MSP Document 2013

8/13/2019 MSP Document 2013

1/33

Livelihood Support and Promotion of Community Infrastructure Project (LACI-P)

Integrated Development Planning at Village and Union Level

Embarking on practical methodology

Dr. Arjumand Nizami

Mehmood Hemani

Roshan Ara

Nadeem Bukhari

Islamabad

2013


2/33

2

Final draft June 5th

, 2013


3/33

3

Acknowledgement

PPAF is Pakistans leading organization in terms of taking innovative initiatives

for poverty reduction. This organization is highly committed to propel a large

scale impact from its work in the field and a consistent emphasis on MSP is

one step in achieving this direction.

The consultants team is highly grateful to Qazi Azmat Isa, the CEO of PPAF in

providing a conceptual outline on MSP and encouraging a process that is built on

earlier knowledge and experiences. Mr. Masood Khalid and his team have been

instrumental in extending all the cooperation and guidance in this process. We

also thank Mr. Nasurullah and Mr. Taimur Jahangir and several other colleagues

(who also attended the kick-off workshop on 17th

of April at PPAF) for theirpunctual support in providing relevant material for our work. We thank Herman

Mulder from Intercooperationfor peer reading this document and providing his

valuable comments. Thanks are also due to our LACIP colleagues Rana Sarwar,

Hayatullah and Mubashar for their day to day help during the mission and

finalization of this report.

We sincerely hope that this document will provide a useful framework for piloting

MSP in PPAF project areas and will generate learning for further improvement

into the process for the future.

The MSP Methodology Team,Islamabad, April 2013


4/33

4

Table of Contents

Chapter 01 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Introduction and background of this report ........................................................................... ............................................................................... .............................. 6

Chapter 02 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

The Concept of Multi-Sector Planning (MSP) ......................................................................... ............................................................................... .............................. 8

Chapter 03 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

The process and steps to conduct MSP ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 04 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Piloting in the fieldproposed outline ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Annex 1-7 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23-32


5/33

5

Acronyms

ADP Annual Development Plan (Government) LSO Local Support Organization

AHO Asian Humanitarian Organisation MER Monitoring, Evaluation and Research

AKRSP Aga Khan Rural Support Programme MDP Members Development Plan

APO Associate Partner Organization MIP Members Investment Plan

CIG Common Interest Groups MSP Multi-sector Plan

CPI Community Physical Infrastructure NRSP National Rural Support Programme

CO Community Organization OPM Operational Planning Manual

CMST Community Management Skill Training PO Partner Organization

DDF District Development Forum PPAF Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction PSC Poverty Score CardFFO Farmers Friend Organization SDP Settlement Development Plan

GBIs Grant-Based Intervention SO Social Organizer

HH Household TNA Training Needs Assessment

KP Khyber Pukhtunkhwa UC Union Council

LACIP Livelihood And Community based Infrastructure support Programme UCDO Union Council based Development Organization

LEP Livelihood Enhancement and Protection UCDP Union Council Development Plan

LIP Livelihood investment Plan VDP Village Development Plan

LMST Leadership and Management Skill Training VO Village Organization


6/33

6

Chapter 1

Introduction and background of this report

PPAF as an organization believes in holistic approach in poverty alleviation and

therefore is striving for integrated development through building strong

institutions in the field. For PPAF, institutional strengthening in the field is the key

to ensuring sustainability of development effects in poverty stricken areas.

Therefore an idea of establishing community / village organizations for delivering

development services does not stop there it needs to be further accompanied

to achieve a wider understanding on development vision within a community for

inclusive development and a living plan identifying how to achieve this

development beyond interventions that are limited at individual household and

neighborhood levels. MSP is an idea in this direction encompassing village and

Union Council levels, taking multiple sectors into account, and ensuring that the

idea will be eventually supported by the measures provided in LG Act when

implemented.

A workshop was called by LACIP for further fine tuning the MSP concept and bring

all the concerned at PPAF on one page. This one day workshop was organized at

PPAF (workshop programme Annex 1). The entire day strived to achieve the

following objectives and expected outcomes:

Objectives:

- Collectively identify why MSP is neededwhat it isand what will be the

methodological steps to achieve this at a village or a UC level

- Understand the roles expected of various tiers (village, UC) for themselves

and towards other development actors

Expected outcome:

- An outline for partners orientation on the concept and methodologywill be

available as a result of the workshop

- Internal clarity among the team to move on in the field through partners

- Identification of the next steps

In total 28 Participants contributed to the workshop discussion in a highly

interactive manner. With pleasure we report, that all the relevant units were

present in the workshop which helped in taking the MSP agenda forward through

multiple inputs from experts in several development themes1. A list of

participants is attached in Annex 2.

1.1Workshop on 17thApril 2013 on MSP

Fine-tuning methodological steps and roles of different tiers in MSP

In his opening remarks, the CEO of PPAF highlighted the following as food for

thought for identifying methodological aspects of MSP:

- Often such plans are plagued by lack of ownership how to make sure that

the ownership from community, government, us and civil society is acquired

- Reality keeps changing, how to keep the flexibility in the plan to adjust to

changing reality

- To ground realities confronting us today:

o Insecurity in KP therefore conflict sensitive / resolution mechanisms

must be added in the plans

o Most of the partner districts are disaster prone therefore there is a need

to ensure that DRR remains integrated in the plan

- It is essential to consider social and ecological heterogeneity in the districts or

below since one plan doesnt fit to all

- Material for desk review must be identified for secondary data- Important to look at practical dimension, local culture and heritage are rich,

how to ensure that local knowledge, and indigenous systems may be

integrated in the plan

Followed by this, a presentation was made by GM special issues / file holder of

LACIP on how LACIP works and why MSP was seen as an important subject. The

1Including institutional development, health, Benazir Income Support Programme,

Livelihood, rural Credit, Education, Environment, infrastructure, DRR and so on


7/33

7

ingredients from his presentation have been included in the methodological

chapters of this document (the presentation is attached as Annex 3).

The day continued with several interactive sessions on what processes are

already undertaken by PPAF team and partners to found MSP process. This report

provides the essence of the discussion and elaborates the key ingredients of MSP

process identified during the workshop with the help of the participants in later

chapters.

1.2Documents / background material available and reviewed

In pursuit to prepare for the workshop and ensure that the methodological steps

are built on earlier knowledge, the following material was consulted by thefacilitating team of Intercooperation. This helped in founding a base of MSP:

1. An example of Village/ Settlement Development Plan (VDP/SDP), Farmers

Friend Organization (FFO) Sargodha

2. An example Village Development Plan: Mara Khurd, 4thJuly 2010

3. Checklist for assessing the quality of Community Organizations, Human and

Institutional Development Unit, PPAF

4. District Census report DI Khan, Chitral and Haripur

5. Draft Strategy Livelihood Enhancement & Protection Unit (August 30th

, 2012)

6. Integrated Development Visions (2008) DI Khan and Chitral, IUCN Pakistan

7. List of LACIPs partner Districts, project locations and Partner O rgnizations

8. Livelihood Investment Plan (LIP) PPAFPart 1

9. Local Government Act 2012, KP

10.Member Development Plan format, PPAF

11.MSP Approaches (KFW), proceedings of workshop (6thMay 2012)

12.Multi-sectoral Planning LACIP. Mission report Martin Dietz (23rd

January4th

February 2013), Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation

13.Operational Polices Manual for Grant-Based Intervention (GBIs), PPAF

14.Poverty Score Card, PPAF

15.Situation Analysis form, PPAF

16.Village Development Planning Manual (2012), Intercooperation and Forests

Department KP

1.3Major challenge encountered while defining MSP process

The facilitating team encountered the following challenges while elaborating the

processand would like to remind the PPAF team that similar challenges may be

faced by them in the field. It is therefore essential to remain aware of these while

making MSP a reality on ground:

1. MSP must capitalize on existing practices, experiences and tools that are

being used by Partner Organizations and other development partners in the

field. A process defining all the processes from scratch will never take off and

will not yield results.

2. There is a large range among Partner Organizations in terms of their capacityand history of working in a specific geographical region. The MSP process

however was defined keeping in view a lower denominator in view, which

means the organizations with lower capacity, little field experience and brief

history of presence in a specific district.

3. There was a varying understanding of the PPAFs internal processes, planning

tools and their linkages within the team the MSP methodological exercise

served an opportunity to clarify these elements within the team. A similar

challenge may be encountered at the field level with POs. An orientation

session for POs may be helpful at this stage.

Two examples of processes were presented during the workshop for inspiration

and discussion:

1. Recommendations on MSP process from Martin Dietzs report (January

2013): Annex 4

2. Village Integrated Development Planning process introduced by KP Forests

Department: summary Annex 5

MSP process explained in this document includes the elements of both the

examples.


8/33

8

Chapter 2

The Concept of Multi-Sector Planning (MSP)

2.1Why Multi-Sector Planning?

This question is closely connected to the discussion on what PPAF as an

organization is willing to achieve:

The PPAF aims to promote a holistic approach to poverty alleviation, which is

aligned closely with Pakistans commitment to the Millennium Development

Goals. It emphasizes multi-sector programmes that generate broad and deepimpacts at the community level.(Operational Policies Manual for GBIs, 2011).

PPAF is out in the field with its agenda for an inclusive development for poverty

alleviation. It is aimed at supplementing development actors in their effort to

enable communities in harnessing their potential for their self-development.

PPAF is highly committed to strengthen community based organizations at

various levels (including the ones visualized at apex level hopefully driving Union

Council development along with other development actors at that level).

MSP is a vehicle to effectively realize holistic development. So far, PPAF has been

successful in realizing community based development through COs, organized

within a village at a Mohalla or settlement level. However most of the

interventions had impact for individual households, or a neighborhood or a village

at the most. There is a need now to identify interventions at another scale that

may have consequences for a larger population, such as a village or a group of

villages or ideally a union council. This, however, is to be done without losingconnection with what is earlier done with the COs and individual households. The

MSP therefore serves as an umbrella for a partner UC and strives to bring synergy

among various development players, helps up-scaling PPAFs earlier experience,

and inculcate a longer-term development vision at community level. MSP is a

journey from a need based development to a potential based development

leaving enough room for multiple actors in development to play their due role in

the field.

The overall Goalfor Multi-sector Planning was identified as follows2:

Equitable and resilient socio-economic opportunities are identified and promoted

while ensuring ownership of stakeholders

Two objectives were identified for conducting MSP process:

Communities develop an inclusive area development vision / road-map

Institutions pro-actively mobilize resources for addressing socio-economicinterests and solidarity

These two objectives promote the idea of inclusive, long term, proactive

development however at the core of this are institutions, which own and

carry development plans at certain levels and collectively mobilize resources for

their realization. The MSP process has been perceived to realize this ambitious

vision of multi-sectoral planning. The key here would lie in selection of the

partners having base in the selected UCs incase capacities lack, a principal PO

shall be charged with strengthening the local organization within stipulated time

and handover the lead to them.

2.2MSP initially as a process internal to PPAF

It is highly encouraging that PPAF has started the process of multi-sectoral

planning through first achieving an internal integration within the organization.

Partner Organizations used to submit isolated proposals to PPAF for funding. Itwas often that these proposals maintained an independent relationship with

various units within PPAF and did not relate to each other. Similarly, each unit

approached potential Partner Organization rather independently for separate

projects and did not synergize on these efforts neither administratively nor

thematically. Now, with the restructuring within PPAF, the proposals are made in

a manner that all the Units sit together to appraise them and award funding. This

2Workshop 17

thApril 2013, LACIP, PPAF


9/33

9

has helped achieving integration within PPAF and at NGO partner level. This will

however not be complete till it is also achieved at the field level. E.g. various

partners or non partner development actors strive to achieve a shared vision in

development, and PPAF comes in as one of the contributors.

2.3MSP for whom?

It is essential to understand that MSP is not a panacea for achieving all

development aims at the field level; it does however contribute to enhancing:

- Acquiring a long term development vision

- Efficient delivery of development services in collaboration with community

- Inculcating a good reason to create / strengthen home-grown local

institutions that carry the development forward- Ensuring interventions at all possible scales (household, neighborhood, village

and union council) without duplication.

It is therefore, MSP is for all the development actors involved in a district / UC

such as:

Who? What

PPAF Inclusive development, larger impact, efficient delivery

PO A good platform to attract other donors (than PPAF) to become

part of development agenda not funded by PPAF

Local

Institutions

HH, CO, VO and UCDO have development interventions in a longer

term perspective; UCDO particularly have a tool to knock the door

of relevant development actors rather than passively wait for

someone to come for communitys aid

Government

actors at

local level

Government departments at UC / District levels will have a good

base to collaborate with the UCDO and meet their annual targets

possibly align their planning practices with MSP.


10/33

10

Dist

DDFA

CO +

Chapter 3

The process and steps to conduct MSP

The MSP at Union Council is the end result of a regenerative process that begins

from COs organized by POs of PPAF. It is important to understand that in this

process, we not only achieve a well thought multi-sectoral VDP and MSP at UC

levels but also the respective social organizations which own and contribute to

the preparation and realization of these plans.

1. Situation Analysis

This step is crucial for correctly preparing the MSP process in the field. The

situation analysis will be conducted at two levels in parallel:

- District / UC level using secondary information as well as primary

assessment on market / value chains

- Village level in close collaboration with the villagers based on PPAFs

exiting procedures.

The following table provides the detail to conduct this step. In short it is

summarized as follows:

1. As a first step, try to collect all necessary documents which are already

available and can provide secondary data regarding the district. The

examples include:

a. District census reports

b. District gazetteers produced by British government

c. Integrated development visions produced by IUCN or othersd. Any baselines / studies conducted by PO or other development

organization in the district

e. District plans / Annual Development Plans of various departments

(P&D Department)

2. The PO will engage an Associate Partner Organization already at this level

and support them to conduct a broader consultation within the villages

and identify key development issues.

3. Further down in the process, the PO or APO conducts Poverty Score Card

and wealth ranking, and based on data, identify potential clients for LIP at

household level.

4. It is important to use data (point 3) analyzed from PSC / wealth rankingfor conducting vulnerability context analysis of each socio-economic

group since this will lead us to activities that have significance for the

entire village or even at Union Council level, in case the vulnerability

trend is maintained in several villages of the same UC.


11/33

11

Stage Level Steps (major actions) Instrument / Output Remarks / Notes Who CapacityChange

required

Situation

Analysis

District / UC1. Market / Value Chain Assessment

UC level

Market actors and potential for

products / services (skills demand) in

UC

Ideally this is done at the time

of UC / District selection.

Subject

matter

specialist

on value

chain

New

Special TORs

to do this

and

supervision

District / UC

2. Collect and go through secondary

documents (census report,

gazetteers, met data, ADPs, other

documents etc.)

A broader view of the UC extracted

from the documents

Try to analyze trend - what

comes out as a key

development challenge?

UC / group of

villages

3. Identify and engage APOs

(specialized) and capacity building

Village /

Mohallah

4. Broader consultation / discussion

with Mohalla / Village with wider set

of stakeholders on development

context of the village

- Socio-economic and disaster

vulnerability context (Situation

Analysis Form) - including references

with secondary data

- Participatory Wealth Ranking

(ill/well being analysis)

- vulnerability assessment (e.g. SWOT)

with each socio-economic category

- mapping of major development

actors at UC level

Context built for activities that

go beyond village boundaries

(e.g. at UC level)

PO (SO,

MER)

Conducting

situation

analysis in

a holistic

manner

Budget for

pre-

interventions

Village for

each HH

5. Interviews with HH - Poverty Profile through Poverty

Score Card

However the VDP process

(next steps) move on based

on ill/well being analysis. PSC

is more for LIP / CIGsIndividual HH 6. Desk review of data- Identification of potential

beneficiaries for LIP

Existing processes - In case of large PO identifying APO

- Conducting vi llage consultation

- Poverty Score Card and Wealth Ranking

- Identifying potential beneficiaries for LIP but conduct LIP and provide assets in the next step

What is new - A strong emphasis on desk review of existing documents

- Conducting Market / Value Chain assessment and link identified economic potentials with other identified interventions

- Vulnerability assessment must be conducted within socio-economic categories


12/33

12

2. Social Mobilization

Primary data collection and analysis results in situational analysis report which

documents a detail profile of the area including its market / value chain

potentials. Based on these analyses social organization of the village is initiated in

order to carry out planning and interventions. An inclusive social mobilization is

closely connected with a good quality situation analysis, particularly Poverty

Score Card and wealth Ranking. At the moment two things happen at this step:

- The formation of Community Organizations (COs) is conducted based on

PPAFs existing procedures with due flexibility given to the Partner

Organization to allow CO process as per their geographical vicinity,

commonality of issues and their cultural bounds.

- Based on economic potentials, Common Interest Groups (CIGs) are formed

that mainly look into market based / value chain activities. CIGs are not

essentially organized on the basis of geographical contiguity (e.g. Mohallah).

Followed by CO / CIG formation, it is important to catalyze VO formation at village

level. A VO is supposed to be an all inclusive body of the villagers where all COs

are represented through their office bearers. There are three tiers of

organizations that lead to MSP process at Union Council level. Community

Organizations (COs), Village Organizations (VOs) and Union Council Development

Organizations (e.g. LSOs). Moreover, other management committees for specific

projects such as School Management Committees, operation and maintenance

committees in case of infrastructure projects and Common Interest Group (CIGs)

are also formed at operational level for the smooth running of the activities.

The geographical jurisdiction of a CO is a Mohallah (settlement) of a village/town.

COs in a large number already exist or had existed in most of the target villages,

which will be utilized largely after some structural review and refining if needed.

Where there are no existing COs, field teams of POs will facilitate the formation

of COs ensuring a democratic process have been followed. After the registration

of the COs, a joint bank account between COs and Partner Organizations (POs)

will be opened in the local banks according to the PPAF guidelines.

COs registration is mandatory for funds release by the POs for CIPs, LIPs and

MDPs. Once the COs have been formed and/or notified, different trainings such

as CMST, LMST, organizational record keeping and others will be carried out. A

Training Need Assessment (TNA) will also be conducted with the COs to identify

any other human & institutional development needs. It is necessary to identify all

the members of COs as General Body of the village before the next step of Village

Organization (VO) is undertaken.

In the next step VO will be constituted by COs. Office Bearers (President, GeneralSecretary, and Treasurer) of the COs will become members of the VO and

elect/select office bearers of VO among themselves. Constitution of VO is a pre-

requisite for developing a Village Development Plan (VDP) which includes

interventions of collective benefit. VDP process calls for participation of all

stakeholders (both internal & external) of the village and encompasses broader

population and long term activities. VO acts as custodian of VDP and ensures

equitable distribution of benefits, transparency and self accountability. VO shall

also formulate its Rules of Business during this phase.

Stage 1: CO Formation and Registration

(LIP, CIP, CIG at this stage)

Stage 2: VO formation

CO Members form a General Body while the

office bearers form membership

Joint Bank Account

(VDP and CIP / DRR activities at this stage)


13/33

13

Eventually at a later stage a support organizations at UC level will emerge which

will act as an advocacy group ensuring service delivery and community

leadership. Such an organization will anchor, lead and uphold the Multi Sector

Plan (MSP) process. It will serve as a platform for knowledge sharing, adoption,

replication and integration of development activities in other parts of the UC.


required

Social

Mobilization

Mohalla: CO

Village: VO7. Constitution of COs (CIG), VOs Registration, bank account, etc.

Registration of CO required for

funds release by POs (OpM)

PO (SO)

Fund

transfer

subject to

registration8. Training of COs and VOs - Institutional Checklist

Registration VO is mandatory

to receive benefits of LG Act

(as an umbrella of COs)

- Organizational record keeping, CMST,

LMST, etc.

Existing processes - CO formation at Mohallah / settlement level

- CIG establishment based on common interests

- Registration of CO, administrative procedures such as opening of bank account

What is new - VO formation at village level (with an intention to do Village Development Planning)

- Essential for VO to have close links with CIG and CO as an umbrella organization of the village

- Registration of VO and opening of bank account

3. Village Development PlanningIn a number of consultative sessions, the VOs identify their key planning priorities

which are aimed at the overall development of the village. It is important at this

stage that they leave aside the individual household priorities which are already

being taken care of by LIPs prepared with the support of COs. All other CIP

activities and other village related development interventions need to be enlistedin this process. The expertise of Partner Organization in the consultative

processes with the VO is expected to yield a plan that is not a wish list but a

logical set of interventions that connects with the overall development vision for

the village. The village Development Plan is multi-sectoral in nature and envisages

contribution from multiple actors. Therefore MSP realization already starts at this

stage, albeit only at village level (village based MSPs). Our observation is that as

oppose to the current practice of conducting MIP/MDP preparation for the non-ultra-poor members in the community, their interests will be adequately address

in CIGs.


required

Individual HH 9. Conduct LIP with ultra poor Use Poverty Score Card Results Immediate implementation PO/CO


14/33

14

VDP (xIPs)

Village

10. Village General body discussion on

potential interventions for Mohalla /

village.

Overview / Holistic VDP (more than

LACI-P/ PPAF mandate) - inform about

market finding

3-5 yrs vision

1 year priority planCO / VO

VO / CO / CIG

11. Economic intervention planning

with CIGs, prioritization of activities

related to collective vulnerabilities

MDP/Sectoral/sub-sectoral income

enhancement plan (CIG), etc.Training

of CIG members in related topics

CO/ VO/

POVO

12.If VO already exists, look into

restructuring of VO if needed

All inclusive VO that represents CO

interests

VO / CO / CIG

13. Social sector (CPI, soft elements)

Intervention planning with COs and

VO, prioritization

VDP format to be developed VDP is owned by VO

Existing processes - LIP is retained independent of VDP planning due to its nature to address immediate needs at HH level and upgrade ultra

poor to contribute to social organization and planning processes- CIP projects conducted at CO level

What is new - Village development planning that encompasses activities at CO and HH level and provides an umbrella for all the

interventions including those that are beyond CO level

- MIP dropped

4. Resource MobilizationAs said in the preceding section, the VDP envisages a multi-actor support for the

realization of interventions. This suggests that linkages and resource mobilization

are crucial for the realization of the village plan. These resources (financial or

non-financial) may be internally raised within the village or attracted from

outside, but are deployed for achieving the plan over a period of time.It is

important to note that the village plans in all the villages are prepared in a

parallel process to save time and ensure connectivity in the activities. An example

may be a DRR scheme in one village that may affect another downstream. A

parallel process for VDP preparation will ensure that such mutual issues may be

dealt with carefully through a dialogue.


required

Resource

Mobilization

Village14. Implementation of Village Plans- begin funding PPAF/LACI-P mandate

Proposals by PO/APOCO / VO

PO

Village15. Establish relevant Scheme

committees.Community groups CO/ PO

Village /

district

16. Linkage Development (Networking

- DDF, Dev. Partners, Line Dept.)


15/33

15

Existing processes - POs submit project proposals to PPAF for funding

- In few cases, POs approach government line agencies to create service linkages with the COs

What is new - A rather systematic identification of development actors at Village / UC level

- Establishment of linkages with development actors and reflect into the plan document

5. Networking / ClusteringOnce a number of village organizations have been established in the village and

village development plans prepared by them, it is time to cluster VOs into a union

council based organization. Only in few cases in which the Partner Organizations

have taken the initiative to organize village member based Local Support

Organizations at UC level. In most of the cases however there are no such

umbrella organizations on ground. In a few cases there may be apex organizations

for specific sectors such as Water Users Associations, Production or Market

Associations, or Seed Growers Associations and so on. Such organizations must

be included in the process as an entry point for forming such a cluster at UC level.


required

Networking /

ClusteringVillage / UC

17. Constitute LSO/UCDO (if does not

exist)

UC overview / oversight / advocacy

groupRegistration

Existing processes - In some cases, POs have established Local Support Organizations

What is new - In several cases an apex / UC based development organization does not exist. The best is to make an apex of member

villages and form one.

- Ensure that existing LSO (which act more as an APO or NGO at the UC level) and the intended UCDO of villages whose

development plan is in question do not have conflict of interest3

3Mostly the existing LSOs offer themselves as project implementers and therefore a risk lies that an LSO has perceived a multi-sector project for donors funding that they

themselves implement. An apex body of the villagers however perceives such a plan with a clear vision that it is the service that is important for them, and not from where it isfunded (e.g. a donor, government line agency, collective funding e.g. chanda, etc.)


16/33

16

6. MSP formation at UC levelWith the formation of a cluster organization, we are very close to identifying

multi-sector priorities at UC level. These development priorities are funneled

down from VDPsbut at the same time, take account of an overall development

trend in the UC such as vulnerability to a specific disaster, drought, water scarcity

or abundance, a specific agriculture product, etc. Like in case of VDP, UC multi-

sectoral plan needs to take into account the overall vision for UC development in

a longer term and must provide space for multi-actors in development to extend

support.The UC level development organization is the custodian of this plan and

needs to be trained to act as an advocacy body to pursue major targets given in

the plan with relevant development actors.


required

UC (Multi-

sectoral) Plan

16. Collate key elements of VDPs in UC Ownership is with UCDO/LSO LSO17. Trend Analysis regardinghealth,

education, disasters, conflicts, etc.LSO +

expertUnion Council

18. Augment Strategic elements -

secondary data, mapping other

initiatives, other players (L/Dep)

Mapping other initiatives, other players

(Line departments)

19. Disseminate and follow-up MSP LSO

Use / follow-

up of UC Plan

(MSP)

21. Constitute District Development

Forum (pilot in a few cases)LACI-P

Union

Council

22. Collate UC Plans (MSP) at District

Levels

- Strategic Adjustments by PPAF /

Projects / Line Depts.PPAF?

23. Advocacy in DDF and with L/Dep.,

other actors for inclusion of MSP/VDP

elements in ADP

LSOs

Existing processes - Not at the moment

What is new - Several VDPs at UC level and the overall trends found during situation analysis lead to a living MSP plan / priorities

- Linkages with MSP, dissemination of document

- Hopefully DDF (at least first one or two examples) will give impetus to MSP implementation

- Local support organization of member villages take the plan implementation forward


17/33

17

Frequently Asked Questions

Questions Deliberation / Answers / Potential Solutions

How do you ensure consensus building? How

to ensure that all possible social groups

including deprived have a voice during

consultationon development priorities

reflected in the VDP?

- A major entry point to achieve this is the CO formation. If CO is formed in an inclusive manner and participation of all

the members has been ensured, there is a chance that they will respect each other.

- VDP preparation does not entail a one-time consultation. Consultation can be conducted in smaller groups and where

necessary, triangulation of priorities may be achieved though consulting with men and women, and in repeated

sessions.

- If consensus building is problematic, a Plan B must entail a consultation with only a relevant group.

What is it in these steps that PPAF does not

do?

- The entire process up to the CO formation is already institutionalized by PPAF through partners agreements.

- However at this stage, vulnerability assessment is not taken into accountas well as value chain / market assessment

are not conducted- It is more about the depth of process and linking every activity to the next higher level at least up to the UC level.

Is MSP need based or? The term need is self defying and is against the entire philosophy of PPAF as well as MSP concept. MSP must be based on

existing potentials within the community and therefore is a mix of community aspirations and strategic elements that are

identified based on development potentials.

The idea is to work on causes of poverty and pull people out of poverty cycle rather than giving a temporary relief.

How to ensure that the plans are built on

long term development objectives?

- Since the plans are aimed at harnessing community potential, there is a vision that guides the identification of

interventions as oppose to an existing offer for a project / service / charity.

- The social organization is the keycommunity institutions set and own the plan priorities and essential synergies for

their relevant constituency (e.g. village or UC) and not an external expert.

- However, the facilitating experts knowledge counts they are the one to guide communities in this process.

Does this promote a specific model for

replication in all the partner districts?

- It is not a blue print for the districts to follow. It is however essential to provide an outline of the process that is sized

according to the situation.

- The process in this document give major building blocks essential to design MSP

- The name multi-sectorsuggests that we are not stuck to a model with pre-defined sectorsbut are open to complex

phenomenon of poverty and multiple options.

Resource mobilization how shall we dothat?

- It is essential to first look within the village and then within the union council. Make an inventory of actors available andthe services they can extend.

- The next is to look into various development agencies (including NGOs, development projects and funding agencies as

the PO may know)and pursue them

- A factually correct mapping of actors (ideally done before a proposal is moved by a PO or at least at situation analysis

stage)leads to proper follow up. While one member of the UC development organization feels comfortable engaging

with the government line agencies, another may knock the door of a development project to present the plan priorities.

- Once the plan is there and the organization is ready with its basic administrative settings (including training on LMST,

etc.), it may be worthwhile to train them on how to prepare development proposals and manage to raise funds.


18/33

18

What is the core inspiration for MSP? MSP provides a longer term vision for development planning and interventions at certain level. For PPAF, MSP is an effective

entry point to promote holistic development in pursuit to achieve Millennium Development Goals and eventually post MDG

development agenda (Sustainable Development Goals)

How much time it is going to take MSP - This is subject to the situationkey question: How much ground experience already exists?

- Roughly 4-5 months with three parallel teams in a new district,where number of selected villages within a UC remain

within 10 or below. This is a district where nothing exists on ground (including PSC, and organized CO)

- In an existing district with existing COs and PSC data available, it may take about 4months (with about 10 VDPs, 1 UC

plan) with three parallel teams.

- It is important to keep in mind that this is the minimum investment before we have in our hand a long term,

comprehensive development agenda to continue. During this process, LIP and some of the CIP activities at CO level will

not stop.

How much staff is required? - Each team comprises at least 1 female and 1 male SO. This intensity is needed for 6 months only till the MSP and VDPs

are achieved.- In addition, during the MSP process, 1 office based support is needed for data analysis

- 1 mentor / manager with multi-sector orientation is essential during this period to guide the process

- One team who conducts rapid market / value chain appraisal in the beginning

- It is essential to understand that the VDP and MSP preparation will be an intensive task spread over 6 months. Once the

plans are there, try to shift most of the burden to the social organizations

Who will own the plans? CO: LIP with ultra poor

VO: VDP. It is however necessary that the UC administration recognizes this plan

LSO / UC development organization: UC MSP. It is however necessary that this plan is also recognized by district authorities

Funding level and funds flowsfrom PPAF now

and late?

- Currently the funds flow to registered COs for LIP and CIP

- In case of VDPfor larger schemes the funds will flow to the registered VOs as well

- In case PPAF is keen to also fund part of UC plan, the funds will flow to a registered union council based organization for

a particular scheme

Legal status of community organizations? All the three tiers of organizations are to be registered under the existing laws in Pakistan. They must put together their

Rules of Business at relevant level (what will be the role of CO, VO and LSO and responsibilities / obligations towards each

other in a downward accountability system).

Who will conduct rapid market / value chainappraisal

Needs to be carefully defined who will conduct this technical task (PO? A special team of PPAF or consultants engaged byPPAF or PO)

What are major risks / concerns? Mitigation strategy?

Concerns / Risks Mitigation Strategy

At union council level, it is essential to have a Local Support

Organization or a similar institution as an umbrella

representative of the villages. However they do not exist

In such cases initiate organizing such organizations, drawing strength and membership from Village

Organizations

Sector focused organizations (e.g. WUA on a watershed level) could also be an entry point to form


19/33

19

everywhere such an umbrella institution

PO often donot encourage LSOs formation since they may fear

being replaced by them

Administrative strategy: Make POs contractually obliged and organize funds flow with a necessary

frame condition

Development strategy: It is essential for PO to help LSO in identifying its Rules of Business whereby

an LSO and PO complement each other and do not overlap each other in their roles.

POs have to acquire an understanding that their role must change in a longer run (see Annex 5, SRSP

LSO concept).

LSO may see LG bodies with fear after the implementation of

LG Act 2012

Perhaps initially but it is a misnomer; they need LG bodies for effective advocacy of MSP implementation

When one PO is expected to facilitate for a number of VDPs

within a UC say 10), there is a fear to Cut and Paste from one

VDP document

Active supervision by mentors, participatory monitoring, regular feedback meetings with teams will

help understand that specificities among villages have been understood and addressed in the VDP

process

A review at UC MSP level will require that all the VDPs will also be reviewed to funnel key activities.The Cut and Paste dynamics will be caught at that stage

PO: COs are mine: Stamped COs / VOs attitude confronting

multi-actor support

COs are owned by the people. The POs must understand how COs are embedded in the VO and not

the PO organization set up

It is imperative that multiple-actors may count on POs earlier presence and understanding on

development issuesthe PO will be happy to attract them for support in the UCs where they

function.

Disbursement pressure vs quality of process what if

compromises are made

We insist that LIP and CIP activities limited to CO must continue during the process of MSP

preparation.

Even if done before VDP / UC MSP materialize, it is essential though to reflect CIP activities in the

documents (past progress etc.). Once the MSPs (Village and UC) are final and priorities are set, field

implementation at various scales (CO, VO, UC) has a potential to pace up dramatically.

Security impediments It is essential to remain in close coordination with the district authorities and community influential.

We assume that the POs are mostly from within the district and therefore are well connected to the

information sources leading to asses risks for the teams (which is relatively less intensive for local

staff due to their social acceptance).In case the POs come from outside, we consider it highly essential to engage local APOs at an early

stage

Monitoring of progress in the field by PPAF / LACIP may suffer due to security impediments; it may

be worthwhile to engage consultants hailing from relevant districts to provide such services to the

projects


20/33

20

Chapter 4

Piloting in the fieldproposed outline

Following the agreement on the major steps for developing the MSP, the

participants, while discussing the next steps, suggested to pilot it in few places.

Some of the criteria for choosing a UC/District put forth are:

a) Strength/maturity of the POweak and strong/experienced partner

b) Social capitalUC where CO/VO exists and new area to build from scratch

c) Securitystable work conditions and less secure district

No prior agreement was made on final number or locations for piloting, however,

it was agreed in the workshop that LACIP-PMU shall do the piloting first and makerecommendations.

Since LACIP is in its 2nd

year of a 4-year phase/life (including one year extension)

it is envisaged that coverage will further expand from current 36 UCs in 5 districts.

The overall outreach is forecasted to reach to 60 UCs in KP through LACIP. At

present PPAF has contracted 19 POs with varying levels of capacities, coverage,

and progress (Annex 6, list of POs and locations). With such a diverse set of

engagement parameters, piloting in many locations would thinly spread the

energies of the technical support team who would not only devise/improvise

processes and instruments but also build enhance practical skills of the

stakeholders to ensure realization of the conceptual benefits of MSP at all level.

The chief among multifold purposes of MSP is to define practice guide and distill

lessons for up-scaling.

Though the OPM (para 3.6-a) states that 50% HHs in the UC shall be addressed

under the MSP but in terms of % of villages in a UC, the OPM is silent. A certainminimum village coverage in a UC would be essential for aadequately

representative MSP (UCDP). It is understood that as yet the current modalities

both contractual and policy/operational guidelines, do not clearly delineate the

minimum coverage the PO shall/must strive to develop first draft representative

MSP at UC level. It is suggested that PMU shall have a detailed look into the

current contracts and clarify the current and intended coverage to ascertain a

certain (adequate) minimum coverage for piloting MSP.

On the basis of the preliminary review of documents (a couple of proposals /

contracts) and discussion with the existing partners it is proposed that the pilot

should be carried out in Khot and ParowaUCs in districts of Chitral and Dera

Ismail Khan respectively. In addition, an area in the newly selected district of

Haripur is proposed for trying out the approach from scratch. Thus in total, pilot

in 3 UC would greatly aid in drawing learning for various categories of target

areas and partners. This piloting envisages all the VDPs in the UC, collating

these into a UC level MSP and in parallel work on the social organizations that

will serve as pre-requisite to arrive at such plans.

Irrespective of the final decision about UC/District, defining the complete process

leading up to MSP as per the OPM guideline is MSP submitted to PPAF for

approval and funding within six months of signing the contract. While this

condition would remain intact for all current and future PPOs the challenge in

essence is to figure out the process for existing and new areas.The OPM also use

the term batches of MSPsonce every month which is somewhat misleading

and requires clarification. The interpretation used for piloting is that a multi-

sectoral sense in planning is already reflected at VDP level and thus we take that

it is actually a Village MSPwhere all discussions on MSP have been understood

to be a UC level planthat might be called UCDP or MSP at UC level. Terminology

therefore needs to be well defined.

This required that the steps defined in Chapter 3 a re viewed from action lens to

determine the sequencing and feasible timeframe as well as the personnel

requirements from start to end. Final decisions with regard to the concerns raised

above would have bearing on the number of teams (described in FAQs, chapter 3)to be deployed in the field by the partners.

Overall, the table in Annex 7 depicts the key processes for a new UC/District laid

out on weekly basis ensuring that 1st draft MSPs are ready by the end of 4

th

month. The suggested approach relies on working on multiple processes in

parallel, maximally utilizing the staff of the PO. This saves nearly 2 months from

the 6 month timeframe defined in the OPM.


21/33

21

Use at

Use at

Use

Use

While preparing the scheduling chart, special attention was given to separate the

steps of planning from implementation, however, where time and staffing

permit parallel actions have been planned for both domains.

For instance, the rapid market assessment (step-1), analysis of secondary data

(2a), PO+APO staff orientation (2b), distilling broad potential opportunities and

investment needs (2d) would be carried out in parallel to the situation analysis at

villages (3).

The next block of steps related to the VDP development (4), community

institutions building (5) would be carried out in parallel to the filling of the PSCs

and identification of potential beneficiaries for LIP (7). Followed by LIPs

development (7a), LSO/UCDO constitution (6a) and collation of the VDPs (6b)

would be done in parallel.

At this stage the POs would be in position to start making the proposals for

funding of HH and collective benefit interventions/investments. In parallel to this

the trend analysis of VDPs (6c) and further augmentation of the UC level

information from the secondary & market data (6d) would be taken up,

culminating in the Draft MSP/UCDP (6e).

In order to add value and enhance the ownership of all involved (esp. line

department, other NGO and development actors) a series of steps are suggested.

These include a joint workshop to validate the MSP (6e) followed by alignment of

the VDPs (6f), if major strategic elements are added by other actors. At this stagethe MSP is technically ready, but to promote its use second joint sitting is

suggested to develop annual priority list (6e) for various resource (services)

providers. This would aid in follow-up of the MSP with various actors.

Moreover, the process attempts to ensure use of the learning in the subsequent

steps, this is shown by means of arrows showing flow of information. For instance

in both the VDP and LIP making the market potential would enrich the

communitys / HHs understanding to evaluate their aspirations. Thus,

classical/typical requests being made would be replaced with more meaningful

and lasting interventions is expected. In the existing/current UCs the pilot would

not revisit the PSCs and LIPs already implemented.

The detailed snapshot of piloting is given in the following. The diversity among

piloting regions poses a challenge, albeit essential to build a case for up-scaling in

a confident manner:


22/33

22

Chitral D.I. Khan Haripur

Union Council Khot Union Council Parowa Union Council: open

Number of villages: 09 Number of villages: 20 Number of villages: open

PO: AKRSP PO: AHO PO: NRSP

Population: Population: 28,216

We recommend moving on with the support of an APO right

from the start. There is an organized and registered LSO

called MID in this Union Council. We anticipate that a Union

Council based Development Organization may already be

present in the UC. The AKRSP is active in all the villages, has

organized a number of COs however village organizations

are not active in the area. With mature experience of AKRSP,

a convenient access to secondary data, we anticipate that the

process of 9 VDPs,UC MSP and cross checking of VDPs

alignment with the MSP will be completed within 4 months.

This is taking the account of long distances and remote

locations of the villages and weather factor.

Team requirement:

- 1 rapid market / VC appraisal will be conducted in the UC

at the beginning (consultant Helvetas / Intercooperation)

- Three teams are required including 2 social organizers: 1

male and 1 female. (PO)

- 1 lead facilitator will be provided by the consultant to

guide social organizers (Helvetas / Intercooperation)

- Support for data entry and analysis (PO)

- 1 person (manager level) will go through the existing

documents and suggest development trends at the stage

of VO/UC planning. The same person + teammates will

help in networking with other development actors (PO).

We strongly recommend engaging an APO from the

locality since AHO does not have local roots in the

district. Parowa is a rather large scale UC and a piloting

exercise can be a real challenge due to a large expected

coverage by LACIP. AHO is not active in all the villages,

therefore it is a question whether or not to include all

the villages in the process. The process of 20 villages will

have to begin from scratch with hardly any social

capital on ground. We therefore anticipate that the

entire process may take a little over 4 months before a

UC plan can be furnished. One should notice that at the

moment DI Khan is also not the easiest in terms of

security of NGO staff.

Team requirement

- Six teams are required including 2 social organizers:

1 male and 1 female- only if all 20 villages are to be

covered (PO)

- 1 lead facilitator will be provided by the consultant

to guide social organizers

(Helvetas/Intercooperation)

- Support for data entry and analysis (PO or APO)


documents and suggest development trends at the

stage of VO/UC planning. The same person +

teammates will help in networking with other

development actors (PO).

Haripur is a new addition in the LACIP districts, therefore

PPAF procedures may be new for the district. Our experience

however, suggests that Haripur is a highly organized and

enterprising district, with aware and outgoing communities

who received ample exposure from various development

agencies including Intercooperation and RSPs. Therefore we

count on an existing social capital and prior exposure of NRSP

to PPAFs way of holistic working. We anticipate that the

entire process of VDP and MSP planning will be accomplished

in 4 months.

Team requirement

- 1 rapid market / VC appraisal will be conducted in the UC

at the beginning (consultant Helvetas /

Intercooperation)

- Three teams are required including 2 social organizers: 1

male and 1 female (PO)

- 1 lead facilitator will be provided by the consultant to

guide social organizers (Helvetas/Intercooperation)

- Support for data entry and analysis (PO /APO)


documents and suggest development trends at the stage

of VO/UC planning. The same person + teammates will

help in networking with other development actors (PO).


23/33

23

Annex 1

One-Day workshop

Livelihood and Community physical Infrastructure support Project (LACIP)

Fine-tuning methodological steps and roles of different tiers in Multi-Sectoral Planning (MSP)

S. No. Content Lead

09:30 Opening- Welcome note and Workshop Objectives- Round of introduction- Further understanding in the plenary on why this workshop?- Opening remarks

Masood KhalidFacilitatorFacilitatorQazi Azmat Isa

10:00 What is LACIP, key targets, implementation challenges Masood Khalid

10:30 What is MSP and why? Ideas / Considerations Plenary

10:45 Martins report major recommendations (recap) Dr. Arjumand Nizami

11:30 Coffee / tea break

11:45 An example of VDP process Syed Nadeem Bukhari

12:15 Synthesisplenary brainstorming on MSP outlines Facilitator

13:15 Lunch / Prayers

14:00 How to go about MSP process in the field (options) 3 groups

15:00 Summarizingkey conclusions Facilitator / participants

15:30 Next steps Participants16:30 Closing remarks Qazi Azmat Isa

The background of the workshop:

PPAF as an organization believes in holistic approach in development and therefore is striving for integrated

development through building strong institutions in the field. For PPAF, institutional strengthening in the field is the key

to ensuring sustainability of development effects in poverty stricken areas. Therefore an idea of establishing

community / village organizations for delivering development services does not stop there it needs to be further

accompanied to achieve a wider understanding on development vision within a community for their development

and a living plan identifying how to achieve this development. MSP is an idea in this direction encompassing village

and Union Council levels, taking multiple sectors into account, and ensuring that the idea will be eventually supported

by the measures provided in LG Act when implemented. This workshop was identified for further fine tuning the MSP

concept and bring all the concerned at PPAF on one page.

Objectives:

- Collectively identify why MSPwhat it isand what will be the methodological steps to achieve a plan in a

village or a UC

- Understand the roles expected of various tiers (village, UC) for themselves and towards other development

actors

Expected outcome:

- An outline for partners orientation on the concept and methodology will be available as a result of theworkshop

- Internal clarity among the team to move on in the field through partners

- Identification of the next steps

Participants:

- LACIP PMU

- Dr. Allah Nawaz

- 2 members, LEP

- 1 member, health

- 1 member energy

- 1 member, MER

- Two members from Helvetas

- Facilitator MahmoodHemani supported by Roshan Ara


24/33

24

Annex 2

Fine Tuning Methodology Steps & Roles in Different Tiers in MSP

Jinnah Hall, PPAF Office, Islamabad

17th April 2013

S

# Name Designation Organization

1 Qazi Azmat Isa CEO PPAF PPAF

2 Masood Khalid GM-LACIP PPAF

3 Taimur Jehangir SME-LACIP PPAF

4 Fahd Usman SME-Kfw (PMU) PPAF

5 Zeeshan Azam Consultant-Kfw (PMU) PPAF

6 Muhammad Ayaz ME-PMU PPAF

7 Engr. Hayatullah Khan SNE-LACIP (PMU) PPAF

8 Zaheer-ud-Din Taj ME-WECC PPAF

9 Khurram Shahzad SM-MER PPAF

10 Ahsan UllahBaig ME-EHN PPAF

11 Waqas Nazir ME-EHN PPAF

12 Nasrullah Khan Consultant-LACIP PPAF

13 Ms. Tehseen Rafi Manager-LEP PPAF

14 Muhammad Shahid Khan SME-ID PPAF

15 Dr. Anwar Butt Consultant PPAF

16 Muhammad Riaz Manager-LEP PPAF

17 Ms. Anila Naimat ME-ID PPAF

18 Ms. SumairaGul ME-ID PPAF

19 Ms. Farzana Nadeem ME (GIS)-WEU PPAF20 Dr. Rubina Ashfaq SME-LACIP PPAF

21 Muhammad Shahbaz Shafique Manager-BISP PPAF

22 Anwar Mahmood Consultant PPAF

23 Ms. Roshan Ara Consultant Intercooperation

24 Dr. Arjumand Nizami Consultant Intercooperation

25 Nadeem Bukhari Consultant Intercooperation

26 Mahmood Hemani Consultant Intercooperation

27 Lt. Col. Zeeshan NLC

28 Maj. Humayun NLC


25/33

25

Annex 3

LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT & PROMOTION OF SMALL

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

(LACIP)

LACI-P

Total Project Amount is EUR 31.56 Million

Commencement of Project Implementation: April 2012

Completion of Project Implementation: Dec 2015

Project Districts: 6 (Charsadda, Buner, Swabi, Chitral, D.I.

Khan and Haripur)

Number of Union Councils: 60

The Project will benefit approximately 600,000 people

Per Person Average investment Cost is PKR 6,000

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Increased access to sustainable

social, economic and physical infrastructure

Increased employment and income

opportunities, especially for the poor

Development / Strengthening of local civil

society institutions

Enhanced participation of the population in

decision making

PROJECT COMPONENTS

Small and Medium Scale community infrastructure

Improvement and renovation of existing Health and

Education Units

Asset Transfers to the Vulnerable and Ultra Poor's

TARGETS

Activities TargetSmall and M edium Scale Infrastructureprojects

2,000

kill trainings for transitory poors 6,000Livelihood support for ultra poors 7,000Health and edu cation projects 120

ACHIEVEMENTS

Sr. No Project Type

Progress Up till

March 2013

1 Smalland Medium Scale Infrastructure Projects Initiated 378

2 Smalland Medium ScaleInfrastructure Projects Completed 113

3 Community Organizations 1177

5 Village Organizations formed 61

6 Livelihood Investment Plans completed 2819

7 Sk ill T ra in ings 1817

8 Assets Transferred 1427


26/33

26

CHALLENGES

Poor planning

security situation in KPK

Repercussions of Afghanistan after

2014

Disaster Prone target areas

Issues of Female Representation

CONTINUED

COs Bank account opening issues

POs/POs staff capacity, TNA

required

Pressure to increase utilization

CONTINUED

Anticipating Political Pressures after the May 11,

2013 Elections in Pakistan

LACIP PMU Field Monitoring issues due to

security risks Value Chain tools needed at PO level to enhance

their vision to create linkages and further

growth in respective markets

CONTINUED

Anticipating Political Pressures after the May 11,

2013 Elections in Pakistan

LACIP PMU Field Monitoring issues due to

security risks Value Chain tools needed at PO level to enhance

their vision to create linkages and further

growth in respective markets

WHY MSPWhere are you goingHow w ill you get there

hat will tell you that youvearrived

A MSP m odel is your program ROAD MAP


27/33


28/33

28

Annex 4:

Summary of recommendations on steps for village development planning and towards MSP

Martin Dietz Mission (collectively prepared with Dr.Robina Ashraf, Mr.FahadUsman, Mr.TaimurJehangir,

Mr. Martin Dietz, Mr. Klaus Euler)

1. Consult with key stakeholders at village, union council and district level to inform and get consent

It will be important to inform stakeholders from local government bodies and other local bodies of the MSP

processes right at the outset and get their consent.

2. Formation of inclusive planning group from within the LSO at UC level

LSOs should form an inclusive planning group at UC level. This group will initiate inclusive planning groups at

village level.

3. Capacity building of community facilitators (village development plan facilitator)

Planning should be seen as an ongoing activity. Plans need to be updated and further detailed. Therefore, local

expertise is required to accompany the planning process in future. For this purpose, it is proposed to train

community facilitators to accompany, support and facilitate the process. It is suggested to train at least two

persons per union council area.

4. Conduct a situation analysis / develop village profile

Planning has to be based on a good situation analysis. Attention needs to be given to a sound analysis of the

social and economic situation of a village. In an initial step data from secondary sources can be used; they

need to be verified through FGDs and / or key informants. The community facilitator and PO staff will take a lead

role for this step.

This baseline exercise will also include identification of ongoing and planned development initiatives and

resources. Use a simple data base format and mechanisms for its regular update.

The situation analysis should consider the following sectors: agriculture, forestry, education,

employment & enterprise, health, irrigation, drinking water, transport, infrastructure and OD/ID.

PPAF already has a guideline / list for conducting a situation analysis. This should be reviewed to ensure that it

will suit the actual purpose of MSP.

4. Identifying priority sectors of the village

The situation analysis must provide a good insight to the importance of the different sectors, considered in the

situation analysis, for the economy and livelihood of the population in the village. Taking on all sectors for detailed

planning may be a task that is beyond the capacities of a community. It is therefore proposed to select 3 to 4 sectors

for detailed planning while the remaining sectors will be touched in the planning process with less depth. The main

criterion for the selection of the priority sectors will be their role and contributions to the livelihood of the majority

of the population, specifically of disadvantaged communities and the economy of the village.

5. Development Goals to be achieved long-term (vision)

At the outset of the process the inclusive planning group with the support of the facilitator will identify long term

goals for their village. These goals should be cross-sectoral and relate to the envisaged overall changes of the village

over the coming 5 to 7 years.

6. Drawing up strategic (periodic) plans

For the identified priority sectors the Planning Group will develop simple, and as far as possible SMART medium term

goals (3 years). The goal statement should be complemented by describing the strategies which will outline how

these goals will be achieved. Setting the strategies should be based on an analysis of the problems that were

identified earlier. Jumping from problems to solutions should be avoided.

7. Drawing up annual plans and budgets


29/33

29

The strategic, medium term plan will be the base for drawing up an annual plan for the village. Projects / activities

will be planned for the coming year that contributes towards achieving the medium term goals of the village / UC.

These interventions should be selected by using criteria such as for instance:

High impact in short time;

Large number of people to benefit, completion with in one year;

Benefits for economically and socially disadvantaged are to be given high priority.

UCs / VOs should be supported to develop budgets for the planned projects and activities. This will be the realitycheck for the community planning.

8. Collating key elements of village development plans into a MSP of the Union Council

The LSO/APO will collate village development plans (periodic and annual) to develop a UC MSP. Such an MSP should

feed into district planning and be used to seek funding for UC projects identified through the MSP.

9. Interactions of UC with development actors

Link LSOs with development agencies (government, bilateral, INGOs and NGOs) in appropriate forums to present

their periodic and annual plans. Such interactions will provide opportunities for UCs to communicate their

development priorities and invite development actors to take up opportunities for development.

The recently approved legislation on Local Government by the KP Provincial Parliament may provide opportunity for

PPAF to embed MSP into a legal framework and promote this approach as mainstream throughout in KP.

Next steps towards preparing MSP

1. Discuss and further elaborate the issue within PPAF / LACI-P and finalized the concept

2. Identify a small working group within PPAF / LACIP and HELVETAS which will accompany field testing / piloting

3. Assess the details of the recently approved Local Government legislation to assess how MSP can fit best into this

legislation

4. Briefly assess and summarize ongoing village level planning work by some POs. Identify good practices that can be

incorporated into MSP

5. Identify potential and competent POs for piloting

6. Get feedback from POs on the concept

7. Consider to involve relevant officials from the KP Provincial Government early in the process

8. Develop details of the planning process, train PO staff and community facilitators (HELVETAS will be able to

support this part and share experience from other countries)

9. Identify one or two UCs

10. Get consensus from local stakeholders, including stakeholders at district level

11. Develop a monitoring system to ensure that learnings can be drawn from the pilots

12. Run the pilot

13. Evaluate, upscale, mainstream


30/33

30

Annex 5

Table 1: Guiding Principles of Integrated Village Planning (Government of KP, Forests Department)

Guiding Principles Check list

Participation All owners and users of NRs have been approached for initial information and in the rest of

the process

Rights of households from all village sections are knownVDC and WO include representatives from all community sections and hamlets

The VDC reaches consensus on objectives, division into management units and

interventions

Women, landless, poor in the community contribute in the village planning and decision

making

Poor and remotely located sections are also represented in management committees

All sections have a chance to participate in the monitoring committees established from

time to time

Integrated

approach

Initial information is collected about all land uses

A land use map is prepared with the consensus of the villagers

Representatives from forests and other line agencies participate in planning process

Interventions identified in the plan for all land uses and social services

Responsibilities for forest and other line agencies identified in the plan as per interventions

Responsibilities for the VDC, JFMC, WO and other management committees identified

Responsibilities of the beneficiaries identified

Sustainable use of

natural resources

Management plans include village regulations for controlled use (e.g. nagha)

Use intensities and timing compatible with growing cycles of vegetation

Use intensities and timing compatible with the needs of the people

Timber is not the only valued resource indicated in the plan there are interventions for

other sources of livelihoods as well

Pro-poor Household typology conducted in the village to identify different socio-economic groups in

the village

Poor and poorest identified through household typology are alsorepresented and

participate in VDC/WO as members

Contributions / benefit sharing of different sections agreed upon between themselves

Interventions are included in the plan which specially benefit the poorest / poor

Self accountability

and transparency

The entire planning process was inclusive and consultative

All sections of communities were involved in identifying interventions

Responsibilities are clearly identified in the plan (e.g. community, service providers)The plan document is villagers property, is open and accessible to all in the village

VDC identifies beneficiaries / locations of interventions in open meeting

Periodically the plans implementation progress is presented in general body by AMC


31/33

31

Annex 6:

List of partner NGOs and respective Union CouncilsLACIP

District- Wise PO's, PO's Funding and UCs Information

# District PO's Name of UC's Funding (Rs) In

Million

Total

1 Swabi SWWS Checknodha, Anbar 230.14 702.21

NRSP Asota, Bachai, Parmolai 207.1

SDF Sara Cheena, Yaqobi 128.63

GBTI Kohata, Batakra 136.34

2 Chitral AKRSP Yarkhoon, Khot, Oveer, Koh, Mulkhow, Chitral II 293.71 477.59

SRSP Arandu, Ashurait, Shishikoh 160.3

MIED Yarkhoon, Khot, Oveer, Koh, Mulkhow, Chitral II 23.58

3 Charsadda SRSP HisaraNehri, Hassanzai, Madani 201.19 234.47

SPADO Prang 33.28

4 Buner HADAF Mukhranai, Amazai 138.64 525.59

MGPO Chagalai, Ghorghosto 156.6

RDP Gulbandi 63.87

CGN-P Chaghlai,Mukharani, Gulbandi 30.14

EPS Koga, Nawagai 136.34

5 D.I Khan SERVE Shorekot 56.87 369.88

CUP Korai, Yarik 125.2

SABAWON Daraban, Chaudhwan 114.58

AHO Mehra 33.86

CIE Korai, Yarik, Daraban 39.37

Total 2309.74


32/33


33/33