1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (GIZ) - Germany

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/07/2012

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Periodic public discussion meetings where elected members of the commune, local organisation managers and the community can publically discuss the implementation and management of a project.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The objective of the practice is to improve local governance relating to investment projects. It helps to foster trust between elected representatives and the public, to improve public participation in commune initiatives and to facilitate the mobilisation of local resources.
Public audits are periodic public discussion meetings where elected members of the commune, local organisation managers and the community can publically discuss the implementation and management of a project to iron out problem areas and find home-grown solutions. The requirement to conduct these audits is laid down in the funding agreement signed by the local authority, socio-professional organisations (SPO) and funding partner.
Currently being undertaken as part of infrastructure projects, the audits occur in three stages: 1) The public hearing for the funding agreement comprises a presentation in the village benefiting from the project and mutual commitments laid down in the funding Agreement between the commune, the village (through the SPO), and the funding partner. It is organised by the commune and formalised through a public signing ceremony in the village. 2) The public review constitutes an intermediate evaluation stage occurring during the investment implementation phase, which provides the opportunity to take stock of the process (How have the tender processes gone? What is the status of the project’s financial execution? Are all parties delivering on the commitments laid down in the funding agreement?). 3) The end-of-project audit is a meeting that brings the implementation phase to a close and provides an opportunity to communicate and discuss the final accounts, lessons learned and measures to take to ensure the project continues.
The local authority is responsible for the logistical organisation of the different sessions. The sessions take place in the village benefiting from the project. A site visit is arranged for the end of each session.
SPO managers ensure the mobilisation of their members at the village level. The commune sets session dates, ensures the materials are prepared and provides the administrative and financial documents. The partner provides methodological support.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

To improve local governance relating to investment projects, helps to foster trust between elected representatives and the public, to improve public participation in commune initiatives and to facilitate the mobilisation of local resources.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: low representation of the community with regard to their local management of the project (social mobilisation), low public participation in the works

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	passive
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	improved monitoring and management of the project by the mayor and the commune council
Research	passive

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• public meetings

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: public meetings; Key elements: members of the commune, local organisation managers and the community can publically discuss the implementation and management of a project to iron out problem areas and find home-grown solutions

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

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
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation): 100.0%; government (APEL Programme (Support Programme for the Promotion of the Local Economy).)

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

Food-for-work was an important input as well. Funds must be set aside to cover the costs of organising the sessions (paying for meals).

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• uncertain

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improved relations between decision-makers and the community
greater public participation in the works (contributing labour and local materials) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It is important to ensure the requirement for public audits is included in the project’s funding agreement. Funds must be set aside to cover the costs of organising the sessions (paying for meals). )
improved monitoring and management of the project by the mayor and the commune council
a stronger role for community representatives with regard to their local management of the project (social mobilisation) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Decision-makers must be made fully aware that the exercise is not pitched against them; rather, its aim is to encourage public engagement in the project.)
relevant measures to ensure the sound exploitation of the infrastructure.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Manual of Good Practices in Small Scale Irrigation in the Sahel. Experiences from Mali. Published by GIZ in 2014.

Available from where? Costs?

http://star-www.giz.de/starweb/giz/pub/servlet.starweb

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Presentation of the APEL Programme’s experiences running public audits, March 2011