The Changing Face of Local Government? Community Development Councils in Afghanistan

This 46-page working paper from the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU), an independent research organisation based in Kabul, explores the role that Community Development Councils (CDCs) play at the community level in Afghanistan. Based on findings from research on subnational governance in Afghanistan, the report demonstrates that CDCs have made a significant contribution to the welfare and representation of community members.

As explained here, the creation of CDCs under the National Solidarity Programme (NSP) has "introduced a dramatic change in the development resources available to many communities" in Afghanistan. Where these resources have been converted to successful sub-projects, the acceptance and legitimacy of the programme, and by extension the government, has been expanded. The research finds that CDCs already function as institutions of both governance and development. For instance, they have made contributions to the inclusion and representation of marginalised groups, particularly women, in collective actions and decisions, and they have taken on the role of organising communal labour or social protection - "again representing an extension or fusion of their role with customary pre-existing governance activity concerning public goods".

Several key conclusions can be drawn from analysis of CDCs to date:

• Community acceptance of CDCs is conditioned by past experience, comprehensiveness of resources available for facilitation and local implementation patterns. It is also heavily dependent on the delivery and use of resources.
• The implementation of all phases of the NSP has been carried out in varied ways. Local norms and customs are important in determining outcomes, but resources, creativity and the depth of involvement of the facilitating partner are also important.
• While many CDC members claim to be involved in other governance functions, these governance functions are not universal. Where these functions are carried out it is often in combination with customary structures and individuals.
• There are barriers to genuine participation of women in both the development and governance functions of the CDCs. This participation is less in governance functions than project selection and appears to depend on the quality of facilitation.

According to the AREU, policy for the future of CDCs must answer several key questions:

• Should CDCs be formally recognised as state institutions? Stressing the formalisation of CDCs pays insufficient attention to local variations in CDC functions. At the same time, institutional means for supporting CDCs should be considered.
• What resources, both material and in terms of technical assistance and facilitation, will be available to CDCs after the end of the NSP? Consideration of the future role of CDCs must include discussion of the range of resources available and their provision.
• What will be the appropriate scale for the delivery of resources? CDCs in some areas are combining efforts through joint projects. This raises questions about the organisation of development representation at the district level and below.
  
• Should CDCs perform administrative governance tasks? Mandating a single universal governance role for CDCs would produce mixed outcomes. Governance improvements linked to CDCs are often achieved through recognising existing governance patterns.
• How will the impact of CDCs on the representation of women and other marginalised groups be strengthened? The role of CDCs in empowering women and other vulnerable groups is dependent on active facilitation. As the NSP comes to a close, consideration of how to support the broadened inclusion seen in the context of CDCs must continue.

Click here to download the full report in PDF format.