Слайд 1 - Министерство социального развития Кировской области

;
RUSSIA LOCAL INITIATIVES
SUPPORT PROGRAM
BBL
Moscow, February 19, 2015
OUTLINE






Background/Context
LISP approach
LISP Program
Results
Outcomes
Challenges and way forward
RUSSIA LISP BBL,
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
Background/Context
DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES IN RUSSIAN
RURAL COMMUNITIES

30% of Russia population (42% of all poor) lives in
rural areas with very low quality of life:




2/3 of rural settlements do not have centralized water supply
95% of rural settlements have no sewerage
1/3 of rural settlements have no hard-surfaced access roads
No significant changes since early 90-s. Existing social
infrastructure has dilapidated.
Growing social apathy of the population;
lack of trust between the population and authorities
RUSSIA ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
/
RUSSIA
REGIONAL LEVEL
83 regions
Region 1
Region 83
…
RAYON LEVEL
2,335 higher level
municipalities
…
Rayon 1
Rayon N
…
Rayon 1
Rayon N
1,815 rayons+520 urban districts
up to 60 rayons per region
Village N
…
Village 1
Village N
…
Village 1
…
Village N
Village 1
Village N
…
Village N
…
Village N
…
Settlement N
…
Settlement 1
Settlement N
…
Settlement 1
Settlement N
Village 1
Village N
Village 1
Village N
…
Village 1
Village N
…
5-20 villages per settlement
Village 1
VILLAGE LEVEL
over 170,000 villages
…
~10 settlements per rayon
Settlement 1
18,525 rural+1,660 urban
Settlement N
20,185 lower level
municipalities
…
Settlement 1
SETTLEMENT LEVEL
THERE IS NO GOOD MECHANISM TO IDENTIFY
AND ADDRESS LOCAL NEEDS

No funds are available at the settlement level
Revenue base of settlements is very weak
 Most budget resources are accumulated and spent in higher level
municipalities (regional or rayon centers)
 Transfers from regional to settlement budgets are not in use;
transfers from rayon to settlement budgets are not transparent


Funds available at the higher level budgets are mainly used to
finance infrastructure projects in rayon centers

“Top-down” approach is used to identify development
priorities; population is not involved in decision making

While the legal framework for the community engagement is
established (FZ#131), there is no experience, incentives, and capacity
for the community involvement
Interesting fact: there is strong competition for the position of a rayon
head but nobody wants to be a head of settlement
SIMPLE LISP GAME
YOU
YOUR TYPICAL ISSUES
YOUR TYPICAL
ACTIONS
Head
of a typical
settlement
Conditions of “critical”
infrastructure: community
center, road, water supply
Send requests
(«хотелки»)
to the Governor
Governor
of a typical
region
• Swamped with
requests from
settlement heads;
• No funds to cover all
the requests
• No idea how to
prioritize requests
• Suggest that
settlements deal with
their problems by
their own
• Continue to finance
big infrastructure
projects
Interesting fact: a head of a settlement thinks he needs 30 mln Rub for
reconstruction of a community center while he really needs less than 3 mln Rub
SIMPLE LISP GAME
YOU
Typical
LISP
TTL
YOUR TYPICAL ISSUES
YOUR TYPICAL
ACTIONS
Go to the
Governor and
suggest him LISP
Interesting fact: Per each 100 Rub invested in LISP a regional budget
would get 30 Rub of local co-financing of which just 5 Rub would be paid
for the Bank RAS
«Это действительно один из наших самых масштабных и программных проектов. Суть в том, что мы
одновременно и решаем какие-то вопросы местного значения, конкретные проблемы, и поднимаем
сознательность граждан»
Никита Белых
(Никита Белых: Нужна децентрализация власти // “Новая газета» №34, от 28 марта 2012 г.:
http://old.novayagazeta.ru/data/2012/034/12.html)
Запускаем пилотный проект по поддержке местных инициатив. Проект, на мой взгляд, очень важный и
перспективный. Его главная цель – вовлечение граждан в решение конкретных социально-значимых
задач»
«Данный проект, на мой взгляд, - это предметный шаг для развития местного самоуправления, когда
определение и решение проблем во многом зависит от активности самих граждан»
Валерий Шанцев
http://shantsevvp.livejournal.com/82518.html
«Нам близка идеология Всемирного Банка, которая пропагандирует сохранение исторического наследия
и вовлечение общества в создание комфортных условий для жизни»
«В ней [ППМИ] приняло участие каждое пятое поселение региона. Это свидетельствует о ее
актуальности и востребованности. Самое главное, люди поверили, что качество жизни зависит от них
самих»
Андрей Шевелев
(Пресс-служба Правительства Тверской области http://region.tver.ru/news/?id=6468)
«Программа поддержки местных инициатив позволяет, с одной стороны, оперативно решать наиболее острые
проблемы муниципальных образований, а с другой – является хорошим способом вовлечения граждан в управление
развитием своего поселения. После отладки системы планируется увеличить объёмы финансирования и создать на
её основе эффективный инструмент восстановления общественной инфраструктуры городских и сельских поселений
края, позволяющий ежегодно реализовывать 90 - 100 проектов»
Вячеслав Шпорт
(Пресс-служба Губернатора и Правительства Хабаровского края: http://khabkrai.ru/news/newsfull.html?id=27392)
«Местные инициативы – серьезный ресурс для решения очень многих социальных и экономических
проблем. Государству важно их поддерживать, и Ставрополье уже несколько лет идет по этому пути»
«Приятно отметить, что Ставрополье является первым российским субъектом, в котором при содействии
Всемирного Банка дан старт проекту по поддержке местных инициатив. С опорой на наш опыт, сегодня
он реализуется и в других регионах страны»
Владимир Владимиров
(Буклет про Проект поддержки местных инициатив в Ставропольском крае)
RUSSIA LISP BBL,
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
LISP Approach
LISP SOLUTION
In 2005 Bank suggested that GoR launches a CDDtype program (LISP) that would identify and
address community needs through:
Delegating decision making re local level priorities to
population
Channeling funds to the lowest level municipalities
(settlements)
Strengthening capacity at the local level
LISP MECHANISM

Subsidies from regional budgets to support
micro-projects aimed at improving local
level social infrastructure:





re-construction of community centers;
construction of rural roads;
organization of water-supply;
children playgrounds, street lightening, territorial
improvement, etc.
Micro-projects are to be:





identified by population;
jointly prepared by population initiative groups and
local administrations;
co-financed by population, local government and local
business;
competitively selected by the regional committee
based on transparent and formal criteria;
completed within 1 year.
LISP TECHNOLOGY AND NEED FOR TA
Community meetings to identify
micro-projects
Lack of practice of conducting
community meetings
Preparation of micro-project
applications by initiative groups
and administrations
No capacity for preparation of
micro-project application and
technical documentation
Competitive selection of microprojects by regional committee
No procedure and criteria for
assessing applications
Provision of subsidies to
settlements
No mechanism to transfer funds
from regional budgets
Local procurement
No practice of local procurement
Micro-project implementation
Lack of capacity for monitoring
micro-projects
BANK ROLE
 Design and methodology
 Capacity building: training courses, ongoing advice and onjob training for regional and local authorities
 Facilitation of community meetings
 Assistance in preparation of micro-project applications
 Supervision, expertise, analysis, recommendations
 Dissemination: summary workshops, conferences,
informational materials, etc.
LISP TEAM
8
Ivan, TTL
Anna, ETC
Irina, STC
Ksenia,
Assistant
Based: WB Moscow CO
Design,
methodology,
MIS, capacity
building,
expertise,
analytical work
Sergei, STC
Gagik, STC
Sasha, STC
Nastya,
STC
Based: Stavropol, Yerevan
20-30
(2-8 per region)
Facilitation of community
meetings, supervision of
micro-projects, ongoing
advice to municipalities
STC
STC
STC
STC
STC
Based: in regions
STC
STC
RUSSIA LISP BBL,
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
LISP Program
RUSSIA LISP PROGRAMMATIC RAS
(P149552)
 Duration:
3 years
FY14 (April 2014) – FY17 (March 31, 2017)
 PDO: to assist interested regional governments
from the Russian Federation in identifying and
addressing community needs through a
participatory approach
 Components:


Regional child RAS activities (6 RASs in FY15)
Cross-cutting support to LISP Program
(child BB-financed activity)
LISP REGIONS
Stavropol krai (SK)
from 2007
Kirov oblast (KO)
from 2009
Tver oblast (TO)
from 2012
Nizhegorodskaya oblast (NO)
from 2013
Khabarovsk krai (KhK)
from 2013
Republic of Bashkortostan (RB)
from Feb.2014
Republic of North Ossetia-Alania
(RNO-A) from Dec.2014
ACTIVE
RASS
MAIN BANK DELIVERABLES IN CY14: REGIONAL RASS
Deliverables
Kirov5
Tver2+3
Bashkortostan
Khabar
ovsk-2
North
Ossetia
Draft regulatory framework and guidelines on
LISP implementation
35 training courses and information seminars
for local authorities on LISP mechanisms and
procedures
Facilitation of 1082 community meetings in
LISP participating settlements
5
19
5
3
3
798
105
116
34
29
221
116
53
69
Advisory services to local authorities and initiative
groups of 366 settlements in preparation of subproject applications
332 monitoring reports on sub-projects
implementation based on field visits by local
consultants and stuff
Final technical report on LISP results and Bank
deliverables
Fully operational regional LISP MIS
Impact evaluation survey (baseline)
Summary workshop
210
29
HIGHLIGHTS: LISP MIS
Database with all
projects, consultants’
reports, pics from
community meetings
etc.
Online submission of
applications
Automatic evaluation of
applications
On-line monitoring
Analytical reports
Networking
municipalities,
responsible ministry
and Bank consultants
HIGHLIGHTS : LISP SCHOOL



Tver oblast
Every October
Near 400 “students” each year
Main topics:
1) LISP principles,
procedures, and
parameters
2) Community meetings
3) Local co-financing
4) Preparation of microproject application
All municipal heads
receive training
on use of LISP MIS
HIGHLIGHTS: LISP IMPACT EVALUATION
• Baseline and Follow-up Surveys
• Treatment and control groups
• Two groups of respondents:
 Population (sample: 1200 people per year)
 Local authorities (sample: 200 people per year)
Interesting fact: we do sell impact evaluation to our clients!
HIGHLIGHTS:ANNUAL LISP CONFERENCE
•
More than 400
participants
KIROV LISP CONFERENCE, 2012
•
Chaired by
Governor
Governor
Mr.N.Belykh
Conference,
Handing thankyou letters
Conference,
Participants
Round table with
representatives of 9
Russian regions
HIGHLIGHTS: LISP BOOKLETS
CROSS-CUTTING SUPPORT TO LISP PROGRAM
Information/knowledge
sharing events
Preparation of a
detailed information
note
COMPONENTS
Support to the federal
level dialogue
Managing, monitoring
and analysis of LISP
Program results
MAIN BANK DELIVERABLES :
CROSS-CUTTING SUPPORT TO LISP PROGRAM
To date (in CY14-CY15)

Information/knowledge sharing events
 LISP presentation at the workshop organized by MoF RF and RF Open
Government “Population engagement in Open Budget” (Moscow, Sept.9,
2014)
 LISP master-class, organized by RF Open Government (Ulianovsk, June
26, 2014)
 LISP presentation at Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum (Krasnoyarsk,
Feb.27-March 1, 2014)

Detailed LISP overview for 2007-2015 (in process)

Support to the federal level dialogue with MoF, Open
Government, and Ministry for North Caucasus Affairs

Managing, monitoring and analysis of LISP Program results
MAIN BANK DELIVERABLES :
CROSS-CUTTING SUPPORT TO LISP PROGRAM
Planned (in CY15 – until June 30, 2015)

Information/knowledge sharing events







LISP master-class at the WB workshop on local sources of institutional
resilience to fragility and conflict in the North Caucasus region of the RF
(Vladikavkaz, Feb. 25)
LISP presentation at the workshop organized by Research Institute of MoF RF
“Budget as the subject of social science” (Moscow, March 4, 2015)
LISP section at the WB workshop/conference for North Caucasus regions
(Vladikavkaz, April 2015 – TBC)
LISP workshop for Russia regions and federal authorities (Ufa, May 2015 – TBC)
LISP master-class under the workshop on participatory budget organized by
European Institute (St.Petersburg, June 2015)
LISP presentation at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum
(St.Petersburg, June 18-20, 2015)
Support to the federal level dialogue
Article on LISP published in “Finance” journal and disseminated among Russia
Governors
 Joint LISP workshop/master-class with MoF RF for Governors and regional
ministers of Finance

RUSSIA LISP BBL,
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
Results
MAIN RESULTS
Population
involvement
Participatory microprojects implemented
Local co-financing
POPULATION INVOLVEMENT IN LISP IN 2014
Over 1,000 community meetings
Total (2007-2014): around 3,000 meetings
Over 130,000 participants of
community meetings:
20% of adults in KO
 Up to 60% of adults in selected
municipalities

Over 3,300 members of community
initiative groups
POPULATION INVOLVEMENT
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
Nizhnyi Novgorod
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
Tver oblast
Bashkortostan
Stavropol krai
Kirov oblast
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
34
Bashkortostan
Stavropol krai
Bashkortostan
Kirov oblast
POPULATION INVOLVEMENT
POPULATION INVOLVEMENT IN MICRO-PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
In-kind contribution by
population
Republic of Bashkortostan
Uchalinskyi rayon,
Karimovo village
Khaibullinskyi rayon,
Fiodorovka village
Uchalinskyi rayon,
Nauruzovo village
PARTICIPATORY MICRO-PROJECTS IN 2014
535 micro-projects completed in 2014
Total (2007-2014): around 2,000 micro-projects



Near 450 rural roads reconstructed in Kirov oblast in 20102014
Near 350 water supply projects in Kirov oblast in 2010-2014
Near 150 community centers reconstructed in Tver oblast and
Stavropol krai in 2007-2014
Over 1,200,000 direct beneficiaries in 2014
MICRO-PROJECTS COMPLETED IN CY14
Type of micro-pro
Kirov
Tver
66
118
29
28
14
16
2
2
4
19
15
Sport facilities
23
-
3
6
Settlements improvement
52
6
1
2
Recreation centers and
playgrounds
27
8
-
6
Street lightening
24
6
-
2
20
359
15
93
5
13
15
69
Water supply
Roads
Community centers
Other types
Total: 535
Khabarovsk Bashkortostan
MICRO-PROJECTS COMPLETED –
WATER SUPPLY
before
before
after
after
MICRO-PROJECTS COMPLETED –
COMMUNITY CENTERS
before
before
after
after
MICRO-PROJECTS COMPLETED –
CHILDREN PLAYGROUNDS
before
before
after
after
MICRO-PROJECTS COMPLETED –
SPORT FACILITIES
before
after
after
MICRO-PROJECTS COMPLETED – BRIDGES
before
before
after
after
CASH CO-FINANCING, MLN RUB (%)
Source of financing
Total
KO
2014
ТО
2014
RB
2014
KhK
2014
NO
2013*
SK
2013*
Regional budget
69%
241,1
(70%)
56,6
(54%)
59,5
(72%)
17,4
(75%)
20,0
(63%)
61,7
(84%)
Local co-financing, including
31%
104,6
(30%)
47,6
(46%)
22,5
(28%)
5,6
(25%)
11,9
(37%)
11,3
(16%)
• Population contribution
10%
37,1
(12%)
13,5
(13%)
7,1
(9%)
1,5
(7%)
4,1
(13%)
1,3
(2%)
• Municipal budget
15%
43,8
(11%)
30,0
(29%)
9,0
(11%)
2,9
(13%)
6,2
(19%)
7,1
(10%)
6%
23,7
(7%)
4,0
(4%)
6,4
(8%)
1,2
(5%)
1,6
(5%)
2,9
(4%)
100%
345,8
(100%)
104,3
(100%)
82,0
(100%)
23,1
(100%)
31,9
(100%)
73,0
(100%)
• Legal entities and other
Total
Legal entities and other
Municipal
budget
Population
contribution
15%
10%
* In 2013 LISP in SK and NO was
implemented without the Bank
6%
69%
Regional
budget
RUSSIA LISP BBL,
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
Outcomes
MAIN OUTCOMES
 Improved
targeting of local needs
 Improved satisfaction of population
with:



quality of life in communities
quality of local social services
local self governance practices
LISP TARGETS REAL NEEDS OF THE
POPULATION
• 90% of the population
believe that the problems
solved under LISP were
“important” or “very
important”
55
Very important
35
Important
Not important
1
Absolutely not
important
0
n/a
• 82% of the population
are regularly using
outputs of the LISP
Yes
No
82
18
8
(measured by KO LISP Sociological Survey, 2010-2013)
IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE IN COMMUNITIES
35
30
32
26
25
23
20
15
Life has improved
Life got worse
15
10
5
0
LISP participants
LISP non-participants
IMPROVED SATISFACTION OF POPULATION BY
THE PROVISION OF LOCAL SOCIAL SERVICES
2.44
2.71
Cemetery
Improvement
Благоустройство
кладбищ
2.05
2.35
Condition
of sport facilities
Состояние объектов
физкультуры
и спорта
2.89
2.33
2.41
2.77
2.77
2.56
Collection,
removal
andи utilization
waste
Уборка,
вывоз
утилизацияofмусора
Condition
of monuments
Состояние памятников
природы
и культуры
2.45
2.62
Conditionучреждений
of culturalкультуры
centers
Состояние
3.22
3.15
1.85
2.22
Street lightening
Уличное
освещение
2.89
2.7
2.53
Water supply
Водоснабжение
Condition of roads
and pavements
Состояние
дорог, улиц
2.12
1
2010
3.22
LISP
non-participants
2013 - не
участвовали
в ППМИ
3.39
2.52
2.71
3
LISP participants
2013 - участвовали
в ППМИ
5
TO WHAT EXTENT YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH THE
FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF THE SELF-GOVERNANCE?
(BALANCE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESPONSES)
30
16
20
2010
2013
14
10
0
-10
-20
-16
-30
-11
-25
-31
-40
-50
-52
-60
LISP participants
LISP nonparticipants
Targeting real needs of the
population in the social services
provision
LISP participants
-59
LISP nonparticipants
Transparency in the use of budget
funds
POPULATION ATTITUDE TOWARDS LISP
 89%
of population in KO thinks that the
LISP should be continued
Continued
Terminated
Replaced by another program
n/a
89
1
6
4
(measured by KO LISP Sociological Survey, 2010-2013)
CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD
Challenges
•
•
•
Political climate in Russia
Devaluation of RUB and corresponding increase in RAS
prices
Financial conditions in regions
Proposed strategy
•
•
Cross-cutting activities
Federal level dialogue
THANKS FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!