Regional and Rural Development PlanningSchool of Environment, Resources and Development

Asian Institute of TechnologyBangkok, Thailand

May 2010

GOVERNANCE OF DECENTRALIZED COMMUNE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN CAMBODIA: CASE STUDIES OF COMMUNE

COUNCILS IN BATTAMBANG PROVINCE Presented by:

Young Sokphea

Governance Issue in Planning

Unclear legal framework and local

good governance (ADB,2000)

Ineffective Commune Development Plan

(CDPs)

• Lack of participation (Pellini and Ayres, 2007)

• Lack of participation in CDPs, and project M and E (Sotheary, 2006)

• Accountability in planning is weak (Rohdewohld and Porter, 2006:20)

• Lack of financial transparency of CCs• Collected fee are not recorded (NCSC, 2005)

• Project cost over estimated (Romeo and Pyckerelle, 2003)

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Specific objectives To study institutional framework and mechanism

of LGG for application in CDP; To examine the applications of LGG in the

implementation of CDP; To gain the perception and satisfaction of

commune council (CCs) members and local people on the application of LGG in the CDP;

To analyze facilitating and/or constraining factors in the application of LGG in the CDP and identify challenges and prospects; and

To suggest recommendations to strengthen LGG performance for effective implementation of the CDP and provide policy implications.

1.2 Research Objectives

General objective To study the application of LGG in the implementation of the CDPs performance by commune councils in Cambodia.

Effectiveness and Efficiency Resource utilization and optimization Matching resource with local problems and needs

Transparency Openly disseminated information Resource allocation

Rule of Law · Related laws, regulation, declaration and decision in planning

Participation In decision making In implement In Monitoring & Evaluation

Responsiveness Plans match with local needs Equity and avoid discrimination in selection of beneficiaries

Accountability Accountable to electorate Role of PBC, CCs

Local Good Governance in Decentralized

Commune Development Plan (CDP)

1.3 Conceptual Framework

5

2. Literature Review

Concept of Governance

Principles of Good Governance

Linkage of Decentralization and Governance

Local Governance/Decentralized Governance

in Asia

Governance Policy in Cambodia

Local Governance Performance

Governance Issue in Decentralized

Commune Development Planning in Cambodia

Conceptualized Definitions Operationalized Indicators

6

Local Good Governance Applied in Commune Development Planning Process in Cambodia

Stage 1: Plan

formulationStage 2:

Identification/Review

needs and problems

Stage 3: Select

Development Project Priority

Stage 4: District

Integration Workshop

Stage 5: Approval on Commune

Development Plan

Stage 6: Developmen

t Project Implementat

ion

Stage 7: Monitoring

and Evaluation

Conceptualized Definitions Operationalized Indicators

Rule of Law: Ratification of legislation and predominance of regular and

just law .

Application of rules, regulations, guidelines and law

in CDPs.

Participation: Public participation decision

making in various affairs.

Participation of both men and women in the process of

decision making

Accountability: Implementation of role, tasks

in the process of decision making.

The accountability of PBC, M&E, Procurement Committee, and

CCs in CDPs

Transparency: Decision-making processes

must be open to public scrutiny.

All information (budgeting, expenditure, bidding, concerning CDPs) are

disseminated

Responsiveness: Institutions and processes

that demonstrate their responsiveness

CDP addresses local needs and problems within time frame

Effectiveness and Efficiency: Best use of resources to

provide optimum benefits and to meet real needs.

Using resources in CDP to maximize viable benefits for

local people and their community within time frame

Participation AccountabilityTransparencyResponsivenessEffectiveness and Efficiency

Rule of Law, Accountability, Participation

Participation Accountability

Participation AccountabilityTransparency

Participation AccountabilityTransparency

Participation AccountabilityTransparency

Participation AccountabilityTransparency

(UNDP, 2003)

3. Research Design

Research Design

CCs & Committees Sampled

households Key

informants

Selection of the Study Area

Data Collection Methods and Data Sources

Data Analysis

Primary Data• Field observation • Key informants interview • Questionnaire Survey• FGDSecondary Data•NCDD•Theses•CDPs•Policies

Khnach Romeas commune with decentralization since 1996

Prey Khpos commune with decentralization after 2002.

Quantitative•Weighted Average Index (WAI) on Social Scaling•Pentagon •Descriptive Statistic •T-test Qualitative •Qualitative Statement •Case studies

Type of Research• Exploratory • Case Studies and Survey • Qualitative and Quantitative

Sampled Househo

ld

56 HHs in Khnach Romeas

54 HHs in Prey Khpos

110 HHs (50/50 M/F)

CCs & Committ

ees30

Respondents in Khnach Romeas

30 Respondents in Prey

Khpos

60 CCs and Committee

s (all)

Study Area

Findings of Objective 1: Framework/Mechanism for LGGs in CDP

National

National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development (NCDD)

Institutional Framework Mechanism

Ministry of Interiors/Other ministries

NCDD Secretariat

NCDD at Provincial (PRDC & Excom)

Commune Councils

Villages

Provincial

Decentralized Level

• Decrees• Sub-decrees•Policies and development plan•Decelerations

• Organic Laws• Functions and roles transfer

• CCs Administrative Management Laws•Guideline on CDPs • LGG Hip Pocket for CCs Advisory

Linkage

Clear Guideline on Commune Development Plan, but very limited with Local Good Governance (LGG) in Commune Development Plan (CDPs)

CDPP Rule of Law Participation Accountability Transparency

Stage 1: Plan formulation

Similar: Guidelines

Similar : PBC and CCs for Decision

Similar: PBC took roles

N/A

Stage 2: Identification/Review needs and issues

N/A •Absent of PBC in Prey Khpos

Participation in needs and issues identification approach in Prey Khpos

Practiced by PBCs from both communes. Yet, PBCs in Prey Khpos did not performed well ask lacking of skill in facilitation

N/A

Stage 3: Select development project priority and prepare for DIW

N/A N/A Both communes applied accountability of PBC in preparing CDPs for DIW

Allocation project based on objectives and selecting priority project to be implement. Yet, Dissatisfaction in Prey Khp commune

Stage 4: District Integration Workshop

N/A Exchanging ideas between these communes were similar. Yet, different in exchanging idea endeavor of both communes.

PBCs were seen similarly in both communes.

Dissemination the CDPs through DIW

Findings of Objective 2: Applications of LGGs in CDPs

CDPP Participation Accountability

Transparency

Responsiveness

Effectiveness &

EfficiencyStage 5: Approval on commune development plan

Decision making was different between Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune, because PBC member in Prey Khpos commune was regular absence

PBCs in preparing list of project for approval seen similarly by both communes

Prey Khpos commune fund was not allocated based on criteria as limited amount of fund, but CDP was available

N/A N/A

Stage 6: Development project implementation

• Khnach Romeas facilitated well, while Prey Khpos was not so satisfied in feasibility study and land acquisition as no compensation• Prey Khpos commune lack of mobilizing participation in CDPs.

N/A • Lack of participation in bidding of both communes.

N/A N/A

Stage 7: Monitoring and Evaluation

Participation: poor participation in M&E and also in operation and maintenance due to lack of responsibilities of M&E committee

• Poor responsibility of M&E committee in Prey Khpos

Prey Khpos: no financial report, irregular auditing, lack of CDPs evaluation, irregular monthly meeting among CCs and stakeholders

• Prey Khpos: needs and issues not addressed, as poor project output, and lack of participatory M&E, and also responsibilities of M&E

•Prey Khpos: delay in implementation, projects did not address objectives of CDPs.

Findings of Objective 2: Applications of LGGs in CDPs (cont)

Khnach Romeas commune had better applied LGG in overall than Prey Khpos commune. Rule of law and participation applied similarly in both communes.

Accountability, transparency and responsiveness were not seemed to be achieved by Prey Khpos commune as lack of responsibilities, willingness to take action of committees, lack of participation mobilization.

Khnach Romeas commune had done better on these elements

Findings of Objective 2: Applications of LGGs in CDPs (cont)

Participation

Accountability

Transparency

Effectiveness and effeciency 0

0.5

1

0.660000000000007

0.720000000000001

0.710000000000001

0.91

0.79

0.840000000000001

0.820000000000001

0.9

Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas

Findings of Objective 3: Perception Satisfaction of LGG in CDPs

Note: Extracted items only those having statistically differences either at 95% and 99% of confident level between two study communes

CCs and Committees Sampled Households

Rule of law

Similar satisfaction Similar satisfaction

Participation

•People's participation in project M&E*

•Performance of PBC members*•Performance of M and E committee members**• In project implement activities**• In M&E**

Transparency

•Participatory annual budgeting planning of PBC**

• Distribution of project to all village **

Accountability

• Decision making of CCs during project implementation*

• Lower satisfaction in Prey Khpos commune

Responsiveness

Better satisfaction in Khnach Romeas

Addressed issues and needs **

Effectiveness and Efficiency

•Satisfaction on project output** •Satisfaction on project output**

Participation

Accountability

Transparency

Effectiveness and Effeciency 0

1

2

1.01

1.20

0.990.34

1.3

1.39

1.21

0.870000000000005

Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas

CCs and Committee Satisfaction

Participation

Transparency

Responsiveness

Effectiveness and Effeciency 0.00

1.00

2.00

0.57

0.17

0.90

0.42

0.95

0.52

1.19

1.20

Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas

HHs Satisfaction

Triangulation Approach

Key Informant Interview

(NGOs, UNDP advisor)

Survey Finding (CCs,

Committee, Local People)

Methodology to Identify Facilitating and Constraining Factors of LGG in CDPs

Findings of Objective 4: Facilitating/Constraining Factors of LGG in CDPs

Researcher

Institutional Economic Social

•Rule and regulation•People’s participation•Coaching, mentoring, and on the job training•NGOs fund for LGG•Line agencies fund•Training on LGG•Sharing experience on LGG

•Fund allocation criteria•Financial audit and CDP evaluation

•Public awareness •CCs leadership to generate fund•Monthly meeting

•Lower education level•Multi-responsibilities of CCs and PBCs •Lack of small scale infrastructure knowledge

•Inadequate Amount of Commune Fund •Irregular financial auditing and CPD evaluation •Low Incentive and Motivation

•Dissatisfaction of local people on land compensation •Limited local people participation in CDPs •Replacement, mandatory of PBC and CCs•Lack of participation in decision making•Limitation of participation in bidding process•Inadequate of public information disclosing

Facilit

ati

ng

C

on

str

ain

ing

Factors

Bett

er

LG

G

in C

DP

sLow

er

LG

G in

C

DP

s

Findings of Objective 4: Facilitating/Constraining Factors of LGG in CDPs (cont)

Conclusions• Extensive guidelines on CDPs planning and implementation manuals but very limited guidelines on applications of LGG in CDPs.

There were different practices in the applications of LGG in CDPs between the two communes.

Khnach Romeas commune having longer experience in the CDPs, thus, better overall performance in the LGG in CDPs as experience through education and understanding to modify LGG in CDPs. Better LGG Performance in CDPs are in participation and rule of law in Prey Khpos commune. With better performance in LGG in CDPs brought higher satisfaction of CCs and HHs in Khnach Romeas than Prey Khpos communes.

Among various LGG elements, communes performed well in rule of law, participation and not so well in accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency

Areas for improvements in Prey Khpos communes are focused on accountability, transparency, responsiveness and effectiveness and efficiency. Areas for improvements should be considered how to make better achievements in LGG by each step of CDP and consider related planning and policy implications.

CDPP Description PK

KR

Sate 2: Identification

•Participation: problem tree analysis, FGD, vulnerable group discussion, skill on facilitation skills •Accountability: responsibilities according to the assigned tasks

Stage 3: Selection the project (prepare for DIW)

•Transparency in terms of allocation of fund based on criteria, and based on participation from all PBC

Stage 4: DIW • Responsiveness in terms of mobilizing fund to support the projects of CDPs• Participation in exchanging idea with donor to seek support

Stage 5: CDPs approval

•Participation decision among PBC, inform before meeting day •Transparency in fund allocation based on criteria by participatory decision making

Stage 6: Implementation

•Compensation on the properties which affected by projects•Participation conduct bidding at commune level to increase participation

Stage 7: M&E •Participation in M&E•Transparency in financial report, monthly meeting, project signboards (PK,KR), impose regular auditing, and evaluation •Effectiveness and efficiency: time frame, address objectives (participation in M&E), intervention from provincial on contractors •Responsiveness: conduct regular participatory M&E

Recommendations to Strengthen LGG in CDPP

Recommendations Planning and Policy Implications for LGG in local Planninga) Capacity building • Training on LGG and planning based on TNA, learning by doing

approach, practicing LGG elements in CDPs • M&E in practicing in real field work • Basis technical knowledge on infrastructure (planning, design,

calculation)

b) Incentive for commune councils • Award to individual CCs and also as commune fund for commune

with better governance performance • Policy support from Ministries of Interior and Planning

c) Promote transparency in various aspects of local planning

• Financial transparency through monthly financial report, regular auditing on expenditure in CDPs preparation and implementation

d) Developing local good governance framework and measurement

• Rule of law, participation, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency.

• Measure Quantitative and qualitative techniques of indicator in line with CDPs performance to reduce different interpretation of CCs

Questions and comments!

Thank you very much