|
| | | |
National Solidarity Programme, Afghanistan
 |
National Solidarity Programme
A brief background of Afghanistan’s past turmoil
Afghanistan has a long history of power struggle between
national authorities and various local bodies. While national
structures have intermittently been strengthened, local organisation
have remained strong, and new regional level groupings have emerged
during the last two decades. Establishing an appropriate and balanced
division of power between these various levels presents a major
challenge for the future of Afghanistan.
In the 1980s Western emergency aid, often in the form of cash, had
mainly been channelled through the mujahedin groups. Assistance was
designed to strengthen the mujahedin operating inside Afghanistan and
excluded people in areas controlled by the Kabul regime. Although a
mujahedin government was installed in Kabul in 1992, competing groups
opposed each other on both the national and the regional levels, there
was no unified governmental structure and civil war continued. Most
humanitarian actors avoided formalising relations with the new
government, preferring continued cooperation with individuals of
military groups with whom they had worked during the 1980s. Linking
diverse humanitarian actors to their preferred Afghan counterparts, the
relationship was prone to corruption and political favouritism.
The early 1990s strengthened regionalisation and further weakened the
central state apparatus, especially when regional warlords behaved like
quasi-states by generating income from trade, receiving arms and other
support from neighbouring countries, and inviting humanitarian agencies
to provide basic health, education and relief services for their
populations’.
The Taliban’s gradual ascent to power from 1994 onwards entailed a
clear shift towards a more unitary and repressive governmental policy.
The movement’s strict traditional- conservative national view, rooted
in village traditions as well as a particular interpretation of
religion, reduced the room for negotiation with foreign actors, above
all those representing ‘modern’, Western values and development. This
mostly applied to the humanitarian aid agencies as well. While
restoring the governmental structures of the 1964 Constitution, the
Taliban also reduced the importance of the Kabul ministries and gave
more authority to religious networks and institutions.
On the whole, humanitarian assistance during the past two decades has
reinforced power structures at both the regional and the local levels.
This made it possible to register some local development, but did not
modify a regionalised political economy of war that made leaders more
dependent upon - and responsive to - outside forces rather than their
own people, and where control of trade (legal and illegal) was a major
source of revenue. Fragmentation of political control also hampered
Afghanistan’s vital transit trade, facilitated competitive foreign
interference, and made internal divisions rather than national
boundaries the relevant lines of confrontation.
For the past two decades, the international aid community had done
little to build local capacity in either the public sector or civil
society. This is now changing, however, the agencies will have little
country-specific experience to draw on. There is a rich and varied
Afghan capacity that can be mobilised. Some municipalities and
shura (i.e. local traditional councils) have been encouraged to
take on a larger responsibility and they have done so effectively and
become predictable suppliers of services to the local population.
As central government starts to engage itself actively in development
issues throughout the country, there are many structural issues that
will need to be addressed:
- To what extent will the traditional functions of the shuras
be integrated into newly evolving local development structures (i.e.
Community Development Councils)?
- Can working with military commanders at the regional or the
local level that generally only serves to strengthen the political
economy of war be completely stooped prior to an effective alternative
structure being in place?.
- Are aid agencies willing to work more closely with local,
traditional authority structures since this may mean that they will
lose influence over the assistance process?
- What type of structures are best suited for the provincial, district and community levels?
|
 |
Creation of the National Solidarity Programme
In order to answer some of the above mentioned questions and in order
to replace a relief mode of assistance based mostly on foreign NGOs,
external personal and decision makers the National Solidarity Programme
(NSP) was created by the Government of Afghanistan in 2002/03.
The Programme aims to develop the ability of Afghan communities to
identify, plan, manage, and monitor their own development
projects. NSP promotes a development paradigm whereby communities
are empowered to make decisions and control resources during all stages
of the project cycle. The programme is expected to lay the
foundations for a long-term strengthening of local governance, to make
it more inclusive (e.g. for women, Internally Displaced Persons,
returnees, ethnic minorities), and to provide assistance for
reconstruction and development of communities.
Executed by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
(MRRD), the NSP is based on locally mobilized human resources and
externally provided funds. This unique rural development programme,
considered by many as the largest people’s project in the history of
Afghanistan, is the largest programme in the country and the most
powerful instruments that the government has to significantly reduce
the poverty levels in rural communities.
The NSP strongly promotes a unique development paradigm whereby
communities can make important decisions and control resources at all
stages of development. This will ultimately enable all villages and
communities in Afghanistan to be eligible for funding through the NSP
or other current development projects. Through the NSP, communities and
villages have the unique opportunity to organize themselves to be
self-reliant and therefore actively contribute to their own prosperity.
Regular consultations and consensus amongst community members is a very
important principle of the programme.
The goal of the NSP is to reduce poverty through empowering communities
with regard to improved governance, and social, human, and economic
capital. The objectives of the programme are to:
- lay the foundations for a strengthening of community level governance, and to
- support community-managed sub-projects comprising
reconstruction and development that improve the access of rural
communities to social and productive infrastructure and services.
Approach and major phases of NSP
The NSP grants to villages are intended to act as catalysts in this
process and at the same time provide much needed support for local
reconstruction and development activities.
Quality of process is essential for the long term sustainability of
community investments and for the success of a programme like the
NSP. As such, community level planning must follow an approach
that complies with the basic principles below:
- participatory planning of activities through inclusive community meetings and representative elected development councils;
- community contributions to capital costs and operation and maintenance;
- transparency and accountability of budgeting and accounting.
|
|
The design of NSP can be simply portrayed as a “5-Phase-Cycle”.
During Phase I contacts are made with communities and villages. A team
of “facilitators”, or locally recruited and trained staff, works with
people in the communities and villages to discuss current community
problems as well as their causes.
Phase II focuses on establishing a representative community body, or
the CDC. This elected council is responsible for proper and transparent
accounting and the overall management of the community’s socio-economic
development process.
In Phase III, the newly elected CDC consults with the members of the
community in order to decide on what projects can be carried out
independently and what projects need to be executed with outside
support. Proposals will be written and submitted to MRRD for approval.
Phase IV then focuses on the project implementation. After project
approval, first block grant instalments are paid for the purchase of
materials and contracting of services. At this point, the communities
organize themselves and mobilize community resources for contributing
to the NSP project execution.
Phase V can be seen as the project evaluation. Regular monitoring of
the progress is as important as the evaluation of the completed project.
Basic requirements for NSP:
1. Creation of Implementing Structures
The National Solidarity Programme (NSP) is executed by the Ministry of
Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD). Within the ministry, the
NSP is managed by an Oversight Consultant (OC) working with MRRD
counterparts in the Community Led Development Department to strengthen
capacity for community development and programme management. Up
to 25 international experts and consultants advice and train MRRD and
national NSP staff and ensure punctual disbursement of grants to
communities. To set up a working structure a NSP main office as well as
NSP Provincial offices were installed in all Provinces. A Steering
Committee acts in an advisory capacity to MRRD on overall programme
policy formulation and direction, and oversees programme
implementation. At present, the Steering Committee is composed of
representatives from MRRD and Ministry of Finance (MoF). An
External Review Committee consisting of donors, UN agencies, the
Independent Commission for Human Rights, MoF and MRRD meets on a
regular basis to review and endorse all policy and contractual issues.
2. Facilitating Partners
Through the consultancy of NSP OC and the steering committee the
Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD) contracted 22
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and UN-Habitat to facilitate the
delivery of the National Solidarity Programme (NSP) in selected
districts of nearly all provinces. These NGOs are the Facilitating
Partners (FPs) of the NSP. The primary role of the Facilitating Partner
is to provide support and guidance to the community in meeting the
requirements of NSP. The Facilitating Partner reports to the NSP
OC. An agreement is signed with the community on the community
development plan regarding the exact inputs to be provided and services
to be performed by the Facilitating Partner. In each province one or
more Facilitating Partner deploys community facilitators and technical
specialists for three districts at a time to cover a target of up to
216 communities per year. The Facilitating Partners may use
facilitation methods that they deem appropriate while respecting the
eligibility criteria to achieve the outputs against which the
eligibility of community project proposals are appraised and may also
plan the deployment of their staff and sequencing of activities in ways
they consider optimal for achieving their overall output targets.
3. Donors
The realization and continuation of the NSP is dependent on the
commitments of donor countries and institutions. In the first phase of
programme implementation, the flagship development programme of the
government of Afghanistan was supported by different Donors (WB, EU,
UK, Canada, Japan, Norway, Denmark). Estimates are that 500 Mio. USD
are necessary to reach all rural communities with the programme.
Main application steps:
After completion of the initial preparatory work outlined above, NSP follows the following main cycle of steps:
1. Selection of communities
2. Preparation of the communities
3. Appraisal of community development projects and plans
4. Sub-project implementation
5. Monitoring of the implementation process by the community
6. Physical and financial progress monitoring
7. Sub-project completion
8. Final monitoring and evaluation
1. Selection of communities:
- A “community” is defined as a village in which at least 25
families live. Villages or communities with less than 50 families are
encouraged to join up with neighbouring villages so as to become
eligible.
- Communities must elect their representatives. After secret
balloting, the elected members form the certified Community Development
Council (CDC).
- The elected CDC sets up a local Community Development Fund
Box and keeps the community regularly informed about CDC activities and
decisions via a public notice board and other local means of
communication.
- Communities must participate in identifying and planning the project(s).
- Based on a wide consensus and in-depth consultations, the sub project(s) proposal must be endorsed.
- Communities must present technically and financially sound projects and also plan for equal access to future benefits.
- Communities contribute towards both capital costs (mainly
labour) and operation and maintenance. They must design an operation
and maintenance plan.
- Communities accept principles of transparency in budgeting and accounting.
- Communities encourage a strong project participation of women
- All personnel of the MRRD, NSP and the Facilitating
Partners are working to mobilize resources to accelerate the
NSP.
2. Preparation of the communities
Facilitating Partners are expected to facilitate the process so that
communities can jointly plan and implement projects with NSP. The FPs
are expected to help:
- To mobilize the community including facilitating the
establishment through elections of a Community Development Council and
related project implementation committees as agreed with the community;
- Facilitate a participatory planning process that includes women and the weaker sections of the community;
- Strengthen community capacity to identify and prioritise needs;
- Assist the community to prepare a Community Profile with baseline data
- Facilitate the preparation of a Community Development Plan and proposals for specific project(s) with budget(s);
- Provide technical assistance to develop sub-project proposals for appraisal through either:
a) facilitating community access to technical assistance
available in the market or from other agencies; or,
b) technical assistance provided by the Facilitating
Partner, Sign off on the Community Development
Plan and sub-project proposal(s) with respect to
technical quality, financial feasibility and inclusive
community involvement in planning and decision
making before they are submitted to NSP.
On the other hand the community also is expected that it will:
- Elect an inclusive Community Development Council and establish Project Management Committees as needed for sub-projects;
- Develop a Community Development Plan (including priority
sub-project proposals with budgets and community cost contributions and
O&M arrangements as well as projects which can be financed and
implemented by the community itself);
- Obtain inputs and endorsement from the community (if
necessary through separate meetings with men and women) regarding the
Community Development Plan;
- Mobilize the required technical expertise to help develop designs within given technical standards;
- Agree on rules for dissemination of budget and expenditure information;
Submit the community development plan and proposal(s) to NSP.
A training manual provides more in-depth guidance on the processes
which can be followed during each phase, however, the Facilitating
Partner has the flexibility in the choice of the facilitation
methodology for undertaking the activities listed above.
3. Appraisal of community development projects/ plans
The community (with the assistance of the Facilitating Partner) will
complete and submit a Community Development Plan and standard
sub-project proposal(s) (including technical designs and cost
schedules) to the provincial representative of the NSP. The
Community Development Plan constitutes a medium term investment plan
for a particular community, which would provide the basis for
additional future development activities whether funded by NSP or other
sources, and also represent for the first time ever a bottom-up input
to higher level planning at the district, provincial, and national
level.
Appraisal of the community proposal and budget are conducted by the
NSP. The Facilitating Partner helps communities to prepare and
implement sub-project proposals and be positioned as “allies” of the
community, while the NSP staff formally appraises proposals and makes
funding decisions.
The NSP is responsible for appraisal of all community project proposals
to determine whether they meet the eligibility criteria. This is
done using a standard appraisal tool by the NSP technical staff from
the provincial office (and involving relevant government agencies, e.g.
for education). The appraisal is done using a transparent
procedure with eligibility criteria, indicators and means of
verification. The criteria is made known to the community in order to
limit the discretionary power of the NSP. A proposal is evaluated
based on these criteria and assessed during a field visit to the
community. During this appraisal visit the appropriate levels of
instalments will be discussed and agreed upon. In the absence of
special agreements the instalments will be 50: 40: 10 %.
The community is then informed by the NSP regarding the result of the appraisal, which may be
- approval of funding for the proposed plan,
- rejection for noncompliance with NSP rules (e.g. project is on the negative list),
- requiring the community to revise its proposal with regard to either the election of the Community
- Development Council, the planning process, the budget, or the technical standards.
The provincial NSP office will undertake field verification on a sample
basis of whether elections of Community Development Councils conform
with the basic principles defined. In addition, the national
level NSP office undertakes periodic field supervision audits on a
sample basis of the appraisal process to ensure that eligibility
criteria are complied with.
Upon completion of appraisal and approval by NSP of a community
sub-project proposal, a Tripartite Agreement is signed between the
Community Development Council, NSP, and the Facilitating Partner
regarding the financing of the sub-project, disbursement schedule and
benchmarks triggering instalments and the general obligations of each
of the parties to the agreement.
4. Sub-project implementation
The primary responsibility for sub-project implementation rests with
the community (the Community Development Council, Project Management
Committee, and the greater community). Clear divisions of
responsibility between the Development Council members and Project
Management Committee members increase accountability. Three or
more persons at the community level should be identified as responsible
for most implementation activities such as procurement, bookkeeping,
supervision, storage and accounting. This not only promotes
transparency and continuity at the community level but ensures as well
that more than one person in the community has the necessary
skills/training to perform the task.
Depending on the type of sub-project, the community is either capable
of undertaking implementation itself, or may require external
assistance regarding specialized technical skills or services (e.g.
masons for school construction, or lining and hand pump installation
for dug wells for drinking water).
If a community is using its block grant for more than one sub-project,
parallel implementation is an option, if sufficient capacity is
present, since this speeds up overall implementation, and enables
completion of projects within the constraints defined by local climate
and altitude.
The Facilitating Partner supports the community during this process with regard to:
- Technical assistance on an as needed basis (e.g. procedures for procurement of goods or contractors);
- Implementation (e.g. advice on implementation organization, and supervision of works and construction quality);
- Training on matters such as book-keeping, contracting, maintenance tasks etc.
5. Monitoring of the implementation process by the community
The community wide assembly has to agree on the methods and schedule of
reporting to the community (on financial and physical progress) by the
Community Development Council and the relevant Project Management
Committees. The methods for information dissemination should
ensure that women are informed about project activities. The
community has to agree on key indicators to monitor joint decision
making, project progress, and transparency. Monitoring against
these indicators has to be reported in the Community Progress Reporting
Form used by the Facilitating Partners.
In the community, all records and accounts must be available for
inspection by the members of the community, the Facilitating Partner,
and NSP. The arrangements to ensure transparency include regular
community wide information meetings, display of all relevant
information on implementation progress and expenditures on notice
boards accessible to the public, and/or announcements of
project-related information at Friday prayers.
|
 |
6. Physical and financial progress monitoring
The Facilitating Partner is responsible for physical and financial
progress monitoring on a monthly basis with summary progress reports
and on a quarterly basis with more comprehensive status reporting.
These reports constitute an input to the overall quarterly progress
reporting by NSP. The Facilitating Partner reports to NSP on process,
achievement of implementation benchmarks, and quality of works as
defined in the Tripartite Agreement. Achievement of implementation
benchmarks will be tied to the release of funding to the community.
The NSP staff performs sample audits of the support for the community
carried out by the Facilitating Partner regarding elections of
Community Development Councils, preparation of sub-project proposals
that comply with NSP eligibility criteria, recommendations for release
of block grant instalments based on achievement of agreed milestones,
and the adequacy and realism of progress reporting.
7. Sub-project Completion
A completion report has to be prepared by the community and the
Facilitating Partner. The completed project is inspected by the NSP,
and a Certificate of Completion is issued to the community provided the
sub-project is technically sound and that all funds received from NSP
have been reconciled. NSP may approve that any savings that are
remaining may be allocated to be used by the community to increase the
scope of the community development plan during the current or following
year.
|
 |
8. Final monitoring and evaluation
The NSP’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is intended to
provide adequate information to the relevant stakeholders on project
implementation performance, process, outputs, and outcomes. The main
purpose of the monitoring system is to provide timely feedback to key
stakeholders, and permit mid-course corrective action initiated where
necessary. The M&E system has four components:
-
Implementation monitoring –physical/financial;
-
Process monitoring;
-
Post-implementation monitoring, including sustainability monitoring of completed sub-projects and audits; and
-
Evaluation of process, outputs, outcomes, and financial management.
A computerized MIS system ensures that information flow takes place
smoothly at all levels, and that data are electronically processed from
provincial level upwards.
At the community level, communities are assisted by their Facilitating
Partner to monitor their own progress based on a few self-selected key
indicators (e.g. on process/participation, implementation
progress/results, and expenditures). Formats are developed for this
purpose and maintained at the community/FP level. This ensures widely
display and communication of results of such monitoring within the
community.
At the next level, the Facilitating Partner, using the community as the
basic unit of monitoring, provides a comprehensive report, including
physical (and other outputs) and financial progress, on a quarterly
basis to the NSP office. The Facilitating Partner’s quarterly report
includes the findings of the community monitoring.
The Facilitating Partner’s quarterly progress reports covers the
district(s) or province(s) in which the particular Facilitating Partner
is responsible for facilitation of the NSP. Where more than one
Facilitating Partner is involved in facilitation in a particular
province, their reports are aggregated at the NSP-Province level.
Provincial quarterly progress reports are then aggregated at the
national level by MRRD/Oversight Consultant. At the national level,
quarterly progress reports for the project as a whole is generated and
shared with key stakeholders, including the NSP Steering Committee,
Facilitating Partners, and donor agencies.
To evaluate project outcomes in terms of assessing whether the NSP is
meeting its Programme Objectives, key performance indicators have been
developed. Achievements against these are evaluated by an external
evaluation consultant. In addition, regular supervision, and a
mid-term review is conducted by IDA. At the end of the project period,
IDA produces an Implementation Completion Report, which focuses on
evaluating whether the project objectives and targets for key
performance indicators have been met.
|
| |
 top | Select Methods after category
|
