224 Public Works as a Safety Net
Stakeholder Involvement in Development of Project Plans In monitoring the implementation of the community-based procedures, the term “community” must be carefully defined. In the majority of cases, the community elects a CWT that operates on its behalf. Thus, it is not expected that each individual household will necessarily participate in the procedures for project selection.6 Thus, imprecise use of the term “community” can create problems in public works program reviews, which are designed to monitor the extent of community involvement in project selection. Figure 9.2 depicts a surprisingly high level of direct individual household-level community participation in project planning, where normally rates of less than 10 percent would be expected. The figure is based on a standard sample survey of households (both PSNP and non-PSNP households) questioned in 2012. Ideally, the development agent leads the CWT in preparing the plan. However, in some cases, the CWT conducts the process without the development agent. In other cases, a local nongovernmental organization or the community food security task force might be involved. Table 9.2 illustrates findings for the years 2008 and 2011, based on public works program reviews covering all six PSNP regions. The table shows that the involvement of the CWT in developing public works program plans has increased from 76 to 86 percent between 2008 and 2011, and that an increasing number of CWTs are taking the lead with the direct involvement of the development agent. In a few cases, plans are drawn up by a combination of the development agent, the community food security task force, and individual community members (3 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 2011). Figure 9.2 Percentage of Ethiopian Households Involved in Public Works Project Selection 100
Percent
80 60 40 20 0
Source: IFPRI and CSA 2010.
2006
2008 Year
2010