Public Disclosure Authorized Kingdom of Lesotho Local Governance, Decentralization and Demand-Driven Service Delivery VOLUME II: ANNEXES Public Disclosure Authorized DRAFT REPORT - CONFIDENTIAL WORLD BANK Public Disclosure Authorized IN COLLABORATION WITH GOVERNMENT OF LESOTHO, GTZ, AND FAO JUNE 27, 2007 Public Disclosure Authorized Table of Contents ANNEX 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ON DECENTRALIZATION IN LESOTHO 3 ANNEX 2: DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT 10 ANNEX 3A: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT AS AMENDED .10 ANNEX 3.B STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT IN THE SECTORS ..........................................................18 ANNEX 3: CONCEPT PAPER ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT 27 ANNEX 4: PERCEPTIONS OF DECENTRALIZATION AT COMMUNITY AND DISTRICT LEVEL 31 ANNEX 4. 1 ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON METHODOLOGY, CCS AND VILLAGES ..................................................31 ANNEX 4.2 THE STORY OF MR POTSO CHALLENGING THE RIGHT TO FINE WITHOUT ISSUING RECEIPT ............32 ANNEX 5: PRIORITIES, ACCESS AND QUALITY OF SERVICES 33 ANNEX TABLE 5.1: PRIORITY AND ACCESS TO SERVICES ACROSS VILLAGES WITH DIFFERENT ROAD ACCESS ..33 ANNEX FIGURE 5.1: SERVICE PRIORITY IN THABA-TSEKA ...............................................................................34 ANNEX FIGURE 5.2: SERVICE ACCESS IN THABA-TSEKA..................................................................................35 ANNEX TABLE 5.2: STATUS OF SERVICES FOUND IN VILLAGES VISITED BY THE TEAM..................................36 ANNEX 6: PROPOSED LEGAL CHANGES 39 ANNEX 7: ALLOCATION OF FY2006/07 CAPITAL GRANT TO THE 128 COMMUNITY COUNCILS 43 ANNEX 8: DETAILED AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE RECOMMENDATION 47 ANNEX TABLE 8.1: RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO RANGELAND USE AND MANAGEMENT ........................48 ANNEX TABLE 8.2: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCALING UP SPECIFIC TO WOOL AND MOHAIR .........................49 ANNEX TABLE 8.3: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCALING UP SPECIFIC TO HORTICULTURE ................................50 ANNEX 9: “OPEN SPACE” RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REVIEW WORKSHOP 51 GROUP A: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TIERS OF GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENS..................................................51 GROUP B: RECOMMENDATIONS ON ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION.....................................................52 GROUP C: RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE SECTORS.......................................................................53 GROUP D: RECOMMENDATIONS ON COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT WITHIN THE LOCAL AUTHORITY SYSTEM..54 GROUP E: RECOMMENDATIONS ON LEGAL REFORMS ......................................................................................55 GROUP F: RECOMMENDATIONS ON FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION .....................................................................56 GROUP G: AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT...................................................................57 2 Annex 1: Literature Review on decentralization in Lesotho Decentralization has often constituted one of the key facets of development administration in post independence Lesotho. Evidence from the country’s Five Year Development Plans, as well as subsequent National Development Strategies (such as the Vision 2020 and National Poverty Reduction Strategy, among others), point to the commitment of the Government of Lesotho to effect decentralization in order to promote participatory development and efficient service delivery at sub- national levels. However, a close scrutiny of Lesotho’s decentralization policies and their implementation at different times since independence to date indicates mixed results which lean more towards lack of success (Mbetu & Tshabalala, 20061). Therefore, it is crucial to make a short history as entrée to more informed analysis of status of the implementation of the Local Government Act 1997 as amended. Decentratlisation in Lesotho dates back to colonial times which saw District Councils and Basutoland National Council as peoples representative bodies in their different ways and even at the end of colonial rule in 1965 (Mofuoa, 2005:32; Wallis and van deer Geer, 1984:660 and van de Geer, 1984:183; Mapetla and Rembe, 1989:22-23). Mapetla and Rembe (1989:18)4 argue that the functions of the District Councils were to, inter alia: • act as advisory bodies to the National Council, • become conduits for popular participation • be electoral colleges for representation to National Council • make by-laws • manage local finance • manage development work in general • handle agriculture and livestock • maintain bridle paths • maintain feeder roads, public order, health • regulate trade After Lesotho gained independence in 1966, the then Government of Lesotho under the rule of the Basotho National Party (BNP) abolished the District Councils through the local Government Act 1968 because it felt that they complicated lines of communication between the Central authorities and the districts which demanded more power and autonomy in decision making. Moreover, it is widely believed, the BNP Government feared that the Councils were dominated by the then opposition Basutoland Congress Party (BCP) and therefore saw them as a political threat. Thus they were abolished for political expediency. Another reason was that they deprived the Central Government of access and control over local resources and sources of central state revenue; however, the Government claimed they lacked efficient financial and resources management skills, and needed Central Government tutelage. 1 Mbetu, R. and Tshabalala, M. (2006): Concept Paper (for) Lesotho Local Development Programme. UNDP/UNCDF/Gol. Maseru. 2 Mofuoa, V. (2005): “Local Governance in Lesotho: In Search of an appropriate format” EISA Occasional Paper No. 33. EISA. Johannesburg. 3 Wallis, M. & Van de Geer, R (1984): Government and Development in Lesotho. Morija Printing Works. Morija. 4 Mapetla, E. & Rembe, S. (1989): Decentralizations and Development in Lesotho. EPIC Printers. Maseru. 3 Interestingly, whilst the Government abolished the District Councils, it maintained the policy of decentralization and went on to put in place its own model of decentralization wherein the Central Government maintained a master position and allocated menial functions to local structures to run on a patron-client basis in terms of purely administrative functions. To this end, in 1968, administrative decentralization based on prefectorial model was put in place, wherein the head of the district – District Administrator - supported by heads of line Ministries departments as his/her consultants, saw to it that the decisions imposed by the Central Government head quarters in Maseru were implemented and adhered to the letter. In hindsight, in 1969, the Local Government Act 1969 was put in place to establish District Development Committees (DDCs) and Village Development Committees (VDCs) to promote participatory local development planning and administration. Complimentary local institutions were Constituency Committees (CCs) which were exclusively BNP composed and mandated, and Ward Development Committees (WDCs). Over time, especially in the late 1970s and early 1980s, efforts were made to open up decentralization to become more inclusive in order to offset and minimize the negative impacts of the centralized model of decentralization practiced between 1969 and 1980. This model was constrained by complete control by the Central Government, BNP political despotism, manipulation, lack of training to the local authorities (VDCs, DDCs, and WDCs), marginalization of chieftainship and subsequent struggle for power and functions between VDCs and chiefs, lack of clear separation of functions in service delivery between VDCs, line ministries and chiefs, no working space and funds, weak community participation in decision making and planning and de facto election of VDC members because the BNP Government often manipulated the election outcome in its favour; thus politicizing the decentralization process. This became even more so after the 1974 failed BCP coup attempt and the subsequent exile of the major party supporters. Instead of assisting the VDCs to expedite local development and service delivery, the Constituency Committees became, instead, militarized into village militia which incited the VDCs to promote terror and fear instead of development in the communities. In the late 1970s, especially under the influence of the Canadian International Development Assistance (CIDA) – an alternative model of decentralization and development based on Integrated Development was proposed and elaborated at the University at Roma in 1980. Later to be implemented at Thaba-Tseka. The 1980s saw a change in name of the head of district from that of District Administrator (DA) to that of District Coordinator (DC). The DCs were directly under the Prime Minister’s Office to give them power and a District Coordination Office was set up for them there. More effort was made to hire and attract trained and experienced people to the posts. The other structures remained the same. Again, these efforts were frustrated by a number of things ranging from the lack of clarity on specific powers of the DCs, their specific mandates, lack of mandates of stakeholder/cooperating line ministries vis-à-vis the local authorities, the lack of decentralized budget to effect implementation, poor retentive capacity of the DC and their technical support personnel in the districts, low morale, marginalization of chiefs, institutional hierarchical instead of horizontal