 |
|
|
|
Transitory Difficulties with Decentralisation
The decentralisation of government authorities is usually welcomed as bringing the democratic processes closer to local people and allowing them more opportunity to express their priorities for development. However, in Africa the experience of decentralisation being undertaken during the course of project implementation has highlighted short term disruption which can occur during the process.
In the Special Country Programme for Ethiopia (S03-ET), which was concerned with small scale irrigation and conservation activities, the transitional government introduced decentralisation after the programme had been operational for 5 years. Many central government staff working on the programme were transferred to regional posts and ceased to be involved in programme implementation, the system of central co-ordinating committees collapsed, and programme implementation responsibility was shared between regional offices, urban councils and zonal offices. Programme assets, once held centrally, were divided between regions and zones, and in some cases lost to the programme altogether. Restructuring by central government resulted in the separation of the regional and zonal departments dealing with irrigation and agriculture, and occasionally that separation was manifested as mutual hostility between the departments and non-co-operation in programme activities.
In Uganda, the BSF funded Integrated Community Development Programme (BG-005-UG), which was to be implemented in one District, was affected by decentralisation when the District was split into two, requiring a doubling of the management arrangements (2 PCUs) and more technical staff. The new District had practically no infrastructure, hence was not attractive for seconded government staff who were given few incentives to move. In the decentralisation process some project-trained staff were also made redundant. Also in Uganda (S10-UG) decentralisation delayed start-up and implementation by requiring a major reorganisation of the project management structure before the project could begin: reform of the civil service also delayed plans for institutional strengthening and rehabilitation.
In The Gambia (SRS-021-GA), restructuring resulted in the re-employment by the project of Ministry staff that had been made redundant, significantly boosting management costs. In Ghana (SRS-38-GH) the CPE found that although the government decreed that 5% of its budget should go to assist decentralisation activities and rural development, it also meant that the Department of Community development lost 75% of its field staff just as the project was starting. At the same time structural adjustment policies meant that the Agricultural Development Bank lost subsidised loan facilities for agricultural loans and was permitted to drop lending quotas for the smallholder sector.
- The gains from the decentralisation of local government are likely to bring benefits to IFAD target groups in the longer term, and care is required to ensure that transitory disruption does not mask potential benefits. However, when the process of decentralisation takes place during project implementation, this may involve the stretching of limited resources and the revision of established boundaries, both of which can cause disruption in the short and medium terms.
- Projects and Programmes need to be prepared to modify working methods and targets to accommodate changes brought about by decentralisation. Wherever possible the effects need to be anticipated to reduce disruption, and the CI has a particular role in working with the management to identify modifications to the design which might be necessary. Projects need to be seen to work through decentralised authorities in order not to undermine the strategic intention of decentralisation.
- Where designs anticipate support the decentralisation process, sufficient flexibility in organisation and additional funding must be allowed to ensure that capacity can be created or increased in relevant local government support departments. Short term costs are necessary to obtain long term gains. This might include such aspects as supporting the planning process at the regional level or providing facilities and allowances for local staff to encourage their physical move to the provinces.
References:
1. Ethiopia - Special Country Programme, SRS-003-ET S003ETBE, Interim Evaluation, 1996.
2. The Gambia - Small-Scale Water Control Project, SRS-021-GA%S021GAAE, Mid-term Evaluation, 1995.
3. Ghana - Country Portfolio Evaluation, CPE96%CESGH96E, IFAD, 1996.
4. Ghana - Rural Enterprises Project, SRS-38-GH.
5. Uganda - Hoima / Kibaale Districts Integrated Community Development Project, BG-005-UG, Interim Evaluation, 1997.
6. Uganda - Southwest Region Agricultural Rehabilitation Project, SRS-10-UG%S010UGAE, Mid-term Evaluation, 1992.
