1 School Construction Strategies for Universal Primary Education in Africa I. Lessons Learned 2 nd Africa Region Education Capacity Development Workshop Country Leadership and Implementation for Results in the EFA-FTI Partnership Tunis, December 4, 2007 Serge Theunynck Sr. Implementation Specialist, The World Bank

2 Construction Needs for EFA in 2015 To build 2 million classrooms 2 million classrooms Offices/storages Offices/storages Sanitation in all schools (today 55%) Sanitation in all schools (today 55%) Water in all schools (today 45%) Water in all schools (today 45%) Furniture for all students Furniture for all students To finance Between $ 23 billion $ 30 billion depending on strategy School construction in Africa will be the most important single construction business in the world

3 Can Technology save cost? Five main technologies have been implemented over the four last decades Modern Technology Modern Technology Local materials Local materials Shelters Shelters Industrialized Prefabrication Industrialized Prefabrication The classic school construction The classic school construction

4 Sophisticated Modern Construction (all countries ) Procurement Approach Large Contractors Large Contractors ICB ICB Expected Results Large Capacity Large Capacity Economies of Scale Economies of Scale Quality of Works Quality of Works Simple Procedures Simple Procedures Actual Results Few Schools Built Very High Costs : US$ 500 per m 2 No Local Development Cumbersome Procedures

5 Local Materials ( all countries )Approach Test by NGOs Test by NGOs Scale Up by Donors Scale Up by Donors Expected Results Low Costs Low Costs Local Development Local Development Economy of cement Economy of cement Community appropriation Community appropriation Easy Scale Up Easy Scale Up Actual Results No Cost Savings Large Technical Assistance No cement saving No appropriation Abandon

6 The Shelter (Few countries )Approach Administration provides roof (ICB / NCB) Administration provides roof (ICB / NCB) Communities complete building Communities complete building Expected Results Very low cost Very low cost Quick implementation Quick implementation Community appropriation Community appropriation Massive production Massive production Actual Results Very low cost (60%) Quick implementation Second-class status Abandon when pressure decreases

7 Industrialized Prefabrication (few countries )Approach Off-site manufacturing Off-site manufacturing Large contracts Large contracts Expected Results Low cost Low cost Quick construction Quick construction Mass-production Mass-production Modernization of the construction industry Modernization of the construction industry Actual Results Higher cost that classic Long delays Few schools built No contribution to local development Abandon

8 Industrialized-Prefabrication The example of USA 2001 (the most industrialized country) 2 million enterprises (stable number since 1970) 2 million enterprises (stable number since 1970) Majority of micro-contractors Majority of micro-contractors Labor Intensive Industry Labor Intensive Industry

9 These Technologies have failed Four technologies have proven failed to lower cost and / or scale up Modern Technology : expensive Modern Technology : expensive Local materials: not replicable, no cost saving Local materials: not replicable, no cost saving Industrialized Prefab: not implementable Industrialized Prefab: not implementable Shelters: second-class, not sustained Shelters: second-class, not sustained And what ?

10 The Classic School Building (all countries )Approach Modern non-sophisticated technology Modern non-sophisticated technology Small / medium contractors from formal / informal sector Small / medium contractors from formal / informal sector Procurement NCB / LCB / NS) Procurement NCB / LCB / NS) Expected Results Technology known by local contractors Technology known by local contractors Quick implementation Quick implementation Massive production Massive production Local development Local development Appropriation by communities Appropriation by communities Actual Results Quality construction (acceptable to good ) Quick delivery No limitation of production capacity Local development The school plays a role model for low cost housing Becomes the universal model

11 Wide Range of Costs of the Classic model Example of unit costs achieved in one country by several projects

12 Why are School Construction Costs so different What do We Know ? The Implementation Arrangements WHO does WHAT, HOW and for HOW MUCH ?

13 The Actors

14 The 3 management approaches 1. Management by Public Administrations 2. Delegation of Management 3. Decentralization

15 3 options : ICB ICB ICB combined with Community Participation or Micro-Enterprises ICB combined with Community Participation or Micro-Enterprises NCB NCB 1. Management by MoE

Centralized Management with ICB Justifications Justifications Weak procurement capacity Weak procurement capacity Limited construction industry capacity Limited construction industry capacity Weak monitoring capacity Weak monitoring capacity Results Results Cumbersome procedures Cumbersome procedures High prices: US$15,000 to 30,000 per classroom High prices: US$15,000 to 30,000 per classroom Small quantities Small quantities Long delays Long delays

ICB with Community Participation Expectations Expectations Cost saving on materials and labor Cost saving on materials and labor Community ownership Community ownership Results Results Too complex Too complex Cost savings : Cost savings : Yes / ICB Yes / ICB No / NCB No / NCB Long delays: Difficult synchronization Long delays: Difficult synchronization Who? BF, Gambia, Zambia, Senegal, Bangladesh Who? BF, Gambia, Zambia, Senegal, Bangladesh Scale up ? No: Abandoned. Scale up ? No: Abandoned.

Centralized Management With NCB Expectations Expectations Reduce cost Reduce cost Use national contractors (SME) Use national contractors (SME) Achieve larger scale Achieve larger scale Results Results Competition Competition Cost-saving: US$/m2 180 (44% cost saving/ ICB) Cost-saving: US$/m2 180 (44% cost saving/ ICB) Increased but still limited capacity Increased but still limited capacity Delivery delays Delivery delays All countries and almost all donors with few exceptions All countries and almost all donors with few exceptions Scale-up: Yes Scale-up: Yes

19 Procurement of school Construction by Administration Shift from ICB to NCB

20 To CMAs (AGETIPs) To CMAs (AGETIPs) To NGOs To NGOs To Social Funds To Social Funds 2. Delegation of Contract Management

Delegation to CMAs (AGETIPs) Expectations Expectations Compensate lack of Administration capacity Compensate lack of Administration capacity procurement capacity procurement capacity business opportunities for SMEs business opportunities for SMEs Results Results Initial cost-saving vs. ICB Initial cost-saving vs. ICB No cost saving vs. NCB by admin. No cost saving vs. NCB by admin. Capacity to deliver Capacity to deliver Often limited to urban areas Often limited to urban areas Who? Mostly Francophone countries Who? Mostly Francophone countries Scale up: Yes Scale up: Yes

Delegation to NGOs Expectations Expectations community participation/ownership community participation/ownership cost cost Compensate lack of local const. industry capacity Compensate lack of local const. industry capacity Results Results Small cost-saving compared to NCB Small cost-saving compared to NCB Community participation irregular Community participation irregular Substitute to local industry = no sustain. Substitute to local industry = no sustain. Who ? BF, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Moz, Sen, Who ? BF, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Moz, Sen, Scale up ? No Scale up ? No

Delegation to Social Funds (when SF acts as CMA) Expectations Expectations Demand-driven response Demand-driven response Community empowermt Community empowermt cost cost proc capacity proc capacity Results Results No cost-saving compared to centralized NCB No cost-saving compared to centralized NCB Limited com. empowermt Limited com. empowermt Large capacity (fragile states) Large capacity (fragile states) Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagas. Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagas. Scale up ? Yes Scale up ? Yes

Delegation of Contract Management

25 To lower levels of Administration To lower levels of Administration To Local Governments To Local Governments To Communities To Communities 3. Decentralisation of Contract Management

Delegation to Local MoE Offices (acting by themselves) Expectations Expectations Smaller contracts Smaller contracts Increased competition Increased competition Procurement closer to beneficiaries (reduce corruption ) Procurement closer to beneficiaries (reduce corruption ) Results Results Cost: mixed results Cost: mixed results Average cost similar NCB Average cost similar NCB Low efficiency: long delays Low efficiency: long delays Neglect of educational mandates Neglect of educational mandates Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Scale up ? No Scale up ? No

Delegation to Local Governments (acting by themselves) Expectations Expectations Smaller contracts Smaller contracts Increased competition Increased competition Procurement closer to beneficiaries (reduce corruption ) Procurement closer to beneficiaries (reduce corruption ) Results Results Cost: mixed results Cost: mixed results Average cost similar NCB Average cost similar NCB Low efficiency: long delays Low efficiency: long delays Neglect of educational mandates Neglect of educational mandates Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Scale up ? No Scale up ? No

28 Delegation to MoE Local Offices or Local Governments (acting by themselves of through CMA)

29 These delegations have expanded capacity but not saved costs 2.1 : CMAs NCB 2.1 : CMAs NCB 2.2 : NGOs themselves 2.2 : NGOs themselves 2.3 : SFs NCB 2.3 : SFs NCB 3.1 : LL of MoE NCB 3.1 : LL of MoE NCB 3.2 : LGs NCB 3.2 : LGs NCB And So What ?

30 4. Delegation to Communities 1 : MoE communities 1 : MoE communities 2.1 : CMAs 2.1 : CMAs 2.2 : NGOs communities 2.2 : NGOs communities 2.3 : SFs communities 2.3 : SFs communities 3.1 : LL of MoE communities 3.1 : LL of MoE communities 3.2 : LGs communities 3.2 : LGs communities

Direct delegation by MoE to Communities Expectations Expectations Demand-driven responses Demand-driven responses Community Empowerment procurement / fin. managt) Community Empowerment procurement / fin. managt) Local development Local development Results Results High cost-saving (60%/ICB, 35% / NCB) High cost-saving (60%/ICB, 35% / NCB) Large capacity Large capacity Community ownership on school Community ownership on school Who ? Mauritania, India, Laos (IDA) Uganda, Zambia, Ghana (MPP) Who ? Mauritania, India, Laos (IDA) Uganda, Zambia, Ghana (MPP) Scale up ? Yes Scale up ? Yes

Delegation to Communities

Delegation by NGOs to Communities

Construction by NGOs the 3 approaches NGO as contractor : no cost saving / NCB NGO as contractor : no cost saving / NCB NGO as CMA : no cost saving / NCB NGO as CMA : no cost saving / NCB NGO delegate to communities = cost saving NGO delegate to communities = cost saving Who? Burkina Chad Gambia Guinea Mozambique Senegal Who? Mali Guinea Who? Burkina Ghana

Delegation by Social Funds to Communities Direct procurementDelegation to Communities

Social Funds Social Funds act as CMAs Social Funds act as CMAs Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagascar Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagascar Scale up ? Yes Scale up ? Yes Social Funds delegate to communities Social Funds delegate to communities Who ? Benin, Malawi, Senegal, Zambia Who ? Benin, Malawi, Senegal, Zambia Scale up ? yes Scale up ? yes

Delegation by Local Governments to Communities (the CDD approach) Direct procurementDelegation to Communities

Delegation to Local Governments : the 3 approaches LGs procure by themselves: no cost saving / NCB LGs procure by themselves: no cost saving / NCB LGs procure through CMA : no cost saving / NCB LGs procure through CMA : no cost saving / NCB LGs delegate to communities = cost saving LGs delegate to communities = cost saving Who? Ghana Guinea Madagascar Rwanda Senegal Who? Mauritania Senegal Who? Benin Ghana Uganda

Delegation to Communities (Whoever Delegates) and Other Agencies

40 Thank You For Your Attention