Participatory Budgeting: Concepts and Practices Participatory Budgeting Pilot World Bank Workshop Tirana May 12, 2004

Participatory Budgeting:Concepts and Practices

Participatory Budgeting Pilot

World Bank WorkshopTirana May 12, 2004

Content

What is Participatory Budgeting (PB)?Why LGs promote PB?How to implement PB?PB best practicesLessons learntReferences

What is Participatory Budgeting?

It is a process of prioritization and co-joint decision making through which citizens and local

government decide together the final allocation of public investment

Include citizens in the formulation of annual budgetIt is a complement of formal representation structuresPB rules prioritize the poorestIt is based on territorial and thematic divisionsIt is the cutting edge of participation in LG

Why LGs promote PB?

To increase effectiveness and efficiency of budgeting and service delivery making budgeting formulation and implementation more transparent and

accountable to citizens Matching technical capacity of LG in budget formulation with citizens needs

To increase equity Creating an simple mechanism of involving the poor and traditionally excluded

in accessing public resources and decision making

To ensure sustainability Increase LG government revenue capacity and investment quality Strengthen civil society organization Build a constructive dialogue between LG and civil society Building active citizenship and accountable institutions

How to implement PB?1- LOCAL

MEETINGS

2- PB COMMITTEE

ACTIVITIES

3- APPROVAL IMPLEMENTATION

How to implement PB?

1 - LOCAL MEETINGS (2 months)Awareness campaign/preparatory community meetingsInformation about financial situation and forecast Information about public works in progress Discussion of PB rules

Identification of local priorities Discussion of local and thematic priorities Selection of local and thematic priorities

Election of PB local delegates Each local areas elects their representatives to the PB

Committee


2 - PB COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES (2 months)Establishment of PB Committee 50% civil society + 50% LG delegates (usually)

Discuss of all local and thematic priorities Official opening of the PB Committee Presentation of all priorities Capacity building activities

Understanding the overall situation Visit of all priorities Deepening discussion of municipal revenue and capital

investment Monitor current investments


PB COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES (May-June)Technical and financial analysis by LG\ Analyses to fit proposal according to technical criteria Several institutions and departments provide technical information Reconciliation of demands with budget

Prioritization Analysis of priorities based on prioritization matrix Discussions with Municipal Council members Consensus building Allocation of resources based on prioritization matrix

Budget detailing


APPROVAL & IMPLEMENTATION (July-)Approval of the Budget Proposal by the PB Committee Usually by consensus If necessary by voting

Formal Approval of the Budget by the Council Submission of PB budget to Mayor PB Committee send the budge proposal for approval Strong participation of citizens Municipal Council hold the final decision

Budget Implementation and Follow-up Delegates and citizens monitor the budget implementation Discussion of necessary changes in the rules of PB Start of a new year of the PB

Best Practices

15 countries have some kind of PB Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Peru, Mexico Check Republic, Scandinavian countries US, Canada

In 2003 there were more than 250 municipalities with PB in Brazil59% of municipalities over 100.000 inhabitants have implemented PBAll political parties despite ideological positions have implementedSome State governments have started to implemented the methodologyThe Federal Government adopted PB methodology in the formulation of the last Multi-Year National Investment Plan (PPA)

Best Practices: Porto Alegre

The first and most well-know experience in participatory budgetingStarted in 19891.3 million inhabitantsCapital of the Rio Grande do Sul State

Best Practices: Porto Alegre

GOAL

The objective is to ensure a progressive and transparent public expenditure ensuring that regions with great needs received receive a greater budget

PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

Population weight = 2

Lack of service weight = 4

Thematic priorities weight = 5

ACHIEVEMENTS 1989-1996

number of households with access to water services rose from 80% to 98%number of children enrolled in public schools doubled30 kilometers of roads were paved annually in poorer neighborhoods revenue increased nearly by 50%.

Best Practices: Belo Horizonte

Capital of the Minas Gerais StatePB started in 1993OP held every 2 yearsArea-based planning rather than project-basedThrough integrating with the Master Plan and Land Regularization and Urbanisation programsResources are distributed by territorial units (81 UPs)Resources alloacted based on population size and map of quality of life indicator (IQVU) giving priority to areas of poverty concentration


81 UPs Highest IQVU

26 Special Ups = 10% budget

Norte

Nordeste

Leste

Centro-sul

Venda

Nova

Pampulha

Oeste

Barreiro

Noroeste

Lowest IQVU

Priority areas = 56% budget


REGIONS PRIORITY AREAS NUMBER OF INVESTMENTS

%

BARREIRO 10 14 71%CENTRO-SUL 9 15 60%LESTE 6 11 55%NORDESTE 5 11 45%NOROESTE 5 12 42%NORTE 11 12 92%OESTE 5 14 36%PAMPULHA 4 10 40%VENDA NOVA 9 15 60%

TOTAL 64 114 56%

PRIORITY AREAS INVESTMENT APPROVED FOR 2003/2004

Best Practices: Belo HorizonteInfrastructure 439 45,30%Slum upgrading 254 26,21%Education 97 10,01%Health 92 9,50%Social 30 3,10%Sport 26 2,68%Housing 16 1,65%Culture 12 1,24%Green areas 3 0,31%

969 100,00%

Best Practices: Santo André

One of the 39 municipalities of the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo, located in the Southeastern region of Brazil (Greater ABC Region)Industrial heartland of Brazil and Latin’s America largest industrial complex 174.38 km2 648.443 inhabitants 39% in urban area and 61% in

watershed protected area 139 slums (18,5% of population)


Started during the 1989-1992, but was interrupted and re-started in 1997

The municipality is divided in 19 geographic regions and 9 thematic issues

Education

Health

Cultural Identity

Social Inclusion and Housing

Environmental Quality

Economical Development

Urban Development

State Reform

Urban Violence


In 2001 the PB was merged with the Strategic Planning to broaded target group in the participatory processes: community and private sector together debating the city

Now participants from both processes would build alliances and consensus in resource allocation

Investments in short-term needs, such as water, sewage, upgrading, pavement have also to consider investments in the long-term, less visible and immediate problems

Best Practices: Barra Mansa

“Children’s Participatory

Budgeting

Citizenship does not have size”

Population: 166.745 inhabitantsChildren and adolescents in the age group 0-19 years represent 35,2% of the population


A dynamic process around the definition of the use of a percentage of the municipal budget according to the demands and needs established by the children and youngsters

Children and youngsters with the 9-15 years old, both school-going and non-school going children are eligible to participate


OBJECTIVESTo stimulate the participation of the children and youth in the issues related to the development of the cityTo promote and create leadership towards democratic participationTo value and incorporate the contribution that young citizens can give to the city



ACHIEVEMENTSAround 6.000 children and youngsters have been involved in the years of 1999 and 2000

A percentage of the municipal budget is established to attend the children’s priorities every year (around 75.000 USD) Approval by the municipal council to designate a percentage of the municipal

budget for this program (around 0,13% of the total)

The inclusion of the subject “ public budget” in the curriculum of the municipal schools from 3°primary level 120 volunteers called agents of the participatory budgeting

37% of the population in the age bracket participated in the process

Lessons Learnt

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVECommitment and leadership to involve citizens in decision making Need minimum level of autonomy in budget allocation Need to avoid reinforcing paternalism

Require good budget, tax and capital investment information system Need to strength municipal finance system Limited discussion on operational costs

Constructive dialogue and consensus building depends on good facilitation,communication and conflict resolutions skills and techniques Technical staff not prepared to dialogue with citizens Need training of facilitation, communication and conflict

Need to avoid creating tension with formal elected representatives Important to involve from the beginning elected councilors

Lessons Learnt

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVEPB methodology is needs to be flexible to adapt from its learning process and context (ex. urban – rural) Set up good monitoring and evaluation practices Do not institutionalize things that will need changes later

PB does not imply substantial extra costs for LGs, but it requires commitment and time from staff PB requires attitudes changes in technical staff to learn how to dialogue with

people

Increased financial capabilities, accountability and political support Budget implementation has become more efficient, effective and inclusive Revenue has raised due to better understanding of tax uses

Lessons Learnt

FROM CITIZENS’ PERSPECTIVENeed to address the specific challenges for involving vulnerable groups (attitudes, constraints for participation, formal knowledge) Need to overcome individual conflict of interests and political ambitions Civic groups better organized have greater opportunities to influence

At the beginning it is difficult to overcome mistrust in government institutions and ensure strong participation Citizens wiliness to put time in the process

In the most successful cases PB is guided by formal mechanisms while less successful ones are dominated by informality and limited direct decision-making

Lessons Learnt

FROM CITIZENS’ PERSPECTIVECitizens trust in government has improved due to better understanding of budget constraints, tax and investments People become more informed and engaged in public life at local, regional and

national levels Increased people understanding on territorial and sector issues

People learn to look to their needs within a broader perspective of all citizens It become a learning experience as going to university

It has successfully opened political opportunities included traditionally under-represented groups in decision-making Increased social capital and empowered the poor

Lessons Learnt

Participatory Budgeting as implementing mechanism of good governance and

decentralization has shown unprecedented political, social, economic and institutional

achievements

References

Abers, R. “Practicing Radical Democracy Lessons from Brazil”. Paper presented at the Workshop: Insurgent Planning Practices – Perugia, Italy, June 21-27, 1998

Acioly, C.,Herzog, A., et al. “Participatory Budgeting in the Municipality of Santo Andre, Brazil: the challenges of linking short-action and strategic planning”. SINPA paper, Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, 2002.

Blanco, C. "Citizen Participation and Social Inclusion Procedures in Santo André, Brazil: Participatory Budgeting and City of the Future Project“. Presentation at the World Bank Urban Research Forum in December 2002

Cabannes, Yves. Belo Horizonte Orcamento Participativo. Powerpoint presentationCosta, Emly. Barra Mansa: Orcamento Participativo Mirin. Powerpoint presentationReuben, W. Participatory Budgeting in Brazil and Implications for Local Government Projects .

Presentation given at the World BankWorld Bank. Porto Alegre an Interesting Example. WBI video developed based on the video “voices de

una ciudad: democracia participativa en Porto Alegre” produced by Marta Hanercker and Luis Acevedo Falls

Documents

Participatory Budgeting: Concepts and Practices Participatory Budgeting Pilot World Bank Workshop Tirana May 12, 2004