Manual on Community Based Approach to Local Development Project – Phase 2 (стр. 10 )

Method-I: Direct Approach (Small Community)

This method is applicable for small community where almost all CO-members are able to gather and interact with one another easily. The process is as follows:

·  CO calls all members for a planning session (or use one of its regular meeting);

·  Under facilitation of RIU team, CO-MT conducts a brainstorming involving all CO-members to identify the problems facing the CO-members and records the results in a Tabular form;

·  RIU team helps CO-MT to narrow down the list through such measures as cause and effect technique, equity (omit if individual nature or only a few CO-members will benefit) etc.;

·  All problems in the narrowed down list are then weighted by the CO-members so as to identify priority needs as in Table - I.

Table – I: Community Level Need Identification

№	Identified problems by consensus	Proposed ways of solving the problem	Tentative Cost by option	UAH, community is willing to pay by option
1	Priority Problem1	Option1
Option2
2	Priority Problem2	Option1
Option2
….		Option1
Option2

A = Apartment H = Household

Method – II: Indirect Approach (Middle Size Community)

Ask CO-members to identify 3-5 serious needs for improving the living condition of their households. They could write down their vision in the format Table – II and submit to the CO-chairperson (or other CO-members assigned for this purpose) for further action.

Table – II: Household Level Plan

Name of the CO-member: House/Apartment #:

SN	Name of the Problem	Ways to solve	Tentative Cost	UAH willing to contribute
1
2

The household level planning is followed by participatory planning, which is facilitated by RIU and local authorities at CO level to enable the CO-members to identify community level needs. RIU-team assists CO-MT to utilise information received (as per Table - II) from the CO-members to make a simple analysis as given in Table – III below. This simple analysis allows to list down the problems in order of necessity perceived by the CO-members. This analysis also allows to define the ways these problems could be solved. Moreover, the CO-MT should define tentative cost of solving each problem and estimate possibility of getting cost sharing from the CO-members.

Table – III: Community Level Need Identification

Total number of apartments in the building /houses in the street (or village) participated in planning: N

№	Identified problems	Apartment No. or house No. that answered the question	Total No. of apartments/HHs that identified this problem	% participation by apartments/ households	Proposed ways of solving the problem	Tentative Cost by option	UAH, community is willing to pay by option
1	Problem1	A1, A5, A8, A9, A25, A30, A39, H2, H9, H14, H20, H22, H24, H28	14	14/N*100	Option1
Option2
2	Problem2	A1, A5, A7, A12, A15, A18, A22, H4, H6, H8, H11, H13, H17, H21, H25, A19, A32,	17	17/N*100	Option1
Option2
….					Option1
Option2

A = Apartment H = Household

Method – III: Indirect Approach (Large Size Community)

Method-I and Method-II may be difficult to practice for a large size community with many associated (informal) COs. In that case, these methods could be further expanded such that it gives list of pressing needs in the community. Steps are as follows:

·  Each associated CO prepares Table –III by using method-I or method-II as per its convenience;

·  CO-MT of federated CO uses the information (Table - III) received from the associated COs and prepares Table – IV (below) and ranks the order of the problem in order of magnitude of the response.

Table – IV: Community Level Need Identification

Total number of apartments/households participated in planning: N (= n1+n2+n3+ .....)

№	Identified problems	Total No. of apartments/HHs that identified this problem	% participation by apartments/ households	Proposed ways of solving the problem	Tentative Cost by option	UAH, community is willing to pay by option
1	Problem1	M1 (m1+m2+m3+…)	M1/N*100	Option1
Option2
2	Problem2	M2 (k1+k2+k3+…)	M2/N*100	Option1
Option2
….				Option1
Option2

n1, n2, … = number of HHs participated in planning from associated CO1, CO2, …

m1, m2, …= number of HHs voted for problem1 from CO1, CO2, …

k1, k2, …. = number of HHs voted for problem2 from CO1, CO2,….

Community plans mostly are reflected in terms of physical infrastructures of social (health posts, drinking water etc.), economic (e. g. micro-irrigation, marketing of agricultural products) and environmental (e. g. drainage/sewerage, window insulation, heating system, green park etc.) nature.

4.2.3: Prioritisation of needs

The list of needs identified at household level and community level are debated at the CO level in light of their intensity, feasibility (CO should be able to implement), sustainability (beneficiaries should be able to maintain), equity (at least 80% of the CO-members benefit and the low income households are not left out), productivity (the project directly or indirectly contributes to increase in households income/reduction in households expenditure) and environmental soundness. The plan that appears at the top is chosen for implementation. The remaining plans are retained for future (details given in Annex - 25). At times, the top priority may not fall within the priority area of the CBA and/or that of local authorities. In such a case, the CO-members should try 2nd or 3rd priority (that belongs to one of the priority areas of both CBA and the local authority) for implementation while its top priority may still wait. Alternatively, the CO may try to seek support from other funding agency to undertake those priorities which cannot be supported under CBA Project.

It should be noted that for a small and homogenous (like minded) locality such a lengthy process (as mentioned above) may not be needed and total process may be accomplished in one meeting. Whereas for heterogeneous and large number of dwellers several meetings may be required to reach consensus. Also, hot debates may be expected to take place in the process of planning and priority setting. Therefore, RIU team and CO-MT must be alert and manage the situation in time.

4.2.4: Aggregation of prioritised plans

CO-level plans are further aggregated at the level of local council (Annex - 26). Aggregation gives a picture of the nature of activities, type and level of service delivery and the level of investment required to strengthen governance, promote social cohesion and improve lives of the people in the target community.

4.3.1: Integration of plans at council level

RIU facilitates a public hearing (planning workshop) at VC/CC level or facilitates participation of COs in the planning workshop called by the VC/CC. Participation of VC/CC level planning workshop could be:

·  Members of local council + executive body of VC/CC + head of sectoral units

·  COs,

·  NGOs,

·  CBA representatives,

·  Representatives of private businesses

·  Other donor agencies (national/international)

Purpose of this workshop is to reconcile and prioritise COs’ plans with that of council’s plan. In case there is only one CO and the VC/CC authorities are well aware about its plan then this step may be skipped and section 4.3.2 should be followed directly. However, it is worth consideration that role of CBA is to enhance capacity of local council to undertake similar participatory planning for all the communities on the territory. In that case, aggregation of plans from all (CBA as well as non-CBA) communities becomes essential. Through this workshop VC/CC prepares its development plan to be submitted to rayon authorities for budgeting. In absence of the wider planning, VC/CC may approve the only CDP presented by the CBA/CO and forward it officially for debate in LDF meeting or head of VC/CC may decide to defend the plan personally in the LDF meeting on behalf of the VC/CC.