Staff Feedback
4.2 Staff Feedback
100. The result of the staff interviews and a focus-group meeting was a mix of skepticism and enthusiasm regarding the future of CDD in ADB. Some staff felt that there was not enough CDD experience and capacity available in ADB to expand the use of this development strategy. Others welcomed the study as a positive step toward scaling-up ADB’s experience in CDD and were encouraged by the prospect of the further application of this methodology in ADB projects.
101. Awareness of Social Development. Several staff felt that among ADB management and staff there was generally a lack of understanding if not appreciation of social development, let alone CDD. This attitude has arisen from discussions on projects as well as on policy matters. There is also a sense that there is not enough project staff with sufficient background in participatory practices to develop CDD projects. Finally, the absence of intellectual leaders for CDD in ADB (like Scott Guggenheim of the World Bank) was pointed out as one of the potential bottlenecks if ADB decides to scale-up its CDD operations.
Minutes of the 1 February 2006 staff consultation meeting on the review are available upon request.
102. Increasing Initiatives. Other staff pointed out that there are pioneering efforts and growing interest in ADB to increase community participation in projects. They referred to several projects, some funded by JFPR grants or TAs attached to loans, that are advanced in use of CDD features and feel that the efforts of staff in some regions/sectors in ADB show good potential for increasing CDD in projects in the future.
103. Clients’ Desire and Capacity. Several of those interviewed noted that it would be difficult to initiate CDD projects if governments are uncooperative or even hostile toward community participation in government projects. In cases where there is openness, there is a need to invest in training of government staff to enable them to manage such projects effectively. Some staff felt that there is a significant opportunity to build on key people in the bureaucracy who are open to allowing experimentation with CDD projects. These staff felt that ADB officers also need to develop a constituency in client governments of persons who will appreciate the benefits of greater community participation.
104. Institutional Constraints. The fundamental question asked by some staff was whether ADB’s institutional commitment and competency are compatible with CDD. They asked whether ADB should develop other competency instead, given its institutional capacity. Some also asked whether there are sectors/project types that are more suitable to CDD and whether ADB should just apply CDD selectively in these project types/sectors. Overall, there is a sense that there are big gaps between theory and practice of participatory strategies in ADB. Many staff members saw that the current project preparation modality might need to be made more flexible to cater for CDD. It was suggested that the timeframe for project preparation is too short to inculcate meaningful community participation in design, while the RRP logical framework requires project designers to identify project outputs, which cannot be identified at the beginning in demand-driven projects. Consulting services and procurement rules may need to be adjusted to allow flexibility. 102 It was also felt that there are not enough resources to obtain inputs on social development/participatory elements during the design phase. The dearth of social development specialists who can participate in project design missions and project implementation is also a major constraint. For these reasons, it was felt by some staff that there are no real incentives to develop more CDD projects in ADB.
105. Scaling-up CDD in ADB. Staff who were enthusiastic about the possibility of ADB doing more CDD projects said there was a need to develop full-scale CDD project(s) that can serve as models and concrete references for replication. They felt that it is only by doing more that ADB can build up its competency in CDD. Additionally, they recommended that interested managers and project officers who have skills and the desire to develop CDD projects be provided with support from the Social Development and Civil Society Division (RSGS) (i.e., tools and reference materials) to encourage them to pursue CDD projects. Another possibility suggested was to identify current projects with potential for increasing CDD features and build on them. Still another suggestion was to use TAs and trust funds to increase CDD features in current/future projects.