IPEP TRACKER

Financing Infrastructure Before IPEP

• The March 2010 Africa Infrastructure Count...

• The March 2010 Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD) reported that Ghana needed $2.3 billion annually over a decade to meet its growing infrastructure needs

• 60% of that amount was expected to cover capital expenditure with the remaining 40% accounting for operating expenditure

• Ghana is spending $1.2 billion on infrastructu...

• Ghana is spending $1.2 billion on infrastructure annually and expected to increase to $1.4billion per government’s estimate for 2018

• Ghana passed the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) Act 2014 to set up the GIIF as a sustainable vehicle for financing and managing infrastructure investments.

• The GIIF receives 2.5% of Valued Added Tax receipts a...

• The GIIF receives 2.5% of Valued Added Tax receipts and 25% of the 70% of the Annual Budget Funding Amount (ABFA) under the Petroleum Revenue Management Act 2011 allocated to capital expenditure.

• The National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) developed a National Spatial Planning Framework in 2015 to provide for coordination and integration of planning systems.

• Ghana passed the Ghana Infrastructure Investme...

• Ghana passed the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) Act 2014 to set up the GIIF as a sustainable vehicle for financing and managing infrastructure investments.

• The GIIF receives 2.5% of Valued Added Tax receipts and 25% of the 70% of the Annual Budget Funding Amount (ABFA) under the Petroleum Revenue Management Act 2011 allocated to capital expenditure.

• The National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) developed a National Spatial Planning Framework in 2015 to provide for coordination and integration of planning systems.

The National Development Planning Commissi...

POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Coordinated Programme of Economic and Social Development Policies 2017-2024 submitted by President Nana Akufo-Addo to Parliament on 20th October, 2017 says:

POLICY FRAMEWORK

“...under the IPEP, everyone of the 275 constituencies will be allocated the equivalent of US$1million annually to be invested in development initiatives of their own choice.”

POLICY FRAMEWORK

The projects selected for the utilization of the fund will fall under the following categories:

• One Village, One Dam
• Small Business Development
• Agricultural inputs, including equipment
• ‘Water for All’ Project
• Sanitation Projects

Budgetary allocation for the Ministry in the 2017 fiscal year

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

• Establishment of the Ministry for Special Development Initiatives (MSDI) under the Presidency

• Passage of bills setting-up three Regional Development Authorities (Northern, Middle Belt, Coastal Belt) as the special purpose vehicle for the implementation of the IPEP

• Set-up of 10-member regional-based ad-hoc committees to undertake infrastructure needs assessment in all constituencies

IPEP TRACKER

How is IPEP tracker going to work?

IPEP TRACKER

REPORT ON INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF IPEP

METHODOLOGY

• Review of the NPP 2016 election manifesto, government policy statements and the new Development Authorities Acts

• 150 key informant interviews at the national, regional and district/constituency levels involving state and non-state actors between November 27 to December 11, 2017.

METHODOLOGY

Key informants at the regional level include:

• Regional Ministers/Deputies

• Regional Coordinating Directors

• Regional Economic Planning Officers

• Members of the 10-member Regional

METHODOLOGY

Key informants at the regional level also include:

• Ad-hoc Committee

• Regional political party executives (NPP/NDC)

• CSOs/Media/Traditional Authority Representatives

METHODOLOGY

Key informants at the district/constituency Level include:

• District Chief Executives

• District Coordinating Directors

• District Planning/Budget Officers

• Constituency Party Executives

• Civil Society/Media/Traditional Authority Representatives

LEVEL OF AWARENESS

• The level of awareness was very high amongst government officials and NPP executives as compared to other stakeholders at the regional and district/constituency levels

• Bureaucrats displayed very little or no knowledge about the various projects under the IPEP and the implementation processes

LEVEL OF AWARENESS

• Few were aware of designated offices as IPEP secretariat at the Regional Coordinating Council, but did not know how they work or who they report to

• Few bureaucrats could mention some of the planned project areas for investment under the IPEP and majority could not tell how the IPEP program would fit into the regional/district medium term development plans.

LEVEL OF AWARENESS

Quotes from informants:

“IPEP has not been integrated with the RCC. It is being directly administered under the auspices of the Ministry of Special Development Initiatives under the leadership of Hon. Hawa Koomson. The IPEP Program, to my understanding, will be implemented by the Northern Development Authority” (Regional, Ad-hoc Committee Team Member)

“The RCC is yet to receive a formal communication on how projects under the IPEP would be incorporated into the regional and district MTDPs and sync with other government’s interventions within the region” (Regional Coordinating Director)

ACTIVITIES OF 10-MEMBER REGIONAL AD-HOC COMMITTEES

• Majority of informants (except political actors) reported they heard about the inauguration of the 10-member regional ad-hoc committee through the media

• Information about the membership of the committee and how they were selected was limited to a few party people (Regional Minister and Regional and Constituency NPP Party Executives)

ACTIVITIES OF 10-MEMBER REGIONAL AD-HOC COMMITTEES

• Majority of bureaucrats interviewed at the regional and district level displayed little information about how the committee works

• Activities of the committee were largely funded by the Regional Coordinating Councils and District Assemblies (transportation, accommodation, meals, etc.)

• Majority of district/constituency level stakeholders reported they were not aware or not much involved in the community-level stakeholder consultation by the committee

VALIDATION & REPORTING OF DISTRICT/CONSTITUENCY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

VALIDATION & REPORTING OF DISTRICT/CONSTITUEN...

• Information about the criteria for selecting and prioritizing infrastructure needs were limited only to few key stakeholders (Ad-hoc Committee members, Regional Ministers, and District Chief Executives in some cases)

• Except for some Regional Ministers, no other informant at the district/constituency or regional level reported having access or citing the final report of the Committee’s work

VALIDATION & REPORTING OF DISTRICT/CONSTITUENCY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

VALIDATION & REPORTING OF DISTRICT/CONSTITUEN...

• Few informants were able to mention some of the infrastructural needs that were collated

• All informants reported that there was limited or no validation with key stakeholders of the Ad-hoc Committee’s report either at the district/constituency or regional levels

VALIDATION & REPORTING OF DISTRICT/CONSTITUENCY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

VALIDATION & REPORTING OF DISTRICT/CONSTITUEN...

• Some of the members of the Ad-hoc Committee had limited training in the use of the instrument for assessing and collation of the district/constituency infrastructure needs.

QUOTES FROM INFORMANTS

‘“…. there was no feedback provided to the District Assembly regarding the outcome of the needs assessment conducted. There was no stakeholder engagement organized by the committee to validate their findings and conclusions”

(District Coordinating Director)

QUOTES FROM INFORMANTS

"We tried to have more information [about the committee’s work] but nobody seems to know what is happening, except that some of the ad-hoc team members tell us they have finished their assessment, they have submitted their report, and it will now be implemented by Northern Development Authority (NDA) and other development authorities"

(CSO Representative)

• There is lack of a coordinated policy framework spelling out the IPEP policy intervention

• The restriction of information to few political actors has the potential to create an institutionalized information asymmetry for the principal actors required to successfully implement the IPEP

• There is lack of a coordinated policy framewo...

• Already there is evidence that it has created tensi...

• Already there is evidence that it has created tension between key bureaucrats and politicians at the regional and district levels

• The prospect for partisan political capture of the IPEP program particularly at the regional and district/constituency level by political party actors and their bureaucratic supporters is high

POLITICS, GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL FIT

• Government must ensure Development Authorities are not used as a political party vehicle to dispense patronage

• Government needs to define clearly the mandate/role of the Development Authorities: implementation, coordination, or both?

• Create formal institutional relationship and partnership between the Development Authorities, NDPC, RCCs, and MMDAs.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION, TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABLITY

RESOURCE ALLOCATION, TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABLITY

• There should be strict adherence to the Public Financial Management Act. This will ensure transparency and accountability in the allocation, disbursement and usage of the funds

• Ensure effective information dissemination about IPEP and the Development Authorities to aid the public in demanding greater scrutiny and accountability through a systematic monitoring and evaluation of the policy outcomes of IPEP

PROJECT MANAGEMENT & IMPLEMENTATION

• Ensure proper value for money through transparent procurement processes and in the award of contracts for projects

• Establish stronger accountability mechanism that ensures citizens oversight in the implementation of all the development interventions under IPEP

PROJECT MANAGEMENT & IMPLEMENTATION

• Institute regular performance reviews of the Development Authorities to assess the outcomes of the investments

• Improve the communication of IPEP’s success stories, impact and spending to stakeholders and the wider public in order to be more accountable