Derechos civiles y derechos políticos

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the results concerning the organisational design and management strategies of the case study project are presented. According to the conceptual framework in Chapter 2, this analysis involved four dimensions: (i) complexity of the FLE organisational structure and technology, (ii) mode of project implementation – whether integrated or parallel, (iii) stakeholder participation and ownership, and (iv) the learning process approach applied in the project.

6.2 Organisational complexity

Complexity was identified as an important feature of the FLE system, which had important implications for the performance and sustainability of the system. This complexity was manifested in a number of design principles of the FLE. First, the savings and credit tasks associated with the project were too complex for the rural people to operate. Second, the intention to combine technology transfer with group- based micro-credit resulted in the formation of heterogeneous village groups and involvement of multiple agencies leading to increased complexity. Third, the intention to provide demand-based services to the rural people required coordination among multiple extension agencies. These factors associated with complexity, the resulting problems, and their effects on system performance and sustainability are shown in Figure 6.1.

Computational problem; Monitoring & control difficult; High requirement of time Dissonant claims; Difficulty of reaching consensus; conflict High cost of coordination Problems due to complexity Reluctance of rural people to continue Collapse of groups Reluctance of extension agencies to continue Effect on performance & sustainability Factors creating complexity in

FLE design Variable & irregular savings- credit; complex system of drawing & disbursing money Heterogeneity of group members Combination of technology transfer with savings credit Involvement of multiple agencies Demand-led extension services

Figure 6.1 Sources of complexity in FLE design and its effect on system performance and sustainability

6.2.1 Savings-credit tasks

The investigator identified that the processes associated with the group-based savings and credit scheme in the FLE design was too complex. This was highlighted by a number of the respondents as a major reason for the non-viability of the community groups. A number of factors made the savings credit tasks highly complex for the rural people to manage.

First, there was no fixed amount of money that each member was required to pay. Thus, in most cases, the group members used to pay variable amounts of money. For example, while some members used to pay TK 10 per week, some other members in the same group used to pay TK 50 per week. This became even more complex because most members were extremely irregular in paying their dues. While some members used to pay their dues every week, some other relatively poor members could not afford to be so regular. A number of female group leaders commented that this made the calculation of profits for each member very difficult since they did not have the requisite level of education to be able to solve those computational problems. They suggested that it was one reason why the groups required the assistance of external agency professionals.

Second, many of the members who took out loans from the group fund would frequently fail to repay them, despite repeated requests. It required the leaders to spend considerable time and energy to recover the money, sometimes by visiting door to door.

Third, there was competition among the members to get a loan from the group fund. The same person, who took a loan, insisted that he/she be given another loan before repaying the previous loan. According to several group leaders, it became difficult for them to handle this chaos, especially in the absence of outside assistance.

Fourth, several female group leaders mentioned that they did not have the requisite skills to perform banking tasks1 associated with the deposit and withdrawal of group

1

savings. A number of both male and female group leaders informed that the process of depositing and withdrawing money from the bank was extremely time- taking and cumbersome. This was largely because the withdrawal of money, by group resolution, required the signature of the President, the Secretary and the Cashier. Quite often, when an urgent transaction had to be arranged, it was difficult to find all these three officials. As an FLE group leader stated:

It is very difficult to play the role of leader. Depositing money and recovering it takes lot of time. On one occasion, I had to spend the whole day. One member suddenly rushed to my house and told he needs some loan. Now you see I could not help instantly. Withdrawing money required signature of the Secretary and the Cashier. So I had to run to the Secretary and the Cashier’s houses. They were busy people, went to the field. I had to then go to the field to collect their signatures. After that when I went to the Bank there was a long queue. I had to wait a couple of hours there to withdraw the money. What is the meaning of taking so much trouble; these are thankless jobs ……. (FLE group leader in focus group discussion)

6.2.2 Combination of technology transfer and micro-credit

Unlike the traditional T&V model, the FLE design involved a combination of technology transfer and group-based micro-credit functions (see section 3.4.1.1). This combination, however, increased the level of complexity of the system. The technology transfer component required inclusion of some farmers (to serve as FPs) having reasonably large farm size so that their farms could be used for setting up extension demonstrations. The FPs also required having at least a basic level of education to read, write and perform basic arithmetic. The project also included other wealthier farmers in the groups, especially those prepared to donate lands on which to build the Extension Service Centres (ESCs). To operationalise the micro- credit component, on the other hand, the FLE included small and marginal farmers and the landless2, most of whom were poor and illiterate. The heterogeneity resulting from the mix of a few wealthier, educated farmers along with the poor, illiterate farmers in the same group created a number of problems that undermined the viability of the groups.

2

Traditionally micro-credit programmes in Bangladesh are run by NGOs that involve community groups of landless and women. The micro-credit programmes of the FLE-NGO were the same. Therefore, the inclusion of micro-credit and an NGO in FLE design required inclusion of landless and women. Some of the micro-credit groups of the FLE-NGO were also re-designed to implement FLE.

First, because of the heterogeneity of the groups, it became difficult for members to reach consensus on an issue. For example, the relatively poor members were more interested in the loan process and had no interest in participating in other discussions. However, the group leaders, consisting mainly of the wealthier farmers, were reluctant to provide loans to the poor because they believed that the poorer members were incapable of repaying loans. This distributional problem resulted in serious discontent among the poorer members. During the project phase, outside facilitators helped the groups come to a consensus on issues but as the project was phased out and their inputs withdrawn, the group leaders found it increasingly difficult to reach consensus and manage conflict. Second, the inclusion of elite members within these groups provided the opportunity for these individuals to capture the bulk of project benefits. The poorer members in the groups did not have the power to challenge this misplaced exercise of privilege. This behaviour in turn led to the demise of the groups, as individuals who failed to benefit abandoned the groups.

6.2.3 Involvement of multiple agencies

The FLE model, by design, required coordination among multiple government and non-government agencies. This coordination was necessary not only between the partner organisations, that is, the DAE and the FLE-NGO but also between these two agencies and various other ESPs in the Upazillas. This was because the FLE model was based on the concept of providing demand-led services to the rural people. For example, in some communities, the FLE group members identified the need for irrigation water. Since neither the DAE nor the FLE-NGO had provision of such support, they had to coordinate with the Department of Irrigation and Water Resources to provide this service. According to several interviewees, such coordination was extremely difficult and time-consuming since there was no formal linkage between the DAE or the FLE-NGO and other departments. Therefore, the staff had to take personal initiatives to convince other stakeholders.

During the project period, this coordination used to take place through periodic workshops to which the various ESPs were invited by the DAE and NGO project staff. Those activities were being funded through the project sources. Sometimes, however, the DAE and the NGO project staff used to personally request various

government departments to provide support to the FLE groups. On the other hand, coordination between the DAE and the NGO staff used to take place mainly through two mechanisms. First, there was the formal coordination meeting every four months. Second, sometimes a DAE member would ask another member to make a joint visit to the village. On many occasions, DAE and NGO staff would visit each other’s offices and discuss various tasks undertaken in the project.

After the termination of donor funding, it became difficult to keep the coordination committees active. The reasons were the perceived difficulty of coordination and the cost involved. Cost emerged as a serious problem because no stakeholders were interested in participating in coordination meetings without remuneration, a norm that has developed over time due to past donor-supported interventions (described in Chapter 4). Both DAE and NGO interviewees argued that since their organisation did not have enough money to cover the costs, it became difficult for them to continue arranging coordination meetings. Moreover, a number of interviewees argued that it was ‘extremely difficult’ and ‘time consuming’ to coordinate the other GO and NGO stakeholders. As a DAE officer commented,

This is an enormous task to bring stakeholders to meeting. Nobody wants to come to meeting without any remuneration. It is a norm here. …we do not have resources to maintain such forums. Previously, there were some supports given through ASIRP to maintain the coordination meeting. Now there is no government budget for this… Some of us from DAE and the NGO have personally taken some initiatives but it is difficult for us to continue it in this way. We have other works to do …. (DAE

Upazilla Officer, FLE).

6.3 Integrated versus parallel project implementation

The FLE demonstrated several features of a vertically3 organised project, as opposed to a well-integrated one. These features were manifested in three major dimensions: (i) the creation of new project implementation committees, (ii) the use of remuneration and incentives in project implementation, and (iii) the introduction of parallel tasks or procedures. These features negatively affected the prospects of sustainability of the FLE system.

3