PNI Nigeria Partnering model for Sustainable Community Development

1. Assessing Capacity Enhancement for Local Government and Civil Society: Perceptions of the Niger Deltaby 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.

2. Taxation and/or resource sharing initiatives f). Private Sector (including Oil & Gas). Direct Contribution Development Programme funding from multiple stakeholders Sustainability Funds Start Up Funds 6-10 Stakeholder contribution Year 1 2 3 4 5 Thereafter 5 year Empowerment Programme Future Programmes PNI Nigeria Partnering model for Sustainable Community Development 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. 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. e). International & bilateral aid & development agency contribution d). Federal Government Development Agencies (NDDC) c). State Government Development Initiatives b). Local Government Development Objectives a). Windfall payments (e.g. "compensation" ) payable to community ii) LGA monthly subvention to cover running costs & essential activities (e.g. planning) i) Community Contribution – raised by levy Community Entry Proactive Facilitation Supervise / Mentor Exit…

3. 2 Stakeholder Funding and M&E Community Development Foundations Community Development Institutions 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&Esystems 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. Note: Top down support for bottom up development; stream-lined & efficient; no strangle-hold by middle management

4. 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

5. Essential Components & Activities • 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

6. 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 “living university” of Akassa ISD “living university” of Eastern Obolo “living university” number 3 in 2007 Institutional Development & Capacity Building Through A Chain Of “living universities”: The ‘living university’ of Akassa Akassa Development Foundation Certificate of Attendance Is awarded to: ___________________________________________________ For attending the ‘living university’ course: Introduction to Participatory Community Development Organised by Akassa Development Foundation and Pro-Natura International (Nigeria) dd – mm - yyyy The ‘Hub’ model places the ISD at the centre of development learning Experiential learning takes place in the field: skills and knowledge are shared Akassa Training & Resource Centre plays important role.

7. Project Title Project Title Scope Scope Cost Cost Project Title Scope Cost Amauka Footbridge Renovation of Kampa Primary School Completion of abandoned primary school project – widows, roofing, floor… Construction of 15m concrete footbridge N3,742,460 N996,530 Iko Viewing & Training Centre Construction of training hall, viewing centre and office space N5,059,135 Reporting To Communities & Funders

8. Reporting to the Public