|
Comparative
Analysis of Planning Frameworks
While conducting a
comparative analysis of the planning frameworks, whether sectorial or
transversal, the following aspects are to be taken into account : context
, actors , how to integrate institutions and initiatives, process, impacts.
Planning processes
context
The initial idea of
elaborating planning frameworks derived from various motivations.
Regarding the ten
year plan for basic education and the elaboration of the strategic plan
for scientific research or decentralization policy, these planning processes
were urged by national concerns, particularly a strong social demand and
pressures exercised by certain actor groups. One should note that these
processes occurred in a context characterized by great institutional changes
(questioning the state's role as the greatest rural development actor,
emergence of new actor groups seeking new negotiation opportunities, etc.).
The ratification of
certain international conventions by Burkina Faso can be considered as
one of the fundamental causes of these planning processes particularly
in the case of the elaboration of the national programme for desertification
control and the preparation of the action plan for biologic diversity.
The last case concerns
planning processes resulting from certain donors' requirements in relation
to the implementation of structural adjustment policies
Actors
The actors are involved
in the planing processes in several ways. In fact, we could say that there
are as many involvement formulas as the number of planning processes.
However, these various involvement forms can be classified in three main
categories.
The first category
concerns involvement modes based on a technocratic and centralized approach
; the second category is related to modalities of involvement in
the planning processes aimed at including the civil society, but one should
note that the quality of this involvement is not always satisfactory.
The third category refers to all involvement strategies which have
been successfully implemented while raising the concerned actors'awareness
of their responsibility.
In general, the actors
involvement strategy has been hindered by several constraints. The first
constraint is related to ways in which the consulting and steering structures
are established and function. In fact, mechanisms used to represent actors
in these structures don't always take into account proxies' capacity of
contributing significantly in the planning process. It has been noted
that technical service representatives and those from the civil society
organizations cannot always establish adequate relationships between their
original institutions and the planning frameworks the represent.
This situation is
partly due to the fact that the institutions which should be involved
in the planning process are generally selected by the steering structure.
Deadlines given are not enough to assess the different institutions capacities
of being actually involved in the process and to carefully examine agents'
profiles before designating proxies.
The lack of specifications
for these representatives doesn't enable to precise their roles in the
steering frameworks. When terms of reference are defined, the representatives'
mission is not clearly determined and there is no procedure to evaluate
the quality of their involvement in the process. As a matter of fact,
the lack of specifications including sanction procedures (positive or
negative depending on cases) shows the proxies unmotivation and their
inadequate performance.
This situation has
been worsened by the fact that institution representatives in the steering
committees change their ways according to the meeting they have attended,
which undermines the continuous follow up of the planning process.
Another constraint
is the lack of mechanisms designed for a preliminary sufficient preparation
of the different meetings (forms, steering committees, work meetings).
Actors attending these meetings only receive the preparatory documents
on the eve of the meeting or on the very day. In these conditions it is
difficulties for them to bring their contribution efficiently while taking
into account all the experience of the actor groups or the institutions
for which they work.
In addition, regarding
pedagogical aspects, French illiterate actors face serious difficulties
in getting involved in the consultation processes due to the lack of devices
which could enable their comprehension (translations of basic documents
into local languages) and in defining a suitable work plan according
to their needs. The civil society actors cannot always participate in
debates largely. They need mediators who will help them better understand
some terms used in the debates. This is indispensable and enables them
to express their concerns and make proposals.
It has been noted
that when actors are not enthusiastically involved in planning processes,
this is due to the fact they are requested at a late stage after the processes
have been designed and modalities defined. As for the civil society actors
more specifically, they feel that their involvement in the process is
simply a vindication and a source of legitimacy for state institutions
since there is no certainty that their viewpoints will be actually taken
into account.
It has been also noted
that the insufficient involvement of the civil society organizations in
planning processes is due to the internal functioning of these organizations.
Development partners
are usually well motivated to support almost all planning processes. However,
they face several problems in their intervention. In order to respect
their deadlines donors have imposed a progression pace to the planning
processes which could often affect the quality of work (collection of
preliminary data, assessment of ongoing actions, consultation between
actors, etc.).
Integrating
institutions and initiatives
The problem of integrating
institutions and initiatives should be addressed in relation to the steering
of processes on the one hand and to consultation between the different
planning frameworks on the other hand.
Generally, the weakness
of the steering committees (irregularity, quality of participation) didn't
permit to develop a sufficient capacity for an efficient follow up of
decisions and enable coordination and consistency of processes. This situation
raises the question of the coordination framework and political authority
capable of taking over or supervising the effective implementation of
orientations. In oder to work efficiently, these frameworks should be
made up of the main representatives of the different social groups (public
institutions and non governmental actors) and exercise sufficient authority
(in terms of taking over) to supervise planning activities and create
favorable conditions for a common implementation of policies and plans.
Donors in general
have tried to develop sectarian attitudes. Each of them prefers to encourage
actions which respond to their concerns without considering ongoing dynamics
in the field, or attempting to coordinate planning frameworks and policies.
The priority that each donor gives to his own options in relation to objectives,
evaluation criteria and financing procedures, tends to keep planning processes
in an isolated functioning logic.
Two important issues
should be taken into account in assessing cooperation systems : the lack
or difficulty of consultation among donors themselves ( In some sectors
remarkable exceptions need to be highlighted) , national leadership in
managing frameworks and coordinating .
Processes
In almost most cases,
planning processes have largely depended on external financing. The Government's
support consists of only providing agents and premises. In some rare cases
of financial support, amounts provided were purely symbolic and couldn't
meet financial needs identified.
Donors support occurs
in different forms according to cases. In the case of the decentralization
process they showed a good example by acting in consultation in the context
of fungible funds. This unique procedure facilitated the execution of
a real programme unaffected by accounting and administrative heaviness.
However, in preparing the PAN/LCD, financing modalities were mainly undermined
by the lack of flexibility of financial partners in elaborating budgets
and by the option of these partners which consisted of financing actions
gradually.
One should note that
donors have always disagreed to support a national expertise even partially
for a determined duration. Besides, they are note very willing to provide
resources intended for mobilizing appropriate expertise at national level.
The operationalization
of the different planning frameworks remains an important challenge. There
are still no reliable indicators which will enable to assess the quality
of the process and the impacts deriving from it. In general, actors responsible
for monitoring/evaluation activities are not fully autonomous to appreciate
the process impacts objectively. This situation resulted in divergences
noted between government officials' appreciation and those of donors and
beneficiaries. The SAP experience is an obvious example.
Donors are not always
willing to allow true autonomous evaluations which could enable to question
their programs and plans.
Civil society (particularly
trade unions, Human rights movements ….) estimate that donors have
a high responsibility in not checking if the conditionnalities principles
are effectively observed by national authorities.
Impacts
It is difficult to
determine the planning process impacts for at least three reasons : the
operational implementation of most processes is still in a starting phase
; certain oldest processes lack institutional structures to support their
implementation ; others have not yet been thoroughly evaluated so as to
determine impacts.
Therefore, processes
related to the SAP have produced effects which have been differently appreciated
by actors and authorithies (economic reforms, etc.). As indicated previously,
there is a difference between the donors and the beneficiaries viewpoints
obtained through data on the evolution of poverty indicators.
|
