THE'WORLD'BANK' OPTIONS'FOR'TRANSITION'' &'SUSTAINABILITY'OF'THE'' NATIONAL'SOLIDARITY'' PROGRAM'(NSP)' PREPARED'FOR'THE'WORLD'BANK'BY' OCTOBER'2014' Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         CONTENTS   SECTION  A:  INTRODUCTION   1   SECTION  B:  BACKGROUND,  OBJECTIVES  &  SCOPE   3   SECTION  C:  CURRENT  PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  STRUCTURE   5   SECTION  D:  OPTIONS  FOR  SUSTAINABLE  MANAGEMENT  &  DELIVERY   11   SECTION  E:  OPTIONS  FOR  SUSTAINING  ROLES  &  FUNCTIONS   22   SECTION  F:  OPTIONS  FOR  SUSTAINABLE  RESOURCING   39   SECTION  G:  OPTIONS  FOR  STRENGTHENING  TRANSITIONAL  PLANNING   52   SECTION  H:  SUSTAINABILITY  MATRIX   58   ANNEX  1:  KEY  INFORMANTS  FROM  HERAT,  BALKH  AND  NANGARHAR   63   ANNEX  2:  REFERENCES   67   ANNEX  3:  TERMS  OF  REFERENCE   71       INDEX  OF  TABLES     TABLE  1:   NSP  Sustainable  development  pathways   xiii   TABLE  2:   Current  NSP  Program  Staffing  by  HQ/Field  &  Male/Female  Splits   7   TABLE  3:   Survey  Responses  -­‐  How  can  community  identification  be  improved?   14   TABLE  4:   Current  Community  Mobilizer  Salary  Scales   21   TABLE  5:   Survey  Responses  -­‐  How  Can  Social  Mobilization  Be  Improved?   21   TABLE  6:   Survey  Responses  -­‐  What  Are  The  Main  Day-­‐T0-­‐Day  Bottlenecks?   25   TABLE  7:   Executive  Directorate   27   TABLE  8:   Operations  Directorate   27   TABLE  9:   Engineering  Department   28   TABLE  10:   Procurement  Department  –  Proposed  Functions  And  Options   29   TABLE  11:   Finance  Department   29   TABLE  12:   Capacity  Development  Department   30   TABLE  13:   Public  Communications  Department   31   TABLE  14:   M&E  Department   32   TABLE  15:   Management  Information  Systems  Department   32   TABLE  16:   Facilitating  Partners'  Management  Department   33   TABLE  17:   Administrative  Department   34   TABLE  18:   Survey  Responses  -­‐  Do  You  Have  Sufficient  Staff?   34   TABLE  19:   Human  Resource  Department   35   TABLE  20:   Regional  Coordination  Units   35   TABLE  21:   Provincial  Management  Units   36   TABLE  22:   Survey  Responses  -­‐  Is  Your  Cdc  Sustainable  In  The  Current  Situation?   37   TABLE  23:   Survey  Responses  -­‐  What  Are  The  Main  Day  To  Day  Bottlenecks?   38   TABLE  24:   Survey  Responses  -­‐  Do  you  have  sufficient  financial  resources?   39   TABLE  25:   Data  Sources  Used  in  Modelling   40   TABLE  26:   NSP–I  Appraisal/Actual  Expenditure   41                     i   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         TABLE  27:   NSP–II  Appraisal/Actual  Expenditure   42   TABLE  28:   NSP  –  Component  I  Analysis   42   TABLE  29:   List  of  Facilitating  Partners   43   TABLE  30:   NSP  –  Component  II  Expenditures   44   TABLE  31:   Sub  project  details   46   TABLE  32:   NSP  –  Project  Implemenation  Expenditures   48   TABLE  33:   Annual  NSP  Cost  Based  On  Different  BGE  Awards  (US$  million)  (Illustrative)   50   TABLE  34:   Total  Annual/Biannual  Costs  of  NSP  for  the  period  2015-­‐2025  based  on  Different  Values  of   BGE  Awards  (Illustrative)   50   TABLE  35:   Sustainability  Matrix  –  Possible  NSP  Development  Pathways   58     INDEX  OF  FIGURES     FIGURE  1:   NSP-­‐III  Three  Component  Objective  and  Cost  Structure   3   FIGURE  2:   Illustraitve  NSP  Program  Stakeholder  Pyramid   5   FIGURE  3:   Five  Phase  CDC  Planning  Cycle   8   FIGURE  4:   Illustrative  Organizational  Chart  for  the  National  Solidarity  Program   10   FIGURE  5:   Synergizing  CDC  with  Village  Geographical  Space   17       INDEX  OF  BOXES   Box  1:  NSP  Development  Pathways  2015-­‐2025   1   Box  2:  NSP  ‘Community’  Definition   12                                               ii   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP           INDEX  OF  ABBREVIATIONS         ANDS     Afghanistan  National  Development  Strategy   ARTF     Afghanistan  Reconstruction  Trust  Fund   BGD     Block  Grant  Disbursement   BGE     Block  Grant  Entitlement   CAPEX     Capital  Expenditure   CCDC     Cluster  Community  Development  Council   CDC     Community  Development  Councils   CDD     Capacity  Development  Department   CDP     Community  Development  Plan   CFHF     Community  Financial  History  Form   CPM     Community  Participatory  Monitoring   CPR     Common  Property  Resource   DAB     Da  Afghanistan  Bank     DCC       District  Coordination  Councils   DDA       District  Development  Assembly   DDP       District  Development  Plan   DG       District  Governor   DGO       District  Governor  Office   ESMF     Environmental  and  Social  Safeguards  Monitoring  Framework   FD     Finance  Department   FMA     Financial  Management  Agent   FP     Facilitating  Partners   FPMD     NSP’s  FP  Management  Department   GAO     Gender  Advisory  Office   GHM     Grievance  Handling  Mechanisms   HQ     Headquarters   IDA     International  Development  Association  of  the  World  Bank  Group   IDLG       Independent  Directorate  For  Local  Governance   IM     Implementation  Monitoring   IMI     CDC  Institutional  Maturity  Index   JSDF     Japanese  Social  Development  Fund   KII     Key  Informant  Interview   M&ED     Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Department   MAIL     Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Irrigation  and  Livestock   MHP     Micro  Hydro  Power   MISD     Management  Information  Systems  Department   MoF     Ministry  of  Finance   MRRD     Ministry  of  Rural  Rehabilitation  and  Development     MTEF     Medium  Term  Expenditure  Framework   MTFF     Medium  Term  Fiscal  Framework   NCB     National  Competitive  Bidding   NGO     Non-­‐Governmental  Organization   NSP     National  Solidarity  Program                     iii   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         OM     Operational  Manual   OPEX     Operational  Expenditure   PcFR     Physical  cum  Financial  Report   PD     NSP  Procurement  Department   PDC     Provincial  Development  Council   PDO     Project  Development  Objective   PIM     Post  Implementation  Monitoring   PMA     Provincial  Management  Advisors   PMC     Communities  Project  Management  Committee   PMU     Provincial  Management  Unit   PREM       Poverty  Reduction  and  Economic  Management   RCU     Regional  Coordination  Unit   RF     Result  Framework   SNG     Sub-­‐National  Governance   SSS     Single/Sole  Source  Selection   TMAF     Tokyo  Mutual  Accountability  Framework   TOR     Terms  of  Reference   TTL     Task  Team  Leader     UN     United  Nations   VC       Village  Councils   WB     World  Bank                                   CURRENCY  EQUIVALENTS:  1  USD  =  57.91  AFN  (as  of  October  29  2014)   GOVERNMENT  FISCAL  YEAR:  21  December  -­‐  20  December     DISCLAIMER   While  the  World  Bank  has  financed  this  work,  the  views  expressed  herein  reflect  the  opinion  of  the   authors,  and  in  no  way  reflect  the  views  of  the  World  Bank  and  the  Government  of  Afghanistan.                       iv   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP               Acknowledgment     The  study  team  has  been  afforded  invaluable  support  and  insight  from  H.E.  Wais  Barmak  (Minister  of   MEED),  Abdul  Ayoubi  (Executive  Director  of  the  NSP),  Rasoul  Rasouli  (Head  of  Operations),  Brigitta  Bode   (Policy  and  Program  Planning  Advisor)  and  Jovita  Thomas  (Operations  Advisor)  and  the  many  other  staff   of  the  NSP  and  MRRD  in  general.       Furthermore,  we  gratefully  acknowledge  the  support  and  direction  provided  by  Ladisy  Chengula  (Senior   Agricultural  Economist  and  NSP  Co-­‐TTL,  Naila  Ahmed  (NSP  Co-­‐TTL)  and  Richard  Spencer  Hogg   (Governance  Advisor)  of  the  World  Bank.       Study  Team   Dr.  Peter  J.  Middlebrook  –  Director  -­‐  (Geopolicity  Inc.)   Sharon  M.  Miller  (Geopolicity  Inc.)   Swapna  Nair  (Geopolicity  Inc.)   Amba  J.  Tadaa  (Geopolicity  Inc.)   Mohammad  Suleman  Kakar  (Hambastagi)   Dr.  Ghulam  Farooq  Bashar  (Hambastagi)   Habib  Wayand  (Hambastagi)       Errors  of  omission  or  commission  are  those  of  the  authors  alone.                   v   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         Executive  Summary   This  report  outlines  options  for  transition  and  sustainability  of  the  National  Solidarity  Program  (NSP)  in   the   light   of   the   Tokyo   Mutual   Accountability   Framework   (TMAF),   the   forthcoming   Decade   of   Transformation   (2015-­‐2025)   and   the   ‘Policy   for   Improving   Governance   and   Development   in   Districts   and   Villages’.   The   report   is   intended   to   guide   both   policy   makers   and   senior   managers   in   implementing   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP.  As  a  result  the  report  focuses  on  transitions  along  a   set  of  ‘sustainable  development  pathways’  distinguishing  between  Government,  the  NSP  as  a  program   and  Community  Development  Councils  (CDCs)  as  a  national  platform.     Report  Objective   The  objective  of  this  study,  as  stated  in  the  Terms  of  Reference,  is  ‘to  examine  options  for  transition  and   sustainability  of  NSP  as  a  program  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  most  efficient,  effective  and  sustainable   program   management   arrangements’.   The   aim   was   not   to   determine   how   much   should   be   invested   through   the   NSP   on   an   annual   basis   or   the   value   of   block   grant   awards   either.   However,   given   concerns   related   to   limited   fiscal   resources   and   declining   external   commitments   for   Afghanistan,   illustrative   examples   are   provided   to   assist   senior  officials   in  determining   program   value  as  part  of  the  forthcoming   formulation  process.   As  this  work  is  focused  on  the  sustainability  of  the  program,  not  the  program  outcomes  and  impacts,  it   will  therefore  focus  on  its  capacity  to  continue  meeting  its  stated  objectives  now  and  in  the  future.  For   the  study  to  be  completed,  and  given  that  program  management  arrangements  must  reflect  both  top-­‐ down  resource  constraints  and  bottom-­‐up  planning  needs,  trade  offs   will  need  to  be  made.  However,   any   trade   off   must   not   reverse   gains   made   so   far,   rather   propelling   the   NSP   along   a   development   pathway  that  sustains  and  deepens  the  vision  of  community  development  in  Afghanistan.   Report  Scope  and  Focus   The  report  presents  evidence  in  support  of  restructuring,  making  the  case  that  unless  adjustments  are   made   at   many   levels,   the   program   will   remain   unsustainable   over   the   longer   term.   The   findings   are   based   on   detailed   analysis   of   program   documents,   Key   Informant   Interviews   and   Focus   Group   discussions  across  the  Program  Implementation  Unit,  with  MRRD  and  other  key  program  stakeholders  at   the   provincial   and   community   levels.   The   report   demonstrates   that   adjustments   –   new   programming   approaches,   functional   rationalization   and   cost   efficiency   measures   –   must   now   be   considered   a   necessity.  The  formulation  of  NSP-­‐IV  is  soon  to  commence,  and  the  many  options  presented  here  aim  to   secure  sustainable  transition.  In  line  with  the  terms  of  reference  the  study:      Analyzed  and  assessed  the  efficacy  of  current  program  implementation  arrangements;      Identified   and   weighed   the   various   ‘pros’   and   ‘cons’   of   options   for   transforming   NSP-­‐Into   a   sustainable  program;      Examined   the   possibilities   in   transitioning   the   NSP’s   roles   and   functions   away   from   its   current   mandate,   differentiating   between   a   core   mandate   and   functions   that   may   alter   with   the   availability  of  funds;      Identified  legal  and  financial  and  investment  options  through,  which  gradually  the  core  program   could  be  made  operationally  and  financially  sustainable,  and,  which  can  be  expanded,  multiplied   or  scaled  down  according  to  the  availability  of  funds  by  the  government  and  donors;      Examined   key   elements   and   requirements   including,   but   not   limited   to,   legal   and   procedural                     vi   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         aspects,  human  resource  needs,  financial  requirements  for  each  option;  and,      Outlined   a   transition   plan   and   identifies   key   preparations   and   steps   the   Ministry   will   need   to   take   to  adopt  the  preferred  option.     Building  on  and  Consolidating  Success   The  Ministry  of  Rural  Rehabilitation  and  Development  (MRRD)  and  the  National  Solidarity  Program  (NSP)   Management  Unit  have  done  a  commendable  job  in  delivering  NSP-­‐I,  NSP-­‐II  and  NSP-­‐III,  supported  by   communities,  Facilitating  Partners  and  donors.  Since  its  inception  in  2003,  the  NSP  has  delivered  on  all   major   commitments   made   in   an   often-­‐complex   and   insecure   delivery   environment.   ‘Political   vision’,   ‘independence’,  ‘flexibility’,  ‘commitment’  and  ‘external  support’  have  been  the  key  strategic  enablers   for  NSP-­‐I,  NSP-­‐II  and  NSP-­‐III.     In  just  over  a  decade  the  NSP,  over  three  phases,  has  completed  over  56,000  sub-­‐projects  and  32,000   Community   Development   Councils   (CDCs)   have   been   largely   established.   It   is   clear   that   the   NSP   has   already  substantially  met  its  strategic  objective,  as  evidenced  by  the  results  of  the  Mid  Term  Review  and   results   presented   here.   However,   by   the   end   of   NSP-­‐III   the   program   will   have   cost   the   international   community   some   US$2.5   billion,   excluding   costs   covered   by   communities,   which   conservatively   total   approximately   US$125   million.   Going   forward,   and   to   consolidate   this   success,   and   removing   the   risks   related  to  a  decline  in  external  funding,  the  program  must  now  move  along  a  clear  set  of  development   pathways  if  gains  in  community  development  and  governance  are  to  be  consolidated.       To   avail   itself   of   new   opportunities,   transition   must   focus   on   ‘inter-­‐dependence’   with   other   service   delivery   Ministries,   ‘integration’   into   national   budget   processes,   transition   towards   greater   ‘domestic   support’  and  towards  a  less  ‘cookie  cutter’  approach  to  community  development;  built  around  the  ethos   of  Participatory  Community  Empowerment  (PCE).       Recommendations   This  report  presents  evidence  in  support  of  a  number  of  recommendations  -­‐  referred  to  as  development   pathways   -­‐   along  which  the  NSP  will  need  to  move  along  if  the  program  is  to   contribute  to  transforming   rural  life  in  Afghanistan.  Recommendations  and  options  for  consideration  reflect  actions  that  should  be   taken   by   Government   and   the   NSP   as   a   program   as   it   supports   the   sustainment   of   Community   Development  Councils  (CDCs)  as  a  critical  platform  of  local  governance.  Recommendations  and  options   are  ranked  in  order  of  importance,  and  are  provided  in  far  greater  detail  in  the  main  report.     Recommendations  and  Options  for  Government  &  Donors   Priority   1:   Establish   a   National   Task   Force   to   Address   Critical   Sustainability  Issues:   With   the   election   of   President   Ashraf   Ghani,   and   his   commitment   to   deepening   social   and   development   policy   in   Afghanistan,   it   is   proposed   to   establish   a   National   Task   Force   for   the   program   to   consider   the   various   recommendations   and   options   outlined   here,   aimed   at   removing   the   binding   constraints   to   legal   and   resourcing  issues  in  particular.  The  Task  Force  might  be  chaired  by  the  President’s  Office  or  Ministry  of   Finance  and  include  relevant  sector  Ministries,  the  World  Bank  and  key  donors  committed  to  carefully   evolving  the  NSP  along  this  transitional  framework.       Priority   2:   Establish   Strong   CDC   Legal   Framework:   The   current   Election   Law   as   it   relates   to   Village   Councils  is  impractical  and  amendment  must  be  sought.  Under  Article  66  of  the  Elections  Law  it  states   that  ‘the  Commission  may  adopt  and  publish  separate  regulations,  procedures  and  guidelines  in  order  to                     vii   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         better   implement   the   provisions   of   this   law’.   Given   that   village   level   elections   are   impossible   to   implement   for   the   foreseeable   future   (largely   due   to   financial   and   security   constraints)   it   is   proposed   that   the   National   CDC   Consultative   Conference,   Government   and   International   Community   request   that   Article   66   be   bought   into   play,   allowing   CDCs   to   be   legally   established   as   VCs.   While   the   recently   passed   National   Policy   for   Improved   Governance   at   Village   and   District   levels   states   that   CDCs   are   in   effect   pre-­‐ Village  Council  structures,  the  word  interim  means  they  are  not  in  their  final  state,  and  Village  Councils   as   defined   by   the   Election   Law   have   incompatible   functions   with   CDCs.   It   is   clearly   easier   to   adopt   separate   regulations,   procedures   and   guidelines   than   to   evolve   over   30,000   CDCs   built   around   a   community  development  ethos  into  a  forth  tier  of  government  paid  through  the  national  budget.  It  will   take  a  decade  before  formal  VC  elections  could  be  held  anyhow  and  making  such  a  move  would  deepen   the   legal   protection   of   CDCs   at   a   time   when   securing   their   future   has   never   been   more   critical.   The   Presidents   Office   would   be   well   placed   to   support   strengthening   the   legal   framework   and   removing   any   legal  ambiguity  that  might  impede  the  evolution  of  CDCs.     Priority   3:   Agree   NSP   Baseline   Fiscal   Resources   for   the   Forthcoming   5   Year   Period:   While   it   is   up   to   the   Government  to  determine  the  frequency  and  value  of  block  grants  to  communities,   it  is  essential  that   the  overall  resourcing  framework  for  the  program  is  placed  on  a  more  sustainable  footing.  Given  that   sector   Ministries   frequently   under   spend   (once   the   current   budget   deficit   is   addressed),   sufficient   resources   exist   to   secure   a   minimum   annual  resource   base   for   the   program   of   at  least   US$200   million   a   year,   with   additional   resources   being   provided   based   on   Government   policy.   Such   a   resourcing   commitment  could  be  locked  into  the  national  budget  framework  and  provide  a  solid  foundation  going   forward.   It   would   allow   the   Government   to   improve   the   value-­‐for-­‐money   structure   of   delivery   –   increasing  efficiency  –  and  would  provide  a  solid  contribution  to  the  President’s  commitment  to  a  strong   social  compact  between  the  state  and  society.     Priority   4:   Move   From   an   MRRD   CDC   Platform   to   a   ‘Whole-­‐of-­‐Government’   CDC   Platform:   An   often   citied   criticism   of   the   NSP   is   that   CDCs   are   an   MRRD   platform   and   not   a   whole-­‐of-­‐government   platform.   Whatever  the  perception,  such  a  conclusion  is  wrong  and  needs  to  be  addressed.  It  is  critical  that  the   CDC   platform   is   owned   by   local   communities,   with   MRRD,   MAIL,   MoE,   MoPH   and   other   Ministries   actively  integrating  and  aligning  their  service  delivery  arrangement  with  this  platform.  It  is  essential  to   establish   Shared   Service   Delivery   Agreements   between   the   sectors   including   sector   financing   arrangement   for   sub-­‐projects,   as   well   as   making   adjustments   to   the   current   structure   of   Community   Mobilizers.  The  EU  is  implementing  a  joint  program  under  the  Agricultural  and  Rural  Development  (ARD)   Sector   employing   CDCs   as   a   leveraged   extension   outreach   model,   which   would   be   based   on   such   a   shared-­‐services  agreement.  Drafting  shared  service  agreements  would  be  linked  to  immediate  action  3,   and  be  aimed  at  increasing  program  resourcing  from  existing  sector  plans  and  sub-­‐projects.     Priority   5:   Moving   From   Existing   CDC   (Sub-­‐Project)   Functions   a   Wider   Basket   of   Functions   Driven   by   Participatory   Community   Empowerment:   There   are   fundamental   differences   between   the   functional   assignments   proposed   for   Village   Councils   in   the   Sub-­‐National   Governance   Policy   and   the   current   functional   assignments   of   CDCs,   which   largely   reflect   the   five-­‐phase   CDC   and   Sub-­‐Project   approach.   The   SNG   Policy   is   poorly   developed   and   has   not   been   implemented   anyhow,   neither   has   provincial   budgeting.   IF   CDCs   are   to   be   part   of   this   convergence,   then   a   wider   basket   of   function   need   to   be   introduced;   perhaps   based   on   a   maturity   assessment   framework   where   performing   CDCs   would   be   provided   greater   responsibility.   The   current   functional   assignments   promoted   by   the   SNG   Policy   are   highly   notional   and   impractical   and   it   is   suggested   that   the   formal   mandate   of   CDCs   be   revisited   as   part   of  the  President’s  commitment  to  strengthening  the  social  contract  as  an  affordable  vehicle  for  driving   polity  and  the  economy.                     viii   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP           Priority   6:   Introduce   Fiscal   and   Enterprise   Resource   Planning   for   the   NSP:   Going   forward,   and   given   Afghanistan’s  fiscal  constraints,  it  is  essential  for  the  NSP  to  set  annual  and  multi-­‐annual  plans  within  the   framework  of  a  top-­‐down  budget  constraint.  While  an  annual  minimum  (base  funding)  commitment  of   US$200   million   suggested   by   this   team,   top-­‐down   and   bottom-­‐up   planning   processes   can   then   be   established   to   secure   the   best   possible   level   of   support   for   NSP-­‐IV   and   NSP-­‐V;   minimizing   structural   risks.   Given   that   Government   and   MRRD   are   introducing   ERP   and   Key   Performance   Indicator   based   planning   processes   –   mapped   to   the   national   budget   –   it   is   suggested   that   the   NSP   is   now   formally   integrated  into  the  medium  term  fiscal  framework  (core  budget)  and  that  ERP  systems  are  deployed  to   improve  resource  management  and  allocation.     Priority   7:   Move   from   100%   External   Funding   to   30-­‐50%   Government   Sector   Funding:   The   current   dependence  on  external  financing  is  unsustainable.  While  there  is  a  natural  tendency  to  assume  staunch   support   going   forward,   the   TMAF   agenda   is   clear   in   its   commitment   to   fiscal   transition.   This   study   outlines  various  alternative  resourcing  channels  for  the  program,  including  direct  budget  support,  sector   based   sub-­‐project   financed,   program   based   sub-­‐project   financing   and   wider   community   resourcing   options   many   of   which   are   beginning   to   be   practiced.   In   year   one   of   NSP-­‐IV,   it   is   strong   suggested   to   have  a  10  per  cent  co-­‐financing  with  Government,  increasing  year-­‐on-­‐year  thereafter,  though  this  will  be   resisted   and   this   will   depend   on   fiscal   space,   that   will   be   limited.   However,   the   low   expenditure   rates   in   most   sectors   would   suggest   this   is   possible,   and   it   is   most   certainly   desirable   however   difficult   to   achieve.   Finally,   as   the   NSP   slowly   takes   on   some   of   these   adjustments,   what   is   clear   is   that   the   independent  Financial  Management  Agent  and  management  of  the  float  accounts  have  been  critical  to   success  and  would  be  critical  going  forward.     Part   of   this   process   would   include   amending   the   MoF   Budget   Call   Circular   to   guide   relevant   sector   ministries.  For  sector  Ministries  that  either  do  or  could  utilize  the  CDC  platform  for  delivering  sector  sub-­‐ projects,  the  MoF  should  consider  amending  the  Budget  Call  Circular  outlining  how  such  formalization   should   take   place.   Sector   ministries   would   include   the   Ministry   of   Agriculture,   Irrigation   and   Livestock   (MAIL),   Ministry   of   Public   Health   (MoPH)   and   Ministry   of   Education   (MoE).   Given   the   low   but   improving   budget   execution   rate   -­‐   57%   for   1382   –   channeling   unused   sector   development   money   through   the   NSP   to   deliver   basic   and   essential   services   seems   compelling   and   would   provide   resource   guarantees   for   the   program  as  a  whole  –  and  the  platform  and  social  contract  it  is  promoting.     National  Solidarity  Program   In   addition   to   the   above   recommendations   and   immediate   priorities,   there   are   a   number   of   development  pathways  that  the  NSP  can  move  towards,  to  improve  the  social  contract  between  the   state   and   communities,   improving   both   economic   outcomes   and   strengthening   polity.   These   various   development  pathway  options  are  outlined  below:     Pathway  Option:  Distinguishing  between  the  NSP  as  a  Program  and  CDCs  as  institutions:  It  is  hugely   important   to   differentiate   between   NSP   as   a   program   and   CDCs   as   a   platform   of   community   based   institutions.   This   differentiation   not   only   allows   more   discrete   recommendations   to   be   drawn   but   it   also   allows  for  a  stronger  focus  on  what  kind  of  support  the  NSP  can  provide  to  allow  CDCs  to  emerge  as  a   sustainable   community   platform   embracing   Participatory   Community   Empowerment.   It   also   opens   up   the   framework   to   ask   what   can   other   sectors   and   program   do   for   CDCs,   which   is   critical   to   widening   the   support  framework.                       ix   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         Pathway   Option:   From   FP   Contracted   Community   Mobilizers   To   an   Increasing   Number   of   Independent   Community  Consultants   Community   Mobilizers   are   all   remunerated   on   different   pay   and   grading   scales,   ranging   from   US$350   to   US$550  per  month;  many  times  the  rates  for  primary  school  teachers.  Current  rates  are  unsustainable   and   a   considerable   market   distortion   that   will   likely   be   amplified   over   time.   A   select   number   of   Community   Mobilizers   could   graduate   as   so-­‐called   Community   Consultants,   independent   of   NSP   Facilitating  Partners  and  made  available  to  all  sectors  in  Government;  as  a  national  platform.  Sequencing   this  must  be  done  cautiously  so  that  attrition  rates  are  not  too  high.  A  national  training  and  certification   center   might   be   considered   by   various   Ministries   providing   a   platform   to   engage   communities   in   planning  and  needs  identification.     Recommendations  and  Options  for  Community  Development  Councils     Pathway   Option:   Move   from   Community   Project   Facilitation   To   Participatory   Community   Empowerment:  MRRD  is  pioneering  Participatory  Community  Empowerment  (PCE)  as  a  more  dominant   model  going  forward,  and  this  will  be  piloted  based  on  a  manual  over  the  course  of  the  coming  months.   The   current   program,   which   has   undoubtedly   delivered   major   successes,   however   needs   to   bring   all   stakeholders  together,  based  on  comparative  advantages  and  added  value,  with  more  time  focused  on   empowering   communities   rather   than   getting   them   to   merely   conform   to   the   five-­‐phase   CDC   project   cycle.  Such  a  cycles  has  been  essential  for  sub-­‐project  implementation,  but  in  future  sub-­‐projects  must   emerge   as  one   function,   with   a   new   set   of   governance   assignments   being   adopted   to   better   promote   empowerment.     Pathway  Option:  Move  from  a  Largely  Supply  Driven  Approach  To  a  Largely  Demand  Driven  Approach:   As  highlighted,  the  current  approach  to  the  NSP  is  overly  dogmatic  and  rather  cookie  cutter,  therefore   undermining   alternative   and   adaptive   approaches.   Such   an   approach   was   urgently   required   a   decade   back   and   it   has   delivered   results,   but   going   forward   a   less   top-­‐down   supply   driven   approach   must   be   adopted.   Facilitating   Partners   have   also   been   turned   into   contractors.   It   is   therefore   propose   –   and   options   have   been   presented   –   to   evolve   the   ethos   to   a   more   bottom-­‐up   approach   focused   on   Participatory   Community   Empowerment,   with   different   resourcing   channels   being   unblocked,   and   greater  flexibility  being  created.     Pathway   Option:   Move   from   a   PMU   (and   FP)   Implemented   Program   to   a   Ministry   Implemented   Program:  The  sustainability  of  the  NSP  is  inextricably  linked  to  that  of  MRRD.  With  CBRP  and  the  Change   Management   Unit   focusing   on   migrating   core   functions   from   Pies   on   to   a   more   sustainable   basis,   the   next  evolution  of  the  program  most  slowly  migrate  core  functions  outsourced  to  the  PIU  into  core  MRRD   business   processes.   Options   and   targets   are   presented,   though   the   sequencing   needs   to   be   carefully   considered,   to   protect   program   ethos   and   guarantee   that   bottlenecks   are   not   created.   See   Section   E   for   complete  Directorate  and  Departmental  options.     Pathway  Option:  Move  from  Regional  Coordination  Units  to  PMU  and  then  RRD  Coordination  Units:   There  is  limited  utility  of  maintaining  the  6  RCU  offices,  and  some  functions  can  be  centralized,  others   decentralized   and   others   made   obsolete.   Fieldwork   demonstrated   confusion   among   CDCs   and   FPs   regarding  the  RCU  role.  Closing  the  RCU  however  has  marginal  impact  on  program  costs.     Pathway  Option:   Move  from  Irregular  BGE  Transfers  of  US$200  To  Regular  BGE  Transfers  of  Les  than   US200:   The   current   BGE   level   is   too   high   and   unsustainable.   It   is   also   highly   irregular   and   as   the   field                     x   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         work  makes  clear,  unless  CDCs  have  a  regular  resource,  their  long  term  utility  and  sustainability  will  be   negatively   impacted.   The   report   models   various   cost   options,   including   annual   and   biennial   grant   options   ranging   from   US$   5,   10,   25,   50,   100   and   200,   all   of   which   are   illustrative   and   to   feed   into   constructive  discussion.  Clearly,  if  the  BGE  transfers  are  too  low,  and  the  delivery  costs  remain  as  they   are,   then   it   is   better   to   increase   the   award   and   make   it   less   regular,   unless   more   efficient   delivery   models   are   developed.   In   addition   to   discussing   these   options,   the   report   also   outlines   options   for   setting  BGE  awards,  forging  agreement  in  relation  to:     o Setting  BGE  size;   o Revising  the  BGE  Unit  (Ideally  households  not  families);   o Determining  BGE  frequency  based  on  resource  envelopes;  and,   o Considering  being  flexible  on  upper  BGE  Ceilings.     Pathway   Option:   Move   from   Pegged   BGE   Budget   Ceilings   To   Un-­‐pegged   BGE   Ceilings:   One   of   the   biggest   distortions   under   the   program   has   been   the   designation   of   an   upper   BGE   limit.   This   has   led   larger   villages   to   group   into   many   CDCs   and   in   some   case,   the   lower   limit,   has   let   to   the   grouping   of   villages   to   access   a   high   award.   The   impact   has   been   that   11-­‐15%   of   CDCs   do   not   share   the   same   geographical   space   as   villages,   making   any   transition   from   CDCs   to   VC   even   more   complex.   It   is   suggested   to   remove   the   higher   cap,   calculating   awards   as   BGEs   /   households,   and   allowing   larger   villages  to  therefore  get  access  to  larger  grants.     Pathway   Option:   Move   from   Informal   Sector   Integration   To   Formal   Sector   Integration   /   Shared   Delivery:  The  lack  of  interest  shown  by  the  sectors  in  working  with  CDCs  to  deliver  services  is  a  major   structural  problem.  CDCs  must  be  seen  as  a  whole-­‐of-­‐government  platform  of  community  participation   and   it   is   suggested   to   establish   Shared   Service   Delivery   Agreements   with   the   main   sectors,   to   overcome   this  very  negative  misperception.  As  part  of  this  process,  with  sector  financing  then  also  coming  on  line   for  sub-­‐projects,  more  formal  integration  will  occur.     Pathway  Option:  Move  from  Weak  Links  to  Provincial   Budgeting  to  Linkages  with  District  &  Provincial   Planning:   The   draft   Provincial   Budgeting   policy,   linked   to   the   newly   approved   ‘Policy   for   Improving   Governance   and   Development   in   Districts   and   Villages’   will   have   implications   for   strategic   program   planning   and   resource   mobilization   going   forward.   A   number   of   suggestions   are   made,   and   options   presented  for  greater  integration  or  the  program  to  these  new  development  pathways.     Pathway   Option:   Move   from   Limited   In-­‐Program   Adjustment   To   a   New   Component   of   Transitional   Planning:   It   is   suggested   to   provide   greater   resources   to   the   NSP   Executive   Directorate   to   carefully   transition   the   NSP   along   the   proposed   development   pathways,   with   decisions   based   on   real   evidence   and   carefully   considered   choices,   as   well   as   risk   mitigation   measures.   Section   G   outlines   a   proposed   approach   to   Transitional   Planning,   allowing   greater   in-­‐program   adjustment   capability   to   drive   the   change  management  process  going  forward.       Pathway   Option:   Move   from   Partial   GIS   Mapping   to   Improved   National   GIS   CDC   Mapping:   GIS   is   a   critical   resource   and   currently,   the   vast   network   of   Community   Mobilizers   and   FPs   can   be   far   better   deployed  to  gather  vital  information  on  villages,  communities  and  sub-­‐project  location.  With  a  view  to   placing   Community   Mobilizers   within   a   different   operating   framework,   and   given   the   development   of   Mobile   Based   Communication   Channels,   investments   should   be   ramped   up   to   make   sure   that   vital   information   for   provincial   budgeting   and   planning   is   not   lost.   Such   an   approach   requires   an   inter-­‐ ministerial  committee  to  be  established  linking  CSO,  sector  Ministries,  MoF  and  IDLG,  given  that  such  a                     xi   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         system  must  be  available  to  all  sectors,  so  that  all  public  assets  are  logged.     Pathway   Option:   Move   from   Communication   Via   Facilitating   Partners   To   FP   and   Mobile   Based   Communication   Channels:   Commendable   efforts   by   the   NSP   PIU   MIS   to   develop   a   Mobile   Based   Monitoring   System   must   be   taken   further,   providing   the   NSP   with   direct   lines   of   two   way   communication  to  all  CDC  members  across  the  country  and  also  to  Community  Mobilizers.  This  mobile   based  system  –  with  more  than  18  million  mobile  users  in  the  country  –  allows  Afghanistan  to  deploy   cutting   edge   communication   services   to   communities   directly,   without   being   dependent   on   slow   reporting   through   facilitating   partners.   It   also   provided   communities   with   direct   channels   and   allows   reporting  of  projects,  which  would  and  should  be  mapped  to  the  GIS  as  it  develops.     Risk  Management   Government  must  mitigate  any  potential  downside  risks  associated  with  restructuring,  in  particular  the   disruption  of  planned  or  ongoing  community  development  activities.  For  this  to  happen,  we  propose  a   new  component  under  the  NSP  on  Transitional  Planning  aimed  at  implementing  proposed  actions  and   considering  options  in  order  to  fosters  sustainability  rather  than  erode  it.       Report  Structure   The  report  is  presented  and  structured  around  Sections  A  to  H.       – Section  A  (Introduction)  introduces  the  study  context  and  provides  a  high-­‐level  overview.     – Section  B  (Background,  Objective  and  Scope)  presents  the  terms  of  reference  in  short  form.     – Section  C  (Current  Program  Management  Structure)  provides  a  summary  overview  of  the  entire   stakeholder  management  framework  for  the  program  at  the  central  and  sub-­‐national  levels.     – Section   D   (Options   for   Sustainable   Management   and   Delivery)  presents   a   number   of   high-­‐level   program   development   pathway   issues   and   options,   feeding   into   strategic   level  decision-­‐making,   in  advance  of  the  formulation  of  NSP-­‐IV.     – Section   E   (Options   for   Sustaining   Roles   and   Functions)   presents,   building   on   the   recent   NSP   functional   review   and   discussions   with   the   MRRD   Change   Management   Unit,   options   for   functional  restructuring,  rationalization,  decentralization  and  core  function  grouping.     – Section  F   (Options  for  Sustainable  Resources)  presents  options  for  linking  top-­‐down  (resource   constraint)   and   bottom-­‐up   (needs   based   planning)   as   well   as   outlining   options   for   alternative   resourcing  channels.       – Section   G   (Options   for   Strengthening   Transitional   Planning)   presents   for   the   consideration   of   the   World   Bank   and   MRRD/NSP   a   proposed   approach   for   accepting   or   rejection   different   program  structure  and  management  options.       – Section   H   (Sustainability   Matrix)   presents   the   19   development   pathways   and   a   summary   of   the   various  options  for  restructuring,  including  high-­‐level  next  steps.       Annex   1   provides   a   summary   of   all   Key   Informants.   Annex   2   presents   key   references   and   Annex   3   provides   the   terms   of   Reference.   Table   1   below   provides   a   summary   of   the   proposed   Sustainable   Development  Pathway  Options,  along  side  a  number  of  potential  risks  and  options  for  mitigation.                     xii   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP             TABLE  1:   NSP  SUSTAINABLE  DEVELOPMENT  PATHWAYS   Current  Situation        Preferred  Future  Situation       From  Community  Development  Councils      To  Village  Councils  (Interim?)             From  Current  IEC  VC  Election  Process        To  Revised  IEC  Election  Process           Administration     From  Existing  CDC  Functions      To  CDCs  with  a  Wider  Basket  of  Functions   Governance  &             From  an  MRRD  CDC  Platform      To  a  ‘Whole-­‐of-­‐Government’  VC  Platform             From  A  Largely  Supply  Driven  Approach      To  a  Largely  Demand  Driven  Approach             From  a  PMU  Implemented  Program      To  a  Ministry  Implemented  Program             From  Regional  Coordination  Units      To  PMU  and  then  RRD  Coordination  Units             From  Community  Project  Facilitation        To  Participatory  Community  Empowerment               From  100%  External  Funding      To  40-­‐50%  Government  Sector  Funding   Restructuring             From  FP  Contracted  Community  Mobilizers      To  Independent  Community  Mobilizers   Cost             From  Irregular  BGE  Transfers  of  US$200      To  Regular  BGE  Transfers  of  300"   10000"     5000"     0"   NSP"Total" NSP"I" NSPII" NSP"III"     Source:  Geopolicity  Analysis  based  on  CDC  Block  Grant  Database     106. Analysis  also  shows  that  most  communities  used  their  block  grants  to  support  more  than  one   project,   and   as   can   be   seen   from   the   survey   responses,   CDCs   have   requested   that   the   ‘negative   list’   of   projects  be  removed,  allowing  greater  choice  and  flexibility.  The  total  block  grants  disbursed  till  date   have  supported  76,949  sub-­‐projects.  Table  31  below  provides  details  on  the  sector  and  sub-­‐activity  of   these   sub-­‐projects.   The   sector   allocations   shown   here   would   also   tells   us   something   about   which   sector   ministry  could  be  financing  particular  sub-­‐projects  through  the  national  budget.  The  three  sectors  with   the  highest  number  and  value  of  projects  are  transport,  water  supply  and  sanitation  ,irrigation  and  the   power   sector   indicating   potential   sector   funding   and   program   sources.   Even   within   MRRD,   the   water   and  sanitation  unit  will  need  to  start  using  CDCs  and  could  finance  the  NSP.     TABLE  31:   SUB  PROJECT  DETAILS       NSP  I   NSP  II   NSP  IIIA   NSPIIIB   No   of   Provinces   covered   32   27   31   31   No   of   Districts   covered   227   148   206   154   No  of  CDCs   17083   5595   9478   10034   No   of   FPs   involved   23   26   55   22   No   of   Sub   Projects   41615   10673   14626   10034   Status  of  Projects  (Number  of  Projects)       Approved   91   61   494   1297   Approved   Suspended   26   24   1     Completed   39380   8960   7049   45   Failed   836   116   75   7   Ongoing   1008   1221   6938   8658                     46   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         Suspended   274   291   69   27   Total   41615   10673   14626   10034   Sectors  covered  (Number  of  Projects/Value  of  Projects  in  As)       Sectors   covered   Value  in  Afs   Value  in  Afs   Value  in  Afs   Value  in  Afs   Agriculture   2,052,827   400,000   122,865,158     Education   1,726,331,798   173,507,249     966,239,927   Emergency   Response   7,809,745     30,474,024     Health   93,821,913   2,900,806   4,251,996,250   84,933,082   Irrigation   4,424,034,768   2,836,606,768   41,088,047   2,843,367,381   Livelihood   354,669,916   63,942,166   1,032,459,943   8,173,028   Power   5,802,954,586   1,336,104,720   -­‐   857,486,037   Public  Building   18,672,463   -­‐   1,617,560,041     Rural   Development   834,782,149   529,448,504   5,330,808,033   2,233,483,812   Transport   8,112,399,182   2,547,351,749   3,695,083,862   4,515,979,637   Water   Supply   &  Sanitation   5,987,190,173   2,190,751,951     2,445,953,708   Total   27,364,719,520   9,681,013,913   16,122,335,360   13,955,616,614   Type  of  Activity  (Number  of  Projects)       Basic  Access   2709   878   1313   584   Bituminous   Pavement   1     8   21   Boring   6248   1780   2571   1149   Cleaning   969   182   30   5   Construction   16887   4913   8563   7012   Distribution   2       -­‐   Education   69       -­‐   Extension   143   261   154   84   Gravelling   3637   802   1395   879   Installation   44   4   37   43   Planting   4       -­‐   Rehabilitation   420   352   256   75   Service   7       -­‐   Stone   Pavement   5   7   1   2   Supply   6368   530   298   180   Training   4067   963     -­‐   Weaving   35   1     -­‐   Total   41615   10673   14626   10034   Source:  NSP  CDC  Database     F.5.1:  Project  Implementation  Support   107. The   third   component   of   expenditure   is   project   implementation   support,   which   includes   all   costs   outside   of   facilitating   partner   costs   and   block   grants   (See   Table   32   below).   This   category   therefore   includes  all  costs  related  to  the  Project  Implementation  Unit  (PIU)  including  wages  and  salaries,  external                     47   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         evaluations  and  studies,  MRRD  Incremental  Operating  Costs  (IOC)  etc.  It  also  includes  expenditure  at  the   Centre,  Regional  and  Provincial  levels.  The  PIU  comprises  of  1  HQ  office,  6  regional  coordination  units   (RCUs)   and   34   provincial   management   Units   (PMUs).   The   HQ   Office   includes   2   directorates   and   10   departments.     TABLE  32:   NSP  –  PROJECT  IMPLEMENTATION  EXPENDITURES   Component     NSP-­‐I   NSP-­‐II   NSP-­‐III       1   Project  Implementation  Support  Expenditure   4.3   71.78   122   2   Share  of  Total  NSP  Expenditure   1.00  %   9.72  %   8.10  %   Source:  Geopolicity,  World  Bank     108. The  share  of  component  3  in  total  program  costs  has  increased  from  1%  in  NSP-­‐I  to  7%  in  NSP-­‐II   and  III.  Provincial  expenses  comprise  51  per  cent  and  NSP  HQ  expenses  comprise  43  per  cent.  The  RCU   structures   are   relatively   low   and   removing   this   structure   will   have   marginal   impact   on   costs.   Total   Project  Implementation  Support  component  expenditures  average  US$1.6  million  a  month.  Staff  wages   amount   to   US$   1   million   for   the   981   staff,   including   883   regular   positions   and   98   employees   who   are   outside  the  normal  NSP  wage  scale  and  ineligible  for  allowances.  While  the  recent  NSP  functional  review   reduces  staffing  by  around  100,  the  impact  on  costs  over  a  three-­‐year  period  is  marginal.     F.5.2:  Looking  Forward  -­‐  Developing  Bottom-­‐up  and  Top-­‐Down  Scenarios   109. Currently,   there   is   a   great   deal   of   uncertainty   in   relation   to   what   happens   after   NSP-­‐III.   The   new   policy   undoubtedly   charts   a   slightly   new   direction   but   it   also   creates   greater   uncertainty   as   well,   and  it  will  not  be  quick  to  implement  given  the  complex  interplay  of  different  institutions  to  make  the   DCC   and   Interim   Village   Council   structure   work.   Uncertainty   is   derived   from   the   complex   interplay   between  MRRD,  IDLG,  Provincial  Councils  and  MoI  in  agreeing  DCC  level  structures.  Moreover,  while  the   PMU  has  sketched  out  plans  to  deliver  BGE  awards  to  a  certain  number  of  CDCs  in  the  NSP-­‐IV  period,   unless  the  resource  framework  is  clear,  there  is  a  very  real  risk  going  forward  that  plans  are  calibrated   based  on  needs  and  not  availability.     110. Beyond   the   new   policy   however,   and   given   that   CDCs   cannot   simply   be   evolved   into   Village   Councils   as   has   been   outlined   in   previous   chapters,   both   bottom-­‐up   and   top-­‐down   planning   process   must  emerge,  to  inform  the  next  future  program  delivery  arrangement.  A  bottom  up  approach  might   say   that   a   BGE   must   be   provided   to   each   CDC   within   a   3-­‐4   year   period   at   the   rate   of   US$150   per   household,  and  working  backwards,  and  based  on  the  current  PIU  and  FP  arrangement,  the  program  can   then   be   costed.   Alternatively   a   top-­‐down   planning   approach   would   lead   to   calculating   total   resources   available   and   then   working   backwards   to   determine   the   regularity   of   each   BGE   and   its   value.   Employing   a  top-­‐down  planning  approach,  where  the  program  is  informed  by  top-­‐down  fiscal  constraints,  it  could   be   that   a   figure   for   NSP-­‐IV   of   US$250   million,   US$500   million   or   US$750   million   is   used   as   a   planning   figure,  leading  to  a  particular  program  approach  given  the  need  to  maximize  impact  and  lower  delivery   costs.        Bottom-­‐up  Planning  Consideration:  Clarity  regarding  the  future  development  pathway  of  CDCs   to   VCs   and   certainty   over   the   frequency   (annual,   biennial   etc.)   and   value   (US$200,   US$100,   US$50,  US$25,  US$10  etc.)  of  future  block  grant  support  is  urgently  required;  and,      Top-­‐Down   Planning   Considerations:   The   declining   availability   of   external   and   government   resources  over  the  next  decade  must  be  considered  when  determining  the  feasibility  of  bottom-­‐ up   planning.   The   costs   of   maintaining   national   coverage   on   a   regular   basis   are   considerable   and                     48   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         will  fail  unless  informed  by  strong  evidence  on  resource  availability.  It  would  be  useful  for  the   NSP  to  plan  NSP-­‐IV  based  on  3-­‐4  resourcing  scenarios,  and  then  determine  bottom-­‐up  planning   considerations.     If  the  program  is  to  provide  annual  or  biennial  grants  to  each  CDC,  the  level  of  each  BGE  needs  to  be   reduced   substantially.   While   it   is   assumed   that   annual   grants   could   not   be   provided   in   the   same   way   given  the  scale  of  the  villages  to  be  served,  BGE  awards  could  go  to  households  (not  families)  once  every   two   years.   This   would   provide   regular   support   and   cover   governance   and   some   sub-­‐project   support   costs.       111. Sustaining   US$200   per   family   is   wholly   unsustainable.   For   example,   if   BGEs   are   disbursed   to   every   community   in   Afghanistan   alone,   the   costs   of   Component   2   (Block   Grants)   would   exceed   US$1.45   billion   excluding   Component   1   and   3   costs   for   each   year.   Even   reducing   the   BGE   to   US$25   per   community  per  year,  would  still  cost  approximately  US$271  million  assuming  current  Component  1  and   Component   3   support   costs   are   provided   at   near   present   levels.   That   of   course   will   not   be   the   case,   but   it  illustrates  the  costs  of  national  coverage.  Providing  a  heavily  reduced  BGE  to  each  family  on  a  biennial   not  annual  basis  would  of  course  substantially  lower  the  cost,  but  the  value  of  total  block  grants  would   make  many  projects  unfeasible.       112. NSP   annual   block   grants   of   US$10   per   family   per   year   would   cost   around   US$   1   billion.   Of   course,  this  is  only  illustrative,  as  it  would  not  make  sense  to  have  per  unit  delivery  costs  of  US$10,000   per  CDC  for  such  a  rate,  therefore  forcing  MRRD  and  NSP  to  adopt  a  wholly  new  delivery  structure  for   the   program.   Such   a   structure   might   include   providing   an   annual   grant   to   each   family   of   US   5   per   household,   paid   through   bank   accounts   to   fund   day-­‐today   CDD   and   governance   work,   with   then   donors   providing  support  for  Sub-­‐Projects  separately  on  a  cost  sharing  basis  with  the  sectors;  for  example.                       49   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP             TABLE  33:   Annual  Cost  Of  NSP  Based  On  Different  BGE  Awards  Assuming  National  Coverage  (US$  million)  (Illustrative)   BGE  Rate/family   US$5   US$10   US$25   US$50   US$75   US$100   US$200   Cost  for  National  Coverage  (USD  ‘000,000)   Component  1   36.34   72.67   181.68   363.36   545.04209.84   726.72   1453.43   Component  2   13.99   27.98   69.95   139.89   209.84545.04   279.79   559.573   Component  3   4.00   7.99   19.98   39.97   59.95   79.94   159.88   Total  Cost*   54.32   108.64   271.61   543.22   814.83   1086.44   2172.88   *  Component  1  and  3  costs  are  illustrative,  and  based  on  the  current  ratio  split  for  NSP-­‐III.  Component  III  costs  are  calculated  on  the  basis  of  full  community  coverage,  assumptions  of  2.2%   population  growth,  and  current  sized  families.  The  costs  would  be  different  in  reality,  but  are  used  to  illustrate  the  relative  cost  of  planning  options.           TABLE  34:   TOTAL ANNUAL/BIANNUAL COSTS OF NSP FOR THE PERIOD 2015-2025 BASED ON DIFFERENT VALUES OF BGE AWARDS (ILLUSTRATIVE)   BGE  Rate   US$5   US$10   US$25   US$50   US$75   US$100   US$200     Annual     Biennial   Annual     Biennial   Annual     Biennial   Annual     Biennial   Annual     Biennial   Annual     Biennial   Annual     Biennial   Cost  for  National  Coverage  (USD  ‘000,000)   Component  1   139.89   69.95   279.79   139.89   699.46   349.73   1398.93   699.46   2098.39   1049.20   7,267.16   3,633.58   14,534.32   7,267.16   Component  2   363.36   181.68   726.72   363.36   1,816.79   908.39   3,633.58   1,816.79   5,450.37   2,725.18   7,267.16   3,633.58   14,534.32   7,267.16   Component  3   39.97   19.98   79.94   39.97   199.85   99.92   399.69   199.85   599.54   299.77   799.39   399.69   1,598.77   799.39   Total  Cost  *   543.22   271.61   1,086.44   543.22   2,716.10   1,358.05   5,432.20   2,716.10   8,148.30   4,074.15   10,864.40   5,432.20   21,728.81   10,864.40     *  Component  1  and  3  costs  are  illustrative,  and  based  on  the  current  ratio  split  for  NSP-­‐III.  Component  III  costs  are  calculated  on  the  basis  of  full  community  coverage,  assumptions  of  2.2%   population  growth,  and  current  sized  families.  The  costs  would  be  different  in  reality,  but  are  used  to  illustrate  the  relative  cost  of  planning  options.                     50   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         113. Program   Resourcing   Arrangements   Need   to   be   Further   Development:   Outside   of   external   financing,   and   given   declining   macro-­‐fiscal   support,   the   NSP   must   be   co-­‐financed   by   sector   Ministries.   CDCs  must  be  seen  as  a  national  platform  for  service  delivery  rather  than  a  contracted  delivery  arm  of   MRRD/NSP.   The   fact   that   most   Ministries   under-­‐spend   on   their   annual   budgets,   returning   monies   to   MoF  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year,  presents  a  significant  opportunity  to  fund  BGEs  through  sub-­‐national   sector  allocations.  This  would  increase  state  absorption  capacity,  and  would  increase  ownership  of  the   national  platform  by  government.  Currently,  however,  little  work  has  been  done  on  national  financing   options   (aside   from   discussion   held   with   MAIL)   and   this   should   be   urgently   commissioned.   Some   changes   to   budget   allocation   rules   would   also   be   needed.   Government   should   also   co-­‐finance   NSP-­‐IV   to   show  a  commitment  to  continuity  and  ownership  –  perhaps  starting  with  10%  to  create  a  precedent  and   roll  up  from  there.     Early   Cost   Savings   Can   Be   Achieved:   The   NSP   has   already   conducted   a   functional   review   of   staffing   establishments  across  different  decision-­‐making  levels.  The  regional  structures  were  never  in  the  project   document  and  there  are  no  regions  in  Afghanistan.  This  level  could  fairly  easily  disappear  and  functional   assignments  could  be  devolved  to  the  provincial  level  or  in  some  case  centralized.  A  modest  reduction  in   NSP  staffing  has  been  assessed  and  would  provide  savings,  though  if  the  NSP-­‐Is  to  transition,  staffing  in   certain  structures  may  need  to  increase.                         51   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         SECTION  G: OPTIONS  FOR  STRENGTHENING  TRANSITIONAL  PLANNING   114. As  the  NSP  moves  into  a  crucial  stage  of  planning,  bringing  many  of  the  recommendations  and   options   outlined   in   this   study   into   practical   purpose,   the   program   will   need   to   establish   closer   links   with   the   Change   Management   Unit   in   MRRD   and   strengthen   activities   that   support   Transitional   Planning.   We   propose   that   a   top-­‐down   process   is   initiated   to   determine   likely   financial   resources   (external   and   government)   and   a   bottom-­‐up   planning   process   to   assess   needs.   However,   as   the   NSP   is   a   policy-­‐based   program,   we   propose   that   Government   establish   an   annual   resource   baseline   for   the   program   of   US$200   million,   as   the   basis   for   the   NSP   to   determine   preferred   planning   and   delivery   arrangements.   Establishing   hard   budget   constraints   will   improve   programming   decisions   across   the   forthcoming   transition,   while   maintaining   core   capacities   and   sustaining   the   CDC   platform   as   an   interim   or  final  arrangement  for  local  governance  and  participatory  community  empowerment.     115. What   is   clear   from   the   basic   economic   analysis   conducted   –   albeit   illustrative   –   is   that   the   costs   of   providing   annual   block   grants   to   all   communities   –   even   if   at   a   heavily   reduced   level  –   will   by   itself  be  difficult  to  finance  unless  awards  are  made  on  a  biennial  basis  or  every  3  years  or  more.   The   more   regular   the   BGE,   the   lower   its   value   will   need   to   be.   While   making   biennial   grants   halves   the   costs   when   compared   to  annual  grants,  lower  level   BGE   awards   may   restrict   certain   infrastructure   from   being   developed.  A  BGE  ranging  from  US$100  and  US$200  for  household   also  appears  to  be  impractical  given   resource   constraints,   unless   grants   were   provided   on   a   4-­‐5   year   rolling   cycle,   as   they   have   been   over   much  of  the  past  decade.  Such  an  approach  however  only  provides  irregular  support;   undermining  CDC   sustainment.  However,  if  a  US$200  million  baseline  guarantee  for  the  program  were  to  be  established,   the  NSP  would  be  able  to  work  backwards  to  determine  (i)  BGE  award  size  (ii)  BGE  award  regulatory  and   (iii)   program   delivery   arrangements   within   resource   limits.   Based   on   a   simplified   delivery   structure   US$200  million  a  year  would  allow  household  block  grants  of  around  US$50  for  the  entire  nation  every   two  years.     116. Figure   6   below   provides   a   simple   basis   for   assessing   the   biennial   costs   of   BGEs   alone,   if   national   coverage   were   to   be   achieved   every   two   years.   This   may   not   be   the   chosen   planning   assumption,  but  this  illustration  proves  the  importance  of  bringing  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  processes   together.  What  is  clear  for  NSP-­‐III  is  that  the  approach  employed  has  been   this  is  what  we  want  to  do   now  lets  finance  it.  What  is  proposed  here  is  a  balance  between  both  approaches;  where  two  starting   points   come   into   play;   how   much   can   we   get   and   how   much   do   we   need.   Trade   offs   are   then   made.   Figure  6  shows  the  costs  of  applying  BGE  to  ever  village  every  two  years  (i.e.  on  a  biennial  basis).  What  is   clear   is   for   the   program   to   continue   spending   the   same   money   annually,   providing   block   grants   on   a   two-­‐year   basis,   the   value   of   the   BGE   would   need   to   reduce   to   around   US$100   or   less.   However,   once   support   costs   are   included,   a   BGE   of   US$40-­‐50   per   household   every   two   years   could   still   be   unsustainable.                         52   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         FIGURE  6:   ILLUSTRATIVE  BIENNIAL  BG  EXPENDITURE  SCENARIOS  (US$  MILLION)  2015-­‐2025       Source:  Geopolicity  analysis  based  on  CDC  Database  provided  by  NSP  team     Biennial  grants  have  been  calculated  for  alternate  years  and  then  split  and  allocated  across  two  years  for  illustration  purposes       G.1: Planning  for  the  NSP-­‐IV  Transition   117. Given  the  NSP’s  importance  as  a  cornerstone  of  community  development  in  Afghanistan,  we   propose   establishing   a   National   Task   Force   to   lead   the   formulation   of   a   transitional   plan,   implementing  recommendations  made  and  reviewing  options.  Given  the  complexity  of  adjustments  to   be   made,   we   propose   that   the   transitional   plan   would   cover   a   period   of   5-­‐7   years,   allowing   time   for   adjustments   to   be   introduced   without   risking   ongoing   and   planned   investments.   Such   an   approach   is   critical   given   the   inevitable   reduction   in   external   support,   which   if   poorly   managed   could   have   a   very   detrimental  impact  on  the  NSP  and  CDCs.       118. The   Task   Force   would   preferably   be   chaired   by   the   Ministry   of   Finance,   which   would   take   the   lead   in   identifying   sustainable   resourcing   solutions   including   changes   to   the   budget   call   circular   to   institutionalize  sector  based  financing.  MRRD  and  the  NSP  would  lead  on  all  NSP  related  affairs  and  the   sector   Ministers   and   donors   would   secure   a   supportive   environment   for   the   transition   plan.   MRRD   would   also   lead   on   designing   shared   service   delivery   agreements   to   make   sure   that   all   sectors   implement   the   same   modus   operandi   as   designed   by   the   NSP.   The   pace   and   sequence   of   transitional   measures  would  be  agreed  by  the  membership  of  the  Task  Force,  which  would  include  sector  ministries,   the   World   Bank   and   all   other   major   NSP   donors.   The   proposed   objective   and   terms   of   reference   for   the   Task  Force  are  proposed  below:      Illustrative  Task  Force  Objective:  To  formulate  and  implement  a  Transition  Plan  for  the  NSP  so   as   to   remove   constraints   and   obstacles   that   might   impede   the   long   term   sustainability   of   the   NSP  and  CDCs;    Illustrative   Terms   of   Reference:   The   Task   Force   would   have   the   following   indicative   focus,   though   the   Task   Force   would   develop   the   terms   of   reference.   The   Task   Force   would   be   established   for   a   sufficient   period   to   have   oversight   of   the   transition   process.   Tasks   would   logically  include:     o Policy  and  legislative  support  measures;   o Program  resourcing  and  fiscal  sustainability;   o Developing  a  whole-­‐of-­‐government  support  framework;                     53   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         o Establishing  shared  sector  service  delivery  models  and  agreements;   o Strengthening  integration  with  CBR  and  NGPAR  processes;   o Guiding  the  CDC  -­‐  VC  transition;  and,   o Identifying  a  clear  strategy  for  insecure  areas.       119.  Currently,   as   part   of   the   TMAF   and   CBR   program,   a   process   of   reform   is   underway   that   must   not  pass  the  NSP  by.  There  is  a  very  real  risk  that  the  NSP  is  not  fully  integrated  into  the  fiscal  transition   or  aligned  to  sub-­‐national  CBR,  and  this  must  be  addressed  in  the  transition  plan.  The  Next  Generation   of  Public  Administration  Reform  (NGPAR)  currently  under  development  by  the  IARCSC  will  also  address   how   to   migrate   significant   projects   into   core   functions   including   aligning   with   the   National   Technical   Assistance   (NTA)   scale.   With   the   role   of   FPs   likely   to   change,   and   greater   dependence   placed   on   provincial  RRD  offices  going  forward,  coordinating  the  NSP  transition  with  CBR  will  be  critical  to  success.     120. A   critical   part   of   the   overall   transition   plan   therefore   involves   (i)   migrating   PIU   and   PMU   functions  into  PRRD  and  (ii)  changing  the  functional  assignments  of  Facilitating  Partners,  with  many   functions   being   take   over   by   government   and   perhaps   the   private   sector.   Facilitating   Partners   will   continue   to   play   a   very   strong   role   in   implementing   the   program,   moving   from   the   current   service   delivery  model  to  one  much  more  focused  on  participatory  community  empowerment.  However  as  part   of  the  transition,  many  of  the  functions  currently  covered  by  the  FPs  will  need  to  migrate  to  government   structures,   particularly   at   the   provincial   level.   We   suggest   the   following   process   for   functional   restructuring,  through  CBR  will  need  to  address  these  issues  head  on:      Integrating   PMU   to   PRRD   Structures:   It   is   understood   that   the   World   Bank   is   supporting   the   integration  of  PMUs  into  the  PRRD  structure.  The  only  process  for  this  to  happen  is  to  conduct  a   functional  review  of  assignments  currently  provided  by  the  PMU  that  would  be  migrated  as  part   of  the  CBR  process.  The  CBR  proposal  of  MRRD  will  therefore  need  to  reflect  this  arrangement   and  it  is  suggested  that  a  number  of  provinces  would  be  identified  where  steady  migration  could   begin,   and   ideally   these   would   be   provinces   that   have   recently   received   grants   and   would   naturally   have   a   period   of   no   support.   Key   activities   to   be   undertaken   in   integrating   the   PMU   with  the  PRRD  structures  are  outlined  below:     o Make   integration   of   PMU   to   PRRD   structures   central   to   the   MRRD   sub-­‐national   CBR   plan,  seeking  approval  of  the  MoF  and  IARCSC;   o Identify  pilot  (wave  1)  and  wave  2  provinces  for  integration;   o Identify  PMU  functions  (from  the  Operational  Manual);   o Identify  existing  PRRD  functions  (from  CBR);   o Undertake  capacity  building  assessment  and  skill  competency  matrix;   o Revise  PRRD  functional  assignments;   o Assess  pay  and  grading  implications;   o Identify  core  functions;   o Modify  Operational  Manual;   o Transfer  staff  from  the  PMU  to  PRRD  NTA  scale  where  necessary/desirable;     o Meet  with  FPs  and  CDCs  to  explain  new  operational  approach,  establish  new  standard   operating  procedures;  and,   o Monitor  performance  and  integration  based  on  clear  CBR  metrics.      Migration  of  Certain  FP  Functions  into  MRRD  and  the  Private  Sector:  The  Task  Force  will  need   to   be   clear   on   the   pace   and   sequencing   of   reducing   the   role   of   FPs   under   the   program,   given                     54   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         that  most  of  the  functional  assignments  under  the  Operational  Manual  are  currently  managed   by   over   6,000   FP   staff.   FP   capacities   must   not   be   lost,   but   rather   they   must   be   carefully   integrated   and   transferred   into   the   PRRD   structures,   with   Community   Mobilizers   also   being   placed   increasingly   on   a   consultancy   basis.   With   FPs   taking   the   responsibility   for   a   given   province,   it   seems   logical   to   link   the   migration   of   FP   functions   in   the   same   provinces   to   be   identified   in   waves   1   and   waves   2   of   the   PMU-­‐PRRD   integration   process   outlined   above.   Key   activities  here,  sequenced,  could  perhaps  be  illustrated  as  follows:     o Undertake  a  functional  review  of  FPs  operating  in  both  secure  and  insecure  provinces;   o Working  with  FPs  identify  their  future  role  under  the  program  as  part  of  the   transitional   planning  process,  based  on  different  options  and  sequencing;   o Identify  which  functional  assignments  would  be   migrated  into  PRRD  structures,  CDCs  or   the  private  sector  and  which  functions  (i.e.  PCE,  capacity  building,  community  planning   etc.)  would  remain;   o Pilot  and  expand  the  PCE  model  as  part  of  the  review  process;   o Renew  FP  contracts  based  on  new  mandates  in  target  provinces.     121. Undertaking   this   transitional   planning   in   support   of   sustainability   will   therefore   need   to   deal   with   three   levels   of   decision-­‐making:   (i)   top-­‐down   resource   planning   (ii)   bottom-­‐up   program   needs   based   planning   (iii)   functional   delivery   structures   to   maximize   impact,   performance   and   value   for   money.   The   following   activities   would   therefore   need   to   be   conducted   as   part   of   the   transitional   planning   process.   The   Proposed   Task   Force   would   therefore   be   critical   to   linking   programming   with   resourcing,  within  the  following  framework:      Top-­‐Down   Resource   Planning:   The   likely   availability   of   external   and   government   resources   over   the   next   decade   must   be   forecast,   as   the   basis   for   determining   the   feasibility   of   bottom-­‐up   planning.   The   following   activities   will   need   to   be   conducted   during   NSP-­‐IV   formulation,   to   guide   the  viability  of  bottom-­‐up  planning  options:     o Establish  a  Joint  MRRD-­‐NSP-­‐Donor  Working  Group  to  Identify  Prior  Resource  Pledges   for  NSP-­‐IV:  It  is  proposed  to  engage  donors  formally,  as  part  of  the  formulation  process,   with  a  view  to  assessing  commitment  levels  for  the  NSP  over  the  coming  5  year  NSP-­‐IV   period.  Given  the  push  for  online  budget  support  from  donors,  the  Ministry  of  Finance   will   need   to   be   involved   in   this   process   given   budget   allocations,   the   push   for   provincial   budgeting   and   the   relations   between   the   NSP   and   government   fiscal   framework.   Further,  as  donor  can  often  only  make  annual  commitments,  establish  a  resource  model   differentiating   between   pledges,   commitment   and   subsequently   disbursements.   A   program  resourcing  session  can  also  be  tabled  at  JCMB.     o Resource   Channel   1:   Convene   the   NSP   Inter-­‐Ministerial   Committee   to   Assess   Government  Budget  Support  and  Sector  Financing  Options:   Working  with  the  Ministry   of  Finance,  the  sector  Ministries  and  perhaps  involving  key  donors  who  are  financing  the   main   sectors,   assess   options   for   sector   financing   of   sub-­‐projects.   Arguments   will   demonstrate   that   all   projects   building   public   assets   could   and   should   be   financed   in   future   by   the   sector   Ministries,   implying   adjustments   to   the   current   service   delivery   models.   This   exercise   will   take   stock   of   the   potential   for   government   finance   to   co-­‐ finance  the  NSP  and  this  process  can  lead  into  the  next  budget  formulation  exercise.  The   MoF   Budget   Call   circular   could   also   be   used,   with   sectors   requested   to   make   annual   commitments.                     55   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP           o Resource   Channel   2:   Assess   Options   for   Funding   NSP   Sub-­‐Projects   through   MRRD   Programs:   As   the   core   functions   of   the   various   MRRD   national   programs   begin   to   converge,  it  seems  logical  to  consider  financing  many  of  the  NSP  sub-­‐projects  through   other   program   resources.   In   many   cases   –   for   example   taking   WATSAN   into   consideration   –   there   is   no   reason   why   CDC   plans   cannot   be   financed   through   this   channel,  effectively,  to  meet  both  CDD  and  sector  development  objectives.       o Resource  Channel  3:  Assess  Community  Contributions:  With  many  communities  already   providing   10   contributions   in   kind,   but   with   a   number   of   CDCs   already   establishing   voluntary  community  based  trust  fund  arrangements,  the  National  CDC  Platform  could   assess   the   viability   of   mobilizing   community   resources,   to   compliment   the   other   four   channels  outlined  here.     o Resource   Channel   4:   Micro-­‐finance   Options:   Of   lower   level   potential,   it   could   be   that   many   CDCs   could   receive   support   from   micro-­‐finance   institutions,   connected   to   and   independent   of   MISFA,   and   a   study   could   be   conducted   to   assess   opportunities   for   group  based  lending  for  income  generating  activities.     o Integrated   Resource   Planning:   The   above   resource   channels   lead   towards   a   very   different   mode   of   support   while   promoting   CDCs   as   a   national   not   MRRD   based   platform.        Bottom-­‐up  Needs  Based  Planning:  Clarity  regarding  the  future  development  pathway  of  CDCs  to   VCs  is  critical  if  bottom  up  planning  needs  are  to  be  assessed.  Clarity  regarding  the  immediate   implications   of   the   new   policy   also   needs   to   be   considered.   However,   the   following   basic   planning  parameters  are  critical  to  the  attainment  of  NSP  objectives,  and  the  NSP  PIU  working   with   MRRD   will   need   to   generate   evidence   upon   which   program   design   decision   s   can   be   made.   Key  issues  include:     o Assess   BG   Frequency:   The   desired   frequency   of   BGE   awards   needs   to   be   determined,   in   line  with  resource  availability  and  delivery  capacities.  Would  CDCs  continue  as  a  rolling   cycle   of   grants   and   repeater   grants   or   would   an   annual   block   grant   be   made   to   each   household?   Should   BGEs   be   every   two   years,   or   three,   or   based   on   a   competitive   process?   The   NSP   will   need   to   present   options   to   MRRD,   with   criteria   developed   to   guide  decision-­‐making.       o Assess  BGE  Unit  of  Measure:  It  is  proposed  that  BGE  awards  should  be  made  available   to   each   household,   not   family,   and   that   removing   the   BGE   upper   limit   would   allow   coherence   between   CDC   and   Village   geographical   areas,   as   the   basis   for   a   more   coordinated   approach.   Different   options   need   to   be   considered,   and   pros   and   cons   determined  for  each  option.     o Ass   BGE   Award   Size:   The   current   BGE   award   is   far   too   high   to   be   sustainable.   However,   and  as  outlined  above,  the  BGE  award  size  must  be  calculated  with  the  BGE  frequency,   as  total  component  2  costs  are  determined  by  this  equation.  If  an  annual  grant  were  to   be   provided   to   each   CDC,   a   lower   limit   of   US$5   to   US$10   per   household   would   be   required.   If   a   BGE   of   two   or   more   times   is   to   be   provided   every   2-­‐3   years,   this   leads   again   to   different   conclusions.   Options   for   financing   CDCs   for   local   governance   could   also   be   entertained,   with   sub-­‐project   BGEs   being   provided   either   by   donors   through   a   PMU   or   through   the   sectors,   as   outlined   above.   A   study   however   needs   to   be                     56   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         undertaken   to   assess   at   what   stage   a   BGE   award   is   too   low   to   build   meaningful   infrastructure.  Under  such  an  approach,  CCDCs  could  provide  a  partial  solution.      Program   System   Delivery   Development:  Once  top-­‐down  resource  projections  have  been  made,   and   bottom-­‐up   planning   assuming   agreed   upon,   a   middle   path   between   needs   and   resources   will   provide   greater   clarity   on   the   total   value   of   delivery   and   transaction   costs.   The   introduction   of   sector   based   financing   will   also   create   a   new   and   important   dynamic.   Clearly,   with   CDC   facilitation  costs  at  around  US$10,000  per  CDC,  options  for  functional  restructuring  need  to  be   clearly  assessed  as  outlined  above.  Other  considerations  are  outlined  below:     o Private  Sector:  Identify  what  role  the  private  sector  could  play  in  relation  to  the  NSP?   Rather   than   having   full   time   engineers   available   through   FPS   for   example,   could   these   be  removed  and  procured  from  the  market  place?     o Community  Mobilizers:  Clearly  many  Community  Mobilizers  could  be  placed  on  a  new   contractual  basis  as  community  consultants,  available  to  support  CDCs,  MRRD  and  other   ministries   as   required.   The   transitional   planning   process   would   need   to   identify   how   many   of   the   existing   extension   outreach   workers   could   and   should   be   placed   on   this   basis.     o PIU   Structure:   Agreement   with   Government   and   donors   is   required   to   consider   which   functions   of   the   current   PIU   structure   should   continue,   or   whether   or   not   NSP-­‐IV   would   best   be   delivered   as   a   core   function   of   MRRD,   with   other   ministries.   If   the   RCUs   are   dissolved,  what  would  be  re-­‐centralized  and  what  decentralized?  How  would  provincial   PMU  functions  best  be  migrated  into  core  RRD  office  functions?  Could  certain  services   be  contracted  out?  These  design  choices  need  to  be  reviewed  by  Government.     o Facilitating   Partners:   There   appears   to   be   consensus   that   FPs   should   no   longer   manage   all   Community   Mobilizers   and   no   longer   be   responsible   for   management   block   grants.   If   so,  and  FPs  focus  on  CDD  and  CPE,  how  would  this  be  contracted?     o CDC,   CCDC,   VC   and   DCCs:   How   could   CDCs   best   evolve   into   VCs,   what   roles   would   clusters  of  CDCs  play  in  resourcing  and  coordination  and  how  can  these  be  coordinated   with  the  new  policy  focused  on  DCCs?     o Costs  Structures  and  Cost  Centers:  As  outlined  here,  there  are  different  costs  associated   with   different   options,   but   it   is   clear   that   the   greater   the   integration   of   the   NSP   into   MRRD  core  functions  the  more  cost  efficient  delivery  will  eventually  be.     122. NSP-­‐IV   must   be   established   based   broadly   on   these   variables.   Top   down   planning   will   inform   resource   availability   while   bottom   up   planning   will   lead   to   a   more   rational   and   sustainable   approach.  The  final  program  delivery  structure  must  however  reflect  the  need  to  protect  gains,  deliver   sustainable  value  and  impact  at  a  lower  cost.     123. Prioritization  and  Sequencing.   It  is  difficult  to  propose  the  sequence  and  prioritization  of   transitional   activities,   through   the   Sustainability   Matrix   provided   in   Section   H   aims   to   link   recommendations   and   options   along   a   logical   pathway.   The   proposed   Task   Force   would   review   these   proposals   and   develop   a   transitional   plan  –   ideally   over   a   period   of   5-­‐7   years   –   gradually   bringing   the   NSP   onto   a   sustainable   pathway   that   guarantees   community   development   the   prime   place   in   government  rural  development,  governance,  poverty  and  gender  and  social  exclusion  policy.                       57   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         SECTION  H: SUSTAINABILITY  MATRIX     TABLE  35:   SUSTAINABILITY  MATRIX  –  POSSIBLE  NSP  DEVELOPMENT  PATHWAYS     Current  Situation        Development   Pathway  Options   Pathway     Recommendations     1   From  Inter-­‐ministerial      To  Introducing  an  NSP   i. It  is  proposed  to  establish  a  National  Task  Force  to  consider  the  recommendations  and   Coordination   National  Task  Force  to   options  outlined  here,  aimed  at  removing  the  binding  constraints  to  legal  and  resourcing   Guarantee  Successful   issues  in  particular.     Transition   ii. It  is  proposed  that  the  Minister  of  Finance  would  chair  the  Task  Force,  with  membership   including  the  Ministry  of  Rural  Rehabilitation  and  Development,  Ministry  of  Agriculture,   Irrigation  and  Livestock  (MAIL),  Ministry  of  Public  Health  (MoPH)  and  Ministry  of  Education,   as  well  as  the  World  Bank  and  donors  committed  to  carefully  evolving  the  NSP  along  a   transitional  planning  framework.     iii. The  Task  Force  TOR  would  reflect  the  need  for  a  whole-­‐of-­‐government  approach,  and   donors  would  play  a  key  role  in  guaranteeing  successful  transition  and  sustainment.     2   From  Community      To  Village  Councils   i. Remove  geographical  difference  between  CDC  and  VC  footprints     Development     ii. Establish  a  National  Task  Force  (strongly  supported  by  donors)  to  revise  IEC  VC  election   Councils   regulation,  inline  with  Article  66  of  the  IEC  Law,  legitimizing  CDCs  as  Interim  VCs   iii. Establish  Caucus  in  parliament  supported  by  the  National  CDC  Council  to  Support  Legal   Passage   iv. Revise  Functional  assignments  to  cover  more  than  CDC  Five  Phase  Requirements,  but  with   fewer  assignments  than  the  SNG  Law  which  is  impossible  to  implement   v. Develop  and  apply  a  Maturity  Assessment  Framework  for  the  steady  graduation  of  CDCs   into  Interim  or  Final  VCs   vi. Accept  formation  of  VCs  will  take  a  decade  to  achieve  given  fiscal  and  other  constraints     3   Uncertain  Resourcing      Lock  in  US$200  million   i. Through  the  President’s  Office  lock  in  US$200  million  as  an  annual  baseline  commitment  to   annual  baseline   the  NSP  including  core  and  external  budget  funding,  including  sector  financing,  as  part  of   financing  and   the  to  be  proposed  new  social  contract.   restructure  delivery   ii. Modify  the  budget  call  circular  to  demand  sector  financing  contributions   system  to  increase   iii. Establish  geographical  coverage  (equity)  criteria   efficiency   iv. Based  on  top-­‐down  constraints  simplify  delivery  arrangements  to  maximize  BGE  to  CDCs     4   From  an  MRRD  CDC      To  a  ‘Whole-­‐of-­‐ i. Secure  Sector  Financing  Contributions  for  Sub-­‐Projects,  with  MoF,  by  revising  the  Budget   Platform   Government’  CDC/VC   Call  Circular  and  through  the  NSP  Steering  Committee  framework   Platform   ii. Establish  Community  Mobilizers  as  certified,  independent  National  platform  serving  all                     58   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         TABLE  35:   SUSTAINABILITY  MATRIX  –  POSSIBLE  NSP  DEVELOPMENT  PATHWAYS     Current  Situation        Development   Pathway  Options   Pathway   sectors   iii. Establish  Shared  Service  Delivery  Agreements  maintaining  the  Ethos  of  CDCs  as  village  level   governance,  developing  guidelines  for  multiple  channel  financing     5   From  Existing  CDC      To  a  Wider  Basket  of   i. With  IDLG,  revise  the  ‘long  list’  of  proposed  VC  functional  assignments  to  a  ‘short  list’  using   Functions   Functions   the  a  maturity  assessment  framework  to  graduate  functions  based  on  capacities   ii. Set  functions  based  on  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  resource  envelops   iii. Revise  the  SNP  Policy  to  Reflect  these  Changes     6   From  No  Fiscal      To  Fiscal  and   i. Develop  a  bottom-­‐up  Medium  Term  Expenditure  Framework  (MTEF)  for  MRRD  and  the   Planning   Enterprise  Resource   NSP,  as  the  basis  for  sustainable  resource  planning  and  allocation   Planning   ii. Link  NSP  to  MRRD  Enterprise  Resource  Planning  software,  setting  Key  Performance   Indicators  and  promoting  Cascade  reporting  and  planning     7   From  100%  External      To  30-­‐50%   i. Establish  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  resource  frameworks   Funding   Government  Sector   ii. Charge  NSP  Steering  Committee  with  identifying  new  channels  of  financing,  including:   Funding     a. Direct  Budget  Support   b. Sector  Support   c. Sector  Ministry  Program  Support   d. Alternative  Community  Contributions   e. Micro-­‐finance   iii. Conduct  a  CDC  Alternative  Financing  Study   iv. Commit  to  Government  co-­‐financing  linked  to  the  Decade  of  Transformation   Options     NSP  and  CDCs  seen  as      To  distinguishing   i. Education  government  that  CDCs  are  independent  of  the  NSP  and  MRRD,  which  is  a  critical   Synonymous   between  the  NSP  as  a   pre-­‐condition  to  allow  CDCs  to  evolve  as  a  national  platform  that  is  independent.   Program  and  CDCs  as     institutions       From  FP  Contracted      To  Independent   i. Study  current  FP  CM  contracts,  assess  alternative  pay  and  grading  options,  and   Community  Mobilizers   Community   management  and  certification  processes   Mobilizers   ii. Slowly  migrate  current  FP  Mobilizers  to  new  delivery  model,  minimizing  attrition  losses,   making  platform  available  to  the  sectors,  NGOs  and  the  private  sector       From  Community      To  Participatory   i. Remove  FPs  from  Block  Grant  Delivery  and  Management   Project  Facilitation     Community   ii. Establish  a  national  platform  of  Community  Mobilizers,  on  a  revised  pay  scale,  certified,  as   Empowerment   community  interlocutors,  training  in  CPE  and  basic  sub-­‐project  management,  focus  on   gender  balance  and  local  representation                     59   Options  for  Transition  and  Sustainability  of  the  NSP         TABLE  35:   SUSTAINABILITY  MATRIX  –  POSSIBLE  NSP  DEVELOPMENT  PATHWAYS     Current  Situation        Development   Pathway  Options   Pathway   iii. Adjust  the  ethos  of  the  NSP  from  Sub-­‐Project  driven  program  to  providing  a  basket  of   support  options,  encouraging  more  adaptive  community  empowerment  solutions       From  A  Largely  Supply      To  a  Largely  Demand   i. Make  the  NSP  a  less  Cookie  Cutter  approach  to  CD,  outlining  options  for  adaptive  funding   Driven  Approach   Driven  Approach   options,  with  a  new  focus  of  support  based  on  Participatory  Community  Empowerment   ii. Widen  the  basket  of  potential  CDC  Sub-­‐Project  resourcing  channels       From  a  PIU      To  a  Ministry   i. Migrate  core  functions  of  the  PIU  into  MRRD  Core  Structures  for  NSP-­‐IV,  perhaps   Implemented  Program   Implemented   maintaining  the  Executive  Directorate  and  Operations  Directorate  core  staff  to  oversee  the   Program   transition  with  the  MRRD  Change  Management  Unit   ii. Make  RCUs  Obsolete,  centralizing  and  decentralizing  functions  as  required   iii. Over  the  course  of  NSP-­‐IV,  migrate  core  functions  provided  by  the  PMUs  into  RRD  offices,   to  be  completed  by  the  end  of  NSP-­‐IV.     iv. Build  RRD  capacities,  implying  a  strong  commitment  to  functional  decentralization,   improving  resource  allocation       From  Regional      To  PMU  and  then  RRD   i. Remove  RCU  structures,  right-­‐sizing  staffing  establishments,  centralizing  oversight  but   Coordination  Units   Coordination  Units   decentralizing  coordination  and  support  functions   v. Improve  coordination  capacities  of  RRD  offices       From  Irregular  BGE      To  Regular  BGE   i. Agree  program  bottom-­‐up  planning  parameters   Transfers  of  US$200   Transfers  of