serbia and montenegro: empowering citizens, engaging governments, rebuilding communities series

7/28/2019 Serbia and Montenegro: Empowering Citizens, Engaging Governments, Rebuilding Communities Series

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/serbia-and-montenegro-empowering-citizens-engaging-governments-rebuilding 1/62

Empowering citizensEngaging governments



International Relief & Developmentin Serbia and Montenegro

2001–2007



Copyrig t © by I ter atio al Relie & De elopme t (IRD) 2011

All rig ts reser ed.

Co er p otos: top, aqueduct i Bar, Mo te egro, w ere IRD impleme ted street lig ti g a d water supply projects; bottom, girl at commu ity esti al i Mio ica, Serbia.

T e iews expressed i t is publicatio do ot ecessarily re ect t e iews o t e US Age cy orI ter atio al De elopme t or o t e US go er me t.

IRD is a o proft uma itaria , stabili atio , a d de elopme t orga i atio w ose missio is to reducet e su eri g o t e world’s most ul erable groups a d pro ide t e tools a d resources eeded toi crease t eir sel -su fcie cy.

Desig , editi g, a d productio by Commu icatio s De elopme t I corporated, Was i gto , DC, a dPeter Gru dy Art & Desig , Lo do , UK.



iii

Contents

Foreword v Empowering citizens, engaging governments, rebuilding communities 1

Chapter 1 Establishing a framework 4T e CRDA missio : A part ers ip wit citi e s to rebuild t eir commu ities 6Fi e di ere t regio s, f e di ere t age cies, o e o erall goal 7A early i estme t i stro g social relatio s ips 9T e IRD model: Sustai ability t roug citi e empowerme t a d i tegrated project impleme tatio 11Early work i Serbia: A ou datio or trust, a d a willi g ess to accept risk 12O ercomi g early c alle ges: A exible approac to ad ersity 16From “c aos a d disarray” to success ul, sustai able results 17

Chapter 2 Empowering citizens 20Commu ity committees: T e eart o t e mobili atio e ort 21Establis i g relatio s ips by buildi g co fde ce 23A mutual se se o ow ers ip betwee citi e s a d go er me t 24A questio o “attitudes a d perceptio s” 25Mo i g rom e a ced participatio to eco omic re itali atio 26T e s i t to CRDA-E: A co tro ersial but ecessary mo e 27

Chapter 3 Encouraging integrated implementation 30Bri gi g citi e s, go er me t, a d t e pri ate sector toget er 31U leas i g Serbia’s “great pote tial” i agribusi ess 33T e case o Arilje: A bluepri t or cooperati e, sustai able growt 35E trepre eurial spirit a d opportu ity: “T at’s ow a i dustry starts” 37I Mo te egro, u derscori g t e importa ce o public-pri ate part ers ips 39T e alue o bei g ope to “ exible i terpretatio ” 40CRDA a d CRDA-E: Separate programs, i terrelated processes 42

Chapter 4 Identifying the successes 46

T ree key operatio al t emes: Trust, trai i g, a d exibility 48

Boxes1 IRD’s work i Serbia a d Mo te egro 72 W ere IRD worked 83 CRDA’s desig pillars 104 T e rig t approac at t e rig t time 13

Figure1 IRD’s impleme tatio model 11



v

Foreword

W e we ou ded I ter atio al Relie a d De el-opme t i 1998, o o e i ol ed could imagi et e ull exte t o t e joy a d sad ess a d c al-le ges a d successes t at we would ace i t ecomi g years. T e joy o seei g someo e’s li etra s ormed by t e ki d o basic i rastructureser ice, suc as clea dri ki g water, t at tooma y o us take or gra ted. Or t e sad esso reali i g t at o matter ow muc work a de ort a d u di g goes i to a program, it’s e ere oug to reac e eryo e t at eeds our elp.A d our successes, w ile ple ti ul a d e courag-i g, a e kept us umble a d ocused due to t ee ormity o t e c alle ges a d obstacles t at oursta ers arou d t e world co ti ue to o ercome,suc as li e-t reate i g risks i destabili eda d impo eris ed regio s. Our orga i atio alp ilosop y begi s a d e ds wit a u wa eri gcommitme t to t ose sta ers a d to t e creati ea d t oroug work t ey do, w et er it’s outli i ge gi eeri g specifcatio s or goi g o er gra tapplicatio s.

IRD, o course, is just o e o ma y orga i atio sstri i g to impleme t de elopme t ser ices a dsel -su fcie cy programs across t e world. Weare but o e o u dreds o like-mi ded groups,willi g to take o certai risks to reduce t esu eri g o t e world’s most ul erable groupsa d to pro ide t e ecessary tools a d resourcesto tra s orm at-risk populatio s i to stabili edcommu ities. But we pride oursel es o worki gi regio s o t e world t at prese t sig ifca tsocial, political, a d tec ical c alle ges a d ilocatio s t at require exible, u ique approac esto relie a d de elopme t. I slig tly more t a adecade, we a e grow rom a small orga i atiostill f di g our ooti g i to a global etwork o passio ate workers pro idi g early $500 millio

a ually i de elopme t assista ce to A rica,Asia, Easter Europe, Lati America, a d t eMiddle East.

I a way, t is remarkable jour ey started i t ewar-tor regio o ormer Yugosla ia. T roug t eCommu ity Re itali atio t roug DemocraticActio (CRDA) program i Serbia a d Mo te e-gro, w ic we bega impleme ti g i 2001, IRDworked wit commu ity groups to re ew ci ilsociety, re abilitate t e local i rastructure, a de a ce local eco omies. Later o , t at programtra sitio ed to o e wit a exclusi e ocus oge erati g more jobs a d stabili i g t e lo g-term eco omic de elopme t acti ities o twocou tries still reeli g rom years o war, po erty,a d i stitutio al aili gs. I Serbia t e programco tributed more f a cial resources to com-mu ities, i di iduals, a d small e terprises t aa y ot er do or program. A d i bot cou tries,we empowered citi e s to lear ew skills t atope ed t e door or expa ded i dustry, closerciti e -go er me t ties, a d a re ewed se se o ope or commu ity stability. Associatio s a dcooperati es ormed u der CRDA are still operat-i g, expa di g, a d ear i g i come. A d ewmedical equipme t, mater ity wards, a d ospi-tals are ow used to diag ose a d treat wome ’sealt co ditio s.

T ese e orts would ot a e bee reali ed wit outt e tireless e or t a d i o ati e t i ki g o IRD’ssta . More importa t, t ese e orts would ot a ebee reali ed wit out t e trust, support, a d assis-ta ce o t e local commu ities i Serbia a d Mo -te egro. From our begi i g, IRD u derstood t eimporta ce o dedicated sta ers gi i g t eir time,e ergy, a d resources to t e local commu ity sot at e eryo e, joi tly, could reap t e ric rewards



vi EMPOWERInG CITIzEnS, EnGAGInG GOvERnMEnTS, REBUILDInG COMMUnITIES

o ci ic re ewal. Wit t is report, we wa t to re isitt e CRDA program i Serbia a d Mo te egro, otas a tec ical docume t or a program report, butas a u fltered look at t e work do e by our sta -ers to impleme t a grou d-breaki g assista ceprogram t at did so muc more t a simply deli ergoods. It u dame tally altered li es, a d it elpedstabili e u certai commu ities t roug tireless

teac i g a d trai i g, a d t roug u paralledperso al i estme ts i local social structures t atlaid t e ou datio or IRD’s i creasi g commit-me t to commu ity-based stabili atio .

Dr. Art ur B. Keys Jr.



vii



Empowering citizens,engaging governments,rebuilding communities

Commu ity esti al osted by IRD i Mio ica, Serbia.



1

“Real de elopme t work is a lo g-term process,but you a e to start somew ere. It’s almost likeculti ati g ew blueberries. Be patie t a d atte ti ebut aggressi e, a d somet i g aluable will grow.”

I July 2001, t e US Age cy or I ter atio alDe elopme t awarded I ter atio al Relie &De elopme t a cooperati e agreeme t to imple-me t its Commu ity Re itali atio t roug Demo-cratic Actio (CRDA) program i Serbia. Pla edas a f e-year, $40 millio commu ity mobili atioi itiati e, t e program was redesig ed i its t irdyear to emp asi e eco omic de elopme t a d jobcreatio , rebra ded as Commu ity De elopme tt roug Democratic Actio -Eco omy (CRDA-E), a dexte ded by o e year. IRD bega operatio s iSerbia o July 15, 2001, a d completed its work oJuly 14, 2007. CRDA was subseque tly establis edi Mo te egro i May 2002, e di g o August 31,2007. I bot regio s, project acti ity ce teredo basic i rastructure; eco omic a d agriculturalde elopme t; ealt , social, a d e iro me tassista ce; grassroots democracy buildi g; a dci il society a d coalitio buildi g.

Duri g t e course o t e programs, IRD used com-mu ity mobili atio tec iques to build a ig le elo trust a d mutual respect wit citi e s, w ic

led to e ecti e part ers ips betwee local com-mu ities, t eir local go er me ts, a d t e pri atesector. IRD’s approac u derscored t e alue iestablis i g relatio s ips wit citi e s a d ci icleaders as a frst step to a success ul assista cei ter e tio . T roug t ese relatio s ips, IRD wasable to i still a culture o citi e empowerme tt roug out Serbia society.

T roug acti e commu ity participatio a d grass-roots democratic actio , a more ibra t, trai ed,a d educated society emerged. T is e a cedcapacity or ci ic cooperatio e abled IRD topromote lo ger lasti g eco omic de elopme tt roug a i tegrated met od o project impleme -tatio t at demo strated t e alue o public a dpri ate part ers ips to all segme ts o society.IRD’s approac broug t immediate a d lo g-termimpro eme t i people’s li i g co ditio s, f a cialoutlook, a d capacity or sel -sustai me t.

Multiple program assessme ts ou d t at IRDad bee extremely success ul i re itali i g



2 EMPOWERInG CITIzEnS, EnGAGInG GOvERnMEnTS, REBUILDInG COMMUnITIES

commu ities a d ge erati g ta gible local eco-omic impacts t roug CRDA (a d CRDA-E, w icwill be a assumed compo e t o t e o erallCRDA desig a d missio i ma y i sta ces o t is program re iew). T e lo g- lasti g results iSerbia a d Mo te egro i cluded a stro g eco-omic boost or small a d medium e terprises,a better u dersta di g o markets, a willi g essamo g local populatio s to work toget er a dstro ger co fde ce i local go er me t. T emissio was ot wit out di fculties, but t ef al results exceeded t e origi al expectatio s.T is re iew is ot i te ded to a aly e CRDAor assess t e measures o success t roug acompre e si e re iew o 1,600 projects. I stead,it is i te ded to look at ow IRD, a you g orga i-atio at t e time, we t t roug t e process o impleme ti g a project grou ded i t e co ceptscommu ity mobili atio a d reac ed eco omica d social sustai ability.

IRD’s approac i Serbia, recou ted t roug t eeyes o ma y o its sta ers, succeeded i largepart because t e still-maturi g orga i atio waswilli g to be exible, take risks, a d stay ce teredo a guidi g pri ciple t at ci ilia orga i atio sare t e most e ecti e mec a isms to lead real,lasti g socioeco omic c a ge i commu ities. T eapproac co ti ued to e ol e a d e e tually led tolarger de elopme t missio s i e e more troubled

regio s arou d t e world. But or IRD, t e processbega i Serbia.

T is re iew re isits IRD’s work i Serbia a d Mo -te egro, ot as a per orma ce assessme t but asa met od o exami i g t e approac , i ormed pri-marily by t e processes a d t e people w o carriedt em out, di ided i to t ree o erarc i g stages:

• Establishing a ramework: C ose as o e o f e age cies to impleme t a broad democraticassista ce program, IRD drew o its pre iousexperie ce i t e regio a d its orga i atio alp ilosop y to o ercome early c alle ges.

• Empowering citizens: T roug regular tow allmeeti gs, commu ity committees, a aggres-si e projects cale dar, a d a emp asis oproducti e go er me t relatio s, IRD e abledt ousa ds o local reside ts to take a acti eparticipatory role i t eir commu ities’ sociala d eco omic utures.

• Encouraging integrated implementation: By acilitati g crucial de elopme t li ks betweeciti e s, local go er me ts, a d t e pri atesector, IRD elped oster a e trepre eurialspirit t at yielded ew jobs, ew busi esses,ew i dustries, a d lo g-term eco omic de el-opme t pla s w ere o e ad existed be ore.



1Establishing a framework

US Ambassador to Serbia, Camero Mu ter (ce ter), isits reco structio o

Belgrade Yout Ce ter, Spri g 2008.



5

“IRD was you g, small a d ready to do w ate er waseeded. We did ’t a e t e burde s o red tape orbureaucracy. We were all ki d o lear i g. A d wetook risks t at ot ers were ’t willi g to take.”

I t e lo g list detaili g t e 589 commu ity re itali atio a d de elopme t projects u dertakeas part o I ter atio al Relie & De elopme t’sCRDA a d CRDA-E programs i Mo te egro, projectLED/AG-145 looks relati ely i co spicuous, like a y umber o ot er small local i itiati es. Describedas “t e procureme t o equipme t o mulc i gflm layi g,” its f al cost was $18,840.06, ami iscule part o t e $50 millio spe t o projectsduri g t e programs’ f e-year spa . But cost isa measureme t, a d alue is a co cept. A d t ealue o LED/AG-145 to a ew armers i Malesijaoutweig ed its cost.

Malesija, o e o t e largest agricultural areas iMo te egro, is located about 10 kilometers romt e capital city o Podgorica, toward t e Alba iaborder. I t e spri g o 2006, most armers weremai ly growi g egetables o i di idual proper-ties t at were di ided i to rat er small plots. T eeco omics o t e situatio mea t si gle producerswere u able to get t e ecessary equipme t ore fcie t la d culti atio . I order to work toget er,

some armers ormed t e Associatio o Agricul-tural Producers a d, wit t e aid o local eco omicpla ers, we t to IRD wit a request—support orbuyi g a tractor wit a attac me t or mulc i g,a d ot er related equipme t. I tur , all memberso t e associatio would s are t e ew mac i ery,a d t ey would set up a rolli g u d or mai te-a ce a d uture purc ases, a u d subsidi ed ipart by i creased re e ues rom more e fcie t a dproducti e armi g.

T e associatio success ully mobili ed supporta d recei ed additio al f a cial backi g romlocal part ers, ra gi g rom pri ate compa iesto public o fces, suc as t e Mu icipality o Podgorica as well as t e Mi istry o Agriculture.I di idual citi e s, t e pri ate sector, a d go -er me t leaders all worked toget er to e suret at t is project appe ed. IRD acilitated t eprocess a d co tributed just more t a 50perce t to t e cost o t e project i dollars romUSAID, w ic was u di g t e CRDA a d CRDA-Eprograms.




Two years later, i 2008, t e programs ad e dedi Mo te egro. By t e , t ere were di ere t proj-ects, di ere t groups, a d di ere t uses o i ter-atio al dollars. But t at tractor, w ic mec a i eda most basic process, was operatio al a d its worko goi g. Margie Ferris-Morris, a co sulta t romt e U ited States, was tra eli g t roug Mo te e-gro a d Serbia, co ducti g researc to compile aprogram assessme t o CRDA a d CRDA-E. Duri ger trip, s e spoke to busi ess ow ers, go er -me t o fcials, a d i di idual citi e s—i cludi gtwo armers, w om s e described as “large,stro g, a d typically proud” me . T ese armersope ly s ared t e story o ow t ey be eftedpro essio ally a d f a cially rom a agriculturalproject t at broug t t em ew equipme t.

Sitti g across a table rom Ferris-Morris, t e twome mistook er or a IRD or USAID worker a dt a ked er passio ately a d repeatedly or elpi gt em. T e w ole time t ey were doi g so, t ey adtears i t eir eyes, because t ey were so grate ulor t e project t at, i t eir words, ad “c a gedt eir li es.” T e project was LED/AG-145, a d e et oug its f al li e item is oted i a spreads eetas less t a $19,000, its o goi g alue is mea-sured i di ere t a d power ul ways: by growme mo ed to tears, by a success ul model o public a d pri ate part ers ip, a d by t e e ecti eimpleme tatio o program desig ed to do o alarge scale exactly w at LED/AG-145 did o a smallscale—e courage citi e s to take a acti e rolei t e decisio maki g processes t at s ape t eirsocial a d eco omic utures.

The CRDA mission: A partnership withcitizens to rebuild their communities

I 2001, t e US Age cy or I ter atio al De elop-me t (USAID) put out a request or applicatio sseeki g o go er me tal orga i atio s capableo impleme ti g t e Commu ity Re itali atiot roug Democratic Actio (CRDA) programi Serbia, or as it was t e k ow alo g wit

Mo te egro, t e Federal Republic o Yugosla ia.Years o war a d i ter atio al isolatio adde astated t e Serbia eco omy, leadi g to oods ortages, i rastructure collapses, a d soari gu employme t. T e promise o a more prosperousuture t at ollowed t e all o So iet commu isma d subseque t breakup o socialist Yugosla iaquickly dissipated as t e regio ell i to social a deco omic crisis. T roug USAID, t e US go er -me t i ter e ed wit a goal o o eri g more t af a cial assista ce.

T ree i ter e tio programs were pla ed topromote participatory democracy a d rei igoratet e Serbia eco omy (box 1). T e $14 millioSerbia E terprise De elopme t Project ocusedo relati ely small, targeted subsectors to i creaseemployme t a d exports. T e $30 millio SerbiaLocal Go er me t Re orm Project aimed slig tly ig er, worki g wit mu icipalities to restoreco fde ce i local go er me t a d stre gt eser ice deli ery. I particular, e orts were ocusedo mu icipalities t at ad opposed t e policieso Preside t Sloboda Milose ic a d su ered t ears est pe alties by t e ce tral go er me t as aresult. But t e primary program to be impleme tedwas also t e most ambitious. T e $200 millioCRDA i itiati e, a grassroots de elopme t programaimed at promoti g citi e participatio wit i a damo g commu ities to address critical eco omica d social re itali atio eeds. CRDA projects wereto be citi e -dri e a d ra ge rom basic i rastruc-ture to job creatio . Orga i ed commu ities witacti e participa ts a d democrati ed decisio -maki g were t e key compo e t, a d t e met odby w ic USAID oped to broade CRDA’s impactbeyo d a traditio al “tra sitio ” program.

T e program desig itsel was ot ew, but it adot bee attempted o a scale t is large or witgoals t is sweepi g: t e simulta eous rebuildi go commu ity i rastructure a d re itali atioo regio al eco omies, t roug t e prism o democracy assista ce, o er six years. CRDA adits roots i Leba o , w ere a commu ity-based



ESTABLIShInG A FRAMEWORK 7

decisio maki g program aimed to rebuild omes,restore basic i rastructure, a d boost eco omicacti ity i rural areas ollowi g years o ci il wara d slow ci il rege eratio . Similar programs adbee impleme ted o a smaller scale i ot ertroubled areas, suc as Jorda a d El Sal ador.

Wit t e CRDA program, USAID e isio ed t ecreatio o a etwork o locally ormed citi ecommittees, w ic would be respo sible oride ti yi g a d prioriti i g commu ity eeds,mobili i g commu ity a d ot er resources, a dmo itori g (a d co tributi g to) t e impleme ta-tio o projects. I co ju ctio wit t e separatego er me t stre gt e i g program, CRDA was to“promote i creased citi e i ol eme t i mu ici-pal a airs by i ol i g t em directly i decisio sregardi g resource allocatio a d sustai ability o commu ity ser ices.” Impleme ti g orga i atio swere required to acilitate commu ity orga i atio ,pro ide tec ical assista ce a d trai i g, e suret e iability o projects, a d, w ere possible,“e courage cooperatio betwee commu itiesa d go er me t to promote sustai ability o projects.”

W ile certai ly a assista ce program, CRDAaimed or muc ig er goals o promoti g demo-cratic practices at local le els to rebuild commu i-ties. I di iduals were gi e power to direct t e(pre erred) usage o de elopme t u ds, but t ey were also required to make a 25 perce t matc i gco tributio to i di idual project costs. At t e timeo t e CRDA desig , commu ity-based, “bottom-up” approac es to de elopme t assista ce adcome to be see as more likely to sustai lo g-term success t a t e traditio al “top-dow ”met od o worki g t roug go er me t structuresto direct aid.

Five di erent regions, ve di erentagencies, one overall goal

IRD was o e o f e o go er me tal orga i atio sc ose by USAID to impleme t t e CRDA programi Serbia starti g i t e summer o 2001. T rougt ese f e impleme ti g part ers, CRDA was acti ei about 450 commu ities, 100 mu icipalities,a d 130 “clusters,” or groups o commu ities.T e cou try was di ided geograp ically, wit eac

IRD in Serbia

CRDA and CRDA-E unded 1,024 projects totaling $40.4 million in obligated unds. Matching contributions

rom local municipalities and communities, which initially were mandated by USAID at 25 percent, rose to an

average o 39 percent by the end o the program. IRD’s cost-share contribution was $556,000 in goods donated

by Latter-Day Saint Charities or internally displaced persons, re ugees, and other vulnerable people. Together,

both programs reached 5.5 million bene ciaries, generated more than $34 million in additional income, increased

agricultural sales by $8.7 million, and strengthened or enabled approximately 11,000 associations, cooperatives,

institutions, arms, small businesses, and other service providers.

IRD in Montenegro

CRDA and CRDA-E unded 589 projects totaling $21.7 million in obligated unds. The mandated level or in-kind

contributions was 25 percent, but as was also the case in Serbia, local contributions ar exceeded the require-

ment, rising to an average o 42 percent. Additionally, IRD contributed in-kind contributions valued at $4.8 million

(primarily in the orm o medical supplies), donated rom the World Bank, Northwest Medical Teams, Gleanings o

the World, the Latter-Day Saint Charities, and Project CURE. The programs reached more than 600,000 bene cia-

ries and generated $10.8 million in short-term and sustainable income.

Box 1 IRD’s work in Serbia and Montenegro




age cy respo sible or carryi g out CRDA’s aimsi its assig ed regio . IRD was assig ed a regioi wester Serbia. (IRD bega t e CRDA programi Mo te egro t e ollowi g year.) Wit i t oseregio s, di ere t mu icipalities participated iCRDA i di ere t ways (box 2).

Alt oug eac orga i atio tasked wit carryi g outt e CRDA desig recei ed guida ce a d expectedoutcomes rom USAID, met ods o impleme tatiowere ot u i orm. numerous actors co tributed

to t is ariety, i cludi g t e sociopolitical co texto eac o t e f e geograp ical regio s, as well asdi ere t i stitutio al priorities wit i t e structureo separately ma aged orga i atio s.

Recog i i g t is di ide is otewort y, becauseeac o t e age cies i Serbia a d Mo te egrooperated auto omously. Wit di ere t geograp i-cal regio s aci g di ere t eeds a d c alle ges,eac orga i atio ollowed its ow pla , a dledits ow sta f g, created its ow success, a d

At the start o the program, IRD introduced CRDA

to all 25 municipalities in its assigned region in

western Serbia. Local o cials, citizens, and NGOs

were invited to apply to the program, propose com-

position o community committees, and identi y their

initial project priorities. In September 2001, IRD

selected 60 communities in 13 municipalities based

on demonstrated need, progressive, pro-democracy

attitudes, community cooperation, interest in coop-

erating with surrounding communities, and inclusion

o women and minorities in public matters. Those

13 municipalities were Arilje, Bajina Basta, Krupanj,

Loznica, Mionica, Pozega, Ruma, Sabac, Sremska

Mitrovica, Ub, Uzice, Valjevo, and Vladimirci. (Addi-

tional work was carried out in Cajetina and Kosjeric.)

Once the program shi ted ocus to CRDA-E, IRD

decided to make unds available to private sector

stakeholders (such as businesses and agriculture pro-

ducers) in all 25 municipalities, though six were singled

out or the pilot local economic development project

that was a cornerstone o the CRDA-E phase. Those

municipalities were Arilje, Cajetina, Sabac, Vladimirci,

Krupanj, and Uzice.

In Montenegro, IRD implemented the program with one

other organization, the Community Housing Foundation.

IRD’s assigned region covered the southern and coastal

municipalities o Bar, Budva, Cetinje, Herceg Novi, Kotor,

Podgorica, Tivat, and Ulcinj.

Box 2 Where IRD worked

ARILJE

POŽEGA

ČAJETINA

BAJINA BAŠTAUŽICE

K O S J E R I Ć

MIONICA

VALJEVO

UB

K R U PA N J

VLADIMIRCILOZNICA

ŠABAC

RUMA

SREMSKAMITROVICA

B O

S N I

A A

N D

H E R Z E G O V I N A

M O N T E N E G R O

IRD inwesternSerbia

BARBUDVA

C E T I N J E HERCEG NOVI

KOTOR

P O D G

O R I C

A

TIVAT

ULCINJ

IRD inMontenegro

KOSOVO

MONTENEGRO

SERBIA




e dured its ow obstacles. I additio , t eprogram u derwe t a u dame tal s i t i direc-tio i 2005, mo i g rom commu ity re itali atiotoward a almost exclusi e ocus o eco omicde elopme t, a d eac impleme ti g part errespo ded to t e ew parameters i di ere tways. As a result o t ese ariables, attempti g toobtai a accurate comparati e a alysis o CRDApart ers is u realistic.

howe er, t e cumulati e results o t e programamo g all part ers speak to its success. Citi-e s, busi esses, a d local go er me t o fcialst roug out Serbia lear ed ow to a aly e eco-omic data, compare t eir capacities to marketdema ds, impro e t e quality o t eir products,def e a d impleme t de elopme t strategies, a dco cei e a d operatio ali e projects to jump-starta moribu d eco omy. Just as importa t, t e localpopulatio s t roug out Serbia a d Mo te egrodemo strated t eir ow commitme t to maki gCRDA work t roug cou terpart co tributio s t atexceeded 50 perce t o project costs. Accordi gto USAID, more t a 4 millio reside ts i Serbiabe efted (about 60 perce t o populatio i 2005)a d more t a $80 millio i additio al i comewas ge erated.

I depe de t assessme ts back up t e umbers.A t ird-party e aluatio co ducted or USAIDi 2008 ou d t at CRDA ad bee “extremely success ul” i re itali i g commu ities a d ge -erati g immediate a d ta gible local eco omicopportu ity i Serbia. Collected data s owed are ewed co fde ce t roug out t e cou try i localgo er me t a d a i crease i exports a d ull-time employme t. Years a ter t e CRDA programo fcially e ded, local busi ess de elopme tdistricts were t ri i g, a d agricultural cooperati esestablis ed u der t e program were still growi g.Some aspects o CRDA were more success ul t aot ers, a d di ere t e aluatio s reac ed slig tly di ere t co clusio s o t e lo g-term impact o t e program o more i ta gible i dicators, suc aseeli gs o trust a d empowerme t.

W e awarded t e CRDA gra t, IRD was a you gorga i atio wit a small sta a d ew i ter atio ali ter e tio s to its credit. Fou ded i 1998 by Dr. Art ur B. Keys Jr., IRD quickly grew i to a truly global relie orga i atio , distributi g more t a$1.75 billio i uma itaria assista ce acrossour co ti e ts wit i 10 years.

An early investment in strong socialrelationships

E e t oug it’s ot etc ed as a motto o a plaqueor recited by sta ers as a talki g poi t, t ere is au dame tal belie i t e alue o de elopme t a duma itaria assista ce t at exists t roug out IRD.T is belie , w ic i orms t e orga i atio ’s propos-als, policies, a d directio , is t at ci ilia orga i a-tio s, ot t e military or top-dow go er me t i stitu-tio s, o er t e best c a ce or a rebuildi g regio tosucceed i t e lo g term t roug t e establis me to perso al, sustai able ties to commu ity.

W et er iewed as co cept, idea, argume t, ort esis stateme t, t is belie as ser ed as IRD’sguidi g pri ciple as a assista ce orga i atio .It’s a straig t orward approac t at certai ly at opoi t was proprietary i tellige ce or IRD. But justbecause t e approac is widely co sidered does ’tmake it u i ersally accepted. W ile a y orga i a-tio committed to t e goal o impleme ti g de el-opme t programs must ad ere to a i ter al logict at is some exact or slig t ariatio o t is pri ci-ple, IRD’s commitme t to t e alue o i terperso alrelatio s ips a d trust was ce tral to t e orga i a-tio ’s success i Serbia a d Mo te egro. For asmall operatio wit less sta a d resources t aot er like-mi ded orga i atio s, IRD relied ea ily o its social capital i t e target commu ities. T ei estme t i relatio s ips a d t e commitme tto establis i g lo g-term public-pri ate worki gmodels was key to IRD’s e e tual success witCRDA, because it allowed IRD to sur i e a u e ebegi i g as well as abrupt ma dates rom t edo or t at stretc ed t e orga i atio ’s capacity.




USAID outli ed t e program desig a d establis edgoals, but as pre iously oted, eac impleme ti gage cy de ised its ow operatio al age da orCRDA (see box 3). T is reality was due i part tot e geograp ical realities o t e grou d (suc ast e aryi g socioeco omic a d cultural co textso eac regio ), a d i part to t e practical reality t at o two (or more) orga i atio s would ollow t eexact same course, e e i t e e d goals are t esame. Keepi g t is reality i mi d w e assess-i g IRD’s role wit CRDA is importa t, because apositi e assessme t o o e met odology is ot ai dictme t o a y ot er.

By looki g at IRD’s i di idual approac a d its owmeasures o success, importa t lesso s ca belear ed about t e e ecti e ess o results t at areot easily measured by per orma ce i dicatorsalo e. IRD’s approac i Serbia a d Mo te egrorei orced t e otio t at f a cial support alo ewill ot make a i ter e tio success ul. It alsorei orced t e late-20t ce tury e olutio iassista ce t eory t at sou d de elopme t policy

takes time a d is more sustai able i it’s built o aou datio o mutual trust betwee t ose supplyi gt e aid a d t ose recei i g it.

Accordi g to J. Bria Atwood, a ormer USAIDadmi istrator (1992–98), t e idea s ould be to“de elop a lo g-term, e duri g relatio s ip t atwill produce de elopme t c a ge a d results o ertime. T e success o t e ost cou try equalssuccess o t e de elopme t missio .” Establis i ga t oroug , i -cou try etwork o trust betweei di iduals a d amo g groups is o paramou timporta ce to layi g t e grou dwork or social a deco omic sustai ability.

At t e core o IRD’s model or impleme ti gCRDA was i esti g a d rei esti g i local com-mu ities’ social capital—w at sociologist RobertPut am re erred to as “t e collecti e alue o allsocial etworks a d t e i cli atio s t at ariserom t ese etworks to do t i gs or eac ot er.”Ma y IRD sta ers, w e recalli g t e early dayso t e project, repeatedly re erred to trust t ey

In the beginning, CRDA had one overarching mission—to bridge the gap in relations between citizen and local

government organizations in addressing the economic and social revitalization o community li e. Implementing

partners were given the discretion to create their own plans to best organize local communities, though each

organization needed to address certain “pillars” designated by USAID:

• Community mobilization.

• In rastructure and environment.

• Economic revitalization.

For IRD, community mobilization and development were at the core o its CRDA implementation model, with com-

munity groups heavily involved in the project identi cation and design o many o the in rastructure, environment,

and economy initiatives. IRD trained community members in all aspects o project acilitation, including strategic

planning, advocacy, participatory evaluation, grant application processes, and more. As a result, IRD and its CRDA

communities were able to jointly identi y and prepare community infrastructure projects such as repairing hospi-

tals, schools, and playgrounds; improving water supply and distribution systems; modernizing waste collection and

disposal systems; repairing roads; and building new public acilities such as libraries. The CRDA communities also

were heavily involved in identi ying economic revitalization projects, which ocused on advisory services, training,

and grants or agricultural producers and small businesses. Even when the program transitioned to a singular ocus

on economic development, IRD preserved citizen participation in the decisionmaking process.

Box 3 CRDA’s design pillars




establis ed wit reside ts, a mutual bo d orged it e c aos o t e “quick-start” ma date t at USAIDdecreed a ter t e impleme ti g part ers adalready draw up CRDA desig s a d stre gt e edby t e program’s somew at di fcult tra sitio toCRDA-E.

T e trust was built i t e most basic ways, by liste i g, assisti g, a d ollowi g t roug oprojects, but also i ot er ways. IRD, as a smallorga i atio , relied ea ily o local populatio s tofll key sta f g positio s, rom ju ior program o f-cers to c ie e gi eers. By ma y accou ts, t erewas a real distrust o o go er me tal orga i a-tio s i Serbia at t e time, so IRD’s relia ce olocal perso el played a importa t legitimi i grole. IRD ad already establis ed a prese ceamo g some o Serbia’s most ul erable popula-tio s, a i g carried out pre ious uma itariawork w e o ot er o go er me tal orga i a-tio s were arou d.

By maki g mutual trust ce tral to its impleme ta-tio p ilosop y, IRD was able to mai tai a co sis-te t approac t roug out t e program, e e w et e targeted outcomes dramatically s i ted. It wasalso able to ac ie e w at o e de elopme t expert

re erred to as t e “golde goose”: reali ed, sustai -able outcomes o a combi ed eco omic a d socialle el. Almost a decade a ter CRDA bega , localeco omic de elopme t districts, busi ess coop-erati es, yout participatio groups, a d touristdesti atio s are amo g t e a d ul o sustai ableprojects o ersee a d de eloped by IRD. T emodel t at IRD used i impleme ti g CRDA—a dlater, CRDA-E—becomes especially rele a t i lig to t at socioeco omic sustai ability.

The IRD model: Sustainability throughcitizen empowerment and integratedproject implementation

W ile proper credit s ould be gi e to t e projectdesig a d to t e do or, o e promi e t USAIDo fcial at t e time dismissed sustai ability as aco ceptual goal or CRDA, sayi g t at immedi-ate assista ce, ot sustai able projects, wast e missio : “T e program will be sustai able i t e people wa t it to be sustai able.” Gi e t ese erely limited capacities o people i t e rurala d eco omically depressed regio s o Serbiatargeted by CRDA, lea i g sustai able outcomes—a d, i tur , positi e lo g-lasti g impacts—up to

E X T E R N A L D O N O R

IRD

Economicand social

sustainability

Socialcapital

Integratedimplementation

Citizenempowerment

Figure 1 IRD’s implementation model




“t e people” was ta tamou t to t rowi g a li epreser er wit o li e attac ed.

Wit its ow limited capacities, IRD certai ly did ot set out to e sure t at a certai umbero projects would yield e duri g outcomes. Butt e emp asis t at IRD placed o de elopi grelatio s ips wit i t e commu ities a d amo ggo er me t o fcials e abled it to co ect wit t etargeted Serbia populatio i a way t at allowedreal de elopme t, ot just politically expedie t dataoutcomes, to take root.

T e process, as it tur ed out, was basic. As aci ilia orga i atio c arged wit impleme ti gprojects u ded by a exter al do or, IRD coulda e see its role easily reduced to “middle ma .”I stead, t e orga i atio , w ic already ad asmall but establis ed prese ce i Serbia, reliedea ily o creati g a d le eragi g its social capitalwit i t e commu ity, w ic ueled w at ca bedescribed as a procedural model depe de t o twoequally importa t compo e ts—citi e empower-me t a d i tegrated project impleme tatio . By creati g t e e abli g e iro me t or t e citi e ry to take co trol o its uture wit CRDA, IRD gai edt e trust a d respect ecessary to impleme teco omic a d socially sustai able projects witCRDA-E.

IRD met or exceeded almost e ery program targetoutli ed i Serbia a d Mo te egro, sometimesby a large margi , w ile t e u met targets weremore a matter o dimi is ed, rat er t a ailed,outcomes. (I Mo te egro, or i sta ce, IRD c oseot to meet a target o 80 worki g commu ity groups a d i stead settled o 60, because t eig er target was deemed imprude t.) From a basicmeasureme t o i puts a d outputs, IRD’s work iSerbia a d Mo te egro easily exceeded t e resultsi itially promised to USAID. IRD pledged t at 350commu ity impro eme t projects would be imple-me ted a d 27,000 ew jobs created. I Serbia,t ose umbers balloo ed to 754 projects a d moret a 50,000 perma e t or temporary jobs.

IRD’s success i Serbia a d Mo te egro is otableor a umber o reaso s, but two are wort urt erexploratio : t e orga i atio ’s relati e yout at t etime it was operati g i Serbia—w ic allowed ora imble operatio al approac t at was repeatedly cited by sta ers as a be eft—a d its co siste tcommitme t to e gagi g local go er me tsalo gside citi e s. By taki g care to establis trustwit all program stake olders, IRD could acilitatea e abli g e iro me t or citi e s, go er me t,a d t e pri ate sector to establis t eir ow le elso trust wit eac ot er by joi tly pla i g or t eirsocial a d eco omic utures.

Wit out t e co strai t o ollowi g its ow prec-ede ts, IRD took t e commu ity mobili atioou datio o t e CRDA desig a d ac ie ed a goaliewed by ma y o its practitio ers as a luxury—sustai able outcomes, ra gi g rom busi essimpro eme t districts i di ere t mu icipalitiesto regularly sc eduled ca cer scree i gs i localospitals. IRD’s exibility a d ope ess to riskexemplifed its Serbia operatio a d elped propelIRD to larger de elopme t a d assista ce work. Ia way, IRD a d its operatio al p ilosop y were it e rig t place—as a growt -orie ted, bureaucrati-cally lea ci ilia orga i atio —at t e rig t time—w e t e US political climate or de elopme t a ddemocracy assista ce called or exactly w at IRDcould pro ide (box 4).

Early work in Serbia: A oundation ortrust, and a willingness to accept risk

O t e f e impleme ti g part ers i Serbia, IRDbega t e CRDA program wit t e least experie cea d s ortest istory o ser ice—i most cases,by decades. America De elopme t Fou datio ,worki g i ort er Serbia, was establis ed i1980. Mercy Corps, worki g i sout ce tralSerbia, was ou ded o e year earlier i 1979.T e ot er two part ers came i to Serbia wite e more establis ed crede tials. ACDI/vOCAwas created by t e 1997 merger o Agricultural




NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign o Serbia in 1999, led by the United States, o ers crucial context or the

discussion o CRDA. The Balkan military action, a response to the ethnic violence raging in Serbia, bookended the

two most notable US military interventions o Bill Clinton’s early presidential tenure—Haiti, where he deployed

the military to restore President Jean Bertrande-Aristide to power, and Somalia, where he expanded the role o

the military rom an initial humanitarian aid support operation to a much broader mission that, according to UN

Resolution 814, sought the “re-establishment o national and regional institutions and civil administration in the

entire country,” the “disarmament” o warring actions, and “economic rehabilitation.” The phrase “nation build-

ing” was not explicitly stated, but the intent was clear. When the United States announced plans to withdraw

rom Somalia just more than six months a ter the passage o that resolution (and a ter a US military operation in

Mogadishu led to the deaths o 18 American soldiers and hundreds o Somalis), critics had a rallying cry around

the bodies o dead Americans, the military should not be in the business o creating civil societies.

In his presidential memoir, Clinton called the Haiti intervention “strong evidence o the wisdom” o multilateral

responses to areas in crisis, adding that such operations “reduce resentment against the United States, and build

invaluable habits o cooperation.” Although Clinton was writing o intergovernmental cooperation, the concept is

applicable to civilian cooperation, since it was the recognition o military limitations in the 1990s that arguably

led to the growing presence o nongovernmental organizations in world trouble spots.

From Clinton’s rst year in o ce, his administration sought to strengthen the role o the US military as a peace-

keeping orce at a time, as the Washington Post reported, “o unprecedented growth in demands or UN interven-

tion, and amid serious problems with major operations in Somalia and the Balkans.” According to the Pentagon,

the United Nations in 1990 had about 10,000 peacekeepers deployed at an annual cost o $819 million. By 2003,

there were more than 80,000 UN peacekeepers deployed worldwide with annual bills exceeding $3.6 billion. A

new world order was indeed taking shape, but in many cases, modernization was being undercut by unstable or

corrupt institutions, uneducated and uncertain populations, diminished in rastructures, and a general lack o

governmental capacity. At the same time, USAID had seen its sta , budget, and infuence greatly diminished.

From its beginning in the Kennedy administration, USAID was seen as the backbone o America’s international

development initiatives. But in the post-Cold War era, global development goals were de-emphasized by Congress,

and USAID had undergone heavy cutbacks.

In 1997, Clinton signed a presidential directive to create a program or educating and training personnel—military

and civilian—in peacekeeping missions, or as the directive stated, “complex contingency operations.” Recogniz-

ing the growing need or a nonmilitary response to a “rising number o territorial disputes, armed ethnic conficts,

and civil wars” that destabilize regions, the administration sought to create a ederal process that would promote

joint military and civilian cooperation. The acknowledgment o the need or a new approach was explicit:

Many aspects o complex emergencies may not be best addressed through military measures. Further-

more, given the level o US interests at stake in most o these situations, we recognize that US orces

should not be deployed in an operation inde nitely. It is essential that the necessary resources be pro-

vided to ensure that we are prepared to respond in a robust, e ective manner. To oster a durable peace

or stability in these situations and to maximize the e ect o judicious military deployments, the civilian

components o an operation must be integrated closely with the military components.

Box 4 The right approach at the right time

(continued)




Cooperati e De elopme t I ter atio al, establis edi 1963, a d volu teers i O erseas Cooperati eAssista ce, establis ed i 1970. ChF I ter atio al,worki g i t e east, bega worki g i i ter atio alde elopme t i 1962, t oug it dates to t e early 1950s. IRD, just t ree years old at t e time o t eCRDA co tract gra t, ad ma aged a aggregate o $65 millio i go er me t gra ts a d cooperati eagreeme ts. CRDA, by co trast, was a estimated$40 millio award.

But IRD ad two disti ct ad a tages t at elpedo set its yout ul ess, a establis ed prese ce ot e grou d a d a willi g ess to take risk. IRD adbee operatio al i Serbia or more t a a yearbe ore CRDA bega , frst impleme ti g a US StateDepartme t uma itaria assista ce gra t be oresecuri g a cooperati e agreeme t or USAID’sAltnet program. Also a uma itaria project,Altnet was co cei ed as a “alter ati e distribu-tio etwork” or ood a d o ood commodities.At t e time, t e Yugosla Red Cross co trolled alls ipme ts a d distributio s o uma itaria goodse teri g a d distributed wit i Yugosla ia, a dt ere were se eral docume ted cases o abuse

or misallocatio o assista ce to t e military orgo er me t perso el.

Altnet’s goal was to e sure i ter atio al aid wasgetti g to t e people. Altnet’s result, owe er,was o greater impact, as it tur ed i to t e rareexample o a program t at made a e ecti etra sitio rom t e pro isio o uma itaria assis-ta ce to t e de elopme t o eco omic security.I its seco d year, t e project o fcially became agra ts program, but IRD disco ered a ci ic aware-ess rom t e ery begi i g t at led to Altnet’srapid a d orga ic e olutio .

W ile Altnet was substa tially smaller t a CRDA(wit a budget just u der $2.5 millio ), its struc-tural ramework was ery similar. Altnet relied omu icipal ad isory cou cils, or MACs, w ic closely resembled t e commu ity de elopme t committeescalled or i CRDA. Wit t e cou cils, IRD already ad commu ity-based orga i atio s establis ed i16 mu icipalities t roug out Serbia. T ose orga i-atio s co sisted o 10–15 i di iduals, represe ta-ti e o di ere t parts o t e commu ity, w o ser edas collecti e scree i g a d selectio committees

A Pentagon- nanced study two years later ound that the US government had done little to carry out the plan,

however. “The spirit and intent [o the directive] is not being ollowed,” the report concluded. Eventually, this

concept would evolve in A ghanistan as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRTs—units consisting o military

o cers and civilians tasked with the joint acilitation o reconstruction and stabilization e orts. But mostly, the

“spirit and intent” o civilian organizations taking a leading role in ostering stability ell to civilian organizations

themselves.

Understanding the context o o cial ederal policy, political rhetoric, and the increasing need or UN-type assis-

tance at the turn o the century is important in examining the role o a nongovernmental organization, like IRD, in

implementing a program like CRDA. Success in revitalizing the civic core o an unstable society was increasingly

recognized as undamental or truly e ective intervention, but many development experts elt the international

community overall was unprepared to respond e ectively to newer post-Cold War challenges. With a growing con-

sensus that militarized operations were ine ective mechanisms or development, nongovernmental organizations

became more important in delivering humanitarian, development, and, in many cases, democratic assistance. It

was within this political and social context that IRD, ounded and guided by the same general operating principle

o civil society development, entered Serbia.

Box 4 The right approach at the right time (continued)




or t e distributio o uma itaria aid. By t e timeIRD soug t a role i CRDA, less t a o e year a tert e start o Altnet, ma y MACs ad already imple-me ted projects to address i come ge eratio a dge der a d mi ority eeds.

IRD recog i ed t e small scale o t ese accom-plis me ts but also t e importa ce o t e i roadsmade i establis i g commu ity ties, bot witlocal committee members a d local political o f-cials w o became i ol ed wit t e program. “T ei itial projects were a great success,” said vladaIlic, a local reside t ired by IRD as a Altnetf a ce ma ager. “You could ’t e e buy uel; itwas all smuggled. T e local Red Cross could ’t betrusted. Altnet ope ed doors or IRD e eryw ere.”

Altnet bega i September 2000 a d ra t rougSeptember 2003, so more o t e program existedas a compa io to CRDA t a as a predecessor.But Altnet yielded substa tial results, 567,000perso s be efted rom uma itaria aid a dgra ts totali g $537,000 created about 2,100 ew

jobs, accordi g to f al umbers. But t e socialimpact was greater t a t e accou ti g outcomes.Represe tati es to t e ad isory cou cils, i ter-iewed as t e program was wi di g dow , statedt at t e immediate assista ce pro ided by t e USgo er me t t roug IRD just days a ter t e o er-t row o Sloboda Milose ic “ ad a lasti g impactwit regard to IRD’s a d USAID’s credibility i targetmu icipalities.”

Wit i t e frst six mo t s o t e program, IRDsta ers ad built close relatio s ips wit localciti e s a d, more importa t, ser ed as a publicace or t e deli ery o ood a d ot er items. Localpoliticia s, w o i t e targeted areas all stood ioppositio to Milose ic, could use t e ad isory cou cil structure to s are t eir iews wit citi e s.A d t e citi e s were gi e a opportu ity tocoordi ate a d s are i ormatio betwee allstake olders, t e frst orga i ed experie ce t atmost members o t e mu icipal groups ad i t epost-Milose ic era.

Practically all o t is commu ity immersio tookplace wit i t ose frst six mo t s, be ore Altnetbega to tra sitio i to a gra ts program butw e it was still co sidered a uma itaria relie program. IRD establis ed a ide tity amo g t eSerb populatio ot o ly as a results-orie tedo proft, but as a acti e part er wit moti atedSerb locals a d as a acilitati g bridge betweeciti e s a d go er me t o fcials. IRD’s exibility iadjusti g to t e priorities o some o t e ad isory cou cils elped establis credibility o t e grou d,a crucial compo e t o uture success.

“IRD was you g, small a d ready to do w ate erwas ecessary,” Ilic said, addi g t at u like ot erorga i atio s, IRD “did ’t a e t e same burde so red tape or bureaucracy. We were all ki d o lear i g. A d we took risks t at ot ers were ’twilli g to take.”

IRD’s prese ce i Serbia actually predated Altnetby a ew mo t s. Operati g rom a US StateDepartme t gra t, IRD was distributi g assista cesupplies t roug local c urc etworks a dmu icipal cou cils i areas outside t e “co trol”o t e Yugosla Red Cross, w ic was bei g ruby Sloboda Milose ic’s wi e, Mirja a Marko ic. Att e time t at USAID a ou ced Altnet i August2000, t e Milose ic regime made it k ow t ata y America orga i atio attempti g to imple-me t uma itaria programs outside Red Crosso ersig t would be bra ded as a terrorist groupa d expelled rom t e cou try—a t reat ot to betake lig tly. Milose ic biograp er Sla oljub Djukicwrote t at “t ere is ot a si gle woma i Serbiaistory people a e bee so a raid o .” I a 1999profle, USA Today reported t at e e members o Milose ic’s sta eared er.

A ter care ul co sideratio a d co sultatio witpolitical leaders i t e 9 mu icipalities w eret ey were operatio al a d t e 15 proposed Altnetmu icipalities, IRD decided t at local eeds out-weig ed t e risks a d c ose to submit a proposalor t e program. At t e time, t e o ly distributio




o uma itaria aid outside o IRD’s work a d t ato t e Yugosla Red Cross, o course, came romUSAID’s O fce o Tra sitio I itiati es program,e e tually olded i to Altnet. Fortu ately or IRD,t e gamble paid o —t e Milose ic regime wasdeposed days be ore t e program o fcially bega .

IRD’s early i ol eme t i Serbia clearly elped lay t e grou dwork or t e e a ced credibility a dtrust t at were u dame tal to CRDA’s success.To make a y program work, “you simply a e toa e a prese ce o t e grou d,” said Tija a Dabic,a IRD program o fcer at t e time. “A d you a eto be exible.” T at exibility—a recurri g t emet roug out t e orga i atio ’s work i Serbia—alsoser ed IRD well duri g t e u e e begi i g stageso CRDA a d, e e tually, duri g t e program’sCRDA-E tra sitio .

Overcoming early challenges: A fexibleapproach to adversity

IRD ad establis ed a prese ce i Serbia wit itsAltnet program, but CRDA was muc larger, witmore di erse acti ities. For a you g orga i atiolike IRD, t e frst two years o impleme tatiowere a c alle ge. Its admi istrati e, f a cial, a dma ageme t procedures e ol ed primarily by triala d error, as IRD eadquarters i Was i gto ,DC, was becomi g establis ed. IRD co ducted ai ter al assessme t two years i to t e program tofgure out a more e fcie t way orward as delaysa d procedural troubles mou ted. As o e o IRD’ssta ers blu tly put it, “CRDA was i trouble.”

Fra k Pa ic , a etera de elopme t worker o more t a t ree decades w o ad joi ed IRDeadquarters, said t e early problems were primar-ily orga i atio al. “T ere were two groups—com-mu ity mobili atio a d e ery t i g else,” e said.“A d t ey did ’t get alo g.”

T ere were actually more t a two groups. To gett e commu ity mobili atio program o t e grou d,

IRD co tracted wit U ited Met odist Committeeo Relie . IRD relied o UMCOR, at t e time a mucmore experie ced relie orga i atio , or perso elelp a d operatio al measures i getti g t e com-mu ity groups orga i ed. I additio , IRD part eredwit t ree local nGOs to pro ide i ormatio a dsupport to i terested commu ity groups. Muc o IRD’s i itial success is attributable to t e elp itrecei ed rom t ose t ree part ers—Os it i t eSabac regio , t e valje o huma Rig ts Commit-tee, a d t e U ice Ce ter or huma Rig ts a dDemocracy.

As IRD was tryi g to bala ce meeti g its early objecti es wit co curre tly tryi g to recruit sta a destablis feld o fces, t e nGO part ers pro idedcrucial assista ce i orga i i g t e quarterly commu-ity meeti gs a d elpi g pote tial gra tees prepareproposals. T e assista ce rom t ese groups wasital, but t e orga i atio al structure became de ser.I additio to UMCOR, IRD ired a ot er orga i atioto elp de elop its I rastructure a d E iro me tprogram. Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) I ter a-tio al, a t ird member o t e IRD co sortium, wastasked wit pla i g a d impleme ti g t e frststage o CRDA’s i rastructure a d e iro me talcompo e t. T is was completed wit t e tec i-cal a d uma resources support o vodi g 92, aSerbia e gi eeri g co sulti g compa y.

But t e orga i atio al structure i Serbia wascomplex. Due to t e project’s ea y emp asiso project gra ts, clear a d co siste t f a cialprocedures were o t e utmost importa ce. I su f-cie cies i t ese areas became a acute pressurepoi t betwee UMCOR a d IRD, a d, to a certaiexte t, betwee IRD feld operatio s a d eadquar-ters. Duri g t e frst two years, 438 projects wereimpleme ted wit IRD a d subco tractors, requir-i g armo i atio t at was largely missi g betweeUSAID, IRD, a d UMCOR, w ic was ot i ol edwit CRDA a ter t ose frst two years.

T ere were “ oticeable problems at t e opera-tio al le el,” accordi g to o e sta er, problems




t at could be partly attributed to t e orga i a-tio ’s i a cy but also to t e early pressure romUSAID to meet quick-star t dema ds. “A quickstart-up is always problematic; it just takes aw ile to gai a commo rame o re ere ce,”Pa ic said.

T e pus or a rapid start strai ed IRD’s capac-ity rom t e ery begi i g, because it was au expected ma date t at ad ot bee part o t ecooperati e agreeme t wit USAID. no e o t eimpleme ti g part ers ad built a quick start-upi to t eir work pla s, but at t e CRDA ope i gprogram co ere ce i July 2001, USAID asked allf e orga i atio s to get 60 commu ity committeesi operatio a d i itiate at least o e project ieac selected commu ity wit i t e frst 90 days o t e program.

Despite t e logistical di fculties o compressi gorga i atio al tactics a d detailed project pla i gi to suc a s ort time rame, IRD met t e require-me ts. A d alt oug post-program e aluatio ss owed t at USAID did succeed i its goals o cap-turi g immediate at te tio a d establis i g CRDA’scredibility, t e edict strai ed relatio s betwee t edo or a d IRD urt er by re eali g a p ilosop icaldi ide betwee assista ce workers i t e feld a do fce admi istrators. “T at’s ot de elopme t,”o e sta er said w e asked about t e pus orquick starts. “T at’s political de elopme t. Lear -i g about pla i g a d ma ageme t, t at takes aw ile. But t at’s w at works.”

Muc o IRD’s early success i a dli g t is rapidstart-up ca be attributed to t e support it recei edrom its t ree local nGO part ers, w ic elpedIRD co ce trate o t e specifc project objecti esw ile co curre tly recruiti g sta a d establis i gits Belgrade a d feld o fces. Agai , IRD’s exibleapproac a d t e close worki g relatio s ipsalready establis ed wit local orga i atio s playeda i tegral role i equali i g w at could a e beea astly u e e playi g feld or suc a you gorga i atio .

From “chaos and disarray” to success ul,sustainable results

Obstacles are ot u ique to a y impleme ti gage cy goi g i to a troubled regio . But as a growi gorga i atio , IRD ad a lot ridi g o Serbia. O amoral le el, t ere was t e commitme t to e fcie tly use USAID’s multimillio dollar i estme t toimpro e li e or t e Serbia people. O a i stitu-tio al le el, t ere was t e eed to s ow e ecti eresults to t e do or as well as to t e i ter atio alcommu ity. I its tec ical proposal, IRD owed t atit a d “its part ers a d t e commu ity de elopme tcommittees we create will lea e be i d sig ifca ta d sustai able c a ge t roug out t e regio .” Fora more establis ed nGO, t at ki d o u wa eri gpromise could be dismissed as proposal-writi gboilerplate. But or a relati e upstart, t ere was littleexibility to all s ort o stated goals.

T e early operatio al setbacks were ot co tai edto Serbia. I act, t e situatio i Mo te egromig t a e bee worse. IRD bega t e CRDAprogram i Mo te egro i May 2002, almost o eyear later t a t e program bega i Serbia, adelay due to additio al time eeded or appro al.T e political situatio was ery u stable at t etime, a d as Robert harris, IRD’s director o operatio s explai ed, “T e Europea U io was otappy wit Mo te egro. So it took more e ort.”

T e e ort was widespread. harris came o asIRD’s c ie o party a ter t e frst year, part o aearly orga i atio al restructuri g. “We ad a serieso targets we were aili g to meet,” harris said.“A d we ad to meet t em.” But t e complexity o t e situatio i Mo te egro played as muc o arole as a y ot er actor i t e troubled start. T ec a gi g political la dscape i t e regio mea tt ere was actually more t a o e mayor yi g orpolitical support i some o t e eig t mu icipalitiesi w ic IRD was worki g.

Mo te egro prese ted o e additio al operatio alurdle. IRD’s mai o fce was i t e capital city o




Podgorica, but t e mai work was bei g do e it e coastal mu icipalities. T oug ot ery large,Mo te egro as regular commu ity tow allsa d meeti gs wit co tractors, mayors, a d ot ermu icipal o fcials t at orced sta ers to make re-que t rou dtrip jour eys o up to 200 kilometers—a time-co sumi g process t at ate i to aluablework ours, harris said. E e tually, IRD dece tral-i ed its sta f g structure to place more workers ii di idual mu icipalities.

I a 2003 study a aly i g t e “local realities” t atwere posi g a c alle ge to CRDA, researc er Je Merritt specifcally oted t is issue. “Problemsexperie ced duri g CRDA’s i itial impleme tatio iMo te egro appeared largely based i lack o timerat er t a merely i adequate pla i g,” Merrittwrote. harris said a aluable lesso , o matter owbasic it may seem, was lear ed: Grou d logisticssimply ca ’t be o erlooked. As IRD e e tually setup e e larger impleme tatio programs i moregeograp ically di erse a d co ict-a icted regio slike Iraq a d A g a ista , t is early lesso pro edi aluable.

More early problems existed, some ot co f edto a border. More t a o e IRD sta er recalledperceptible te sio wit USAID i t e frst twoyears o CRDA, a reality Merritt ack owledgedas well: “Relatio s ips betwee USAID o fcesi Podgorica a d Belgrade appear te se, a d asa result, li ks betwee CRDA acti ities i Serbiaa d Mo te egro a e bee ery limited.” Alt ougt e programs i bot cou tries operated auto o-mously, USAID’s Mo te egro budget remai edli ked to Serbia, creati g blurred li es o aut ority betwee IRD a d t e do or a d co tributi g toaccelerated bureaucratic rese tme t. Mea w ile,e e as USAID was pus i g or its rapid start—ama date t at ad already created a p ilosop icalbacklas amo g ma y impleme ti g admi istra-tors o t e grou d—repor ti g requireme ts adyet to be f ali ed, a d ot all required i dicatorswere clarifed.

T ere’s a sayi g i baseball t at t e seasoca ’t be wo i t e frst ew weeks, but it ca belost. O er time, a solid team a d sou d strategy will produce results as lo g as ras decisio s oro erreactio s to early troubles are a oided. IRDaced suc a sce ario wit CRDA. T e di fcultbegi i g, a result o so ma y disparate a dcompeti g actors, could a e easily worse eda d e da gered ot o ly IRD’s role i CRDA butIRD’s sta di g i t e de elopme t a d assista cecommu ity. T at did ’t appe . Measureme toutcomes or USAID were eit er met or exceeded,a d t e CRDA desig a d impleme tatio gar-ered widespread recog itio as a orward-looki gsuccess. So w at appe ed? how did IRD go roma orga i atio i early “c aos a d disarray,” aso e sta member said, to o e capable o bri g-i g Balka armers to tears, or desig i g projectprograms t at t e ot er part ers would adopt oa atio al scale?

As t e program matured a d processes aturally e ol ed, aluable lesso s about almost e ery aspect o mou ti g a assista ce program werelear ed a d docume ted i detail or f al projectreports. IRD’s u e e begi i g a d subseque treco ery created a reputatio , at least amo g t esta , o a orga i atio willi g to take risks—“Because we were small e oug t at we did ’ta e a ot er c oice,” accordi g to Pa ic —a da orga i atio kee ly aware o ow its si e couldbecome a ad a tage. A small operatio could bemore imble i respo di g to t e i e itable criseso a large assista ce program, but it could alsoestablis its crede tials quicker a d easier i aregio t at was ope ly distrust ul o nGOs.

By desig , CRDA allowed or eac impleme ti gage cy to cra t its ow met odology as lo gas t e primary goals o e a ced commu ity participatio a d impro ed eco omics a d i ra-structure were met. T at predetermi ed exibility i desig carried o er, accordi g to sta ers, tot e feld, w ere IRD percei ed lo g-term impact




a d sustai ability as critical parts o its CRDAmet odology.

IRD’s imble ess also allowed it to mo e swi tly a d decisi ely w e t e program abruptly s i tedocus i 2004 to co ce trate o eco omic

growt a d job creatio rat er t a commu ity mobili atio —a s i t t at created great ards ipbut ultimately allowed IRD i Serbia to succeedwit its ull assista ce model, rom empoweri gciti e s to i tegrati g impleme tatio to a legacy o social a d eco omic sustai ability.



Empowering citizens

2

newly reco structed gree market i Mio ica, Serbia.



21

“To meet t e i -ki d requireme t, people wouldk ock o doors, aski g or co tributio s or t eu d to rebuild t eir sewer system. A d t ey wouldget t e do atio s. People got t at i ol ed.”

Community committees: The heart o themobilization e ort

At t e daw o t e 21st ce tury, t e FederalRepublic o Yugosla ia (FRY) was ot yet eig tyears old a d ad e e less time t a t atremai i g. Composed o Serbia a d Mo te egro,FRY existed as a byproduct o t e breakup o t eormer Yugosla ia, a socialist ederal republic t atduri g t e Cold War ser ed as a social a d eco-omic bridge betwee West a d East, capitalisma d socialism, a d So iet-style a d America -stylego er a ce. T e Yugosla people li ed u derco ditio s t at were ot as ars as i ma y commu ist atio s. Most arms i Yugosla iaremai ed pri ately ow ed (t oug still respo si eto state collecti es), a d local go er me t wasbased o mesna zajednica (Mz; “local commu-ity”), a u ique system o sel -ma ageme t t at,i t eory, imbued workers wit political clout otpossible i t e more ce trali ed So iet system.T e legacies o socialism, repressio , war, a deco omic i security loomed large, but t e regio

actually was ertile grou d or a program like CRDAdue to t is system.

Mzs resided at t e lowest le el o Yugosla ia’scomplex delegate system, w ic represe ted labor,sociopolitical orga i atio s, a d local citi e s.Policymakers establis ed t e system i t e 1950sas a way o tra s erri g eco omic ma ageme trom t e state to t e workers. T e orga i atio o socialist sel -ma ageme t was elaborated urt eri t e 1974 co stitutio . T eorists a e debatedw et er t is system i creased ce trali ed go er -me t power t roug greater structural co trol oractually ga e “power to t e people” as Yugosla iaclaimed. W at is k ow , owe er, is t at approxi-mately 500 di ere t Mzs ser ed as t e base layero a complicated ierarc ical system o represe -tatio a d t at t ese groups were composed o local citi e s, rom larger illages to remote ruralareas. T e amou t o actual go er i g power t esegroups ad o er time mattered less i relatioto establis i g CRDA t a t e act t at ge era-tio s o Yugosla me a d wome ad a direct




poi t o re ere ce or acti e citi e participatioprocesses.

Deja Bratulje ic, w o worked as IRD’s c ie e gi eer i Mo te egro, said t e istorical co texto t e Yugosla system was critical i elpi gciti e s relate to a d embrace IRD’s commu ity mobili atio model more quickly t a mig t ot -erwise be expected, e e i t at model did sow alittle co usio . “We would explai t e commu ity committees, a d t ey would say, ‘Are t ese Ameri-ca s really bri gi g us somet i g we ad i t e1970s?’” Bratulje ic said. “T ey ad to u dersta dt e committees were ot t e same as t e Mzs.”

T e term “commu ity committee” i itially wasu palatable to t e target mu icipalities becauseit remi ded t em o t e years o socialism a dcommu ist rule. But t ese committees were att e eart o CRDA’s commu ity mobili atio e or t,a d committee trai i g “was t e cor ersto e o success ul CRDA a d CRDA-E impleme tatioduri g t e program’s six-year ru ,” accordi g toUSAID’s f al assessme t. IRD used trai i g toi troduce a d build co sultatio , cooperatio , a dstrategic pla i g capacity, a d to impro e t eperso al a d pro essio al skills o t e commit-tee members. T e committees did ot a e f alproject appro al, but t eir i put was substa tial.T ey acted as bot leaders a d represe tati esor t eir commu ities.

Commu ity mobili atio was part o t e CRDAdesig , but t e impleme ti g part ers ad t eexibility to orga i e a d mobili e citi e s as t ey saw ft. Based o t eir ow set o criteria, IRDselected 60 commu ities i 13 Wester Serbiamu icipalities to participate i CRDA. T e selectedcommu ities ge erally ad populatio s betwee8,000 a d 15,000 people, so to best ser ee eryo e, IRD establis ed committees co sisti go 8–12 members wit i eac CRDA commu ity.T is represe tatio al structure ormed t e core o IRD’s approac to buildi g democratic practices,because t e citi e s were allowed to c oose t eir

ow committee members. As expected, commit-tees routi ely i cluded people w o ad already establis ed t emsel es as local acti ists, butsta ers i bot Serbia a d Mo te egro recalledt e di erse pro essio al mixture o t e commit-tees. (Ge der was a ot er matter; IRD acti ely soug t to i crease wome ’s participatio i t ecommittees, w ic i ma y commu ities waso existe t.)

“T e members were rom all i dustries— armers,busi essme , college stude ts, accou ta ts,” saidIgor Samac, w o was o e o IRD’s commu ity mobi-li atio program o fcers. Because o t e regio ’su ique bra d o socialism, “t ere was already commu ity i ol eme t be ore IRD s owed up,”Samac said, addi g t at most o is c alle ges asa program o fcer i ol ed ma agi g a d temperi gexpectatio s, a d elpi g eadstro g locals learow to compromise. “You mig t a e leaders o t ree tribes s owi g up all wa ti g t ree di ere troads or t eir area o la d, a d t ey all could ’ta e it.”

A commo criticism a d co cer o commu ity-dri e aid projects is t eir i ere t ul erability toelite capture, or t e idea t at local elites will exertimproper i ue ce or co trol o er t e distributioo aid resources. Si ce t e commu ity committeemembers did ot a e f al say o er t e projectst at were u ded but i stead ad to esse tially compete amo g eac ot er or gra ts (wit IRDas t e f al arbiter), t e most ocal citi e s o testeered t e debate or were success ul i wi i gprojects, but t e ature o t e process e erguara teed a outcome. IRD’s tra spare cy iissui g awards elped moti ate i di iduals orgroups to lear crucial tec ical skills, suc as t emost e ecti e way to write gra t proposals, or owto ide ti y project i dicators, or ow to structure ae aluati e mo itori g process.

T e “loudest or most stubbor ” tribal leaderwould ’t be t e o e to get is road, Samac said,addi g t at i e itably, “o e group would be more



EMPOWERInG CITIzEnS 23

e gaged i t e process o getti g t e rig t permits,docume ts, a d sig atures.”

T e commu ity committees were ot o ly struc-tured to e gage citi e s i eco omic a d politicaldecisio maki g; t ey were desig ed to empoweri di iduals to mobili e t eir ow co stitue cies a dto lear t e basic pri ciples o market eco omiesby teac i g competiti e success skills. T ey alsowere a ecessary admi istrati e mec a ism toa dle t e ig le el o commu ity i terest i t eprogram, but t ey were ’t t e o ly a e ue to ci ice gageme t.

IRD eld quarterly tow all meeti gs, ope to allciti e s, i eac o t e 60 CRDA commu ities.hu dreds o citi e s participated i t ese orumsto discuss eeds, debate priorities, a d o ereedback o proposed or o goi g projects. T ecommu ity mobili atio team would t e i tegratet e i ormatio collected at t ese meeti gs i tocommu ity committee trai i g a d de elopme tacti ities. A public i ormatio educatio strategy a d program elped CRDA commu ity membersreac out to regio al a d local media i orderto ocus atte tio o di ere t project a d raiseaware ess o t e work bei g do e.

T e e e tual s i t to eco omic de elopme tpriorities ga e t e impleme tatio program moreocus a d more ta gible, e duri g outcomes, butmultiple CRDA assessme ts oted t at o erallciti e participatio a d e t usiasm were e erig er t a duri g t is more ope , exible p ase o t e program.

Establishing relationships by buildingcon dence

A otable criticism o t e CRDA desig is t atw ile it was ery success ul i e couragi gciti e participatio , it did ot o er a pat way by itsel to sel -sustai i g, participatory practices.O e f al report o IRD’s acti ities oted t at

t e committees ocused too muc e ergy oprioriti i g a d selecti g projects a d de elopi gproposals at t e expe se o “establis i g t eir owide tities.” A ter t e CRDA u di g e ded, di ere tassessme t reports ou d little isible e ide ce o o goi g, orga i ed commu ity committees.

howe er, t e commu ity committees were e ermea t to be sustai able. T ey were created toe a ce commu ity cooperatio i ide ti yi gpriorities by democratic met ods a d to makequick, isible commu ity impro eme ts to e cour-age urt er projects a d build trust i t e process.I t is way, t e program accomplis ed exactly w at was i te ded, a d more, due i large partto t e quick-start strategy pus ed by USAID. E et oug IRD was goi g i to Serbia wit establis edsupport amo g ma y citi e s, t ose rapid resultsraised aware ess amo g wary a d appre e si ecommu ities o w at t e program was capable o accomplis i g.

“For buildi g co fde ce, it was importa t,” DejaBratulje ic said. “People started belie i g i w atwe were doi g. I t e begi i g, ma y people ada lack o co fde ce. not due to t e US go er -me t, but just due to u ulflled promises o pre i-ous local go er me t represe tati es.”

Most IRD sta ers at t e time rou dly critici edUSAID’s requireme ts, a d it’s ard to argue witt ose criticisms w e co sidered rom t e per-specti e o feld workers a d w at t ey were askedto do—orga i e groups, ide ti y i itiati es, a du dertake 60 projects i 90 days i t e eco omi-cally depressed, mostly rural areas o a cou try still reco eri g rom decades o war, isolatio , a ddespotic leaders ip. not to me tio t at t e U itedStates–led nATO bombi g o t e regio was stillres i ma y mi ds.

T e i itial 60 projects were exclusi ely related tot e i rastructure impro eme ts co sidered to bekey to t e commu ities’ eco omic reco ery a durt er growt . T ese projects i cluded repairi g




sc ools, ospitals, ki dergarte s, a d playgrou ds;pro idi g sc ools wit computers a d I ter etco ectio s; purc asi g medical a d sc ool equip-me t; a d maki g impro eme ts to electrical a dwater supply systems.

Bratulje ic said e could see t e attitudes o ma y people c a ge rig t away, as local citi e s couldsee “ta gible results” or t e mo ey bei g spe t,rat er t a assumi g t ose dollars would “disap-pear or bribes.” A post-program, i ter al sta assessme t o IRD’s operatio i Serbia s owedsome o t e attitudes relati g to t e quick startc a ged too, as it became regarded as a success-ul met od o solidi yi g local trust. A d it s ould ’tbe o erlooked t at IRD sta ed up its operatio otby airli ti g i a America assista ce army but by i esti g i t e local commu ity by iri g a umbero Serbia s a d Balka -regio ati es. hiri g localsta is a commo practice or a y nGO goi g i toa de elopme t missio , but i IRD’s case, t e localsta was more primary t a suppleme tary. hereagai , as a result, citi e s took ote o t e programas t ey were buyi g i to it. “Some people actually apologi ed or t eir earlier be a ior,” Bratulje icsaid, “ or ot belie i g t is work was goi g toappe .”

For er post-program assessme t o CRDA, MargieFerris-Morris i ter iewed do e s o local citi e swit i t e frst year o t e project’s completio .Most respo de ts made ote o bot c alle gesa d rewards i worki g wit ellow citi e s toaddress commu ity eeds. T ey reported satis ac-tio i i teracti g wit groups t ey would ’t or-mally a e met, as well as i bei g part o c a get at broug t ew ope to t eir commu ities.Respo de ts ra ked t e skills trai i g pro ided by IRD at t e top o t eir lists o be efts wit curre ta d uture alue.

“IRD sta ’s relatio s ips wit commu ity com-mittee members elped build trust a d c a geattitudes toward commu ity eeds a d ways toapproac t em,” Ferris-Morris wrote. “Former sta

members a e go e o to fll importa t positio st at co tribute to t e betterme t o Serbia society a d de elopme t.”

A mutual sense o ownership betweencitizens and government

T e CRDA desig called or commu ity mobili a-tio a d acti e citi e participatio i a way t atu questio ably targeted pri ate citi e s. But romt e ery begi i g o t e program, IRD e gagedlocal go er me t o fcials i t e process. E et oug CRDA was a amously “bottom-up” desig ,t e cooperatio IRD acilitated betwee localgo er me t structures a d citi e s pro ed to bea crucial compo e t o t e program’s lo g-termiability or a ew reaso s. O ce t e programtra sitio ed to its eco omic de elopme t p ase,public-pri ate part ers ips were crucial to support-i g t e ki ds o i estme t projects t at yieldedsustai able i come ge eratio . But also, t e ea y i ol eme t o mu icipal go er me ts createda dual se se o ow ers ip o er t e commu ity impro eme ts. I a way, t e IRD model ot o ly elped empower citi e s to take more co trolo er t eir socioeco omic utures, it also elpedempower local go er me t leaders to act i goodait k owi g t at a sa ety et—i t is case,IRD’s support—was t ere. T e idea o ow ers ip,w et er amo g i di iduals or go er me t orga i a-tio s, was a power ul tool or e abli g a se se o citi e empowerme t.

IRD based its selectio o CRDA mu icipalitieso w ic local go er me ts would agree to worktoget er wit citi e s, pro ide project pla i gtec ical expertise, co- u d priority projects, a dmai tai projects o ce t ey were completed. T epromise to co ti ue supporti g projects beyo dt eir completio was a particular poi t o emp asisor IRD i c oosi g w ere it would ocus its atte -tio , si ce, as o e de elopme t worker said, “itseems like go er me t structures are e er really required to mai tai t e work we do, a d t e do or




is more co cer ed wit seei g a ew road t acari g w at appe s to t at road. A project is o ly sustai able i someo e’s respo sible.”

T e program emp asi ed a se se o ow ers ipa d perso al (at bot t e i di idual a d go er -me t le els) i estme t i two primary ways,t roug a matc i g co tributio or projects a da “pass-o ” requireme t built i to its competi-ti e gra ts program. For eac gra t awarded, IRDadded a social repayme t, or pass-o co ditio ,w ic required t e gra tee to retur a ser iceto t e CRDA commu ity. A i tegral part o t egra t applicatio process, t e pass-o compo e twas agreed upo by t e gra tee a d t e CRDAcommu ity represe tati es prior to t e awardbei g issued, because t e alue o t e proposed“repayme t” would a ect IRD’s assessme t o t estre gt o t e applicatio .

W ile pass-o s ostered a greater se se o per-so al respo sibility, t e do or-ma dated matc i gco tributio s created a literal i estme t i t ework bei g do e or citi e s a d go er me ts.numerous IRD sta ers credited t is requireme t,w ic called or a 25 perce t i -ki d co tribu-tio rom commu ities a d mu icipalities or allprojects, wit raisi g t e stakes o citi e partici-patio . I additio to ide ti yi g a d prioriti i gprojects, local commu ities a d go er me ts alsotook a f a cial stake i t eir outcome. By t ee d o t e program, t e co tributio le els adco siste tly outpaced t e mi imum requireme t.I Serbia, t e a erage matc was 39 perce t; iMo te egro, it was 42 perce t. I some cases, isome o t e poorer regio s, mo etary alue wasassig ed to labor costs, as ma y citi e s wa tedto get i ol ed by doi g some o t e project workt emsel es.

“T is appe ed ot because we were pus i g it,but just because it appe ed,” said Robert harris,IRD’s c ie o party i Mo te egro. “To meet t ei -ki d requireme t, people would k ock o doors,aski g or co tributio s or t e u d to rebuild t eir

sewer system, or i sta ce. A d t ey would get t edo atio s. People got t at i ol ed.”

I act, a lot o people got i ol ed. Two years i tot e program, USAID a d a Belgrade-based researcfrm co ducted a sur ey o citi e s’ k owledge o CRDA a d CC acti ities i t ree regio s. T e teampolled 7,000 people a d obtai ed a represe tati esample o bot rural a d urba commu ities (it alsopolled co trol groups). T e results s owed t at moret a 50 perce t o commu ities i Wester Serbiaad participated i projects to impro e co ditio si t eir commu ities, 10 perce t o t em directly related to CRDA, a d 20 perce t o t e peopleacti ely e gaged i commu ity impro eme t projectsworked t roug CRDA. A d almost 20 perce t o reside ts elt t ey ad be efted directly or i directly rom t e commu ity committees or t eir acti ities.

A question o “attitudes and perceptions”

A i depe de t team o co sulta ts rom t eMitc ell Group co ducted a isit to Serbia i 2008to assess t e program or USAID. I t at report,“Impact E aluatio o CRDA, SLGRP, a d SEDP,”i ter iews wit i di idual be efciaries o t eprogram co frmed t at commu ity mobili atioe orts “ ad bee a re olutio ary a d upli ti gexperie ce or most. Almost u i ersally, partici-pa ts said t ey ad ot reali ed t eir power as ordi-ary citi e s to e ect c a ge locally a d i ue cedecisio -maki g i t eir mu icipalities.”

T e assessme t team ou d t e program’s e ectswere more power ul i smaller tow s a d illages,w ere local citi e s ad a role i acilitati g modestbut ital impro eme ts to basic ser ices. A de e t oug t e commu ity committees were otestablis ed to be sustai able structures a d ador t e most part ceased to exist, some groups adre as io ed t emsel es as local o proft i terestgroups. I ot er cases, ormer committee membersad set up edgli g co sulti g frms to o er t eirser ices to local mu icipalities or smaller exter al




assista ce do ors. But i creasi g citi e participa-tio as a e d goal ca go o ly so ar.

Cli to Doggett, a member o t at assessme tteam w o would later joi USAID as a projectde elopme t o fcer, said t at it was “abu da tly clear” t at CRDA ad elped citi e s mobili e t eire ergies a d e gage local go er me t leadersto impro e acilities a d ser ices a d to boosti comes. But eit er e or t e assessme t teamcould extrapolate t e f di gs to s ow a e ect ot e Serbia populatio at large, or to determi ea y actual lasti g e ects o citi e acti ism.Focus groups t roug out Serbia re ealed t at“ordi ary citi e s” retai ed little i ue ce i localdecisio maki g.

IRD sta ers, i i ter al docume tatio rom t eirow post-program assessme t, oted t at goalswere ac ie ed, but ot systematically becauset e participatio i dicators set by USAID were toobroad. A d i ma y ways, t e ery desig o t eprogram created its ow set o problems. Si ceCRDA was based o a etwork o citi e olu -teers, t e reque t c a ges i key players i t ecommu ity groups o te delayed or complicatedprojects a d made rete tio o i stitutio al k owl-edge about procedures a d processes di fcult toattai . Accordi g to Doggett, tryi g to measureciti e participatio is like tryi g to measure“attitudes a d perceptio s” t at will aturally ary wit perso al experie ces or a y umber o ot eractors. S ould e a ced participatory practicesbe see as a e abler a d ot ecessarily ai di idual goal?

CRDA was i te ded to jump-start local commu i-ties i to taki g c arge o t eir utures a d empoweri di iduals to e gage wit go er me t leaders a deac ot er. had t e program stayed true to itsorigi al desig , wit a primary ocus o commu ity-based decisio maki g a d citi e trai i g a d alesser ocus o eco omic re itali atio , its impactstill would a e bee oticeable, i somew atless substa tial. T e tra sitio to CRDA-E actually

created a more ocused program t at ully uti-li ed t e tools a d systems t at CRDA pro idedto citi e s, rom tec ical trai i g to ma agi gcooperati e arra geme ts. It also u derscored t eimporta ce o IRD’s model or acti ely e gagi gmu icipal leaders as well as citi e s at a early stage.

Moving rom enhanced participation toeconomic revitalization

CRDA’s frst a d seco d years ocused o de elop-i g commu ity capacities. T e t ird a d ourtyears supported more i tegrated project pla i ga d impleme tatio . I act, IRD ad begu toacilitate a process to e a ce t e local go er -me t role i commu ity a airs i t e program’sseco d year. Accordi gly, IRD scaled up acti itiesrom t e commu ity committees to cluster groupsa d mu icipal worki g groups. Cluster projects(some o w ic were earmarked by USAID) wereprojects desig ed to u ite di ere t age, et ic, orge der groups to outli e priority eeds or addressregio al issues suc as tourism. Mu icipal worki ggroups were establis ed to stre gt e local go er -me t participatio i assessi g eeds a d pro id-i g expertise or project desig .

T e mu icipal groups pro ided a more ormali edma er i w ic to build o t e cooperati e e ortsbetwee citi e s a d local go er me t. Co se-que tly, mu icipal aut orities olu tarily assig ede gi eers, ealt pro essio als, a d ot ers tosupport t e CRDA program. T e mu icipal groupswere e couraged to ide ti y cluster projects t atbe efted two or more CRDA commu ities worki gtoget er, w ic mai tai ed t e ocus o participa-tory processes but expa ded t e scale o projectsto impact a larger group o be efciaries. Most o t e project work tied to t e mu icipal groups wasrelated to i rastructure a d e iro me t eeds,but t e process itsel was o e o t e earliest wayst at IRD elped acilitate closer public-pri atedialogue or pla i g a d de elopme t. T at




dialogue was extremely be efcial as t e eco omicre itali atio compo e t o CRDA became itsprimary missio .

Duri g t e program’s frst t ree years, IRD i itiatedmore t a 300 eco omic re itali atio projectsalued at close to $5 millio . Alt oug orga i ed asa separate “pillar” i t e CRDA desig , early eco-omic re itali atio e orts still played a importa trole i impro i g Serbia’s i rastructure t rougpublic works projects a d i osteri g acti e com-mu ity participatio , si ce committees were ea ily i ol ed i eco omic project ide tifcatio a ddesig . But o erall, t ere was ot a great deal o li kage betwee t e eco omic de elopme t compo-e t o CRDA a d CRDA’s commu ity de elopme tacti ities. T e two compo e ts were ge erally impleme ted as e tirely separate acti ities.

Still, CRDA’s eco omic impro eme t missioallowed or umerous be efciaries (more t a38,000 perso mo t s o employme t werecreated as a result) a d i cluded a ea y emp asiso trai i g, o e-time microgra ts, a d somew atlimited small busi ess assista ce. T ere wasa real eed or ocused trai i g a d tec icalassista ce, a d IRD emp asi ed suc basics asf a cial ma ageme t pla i g, bookkeepi g, mar-keti g, a d taxatio to all gra tees, w o were alsorequired to submit regular progress reports. W ilemost eco omic re itali atio projects were ot scal-able macro projects, t ey made aluable co tribu-tio s to buildi g tec ical capacity a d layi g t egrou dwork or t e program’s seco d p ase.

By 2004, two actors were at work t at would leadto a radical c a ge i CRDA: s i ti g US policy a dt e program’s ow maturatio .

The shi t to CRDA-E: A controversial butnecessary move

CRDA eco omic re itali atio i itiati es ocusedo t e most importa t co strai ts a ecti g

Serbia’s agriculture a d small busi ess sectors—outdated equipme t a d tec ology, a u derde-eloped ba ki g sector, a lack o orga i ed a de ecti e cooperati es, a lack o e trepre eurialspirit, broke li ks wit i ter atio al a d regio almarkets, a d ig u employme t, particularly irural areas. But t e program was desig ed asa commu ity mobili atio a d citi e participa-tio e ort, so most targets were tied to t osegoals, a d t e eco omic eleme t, by co trast,was rat er small. But t e atio al eco omieso Serbia a d Mo te egro were s ri ki g, a du employme t was risi g. Gi e t e ery rece tregio al i stabilities, US policymakers tookotice.

At t e same time, t e CRDA program ad already begu to e ol e a d was see as bei g ready ora more i te si e eco omic emp asis t at wouldaddress some o t e a oreme tio ed pressi gco strai ts more completely. IRD ad already begu to e gage wider audie ces t roug t ecluster a d mu icipal worki g groups t at wereresulti g i larger projects wit multiple stake old-ers a d regio al impact rat er t a t e smallercommu ity-based projects o t e program’s early days. T ose projects were crucial to establis i gIRD’s prese ce, but t e ewer projects carriedmore lo g-term pote tial.

“It’s toug to c a ge i t e middle o a project,”said Sla e ko Djokic, w o was IRD’s director o operatio s a d admi istratio i Serbia. “But t eway t at t e program started a d e ol ed o er timeis a atural ow t at a y commu ity project s oulda e.”

So wit USAID mo ey already owi g i to t eregio a d a atio wide impleme tatio etworkalready establis ed t roug IRD a d t e ot erCRDA part ers, t e US ambassador’s o fceordered a dramatic s i t rom mobili atio e ortsi order to re ocus t e program almost exclusi ely o eco omic de elopme t a d i come-ge erati g

job creatio . I late 2004, USAID pro ided a set o




guideli es, w ic outli ed t e ew CRDA programapproac a d emp asis, a d gra ted a o e-yearexte sio to allow adjustme ts to t e citi eparticipatio aspect o t e program.

T e e d result o t is dramatic tra s ormatio isdocume ted across umerous project reports,assessme ts, a d e aluatio s as, o erall, apositi e game-c a ger, or bot t e program’sprocesses (t e ew CRDA-Eco omy program admore specifc i dicators) a d i ts sustai ability.W ile post-program assessme t isits yieldedew ta gible sig s o o goi g orga i ed participa-tory practices, t e isits did docume t umerouscooperati e associatio s, trade groups, a d go er -me t-backed busi ess impro eme t districts,w ic Cli to Doggett labeled as “easily t e mostsuccess ul part o t e w ole program.”

But i spite o CRDA-E’s e e tual success, aboutw ic IRD sta ers are i u i orm agreeme t, t etra sitio period itsel pro ed to be extremely c alle gi g a d di fcult. It led to a ery prosper-ous period brimmi g wit examples o sustai ableeco omic assista ce programs a d de elopme t,but it also u derscored t e importa ce o IRD’searly emp asis i creati g its ow social capitalt roug local relatio s ips.

“Commu ity mobili atio o ly goes so ar,”Doggett said. “It’s ot surprisi g at all t at amajor program was told to s i t ocus midstream.It appe s all t e time.” It ad ’t appe ed allt e time i Serbia, owe er, a d t e s i t createdotable rustratio a d rese tme t wit i t elocal commu ities. IRD ad to old meeti gs witmembers o all CRDA commu ities, CRDA worki ggroups, a d local go er me ts to discuss t e ewprogram emp asis a d t e eed or e e stro gercooperatio amo g all stake olders. But citi e sexpressed ope rustratio wit t e programbecause commu ities could o lo ger decide oprojects based o group co se sus regardi glocal eed. historical se siti ities also camei to play; ma y reside ts saw t e c a ge as a

purpose ul s i t i power rom citi e s a d back tolocal power structures, remi isce t o t e regio ’spai ul, aut oritaria past.

“It was di fcult to explai to commu ities t att i gs were c a gi g,” said Tija a Dabic, a IRDprogram o fcer. “T ey ad grow accustomed toa i g t eir a ored projects, ki d o ‘ eel good’work, do e. T ese were t i gs ot ecessarily li ked to t e creatio o wealt .”

Wit CRDA-E, t e rat er ree- orm met od o groupproject ide tifcatio a d selectio was replacedwit a muc more structured, competiti e bidprocess. Si ce t e program was arrower i scope,t ere was also less capital i usio , w ic mea tewer projects were appro ed. A d t e o es t atwere ad to s ow eco omic iability. Dabic said t eo erlap betwee t e types o CRDA a d CRDA-Eprojects was less t a 50 perce t, so a ter t reeyears o orga i i g a d teac i g citi e s ow toi teract wit i t e establis ed ramework, “all o asudde , t eir parameters c a ged.”

T e parameters also c a ged or IRD. T e ewocus o t e CRDA program required sig ifca torga i atio al c a ges wit i IRD Serbia, aswell as t e additio al busi ess a d eco omicde elopme t expertise capable o carryi g outt e proposed program acti ities. T ese c a gesaddressed t e most critical aspects o programimpleme tatio , suc as de elopme t a d tec i-cal assista ce trai i g a d impro i g productquality a d competiti e ess. Recog i i g t e limitso its ow orga i atio al capacity, IRD e gagedMa ageme t Systems I ter atio al as a subco -tractor to elp desig a d impleme t CRDA-E, amo e t at was lauded i post-program assess-me ts a d by IRD’s ow sta .

“At t e time, we did ’t a e t e capacity orlarge-scale eco omic de elopme t at eadquartersor amo g impleme ters i t e feld,” o e sta member said. “We ad to ire ew sta , a d getew expertise. T at was ot easily ou d. T e ew




program was good, but it elt like USAID did ’tco sider t e e ort t e c a ge required.”

T e Mitc ell Group’s “Impact E aluatio ” reporttook otice o t is i its f al assessme t. C a g-i g t e program’s emp asis “u doubtedly [ ad] apositi e impact o eco omic de elopme t,” t ereport stated, but t at impact came “at a co sider-able cost,” addi g:

T is u ilateral c a ge amou ted to a brokeco tract wit t e grassroots commu ity orga-i atio s w o were i ol ed i CRDA. Si cet e relatio s ips betwee t e project a d t ecommu ities it ser ed were ormed wit it e co text o “America cares,” t is c a geu doubtedly eig te ed t e degree o cy icismby t e i ol ed commu ity groups. T is c a gealso i terrupted t e CDC [Commu ity De elop-me t Cou cil] e orts to build trust at t e localle el, a prerequisite or later establis me t o associatio s a d cooperati es.

Duri g t e tra sitio period, IRD did w at it couldto mai tai t e pri ciples o citi e participatioa d tra spare cy, w ic was o particular impor-ta ce i alle iati g t e co cer s o er local go er -me t leaders co trolli g t e ow o assista ce. Ilayi g out t e re ised program, IRD took care ulco sideratio to “preser e t e aspect o citi eparticipatio ,” Djokic said, because it was t eu dame tal compo e t o CRDA.

“We built a lot o expectatio s, a d we ad toco ey to citi e s t at e e t oug we weres i ti g directio , t ese [ ew] projects would a ea lo g-term impact,” e said. “O erall, it’s mucbetter to t i k about t e lo g-term e ects.”

I ter iews wit busi esses a d local go er me to fcials at t e e d o t e program re ealed t at t epilot Local Eco omic De elopme t (LED) programt at emerged rom CRDA-E was well recei ed a dt at its success, to a large degree, was due primar-ily to participa ts’ a i g e oug co fde ce iIRD’s pre ious ac ie eme ts to be willi g to ollowt e orga i atio ’s lead.

Accordi g to t e program’s f al report, IRDma aged to preser e t e citi e participatiot at ad bee gai ed duri g t e CRDA p asebecause o t e orga i atio ’s “ ea y i est-me ts i i creased commu ity pla i g capacity,a d buildi g part ers ips betwee citi e s a dlocal go er me ts.” T e joi t pla i g projectsu dertake by mu icipal worki g groups elpedciti e s a d go er me ts tra sitio muc easieri to CRDA-E, w ic required more i te si epublic-pri ate part ers ips, a d t ey laid t egrou dwork or t e LED program, w ic set t estage or uture regio al cooperatio a d eco-omic growt . T e LED strategies, o fces, a d

perma e t sta , w ic are still i place, are t ebest examples o t e sustai ability IRD ac ie edi Serbia.



Encouraging integrated implementation

3

Co structio workers repair a power li e i t e Mac a regio o Serbia.



31

“We ad armers, we ad local go er me t, a d we adtec ical people. T at was t e key to success. I you aremissi g a y o t ese t ree li ks, you ca expect problems.”

Bringing citizens, government, and theprivate sector together

U der CRDA-E, IRD arrowed its program ocus tosmall a d medium e terprise busi esses, agricul-tural de elopme t, microgra ts to ul erable resi-de ts, a d ormal allia ce-buildi g amo g citi egroups a d local go er me ts. T e objecti es o t e eco omy- ocused p ase i cluded i creasedemployme t, impro ed eco omic e iro me ts,reduced barriers to busi ess, i creased i comesrom tourism a d agriculture i dustries, broade edstake older i ol eme t, a d cooperatio i localeco omic de elopme t pla i g a d acti ities.IRD pro ided tec ical assista ce, equipme t, a di rastructure support to early 9,000 associa-tio s, cooperati es, busi ess clusters, pri ately ow ed busi esses, a d ot er local orga i atio s.

O erall, t e scale o t e re ised program wassmaller t a it ad bee u der CRDA. I t e lasttwo-plus years u der CRDA-E, IRD impleme ted93 projects i Serbia, alued at about $7 millio(cou ti g matc i g co tributio s), wit a ot er$400,000 i microgra t assista ce to ul erable

amilies. Yet, t e program’s scope—de elopi glo g-term busi ess strategies, market li ks, a dlasti g public-pri ate part ers ips—was arguably larger, a co cept best exemplifed by IRD’s LocalEco omic De elopme t pilot program.

T e LED project was de eloped to meet CRDA-E’sexpa ded goals o job creatio a d lo g-termgrowt , but t e ramework or t e program wasrooted i t e mu icipal worki g groups IRD adalready elped establis , a d t e World Ba k’swell-k ow “Cities o C a ge” model. T e objec-ti e was to establis a e abli g e iro me t ore a ced cooperatio betwee pri ate e terprise,citi e s a d mu icipal go er me ts. Usi g t e ci ilsociety base establis ed u der CRDA, t e projectwas desig ed to build i di idual skills a d go er -me t capacity equally.

I April 2005, IRD selected six mu icipalities toimpleme t t e project: Arilje, Cajeti a, Sabac,vladimirci, Krupa j, a d U ice. IRD egotiatedproject agreeme ts wit eac o t e local go er -me ts, setti g t e grou d rules or participatio .Mu icipalities ormed LED teams, w ic co sisted




o about 60 people a d were i te ded to be areprese tati e cross-sectio o local go er me t,busi ess, a d commu ity i terests. Accordi g toIRD’s isio or t e program, t ese t ree segme tso society would orm close worki g part ers ipsi order to establis a lasti g eco omic de elop-me t structure. Because t e , eac stake olderi mu icipal de elopme t would a e a estedi terest i project outcomes.

Accordi g to Ric ard Owe s, a commu ity stabili a-tio a d de elopme t specialist worki g wit IRD,establis i g a ormal structure or t ose li kages iscritical to lo g-term success, because e e t ougdi ere t orms o public-pri ate part ers ips existi ma y de elopi g regio s, t e li kages are o tei ormal, or traditio al, mea i g ig -yield resultsare o te elusi e due to i co siste cies i projectma ageme t a d ow ers ip.

“T at model is importa t because w e e er it’spossible, you s ould establis , re-establis , a dsupport direct a d ormal li kages betwee com-mu ities a d local-le el go er me t,” Owe s said.“W at set CRDA apart is t e way t at it e ol edby establis i g [t ese] li kages early o to joi tly de elop priorities a d programs.”

T e mayor o eac mu icipality aut ori ed t elocal teams to participate i a f e-stage trai i gprogram t at ollowed t e “Cities o C a ge”met odology, w ic is i te ded to teac citi e s,busi ess leaders, a d go er me t o fcials ow toide ti y t eir eco omic comparati e ad a tagesa d t e build a strategy i te ded to maximi et ose ad a tages. Eac mu icipality, t e , adt e exibility to desig a de elopme t pla arou dt e eeds ide tifed as most pressi g, a d wit ia time rame deemed most practical. As a result,a wide ra ge o de elopme t priorities emerged istrategies t at co ered as little as f e years or,i t e case o Krupa j, stretc ed to 2016 a d arestill o goi g. Mu icipalities ocused o bot arrowprojects (suc as impro i g t e access road toStopica Ca e, a major Cateji a tourist attractio )

a d broad-based i itiati es (de elopi g a smalle terprise i dustrial o e i vladimirici).

By most accou ts, t e LED program was IRD’smost success ul eco omic re itali atio e ort a do e o t e orga i atio ’s sig ature ac ie eme tsi Serbia. T e ature o its desig — acilitati gf e-year a d lo ger de elopme t strategies or t eparticipati g mu icipalities—o ered great pote tialor t e sustai able outcome t at ollowed. As t eproject came to a close i 2006, all six mu icipali-ties asked IRD or assista ce i i stitutio ali i gt e LED programs wit i t eir mu icipal admi istra-tio s. Eac local go er me t agreed to create aperma e t o fce a d ire ull-time sta to promotea d assist t eir de elopme t strategies i orderto ac ie e t e goals t at ad bee outli ed. IRDpro ided additio al trai i g or t e ew sta a delped equip t e o fces.

O course, CRDA-E’s reac exte ded ar beyo d t eLED program. T roug close cooperatio wit t emu icipal worki g groups rom all CRDA-E mu ici-palities, IRD impleme ted umerous i rastructureprojects, suc as t e re abilitatio o marketdistricts a d e a ced power grids, t at boostedeco omic opportu ity or a wide ra ge o smallbusi ess a d agriculture producers. I additio , acooperati e e ort betwee IRD a d t e regio alvalje o a d U ice C ambers o Commerce to betterpromote competiti e markets resulted i stro gereco omic ser ices or e tire regio s— ot or CRDAparticipa ts alo e.

I creased tec ical assista ce a d trai i g ore trepre eurs (a d t e agricultural productioi dustry i particular) elped lay t e grou dworkor c a ged busi ess approac es t at greatly i creased t e ra ge o be efciaries. E trepre eursi t e areas co ered by t e valje o a d U icec ambers were gi e more aluable elp a dsupport a d, critically, more market opportu ities.T roug local cooperati e measures establis edwit CRDA-E, ma y Serbia busi esses took parti a 2005 Moscow trade air, at t e time a u ique



EnCOURAGInG InTEGRATED IMPLEMEnTATIOn 33

opportu ity. Said o e IRD sta er, “It was really u usual, a ter all t e past experie ces, to see aUS-backed program supporti g Serbia compa iestryi g to establis busi ess ties wit pote tialRussia part ers.”

Accordi g to Sla e ko Djokic, IRD took t e leadamo g all impleme ti g age cies i Serbia isetti g up local eco omic de elopme t o fcesa d ormali i g t e citi e -go er me t-pri atesector part ers ip or strategic pla i g.T roug out IRD, t ere existed a stro g belie it e e ecti e ess o t at i tegrated, tria gularramework, w ic was i tegral to t e orga i a-tio ’s approac to most CRDA-E projects. ha i galready establis ed t e alue o e gageme tbetwee citi e s a d local go er me t duri g t eCRDA p ase, IRD was well positio ed ot o ly tomeet USAID’s re ised program requireme ts, butto o er a i tegrated met od o impleme tatiot at greatly e a ced t e c a ces o lo g-termsuccess. “O ce t ese t ree groups got regularly i ol ed, t ere was o trouble wit t e ow ers ipo projects,” Djokic said.

Unleashing Serbia’s “great potential” inagribusiness

T e impact o CRDA-E o Serbia’s busi ess a deco omic de elopme t was immediately sub-sta tial. T e combi atio o microgra ts, busi-ess de elopme t gra ts, trai i g a d tec icalassista ce, a d, o course, t e LED program ad aco siderable social impact o t e targeted mu ici-palities, i cludi g eco omic i rastructure projectst at boosted power grids, water acilities, a daccess roads—all co siderable obstacles, w ei disrepair, to busi ess acti ity a d sustai edde elopme t. But agriculture a d agribusi ess proj-ects comprised a substa tial part o t e CRDA-Eport olio, because t ey te ded to a e t e greatesteco omic impact per dollar spe t. Agribusi essprojects also pro ided a ery scalable alue c aia d o ered ig growt pote tial. O ce CRDA-E

co cluded i 2007, i ter al IRD assessme t ou dt at t e regio retai ed great pote tial or e eurt er de elopme t o moder agriculture, particu-larly ruit growi g a d processi g.

Duri g CRDA, t e agricultural projects were de el-oped a d selected by commu ity actio groups,a d mostly ocused o primary productio orlocal markets. But duri g t e CRDA-E p ase, t eagricultural projects were de eloped a d selectedat t e mu icipal a d regio al le els a d most o tesupported alue-added productio a d process-i g, exte sio ser ices i agriculture a d moderbreedi g tec ologies or li estock. T e resultswere less immediate t a projects duri g CRDA,but t e goals o creati g a sustai able de elop-me t structure were more complex.

T e agriculture projects i itiated duri g CRDA-Ewere built o IRD’s lesso s lear ed duri g t eimpleme tatio o pre ious rural de elopme t acti -ities, a d t is experie ce elped i orm t e LEDmu icipalities as t ey desig ed t eir ow lo g-termstrategies. Yet, IRD’s local eco omic de elopme twork i Serbia exposed a i ter al market co ict:e e t oug t e regio ad real comparati e ad a -tages i agriculture, small busi ess sectors, a dskilled labor, ma y busi esses lacked competiti eproducts o su fcie t quality a d price to competei t e world’s market. howe er, t e e t usiasmo a ew i di iduals, combi ed wit t e orga i a-tio al a d operatio al e orts o IRD, resulted isome ery positi e examples o busi esses a darmers upgradi g t eir productio by i troduci gi ter atio al sta dards, e ecti e marketi g tools,a d ew tec ologies, a d by embraci g t e italli k betwee citi e s, go er me t, a d t e pri atesector.

I Krupa j a d Kosjeric, suc projects i cluded t eestablis me t o gree ouses a d t e tra s er o ew tec ologies to cooperati es i ol ed i ruitgrowi g. T ese co-ops care ully assessed marketdema ds or res strawberries a d dried plumst roug out t e year i bot oreig a d domestic




markets, a d recog i ed t e eed to upgrade t eruit productio a d co ert to a more proftablegrowi g tec ology.

I t e Mac a regio , w ic e compasses Krupa j,Sabac, vlamimirci, a d f e ot er mu icipalities,pig breeders were able to impro e t e quality a dqua tity o pigs t ey produce a d ge erate moret a $200,000 i additio al i come due to astly impro ed productio equipme t a d stro germarket li ks. For armers i Mac a, t e istoricce ter o og raisi g i Serbia, pork productiois t e predomi a t agricultural acti ity. But igeedi g costs, a poor ge etic ou datio or localerds, a d a lack o orga i atio al capacity wereco tributi g to i e fcie cies a d stag atio . Icoordi atio wit IRD a d local go er me ts,breeders’ associatio s were establis ed to pro idea structured e iro me t or educatio a d tec i-cal assista ce, w ic , w e coupled wit moder -i ed eedi g a d i semi atio equipme t, led toi creased rural employme t, t e registratio o do e s o ew commercial arms, a d substa tially ig er re e ues.

I ma y cases, small impro eme ts suc as betterpackagi g mig t a e bee t e o ly eleme teeded or impro ed marketi g a d i creasedsales. I Baji a Basta, t e beekeepers cooperati e“Tara Bee,” w ic was ou ded duri g t e CRDAp ase, recei ed bee i es a d o eycomb bases,but more importa t, t e co-op recei ed ew pack-agi g equipme t a d tec ical assista ce romIRD to better market o ey products at regio alagricultural a d ood airs. Wit i creased expo-sure a d sales, Tara Bee was selli g products tolarge Serbia retail c ai s a d discussi g oreigexports by t e close o CRDA-E.

“T ere were good projects a d trai i gs i t eseregio s, wit a aim to educate armers aboutdi ere t ki ds o ad a ced productio a d pro-cessi g as well as ad ise armers o t e ealt y aspects o productio ,” said zarko Draga ic,a se ior o fcer or IRD’s agricultural a d small

busi ess programs. Draga ic said t e i stitutio alsupport a d trai i g pro ided or processes as u -dame tal to busi ess growt as market researcelped co i ce local reside ts o IRD’s commit-me t to “ elpi g t em elp t emsel es.”

Almost 700 projects i Serbia a d Mo te egro ellexclusi ely u der CRDA’s eco omic re itali atiopillar or t e CRDA-E program, ra gi g rom large-scale mu icipal projects to more ocused micro-gra ts. But i betwee t ose extremes emergedt e ki d o citi e -dri e , e trepre eurial projectst at elped def e IRD’s role i creati g sustai ablede elopme t. W et er t e goal was gree ousearmi g or moder i ed pork productio or bettermarketed o ey, t e commo t read was i di iduale trepre eurs ip i eed o commu al resources.

As a result, o e o IRD’s e duri g successes iSerbia was t e role played by orga i atio sta a dt e local eco omic de elopme t o fces i acilitat-i g t e creatio o e ecti e, iable cooperati es. Ia regio wit a disproportio ately large umber o small a d medium-si ed e terprises, t e ormatioo worki g co-ops, w e possible, was see asimporta t to t e immediate success o eco omicprojects a d pote tially critical to its lo g-term sus-tai ability. Mobili i g commu ities to gat er, meet,debate, a d judge t e alue o certai projectsagai st ot er projects is ar di ere t rom co i c-i g struggli g armers or si gular cra tsme , mosto w om were wary a d scarred rom decades o socialist rule, o t e alue i worki g toget er.

“Farmers do ’t like t e ame ‘cooperati e,’” saidSa dra Jelesije ic, w o was IRD’s f a ce directori Serbia be ore mo i g o to become c ie o party. Be ore CRDA, a cooperati e ad a e tirely egati e co otatio , gi e Yugosla ia’s socialistpast. So a early crucial task aced IRD sta ers:t ey ad to co i ce i di iduals, w et er smallarmers or lo e ma u acturers, o t e pote tialbe efts deri ed by worki g toget er t roug mem-bers ip associatio s a d productio or marketi gcooperati es.




Accordi g to Draga ic, reac i g commu ities itra sitio rom socialism to a capitalist system a dbuildi g i di idual trust a d capacity were amo gIRD’s greatest c alle ges. “We ad mo ey a d wead k owledge, a d we were ready to o er support,but we ad to co i ce t em t at t e approacwas serious.” Locals ad to lear , Draga ic said,t at e e t oug all gra t applicatio s a d projectwork would be docume ted a d t at frm rules adto be ollowed, “e eryo e was equal. E eryo e wasallowed to apply.”

T is social i estme t i impleme tatio paid o .I post-program re iews, a commo t eme amo gbe efciaries was t e positi e eco omic impact o tec ical assista ce a d trai i g, particularly t eassista ce a d trai i g gi e to cooperati e cre-atio a d de elopme t. I act, most o t e CRDA-supported cooperati e busi esses i ter ieweda ter t e program’s completio co sidered t eassista ce a d trai i g pro ided to be as importa tas t e actual gra ts t ey recei ed or acilities a dequipme t.

“Certai ly t e people ad to o ercome issues o trust a d relia ce,” said Sla e ko Djokic, aboutciti e s worki g wit eac ot er, t oug e could

just as easily ad bee describi g t e local eeli gstoward IRD early o or toward local go er me tleaders.

CRDA aced a ge eral climate o mistrust o all e ti-ties i ol ed i busi ess de elopme t, a d despitet e i ol eme t o mu icipal leaders i ma y CRDAprojects, t e s i t to CRDA-E seem to exacerbatet ose belie s amo g ma y o t e citi e s i ol edi IRD project work. More t a o e IRD sta errecalled citi e co cer s t at CRDA-E ga e localgo er me t “too muc o a say” i projects a dt at t e auto omy gi e to i di iduals u der CRDAwas bei g lost. But or ma y o t e local eco omicde elopme t i itiati es to succeed, go er me ti estme t was ecessary, a d cooperati earra geme ts betwee citi e e trepre eurswere ital. O erall, IRD assisted i establis i g or

reorga i i g t ree do e agriculture cooperati es,represe ti g more t a 2,000 rural arm ouse-olds—a a erage rate o o e ew co-op e ery eig t or i e weeks.

From t e ery begi i g o t e CRDA program,IRD ocused o buildi g regio al li ks to expa dmarkets, leadi g study tours a d pro idi g gra tsor agricultural a d trade airs. Citi g a lack o sta dardi ed best practices or busi esses, IRDired local experts to prepare easy-to-u dersta d“ ow-to” ma uals co eri g t e use o ewtec ologies, marketi g strategies, i estme t,pla i g, a d rules a d regulatio s, as well as t edi ere t busi ess optio s a ailable to i di iduals,suc as t e cooperati es a d associatio s t atwould become so i tegral to CRDA-E’s success.Despite t e admi istrati e tra sitio rom CRDA toCRDA-E a d t e procedural c a ges t at tra sitiorequired, t e priorities placed o t e aspects o eco omic de elopme t t at were deemed mostcritical remai ed a co siste t, commo t readt roug out t e e tire program.

IRD’s ability to acilitate market li ks w ere ery ew ad existed, w ile elpi g to u dame tally res ape i di idual attitudes about eco omicproductio processes, is o e o t e orga i atio ’slasti g impacts, a legacy bei g carried out romce tral Serbia blueberry felds to coastal oli egro es i Mo te egro.

The case o Arilje: A blueprint orcooperative, sustainable growth

I 2005, t e Serbia culti ated berry sector wasco sidered solid busi ess, a “rare source o steady i comes a d a dri i g orce i agriculturaleco omic growt or two decades,” as statedi a USAID alue c ai assessme t. Wit moret a 80,000 arms, 250 cold stores, a d 100processi g actories at work, product sales or2006 were estimated to top $170 millio , wit ao erall export alue o $150 millio . Raspberries




a d blackberries, t e leadi g export commodity a ter grai s a d sugar, dro e t e market. Straw-berry productio was small but growi g. Blueberry productio was o existe t.

A agriculture sector re iew publis ed by t eSerbia go er me t i 2003 detailed t e sector’scomparati e ad a tage i Europea U io marketsbe ore summarily stati g t at berries are Serbia’s“most importa t export commodity, wit a estab-lis ed prese ce i t e markets o Wester Europedue to its ig quality a d competiti e price.” T ereport also oresaw “sig ifca t pote tial” toi crease export ear i gs rom berry ruits, t ougot ecessarily rom blueberries, w ic recei ed ome tio t roug out t e report.

O er t e ext ew years, owe er, raspberry produc-tio , w ic was t e mai eco omic acti ity or t emajority o agriculture ouse olds i Arilje, becameless proftable. “Sti competitio ,” accordi g toIRD, was t e mai actor, t oug pai ully outdatedequipme t a d, i tur , i e fcie t productioplayed a role. So a group o e terprisi g growersbega to look or a edge. As competitio orraspberries was i creasi g i t e regio al market,so was dema d or blueberries i oreig markets.I Serbia, t e i te si e productio o blueberriesad e er existed; t e ew blueberries t at wereprocessed simply grew wild. T e armers saw aopportu ity, a d t ey bega to act. T e resulti gsuccess is a i teresti g case study i ow t ee tire CRDA to CRDA-E process played out a do ers a demo strated alue judgme t i a or o t e crucial li k betwee citi e s, go er me t, a dt e pri ate sector i a local eco omic de elopme ti ter e tio .

I August 2005, almost 50 agricultural ouse-olds ormed t e “Ari-no a” cooperati e wit agoal o worki g wit public a d pri ate sectorso urt er de elopme t o ruit growi g butwit a primary ocus o i te si e productio o blueberries. T e ollowi g mo t , Arilje Mayorzora Mico ic a d IRD leaders o fcially sig ed

o o t e project as part o a “CRDA Day” e e t.Accordi g to Djokic, t e armers reali ed t atblueberry productio prese ted a u tappedbut pote tially lucrati e busi ess opportu ity because t e regio al market was ob ious a dt e growi g e iro me t (soil a d climate) wasextremely ospitable. A ailability o productwas t e o ly real obstacle. O ce orga i ed, t earmers worked wit t e mayor’s o fce a d t elocal eco omic de elopme t o fce to desig t eproject, t e applied to IRD a d ot er do ors oru di g. “T ey captured all t e ecessary exper-tise t ey could get,” said Djokic, addi g t at IRDwas quick to appro e t e project. U ortu ately,start-up was ’t as quick.

T e primary costs co ered by IRD gra t mo ey i cluded t e purc ase a d importatio o 23,000blueberry seedli gs a d sta f g to co er t e proce-dural aspects associated wit a y local eco omicde elopme t program—obtai i g docume tatio ,permits, a d ealt certifcates. T e mu icipality o Arilje a d t e cooperati e co ered t e additio ali itial i estme t o $50,000, or issues suc assoil preparatio , pla ti g, ertili ers, a d irrigatio .Procureme t a d f al appro al took almost o eyear, owe er, betwee t e arious appro als a dpermits ecessary rom bot t e do or a d locallegislators. A pote tially catastrop ic setback wasa oided w e a truck tra sporti g a s ipme t o seedli gs was delayed at t e border because localo fcers i sisted t e paperwork was ot accurate.As t e truck idled, u able to cross i to Serbia,t ousa ds o dollars i ro e seedli gs earedrui . Accordi g to Sa dra Jelesije ic, Mayor Mico ic“ ad good relatio s ips” t at allowed im to lobby or t e truck’s cleara ce, so it elped imme sely t at IRD a d t e local eco omic de elopme t teamad good relatio s ips wit t e mayor. I t ati sta ce, ow aluable were t e li ks establis edbetwee citi e s, go er me t, a d t e pri atesector? Accordi g to Jelesije ic, IRD’s f a cedirector, almost $100,000 i e e tual alue woulda e bee lost ad t e local go er me t ot beei ol ed.




I t eir frst ar esti g seaso , t e armers ge -erated more t a $120,000 i i come. Almostimmediately, accordi g to Djokic, t e co-op begaexpa di g, addi g more felds, a d e e tually becomi g a source desti atio or ot er groups’market study tours, a d a ub or blueberries i t eregio . A d less t a f e years a ter t e origi alproject agreeme t was sig ed, a e tire ar estrom t e Arilje blueberry felds was exported tomarkets outside o Serbia.

“We ad armers, we ad local go er me t, a dwe ad tec ical people—t e agricultural busi essde elopme t ser ice pro iders,” Djokic said. “T atwas t e key to success o t at project. I you aremissi g a y o t ese t ree li ks, you ca expectproblems.”

O all t e mu icipalities i Serbia i w ic IRDworked, Arilje was widely regarded by sta ers ast e most orga i ed a d most success ul acrossbot CRDA a d CRDA-E. From t e begi i g o t eprogram, Arilje became a leader i participatio ,trai i g, project desig , a d impleme tatio . T elocal go er me t pro ided timely a d matc i gco tributio s to CRDA projects a d, accordi g toIRD workers, was particularly creati e wit socialprojects i ol i g yout a d ealt care pro es-sio als. Arilje was ailed or its demo stratedtrack record o cooperatio betwee go er me tleaders a d t e busi ess commu ity. T rougCRDA a d CRDA-E, t e go er me t a d pri atesector worked to impro e irrigatio systems, toexpa d existi g berry productio , to i troduceew berry productio , a d to impro e market-i g o ot er ruits a d juices, as well as lay t eou datio or i creased political a d busi esscooperatio wit surrou di g mu icipalities a dt e atio al go er me t.

Blueberry productio is ow a atio wide i dustry (wit o goi g support rom IRD, w ic co ti ues towork o USAID’s Agribusi ess program i Serbia).T e Arilje Agricultural I o atio Ce ter, w icwas establis ed i 2006 t roug a public-pri ate

part ers ip, produced a detailed assessme t o t e eeds o blueberry producer orga i atio st roug out Serbia. A d i December 2008, aatio al associatio o blueberry producers eldits ou di g assembly i t e Cacak mu icipality topromote t e productio , processi g a d marketi go culti ated blueberries to i ter atio al buyers.

“I t at was just t e idea o o e armer, or twoarmers,” Djokic said, re erri g to t e origi al ideaor blueberry productio , “it would e er a e adt at ki d o success. But e eryo e was i ol ed.”

Entrepreneurial spirit and opportunity:“That’s how an industry starts”

I Mo te egro, IRD ou d similar success i bri g-i g groups o e trepre eurs toget er to capitali eo t eir atural surrou di gs. Robert harris, IRD’sc ie o party i Mo te egro, called t e CRDA-ueled rege eratio o t e local oli e oil i dustry o e o t e program’s best examples o lasti gimpact. “I do ’t k ow i it was the major success,”harris said, “but we k ew it was somet i g t atprobably was ’t goi g to stop, because peoplewere maki g mo ey at it.”

Wit more t a 450,000 oli e trees t ri i g iits coastal climate, Mo te egro at o e time wast e mai supplier o oli e oil or all o t e ormerrepublics o Yugosla ia. But a ter years o war a dturbule ce, eco omic sa ctio s, a d i ter atio alisolatio , t e o ce-stro g i dustry su ered romt e same stag atio a d decli e t at a ectedmost sectors o t e regio al eco omy a ter t eYugosla state collapsed. “T ere was ot i g suc-cess ul appe i g at all,” harris said.

Wit out iable trade c a els or a ailable capital,local armers stopped i esti g i ew equipme t,a d a pote tially prosperous market s ra k. For adecade, orc ards were ot co siste tly ma aged,ar esti g was do e ma ually by picki g oli eso t e grou d, a d t e products were sold




i di idually i u labeled co tai ers. Accordi g toharris, t ere were pote tially proftable oli e trees“all alo g t e coast li e, a d o o e to mai tait em.”

I 2002, IRD purc ased mec a ical ar esti gequipme t or t e Oli e Growers’ Associatio iBar, w ic was t e o ly mu icipality at t e timewit a y sembla ce o existi g oli e oil productioa d t e o ly o e wit a establis ed associatio ,t oug t e group co sisted o just a a d ul o growers. T e armers were ot co te t to simply employ t e ew equipme t to make t eir jobseasier; t ey wa ted to esse tially rei est it. T eassociatio , as a group, re ted or sold t e mac i -ery back to t eir members a d ot er armers u dera orable terms, ot to proft rom t e equipme tbut to build productio capacity a d boost t eire fcie cy.

“T ey’d get t e mo ey i , t e t ey’d buy two moremac i es,” harris said. “A d t e a ot er two, a da ot er two, u til t ey all ad t e same mac i esa d t e same equipme t. T is group made asuccess o t at i t e frst 12 mo t s or so, a dot er growers up a d dow t e coast took otice.T ey would say, ‘Yea , we could do t at.’”

O e group o oli e orc ard ow ers i spired by t eBar associatio ’s success were art er ort i t eBoka Kotorska bay regio . At t e time, more t at ree-quarters o t e 130,000 oli e trees growi gi t e area were aba do ed, o ergrow by weedsa d bus es, a d ad ot bee pru ed or properly ar ested i years. IRD elped jump-start t eAssociatio o Oli e Growers i t e Boka Bay witbasic equipme t to clea a d restore t e orc ardsa d by assisti g t e local ow ers i setti g up t esame ki d o re ol i g u ds model so success ully employed i Bar.

Ide ti yi g t e project, orga i i g t eir groups,a d procuri g t e equipme t were t e ecessary frst steps i re itali i g productio a d i mosttraditio al project desig s would be co sidered

success ul outcomes by t emsel es. But as waso te t e case wit IRD-backed projects duri gCRDA, additio al teac i g a d trai i g allowedcapital assista ce to tur i to eco omic sustai -ability. T roug out t e regio , IRD aided i t eco structio o small actories or aster processi ga d packagi g, w ic allowed t e growers to exportt eir product rat er t a o ly selli g it at localarmers’ markets. “It was to Alba ia or Croatia oreig bori g cou tries,” harris said, “but it was agood busi ess e ert eless.”

T e purc ase o t e ma u acturi g equipme t wasollowed by additio al tec ical assista ce, trai i ga d educatio or oli e growers to a e t e capac-ity to build sustai able busi esses.

A year a ter t e project bega i Bar, t e Oli eGrowers Associatio recei ed support i elpi gorga i e a traditio al Bar oli e air, “Masli ijada,”a a ual December esti al w ere oli e oil a dcitrus ruit ma u acturers gat er to promote t eirproducts to isitors a d tourists. As coastal Mo te-egro as expa ded its tourism e orts, t e esti alas become a e e more importa t marketi gtool or Bar.

T e Bar associatio members, alo g wit growersrom a additio al associatio ormed i Ulci j,also atte ded oli e growers co ere ces iCroatia, w ere t ey lear ed about more moderproductio tre ds a d ow t e i dustry wasoperati g i more de eloped cou tries, i cludi gItaly a d Spai . By 2005, t e preside t o t e Barassociatio estimated t at productio o oli esa d oli e oil i Bar ad almost tripled i just t reeyears.

“W at appe ed,” harris said, i re ere ce to IRD’si itial work wit Bar’s local growers, “is t at it ge -erated t oug t.” T ey could see ow t ey eeded towork toget er, but t ey eeded elp to get starteda d guida ce alo g t e way. “T ey became biggeras a group t a as i depe de t workers. A d t at’sow a i dustry star ts.”




In Montenegro, underscoring theimportance o public-private partnerships

Alo g wit agriculture, IRD ide tifed tourism asa stro g source o sustai able eco omic de el-opme t a ter t e tra sitio to CRDA-E. Si ce asuccess ul tourism i dustry requires close public-pri ate part ers ips a d a stro g commitme t by local citi e s to e a ce a d mai tai desti atiosites, tourism also fts well wit i IRD’s operatio almode o creati g lo g-lasti g li ks betwee go er -me ts, citi e s, a d t e pri ate sector. Serbiae joyed a stro g ou datio o traditio al touristattractio s, suc as istoric mou tai s a d illagesri e wit attracti e iki g, fs i g, a d sig tseei gopportu ities.

Serious i rastructure problems e cumbered t ee ort, owe er, a d little progress was made. T atwas ’t t e case i Mo te egro, owe er, w eretourism was a more atural pat way to de elop-me t, o ce t e u derlyi g ou datio or public-pri ate cooperatio ad bee establis ed.

Alt oug smaller i o erall si e a d scope t a t ework bei g do e i Serbia, IRD’s i ter e tio iMo te egro became a e e more tig tly ocused,targeted program a ter t e tra sitio to CRDA-E,w e t e operatio al ocus was arrowed toesse tially two eco omic sectors—agriculture a dtourism. harris said t e f al years o t e program“ ad muc less exibility,” w ic occasio ally ledto t e same citi e rustratio s demo strated iSerbia. O erall, t oug , t e arrowed programyielded umerous eco omic success stories, sucas oli e oil productio , or two primary reaso s.First, bot sectors were deeply embedded i t elocal culture a d were already establis ed toaryi g degrees. Seco d, t e IRD team i Mo te e-gro s owed t e same commitme t to establis i gstro g citi e ties a d bei g exible to commu ity desires as t e team i Serbia s owed.

As i Serbia, t e frst years o CRDA i Mo te-egro were ocused primarily o i creasi g citi e

participatio i eco omic a d political decisio -maki g. T e results were equally positi e. Alsoma dated wit a quick start by USAID (50 projectsi t e frst 90 days, as opposed to Serbia’s 60/90goal), IRD i Mo te egro quickly establis ed aprese ce t roug commu ity actio committeesa d by exceedi g t e quick-start project baseli e.I less t a f e mo t s, more t a 70 projectswere i operatio . Most were basic i rastructureacti ities guided by t e ery acti e commu ity groups a d yielded t e ki d o quick wi s tradi-tio ally pre erred i assista ce programs—roadco structio , impro ed sc ools, ew sports felds,rural water systems i stalled.

A ter starti g wit little publicity a d o ly a a d ulo workers, IRD e e tually ad as ma y as 40 sta -ers i Mo te egro. Citi e o fces were o fces wereope ed to allow locals to come i wit ideas a drequests or elp o t eir ow , a d, as i Serbia,ope tow all meeti gs were eld e ery six toeig t weeks.

“T ere was a co sta t ack owledgme t o w ot e be efciaries were a d tryi g to make sure wee gage t em as local leaders,” harris said. “T ey were real people w o ad a real i terest i w at wewere doi g. T e mot ers were i terested i maki gsure t eir kids got a good educatio . E trepre eurswa ted to get t eir busi esses up a d ru i g.T ese were real people, a d t at was a majorsuccess.”

Se eral u dred people would regularly participatei t e Mo te egro tow alls, a d t e si e o t e local commu ity groups e e tually ad to bereduced rom arou d 40 to a more ma ageable12. Wit i t e larger groups, citi e s lear ed basicco cepts o prioriti atio based o commu aleed. Early projects were o te ide tifed by groupmembers writi g t eir i di idual eeds o i dexcards a d placi g t em o a wall orga i ed by sucmajor topics as sc ools, armi g, a d roads; t etopics wit t e most i di idual eeds would recei et e most atte tio .




O ce t e committees were establis ed, IRD workedwit t em to establis statutes, discuss procure-me t procedures, dra t admi istratio guideli es,a d ge erally build t e local capacity or w atwas, i esse ce, a microcosm o represe tati edemocracy —members o t e 12-perso worki ggroups were c ose based o t e ote o t e largercommu ity groups. “T e mai t i g was buildi gt e commu ity up,” harris said, “to e e tually maket ese decisio s wit out our elp. W ic t ey did.”

Alo gside t is e a ced commu ity participatio ,IRD placed t e same emp asis o early localgo er me t i ol eme t i Mo te egro as it did iSerbia, e e t oug t ere were somew at compli-cati g actors. At t e time, t e Mo te egro regiowas ot ecessarily da gerous, but t e CRDAprogram took place i t e cou try’s post-Milose ic,pre-i depe de ce time period, so its political ier-arc y was ery muc i e olutio . At t e mu icipalle el, t is resulted i umerous players bei gi ol ed i decisio maki g. “I some areas, we adto work wit t ree, maybe our, di ere t politicalparties just at t e mayor’s le els,” Igor Samac, amember o IRD’s commu ity mobili atio team,recalled, re erri g to t e arious se ior admi istra-tors, directors, a d assista ts t at would be part o t e local “executi e” leaders ip. “O course, somewere easier to work wit t a ot ers.”

IRD sta ers made a poi t o worki g wit t emall, owe er, as well as possible. I ma y cases,mu icipalities would a e a si gle sta persoi side t e mayor’s cabi et assig ed to work witnGOs specifcally. “Most times, it would be easy orme to just gi e a call a d set up a meeti g,” Samacsaid. “A d we could e e go out or a dri k. Butot i all cases. Some were toug er.” But e e it ose i sta ces, go er me t o fcials were eager tobe i ol ed a d take credit or mu icipal impro e-me ts, because IRD projects were yieldi g resultst at re ected well o local leaders ip. I stead o taki g o e se to w at could be iewed as politicalopportu ism, IRD worked arder to stre gt e t ego er me t’s role as a stake older.

“We k ew t e process was ’t just about keepi gt e do or appy, but keepi g t e mayors appy,”said harris, w o as IRD’s local c ie o party wouldmeet wit e ery mu icipal mayor at least o ce aweek. “We ad a series o targets we were tryi g tomeet. You ad to wi t e mayor o er.”

T e special care gi e to establis i g stro gperso al relatio s ips wit citi e s a d go er me tleaders made it muc easier or IRD to ope updirect li es o commu icatio betwee bot groups,w ic su ered rom w at harris called a “ ugeamou t o distress” betwee t em, w ic was otsurprisi g gi e t e amorp ous political structuresat t e time a d t e pressi g i rastructure eedso rural citi e s. But by t e time t e programtra sitio ed to CRDA-E, harris said IRD sta erswere taki g small groups o citi e s to meet t elocal mayors, or joi t project discussio s. T esedialogues e e tually e ol ed i to more structuredeco omic de elopme t groups t at co ti ued tobuild up citi e a d go er me t capacity.

The value o being open to “fexibleinterpretation”

W ereas i Serbia t e Local Eco omic De elop-me t (LED) project was piloted i six mu icipalities,CRDA-E was impleme ted i Mo te egro t roug 12all- olu teer Local Eco omic De elopme t Pla i gTeams (LEDPTs) co sisti g o represe tati es o local go er me t, pri ate a d public busi esses,eco omic associatio s, agricultural or ma u actur-i g cooperati es, a d t e commu ity actio com-mittees. Four teams operated i Podgorica a d o eteam i eac o t e ot er se e mu icipalities w ereIRD worked. A additio al team was s ared betweet e mu icipalities o Ceti je a d Podgorica.

Usi g t e Participatory Appraisal o Competiti eAd a tage (PACA) trai i g met odology, IRD wasable to build quickly o t e relatio s ips already establis ed to a dle t e tra sitio to CRDA-Ea d re ocus its missio to job creatio , eco omic




i rastructure, a d sustai able de elopme t. Asa system, PACA is based o t e mobili atio o local actors or rapid results i areas ide tifedas prese ti g t e stro gest opportu ities orde elopme t.

CRDA-E ad a smaller budget a d s orter time-rame t a CRDA, but t e i tegrated approacto citi e a d go er me t cooperatio t at IRDostered rom t e start o t e program was already yieldi g t e results, i ma y cases, t at USAIDwa ted to see wit CRDA-E tra sitio . I Mo te e-gro, t e retooled program ocused o agriculturea d tourism, but agricultural success stories sucas t e ree ergi ed oli e i dustry i Bar bega as aCRDA project. A d so did a ot er success ul i itia-ti e i Bar—restoratio work i t e tow ’s istoricdistrict, w ic is o e o t e regio ’s top touristattractio s.

Stari Bar, or “Old Bar,” dates back to at least t e9t ce tury, w e t e tow was me tio ed or t efrst time i Sla ic docume ts u der t e ame Bar.Situated o a illtop o erlooki g t e moder city o Bar, t e old city is a ast arc aeological a deritage site, a walled ortress o sto e buildi gs,sculptures, streets, c urc es, a d mo ume tsmixi g ce turies o arc itectural styles—Roma ,Got ic, Re aissa ce. Mo te egro’s frst literary work, t e “Priest Duklja i ’s C ro icle,” waswritte t ere i t e 12t ce tury. T e area alsoi cludes t e istoric Bar aqueduct, a massi estructure resembli g a sto e bridge t at, accord-i g to Bar’s tourism associatio , is t e o ly o e o its ki d i t e cou try. Already reco structed o ceollowi g a 1979 eart quake, t e 17t ce tury aqueduct is a poi t o pride or locals, w o quickly targeted it as a i rastructure project u derCRDA.

“I would be able to work or days wit out stoppi g,because I lo ed t at project so muc ,” said DejaBratulje ic, IRD’s c ie e gi eer i Mo te egro. IRDassisted i i stalli g a ew water supply systemt at would utili e t e istoric aqueduct, w ic is

operatio al a d supplies Old Bar wit its water. Butreside ts wa ted more CRDA mo ey to go to reco -structi g t e medie al city, w ic is esse tially aope -air museum a d o e o t e largest collectio so arc itectural rui s i Mo te egro. But t ere wasa problem; restori g a istorical site did ot ft t edo or def itio o a “quick-start.”

“USAID did ’t like it i t e begi i g because t ey u derstood it was ’t goi g to be a quick impact,”Bratulje ic said. “howe er, today, w e you got ere, you see t e results o t e project are stillisible. It’s really a tourist oasis.”

Despite do or pus back, IRD supported t elocal citi e s’ desire to target Old Bar as a CRDAproject, mo i g orward wit a project t at took6–7 mo t s but i stilled a u ique se se o culturaleritage a d pride i t e reside ts. O fcially, t erestoratio project, i additio to t e water supply exte sio , was to co struct a public lig ti g systema d i stall electrical wiri g t roug out Old Bar. Butdeali g wit a istoric regio required extra work iterms o super isio , pla i g, a d tec ical assis-ta ce, si ce preser atio o u eart ed arti acts,as well as sta di g structures was importa t, aswas e suri g t e i tegrity o t e work site. Localartisa s desig ed ca delabras or t e ew lig t-i g system, a d reside ts pitc ed i to repair t ecobblesto e streets, w ic were disrupted i t eprocess o layi g cable. Cou ti g t e local i -ki dco tributio s, t e total alue o bot projects wasapproximately $85,000.

Accordi g to Bratulje ic, t e i estme t as moret a paid or itsel , e e t oug it did ot meeti itial program requireme ts. “O e t i g we lear edis t at you a e to a e a exible i terpretatioo w at is importa t,” e said. “[T is project] wasig o t e commu ity priority list, but USAID did ’tlike t e lo g-term scope o it. T ere is so muc talko sustai ability. . . . Well, ere you go.”

Wit t e basic i rastructure impro eme t made,t e mu icipal go er me t i ested more mo ey




i a o goi g restoratio project, promoti g OldBar as a li i g museum, eritage site, a d touristdesti atio , drawi g isitors rom arou d t eworld. Bratulje ic ca eri y t is act, because ewit essed frst a d o a retur trip i September2009. “I we t t ere to see w at was goi g o witt e project,” e said. “A d I saw so ma y Italia s,a d so ma y E glis people, a d just so ma y tour-ists isiti g t e place. T ese years later, I was ableto see t e results o our work.”

CRDA and CRDA-E: Separate programs,interrelated processes

Muc o t e lo g-term be eft o t e CRDA model,as it was t eoretically outli ed, lay i buildi gworki g relatio s ips betwee citi e s a d localgo er me ts, w ile t e CRDA-E emp asis s i tedto buildi g t e grou dwork or sustai able eco-omic growt by creati g a i tegral role or t epri ate sector. O e o IRD’s great successes iimpleme tatio , owe er, comes rom t e way i w ic certai program acti ities spa ed botCRDA a d CRDA-E, i corporati g multiple eleme tso eac program desig i order to reac deeperi to t e societal structure, beyo d just t e mostmoti ated or busi ess-orie ted citi e s.

Cluster projects were desig ed to u ite di ere tage, et ic, or ge der groups to outli e priority eeds or address regio al issues suc as tourism.I itially, IRD u ded projects or wome , yout ,a d Roma t at spa ed computer trai i g, ealta d educatio aware ess, cou seli g, pre e -tio o substa ce abuse, a d ot er related socialde elopme t issues. Muc like CRDA’s commu ity cou cils, cluster committees wit elected repre-se tati es eld regular meeti gs to address eedsa d co cer s a d s ep erd projects. I itially,commu ity participatio was a c alle ge becauselocals elt t ey ad less co trol o er more abstractsocial issues (w ic do ot ecessarily s ow aimmediate result) a d ad to be co i ced o t eirimporta ce. But a ew o t ese projects gai ed

mome tum quickly, spreadi g t roug out Serbia,reac i g a muc wider audie ce a d u derscori gt e alue i usi g local media a d promotio alresources to build aware ess a d oster i creasedcommu ity co ected ess.

A ter t e i itial project p ases o CRDA, IRDi creasi gly soug t to create public aware esst roug media promotio a d by buildi g i a out-reac compo e t i acti ities, o te usi g pro es-sio al educators a d citi e ad ocates. I a 2004USAID assessme t, t e IRD strategy o i cludi g amedia compo e t i all amily pla i g a d repro-ducti e ealt acti ities was oted as “o e o t ebest de elopme t practices i Serbia.”

IRD impleme ted slig tly more t a 100 amily pla i g a d reproducti e ealt projects, ma y o w ic targeted issues o a extremely perso alature but w ic were u dame tal to address ia de elopi g society tryi g to o ercome years o stag atio a d stu ted growt i some basic socialser ices. I early 2003, IRD co ducted a case-by-case sur ey o t e equipme t i ealt ce tersacross all o its CRDA mu icipalities i Serbia. T esur ey re ealed a sig ifca t lack o moder medicalequipme t—local estimates at t e time dated o e-t ird o t e equipme t as bei g more t a 20 yearsold—a d ou d t at muc o it did ot work at all.

But IRD reaso ed t at equipme t alo e would otimpro e ealt ser ices, a d t ere was t e addi-tio al issue o most Serbia medical i stitutio s’i ability to meet t e required 25 perce t matc i gco tributio s. So ew equipme t was combi edwit exte si e media a d promotio al e orts aswell as sweepi g educatio al a d trai i g e ortst at yielded ew doctor certifcatio s i ultra-sou ds, laparoscopy, breast ca cer scree i gs,gy ecological procedures, a d more.

new medical equipme t do atio s were a ou cedi local media, w ile promotio al broc ures weredistributed to e courage patie ts to come to ealtce ters or scree i gs a d c eckups. Air time




o local radio a d tele isio statio s a d a ter-ours a ailability o local doctors a d urses wereco sidered to be part o t e commu ity’s matc i gco tributio s. As t e success o projects becamemore isible, media sources t at i itially ad to beco i ced o t e alue o t e messages i creas-i gly co ered CRDA.

T e promotio al acti ities soug t to do more t araise aware ess; t ey also were i te ded to moti-ate i di iduals to actio , o te t roug commu ity meeti gs, works ops, or medical exami atio s,w ic were a ailable t roug CRDA- u ded proj-ects. Ljilja a Maksimo ic, a psyc ologist rom t evalje o mu icipality ospital, i itiated t e “Sa e aLi e” program, a promotio al campaig to persuade600 wome to be scree ed or breast a d cer icalca cer. Accordi g to t e World healt Orga i atio ,ca cer is t e seco d biggest killer o t e Serbiapopulatio , respo sible or more t a 20,000deat s a ually. Amo g Serb wome , t e mortality rate or cer ical ca cer is t ree times ig er t at e Europea U io a erage, w ile breast ca cer ist e leadi g cause o deat . Maksimo ic a d a teamo 35 doctors, cou selors, a d citi e s created t eSa e a Li e program to combat t ese statistics,opi g to dispel t e ear o ca cer scree i gamo g wome a d to o set t e lack o medicali ormatio a d acilities a ailable i Serbia’s moreremote locatio s.

A ter distributi g media materials, broc ures, a dquestio aires, project leaders targeted 600 ewscree i gs as a goal; wit i t ree mo t s, approxi-mately 3,500 wome ad bee tested. Doctorsolu teered extra time to meet t e u expecteddema d o exami i g up to 125 wome per day.ni ety- i e perce t o t e wome diag osed witca cer were treated, a d w ile Serbia’s ca cermortality rate remai s ig er t a i most ot erEuropea cou tries, cer ical a d breast ca cerscree i gs are ow regularly pro ided i ospi-tals—a power ul example o social sustai ability,yet per aps ot e e t e most ar-reac i g o e orIRD i Serbia.

ha i g demo strated a ability to e ecti ely produce results, IRD was able to rei est someo t e social capital it ad establis ed early oi CRDA i more pote tially pri ate a d co tro-ersial projects, t e e e tual success o w icdemo strated t e ability o a mobili ed citi e ry toaddress some ery serious social issues, suc asdomestic iole ce a d sa e sex amo g yout .

T e reality is t at ery little do or mo ey was spe to projects targeti g battered wome i Serbia, butaccordi g to Margie Ferris-Morris, w o studied t eproject, t e people i ol ed “did a wo der ul jobat addressi g a major problem t at was ’t bei gtalked about.” I 2003, ew ser ices existed it e area or cou seli g, support, a d alter ati eousi g or ictims o domestic iole ce.

Wit i a ew years, local “SOS” ce ters ad beeestablis ed i i e mu icipalities a d o ered reecou seli g ser ices, case ma agers, a d mobileassista ce teams. Regio al sa e ouses wereestablis ed i U ice a d Sabac, a d IRD orga i edstrategy meeti gs a d co ere ces t at pulled ireprese tati es rom all acets o society, i cludi glaw e orceme t, crimi al justice, media, ealt ,educatio , a d social wel are sectors. T ese orga-i ed sessio s laid t e ou datio or a etworko coordi ated commu ity assista ce programs.E e tually, IRD coordi ated t e e orts o t e ot erCRDA impleme ti g part ers to exte d t e domes-tic iole ce projects o wester Serbia i to ot erregio s o t e cou try.

IRD’s atio al leaders ip i t e amily pla i ga d reproducti e ealt sector exte ded beyo ddomestic iole ce programs. Expa di g outsideo wester Serbia, IRD coordi ated a atio wideCRDA program t at sta dardi ed ealt educa-tio curriculum or all Serbia yout , based upoa etwork o trai ed yout peer educators. Peereducatio , w ic pre iously ad bee i troducedi sc ools t roug adult lectures (mostly rommedical pro essio als) o a ery limited basis,was co sidered t e best way to reac adolesce ts




i discussi g di fcult, taboo topics. IRD’s projectimpleme tatio emp asi ed o goi g trai i g a dsuper isio to impro e t e ability o yout educa-tors to relay accurate i ormatio a d to stay e gaged i order to mai tai ra k a d ope li eso commu icatio .

T e peer educatio program, modeled a ter t eU ited natio s Populatio Fu d’s Yout Peer trai i gmodel, or Y-PEER, assumes t at at t e basic le el,adolesce ts a e limited or o k owledge o repro-ducti e ealt issues a d use trai ed peer educa-tors to i orm a d moti ate t em. T e ext le eltrai s peer educators systematically buildi g k owl-edge, skills, a d practical expertise as ew you gpeople joi t e peer educatio program. Wit basick owledge a d teac i g skills, peer educators workwit teac ers a d ot ers to co duct works ops isc ools. T e most moti ated a d capable yout aree couraged to co ti ue to a ext le el o e gage-me t, prepari g uture trai ers o peer educatorsa d ser i g i a me tor capacity. U ited natio sresearc as ou d t e ope ess a d trust amo gyout to be ery e ecti e i co eyi g i ormatioa d i modi yi g pote tially risky sexual be a ior.

I 2003 i valje o, t e frst peer educatio project,a series o weeke d works ops amed “Sa erLo e,” was eld t roug out t e sc ool year; moret a 1,800 stude ts participated. T e seco dpeer educatio project, w ic took place i Arilje,attracted almost 1,000 stude ts at its peak.Stude ts joi ed t e works ops o t eir ow time,outside o sc ool, a d o t eir ow olitio . O ertime, t e skill o yout educators, t eir co fde ce,orga i atio al abilities, a d bo ds grew amo gcommu ities i Serbia a d t e certifed trai ers. I2004, a ter IRD s ared t e peer educatio experi-e ce wit t e ot er CRDA part ers, all f e imple-me ti g age cies u ited t eir programs to supportt e de elopme t o a atio wide peer educatioprogram. T e results were remarkable.

Wit a cooperati e regio al etwork estab-lis ed, peer educatio programs bega to t ri e

t roug out Serbia. Participatio i creased, a dpeer educatio became widely k ow , accepted,a d e e popular amo g t e yout , despite t ese siti e ature o t e subject matter (summer2004 trai i g co ered co traceptio , co dom use,sexually tra smitted diseases, a d preg a cy).T e mu icipalities o Sabac a d Lo ica joi ed t eprogram, as did smaller mu icipalities o Krupa ja d Ub. E e tually, peer educators rom t e di er-e t mu icipalities bega to commu icate wit eacot er a d s are experie ces o t eir ow , wit outa y i ter e tio by IRD perso el.

Y-PEER, o w ic Serbia is ow a member, co sistso more t a 600 o proft orga i atio s, sc ools,a d go er me tal i stitutio s, wit a members ipo more t a 7,300 you g people rom 39 cou -tries. Because IRD was limited to wester Serbiai t e CRDA program, supporti g a atio al Y-PEERetwork became possible o ly wit t e de elop-me t o t e joi t atio al strategy amo g all CRDApart ers. To support t e etwork, IRD e couragedcooperatio amo g UnICEF, t e U ited natio sPopulatio Fu d, USAID, a d ot er local orga i a-tio s to de elop a d adopt a atio al sta dard oryout peer educatio support a d de elopme t.

T roug out t e existe ce o CRDA a d t e tra sitioto CRDA-E, IRD’s support o wome ’s i itiati es a ddomestic iole ce programs totaled just less t a$250,000, o w ic local matc i g co tributio spaid almost o e-t ird. T e 109 amily pla i ga d reproducti e ealt projects impleme tedbetwee 2002 a d 2007, u der a USAID earmark,was alued at $2.5 millio , t oug t e do or costo $1.7 millio was just al t at. From a f a cialsta dpoi t, t ese social ser ice i itiati es co sti-tuted a ery small part o t e CRDA i estme t. Fi alCRDA assessme ts, mea w ile, primarily ocus ot e ta gible impact o eco omic de elopme t, ort e more o ertly political compo e ts o commu ity mobili atio . I a y co sideratio o IRD’s role asa impleme ti g age cy a d t e impleme tatiomet ods used to reac t e e d goal o social a deco omic sustai ability, t ese relati ely small ealt




projects o er big examples o t e practical applica-tio o a ocused yet exible met odology leadi g toreal commu ity empowerme t.

IRD did ot a e a ealt u it a d ad to rely oelp rom a sta member i Georgia or desig a dimpleme tatio o ealt projects. Commu itiesclearly lacked expertise i ealt matters, orci gsta to work more directly wit o go er me talealt orga i atio s a d ospitals. USAID wouldot spe d mo ey o baseli e ealt i ormatioresearc , a d Serbia’s poorly u ctio i g ma age-me t i ormatio system made it irtually impos-sible to measure ealt impacts. Moreo er, IRDad to elp co i ce commu ities t at ealt —iparticular, reproducti e ealt , si ce it was ama dated earmark—was a commu ity priority.

Yet, t e IRD-supported ealt i itiati es i westerSerbia grew to atio al proportio s—wit IRD

playi g a key leaders ip role—w ile ully i tegrati gt e ideals o CRDA, t roug t e use o acti e com-mu ity groups ide ti yi g projects, i corporati glocal part ers, a d e gagi g all le els o society,i cludi g people w o were ard to reac a dpote tially sile t or dise ra c ised. valuable com-mu ity part ers ips were built amo g all citi e s,pro essio als, a d ci ic leaders, broug t toget erby e ecti e mobili atio tec iques a d eldtoget er by e ecti e impleme tatio . not o ly didt e yout peer educatio program exceed origi alexpectatio s by mobili i g local, regio al, a datio al etworks, it also illustrated t e alue o i ter atio al do ors worki g toget er i a strategicpart ers ip.

As etera commu ity de elopme t expert Fra kPa ic said, “T e u i te ded co seque cessometimes are t e most e ecti e.”



Identifying the successes

4

A si gle mot er rom Arilje, Serbia, started a egg productio busi ess wit

a IRD gra t.




t ere to elp a ymore. I some ways, t ey earedt eir s oulder to lea o would be go e.”

Lau c ed as a ci il society de elopme t program,CRDA ad t ree broad goals: to mobili e citi e s toimpro e t eir quality o li e, to promote eco omicde elopme t i local commu ities, a d to buildmutual trust betwee citi e s a d local go er -me t. IRD met t ese stated objecti es a d more,wit a o erall impleme tatio program t at le t alegacy o social a d eco omic sustai ability i aumber o ways, i cludi g:

• Pro e met odologies wit i t e commu ity’ssocial etwork or orga i ed a d systematicproblem sol i g a d prioriti atio .

• Growt -orie ted busi ess cooperati es a dassociatio s wit moder equipme t, e a cedtec ical k owledge, a d expa di g marketli kages.

• Perma e t, i stitutio ali ed local eco omicde elopme t o fces wit i t e go er me tstructure impleme ti g lo g-term strategies

joi tly cra ted by pri ate citi e s a d publico fcials.

Three key operational themes: Trust,training, and fexibility

CRDA was a solid assista ce model or Serbia,a d it elped accomplis t e US go er me t’s goalo re-establis i g Serbia’s relatio s ip wit t ei ter atio al commu ity a ter years o isolatio a dsa ctio s. At t e same time, IRD pro ed to be aextremely e ecti e impleme ti g part er, co ti u-i g restoratio a d agricultural de elopme t worki Serbia a ter t e CRDA-E p ase o fcially e deda d becomi g t e o ly CRDA impleme ter to a emai tai ed a co siste t prese ce i t e cou try si ce t e . As IRD quickly expa ded its assista ceport olio i to Iraq, A g a ista , Yeme , a d ot ertroubled regio s o t e world, t e orga i atio

bega looki g to a ew key, o erarc i g operatio alt emes t at emerged rom its work i Serbia a dMo te egro: establis i g trust, de elopi g localskills, a d bei g exible to c a gi g e iro me ts.

Trust: Win hearts and minds

Skepticism was pre ale t regardi g USAID’s quick-start requireme t o 60 projects i 90 days. Logisti-cally, it created stresses, strai s, a d ards ipso IRD. But i terms o elpi g create a i sta tbo d wit t e commu ity, t e edict paid o . T eact t at t e ewly ormed commu ity committeesdebated a d decided o i itial project prioritiescreated a se se o empowerme t a d actio romt e begi i g. Starti g so ma y projects so asta d wit suc igor created prestige a d a dra-matic i troductio or t e CRDA program. Commu-ity members decided o a wide ra ge o projects,rom buildi g roads a d bridges to repairi g ealtce ters a d p armacies to brig te i g dark a dda gerous areas wit ew lig ts.

“O erall, [t e process] worked pretty well i wi i gearts a d mi ds,” Deja Bratulje ic said, addi gt at it was a ery importa t part o t e processto demo strate t at “you’re ot tryi g to c a gesomeo e; you’re just tryi g to elp.”

IRD sta ide tifed gai i g t e trust o citi e sa d commu icati g e ecti ely wit t em asper aps t e most sig ifca t outcome o t eprogram’s e olutio rom CRDA t roug CRDA-E.IRD was i a u ique positio i Serbia i t at t eorga i atio ad i ested time a d resources ilocal assista ce programs e e be ore CRDA,w e t ere were ew a e ues or exter al aid a dw e suspicio o outside nGOs was extremely ig . Wit CRDA, IRD was able to expa d its reacwit out compromisi g t e etwork o relatio -s ips it ad already worked to establis . T eorga i atio also took special care to ire localsta based o tec ical expertise a d k owledgeo t eir ow commu ities, pre erably wit pre i-ous ci il society experie ce. CRDA as bee able



IDEnTIFYInG ThE SUCCESSES 49

to ire stro g atio al pro essio al sta . T isatio al sta is key to CRDA Serbia ser ices tocommu ities.

T e quick-start projects pro ided a immediatecredibility boost or CRDA, but IRD care ully culti-ated relatio s ips wit citi e s o er t e duratioo t e program by s owi g a willi g ess to supportcommu ity priorities, a commitme t to a tra spar-e t a d discipli ed admi istrati e process (iawardi g gra ts, procuri g equipme t, a d iri gsta ), a k owledgeable e gageme t wit localgo er me t procedures, a d a dedicatio to teac -i g a d trai i g. T e e ort to orm close worki grelatio s ips paid o .

“I vladimirci, some o fcials ad t e i te tio o ami g a street a ter us,” zarko Draga ic said.“It was a existi g street, a d t ey were goi g tore ame it a ter USAID a d IRD. It did ’t appei t e e d, but t at’s t e ki d o co ectio wead establis ed, based o c a ges t at positi ely a ected t e local commu ity a d isible resultswe all made t roug impleme ti g arious CRDAprojects.”

Training: Develop a skills base

no e o IRD’s ac ie eme ts would a e beepossible wit out a ully i ested a d dedicatedsta t at recog i ed t e importa ce o le eragi glocal resources a d, w e ecessary, s owed awilli g ess to lear a d de elop t eir ow skillsalo gside local citi e s. At times, IRD sta par-ticipated i strategic pla i g, acilitatio , projectde elopme t, budgeti g, mo itori g, a d reporti gtec iques a d procedures. W e t e programtra sitio ed to CRDA-E, t ere was a commoaccepta ce amo g IRD sta ers t at additio alresources would be ecessary to elp desig t eprogram i t e most e ecti e ma er.

A commo t eme t at emerged duri g assess-me t i ter iews wit umerous CRDA be efciarieswas t e o erall positi e eco omic impact o IRD’s

dedicatio to tec ical assista ce a d trai i g,particularly i relatio to t e creatio a d de elop-me t o cooperati es. IRD sta ers attac ed asimilar se se o alue to trai i g a d tec icalassista ce, emp asi i g t e importa ce o a i gexperie ced, care ully recruited co sulta ts a dexperts a ailable to pro ide elp a d ad ice or allaspects o t e program.

CRDA-E’s emp asis o busi ess a d agriculture,aturally depe de t more o local part ers (busi-ess ow ers a d ma agers, armers, a d busi essa d agricultural associatio s) t a t ose i ol edi CRDA, ecessitated additio al trai i g aimed att ese ew stake olders i order to educate t emo CRDA-E goals, processes, a d met odologies.I act, CRDA-E ad to de elop ew met odologiesto work wit t e ew part ers. As o e IRD sta ersaid, t ere were a “small umber o qualifedpeople” i t e cou try to begi wit , becauseSerbia was a i g di fculty retai i g skilled a deducated workers due to its stag a t eco omy.

T roug out t e e tire program, IRD co siste tly targeted regio al resources t at could be used tostre gt e projects a d pro ide quality trai i g.Co seque tly, scores o local reside ts were gi eopportu ities to gai employme t skills t rougstructured guida ce a d procedures. Accordi g toBratulje ic, t e atte tio IRD ga e to de elopi ga local tec ical skills base is easy to o erlookbut was actually a crucial compo e t to rebuildi gt e social a d eco omic i rastructure. For localco tractors, or i sta ce, me tori g co ere ceswere orga i ed to co er te deri g procedures,processi g a d payme ts, biddi g met ods,a d more. As a result, “a e tire subset o localworkers” became more skill ul at competi g i t ei ter atio al market. “T ey lear ed ow to actually i oice.”

Tec ical assista ce a d trai i g was ’t alwaysper ect—o e f al assessme t ou d ollow-uptrai i g to be lacki g o some projects—butresearc s owed t at i almost all cases, citi e s




a d go er me t o fcials respo ded positi ely tot e trai i g pro ided, rom basic commu icatioskills or commu ity group leaders to tec icalassista ce o medical equipme t. T is ki d o trai i g as a lasti g e ect, e e w e it’s otco sidered a ecessary project outcome.

“T is is w at IRD is about,” Bratulje ic said. “T eu ique ability to ide ti y good local resources, com-mu icate e ecti ely, respect t eir backgrou ds,a d add alue to w at’s already t ere. T at’s w y we’ e bee success ul.”

Flexibility: Act fast and adapt to the environment

From t e ery begi i g, IRD ad to adapt quickly i its pla i g. Alt oug t e orga i atio wasalready establis ed o t e grou d i Serbia, IRDad to immediately recast t e o fce a d sta structure based o t e geograp ic regio assig edby USAID. Pla s i t e proposal called or o e feldo fce, but wester Serbia is a di erse, sprawli garea, so t ree o fces were deemed ecessary.CRDA ope ed o fces i Sabac, valje o, a d U ice,i additio to t e admi istrati e o fce i Belgrade.

T e quick-start ma date at t e outset o t eprogram, w ic was ot part o USAID’s programRFA, ad t e pote tial to be a major disrupti eorce or t e program be ore it e e bega .Required to it t e grou d ru i g, IRD adlittle time or sta recruitme t, iri g, trai i g,or locati g o fces. Agai drawi g o its pastexperie ce, IRD called o t ree o go er me talorga i atio s t at were part ers duri g t e earlierAltnet program to elp get establis ed. T e nGOs’k owledge o local commu ities, existi g societalstructures, a d citi e etworks allowed IRDto begi CRDA immediately, to meet t e do ordema ds, a d to lay t e grou dwork or a reputa-tio amo g locals o getti g t i gs do e quickly a d e fcie tly.

T e tra sitio to CRDA-E broug t a ot er majorprogram s i t, as IRD ad to rapidly respo d

to ew US policy w ile ot u dermi i g its owciti e participatio e orts or damagi g t e trustestablis ed wit citi e s. As pre iously stated,t is task was ot easy as sta ers were orced toexplai t e be efts o t e ew policy to a skepti-cal public.

“Almost o er ig t, you ad to switc rom i itialprojects be efti g e tire commu ities to targetedassista ce to certai groups,” Tija a Dabic said.Regardless o t e lo g-term alue o t e switc ,s e said, rom a perspecti e o workers a dciti e s o t e grou d, “i itially it was di fcult toswallow. Luckily, we were a exible orga i atio .”

Repeatedly, IRD sta ers recou ted t e orga i a-tio ’s dexterity i its ability to respo d to largeexter al c alle ges suc as re ised do or require-me ts or political i stability, as well as smalleroperatio al urdles suc as sudde c a ges icommu ity committee team leaders. At a “lesso slear ed” works op co ducted or Serbia sta ersat t e program’s co clusio , “ exible, respo si estructure” was cited as t e primary key i ter alactor supporti g IRD’s process, ollowed by “you ga d exible sta .”

A orga i atio ca o ly be you g o ce, a d IRDas rapidly matured i t e years si ce u dertaki gCRDA. T e lack o a establis ed bureaucracy orimmo able i stitutio al processes played to IRD’sad a tage i Serbia, w ic u derli ed t e impor-ta ce o remai i g imble w e e teri g i to ig ly u stable situatio s.

“Traditio al de elopme t programs were ot ery exible,” said Ric ard Owe s, praisi g t e “ exibil-ity a d e olutio ary ature” o CRDA, because t eope program desig allowed IRD to “do w at t ey were good at—s ow t e people t ey were worki gwit t em a d ot dictati g to t em.” But Owe sadded t at exibility cuts bot ways, a d a exibleprogram desig , o matter ow be efcial to t ecommu ity, is likely to ail i a orga i atio t at istoo rigid.



IDEnTIFYInG ThE SUCCESSES 51

“You a e to a e a little more tolera ce orailure,” e said, a d “you a e to be willi g toadapt to your e iro me t. not all orga i atio s areadept at deali g wit exibility.”

* * *

IRD’s legacy li es o i Serbia’s co ti ued com-mu ity i ol eme t i local go er me t, eco omicde elopme t, ealt , a d social issues. T ecommu ity mobili atio program pro ided t eou datio or e a ced citi e participatio ,project de elopme t, a d ad ocacy i t e politi-cal a d eco omic decisio -maki g process. T eprogram clearly establis ed a base o proacti eciti e s a d ga e t em t e capacity to act or t ebest i terests o t e commu ities. Equally impor-ta t, o course, was t e degree o cooperatioestablis ed betwee citi e s, local go er me t,a d t e pri ate sector, primarily duri g t e lateryears o t e program, but prese t t roug out. IRD

soug t to assist a emergi g ci il society etworka d mo eme t t roug out Serbia a d Mo te egroby e gagi g wit all citi e s, pri ate or public, o aperso al le el, empoweri g t em to act accordi gto t eir ow abilities a d i itiati e.

T e cumulati e result is a bluepri t or urt erassista ce, de elopme t, a d re itali atio pro-grams i w ic lasti g socioeco omic measuresca be attai ed t roug a patie t, o est, a dcommitted i estme t i a regio ’s social capitaletwork, by wi i g earts a d mi ds to establismutual trust, by pro idi g t e ecessary skills a dguida ce to oster lo g-term success, a d by dem-o strati g a commitme t to t e lo g-term wel areo t e citi e ry.

“We worked so closely wit so ma y di ere tgroups,” Dabic said. “E eryo e still k ows ourpeople a d w at we did. We are still recei ed wellw ere er we go.”



This publication, the rst in the IRD series Case Studiesin Community Stabilization, details the organization’simplementing role in post-con ict Serbia and Montenegroduring the 2001–2007 period. The US Agency forInternational Development community mobilization and

economic revitalization programs, CRDA and CRDA-E,brought multifaceted social assistance, economic andagricultural development, and basic infrastructure to awartorn region with an uncertain future. The report shedslight on the nature of the work undertaken by IRD’s staff,the unique challenges encountered in the theater, theenduring successes of the programs, and lessons that

IRD has carried into its ongoing work.

serbia and montenegro: empowering citizens, engaging governments, rebuilding communities series

Documents