Community-driven development decision tools for rural - IFAD

targeting around 30 per cent of the community members interviewed through the survey whereasin the other countries the target group of the respective projects represents a much largerpercentage of the community members participating in the study.The interviewees’ fields of employment are shown in Table B-2.Overall, the sample reasonably reflects the people expected to be aware of the operations ofIFAD’s CDD projects in the selected areas. The sample is reasonably homogenous, with theexception of some differences in Cape Verde, where the interviewees included significantly morewomen than men, and a smaller share of illiterate women compared with the other areas.Another important difference is the share of people primarily engaged in agriculture in the Malisample (70 per cent) compared with the other countries.The objective of the interviews was to capture the opinions regarding three key features of theCDD projects being implemented in the selected areas:• the degree of participation of the target group in the final decisions taken on the activitiesfunded by the IFAD project and the development of community institutions;• the control of elites and instances of elite capture at the level of the communities;• the degree to which poor people participate in project benefits.Of the projects studied in this exercise• only two projects (Mali and Mauritania) were designed to fund both productive and socialcommunity projects in response to community members’ demand and without a-prioriexcluding any member of the targeted communities;• one project (Guinea) was designed to respond to community members’ demand, butfinances only those infrastructure facilities which will benefit all the members of thecommunity, whereas the Cape Verde project only funds the demands of the poorestcommunity members;• three projects work with CSOs of public utility (Cape Verde, Mali, and Mauritania) to whichthe responsibility of responding to the requests of the community level partners is assigned,whereas in the Guinea project the responsibility for decision-making remains with theproject management unit• in Guinea, traditional leaders are in principle excluded by the Government frommanagement and decision making functions at the community level.In this section we briefly examine the findings obtained from the interviews regarding theparticipation of the rural poor in decision-making. The analysis of respondents’ views regardingthe role of women in the development process and the issue of elite capture were alreadyprovided in the main CDD tools document.People’s participation in public decision making• The project management structures are different in Mali and Guinea, but at the village levelboth projects operate with official organizations of the local government, the VillageGeneral Assembly (VGA) and Village Development Committee (VDC).• In Mali, 78 per cent of the respondents in Segou and 96 per cent in Kolokany report regularparticipation in the meetings of the VGA, whereas in Guinea, more than 50 per cent reportregular participation.• Seventy-eight percent of the people in Mali are aware of the existence of the VDC while87 per cent are aware of its existence in Guinea.• In Mali, only 56 per cent of the Segou sample responded correctly to the question regardingwho nominates the members of the VDC, whereas 85 per cent responded correctly inKolokany. In Guinea 63 per cent responded correctly, and 26 per cent responded that theydid not know the answer.93