VSO Social Accountability Report 2014

Holding government to account:
Social Accountability and VSO

ASSOCIATES FOR CHANGE
Holding Government to Account: Social Accountability and VSO
2
Contents
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 4
Examples of social accountability initiatives 7
Crucial insights for success 8
Why social accountability? 10
Case studies Africa 11
Zambia Area Development Committees 12
Cameroon Campo-Maan and Dja & Mpomo Model Forests 14
Rwanda National Disability Forum 16
Kenya Strengthening Citizens Participation in Governance of Education (SCGPE) 18
Uganda e-Governance in Kasese 20
Case studies Asia 22
India Citizen report cards in Jharkhand and Odisha (Orissa) 23
India Samadhan 24
Bangladesh SCORE project 26
Conclusion Social accountability and VSO 28
Sources 30
References 31
Acknowledgements
Charles Gay led this project and co-wrote, edited and liaised with country programmes.
He was the Global Adviser for Participation and Governance, VSO International.
Carrie Baptist researched and co-wrote this paper as an intern in the Policy Group at VSO
International, working on Participation and Governance, 2012.
Programme staff and partners from following: VSO Zambia (George Mwaanda), VSO India
(Praveen Kumar), VSO Rwanda Programme Staff, VSO Uganda Programme Staff and volunteers,
VSO Kenya, VSO Bangladesh and VSO Cameroon.
Cover photo: VSO/Ben Langdon
Photography: VSO/Jenny Matthews (pp11), VSO/Simon Rawles (pp 22, 26 and 27), VSO/
Jon Spaull (pp25 and 29), remaing photographs were taken by programme staff and volunteers.
3
Executive summary
Good governance and social accountability
In the past two decades, good governance has steadily
climbed up the development agenda as international
development agencies, practitioners and donors have
realised the strength of the linkages between governance
and development outcomes. The empirical evidence tying
governance to development is strong: for example, better
governance has been found to have a direct relationship
to increased primary education attainment and decreased
child mortality. Good governance can include many things
but it always refers to increased civil society participation,
voice and increased accountability. Voice, participation and
accountability issues can be particularly problematic aspects
of governance to improve, but they are absolutely essential
factors in the good governance equation.
Over the past few years, the tools, methods and processes
which aim to strengthen civil society participation, voice
and accountability have begun to be grouped together
under the heading of social accountability initiatives. To
put it another way, social accountability goes to the heart of
inclusive development, as it includes the various methods and
approaches used to strengthen the voice, participation and
accountability dimensions of good governance. This report
defines social accountability from the perspective of VSO,
giving examples of different types of social accountability
processes VSO has conducted. Several issues that must be
considered by a successful social accountability initiative are
considered including scale, local context, institutionalisation,
incentives, power structures, inclusiveness and community.
Social accountability tools are not one size fits all, and
careful analysis of power relations and context is critical to
success. Care must also be taken to avoid a superficial level or
tokenism and to seek inclusive participation with a thorough
assessment of risks.
Social accountability as part of VSOs theory of
change
1

Social accountability hits at the heart of VSOs global strategy
and theory of change. Social accountability processes are one
of the primary means whereby VSO can strengthen citizens
and civil society, giving people a voice, choices and power
over decisions that influence their lives. This improves the
quality of and access to services like health and education,
and influences governments to implement pro-poor policies
and projects (key dimensions of VSOs theory of change).
Social accountability processes also represent one of the most
effective means to achieve sustainable success in governance
work, one of VSOs key development goal areas.
VSOs experience of work on social accountability is deep
and wide-ranging. In this paper, eight new case studies
from Zambia, Cameroon, Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, India and
Bangladesh are detailed. Some initiatives focus solely on
strengthening social accountability and governance, while
others use social accountability to enhance interventions
around gender, disability, the environment or education. In
all these cases, VSO volunteers have successfully established
or supported effective social accountability mechanisms at
the local, district and/or national level, responsive to the local
needs and context.
Looking forward
As VSO builds on its work on active citizenship, governance
and social accountability, there are some clear areas for
expansion and growth. Some of the projects are still in their
first phases, including the work in Kenya and Cameroon
which is off to a great start and will continue to grow. Many
projects, including the two case studies from India, were only
pilots. Having achieved success, they will be scaled up and
replicated. Other programmes, such as the work in Zambia
and Bangladesh, have been made possible by the strong
relationship VSO and its local partners have forged over
long periods of time with local government; relationships
which continue to expand, allowing for stronger, broader
collaborations in future. Looking forward, VSO is well
placed in terms of its programming expertise, the quality
of its volunteers, strong local partnerships and institutional
relationships to strengthen and expand its work promoting
social accountability and good governance. This in turn will
promote greater access to quality essential services for poor
and marginalised people, and will provide space and process
for citizens and civil society to work together to improve their
lives, have access to information and effectively hold their
governments/service providers to account.
4
Introduction
Good governance and social accountability
In the past two decades, good governance has steadily
climbed up the development agenda as international
development agencies, practitioners, academics and
donors have reecognised both the costs of state failure
and the strength of the linkages between governance and
development outcomes. The empirical evidence tying
governance to development is strong: for example, better
governance has been found to have a direct relationship to
increased primary education attainment and decreased child
mortality
2
. In contexts of poor governance, increased public
spending is seen to have little or no impact on educational
attainment or child and infant mortality
3
. In contexts of poor
governance, increased public spending is seen to have little
or no impact on education attainment or child and infant
mortality . This strong link between better governance
and more effective public spending and more sustainable
development outcomes depends on a number of political,
social and economic factors. But essentially good governance
is critical to the equation in the sense that it strengthens the
relationship between society and the state. The breakdown
of public services has damaging effects in terms of not
only human development and poverty, but also in terms of
eroding the credibility of government and the legitimacy of
the state itself
4
.
Recognising the fundamental importance of good
governance, the past decade has been marked by initiatives
that foreground good governance as a primary development
concern, including the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid-
Effectiveness and the follow-up Busan Partnership for
Effective Development Cooperation in 2011.
In practice, good governance can refer to many things.
Usually it speaks to improving the quality of a countrys
economic, social and political institutions: strengthening the
rule of law and the judiciary, stabilising the government and
making it more effective, better regulating a competitive
private sector
5
, strengthening the voice and participation
of civil society, increasing accountability, and decreasing
public corruption and graft
6
. Over time, it has been
recognised that anti-corruption, civil society participation,
voice and accountability are perhaps the trickiest facets of
good governance to improve or to enable to demonstrate
positive change. However, they are absolutely essential
parts of the good governance equation and key to reliably
and sustainably improving public sector management or
increasing private sector competitiveness
7
. It has been
observed that increasing civil society voice, participation and
accountability has a knock-on effect of decreasing public
sector corruption, graft and capture, making increasing voice,
participation and accountability a cornerstone of any good
governance initiative
8
. When talking about participation
and good governance, it is useful to clarify the definition
of accountability that is being referenced. Here, it will be
defined as the obligation to be called to account... making
powerful institutions responsive to less powerful publics
9
.
In this view, accountability is more than an abstract policy
or law as it encompasses the practical means and processes
by which government officials are made accountable to
civil society and citizens. Over the past few years, the tools,
methods and processes which aim to strengthen civil society
participation, voice and accountability have begun to be
grouped together under the heading of social accountability
initiatives. To put it another way, social accountability goes
to the heart of inclusive development, as it includes the
various methods and approaches used to strengthen the
voice, participation and accountability dimensions of good
governance
10
.
Defning social accountability
What exactly does it mean to strengthen civil society voice,
participation and accountability? As noted above, these
represent particularly problematic aspects of the good
governance equation, so social accountability warrants a
more precise definition and detailed framing. Moreover,
those who want to hold others to account must have a clear
idea of that that means and entails. The relationship between
voice, participation and accountability is complex and involves
an understanding of how civil society participation and voice
can develop and then lead to greater accountability
11
: social
accountability processes provide space for citizen agency, civil
society voice and participation in government, with the aim of
thereby increasing accountability.
In the narrowest sense, civil society participates in
government through elections. However, this is not
sufficient to create robust accountability, and civil society
must be able to exercise its voice and hold government to
account in a variety of ways, on issues arising at different
times, at the local, regional or national levels
12
. In this
sense, social accountability initiatives seek to strengthen
the information and communication channels between
civil society and government, increasing the ability of civil
society to participate in governance and hold the state to
account for its actions. This affirms direct accountability
relationships between citizens and the state and puts them
into operation [It] refers to the broad range of actions
The empirical evidence tying governance to
development outcomes is strong: for example,
better governance has a direct relationship to
increased primary education attainment and
decreased child mortality.
5
and mechanisms that citizens can use to hold the state to
account, as well as the actions on the part of government,
civil society, media, and other societal actors that promote
or facilitate these efforts
13
. This can include engaging on
policymaking, budgeting, service delivery and performance
monitoring, to improve the quality, transparency and
effectiveness of these processes and public services.
Social accountability has a strong relationship to notions
of active citizenship. In essence it works to support active
citizens, providing and defining the mechanisms whereby
active citizens are able to make their voices heard. These
include institutions, mechanisms for engagement and
communication channels (such as access to information) that
active citizens use to participate in governance.
Social accountability processes can be initiated by civil society
or the state, termed either demand- (when initiated by civil
society) or supply (when initiated by government)-driven
accountability. The direction of the accountability relationship
can also vary: when civil society holds government to
account, this is termed vertical accountability. However,
horizontal accountability is also possible: when individuals
in power hold their peers accountable within government,
political institutions and other public service providers
14
.
The common thread through all these variations is that
social accountability processes endeavour to pull back
the curtain on government decision-making and service
provision, making them more transparent and, in particular,
increasing the voice and participation of civil society. Social
accountability has many commonalities with approaches that
emphasise active citizenship as it aims to empower members
of the community to take a more active role in governance,
while also considering the institutions and methods that allow
them to make their voice heard. When this is successful,
the results can be impressive. Community supervision of
healthcare clinics has been shown to increase the quality of
care; community policing initiatives decrease crime; increased
participation of the community in school councils improves
the quality of primary education
15
. However, achieving
increased community participation and strengthening the
ability of civil society to hold government to account is no
easy task. Nominal inclusion of civil society in a meeting
(without providing a mechanism for them to meaningfully
shape the proceedings), or public disclosure of a minimalist
set of data (without mechanisms to analyse and act on it
16
)
are not sufficient to render government more accountable
to its constituents. Social accountability initiatives enhance
the impact of active participation by citizens, building an
active civil society and bringing government into meaningful
engagement and substantive discussion. This is a process
that is always political but can sometimes be sensitive, risky
or complicated in terms of the likely positive or negative
outcomes.
This means that in order to achieve true accountability,
social accountability processes must go beyond creating
token civil society voice and participation to create a robust,
institutionalised mechanism that engages with issues of
transparency and external oversight, power, enforcement,
corruption, performance measurement and principalagent
dilemmas (for example, the incentives for politicians or duty-
bearers to act in bad faith for their own ends or conflicts
of interest that might affect the beneficial exercise of
power) . While there may be an additional problem with the
informality of the process, the enforcement mechanisms are
an essential element: those who seek to hold government or
public services to account must be able to impose some form
of sanctions, whether material, legal or involvingnaming
and shaming or a bad press, against those agencies or
officials that have underperformed or violated their duties.
In order to have effective enforcement, transparency or
answerability is also crucial: public officials must provide
complete information about their work, performance, policies
and projects, for in the absence of reliable and timely
information there is no basis for demanding answers
18
.
Legitimacy, or rights of authority, also comes into play when
it is difficult for a group seen as politically illegitimate, such as
illegal economic migrants, to hold government to account. In
parallel, power dynamics are also important to bear in mind,
as only when the observer stands above the observed can
we speak of accountability
19
. Without the power and social
leverage to hold government and public services to account,
voice and accountability can easily become political spin or
cover processes that create a convenient guise of inclusivity
but which actually do little to materially impact policymaking
or programme delivery, essentially masking business as usual.
Finally, targeting is important: rather than being aimed at
generalised change or influence, accountability initiatives
work best when aimed at specific results or goals.
Accountability, although difficult to achieve in many contexts,
is an important part of good governance and can act as a
complement to creating and sustaining positive development
outcomes. It forms the foundation of rights-based approaches
to development and governance, emphasising and
operationalising the relationship between the rights of the
individual and the responsibilities of the state and enhancing
the impact of active citizenship. Social accountability can also
help strengthen other types of development interventions,
around issues like education, health or gender. When used
in a cross-cutting way, it has the potential to dramatically
increase the efficacy, sustainability and level of community
ownership of development initiatives. Social accountability is
increasingly being recognised for its ability to improve service
delivery: increased input from civil society and strengthened
participation and feedback mechanisms can improve the
targeting of services, reduce waste and inefficiency and
discourage corruption.
6
Questons of scale and level
Social accountability processes work best at the local level,
as a part of decentralised governance
20
or in the informal
sphere. Accountability, civil society voice and participation
all work to strengthen the relationship between individuals
and governments/service providers, the ties that bind
communities together or officials to their constituencies.
These ties are most direct at the local level. This is the level at
which ordinary people are best placed to directly participate
in governance and make their voice heard by going to a
council meeting, participating in a government committee,
joining a parent/teacher association or taking part in a
community scorecard. The local level is also the level at which
the impacts of government, whether positive or negative, are
felt, providing a direct feedback loop between promises and
performance.
For women and other marginalised groups, the local level is
also the context where inequalities are most acute and most
keenly felt
21
. This may also be the only level at which they can
meaningfully participate given the double or triple burden on
women and girls, especially those with disabilities and those
living in remote locations.
This isnt to say that programmes cant work simultaneously
at the local and national level. Some approaches are
particularly amenable to being used at the community level
to mobilise and strengthen civil society, in the sense of
promoting active citizenship, while simultaneously using that
momentum to build a regional or national level advocacy
campaign. Social accountability processes involving formally
recognised civil society actors can very effectively and
powerfully monitor national poverty budgets of development
policies. In this case, however, there may be issues of how
to ensure that their voices are truly representative and
inclusive. The accountability of civil society organisations
may, therefore, be an important issue to address and invest
resources in at national level.
7
Examples of social accountability
initiatives
Even after breaking down the definition of social
accountability, a certain amount of ambiguity may remain as
to what social accountability initiatives look like in practice, as
they can take many forms and shapes. Social accountability
tools can be used individually or in tandem, depending on
the scope and scale of the project. Programmatic approaches
can vary as well: some social accountability initiatives focus
solely on governance, while others use social accountability
processes to enhance the efficacy and sustainability of
other goals (eg improved education, gender equity, and
health). Here are some specific examples of types of social
accountability initiatives:
Supply-driven (initated by government):
user outreach meetings
publication of programme performance data
forecast surveys or baseline demand surveys
structured public consultation processes
allowing user membership on advisory boards
user voting rights on decision-making and regulatory bodies
for public services
retrospective performance or perception surveys
public complaint or grievance mechanism
public hearings

Demand-driven (initated by civil society):
independent budget analysis (public expenditure tracking)
or public revenue monitoring
community/service mapping and data gathering or
participatory geographic information systems (GIS)
community scorecard or citizen report card
community-based performance management
participatory budgeting or alternative budgets
citizens charter
service users associations or users action groups
legal recourse
use of complaint mechanisms
public opinion polls or stakeholder surveys
policy audits
public forums or appreciative inquiry summits
participatory social impact analysis

In addition, mobile technologies or ICT (Information and
Communications Technology) platforms have tremendous
potential to increase the opportunities of poor and
marginalised populations to participate in governance, and
can be used as a part of many of these initiatives to increase
their efficacy, reach and access.
8
Crucial insights for success
When planning a social accountability initiative or planning
to incorporate social accountability principles into a project,
in many ways success or failure comes down to the details
and there is no standardised formula or pattern that can be
applied. The local context, incentive structure and power
dynamics must be analysed; what it means to be inclusive,
involve the community and institutionalise the process
must also be critically evaluated. Increasing the ability of
civil society to hold government to account is a fundamental
prerequisite of good governance and sustainable positive
development outcomes in many areas, but it is a complicated
and delicate process, requiring a nuanced understanding of
the systems and communities one is engaging with.
Context
As a first step, it is always important to understand the socio-
political and cultural context the initiative is working within
there is no foolproof process that works in every context,
every time. Rather, the best social accountability processes
are tailored to their context and should begin with a basic
political economy analysis.
For example, different social accountability processes will be
necessary in a country where the rule of law is strong versus
one where the rule of law is weak; where the civil service is
capable versus where it is ineffective; where the government
is highly centralised versus where it is decentralised; where
the government is supportive of civil society participation
versus where it is not; in fragile or post-conflict states versus
peaceful ones; where participatory mechanisms already
exist versus countries where they dont; where civil society
is strong versus where it is weak. It is also worthwhile
to consider the risks of working on social accountability,
politically, socially and institutionally in this particular local
context.
During this process of analysis, it is vital to identify the
current actors, both formal and informal, who exert pressure
on government and the entry points and channels that they
use to do so; it may also be interesting to note whether men
and women access these channels differently. It is also useful
to identify post-conflict or fragile states, as civil society may
function very differently, and a sense of community may be
much more strained, in these contexts than in a country that
has been peaceful for a long time.
These types of questions must not only be asked at the
national level, but also of the specific institution, department
and system; they must also be considered dynamically how
do these institutions and systems function and change over
time?
Answering contextual questions like these will help determine
the best scale of intervention and method of approach.
With that understanding, it is then possible to choose the
right social accountability tools to suit the situation. For
instance, in institutions or contexts that are less open and
transparent, officials may be less willing to acknowledge
their responsibility to become accountable; in these
contexts, securing political buy-in to the change process and
conducting broad-based advocacy have been identified as key
enabling factors.
Insttutonalisaton and incentves
While it is possible to undertake a social accountability
initiative as a one-off, social accountability processes are
more likely to be effective when they are institutionalised in
some sense: a community scorecard that is repeated each
year, a government committee that is permanently altered to
include civil society representation, a participatory budgeting
scheme whose funding is guaranteed at regular intervals, etc.
Rather than just holding a focus group or a series of hearings,
it is important to create channels or forums for long-term
dialogue between government officials and civil society, so
that issues can be addressed reliably over time.
More than this, it is important not just to institutionalise
social accountability processes, but to institutionalise
them with the right incentive structure. It matters how the
performance of public officials and programmes is evaluated
and that an incentive structure is created that allows
public officials to encourage participation, and civil society
meaningfully to participate. Often, even if a government
official is sympathetic to the idea of civil society participation,
9
the social and economic incentive structure of their position
will make it difficult for them to act in a way supportive of
increased transparency and inclusivity. Similarly, while civil
society has the capacity to be an ideal oversight agent
omnipresent, able to continuously monitor and report it
isnt always motivated or able to participate in governance;
civil society can also be apathetic, dormant, or co-opted by
particular groups or interests. Checks and incentives have to
be put in place so that members of the community feel safe
participating in governance, a variety of voices can be heard
and government officials see the benefits of responding to
the concerns of civil society and are able to act accordingly.
Power dynamics and legitmacy
Participation, voice and accountability are always in
some respect political issues, as they seek to restructure
current decision-making systems and channels of power,
redistributing power more equally and inclusively through
society. Consequently, working to strengthen social
accountability may sometimes be sensitive politically and
there is a very real risk of social accountability initiatives
being co-opted by those already in power. In order for a
social accountability process to be successful, it must take
into account the power dynamics and structures within and
between the groups it seeks to engage. It is also important
to raise questions around legitimacy and risk, particularly for
the civil society groups and community members involved
if these groups arent seen as legitimate political actors,
what can be done to raise their status and/or protect them
from harm? It is important to consider the political incentive
structure of the people you are trying to influence and the
mechanisms of power and influence, whether they are formal
or informal. What are the ways in which power is exerted
in practice? it is important not to conflate civil society
presence, input and real influence.
For example, a case from Oxfam in Pakistan shows how
the intentions of social accountability initiatives can be
subverted. In 1999, new laws were passed as part of a wider
decentralisation policy requiring that a minimum of 33% of
the seats in local councils be reserved for women. However,
the elected women often ended up functionally representing
the interests of male family members and/or local elites,
cementing the traditional cultural practices and channels of
power rather than disrupting them (Clarke and Missingham,
2009).
Inclusiveness
Given the sensitive and political aspects of social
accountability, it is important that attention be paid to
making these initiatives truly inclusive, of marginalised groups
as well as those who present the polite or acceptable
faces of society. It can be tempting to simply include formal,
mainstream civil society organisations that have already
achieved a modicum of political legitimacy groups that
already have some relationship with government, often
made-up of middle-class professionals or well-behaved non-
governmental organisations (NGOs).
This tendency is in many ways understandable often these
types of groups are more easily accessible to international
organisations, speaking a common language such as
English or French, or sharing a common set of values and
approaches to development. They are also safer to work
with, shielding both the civil society groups and international
organisation from risk. It is more challenging to engage with
and understand groups that are marginalised, separated
from international organisation officials by language, class or
culture; misunderstanding and misinterpretation can flourish
unless a concerted effort is made to bridge the gap and
create strong communication channels.
However, the groups that are currently marginalised and
unable to access government are those that stand to benefit
most from being involved in social accountability processes
they are the ones whose voice needs to be strengthened
and whose ability to hold government to account needs to be
increased. International organisations must critically analyse
their choice of partners, with an eye towards working on
social accountability with groups that have strong ties to the
grass roots and/or are otherwise marginalised or isolated.
This can including engaging with non-traditional civil society
organisations such as social movements, informal trade
unions or religious groups. Engagement with these types of
organisations has been shown to be effective at empowering
and strengthening the voices of poor people.
10
Hitng at the core of VSOs theory of change
Social accountability hits at the heart of VSOs core strategy
and theory of change. Social accountability processes are
one of the primary means whereby VSO can strengthen
civil societies to give people a voice, choices and power
over decisions that influence their lives, improve the quality
of and access to services like health and education, and
influence the government to implement pro-poor policies
and projects key dimensions of VSOs theory of change.
Social accountability processes also represent one of the
most effective means to achieve sustainable success in
participation and governance, one of VSOs six development
goals.
Social accountability initiatives can also be incorporated in
a cross-cutting sense into programmes and projects that
focus on non-governance aspects of development, including
health, education, gender, disability and the environment. In
this sense, they can be woven into various types of sustained
development interventions which would benefit from
becoming more sustainable and embedded into normal civil
society processes and systems once the project has finished
owned by the community, as it were. For example, a one-off
vaccination drive may not benefit from the addition of social
accountability mechanisms, but an initiative to increase the
quality of community health clinics and their responsiveness
to the needs of poor people might. This isnt to say that
social accountability can be tacked onto an ongoing health
or education initiative like an afterthought; rather, that
social accountability is an integral aspect of making sustained
development initiatives more sustainable, effective, pro-poor
and subject to greater community ownership.
Reducing aid-dependence and promotng good governance
Moreover, social accountability provides a pathway towards
greater local independence and capacity, rather than
continuing aid-dependence. Not a Band-Aid solution, it
seeks to put in place the social mechanisms and systems that
will be able to ensure over the long term that government
and public services serve the needs of the community and are
pro-poor. Ideally, a strong civil society is able to correct for a
certain amount of state failure in the sense that an active civil
society, armed with rights and able to access and influence
government officials, is able to hold those officials to account.
This requires more than elections or a nominal presence in
processes of governance it requires the ability to supply
input and influence policies and projects. Robust social
accountability mechanisms must be in place so that civil
society can reliably access the information it needs about the
policies and impacts of government, is seen as a legitimate
voice and is able to make use of legal or political enforcement
in some way if government is not performing ensuring its
ability to hold government to account.
Looking at the post-2015/post-Millennium Development
Goals paradigm
As we look past the expiration of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), there are already arguments
being put forward that more international attention must be
given to rights, voice and participation which place everyone
on the same political map, as opposed to benchmark
development targets like the MDGs. It is likely that some kind
of benchmark targets will replace the MDGs, but it also seems
clear that the experience of the MDGs has strengthened
the realisation that rights, voice and participation cannot
be left out of international agreements and approaches to
development. There is also increased momentum around
human-rights based approaches in light of the Arab Spring,
emphasising expanded freedom, good governance and
redistributing power within society more equally. A growing
chorus of voices
22
is suggesting that in order to achieve such
goals, we must strengthen our legal, advocacy and policy
responses to poor governance and inadequate development,
building effective accountability mechanisms at national and
international levels, and civil society participation in shaping
the solutions as well as defining the problem
23
.
Why social accountability?
11
V
S
O
/
T
i
m

N
a
y
n
a
r
d
Case studies - Africa
12
Zambia - Area Development Committees
Context
The national Decentralisation Policy in Zambia, aimed at
strengthening local government, was approved almost
ten years ago as a component of Zambias 2002 Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper, but its implementation has been
slow and halting. The government has re-energised the
decentralisation programme, approving a Decentralisation
Implementation Plan, including a new Community
Development Fund, which refocused attention on local
government. However, there continues to be a lack of clear
guidance and a lack of resources from central government
for implementation in the provinces. As a result, the District
Councils have been very reluctant to include and engage local
people in development planning. Around the country there
are ongoing issues around a lack of community participation
in governance at the district level. As a part of the national
decentralisation drive, many Area Development Committees
(ADCs) have been founded to create a bridge between local
government and the community, but there has been a lack
of recognition and acceptance of these committees by both
the local government and the community. The Community
Development Fund was intended to act as a vehicle for
involving and engaging local citizens through the ADCs,
thereby reducing the burden on local government and giving
more opportunities to civil society to decide on and fund
local development projects. However, there are ongoing
challenges to securing real citizen participation in terms
of rolling out and sustaining the Community Development
Fund mechanism across districts, as well as challenges in
legitimising the ADCs and making them effective institutions.
Initatves
Since 2008, VSO has been supporting government
decentralisation in Zambia by placing volunteer
Decentralisation Advisors in several District Councils,
including Choma, Mazabuka, Mambwe, Petauke, Kazungula
and Chipata. Each volunteer works in a slightly different way,
responding to the needs of the local District Council.
There have been successes, challenges, delays and strong
progress across the various councils. Here are two examples
of the types of work and outcomes that volunteers have
achieved when working in partnership with district councils:
1. In 200910, a volunteer was placed with Mambwe District
Council with the objective of increasing the planning capacity
of local government officials and ADC members, while also
seeking to improve the capacity and functioning of the 13
ADCs in that district.
The volunteer began by conducting organisational capacity
assessments with officials and proceeded to support local
officials in drafting the next strategic plan for the district.
He also carried out extended advocacy and lobbying of the
council to establish sub-district level coordinating structures
which would improve service provision and be responsive to
local needs.
A workshop was conducted with each of the ADCs to share
knowledge on the role of ADCs in Community Development
Fund processes, as well as local resource mobilisation
and sustainability, with the hope of improving their
effectiveness. His training and capacity-building activities with
representatives of the ADCs helped them to reach a level of
skills and capability where they could begin to engage with
the Mambwe District Councils procedures and processes.
This engagement has been enhanced by support to produce
physical mapping of the 13 wards in their district and this has
furnished the ADCs with the evidence and data on quality of
services, condition of infrastructure and land ownership and
use.
2. In 200911, a volunteer placed with Petauke District
Council did a great deal of work to establish and build the
capacity of the Area Development Committees. The volunteer
worked first to establish and then consolidate local ADCs,
putting the committee members through a rigorous capacity-
building training programme with the intention of providing
the basic resources and skills for the ADCs to function
properly. Training was also provided so that committee
members would gain greater awareness of their role in
implementing decentralisation policy, and of the role of the
various key stakeholders in local government. The volunteer
worked to set up local resource centres for each ADC and
held workshops on how to write effective project proposals
for fundraising. Project monitoring and evaluation was also
a focus, to help ADCs monitor the outcomes of the projects
that they have chosen to support under the Community
Development Fund.
Outcomes
1. In Mambwe District, the initiatives to strengthen local
ADCs, build the capacity of local government officials and
create stronger sub-district level coordinating structures
have been recognised as very successful. The District Council
was sufficiently excited about the results of the project that
they used it to make a submission to the Local Government
Association of Zambia Award for Excellence competition in
2010 and gained an award for innovation. Together, VSO and
13
the District Council have strengthened their partnership by
recognising the ADC representatives as national volunteers
and supporting them as such. A partnership agreement was
signed between the Mambwe Council and VSO, and a two-
year national volunteering strategic plan, focused on the ADC
representatives, is in place.
As a result of this progress, the ADC representatives are
becoming increasingly motivated and have become more
active in the district planning process, and consultations on
services and infrastructure, and increasingly have found their
voice to question and raise issues of concern to the council.
2.In Petauke District, as a result of the capacity-building
workshops and training, the functioning and effectiveness of
ADCs has greatly increased: (i) ADC representatives now have
a much clearer understanding of the other key stakeholders
in local governance; (ii) ADC representatives have begun
participating in the District Development Coordinating
Committee (the next level up from ward level committees);
(iii) with greater training and awareness, ADCs were able to
play a central role in the recent National Rural Water Supply
and Sanitation Project, which has created new Village Water
and Sanitation Committees to enhance and improve water
and sanitation at the village level; (iv) ADCs have also begun
to take over management of the Community Development
Fund, helping local community members to complete funding
application forms; and (v) some ADCs have made their own
funding proposals to the District Council, some of which have
been successful.
The volunteer advisor has successfully supported the
council to gain European Commission funding for the
councils participatory planning process: this has resulted
in the construction of Community Resource Centres, with
more planned, resources for further capacity building and
community training and seed funding to develop the ADCs
resources. These centres provide a meeting place, a central
community resource in the wards, and have greatly added
to the functionality and prestige of these ADCs. A network
between the ADCs has also been created, through a quarterly
ADC Secretary meeting, which has been highly effective at
disseminating information between ADCs in Petauke District
and supporting monitoring and evaluation processes between
the committees.
In effect a new sub-district democratic layer has been
developed to (a) promote citizen engagement and (b) enable
citizens to hold the council to account.
Future plans
VSO continues to plan to support the roll-out of the
governments decentralisation plan, building on the firm
foundations of increased local democratic engagement and
citizen participation. Integrated Development Plans are
being developed at the Provincial Council level (one level up
from the District). They will be greatly improved by the level
of citizen participation fostered at the district level as they
legally require inclusive participation and consultation with
the local community. These plans will in turn lead to more
detailed and well-formed plans to meet community needs,
improve local infrastructure, increase the quality of services
and impact on the lives of the poorest and most marginalised
people.
14
Cameroon - Campo-Maan and Dja &
Mpomo Model Forests
The B-Adapt project was implemented by Cuso International, the African Model
Forest Network and VSO. This project was funded by CIDA.
Context
In 1994 as part of a larger structural adjustment package,
Cameroon passed a law which provided local communities
with the possibility of exerting greater influence over
decision-making and stewardship of natural resources and
forests. However, the law lacked domestic support and
was blocked by Cameroons highly centralised government
bureaucracy and political conflicts over resource control,
so it resulted in few changes on the ground. After years of
pressure and advocacy from civil society and community
groups, in 2005, Campo-Maan and Dja & Mpomo were
officially recognised by the government as pilot Model Forest
sites, test sites for decentralised natural-resource and forest
stewardship. Since 2010, VSO Cameroon has helped support
these two Model Forests, helping them become stronger and
more effective pilots of community stewardship of forests
and natural resources in Cameroon.
Model Forests are forms of community stewardship
based on a flexible framework for learning and doing that
combines the social, cultural and economic needs of local
communities with the long-term sustainability of large
landscapes in which forests are an important feature. The
key stakeholders include the African Model Forest Network
Secretariat office based in Cameroon, and the International
Model Forest Network. Campo-Maan is a 769,000 hectare
forest in a coastal area of south-west Cameroon, noted for
its exceptional biodiversity, and home to about 80 species of
large and medium-sized mammals including gorillas, African
elephants and panthers. It is about one-third national forest
and one-quarter agro-forestry zone; most of the 60,000
inhabitants of the forest area make their living through
slash-and-burn subsistence agriculture, fishing, hunting and
gathering, and logging. Dja & Mpomo is a 700,000 hectare
forest in the eastern province of Cameroon. It is also home to
outstanding biological diversity including many endangered
or threatened species such as forest elephants, chimpanzees,
leopards and white-collared mangabey. There are about
25,000 inhabitants of the Dja & Mpomo forest, who mostly
make their living off the forest as hunter-gatherers or small-
scale farmers, or through handicrafts.
Initatve
By design, Model Forests are voluntary, broad-based
initiatives, linking forestry, research, agriculture, mining,
recreation and other interests within a given landscape. While
each Model Forest sets its own priorities, common themes
found across the International Model Forest Network include
valuing biodiversity, forest conservation and restoration,
sustainable economic development, education and good
governance. In both the Campo-Maan and Dja & Mpomo
Model Forests, a stewardship platform has been created
that includes the local authorities, civil society organisations,
private forestry, agriculture and/or mining interests and
local communities, who work together to develop and
adopt policies, systems and processes that will ensure
greater participation of all stakeholders in the conservation,
management and sustainable use of forest resources. By
bringing these disparate stakeholders together, it is hoped
that an enabling environment will be created for collaborative
and participatory decision-making that meets the needs
and respects the interests of all groups and that particularly
serves to increase the participation of the local population
in decision-making processes. VSO works to ensure that this
goal is met by supporting the voice and needs of civil society
organisations and local communities within this network,
particularly minority groups such as indigenous hunter-
gatherers, and to support local rural women to develop
stronger income-generative activities. VSO Cameroon has
used a variety of initiatives including photovoice, community
consultation, the formation of rural womens groups, learning
exchanges and workshops to achieve these goals.
Outcomes
Campo-Maan
The Model Forest in Campo-Maan has successfully held
several rounds of community consultations to deliberate on
different proposals including one to change land-use rights
in the forest and another to deal with the environmental
impact of industry within the forest. In the autumn of
2011, VSO organised a series of community consultations
pushing for community members to gain access to former
logging concessions for agriculture. In November 2011, this
right was finally granted. In January 2012, VSO facilitated
a photovoice project with youth and indigenous groups
where certain issues were identified such as lack of basic
15
infrastructure (roads and potable water) and lack of proper
waste management from local agro-industries. Photovoice is
a participatory tool used to gather and analyse information
by combining photography with community mobilisation
and action, in this case analysing and developing narratives
around the critical issues impacting the lives of the
communities living in the Campo-Maan forest and then
working to bring these issues to the attention of the Model
Forest platform as well as local government. The following
March, a community consultation was held to consider plans
to install a solid waste treatment plant as an addition to a
palm-oil plantation that is currently operating within the
limits of the model forest. At the council level, the community
of Bongahl has received support for a tree-planting activity
to protect the beach from coastal erosion. Now that it has
been completed, the community is working to develop a
second proposal to expand the initiative to other coastal
villages. In addition, after consultations with local women,
the council agreed to undertake a corn production project,
to improve the yield of local women farmers, distributing
improved seeds and providing guidance on planting.
Dja & Mpomo
The Model Forest in Dja & Mpomo has been working to
systematically strengthen local livelihoods for women and
the indigenous peoples living in the Dja & Mpomo forest.
In February 2012, VSO facilitated a photovoice project
with women and the Baka (a group of indigenous hunter-
gatherers) where key issues affecting the lives of local
people were identified such as lack of basic infrastructure
(roads and potable water) and lack of education and health
facilities. The outcomes of this exercise were then used as
the foundation for community consultations and discussions
with local government. Opportunities for local economic
development were also identified, such as transformation
of non-timber products and providing support to active
womens associations. The photovoice project also kick-
started a community mobilisation process for local women.
Two months after the photovoice exercise, the Dja & Mpomo
rural womens group came together for the first time, with
the objective of organising local womens groups around
non-timber products. The group hopes to train and inform
women with regard to agricultural techniques and project
management, to form a producers organisation to better sell
their products and to transform their non-timber products
in order to add value. In August 2012, they participated,
along with the rural womens group from Campo-Maan,
in a learning exchange visit with the goal of learning about
agricultural techniques and commercialisation of products.
As a result, the Dja & Mpomo rural womens group is now
more informed on sustainable agriculture (soil improvement
techniques) and use of marketing tools for their non-timber
products. Alongside this work with the rural women, VSO
is also supporting the needs of local indigenous groups
(the Baka) in the Djo & Mpomo area, with the goal of
increasing the coordination between these organizations and
harmonizing their approaches.
16
Rwanda - National Disability Forum
Context
People living with a disability currently face formidable
challenges in Rwanda. When it comes to social protections,
social support and cultural inclusion they are often left out
and/or discriminated against. In Rwandan society, people
with disabilities are both actively and passively excluded; they
are often seen as objects of charity rather than as people
with potential and abilities, and they face discrimination at
home, socially, at work and in accessing government services.
This situation is compounded by the fact that people with
disabilities in Rwanda and other developing countries are
generally over-represented among the poorest people. A
census carried out in 2010 by the Ministry of Health and the
Ministry of Local Government and Social Affairs estimated
that persons with a disability comprise approximately 5%
of the population, with a roughly even split between men
and women. However, given Rwandas history of conflict
and development, this may well be a gross underestimate.
Civil society organisations of people with disabilities have
existed in Rwanda for many years, the oldest being more
than 30 years old. However organisations have lacked unity,
coherence and individual and collective capacity.
In 2010, after intense lobbying by civil society in conjunction
with Rwandas status as an Ambassadorial Country for the
African Decade for People with Disabilities, the government
of Rwanda agreed to amend the constitution of Rwanda and
create a National Council for People with Disabilities (in line
with the National Councils for Youth and for Women which
already existed). Constitutionally mandated, the National
Council is a government agency with a representative
structure at all levels of government administration,
responsible for mainstreaming disability across government
services and development programmes. In response, civil
society with the support of VSO has organised itself into an
umbrella organisation, the Disability Forum, to serve as a
coordinating and representative body for the movement
and to build the capacity of member organisations. The
Disability Forum has committees at the village, sector,
district and national levels, so it is able to coordinate civil
society initiatives around disability at multiple scales. This
has resulted in a much more effective network and clearer
structure in the disability movement in Rwanda. Government
and civil society are both represented and are able to position
themselves in relation to each other. Currently, Rwanda is
drafting a new Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Strategy (EDPRS); the process forces government ministries
and councils to say what they are going to do to better
support people with a disability. People with a disability
have been largely overlooked in the development agenda
so far in Rwanda, but the EDPRS processes provide a unique
opportunity to rethink and rewrite that agenda.
Initatve
VSO supported the formation of the Disability Forum to
better coordinate the movement and have greater impact
through a united voice. Members include many national
civil society organisations, the National Council for People
with Disabilities and international disability organisations
working in Rwanda. The forums current activities include
addressing the categorisation of people with a disability,
17
influencing the EDPRS and influencing the national census to
ensure people with a disability are accurately counted. The
forum is structured in this way: there are seven people with
a disability on each village committee, who are elected for
five years to represent the local residents with a disability at
village level. Each village committee elects a representative
to serve at the sector level, on one of the 416 sector-level
committees. At the next level, each sector committee has a
representative at the district level (there are 30 districts). A
person needs secondary school education to be elected at the
sector level and a university degree to be elected at district
level.
In addition to supporting the forum at national level, VSO has
been supporting councils at the local level in three districts,
having international volunteers work as District Disability
Advisors alongside the district committee members. These
volunteers are working most closely with the heads of the
district committees, but they also spend time supporting the
other committee members. More recently, the volunteers
have begun working at the sector level, training the sector
committee members within each district.
Outcomes
Thanks to the formation of the Disability Forum itself, about
10,000 people with a range of disabilities are now better
represented and served by stronger, more visible and more
sustainable organisations, leading to greater quality of life
and representation in decision-making processes. The forum
has had success in advocating for Rwandas new Economic
Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy to engage
more clearly and strongly with the needs of persons with a
disability. It has also improved the speed and efficiency with
which government ministries respond to issues concerning
persons with a disability. While accommodating rules and
regulations have technically been in place for some time,
implementation has been slow and variable; the forum has
been able to successfully apply pressure to government
ministries that are lagging behind, pushing for government to
act on projects regarding persons with a disability.

In the three districts where VSO volunteers are working, it
is estimated that VSO volunteers have trained or supported
about 80 committee members to date. The Forum has
successfully advocated for the government to require each
district to have a paid District Disability Officer on staff, which
all districts now have. In future, the Disability Forum wants
to set up a monitoring framework for the UN Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to make the oversight
mechanisms for the implementation of this Convention in
Rwanda more impartial and robust. It also plans to revise
the National Programme for Mainstreaming Disability, a
programme that Rwanda published in 2009 as part of its push
to get Ambassador Country status for the African Decade
for People with Disabilities, but which is now out of date.
The Disability Forum wants to update it to reflect the new
strength of civil society organisations working on disability
issues in Rwanda.
18
Kenya - Strengthening Citizens
Participation in Governance of
Education (SCGPE)
Context
In 2011, VSO Jitolee conducted a rapid survey to determine
the number and type of disabilities in 13 districts/counties.
They found that about 28% of children with disabilities are
not in school and 37% of the children attending appropriate
schools have not been assessed to make sure they are
receiving the right support. There seems to be limited
awareness of the challenges of learners with special needs
by service providers, policymakers and the community at
large. Generally speaking, civil society organisations in Kenya
struggle to hold government to account. The constitution
is supportive of civic engagement, but the legislative
environment grants substantial powers to the executive over
NGOs, hindering civil society independence from government.
There is also a general distrust of NGOs within government,
and levels of corruption are high in the public sphere.
Despite this, there is currently an opportunity for civil
society groups in Kenya to address the deficits in education
for children with disabilities, as the Kenyan government is
currently drafting a new education system and curriculum,
with changes to begin to be implemented in the autumn of
2013. Unfortunately, to date, this proposal does not include
provision to specifically address the needs of children with
disabilities in schools. VSO Jitolee feels that special needs
education needs to be mainstreamed in the new education
policy and framework for implementation in Kenya, so that
more children with a disability will be able to attend school
and be adequately supported. In 2012, VSO Jitolee began
the Strengthening Citizens Participation in Governance of
Education (SCGPE) initiative, intended to increase the level of
access and quality of education for children with disabilities
and increase the capacity of civil society organisations to
hold the Ministry of Education to account over education for
children with a disability.
Initatve
The SCGPE initiative has two central aims. The first is to
strengthen the organisational capacity of community-
level institutions to undertake advocacy and demand
accountability and responsiveness on special needs education
at school and county level. The second aim is to strengthen
the capacity of Disabled Persons Organisations to engage
in mainstreaming special needs education into the Ministry
of Educations New Education Policy and Implementation
Framework. These aims will be addressed simultaneously at
national and local levels in several districts in Kenya.
In order to achieve these goals, VSO Jitolee will first assess
the needs of various community institutions including 13
Community Based Rehabilitation Groups, seven Disabled
Persons Organisations and numerous Parent Teacher
Associations. VSO will then provide tailored organisational
capacity training to support these institutions. VSO will work
to strengthen the abilities and capabilities of such institutions
to engage effectively with the Ministry of Education and to
support civil society voices in seeking accountability from the
ministry at both the local and national levels. It will support
these organisations over time to aggregate this local level
advocacy to the national level for appropriate action, using
media and legal mechanisms. At the national level, VSO will
work to create stronger linkages and networks between
community and national level institutions around advocacy
for special needs education and specifically lobby the Ministry
of Education to increase resources to special needs education
and accountability via various consultative forums, policy
papers and reports.
19
VSO will also work with individual schools to support the
School Management Committees to build better feedback
mechanisms to engage with the local community. Clubs will
be established in schools to sensitise parents and children, as
well as support children in becoming child-to-child educators
and in publishing a periodic newsletter or magazine for
further advocacy. In addition, the programme will help in
the setting-up and strengthening of community social audit
groups in each target district/county who will work as local
volunteers. These community social audits will monitor the
quality of local special needs education service providers
and provide feedback towards an annual scorecard for each
target district/county, culminating in a national Ministry of
Education scorecard on its performance on special needs
education.
Current status
The SCGPE project is ongoing, with some key milestones
already passed. VSO has successfully identified the training
needs for the stakeholders and delivered trainings in
governance, advocacy, mainstreaming special needs
education and social audits. The communities have been
mobilised and are being informed on their rights to education
through public forums and door-to-door engagements with
the parents of children with disabilities. Discussions with key
service providers (the school management committees, head
teachers and district education officers) have also begun and
VSO aims to gain buy-in and support for the SCGPE initiative.
This will lay the groundwork for later projects which will
seek to increase these organisations accountability to and
engagement with their local community. At the national
level, some of VSOs partner organisations are engaging
in the revision of the national education law. A policy
brief containing recommendations in favour of learners
with disability has been developed and VSO is looking for
opportunities to further engage with policymakers on this
issue.
20
Uganda - e-Governance in Kasese
Context
Currently, in Uganda there are significant barriers hindering
the effective exchange of information between civil society
organisations and local government. Generally speaking, civil
society organisations have difficulty effectively collaborating
with government, or building synergies between government
and civil society initiatives, particularly around health,
education and sanitation. Local government also has difficulty
involving community members (particularly the poor) in
policymaking or giving feedback about the performance of
social services, citing problems with a lack of funding, staff,
and community apathy towards participating in governance.
There is also a lack of transparency on the performance of
public services, as there is very little sense of accountability
between government officials and the public, and few
channels for communication or interaction.
As a result, local government, residents and civil society
organisations are unable to effectively combat corruption
in the delivery of services or ensure that public services are
delivered effectively. In the District of Kasese, VSO along with
its partner organisation the Rwenzori Information Centre
Network (RICNET) sensed an opportunity to address some
of these issues by creating an e-governance system whereby
civil society organisations could collaborate and share
information more effectively about public service delivery
and performance, both between themselves and with local
government.
Initatve
In response to the lack of transparency, accountability and
communication between local government and civil society
in Uganda, a VSO volunteer working with RICNET has helped
to set up the first e-governance resource centre in Uganda.
The e-governance initiative began in 2009 and aimed to help
civil society organisations and local residents to exert more
influence over local government by actively participating in
planning, development consultations and feedback processes,
particularly around health, water and education. The project
first conducted a general needs assessment, determining the
level of technology literacy of participating local civil society
organisations and local government. From there, a series
of training sessions were held to ensure that participating
organisations had a basic level of understanding of and
familiarity with information technology and computers,
particularly around information sharing and the generation
of useful web content. To capitalise on these new skills, a
civil society e-portal was built in 2010 to provide a reliable
information source for the civil society organisations
working in the Kasese district, particularly in the health,
water and education sector. The civil society e-portal
also serves as a communication and information-sharing
platform, allowing coordination and collaboration between
civil society organisations themselves, as well as facilitating
communication between civil society and local government.
An e-library portal was also launched, to act as a resource
for local government to share policy announcements and
information on recruitment, procurement, administrative
directives and other memos. In early 2010, a resource centre
was set-up, with computers and an information desk, where
members of the public could access the e-portal, e-library
and the internet, and make use of cameras and other digital
equipment to create dynamic web content. It was hoped
that, in addition to formal civil society organisations, young
activists and other active community members would make
use of the e-governance resource centre.
21
Outcomes
The Kasese e-governance resource centre, civil society
e-portal and local government e-library have been highly
successful at strengthening civil society organisations in
Kasese and helping effect changes in local governance. The
initiative is currently being introduced in six other districts,
with plans to scale up to 25 districts in Uganda. In Kasese,
the initial e-portal has been improved and branched into
two new web portals and resources. A new website to help
monitor and improve primary education in Kasese has also
been introduced. The Kasese e-governance resource centre
has attracted new partners such as the Belgian Technical
Corporation and is being strongly utilised by the public in
the first six months of this year the resource centre attracted
more than 2,000 users and provided information technology
and computer training to 70 students.
The e-portal, e-library and information technology training
has had a significant impact on the use of information
technology by local government staffs and civil society
organisations, to the point that almost every head of
department now uses the internet for most of their
communications. Civil society organisations have stronger
capacities internally (management, coordination, skills,
knowledge) and externally (mobilise and facilitate citizens)
to sustain social accountability monitoring in the Rwenzori
region, and local government has become more open
to citizen participation and feedback on services. About
20 local government officials and 60 members of civil
society organisations have benefited from comprehensive
information technology and computer training, and
700 social accountability monitors from civil society
organisations are engaged in social accountability tracking.
There have already been some positive outcomes from the
work of these monitors, including effective performance
monitoring of water and road construction in the town of
Bwera and increased community engagement in Bugoye
Sub County over a proposed hydropower project that would
negatively impact local livelihoods negotiation between
the community and local government resulted in a solution
where the hydropower project would be reconfigured so that
it also boosts the capacity and coverage of the local gravity
flow water system, so the community could also get better
access to water.
22
Case studies - Asia
23
India - Citizen report cards in Jharkhand
and Odisha (Orissa)
Context
The national government in India has been making significant
efforts in the past few years to dynamically increase the
rate of social and economic development in the country,
particularly in rural areas. In 2005 a landmark piece of
national legislation was passed to improve rural livelihoods
by guaranteeing each resident of rural India 100 days of work
each year. In 2009, a second landmark scheme was passed,
to systematically improve the quality of primary education. In
Odisha and Jharkhand the implementation of these initiatives
is lagging, with widespread complaints about quality, access
and inclusion.
The first piece of legislation, the Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), was passed
in 2005 after a sustained and hard-fought campaign by
social activists. MGNREGA was intended to transform the
economies of rural areas by providing a baseline amount of
paid employment each year, each adult being eligible for
100 days of work per year, while simultaneously improving
rural infrastructure and resources. Although it began with
great promise and optimism, the results of MGNREGA in
Odisha and Jharkhand have been disappointing. There have
been numerous criticisms of the programme, mainly alleging
corruption and ineffectiveness. Additionally, complaints
have been made that not enough attention has been paid to
the issue of inclusion, with regard to the ability of women,
scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities to access
work and subsequently be paid, under this scheme.
Inclusion, access and quality have also been concerns under
the second piece of legislation, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, which
was meant to achieve universal coverage and access to
primary education. Although several schemes and subsidies
accompanied Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, including mid-day meals,
school grants, free textbooks and, for teachers, training and
teaching materials, there is still a significant percentage of
school-age children in Odisha and Jharkhand not in primary
school. A survey on access, quality and inclusion seemed both
warranted and necessary in order to identify and address
whatever remaining barriers prevent children in these two
states from attending school. In response to these issues
with primary education and the MGNREGA in Odisha and
Jharkhand, VSO India decided to undertake a citizen report
card in these two states to gather information about the
quality, level of access and inclusiveness of these services
which could be used as advocacy tools to improve these
programmes.
Initatve
In 2011, VSO India and its partner organisations NEEDS,
Manthan Yuva Sansthan and ADHAR undertook a pilot
citizen report card to assess the quality and inclusiveness of
primary education and of the MGNREGA, in three districts
of Odisha and Jharkhand (Ranchi, Lohardaga and Bolangir).
The citizen report card surveyed a representative segment
of the community in each district, with a particular focus on
women, persons with disabilities and members of scheduled
castes or tribes, about their experiences accessing and using
these services. In total, 921 households were surveyed, and
emphasis was placed on including households that contain
a person with a disability. In primary schools, the survey
showed high levels of dissatisfaction from adults concerning
uniform stipends, study stipends and health check-ups.
Regarding the MGNREGA, dissatisfaction with the initiative
was very low in one district but very high in the other two,
where it was reported that work was regularly blocked, wages
left unpaid and a hostile environment existed for disabled
persons.
Outcomes
The citizen report card initiative in Odisha and Jharkhand
was a pilot project and, as such, has been highly successful.
VSO and its implementing partners have received positive
feedback from local government as well as civil society groups
and community participations and are looking to scale up
this initiative in the near future. The citizen report cards
were more than an information-gathering exercise they
also mobilised the local community in these districts around
the issue of greater inclusion in primary education and the
MGNREGA, increasing the amount of attention on these
concerns. The citizen report cards have also led to concrete
changes in the way primary education and the MGNREGA
are administered in these districts. The findings from these
citizen report cards were publicly released in Jharkhand
in 2011. As a result of the publication of these findings,
combined with increased community mobilisation and
pressure, in Ranchi district MGNREGA was restructured so
that the local community now has the ability to monitor and
help implement the scheme. This will make the scheme more
transparent and accountable. In Lohardaga district, where
primary education was assessed, the quality of uniforms,
teaching materials and mid-day meals has improved.
Village level education committees also merged into local
level committees for better local monitoring and results.
Encouraged by these promising results, VSO India is currently
working on scaling up citizen report cards to cover more
districts in Odisha and Jharkhand.
24
India: Samadhan
Context
Corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency are ongoing
challenges in the Indian states of Odisha and Madhya
Pradesh. The national Right to Information Act was passed in
2005, which allows Indian citizens to request any information
(except classified documents) from government bodies. It has
been taken up by activists, but usage of Right to Information
requests is not as widespread as some had hoped as they
can pose a significant risk to those who pursue them. Right
to Information activists in Odisha and Madhya Pradesh have
been subjected to threats and violence (some, including
Shehla Masood in 2011, have even been killed) for attempting
to shine a light on corruption and expose irregularities in
government schemes. For the majority of the population of
Odisha, day-to-day life continues to be blighted by problems
interacting with government, whether having to pay a bribe
or not being able to access entitlements or basic social
services, particularly for those who are considered part of
scheduled tribes, scheduled castes or other backwards
castes. One thing that is having an impact on daily life in
Odisha and Madhya Pradesh is mobile phones. The level of
mobile phone penetration in these two states is high and
increasing; mobile phones are cheap and easily available,
a tool that is accessible to the poor as well as the rich.
Sensing an opportunity, VSO India, in partnership with the
United Nations Millennium Campaign (UNMC), VSO India,
South Odisha Voluntary Action (SOVA), Samarthan and the
Governments of Odisha and Madhya Pradesh launched a
platform in 2010 called Samadhan, which allows residents to
use their mobile phones to file Right to Information requests
in a transparent and secure way.
Initatve
The aim of the Samadhan platform is to create a citizens
service-monitoring hub that helps residents to hold the
government to account, using mobile phone technology.
Residents can make a complaint to Samadhan about
problems with government services, such as ration cards
or their local health clinic, using their mobile phone, a
computer or by visiting a local District Collectors office.
Samadhan will then register these demands or complaints
with the appropriate government office which must process
the complaint and respond to the issue. The platform has
been built in such a way that complaints to the system are
automatically forwarded on to the appropriate government
body or ministry. Users of the system can then track the
status of their demand or complaint through Samadhan
using an individual ID number and are further able to verify
the issue has been resolved after the government has
taken action. The Samadhan system is transparent, so if
a government office has not taken action on a particular
complaint it can be publicised and public pressure can
be applied using civil society groups and the media. The
Samadhan pilot is currently underway in Koraput district,
Odisha and Sehore district, Madhya Pradesh.
By using the latest technology to provide the service, the
projects aim is to strengthen governance systems at the
grassroots level and provide an opportunity for poor and
marginalised communities, including women and persons
with disabilities, to get answers from the government and
better access to government services. A VSO volunteer
assisted with the initial stages of building the software
platform, to create an accessible, user-friendly website and
complaint submission system, and current VSO volunteers are
supporting the project implementation in Odisha.
Outcomes
Samadhan was launched at the beginning of 2012. In the first
eight months of the pilot, 1,375 complaints were lodged in
Sehore and 408 in Koraput. Of these 1,783 complaints, almost
all have been processed by the appropriate government
office and 82 have been completely resolved. Broken down
by theme, the majority of issues in Koraput concerned
government services and livelihoods, particularly MGNREGA,
and in Sehore the majority concerned the police, electricity
board or the Sehore sub-district government (tehsil).
Because of its efforts to ensure complete transparency, the
data about the numbers and types of complaints and the
actions taken by the government are open to the public. This
means that the district magistrate, the press or local NGOs
can put pressure on government departments that arent
25
addressing the issues raised. One particular complaint that
was successfully resolved concerned a previously ignored
application to build a school in a village in Koraput district
that had over 60 children of primary school age but no school
for them to attend. Thanks to Samadhan, the building work
is now underway. In the coming months more government
officials will be trained up on how to use the system, at the
request of government authorities, and volunteers from
other organisations will also be trained to use it. Additionally,
over 100 lead national volunteers have been recruited and
trained on the various features of the Samadhan platform, so
that they can in turn provide training to over 900 community
volunteers who can mobilise participation in governance at
community level and carry out further advocacy work. This
cascade method, of training up a core of volunteers who
can in turn train up many more people and so on, is designed
to ensure better value for money, a wider impact (important
in such a large country) and a more sustainable path of
change. The work has every chance of reaching all sorts of
communities and it is hoped that this platform will become
increasingly known around the country.
26
Bangladesh: SCORE project
Context
In the mid-2000s, local governance and local government
reform were very high on the domestic policy agenda in
Bangladesh, tied to ongoing debates over poverty-reduction
strategies. The 2005 National Strategy for Accelerated
Poverty Reduction listed local governance as one of its
eight strategic agenda points. In addition, in 2005 the World
Bank, in consultation with the national government and
civil society, prepared a new Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper for Bangladesh, which identified local governance
as a significant issue in terms of poverty reduction in
Bangladesh. As a result, the World Bank subsequently
pledged $US111.5 million to support Bangladesh to develop
an accountable local governance system that enables
municipal government to better respond to the needs of
the poor and operate in a more participatory and inclusive
way. As a principle, VSO Bangladesh holds that the main
underlying structural cause of poor governance is the lack of
participation of poor and marginalised people in decision-
making. Recognising the importance of decentralised and
participatory local governance, VSO Bangladesh undertook
a five-year initiative, Strengthening Communities Rights and
Empowerment (SCORE), which was aimed at increasing local
participation in governance at the municipal level, through
working simultaneously to sensitise and build the capacity
of local elected representatives, NGOs, community-based
organisations (CBOs) and residents.
Initatve
The SCORE project was initiated in March 2006 and
completed in March 2011. The purpose of the project was
to increase community participation in decision-making in
three districts of southwest Bangladesh: Sathkhira, Bagerhat
and Patuakali. All three districts had been identified as being
particularly resource-poor and vulnerable to natural disasters.
SCORE aimed to increase the ability of the local communities
to identify, communicate and demand their rights through
local government processes and increase the capacity of 24
rural municipal councils (Union Parishads) to manage basic
service delivery in a more participatory, gender-sensitive
and accountable way. The major working approach was to
develop partnerships with these rural municipal councils as
well as 15 local NGOs and CBOs. The goal was to strengthen
mechanisms for participatory engagement between
communities and municipal councils, to use grassroots
experience to advocate pro-poor policies and to share
best practices. Participatory, sustainable, complementary
capacity-building methods were used, with a commitment
to partnership, gender equality, learning and collaboration.
Under the SCORE project, Citizen Committees were also
developed at the municipal and village level, to provide a
valid platform for poor communities to voice their concerns
and influence local development planning.
Outcomes
As a result of the SCORE project, engagement between
current municipal council members and communities has
increased and community-level discussions have led to
increased community pressure for municipal council activities
to become more transparent, participatory and accountable.
In each municipality, Citizen Committees which work with
the municipal council have been created and their capacity
to assert their rights has been developed. Each Citizen
Committee has 18 members who are nominated onto the
27
committee by the community, and emphasis is placed
on making sure that the committee members represent
marginalised segments of the population, including women.
Over time, these committees have emerged as powerful
agents to realise rights and services for the poor from local
politicians and in local shalish processes (traditional rural
judicial processes). Citizen Committee members also came to
be included in some municipal council standing committees,
enabling them to directly participate in local decision-making
processes and to re-energise standing committees on topics
like education or health that had previously been inactive.
In all three districts, community participation in government
decision-making has increased through the stronger
representation of the poor within these newly created
municipal Citizen Committees processes. Municipal
government transparency has increased as council meetings
are being recorded and the outcomes of council meetings are
posted on public noticeboards. There are now open budget
meetings, pre-budget discussions and end-of-year accounting
meetings, which allow the community to be directly involved
and allow the poor to have a say in budget spending
requirements for community distribution in all three districts.
At the village level, local womens village/yard meetings were
instituted and integrated into the information, representation
and dialogue mechanisms of municipal councils and
Citizen Committees as a way to institutionalise community
engagement.
The SCORE project, working with partner NGOs and CBOs,
also trained and sensitised 321 current municipal council
members in decentralised, gender-sensitive and participatory
governance processes. This training, combined with the
strengthened Citizen Committees, resulted in increasingly
pro-poor service delivery. This has had a knock-on effect:
after witnessing and participating in this success, the partner
organisations that conducted the training were not only
better equipped to conduct such training, but are also now
more focused on adopting a rights-based approach in their
own work.

In all, through a cascading approach, SCORE trained and
built the capacity of 800 staff in local NGOs or CBOs to
influence policymaking, implement rights-based development
projects and advocate for participatory, gender-sensitive
local planning. Finally, the rural poor of the project areas
were surveyed in the final evaluation of the project and
were found to be more aware of the available resources and
more capable of claiming their entitlements, for example,
obtaining Vulnerable Group Feeding and Vulnerable Group
Development (government relief programmes) cards from the
municipality.
28
Conclusion: Social accountability
and VSO
Social accountability, people/civil society holding government
to account, is a cornerstone of inclusive development and
good governance. It seeks to improve the relationship
between society and government, the channels of
communication and processes by which government is
obliged provide an account of its actions back to civil society.
The cross-cutting usage of social accountability initiatives
deserves special emphasis. By improving governance and
community oversight of public services, not only is the
performance and efficacy of government improved (improved
delivery of public services, better service targeting, better
public policy formulation), but the outcomes in terms of
human development are also significantly improved. There
are also gains in terms of equality and inclusion. In this sense,
social accountability processes are a strong, cross-cutting
addition to many types of development interventions. They
significantly increase the effectiveness of these interventions,
the level of community ownership and the likelihood that the
outcomes of the project are going to be sustainable after the
intervention has been completed.
Social accountability is a core element of VSOs theory of
change and strategy. It brings to life the idea of holding
government to account, providing practical strategies to
strengthen civil society, to give people a voice, choices and
power over decisions that influence their lives, to improve the
quality of and access to services like health and education,
and to influence the government to implement pro-poor
policies and projects at a local or national level.
However, civil society participation, voice and accountability
are complicated issues. They can be political, divisive
and sensitive, as they require the renegotiation of power
relations within a society towards civil society and the
poor claiming greater voice and power. It stands to reason,
then, that concerns about power dynamics, inclusiveness,
institutionalisation, community, incentives and context
are not insignificant. Social accountability processes are
not one-size fits all. Rather, they must be tailored to the
specific needs and context of the intervention in order to be
successful. All too easily, social accountability can become a
mask that government can conveniently put on to look like
it is including civil society in governance, but which in reality
allows it to continue business as usual.
Over the past decade, VSO has accumulated a rich body
of experience working to promote social accountability in
many countries in Africa and Asia. As seen in this report,
VSO has used social accountability initiatives on their own to
strengthen governance, eg in India, Zambia and Bangladesh,
and piloted them as part of cross-cutting initiatives, to
improve service delivery in education, gender, disability
and the environment. VSO has seen much success in these
initiatives: building local community governance institutions
in several districts of Zambia; setting up an e-governance
centre in Uganda that is being scaled up to almost a quarter
of the districts in the country; strengthening the voice of,
and improving services and livelihoods for, thousands of
indigenous peoples in the first two pilot Model Forests in
Cameroon; founding a Disability Forum in Rwanda that
represents more than 10,000 people with disabilities;
changing the way primary education and rural livelihood
schemes are administered in three districts of India
(representing 4,708,000 people) making them more inclusive,
effective and transparent; and improving local government
in three districts of Bangladesh (representing 4,953,000
people), making local government more gender-sensitive and
strengthening the voice of women in government in these
districts.
These cases demonstrate the various ways in which VSO
has used social accountability processes to increase the
effectiveness and sustainability of its work around good
governance, disability, education and gender. They provide
instructive examples of ways in which social accountability
initiatives can be implemented successfully in a diverse set of
countries and responding to a diverse set of concerns, when
attention is paid to understanding local needs and context,
and tailoring the intervention accordingly.
29
30
Sources
Ackerman, John (2005) Social Accountability in the Public
Sector: A Conceptual Discussion. Social Development Paper
82. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ahmad, R. (2008) Governance, social accountability and the
civil society. Journal of Administration and Governance, Vol
3. No. 1.
Ayer, Victoria, Mario Claasen and Carmen Alpn-Lardes,
eds. (2010) Social Accountability in Africa Practitioners
Experiences and Lessons. Cape Town: Affiliated Network for
Social Accountability in Africa. Accessed at http://www.saiia.
org.za/books/social-accountability-in-africa-practitioners-
experiences-and-lessons.html.
Clarke, Matthew and Bruce Missingham (2009) Guest editors
introduction: active citizenship and social accountability.
Development in Practice, Vol 19, No. 8: 95563.
Kaufmann, Daniel, Art Kraay and Pablo Zoido-Lobaton (1999)
Governance Matters. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 2196. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Khoday, Kishan (2011) An Agenda for Change: Social
Accountability and Development The Diplomat, NovDec
2011 edition. Accessed at: http://www.undp.org.sa/sa/index.
php?option=com_content&view= article&id=268& Itemid=
416&lang=en.
Lister, Sarah (2010) Fostering Social Accountability: From
Principle to Practice. New York: United Nations Development
Programme.
Mitlin, Diana and David Sattherthwaite (2007) Strategies
for grassroots control of international aid. Environment &
Urbanization, Vol 19, No. 2: 483500.
Rajkumar, Andrew Sunil and Vinaya Swaroop (2008) Public
spending and outcomes: does governance matter? Journal of
Development Economics, Vol 86: 96111.
Rowlands, Jo (2012)Local Governance and Community
Action: How Poor and Marginalized People Can Achieve
Change. Oxford: Oxfam Great Britain.
Tribe, Michael and Aurlien Lafon (2009) After 2015:
Promoting Pro-Poor Policy after the MDGS The Plenary
Presentations and Discussion. Part of After 2015: Promoting
Pro-Poor Policy after the MDGS. Report on the EADIDSA
IDSActionAidDIFID High Level Policy Forum, held at the
Institute for Development Studies, June 2009. Accessed at:
http://www.eadi.org/fileadmin/MDG_2015_Publications /
After_2015_Policy_Forum_Report.pdf.
Velleman, Yael (2010) Social Accountability: Tools and
Mechanisms for Improved Urban Water Services. London:
Water Aid.
Walker, David (2009) Citizen-driven reform of local-level
basic services: community-based performance monitoring.
Development in Practice, Vol 19, No. 8: 103551.
World Bank (2004) World Development Report: Making
Services Work for Poor People. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2012) What is Governance? The World Bank
website, accessed at: http://go.worldbank.org/G2CHLXX0Q0.
Yamin, Elicia Ely (2012) Post MDGs: What Next for a Global
Development Agenda that Takes Human Rights Seriously?
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Accessed at: http://www.
unicef-irc.org/article/899/
31
References
1
http://www.vsointernational.org/vso-today/how-we-do-it/
our-strategy.asp
2
Rajkumar, Andrew Sunil and Vinaya Swaroop. 2008. Public
spending and outcomes: does governance matter? Journal
of Development Economics, Vol. 86: 96111
3
Ibid
4
Walker, David. 2009.Citizen-driven reform of local-level
Development in Practice, Vol. 19, No. 8: 103551
5
World Bank. 2012. What is Governance? The World Bank
website, accessed at http://go.worldbank.org/G2CHLXX0Q0
6
Kaufmann, Daniel, Art Kraay and Pablo Zoido-Lobaton. 1999.
Governance Matters. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 2196. Washington, DC: The World Bank
7
Ibid
8
Ackerman, John. 2005. Social Accountability in the Public
82. Washington, DC: World Bank.
9
Development in Practice, Vol 19, No. 8: 103551
10
Khoday, Kishan. 2011. An Agenda for Change: Social
Accountability and Development The Diplomat, NovDec
2011 edition. Accessed at: http://www.undp.org.sa/sa/index.
php?option=com_content&view= article&id=268& Itemid=
416&lang=en.
11
basic services: community-based performance monitoring,
Development in Practice, Vol 19, No. 8: 103551
12
Lister, Sarah. 2010. Fostering Social Accountability: From
Programme
13
Velleman, Yael. 2010. Social Accountability: Tools and
Mechanisms for Improved Urban Water Services. London:
Water Aid
14
Ayer, Victoria, Mario Claasen and Carmen Alpn-Lardes,
eds. 2010. Social Accountability in Africa Practitioners
Experiences and Lessons. Cape Town: Affiliated Network for
Social Accountability in Africa. Accessed at http://www.saiia.
org.za/books/social-accountability-in-africa-practitioners-
experiences-and-lessons.html
15
82. Washington, DC: World Bank
16
Ibid
17
Ibid
18
Lister, Sarah. 2010. Fostering Social Accountability: From
Programme, p8
19
82. Washington, DC: World Bank
20
Clarke, Matthew and Bruce Missingham. 2009. Guest
editors introduction: active citizenship and social
accountability. Development in Practice, Vol 19, No. 8: 955
63
21
Rowlands, Jo. 2012. Local Governance and Community
Action: How Poor and Marginalized People Can Achieve
Change. Oxford: Oxfam Great Britain
22
Centre for Economic and Social Rights. 2012. Millennium
Development Goals Accessed at: http://cesr.org/article.
php?list=type&type=157;
Tribe, Michael and Aurlien Lafon. 2009. After 2015:
Promoting Pro-Poor Policy after the MDGS The Plenary
Presentations and Discussion Article for After 2015:
Promoting Pro-Poor Policy after the MDGS. Report on the
EADI - DSA IDS -ActionAid - DIFID High Level Policy Forum,
June 2009, held at the Institute for Development Studies.
Accessed at: http://www.eadi.org/fileadmin/MDG_2015_
Publications /After_2015_Policy_Forum_Report.pdf.
23
Yamin, Alicia Ely. 2012. Post MDGs: what next for a global
development agenda that takes human rights seriously?
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Accessed at: http://www.
unicef-irc.org/article/899/.
VSO Internatonal
100 London Road
Kingston upon Thames
KT2 6QJ
UK
+44 (0)20 8780 7500
www.vsointernatonal.org

VSO Bahaginan
www.vsobahaginan.org.ph

VSO Ireland
www.vso.ie
VSO Jitolee
www.vsojitolee.org

VSO Netherlands
www.vso.nl
VSO UK
www.vso.org.uk
Published February 2014 VSO is a registered charity in England and in Wales (313757) and in Scotland (SC039117)
9 781903 697597
ISBN 978-1-903697-59-7

VSO Social Accountability Report 2014

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VSO Social Accountability Report 2014

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Holding government to account:

Social Accountability and VSO

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi