Participatory and Community-Driven Development in Urban Areas S O C I A L , URBA N, RU RA L & RESILIENCE GLOB AL PRA C TI C E Participatory and Community-Driven Development in Urban Areas June 29, 2015 Social, Urban, Rural & Resilience Global Practice SO C I AL , URBA N, RU RA L & RESILIENCE GLOB AL PRAC TI C E Copyright © 2015 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA Standard Disclaimer: This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Copyright Statement: The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Photos credits: Margaret Arnold and World Bank Photo Library ii Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................. 2 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 4 I. Introduction................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 II. What Does the Urban Context Mean for Community Participation?........................... 12 Continuum of participatory approaches in urban areas..................................................................................12 Physical and institutional characteristics of urban areas..................................................................................15 Social characteristics of urban areas........................................................................................................................16 III. Overview of the Portfolio and Case Studies................................................................ 18 Description of the portfolio.........................................................................................................................................18 Case study selection......................................................................................................................................................20 IV. Synthesis of Lessons Learned...................................................................................... 23 Role of communities vs. role of local government.............................................................................................23 Beneficiary targeting.....................................................................................................................................................25 Community mobilization.............................................................................................................................................26 V. Conclusions and the Way Forward............................................................................... 29 Annex I. Case Study Summaries........................................................................................ 31 Benin Second Decentralized City Management Project (PGUD-2)...............................................................31 Haiti Urban Community-Driven Development Project.....................................................................................33 Indonesia National Community Empowerment Program (“Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat”) in Urban Areas (PNPM-Urban)..........................................................................37 Kyrgyz Republic Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project (BOUIP)....................................................40 Morocco National Initiative for Human Development Phases 1 and 2.......................................................42 Tanzania Local Government Support Project.......................................................................................................45 Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project ..........................................................................................................................48 Annex II. List of Urban Participatory/CDD Projects, 2003-2013....................................... 51 References......................................................................................................................... 55 iii Figures Figure 1. The Number of Urban Projects Identified by the Three Databases and Overlaps.................11 Figure 2. Continuum of Participatory Approaches in Urban Areas...............................................................14 Figure 3. Total Number of Participatory and CDD Urban Projects................................................................18 Figure 4. Number of Urban Participatory Projects by Region.........................................................................19 Figure 5. Number of Projects by Sector Board......................................................................................................19 Tables Table 1: Overview of Urban Participatory and CDD Project Case Studies..................................................20 iv Acknowledgements This paper reviews the World Bank’s portfolio of urban development projects that use participa- tory or community-driven development (CDD) approaches. The work was jointly undertaken by the World Bank’s Social and Urban Development departments just prior to the two units being merged into the Global Programs Unit for the Social, Urban, Rural & Resilience Global Practice. It aims to serve the developing country local and national governments that are working on urban development issues, the World Bank’s CDD Community of Practice, and urban develop- ment practitioners. In addition, the paper serves as a contribution to the World Bank’s initiative on inclusive cities. The study team was led by Margaret Arnold and Ellen Hamilton and included Victoria Beard, Heejoo Lee, and Kaori Oshima. Susan Wong (Global Solutions Group Leader for CDD), Sameh Wahba (Urban Practice Manager, GPSURR), and Sean Bradley (Lead Social Development Special- ist and head of the CDD Community of Practice) provided overall guidance to the study team. Laura De Brular edited the report and Gracie Ochieng provided valuable administrative support. The core of the learning presented in the paper was derived from interviews of task team lead- ers and team members of the case study projects. The study team is extremely grateful to the following list of colleagues who shared their experience and perspective for this review. They include: Ali Alwahti, Kwabena Amankwah-Ayeh, Judy Baker, Andre Bald, Sean Bradley, Anna Cestari, Ani Dasgupta, Sylvie Debomy, Hoa Thi Hoang, Rumana Huque, Barjor Mehta, Andrea Liverani, George Soraya, and Susan Wong. The Haiti case study also benefitted from interviews with Henriot Nader, the former Project Coordinator of the PRODEPUR at the BMPAD, and from Jacquelin Eugène, Project Coordinator at CECI-Haiti. We greatly appreciate the time and insights they provided to the study. The paper also benefited from peer reviewers of the concept note and final draft. Inputs on the concept for the study were provided by Judy Baker, Dick Calkins, Patricia Fernandes, Peter Hawkins, Helena Hwang, Dan Owen, Lawrence Tang, and Makiko Watanabe. Peer reviewers for the final paper included Judy Baker, Soraya Goga, and Rodrigo Serrano. Additional insights were provided by a number of World Bank urban and social development practitioners in a series of discussions on the draft paper which were organized in Bangkok, Istanbul, and Washington DC in the context of the GPSURR Forum in April 2015. The team greatly appreciates the insights and feedback of all of our colleagues. The study team dedicates this publication to the memory of Henriot Nader. 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations ARIS Kyrgyz Republic Community Development and Investment Agency BKM Badan Keswadayan Masyarakat BOUIP Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project CADEC Councils for Community Development Support CBO community-based organization CDD Community-Driven Development CDS City Development Strategy CISU Community Initiative Support Unit CIUP Community Infrastructure Upgrading Project CPT community planning teams CSP Cities Support Project CUP Community Upgrading Plan DAS Division of Social Action GDP gross domestic product IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICR Implementation Completion Report ICT information and communications technology IDA International Development Association ILDH Initiative Local de Developpement Humain INDH National Initiative for Human Development Support Project KDP Kecamatan Development Project LGA local government authority LGSP Local Government Support Project ND Neighborhood Development NDC Neighborhood Development Committee NGO non-governmental organization NUUP National Urban Upgrading Program 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations • 3 O&M operations and management PAD Project Appraisal Document PDC Project Development Council PforR Program for Results PGUD Decentralization City Management Project PGUD-II Second Decentralized City Management Project PNPM National Program for Community Empowerment PRODEP Rural Community Participation Development Project PRODEPAP Community Driven Development Project in Port-au Prince Area PRODEPUR Urban Community Driven Development Project PSDCC Decentralized Community-Driven Services Project RLF Revolving Loan Funds SDV Social Development Department SERHU Societé d’Etudes Regionales d’Habitat et d’Amenagement Urbain TC Territorial Councils TOS Territorial Organization of Self-Governance TST technical support teams TTL task team leader UDRUR Urban Development and Resilience Unit UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UPP Urban Poverty Project USB Urban Sector Board VUUP Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project Summary With cities accounting globally for an estimated 70 percent of GDP, it is now broadly ac- cepted that urbanization is not only inevitable but also a powerful force in support of pov- erty reduction and economic growth. However, while cities are engines of economic growth, urban growth has not been equitable. As more poor people move to cities in search of oppor- tunities, the percentage of poor people living in urban areas is expected to grow (World Bank, 2015). Today’s urban population of about 3.5 billion people is projected to reach 5 billion by 2030. Two-thirds of the world’s population will then be urban, and ninety percent of this growth is taking place in developing countries. Almost 1 billion people currently live in slums with inad- equate services. More than 70 percent of Africa’s urban population lives in slums. Participatory and community-driven development approaches can play a powerful role in addressing acute poverty and inequality growing in cities while also contributing to the process of democratization and empowerment. The World Bank has a substantial track record using participatory approaches in urban areas and in implementing Community-Driven Development projects. CDD is an approach that gives community groups control over planning decisions and investment resources for local development projects. While the CDD approach has principally been used by projects operating in rural areas, 40 out of 319 currently active projects in the CDD database (12.5 %) are under the urban sector. This review describes the World Bank’s use of participatory and CDD approaches in urban areas between 2003 and 2013; identifies the challenges and assesses the lessons of us- ing participatory and CDD approaches in the urban context. The study identified 120 urban projects utilizing a participatory or CDD approach. Of those projects, seven were selected as case studies which included desk reviews of project documents and interviews with project teams. These include: • Benin Second Decentralized City Management Project (PGUD-2) • Haiti Urban Community Driven Development Project (PRODEPUR) • Indonesia National Community Empowerment Program (“Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat”) in Urban Areas (PNPM-Urban) III • Kyrgyzstan Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project • Morocco National Initiative for Human Development (INDH) Phase 1 and 2 • Tanzania Local Government Support Project • Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project I From these case studies, three key areas emerge in which applying a CDD approach may require adjusting to the urban context. These include: the roles of communities and local government authorities; beneficiary targeting; and community mobilization. The key lessons are summarized below: 4 Summary • 5 1. Participatory development projects in urban areas often demand larger-scale invest- ments which determine the appropriate level of community control in addition to the role of the local government in the project. Community investments in urban areas may need to be of a larger scale compared to those in rural areas. For example, in the first phase of Morocco’s National Initiative for Human Development (INDH) program, the average cost of rural subprojects was US$45,000 compared to US$120,000 for urban subprojects due mainly to the larger population size. In Kyrgyz Repub- lic, initial grant per community was found to be too small for meaningful investments and under the additional financing, the maximum grant size per community increased to US$50,000. The size, scope, cost, and technical complexity of urban development activities will affect the level of community involvement or control that is possible in those activities. It is im- portant to have a realistic understanding of the types of urban development activities that can be effectively undertaken with a community-driven approach. Larger urban projects may have complex engineering and technical demands that require expertise outside of the community. When a project is beyond the technical capacity of the community, the role of the community will likely be limited to assessing local conditions and needs, consultations, and collaboration during the implementation phase. Local government authorities (LGAs) generally play a stronger role in planning and imple- mentation of participatory development projects in urban areas vs. rural areas. Infrastruc- ture investments in poor urban communities connect to larger, trunk infrastructure systems which are provided and maintained by LGAs. LGAs also play a more important role in urban areas in relation to operations and maintenance (O&M) of subproject investments. For example, water facilities are often times managed by a users’ or village association in rural areas, while in urban areas, there are more complicated regulations, and linkages to LGAs are necessary for proper O&M. To ensure adequate O&M in targeted municipalities in Benin, the project included asset maintenance programs tied to established municipal maintenance teams that took re- sponsibility of cleaning roads and drainage networks, etc. These arrangements allowed munici- palities to programmatically budget and plan for maintenance services, depending on the type of infrastructure. Almost all project teams emphasized the importance of providing more capac- ity building opportunities to enable LGAs to collaborate effectively with communities without distorting their voice and sense of ownership. 2. Beneficiary targeting in urban areas should utilize criteria beyond spatial boundaries when necessary and remain flexible to adjust to changing needs. For the most part, beneficiary targeting can rely on spatial or geographical boundaries when the purpose of a project is to upgrade a slum or informal settlement. Identifying target beneficiaries becomes more difficult, however, when the project seeks to address social exclusion or target specific groups across a municipality or urban community. The case stud- ies revealed some instances where spatial targeting was initially unable to fully include cer- tain groups, and targeting criteria was adjusted. In Morocco, for example, there were “pockets of poverty” spread throughout target municipalities that did not correspond to the commune system or other municipal organizational structure. Under the first phase of the National Initia- tive for Human Development project (INDH-1), towns for the urban subprogram were selected based on administrative criteria rather than socio-economic criteria, leaving targeting open to 6 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas the interpretation of each provincial authority. Learning from this, INDH-2 aimed to be more in- clusive, covering all municipalities with more than 20,000 inhabitants and using poverty maps to target beneficiaries. Criteria for neighborhood selection was based on a series of social exclusion indicators such as access to basic services, unemployment, illiteracy, and housing conditions. It also used participatory social mapping exercises to validate information at the local level. Beneficiary targeting in high risk urban areas requires greater flexibility. In the face of so- cial conflict, violence, or natural disasters, several projects adjusted the targeting criteria to adapt to shifting circumstances. When the Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project encountered instances of elite capture in Kyrgyz, the project team adjusted the selection criteria to select ad- ditional beneficiaries and minimize conflict. After the earthquake in Haiti, the PRODEPUR project found the need to adjust criteria again in some cases when people established new social net- works in relief camps and no longer identified with the neighborhood they lived in prior to the disaster. When they were resettled, some preferred to stay with their new networks. 3. Mobilizing urban communities requires a greater investment in time and effort due to constraints in terms of people’s availability, physical space, and trust. In urban areas, social mobilization tends to take more time and require more patience. People living in urban areas may be too busy with wage earning jobs to participate in meetings, or they may not feel a sense of “community” or clear identity attached to their area of residency, as they may have migrated from different parts of the country. Therefore, the role of facilita- tors becomes even more crucial in promoting participatory development processes in the ur- ban context. Even with larger and better resourced local government units, retaining effective community facilitators can be a challenge. Contracting NGOs or firms may be more realistic and effective, rather than relying on project staff or local government officials. Informal social networks become increasingly important in contexts where organizational structures are weak, overly politicized, or do not facilitate meaningful participation. How- ever, social networks also represent power structures that have the potential to capture project benefits. For example, in Kyrgyzstan communities were prioritizing the construction of neigh- borhood sports facilities. The project team noted that certain groups were taking over the cen- ters and women were being excluded over time. In Haiti, it was essential to engage community members involved in criminal activity as part of community-based organizations for the project to proceed as they were recognized as legitimate community leaders. Having communities contribute financially to subprojects can potentially serve to pro- mote ownership of investments, but project teams need to carefully consider the cultural and economic aspects of requiring community contributions. In Tanzania, the project ini- tially required the community to contribute 10% of the subproject cost. Realizing that this was overburdening poor households, the project abolished the financial contribution requirement, and poor households were able to participate and benefit from the subproject investments. On the contrary, in Vietnam, the community contribution under the urban upgrading project was very effective in enhancing their commitment and participation. Even with larger-size grants or a separate component to support big infrastructure, most case study project teams acknowledged the importance of supporting social and econom- ic activities of the target beneficiaries. While more challenging to implement, some projects Summary • 7 have succeeded in integrating physical, social, and economic components. For example, in Viet- nam, the urban upgrading project sought to mitigate flooding by raising the level of the street. However, if the street was to be raised without changing the level of adjacent housing, this would exacerbate flooding, so the project incorporated a mechanism for households to borrow money to raise their floors. It also incorporated an income-generation loan so households could expand their economic activities to repay the housing loans. The typical challenge for CDD-type operations supporting economic activities is to ensure that project team and facilitators have sufficient skills to support the management of private goods investment and market systems. Without a clear understanding of local markets, grassroots organizations and self-help groups who start economic activities can end up being unable to pay back loans or to sustain business- es. As the world urbanizes, so does risk. The way urban development takes place will either com- pound or reduce those risks—be they from climate change, natural disasters, political upheaval, violence and crime, displacement, or economic shocks. Urban development approaches that promote physical, financial, and social inclusion of all residents will be critical to ensuring that cities are resilient and sustainable. The synergies between the urban and social agendas have never been more relevant. A few suggested areas for future thinking and collaboration include: • Further emphasize and systematize community engagement in urban planning: Urban CDD and slum upgrading projects have traditionally focused on retrofitting already established settlements. A greater focus on engaging communities in newly urbanizing areas could be beneficial. One example is the City Development Strategy (CDS) process, where local stakeholders formulate a holistic vision for the city, giving voice to the residents on shaping the strategy and in monitoring the implementation. More systematic use of local government participatory planning and budgetary systems in urban projects could also be promoted. • Develop guidance and learning events around specific urban challenges: A number of issues emerged from the document reviews and interviews that would benefit from specific guidance and thinking for staff working on urban participatory and CDD projects. These include: resettlement and safeguards in urban CDD projects; the use of a CDD approach for relocation planning needs; understanding the different dynamics within and between city center, peri-urban areas, and small towns; dealing with displaced populations in urban areas; and comprehensive approaches to strengthening resilience and managing risks in urban areas (including climate and disaster risk, conflict and violence, economic shocks, etc.). • Build on the foundation of the current set of case studies: The interviews revealed that urban and CDD practitioners have a wealth of knowledge that needs to be captured. While this set of case studies provides a first step, developing mechanisms to capture and share more of that tacit knowledge would be extremely useful. Undertaking additional case studies and building on the current ones with field research would allow a deeper understanding of the challenges and how to address them. In addition, it is recognized that there is a vast amount of innovation going on in cities throughout the globe related to citizen engagement, community empowerment and urbanization. Providing incentives to bring more of that knowledge into projects at the country and city level will be valuable. I. Introduction Urban development is a critical and urgent agenda for a large part of the world, especially for developing countries. Today’s urban population of about 3.5 billion people is projected to reach 5 billion by 2030. Two-thirds of the world’s population will then be urban, and ninety percent of this growth is taking place in developing countries. About 5 million people migrate every month to cities in developing countries in search of jobs and better access to services (World Bank 2013). With cities accounting globally for an estimated 70 percent of GDP, it is now broadly accepted that urbanization is not only inevitable but also a powerful force in support of poverty reduction and economic growth. While cities are engines of economic growth, urban growth has not been equitable and poverty is urbanizing. As more poor people move to cities in search of opportunities, the per- centage of poor people living in urban areas is expected to grow (World Bank, 2015). The World Bank notes that while urban areas can offer better quality of life and, in fact, account for lower rates of extreme poverty compared to those of rural areas, one in three urban residents still lives in under-serviced areas. Almost 1 billion people currently live in slums with inadequate services. More than 70 percent of Africa’s urban population lives in slums. The living conditions of slum dwellers and informal settlers are dire—take for example, one toilet for every 500 people in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya. Such inadequate access to services leads to deterioration of the urban environment and increases the disease burden on the urban poor (ibid). In order to ensure that the benefits of urban growth are shared by all, it is critical to ad- dress the social aspects of urban development challenges. A number of efforts are exploring the social dimensions of resilience and inclusiveness. The World Bank’s Global Programs Unit has a body of work on social resilience to disasters and climate change1 and recently published “In- clusion Matters: The Foundation for Shared Prosperity,” one of the most comprehensive reviews of social inclusion available. In addition, the Global Programs Unit is exploring ‘exclusion’ in ur- ban areas as multidimensional challenges, including physical/spatial exclusion (i.e., intra-urban inequalities between various districts/neighborhoods in terms of access to land and housing, 1 See www.worldbank.org/socialresilience 8 I. Introduction • 9 infrastructure, basic services, and public amenities and the differences between legal/formal neighborhoods and illegal/informal settlements) and economic exclusion (i.e., an inability to en- ter formal labor markets, obtain capital for business development, or the education necessary to be considered for employment)—which are often driven by social exclusion on the basis of age, gender, race, caste, religion, ethnicity, or disability impacts on individual’s participation and voice in the governance of the city. Participatory and community-driven development approaches can play a powerful role in addressing acute poverty and inequality growing in cities while also contributing to the process of democratization and empowerment. In urban contexts, “participatory urban up- grading” gained prominence when the growing needs of the urban poor began exceeding the capacity of the local authorities to respond with public housing policies and other more con- ventional ‘top-down’ approaches. The World Bank also has a large portfolio of projects that fulfill the specific criteria to be considered Community-Driven Development (CDD). CDD is an ap- proach that gives community groups control over planning decisions and investment resources for local development projects. While the CDD approach has principally been used by projects operating in rural areas2, 40 out of 319 currently active projects in the CDD database (12.5 %) are under the urban sector.3 As cities grow and poverty urbanizes, practitioners need a better understanding of the strengths, limitations, and challenges of using participatory approaches in these environ- ments. This could be helped by highlighting the overlaps and the synergies between partici- patory approaches in urban upgrading and CDD. There is extensive knowledge among CDD practitioners on designing CDD projects and programs in rural areas but less on using CDD or community-based approaches to address specific challenges in the urban context. This paper aims to contribute to learning on community engagement and CDD in urban areas. Specifically, the review describes the World Bank’s use of participatory and CDD ap- proaches in urban areas between 2003 and 2013; identifies the challenges of using participa- tory and CDD approaches in the urban context; assesses lessons from the application of CDD in urban areas through case studies; and makes recommendations for a way forward in terms of operational approaches and further research to improve the application of CDD in cities. In conducting the study, the team engaged colleagues from social and urban development, and other relevant sectors in order to leverage cross-sectoral collaboration. The paper aims to pro- vide a useful starting point for dialogue and collaboration to contribute to sustainable and in- clusive cities. The findings of the review are targeted to task team leaders and national and local government officials who are interested in initiating, expanding, or scaling up projects with a participatory approach in urban areas. Methodology The first step in the study was to identify the World Bank’s “urban participatory and CDD portfolio.” This involved searching several project databases to identify projects operating in 2 The CDD team in the SDV has been tracking IBRD/IDA lending towards projects with the CDD approach since 2000, which can be accessed at: http://sdweb.worldbank.org/cdd/index.cfm?Page=home 3 The “CDD amount” being invested in community-level activities by these active projects is estimated as USD 2.37 billion. 10 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas urban areas that have components with high levels of community participation or that use a CDD approach. The following database searches were undertaken to identify relevant projects approved between fiscal year 2003-2013: 1. CDD database: This database lists the CDD portfolio since fiscal 2000, covering all projects that have used a CDD approach in any component of the project. The data are maintained by the CDD Secretariat and are obtained through an end-of-fiscal year annual review of project appraisal documents for World Bank lending operations.4 Seventy-two projects were identified with greater than 30% of the investment committed to CDD components and that were either mapped to the urban sector or were mapped to other sectors but have “Urban Services and Housing for the Poor” as a theme. 2. Slum Upgrading database: The (former) Urban Development unit has been tracking infor- mation on slum upgrading projects in a separate database.5 From this database, 43 projects with “Slum Upgrading” components were identified with substantial aspects of community participation. 3. World Bank operations mapped to the Urban Sector Board (USB): Finally, the overall da- tabase of projects mapped to the USB was searched to identify projects with the “Participa- tion and Civic Engagement” theme. Thirty-eight projects mapped to the urban sector were found to have the specific theme related to community participation. Searching these three databases helped to ensure that urban projects with significant CDD or participatory components were not overlooked. Following this initial review, the three project lists were compared to identify overlaps. The number of overlaps among the proj- ects found in each of these sources is shown in figure 1 below. Based on this comparison, a universe of 120 urban participatory or urban CDD projects were identified for the review (see Annex II). Of the 120 urban participatory or CDD projects identified, seven projects were selected as case studies for further review. Cases were selected with an aim to represent diversity in terms of regional representation; level of development (with both International Bank for Recon- struction and Development (IBRD), and International Development Association (IDA) borrowers represented); availability of results and maturity of the project (closed or nearing full disburse- ment); and diversity of the project environment and design. Based on these criteria, seven proj- ects were identified as suitable candidates for further study: • Benin Second Decentralized City Management Project (PGUD-2) • Haiti Urban Community Driven Development Project (PRODEPUR) • Indonesia National Community Empowerment Program (“Program Nasional Pemberdayaan 4 The set of criteria for the portfolio review was tightened in 2011 and, therefore, the CDD projects identified before 2011 were subject to potentially looser definition. This has had an impact of showing a significant drop in the number of projects entering into the CDD portfolio starting in 2011. 5 This portfolio review examined an initial database of projects from 2000 to 2013 that had the following theme and sector codes to identify all as “housing projects”: Urban Services and Housing for the Poor (theme code #71), Other Urban Develop- ment (theme code #74), Urban Planning and Housing Policy (theme code #101), City-Wide Infrastructure and Service Delivery (theme code #102), Housing finance (sector code FC) and Housing Construction (YC). These projects were then categorized according to the main type of intervention with “urban (slum) upgrading” being one of the categories. I. Introduction • 11 Figure 1. The Number of Urban Projects Identified by the Three Databases and Overlaps 52 CDD database 7 10 3 23 52 Slum Upgrading 10 Civic engagement under Urban Sector Board Masyarakat”) in Urban Areas (PNPM-Urban) III • Kyrgyzstan Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project • Morocco National Initiative for Human Development (INDH) Phase 1 and 2 • Tanzania Local Government Support Project • Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project I Case studies consisted of a desk review of project documents and interviews with project teams. For each of the seven cases, project documentation, including project appraisal docu- ments (PADs), implementation and completion results reports (ICRs), project evaluations, and project presentation materials were reviewed to identify challenges and lessons from the proj- ect. Following this, task team leaders and project team members were interviewed either by phone or in person to gain additional insights. In the case of Haiti, the study team was also able to interview two government and civil society implementing partners of the project. II. What Does the Urban Context Mean for Community Participation? The World Bank has a substantial track record using participatory approaches in urban areas and in implementing Community-Driven Development projects. Urban development practitioners have long recognized the importance of engaging urban communities in devel- opment. Slum upgrading projects have promoted participatory approaches with the level and characteristics of participation varying according to the country context and capacity of stake- holders. The Community-Driven Development (CDD) practice has also developed over several decades of practice and distinguishes itself by focusing consistently on active engagement of beneficiaries in the design, management, and implementation of projects. CDD projects have mainly focused on rural areas, but the approach is increasingly being used in urban contexts as well. Continuum of participatory approaches in urban areas Beginning in the 1970s, the World Bank began to apply urban participatory approaches to slum upgrading projects. Work in this area was heavily influenced by the writing of John F.C. Turner, Freedom to Build (1972) (Werlin 1999). Turner’s approach underscored the organizational capacity of communities and argued in favor of minimizing the role of the state. Based on his experience in Peru, Turner argued that instead of demolishing slums, the urban environment should be improved. On a project level, this meant emphasis was placed on providing small- scale infrastructure and basic services, eradicating muddy, unlit lanes, and providing potable water, sanitation, and drainage. Turner argued that if the urban environment was improved and squatters were given security and access to credit, they would maintain infrastructure and im- prove their own homes over time. 12 II. What Does the Urban Context Mean for Community Participation? • 13 Towards the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s, striking a balance between the role of the state and the community became a visible task. Based on an analysis of three of the World Bank’s largest and most expensive upgrading projects in Calcutta, Jakarta, and Manila, Werlin (1999) found that initial evaluations document remarkable success and support Turner’s theory. However, by the end of the 1980s, “The benefits of these slum upgrading efforts ap- peared ephemeral.…” Reviewing later evaluations of upgrading projects, Werlin concludes “that the ‘minimal state’ advocated by Turner can deal with the problems typically encountered in slum upgrading is a dangerous illusion.” He identifies three areas where these efforts fall short in resolving difficult problems: (1) land acquisition and tenure; (2) cost recovery for maintenance; and, (3) citizen participation. In conclusion, Werlin advocates for a combined development from “above” and “below” approach because the success of urban upgrading projects over the long term depends on strong government support. Participatory urban upgrading has evolved to be broadly defined as an holistic approach to making improvements not only in the physical but also the social, economic, organiza- tional, and environmental aspects of living conditions. An integral part of urban upgrading is the cooperative effort among citizens, community groups, businesses, and local authorities to ensure sustained improvements in the quality of life. More specifically, upgrading projects typi- cally focus on (i) regularizing land tenure security; (ii) providing basic services and infrastructure; (iii) formulating institutional and organizational structure; and (iv) addressing socio-economic issues (Basset et al., 2003). The participatory facet is arguably a fundamental dimension in the sense that upgrading projects are complex operations requiring collective effort to mobilize technical skill, ingenuity, and patience. The intrinsic value of community support and partici- pation is now widely accepted as a point of departure for project design (Imparato and Ruster, 2003). Beyond the scope of the project, participation is recognized as contributing to democ- ratization and empowerment of the population, fostering working relationships and mutual respect between the community and public authorities (Basset et al., 2003). In parallel to the evolution in thinking about urban upgrading, the Community-Driven Development (CDD) practice and portfolio began to be increasingly supported by the World Bank and other development partners. CDD is an approach that gives control over planning decisions and investment resources to community groups and local governments. Historically, programs using a CDD approach grew out of situations of crisis (financial shock, conflict, or natural disasters) and were meant as transitional instruments for service delivery where governments (particularly newly established administrations) lacked capacity to deliver services (Wong 2012). By optimizing the use of community actors, a CDD approach places less stress on government line agencies and at the same time is able to reach very large numbers of poor people. A CDD approach had traditionally been used by Social Funds, which are govern- ment agencies or programs that channel grants to communities for small-scale development projects. Social Funds typically finance a mixture of socioeconomic infrastructure (e.g., building or rehabilitating schools, water supply systems, and roads), productive investments (e.g., micro- finance and income-generating projects), social services (e.g., supporting nutrition campaigns, literacy programs, youth training, and support to the elderly and disabled), or capacity-building programs (e.g., training for civil and local governments) (World Bank 2009). 14 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Figure 2. Continuum of Participatory Approaches in Urban Areas Government Community participates Community directly Community controls consults with in all aspects of the controls the planning all planning decisions, the community, planning cycle through decisions, but and the financial information flows an intermediary, NGO, procurement and contract resources from top to bottom or local government supervision are carried out by another entity Continuum of participatory development approaches based on citizen power Manipulation, Informing, Partnership and Citizen control therapy consultation, delegated power placation Wong (ibid) describes how a typical CDD program works: “CDD program designs usually involved communities undertaking a village-level participatory planning process with the help of project facilitator or local govern- ment officials. Communities identify their priority needs and the plans or propos- als are sent to inter-village representatives or higher level forums at the district or provincial levels for decision making.” The CDD approach implies a process of community consultation, facilitated decision making, control of resources, and participatory monitoring of implementation and results. These fea- tures are captured in Arnstein’s (1969, 217) seminal article, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” which provides a useful continuum for characterizing the range of participatory development efforts—from manipulation and therapy at one end to delegated power and citizen control at the other (see figure 2). While a “pure” CDD project would fall on the far right of the participation continuum, the urban context presents a number of challenges to achieving this level of citizen control. Most urban upgrading projects likely fall towards the left and middle points of the continu- um. The majority of CDD projects have been implemented in rural areas where defining village boundaries, identifying local needs, and engaging constituents is in many ways a more straight- forward process. As CDD projects are increasingly implemented in urban areas, practitioners are faced with a number of characteristics which complicate the level of citizen control that is feasible in projects. These include physical, institutional and social characteristics of urban areas. II. What Does the Urban Context Mean for Community Participation? • 15 Physical and institutional characteristics of urban areas The line between urban and rural areas is increasingly blurred. While the identification of urban areas may seem simple because of national criteria identified by bureaus of statistics, political administrative systems, or land administration systems, this identification process is inconsistent in many parts of the world. For example, the growth of peri-urban areas and the increased industrialization of rural areas do not fit traditional understandings of urban or rural areas. Despite the conceptual limitations created by a rural and urban dichotomy, there exist ar- eas that we understand as clearly urban due to their high population density, the predominance of non-agricultural employment, dependency on the cash economy, and the nature of their built environment. This paper focuses on these areas and describes below some key physical and institutional traits that affect the urban poor. Built environment, public space, physical exclusion Poor and marginalized urban communities are typically more densely settled than their rural counterparts and are poorly connected to urban infrastructure and basic services. This density combined with poor construction quality and precarious sites puts these settle- ments at greater risk for certain hazards, such as fire, floods, landslides, and trash slides (Baker 2012). The informality that often characterizes these settlements results in a loss of formal and informal public spaces, which can reduce opportunities to build social capital and organize col- lectively. This implies that participatory development would require a longer period of time to allow for development of trust and mutual understanding to build consensus around shared needs and priorities. Informality and land tenure Poor urban communities throughout the developing world are characterized by informal- ity in terms of residents’ rights to occupy urban space as well as the physical construction of the built environment (Aldrich and Sandhu 1995; Gilbert and Gugler 2000). These commu- nities are also characterized by mixed land tenure status and overlapping land administrative systems. Land tenure is often a result of the process by which occupation occurred initially re- sulting in a mix of de jure and de facto rights. Informality, mixed, and ambiguous land tenure sta- tus complicates participatory approaches in a number of ways. First, it can make understanding community boundaries as well as identifying beneficiaries more complicated. Second, infor- mality typically results in a more complicated physical environment in terms of the density of occupation and haphazard construction of housing and infrastructure. Third, informality often limits service providers such as utilities from providing services. Local government In urban areas, local government plays a more significant role in planning and project im- plementation compared to rural villages. This is partially due to the size and complexity that characterize urban projects. Complexity refers to the average size of a project’s beneficiaries, size of the investment, as well as the technical complexity involved with implementation. Many community-level projects in urban areas need to connect to larger systems; for example, sys- tems for potable water, solid waste disposal, sewage, drainage, and transportation. This neces- 16 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas sity to connect to trunk infrastructure requires levels of coordination that go above and beyond the purview of the community. Furthermore, in urban areas, the local government has a more significant role to play in terms of project maintenance and sustainability over the long term. However, participatory approaches benefit when local government has more capacity and is in a position to play a supportive role (Mansuri and Rao 2013; Werlin 1999). Social characteristics of urban areas The nature of social capital is more complex in urban areas. Participatory approaches are largely dependent on the quality of the social relationships among community members di- rectly affected by the outcome of the system. As a result, policy makers and development prac- titioners have become increasingly interested in social relationships and social capital among actors (Beard and Dasgupta 2006; Grootaert and van Bastelaer 2002; Mansuri and Rao 2004; Woolcock 1998; Woolcock and Narayan 2000). In this context, social capital refers to the quality of individual relationships facilitated by trust, reciprocity, and exchange between community members. Coleman (1990) identifies three conditions associated with the presence of social capital: closure, stability, and the presence of a communitarian ideology. Typically these three conditions are more strongly associated with rural communities compared to their urban com- munities. Each of these three conditions is challenged by a number of characteristics associated with urban environments. Size, heterogeneity and complexity In urban areas the population size of the target community is typically larger. It is well doc- umented that the collective action that underlies many aspects of participatory development is more challenging with larger groups (Olson 1965). Urban populations are also more likely to be characterized by heterogeneity compared to their rural counterparts in terms of, but not limited to: socio-economic status, caste, religion, ethnicity, language, and community of origin. Increased diversity makes building consensus around a sense of purpose, identifying and priori- tizing needs, and even developing a common understanding of what constitutes an acceptable process of engagement more complicated. Economic inequality Socio-economic heterogeneity is a particular challenge for participation in urban areas. Urban areas are more likely to have greater economic inequality, which makes identifying and prioritizing needs a more difficult task. For example, poorer community members will be more concerned with access to basic services (i.e., water, sanitation, health care, education) while wealthier community members have the ability to meet these needs through the private mar- ket. In communities with high degrees of economic inequality, community members have dif- ferent demands on their time. In terms of participatory development, there is a point at which households on either end of the income distribution will opt out of participatory processes to gain access to services because, for example, they do not have the minimum level of resources necessary to participate or the opportunity cost of participation is too high (Beard 2007). II. What Does the Urban Context Mean for Community Participation? • 17 Migration, mobility, and displacement Many urban neighborhoods are comprised of a mix of long-term and more recent resi- dents. Recent migrants are likely to have smaller local social networks and more tenuous ties to their receiving communities. In recent years, there has been a rise of involuntary or forced mi- gration. Globally, the number of forced migrants, both international and internal, is estimated at somewhere between 100 and 200 million (Castles 2003, 15). Involuntary migration is caused by a variety of factors, including natural disasters, climate change, environmental degradation, po- litical conflict, trafficking and displacement by development projects (Biermann and Boas 2010; Castles 2003, 15). Migrants arrive in urban areas with fewer resources and without the option to return to their sending communities. The number of displaced due to conflict, violence, and po- litical upheaval alone is estimated at 45.2 million. Most displacement is occurring in developing countries, and more than half of the displaced people are living in urban areas, drawn to cities and towns by the prospect of anonymity and better access to services and economic opportuni- ties. Returning refugees also tend to settle in urban areas, having become accustomed to urban life in refuge, lacking the inclination or skills to farm, or wishing to avoid ongoing insecurity in rural areas (World Bank, forthcoming). Violence, crime, and conflict Urban areas in the developing world are increasingly violent with the victims tending to be among the most vulnerable segments of society: women, youth, and the poor. Africa and Latin America are some of the most violent regions of the world (UNODC 2011). Moser (2006, 4) explains there is a complex relationship between poverty, inequality, and exclusion that together have the potential to precipitate crime, conflict, and violence. In terms of partici- patory development, Moser (2006, 5) explains how violence erodes community cohesion, social relationships based on trust, and makes cooperation more difficult. For example, literature has found that the threat of violence and crime can make attending community meetings more difficult, particularly for women. In short, the characteristics described above affect greatly the level of citizen control that is feasible in urban areas. The principle of community control over resources for distinguishing CDD from other forms of participatory development is not as meaningful in the urban context as these projects are typically larger and financially and technically more complex. In addition, defining communities and their needs can be more difficult and contentious due to their larger size and to higher levels of complexity and heterogeneity. III. Overview of the Portfolio and Case Studies Description of the portfolio This section provides a descriptive analysis of the 120 projects in the World Bank’s urban participatory and CDD portfolio. The figures below are based on the number of projects iden- tified for the analysis. A weakness of using the number of projects as the basis for these figures is that this information does not indicate the size of the investment. However, isolating the size of the investment is not a straightforward process since all of the projects have multiple compo- nents, and not all of these components are related to participatory development or CDD. Figure 3 shows the number of projects initiated and the number of projects that received additional funding over the last 11 years. Figure 3. Total Number of Participatory and CDD Urban Projects 20 18 16 2 14 7 Additional Financing 12 1 (AF) to on-going 10 2 5 2 projects 8 3 15 6 12 11 Number of Project 4 8 9 9 7 7 6 7 7 (other than AF) 2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fiscal Year 18 III. Overview of the Portfolio and Case Studies • 19 Figure 4. Number of Urban Participatory Projects by Region Africa 14 East Asia and the Pacific 13 39 Europe and Central Asia Latin America and Caribbean 29 17 Middle East and North Africa 8 South Asia Figure 3 shows that the number of projects has been fairly constant; on average about 11 proj- ects per year were funded and two projects received additional funding per year. In 2008 and 2010, a significantly larger number of projects were funded. In 2008, 15 projects were funded and 2 projects received additional funds. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean regions have the greatest number of urban participatory and CDD projects in the universe of the study, 39 and 29, respectively (see figure 4). The Europe and Central Asia region has the least number of projects (8), which may be reflective of a relatively smaller overall portfolio for the region. Figure 5. Number of Projects by Sector Board Urban Development 4 8 4 Water 6 Social Development 14 84 Social Protection Agriculture and Rural Development 20 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Not surprisingly the vast majority of projects, 70 percent, were mapped to the urban de- velopment sector (see figure 5). The remaining projects were mapped to the water, social de- velopment, and other sectors. The reader should note that all of the figures are based on the universe described in the preceding methods section. Case study selection Seven country case studies were selected for closer review from the universe of the identified 120 urban participatory projects. They include: • Benin Second Decentralized City Management Project (PGUD-2) • Haiti Urban Community Driven Development Project (PRODEPUR) • Indonesia National Community Empowerment Program (“Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat”) in Urban Areas (PNPM-Urban) III • Kyrgyzstan Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project • Morocco National Initiative for Human Development (INDH) Phase 1 and 2 • Tanzania Local Government Support Project • Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project I Although 7 cases cannot represent the rich and diverse experience in participatory and community-driven development projects in the urban context, the cases do provide interesting observations on the oppor- tunities and challenges related to engaging communities and targeting beneficiaries in different political and historical contexts. To the extent possible, the case studies also tried to capture lessons from the proj- ects that emerged from the document reviews and task team interviews. Project descriptions, community participation aspects under the project, achievements, and lessons learned are provided in Annex I. Table 1 presents an overview of the basic project information of the cases reviewed. Table 1: Overview of Urban Participatory and CDD Project Case Studies Description of CDD component Country/ Project Name/ Investment Project Development (planned or actual when Number of Beneficiaries (US$) Years Objective available) (approx.) Benin Second To increase access to 1. Municipal Management Target: 336,000 population P082725 Decentralized infrastructure and basic Strengthening getting access to primary P109209 City Management services for residents of (US$3.51m) and secondary paved Project Benin’s primary cities roads; 114,000 additional Total 50m 2. Basic Infrastructure (Cotonou, Porto-Novo, population protected from (IDA 35m, 2005-2012 (US$22.50 m with and Parakou) and selected periodic flooding AF IDA additional financing 40m) secondary cities (Abomey- 40m, Actual: approximately Calavi, Kandi, and 3. Community Participation France 11.7m, 446,500 people to have Lokossa). and Integration Govt of Benin better access to paved (US$1.79 m) 3.3m) roads; 526,000 people 4. Solid Waste Management to benefit from reduced in Porto-Novo exposure to flood risk. (US$9.06 m) III. Overview of the Portfolio and Case Studies • 21 Haiti Urban To improve access to and 1. Community Subproject Target: Directly 85,000 Community satisfaction with (i) basic Funding, Management, individuals (17,000 HHs) P106699 Driven and social infrastructure and Support (US$13.5m; + Indirectly 490,000 Total 54.2m Development and services and (ii) IDAUS$12.70m) individuals = in total (IDA 15.7m Project income-generating 575,000 individuals. 2. Capacity-Building and AF1 IDA 30m, (PRODEPUR) opportunities for residents The estimated number Technical Assistance AF2 IDA of targeted urban slums. of subprojects to be 2008-2015 (US$0.90 m) 7.5m, Local completed is 360-400. Communities 3. Project Administration, Actual: Number of 1m) Supervision, Monitoring beneficiaries not yet and Evaluation (US$2.1 m) available. As of May 2014, 4. (from AF) Housing repair over 493 subprojects are and reconstruction financed in Port-au Prince and three other cities. Indonesia PNPM-Urban III To assist the Government 1. Community Development of Indonesia to ensure and Local Government P118113 2010-2013 that the urban poor Capacity Building Total 217.48m benefit from improved (US$25.2m) (IBRD 149.98m, socio-economic and local 2. Kelurahan Grants Gov of Indonesia governance conditions. (US$184.5m) 67.5m) 3. Implementation and Technical Assistance (US$14.8m) P125405 PNPM-Urban To support the Republic 1. Capacity building for Target: 6,000,000 direct of Indonesia to ensure Communities and Local beneficiaries of the project Total 500m 2012-2015 the urban poor in Governments (Loan (maintaining the peak (IBRD 266m, Gov participating kelurahans $80m+ Grant $5.3 m) in 2011 while aims at of Indonesia benefit from improved improving the quality) 210.5m, TF 2. Kelurahan (“urban wards’) local governance and 23.5m) Grants (Loan $149m + Actual: Baseline Oct 2011: living conditions. Grant $14.2 m) 6,100,000 3. Implementation Support and Technical Assistance (Loan $37m + Grant $4m) 4. Contingency for Disaster Response ($0). Kyrgyzstan Bishkek and To increase the 1. Basic Infrastructure Target: 220,000 (By June Osh Urban availability of basic urban (US$9m, with additional 2015) P104994 Infrastructure services in semi-formal financing US$26m) (female 50%) Total 30.59m Project settlements known as new 2. Community Investment (IDA 12m, housing developments Actual: As of Nov 2013: 2008-2015 Programs (US$1m, with AF IDA 15.8 (novostroiki) in the cities of 81,000 (female 54%) additional financing m, Gov of Bishkek and Osh, as well as US$5.1m) Kyrgyzstan in select small towns* of 2.35m, TF 0.44m) the Kyrgyz Republic, and 3. Institutional Development to increase the availability (US$1m) of social infrastructures 4. Operational Support in the cities of Bishkek (US$1m, with additional and Osh and in both the financing US$1.6m) selected small towns and other small towns. 22 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Morocco National Initiative To improve inclusiveness, Rural Poverty Reduction INDH-1 Actual: over 22,000 for Human accountability and (US$327m) subprojects and over 5 INDH-1 Development transparency of million beneficiaries; urban P100026 Reduction of social exclusion Support Project I decision making and component benefitted Total 1 billion in urban areas (US$497m) implementation processes 1,627,600 people through (IBRD 100m, (INDH-1) at the local level in Tackling vulnerability 4,069 subprojects. Govt of Morocco 2006-2011 order to enhance use (US$356m) 900m) of social and economic Strengthening governance and infrastructure and services institutional capacity (US$525) by poor and vulnerable groups. (costs are the total costs with other sources) INDH-2 INDH-2 To improve access to Rural subprogram (US$374m) Target: P116201 and/or use of enhanced 2012-2016 Urban Subprogram (US$410m) 403 rural communes and Total 1.165 participatory local 264 urban billion governance mechanisms, Cross-cutting subprogram (IBRD 300m, basic infrastructure, social (US$331m) Neighborhoods (various Govt of Morocco services, and economic indicators under Program Vulnerability subprogram 865m) opportunities in the for Results instrument) (US$168m) program area. Territorial upgrading subprogram (US$602m) (costs are the total costs with other sources) Tanzania Local To (a) strengthen fiscal Support for Local Government Target: P070736 Government decentralization, improve Capital Development Grant CIUP targeted 330,000 Support Project accountability in the System (USD35m) Total 158.8m people in low-income use of local government (IDA 52m, AF 2004-2012 Dar es Salaam Upgrading and households, to cover 20% of resources, and improve IDA 98m, Local Institutional Strengthening unplanned areas in Dar es management of Gov 2.3m, Gov (USD18.8m) (with AF 39.4m) Salaam. Initially 41 LGAs. intergovernmental of Tanzania transfers and demand- Community Infrastructure Actual: 6.5m) driven urban investments; Upgrading Project (CIUP) 65 community events and (b) increase access Local Revenue Enhancement reaching out to 15,827 to infrastructure and / Operation and Maintenance people in CIUP wards. After services in the unplanned Program AF and restructuring, it areas of Dar es Salaam supported all 132 LGAs in and improve revenue Support to PO-RALG the country performance for (USD7.9 m) sustainable operations and maintenance. Vietnam Urban Upgrading To alleviate poverty Tertiary Infrastructure Target: Total population of P070197 Project in urban areas by Upgrading (US$69m) 3 districts of Quan 6, Quan improving the living and 11 and Tan Binh in 2007 Total 579.34m 2004-2014 Complementary Primary and environmental conditions were 1.29 million people (IDA 222.47m, Secondary Infrastructure of the urban poor using AF IDA (US$280m) Actual: As of April 2013, participatory planning 160m, Local approximately 200 low methods, and influencing Resettlement Housing communities income neighborhoods planning processes to (US$13.7m) 4.15m, Govt of have been upgraded, become more inclusive Land and Housing Vietnam 148.53, benefitting over 2.5 million and pro-poor Management (US$1.7m) Japan 6.68m, residents France 37.51m) Housing Improvement Loan Program (US$15m) IV. Synthesis of Lessons Learned This paper aims to provide some specific insights on engaging poor communities in urban areas using principles common to rural CDD operations. The case studies (Annex I) reflected some general lessons that would apply to any project using a participatory approach, including the importance of ensuring ownership, promoting an inclusive approach, and the importance of effective targeting. However, due to specific characteristics of investments in urban areas, the nature and degree of community participation may differ from rural areas. The case studies also revealed that engaging communities in urban areas for development projects is generally more complicated and requires more time, effort, and flexibility than in rural areas. Project teams not- ed that it is more challenging to convene and mobilize urban communities due to people’s work schedules, that urban residents tend to be more skeptical about the potential benefits of com- munity development projects, and that it takes a lot more time to gain the trust of communities in urban areas. In some cases (Haiti, Tanzania, Vietnam) it took between one and two years to complete the community mobilization process. While there were valuable lessons unique to each project, the lessons summarized be- low have been observed across several or all cases. Three key areas emerge in which project teams wishing to apply CDD approaches may need to think differently or innovate to adjust to the urban context. These include: the roles of communities and local government authorities, given the nature and scale of investment; beneficiary targeting; and community mobilization. Role of communities vs. role of local government Participatory development projects in urban areas often demand larger-scale investments which determine the appropriate level of community control in addition to the role of the local government in the project. Community investments in urban areas may need to be of a larger scale compared to those in rural areas. For example, in the first phase of Morocco’s National Initiative for Human De- 23 24 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas velopment (INDH) program, the average cost of rural subprojects was US$45,000 compared to US$120,000 for urban subprojects due mainly to the larger population size. In Kyrgyz Republic, the project was originally designed to provide annual grants up to a maximum of US$20,000 per eligible community. It was later learned that the size of the grants was too small for meaningful investments and, under the additional financing, the maximum grant size per community was set at US$50,000. The project also encouraged pooling grants across different communities to achieve larger community infrastructure investments. In Indonesia, evaluation reports showed that past urban CDD projects had limited impacts on household welfare, partly because of a dis- persion of relatively small grants over a large number of activities. To increase the average size of activities, the project increased the subproject grant allocations to poorest areas. The size, scope, cost, and technical complexity of urban development activities will affect the level of community involvement or control that is possible in those activities. It is im- portant to have a realistic understanding of the types of urban development activities that can be effectively undertaken with a community-driven approach. Many urban projects connect to broader infrastructure networks, and usually local residents do not have a synoptic view of the entire infrastructure system. Furthermore many larger projects have complex engineering and technical demands that require expertise outside of the community. When a project is beyond the technical capacity of the community, the role of the community will likely be limited to assessing local conditions and needs, consultations, and collaboration during the implementa- tion phase. Referring to Arstein’s continuum of participatory approaches discussed in section II, this focuses the project on an “informing/consultation” or “partnership and delegated power” approach rather than a “citizen control” approach. Broader citizen control is better suited to smaller physical infrastructure projects that are less complex and can be adequately managed by the local community. When urban participatory programs still engage communities in con- trolling resources, though, fiduciary and accountability risks must be taken into consideration and factored in the project design using other mechanisms, such as grievance mechanisms, information disclosure, social audit, and so on. Local government authorities (LGAs) generally play a stronger role in planning and im- plementation of participatory development projects in urban areas vs. rural areas. In ad- dition to more complex contractual, financial, and technical management, infrastructure in- vestments in poor urban communities connect to larger, trunk infrastructure systems which are provided and maintained by LGAs. This adds further to project complexity and requires greater engagement of LGAs in relevant subprojects. In Tanzania, the project took into account the proximity to trunk infrastructure for selecting the sub-wards (unplanned communities) but at the same time focused investments on tertiary infrastructure to keep subprojects more man- ageable. The project later noted while this approach did simplify project management for the communities, it also missed opportunities to develop subprojects based on a more holistic vision and to address the pressing issues of flooding. LGAs also play a more important role in urban areas in relation to operations and main- tenance (O&M) of subproject investments. For example, water facilities are often times man- aged by a users’ or village association in rural areas, while in urban areas, there are more com- plicated regulations, and linkages to LGAs are necessary for proper O&M. To ensure adequate O&M in targeted municipalities in Benin, the project included asset maintenance programs tied to established municipal maintenance teams that took responsibility of cleaning roads IV. Synthesis of Lessons Learned • 25 and drainage networks, etc. These arrangements allowed municipalities to programmatically budget and plan for maintenance services, depending on the type of infrastructure. As a result, almost all project teams emphasized the importance of providing more ca- pacity building opportunities to enable LGAs to collaborate effectively with communities without distorting their voice and sense of ownership. A stronger focus on community/ LGA partnership (vs. informing/consultation) can ensure that local priorities are addressed and that the investments are more sustainable. Several of the cases demonstrated this approach by integrating community-developed local plans with the government’s development planning, implementation, and budgeting process. In Indonesia’s PNPM, this was the main tool to ensure that community voices were heard. In Benin, municipalities presented their audit findings in front of urban communities to ensure transparency. Building on the capacity and experience gained through community-based approaches, some governments are implementing pilot ini- tiatives that aim to apply LGA-community collaboration for larger-scale investment programs. However, some capacity constraints need to be addressed due to the high level of technical skills required to manage a much larger scale and complicated types of investments. Where LGA capacity is weak, or there is little trust of government (e.g., in Haiti), CBOs and civil society organizations play a very important role in mobilizing and supporting communities, including managing funds. However, in the long-run, involving LGAs becomes critical to sustain bottom-up efforts and provide basic services. Programs need to involve LGAs and build their capacity especially around consultations, participation, social accountability mechanisms, and participatory monitoring. Some projects encourage proposals be submitted jointly by municipalities and communities to strengthen the LGA’s capacity to collaborate with communities. In another on-going effort, Haiti’s PRODEPUR project seeks to convert represen- tative community-based organizations created for project management into more permanent bodies at the municipality level in order to work together with the LGAs. The use of information and communications technology (ICT) such as smartphones applications and other tools could be explored for promoting greater accountability and building trust between urban LGAs and communities. Beneficiary targeting Beneficiary targeting in urban areas should utilize criteria beyond spatial boundaries when necessary and remain flexible to adjust to changing needs. For the most part, beneficiary targeting can rely on spatial or geographical boundaries when the purpose of a project is to upgrade a slum or informal settlement. In these cases, residents in the area to be upgraded by definition would meet the criteria of intended benefi- ciaries. Identifying target beneficiaries becomes more difficult, however, when the project seeks to address social exclusion or target specific groups across a municipality or urban community. Target groups—such as the poorest of the poor, ethnic minorities, and female-headed house- holds—may be scattered in “pockets’ throughout the city, and local authorities tend to have little information that can be used to identify beneficiaries. The case studies revealed some instances where spatial targeting was initially unable to fully include certain groups, and targeting criteria was adjusted. In Morocco, for exam- 26 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas ple, there were “pockets of poverty” spread throughout target municipalities that did not cor- respond to the commune system or other municipal organizational structure. Under the first phase of the National Initiative for Human Development project (INDH-1), towns for the urban subprogram were selected based on administrative criteria rather than socio-economic criteria, leaving targeting open to the interpretation of each provincial authority. Learning from this, INDH-2 aims to be more inclusive, covering all municipalities with more than 20,000 inhabitants and using poverty maps to target beneficiaries. Criteria for neighborhood selection was based on a series of social exclusion indicators such as access to basic services, unemployment, illiter- acy, and housing conditions. It also used participatory social mapping exercises to validate in- formation at the local level. Robust social analysis can shed light on complex social dynamics in urban contexts—particularly regarding land ownership, tenant-ship and rights, and exclusion of specific groups. Beneficiary targeting in high risk urban areas requires greater flexibility. In the face of social conflict, violence, or natural disasters, several projects adjusted the targeting criteria to adapt to shifting circumstances. When the Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project en- countered instances of elite capture in Kyrgyz, the project team adjusted the selection criteria to select additional beneficiaries and minimize conflict. The team held focus group discussions complemented by rapid surveys to collect data on income levels and ethnicity. In Haiti, the PRODEPUR project intervened in 10 out of the 17 government-identified Priority Zones. Within those zones, official demarcations did not exist, so the project team applied a flexible and par- ticipatory method to identify intervention areas based on poverty levels, population density, and levels of violence. Also in Haiti, after the earthquake, the project found the need to adjust criteria again in some cases when people established new social networks in relief camps and no longer identified with the neighborhood they lived in prior to the disaster. When they were resettled, some preferred to stay with their new networks. Community mobilization Mobilizing urban communities requires a greater investment in time and effort due to con- straints in terms of people’s availability, physical space, and trust. In urban areas, social mobilization tends to take more time and require more patience. Urban communities may be too busy with wage earning jobs to participate in meetings, or they may not be accustomed to being consulted and given the opportunity to participate in local development decision making. Moreover, people living in urban settings do not always feel a sense of “community” or clear identity attached to their area of residency, as they may have mi- grated from different parts of the country. They may not interact with each other because they do not share common jobs, languages, or cultures. Typically there are no traditional leadership structures to facilitate community engagement, unlike in rural areas. Therefore, the role of fa- cilitators becomes even more crucial in promoting participatory development processes in the urban context. Even with larger and better resourced local government units, retaining effective community facilitators can be a challenge. Contracting NGOs or firms may be more realistic and effective, rather than relying on project staff or local government officials. Physical space for communities to gather and discuss issues can also be a challenge be- cause some urban areas (especially in slums or informal settlements) can be overcrowded with IV. Synthesis of Lessons Learned • 27 facilities and living spaces. In Vietnam, for example, urban community members decided to address this constraint by using block grants to rehabilitate a community center for them to discuss local development issues. Now, the community members use the center to organize cultural and sporting events. Several project teams observed that urban communities can be more skeptical about in- terventions or communicating with outsiders. In these cases, sharing information in a trans- parent way and demonstrating continued commitment throughout the process was critical. In Vietnam, for example, the project team reported that not many people participated in the first meeting and several expressed skepticism. However, once the project team returned with some concrete upgrading plans based on the ideas the community members put forth, they understood the commitment and “seriousness” of the project teams and the local authorities and participation increased. The role of local resource people is increasingly important to gain entry to complex urban environments. Several task teams mentioned the importance of identifying local resource per- sons who knew the context, people, and the power structures in a particular area for facilitating engagement with urban communities. In Haiti, Cite Soleil was known to be impenetrable to outsiders due to the high level of violence. The project team identified a woman that was well known inside the community for her previous work on community development projects and worked through her to gain entry into the community. Informal social networks can facilitate or impede participatory approaches, and it may be necessary to engage unconventional actors in urban settings. Informal social networks be- come increasingly important in contexts where organizational structures are weak, overly po- liticized, or do not facilitate meaningful participation. However, social networks also represent power structures that have the potential to capture project benefits. For example, in Kyrgyz- stan there were powerful social networks operating at different levels that had the potential to capture project outcomes. This was seen, for example, when communities were prioritizing the construction of neighborhood sports facilities. The project team noted that certain groups were taking over the centers and women were being excluded over time. In Haiti, it was essential to engage community members involved in criminal activity as part of community-based orga- nizations for the project to proceed as they were recognized as legitimate community leaders. Having communities contribute financially to subprojects can potentially serve to pro- mote ownership of investments, but project teams need to carefully consider the cultural and economic aspects of requiring community contributions. In Tanzania, the project ini- tially required the community’s in-cash contribution of 10% of the subproject cost. However, they found that the requirement was overburdening poor households who were unable to pay. Once the project abolished the financial contribution requirement, poor households were able to participate and benefit from the subproject investments. On the contrary, in Vietnam, the community contribution under the urban upgrading project was very effective in enhancing their commitment and participation. The contribution was initially considered as an unthink- able requirement in Vietnam, where people had not been asked to submit their assets or cash to public programs. However, this is now a very important part of developing a sense of owner- ship, and another project in the country also introduced this requirement. 28 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Even with larger-size grants or a separate component to support big infrastructure, most case study project teams acknowledged the importance of supporting social and eco- nomic activities of the target beneficiaries. An important benefit of local public investments is the short-term employment it can create through small-scale infrastructure construction or rehabilitation. However, infrastructure investments alone cannot address the needs of the ur- ban poor, especially when those who live in the cash economy do not have a secure job and access to credit. In Indonesia, while infrastructure services are valued by communities, there was strong demand for livelihood and social investments. Therefore, the PNPM project sought to incorporate greater balance between the social, economic, and infrastructure themes covered by the project block grants, by increasing the share of activities allocated to social and other economic activities. While more challenging to implement, some projects have succeeded in integrating phys- ical, social, and economic components. In urban settings, there may be particular linkages among different components (e.g., between access to credit for home improvements and up- grades to trunk infrastructure) that produce synergies and additional benefits for communities. For example, in Vietnam, the urban upgrading project sought to make physical improvements to mitigate flooding by raising the level of the street. However, if the street was to be raised without changing the level of adjacent housing, this would exacerbate flooding, so the project incorporated a mechanism for households to borrow money to raise their floors. It also incor- porated an income-generation loan so households could expand their economic activities to repay the housing loans. Furthermore, when the road was raised and new sewage infrastructure was constructed underneath the road, the home improvement loans enabled local residents to construct individual latrines and make other improvements. This enabled residents to take full advantage of the larger infrastructure improvements. The challenge for CDD-type operations typically with supporting economic activities is to ensure the project team and facilitators have sufficient skills to support the management of private goods investment and market systems. Without a clear understanding of local markets, grassroots organizations and self-help groups who start economic activities or small businesses can end up being unable to pay back loans or to sustain businesses. V. Conclusions and the Way Forward With cities accounting globally for an estimated 70 percent of GDP, urbanization is broad- ly recognized as a powerful force in support of poverty reduction and economic growth (World Bank, 2014). However, as more poor people move to cities in search of better opportu- nities, the percentage of poor people living in urban areas is expected to grow. To achieve the goals of poverty reduction and shared prosperity, concerted efforts are necessary to ensure that urban growth occurs in an equitable and inclusive manner. Doing this requires addressing the social dimensions of urbanization and more effectively empowering the poor and marginalized in urban areas to drive an urban development agenda that addresses their felt needs and pri- orities. CDD and other participatory processes are critical to contributing to inclusive urban devel- opment, yet the complexities of urban areas present a number of challenges to applying a typical set of CDD processes. Areas that require particular consideration include: understand- ing the role of communities and local government and the importance of their collaboration; identification and targeting of beneficiaries; and social mobilization in complex urban settings. While they have much in common, the World Bank’s CDD and Slum Upgrading portfolios have evolved as parallel service lines to World Bank borrowers with somewhat limited cross-fertilization and shared learning. This study was undertaken jointly by the social and urban development specialists to launch a platform for greater collaboration not only between social and urban practitioners but among land experts, disaster and climate risk management specialists, conflict and fragility experts. The study examined projects undertaken in urban areas where communities played some role in the investment decision-making process. The study’s aim was to lay out key challenges and opportunities of participatory development in urban areas as a first step and to catalyze future discussions among various stakeholders. As we have seen in the study, participatory development and CDD in urban settings include a very wide range of issues and stakeholders, due to the heterogeneity and rapidly changing situations that are typical to the space and require more efforts to gather lessons. 29 30 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas The World Bank’s cross-sectoral Global Practice on Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience presents a unique opportunity for interdisciplinary thinking and innovation towards more effective community engagement and community/LGA partnership in urban devel- opment. A few suggested areas for future thinking and collaboration include: • Further emphasize and systematize community engagement in urban planning (beyond urban upgrading projects): Urban CDD and slum upgrading projects have traditionally focused on retrofitting already established settlements and areas. Other scopes of urban projects, such as supporting newly urbanizing areas of lower densities, could think about how to engage the community. Planning processes for a longer term and a wider boundary of the city can involve intensive citizen engagement in a systemic way, such as demonstrated in the City Development Strategy (CDS). In CDS, local stakeholders formulate a holistic vision for the city, giving voice to the residents on shaping the strategy and in monitoring the implementation. More systematic use of local government participatory planning and budgetary systems in urban projects could also be promoted. • Develop guidance and learning events around specific urban challenges: A number of issues emerged from the document reviews and interviews that would benefit from specific guidance and thinking for staff working on urban participatory and CDD projects. These include: resettlement and safeguards in urban CDD projects; the use of a CDD approach for relocation planning needs; understanding the different dynamics within and between city center, peri-urban areas, and small towns; dealing with displaced populations in urban areas; and comprehensive approaches to strengthening resilience and managing risks in urban areas (including climate and disaster risk, conflict and violence, economic shocks, etc.). • Build on the foundation of the current set of case studies: The interviews revealed that urban and CDD practitioners have a wealth of knowledge that needs to be captured. While this set of case studies provides a first step, developing mechanisms to capture and share more of that tacit knowledge would be extremely useful. Undertaking additional case studies and building on the current ones with field research would allow a deeper understanding of the challenges and how to address them. In addition, it is recognized that there is a vast amount of innovation going on in cities throughout the globe related to citizen engagement, community empowerment and urbanization. Providing incentives to bring more of that knowledge into projects at the country and city level will be valuable. As the world urbanizes, so does risk. The way urban development takes place will either com- pound or reduce those risks—be they from climate change, natural disasters, political upheaval, violence and crime, displacement, or economic shocks. Urban development approaches that promote physical, financial, and social inclusion of all residents will be critical to ensuring that cities are resilient and sustainable. Poor communities will need to work in partnership with their local authorities to identify, develop, and implement solutions that directly address their needs and priorities. The synergies between the urban and social agendas have never been more rele- vant—it is hoped that this paper advances that dialogue and spurs collaborative action. Annex I. Case Study Summaries Benin Second Decentralized City Management Project (PGUD-2) Project description The Decentralization City Management Project (“PGUD” in French) started in 1999 as a two-phased adaptable lending program to strengthen municipal government capacity to deliver basic infrastructure and services to urban communities. While Benin’s Decentral- ization Law was enacted in 1990, the process of decentralization had been slow due to several factors, including reluctance to transfer fiscal responsibilities to municipalities and other local governments deemed weak by central government. The first phase of PGUD (1999-2004) was built on the Urban Rehabilitation and Management Project (1992-1997) and successfully com- pleted the transfer of responsibility for operation and maintenance of urban infrastructure and communal services to local communities and governments. The second phase of PGUD (PGUD-2, 2008-2012) covered an additional three primary cit- ies and three secondary cities with US$75 million of support.6 Before the project began, each beneficiary city signed an agreement with the state, which included budget commitments to counterpart funding to ensure successful project implementation. In these six cities, the proj- ect promoted participation of the local population in select low-income neighborhoods under the “Community Participation and Integration” component (US$1.79m). Neighborhood selec- tion was based on relative needs, poverty level (measured as lack of access to basic infrastruc- tures such as schools, roads, solid waste collection points, water facilities, and health centers), and level of community organization, in order to ensure stakeholder ownership and sustainabil- ity of the infrastructure financed under the project. The selection was carried out under super- vision of a quasi-governmental implementation entity, Societé d’Etudes Regionales d’Habitat et d’Amenagement Urbain (SERHU). Community participation under the project The PGUD created community representative groups in each low-income neighborhood, called Neighborhood Development Committees (NDCs). The NDCs conducted communi- ty outreach, prioritized and determined community requests for neighborhood projects and community-based activities, tracked neighborhood infrastructure projects, oversaw communi- ty micro project implementation, mobilized human and financial resources, and organized the community to perform maintenance. Referring to the participation continuum introduced in 6 The six cities are: Cotonou, Abomey-Calavi, Kandi, Parakou, Lokossa and Porto-Nove, comprising a total target population of 562,142 inhabitants. 31 32 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas section II, the project would fall closest to the “partnership and delegated power” point, where communities directly control the planning decisions, but procurement and contract supervision are carried out by local government and the implementation entity, as described below. NDCs worked closely with Community Initiative Support Units (CISUs) established in each municipality. CISUs recruited staff specialized in community development, undertook outreach activities, supported administration of NDCs, and oversaw activities for the population of poor neighborhoods. CISUs also undertook activities to promote hygiene and sanitation, developed vegetable gardens with links to the Ministry of Agriculture, and supported women’s access to microcredit. At the municipality level, Local Monitoring Committees were also established to su- pervise implementation of the micro projects. They were chaired by General Secretaries of the municipalities. The project provided extensive training programs to NDC and CISU members, including exchange visits with members in other cities. Implementation of the overall “community participation and integration” component was managed through the implementation entity, SERHU. SERHU was responsible for manag- ing all contracts for studies, training, infrastructure works, and purchase of equipment financed through the component. For long-term activities, SERHU worked with municipalities to com- petitively select local NGO operators to carry out community mobilization, awareness-building (on environment, health and hygiene, and community development), and CISU staff training. At the neighborhood level, CISUs worked through local NGOs in the targeted communities for community mobilization and ‘Information, Education, and Communication’ activities. Project achievements PGUD-II provided 446,500 people with better access to paved roads and 526,000 benefit- ed from reduced exposure to flood risk. Social and economic infrastructure included primary schools, primary health care centers, small shops and markets, water kiosks, community devel- opment centers, latrines, and public squares. Previously, the targeted neighborhoods had been isolated and prone to flooding with very few basic social services. The average size of commu- nity-level investment ranged between US$5,000 for small community managed toilets, water points, etc. to about US$40,000 for the construction of model classroom blocks for local schools, markets, and stalls within some existing markets. By project completion in May 2014, 14 NDCs were set up across the six cities, with strong support of the municipal CISUs. This created a participatory community dynamic and helped the Government deepen its decentralization policy and move from the initial step of administra- tive to fiscal decentralization. The NDCs continue to work with the follow-up project to PGUD-II, the Cities Support Project (CSP, 2014-2020, IDA US$60 million), which continues to support the Government’s National Decentralization and Deconcentration Policy launched in 2009. Lessons learned First, sufficient time is needed for poor communities to acquire the technical and opera- tional skills for project implementation and to familiarize themselves with participatory processes. Where collective or participatory action did not traditionally exist, it was necessary to create a local dynamic along the lines of the NDCs. To help facilitate the process, the task team encouraged participation by, for example, taking some community members on supervision Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 33 missions in order to boost their learning and motivation. Also, in order for local residents to gain ownership of a project, their involvement needed to begin in the earliest possible stages, through representatives who were widely known and respected throughout the community. The project also provided extensive training programs to NDCs and community members, some of which used resources developed by an IDA-supported CDD program in rural Benin7. As ca- pacity of the NDCs developed, they were able to acquire greater responsibilities, for example, to move from a simple advisory role to more active involvement in supervision of works and joint management of the project. Second, shared physical space was not an effective entry point to organize and engage women in the project in urban areas. The project team noted that other social networks es- tablished through the market place were instrumental in facilitating the participation of wom- en. These networks were voluntarily organized around common economic activities, such as selling fish or fabric. The project also found that different phases of the subproject cycle had dif- ferent levels of women’s participation. At the implementation stage, men tended to play a more prominent role, probably because of traditional beliefs related to gender roles and division of labor and the skills required to implement infrastructure-type work. Finally, for sustainability of urban infrastructure, operations and maintenance (O&M) arrangements needed to be established upfront with strong involvement of municipal governments. PGUD-2 included asset maintenance programs linked to established municipal maintenance teams for such activities as cleaning-up roads regularly and maintaining drainage networks prior to each rainy season. The ICR for PGUD-2 notes that municipal budget ratios set for maintenance were generally respected. Setting up these teams and rules allowed a larger share of revenue increases to feed into sustaining existing and newly-built assets and further ex- panding infrastructure networks. These arrangements allowed municipalities to programmat- ically budget and plan for maintenance services, depending on the type of infrastructure. The municipalities also made portions of their maintenance budgets available to local NDCs for the cleaning and small maintenance works of markets, schools and clinics. Management contracts between the municipalities and NDCs assigned roles and responsibilities including financial re- sponsibilities and commitments between both parties. Haiti Urban Community-Driven Development Project Project description The Haiti Urban Community-Driven Development Project (PRODEPUR in French) show- cased the critical role that civil society and community-based organizations can play in promoting demand-driven local development where the capacity of local government is weak and violence and crime rates are high. In this regard, the project provided a discus- sion point around how established community-level structures can be mainstreamed together with local government institutions. The project also played an important role in the wake of the earthquake that hit the country in 2010. Together with additional financing approved right after the earthquake, IDA provided support totaling US$45 million. 7 National Community-Driven Development Project (P081484), 2004-2012, IDA US$50 million. 34 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas PRODEPUR was developed based on two preceding CDD programs in Haiti. One of the programs was the Participatory Rural Community Development Project, PRODEP (2006-2013) which undertook a total of 1,700 infrastructure subprojects and income generating activities, providing 1.6 million people in 59 municipalities with improved access to basic services across. The other program was a trust-funded pilot program, PRODEPAP (2006-2009), which adopted the CDD approach and experience of PRODEP in two poverty and violence stricken slums of the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area. The CDD approach was selected as a means to help mitigate conflict and violence and to support stabilization in the targeted slum areas by quickly pro- viding improved access to basic services and income generation opportunities to beneficiary communities. PRODEPUR operates in 10 of 17 “Priority Zones” identified by the Government across five municipalities.8 The Government focused interventions in the Priority Zones in order to build political stability by restoring basic services and showing visible improvements (delivering a “peace dividend”) for the residents of these particularly volatile neighborhoods, which had high levels of violence and crime. Within the Priority Zones, the project introduced a flexible and participatory demarcation method to identify intervention areas as official demarcations barely existed. To be consistent with the project’s overarching objective of poverty reduction, the se- lected project areas needed to meet standard eligibility criteria such as poverty level, popula- tion density, and current and past levels of violence. Community participation under the project While the 1987 Constitution provided a legal framework for decentralization, local gov- ernment in Haiti remains weak, particularly in disadvantaged urban areas. In large urban centers, there was a gap between communities and the commune structure. No official subdivi- sions existed within cities, and the municipal council and municipal assemblies technically rep- resented the entire commune, not just the city itself. While efforts to strengthen public agencies and municipal governance were ongoing, the absence of established forums or representative government structures for civic engagement made the existing network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) critical. CBOs are comprised of neighborhood residents with common interests that are organized into formally constituted civil associations. The groups range in size from 25-200 individu- als. CBOs are responsible for the identification, preparation, implementation, supervision, and maintenance of community subprojects. The CBOs are supported with technical assistance from Project Development Councils (PDCs) as well as “Service Providers,” which are experienced NGOs contracted by the project. Service Providers play a central role in providing training, fa- cilitation, and technical assistance for CBOs and PDCs to participate in the project and fulfill their roles in subproject management. Given the full engagement of community members in subproject management, PRODEPUR would fall close to the far right end of the participation continuum, where communities control all planning decisions and financial resources together with the Service Providers. 8 The estimated number of beneficiaries in these 10 zones was approximately 17,000 families or 85,000 individuals, at the proj- ect launch. Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 35 Communities were also represented on the Project Development Councils (PDCs), which included elected representatives of CBOs and civil society, in addition to local/municipal government. Government participation in PDCs was limited to less than 20% of council seats. The project required municipal government participation in PDCs in order to gradually build lo- cal government capacity and encouraged them to propose and implement subprojects jointly with CBOs. As the principle entity for targeting benefits and allocating project resources at the communal level, PDCs provided a critical link to local government. PDCs played a fundamen- tal role in mobilizing communities and promoting their participation in local decision-making, through such activities as community mapping, tenure verification, and consulting with disas- ter-affected people after the earthquake. PRODEPUR supported small-scale infrastructure and productive/income-generating sub- projects. As mentioned, CBOs identified and proposed subprojects, sometimes jointly with municipal governments. The proposed subprojects were later prioritized by PDCs, and once ap- proved, subproject funds were managed jointly by the Service Providers and CBOs. According to the final monitoring report, the pilot program PRODEPAP found that co-managing subproj- ect funds by using joint bank accounts of Service Provider agencies and CBOs was an important tool to mitigate the potential risk of financial mismanagement by CBOs. To better assist CBOs in the implementation of their subprojects, the Service Providers created regional technical offices in the participating cities as needed. The level of funding per project area was calculated on the basis of the population of the disadvantaged urban area, using an approximate allocation of 4.5 subprojects in the Port-au-Prince region or 7 subprojects in the three other cities, per 10,000 people. In total, it was estimated that PRODEPUR would finance between 360-400 subprojects with an average cost of US$20,000 per subproject. With additional project financing provided after the 2010 earthquake, Community Re- construction Centers were established in each neighborhood. These centers housed com- munity liaisons and technical assistants to serve as a platform or a one-stop shop open to all neighborhood residents to provide trainings, host consultations, distribute materials, and ad- dress complaints regarding reconstruction work. Project achievements Under PRODEPUR, as of May 2014, the community subproject preparation and implemen- tation component financed the establishment of 14 PDCs and the implementation of 493 subprojects in targeted areas of Port-au-Prince and three other cities. In response to the January 2010 earthquake, with additional financing, the project immediately prioritized the im- plementation of subprojects addressing the disaster recovery needs of project communities, such as cash-for-work subprojects focused on the removal of debris from public spaces and cleaning of local drainage ditches. These activities provided temporary jobs to over 5,000 peo- ple in the neighborhoods of Belair, Cité Soleil, Delmas, and Martissant. The newly added compo- nent of Housing Repair and Reconstruction contributed to community-wide upgrading, includ- ing basic infrastructure and services that benefited approximately 24,800 urban households. 36 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Lessons learned First, to gain access to communities in unsafe cities, it was critical to work through trusted local resource persons and to prioritize transparency. Cité Soleil was known as one of the most impoverished and dangerous communes in the country and no outsiders could easily step in. The project team identified a community advisor at the Water Agency who was well known and respected by the community for her previous work on a water and sanitation program and learned about the community from her before starting any activities. Without her knowledge and facilitation, project implementation agencies acknowledged that gaining access to the area would not have been possible. Also, to build trust in volatile areas, transparency in every aspect of the project became even more critical. The PRODEPUR used radio programs, flyers, public meetings, public displays, and any available means to disseminate information to communities. Second, when mobilizing communities in insecure urban settings, engaging “unconven- tional” but recognized local leaders became important. Under the PRODEPUR, the project team was led to engage individuals that, while involved in criminal activity, were recognized locally as community leaders. The project engages these leaders in PDCs and provided training programs to them along with other community members. The project team recognized that excluding these individuals would be detrimental to the project and to the longer-term goal of building social cohesion and safety. Third, the community-based platform proved to be very effective in post-disaster recov- ery where no other traditional network existed in affected urban areas. When the January 2010 earthquake struck, the community-driven platform was fully utilized to mobilize resources and deliver recovery aid. With additional financing, the CDD project became ‘the instrument of choice’ to deliver emergency goods and information to people in the aftermath. The project team needed to ensure flexibility to respond to shifting priorities of affected people. For ex- ample, the project attempted to return people to the areas of the city where they lived before the earthquake to clear debris and rebuild their homes. However, in some cases, residents had established new social networks in temporary camps that became important to them and they did not want to be separated from these new networks in the recovery process. Finally, building capacity of local government to play a stronger role in supporting com- munity participation was critical for project sustainability. Without the presence of a func- tioning local government, the system established through the PDCs could not be institutional- ized. Therefore, considering how the mechanisms of engagement created by the project would be maintained and evolve over time became critical. In this context, with a second additional financing approved in June 2014, PRODEPUR is providing technical assistance to municipalities to play a stronger role in the program so that coordination and ownership at the communal level are strengthened. To lay the foundation for mainstreaming the community-driven ap- proach into decentralized institutions, the model developed in rural Haiti under PRODEP will be adopted where PDCs transition into Councils for Community Development Support (CADECs). CADECs convene CBOs and civil society organizations at the municipal level, and differ from PDCs in that they are formal public structures rather than temporary structures financed by the project. This model is expected to foster local governance by linking with the local development framework coordinated by the municipality. The housing component of PRODEPUR after the earthquake would also gradually move away from the emergency reconstruction focus to the longer-term development challenge of new housing construction. Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 37 Indonesia National Community Empowerment Program (“Program Nasion- al Pemberdayaan Masyarakat”) in Urban Areas (PNPM-Urban) Project description The case of Indonesia provides insights from a large-scale program that had been oper- ating in the country for 15 years. The urban program operated under the umbrella of the na- tional CDD program known as PNPM, which began as two closely related projects in 1999—the Kecamatan Development Program in rural areas and the Urban Poverty Program (UPP) in urban areas. In 2006, they were combined and adopted as a single national program. PNPM is present- ly the largest CDD program in the world, covering all urban wards and rural villages in Indonesia. The first UPP was designed in response to the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis that triggered a rapid rise in urban poverty. The PNPM-Urban phase III (2010-2013), with IBRD support of US$149.98 million, covered about 5.5 million persons living in 5,130 kelurahans (urban wards) in 154 dis- tricts and municipalities across 19 provinces throughout the country9. The majority of the project supported grants to co-finance kelurahan subprojects identi- fied in Community Development Plans. The kelurahan grants supported investments in basic infrastructure, income generating activities through Revolving Loan Funds, and social programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable groups or individuals. UPP and PNPM-Urban pro- grams have benefitted from a rich set of past evaluations and analytical work. For example, eval- uation of the UPP phase 2 showed that the impacts of the program on household welfare were limited10. The project task team notes that given the relatively modest amounts of per capita investments ($2.50-$5.00/person), this result was not altogether surprising11. To better support kelurahans with particularly high population density and high poverty incidence, the on-going phase (2012-2015) program increased the grant allocations to the poorest areas, consisting of a combination of investments (co-financed by city governments) to upgrade the living condi- tions in the area comparable to block redevelopment. The programs were to be prepared and implemented in close cooperation with local governments, which were expected to contribute 5-20% of the total cost. Community participation under the project In PNPM, representative community organizations, called Badan Keswadayan Masyarakat (BKMs), were established in all participating local governments. The ICR of the PNPM-Urban III notes that about 41% of the adult population voted in elections for BKM representatives in PNPM-Urban III. According to beneficiary feedback and indicators of women, poor, and vulnera- ble persons participating in planning and decision making meetings, the vast majority of BKMs were deemed representative and trust-worthy. 9 The average population of kelurahan is 6,400 (kelurahan populations are substantially higher in Java and Bali). 10 Pradhan, Rao, and Rosemberg, 2010, “ The Impact of the Community level activities of the Second Urban Poverty Project (UPP)” 11 Project Appraisal Document. PNPM Urban 2012-2015. 38 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas A major task of the BKMs was to formulate and update Community Development Plans (CDPs) based on a participatory process and community surveys. The CDP is a medium-term plan that outlines the basic goals and general direction that communities want to take in ad- dressing poverty. The menu of activities is open in order to encourage creative development approaches. Over the first year of implementation, the CDP identified a more detailed invest- ment program, to be financed from kelurahan grants and possibly augmented with contribu- tions from other stakeholders such as local governments, NGOs, and private firms. When the CDP was prepared or updated, it was reviewed by senior project staff at the kota level (one level higher than kelurahan and one lower than province) to assess if communities made decisions in an inclusive and participatory manner and that the plan was focused on poverty alleviation. Volunteer community members in the kelurahans then formed groups and submitted proposals to the BKM to implement the programs identified in the CDP. The allocation of block grants was determined by population size and the poverty level of kelurahans. Under the on-going phase, it ranges from Rp 50 million (US$4,125) to Rp250 million (US$20,625) per year per kelurahan. With the active role community members play in planning and implementing subprograms, the PNPM-Urban falls on the right end of the participation continuum (see figure 2) where commu- nities control all planning decisions and financial resources. There are two important pilot initiatives linked to PNPM-Urban that strengthened part- nerships between communities and local governments. Initiated during UPP Phase 2, these initiatives addressed the need, also identified in other cases reviewed here, regarding larger and more complex investments for urban communities. One was the Poverty Alleviation Partnership Grant, which supported shared planning and financing by providing matching funds for activ- ities jointly proposed or cost-shared by local government and the community. The other was Neighborhood Upgrading Schemes or Neighborhood Development (ND), which was a slum upgrading program in 18 pilot sites with special planning and larger-scale grant activities joint- ly planned and managed by communities and local governments. While the average amount of block grant that a regular PNPM-Urban community could receive was around US$15,000- 30,000, ND grants averaged US$108,000 per kelurahan. The process evaluation12 observed that the ND faced difficulties in finding and keeping community volunteers because its infrastruc- ture projects tended to require specialty skills and typical sites tended to have a smaller pool of potential volunteers compared to regular PNPM-Urban subprograms. Based on these findings, the government was making adjustments to the design of ND. Project achievements Since 1999 when the first UPP started, the Bank has committed over $1.2 billion in financ- ing for urban CDD programs in Indonesia13. The program has financed over 31,100 km of small roads, 8,800 km of drains, rehabilitation of 126,800 houses of the poorest, 164,800 units of solid waste and sanitation facilities, and 9,450 health facilities. The process evaluation found that overall the program is demonstrating positive results in terms of community participation, capacity building, the quality of infrastructure, the cost-effectiveness of community construc- 12 Rand Corporation, 2011. “Process Evaluation of the Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (PNPM)-Urban”. 13 Based on the analysis of key features of the program over time (UPP1, 2, 3, and PNPM-Urban I, III, and 2012-2015), in the Project Appraisal Document, PNPM-Urban 2012-2015. Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 39 tions, and governance improvements (such as the occurrence of regular, well-attended commu- nity meetings, physical audits, and external monitoring). PNPM-Urban III financed 5,042 km of tertiary roads and footpaths, 1,667 km of drainage systems, and the rehabilitation of 29,480 housing units. By the end of 2013, the project had improved access to these services in 4,903 of 6,121 kelurahans, or 80.1%. About 85% of project beneficiaries indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the outcomes of the proj- ect. Infrastructure built through PNPM-Urban programs was 20% less expensive than that built by non-community-based approaches in 80% of participating kelurahans. Infrastructure sub- projects were reported to be of good quality in 94% of the participating kelurahans. Lessons learned First, lack of traditional social structure made mobilizing urban communities more chal- lenging, but they also presented substantial opportunities. According to the project team, it was easier in rural areas to facilitate collective action due to the existing traditional social structures where people take direction from traditional leaders. It was suggested that rural pop- ulations may also need to collaborate for survival. In this context, the role of the facilitator was often to transfer knowledge and coordinate community participation. In urban areas, it was more challenging to find the proper entry points or social structure to organize and mobilize “community” and to build consensus around project objectives and processes. The facilitation process was even more challenging and required patience as people in urban areas usually have less time to participate. In PNPM-Urban, participation in decision making meetings was on average about 20%, given the large population size and time constraints in target urban communities. On the positive side, the team felt that there is often more capacity in the urban community that can be mobilized (e.g., architects, doctors, and accountants) and that if the fa- cilitator can successfully engage community members, people can contribute specialized skills to transform an area. Second, while microfinance activities proved challenging to implement, income gener- ating support as well as social safety-net programs are in high demand among urban communities. Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) started in 1999 under UPP 1 in order to respond to the financial crisis. Since 2008, PNPM-Urban has placed greater emphasis on achieving their institutional sustainability. However, due partly to lack of key skill sets and environment to fully support the activity, several assessments found that RLFs had not been performing well.14 On the other hand, while more than 80% of the kelurahan grants were spent on infrastructure un- der PNPM-Urban15, the most frequently mentioned challenges in urban focus group discussions were inadequate incomes, difficulty in finding jobs, and school expenses. Therefore, the on-go- ing phase of the project decided to explore options for expanding economic activities beyond RLF. Examples of such activities include introducing products, expanding marketing networks, and creating job opportunities which will require project staff and facilitators with specific skill sets including financial management or private sector engagement. 14 At the end of PNPM-Urban III, 70% of RLFs performed poorly or were non-performing, and the project recommended kelura- hans to only keep well-performing RLFs and to link those funds to commercial providers of microcredit. 15 Only around 10% of the program funding supported social activities (transfer or training programs) aimed at the poorest households or individuals 40 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Third, when social and economic activities are implemented, it is important to ensure the link between different types of activities supported by the project. The project assessment identified that decisions to invest in community infrastructure, RLF, and social safety programs have been taken in isolation. This created missed opportunities because financing a skills train- ing program for an unemployed woman, for example, was much more effective if upon suc- cessful completion of the training she was given access to an RLF, social fund, or other program initiated by the local government. To strengthen the linkage between decision-making on the allocation of kelurahan grants over eligible categories, the project invested in facilitator training. Fourth, in urban areas, the role of local governments in capacity and financial support is more prominent than in rural areas due to more complex project design and the need for maintaining investments. PNPM-Urban promoted collaboration between communities and local government primarily by having communities present their development plans at the local government development planning meeting. The process evaluation found that in successful communities, the local government’s planning and budgeting process was a crucial mechanism for coordination between PNPM-Urban and local government. The project supported initiatives to further strengthen collaboration, such as building communication strategies, assisting local government officials to work with BKMs, and developing tailored operational manuals for cities with specific needs. The project also had cost-sharing arrangements, which provided enormous opportunities for communities and local governments to work together, though currently it is on an ad-hoc basis. Local governments were usually expected to contribute 5-20% of the total subproject cost.16 Finally, considering the heterogeneity and complexity of urban communities, the project needs to make adjustments in the design and support system for those communities. For example, if the population size is large or the community has innovative ideas, the project can add more facilitators or tailor the support process to better promote their activities. In Jakarta, for example, community groups can be too large to manage due to the high population densi- ty, and therefore, the project operates at the sub-kelurahan level. Similarly, in order to tailor the project support to target communities, the task team leader emphasized the need for project staff to identify different types of urban areas and related characteristics, such as squatter set- tlements, areas with conflicts between land owners versus renters, poor areas dominated by a single family because they have owned the land for a long time, and elite urban areas. However, most of the project’s urban work focused on slum areas so their experience with urban elite was limited. A comparative study or exchange among task teams working on different urban settings would be useful. Kyrgyz Republic Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project (BOUIP) Project description The Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project (BOUIP) was developed to upgrade poor living conditions and ease social tension in semi-informal settlements called no- 16 According to the ICR of PNPM-Urban III, 87% of local governments covered by the project co-financed at least 20% of the project cost from their own resources, which was 80% higher than the target. Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 41 vostroiki. Built in the periphery of the two largest cities that house half of the total urban popu- lation of the country (Bishkek 1 million and Osh 500,000), these settlements were established by the government to accommodate waves of migrants and avert slum-like neighborhoods. While effective in housing the population influx, novostroiki have come to be characterized with poor living conditions and lack of social cohesion among the community as well as with the rest of the city. The deficiency of basic infrastructure, particularly those related to social services, made novostroiki especially prone to social tension. The Community Investment Programs component engaged residents on project design for upgrading smaller-scale neighborhood infrastructure with a total amount of US$4.2 million IDA funding, which accounts for roughly 15 percent of the overall IDA financing size of US$27.8 million. Community participation under the project In BOUIP, community participation was seen as an instrumental mechanism to mitigate growing social tension. The Government recognized persisting deterioration of key infrastruc- ture and social services as an important aggravating factor of political instability. Despite the municipal governments of Bishkek and Osh establishing specific departments to provide a min- imum level of infrastructure and services in the novostroiki, conditions remained unsatisfactory. Consequently, a decision was made to strengthen community involvement in decision making. Community representatives were formed into Territorial Organizations of Self-Governance (TOS) in Bishkek and Territorial Councils (TC) in Osh. The TOS/TCs, block committees, and other neighborhood organizations as well as active community residents, were key implement- ing partners under the Community Investment Component. These community representative groups signed agreements laying out their responsibilities, which included selecting subproj- ects, committing five percent of the total subproject cost in cash, and handling procurement for goods and works less than US$10,000. The groups were facilitated by the project implementing NGO—the Community Development Investment Agency (ARIS)—which was experienced in rural CDD projects in Kyrgyz Republic. This level of community engagement places the project close to the far right of the participation continuum presented in figure 2. Engaging the community focused on delivering a two-way flow of information, and build- ing this channel helped to address the source of social tension and conflict. A number of strategies were mobilized in order to disseminate information in a timely manner without in- conveniencing the recipients. Such attributes reinforced the reliability and predictability that help build trust. To facilitate two-way flow of information, public consultations were held utiliz- ing questionnaires or with local citizens calling in their questions and concerns to radio or TV stations (Operational Manual, 2008). The establishment of a communication channel addressed the lack of a systematic way to convey the community’s needs and concerns. Project achievements As of March 2014 roughly 130,000 persons directly benefited from the project, and it is expected to reach the end target of 220,000 persons by the closing date in 2015. The ba- sic infrastructure component of the project has delivered access to water supply, urban roads, and sewerage. Under the CIP component, communities have invested in subprojects for build- ing playgrounds, sports grounds, sidewalks, information centers, etc. Subprojects averaged 42 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas US$25,300 per grant and benefitted 1,325 persons per subproject. This is equivalent to an in- vestment per capita of US$20 (ISR June 2014). In terms of community participation, the project contributed to establishing regular and institutionalized communications between residents and municipal institutions. Robust and systematic community engagement helped to ease the frustration that was at the heart of the concern around growing social tension (Project Paper, 2011). Community members in- creased their capacity to interact with their local administrations by developing leadership, or- ganizational, and negotiating skills. Project reports also note that community representatives also expressed an increased feeling of community and social cohesion. Lessons learned Improving social cohesion within the community is crucial, particularly in environments with large migrant populations. Novostroiki are peri-urban, semi-formal settlements typically comprising migrants from different backgrounds and lacking social cohesion. This manifested itself through difficulties in collecting community contributions and making collective decisions on investment priorities. Community participation in monitoring and supervision also tapered, leading to disrepair and vandalism. These challenges were met with a focus on increasing the community’s collective sense of confidence in the project, which in turn helped to increase the sense of ownership. Communities were encouraged to visit the sites where projects were al- ready being implemented. Seeing this work on the ground increased confidence in the project, and the community became more willing to contribute financially. For facilitating investment prioritization, guidelines were provided requiring identification of one flagship priority invest- ment utilizing at least 60 percent value from the total resources available. The potential conflict among communities around the project site can be reduced by en- suring demographic and geographic representativeness of beneficiaries and by imple- menting equitable selection criteria to identify target communities. The stakeholder analy- sis conducted for the institutional and implementation arrangements identified that community representation and distribution of benefits were uneven in certain instances. For instance, the project team observed that certain subproject facilities were serving only the interest of local elites or the patron community, leading to restrictions in access to non-beneficiary or adjacent communities. To ameliorate this problem of exclusivity, emphasis was put on conducting qual- itative focus group discussions, complemented by rapid surveys collecting quantitative data of key baseline and demographic information on new and existing beneficiaries. Morocco National Initiative for Human Development Phases 1 and 2 Project description Initiated in 2005, the National Initiative Human Development (INDH in French) is a nation- al flagship program in Morocco that promotes demand-driven development and social inclusion in urban and rural areas. Shifting from the Government’s traditional, centrally-driv- en approach to reduce poverty and social exclusion, INDH is the first program in the country to allocate resources directly to communes and neighborhoods and to engage beneficiaries in the decision-making process of local development initiatives. This program was launched by the Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 43 King as a response to persistent poverty, low human development indicators, and the predom- inance of top-down sectoral approaches that did not respond to location- and social-specific factors. The INDH has been an integral and pioneering element of the Government’s overall push towards decentralization and social and economic inclusion.17 Phase 2 of the INDH was also launched by the King as the flagship economic and social inclusion program targeting es- pecially disadvantaged groups and areas with an expanded budget and geographical scope, demonstrating the national commitment to the program. It takes a Program for Results (PforR) approach, in which key results indicators trigger disbursements. INDH-2 (2011-2015) builds on the implementation platforms established under INDH-1 (2005-2010), and supported five categories of subprograms (rural, urban, cross-cutting, vulnerability, and territorial upgrading). IBRD’s contribution to INDH-2 was US$300 million, with the government contributing US$865 million. The objective of the urban subprogram com- ponent was to fight social exclusion and improve people’s living conditions and quality of life in 532 targeted urban neighborhoods, for which the entire cost was estimated at US$410 million. Community participation under the project Implementation of INDH was the responsibility of established governance bodies at the local, communal, and provincial levels, comprising elected representatives of local gov- ernments, staff from public agencies, and civil society representatives. At the lowest urban neighborhood-level, local facilitation teams worked with the local population to draft a rapid needs assessment and list of possible activities. A participatory planning process (Initiative Local de Developpement Humain, ILDH) was then carried out by the commune-level governance body of about 10-15 members to develop a proposed local development plan to prioritize needs and pre-identify activities to be financed by the INDH block grants. The local plans were then pre- sented for no objection to the provincial level governance body which included line ministries and is chaired by the governor. Design of the urban subprograms was decentralized to the neighborhood level and was normally carried out by project sponsors in collaboration with the program’s local facili- tation teams, the technical services of the municipalities, and the Division of Social Action (DAS). DAS is a unit of the Provincial/Prefectural level Ministry of Interior office under the au- thority of the Governor. Implementation of the activities is primarily the responsibility of sub- project sponsors, typically NGOs, cooperatives, associations, and communes, with assistance provided by DAS and technical services of line ministries. For each subproject, an agreement is signed between the Governor of the province and the group of institutions implementing the subproject. To further support the participatory process and implementation of subprograms, INDH has partnership arrangements with about 6,000 NGOs across the country. On the par- ticipation continuum (see figure 2), INDH would likely fall somewhere in-between the middle groups, with community participation in all aspects of the planning cycle through an interme- diary, and direct community control over planning with procurement and contract supervision carried out by others. 17 Under INDH-1, almost 700 participatory diagnostic and local investment programs were prepared and implemented for the rural and urban components, involving over 3 million beneficiaries. 44 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Investment in urban areas reflected demand for greater youth inclusion compared to ru- ral areas. Four categories of activity were offered under both the rural and urban subprograms, namely: construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure; income-generating activities; social, cultural, and sports activities; and capacity building. Based on the identification of activities tailored to each community’s needs, under INDH-1, the share of social, cultural, and sports ac- tivities was much higher in urban areas (22%) than rural areas (3%). The other three categories of investment showed more or less the same share in rural and urban areas. Social, cultural and sports activities were intentionally included by Government authorities to target youth, given the relatively high lack of such facilities in Morocco. It was also a strategic decision made in the early 2000s to target social exclusion of the youth for social, economic, and political reasons. En- hancing the quality—not only quantity—of youth participation in local governance body was a critical area for the INDH-2.18 The experience from INDH-1 showed that overall the average per subproject cost was US$45,000 for the rural program and US$120,000 for the urban program, due mainly to the larger population size as well as the type of infrastructure financed. Project achievements INDH-1 set up a complex but generally well-functioning institutional architecture and fi- nanced about 700 local participatory plans with more than 22,000 subprojects reaching 5.2 million beneficiaries nationwide. Given the history of top-down, centralized decision mak- ing, fostering a culture of participatory programming and empowerment of poor communities was necessarily cast of a long-term endeavor requiring strong government commitment, ade- quate resource allocation, and good technical support. In terms of urban subprograms, during 2005-2010, about 1,627,600 people benefited from 4,069 subprojects. Allocations of grants to the subprograms are made on the basis of poverty rates and socio-economic exclusion criteria. Lessons learned First, in urban areas of Morocco, rigorous poverty mapping was challenging because pov- erty is not distributed evenly but rather concentrated in “pockets” across neighborhoods. Compared to rural areas, where poverty mapping is relatively straightforward, the targeting criteria for urban areas were more qualitative, thus leaving more leeway to provincial authori- ties to identify beneficiary communities. Under INDH-1, the national-level steering committee selected a number of urban centers and neighborhoods across the country and set out a series of social exclusion indicators (such as access to basic services, unemployment, illiteracy, and housing conditions) to be used. However, targeting of specific communities relied on the pro- vincial authorities. They ranked the importance of the criteria and applied them to select the target neighborhoods. This approach led to biases in the allocation of resources toward those more capable of presenting persuasive projects. For example, more educated NGO leaders who may or may not represent the target community had the time and skills to lead the process. Conducting participatory planning in all the “pockets” of poverty that spread across more than one neighborhood was not feasible in terms of time and labor. INDH management is aware of these challenges and is working to improve the targeting of beneficiaries in urban areas. 18 In Morocco, youth (15-24 years old) represent roughly 30 percent of the population and about 44% of the total working age population. Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 45 Second, the project recognized the need for innovation and patience in mobilizing urban communities, as they lack a clear community identity. In rural areas people are dispersed over a relatively large geographic area and governed by distant communes (municipalities). However, traditional structures still function, providing a stronger sense of community. In urban areas, on the other hand, the population was more heterogeneous, so traditional structures did not operate. The idea of “community” is more tenuous and the idea of “neighborhood” has not taken root yet in terms of a framework for citizens to organize. According to project staff, “people don’t have a clear ‘community’ identity; there are no established community leaders, so community participation takes more hands and more time.” However, they also noted that cer- tain cultural norms have been altered in urban areas, and it was often easier to engage women and youth because “people have a more open outlook” compared to rural areas where “it is not acceptable to have women in a room discussing [issues with men].” Yet, some peri-urban and newly urbanized areas are re-emphasizing traditional ideas about gender roles and religious values. Third, urban subprograms faced constraints of the built environment, especially land availability in already crowded cities. Due to a lack of available land in Morocco’s urban areas, upgrading existing infrastructure was preferred over building new investments. However, be- cause those facilities already existed and were being upgraded, the project’s target population of excluded groups and individuals tended not to be the principal beneficiaries. Fourth, when sub-national governance bodies in urban areas have large capacity and powers, the participatory planning process may be undermined. For example in INDH-1, in some cases, the provincial-level governance body could modify the local development plan presented by the commune-level governance body. Having learned from this experience, INDH- 2 precludes provincial governance bodies from changing local plans without prior consulta- tion. INDH-2 also reinforces social mobilization teams and strengthens the mandate of neigh- borhood-level associations to ensure that they are truly representative of local communities. Some specific tools include community management of funds and promotion of community contracting, strengthening community ownership of subprojects, and reinforcing measures for the sustainability of their operation and maintenance. Finally, integration of project investments with line ministry plans is critical for sustain- ability. To improve synergies between project and line ministry activities and support for oper- ations and maintenance (O&M), INDH-1 introduced a commune-wide planning process in 2010 that included INDH-1 investments, commune-financed investments, and line ministry-financed investments. Under INDH-2, government has gone a step further and recommended that the investment programs of INDH and line ministries should be integrated in order to ensure com- plementary inputs for O&M budget and equipment for the sustainable operation of activities once completed. Tanzania Local Government Support Project Project description The Local Government Support Project (LGSP, 2005-2012) aimed to strengthen fiscal decentralization throughout Tanzania and to improve access to infrastructure and ser- 46 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas vices in unplanned areas of Dar es Salaam. The Dar es Salaam Upgrading and Infrastructure Upgrading component included the Community Infrastructure Upgrading Project (CIUP) to strengthen local government’s capacity to work with communities for strategically prioritizing and implementing investments. CIUP responded to high pressure for service delivery in the unplanned settlements of Dar es Salaam–a city of 2.5 million (population in 2002 at the initial stage of the project) that was expanding rapidly with an average annual growth rate of 5.6% and increasing informal settlements that covered 60 percent of the land. The CIUP subcomponent financed improvements to basic infrastructure in 31 settlement areas in Dar es Salaam. This affected a combined population of approximately 330,000 (2004) or roughly 13% of the total population of Dar es Salaam and 19% of the population living in un- planned areas. This community-driven infrastructure upgrading program was allocated US$18.8 million. Upon restructuring in 2009, funds reallocated among components allowed CIUP to scale up with additional US$15.9 million. Hence roughly two-thirds of the entire US$52 million IDA funding was dedicated to CIUP component, benefiting 330,000 persons. These funds provided important public infrastructure such as paving of trunk roads, footpaths, public toilets, drainage systems, streetlights, water kiosks, etc. Community participation under the project After the first national multi-party elections in 1994, the government started the pro- cess of decentralization by devolution, transferring greater responsibilities from central to local government. In 1999, the “Strategic Urban Development Plan” for Dar es Salaam was prepared, which began gathering basic information for infrastructure and service devel- opment. CIUP utilized the list of unplanned and unserviced settlements for priority upgrading. Focusing on low-income settlements, CIUP was supported as part of part of effort to increase participation in planning and development and strengthen the capacities of local authorities. Once the selection of unplanned communities was finalized, technical support teams (TST) at the municipality level and community planning teams (CPT) at the sub-ward lev- el were established. Thirty-one unplanned communities (sub-wards) were selected based on the potential to reach the highest number of low-income people. Municipal councils appoint- ed a group of community workers and urban planners to create the TST for their municipali- ties, who were then mandated with community outreach and coordination across municipal departments (CIUP Operations Manual). For each of the 31 unplanned communities, elected household representatives served on the CPT together with a community chairman and invited members of civil society groups. The role of CPT focused on representing the community in all CIUP preparation processes and sensitizing the community regarding CIUP at large. Along the participation continuum, CIUP is most closely identified with the middle-right point, participat- ing in all aspects of the planning cycle through an intermediary. Local government authorities and communities demonstrated commitment to their in- vestment projects through an iterative engagement process. Commitment to the process was demonstrated by certain LGAs systematically allocating specific budget while communi- ties took part in the design, operation, and maintenance. The interaction between LGAs and communities was iterative, for example, by reconvening community residents for consultation after field visits, and again after developing investment and upgrading plans, and finally after Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 47 discussion around resettlement. Such iterative processes helped to engage the community in an incremental and consistent manner (Operational Manual, 2004). Communities made informed decisions about investment project selection to be com- mensurate with affordability and capacity to manage. Mapping exercises and budget ceil- ings were instrumental in prioritizing needs. A budget ceiling or per-hectare-cost-cap was ad- opted, calculated to be the minimum expenditure necessary to provide a basic level of services. Initially set at US$18,000 per hectare, Phase One found the cap to be an underestimation and was adjusted to US$25,000 in Phase Two. In order to implement manageable projects, small- scale basic infrastructure investments were selected and different levels of service level stan- dards were made available to reflect the community’s affordability. Project achievements The CIUP upgraded community infrastructure in 31 sub-wards over a sequence of two separate phases that divided the pool of sub-wards into two groups. According to the Im- plementation Completion Report, CIUP benefited roughly 300,000 people in priority unplanned settlements by providing roads, drainage systems, solid waste containers, and streetlights. The physical upgrades and improved access to services also led to reduced health hazards and in- creased school enrollment. The provision of streetlights and footpaths made it safer for children to get to school. The ICR upholds that the low-risk approach to upgrading that focused only on tertiary infrastructure was appropriate for the project, given the complexity, counterpart capac- ity, and resources availability. Having successfully introduced a community-driven approach to upgrading, it is expected that the city will be able to engage communities in future upgrading endeavors that will address trunk infrastructure. Lessons learned While the focus on low-risk, basic infrastructure helped to keep the subprojects man- ageable, at the same time, the opportunity to develop subprojects based on more holis- tic plans was missed. The CIUP midterm review recommended against restricting roads and drainage investments to artificial ward or sub-warding boundaries–citing potential problems with road interconnections and drainage discharge at the outfalls. To tackle problems such as flooding, a systemic and coordinated citywide approach is needed. Without a broader perspec- tive, the opportunity to address the pressing issues of flooding was missed (ICR, 2013). Sectoral linkages were also missed, reinforcing the issue raised in Section II regarding the need to con- sider the broader context of trunk infrastructure in urban contexts and to not consider urban communities in isolation. Collecting community financial contributions proved to be an additional challenge during project implementation. Communities were required to provide 5 percent of the subproject cost before work could begin. Typically, only 15-20 percent of the expected community contri- bution was collected (hence community contribution loomed around 1 percent of the total sub- project cost), which caused significant delays in project implementation. Low-income house- holds were unable to pay, and those that could pay tended to have a greater voice in decision making. However, the task team noted that communities were also more willing to contribute once contractors started the work on the ground. For these reasons, the project team abolished 48 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas the requirement of financial contributions as a condition to begin the work. One task team lead- er pointed out that such upfront cash contribution requirement could be replaced with other means of demonstrating commitment, i.e., in-kind contributions such as time, land, etc. Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project Project description Community-driven development came to be a defining trait of the Vietnam Urban Up- grading Project (VUUP). Recognizing the unsuccessful results of earlier clearance-and-com- pensation approaches to the issues of informal housing, the Government of Vietnam began to experiment with smaller-scale, localized solutions that emphasized in situ upgrading. Observ- ing that localized community-driven approaches led to enhanced efficiency of resources and more accurate targeting of local concerns, a larger movement began to take form supporting in-situ upgrading. Following the successes of VUUP, a full-fledged National Urban Upgrading Program was approved in 2009 by the Prime Minister. VUUP focused on lagging areas to make basic social services accessible and affordable to the poor, involving the community in tertiary infrastructure upgrading. The project was first approved in 2004 and received additional financing in 2009, closing in 2014. Overall IDA lending for the project amounted to US$389.6 million, while the component Tertiary Infrastruc- ture Upgrading allocated US$74 million. The project was carried out in four cities in Vietnam— Ho Chi Minh City (population 6,000,000), Haiphong (600,000), Can Tho (300,000), and Nam Dinh (230,000). The hallmark of the component was the introduction of community participation in the development, approval, and oversight of the upgrading projects. The project financed a package of multi-sectoral tertiary infrastructure and service improvements including water supply, paved access, electricity, solid waste management, as well as rehabilitation of markets, public toilets, education facilities, etc. Designs were prepared using demand-based participato- ry methods, and once the tertiary infrastructure upgrading was completed, designs for comple- mentary primary and secondary infrastructure were prepared. Community participation under the project In each of the low-income areas identified, the community members, ward authorities, civic organizations, and utility companies developed the Community Upgrading Plan (CUP) together. Hence along the participation continuum in figure 2, the project falls towards the middle right of the spectrum with citizen participation in the planning cycle. Training was provided to community members to ensure their active participation in the design of the CUPs. Developing the CUP included determining priority investments, most appropriate and optimal designs, and plans for resettlement and compensation. Certain operation and maintenance work for tertiary infrastructure, for example, clearance of tertiary drains, was directly carried out by the communities, as was monitoring. Financially, communities contributed around 3 to 10 percent of the tertiary infrastructure costs and continued to pay monthly bills for the new utility services. Communities also provided their time and labor, sometimes voluntarily contributing land and/or sections of their houses to improve access in the upgrading areas. The community members’ contribution to the tertiary infrastructure work was also helped by another project Annex I. Case Study Summaries • 49 component which provided micro-finance loans for home improvements. Investing in their houses complemented the infrastructure improvements. Project achievements Across four cities, a total of 263 low-income areas were identified, receiving a multi-sec- toral package of tertiary infrastructure and service improvements. These included a combi- nation of water supply, drainage, paved access, electricity, sanitation, and solid waste manage- ment services. By early 2013, approximately 200 low-income neighborhoods were upgraded, benefitting over 2.5 million low-income residents. Furthermore, it is estimated that the improve- ments in trunk infrastructure will bring direct and indirect benefits to more than 3 million addi- tional people. The project also worked with local governments to ensure that all households in the up- graded areas receive a certificate of tenure or land use certificates. Under the housing im- provement loan program, eligibility criteria and loan terms and conditions were designed to make loans accessible to low-income households. According to one task team leader, the hous- ing loan component led to greater confidence in low-income households to borrow capital. By early 2013, over 46,613 micro loans were made for housing improvement and 41,010 micro loans for income generation. VUUP utilized a comprehensive approach with coordinated project components that addressed physical, social, and economic aspects for low-income communities. The proj- ect delivered tertiary infrastructure upgrading, complemented by the upgrading of trunk in- frastructure networks that supported the tertiary-level investment, in addition to the housing improvement revolving fund which reached individual households. The revolving fund also offered income-generation loans, allowing households to expand their economic activities to repay the housing loans. While the complementary components posed greater complexity in design, implementation, and management, they also generated valuable synergies. Lessons learned Central government commitment to the participatory approach and to concrete results on the ground helped both communities and local governments gain confidence in the benefits of participation. Although initially the participatory approach of the project was met with skepticism from the government and the community, central government’s commitment to promoting a participatory approach allowed the project to tackle the greater complexity of having a combination of multiple components. However, it was important that all stakehold- ers—communities, financiers, and local government authorities—recognize that the process required more time than usual, and the process could not be expedited as in simpler projects. To gain community commitment, trust building efforts by the local authorities played a critical role, while providing housing improvement loans increased community owner- ship in the project. Extensive outreach and training for both local officials and communities were used to encourage participation. According to one task team leader, these efforts received a positive response from communities. Local authorities also made deliberate efforts to provide logistical support for community engagement–namely, providing appropriate physical space 50 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas to convene the community and carefully coordinating schedules. Housing improvement loans also led to a spillover effect where homeowners began to maintain the communal facilities. Still, the project met many challenges on a number of fronts, including preserving a truly participatory process and collecting financial contributions from the communities. Public participation in the preparation phases of city construction and master plans through public meetings and workshops were found to be sometimes weak and limited, giving way to a top- down process where the local government authority would strongly push for large-scale physi- cal improvements, slum clearance, and resettlement. At the point of mid-term review, collection of community contributions had only reached 21 percent. This led to a requirement that com- munity contributions be paid upfront before the commencement of construction in Phase II of the project. Annex II. List of Urban Participatory/CDD Projects, 2003-2013 As described in the methodology section, following the initial review of three databas- es—CDD Database, Slum Upgrading database, and World Bank operations mapped to Ur- ban Sector Board—a universe of 120 urban participatory or CDD projects were identified for the review. SECTOR PROJECT ID PROJECT NAME FY COUNTRY BOARD* AFRICA P059073 Dar es Salaam Water Supply and Sanitation Project 2003 Tanzania WAT P060005 Urban Infrastructure and City Management Project 2006 Rwanda UD P066488 Municipal Program 2010 Kenya UD P070736 Local Government Support Project 2005 Tanzania UD P071340 Lagos Metropolitan Development & Governance 2007 Nigeria UD P072030 Urban Development SIL (FY07) 2007 Chad UD P077477 Second Local Government Development Project 2003 Uganda PS P082373 Urban Environment Sanitation 2 (FY04) 2004 Ghana WAT P082812 Local Infrastructure Development SIL (FY06) 2006 Gabon UD P084002 Urban and Water Development Support Project 2007 Cameroon UD P088619 Emergency Living Conditions Improvement Support Project 2008 Congo, Democratic UD Republic of P088876 Urban Poverty Reduction Project 2008 Djibouti UD P090867 Local Government Management and Services Delivery Project 2008 Uganda UD P095232 Local Government Project (SLGP) 2011 Swaziland UD P095949 Local Urban Infrastructure Development SIL 2008 Niger UD P096332 Pro Maputo, Maputo Municipal Development Program 2007 Mozambique UD P101474 Urban Local Government Development Project 2008 Ethiopia UD P106975 Water, Electricity & Urban Development SIL 2010 Congo UD P108905 Emergency MS Rehabilitation & Recovery ERL Second Additional 2008 Congo, Democratic EMT Financing Republic of P109986 Water and Sanitation Millennium Project 2010 Senegal WAT P111019 Additional Financing for the Benin Energy Services Delivery Project 2008 Benin EMT P112998 Public Works and Urban Management Project 2009 Burundi UD P113542 Informal Settlements Improvement Project 2011 Kenya UD 51 52 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas P117102 Sanitation Project 2011 Cameroon UD P117764 Decentralized Community Driven Services Project 2012 Benin SP P117876 Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development Program 2013 Uganda UD P118152 Urban Local Government Strengthening Program 2013 Tanzania UD P118533 Water Supply and Sanitation Project-Additional Financing 2010 Ethiopia WAT P119900 Urban Development - Add Financing 2010 Mauritania UD P120190 Urban Poverty Reduction Add Financing 2010 Djibouti UD P121027 Urban and Water Development Support Project Additional Financing 2011 Cameroon UD P122692 Local Government Capacity Support Project 2011 Ghana UD P122950 Cities Support Project 2013 Benin UD P125049 Emergency Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Energy Project - 2011 Togo UD Additional Financing P125316 Urban Local Government Development Project 2012 Ethiopia UD P126899 Emergency Infrastructure Rehabilitation & Energy Project - Additional 2013 Togo UD Financing P127079 Local Governance and Service Delivery Project 2013 South Sudan UD P127262 Public Works and Urban Management Project - Additional Financing 2012 Burundi UD P127543 Local Government Development Program 2013 Mauritania UD EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC P070191 Shanghai Urban Environment APL1 2003 China WAT P070197 Urban Upgrading 2004 Vietnam UD P072852 Second Urban Poverty Project (UPP2) 2003 Indonesia UD P073311 Provincial and Peri-Urban Water and Sanitation Project 2003 Cambodia WAT P084583 Third Urban Poverty Project 2005 Indonesia UD P086508 VN-Priority Infra Investment 2008 Vietnam UD P096813 Additional Financing for Second Urban Poverty Project (UPP2) 2007 Indonesia UD P096921 National Program for Community Empowerment in Urban Areas 2013 Indonesia UD (PNPM UPP) P106956 Ningbo New Countryside Development Project 2010 China UD P109196 National Program for Community Empowerment in Urban Areas 2009 Indonesia UD (PNPM II UPP P113904 Mekong Delta Region Urban Upgrading Project 2012 Vietnam UD P115897 Urban Upgrading Project Additional Finance 2010 Vietnam UD P118113 Third National Program for Community Empowerment in Urban Areas 2010 Indonesia UD III P120595 Post Tsunami Reconstruction 2011 Tonga UD P121075 Ketsana Emergency Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project 2011 Cambodia UD P125405 National Community Empowerment Program In Urban Areas For 2012- 2013 Indonesia UD 2015 P143770 Livelihood Support Urban Poor Thailand 2013 Thailand SDV EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA P069532 Social Investment & Employment Promotion Project (SIEP) 2003 Bulgaria SP Annex II. List of Urban Participatory/CDD Projects, 2003-2013 • 53 P078359 Seismic Risk Mitigation Project 2005 Turkey UD P096481 Municipal Services Improvement 2009 Macedonia, former UD Yugoslav Republic of P103703 Community Development Additional Financing 2007 Bosnia and SP Herzegovina P104994 Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure 2008 Kyrgyz Republic UD P118158 Social Investment Fund III Second Additional Financing 2010 Armenia SP P122811 Additional Financing – Bishkek and Osh Urban 2012 Kyrgyz Republic UD P129996 Additional Financing – Municipal services Improvement Project 2012 Macedonia, former UD Yugoslav Republic of LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN P006553 BR APL Integrated Water Management In Metropolitan Sao Paulo 2010 Brazil WAT P049265 Recife Urban Upgrading Project 2003 Brazil UD P051306 Peace and Development Project (1st Phase APL) 2004 Colombia SDV P074726 Bogota Urban Services Project 2003 Colombia UD P076837 National Community Development Project 2003 Jamaica UD P076924 Amapa Sustainable Communities 2005 Brazil ENV P081436 Bahia Poor Urban Areas Integrated Development 2006 Brazil UD P081834 Additional Financing - Lima Water Rehabilitation and Management 2003 Peru WAT Project P082328 Integrated Municipal Project -Betim Municipality 2005 Brazil ENV P082419 Water Supply and Sanitation in Low-Income Communities 2008 Panama WAT P082625 Vilcanota Valley Rehab & Management Project 2005 Peru UD P083979 Urban Infrastructure Project 2007 Bolivia UD P085727 Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project - APL2 2003 Colombia UD P088319 (CRL) Barrio-Ciudad Project 2006 Honduras UD P088966 Municipal APL3: Teresina 2008 Brazil WAT P089011 Municipal APL1: Uberaba 2007 Brazil WAT P089013 Municipal APL: Recife 2008 Brazil UD P089440 Brasilia Environmentally Sustainable 2006 Brazil ENV P090159 Emergency Recovery and Disaster Management 2011 Haiti UD P091299 Inner City Basic Services for the Poor Project 2006 Jamaica UD P094315 Municipal APL4: Sao Luis 2009 Brazil WAT P101277 Additional Financing for Peace and Development Project 2010 Colombia SDV P104995 Municipal APL5: Santos 2010 Brazil UD P106689 Emergency Recovery and Disaster Management (Additional Financing) 2012 Haiti UD P106699 Urban Community Driven Development Project / PRODEPUR 2008 Haiti ARD P114292 Emergency Bridge Reconstruction & Vulnerability Reduction Project 2010 Haiti UD P121833 Housing Reconstruction - Urban Community Driven Development 2011 Haiti ARD Additional Financing P125829 APL2 Sao Bernardo Integrated Water Management in Sao Paulo 2012 Brazil WAT Program 54 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas P130528 Urban Infrastructure Project (II) Additional Finance 2013 Bolivia UD MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA P070958 Regional and Local Development Project 2007 Jordan UD P073433 Urban Upgrading and Housing Reform 2004 Iran UD P074398 Municipal Development Project (03) 2003 Tunisia UD P082221 Public Works and Social Development Supplemental Project 2006 Djibouti UD P082976 THIRD PUBLIC WORKS 2004 Yemen, Republic of UD P094229 Alexandria Development 2008 Egypt UD P100026 National Initiative for Human Development Support Project (INDH) 2007 Morocco SDV P107037 Water Sector Support 2009 Yemen, Republic of WAT P107050 Integrated Urban Development 2010 Yemen UD P108649 Public Works III Additional Financing 2010 Yemen, Republic of UD P109219 Taiz Municipal Development and Flood Protection Project 2008 Yemen, Republic of UD P116197 Cultural Heritage Add. Financing 2012 Lebanon UD P116201 National Initiative for Human Development 2 2012 Morocco SDV SOUTH ASIA P071454 AJK Community Infrastructure and Services Project 2003 Pakistan SDV P074018 Gujarat Emergency Earthquake Reconstruction Project 2006 India UD P082621 NWFP Community Infrastructure Project II (NWFP CIP2) 2004 Pakistan ARD P082977 Second Poverty Alleviation Fund Project 2004 Pakistan FPD P083919 Kabul Urban Reconstruction Project - AF 2005 Afghanistan UD P094513 Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project 2010 India UD P099110 Pakistan Earthquake ERC 2009 Pakistan UD P100390 Puttalam Housing Project 2007 Sri Lanka UD P102624 Kerala Local Government and Service Delivery 2012 India UD P105076 Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Project II Suppl Social Mobilization 2008 Pakistan ARD P110317 Second North East Housing Reconstruction Program 2008 Sri Lanka UD P113036 North East Local Services Improvement Project (NELSIP) 2010 Sri Lanka UD P124514 Local Governance Support Project II 2012 Bangladesh UD P131394 Reaching Out of School Children II 2013 Bangladesh ED *Sector Boards: ARD: Agriculture and Rural Development ED: Education EMT: Energy and Mining ENV: Environment FPD: Financial and Private Sector PS: Public Sector SDV: Social Development SP: Social Protection UD: Urban Development WAT: Water References Aldrich, B.C. and R.S. Sandhu. 1995. Housing the Urban Poor: Policy and Practice in Developing Countries. London: Zed Books. Arnstein, S. R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35(4): 216-224. Baker, J. (Ed.) 2012. Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor: Cities Building Resilience for a Changing World. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Bassett, E.M., Gulyani, S., Farvarque-Vitkovik, C. and S. Debomy. 2003. Informal settlement upgrading in sub-Saharan Africa: Retrospective and lessons learned. Africa Regional Urban Upgrading Initiative. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Beard, V.A. 2007. “Household Contributions to Community Development in Indonesia,” World Development, 35(4): 607-625. Beard, V.A. and A. Dasgupta. 2006. Collective Action and Community-Driven Development in Rural and Urban Indo- nesia, Urban Studies, 43(9): 1451-1468. Beard, V.A., Miraftab, F. and C. Silver. (eds.) 2008. Planning and Decentralization: Contested Spaces for Public Action in the Global South. London: Taylor and Francis. Biermann, F. and I. Boas. 2010. “Preparing for a Warmer World: Towards a Global Governance System to Protect Cli- mate Refugees.” Global Environmental Politics, 10(1): 66-88. Castles, S. 2003. “Towards a Sociology of Forced Migration and Social Transformation.” Sociology, 37(1): 13-34. Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. De Angelis, M. 2005. “The political economy of neoliberal governance.” Review, XXIII, 3: 229–257. Grootaert, C. and T. Van Bastelaer. (Eds.) 2002. The Role of Social Capital in Development: An Empirical Assessment. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, A. and J. Gugler. 2000. Cities, Poverty and Development: Urbanization in the Third World. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. Gulyani, S. and Connors, G. 2002. Urban Upgrading in Africa: A Summary of Rapid Assessment in 10 Countries. World Bank Africa Infrastructure Department. Imparato, I. and Ruster, J. 2003. Slum Upgrading and Participation: Lessons from Latin America. World Bank Directions in Development Series. Mansuri, G. and V. Rao. 2004. “Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review.” The World Bank Re- search Observer, 19(1): 1-39. Mansuri, G. and V. Rao. 2013. Localizing Development: Does Participation Work? Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Moser, C.O.N. 2006. Reducing Urban Violence in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Nitti, R. and B. Dahiya. 2004. Community Driven Development in Urban Upgrading. Social Development Notes, Number 85. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press. Rahnema, M. 1992. “Participation.” In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. ed. W. Sachs . Lon- don: Zed Books, pp. 116-131. Rosenau, J. and E.O. Czempiel. (Eds.) 1992. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Santos, B. de Sousa. 2004. “Governance: Between myth and reality.” paper presented at the 2004 Law & Society Asso- ciation annual meeting, Chicago, May 27-30. 55 56 • Participatory and Community Driven Development in Urban Areas Turner. J.F.C. and R. Fichter. (Eds.) 1972. Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process. New York: MacMillian. United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 2011. Global Study of Homicide. Vienna: UNODC. Vecvagare, L. 2004. Community Driven Development Approaches in Housing Sector Projects in Transition Economies. So- cial Development Notes, Number 71. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Werlin, H. 1999. “The Slum Upgrading Myth.” Urban Studies, 36(9): 1523-1534. Wong, S. 2012. What have been the Impacts of World Bank Community-Driven Development Programs? CDD Impact Eval- uation Review and Operational and Reseach Implications. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Woolcock, M. 1998. “Social Capital And Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis And Policy Frame- work.” Theory And Society, 27(2): 151-208. Woolcock, M. and D. Narayan. 2000. “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy.” The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2): 225-249. World Bank, 2013. Urban Sector Results Profile: Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Alleviation. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank, 2015. Inclusive Cities: Approach Paper. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.worldbank.org/cdd 58