Date post: | 19-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Government & Nonprofit |
Upload: | bpm729 |
View: | 153 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Making Village Governments Accountable through ICT Use
Badri Manandhar
29 February 2016
A Citizen Engagement Project
Local Bodies
1. Brief Background(Background and accountability gaps)
2. The Proposed Intervention (Objectives, Key Players, Process, Challenges, Opportunities, Indicators and Outcomes)
3. References
3
Presentation Contents
1. Brief Background
Local Self Governance Acts (LSGA) (1999) and Rules (2000): Framework for decentralization in Nepal
A three-tier system of local governance, with ward committees as the lower tier, village and municipal bodies as the middle tier and district bodies as the higher tier
Local bodies being delegated with powers, resources and responsibilities to deliver the basic services
Village governments, the middle tier of local governance in Nepal, being run by civil servants known as village secretaries since 2002
Village governments getting performance based central fiscal transfer (USD 10K-45K/year) as block grants in addition to their minor local revenue generation
1.1 Brief Overview of Local Governance
Settlement Settlement Settlement
Ward Committee
Ward Committee
Ward Committee
Village Development Committee
Village Development Committee
Municipality (in urban areas)
District Development Committee
Illaka (Subdistrict) Illaka (Sub district) Illaka (Sub district)
VDC (9 wards)
Municipality (>9 wards)
Ward(1 Ward
Citizen Forum)
Sub District(5-15 VDCs)
No formal structure
District (9-17 Illakas)
1.2 Local Governance Structure in a District
Absence of elected representatives
Widespread absenteeism of village government office bearers
Absence of alternative mechanism of oversight
Widespread corruption
Lack of a mechanism in voicing citizens’ grievances against unobtainability, denial and delay of services
Absence of grievance hearing and redressal mechanism
1.3 Accountability Gaps in Village Governments
2. The Proposed Intervention
2.1 Objectives of Citizen Engagement
Purpose:Contribution to the improvement of service delivery by village governments
Objectives:• Engagement of citizens with the
village governments using simple technology;
• Provision of alternative ways for the citizen to interact with village governments; and
• Holding village governments accountable.
2.2 Key Players
• Lead: An ICT-savvy local non-governmental organization with backstopping support of INGO
• Target audience: All service recipients i.e. citizens in villages
• Other partners: ICT technologists, local governance experts, local journal ists, local CSOs/CBOs and other local development partners
2.3 Key Elements of the Proposed Process:
• Use of ICT tools to enable citizens to provide information
• Thick engagement of local citizens• A participatory model where citizens
can anonymously and comfortably report
• Crowd-sourcing data/information that gives a prompt snapshot of the delays and deficiencies in service delivery
• Use of deliberative communication process
• Opportunity of long route as well as short route to accountability
• Emphasis on closing the feedback loop
2.4 Proposed Process
1. Establishment and operationalization a mobile telephony based user friendly platform
2. Wider dissemination of information on/about the platform to local citizens
3. Collection of grievances on delay, denial and deficiency of service delivery by village government from citizens through the use of mobile or SMS
4. Aggregation, verification and analysis of the grievances
• Crowd-sourcing of the grievances to give a prompt snapshot of the service delivery status
• Mapping of data onto the Google Map giving village level visualisation
5. Sharing of the results to the village office bearers
6. Resolving the grievances through interaction with the office bearers
Raise citizens’
awareness of the
platform
Collection of
grievances through mobile &
SMS
Aggregation,
verification and
analysis of grievances
Sharing the results to the VDC
office bearers
Resolving the
grievances and closing feedback
loop
NGO acts as intermediary at all stages and play a key role.
2.5 Proposed Process
2.6 Challenges/Risks
• Inadequate capacity and confidence of local NGO
• Village office bearers’ hostility and inertia to transparency and accountability ini tiatives
• Difficulties to validate information from citizens and to close the feedback loop
• Non-cooperation from local bodies
• Lack of awareness on benefit of reporting village governments’ performances at local level
2.7 Opportunities
• Enactment and implementation of the Rights to Information Act
• Rapid surging up of use of telecommunication and internet
• Wider access and use of mobile phones
• Growing realization and awareness among the citizens to involve in local governance process
• Increased volume of fiscal transfers to local bodies
• Initiation of the implementation of Minimum Conditions evaluation system for annual grant allocations
2.8 Important Metrics/Indicators & MeasurementSome Important Metrics/Indicators:• Number of “bites” (results or outcomes) made by “voices” (citizens’
grievances) along with “teeth” (VDC’s responsiveness)• Number of times citizens report their grievances alleging deficiencies,
delays and denial of services from the VDC.• Citizens’ perception that VDCs are providing effective, transparent
and responsive services• Citizens’ perception that VDCs are corrupt free.
Potential Tools for Measurement:• Citizen monitoring and social audit• Public Audit Practices (Public hearing, public review and public audit)• Citizen satisfaction survey and citizen report card survey• Community score card survey• Independent third party monitoring by NGOs • Periodic assessment and evaluation
2.9 Expected Outcomes:
3. References
3.1 References:
• http://www.localinterventions.org.uk/• http://opennepal.net/sites/default/files/resources/• https://class.coursera.org/engagecitizen-002/• https://nepal.helvetas.org/en/
Thank you for your attention!