Community Driven Development Key Design Issues & Considerations Sean Bradley Lead Social Development Specialist March 2018

Overview Institutional Issues Basic Implementation Models Targeting CDD Core Design Principles Institutional Issues Basic Implementation Models Targeting Funding Public vs. Private investments Other Considerations Community/ Group Focus Participatory Planning Community Control of Resources Community involvement in implementation Participatory Monitoring

Institutional Issues 3 broad responsibilities: 3 levels: Oversight/general mgmt, facilitation & tech support, sub-project implementation 3 levels: national, local, community 3 basic models: Gov/NGO partnership, sector-led approach, LGU- led approach National Oversight Overall management Local Facilitation Technical/fiduciary support Community Sub-project implementation

3 Basic Implementation Models Government/NGO Partnership Sector-led Approach LGU-led Approach Communities/ CBOs Communities/ CBOs Communities/ CBOs LGU& Line Dpts. LGU Line Dpts. or NGOs NGO or Pvt Firm Decentralized Line Department Local Government Unit Central Agency (Line or Staff) Central Line Agency (Ag., RD, etc.) Central Staff Agency (LG, Pres. Off., etc.) Financing Source Financing Source Financing Source

Comparing Basic Models Pros Cons 1. Gov/NGO Partnership Fast-- contracting in capacity Useful in FCS/low capacity context Participatory orientation Streamlined fiduciary procedures Unsustainable long-term Can be more costly Undermines efforts to build Gov. capacity Sub-project bias O&M 2. Sector-led Approach Stronger field presence Technical support generally available Can also be fast Co-financing possibilities Single-sector bias Supply driven Competition/jealousies with other sectors 3. LGU-led Approach Supports decentralization More sustainable and scalable Sector-neutral Potential co-financing Weaker institutional and technical capacity Slower start-up Crowding out sector $ Gvnt fiduciary arrangements

Targeting National and local Poverty focused Proxy measures in the absence of poverty data Ear-marking (to cover marginalized groups) Political considerations

Targeting– 3 cases CDD Ops. Myanmar Philippines Vietnam

Funding Width vs. breadth (coverage vs. cycles) Per capita and poverty adjusted Average size of grant and relation to basic needs/investments Competition or entitlement Community counterpart Government rules/regs on transferring $ to non-state groups

Delivering agency/LGU Basic Fund Flows National level Local level Com. level Executing agency Financing Agency/MOF Delivering agency/LGU Community $ Flow Options

Public vs. Private Investments Perspective Basic needs vs. market opportunities Communities vs. producer groups/individuals Marginalized vs. productive poor Cost effectiveness vs. rates of return Unit costs much higher (per hh) Subproject cycle Bottom-up planning vs. market oriented analysis Community implementation vs. individual business planning Approval per sector policy vs. competitive window Counterpart in kind vs. counterpart in cash Institutional capacities Focus on needs vs. focus on opportunities Social mobilization vs. market linkages and business brokering Cost-effectiveness or reasonable cost vs. financial viability Health, education and social protection specialists vs. business administration, ag economists, marketing

Other Considerations Institutional: Implementation: Decentralization context: laws, capacities, devolved services, sub-national transfers, links to LDP process Implementation: Menu: open or restricted? Technical and implementation support: who and how? Fund flows and control: Community or lowest gov. unit? Fiduciary regulations and implications on fund transfers and use: National systems or PIM? Sub-projects: force account or contracted out?

Thank you!