The document summarizes a study conducted on the participation of civil society organizations in following up on public investment projects in Cameroon's South West region. Key findings include: - Execution rates of public projects from 2010-2014 varied by division but generally declined over time. - Over 75% of CSOs said they did not participate in or have information on public investment follow-up committees. - CSO participation and awareness was higher in divisions with better project execution rates. - The institutional structure for follow-up committees includes CSO representation from divisional to national levels.

1. STUDY RESULTS ON:
THEPARTICIPATION OF
CIVIL SOCIETY
ORGANISATIONS (CSOs)
IN THE FOLLOW-UP OF
PUBLIC INVESTMENT
BUDGET PROJECTS IN
THE SOUTH WEST
REGION OF CAMEROON.
CONDUCTED BY:
CHAMEG CAMEROON
P.O. BOX 493, BOMAKA, BUEA
S/W REGION CAMEROON
Email:chamegsbi@yahoo.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/chamegcameroon.
$£€

2. CONTEXT AND JUSTIFICATION:
The pre-Project situation showed a drop in the public Investment execution rate from an
average of 96% to 36% at the national Level and to 51.9% at the South West regional
level in 2013. Reasons for the poor execution rate during this period included: poor
collaboration between stakeholders, non-participation by the civil society populations,
poor communication and non-mastery of the new program budgeting methodology.
Public investment follow up committees, when created, were aimed at policing local
service delivery providers for effective and timely implementation of public projects ,
better accountability, and facilitating a more efficient use of public funds.-For this
reason, various stakeholders are represented, namely the civil society organizations,
Religious groups, and traditional rulers. This Project is therefore aimed at carrying out a
study to analyze the key reasons for this low execution rate, as well as the role the civil
society organizations play in the follow up of public investment follow up activities. The
study findings will then be restituted with CSOs and the decentralized bodies in the
region and recommendations to ensure a more efficient role of CSOs in the follow up of
investment projects elaborated for implementation. Our actions are tailored to
collaborate with the regional and divisional follow up committees as we lobby for CSOs
to be included and fully participate in the design, implementation and monitoring of
public investment budget projects. Chameg`s final goal is to increase collaborative multi
stakeholder governance for greater accountability and transparency for improved
physical and financial execution of public investment budget projects in the south west
region of Cameroon.
KEY OUTCOMES OF STUDY.
1. Data was collected fromthe sixdivisions in the Southwestregion which
provided factual information on the physicaland financial execution rate
from2010 to 2014 as follows:
SUMMARY PER DIVISION IN 2010
DIVISION NUMBER
OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COST
(FCFA)
FINANCIAL
EXECUTION
PYHSICAL
EXECUTION
ENGAGEMENT PAYMENT
AMOUNT % AMOUNT % %
REGIONAL
PROJECTS
90 2399 558 000 1966 426
005
82.00 1966 426
005
82.00 85.12
FAKO 140 1143 422 000 976 825 415 85.43 976 825 415 85.43 98.07

3. KUPE
MUANENGUBA
78 641 550 000 412 347 000 64.27 412 347 000 64.27 83.46
LEBIALEM 184 1660 081 500 1445 353
537
87.06 1445 353
537
87.06 88.97
MANYU 129 1024 779 000 1024 779
000
100 1024 779
000
100 100
MEME 114 1340 618 000 969 266 814 72.30 969 266 814 72.30 84.28
NDIAN 159 1746 440 000 1484 474
000
84.10 1484 474
000
84.10 94.00
GENERAL
TOTAL IN THE
REGION.
894 9956 448 500 827 471 771 83.16 8279 471
771
83.16 90.12
SUMMARY PER DIVISION IN 2011.
DIVISION
NUMBER
OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COST
(FCFA)
FINANCIAL
EXECUTION
PYHSICAL
EXECUTION
ENGAGEMENT PAYMENT
AMOUNT % AMOUNT % %
REGIONAL
PROJECTS
46 1 230 067 300 409 705
593
38.31 409,705,593 35.31 49.60
FAKO 75 615 558 559 255 456
802
41.50 255,456,802 41.50 77.81
KUPE
MUANENGUBA
43 605 950 000 101 358
552
16.72 101,358,552 16.72 32.63
LEBIALEM 60 1 120 450 000 412 101
510
36.78 412,101,510 36.78 48.35
MANYU 65 510 710 000 307 050
000
60.12 307,050,000 60.12 70.00
MEME 65 609 340 000 328 517
378
53.90 328,517,378 53.91 84.70
NDIAN 102 1 055 744 000 333 404
299
32.00 333,404,299 32.00 71.00
GENERAL
TOTAL IN THE
REGION
456 5 747 819 859 2 147 594
134
37.36 2,147,594,134 37.36 60.05

4. SUMMARY PER DIVISION IN 2012.
DIVISION NUMBER
OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COST
(FCFA)
FINANCIAL
EXECUTION
PYHSICAL
EXECUTION
ENGAGEMENT PAYMENT
AMOUNT % AMOUNT % %
REGIONAL
PROJECTS
67 1 702 018 000 1 418 018
000
83.31 1 418 018
000
83.31 88.87
FAKO 89 675 636 002 570 212
772
84.40 570 212
772
84.40 96.50
KUPE
MUANENGUBA
66 904 800 000 621 834
427
68.73 621 832
427
68.73 82.14
LEBIALEM 87 1 369 010 000 1 113 384
946
81.33 1 113 384
946
81.33 87.00
MANYU 64 656 010 000 559 010
000
85.21 559 010
000
85.21 98.56
MEME 77 1 107 463 448 1 055 412
666
95.30 1 055 412
666
95.30 92.48
NDIAN 98 973 752 000 748 210
762
76.84 748 210
762
76.84 97.50
GENERAL
TOTAL IN THE
REGION
548 7 388 689 450 6 086 083
573
82.37 6 086 083
573
82.37 90.94
SUMMARY PER DIVISION AS AT 31ST
DECEMBER 2013.
DIVISION
NUMBER
OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COST
(FCFA)
FINANCIAL
EXECUTION
PYHSICAL
EXECUTION
ENGAGEMENT PAYMENT
AMOUNT % AMOUNT % %
REGIONAL
PROJECTS
47 1 293 669
000
176 686
222
13 66 161 986
222
12.52 23.8
FAKO 78 1 030 651
000
160 575
426
15 58 160 575
426
15.6 58.45
KUPE
MUANENGUBA
48 748 871
000
66 150
000
8.83 66 150
000
8.83 33
LEBIALEM 54 614 175
000
335 462
385
54.62 335 462
385
54.62 54.62

5. MANYU 57 595 714
000
341 385
745
57.31 341 385
745
57.31 89.04
MEME 57 489 512
200
310 598
461
63.45 310 598
461
63.5 79.89
NDIAN 71 668 600
000
153 299
595
22.93 153 299
595
22.9 62
GENERAL
TOTAL IN THE
REGION
412 5 441 192
200
1 544
157 834
28.38 1 529
457 834
28.11 51.99
SUMMARY PER DIVISION AS AT 31ST
DECEMBER 2014.
DIVISION NUMBER
OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COST
(FCFA)
FINANCIAL
EXECUTION
PYHSICAL
EXECUTION
ENGAGEMENT
PAYMENT
AMOUNT % AMOUNT % %
REGIONAL
PROJECTS
65 1 566 771 000 383 077
003
24.45 383 077
003
24.45 31.4
FAKO 106 1 098 226 000 44 148
685
4.02 44 148
685
4.02 36.01
KUPE
MUANENGUBA
62 894 578 000 18 350
000
2.05 18 350
000
2.051 22
LEBIALEM 64 729 175 000 342 201
827
46.93 342 201
827
46.93 75.9
MANYU 71 564 430 000 224 150
108
39.71 224 150
108
39.71 78.24
MEME 62 533 951 000 136 041
000
25.48 136 041
000
25.48 62
NDIAN 123 1 315 563
000
209 321
950
15.91 209 321
950
15.91 34.11
GENERAL
TOTAL IN THE
REGION
553 6 702 694 000 1 357 290
573
20.25 1 357 290
573
20.25 42.66

6. SUMMARY PER DIVION AS AT 22nd JANUARY 2015.
DIVISION
NUMBER
OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COST
(FCFA)
FINANCIAL
EXECUTION
PYHSICAL
EXECUTION
ENGAGEMENT
PAYMENT
AMOUNT % AMOUNT % %
REGIONAL
PROJECTS
65 1 566 771 000 598 903
674
38.23 598 903
674
38.23 55
FAKO 106 1 098 226 000 662 449
923
60.32 662 449
923
60.32 70.34
KUPE
MUANENGUBA
62 894 578 000 329 830
909
36.87 329 830
909
36.87 53.88
LEBIALEM 60 653 175 000 578 713
050
88.60 578 713
050
88.60 88.6
MANYU 67 529 060 000 368 575
108
69.67 368 575
108
69.67 92.02
MEME 64 544 961 000 436 513
761
80.10 436 513
761
80.1 80.1
NDIAN 111 1 023 563
000
450 777
145
44.04 450 777
145
44.04 63.24
GENERAL
TOTAL IN THE
REGION
535 6 310 334 000 3 425 763
570
54.29 3 425 763
570
54.29 67.67
2. CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS’(CSOs) PARTICIPATION IN THE
FOLLOW-UP OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT BUDGET PROJECTS (PIBS) :-
Generally, more than 90% of CSO’s contacted are aware of the existence of the
Public Investment Follow-up Committees but over 75% of them say they do not
participate in committee activities nor have information on how to be part of the
committees. The level of awareness amongst CSO’s on PIBS committee actions
defer greatly amongst actors in the 6 divisions of the region. In divisions with
greater awareness and high CSO participation, the physical execution rate is better,
the people are better informed and collaboration between the stakeholders is better.
CSO’s however, complain of not being availed with sufficient information on the
institutional structure and functioning of PIBS committees to enable them
participate. Interestingly, findings about the institutional structure and composition
of members reveals a comfortable representation of CSO’s from the divisional to
the national levels as portrayed in the structural set up .

7. An overview of the institutional structure of the PIB Committees was presented by
Mrs. Tchouateu Tankeu Stephanie of the South West Regional Delegation of
MINEPAT Buea. In her presentation, she said the Prime Minister and head of
Government by Decree No. 2013/798/PM of September 13, 2013 re-organized the
PIB follow up committees and also created the Council Technical Follow-up Sub-
committees. There are 4 levels for the follow-up of public investment projects
namely: the National, Regional, Divisional and Communal level committees.
The representation of members at these different committees are as follows:
(Mme Tchouateu explaining the PIBS structure at the one day restitution forum)
1. Council Technical Follow up Committee: -
President: The Mayor or his/her representative
Secretary: the SG of the Council
A Representative of the DO
A Representative of Divisional Delegation of MINEPAT
A Representative of the Divisional Delegation of MINMAP-Public Contracts
The Divisional Chief of Brigade for control of public contracts
The Council Receiver
A representative of the Council Technical personnel
The Engineers who’s intervened in the execution and management of council
projects
NB. CSOs are not represented at this very important level
Meets four times annually and are established by the SDO of the Division. It comprises of :
2. Divisional Follow up Committees: -
- Meets four times yearly and are established by the Decision of the SDO of the
Division who appoints the -President and vice. The composition of the
committee is as follows:
- President: A Member of Parliament of the Division
- Vice President: A Representative of the Civil Society
Secretary: The Divisional Delegate of MINEPAT
A Representative of the SDO
The Divisional Delegate of Public Contracts
The Divisional Chief of Brigade for control of public contracts

8. The Divisional Controller of Finance
Two Representative of the civil society
Three local elected persons – members of Parliament and Mayor
The Chiefs of the villages’ beneficiaries of investment projects
The regional responsible of ministerial department and organization concerned
The local Representative of ARMP – Public Contracts Regulatory Board
The President of Divisional competent tender board
3. Regional Follow up Committee:
- Meets twice yearly and are established by the decision of the Governor of the
region who appoints the President and vice. The composition of the committee
is as follows:
President: A Member of Parliament of the Region
Vice President: A Representative of the Civil Society
Secretary: The Regional Delegate of MINEPAT
A Representative of the Governor
The Regional Delegate of Public Contracts
The Regional Chief of Brigade for control of public contracts
The Regional Controller of Finance
Two Representative of the civil society
Two members of Parliament
Two Mayors
Two representatives of villages’ beneficiaries of regional investment projects
The regional responsible of ministerial department and organization concerned
The local responsible of jointly financed projects
The Regional Chief of ARMP – Public Contracts Regulatory Board
The President of Regional and internal competent tender boards
4. National Follow up Committee :
- Meets twice yearly and is established by the decision of the Minister of Economy
Planning and regional Development – MINEPAT who designates its members as
follows:
President: The president of the Finance and Budget Commission of the
National Assembly
Vice President: A representative of the civil society
Secretary: The Director General of Economy and programming of public
investment at MINEPAT
Members:

9. A Representative of the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization
The Director General of Budget at the Ministry of Finance
The Director General of Control of public contracts at the Ministry of Public contracts
The Director General of ARMP
The Presidents and Vice Presidents of regional follow up Committees
A Mayor per Region, member of the regional follow up committee
A Representative of the local community/village, member of the regional committee
The representative of the Ministerial Department and organization concerned
The national responsible of jointly financed projects
The president of the central and ministerial competent tender boards.
The Restitution Forum of May 26th 2015 greatly addressed the huge concern of
lack of information and poor communication amongst stakeholders that has
perpetually hindered civil society’s participation in the follow-up of Public
Investment Budget Project Committees. Mrs. Tchouateu Tankeu Stephanie of the
south west regional office of MINEPAT gave a vivid presentation of the structure,
it`s functioning and composition of members of the PIBS committee. Her
presentation ignited a high level of exchange of ideas that culminated in several
suggestions and recommendations geared towards fixing the various gaps that had
before now hindered the effective collaboration and participation amongst
development stakeholders in the region (see recommendations) .It is important to
note that civil society organizations were schooled to understand that participating
in the follow-up of PIBS actions does not ONLY imply that the CSO MUST sit in,
in committees. CSO’s as members serving their respective communities to
ameliorate the population’s standard of living can do more by accessing
information concerning approved PIBS projects for dissemination and monitoring
for efficient and effective implementation. They can also get involve in working
with their populations in identifying poverty alleviating projects in their
communities and making recommendations to the responsible ministries for
effective inclusion in the Public investment Budget.
The one day Forum to restitute results of the field study conducted by Chameg
Cameroon actually served as a platform to inform, educate and sensitize CSO’s on
how to participate in PIBS activities. Parliamentarians from all 6 divisions and
distinguished elites all joined their voices in soliciting the collaboration of CSOs
in the development decision making process of the southwest region to enhance
accountability and transparency. This clarion call was re-enforced by the chief of
division of the legal and administrative affairs at the Southwest Governors office
Mr. Bikie (representing the Governor) requesting that a similar restitution
exercise be organized by CHAMEG early 2016 with an enlarged participation

10. including all the Mayors in the region. To quote the legal
and administrative affairs boss at the Governor’s office who said “Am very
impressed with the high quality discussions from a very high quality
representation of participants…”
This writer ( Mrs. Agbor Meg) at this juncture came to the realization that, poor
communication and lack of information, are serious problems limiting
development efforts in our communities. It is therefore important that “WE” all
make it our duty to be proactive and seek factual information as we carry out our
duties to avoid limiting ourselves in participating in the decision making process of
our region in particular and our nation in general.
KEY CONCLUSIONS UNDERLINING EFFECTIVE CSO
PARTICIPATION:
1. Public and private officials should be responsive to civil society actors in
their regular interactions.
2. There should be free access to data, reports, initiatives and decisions to
enable CSO’s become aware and informed about issues, articulate concerns,
engage constructively and contribute to solutions.
3. Technical supportand resources should be put in place to build capacity for
marginalized voices, and CSO’s
4. Ensure a place for civil society in the decision making processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE AT THE ONE DAY FORUM TO ENHANCE
PIBS ACTIONS :-
Based on the healthy exchanges and discussions at this forum, the following
salient resolutions were adopted by the participants:
That, civil society be represented at the council follow up and technical committee as
is the case at other levels of the institutional framework of PIBs follow up
committees.
There should be periodic evaluation of PIB projects at all levels
All PIB projects, the list of contracts won, the amounts and the contractors should
be published on line,

11. That, there should be the reinforcement of punitive measures implemented on
contractors that fail to execute PIB projects well and timely while certificates of
accreditation are awarded to outstanding contractors.
That at the start of each year MINEPAT at regional level should come up with a data
base of contractors indicating their domain of competence and area of interest.
Those contractors who poorly or fail to execute their contracts satisfactorily should
be BLACKLISTED and sanctioned.
There should be capacity building for CSOs on the follow up mechanisms of PIB
projects.
That, CSOs be structured at the Divisional levels to follow up PIB projects.
That, CSOs functionality should be sector based and their actions should be based
on thematic areas.
That, CSOs should send their report of activities to competent authorities such as
MINEPAT.
That, CSOs should build capacity on public finance law and legal literacy to
empower them in the follow up of PIB projects.
SUGGESTED ACTION PLAN TO PROMOTE CSO’s PARTICIPATION
IN PIBS ACTION:-
OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIIES RESULTS INDICATOR RESPONSIBL
E
To ensure
the follow-up
and
implementati
on of
workshop
recommenda
tions and
action plan.
 Identificati
on of
CSO’s in
the
divisions
for
synergy.
 Replicatio
n and
populariz
ation of
recomme
ndations
taken at
the forum.
 Organizati
on of
meetings
with
mayors
 Synergies
created
and
collaborat
ion
increased
.
 Informatio
n on
public
investme
nt budget
follow-up
committe
e
activities
for better
CSO
participati
on
shared.
 Messag
es sent.
 Data
base of
CSO’s
in each
division
created.
 CSO’s
included
in
follow-
up
committ
ee.
 Mail
exchan
ges.
 Reports
.
 MANYU
- ELENA
NGO
 MEME -
KUMBA
WOMEN
NETWO
RK.
 NDIAN -
AWEED.
 KUPE -
AJESH.
 FAKO -
EPDA.
 LEBIAL
EM

12. and
MINEPAT
delegates
.
 Monitorin
g/ follow-
up.
 Partnersh
ips
created.
 CSO’s
inclusion
in
developm
ent
process
increased
,
 Citizenshi
p
enhanced
.
 Forum
recomme
ndations
and Plan
of action
implemen
ted.
 RUGBW
A
SAMPLE TESTIMONIES AND EXCHANGE OF IDEAS DURING THE ONE DAY
PUBLIC FORUM
The moderator Mr. Charles Mbonteh of MUDEC Buea explained the need for
participants to bring out burning issues that will provoke discussions with the
view of making recommendations and suggestions to improve on CSOs active
participation in the follow up of PIB projects in the South West Region and the
establishment of an action plan.
Below are reactions from some participants:
Mr. Mofor George of GSFA Buea:
-He applauded the initiative of putting a PIBS committee in place but regretted
that those responsible for manning the implementation are faulting the entire

13. system . . He cited a situation where a contractor’s file
was rejected based on a minority vote by the contracts board members and not
based on the competence of the contractor. He further blamed things going out
of hands due to lack of available facts and documentation on contracts and
contractors for effective follow up by the populations .
Mr. Tabe Moses of FORUDEF Buea: Remarked that, CSOs were involved in
providing inputs that were used in the development of the community
development plans of councils in the South West region, where CSOs came up
with needs of the councils but wondered why the council communal plans are not
being put into use? He lamented that, government is spending huge sums of
money each year but the people get poorer. His concern was on what happened
that within the council level CSOs are not fully involved and solicited that CSOs
be represented at the council level in the follow up committee. He thanked the
Parliamentarians and the Governor’s Representative for their inputs and
commented on responsibility and mind set. Mr. Tabe advised the CSOs to take
the responsibility to approach the councils and called on the mayors to
collaborate with CSOs for meaningful collaboration.
Alternate Member of parliament for Lebialem Mrs. Nembo Pauline of
RUGBWA Wabane:
She shared her experience of a project that was poorly executed in Wabane and
when she contacted the Mayor on it; his reply was that it is MINEPAT who sent
the contractors. She questioned who was actually
responsible for contracts i.e is it government services or the people`s
representatives? She talked of contractors having projects in areas they do not
master like one coming from Yaounde to execute a project in Wabane knowing
nothing about the area.

14. Mr. Tanda Godwin of EPDA CSO Limbe: He admitted that community
development plans were inputs of CSOs and raised the issue of gaps in the
consideration of the lowest bidders. He called for the need
of CSOs to be involved at the attribution process of the contracts, as they will
point out contractors that lack competence and the issue of lowest bidders. He
remarked that, if resources for CSOs were not allocated for follow up of the
council development plans it could be one of the reasons CSOs are not fully
involved at council level.
- Mr. Takang Hans Takor of AYECP CSO Ndian:
He doubles as Controller No.1 of public Contracts for Ndian. He
raised some issues that are going wrong in the field such as:
 Many Mayors lacking the technical expertise to bring out
projects;
 Difficulties to meet Mayors to bring out feasibility studies of
projects;
 Issue of site plan for execution or site location which the Mayors
sign to contractors who are not familiar with the council areas;
 The council development plan not respected or followed;
 Some development agents of the council are not competent;
 Most Mayor unable to understand the CDP within 5 years of
their mandate.
 He proposed that a ministerial department be devoted for
studies of projects from conception, design, development and
implementation . He questioned why project log book do not
usually tie with what is in the field.
 He expressed the need for a permanent technical team at the
council level that will explain to Mayors and Parliamentarians
what projects had been earmarked to be carried out.
Member of parliament for Fako East Hon. Etombi Gladys :
She doubles as the Fako Divisional President of the PIB follow up committee.
She raised the issues of estimates in contracts not marching prices in the market

15. place and challenged CSOs to take part in raising public awareness on such
issues. She said there is no
need for game blaming but rather to come up with suggestions and
recommendations to address the existing gaps . Honourable Etombi made the
following suggestions:-
 That the issue of site visits be taken seriously,
 A data base of competent contractors shortlisted according their
various domains of expertise be established,
 That PIBs follow-up actions should start from the communal
((council) to national level. and
 That certificates of accreditation be awarded to outstanding and
meritorious contractors. She concluded that we have all failed
as Cameroonians on issues of contract execution and solicited
that we develop the ’’Right Mind Set’’ and LOVE for our country
if we must forge ahead.
Mola Ngale Kinge Jacob of Kingston Bank Group Buea:
Lamented about the situation of PIB projects and awarding of contracts being a
vicious circle. He decried those awarding contracts who request a % to be given
them by the contractors before attributing the contract. This translates to the
idea that, 30% of the budget has been used before the execution while less than
70% actually goes into the project execution. He appealed to all Cameroonians
of good conscience to realise that we can only develop when we change our
mentality. He outlined issues of some contractors who submit tender files
knowing fully well that they do not have the required equipments, they present
fraudulent bank documents, and generally lack the competence yet they are
awarded contracts. He emphasized that, until we all realise that we are those to
develop Cameroon, the country will remain the same without any meaningful
development. He further regretted that those to follow
up the execution of contracts are themselves contractors. He called on all
stakeholders involved in the chain of PIB projects to have consciences and take
responsibility. He asked if MINEPAT had bothered to assess the impact created
nor jobs created as a result of the implementation of PIBs projects and advised
CSOs to make recommendations on what should be put in place to eliminate the
30% often demanded from contractors in the award of public contracts.

16. Member of parliament for Eyumojock Hon. Okpu Susan : She doubles as the
President of the PIB follow up committee for Manyu Division. She vividly
explained the background of the misconstrued issue of "lowest bidder" and
called on all stakeholders – MINEPAT, MINMAP, MINATD, MINFI, CSOs and
councils to take their responsibility. Honourable Okpu Susan observed that the
wahala of paying before DAOs of tender files are signed is a major cause of
delay in the attribution of contracts and recommended DAOs to be signed free of
charge to facilitate the attribution of contracts..
Member of parliament for Bamuso Hon. NGALLE DANIEL : Stressed on the take
home message that should be behind our minds being ‘’the spirit of
belonging’’. He advised all to use good conscience in executing PIB projects,
taking the example of a Parliamentarian in his area who implemented the best
project as a result of his competence and
committement to his people in spite of his being a member of the follow-up
committee. Honourable Ngalle stressed on the importance of enforcing the issue
of prospective contractors carrying out site feasibility studies and visits of
projects they bid for. He recommended the short-listing of contractors according
to the area of various competences.
Mr. Ngwane Hansel of Hansel Media Buea: A young inspiring graduate of
information and technology from the university of Buea, drilled participants on

17. the need and importance of digitalization and mediatisation of information for
education and research..
Mr. Mbi Ayamba Elvis of MODEG CSO Mamfe: He talked of financial allocation to
be included in the feasibility studies for CSOs intervention in the follow up of PIB
projects, as this may be one of the reasons why CSOs do not fully participate in
the follow up of PIB projects in the field. It was explained that, council have it and
so cannot be the reasons for CSOs not fully participating in the follow up of PIB
projects.
Member of parliament for Mamfe central and Upper Banyang:
Hon. Enow Tanjong
The oldest member of the Cameroon national assembly honorable ENOWTANJONG
intimated that as Parliamentarians, they are charged with seeing that budgetary
allocations are judiciously and honestly managed for the benefit of the citizens.
He commended the efforts of CSOs on the field whose actions
he likened to work being done by Parliamentarians to ensure the effective and efficient
implementation of government budget allocations for the development of our region in
particular and the nation as a whole. He emphasized that the interest of the populations
must be safe guarded at every step in the development process and cautioned those
who use their position of authority to influence the awards of contracts to desist from
such practice. He thanked the Governor’s Representative for his presence throughout
the deliberations and thanked the organizers - CHAMEG- for associating and bringing
the parliamentarians and the civil society organizations together in this forum.
VOTE OF THANKS BY CHAMEG CAMEROON DIRECTOR - Mrs. Agbor
Magdaline.
On behalf of CHAMEG, the Director Mrs. Agbor Magdaline expressed her
satisfaction with the conduct of the forum. She saluted the active and honest
exchanges between the participants which brought out issues that created massive
awareness on PIBS activities in the region and educated every one present on how
to participate in the process; thus inspiring the spirit of citizenship in all and
sundry. She extended her gratitude to the European Union through PASC for
sponsoring the project and making

18. it possible for chameg`s dream of causing development stakeholders in the south
west region of Cameroon to fully participate in the implementation of public
investment budget actions in the region for greater accountability and transparency
to materialize. Special thanks to the parliamentarians for their words of wisdom
and honest advise to CSOs and government heads of decentralized structures..She
thanked the authorities of the Parliamentarian Flat Buea for their hospitality and
collaboration in ensuring the success of the forum. Mrs. Agbor was particularly
humbled by the presence of the Governor’s Representative who sat in and
participated actively to the end of the forum.
OFFICIAL CLOSING BY THE GOVERNOR
In the official closing remarks, the Governor’s Representative Mr. Bikie Befolo
expressed satisfaction with the quality of the deliberations and appreciated the
Members of Parliament who brought their expertise and experiences to enrich the
forum. He called on every one to use their potentials in contributing to the building
of our country – Cameroon. He thanked CHAMEG NGO for organizing such an
intellectual forum and solicited that this forum be replicated early next year to
include all the mayors as he intends to table the issue to hierarchy. Mr. Bikie urged
the participants to follow up and ensure the implementation of the
recommendations and action plan suggested.
He declared the forum closed after closing prayers led by Mr. Tabe Moses.
participants. sponsor
implementer
$
£