Delegating the management of facilities to users
(Mali)
Délégation de gestion des équipements aux exploitants (French)
Description
Promote the sustainability and cost effectiveness of schemes by setting up management delegation systems that enable local authorities to entrust infrastructure owned by the territorial community to groups of local farmers.
The basic economic infrastructure is usually provided through state or decentralised-authority funding. The building phase of the project is entirely managed by the territorial community (TC). A delegation process ensures that responsibility for managing this infrastructure is transferred to beneficiary actors organised in user associations. Agreements are concluded between the TCs and communities with the aim of guaranteeing the sustainability and economic viability of facilities. This agreement makes it possible to extend the ownership of schemes beyond that of the traditional management committee model. It can also increase local tax revenues and prolong the lifespan of facilities when they are well run.
The commune is the owner of the scheme but delegates its management to a user group (an interprofessional farming committee for lowland development projects) by means of a management delegation contract. Member subscription fees and upkeep fees are paid into a bank account opened by the community. The commune has the right to oversee the administrative and financial management of the delegatee and ensures the application of access and farming rules in the scheme. Group managers regularly report on activities to other members and the commune.
The commune council undertakes the overall project management of the installation works, contributes to funding the developments, provides key guidance on farming matters, delegates the management of the infrastructure to the interprofessional committee (IPC), supports the IPC in recovering fees, and ensures the monitoring and development of the project. The rural development commission of the commune council exists within each council. Its role is to catalogue the issues actors face and propose solutions to the commune council, support cooperatives in their search for partners together with the IPC, research the land titles for schemes on behalf of the council (registration), validate the development plan, support IPC in managing conflicts between cooperatives, and carry out any other tasks that are required of it by the commune council. The interprofessional committee brings together representatives from different cooperatives, associations and groups and takes on the delegated management role. Its role is to: maintain communications between users, the town hall and partners; coordinate activities that affect several local-level cooperatives; ensure the rational use of lowland resources; secure the agreement of the different user groups on the rules for accessing and dividing up the scheme site; assess and validate the cooperatives’ farming plans (individual needs analysis in terms of production capacity); monitor the use of inputs, seed and equipment obtained by the cooperatives; receive the fees collected by each cooperative from its members; manage renovation and maintenance funds; prevent conflicts of interest arising among the cooperatives. The management committee is a sub-committee within IPC and is tasked with managing water supply (opening and closing the distribution gates), carrying out small-scale maintenance and alerting the IPC to any failures to respect the farming code. Consultancies facilitate the process, support the institutional and organisational strengthening of actors and provide training on management tools. Technical services ensure the application of technical and environmental standards and ensure sound financial management (fee collection, financial controls, delegated public procurement). The project team provides advisory support, organises users structurally and delivers training, tools, coordination and monitoring.
Location
Location: Sikasso region, circles of Bougouni, Kolondiéba and Yanfolila, Mali, Mali
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2008
Year of termination: n.a.
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities
The objective of the practice is to promote the sustainability and cost effectiveness of schemes by setting up management delegation systems that enable local authorities to entrust infrastructure owned by the territorial community to groups of local farmers.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: lack of infrastructure for local farmers, low sustainability and cost-effectiveness of schemes
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: The basic economic infrastructure is usually provided through state or decentralised-authority funding.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: A delegation process ensures that responsibility for managing this infrastructure is transferred to beneficiary actors organised in user associations with the aim of guaranteeing the sustainability and economic viability of facilities.
Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? |
Specify stakeholders |
Describe roles of stakeholders |
local land users/ local communities |
|
|
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers |
|
|
local government |
|
|
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
|
|
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
Flow chart
The measure relies on the direct actors shown in the diagram, who are supported by other stakeholders. From the start of installation works, the commune supports the project in setting up a management system. Installation works are co-funded by the technical and financial partners (TFP), communes and beneficiary villages. It must nevertheless be highlighted that the infrastructure remains the property of the commune and beneficiaries must pay a fee for its upkeep. The commune selects the consultancy (project manager) and chooses the contractor. The commune also Monitors scheme installation and accepts works. A second consultancy is tasked with giving producers guidance on farming and management techniques. The different user groups (market gardeners/planters, women rice growers, livestock farmers, etc.) are formed into interprofessional committees or farming committees. The commune draws up the draft delegated management contract with the interprofessional committee or the cooperative. To this end, it evaluates the potential of the resources that can be mobilised and discusses with its partners the rules for farming the scheme and the methods for its maintenance and repair. Following this, the contract is signed.
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology
Decisions were taken by
-
land users alone (self-initiative)
-
mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
-
all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
-
mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
-
SLM specialists alone
-
politicians/ leaders
Decisions were made based on
-
evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
-
research findings
-
personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
The following activities or services have been part of the approach
-
Capacity building/ training
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Setting up this system requires ongoing support for two to five years to allow beneficiaries to take ownership of the scheme.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
-
no
-
yes, a little
-
yes, moderately
-
yes, greatly
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
-
financial
-
capacity building/ training
-
equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through measurements
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
-
sociology
-
economics / marketing
-
ecology
-
technology
Financing and external material support
Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
-
< 2,000
-
2,000-10,000
-
10,000-100,000
-
100,000-1,000,000
-
> 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: private sector (technical and financial partners (TFP)): 85.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (commune): 10.0%; local community / land user(s) ( village): 5.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
-
Financial/ material support provided to land users
-
Subsidies for specific inputs
-
Credit
-
Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
Installation works are co-funded by the technical and financial partners (TFP), communes and beneficiary villages. In small-scale irrigation projects, for example, the project provides up to 85% of the funds; the village 5% and the commune 10%. The beneficiaries contribute either in-kind or financially.
Impact analysis and concluding statements
Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
Consensually agreed farming codes and rules are instituted and monitored. Agreements are concluded between the TCs and communities with the aim of guaranteeing the sustainability and economic viability of facilities.
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
The system was first initiated and developed at 34 commercial infrastructure trade fairs. Today, it involves 15 farming sites. The practice has been applied since 2008.
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
-
increased production
-
increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
-
reduced land degradation
-
reduced risk of disasters
-
reduced workload
-
payments/ subsidies
-
rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
-
prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
-
affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
-
environmental consciousness
-
customs and beliefs, morals
-
enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
-
aesthetic improvement
-
conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Many repairs are already being handled by the delegated management structures. These structures ensure that the consensually agreed rules are appropriately applied. A new kind of partnership has been created between the local authorities and village communities.
-
It can increase local tax revenues and prolong the lifespan of facilities when they are well run.
How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The commune authorities must be willing to promote transparency in communications on works procurement and accept requests for clarification (public audits). The community must have leaders in place who are prepared to lead frank public discussions among key players that are also courteous and respectful. This also applies to the management committee. Monitoring and evaluation of the delegation contract is essential between the commune and platform. It is important to undertake an annual review, the conclusions of which will also be shared with the wider community. To do this, the management committee must be in a position to draw up a balance sheet. The village must be prepared to contribute (with their labour or funds) towards installing the scheme, prior to registering it in the PDESC.
It is essential to remove any ambiguity from bylaws for the scheme belonging to the commune. If it is true that actors rarely challenge the old, established rules for accessing rice growing sites, the same cannot be said for market gardens, where the plot allocation rules fall easily into place. Growers must pay the amounts/fees agreed with the commune.)
-
Subscription fees are collected more easily: 84% of members pay their subscription fees for the area in question. Consensually agreed farming codes and rules are instituted and monitored. In the Bougouni area, 552 hectares are being farmed by 1,671 rice growers, 80% of whom are women. Production has increased for 70% of growers. The principle of a maintenance fund has been accepted and is now operational, with deposits ranging from 75,000 to 300,000 CFA francs per year.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
References
Date of documentation: Sept. 24, 2014
Last update: June 13, 2017
Resource persons
-
Dieter Nill (dieter.nill@giz.de) - SLM specialist
-
Jacques Tamini (jacques.tamini@helvetas.org) - SLM specialist
-
Moussa Doumbia (douballa03@yahoo.fr) - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (GIZ) - Germany
- HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)
Project
Key references
-
Manual of Good Practices in Small Scale Irrigation in the Sahel. Experiences from Mali. Published by GIZ in 2014.: http://star-www.giz.de/starweb/giz/pub/servlet.starweb
-
Rapport appui à la valorisation des ouvrages hydroagricoles [Report on supporting the development of small-scale irrigation schemes], GSAD, June 2012:
-
Annual report: Monitoring lowland areas, BEACIL, June 2012: