Experiences of Community-Based Planning

Executive Summary

The Community-Based Planning project is a four-country action-research project operating in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Ghana. The project in each country comprises a set of partners, including at least the key national organisation involved in decentralised planning, a local government and a development facilitator to assist in the facilitation of the participatory planning process. The purpose of the project was that "By the end December 2004 realistic plans have been developed in each country for policy change, implementation or piloting of community-based planning systems, which participating institutions are committed to take forward".

In 1998-2000, Khanya undertook action-research funded by the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) looking at "Institutional Support for Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa". The main focus of the work was looking at institutional issues arising in South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe, if sustainable livelihoods (SL) are to be promoted. This work identified that if livelihoods of poor people are to improve, linkages
between micro level (community) and meso level (local government and service providers), both in terms of improving participatory governance and in terms of improving services should be addressed. Three key governance requirements were identified at micro and meso levels if poverty was to be addressed:

Empowering communities (micro)

• Poor people must be active and involved in managing their own development (claiming their rights and exercising their responsibilities);
• The need for a responsive, active and accessible network of local service providers (community-based, private sector or government); Empowering local governments and district level service providers (meso)
• Empowering local governments and district level service providers (meso)
• At local government level (lower meso) services need to be facilitated, provided or promoted effectively and responsively, coordinated and local governments should be held accountable for quality delivery of the services.

The first of these requirements implies that communities need to be involved in planning and management of local development. The project was implemented between April 2001 and September 2004, including review of in-country experience, sharing across the 4 countries, development of common models, adaptation in each country, piloting, evaluations and mainstreaming. Despite coming to an end as a project, national processes continue around CBP in Uganda, SA and potentially
in Zimbabwe.

If the three governance issues suggested above are to be achieved, decentralisation to local government and below is a critical ingredient. It must increase the participation of communities in the planning for, and management of, development of their area. Community-based planning was conceived as a methodology that increases the participation of communities in planning and improving the quality if plans, of services, and of improving the ability of communities to act in support of their own development.

In terms of level of decentralisation, South Africa has devolved to provinces, and to some extent to two levels of local government, district and local, with integrated and powerful Metros in the 6 major cities. Beneath local municipalities there are wards as an optional participatory structure. Some critical policies and legislation are the inclusion of local government in the Constitution, and the Municipal Systems Act which enshrines developmental local government, the concept of municipality as including the community, integrated development planning (IDP) and participation. Development plans are produced at both levels of municipality (IDPs), as well as provinces. Wards were used as the level for CBP.

Uganda has the most advanced decentralisation process in Africa, with all developmental services handed over to local government, and many local services being managed by lower level local governments (subcounties). Central government retains only a policy and oversight brief. There are 5 levels of administration from villages (LC1), parishes (LC2), subcounties (LC3), counties (LC4) and districts (LC5). LC3 and 5 are local governments and both produce development plans. CBP was adopted at LC2 (parish) level.

Zimbabwe's decentralisation process started after independence with the creation of provinces, districts, wards and villages. Most government departments are deconcentrated to district level, with rural/urban district councils having limited powers. Plans are produced at district level by the Rural District Development Committee (RDDC) and submitted to province for inclusion in provincial plans. Below the District are two levels of administration ie the ward and village assemblies and development committees. In theory village plans are filtered through the ward development committee before it reaches the district. CBP was introduced at the ward level.

The Ghanaian decentralisation process is essentially a deconcentration process where the powers and functions of central government are delegated to district offices of Ministries, while district assemblies (DAs) have some devolved powers. Regions, through the Regional Coordinating Councils and their respective Regional Planning Co-ordinating Units (RPCUs), were given the responsibility to play the role of co-ordination. Traditional authorities are extremely important in Ghana, but are not integrated with the government system. Plans are produced (erratically) at district level. Subdistrict structures are urban, town, area and zonal councils, and below that unit committees. These mostly exist on paper. The Area Council was
chosen as the level for CBP.

The core methodology that was developed is derived from seeking to apply the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) in a planning context. The principles underlying it are derived from the SL principles and are:

• we need to ensure that poor people are included in planning;
• systems need to be realistic and practical, and the planning process must be implementable using available resources within the district/local government, and must link in and integrate with existing processes, particularly local government planning;
• planning must be linked to a legitimate structure, ideally one that can take funds;
• planning should not be a once off exercise, but should be part of longer process;
• plan must be people focused and empowering;
• we must plan from vision and strength/opportunities not problems;
• plans must be holistic and cover all sectors;
• planning should promote mutual accountability between community and officials;
• there must be commitment by councillors and officials and there must be someone responsible to ensure it gets done. The implementation of these principles led to some key decisions being taken, that:
• a 3-5 day process could be empowering but affordable and so realistic to be replicated;
• planning should be based around livelihood outcomes not needs, and build on local strengths;
• the plan must be init

iated by the local government but owned by the community;

• participatory methodologies must be used to help build that ownership;
• a legitimate structure such as a ward must be used as the basis of the planning.

The basic process developed involved:

• Preparation: Preparation involves a pre planning meeting and a community launch meeting
• Gathering information (situation analysis): This step normally takes two days ending in an analysis of the information and report back to the community. This step involves using several PLA tools with different social groups and service providers.
• Analysing planning information and report back: This step involves analysis of the information from all social groups interviewed in an effort to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the community. At this stage the methodology looks at the preferred outcomes of the community and these outcomes are prioritised (not needs) and 5 top priorities selected.
• Reconciliation: This step is undertaken to gather all the information from all the different exercises and to relate them to the prioritised outcomes.
• Planning: The first step is undertaken by a small group chosen by the community during a two day period following the community meeting, and may involve service providers, NGOs, relevant CBOs etc. A ministrategic plan is developed around the 5 priorities with objectives, strategies, projects/activities indicating what the community will do, what the municipality needs to do, and what others need to do. Where process funds are provided by the municipality these are planned for, projects for submission for the district plan, and a community action plan.
• Implementation: Once the plan is completed and submitted the key stages include appraisal, implementation, monitoring. However the way this was approached varied in the different countries.

According to the experiences of participatory approaches being applied by various stakeholders, the application of the CBP planning methodology varied, including the timing of the training and duration of the community planning. In South Africa two phases can be identified:

• Phase 1 - implementation from April 2001 to November 2002 - This phase saw piloting in Mangaung Local Muncipality. The partners were Mangaung Local Municipality; Decentralised Development Planning, the section of the national Department of Provincial and Local Government who were responsible for local government planning; CARE; and Khanya-managing rural change. The generic planning process was adopted based on a contact time of 4 days. The municipality implemented CBP or ward planning in all 43 wards of the city and rural areas over the period from September 2001 to March 2002. The plans were supported by R50 000 allocated per ward as "process funds" by Mangaung. An independent evaluation was conducted in late 2002 which was very positive about the impact on communities. There were improved plans and services as a result, considerable community action and the plans addressed the priorities of the disadvantaged.
• Phase 2 - National Piloting in 8 municipalities - The national workshop held in October 2002 highlighted the success and the learnings of the pilot in Mangaung. It was agreed to establish a national Steering Committee to take forward CBP, a proposal was agreed to refine the methodology and pilot in 8 more municipalities. The Steering Committee included dplg, SALGA, IDT, Mangaung, eThekwini, Tzaneen, Khanya, GTZ, Free State Department of Local Government and Housing. This project included improving the linkages between the participatory planning and the IDP, development of the M&E systems, definition of support systems, production of a resource book for ward committees, development of draft national manuals, piloting, learning from the pilots and then finalisation of the national manuals and proposals for national rollout. This CBP/IDP Project was funded by Netherlands Aid, DFIDSA, GTZ and DBSA, with municipalities contributing a matching contribution of R250 000 each. The total project cost is around US$1 million, much more than the original funding for the CBP research project.

In Uganda the initial pilot was in Bushenyi District. The initial partnership in Uganda, which took forward CBP, was between the Local Government Development Programme (LGDP), CARE International, and Bushenyi District Local Government. The core planning methodology developed across the 4 participating countries was adapted by a team of district based staff into a Busheny Planning manual which was then tested in 170 parishes and all sub-counties within Bushenyi District. This subsequently influenced and informed the development and refinement of the Harmonized Participatory Planning Guides for planning at sub-district levels. As part of this two planning guides have been developed, one for
parishes/wards and another for subcounties, as well as a training guide. The development and refining of the HPPG has been supported from the Local Government Development Programme and UNCDF.

In Zimbabwe the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing is the lead agency for CBP, with partners the Intermediate Technology Development Group. It was decided to pilot and later implement in Gwanda and Chimanimani Districts and these became the local government partners in the programme. Again the generic manual was used
as a base with a 5 days process. A District Training Team (DTT) was set up in each District plus a Core Facilitation Team (CFT) at ward level, who were trained for 1.5 days. All of Gwanda and most of Chimanimani have been completed. The Ward Development Plans have been submitted to Chimanimani and Gwanda Rural District Councils (RDCs) for them to
inform Council budgeting and also have increased access to various stakeholders since the RDC is the root entry point for all community support projects and initiatives.

In Ghana the partners are the Integrated Social Development Centre (ISODEC), Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, National Development and Planning Commission and the pilot District Assemblies of Asante Akim South and Adanse East. .The process was conducted using the first generic CBP Manual with few adaptations to fit the local condition. Facilitators were drawn from the DPCUs of the two District Assemblies. 60
facilitators were trained during the period and then a five year development plan was developed for each of the 20 Town/Area Councils in the two districts. A lot of time needed to be put into preplanning. Documenting the plans proved problematic.

Lessons Learnt in implementing CBP

Overall the planning methodology worked although preplanning was often inadequate. In terms of training of facilitators, a mix of municipal and community facilitators seems best, trained using an experiential approach where they have to undertake a plan. In SA this was a two-week process. It is also important to run training for politicians and for the planners. There needs to be a proper training team established, as in the District Training Team in Zimbabwe. These need to be fulltime for the period the planning is being undertaken and part-time during the implementation phase.

Having the mix of national and local government partners with a facilitating agent, usually an NGO, proved very positive. It was important during the planning itself to involve other service providers, and in Mangaung this resulted in an impact on service quality.CBP was well linked to the local government system, notably in that the products of CBP were incorporated in local government planning. A number of areas are identified where this could be strengthened.

Community participation and ownership was high in all countries. There was evidence of considerable community action, implying ownership. Disadvantaged groups managed to participate and influence the plans in all cases, although to a limited extent in Ghana, where formal representational structures were used which these people did not have. The key financial implication is actually for funds to support implementation of the ward plans. SA has recommended from US$3300-7700 per ward or a total of 1-2% of the local government's capital budget. In Zimbabwe and Uganda local revenue is supposed to be used to assist with implementing the plan. The cost of training varied from US$8-25 000 for
40 facilitators.

CBP specifically aims to:

• improve the quality of plans, making them more relevant to local needs and conditions, and incorporating the priorities of poor people (and others);
• improve the quality of services, as they are now more informed as to people's real assets and capabilities, vulnerabilities, their preferred outcomes, their views on services, and where communities actually want support;
• improve community control over their own development, so ensuring they are active actors and not passive recipients of development imposed from outside;
• promote community action to make their own vision a reality in their community, mobilising latent energy and creativity to promote local development.

The impacts at community level were significant. Most countries reported a range of community action for which no external funds were needed. There was very widespread participation, and in general disadvantaged groups were able to influence the outcomes of the planning. In Zimbabwe CBP was seen as easing socio-political tensions at local levels since different political parties, war veterans and traditional leadership have been able to sit and work together on issues that are important for community development. In South Africa apart from considerable community action, there was often a first time engagement between the affluent and less-affluent at ward level, improved communication between Councillor, ward committee and community and greater willingness of ward members to participate in ward affairs - also a better attendance of meetings.

CBP has had significant impact at the local government level. The greatest impact has been the incorporation of the community plans into the local government development plans and the influencing on priorities and resource allocation.

The impact at the national level has varied. In South Africa and Uganda CBP has been piloted in 9 and 40 districts respectively and there is widespread national recognition. In Zimbabwe and Ghana the process has not gone beyond the two districts in each country, for different reasons in each case.

There has been considerable interest internationally in the CBP experience, and CBP partners have been invited to numerous conferences around the world to speak on the CBP experience, ranging from Sao Paolo, London, Washington, Montpellier, to Burkina Faso. The experience has also fed into the World Bank's Community-Driven Development approach.

The planning process and methodology was found to work, although there are areas to be strengthened. The weakest element has been preplanning, where most municipalities did not plan enough in advance, and around implementation, and M&E. This would be enhanced by having a fulltime CBP Coordinator.

In Uganda Bushenyi District has set the pace in terms of formulation and implementation of robust development plans, in line with the CBP/HPPG initiative. They have had a role in influencing the production of the HPPG and should continue generating useful lessons for adaptation in other parts of the country. At national level it may be several years until the new ideas and processes embedded within the HPPG are genuinely mainstreamed within parish and subcounty plans. The Ministry is currently working on the national policy on capacity building in Local Governments, which should yield a standardized, coherent and consistent framework. The district planning guides are due to be reviewed. Beyond the traditional menu of interventions, effective operationalisation of the HPPG will call for institutionalisation of robust M&E mechanisms. Every effort will need to made to rationalise the sequencing of the planning processes at various levels, so as to ensure that community action plans meaningfully inform policy making at higher levels.

In Ghana without the two key champions who have been transferred, the two Districts are unlikely to carry CBP forward. The Department of Community Development is promoting a process to harmonise participatory planning systems, and this should be supported. The rollout of the Community-Based Rural Development Programme (CBRDP) also provides an opportunity to influence. These two provide an opportunity to input the learnings from CBP, and to contribute to developing a national process that allows communities to plan for their own action and to influence district plans.

In Zimbabwe Chimanimani and Gwanda will take CBP further. The level of capacity and enthusiasm about CBP in Gwanda provides some hope for a self-driven CBP processes in the future as well as possible replication by other RDCs in Matabeleland South Province. Some refresher training may be necessary as the key trainers and facilitators move from the area. Consultations with various stakeholders have indicated the existence of a huge demand for CBP in Zimbabwe. Despite this interest it has proved difficult to raise resources for CBP activities in the current economic and political environment prevailing in Zimbabwe. A series of meetings will be held with DFID and NGOs in November which may open up some opportunities to take CBP forward.

In South Africa the 8 pilot districts are still undertaking their pilot processes, and it looks likely that this phase of work will complete in June 2005. Mangaung is undertaking an ambitious Phase 2 which should define the methodology to apply in a second year after the ward plan has been produced, look at how participatory budgeting can link to CBP, and the
implementation mechanisms. In learning from the 8 pilots, three areas of methodology have been identified as critical:

• What to do in low capacity municipalities where CBP may not be a priority;
• How to help municipalities to think through carefully what they are letting themselves in for before deciding to undertake CBP;
• What might be a national support system for those municipalities that would like to undertake CBP (bearing in mind that in SA the intention is to keep it optional). Some thinking is emerging about how to treat these, including the idea that there might be a suite of CBP/IDP possibilities, depending on the levels of municipal and ward capacity. In some instances of low capacity the IDP process may be better handled as an expanded CBP
  process at municipal level, rather than a scaled down IDP process.

The four-country initiative has generated an invaluable cross-country collaborative approach to the development of methodologies, piloting and implementation of communitybased participatory planning systems, which link poor people and villages and parishes more effectively with local government planning systems. Beyond the project life there is need to establish a continued mechanism of information exchange in a manner that should directly benefit in-country grassroots planning processes in local governments, and enable enrichment of each others processes from the sharing of experience.