes for a total of about USD 60million from 1982 to1992 and USD 40 millionfrom 1995 to1997. These amounts representover one third of the total amounts disbursedin Rwanda by World Bank projects during acomparable period.74
Page 1 and 2:
Community-driven developmentdecisio
Page 3 and 4:
The opinions expressed in this publ
Page 5 and 6:
PART B. CDD PROJECT DESIGN DECISION
Page 8:
ForewordThe CDD Decision Tools is t
Page 11 and 12:
What is CDD?A definition of communi
Page 13 and 14:
mechanisms on a list of priority ne
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 1Example of decision tree on
Page 17 and 18:
ICDD’s emphasis on communitiesand
Page 19 and 20:
The answer to the second question i
Page 21 and 22:
IICDD and local governanceDefinitio
Page 23 and 24: communities and local governance in
Page 25 and 26: IIIPoverty focus of CDDIFAD’s spe
Page 27 and 28: The way that partnership is negotia
Page 29 and 30: Risk of elite captureNon-exclusion
Page 31 and 32: Elite capture by local, professiona
Page 33 and 34: Box 17Lessons learned about targeti
Page 35: Poverty and poor resilience against
Page 38 and 39: espect. For the political setting t
Page 40 and 41: IFAD’s CDD projects do not need g
Page 42 and 43: domain of a community or a small cl
Page 44 and 45: Government procedures andprocesses
Page 46 and 47: Part B.CDD project design decisions
Page 48 and 49: To link community development and t
Page 50 and 51: CDD and production and marketing in
Page 52 and 53: Table 2Degrees of CDD in rural fina
Page 54 and 55: Partnership issues in CDD projectsV
Page 56 and 57: eduction when there is government d
Page 58 and 59: The government ideally should inclu
Page 60 and 61: the CBOs (i.e. VDCs and different t
Page 62 and 63: territory that may include several
Page 64 and 65: Implementation arrangementsfor CDD
Page 68 and 69: • conformance with conditions imp
Page 70 and 71: A larger CDD content is achieved by
Page 72 and 73: Sustainable arrangements tofinance
Page 76 and 77: Financing projects through CSOs of
Page 78 and 79: Managing CDD projectsXIMost common
Page 80 and 81: Managing expectations about paceDur
Page 82 and 83: management. In many cases, the meth
Page 84: political or project management int
Page 87 and 88: A note on fiscal decentralization1.
Page 89 and 90: to use the money in the way it deci
Page 92 and 93: Appendix 291
Page 94 and 95: targeting around 30 per cent of the
Page 96 and 97: In both Mali and Guinea, the interv
Page 98 and 99: 25. Mansuri, G.; Vijayendra Rao. 20
Page 101 and 102: CONTACTSMohamed ManssouriCountry Pr
show all

Community-driven development decision tools for rural - IFAD

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?