Bangladesh - Belgium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study to compromise on their fundamental values and confrontational approaches, social movements in Bangladesh are rarely funded. In our view this is an important opportunity missed in terms of supporting citizens’ voice, although as noted above the type of donor support needs to be more nuanced to prevent social movements being distorted by large sums of donor money. There are similarities here with funding Trade Unions. Like the social movements they are efficient and effective means to raise awareness and voice demands around issues of immediate concern to members. There has been a reluctance for donors in Bangladesh to fund Trade Unions and our case study (BSSF) in fact involved direct funding from a Belgium-based solidarity movement rather than a traditional donor. This is partly because of the highly partisan nature of conventional Trade Unions in Bangladesh and their poor record of corruption but also, in best case scenarios, a recognition of the risks of being associated with potentially volatile organisations. BSSF has proved it is possible to maintain and extend an active trade union movement without infiltration by partisan politics and corruption and may encourage donors to consider funding in the future. GTZ has side-stepped the risks by funding processes (dialogue, research) rather than organisations involved in the trade union movement. In conclusion, we would question the efficacy of donor investment in externally driven ‘social movements’. Social movements are most successful when driven by their own dynamic and agenda. They sustain only as long as the issue around which they convene remains relevant. Funding social movements requires nerve, flexibility, recognition and understanding of the nature of the organisation which, among other things, may only be temporary. Current funding constraints limit or even preclude funding to organisations which may be more informal, un-registered, without recognised structure and temporary. Rather than providing direct support to these organisations, we suggest that donors should further explore the idea of funding specific activities and events (e.g platforms for debate) or providing generic support (e.g. funding development of public access resources (e.g. web resources such as a data base on entitlements for the poor in Bangladesh, a data base on alternative funding resources for mounting advocacy campaigns, a data base of ‘how to’ guides for running successful advocacy campaigns) which these less formal organisations can tap into Results and outcomes The case studies confirm that there is a wealth of activity in CVA operating in different sectors, at different levels (micro-macro) and in different spheres (social, economic and political). But how has this contributed to enhancing the CVA situation overall? There is good evidence to suggest that the interventions which are targeted at enhancing voice have built awareness and confidence, particularly among grassroots people (and women and marginalised groups 27 in particular), in making demands, negotiating their rights and lodging complaints collectively and individually. Provision of information is improving and the interest generated in this by the organisations active in advocacy for the Right to Information Act (including TIB, MMC and MMC’s intermediary donor, MJF) has contributed greatly to building a demand for information. The media has been particularly effective in exposing corruption and highlighting other issues of concern. MMC’s training of and support to grassroots journalists has resulted in local action. Samata makes extensive use of the print media for both local 27 Donors have proactively sought and favoured interventions supporting marginalised groups (see Annex C). 36
Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study and national level advocacy with many documented achievements particularly at local level. TIB also uses media exposure to great advantage. There is no doubt that its international pedigree contributes greatly to the attention it gets from the national media (of course it also helps that members of the Board are influential in the media!). The report cards produced at local level get good local media coverage. Rupantar and Samata have made significant achievements in political empowerment of women. They exercise their franchise independently and increasingly contest elections. Both CAMPE and Samata were active in influencing the Poverty Reduction Strategy, the former as an invited advisor and the later invited after public protest over non inclusion of land issues in the first draft of the document. Watchdog functions have been supported at different levels and in a range of sectors. However, there are concerns in relation to the results and outcomes. It is difficult to confirm attribution, e.g. Rupantar operates alongside several other interventions (see summary sheet), efficiency changes observed for example in hospital management and school teachers punctuality may be due more to the current Caretaker Government 28 than pressure from TIB’s CCCs or Samata’s local pressure or MMCs (or others) media exposure. Furthermore there is the very real possibility of double accounting. Organisations working in the same thematic or geographic area are actually always meeting the same people, e.g. with regard to Violence Against Women (VAW) work: who goes to conferences? Who joins rallies? Same people? Does this result in provision of support only for forums of the like-minded? There is no means to check how much duplication of effort is actually taking place where there is reliance on traditional log frame approach reporting (as required by many development partners and Manusher Jonno Foundation (DFID funded foundation)). The team also wonders if enhanced exercise of voice can be a sufficient end in itself as an outcome of voice interventions. Is it reasonable, in an immature democracy such as Bangladesh, to expect significant impact of that voice? Voice raising is a process and needs to be monitored as such. For example, GTZ brokered dialogue arguably may not have resulted in changes in the Labour Laws but it provided an opportunity for diverse and dissenting groups to speak and to listen. Danida funds one of the widest ranges of voice interventions with marginalised groups (sex workers, fishermen, Adivasi groups) as does DFID via its MJF channel. BSSF has supported the unionisation of rickshaw pullers, agricultural labourers, weavers and fishermen thus providing them a collective voice for the first time. These voices are relatively new ones to be heard in Bangladesh. Capacity and confidence building followed by inclusion of these voices in different platforms and channels should be the immediate objectives of such interventions. Furthermore, to avoid the ‘same old voices’ (often urban–centric NGO ones) dominating, it may make sense to support unusual voices (profession-based organisations, faith-based groups, political parties, informal groups, youth organisations etc.) as important checks and balances in the exercise of voice. Different voices are then valued in their own right (nothing changes without dissent). Interventions can then be generic - providing a level playing field for this eclectic mix of voices (e.g. as mentioned above, provision of public-access capacity building resources such as ‘how to’ guides for advocacy campaigns and support to ‘platforms’ rather than specific organisations). There are positive signs that an enabling environment is emerging which is supported by both legislative and procedural reform. LGED has regular consultations with communities and these have procedures become enshrined in LGED operational guidelines with moves to incorporate these into standing orders of UPs. 28 Fear of arrest, losing job. 37
Page 1 and 2:
Swiss Agency for Development and Co
Page 3 and 4: Citizens’ Voice and Accountabilit
Page 7 and 8: vMwiK gZ cÖKvk Ges Revew`wnZv g~j
Page 9 and 10: wewmwmGm M‡elYv `jwU †gvU GMviw
Page 11 and 12: Dr‡KvP Qvov miKvwi †mev¸‡jvi
Page 53: Citizens’ Voice and Accountabilit
Page 101 and 102: Development partner Strategic inten
Page 105 and 106:
Citizens’ Voice and Accountabilit
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
IV Relevant Primary and Secondary d
Page 149 and 150:
II: Overall Assessment of Intervent
Page 151 and 152:
Impact According to the 2007 Impact
Page 153 and 154:
Model of change Assumptions Activit
Page 155 and 156:
D.8. Bangladesh Sanjukta Sramic Fed
Page 157 and 158:
Effectiveness BSSF provides 22 trai
Page 159 and 160:
. Model of change Assumptions Activ
Page 161 and 162:
D.9. Rupantar Grassroots Women’s
Page 163 and 164:
Impact Phase 1 resulted in a cadre
Page 165 and 166:
Figure 1. Rupantar CVA Model of Cha
Page 167 and 168:
Table 2. Most significant change an
Page 169 and 170:
D.10. Samata - Empowerment Through
Page 171 and 172:
Lessons Learned Important lessons l
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Table 2. Most significant change an
Page 177 and 178:
D.11. GTZ brokered dialogue within
Page 179 and 180:
Sustainability GTZ feels that the f
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Project (Donor) Partners/ PIUs Inte
Page 185 and 186:
Project (Donor) Partners/ PIUs Inte
Page 187 and 188:
Annex F. Summary of Stakeholder Deb
show all

Bangladesh - Belgium

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?