Community Driven Development Key Design Issues Considerations Sean

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

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

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

3 Basic Implementation Models Government/NGO Partnership LGU-led Approach Communities/ CBOs NGO or Pvt Firm Sector-led Approach LGU & Line Dpts. Decentralized Line Department Communities/ CBOs LGU Line Dpts. or NGOs Local Government Unit Central Agency (Line or Staff) Central Line Agency (Ag. , RD, etc. ) Central Staff Agency (LG, Pres. Off. , etc. ) Financing Source 4

Comparing Basic Models Model 1. Gov/NGO Partnership Pros • • 2. Sector-led Approach • • 3. LGU-led Approach • • Cons Fast-- contracting in capacity Useful in FCS/low capacity context Participatory orientation Streamlined fiduciary procedures • • • Stronger field presence Technical support generally available Can also be fast Co-financing possibilities • • • Single-sector bias Supply driven Competition/jealousies with other sectors 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 • • • Unsustainable long-term Can be more costly Undermines efforts to build Gov. capacity Sub-project bias O&M

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 Myanmar Philippines CDD Ops. 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

Basic Fund Flows National level Local level Com. level Executing agency Delivering agency/LGU Community Financing Agency/MOF $ 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: • 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!