Corporate Policy Papers
Taking Risks
4 - Conclusion
UNCDF recognizes the risks of pursuing a strategy that focuses on local governments. In fragile democracies, local governments often lack political legitimacy and accountability. Corruption and abuse of civil and political rights are common. And judicial systems are weak. Socio-economic factors in the developing countries where UNCDF works also compound such deficiencies in the political sphere—mass poverty and illiteracy, limited technical capacity, poor communications, and cultural barriers all limit the deepening of local democracy. And because social and political practices vary among UNCDF programme countries, so does the likelihood of achieving governance, decentralization and participation goals.
UNCDF is addressing some of these problems by designing projects that emphasize performance sanctions and incentives, transparent and open planning, public information campaigns and strong financial management systems and by creating space for structured interaction between citizens, politicians and technical staff. But these are limited measures for addressing the formidable obstacles to more widespread local democracy and better local governance—and UNCDF recognizes its limitations as a small external donor.
But the question remains, what is the alternative? What is the best choice of institutional partner or entry point for a UN agency that seeks to address poverty at the local and policy levels, that wants its programmes to be sustainable in institutional terms and that believes governments—particularly local governments—have the mandate and long-term responsibility for delivering basic development services to their populations? It is hard to see how alternative institutional approaches to reaching the rural poor—such as independent project management units that are outside government systems, international or national NGOs or even central government ministries—would be more sustainable, and potentially as accountable, as locally elected governments.
More parallel institutions or more substitute management arrangements and procedures are not needed. What is needed is a long-term commitment to partnerships with government—both national and local—from the time programmes are developed through their execution and evaluation. And that sustainability and ownership require that governments direct the development process in strong partnership and dialogue with local populations. These are easy words for an agency to write. But taking them seriously implies a number of changes in the way we do business. In this area UNCDF is committed to:
• Redefining ownership. New UNCDF assistance programs must—in practice, not just in principle—be developed by national stakeholders in partner countries. Where possible, these stakeholders—both central and local government bodies responsible for shaping decentralization reforms—must lead the formulation of UNCDF-supported pilot projects and assume primary responsibility for their execution, monitoring and evaluation.
• Avoiding parallel institutional arrangements for project implementation. UNCDF assistance will be delivered through local and central government structures following appropriate national execution modalities.
• Promoting more consultative project design. Many of the new approaches discussed in previous sections—more thorough consultation during design, more rigorous institutional assessments and better monitoring and evaluation—imply a different way of formulating projects and additional investment of time and resources at formulation. They also require new types of expertise on formulation missions and within UNCDF itself.
• Producing more flexible project documents. Piloting, policy reform and local capacity building are long-term endeavours of unpredictable duration and uncertain outcomes. The delivery of UNCDF assistance will require longer-term commitments and more flexible project documentation. The detailed specification of physical outputs and the rigid distinction between project formulation and implementation will have to be replaced by a more flexible approach.
• Taking a longer project horizon. The design and approval of a longer-term (8-10 years) programme development framework is an inevitable next step for UNCDF. This framework should allow UNCDF to effect early disbursements, to respond to opportunities as they arise and to carry out more detailed project design, appraisal and evaluation on a continuous basis.
These imply significant changes for UNCDF’s practices and organizational culture. UNCDF will continue to devote serious attention to ensuring that the policies, standards and principles introduced in this report are realized and have meaning. In the coming period, considerable corporate attention will be paid to ensuring that these policies are well resourced and absorbed into normal practice.
But most important, the innovation, risk taking and working at the margins that have driven UNCDF to find its niche and led to the ideas expressed in this report must continue. The potential for a small agency like UNCDF to make a difference rests on its ability to pursue the policies outlined here in a heightened spirit of change, partnership and innovation.
