Community-Driven Development in Eastern Europe: Insights and Strategies

1. Does CDD work in ECA? What does DEC’s Study "Evaluating Community Driven Development: A Review of the Evidence" tell us about the situation in ECA? September 23, 2003 Presentation by Alexandre Marc

2. CDD Projects in ECA • Rural - Water Users Associations - 11 projects (e.g., Turkey, Albania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan). • Rural – Community-Based Rural Credit - 7 projects- collective guarantee mechanisms and local level management of credit and saving funds (e.g., Moldova, Armenia, Kyrgyz Republic, Poland) • Social Investment Funds -7 projects - where micro-project committees representative of communities manage the infrastructure construction and training programs delivered to their communities - (e.g., Albania, Ukraine, FYR of Macedonia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan ) • Housing and Energy – 1 project – support to condominium associations (e.g. Lithuania) • Education and Health - 3 projects have experimented with decentralization of management and investment decisions at the school or health center level (e.g., Armenia, Georgia) • Natural Resource Management and Forestry Projects – 9 projects –(e.g., Turkey, Albania, Georgia, Armenia)

3. CDD strategy in ECA • Learn more and scale up where we have evidence it is working: (Irrigation, micro-credit, forestry, NRM, Education) • Pilot and assess feasibility of CDD approaches in new areas: (health, municipal development, social protection) • Link CDD with other strong institutional priorities in ECA: ( Decentralization, Governance , civic engagement) • Influence the enabling environment (policy framework, sectoral strategies, Government attitude)

4. Socio/Cultural/Economic context • Socialist Experience • Some participatory mechanisms had been set-up • People were taking initiative, but in the informal sphere and for individual benefits • Rethoric was supporting participation • Embedded in a strong ideological and moralistic context that many people resented • Participation was captured by the State and political elites (outside of the State) • People do not like collective action but if there is no other mean to resolve a problem they actually have experience and capacity to carry out participatory programs if they can see rapid individual benefits.

5. Most Societies are industrialized • The community is not really geographic, it is strongly work based • People do not interact regularly as a community (with the exception of rural areas) • People expect the State to ensure the delivery of most services • Infrastructure are large. 0&M is often beyond the means of the immediate community. • Strong “supply side” mentality. We will create a factory to create jobs etc… • Families are small, you do not have much of the extended clan which characterized much of developing world .

6. Other caracteristics of societies • Society is not very altrualistic (Romania study) • People are still longing for “individualism” • Informal networks are very important, and they are quite exclusive (Bourdieu vs Putnam) • Decentralization and municipal Governance is at a very early stage of development • Civic engagement is still at very early stage with the exception of Central Europe

7. Conclusion for ECA • How to present CDD is central (ideological connotation) • Understand informality of relationship is very important • Look carefully at technical feasibility of participation • Anchor in the process of decentralization and municipal governance • Design system where individual or familiy benefits are clear • Do not rely too much on funds coming from the community (due to lack of altruism) • Change Government attitudes towards community