Assessing Capacity Enhancement for Local Government and Civil Society: Perceptions of the Niger Delta

by Bill Knight

• To differing extents State and Local Governments (and most people) have little (some ‘zero’) capacity / interest in investing and tracking funding efficiently, transparently and productively. All funding is targeted by ‘Benefit Captors’ (some violent) who prefer to ‘share and enjoy’ at the expense of others. Local Government, especially, is an ‘extractive industry’ of a sort.

• Government training institutions have been neglected and are essentially dormant/ineffectual. Such training workshops as there are (funded by different groups) tend to be repetitive, to target the same people at the top and have little impact on the bottom. Training tends to be theory rather than experience based. One (only?) exception is PNI’s ISD and the “living university”.

• The standard practice in reporting all kinds of government and much of civil society’s activity (including capacity development) is to create illusions that will generate (more) funding.

• As for measuring other economic, social, or environmental impacts of EI, there is little reliable data available to measure anything. For many consultants, field work is anathema: ‘cut and paste’ plagiarism and spin rule.

• Niger Delta: Near total lack of local government & institutions /corruption rife/ little understanding of rights and responsibilities; resulted in under-development & conflict which 2 complementary models seek to reverse.

PNI Nigeria Partnering model for Sustainable

Community Development

Purpose: To Empower "whole communities" to leverage funding from stakeholders and to kick-start sustainable community-led, stake-holder partnered development programmes designed to meet locally

perceived needs and priorities.

Start Up Funds Community Entry Proactive Facilitation Supervise / Mentor Exit…

Sustainability Funds i) Community Contribution – raised by levy

ii) LGA monthly subvention to cover running costs & essential activities (e.g. planning)

Development Programme funding from multiple stakeholders

a). Windfall payments (e.g. "compensation" ) payable to community

b). Local Government Development Objectives

c). State Government Development Initiatives

d). Federal Government Development Agencies (NDDC)

e). International & bilateral aid & development agency contribution

Direct Contribution

f). Private Sector (including Oil & Gas).

Taxation and/or resource sharing initiatives

Partnering model 1 has already created limited but successful, multiple, multi-sectored partnering in 3 Local Government Areas; helped bring about development & peace. Each has had their own attendant difficulties: multiple, but limited available funding, different stakeholder agenda and commitments, as well as different

requirements for accounting & reporting.

5 year Empowerment Programme Future Programmes

Year 1 5432 6-10 ThereafterStakeholder contribution

Bayelsa Partnership Initiative • Partnering model 2 is still under

development, in Bayelsa State. It has similar goals but intends coordinated and statewide funding for community-driven development.

• CDFs will draw down (as of Right) on Stakeholder allocated funding for Grants and Loans that will service Community Plans initiated by individuals, groups and entrepreneurs at the CDI level.

• Both models (will) rely on developing extensive Participatory M&E systems that use non-fiscal indicators e.g. happiness and peace, as well as standard accounting and reporting methods.

• Institutional Development & Capacity Building is an essential part of both models.

BPI

Grants Loans

GRANTS LOANS

2

Community Development Foundations

Community Development Institutions

Stakeholder Funding and M&E

Note: Top down support for bottom up development; stream-lined & efficient; no

strangle-hold by middle management

Capacity Building Assessment: Solutions• Two models aim to build capacity in community led development, both civil

society and local government• Investments in building skills and awareness are best monitored and

evaluated by measuring their impact at the grass roots in terms of sustainable development, better governance and peace,

• Measuring intangibles i.e. happiness, well being, social inclusion – how: reduced incidents of conflict, involvement in local, functional institutions, confidence in health and education services

• What are community development outcomes: improved access to health, education, better infrastructure promoting local economies, roads, electricity, improved natural resource management

• Methodologies: improved implementation and efficiency of projects initiated by government and community, less financial wastage and therefore fewer abandoned projects; publication of financial reports on regular basis; socio-economic analyses to measure intangibles and tangibles; incidents of conflict

• Certification of ISD & “living university” courses• Millennium Development Goals should be used as a checklist to monitor

community development progress• What is missing to properly do this assessment: resources, skills, lack of

political will, skepticism• What role for stakeholders beyond funding: political support, technical

assistance, constructive feedback, networking, representation at a global level

• Awareness Creation & Publicity– Advocacy And Empowerment: Letting The People See And Say– Letting People Know Their Own Rights And Responsibilities And Of

Those That Handle Money• Procedures

– Definition Of Clear And Well Known Procedures For Accounting & Reporting

• Transparency– Publishing What You Pay/Radio/TV/Papers...– No Confidentiality: Right Of Access To Information – Making Reporting Field Based, Clearer & Credible– Using Digital Cameras & GPS To ID & Report Projects Clearly• Creating Avenues For Protest & Congratulations – Newspapers– Whistle Blowing: Mobile Phone /SMS Texting / Emails / Blogging

Essential Components & Activities

Institutional Development & Capacity Building Through A Chain Of “living universities”:

Example: The ADF “living university” of Akassa:

• Classroom is the community

• Teachers are community members

• What they teach is what they have learned about developing themselves

• Students are visitors from other communities and institutions

Akassa Training & Resource Centre plays important role.

Certificate of

AttendanceIs awarded to:

___________________________________________________

For attending the ‘living university’ course:

Introduction to Participatory Community

DevelopmentOrganised by Akassa Development

Foundation and Pro-Natura International (Nigeria)

dd – mm - yyyy

The ‘living university’ of Akassa

Akassa Development Foundation

ISD

“living university

” of Akassa

“living university” number 3 in

2007

“living university” of Eastern

Obolo Experiential learning takes place in the field: skills and knowledge are shared

The ‘Hub’ model places the ISD at the centre of development learning

N5,059,135Construction of training hall, viewing centre and office space

Iko Viewing & Training Centre

CostScopeProject Title

Reporting To Communities & Funders

N3,742,460Construction of 15m concrete footbridge

Amauka Footbridge

CostScopeProject Title

N996,530Completion of abandoned primary school project – widows, roofing, floor…

Renovation of Kampa Primary School

CostScopeProject Title

Reporting to the Public