OVERVIEW OF NUSAF PROJECT Price Transparency by MikeJenny

VIEWS: 209 PAGES: 27

More Info
									EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNT
        FROM NUSAF PROJECT




PRESENTED TO THE WORLD BANK NUSAF-II PRE-
             APPRAISAL TEAM
   AT THE WORLD BANK OFFICE, KAMPALA
            ON OCTOBER 2, 2008
                   BY
        NUSAF MANAGEMENT UNIT




                                            1
                              A. PROJECT DESIGN


1.        PREAMBLE
 The     Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF) is a Government of Uganda
     Project established as a transitory tool and funding mechanism to assist the North to
     catch up with rest of the country in matters of development.
 This    was after the Government realized that despite significant gains in reducing
     poverty recorded throughout most parts of Uganda, the North has continued to lag
     behind and indeed fallen further into poverty.
 NUSAF Project was launched on 5th February, 2003.
 Initial Project Closing Date was 31st March, 2008 but extended to 31st March, 2009 to
     allow for accessing balance of the credit and smooth completion of all funded
     subproject
2.        NUSAF PROJECT GOAL
 To use targeted investments in a participatory, equitable and sustainable manner to
     promote reconciliation and thereby contribute to eradicate poverty in 18 districts in the
     North and Eastern region – Northern Uganda.

                                                                                                 2
3.          NUSAF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE
    To empower communities in 18 districts in Northern Uganda by enhancing their capacity to
     systematically identify, prioritize and plan for their needs within their own value system, and
     implement sustainable development initiatives that improve socio-economic services and
     opportunities; thereby contributing to improved livelihoods by placing money in the hands of
     communities.


4. COMPONENTS
    Community Development Initiatives (CDI) – to finance demand driven community based
     initiatives to construct and rehabilitate small-scale socio economic infrastructure guided by a
     subproject menu that conforms to the specific sector policies and norms.
    Vulnerable Groups Support (VGS) – to provide support to vulnerable groups; local
     authorities,    community   service   organizations,   non-government      organizations   and
     community-based organizations and institutions that directly work with the groups.
    Community Reconciliation and Conflict Management (CRCM) – to provide support to
     traditional and non-traditional approaches to peace building and conflict management.
    Institutional Development (ID) – to support the staffing of small autonomous NUSAF
     Management Unit (NUMU), capacity building and training, IEC, M&E/MIS for different sets of
     stakeholders.

                                                                                                       3
5.          DISTRICT RESOURCE ALLOCATION


    Whereas NUSAF overall is a targeted intervention, a targeting framework was established
     within which indicative resource allocation for districts was done in a transparent and
     objective manner.
    The criteria used for arriving at district resource envelopes included:-
     -   poverty levels                                   -   accessibility to social services
     -   vulnerability Ranking Index                      -   conflict Ranking Index
     -   population
    Targeting below the District was based on the District level statistics.
    The resource allocation was supposed to be reviewed annually.
    Ceilings per subproject were also established not to exceed;
     -      CDI           :        US$ 20,000.
     -      VGS           :        US$ 10,000.
     -      CRCM          :        US$ 5,000.
    However, multi-community subprojects could be funded beyond US$ 20,000 but not
     exceeding US$ 50,000 after approval by the National Steering Committee (NSC).



                                                                                                 4
6.         NUSAF PROJECT FINANCING


    The Government of Uganda received a credit of SDR 80.1 million from World
     Bank (equivalent to US$ 100 million at the time of approval – 7th June, 2002).
    Government of Uganda counterpart funding was supposed to be equivalent to U$
     13.3 million.
    Community contributions were expected to be equivalent to US$ 20.2 million.
    80% of the credit was for direct subproject funding.


7.         KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS


    Key sector indicators, outcome / impact indicators and output indicators were stated
     in the Logical Framework for the NUSAF Project.
     In particular, the number of subprojects to be funded over the project period were
     stated as:-
           CDI                 -         2,500
           VGS                 -         3,000
           CRCM                -         1,000
8.         GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
    The development approach used in implementation of NUSAF Project
     has been the Community Demand Driven (CDD) Approach.
    This approach allowed communities to take centre stage in
     identification, prioritization and planning for their needs as well as
     implementing and managing the subprojects generated. In essence the
     approach allowed the communities to determine their destiny.
    NUSAF Project has been implemented through the decentralized
     structures of Local Governments as it was expected to contribute to
     deepening of the decentralization process.
    NUSAF subproject cycle was largely managed by the Local
     Governments (LGs); that made them the ‘engine’ of the NUSAF Project
     implementation processes.




                                                                              6
8. SUBPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
   It was planned that NUSAF Project would be implemented through three (3) methods,
    namely:-
    -      The community themselves through their CPMCs, CPCs.                    In other words,
           the community would manage their own processes of implementation.
    -      CSOs, NGOs, CBOs and the private sector selected by the communities
           themselves and vetted by the districts. This would be in scenarios where the
           communities have low capacities to implement their identified subprojects.
    -      Districts could also implement multi-community subprojects on behalf of
           the communities.
9. CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS MADE ABOUT NUSAF PROJECT
   There will be cessation of civil strife in Acholi and Karamoja sub regions.
   Communities will participate in implementation of funded NUSAF subprojects.
   The current LGDP framework will not undermine direct community funding.
   Local governments, CSOs, NGOs and CBOs will be willing to cooperate, support and
    implement funded NUSAF subprojects.
   There will be transparency, accountability and technical quality in subproject management.
       B.             PROJECT PERFORMANCE

               SUMMARY SUBPROJECT FUNDING STATUS

   9,339 sub-projects (i.e.143.7% of the planned 6,500) have been funded to-date.


   Ushs. 164.1 billion disbursed directly to community bank accounts.


   This reflects 98.6% of shs. 166.5 billion earmarked for direct sub-project
    funding.


   The balance of shs.2.4 billion (1.4%) earmarked for direct subproject funding is
    committed as follows:
             2nd   tranches – shs.0.7 billion.
             Variations   and Functionality – shs.1.4 billion.
             Approved     new YOP subprojects – shs. 0.3 billion.


   Overall subproject completion rate as at 31st August, 2008 was 78% i.e. 7,096
    completed of funded 9,273 by then while the accountability was at 89% i.e.
    shs.143.3 billion already accounted.

                                                                                       8
                         IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: ACHIEVEMENTS

                        Planned, Funded & Completed Subprojects as at
                                         31/08/2008

                    10,000

                     9,000
No of Subprojects




                     8,000

                     7,000

                     6,000                                              PLANNED

                     5,000                                              FUNDED

                     4,000                                              COMPLETED

                     3,000

                     2,000

                     1,000

                        0
                             CDI    VGS     CRCM      YOP   TOTAL
                                          Component
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS:
FUNDED ASSETS UNDER CDI (AS AT 31st AUGUST, 2008)



   Education sector subprojects (2,118 classrooms, 1,165 teachers houses, 58
    Science laboratories, 25 dormitories, 7 libraries, 63 community halls, supply of
    school furniture (7,902 chairs/desks).


   Water and sanitation sector subprojects (891 boreholes, 67protected springs and
    piped water extensions and tanks,872 latrine stances).


   Health sector subprojects (44 Health Units, 78 units of staff houses, 31
    wards/OPD, 3 fences)


   Community Infrastructure subprojects (53 roads, 25 bridges/culverts).


   Production sector 10 cattle dips, 12 produce stores, 10 markets, 42 animal
    traction and 15 agro-forestry).



                                                                                   10
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS:
FUNDED ASSETS UNDER VGS (AS AT 31st AUGUST, 2008)


   As a result the communities purchased the following assets:

            36,631 heifers (mainly indigenous ones).
            8,657 bulls.
            22,748 oxen for ploughing.
            8,936 ox-ploughs.
            22,076 goats (mainly indigenous ones).
            8,386 pigs.
            114,615 chicks.
            9,962 bee hives.
            An assortment of 8,699 tools for Vocational Training under VGS.
            177 fish ponds.
                                                                               11
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS:
FUNDED UNDER CRCM

     Community meetings and dialogue (161)

     Support to CSOs (127)

     Peace Reconciliation activities (108)

     Psychosocial support (203)

     Support to War affected (136)

     Support to traditional institutions (110)

     Support to cultural institutions (3)



                                                  12
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS:
FUNDED ASSETS UNDER YOP

   The component had funded 188 subprojects by     30 th   June, 2008.
   Just concluded YOP baseline study of approved subprojects and funded
    381 more subprojects by end of August, 2008.
   Completed 186 subprojects by 30th June, 2008 and the skills imparted
    include:
                  Carpentry (42 youth groups)
                  Metal Fabrication (15 youth groups)
                  Tailoring (48 youth groups)
                  Hair-dressing/beauty saloon (14 youth groups)
                  Motor mechanics (5 youth groups)
                  Block laying (8 youth groups)
                  Mixed skills (33 youth groups)
                  Retooling (13 youth groups)
                  Other skills (10 youth groups)


                                                                           13
C.       LESSONS LEARNT AND BEST PRACTICES (GENERAL)

    Poor Communities can participate in planning, management and
     implementation of investments suited to their needs, once they are supported
     adequately.
    Committed leadership ensures successful implementation and maximization
     of benefits to communities.


    Collaboration and networking with development partners in implementation
     and monitoring of sub-projects is a very useful strategy of ensuring
     effectiveness and efficiency in resource allocation and utilization.


    Communities require constant capacity building through out the subproject
     cycle.


    Group size is an important factor in subproject performance.


    Single or double tranche modality leads to faster completion rates of
     subprojects as opposed to multiple tranche disbursement.


                                                                                    14
Contd.

   A well executed extended PRA process is an effective means of reaching the
    real poor.
   Groups with higher proportions of women tend to perform better.
   CSOs/CBOs perform better in community planning, capacity enhancement,
    monitoring and evaluation than in direct implementation of community
    subprojects.
   Individual ownership and management of assets acquired under VGS
    subprojects is key to sustainability and maximization of benefits to target
    beneficiaries.
   Karamoja sub region needs special or tailored implementation modalities
    (different from the other sub regions) due to low capacities of CPMCs, CPCs
    and limited capacities of CSOs and district technical staff.




                                                                                  15
D.        CHALLENGES (GENERAL)

    Immense demand for support from communities.

    Inadequate Technical support to communities.

    Realising local contribution from the communities.

    Limited capacity of Local Governments to support communities
     in operation and maintenance of investments created under
     NUSAF Project.

    Leadership and governance issues (i.e. transparency and
     accountability).

    General Price increase/changes.

    Unstructured interference.
    Slow community accountabilities.
    Insecurity.

                                                                    16
E: LESSONS LEARNT & CHALLENGES BY SECTOR
EDUCATION
   Lessons:
   Demand for education infrastructure is increasing by year as school enrolment
    increases under UPE and Universal Post Primary Education and Training
    (UPPET)

   Effective community participation led to satisfactory implementation without
    cost overruns

   Challenges:
   Very high demand for education infrastructure

   Low technical capacity of the engineering departments in some districts

   Inadequate budgets of local governments to support communities in O&M of
    education infrastructure

   Provision of electrical power and water to science laboratories in remote rural
    communities
HEALTH


Lessons
  Involvement of sector specialists in sub-project preparation is critical in
   Operationalisation and sustainability of investments under health sector
  Challenges:
  Operationalisation of health facilities especially in Amuria and Katakwi districts i.e.
   recruitment and/or posting of staff by the district / Ministry of Health
  Low ability of some districts to attract health workers for Operationalisation of health
   facilities

PRODUCTION & ENVIRONMENT
 Lessons:
 Individual ownership and management of assets enhanced viability and sustainability
  of the community interventions i.e. for animal traction and agro-forestry sub-projects
 CSOs were better placed to play mobilization and facilitation roles than
  implementation

   Challenges:
   High death rate of livestock esp. in Acholi sub-region
   Enterprise selection
   Ensuring sustainability of investments
   Targeting the most vulnerable transient communities in Acholi and Karamoja sub-
    regions
WATER & SANITATION

   Lessons:
   Some of the water sources drilled under NUSAF have sufficient yield that could be
    distributed to nearby communities through small piped water schemes

   Challenges
   Low technical capacity of the water departments in some districts

   Presence of unlicensed drillers in Acholi and Karamoja who convince communities for
    contracts by offering lower rates than the licensed (quality control & data capture in
    the national statistics)

   Re-financing dry wells especially in the districts of Kitgum, Nebbi, and Yumbe

   NUSAF contributions in the water sector not captured and reported by the DWOs to
    DWD

   Inadequate supervision of the multi-community water sub-projects by Moroto district
    leading to suspected ‘exaggerations’ of bills for payments
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE


   Lessons:
   Cash transfers to able-bodied but unemployed under LBSNP ensured participation of
    more people in NUSAF activities and acceptability of other components that target the
    vulnerable and the socially disadvantaged

   Challenges
   Low capacities in the districts to implement complex sub-projects such as bridges in
    Nebbi, Moyo and Oyam districts

   Inadequate budgets in the sub-counties for operation and maintenance of completed
    community access roads
   Price escalations for critical inputs like cement during the subproject period
E: LESSONS LEARNT & CHALLENGES BY SUB-REGION
TESO SUB-REGION

   Lessons:
   Local contributions enabled construction of 4 units of teachers houses instead
    of the budgeted 3 units. Furthermore, where full local contributions were
    realised, there were no cost overruns.

   Committed leadership resulted into quality investments and value-for-money
    practices.

   Challenges:
   Changes in engineering designs mainly in Kumi and Katakwi

   Political rivalries in Pallisa leading to allegations and counter allegations thus
    slowing down implementation

   Low technical supervision especially in the new districts of Amuria, Budaka
    and Bukedea.

   Insecurity in some parts of Amuria and Katakwi where some of the animals
    acquired have been raided.
   ACHOLI SUB-REGION
   Lessons:
   Commitment by new leaders in Gulu and Pader resulted into increased subproject
    accountability.
   Effective subproject implementation and monitoring have been undertaken when
    peace returned to the sub region i.e. Peace is a prerequisite for development.

   Challenges:
   Low technical supervision.
   Low involvement of lower local governments (sub-counties) as most of the people
    were in IDP camps.
   Inadequate EPRA and sub-project appraisals.
   Isolated cases of poor targeting.
   Low capacity of CSOs to effectively support communities.
   High cattle death especially in Amuru district.
   Unlicensed drillers and shoddy work.
   Land conflicts among communities in camps were most of the sub-projects were
    located.
   Low local contribution and accountability
   Insecurity and unstructured interference
LANGO SUB-REGION


   Lessons:
   Commitment by new leadership in Dokolo and Amolatar districts resulted into
    improved value for money practices at subproject sites.

   Challenges:
   Errant contractors in some sub-projects
   Low technical supervision
   Low capacity of CSOs to support communities in implementing sub-projects
   Poor procurement and contract management
   Low community contribution
   Insecurity in areas bordering Acholi and Karamoja sub-regions
   Unstructured interference
WEST NILE SUB-REGION


   Lessons:
   Committed leadership provided enabling environment for implementation of NUSAF
    Project.

   Challenges:
   Low technical supervision.

   Poor enterprise selection especially in Nebbi district.

   High unit cost of investments due to Southern Sudan factor.

   Low community contribution.

   Slow accountability especially in Arua and Nebbi districts.

   Unstructured interference
KARAMOJA SUB-REGION


   Lessons:
   Involvement of established religious establishments resulted into realising value for
    money practices in the implementation of CDI subprojects.
   The CDD model can be manipulated by the elite to meet their own selfish needs i.e.
    the needs of the poor and needy living in manyatas were hardly addressed.
   Challenges:
   Insecurity
   Poor targeting
   Elite capture
   Low technical supervision
   Inadequate EPRA, sub-project appraisal
   Limited enterprise options as a result of harsh weather conditions
   Unlicensed drillers
   Low community contributions
   Low/slow community accountability
   Unstructured interference
F.       CONCLUSION

    NUSAF Project has been a learning experience to all the stakeholders.


    The design of NUSAF Project has been flexible to accommodate lessons
     learnt, best practices and changing community needs.


    NUSAF Project has demonstrated that poor communities can participate in
     planning, implementation and management of investments suited to their
     needs, once they are supported adequately.


    The CDD model worked well in some sub regions but Karamoja sub region
     needs special or tailored implementation modalities due to low capacities of
     CPMCs, CPCs and limited capacities of CSOs and district technical staff.


    It is our prayer that PRDP - NUSAF II, when it eventually materializes, will be
     better implemented and yield greater returns on investments to the
     beneficiaries while building on the achievements, best practices and lessons
     learnt from the current phase.




                                                                                       26
T h a n k   Y o u




                    27

								
To top