the community contribution requirement in cdd projects: evidence from kyrgyz republic

8/6/2019 The Community Contribution Requirement in CDD Projects: Evidence from Kyrgyz Republic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-community-contribution-requirement-in-cdd-projects-evidence-from-kyrgyz 1/20

The Community Contribution

Requirement in CDD Projects:

Evidence from Kyrgyz Republic

Babken V. Babajanian11 August 2011

The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of

the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not

guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their

use.. The countries listed in this paper do not imply any view on ADB’s part as to sovereignty or independent statusor necessarily conform to ADB’s teminology.



Presentation Overview

� CDD Paradigm

� Community Contribution Component

�Research Question and Methods

� Research Findings

� Participation in Public Consultations� Participation in Collective Action

� Implications

� Recommendations for Policy and Practice



Community Driven Development (CDD)

� De-centralised and participatory projects

� Provide community groups with resources and decision-

making responsibility

� Enable them to pursue their immediate priority needs(e.g. improve local service delivery)

� Seek to promote empowerment, social inclusion and“good governance”



Community Contribution

� The community contribution (or co-financing) is

promoted to:

�Ensure “efficient” use of resources, and

� Improve quality and sustainability of infrastructure

� The challenge is to ensure the participatory basis of the

contribution requirement

� Little evidence about the relevance and implications of

the community contribution component



Research Question and Methods

� This research sought to establish the extent to which theCDD model promoted empowered participation ofcitizens

� Hypothesis: Citizens were able to influence decisionsabout the community contribution

� Main assumption is that participation is purely voluntary

and citizens have free choice to negotiate, contest, oropt-out



Village Investment Project

� The Village Investment Project in Kyrgyz Republic

� Fieldwork - 2007-08

� 16 communities in Chui, Naryn, Issyk-Kyl and Osh

� 130 in-depth interviews and 18 focus group discussions

(involving 54 respondents)



Village Investment Project

� World Bank ($30 mln), Japan, Kg, and DFID (2003-2011)

� Provides grant funding for local priority needs

� Coverage – all 475 settlements ( Aiyl Okmotu)

� Average MP cost – $4,800



Community Contribution in VIP

� Mandatory, at least 25% of community grant, incl. 3.75%

in cash

�Required upfront, before the release of funds

� The participatory aspect of this requirement is meant to

be promoted through:

�Inclusion of community residents in decision-making

� Reliance on traditional social norms (social solidarity,

ashar or public works)



Main Findings

� Most micro-projects had a poverty targeting element

�Some of the poorest were exempt

� Higher amounts solicited from better-off

� All sample communities had extremely poor residents(mostly female) who provided the contribution



Participation in Public Consultations

� Principle of representative participation in decision-

making (consultations)

� Principle of direct participation in co-financing

� Residents who do not attend meetings are nevertheless

asked to contribute

� Partial grassroots coverage:

� 65 residents on average (30-40% of beneficiaries)

� Difficulty to mobilise during agricultural season

� Most of the poorest respondents did not attend



Participation in Public Consultations

� Many participants did not speak up

� “Local activists” more dominant

� Traditional gender roles:

� Men - water, irrigation, electricity, and roads

� Women - schools and health centres

� Limited ability of many residents to influence decision-making during public consultations



Participation in Collective Action

� Contribution is mobilised by local leaders

� Pressure to meet the requirement to receive grant

� Difficulty to mobilise contribution

� Pervasive poverty

� Weakening of traditional institutions due to povertyand migration




� “Explanation and persuasion”

� Frequent application of top-down methods

� Social control (ashar as a social obligation)

� Threat of penalty (e.g. denial of access to services

and citizenship rights)

� Use of administrative authority




� The ability to negotiate contribution depends onindividual bargaining power

� The poorest have limited ability to protect their rights

� Single females are especially vulnerable due to:

� High degree of social pressure

� Absence of a male figure to negotiate their interests



Implications

� Financial cost

� Extremely poor lived on less than 200 Som ($5) a

month

� Empowerment cost

� The co-financing requirement often undermined VIP’s

participatory objectives and did not serve as a vehiclefor empowering residents

� It reinforced traditional gender roles and relations



Recommendations

� Strengthen institutional design and operational

procedures:

� Establish formal rules and procedures

� Redress grievance

� Criteria for poverty targeting and exemptions



Recommendations

� In-depth understanding of existing social and institutional

relations:

�

Local social and political hierarchy (e.g.,activists/local leaders vs. marginalised residents)

� Gender roles and relations (e.g., gendered sectoral

participation; vulnerability and limited ability of women

to negotiate their interests)

� Shifting boundaries of traditional local institutions



Source:

B.V.Babajanian, “Problematising the Community

Contribution Requirement in Participatory Projects:

Evidence from Kyrgyzstan”

Development in Practice, Vol. 21 (3), 2011

the community contribution requirement in cdd projects: evidence from kyrgyz republic

Documents