1. 1 Wellington Almeida Kari Hamerschlag Fabien LeFrancois Vince McElhinny (Bank Information Center) April 24, 2009 Bank Information Center Accountability and Participation in the Design of World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank Projects: Starting Down the Road from Rhetoric to Action

2. Bank Information Center (BIC) Founded 1987 IFI Monitoring Transparency, Participation, & Accountability Colaboration with affected populations ONG non-profit No government or IFI funding HQ in Washington, regional offices La Paz, Bangkok, Nairobi

3. Presentation Outline 1.Methodology 2. Results 3. Recommendations

4. Methodology Figure 1 The Accountability Triangle. Source: World Bank – Making Services Work for the Poor (WDR 2004) Horizontal Vertical Vertical

5. Methodology 25 Projects, 7 Sectors, 9 Countries Selection criteria – sectors prioritized by CARE Analysis of project documents in the design phase Ranking as good, standard-mediocre, or bad ranking in five indicator - areas

6. 5 critical practices for greater participation & accountability a)Prior stakeholder a)Prior stakeholder consultation in project design; b)Project objectives b)Project objectives that explicitly incorporate participation and accountability; c)effective information, dissemination and communications program c)effective information, dissemination and communications program; d)Transparent and inclusive decision making mechanisms d)Transparent and inclusive decision making mechanisms during project implementation, e)Well funding monitoring and evaluation system e)Well funding monitoring and evaluation system that incorporates participation, empowerment and governance indicators and a community feedback loop.

7. 1. Prior Consultation with Stakeholders Clear, detailed references to the project process or some external consensus building or deliberative national/local process with which the project is clearly consistent

8. 2. Project Objectives Clearly, explicitly stated objectives for increasing participation, accountability and/or empowerment

9. 3. Communication and Information Dissemination to Affected Communities Plans that address both levels of project information: a) intrinsic information about the project topic (health, education, cash transfers, or production techniques) b) culturally appropriate information designed to empower people to participate in the project (i.e. project rules, opportunities for participation, project goals and responsibilities, process for holding people accountable)

10. 4. Transparent, Inclusive Decision Making Mechanisms At least 2 key accountability mechanisms: Feedback loops Feedback loops for beneficiary assessments to influence project Contracting rules Contracting rules that enable citizens to withhold $ from provider capacity building support Adequate capacity building support for quality participation Project oversight councils Project oversight councils, social control mechanisms “vertical” accountability Emphasis on “vertical” accountability leverage systematic improvements Efforts to have project results leverage systematic improvements in accountability in other areas.

11. 5. Adequate Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Fully evaluable: community involvementmid-termfeedback mechanisms indicators for civil society engagement, inclusiveness, and government accountability Fully evaluable: A well funded monitoring and evaluation system that includes a) community involvement; b) mid-term feedback mechanisms based on opinions of affected communities; c) upfront transparent indicators for civil society engagement, inclusiveness, and government accountability; and d) second feedback loop to inform stakeholders about the results of the M and E

12. Findings: Major Gap Separates IFI Rhetoric from Practice 1.Few “Good” Accountability Projects 2.Water, Health and Decentralization – worst 3.Vertical Accountability and Power Analysis 4.Weak Transparency & Capacity Bldg. 5.Big differences between IDB and World Bank 6.Innovative accountability is possible, can be mainstreamed

13. Overall Results: 25 Projects, 5 Accountability Indicators Good Standard- Mediocre Bad 36 Project Accountability Indicators (29%) 10 - (28%) 26 - (72%) 55 Project Accountability Indicators (44%) 33 Project Accountability Indicators (26%) 29 - (88%) 4 - (12%)

14. 4.1 Prior Consultation 6 total Good - 5 - 1 11 total Standard - 6 - 5 8 total Bad - 7 - 1 Generally weak approach to stakeholder consultation

15. Bolivia WB Rural Alliances Project – Robust Consultation Strategy: Aim to promote small scale rural investment Targeted, culturally appropriate consultation strategy Feedback loop to influence project design Radio, peer to peer communication Accountability built into the appraisal process (traceable in the PAD).

16. 4.2 Project Objectives 9 total Good - 7 - 2 9 total Standard - 6 - 3 7 total Bad - 7 - 0 Best Accountability Indicator (>33%)

17. Haiti WB Community Driven Development Project – Building Lasting Society Wide Accountability Aim to fund 1,300 small scale investments in 65 rural poor, peri-urban communities. Explicit goal of empowerment Long term end goal is to “mainstream CDD as a mechanism for the local transfer of public resources. Seeks to extend project accountability to governance and democratic decision making at the municipality and state level

18. 4.3 Communication and Information Dissemination to Affected Communities 4 total Good - 3 - 1 14 total Standard - 8 - 6 7 total Bad - 6 - 1 Most glaring inconsistency between rhetoric and practice Transparency is key to vertical accountability

19. Peru WB Results and Accountability DPL (REACT) Aim to strengthen accountability and improve results in essential services Strong Info Dissemination and Communication Component Consulta Amigable – access to Finance Ministry budget data Participatory monitoring of local budget implementation

20. 4.4 Transparent, Inclusive Decision Making Mechanisms 8 total Good - 5 - 3 12 total Standard - 6 6 total Bad - 5 - 1 Relatively few mechanisms from those available. Less attention to vertical power relations

21. Guatemala IDB Rural Water Investment Program: Business as Usual Aim to increase coverage of potable water and sanitation services to 500,000 rural consumers. Focus on horizontal accountability – water committees, full cost recovery in context of 80% poverty. Less focus on empowerment of a water users constituency to hold INFOM and Congress accountable. Communication strategy relaxed, relabeled as social management

22. 4.5 Adequate Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 7 total Good - 5 - 2 12 total Standard - 8 - 4 6 total Bad - 6 - 0 Community Involvement Empowerment Indicators Feeback loops

23. Conclusions 1. IFIs project design falls short of discourse wrt promoting culture of accountability (only 33% “good”) 2. Weak Transparency = Poor Accountability 3. Capacity Building Underestimated 4. Horizontal vs. Vertical Accountability 5. Power Analysis/Political Capture

24. Recomendations  Systematically replicate and expand the range of “good” accountability practices 2. More proactive, creative, and concerted information dissemination component 3. Greater focus on vertical accountability 4. Fortify and move upstream capacity building of stakeholders and executing institutions

25. Recomendations 5.Strengthen the right of communities to enact sanctions. 6.M&E: feedback loops, stakeholder participation, empowerment indicators 7.Reduce discretion w/ mandatory participation and accountability requirements

26. BANK INFORMATION CENTER Contacts in Washington: Josh Lichtenstein jlichtenstein@bicusa.org Vince McElhinny vmcelhinny@bicusa.org vmcelhinny@bicusa.orgvmcelhinny@bicusa.org Nuestro Portal: www.bicusa.org