IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY ON ALL LEVELS
A Case of The Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF)
By Charles Mandala
A Paper Presented At a Workshop on Decentralization and Community
Empowerment: Sharing Lessons and Designing Actions
Nairobi, Kenya
1.0
BACKGROUND
The Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF) was established in 1995 as one of the
instruments for poverty reduction in Malawi. It was initially conceived within the
Government of Malawi’s Poverty Alleviation Framework. It has been implemented in
two phases and is now evolving into a third phase, largely shaped by current policy
changes, notably the decentralization policy and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
(PRSP).
The MASAF has three operational components. The Community Sub-Projects (CSP),
Public Works Program (PWP) and the Sponsored Sub-Projects (SSP) components. The
CSP finances community development initiatives of a self help nature. It embraces
community participation as a key operative principle. Funds under the CSP are channeled
directly to communities and are managed by the community through a democratically
elected community Project Management Committee (PMC). The PMC is a delegated
functionary of the community.
The PWP is a district level safety net operation. It finances public works activities where
households and individuals in poor and food deficient areas participating in the program
activities are offered a wage in cash. The SSP finances activities targeted at vulnerable
groups that are not able to organize or access MASAF resources under CSP, nor
participate in the PWP activities.
This paper presents accountability mechanisms, a case of the Malawi Social Action Fund.
It focuses on the Community Driven Component, which involves the direct channeling of
development resources to communities. Experiences with the application of community
level accountability mechanisms under MASAF are highlighted and recommendations
for improving accountability systems at the local level are offered.
2.0
MASAF CSP INSTITUTIONAL SET UP
The MASAF has a Board, which has Project oversight and policy guidance
responsibilities. A Project Management Unit manages the day-to-day operations of the
Project, including appraisal, approval of projects and operations supervision at the zone
level. To facilitate appraisal, approval and supervision, there are twelve zones through
out the country. These, together with district level technical staff support PMCs in
managing the implementation of projects at the community level.
1
3.0
THE ACCOUNTABILITY REGIME IN MASAF
Social funds in their conception are essentially an accountability platform in themselves.
Conventionally, they act as a government tool for leveraging public funds towards
investments that benefit the poor by responding directly to community needs. Social
Funds fill the gap arising from the slowness or weaknesses in the delivery process of
central or local governments. One of their distinguishing marks is their openness in the
carrying out of their operations (Parker and Serrano, 2000). In addition, they facilitate
collective action at community level in resolving common needs.
In MASAF, accountability and transparency are key operative principles that are built
into the design of the Project. Accountability mechanisms are intertwined and mutually
reinforcing. In sum, they include an intensive audit system, and an accounting and
justification system of actions and funds at the different levels of the Project management
subsystems. Approval and use of funding is closely monitored through a computerized
costing and accounting system, and a procurement plan and process that aims at
achieving efficiency, fairness and economy. A project tracking system designed to follow
each project approved also forms part of the accountability mechanism.
An output based staff performance appraisal system and a code of ethics are further
measures to enforce accountability. This is based on the principle that the achievement of
program outputs has necessarily to start with the micro-components and processes that
work towards the achievement of broader program goals.
A targeted Information, Education and Communication (IEC) are also an integral part of
the accountability mechanism under MASAF. At the community level, community
participation and the principle of collective responsibility represent major accountability
aspects.
4.0
COMMUNITY LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS
At the design stage, there were a number of contextual challenges in regard to designing
accountability mechanisms at the community level. The country was transiting from a
governance environment characterized by a culture of authoritarianism, which did not
allow for the scrutiny and questioning of the actions of those that were in authority. The
absence of a local governance structure1 and a general lack of or weak interest
aggregating mechanisms for communities were further challenges that the Project design
process needed to anticipate.
The overriding consideration in the design of the CSP component was community
empowerment. Thus, in designing this community driven component, a strategy that
would
facilitate
a
process
through
which
communities
would
be empowered was viewed as critical. A key tenet of this strategy was the placement of
public resources for community development in the hands of the participating
1
The Local Government Act was passed in 1998 and local Government elections were conducted in
November, 2000
2
communities. Consequently, where the responsibility for managing public resources was
to be given to the communities it became imperative to introduce robust mechanisms to
prevent likely conditions that would lead to waste and malfeasance at the local level.
Driving principles that were viewed as key in realizing the community empowerment
goal were direct financing into community project accounts, promotional campaigns
through use of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) tools, evidence of
active community participation in project cycle stages, independent project management,
transparency and accountability requirements and promotion of partnership and
mobilization of stakeholders in assisting communities realize their development needs. In
addition, deliberate efforts to increase the capacity of communities (e.g. training) to
monitor use of Project funds were key.
In view of the foregoing, the approach that was adopted under the community driven
component was Community Contracting. Under this method, funds are disbursed
directly into community project accounts and the execution of a sub- project is left with
the community, as opposed to a public or private agency. A Project Management
Committee (PMC) is elected and delegated to manage the implementation of the project
on behalf of the community. The PMC has to account for use of project funds as well as
its actions in regard to running of the project.
Below is a summary of accountability mechanisms at the community level under
MASAF, which are largely based on beneficiary participation.
i.
Targeted IEC and Capacity Building at the local level: promotional activities
that inform communities about funding opportunities are one form of a
mechanism that promotes accountability. A targeted IEC to communities to the
effect that there are funding opportunities to meet community needs in effect
constitutes a mechanism that informs communities that they are entitled to
development resources and all the services in support of communities’ efforts.
This engenders a sense of public service and responsibility amongst public
agencies and officers.
ii.
Independent Project Management: A Project Management Committee (PMC)
is required for the implementation management of each community project. The
committee, which is elected democratically, is delegated to manage the project on
behalf of the entire community. In order to be able to manage public funds
entrusted to it, the PMC assumes a legal status by signing a Financing Agreement
with MASAF. The insistence on the independent project management principle
and the training that is offered to PMCs has actively discouraged improper
influence from powerful individuals (e.g. Members of Parliament) within
communities. A Community Project Management Handbook aids the PMC in the
management of the project.
iii.
Project Launching Ceremony and Legal Requirements: before
commencement of implementation a public launch of sub-projects is carried out,
3
and requires the participation of at least 50 percent of the adult population in the
participating community, including traditional and political leadership. It is during
the launching ceremony that the foundation for the different forms of
accountability is laid down. Communities are informed through the project
launching ceremony of their oversight responsibilities for the project
management. The PMC is required to report to the entire community on use of
funds, progress and difficulties experienced in the implementation of the subproject. Roles for the leadership in regard to the project are also spelt out at this
stage, setting for each stakeholder the project accountability standards against
which they will be measured.
As part of the launching ceremony, a project Financing Agreement is signed
between the community (represented by the PMC) and MASAF. The Financing
Agreement, which is a legal document and is guided by the laws of Malawi, is
another mechanism for instilling a sense of accountability and responsibility, in
regard to the use of public funds at the local level.
iv.
Checks and Balances at the community level: in the procurement of project
materials and services, there are mechanisms to guard against creating a situation
where decision making powers are concentrated in a few people or one person.
For instance, in the procurement of materials, the chairperson sanctions the
transactions but the actual procurement is done by a different group of people.
Rotational procurement arrangements and use of a price list and bills of quantities
guard against collusion among PMC members. In addition, in the management of
the project account, the chairperson is not a signatory to the account. Once
materials have been purchased, the PMC reports to the entire community,
specifying how much of the funds have been used and what is remaining in the
project account.
v.
Expenditure Justification process: Funds to communities are released in
tranches. Subsequent disbursements to communities occur only upon satisfactory
justification of the current and previous tranche and physical verification of
construction progress on the ground. A detailed expenditure report to which alloriginal receipts for the purchases made in a particular tranche are attached is
submitted to the zone office. These are scrutinized by the zone office to ensure
that they are complete. This report is subsequently submitted to the MASAF
Management Unit where it is checked to verify that all the documentation is
genuine and that procurement of materials was done efficiently, before release of
the subsequent tranche is effected.
vi.
Accounting, Internal and External Audit processes: accounting for funds at the
community level is done using a basic manual system. At the zone level a manual
system is also maintained but aided by computer. At the management unit, a
computerized data base structured accounting system is operated. Financial
Statements are produced periodically and distributed to stakeholders.
4
In addition, there are both internal and external audits that are conducted
periodically focusing on he application of funds and the functioning of Project
systems. The World Bank, the Government of Malawi through the National Audit
Office and the MASAF internal audit unit constitute the institutions that carry out
the audit process. External audits are conducted bi-annually while World Bank
audits are undertaken during supervision missions. Internal audits are undertaken
on a continuous basis.
vii.
Political Accountability: Again, as in the case of elected PMC members, the
approach where communities are given the opportunity to participate actively in
the project processes has occasioned challenges for leadership. Increasingly, there
are demands on both political and civic leaders to lead their representatives
effectively. Where beneficiary communities perceive that those elected, as leaders
are not performing their duties in regard to projects funded by MASAF, they have
openly challenged their representatives to fulfill their roles or risk not being voted
for in the subsequent elections. In other instances, weak leaders have simply been
sidelined. Thus, downward accountability is enforced through requiring that both
the energies of the leadership and the entire community be galvanized for the
implementation of the project. In some areas, members of parliament have written
to MASAF complaining that their political careers were “at stake” because “your
committees have mobilized the whole community to de-campaign me”.2
viii.
Administrative Accountability: the MASAF Management Unit, as well as other
public offices at the district level have also come under increasing pressure to
support communities. The demand driven principle in project financing for
instance, and the numerous projects that are under implementation, has led into
pressure on the public institutions to be responsive to community needs. Since
MASAF and other public officers bear the duty of community service, they can
no longer view their work as “ business as usual”. There is a renewed sense of
commitment to duty; otherwise their relevance is put to question. This level of
accountability is expected to grow with the institution of local authorities that are
to take control of their own staff.
Furthermore, because of the community driven nature of the processes in a social
fund, government is forced to reach out even to the remotest communities who
receive information about project funding opportunities and demand for project
funding assistance.
ix.
2
Fiscal Accountability: Another key feature of the community contracting
approach under MASAF is the requirement for communities to contribute at least
20 percent of the project costs. This comes in the form of materials such as sand,
bricks, and management services. In addition, the community contributes to the
operation and maintenance costs. For instance, in water facilities financed by
MASAF there are committees charged with the responsibility to collect user fees
(urban and peri-urban areas) or maintenance funds (rural areas).
Letter from an MP who rarely visited his constituents.
5
This process of soliciting and using resources for development and operation and
maintenance of facilities at the community level necessarily entails the
community monitors the application of the resources. In this regard, use of
materials and funds from MASAF are carefully monitored at the community level
to ensure that all project targets are met. Apart from holding the community level
committees to account, in instances where savings have been realized on MASAF
grants, some communities have demanded that balances on the approved budgets
be retained within the community. This is indicative of the fact that where
measures are taken to ensure transparency, there is a high likelihood of the
beneficiaries to enforce downward accountability.
5.0
COMMUNITY CONTRACTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY: overview of
the MASAF Experience
In general, the experience with implementing community contracting has shown
that there is greater accountability for the funds at the local level. Social and peer
pressure at the local level have been key in ensuring increased accountability at
the local level. The training of PMCs in project implementation management
(including basic bookkeeping) and provision of information to the wider
community about the size of the sub-project budgets and implementation
processes has enabled communities to demand accountability from PMCs.
Community auditing and inter-committee exchange visits have further helped to
enforce accountability and learning among communities. Where communities
have viewed PMCs’ dealings to be less than transparent, the entire committee has
been removed. In some instances, the community has simply withdrawn its
support to project activities, which has prompted investigation and subsequent
removal of the PMC or an exposure of powerful individuals exerting undue
influence on the project processes. Thus, to a large extent, the survival of a PMC
has depended on whether or not the entire community continues to trust it.
This approach has also contributed to generating some form of downward
accountability. The MASAF Management Unit, public offices at the district, and
public representatives have found themselves in a situation where they are forced
to perform the duties that they bear in a more responsive manner than was the
case before. This has been indicative of the critical role that vibrant communities
can play in strengthening local governance and downward accountability.
6.0
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The MASAF experience has shown the potential of a social fund to strengthen
accountability at the community level, and how a social fund can galvanize local level
governance. In Malawi, and most of the developing countries, mechanisms for enforcing
downward accountability are lacking. The capacity of communities to demand
accountability from central and local governance structures is greatly diminished by an
6
absence of interest aggregating mechanisms. Social Fund processes act as an interest
aggregating mechanism- identification of common needs and ensuring that they are
collectively resolved and managed at the community level. In addition, demands are
placed on the public policy process for reform and responsiveness to local needs.
Although the processes that enforce accountability under MASAF are primarily limited
to the particular project that is funded in a community, it is evident that they have far
reaching implications on the improvement of accountability at all levels, and the
decentralization process. They show that entrusting communities with the management
and monitoring of public resources, building their capacity to manage and monitor the
use of those resources and putting information related to the use of those resources in the
public domain should be key considerations in a strategy that aims at improving
accountability at all levels. They also point to the need for building capacity for
communities to demand accountability from both their elected representatives and public
offices at the local as well as central level.
While the direct financing principle empowers local people to participate in the
determination and utilization of public finances, the accompanying accountability and
transparency principle demands that people are given requisite information and skills to
enable them manage the finances. Deliberate steps have to be taken to build the capacity
of both the central and local governance structures to be accountable downwards, as well
as the capacity of the service users to demand accountability. The underlying effect of
this arrangement has been the labeling of MASAF as being synonymous with
“development” in all possible senses, ranging from the conscietization of ordinary
citizens to participate in decision making regarding the development of their local areas,
to the achievement of the much needed human capital development and realization of
social capital formation for national development.
In view of the above, the following measures are suggested:
Allow communities to manage public resources geared at creating community
assets, and institute mechanisms that allow for openness and broader
participation. Communities should assume greater responsibility over the creation
and maintenance of the assets.

Facilitate the creation of structures and processes at the community level that act
as rallying points for common needs. These will be key not only in articulating
community needs, but also in demanding accountability from both local and
central governance structures

Use of communication to inform users/beneficiaries that they are entitled to
services/public resources, where and how these may be obtained. However, this
has to be reciprocated by a commitment to contribute either in kind or in cash by
the users/beneficiaries.
7

In the wake of increased responsibility by local government structures, and in an
environment where there are increasing tendencies towards corruption involving
collusion, the introduction of a code of ethics and performance-based culture for
the public servant and some form of community auditing would be key to
enhancing productivity and accountability.
8
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. De Silva S, 2000. Community Based Contracting: A Review of Stakeholder
Experience
2. Gopal G, 1995. Procurement and Disbursement Manual for Projects with Community
Participation, World Bank, Washington DC
3. MASAF 1997. Beneficiary Assessment I, Lilongwe
4. MASAF 1998. Project Implementation Manual, Lilongwe
5. MASAF 2000. MASAF Beneficiary Assessment II, Lilongwe
6. Moyo S, Makumbe J and Raftopoulos, B, 2000. The State, NGOs and Politics in
Zimbabwe, SAPES Books, Harare
7. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1999. Public Sector
Corruption: An international Survey of Prevention Measures, OECD Publications,
France
8. Rose-Ackerman, S. 1999, Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences and
Reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
9. Stiglitz J E, 1999. “The Role of Participation in Development”, Development
Outreach, Volume I, Number I, pp 10-13
10. World Bank, Africa Region, Undated. Community Driven Development in Africa: A
Vision of Poverty Reduction Through Empowerment
11. Andrew Parker and R. Serrano, 2000. “Promoting Good Local Governance through
Social Funds and Decentralisation”, World Bank,
9