93730 solomon islands Towards better investment in rural communities solomon islands solomon islands Towards better investment in rural communities The aim of Solomon Islands — Towards Better Investment in Rural Communities is to assist policymakers, program sponsors and implementers to make informed decisions about the design, financing, governance and overall advantages and disadvantages of programs that invest in small-scale infrastructure and income- generating opportunities for rural communities in the Solomon Islands. Completed in mid-2014, the report identifies ways to strengthen the current mechanisms for investing in rural service delivery by examining the three main types of financing for small-scale infrastructure and livelihood activities — constituency, province and community-oriented funds — in a national and global context across four key programs between 2008 and 2012. A summary of the programs is provided in Table 1. The report explores the following key components across the four programs: analysis and consolidation of sub-project data; local development planning; efficiency and effectiveness; accountability, transparency and dispute management; and sustainability. This document is a summary of the report. The full text can be found at worldbank.org/pi TA B L E 1 — S u m m a r y o f P r o g r a m s f r o m 2 0 0 8 t o 2 0 1 2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW A D M I N I S T R AT I O N & I M P L E M E N TAT I O N FUNDED BY Provincial $US 18.1M, launched in 2008 to improve Ministry of Provincial Government & Institutional Strengthening: annual block SIG, Australia, Capacity infrastructure and services, natural resource grants disbursed to Provincial Governments provided minimum conditions and RAMSI, EU, Development management and local economic activity. performance measures are met. Originally donor funded, but only SIG funded UNDP and Fund (PCDF) starting in 2013. UNCDF Rural U$S 26.53M, launched in 2007 to improve access Ministry of Development Planning & Aid Coordination supported by Ministry of WB, Australia, Development to rural community infrastructure, agricultural Agriculture & Livestock and provincial governments: community infrastructure EU, SIG, IFAD Program (RDP) services and rural business financing. component provides one small grant to each rural ward per grant cycle (excluding in Rennel and Bellona) based on community-identified needs and ward development committee prioritisation. Rural $US 9.6M, launched in 2009 to improve access to Ministry of Development Planning & Aid Coordination: community committees EU Advancement social services and the income of participating rural receive small grants based on successful submissions to a competitive, Micro-projects and urban communities. Extension of two previous, national call for proposals. Program EU- funded ‘micro-project’ projects. (RAMP) Rural $US 37.9M, launched in 2008 to fund social and Ministry of Rural Development: funds transferred to constituency accounts SIG Constituency economic infrastructure and other developments (RCLF has largest number of ‘constituency funds’) or directly to vendors for Livelihood in each constituency to complement provincial and projects and assorted activities identified by MPs and their constituency Fund (RCLF) national projects. Various types of constituency development officers. funds have been in operation since 1989, and there are others beyond RCLF that remain in operation. Exchange rate 1 US Dollar ($US) = 7.60 Solomon Islands Dollar (SBD) Disclaimer This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 2 country context Solomon Islands faces a range of challenges in local governance and the delivery of basic services, from low-income and fragility to a highly dispersed population. Locals travel between islands for supplies in the Solomon Islands. POST-CONFLICT FRAGILIT Y POLITICIZED FUNDING GEOGRAPHIC ISOLATION After a five-year conflict between 1998 and 2003, Politicians are expected to finance a wide range Geography, population dispersal, and the cost of several largely donor-funded programs emerged of public and private goods, including core service transport, severely constrain access to supplies to compensate for depleted government capacity functions such as road maintenance, housing and and services. Population density, at 20 people by providing small-scale investment and economic electricity. There are also widely held perceptions per square kilometre, is among the lowest in the opportunities to rural communities. that much of this funding is only accessible to world and distances between islands increase the constituents who are political supporters. difficulty of transport. WEAK SUSTAINABILIT Y FRAGMENTED FUNDING LIMITED RECURRENT FUNDING Visits to rural communities often reveal generations Program funding is fragmented and poorly While large amounts of funds are spent on small of ‘projects’ that are poorly maintained because coordinated. This undermines the effectiveness of and medium-sized capital expenditures, there are they are viewed as ‘hand-outs’ and there has been service delivery and leads to duplication of effort limited systems of financing for recurrent costs no proper planning or capacity to sustain them. and inefficient support systems. and ongoing maintenance. Figure 1 — Map of Solomon Islands Facts P O P U L AT I O N 561,231* P O P U L AT I O N D E N S I T Y 20/sqkm* P E R C E N TA G E O F T O TA L P O P U L AT I O N L I V I N G I N RURAL AREAS 80%** NET OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT A S S I S TA N C E ( % O F G N I ) , 2012 34%** * World Development Indicators, 2013 ** Development Economics LDB Database, 2012 solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 3 cURRENT FUNDING STREAMS Comparison of Programs “After a decade of implementation, programs have evolved independently and Funds flowing to the sub-national level can be grouped into three main categories become institutionalised to varying degrees, but the lessons of experience across the according to their geographic orientation various approaches have yet to be drawn together.” and the levels at which decisions are made and funds managed (see Figure 3 for an Solomon Islands — Towards Better Investment in Rural Communities consolidates data into a single example). data set using data from 1449 sub-projects undertaken between 2008 to 2012 from the Provincial Capacity Development Fund (PCDF), Rural Constituency Livelihood Fund (RCLF), Rural Development Province-oriented funds Program (RDP), and the Rural Advancement Micro-projects Programme (RAMP) and its predecessors, A province is the only subnational level of Micro-projects Programme 1 (MPP1) and Micro-projects Programme 2 (MPP2). The report found: government in Solomon Islands. Beyond the Provincial Service Grant, which primarily The Solomon Island Government (SIG) has been providing funds to PCDF since 2009 and to finances Provincial Government personnel constituency funds since 1989. SIG did not contribute funds for grants to RDP until 2013 and did and operations, the most significant source of not contribute any funds for grants to RAMP. development financing at the provincial level is the PCDF grants. These grants primarily finance Community contributions are required in cash and/or in kind for RDP and RAMP, but not for elements of provincial development plans, PCDF and constituency funds (RCLF). These contributions likely represent a significant portion of much of which are defined by members of the community project cost (about 30 per cent for RDP), but are not represented in Figure 2 below. Provincial Assembly who are elected to represent each ward in the province (refer to Figure 2 for Detailed expenditure data for RCLF was only available for 2010, although some of the data was an example of boundaries). unable to be assigned to sectors as 30 per cent of expenditures were unclassified and the bulk of expenditures were for one-off, small items. Constituency-oriented funds A constituency is a geographically defined area There is often co-financing of individual sub-projects by the different programs, with constituency within a province, which is represented by an funds, in particular, being used to fill funding gaps or scale-up RDP or PCDF-funded subprojects. elected national Member of Parliament. There are several different constituency funds (CDFs), From 2008 to 2012, these four programs have disbursed a total of $US 134,226,722. The bulk including RCLF, all of which flow into constituency of these funds were channelled through the constituency fund modality (60 per cent) and a accounts and are intended to benefit members combined total of US$ 90,739,303 was spent on rural investment grants (see Figure 2). of the constituency. Members of Provincial Assembly are also increasingly being allocated funds to be used for similar purposes within their Figure 2 — Percentage of Total Grants for Rural Investment Grants in Solomon Islands ward-level constituencies. (2008- 2012) 4% Community-oriented funds 7% Communities are defined broadly as individual 9% villages and hamlets as well as the geographically C D F - $ US 7 1,901,408 defined wards which are not an official level R D P - $ US 8 ,274,895 of government, but which have political 79% P G S P - $ US 6,480,000 representation and are often a level of planning. R A M P - $ US 4,083,000 RDP, RAMP and its predecessor micro-project funds as well as a range of smaller discretionary T O TA L - $US 90 ,7 3 9 ,3 0 3 donor funds and NGO projects provide financing directly to community-based groups or NGOs for the benefit of communities. Figure 3 — Example of Constituency and Ward Boundaries, Choiseul Province Constituenc y boundar y Wa r d b o u n d a r y A freshwater project in Isabel Province. solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 4 Provincial and Sector Use of Funds While there are some distortions in the data such as the absence of RDP funding in Guadalcanal, Central, Rennell and Bellona provinces, the highest proportion of overall provincial investment in the Solomon Islands was found in Malaita Province (25%), followed by Western (19.3%). Per capita, the highest investment was in Temotu ($US 576) and Choiseul ($US 539). To achieve greater equity, efforts should be made to bring provincial per capita amounts closer into alignment. Adjustments could also be made to account for the cost of extreme remoteness, but this should be based primarily on cost data. A sea wall is constructed to protect a small island in Malaita from losing land to erosion from the sea. Ta b l e 2 — C o n s o l i d a t e d D a t a Pe r P r o g r a m Pe r P r o v i n c e f r o m 2 0 0 8 t o 2 0 1 2 ( i n $ U S ) PROVINCE MPP II PCDF RDP RAMP GRAND TOTAL POPULATION PER CAPITA Central Islands - 3,201,867 - 1,697,044 4,898,911 26,051 188 Choiseul 2,116,356 2,629,090 6,201,670 2,016,069 12,963,185 26,372 491 Guadalcanal 4,307,370 5,824,562 - 6,275,466 16,407,398 93,613 175 Isabel 2,255,277 2,317,420 2,662,816 4,411,502 11,647,015 26,158 445 Makira Ulawa 1,711,137 5,971,178 2,462,622 2,502,891 12,647,828 40,419 313 Malaita 3,577,153 15,629,483 6,932,801 7,813,411 33,952,848 137,596 247 National 4,083,662 - - - 4,083,662 - - Rennell & Bellona 195,500 950,197 - 494,375 1,640,072 3,041 539 Temotu 766,288 3,313,436 5,877,324 2,337,556 12,294,604 21,362 576 Western 3,974,168 8,598,646 7,581,733 6,147,071 26,301,618 76,649 343 Total 22,986,911 48,435,879 31,718,966 33,695,385 136,837,141 451,261 As Table 3 illustrates, program funding was highest for the housing and community amenities sector (31%), followed by education. Water supply accounted for 63 per cent of the housing and community amenities sector, while 43 per cent of education sector funds was allocated to secondary education (43 per cent of education total) followed by primary education (37 per cent) and pre-primary (14 per cent). Ta b l e 3 — S e c t o r F u n d A l l o c a t i o n s b y P r o g r a m f r o m 2 0 0 8 t o 2 0 1 2 ( i n $ U S ) SECTOR AND SUBSECTOR MPP II RAMP (2012) PCDF RDP Total Economic Affairs 33,122,454 864,228 1,017,417 159,121 35,163,220 Education 811,561 924,943 2,134,825 897,722 4,769,052 Environmental Protection 92,572 - 16,335 97,963 206,870 General Public Services - 63,128 - 14,903 78,030 Health 185,760 1,313,603 997,761 503,265 3,000,389 Housing and Community Amenities 1,011,478 1,214,496 818,295 2,450,492 5,494,760 Other 382,325 - 27,862 - 410,187 Provincial Government - - 1,032,165 - 1,032,165 Public Order and Services - - 11,235 - 11,235 Recreation, Culture & Religion 138,166 - 240,769 - 378,935 Grand Total 35,744,316 4,380,397 6,296,664 4,123,466 50,544,844 solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 5 A community consultation in rural Solomon Islands. program local development planning planning Each of the four programs takes a different approach towards identifying sub-projects to finance, to the use of planning processes, and to the OVERVIEW engagement of stakeholders. PCDF “A framework to integrate provincial, community- Largely driven by the provincial driven,and perhaps constituency-based planning administration and the preparation of standardised, periodic plans. processes is needed.” RDP Findings Planning begins with the participatory RDP’s bottom-up, participatory planning does not inform provincial planning, and provincial identification of development needs at the government sector knowledge is not well-utilised to guide the identification of the best village level followed by the ranking of solutions to community-level problems. priorities at the ward level. Emerging constituency-based planning mechanisms are likely to duplicate ward and RAMP provincial data collection and planning, and be produced with uneven quality due to limited Has no planning process, but identifies sub- human resources. projects via open competition. The tokenistic representation of women in village and ward-level planning processes should RCLF be reconsidered as this constrains the potentially wider interest of women to participate in RCLF is one of the CDFs. Under the new decision-making bodies and to establish more of a balance of male and female perspectives. legislation, all CDFs should begin to use constituency development plans to guide spending. Until now, there has been minimal planning with allocations largely at the R e c o m m e n d at i o n s discretion of members of parliament and A framework to integrate provincial, community-driven, and constituency-based planning Constituency Development Officers (CDOs). processes is needed to minimise duplication of effort and to develop strategically distinct plans. A greater clarification and even institutionalisation of ward-level (Ward Development Committee or Authority) governance and decision-making processes would allow for more robust ward plans and monitoring of outcomes. Constituency development plans should be derived primarily through structured consultations with constituents and avoid duplication of data gathering at the ward and provincial level. Rather than identifying women as an interest group with one representative, a minimum B u n i Wo m e n ’s R e s o u r c e C e n t r e i n percentage of female members of Ward Development Committees or village groups could be We s t e r n P r o v i n c e . specified (for example, 50 per cent). solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 6 Efficiency & Effectiveness “There is a lack of information available regarding rural investments and this is an impediment to assessing development results and planning future investments at the sub-national level.” To assess efficiency and effectiveness, and allow for a visual comparison, a set of 10 performance measures was developed and each program was rated on a 3-point scale (weak, satisfactory and strong). Findings There is a trade-off between the speed of disbursement and quality assurance processes, and each of the programs can benefit from improvements in different areas. With the lightest processes, RCLF delivers funds fastest. This is likely at the cost of value-for-money as there are no competitive procurement Community members carr ying sand and gravel as par t processes like other programs, nor use of cost data to check pricing. of the community contribution for a community hall in Malaita. RCLF also does not monitor sub-projects. RCLF lacks procedural guidance for its activities, and while the CDF R e c o m m e n d at i o n s legislation (2013) provides some specifics, there will remain a need for RDP and RAMP are very process-heavy, and thus slower moving. The a significant amount of detail in order to strengthen the performance technical review process of these programs could be streamlined and of RCLF as an effective delivery mechanism for development assistance. perhaps even be decentralised to province-level technical specialists, including sector staff working in the provincial administration. CDOs lack the professional skills to design and implement technically sound development projects, and they are often driven by political The administrative cost borne by RDP (for Community Helpers) and RCLF imperatives rather than development priorities. (for CDOs) could be optimised through greater provincial integration as provinces have various sources to finance human resources including line There is a lack of information available regarding rural investments and ministries, Provincial Service Grants and own revenue. this is an impediment to assessing development results and planning future investments at the sub-national level. RDP Community Helpers should be integrated into Provincial Government as a means of strengthening provincial connection to communities Figure 4 — Efficienc y & Effec tiveness Score Rankings Across Programs and this could be funded with an increase in Provincial Service Grants or through an agency agreement between MDPAC and the respective Productivity Provincial Government. Procurement Efficiency Responsibility for the implementation of RCLF/CDF-funded activities Unit Costs should shift to better resourced and less politically compromised entities Human Resources such as Provincial Government, certified NGOs, RDP community groups or Fund Disbursement central government ministries or authorities. This would be in contrast to the constituency funds which pass through line ministries, but which are Fund Utilisation beyond their administrative control. Effec tiveness Leverage An implementation manual (like PCDF, RDP and RAMP’s) should be Compare to sec tor developed for RCLF and all CDFs for standardisation and to enhance Link to log frame efficiency and effectiveness. Monitoring Unit cost data should be shared across the programs to allow for more WEAK S AT I S FA C TO R Y STRONG effective budget preparation and review, and to bring costs down, overall, PCDF RDP EU RAMP RCLF of public investments. solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 7 Accountability, Transparency & Dispute Management Findings Accountability from the programs to national government is reasonably strong in the cases of PCDF and RDP, with each convening regular project committee meetings and sharing progress reports. However, there are limited-to-no accountability mechanisms in place between communities and service providers to monitor the quality of service delivery. RCLF has no means of reporting progress to government stakeholders, except through ad hoc audits done by the Auditor General which have, to date not been circulated, even within government. There is very little information as to how RCLF funds are used, at all levels of government and society. This lack of information and accountability stokes concern and criticism of waste, fraud and corruption, which occasionally make their way into the media and public discourse (there is no regular media coverage). While there have been disputes regarding land and other natural resources, this has not escalated to violence. It appears informal and/or traditional mechanisms for resolving disputes in place are working even if they are not able to uphold agreements made with respect to the sub- projects. R e c o m m e n d at i o n s All programs could do better in providing more visual printed materials to affected or beneficiary communities so that they can develop a better understanding as to how these programs work. A nurse providing a service to residents in Makira. Piloting social accountability mechanisms such as community scorecards is recommended to enable community members/beneficiaries to hold service providers accountable for the quality of service delivery, not just Case Study 1: Kenya Social Audit, the quality of infrastructure construction. an international comparison A robust set of accountability and transparency measures for RCLF and all The Kenya Social Audit is designed to assist community groups and CDFs is needed, including — A realistic financial auditing approach which individuals to understand the reflects capacity requirements; regular public reporting requirements Constituency Development Fund including information on funding allocations, expenditures, types of (CDF) process and to provide information and skills on how to activities funded and recipients; and social accountability mechanisms monitor these funds through a to allow citizens to monitor the use of funds in their communities. For process known as social auditing. It an example of a comprehensive public accountability mechanism, see helps track CDF expenditure in local areas, and with this information Case Study 1. better empowers communities in Kenya to make demands on Utilise mobile phone, SMS, and smartphone technology (where 3G their politicians about how they want their public funds used. It networks are available) to allow community members to more easily also ensures such projects are provide direct feedback to program management units, and to allow the constructed in an open and non- public to find information online. corrupt manner. solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 8 Technical Quality & Sustainability “Budget shortfalls and accessing supplies are risks to projects.” Overall, the quality of construction of rural infrastructure is sound and appropriate for the supply base available in-country. Findings The difficulty in accessing supplies and budget shortfalls pose a risk to the Children on a footbridge completed under a rural full completion of projects, which must be monitored to ensure the integrity development program in Choiseul Province. of the structures is unaffected. Per unit and per beneficiary costs vary by province, but overall are generally R e c o m m e n d at i o n s consistent with similar small-scale rural projects in other parts of the world. The current construction codes for the Pacific are 25 years old. It is necessary to review these codes and update seismic and cyclone design The likelihood of financial sustainability varies widely depending upon the approaches as well as incorporate climate change adaptation approaches type of infrastructure and the location. However, there is lack of clarity as into project designs. to who is responsible for what facility, and insufficient data about the extent to which maintenance funds flow from various sources (e.g. national Clarity on facility ownerships and guidance on how to budget for the government transfers for education and health). maintenance of various types of infrastructure drawing on available O&M plans and accumulated experience in different sectors is needed. Projects with a business or economic activity-focus typically place little emphasis on sustainability. A catalogue of standard designs and unit costs from across programs would be a useful resource to speed the process of design and ensure RCLF is weak on all indicators as there are no guidelines or technical quality design standards. reviews to ensure quality, socially and environmentally sound design and construction. Continue to collect cost-per-beneficiary data for project types, share this information across programs and apply it to project appraisal to ensure Application of social and environmental risk mitigation is mixed, with that projects are good value for money. monitoring for compliance being generally weak. Figure 5 — Sustainability Score Rankings Across Programs Cost benefit analysis Accessibility Environmental assessment OHM plan & budget Maximising public goods Spatial planning WEAK S AT I S FAC TO R Y STRONG PCDF RDP EU RAMP RCLF solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 9 Overall Recommendations There are major policy and program shifts underway for rural community infrastructure and service delivery in the Solomon Islands, including a policy guiding use of constituency funds (2013 CDF Act and draft CDF Regulations). The Rural Development Program is entering its second phase (RDP 2). The Provincial Government Strengthening Program, which previously supported PCDF, has concluded, so PCDF is solely supported by government now. RAMP has come to an end. While each province is different, and flexibility is therefore required, a framework is needed to illustrate how these and other rural, sub-national investment programs and activities fit together and how public and donor funds can be leveraged to greatest effect. The three overarching recommendations to help to design an improved second generation of rural service delivery programs in the Solomon Islands are — 1. Redefine Funding Streams Redefine the three main funding streams — provincial, constituency and community. Funds should be aligned to clarified and distinct mandates as well as appropriate capacities for implementation. Financing of similar activities across the funding streams should be minimised (see Table 3). Ta b l e 3 — P r o p o s e d R e f o c u s o f F u n d i n g S t r e a m s STREAM STRATEGIC FOCUS OF INVESTMENT FOR EACH LEVEL ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING Provincial Multi-ward benefits; major, yet medium-scale investments which require Primary and secondary schools; hospitals and health clinics; major housing technical expertise; infrastructure maintained through recurrent service projects; provincial administration infrastructure and equipment; provincial delivery grants (e.g. health); investments aligned to PG mandates in the roads, and townships; and pumped water supply. PG Act; and sub-projects that lend themselves to contractor delivery. Constituency Sub-projects that can be managed and monitored by sector ministries; Sustainable livelihood projects (agriculture, aquaculture and horticulture, income-generating support based on solid business plans; rapid response manufacturing, sustainable forest products); minor road or bridge repairs; to disaster; living condition improvements for disadvantaged households; improved housing stock; improved electricity access; supplies to rebuild houses, co-financing of provincial or community- level projects; CDF funds could supply food, water and shelter, etc., after a disaster; and emergency repair of be transferred to line ministries, government agencies or NGOs for public infrastructure such as roads and bridges. implementation. Community Infrastructure that can be operated and maintained primarily by Small feeder roads, community-generated funding and labor; investments that have broad ildings that already exist; community water supply and sanitation; community community benefit and have been prioritised by the community; electricity supply such as solar charging stations, mini-grid and micro-hydro; beneficiaries are mainly within one ward or village; not technically multi-purpose or groups-specific (i.e. women or youth) community halls/ complex, requiring specialised parts or technical expertise that is difficult resource centres; new community-oriented education or health infrastructure to find in rural areas; and keep project budgets generally below SBD such as kindergartens; housing for public service delivery personnel; etc. 200,000. 2. Redistribute and Institutionalize Funds Shift the balance away from spending a majority of rural investment funds on CDFs and redistribute funds towards the other, well-performing modalities at the provincial and community levels. To ensure all three funding streams continue to flow beyond donor financing, the Solomon Island Government should make a long-term commitment through its development plans and through regularly allocated resources. These grants could be made into recurrent grants, such as a Provincial Development Grant to complement the existing Provincial Service Grant that largely funds staff and operating expenses. Community or Ward Development Grants could allow Members of Provincial Assembly to minimise the use of their discretional funds on development and focus instead on constituency engagement, which requires more modest funds. solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 10 Overall Recommendations 3. Integrate Processes Implement an integrated planning process across the funding streams to align with the redefined focus of each stream. The planning process should be fed from the bottom-up, starting with participatory planning at the village and ward levels, then advancing up through the provincial and national levels (see Table 4). Coordination across the various levels and funding programs should be centred around the annual Villagers at the opening ceremony of a freshwater s u p p l y p r o j e c t i n Te m o t u . P r o v i n c e . provincial planning process. Ta b l e 4 — P r o p o s e d I n t e g r a t e d P l a n n i n g F r a m e w o r k LEVEL PLANNING PRODUCT PEOPLE FREQUENCY APPROVAL PROCESS KEY RECOMMENDATIONS National National Development Inter-ministerial government task Every 10 years Adopted and approved by Cabinet No changes required Strategy (10 years) force led by MDPAC Provincial Strategic Plan Planning divisions and TPBU Every 5 years Provincial Government Executives. Every 6 years with annual validation Government Medium Term Planning divisions and TPBU Every 3 years with Provincial Assembly (for budget New Annual planning forum based Development Plan annual validation only) on PPDC, with target of 50 per cent representation of women Annual Plan and Budget Provincial executive, final plans Annual and including recurrent approved for release by the All constituency, provincial and budgets provincial assembly community projects are included Sectors Sector Corporate Plans National ministries prepare Sector profiles every Adopted and Approved by Cabinet Sectors and WDCs to conduct profiling in and Sector Profiles corporate plans and budgets 3 years parallel. Wards to consult with relevant prepared. sector on prioritised projects before approving and forwarding Constituency Constituency Provincial Government planning Timing needs to be Constituency plan approval process CDOs to become part of the provincial Development Plans division and TPBU to be part of linked to Provincial unclear. In this process, projects planning process as advisory members of any planning advisory body that Medium Term approved in the integrated planning the TPBU develops constituency plans Development Plan process will be included as part of a and Strategic Plan constituency development plan Development Ward Ward Development Ward Development Committee, WDC to develop a Ward profile and ranked community WDC to not only rank community projects, Profile supported by provincial planning full ward profile with projects will be approved by WDC but also identify priorities for constituency divisions through CHs identified prioritised every three years and forwarded to and provincial funding. Ward Development projects every 3 years. the provincial government Plan (including project Update basic data Increase representation of women to ranking) in the ward profile comprise 50 per cent of the members annually Village/ Village data fed into Village development meeting Re-priorituse projects Village priorities will be agreed by Standard village data collections forms to Community Ward Profile inclusive of everyone in the every three years. consensus at open village meeting be developed and facilitated by CHs community, and allowing for Provide basic data to and forwarded to WDC for ranking Prioritised village participation update ward profile projects annually INTERMINISTERIAL COORDINATION GROUP Establish and maintain an inter-ministerial Subnational Financing Coordination Group (SFCG) to implement programs. Recommendations of this report entail a restructuring and integration of existing funding streams and their associated management structures. Therefore, units responsible for management of amended streams will need to review this report, come to a consensus on agreed changes and map out a plan of action. solomon islands | ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi 11 solomon islands ph: +677 21444 | PO BOX 1744, honiara | worldbank.org/pi