Bangladesh - Belgium

Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study
continue after withdrawal of funds?
Unless service providers recognise the value of the ICs and proactively supply information,
there will be a continual need to chase after information. Unless greater use is made of the
centres then they will not be sustained.
In order to meet funding criteria, ICs have been established in ‘the poorest, remote and
marginalised’ areas. As a pilot we question this strategy as these ICs will face the greatest
difficulty to sustain themselves after withdrawal of project funding. Furthermore, situating ICs
where they are more visible might create demand from other area.
Our observations suggest a high level of dependency on the project staff and journalists,
particularly in putting pressure on service providers. The project is rather centrally driven.
Nevertheless communities have established their own initiatives at the IC (including a
Readers’ Forum and Study Circle) which are independent of external funding and are
considered to have a good chance of sustaining themselves.
Lessons Learned:
Lessons learned from the two phases of the project to date include:
• There is a mismatch between an organisation’s own mission and core competencies
and what it does in these projects (primarily for its own sustainability). The core
competences of this organisation could be put to better use (and better serve the
agenda of promoting CV and A) if there were funds available for media promotion (less
conditionalities relating to linking with MDGs, donor goals, inclusion etc)
• There is too much concern with outputs rather than outcomes
• The project timeframe is too shot to too create demand from below
• There is an Insufficient linkage with service providers to generate interest in, and
provide resources for, the ICs
• There are serious sustainability concerns emerging from inadequate strategic thinking
and an over-dependence on project support
• In the MJF project, there is competition between donor and recipient as the donor also
implements RTI programmes directly and imposes its ‘brand’ on all of the recipients
activities)
• There is a lack of flexibility in budgeting and use of funds which prevents genuine local
context responsiveness
• There is a disconnect between grassroots advocacy and national advocacy.
• Projectisation leads to over-design and too many activities. MTP, for instance, is a
worthwhile activity of the Danida project and could be a stand alone initiative. Similarly,
the establishment and proper operation of ICs are useful in themselves and do not
have to be centres of advocacy or social mobilisation ( which others do anyway and
probably better)
• The location of RACs /ICs needs to be considered from a strategic perspective (pilots or
models need to be where they will be most visible) as well as from a practical
perspective (e.g. the advantages of locating in UP complexes).
III Models of Change developed
The intervention logic suggest that provision of information and awareness raising about
rights to information among community members will enhance their agency to demand their
entitlements and to demand accountability of elected representatives.
A number of outcomes have not been achieved. There is too much dependency on the NGO
and its salaried team leaders and journalists as intermediaries between the community and
the state actors. The communities we met did not feel able to raise issues or confront
service providers alone, not did they feel able to resolve internal community problems without
the support of MMC. Part of this is related to the short duration of the intervention ( behaviour
change takes times) but the team also felt that that MMC is being expected to mobilise
groups in communities rather than working with existing groups with the necessary cohesion
and strength already to work together on information issues.
The access to RACs and ICs tends to be restricted to the literate and men, so issues being
115