Strategic Framework for the Second Phase
Approach and Rationale. The project,
herewith referred to as the Programme, includes finance for
both public and private sector investment. Because they apply
to different categories of beneficiaries and each requires
a different modus operandi, public and private investment
needs to be: managed in different ways, financed using different
mechanisms and delivered through different channels. To accommodate
these differences and thereby facilitate its implementation,
the Programme investment activities will be grouped under
two main investment components: (i) Infrastructure/Livelihoods
Development in a Decentralized Context and (ii) Rural
Economic Transformation. The third investment component is
Programme Management. The first component deals with public
investment (primarily water and roads) and the management
of that investment. As part of this process, Programme funding
also includes support for the decentralization process, strengthening
of districts planning/implementation capacity and the progressive
transfer of responsibility for managing Programme investments
to the districts. The second component – Rural Economic Transformation
– focuses on activities that are driven by income generating
motives and which are clearly within the private sector and
result in private assets. In the first component, the Programme
is dealing with the allocation of government resources for
the creation of economic infrastructure – using grant rather
than credit financing. In the second case, the Programme aims
to create the conditions within which the private sector can
operate effectively.
The motivation and rationale for
the restructuring comes from the difficulties experienced
in implementing the Programme’s activities during the first
phase and the country’s emphasis on transferring responsibility
to local bodies. The Programme as designed was broken up into
a considerable number of separate interventions each with
its own objective and with little linkage between them. The
separation between interventions has been exacerbated by the
implementation of each being contracted to one or more NGOs/service
providers with little communication taking place among them.
While the development of a master plan for
water and a similar one for roads has been prepared and a
participatory planning process has been run in the districts
to identify people’s need and their development priorities,
the two processes have been implemented independently with
little linkage between them. The project commissioned consultants
to prepare the master plans and NGOs financed by the project
were charged with responsibility for carrying out the participatory
planning process in each district and thereafter producing
the district development plans. What is needed now is a process
that brings together the plans with the expressed needs of
the people (as represented in the district development plans)
– the district is best placed to take the lead in this process.
A similar process is needed to rationalize
the support for the income generating activities. The current
set of development initiatives (contained in the project’s
third and fourth components – On-farm Investment Support and
Financial Services) must meet the needs of the majority of
the rural population. But, rather than separating the production
activities from rural finance and enterprise development ,
it is proposed that they be implemented under one component
in the second phase in order to improve project efficiency,
facilitate exchange of ideas and experiences, and promote
synergy.
Objectives. The development goal,
as stated in the appraisal Logframe, has been maintained with
minor modification: to promote an equitable process
of economic, human and institutional development consistent
with sustainable mobilization and efficient use of human,
natural and financial resources in Umutara Province.
Central to achieving this goal, as specific Programme
objectives, UCRIDP would (i) improve access by
rural households to sustainable public infrastructure within
an equitable, demand responsive and efficient district planning,
resource management and administration system; (ii) increase
the return to households from farming, livestock and forest
management activities and on and off-farm enterprises
and (iii) ensure sound and professional programme
management and accountability.
General Principles. The following general principles
are basic to the design of the Programme:
· Empowerment of the local actors – the
districts as the owners of programme-financed investments;
the communities to drive the process and participate in all
stages; and the province to provide overall strategic support
technical guidance and coordination.
· Accountability of local actors - ownership
goes hand in hand with accountability; local actors, who will
receive programme resources to implement project investments,
will be accountable to the PCU for the use of these resources.
· Smooth delivery of investment to the
benefit of the citizens of Umutara – while ownership
and empowerment of the local actors are central to the new
programme approach, an equally important objective is to ensure
fast and smooth provision of investment and services in response
to the pressing needs of the population.
· Progressive transfer of responsibilities
– by the end of the programme's third phase (2010), districts
and the province should be able to implement all their legal
responsibilities in an autonomous fashion.
· A new role for the province – involving
a change of the provincial responsibilities from one of control
to advice and support to districts.
· The PCU as an adviser and an accountable
manager – in this new framework, the PCU will leave direct
implementation to local structures and provide capacity-building
assistance where needed, through the contracting of service
providers or directly through its own personnel
· Partnerships – the programme needs
to be active in setting up and strengthening partnerships
at all levels, between: the PCU and the province, the PCU
and the districts, and the province and the districts.
Scope and Phasing. The Programme
would continue to be province-wide in scope and include
development initiatives in all eight districts. Some initiatives
with which there is only limited experience will be implemented
in one or two districts initially and will be monitored closely.
If there is a good acceptance by the communities and they
prove to be viable, the initiatives will be extended to other
parts of the province. The full range of activities supported
by the Programme will be available to all districts but the
mix will vary depending on needs and demand. In some districts
where there is a large population with poor access to water,
for example, there would likely be a major investment in improving
domestic water. In others with large numbers of cattle and
a pastoralist tradition, a higher portion of investment would
go into livestock commercialisation initiatives and the installation
of cattle water points.
The low level of project disbursement during
the first phase will likely have repercussions on Programme
phasing. At present, two more phases are foreseen: the
second phase of four years (2004 to 2007) and a third phase
of three years (2008 to 2010). The financing from the twin
project will be completed by 2007, while the first project,
coming under a flexible lending mechanism, will terminate
in 2010. As it is unlikely that the full amount of funding
currently available from the two projects for the second phase
(about USD 40 million) to be spend fully during this
phase, it can be envisaged that considerably more than the
original USD 2.5 million will be available for the third
phase
|
