Municipal Development Counselling (MUDEC) Group .:: MUDEC GROUP ::.
  • Our Mission

    • Reducing poverty in our municipalities through encouraging gender equality and increasing citizen (End User) participation in democratic and governance processes.

MUDEC & PNDP collabration(Kombo Intindi Council)

Kombo Intindi Council (KIC)


Final Report on the Communal Development Planning Process in Kombo Itindi Municipality.

 

Prepared by LSO MUDEC Group.

Submitted to the RCU/PNDP/SW.

November 2012

  1. 1.     Introduction
  2. a.     Context and justification

In July 2004 the Government of Cameroon in enacted the Law on Decentralization as Applicable to Local Councils. This law among others  mandates councils to provide basic services in several domains including economic, social, health, education, and culture and sports development within their municipalities. The Government has since fostered the process through other instruments such as the Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP), and Vision 2035 which are geared at making the country an emergent economy with 10% annual growth rate. Councils have since 2010 been receiving resources and competencies from the central authorities.

Further to all these efforts, the National Community Driven Development Programme (PNDP) has been commissioned to contribute meaningfully toward poverty alleviation using participatory strategies at the level of local councils. Within the framework for the execution of PNDP activities, a cooperation agreement was signed in July 2011 between Kombo Itindi Council, the PNDP (SW-RCU) and MUDEC Group (a Local Support Organization) in which the PNDP has offered technical and financial support to enable MUDEC Group accompany Kombo Itindi Council toward the elaboration of its Communal Development Plan (CDP).

  1. b.    Objective of the CDP

The overall objective was to equip the council with a Communal Development Plan.

Specific Objectives include to;  

  • Sensitize all development stakeholders within the municipality to encourage participation and ownership of the planning process.
  • Conduct participatory  identification, analysis and documentation of information  at the council level (CID), urban level (USD), and village level (consolidated village diagnosis).
  • Accompany consultants during the conduct of feasibility studies and institute Follow up Committees at council and village levels to monitor the implementation of micro projects.
  • Build partnership and resources (financial, material, human) between the council and its development stakeholders.

        2. Methodology: this can be analyzed at three levels;

  •  Secondary data was collected through literature reviews on socio economic, cultural, environmental, financial, material and personnel matters.
  • Primary data was collected and analyzed using a variety of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools with gender considerations including participatory mapping, socio economic and environmental surveys and meetings with socio professional group representatives. Participants also engaged in direct observations, site visits, focus group discussions, interviews with questionnaires, transect walks, simple ranking, produced venn diagrams, and problem analysis using problem and objective trees. Waypoints were collected using the Global Positioning System (GPS). Historical timeline were used to assist participants to identify previous development efforts and their partners.
  • Facilitators used statistical software for data entry which enabled the differentiation and presentation of qualitative and quantitative analysis to generate tables, graphs, pie charts and bar charts.. GIS software was used for the production of geo referenced maps.
  1. 3.      Activities: several activities were executed during this planning process and can be subdivided into three introductory, facilitation and validation phases as follows:

Introduction phase:

v   LSO key personnel trained by officials of the PNDP.

v  Contract signed between the council (represented by the Mayor), the LSO (represented by its Team Leader) and  the South West Regional Coordinator of the PNDP.

v  Training resituated to other MUDEC research assistants.

v  Planning meetings held with the management of Kombo Itindi council.

v    Secondary data on the socio economic and environmental situation within the municipality collected and triangulated.

v  Elaborated sensitization campaigns of stakeholders including traditional authorities, women and youth group representatives, the local administrative heads of technical services, socio professional groups and international organizations operating within the municipality.

 Facilitation phase: This included;

v  Official launching workshop organized.

v  Steering Committee put in place with clearly defined terms of reference.

v  Primary data collected and diagnosed at three different levels namely; the Council Institutional Diagnosis (CID), the Urban Space Diagnosis (USD) and the Sectorial Village by Village Diagnosis.

v  Data Consolidation and Mapping.

v  Planning Workshop, Resource Mobilization and Programming. During this workshop several activities were carried out including; restitution of  the diagnosis report by sector and by village ; restitution of the Logical Framework sector by sector; programming  and  prioritisation of investments for the Mid Term Expenditure Tramework (2-12 to 2014) and the Annual Investment Plan (2012) ; evaluation of  the environmental strategy of the AIP.  putting in place the Follow up Committee with clear terms of reference with an action plan; elaboration of a contract award plan for the first year (2012).

Validation phase:  This involved;

  • Accompaniment of consultants during the conduct of feasibility studies
  • Identification of Village Project Committees
  • Validation of Micro projects by COMES.
  1. 4.      Results: the following results were realized within the municipality;
    1. Communal Development Plan
    2. Consolidated Diagnosis Report
    3. Global Positioning System (way points)
    4. Consolidate Excel Sheets
    5. Consolidated Excel Sheets of  Needs
    6. Atlas of Maps and Pictures
    7. Implantation of a Monitoring Committee at the level of the council.
    8. Implantation of Project Management Committees at Village levels
  1. 5.     Difficulties encountered:

Challenges encountered during the execution of the project centered at four levels namely;

a)      Council level:

i)                    Unavailable secondary about the council even at the level of the supervisory authority.

ii)                  Available information can only be secured from the Mayor who generally was too busy with other council matters.

iii)                The Sub Treasurer was not versed with the Council PNDP operations thus increasing the bottlenecks on planned activities.

b)     Community level:

i)                    Some Councilors of the municipality took a nonchalant approach toward the planning exercise.

ii)                  The terrain was horrible and difficult for the conduct of planning activities..

c)      PNDP level:

i)                    Slow and cumbersome payments of contract values tremendously put undue strain on field operations.

ii)                  Planning process organized during the rainy season when insecurity in maritime areas is high. Timing for data collection during the rains caused working documents to be wet thereby increasing risks of losing data collected.

d)     MUDEC Level:

i)                    Uncommitted staff who did not respect PNDP methodology were suspended thereby causing delays as some activities had to be executed twice.

  1. 6.     Conclusion:

The process to elaborate the CDP of KIC was successful because the main objective was realized. The entire process was challenging because it was participatory with sometimes conflicting viewpoints. It can be effectively appreciated when one looks at the actors and tools at each stage within the process, the timing, the challenges encountered and the way forward.. The level of understanding of stakeholders also added to the challenges as planners had to speak through interpreters with the risk of information being distorted. The timing of the process was problematic because data was collected during the heart of the rainy season with violent sea waves that put immense strain on the research assistants. Due to insecurity within the municipality, researchers were accompanied by BIR elements who were constantly putting pressure on the data collection activities by hurrying to return to their bases because they were not well informed on the need for patience when communicating with villagers. Finally, the collaboration between the main actors in the CDP elaboration process (the council, PNDP, communities, consultants and the LSO) was relatively cordial largely due to the fact that the roles and responsibilities of each were clearly spelt out and constantly being reviewed.

 

 

Report on the Process of Accompanying Consultants during the Conduct of Feasibility Studies in

Kombo Itindi Municipality

Prepared by LSO MUDEC Group.

Submitted to the RCU/PNDP/SW.

Submitted on 8th November 2012.

 

  1. 1.     Introduction:

1.1             Context and justification:

The National Community Driven Development Programme (PNDP) was commissioned to contribute meaningfully toward poverty alleviation using participatory strategies at the level of local councils. Within this framework,  a cooperation agreement was signed in July 2011 between Kombo Itindi Council, the PNDP (SW-RCU) and MUDEC Group (a Local Support Organization) in which the PNDP  offered technical and financial support to enable MUDEC Group facilitate  the elaboration of a Communal Development Plan (CDP) for Kombo Itindi municipality. During the planning exercise, several micro projects within several sectors  were identified in all the thirty two villages that constitute the council area. The total cost of the Communal Development Plan (CDP) for Kombo Itindi Municipality is three thousand four hundred seventy four million, three hundred thousand francs (3.474. 300.000 FCFA) while the Mid Term Expenditure Framework (MITEF 2012 to 2014) is  two thousand one hundred ninety seven million one hundred and sixty thousand francs (2.197.160.000 FCFA)

In the 2012 Annual Investment Plan, twenty (20) projects (in the domains of infrastructure, services and supplies) worth about five hundred and thirteen million (513, 000,000FCFA) were identified for execution. However, based on the available resources, only six projects (representing  30% ) were shortlisted for feasibility studies. These included provision of potable water in three villages (Barracks, Isu and Gold Coast), construction of classrooms and latrines at Government Primary Schools in Isu and Gold Coast and the construction of a fish dryer and warehouse in Barracks. In order to assure a smooth transition betwwen the planning process facilitation and the implementation of micro projects, the Local Support Organization / LSO (MUDEC Group) was required to accompany the consultants who were engaged to carry out fesibility studies. It is within this mind frame that the hydrualics and infrastructure consultants (repectively Professor Richard Akoachere and Mr. John Tendong)  were accompanied by MUDEC Group, Kombo Itindi Council officials, the PNDP  to the concerned villages from 30th May to 1st June 2012 to conduct feasibility studies for the six earmarked projects. The Supervisory Authority provided armed security (marines) to ensure the safety of the team during field operations. During field operations villages were sensitized and information, collected and village project committees formed. An enlarged council session was constituted to deliberate and validate the feasibility studies. Five micro projects were retained for execution and the neccessary contribution by PNDP and the Council determined. Council management was therefore authoried through a municipal decision to initiate the process of awarding contracts for the realization of the five retained micro projects.

 

1.2             Objective of the Accompaniment:

The main objective for the the LSO to accompany the consultants was to foster the participatory process in the field by linking up the all development stakeholders in identified communities and the consultants who had been charged to conduct the feasibility studies.

Specifically, the accompanying the consultants was to;  

  • To provide an enabling environment for the consultants to appreciate the Communal Development Plan of Kombo Itindi Council.
  • To introduce the consultants to the identified communities.
  • To sensitize all development stakeholders within the communities and encourage participation and ownership of the process of implementation of micro projects.
  • Facilitate the creation of  a Village Project Committee to monitor the implementation of micro projects.

2       Methodology:

The methodology included four phases:

2.1             Preparation:

The LSO made initial contacts with the hydraulics and infrastructure consultants soon after they had been contracted to carry out the studies. The CDP was circulated to them and after a period of review; a pre field work meeting was held during which there was brainstorming on possible dates which were communicated to council authorities as well as plans to mobilize human, material and financial resources. The team also solicited security coverage during the trip from the supervisory authority through the management of the council.

2.2             Field work:

Upon arrival in the council area, we held entry level discussions with council management and communicated the work plan to the concerned communities (Barracks, Isu and Gold Coast). During village visits, the LSO introduced the consultants to the Chiefs and the population who later explained their tasks, the proposed action plans and the nature of collaboration from the population. After brief question and answer sessions, Village Project Committees were constituted with clearly defined and understood terms of references in Barracks, Isu and Gold Coast (see annex). The project sites were later identified and the consultants collected and analyzed data. Their findings were presented to the villagers during exit level discussions.

2.3             Reporting:

The consultants and LSO proceeded to document their finding based on PNDP prescriptions which were submitted to technical experts of PNDP for approval. Thereafter, the team advised council management to constitute the COMES for the validation of the feasibility studies.

2.4             Validation of Feasibility Studies:

After the approval of the technical specifications of the studies, discussions were held on possible dates for validation. Council management proceeded to engage the validation on 25th October 2012 in Mundemba during which five projects were validated for execution..

3       Activities:

3.1             Introduction: The activities involved during this accompanying exercise centered on creating enabling environments for all stakeholders to come together and jointly execute their required tasks.

3.2             Facilitation/ Negotiation / Management of Conflicts: In order to  get the

Different stakeholders to work positively toward the desired objectives, there was need for  the LSO to play a facilitating role which sometimes was extremely difficult because of conflicting interests in terms of  dates, time and  venues for planned activities.  Conflicts also surfaced on issues such as joint financing of transportation especially on maritime routes.  Facilitation and negotiation were needed during site identification, the commitments of the population and selection of projects to be validated. In these situations the LSO was instrumental in negotiations which in most cases ended in win -win situations. A major conflict also centered on the proposed construction of a fish dryer and warehouse in Barracks worth thirty seven million seven hundred and eighty two thousand francs (37.782.000FCFA in which the council was to contribute of 15% or 5.667.300 FCFA . A few councilors thought it was important since it will create employment and generate income for the council. However, the lack of finance meant that the project was shelved for 2013. This represented another conflict management situation that was skillfully handled by the LSO.

3.3             Validation: This exercise took place on 25th October 2012 at the MINEPAT hall in Mundemba. About thirty five (35) participants constituting  the Enlarged Council Session (COMES) validated five (5) out of the six (6) micro projects presented by the consultants in the domains of hydraulics and infrastructure.

4       Results:

v  Village Project Committees created  in Barracks, Isu and Gold Coast.

v  Six (6) micro projects were studied and requests for financing submitted for five (5) micro projects.      

v  Five (5) micro projects were validated for financing and execution within four months..

v  Amounts  of contributions for the Council and the  PNDP listed below:

Name / Location of Micro Project Total Costs (TTC) PNDP Contribution / % Council Contribution / %
Purchase and Installation of Desalination Unit for  Water in Isu Village 43.679.776FCFA 41.495.787 FCFA (95%) 2.183.988 FCFA (5%)
Purchase and Installation of Desalination Unit for  Water in Gold Coast 43.679.776FCFA 41.495.787 FCFA (95%) 2.183.988 FCFA (5%)
Purchase and Installation of Desalination Unit for  Water in Barracks 43.679.776FCFA 41.495.787 FCFA (95%) 2.183.988 FCFA (5%)
Construction of 2 classrooms and litrines at GPS Isu. 38.218.460 FCFA 34.396.614 FCFA (90%) 3.821.846 FCFA (10%)
Construction of 2 classrooms and litrines at GPS Isu. 32.742.663 FCFA 29.468.396 FCFA (90%) 3.274.263 FCFA (10%)
Total 2012 Investments 202.000.451 FCFA 188.352.371 FCFA 13.648.073 FCFA

 

5        Difficulties encountered: We encountered several challenges during the exercise to accompany the consultants.. These were centered on three main areas; maritime transportation which is very expensive, usually not readily available and must be arranged in advance with financial commitments. Another major challenge is the terrain which is always wet, marshy and full of mosquitoes. The problem of insecurity is a constant reminder of the dangers of working in the Bakassi zone reasons why we requested armed security coverage.  

6       Conclusion:

The process to accompany the consultants during the conduct of feasibility studies was necessary because it created a link and continuity between the planning and the implementation phases of the elaboration of the CDP. It offered the consultants with ideas on field realities and background information upon which to plan their work. The process also gave opportunities for the council and villagers to easily work with the consultants by building on the rapport that had been created by the LSO. After preparatory activities, six micro projects in three villages (Barracks, Isu and Gold Coast) were shortlisted for study. These villages have project management committees who have been trained to work closely with the follow up committee at the level of the council. Five projects ( 3 in water and 2 in basic education) worth two hundred and two million four hundred and fifty one francs (202.000.451 FCFA) were deliberated and validated by the COMES for financing through the joint PNDP / KIC account. The council will make a contribution of thirteen million six hundred and forty eight thousand seventy three francs (13.648.073 FCFA) representing 6.8% while the PNDP will contribute one hundred eighty eight million three hundred fifty two thousand three hundred and seventy one francs (188.352.371 FCFA) representing 93.2%.

The next step in the implementation phase will be to mobilize the funds into the joint account and award contracts for effective construction to begin.  The upcoming dry season should be exploited to avoid cost overruns and security concerns during the rainy season.

The collaboration between the LSO, the consultants and council management was very cordial during this phase. PNDP representatives gave valuable and timely advice. It is now the duty of the council to hasten deposit of its share into the account and request funds from the PNDP in order that contractors are solicited to begin effective work.

7       Annexes

7.1            Municipal Decision Validating Feasibility Studies

7.2            Land Donation Agreements

7.3            Plan of Action / Realization

7.4            Village Project Committees

7.5            Micro Project Profiles

7.6            Pictures of the Sites / Validation Workshop

7.7            Attendance Sheets.

 

7.3 Action Plan / Realization:

No Planned Activity Dates Team members Outcomes
1 Hold introductory discussions with KIC, Consultants and LSO 23rd April 2012 KIC, Consultants and LSO Familiarity created, work time tables elaborated
2 Submit CDPs to Consultants 23rd April 2012 KIC, Consultants and LSO Consultants knowledge of the terrain and challenges clearly understood
3 Field visit to Barracks 30th May 2012 KIC, PNDP, Consultants and LSO Consultants introduced, project sites identified, land transfer agreements secured, information collected, village project committees created
4 Field visit to Isu 31st May 2012 KIC, PNDP, Consultants and LSO Consultants introduced, project sites identified, land transfer agreements secured, information collected, village project committees created
5 Field visit to Gold Coast 1st June 2012 KIC, PNDP, Consultants and LSO Consultants introduced, project sites identified, land transfer agreements secured, information collected, village project committees created
6 Reporting June to September 2012 Consultants, LSO Technical drafts produced and validated
7 Plan for Validation 20th October 2012 KIC, PNDP, Consultants and LSO Time table of dates, venue and participants produced.
8 Validation by COMES 25th October 2012 KIC, PNDP, Consultants and LSO Municipal Decision bearing on execution of micro projects available

 

7.4 Village Project Committees:

Village Names Position
Isu Chief Sunday Edet  Ndem President
  Frida Edet Anwana Vice President
  Costly John Edet Secretary
  Alex Edem Ekpenyong Vice Secretary
  Nkoyo Alex Treasurer
  Ekaette Effiong Bassey Vice Treasurer
  Effiong Bassey Etim Auditor
  Edet Etim Expo Vice Auditor
  Emmanuel Bullet Adviser 01
  Asuquo Inyang Udoh Adviser 02
Gold Coast Chief Young Authority President
  Mr. Anthony Okon Vice President
  Mr. Mission Nweke Secretary
  Dickson Dickson Usake Vice Secretary
  Mrs. Eno Dominic Treasurer
  Mrs. Love Oweikebi Vice Treasurer
  Mr. Sitorurbi Claudius Auditor
  Mr. Solomon Bassey Vice Auditor
  Mr. Sunday Umah Adviser
  Mr. Godgift Tonybowei Vice Adviser
Barracks Mr. Philip B Akpan President
  Mr. Julius Oru Vice President
  Mr. Anderson Jonah Secretary
  Mr. Benedict Akumbo Vice Secretary
  Mr. Henshaw Okon Tom Treasurer
  Mrs. Mispa Ataba Asinganyi Vice Treasurer
  Mrs. Mary Akhan Auditor
  Mr. Nnamunso Inyang Vice Auditor
  Mrs. Atim Ogboma Zemana Adviser 01
  Mr. Ojong Otoyo Adviser 02

 

7.5 Micro Project Profiles:

Sector Water
Micro project name Purchase and Installation of Desalination Unit for  Water in Isu Village
Objective (Impact on client) Access to quality potable water in the communities increased
Locations Isu Village
Technical partners PNDP, KIC, Delegation of Water and Energy
Time to complete project December  2012
Beneficiaries Entire population in and around Isu
Estimated cost of Project  43.649.776 Frs
Environmental Impact Digging of top soil, land erosion, increase in stading water and increase in the presence of mosquitoes
Social Impact –     Reduced  water borne diseases-     Better school performance for children due to increased punctuality

–     Improved hygiene and sanitation

–     Change in gender roles (more men fetching water from desalination site)Maintenance Cost100.000 frsExecution Time1 month  Sector WaterMicro project namePurchase and Installation of Desalination Unit for  Water in Gold Coast .Objective (Impact on client)Access to quality potable water in the communities increasedLocationsGold CoastTechnical partnersPNDP, KIC, Delegation of Water and EnergyTime to complete projectDecember  2012BeneficiariesEntire population of Gold Coast and its environsEstimated cost of Project 43.649.776 FrsEnvironmental ImpactDigging of top soil, land erosion, increase in stading water and increase in the presence of mosquitoesSocial Impact-     Reduced  water borne diseases-     Better school performance for children due to increased punctuality

–     Improved hygiene and sanitation

–     Change in gender roles (more men fetching water )Maintenance Cost100.000 frsExecution Time1 month  Sector WaterMicro project namePurchase and Installation of Desalination Unit for  Water in BarracksObjective (Impact on client)Access to quality potable water in the communities increasedLocationsBarracks Technical partnersPNDP, KIC, Delegation of Water and EnergyTime to complete projectDecember 2012BeneficiariesEntire population of Barracks and  surrounding villagesEstimated cost of Project 43.649.776 FrsEnvironmental ImpactDigging of top soil, land erosion, increase in stading water and increase in the presence of mosquitoesSocial Impact-     Reduced  water borne diseases-     Better school performance for children due to increased punctuality

–     Improved hygiene and sanitation

–     Change in gender roles (more men fetching water)Maintenance Cost100.000 frsExecution Time1 month  Sector Basic Education Micro project nameConstruction of 2 classrooms and litrines at GPS Isu.Objective (Impact on client)Access to quality basic education  increasedLocationsIsuTechnical partnersPNDP, KIC,  MINEBASTime to complete projectApril  2013BeneficiariesSchool Children, Parents and teachers of communitiesEstimated cost of Project38.281.460 FrsEnvironmental Impact-          Depletion of top soil-          Dugged Holes with possible standing water

–          Depletion of MangrovesSocial Impact-          Enrolment in schools increased and learning environment improved-          Improved  hygienic and sanitation conditions in schoolsMaintenance Cost50.000 frsExecution time4 months  Sector Basic Education Micro project nameConstruction of 2 classrooms and litrines at GPS Gold CoastObjective (Impact on client)Access to quality basic education increasedLocationsGold CoastTechnical partnersPNDP, KIC.  MINEBASTime to complete projectApril 2013BeneficiariesSchool Children, Parents and teachers of communitiesEstimated cost of Project32.742.663 FrsEnvironmental Impact-          Depletion of top soil-          Dugged Holes with possible standing water

–          Depletion of MangrovesSocial Impact-          Enrolment in schools increased and learning environment improved-          Improved  hygienic and sanitation conditions in schoolsMaintenance Cost50.000 frsExecution time4 months

 

 

 

 

LSO Presentation of CDP

 

Mayor’s welcoming address

Presentation by Water Consultant

Council Follow-up Committee

PNDP Representative

Remarks by Supervisory Authority

Presentation by Infrastructure Consultant

Technicians testing for soil quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Back to: