Decentralization reforms and local
development
Brussels 13-17 April, 2015
Country Context

Pakistan is a federal state comprising four provinces (Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pkahtunkhwa, Balochistan),
each with its assembly and independent administrative structure and 3 autonomous regions (FATA,
Kashemere, Gilgit Baltistan).

Alternation between Military and Civilian rule, with different preferences for decentralization

Widespread corruption, patronage and clientelism, insecurity and militancy, cleavages along
multidimensional lines (family politics, ethnicities, military, security, civilian rule, judiciary, bureaucracy,
extremism, highly skewed distribution of wealth),

Lack of progress on MDGs

Constitutional provisions for Provinces to devolve fiscal, admin and political powers (art 140A), since 2010

Slow implementation of Local Government Acts since last general elections in May 2013

Historic experience of top-down development planning

Upcoming elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Province scheduled in May 2015

Local Government Act 2013 of KP foreseeing devolution of services to Districts including a direct allocation
of 30% of the total Annual Development Budget

District Administrations’ capacities weak
Past and current EU response
 tested approaches to local development through the use of thematic budget
line NSA-LA.
 Extension of the pilot through large grants with high quality local NGO,
supporting a specific model of citizens' coalitions interacting with local
authorities for improved service delivery.
 Supported the development of a policy framework to create fiscal space at
local level for community driven development with capacity building for local
authorities.
 Designed at the end of 2012 a budget support program (SRC), giving direct
responsibility of service delivery to the State, supported by Technical Assistance
and complemented by a grant for social mobilization through CSO.
 Design of a Performance Assessment Framework and selection of indicators
capturing policy objectives and key processes
 Fixed and Variable tranches respectively 42% and 58 %
Key choices in the new programming
cycle
 The programme developed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provides a model to adapt
in each province, according to the specific institutional
development/maturity/readiness met on the ground.
 No new BS intervention have been foreseen in the first half of MIPS 2014-2020
 In Balochistan and Sindh a mix of the following applies:
 Community mobilization and design of community local development plans
 Strengthening interactions between local authorities/governments and communities in
order to improve local development processes
 Capacity building of local authorities and local representatives
 Strong policy dialogue with Provincial Governments aiming at:
 Provision of additional resources to fund community initiatives
 Developing a policy framework for community driven local development
 Parallel understanding and engagement of Provinces in e PFM Reform road
map in coordination with key reference International Organizations.
Operational challenges
 complex interventions requiring time and resourceconsuming policy dialogue and contract management
 need to understand political-economy of
decentralisation (often fluctuating and evolving in a
fragile and insecure environment)
 Choice of BS modality based on HQ instruction not on a
real understanding of local contexts
 Then payment process questioned by HQ on local
realities
How to further deepen engagement at local level
and optimize the chances of impact?
 Continue to fine tune pilot innovative approaches through
NSA-LA thematic lines
 Develop tools for territorial analysis and participative
planning.
 Assess and study, with HQ help, ongoing large scale
interventions
 Identify and strengthen EUD political contribution to OPS
programming
 Continue policy dialogue to secure local budget allocation
for community driven local development