Prosiguen las deliberaciones

Interviews with the DAE and the NGO stakeholders at different levels and at different project sites revealed that the FLE project performed poorly in terms of the development of farmer promoters and village groups capable of undertaking extension activities (Figure 5.1). All interviewees mentioned that while in some villages, there was some significant demonstration of successes by the farmer promoters; in most villages the promoters failed to play their expected roles. In most cases, they failed to contact the various ESPs on their own initiative and draw on support services for their fellow group members. Some DAE interviewees complained that the FPs never even contacted them for any advice or assistance, although they were willing to provide support. One of them stated that,

The FPs themselves did not have any desire or interest (agroho). So, I had given up. Even now [post-project period], I tell them (FPs) “if you want, I can introduce you to the ESPs and request them to give you training” but it is the farmers who are not interested.

DAE & the NGO lost interest in continuing support for FLE groups Groups showed poor performance or dismantled Conflict within group regarding project benefit Farmers greedy; not willing to share resources; only sought free goods Groups failed to operate on their own initiative & independently Field staff had

to spend too much time supporting the groups Perspectives on the performance of FPs & leaders Perspectives on the performance of farmer groups

as a whole FPs & leaders showed poor performance FPs abused/ misused group funds FPs failed to contact ESPs for demand- led services Farmer leaders failed to resolve group conflict regarding project benefit Made extension support difficult

Figure 5.1 Perspectives of the implementing agencies about the performance of the FLE groups, FPs and leaders and its impact on their willingness to continue supporting the groups

Although no quantitative evidence was provided by the DAE and the NGO interviewees, some of the key informants from these agencies advised that on an average “two to three” promoters out of a total of 24 promoters in 12 groups per

Upazilla were able to perform as expected.

Both the DAE and the NGO interviewees also mentioned some malpractice committed by the FPs. These indicated that while the FPs were trained to serve their fellow group members, they actually played just the opposite role. For example, the FPs were given some start-up loans from the project sources to undertake income-generation activities in their villages so that the other farmers could learn from these practices. However, after having received the start-up loans, most of them had “disappeared” or were at least never seen in their groups again. In most instances, it was not possible to recover the loans. Similarly, many of the FPs took loans from the FLE group funds but failed to return the money, despite repeated requests by the project staff. As a BS stated,

Some leaders, after taking loan [from the group funds] are staying away…...Some FPs of the male groups have vanished (laughing, sarcasm). It is actually a big failure (laughing, sarcasm). It is like the “mustard that you will use to drive the ghosts away, has the ghost in itself”1 …… (BS FLE site)

The DAE and the NGO interviewees informed that the village groups failed to operate on their own initiative and most of the time the DAE or NGO staff had to remain present to enable the groups to carry out their group meetings and savings-credit tasks. This was quite opposed to what was expected from the village groups. As a DAE interviewee informed,

If the FLE groups could have operated [as expected] it would have been very beneficial for us. Actually it is not possible for the BSs to work without groups. If there are some groups in each village, we could just go to the groups. And if the ESC2 was active, we could just go there to transfer the technology. It could facilitate rapid transfer of technologies but we have seen [in FLE] that the farmers cannot operate on their own …. (BS, FLE site)

1

Local proverb, meaning the solution of a problem itself causes a problem.

In addition, the DAE interviewees stated that the farmer leaders were unable to manage conflicts within their groups on their own initiative. Most frequently, they engaged in conflicts and there were “groups within groups”. Such conflicts made it difficult for the DAE workers to undertake extension activities with the groups. The DAE interviewees mentioned that many villagers who participated in the FLE project did not realise at the beginning that it was the FPs who would be getting extension support from the ESPs. As the project progressed over time and the other farmers recognised that it was the FPs who were receiving benefits, they became upset. Some participant villagers began criticising and opposing the FP selected from another locality and demanded that a FP from their own locality be selected. These aspects of the groups were also considered as a significant failure of the FLE project and hence, there was a belief among the DAE stakeholders that the “FLE approach did not work”. As one of the DAE interviewees stated,

….It was seen that when the FPs who are getting training repeatedly, getting demonstrations on new technologies…..then the jealousy started. Some started telling [us] “why did you make that person a FP, he does not know anything, our … (name of person)…...could be better” ….. (BS, FLE site)

Some DAE interviewees also criticised the farmer promoters and the villagers involved with the FLE project as “greedy”. Quite contrary to their expectation that, after the training and facilitation provided through the project, the rural people would be able to mobilise their resources and undertake development activities, the rural people always expected the DAE employees to provide some free inputs or grants. A DAE interviewee expressed this gap between the expected performance of the FLE groups and their actual behaviour as follows.

They are greedy and always want something. They do not pay attention to the utilisation of their own resources whatever they have and improve their own situation. Instead they always want something from us….We expected [in FLE] that they will make a plan by discussing with each other, say for example, 10 farmers want to cultivate a rice variety BR-11. We expected that they would discuss among themselves about how to cultivate the variety or how to find a good source of the seed and then ask us about it. But such types of initiatives did not come from them. They wanted that we give them the seeds for free. They expected the same thing from the NGO as well.

A number of the DAE interviewees also said that whenever they visited the groups and wanted to undertake any extension demonstration or training activity together with the groups, the group members used to gather quickly to show that their group was active. Through this kind of behaviour, the villagers expected to receive some grants from the BSs. However, soon after the BSs had left the village, all activities of the group would stop. The DAE interviewees perceived such deceptive behaviour of the rural people as a failure of the FLE project. As one of them stated,

It was seen that when we did some demonstration then the group would become active; they used to gather in the hope that they would get something. All the time they expected to get something. When we could not give them something, they used to disappear ……. (BS, FLE site)

In terms of the accumulation of group funds and income generation through savings-credit, several DAE employees mentioned that it was a beneficial aspect of the FLE organisation. In the groups where the savings process worked, the rural people benefited, for they could use the savings for various income- generation activities and make a profit. However, most interviewees informed that such instances were found only among a few female groups and the male groups failed to demonstrate this ability. Since 50% of the groups formed through the project consisted solely of males, it served as an index of considerable failure in performance.

The DAE and the NGO interviewees also reported that the village groups were not able to manage their savings-credit operations and group meetings without their assistance. Therefore, they had to spend considerable time and efforts to keep the groups operational. Sometimes, they had to visit the groups during out- of-office hours such as early in the morning and sometimes in the evening. During the daytime, the farmers were out of their houses such as working in the crop fields. Therefore, in order to be able to organise a meeting with the farmers, they had to go to the villages either very early in the morning or at night. Moreover, they had to frequently supervise the farmers and remain present in their meetings.

This study revealed that a failure of the FLE project in developing quality FPs and village groups negatively affected the willingness of the DAE and the NGO to sustain the project. In addition to interviews, this was reinforced by the observation that in some communities where a few female FPs and groups demonstrated good performance (Box 5.1 and 5.2), the DAE workers were interacting with those groups even after the FLE project had formally ended. These observations indicated that had the FLE project produced quality FPs and village groups in most communities, it could have been able to garner support from the DAE.

Similarly, the performance of the FPs and the groups was also found to influence the behaviour of the FLE-NGO. In the communities where the few FLE groups performed well, the NGO workers were engaged in self-financing partnership activities with those groups. On the other hand, in the communities where the FLE groups failed to perform as expected, the NGO workers were unwilling to work with those groups. It has already been discussed in Chapter 4 that the NGO’s plan was to undertake self-financing income-generation schemes with the FLE groups in order to sustain its support for FLE activities. In this partnership, the NGO would provide financial loans and other forms of agricultural inputs for the FLE members to undertake various income-generation activities. However, due to the poor performance of the FPs and the groups, the NGO workers perceived such interactions as risky and feared that if they had provided loans to those groups, it would have been difficult to recover the loans. As an NGO manager stated,

In my area, the FLE was a total flop. I could undertake some self- financing activities with the FLE groups but I won’t do that. It’s very risky…..They did not even return the loan that was given to them during project implementation. Will they return my [organisation’s] money? It would be difficult for me to recover loans from them.

Not only the DAE but also the other government agencies in the Upazillas also continued their interaction with the few female groups that performed well. One key reason for this was the performance of the groups in terms of development of larger group funds and their ability to demonstrate self-mobilised initiative undertaken by the FPs concerned. As a BS reported,

We contacted the Department of Youth Development and requested them to provide training to this group. Then they selected members and provided the training here. After the end of the course, they took a test examination of the participants. A total of 28 members qualified in the examination. The Department of Youth Development then provided the trainees with certificates. With the qualified members, the group themselves initiated a tailoring programme, without the help of outsiders. The group has approached the Social Welfare department for formal registration. As part of this registration procedure, one representative from the group had to go to Dhaka. This group has already got approval although there are some other formalities yet to be done. The Social Welfare department invited one representative from the group that is working well, has good savings fund. The department will hold a workshop with these participants and then give approval. We are very hopeful about the future of this group. Hope they will make more progress.

Box 5.1 Story of an FLE group, widely perceived as “successful” by the DAE and the NGO stakeholders

This is the story of a female group that was formed on the 4th of March 2002 through the FLE support. They started with only 15 members that increased eventually to 25 in 2004. More and more women from the neighbouring area are expressing their willingness to join the group. The group holds regular meetings. In January 2005, they held their 162nd meeting. The savings and credit function is also going on very smoothly. The group has been able to develop a fund of over TK. 100,000, a reasonably big amount for the women coming from poor families in the Bangladesh context3. Furthermore, many members in the group have taken loan from the group fund and undertaken various income-generating activities. The savings of individual members in the group range from TK. 1200-8000. They have also participated in a number of training programmes organised by various external agencies. The women are regularly participating in the weekly meetings and discussing not only savings and credit but also a wide variety of issues relating to agriculture. The group members informed that they have been involved with a number of projects with the FLE-NGO such as goat rearing and beef fattening. Through FLE project assistance they also undertook poultry rearing and pigeon rearing projects with local ESPs and participated in the health and sanitation programmes offered by the various government agencies. The group has developed their own annual plan of action and thereby taken attempts to establish contacts with the local ESPs. The FPs in the female groups are very active and enthusiastic as well. They have taken initiatives to link the groups with the local ESPs (Box 5.2).

3

For example, a day labourer earns at the best TK 50-80 for a whole day’s labour; international conversion is 1USD = 75 to 80 TK.

BOX 5.2 Story of a FP widely perceived as “successful” by the DAE and the NGO stakeholders

Nurunnahar (pseudonym), a woman in her 30s, is the FP of an FLE female group. She has 10 years of schooling and worked in the NFP (Non-formal Education Programme) of BRAC (an NGO) from 86 to 95 i.e. for nine years. She comes from a family that has less than 2 acres of land. Her husband is a small businessman. The total number of family member is 7 that include two children. Her eldest son is a service man. Nurunnahar informed that she got involved with the FLE project by herself i.e. due to her own interest. She contacted the BS of her area and expressed her willingness to serve as a FP.

In 2003-04 i.e. during the last year of the FLE project, Nurunnahar adopted the production of African Catfish in homestead ponds. She got the technology by contacting the Department of Fisheries (DOF). She cultured the fish in a small pond in her own land and made profit. She used the fish for household consumption as well. However, she later found that the technology was not suitable for this area, as it gets flooded during the monsoon. She informed that during the last monsoon the ponds got flooded and many of the catfish got out of the ponds into the open water body. She decided neither to do it again nor to suggest other members to do that. Nurunnahar also participated in the plantation of fruit trees on the homestead. She believes that this is very useful. Some other members also adopted the same technology. Nurunnahar mentioned that the members of the groups took beef-fattening project through partnership with the FLE-NGO. However, her and other members’ observation was that the project was not much help to them as the duration of the project was only six months. In six months, they made some profit but it was very minimal compared to the time and labour they had to invest. During interview, Nurunnahar informed she was now trying to convince the NGO fieldworker concerned about a cow- rearing project, instead of a beef-fattening project. She told the NGO staff that they were not interested in beef fattening any more. She discussed it in a group meeting and found that the members also had the same opinion. They told the fieldworkers that a cow-rearing project would be more beneficial for them. The BS was trying to contact the local livestock department to explore how the demand of the group could be fulfilled.

Nurunnahar, however, was not relying solely on the DAE and the NGO workers. Instead, to help the group, she herself contacted a local privately owned dairy farm in a nearby area. She submitted an application to the farm and got positive commitment from the authority. The firm authority told her they would supply an improved variety of cows to the groups on condition that they would sell the milk to the farm instead of selling on the open market. They also told Nurunnahar that the profit of the project would be shared into three parts. The two parts would be given to the farmer for feeding the cow and providing labour and the third portion would go to the farm. In one year’s time, however, the farmer would be the owner of the cow. Nurunnahar discussed this among the group members and found that many of them were interested. She also contacted the Department of Youth Development in the Upazilla town. The Department authorities told her they would consider her appeal. However, she found that the cooperation was not so encouraging but she was not ready to give up. Nurunnahar also went to the capital city in Dhaka to attend a training course on behalf of her group on handicrafts and tailoring. She also contacted the Department of Family Affairs to learn about how to improve the health and nutrition of children in the family. She reported that she also requested some credit from the department, as the