Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather
Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon PTV 2 Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Mazdak Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story


12 February 2004 Thursday 20 Zilhaj 1424






PESHAWAR: Local govts oppose community boards

Bureau Report


PESHAWAR, Feb 11: District governments in the NWFP want the provincial government to shelve the idea of establishing Citizen Community Boards, officials said. They (district governments), officials said, wanted to be allowed to spend the developmental funds earmarked for these bodies, officials said.

"District governments see ... these bodies ... to be a threat to their authority that is why they have, time and again, opposed their establishment," said an official.

Under the Local Government Ordinance, 2001, CCBs are required to be set up for greater community involvement and empowerment in connection with development schemes. In line with the Provincial Finance Commission award, every district government is required to divert 25 per cent of its total annual developmental funds to these bodies. However, a substantial amount - supposed to be spent by CCBs during the 2002-03 and 2003-04 financial years - is lying unspent in all districts as CCBs are yet to be set up.

Officials said that district governments' frequent requests viz-a-viz scrapping the idea of establishing these bodies were turned down and they had been repeatedly asked by the provincial government to encourage the establishment of CCBs in their respective areas.

"But, the provincial government's instructions received lukewarm response from almost all the district governments," said the officer, adding: "District governments think that delaying tactics would make the provincial government set aside the idea."

Officials said that doing away with the idea of setting up CCBs required an amendment to the LGO, 2001, which could not be done by the provincial government on its own, because the local government ordinance was covered under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

"The situation has neither benefited the district governments nor served the society at large as a large amount of funds earmarked in this respect during 2003 and 2004 remain unspent," said a provincial development planner.

An official of the NWFP local government and rural development department said that though the situation viz-a-viz establishment of CCBs recorded some improvements during the past few months but still much remained to be done in this regard.

In accordance with the LGO, 2001, CCBs could be formed at the levels of union council, tehsil/town council and district council. The province had a total of 957 union councils, 61 town municipal administrations and 24 districts but so far only about 200 CCBs had been registered in different districts, including 12 in the Peshawar City district.

The responsibility to motivate community to form CCBs, said the source, rested with the district social welfare officer who had been delegated authority, under the LGO, 2001, to register CCBs.

A provincial government official said that despite the setting up of some 200 CCBs, the purpose for which these entities were constituted remained unfulfilled.

An official of the Peshawar city district government said that not necessarily all union councils or towns were bound to establish CCBs in their respective areas.

"They (the CCBs) are to be formed by the community on its own," said the officer. According to official rules, CCBs could decide to take funds for execution of schemes from union council, town council or the district council depending upon the size and scope of the project. "If required, more than one CCB can be registered in a union council," said the officer.

The CCBs' role, under the LGO, 2001, included improvement of delivery of service by a public facility; development and management of a new public facility; welfare of the handicapped, destitute, widows and families in extreme poverty; establishment of farming, marketing and consumers' cooperatives; identification of development and municipal needs and mobilisation of resources; formation of stakeholder associations for community involvement in the improvement and maintenance of specific facilities and reinforcing the capacity of a specific monitoring committee at the behest of the concerned council (union council, tehsil council, town council or district council).




Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2004