ANNEX -3: UTTARAN SEMPTI PROJECT

UTTARANSEMPTI PROJECT

Table of Content

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 2
Basic Information ................................................................................................................................ 2
Budget: ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Project Area: ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Main findings .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 5
PHASE 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Agreement and contract ...................................................................................................................... 7
Area of operations............................................................................................................................... 7
Model .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Khas-Land versus IGA ........................................................................................................................ 8
Micro Savings ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Sustainability....................................................................................................................................... 8
Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Research ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Advocacy ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Budget ............................................................................................................................................... 13
PHASE 11/RD 2 ................................................................................................................................... 13
Design and Process ........................................................................................................................... 13
Rationale for Phase II ....................................................................................................................... 13
Pilot activities on HatiyaIsland (Noakhali District) ........................................................................ 14
LOGFRAME: ....................................................................................................................................... 17




UTTARANSEMPTI PROJECT


Sustained and Expanded Effort to Make the Ultra-Poor out of Extreme Poverty by
Transferring Assets, Cash and Skills in an Integrated Approach

Review of Phase 1 and assessment of the Uttaran proposals for phase 2 combined with a
reduced round 2 scale Fund.
28, 29
th
and 30
th
of June 2011

Review and Assessment Team: Tom Barrett, Khairul Islam (consultants) and Md.Asadul
Islam (Project Director), and supported by SaidurRahman (Shiree programme manager of
Uttaran

INTRODUCTION

All meetings were held at the Uttaran Office at IDRTTala, Satkhira with staff from Uttaran
and their 4 implementing local partners (Rupali, MuktiFounation, Palli-Chetona,
IDEALKalingonj)

Basic Information

Purpose:

At least 57, are 600 extreme poor people (17% from women headed HHs) in
southwest coastal areas of Bangladesh have lifted themselves out of extreme
poverty by2015

Immediate objective 12,000 extreme poor and landless households improve livelihoods based on
natural resources and IGAs
Output-1: 12000 HH have access to khas-land and khas-water bodies

Output-2: 12000 HH are provided with assets and improved productive skills, and safe
water and sanitation

Budget:
Total Budget: BDT.299,433,877.00
Direct Delivery: BDT.16,184.00 per BHH(64.86% of total budget)
Indirect Delivery: BDT.

Project Area:
(Area, Number of households and Uttaran and Partner NGO):

Area Coverage No. of No of HHs Coverage Name of the
District Upazila Union Total
HHs
Under
Uttaran
Under
PNGOs
Implementing
PNGOs
Satkhira


1. Tala 9 1500 1500 0 -
2. Debhata 4 750 750 0 -
3. Assashuni 6 2250 1500 750 PalliChetona
4. Shyamnagar 8 1500 1500 0 -
5. Kaligonj 3 750 0 750 IDEAL
Khulna

1. Paikgacha 6 1500 750 750 Mukti
Foundation.
2. Dumuria 8 2250 1500 750 Rupali
3. Batiaghata 6 1500 1500 0 -
Total 8 50 12000 9000 3000 4 PNGOs



SUMMARY
Main findings

1. The Uttaran program represents good value for money with more than 66% of the
total budget going directly or indirectly to the target beneficiaries.

We targeted 65.99 % of direct delivery to the beneficiaries for period of April 2009 to
March 2012. However, between April 2009 and May 2012, we have achieved 68.54
% of direct delivery, which is more than that we anticipated.
2. There is an excellent and supportive parallel civil society structure of land committees
at the union level that supports the groups of the poor beneficiaries that have been
formed byUttaran.

Uttaran has formed land committees at upazila and district levels, who operate as
pressure groups to facilitate recovery and distribution of khas land.
3. There is a long standing partnership between Uttaran and its implementing partners,
but the implementation capacity of the partners needs improving.

We agree to the observation. However, for the last two years all of sorts of capacity
building initiatives like hands-on training, workshop, refreshers training, cross-
learning visits for financial, administrative and programmatic development for the
concerned staff of the partners were organised. We have future plans to take further
initiatives to strengthen capacity of the partners.
4. The legal transfer of land to beneficiaries is still slow and below target.

We agree to the comment but feel that we should make some clarifications in this
regard. Throughout the first two years, we had to focus intensively on advocacy at
local, district and national levels with government officials, elected representatives,
media and civil society members. These advocacy activities helped us build a
favouring ground for land transfer. The trend of land transfer in the recent months is
very much hope-raising. We hope that if no political turmoil occurs and this trend
continues, we can achieve at least 80 % of our target regarding land transfer by the
end of the project period.
5. Income generating assets are being provided before the completion of the legal
transfer of land but once people have access to land.

We agree to the comment. Since legal transfer of land is usually a time-consuming
process, we are distributing assets once the beneficiaries have access to land so that
they can improve their livelihoods and make productive use of the land they have
accessed alongside.
6. Before a group can apply for a Khas water body the group has to be registered as a
cooperative and this is a time consuming process.

The government introduced water body policy in 2009 which stated that the fishers
groups require to be registered as cooperatives with the governments cooperative
department and for this they will require certificate from the fisheries department.
However, after the policy was proclaimed, these two departments made confusing
circulars regarding registration of fishers groups as cooperatives with certificate
received from fisheries department, which is hindering or slowing down the process.
Uttaran is continuing advocacy and policy briefs on this issue and hopes that once the
problem has been overcome, transfer of water bodies to the extremely poor fishers
groups will be faster.
7. The presentation provided relevant information on progress in accordance with the
logical framework and the output indicators.

Encouraging comment.
8. There is good information available on the income streams generated as a result of
the asset and land transfers.

Encouraging comment.
9. There is little difference between the M and E and MIS units and these should be
combined and roles streamlined.

Both M and E and MIS are working under a same, straight line management. We have
a plan to review roles and responsibilities of members M and E and MIS to develop
them into a more effective section.
10. It is difficult to really make a difference with the physically challenged through the
provision of income generating assets. New approaches are required.

We agree that working with the physically challenge is a great challenge. However,
we are now trying community-led and group-led approaches. We are also reviewing
experiences of the NGOs working especially with the physically challenged people.
Furthermore, we are going to undertake a new topic for an action research on the
possible better livelihood options for the physically challenged.
11. There needs to be greater clarity of the DFID nutrition project and what will be
available in the future from the DFID shiree initiative.

We are hopeful to soon start implementing DFID-Shiree funded nutrition
interventions.


Recommendations

I. The combined programme for the next phase is based on the phase 2 concept note
and that funds are provided to initiate studies prior to a possible pilot activity on
Hatiya Island
II. Funding for implementation of pilot activities on Hatiya Islandis only agreed and
released once there has been a detailed study that supports the feasibility of cost
effective implementation.
III. The target number of beneficiaries on HatiyaIsland should be substantially reduced to
approximately 500 beneficiaries.
IV. The budget for an increase in activities in Khulna and Satkirah Districts should be
increased if the activities on Hatiya island are scaled back.

For recommendations I-IV, our viewpoint is that, before we decide over expanding
project to Hatiya, we will conduct a study into programmatic, financial and administrative
feasibility and cost-effectiveness. If we found working in Hatiya feasible and cost-
effective, we will decide on piloting. Otherwise, we will add two or three upazilas from
Khulna or Satkhira in the existing project area (phase I) or add one or two upazilas from
the neighbouring district of Bagerhat.

V. Partner NGOs should be involved in project design in order to establish greater
ownership of the project by the partners.

We appreciate this recommendation. We have already involved our partners in the design
of phase II. We will ensure their greater roles in policy levels in future.

VI. Field staff should be provided with motorcycles.

Encouraging suggestion. We will decide on this matter in consultation with Shiree,
considering remoteness of working area, feasibility, and finally project budget.

VII. More computer facilities are needed at the field level (could be reviewed if CMS 2 is
scaled up).

Excellent suggestions. We have plans to provide computers at field level. In addition to
CMS 2, we have plans to create positions for financial reporting, M and E and MIS at
field level with software support. However, we will have to consult with Shiree and all
these plans are dependent upon availability of budget.

VIII. The project should have a clear development plan for its partner NGOs to improve
management (project design, management, reporting, implementation and financial
capabilities).

Presently, we are trying to develop our partners in the areas you have identified and we
have a plan to further strengthen their skills in management (project design, management,
reporting, implementation and financial capabilities).

IX. It is important, especially for Uttaran that it strengthen its relationship with the local
government and the local government e.g. Union Council, ward members to gain
support for the cause of the project.

Uttaran has already been in good terms with local government representatives. Uttaran
organises trainings and workshops on khas land transfer and management, gender
development and disaster risk reduction for the Union Council members and chairmen,
which help develop and retain a good working relationship with the local government
representatives. Alongside, we will try to explore how we can further strengthen our
relationship with the local government representatives with a view to gaining their
support the cause of the project.

X. The project needs to have greater focus at the BHH level including providing training
on skills and management.

We have been conducting skills development and management training courses for the
BHHs. Topics for such trainings include health and hygiene, IGA management (fish, live
asset and non-live asset), water and sanitation, leadership development, etc. However, we
appreciate the recommendation. We will have greater focus on these areas.

XI. Project should have improved the partner technical skills to match the main IGAs.

Excellent recommendation. We have a plan to further improve technical skills of the
partners.

XII. Project should continue to develop options suitable for the physically disabled, old
age and women headed households including households with small and lactating
children.

We appreciate the recommendation. Our research team is going to undertake a research
into possible better livelihoods options for the physically challenged and elderly people.
We will try to explore suitable options for these people based on the research findings.
We will also review experiences of the like-minded NGOs working on livelihood options
for women headed households and households with small and lactating children and
explore better livelihood options for them.

XIII. POs and the GUF need to be developed in a way that they sustain their activities and
support services. Literacy skills will be required especially as many of the poorest are
illiterate.

Through capacity building activities, Uttaran has been making effort to ensure their
sustainability after the project phased out. We feel that developing literacy skill might
take a long time. We rather think of developing their technical skills.

XIV. Local service providers as a cadre of privately owned local entrepreneurs should be
considered for supply and services relevant to the different IGAs.

Good suggestion. We will try to plan and work accordingly.


PHASE 1
Agreement and contract
During the first year of the project additional support was required from shiree to assist the
improvement of the financial control and accounting procedures. Progress was extremely
slow and little progress in the transfer of land to beneficiaries, despite the long term
experience of Uttaran in area.

At the start of the project the complexity of the accounting systems was underestimated by
Uttaran but with support from shiree many of these problems have been resolved and their
performance has drastically proved. The presentation on achievements to date and the impact
of phase 1 was good in comparison to some much larger organisations. They were able to
provide factual information, numbers achieved, demonstrateincome from the income
generating activities and the main informationfor the indicators contained in the logical
framework. The financialreports indicated that the percentage going to the target beneficiaries
had exceeded expectations. The project does represent good value for money in terms of
impact on the poorest.

There had been misunderstandings concerning the round two applications (these are
discussed further in the section on Round 2). It is important in future that the successful
applicants are given precise information on their success and whether or not there are specific
conditions or recommendations.

We agree to the comments in this section.
Area of operations
The project has focused on two districts: Khulna and Satkhira. A total of 12000 BHH were
selected by Uttaran (9000 BHH) and Partner NGOs (3000 BHH) in 50 unions in 8 Upazilas.
There has been good progress against the outputs level indicators and towards achieving
project targets. Given the focus on their core activities and utilising their experience in the
area there is a good possibility that the project will meet all its. Although this is a leading
NGO on land issues they still have challenges ahead (48% of their beneficiaries have got
annual leases and only 18% have longer 99 year leases on Khas land.

Since 99-year lease process takes a longer time as this lease requires approval of Deputy
Commissioner (DC) who is the chairperson of district agricultural khas land management
committee. On the other hand, water body lease process is also taking longer time due to
policy problems, we are currently giving more focus on one-year lease.

Model
The basic premise of Uttaran and many other NGOs is that access to land is the key factor if
the objective is to graduate the landless from extreme poverty. Most NGOs recognise and
agree with this thesis but few are actively trying to get Khas land reallocated in favour of the
extreme poor households. It will always involve long bureaucratic delays and often requires
legal representation in the courts. Specialist skills are often required in order to ensure the
cooperation of the government officers who will be normally be pressurised by larger
landowners with much greater resources.
Uttaran uses its TALA Model to identify and list the landless, identification, recovery and
settlement of khas land and khas water bodies in close collaboration and cooperation with
government authorities. Through Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), and priority ranking
Uttaran selects its 12,000 beneficiaries. The targeted HHs are organized into primary groups
(POs) and be federated. Uttaran uses a multidimensional and partnership approach to
implementing the project. To achieve the project objectives, there is a continuous advocacy
campaign and mobilization performed by the Primary Organization-PO and GonoUnnayan
Federation-GUFof landless ultra poor.

The procedures for obtaining access to Khas water bodies have been complicated by
legislation that requires groups to be registered as a cooperative before they can apply for
access to a Khas water body. This again is a long bureaucratic process but slowly Uttaran is
beginning to tackle this problem and it is hoped that a more water bodies will be transferred
in the next phase.

Well-written.

Khas-Land versus IGA
While the Uttaran overriding priority is khas land and water-bodies, it should also put equal
importance on BHH level IGAs. The presentation of Uttaran to the mission indicates that
several IGAsplay a very important role in enhancing and improving BHHs economic
conditions and income. 63 percent of the BHH are using non-land and non-water based IGAs,
while the rest are land and water based activities including livestock where livestock
constitutes 33%, fisheries 6% and agriculture only 4%.

Individual BHH level IGAs have proved to be very effective in increasing incomes and are
contributing towards realizing the project purpose and objectives.

Present trend shows more concentration on non-land and non-water based IGAs because the
BHHs cannot make use of land immediately after getting access to land. When they will get
diversified incomes from live and non-live assets, they will have financial capability to make
productive use of khas land.

Micro Savings
Uttaran has formed saving groups to establish solidarity and bring the target BHH together on
a much stronger footing. A total savings of BDT3650722.00 have been made by the group
members, which again calls for additional support for management, operation and accounting
& book keeping training for the group leaders, if these savings are to be safeguarded and
utilised in the future.

Apprecia comments.

Sustainability
The sustainability strategy of Uttaran relies on land and water based livelihoodsand the
assumption that there are fewer risks and shocks of losing the fundamental capital. Land
ownership and access to other services will enable household members to become involved in
supportive/ subsidiary livelihoods activities for further strengthening their resource base.

Support for the primary groups (POs) and their federations (GUFs) at village, union or
upazila levels needs to be strengthened with clear roles. Mechanisms and resources are
required as well for their long-term survival. The leaders of organised primary groups-POs
and inter-group structures at various levels, for developing their leadership and management
skills will need extensive training and support to operate and sustain their activities in the
future. At present Uttaran lacks a well-defined long term plan for the federations and the
primary groups. It is important that there is a coherent exit strategy from the very beginning.

Although it is anticipated that by the end phase 1 more than 90% of the households will have
improved access to land there will still be the need to continue to push for legal entitlement
on a long-term basis. There will still be requirementof further inputs by Uttaran for effective
graduation. In the next phase that there will be continued support and a greater focus on
health and disaster risk reduction. This is discussed further in the section on the phase 2
proposal.

The major risk to sustainability will be severe climatic events such as tidal surges cyclones.
Uttaranis however well positioned to provide support in terms of physical assets, but
hopefully the empowerment provided and access to land and water bodies will have a longer
lasting impact.

Undoubtedly the one factor that has made the biggest difference to the lives of people in these
areas has been the dramatic improvement in terms of road communication and the mobile
telephone. Throughout the project area there is visual evidence of the increase in
entrepreneurial activities and new opportunities at the local level; small dairy units, and cash
crops, the activity in the local bazaars, poultry units, planting fruit trees etc..

The insidious impact of increased salinity has yet to be fully realised. There have been
immediate benefits in terms of income from shrimp farming, crab farming other fishery
related activities, but access to drinking water and increased soil salinity will be major issues
to be addressed in future. Climate adaptive technologies are being developed, but they will be
increasingly challenged by global warming and longer term environmental problems.

Sedimentation in the south-west has been reduced, possibly due to the river damming in
India, and it is suggested that these areas are slowly sinking and will be more liableto tidal
surgesand cyclones in the future. The government must ensure the adequacy of the shoreline
protection measures and embankments. There are increasing numbersof reports concerning
breaches in the barriers by shrimp farmers who want to flood their land with saline water.

Well written. However, another threat to the sustainability of the gains of the BHHs is the water
logging caused by factors like siltation of rivers, underlying position of the area, man-made
infrastructures on or beside rivers blocking river flow. BHHs need to be made aware of disaster risk
reduction, disaster preparedness (plinth raising, strengthening house construction, tree plantation,
roads reconstruction and elevation, temporary shelters) and they should be given material support for
preparedness.

Partnerships
The four partner NGOs been associated with Uttaran for many years asan informal network
of NGOs working in Khulna district on humanitarian and land issues. They were involved in
the development of the phase one proposal and are aware that phase 2 and round 2 are being
considered. They have not have been directly consulted or involved as this is a more recent
process. Documentation is not being shared with them so far.

All the partner NGOs indicated that they thought the partnership was useful and helpful but
recognise their limitations and would like additional management training. Some training is
continuing but the standard of training is very stereotyped and needs to be improved. The
salary of staff is low and naturally they would like to see increases. Staff turnover is
exceptionally high and has varied from 60 to 0% in the last two years. Only where local staff
was recruited was the turnover low. As soon as staff moved into the area they realise the
living conditions are too tough and soon leave. For each NGO Uttaranpays for one field
supervisor and five senior field officers. The directors also have to contribute in terms of
advocacy at the district level and the provision for an honorarium needs to be created to cover
their costs.
Funding flows do not seem to be a problem and following a requisition there is normally cash
in their account within 3 to 4 days. Accounts are submitted at the end of each month and
there is an internal auditor from Uttaran who checks their accounts and also IGA passbooks
on a random basis. A 4.5% overhead is paid to PNGOs which covers administration and
some of their directors costs
There are monthly meetings with the partners and progress reports are submitted and
reviewed.
Well written. However, staff turnover in the 1
st
year was 10% while in the 2
nd
year it
increased to 25%. Overhead cost both for Uttaran and its partners is 4 %, not 4.5% as you
have mentioned.
Research
At present the research is led by a team from shiree office and supported by Bath and
Cambridge University. From the project funding, a research officer and assistant are located
at the project level but appear to report to the coordinating officer in the shiree office. So far
there has beenone major report drafted: Making Productive Use of Khas land: Experiences of
the Extreme Poor Households, Working paper number 8 Date: May 30, 2011. This provides
excellent documentary evidence of many of the issues that are known to the local staff
(especially the executive director). This information can be used in many advocacy
documents and will also be very useful in advocacy at local and national levels.

Actually, we tried to explain the process the research work is following. As part of the
process, a research focal point at Shiree has been coordinating with the work of research
teams from all 6 Scale Fund NGOs from the beginning of the research initiative. As she/he is
the only person in Bangladesh to coordinate between University of Bath and the research
teams, the research teams contact the Bath representative for all research related issues.

The Executive Director was aware of the report but had not read it, nor was aware of the
main conclusions in the executive summary. There needs to be a process which ensures that
senior level staffs are aware of the report and that the research staff would really value their
comments before finalisation.

We have already discussed these issues with the research team. Their opinions were that they
had a very limited time for data collection and writing working paper for the 1
st
round of
research before they send the draft of the working paper to the University of Bath for their
rigorous checking and revision. The research team agreed that they should value comments of
the senior level staff, but in case of the 1
st
round of research, since they had very limited time
to finalise the working paper upon receipt of comments from Shiree and the Bath, they hardly
had enough time to let the report go through a comprehensive discussion across the
organisation staff. Nonetheless, they submitted the draft working paper to the Project
Coordinator and the Advisor for comments and circulation. However, because of their
involvement in other priorities, the senior level staff could not make their valued comments
on the working paper. We agree to the clarifications given by the research team and expect
that there will a well coordinated research in future. Since we have had a thorough discussion
within our organisation on these crucial issues and hopeful to have better coordination among
us, we recommend that you take this comment out.

Consideration should also be given to a summary in Bangla so that the findings are available
at the local level and can also be distributed to local officials and others concerned with the
program. The use of any research reports in the advocacy strategies should also be considered
at the design and reporting stages.

We appreciate the recommendations for a Bangla summary of the findings. It is for your
information that the research team had already translated major findings and
recommendations into Bangla and presented to the project staff at a monthly coordination
meeting before the review team visited Uttaran, and an action plan was prepared based on the
findings and recommendations so we recommend necessary changes to this comment. We
also appreciate the recommendations for the use of research reports in advocacy strategies,
which has already been in practice.

The Uttaran staff felt that they should be more involved in determining the research topics
and thatthey should have greater control over the research activities. The local partners
werefurther removed fromthe research and not involved to any great extent. Many of the
local staff at field level will be involved in data collection if required. Information and
updates in Bangla would certainly assist to promote their involvement and participation.

We believe that Uttaran has enough control as required over the research activities.
Alongside, Shiree follows a participatory protocol for identifying research topics. According
to this protocol, Shiree Scale Fund partners propose more than one topics of their interest
from which a particular topic for each of the six NGOs is selected for each round of research
through meetings of Extreme Poverty Research Group (EPRG). At these EPRG meetings,
members of senior level staff other than the research staff of Scale Fund NGOs also have the
opportunity to argue for their preferred topics of interest. Uttaran research team has been
operating under this protocol. Nevertheless, the research team will think about how Uttaran
senior level staff can be more involved in the whole process of research from topic
identification to writing of working papers.

The research team incorporated opinions from concerned IGA Officers and field level staff
from the local partners while collecting field data. Alongside, from the very beginning of the
research work, the research team had been allotted time to talk about the progress of the
research work in the monthly project coordination meetings. The research team discussed all
issues including the life histories, research topics, research proposal and data collection
process in these coordination meetings and asked for participants opinion on each and every
issue. As the partner organisations also attended these meetings, they were also made aware
about the research updates and whenever they gave any opinion on research related issues
like topics or proposals, it was duly incorporated so we do not agree to the partners
comments that they were further removed from the research. We feel that we can resolve
these arguments through discussions with partners and within the organisation and, therefore,
recommend that you take these comments out of the report.

Any results should be disseminated as rapidly as possible if they are to have an impact on the
target beneficiaries. The main clients for theirefforts should be those who are both designing
and undertaking the implementation of the main programmes. It is not expected that the
reports should be peer-reviewed or necessarily suitable for publication in an academic or
international journal. Staff from the implementing NGO should be involved in formulating
the conclusions which might be disseminated to local officials and other interested people.

Already the M andEstaff at Uttaran havecollected a lot of informationon the economic impact
of the income generating assets that have been provided to the beneficiaries. The presentation
and analysis of this information might be improved and have a greater valueat higher levels
of management with assistance from the research team in shiree. It is likely that the
Government and DFID will become increasingly interested in the economic as well as social
impacts of the Project. This will greatly enhance the chances of funding of future activities
if such information isreadily available.

It is recommended that the shiree research staff ensure that the topics for research are
adequately discussed and agreed with the implementing partners, and that they play a leading
role in determining new topics.

This process has already been in practice. Uttaran research team has so far followed the
process before the research topics were determined. However, the research team has agreed
to the need for more intensive discussion within the organisation before new topics are
selected.

Advocacy
There is no specific advocacy strategy within Uttaran but nevertheless a lot of effective work
is undertaken at both the national and local levels. The executive director is a charismatic
personality, there are several cases in the High Court which attract media attention, the
formation of the land committees (comprised of professional people, teachers, lawyers,
religious leaders, etc) play a major role in terms of influence within the local administration
and the enthusiasm of their partners undoubtedly promotes the goals of the program.

It is recommended that the project prepares its own advocacy strategy. This process will help
to identify the activities that need to be undertaken at different levels and locations, the
connections and complementarity, together with the different approaches and tools that might
increase the impact of their advocacy efforts. This does not have to be an elaborate strategy
but should be facilitated by someone who understands the process and impacts

Budget
The proposed budget indicated that 66% of the total funds are used as direct and indirect
benefits to the beneficiaries. This has ben increased slightly during implementation to 68%.
This represents an effective use of funds in terms of the overall shiree programme.

We agree to the observation.


PHASE 11/RD 2

Design and Process
The four local implementing partners were involved in discussions on the design of phase 2
and their potential involvement. The main proposal (PCN for Phase II) was for an extension
of the Phase 1 activities that would focus on both ensuring sustainability, graduation and also
providing land and additional resources to a further 5500 extreme poor households.

Rationale for Phase II
Phase 2 builds on the experience obtained during the first phase. The aim of phase 1 was to
reach 12,000 extreme poor households. In phase 2 there will be continued support to existing
councils and they will also target an additional 7000 households in unions adjacent to their
existing project areas. In addition, following their Round 2 application they will undertake
preliminarysurvey work on Hatiya Island in Noakhali district prior to a potential pilot
activity.

The main focus for Uttaran should be on its existing areas rather than any attempt to expand
into a completely new geographical area with a socio-political situation that is likely to be
very different and more complex. There is still a considerable area of Khas land available for
transfer in their current areas of operation and the next phase should focus on additional
extreme poor households in their current geographical area. In addition the legal transfer of
land is going more slowly than predicted and additional time will be required for the legal
transfer to be completed for the target number of beneficiaries.

There is also the need to focus on improving the capacity and potential longevity of their
primary organisations that they are establishing. For many groups the main purpose could
well be transformed into like-minded production activities where joint marketing could have
an advantage. There does need to be a longer-term perspective that isboth viable and
consistent with the needs of the groups. Further work is also required to improve their income
generating activities and asset transfers to ensure the productive use of any Khas land that is
transferred. There is increasing salinity and the productivity of the land is changing and may
require different interventions.

The potential intervention as suggested in Noakhali would definitely overburden Uttarans
capacity. This is discussed at greater length in the sections. There is an opportunity cost for
operating in a new area and this needs to be considered by Uttaran. It was agreed that
preliminary survey work would be required before any financial commitment is agreed for
pilot activities. Management from Tala will be difficult and undoubtedly questions about a
Dhaka office, which would again raise the management costs, will be raised.

Pilot activities on HatiyaIsland (Noakhali District)
There were intense and detailed discussions concerning the Round 2 proposal. All the
existing shiree partner NGOs with scale fund projects currently being implemented (CARE,
SCF and Uttaran ) that were successful in the scale fund Round 2 were informed by shiree
that the combined total fund would be less than anticipated.Uttaran had been informedat
meetings with shiree in Dhaka that the combined total funding for the two projects would be
limited to 2.4 million. Nevertheless some of the staff though that they were entitled to full
funding for their Round 2 proposal despite the feedback fromshiree and the recommendations
from the IAP that were endorsed by the NSC. There was a lengthy debate about the scale of
funding and whether or not they had been successful in Round 2. They were informed that
the total available forthe two projects remained at 2.4 million, and that it was the shiree
understanding that approximately 2,000,000 would be used for phase 2 and approximately
400,000 would be used for initial survey and possible pilot activities inNoakhali District.
Following discussions with the review team Uttaran then prepared a presentation for a next
phase which was discussed on the final morning (30
th
of June).

Uttaran proposed that there should be a pilot program working with a local NGO
(DwipUnnayanSonnghtha (DUS) onHatiya Ireland and that it would impact 1500 landless
beneficiary households. Still no account had been taken of the recommendations of the IAP
relating to the collection of basic information on the feasibility of working in the area .The
review team questioned the rationale for focusing on Hatiya Island e.g. relating to logistics,
the Khash land status and the actual land available for redistribution, whether it had been
surveyed or not, the operational capacity of the land Department on the Island, and indicated
their concerns relating to politics etc, plus many other issues.

The initial questions related to the rationale for working on HatiyaIsland , given its location
and the logistical constraints , rather than in other areas that had been suggested in the
original Round 2 proposal. The team were informed that there would be major difficulties in
working in other areas of Noakhali district, and yet the Round 2 proposals had suggested that
Uttaran could impact on almost 17,000 beneficiary households in the 3 districts. Such
statements confirmed the conclusions of the IAP assessment that preliminary surveys and
feasibility work should be undertaken before embarking on a large scale programme.

During the preparation of the Scale Fund Round 2 proposal discussions had been held with
local NGOs in Bhola, Patuakhali and Noakhali Districts.On HatiyaIsland the team were
informed that there were approximately 54,000 acres of land available . However it was not
clear whether any of this land had been surveyed and declared available for settlement to
beneficiaries. Uttaran suggested that the survey process would start in August but given the
capacity of the land surveyors this could take a very long time for the land to be actually
surveyed. The release of the land for potential settlement would then be subject to
considerable political pressure from local leaders.

It was recognised by Uttaran that a new project represented an opportunity cost to
beneficiaries of the existing programs being funded by shiree.

The review team were not convinced that the target of 1500 beneficiaries was feasible. There
will be major logistical problems establishing an office on Hatiaya island given the lack of
infrastructure and the remoteness of the Island. The mission recommended that a maximum
500 households should be targeted initially.

There was discussion on the impact of sea level rises as a result of global warming and what
this might mean for Hatiyaisland. Initially the perceived wisdom was that most of the islands
would be submerged but more detailed studies by the climate change environmental research
Centre in Dhaka, with support from the Dutch, indicate that sedimentary deposits coming
down the rivers will continue to form offshore islands and build up existing onesin the future.

Further information and a review of the literature is required to assist with advocacy to
convince the armchair critics that the offshore islands will not disappear as a result of sea
level rises, and that any investments would be worthwhile. Uttaran also stated that the South
West Bangladesh, where their existing activities are taking place, will be more susceptible to
seal level rises as the area is gradually sinking. It has to be recognised by shiree, the
government of Bangladesh and DFID that all work in the coastal areas could be impacted by
sea level rises.

Checklist of information required prior to design and implementation of pilot programme on
the Hatiya:
1. Profile of DwipUnnayanSangstha(pngo) & their total activities in the piloting
area needs careful examination.
2. Geographic location, geological condition, nature of the soil, environmental
aspects study reports(Secondary data) from authentic sources needs careful
examination with relation to vulnerability in the area.
3. To check the Govt. programmes & status of the newly reclaimed land(inter-
district/ inter-upazila/inter-union boundary) in the related Govt departments
(DGLR&S,DC, Dept. of Environment, etc.).
4. To consider the risk factors relating to land litigacy issues. Peruse the records
of the local police station including civil &sessions courts.
5. Study the demographic characteristics of the present inhabitants.
6. Study the present balance of the power structure and identify a strategy of
making them supportive.
7. Existing IGA, cropping pattern & the potentiality needs to be considered for
the return on investment and sustainability
8. Related national & international issues to be considered
9. No. of beneficiaries HHshould be manageable (max 400)
10. Keep the budget beneficiary- friendly, rational, & maximize direct support to
the beneficiaries. Avoid creating new offices& positions. Min. allocation to
technical, administrative & overhead sectors.

Following intense discussions on the proposed activities for HatiyaIsland it was agreedthat
there should be no funding released by Shiree for implementation of project activities until
detailed feasibility studies had been undertaken. The results of such studies would need to be
discussed in depth with Uttaran before any pilot activities are funded .Uttaran should estimate
the funds required to undertake these studies and this should be released initially. Funds for
implementation of this pilot activity need to be ring fenced with a separate budget and subject
to further appraisal. This process should be time bound so that the funds could be reallocated
to additional work in the existing project areas and benefit additional extreme poor
households. It was recognised by the Uttaran staff that there wasopportunity cost to this
funding which should not be lost in terms of potential beneficiaries.

It was also stressed that shiree wanted to ensure the successful implementation of any land
reform programmes, as a potential failure would not only impact shiree but also Uttaran and
its implementing partners, but more importantly the potential benefits to the landless extreme
poor in the coastal areas.

We think major discussions have been incorporated. We are planning that if our feasibility
study reveals that our plan of piloting on Hatiya Island will not be feasible and cost-effective,
we will concentrate on our existing project area with the additional funding or think about
adding one or two upazilas (sub-districts) in the neighbouring district of Bagerhat. The funds
for phase II and piloting will be used in the existing project area and the additional area
(Bagerhat).



ANNEX 1
LOGFRAME:
Output-1: Access to khas-land and khas-water bodies through a transparent and corruption free process
Output-2:Improved land and water bodies productivity
Narrative summary Indicators Progress Achieved
Goal Government of Bangladesh
MDG targets 1 and 2 on income
poverty reduction and hunger
achieved by 2015.
Reduction in the proportion of
people living in extreme
poverty from 28% (in 1991/92)
to 14% by 2015.

PurposeAt least 57600 extreme
poor people (17% from women
headed HHs) in southwest coastal
areas of Bangladesh have lifted
themselves out of extreme poverty
by 2015
Out of the target households
at least 85% will increase
their asset value on average
by 50%.
At least 9600 HHs recording
30% to 50% increase in
monthly income
At least 9600 HHs reporting
improved food security and
quality of diet
6000HHs reporting reduced
water borne sickness
90% of school-age children
attending school

Immediate objective 12,000
extreme poor and landless HHs
improve livelihoods through
cultivation of khasland and
management of khaswater bodies
12000HHs making productive
use of khas land and khas
water bodies
At least 6000HHs selling
produce from land or water
bodies
At least 4000HHs making
profits from khas land or
water bodies

Output-1:
12,000 HHs given access to khas-
land and khas-water bodies
I. 8,000 HHs to land on
yearly basis
II. 2,000 HHs to land on
permanent basis
III. 2,000 HHs to water bodies
At least 480 Primary
Organizations (Pos)/CBOs
and
40GUFs formed and 12000
HHs members
8000HHs getting yearly
leases on 5500 acres of khas
land
2000HHs getting 99 year
lease to khas land & 1000
acres of khas land
2000HHs getting leases on
khas water bodies and
674 (140%) Primary
Organizations
(Pos)/CBOswith11768 HH
16 (40%)GUFs

3879 (48%)HHsgotleases on
1089.18 (20%) acres of khas
land
382(19%)HHsgot 99 year lease
to 283.34 (28%) acres of khas
land

215(11%)HHs got leases
1500acres of khas water
bodies
At least 50 unions where
corrupt practices reported to
be reduced
to275.20 (18%) acres of khas
water bodies

61 unions with reduced corrupt
practices
Output-2:
12,000 HHsprovided with assets,
improved productive skills and safe
water and sanitation.
12000HHs getting capital
support for inputs productive
assets
9600 people/ HHs members
with enhanced skills for
income generation
At least 80POs/CBOs formed
to manage khas water bodies
1000HHs report contact with
GoB line agencies in last 2
months
6000 HHs with source of safe
drinking water
9600HHs making regular
savings with POs/CBOs
10745 (90%)HHs getting capital
support for inputs productive
assets
1905 (20%) people/ HHs
members with enhanced skills for
income generation
At least 18 (23%)POs/CBOs
formed to manage khas water
bodies
1200 HHs report contact with
GoB line agencies in last 2
months
4700 HHs with source of safe
drinking water
9600HHs making regular savings
with POs/CBOs