Bangladesh - Belgium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study instead focus on measuring outcomes (as a means of evaluating the performance of the movement/process). This is what GTZ says it is doing with its own thematic programmes. But it could be applied to local organisations too. This mirrors the approach adopted in several of the donor countries, where governments, conscious of the need to have a strong civil society voice, subsidise organisations who are accredited to a Charities Commission or other accreditation institution with almost “no strings attached”; they are valued for existing and serving the purpose of a counter balance to State. There has been much discussion in Bangladesh recently about establishing such a commission/accreditation body (very different in function from the NGO Bureau). If this could function then donors could be more confident of open ended funding for accredited organisations. We feel it could be time to reflect more critically on the “projectising” approach when dealing with long-term processes of change prevalent in CVA interventions. In the context of a shift to outcome-based monitoring and evaluation, donors should find a "middle ground" of observable and measurable change between counting participation and tracking MDGs. This means finding measurable outcome indicators that move within a project cycle. These could include: (i) process indicators such as perception scores of the responsiveness and inclusiveness demonstrated by duty bearers in different contexts or observable changes in the frequency of use of institutions, such as justice systems, police and social services, that previously would not have been used, either because they were inaccessible or because citizens didn't have the level of agency to choose to use those services; (ii) outcome indicators linked to improved quality and accessibility of services, for example decreased water/sanitation-related illness or decreased school drop out rate. Donors’ apparent need to spend money is not always appropriate in promoting voice. As mentioned above some of the most effective voices are resource light (e.g. MMC Meet the People, GTZ brokered dialogue, BSSF’s voice raising). Furthermore, money can choke voluntarism (e.g. MMC pays community teamleaders) and encourage unnecessary investment in infrastructure which then becomes a burden to maintain. Donors should be more cognisant of the way they can distort programmes and divert organisations away from their core competences. The demands to reach the poorest, most marginalized, most remote (albeit altruistic) may not provide the best conditions for piloting new approaches, getting media attention or nurturing a critical mass of support. In short, satisfying such demands may not be the most strategic (and efficient) way to promote voice interventions. Similarly, the demands to reduce external risks and maximise impact by engaging in other activities – such as promoting an enabling environment, getting involved in national level advocacy and scaling up – can dilute the core focus of the programme. Donors need to be agile to be able to mobilise funds opportunistically. The current Caretaker Government situation opens windows of opportunity, particularly in respect of operationalising guardianship institutions. These windows of opportunity can be used only if donors will be able to make funds available in a very short time. The team recommends that donors examine more efficient ways to mobilise resources when contexts change unexpectedly. The current model of some donors to have ‘funds in waiting’ could be expanded. Donors can consider ways to fund platforms rather than institutions themselves. GTZ, for example, funds Round Tables, while MMC felt that funds to support only the Meet the People programme would have been extremely valuable. Funding events rather than the organisation should theoretically, limit manipulation of who 42
Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study participates and who does not participate in these platforms ,thus creating opportunities for diverse and dissenting voices to be heard. Similarly, support to e- governance initiatives might be one platform worth investigating, although these are more exclusive in a country with unequal, if growing, access to the internet. CVA interventions nearly all have an element of attitude and behaviour change. These are processes which require time (e.g. LGED has been promoting participation for more than 12 years). Donors therefore need to commit for the long term; we heard too many examples of apparent donor fatigue or organisational constraints to funding more than two or three cycles. There are serious issues of conflict of interest when organisations are expected to/or chose to support both voice and accountability. Whilst this is not a problem for a neutral facilitating organisation, it becomes a problem if the same organisation is involved in capacity building on both sides. Performance monitoring is compromised (e.g. proving improved public service delivery but also having an interest in empowering the community criticise) and credibility (whose interests is the organisation promoting? Demand or supply–side?) might be undermined. Donors should be more aware of maintaining the independence of those organisations promoting voice. Finally, donors themselves need to be more transparent and accountable. Although not reported in the findings as the framework did not permit, during most interactions, staff from the different interventions studied raised this issue. ‘Why are the donors advocating CVA so strongly when they are amongst the worst in terms of accountability to the people of Bangladesh. We have no idea what they are doing or what is their motive. Sometimes this makes us quite suspicious.’ Donors may well be expected to have high levels of accountability in their own countries but this does not permeate to their host country. This is not a matter of having a website but providing opportunities for public scrutiny of their activities through a variety of channels. As this was such a strong theme running through many of our interactions with projects, we recommend that the donor community consider ways to become more accountable in Bangladesh. 43
Page 1 and 2:
Swiss Agency for Development and Co
Page 3 and 4:
Citizens’ Voice and Accountabilit
Page 5 and 6:
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 13 and 14: Citizens’ Voice and Accountabilit
Page 59: Citizens’ Voice and Accountabilit
Page 101 and 102: Development partner Strategic inten
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?