1. 1 School Construction Strategies for Universal Primary Education in Africa I. Lessons Learned 2 nd Africa Region Education Capacity Development Workshop “ Country Leadership and Implementation for Results in the EFA-FTI Partnership ” Tunis, December 4, 2007 Serge Theunynck Sr. Implementation Specialist, The World Bank

2. 2 Construction Needs for EFA in 2015 To build 2 million classrooms 2 million classrooms Offices/storages Offices/storages Sanitation in all schools (today 55%) Sanitation in all schools (today 55%) Water in all schools (today 45%) Water in all schools (today 45%) Furniture for all students Furniture for all students To finance Between  $ 23 billion  $ 30 billion depending on strategy School construction in Africa will be the most important single construction business in the world

3. 3 Can Technology save cost? Five main technologies have been implemented over the four last decades Modern Technology Modern Technology Local materials Local materials Shelters Shelters Industrialized Prefabrication Industrialized Prefabrication The “classic” school construction The “classic” school construction

4. 4 Sophisticated Modern Construction (all countries 1960-70) Procurement Approach Large Contractors Large Contractors ICB ICB Expected Results Large Capacity Large Capacity Economies of Scale Economies of Scale Quality of Works Quality of Works Simple Procedures Simple Procedures Actual Results Few Schools Built Very High Costs : US$ 500 per m 2 No Local Development Cumbersome Procedures

5. 5 Local Materials ( all countries 1970-80)Approach Test by NGOs Test by NGOs Scale Up by Donors Scale Up by Donors Expected Results Low Costs Low Costs Local Development Local Development Economy of cement Economy of cement Community appropriation Community appropriation Easy Scale Up Easy Scale Up Actual Results No Cost Savings Large Technical Assistance No cement saving No appropriation Abandon

6. 6 The Shelter (Few countries 1980-2000)Approach Administration provides roof (ICB / NCB) Administration provides roof (ICB / NCB) Communities complete building Communities complete building Expected Results Very low cost Very low cost Quick implementation Quick implementation Community appropriation Community appropriation Massive production Massive production Actual Results Very low cost (60%) Quick implementation Second-class status Abandon when pressure decreases

7. 7 Industrialized Prefabrication (few countries 1970-80)Approach Off-site manufacturing Off-site manufacturing Large contracts Large contracts Expected Results Low cost Low cost Quick construction Quick construction Mass-production Mass-production Modernization of the construction industry Modernization of the construction industry Actual Results Higher cost that “classic” Long delays Few schools built No contribution to local development Abandon

8. 8 Industrialized-Prefabrication The example of USA 2001 (the most industrialized country) 2 million enterprises (stable number since 1970) 2 million enterprises (stable number since 1970) Majority of micro-contractors Majority of micro-contractors Labor Intensive Industry Labor Intensive Industry

9. 9 These Technologies have failed Four technologies have proven failed to lower cost and / or scale up Modern Technology : expensive Modern Technology : expensive Local materials: not replicable, no cost saving Local materials: not replicable, no cost saving Industrialized Prefab: not implementable Industrialized Prefab: not implementable Shelters: second-class, not sustained Shelters: second-class, not sustained And what ?

10. 10 The “Classic” School Building (all countries 1980-2000)Approach Modern non-sophisticated technology Modern non-sophisticated technology Small / medium contractors from formal / informal sector Small / medium contractors from formal / informal sector Procurement NCB / LCB / NS) Procurement NCB / LCB / NS) Expected Results Technology known by local contractors Technology known by local contractors Quick implementation Quick implementation Massive production Massive production Local development Local development Appropriation by communities Appropriation by communities Actual Results Quality construction (acceptable to good ) Quick delivery No limitation of production capacity Local development The school plays a role model for low cost housing Becomes the universal model

11. 11 Wide Range of Costs of the “Classic” model Example of unit costs achieved in one country by several projects

12. 12 Why are School Construction Costs so different What do We Know ? The Implementation Arrangements “WHO does WHAT, HOW and for HOW MUCH ?”

13. 13 The Actors

14. 14 The 3 management approaches 1. Management by Public Administrations 2. Delegation of Management 3. Decentralization

15. 15 3 options : ICB ICB ICB combined with Community Participation or Micro-Enterprises ICB combined with Community Participation or Micro-Enterprises NCB NCB 1. Management by MoE

16. 16 1.1. Centralized Management with ICB Justifications Justifications  Weak procurement capacity  Limited construction industry capacity  Weak monitoring capacity Results Results  Cumbersome procedures  High prices: US$15,000 to 30,000 per classroom  Small quantities  Long delays

17. 17 1.2 ICB with Community Participation Expectations Expectations  Cost saving on materials and labor  Community ownership Results Results  Too complex  Cost savings :  Yes / ICB  No / NCB  Long delays: Difficult synchronization Who? BF, Gambia, Zambia, Senegal, Bangladesh Who? BF, Gambia, Zambia, Senegal, Bangladesh Scale up ? No: Abandoned. Scale up ? No: Abandoned.

18. 18 1.3 Centralized Management With NCB Expectations Expectations  Reduce cost  Use national contractors (SME)  Achieve larger scale Results Results  Competition  Cost-saving: US$/m2 180 (44% cost saving/ ICB)  Increased but still limited capacity  Delivery delays All countries and almost all donors with few exceptions All countries and almost all donors with few exceptions Scale-up: Yes Scale-up: Yes

19. 19 Procurement of school Construction by Administration Shift from ICB to NCB

20. 20 To CMAs (AGETIPs) To CMAs (AGETIPs) To NGOs To NGOs To Social Funds To Social Funds 2. Delegation of Contract Management

21. 21 2.1 Delegation to CMAs (AGETIPs) Expectations Expectations  Compensate lack of Administration’ capacity   procurement capacity    business opportunities for SMEs Results Results  Initial cost-saving vs. ICB  No cost saving vs. NCB by admin.  Capacity to deliver  Often limited to urban areas Who? Mostly Francophone countries Who? Mostly Francophone countries Scale up: Yes Scale up: Yes

22. 22 2.2 Delegation to NGOs Expectations Expectations   community participation/ownership   cost  Compensate lack of local const. industry capacity Results Results  Small cost-saving compared to NCB  Community participation irregular  Substitute to local industry = no sustain. Who ? BF, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Moz, Sen, Who ? BF, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Moz, Sen, Scale up ? No Scale up ? No

23. 23 2.3 Delegation to Social Funds (when SF acts as CMA) Expectations Expectations  Demand-driven response  Community empowermt   cost   proc capacity Results Results  No cost-saving compared to centralized NCB  Limited com. empowermt  Large capacity (fragile states) Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagas. Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagas. Scale up ? Yes Scale up ? Yes

24. 24 2.4 Delegation of Contract Management

25. 25 To lower levels of Administration To lower levels of Administration To Local Governments To Local Governments To Communities To Communities 3. Decentralisation of Contract Management

26. 26 3.1 Delegation to Local MoE Offices (acting by themselves) Expectations Expectations  Smaller contracts  Increased competition  Procurement closer to beneficiaries (reduce corruption ) Results Results  Cost: mixed results  Average cost similar NCB  Low efficiency: long delays  Neglect of educational mandates Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Scale up ? No Scale up ? No

27. 27 3.2 Delegation to Local Governments (acting by themselves) Expectations Expectations  Smaller contracts  Increased competition  Procurement closer to beneficiaries (reduce corruption ) Results Results  Cost: mixed results  Average cost similar NCB  Low efficiency: long delays  Neglect of educational mandates Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-) Scale up ? No Scale up ? No

28. 28 Delegation to MoE Local Offices or Local Governments (acting by themselves of through CMA)

29. 29 These delegations have expanded capacity but not saved costs 2.1 : CMAs NCB 2.1 : CMAs NCB 2.2 : NGOs themselves 2.2 : NGOs themselves 2.3 : SFs NCB 2.3 : SFs NCB 3.1 : LL of MoE NCB 3.1 : LL of MoE NCB 3.2 : LGs NCB 3.2 : LGs NCB And So What ?

30. 30 4. Delegation to Communities 1 : MoE communities 1 : MoE communities 2.1 : CMAs 2.1 : CMAs 2.2 : NGOs communities 2.2 : NGOs communities 2.3 : SFs communities 2.3 : SFs communities 3.1 : LL of MoE communities 3.1 : LL of MoE communities 3.2 : LGs communities 3.2 : LGs communities

31. 31 4.1 Direct delegation by MoE to Communities Expectations Expectations  Demand-driven responses  Community Empowerment procurement / fin. managt)  Local development Results Results  High cost-saving (60%/ICB, 35% / NCB)  Large capacity  Community ownership on school Who ? Mauritania, India, Laos (IDA) Uganda, Zambia, Ghana (MPP) Who ? Mauritania, India, Laos (IDA) Uganda, Zambia, Ghana (MPP) Scale up ? Yes Scale up ? Yes

32. 32 4.1 Delegation to Communities

33. 33 4.2 Delegation by NGOs to Communities

34. 34 4.2 Construction by NGOs the 3 approaches NGO as contractor : no cost saving / NCB NGO as contractor : no cost saving / NCB NGO as CMA : no cost saving / NCB NGO as CMA : no cost saving / NCB NGO delegate to communities = cost saving NGO delegate to communities = cost saving Who? Burkina Chad Gambia Guinea Mozambique Senegal Who? Mali Guinea Who? Burkina Ghana

35. 35 4.3 Delegation by Social Funds to Communities Direct procurementDelegation to Communities

36. 36 4.3 Social Funds Social Funds act as CMAs Social Funds act as CMAs Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagascar Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagascar Scale up ? Yes Scale up ? Yes Social Funds delegate to communities Social Funds delegate to communities Who ? Benin, Malawi, Senegal, Zambia Who ? Benin, Malawi, Senegal, Zambia Scale up ? yes Scale up ? yes

37. 37 4.4 Delegation by Local Governments to Communities (the CDD approach) Direct procurementDelegation to Communities

38. 38 4.4 Delegation to Local Governments : the 3 approaches LGs procure by themselves: no cost saving / NCB LGs procure by themselves: no cost saving / NCB LGs procure through CMA : no cost saving / NCB LGs procure through CMA : no cost saving / NCB LGs delegate to communities = cost saving LGs delegate to communities = cost saving Who? Ghana Guinea Madagascar Rwanda Senegal Who? Mauritania Senegal Who? Benin Ghana Uganda

39. 39 4.5 Delegation to Communities (Whoever Delegates) and Other Agencies

40. 40 Thank You For Your Attention