Livelihood Support and Promotion of Community Infrastructure Project (LACI-P)

Integrated Development Planning at Village and Union Level Embarking on practical methodology

Dr. Arjumand Nizami Mehmood Hemani Roshan Ara Nadeem Bukhari

Islamabad 2013

Final draft June 5th, 2013

Acknowledgement
PPAF is Pakistans leading organization in terms of taking innovative initiatives for poverty reduction. This organization is highly committed to propel a large scale impact from its work in the field and a consistent emphasis on MSP is one step in achieving this direction. The consultants team is highly grateful to Qazi Azmat Isa, the CEO of PPAF in providing a conceptual outline on MSP and encouraging a process that is built on earlier knowledge and experiences. Mr. Masood Khalid and his team have been instrumental in extending all the cooperation and guidance in this process. We also thank Mr. Nasurullah and Mr. Taimur Jahangir and several other colleagues (who also attended the kick-off workshop on 17th of April at PPAF) for their punctual support in providing relevant material for our work. We thank Herman Mulder from Intercooperationfor peer reading this document and providing his valuable comments. Thanks are also due to our LACIP colleagues Rana Sarwar, Hayatullah and Mubashar for their day to day help during the mission and finalization of this report. We sincerely hope that this document will provide a useful framework for piloting MSP in PPAF project areas and will generate learning for further improvement into the process for the future.

The MSP Methodology Team, Islamabad, April 2013

Table of Contents
Chapter 01 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction and background of this report ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 02 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 The Concept of Multi-Sector Planning (MSP) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 03 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 The process and steps to conduct MSP ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 04 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Piloting in the field proposed outline ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Annex 1-7 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23-32

Acronyms

ADP AHO AKRSP APO CIG CPI CO CMST DDF DRR FFO GBIs HH KP LACIP LEP LIP LMST

Annual Development Plan (Government) Asian Humanitarian Organisation Aga Khan Rural Support Programme Associate Partner Organization Common Interest Groups Community Physical Infrastructure Community Organization Community Management Skill Training District Development Forum Disaster Risk Reduction

LSO MER MDP MIP MSP NRSP OPM PO PPAF PSC Farmers Friend Organization SDP Grant-Based Intervention SO Household TNA Khyber Pukhtunkhwa UC Livelihood And Community based Infrastructure support Programme UCDO Livelihood Enhancement and Protection UCDP Livelihood investment Plan VDP Leadership and Management Skill Training VO

Local Support Organization Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Members Development Plan Members Investment Plan Multi-sector Plan National Rural Support Programme Operational Planning Manual Partner Organization Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Poverty Score Card
Settlement Development Plan

Social Organizer Training Needs Assessment Union Council Union Council based Development Organization Union Council Development Plan Village Development Plan Village Organization

Chapter 1

Introduction and background of this report PPAF as an organization believes in holistic approach in poverty alleviation and therefore is striving for integrated development through building strong institutions in the field. For PPAF, institutional strengthening in the field is the key to ensuring sustainability of development effects in poverty stricken areas. Therefore an idea of establishing community / village organizations for delivering development services does not stop there it needs to be further accompanied to achieve a wider understanding on development vision within a community for inclusive development and a living plan identifying how to achieve this development beyond interventions that are limited at individual household and neighborhood levels. MSP is an idea in this direction encompassing village and Union Council levels, taking multiple sectors into account, and ensuring that the idea will be eventually supported by the measures provided in LG Act when implemented. A workshop was called by LACIP for further fine tuning the MSP concept and bring all the concerned at PPAF on one page. This one day workshop was organized at PPAF (workshop programme Annex 1). The entire day strived to achieve the following objectives and expected outcomes: Objectives: - Collectively identify why MSP is needed what it is and what will be the methodological steps to achieve this at a village or a UC level - Understand the roles expected of various tiers (village, UC) for themselves and towards other development actors Expected outcome: - An outline for partners orientation on the concept and methodology will be available as a result of the workshop - Internal clarity among the team to move on in the field through partners - Identification of the next steps In total 28 Participants contributed to the workshop discussion in a highly interactive manner. With pleasure we report, that all the relevant units were present in the workshop which helped in taking the MSP agenda forward through multiple inputs from experts in several development themes1. A list of participants is attached in Annex 2. 1.1 Workshop on 17th April 2013 on MSP Fine-tuning methodological steps and roles of different tiers in MSP In his opening remarks, the CEO of PPAF highlighted the following as food for thought for identifying methodological aspects of MSP: Often such plans are plagued by lack of ownership how to make sure that the ownership from community, government, us and civil society is acquired Reality keeps changing, how to keep the flexibility in the plan to adjust to changing reality To ground realities confronting us today: o Insecurity in KP therefore conflict sensitive / resolution mechanisms must be added in the plans o Most of the partner districts are disaster prone therefore there is a need to ensure that DRR remains integrated in the plan It is essential to consider social and ecological heterogeneity in the districts or below since one plan doesnt fit to all Material for desk review must be identified for secondary data Important to look at practical dimension, local culture and heritage are rich, how to ensure that local knowledge, and indigenous systems may be integrated in the plan

Followed by this, a presentation was made by GM special issues / file holder of LACIP on how LACIP works and why MSP was seen as an important subject. The
1

Including institutional development, health, Benazir Income Support Programme, Livelihood, rural Credit, Education, Environment, infrastructure, DRR and so on
6

ingredients from his presentation have been included in the methodological chapters of this document (the presentation is attached as Annex 3). The day continued with several interactive sessions on what processes are already undertaken by PPAF team and partners to found MSP process. This report provides the essence of the discussion and elaborates the key ingredients of MSP process identified during the workshop with the help of the participants in later chapters. 1.2 Documents / background material available and reviewed In pursuit to prepare for the workshop and ensure that the methodological steps are built on earlier knowledge, the following material was consulted by the facilitating team of Intercooperation. This helped in founding a base of MSP: 1. An example of Village/ Settlement Development Plan (VDP/SDP), Farmers Friend Organization (FFO) Sargodha 2. An example Village Development Plan: Mara Khurd, 4th July 2010 3. Checklist for assessing the quality of Community Organizations, Human and Institutional Development Unit, PPAF 4. District Census report DI Khan, Chitral and Haripur 5. Draft Strategy Livelihood Enhancement & Protection Unit (August 30th, 2012) 6. Integrated Development Visions (2008) DI Khan and Chitral, IUCN Pakistan 7. List of LACIPs partner Districts, project locations and Partner Orgnizations 8. Livelihood Investment Plan (LIP) PPAF Part 1 9. Local Government Act 2012, KP 10. Member Development Plan format, PPAF 11. MSP Approaches (KFW), proceedings of workshop (6th May 2012) 12. Multi-sectoral Planning LACIP. Mission report Martin Dietz (23rd January 4th February 2013), Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation 13. Operational Polices Manual for Grant-Based Intervention (GBIs), PPAF 14. Poverty Score Card, PPAF 15. Situation Analysis form, PPAF 16. Village Development Planning Manual (2012), Intercooperation and Forests Department KP

1.3 Major challenge encountered while defining MSP process The facilitating team encountered the following challenges while elaborating the process and would like to remind the PPAF team that similar challenges may be faced by them in the field. It is therefore essential to remain aware of these while making MSP a reality on ground: 1. MSP must capitalize on existing practices, experiences and tools that are being used by Partner Organizations and other development partners in the field. A process defining all the processes from scratch will never take off and will not yield results. 2. There is a large range among Partner Organizations in terms of their capacity and history of working in a specific geographical region. The MSP process however was defined keeping in view a lower denominator in view, which means the organizations with lower capacity, little field experience and brief history of presence in a specific district. 3. There was a varying understanding of the PPAFs internal processes, planning tools and their linkages within the team the MSP methodological exercise served an opportunity to clarify these elements within the team. A similar challenge may be encountered at the field level with POs. An orientation session for POs may be helpful at this stage. Two examples of processes were presented during the workshop for inspiration and discussion: 1. Recommendations on MSP process from Martin Dietzs report (January 2013): Annex 4 2. Village Integrated Development Planning process introduced by KP Forests Department: summary Annex 5 MSP process explained in this document includes the elements of both the examples.

Chapter 2 The Concept of Multi-Sector Planning (MSP)

2.1 Why Multi-Sector Planning? This question is closely connected to the discussion on what PPAF as an organization is willing to achieve: The PPAF aims to promote a holistic approach to poverty alleviation, which is aligned closely with Pakistans commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. It emphasizes multi-sector programmes that generate broad and deep impacts at the community level.(Operational Policies Manual for GBIs, 2011). PPAF is out in the field with its agenda for an inclusive development for poverty alleviation. It is aimed at supplementing development actors in their effort to enable communities in harnessing their potential for their self-development. PPAF is highly committed to strengthen community based organizations at various levels (including the ones visualized at apex level hopefully driving Union Council development along with other development actors at that level). MSP is a vehicle to effectively realize holistic development. So far, PPAF has been successful in realizing community based development through COs, organized within a village at a Mohalla or settlement level. However most of the interventions had impact for individual households, or a neighborhood or a village at the most. There is a need now to identify interventions at another scale that may have consequences for a larger population, such as a village or a group of villages or ideally a union council. This, however, is to be done without losing connection with what is earlier done with the COs and individual households. The MSP therefore serves as an umbrella for a partner UC and strives to bring synergy among various development players, helps up-scaling PPAFs earlier experience, and inculcate a longer-term development vision at community level. MSP is a journey from a need based development to a potential based development leaving enough room for multiple actors in development to play their due role in the field. The overall Goal for Multi-sector Planning was identified as follows2: Equitable and resilient socio-economic opportunities are identified and promoted while ensuring ownership of stakeholders Two objectives were identified for conducting MSP process: Communities develop an inclusive area development vision / road-map Institutions pro-actively mobilize resources for addressing socio-economic interests and solidarity These two objectives promote the idea of inclusive, long term, proactive development however at the core of this are institutions, which own and carry development plans at certain levels and collectively mobilize resources for their realization. The MSP process has been perceived to realize this ambitious vision of multi-sectoral planning. The key here would lie in selection of the partners having base in the selected UCs incase capacities lack, a principal PO shall be charged with strengthening the local organization within stipulated time and handover the lead to them. 2.2 MSP initially as a process internal to PPAF It is highly encouraging that PPAF has started the process of multi-sectoral planning through first achieving an internal integration within the organization. Partner Organizations used to submit isolated proposals to PPAF for funding. It was often that these proposals maintained an independent relationship with various units within PPAF and did not relate to each other. Similarly, each unit approached potential Partner Organization rather independently for separate projects and did not synergize on these efforts neither administratively nor thematically. Now, with the restructuring within PPAF, the proposals are made in a manner that all the Units sit together to appraise them and award funding. This
2

Workshop 17 April 2013, LACIP, PPAF

8

th

has helped achieving integration within PPAF and at NGO partner level. This will however not be complete till it is also achieved at the field level. E.g. various partners or non partner development actors strive to achieve a shared vision in development, and PPAF comes in as one of the contributors. 2.3 MSP for whom? It is essential to understand that MSP is not a panacea for achieving all development aims at the field level; it does however contribute to enhancing: - Acquiring a long term development vision - Efficient delivery of development services in collaboration with community - Inculcating a good reason to create / strengthen home-grown local institutions that carry the development forward - Ensuring interventions at all possible scales (household, neighborhood, village and union council) without duplication. It is therefore, MSP is for all the development actors involved in a district / UC such as:

Who? PPAF PO

What Inclusive development, larger impact, efficient delivery A good platform to attract other donors (than PPAF) to become part of development agenda not funded by PPAF Local HH, CO, VO and UCDO have development interventions in a longer Institutions term perspective; UCDO particularly have a tool to knock the door of relevant development actors rather than passively wait for someone to come for communitys aid Government Government departments at UC / District levels will have a good actors at base to collaborate with the UCDO and meet their annual targets local level possibly align their planning practices with MSP.

Chapter 3 The process and steps to conduct MSP

The MSP at Union Council is the end result of a regenerative process that begins from COs organized by POs of PPAF. It is important to understand that in this process, we not only achieve a well thought multi-sectoral VDP and MSP at UC levels but also the respective social organizations which own and contribute to the preparation and realization of these plans. 1. Situation Analysis This step is crucial for correctly preparing the MSP process in the field. The situation analysis will be conducted at two levels in parallel: - District / UC level using secondary information as well as primary assessment on market / value chains - Village level in close collaboration with the villagers based on PPAFs exiting procedures. The following table provides the detail to conduct this step. In short it is summarized as follows: 1. As a first step, try to collect all necessary documents which are already available and can provide secondary data regarding the district. The examples include: a. District census reports b. District gazetteers produced by British government c. Integrated development visions produced by IUCN or others d. Any baselines / studies conducted by PO or other development organization in the district e. District plans / Annual Development Plans of various departments (P&D Department)

Dist rict
DDF A number of UC MSPs

CO + prioritize d activities

2. The PO will engage an Associate Partner Organization already at this level and support them to conduct a broader consultation within the villages and identify key development issues. 3. Further down in the process, the PO or APO conducts Poverty Score Card and wealth ranking, and based on data, identify potential clients for LIP at household level. 4. It is important to use data (point 3) analyzed from PSC / wealth ranking for conducting vulnerability context analysis of each socio-economic group since this will lead us to activities that have significance for the entire village or even at Union Council level, in case the vulnerability trend is maintained in several villages of the same UC.

10

Stage

Level

Steps (major actions)

Instrument / Output

Remarks / Notes

Who Subject matter specialist on value chain

Capacity

Change required Special TORs to do this and supervision

District / UC

1. Market / Value Chain Assessment UC level 2. Collect and go through secondary documents (census report, gazetteers, met data, ADPs, other documents etc.) 3. Identify and engage APOs (specialized) and capacity building

Market actors and potential for products / services (skills demand) in UC

Ideally this is done at the time of UC / District selection.

New

District / UC UC / group of villages Situation Analysis Village / Mohallah

A broader view of the UC extracted from the documents

Try to analyze trend - what comes out as a key development challenge?

4. Broader consultation / discussion with Mohalla / Village with wider set of stakeholders on development context of the village

- Socio-economic and disaster vulnerability context (Situation Analysis Form) - including references with secondary data - Participatory Wealth Ranking (ill/well being analysis) - vulnerability assessment (e.g. SWOT) with each socio-economic category - mapping of major development actors at UC level - Poverty Profile through Poverty Score Card - Identification of potential beneficiaries for LIP

Context built for activities that go beyond village boundaries (e.g. at UC level) PO (SO, MER)

Conducting situation analysis in a holistic manner

Budget for preinterventions

Village for each HH Individual HH

5. Interviews with HH

6. Desk review of data

However the VDP process (next steps) move on based on ill/well being analysis. PSC is more for LIP / CIGs

Existing processes

What is new

In case of large PO identifying APO Conducting village consultation Poverty Score Card and Wealth Ranking Identifying potential beneficiaries for LIP but conduct LIP and provide assets in the next step A strong emphasis on desk review of existing documents Conducting Market / Value Chain assessment and link identified economic potentials with other identified interventions Vulnerability assessment must be conducted within socio-economic categories
11

2. Social Mobilization Primary data collection and analysis results in situational analysis report which documents a detail profile of the area including its market / value chain potentials. Based on these analyses social organization of the village is initiated in order to carry out planning and interventions. An inclusive social mobilization is closely connected with a good quality situation analysis, particularly Poverty Score Card and wealth Ranking. At the moment two things happen at this step: The formation of Community Organizations (COs) is conducted based on PPAFs existing procedures with due flexibility given to the Partner Organization to allow CO process as per their geographical vicinity, commonality of issues and their cultural bounds. Based on economic potentials, Common Interest Groups (CIGs) are formed that mainly look into market based / value chain activities. CIGs are not essentially organized on the basis of geographical contiguity (e.g. Mohallah). Followed by CO / CIG formation, it is important to catalyze VO formation at village level. A VO is supposed to be an all inclusive body of the villagers where all COs are represented through their office bearers. There are three tiers of organizations that lead to MSP process at Union Council level. Community Organizations (COs), Village Organizations (VOs) and Union Council Development Organizations (e.g. LSOs). Moreover, other management committees for specific projects such as School Management Committees, operation and maintenance committees in case of infrastructure projects and Common Interest Group (CIGs) are also formed at operational level for the smooth running of the activities. The geographical jurisdiction of a CO is a Mohallah (settlement) of a village/town. COs in a large number already exist or had existed in most of the target villages, which will be utilized largely after some structural review and refining if needed. Where there are no existing COs, field teams of POs will facilitate the formation of COs ensuring a democratic process have been followed. After the registration of the COs, a joint bank account between COs and Partner Organizations (POs) will be opened in the local banks according to the PPAF guidelines. COs registration is mandatory for funds release by the POs for CIPs, LIPs and MDPs. Once the COs have been formed and/or notified, different trainings such as CMST, LMST, organizational record keeping and others will be carried out. A Training Need Assessment (TNA) will also be conducted with the COs to identify

Stage 1: CO Formation and Registration (LIP, CIP, CIG at this stage) Stage 2: VO formation CO Members form a General Body while the office bearers form membership Joint Bank Account (VDP and CIP / DRR activities at this stage)
any other human & institutional development needs. It is necessary to identify all the members of COs as General Body of the village before the next step of Village Organization (VO) is undertaken.

Stage 3: UC based development organization (cluster of VOs) In the next Members step VO will be constituted by COs. Office Bearers while (President, General VO form a General Body the Secretary, and Treasurer) of the COs will become members of the VO and office bearers form membership elect/select office bearers of VO among themselves. Constitution of VO is a prerequisite for developingJoint a Village Development Plan Bank Account (VDP) which includes interventions of collective benefit. VDP process calls for participation of all (UC(both multi-sectoral plan with DRR and stakeholders internal & external) of the villageCIP, and encompasses broader population and long term activities. VO acts as custodian of VDP and ensures other activities at this stage) equitable distribution of benefits, transparency and self accountability. VO shall
also formulate its Rules of Business during this phase.
12

Eventually at a later stage a support organizations at UC level will emerge which will act as an advocacy group ensuring service delivery and community
Stage Level Mohalla: CO Village: VO Social Mobilization Steps (major actions) Instrument / Output

leadership. Such an organization will anchor, lead and uphold the Multi Sector Plan (MSP) process. It will serve as a platform for knowledge sharing, adoption, replication and integration of development activities in other parts of the UC.
Remarks / Notes Registration of CO required for funds release by POs (OpM) Registration VO is mandatory to receive benefits of LG Act (as an umbrella of COs) Who Capacity Change required Fund transfer subject to registration

7. Constitution of COs (CIG), VOs 8. Training of COs and VOs

Registration, bank account, etc. - Institutional Checklist - Organizational record keeping, CMST, LMST, etc.

PO (SO)

Existing processes

What is new

CO formation at Mohallah / settlement level CIG establishment based on common interests Registration of CO, administrative procedures such as opening of bank account VO formation at village level (with an intention to do Village Development Planning) Essential for VO to have close links with CIG and CO as an umbrella organization of the village Registration of VO and opening of bank account

3. Village Development Planning In a number of consultative sessions, the VOs identify their key planning priorities which are aimed at the overall development of the village. It is important at this stage that they leave aside the individual household priorities which are already being taken care of by LIPs prepared with the support of COs. All other CIP activities and other village related development interventions need to be enlisted in this process. The expertise of Partner Organization in the consultative processes with the VO is expected to yield a plan that is not a wish list but a
Stage Level Individual HH Steps (major actions) 9. Conduct LIP with ultra poor Instrument / Output Use Poverty Score Card Results

logical set of interventions that connects with the overall development vision for the village. The village Development Plan is multi-sectoral in nature and envisages contribution from multiple actors. Therefore MSP realization already starts at this stage, albeit only at village level (village based MSPs). Our observation is that as oppose to the current practice of conducting MIP/MDP preparation for the nonultra-poor members in the community, their interests will be adequately address in CIGs.
Remarks / Notes Immediate implementation Who PO/CO Capacity Change required

13

Village

VO / CO / CIG VDP (xIPs) VO VO / CO / CIG

10. Village General body discussion on potential interventions for Mohalla / village. 11. Economic intervention planning with CIGs, prioritization of activities related to collective vulnerabilities 12.If VO already exists, look into restructuring of VO if needed 13. Social sector (CPI, soft elements) Intervention planning with COs and VO, prioritization

Overview / Holistic VDP (more than LACI-P/ PPAF mandate) - inform about market finding MDP/Sectoral/sub-sectoral income enhancement plan (CIG), etc.Training of CIG members in related topics All inclusive VO that represents CO interests VDP format to be developed

3-5 yrs vision 1 year priority plan

CO / VO

CO/ VO/ PO VDP is owned by VO

Existing processes

What is new

LIP is retained independent of VDP planning due to its nature to address immediate needs at HH level and upgrade ultra poor to contribute to social organization and planning processes CIP projects conducted at CO level Village development planning that encompasses activities at CO and HH level and provides an umbrella for all the interventions including those that are beyond CO level MIP dropped

4. Resource Mobilization As said in the preceding section, the VDP envisages a multi-actor support for the realization of interventions. This suggests that linkages and resource mobilization are crucial for the realization of the village plan. These resources (financial or non-financial) may be internally raised within the village or attracted from outside, but are deployed for achieving the plan over a period of time.It is important to note that the village plans in all the villages are prepared in a
Stage Level Steps (major actions) 14. Implementation of Village Plans - begin funding PPAF/LACI-P mandate 15. Establish relevant Scheme committees. 16. Linkage Development (Networking - DDF, Dev. Partners, Line Dept.) Instrument / Output

parallel process to save time and ensure connectivity in the activities. An example may be a DRR scheme in one village that may affect another downstream. A parallel process for VDP preparation will ensure that such mutual issues may be dealt with carefully through a dialogue.

Remarks / Notes

Who CO / VO PO CO/ PO

Capacity

Change required

Village Resource Mobilization Village Village / district

Proposals by PO/APO Community groups

14

Existing processes What is new

POs submit project proposals to PPAF for funding In few cases, POs approach government line agencies to create service linkages with the COs A rather systematic identification of development actors at Village / UC level Establishment of linkages with development actors and reflect into the plan document

5. Networking / Clustering Once a number of village organizations have been established in the village and village development plans prepared by them, it is time to cluster VOs into a union council based organization. Only in few cases in which the Partner Organizations have taken the initiative to organize village member based Local Support Organizations at UC level. In most of the cases however there are no such
Stage Networking / Clustering Level Steps (major actions) 17. Constitute LSO/UCDO (if does not exist) Instrument / Output UC overview / oversight / advocacy group

umbrella organizations on ground. In a few cases there may be apex organizations for specific sectors such as Water Users Associations, Production or Market Associations, or Seed Growers Associations and so on. Such organizations must be included in the process as an entry point for forming such a cluster at UC level.

Remarks / Notes

Who

Capacity

Change required

Village / UC

Registration

Existing processes What is new

In some cases, POs have established Local Support Organizations In several cases an apex / UC based development organization does not exist. The best is to make an apex of member villages and form one. Ensure that existing LSO (which act more as an APO or NGO at the UC level) and the intended UCDO of villages whose development plan is in question do not have conflict of interest3

Mostly the existing LSOs offer themselves as project implementers and therefore a risk lies that an LSO has perceived a multi-sector project for donors funding that they themselves implement. An apex body of the villagers however perceives such a plan with a clear vision that it is the service that is important for them, and not from where it is funded (e.g. a donor, government line agency, collective funding e.g. chanda, etc.)
15

6. MSP formation at UC level With the formation of a cluster organization, we are very close to identifying multi-sector priorities at UC level. These development priorities are funneled down from VDPs but at the same time, take account of an overall development trend in the UC such as vulnerability to a specific disaster, drought, water scarcity or abundance, a specific agriculture product, etc. Like in case of VDP, UC multisectoral plan needs to take into account the overall vision for UC development in a longer term and must provide space for multi-actors in development to extend support.The UC level development organization is the custodian of this plan and needs to be trained to act as an advocacy body to pursue major targets given in the plan with relevant development actors.

Stage

Level

Steps (major actions) 16. Collate key elements of VDPs in UC 17. Trend Analysis regardinghealth, education, disasters, conflicts, etc. 18. Augment Strategic elements secondary data, mapping other initiatives, other players (L/Dep) 19. Disseminate and follow-up MSP 21. Constitute District Development Forum (pilot in a few cases) 22. Collate UC Plans (MSP) at District Levels 23. Advocacy in DDF and with L/Dep., other actors for inclusion of MSP/VDP elements in ADP

Instrument / Output

Remarks / Notes Ownership is with UCDO/LSO

Who LSO LSO + expert LSO LACI-P

Capacity

Change required

UC (Multisectoral) Plan

Union Council

Mapping other initiatives, other players (Line departments)

Use / followup of UC Plan (MSP)

Union Council

- Strategic Adjustments by PPAF / Projects / Line Depts.

PPAF? LSOs

Existing processes What is new

Not at the moment Several VDPs at UC level and the overall trends found during situation analysis lead to a living MSP plan / priorities Linkages with MSP, dissemination of document Hopefully DDF (at least first one or two examples) will give impetus to MSP implementation Local support organization of member villages take the plan implementation forward

16

Frequently Asked Questions

Questions How do you ensure consensus building? How to ensure that all possible social groups including deprived have a voice during consultationon development priorities reflected in the VDP? What is it in these steps that PPAF does not do?

Is MSP need based or?

How to ensure that the plans are built on long term development objectives?

Does this promote a specific model for replication in all the partner districts?

Resource mobilization how shall we do that?

Deliberation / Answers / Potential Solutions - A major entry point to achieve this is the CO formation. If CO is formed in an inclusive manner and participation of all the members has been ensured, there is a chance that they will respect each other. - VDP preparation does not entail a one-time consultation. Consultation can be conducted in smaller groups and where necessary, triangulation of priorities may be achieved though consulting with men and women, and in repeated sessions. - If consensus building is problematic, a Plan B must entail a consultation with only a relevant group. - The entire process up to the CO formation is already institutionalized by PPAF through partners agreements. - However at this stage, vulnerability assessment is not taken into account as well as value chain / market assessment are not conducted - It is more about the depth of process and linking every activity to the next higher level at least up to the UC level. The term need is self defying and is against the entire philosophy of PPAF as well as MSP concept. MSP must be based on existing potentials within the community and therefore is a mix of community aspirations and strategic elements that are identified based on development potentials. The idea is to work on causes of poverty and pull people out of poverty cycle rather than giving a temporary relief. - Since the plans are aimed at harnessing community potential, there is a vision that guides the identification of interventions as oppose to an existing offer for a project / service / charity. - The social organization is the key community institutions set and own the plan priorities and essential synergies for their relevant constituency (e.g. village or UC) and not an external expert. - However, the facilitating experts knowledge counts they are the one to guide communities in this process. - It is not a blue print for the districts to follow. It is however essential to provide an outline of the process that is sized according to the situation. - The process in this document give major building blocks essential to design MSP - The name multi-sectorsuggests that we are not stuck to a model with pre-defined sectors but are open to complex phenomenon of poverty and multiple options. - It is essential to first look within the village and then within the union council. Make an inventory of actors available and the services they can extend. - The next is to look into various development agencies (including NGOs, development projects and funding agencies as the PO may know) and pursue them - A factually correct mapping of actors (ideally done before a proposal is moved by a PO or at least at situation analysis stage)leads to proper follow up. While one member of the UC development organization feels comfortable engaging with the government line agencies, another may knock the door of a development project to present the plan priorities. - Once the plan is there and the organization is ready with its basic administrative settings (including training on LMST, etc.), it may be worthwhile to train them on how to prepare development proposals and manage to raise funds.
17

What is the core inspiration for MSP?

How much time it is going to take MSP

How much staff is required?

Who will own the plans?

Funding level and funds flowsfrom PPAF now and late?

Legal status of community organizations?

Who will conduct rapid market / value chain appraisal

MSP provides a longer term vision for development planning and interventions at certain level. For PPAF, MSP is an effective entry point to promote holistic development in pursuit to achieve Millennium Development Goals and eventually post MDG development agenda (Sustainable Development Goals) - This is subject to the situation key question: How much ground experience already exists? - Roughly 4-5 months with three parallel teams in a new district,where number of selected villages within a UC remain within 10 or below. This is a district where nothing exists on ground (including PSC, and organized CO) - In an existing district with existing COs and PSC data available, it may take about 4months (with about 10 VDPs, 1 UC plan) with three parallel teams. - It is important to keep in mind that this is the minimum investment before we have in our hand a long term, comprehensive development agenda to continue. During this process, LIP and some of the CIP activities at CO level will not stop. - Each team comprises at least 1 female and 1 male SO. This intensity is needed for 6 months only till the MSP and VDPs are achieved. - In addition, during the MSP process, 1 office based support is needed for data analysis - 1 mentor / manager with multi-sector orientation is essential during this period to guide the process - One team who conducts rapid market / value chain appraisal in the beginning - It is essential to understand that the VDP and MSP preparation will be an intensive task spread over 6 months. Once the plans are there, try to shift most of the burden to the social organizations CO: LIP with ultra poor VO: VDP. It is however necessary that the UC administration recognizes this plan LSO / UC development organization: UC MSP. It is however necessary that this plan is also recognized by district authorities - Currently the funds flow to registered COs for LIP and CIP - In case of VDP for larger schemes the funds will flow to the registered VOs as well - In case PPAF is keen to also fund part of UC plan, the funds will flow to a registered union council based organization for a particular scheme All the three tiers of organizations are to be registered under the existing laws in Pakistan. They must put together their Rules of Business at relevant level (what will be the role of CO, VO and LSO and responsibilities / obligations towards each other in a downward accountability system). Needs to be carefully defined who will conduct this technical task (PO? A special team of PPAF or consultants engaged by PPAF or PO)

What are major risks / concerns? Mitigation strategy? Concerns / Risks At union council level, it is essential to have a Local Support Organization or a similar institution as an umbrella representative of the villages. However they do not exist Mitigation Strategy In such cases initiate organizing such organizations, drawing strength and membership from Village Organizations Sector focused organizations (e.g. WUA on a watershed level) could also be an entry point to form
18

everywhere PO often donot encourage LSOs formation since they may fear being replaced by them

LSO may see LG bodies with fear after the implementation of LG Act 2012 When one PO is expected to facilitate for a number of VDPs within a UC say 10), there is a fear to Cut and Paste from one VDP document

such an umbrella institution Administrative strategy: Make POs contractually obliged and organize funds flow with a necessary frame condition Development strategy: It is essential for PO to help LSO in identifying its Rules of Business whereby an LSO and PO complement each other and do not overlap each other in their roles. POs have to acquire an understanding that their role must change in a longer run (see Annex 5, SRSP LSO concept). Perhaps initially but it is a misnomer; they need LG bodies for effective advocacy of MSP implementation Active supervision by mentors, participatory monitoring, regular feedback meetings with teams will help understand that specificities among villages have been understood and addressed in the VDP process A review at UC MSP level will require that all the VDPs will also be reviewed to funnel key activities. The Cut and Paste dynamics will be caught at that stage COs are owned by the people. The POs must understand how COs are embedded in the VO and not the PO organization set up It is imperative that multiple-actors may count on POs earlier presence and understanding on development issues the PO will be happy to attract them for support in the UCs where they function. We insist that LIP and CIP activities limited to CO must continue during the process of MSP preparation. Even if done before VDP / UC MSP materialize, it is essential though to reflect CIP activities in the documents (past progress etc.). Once the MSPs (Village and UC) are final and priorities are set, field implementation at various scales (CO, VO, UC) has a potential to pace up dramatically. It is essential to remain in close coordination with the district authorities and community influential. We assume that the POs are mostly from within the district and therefore are well connected to the information sources leading to asses risks for the teams (which is relatively less intensive for local staff due to their social acceptance). In case the POs come from outside, we consider it highly essential to engage local APOs at an early stage Monitoring of progress in the field by PPAF / LACIP may suffer due to security impediments; it may be worthwhile to engage consultants hailing from relevant districts to provide such services to the projects

PO: COs are mine: Stamped COs / VOs attitude confronting multi-actor support

Disbursement pressure vs quality of process what if compromises are made

Security impediments

19

Chapter 4 Piloting in the field proposed outline Following the agreement on the major steps for developing the MSP, the participants, while discussing the next steps, suggested to pilot it in few places. Some of the criteria for choosing a UC/District put forth are: a) Strength/maturity of the PO weak and strong/experienced partner b) Social capital UC where CO/VO exists and new area to build from scratch c) Security stable work conditions and less secure district No prior agreement was made on final number or locations for piloting, however, it was agreed in the workshop that LACIP-PMU shall do the piloting first and make recommendations. Since LACIP is in its 2nd year of a 4-year phase/life (including one year extension) it is envisaged that coverage will further expand from current 36 UCs in 5 districts. The overall outreach is forecasted to reach to 60 UCs in KP through LACIP. At present PPAF has contracted 19 POs with varying levels of capacities, coverage, and progress (Annex 6, list of POs and locations). With such a diverse set of engagement parameters, piloting in many locations would thinly spread the energies of the technical support team who would not only devise/improvise processes and instruments but also build enhance practical skills of the stakeholders to ensure realization of the conceptual benefits of MSP at all level. The chief among multifold purposes of MSP is to define practice guide and distill lessons for up-scaling. Though the OPM (para 3.6-a) states that 50% HHs in the UC shall be addressed under the MSP but in terms of % of villages in a UC, the OPM is silent. A certain minimum village coverage in a UC would be essential for aadequately representative MSP (UCDP). It is understood that as yet the current modalities both contractual and policy/operational guidelines, do not clearly delineate the minimum coverage the PO shall/must strive to develop first draft representative MSP at UC level. It is suggested that PMU shall have a detailed look into the current contracts and clarify the current and intended coverage to ascertain a certain (adequate) minimum coverage for piloting MSP. On the basis of the preliminary review of documents (a couple of proposals / contracts) and discussion with the existing partners it is proposed that the pilot should be carried out in Khot and ParowaUCs in districts of Chitral and Dera Ismail Khan respectively. In addition, an area in the newly selected district of Haripur is proposed for trying out the approach from scratch. Thus in total, pilot in 3 UC would greatly aid in drawing learning for various categories of target areas and partners. This piloting envisages all the VDPs in the UC, collating these into a UC level MSP and in parallel work on the social organizations that will serve as pre-requisite to arrive at such plans. Irrespective of the final decision about UC/District, defining the complete process leading up to MSP as per the OPM guideline is MSP submitted to PPAF for approval and funding within six months of signing the contract. While this condition would remain intact for all current and future PPOs the challenge in essence is to figure out the process for existing and new areas.The OPM also use the term batches of MSPsonce every month which is somewhat misleading and requires clarification. The interpretation used for piloting is that a multisectoral sense in planning is already reflected at VDP level and thus we take that it is actually a Village MSP where all discussions on MSP have been understood to be a UC level plan that might be called UCDP or MSP at UC level. Terminology therefore needs to be well defined. This required that the steps defined in Chapter 3 are viewed from action lens to determine the sequencing and feasible timeframe as well as the personnel requirements from start to end. Final decisions with regard to the concerns raised above would have bearing on the number of teams (described in FAQs, chapter 3) to be deployed in the field by the partners. Overall, the table in Annex 7 depicts the key processes for a new UC/District laid out on weekly basis ensuring that 1st draft MSPs are ready by the end of 4th month. The suggested approach relies on working on multiple processes in parallel, maximally utilizing the staff of the PO. This saves nearly 2 months from the 6 month timeframe defined in the OPM.
20

While preparing the scheduling chart, special attention was given to separate the steps of planning from implementation, however, where time and staffing permit parallel actions have been planned for both domains.

development (7a), LSO/UCDO constitution (6a) and collation of the VDPs (6b) would be done in parallel. At this stage the POs would be in position to start making the proposals for funding of HH and collective benefit interventions/investments. In parallel to this the trend analysis of VDPs (6c) and further augmentation of the UC level information from the secondary & market data (6d) would be taken up, culminating in the Draft MSP/UCDP (6e). In order to add value and enhance the ownership of all involved (esp. line department, other NGO and development actors) a series of steps are suggested. These include a joint workshop to validate the MSP (6e) followed by alignment of the VDPs (6f), if major strategic elements are added by other actors. At this stage the MSP is technically ready, but to promote its use second joint sitting is suggested to develop annual priority list (6e) for various resource (services) providers. This would aid in follow-up of the MSP with various actors. Moreover, the process attempts to ensure use of the learning in the subsequent steps, this is shown by means of arrows showing flow of information. For instance in both the VDP and LIP making the market potential would enrich the communitys / HHs understanding to evaluate their aspirations. Thus, classical/typical requests being made would be replaced with more meaningful and lasting interventions is expected. In the existing/current UCs the pilot would not revisit the PSCs and LIPs already implemented. The detailed snapshot of piloting is given in the following. The diversity among piloting regions poses a challenge, albeit essential to build a case for up-scaling in a confident manner:

Use at LIP, VDP / Use at UC VDP / MSP UC levels Use MSP at level VDP Use level at UC For instance, the rapid market assessment (step-1), analysis of secondary data MSP (2a), PO+APO staff orientation (2b), distilling broad potential opportunities and investment needs (2d) would be carried out in parallel to the situation analysis levelat
villages (3). The next block of steps related to the VDP development (4), community institutions building (5) would be carried out in parallel to the filling of the PSCs and identification of potential beneficiaries for LIP (7). Followed by LIPs

21

Chitral Union Council Khot Number of villages: 09 PO: AKRSP Population: We recommend moving on with the support of an APO right from the start. There is an organized and registered LSO called MID in this Union Council. We anticipate that a Union Council based Development Organization may already be present in the UC. The AKRSP is active in all the villages, has organized a number of COs however village organizations are not active in the area. With mature experience of AKRSP, a convenient access to secondary data, we anticipate that the process of 9 VDPs,UC MSP and cross checking of VDPs alignment with the MSP will be completed within 4 months. This is taking the account of long distances and remote locations of the villages and weather factor. Team requirement: - 1 rapid market / VC appraisal will be conducted in the UC at the beginning (consultant Helvetas / Intercooperation) - Three teams are required including 2 social organizers: 1 male and 1 female. (PO) - 1 lead facilitator will be provided by the consultant to guide social organizers (Helvetas / Intercooperation) - Support for data entry and analysis (PO) - 1 person (manager level) will go through the existing documents and suggest development trends at the stage of VO/UC planning. The same person + teammates will help in networking with other development actors (PO).

D.I. Khan Union Council Parowa Number of villages: 20 PO: AHO Population: 28,216 We strongly recommend engaging an APO from the locality since AHO does not have local roots in the district. Parowa is a rather large scale UC and a piloting exercise can be a real challenge due to a large expected coverage by LACIP. AHO is not active in all the villages, therefore it is a question whether or not to include all the villages in the process. The process of 20 villages will have to begin from scratch with hardly any social capital on ground. We therefore anticipate that the entire process may take a little over 4 months before a UC plan can be furnished. One should notice that at the moment DI Khan is also not the easiest in terms of security of NGO staff. Team requirement - Six teams are required including 2 social organizers: 1 male and 1 female- only if all 20 villages are to be covered (PO) - 1 lead facilitator will be provided by the consultant to guide social organizers (Helvetas/Intercooperation) - Support for data entry and analysis (PO or APO) - 1 person (manager level) will go through the existing documents and suggest development trends at the stage of VO/UC planning. The same person + teammates will help in networking with other development actors (PO).

Haripur Union Council: open Number of villages: open PO: NRSP Haripur is a new addition in the LACIP districts, therefore PPAF procedures may be new for the district. Our experience however, suggests that Haripur is a highly organized and enterprising district, with aware and outgoing communities who received ample exposure from various development agencies including Intercooperation and RSPs. Therefore we count on an existing social capital and prior exposure of NRSP to PPAFs way of holistic working. We anticipate that the entire process of VDP and MSP planning will be accomplished in 4 months. Team requirement - 1 rapid market / VC appraisal will be conducted in the UC at the beginning (consultant Helvetas / Intercooperation) - Three teams are required including 2 social organizers: 1 male and 1 female (PO) - 1 lead facilitator will be provided by the consultant to guide social organizers (Helvetas/Intercooperation) - Support for data entry and analysis (PO /APO) - 1 person (manager level) will go through the existing documents and suggest development trends at the stage of VO/UC planning. The same person + teammates will help in networking with other development actors (PO).

22

Annex 1 One-Day workshop Livelihood and Community physical Infrastructure support Project (LACIP) Fine-tuning methodological steps and roles of different tiers in Multi-Sectoral Planning (MSP) S. No. Content Lead 09:30 Opening - Welcome note and Workshop Objectives Masood Khalid - Round of introduction Facilitator - Further understanding in the plenary on why this workshop? Facilitator - Opening remarks Qazi Azmat Isa 10:00 What is LACIP, key targets, implementation challenges Masood Khalid 10:30 What is MSP and why? Ideas / Considerations Plenary 10:45 Martins report major recommendations (recap) Dr. Arjumand Nizami 11:30 Coffee / tea break 11:45 An example of VDP process Syed Nadeem Bukhari 12:15 Synthesis plenary brainstorming on MSP outlines Facilitator 13:15 Lunch / Prayers 14:00 How to go about MSP process in the field (options) 3 groups 15:00 Summarizing key conclusions Facilitator / participants 15:30 Next steps Participants 16:30 Closing remarks Qazi Azmat Isa The background of the workshop: PPAF as an organization believes in holistic approach in development and therefore is striving for integrated development through building strong institutions in the field. For PPAF, institutional strengthening in the field is the key to ensuring sustainability of development effects in poverty stricken areas. Therefore an idea of establishing community / village organizations for delivering development services does not stop there it needs to be further accompanied to achieve a wider understanding on development vision within a community for their development and a living plan identifying how to achieve this development. MSP is an idea in this direction encompassing village and Union Council levels, taking multiple sectors into account, and ensuring that the idea will be eventually supported by the measures provided in LG Act when implemented. This workshop was identified for further fine tuning the MSP concept and bring all the concerned at PPAF on one page. Objectives: Collectively identify why MSP what it is and what will be the methodological steps to achieve a plan in a village or a UC Understand the roles expected of various tiers (village, UC) for themselves and towards other development actors

Expected outcome: An outline for partners orientation on the concept and methodology will be available as a result of the workshop Internal clarity among the team to move on in the field through partners Identification of the next steps

Participants: LACIP PMU Dr. Allah Nawaz 2 members, LEP 1 member, health 1 member energy 1 member, MER Two members from Helvetas Facilitator MahmoodHemani supported by Roshan Ara
23

Annex 2 Fine Tuning Methodology Steps & Roles in Different Tiers in MSP Jinnah Hall, PPAF Office, Islamabad 17th April 2013 S # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Name Qazi Azmat Isa Masood Khalid Taimur Jehangir Fahd Usman Zeeshan Azam Muhammad Ayaz Engr. Hayatullah Khan Zaheer-ud-Din Taj Khurram Shahzad Ahsan UllahBaig Waqas Nazir Nasrullah Khan Ms. Tehseen Rafi Muhammad Shahid Khan Dr. Anwar Butt Muhammad Riaz Ms. Anila Naimat Ms. SumairaGul Ms. Farzana Nadeem Dr. Rubina Ashfaq Muhammad Shahbaz Shafique Anwar Mahmood Ms. Roshan Ara Dr. Arjumand Nizami Nadeem Bukhari Mahmood Hemani Lt. Col. Zeeshan Maj. Humayun Designation CEO PPAF GM-LACIP SME-LACIP SME-Kfw (PMU) Consultant-Kfw (PMU) ME-PMU SNE-LACIP (PMU) ME-WECC SM-MER ME-EHN ME-EHN Consultant-LACIP Manager-LEP SME-ID Consultant Manager-LEP ME-ID ME-ID ME (GIS)-WEU SME-LACIP Manager-BISP Consultant Consultant Consultant Consultant Consultant Organization PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF PPAF Intercooperation Intercooperation Intercooperation Intercooperation NLC NLC

24

Annex 3

LACI-P
Total Project Amount is EUR 31.56 Million

Commencement of Project Implementation: April 2012

Completion of Project Implementation: Dec 2015 Project Districts: 6 (Charsadda, Buner, Swabi, Chitral, D.I. Khan and Haripur)

LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT & PROMOTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Number of Union Councils: 60 The Project will benefit approximately 600,000 people

(LACIP)

Per Person Average investment Cost is PKR 6,000

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Increased access to sustainable
social, economic and physical infrastructure

PROJECT COMPONENTS Small and Medium Scale community infrastructure

Improvement and renovation of existing Health and Education Units Asset Transfers to the Vulnerable and Ultra Poor's

Increased employment and income

opportunities, especially for the poor

Development / Strengthening of local civil

society institutions

Enhanced participation of the population in

decision making

TARGETS
Activities
Small and Medium Scale Infrastructure projects Skill trainings for transitory poors Livelihood support for ultra poors

ACHIEVEMENTS
Target
2,000 6,000 7,000
Sr. No
1 2 3 5 6 7 8

Project Type
Small and Medium Scale Infrastructure Projects Initiated Small and Medium Scale Infrastructure Projects Completed Community Organizations Village Organizations formed Livelihood Investment Plans completed Skill Trainings Assets Transferred

Progress Up till March 2013

378 113 1177 61

Health and education projects

120

2819 1817 1427

25

CHALLENGES

CONTINUED

Poor planning security situation in KPK Repercussions of Afghanistan after 2014 Disaster Prone target areas Issues of Female Representation

COs Bank account opening issues POs/POs staff capacity, TNA required Pressure to increase utilization

CONTINUED Anticipating Political Pressures after the May 11, 2013 Elections in Pakistan LACIP PMU Field Monitoring issues due to security risks Value Chain tools needed at PO level to enhance their vision to create linkages and further growth in respective markets

CONTINUED Anticipating Political Pressures after the May 11, 2013 Elections in Pakistan LACIP PMU Field Monitoring issues due to security risks Value Chain tools needed at PO level to enhance their vision to create linkages and further growth in respective markets

WHY MSP

Where are you going?

How will you get there? What will tell you that youve arrived?
A MSP model is your program ROAD MAP

26

NEEDS
1. 2. 3. Is it meaningful? Does it make sense? Is it doable?

SPECIAL EDUCATION SITUATION ANALYSIS GENDER Water

Logistics

Security

Agriculture
36.8 40 35 Sanitation 30 25 20 15 10 Electricity 5 0 Hearing

Percentage
38.31 31.41 27.66 27.99 Health Percentage DRR

4.

Can it be verified?

Mental

Slow

Visual

Physical

Education

Conclusion
Issues related to population need to be advocated for from the top level of the government; The public sector allocations for social sectors remains very low and needs to be enhanced; Population needs to be taken up as a core basis for any future development planning; Issues related to Gender and adolescents need to be addressed; Fighting poverty, illiteracy, ill health and meeting unmet need are major challenges

15
<<Next Slide>> <<Go To Main Menu>> <<Previous Slide>>

16

27

Annex 4: Summary of recommendations on steps for village development planning and towards MSP Martin Dietz Mission (collectively prepared with Dr.Robina Ashraf, Mr.FahadUsman, Mr.TaimurJehangir, Mr. Martin Dietz, Mr. Klaus Euler) 1. Consult with key stakeholders at village, union council and district level to inform and get consent It will be important to inform stakeholders from local government bodies and other local bodies of the MSP processes right at the outset and get their consent. 2. Formation of inclusive planning group from within the LSO at UC level LSOs should form an inclusive planning group at UC level. This group will initiate inclusive planning groups at village level. 3. Capacity building of community facilitators (village development plan facilitator) Planning should be seen as an ongoing activity. Plans need to be updated and further detailed. Therefore, local expertise is required to accompany the planning process in future. For this purpose, it is proposed to train community facilitators to accompany, support and facilitate the process. It is suggested to train at least two persons per union council area. 4. Conduct a situation analysis / develop village profile Planning has to be based on a good situation analysis. Attention needs to be given to a sound analysis of the social and economic situation of a village. In an initial step data from secondary sources can be used; they need to be verified through FGDs and / or key informants. The community facilitator and PO staff will take a lead role for this step. This baseline exercise will also include identification of ongoing and planned development initiatives and resources. Use a simple data base format and mechanisms for its regular update. The situation analysis should consider the following sectors: agriculture, forestry, education, employment & enterprise, health, irrigation, drinking water, transport, infrastructure and OD/ID. PPAF already has a guideline / list for conducting a situation analysis. This should be reviewed to ensure that it will suit the actual purpose of MSP. 4. Identifying priority sectors of the village The situation analysis must provide a good insight to the importance of the different sectors, considered in the situation analysis, for the economy and livelihood of the population in the village. Taking on all sectors for detailed planning may be a task that is beyond the capacities of a community. It is therefore proposed to select 3 to 4 sectors for detailed planning while the remaining sectors will be touched in the planning process with less depth. The main criterion for the selection of the priority sectors will be their role and contributions to the livelihood of the majority of the population, specifically of disadvantaged communities and the economy of the village. 5. Development Goals to be achieved long-term (vision) At the outset of the process the inclusive planning group with the support of the facilitator will identify long term goals for their village. These goals should be cross-sectoral and relate to the envisaged overall changes of the village over the coming 5 to 7 years. 6. Drawing up strategic (periodic) plans For the identified priority sectors the Planning Group will develop simple, and as far as possible SMART medium term goals (3 years). The goal statement should be complemented by describing the strategies which will outline how these goals will be achieved. Setting the strategies should be based on an analysis of the problems that were identified earlier. Jumping from problems to solutions should be avoided. 7. Drawing up annual plans and budgets

28

The strategic, medium term plan will be the base for drawing up an annual plan for the village. Projects / activities will be planned for the coming year that contributes towards achieving the medium term goals of the village / UC. These interventions should be selected by using criteria such as for instance: High impact in short time; Large number of people to benefit, completion with in one year; Benefits for economically and socially disadvantaged are to be given high priority. UCs / VOs should be supported to develop budgets for the planned projects and activities. This will be the reality check for the community planning. 8. Collating key elements of village development plans into a MSP of the Union Council The LSO/APO will collate village development plans (periodic and annual) to develop a UC MSP. Such an MSP should feed into district planning and be used to seek funding for UC projects identified through the MSP. 9. Interactions of UC with development actors Link LSOs with development agencies (government, bilateral, INGOs and NGOs) in appropriate forums to present their periodic and annual plans. Such interactions will provide opportunities for UCs to communicate their development priorities and invite development actors to take up opportunities for development. The recently approved legislation on Local Government by the KP Provincial Parliament may provide opportunity for PPAF to embed MSP into a legal framework and promote this approach as mainstream throughout in KP. Next steps towards preparing MSP 1. Discuss and further elaborate the issue within PPAF / LACI-P and finalized the concept 2. Identify a small working group within PPAF / LACIP and HELVETAS which will accompany field testing / piloting 3. Assess the details of the recently approved Local Government legislation to assess how MSP can fit best into this legislation 4. Briefly assess and summarize ongoing village level planning work by some POs. Identify good practices that can be incorporated into MSP 5. Identify potential and competent POs for piloting 6. Get feedback from POs on the concept 7. Consider to involve relevant officials from the KP Provincial Government early in the process 8. Develop details of the planning process, train PO staff and community facilitators (HELVETAS will be able to support this part and share experience from other countries) 9. Identify one or two UCs 10. Get consensus from local stakeholders, including stakeholders at district level 11. Develop a monitoring system to ensure that learnings can be drawn from the pilots 12. Run the pilot 13. Evaluate, upscale, mainstream

29

Annex 5 Table 1: Guiding Principles of Integrated Village Planning (Government of KP, Forests Department) Guiding Principles Participation Check list All owners and users of NRs have been approached for initial information and in the rest of the process Rights of households from all village sections are known VDC and WO include representatives from all community sections and hamlets The VDC reaches consensus on objectives, division into management units and interventions Women, landless, poor in the community contribute in the village planning and decision making Poor and remotely located sections are also represented in management committees All sections have a chance to participate in the monitoring committees established from time to time Initial information is collected about all land uses A land use map is prepared with the consensus of the villagers Representatives from forests and other line agencies participate in planning process Interventions identified in the plan for all land uses and social services Responsibilities for forest and other line agencies identified in the plan as per interventions Responsibilities for the VDC, JFMC, WO and other management committees identified Responsibilities of the beneficiaries identified Management plans include village regulations for controlled use (e.g. nagha) Use intensities and timing compatible with growing cycles of vegetation Use intensities and timing compatible with the needs of the people Timber is not the only valued resource indicated in the plan there are interventions for other sources of livelihoods as well Household typology conducted in the village to identify different socio-economic groups in the village Poor and poorest identified through household typology are also represented and participate in VDC/WO as members Contributions / benefit sharing of different sections agreed upon between themselves Interventions are included in the plan which specially benefit the poorest / poor The entire planning process was inclusive and consultative All sections of communities were involved in identifying interventions Responsibilities are clearly identified in the plan (e.g. community, service providers) The plan document is villagers property, is open and accessible to all in the village VDC identifies beneficiaries / locations of interventions in open meeting Periodically the plans implementation progress is presented in general body by AMC

Integrated approach

Sustainable use of natural resources

Pro-poor

Self accountability and transparency

30

Annex 6: List of partner NGOs and respective Union Councils LACIP

District- Wise PO's, PO's Funding and UCs Information

#
1

District
Swabi

PO's
SWWS NRSP SDF GBTI

Name of UC's
Checknodha, Anbar Asota, Bachai, Parmolai Sara Cheena, Yaqobi Kohata, Batakra Yarkhoon, Khot, Oveer, Koh, Mulkhow, Chitral II Arandu, Ashurait, Shishikoh Yarkhoon, Khot, Oveer, Koh, Mulkhow, Chitral II HisaraNehri, Hassanzai, Madani Prang Mukhranai, Amazai Chagalai, Ghorghosto Gulbandi Chaghlai,Mukharani, Gulbandi Koga, Nawagai Shorekot Korai, Yarik Daraban, Chaudhwan Mehra Korai, Yarik, Daraban Total

Funding (Rs) In Million

230.14 207.1 128.63 136.34 293.71 160.3 23.58 201.19 33.28 138.64 156.6 63.87 30.14 136.34 56.87 125.2 114.58 33.86 39.37

Total
702.21

Chitral

AKRSP SRSP MIED

477.59

Charsadda

SRSP SPADO

234.47

Buner

HADAF MGPO RDP CGN-P EPS

525.59

D.I Khan

SERVE CUP SABAWON AHO CIE

369.88

2309.74

31

Annex 7

32

33