One of the central elements underlying the philosophy and practice of SHD is constituted by answers to the following questions:
The implication of the governing philosophy of SHD is that those who are the beneficiaries, along with a broader range of stakeholders who have an interest in the development process, should be centrally and actively involved in planning and implementing development programmes.
Given the way most contemporary development programmes work, only a small proportion of current programmes fully meet these criteria, for a variety of reasons. The challenge for intercountry programmes is particularly difficult because of the far wider span of control facing project designers and managers than is the case with country-based programming
One of the largest and best-known projects in the sample is the Urban Management Programme (UMP) (see box 3), which is about to move into its third phase. It has been successful in raising the profile of urban management as a core element of SHD not only inside UNDP and the World Bank but also on a larger international stage. It has produced an important series of professional publications and has been responsible for central contributions to major global conferences, notably Habitat II held 3-14 June 1996 in Istanbul.
The project has been less successful as it has shifted its focus from research to applications in the second phase. Perhaps the difficulty lies in the fact that the project "culture" and structure were built around research-oriented activities, with the two principal implementing agencies, the World Bank and UNCHS, at the heart of the research programme. The project has refocused its implementation activities in phase two to support national consultations and the building of regional networks of expertise to provide guidance to national initiatives, yet it appears that project structures and approaches have not been adjusted sufficiently to fit the requirements of this applied stage in the history of UMP.
Given its second-phase objectives, the Urban Management Programme (UMP) has been deficient with regard to the relevance of its consultation strategy, its definition of stakeholders and its approach to participation and the building ownership on a broad front. The most recent effort of the project to decentralize regionally has not solved these problems. With the apparent exception of the regional programme in the Arab States, the project lacks roots. It appears to have failed to define an appropriate strategy to tie itself to its natural constituencies, namely, the municipalities, urban NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) and responsible government ministries. As a project that has been too agency-driven, it has emphasized the role of experts and has limited the role of stakeholders. Lacking input from "below" in its second phase, the project has suffered, as have many others, from weak links connecting its core concepts to implementation plans and to projected results. In its third phase, UNDP and MDGD (BPPS) will be very much at the heart of things. Perhaps this will facilitate a change in approach.
In the projects considered in the present evaluation, those that do best in terms of participation and ownership are projects that set out to root themselves as national operations within a broader intercountry framework. The Local Initiative Facility for Urban
Environment (LIFE), Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP), UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme (for Africa and Latin America, at least), Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases and External Resource Management projects are among those that have followed this strategy. Others, too, notably the Urban Management Programme/Arab States Regional, the Alternatives to Slash-and-burn Agriculture (ASB) project and the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme, Phase III have developed effective strategies for building national ownership and designing activities on the basis of nationally determined priorities and concerns.
Two projects in particular - LIFE and ASB - represent impressive working examples, demonstrating the way in which globally based programmes can build a foundation at the level of local communities and community organizations while also establishing two-way linkages to the national and global levels. Both are also notable for having accomplished this in a participatory manner as well as in a highly cost-effective way.
Both projects have built into the core of their operations a set of mechanisms to link the centre and the base through ongoing consultations and participation. ASB is particularly impressive in that the project is designed from a bottom-up perspective, taking as central the concerns of farmers in building a sustainable livelihood in areas adjacent to fragile forest lands.
By taking the problem of the farmers as the central issue rather than beginning with the protection of the forests, the project has developed an effective, viable and sustainable strategy for conservation. At the same time, it is contributing to the improvement of rural livelihoods and hence makes a solid contribution to SHD. The project’s participatory strategy and consultative approach form a critical foundation for, and component of, many of these achievements (see box 2).
Having highlighted some best-practice cases and as a means of moving towards the identification of some general lessons and recommendations, it is useful to divide this set of issues into more discrete topics. This will facilitate the discussion of practical steps that project planners may take in addressing the broader issue of consultations, participation and ownership.
In reviewing the findings of the evaluation and considering the universe of projects included in the sample, four key questions emerge:
The evaluation presents a rather mixed picture. As is widely recognized, these issues are more problematic in the case of intercountry programmes than for those focused simply at the national level. Successful projects, from this perspective, combine an inclusive strategy for intercountry consultations and involvement with a parallel strategy at the national level. This is a complex, challenging undertaking.
The ownership issue is currently being addressed by the regional bureaux with regard to their regional programmes as a whole. The careful, thorough strategy adopted by the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific (RBAP) is particularly worthy of note. It is recognized throughout UNDP that much greater attention must be given to this set of concerns.
The difficulty is that consultations at the level of the regional programme as a whole, no matter how wide-ranging or intensive, do not solve the problem of building ownership on the part of specific stakeholders in the case of a particular project. Linkages from the level of the regional programme to that of individual regional projects remain weak and undeveloped.
Steps are being taken to reduce the number of projects as well as the range and scope of project activities. This, in combination with substantially reduced overall programme funding, will make it easier - although not easy - to address this problem.
In reviewing the projects considered here in light of the four questions raised above, it is striking to discover that, in nearly all cases where there are positive answers to the first question, there are also affirmative answers to the other three. Similarly, where the answer to the first question is negative, the same pattern applies to the following three questions.
One of the principal difficulties encountered by those planning intercountry projects appears to be the identification of stakeholders. It is very hard to "get consultations right" and to build a participatory approach, at whatever level, without this important first step. On the basis of the analysis of the data collected in the present study, it seems that many projects are weak in definition, participation and ongoing involvement of stakeholders. In addition, insufficient attention has been given to the specification of beneficiaries.
Projects with deficiencies of this kind also suffer from a poor linkage between the upstream concerns with policy, identification of broad-based development problems and specification of objectives on the one hand and the downstream concerns with implementation programmes, management strategies and the conceptualization of expected results on the other. Problems in stakeholder identification naturally lead to vagueness in the specification of roles and responsibilities.
As noted earlier, to a large extent, the difficulties encountered by the projects in the sample appear to derive from the planning and design phase. Many of the projects have evolved through some form of initial consultation. Very often the consultations appear to have been perfunctory or have involved the wrong people, unable or unwilling to commit their government or institutions. The difficulty in many cases is to identify the right partners and to define just who the stakeholders are.
In some instances, heroic efforts have been made to support strong consultative processes at the planning stage, yet it has proved more difficult to develop and maintain an inclusive participatory strategy during implementation. To tackle these problems, it is critical for project planners to provide incentives to encourage strong involvement by country offices and resident representatives to facilitate and support stakeholder involvement during implementation.
The RBAP project, Institutional Development at the Grass Roots for Poverty Alleviation (South Asia), represents an interesting case study with regard to involvement. Continuity of involvement from planning to implementation has worked exceptionally well in Nepal and positive results have been achieved in Bangladesh. The situation in India has been less positive, with the host Government showing little enthusiasm or desire for involvement.
In multi-country initiatives of this kind, it is essential first to ensure strong national involvement and ownership before proceeding. Concerted efforts to involve the relevant representatives of national governments - those at both the policy and the implementation levels - from the earliest stage will facilitate a smoother transition from planning to implementation.
Once again, the involvement of resident representatives and country offices as full partners in project planning, management and implementation is an essential element in ensuring full government ownership of project objectives and activities. A lead role must be given to country offices in making sure that in-country stakeholders are properly identified. Commitment to intensive consultations (as in the case of the South Asia poverty project) without careful preparatory work in-country to ensure that the right stakeholders are identified and involved from the start will only result in frustration and disappointment.
The project Regional Strategies for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Amazon is a more telling example of the importance of consulting with, and involving, stakeholders at the outset. In this case, the key stakeholder was not able to support the project as defined. This should have resulted in a return to the drawing board for the project designers and a renewed effort to build support and commitment among key stakeholders. The project should not have proceeded until this issue was resolved satisfactorily.
The projects that have made the strongest effort to involve stakeholders in project identification, design and annual reviews are: UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme (Latin America), a component of the interregional programme; Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE); Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP); and Human Development and Governance (Latin America). All have gained substantially in project ownership and performance as a result.
Given the complexity of the challenge faced by project planners in "getting things right" at both the country and the intercountry levels, it is essential to allow sufficient time and resources for preparatory work. A pilot or preparatory phase may involve an effort to consult widely within the countries concerned to map the situation regarding the key development topic on which the project will focus and identify the key players.
This work can provide a basis for a national consultation, for clarifying the role of government in the project structure, and for determining the national focal points. On the basis of the consultation, it should be possible for the project team (including, of course, the country office) to undertake additional work to identify those who will become the principal stakeholders (at both the policy and implementation levels) in the intercountry project. Preliminary discussions may then be held on the structuring of in-country arrangements before pursuing matters further with the stakeholders and their counterparts from other participating countries at an intercountry consultative workshop or planning meeting.
The South Asia poverty project, Institutional Development at the Grass Roots for Poverty Alleviation, offers an unusual example of a careful effort to use a preparatory phase in building a foundation for a more substantial, sustained initiative. The project made many of the right commitments: the centrality of consultations/participation; use of subregional and national expertise; forging of links between policy-makers and practitioners. As a result, it has made an encouraging beginning in at least two countries: Bangladesh and Nepal. In these cases, the central involvement of country offices and resident representatives has facilitated the commitment of substantial amounts of country IPF money to allow for the building of much stronger national components of the project.
The deficiencies of the project and its approach (which must be set alongside its substantial accomplishments) in a sense highlight the limits set by the norms of current UNDP practice. Perhaps because of lack of time and money for detailed preparations at the country level, short cuts were taken in moving from the country to the intercountry level. Insufficient attention was given to the involvement of key government officials, or those empowered to act in their name, in the intercountry consultations and workshops. Insufficient time was allowed for "getting in-country arrangements right". No method was devised for properly assessing the experience of the preparatory phase, in-country, as a basis for building the major project to follow.
Fewer projects, a broad-based UNDP commitment to programme quality and to serious partnership along with a recognition of the need to allow time as well as human and financial resources for planning and building commitment would ensure that these deficiencies are addressed at the design stage.
UNDP has an important role to play, through its projects, in demonstrating the advantages of a participatory approach to decision-making along with the practical results to be obtained. In most regions of the world, governments themselves continue to prefer top-down management approaches in implementing their own programmes. It is all-too-easy for UNDP to consult, then fall into line. Given the commitment of the organization to SHD, and thus to participation and good governance, more is required.
The role of beneficiaries as active partners in projects remains weakly developed. The Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE), Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) and the UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation project (Bolivia) are important exceptions to this tendency. By framing projects, wherever possible, so that they include conceptual and operational strategies to encourage consultation with, and participation of, beneficiaries, UNDP will be making a significant and entirely legitimate contribution to furthering practical democracy and addressing the issue of exclusion of designated beneficiaries from participation in the development process. As matters stand, many projects make little or no effort to identify beneficiaries, except in the broadest sense, or to develop strategies to link them to project decision-making and practice as active participants.