Zambia - The social recovery project's community initiatives component

54993 No. 137 June 1999 Findings occasionally reports on development initiatives not assisted by the World Bank. This article is one such effort. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank Group, the Government of Ghana, or the banks and NGOs mentioned. Zambia : The Social Recovery Project's Community Initiatives Component Background The Social Recovery Project (SRP) supports small, simple and locally-generated community- based projects that improve infrastructure and service delivery to the poor during the adjustment period in Zambia. Communities themselves prioritize their needs, identify solutions, organise themselves, contribute in cash and kind and initiate activities that provide solutions to their problems. The first community-based project was financed by the first Social Recovery Project in early 1992. The second Social Recovery Project was negotiated and became effective in 1995. In 1997 two further facilities were made available for community-based roads and environment projects. The Microprojects Unit (MPU), based in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, provides the institutional base of the Social Recovery Project. The MPU is a small semi-autonomous unit with a network of Regional Offices throughout the country, which support and facilitate district and community activities. Targeting the poor The SRP aims to target the capacitated poor - those who are able to help themselves ; it is demand-led. In order that the poor have access to the fund, the SRP uses various strategies. First, only small, simple and locally-initiated projects that meet the needs of the poor are eligible. Rigorous appraisal at district and community level ensures that only poor communities and beneficiaries are supported. Participatory assessments have been used to assess whether the poor have benefited and SRP has increased the numbers of regional officers in Provinces where poverty levels are highest. Geographic distribution of resources shows significant access to SRP funds by the poorest districts, which receive as much as less poor districts. Thirty-five percent of the projects are located over 30km from a district center and the third poorest district, Gwembe district, received the highest SRP allocation per poor person, US $ 17.8 as compared to national average of US$ 3.34. Findings The approach - community-managed development The SRP operates on the premise that community participation is the corner-stone for development. Communities participate in projects if they feel capable of doing so. Early in the life of SRP, several factors were identified which influence the quality and extent of community participation. Communities are more likely to participate if: they are well- informed, well-organised and have good leaders; the project meets a felt need; the contribution is appropriate and relatively easy for them to provide; they feel a sense of responsibility and ownership; they are given the opportunity to influence decisions which affect them; and there are visible benefits. The SRP put in place several interventions to facilitate interactive and active community participation, where people participate in joint analysis and planning as well as take collective action. Forms and guidelines were simplified, facilitation techniques were developed and the facilitation skills of district and regional officer staff improved. The project selection process at district level only allows selection of community projects for field appraisal which show community commitment. Projects which are simple enough for the community to implement with the minimum of outside technical assistance and of a size that they are able to cope with are selected. The SRP assists those who are prepared to assist themselves - communities which have already started to solve their own problems. The SRP supplements community efforts. The fact that a community has already attempted to address its problems by meeting, organising itself and contributing inputs provides the evidence that there are priority needs and a willingness to address them. Community members who have already contributed towards a solution are also more likely to participate in the decision-making if the decisions pertain to their own input, which is perceived to be in their control. Experience has shown that investment in a community which shows this self-reliance is more cost-effective and sustainable than an investment in a community which waits passively for assistance. The insistence on community contribution has been identified as a factor which has done much to dispel the mentality that the 'government will provide'. District staff and regional officers facilitate community meetings so that all community members are given the opportunity to participate in decision-making and all community members have access to information. Projects Implementation and Maintenance Manuals have also been developed to assist communities manage their resources and improve the technical quality of their projects. District staff have been trained as trainers and train communities in technical, management and maintenance issues as the project is launched, monitored and after it is completed. These interventions have improved the community capacity to understand key technical issues, comply with procedures, employ labor, procure materials and transport, keep records, manage and account for funds - in other words, implement their projects to a better quality in a shorter time. This encourages community commitment to the project and a sense of ownership as the benefits are felt sooner and communities are not faced with technical problems, which are perceived as being out of their control. Communities have been able to plan and execute other development activities after the completion of the SRP-funded activities. When consulted as to the perceived benefits of a project, communities have ranked improved skills and knowledge, better organizational skills and accountability resulting from involvement in the project as amongst the most important benefits. Sustaining the approach - strengthening the institutions involved In order to implement this approach of community-led development in a sustainable way, the SRP recognised the need to involve different institutions at different levels and to build capacity for their identified roles. Early in 1995, the government approved a decentralization policy. Although the implementation of the policy was slow, the SRP facilitated the formation of District Teams, which report to the District Development Coordinating Committee where they are active. The SRP supported several training programs intended to improve district team capacity to provide services to poor communities. The roles of all the partners in this community-led development approach were clarified and the facilitation, training, technical and maintenance skills of district officers were improved. The training has given district staff the capacity to play an 'enabling' role in sensitizing communities; has created a commitment to the process of community-based development; has improved the linkages and communication between district staff and implementing communities as the advice and information offered has improved; and has been successful in establishing a process which responds to local needs which results in an accountable relationship between the users and providers. Some districts use the SRP approach in assisting communities with non-SRP community-based projects and SRP resources are now often included in the district planning process. Sustaining the impact - community management, maintaining infrastructure and service delivery Community participation and contribution has enhanced the sense of ownership by communities of the infrastructure created. The improvements in the management capacity of communities during implementation have also enhanced community capacity to maintain projects after completion. The training of District Technical officers and Technical Supervisors and the subsequent improvement to the technical quality of projects has decreased the future maintenance costs and enhanced the likelihood of sustainability of the infrastructure. Anyone destroying this facility will destroy the future of many people. We have put so much in it. Imagine having to start all over again. This project is really ours. Mufumbwe Resident BA IV We have not suffered any vandalism or thefts from the time the clinic was constructed. This is because the people feel they own it. Mutanda Resident BA IV Nevertheless, maintenance is not guaranteed. Government policy does not clearly specify who is responsible for what. Communities continue to believe that maintenance is the responsibility of the government while government assumes that communities should be responsible. There is an inadequate understanding of the meaning of maintenance and necessary skills, knowledge, information or funds to maintain do not always exist. Involvement of the district staff and service providers in project selection, appraisal, monitoring and evaluation has contributed to improved service delivery after the project is completed. Evidence from the project areas shows an increase in trained teachers and decrease pupil/teacher ratio in rural areas, higher school attendance, increased drug supply and family planning services and a greater number of women assisted in childbirth in project areas. Lessons Learned