accountable village governments_bm

Making Village Governments Accountable through ICT Use

Badri Manandhar

29 February 2016

A Citizen Engagement Project

Local Bodies

1. Brief Background(Background and accountability gaps)

2. The Proposed Intervention (Objectives, Key Players, Process, Challenges, Opportunities, Indicators and Outcomes)

3. References

3

Presentation Contents

1. Brief Background

Local Self Governance Acts (LSGA) (1999) and Rules (2000): Framework for decentralization in Nepal

A three-tier system of local governance, with ward committees as the lower tier, village and municipal bodies as the middle tier and district bodies as the higher tier

Local bodies being delegated with powers, resources and responsibilities to deliver the basic services

Village governments, the middle tier of local governance in Nepal, being run by civil servants known as village secretaries since 2002

Village governments getting performance based central fiscal transfer (USD 10K-45K/year) as block grants in addition to their minor local revenue generation

1.1 Brief Overview of Local Governance

Settlement Settlement Settlement

Ward Committee

Ward Committee

Ward Committee

Village Development Committee

Village Development Committee

Municipality (in urban areas)

District Development Committee

Illaka (Subdistrict) Illaka (Sub district) Illaka (Sub district)

VDC (9 wards)

Municipality (>9 wards)

Ward(1 Ward

Citizen Forum)

Sub District(5-15 VDCs)

No formal structure

District (9-17 Illakas)

1.2 Local Governance Structure in a District

Absence of elected representatives

Widespread absenteeism of village government office bearers

Absence of alternative mechanism of oversight

Widespread corruption

Lack of a mechanism in voicing citizens’ grievances against unobtainability, denial and delay of services

Absence of grievance hearing and redressal mechanism

1.3 Accountability Gaps in Village Governments

2. The Proposed Intervention

2.1 Objectives of Citizen Engagement

Purpose:Contribution to the improvement of service delivery by village governments

Objectives:• Engagement of citizens with the

village governments using simple technology;

• Provision of alternative ways for the citizen to interact with village governments; and

• Holding village governments accountable.

2.2 Key Players

• Lead: An ICT-savvy local non-governmental organization with backstopping support of INGO

• Target audience: All service recipients i.e. citizens in villages

• Other partners: ICT technologists, local governance experts, local journal ists, local CSOs/CBOs and other local development partners

2.3 Key Elements of the Proposed Process:

• Use of ICT tools to enable citizens to provide information

• Thick engagement of local citizens• A participatory model where citizens

can anonymously and comfortably report

• Crowd-sourcing data/information that gives a prompt snapshot of the delays and deficiencies in service delivery

• Use of deliberative communication process

• Opportunity of long route as well as short route to accountability

• Emphasis on closing the feedback loop

2.4 Proposed Process

1. Establishment and operationalization a mobile telephony based user friendly platform

2. Wider dissemination of information on/about the platform to local citizens

3. Collection of grievances on delay, denial and deficiency of service delivery by village government from citizens through the use of mobile or SMS

4. Aggregation, verification and analysis of the grievances

• Crowd-sourcing of the grievances to give a prompt snapshot of the service delivery status

• Mapping of data onto the Google Map giving village level visualisation

5. Sharing of the results to the village office bearers

6. Resolving the grievances through interaction with the office bearers

Raise citizens’

awareness of the

platform

Collection of

grievances through mobile &

SMS

Aggregation,

verification and

analysis of grievances

Sharing the results to the VDC

office bearers

Resolving the

grievances and closing feedback

loop

NGO acts as intermediary at all stages and play a key role.

2.5 Proposed Process

2.6 Challenges/Risks

• Inadequate capacity and confidence of local NGO

• Village office bearers’ hostility and inertia to transparency and accountability ini tiatives

• Difficulties to validate information from citizens and to close the feedback loop

• Non-cooperation from local bodies

• Lack of awareness on benefit of reporting village governments’ performances at local level

2.7 Opportunities

• Enactment and implementation of the Rights to Information Act

• Rapid surging up of use of telecommunication and internet

• Wider access and use of mobile phones

• Growing realization and awareness among the citizens to involve in local governance process

• Increased volume of fiscal transfers to local bodies

• Initiation of the implementation of Minimum Conditions evaluation system for annual grant allocations

2.8 Important Metrics/Indicators & MeasurementSome Important Metrics/Indicators:• Number of “bites” (results or outcomes) made by “voices” (citizens’

grievances) along with “teeth” (VDC’s responsiveness)• Number of times citizens report their grievances alleging deficiencies,

delays and denial of services from the VDC.• Citizens’ perception that VDCs are providing effective, transparent

and responsive services• Citizens’ perception that VDCs are corrupt free.

Potential Tools for Measurement:• Citizen monitoring and social audit• Public Audit Practices (Public hearing, public review and public audit)• Citizen satisfaction survey and citizen report card survey• Community score card survey• Independent third party monitoring by NGOs • Periodic assessment and evaluation

2.9 Expected Outcomes:

3. References

3.1 References:

• http://www.localinterventions.org.uk/• http://opennepal.net/sites/default/files/resources/• https://class.coursera.org/engagecitizen-002/• https://nepal.helvetas.org/en/

Thank you for your attention!