Affiliated Network for Social Accountability (ANSA-Africa)

Home

Feedback

Site map

Français

Português

Keywords:

Advanced search

Your email address:

Publications

Gap between rhetoric and reality: Assessment report of the 100-Community Driven Development Project
July 2007
Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI)

Government of Liberia’s initiative to decentralize national decision-making and spread state resources for the benefit of all Liberians, however well-intentioned, could be stalled and subverted in its puberty if the foundation is situated in sinking sand; if the initial steps begun are not critically appraised and not given a radical reordering. The implementation of Government’s first concrete step, the provision of US$1,000,000 from the 2005/2006 recast budget for “100-Community-Driven Development Project,” is a façade; it misrepresents the fledgling Sirleaf administration’s enormous expressed political will to fight poverty and its forebear, bad governance, both of which are capitals for conflict and instability. The project was not community-driven as the title suggests. It was largely Internal Affairs Ministry-driven.

The findings of LDI-conducted research derived from respondents’ testimonies, coupled with project site visits, show the 100-Community Driven Development Project, as implemented by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, is a far cry from the top-to-bottom development model envisaged by Government. Firstly, the selection of beneficiary communities was not transparent and participatory; it excluded other major stakeholders, including the locals, county legislative caucuses, and members of the Project Steering Committee based in Monrovia. Nearly all members (97 percent members) of PSC, which comprises lawmakers, Liberia Development and Reconstruction Committee (LDRC), the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and UNMIL Civil Affairs, were neither aware of nor participated in the identification and selection of the 100 communities and projects. The first and probably only meeting of the PSC, held in Gbarnga, Bong County, ran amok over inquiries regarding the selection and awarding of projects.

Secondly, and seemingly as a result of the first, the 100 community projects identified by the MIA are not diversified; they are predominantly small-scale social service public infrastructures that don’t include other dimensions of the national recovery, particularly poverty reduction-related projects. Contrary to Government’s preoccupation with poverty reduction, the 100-Community Driven project’s dominant focus on the construction of hand pumps, latrines, town halls, commissioner residence, palaver huts, etc., does not sufficiently bring out Government’s commitment to operationalize the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy and therefore mainstream the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Not a single project of the County Development Fund provides an opportunity for agricultural activities, particularly food production, or skills training, both of which could create the prospect for youth and women empowerment and long term sustainable employment opportunities. Health centers and school projects were also not considered. The domineering role of the MIA, coupled with the exclusion of the local communities and residents, in the implementation of the Development Fund is accentuated by the focus on such projects as the construction or rehabilitation of commissioner residence, town halls, palaver hall, etc. which largely directly benefit the local authority (MIA sub-stations) instead of the ordinary locals. Researchers were overwhelmed with outcries not only about the locals’ exclusion, but the implementation of projects that don’t directly positively impact their impoverished conditions.

Thirdly, the Fund’s operational manual or Guide provides that county- and District/Community-level meetings be held to precede the commencement of projects, researchers could not establish a trace of such meetings except for verbal admittance by officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that the meetings were convened. Ninety-five percent of district-level and DDC officials interviewed said they did not receive invitation nor did they attend any meeting at both the district/community and county levels regarding the 100-Community Driven Development Project. Officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Monrovia and at the county-level could not produce minutes and communications to verify their claims that such meetings were ever held. Five percent of respondents who said they attended some sort of community meetings said much publicity or information sharing about the meetings was not done, thus leaving such forums to the behests of the local authorities and their confidants.

Fourthly, and as an offshoot of the third point above, 98% of respondents say residents and leadership structures of the beneficiary communities have had no say and input in the selection of projects intended for them. In a few communities, such as in Tewor District, Grand Cape Mount County, where residents identified their own project, officials of Internal Affairs chose a different one instead. The residents said though they identified the construction of a clinic as their priority need, the superintendent and MIA officials in Monrovia changed the project to a commissioner residence with the excuse that clinic construction was the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, and not MIA. But MIA officials said they actually told the residents that a clinic project goes with other responsibilities, such as staffing, logistics and other composite demands that cannot be serviced by the County Development Fund.

Fifthly, the process of procurement and movement of materials, as described by the Project Implementation Guidelines, was unheeded; it sidelined DDCs, Project Management Committees and local leaders. Hundred percent of locally based interviewees said all materials, including planks and other local materials, were purchased by the Ministry of Internal Affairs without the input and participation of community structures as required. In all 50 communities researched, respondents said materials were delivered without waybills and purchase orders. Recipients had no choice but to write lists of items received on sheets of paper. Beneficiary communities, particularly in Sinoe County, according to some respondents, were requested to transport their own materials either from the county capital or from midpoints or pickup points where the materials were dropped by MIA county staff.

Sixthly, the selection of project implementers or contractors did not conform with the Implementation Guidelines, as it particularly relates to the direct involvement of the beneficiary communities. Though the Guidelines state that the final decision to select the contracting group or firm rests with the community residents, about 85% respondents said the Ministry took a bypass. This, the respondents said, compromised their ownership, monitoring and supervision of the projects, and largely contributed to the delay and abandonment of projects. Residents in Neezou, Dowien District, Bomi County, for instance, say they did not take part in the selection of the contractors for the bridge project in their community. The project is since abandoned.

Seventhly, research discovered inconsistency and disparity between projects initially identified and those implemented and vice versa. While a couple of projects earmarked were spontaneously changed, there are projects implemented that were not originally identified, leaving doubts about why and how the switching of priorities was evolved. There were also instances where MIA informed locals about and delivered materials for certain projects, but reported funding totally different projects. For instance, materials for the construction of a police depot in Bilibokree, Juarzon, Sinoe County were delivered, but MIA reported funding a pit latrine and hand pump. In Nyonbeh Town, Grand Bassa, where MIA reported funding town hall construction, residents said they only know of a hand pump construction.¹ A community, Tolbertville in Sinoe, which MIA claimed it funded a US$1,177 hand pump project, could neither be seen by researchers nor identified by local authorities. Also, Kulagor Gissilar and Barkar, located in Tewor District, Grand Cape County were not initially listed as beneficiary communities, MIA expenditure report indicates that the construction of commissioners residence projects are ongoing, but residents dispute the claim, saying that no commissioners live in the two sparsely populated communities.

Eighthly, there were a lot of MIA claims of project implementation and funding disputed by community residents and verified by research. The situation is found more serious in Sinoe County, where a number of projects the MIA claimed it implemented are said to have been undertaken by international NGOs in that county. While the MIA reported funding hand pump projects in Jacksonville, Nyenfueh Town, Voogbadee, Grisby Farm, etc., residents, community and local leaders said the projects were undertaken either by Tear Fund or African Concern International which operate in the county. There are instances in other counties, such as in Vayema, Gibi District, in Margibi County where the MIA claimed funding a pit latrine that the locals said was actually built by the Red Cross.

Ninthly, there occur discrepancies in spending for materials that are of common value on the local market. Outstanding of the discrepancies is found in what the MIA reported it had expended for the construction of hand pumps and latrines. With uniform construction plan and a single vendor system, variations in the cost of materials for the construction of latrines and hand pumps are unlikely, except probably for transportation, labor, administrative cost, etc. depending on the project area. But, as reported, the MIA spent more for materials to build a latrine in one community and paid less for a similar latrine in another. For instance, while the MIA says it spent $1,384 for materials alone to construct a single hand pump in Jacksonville, Sinoe County, it reported spending $692 for materials to construct one hand pump in Grebo Quarter. The two communities are about five miles apart.²

The combination of the aforementioned flaws and irregularities, which marred the implementation of 100-Community Driven Development Project, has robbed Government’s decentralization initiative the foundation it needs and deserves to sprout. The entire implementation exercise is topsy-turvy. Of the 50 projects visited, only four were found completed; of 95 percent of projects started, only ten stand the chance for total completion without additional funding from new budget allotment. Up to 37 projects that were started in earnest are now stalled; and some are abandoned due to lack of or insufficiency of materials, delay in transporting materials or simply because of the shortage/under-costing of materials. Road construction, the only project in Grand Kru, specifically the Barclayville project, and several projects in Maryland (market construction, Dugboken, market and latrine in Gbolobo Road, administrative hall renovation in Kaloken and market/latrine construction in Plebo/Youkudi) are far from completion.

On the overall, the pilot phase of what is supposed to be Government’s resource decentralization effort has created more problems than solutions. It is a stab in the back of the government’s good governance recovery program, as the entire implementation process was replete with exclusion and marginalization of the beneficiaries, instead of sharing decision-making power with, giving ownership to and building the capacity of local structures and residents. Poor planning, lack of coordination and the sense of centrality, amongst other reasons have caused a well-thought of and promising idea to commence on an irrational footing. Indeed, a lofty philosophy of decentralization and good governance has turned out to further entrench centralization and exclusion.

Nevertheless, all is not lost. The Sirleaf administration probably not informed of and notwithstanding the false start at the implementation level, is still demonstrably committed at the policy level. The US$1m for 100-Community Development aside??, the administration has twice increased budgetary allotments for county development. While the allotment of US$2.5m in the 2006/2007 Budget waits in escrow, the administration has allotted US$3m in the 2007/2008 draft budget for community-driven projects.³ What is left is to ensure that the implementation of the county development fund is put on par with enormous policy commitment. In order to do that, the Government, its local and international development partners, and the Liberian civil society must pay keen and serious attention to and infuse scientific thinking into the implementation process of the county development fund. This should and must be done if the new political dispensation is to make a fundamental break from the past where centrality of power and resources were the composts for dissent and upheavals. And given the backdrop of the correlation between centrality of state resources, exclusion and poverty on the one hand and conflict on the other, the 100-Community Driven Development Project and subsequent locally-driven initiatives must be seen and grabbed as a pivotal dimension of good governance which the country’s development and peace actors cannot afford to slight and ignore.

Footnotes: