National Microfinance Study of Sri Lanka: Survey of Practices and ...

Sewa Lanka
Sewa Lanka works in Anuradhapura, Vavuniya and Trincomalee and operates at
least 86 ‘Sewa Societies’ in Vavuniya. Detailed information on savings and loan
activities was not forthcoming for the study. However, it is known that in the
Sewa Societies current savings amount to approximately SLR 3,000,000 and loan
funds are approximately SLR 8,400,000. It is also known that Sewa Lanka has
borrowed up to SLR 20 million in funds from the NDTF in addition to donor
funds from AusAID, DRC, UNHCR and UNICEF. There appears to be a
disparity between inputs and outputs and the organisation should be evaluated and
an impact assessment undertaken.
South Asia Partnership Sri Lanka
SAPSRI was established initially with Canadian Funds and is today an NGO that
operates as a not for profit company. SAPSRI has undertaken microfinance
schemes since 1989 and primarily targets small very poor villages in the dry zone
and other such poverty pockets currently working in 200 villages in 11 districts.
As of the 31 st of December 2000 it had 15,975 savings accounts at a value of SLR
2,688,750. The total number of loans disbursed during the year 2000 was 208 at a
value of SLR 5,200,000. Some of its funds are decentralized as village revolving
funds and part managed centrally for larger loans with some clients being referred
to the Hatton National Bank for loans above the central funds ceiling.
Microfinance is considered an important activity, however, the NGO is at cross
roads and is undertaking a strategic planning exercise to map out its future
seeking microfinance specialists to help them re-engineer their programmes.
(c) Local Practitioners
Community Based Organisations (CBOs) under the Change
Agent Program
The Change Agent Program initiated by the government under the then Ministry
of Rural Development in 1978 is Sri Lanka’s oldest social mobilisation program.
The main concept was for an outside agent to organise poor villagers into groups
and allow them to analyse their poverty and the social and economic causation
that led to it.
The communities tended to come to the conclusion to form community groups in
order to combine their joint efforts in both social and economic activities. Thus
small groups and village level organisations were formed over time with the
sharing of labour for each other’s needs in the field, home or even for joint
community needs, joint bulk purchasing of household groceries by small groups,
efforts to process and sell produce jointly were all undertaken.
This philosophy varied from the other then popular social mobilisation
philosophy that of Sarvodaya that brought people in the village together as
members of one family, in CAP only the poor were invited and there were
Marxist or socialist overtones in early years.
128