Community-driven development decision tools for rural - IFAD

Managing CDD projectsXIMost common difficultiesTable 4 highlights some of the difficulties experienced in implementing IFAD’s CDD approach.Table 4Most common difficulties in implementing IFAD’s CDD approachDifficultyPossible causesPossible remedyCentral government officers do notshare the CDD approach andobjectivesRelationships and roles for communityand district levels of governance arenot clarified at appraisalLocal authorities create obstaclesto the CBOs playing the roleenvisaged for themProcedures are too cumbersomefor CBOs to get involvedInadequate institutionalassessment;Approved by government withoutappreciating how different it iscompared with conventionalprojectsLocal governments not involved inproject formulation and appraisalProcedural impediments to CDDare not identified, discussed andremedied from the outsetUnify management of the differentstages of the project cycle;Improve communication, policydialogue and training of governmentIntensify dialogue with localgovernment;Establish good relations withpotential opponentsPrepare implementation manualsbefore appraisal and in aparticipatory mannerProject animators limit PRA to onestep soliciting community prioritiesonly; fail to help CBO institutionaldevelopmentPoor training of animators;Inadequate resources foranimation service;Failure to specify objectives ofcontracts with service providersImprove allocation for trainingof animators;Link service providers’remuneration to impact ratherthan outcomesPCUs prefer to negotiate with largecontractors, lump subprojects in bigtenders and exclude micro communitylevelenterprisesProject staff do not involve the CBOs’MC in the implementation of theirmicroprojectsFunds for training the CBOs areinadequate and participatory M&E issidelinedVillage meetings of “self-evaluation”are seldom held or focus only onphysical targetsProject supervisors concerned by slowdisbursement accept short cuts onCDD objectivesMatters not raised at appraisal andnot negotiated with government;PCUs underestimate the costs ofadministering a large number ofcontracts in a participatory way;The capacity-building dimension isignoredInsufficient allocations to M&E;“Poor disbursement” syndrome ofproject supervisorsA realistic assessment of the cost ofcontracting and supervising at thecommunity level;Distinguish purely administrativeaspects and training functionsRevisit system of incentives forproject management and theirsupervisors;Emphasize third-level results andCDD objectivesCentral banks introduce managementstandards for microfinance institutions(MFIs) that constrain development ofcommunity-level MFIs and reserve thefield for organizations external to thecommunitiesRural financial services componentsare prepared in isolation fromfinancial authorities;Project supervisors do not follow upon policy dialogue issuesInclude policy dialogue on MFIs andCbanks in all stages of the projectcycle;Ensure that central bankrepresentatives participate in loannegotiationsMid-term reviews (MTRs) areconcerned about slow progress inimproving livelihoods and recommendabandoning the project approach andfocusing on service providers ratherthan on CBOsFailure to intervene before MTRs;IFAD’s Cooperating Institution (CI) orcofinanciers are not sharing CDDapproach;Possible change in government’s ordonor’s attitudeClarify approach from the outset;Formalize commitment ofgovernment, cofinanciers and CI.77