Guiding Principles for Project Design - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/INTCDDTRAINING/1335760-111964710397… · Guiding Principles for Project Design ... execution (14,000

Strengthening Operational Skills inCommunity Driven Development

April 15-19, 2002Washington, D.C.

Guiding Principles for Project Design

Community-BasedDevelopment in Northeast Brazil

Luis CoiroloWorld Bank

Strengthening Operational Skills in Community Driven Development

Guiding Principles for Project Design

l Place money in the hands of communities.l Decentralize decision-making and involve local

authorities.l Keep decision-making transparent at all levels.l Involve communities in financing and

managing investments.l Make poverty targeting mechanisms simple,

explicit and monitorable.


Lessons Learned

l The rural poor can efficiently control resources and make good decisions about investments.

l Project sustainability is better when municipalities and communities share the costs.

l Standarized subproject designs simplify preparation and implementation, lowering costs.

l Technical assistance is critical to build local planningand implementation capacity.


Northeast Brazil

l Single largest area of rural poverty in Latin Americal Ten Statesl 1.6 m. km2 (>France, Italy, Germany, Spain combined)

-- 16% of Brazil’s total landl 28% of Brazil’s 160 m. popn. (45 m.), 16 m. rural popn.l 40% of rural NE households (7.5 m people) living on

US$1/day

Northeast Brazil


Northeast Brazil

l 60% adult illiteracyl 80% rural households lack sanitation; 90%

without safe waterl Causes of poverty:

– poor natural resource base– chronic drought– limited access to land, water, financial resources.


NE Brazil: Rural Poverty Alleviation Efforts

l POLONORDESTE (1975-85): Integrated Rural Development: focus on selected areas( 6 Federal Projects)

l Northeast Rural Development Program (NRDP) (1985-93): state focus, sectoralapproach (10 Federal Projects)

l reformulated NRDP (1993-96): community focusl Rural Poverty Alleviation Project

(1996-present):deepened decentralization (8 State Projects)


POLONORDESTE (1975-85)

l Centralization of decision-making and resources at federal level

l Without beneficiary participationl Growing number of project componentsl Large number of involved federal and state agenciesl Lack of coordination among project componentsl Only 20% of resources reaching beneficiaries (high

admin. Costs)


Northeast Rural Development Program (NRDP) (1985-93)

l reduced number of componentsl emphasis on small farmers and increased agricultural

productionl community participation piloted through support to

small communities component (APCR)4Communities identify, propose, implement4 Resources disbursed directly to

communitiesl for other components: continued centralization at

federal levell 40% of resources reaching beneficiaries


NRDP Reformulation

l New constitution of 1988: new federalism and seeds of decentralization

l 1991-92: NRDP projects virtually paralyzed4Fiscal Crisis4Reduced Administrative Capacity

l Bank faced with canceling the program or substantial reformulation


Reformulated NRDP (1993-96)

l transformation into a community-based programl targeting of poorest communitiesl decentralization to states, municipalities and

communitiesl reduced role of public agenciesl 46,000 investment subprojects proposed by

communitiesl approx. 18,000 subprojects executed or under

execution (14,000 additional subprojects approved for financing)Infrastructure - (61%) Productive - (34%) Social - (5%)


Rural Poverty Alleviation Project (RPAP) (1996-Present)

l Municipal cost-sharing strongly encouragedl Checks and balances for transparency and

accountabilityl Procurement through direct contracting by

communitiesl Specific funds for TA to communities and Municipal

Councilsl Improved MIS, and Monitoring and Evaluationl Improved Operational Manualsl Development/introduction of graduation strategy

RPAP: The Mechanisms

PAC

FUMAC

FUMAC-P

State Community Schemes

Municipal Community Schemes

Pilot Municipal Community FundsGreater

Decentralization


State Community Schemes (PAC)

– Original subprojects component of NRDP– Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) screens, approves

and releases funds for proposed community subprojects

– PCU interacts directly with beneficiary communities– PAC fosters participation of communities in

municipalities which lack will or capacity to adopt FUMAC/FUMAC-P

Approval Mechanism and Flow of Funds: PAC

State Technical Unit

Community Association

WB Special Accountpresents project

Operating agreement

authorizerelease $

release $

AnalyzeApproveSupervise Evaluate

IdentifyPreparemanagecontract/implementmaintain


Municipal Community Schemes (FUMAC)

– Successfully piloted under reformulated NRDP– Decision-making delegated to project Municipal

Councils (MC), comprising community members, 80% civil society and authorities

– MCs prioritize community demands and approve subprojects, within indicative budget, for financing by PCU

– Communities themselves, through MCs, determine best use of funds

Approval Mechanism and Flow of Funds: FUMAC


Community Association

WB Special Account

presents project

Operating Agreement

authorizesrelease $

release $

Municipal Council

Project Agreement informs

Supervise MCEvaluate Project

AnalyzeApproveSupervise

IdentifyPreparemanagecontract/implementmaintain


Pilot Municipal Community Funds (FUMAC-P )

– Pilot, more decentralized variant of FUMAC– Selected MCs prioritize and approve subprojects – MCs finance them from an annual budget based on

POA– Budget allocated to MCs is based on distribution

formula, and FUMAC performance– Promotes locally-determined investment planning

Approval Mechanism and Flow of Funds: FUMAC-P

Operating Agreement

Project Agreement

Annual Operating Plan

(AOP)authorizes release $

to CA


Community Association (CA)

Municipal Council Account

presents project

release $

Municipal Council

Supervise MCEvaluate Project

AnalyzeApproveSupervise

WB Special Account

release $ for AOP

Identifypreparecontract/implementmanagemaintain

Cofinancing Matrix

1. In all cases, a minimum of 10% on the part of community.

75%Up to 15%

10%-25%Social

75%Up to 15%

Zero10%-25%Productive

75%Up to 15%10%-25%Infrastructure

World BankStateMunicipalityCommunity1

ParticipationType of Subproject


Evaluation

l Sample of 331 municipalities, 671 communities, 3,888 families, 500 community subprojects.

l Community participation studyl Supervision missionsl Management Information System (MIS)l Evaluations by the communities


Evaluation Results

l Program reaching 7.5 million people, 53% of target population

l >30,000 communitiesl US$ 900 million invested in loans

– 100,000 additional jobs created– 85,000 hectares increased cultivated area– Additional sustainable annual income or savings - US$ 203

million

l From a sample of 8,000 infrastructure projects, 1,820 productive projects and 239 social projects implemented between 1995-1997, 89%, 86% and 88% were operational in March 2000


Evaluation Results (continued)

l Targeting effective: 94% of resources got to the target beneficiaries, 75% with initial income of less than$1/day

l Quality of Investments (with community evaluation)– >90% good or excellent; 50-75% of projects considered

adequately sized, 13-33% under-sized, and 2-14% too large

l Community participation study(225 communities) based on compound index: Social Capital Index

– Social capital accumulation increased by 40%


Reform. NRDP + RPAP: Results

l 93% of resources reach communities 7% Technical Assistance and Administration

– vs. 40% under original NRDP (1987-93)– vs. 20% under POLONORDESTE (1975-85)

l 45% of rural Northeast families benefited with at least one subproject

– subprojects operating in 1,500 of total 1,665 Northeast municipalitiesl > 50,000 community subprojects financed (77% infrastructure,

20% productive, and 3% social) in 1,500 municipalities (90% of total in region)

l 7,000 communities with water systems, operated and maintained by the communities



l Fiscal Savings– Infrastructure subprojects are 40% cheaper when

implemented by the communities– Examples of fiscal savings

l Water trucks - US$39 m./yearl improved health and time savings - US$42 m./year

– Additional incomel Value-added tax (ICMS) collected from the sale of

electrical appliances - US$27 m.



l 600,000 families with access to water – generally of good quality– reduced incidence of water-borne diseases, infant

mortality – increased time for income generation

l 8,000 rural electrification subprojects – 320,000 households and 4,300 schools connected



l 1,500 of 1,665 NE municipalities with municipal councils (FUMAC, FUMAC-P)

l Approximately 30% of Municipal Councils take part in discussions about other investments in the municipality and help in shaping a framework for municipal development

l Approximately 25% of community associations are leveraging social capital to solicit other investment financing outside the RPAP


New Program

l Due to results on the ground 10 governors requested new loans

l Federal government created a program for 14 statesl Focus

– Scaling-up to government programs - councils– Expand IT

l transparencyl marketing

– Integration of Bank programs in the rural areas (ie. Tocantins, infrastructure; BA, CE, MA, PE, education)

Strengthening Operational Skills inCommunity Driven Development

April 15-19, 2002Washington, D.C.

Thank you

Documents

Guiding Principles for Project Design - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/INTCDDTRAINING/1335760-111964710397… · Guiding Principles for Project Design ... execution (14,000