EU #tags

Constraints: At the Constraint Dictionary common constraints facing development initiatives are classified by COFOG/COPNI class, and dependencies and impact spheres are indicated. The constraint map is under construction. The degree to which a constraint matters to local development, and is (can be) reduced by an initiative, is measured by indicators which are mapped, also by COFOG/COPNI class, at the Indicator Dictionary (under construction).

Achieving synergies across initiatives Initiative management is often the weakest link in the (strategy) execution chain. Traditional project and programme planning and communications approaches insufficiently use the bundling facilities that internet and wikis offer. As a precursor for an initiative atlas, the Latvia Development Book aims to list all development initiatives and cluster them according to their COFOG or ISIC classification. In this way, proponents and stakeholders of new initiatives can easily discover what initiatives exist already. Suitable cooperative agreements can be made and double or competing efforts can be avoided early in the planning cycle.

Initiatives by Latvia public authorities and private sector must both avoid the fragmentation of public resources and ensure a sufficient coverage of all functions of government for all members of their constituency. The Latvia Local Development Books support striking such a balance.

As indicated in Reform of the Multilateral Development System: Call for a High-Level Commission (J.F. Linn, The Brookings Institution) both the rapidly rising number of multilateral agencies, and the declining average project size reinforce the risks of aid fragmentation, a lack of focus on scaling up development impact, and rising transactions costs.

Initiative books, used both by the multilateral agencies and provincial development stakeholders will help mitigate the risks of aid fragmentation.
Moreover, by adding initiatives from Latvia here, the smaller project size should not be overstraining the limited absorptive capacity of poor recipient communities, it should not lead to inefficient communications with stakeholders, and it could be coupled to a more equitable spreading of the public resources.