AN INTRODUCTION TO

THE CHARS LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME

Mick Howes

July 2006 Mick Howes is a Social Development Consultant. When not working with CLP, he can be contacted at mick.howes1@ntlworld.com

SUMMARY 1. Much that has happened in the CLP since the inception of the programme has not been documented in ways that are readily accessible either within the organisation, or to others who need to understand quickly what the programme is doing. The paper attempts to fill this gap by providing a summary of the key areas of CLP work. 2. The account starts with a brief account of the genesis, pre-history, and inception of the Programme. 3. The first major component of the programme aims to reduce vulnerability of char dwellers through provision of infrastructure. Activities are organised under the Upazila Initiative Fund (which supports public infrastructure development), the Union Parishad Fund (which is mainly used for flood-proofing), the Disaster Management Fund (which provides flood-proofing, sanitation and drinking water for individual households) and the Social Protection Fund (which creates employment through public works programmes during the hungry part of the year). 4. The second component aims to improve the capacity of the extreme poor to sustain their livelihoods. A series of livelihood diversification activities, covering field and homestead crop production, livestock and fisheries, have been undertaken with government and NGO partners. A programme to transfer assets to the extreme poor has been introduced and has now assumed central importance in the CLP as a whole. 5. The enterprise component of the CLP focuses on the provision of services at the household level. Activities are being developed in three main areas. The Market Development Fund (MDF) enables char dwellers to build assets and reduce their vulnerability to shocks through interaction with markets. Collaboration with PKSF aims to increase NGO capacity to deliver effective micro-finance services. Village Loan and Savings Associations are being promoted to extend savings opportunities to excluded groups. 6. Social Development, the third component of the programme, selects and builds the capacity of partner NGOs, identifies suitable locations for implementation, helps in the selection of extreme poor beneficiaries and organises them into groups. The groups then provide access to key services promoted under Components 1 and 2, and serve as a vehicle for the delivery of training designed to underpin livelihoods more generally. At the same time, Para and Village Development Committees are convened to link local people to the opportunities provided by CLP and, if they wish, to start lobbying other external service providers. 7. The final component - Innovation, Monitoring and Learning – is responsible for facilitating programme implementation and for enhancing awareness of char-related issues among local, national and regional stakeholders. This entails four partially overlapping functions: the provision of baseline information; monitoring, evaluation and verification of activities; research to aid implementation; and the dissemination of information. 8. The paper concludes with suggestions about how the essentially descriptive account offered here might be extended and deepened.

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very grateful to the following CLP staff for making the time from their busy schedules to explain the different components of the programme, to help me to locate key documents, and to offer feedback on earlier drafts: Roland Hodson (Team Leader); Azim Manji (Operations Director); Zubairul Hoque (Infrastructure Development Manager); M.A. Sekander (Engineering Adviser); Ebrahim Akanda (Livelihoods Coordinator); Mark Staehle (Enterprise Manager); Altaf Hossain (Enterprise Coordinator); Carol Eggen (Social Development Adviser); Mosharraf Hossain (Social Mobilization Coordinator); Nandini Dasgupta (Head IML); Partha Hefaz Shaikh (former National Adviser, IML). Special thanks are due to Carol Eggen for organising the field trips that provided with me the opportunity to see life on the chars at first hand. I am also indebted to Azizul Haque Bhuiyan (Deputy Team Leader); Abdul Momin (Contract Manager); Razib Hassan (UK Accountant); Ariful Islam (Office Manager); Rashida Begum (Office Secretary); and Azaz Sarwar (Computer Operator) for their help, support and advice. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to my fellow consultants: Hugh Allen for explaining the Village Loans and Savings Associations; and Czech Conroy for sharing his ideas on the Asset Transfer Programme. Finally, warm thanks are due to Eric Hanley (DFID Senior Social Development Adviser) for his detailed explanation of the origins and history of the CLP. I remain responsible for any errors and omissions, and it should be made clear that the views expressed here are my own and should not necessarily be taken as reflecting the position either of the CLP management or DFID. Mick Howes July 2006

ii

CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………… 1 2. BACKGROUND………………………………………………………. 1 2.1 Genesis and Pre-history 1999-2004 2.2 Early Developments 2004 – June 2006 3. INFRASRUCTURE (COMPONENT 1)……………………………... 2 3.1 Upazila Initiative Fund 3.2 Union Parishad Fund 3.3 Disaster Management Fund 3.4 Social Protection Fund 4. LIVELIHOODS (COMPONENT 2.1)………………………………... 5 4.1 Livelihood Diversification 4.2 The Asset Transfer Programme 5. ENTERPRISE (COMPONENT 2.2)………………………………… 7 5.1 Market Development Fund 5.2 Working with PKSF 5.3 Village Loan and Savings Associations 6. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (COMPONENT 3)……………………… 10 6.1 Identifying Implementing Organisations and Beneficiaries 6.2 Strengthening Beneficiary Livelihoods 6.3 Strengthening Links to the Wider Community 7. INNOVATION, MONITORING, LEARNING (COMPONENT 4)…… 12 7.1 Baseline Surveys 7.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Verification 7.3 Research: Building Capacity and Supporting Implementation 7.4 Knowledge Dissemination 8. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….. 13 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………..14

iii

ACRONYMS ATP Asset Transfer Programme

CLP Chars Livelihoods Programme

DFID UK Department for International Development

DLS Department of Livestock Services

GOB Government of Bangladesh

GUK Gram Unayan Karma

IML Innovation, Monitoring and Learning

IMO Implementing Organisation

MDF Market Development Fund

MFI Micro-finance Initiative

MMS Manab Mukhti Sangsta

NDP National Development Programme

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

PAEA Perfomance, Audit and Evaluation Agency

PIC Project Implementation Committee

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PKSF Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation

RDA Rural Development Academy, Bogra

RDRS Rangpur Dinajpur Relief Services

SIC Scheme Implementation Committee

SKS Samaj Kallyan Sangstha

UCC Union Coordination Committee

UDCC Upazila Development Coordination Committee

UNO Upazila Nirbahi Officer

UP Union Parishad

VLSA Village Loans and Savings Association

VDC Village Development Committee

Currency conversions: £1 = $1.85 £1 = 126 taka $1 = 68 taka

iv

1. INTRODUCTION Following an extended period of planning, characterised by much reflection and debate, and a quite lengthy inception period, the Chars Livelihoods Programme (CLP) has, over the last 15 months, finally been able to start operating on a significant scale. Some of the activities in which it is now engaged were not anticipated in the original programme documents, whilst others have been significantly modified. Much that has happened under different parts of the CLP since the inception of the programme has not been documented in ways that are readily accessible either within the organisation, or to others who need to understand quickly what the programme is doing. This short paper attempts to provide an overview of the key areas of CLP work, and an introduction to the rapidly expanding body of reports and other documentation that is now becoming available. The account starts with a brief overview of the genesis, pre-history, and inception of the Programme. Subsequent sections then outline ongoing activities in the four major areas of CLP operations: infrastructural development; livelihood and enterprise support; social mobilisation; and innovation, monitoring and learning. The paper then concludes with suggestions about how the essentially descriptive account offered here might be extended and deepened. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Genesis and Pre-history 1999-2004 The idea of the CLP originates from a request made by the NGO RDRS to DFID in 1999 for support for a project in the chars that would use livestock and the provision of shelter as an entry point. A visit by the Natural Resource and Social Development advisors suggested that whilst there was considerable potential for a project, more rigorous analysis of the situation obtaining in the chars was required before action could be taken. A Scoping Study was therefore commissioned to explore poverty, vulnerability and livelihood issues in riverine Districts of the north-west; to identify the key government and other institutions already involved in the chars; and to map past, present and possible future areas of activity (In Development Ltd. 2000). This was followed, later in the year, by a Management and Institutional Assessment (Thornton 2000), which specified several areas in which the programme might seek to operate. These included: safety net provision linked to food security and flood protection; social mobilisation; technical support and service delivery; local governance development; and women’s empowerment and gender equity. Alternative institutional arrangements and foci were also laid out. Further background work, in the form of a more comprehensive literature review, was commissioned in 2001 (Musillo 2002). The next step was the Project Memorandum, prepared by DFID for the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) (DFID, September 2002), which developed the first logframe; detailed the various components of the programme; and provided social, institutional, economic, environmental and risk analysis. This, in turn, laid the foundation for a Project Proforma (GOB, Planning Commission March 2004) that detailed activities, costs and finances, means of implementation and anticipated benefits, and paved the way for formal GOB approval. This specified that activities should to be organised into four distinct thematic areas or “outputs”: • Reducing vulnerability through the provision of infrastructure and services • Livelihood strengthening and enterprise development • Social mobilisation, voice and participation

1

• Innovation, monitoring and learning Activities were to be confined to 150 riverine unions in 28 Upazilla in the five districts of Kurigram, Gaibandha, Jamalpur, Bogra and Sirajganj, adjoining the Jamuna river. The programme was to run for seven years from 2004-2011, with a total budget of £50mn. While the Proforma was being prepared, DFID commissioned a team to develop a more detailed design for the proposed programme. Overviews of this part of the process are provided by: Brocklesby and Hobley (2003), Blackshaw (2004), and Brocklesby and Hobley (2004). Other papers deal with tools for analysing vulnerability in remote areas (Brocklesby 2004); integrating social protection, livelihood promotion and enterprise development (Barton and Brocklesby 2004); and establish a voice-responsiveness framework (Hobley 2004). With all of the other elements in place, tenders were sought for the management contract. Maxwell Stamp plc was successful and signed a contract in March 2004. 2.2 Early Developments 2004 – June 2006 An office was established on the campus of the Rural Development Academy (RDA) in Bogra, and from April onwards, senior expatriate and national staff and Government counterparts began to be appointed. The formal launching of the Programme by the Prime Minister took place in August 2004. There then followed a period of intensive work during which a range of stakeholders were consulted, and an Inception Plan was prepared (CLP November 2004) and then revised (CLP, January 2005). This cleared the way for partnerships to be formed with government service providers, local government bodies and NGOs working in the region; for a cadre of district level staff to be appointed; and for various activities to be explored on a pilot basis. But as implementation began, it was soon to become apparent that the design of the CLP was over-complicated. Following a further period of often quite heated discussion involving CLP staff, the government and the donor, a new and more streamlined design finally emerged in the final quarter of 2005 (CLP November 2005; Hodson March 2006). In certain respects, this represented a quite radical departure from what had previously been envisaged. The Inception Report had intended that the CLP should cover both island chars and those that were attached to the mainland for at least a part of the year, but it was now decided that most activities would be confined to the islands, where they would target the poorest 50,000 households. Emphasis would be given to an Asset Transfer Programme (ATP) that would make it easy for resources to be distributed rapidly, with low administrative costs, and offer high, easily measurable returns. Infrastructure work to combat vulnerability would be focussed primarily at household level. At the same time, the seasonal hunger of the poorest would be addressed through employment creating public works initiatives. The following sections provide more detail on what this has entailed for the various components of the programme. 3. INFRASRUCTURE (COMPONENT 1) The first major component of the programme aims “to reduce vulnerability of the char dwellers through targeted provision of infrastructure and services; by capacity development of Upazilas and Union Parishads so that they are better able to respond to local needs and demands; by improved access of the poor to government’s social

2

provision schemes; and by improving disaster preparedness of the community”. In practice, work to date has focussed primarily on the delivery of various forms of public and private infrastructure (Byrne 2005, Parkinson 2006, Sheltech 2005, March, June 2006). Activities are organised under four funds – Upazila Initiative, Union Parishad, the Disaster Management and the Social Protection - the content of which overlap to some extent. Work is supported by a CLP team, which comprises one senior mentor in each district and 30 junior mentors, each of whom is responsible for 3-5 unions. In addition, each Upazila has a co-ordinator, who is appointed by the government counterpart officer working with the CLP, and is responsible for liasing between the programme and Upazila level officials. 3.1 Upazila Initiative Fund The Upazila is the primary focus of local administration in Bangladesh, where representatives of a number of key ministries are drawn together in a single compound, under the overall leadership of a Nirbahi Officer (UNO). Upazilas currently only receive 2% of the national Annual Development Plan. The CLP’s Upazila Initiative Fund is designed to complement this budget and assist in the delivery of social infrastructure. It operates in all of the Upazilas selected under the original plan, including those in non-island locations. Each Upazila supported under the fund is awarded £4,000 per year for each union under its jurisdiction that falls within the CLP area1. The money is not tied to particular activities, but is subject to a number of conditions: it should have a demonstrable effect on poverty alleviation and gender equity; be environmentally sound; and not overlap with projects being implemented by other agencies. Ideally, all projects should be identified through a process beginning with community representatives articulating their demands and culminating in the deliberations of the Upazila Project Supervision Committee. Once a project has been approved and a contract has been signed, 50% of the funds are released via the UNO and the Upazila engineer. A further 35% is released on completion of 33% of the work and the final 15% after submission of the post-survey report. One annual funding cycle has been completed so far, two more will follow. Money has so far been spent on a range of activities including road building, culvert construction and the promotion of sanitation. Responsibility for implementation within each Upazila rests with the CLP co-ordinator who works in conjunction with the Senior CLP mentor. Responsibility for the hiring of workers and day-to-day supervision of activities is delegated to locally constituted Project Implementation Committees (PIC) made up of the UP chair, other Members, and local people. Mentors monitor the quality of the work undertaken and submit monthly reports to the CLP copied to the UNO and the Upazila engineer. The CLP may ask Upazilas to rectify irregularities and has the power to withhold funding if these are not addressed. In addition, the Upazila is required to submit quarterly reports to the CLP. The programme also has its own field monitoring to ensure that money is spent as proposed (see section 7 below). 3.2 Union Parishad Fund The Union Parishad (UP) is the lowest functioning level of local government2, but has little effective capacity to raise revenue by itself, and receives only very limited resources through the government system. CLP’s UP Fund aims to augment

1 In some Upazilas all Unions fall under the CLP. In others there are some Unions that are included in the programme and others that are not. 2 There is also formal provision, at a lower level, for Gram Sharker or village government, but little has so far been done to give this real substance.

3

available resources and, like its Upazila counterpart, covers both island and non-island chars. Again, like the Upazila fund, it may, in principle, be spent on anything that can be demonstrated to have a direct effect on poverty alleviation and gender equity and is environmentally sound. The fund is managed by the UP and money is released through Scheme Implementation Committees (SIC). These comprise the UP Chair, one UP member, and five other local people, three of whom must be women. The SICs identify beneficiaries and oversee day-to-day implementation. In practise, nearly all of the work supported has involved flood proofing. In the initial round, communal flood shelters were constructed in three locations, but these have not proved to be very popular. The emphasis has now switched mainly to the raising of private individual and clustered homestead plinths above the high flood water3, so that residents and their livestock will be able to remain safely within their homes throughout the year. Earth is dug from the immediately adjoining area, lifted and laid by hired labour, before being compacted by beneficiaries. The slopes are then protected through a combination of grass, plants and trees. Labourers, who often include members from the beneficiary households, are paid according to the amount of earth moved and normally receive between 80 and 120 taka/day. The average cost is about £100 per household but this is subject to great variation between locations. It is stipulated that beneficiaries should be drawn predominantly from the extreme poor group, with some slightly better off households also being included – where, for example, they live in a contiguous block where the extreme poor are in a majority. Mentors carry out a pre-survey to determine the volume of earth to be moved and senior mentors then verify the survey reports and earth volume calculation. During construction it is not possible for staff to be constantly present and SIC members oversee the labourers’ work and record the names of the people working. Between 50 and 90 plinths have been raised in each union covered under CLP so far. From the financial year 2006-7 onwards it is proposed to introduce a UP Reward Fund, under which additional resources will be channelled to bodies that have achieved a good level of performance during the preliminary rounds of support. 3.3 Disaster Management Fund Like the UP fund, the Disaster Management Fund, is organised around plinth raising for individual extreme poor households, but has a number of key distinguishing characteristics. The initiative is confined to Unions having island chars. It is administered by CLP’s partner Implementing Organisations (IMO), who receive funding in three instalments. The IMOs hire one person for five months for each 150 homesteads covered and operate in conjunctions with CLP mentors. The procedure for selecting households is also somewhat different. This is the responsibility of CLP’s Social Development component and is discussed in section 6 below. It should also be noted that Asset Transfer Programme (ATP) beneficiaries get priority for inclusion in infrastructure provision (see section 4.2 below). The Disaster Management Fund is linked to a water and sanitation fund, under which hand pumps and water sealed ring latrines are supplied to the same individual households or clusters. Handpumps cost £50 each, with sets comprising a No.6 pump, pipes a filter and a concrete base. The latrines have five concrete rings, a superstructure made of tin sheet on a bamboo framework and cost about £26 each. 3 The last major floods took place in 1998 and 2004. Local residents indicate the highest level to which water rose at these times, and plinths and then raised to 2’ above that point.

4

The first round of activities has included 7 IMOs, who together have been responsible for raising some 6,000 plinths. 3.4 Social Protection Fund The last fund seeks to create short-term employment for the poorest and most vulnerable 10-20% of households through cash-for-work programmes (CLP, December 2005). These are concentrated in the three hungry (monga) months following the monsoon and preceding the main amon harvest in December, when there are few other employment opportunities. The tasks undertaken are labour intensive and typically involve the construction of elevated tracks track, or the raising of graveyards, mosques and school playgrounds. For the first season, running from11 November to 27 December 2005, activities were undertaken in 46 Unions under 9 Upazilas. Total expenditure was 21 mn. taka (£170,000). 460,000 taka was allocated to each union, which was sufficient to provide between 15 and 20 days work for 300-315 labourers. Each would be paid 80 taka a day, with payments being made every third day. About 15,000 labourers and their families and households have so far benefited from the programme. Funds are currently distributed through Union Parishads. Working in conjunction with CLP’s junior mobilisers, the UP selects a sub-set of villages for inclusion in the first year, on the understanding that others will have their turn in the second and third years4. The Scheme Implementation Committees (SICs), in principle formed in each village, then identify participants, supervise work and distribute payment. Selection is confined to landless households that have no more than one wage earner. Preference is given to women, especially those coming from female-headed households. In areas where IMOs are already operating, the PRAs used to choose group members under the asset transfer programme (ATP) (see section 4.2 below) are utilised for selection purposes. Preference is given to core group members, but the net is cast wider where insufficient numbers are available or interested. This year (2006-7) it is planned to extend coverage to 90 unions under Kurigram, Gaibandha and Jamalpur Districts. In Sirajganj and Bogra, insufficient people have been found who are prepared to work for 80 taka a day, and it has therefore been assumed that there is no serious monga problem in these districts. Attempts will also be made to apply some of the lessons arising from the Indian National Rural Employment Guarantee Act passed in 2005, which seeks to achieve similar ends in the poorer districts of rural India (Harper, 2006). It is also proposed that new schemes be tested in 2006-7. Some of these will address the needs of those who cannot sell their labour due to old age, disability. Others will aim to support victims of violence. Expressions of interest have already been sought, with applicants being invited to review the strengths and weaknesses of existing social protection programme; to identify possible remedial steps, and to outline new approaches. 4. LIVELIHOODS (COMPONENT 2.1) This component aims to improve the capacity of the extreme poor to effectively sustain their livelihoods and engage in local and national economies (Sheltech October 2005, March 2006, June 2006). This will be done by broadening economic opportunities and strengthening productive livelihood strategies, particularly targeting women-headed households and adolescent girls. 4 The wisdom of this is now being questioned and the possibility of an alternative mechanism, where pockets of extreme hunger would be identified and then supported in successive years, is currently under review.

5

4.1 Livelihood Diversification Livelihood activities have been piloted in one Upazila from each of the five districts, starting in October 2004 (Wakelin and Akander undated). The first two months were used to collect information on char dwellers problems and needs, with activities then getting under way in December 2004 and continuing until June 2005 with the onset of the period of heavy flooding. Work covered field and homestead crop cultivation, tree planting, livestock rearing, and fisheries. In each instance, the assistance of the relevant government extension agencies operating at local level was sought and, in most instances, provided. CLP covered the cost of inputs such seeds, vaccines and fingerlings with the government providing all of the other resources required. Field crop related activities were undertaken in conjunction with the Department of Agricultural Extension. Maize, onion, lentil, sweet and pat potato provided the main focus in some locations. Each of these crops was already being grown on small areas of the selected chars, but the varieties were traditional, cultivation practices were seen as poor, and only low yields could be obtained. In each instance, a group of 30-40 progressive male farmers were selected for a day of training in improved techniques, conducted at the Upazila headquarters. Demonstration plots using modern seed varieties, fertiliser and other inputs supplied by CLP would then be established on the chars, with larger groups of farmers invited to attend field days taking place around harvest time in order to publicise results. Elsewhere, there was a greater emphasis was on vegetable cultivation and in these instances women farmers were also included. The procedures followed were otherwise similar to those used for the field crops. Intensive homestead gardening, using the raised bed method, was promoted in each of the five Upazilas, with both men and women again receiving training. Crop based activities as a whole were supported by a series of farmer motivation tours, where representatives visited each others experimental plots and were also taken to local agricultural research stations. Tree planting has taken place on a more limited scale with modest numbers of mango, coconut, nim, bohera, jackfruit and blackberry being provided in Kurigram and Jamalpur, following consultations with local people and UP representatives. Livestock related activities, designed to promote greater awareness of sound practices and to improve the availability of veterinary services, were conducted in Kurigram, Gaibanadha, Sirajganj and Jamalpur, with the initial emphasis mainly on poultry. The Department of Livestock Services (DLS) were asked to identify one person with basic education from each char, slightly more than a third of whom were women, and to then provide them with three days training, plus a kit box containing vaccination equipment. Shorter training sessions were then provided for a wider range of char dwellers. Vaccine was supplied by the CLP for a limited period, together with de-worming medicines. In addition, in Jamalpur two days training in goat rearing was provided for 60 poor and hardcore poor farmers, at the end of which each was given their own animal, the first example of an asset transfer taking place under the CLP. Finally, fisheries have seen a number of experimental initiatives. Training has been given in the management of the dead khas rivers left behind as flood waters recede in Bogra, Gaibanda and Jamalpur; in pond development and management in Jamalpur; in fry trading in Gaibanda, Bogra and Jamalpur; and in net preparation. 4.2 The Asset Transfer Programme Following small scale experiments with its NGO and GOB partners in 2005, The Asset Transfer Programme (ATP) was initiated in February 2006 and has now become the primary component of the livelihoods part of the CLP (CLP March 2006,

6

Conroy 2006, IML January 2006, Wakelin undated). Directed to the poorest and most vulnerable, it provides an asset, in the form of a grant, which is designed to provide a regular income that will, in turn, be sufficient to lift target households above the poverty line. The ATP is currently being piloted with five IMOs: RDRS in Kurigram, GUK in and SKS in Gaibandha, and NDP and MMS in Sirajganj. A second phase of activities, planned for the second half of 2006, will see the addition of RSDA from Kurigram and GUK from Bogra, bringing the total to seven, and the number of districts covered to four. 3,174 households – drawn from 28 villages across 13 unions – will benefit in phase 1, of whom 2108 had already received their assets by the middle of May 2006. A similar additional number are likely to be covered in the second phase running up to the end of the year. Strict selection criteria for participation in the ATP have been laid down. These require that beneficiaries should reside on an island char, belong to a CLP group, have no land, have no assets beyond 6 chickens and two goats, and not be receiving credit under an NGO programme. The IMOs chose one of three alternative ways of administering the programme. GUK has distributed cash, which beneficiaries then use independently to purchase an asset of their choice. Most have selected female calves, whilst a few have leased land for cultivation. RDRS and MMS have provided beneficiaries with a choice of which asset they would prefer and then procured it for them, with most again selecting female calves. But some have opted for milk cows, which requires that they invest some of their own money, whilst others have purchased male calves for fattening ahead of Eid. SKS, NDP have determined in advance what assets will be distributed, opting for a fixed package where calves are combined with goats and chickens. But largely as a result of the greater risk of illness and asset loss, this has proved unpopular, and it is unlikely that any of the IMOs will chose it in the next round. The value of the grant is 13,000 taka and this is normally distributed in two separate instalments. Each beneficiary also receives a monthly stipend of 300, paid through a passbook, for the first 18 months after joining the programme. This is designed to support family consumption and contribute toward recurrent expenditure during the period when the asset will not, by itself, yield sufficient income. In addition, those beneficiaries receiving assets in kind are provided with a further monthly cash allowance to cover feed and vaccination costs, the size of which varies according to the type of livestock selected. They are also provided with one day of training in livestock rearing at the time of distribution. Further support is provided in the form of the de-worming and vaccination, although coverage here has been somewhat patchy and remains problematic. It is hoped that present limitations might be addressed, in certain locations at least, through the Market Development Fund (see section 5.1 below). Fodder supply, especially in the forthcoming flood period, is another question that will need to be addressed. A little further ahead, issues of milk storage and marketing will also start to arise. In the longer term, it is likely that more diversified livelihood packages will be required, together with training that will enable beneficiaries to take informed decisions about which options best suit their personal circumstances. 5. ENTERPRISE (COMPONENT 2.2) The enterprise component of the CLP has been substantially revised since the preparation of the original programme. The focus is now firmly on the provision of services supporting household level production rather than enterprises in the more

7

classic sense. Activities are being developed in three main areas: market development, group-based financial services and institutional financial services 5.1 Market Development Fund The Market Development Fund (MDF) is a mechanism for funding innovative approaches to economic development that will enable char dwellers to build their own livelihood assets and reduce their vulnerability to shocks through interaction with markets (CLP May 2006). Grants will be made available to develop skills, knowledge and market links, and to reduce the risks inherent in the adoption of new technologies. The emphasis will be on developing sustainable services that operate at normal market rates, without recourse to subsidy and without creating unfair competition with existing suppliers. Opportunities will be provided for all members of the char community, including those who are not poor themselves, but who might potentially create employment for the poor. A number of specific areas have been identified for emphasis in early rounds. These include: • Improved input supplies, technologies, and marketing links related to livestock,

poultry and fowl, small-scale agriculture and homestead gardening, fishing and spawning,

• Vocational training offering access to skilled employment opportunities, • Improved access to phone and other forms of communication offering information

about labour and commodity markets, • Craft and cottage industries which provide opportunities for piecework

employment, in particular during flood season, • Improvements to the supply chains related to cooking fuel, cattle fodder and

water for irrigation and drinking. The MDF will be implemented through CLP’s existing partner NGO (known as Implementing Organisations or IMOs – see section 6.1 below) and will aim to build their capacity to support such work in the longer term. None currently possess the range of skills required, and provision is therefore initially being made for them to enter into partnerships with specialist providers. These arrangements are set in motion through quarterly “matchmaking” events, where the representatives of pre-selected organisations with the require skills can make contact with the IMOs and form partnerships. The partners then work together to produce proposals. If these are accepted, a grant is made to the IMO, with the company as a sub-contractor. Initial grants last for a year and are for up to £10,000. 12 have already been awarded. There is scope for both the number and size of contracts to be increased if the initial round goes well, with applicants being asked to contribute some of their own resources. Over time, it is intended that the MDF should become the foundation of the Enterprise Programme, with all 15-20 CLP partner IMOs playing a part. 5.2 Working with PKSF The Project Memorandum contains many ambitious ideas about market development and innovative financial services, relating to savings, insurance and remittances and targeted in particular, on the group known as the “declining poor”. But it has now become apparent that it would not be expedient to experiment with things on the chars, where conditions are among the most difficult encountered anywhere in Bangladesh, that had not previously been explored elsewhere. Given the direction that had now been taken, with a primary emphasis on asset transfers, as opposed to

8

market led approaches, it would, in any case, have been inappropriate to proceed as originally envisaged. With DFID’s agreement, the £3mn that had originally been allocated for this area of work has now been re-allocated to ATP. But although CLP has chosen to follow a mainly ATP based approach, the financial services market remains an important aspect of developing sustainable livelihoods in the chars (Output 2 2005, Staehle 2006). Prompted by the government, and its concern that micro-finance should be extended to previously excluded groups, PKSF had already started operating in the chars through its hardcore poor programme. This offers credit on slightly more favourable terms than normal micro-finance programmes, with less stringent repayment conditions, and works through a set of partner organisations that overlap to a high degree with CLP’s emerging portfolio of IMOs. This has helped to increase the proportion of char households receiving credit from MFIs to about 20%. Although CLP’s approach has been different and has sought explicitly to ensure that beneficiaries of its central ATP initiative were not involved in any form of credit programme, the fact that PKSF was moving increasingly into the chars through the same partners inevitably meant, at some point, that the two organisations would need to coordinate their efforts. To test the water, the viability of the PKSF credit programmes being run by three PKSF partner IMOs at different levels of efficiency was tested and found to be favourable. With this determined, contact was then initiated with PKSF to explore the basis for a collaborative relationship. Discussions are continuing, but it appears likely that in 2006-7 CLP will support micro-finance capacity building for six IMOs and 1000 beneficiaries on a pilot basis. According to how things go, this might then be extended for two more years. A consultant will be contracted to design and help implement the initiative that is likely to cover savings withdrawal policy, liquidity management and risk management. Although PKSF currently only runs its hardcore programme in the chars, CLP would also like to explore the possibility of credit being offered through the extension of other programmes to the “stable” and “improving” poor groups, through the marginal farmer and micro-enterprise facilities. This should promote the health of the credit market, and serve to draw PKSF supported and financed MFIs in more quickly than would otherwise be the case. The two organisations may also collaborate in the provision of a no interest Disaster Management Fund, designed both to reduce the vulnerability of the borrower and exposure of the lender. 5.3 Village Loan and Savings Associations Remoter char areas are currently not reached by micro-finance providers. Even where these facilities are available, questions may be raised about how well they address the needs of the extreme poor, who will arguably benefit more from being able to save and protect their existing assets, than from the provision of new, potentially risky, investment opportunities. Traditional savings associations exist throughout Bangladesh but these have tended to be run, in a somewhat autocratic fashion, by the better off, and to exclude more marginal people. A new Village Loan and Savings Associations (VLSA) initiative will seek to extend savings opportunities to excluded groups, following a model that has already been used successfully in a number of African countries and in India (VSL Associates 2006). VLSAs in the chars would typically attract from 10 to 30 members and would enshrine a number of key principles. People would self-select. They would undertake to contribute between one and five shares each week or fortnight over a period of approximately 9 months, starting at the end of the flood period and running through to the beginning of the next. The value of each share would be agreed by

9

group members and might be 5-10 taka for each week or fortnight. Savings would be retained in a metal box with keys held by three separate individuals. Everyone would have their own passbook, but no central records would be kept. After an initial period of two months, the first loans would be made, with members agreeing who the recipients should be. A rate of interest would be agreed which would be likely to be 5-10% a month. At the end of the agreed period, all loans would be repaid and the proceeds then divided according to the amount of shares purchased. People’s savings would typically grow by 50 or more percent, in part reflecting the fact, by contrast with MFIs, that all money remains within the community. The cycle would then start again with new membership if desired. Agencies are currently being identified who would train and work with groups over the first year. IMOs running micro-finance programme would explicitly be excluded to avoid the contamination of the approach and its use to recruit subsequent borrowers. The facilitators would first be trained in how to set up a group. Further training would then be given ahead of the first distribution of loans and of final distributions. Later in the year, when facilitators would have a little less to do, they could be deployed to provide training in income generating activities. Groups can normally function by themselves from the second year onwards. CLP would initially confine its activities to remote non-island char areas of Jamalpur district, where there are no IMOs which are PKSF partner organisations, and would aim to work with about 2000 participants in the first instance. About £30,000 will be required in the first year, starting from July 2006, and rapid expansion is expected thereafter. No difficulty is envisaged in moving, at a later stage, into existing CLP operational areas on the chars, and VLSAs could well be attractive as a vehicle for savings by ATP beneficiaries. Evidence from elsewhere also suggests that these associations exhibit greater cohesiveness than micro-finance groups and can provide an effective medium for developing further activities, including joint procurement and marketing; infrastructure development and various forms of social mobilisation. 6. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (COMPONENT 3) The original intention of the third component of the programme, now known as Social Development, was to increase the influence of char dwellers on local and national policies and give them greater choice of services. This was to be done by social mobilisation, encouraging communities to participate in local level planning and improving local government accountability (Kroll 2005, Sheltech June 2006). These aims have not been abandoned, but work to date has focussed heavily on a series of tasks that lay the ground for possible future mobilisation whilst, at the same time, establishing foundations upon which other parts of the overall CLP programme can build. Five District Facilitators assist CLP head office staff to carry out their tasks. 6.1 Identifying Implementing Organisations and Beneficiaries The process begins with the selection of the partner NGOs or Implementing Organisations (IMOs) through which much of Component 1 and 2 of the CLP are delivered. Adverts are placed in the press inviting applications, and the CLP team then employ a range of criteria to draw up a short-list. In order to shield CLP from political influence and accusations of favouritism, an independent organisation is then hired to review those clearing the first hurdle more carefully. A CLP committee comprising the team leader, the deputy team leader, and the output heads next reviews the reports and comes up with a final list of organisations, which ultimately goes to the Programme Director for approval.

10

Selected IMOs work under Social Development Supervision to develop proposals that define more specific activities within the broad areas that CLP has indicated that it is willing to fund. An initial one-day orientation, covering targeting, financial issues and monitoring, sets the process in motion. Documents are then prepared, giving objectives and indicators and providing detail on existing competence and previous experience in the area of social mobilisation. Once the proposals have been approved, IMOs recruit the staff that will implement the programme. All of the new recruits undergo six days of orientation delivered at individual IMO level by the Social Development Team in conjunction with a specialist company and their own training staff. Topics covered include: CLP objectives and strategies; poverty and vulnerability analysis; communication and facilitation techniques; PRA tools and facilitating community planning; social mobilisation; livelihoods; and power structures. The next step is to select the villages in which activities pursued under Component 3 will take place. This work is carried out in the pre-selected Unions by joint IMO-CLP teams. They visit each part of the area, using a combination of PRA and other methods to survey conditions, and consulting with elites and UP representatives to identify the most vulnerable 4-5 villages. Once villages have been chosen, PRA wealth ranking is used to identify households eligible for support. Those wishing to join the programme can then be organised into groups. These normally have 25 members and are generally formed by women from participating households, although there a small number of men’s groups as well. At the same time, an attempt is made to constitute a para committee, made up of group representatives and leading individuals, which will support the group in its various undertakings. 6.2 Strengthening Beneficiary Livelihoods Thus far, the most important function performed by the groups has been to select the individuals and households that become beneficiaries under the Disaster Management Programme (see section 3.3 above) and the Asset Transfer Programme (see section 4.2). With these aspects dealt with, it is envisaged that groups will have a continuing role in helping individual members to protect and consolidate the higher levels of livelihood security that have been attained as a result of the support CLP has provided. This will support the ongoing work of the IMO social mobilisers who will be visiting beneficiaries on a regular basis to provide advice, deal with any problems arising, and monitor the progress achieved in the management of the transferred assets. In addition to their role in facilitating activities undertaken under the first two CLP components, the groups provide a vehicle for training activities organised directly under the auspices of the Social Development component, which aim to add another dimension to the overall goal of livelihood support. Sessions, normally lasting for two hours, are held weekly or fortnightly and cover a range of topics. These vary, to some extent, from one IMO to another, but would typically include: group management and leadership skills; dowry, marriage registration and violence against women; health, hygiene and sanitation; nutrition and homestead gardening; and disaster and relief management. Attempts are to be made in the coming months to regularise and strengthen the quality of the modules on offer. Plans are also afoot to establish experimental literacy programmes, linked to the delivery of messages in the various areas covered under the existing training programme, and to organise regular village fairs, that will serve to disseminate key livelihood messages to wider audiences at the local level. 6.3 Strengthening Links to the Wider Community Building on the capacity building and group formation activities described in the previous sections, the third area of Social Development work is starting to address

11

some of the “voice” issues that were central to the original vision of what Component 3 would be about. Taking the para committees as a foundation and source of representatives, Village Development Committees (VDCs) are being formed to assist in beneficiary selection, and identify priorities for CLP funded infrastructure and livelihoods activities (see sections 3 and 4 above). These functions are underpinned by orientation sessions, run by IMO staff, aiming to create awareness of UP responsibilities. Further sessions cover entitlements of goods and services from family welfare clinics, primary schools, GOB agriculture, livestock and fisheries bodies, and with regard to disaster relief that collectively providing a basis for VDCs to start lobbying more widely if they wish. Work designed to strengthen safety nets and reduce social vulnerability is at even earlier stage of development, and contains two potential elements. The first is to pilot reproductive health and life skills training package delivered through fortnightly meetings to adolescents from beneficiary communities. The second is to explore the viability of monetary support from beneficiary group and other community members for ultra-poor who cannot themselves engage in productive work. 7. INNOVATION, MONITORING AND LEARNING (COMPONENT 4) The final component - Innovation, Monitoring and Learning – is responsible for facilitating programme implementation and for enhancing awareness of char-related issues among local, national and regional stakeholders. This entails four partially overlapping functions: the provision of baseline information; monitoring, evaluation and verification of activities; research to aid implementation; and the dissemination of information. 7.1 Baseline Surveys Baseline work provides information about households in the CLP area before activities begin that can be used to help to assess impact, and provide insights that can assist in the implementation phase itself. The first and major undertaking here has been a quantitative survey, covering 3850 households in 110 villages, that was completed in June 2005. Findings are now available in three volumes (Dasgupta 2005 a,b,c, CLP September 2005). The first covers the household and deals with: demography; housing; income and expenditure; education; health; history of living on the chars; loans and savings; livelihoods; food security; social security; and rights awareness. The second covers infrastructure, and the third, enterprises. With the quantitative work complete, a Qualitative Participatory Survey was conducted to probe further into key areas where baseline results differed from the findings of other surveys (Huda et al, 2006). These included: history and land issues; wealth groups; livelihoods; social factors; coping mechanisms; service delivery; and inter-char comparisons. A follow-up to the quantitative survey is scheduled for June 2008. IML has also commissioned a series of District and Upazila maps that have been used in the planning of the baseline and a range of activities (Graphosman 2004) . 7.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Verification A monitoring system has been established that covers all CLP supported activities at input, activity, output and outcome levels (CLP August 2005). Input data is gathered from CLP component leaders. Activity and output data is collected from Upazilas, UP’s and IMOs each quarter and fed into a central data base. Three rounds have now been completed (IML June 2006). Outcome monitoring will cover both indirect and indirect results of CLP activities and will be carried out through periodic surveys. The first of these, an Annual Citizen’s Satisfaction Survey, using the report card system, is currently underway. Process monitoring will investigate how outcomes are achieved and will rely on a combination of surveys, reviews and case studies.

12

IML’s own ongoing data collection is complemented by quarterly contracted out Verification Surveys, under which activities are inspected on the ground and interviews conducted with beneficiaries and other interested parties (Sheltech October 2005, March, June 2006). Ultimately, all of the data collected feeds to the Performance Audit and Evaluation Agency (PAEA), an independent body that evaluates outcomes and impacts and reports annually to DFID (PAEA 2006). 7.3 Research: Building Capacity and Supporting Implementation Steps have been taken to build capacity in char specific research skills at the Rural Development Academy (RDA). Seven staff have been selected and provided with training to improve their understanding of poverty issues, and to strengthen their language and computer skills. They are currently engaged in longitudinal studies conducted on chars in Sirajganj and Jamalpur that will map changes in income, vulnerability and livelihoods more generally. A short piece on women’s lives has already been produced (Mohammad et al 2006), and a more ambitious programme of research is planned for in the year. In addition to the work by the RDA team, CLP has already started to contract external research dealing with different aspects of the chars context and CLP activities. One completed study examined the phenomenon of migration (Skinner and Siddiqui 2005). Another, currently in progress, is investigating the early results of the ATP (Bond forthcoming). A more comprehensive research agenda will be agreed later the year. Possible topics for investigation include: land ownership; child marriage and dowry; sharecropping; paravet training; and beneficiary targeting. 7.4 Knowledge Acquisition and Dissemination The final function performed by IML is to disseminate information and papers arising from its own work and that of other components of the programme. A website (http://clp.org.bd/) was launched in 2005 and provides information about programme activities, staff, partners and publications. A quarterly newsletter was established at the same time and has recently published its fourth edition (CLP June, September, December 2005, March 2006); topic covered so far including the Baseline Survey, the Asset Transfer Programme and the Social Protection Fund. Further developments planned to come on stream by the end of 2006 include a Stakeholder Forum, and a system of learning from implementation and from external sources built around donor linkages and regional conferences. It is hoped that these events can be accompanied by briefings for journalists, newspaper supplements and the production of various visual materials. 8. CONCLUSION The sketch that has been provided here is only part of a much bigger picture. An appreciation of the activities undertaken would ideally be accompanied by some attempt to flesh out the geographic, social, economic, political and administrative contexts in which the CLP operates. It would be useful to describe more fully the structure of Programme and to provide information on the various partner agencies with and through which activities are being implemented. More could be done by way of documenting what is being carried out where and with whom. Questions arising about the viability of the activities being undertaken could be explored. Finally, it is important to appreciate that the account that has been offered here will quickly be overtaken by events. If it is considered useful, provision should be made for it to be updated on a periodic basis.

13

REFERENCES For websites see endnote Barton, David and Mary Ann Brocklesby, Integrating Social Protection, Livelihood Promotion Chars Organisational and Enterprise Development: Lessons from the CLP Design, Chars Organisational Learning Paper 4, March 2004** Blackshaw, Ursula; Sustainable Rural Livelihoods and the CLP: Progression or New Departure, Chars Organisational Learning Paper 1, March 2004** Brocklesby, Mary Ann and Mary Hobley; The Practice of Design, Developing the CLP in Bangladesh, Journal of International Development 15, 893-909, 2003** Brocklesby, Mary Ann and Mary Hobley; Building Bridges Between Design and Implementation, Chars Organisational Learning Paper 5, March 2004** Brocklesby, Mary Ann; Planning Against Risk: Tools for Analysing Vulnerability in Remote Areas, Chars Organisational Learning Paper 2, March 2004** Byrne, Paul A., Second Report on Output 1, Rural Infrastructure Provision, August 2005* CLP; Inception Plan, November 2004 CLP; Executive Summary of Inception Report, January 2005* CLP; Newsletter Volume 1 No.1, June 2005* CLP; Plan and Budget for the Year 2005-2006, July 2005 CLP; Household Baseline Survey, CLP Newsletter, Volume 1 No.2, September 2005* CLP; Revised Work Plan and Budget, July 2005 to June 2006, November 2005 CLP; Helping Char Dwellers Combat Monga: CLP’s Cash for Work Programme, CLP Newsletter, Volume 1 No.3, December 2005* CLP; The Monitoring Framework, August 2005 CLP; CLP’s Asset Transfer Programme, CLP Newsletter, Volume 1 No.4, March 2006* CLP; Comment on the PAEA Output to Purpose Review, April 2006 CLP; Market Development Fund, May 2006 Conroy, Czech; CLP Pilot Asset Transfer Programme: Review and Recommendations, June 2006 Dasgupta, Nandini with Mitra Associates, Chars Baseline Survey Volume I - Household, 2005 (a)*

14

Dasgupta, Nandini with Mitra Associates, Chars Baseline Survey Volume II - Infrastructure, 2005 (b)* Dasgupta, Nandini with Mitra Associates, Chars Baseline Survey Volume III - Enterprise, 2005 (c)* Dasgupta, Nandini with PRA Promoters’ Society, Preliminary Review of the Asset Transfer Programme, March 2006 DFID; Chars Livelihoods Programme, Project Memorandum prepared for GOB, September, 2002 GOB, Planning Commission: Project Proforma for Chars Livelihoods Project. Rural Development and Cooperatives Division. Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, March 2004 Graphosman; Project Area Map, Chars Livelihoods Programme, 2004 Harper, Malcolm; The Indian National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. How the CLP can learn from it, May 2006* Hobley, Mary; The Voice-responsiveness Framework: Creating Political Space for the Extreme Poor, Chars Organisational Learning Paper 3, March 2004** Hodson, Roland; The CLP’s First Evaluation Self Evaluation, March 2006 Huda, Enamul et al; Participatory Qualitative Survey Report, PRA Promoters’ Society, May 2006, IML; Chars Livelihood Programme – The Monitoring Framework, August 2005 IML; Monitoring and Evaluation of the Asset Transfer Programme, January 2006 IML; Activity and Output Monitoring Report, 3rd Quarter, 2006, June 2006 In Development Limited, The Chars Livelihood Assistance Scoping Study, January 2000** Kroll, Thomas; Working with groups and defining their purpose, July 2005 Mohammad, Shaikh Shahriar et al; Wives and Daughters of the Chars, CLP Working Paper No.2, May 2006 Musillo, Benedetta, Synthesis of the Chars Literature, DFID, January 2002 Output 2 (Enterprise), CLP; Microfinance Update, September 2005 Parkinson, Jonathon, CF Infrastructure Component, Assessment of Progress and Recommendations for Future Project Activities, April 2006 Performance, Audit and Evaluation Agency; CLP First Annual Review, April 2006 Sheltech Consultants; Verification Survey on CLP Activities, April – June 2005, October 2005

15

Sheltech Consultants; Verification Survey on CLP Activities, October-December 2005, March 2006 Sheltech Consultants; Verification Survey on CLP Activities, January – March 2006, June 2006 Skinner, Jessica and Tasneem Siddiqui; Labour Migration from the Chars: Risks, Costs and Benefits, CLP Working Paper No.1, December 2005* Staehle, Mark; Programme Notes for the PAEA visit, March 2006 Thornton, Paul; CLP, Management and Institutional Assessment, August 2000** VSL Associates; Village Savings and Loan Associations and the Chars Livelihoods Project, Bangladesh, May 2006* Wakelin, Oliver and Ebrahim Akander, CLP Output 2 – Livelihood Diversification, Pilot Schemes October 2004 – June 2005, undated, c July 2005 Wakelin, Oliver; Asset Transfer Program, undated c. November 2005 Websites * http://clp.org.bd/ ** http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/project_summaries/comdev7_projsum.html

16