The Perspective
Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 2021

River Gee County

The creation of the County Development Fund (CDF) and the Social Development Fund (SDF) was welcomed by Liberians as a means of focusing national budget expenditures on the specific development needs of local communities. The main objective of the CDF and SDF is to open a new window of opportunity for the promotion of social development at the county level and, therefore, to lend reality to the imperative of subsidiarity as a global response to sub-national demands for development policy attention. Following closely on the heels of a constitutional reform effort aimed at economic devolution and deconcentration of political power in post-conflict Liberia, many Liberians felt that for the first time in Liberia, the execution of the budget process would once and for all be freed from the dictates of the Executive. Until now, budget allocation for development has always been carried out in the shadow of executive manipulation. For decades, budget planning has been held hostage to the monopolistic whims of the Executive as long as it continued to provide the pork barrel for rewarding and punishing political cronies and adversaries, respectively, through the provision or non-provision of resources for their counties. Whereas for many, the CDF and the SDF were devolutions by default, for others it heralded an opportunity for local development needs to find unmediated resonation with national budget allocation. In practice, it appears to have served more as a political tool for members of the legislature and local officials than a genuine instrument for community-based development.

In 2007, it was a relief when the national legislature passed the law establishing the County Development Fund (CDF). The CDF is captured in the budget law as a source of funding to facilitate post-war infrastructure development in all counties based on identified projects and serves as a source of funding for local government service delivery to be managed by local officials under the decentralization program. Operationalization of the CDF commenced in the budget year of 2007/2008, the same year (2007) the Fund came into being. In that budget year, the government apportioned for each county US$ 66,666 and provided the same amount the following budget year – 2008/2009. Based on complaints from the counties that the amount was mingled, the CDF was increased to US$200,000.00 and has been so ever since.

In 2008, the Social Development Fund (SDF) was established for counties hosting concessions from international extractive concessionaires as negotiated in the Mineral Development Agreements (MDA). The payment of the SDF is made to the national government by concession companies through the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning. In concessionaire counties, monies from the two sources-CDF and SDF were merged into the County Development Account called the County Social Development Fund (CSDF).

 The CDF & SDF purports to enlarge and deepen strategic options for entrenching the principle of subsidiarity in financing for social development. By that very token, it seeks to bypass the state-bureaucratic machinery through which traditional budget allocations are processed into legitimate expenditures. It does this by virtue of targeting the county and community development initiatives therein as the focus and site of state expenditures. The principal organ through which development projects are identified, prioritized, and adopted as undertakings deserving CDF & SDF support is the County Council. The County Council is the highest decision-making body of the CDF & SDF. The Council of each county comprises Statutory Superintendents, District Commissioners, Youth Representatives, Women Representatives, Elders, and Chiefs. These representatives, called delegates, participate in a called County Sitting, usually at the county capital city to discuss and make development and spending decisions about the CSDF.  Citation to representative groups, institutions, and individuals to participate in the Sitting is communicated by the County Superintendent in agreement with the County Lawmakers. At the County Sitting, delegates discuss, agree on development projects, and estimate costs for the agreed-upon interventions. A resolution is then prepared, comprising decisions made by delegates during the Sitting, and is signed by each participant of the County Sitting. Additionally, during the Sitting, the body elects members of the Project Management Committee (PMT), comprising a Chair, Treasurer, and Controller for a three-year tenure, to manage the financial and technical aspects of the CDF & SDF to implement identified projects and report on progress made. 

Following the County Sitting, the signed resolution is taken to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for verification. Once verified, the document is communicated to the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning with a request for transferal of the allocated fund in the CSDF’s budget to the County Development Account. The transferal is supposed to take place in the first six months of the budget year to enable the implementation of agreed-upon development projects.  Also, the Public Procurement and Concession Commission (PPCC) Threshold Schedule mandates spenders of public funds, including the CDF & SDF to publish contract award if the value is equal to or above US$20,000 for goods, US$10,000 for service, and US$30,000 for works. They are also required to use the National Open Competitive Bidding process when the value of the procurement is equal to or below US$500,000 for goods, US$ 200,000 for service, and US$ 1,000,000 for works.

RIVER GEE COUNTY CDF/SDF (CSDF)

CDF Fiscal Year 2007/2008…………..US$66,666.00

CDF Fiscal Year 2008/2009…………..US$ 66,666.00

CDF Fiscal Year 2010/2011………......US$ 200,000.00

CDF Fiscal Year 2011/2012…………..US$ 200,000.00

 

The fiscal Year 2012/2013 

CDF………………………….. ………..US$ 200,000.00

Euro Logging Company………………..US$ 191,000.00

Putu Iron Ore Mining (PIOM)…………US$ 350,000.00

TOTAL CSDF……………………….....US$741, 000.00

 

The fiscal Year 2013/2014

CDF……………………………………US$ 200,000.00

SDF from Euro Logging Company……US$ 191,000.00

 Putu Iron Ore Mining SDF……………US$ 420,000.00

TOTAL CSDF………………………....US$811, 000.00

 

The fiscal Year 2014/2015

CDF…………………………………….US$ 200,000.00

SDF from Euro Logging Company…….US$ 191,000.00

SDF from Putu Iron Ore Mining……….US$ 600,000.00

TOTAL CSDF………………………....US$991, 000.00

 

The fiscal Year 2015/2016

CDF…………………………………….US$ 200,000.00

SDF from Euro Logging Company…….US$ 191,000.00

SDF from Putu Iron Ore Mining……….US$ 600,000.00

TOTAL CSDF………………………....US$991,000.00

 

The fiscal Year 2016/2017

CDF…………………………………….US$ 200,000.00

SDF from Euro Logging Company…….US$ 191,000.00

SDF from Putu Iron Ore Mining……….US$ 600,000.00

TOTAL CSDF………………………....US$991,000.00

 

The fiscal Year 2017/2018

CDF…………………………………….US$ 0

SDF from Euro Logging Company…….US$ 0

SDF from Putu Iron Ore Mining……….US$ 0

TOTAL CSDF………………………....US$0

 

The fiscal Year 2018/2019

CDF…………………………………….US$ 207,666.00

SDF from Euro Logging Company…..US$ 0

SDF from Putu Iron Ore Mining…….US$ 0

TOTAL CSDF………………………....US$207,666.000

 

The fiscal Year 2019/2020

CDF…………………………………….US$ 200,000.00

SDF from Euro Logging Company…..US$ 0

SDF from Putu Iron Ore Mining…….US$ 0

TOTAL CSDF………………………...US$200,000.00

 

The fiscal Year 2020/2021

CDF……………………………………....US$ 200,000.00

SDF from Euro Logging Company…….US$ 0

SDF from Putu Iron Ore Mining……….US$ 0

TOTAL CSDF………………………........US$200,000.00

The CDF & SDF as decentralization tools offers opportunities not only for the expansion of democratic space and the active engagement of the people in development endeavors but also for effective and efficient delivery of public services. Like all processes of social engineering, its benefits come with strings attached: it can lead to fragmentation if not properly balanced with the necessary retention of reasonable power at the center.  A closer and critical analysis of the statutory architecture of the law and the institutional framework for its implementation in River Gee County evokes a rude reminder that the CDF & SDF are arguably not the panaceas for rural development challenges that River Gee rural poor had anxiously been waiting for.  There are concerns that County Sittings have not occurred frequently and monies are not managed in a transparent manner in River Gee. The CDF & SDF have failed to publish contracts equal to or above US$20,000 for goods, US$10,000 for service, and US$30,000 for works or participated in the National Open Competitive Bidding process when the value of the procurement is equal to or below US$500,000 for goods, US$ 200,000 for service, and US$ 1,000,000 for works as per PPCC laws. 

During the County Council Sitting in the 2010/2011 budget year, US$110,000 was allotted for the construction of a modern 10 bedroom guest house to host senior government officials and diplomats. In 2013, the proposal for the construction of the Executive Guest House was amended and the budget was increased to US$200,000 to include a 10 bedroom house (with bathrooms) and a two suite presidential compartment, as well as a conference center with a capacity of about 200 persons. It was alleged that the leadership continued to increase the budget until it went up to about US$400,000, but the guest house is yet to be completed and there is no explanation about why the project stalled. Also, there is the concern of another incomplete project in Tienpo District. Allotments for the construction or opening of the main streets in Fish Town, since 2016, were left undone. The provincial city, Fish Town is underdeveloped and most of its alleys are yet to be opened to be able to increase socio-economic growth. The county lacks a modern guest house or hotel that could cater to foreign guests. It is reported that while touring the county during her administration, former President Ellen Sirleaf frowned on the county’s lawmakers and stakeholders over their failure to develop the county.  During his recent visit to the county, President George Weah lamented River Gee's backwardness by arguing that the educated elite failed the silent majority of citizens. President Weah was deeply concerned about the lack of modern facilities (city halls, town halls, decent guest houses, internet connectivity, etc.). 

These concerns are alarming especially since most of the time auditors from the General Auditing Commission (GAC) have discovered that the guidelines of the Public Financial Management and Public Procurement and Concession laws are violated by managers of the CSDF. The people of River Gee must demand that the River Gee County Legislature Caucus in collaboration with the government of Liberia mandate the General Auditing Commission (GAC) to conduct a full-scale audit of the operations of the River Gee’s Social Development Funds and the County Development Funds covering the period after the last audit (if any) to ascertain that funds were used in keeping with law and procedures. Also, a social audit must be encouraged and use for auditing the funds within the CSDF account. Social Auditing is the process of ensuring accountability through the use of social movements and community groups. Therefore, a social audit is a community-driven initiative, where members of the community have access to the project files and to the project itself.  The social audit takes place at the grassroots, where any citizen group, should be in a position to undertake the process - for a social audit to get underway, a citizen group needs access to the project files and to the project itself.  The County Legislature Caucus must inquire from the executive branch why the Euro Logging Company Social development funds and the Putu Iron Ore Mining social development funds for River Gee County were not included in the budget for the following fiscal years: 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020,  and 2020/2021.

In conclusion, the creations of the  CDF and SDF (CSDF)  welcomed by citizens of River Gee as a means of focusing the county budget expenditures on the specific development needs of local communities. of the  CDF and SDF have failed to build a presidential palace, rehabilitation/build of a county sports stadium, construction of clinics and/or hospitals, rehabilitation of city streets, road & internet connectivity,  purchase of yellow earth-moving machines, renovation of the county administration building, construction of county and districts administration buildings, construction of city halls, renovation of city halls, construction of town halls, provision of scholarship for citizens, construction of community College, plus many more base on the River Gee county context.  In practice, it appears to have served more as a political tool for members of the legislature and local officials than a genuine instrument for community-based development in River Gee County.

---

About the Author
Mr. Seltue Karweaye is a Geepo residing in the United States. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science with specialization in Public Administration from the Metropolitan State University in Minnesota, a Master’s degree in degree in Politics and International Studies specialization in Peace and Conflict Studies from the Uppsala University in Sweden, Master’s degree in Public Administration (MBA) with specialization in Public policy and Master of Business Administration (MBA) with a specialization in Public/Government Finance from the Texas Southern University in Texas. He can be reached at   s.karweaye1668@student.tsu.edu or karweayee@gmail.com

---