Community-driven development (CDD) Towards a renewed approach: Where do we stand? M. Manssouri, CPM, IFAD REGIONAL WORKSHOP 14-17 March 2006 New Coco Beach Resort - Accra, Ghana 

The projects reviewed are: Lessons Learnt from a stock-taking exercise on five IFAD-financed projects in WCA What is a community? A locus where everybody can have the opportunity to make his/her voice heard directly on matters of public choice A territory where everybody (can) know(s) each other, with shared institutions of local governance The projects reviewed are: Ghana, the Village Infrastructure Project (VIP) Mauritania, The Oases Development Project (ODP) Senegal, Village Organization & Management Project (POGV) Mali, Sahelian Development Fund, FODESA Cape Verde, Rural Poverty Alleviation Project (PLPR)

Lessons learned on “reaching the communities through the public administration only” The district is far too remote (insufficient subsidiarity) Districts have no specific capacity to deal with village problems (insufficient specialization) Clear risks that, without corrective measures, district administrations replicate at their level the centralized approach that prompted administration reform in the first place Sub-district units of the public administration are more effective activators of delivery mechanisms for the communities, but still view the communities only as users of services, not as subjects of change in their own right The respective mandates are not defined Need to balance the hierarchical relations with the higher levels of the local government Need to establish separate funding channels to support district and community initiatives

Lessons learned on “reaching communities through civil society, private sector & public administration” Partnerships that join CBOs, CSOs, private sector and government: Provide access to a wider horizon and more sources than just the government Facilitate transparency of operations and accountability to their members Ensure the single allegiance of CBO leaders to the membership Can adopt community-friendly procedures Force the CBOs to devise the instruments of their own sustainability and growth Establish centers of pluralistic governance and promote autonomous advocacy of community interests There is a need to agree on key principles: The definition of roles, functions, and responsibilities of the partners Their relationships with the local government with respect to the five components of service provision (regulation, planning, production, delivery and financing) Options involving “civil society / private sector” and “public administration” are not mutually exclusive but complementary, provided that the CDD approach focuses on changes in the institutions which requires effective and continuous policy dialogue

Lessons learned on “policy dialogue” It is essential to : reach understanding and agreement with government on the project CDD approach before projects start keep projects on the right track during implementation consider projects as transitional and learning arrangements for building institutions It needs to be rooted in the operational experience: projects need to be articulated to the policy arena and to include clear policy objectives Policy dialogue should be based on partnership and knowledge from the ground; Policy dialogue is about setting and discussing the rules of the game, i.e. the institutions. The right forum and partnership arrangements for policy dialogue are important

(composed of households and individuals and their groups) Local development results from the interactions between three types of institutional agents National Government Larger Private Sector Communities (composed of households and individuals and their groups) Private sector (Farmer org. MSMEs, RMFIs, Trade Org…) and NGOs Public Sector (Local Government, Sector Ministries…) 1990s: rolling back of governments’ direct role in service delivery to a facilitatory, enabling one. CDD = the enabling agency may be not only government (e.g., Ghana = District Assemblies, Area Councils) but also private sector (e.g., Ghana = consultants), and, especially, CBOs (e.g., Mauritania = ODAs), typically Village Development Committees, through their General Assemblies. IFAD also plays the role of an enabling agency, usually catalysing the enabling role of other agencies. Under the second, CBO set-up, there isn’t the danger that communities are treated as an appendix to local governments; it fosters their autonomy

CDD addresses key issues of local governance In order to achieve: The quality of good governance in rural areas (responsiveness to citizens’ demand , transparency, and accountability); The objectives of good governance (equity, stability and growth), and A more efficient use of public and private resources used to those ends… The building blocks to achieve those objectives are sustainable community-organizations (CBOs) and empowering and sustainable linkages established between them and the public administration, the private sector and the civil society Remark: Being part of a formal government structure does not mean that an organization is sustainable. An organization is sustainable if it “stands on its own feet”, i.e. if its authority rests on the consensus of its members, not on external patronage, and if it is capable to raise, from within and from outside the membership, the resources needed to exercise its functions

Working on institutional systems within and around the community Understand better the current community institutional system Acquire insights on the main factors of endogenous change Identify key factors that govern reactions to external stimuli Understand better the factors that determine community preferences and effective demand Monitor the reactions to project conditions of “inclusiveness” Facilitating equitable distribution of benefits within a community Understanding the mechanisms that exist in the traditional institutions and using them to better help the poor Selecting self-targeting instruments to complement a reasonably equitable pattern of demand spontaneously emerging from the communities Advocating specific project conditions to secure “inclusiveness” in the CBOs and in their decision making bodies, Encouraging women and poor HHs participation through functional literacy training Promoting enabling institutions around the communities, identify enabling and disabling agencies, actors and procedures

Fostering the local economy (diversification of delivery mechanisms, transaction costs) Need to work more on the factors that affect the demand for production-oriented services and infrastructure, such as: Pertinence and effectiveness of research and development activities Absence or slow contextual establishment of mechanism that support private investment Example: MFIs are key community organizations that help to offset the failure of the formal financial system to provide services in rural areas The absence in the projects of specialized mechanisms to support micro-enterprises is noticeable in many countries. What delivery? How to coordinate? By increasing community social capital, CDD reduces transaction costs: Technology transfer: CBOs spread information among members at zero cost Credit: MFIs transaction costs are paid for by the members Infrastructure construction and maintenance: through the partners’ share of investment and their commitment to operate without external financial assistance Input supply and product marketing: professional associations of CBOs pool procurement of information, goods and services, and arrange common sale of products

Implications for designing, implementing and evaluating projects? Should the process start with better defining the expected impact at the level of the CBOs? How to better design the project exit arrangements? (i.e. sustainable CBOs and enabling institutions). How to make activities more clearly oriented to achieving the expected exit arrangements? What tools to analyze the institutional system, to better identify enabling and disabling factors, agencies and agents? What tools to help streamlining O&M arrangements? Should Implementation Manuals be produced at appraisal and in a participatory way?

How could M&E systems better capture the impact of CDD? More focus on the quality of the partnership established, assessed by: the relationships between the CBOs and the different levels of the public administration, the civil society, the private sector the transparency and accountability processes envisaged the inclusiveness and representation in the CBOs decision making bodies Sustainability and growth potential achieved by the CBOs Quality and role of the emerging CBO leaders (within their communities and beyond the community: political arena, civil society organizations, etc.) Influence of the CBOs in decision-making about provision of public services (effectiveness of advocacy to improve on government failures) The success of the CBOs and of unions of CBOs on reducing the impact of market failures

Towards a renewed CDD approach: the learning process The learning exercise: Stocktaking, towards a structured approach First CDD Workshop, Rome, June 2004 International Conference on Local Development, Washington, June 2004 Two training sessions on institutional analysis, 2004-2005 Annual Donors’ Meeting, Washington, April 2005 Electronic Conference October 2005 - March 2006 Regional workshop, March 2006 Country activities (policy and learning) New methodological instruments: Elaboration of a decision tool Institutional assessment guide Electronic exchange – Fidafrique and the Portal … building a knowledge platform…